Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Reference desk

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JackofOz (talk | contribs) at 08:48, 16 October 2005 (→‎Plural of Abbreviated terms: response). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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  • Unanswered questions If you find that your question has been archived before being answered, you may copy your question from the Archives into a new section on the reference desk.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

See also Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language/FAQs for answers to frequently asked language and usage questions.

Yefars. What is the meaning?

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

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

Hindi

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

I found part of what I was looking for on Ergative-absolutive language
As an example of split ergativity, is found in the Urdu and Hindi languages, that have an ergative case on subjects in tenses showing perfective aspect for transitive and ditransitive verbs, while for other cases subjects apear in nominative case.
laRk-aa ketaab xareed-taa hey
→ boy-sg.masc=nom book.nom? buy-ImPerf.sg.masc be=pres
→ The boy buys a book
laRkey=ney ketaab xareed-ee
→ boy-sg.mas=erg book.nom? buy-perf.sg.fem
→ The boy bought a book
I'll still be grateful for any information on the history of this system. The present tense appears to be from a ta participle. I don't know what the past tense is supposed to be, and which is the subject there; from this example, after all, we cannot tell whether xareed-ee is passive, or whether ketaab is accusative as well as nominative, and laRkeyney simply dative. 21:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Information on "ap"

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

it's the Welsh patronymic, corresponding to Gaelic mac. 23:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
The names Howell and Powell are both from the Welsh ap Hywel. For Howell, "ap" was simply dropped. For Powell, the "a" of "ap" was dropped and the "p" got attched to the "Hywel" and absorbed the "h". --Angr/tɔk tə mi 06:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also ap Huw, which became the surname Pugh, or ap Rhys which became Preece. Having the 'ap' before the surname is very, very rare in Wales nowadays. Proto t c 11:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Or ap Rhys also commonly became Price, ap Harri → Parri → Parry. Before a vowel ap becomes ab, thus ab Owain → ab Owen → Bowen, ab Ifan → Bevan. Actually, patronyms are becoming more common in the last few decades, particularly in the media. -- Arwel 16:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So you're actually "Arwel ap Harri", are you? --Angr/tɔk tə mi 16:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Arwel ap Gwilym ap Huw", acksherly! :) -- Arwel 01:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

what is the origin of the word "cherry"

Check out cherry over at Wiktionary — Lomn | Talk / RfC 19:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Or the first sentence of Cherry here at Wiktionary. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 19:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese and Japanese Translations

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

Thanks, anon.

If nobody here can help, you could perhaps ask for the translations into Japanese here and for the translation into Chinese here. David
Please refer again to the response you were given the first time you asked this question over here, and please refrain from reposting questions in the future. Garrett Albright 16:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

French double-barrelled names

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

What goes for French speakers does not necessarily apply in English. A few examples: When abbreviated, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing is more often referred to in English as Giscard than as d'Estaing. Henri Toulouse-Lautrec de Monça is always T-L, not de Monça. Joseph Canteloube de Malaret is always Canteloube, not de Malaret. In Teilhard's case, there's the added difficulty that he was generally known by his surname only, Teilhard de Chardin, which caused confusion as many uneducated English speakers assumed this was his full name, ie. his given name was Teilhard and his surname was de Chardin. However, when living in New York, he referred to himself as "Mr Teilhard", not "Mr Chardin". Cheers JackofOz 01:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Another example: Josquin Des Prez is generally known as "Josquin", not "Des Prez". ;-) --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Another is Savinien Cyrano de Bergerac. Cyrano de Bergerac was his surname. Always shortened to Cyrano, never to de Bergerac. JackofOz 00:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Giscard d'Estaing is never referred to as "d'Estaing" in French, always as Giscard. The reason seems to be that the "d'Estaing" part of his name was a late addition of his family in order to sound more "noble" (they are not noble). Furthermore, the article French names does not claim that the de XXX part is always used; it depends on personal choices, tradition, whether or not the people wanted to claim nobility, etc. David.Monniaux 09:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, it seems that Teilhard de Chardin is not a "double-barreled name" as was common with the nobility and landed bourgeoisie, but a peasant's name. David.Monniaux 11:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David! Thank you for sorting this out for me, and clarifying the French names article. It seems almost certain that Teilhard is the correct abbreviation. However, I have seen Chardinism used, it's probably because this name works better with an -ism in some people's mouths. --Gareth Hughes 15:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How to pronounce the "Tuxtla" in "Tuxtla Gutiérrez

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

"Tookstla". (Sorry, not in an IPA mood.) That one's just a standard "x", a "ks", like the x in galaxia. And, like the x in galaxia, it'll degenerate into an "s" in certain areas, certain speakers, certain degrees of sloppiness or speed in speaking. –Hajor 21:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In Nahuatl, like old Spanish and modern Portuguese, x makes the sound sh: So, in its original language, it's toosht-la. --06:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
According to Nahuatl transcription, "X is pronounced like English SH", and "TL counts as a single consonant...a lateral affricate", implying a pronunciation IPA: [tuʃ.tɬa] (where the period/full stop indicates the syllable boundary. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 06:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that the first Nahuatl grammars/transcription is the work of 17th century Jesuits, and therefore I find it difficult to imagine that x expressed anything other than [x] or [h]. That doesn't imply that x couldn't be [ʃ] today, but I'd really like to see the earliest description of Nahuatl phonology to judge this. 10:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

In 17th century Spanish, x stood for [ʃ] (this is why the French call Don Quixote Don Quichotte). It only later changed to [x] (and later still [h]) in Spanish. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 10:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

what does ancillary mean

--Angr/tɔk tə mi 06:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

from the top of this page: "Search first - search Wikipedia using the box to the left. A web search could help too." of course, the extreme willingness of people on this page to perform even trivial websearches for people makes that sort of moot. Still, it's a little bit sad to reduce Angr to a google proxy, isn't it? :p 10:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&q=define:ancillary+&spell=1 Neutralitytalk 18:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

definition of a consonant

What is the definition of a COnsonant

noun. One of a class of speech sounds (as \p\, \g\, \n\, \l\, \s\, \r\) characterized by constriction or closure at one or more points in the breath channel; also : a letter representing a consonant — usually used in English of any letter except a, e, i, o, and u.
adjective. 1. being in agreement or harmony : free from elements making for discord. 2. marked by musical consonances. 3. having similar sounds <consonant words>. 4. relating to or exhibiting consonance  : RESONANT. Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary.
—Wayward 03:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also see our article on Consonant. Capitalistroadster 05:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Learning IPA on Internet

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

Try some of the Web sites listed in the IPA article's external links section. —Wayward 05:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
huh? the IPA article is excellent; if you cannot learn it from there, I don't know where you'll learn it.

Rap music

In rap music, why do artists show such concern for questions about 'what time is it'? NWA is an example of a group who ask this, apparently trivial question many times in their work. Does it have deeper meaning?

IANA hip-hop expert, but from what I understand what "Do you know what time it is?" actually means "Are you aware of the present situation?" as in what is cool and who is in charge and such. Garrett Albright 16:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember ever hearing it until Kool Moe Dee's Do you know what time it is? It would have been '86 or '87 before it reached the likes of me in the hinterlands of Jersey. I assume that song - which played endlessly and was part of an MTV ad for many years - was the source from which this bit of idiom sprung. But alas, I was a white kid in the burbs, so I can't attest to the prevalence of usage in more urban dialects before the mid-80's. --Diderot 22:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
When did Chicago come out with "Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is"? Does anybody really care? User:Zoe|(talk) 07:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence "It's later than you think" has also been used to mean "we are in a more serious situation than you know, with less time left to act to save ourselves than you realize". StuRat 22:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

what is another way of saying "life goes on"

  • Que será, será.
  • Them's the breaks.
  • Get over it.
  • Oh well.
  • C'est la vie.
  • Or, perhaps my personal favorite… And yet, the Earth continues to spin on its axis. Garrett Albright
  • That's how it goes.
  • That's how it works.
  • Forget about it.
  • In the words of King Solomon... This, too, shall pass. Sputnikcccp

word play/puzzle/riddle - word meaning

What is correct technical term for a word that is spelled the same way both forward and backward?----

Palindromemordnilap. Just kidding. It's palindrome. (This can also be an entire sentence spelled the same backword and forward, like "Madam, I'm Adam".) --Angr/tɔk tə mi 19:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Or even a number. Superm401 | Talk 22:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"fickle finger of fate"

Does any one know the etomology of the phrase, "The fickle finger of fate"?

Try etYmology.

That which

I recently found one of my articles edited, with all occurrences of which replaced with that (ie, "the river which runs through..."). Personally, I thought I had a handle on these, but maybe not. Can someone clarify the usage of these two words? Thanks in advance. Denni☯ 01:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some people have been taught that which is used with nonrestrictive modifiers and that is used with restrictive modifiers (a rule that I do not adhere to). Maybe your editor is one of these people. Also, which refers to only things, who refers to only people, and that normally only refers to things, but it can refer to a class or type of person. —Wayward 02:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The prescriptivist (strict grammar) rule on this can easily be remembered if you know that the pronoun "which" is proceeded by a comma, and the pronoun "that" is not. Thus --
The car that I want is green. -- There are several cars of different colors, one of which is green.
The car, which I want, is green. -- There is only one car in the lot, and it's green.
Most people use "that" and "which" interchangably in the first type of sentence, but some styles do not allow for the word "which" in that instance. Mwalcoff 02:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
When I used to work as a copy editor, we used to derisively refer to those among us who didn't have anything better to do than change all the "which"es to "that"s as "going on which hunts". --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting comment. There is a useful distinction betwemn "that" and which" that conveys information to the reader. It seems to me that ignoring this distinction smacks of, erm, laziness. Ground Zero | t 15:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I figure so long as I'm aware of and understand the prescriptive rule, I'm entitled to break it. In fact, in my own writing, I usually don't. Nevertheless it strikes me as pedantic to insist on it, and deep down, I don't think the distinction between restrictive and nonrestrictive relative clauses is particularly vital. German, for one, gets along quite nicely without it. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 19:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't this page used to have a FAQ link at which this very question was discussed? Shantavira 12:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language/FAQs. Ground Zero | t 15:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
isn't the strict prescriptivist approach to replace all thats with whiches, rather? the 'comma' rule doesn't help much, it just becomes a matter of replacing ", which" with " that". Isn't this also related to the "dangling prepositions" issue? ("that the river flows through" vs. "through which the river flows")15:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
No, not at all. The strict prescriptivist approach is as Mwalcoff set it out above: if the relative clause is restrictive (if it narrows down the class of objects mentioned to define the one(s) meant), use "that" with no comma. If it's descriptive (if it just elaborates on the object(s) mentioned), use "which" with a comma:
"The lawnmower that is broken is in the garage" (as opposed to the one that works fine) vs.
"The lawnmower, which is broken, is in the garage" (there's just one lawnmower, and it's broken).
--Angr/tɔk tə mi 19:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think - though I could be wrong - that the insistence on "that" where "which" is also possible (i.e. in restrictive relative clauses) is American.Palmiro | Talk 07:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. Fowler, who is British, expounds for four pages on the "proper" usage of that and which. What his view boils down to is: "The two kinds of relative clause, to one of which that & to the other of which which is appropriate, are the defining & the non-defining; & if writers would agree to regard that as the defining relative pronoun, & which as the non-defining, there would be much gain both in lucidity & in ease. Some there are who follow this principle now; but it would be idle to pretend that it is the practice either of most or of the best writers." Right, & if everyone followed Fowler in using the ampersand instead of spelling out the word and we could save much ink in printing & several gigabytes online, & yet most people continue to write the word in full. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 08:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Formation of Latin adjectives from verbs (e.g. -ilis, -bilis, -abilis)

Can someone please explain why the Latin adjective derived from "facere" is "facilis" and the one from "frangere" is "fragilis"? What is the corresponding adjective for "futuere" or any other verb ending in "-uere", and why?

