Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Reference Desk

Science Mathematics Computing/IT Humanities Language Entertainment Miscellaneous Archives
How to ask a question Search first. It's quicker, because you can find the answer in our online encyclopedia instead of waiting for a volunteer to respond. Search Wikipedia using the searchbox. A web search could help too. Common questions about Wikipedia itself, such as how to cite Wikipedia and who owns Wikipedia, are answered in Wikipedia:FAQ.
Sign your question. Type ~~~~ at its end. Be specific. Explain your question in detail if necessary, addressing exactly what you'd like answered. For information that changes from country to country (or from state to state), such as legal, fiscal or institutional matters, please specify the jurisdiction you're interested in. Include both a title and a question. The title (top box) should specify the topic of your question. The complete details should be in the bottom box. Do your own homework. If you need help with a specific part or concept of your homework, feel free to ask, but please don't post entire homework questions and expect us to give you the answers. Be patient. Questions are answered by other users, and a user who can answer may not be reading the page immediately. A complete answer to your question may be developed over a period of up to seven days.	Do not include your e-mail address. Questions aren't normally answered by e-mail. Be aware that the content on Wikipedia is extensively copied to many websites; making your e-mail address public here may make it very public throughout the Internet. Edit your question for more discussion. Click the [edit] link on right side of its header line. Please do not start multiple sections about the same topic. Archived questions If you cannot find your question on the reference desks, please see the Archives. Unanswered questions If you find that your question has been archived before being answered, you may copy your question from the Archives into a new section on the reference desk. Do not request medical or legal advice. Ask a doctor or lawyer instead.
After reading the above, you may ask a new question by clicking here. Your question will be added at the bottom of the page.
How to answer a question Be thorough. Please provide as much of the answer as you are able to. Be concise, not terse. Please write in a clear and easily understood manner. Keep your answer within the scope of the question as stated.	Link to articles which may have further information relevant to the question. Be polite to users, especially ones new to Wikipedia. A little fun is fine, but don't be rude. The reference desk is not a soapbox. Please avoid debating about politics, religion, or other sensitive issues.

How to pronounce "Wikipedia"

How do you pronounce "Wikipedia"? I know the name came from the combination of "Wiki" and "encyclopedia", so I assumed it's pronounced "weekee-pedia". However, my friends tell me it "wick-uh-pedia". Which is it?

I always pronounce it "wicky-pedia", with the "wiki" part rhyming with "Vicky" or "tricky". --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I use either pronunciation in conversation, although if pressed I'd pick the first as the more correct. — Laura Scudder | Talk 06:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

i think i know what you're saying. It's just like the "i" (ɪ) sound isn't very pronounced in words like "fanciful" or "beautiful" and many people pronounce it almost like an "e" (ə). i think either way is fine, depending on your "slang" or accent. --Plastictv 07:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

A linguist might be able to best tell whether or not the "i"s should be voiced or unvoiced. Often times combining words does affect the status of their vowels in many languages (in Russian, for example, one can generally only have one voiced vowel per word, so certain constructions can radically change the sound of a word). Of the four possible variations:

• Wee-kee-pedia (voiced voiced)
• Wick-ee-pedia (unvoiced voiced)
• Wick-uh-pedia (unvoiced unvoiced)
• Wee-kuh-pedia (voiced unvoiced)

I'm most inclined towards either the second or the third. But I have no idea what would be most linguistically appropriate, based on normal stress patterns. --Fastfission 22:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I say Wick-ih-pedia. Superm401 | Talk 22:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Voiced is a term usually applied to consonants rather then vowels (at least as I've always used it). I'm assuming the distinctions you are making are between /iː/ and /ɪ/ and between stressed and unstressed vowels, or possibly whether the syllables are open or closed. FWIW, I pronounce Wikipedia ˌwɪkiˈpiːdjə or ˌwɪkiˈpiːdʒə i.e wicky-pedia. Probably this should be ˌwikiˈpiːdjə to reflect the root of wiki, but that just sounds wrong to my ears. Valiantis 00:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I say Wick-ih-pedia, with the middle part being a cross between an "ih" sound and an "uh" sound. (And my friends all look at me cross-eyed because they've never heard of Wikipedia. Go figure.) Hermione1980 00:56, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

obviously, since it's a Hawaiian-Greek compound, wiki-παίδεια, although, if you're from Ni'ihau I understand (from Hawaiian language), you may also say witi-παίδεια :o)

Has had and had has

Can you tell me in what condition we should use had has and what condition we should use has had?This seems confusing since English is not my mother tongue.

You never use "had has" at all. Your choices are "has had" (which is the perfect tense of have) and "had had" (which is the pluperfect tense of have). You use the perfect tense "has had" when you're discussing the past as it influences the present: John has had two cookies already (you're saying something about John right now). You use the pluperfect tense "had had" when you're discussing how the more remote past influenced a point of time in the past: John had had two cookies before his mother told him to stop. (you're saying something about what John's situation was when something else happened). --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 10:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

And just for fun, "had" has the same usage as "has had" (and throwing out the "s, I just used "had has"!) — Lomn | Talk / RfC 16:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

"had" does not have the same usage as "has had", any more than "wrote" has the same usage as "has written". Read perfect aspect for more on the difference between the present perfect and the past in English. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 19:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

The use of "had had" and other variants is often strange and looks "wrong" to me even as someone who speaks English as their native tongue, so don't worry, you're not alone. I usually re-arrange sentences to avoid them. --Fastfission 22:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

And you guys all remember this one, right?

Punctuate this:

Angr where Lomn had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher.

Answer:

Angr, where Lomn had had "had", had had "had had"; "had had" had had a better effect on the teacher.

Elf | Talk 23:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

My favorite: "The kittens that the cat he had had had had had had black fur." -- Jmabel | Talk 06:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

As grammatical sentences go, 'Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo' is pretty unbeatable. :) --Ngb ^?!? 07:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I've seen Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo, Buffalo buffalo buffalo explained before, but I think I'm going to have to ask you what yours means still. — Laura Scudder | Talk 07:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

(The) Buffalo buffalo (that) Buffalo buffalo buffalo (in turn) buffalo (other) Buffalo buffalo'. Which is pretty much the same as yours, I think, except reversed. --Ngb ^?!? 08:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I like yours better. — Laura Scudder | Talk 08:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Spanish forum

This place is nice for asking one-off questions, but does anyone know of an Internet forum or board especially good for learning and practicing Spanish? 63.215.122.7 17:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Formal replacement for "and/or"

What is the best way to say "and/or" in a formal context? As in (for example), "We are certain that the court will declare the appointment and/or the law unconstitutional." Superm401 | Talk 22:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

""We are certain that the court will declare either the appointment or the law,or both, unconstitutional." Elf | Talk 23:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Of course that would work. I was hoping for something a little smoother. Superm401 | Talk 23:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I've never seen anything else, and I rewrite those sometimes dozens of times a day. (Having just come from editing a 100-page technical manual filled with A/Bs...) All my style guides and usage guides are at home, but I'm pretty sure that's what they suggest. We could use technogeekese: "...declare the appointment inclusive-or the law..."  :-) There are different ways to use the "or both"--e.g., "...declare the appointment, the law, or both..." or use emdashes to set it off "...declare the appointment or the law—or both—unconst..." or you could move "unconst." to "declare unconst the law, the..." but I think that's more awkward. Elf | Talk 23:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

• Of course, "either X or Y" means exactly the same thing as "either X or Y or both". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I think not. "You're either going to stop throwing a tantrum or I'm going to lock you in the closet for another week" doesn't usually mean both; "I'm going to solve this problem or kill myself trying" doesn't mean "or both". Leastwise not when I say it. (And I'm thinking that we recently had this exact discussion on this or some other page (but probably not both :-) )...) Elf | Talk 01:02, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

• I appreciate the effort. I guess there just isn't a good way to do it. Who says grammar is efficient :) ? Superm401 | Talk 01:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • "And/or" is itself a phrase I would expect to use in a formal context if needed. I think one can find "and/or" in more contracts than love letters. --Metropolitan90 01:57, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I didn't mean so formal it was jargon. Superm401 | Talk 02:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

SPELING

HOW DO YOU SPELL WARRENTEE

Warranty usually. Elf | Talk 00:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, OK, someone who is the subject of a warrant would be a warrantee. So it depends on which meaning you intended. Again, Elf | Talk 00:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Seeking epigram by Martial

Greetings.

I am seeking an epigram, in Latin, authored by Martial, in which he — in contrast with his usual pejorative portraits and nasty numbers — comforts a friend whose daughter has died.

Thanking you, Grumpy Troll ^(talk) 05:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC).

Grumpy Troll: FYI, you are not just being ignored. I saw your earlier post on RD/misc, did some research, and came up with nothing remotely like what you are asking about. Sorry. :-( Anyone else? — Nowhither 11:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your effort. I posted my request on this page, thinking that a message on the miscellaneous reference desk was too easily dismissed, and that someone who could provide an answer to my post would be more likely to read this page. Once again, thank you! Grumpy Troll ^(talk) 11:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC).

Were you thinking of epigram 61 from book 10? David Sneek 13:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Hic festinata requiescit Erotion umbra,

Crimine quam fati sexta peremit hiems.

Quisquis eris nostri post me regnator agelli

Manibus exiguis annua justa dato.

Sic lare perpetuo, sic turba sospite, solus

Flebilis in terra sit lapis iste tua.

predator

can we take "-or" as the suffix for predator?

You have to do your own homework, but think about this: a suffix has to be added to a stem. If -or is a suffix in predator, what is the stem? Is there independent evidence that such a stem exists in English? --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 08:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Of course, if we're talking about Latin, and not English, then you've got a winner. — File:Austria flag large.png ナイトスタリオン _ㇳ–ㇰ — 09:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Even in Latin, although praedātor has a suffix, -or isn't it. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 10:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Depends on your definition. Okay, technically, prædor can't build the PPP, so prædator is only an analogon to the sequence imperare - imperatus - imperator, but -or is still the suffix for "person who does something" when added to the PPP of any Latin verb. — File:Austria flag large.png ナイトスタリオン _ㇳ–ㇰ — 10:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

All I meant is that the stem of praedor is praedā-, so the suffix is -tor, not -or. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 12:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough; they way I learned it, and the way it's written down in Stowasser, for instance, is, that you add two suffixes to the stem to arrive at prædator; namely -t- and -or. Somehow like Lego, or such. ;) — File:Austria flag large.png ナイトスタリオン _ㇳ–ㇰ — 14:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

That's pedagogically easier, because it helps you better predict things like professor from profiteor/professus, but etymologically it's better to say the stem is fat- plus the prefix pro- and the suffix -tor and then various sound changes apply to get professor out of pro-fat-tor. Theoretical linguists 20 years ago would have said that was true synchronically as well, but nowadays we're not so sure anymore! --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 15:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

"synchronically true" when? For Plautus? For Caesar? For Isidore of Sevilla? Or for contemporary highschoolers? The suffix was almost certainly tor in Old Latin, and without any doubt in PIE, but it's difficult to say what is "synchronically true" in a dead language :)

Synchronically true for whatever stage of Latin you happen to be looking at. The question is whether a child learning Latin as a first language (at any stage of Latin's existence) can deduce the suffix -tor from a word like professor. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 14:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

yes, but what makes you think that the likelyhood of a child analyzing -tor remains exactly the same between 400 BC and 400 AD? As you say the analysis '-or' is due to the fat-tor to fess-or sound change. When did this occur? 500 BC? Did 'synchonic' grammar decide the suffix was -or now immediately? After 2 generations? After 10 generations? Never? I don't know, but if they switched from -tor to -or in "internal representation", this would have happened over some historical period, likely in late Vulgar Latin. So I don't see why a child learning Latin in 300 BC should necessarily have the same conditions as its descendants half a millennium later? The point is that after etto goes to esso, -etto- is not a possible sequence in Latin. So -esso- is really perceived as identical (allophonic) to -etto-. In Italian, of course, -etto- again becomes permissible. This may begin with Lucan, who gives the option "Vettones aut Vectones". So I imagine that -esso- could not have been analyzed as mere Sandhi of et-to for a learner from the 1st century AD or so (Silver Latin). 130.60.142.65 15:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Еру пкфььфешсфд ыекгсегку ща еру Утпдшыр дфтпгфпу

I'm not sure, but I found the word "дфтпгфпу" on this page, which makes me think it may be "Old Samanid." Nevertheless I'm a bit skeptical, because I doubt any Iranian language has consonant clusters that formidable. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 15:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

All the online translators, language identifiers and transliterators I've found all either give up or report it as gibberish. If it is Old Samanid that might my results, if if it is a string of primarily consonants then perhaps it is abbreviated? Thryduulf 15:57, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

It certainly looks like gibberish to me, but I did get a fair number of independent Google hits for "дфтпгфпу". The trouble is, they were all in languages like Russian and Estonian which I can't read. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 16:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Two of the Google hits for the word "дфтпгфпу" (http://members.tripod.com/~barashw/authors/goldst.htm and http://www.bthsnews.org/forums/index.php?s=f5888115f284e4990abaae2e71161d3a&showtopic=1405&pid=23620&st=0&#entry23620)

call it gibberish. ПРАВИЛА ПЕРЕВОДА С ДРЕВНЕСАМАНИДСКОГО ЯЗЫКА НА РУССКИЙ (from http://www.debilizm.com/hystery/gate3.html) translates as THE RULES OF TRANSLATION FROM OLDSAMANIDS LANGUAGE TO RUSSIAN as the page implies. The ones in Estonian don't make much sense to me either - its a card catalog entry for a book about the difficulties students have learning English. --Diderot 18:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

From the "Samanid" page:

A - Ф  J - О  	S - Ы
B - И 	K - Л 	T - Е
C - С 	L - Д 	U - Г
D - В 	M - Ь 	V - М
E - У 	N - Т 	W - Ц
F - А 	O - Щ 	X - Ч
G - П 	P - З 	Y - Н
H - Р 	Q - Й 	Z - Я
I - Ш 	R - К 	 

It's a font issue. Somebody's custom font doesn't display for us.

