Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/L

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
Note:
- We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
- We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
- We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
- We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

October 12

P. that W.'s?

In reading a story by P. G. Wodehouse, I came across this strange phrase I've never heard before, and couldn't figure out. Now, his writing has a lot of old British slang... but I'm completely baffled by "P. that W.'s". Here it is in context:

"Well, one day he happened by good luck to blow in the necessary for the good old P. that W.'s, and now, whenever they want someone to go and talk Rockefeller or someone into lending them a million or so, they send for Samuel." -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 01:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two sentences before that one, you read, "And, mark you, before he got hold of this book—The Personality That Wins was the name of it, if I remember rightly—he was known to all the lads in the office as Silent Samuel or something." Does that give you a clue? Deor (talk) 02:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doh! I feel dumb now. I was caught up in assuming it was some saying I didn't even think of that. -~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.63.158 (talk) 02:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just teasing you. Actually, characters' using initials to refer to something whose identity has been established earlier in a conversation is quite frequent in Wodehouse. It must have been a recognizable feature of discourse among the members of the relevant social stratum at the time. Deor (talk) 02:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though I seem to recall examples where the item was obvious without being recently named, like "egg and b[acon]". —Tamfang (talk) 05:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of Wodehouse

"Wodehouse was a prolific author, writing 96 books in a career spanning from 1902 to 1975."

Is "spanning from" redundant?

Would "spanning 1902 to 1975" be correct?

Or "in a career from 1902 to 1975"?

I have a sense that neither "spanning from" nor "spanning" is quite right. Wanderer57 (talk) 05:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To me it reads okay without "spanning" or "in a career" assuming that if he wrote 96 books from 1902 to 1975 it implies his career and a length of time already. I'd go for a rewrite such as: "Wodehouse was a prolific author, writing 96 books in his 73-year career." With "beginning in 1902" as an optional extra. Julia Rossi (talk) 07:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about "a career spanning 1902 to 1975" or "a career spanniing 73 years". Julia Rossi (talk) 08:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or how about: "... writing 96 books in a career spanning 73 years (1902 to 1975)". -- JackofOz (talk) 08:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. I made a change based on these comments. Wanderer57 (talk) 18:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons of capitalization

Hi! In monitoring edits to some television character articles, I noticed an issue of capitalization. Is a television series season capitalized? For example, in the article Jim Halpert (from The Office) I notice conflicting examples of capitalization of "Season 4"/"season 4"... as it's simply describing the number of the season and not actually a proper noun (per se) I don't think it should be, except in cases of capitalization at the beginning of the sentence of course. My rudimentary straw poll of other characters shows that Elliot Reid has both ways. Can anyone provide some grammatical argument for either way? I think it should be consistent throughout each article, at the very least. So, Season or season? DaRkAgE7 _[Talk] 06:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes DVDs are given season-specific titles, e.g. The Office: Season 1, Little Britain - Season 4, etc. So, if you're quoting the name of the DVD, depending on the formality of the context, you may have to use the full formal title. But if you're simply referring to a particular season of a program, then the lower case would apply. "Egbert had a conundrum: whether to watch the first episode of season 4(^) of Little Britain on TV, or to put on his new DVD The Office: Season 3". Something like that, perhaps? -- JackofOz (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^ Where "season 4" is another way of writing "the 4th/fourth season". -- JackofOz (talk) 21:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this one can reasonably go either way. In connection with books, we write "page 4" but usually "Chapter 4" and "Part 4", and "Act 4, Scene 4" in a play. In the sort of TV series where each season has a distinct flavor due to cast changes or plot development, it makes some sense to count it like a part or chapter or act and therefore capitalize "Season 4". But the point seems arguable. I see nothing relevant at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters), and I suggest raising the question on the talk page of that article. At the same time, you might want to ask about "Episode 4", which is likely to arise on some pages. --Anonymous, 20:04 UTC, October 12, 2008.

Unknown language

Does somebody here know what language/dialect/language group this is? Maybe also a translation?

Ála nári sunt bhéran frájosli, sunt sámu θuhnithoni ét ráhtoni kwa. Sunt déhani hnés-shafn ét hónwéjθanun hón, ágent-tsha úθrásθenes enen hgájsthon bróhθirshafs i.

I think in IPA it would be:

aːlɑ naːri sunt bʰeːrɑn fraːjɔsli | sunt saːmu ðuxnitʰɔni eːt raːxtɔni kʷɑ || sunt deːhɑni xneːs.sxɑfṇ eːt xoːnweːjðanun xoːn | aːgent.tsxɑ uːðraːʒenes enen xʰaːjstʰɔn broːxðirsxɑfs i

I don't know whether the IPA transcription is okay, but it looks very likely to me. I don't think it is Italic, Germanic, Slavic or Greek. Maybe Indo-Aryan? Susyr Otlev (talk) 09:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could be a conlang (the occurrence of good ol' "sunt" and "agent", along with the simultaneous use of both θ and þ, makes me suspicious). I suspect it was cobbled together partly from Latin and Gothic, and partly from somewhere else (or arbitrary invention). AnonMoos (talk) 11:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

θ and þ is my mistake, it should be úθrásθenes and not úθrásþenes. Susyr Otlev (talk) 11:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks pretty conlangy to me too. I'm not aware of any language normally written in the Latin alphabet that uses the letter θ. Where do these sentences come from? —An gr 15:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

θ is written as a d, but it is striked, like Ð, but then not capitalized. I don't know how I must write that letter, so I chose an alternative. It is written on a notition paper I have found inside of a book in the library. So it is a conlang based on Latin and Gothic? Susyr Otlev (talk) 17:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it ð? That's a letter used in Icelandic, Old Norse, and Old English. But you must know how to write that letter, since you used it in your IPA transcription. Is it đ? That's used in Serbo-Croatian, though sometimes it's also found where ð would be correct. It doesn't like any Indo-Aryan language I've ever seen. I'm pretty sure it isn't Old Norse, though some strings like "hafn" and "bróhđir" look tantalizingly like it. Could the book where you found the piece of paper provide a clue? Or the country where the library is located? —An gr 17:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try something. Ála (all) nári (from nēri PIE?) sunt (they are) bhéran (to bare) frájosli (free), sunt (they are) sámu θuhnithoni ét (and) ráhtoni (right) kwa (and). Sunt (they are) déhani (given) hnés-shafn (li: -sjap, -ness) ét (and) hónwéjθanun (hón = con, wéjðanun = weitene = knowing: conscience) hón (with), ágent-tsha úθrásθenes enen (one) hgájsthon (guest) bróhθirshafs (brotherness) i (in). Article 1 universal declaration of human rights maybe? --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For comparison, here's the English text: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." I think you're right about what this text is. Maybe an attempt to write it in Proto-Germanic, or a Germanic- and Latin-inspired conlang? —An gr 19:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look Germanic to me, though I'm Germanic (hopefeully) Don't know Proto-Germanic to be honest, but if it would look like this, I would immediately change it... Agent, ét and sunt look very Latin, maybe a lost Old Italic language? :) --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 19:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wouldn't consider it a successful attempt to write in Proto-Germanic either, but it could be a poor attempt! But if you're right about what the text is, it has some definitely Germanic characteristics: the -an ending of bhéran "born", the fr- of the "free" word, and especially the apparent use of a word cognate with English "ghost"/German "Geist" to translate "spirit" all seem very Germanic. However, that word is only used for "spirit" in West Germanic languages; it's not the usual word in the Scandinavian languages or in Gothic. —An gr 19:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bhéran is a past particle, no prefix looks ungermanic to me (though Scandinavian languages and some Others like English have lost them) The Welsh word for "free" is rhydd and Slovak for friend is "priateľ". If it would be Indo-European it's not Italic, unlikely to be Germanic, not Slavic, not Celtic, not Greek, not Indo-Persian. Doesn't look Albanian to me and I have no idea what Armenian looks like in Latin script, but I guess it won't be this. Has there been a period of one Germanic-Italic language? --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 07:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen a proposed family tree that puts Italic with Celtic (see Italo-Celtic) and Germanic with Balto-Slavic; so, probably not. —Tamfang (talk) 05:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm... --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 11:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is đ yes. I've found it in a recepy book in a library just over the Romanian border in Ukraine in Khust. I don't know Ukrain nor do I know Rhutanian, maybe it could be? Susyr Otlev (talk) 12:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely not Ukrainian or Ruthenian, or any other Slavic language for that matter. — Emil J. 12:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then it could be Baltic, or maybe it is the substrate found in Germanic? Susyr Otlev (talk) 12:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, that was handwritten in the book? Which year is the book? Just a conjecture, but if this is really a mixture of languages, and relatively recent, it reminds to me that Primo Levi reports (The Drowned and the Saved) that during the Holocaust, people in Nazi Concentration Camps created a mixture of languages to communicate with each other. Not much is known about the linguistic phenomenon, but there are several studies. PMajer (talk) 08:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on use of the D with stroke the person writing the text presumably had some familiarity with Serbo-Croatian (or maybe Vietnamese). The language itself is almost certainly made up, considering that it uses Latinate words for “and” but a Germanic word for “all”. Kudos to Ooswesthoesbes for recognizing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I checked the text against many of the translations at this web site but to avail. --Mathew5000 (talk) 07:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

モバイルダイアリ

Is there some kind Ref Desk translator who can tell me what the title says and what language it is? Thank you. ៛ Bielle (talk) 14:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's Japanese Katakana and it says mo-ba-i-ru-da-i-a-ri — "Mobile Diary." --Kjoonlee 15:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Kjoon. That looks like some imaginative detective work, as well as language knowledge. Now that we know what it says, does anyone know what it might mean? Could it be a text messaging connection, for example? Thanks again. ៛ Bielle (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where'd you hear it? The first google hit is a mobile phone diary (in the sense of a news journal) named モバイルダイアリ. Louis Waweru Talk 17:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I have no idea if this means anything in Canada or Japan, but in Austria the term is used in "mobile patient diary", this being a networking option between medical databases and the normal mobile phones of patients. Via some special software modules patients can record relevant parameters (heart rate, Riva-Rocci, et al) and transmit such data to a central database. Vice versa, an automatic texting system is executed by the central application to remind patients to take their medicine or to call for other feedback information.

Presumably there are similar mobile blogging services available for various professional purposes. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am searching for a specific person in Tokyo, someone with an English name. (For privacy reasons, I cannot included the name here. Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM) may be onto something as this person does have a serious illness. The title text was on a page with a lot of web sites in a list, followed by this person's name and the text above. There were a lot of other English names on the site. Now I have found the name again. This time it is beside:

は見つかりませんでした。

Can anyone translate this for me? It came from a Japanese web page about Newton Technology. I really do appreciate the help. ៛ Bielle (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just says something cannot be found.--ChokinBako (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, ChokinBako. Even negatives may be useful. ៛ Bielle (talk) 20:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery language? Code?