The root of frangere is frag-, the -n- is part of the present stem only. That's why there's no n in the perfect fregi or the past participle fractus, or in related words like fragmen(tum), fragor, fragilis, etc. No Latin adjective for "fuckable" is attested (surprisingly enough), and I don't know whether these suffixes were productive enough to allow you to coin futubilis or the like. You could use the gerund futuendus, meaning one "that must get fucked". --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tycho Brahe

I recently read that Tycho Brahe's first name was probably pronounced "Teeko", with the y sounding like street in English, and that his non-Latinized first name, Tyge, was probably pronounced "Teegeh". Can somebody add one of them fancy IPA pronunciation bits about this to his page? --Fastfission 02:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's written 'Tycho Brahe', but it's pronounced Raymond Luxury-Yacht'
There seems to be a good deal of misinformation about this. The source of a lot of the confusion is that most suggested pronunciations confuse the /y/ (which doesn't occur in English) sound with /i/, and either eliminates or strengthens the sound of /h/ (wich is not pronounced after vowels in English). As has been pointed out, Tycho's given Danish name was Tyge, which, I believe, is pronounced /tygɛ/, or perhaps /tyge/ (I'm not 100% about that final vowel). His surname, Brahe, is pronounced /bʁɒhɛ/ (again, I'm a bit unsure about those vowels). The difficulty come with Tycho's academic name: Tycho is a classical form of Tyge. In fact, it comes from the Greek Τυχων, so it's actually a different name. Because of this, there cannot be said to be a one correct pronunciation of the name. One could use /tiko/ as the easiest pronunciation for English speakers to master. Alternatives would be /tixo/, /tyko/ and /tyxo/, getting progressively more difficult for English speakers. In a proper Danish word, ch is usually pronounced as /ɕ/, but I'm not sure whether anyone would use that pronunciation here. --Gareth Hughes 13:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, okay, I don't know what kind of sound "y" is in IPA (I can't find it on the chart), but here's the explanation I read:
"Tycho always signed his name with either an ij or the equivalent, frequently used by somewhat nonsensical, ÿ. In the handwriting of Tycho's Denmark, ij stood for the sound pronounced like the ee in the English 'sheet.' If Tycho had wanted his name to be pronounced with the English 'high,' he would presumably having spelled it 'Taecho,' which he never did." (Victor E. Thoren, The Lord of Uraniborg, p.10)
So hopefully it aligns somewhat with this, yes? --Fastfission 14:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that extra piece of info is useful, as it would suggest the pronunciation /ti:ko/. The article for /y/ can be found under close front rounded vowel. --Gareth Hughes 19:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How do you pronounce "Björk"?

I've never understood IPA phonetics, so the guide in the article is useless to me. Help appreciated. ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs)

If you pronounce it to rhyme with "jerk" (but replacing the "j" sound with a "by" cluster like the first two consonants of "byoo-tiful"), you'll be close enough. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

antonym

what is the opposite / antomym of the word orphan ?

I don't suppose there is one, other than "child whose parents are still alive". --Angr/tɔk tə mi 09:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In a typesetting context, the opposite of an orphan is a widow. Shantavira 12:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

to find a specific word of five letters which means.........

.... is very difficult without any more clues than that?


I think dilwk might be the word you're looking for; it means ........
— mark ✎ 14:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Positive Feeling Words

Does anyone have a list of positive feeling words? Surprisingly, I have not been able to find such a list on Google, despite several different angles of inquiry.

David G. Fisher

What do you mean by "positive feeling words"? --Fastfission 16:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Check out our List of emotions, or a thesaurus. Shantavira 12:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to avoid telling people "I'm feeling rather gay today". StuRat 22:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Language suggestions?

For quite some time now I have been interested in learning two languages beside my native one (English, obviously). My plan of action is to learn a dead, non-latin, language and a modern, non-romantic, language. This is where my trouble starts, as I am having a difficult time deciding on which languages to learn. I'm hoping you Wikipedians will be able to give me some suggestions.

When it comes to the dead language, I'm looking for a language (this is starting to sound like an ad in the Personals section) whose orthography is straightforward, and whose vowel system isn't excessively complex. I'd also like to be able to *use* it in some fashion, cocktail parties not withstanding. For example, it would be nice if there is a large amount of literature written in the language that is still surviving today. I seem to be gravitating towards Old English (Anglo-Saxon), or possibly Old Norse.

As for the modern language, the only main restriction is that I don't want it to be from the Romantic family, and I'd prefer that it be non European. That said, I'm drawn to Korean because of it's extremely interesting writing system. Japanese would probably be the easisest for me to learn (I could easily procure anime and music), but learning kanji, hiragana, and katakana seems exceedingly difficult. I do like the sound of Romanian (even though it is a European, Romantic language) and Russian also appeals to me. I don't mind having to learn a new writing system, in fact I probably will prefer it.

In conclusion, my question is basically: "Which languages should I learn?" Your suggestions will be highly appreciated. Feel free to suggest languages which I havent mentioned, and tell me what you think of those that I have mentioned. I realize this isn't a question of fact, and so it may be out of place here at the Wikipedia Reference desk, but I figured this is the best place to ask seeing as many of your contributors appear to have an immense amount of knowledge on languages. Thank you, --anon.

A dead language whose orthography is straightforward and whose vowel system isn't excessively complex? (Interesting criteria; you don't mind if the consonant system is complex, so long as the vowels are simple?) And with a fairly large literature? Well, Old English fits all of those, I guess; Old Norse doesn't have as much literature. Ancient Greek and Sanskrit also have simple vowel systems and large literary corpora; they're not written in the Roman alphabet, but their writing systems aren't hard to learn.
As for a living non-Romance (the usual term, rather than non-Romantic) language, may I (reflecting my personal bias) suggest one of the modern Celtic languages? They're European, to be sure, but their grammatical system is quite different from the more familiar Continental languages like German and the Romance and Slavic languages, so linguistically they're still pretty exotic. Welsh has probably the easiest spelling-to-pronunciation conventions of the bunch.
Or maybe a pair of related ancient/modern languages, like Sanskrit and Hindi? They've got the same writing system, so you'd only have to learn it once, but grammatically they're very different from each other, so you still know you're learning two different languages, and you're not likely to get them mixed up if you learn them at the same time (the way you might if you were learning, say Biblical Hebrew and Modern Israeli Hebrew at the same time). --Angr/tɔk tə mi 18:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd second this suggestion since related languages has a lot of value in aiding deeper understanding of the modern language. Hindi of course has the practical advantages of having the second most speakers depending on how you count it, and Sanskrit has a huge literary base. Also the advantage of reading the Kama Sutra in it's original language. :) Sanskrit also has heavily influenced a number of other languages as that article explains. The other side of the popularity issue is you could learn Classical Chinese and Standard Mandarin, which if you count all the Chinese language as one, gets you even more speakers, and of course a huge body of literature. - Taxman Talk 16:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
---Or you could learn Arabic, which covers all of your criteria at once: It is a classical language that has largely been supplanted in modern speech by radically different colloquial dialects, so it's a dead language. And, it is the principal liturgical and academic language of hundreds of millions of people alive today, so it's a modern language. It has a large easily acquired literature on all possible subjects some of which still has a great deal of continuing relevance and is of immediate and profitable use. It's also non-Indo-European and has a reasonably functional script that is far from the Roman alphabet. --Diderot 19:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why? It's a serious question, the use to which you want to put it will influence your choice.
I agree that Arabic have an awesome literature and history, but I speak fluently Arabic and believe me, it's a very hard language to learn. It's vowel, and writing system is really different. I also disagree with the fact that it's a dead language. Its literal or formal form isn't spoken, but all modern books and magasines, even on TV, especiallly news shows, use the formal Arabic language. CG 14:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to Japanese: hiragana and katakana are actually quite easy to learn, but kanji is a colossal PITA. Aside from the fact that there are so freakin' many of them, there's no way to guess at the sound they make just by looking at them. Heck, sometimes kanji will have more than one sound; 上 means "up" and says "ue" as a noun, but it says "a" in the verb 上げる, "ageru," "to raise." It's a mess, and it often feels like it's intentionally needlessly difficult… Some kanji I know the meaning of, yet have no idea how to pronounce them (the kanji for "flavor," for example), and others I can pronounce but have no idea as to their meaning (such as 久, which reads as either "hisa" or "ku"). And don't even get me started on figuring out how to write all of them! That being said, it's often easy to break apart a sentence and know what parts are the subject, the object, the verb, etc, even if you don't know what they mean, and, while there are a multiple of particles, ya get the hang of them after a while.
As far as the spoken language goes, I'm not finding it any more difficult than learning Spanish was; probably easier, actually. Japanese uses a lot of loan words, sometimes even for things which have perfectly usable native Japanese words; earlier today I polished off a carton of アップル (appuru, apple) juice, despite the fact that the Japanese have their own りんご (ringo) which they could have used instead. You would think that this would make things easy, but actually it's kind of annoying because you have to "mispronounce" the English words as they would be written in katakana in order to be understood, and sometimes it's not easy to predict how they were adapted. Once I was trying to talk about McDonald's with a student, and he had no idea what I was talking about until I gave the Japanese name, マクドナルド (Makudonarudo). Another time I was telling a woman (in English) that I lived in a really small apartment, and she kept asking if I lived in a mansion, much to our mutual confusion. It was only later that I discovered that マンション (manshon) is a mis-adapted word meaning "apartment building!"
Anyway, so yeah, ZOMG teh amine and all that… but Japanese is kind of a tweaked language. Not as tweaked as English, of course, but I don't think it's at a high point in its history at present. I agree with your instinct toward Korean; it doesn't have quite the cultural boom behind it that Japanese does, but at least it has logical orthography -- the best orthography in any language I've researched, in my armchair-linguist opinion. Another option though, if you're in the mood for something different, might be sign language. Garrett Albright 17:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT DOES ok STAND FOR?

