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Unanswered questions If you find that your question has been archived before being answered, you may copy your question from the Archives into a new section on the reference desk.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.

If you would like to have a text translated, you might want to post on this Wiktionary page.

June 23

Thin ear needed

I'm moving this from Talk:International Phonetic Alphabet.

Hi, I'd like to invite a phonetics expert with a thin ear to resolve some doubts we have on Talk:Serbo-Croatian language. Basically, we agree that we hear different L's in Bulgarian and Serbian versions of a text, but can't find out what's the phonetic source of the difference. Thanks in advance, Duja 13:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert, but if someone can upload two speech samples of "a same word" spoken by a Bulgarian speaker and a Serbian speaker, then I can try spectrogram analysis with Praat. --Kjoonlee 04:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, I've taken a look at your link, and the discussion is way over my head, and it would take me a lot of effort trying to figure out what velarization &c. looks like in spectrograms. I doubt I can help, but sound samples would help the real experts, I guess. --Kjoonlee 05:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We already kind of figured out that Serbian is dental, more like English (tongue tip between the teeth) and Bulgarian alveolar (tongue tip at alveolar ridge), more like French. The IPA does not distinguish the symbols though. Duja 07:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we didn't exactly figure it out 100%. Your interpretation was very convincing, but I'd still be glad to see more data and hear what other people think. BTW, the English-French parallel was about apical vs laminal. --85.187.44.131 12:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the IPA does distinguish between dental and spot-on alveolar if necessary, by putting a diacritic below the symbol [t̪] if it represents a dental consonant, and leaving out the diacritic if no distinction is made. Denelson 83 07:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spectrographic analyses of /l/ are difficult, but if there's a word that is identical in the two languages, I would be able to do it. To give an English example, lull in isolation or holding phonetic context constant, pronounced in different dialects in English may have different variants of /l/, and you could distinguish them spectrographically by seeing how high the second formant is. However, if the phonetic context is different, then it wouldn't work because both preceding and following sound influence the /l/, and even worse, the //l influences them. It becomes a mess very easily. If you're still interested, I'd have a look, but I need an /l/ that is a perfect match because I dont' have time to sort it all out. mnewmanqc

Does it need to be a perfect match, or is it only the immediately adjacent sounds? Could Bulgarian Galileja vs. Serbian Galileji (genitive case) do? We might have a perfect match, too (slava), but I have my doubts about whether it is the best example of the difference between the two languages. Anyway, our basis for my discussion with Duja was this site, but it doesn't work for me right now. If it is fixed soon, I could extract the relevant words from the texts there and send them to you by email or, if you don't want to expose your email here, I could upload them (which would take more time, because I don't know how to upload sound files). --85.187.44.131 12:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greek names

Hello, I want to know whether Plato's name (Πλάτων) is in the form of the masculine plural genitive declension. Thanks.--K.C. Tang 04:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is masculine singular nominative, declined like this. --Cam 05:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanks a lot! the Ancient Greek grammar doesn't cover that...--K.C. Tang 06:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer: I don't know Greek. I see now that the link I gave is talking about Modern Greek, so proceed with caution, the declension may not be the same in Ancient Greek. --Cam 06:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is masculine singular nominative, third declension, declined Πλάτων, Πλάτονος (nominative, genitive). Cf. here for more info. Hope this helps -- Smyth is a good reference manual. --Anon.

In case the previous links didn't make it clear, that means that Πλάτων is nominative masculine singular, and it declines:

Πλάτων, Πλάτονος ὁ

Nom Πλάτων
Acc Πλάτονα
Gen Πλάτονος
Dat Πλάτονι

Nom Πλάτονες
Acc Πλάτονας
Gen Πλάτονων
Dat Πλάτουσι(ν) with ν if it is at the end of a sentense or preceding a vowel

Hope that clears every thing up. Da niel (‽) 18:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Πλάτονων" would appear to violate the usual accent-placement rules... AnonMoos 19:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right, it does. It should be paroxytone. Maid Marion 10:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish?

This advert for a pleorama seems to be for some kind of panorama or myriorama show. Can anyone see any more specific details about the entertainment, please? And can someone translate "Rörlig bild som framställer ett landskap som det visar för en förbiseglande" which I think is about moving panoramas? Many thanks --HJMG 07:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The passage you quoted means 'moving images that represent a landscape as it's seen by someone who sails past'. I can translate the rest for you in a few minutes. :) - ulayiti (talk) 13:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here goes:

If weather permits, we will show at the Kupittaa well salon (?), for the first time on Saturday 22 May and the following days between 4 and 10 pm, a large pleorama and depiction from the newest battlefields and largest cities in Europe and America.

Programme for the first showing:

The battle of Isly (?) on the 14th of August 1844 (a 24-foot painting, by Horace Vernet).
This scene gives an excellent and satisfying overview of the Moroccan-French battlefield. An army, nearly four times stronger than the victors, must give way here to the effects of the newest methods of warfare, even though the Africans fought with the most furious desperation, a fiery hate and a fervent religious fanaticism. Hundreds of bodies cover the battlefield, which is filled by Frenchmen under Marshal Bugeaud, Africans and Kabyles. The battle is raging and the rush of people is unpleasant, especially around the tent of Sidi Mohamed and his son Abberhamann, and the scene is terribly beautiful, as everywhere there are fleeing Africans, running Kabyles and victoriously advancing Frenchmen, while creating great and piquant formations.
Overview of Florence and surrounding regions in Italy.
The conquest of Vienna
the night of 1 November 1848 (or 1818?).
The large battle by Sinope
between Russians and Turks, where the Russians won.
Jerusalem
the capital of the ancient Jewish kingdom in Asia Minor. This large painting is copied from a crafty oil painting completed in 989, which is kept in the Royal Bavarian Art Gallery in Munich, and it shows the holy city in the way it will have been in Christ's time. Besides many significant things, the whole story of the Passion with its consequential events is depicted on the painting. Gethsemane, Golgata and the Saviour's grave remind the viewer of great and sacred events.
View over inner Kingston in North America
during the yearly market event, with around a hundred entertainments among other things.
The holy Grave Procession in Jerusalem
a procession of Roman and Greek priests, which takes place every Good Friday.
A large sea storm by Gibraltar in 1854.

The collection is shown daily from 4 to 10 pm in brilliant lighting.

This panorama is one of the largest to be shown until now (between 60 and 70 glasses) and the glass is of its own class and best quality, and will not harm your eyes.

The entrance fee is 40 silver kopeks.

For the benefit of the public, every visitor will receive a free gift.

Dogs must not be taken along. - Smoking cigars is not permitted.

- ulayiti (talk) 14:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, ulayiti, thank you so much! It's very generous of you to translate the whole thing - and very helpful. (It all sounds sensational!) Thanks again :) --HJMG 15:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Translate: Vulnerant omnes, ultima necat.

Please would you help with the following:

I wonder if there is a definitive translation into English from the Latin: Vulnerant omnes, ultima necat. I recall seeing it scribed on the faces of old clocks.

Your help would be much appreciated. It is particularly at times such as this that I wish I’d had the opportunity to learn Latin at school!

Would you mind replying to: [cut]

Best wishes.

Every (hour) wounds, the last kills. (from a google search)--Andrew c 14:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

or a bit more faithfully, "All (hours) wound, the last kills". - Nunh-huh 14:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rather found on gnomons than on clocks. There must be a collection of such sayings somewhere over the net (googlimages does not show engraved tests). --DLL 20:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Omnes means all, vulnerant means wound, how strange that the word 'hour' is not included, is a reader just expected to fill that in himself? Evilbu 17:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it was written on a saucepan, yes, it would be hard to use the context. --DLL 21:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modern speakers of Romance languages would be familiar with noun dropping like this. If the Spanish phrase "Todos dañan, última mata" were engraved on a clock, a modern speaker would not hesitate to provide the implied subject "hours." I feel safe assuming that the same mood would be present in Latin, especially in modern usages. -Diabolic 16:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it doesn't mean 'hour' specifically (as in time), but refers to 'experiences' in life. With 'OMNES' meaning 'everything', this would make sense.CCLemon 06:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But omnes doesn't mean 'everything'. That would be omnia. And yes, the reader is supposed to supply the word for 'hours'. The clues are (a) the context, and (b) the gender (feminine) of 'ultima'.Maid Marion 10:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 24

German pronunciation

In the word "zwanzig", is the final consonant a voiceless velar plosive or a voiceless palatal fricative? I was led to believe it was the latter, but I'm not sure. Thanks! Bhumiya (said/done) 01:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was taught to say it as the latter (like "-ich") when final but "g" in words such as "Zwanzigerjahren". Jameswilson 02:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

me too--K.C. Tang 03:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It varies; see German phonology:

Another common merger is that of /ɡ/ at the end of a syllable with /ç/ (after a front vowel) or, less commonly, /x/ (after a back vowel or /a/). In the case of the ending -ig, this pronunciation is prescribed by the Siebs standard, for instance wichtig [ˈvɪçtɪç]. The merger occurs neither in Austro-Bavarian German and Alemannic German nor in the corresponding varieties of standard German.