While googling for one of the words listed in the sentence in #Unknown language above, I came across this page, which is not written in any language I can identify. I spot-checked some of the links from that page, and they're all written in the same language (if that's what it is). The website's domain is .dk, which is Denmark, but this ain't Danish, Faeroese, or Greenlandic. After looking at a few pages of the the Lojban Wikipedia, I don't think it's Lojban either, but maybe it's some other conlang. I also considered the possibility of its being a code, but the fact that it looks basically pronounceable (vowels and consonants alternate the way they do in most languages) makes me doubtful of that hypothesis. Does anyone else recognize this language, or have other educated guesses? —An gr 18:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't identify it :( At first I would say somekind of Danish dialect (see title bar: ech ech ni) but than... --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My immediate impression from Ihimli and Cekid was something related to Turkish, but as I read on, I quickly abandoned that notion. I clicked some of the links but I could not find a single word that gave me any clues. Certain words, in isolation, look vaguely like words in Maltese, but the rest of the text does not. -- JackofOz (talk) 18:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "-ob" endings faintly recall Volapük, but otherwise there doesn't seem to be much specific resemblance... My overall impression is of some kind of Celto-Dutch

AnonMoos (talk) 18:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do those tables mean? And those capitalised words? Names? --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. Another curiosity is the absence of any diacritics or letters other than the bog-standard 26 of the English alphabet. —An gr 19:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I checked a few terms and stumbled across a page on paralingua. Just a guess, as I have no idea about this, but there are some identical words. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Examples: [1], [2]. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it at least isn't a variant of Limburgish I'd say :) (Though Limburgish itself is often less mutually understable than Limburgish and Dutch, I do understand some Dutch, but no Hasselts or Genks...) --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 19:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know Limburgish, Hasselts, or Genks, but if presented with a page of any of them written down I'd at least be able to identify it as some sort of West Germanic language/dialect. Cookatoo may be on to something with the Paralingua page. —An gr 19:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't identify Hasselts as Germanic... (doesn't have standard spelling, so everybody uses as much strange letters as possible hsecould mean "I see") Though (Dutch) Limburgish is the only tonal language in Europe (and only Germanic language with a locative) it still looks West-Germanic indeed. That image on the first example of Cookatoo looks very frightening to me... --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a translator on one of the pages I linked to. The first sentence, "Cekid acte ohhesre segel ke hade" means: "God! Sleekest, cheekier headache." or "Hot-headed geek screeches alike".

I guess, the rest is quite obvious and simple :) --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good :) But what language is it? --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 19:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English, written in sentence-by-sentence anagrams. But if those are really the only two possible translations, then it still doesn't say anything. —An gr 20:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't think the page I first linked to is in anagrams, because then you wouldn't expect entire words to be repeated from sentence to sentence. But both "cekid" and "ohhesre" appear several times on the page, which makes sentence-by-sentence anagrams unlikely. —An gr 20:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The interwebs have a couple of language-guessers, to which I fed a sample paragraph. TextCat says Unknown; XRCE says Romanian which it plainly ain't. My guess is a Markov generator. —Tamfang (talk) 05:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still have not worked out if paralingua is a joke or not. Where is Ms Germknödel when you need her? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Ms Germknödel", indeed! >:-( I can't make heads or tails of Paralingua either, but I can assure OosWesThoesBes that Limburgish is not the only tone language in Europe. (Scottish Gaelic and Swedish distinguish words by tone, and I think Norwegian, Serbo-Croatian, and Slovene do too, but I'm not sure. —An gr 20:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those are pitch accents :) --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 06:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I can shed absolutely no light on the subject of the querry, I can just quickly confirm that Slovene (my mothertongue) does indeed have a couple of distinct pitch pairs of words. However, these are very few in number, and if you ask an average Slovene about what they think makes their language unique, they'll imediately start fawning over the dual. TomorrowTime (talk) 17:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Limburgish has over 100 words which have tonality making difference in singular and plural and uncountable more of meaning, daag with different tone can mean day or days, while graaf with different tone can mean hole next to the road or grave. :) --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While there are indeed repeated words among the pages, I have yet to find a link where the word displayed for the link actually occurs on the linked page. While I wouldn't expect the linked word to occur on the page every time (we are familiar with link that say 'here' or 'see also', I would have expected to find an example in the first half-dozen I tried. I conclude that it is either code or gibberish - or, I suppose, sentence level anagrams. --ColinFine (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's a transliteration of the Voynich manuscript. :-) Deor (talk) 22:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is having fun at our expense. This site is weird, there is no information about the webmaster, no links to any external site etc. It must be a joke in order to keep puzzling people: make it look real, while it is just gibberish generated automatically and formated into a shape that seems to be logical. Even the tables with caption and headers and everything don't make sense when you try to do anagrams on the columns and row titles.--Lgriot (talk) 04:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polyglot 3000 fails to place it as any of the 474 languages it knows. The Jade Knight (talk) 05:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's gibberish. Haukur (talk) 18:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But high-level gibberish. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The letter frequencies look very similar to English, moreso than most other European languages including German and Danish[3]. (for 2 paragraphs I got a 8.39% b 1.51% c 2.89% d 4.75% e 17.81% f 1.31% g 1.99% h 4.26% i 7.08% j 0.07% k 0.62% l 3.44% m 2.20% n 6.33% o 9.15% p 1.38% q 0.00% r 5.36% s 5.91% t 8.32% u 2.68% v 0.48% w 1.93% x 0.14% y 1.99% z 0.00%) The lack of one-letter words is puzzling if it is based on English word lengths; unless it is produced by some rule that excludes one-letter words. The fact that the URLs are all of the form geko.dk?p=XXXXXXX suggests it is automatically generated. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 12:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

in same pages there are pictures and writings of the voynich... --20:46, 25 July 2009 62.37.152.213

Linguistics

Let me begin by apologizing, since this is not a question about language per se. It seems many people here on the reference desk are really quite passionate about linguistics, and I am a seeking advice on whether or not a minor in Linguistics is worth the time. I love languages, but I am ignorant about Linguistics. I would appreciate an explanation of a few of the pros and cons of the study as experienced by Linguistics. I am not necessarily going to base my decision on any particular response, I would just like to hear generally why people who have had experience in the field think of it. Many Thanks. By the way I am majoring in English at New York University, I speak Spanish and English, and took five years of Latin. This is my language experience. 20:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.245.244 (talk)

My humble opinion, as someone with 4years of honours B.A. in linguistics and 5 years of Latin, is that Linguistic is very useful and worthwhile. First of all, it's just plain lots of fun. It will give you a clearer understanding of how language and communication works and if you are ever planning on learning a new foreign language (which is also a great thing to consider doing) it will make that fantastically easier to do. You will have no problem wrapping your tongue around new consonants and vowels, having studied IPA. You'll recognize new grammatical patters, and definitely expand semantic understanding of the world. We know that a thing is not the same as the word used to refer to it, but do we really understand the significance of that fact? You may discover that there is another way of dividing the world up into named categories - and that may expose you to a new way of seeing and thinking about the world.

Linguists get to travel the world, studying different people, cultures and the way they view the world and do things and describe all that with words. Or even (via imagination and historical linguistics) travel back in time and study previously existing people and thoughts and ideas and languages. Read the article on proto-indo-european and see if that interests you, peeking back in time thousands of years.

Duomillia (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One good thing about learning linguistics is that you can scoff and laugh at all the stupid things the press says about language; the bad thing about learning linguistics is that you notice all the stupid things the press says about language. If you read Language Log you should get a rough idea pretty quickly, I think. --Kjoonlee 08:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One bad thing about learning linguistics is that once people find out that you're a linguist, they always ask "So how many languages do you speak?", which of course is a bit like asking a music theorist how many instruments he plays. —An gr 08:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's because people who really do speak lots of languages, and who've not necessarily studied linguistic theory, are also called linguists. To avoid this ambiguity, maybe we should coin the word linguisticist for the theoreticians. :) -- JackofOz (talk)

People who speak many languages are more correctly "Polyglots"... AnonMoos (talk) 20:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We already have the word linguistician, but, as the Wiktionary article mentions, is a lot less popular because it's more difficult to say than linguist, though it does protect against that stupid "cunning linguist" pun. :)--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 22:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before committing to spend N hours in a classroom, you might first read a couple of books in the field. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language by David Crystal is a useful overview (and may be easy to find second-hand). I enjoyed Historical Linguistics by R. L. Trask. —Tamfang (talk) 05:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best book in linguistics ever (?): Bloomfield, Language.--Radh (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signing Versus Subtitles

In the UK most television channels do a small number repeats of programs and films with sign language. This is in the form of a regular program with a small window in the corner showing a single person signing along to the action. This is probably due to some public service charter requiring a certain proportion of programs to be signed. They are usually in the form of repeats very late at night.

My question is, is any extra information conveyed over subtitling? Do deaf people (as a general rule) prefer to watch the signed version of the subtitled version, for example does it convey more emotion?

To me, although I can’t understand the sign language, it would seem to be very distracting -- more so than subtitles. However I can watch subtitled versions of foreign films and don’t feel I’m missing much, it is better than a dubbed film, which seems to be analogous to the signed, the signing seems to be essentially dubbing every character with the same “voice”.

Is signing television an anachronism in these days of near 100% sub-titling or does it still add something? 78.150.187.19 (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the answer. But I would expect that it depends strongly on the individual, and their history. People who lost their hearing at adolescence or later will have learnt signing as a second language, and may well be happier with subtitles. People deaf from birth will have had to learn written English (or whatever language) as a second language, and will often find signing easier to follow. Be aware that sign language is usually not just a transformation of a spoken or written language, but a separate language with its own (very different) grammar. --ColinFine (talk) 22:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Australian television news is sub-titled in real time by transcription on teletext. The transcription is a few seconds behind the sound, but it's pretty fast, and mostly accurate. I imagine it's equally as useful as having the signing in the corner, but can't guarantee. Steewi (talk) 22:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the reasons given by ColinFine a lot of BBC children's tv programs are repeated on digital with a signer in the corner. Younger kids would not be able to read English faster enough to keep up. I don't know whether deaf children learn English reading & writing significantly later than hearing children, but my (hearing) daughter could not keep up with subtitled films until she was about 12. -- Q Chris (talk) 13:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish/English song translation- Väkirauta by Korpiklaani

Could I get an English translation of this song? The song is Väkirauta by Korpiklaani, and I like it, but don't understand the meaning of the song. You can listen to the song on YouTube here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSrNqn89Bbw

Viere vaino, vihavieras, kulki kauhu, Hiien heitto, polki mannert', anturaine tarpahutti tuhokoura.

Sai se yhen vastahansa, yhen miehen mäkimailta, kera vasken valituimman, rautakouran eikkuvimman.

Veti miekan, riisti rauan, tempo, tuisko, terävällä! Väisi, viilti, veisti, voitti! Maistoi mustaa mahtia.

Turmel' päitä tappoteivas, välähytti väkirauta. Repi, ruhjo, raiskas', riehki, vihaan sorti, vainolaisen.

Helkky loiste metsämailta, valokannel vaarahilta, soitto soiton sankarista, veisti virren voittajasta:

Se on Kauko Suomen seppo, tannermaitten takomiesi, kuka tako mahtirauan, kalkutteli väkivasken.

Riemu, rauha, rajuköyry, voittovakka vimmatuuli, vallitsevi vaarahilla, mekastavi metsämailla.

Thank you very much! C4ffinat0r (talk) 22:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This [4] (possibly dodgy) lyrics site gives an English translation that looks a little clumsy. Are there advances on it? Steewi (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That translation may be a bit clumsy, but that's not saying I could do better myself. I can confirm that it does give you the gist of it: an invading enemy is slain by a hero with a special (possibly charmed) blade, and the hero is celebrated in song.

A word-by-word or literal translation would be impossible, and it would take a pretty good poet to render it effectively in English. The original lyrics are, as you can imagine, in a very archaic style indeed, with words that aren't used in modern Finnish at all and some made-up ones as well, and that's not the worst of it. For example, there is much that appears redundant, as is often the case in "primitive" poetry, and this kind of poetry is rather difficult to properly appreciate for a modern reader or listener, even a native Finnish speaker.