Еру пкфььфешсфд ыекгсегку ща еру Утпдшыр дфтпгфпу
The grammatical structure of the English language

In fact, I think this is an effect of unthinklingly converting old documents in the KOI-8 format, with non KOI 8 parts undergoing the same transformation (i.e. the English bits are treated as if it had been Cyrillic in KOI 8. This accounts for the same error occurring independently in Estonia and Russia :) User:Dbachmann

*Smacks own head* Doh! --Diderot 21:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for figuring that out, dab! I already had developed this theory that this was a Cyrillic transliteration of a text written in the Arabic alphabet, hence the absence of vowels. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 23:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I thought so too, then I assumed that ф must be a vowel to give a decent syllable structure. Still not sure what's at the bottom of this, it must have been some 7-bit cyrillic encoding, not KOI 8, maybe Soviet era computer texts? 130.60.142.65 11:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

The grammatical structure of the English language

If our English language article and sub-articles don't have information you are looking for, please come back and ask a specific question. Thryduulf 15:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Now we know this heading is just the "translation" of the previous heading! --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 23:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

how do you pronounce Wriothesley?

IPA: [ˈɹaɪəθsli]. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 23:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea what that means. Answering with solely IPA pronunciation is not helpful, as 90% of people cannot understand it, even with using the article. Phonetically, it's pronounced roe-thesley. Proto t c 12:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Two thousand years ago 90% of people couldn't read at all. There's still hope. The IPA I provided can be represented also as "RYE-uth-slee" if you don't want to take the 30 minutes required to learn the International Phonetic Alphabet. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 12:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

That's a far better answer, Angr. Well done. Now, if we could cut out the snippy sarcasm at someone daring to criticise one of your answers, you'd be perfect. And I've tried to learn the IPA - it takes a lot longer than 30 minutes, and is counterintuitive, particularly for this poor guy who just wanted to learn how to pronounce an unfamiliar name, not learn a whole lingustic pronuciation structure. You could have said "RYE-uth-slee" in the first place (although, using your new, more friendly, format, Wriothesley would actually be pronounced "ROWth-slee". Two syllables, emphasis on the first.) Proto t c 14:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, of course, it wasn't. It was a far worse answer than my original one. Saying it's pronounced "ROWth-slee" is completely ambiguous; I have no idea if you mean /ˈɹəʊθsli/ or /ˈɹaʊθsli/. The pronunciation I provided first is that given in the English Pronouncing Dictionary by Daniel Jones and revised by Alfred C. Gimson and in Longman's Pronunciation Dictionary by John C. Wells. I didn't know there was an alternate pronunciation. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 15:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

"Phonetically, it's pronounced roe-thesley" is not a meaningful statement, since "roe-thesley" unlike IPA doesn't have a well-defined phonetical meaning. English speakers all over the world will pronounce that string with considerable differences, and let's not even go into how speakers unexposed to the Great vowel shift will pronounce it. You may as well answer (maybe appropriately to the format the question is 'phrased' in), "Wriothesley".

There is no way to give a pronounciation that will be accurate and unambigious without IPA or something like it. I don't see how any of the written out forms have been clearer than the original spelling.--Prosfilaes 14:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

true; maybe "ˈɹaɪəθsli (see IPA)" would have been a nice gestures, though

IPA may be unambiguous, but it's also not very helpful for non-linguists. In this case, it's not even unambiguous, since there are several (oh, so many) ways of pronouncing "Wriothesley", none of them clearly the "correct" one. Some will say it in two syllables (eliding the first 'e'). Some will say it in three syllables. The "W" is silent. Sounds like "Roths-ly". Sounds like "Rowth-slee". Sounds like "RYE-uth-slee. " Any of these are more helpful for ordinary humans than "it looks like /ˈɹaʊθsli/ in IPA". As I understand it, its pronunciation is a more-debated-than-you-would-think proposition because of arguments stemming from Shakespeare's use of the word. - Nunh-huh 03:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

More helpful for ordinary humans how? Most of humanity is still mispronouncing the vowels. I have no idea what vowel sounds you're getting at. If you know English, you know how to pronounce the consonants and that the W is silent. Again, if you want to give some vague idea of how it's pronounced, tell the reader that it's pronounced as it's spelled. If you want speakers of Indian English and Canadian English and American English and English English (and all the other dialects) to get it right, you've got to use something more unambiguious than "RYE-uth-slee". --Prosfilaes 03:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

More helpful for ordinary humans in terms of giving them a clue. The questioner is asking for a semblance of the pronunciation, not an exact replica, as there is no single acceptable pronunciation. And if it were "pronounced as spelled" there wouldn't be a question, would there? - Nunh-huh 04:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

IPA isn't "very helpful for non-linguists", and mathematical notation isn't very helpful for non-mathematicians. Yet if someone asked a mathematical question over at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science and got an answer using mathematical notation, I doubt anyone would accuse the answerer of giving an unhelpful answer. Anyone can learn the IPA, it's really not difficult. Professional singers, famous for having, in the words of Anna Russell, "resonance where their brains ought to be", learn IPA regularly. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

If someone asked what two plus two was and got a quadratic equation in response, or were told to come back for their answer when they'd learned about complex numbers, you'd have an analogy going. - Nunh-huh 06:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Really? So you think the pronunciation of Wriothesley is something every 6-year-old should know? --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:46, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

What I think is that it's ridiculous to expect someone to learn IPA in order to learn to say "Wriothesley". - Nunh-huh 07:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

If you learn IPA you learn a lot more than just how to say "Wriothesley". There was a time when education for its own sake was valued. There is no reason why IPA couldn't be taught in the ninth grade. It would take one class period for students to learn how to read IPA transcription, a few more for them to learn how to write transcriptions themselves. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 08:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, ninth-graders can't learn everything that is worth learning, and if they did, most of it would quickly be forgotten through lack of use. And requiring someone to learn a phonetic system, no matter how much you personally esteem it, in order to pronounce one specific word is absurd. - Nunh-huh 01:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

It's not one specific word; it's to stop every dictionary and every encyclopedia and every mention of pronunciation using its own ad-hoc method. They can always look at the pronunciation key if they have to, but there should be a chance to learn otherwise.--Prosfilaes 01:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah, if only the world would dance to your chosen drummer.... - Nunh-huh 02:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

There is no way to specify the pronunciation of Wriothesley unambigiously without IPA or something similar. That's not two plus two; that's asking for how far a ball will fall in n seconds, and complaining about getting a quadratic equation in response.--Prosfilaes 17:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

There is no way to specify the pronunciation of Wriothesley unambigiously. You'd have been correct if you stopped there. - Nunh-huh 01:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

So why wasn't "pronounce it like spelled" good enough?--Prosfilaes 01:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Because it's not? - Nunh-huh 02:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Bahing

I have a paper here that claims that the Bahing for "man" is /m* r*/, while the word for "monkey" is /m* r*/, a subtle difference in the vowel system. The asterisk is a filled circle in the actual layout. I suspect that somebody was having font problems with weird IPA caracters. Can anyone tell me what the actual Bahing words for "man" vs. "monkey" are? User:Dbachmann 20:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC) Uh, maybe ● is intended? I never knew this was an IPA symbol for "Near-close near-back unrounded vowel?? Still that doesn't change that /m●r●/ looks exactly identical to /m●r●/. Maybe the claim is that there is a distinction of ● vs ʊ in Bahing, contrary to the claim on near-close near-back unrounded vowel???

solved it, the paper is online [1], the intended reading is /mərə/ "monkey" vs. /mɯrɯ/ "man". I wonder why libraries are supposed to buy these expensive "proceedings" volumes anymore, when you still have to check the free online version because they mess up the formatting :)

"Kicking ass and taking names"

Where does the expression "kicking ass and taking names" ultimately come from? I can find quotes all over the place but no ultimate source. I suppose "kicking ass" on its own is older. The "taking names" part is a little unclear; it seems to allude to names being crossed off an imaginary hit list, or maybe being added to them. 00:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I've done no research, but here's my gut reaction: I've always assumed the "taking names" part meant adding names to a list, the list of people to be exposed for some sort of misconduct. The sales clerk is rude to you, so you find out her name and tell the store manager of your dissatisfaction. The cop whacks your fellow demonstrator over the head with a nightstick, so you look at the cop's nametag for his name to file a complaint or a lawsuit. The students get in a fight in the stairwell, so you make note of which students are involved and give them detention. JamesMLane 05:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, that's generous. I, like the questioner, assumed more of a death list sort of thing. Superm401 | Talk 08:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

You can't kick everyone's ass at once, so those whose asses you can't kick at the moment, you add to the list, so that you can remember to kick their ass later. Garrett Albright 10:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

The phrase strikes me as something that might have come from a cop film or TV show. Dirty Harry, maybe, or something of the sort. I've always preferred "Rowdy Roddy" Piper's formulation in They Live:

"I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass, and I'm all out of bubblegum."

--Diderot 11:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I did try searching IMDB's quote collection before posting here, but only derivatives showed up. If it was a movie or TV show quote, its origins have been obscured (unlike Piper's well-known impromptu). 17:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I Think the "taking names" part derives from such sources as the folksong "There's a man goin' round taking names" meaning an authority figure taking names of "troublemakers" for later retaliation. I have also seen it used in early labor union sources in a similar context. DES ^(talk) 05:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

shesh-besh game

I'd like to know what does it mean the name "shesh-besh", the ethymology of the word, and maybe a little bit about the history of the game, who invented it etc.

Thanks, Ver

apparently, [2] "six-five". shesh would be from Hebrew, besh from Turkish itself. Don't know if that's true though.

Word to describe Chinese, English etc

What would be an appropriate name for the Countries section of the Dab's mainteneacne page? Listings include: Chinese, English, Finnish, French, German etc, so they are words that can describe a country/language/person from the country. --Commander Keane 10:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

"National adjectives"? Shimgray 10:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

"nationalities"?

"Nationality adjectives"? "Adjectives of nationality"? --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 11:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

There's a good word in French gentilé. My Robert & Collins says it can be translated as gentilic, which redirects to Demonym. Ethnonym strikes me as more modern term, but since demonym already has long article in Wikipedia, I'd run with that. --Diderot 11:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Irish Travellers

My father was brough up in rural Ireland in the 30s and the word he uses for Gypsies/Travellers is "diddycoy" - in trying to look this word up on Google I find numerous spellings such as "Didakai", "didicoi", "didicoi", but I only get a few hundred hits for these spellings. Id there a version of this that is in more common usage? Jooler 14:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[3] gives a dictionary entry (of sorts), [4] has a longer discussion on Usenet. Doesn't seem to be much live usage of it anymore. 17:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

The Chambers Dictionary has "diddicoy, didicoy, or didicoi /did'i-koi/, didikai or didakei /did'ə-kī/ n an itinerant tinker or scrap dealer, not a true gypsy. [Romany]" Gdr 18:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Are the Irish Travellers really Romany? User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

See, this is where it gets confusing. Here's how I understand it - there were gypsies, Romany travellers. Then there were also other travellers, not actually Romany, who basically filled the same economic niche, lived the same lifestyle, &c &c. These were the "didicoi", a Romany term. However, to the average man on the Dublin omnibus (to coin a phrase), the two groups were pretty much indistinguishable, so the term for one got used interchangeably for the other... Shimgray | talk | 21:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, according to Irish Traveller, the Travellers are "of Irish origin", which I intepret to mean ethnically nondistinct from the majority population of Ireland. The Roma, on the other hand, originated in India. The Travellers have their own language, Shelta, which is unrelated to Romany. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 21:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

that's how I understood the matter, and how I phrased it on didicoy for the moment :) dab 10:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

So how does this differ from Pikey? User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

About 'Linkers' in English Grammar.

(1) What are the linkers? (2) Why and how are they used?--220.224.3.170 02:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Can you give a context where you saw this term? --Dpr 04:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

You could try conjunctions. --Gareth Hughes 11:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Or possibly copula (a.k.a. "linking verb"). — Nowhither 17:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Chinese, Vietnamese, Homophones, and Writing Systems

I'm curious to hear people's perspectives on this. Vietnamese is written using the Roman alphabet, but is highly mono/disyllabic; this doesn't appear, however, to lead anyone to protest the Roman convention and suggest a return to Chinese characters.
If Chinese...taking, purely for this question's sake, Mandarin, as an example...were to be written primarily in Romanization, do most people familiar with the language think it would be more difficult to read than it currently is with characters? Are characters truly indispensable? Perhaps it would take slightly longer to read each word (zi or ci), but after a reader were accustomed, it would probably not be very noticeable or impairing, right? I suspect some studies must have been done on this subject... Thanks!! --Dpr 04:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

No, there is no linguistic reason why Chinese couldn't be written in the Roman alphabet or in some other alphabet. Chinese children learn to write Pinyin early on in school, and generally master it quickly if they come from a northern dialect area reasonably close to the standard pronunciation that Pinyin reflects. To the best of my knowledge, it does not take any longer to read Roman alphabet text than characters, and may take less time because of the way spaces in the text assist in reading.