(I have a German song in which two different people use the word "traurig"; one uses the ich-Laut and the other just says /g/.) —Zero Gravitas 03:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, pronouncing final -ig as [ɪk] rather than [ɪç] sounds very Southern. However, Northern sometimes do it too as a form of hypercorrection, because in the North you hear [tax] for Tag and [tsʊx] for Zug. So when they're being careful about pronunciation, Northerners will remember to say [ta:k] for Tag adn [tsu:k] for Zug, but then will also say [tsvantsik] for zwanzig. This happened a lot in the Berlin choir I used to sing in; the choir director was always having to remind people to pronounce -ig as [ɪç]. User:Angr 05:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick responses, everyone. Bhumiya (said/done) 06:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While on the topic of German pronunciation how is final "ng" pronounced? For example, is Zeitung pronounced [tsaɪtuŋ] or [tsaɪtuŋk]? I've read the phonology article, but it seems like I've heard the latter pronunciation. Or maybe I'm influenced by a faux German accent where they say "hello dahlink!" --Chris S. 18:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's normally pronounced [tsaɪtuŋ]. [tsaɪtuŋk] is very non-standard, but people do use it sometimes. Rueckk 14:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pronouncing final ng as [ŋk] is a Northern German feature. Studies on it have shown it occurs at the end of intonational phrases (in laymen's terms, roughly when a punctuation mark follows in written German). Thus in the sentence Die Zeitung ist da ("The newspaper's here") it will always be [tsaɪtuŋ], but in Wo ist die Zeitung? ("Where's the newspaper?") it can be [tsaɪtuŋk] in the relevant accents. User:Angr 14:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds about right. But I don't know, I still think it's non-standard even in the North. I only ever hear that from people speaking the local dialect (I live in Berlin). Rueckk 17:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So do I. And I never said it was standard! :-) User:Angr 18:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Early romanization of Japanese

Is it true that the earliest improvised romanizations of Japanese sometimes made use of the letter L, such that "samurai" might be written as "samulai"? I read this years ago, but now I can find no evidence of it. Does anyone know if there's any truth to it? Bhumiya (said/done) 02:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, take a look at Non standard Japanese romanization. The fact that the japanese "r" is often a soft tap makes it resemble an English non-dark L more than than the approximated english "r." There are other differences too, like "tsu," "chi," and "shi" are often written as "tu," "ti," and "si" in order to make them fit related phonemes of the language.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Bhumiya (said/done) 06:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this isn't true of the "earliest improvised romanizations" (i.e. from the 16th century), but of more modern ones. I think earlier Japanese r was a trill (still is in some dialects), which is hard to mistake for l. --Ptcamn 10:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Chinese Languages Writingwise

Could, for example, Old Hakka, Old Cantonese, Old Mandarin, Old Toi Shan, understand each other in writing SYNTACTICALLY?

Please, [removed email to prevent spam], thanks.

24.70.95.203 03:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For most of the pre-20th century period, a standardized classical form of the language prevailed in writing, so I'm not sure your question really has too much meaning... AnonMoos 04:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some people say the above stated languages are dialects, but it is true that language CAN ONLY be officalized via Mutual Unintelligebility. So I was just asking the question, because these modern languages can understand each other in writing; That means that the syntax of the languages are the same, but I/we can't determine if they are different languages, if I/we don't know if the Syntax of the OLd languages were mutually intelligebable. Now, the reason I did not say just '....other SYNTACTAICALLY....' but '....other in writing SYNTACTICALLY....' is because you can't understand the langages phonologically, anyways, so it I just put the '....in writing....' to clarify, but if it didn't help, then I guess that was too bad, we're all sorry, & I'm sorry for everything:'(

But thanks for the reply:-D

24.70.95.203 05:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't mean that the syntax is the same. Written formal language is rarely if ever the same as the spoken language.--Prosfilaes 05:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... I would say "yes" for your question. The dialects were not so different anyway.... -- Kahang^{Shall we talk?} 06:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks your for your reply. Now because of this new fact, how did it come to be that Chinese dialects became Mutaually Unintelligable, both Modern & the Old dialects?

199.126.157.249 21:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a history matter that I can't explain ;). I give it a try, but as a rough reference only:

Long time ago, the Chinese was located near the centre of now Chinna map (somewhere Shaanxi, Shanxi and Hubei). As the time changed, the country got populated and people started moving outward basically at all direction, but mostly to south and to east.

As a result, despite of language from now Tibet, Xinjiang and Mongol (people from those were always treated as the outsiders), Mandarin (language from the North) and Cantonese (language from the South) have the most difference between them. The languages from the places between have relatively less difference when compared.

It just like a gradient. Or a grayscale as eg, Mandarin is the black, Cantonese is the white, and other languages are the different grays between, the most near the North the darker, vice verse.

But in the old days, because the country was small, the languages had not varied too much. The writings were kept short in order to save ink and paper (and because Chinese hadn't got as many vocabulary as nowadays, too). So if some Chinese didn't understand the writings, the reason was always they hadn't been educated rather the meaning of the words. Another important fact is the whole China were using Traditional Chinese until 1952.

Remember, this is a rough explanation only. All the locations and facts have not been confirmed. You may wanna see History of China and Chinese Language. -- Kahang^{Shall we talk?} 12:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kemal Atatürk

I am forwarding a request for somebody to put an IPA transcription of the name on the article on Kemal Atatürk. None of the other wikis seem to have this information. Is there perhaps a tag to ask for this? Stefán Ingi 20:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added IPA: [mustafa kemal atatɯɾk] to the article. Usually, asking here does the trick, or you could try WikiProject Phonetics. — Gareth Hughes 21:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Stefán Ingi 21:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's [atatyɾk], actually. [atatɯɾk] would be spelled Atatırk. But I don't know where stress goes. Lexical words in Turkish usually have final stress, but names have their own rules of stress placement that I've never fully understood. User:Angr 22:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 25

Opposite of "Euphemism"

Is there a word that means just the opposite of euphemism. To call something good with a rather bad word?

What about dysphemism? Daniel Šebesta (talk • contribs) 12:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dysphemism is a good answer. It's actually the opposite of a euphemism in the sense that rather than taking a bad thing and making it sound better, it takes a something that might be considered somewhat bad and makes it sound much, much worse. An example would be calling a TV an "idiot box", or a cigar a "cancer stick". That may be what you're looking for, but if you're looking for the term for referring to a truly good thing in a rather terrible way, you might be referring to sarcasm as in: "Oh I'm such a terrible person, I actually had the nerve to actually try to help someone by answering their question at the RefDesk at Wikipedia when they were no longer in need of an answer. I deserve to be shot." Loomis 21:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another antonym would be "cacophemism." Brian G. Crawford 06:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dysphemism doesn't quite look like an opposite of euphemism. Actually, one of the examples in the article, 'Pushing up daisies' for 'being dead' sounds more like a euphemism. As I get it, a dysphemism makes something bad worse, but the question is about a normally 'bad' word being used in positive sense. Such as the word 'bad' itself, as used by Michael Jackson - "who's bad?". Or when someone is pleasantly surprised they might say "Fuckin' hell, that's brilliant!". Both the words 'hell' ("hell yeah") and 'fuck' are occasionally used in a positive sense, though with fuck is a bit complicated because it basically refers to something very positive. Puritanism then made it into something negative, which then changed to a strong expression for emotion in general, which then came to be used in a positive sense on some occasions. Weird.

I don't know what this phenomenon would be called, though. DirkvdM 12:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tsk, tsk. Calling somthing weird is very derogatory. I would think that you having an intersest in language WOULD NOT be so low class. Tsk, tsk.

199.126.157.249 21:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

major revisions complete

The Half-life computation article has undergone substantial revision which has hopefully addressed everyone's concerns. If you have any further comments after looking at the article again, please list the items you do not like, make whatever comment you have and please be specific and allow time for further revision. If there is any reason I can not comply with your wishes then I will let you know the reason why. ...IMHO (Talk) 12:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it's already been deleted, and this is the wrong place anyway. Try Wikipedia:Deletion review. —Keenan Pepper 18:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not post the same more than twice. (I you had posted only twice, my advice would be diferent). --DLL 18:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, looks like IMHO put this on all five reference desks. Not likely to win friends. —Keenan Pepper 19:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disturbing Trend

I have been a teacher for over 30 years. In the last 15 years I have noticed that so many students simply don't use the contraction "you're". They write "Your my best friend" as well as "There is your dog." Sometimes I have corrected papers to change the possessive pronoun to the contraction, and they have crossed out the correction and changed it back! They seem not to know, and not to care to know. Did students always display such arrogance? What has caused this degradation of our language in the last few years? 66.213.33.2 18:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it's not a degradation of language, it's a spelling mistake. Spelling has nothing to do with language. Secondly, I suspect this spelling mistake has been around for as long as the two words have been pronounced the same. User:Angr 18:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think perhaps you're noticing it more; I observe intelligent people in their 40s making the same mistake. I may be oversimplifying, but as a teacher can't you just devote a minute or two of your lessons to teaching this point? Or if it's some other teacher's purview, can't you discuss it with that person? It would certainly be good if people emerging from the educational system could spell more accurately. Notinasnaid 18:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has caused the degradation of language in the last few years. Degradation (as you put it) is simply one way of looking at the constant change of language. Look back in history and you will discover that people have complained about the way youth (in particular) destroy, main and otherwise mangle language ever since language developed. Language changes over time and the forces that dominate this change often appear, with the shallow viewpoint of the present, to be destructive. However I assure you that over time language will not devolve into grunts, however annoying your students may be. On the other hand, however, I agree that this is very annoying. Perhaps spend some time explaining to your students how the words should be used. While we're on the subject of pedantry, the word 'so' in your second sentence was unnecessary, your second example ("There is your dog") is perfectly correct (although you may have been using it as contrast), your fifth sentence lacks an object, and your sixth sentence would, in more natural English, be "Have students always displayed such arrogance?". Da niel (‽) 18:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Angr (well, except that I wouldn't say spelling has "nothing" to do with language--but it's certainly more of an epiphenomenon than any kind of core aspect of it). If the claim was that students "don't know" it--i.e., theyhave lost the distinction between the possessive and "you are", it would be a (fairly amazing) fact about language change. But it's much more likely thay just are spelling by ear and haven't learned the complxities well. Perhaps this is an indication of post-literacy more than anything. Adults over 40 making this mistake--I do it once in a while--I think indicates sloppiness and inattention more than anything else. A typo, in other words, which is even less significant that a misspelling.