For what it's worth, I'd say that the lyrics aren't half bad as these things go, they are playful and show invention. I've certainly seen much worse: modern attempts at Finnish folk poetry can be quite embarrassing, and this isn't.

As a technical point, however, this song is not in proper Kalevala metre, but in straight trochaic tetrametre throughout. In the Kalevala metre of old Finnish poetry, about half the lines are in trochaic tetrametre and the other half have a trochee and two dactyls, or deviate from the fundamental metre in some other way, even though they're spoken in trochaic tetrametre.

Hope this helps!--Rallette (talk) 08:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 13

Sounds like

I'm sometimes missing something when reading a WP article (an easy example: Granophyre) and the subject pronunciation is described in IPA. I look at the the IPA symbols and have no idea how to pronounce the subject. Am I in the minority about this? Would it be non-encyclopedic to include a sounds like descriptor? When I encounter this situation would I be diminishing the article to include "sounds like" in small print? Is reading IPA so prevalent that I'm a "dinosaur"? I've seen some articles that include both IPA and "sounds like" but I'm uncomfortable about adding the "sounds like" as I've not found any guidelines. My personal opinion is that the less educated (non-IPA) folks who want to reference WP ought to at least be able to pronounce properly without jumping through IPA hoops so, both should be included -hydnjo talk 02:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the same way, but there are two problems with "sounds like" methods. First, it's easy to find examples that work for your own dialect of English and not someone else's -- "caught" may or may not sound exactly like "cot", "merry" may or may not sound exactly like "marry" and/or "Mary", "whine" may or may not sound exactly like "wine". Second, there are some sounds in English where there's no combination of letters that clearly represents that sound and no other. For example, suppose someone's name sounded like "thin" except with the "th" pronounced as in "that", and you were writing an article about that person -- how would you write a "sounds like" for that name?

In fact the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation) recommendation is that IPA should always be used, but it is acceptable to supplement it with "sounds like" methods if you are careful to avoid problems. --Anonymous, 03:24 UTC, October 12, 2008.

This would be a good discussion to post at the Village Pump (or wherever appropriate), because while I do understand IPA and appreciate it, no single IPA transcription can represent every English dialect. I find it especially annoying that some of WP's articles contain the RP IPA while other contain General American. Perhaps we could begin a project to complement every IPA transcription with a Merriam-Webster-like, WP-approved pronunciation?--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 03:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That no transcription system could apply to all dialects is an issue that has been brought up in regards to our transcription conventions laid out at WP:IPA for English (very close to what you've suggested). Take a look at the talk page there. I think the inconsistancy has more to do with the sheer size of Wikipedia and the inability of frame-pushing transcription homogenizers to keep up than with a standard that accepts variation. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 06:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally we'd use a scheme that reflects every phonemic distinction made by any dialect, while accepting that within a given dialect some pairs of notations may sound alike. (I've sometimes seen this called diaphonic transcription, though etymologically that seems a bit fishy.) This is possible because pronunciation differences between dialects have patterns; this is also why it's possible to imitate another dialect without first hearing a sample of every word you'll need. The first OED, I believe, has this property; with IPA, it became a Dictionary of Oxford English. IPA allows for different levels of abstraction, though, so probably it's possible to use a version of IPA for what I have in mind. —Tamfang (talk) 04:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles on Diaphone_(linguistics) and Diasystem, though neither one seems all that great (the Diasystem article seems to define "pluricentric language", not diasystem as such). AnonMoos (talk) 06:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all for your time, attention and thoughts. Given that, I think I'll just add a phonetic pronunciation where I deem appropriate and not feel badly about it. If I get rv'd I'll not war - one unpronounceable at a time I say! ;) hydnjo talk 23:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copied to the Village pump per el Aprel's suggestion. hydnjo talk 03:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What language:

"Li donaríem la paraula a Vicky perquè ens presenti la seva empresa." From a speech given in Barcelona, Spain. Grsz ^X 16:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know for sure, but it could be the Catalan language. --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 17:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed Catalan. A translation via this website gives us this...:

"We would give the word to Vicky so that he|she|it presents us its|his|her|their company"

Later --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lower case Cyrillic "Te"

I studied Russian at school in the UK about 14 years ago (age 12 to 16!). I remember little of it, other than the lowercase of "Te" was not т but a "m" with a line above. The wikipedia article explains that Slavic and Macedonian alphabets have "ш" with a line above instead of "т", but where does the upright "m" with a line that I was taught come from? Why isn't it in unicode? (My teacher was British, with strong links to Moscow) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.241.182 (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's only used in handwriting, where traditionally the m-looking symbol was used for т, and a larger version for Т. Because it can so easily be confused with ш/Ш, it became the practice to put a bar across the top. These days, it's more usual to find a handwritten symbol that looks, in lower case, like a т with an elongated downstroke. In upper case, a normal capital Т is often found, but a symbol that looks like a large Greek pi (the math symbol - don't know how to reproduce it here) with a middle downstroke, is also found. In printed text, the m version of т still appears in italics, but without the horizontal bar: Roman т becomes italic т. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the font; I see a little T — though I seem to remember that on a previous occasion, when a similar question arose here, I saw m when I used a different computer. —Tamfang (talk) 04:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Te (Cyrillic). jnestorius^(talk) 20:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...ussia?

What does ussia mean? In the Russia, Prussia context, not the rapper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.242.193.191 (talk) 19:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've broken the words into the wrong units. The correct way to break them up is as "Rus" and "-ia" and "Prus" and "-ia". The Rus were a group of Norse invaders that settled in the region of Moscow and Kiev during the viking expansions of the 1000's and 1100's. Thus "Russia" is roughly "Land of the Rus". The Prus were a native Baltic people who settled in area around the modern cities of Gdansk and Kaliningrad. Thus Prussia is "Land of the Prus". Interestingly the modern states bear no connection, ethnographically speaking, to their names. Russia is of course a Slavic nation, not a Scandanavian one, and the 19th century Prussia was a German nation, not a Baltic one... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This brings up the question of why some countries which bear no resemblance to each other except in their geographical proximity have similar sounding names, like Iran and Iraq.--ChokinBako (talk) 08:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Arabic, Iraq begins with a voiced pharyngeal, has a short vowel in its first syllable, and has a prefixed definite article, while none of that is true of Iran, so that the names are really not very similar at all: العراق إيران -- AnonMoos (talk) 12:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English to Welsh translation please

My Welsh is only at conversation level and I need the following translating for my website journeyofabook.com :

Please write in your native language.

Thanks St91 (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The web has lots of good translators, at least for word-for-word translation (many screw up idiomatic translations). The site InterTran which I use regularly comes up with the following English-to-Welsh translation:

"Blesio dorri i mewn 'ch brodor dafodiaith". Have no clue how accurate that is. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not very. Remember "People called 'Romanes', they go, the house" from Life of Brian? I'd use [Ysgrifennwch yn eich mamiaith, os gwelwch yn dda.] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) —An gr 20:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be a separate article Romani ite domum, but it got merged... AnonMoos (talk) 20:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angr's translation is much better. The Jade Knight (talk) 20:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does that centurion bother to make a distinction between accusative and locative, when the case ending is the same anyway? Or is that the joke? My Latin teachers were never like that.--ChokinBako (talk) 10:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because the theory behind it is the important thing. The nominative and vocative of "Romani" are the same too, but they're careful to point out that "Romani" is in the vocative in "Romani ite domum". —An gr 10:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say "Ysgrifennwch yn eich mam-iaith, os gwelwch yn dda", but that is fairly formal. I don't know much colloquial Welsh. --ColinFine (talk) 23:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Intertran translation takes words, regardless of context, and gives the translation word-for-word literally. That translation really is fairly worthless. Be careful about internat translations, the one last corner of the internet where reform is needed! doktorb _words^deeds 19:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comma or no comma?

"The question is not whether minimum sentences are inherently in keeping with the principle of restraint, but rather whether restraint is used when setting a minimum sentence." Do I need a comma after "rather"? I don't think I do, but "rather whether" seems like an awkward, tongue-twisting construction. Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 19:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Rather' is redundant in this sentence- 'but' already establishes the contrast. You should cut 'rather' out of the sentence entirely. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But if you do keep rather and put a comma after it, then you need one before it as well. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that rather needs either two commas or none, and that rather is redundant, but I disagree with FisherQueen's explanation. It is not the preceding but that makes it redundant, but rather the following whether, as Cherry suggests. There are a number of optional words in English which can tag the endpoints of paired elements, as in the following:

not X but [rather] Y
not only X but [also] Y
[either] X or Y
[both] X and Y
if X, [then] Y

The optional element is useful if the first [X] element is so long that it might be difficult to parse where it ends and the second [Y] element begins; or if X itself contains and, but, etc. In the original example, the X and Y elements are both demarcated by whether, so there is no possibility of such confusion. jnestorius^(talk) 20:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, everybody. I took out the "rather" and it sounds much better. Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 23:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

inherent-ly is sure-ly wrong (?), it is also complete-ly überflüssig.--Radh (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Inherently" seems fine to me. "The question is whether sentences are inherently in keeping..." The sense is similar to "whether they are by their nature..." or "whether they are essentially...." --- OtherDave (talk) 18:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 14

Stephen Fry on Room 101

A while back Stephen Fry went on room 101 and said a few french words that I would like to know. I typed in what they sounded like into Google and came up with nothing. I know one of the words is "dégagé" but what are the others. This is a link to the episode, he says the words slightly after 3 minutes 30 into the clip.

Thanks.92.4.229.8 (talk) 02:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"She's got to the stage now with slightly fierce, almost pince-nez [eyeglasses], and almost deliberately slightly dégagé grey hair to make it, you know, like a more femme savant bluestocking [inaudible]..." —Tamfang (talk) 04:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks92.3.209.248 (talk) 19:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haitian Creole-English + vice versa dictionary

Can anyone recommend a good Haitian Creole-English + English-Haitian Creole dictionary? I've found a very good one, but it's only Haitian Creole to English. All the bidirectional ones I've seen so far are very poor. I don't want a picture dictionary, but rather a dictionary for an intermediate student with an ample lexicon. Most I've found are too tourist-y. If anyone has come across one and knows the title—or better, the ISBN—I would really appreciate it. Thanks!--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 02:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did a search at the Tulane University Libraries' website; they sometimes teach classes on Haitian Creole there. There were several hits; I'm not sure which if any are what you are looking for but you could search other University Library websites to get some leads and then google the titles.69.244.5.221 (talk) 00:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I can't believe, as a university student, I didn't think to do that first. I found what I was looking for in my university's library, and wrote down the title, ISBN, and publisher to order it.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 19:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NLP Language course

I need to study the NLP Meta model language and need a few contacts of institutions which conduct these courses. Please respond to [Email removed].

Thanks and regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.245.169.75 (talk) 07:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that as in neuro-linguistic programming? --- OtherDave (talk) 18:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess Natural language processing. AnonMoos (talk) 17:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

in or at

Hi,
Quick question, is it better to write "actionable at law" or "actionable in law"? --Fir0002 07:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS let me know if you need further context...