No one knows for sure. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 19:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


[after edit conflict] There are an abundant number of legends, but the most plausible that research has found traces it to a humorous misspelling of "all correct" (oll korrect) in 1839 - at the time, there was a fad in US East Coast newspapers for using silly abbreviations, and this was one that basically just took off. Shimgray | talk | 19:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is the role of the Pope in the Catholic Church

  1. That isn't a language question.
  2. Do your own homework.
  3. See Pope.

--Angr/tɔk tə mi 21:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Semantics and morphology of borrowed words in different languages

I am reading a book on Michif that makes some claims about code switching, lexical borrowing and creolisation that have some bearing on my doctoral thesis. Particularly, it notes that in Algonquian languages, code switching and word borrowing follows a pattern common to a number of non-European languages when they borrow words from European ones:

  1. Borrowed words tend to fit specific categories: greetings, calendar terminology, temporal locative expressions, numbers, quantities and measures, conjunctions, interjections, adverbs and discourse particles.
  2. Verbs are often borrowed only in a fixed morphological form - usually a canonical form like the infinitive - and then joined to an auxilliary verb or a pro-verb like to do.

The book claims that this is routinely the case in Korean and Japanese, as well as a number of more obscure languages like Navajo and Chamorro.

I've been thinking about this in an effort to see if a more unified theory of code switching and borrowing can drop out of it, by trying to see if English follows such a pattern. I think the first claim is partially empirically defensible: Greetings fit the pattern: you can say ciao in English, or aloha, and in Canada you can even biz somebody (from French bizou). Adopting the western calendar can logically entail adopting the western terminology for it. Indeed, English calendar words are something of a mix of native calques and borrowed words from long, long ago. Million and billion are not Germanic words, so the numbers fit. Units and measures also fit the pattern - consider the terminology of the metric system.

But, I can't think of any temporal expressions, conjunctions, interjections or discourse particles that English has borrowed from other languages? Can anybody else?

I think this type of claim has to be seen from a sociolinguistic standpoint. How does a borrowed term - or a category where borrowing is favoured - reflect the social changes taking place at the time? Borrowing metric system terminology makes sense in light of a pattern of social change favouring industry, trade and with it standardisation of units. Logically, that Algonquian languages, and other languages traditionally remote from European culture, freely borrow temporal expressions should reflect social changes in the conception of time. Is this stance defensible? Is there a literature on it? I'm not trying to make a Whorfian claim - on the contrary, I think that changes in social cognition cause changes in language. I vehemently oppose the notion that linguistic categories control cognition. Still, it seems to me that if the empirical claim that borrowings tend to fall into those categories is true, we ought to be able to deduce something about the social changes that motivated them. But what can we deduce from the adoption of foreign conjunctions?

As for the second point, I cannot think of any borrowed verb in English that fits the pattern I described. Consider the verb to fillet, borrowed from French in relatively recent times. If English fit this pattern, we would have to say to do fillet or to make fillet or something of the sort. Are there any examples? Even cases of borrowing the nominalisation of a foreign verb, and then adding to do or to make would count.

My provisional hypothesis is that the key player here is morphology. The weak morphology of the English verb makes auxilliaries less necessary - any noun can be easily turned into a verb with little difficulty and with the default implication of whatever action that noun would usually entail. French and Spanish verb morphologies are moderately complicated compared to English, so they should fit the pattern I described more than English does. Algonquian languages, in contrast, have very intricate and complicated verbal morphologies, and you can't easily slap several syllables of prefixes and suffixes onto borrowed or code-switched words. Thus, the use of auxilliaries and pro-verbs is the most effective way to absorb new verbs.

So, I would like to know how well this hypothesis holds up. For example, how does Russian, with its relatively complex verb morphology, borrow verbs? Does the notion that verb borrowings require auxilliaries in proportion to the sophistication of a language's verbal morphology hold up to empirical testing? I don't know Japanese or Korean - does the book I'm reading accurately report how they borrow verbs, and if so, do they have complex verb morphologies that fit my hypothesis?

And, if there is any literature on this subject that somebody's read, I'd really appreciate knowing. --Diderot 09:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have also heard the claim about Japanese; basically, borrowed verbs in Japanese will be nouns + suru "to do, to make". The closest thing to a borrowed conjunction in English I can think of is because, but it wasn't really borrowed as a conjunction; it was formed in Middle English from a native preposition by and a borrowed noun cause. It is of course extremely rare that functional categories are borrowed at all in language contact, but it might be common in interlanguage. The stereotype of Germans saying und in the middle of an English sentence is not unfounded. Perhaps if some community of German speakers were to start speaking English for whatever reason, the children learning this English with a German substrate would settle on und as their word for "and", and then that language would have a conjunction that was a effectively a loanword. Of course, I've never actually heard of that happening in substrate situations; Irish left a pretty heavy substrate effect on Hiberno-English, but even in Hiberno-English the word for "and" is and, not agus. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 09:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the book that I'm reading suggests that functional categories are fairly routinely borrowed, notwithstanding Hudson's claim that functional categories are an unproductive and ill-motivated notion. Now that I'm rereading Hudson, I see that he notes per, via, qua, circa, vis-à-vis, and save as examples of prepositions borrowed into English. This matches patterns I've seen in Métis French, Plautdietsch and Native American languages, but the borrowing is more prevalent in the less widely spoken languages. My mother, for example, uses because exclusively in Plautdietsch over wiel (which is cognate to the German weil). --Diderot 11:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
From personal experience, I note that in Tamil language, words borrowed from Sanskrit and Prakrit are predominantly abstract nouns, and often sprituality-related. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 11:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Translation

How would the phrase 'Fly on the wings of an eagle' be translated into Latin. It was the catchprase of the TV show 'Aquila', which I know means eagle. (The phrase its self was written in Latin on the side of a 'Roman' spaceship)? smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 12:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Fly would normally be considered an imperative, but it may be more appropriate to use the infinitive: Volare a pennae aquilae. --Gareth Hughes 15:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd think the imperative would be best. I don't think Latin used the infintive as an imperative the way modern French and German do. I'd suggest Vola cum pennis aquilae. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 16:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I remember the phrase sounded more like 'Subat Aterum Aquila Volat' (Probably, most of these are mispelt). Would this phrase, or something similar, have the right sort of meaning? smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 18:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Was it Licat volaré si superturgum Aquila volat? That's what http://www.tv.com/aquila/show/15272/summary.html says was written on the spaceship in that show, and they translate it "Any man can fly if he rides on the back of an eagle." I get the same from http://www.geocities.com/aquilafans/, but I get Licat volaré si super tergum Aquila volat translated as "A man can fly where he will if he rides on the back of an eagle" from http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/ww2/U551875. All of that being said, however, I must say the Latin is pretty bad. Licat appears to be a misspelling of licet, which means "it is allowed" (rather than "it is possible" as one would expect from the context). Volaré should be simply "volare" since Latin doesn't use the acute accent. Superturgum is a typo for super tergum which doesn't mean "on (the) back" but "over or above (the) back" (i.e. without actually touching it). Aquila should be in the genitive case: aquilae. Some other websites use the phrase licet volare si in tergo aquilae volat (but not in connection with the TV show AFAICT), which is grammatically better, but still a bit iffy as it means "It is permissible to fly if he flies on the back of an eagle" where "he" doesn't actually refer to anyone. If I were asked to translate "One can fly if one flies on the back of an eagle" into Latin I'd probably say Homo volare potest si in aquila vehitur, literally "A person can fly if he rides an eagle" (more literally "if he is carried on an eagle"; it plays off the usual idiom for "to ride a horse" in Latin, which is in equo vehi "to be carried on a horse"). --Angr/tɔk tə mi 20:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think that sounds right. I know during the starting sequence they only played the second half (super tergum Aquila volat), and I couldn't remember how the first part sounded. Thanks! smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 09:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Survey Research Word Usage

Is a "nominative" survey-research question a yes/no question with only stock, black and white answers? Are these types of questions or response categories called nominative? And what are the other kinds of questions, with many possible answers, called? (Besides "multiple choice") Is this the right definition of "nominative questions"?

Use of the Locative case

The article on the locative case says that it's use corresponds roughly to the English prepositions "in", "on", "at", and "by". Now, maybe this is because I don't quite understand how cases work, but this seems confusing. How does a language with only the one locative case makes a distinction between, say "it's in the box" and "it's on the box"? Are there additional prepositions that clarify these things? and if these prepositions indicate locative information, why keep the locative case at all? --86.135.87.145 17:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Context helps; it's more logical for something to be in a box than on it, no? Similarly, we wouldn't expect something to be in a table. Garrett Albright 17:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The use of a grammatical case does not preclude the use of prepositions. If the sense is unambiguous, a locative case might be used by itself to describe the location of something. However, in many cases, one would naturally use a preposition to 'fill out' the exact location, and then the two -- preposition and locative case -- might be used together. It is probable that the greater flexability afforded by prepositions led to the near abandonment of the case in Latin. --Gareth Hughes 18:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
typically, you can heap up prepositions and adverbials until you feel that your meaning is expressed with sufficient clarity. there isn't even a clear line between "preposition" and "case", grammars leak, and if you use a pre-(or post-)position a lot, your grandchildren will make it a case. 19:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's an example from Czech of how the locative works:

Krabice je velký -- The box is big (nominative). Kniha je v krabici -- The book is in the box (locative). Kniha je na krabici -- The book is on the box (locative).

So as you can see, the preposition "in" or "on" is still used. That raises the question, then -- what's the point of having a locative case? -- 70.27.57.22 00:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

more free word order? the case shows which noun is dependent on which preposition. but you are right that the more the language relies on prepositions, the more likely it is that the cases will get worn down and eventually dropped.

Mode of Address for ENGINEERS

I note that 'engineers' are sometimes addressed as Ir ... and not Mr ... in official documents.

I would like to know what Ir stands for and under what circumstances this mode of address may be used.

