Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/L

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

October 22

word derivation/history

I'm trying to find the origin of the name KENMORE. It appers in a large number of products & places, but I have been unable to find anything on its origin.

Dave, (former student of Kenmore High School) < email removed to prevent spam > —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.122.89 (talk) 02:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The original Kenmore is in Scotland. The etymology is Scots Gaelic for "large headland". FiggyBee (talk) 03:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you mention "products", see also Kenmore Appliances. —Tamfang (talk) 03:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish translation

Could someone tell me what 'viéndose' means? Google translate returns 'to be', but I don't see where this is coming from- what does it mean? 70.162.28.222 (talk) 04:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coming from ver meaning "to see", when you add the -endo it makes it progressive like english -ing. Se is a direct object for el...so put it all together and roughly you get "he's being seen". Grsz ^Review! 05:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or [he is] seeing himself [in the mirror], or he is seeing [=finding] himself [in a difficult position], etc. --NorwegianBlue^talk 18:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grsz11's statement that "se is a direct object for él is a bit off: the ordinary object form of él is lo, se is the reflexive object, used (for all genders and numbers) when the object is the same as the subject – or when the subject is unspecified; as Grsz11 hints, in Romance languages the reflexive form very often has a passive meaning. Note that viéndose is not a finite verb unless it has an auxiliary (something like está viéndose, "he is being seen"); without that, it would be used in a subclause to show context: "(while or because of) being seen..., he [does something]." —Tamfang (talk) 03:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It could have the meaning "seeing each other" as well. It can be reflexive or mutual. Steewi (talk) 05:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parental warning

In what English words do parents usually tell their children "This is not suitable for you." (E.g. alcoholic beverages, brutal/horror/sensual movies...)? --KnightMove (talk) 09:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"That's for grownups only"? The exact wording and vocabulary probably depends on the age of the children. —An gr 09:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thx. Age? Hmmm... say 8-10 years. --KnightMove (talk) 10:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"You're too young." "Maybe when you're older." "That's not for children." --bodnotbod (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"That is not appropriate for you."Thomprod (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Writing on Indian Rocket Chandrayaan-1 (Hindi)

In this video http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7680865.stm you can clearly see the writing on the Indian moon rocket. I am pretty sure it says "PSLV C-11" as Pee-es-el-vee then se-11. What I am not sure about is the character used for the "e" of es and el. I would have expected ऐ, but it is clearly something different. What is the character, and why is ऐ not used? Sorry for this ignorant question, my total knowledge of Hindi is from the first two lessons of a teach yourself book.

Also, why give it an English name, take the initials and then represent them phonetically in Devanāgarī? I know this is bordering on a cultural rather than a language question, but why not just name it in Hindi? -- ~~

It's ए, which is /e/, as opposed to ऐ, which is /ɛ/. I'm afraid I can't answer your "why" questions, though. —An gr 10:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the image (low res screen shot, fair use) Image:Chandrayaan.jpg. It doesn't look like ए, which would I have thought made "es" "el" sound a bit like "ace ale"! Of course I am so inexperienced with Devanāgarī that I am not familiar with all the alternative forms and styles. -- Q Chris (talk) 10:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you can't use fair-use images outside of article space, but if you look closely and use a bit of imagination you can see it's ए. You're right about the pronunciation, though; that's why I said I can't answer the "why" part! —An gr 11:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, with a bit of imagination I can see it! I will "bend" the rules and leave the image up for a while to see if anyone can answer the "why" -- Q Chris (talk) 11:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for the 'why' part... it is not necessarily an English 'name'. As you already know, it is the Hindi transliteration of the letters 'PSLV' which is the original name of the rocket. You question begs the counter-question, 'why give it another name when it already has one?'--ChokinBako (talk) 11:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that PSLV stands for the English name [Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle]. -- Q Chris (talk) 11:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so I'm sure they couldn't really write all that in Hindi on the small space where the sign is, so they opted for the initials - the name of the vehicle.--ChokinBako (talk) 11:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But couldn't they have given it a Hindi name and then labelled it using the initial Devanāgarī characters? Is that something that is done in Hindi? Or could it be "publicity" factors, like giving it a name that is easily usable in the Western press? -- Q Chris (talk) 11:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My contact in Bangalore has told me that acronyms do exist in India, though they use a whole syllable from each word rather than a letter. —Tamfang (talk) 03:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that makes sense because devanagari is syllable based -- Q Chris (talk) 06:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As are most of the scripts used in India. —Tamfang (talk) 01:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That possibly is the reason. I mean, if it's already called Chandrayaan, why not call it Chandrayaan? I see your point.--ChokinBako (talk) 11:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In India, by the way, the language used for scientific studies or research is English, and this is probably the reason why the vehicle has an English name, not just because of Western media. 'Chandrayaan' will be a nickname, like 'Challenger' or whatever for the shuttle. 'PSLV' actually states the purpose of the rocket, and, being scientific, is in English. Also, bear in mind, Hindi is not the only language in India. There are many more, so a lingua franca is needed. English, Hindi, and Sanskrit are the three official languages, with English doubling as the language of higher education. --ChokinBako (talk) 11:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that official language is a complex issue in India, Official languages of India shows that it it is not at all clear cut. -- Q Chris (talk) 13:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chandrayaan is the lunar orbiter, whereas PSLV is the rocket which launched it into space. They are not the same thing, that's why they need different names. — Emil J. 13:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - that's interesting

Help with a Latin language British title

Am I right in thinking "Rex Britanniae" means king of Britain. If so what is "British monarch" in Latin? Thanks, --217.227.78.76 (talk) 12:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right about "Rex Britanniae". "British monarch" is presumably "monarchus Britanniae". —An gr 12:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or if you really prefer "British" to "of Britain", "monarchus Britannicus". Adam Bishop (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Literally, yes, of course, but it can also depend on the context. When Æthelbald of Mercia styled himself Rex Britanniae, which he did at least once, he meant more by it than his plain title of Rex Merciorum or his bolder one of Rex Suthanglorum. It translated Bretwalda, but the reality of that title was roughly 'King of England'. However, when George I of Great Britain is called Rex Britanniae (or Rex Britanniae et Hiberniae), it translates into English as 'King of Great Britain' (or 'King of Great Britain and Ireland'). Strawless (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latin question 2

What is Edward the Confessor known as in latin? Our latin wikipedia says "Eduardus Confessor", is that correct? What is "The Confessor" in Latin? Thanks for your help! ;) --217.227.73.158 (talk) 14:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Latin Wikipedia is right. Latin has no word for "the", and the English word "confessor" is borrowed directly from Latin. —An gr 14:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the Chinese term "金童玉女" in English?

I am a Chinese student whose major is English,and I find it hard to translate this Chinese term into English, If I translate the term word by word, it means "Golden boy and jade girl". The term means that a boy and a girl who can match very well, just like Britney Spears and Justin Timberlake in the late 90s.I beg any great ones who can help me come up with a more native way for this term.Of course, in English.Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eastmanxie (talk • contribs) 14:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The most common similar phrases in English would be "made for each other", or "a match made in heaven". I can't think of any English phrases which mirror the Chinese phrase more closely, except possibly to refer to the couple metonymically by the names of famous lovers; Romeo and Juliet, Posh and Becks, etc. FiggyBee (talk) 15:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Romeo and Juliet, however, are better known for being star-crossed lovers, so maybe they're not the best example of a golden boy and a jade girl. —An gr 15:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhpas the phrase Soulmate would be an appropriate translation. --Zerozal (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Golden couple" gets a fair number of ghits.~~ Clarityfiend (talk) 22:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had that thought too. It seems to refer mostly to famous or celebrated couples though (including a lot of sportspeople, with "golden" being less metaphorical than it otherwise might be), rather than to couples who are especially well matched. FiggyBee (talk) 22:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ack. You're right. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A common acronym among the fanfiction community is "OTP," One True Pairing, but I'm not sure if it would apply here. bibliomaniac 1 5 22:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In America there is "Ken and Barbie" a reference to dolls--Digrpat (talk) 16:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That usually refers to a couple that is attractive but vapid. —D. Monack ^talk 02:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... and therefore not remotely attractive (except to some people). -- JackofOz (talk) 22:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overlapping subsets

Aloha. I'm trying to reword a phrase in an article that has proven problematic, but my English is not the best. The current wording is of the form "A and B are the two types of C". The intended meaning is, in gonzo set theoretic terms, "For all x, if x is an element of C, x is either an element of A or B", or more precisely "A intersection B is the null set, and A union B is C".

The problem with the original wording e.g. "Big and small are the two types of dogs", is that it's also (roughly) accurate to say "male and female are the two types of dogs". So how do I express the claim "all C's are either A's or B's" in the style of an article lede, i.e. "A and B are____C"? Sorry if this is confusing, any help appreciated. the skomorokh 15:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could say that Anarcho-capitalism and minarchism (let's use the actual article title, as precise context may make finding an appropriate wording easier) are two major factions within Libertarianism? Two main schools of thought? I don't see how the claim that "All Libertarians are either Anarchists or Minarchists" is important to the article. Just say that these are two major ideas which are in conflict. FiggyBee (talk) 15:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that they are exhaustive of libertarianism, not just two factions among others. This is important as it attests to the notability of the topic, which has been in doubt. I appreciate your suggestions, but it's not what I am looking for. Regards, the skomorokh 15:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure you can say they are exhaustive of libertarianism. As libertarianism is a broad-reaching political philosophy, there are bound to be many nuanced types of libertarianism out there. To imply that there is only two exact "types" of libertarianism is to make the No true Scotsman fallacy... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't claim certainty about the precise connotations of the English words, but I think I have it right: no matter what kind of libertarian you are, you either a)believe the state is morally justified or b)do not. The claim is staked on the law of excluded middle, which if we are going to be Aristotelians about it, allows for no nuance. And on a side note, you are quite the Renaissance admin, thank you! the skomorokh 16:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about giving it a different structure altogether? I'd suggest something like: "A fundamental division within libertarian political thought is the division between anarcho-capitalism and minarchism." It would not imply that there may not be other ways of dividing libertarians, but it would convey that this is a meaningful division and not a trivial one. Also it would leave open the question of whether a "third way" is possible, while the text of the article itself would still make it clear that essentially all libertarians are either one or the other.--91.153.157.140 (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could just as easily state that libertarianism exists on a continuum, with "anarchocapitilism" being at one extreme end, and various states of allowable state-intervention (some of which could be termed "minarchism") along the continuum, all the way towards full state-socialism on the other. You could just as easily state that while some libertarians believe in no-state intervention in any aspect of life; and believe only in pure market forces as regulating social interactions, while others believe in some limited forms of state control. That makes it sound more "either-or". The problem with using obfuscatory terms like "anarchocapitalism" and "minarchism" is that they sound like very narrowly defined terms that refer to small distinct groups, and its the words themselves that hide the real nature of the binary choice: either believing in state intervention or not... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems from my reading of the articles that "minarchism", rather than being a specific ideology, is a term used by anarchists to describe all libertarians other than themselves. Thus whether it is a useful description - outside anarchist arguments - is debatable. I don't think we're going to come up with anything that would both be satisfactory to skomorokh and address the "problematic" nature of the statement, so perhaps we should just leave it for the article's talk page? FiggyBee (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have known people who described themselves as minarchists – possibly because they were acquainted with Sam Konkin, the flaming anarchocapitalist who (i believe) coined the word! —Tamfang (talk) 03:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

how does english sound to others?