It's usual to say "at law. (An "actionable in law" might refer to a curmudgeonly relative.) -- JackofOz (talk) 07:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! and good point about the in-laws :) --Fir0002 09:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Odin's Pig

What ACTUALLY was the name of Odin's pig? If you are into military stories, you will know what book I read.--ChokinBako (talk) 11:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, found it. That put an end to an eight year quest! The pig was called Sarimner

Odin decided over both Gods and humans. To his help he had many animals. His horse was named Sleipner, it had eight legs and could easily run in the sky. His pig was Sarimner, it was boiled and was eaten every night but in the morning it was alive again. Odin never ate of the food that was served, he gave it to his two wolves, Gere and Freke. Odin only drank wine, that was enough for both food and drink to him. Odin also had two ravens that was called Hugin and Munin, they flew every night out into the world and found out all new things that had happend. Later they sat on Odin's shoulders and told him the news, that is because he was the wisest and allknowing of the Gods.--ChokinBako (talk) 12:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And this is the origin of the Sleipnir browser?--ChokinBako (talk) 12:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, but it might be the origin of the saying "A little bird told me". Sarimner reminds me of Kenny McCormick. —An gr 12:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, but does that not originally come from Kilkenny, the lovely Irish bitter?--ChokinBako (talk) 12:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to yourself as Mr.

Is it good etiquette to refer to yourself as Mr. e.g. when introducing yourself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.157.37.42 (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. In UK we just usually use our first name, or the full name if your interlocuter does not know your first name.--ChokinBako (talk) 14:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's okay for schoolteachers to introduce themselves that way, though, so the children know exactly how to address them. It would be strange for a teacher to say "My name is Smith" or "My name is John Smith" on the first day of school, but completely normal to say "My name is Mr. Smith". And with female teachers, it's even more important so the children know whether she's Mrs. Smith, Miss Smith, or Ms. Smith. But I wouldn't do it when introducing myself to another adult. —An gr 14:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the exception would be if you are a Hospital Consultant and entitled (no pun intended) to use "Mr" in a professional capacity. When I had surgery the consultant introduced himself that way. -- Q Chris (talk) 14:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick semi-related question. Why should it be important for school children to know the marital status of their teachers? I can't really figure out how that is meaningful to them in any way... TomorrowTime (talk) 18:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am Mrs Smith does not necessarily mean I am married. It is the way I wish the children to address and refer to me. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, convention where I live now in Raleigh, NC is for all children to call adults "Mr. Firstname" or "Miss Firstname"(regardless of the woman's marital status). This is unheardof where I grew up (New England). --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok, but why would a school teacher require her students to address her as "Mrs Smith" if she wasn't actually married (or at least divorced or widowed)? -- JackofOz (talk) 21:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I was a kid, I addressed my teachers with 'sir' or 'miss'. When I talked about the teachers to someone else, I generally called every female teacher 'Miss [name], regardless of whether she is married or not. Teachers followed the same practise, too, I recall, except that they addressed each other with their first names.--ChokinBako (talk) 23:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I have an unmarried teacher that gets somewhat upset if we use Mrs on her. As for first names, there is one exception I've seen, where a teacher usually addressed her husband (in English, anyway) as Mr. C. In fact, she only refered to Mr. C as her husband twice, as far as I know. Vltava 68 (talk contribs) 08:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In general, I consider it bad form to introduce one's self with a title, becuase you're then expecting the other to address you in that way. I would make an exception for those introducing themselves in a professional capacity (e.g. a priest/minister using 'Rev' or 'Father', a medic using 'Dr', a surgeon/dentist using 'Mr'), and, in such fashion, reassure others that they are qualified for the job at hand. Introducing one's self with a title can express a certain superiority. Thus, teachers often use a title in front of children to keep a professional distance from them. I use the title 'Ms' for all women in formal communication if they haven't expressed a preference for another. I know that practice differs from place to place. In the UK, there is a trend to use titles less. I've noticed Americans coming here (Oxford University) use them more often, and Indians almost to the point of obsequiousness. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 23:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 15

English to Spanish translation

Okay, so I'm trying to translate this original text from English to Spanish. Here is the original text:

PO: Excuse me, but I need to ask you some questions.

W: Yes, what do you need to know?
PO: First I need to know your name.
W: My name is José Gomez, but I go by Pepe.
PO: Very good. So you saw a robbery?
W: Yes, I was very scared. I hid behind the counter and saw everything.
PO: Could you describe the robber?
W: A man of average height and he was chinese. He was wearing a black jacket and he had a mustache.
PO: Please tell me what happened.
W: He entered the store and looked around.
PO: What happened next?
W: He started putting things in a backpack, put on his backpack, and walked to the register, where I was.
PO: What did he put in his backpack?
W: Many items for personal use. He took shampoo, cologne, deodorant, a dryer, soap, and a comb.
PO: Why did the man need those things?
W: I don't know. He looked very dirty and he needed to shower and shave himself.
PO: What did he do after he came to the register?
W: He said, "A thousand pardons, pero, GIVE ME YOUR MONEY!"
PO: How much money did he steal?
W: Two thousand dollars.
PO: We are searching for this man and we are going to catch him.

W: Thank you, sir.

and here is my attempted translation:

PO: Con permiso, pero necesito hacerle algunas preguntas.

T: Sí, ¿qué necesito saber?
PO: Primer, necesito saber su nombre.
T: Mi nombre es Pe Gómez, pero me llamo Pepe.
PO: Muy bien. Así vio un robo?
T: Sí, yo tenía mucho miedo. Me escondí detrás del mostrador y vi todo.
PO: ¿Puede describir el ladrón?
W: Un hombre de talla mediana y es chino. Él llevaba una chaqueta negro y tenía un bigote.
PO: Por favor, dime lo que pasó.
W: Él entró en la tienda y miró a su alrededor.
PO: ¿Qué pasó después?
W: Comenzó a poner las cosas en una mochila, ponerse su mochila, y caminé al registro, donde me estuve.
PO: ¿Qué es lo que puso en su mochila?
W: Muchas cosas de uso personal. Tomó champú, colonia, desodorante, un secador, jabón y un peine.
PO: ¿Por qué el hombre necesita esas cosas?
W: No sé. Él parecía muy sucio y necesitaba ducharse y afeitarse.
PO: ¿Qué hacer después de que llegó a este registradora?
W: Él dijo, "A mil perdones, pero, Dame tu dinero!"
PO: ¿Cuánto dinero hizo robar?
W: Dos mil dólares.
PO: Estamos buscando a este hombre y vamos a capturar Él.

W: Muchas gracias, señor.

How close am I? What could I have done differently to make it better/more accurate? Thanks! 71.117.35.56 (talk) 05:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some verb forms look wrong to my half-informed eye. necesito (in the second line) ought not to be in first person. A police officer addressing a witness would (i think) more likely say dígame (polite) than dime. hacer is infinitive, should be hizo i guess. hizo robar (is this a machine translation?) should be, well, something else. capturar Él should be lo capturar (if that's even the right verb). —Tamfang (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No natives around? Here are some additional half-informed suggestions, which may or may not be correct. I'm posting this mostly as an exercise on my on behalf, awaiting someone knowledgeable.

PO: Con su permiso, ~~pero necesito~~ tengo que ~~hacerle~~ ponerle algunas preguntas.

T: ~~Sí, ¿qué necesito saber?~~ ¡Digame!

PO: Primero, ~~necesito saber su nombre~~ su nombre por favor.

T: Mi nombre es Pe Gómez, pero me llamo Pepe.

PO: Muy bien. Así ~~vio~~ ha visto usted un robo?

T: Sí, yo tenía mucho miedo. Me escondí detrás del mostrador y lo vi todo.

PO: ¿Puede describir el al ladrón?

W: Un hombre de talla mediana y es era chino. Él Llevaba una chaqueta ~~negro~~ negra y tenía un bigote.

PO: Por favor, ~~dime lo que~~ digame qué pasó.

W: Él Entró en la tienda y miró a su alrededor.

PO: ¿Qué pasó después?

W: Comenzó a ~~poner~~ meter las cosas en una mochila, ~~ponerse~~ se puso su mochila, y ~~caminé~~ caminó ~~al registro~~ hacia la caja, donde ~~me estuve~~ estaba yo.

PO: ¿Qué ~~es lo que puso~~ metió en su mochila?

W: Muchas cosas de (para?) uso personal. Tomó champú, colonia, desodorante, un secador, jabón y un peine.

PO: ¿Por qué el hombre necesitaba esas cosas?

W: No sé. ~~Él parecía~~ Su apariencia era muy ~~sucio~~ sucia y necesitaba ducharse y afeitarse.

PO: ¿Qué ~~hacer~~ hizo después de que llegó a ~~este registradora~~ la caja?

W: Él Dijo, "~~a ~~Mil perdones, pero, ¡Dame tu dinero!"~~~~

PO: ¿Cuánto dinero ~~hizo~~ logró robar?

W: Dos mil dólares.

PO: ~~Estamos buscando~~ Buscamos a este hombre y lo capturaremos ~~vamos a capturar Él~~.

W: Muchas gracias, señor.

~~--NorwegianBlue^talk 20:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~

Thank you all for your suggestions thus far; and yes, bits and pieces come from Google Translate. I had to create a dialogue and I went a little above and beyond my current knowledge level, and after translating as much as I could by myself I used google to translate words I didn't know. That's why it's extremely unpolished. But thanks again for your help, I really appreciate it. I'm learning more every day, even thanks to you guys! Maybe I'll be fluently bilingual someday :-) --71.117.45.76 (talk) 22:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NorwegianBlue has done an excellent job on the translation. I'm just gonna cherrypick and change sucio to sucia. As for the first sentence, I actually prefer hacerle algunas preguntas over ponerle, but ponerle isn't wrong either.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 23:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Hump(s)~~
Inspired by My Humps: Is there a difference in meaning to use singular or plural? And is there any logical reason to have it different in title and chorus? --KnightMove (talk) 11:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you asking for scrupulous gramatical consistancy out of pop music? Songs often use words for their rhythm or flow rather than attempting to construct a gramatically consistant work... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The s does not make any difference in rhythm/flow. However, if we assume that the answer to the 2nd question is no, this leaves the 1st one open. --KnightMove (talk) 00:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it does. If you just say "Hump" you can sort of soften the "p" sound, so it sounds more like "Hungh", while if you include the "s" you get a full consonantal "ps" sound at the end. It certainly alters the stress patterns of your singing and of the words around it. With the singular, its much easier to clip the beat, and put a short rest in. With the plural, the word has a habit of "running over" into that space in the music, which can completely change the feel of the phrase. Try it out, there is a difference. Secondly, unvoiced consonants aren't all that interesting to sing, since they don't have any tone quality, being unvoiced. So, "Hump" has a very different effect on the song than "Humps". --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that was very interesting. --KnightMove (talk) 10:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I often thought she was referring to two different sets of humps through the song. When she says humps, I thought breasts, and hump, I thought rump. But maybe I'm crazy (the song does talk about fitting the humps into a shirt and into jeans, though, IIRC). Steewi (talk) 00:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The breasts are referred to as lumps. Maybe hump and lumps are subsumed as humps... makes sense, even though this way many fans are at fault about the title. --KnightMove (talk) 10:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~On the characteristics of brand name~~
~~On the characteristics of brand name —Preceding unsigned comment added by Byron8711 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~You need to tell us what you want to know. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Or maybe, tell us what you want to know after reading the article Brand. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~I think my text contains a lot of mistakes~~
Hi, I'm a German student and had to write a text with the topic "I like America" for my next English lesson. I wrote one, but I think there are still a lot of mistakes in it. I hope some of you have a bit time to take a look on it and to tell me the worst mistakes. Here it is:
There are a lot of different opinions about America. Many people like it, but there are also people who don't like America. In this essay I will tell why I like America.
The USA are a democracy for a very long time. The people can vote for a president freely and secretly and as everyone can see, this works quite well. To this day, there are no cases of electoral fraud known. This makes the population satisfied and the government juster.
Another positive fact about America is that today all people have equal rights. OK, a hundred years ago, there were no equal rights, but now nobody is preferred and there is nearly no discrimination against women, blacks or immigrants. I think the presidential candidate Barack Obama is a good example for this. Today, it's normal that a black person can become the president of the United States, but in former times, he even wouldn't have had the right to be a candidate.
America plays a great role in world politics. They can influence the political and economical situation of other countries.
Critics say that they are playing the role of a “World Police” and so they bring war to many countries, like Iraq or Afghanistan. But I think it was important to go to these countries and free them from dictatorship. That this cannot work within 4 or 5 years is clear. It's a lengthy process but when it's finished, the inhabitants will be glad about being able to live in a free country, which is no longer a danger for the hole world.
What I also like on America is that you can live wherever and however you want. You don't need to be registered and you also don't need to have an identity card. The only thing you must have is a social security number.
The mentality of the Americans is to be as free as possible, they want to fulfil themselves and realize the “American Dream”. So if someone becomes rich, the other people are not jealous of him, because they know that he worked hard for his money. In America, you can also be a member of each religion you like, there are no restrictions.
All in all, I like America because there everybody has the chance to fulfil himself and everybody can live free.
Thank you in advance --80.128.138.195 (talk) 14:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~I did some rough editing; I made corrections in bold and suggestions in italics.~~
~~"There are a lot of different opinions about America. Many people like it, but there are also people who don't like America. In this essay I will tell why I like America.~~
The USA have been a democracy for a very long time. The people can vote for a president freely and secretly and as everyone can see, this works quite well. To this day, there are no cases of electoral fraud known. This makes the population satisfied and the government more just.
Another positive fact about America is that today all people have equal rights. Admittedly, a hundred years ago, there were no equal rights, but now nobody is preferred and there is nearly no discrimination against women, blacks or immigrants. I think the presidential candidate Barack Obama is a good example for this. Today, it's considered normal that a black person can become the president of the United States, but in former times, he even wouldn't have had the right to be a candidate.
America plays an important role in world politics. They can influence the political and economical situation of other countries.