There is a myth in public beliefs about literacy that experienced readers look at each character in a word, and that a Han character takes the same amount of time to process as a Roman letter. Neither is true. For emxalpe, a lot of plpoee konw taht you can rdisnoame the ltteers in a wrod, laneivg the fsrit and lsat lretets iantct, and siltl raed it. You can do this because you don't actually have to process all the letters in a word to figure out what it is. Reading characters, in contrast, requires looking carefully at each one. In the end, reading speed is comparable, perhaps slightly faster for westerners, among experienced readers. Of course, there are far more experienced readers in the west, because it's far easier to learn to read with an alphabet.

At present, Chinese written language represents something of a foreign language for 30% to 70% of the Chinese population, depending on how you count. Chinese characters do not reduce the load on students when learning the standard language - which is a myth many Chinese people believe. However, moving to a phonetic writing scheme would expose the awful truth about Chinese: China does not have any genuine linguistic unity, and half of the population finds the standard language incomprehensible, while half of those who do understand it have learned it as if it was a foreign language. If China doesn't have a single language, is it really a nation composed of a single people? China has often had to contend with centrifugal powers and local separatism. The myth of the great unifying Chinese language is what keeps characters from any serious reconsideration. --Diderot 06:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The only one I can't figure out is "rdisnoame". The context wants "rearrange", but that's not it. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

randomise --Diderot 08:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I don't think I would have recognized it even as "rdiznoame", though. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 08:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. Reading Chinese characters does not "require looking carefully at each one". You don't have to process all the strokes in a character to figure out what it is, you can skim it very quickly when it's presented in context in a sentence where only one particular character would make sense. This is more or less the same as in English, or in most other writing systems: context and mother-tongue knowledge of vocabulary and extensive prior reading experience effectively create an enormous amount of redundancy, as your scrambled English sentence shows. I don't know why you imagine this is unique to English. Chinese has the additional advantage that it's visually more compact, so that when movies and TV shows have subtitle captions, every single word of dialog can be reproduced exactly and in full, in a single line, as opposed to English close-captions, which take up a much larger chunk of screen space (multiple lines) and yet often present only an abridged version of the actual dialog spoken by the actors. -- Curps 07:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say you have to process all of the strokes, but for the more complex characters you have to pay a good deal of attention to them. Nor did I say that you can't use abbreviated reading strategies in other languages Yes, context and gestalt form will tell you some things, in some cases enough to read, but not nearly as often as English. My point is that this sort of strategy is less effective in Chinese. After one year of Russian, I was far better able to distinguish the words I knew in print that I was after four years of Chinese. And, I question whether Chinese subtitles are genuinely readable at the same font size on screen that Roman alphabet ones are. It's true that many Roman alphabet schemes are not optimally visually compact - Dutch is the paramount example - but this is a trade-off against vastly shorter learning times to attain literacy. --Diderot 08:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The Chinese subtitles are actually at a considerably smaller font size than English subtitles typically are. That's how they fit on a single line onscreen. Go to your local Chinatown and rent something from Taiwan, I believe they automatically subtitle everything, and see for yourself. As for the rest, well, you can never hope to read as quickly or as well in something that isn't your mother tongue. -- Curps 08:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Curps, the problem is that I can read fluently and easily in several languages that are not my mother tongue, and I know Chinese people - from Taiwan and children of the uppermost classes of PRC society - who have a hard time reading Chinese. The biggest reasons are that 1 - written Chinese is quite different from their native languages and 2 - the mastery of a repository of some 4000 chracters is difficult to acquire and maintain. As for the subtitles, I'll have to see the next time I rent a Chinese film - it has been a few years since I've lived near an Asian video rental - but I don't remember the characters being written as small as you think.

Thanks for all the interesting feedback. Sorry, however, that I wasn't so clear initially, but the main thing I was getting at (hence the comparison with Vietnamese), is, does the fact that Chinese is so mono/disyllabic mean that its number of homophones mean that it would be more difficult to understand in Romanization than other languages written with an alphabet--in other words: is there truly a high cost to using anything other than hanzi/Chinese characters? (I suppose the answer would be vastly different for modern Chinese vs. Classical). --Dpr 09:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

First, I think you overestimate homophony in Chinese. Many Chinese characters are homophones in modern standard Mandarin. Few Chinese words are.

Second, take a look at Dungan language. It is a dialect of Mandarin that has been written for some time exclusively with the Cyrillic alphabet, and not only does it use a more or less phonological alphabet, it is a three tone dialect that does not mark its tones in writing. Despite this, literacy and reading abilities seem to be pretty good. So, no, homophony is not an adequate reason to use Chinese characters. --Diderot 10:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Denis, I think you're right about the first issue--that seems to be the missing realization I was needing. As to the second, I think you've essentially concluded the matter. Thank you for the that. ::But I must say that this is an amazing coincidence. I was literally about to insert some material for discussion when I noticed your comments; what I was about to insert related precisely to nothing other than the case of Dungan! (Just for FYI sake, Dungan has also been formerly written, very successfully one assumes, in the Arabic and Roman systems!). From noted Sinologist Victor H. Mair:

The cardinal rule Chinese script reformers must always keep in mind is this: do not panic! If something of substance can be said without ambiguity in the spoken language, then it most assuredly can be written with suitable phonetic symbols. Unless we assume that the content of spoken Han languages is decidedly less colorful and interesting than that of written Chinese, then, as the Dungans have shown us, we need not fear that a written language based on phonetically transcribed speech will be necessarily inferior to tetragraphic writing and may even be superior in some aspects. Unless we assume that the lectures of Chinese professors are babyish and the tales of Chinese storytellers are bland, then there is nothing to prevent the emulation of SD by MSM. Just as Cyrillic SD is already a reality, so can MSM gain an auxiliary Roman expression by following its path.[5] (SD=Soviet Dungan; MSM=Modern Standard Mandarin).

I think these words from a master, which accord with yours, settle the matter nicely. Thanks again! --Dpr 11:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

No problem. You should hear my spiel on how I think Chinese written language ought to be reformed. Basically, it is more or less the sole and unique thing where I find myself in complete agreement with Mao Zedong and Stalin, and disagree with Mair. I think Chinese should have a writing system unique to Chinese, and that like Korean and Japanese, it should have a home-grown writing system. I think the best approach would be to standardise fanqie writing rather than an alphabetic scheme, and I think it could be done cross-dialectically enough that Cantonese speakers could use the same kinds of techniques to read standard Mandarin that enable French speakers to read a little bit of Italian or Spanish.

I started out as a student of language policy, so this is sort of my bag professionally, although I've moved a bit afield since then. --Diderot 11:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Speculate all you like about reforming Chinese writing — it may be a fun intellectual exercise — but realize that it will never happen. Sure you can cite eminent Western professors who support the idea (you could also mention John DeFrancis for instance), but then again I could cite George Bernard Shaw as an eminent authority who fervently believed English spelling should be drastically reformed (see Shavian alphabet). Realistically I think you realize there is zero chance of a fundamental reform of English spelling to a phonetic system (just try getting the United States to go metric first), so why do you imagine this could be accomplished for Chinese?

Even minor reforms like the recent German and French spelling reforms (which leave the vast majority of words unchanged) provoked ferocious opposition which hasn't died down a decade or so after they were first proposed. A reform which changed almost every single word (which would be required for phonetic writing of English or Chinese) would be far worse, because reasons for opposing it would not be mere traditionalism or resistance to change (as in the French and German cases), but enormous economic costs.

U kood riid ðis sentns wiþ a bit ov efert, but imajin riidiŋ ðis speliŋ ol dei, uud go kreizi, and more importantly your reading speed would take a huge hit. Imagine working on Wikipedia if your reading speed was cut in half: your productivity would go way down. Now imagine you were working in an office actually getting paid to read and write reports, and imagine hundreds of millions of others like you, and try to calculate the global economic impact of this lost productivity.

A fundamental top-to-bottom spelling reform (one that changes the way almost every single word is written) might be a boon to future generations of schoolchildren, but it imposes an enormous handicap on those who are already highly literate in the existing writing system, who are among the most economically productive members of modern societies. It's too much of an upfront cost. -- Curps 15:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Chinese was very nearly reformed on such radical terms only a few decades ago when Mao was in charge. The shift from wenyan to to baihua was every bit as radical as writing reform, and that was less than a century ago. Russian underwent an enormous reform after the revolution. Dutch had a big reform in 1954. Japanese after WWII. Korean not too long ago. The Scandinavian languages have been regularly modified by standards bodies. Heck, half of the languages in Europe are less than 200 years old in their literary forms, and Norwegian was practically invented whole cloth in the 20th century. The truth is that most languages have a history of fairly regular reform that usually doesn't cause serious fuss.

Revolution is a regular part of Chinese history (as is language reform), so I would be careful with the word never. Indeed, I suspect it's inevitable, since the spoken language and the written - in Chinese as in English - will just keep moving apart until the written language poses too large a burden to ignore. But China needs the reform, badly and now. --Diderot 17:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, the "enormous" Russian reform consisted basically of dropping most ъ and changing all ѣ to e (the rest was just detail), which altered the appearance of a lot of words but in principle was a straightforward change. But in any case, spelling reform was a much easier proposition when only a small fraction of the population was literate, or when the economy was mostly early industrial and not a modern "knowledge" economy.

If you look at the great difficulties implementing the French and German reforms (which leave the vast majority of words unchanged, and might yet be overturned or remain ignored in practice), the window of opportunity for even "tinkering" spelling reforms may be closing, and a drastic top-to-bottom change of writing system affecting every single word is simply unrealizable (absent extraordinary consensus and political and social will, as in the former Soviet republics switching back to a Latin alphabet after Cyrillic was imposed on them during the Soviet period). Even the Cultural Revolution, when anything related to past traditions and practices was targeted for destruction, didn't create any kind of lasting writing reform.

From outward appearances, China sure doesn't seem to "need" writing reform... if their current writing system is hurting their economy, they're doing a good job of hiding it. Would you argue that the Anglosphere "needs" the Shavian alphabet "badly, and now"? If so, are you crusading in favor of its implementation? If not, why do you claim that China "badly, and now" needs a phonetic writing system but the Anglosphere can nicely do without one? -- Curps 18:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't assume conditions have changed so much recently. France and Germany both have unloved governments that can do nothing right in the eyes of the public. This has a significant bearing on things. The 1995 Dutch spelling reform wasn't any smaller and went without trouble. As for China's need for language reform, it doesn't need it, so long as no one expects much literacy out of Chinese people. Yes, economies can grow without literacy. The industrial revolution was accompanied by a great deal of economic growth without widespread literacy. Of course, the industrial revolution was not accompanied by a rise in standards of living for large segments of the population. Unsurprisingly, recent growth in China is also not having much of an effect in improving the lives of a large part of the population. A nation can grow richer without literacy, but it isn't likely to distribute that wealth any better than Victorian Britain did. --Diderot 19:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The French reform was originally proposed back in 1989, the German reform was signed in 1996 but discussed for years earlier, so it's been a very long process with many changes of government in the meantime, and even after all this time, you'll find the new spellings mostly in textbooks and dictionaries for schoolchildren, not in daily newspapers or elsewhere. So the resistance can't be blamed on any one particular government or party in power, although it probably can be attributed to an increasingly pervasive mistrust of all authority figures and institutions, which only supports the argument that spelling reforms are increasingly impossible to implement in modern times.

Illiteracy is only a serious problem in areas where children don't get adequate schooling because of poverty. Among China's emerging middle class, who number perhaps 100 million, you would be hard-pressed to find statistics to indicate that literacy rates are any less than for Western countries. The growth of Chinese usage of the Internet (including serious predictions that use of Chinese on the Internet will surpass use of English in numerical terms in the next decade or so) certainly belies your presumption that the writing system precludes literacy. Meanwhile, you still haven't addressed the issue of why the US and UK can do without phonetic spelling reform of the kind you advocate for China. Surely the same arguments apply... however, you probably intuitively grasp how utterly impractical and infeasible it would be to achieve spelling reform for English. However desirable it might appear on purely blue-sky theoretical grounds, it isn't going to happen, and you realize that. The same applies to Chinese. -- Curps 21:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The reforms in Germany were implemented under the Schröder government, and the French reforms were also linked to a lot of political issues, and it had been quite a while - since the Revolution - since France had attempted meaningful language reform, while it's been barely a century since the last time it happened in Germany. But geez, Curps, are you old enough to vote? Never is a very long time, and its exactly the same amount of time as when people expected another Republican president after Watergate. Times change. You think people were less suspicious of authority in the past? Read some French history. The ability of government to mobilise in favour of meaningful social reforms comes and goes. I remind you of how the same arguments were mobilised against the metric system, and still are in the US. If it's not very fashionable right now to consider using government to do anything useful in the west, it isn't necessarily so elsewhere, nor will it be so here forever. Have a sense of time! I pointed out that quite real language reforms have happened recently - which suggests that the well-publicised French and German examples are not really very informative. What seems so impossible to an anglophone who doesn't even think spelling reform is possible, much less as commonplace as it is, isn't necessarily so impossible.