Why would spelling have anything to do with language? Sure, spelling can be a part of language use (namely accurately representing the sounds in written form), but language has existed and continues to exist without regard to spelling (illiteracy). Would you want to say that an illerate person has less language proficiency than someone who is literate? If you answer yes, then what about languages that do have a written script? I would agree that there are obvious advantages to having a written script, but I wouldn't necessarily say that someone is at a loss from not knowing how to spell (language does what it needs to do, and if spelling isn't needed then language will not have it).--69.171.123.148 21:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for arrogance--yes, students have always displayed such arrogance. :) · rodii · 19:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the past years students have been having more and more access to a certain reading material that's not always completely perfect grammar, vocabulary and spelling-wise: the Internet. In the past, what your students (anyone) read came from books, newspapers or media where some care was taken about this matter. Now the Internet has become a huge source of reading material, and the language there is not as carefully constructed - at least in some places (forum sites, chat rooms, not to mention sms language...). That's why spelling mistakes spread so widely and are seen as normal, since they're written all over the place. --RiseRover|^talk 20:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though you're probably largely right, this has happenend before, in the Netherlands at least. As a kid (in the 1970's) I got very annoyed at the popularised use of language by newsreaders, not speaking proper Dutch. I can imagine the BBC would have stuck to proper English at that time, but they are now also popularising their use of language. DirkvdM 11:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone has feelings, and anecdotes, about how the world or some aspect of it is going to hell, and language angst seems to be one of the more popular manifestations of this phenomenon. The adjective "proper" seems to be one way of expressing the idea, or prejudice, that one variety of a language is somehow more privileged than the others. But how? Is it because that's the way your grandma or your English teacher spoke, or the soi-disant educated classes speak or spoke, or the privileged classes, or people like you, or people with your political leanings, or what? "Proper" is a ubiquitous prejudice with nothing factual to back it up. If you try to observe language without that particular fixation, what you see is variation, change and socially meaningful norms; I submit that's a more neutral and empirical way to approach the subject than decrying change and identifying "disturbing" trends. · rodii · 13:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose by 'proper' I mean 'standardised' (ah, is that with an 's' or a 'z' (and is a 'z' pronounced 'zet' or 'zee'?)). I don't care much which rules are used as long as they're consistent and everyone uses the same rules. Now with EE/AE the latter is a problem, but within one set of rules one should follow those rules. That said, one should also make an effort to understand those who don't follow them. Although that can be problem when some one asks about why lines have mains and later it turns out that he meant why lions have ~~mains~~ manes. I'm not making this up - this was a question at the science ref desk today. He had us thinking he was talking about electricity. :) DirkvdM 16:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So the lions have electricity in their dens? Or was the person asking why lions have manes? Philbert^2.71828 00:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, now that was a silly mistake .... :) DirkvdM 05:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come on how is that disturbing its just a spelling mistake, your worring to much.

No offence, but as a teacher, isn't it your failing if they do not understand these things. Have you ever tried teaching them? or have you just told them what is wrong, and expected them to understand. Philc _T^E_C^I 15:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do call a person who sets a bounty on something?

A person who attempts to claim the bounty is a bounty hunter, but what do you call the guy who creates the bounty in the first place? A bounty setter? I'm just wondering if there is a name for the concept already. 152.3.84.131 20:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of a more formal name, but there may be one. I am not quite certain. --Proficient 20:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot think of an exact word either. However, some less precise terms that are sometimes used are; patron, guarantor, sponsor or financier. Hope this helps. Road Wizard 01:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well...I think the bounty is set pretty automatically; the bounty hunter gets a percentage of the money the bail bondsman gets returned from the courts when the fugitive is brought in. (And they're often the same person, anyway.) --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 01:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rabelais

What does "fay ce que vouldras" mean, and what does it have to do with Rabelais? (See Italian literature#The Renaissance.) zafiroblue05 | Talk 21:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be Fais ce que voudras, French for Do what you want. It's the rule of the Abbey of Theleme, see Rabelais#Rabelais and Thelema--RiseRover|^talk 22:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your spelling, though (i.e., fay ce que vouldras) was okay; that's how it was spelled in the slightly less orthographically rigid French of Rabelais' time. —Saposcat 11:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, but it's more than just orthography. The /l/ in vouldras was still pronounced. The history of French is mainly one of consonant loss, vowel merger and syncope, as in Latin supercilium eventually turning into French sourcil. · rodii · 13:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very true remarks ; they apply to plenty of languages and the opposite, adjoining consonants, is also true. E.g. in French : litterature, voudras (latin litera, volire ?) ; English litter (F. litière)).--DLL 17:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 26

ak u menically

Dear Wikipedia,

I was watching the movie "Pirates of the Caribean" and the work came up "acumencally" (sp?) I have been searching to find what this word might mean or relate to.

Thank you.

Presumably they were saying "ecumenically", but I have to say ecumenism doesn't seem like a fruitful topic for a pirate movie.--Pharos 06:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pharos presumes correctly. The quote containing the word is "I think we've all arrived at a very special place. Spiritually, ecumenically, grammatically." [1]--Melburnian 06:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of s-plural

I'm wondering if the addition of 's' to singular nouns to form plurals -- used in English, Spanish, and French, and probably other languages -- has a known origin whence it spread to those languages, or if it was independently developed by each? It doesn't come from the Germanic or Latin roots of those languages. Kundor 17:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"S" was a frequently-occuring element of Indo-European plural case endings, so in that sense you could say that there's some overall general commonality of origin (though "s" did not always or only occur in plural case endings). The French and Spanish cases derive derectly from the Latin accusative plural endings (see Latin_declension). AnonMoos 19:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed. French and Spanish plurals came from Latin accusative plurals, most of which simply add s, while Italian plurals came from Latin nominative plurals, so they don't add s, but instead change vowels (a -> e, o -> i). I want to say Germanic languages usually add n instead, but I'm not sure... —Keenan Pepper 19:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the sci.lang FAQ. Why do both English and French have plurals in -s? --Kjoonlee 01:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Dutch, plurals usually end in -en, sometimes in -s. Going through some plurals for things around me, I'd say especially borrowed words get the -s ending (computers, niveaus). But there are some exceptions, like 'hamers' (hammers), which I don't think comes from English (more probably a common origin - Danish?). One reason might be that verbs also end in -en, so 'hameren' means 'hammering', and that would be confusing. But another one is 'deksels' (lids, covers). That seems like a very Germanic word to me and there is no verb 'dekselen'. But by far most end in -en, though. DirkvdM 06:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Root, root, root, for the home team. If they, don't win it's a shame...

Up here in North America, we usually "root" for our home team, meaning that's the teaming we're "pulling for" or "favouring to win". With the world cup and all, would it be safe to say in Australia that Australian's are "rooting" for the Australian football/soccer team to win, or is it too close to that other meaning to be said with a straight face? (Or in mixed company without blushing?) Loomis 19:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We say supporting, whats the other meaning of rooting? Philc _T^E_C^I 19:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm told "root" is in use in Australia as a synonym for to do the nasty. I assume that most Australians would be somewhat forgiving to my fellow North Americans who were unaware, in much the same way as when a stranger once asked an acquaintance in a British accent whether he could "bum a fag". Good question, though. --ByeByeBaby 20:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is the meaning "to insert a rotating probe into a pipe to grind up any roots that have grown into the line", as used in the name Roto Rooter, I suppose that could easily be extended to have a sexual meaning. StuRat 21:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, "pulling" for a side could also be interpreted another way, too. JackofOz 00:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbulb

How many linguists does it take to change a lightbulb? --Dweller 20:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This question has been posted on all reference desks (except /M) --hydnjo talk 20:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to "change" (translate) it into every known language, it would take quite a few. StuRat 21:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's official. This board has the least sense of humour. Even the mathematicians pointed me at the lightbulb joke article which, in its own way, is kind of almost funny. Fyi, the scientists won. --Dweller 06:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Q: How many lightbulb jokes does it take to get hydnjo into vandal patrol mode?
A: One *blush*, only one! --hydnjo talk 13:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know of two linguist lightbulb jokes, but in each the question is not "how many" but simply "how":

How does a phonologist change a lightbulb?
He puts the bulb on the floor underneath the socket and waits for the tiers to conflate on the next cycle.
How does a syntactician change a lightbulb?
He throws 100 lbs of fish out of a helicopter over Wyoming, and the rest follows from independent principles.

User:Angr 14:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Translate please

This just appeared on my wiki under the title English Language. What does is actualy say? Gerard Foley 21:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[Dvoxlnv, znzgvfi hovfgsh. Gsrh rh lmob gsv yvtrmmrmt lu nb nzhhrev dliw hvzixs. Blf szev 5 ovggvih — mld tl urmw gsv ivhg. Gsv urihg kvihlm gl tvg zoo gsv pvbdliwh zmw fmolxp gsv hvxivg droo drm zm Cylc® drgs z xlkb lu Gsv Wz Ermxr Xlwv™ tznv, zmw z 2P Erwvl Tznvh kzxpztv...] Sviv'h z pvbdliw gl hgzig blf luu: evilxxsrl

Ru blf wlm?g zoivzwb pmld gsrh, gbkv rm blfi pvbdliwh zg gsvwzermxrxlwvtznv.xln

Mld tvg xizxprm', Hsviolxp! Nzie H.

Blfi mvcg xofv xzm yv ulfmw zg: nbglkirguizmxv.xln

welcome, amateur sleuths. this is only the beginning of my massive word search. you have 5 letters — now go find the rest. the first person to get all the keywords and unlock the secret will win an xbox® with a copy of the da vinci code™ game, and a 2k video games package...

here's a keyword to start you off: verocchio
if you don't already know this, type in your keywords at thedavincicodegame.com

now get crackin', sherlock!
marv s.

your next clue can be found at: mytopritfrance.com

· rodii · 22:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a substitution cipher (reversed alphabet). It says:

"[Welcome, amateur sleuths. This is only the beginning of my massive word search. You have 5 letters - now go find the rest. The first person to get all the keywords and unlock the secret will win an Xbox(r) with a copy of The Da Vinci Code(tm) game, and a 2K Video Games package...]

Here's a keyword to satart you off: verocchio

If you don't already know this, type in your keywords at thedavincicodegame.com

Now get crackin', Sherlock!