Critics say that they are playing the role of a “World Police” and thus they bring war to many countries, like Iraq or Afghanistan.
But I think it was important to go to these countries and free them from dictatorship. That this cannot work within 4 or 5 years is clear. It's a lengthy process but when it's finished, the inhabitants will be glad to be able to live in a free country, which is no longer a danger for the whole world.
What I also like about America is that you can live wherever and any way you want. You don't have to be registered and you also don't have to have an identity card. The only thing you must have is a social security number.

The mentality of the Americans is to be as free as possible, they want to fulfil their wishes and realize the “American Dream”. So if someone gets rich, the other people are not jealous of him, because they know that he* worked hard for his money. In America, you can also be a member of any religion you like, there are no restrictions.
All in all, I like America because there everybody has the chance to fulfil himself* and everybody can live free.

* The use of generic he is still a highly controversial topic. Some prefer to use singular they or s/he etc. How you handle this issue in school will of course largely depend on your teacher.
That's the grammatical side of thing. There are some more usage issues; for example, it is generally not considered appropriate to use contractions in formal writing; also, formal writing tends to prefer words with Latin roots over Germanic synonyms where possible (for example liberate instead of free). But in general, you got a decent vocabulary and the mistakes you made are typical Germanisms that plague people for years.

One thing I feel compelled to point out is that there are few content issues. I don't know how much you've talked about the US and current problems in class, but most would point out that there is still substantial race and gender-based discrimination, at least in parts of the US (also, it's still not considered normal for a black person to run for president, as can be seen by how everyone makes a huge issue of him being black, whether they do so in a good or bad way). Also, the voting system is often said to be antiquated and actually anything but just; and there have been a lot of irregularities during elections (barring people from voting, e.g.). Oh, and jealousy and envy exist everywhere. Baranxtu (talk) 15:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say "the USA has been" (not "have been"), and I'd point out that technically you aren't legally required to have a Social Security Number either, it's just extremely difficult to find work without one. —An gr 15:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, of course. I guess I let myself be deceived by a Germanism. I blame the fact that I was jumping from one language to the other for half the day. Baranxtu (talk) 16:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your corrections :-) There's one thing I should say: We had to choose between the topics "I like America" and "I don't like America" and we were not allowed to write a mixed text. I know about the problems in the USA e.g with the elections and so on.... but as I said, I had to write a 100% positive (or 100% negative) text, so I didn't mention them. --80.128.138.195 (talk) 16:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did your teacher specifically say that if you write on "I like America" you weren't to mention anything negative? Because it seems to me you can easily write an essay supporting the thesis that all in all, you like America, but while you're aware of its problems, they don't outweigh the positive aspects to your mind. (Likewise you could write on "I don't like America" and still concede it has positive aspects.) —An gr 16:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to write it exactly like you said it: Tell the positive and the negative aspects and then say that all in all, I like America because of the positive aspects. But he said explicitly that we may only write from one point of you. You can believe me, I don't think as positive about America as i wrote it, but finally I like it anyway. --80.128.138.195 (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well, then the important thing is to follow instructions! Viel Glück! —An gr 17:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a little correction to your last post, 80.128.138.195: it's a "point of view", not a "point of you". — Kpalion^(talk) 17:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Danke, Angr ;-) Oh, and of course, I wanted to write "point of view", it was just a slip of the pen (is it called so?) --80.128.138.195 (talk) 17:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have some serious doubts about any person in education who "orders" their pupils to compose a hagiography / a condemnation of any entity, be it a nation, a religion or some other complex ideological and historical construct. There may be some ulterior motive I can´t quite see, but I find this assignment rather disturbing and of questionable value for the pupils / students. Whilst this does not answer your question, I believe it to be a valid critique of an essay which prescribes a blind and one sided attitude and asks for simplistic waffle. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I have answered to a follow up question of the OP 80.128.138.195 (in German) on my user page, as my posting may have been misunderstood as a critique on the essay itself. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~May I make some further suggestions (underlined):~~
~~... In this essay I will say why I like America.~~
~~The USA has been a democracy for a very long time.~~
~~Another positive fact ... I think the presidential candidate Barack Obama is a good example of this.~~
~~Today, it's considered normal that a black person can become the president of the United States, but in former times, he wouldn't even have had the right to be a candidate.~~
~~America plays an important role in world politics. It can influence the political and economical situation of other countries.~~
~~Critics say that America is playing the role of a “World Police” and thus it brings war to many countries, like Iraq or Afghanistan.~~
~~What I also like about America is that you can live wherever and in any way you want.~~
The mentality ... In America, you can also be a member of any religion you like, as there are no restrictions. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On plural vs singular, the USA is an entity while (collectively) the states are entities. Kittybrewster ☎ 06:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how to intepret your comment, Kitty. Can you say more? -- JackofOz (talk) 13:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Writing a letter in Icelandic~~
Does anyone know how one starts a letter in Icelandic? I'm emailing an Icelandic company, and my Icelandic is not very good, but I want to first introduce myself in Icelandic and then state that my Icelandic is very limited, perhaps by saying '"Eg er að læra íslensku"' before requesting permission to correspond in English. Komdu saell or sael would be too much like a greeting as opposed to a 'Dear sir/madam'. Also, how does one finish? Thanks in advance, Wikiwikijimbob (talk) 14:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My own personal opinion here. Generally, if you don't know someone elses language, it may not be a good idea to attempt this. It usually comes off as either a) insulting or b) mildly endearing, in the "oh, cute, look, he's trying to work out our language". Its probably best if you are not fluent in Icelandic to just write the letter in English. I would possibly explain that you apologize for not using their native language, but you are more comfortable in English and wouldn't want to butcher their language, or something. Entirely my own opinion here, but that's how I would do it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you're right. I didn't want to seem like I was a typical English speaker who can't be bothered to speak others' languages, which was why I particularly wanted to know the 'Dear sir/madam' part. I've searched on the internet, but there's little to be found. I suppose that's a result of Icelanders being few in number. Perhaps it would be better to ask on the Icelandic Wikipedia or to look through this one to see which users have fluency in Icelandic so I can throw myself upon their mercy! ;) Thanks for the advice, though, Jayron32 - I understand where you're coming from. Wikiwikijimbob (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what greetings are most commonly used for business communications. I typically start letters with "Kæra X!" (addressing a woman) "Kæri X!" (addressing a man) or "Kæru X!" (when addressing more than one person). If I'm trying to be formal I sometimes use "Ágæta X!" (or ágæti/ágætu, you get the picture). I typically sign off with "Kveðja, Haukur" or "Með bestu kveðju, Haukur". Haukur (talk) 22:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Takk fyrir, Haukur. I know that Icelanders aren't overly formal, so even if 'Ágæta' is the wrong one for a business setting, I'm sure it won’t offend. Would Ágæta on its own make sense, or does it need to be said to someone (i.e., do I need to have ‘Sir/Madam’ after it?) Thanks, Wikiwikijimbob (talk) 07:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~How is "seleção" pronounced?~~
Simple question: How is the Portuguese word "seleção" pronounced? Please give the pronunciation in phonetics because I'm unfamiliar with different pronunciation guide symbols. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.35.8.31 (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In Brazil I think it would be [seliˈsɐ̃w̃]; it might be different in Portugal. Is the IPA what you meant by "pronunciation in phonetics"? —An gr 21:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thank you kindly. But by phonetics, I meant something like Dictionary.com's default pronunciation key is: e.g., 'thi-sawr-uhs' for 'thesaurus'. If you could give me the pronunciation by that key, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.35.8.31 (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With my limited knowledge of Portuguese, AFAIK, the c-cedilla, ç, is pronounced like an s, while the "ão" vowel construct is pronounced sort of like the end of the word "noun" if you don't put your tounge against your teeth when you say the final "n"; so its sort of a really nasally "ow" sound... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Jayron is right. The problem with using something like dictionary.com's key is that it was designed for English, and Portuguese has different sounds. Roughly, it's "selly-SOUN", where "SOUN" rhymes with "noun" but you don't let your tongue touch your alveolar ridge for the final "n" sound. —An gr 05:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To make the "ão" sound nasal, you'd get even closer by thinking "selly-SOUNG", while following Angr's advice to not let your tongue touch your alveolar ridge in the final "ng" sound. --NorwegianBlue^talk 18:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of an "ng" sound, it's your soft palate you don't want your tongue to touch, though. Basically don't let your tongue touch anywhere on the roof of your mouth. —An gr 08:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~October 16~~
~~Sentence construction~~
Hi,
Does the following sentence read correctly? As a birthday gift, Jack went mini golfing at Hole-in-one, a company owned and operated by Fred.
Or should it instead be: Jack went mini golfing as a birthday gift at Hole-in-one: a company owned and operated by Fred.
Thanks, --Fir0002 00:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both examples are permissible syntactically. The first emphasises that the mini-golfing was a gift for Jack's birthday. The other is emphasis-neutral. WRT punctuation, a dash or a comma is better than a colon after "Hole-in-One". Steewi (talk) 00:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I was a bit worried that 'Jack went mini golfing at Hole-in-one' might be regarded as a parenthesis (which it's not - it's a key part of the sentence). --Fir0002 01:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these make me cringe due to the ambiguity and ugly sentence structure. Is it Jack's birthday? Or Fred's? Or Jill's (Jill being Jack's mini-golf-loving spouse ;-)? I think there are too many details to comfortably fit into one sentence. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further to Stephan's comment, I think the word "went" is a problem. It allows the possibility that Jack went golfing alone. If the golfing was a present to Jack, then "Jack was taken mini golfing" would be better. If it was Jill's birthday, then "Jack took Jill mini golfing" would be clearer. Wanderer57 (talk) 17:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that I didn't make this clear at the start but I'm only interested in whether the above sentence was grammatically correct. I'm not worried about the ambiguity as when the sentence is in context it's not an issue --Fir0002 02:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did somebody give Jack a mini-golfing package as a birthday gift, or did he think that he was so special that his deigning to appear at Fred's company was a gift for Fred? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I say the word "company" is wrong. You don't go mini-golfing at a company, you do it at a mini-golf course (or some such expression). Informally you might say "at Hole-in-one, a course owned and operated by Fred". (Formally, if it's an incorporated business, the course is owned and operated by the company and the company in turn is owned and operated by Fred.) --Anonymous, 21:11 UTC, October 16, 2008.
~~The above was an artificial sentence to parallel what I'm actually writing so don't get too worried about "company" etc. --Fir0002 02:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Netherlands in espanol~~
Why is it in Spanish "Netherlands" and "Kingdom of the Netherlands" is Países Bajos and Reino de los Países Bajos, but "Netherlands Antilles" is Antillas Neerlandesas and their language is neerlandes? Grsz ^X 00:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably for the same reasons that in English, the people from the Netherlands are the Dutch, but the Pennsylvania Dutch are from Germany, a country the French call Allemagne. Probably because some words are translated, and some words are borrowed from the native language, often without any apparent logic or reason. Apparently in Spanish the word for the nation is translated directly, while the word for the adjectival form is transliterated from the Dutch word. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Also the Low Countries were known in Spain long before some of the Antilles were Dutch. And of course "nether lands" is "low countries". Saintrain (talk) 01:18, 16 October 2008~~