I find French a very musical language to listen to (like many others) while German, on the other hand, sounds harsh and forceful (and seemingly well suited to Adolf Hitler's speeches, if I'm allowed to say that, if not, oops, sorry to German speaking folk). How does English sound to outsiders? Are there any typical observations they tend to make? It's been emotional (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Braindeadism bargain basement antifascism- Hitler was an Austrian you f***.--Radh (talk) 18:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tru dat, but he did speak The german language. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He may have been born in Austria, but he had become a German well before but certainly by the time he became Chancellor of Germany in 1933, and even more certainly after Austria was incorporated into Germany in the Anschluss in 1938. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably very subjective. For instance, I don't much care for the sound of French, but I do like the sound of German, probably because I speak a little of it. 68.230.71.24 (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To attempt to actually answer the question rather than debating Hitler's nationality; apparently, to other Europeans, the sounds that stand out most are the big rounded vowels ("like talking with a potato in your mouth") and the unrolled r's. So "Rar Rar Rur Rur". To people from other parts of the world, other sounds stand out (generally, the sounds that aren't found in their native language). It's considered quite a rhythmic language, less harsh than German but less flowing than French. Incidentally, Peter Sellers on the Goon Show did a very convincing facsimile of *American* English using the syllable hern. FiggyBee (talk) 21:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's very subjective. I don't have particular feelings for French, but I find German to be a very musical language - but that's probably because I learned enough German to be able to read poetry in German, and it sounds supreme. As it does in any other language you know well enough, I presume... TomorrowTime (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can find a lot of videos of "fake English" on Youtube by searching for it. The results probably depend on the native language of the person who is imitating it, as it will determine what different bits of English they are likely to pick up on and imitate. Steewi (talk) 05:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And german from the south of the country and from Austria is very mellow--Radh (talk) 10:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The question from the OP is about English to others, not German to others, so I'll answer that. Being French, to me English spoken by Brits sounds like it is being spit. English spoken by Americans sound like it is being chewed. Unless it is being sung, it is not particularly musical to my ears. --Lgriot (talk) 12:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting some unusual images in my head. A little like the Schmidt Sting Pain Index. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, one of Mark Twain's complaints in The Awful German Language was that German is too gentle. "Would any man want to die in a battle which was called by so tame a term as a Schlacht? Or would not a consumptive feel too much bundled up, who was about to go out, in a shirt-collar and a seal-ring, into a storm which the bird-song word Gewitter was employed to describe? And observe the strongest of the several German equivalents for explosion – Ausbruch. Our word Toothbrush is more powerful than that." That was in 1880. The wonderful polylingual glossolalia scene in The Court Jester shows that the modern "harsh" perception was well established in 1956. It's pretty easy to guess what caused that change. All I'm saying is, check the mustache on your prototypical German speaker, and watch out for stripy shirts. -- BenRG (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not answering the OP, but BenRG nails it in his edit summary: Symphony_No._9_(Beethoven)#Vocal_parts (and the whole final movement) is one of the most musical bits of language (and pieces of music) I've ever heard. Franamax (talk) 20:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the French, English tends to sound nasal and quacking. I have read that Russians compare English to whistling and fluting. Rhinoracer (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've heard or read the phrase, "Italian is sung, French is spoken, English is spat, and German is vomited." I've also heard "Spanish is for lovers, French is for diplomats, and English is for Geese." I'm a native English speaker, with only a rudimentary exposure to German, French, Latin, and Inuktitut (roughly in that order and even in German I barely qualify as being a beginner) and I don't think English is a terribly pretty language. Even academic Latin, which is presumably stripped of any beauty it might have had in order to make students hate taking it, has a kind of clipped yet lilting quality to it, almost a specific meter in which it needs to be spoken, that English lacks. Matt Deres (talk) 20:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a Polish comedy movie where an airport employee is supposed to make an announcement in Polish and English. Since all of her English vocabulary consists of "mister" and "fank you", she first reads her announcement in Polish and then puts a spoonful of mashed potatoes in her mouth and pretends to talk in English. This should give you an idea what the slurred, gargling language that English is sounds like to Polish ears. As for other languages, German is often compared to a dog's barking in Poland, Czech and Slovak are considered childlishly amusing, while Russian and Italian are among the languages thought to be most melodic and beautiful. — Kpalion^(talk) 14:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Past tense uses of the verb "to text"

Is there agreement on how to use this relatively new verb - meaning "to send a text message" - in the past tense? I say, "I texted him last night," and, "I have texted him already," while most of my acquaintances say, "I text him last night," and "I have text him already." (Of course, I sometimes also say, "I sent him a text last night.") I think people think they can get away without the "ed" because the "t" gives something of an "-ed" sound. But it's nonsensical to me. Your views?86.139.236.224 (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another argument could be that what they're actually saying is 'texed', past tense of 'tex', which is how they pronounce TXT (possibly without realising). 'kst' is a clumsy combination of sounds. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Along these lines, it could simply be back-formation; "Text" /tEkst/ gets reinterpreted as "texed", which would be a past-tense form already, making "texted" sound awkward. The Jade Knight (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to find an analogous word, I checked a couple of online rhyming dictionaries. I didn't find a verb that rhymed perfectly with text that wasn't already a past participle. The pp of "telex" is "telexed", however. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The American Heritage Dictionary says "texted" (ref). The Cambridge Learners Dictionary doesn't show a past tense. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In spoken dialogue, "text" may have become normish, but in formalish writing I don't think you could get away with less than "texted", if only because "text", while it sounds like a past tense (of the verb "to tex"), does not have the form of a past tense (it lacks an -ed). -- JackofOz (talk) 22:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I use "sms" as a verb (pronounced as a word, not an initialism), with the past tense "smsd". Although it takes me so long to type a message on the damn thing that I usually just call. :) FiggyBee (talk) 22:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Texted" gets lots of google hits - such as this rather enlightening document. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic/Irish/Welsh Symbolism Sign Language

Looking for possible historic reference on the V_sign that may mean anything in secret society language, and/or mythic lore stories of the Celtic region, something to do with Snakes? Like maybe something like Fang style? This is way way out there, but there was a Fred Flinstone & Barney Rubble episode where they in their Loyal Order of Water Buffalos Lodge and being members of the Loyal Order of Dinosaurs do the Peace sign, with accented Fang-Puncturing-Motion. I thought it was so funny as a kid, and just wanted to know if there were any historic significance to this cartoon art medium. Cheers. --i am the kwisatz haderach (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try at the Social Science desk, if no one knows here. Personally, I doubt a connection. The Jade Knight (talk) 21:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 23

Ballots and votes

I keep hearing "Cast their ballot" instead of "Cast their vote". Is this correct? The way I see it, you can cast a vote but, unless you're throwing the piece of paper, you can't cast a ballot. Dismas|^(talk) 05:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's okay. In a lot of places, you're literally casting a paper ballot into a metal ballot box, and even in the places where it's done differently, you're still metaphorically casting your ballot. —An gr 07:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There may be a confusion between the different meanings of ballot. In Angr's example, it's the physical piece of paper the voter puts into the ballot box. If you're talking about the physical action of walking over to the box and inserting the piece of paper into the slot, that's casting a ballot. But if you're talking about the general concept of having your say, then it would be casting a vote. In other words, you can cast/have a vote by casting a ballot. Ballot also refers to the general method of choosing a representative or deciding a question, e.g. a secret ballot, which does not necessarily involve any paper ballots. If it were entirely electronic, you'd cast/have a vote by pressing a button or pulling a lever, not by casting a ballot. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Thanks both of you. I hadn't thought of the "casting it into the ballot box" form of casting. Dismas|^(talk) 13:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And in most elections, you're dealing with more than one office or more than one issue, so you have many votes (e.g., your vote for president, your vote for senator, your vote for city councilman, your vote in the sewer-bond referendum), all of which you cast by means of the collection of choices on the ballot. --- OtherDave (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except that, in many countries, there are separate ballot papers for each such election. jnestorius^(talk) 17:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Casting vote article might be of interest to people in this discussion. (I'm not suggesting it answers the OP's question, just that it seems related. ) 16:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)Wanderer57 (talk)

October 24

Russian spam

Lately my spam-filters see this a hundred times a day: Только наши телочки так сладко стонут... (usually with at least one misspelling). This seems to mean Only our телочки moan so sweetly; what's that one word? —Tamfang (talk) 14:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calves. DAVID ŠENEK 16:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calves or calves? —An gr 18:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 10:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So it's a bestiality spam? —Tamfang (talk) 02:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you do a Google Images search (with Safe Search turned off) for the word телочки you will get lots of non-safe-for-work images, none of them relating to bestiality. I think the word must have some other meaning as well. —An gr 06:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I tried it, the third image was of a reenactment of a rumor about a certain Empress, if you know what I mean. —Tamfang (talk) 01:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Oxford Russian-English dictionary doesn't have any such word as телочeк/телочкa/телочки. It does have the colloquial word for calf, телок, and the more standard word телёнок. Телочки would be a perfectly normal way of deriving a diminutive (pl.) of телок; and Russians are fond of using diminutives for things that are already relatively small, thus making them sound even smaller - e.g. маленький мальчик is the usual way of referring to a boy of any age, but considered word-for-word it means "little boy". So, телочки could mean a young calf, even a baby calf, or it could just mean a calf of indeterminate age. Looking up "calf" in my English-Russian dictionary, I get only телёнок. But looking down the page, my eye espied "calflove", a word I'd never heard of before. It translated it as ребяческая любовь, or юношеское увлечение. The first means "childish or infantile love", the second "youthful passion". The sense I get is that they're talking about a young person exhibiting feelings for another person. So far, so good. Turning now to my trusty English-English dictionary, I find that calf love is a "temporary infatuation of a young boy or girl for a person of the opposite sex". In the context of the question, I guess телочки could be some sort of code for the subjects of pedophiliac attention, but on the face of it, it seems to be related to the reverse of pedophilia, i.e. a young person having a crush on an older person, quite a natural and common phenomenon. These days, though, you never know what words mean to initiates. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Тёлочка is the hypocoristic form of тёлка, that is, "little cow". Тёлочки may be loosely translated as chicks. Only our chicks moan so sweetly. I like that :) --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map of world languages

Does anyone here know of a map of the world with the countries colour-coded along the lines of Image:English-as-Official-Language Map.png but for multiple languages? I don't think I've seen one before but I'd like to. — maestrosync ^talk — 16:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's Image:Human_Language_Families_(wikicolors).png (and several variants of it, I believe). -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template for this Article needs to be copyedited by a native English speaker ?

There is a Wiki template (or something similar) to say: this Article needs to be copyedited by a native English speaker ? I'm not English mother tongue and I would like to flag temporally an Article in order to have some other editor to check its readability (for example Lives of the Prophets I've developed from a stub). Thanks. A ntv (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps one of those at Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup#Translation, most likely Template:RoughTranslation or Template:Cleanup-translation. You can also drop a message to an available proofreader who is proficient in your mother language (Category:Available proofreaders in Wikipedia) or leave a proofreading request on Wikipedia:Translation. Nanonic (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question [agreement of verb with compound subject]

Is it "Jack (and his ever present sidekick John) is acting silly" or "Jack (and his ever present sidekick John) are acting silly"?

I thought that I could write "Jack (and his ever present sidekick John) is ..." because Jack was the subject. Apparently, I'm wrong, even if I put brackets around "and his ever present sidekick John". I was thinking that because I intend John only to be incidental that I could take Jack as the subject instead of "Jack and John". 203.217.43.170 (talk) 18:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend changing and to along with. Then nobody—one would think—could deny that the parenthetical material does not affect the number of the subject, and you could use is with impunity. I'd also hyphenate ever-present. Deor (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If John is ever-present, then he's not incidental, is he? What about "Jack and John (his ever present sidekick) are acting silly" ? --LarryMac | Talk 19:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A "parenthetic" subject is traditionally excluded from deciding the number of the subject for the purposes of agreement with the verb. What constitutes a "parenthetic" subject is fuzzy (e.g. phrases like "as well as", marking off with commas) but if it's in parentheses then it's definitely parenthetic. jnestorius^(talk) 21:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Ah, yes. Edit conflict with Jnestorius. I'll post it exactly as I had it anyway:]

I agree with Deor: change and to along with. That's one perfectly sound way of keeping a singular form of the verb. But the brackets complicate things, since in cases like this what's inside them ought not to affect the syntax of what's outside. Acceptable solutions therefore include these:

Jack, and his ever-present sidekick John, are acting silly.
Jack, along with his ever-present sidekick John, is acting silly.
Jack (along with his ever-present sidekick John) is acting silly.

I have added a hyphen, and managed commas carefully. In each case another comma is possible before John, but it would clutter things needlessly.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 21:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without wishing to gainsay the ever-correct Noetica, are the commas necessary - or even desirable - in "Jack, and his ever-present sidekick John, are acting silly"? The form is "A, and B, are doing X", which seems fairly non-acceptable to me. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all due deference to my esteemed antipodean colleague JackofOz, I point out that I wrote "acceptable solutions therefore include these". I do not claim that those commas are necessary or even desirable, in most situations in which the sentence would be deployed. But the question was put in terms of some such parenthetic structure, and there are indeed contexts in which this very interpolation would be parenthetical. Consider:

"How is Jack behaving today?" "Jack, and his ever-present sidekick John, are acting silly."

See? The main point is to respond to a question about Jack; and the information about John, being a gratuitous amplification, is parenthetical.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 22:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I'm not convinced. If "and his ever-present sidekick John" is truly parenthetical, it would have to be "Jack, and his ever-present sidekick John, is acting silly", wouldn't it? Seems to me the choices are: commas and "is", or no commas and "are". -- JackofOz (talk) 22:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that sometimes there is a rhetorical reason for setting off part of a compound subject with commas, but doing so doesn't necessitate the use of a singular verb. As a style guide I happen to have handy (Words into Type) says, "The copy editor should not be misled by punctuation that makes a plural subject appear to be a singular subject followed by a parenthetical phrase"—an example given being "The great diversity of the risks covered, and the complex nature of the business, introduce production problems of an unusual character" (emphasis mine). Deor (talk) 00:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JackofOz, we might distinguish semantic and syntactic parenthesis.