Regards, --Ciesse 203 02:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. I refer to my observation for the profession of 'engineers'in HKSAR, PRC. Sorry for not having made myself clear at the beginning. --203.218.229.158 02:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it stands for "ingenieur" (Dutch perhaps?), which means "Engineer". Google seems to think this is a term used to describe a University qualification. As in, John Smith (IR-Newcastle).--inksT 02:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Ingenieur" is also the German word for "engineer," and "ingénieur" is the French word. What circumstances you would find "Ir" used instead of "Mr" depend on what country you live in; the "Ir" title is not used in the USA to the best of my knowledge. --Metropolitan90 02:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article on Master's degrees states that the abbreviation would be used in the Netherlands for holders of a degree equivalent to an MEng, although the implication in the article is that this is a slightly old-fashioned usage as the Dutch degree system has been revised in line with the Bologna process. In Germany the approximate equivalent is Diplom-Ingenieur, and this maybe used as a title, but is abbreviated Dipl.-Ing. One also finds just Ing. but this is of a lower level of academic distinction. In the UK, an engineer would be John Smith BEng or John Smith MEng. If he had undertaken research he might become John Smith PhD or John Smith DEng; he would then be entitled to call himself Doctor. No engineering degree other than a doctorate attracts a title in the UK (as is also the case for other degrees, though practising medical doctors use doctor as a courtesy title even where they are only MB BCh). The John Smith mentioned in Inkypaw's answers is trying it on, methinks. Or has a Dutch qualification. Valiantis 14:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
After googling I think the IR-Newcastle referred to above is part of MHRM & IR which is Master of HR Management & Industrial Relations - I can only find it in that combination. So as an academic qualification in the English-speaking world, no connection to engineers. Valiantis 15:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Used to be, years ago, that a bachelor's degree would enable you to call yourself "Sir" (with the surname not the forename); this fell out of favour in the last few centuries, though. Shimgray | talk | 12:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Double negative = positive?

Suppose John has a car, and someone asks me "Doesn't John have a car?". What is the correct reply?:

  1. Yes, John has a car.
  2. No, John has a car.

If it is the first one, then what is the correct answer to: "Does John have a car?"

I personally feel that the second one makes more logical sense, but i see the first form being used all the time (in TV, movies, books, etc)

In both cases, the speaker is simply inquiring whether john has a car, hence these would be the most common choices for responses:
  1. Yes, John has a car.
  2. No, John does not have a car.
I'm not certain whether there's a specific rule for why both phrasings of the question mean the same thing, but idiomatically that's the way it works. Your original second choice roughly translates to "no, yes he has a car" in response to the particular question. However, the response to "John does not have a car," could conceivably be "No [that's not correct], John has a car." Elf | Talk 08:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
well i think that the correct interpretation of "doesn't john have a car?" is "john doesn't have a car. is the previous statement true?" in such a case, "perfectionistically" speaking, the correct answer would be "no, the statement is not true, john does have a car"
or maybe "does john (not have a car)?" or "does john have the property of (not having a car?" in this case also, the second answer makes sense. -User:Hellznrg

If John does indeed have a car, the correct answer both to "Doesn't John have a car?" and to "Does John have a car?" is "Yes, John has a car" in (most dialects of) English. Other languages work differently. In French and German, for example, there are different words for "yes" depending on whether the question was phrased positively or negatively:

French: Jean a une voiture? -- Oui, Jean a une voiture (positive question)
but Jean n'a pas de voiture? -- Si, Jean a une voiture (negative question)
German: Hat Hans ein Auto? -- Ja, Hans hat ein Auto (positive question)
but Hat Hans kein Auto? -- Doch, Hans hat ein Auto (negative question)

And according to Indian English, in that dialect the correct answer to "You didn't come on the bus?" is "Yes, I didn't", so maybe the correct answer to "Doesn't John have a car" is "No, John does have a car" in that dialect. But that isn't true in most other dialects of English. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 08:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

what you say is true.. the first form is commonly and generally used, but i think that logically speaking the second answer is correct and the first one is just contradictory and therefore wrong. i wonder at what point in time did people start using the incorrect form... i hope people start using the correct form ... everytime someone uses the first form i want to scream!!! :) -User:Hellznrg
Right and wrong in languages is defined by the speakers. The "n't" in this case is just working to indicate that the speaker is asking for confirmation as much as information, at least in the dialects I'm thinking over. Pure logic frequently won't get you the correct answer in language.--Prosfilaes 16:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would expand "Doesn't John have a car?" as "Is it not true that John has a car?" and therefore the correct answers are "Yes, John has a car" or "No, John doesn't have a car." But in any case an idion is not subject to logical analysis of the elemets that make it up, and in at least standard U.S. english, a question of the form "Doesn't X Y" is identical in meaning to "Does X have Y" except that the first form implies that the asker thinks (but isn't sure) that the answer is positive. DES (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that the usage "doesn't ...?" is asking almost a rhetorical question where the answer is assumed to be positive. In other words, you would not ask "Doesn't John have a car?" if both answers were equally likely. In that case, you'd ask "Does John have a car?". Asking "Doesn't John have a car?" would be expecting a positive answer in most cases. --WhiteDragon 21:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The thing with this construction is that the "not" in "doesn't" is NOT a negative at all, but merely a way of inviting the person to agree with you. The core question is "Does John have a car?", to which is added something (the 'nt in doesn't) that says, "I believe (or assume) John has a car, but I want you to confirm that is the case and I will be surprised if you tell me doesn't". That's a very long-winded thing to say, so "Doesn't John have a car?" does the job much more succinctly. Also take into account that when such a question is asked, the non-verbals (voice inflection, facial expression) will also be involved, telling the listener much of what the questioner is really asking. The question cannot really be analysed in isolation from the non-verbal environment in which it is asked. A similar case is, I'm standing outside the house on a very cold day, in just trousers, a cotton shirt and bare feet. My friend comes up to me and says "Aren't you cold?". There could be various answers. If I do in fact feel cold, the answer would be "Yes, but I like it", or just "Yes". If I don't feel cold, the answer would be "No". The answer is not governed by the existence of the 'not' in the question - because, as I said before, it's not a negative question at all but a strongly expressed open question. Aren't you glad you asked the question now? (Tee hee) JackofOz 07:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is the term for a King attaining the position by regicide

We are trying to think of the term (if it exists) for a person who is now the King of something, but attained that position by killing the former king. It is just one of thos questions that you have to find the answer for. thanks for any halp

Barb

Usurper is usually used. We have an article on Roman usurpers. --Gareth Hughes 22:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think killing the previous king is one way a usurper can come to the throne, but surely not the only way. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 23:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"His Royal Highness" if he successfully defends his coup d'état, "dead meat" otherwise. --Diderot 18:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Usurper." Neutralitytalk 18:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Regicide" is also one who kills a king, but I suppose that doesn't necessarily mean that the person replaced the king. "Usurping regicide"? Elf | Talk 02:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And here I thought regicide was killing Regis Philbin. StuRat 22:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

how do i find this page if i haven't used a bookmark?

if you hold the wikipedia lightly by the spine, you'll see that the pages of wikipedia will be slightly more separated at the point where you left off..

In future, if you want to bookmark your position, make a small fold in the top right corner of the page user:hellznrg

A less facetious answer is: from any Wikipedia page, click "Contact us" under "navigation" in the box directly underneath the Wikipedia logo on the lefthand side of the page. From there, scroll down to Questions and click on Reference desk. From there, click on Language, and here you are! --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You can also type "WP:RD" into the search box on the left-hand bar on every page. Garrett Albright 07:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

grammar of "Master’s degree"

Do you need to use an apostrophe when writing the following "Mr Smith holds a Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering"

I have looked at the web sites of different universities. Some use the apostrophe while others do not.

Thanks --211.155.247.222 06:54, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The degree belongs to the master, so I would say yes. And I wouldn't capitalize "master" or "electrical engineering" either. Garrett Albright 07:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the noun master is being used attributively rather than possessively. Nonetheless, master's with an apostrophe is correct. —Wayward 07:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars intro

In Spanish versions of Star Wars, how is "a long, long time ago, in a land far, far, away" translated? Neutralitytalk 18:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From Spanish Wikipedia Star Wars: hace mucho tiempo, en una galaxia muy, muy lejana (Ps. It's a Long Time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, although A long, long time ago is a common mistake :) ) smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 20:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bluegum

Hiya. I (non-native speaker) am grappling with Faulkner's The Sound and the Fury. I did not sign up for Oprah's bookclub, so here's my question. There is a passage in Benji's chapter that reads

You know how come your name Benjamin now. They making a bluegum out of you. Mammy say in old time your granpa changed a nigger's name, and he turn preacher, and when they look at him, he bluegum too. Didn't use to be bluegum, neither. And when family woman looks him in the eye in the full of the moon, chile born bluegum. And one evning, when they was about a dozen them bluegum chillen running round the place, he never come home. And you know who et him. Them bluegum chillen did.

Now what exactly is a bluegum? My Merriam-Webster gives two definitions: 1. a tree (Blue gum) and 2. something out of "Negro folklore" that I don't quite grasp. I guess the latter is what I'm looking for. Thanks, --Janneman 20:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know either, but for the record the second definition in Merriam-Webster is "a bluish gum held in American Negro folklore to be characteristic of a Negro whose bite is fatally poisonous". I think "gum" here might mean the gums of the mouth. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 22:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

sentence structure

Can you give the examples of deep and surface structures?

See the article Transformational grammar. Halcatalyst 04:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please translate the G in Mason symbol into PE and 17, if correct?

Sunday, October 9, 2005

Question 1 of 3:

Basis for the question:

1) PE is the 17th letter of the Hebrew alphabet.

2) The ideograph of PE looks a little like an upside down G, found in the Hebrew alphabet.

3) The London Grand Lodge was founded in the year 1717.


I am trying to find an authoritive source that translates PE PE into G G and both/either into 17 17. 

(G = 17; PE = 17; G = PE and also the upside down G for each)


I have searched several days, for a project nearly due. I thought I had seen it in multiple sources in the past, but I can not refind.

Can you provide authoritive proof of above requested relationships?

Question 2:

I know I had seen that in Roman Law a white stone (or Pebble) was a vote for INNOCENT and black stone was a vote for GUILT.

I suspect providing definitive concurring documentation would be easy for you, if you would be kind enough to provide sources to confirm this useage of White and Black stones or pebbles to define or indicate innocent or guilt, in Roman Law or elsewhere?

Question 3:

Regards a recent cliche whose origin I may or may not have found.


ORIGIN of the PHRASE: "Be careful what you (ask or) wish for, you may get it."

My research traced it to EDGAR ALLEN POE, yet it wound up going to W. W. JACOBS story "The Monkey's Paw." It's attributed as anonymous.

It is a very brief story about a talisman that grants 3 wishes. Yet, in reading it, I never saw a DIRECT QUOTE.

From the moral of the story, the QUOTE appears to be a SUMMARY of the cummulative effect of the 3 WISHES.


Is there another early DIRECT source of the QUOTE, like BIBLE, TALMUD, or Classic Literature?

And can you provide me with documentation of the origin and context of the quote?

I apologize for asking 3 questions instead of one, yet as long as I was in your website, why not?

Additionally, this trivia may be (hopefully) of interest to you?

