|
<noinclude>{{pp-move-indef}}{{Wikipedia:Reference desk/header|WP:RD/L|WP:Refdesk/Lang|WP:Refdesk/Language}}
{{/How to ask and answer|[[WP:RD/L]] or [[WP:RD/LANG]]}}
[[Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed]]
'''See also [[Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language/FAQs]] for answers to frequently asked language and usage questions.'''<!--Note to archivers: please do not move this section. -->
[[Category:Pages automatically checked for incorrect links]]
[[Category:Wikipedia resources for researchers]]
[[Category:Wikipedia help forums]]
[[Category:Wikipedia reference desk|Language]]
[[Category:Wikipedia help pages with dated sections]]</noinclude>
{{Wiktionary|Wiktionary:Information desk}}
= February 8 =
== nunca jamás ==
what is the difference between ''[[nunca]]'' and ''[[jamás]]''. I can't find anything other than they both mean never. Do spanish speakers have a preference?--'''[[User:God_of_War|God of]][[User Talk:God_of_War| War]]''' 23:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
= August 23 =
:From my understanding, ''jamás'' is more emphatic than ''nunca'', thus it's used less. But you know, I am more likely to say ''es la casa más grande que '''jamás''' he visto'' (it's the biggest house I have ever seen) rather than ''...nunca...''. Also, you can use the phrase ''nunca jamás'' which means "never ever." --[[User:Christopher Sundita|Chris S.]] 01:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
== Purple prose ==
tha's right, 'nunca jamás' means 'never ever', but I don't think that jamás is more empathic than nunca
because from my personal experience it's the other way around, nunca seems more empathic to me, and I also don't think that nunca is used less, I guess it just depends on the person...and about the house, yeah, in that case you should use 'jamas'. it's not a rule but it's more of a thing that you get used to with time.--[[User:Cosmic girl|Cosmic girl]] 20:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
There are some devastatingly overpowering (ok I better stop) adjectives like breathtaking, stunning, and so on. Their purpose is to evoke an emotional response and associate it with the thing they describe.
:By [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/empathy empathic], did you mean [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/emphatic emphatic]? [[User:Black Carrot|Black Carrot]] 00:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Is there a linguistic term for that sort of word? Not just adjectives of course, but the obvious ones are adjectives. Thanks [[Special:Contributions/2601:644:8581:75B0:5E3A:1231:9276:1405|2601:644:8581:75B0:5E3A:1231:9276:1405]] ([[User talk:2601:644:8581:75B0:5E3A:1231:9276:1405|talk]]) 04:31, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
== New York City dialects ==
:Perhaps not exactly the same as your examples, the devices of [[Hyperbole]] and [[Intensifier]] (which are usually adverbs) are closely related. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} [[Special:Contributions/90.210.150.115|90.210.150.115]] ([[User talk:90.210.150.115|talk]]) 07:26, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
Can someone please tell me the meaning of
::Thanks, [[intensifier]] was kind of helpful, but I'm looking for a word class, or maybe a concept like [[markedness]]. I'm sort of surprised if there isn't one. [[Special:Contributions/2601:644:8581:75B0:5E3A:1231:9276:1405|2601:644:8581:75B0:5E3A:1231:9276:1405]] ([[User talk:2601:644:8581:75B0:5E3A:1231:9276:1405|talk]]) 08:28, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
"He was givin' me the one-two look with his eyes"?
:::Well, as they technically are adjectives, there's no need for a separate word class, but maybe I just misunderstood you and you were just talking about terminology. Loaded word? (Perhaps not exactly.) [[User:Wakuran|惑乱 Wakuran]] ([[User talk:Wakuran|talk]]) 10:01, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
--[[User:Ribsioli|Ribsioli]] 02:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
:[https://books.google.com/books?id=K5VGPhuYVxIC&pg=PA209&dq=%22hyperbolic+adjective%22&hl=en Here] ''stunning'' is called a "hyperbolic adjective". But it is the hyperbolic use of a term that makes it hyperbolic; the adjective ''stunning'' is also used in a non-hyperbolic sense.<sup>[https://books.google.com/books?id=w1E4AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA141&dq=stunning&hl=en][https://books.google.com/books?id=w1E4AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA141&dq=stunning&hl=en] [https://books.google.com/books?id=IHNJAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA467&dq=%22stunning+blow%22&hl=en]</sup> ​‑‑[[User talk:Lambiam#top|Lambiam]] 10:12, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::Is [[WP:PEACOCK]] relevant here? [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 11:48, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
== Accent to ID ==
: My guess is that it alludes to a "one-two" or "one-two punch", which is a boxing term for a rapid pair of blows. So I take it to mean "He was looking at me like he wanted to punch me". --[[User:BluePlatypus|BluePlatypus]] 08:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I assume this is an [[ESL]] speaker, but can anyone identify the accent / original language [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xhf_Bw702k here]? Video contains gameplay from ''[[Fallout (franchise)|Fallout]]'', so somewhat NSFW. [[User:Matt Deres|Matt Deres]] ([[User talk:Matt Deres|talk]]) 12:51, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
==O RLY?==
: I'd say it's [[AI]]-ese.