Which might lead one to logically conclude that in English there's a one-to-one relationship between the Low Countries and the Netherlands. Which would be wrong - the Low Countries also includes Belgium, and possibly a bit of France as well. The Netherlands is also commonly referred to as Holland, although to the Dutch that refers only to two provinces of the Netherlands, not the whole country. Then there's the landmass on which the mainland of Australia is located - Abel Tasman dubbed it New Holland, but at least he named it after the then province Holland, not the country some English-speaking people call Holland. The British renamed it Australia in 1824, but the Dutch continued to call it Nieuw Holland till late in the 19th century. "Australia" originally meant just that large island, and was a strictly geographic term. It did not include Van Diemen's Land, although from 1788 Van Diemen's Land was part of the colony of New South Wales, which was otherwise located on the island of New Holland (it only became a separate colony in 1825). Over time, "the Australian colonies" came to include Van Diemen's Land, which was renamed Tasmania in 1856 in honour of the person who named it, Abel Tasman. Then Australia became a political term when the colonies, including Tasmania, federated in 1901. Later still, it became a geographical term once again when geographers in their wisdom decided to define a continent that extends beyond the country of Australia to include the island of New Guinea - as "Australia": see Australia (continent). New Guinea itself has been split between various powers, and the western part of it was once part of the Dutch East Indies, and is now part of Indonesia. All terribly confusing. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, why, in Japanese, is it 'Oranda', as I expected this to come from Spanish/Portuguese.--ChokinBako (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a transliteration of the Japanese pronunciation of "Holland". Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, by the proper rules that would be 'Horando'.--ChokinBako (talk) 23:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the Spanish word for the region of the Netherlands called Holland is Holanda. Steewi (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Yes, I thought there must have been a word in Spanish like that. Thanks!--ChokinBako (talk) 23:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Quu~~
~~Are there any words in English with a Q followed by two U's? February 15, 2009 (talk) 04:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
The only one I can think of is "squush", an alternate spelling of "sqush". Lantzy ^talk 05:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't think of any, but you may be interested to know that there are several words in Latin with that combination. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only two in Merriam-Webster's online dictionary are equus and squushy. —An gr 05:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~a broader search finds many Latin medical and Linnaean names, and quux, a metasyntactic variable. jnestorius^(talk) 23:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Bahrain~~
Since "Bahrain" is the genitive part of the idafa in "Mamlakat al-Bahrain", does anyone ever just call it "the two seas", "Bahraan"? I'm guessing from the first line of Bahrainona that "Bahrain" is the normal name even without the preceding "Kingdom of" but I was curious anyway. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would guess that preference for Bahrain reflects more colloquial Arabic patterns (where the classical Arabic nominative "sound" masculine plural/dual endings are supplanted by the oblique endings). The pure classically-correct suffixed form of Bahrain, treated as a dual noun, would be Bahraina بحرينا anyway; the form "Bahrainuna" suggests that the noun is not synchonically treated as a true dual word... AnonMoos (talk) 09:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Switch engines off or switch off engines~~
This has been bugging me for some time! Every day at lunch I go for a walk and pass a bus stop where buses sit parked for a while (it is a terminus or something like that). There is a sign next to the stop, which reads "Drivers must switch engines off if laying over for more than two minutes". Is "switch engines off" correct usage? Shouldn't it be "switch off engines"? Also, what type of word is "off" in "switch engines off"? Switch is a verb, and engines is a noun, but what is off? An adverb? Thanks everyone! 121.44.51.63 (talk) 10:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would probably go with "switch off engines", but only because the rhythm of it is nicer. There's nothing wrong with "switch engines off" from a grammatical point of view. As for "off", I would say it's a preposition. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 10:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a preposition in this sentence, though. There's some special term used in English grammar for words like this, but I can't remember what it is. They have the strange property that they can either precede or follow full nouns (as both switch off engines and switch engines off are grammatical), but can only follow pronouns (switch them off is grammatical but *switch off them is ungrammatical). —An gr 10:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary indicates the part of speech adverb for off in the example switch off. It is probably wrong though, because they indicate the part of speech preposition for across in structures like come across (but for me they should be the same part of speech). --Lgriot (talk) 11:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chambers has "off" as both an adverb and a preposition. I went for preposition on the basis of this partial definition: "ín or to a position or condition that is not on". --Richardrj ^talk ^email 11:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary's example sentence for "come across" with an object is "In the meadow he will come across a rare flower." However, *"In the meadow he will come a rare flower across" is ungrammatical. But both "In the parking lot he will switch off his engine" and "In the parking lot he will switch his engine off" are grammatical, suggesting that "across" and "off" are different parts of speech, or at least that "come across" and "switch off" are different constructions. Calling "off" an adverb is okay to the extent that adverbs are the catch-all grammatical category assigned to any word that can't conveniently be called any of the other traditional parts of speech. —An gr 11:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In Limburg we call it a non-verbal part of the verb (ónwèrkwaordelik deil vèrbs) hae zèt de moeater aaf -> he switches off the engine, while some say it's a postposition (afterzètsel) --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 11:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~See Phrasal verb, especially the "Particle verbs" subsection. Deor (talk) 12:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
The fact that you can say either "switch off (the) engine" or "switch (the) engine off" proves that it isn't a proposition. When it is a preposition, you only have the first choice: when talking about taking a side road you can say "turn off the road" but not "turn the road off". I'd consider it an adverb, but the analysis that it's part of a phrasal verb also makes some sense. --Anonymous, 21:15 UTC, October 16, 2008.
This could just be a difference in styleor usage. Think of "switch" in the sense of "change to another state." So you switch the engine off, then you switch it on. If the engines aren't running, the sign's working. Or would you tell the drivers "knock off it" instead of "knock it off?" --- OtherDave (talk) 16:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~In 'Switch it to "off".', "off" is a _____? Looks kinda nounoidal to me. Saintrain (talk) 18:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
Incidentally, from a practical rather than grammatical point of view, the order "switch engine off" works a lot better than "switch off engine"; if you put the state (off) before the switch (engine), then you have to remember the state while you locate the switch, or read the instruction more than once. Maybe not a problem with the OP's sign, but a major hassle if you have a long checklist to go through. FiggyBee (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Switch off the engine! Why not?--Radh (talk) 19:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~“The banks just are not lending.” vs. “The banks are just not lending.”~~
~~What sounds more natural? Mr.K. (talk) 12:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
The banks are just not lending. --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 12:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Source of the first here,(NYT).--Mr.K. (talk) 12:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both are possible, but the second sounds "more natural". --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 12:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a subtle meaning difference between the two. The first implies that not lending is the only thing the banks are doing which should be considered. The second emphasises the not part of not lending. Tricky to explain now I think about it, but I do read these differently. Bazza (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I know what you mean, Bazza 7. There's a discussion going on about various things that banks have stopped doing, and someone says "Look, the only thing the banks have stopped doing is lending; they're still doing everything else". If that's what they meant, I guess I could imagine someone trying to express it as "The banks just are not lending", but it's ambiguous because it could easily be misinterpreted as "the banks are just not lending", meaning "the banks are simply not lending". -- JackofOz (talk) 16:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Perhaps "The banks are not lending" would convey the intended meaning. Wanderer57 (talk) 19:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
To me (1) looks like a subeditor rewrote "The banks just aren't lending", which is fine; for me, (1) as written doesn't sound right, in either of the interpretations suggested. jnestorius^(talk) 23:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~"I think it is more important than ever that he win." vs. "I think it is more important than ever that he wins."~~
What version sounds more natural? --Mr.K. (talk) 12:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The two sentances appear identical? Am I just too tired? Note I am seeing "I think it is more important than ever that he win." vs. "I think it is more important than ever that he win." incase of a later edit which makes me look foolish. 88.211.96.3 (talk) 12:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Sorry, now they are different. --Mr.K. (talk) 13:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
You're asking a question that can only be answered subjectively. Many would say #2 sounds more natural because that's their way of expressing themselves. I would say #1, mainly because I was taught about the subjunctive case and when and how to use it, and #1 is what I would naturally write. So it all depends whom you ask. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the answer may vary somewhat by national varieties of English. In the American version of Standard English, the subjunctive "that he win" is required, and I think that this subjunctive form will sound more "natural" to many Americans. I have noticed that news announcers and printed works from the UK tend not to use the subjunctive in this case but instead use the indicative "that he wins". So that form might sound more "natural" to Britons. Marco polo (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Is "that he win" really required after "it is important"?--Radh (talk) 21:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~In North America, yes. "I think it is important that he wins" is possible but it means something else: "he wins, and I think this is important". --Anonymous, 21:18 UTC, October 16, 2008.~~
~~I don't think most Americans would really notice if the "s" was added on. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~The historically "correct" version in British English is to say ".. that he should win". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Is it al-Maliki or Maliki~~
If I want to refer to the surname of Nouri al-Maliki, is it al-Maliki (is it capitalised as in "Al-Maliki"), or can I shorten it to Maliki.
In the Nouri al-Maliki article it looks a bit inconsistent and seems to use both forms as in: "In 1979 Maliki fled Iraq after hearing the government of Saddam Hussein ..."
and then: "As Prime Minister, al-Maliki has vowed to crack down on militias..." ExitRight (talk) 12:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of times the "Al-" is simply completely omitted when transcribing Arabic names into English -- In Arabic, Gaddafi's name is actually al-Qaððafi, etc. However, if it's included in the accepted English rendering of a particular Arabic name, then it it would probably be better to include it consistently... AnonMoos (talk) 13:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Thanks AnonMoos. ExitRight (talk) 04:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Sentence structure~~
~~"How one can make a contribution to the society to make the present condition of the society developed" ? Is this statement correct?--202.168.229.245 (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
Not sure what you mean by "correct". This is the language ref desk, so my first comment is that it's faultless grammatically, if a somewhat unusual way of expressing the idea. But it doesn't have much meaning logically, and that may concern you more. If you take the present condition and develop it, what you get is a future condition (from today's standpoint). Did you mean "How one can make a contribution to the society in order to develop it"? And were you talking about society in general, or a particular organisation called the Society of <something>? If the former, you don't need the "the" before society. -- JackofOz (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"to make the present condition of (the) society developed" is simply utterly wrong. At least I can see no way around that. The whole sentence is way to complicated. It simply asks How can we help our society? What is needed to develop our society? How best to develop our society? --Radh (talk) 21:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The" society sounds wrong, unless you are referring to a particular society. "The society of English-speakers", for example. If you are referring to "society" in general, I would leave off the "the"s. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"One" makes it formal if not stilted, suggest if not an organisation (the Society of...), then why not: "How one can make a contribution to improve society." Shorter though, my two bits... Julia Rossi (talk) 08:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Honouring fatalities?~~
In the article Canadian Forces casualties in Afghanistan, this sentence appears:
"Subsequent fatalities have been honoured by much smaller services."
It seems to me that funeral services and memorial services honour people who died. "Honouring fatalities" does not say the same thing, IMO.
Other opinion please. Am I offtrack on this? Wanderer57 (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite right. This is an example of an euphemism run wild. Strictly speaking, "there were 531 fatalities" refers to the 531 acts of dying, not to the victims. A nice example of newspeak at work. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But we can say that a man "became a fatality" when he succumbed to his injuries, which shows that "fatality" can mean a person. I don't really like the sentence, but I don't see it as wrong. --Anonymous, 21:05 UTC, October 17, 2008.
~~Sure we can say that. But it's a fairly recent and secondary meaning. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~To me "became a fatality" suggests a person becomes a statistic, otherwise he simply died. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~And the person who said "I am become Death" meant something else again. —Tamfang (talk) 17:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Number of languages needed to speak to 50% of world~~
How many languages (and which ones) would you need to learn to speak to 50% of the world's population... or 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%.....? It's hard to tell from lists such as this - List_of_languages_by_total_number_of_speakers, because many people have two or more languages they speak, so those figures overlap. - Tea-shirt (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well... If a person speaks a language as a second language, you could still talk to them if you both knew that person's second language, couldn't you? You could speak to me in English, and it's not my mothertongue. I'm guessing you would count me in the part of the world population percentage you can speak to, even though I'm pretty certain you can't speak my mothertongue...