Thank you,

George Mulligan 429 Housatonic Avenue Stratford, CT. 06615 (203) 378-1888 georgeemcom@<EMAIL REMOVED>

regarding your first question, I can only say that I find it unlikely that פ (or G) was used to represent 17, since the numerical value of פ is 80. 17 would rather be expressed as זי. The pebble thing is mentioned in Ovid's Metamorphoses (book 15),

The ancient custom was to vote using black and white pebbles: the black to condemn: the white to absolve from punishment.
I don't know if the Romans did, but the Celts certainly did. They believed that the gods would bias the random drawing of a stone (or stick) from a bag either for or against the defendent (if he/she was innocent or guilty respectively). Sometimes, a third stone or stick labelled 'Trinity' was used, which basically meant: 'The gods are too busy now, try again in a minute'. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 15:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ovid just told you the Romans did :) as for other cultures, compare also Urim and Thummim. But the Romans' pebbles were plain old voting, not divination. These questions would fit better on "Humanities" or "Miscellaneous" however. 15:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
When Roman juries voted on a case, they used wax tablets marked on one side with A (absolvo, i.e. 'innocent') and on the other with C (condemno, i.e. 'guilty'). They would erase one letter and drop the tablet in an urn; the final verdict was decided by straight majority vote. They could also erase both and replace the letters with N L, (non liquet, i.e. 'not proven'); generally these were counted as votes for acquittal. —Charles P. (Mirv) 01:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ICE CAPADE

My name is Gyeyoung Lee, and I live in Korea. Right now I am translating an American show '70s show' and this words 'ice capade' came out. I looked it up in a dictionary and on web sites. However, all efforts was in no use. Then I found the definition of 'capade' here.

Could you explain the meaning of 'ICE CAPADE'? The context is as below.

— We get a job as a local weather team, then go national as morning talk show hosts, and then star in our own Ice Capades.
— Jakie, I've told you, I don't capade [here, is this word used as a verb?]. I am quitting my job, though.


Thank you. And if you happen to need to know about anything about Korea, I am very willing to do it.

See Ice Capades. This was an ice-skating entertainment show, sort of like figure skating but purely as entertainment and not as a sport with judges and medals.
Yes, the word "capade" is jokingly being used as a verb in the second part. It isn't an English verb and doesn't have any meaning, except as part of this joke. Perhaps it's like saying: "Let's eat dinner." "No, I don't 'dinner'". It's just nonsensical joking talk, basically it just means that the second person is jokingly saying he doesn't want to follow the first person's suggestion.
-- Curps 01:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
it should be added that "Ice Capade" is a pun on escapade in the first place.

Spelling of English words

It seems to me that English words seldom contain 3 same letters consecutively. But I happen to find an 'exception' recently in an e-card which reads, inter alia, "Happy Boss's Day" (falling on 16 Oct).

Grateful if someone can clear my mind whether my 'concept' as aforesaid is right or there is no hard and fast rule (if so, can I have some examples?). Also, I'm eager to know how to pronounce "Boss's".

Regards, --Ciesse 203 02:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This has some interesting words. Words with s's are usually pronounced word is, in this case Boss is. MeltBanana 02:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is may be pronounced with an I-sound, and the vowel here is neutral. It is clearer to say that boss's is pronounced exactly like bosses. --Anonymous, 00:15 UTC, October 12, 2005
Apart from possessives like boss's, and exclamations such as mmmm, brrrr, aaaah, ooooh etc (which, arguably, are not words at all), I doubt there are any common English words that have a triple letter. However there are some uncommon words that do (these include archaic spellings that are still found in specialist dictionaries). Melt Banana's post shows some of them. More are at [2], a site full of fascinating word lore. JackofOz 02:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One word, seven times, complete sentence.

There is supposedly one word in the English language that, when used by itself seven times, can form a complete sentence. I don't mean the riddles like buffalo, police, etc. I think it has to do with using it in different tenses. Can someone help me out?

There was just a discussion about that not too long ago. Check out this subpage here, and come back if you have any more questions! :-) --HappyCamper 02:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


OK, so I realize you can use "had" several times in a row and have the sentence make sense, but there has to be other words before and after that, no? The question I was asked to answer said that it was one word seven times and that was it . . .. totally stumped and annoyed. :)

Buffalo repeated can be a valid sentence (up to at least eight iterations) - are you sure this isn't the one you were looking for? Shimgray | talk | 10:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In The Language Instinct, Steven Pinker gives the example of, "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo." It means, "Bison from Buffalo, New York, who are baffled by other bison from Buffalo, New York, in turn baffle a third group of bison from Buffalo, New York." The word "buffalo" (in lower case) can be a noun for an animal or a verb meaning "to baffle." In capital letters, "Buffalo" is a city in New York. -- Mwalcoff 02:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pharmacy School Application

My pharmacy school application asks "What are your weaknesses?" Whats the best answer? I have no idea what to tell them. I don't want to make myself sound bad. Any ideas? And how would I say it.

Thanks for your time

-Dave

  • I'd be honest but emphasis that you are willing to try and change. Admitting them shows that you have an understanding of your strengths and weaknesses. Capitalistroadster 06:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be honest but try to establish a positive note. For example, I wouldn't just say "I'm basically lazy" and leave it at that. You might analyze why people think you're lazy (or why you think you're lazy). Perhaps "I have so many interests that I care passionately about that sometimes it's hard for me to focus on getting a single thing finished." I never make anything up when asked this question; if you're really all-out world-shaking lazy, you probably wouldn't be applying to medical school or expecting to get in, so if you or someone else thinks you're lazy, there's probably a reason for it hidden in your little over-achieving background :-). "I have very high standards for myself and sometimes I have trouble starting projects because I'm afraid I won't do a good enough job." Or maybe "I've often found schoolwork to be so easy that it's sometimes hard for me to take my assignments seriously." But all of these things require some honest introspection. Or ask a couple of friends whom you trust to both be honest and show some intelligent analysis of your behavior. And, yeah, I like the idea of also indicating briefly what you've done in the past or plan on doing to remedy the situation. Elf | Talk 02:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A clichéd answer is to say "I'm a bit of a perfectionist" or "I don't suffer fools gladly" - in other words, to dress up a possible strength as a weakness. If I was interviewing, I'd want a more honest answer. Dave.Dunford 03:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you do, don't tell them you are addicted to oxycontin!

Language usage in North America

In all of North America, is English or Spanish most common as a first language?

First you have to define what you mean by "North America". Is Mexico in North America? Is Central America (Guatemala to Panama) included in North America? Are the Caribbean Islands included? Not everyone's definition of North America is the same. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 11:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Another question is how to define "English" -- do the English-lexified creole languages of the Caribbean count as English, or not? (I'm not sure if there are Spanish creoles in the area, but if so, obviously the same question applies to them.) --Angr/tɔk tə mi 11:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think I'm using the actual geographic definition of North America, so Mexico is included, I beolieve the Caribbean is, and parts of Cetral America. And I suppose I'll be defining the languages as base languages, so the creoles based on English and Spanish count.

Thanks

English, by a factor of roughly 1.6 to 1, according to my ballpark estimate. 106m Mexicans, 37m Central Americans, 25m Spanish speakers in the Caribbean, another 20m Spanish first-preference speakers in the continental US equal 188m Spanish speakers. The US population is roughly 300, of whom roughly 275m count as English first-preference speakers; another 25m in Canada, plus 5m in the Caribbean comes to 305m English speakers. This makes the Spanish speaking population roughly 38% of the total English and Spanish speaking population, or about 35% of the total North American population counting francophones and Kreyol speakers.
This is a back-of-the-envelop calculation, but it should be roughly accurate. --Diderot 07:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the verb comprise

Can someone please tell me if this usage is right or wrong, and why:

"The meeting is planned to take place over 4 days , and will be attended by up to 20 people comprising our local staff and other overseas experts."

I've seen this construction before, about 'comprising', but I have the feeling that, at least in American english, it would read better as: "up to 20 people, comprised of our local staff and other experts".

Thank if you can offer concrete expertise...

Comprised is the past participle, which is indicating the passive voice. It makes more sense here than the present participle comprising. The word means 'put together', with the past participle we get the sense that the 'up to 20' are put together from the two following groups. Using the present participle implies that the 'up to 20' gather and then will form the local staff and overseas experts (by lot perhaps?). --Gareth Hughes 13:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
'Comprised of' is OK, but 'consisting of' is better. This gives the sense that all of the 20 people are local staff and other experts, but there could well be other local staff and other experts who did not attend. Whereas 'comprised of' can suggest that there are only 20 people altogether, and they will all attend. This is not the intended meaning, so in order to remove all trace of ambiguity, I suggest getting rid of "comprised of" and using a better construction, "consisting of". Another usage of comprise that is not seen that often nowadays is the active voice, eg. "These 5 people comprise my entire family", which is a far more euphonious sentence than "my family is comprised of (or even consists of) these 5 people". Cheers JackofOz 14:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"to comprise" is transitive. I am aware that 'comprises of' is widely used, but it is wrong. "to include" is synonymous: you wouldn't say "the meeting includes of 20 people", either. 15:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Right. As a shortcut, think of "comprise" as meaning "is composed of", so "comprised of" is essentially "is composed of of". Nothing wrong with "comprising" at all, any more than any other transitive verb (she reads the book / she enjoys many things, reading books among them; the group comprises our local staff and other experts / ...the group, comprising our local staff and other experts). For more definitions and examples, look at any of the dictionary entries from here. But I also agree that "consisting of" might be better simply because so many people misuse and misunderstand "comprising". Elf | Talk 02:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Although in all fairness I'll toss in this usage note from Mirriam Webster:
Although it has been in use since the late 18th century, sense 3 ("comprised of" meaning "composed of") is still attacked as wrong. Why it has been singled out is not clear, but until comparatively recent times it was found chiefly in scientific or technical writing rather than belles lettres. Our current evidence shows a slight shift in usage: sense 3 is somewhat more frequent in recent literary use than the earlier senses. You should be aware, however, that if you use sense 3 you may be subject to criticism for doing so, and you may want to choose a safer synonym such as compose or make up.
Elf | Talk 02:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
that's not quite right: "sense 3" is the sense of "constitutes" instead of "includes", i.e. "what comprises a literary generation" for "what constitutes". this is 'attacked as wrong'. Then they quote Jimmy Carter with "about 8 percent of our military forces are comprised of women" -- you can see how this passive construction opens the door to even more incorrect use: (correct) "our armed forces comprise 8% women" --> (wrong 'sense 3') "women comprise 8% of our armed forces" --> (correct passivization of wrong use) "8% of our armed forces are comprised by women" --> (Carterism) "8% of our armed forces are comprised of women" --> (very wrong re-activization) "our armed forces comprise of 8% women". So you may say that late 18th century "use 3" is at the core of the mistake, but "comprised of" really seems to be a 20th century (American?) innovation. 09:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
The shorthand that I remember from some grammar book is that "the whole comprises the parts" is the only form that purists will bless, and that "comprised" should just not be used. Thus the original quote is (rarely) quite right, and any "correction" would likely make it worse. If your goal is to publish a document whose content is not obscured by grammar arguments, avoid the word altogether. Too many folks care way too much. Sharkford 16:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
well, if you use it correctly (according to purists), there won't be any grammar arguments :) just avoid the infamous 'sense 3' 18:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Logical Fallacies

Hello, I was wondering if you could tell me what type of logical fallcaies each of these 4 statements are?