As for English, it is far less in need of such reform that Chinese because mastering English literacy is easier. I should think that to be a no-duh! English does need spelling reform, more so than German, and I think more than French although opinions differ. And there are somewhat less drastic alternatives to Shavian writing, for example reforms that try to take dialect diversity and etymology into account. But there is a much better reason why it won't happen anytime soon in English. Dutch has the Taal Unie as its formal oversight body. French has the Acadeémie Française. And English has... Microsoft Word?

As for claims of Chinese literacy, the US reports 99% literacy, but more than 1% of the US population is physically incapable of reading. Stay away from official statistics of the kind used in WIkipedia. If the level of Chinese necessary to read a newspaper in standard Mandarin is has been mastered by more than 20% of the Chinese population or over 50% of its urban middle class, I'd be truly shocked. Half the Chinese population can't speak Mandarin, and half of those don't use it regularly. That people who don't even use Mandarin regularly could read and write it with the same ease that even the poorest sectors of French or British society can use their national languages is a claim that I find impossible to believe. Literacy is only a realistic option for a quarter of China's population as things stand, and what portion of that population actually is literate and comfortable writing on the Internet is, I'm certain, a great deal smaller. Compounded with the complexity of computer data entry schemes for Chinese, I wouldn't invest in a big Chinese Internet boom just yet. --Diderot 22:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I notice that the Min Nan Wikipedia is written in Pe̍h-oē-jī (a Latin-style alphabet), not in Chinese characters. To what extent is this standard for Min Nan? Are there newspapers and books written in Pe̍h-oē-jī in Min Nan? At any rate, it seems to be another case of a Chinese language successfully being written in an alphabet. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 11:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's another example. At present, I'm not sure how much it's used in regular publications. zh-min-nan: is something of an experimental platform for Taiwanese localisation activists. But, it was once a widespread writing scheme, particularly in Protestant communities in Taiwan and pre-1949 on the mainland. The major reason why it has been fully rejected in the PRC as the basis of an approach to romanisation is that it is closely associated with Christian missionary activity. Wi-vun "Taiffalo" Chiung talks a good line on Pe̍h-oē-jī, I'm sure one could google for his website.

There is a piece in the archives that ought to be here. It was posted to the beginning of the page on the 23rd by someone who hadn't read the instructions that covers some of the political logic behind rejecting romanisation. It's here in the archives. Phonological writing leads to questions of which dialect should be its basis, and this breaks the myth of Chinese linguistic unity as well as challenging the material basis of Chinese class structure. --Diderot 12:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

here's a follow-up question to that -- say I'm a Chinese Aristophanes, and I want to write a comedy about a funny Southerner stranded in Beijing or something. How would I represent his out-of-place dialect, seeing that everybody is speaking in Kanji anyway (in the written script)? 14:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, at present written Chinese reflects the way novelists used to use Chinese characters to transcribe the speech of Beijing. If you're willing to use characters for their phonetic value to write words without clear etymological roots in Middle Chinese, you can transcribe pretty much any variant of Chinese in Hanzi, but your audience will only understand it if they have some familiarity with southern speech. Alternately, you can use characters for their phonetic value and use them to transcribe the accent of southerners trying to speak northern dialects. But I can't think of having encountered such a case. On the other hand, I should make plain, my Chinese stinks. I haven't spoken it in over a year, and the four years I've spent studying it are nowhere near enough to be able to really read it withtout a dictionary. So I haven't read enough Chinese to express a truly expert opinion. --Diderot 17:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Koom bye ya

Could you please explain the meaning of the words 'Koom bye ya' as in the song

According to the article Kumbaya, it's Gullah (an English Creole spoken on the Sea Islands of South Carolina and Georgia) for "come by here". --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

LETTER

I WANT A LETTER FOR GRAND PARENTS ON GRAND PARENT`S DAY IN HINDI

and a pony!

Are you saying you want someone to write a letter for you? If so, you probably won't find many people willing to help. You can your own letters. On the other hand, if you want your grandparents to write to you in Hindi, then I guess you will have to ask them directly. — Nowhither 17:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Difference between "uh" and "eh" for the article "a"

Here's another one from my students… Most commonly, when I use the "a" article, I say "uh" as in "duck." However, I sometimes switch to a long A sound, like "eh" as in "bay." They asked what the difference was. I tried to explain that I would use "eh" for emphasis, but even as I was trying to explain it, I found myself unconsciously breaking that rule and switching between "uh" and "eh" seemingly randomly. I'm convinced that I'm not actually doing it randomly, and that there is some pattern to it; at the same time, I can't come up with a way on elaborating on just what that pattern is. Perhaps you can…?

On the same token, are there any other words in the English language in which the letter A makes an "uh" sound? I just noticed that that seems to be unique… Garrett Albright 17:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

you can certainly optionally say "ey" for emphasis. But there may be other contexts, maybe irony or mock decorum. Or similar. You should give a couple of examples of your "random" use. It will be rather difficult to study this, since you need a corpus of spoken English to work on, in a transcription that notes this difference. 17:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The linguistics blog "Language Log" has actually done a lot of research on this topic, which they call "emphatic unreduction". Here's a recent article about it. Searching their site for the word "unreduced" will turn up earlier ones.

The letter A often makes an "uh" sound; in fact, in English, most vowels that are not accented make that sound, which is called a schwa. For examples, think of the A's in "about", "media", or "Wikipedia", or both A's in "America".

RSpeer 17:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

ok, so the short answer is that the "unreduced" form occurs,

• for emphasis
• when hesitating (sometimes without an actual pause, because the unreducing buys you enough time to continue fluently already)

I think the unreduced forms are also very frequent before "filling noises" like "um", "ah", "like" etc.(in support of the 'buying time' hypothesis) :) 18:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you all for your posts. I still think the distinction might be hard to explain, but I guess I can give it a try… I managed to successfully explain the difference between "I want to ___" and "I would like to ___" today. Garrett Albright 12:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

How do you call the people from Munich?

Hello!

I'm someone from Munich, Germany! And that's my problem! People from London are Londoners, the happy ones from Paris are Parisians, Madrid's inhabitants call themselves proudly Madrileños and in English you call them Madrilenians.

How do you call someone, who lives in Munich? In French it's "Munichois", and in English? Perhaps Munichoites like the Tokyoites, or perhaps "Munichians" (sounds like an extraterrestrial species)?! If it helps you, the nameless people from Munich say "Münchner"... ;)

Thanks a lot!

Actually, not all places even in England take an English single word name in this way. I don't think Worcester does, for example. Or the county of Leicestershire. Yorkshire seems to lead to Yorkshireman. Not an answer, just more complication. Notinasnaid 20:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I've seen (albeit quite rarely) people from Worcester, Massachusetts refer to themselves as "Worcesterians", but I've never heard that used about people from the English city (and I live in Worcestershire). As for someone from Yorkshire, a rather colloquial but very widespread word is Tyke. Loganberry (Talk) 15:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there is a word. I suppose one could build on the Latin name for Munich Monacum and call people from Munich "Monacans" (as opposed to the people from Monaco, who are the Monégasque). But probably the best solution is for you to move to Berlin so you can call yourself a Berliner! --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 20:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

unfortunately for your suggestion, there is already the Monacan tribe of Virginia  :) -- "Munichian" is not exactly high brow, but it appears to have been coined (65 google hits)

The German name would be appropriate in English. We don't really have a consistent system for these kinds of names, but go with the one that sounds best (i.e. Dallasite versus New Yorker versus Los Angelene) and Münchener beats most of the alternatives. — Laura Scudder | Talk 20:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The trouble with that is, Münchner has two sounds that don't exist in English (/ʏ/ and /ç/), making pronunciation difficult. I don't see that there's a problem with there being Monacans in Virginia. After all, there are Georgians in the southern United States and Georgians in the Caucasus, and that doesn't seem to cause too much trouble. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 20:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

When I've heard it in English (which isn't all that often, and I've never been to Germany either), it's been Münchner. It's just pronounced like an American would pronounce Edvard Munch's name, with the u not "munch" like "lunch", but more like the oo in book. Elf | Talk 21:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Reminds me when I lived in Munich as a kid, AFN had a radio show entitled "Luncheon in Muenchen". And yes, it rhymed. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we could call them Munichs. Hmm, maybe not… Garrett Albright 03:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• How about Bavarians? Capitalistroadster 05:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

"I'm a Munichman" sounds great, what's wrong with that? In more snobbish contexts' I'd use Munichois after all. English took over all the spellings from French anyway (Munich, Cologne, Zurich etc.). Zurichois would fly too, I suppose. Not too sure about "Zurichman", though. Hm, and "Homme de Cologne"? 19:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• "Munichman"? I think not. But what's so wrong with Municher, Zuricher, and such? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Municher is neither English nor German. If I saw this word written down I would probably guess what it meant. If someone said it to me I would most likely be puzzled - You're a mew-knicker??.

As there is no uniform system in English for deriving names of inhabitants from cities (unlike in German where the suffix er can be almost univerally added), even for cities in Britain (compare Liverpudlian, Londoner, Mancunian, Brummie, Glaswegian), the best way to say you are from Munich is to say I come from Munich. Using any word that doesn't have widespread recognition, no matter how cleverly constructed - Monacan indeed! - risks baffling rather than enlightening the person you are speaking to. Valiantis 12:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I think I'd just use "Münchner" - but then, I have a general dislike for "translating" placenames and the like. I recently decided to refer to "Köln" (Cologne) as "Kolin", since the only rational reason for not using the German name is that it's "too foreign" - in which case, why use the French one instead? The other one that really annoys me is "Bayern Munich" - surely it's either "Bayern München" or "Bavaria Munich"?

But, to get back to the point, since we don't have a consistent way of deriving such terms, using the local name seems more consistent than anything else in this case (it's still closer to "Munich" than "Mancunian" is to "Manchester"); the only other contender, simply for comprehensibility, would be "Municher" (on the slightly erroneous pattern of "Berliner", "Berlin" happening to be a placename we don't feel the need to "translate"), but it does sound rather forced somehow. - IMSoP 00:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

You're a moon-shnur? My point still stands. Münchner may be tolerable in writing, but should be avoided in speech (unless you know your audience is cosmopolitan and multi-lingual).

I doubt there is a pattern in Berlin - Berliner; I very much suspect Berliner was borrowed directly from German (probably only becoming widespread since John F. Kennedy's famous Ich bin ein Berliner). Valiantis 13:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

No, it's perfectly alright to say that someone is a Berliner (although that's also a kind of cake, but only if you don't live in Berlin), and was so before JFK visit to Berlin. Lectonar 13:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Long before, in fact. The OED gives the first printed use of "Berliner" in English from 1859. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 15:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I didn't suggest Berliner was wrong in English, merely that one cannot deduce a pattern from Berlin - Berliner that can be applied to all other places in Germany when speaking in English. I also didn't suggest that Berliner only arrived in English in 1961 - merely that this famous usage increased the currency of the term in English.Valiantis 18:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The OED gives the words "Municheer" and "Munichite", but they mean a supporter of the Munich Agreement, not a resident of Munich. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 15:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Hamlet

Did you have a question? Otherwise, you can see Hamlet. Superm401 | Talk 00:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Roman to Vietnamese transliterator

Hi. Can someone point me to standard romanisation of Vietnamese alphabet? Also, I wish to know which script is widely used to write the Vietnamese language, online and offline. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 05:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

The Vietnamese alphabet as we know it today is already a romanization, that is, it uses letters from the Roman alphabet although with heavy use of diacritical marks. The script used to write it offline is the Vietnamese alphabet as shown in the article by that name. Online, the characters can be written in Unicode if that is available, but if not, the Vietnamese Quoted-Readable system can be used instead. --Metropolitan90 06:37, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, Metro. ViQR was definitely useful. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 07:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Distinction of the alveolar-flap, the alveolar-lateral-approximant, and the alveolar-approximant.

Are there any languages that distinguish between the alveolar-flap (I believe Japanese has this sound) and the alveolar-lateral-approximant (English L) but not the alveolar-approximant (English R)? And, if the answer is yes, how common is this?

Thank you, --anon.