When someone says, "Are you busy?" and we respond, "No, not really." do we mean:
: If someone can explain to me why so many videos have these creepy, off-putting artificial non-human voices rather than something we can actually relate to, I'd sleep better at night. "We do it because we can" is no answer, btw. -- [[User:JackofOz|<span style="font-family: Papyrus;">Jack of Oz</span>]] [[User talk:JackofOz#top|<span style="font-size:85%; font-family: Verdana;"><sup>[pleasantries]</sup></span>]] 08:39, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
<table border=0 cellpadding=10><tr><td>
::My assumption is that reading a script ''with'' good [[Intonation (linguistics)|intonation]] and ''without'' stumbling is ''a lot'' harder than it seems, whereas AI voice generators ''can'' do so, although they almost always make a few different sorts of mistakes in pronunciation and emphasis. Also, if not a native English speaker, a video maker may feel they are unable to pronounce English well enough, and even some native speakers may may not like the sound of their voice or accent.
* No, that is not true.
::I can think of at least two series of videos in whose contents I am interested, but find the makers'/narrators' deliveries offputting: one is Italian, the other English but with a strong regional accent and a monotonous delivery. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} [[Special:Contributions/90.210.150.115|90.210.150.115]] ([[User talk:90.210.150.115|talk]]) 10:20, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
''or''
:::It can even be an AI rendering of the AI translation of a non-English original or other AI-generated text. It may soon no longer be creepy and ''detectably'' artificial, which will not help me sleep. ​‑‑[[User talk:Lambiam#top|Lambiam]] 12:15, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
* No, not very.
::I don't ''think'' it's AI. There's no shortage of that stuff online, but the voice used here is more varied in tone and speed and more expressive than any confirmed AI I've heard. [[User:Matt Deres|Matt Deres]] ([[User talk:Matt Deres|talk]]) 14:08, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
</td><td><font size="100pt"> ? </font></td></tr></table>
:::YouTube tells me "Video unavailable. This video is private. Go to home". [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] ([[User talk:DuncanHill|talk]]) 14:22, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
[[User:Freshgavin|<font size="-2" color="white" style="background:blue"> freshgavin </font>]][[User_talk:Freshgavin|<font size="-2" color="white" style="background:blue">TALK </font>]] 03:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
::::Yeah, I got that as well. No idea what that's about. The user's page is [https://www.youtube.com/@AlternativeGamingChannel here]; any of the videos will do. [[User:Matt Deres|Matt Deres]] ([[User talk:Matt Deres|talk]]) 17:50, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
== Questions again ==
:I would say it usually means you are somewhat busy, but not too busy to be interrupted for some worthy purpose. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 05:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
::Right ... but what I'm asking here is about the sort of dual-nature that the word "really" has. Technically it would mean the same as "truly" as the adverbial form of the word "real", but it also tends to mean something close to the word "very", as in "It's really tall!". It's not a critical issue but I'm just curious about the underlying (or original) meaning. [[User:Freshgavin|<font size="-2" color="white" style="background:blue"> freshgavin </font>]][[User_talk:Freshgavin|<font size="-2" color="white" style="background:blue">TALK </font>]] 05:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
# Why words ''January'', ''June'' and ''July'' are pronounced with /d͡ʒ/ sound in English but with /j/ sound in other Germanic languages?
::: "really" in this context is just a modifier to give emphasis, and in that sense it's rather disconnected from the use as an adverb form of 'real'. There's a trend in all languages that some words tend to go and become general emphasizing modifiers, and lose contact with their original meaning. I know a very clear-cut example from Swedish, "jätte" (giant), which often used in words like "jätteliten" (gigantically small) or "jättesmal" (gigantically slim) without sarcasm. (Unlike English terms like "fat chance!" which were originally sarcastic, although they're not always expressed that way longer). --[[User:BluePlatypus|BluePlatypus]] 08:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
# Is there any Romance language where names of these three months are pronounced with a /j/ sound?
::::Nice examples. FRNKS! [[User:Freshgavin|<font size="-2" color="white" style="background:blue"> freshgavin </font>]][[User_talk:Freshgavin|<font size="-2" color="white" style="background:blue">TALK </font>]] 03:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
# Are there any words in English where {{angbr|sc}} is pronounced /sk/ before {{angbr|e}} and {{angbr|i}}? In Finnish most words loaned from words similar to these are pronounced with /sk/, such as ''skenaario'', ''rektaskensio'', ''skientologia'' and ''scifi''.