  1. The population of the world is exploding at an ever increasing rate.
  2. Our water and air are no longer pure, and we have begun to run out of places to put our solid wastes.
  3. We must stabalize our own poplulation if we are to maintain our present quality of life.
  4. We should not have a population cap because of doomsday rumors.

Thanks, J

Uh...are you sure those are separate statements? It feels like they are all missing several premises somewhere. If not....I'd say that the first is factually incorrect - population expansion is no longer logarithmic, and so cannot be described as "ever increasing". Don't know if the last 3 can be classed as fallacies without more information. Have I missed something really obvious?--inksT 01:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think any of them individually are formal fallacies (they may be inaccurate or bad proposals, but not fallacies of formal logic), and they don't combine to form an argument since the fourth statement appears to oppose the first three. However, they might constitute informal fallacies. There is a web site about both formal and informal fallacies at Adam Smith Institute which you may want to take a look at for suggestions. --Metropolitan90 06:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of those statements are rhetorically questionable.
  1. The first is a mixed metaphor: in ordinary language, explosions do not have a particular rate. You could say: The world's population is exploding; it is growing at an ever increasing rate. This claim is also factually questionable - global population growth is slowing - but as a question of logical coherency, that is beside the point.
  2. The second is dubious on external grounds. Pure water is a notion from chemistry of questionable bearing. Unpolluted fresh water is certainly more accurate, but to use the word pure in this sense opens up the speaker to a charge of rhetorical conflation - real water from natural sources is not in any sense "pure". What I suspect is intended is the idea that safe water sources are growing scarcer. This statement is probably true globally, although it may not be locally true in all areas. As for running out places to put solid waste... this too strikes the astute reader as a gross oversimplification. The world has not run out of places where land is of low value, and different kinds of solid wastes pose different risks and entail different kinds of storage facilities. While not a logical fallacy, the simplification of complex issues in such a short form is off-putting.
  3. The third statement contains a misspelling, but that is beside the point. It is a correctly formed predicate, but its truth value does not follow from the previous two statements. If I were to put forward a counter-argument, I would ask for historical evidence that this is a general rule. It clearly isn't - most countries have had simultaneous economic growth and population growth. There are telling exceptions - areas where population growth exceeded local resources, making social and economic structures less robust in the face of random disruptions or fluctuations in output - but the argument that those cases are more relevant to the discussion at hand than the many contrary examples are a necessary part of the argument.
  4. I don't understand the fourth point. What "doomsday rumours", and what relevance do they have to population control?
--Diderot 07:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well written, Diderot. Further, #4 is an example of a common ambiguity of a "because" clause following a negated statement: "not A because B". This can be used, and commonly is used, to mean either "A is true, but not because of B or "Owing to B, A is not true". In this case, the sentance could be read as "Doomsday rumours are not the reason we should have a population cap" or "Because of the doomsday rumours, we shouldn't have a population cap". Sharkford 17:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not an au pair but a ?

What do you call a travelling companion?

I think you call her a travelling companion. That's what Maggie Smith was to Helena Bonham-Carter in A Room with a View. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 21:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought there was a French term for it.

You require a passepartout, n'est pas? --Gareth Hughes 00:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

oui

"A" or "The" which is it

In a recent debate with my roomate he and I could not come to any agreement as to which is correct in the following discussion; That Pixar is "the" company responsible for computer graphics. I argue the point that using "the", is not in refrence to only one company beeing responsible for computer graphics. His argument is "the" refers only to one specific company being responsible for all computer graphics. He is sure that "a" company is the correct gramattical usage of an article. I need to ask proffessional assitance on this because of the stale mate we have reached. Thanks --70.110.10.186 02:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your roommate is correct. "The" implies that they are "the one and only" company responsible for computer graphics (definite article). "A" implies that it is "one of many" (indefinite article). Many languages don't have such explicit ways of codifying such linguistic concepts, but English is one of them that does. (see Article (grammar) if you want more of an technical explanation). --Fastfission 03:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with User:Fastfission except to note that there is a context in which "the" might be correct here, albeit not the usual situation. I'm referring to a situation where "the" is used to mean something like "the one you are already familiar with". Variety magazine used to, and maybe still does, illustrate this usage in referring to people; consider the following hypothetical, but plausible, example:
Married: Britney Spears and Kevin Federline, on Sept. 18. She's the singer; he's a dancer.
In such an example, Britney is referred to as "the singer" because she is well-known in her own right as a singer, whereas Kevin is just "a dancer" because he is just one of many dancers and not well-known except for his relationship with Britney.
By the same token, it would not be unusual to see an article stating, "Pixar, the computer graphics company, announced that its next film, Cars, would be released in the fall of 2006," since Pixar is well known as a computer graphics company. But as Fastfission indicates, I wouldn't write, "Pixar is the computer graphics company" alone because that sentence would imply that Pixar is the only computer graphics company. --Metropolitan90 06:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's also an idiomatic usage of "the" to indicate "the best" or "most important" - in this usage in spoken English the word "the" would be stressed, so in written English the emphasis is often indicated by italics or bold text. In this usage, to say "Pixar is the company for computer graphics" is to imply that Pixar is the best, or perhaps the best-known, company for computer graphics - in this sense, it wouldn't be understood as a claim that Pixar is the only company for computer graphics. However, in general simple usage, if all you're trying to communicate is that "Pixar is a company that creates computer graphics", you'd use 'a', as per Fastfission's explanation. Dave.Dunford 03:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

what does turbulent mean?

Simply, not flowing smoothly. Dysprosia 06:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1 : disposed or given to insubordination and disorder : causing great unrest : inciting violence or disturbance <their physical courage and prowess ... were the talk of the less turbulent settlers -- American Guide Series: Minnesota> <the hot and turbulent feelings which boiled and surged in her -- Virginia Woolf>
2 : being in a state of violent commotion : characterized by great agitation or tumult : violently disturbed or agitated : STORMY, TEMPESTUOUS <a turbulent childhood filled with frustration and fears -- Diseases of the Nervous System> <the turbulent waters of party politics -- Victor Lewis> <the turbulent years of the revolutionary period>
3 obsolete : causing or tending to cause turbulence : having a disturbing or exciting effect <whose heads that turbulent liquor fills with fumes -- John Milton>
Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged —Wayward 07:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P. U.

My young son recently asked me what "P. U." stands for. The term is used to describe something that stinks - such as "P. U. That smells". I did a lot of web searches to try to find out if P. U. stands for something, but I haven't had any luck.

  • "P. U." seems to be a particularly exaggerated pronunciation of "phew" (fee-yew - sounding both syllables for emphasis). The Oxford English Dictionary gives the origins of "phew" as being "imit[atiton] of puffing". (it's defined as "expressing impatience, discomfort, relief, astonishment or disgust") Shimgray | talk | 13:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

georgian language

Unless you have a specific question, see Georgian language. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 18:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that all too many bypassers "mistake" the question form for the article consultation form &#133; Grumpy Troll (talk) 18:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Greek-Indo-european or semitic?

Revolutionary find? Seems Greek derived more from the M.E.? Anyone can explaion why is it "indo-euro"?

MS

No. Greek is an Indo-European language, and any decent research would not disagree with that. The research might suggest that there were influences from Semitic languages, but that's it. What's your source? --Gareth Hughes 20:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you mean the Greek alphabet? It is derived in part from Middle Eastern sources, specifically the Phoenician alphabet. The language itself is unquestionably Indo-European in origin. In fact, it was one of the languages originally used to show that Indo-European existed. --Diderot 08:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
there is a "Middle Eastern" substrate in Greek. Not Semitic, possibly Anatolian (Luwian, also Indo-European), see Pelasgians. Some terms, especially mythological, are loanwords, e.g. Pegasus, Athene(?), labyrinth, hyacinth etc. That doesn't make Greek any less I-E, of course. 12:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Three Word In The English Language

There are three words in the English language that end in "gry". ONE is angry and the other is hungry. EveryONE knows what the third ONE means and what it stands for. Can you please tell me what that third word is?--207.200.116.5

See gry for a lengthy article about this old puzzle. --Sherool 20:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Several solutions are listed at the gry article, but I would suggest another: perhaps the original question was "three words with gry at the end", in which case the answer can be "gryphon", since it is not stated at which end the "gry" must appear. Shantavira 18:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I need some help pronouncing some Laos/Thai political figure names

I'm not certain these are all from those two languages but, these are the names: Touby Lyfong, Meo tribes, Phoumi Nosovan, Xieng Quang, Tan Son Nhut, and president thieu. If someone could tell me the phoenetic spellings i would appreciate it, and i put in one that i know the pronunciation so don't try to bull crap me. thanks.

The section Thai language#Phonology is good, and, if you read that in conjunction with the article on the Royal Thai General System of Transcription (Thai alphabet might come in hand too), you should be able to get a decent pronunciation. For Lao, see Lao language and Lao romanization. These are not as well developed as the Thai articles, but should do the job. --Gareth Hughes 11:41, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why say "eat beef" not "eat cow"

It's just a thought...Why do we say we eat beef and not eat cow like how we say eat chicken?