Brackets (or "parentheses", in the Vespuccian patois) isolate the syntax of the included material much more trenchantly than other devices. A pair of commas has little isolating effect; a pair of sentence-level dashes (em dshes, or my preferred spaced en dashes) has an isolating effect intermediate between commas and brackets.

Semantic parenthesis is a more fluid affair than syntactic parenthesis. In suggesting that and his ever-present sidekick John may in some situations be parenthetical, I mean semantically parenthetical.

Then there is prosodic parenthesis. But let's not get ahead of ourselves.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 02:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ill-equipped to engage in discourse of such abstruseness, being a mere dilettante who thinks he generally knows good grammar and bad grammar when he sees them. So I won't argue any more. But I know what I'd be writing if I were writing the sentence in question, and anyone who dared question me would have a fight on their hands. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 07:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Jack and his sometimes-present sidekick Noetica do not agree on the matter! But does Jack know much about punctuation? I think that Jack, and his friend Noetica, are quite knowledgeable, really. I would even say that Jack – and of course, Noetica – is generally pretty good on these matters. One might always assume that Jack (with the Great Noetica) is always worth listening to. Gwinva (talk) 08:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Gwinva! I said I would contact you, not edit conflict with you! Anyway, clever self-referential use of parentheses. Or should that be self-parenthetical use of references? I can't be sure any more. Still, let us bluff ever onward:]

And modest, too, JoO. I like that! :)

Actually the terminology is up for grabs. It pays to bluff, and to assume an air of authority whether it be warranted or no. (I did – a bit, at least.)

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 08:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone who has posted any response other than a decisive MAKE AGREEMENT AS THOUGH THERE ARE NO PARANTHESES (AS THOUGH YOU'RE READING OUT LOUD) is WRONG. There is one and only one way to continue a sentence after you've included some parentheses: as though the things in parentheses weren't in parentheses.

It is:

"Jack (and his ever present sidekick John) are acting silly"
"In all our storied past (and currently, and in all our foreseeable future) we shall remain..."
"Neither you nor Jacky (nor I) am a good person to discuss this with"

It's that simple. It's a matter of the "correct" or "incorrent" answer to this question. NO EXCEPTIONS. The people above who gave a different alternative are just wrong. Period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.27.170.127 (talk) 23:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Life is certainly simple for the dogmatic. Deor (talk) 23:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) And your authority for this rather dubious and over-assertive assertion is ...? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One point unmentioned so far is that, to my most English-English of ears, "acting silly" is rather odd. I prefer "being silly" or "acting in a silly way." As to the original point, I think the problem is definitely caused by the use of the word "and", which confuses things terribly. "Along with" is OK, or "as well as". As soon as you have "and", the parenthetical nature of the reference to the sidekick is lost or obscured. Further, as far as I can see, unless John is just one of several sidekicks, the use of a comma before his name is not really optional. Consider the difference between the two sentences: i) "James, as well as his wife Jane, speaks Italian." ii) "James, as well as his wife, Jane, speaks Italian." The former surely suggests James is a polygamist. Wife ought to be restrictive, or defining, so a comma is needed. But as with all these things, much depends on the reader. Writing is there to be read, not to be written. A careful writer will know the audience and put together a text accordingly. In many circumstances, these intricacies can be safely glossed over.-86.139.236.224 (talk) 13:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Question

How can 「（日付）を以って（動詞）」 be translated? Same as 「（日付）に（動詞）」？--ChokinBako (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(日付）を以って can be translated as 'as of 日付'. Oda Mari (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amazed you didn't check Eijirō, the one dictionary I would take to a desert island if I was planning to do Japanese-English translation work there. It suggests "as of" or "effective". -- BenRG (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I use Eijiro all the time, lar, on www.alc.co.jp, but it only gave two examples of the use of '以って', and both translations did not seem applicable to the context of the text I am working on. Oda Mari's translation was perfect.--ChokinBako (talk) 23:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accents of Hitchcock and Karloff

Boris Karloff and Alfred Hitchcock were born in London a few years apart, but had quite distinctively different accents, but both sound British to American ears. Was this difference of dialect or accent due to the different neighborhoods they were from, or to different social class of their parents? Is there a name for the typical British English of each of these celebrities? Karloff sounded (except when he was doing a dialect role) a bit upscale from Hitchcock.Here is a 1964 interview with Hitchcock: [1] , and here he is introducing a TV episode [2]. Here is Karloff, at 1:30 introducing a TV show:[3] , and at 2:30 [4] introducing another episode. Edison (talk) 21:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"British English" as a term refers to the way in which the form of English used in Britain differs in spelling, vocabulary, grammar and punctuation from that used elsewhere. It shouldn't really be used to describe accents. People in Britain don't have "British accents"; they have English, Scottish, Welsh accents etc as applicable. What Americans tend to think of when they talk about a "Bridish accent" is almost invariably an English accent, either RP or some godawful version of cockney.

I'd agree that Hitchcock has a slightly lower-middle-class drawl compared to Karloff, but bear in mind that actors often undergo vocal training to speak with a kind of RADA accent, whereas directors do not. Malcolm XIV (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, it can hardly be due to the different neighborhoods they were from, as it seems that Hitchcock went to school in Enfield, where Karloff (whose real name was Pratt) grew up. I do think different social class is at the nub of this question. Karloff went to two fee-paying schools, Uppingham and Merchant Taylors', Northwood, after Enfield Grammar School, and his brothers went on to became diplomats. Hitchcock, the grocer's son, had only his grammar school, St Ignatius', which must have had less chance of turning him out as a polished young gent. Strawless (talk) 01:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful information. Edison (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kamikaze

Why do people insist on translating 'Kamikaze' as 'God of the Wind', when 'Kaze' is the main part of this word, therefore meaning 'Wind of the Gods'? If it was 'God of the Wind', it would be 'Kazekami'. Historically, 'Wind of the Gods' would make sense, considering it referred originally to the typhoon that repelled the Mongol invasion in the 13th Century. Any thoughts on this?--ChokinBako (talk) 23:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've always seen it translated as "divine wind." Who are these people who translate it as "God of the Wind"? Deor (talk) 00:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard people say it, and seen it on the odd TV documentary - admittedly, old ones.--ChokinBako (talk) 10:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is because the word is derived from the ideas and beliefs of Shintoism which generally believe that spirits called kami. Using this knowledge, you can see that what the word kamikaze is really trying to describe is the spirit or god that is in the wind; not the wind that is from the gods, as the wind is the spirit itself. As to why it is written in this order, it probably has something to do with the grammatical order of Japanese, which I am not fully familiar with. Yakeyglee (talk) 21:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, grammatically, it would mean the 'Wind from the Gods'. When a noun comes at the end of a compound word in Japanese, that word becomes the main subject (for want of a better word) of the compound. Therefore, in 'kamikaze', it is the 'wind' that we are talking about. This is the same in English. When we talk of 'penfriend', we mean a friend that communicates with us by the pen, not a friend who is actually a pen.--ChokinBako (talk) 22:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize, you won't go far wrong if you translate each component into English and keep them in the same order. kami-kaze = god-wind; Tô-kyô = East Capital. This is not true of (for example) Arabic or Vietnamese. —Tamfang (talk) 21:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Merchant Ships

What is the meaning of 'maru', the word that comes after the name of practically every merchant ship in Japan? One of my friends who is a sailor asked me this tonight, and I couldn't answer. 'Circle' did not quite convince him. Any ideas?--ChokinBako (talk) 23:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For some theories, see Japanese ship naming conventions#Maru. Deor (talk) 00:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult question. The oldest citation is from an 1187 text. There are a number of suggested etymologies, but no general consensus:

maro (麿, "I") > maru; originally used to refer to oneself, gradually changed to refer to things near oneself as a term of endearment
personification (again from maro (麿, "I"))
from maro (麿), a suffix to a boys name
from the word for stripped wood (maruta 丸太) used in boat construction
from toimaru (問丸), medieval tradesmen on boats

Nothing definite, but FYI. Bendono (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I can't believe it's such a mystery! Thanks!--ChokinBako (talk) 10:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 25

Japanese translation

I feel I understand what is being said, but I would like a second opinion. In the sentence 『CLANNAD』は自分の中でもシナリオではもう行き着くとこまで行っちゃって二度と越えられない壁になってます。 (which references Clannad) I believe it says, "Clannad has already become, among all my scenarios, an impassable wall that I will never reach again." or so. The speaker is Jun Maeda, the main scenario writer for Clannad.--十八 06:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about this? Inside of me, the scenario of 'Clanned' was developed to the full extent and now I found a brick wall that I could never break through. Oda Mari (talk) 06:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That still conveys the same message, right? In that Maeda is saying he reached the limit of his writing ability with Clannad, and now he believes he'll never write something as ambitious, or more ambitious, than what he did with Clannad, right?--十八 08:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he is saying he got to a wall that I will never be able to get over again. --ChokinBako (talk) 09:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the responses.--十八 20:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A note on masculine as default grammatical gender

I just wrote something about this, but then the section was archived from under me: see my scintillating contribution here.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 08:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Punctuation [in Charade, and in Shakespeare?]

This line from Charade has me in a quandry: "Well, wasn't it Shakespeare that said, 'When strangers do meet in far off lands, they should e'er long see each other again'?" Assuming that the "Shakespearean" line is complete, should there be a period after "again" or is there some rule against having two punctuation marks one after the other (sort of)? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly nothing closely resembling that line occurs in Shakespeare. But even if it did, there would be no point in consulting such a source. Shakespearian punctuation is variable and illogical by our standards.

Anyway, no: there should not be such a period. See WP:MOS, where this is dealt with quite well.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 08:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not relevant to your question, but that line doesn't even make sense. e'er should probably be ere. Algebraist 10:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That line was just part of a joke (hence the quotation marks) to allow Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn the opportunity to be charming (and they are). Clarityfiend (talk) 21:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kde domov muj? [Czech pronunciation]

How is "muj" pronounced? Once again, I am pretty illterate in IPA, so avoid using it. Come to think of it, where is the diacritic that's supposed to be on the u? I could only find the ring for the a, the one that looks Swedish. Vltava 68 (talk contribs) 09:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are referring to František Škroup's song Kde domov můj? Where is the diacritic? There is the diacritic! I believe můj is pronounced /muj/! That is, like Spanish muy. The u is roughly pronounced like the u in English put, or in German Mutter.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 09:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact you can find that ů in the "Latin" options below the Edit Box:

Á á Ć ć É é Í í Ĺ ĺ Ń ń Ó ó Ŕ ŕ Ś ś Ú ú Ý ý Ź ź À à È è Ì ì Ò ò Ù ù Â â Ĉ ĉ Ê ê Ĝ ĝ Ĥ ĥ Î î Ĵ ĵ Ô ô Ŝ ŝ Û û Ŵ ŵ Ŷ ŷ Ä ä Ë ë Ï ï Ö ö Ü ü Ÿ ÿ ß Ã ã Ẽ ẽ Ĩ ĩ Ñ ñ Õ õ Ũ ũ Ỹ ỹ Ç ç Ģ ģ Ķ ķ Ļ ļ Ņ ņ Ŗ ŗ Ş ş Ţ ţ Đ đ Ů ů Ǎ ǎ Č č Ď ď Ě ě Ǐ ǐ Ľ ľ Ň ň Ǒ ǒ Ř ř Š š Ť ť Ǔ ǔ Ž ž Ā ā Ē ē Ī ī Ō ō Ū ū Ȳ ȳ Ǣ ǣ ǖ ǘ ǚ ǜ Ă ă Ĕ ĕ Ğ ğ Ĭ ĭ Ŏ ŏ Ŭ ŭ Ċ ċ Ė ė Ġ ġ İ ı Ż ż Ą ą Ę ę Į į Ǫ ǫ Ų ų Ḍ ḍ Ḥ ḥ Ḷ ḷ Ḹ ḹ Ṃ ṃ Ṇ ṇ Ṛ ṛ Ṝ ṝ Ṣ ṣ Ṭ ṭ Ł ł Ő ő Ű ű Ŀ ŀ Ħ ħ Ð ð Þ þ Œ œ Æ æ Ø ø Å å Ə ə

And yes, můj (alternatively múj) is indeed pronounced like /muy/, but with a longish and more rounded u than the unadorned letter. (Source: Routledge Czech Grammar.)

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 09:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is pronounced muːj. There is nothing more rounded about it than <u>, and there's no such alternative spelling as "múj". — Emil J. 10:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really, Emil? A Google search on múj at pages restricted to .cz gets 22,000 hits! While a similar search on můj gets 14,700,000 hits, there is at least prima facie evidence that múj is currently an alternative. The Routledge grammar I referred to (Czech: an Essential Grammar, James Naughton, 2005) says only that ú has longer duration than u, and that this long vowel is normally spelt ů except as the first letter of a word. But as we can see, usage seems to allow ú in other contexts, "properly" or not. As for rounding, Teach Yourself Czech (WR and Z Lee, Hodder & Stoughton, second edition 1964) says of this long vowel:

The lips are rounded as for u or more so.