Marv S.

Your next clue can be found at mytopritfrance.com" 128.197.81.181 22:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oops, we posted at about the same time 128.197.81.181 22:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much!! Gerard Foley 23:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you win the xbox? DirkvdM 06:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Split Infinitives

I would like someone to explain to me why it's regarded so terribly to split an infinitive. Split infinitives often flow so much better than attempts to avoid them. I split infinitives all the time and I think it's fine time for English purists to give it up and recognize that split infinitives are indeed a valid form of English expression. I'd be interested for any of you to intelligently inform me (lol) why split infinitives are such a no-no. I think it's finally high time for the English language to [boldly and finally] acknowledge the legitimacy of split infinitives. Any ideas? Loomis 22:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look over split infinitive, personally, I have no objection; from skimming the article, the reason that makes the most sense is that the infinitive is a single word in most languages and should be treated as one in English, too. Emmett5 22:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The story I'd always heard was the "ancient Greek and Latin as ideal languages" reason described in split infinitive. Most people (including most grammarians) don't care any more, but there'll always be some prescriptivists who insist against all reasoning. Ziggurat 22:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That article is really good. No wonder it's an FA, I guess. Anyway, I'd have to agree that common sense is more important than following a set rule - that example given really can't be written any better than with the split. As a controversial rule, it's probably one of the less followed (compared to avoiding singular they, for example), mostly cause when you say "split infinitive", people give you that blank "you're one of those sorts of people" look. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 22:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would give just such a look. Anyone complaining about not following such a silly rule is more concerned with showing everyone how smart they are than in communicating clearly, IMHO. StuRat 00:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What "example" in the article are you all talking about? The first one from Star Trek "to boldly go"? I'm a bit confused as to what part of the article you all think I should give a second look. Also, I'm sure that a few centuries ago, the same controversy arose over the dropping of all of those archaic forms of the second person singular pronoun. I can just see the "purists" insisting to no end: "It's thou dammit! Not you! Thankfully, common sense prevailed and all those unnecessary pronouns were finally dropped from the language. Loomis 11:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing wrong with split infinitives. I mean, if one can't split infinitives why is it acceptable to split the preposition from a verb? Like to turn off. One does not say *turn off it but turn it off. I mean, it is a unit right? This is a one-word verb in languages like Spanish and French, where it's apagar and éteindre respectively. --Chris S. 02:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. JackofOz 05:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Bloody brilliant"

I'd like to get some British opinions on this. I read some comments on the CBBC Newsround website about the Queen's birthay party last Sunday and one of them complained about the boy in Mary Poppins' Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious song who supposedly sweared when calling her (Poppins) "bloody brilliant" and said that since it was performed in front of the queen the song should've been changed. IIRC, this phrase also appeared in the first Harry Potter film. If this is so objectionable, surely it would've been cut. Is "bloody" considered swearing in general to begin with? - Mgm|^(talk) 22:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Bloody. It is considered very very mild swearing in some circles. Ziggurat 22:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably like the American "Frickin'".--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is very mild. I expect also they objected because it was a child swearing, which they are not supposed to do LOL. The traditional get-out was to hastily switch to "blooming" instead mid-word, as with "sugar", "fudge", etc. Jameswilson 23:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To have an article on bloody and not mention George Bernard Shaw Iis a bit bloody stupid. The word caused a stir when used on stage in his play Pygmalion (play) but that was over 90 years ago. MeltBanana 02:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would that line have caused the same furore today? Not bloody likely! FWIW, there has been a recent kerfuffle in the media in several countries (including the UK and Canada, IIRC) about an "Visit Australia" promotional advertisement with the tag line "So where the bloody hell are you?" Grutness...wha? 03:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably more due to the word hell than anything else. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's actually the word "bloody". This article by Michael Quinion discusses the issue in some detail. Bhumiya (said/done) 10:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semi D

I saw in a ad for a house to share (in Ireland) this text : "3Bed Semi-D" . I am French and I wonder what "semi D" is? Can you help ?? Thank you very much.--Sebb-fr 22:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My amaetuer opinion guesses it means sem-decent. But it could mean more. It appears to be a common phrase. Yanksox ^(talk) 22:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assume it means Semi-detached. Ziggurat 22:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, semi-detached is correct. The other options are detached and terraced. Jameswilson 23:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is semi-detached. Thanky you very much. I will create a redirect:-) --Sebb-fr 10:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 27

Hebrew infinitive absolute

What is the infinitive absolute used for in Hebrew other than certainty (e.g. Mot yamut = he will certainly die)? Mo-Al 02:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify... you cite Hebrew, implying Ivrit (modern Hebrew) but (and I'm no specialist)your example sounds like Classical Hebrew to me. --Dweller 06:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Either way - I have only seen it used in classical Hebrew though, but I don't know if it's used in Moder Hebrew or not. Mo-Al 15:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Class. Hebrew (and again, I'm no expert) it can also be used as an imperative "he MUST surely die", with slight vowel fluctuation to "mot yoomat". --Dweller 15:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Czech grammar issues

Hi, I have a few questions I haven't been able to answer myself.

1. Does the subject of the verb být, "to be", take the nominative or accusative case?
2. Are collective nouns, such as "the Simpsons" or "the Germans", treated as simple plurals or as some sort of singular? What kind of gender do they take?

Thanks! Bhumiya (said/done) 04:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm breaking my own rule here and commenting on a matter I have no specific knowledge of. But if I can use the general principle that applies in all languages I've ever studied, the subject of any verb is ipso facto nominative (I wish, you spoke, he walked, she will read, they were kissing, etc). However, you may have meant to ask about the case of the object of the verb "to be". Usually it is nominative because "to be", unlike most other verbs, equates two things (rather than having one thing doing something to another thing, which is where the accusative comes in). But I can't speak about Czech specifically. JackofOz 05:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right. It works the same way in German. But I'm not sure about anything in Slavic languages. I've never studied a heavily inflected language and Czech is particularly irregular. Bhumiya (said/done) 05:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Czech and Russian are related languages. Russian rarely uses its verb "to be" (in the present tense), but when it is used the subject is naturally nominative. Czech may be different, but I'd be very surprised. JackofOz 07:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, in that case, it's almost certainly as you suggested. Bhumiya (said/done) 10:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IANA native Czech speaker, but JackofOz is right. All Czech nouns use the nominative for the singular (except when the genitive is being used due to the "5 or more" rule). Být is unique in that its object also usually takes the nominative. The exception is the set-up of Být + instrumental, which is roughly equivalent to the English verb "become." (Bush byl presidentem v 2001.)

Nouns like Simpsonovi take plural verbs. (Simpsonovi žijou v Springfieldu.) -- Mwalcoff 04:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, silly me. Russian has a similar rule about numerals greater than 4 taking the genitive case. So, the subject of a verb is not necessarily nominative - just almost all the time. In the Russian equivalent of "The bananas were on the table", the subject bananas is nominative, but in "Five bananas were on the table", five is nominative (but undeclined) and bananas is genitive. JackofOz 09:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting. Thanks for the help! Bhumiya (said/done) 02:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Origins of American English

Does anyone know how and where exactly the American accent originated? I have a theory that it might have started when the Native Americans tried to speak English and they sounded like Americans today sound.-------Seclipse21 04:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accents tend to change for a number of reasons, but generally when two populations are split geographically they 'evolve' in a different direction naturally (it's theorized that this is how new languages come about in the first place - see Language change) as a result of many social processes. In the case of the United States, speakers of Dutch, French, German, Spanish, Swedish, Scots, Welsh, Irish, Scottish Gaelic, and Finnish were also prominent in earlier times, and no doubt all of them contributed to the unique accumulation that is American English. Ziggurat 04:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thank you very much, Ziggurat.-----Seclipse21 04:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, If you compare "General American" and "Received Pronunciation", General American's probably closer to Victorian English. --Kjoonlee 05:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If not Victorian English, then certainly Elizabethan English. In many ways, American English is more phonologically conservative, preserving rhoticity and not participating in the trap-bath split. A few hundred years ago, English English sounded much more like American English. Bhumiya (said/done) 05:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also cause for some joking; "I say tomato, you say tomato, I say palmtree, you say palmtree". :) DirkvdM 06:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to be careful about claims of American or any variety sounding "more like" Elizabethan or 19th century English. While some varieties have more conservative tendencies than others, this is just not enough uniformity in change in English to make such claims.

First, there is arguably more diversity within either British and American English than there is between the standard varieties of either. In other words White Texas vernacular is probably different in more ways from White New York vernacular than upper middle class English is in London and New York. The variation in Britain is probably even more profound, and in the US if non-White racial dialects are considered (as they should be), there is even greater diversity in America.

Second, while US English is mostly conservative in /r/ maintenance and lack of a short a split, it also has innovations such as the caught/cot merger. There are also very widespread but still regional innovations such as the Nothern cities vowel shift and the southern shift.

Third, there are features such as the southern shift, which afffect regions in the US and Britain, and also southern hemisphere English.