# Are there any words in English where {{angbr|kn}} is pronounced with /kn/ complex onset? Are there any words in English with complex onsets of type plosive+plosive, plosive+fricative and plosive+nasal? In Finnish, all of these occur in some loanwords. --[[User:40bus|40bus]] ([[User talk:40bus|talk]]) 15:09, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
#:Regarding 4a, I don't believe so, apart from people doing it for humorous effect. A bit more [[Phonological_history_of_English_consonant_clusters#Reduction_of_/kn/|here]]. [[User:Matt Deres|Matt Deres]] ([[User talk:Matt Deres|talk]]) 15:47, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
#:(1) For the same reasons ‘j’ is so pronounced in nearly all English words. [[User:Tamfang|—Tamfang]] ([[User talk:Tamfang|talk]]) 05:55, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
1. English is by no means a purely Germanic language. There's a lot of Old French influence, which is probably why January, June, July and also Julius and Jesus and any number of other words beginning with J are pronounced with the /d͡ʒ/ sound. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 15:28, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
== Use of indirect object pronoun when speaking to a person in spanish ==
:Indeed. While modern French pronounces, for example, ''janvier'' with an initial /ʒ/: [[wikt:janvier#Pronunciation|/ʒɑ̃.vje/]], the pronunciation in Old French had /d͡ʒ/: [[wikt:janvier#Pronunciation_2|/d͡ʒanˈvjeːɾ/]]. English retained the Old French ([[Anglo-Norman language|Anglo-Norman]]) pronunciation of ⟨j⟩. The phoneme /ʒ/ occurs in unadapted borrowings (''jardinière'', ''je ne sais quoi'', ''joie de vivre'') or non-initially also as the result of the [[yod-coalescence]] of /zj/ into /ʒ/, as in ''azure'' (/ˈæzjʊə/ → /ˈæʒə/) and ''fusion'' (/ˈfjuːzjən/ → /ˈfjuːʒən/). ​‑‑[[User talk:Lambiam#top|Lambiam]] 12:45, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
I hesitate to use the direct object pronoun when speaking to a person about any kind of interaction between us, even when there is no tangible direct object involved. For example: I would say 'Puedo ayudarle' not 'ayudarlo/la', or 'Le llamo' not 'Lo/La llamo' or 'Tan amable a verle' etc etc. I have seen this pattern, but some argue that a strict application of the direct object pronouns is correct.
3. One that immediately comes to mind is "skeptic", which in British usage is typically spelled "sceptic", but as far as I know it's pronounced "skeptic". ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 15:28, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
Is my sense that the form used when speaking to someone really ought to be 'softened' to the indirect object misplaced or just wrong?
::We need Cosmic Girl for this one really. In my experience part of the difference is regional. I learnt my Spanish in the north of Spain and it was always, always "-le" for a person but I've noticed in other places people use "-lo" with direct verbs. [[User:Jameswilson|Jameswilson]] 23:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
:@[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] You are correct: [https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/sceptic it is pronounced that way]. [[User:Bazza_7|Bazza <span style="color:grey">7</span>]] ([[User_talk:Bazza_7|talk]]) 16:47, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
ok, I'll try to answer this one, I don't know what the direct object pronoun is... but, It's A LOT more common to say 'puedo ayudarLO?' or 'LO llamo' o 'tan amable verLO' the other way isn't used much, at least here in Perú... but it's mostly used when speaking to someone you barely know and is in a somewhat 'higher status' than you, because of age or whatever... but saying things like 'puedo ayudarLO' as opposed to 'puedo ayudarTE' is already enough politeness, I think.--[[User:Cosmic girl|Cosmic girl]] 03:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
See2. [[leísmo]]Romanian. -- ​‑‑[[User talk:Christopher SunditaLambiam#top|Chris S.Lambiam]] 0516:3858, 923 FebruaryAugust 20062025 (UTC)
4. ''Knuthian'', although some speakers may turn this into [kəˈnuːθiən] with an epenthetic schwa.
== arbiter and arbitrator ==
4. You asked about initial /kn/ in [[Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2023_September_28#Question_4|September 2023]], again in [[Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2023_November_7#Questions_again|November 2023]], [[Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2024_March_11#Pronunciation_questions|March 2024]], [[Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2025_January_19#Questions|January 2025]], and now in August 2025. And behold, persistence works. English has ''[[knish]]'' as a loanword and used to have ''[[wikt:knut#English|knut]]'' as a humorous adaptation of ''[[wikt:nut#English|nut]]''. --[[User:Antiquary|Antiquary]] ([[User talk:Antiquary|talk]]) 20:10, 23 August 2025 (UTC) Oh, and another foodie word borrowed from Yiddish, ''[[wikt:knaidel|knaidel]]''. --[[User:Antiquary|Antiquary]] ([[User talk:Antiquary|talk]]) 20:30, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
What is the difference between and arbiter and an arbitrator? We did look them up w/ wiktionary, but not quite satisfied. Thanks if you can help us...