Of course I may be wrong; but this is evidence to reckon with.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 01:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does a word/phrase exist for this type of "getting caught"?

Is there a specific word or common phrase in any language for this kind of situation?

Example 1) You are a law-abiding driver and always have been. In your small town you have never seen a police car, ever, in your many years of living there. That one time you ever consider rolling through a stop sign and do it, you see the lights and sirens in your rear view window.

Example 2) You're at your office cubicle and have an itch in your nose. You think to yourself, "someone will see me if I scratch it and they'll think I'm picking my nose". You wait and wait for the itch to hopefully go away on its own. Ten minutes later, nobody has walked by your cubicle and your nose feels like it is crawling with fire ants, so you go for the gold. Within the exact same second or two that you put your finger in your nose, your boss comes around the corner out of nowhere to talk to you.

Example 3) You're playing a first-person shooter, with a sniper rifle to keep an area clear for your teammates. You keep a reputably-troublesome hallway scoped for a few minutes when you don't see any action at all there the entire time. You figure the frontline action moved forward in the game, and staring at a wall is boring, so you proceed toward that hallway to reach wherever you think your teammates are... the moment you enter the hallway and almost reach the end, a superiorly-equipped enemy comes around the corner and destroys you without blinking.

With things like the second example, I always used the word "Seinfeldian", but that's an adjective :)

Also I wonder if Statisticians have studied this phenomenon. It kind of nullifies the idea of patience being a virtue. --75.165.11.199 (talk) 17:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remember it discussed by Scott Adams years ago, but he didn't have a name for it either. Seems to be a corollary of Murphy's law. jnestorius^(talk) 17:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Murphy's laws. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sod's law ?hotclaws 07:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, Spear of Destiny put out the Sod's Law album and there seems to be a spear of destiny operating in this kind of dumb luck, often enough to seem precisely planned. Karma? in the sense that what you avoid most gets you without warning. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation guide

Can you please use a pronunciation guide like "The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language" pronunciation guide, or at least a pronunciation guide that divides a word into syllables. All American children were taught learn the pronunciation of a new word by this means in elementary school. Please do this. The pronunciation guide that you use is difficult and it is not helpful. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.118.229.108 (talk) 18:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The AHD pronunciation guide won't be helpful to non-Americans who didn't learn it at school. IPA has the advantage of being an international standard. Moreover, any English-specific pronunciation guide will be useless at accurately describing the pronunciation of words from other languages which may have sounds that don't exist in English. If IPA is difficult for you, you may try Wikipedia:IPA and Wikipedia:IPA for English to start learning it. — Kpalion^(talk) 18:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have never understood this position. Because, of course, we only use British English and tell Americans to go learn to speak right. And we only use metric and tell Americans to go learn to measure correctly. Not to mention only using day-month-year format and only BCE/CE dating. Only IPA seems to be granted this special status and forget that making actually accessible articles is the goal. Rmhermen (talk) 14:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, no special status for the IPA. Other pronunciation respelling systems are allowed in addition to the IPA at Wikipedia. They're just rarely used because they're even more complicated, counterintuitive, and inaccessible than the IPA allegedly is, and they don't work for languages other than English anyway. —An gr 14:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phobia name

I realise this is a bit of a silly question, but does anyone know what the Latin name would be for a phobia of dropping one's keys into the gap between a lift car and the floor? Something we'd been arguing about in the pub, but nobody knew the answer. — FIRE!^{in a crowded theatre...} 18:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, this is medical advice. Grab your car keys, hop into the elevator and drive to to your physicia - ooops, drat - walk to your physicians surgery.

Unfortunately, it will be locked as the good doctor dropped her keys into the storm water drain when she climbed into her car through the side window. The reason for her unusual boarding maneuvre can easily be guessed, but the terminology currently escapes me... --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even going to try to pretend to go Greek for this -- using Latin stems, one possibility might be Clavirimophobia (clavis, rima). AnonMoos (talk) 21:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See The Phobia List. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about ptosikleisophobia? (from ptosis, falling, and kleis, key) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 09:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kleis is a case form (nominative singular if with an acute accent, nominative/accusative plural if with a cicumflex accent), not the stem used for compounding. The stem is kleid- ... AnonMoos (talk)

October 26

Magazine name

hi every one! i'm gonna start a new magazine! suggest me short stylich meaningful names of any language............... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.103.140 (talk) 07:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what's the magazine about? You want a name that's actually relevant to the topic, not just some random word, right? (If you do just want some random word, try hitting Special:Random or wikt:Special:Random a few times till you find a word you like.) —An gr 07:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will the name express something of your magazine's purpose or intent? Though it's a typo, "Stylich" sounds catchy for a mag about style, say. Julia Rossi (talk) 21:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Especially if the intended audience is liches. Or maybe it's Style-itch? —Tamfang (talk) 01:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"NEW!" usually catches the eye.--89.168.224.110 (talk) 09:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Truck driver who likes to drive in stocking feet

Moved to misc desk here . FiggyBee (talk) 13:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subject / verb agreement

I received an email, and I was typing my reply. My very first sentence was this: Your email brings two thoughts to mind. I continued on, typing the rest of the email. Then, I went back to the very first sentence and I added in the following parenthetical: (and its accompanying questions). Now, my first sentence read: Your email (and its accompanying questions) brings two thoughts to mind. Mentally, I went back and forth 100 times, wondering if the verb should stay as singular brings or should be changed to plural bring. I was taught (I think?) that a parenthetical is absolutely irrelevant to sentence structure. The sentence should be able to stand alone if the parenthetical were completely removed. This leads me to believe that the correct verb should remain singular brings. However, at the same time, introducing the parenthetical seems to make the subject of the verb change from singular to plural. And hence require plural bring. No? So, here are my questions. (Question 1) In the new and revised sentence, with the added parenthetical, what exactly is the subject? Is it merely "your email" or is it "your email (and its accompanying questions)"? And, thus, what is the subject's appropriate verb? (Question 2) Would the answer to Question 1 change in any way if I rewrote the sentence by simply deleting the parentheses symbols and doing nothing else? In other words, is there any semantic / grammatical / linguistic difference between Sentence A and Sentence B below? Certainly, their substance and what they are communicating are exactly identical ... or no?

Sentence A: Your email (and its accompanying questions) brings two thoughts to mind.

Sentence B: Your email and its accompanying questions bring two thoughts to mind.

I understand that I can change words around, etc., to fix this problem. My question, though, presumes that I do not want to do so. Help! Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I suggest that you start by reading this thread above, so that folks don't have to repeat the responses they made there. Afterwards, if you have any remaining questions, let us know what they are. Deor (talk) 16:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks. I had not seen that above thread from a few days ago. But, on certain levels, neither did I find it helpful. Maybe some "language ref type" can help? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

The only difference I see is that A makes the questions a bit more subordinate. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, it sounds like it's not even necessary to refer to the accompanying questions. If you received a letter, you wouldn't respond with "Thank you for your letter and its content". Whatever your response is, "your letter" refers not to the physical object that arrived in your letter box, but to the content of the communication. Same principle with an email, where the content can include the main message plus attachments. In some cases you may, in the body of your reply, need to refer to a specific attachment to identify a particular sentence you're commenting on, but your introductory thank you is all inclusive, whether there are attachments or not. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, you MUST formulate your sentence to read correctly when read out loud (i.e. where parenthetical marks are not possible). So it MUST be Your email (and its accompanying questions) bring two thoughts to mind. Hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.90.101 (talk) 22:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would help even more if you weren't quite so categorical in your responses. Please let your words speak for themselves, without the need to emphasise them unduly. If you believe there's one and only one correct answer to a controversial question, please provide your authority. (Btw, your answer to the thread above has been questioned as well.) -- JackofOz (talk) 01:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, by the way: a sentence containing a parenthesis needs to make sense with the parenthesis deleted. Keeping this rule in mind can help you not put the closing ')' in the wrong place. —Tamfang (talk) 01:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having commented on the sidekick related question above, I thought I should give my view here. It's exactly that: an opinion. The problem is the word "and". It seems to make the subject "your e-mail and ... questions" not just "e-mail" so a plural verb should follow. If you want to have a single subject - the e-mail - I would definitely suggest avoiding problems by saying something like "Your e-mail, as well as the accompanying questions, brings ...". But I can't see what stands to be gained by complicating this. So "Your e-mail and the accompanying questions bring ..." works for me. With one small exception, that "accompanying" seems to imply that the questions were somehow separate from the e-mail. This seems a bit odd. If the questions were in the e-mail, why not refer to "its questions" or "the questions is contains". If the questions were separate, why not say "Your e-mail and the questions sent in an accompanying note ..." or similar. That's if, as a careful writer, you think any of this really matters in this particular case.86.139.236.224 (talk) 13:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laugh(ing) like a drain

Where does this expression originate?--GreenSpigot (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This [5] says: "This is a UK phrase, from around the time of WWII. It is first recorded by Eric Partridge in A dictionary of forces' slang 1939–45, 1948. He describes it as 'Ward-room and also Army officers’ slang'". The etymology / sense seems unclear. The link speculates on some implied onomatopoeic ~~gargling~~ gurgling pun. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Could it be refwerence to the gurgling sound as when pouring water down the drain pipe?--GreenSpigot (talk) 22:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, it´s them gargoyles gurgling at the dentist´s spitoon I was laughing about in my Freudian slippers. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And possibly an open mouth/throat like a drain to produce the uninhibited noise? Julia Rossi (talk) 01:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good name?

I met this guy (from India) a while ago on holiday and he asked me what my good name was, I had no understanding of what he meant until someone explained it to me, at which point I responded. When he said "good name" I thought it might be a type of name such as forename and surname.

When I went on holiday in summer, on the plane I saw a movie called Outsourced, in it, a man meets this Indian guy who asked him what his good name was, he also seemed quite confused. Why do some people ask "What is your good name?" and not just "What's your name?"?

I understand that they are complimenting your name, but that seems kind of wierd as they haven't even heard it yet - so how can you compliment it if you haven't heard it (the compliment seems almost insincere).

I live in the UK and have never heard this phrase used there, and I concider myself a well-travelled man and have only heard it the one time. I have never heard this phrase used in America either. So is this just a phrase used in India, or is it used anywhere else in the world? Thanks. W.i.k.i.p.e.d.i.a - Reference desk guy (talk) 23:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Your good self" and "your good name" have a certain colonial/post colonial ring to them. Some things just become the uninspected ~~bedrock~~ drift of customary phrases, perhaps. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting it like that, because I have heard "Your good self" many times before, but never thought about it like that (i.e. associated it with the oddity that is "your good name").W.i.k.i.p.e.d.i.a - Reference desk guy (talk) 01:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In The Namesake (film) (about an Indian family in New York) the son's "good name" is mentioned several times. If I remember right, the son is given an informal name at birth, and later a "good name"; and in his teens he says he wants to change his "good name" from one of his given names to the other. —Tamfang (talk) 01:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So is that just the name they prefer to be called, like a nickname? W.i.k.i.p.e.d.i.a - Reference desk guy (talk) 02:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got the impression that it's a formal or ceremonial name. (It's best to indent by one more than whatever you're responding to.) —Tamfang (talk) 05:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Your good name" in the Indian context is the same as saying "your honorable name;" it is just an old way of being polite. In the other sense, your good name is your reputation, and this usage is quite common in American English. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's actually none of the above (although some replies, such as DOR's, come close). Here's the Oxford Companion to the English Language (p. 259): "When, for example, South Asian speakers of English ask, What is your good name?, they are transferring an expression from another language into English."

That expression is more like, "What is your auspicious name?" and, in the vernaculars themselves, it is considered a form of politeness. In other words, asking someone their name, matter-of-factly and unadorned, might be considered rude, especially in a society ridden with caste hierarchies where the (sur-) name itself is often a reliable clue to caste (and class) status. I should add that "good name" (in the Indian context) usually implies the full name, but it certainly includes the last name (or surname). After all, what would be the point of this verbal subterfuge on my part if my interlocutor's answer, say, in the form of only their first name, doesn't give me the ability to place them.

That is roughly how the expression got started. The people who use it in South Asia today might not be themselves translating it from another language; they might have actually learnt it in the English lessons, and for them, it is just a polite way of asking someone their name.