To the best of my knowledge, what Japanese has is the alveolar lateral flap /ɺ/, which doesn't contrast with any other liquid in that language. I don't know what /ɺ/ might contrast with in other languages, though. As for languages that contrast the (central) alveolar flap /ɾ/ from the alveolar lateral approximant /l/ without having the alveolar approximant /ɹ/, I imagine there are quite a lot, since /ɾ/ is one of the most common rhotic consonants in the world, the English /ɹ/ sound being cross-linguistically quite rare. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 19:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Language puzzles

I have a question about an english construction that I have always found strange. I am not a native speaker, I learned most of what I know by endless hours of american sitcoms and Batman. It's quite common for english speakers to say something like "I'm making things worse, arn't I?". It is the ", arn't I?" that I am curious about. If you expand it, you find that what you really are saying is ", are not I". This seems very wrong, not only is the verb in the wrong form but order seems out of whack. Again, I'm not a native speaker but the way that sounds right to me should be ", am I not?" This can obviously also be used in the beggining of sentances like "Arn't I the most pretty thing you ever saw". I guess my question is this: Is this grammatically correct use of the english language? Is there some obscure bylaw in the Axioms Of English that says that this kind of construction is ok? I realise that it is mainly used in speech to speed things up by removing a syllable, but is it ok to do this in written language as well? gkhan 20:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes this is correct use of English. Or rather Aren't I? is correct English while *Are not I? (* is the symbol linguists use for an intentionally false example) is not. Are Am I not? is correct if somewhat stilted English. There is no obscure bylaw in the "Axioms of English" to account for all this, or rather if there is it is of no significance. English, like all languages, is simply not a creature of axioms. --Diderot 20:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I would say that it is more common to expand Aren't I? as Am I not, although Diderot is right that Are I not also technically works. This is a quirk of English that I hadn't ever thought about before. — Laura Scudder | Talk 20:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think *Are I not? is correct at all; for me it's completely ungrammatical. It's most useful to say that aren't can be a contraction of am not as well as of are not, but as a contraction of am not it can stand only before its subject pronoun. (Because *I aren't interested is ungrammatical while They aren't interested is fine.) It's interesting to note that Hiberno-English has the contraction amn't used exactly the same way: I'm making things worse, amn't I? and Amn't I the prettiest thing you ever saw? but not *I amn't interested. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 20:37, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that was a typo - it should have read Am I not. --Diderot 21:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

It is interesting to note that "you are not" can be contracted in two ways, depending on emphasis, viz. you aren't and you're not. Neither aren't you nor aren't I are strictly speaking contractions of anything, since "are not you" is just as wrong as "are not I". aren't just crept into the inverted question by analogy and cannot be analyzed as a contraction anymore (in spite of orthography!). The explanation is that you aren't was reverted back to aren't you instead of the correct and original are you not. I wonder when this happened, but I think it must have been after Shakespeare. this definitely happened post-16th-century, I cannot find a single instance in either Shakespeare or Milton (and Shakespeare portrays rural clowns, mind you). Maybe a 19th century innovation? 18th century? In any case really pedantical English will not use aren't you at all, but rather are you not. User:Dbachmann 21:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

the transition may be in Shakespeare's time after all. I count 5 strings "are you not", besides 5 strings "are not you". After this inversion, the contraction is straightforward, of course

Love's_Labour's_Lost.txt:    But are you not ashamed? Nay, are you not,
Love's_Labour's_Lost.txt:  ARMADO. [To HOLOFERNES] Monsieur, are you not lett'red?
Measure_for_Measure.txt:you colour it in being a Tapster, are you not? come,
Merry_Wives_of_Windsor,_The.txt:the bear loose, are you not?
Merry_Wives_of_Windsor,_The.txt:     Fie, fie, Master Ford! are you not ashamed? What

A_Midsummer-Night's_Dream.txt:Call'd Robin Goodfellow: are not you he
A_Midsummer-Night's_Dream.txt:Am not I Hermia? are not you Lysander?
As_You_Like_It.txt:And browner then her brother: are not you
Comedy_Of_Errors,_The.txt:   Adr. And are not you my husband?
Tempest,_The.txt:     Sir, are not you my father?

User:Dbachmann

Actually, aren't I is hypercorrection. Originally, the contraction of am not was ain't, so am I not was ain't I (the repositioning of not is seen with other pronouns too). However, in the casual speech of Early Modern English, this contraction began to be used with other pronouns: ain't you. Because of this, the use of ain't was severely punished in schools throughout the English speaking world, even to the extent of banning it in its original use. Without an appropriate contraction to hand, we began to use the plural aren't. Nowadays, most English speakers consider this to be the correct contraction for am I not. --Gareth Hughes 21:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

lol! that's a fantastic explanation, and I am sure I will bother many people who don't really care with this in the future. Do you have some reference for that? Would that have happened in 19th century grammar schools? Of course ain't I is recharacterized already, expanding to am I not I. The correct contraction would just be a'in't, as in "I'm great, a'in't?" :) 21:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

It's not so much a reference, but there is a nice article on this at alphaDictionary.com. --Gareth Hughes 00:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

When you say "is hypercorrection", I think you intend to say "has its origins in hypercorrection". Gdr 20:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

That last comment, then, definitely was hypercorrection. --Gareth Hughes 23:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, thank you guys, you rule. Very interesting discussion (I mean, what more can you ask for than Shakespeare). gkhan 23:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Collocation

I'm in urgent need of opinions on our Collocation article. What is the delineation between collocatin and idiom? Is

collocation is defined as a pair of words (the 'node' and the 'collocate') which co-occur more often than would be expected by chance.

an acceptable definition (whose terms are 'node' and collocate'?); are Non-compositionality, non-substitutability and non-modifiability just properties 'sometimes' observed in collocations, or are they by definition required? I'm plodding through [6] at the moment which seems to give some decent background, but I'd really appreciate more opinions (I'm working under a deadline here...). btw, re semantic prosody, do you agree that "set in" has negative connotations? Does that explain the funniness of Monty's "breakfasts that 'set in'" in Withnail and I? cheers, dab 20:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I would offer the following almost certainly contested definition: A collocation is a purely statistical property of the words that appear in a representative corpus. Two words that appear together regularly - whether they are indicative of a linguistic function of some kind like an airplane, or if they form a single lexical item like New York, or they have particular relative distributional properties due to a semantically motivated selectional restriction, like heavy rain - all are collocations. Lexical function refers only to semantically motivated selectional restrictions. Idiom would strike me as a purely semantic test: does a structure have a meaning not intrinsically discernible from its parts? I suspect few linguists would agree with it, but it strikes me as the most theoretically motivated distinction. --Diderot 21:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

so would you use collocation as a synonym of cooccurrence? (I know they're really all just synonyms anyway, syntaxis, conlocatio and compositio really all mean the same thing)

Yes. --Diderot 05:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

R.L. Trask's A Student's Dictionary of Language and Linguistics (ISBN 0340652675) supports Diderot's intuitions. He defines collocation as "the tendency of certain words to occur toegher, such as grill (or broil) with meat and toast with bread" whereas idiom is "an expression whose meaning cannot be straightforwardly guessed from the meanings of the words in it, such as let the cat out of the bag, not get to first base, a pig in a poke or turn the other cheek." A cooccurrence is rather vaguely defined as "the relation between two linguistic objects which are bothpresent in the same syllable, morpheme, word, phrase or sentence." --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 23:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I see, so collocation is a tendency of cooccurrence. Noncompositionality doesn't seem to enter the definition, it's just a frequent property. The boudary to "idiom" is fuzzy, I suppose: surely you wouldn't call "strong tea" an idiom, although the preference of "strong" over "powerful" is really just governed by convention/collocation.

No, I would call strong tea a lexical function. The choice of the noun tea places restrictions on the adjectives that can be used to describe it. --Diderot 05:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

yes, seen from the point of the view of the lexicon, it simlply means that 'strong' among other things covers a property of tea as part of its semantic field, while 'powerful' does not. People have made quite a fuss over this very example being noncompositional though. I have similar thoughts on 'semantic prosody': So 'commit' is used mostly with negative connotation? Big deal, this is inherited from Latin, it's the word's meaning, not some obscure 'aura'. My point is that these notions of semantic prosody and noncompositionality blur the domain of the lexicon; much of it could just rightfully be stuffed into the lexicon and left there. Does Trask endorse the "note" and "collocate" terminology, btw? 213.3.66.218 05:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

On this issue, I'd recommend a glance at the work of Igor Mel'cuk who has made a lot of headway with lexical functions. (Full disclosure: I used to be one of his students.) Unless I'm misunderstanding noncompositional he would argue that strong tea is compositional enough. As for stuffing things into the lexicon, I'm from that branch of linguistics that tends to see practically everything as being in the lexicon, so it doesn't do much for me to think of lexicon as where you put thorny problems so that you can ignore them. I've always identified that position with the worst excesses of Chomskyism. --Diderot 05:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

not at all (brushing problems under the carpet, viz. into the lexicon and out of sight) -- [full disclosure, I am of the firm opinion that Chomsky has bombed American linguistics back into the stone age, at the very least costing the field three fruitless decades. I have yet to see a statement by Chomsky that isn't (1) so obvious that Panini could have told you in 500 BC or (2) patently false :] I was just questioning whether "semantic prosody" is well defined. I do think it is relevant to check whether usage in collocation 'bleeds into' the lexical meaning; but there seems to be a risk of confusing (a) the inherited meaning of a word that is visible in collocations, and (b) a secondary meaning that is acquired through certain collocations. if "to cause" is used mostly negatively, that's probably (b). In the case of "to commit", more likely (a). 'semantic prosody' shouldn't just lump a and b together is all :) 07:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

is there an online paper dealing with Mel'cuk's notion of lexical function in particular somewhere? I'll do an Igor Mel'čuk article later if you tell me :o) 07:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Depends... In French, yes, I can point you to a few. I would recommend this one (in PDF). Or, for a brief but relatively complete discussion, Mel'cuk's introduction in the Dictionnaire explicatif et combinatoire du français contemporain is the most current summary of the theory. Introduction à la lexicologie explicative et combinatoire (ISBN 2-8011-1106-6) is the one I have in the house. Alain Polguère's paper here (also PDF) justifies the approach from a computer engineering/artificial intelligence standpoint.

In English... Mel'cuk's book Dependency Syntax (ISBN 0887064507) is comprehensive, but not available online. This paper is new - I haven't read it - and it's over 100 pages long. Polguère discussing the computational linguistics issues behind lexical functions here (in PDF) is in English.

That's all I can find online at this moment. There is also an extensive bibliography in Russian, but I doubt any of it is online. A biography article ought to discuss how and why he left the Soviet Union in the 70s, but I don't think that story is in print on the web, just in old linguistics journals. I haven't written an article about him or Meaning<-Text Theory because I'm pretty POV, but you're welcome to. It's the same reason I haven't worked on the Chomsky/Transformational Grammar/G&B/Minimalism articles - my opinion of his linguistics is roughly the same as yours. --Diderot 22:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

that's great. My interest is from a computational linguistics angle. Unfortunately, precisely the SNLP2000.pdf file appears to be broken, but I'll have a look at the others. I think I found the intact file here. 13:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

re Chomsky, gnihihih-muarhar (evil chuckle) -- let us conspire, then, into the Collocationalist Cabal and pov-push/group-revert Chomskyan/Generativist pov off the face of Wikipedia (Panini may continue hanging out with us though) >:-)

Alas, if I didn't have to get a presentation together (on collocations, as it turns out) for December, I'd love to join in a lexicalist-cognitivist jihad. Hein, you might be able to talk me into it anyway.  :^) --Diderot 19:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Words ending in -tate

I am looking for words ending in "-tate" for a talk about different kinds of people. We are having baked potatoes for dinner and I would like to compare people to taters like an "aggitater" or a "dictater". Please let me know what you come up with! -Kim

• Hesitate, amputate, decapitate, devastate, to start with, which can become people who do them. Elf | Talk 22:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • "Anno-tater, commen-tater, facili-tater, imi-tater, prestidigi-tater, resusci-tater, spec-tater" should get you started. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 23:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
    • ummm -- Tate? :p
      • adju-tater, agis-tater, agi-tater, ampu-tater, anno-tater, antis-tater, archagi-tater, argumen-tater, assen-tater, attes-tater, auscul-tater, can-tater, capaci-tater, ci-tater, coadju-tater, coagi-tater, coattes-tater, cogi-tater, commen-tater, commu-tater, compo-tater, confu-tater, cunc-tater, decapi-tater, depu-tater, devas-tater, dic-tater, dila-tater, discep-tater, dispu-tater, disser-tater, dis-tater, downs-tater, exci-tater, excogi-tater, exhor-tater, experimen-tater, facili-tater, felici-tater, gravi-tater, habili-tater, habi-tater, hemis-tater, hesi-tater, hesi-tater, hor-tater, hospi-tater, imi-tater, incan-tater, incapaci-tater, incrus-tater, irri-tater, levi-tater, medi-tater, miss-tater, mu-tater, na-tater, no-tater, orien-tater, out-of-s-tater, outs-tater, permu-tater, perscru-tater, photos-tater, plan-tater, por-tater, po-tater, precipi-tater, pregus-tater, premedi-tater, prestidigi-tater, protes-tater, protono-tater, punc-tater, rehabili-tater, reins-tater, resusci-tater, ro-tater, sal-tater, scru-tater, sec-tater, spec-tater, sternu-tater, supercommen-tater, susten-tater, tes-tater, trac-tater, Up-s-tater, ups-tater, vice-dic-tater, visi-tater? — File:Ontario trillium sig.pngmendel ☎ 14:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

A flock of satellites?