: The Danish kings who ruled parts of England for a while included one that was long rendered as "[[Canute]]", but is starting to be seen as "[[Knut]]" or "[[Cnut]]" to better reflect its original spelling and pronunciation. [Side note: My partner's grandfather had the middle name Canute, but I doubt that anyone in the anglosphere would be game enough to name their child Cnut. I don't think I need to explain why.] -- [[User:JackofOz|<span style="font-family: Papyrus;">Jack of Oz</span>]] [[User talk:JackofOz#top|<span style="font-size:85%; font-family: Verdana;"><sup>[pleasantries]</sup></span>]] 20:41, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::[[Knute Rockne]], who was often referred to like "Newt", properly pronounced it like "K'newt". ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 02:36, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:::If an entry in the OED qualifies it as an English word then I can add [[Knesset]]. --[[User:Antiquary|Antiquary]] ([[User talk:Antiquary|talk]]) 08:13, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::The Welsh mountain [[Cnicht]] is thought to be a borrowing of the word "knight", from the time when the consonants ⟨K⟩ and ⟨gh⟩ were still pronounced in English. [[User:Alansplodge|Alansplodge]] ([[User talk:Alansplodge|talk]]) 12:39, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
= August 24 =
:My impression is that arbitrator is usually used in the technical sense of someone appointed to resolve a difference between parties in dispute. Arbitration, in a commercial context, is a recognised alternative to litigation. Whereas arbiter is, I think, never used in this technical, commercial sense, and instead refers to someone with the necessary taste, critical faculty or expertise to pronounce authoritatively on a disputed point. Both derive from the Latin verb arbitrari, to give a judgement. [[User:Maid Marion|Maid Marion]] 13:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
== Origin of "operating on all cylinders" ==
::Both words come from the same [[Latin]] root. ''Arbiter'' originally meant ''judge'', but could also be someone who witnessed a dispute between others. Therefore, in Latin, it could meen ''witness'' or ''umpire'' too. In some cases, the word is used to describe the organiser of something: ''arbiter bibendi'' is the master of the feast. This same root gives the [[deponent verb]] ''arbitrari'', which was used in the narrower sense of ''judge'', ''pass sentence'' or ''discern''. From this verb is formed the perfect [[participle]] ''arbitratus'', ''having judged''. It is from this form that the English words ''abitrator'' and ''arbitration'' come. In English, I believe an arbitrator is one who facilitates arbitration: the non-legal, yet binding, resolution of dispute. However, an arbiter is anyone who has the final say in a decision-making process. However, the distinction between these two related words is not clear, and they are often used interchangably. --[[User:Garzo|Gareth Hughes]] 16:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Where does the phrase "operating on all cylinders" come from? [[User:Lizardcreator|Lizardcreator]] ([[User talk:Lizardcreator|talk]]) 12:19, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
==Education==
please give me an explanation on what this phrase means:
:@[[User:Lizardcreator|Lizardcreator]]: It's a variation of "[https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780198609810.001.0001/acref-9780198609810-e-2672 firing on all cylinders]" and is a reference to a properly-working [[internal combustion engine]]. [[User:Bazza_7|Bazza <span style="color:grey">7</span>]] ([[User_talk:Bazza_7|talk]]) 12:27, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
"We dont need no education"
::Also found as ''running on all cylinders''<sup>[https://books.google.com/books?id=gvHzNsQoeH4C&pg=PR8&dq=%22running+on+all+cylinders%22&hl=en]</sup> and ''[[wikt:hitting on all cylinders|hitting on all cylinders]]''.<sup>[https://books.google.com/books?id=up3NAAAAMAAJ&pg=PT80&dq=%22hitting+on+all+cylinders%22&hl=en]</sup> In its literal sense, the term assumes a [[Internal combustion engine#Cylinder configuration|multi-cylinder configuration]]. ​‑‑[[User talk:Lambiam#top|Lambiam]] 13:04, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Checking Newspapers.com (pay site), I looked just for "running on all cylinders". Early references starting in 1907 referred specifically to cars. By 1910, it was being used metaphorically, as with a baseball report about a pitcher who had a good game. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 08:51, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::::The [[Ford Model K]], with no fewer than six cylinders producing 40 hp, high at the time, was introduced in 1906. It was a commercial success. This may be related to when the (still literal) use of the phrase took off. ​‑‑[[User talk:Lambiam#top|Lambiam]] 01:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::Interesting point. In fact, that pitcher story I mentioned actually said the pitcher was "running on ''all six'' cylinders." ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 02:47, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:An internal combustion piston engine may experience a malfunction in some if its valves (if pesent), fuel injectors (if present) or spark plugs (if present) causing one of the cylinders to fail, reducing power output and maybe increasing pollution. "Operating on all cylinders" indicates the absence of such issues, so it means that everything is all right. But note that some piston engines, like some large ship's diesels and also some steam engines (which aren't internal combustion, but also have cylinders) can disable some cylinders on purpose. This can be for maintenance with the rest of the engine still running. In some configurations it could be used to increase efficiency at low power settings. [[User:PiusImpavidus|PiusImpavidus]] ([[User talk:PiusImpavidus|talk]]) 10:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
= August 25 =
and please help me to understand why we need an edcation.
== Alphabetic principle ==
:The phrase is a quote from "[[Another Brick in the Wall]], Part II" a song by [[Pink Floyd]] on their album ''[[The Wall]]''. As to why education is necessary, please read [[education]]. [[User:Angr|Angr]]/<small>''[[User talk:Angr|talk]]''</small> 15:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I know that the alphabetic principle has been discussed extensively with the Latin alphabet. But what about Cyrillic alphabet? Or Thai alphabet? Or Mongolian alphabet? Or Korean alphabet? What about Arabic or Hebrew which would be abjads? If one learns Japanese kana and then the Chinese characters first, or Mandarin phonetic symbols and then the Chinese characters first, or even the old-school style of reciting the classics with the teacher first, then would the task of reading alphabets feel completely daunting? Or is that not-so-daunting because English language education is actually taught as a foreign language in the countries, starting in elementary school, making it more seamless for them? [[User:Yrotarobal|Yrotarobal]] ([[User talk:Yrotarobal|talk]]) 03:51, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
I can think of two good reasons why an education is needed:
:In ''[[Kingdom of Characters]]'', Jing Tsu wrote for the introduction about her own experience having to learn English and its English alphabet as a girl ahead of her family's planned move to the US. Growing up in Taiwan, during her critical-acquisition period she became familiar with, of course, {{zhi|漢字}} and [[zhuyin]]. In her case (p. xv):
#To know that contractions like "don't" contain an apostrophe.