"What is your good name?" has been commented upon for at least the last 50 years and mocking it is the staple of Indian literary works in English. Its naive use today by someone is itself a marker of class status; the upper crust convent school educated crowd in South Asia wouldn't be caught dead using it. Even among the larger population, the expression might soon (sadly) become a casualty of the global leveling of speech ushered in by cable TV. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 18:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. W.i.k.i.p.e.d.i.a - Reference desk guy (talk) 18:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

good doctor

On a distantly related note, how did "the good doctor" become a cliché? —Tamfang (talk) 01:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno. Reminds me of what my father always used to call my mother, "Good my lady". —An gr 10:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American 'save the world' films

Why is it that the 'President' on all films where America saves the world talks big but always speaks a type of English that makes him sound like he dropped out of school when he was 16? I know for a fact that educated Americans (and even American presidents!) do not talk like that. I am talking about Impact Earth and Independence Day, as well as others. Watching this stuff is like reading the Sunday Sport - full of emotive language and cliches.--ChokinBako (talk) 23:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I would guess that films portray American presidents as ignorant ill-educated fools is because they (usually) are! You say American presidents don't talk like that, I can't comment on Impact Earth or Independence Day as I havn't seen either, but they don't talk as if they are educated either. Generally, American presidents talk rubbish. I have never read the Sunday Sport, so I can't comment on that.

Generally fiction needs some realism - aliens, time travel and other obsurdities are within the realms of one's imagination, but an intellectual American president - now that's going too far. I suggest if you wan't something so impossible to be depicted in film, you make your own. Please don't take this paragraph too seriously!

It is believed by many people (not including me when talking about Americans in general) that Americans (especially American presidents) aren't very intelligent *understatement of the year*. Clearly the makers of the films you mention believe that playing on this cliche of a stereotype enhances their film in some way - this stereotype can be (and often is) exploited for great comic effect.

Hope that helps.W.i.k.i.p.e.d.i.a - Reference desk guy (talk) 00:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Reference Desk is not a soapbox for diatribes about how much you despise people from some country other than your own. There are blogs for that sort of thing. Edison (talk) 15:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, you are making sense. Also (at the risk of this question becoming unrelated to language), why is it that the nuclear bomb is the answer to everything? Haven't the directors of these farcical films realised yet that the end of their stories are so incredibly predictable, with a President talking like a teenager and a nuke at the end? Oh, no, of course, these films are aimed at the uneducated masses (of which we have our fair share here in the UK, so this is not a dig at the US)....--ChokinBako (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One doesn't watch a show like Independence Day for sophisticated writing. (Sophisticated visual effects, yes.) —Tamfang (talk) 01:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, most people aren't very intelligent as you've outlined, and so the fact that most films share the same plot and are unbelievably predictable means nothing because most people are to stupid to notice. Quantum of Solace for example is coming out in 4 days and I'll probably go to see it (mainly for conversational purposes), even though I'm sure it will have a similar plot (if not the same) to every other Bond film made. It will probably also have many factual errors and continuity errors, none-the-less it will undoubtedly be a major success (just like Casino Royale).W.i.k.i.p.e.d.i.a - Reference desk guy (talk) 01:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One doesn't watch a movie such as Independence Day for the erudite dialogue because of the lack of erudite dialogue. Though I do wonder why one would watch a show like Independance Day at all.W.i.k.i.p.e.d.i.a - Reference desk guy (talk) 01:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Bill Pullman's speech in Independence Day (film) is one of the greatest by any president real or fiction. Grsz ^Review! 01:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In what way? I'm not saying you're wrong (as I haven't seen the film), I'm just enquiring. W.i.k.i.p.e.d.i.a - Reference desk guy (talk) 01:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)Right, and the aliens' computer just happens to be able to understand DOS, or whatever other human computer language the virus was written in. Oh, and they also used a USB or some such other human interface. Total crap.--ChokinBako (talk) 02:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From that statement, It does sound as if it is "total crap"! W.i.k.i.p.e.d.i.a - Reference desk guy (talk) 03:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Independence Day does use the Hollywood OS and yes, it is rather predictable. But it's a fun movie. It's mental bubble gum and visually pretty cool for its time. It wasn't supposed to be the next Citizen Kane but it's a long way from Ishtar. As for Bill Pullman's speech, I don't remember it word for word but given that the speech was impromptu, not written by speech writers on the president's staff, and directed towards a bunch of refugees in their own country assembled on the tarmac who were portrayed as everyday Joes (I don't recall right now whether they were able to broadcast the speech at that point in the movie), I don't think that they did that bad with it. I wonder what the OP's opinion of Air Force One is... Dismas|^(talk) 05:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"full of emotive language and cliches" That's the way most politicians talk when they're making speeches for general consumption, regardless of nationality. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem with the speech is that he claims July 4 will now be the world's Independence Day. Lame. There is a radio program from the British point of view that discusses that (Independence Day UK). By the way, is "Impact Earth" supposed to be Deep Impact? I would say Morgan Freeman is a better president than Bill Pullman but I don't recall his speech at all. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The speech is reminiscent of the President's speech in the final movie of Battlestar Galactica - very emotive and patriotic. And, it wasn't Deep Impact - although I do have the misfortune to have seen that, too. Impact Earth was a docudrama on Discovery Channel. As for Air Force One, I have not seen that, but was intending to until it came up in this thread. If there is any relevance at all to the theme of this thread, then I may give it a miss.--ChokinBako (talk) 09:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget that this is the same Hollywood that caters to the lowest common denominator; it's not just that many are too dumb to notice, becasue if that was the case, there wouldn't be people complaining about it. However, there are people who complain a lot about how Hollywood "never makes anything original." And, the reason is because people pay for it, and that many times, studios are so afraid to make a mistake that they always try the "tried and true" formula, even if that formula is now all stale and moldy.

To keep this in language (marginally, anyway), it's so bad that someone told me once that, at the end of Bogie's speech ("If you don't go wtih...") in Casablanca, they heard a voice from behind them say, "That's so cliche." The idea of Hollywood making copies is so great that people just "presume" anything is going to be cliche, even if it's the original of something! If that's the case, where is the incentive of Hollywood writers to try any harder?Somebody or his brother (talk) 19:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're talking about quite a span of time since Casablanca was made. Young people who see Citizen Kane for the first time often ask what all the fuss was about and why it was considered so great. It had a huge list of innovations, most of which have become standard fare these days. But back then, it was truly a groundbreaker. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In order to be elected president, you have to be a "regular guy" that people can relate to. That's how George W. Bush beat Al Gore and why Bill Clinton was so popular. Americans like people who do "straight talk" and "cut the crap." This is true in other fields as well -- look at the popularity of people like Jack Welch and Mike Ditka. A boring intellectual like Ben Stein would not make a realistic American president. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Might have to go all the way back to the parody "Calvin Coolidge's Insane Last Speech[6]" to hear one that tops the recent fictional and actual idiotic utterances of some U.S. presidents. For a Brit example, one might consider some of the imagined utterances of Prince Phillip [7]. His actual utterances are about equal to the parody [8]. And all this mighty intellect gets passed along to future monarchs of that line. U.S. Presidents are not always the descendants of their maladroit predecessors, but unfortunately this sometimes happens. Edison (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well, all the European monarchies are in-bred, aren't they? If you get one idiot saying stupid things and acting like Richard III, you'll get them all like that, after all it is hereditary. I'm surprised they haven't all got horrendous physical mutations to add to their suppressed brain capacity (Whoops! I said something naughty! I'd best beware of white FIATs next time I go driving!).--ChokinBako (talk) 23:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you suppose that the heir to a throne is "all ears?" Edison (talk) 05:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 27

Itinerant job?

"After growing up in Liverpool, the brothers, following their father's itinerant job,......"

This is from Red Flag (band).

A person moving often to find work is "itinerant". Is it a) reasonable or b) over-reaching to talk of an itinerant job? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CBHA (talk • contribs) 02:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Itinerant...

...as a noun - One who travels from place to place
...as an adjective - Habitually travelling from place to place

From this I wouldn't think that you can say itinerant job, but I may be wrong. W.i.k.i.p.e.d.i.a - Reference desk guy (talk) 03:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jobs don't travel from place to place; people do. I would rephrase it as "...the brothers, because of the itinerant nature of their father's job,..." (However, if an eccentric billionaire paid you to to move around a lot, I'd call that an itinerant job.) Clarityfiend (talk) 06:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the globalized era, jobs do indeed travel from place to place. If people in one place aren't sufficiently experienced, educated or expert; happen to be too expensive; or have the bad luck to live in an unstable or high tax jurisdiction, that job is going to hit the road if it possibly can. Pay attention to your productivity and those jobs will stick around. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From my Google search for "itinerant job" I found some web pages that use the expression, including

Wind Technician III Itinerant Job in House, New Mexico with FPL Group | JobCentral.

-- Wavelength (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"itinerant" seems fine, and Google shows several uses from job ads; "peripatetic" is the nearest synonym but today applies particularly to people doing a circuit e.g. a peripatetic teacher doing different days at different schools (check recruitment ads). If you're really concerned, then you could leave out the word "itinerant" ("the brothers, following their father's ~~itinerant~~ job, moved to locations such as Montreal and Seattle") since it's implied that the job is itinerant if they're moving around.--Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, I don't really think it's fine. Adjectivally, itinerant means "travelling from place to place". As Clarityfiend pointed out, people travel, jobs don't. Travelling implies the use of some form of locomotion, such as a car, bus, train, aircraft, or even walking. Jobs do none of these things. A job may move, but it doesn't travel. To use the word in reference to a job itself is a neologism not supported by anything much. It may get a few google hits but that doesn't mean much when we can find google-support for virtually anything these days. The Methodist Church uses the term itinerancy, meaning the system of rotation governing the ministry of the church, and preachers who preach from place to place are said to itinerate. But their "job" is not an itinerant one. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, we were just talking about hypallage a week or so ago (a "slow tin of honey" or similar, wasn't it?). This seems a perfectly acceptable instance of that to me. Deor (talk) 00:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hypallage shmypallage. The word has always been used with exceeding imprecision, like most rhetorical terms. I would speak here of metonymy, just to be on safe ground. OED has this for hypallage (with my underlining for emphasis):

A figure of speech in which there is an interchange of two elements of a proposition, the natural relations of these being reversed.

Servius, in commenting on Virg. Æn. iii. 61, explains dare classibus austros as a hypallage for dare classes austris. In Quintilian (viii. vi. 23) the word (written as Greek) has the sense of metonymy, and English authors have sometimes applied it loosely or incorrectly to other variations from natural forms of expression, esp. to the transference of attributes from their proper subjects to others (cf. quot. 1586).

1586 A. Day Eng. Secretary ii. (1625) 83 Hypallage, when by change of property in application a thing is delivered, as to say+the wicked wound thus given, for, having thus wickedly wounded him. 1589 Puttenham Eng. Poesie iii. xv. (Arb.) 183 The Greekes call this figure (Hipallage)+we in our vulgar may call him the (vnderchange) but I had rather haue him called the (Changeling). 1654 Vilvain Theorem. Theol. vi. 153 Names of Men may import Men of name, sith such Hypallages are usual in Scripture. 1789 Madan Persius (1795) 66 note, Casaubon+says that this is an Hypallage. 1844 T. Mitchell Sophocles I. 25 note, Hypallages of this kind abound in Sophocles. 1874 T. N. Harper Peace through Truth Ser. ii. 1. 44 note, The phrase, ‘you also are become dead to the law’,+is a hypallage for ‘the law has become dead to you’.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swimming halls and pools