If a large flock of satellites ganged up and all snapped a photo at the same time, they could pool their data and give an image fairly quickly, but that would be extremely, extremely expensive.--Joel 23:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

That came from Joels detailed answer to a question regarding satellite resolution on the Science Reference Desk. I'm now curious as to what a large group of satellites should be called - is it really a flock of satellites? Or is the whole flock/school/gaggle thing limited to describing animals?--inks 23:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

The term is a collective noun, and I'm not aware of one being in any sort of regular use for satellites; I think they're pretty rare for anything but animals. --fvw* 23:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I was wrong, it's a constellation of satellites. See List of collective nouns for objects and concepts. Bloody hell, wikipedia really does have everything. --fvw* 23:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd have thought that you can only use a collective noun for things that are close together? If so, the noun might be collision. Notinasnaid 09:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, the most correct term for a group of satellites would be a "fleet" since they are spacecraft. -Drdisque 20:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

spelling

Is there more than one correct spelling of ole as in Ole Miss or Grand Ole Opray? If so, please provide other spellings. Thanks, Tom

• Old is sometimes shortened in speech to Ol' (leaving off the d perhaps because it's easier to say the following word without the intervening d sound). Ole is the way that Ol' is pronounced, and hence it's come to be written that way. In Grand Ole Opry, that's part of the proper name, so there's no other way to spell it. But I'd imagine that "Ol' Miss" would be an alternative there. Elf | Talk 00:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I think "Ole Miss" as a nickname for the University of Mississippi is also in effect a proper name with a fixed spelling. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Latin meaning

The latin phrase "Dom Spiro Spero" or "Dom Spero Spiro" means what? It is the motto of St. Andrews Golf Course. Thanks

it's dum spiro spero, and it means "as long as I breathe, I [have] hope".

As opposed to "dumb spiro agnew". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Who said " Oh That we all could be kings"?

I've had no luck tracking this down last night; it's not familiar to me and I didn't find anything like it online or in my various hardcover quotation books. Robert Louis Stevenson wrote:

The world is so full of a number of things,

I’m sure we should all be as happy as kings

but on the face of it, it doesn't seem to mean at all the same thing as what you're looking for. Elf | Talk 21:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC) ...I'm wondering whether you know that that's an exact quote, or whether it could be something that means the same but uses entirely different words (e.g., "If only we could all have our own kingdoms...") Elf | Talk 23:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I haven't any exact matches either, but wikiquote:Humility gives "If every fool wore a crown, we should all be kings" as a Welsh proverb.
There's also a somewhat similar biblical quote: "Indeed, I wish that you had become kings, so that we also might become kings with you." from 1 Corinthians 4:8. Of course the exact wording various with the translation. --David Edgar 15:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

GERMAN TRANSLATION

Hi I was wondering what the Translation for the phrase" NEVER SURRENDER" is in German. i know in modern german it is"ÜBERGEBEN Sie NIE"

but I am interested in High german, or any other German translations! feel free to email me at jenkayklein@gmail.com!

Übergeben Sie nie or much rather Übergib nie (I find it highly unusual to give the polite form as the translation...) is only correct if you wanted the translation of "never surrender" in the transitive context of "never surrender something". If you want a translation of "never surrender" in its intransitive context, that would be ergib dich nie, gib niemals auf or kapituliere nie. File:Austria flag large.png ナイトスタリオン ✉ 08:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

...and I guess most Germans would rather use the form "Nie aufgeben!" (at least, that's what I would say :P ) - Ferkelparade π 09:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh. For some reason, I was under the impression that he wanted the imperative. ::scratches head:: Well. Anyway. Aye, I concur. (Even though I'm not German, but you might've guessed that. ;)) File:Austria flag large.png ナイトスタリオン ✉ 09:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Yep, I guessed that...I don't know, something about your signature was a giveaway ;) I also think he wanted the imperative, but in this special case, the imperative form is almost never used in German (dunno, something about "Gib niemals auf" sounds totally strange, although it is of course grammatically correct). So as a translation of the phrase "never surrender", the more common form that is actually used by native speakers makes more sense than the literal translation :P -- Ferkelparade π 10:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I, on the other hand, would most certainly never say nie aufgeben! — I'd rather say gib nicht auf!. Something about the vowel clash between nie aufgeben just doesn't suit my linguistical feeling for what's "right". File:Austria flag large.png ナイトスタリオン ✉ 10:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

How do you feel about niemals aufgeben! then? --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 11:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Mh... better, yeah. File:Austria flag large.png ナイトスタリオン ✉ 12:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

ÜBERGEBEN Sie NIE is a perfectly fine translation of NEVER SURRENDER. Assuming that the object not to be surrendered is the content of you stomach :p

No, that is the literal translation; I would translate it with Gib niemals auf, but could agree with Angr. You obviously mean Übergib Dich nicht (Don't puke) :)Lectonar 13:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

...which is still written übergib dich nicht. ;) File:Austria flag large.png ナイトスタリオン ✉ 13:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

No, it isn't; when you adress a single person (as in this case), it becomes Dich (as in Du, Du bist gut or Dir, Geht es Dir gut)):) Lectonar 13:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

doh, the context is obviously a heraldic motto or something like that. Of course Übergib Dich Nicht will be penned capitalized, on a parchment scroll winding its way between unicorns and laurel leaves. (incidentially, I think this is what was meant with "High German" as opposed to "Modern German": something in lofty style, fit to be chiseled in marble; I do think the ipv "Ergib Dich Nicht" is conceivable as a 17th century heraldic motto).

Lectonar, the German spelling reform of 1996 includes among its various improvements the abandoning of the silly capitalization of the familiar 2nd person plural pronouns du, ihr, and their inflected forms, unless they're the first word of a sentence. (Or Unless Every Word In The Sentence Is Capitalized, As The Previous Poster Suggested.) --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 14:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

That's obviously the problem with being a native speaker; you don't really take notice of changes like that; I transmitted only what I learned in school (and would have got a mark off it I hadn't capitalized the 'D'), and never bothered to relearn it. Sorry everyone. Lectonar 06:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

And additionally, even before the spelling reform, Du and inflected forms were only to be capitalized in letters. I personally wouldn't consider a talk page a letter. ;) File:Austria flag large.png ナイトスタリオン ✉ 17:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Gentlemen, why is this section littered with Austrian flags? Did anyone ask for an Austro-Bavarian translation? I think "High" German is wanted. Here is, therefore, a version in "Highest German" File:Switzerland flag large.png dɵ:rf∫ nid u:fgɛ:. 213.3.73.96 16:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Heh. ::grins:: Fair enough. I think he wanted Standard German, though. ;) File:Austria flag large.png ナイトスタリオン ✉ 17:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

fast/quick

What is the Native American Indian word for quick/fast?

Please take note that there are hundreds of Native American languages. — mark ✎ 15:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

In one of those languages, "wiki"! — File:Ontario trillium sig.pngmendel ☎ 17:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Native Hawaiians are not usually considered Native Americans. Rmhermen 17:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• In Nunavut Inuktitut, it's ᓱᒃᑲᔪᒃ (sukkajuq in Roman) meaning "it is fast".
• In Ojibwe, wajepii (ᐗᒉᐲ in syllabics), which is an animate intransitive verb, so it means he/she is fast but not it is fast. You'd use a different verb for an inanimate object, gizhiibide (ᑭᔒᐱᑌ - I think, I don't know Ojibwe syllabics very well, and my dictionary is double vowel) - it moves fast.
• In Plains Cree, you can use ᑭᓯᑳ (kisikâ) or ᐸᐹᓯ (papâsi), which are kind of like adverbs, but I think you usually use a verb: ᑭᓯᐢᑳᐸᔨᐤ (kisiskâpayiw) he/she goes fast for animate objects and ᑭᓰᐸᔨᐤ (kisîpayiw) for inanimates, I think.

Those are the only ones I'm familiar enough with to offer examples. None of those languages have adjectives, so there isn't a word that really means "fast". --Diderot 18:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Hough transform

How do you pronounce "Hough" as in the name of the author of "Hough transform". Maybe this could be added to [7]?

I, for one, want to know who Hough was! — File:Ontario trillium sig.pngmendel ☎ 17:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

also, who knows who's Hough's hoes?

At the risk of incurring the Wrath of Proto, it's pronounced IPA: [hʌf], to rhyme with tough or buff. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 18:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, fear my wrath. (and thank you for linking to what IPA is) :) Proto t c 10:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

So it's definitely IPA: [hʌf]? I always thought it would sound more like "though"...

If I correctly interpreted the transcription [h uh f] at [8], yes, it is /hʌf/. [9] also says it's "pronounced huff". --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 12:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Native English speakers saying Engrish

I was listening to a lecture series on tape, in which the English throne came up quite often. The obviously American lecturer quite frequently says "Engrish" instead of "English", but clearly has no problems pronouncing the letter l in other positions, and in fact says the word correctly a couple of times (although it seems only with special emphasis on the word, as if focusing on it in particular). It has become quite disctracting, so I have spent some time wondering if this is perhaps the remnant of a minor speech impediment. Anyone have any insights into whether I'm on the right track, or what type of disorder would cause such a mispronounciation in someone who otherwise exhibits no problems? — Laura Scudder | Talk 19:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a dialect to me. g is velar, so the idea that l might be assimilated to a velar r after g isn't implausible, but they ought to do it after k and ng too. --Diderot 19:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

By the way, her accent is, aside from the one oddity, Standard Midwestern, which is part of why it stands out so much. I'll try to find some kl words, too. — Laura Scudder | Talk 21:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Maybe she was just parodying an inexperienced Chinese/Japanese speaker? ;p splintax ^(talk) 09:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Can I find a word that means,"the act of growing up"?

Maturing? Elf | Talk 23:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Or maturation? --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Growth. Neutrality^talk 17:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I need a translation, Please.

Enscribed on a bayonet taken in Germany in WWII-- "Mud Armen der Chat - Mai 1879" Thanks Phil

• Hmm... AFAIK, Mud isn't a German word, and Chat wasn't one in 1879 (today it means on-line/internet chat). Are you sure you've deciphered the letters correctly? --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

words with the letters ph in it

Looking for words with the letters ph together but they don't make the "f" sound--12.210.190.31 03:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Can they be in different syllables? "chophouse" and "flophouse" would fit the bill, for starters. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

haphazard comes to mind too, but in the future please do your own homework. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

To clarify, it looks like it only happens in compound words. splintax ^(talk) 09:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

education

how many university in Peterborough?

There are a number of places called Peterborough. In Peterborough, Ontario, you can find Trent University and Sir Sandford Fleming College. The other towns with this name, including the original Peterborough don't have universities. --Gareth Hughes 10:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Female First Names

What is the origin and meaning of the name Taimi?

In the Finnish language, it means "Sapling" or "Young tree". See [10] gkhan 11:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

language -grammar

does a language have to be logical?

only in the very literal sense of "logical".

See Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. — File:Ontario trillium sig.pngmendel ☎ 19:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

If you're talking about natural languages: only to the extent that human cognitive capacities are logical. — mark ✎ 10:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

well, are they logical? if human cognition is not logical, I would wonder whose cognition is. angelic cognition? In any case, the argument goes only one way. If humans do not have the capacity for logic, it is impossible that languages are logical. Conversely, if humans do have the capacity, language could still be either logical or illogical. The question is about grammar (or lexicon?) I suppose; is it logical to express stuff the way it is done, or not. This question was asked by Patanjali, I think,

kim punar nityas shabdas ahosvit kaaryas

"is shabda (parole) eternal, or artificial (man-made)?"

By "eternal", I think, he means something like "necessary", from which would follow that grammar is in some way the logical conclusion of some first principle. Plato's Critias, probably slightly earlier, wonders about similar questions, but mostly concerning lexicon, not grammar. People never stopped wondering why languages were so different, thinking there must be some original underlying unity (confusion of tongues). The speculative grammarians tried to find rules that govern all languages; a recent incarnation of such speculation calls itself universal grammar. since (before) the Renaissance, however, the plurality of languages has come to be seen as something valuable rather than the result of the confusion of an originally pure state (de vulgari eloquentia), a language giving its speakers an identity, and a culture (most, if not all, natural languages are named after the people speaking them). Human language developed during the Pleistocene (but I wouldn't be surprised if people during the Pleiocene had a lot of fun babbling at each other, too), and obviously the idea was so great that not a single people in any nook or corner of the globe has ever given it up again. The great thing about it is that it uses exploits convention (l'arbitraire du signe) and is in that sense kaarya, but it is kept within strict bounds by the conditio humana (it has to be learnable by toddlers; there are only so many sounds humans can produce; there are only so many terms humans can remember, and only so many loose ends the brain can keep track of at the same time), so that human languages will only ever occupy a tiny section of generalized models of formal grammar. But other people will put things differently, to be sure. Baad 12:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Baad, you're making some fine points here. I largely agree; what I meant to say is that, in my opinion, human language mirrors human cognition in that it has the capacity for logic, while at the same time it cannot be fully described in terms of logic (and logic in this context would be good old formal logic). So I'd say that the tiny section of generalized models of formal grammar you're allocating to human language describes some important subsystems of human language, but not all of it. — mark ✎ 18:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

hm, I'm not sure I understand; maybe I agree. I think that formal logic constitutes a small subsection of human language, in the sense that it is possible to make unambiguous if/then/else/and/or/nor statements in natural language, but that's not all there is to language, nor is it even typical for language. people with perfect control of their native language but without training in mathematics find it difficult to follow very simple statements in formal logics. people have to concentrate much more to follow a simple modus ponens/modus tollens argument that to listen to a fantastic fairy story about dragons and magical cauldrons. In that sense, logic is achievable for human language, but it is not at its core; classification is, i.e. the lumping of things into rough groups. Baad 18:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with your description of formal logic and its relation to, or place within, human language. On a sidenote, I'm not sure if I would say that classification (categorization) is the core of human language; it is certainly a central cognitive capacity to humans, but given the purpose of language, why would it be the core of language? — mark ✎ 20:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

at the core of the lexicon, I should say: since without lumping items into categories or 'ideas', all you'd ever have are proper names; you need some notion of all rocks having some essence in common before you can coin a word for 'rock'.; at the core of syntax, because you need classes of things before you can apply rules to them; you need to recognize a word as a 'noun' so you can treat it like all other nouns; otherwise, language would just be a bag of words. I agree that it is not peculiar to language, but a prerequisite. apes developed a conscious notion of 'semantic category'; human language started to build on that. I am very intrigued with the idea of Frits Staal that syntax evolved independently of semantics, as "rules without meaning"