:<blockquote>The determined effort to learn English was overkill, it turned out. My siblings and I learned to write the alphabet letters in no time. It was, to use an English idiom that took me many years to get right, a walk in the dark (park). There was just one problem: I had no feeling for the Western alphabet. I strained to relate to its form, despite the ease of picking it up. The written form was strangely empty of expressiveness, and the sounds attached to the letters felt arbitrary and emotionally flat without the tonal fluctuations of Chinese—the sounds I was born into.
#To know that "don't need no" is a double negative and that "don't need any" should therefore be used, instead.
:</blockquote> <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff"> 🌈 </span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 08:29, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks for the response.
::<small>I was born in China and came to America at the age of 4-5. I was only just exposed to the casual spoken language and Tang poetry, but the Tang poems were all recited. No written language exposure except for the newspapers that my mom and dad read and the children's books brought over from China. So, I naturally picked up the Latin alphabet; I don't know what you mean by "feeling" or "form". I used to think that English was the logical, more rational, language with strict grammatical rules and Chinese is the intuitive, more emotional, language with common sense. I was an introverted kid, so I interacted with books and the teachers more often than peers; and I might have adopted a very academic/educational writing style. I might have become more self-aware when I was 21, when I participated in that StraightDope online forum and one forum member complained how one forum member (me) would always write in complete sentences, respecting formal grammatical rules, asking questions as if I appeared from outer space. When I was in my high school sophomore class, I mentioned the word 'totalitarianism' in class and the American studies teacher and the class didn't know what I was talking about, but fortunately for me, I was more literate than I was social, so I spelled it out, and the teacher corrected me by stressing on the 2nd syllable, not the 1st syllable. Somehow, stressing on the 1st syllable makes a whole different word. I don't think it's a stress or tone or intonation or prosody issue, because both English and Mandarin have prosody and intonation and stress. Cantonese sounds choppy and more syllable-timed to me, but then again, that's not my Chinese background. It's just that, at the time, I was just exposed to the word by reading it instead of hearing it. LOL</small> [[User:Yrotarobal|Yrotarobal]] ([[User talk:Yrotarobal|talk]]) 13:43, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:The "[[alphabetic principle]]" means, in its "pure", most extreme form, a [[one-to-one correspondence]] between a set of [[grapheme]]s (letter signs) and the set of [[phoneme]]s of a language, a [[phonemic orthography]]. I don't think there are 100% pure instances of uses of the [[Latin alphabet]], but close contenders are [[Italian orthography|Italian]] and [[Turkish orthography|Turkish]]. [[English orthography|English]] is notoriously impure, as illustrated by the creative respelling ''[[ghoti]]''.
:Whether texts written in some alphabet adhere to this alphabetic principle does not depend on the alphabet itself, but on the [[orthography]] of a specific language for which it is used. [[Cyrillic alphabet|Cyrillic]] is used for many languages ([[Church Slavonic]], [[Rusyn]], ...), many of which have their own (Cyrillic) alphabet. Their orthographies tend to largely follow the alphabetic principle, but there are notable deviations – which may be regular. For the uses of other alphabets the situation is similar. I don't think there are languages whose writing system uses an alphabet but whose orthography has totally abandoned the alphabetic principle.
:The most pure instances can be expected when a new alphabet is created for some language, such as the [[Deseret alphabet]] for English, or when an alphabet is introduced for a language that before used a different writing system, such as the [[Turkish alphabet reform|Latin alphabet for Turkish]] and [[Dungan alphabets|Dungan]], both (independently) in 1928. Αs time passses, impurities creep in.
:Impurities arise mostly through changes in pronunciation that are not reflected in a more conservative orthography. The [[Old English]] adjective ''ruh'' and its [[Middle English]] descendant ''rough'' were pronounced with a final /x/, as is today's Scots ''roch''. When the English pronunciation changed to final /f/, the spelling did not follow suit. When the Romans borrowed words from Ancient Greek that were spelled with a [[phi]] ({{serif|Φ}}) or [[theta]] ({{serif|Θ}}), such as {{serif|φθίσις}}, which has both, these letters were pronounced both in Greek and in Latin with aspirated consonants, /pʰ/ and /tʰ/, which was reflected in the Latin spellings {{serif|PH}} and {{serif|TH}}. These spellings remained when /pʰ/ became /f/ in Latin (and first /ɸ/, later also /f/, in Greek) and /tʰ/ became unaspirated /t/ in Latin (and /θ/ in Greek). Learned borrowings from Latin in many English, French, German and other languages written in the Latin alphabet just copied the Latin ph/th spelling even if otherwise adapting the borrowing, and this orthographic relic was even carried over to newly coined words based on Greek stems, such as ''hydro<u>ph</u>obic''. For more on this, see {{section link|Phonemic orthography#Deviations from phonemic orthography}}.