From the top of my head, I'd say English and Spanish would get you on pretty good track. Maybe throw in Mandarin as well, for good measure. If that doesn't help, maybe this article can: List of languages by number of native speakers. TomorrowTime (talk) 20:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to this article: List of languages by total number of speakers, ignoring some assumptions which lead to rather large errors (such as the grouping of macrolanguages such as "Chinese" and "Arabic" under a single listing), using the Ethnologue data, which is the most conservative WRT the number of speakers for the most spoken languages, you could speak to 3.68 billion people (over 1/2 the world) knowing 8 languages: "Chinese", English, Hindi, "Arabic", Spanish, Russian, Bengali, and Portuguese. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But, as the questioner pointed out, there are huge overlaps, e.g. especially English and Hindi, but also English and most other languages. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does anybody know how many Chinese will actually speak Mandarin in their real life? --Radh (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The WP article on Madarin mentions 836 million speakers. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the article is really useful--Radh (talk) 09:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~'Law words'~~
I'm a student in Llb Law, also taking a unit in German. Wiktionary says that the word 'law' comes from Old English lagu, which is from the Norse lög. Wiktionary says that Jury comes from the Anglo-Norman juree, from Mediaeval Latin jurata, from Latin jurare. In German there is the word Jura (no article), which means law (as in that which one would study). Does that mean that the German word Jura came from the Latin? I would find this odd as the German word for 'law' (as in an act of Parliament/Congress or a law which one must follow) is das Gesetz. Is there any reason for this or am I just getting it wrong with the connection? --Joe^Talk_Work 22:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are right. In areas such as law, religion, and philosophy, which were conducted in Latin throughout Europe until quite recently, many languages including German have borrowed terms from Latin. We have just such a doublet in English: jurisprudence is part of the academic study of law. --ColinFine (talk) 23:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not really surprising. First, "Gesetz" and "Jura" are not really synonymous, though closely related - one is "a law" or even "the law" (as in the body of all laws), the other is the field of study of laws. Just as pig flesh and pork meat are the same, but from different roots, so are "Jura" and "Gesetz" in German. "Jura" is the name of the field of study, inherited via medieval universities, where Latin was the language of instruction and debate. "Gesetz" ("that which has been set down" is my highly speculative etymlogy - compare "law", "that which has been laid down") is the less fancy native German term. Yet another term is "Recht" (that which is right), which also is used instead of "Jura" (that is, you can study "Jura", or "Recht", or "die Rechte" - all the same). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~October 17~~
~~might~~
~~I might not go to school everyday why do we need to use might not may? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.138.2.67 (talk) 02:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
I think "may" sounds slightly more formal. Also, "may" is used when asking for permission, and for giving permission. I think "might" is harmless if you want to make a casual prediction. --Kjoonlee 04:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, there's a little more ambiguity with may -- it can also be construed as "having permission". "I may not go to school today" --> "I am not allowed to go to school today". --DaHorsesMouth (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM~~
I saw some (native speakers of English?) who found funny this nick. I (non-native speaker of English) personally don't see what it means, where is the pun. Can someone explain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.37 (talk) 08:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See Cogito ergo sum: "I think therefore I am". Gwinva (talk) 08:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the faux latin misspelling "coito ergo sum"... which always gets a chuckle... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 10:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He is a cockatoo, therefore he zooms? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 11:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not just a cockatoo, but a cookatoo. He's a kooky cockatoo! Who zooms. :) (Or maybe a cockatoo who cooks?) Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People could be appreciating a reference to the Dead Parrot sketch from Monty Python: "This bird wouldn't "[z]oom" if you put four million volts through it! 'E's bleedin' demised!" -- 128.104.112.23 (talk) 21:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~French naming negatives~~
Salut. I wish to express a denial that my name is x in French. Would it be "Je m'appelle pas x", "Je ne m'appelle pas x" or something else? Please advice. Merci, struggling Slav/the skomorokh 10:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Je ne m'appelle pas Jean." I've seen and heard people drop the "ne" part of the negative, but that seems to be very informal. Ici, je ne m'appelle pas Dave; je m'appelle OtherDave (talk) 10:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC) [reply]
(ec) "Je ne m'appelle pas x" is standard French; "Je m'appelle pas x" is colloquial and is prescriptively regarded as an error. It's a bit like saying "My name ain't x" in English; if you're a native speaker maybe you can get away with it, but if you're a learner, people will be liable to think you don't know any better. —An gr 10:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Much obliged, thank you both for the swift response. the skomorokh now knows better 10:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Appropriateness of "whom" in spoken English~~
Hi, how appropriate is "whom" in spoken English? It sounds odd in some cases: "It depends on for whom you're working". Yet, when "whom" is the end of a question, it seems fine: "For whom?" Thanks again, Lazulilasher (talk) 14:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say it's the "whom" that sounds odd in "It depends on for whom you're working", because "It depends on for who you're working" is just as bad. It's the pied piping that sounds odd there; "It depends on who(m) you're working for" sounds better. —An gr 14:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, that is why it sounds odd. Is it acceptable to separate the preposition, in all cases? Lazulilasher (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~User:Angr doesn't read Winston Churchill about split infinitives: “This is the sort of English up with which I will not put.”--ChokinBako (talk) 15:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Ok, you've taught me a lesson. It is hard, however, to shake what we're taught in grammar school. Lazulilasher (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
User:Angr is completely correct and clear? Taught in grammar school to boldly go and split infinitives? And where should this beast be? Ang (see below) is right on --Radh (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Captain Cook taught me that. For some reason, I've had a fear of leaving the preposition hanging at the end of the sentence. Split infinitive never worried me. Lazulilasher (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How did split infinitives come into it? The OP's example sentence doesn't have an infinitive anywhere in it, either split or intact. —An gr 15:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I believe the Churchill quote is along the lines of "..the sort of pedantry up with which...", and that it refers to anti-preposition-at-end-ism rather than split infinitives. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~(undent) Anyway, back to whom. :) How appropriate in spoken English? Lazulilasher (talk) 15:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
I use it in formal situations, but not in informal situations. It is not inappropriate in any way in spoken English, so long as that distinction is kept, as far as I am concerned.--ChokinBako (talk) 15:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe "whom" is becoming obsolete in most contexts in spoken English: I regard myself as a careful speaker but I very rarely use it (though I would probably still write it where appropriate). Beware the hypercorrective trap of saying things like "the man whom I believe is suitable to be President". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~That's exactly it. I find myself mentally correcting those who say: "He is the man who I support". Is "who" correct, in any sense? Lazulilasher (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
"Who" is prescriptively wrong in that sentence, but acceptable - even preferable - in informal speech, IMHO. I would probably just avoid the issue by saying "He is the man I support". Anyway, if you believe Fowler it should be "that", not "who(m)". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Usage of "whom" is a point that always strikes a chord with me. My mothertongue has a clear paradygm for the accusative, so I can sense when use of the accusative is called for, and when it's not. For instance, the example AndrewTaylor gave above is a classic case of the accusative used in a sentence where there's no need for one. People may think using "whom" makes them sound more educated and learned, but using it in the wrong place just makes you look like you're trying too hard.
To answer the question: my gut feeling (as a non-native speaker of English with a good instinct for languages) is that "whom" is nigh obsolete in spoken English, and is applicable mostly in formal written English. You should, however, be familiar with the rules for the accusative before using it - "whom" is freely interchangable with "who" in modern English, and if you don't have a firm grasp of accusative placement, it might be a better idea to just play it safe and go with "who". IMO. TomorrowTime (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My gut feeling (as a native speaker of English) is that "whom" is best treated as obsolete, even there are those who disagree. The only instance where "who" seems wrong to me in the objective (accusative) case is in constructs like "To who(m) were you speaking?", and these are easily corrected by moving "to" to the end, whereupon "who" sounds fine to me. (In short, I'm applying Safire's Rule on "who" and "whom": if "whom" sounds correct, recast the sentence.) --Anonymous, 21:20 UTC, October 17, 2008.
Yes, you can get by without it in most situations, and most people prefer to, so it is certainly obsolescent. But some cases really do require it, such as "To whom it may concern". And the saw that goes: Some people say it's not what you know, but who you know, that matters. I believe whom you know is more important still - would not be able to exist without whom. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That line depends on both usages existing; it's a joking reference to the issue, expressing a preference for one version, just as with the Churchill quote seen above. It does not deserve to be called a "saw". --Anonymous, 07:01 UTC, October 18, 2008.
Oh, ok. I've heard it or its variants so often that I thought it must have become one. So it seems I suppose I'm sorely mistaken about the saw, and I'm sorry for saying so. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 01:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Meaning of Italian word vergognosco
~~What does vergognosco (or possibly vercognosco) mean? Google Translate doesn’t know. Is it some kind of slang or regional term? --Cinematical (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
It seems to be shameful, via google —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radh (talk • contribs) 17:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And the correct spelling is vergognoso. Deor (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --Cinematical (talk) 17:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~a quatre pas d'ici~~
Okay, saddest question on here for a while, I suspect. The Bucks Fizz song "Land of Make Believe" has been recorded by Celine Dion as "A quatre pas d'ici"...But as I doubt the translation "four isn't here" makes sense...just what does it mean? An obscure idiom I assume...but what's the translation? doktorb _words^deeds 18:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The pas here is not a negation, but "step", so the title means "four steps from here". — Kpalion^(talk) 19:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And the first word must be "À", so a more literal translation is "at four steps from here". Sometimes accents are omitted from capital letters in printed French, so you may have seen it written as "A". --Anon, 21:23 UTC, October 17, 2008.
~~Heh, brilliant. So I can put that child-hood query to bed. Thanks all doktorb _words^deeds 08:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~I.e. or I.E. ?~~
If I start a sentence fragment with i.e., the i should be upper case. What about the e?
In other words, should I use I.e., or I.E.,?
P.S. I realize I am likely to be told that I should not begin a sentence or a sentence fragment with i.e. regardless of the case. I'm not thinking of formal writing.
P.P.S. I realize that in light of my P.S., I am now likely to be told that in informal writing it does not matter whether the e is upper or lower case. I'm thinking of writing at an intermediate level of informality in which a sentence fragment beginning with i.e. is acceptable but some standards are still to be maintained.
P.P.P.S. Perhaps I have now muddied my original question sufficiently as to make it unanswerable. If so, please construe the question as being in an alternate universe in which it does make sense.
Thank you, Wanderer57 (talk) 22:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. The principle of capitalisation requires that the first letter of a sentence is a capital. Just as the opening "The" in the previous sentence uses lower case for the remaining letters, the remaining elements of an abbreviation would also use lower case. I.e., do what I just did at the start of this sentence. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~All it means is 'that is', so I don't think it's a problem. That is, if you are writing informally ':> --ChokinBako (talk) 00:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
P.P.P.P.S. However, if you were to compose an informal article on the Freudian concept of the Id in Latin, as in "I.e. (i.e. 'Id est') lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.", you may as well spell it out for obfuscation´s sake.