What is a building containing indoor swimming pools called in English? Is it just a swimming pool? In Finnish, it is called "fi:Uimahalli", literally meaning "swimming hall", and it's the same in Swedish: "sv:Simhall". JIP | Talk 06:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Aquatics Centre" is a common fancy name, as in Beijing National Aquatics Center, but I can't think of a common name that people would actually say. A "swimming pool" is either in someone's backyard, or it is a single outdoor public pool, or a single pool in one of these buildings. Maybe "swimming centre"? I've never heard anyone say "swimming hall". Adam Bishop (talk) 07:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with that answer. Indoor swimming pools don't really have a special name (in Dutch or English) Aquatics centre is the word people use for such a building, but it in day to day life, it still tends to be called simply a pool. -- Mgm|^(talk) 08:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For me, the answer would probably depend on what the place called itself. If I was going to the YMCA to swim, I'd probably say "I'm going to the Y". If, when I was an undergrad at the University of Texas, I had ever gone to the Lee and Joe Jamail Texas Swimming Center, I probably would have said "I'm going to the swimming center". And so forth. I don't think I'd have a single generic name for a building containing an indoor swimming pool. In German, though, I'd use "Schwimhalle" (like Finnish and Swedish above). —An gr 08:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For indoor swimming pools specifically, we, in the North West of England, use 'swimming baths' or just 'baths', while for an outdoor pool, if there was one, we'd say 'the swimming pool'.--ChokinBako (talk) 09:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For others of us, saying "I'm going to the baths" means something quite different, which probably doesn't involve swimming at all. Then there's the option of going to The Baths, which probably involves swimming outdoors in the ocean for most people. —An gr 09:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In eastern Oz we tend to say we're going to the pool (which includes any number of pools available), or more specifically, use the name of the leisure or swim centre (eg, I'm going to "Bubbles" or whatever). We use baths in the term "ocean baths" rather than "ocean pool", though they may be a built up swimming area around the beach and ocean, or a cemented tidal pool. Julia Rossi (talk) 10:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to be Latinate, you can call it a natatorium. That's what the building containing the swimming pool at my high school was named. Deor (talk) 10:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My English-English (i.e. of a kind) would certainly not recognise "swimming baths" as being outside. (An exception to this might be made for "thermal baths".) In my childhood town the local swimming facilities were called the "Walsall baths". These indoor facilities offered, from memory, a 25m pool, a small 'paddling' pool and a 'brine bath' which was salted and warm. (And lovely.) Now living in the Home Counties, I would still tend to say "swimming baths" or simply refer to the "swimming pool" even though our local facilities offer more than one pool. The number of pools is not often important when the idea of going for a swim first comes up. For a centre with lots of slides and flumes etc., I'd say "water park" or something like that. I have never seen "aquatics centre" used in the UK, except to refer to shops selling tropical and other fish.86.139.236.224 (talk) 13:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your 2012 swimming venue is called the London Aquatics Centre. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being a keen supporter of the 2012 Games, I'm pleased to be corrected! There's a first time for everything (I don't mean being corrected - there are plenty of opportunities to put me straight! - but the use of the word aquatics in that context). There's also a London Aquatic Centre (admittedly no 's', but a Google search for the Olympic facility throws up some s-less references) that falls into the pet products category.86.139.236.224 (talk) 14:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would just call it a pool or swimming pool, but I've heard Lido for an outdoor pool. As said above, it could also be called an Aquatics Centre, although I haven't heard it called that. W.i.k.i.p.e.d.i.a - Reference desk guy (talk) 15:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Dublin, the (defunct) Blackrock Baths and Dún Laoghaire Baths were outdoors. [9] jnestorius^(talk) 20:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What would you propose to rename the article Tapiola swimming hall to then? Tapiola swimming pool? Tapiola baths? Tapiola aquatics centre? Tapiola natatorium? JIP | Talk 21:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about Tapiola swim centre? Tapiola baths isn't so bad. Aquatics may take in all the other sports like water polo, training for synchronised swimming, swim gym for seniors and babies etc, including a cafe and goggle shop, but swim might cover it.

Ah yes, natatorium. I too fondly remember one ("the Nat"); in my case it was in Madison, Wisconsin, although I vaguely remember playing squash there too. :) The OED, by the way, says of "natatorium": "orig. and chiefly N. Amer." and all five or six examples cited there are from Canadian or US sources. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 22:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd actually change it to Tapiola Swimming Hall, if that's the formal title of the establishment. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jack. If the obvious translation of uimahalli is "swimming hall", go with that (capitalized as part of a proper name) in the article's title. You might, however, change the first sentence to something like "Tapiola Swimming Hall (Finnish: Tapiolan uimahalli) is an aquatics centre …", since "swimming hall" isn't really used as the common designation of such a building in English. Deor (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The city of Espoo officially calls it the Tapiola swimming pool, so I have moved the article to use that name. JIP | Talk 17:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mandarin Chinese: “Wŏ bú shì hěn qióng。“ vs. “Wŏ bú shì qióng。”

I saw on livemocha.com in the course Mandarin Chinese 101, Unit 1, Lesson 2, Listening Section, Slide 16/40 (link) that they say that the way to say "I am not poor." in Mandarin is “Wŏ bú shì qióng。”, or “我不是穷。”. This does not go with common sense, as I would think that it would be “Wŏ bú shì hěn qióng。” or “我不是很穷。” as all you are changing is that you are adding the negative “bú/bù” or “不” to “Wŏ shì hěn qióng。” or “我是很穷。”. This site does often have minor errors (such as forgetting some miscellaneous pinyin markings) and I am therefore not sure if this translation is right or not. Online translators are not reliable enough for me to check how valid this is as they could just as easily be wrong. Do any of you know which one is right? Thanks! Yakeyglee (talk) 21:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hěn ("very") is often used as a semantically gratuitous intensifier, or even just a space filler, that is called for more in some grammatical contexts than in others. So for example Chinese–English Frequency Dictionary (Yong Ho, 2002, p. 50; Chinese characters omitted):

Hěn is usually obligatory when an adjective is used without qualification: jīntiān hěn lěng (it is cold today). In this case, hěn serves a grammatical function and may or may not carry the meaning of very.

There is a certain logic to leaving out the hěn in negation. For one thing, negation is a kind of radical qualification, is it not? Also, if we were to say jīntiān bù hěn lěng for the standard negation of jīntiān hěn lěng, we would be missing the mark: it is not very cold today leaves open the possibility that it is still somewhat cold.

Mandarin (or let's call it Putonghua), I am told, tends often to add extra elements for clarity and a kind of a buffer against curt incivility. Perhaps this use of hěn works like that. Compare English Why yes! or Yes, certainly! as against the gruff monosyllable Yes! Compare French Mais oui!, which the grammars advise us to use instead of an unadorned Oui!

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 22:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is correct. '是' is not used with simple adjectives like '穷'. The sentence should be '我不穷。' and the opposite would be '我很穷。'.--ChokinBako (talk) 23:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you are right, Givnan-ChokinBako! I kick myself for not noticing. Shì is normally not used with an adjective, like qióng in the example. (A point rarely made: it can be used, for special emphasis. So wŏ shì qióng would mean I AM indeed poor! ) But the rest of the analysis stands, does it not? Just remove all instances of shì. How did they get there in the first place, we wonder? How about Wŏ [bú] shì [hěn] qióngde, though, in which qióngde functions as a noun? I am [not] a poor person.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, it is OK for emphasis, and with the nominalisation of the adjective by the addition of '的', but neither of these factors ~~were~~ was mentioned in the OP's original question.--ChokinBako (talk) 00:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right, G-C. Neither was mentioned. :)

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HaHa! My English gets corrected!--ChokinBako (talk) 00:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or to put it another way, somebody has done the equivalent of going up to you and tucking your shirt into your trousers, because that person's opinions about clothing don't permit wearing it the way you were. --ColinFine (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read that tucking in its context, CF, including the tucker's earlier self-deprecation: "Of course you are right, Givnan-ChokinBako! I kick myself for not noticing." Incidentally, shouldn't that be "wearing it the way you did?" :)

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 22:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, because Colin's statement was an ellipsis, for 'wearing it the way you were [wearing it]'. Progressive tense, mate, needs various forms of the verb 'to be'. Anyway, leave him alone. He is the only person in Bradford that speaks Albanian. He's probably the only person in Bradford that speaks English, too!.--ChokinBako (talk) 23:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but I still hold him liable. Consider your expansion:

wearing it the way you were [wearing it]

For full propriety this assumes a participial context, like this:

he was wearing it the way you were [wearing it]

But in fact the context made wearing gerundial (as we might put it):

that person's opinions about clothing don't permit wearing it the way you were [wearing it]

The second wearing here is participial, while the first is gerundial. (A zeugma or a syllepsis? You decide!) On the other hand, consider:

that person's opinions about clothing don't permit wearing it the way you did

Here there is no pretence that did can be grafted onto the same stock; did wear it is assumed, but nothing about the presumed syntax is imported through a mere surface similarity of forms.

Anyway, Albanian? Hats off to the man! And thank you for writing that and not who, in He is the only person in Bradford that speaks Albanian.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! I meant to write it without the 是. I'm just very new at learning the language...but thanks everyone for your responses, and it makes much more sense now! Yakeyglee (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding extra letters to words

It's very common for people to shorten words and expressions; reasons include convenience, laziness, a perception that life is too short, human nature, etc. That's why we have all manner of acceptable abbreviations and acronyms. And it explains why the possessive apostrophe is often dropped ("I am not my mother's husband's son" becomes "I am not my mothers husbands son").

However, there's also the reverse phenomenon, whereby people go against this trend by actually increasing the size of words. Typically, they do this by adding an
-s, but there are other ways that don't spring to mind right now. Examples include:

daylight saving time becomes daylight savings time
surnames such as Gibb, Stephen, Andrew, John and Jeffery are rendered as Gibbs, Stephens, Andrews, Johns, and Jefferys (or Jeffries)
its (the possessive pronoun, requiring only 3 characters) is spelled as it's (4 characters). This is a curious one because the people who tend to drop the possessive apostrophe where it's actually required (don't, can't, I'm > dont, cant, Im or im) are often the same people who needlessly expand its to it's.

What is this action called? I'm not referring to inaccuracy or error, but to the linguistic counterpart of abbreviation. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what this is called, I don't think it has a name but I'm probably wrong. I have always called Daylight Saving Time, "Daylight Savings Time" because that is what I have heard it called, and I haven't bothered to further educate myself on the subject (although from now I will use the correct term).

I have never heard or known of anyone referring to people by their name plus "s", e.g. referring to Mr Andrew as Mr Andrews. Maybe this is done because they perceive it as easier to say? (Sorry about the appalling wording’’)

I believe the misuse of apostrophes though, is simply due to the lack of understanding of how to use them. W.i.k.i.p.e.d.i.a - Reference desk guy (talk) 21:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about misuse of a comma? —Tamfang (talk) 01:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of the surnames, it's no coincidence that all your examples are also used as forenames - the -s is a patronymic. FiggyBee (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I don't quite see it that way. I once worked with a guy named Jim Gibb. He had lots of friends, many of whom always pronounced his surname "Gibbs" as if that were how he spelt it. They knew he didn't spell it "Gibbs", and never referred to himself as "Gibbs", but they said "Gibbs" anyway. We had governors-general named Ninian Stephen and Michael Jeffery, but it was very common to hear them referred to as Stephens and Jefferys, even by media commentators who did know (or at least should have known) better. Now, there really are other surnames such as Andrews, Stephens, Johns, etc., and those are where the patronymic comes in. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Well in the case of people mistakenly adding the -s, I guess it's because the -s form is more common, and people's minds just tend to go down the more familiar track if they're not concentrating. My own surname has an "a" where an "i" is more common, and it's frequently misspelt, including by friends, by government departments, and in cases where the writer was reading it (correctly spelt) off one document and writing it on another. FiggyBee (talk) 23:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me of the following.

-eroo: meaning and definitions — Infoplease.com

Signature#Function and types of signatures (mentioning "flourish" and "paraph")

-- Wavelength (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(econ) @ Refdeslguy, agree. Then there's the habit of sms shortcuts (leaving out the apostrophe for speed) resulting in unfamiliarity, a build-up of ignorance and therefore compensating elsewhere. Just wondering, while it's Daylight Saving, is there a missing poss in there when you talk about Daylight Saving's Time? ;)) Julia Rossi (talk) 22:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we coin elongation (or rather add a new linguistic meaning to the existing word)? The new linguistic concept defined by Jack and coined by the language reference desk! Maybe we will get eternal recognition by the future community of linguists. BTW, Jack, have you read "The Unfolding of Language" by Guy Deutscher. It is really an amazing read, and really did explain to me why language goes towards the shortening direction exactly at the same speed as it goes towards the lengthening direction. --Lgriot (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're conflating several unrelated phenomena, Jack.

Phonology: processes involving adding sounds include epenthesis, paragoge, etc.
Lexicon: "daylight savings time" IMO sui generis error/change by false analogy with "savings bank" etc. The stress in "daylight saving time" should really be on "daylight", not "saving". Spelling it "daylight-saving time" would help.
Spelling: "it's": failure to learn an arbitrary one-time rule
Morphology: -s onto surnames is a diminutive or hypocoristic suffix.

jnestorius^(talk) 00:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a point; it isn't an arbitrary one-time rule. No english pronoun has an apostrophe in the genitive; his, hers, its, ours, yours, theirs, whose. FiggyBee (talk) 01:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're striving for accuracy, Figgybee, let's get this right too. Most English pronouns have an apostrophe in the genitive: one's, nobody's, someone's, everyone else's, whoever's, another's, neither's, and so on. It's just that several of the most common genitive forms (and the correlated possessive adjectives) do not have an apostrophe. And they include his, hers, its, ours, yours, theirs, whose.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 01:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well... okay then! Personal pronouns, perhaps? FiggyBee (talk) 01:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OED, for "Personal": "Used as the distinctive appellation of those pronouns which denote the first, second, and third persons respectively, viz. (in English) I, you, he, in their various genders, numbers, and cases."

But in the relevant entry for "One" OED says this: "One is often used as an indefinite personal pronoun (one 20); and the words self and own, used to strengthen the personal and possessive pronouns, are sometimes classed with them."