:Like in English, the modern orthography of [[Hangul]], the Korean alphabet, tends to be based on the pronunciation of the [[morpheme]]s of which words are composed, ignoring phonemic changes due to neighbouring morphemes. Other than that, it is mostly phonemic. ​‑‑[[User talk:Lambiam#top|Lambiam]] 13:14, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::I guess I wasn't sure what the original question was, because "is a perfectly shallow orthography conceptually difficult for those not accultured" didn't make much sense to me? <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff"> 🌈 </span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 13:18, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::I don't think any natural language evolved naturally from a community of people can be pure in the logical or rational sense. To subscribe to the alphabetic principle, a man-made concept, is a bit weird. Why would a natural phenomena subscribe to any man-made concept perfectly? Are man-made concepts like the alphabetic principle merely used to describe nature? Aren't these academic/university subjects derived from the study of natural philosophy? [[User:Yrotarobal|Yrotarobal]] ([[User talk:Yrotarobal|talk]]) 13:50, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Languages do not subscribe to principles. If principles are subscribed to, it is by people. The very notion of a [[writing system]] is a human contrivance, and an [[orthography]] for a natural language based on a writing system is doubly contrived. Yet, for recording spoken text in a language so that others can later read it and take note, I feel it makes sense to subscribe to the principle that it be recorded according to some shared orthography for this language. Moreover, it also makes sense (IMO) to design this orthography somewhat rationally and not assign arbitrary combinations of signs to words. As to the alphabetic principle, it is helpful for teaching, learning and using an orthography. So it is (IMO) good when creators of an orthography pay attention to it and apply it, not blindly but within reason. ​‑‑[[User talk:Lambiam#top|Lambiam]] 01:34, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
::::You said: "The "alphabetic principle" means, in its "pure", most extreme form." I didn't know why in the world you had to go to extremes or purity or whatever. So, I responded: "I don't think any natural language evolved naturally from a community of people can be pure in the logical or rational sense." The focus was on the word PURITY. I merely added logic/reason because the "alphabetic principle" sounds like a rational explanation or plausible explanation for a natural phenomenon to me. Anyway, the rest of your post seems to be directed to creators of an orthography (often people who work in government or conlang people), and I am neither. I am just a regular student, studying to be a primary school teacher. That's all. [[User:Yrotarobal|Yrotarobal]] ([[User talk:Yrotarobal|talk]]) 02:25, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::There is nothing natural about any writing system. All (natural scripts, not [[conscripts]], which are works of art, not meaningfully a system intended for use as writing) were created primarily to solve human problems, not for the properties they happen to display in themselves. Here's a fun fact: the alphabet was only invented once (see [[History of writing]])—all other alphabetic writing systems adapted in social contexts aware of previous alphabetic writing. What we should take away from that is the notion of "individual sounds" as units we construct words and all language from is, in likelihood actually deeply counter-intuitive to humans not already acculturated to thinking about speech in such terms. As far as we can tell, pre-literate societies were aware far less, if at all, of language as a series of discrete events like sounds or words instead of a continuous flow of sound. Of course, words as an abstraction are quite useful in the same way, but we had to invent that concept and apply it where it didn't exist in our minds before, just like most every aspect of orthography. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff"> 🌈 </span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 06:35, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::"There is nothing natural about any writing system." Yes. That is exactly what my textbook (Speech to print : language essentials for teachers) says, that was mentioned once in my former course and mentioned again in this current course. Nothing natural about the writing system. That was NOT what I was saying in my original post. I mentioned "any natural language" in the sense of the spoken language, the language that a baby learns, not the markings on paper or wood or some kind of material. [[User:Yrotarobal|Yrotarobal]] ([[User talk:Yrotarobal|talk]]) 11:56, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::Its is not uncommon to use the term "pure" in relation to the alphabetic principle:
:::::*{{serif|A complete analysis of the current writing system would reveal several deviations from a pure alphabetic principle.}}<sup>[https://books.google.com/books?id=jO-_5aZHK-AC&pg=PA4&dq=%22pure+alphabetic+principle%22&hl=en]</sup>
:::::*{{serif|However, if the alphabetic principle were applied in its pure state, numerous extra symbols would be required.}}<sup>[https://books.google.com/books?id=CfQ5CgAAQBAJ&pg=PT424&dq=%22alphabetic+principle%22+%22in+its+pure+state%22&hl=en]</sup>