--61.8.226.74 10:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In English, our food words tend to have Norman-French bases; our animal names tend to have Anglo-Saxon bases: 

Animal    meat
-----------------
cow       beef
sheep     mutton
pig       pork
calf      veal
deer      venison

Cheaper meats, like chicken, turkey, or rabbit didn't pick up a Norman-French name becaues they weren't eaten by the aristocracy. Nunh-huh 10:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think turkey was even around in medieval England, was it? Interesting that we do say "lamb", though, and not some anglicization of agneau. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 11:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The mediaeval sheep on a plate was mutton (Norman French). Only later did as preference for lamb take over. --Gareth Hughes 11:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, as a problem in linguistics this happens to be my line of work. The answer is because you just don't. "Cow" is an animal, "beef" is an edible product, and the two words mean different things just as much "dog" and "cat" do. You don't say it because no one around you says it, and your native sense of linguistic awkwardness prevents you from wanting to unless you're trying to make a point. In constraint-based theories of grammar, this is explained by saying that the interdiction on using a non-food word as an object of the verb to eat is a relatively high ranked constraint, and you are naturally loath to break it unnecessarily.
The real tough question comes in the implication that there are two words "chicken1" and "chicken2". The first means a living animal and belongs in the same category as "cow", the second means a meat product and is in the same lexical category as "beef". Most people reject this conception as it runs counter to their natural linguistic reflexes, however, there is at least one semi-repectable brand of lexicalist linguistics that makes that claim.
I would not. I think that rather than envisioning having two lexical entries for "chicken", people store information for each noun about the kinds of verbs each noun can accept as headwords and they store for each verb information about the nouns they can take as arguments. I think this kind of information is 99% of the time a summary of distributional information collected over a lifetime as a language user, and that the more often a particular formulation is heard, the harder it becomes to break it unintentionally. That way, if I ask, what do you do with chickens, you say "We eat them", but if I ask what do you do with cows, the answer is "We milk them" or "We slaughter them for Big Macs".
This kind of information is more difficult for second language users to access, which is why they often ask for reasons and rules for things that have neither specific reasons nor rules. They do not have a lifetime of experience to know which nouns go with which verbs. And for this reason, it is essential for a dictionary to say explicitly that you can eat beef but not cows. Unfortunately, this information is rarely consciously accessible to native speakers, and is normally opaque even to introspective techniques, which makes it hard for lexicographers to think to put it in dictionaries. This sort of data can, however, be acquired easily by computers and is beginning to inform dictionary designers. (Although not Wiktionary as far as I can tell.)
--Diderot 12:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, until recently "beef" could mean either the meat or the animal from which it came, as the French word boeuf still does. When did this change, and why? —Charles P. (Mirv) 12:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I recall most variants of English haven't used "beef" for the animal in quite some time - the adjective is bovine, though, which may be what you're thinking of... Shimgray | talk | 13:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The OED gives quotes using "beef" to mean an animal from as recently as 1904, although in all the quotes since the eighteenth century it's used in the context of an animal being killed for food, and even before that it's usually the animal being discussed as a source of food. It doesn't look like anyone ever said, "Look at that beef grazing in the pasture". --Angr/tɔk tə mi 14:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I know that at one point the plural was beeves, but I'm not sure whan that was last in standard usage -- it surely isn't now. Buf if you go back far enough, people did indeed say "I have a herd of 200 beeves, so i am a rich man". DES (talk) 15:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think even then, though, it meant specifically beef cattle, not cattle in general. IIRC French bœuf also means "ox", so perhaps at some point in English it was a synonym for "ox". --Angr/tɔk tə mi 16:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
From Cattle: "Within the beef cattle industry in parts of the United States, the older term beef (plural beeves) is still used to refer to an animal of either gender."
Btw, chicken on the table is also sometimes referred to as "pullet", derived from the French "poulét".

The original question contains a false analogy. The meat called "chicken" is never from the animal called a "chicken", becase chickens, being baby poultry, are far too small to be killed for food (at least commercially). The meat "chicken" is from adult poultry, ie. hens and roosters. Cheers JackofOz 05:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps farmers make that distinction, but the general public doesn't. In layman's terms, "chicken", as the article indicates, is a cover term for domesticated Gallus gallus of any age or sex. The babies more specifically are called "chicks". --Angr/tɔk tə mi 06:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Upfront ideology

What is an upfront Ideology?

  • Upfront ideology is the opposite of implicit ideology. In upfront ideology, the ideological argument, ideas or opinions are presented openly and make direct reference to the subject (e.g. Fahrenheit 9/11). Implicit ideology is where the argument is implied, described using metaphor or parody - it requires some level of interpretation to read into the argument and draw the analogy. Several children's picture books employ implicit ideology to make a political point (e.g. Help Mom! There Are Liberals Under My Bed! [5]) -- Canley 06:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

what is a screaming match?

It's basically an argument that deteriorates into the two (or more) combatants screaming at each other, hoping to convince the other of their argument through volume rather than logic. Garrett Albright 19:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of a phrase

What is the origin of the phrase, "got up on the wrong side of bed?" 16:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The phrase is "get out of bed on the wrong side". According to Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable, "It was formerly held to be unlucky to set the left foot on the ground first when getting out of bed. The same superstition applies to putting on the left shoe first." Shantavira 18:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase certainly is "get up on the wrong side of (the) bed". If people also use "get out of bed on the wrong side", that doesn't make it not the phrase! - Nunh-huh 03:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let them eat cake

What is the origin of the saying 'Let them eat cake'?

The legend is that Marie Antoinette said it when she was told the peasants had no bread (see Marie Antoinette#Coronation and queenship). In fact, there's no evidence she was the one to say it. More likely, it was Maria Theresa of Spain. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 17:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Word comparison

Does ravel and unravel mean the sqame thing?

Consulting Wiktionary, we see that both mean "To pull apart" (Wiktionary:ravel and Wiktionary:unravel). So the answer to your question is yes, they both mean the same. --Borbrav 22:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Consulting a real dictionary (sorry Wiktionary) unravel means the same as some meanings of ravel. Ravel can mean to tangle or to untangle plus other things like a railing. MeltBanana 22:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! You suck! :P gkhan 23:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of days ago, I freaked out a student by telling her that "to fill out a form" and "to fill in a form" mean the same thing. English is horrible. Garrett Albright 07:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My favorite examples are the pairs "to"/"unto" and "till"/"until", which also mean the same thing. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 10:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The best has to be Flammable/Inflammable, re: Dr Nick --Ballchef 15:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm partial to Sanction, which is its own opposite. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

what does "capricho" mean in spanish?

i am a filipino and this word are frequently used in movies and dubbed foreign shows in here (like animès and korean soap operas). i want to know the meaning of the original spanish word. (i personally believe that this word is derived from spanish, but if not, please tell me). thanks.

-erika

--210.5.87.163 07:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My only knowledge of the word is in a musical context, where it is used to mean the same thing as "capriccio" in Italian, usually translated as "caprice" in English. For example, the Capricho Catalan by Albeniz. JackofOz 09:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Capricho = caprice = whim. Capricious (caprichoso) is the related adjective. –Hajor 15:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

one word that means 'touch of a feather'

I am after one word that means 'touch of a feather', in any language is fine, and also how do I pronouce it correctly.

ahm, literally, or is this some idiom like 'birds of a feather'? 11:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Tickle is the only English word I can find. If you want something more exotic, pteronophobia means fear of being tickled with a feather, so you could coin something like pteronorate. Shantavira 11:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of the word slant

What means the word "slant"?

I doubt if you mean the common usage ("at an angle"), and am guessing you mean the alternate meaning ("interpretation"), as in "West Side Story put a new slant on Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet."
If you can provide the context, we could explain further. StuRat 15:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Might also be referring to a different name for the slash or backslash characters. Elf | Talk 18:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It can also be an offensive ethnic epithet for an Asian person. DES (talk) 21:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

finding derivation of the term "bullet point"

"How"

In American movies and TV, Native Americans are often depicted using the word "how" as a greeting. Where did this mistaken stereotype come from? Was there or is there a Native American language where "how" is the principle greeting? If not, what's the origin of this use of "how"? --ESP 16:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are two explanations:
  • In Algonquian languages (or at least all the ones I know well enough to say), the interrogative particle "how?" by itself implies "how are you?". In many languages, including Algonquian ones, a formulation of this type is considered the standard greeting, e.g., Chinese "你好". Native Americans with an imperfect knowledge of English therefore sometimes used the "how" formulation. The two main Algonquian lingua francas - Plains Cree and Great Lakes Ojibwe/Anishinaabe/Chippewa/Odawa - both have vocabulary fitting this explanation: "tânisi" ("ᑖᓂᓯ") in Cree and "aaniin" ("ᐋᓃᓐ") in Ojibwe.
  • In Lakota (and all the Siouan languages as far as I know), the word for "hello" is "hau", pronounced "how". Lakota was the lingua franca of a very large part of the plains and the Sioux were among the last Native Americans in the continental US to be assimilated into American political structures, so they were the people most active in the living memories of the producers of early cowboy films.
Which one is the real reason? Both? Neither? Beats me. --Diderot 17:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The next question is, what's the etymology of Lakota hau? Maybe Lakota borrowed it from the Algonquian-English interlanguage. Or maybe it's borrowed from Chinese ni hao, with the first syllable dropped. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 17:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I assume it's a fully native Siouan term - it's the same word in Lakota, Dakota and Nakota. In Omaha, I think it's "ahau". If it's that widespread, I assume it predates the era when there were many whites on the plains. But I don't know Lakota, I'm an amateur Algonquianist at best. --Diderot 17:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As for Chinese, heh... I suppose it could have come from one of Zheng He's crewmen. I'm kinda surprised that Gavin Menzies didn't mention it as evidence. ---Diderot 17:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

definition

what is revenue?

Etymology

Whence doth the word "animosity" come? -jim

But how did the Latin "animositas", or "courage", become a word for enmity and hostility?
People used it that way. Words regularly develop over time to contradict their etymologies (so much that there is a particular name, "etymological fallacy", for insisting that a word's meaning is strictly governed by its etymology). OED2 shows the initial sense of "animosity" meaning mere bravery dying out by the late 17th century and the modern sense appearing in the middle of that century. — File:Ontario trillium sig.pngmendel ☎ 16:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Language

What dose Language mean? 

Aidan age,7

Our Language article should be a good start. --Borbrav 02:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You might find the Simple English version of Language easier to read. On the other hand, if you're asking what this page is for, it's for people to ask questions about why things are spelled the way they are, or how to say something in a foreign language, or things like that.-gadfium 04:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Innovated Technology company

I wonder how to write an abbreviation for this company's name: Innovated Technology for Communication Joint-stock company. Shoud I write ITC JSC or ITC.,JSC? I don't know what the exact way is. Pls, help!!!!!

The way you have it written with hyphenated '-stock' in "Joint-stock" as one word and 'company' with lower case letters, I would think it could be abbreviated as such: ITCJ Co.

  • Most companies have a preferred style for their abbreviation or short-form name; for example IBM is not I.B.M. or Int'l Bus. Mach. or etc. Of course what you write is a matter of your own personal style, but for a standardized and consistent form, I'd look to see what the company uses on their web site or correspondence. In this case, web references to this outfit are pretty scarce. I'd go for ITC JS Co. or maybe ITFC JS Co.Sharkford 19:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

English Language

WOuld you please tell the difference between American English and British English?

See our article American and British English differences.-gadfium 05:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is in a name?

I was wondering if there was a good source for figuring out at least parts of a name. Something that breaks it down into parts and pieces to derive the meaning or root of the name...? User:Russ Henderson 18:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are various guides to deciphering personal and place names in various language, but they usually just cover one of these. So, you'll have to be more specific: ar you wanting to understand Korean place names? --Gareth Hughes 18:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was interested more in western culture names, ones that have a root in either Latin, German, or western European cultures. For example, Tithonius, what do the parts of this name mean to arrive at the meaning of the name as a whole?