It is better to say that both varieties are historical and linguistic developments from a common source. BTW, before asking questions here, it would be a good idea to check out American_english mnewmanqc

The Story of English has a chapter on American English. It's also available as a video documentary. --Kjoonlee 09:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another question one can ask is "how do you know?" Are there any records of how English was pronounced in Victorian or Elisabethan times? Did phonetic writing exist then? And if so, how do we know how to pronounce that if it's pronunciation was defined by pronunciations of the time? A bit of a vicious circle and I don't see a way out. One of those things we have to accept we can never know? DirkvdM 11:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask the same question about how Greek, Latin or Sanskrit was pronounced, and the answer is, yes, we have detailed descriptions of how they were pronounced (although not IPA, of course, and sometimes there is a lot of scholarly debate about how those descriptions should be interpreted). · rodii · 12:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize What is known about prehistoric language?: A lot. The comparative method works well. --Kjoonlee 14:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The comparative method tells us very little about "how languages were pronounced," though. It works at the phonological level, and the reconstructed proto-phonemes are abstractions phonetically. See Glottalic theory for an example of controversy over the most basic, well-established set of correspondences we have, the Indo-European stops; the standard model posits a whole different set of proto-sounds from the glottalic model. We're dependent on Panini, Varro et al. for descriptions of how those segments were actually pronounced, in terms of positions of articulators in the vocal tract. We also have evidence from various kinds of pronunciation-related phenomena, including rhymes (two words that rhyme can be considered to have certain similarities in sound), prosody (which allow us to discern stress and vowel-length patterns), speech games like Pig Latin, and so on. It's a tricky area. If your interested in the Classical issues, W. Sidney Allen's Vox Latina and Vox Graeca are standard references. I don't know what the equivalents are for the history of English. (And just to add a small voice of caution on the comparative method in general, try reconstructing Latin from the Romance languages without using what we know of Latin; it simply can't be done. The comparative method is no doubt valid, but it is limited in what we can discern from it.) · rodii · 15:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To go back to the original question, I have never heard anyone make the claim that Native languages were a significant influence on the pronunciation of American English. English borrowed words from Native languages, of course, but that's about the exttent of the influence as far as I know. · rodii · 15:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We know that rhoticity in British English had already disappeared by the time "Juggernaut" entered the english language. This is because it comes from the indian word jagannāth, where the first two "a's" in the indian word are pronounced like the "u" in but. So when it was transliterated in Britian, an "er" was written in place of the "a" because by that time the "er" sound had come to sound like "uh" in British English. "Er" became the british equivalent to the American "uh," they both sound like əː.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 15:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: the role of Native Americans. One interesting difference between the (future) USA and Brazil is that the Brazilian Indians spoke many languages but had a lingua franca that they used when speaking to members of other tribes (Old Tupi). Thus the early Portuguese settlers, although they regarded the Indians as primitive, all ended up learning Old Tupi too for convenience. Although Tupi was suppressed two or three hundred years later in favour of Portuguese, that language did have the chance to influence Portuguese as spoken in Brazil.

But as far as I know the same thing didnt happen in North America. There wasnt one convenient pre-existing Indian language that served as the general language of all the tribes for trading purposes, etc. So English-speakers never had any economic incentive to get to know the Indian languages. Jameswilson 23:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Webster made up American English. -- Миборовский 21:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Albion's Seed : Four British Folkways in America by David Hackett Fischer discusses how four regional accents in America map to different regions in the UK where those regions' settlers originated. Rmhermen 18:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A US place-name

I listened to a radio show where I heard a US place-name, pronounced somewhat like /ˌp(ə)ˈkipsiː/. It's probably somewhere along the East Coast or nearby. What could it be? Thanks in advance. –Mysid^(t) 07:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean Poughkeepsie ? Lectonar 07:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Thank you very much. –Mysid^(t) 07:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pixellized movable type

I suppose this question concerns language. It could just as easily fit in the science or humanities reference desks. I was reading an article about Chinese printing which mentioned that Hanzi were not well-suited to movable type printing since hundreds of characters had to be carved. It struck me that the Chinese might have expedited the process by fashioning their type using a pixel-based system. When precisely was the principle of the pixel invented? Is there any evidence that they existed in the pre-electronic age? Bhumiya (said/done) 07:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that in those days, using a pixel-based system without computers would essentially have been the same as copying the books by hand. – The word pixel, though not the concept of picture element, was invented by Frederic C. Billingsley in 1965. –Mysid^(t) 08:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mosaic tiles could be described as pixels. —da Pete (ばか) 08:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would knitting/crocheting patterns count as well? --Kjoonlee 09:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

pointillism? DirkvdM 11:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what the heck a "printing pixel" would really have been -- building up each separate character individually from dozens of tiny little metal squares would certainly not offer the quickness and convenience of Gutenberg-style moveable metal type, and the nature of Chinese characters is such that they generally cannot be constructed out of a small number of square dots while preserving any degree of faithfulness to correct shape, and aesthetic appeal. But anyway, you can look up Jacquard looms (which were invented after Gutenberg, though). AnonMoos

Well, I hadn't thought it through very well. I just thought that the principle might be useful in some way. Perhaps a bunch of needles of varying length could be assembled into a punch for imprinting characters into wood. It seems to me that this would be faster than hand-carving every piece of type. Keep in mind that Chinese characters can be represented fairly well on a computer, even at a somewhat low resolution. But that's all speculation. As far as ancient pixels, I hadn't thought about weaving. Certainly, many tapestries used the very same principle to create images. Bhumiya (said/done) 10:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English words translated into Cantonese characters

I have a good friend whose birth name, in Cantonese, translates into "Ling Bird" in English. How would the name Ling Bird be written, using Cantonese characters and translation? Thanks, Leebo.

whyever

I would like to enter this word "whyever" into--24.56.224.140 17:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC) the encyclopedia. How do I go about entering a new word?[reply]

You don't. Simple definitions of words belong at Wiktionary, a sister project of Wikipedia. Of course, neologisms are generally frowned on. Deltabeignet 18:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Code

What could this mean?

    Ecgb b bie be ebeb bml.

If someone can't break it, can they direct me to a code breaker? Thanks. schyler 17:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm pretty sure 'b' is 'a'. Unfortunately, it's not a simple Caesar cipher, unless the first word is 'dbfa'. Deltabeignet 18:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That would mane the second and third words "a a..", which is ungrammatical - it would be "an a..". Also, since it would make b=m (the only possible letter that would work with both be and ebeb), it looks like either gibberish or something not in English. Grutness...wha? 10:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is what I got from the side of the Covenant ship in the Halo 3 trailer written in Braille. I changed the letters into their respective "Covenant Letters" from the 7th letter of the Conversations of the Universe booklet by changing each letter from the above "code." The letter looks somewhat like english letters so each letter in the "code" that corresponds with the letter it should be (in English). I changed it to that.

    lOgB B Bpl Bl lBlB BRl

Could it make any more sense?schyler 18:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance you could show us the exact Braille characters? In higher levels of Braille, characters can stand for letter combinations as well as individual letters, depending on context. — Michael J 20:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese single-character country abbreviations

Is there a list somewhere of the single-character country abbreviations used in Japanese? 日 for Japan, 独 for Germany, 仏 for France, etc. I've had a look around Wikipedia and can't find one, but feel sure there must be one somewhere.

Thanks in advance! --Auximines 19:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a look and can't find one either. However, my Kanji dictionary has an incomplete list so I can make a start on a new page sometime in the next 24 hours. If you need to know the specific character for a country before that, let me know and I'll give it to you if I have it. Road Wizard 23:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's great! --Auximines 07:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently working on the text for the article, but I can't think of an appropriate name for it. Any suggestions would be welcome. Thanks. Road Wizard 15:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of anything better than "country abbreviations in Japanese". What's more important is which pages should link to it. --Auximines 16:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch family names

I am writing to a Professor Theo van Rijn. I don't know him personally, so is it right that I write Dear Professor Van Rijn with a capital V? — Gareth Hughes 20:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is. -- Ec5618 20:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That's quick and to the point. I'll get on with my letter... — Gareth Hughes 20:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The rule is that prefixes like van and den have to be capitalised when not preceded by the person's first name or initials. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 21:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a related question regarding "de". I know someone who is called "Foo de Bar". He always prefers Mr de Bar but not Mr De Bar. Apparently, most other Mr Xxx de Yyy use Mr De Yyy with a capital D. How much of this is down to convention and how much personal choice? --Chan Tai Man 08:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, it only applies to the Dutch language, and perhaps only in the Netherlands. In Flanders it might be different.

Such may be the official rules, but I, for example don't follow it. I spell my last name 'van der Made' with a small 'v'. I only learned about this rule when I started editing the van (Dutch) article, which gives some more insight into this. DirkvdM 08:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That could be, but when writing a letter in Dutch to someone in the Netherlands, it is generally considered appropriate to do so. Not following this rule might leave the impression of not knowing the spelling rules. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 10:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very yes-or-no question

Is "very yes" a grammatically valid construction? Seahen 00:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very no. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 00:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is that "yes" is an absolute, so you can't have more or less of a yes. (The phrase "a more perfect union" is grammatically flawed for the same reason.) Instead, try "absolutely yes", which means "I am absolutely sure the answer is yes". StuRat 01:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not correct, but I don't even think it has much of a popular usage as opposed to the "a more perfect union." --Proficient 02:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat's reason is incorrect. The reason "very yes" is grammatically wrong is that "yes" isn't an adjective or an adverb, the only two parts of speech that can be modified by "very". As for "a more perfect union", it's perfectly grammatical, because saying "A is more X than B" doesn't have to mean "B is X, and A is even more so than B"; it can also mean "neither A nor B is X, but A is closer to being X than B is". This is shown by such statements as "Well, it isn't good, but it's better" meaning it's better (closer to being good) than it used to be, but it still hasn't reached a level I'd call "good". "In order to form a more perfect union" means the union wasn't perfect before, and it still won't be perfect after, but it will be closer to perfect. User:Angr 08:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. "To form a better union" or "a union more closely approaching perfection" or "a perfect union" would all have been correct (although the last one is clearly impossible). To say you want to form a "more perfect union" says that it was perfect, and now it's "more perfect", which makes no sense. There aren't multiple levels of perfection, but only one. StuRat 02:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there's only one level of perfection, I never denied that. The point is that "more perfect" is simply shorthand for "more nearly perfect" or "better approaching perfection". I don't think the framers of the Constitution intended to suggest that the Union was perfect either before or after, and I don't think "more perfect" is an ungrammatical way of expressing that. User:Angr 14:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of what they were trying to say, but they didn't say it correctly, any more than I could say I want to lose weight with "I want to make my weight more zero" or I could say I want to increase the injuries to a person by making them "more dead". StuRat 18:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I bet I'm not the only RD/L regular who winces every thime someone says "very unique", either... Grutness...wha? 10:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that might be entirely peculiar to you. Black Carrot 15:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm with Grutness on this one, so he's not unique in this respect (although he's still a Kiwi, which makes him pretty peculiar ...). There are no degrees of uniqueness. Either there is only one thing, or there is more than one. Unique applies only to the first case, and qualifiers such as "more", "most", "very", "extremely" etc have no meaning. If you mean "very unusual" or whatever, then say that, but don't morph it into the absurd "very unique". JackofOz 03:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you can't be "very eunuch" either. You are or you aren't, no in-betweens, :-) StuRat 15:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it

French uses "n'est-ce pas" to cover a wide variety of situations. I guess the sense of it is: "Is what I just said not the case". English has no such feature; you have to say "didn't she", "wouldn't they", "isn't it", "haven't I", "won't he", "couldn't you", "shouldn't we" etc, depending on the preceding words. There are probably many dozens of possible combinations. People from certain non-English speaking backgrounds (NESB) frequently say "isn't it" in all these situations, which can lead to humorous outcomes - "But you still love me ... isn't it?", Olga pleaded.