:::::*{{serif|It is obvious that this is not true and that American English is more complex and departs from the pure alphabetic principle to a greater degree than do some other languages, such as the Hawaiian.}}<sup>[https://books.google.com/books?id=bI40AAAAMAAJ&dq=%22pure+alphabetic+principle%22&hl=en]</sup>
:::::None of these linguists is claiming that purity is desirable or even achievable, but the notion helps in explaining the alphabetic principle. ​‑‑[[User talk:Lambiam#top|Lambiam]] 13:00, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::I would rather use the term 'theoretical'. Their use of 'pure' means 'theoretical' in my mind. Translating it into my own idiolect. [[User:Yrotarobal|Yrotarobal]] ([[User talk:Yrotarobal|talk]]) 03:38, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
= August 26 =
Hope that I helped bring a bit of dark sarcasm into your world. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 19:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
== Mená Jména ==
:What you all don't realize is really how smart Pink Floyd is. I believe they intentionally phrased the lyrics that way so that the kids would go "Woo! Screw grammer! We dun nead no edumacation!" and the grammatarians would go "Tee hee, 'tis a doubling negativity! Little dos they knoweth that they are promotionizaling our causum!" and the only people left unhappy are all the foreigners that don't get either. [[User:Freshgavin|<font size="-2" color="white" style="background:blue"> freshgavin </font>]][[User_talk:Freshgavin|<font size="-2" color="white" style="background:blue">TALK </font>]] 03:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
[[Slovak]] is closely related to [[Czech]], to the point of very high mutual intelligibility. What I noticed is that a few Slovak given names are quite divergent from their Czech equivalents. They seem much more similar to their German/Latin version. Some examples of Czech - Slovak names are: Alexandr - Alexander, Jiljí - Egid, Jindřich - Henrich, Arnošt - Ernest, Evžen - Eugen, Bedřich - Frederik, Řehoř - Gregor, Štěpán - Štefan, Anežka - Agnes, Anděla - Angela. I wasn't able to find counterexamples of Czench names looking more "Germanic" or "Latinate" than their Slovak equivalent. Understandably a lot of names are similar or identical between the two languages. Is there a linguistic or historical reason for this difference? Thank you! [[Special:Contributions/80.180.16.18|80.180.16.18]] ([[User talk:80.180.16.18|talk]]) 08:40, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
::Hey! I'm one of those bloody foreigners and please don't tell me what I do or don't get! (Actually, I never looked at it that way, but that's not the point here.) [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 10:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
:Sometimes the differences might be due to different cultural influences, although I am not sure that is the case here. A noteworthy example is [[Hindustani]], where higher vocabulary in Hindi seems to be taken from Sanskrit or English, and higher vocabulary in Urdu seems to be taken from Arabic. [[User:Wakuran|惑乱 Wakuran]] ([[User talk:Wakuran|talk]]) 12:36, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
::While I don't know if this has a major influence on choosing baby names, an obvious cultural difference is [[religion in Slovakia]] and [[religion in the Czech Republic]]. A majority of Slovaks identifies as Catholic, while almost half of the Czech population is irreligious, with only about 9% identifying as Catholic. Historically, Czech anti-Catholic sentiment goes all the way back to the [[Battle of White Mountain]], fought on 8 November 1620, so this runs deep in Czech culture. ​‑‑[[User talk:Lambiam#top|Lambiam]] 13:14, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
= August 27 =
::And it's foreigners ''who'' don't get either. Of course now you're going to tell me that was all clever and intentional, but I just beat you to that, so you'll have to come up with something different. :) [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 18:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
:::I reserve my right to speak the modern language of Canadian youth! Either that or I blame the [[Australian]]s! [[User:Freshgavin|<font size="-2" color="white" style="background:blue"> freshgavin </font>]][[User_talk:Freshgavin|<font size="-2" color="white" style="background:blue">TALK </font>]] 03:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
== Latin ==
:That band really had an activist streak. The lyric makes sense if you consider the next one: ''"We don't need no thought control."'' So it wasn't like they didn't need to be educated, but that they didn't need to have an education that was full of things they would need to unlearn later. -[[User:LambaJan|LambaJan]] 03:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
What does this say? The google translate output is terrible. Thanks.
::Apparently we Australians have more influence in the world than we have been given credit for. Even quiet achievers appreciate acknowledgement, so thanks Freshgavin. [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 07:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
:Ullam qui culpa officiis quo accusamus et numquam. Non dolor exercitationem expedita et rerum. In corporis delectus et magnam rerum. Et maxime natus sed aut temporibus dolor qui.