The Id can, indeed, be described as "labore et dolore magna aliquis" in the alternative universe of our Ego. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Thank you all for your replies.~~
~~Unfortunately, due to a defective education, Latin is Greek to me. Wanderer57 (talk) 00:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
Capitalising the 'i' seems weird to me, considering that it should of course never be used at the start of a sentence - 'id est' meaning 'that is'. Grammar rules say you should, though, and I wouldn't punish you for doing so. I wouldn't worry about the Latin in here, it's only lorem ipsum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schwarzes Nacht (talk • contribs) 08:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Pear shaped~~
Where does the phrase "Everything went pear shaped", meaning that things went badly, come from? Also, what shape were things supposedly in in the first place? Dismas|^(talk) 22:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As in so many such cases, the answer is that nobody's really sure; see Michael Quinion's remarks. (World Wide Words is a good first stop for investigating all such questions.) Deor (talk) 22:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~I'm not sure what shape it was before, but going pear shaped is often accompanied by the wheels coming off, so... FiggyBee (talk) 02:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
I've always been under impression that "pear-shaped" is an euphemism for an arse, or at least for the shape thereof. Hence the expression "everything went pear-shaped", apparently. Hope this helps ;) --Dr Dima (talk) 06:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~The look of a pear shape suggests things go downwards, like the phrase "bottomed out" – but the other suggestions actually answer your query. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~October 18~~
~~Czech Version of Name~~
~~What is the name Florence in Czech? Vltava 68 (talk contribs) 05:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~"Florencie" - or at least that is the name of the article on the Czech wikipedia. [5] :) FiggyBee (talk) 06:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
That is, if you're talking about the city whose real name is Firenze. The answer might be different if you mean the personal name Florence. (I wouldn't know.) --Anonymous, 07:03 UTC, October 18, 2008.
The Czech version of the article on Florence Nightingale is labelled as Florence Nightingalová. I can´t think of another Florence, there being no entry on Florence of Arabia.

Ooops, there is one :) -Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Perhaps you were thinking of Florins of Arabia, on which there is no entry. Wanderer57 (talk) 00:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Kanji Help~~
Can anyone make this kanji for me? I don't have my dictionary, so I don't know the pronunciation to type it. 其 plus the right-hand side of 次. Thanks!--ChokinBako (talk) 13:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~No worries, found it. 欺. --ChokinBako (talk) 13:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
あざむく・キ, meaning to deceive. Don't know what you're working on, but last time I came across it was in relation to Marx and his stance that capitalism is deception (欺詐,きさ）. TomorrowTime (talk) 23:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly the word I am using. I'm using it in a totally different context, though. I found it earlier, by just typing the English word (I knew the meaning already) into alc.co.jp and copy/pasting the 欺 back together with the 詐 I had already put there, to get the translation I needed in context with my text here. Then after that, my Mac could give me the pronunciation. Thanks anyway.--ChokinBako (talk) 23:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~詐欺 (さぎ, sagi) is far more commonly used than 欺詐 (ぎさ gisa) for deception. --Kusunose 06:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Could be that the word in my text was context-specific (it was a philosophy piece), or else I just remember it wrong :) TomorrowTime (talk) 10:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
Kusunose, sorry, yep. That's the one, I just looked at the text again, but I have translated it as something else, 'fraud', as the context needs. I think the reason I couldn't get it was because I kept writing either 'saki' or 'kisa', neither of which gave me the word, and just typing 'ki' on its own would not give me the kanji. When TomorrowTime said it was, in fact, 'ki', the fact that it would not appear on my Mac when I just typed 'ki' on its own was all the more infuriating. Just remember it as the 'the deceptive rabbit peels off its bruises' ([u]sagi ga aza wo muku)! Thanks, folks.--ChokinBako (talk) 13:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~October 19~~
~~what do you call this thing used in book shelves?~~
When you shelve books, you sometimes use a (usually metallic) piece to stop the books from tumbling over to one side, if the row not packed from wall to wall. What do you call that piece? --59.91.253.166 (talk) 03:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~I'm not sure if there's any official or correct name. A book stop? Grsz ^Review! 04:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
It's a bookend. Deltopia (talk) 04:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have an article on that? Wow. Grsz ^Review! 04:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is an article on everything. :) Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 05:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~How did the phrase "Old wives' tale" come about?~~
~~It doesn't have the origins of the phrase in the wiki article ExitRight (talk) 04:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
"Wife" basically just meant "woman" in this context. In the early modern period, older non-upper-class women (who tended to be illiterate) were the strongest source of traditional folk sayings that had undergone little or no influence from formal written scholarship. AnonMoos (talk) 10:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Is there any real difference between these two sentences~~
"Elaborate and decorative bookends are not uncommon" and "Elaborate and decorative bookends are common"
To me, the meanings sound different. I know that there's no actual difference, but it sounds as if the first sentence is more appropriate for the context. ExitRight (talk) 05:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see a slight difference. The "common" version could suggest they're common almost to the point of ubiquity. The "not uncommon" version tells us that it's not unusual to find them, but non-decorative ones are just as usual, perhaps more so. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Litotes... AnonMoos (talk) 09:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~sample of formal vs. informal english~~
I am actually studying on my own the difference between formal and informal written English. What I would like to see is a sample text of the same very short composition, perhaps an excerpt of something, written both in formal and informal English for comparison.
I was able to read a sample text of Old English with its Modern English translation, but it's about English Period. Where can I possibly find what I am looking for?
Does Wikipedia have such? If not, website addresses of various sources will be fine with me already as long as I will be able to read those.
thank you so much for any help that you will be able to extend.
God bless.
Carlrichard (talk) 07:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know of such a comparison text, but you might find the style of writing in Irvine Welsh's novel Trainspotting or Anne Donovan's novel Buddha Da interesting. Astronaut (talk) 08:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~-ev ending in Russian surnames~~
What is the rule governing the pronunciation of -ev ending in Russian surnames? Is there a single rule at all? Are there exceptions to the rule? Russian surnames article in WP says nothing about their pronunciations. --Omidinist (talk) 12:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found an article that shows it like this: mʲɪˈdvʲedʲɪf. Grsz ^Review! 13:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both -ёв and -ев are transliterated as -ev in English, but they are pronounced quite differently in Russian. In the former category, for example Горбачёв/ Gorbachev, the -ev should be pronounced -off (or -yoff, depending on the preceding letter), while in the latter category, for example Николаев/ Nikolaev it should be pronounced as -eff (or -yeff). To my knowledge there is no way to determine which pronunciation should be used in a name transliterated into English, you just have to know. In fact, since most Russian writers don't distinguish between the lettes ё and e anyway it's probably not always possible even for Russians to know which pronunciation to use if they've never seen the name before. 84.9.165.88 (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are two kinds of endings in Russian surnames that are both transliterated into English as "-ev", that is: "-ев" and "-ёв". There may be no difference in everdyday Russian spelling as the diaeresis above the letter "ё" is often ommited, but there is a difference in pronunciation. The letter "е" (see: Ye (Cyrillic)) is pronounced [je] (ye) in stressed syllables or [jɪ] (yi) in unstressed syllables. The letter "ё" (see: Yo (Cyrillic)) is pronounced [jo] (yo). The letter "в" is normally pronounced [v], but at the end of a word it becomes an unvoiced [f]. So for example, as Grsz noted above, "Medvedev", or "Медведев", is pronounced [mʲɪˈdvʲedʲɪf] (myid-VYEH-dyiff), but "Gorbachev", or "Горбачёв", is pronounced [gərbɐˈtɕof] (gor-bah-CHYOFF). — Kpalion^(talk) 15:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Help with pronunciaion~~
Im trying to learn Russian but I am not sure how something like, for example, "есмь" should be pronounced. I know the basic sounds of most of the alphabet but I dont know how i should pronounce a word that contains "ь" (ie palatalized). What English examples could you give me to help me understand how to pronounced something that is palatized --217.65.49.34 (talk) 14:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A simple explanation would be to use the 't' in 'tune' (British English - tyoon - you are from Gibraltar, so I guess you will have no trouble with this), but pronounce the 't' by putting the tongue on the teeth, and not above them, as you would normally in English. Keep the gentle 'y' sound. It should sound like 'yesty'. Hope this helps.--ChokinBako (talk) 15:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~in italian they use settemlia bace per te Why use 7000?~~
~~Why is this # 7000 used ? What is the historic significance of 7000 to the Italians?Dom491 (talk) 15:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~

October 12

P. that W.'s?

Speaking of Wodehouse

Seasons of capitalization

Unknown language

モバイルダイアリ

Mystery language? Code?

Linguistics

Signing Versus Subtitles

Finnish/English song translation- Väkirauta by Korpiklaani

October 13

Sounds like

What language:

Lower case Cyrillic "Te"

...ussia?

English to Welsh translation please

Comma or no comma?

October 14

Stephen Fry on Room 101

Haitian Creole-English + vice versa dictionary

NLP Language course

in or at

Odin's Pig

Referring to yourself as Mr.

October 15

English to Spanish translation

Hump(s)

On the characteristics of brand name

I think my text contains a lot of mistakes

Writing a letter in Icelandic

How is "seleção" pronounced?

October 16

Sentence construction

Netherlands in espanol

Quu

Bahrain

Switch engines off or switch off engines

“The banks just are not lending.” vs. “The banks are just not lending.”

"I think it is more important than ever that he win." vs. "I think it is more important than ever that he wins."

Is it al-Maliki or Maliki

Sentence structure

Honouring fatalities?

Number of languages needed to speak to 50% of world

'Law words'

October 17

might

Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM

French naming negatives

Appropriateness of "whom" in spoken English

Meaning of Italian word vergognosco

a quatre pas d'ici

I.e. or I.E. ?

Pear shaped

October 18

Czech Version of Name

Kanji Help

October 19

what do you call this thing used in book shelves?

How did the phrase "Old wives' tale" come about?

Is there any real difference between these two sentences

sample of formal vs. informal english

-ev ending in Russian surnames

Help with pronunciaion

in italian they use settemlia bace per te Why use 7000?