What is this grammatical construction called?
Is English the only major language where you can't use the same wording in different situations, à la "n'est-ce pas"? If so, why do we make it so hard for ourselves?
Why do NESB people who have otherwise mastered English seem to find this feature of English a stumbling block? Is it because it is needlessly complex? JackofOz 04:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help with the second two questions, but I can answer the first: they're called tag questions. That article does note that English is "untypically complex", but that doesn't go anywhere as to whether it's the only such language, or why...—Zero Gravitas 04:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English isn't a language where you can't use the same wording in different situations. You know that, right? ;) --Kjoonlee 04:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't some form of British English use "isn't it" in this way? But pronounced and often spelled "innit"? As in "he's a right git, innit" (I don't know where I heard that but, not being British, it makes me laugh everytime). Adam Bishop 06:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. The tag question article mentions it's a part of the London dialect, but I'd never heard that one despite having learned my English in Greater London. Quite fascinating, eh? --Kjoonlee 06:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 'innit' is I think originally Cockney, though now widespread. The Welsh and an English teacher I once knew from Hong Kong both use the full form: "He's a right git, isn't it?". I take that to mean "isn't it the case that...", but I may be over-rationalising. Henry ^Flower 06:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not too widespread, at least in Northern England. The only time I ever hear it is when there is a television programme set in London, or an American is doing an over-the-top Cockney impression. Road Wizard 06:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)*[reply]

I thought it had an Asian origin as I first heard it from Asian teens--hotclaws**==(81.136.162.4 06:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I'd say "innit" is a stereotypically chav phrase, as well as being stereotypically Cockney. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It makes me laugh every time as well, and I am British. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So in which languages would you be forbidden from using the same wording for tag questions? There might be some examples, no? ;) --Kjoonlee 07:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(1) As far as I know, "isn't it" is a general tag in Indian English (spoken by South Asians in general). I know I've read this in some linguistic work or other, and it's been personally confirmed for me by a friend from Sri Lanka who regularly says things like "You're coming to church on Sunday, isn't it?" (2) Irish forms tag questions the same way English does, i.e. the form of the tag depends on the form of the statement they follow. The difference is that Irish tag questions (like Irish answers to questions) drop the subject: Tá tú ag teacht, nach bhfuil? ("You're coming, aren't?"). I think Welsh is the same, though I'm not 100% sure. Whether English does this because the Celtic languages do, or whether the Celtic languages do this because English does, or whether it's just a coincidence, I don't know. User:Angr 08:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "isn't it" is widely (ab?)used in Indian English in this sense. I think it's because in Indian languages we use pronoun-independent "correct?", "right?", "isn't?" etc., instead of "didn't she?" etc., -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 09:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My question was actually prompted by noticing how my Sri Lankan-born partner speaks. And I've previously noted Indian people (including Fijian Indians) saying "isn't it", and also some Europeans. JackofOz 12:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"..., is it?" is common in Singlish; its similarity with "n'est-ce pas?" is noted in the article. --Vsion 03:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 28

Same word, different meaning, ¡en español!

What is the Spanish word for finally, as in "at last!" I know the word is finalmente, but I have a feeling that is for an order of events and my dictionary doesn't specify. Could someone help? Thanks. schyler 12:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the expression you're looking for is "¡por fin!" Also, "¡al fin!" --RiseRover|^talk 15:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finalamente translates better as "finally" than "at last". Emmett5 19:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Por fin is the best choice for an interjection. - Draeco 04:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creek word for Fear

Could you please give the Creek word for FEAR Thank you

Maybe those noble people had none. --DLL 21:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fray or Friar??

To whom it may concern: while doing some editing of the Aztec related articles within Wikipedia, I was puzzled by the term "Fray", which appeared as something of a title or descriptive term in front of several names. I have since learned that "Fray" is a Spanish term meaning "Friar". I am wondering therefore if we should not be using "Friar" instead of "Fray" in, for example, this article on Fray Juan de Torquemada. I would suggest "yes" since (a) this is the English Wikipedia and (b) the term "Friar" is understood by more average readers than is "Fray".

Thoughts anyone?? Madman 17:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Frustratingly enough, there is nothing in Wikipedia or Wiktionary addressing this use of "Fray".

A Fray is a title for friars, but the title in English should be "Brother", not "Friar". For example Fray Luís would be Brother Luís, but only in case you really want to translate the title at all. --RiseRover|^talk 19:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the article title goes, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Western clergy) is not very helpful, but there is a general guideline that lower-level clergy don't have their titles in the article title. That would mean the article should be called Juan de Torquemada. Since there's another Juan de Torquemada at that address, I think that the Fray is a reasonable disambiguator (love that word) and should be kept. Henry ^Flower 19:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Henry. Yes, I debated exactly how to disambiguate "my" Juan de Torquemada from the other, and I decided that adding "Fray" to the title was probably the best way.

And thanks, Rover. So perhaps to make this term intelligible to the average reader, the Fray Juan de Torquemada article should start out "Fray (or Brother) Juan de Torquemada was a Franciscan friar, missionary and historian in Spanish colonial Mexico." OK?? Madman 19:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or, "Fray (Spanish for Brother) Juan de Torquemada was a Franciscan friar, missionary and historian in Spanish colonial Mexico." --RiseRover|^talk 19:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Val"

What does the Italian word "val" mean? I've seen it a few times, and it wasn't in any online dictionaries. I know it is in place-names fairly often (could it also mean valley?) but I saw it in the phrase "Val la pena litigare" which has me stumped. It doesn't seem to fit. Can anyone help? --Bearbear 18:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Val" it's the simple present, third person singular form of "valere" which means to be worth. Val la pena it's an expression that means it's worth the trouble. It's worth to litigate, would be your sentence. --RiseRover|^talk 18:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe I didn't spot the connection with the French "valoir"! Thanks --Bearbear 09:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But in, say, Val d'Aosta it does mean valley, or vale. · rodii · 19:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but that's not Italian... Val comes from the local language Arpitan; in Italian it'd be Valle. --RiseRover|^talk 20:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that--who knew? That is a terrific article--should be a featured article, in fact. · rodii · 02:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does smoking harm Polish speakers?

hello English Wikipedia. Can you tell me what "Paleine tytoniu może uszkodzić nasienie i zmniejszać pŀodność" means, I found it on cigarettes, I assume in Polish language. Specifically, what does "zmniejszać" mean, and how do I pronounce it correctly? Looking at it as a word, I imagine it to be one of the most horrible-sounding words I've ever seen written (I don't read much Polish though, or Vogon poetry....hmmm, if anyone has a link to a text, or even better, to a soundbite, of the Polish translation of any Vogon poetry, then pray include it here). Anyway, I think I will give my pet mole rat the name "zmniejszać", should I ever get a pet mole rat. Thankyou. Unsigned comment.

"Smoking tobacco can damage sperm and reduce fertility." Zmniejszać means "to reduce". You could roughly pronounce it zmn-YAY-sha-ch. Which is hard for me to say. :o) --Cam 00:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

origin of the phrase "go soak your head"?

I've searched several sites, including Wikipedia, with no luck. I'd like to be able to answer a 13-year-old's question about the origin of this common phrase. Many thanks!

A mere 916 google results for the phrase suggest it is actually not so common. I for one had never heard it until just now. 128.197.81.181 22:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you say what country or state/county you are in? I have never heard of the phrase either, but knowing at least one location where it is used may help track the information down. Thanks. Road Wizard 23:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I haven't found a locality as yet, but the meaning of the phrase appears to be similar to Get bent. Road Wizard 23:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have found an entry at answers.com that says the phrase originated in the first half of the 20th Century, but it doesn't specify where it came from. Road Wizard 23:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cassell's Dictionary of Slang says is late 19th century and from the US. Sorry no other detail probably just a way to deal with hotheads [mid 17th C]. MeltBanana 00:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might not be extremely common, but I think the majority of American English speakers would recognize it. Seems like something Archie Bunker would have said. --LarryMac 02:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having been raised in Kentucky, I recognize the phrase though it's certainly not common. I know nothing about its origin but have heard it used like "go drown yourself" in playful banter. - Draeco 04:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps related to the Scottish "awa an' bile yer hied". Soak before boiling? Henry ^Flower 17:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My (English) mother once (c.1950) told an unwanted admirer to "go boil your head". But I reckon it sounds better in a Scots accent. --Dweller 17:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to talk in the second person?