So what exactly is a "personal pronoun"? Is who? If it is, what about whoever? And if one is, what about someone, anyone, somebody, anybody, and the rest? Why should it be a "personal pronoun"? If it is included, why not something?

Don't believe the slogans!

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"... conflating several unrelated phenomena", jnestorius? I prefer to see it in terms of patterns some people notice and others don't. Language analysts can and do create ever finer distinctions between different aspects of the same phenomenon, but that doesn't necessarily make them different phenomena. I guess it depends on one's viewpoint. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 28

Shorthand and ignorance

From time to time I see the (usually unsubstantiated) claim that the use of SMS language (the shorthand people use in txt msgs) leads to ignorance of the rules of written English, which in turn leads to all sorts of horrible things like moral depravity, fascism, and bad breath. Is this scapegoating of a shorthand system a new phenomenon, or has it always been around? In the heyday of telegrams, was there a similar moral panic about telegram style and its adverse effect on Western civilization? What about Pitman shorthand and related shorthands? —An gr 00:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the big difference is that telegraph style and Pitman shorthand were not used by the population at large, but were instead used by trained professionals, who generally learned these methods long after formal training in English grammar, and also learned these methods as adults. This is an important distinction from SMS, which is widely used by the young, often before they have a fully formed understanding of formal English grammar. A better analogy here would be Pig latin, which is commonly learned by the young, and before they have a fully formed understanding of English grammar. Other than words like "ixnay", however, Pig latin never had a pronounced effect on the ability of youth to learn formal English. The moral of the story: SMS is not like telegraph or pitman shorthand, however it probably doesn't matter anyways. Young people will or will not learn formal English for the same reasons that they will or will not learn Algebra or History... and it has nothing at all to do with SMS... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that may be true about Pitman shorthand, but I'm not sure it's true about telegrams. 70 or 80 years ago, telegrams were ubiquitous in countries like Britain and the U.S.; everyone sent them and received them, not just educated adults. They were really the e-mail of their day, if not the text messaging. —An gr 00:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)The scapegoating has been around for ever. I read (sorry again no reference, I have a very bad memory for my sources) that a latin writer was complaining in the 2nd or 3rd century about the ignorance and lazyness of the Roman people who kept pronouncing latin words as if there where finishing in -o rather than -us, and how bad that was for the society and that it would lead to the collapse of the "proper" Roman civilisation. --Lgriot (talk) 00:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it turns out that they were right! Oh Noes! FiggyBee (talk) 00:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a little early for that particular change. However, what was already an issue in the Latin of the 1st century was "au" vs. "o" -- one somewhat unscrupulous politician changed his name from "Claudius" to "Clodius" in order to seem like a man of the ordinary people... AnonMoos (talk) 02:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly as the first PR manager (of himself) "Clod'" would seem likely to hit the spot with the hoi polloi (clods). =) Julia Rossi (talk) 06:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lgriot, was it Priscian? That sounds like something he would have complained about. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Crystal's book Txtng: The Gr8 Db8 is an analysis of the moral panic over texting (particularly from a British POV, though it's been published in the USA), putting it in a long context of panics over language being threatened by rock 'n' roll, Americans, etc, and showing that most abbreviations used in texting actually have a very long history. There are online discussions/reviews e.g. here, here, here, and here.--Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 11:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Planet / Star in Cantonese

The Chinese terms for planet and star are 行星 and 恆星(T)/恒星(S), respectively; differing in the first character. I know that in Mandarin they sound very different (pinyin: "xíng xīng" vs. "héng xīng"), but looking at the most common Cantonese pronunciation of the characters, I think they would both be the same (Jyutping: hang4 sing1). But I can't imagine how they could let this be. Isn't it very important to be able to distinguish these two concepts? How would you be able to teach the children in school about planets and stars if they sound the same? Perhaps one of them is pronounced differently in this case? Or are there no Cantonese-speaking astronomers? --169.232.233.134 (talk) 04:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I just found this page that confirms that they are pronounced the same in Cantonese (see entries #12 & #22). I am still baffled how people could talk about planets and stars without utterly confusing everyone. --169.232.233.134 (talk) 05:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the meaning in Chinese languages is from the context. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In ancient Greek, the word planetes (literally "wanderer") was pretty much elliptical for aster planetes ("wandering/moving star"), and could sometimes refer to anything not fixed against the celestial background of the night sky (comets, meteors, etc.)... AnonMoos (talk) 10:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russian translation

Odd request from me. Can someone give me -exactly- what this means. I would say it's important, but it isn't really. Machine translators are useless. It's from [10].

  ТТХ

Изготовлен: ОКБ 754.
Главный конструктор: Николай Степанович Соколов.
Полное наименование: Шагоход01 прототип.
Классификация: Мобильная Стратегическая Ракетная Платформа — (МСРП)
Экипаж: 2 человека (носовая кабина).
Год постройки прототипа (первый этап сборки) — 1961 год.
[Вооружение]
Противопехотное: два 12,7 мм крупнокалиберных пулемёта ДШКМ с ДУ.
Противовоздушное: 8 ракет "Стрела-10" и зенитный пулемёт ДШКМ с ДУ.
Противотанковое: 12 ТУР 9К119 «Кобра» и 100 мм пушка низкой баллистики ДТ-10ДРП «Зарница».
Основное: баллистическая ракета среднего радиуса действия РСД-10 «Пионер» с тремя разделяющимися головными частями по 150 Кт каждая.
Снаряжение: 1000х12,7 мм патронов, 8 ракет «Стрела-10», 12 ракет «Кобра», 20х100 мм снарядов, 1 ракета РТ-12М.
Длина: 22,8 метров.
Ширина: 6,5 метра.
Высота: 8 метров.
Боевой вес: 152,5 тонн.
Тяговооружённость: 65 лс на тонну.
Силовая установка: 4хГТД 5000 + 2хТРД Соловьев Д-30.
Максимальная скорость на грунте (без ускорителей): 80 км/ч
Максимальная скорость с ускорителями: 520км/ч.
Радиус действия на одной заправке: 650 км.
Ёмкость баков: 8500 литров.
Броня: эквивалент 250 мм гомогенной катаной брони. Материал: сталь, керамика, полимеры, титан.
Система защиты от РХБЗ: есть.
Ночные системы наблюдения: ИК ночной прицел ТПН 1-43А.
Радар: Станция РЛС см-диапазона в радиопрозрачном обтекателе на крыше кормовой части.
Навигация: Инерциальная система с астрокоррекцией.

Just ran it through Promt and I got this, which is pretty good but has some untranslated bits and bobs.

It is made: ОКБ 754.
the Main designer: Nikolay Stepanovich Sokolov.
a full name: Shagohod01 a prototype.
classification: the Mobile Strategic Rocket Platform — (МСРП)
Crew: 2 persons (a nasal cabin).
Year of construction of a prototype (the first stage of assemblage) — 1961.
[arms] * Antipersonnel: two 12,7 mm of large-caliber machine gun ДШКМ with ДУ.
Antiaircraft: 8 rockets "Arrow-10" and antiaircraft machine gun ДШКМ with ДУ.
Anti-tank: 12 ROUND 9К119 "Cobra" and 100 mm of a down of low ballistics ДТ-10ДРП "Summer lightning".
the Core: a ballistic missile of average radius of action РСД-10 "Pioneer" with three divided head parts on 150 Kt everyone.
equipment: 1000х12,7 mm of cartridges, 8 rockets "Arrow-10", 12 rockets "Cobra", 20х100 mm of shells, 1 rocket РТ-12М.
Length: 22,8 metres.
width: 6,5 metres.
height: 8 metres.
fighting weight: 152,5 tons.
Tjagovooruzhyonnost: 65 лс on ton.
the Power-plant: 4хГТД 5000 + 2хТРД Nightingales Д-30.
the Maximum speed on a ground (without accelerators): 80 km/h
the Maximum speed with accelerators: 520km/ch.
action Radius on one refuelling: 650 km.
capacity of tanks: 8500 litres.
the reservation: an equivalent of 250 mm homogeneous катаной the reservation. A material: a steel, ceramics, polymers, the titan.
system of protection from РХБЗ: is.
night systems of supervision: ИК night sight ТПН 1-43А.
the Radar: sm-range Station RLS in radio transparent обтекателе on a roof of a fodder part.
navigation: Inertial system with astrocorrection.

Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 05:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, as usual, "Nasal Cabin" and "Fodder Part" would be good names for rock bands. Deor (talk) 13:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

latin-english translation

I was after the Latin translation for 'What comes around, goes around —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.56.233.124 (talk) 06:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well you could translate it literally as "quod circumvenit, circumit", but it's better to look for a Latin idiom that means the same thing. From the Bible we get "to reap what one sows", which in Latin (at least in Galatians 6:7) is "quae enim seminaverit homo haec et metet". Adam Bishop (talk) 07:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although, therefore, ....

I'm just wondering if this makes sense as the start of a sentence: "Although, therefore, a relationship existed,... ". To place this in context the preceding sentence demonstrates the relationship existed.

Thanks for any opinions! --Fir0002 06:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense, but strikes me as rather clunky. I'd rather see the "therefore" moved firmly inside the clause by putting it before "existed", without commas. --Anonymous, 09:01 UTC, October 29 28, 2008.

So "Although a relationship therefore exisited,..."? Anyone else with a preference?

That would be saying something different, as can be seen by the use of, um,... parentheses. The version you gave first above has this hierarchical structure:

Therefore [although a relationship existed...]...

The version you now give has this structure:

Although [therefore a relationship existed...]...

(Because punctuation like commas can be used for interpolations, the strict order of the words doesn't matter a lot, and is in fact deceptive.) It all depends on precisely what you want to say. Rather than inefficiently speculate on that, I'd like to see more context. If you don't want to give the actual words, make up something that has the same general form, OK? Show us a version of the problematic sentence, and of the preceding sentence, which you tell us is also involved.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 11:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<edit conflict> OK sure. Bob and Bill, now in their mid twenties, have been best friends since primary school. Although, therefore, a relationship of trust exists, it is doubtful whether Bob would lend Bill his brand new Audi R8 to drive across the Nullarbor. Hope that clarifies a bit - but yeah I'd prefer not to post the original sentences. But basically what I'm trying to say is two things: <previous sentence = reason for claiming a relationship existed> therefore a relationship existed; and although a relationship existed, blah won't necessarily happen.

Perhaps "Although there was, therefore, a relationship..." --Richardrj ^talk ^email 11:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like what I want - thanks! --Fir0002 11:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to stress the "although" element, a neater way might be to say, "Despite this relationship of trust, it is doubtful that Bob would lend Bill his new car." Just a thought.GBViews (talk) 12:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another thought: "Although Bob and Bill, now in their mid twenties, have been best friends since primary school and have developed a relationship of trust, it is doubtful whether ...". Or you could take it that having been best friends since primary school implies a relationship of trust, and simply write "Although Bob and Bill, now in their mid twenties, have been best friends since primary school, it is doubtful whether ...". -- JackofOz (talk) 21:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions but Richardrj's suggestion works best in the original paragraph --Fir0002 23:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second Question

"defence from liability" or "defence to liability"?

Again, it depends on what you want to say. Try making a little more of an effort to help us to help you. :)

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 11:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does it depend? I'd have thought it was consistent. Anyway an example: Even if Fred is found negligent for failing to provide a safe service, he has a defence from liability because he was insane. --Fir0002 11:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does depend. Surely there is some link between liability and defence, but it isn't a simple matter of defending oneself against or from liability. One defends against a change or against a civil action of some sort, but one escapes liability. (See Strict_liability_(criminal), for example: "...if defendants might escape liability too easily by pleading ignorance...". Now that I see the context, I would advise something like this:

Even if Fred is found negligent for failing to provide a safe service, he can escape liability because he was insane.

Other niceties in legal talk are another matter, and I do not suggest that this version is proper in all respects.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok fair point - so possible better to phrase as "Fred had a defence to negligence because he was insane"? I'd like to keep the word "defence" in there...--Fir0002 23:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know, that doesn't sound right, but I'm struggling to come up with a better alternative. I think the problem is that it isn't that he had a defence because he was insane - rather, insanity was his defence. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm not quite... because Fred can be found guilty of negiglence irrespective of his sanity. But, even if found guilty, he has a defence to/from liability (having to pay the plaintiff) because he was insane. (oh and note insanity is just a dummy defence so don't get hung up on it - substitute any defence to/from (?!) liability you'd like - eg contributory negligence, volenti, limitation of liability clause etc).--Fir0002 00:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but that still leaves the linguistic issue unresolved. Whether he's arguing not to be found liable in the event that he's found guilty, or whether he's arguing not to be found guilty in the first place, the expression "defence to negligence" doesn't sit well with me. If the charge were murder, and Fred was hoping to at worst get a manslaughter conviction, or preferably an acquittal, would we refer to his "defence to murder"? I just don't think this is a standard expression, but "defence of murder", "defence from murder", "defence about murder", and "defence in respect of murder" don't fit either. I really think we talk about "defending a charge (of X)", not "defending X", so you can't associate "defence" with "X" by simply using a conjunction like "to", etc. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll take up the suggestion below "defence against liability". Thanks for the suggestions/comments! --Fir0002 01:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I specialize in legal translation, and, although not a lawyer/solicitor, I translate the Japanese equivalent of the OP's question as 'defence against liability', and this is always accepted by the legal institutions I translate for. 'Liability' in itself is a charge, whereas 'murder' is an act (though, by extension, it is often thought of as a charge), so the second example (Jack's) would be 'defense against the charge of murder'. Hope this helps.--ChokinBako (talk) 00:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take that as authoritative, CB. A google search confirms uses of the phrase defence [or defense] against liability. In Ballentine's Law Dictionary, for example, we find this:

assumption of risk. A defense against liability for negligence...