A minute ago I asked my wife "What's the core of a car?" and without hesitation she answered "the engine". Alright, categorization is a mechanism that is very central to language. Still, I think of it as a more general cognitive capacity and I think I'd feel more for generativity (or combinatoriality) as the core of human language. Generativity strikes me as a mechanism that really is as central to language as the engine is to the car. It's nit-picking really, of course, which is why I'm still typing between <small>'s. As for Frits Staal, I had never heard of him, but his hypothesis sounds sensible to me. — mark ✎ 16:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

you are right; "categories" are a prerequisite, like the invention of the wheel if you're going to build a car. combinatoriality or recursiveness may be the actual core that makes a grammar a grammar. we should take this to Origin of language of course (which I've been meaning to expand for some months now...) 18:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Who is Harry Potter

• See Harry Potter. Notinasnaid 13:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

It is rumoured that he's prime minister of the Netherlands :) . DirkvdM 17:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

translation of word

Please translate the words Pott þett jol. It is the title of a Christmas music cd. --70.113.205.105 02:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

it appears to mean "pot that yule". From a websearch, it looks to me like pott þett is a slang expression. Maybe the sense is "to hell with Christmas" or something?

You could try posting the question at Talk:Icelandic language too. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 09:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

LETTER WRITING

When writing an offial letter to a person whose name and gender is unknown (for example when applying for a job), what is the correct mode of address (Dear ...)?

Well, job counselors will tell you to do a little research and find out the name and gender of the person most likely to be reading your job application. Failing that, you could try "Dear Sir or Madam" or "To whom it may concern". --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 09:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I would always prefer Dear Sir or Madam to To whom it may concern, and the traditionally close would be Yours faithfully. --Gareth Hughes 17:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I find "To whom it may concern" rather impersonal. I prefer to put "Madam" first: "Dear Madam or Sir". Benne 20:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Yours faithfully? In what country? Certainly not in the US. It would be considered decidedly odd. Sincerely or Sincerely yours would be an appropriate close for an American business letter. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

In the UK Yours faithfully is the standard close in a letter to an unnamed person, Yours sincerely is the standard close in a leter to a named person, and Hugs & kisses is the standard close in a letter to a frequently named person. I was unaware that letter writing was practised in USA. --Gareth Hughes 22:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Gareth Hughes's first two comments - here in the UK, Yours faithfully is indeed considered a better match for Dear Sir/Madam than is Yours sincerely - but I don't think Hugs & kisses could be said to be anything close to "standard" for more informal letters. From those very close to you, Love is common, while for othe informal contexts I see Best regards, All the best and similar considerably more often than Hugs & kisses. Loganberry (Talk) 00:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

To whom it may concern and sincerely or yours truly are quite sufficent. Neutrality^talk 17:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I do not know where the person who posed the original question is from, but in British usage, a letter applying for a job addressed To whom it may concern and ending with yours sincerely or yours truly would be unlikely to go to the top of anyone's recruitment pile - unless the ability to write a letter was absolutely not a requirement of the job! See Gareth Hughes' answer for British usage. (He's joking about the Hugs and Kisses).

Surely, even in the US, To whom it may concern is more appropriate for messages posted in the street than to a letter which is likely to be read by an individual sir or madam. Valiantis 13:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I would say that, in the U.S. or Canada, "Dear Sir or Madam" (reversed if you pleased) is your best bet; "To whom it may concern" would be ok for an open letter, say a reference letter that you're writing for an applicant to show anyone they want, but not to a particular person. If the letter is unsolicited, neither is nearly as impressive as finding a real name, but if it's in response to an ad and no name is given, you might try writing it in memo form, in which there is a "re: " line quoting the job title and no salutation. I have been very much unaware that anyone gives a darn about the difference between truly, faithfully and sincerely, so I guess I have homework to do if I ever want a job in the U.K. Sharkford 19:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

"He doesn't forget a favour"

I heard this saying today and I gotta say I'm confused. Does this imply that he (by the way, the saying referred to Tom DeLay) doesn't forget when someone done a favour for him, or when hehs done a favour for someone else, or both (or neither). --Ballchef 10:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I suspect it means he doesn't forget when someone has done him a favor. That way he can repay the favor some other time. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 11:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

DeLay assuredly does not forget when he has done someone a favor, nor is he ever liable to allow them to forget it. But I agree with Angr about what was meant. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

What is it?

does the word garish mean filled with balloons, neon lights, and obnoxious waiters, or tasting of turnips?

• No, though the baloons and neon lights might make it. It means excessively overdecorated. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

what does majordomo mean?

• I can't find it in Wiktionary, so I'll refer you to Dictionary.com. --Metropolitan90 09:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

It can designates a few similar positions that are mostly synonym to "head butler", Iif I'm reading Oxford's correctly. Circeus 18:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

frame the question

Please frame a question for this sentence.

Mr.A.B.Vaajpayee was the 13th primeminister of India.-----03:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)~

Was Mr. A.B. Vaajpayee the 13th prime minister of India? —Wayward 04:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I think that would be the question framed for the sentence 'Yes' :P. What about Who was Mr. A.B. Vaajpayee?? (assuming that in the given sentence 13th, primeminister, or India are not stressed/given prominence). — mark ✎ 16:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

in that case,

"who was the how-manieth what of where?"

Or

"Why did Mr.A.B.Vaajpayee, despite the rejection of his party in 2004, retain a position of esteem and respect amongst common people seldom offered to politicians in India, the Indian people remaining fondly attached to this humble man who shouldered their gigantic nation, all its dreams and nightmares in chaotic storms, with the inherent invulnerability of his smiling face? "

(could somebody fix the fawning Hindlish of the article in question, or mercifully blank it, thanks) incidentially, according to our count, he was the 10th PM, who "resumed office" in 1998. In fact, "13th" is wrong by any count, since if you count "resuming" PM's twice, you'd also have to count Indira Gandhi as 6th as well as 3rd, making ABV number 14. So, in the spirit of ex falso quodlibet,

"what do you conclude from the fact that the Vedas were composed by superhuman neolithic Proto-Aryans at the Sarasvati in 6000 BC?"

:o) 11:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Grammar term needed

So I've been having this debate with a friend about what you would call word groupings that sound grandiose but upon further scrutiny are almost non-sensical such as: "Stand strong in the face of adversity", "sieze the moment", "War on Terror". A tangible action with a intangible foe. Something which uses key words to evoke a familiar emotional reaction with something intangible.

I've been told it is a form of an Oxymoron, catchphrase or compressed paradox. What is this really? My friend does not agree that it is an Oxymoron or a catchphrase. I'm not sure that it is either because there is conflict not contradiction.

If anyone knows I'd greatly appricate your help in resolving this.

Thanks, Tammy

I'm not sure why you consider either the first or the second (which I think is "seize the moment") as nonsensical; both seem to make sense as strong metaphors (though "cease the moment" doesn't). Yes, I'm avoiding the policical one. Metaphors never make literal sense, though. Notinasnaid 08:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Have a look at the Idiom artcile. I don't think these are idiomatic, but I think its something along those lines. Thryduulf 11:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

these are phrases that used evoke strong images, but became the victim of their own success, and by being overused, they paled into clichees. Had they not been overused, they would still be strong. (not "war on terror" of course, that's just an embarassing attempt at propaganda by an illiterate regime). 81.63.58.100 11:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Thryduulf that "standing strong in the face of adversity" and "seizing the moment" are simple metaphors. "War on Terror" isn't a metaphor, because it's a literal war ("War on Poverty" and "War on AIDS", however, are metaphorical wars). --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 15:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

well, the war may be literal, but is it being waged on an emotion? It seems quite metaphorical to me to claim being at war with "terror".

Well, that's true too. It would be less metaphorical to call it a War on Terrorists. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

They could be considered catchphrases because of their overuse by the media and politicians but they are something more in a grammatical sense. I can't agree that they are metaphors since they are not comparing anything. They are definately figures-of-speech. They resemble more closely a compressed paradox. These phrases clearly are using conflict to get an emotional reaction.

I can say this, "in the face of" is highly overused. I think it is time for us to go back to simple english and calling things like they are instead of trying to paint a prettier more confusing picture. --anordinarygirl 01:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

help rephrasing a sentence

In the article The Masters Apprentices, I'm having trouble trying to rephrase this sentence that an anon recently added, so it sounds more encyclopedic: "Swedish progressive/melodic death metal band Opeth named the track "Master's Apprentices" (from their 2002 album Deliverance) in honour of the band, which Opeth frontman Mikael Åkerfeldt has publically admitted being a fan of."
You don't "publicly admit" to being a fan of a band, nor should that sentence end with a preposition. How would I rephrase the sentence so that the words "publicly admitted" aren't in the sentence, and it doesn't end in a preposition? Thanks. - Graham/pianoman87 talk 13:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

This is the 21st century; there's nothing wrong with ending sentences with prepositions. Publicly, however, is spelled without an -al-. (I think it's the only exception to the rule that says an adjective in -ic gets an adverb in -ically.) Nevertheless, you could recast the sentence as: "Swedish progressive/melodic death metal band Opeth named the track "Master's Apprentices" (from their 2002 album Deliverance) in honour of the band, which Opeth frontman Mikael Åkerfeldt has stated is one of his favourites." --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 15:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

"Swedish progressive/melodic death metal band Opeth named the track "Master's Apprentices" (from their 2002 album Deliverance) in honor of the band, of which Opeth frontman Mikael Åkerfeldt is a fan." Neutrality^talk 17:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

As Angr said, there is nothing wrong with ending a sentence with a proposition. And what at first may look like a preposition may in fact be a phrasal particle. For example, "The last pot was one of the few this usually successful gambler raked in." Recasting this wouldn't work: "The last pot was one of the few in which this usually successful gambler raked." In this case, in is not a preposition; it's part of the phrasal verb raked in. So pay no attention to the rule; it's wrong. Pay no attention to those who pay attention to the rule, unless they pay you to; they're ignorant. Instead, speak the way it sounds right to you, and write the same way. —Wayward 03:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

now now -- there may be nothing wrong with ending sentences in prepositions in principle, but if they get separated too much from the finite verb, the result may still be awkward. I note that you in spite of assuring that sentence-ending pps are fine at the end of the sentence, suggest a variant that do without them. Your suggestion is fine, of course, because the "admit" part does not seem to be absolutely necessary. But assume the context would require the "admit" --

, which Opeth frontman Mikael Åkerfeldt has publicly admitted being a fan of.

could be recast into

, of which Opeth frontman Mikael Åkerfeldt has publicly admitted to being a fan.

or

, being a fan of which Opeth frontman Mikael Åkerfeldt has publicly admitted to.

or

, to being a fan of which Opeth frontman Mikael Åkerfeldt has publicly admitted.

I admit that the middle option sounds best to me, in spite of again ending in a preposition :) 05:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've gone with :"Swedish progressive/melodic death metal band Opeth named the track "Master's Apprentices" (from their 2002 album Deliverance) in honor of the band, of which Opeth frontman Mikael Åkerfeldt is a fan." And yes, sometimes the rule about a sentence not ending with a preposition can be ignored, or disposed of. The sentence I quoted above didn't seem right to me at the time, so that's why I queried it. - Graham/pianoman87 talk 06:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

What does this say?

There is a User:د.علاء محمود التميم on Wikipedia with no contributions...What does the username say? --HappyCamper 19:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure -- it seems to say something like "the lofty and commendable Tamim", but it may just be a name. 130.60.142.65 06:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Synonym for Alien

Hey there! Could someone give me some synonyms for Alien (Extraterrestrial Lifeform)? It would be very kind --84.154.133.69 19:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

How about these?

• Little Green Men
• Mermaid and Merman
• Intelligent life from outside of Planet Earth
• Illegal Immigrant
• Artificial Intelligence
• Cryptozoology

Consider the characters in

• Contact by Carl Sagan
• Midwich Cuckoos by John Wyndham
• Stranger in a Strange Land by Robert Heinlein
• War of Worlds by H G Wells

Consider the artifacts in

• 2001 A Space Odyssey by Arthur C Clarke
• Gateway by Frederik Pohl

Earth Human encounters with intelligent sentients from other civilizations have been a staple of Science Fiction since the very early days of the genre. They are not limited to extra terrestials. Some are encountered via time travel. AlMac|^(talk) 03:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I think you meant The War of the Worlds (novel). Garrett Albright 04:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

juxtaposition

what is an example of juxtaposition not use in literature?