Obviously it's possible to speak in the first person and third person, but is it actually possible to speak in the second person in some weird way? Perhaps by having a duel personality in which you talk to yourself? --SeizureDog 01:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody answers have you proved your point by talking to yourself. I expect when you realise how common it is to speak in the second person you will say to yourself "you idiot, why didn't you see that?" BTW the word idiot isn't covered by WP:NPA as this is the voice of your internal monologue. Actually maybe it is and maybe WP:NPA should be moved to Wikipedia:No interpersonal attacks. Sorry I'm going to bed now.MeltBanana 01:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about Wikipedia:No intrapersonal attacks??--Teutoberg 14:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose your question relates to how people sometimes refer to themselves in the third person (e.g. Dave says, "Dave's going to bed because he's tired" instead of "I'm going to bed because I'm tired.") Of course, you could always talk to yourself in a mirror and thus be referring to yourself in second person. It's less obvious when talking with others, though, since the second person can make an ambiguous reference (e.g. people may have to look at your eyes to see to whom you're directing the comment, and it would be difficult to indicate you're referring to yourself).--El aprendelenguas 02:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only people such as Alexander Hamilton, Pushkin, Lermontov and Eugene Onegin had duel personalities. :--) JackofOz 03:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can write in the third person, as in the Choose Your Own Adventure books, and many interactive fiction games. --Cam 04:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arrgh, I meant second, of course. --Cam 04:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

El aprendelenguas actually answers this indirectly with the sentence "Of course, you could always talk to yourself in a mirror and thus be referring to yourself in second person". We often use the second person to refer to hypothetical situations which could relate to anyone, the speaker included - a more stilted way of doing this in the third person is to use the neutral third person pronoun "one" (as in "one could write it like this if one wished"). Grutness...wha? 10:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conversationally it's very common for people to talk about themselves in the second person, such as when they're describing their usual reaction to a certain kind of situation. For example, they might say "When someone shouts in your ear without warning, your heart beats and you get a shock and you almost shit your pants", whereas what they really meant to say was "When someone shouts in my ear without warning, my heart beats and I get a shock and I almost shit my pants". In psycho-babble I think it's called avoiding owning one's own experience. JackofOz 10:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some parts of our language are so clumsy. Black Carrot 14:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 29

translation from english to chinese

Dear all,

I would like to translate the link of Aikido from English to Chinese. Anyone out there please teach me how to deal with the software so that I can do the translation for the benefit of all. Million thanks to all!

You could contact me at (e-mail removed, answers are posted at the desk) or (e-mail removed to prevent spam)

See : Help (left pane of every page). Then : language, translation, &c. --DLL 21:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does this Japanese pamphlet say?

I found a potentially tasteless but mostly just confusing instructional pamphlet which appears to be written in Japanese. I see that it says "one day you'll thank us" as well as urging the user to use a non-permanent marker to draw butt-circles, but aside from that... WTF? grendel|khan 02:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Chinese to me. Can't read it though. --Cam 04:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the pictures are a bit of a clue... --Bearbear 09:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cam is right: it is indeed Chinese, not Japanese. --Ptcamn 10:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) It's definitely Chinese not Japanese. other than picking out the odd character here and there (the third character in the top line is "friend", for instance), my knowledge of Chinese in not good enough to translate it, though. And this probably needed a "Not for office use" warning... Grutness...wha? 10:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it's not as funny as it seems. It is really only instructional, literally. (It is Chinese, by the way)

A quick, rough translation: (largely incomplete, as most of it isn't really funny / meaningful anyways) "Enjoying your friend's asshole" (more specifically, the area between the two ass cheeks) Take a felt pen of your desired colour ... Draw two nipples on your friend's ass, making sure that it's soft and smooth ... In a thrusting motion, insert .. .. into .. .. .. Continue until 'excitement' is reached...

=/ Alex Ng 06:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

question on percentage

Hi Guys and Gals! Wikipedia defines percentage as:

"...a way of expressing a proportion, a ratio or a fraction as a whole number,.

what if a percentage is expressed in decimal form? (e.g. 2.45%)

Is there an exact term to call it? Thanks for your help.

The definition at Percentage seems odd to me because it excludes just that, whereas I've always understood (and the dictionaries I can consult seem to agree) that a percentage does not have to be an integer; I've raised the issue at Talk:Percentage. Ziggurat 02:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article will have to be fixed up. I don't think there's a special term from 2.45%; it's just another percentage, isn't it? Melchoir 02:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely appreciate the exchange of thoughts. who would have known I can effect change in Wiki's definition. :-) how about calling it "decimal percentage" to suit my report? :-)

That's the whole point of a wiki. Anybody can initiate change, and if there's a consensus that it's a change we want, it stays changed. Until it's changed again, to something better, etc. The "whole number" thing is a complete furphy - a percentage can be an integer, a decimal, a fraction, whatever. JackofOz 03:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bis repetita. --DLL 21:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

english to coptic

hi yes i would love the saying into coptic language only...only new at this so not sure how to respond to you directly..my user name is mioullos....thanx mia

Getting a tattoo, eh? Do you want it in English (language) and coptic script, or would you prefer it translated into a language that uses that script natively? Ziggurat 03:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that no-one is listed at Wikipedia who speaks Coptic; the language itself hasn't been spoken since the 17th century, so finding a translator is probably going to be tough! Ziggurat 03:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thats what i thought..is there a translator table like they have for egyptian heiroglyphics?? and yes it is for a tattoo..having problems finding anyone who can write in the old scripters...

Try this page. Ziggurat 03:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you pay atention to some of the caveats and further questions raised by your previous query at Wikipedia:Reference_desk_archive/Language/June_2006#heiratic_script_converot ? AnonMoos 16:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before getting a tattoo in a foreign language, you must see the cautionary examples on [[2]]!!--Teutoberg 10:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise the questioner not to put tattoo needle to flesh until he's not only been assured by reliable people that something is corect, but he's also learned enough about the subject so that he can understand himself why it's correct. AnonMoos 16:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barbel names in other languages

Hello, I'm currently completing an article Barbel (fish species) about those species of Barbus that are known as or fit the description 'Barbel'. Barbels are found in central Asia and Europe and also Africa. I was wondering if anyone could give a few translations of some of the native common names of these fish. It's not vital to the article but would be good.

I have links to lists to common names of three species:

[Barbus barbus] This is the barbel found in UK. Confirmation that most of these are simply variations on the term 'barber' would be appreciated. As would meanings of any other common names if possible.

[Aral barbel] Meanings of the Kazakh and possibly Farsi words if possible.

[Barbus bynni bynni] An African barbel - some of the languages used here aren't even identified, nevertheless translation of these native African terms if possible would be appreciated.

If anyone can give answers (or more info. even) that would be great.HappyVR 15:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getting a tattoo, eh? just kidding · rodii · 01:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(I was thinking specifically in terms of linguistic roots for the names)HappyVR 16:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian hieroglyph "K2" is supposed to be a drawing of a Barbel, but the source I'm using doesn't say what the actual ancient Egyptian word for "barbel" is.... AnonMoos 00:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re the first one, some of the Eastern European languages refer to the River Danube (Dunarea, Dunavska).

Some refer to the colour. German Weissfisch, Romanian Alba, Bulgarian Byala all mean white.

Some refer to the habitat. The Scandinavian first syllables beginning with "f" all mean river, so does the Bulgarian Rechna, I think.

Mrena translates as barbel obviously but also "film", "pellicule" or "membrane".

Jameswilson 01:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - anyone know 'pigge' or 'parme' in German?

Funny Words In Spanish

Hi,

I'm wondering I anybody could provide me with some funny (Mildly rude) Words of phrases in Spanish?

Many Thanks

Me cago en los veinticuatro cojones des los apostoles de Jesus! David Sneek 18:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit more than mildly rude. In other words, I love it. :) DirkvdM 19:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard nalgas before? What does that mean? Pacific Coast Highway ^{(blah • not even doom music)} 18:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you telling us or asking us you've heard it before? Anyway, it means 'buttocks'. DirkvdM 19:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean Spanish words that sound funny to Spanish speakers or English speakers ? StuRat 19:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Words that are funny to english speakers mainly, but spanish humour would also go down well.

I have heard that "bicho malo" may or may not be vulgar, depending on the country.--Teutoberg 08:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the very offensive and later euphemisms, I remember being told by a Spanish girl that "Me cago en Dios" is converted to "Me cago en diez", which of course elicits the response, "Me cago en veinte, qué es más potente!" (Sorry if my accent marks are off!!)--Teutoberg 08:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting that sometimes 'mildly rude' does not translate - especially in some Spanish speaking cultures, any insult at all (no matter how humorous) is liable to cause a fist-fight. Be cautious when using things which are 'mild' in literal translation — they may be highly offensive in another language and culture! Nimur 20:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Word for hair tie

Hi, what do you call that thing which women use to tie their hair? It's usually a frilly torus made of fabric, with an elastic string embedded inside. In South Korea it's called gobchangkkeun (Hangul: 곱창끈), literally "small intestine string." What is it called in English? --Kjoonlee 18:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A headband? - Nunh-huh 18:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A headband is called hedeubaendeu in Korean. ;) The one I'm looking for is used on ponytails. --Kjoonlee 18:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a hairband. A headband is completely different. And it isn't just women who use them, though the plain ones (a.k.a. hair elastics) are the ones usually worn by both men and women. The more frilly ones ("scrunchies") are worn by women. Grutness...wha? 02:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd call it either a hair elastic, or (what i think you're looking for) a scrunchie. СПУТНИК^{CCC P} 18:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe it. We don't have an article about scrunchies? —Keenan Pepper 19:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We call them a "Pony O" in Australia, I just did a Google search and it seems the same term is used in the USA as well. --Canley 03:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my corner of Washington state, I have heard my coworkers call them ponies to little girls. And I just asked my mother and she uses the word pony tail with my 7 year old sister; either that or Scrunchee^tm. --Chris S. 03:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone. I appreciate your answers. :) I think scrunchy/scrunchie/scrunchee is closest to what I was looking for. I wanted to know the name for the frilly version; hair elastic, pony O, and hair pony sound as if they might be ambiguous in some cases. I'm slightly confused about hairbands, though. Can hairbands refer to scrunchies too? --Kjoonlee 09:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subplot usage

June 29, 2006

Wikipedia,

What is the purpose of a subplot? I have found your encyclopedia most helpful but would like to know more.