  • May I recommend a book: the Oxford Dictionary of First Names. Don't let the pink and blue cover put you off, this is a scholarly reference work on a par with any of their dictionaries, listing given names from all the European languages with roots traced back to root words in Gaelic, Germanic, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, etc. Appendices cover Indian (i.e., South Asian) and Arabic names too. Sharkford 19:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

". or ."

when a word ends in a quotation, for example, in the Democratic Party article I wrote: they work to rebuild the Party "from the bottom up".

this seemed correct to me , but someone changed it to `."` with the period inside the quotation. See here: [6] --Revolución (talk) 00:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's a regional difference. '".' is British, '."' is American (IIRC). In this case, since you're talking about an American subject, you would want to use '."' Hermione1980 00:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In American English, commas and periods precede closing quotation marks. —Wayward 00:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure about that? --Revolución (talk) 01:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
MLA Style Manual, 2nd ed., 3.9.7: By convention, commas and periods that directly follow quotations go inside the closing quotation marks . . .
Chicago Manual of Style, 15th ed., 6.8: Periods and commas. Periods and commas precede closing quotation marks, whether double or single. This is a traditional style, in use well before the first edition of this manual (1906). As nicely expressed in William Strunk Jr. and E.B. White's Elements of Style, "Typographical usage dictates that the comma be inside the [quotation] marks, though logically it often seems not to belong there." —Wayward 01:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence in question needs to be ended with a period and NOT a quotation mark. The quotation in question is a phrase from a sentence, not an entire sentence. It was not incorrect. --Revolución (talk) 02:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at the example in your link above, and in American English, the period would come before the closing quotation mark. The excerpts I've provided clearly mention both commas and periods. —Wayward 04:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, according to WP:MOS#Quotation marks, Wikipedia style is to use double quotes (as in American usage) but put punctuation outside quotation marks if it logically belongs there (as in British usage). The rule "American usage in an article on an American topic" applies to spelling, not punctuation. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 06:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. However, many articles dealing with American politics currently use American-style punctuation. Changing all instances of American punctuation to British-style punctuation may cause unnecessary discord. After all, the MoS also states, "Writers are not required to follow all or any of these rules: the joy of wiki editing is that perfection is not required." —Wayward 07:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly not advocating going through all of Wikipedia and making sure punctuation conforms to MOS. I for one have better things to do with my time. I think drooling and staring at a blank wall for three hours would be a better use of my time than that. Nevertheless, Revolución's original edit conformed to the MOS, and he's perfectly justified in reverting the non-MOS-compliant edit, and should indicate what the MOS has to say about it when doing so. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Noun plurals

Does every noun necessarily have a plural? For instance, do elements contained on the periodic table have plurals? It seems to me that you would say to atoms of helium rather than two heliums.

There are two types of nouns in English: count nouns and non-count nouns. Count nouns are things that can be counted, e.g., table, chair, fork. Count nouns have a plural form. Non-count nouns are things that cannot be counted, e.g., air, education, helium. Non-count nouns do not have a plural form. —Wayward 06:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Incidently, is there a name for nouns like 'Sheep'? Sheep can be counted, but a farmer would say 'I have 8 sheep and 3 pigs', rather than 'I have 8 sheeps and 3 pigs'. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 10:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's not quite the same thing as a collective noun. I would just think of such words as simply irregular plurals.
As for the original question, mass (or non-count) nouns can be pluralised, but their meaning is always in some respect different from their conventional form. Think of it as a process not too dissimilar to nouns that can have more than one gender in French - it's a subtle way of signaling that you are taking about the subject in a metaphorical or alternative way. For example, you can say "The waters of the Mississippi and the Missouri meet in St Louis." Or, "Some children attend secular schools, while others attend sectarian ones, but the educations that they receive are largely the same." Or even, "Helium has only two stable isotopes, but all heliums have the same chemical properties."
Some of these usages are well accepted in English, others are poetic or at least striking ("marked" is what linguists would call it). But none are incomprehensible, and with some imagination one can easily devise contexts where any plural of a mass noun will be readily understood. Ergo, I should think that there are none that are per se incorrect, but some are non-standard and should be used only with caution. --Diderot 10:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, did you know that in German, the plural of "Dogma" is "Dogmen"? :)
I use dogma as the politically correct term for a mother dog. StuRat 23:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Any noun can be made into a plural. You might have to contrive a special context, but it can be done. For helium, an example might be: "There are many different heliums. There's a Bulgarian rock band called "Helium', there's a painting by the surrealst painter Norbert Throatgargler called "Helium", and there's the element. Which of these "heliums" are you referring to?". Or something like that. JackofOz 02:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the plural of "helium" helia, anyway? --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What's your source? Element names in English are not borrowed from Latin. Many of them have Latin-looking endings or borrow bits from Latin words, but that does not qualify them to be pluralised as if they were Latin words (anyway, helium is from the Greek helios, so Latin is way off the mark here). Same argument for botanical etc names. Would you say "chrysanthemums" or "chrysanthema"? I'd certainly vote for the former. These words were coined in modern times, so it absurd in an English-language context to apply Latin endings to plurals of words that never existed in Latin to begin with. Maybe if you're writing a treatise in Latin about different heliums, you would be correct to say "helia", but otherwise you'd risk being seen as an intellectual snob (heaven forbid!). I'm all for using English plurals for English words. Helium is an English word. JackofOz 07:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of "heads up"

I want to know who came up with this abomination so I can personally strangle him/her. Does anybody claim to be the inventor? And what is the connection between the words and their meaning ("advance warning")? It has no obvious connection with what it means, so how come it was adopted so universally so quickly? JackofOz 05:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up: Watch out; pay attention. This interjection, now used in numerous situations where the speaker is calling for alertness, is always stated in the plural, whether it is addressed to one person or several. It originated in sports and is most often shouted out to baseball spectators to keep them from getting beaned by a foul ball. In other sports it may be uttered by a coach exhorting his or her charges to be alert for a particular move by the opponents (s). It also is heard on the tennis court, when a player is alerting his or her doubles partner that the opponent may be preparing for a smash or hitting down the alley or some similar maneuver. Ammer, Christine. Southpaws & Sunday Punches and other Sporting Expressions. New York: Penguin Books, 1993.
Webster's gives its date of origin as circa 1941. —Wayward 06:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That seems to relate to the interjection "heads up!". I'm more interested in the noun, as in "I'm just calling to give you a heads up about the meeting this afternoon. Don't let the chairman rattle you". This usage has been around, to my certain knowledge, only for about 3 or 4 years in Australia. I clearly recall the very first time I heard it, as I had to ask the speaker what he was talking about. Since then, it's taken off. JackofOz 06:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably been in American usage as a noun for 15 or 20 years. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 06:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the interjection form means "warning!", perhaps it began to be used as a noun meaning "warning" as well. --Ornil 19:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that. What I want to know is who coined this nounal usage. Somebody must have been first. JackofOz 01:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've been hearing it used in that way in the U.S. for at least 30 years, and I think the common tendancy of sports jargon to penetrate daily life (and perhaps particularly business life) must be responsible. The very common tendancy to make nouns out of verbs or verb phrases also had a role, i'm sure. Probaly there were multiple indipendant adoptions of this phrase, and I very much doubt if they could be tracked to a particular person. DES (talk) 07:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Plural of Abbreviated terms

Does one say "CDs" or "CD's" when many compact discs are the subject? Ex. I bought some (CDs/CD's).

CDs. David Sneek
Accepted practice on this has changed in recent decades. At one time "CD's" would have been the usual form, on the grounds that inflectional suffixes can't be attached to things that are not words. Today most people no longer believe this (or else they believe that things like "CD" are words), and prefer to write "CDs". The apostrophe style is still useful where confusion might otherwise result ("I's are narrow letters"; "Which do you have, Model 4's, 4e's, or 4s's?"), but it makes the spelling of the plural the same as the possessive singular, which can also be confusing. --Anonymous, 07:50 UTC, October 16, 2005
How often do you see shop signs that say, eg. "Videos, CD's, LPs and tapes" (or every other combination of possibilities). These are the same types that will advertise "pizza's, foccaccias, sandwiche's, rolls, schnitzel's, steaks, salads', and drinks". Many people have a bet each way with apostrophes in plurals because (a) they don't know what the rules are and they can't find an authoritative reference, (b) the references they do find disagree, or (b) they aren't even aware of their own inconsistency, and actually checking their spelling and punctuation would never occur to them (which is a much more likely explanation). To be unaware that one is unaware is the worst sin of all. At least David Sneek is bothering to ask the question. Three cheers. JackofOz 08:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
IMO This is a form of the Greengrocer's apostrophe and was always incorrect, but it was a frequent error. it still is, but to a reduced degree. DES (talk) 08:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It may be reduced in your neck of the woods, but it's alive and well where I live. What does IMO mean? JackofOz 08:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"I said Good Day!"

One of my favourite shows is the Daily Show, and they frequently say this phrase in an angry (but humorous) voice. Like, 

"Good day to you sir" 
"But Stephen, we..." 
"I SAID GOOD DAY!".

I keep hearing that phrase in different places, and I was just curious about it's origin (maybe there's some brave soul out there who could write a stub on it?) gkhan 23:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fez, on That 70's Show, likes to say that. I believe it's British in origin. That particular trait, seeming to be polite while being rude underneath, is a very British thing. Americans would just be outright rude with "Get out of my face" or something to that effect. Beyond that, I don't know the etymology. StuRat 23:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you're right, I hadn't thought of that. Fez does say that. About the etymology, it just feels like a qoute from something, and I'm curious what. gkhan 00:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I always thought it was from the original Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory movie, from the scene near the end where Wonka is telling Charlie and his grandpa to leave the factory. Garrett Albright 04:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In Charles Dickens's A Christmas Carol, Scrooge says "Good afternoon, gentlemen!" to get rid of the men who have come to his office to collect for charity. He only says it once in the book, but I seem to remember him saying it (or maybe "Good day") two or three times with increasing vigor in one of the movie versions. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 06:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is a similar exchange near the start of The Hobbit in which Gandalf comments "What a lot of things you do use 'Good day' for. Now you mean you want me to leave and it won't be a good day until i do." (quoted from memory, so possibly not exactly correct. Bilbo as dipicted at the start of The Hobbit is of course very English, and distictively upper middle class at that. DES (talk) 07:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zero in Ancient China

In a number of articles I have read, many seem to state that the ancient Chinese used "0" for zero. However, there is also the word "ling" in Chinese which means zero. Were both of these used interchangably in Chinese writing then? --HappyCamper 03:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language&oldid=25647444"