• Could you try rephrasing that question? Unless you'd be happy with an answer like "an apple and a piece of cheese side by side on a plate", it's not clear what you are asking. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The spelling of the word "Savior"

When was the word "savior" first spelled this way (that is as opposed to "saviour") and by whom was it first used in this spelling

The earliest citation of the spelling Savior in the Oxford English Dictionary is from 1753 (1762), by Jonas Hanway in An historical account of the British trade over the Caspian sea; with a journal of travels from London into Persia and back, I III xxviii 121. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 09:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I just went to search some old documents for this - the Douay-Rheims Bible has it spelt as "savior" once, in 1 Paralipomenon, but consistently "saviour" otherwise. At least, so says the Gutenberg transcription... if correct, that would be 1752 or so, just ahead of your citation. But it may have been a typographical error. Shimgray | talk | 10:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

this is one of the (few!) cases where the Americans get it "right", compared to the British :)

Latin salvator > Old French sauveour (> Modern French sauveur) > English saviour > American savior

even better of course is

Latin color > Old French colur (> Modern French couleur) > English colour > American color.

Yeah, but English isn't Latin ;-) There's a good few in both variants of English which standardised as "-or" - author, governor, emperor... Shimgray | talk | 11:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Which reminds me of a former student of my father (a professor of music theory), who although American thought it looked sophisticated to use British spellings. Trouble was, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and he wound up producing such "hypercorrections" as tenour. (I think most well-read, smart-ass American kids go through a stage of liking British spellings when they first discover them, sometime between the ages of 12 and 15 or so, but this kid was already an undergraduate and really ought to have outgrown it by then.) --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 15:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Phonics teaching and symbols outside of America

In the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style archive (pronunciation), it's come up that the phonics symbols most American children learn in school are unfamiliar outside of America. When I was in elementary school, we learned about "short" vowels (bat, bet, bit, bot, but) and "long" ones (bait, beet, bite, boat, boot). To help us learn how to pronounce and spell words, teachers used phonics symbols. Short vowels were symbolized by no diacritic (a,e,i,o,u) or with a curvy mark (ă,ĕ,ĭ,ŏ,ŭ). Long vowels were symbolized by macrons (ā,ē,ī,ō,ū). I don't remember what they used for other vowels, except for the schwa (ə).

These symbols are so familiar to Americans that all American dictionaries aimed at the general public use them, although they differ widely in how they represent other vowels. I was very surprised to learn that British people were not familiar with these symbols and that the International Phonetic Alphabet is used in ordinary British dictionaries.

My question is: Are British (and Australian, NZ, South African, etc.) children taught the IPA from an early age? Or do schools in those countries avoid phonics in favor of whole language? Or do people use the standard phonics symbols as children then abandon them for the IPA when they get older? Mwalcoff 16:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I humbly offer my opinion that not very many Americans appear to be familiar with the ĭ vs. ī notation. the 'popular' dictionaries appear to give ee, oo rather than ī, ū. If you are familiar with the latter (i.e. you have learned to undo the great vowel shift in your head, that at first is rendered invisible to native English speakers who have mastered the irregular orthography it has produced), you have already mastered a first step towards IPA. In Europe, IPA is common in dictionaries, but it is not imposed on kids as a rule. I think people tend to learn IPA with their first foreign language, because they then have to cope with an alien phonology; for pedagogical reasons I think (I estimate, I don't know), IPA is only thrust upon teenagers as a rule, but not upon children of more tender ages, who have yet to become comfortable with their native orthography. 21:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC) <--(This unsigned comment by 62.202.72.44, presumably a user in the Netherlands)

I'm no expert on dictionaries, but I've never seen one that uses ee, oo, and so on. Other types of reference books might, but Merriam-Webster, New World, Random House, etc., use the macrons. Perhaps most American adults have forgotten the notation of macrons and breves, but I'm pretty sure they all learned them at some point, unless they grew up during the whole-language craze. Out of curiousity, how widespread is knowledge of IPA among the general population in other countries, especially in the English-speaking world? (Note: I'm not trying to take the debate from the MOS talk page here; no rhetorical points intended.) Mwalcoff 21:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Just as a side note, I'm another american who's comfortable with the notation used in Merriam-Webster etc. and baffled by IPA. I think it's entrenched, not unlike the government's half-hearted and then abandoned attempt to get us to think metric. It is odd how such simple things are so different-- Elf | Talk 23:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I grew up in America and wasn't exposed to IPA symbols until I was in high school and my sister gave me a linguistics textbook for Christmas (how well she knew me!). We certainly weren't introduced to it in school; I wasn't taught it in a classroom until I took linguistics classes in college (and even then it was more like to be the Americanist phonetic notation using /y/ for a palatal approximant and /š/ for a voiceless postalveolar fricative and so forth). We did use a dictionary-style phonetic notation in fourth grade, I think, but it was dropped again the next year. I think I was the only kid in the class who understood it, and I remember that neither the teacher nor I could understand why they had separate symbols for the vowels of cot and caught! Even in high school French we never used any phonetic notation, we just learned to pronounce it by listening to tapes and imitating the teacher. Now I live in Germany, and I've taught introductory phonology in Ireland. I think German kids may be exposed to IPA in English class in Gymnasium, but they certainly don't learn to write in transcription themselves. I'm pretty sure Irish kids aren't exposed to IPA at all in school, to judge by the students I had. But again, to judge by the students I had, I think IPA is actually quite easy to learn to read passively. It really only took one class period for students to be able to read whole sentences written in IPA transcription. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

for the purposes of the MoS, of course, this encyclopedia not being specifically targeted at pre-highschool ages, there can be no doubt that IPA is the only way to go; pedagogical and regional issues within and beyond the Anglosphere should of course be discussed in the appropriate places in articles on phonology, but should not have any impact on MoS design decisions: even Americans, as soon as they want to discuss phonology on a serious (encyclopedic) level, have no choice but to cope with IPA. That said, the overlap between APA and IPA will take you a long way already; the more obscure symbols of IPA are only rarely used to discuss really obscure phonetical points that couldn't possibly be made otherwise. 10:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the Americanist phonetic notation I mentioned is not the same as the American "dictionary" symbols. The "dictionary" system is willing to use digraphs for single sounds (for example, /sh/ for /ʃ/ and /th/ for /θ/), while the APN sticks to the IPA policy of one symbol for one sound (except affricates and diphthongs), using /š/ for /ʃ/) and /θ/ for /θ/). The APN acknowledges that the vowel of "price" (IPA /aɪ/) is a diphthong, transcribing it usually /ay/, while the "dictionary" notation considers it a long vowel and transcribes it /ī/. Basically, no professional American linguists have ever used the "dictionary" symbols; the two competing systems are the APN (or modifications of it like the symbols used in The Sound Pattern of English) and IPA. There used to be great prejudice against the IPA in the U.S.; I remember reading about an American Structuralist (I can't remember who now, Leonard Bloomfield, or Zellig Harris, or someone like that) actually getting angry at a student for using the IPA. I think even today at American universities, phoneticians will use IPA, but phonologists will usually use some modification of the Americanist system. For an American phonologist to use the IPA almost seems to be making a point, almost saying "Look at how international I am!" But I don't think any phonology professor today would scold a student for using it! --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 11:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

To answer the earlier question about what kids outside the US are taught as regards phonics, I know that in the UK, the subject does not come up, at all, in a standard school syllabus up to the age of 16. No form of pronunciation symbolism is used. It could possibly be studied as part of certain A-level syllabuses (syllabi?), although it is rare, even more so than IPA. Teaching in the UK uses the whole language route. Even when learning a second language - French, German, Welsh, etc (although Welsh is basically phonetic), there is no use of pronunciation symoblism as a teaching aid. You just pick up how to pronounce words correctly. I think it probably makes learning a second language easier in the long run, rather than relying on symbolic representations to tell you how a word should be pronounced. Proto t c 11:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Easier, yes. But the students end up not being able to make phonemic distinctions in the target language not present in their native language, and not even understanding that there is a phonemic distinction in the target language that isn't present in their native language. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 11:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

That's a good point ... it probably depends on the teacher more than anything, as with all forms of learning. Proto t c 12:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Proto. This raises an interesting point. If students aren't systematically taught the IPA in Britain, how many Britons are familiar with it? Mwalcoff 00:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Yefars. What is the meaning?

This word showed up in a book a friend is reading. We thought it curious so did a search on it (Google, Yahoo! and Wikipedia). The former two returned many instances in which it appears to be merely a mispelling. However, several results were returned in which the term "yefars" may have some meaning in Arabic. Unfortunately my friend and I are not conversant in this language and wonder if someone who is [conversant in Arabic] would be so kind as to enlighten us on its meaning (formal and/or colloquial if you will). Thank y'all kindly.

What was the context it originally appeared in? Shimgray | talk | 19:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Hindi

unfortunately, our Hindi article doesn't seem to give any morphology. I am interested in the verb system. I hear Hindi has an ergative system. Is this true? Is that throughout the verbal system or only for certain tenses/diatheses? It appears that some verbs now considered finite grew out of Indo-Aryan participles. Which finite forms of Old Indo-Aryan/ Sanskrit are continued? I also heard that Pali continues various Sanskrit aorists, as mood I think. But this is really scraped off my cortex; any insights are appreciated -- 20:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I found part of what I was looking for on Ergative-absolutive language

As an example of split ergativity, is found in the Urdu and Hindi languages, that have an ergative case on subjects in tenses showing perfective aspect for transitive and ditransitive verbs, while for other cases subjects apear in nominative case.

laRk-aa ketaab xareed-taa hey

→ boy-sg.masc=nom book.nom? buy-ImPerf.sg.masc be=pres

→ The boy buys a book

laRkey=ney ketaab xareed-ee

→ boy-sg.mas=erg book.nom? buy-perf.sg.fem

→ The boy bought a book

I'll still be grateful for any information on the history of this system. The present tense appears to be from a ta participle. I don't know what the past tense is supposed to be, and which is the subject there; from this example, after all, we cannot tell whether xareed-ee is passive, or whether ketaab is accusative as well as nominative, and laRkeyney simply dative. 21:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Information on "ap"

What nationality (region?) uses "ap" in names, and what does it mean (as seen on the main page today with the name Dafydd ap Gruffydd)? Any additional information would be appreciated as well.

it's the Welsh patronymic, corresponding to Gaelic mac. 23:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The names Howell and Powell are both from the Welsh ap Hywel. For Howell, "ap" was simply dropped. For Powell, the "a" of "ap" was dropped and the "p" got attched to the "Hywel" and absorbed the "h". --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Also ap Huw, which became the surname Pugh, or ap Rhys which became Preece. Having the 'ap' before the surname is very, very rare in Wales nowadays. Proto t c 11:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Or ap Rhys also commonly became Price, ap Harri → Parri → Parry. Before a vowel ap becomes ab, thus ab Owain → ab Owen → Bowen, ab Ifan → Bevan. Actually, patronyms are becoming more common in the last few decades, particularly in the media. -- Arwel 16:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

So you're actually "Arwel ap Harri", are you? --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 16:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

what is the origin of the word "cherry"

Check out cherry over at Wiktionary — Lomn | Talk / RfC 19:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Or the first sentence of Cherry here at Wiktionary. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 19:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Chinese and Japanese Translations

1. How would you say "the devil's kitchen" in Chinese (original script and pinyin)? 2. "The multimillion-dollar hunt" in Japanese (original script and romaji)? 3. Could someone please translate the following paragraph into Japanese (original script)? "Welcome to The Multimillion-Dollar Hunt, the latest hit reality show. Actually, maybe reality show is not a good term. Maybe phenomenon is a better one! Right now, 90% of the television-owning world is watching, the other 10% being Wilmington, North Dakota, who aren't watching because their power is out. I've always wanted to say this, but YOU SUCK, WILMINGTON!"

Thanks, anon.

French double-barrelled names

After reading the article on French names, I took a look at the article on Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. The article consistently shortens his name to Teilhard, but the gist of the former article is that his name should be abbreviated to Chardin. Can anyone give a definitive argument either way? --Gareth Hughes 20:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

How to pronounce the "Tuxtla" in "Tuxtla Gutiérrez

I speak fluent Spanish but I don't know how to pronounce Nahuatl words like this --Revolución (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

"Tookstla". (Sorry, not in an IPA mood.) That one's just a standard "x", a "ks", like the x in galaxia. And, like the x in galaxia, it'll degenerate into an "s" in certain areas, certain speakers, certain degrees of sloppiness or speed in speaking. –Hajor 21:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

what does ancillary mean

definition of a consonant

What is the definition of a COnsonant

noun. One of a class of speech sounds (as \p\, \g\, \n\, \l\, \s\, \r\) characterized by constriction or closure at one or more points in the breath channel; also : a letter representing a consonant — usually used in English of any letter except a, e, i, o, and u.

adjective. 1. being in agreement or harmony : free from elements making for discord. 2. marked by musical consonances. 3. having similar sounds <consonant words>. 4. relating to or exhibiting consonance  : RESONANT. Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary.

—Wayward 03:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Learning IPA on Internet

Is it possible to learn the IPA on the Internet? Thank you, --anon 05:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)