Thank you,

Shari C. Graber

Basically the same functions as a main plot; to entertain or deliver a message. It's a way to tell stories in parallel (all at the same time) instead of in series (one at a time). Especially in a long book, a single plot without subplots gets a bit boring. A series has a particular need to tell individual stories in each episode and still tell a main story over the entire series. StuRat 19:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subplots are very useful in television shows with composite casts rather than one main character (I think Hill Street Blues was one of the first shows to use them regularly). They help because it gives the other characters of the show something to do onscreen while the main plot is being dealt with by one or two of the characters. Grutness...wha? 02:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, but one could also argue that they chose to have such a large cast so they could support a number of subplots. The same applied when Steven Bochco cloned Hill Street Blues as NYPD Blue. I suppose we can look forward to The LA Blue Line and Blue Miami in the coming years. I, personally have seen enough of Dennis Franz's ass to last a lifetime. StuRat 15:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Digressions are found in writing : Thousand and one nights, where it helped the teller to live one night more ; XIXth c. novels, where it helped papers to sell more paper ; everywhere ; and on TV also. --DLL 21:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Double homonyms

The word bow is a double homonym. (bow \baʊ\ = bough; bow \boʊ\ = beau) Are there any other double homonyms? — Michael J 20:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To, too, and two! (Don't know the IPA, sorry). Emmett5 21:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite what I meant. Bow has two different pronunciations, and is a homonym for each of them. — Michael J 22:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page has a list of homonyms in alphabetical order. Ones with blue bullets seem to double, triple, etc homonyms. There's even a sextuple homonym! schyler 22:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta be careful with those, though -- some of them (in particular the 6-tuple) are highly dependent on dialect. I don't pronounce "err" and "air" similarly at all. (On the other hand, "air" has two syllables in my dialect; what can you do?) --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 00:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you pronounce "err" and "air," Jpgordon? The way they're pronounced where I live, they rhyme with "fair" and "where." But another triple homonym would be read (red/reed). Seahen 02:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for Jpgordon, but in my neighborhood we pronounce "err" to rhyme with "her."[3] · rodii · 02:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where's that? I'm pretty sure the sextuple would, at least, work throughout North America. Seahen 02:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you click on the links? The traditional pronunciation is--oh, screw finding those IPA characters--the "her" one. Nowadays that's less common in the States than the "hair" one, but still widely heard. I'm from Michigan, but I didn't literally mean my neighborhood. However, I teach at a US university, and this is actually a word, like "forte", that I rarely use in class, because no matter which pronunciation I use, invariably someone decides they want to "correct" me. The lesson being that there are definitely two pronunciations in active use in the US. · rodii · 03:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does your university attract a lot of people from out of state? Seahen 14:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but can you not just accept the fact that there are two ways of pronouncing this word? I'm not sure what the issue is here. Some people, yes, even Americans, do not pronounce "err" as homophonous with "air."· rodii · 16:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Rodii on this - the two words sound completely different to me, but each has only one syllable. Grutness...wha? 03:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you're looking for homographs which are not homophones. How about lead ([lɛd] and [lid])? —Keenan Pepper 02:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, I found a triple one: slough ([slʌf], [slaʊ], and [slu]). —Keenan Pepper 02:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the English town of Slough is near the homographic non-homophonic Reading (pronounced "redding", not "reeding"!). Also, some words have completely different pronunciations (unrelated to accent) on the two sides of the Atlantic (the one that comes to mind first is Derby). Grutness...wha? 03:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read works; it can be pronounced the same as "reed" or "red". "Do" can also be pronounced as "/du/" (a homonym of "dew") or "/doʊ/" (a homonym of "doe"). --Cadaeib (talk) 12:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck off and die

What language has the best/most swear words? --67.185.172.158 21:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New words to offend somebody are always being invented (or just have had their meaning changed (e.g. gay)). I don't know anything about them, but West Slavic languages just sound angry/mean to me. schyler 21:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard the Germanic languages described as having exceptionally large numbers of swear words. --Serie 00:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at our article on profanity. Some languages have fewer distinct obscenities, but may have a more productive or complex means of using them (as in Russian mat). Other languages place greater emphasis on politeness, so rudeness is conveyed not by specific obscene words, but by inflection or tone of voice (as in Japanese). Bhumiya (said/done) 02:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, I'd say that German has a natural "angry" tone to it. If you're looking for something more 'exotic', try Cantonese - Swear Words and their English Translations

PS: Whenever I'm chatting with someone in Cantonese, other people who don't speak the language naturally think we're in a fight... If normal talk in a language seems offensive, then swearing might seem even more obscene. Alex Ng 06:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In a book by Laurie Bauer and Peter Trudgill (actually an edited volume so they didn't write all the articles) called Language Myths, (isbn: 0140260234), a couple of chapters discuss the idea that some languages have a kind of inherent value, that is, they are uglier or prettier, and so on. In fact, this is based on social stereotypes of speakers. So German, say, gets classified as 'aggressive' whereas French is typically 'romantic' or alternative 'logical'. In fact, it's the French who think their language is logical and English speakers, who think it's Romantic. As for swear words, the original question, there is a journal called Maledicta [[4]]. You might want to check it out. My personal favorite is peninsular Spanish, which has an interesting combination of obsenity and blasphemy (e.g. obsentity and blasphemy warning: I shit on god.} mnewman

I too have heard that predominantly Catholic linguistic groups (like Spanish speakers) tend to have the most the blasphemous curses. Apparently almost all Québécois swearwords somehow derive from religious terms (sacre bleu! is a euphemism for sacrament! for example). A more extended version of the Spanish curse above is "I shit on the twenty-four testicles of the apostles of Jesus". User:Angr 07:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

y la virgen y todos los santos mnewmanqc

The church in Quebec put up some billboards trying to reclaim the words - they have a word like "calice" in giant letters and the proper definition in smaller letters below. Adam Bishop 16:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 30

Short packed

What does it mean for a toy to be short packed? Seahen 02:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example. Say you have series 17 of Super-guy action figures. There are 6 figures in series 17. However, you can fit 18 figures in a case (for shipping purposes). So the most logical thing to do would be to have 3 of each figure in a case, correct? Well sometimes toy manufactures decide to package more of one figure in a case than another. The ones that are less per case are then "short packed". Make sense?--Andrew c 02:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. What's the antonym then, to describe the one you pack more than an equal share of to make up the total count? Seahen 02:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shelf warmers? Hmm.. I actually don't know that. A shelf warmer is a toy in a series that doesn't sell well and you see in the discount bins a couple months after the series release. I'm not sure if there is a correlation between packing and shelf warming. I imagine the company purposely makes more of the toys they think are the strongest, thus packing more per case (except for the case of rare, collectors items, which may be highly sought after, but short packed anyway). I do not believe there is an antonym for short packed.--Andrew c 02:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

words spelled the same forwards and backwards

Hi, I cannot find what you call a word that is spelt the same fowards and backwards. ie: mum, or dad, or racecar

It is driving me crazy. Thankyou

[email removed]

Palindrome. —Keenan Pepper 02:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emordnilap. (Ha!) · rodii · 02:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notlob is a good one if you're a Monty Python fan...EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 10:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A man, a plan, a canal... Panama! --Dweller 10:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aoxomoxoa. Able was I ere I saw elba.--Fuhghettaboutit 10:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rise to vote, Sir! --Bearbear 10:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Lederer's Crazy English has an entire chapter dedicated to palindromes. It's about a man called Doctor Otto Rotcod who only speaks in palindromes. --Kjoonlee 11:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doc, note: I dissent. A fast never prevents a fatness. I diet on cod. --Cam 14:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Golf? No sir! Prefer prison flog.--Shantavira 18:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Owl ate my metal worm. —Bkell (talk) 19:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So many dynamos! schyler 20:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no! Don Ho! · rodii · 21:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Precaoiusly?

Hello all. I'm looking for a word i cant remember what it is- is someething like 'precoisuly/pracoisly, it's something hanging uncertianily over somehting. Eg 'the can hang precaiously over the pile of clothes'. Hope you can find it and thanks in advanc. ````

Wikt:precariously ? Lectonar 09:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thats the word thank you very much.

You have to pray to stay alive, that's why life is precarious (Did Aulde English have no word for that act of begging, that they borrowed it from latin). --DLL 21:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look up the etymology of "bead". AnonMoos 21:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steps or Stairs?

Hello Volunteers!

Does anybody know the difference between steps and stairs?

Cheers, Paul

I would say that "stair/s" is collective, while "step" is individuative. In other words, "stair/s" is most often used when referring to a large number or a collective group, as in the phrases the stairs and flight of stairs. But when referring to one such object, or to a small number thereof, one would speak of "a step", never "a stair". Likewise, when talking about a few of them, one will probably use "steps". In fixed expressions, "stair" is usually used: downstairs, upstairs, stairwell, stairway, etc. Anyway, this is my analysis, based on my personal experience of how the words are used. Bhumiya (said/done) 13:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. At the house where I used to live, we used the front and back steps to get into and out of the house via the ground floor, but we had stairs to go between floors. Seahen 14:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So stairs always have steps, but steps are not necessarily stairs. (sorry)HappyVR 14:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting the famous Muppet Show song as a reliable source, "Half way down the stairs is the step where I sit." --Dweller 14:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding steps and stairs, have we rung out the distinction between the former and the ladder ? :-) StuRat 15:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. Tread lightly, sir! <g> - Nunh-huh 19:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I get it! You used ladder instead of latter! Very witty. schyler 20:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Going snake by snake, that's the latter of my mottos. --DLL 20:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

French spelling

In French, there does not seem to be any word that ends with "a" except for certain verb conjugations (future simple and past simple). Does French have a rule prohibiting "a" endings and is there a reason for it?

Oh là là! Non, I don't think there's an explicit rule - it's just an idiosyncrasy of the language. There are also much fewer K and W in the French language than in English; and far more Q and X. Nimur 20:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm -- la plume de ma tante est sur la table. Plus ça change, plus ça meme chose. (Okay, they're little bitty words, but they are words.) --LarryMac 21:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]