Nevertheless, very many of the hits from Google have liability used adjectivally ("defence against liability claims"), or employ the notion of defence loosely rather than in the strict forensic sense, even though the general context is legal. And none of this supports defence from liability or defence to liability.

Good, anyway, to see that young Fir0002 now has the guidance he was after.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 01:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reference. However, the word 'liability' is not being used adjectively in the phrase 'liability claims'. This is a noun qualifying another noun. The substantive nature of the 'claim' is not one of being 'liable', but being a 'claim' of 'liability' toward the defendant.--ChokinBako (talk) 03:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You miss the mark, CB. Look at OED's entry for adjectivally:

In an adjectival manner, as an adjective; + adjectively adv.

1867 F. W. Farrar Greek Syntax Introd. §38 The fact that substantives are frequently used adjectivally. 1928 E. G. R. Waters St. Brendan p. cxcvi, The tonic forms of the possessive pronouns are frequently used adjectivally.

My application of adjectivally has innumerable impeccable precedents. But let's drop the matter. This is not a forum for chit-chat or tangential disputes.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 03:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now I see, the OP is studying law at Monash......--ChokinBako (talk) 02:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Salutations

This has probably been asked before but I have not seen it.

While writing to companies, corporations, or authorities I am disinclined to start with "Dear" anything, since they are not 'dear' to me in the least, especially since my letter is usually a complaint or criticism. So what do I start with, my favourite is "Sirs" but that is probably PC these days of female C.E.O's.

By the same token I am never "Yours Faithfully", "Sincerely", "Truly" or "Love"! "Yours ect" is my usual send off, but there must be something better. Any ideas please? --89.168.224.110 (talk) 09:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it's not really in your gift to change the rules with regard to opening and closing letters. There are certain conventions which are normal in business writing and you are expected to abide by those (rightly, in my view). If you're writing a letter of complaint, you should do so politely or you will never get anywhere. So, here are the rules (at least as I understand them in the UK, things might differ elsewhere):

If you don't know the name of the person you are writing to, start with Dear Sir or (preferably) Dear Sir/Madam.
If you do know their name, put Dear Mr/Mrs So-and-So, or Ms So-and-So if you don't want to make assumptions about her marital status.
When signing off, put Yours faithfully if you have started the letter with Dear Sir.
Put Yours sincerely if you have used Dear Mr/Mrs So-and-So.

And note, there is no capital letter with "faithfully" or "sincerely". --Richardrj ^talk ^email 09:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's also "To whom it may concern", but that's at a rather impersonal level. There used to be a whole set of special stylistic conventions for writing impersonal business letters ("recd yours of the 5th inst." etc. etc.), but I think that's been in decline since the 1960's... AnonMoos (talk) 10:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See AMS Simplified Letter. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 30, 2008 Mr Jones,

I am writing to you . . .

Best regards,

DOR (HK) (talk) 06:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frequency of Initial Letters of the Alphabet worldwide or on wikipedia

I am looking to find out the frequency of initial letters of the alphabet used in words in English and other languages worldwide on the internet.

Some information is available for English, for example on wikipedia here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_analysis) BUT this only covers the general frequency of the letters NOT the frequency of initial letters in English.

It does refer to a web page here (http://pages.central.edu/emp/LintonT/classes/spring01/cryptography/letterfreq.html) which provides general frequencies and also the 10 most frequent initial letters:

Start of Word Letter Frequencies Letter t a i s o c m f p w Freq 0.1594 0.155 0.0823 0.0775 0.0712 0.0597 0.0426 0.0408 0.04 0.0382

From this several questions:

1) Is it true Wikipedia does not have info on the frequency of initial letters in English (ie I would like to initial frequencies of ALL 26 letters not just the top 10 in English)?

2) Your article has some interesting comparisons on general letter frequencies across several languages, any idea where I might find a similar comparisons for ALL initial letters?

3) My ultimate goal is to investigate the frequencies of ALL initial letters in ALL languages used on the internet. Sounds like a BIG project right? But perhaps there is a way to arrive at an approximation for wikipedia... ie what are the most common initial letters in articles on wikipedia in all languages on wikipedia and their frequencies? This would provide a data set for Wikipedia which would be interesting and might reflect the frequencies on the web in general...

If there are any linguists, statisticians or others out there who could help shed any light on this topic, I would be very curious to know the answers.

Thank you.

PS trying this question again since there were no answers last time around... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Careyz (talk • contribs) 10:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frequency in what context? Do you mean how many individual words (in an English dictionary) begin with A, how many with B, etc? Or do you mean the frequency of these initial letters across a broad sample of written text?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Secret Language (near the bottom of the page).

-- Wavelength (talk) 17:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Constrained writing. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article Letter frequencies,

"More recent analyses show that letter frequencies, like word frequencies, tend to vary, both by writer and by subject. One cannot write an essay about x-rays without using frequent Xs, and different authors have habits which can be reflected in their use of letters." -- Wavelength (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See AskOxford: Oxford Word and Language Service. If you find out the answer(s), please tell us. I am interested in knowing. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Text analysis, wordcount, keyword density analyzer, prominence analysis

and Text Analysis Info. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Morphology of figures of speech

Has anyone ever done a morphology analysis of figure of speech (excuse bad grammar)? I recall a modern computer-assisted morphological study of the classical syllogism that discovered an extra one that the ancients had never found. I am referring to morphology in the sense used in engineering etc. rather than its specialised linguistic meanings. Thanks. 78.151.98.126 (talk) 12:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kinda disqualifying myself, but what do you mean by "morphology in the sense used in engineering etc."? The link is to a disambiguation page. —Tamfang (talk) 00:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can a 'morphological analysis of figures of speech' not be a linguistic concept? And what could it have to do with engineering?--ChokinBako (talk) 00:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't fully understand the question either; but it would be parochial to think that whenever the terms morphological and figures of speech are brought together the reference is to linguistic morphology. Have a look at morphological analysis (problem-solving), instead. That seems to be what is intended.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 02:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is all well and good, Noetica, but it still further pushes the Q out of the realm of linguistics. A quick look at syllogism brought it back a bit, as it was concerned with logic, but the OP specifies that this Q is for engineering, and not linguistics. What it has to do with 'figure of speech' is beyond me and will continue to be so until the OP comes back and posts an explanation.--ChokinBako (talk) 03:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page is about help with language, not just with the formal apparatus conventionally associated with the science of linguistics. This page is therefore the right place for questions about figures of speech. As I have pointed out, the question is about the application of morphological analysis (problem-solving) to their analysis, so it belongs squarely right here. Let's see if the questioner will come back with more detail, so we can take things further.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 04:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about Late Egyptian

1. The article on Late Egyptian says that "Adjectives as attributes of nouns are often replaced by nouns." Could someone please give me an example of this, or better, a couple of examples?

2. More generally, could anyone recommend any resources on the Late Egyptian language, specifically on how it differs from its predecessor Middle Egyptian, besides Černý and Junge?

Thanks!

—anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.82.242 (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The best book I have seen (and have on my bookshelves!) is 'Egyptian Grammar' by Sir Alan Gardiner. By far the most comprehensive work I have seen to date, and gives a lot of information on all stages of Egyptian.--ChokinBako (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the word Skerrick

thought to be of Australian origin , i believe the the word must originate in southern lancashire / merseyside.In this region it is spelt Skorrick, but as the same meaning,i am looking for confirmation of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.48.212 (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm from Merseyside and I've never thought it was from round here. It sounds Norse to me.--ChokinBako (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OED lists a first occurrence in 1825:

Jamieson Etym. Dict. Sc. Lang. Suppl. 407/2, I care nae a skourick.

It says "origin uncertain", but links us to scuddick (for which it also gives no etymology):

An extremely small coin or amount. Also, something very small.

Eric Partridge (A Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English) lists the word, but gives no more information than OED does. Oxford's Australian National Dictionary lists it also, and records a first Australian occurrence in 1854. Such an inclusion would suggest a strong Australian connection; but the word is not claimed anywhere as Australian in origin. OED says at the start of its entry:

Now chiefly Austral. colloq. (orig. dial.).

Certainly it is current in Australia, anyway.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 22:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this Aussie just learned a new word. Steewi (talk) 01:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really, Steewi? That surprises me; I'd have thought it was very common down here (although I wasn't aware it hasn't migrated elsewhere yet). It's perhaps most used in expressions of disbelief such as "There's not a skerrick of evidence to support that belief", or "If you have a skerrick of evidence, Detective Inspector, than please go ahead and charge me, but if not, kindly *** off" etc., and it pops up all over talk pages on Australia-related subjects on WP - see this search. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That'll teach you to ...

Here's an odd question. Read the following to get the context:

<My response>, followed by my comment: Which makes a kind of sense: if even he didn't think he was worth voting for, why would anyone else? A manifestion of the ultimate lack of self-esteem, really, and I wonder why he even bothered becoming a candidate in the first place. -- JackofOz

I don't believe UK election law requires you to be a registered voter in the constituency you're standing in, so maybe he just didn't have a vote there. --Tango

That'll teach me to comment gratuitously ... -- JackofOz

Another editor might have written "That'll teach me not to comment gratuitously", and in a different mood I may even have written that version myself without too much conscious thought.

Is there any real difference between "That'll teach you to do X" and "That'll teach you not to do X" in these sorts of contexts? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Logically, the latter is correct, of course, but I think we do seem to veer towards the former in everyday conversation. When I was a kid, reading the Beano and other comics I used to get confused as to why people said "That'll teach me to..." when it was obvious that they meant "NOT to", but, then, I just put it down to the middle-class writers of kids' comics being totally out-of-touch with the dialects that working class kids spoke. This is why I could never get my head round The Sound Of Music and all the other Mary Poppins stuff.--ChokinBako (talk) 22:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be two different ways this phrase is used. One is the more literal way - "That'll teach me to <do something that I should have done, but didn't>", contrasting with "That'll teach me not to <do something that I did, but shouldn't've">. The less literal way , "That'll teach me to <do something that I did, but shouldn't've">, I've normally justified it by reading "to" as "the consquences of"; you could also see it as sarcastic or ironic. In any case, compare the American English "I could care less"... FiggyBee (talk) 23:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparable from the logic/lack of logic angle, but not comparable from the frequency angle. Both positive and negative versions of "That'll teach you" occur in roughly the same proportion (at least in my part of the world). But "I could care less" is simply never heard here. Not ever. Never. Except in US movies and TV shows, and spoken by novomundane visitors. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover (at least in the UK; I can't speak for Oz) 'I could care less' isn't just not used by natives, it strikes every native who hears it as complete nonsense. Algebraist 23:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Working in Japan, I heard many American colleagues use that phrase, and it always struck me as meaning something that they cared a little about, rather than not caring at all about. At first, this was natural until I got to know the meaning and I just took it that way on purpose because it is an irrelevant thing to say if you take it at face value, and even if you take it to mean what the speaker wants it to mean, it still doesn't mean that. This is what comes of bastardising a language. Brevity costs accuracy. --ChokinBako (talk) 23:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese question

The page on isolating languages gives a Chinese sentence with the following translation:

"They are doing homework."
他們	在	做	作業
他们	在	做	作业
tāmen	zài	zuò	zuòyè
they	are	doing	homework.

However, Chinese verbs aren't inflected, right? So zài and zuò could also be translated as 'be' and 'do' respectively?

Thanks, anon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.34.61 (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an inflection. This is an addition of the word '在' to show that the person(s) in question is/are 'in the process of' performimg the verb.--ChokinBako (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary calls 在 an adverb, but it looks like it might be better described as a particle expressing progressive aspect. Wiktionary says 在 is also a preposition meaning "at" or "in", which reminds me of the way progressives are expressed in Celtic languages: using a verbal noun preceded in Irish with the preposition for "at" and in Welsh with the preposition for "in". —An gr 22:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, being of Celtic heritage, myself, that is how I saw it from the beginning.--ChokinBako (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]