:::Don't take too much credit. I just live in a place where Ozzies are more numerous than my own kind their mannerisms are starting to seep into my routines. But you're welcome anyways. (And, as a Canadian, I'm ''proud'' to say anyway'''s'''.) [[User:Freshgavin|<font size="-2" color="white" style="background:blue"> freshgavin </font>]][[User_talk:Freshgavin|<font size="-2" color="white" style="background:blue">TALK </font>]] 06:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
[[Special:Contributions/2601:644:8581:75B0:A9D3:7DB9:DFD1:E1F2|2601:644:8581:75B0:A9D3:7DB9:DFD1:E1F2]] ([[User talk:2601:644:8581:75B0:A9D3:7DB9:DFD1:E1F2|talk]]) 03:26, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
::::You must be mistaken, mate, we don't have mannerisms. It's all those bloody foreigners who have mannerisms, accents, idiosyncracies ...... Anyhow, I'll still consider you reasonably well educated despite [http://www.grammartips.homestead.com/anyway.html this]. Cheers [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 06:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::Thanks ; ). [[User:Freshgavin|<font size="-2" color="white" style="background:blue"> freshgavin</font>]][[User_talk:Freshgavin|<font size="-2" color="blue">ΓΛĿЌ </font>]] 06:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
:My Latin is ''extremely'' rusty, but I suspect that the translation you have already obtained (and which I have also checked) is accurate, and that this is intentional nonsense, perhaps along the lines of [[Lorem ipsum]]. However, a genuine classicist may correct me. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} [[Special:Contributions/90.210.150.115|90.210.150.115]] ([[User talk:90.210.150.115|talk]]) 07:32, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
== Semi-deponent verbs ==
:: Yes, it's "lorem ipsum" text (you can find it used as such on some websites), and it's completely jumbled gibberish – much more chaotic than the classic "lorem ipsum" text itself with its still-recognizable echos of its Cicero original. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 08:06, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
:::My initial impression is that, unlike Lorem Ipsum, all the words seem to be actual Latin, though. They're just jumbled together largely random. [[User:Wakuran|惑乱 Wakuran]] ([[User talk:Wakuran|talk]]) 11:16, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
:::The text above is much more of a scrambled mishmash than most lorem ipsums, but many (perhaps all) words therein are found in the (proper) Latin source texts given in our article on [[Lorem ipsum]], which also offers translations to English. It is not a completely random string of Latin words; there is a vague resemblance to sentences composed of constituent phrases, evoked by the use of function words such as ''qui'', ''quo'', ''et'', ''sed'' and ''aut''. But this text does not get anywhere near (possibly senseless but) grammatically correct Latin, so it is not even possible to give a word-by-word translation. ​‑‑[[User talk:Lambiam#top|Lambiam]] 12:23, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
::::As with the German gibberish used in "[[The Funniest Joke in the World]]". ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 13:27, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, the lorem ipsum explanation makes sense. [[Special:Contributions/2601:644:8581:75B0:A9D3:7DB9:DFD1:E1F2|2601:644:8581:75B0:A9D3:7DB9:DFD1:E1F2]] ([[User talk:2601:644:8581:75B0:A9D3:7DB9:DFD1:E1F2|talk]]) 20:40, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
In answer to an earlier question on this page, Gareth Hughes gives a link to the article on deponent verbs. Out of curiosity I followed the link and came across a reference in the article to semi-deponent verbs in Latin. Apparently they are active in form in the present, imperfect and future, but passive in form in the perfect, pluperfect and future perfect. I can't for the life of me think of any such verb in Latin. Could someone enlighten me please? Thanks. By the way, perhaps we also need an article on defective verbs, which I see we don't have yet. I could write it in relation to Latin, but if the concept is relevant in other languages it will need someone cleverer than me.[[User:Maid Marion|Maid Marion]] 16:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
= August 28 =
:I can think of two, and found two more in my grammar, (given in the present and perfect tenses):
#''audeo'' (I dare) — ''ausus sum'' (I have dared)
#''gaudeo'' (I rejoice) — ''gavisus sum'' (I have rejoiced)
#''soleo'' (I am unaccustomed) — ''solitus sum'' (I have been unaccustomed)
#''fido'' (I trust) — ''fisus sum'' (I have trusted)
:--[[User:Garzo|Gareth Hughes]] 17:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
== Time expressions ==
::Thanks Gareth. I'd never really noticed that the perfect active forms of such common verbs as these are missing. By the way, on soleo you mean 'accustomed' rather than 'unaccustomed'. [[User:Maid Marion|Maid Marion]] 17:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Does English ever say "half a year" for a period of 6 months? Or "every half a year" like Finnish ''puolen vuoden välein''? Is a period of 18 months "one and a half years"? Is it common to write "1.5 years" or 1{{frac|1|2}} years? Like "1.5-year-old child", with spoken as "one-and-a-half-year-old child"? Similarly, is 12 hours "half a day" and 36 hours "one and a half days"? --[[User:40bus|40bus]] ([[User talk:40bus|talk]]) 19:30, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Ah, yes: thinking too hard! --[[User:Garzo|Gareth Hughes]] 18:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
:In British English, "half a year" is a possible expression if meant vaguely, but is not normally used for a precise period of 6 months; specifying 6 (or 5, or 7) months is standard. One would also normally say (for example) "a year and a half" rather that "one and a half years", but it would be more common to refer to "eighteen months".
::::Couldn't resist one final point. Checking this out last night in Gildersleeve and Lodge I found the four verbs you cite, apparently the only ones of their kind. But they also mention the reverse case: revertor is passive in form in the present, but 'reverts' (ho ho) to active in the perfect (reverti). [[User:Maid Marion|Maid Marion]] 08:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
:"1.5 years" is never (in my experience) said or written (probably because 0.1 of a year is not really a thing), and in general "1.5" anything is usually only used in a scientific or mathematical or at least precision measurement context.
:Again, "half a day" might be said if precision is not involved, "It will take me half a (or the) day to do this task", otherwise the quantity of hours would be stated; and "a day and a half" rather than "one and a half days" is usual.
:All that said, English is flexible, and tolerant of errors and oddities from non-native speakers, so all the forms you mention would be ''understood'', though they would mark the speaker as non-fluent. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} [[Special:Contributions/90.210.150.115|90.210.150.115]] ([[User talk:90.210.150.115|talk]]) 20:26, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
::Fractional number of years is [http://science.nasa.gov/learn/basics-of-space-flight/chapter1-2/ common in astronomy,] though "Earth years" is often specified to distinguish from years on other bodies. '''[[User:cmglee|cmɢʟee]]''' [[User_Talk:cmglee|τaʟκ]] <span style="font-size:80%;">(please add <code>{{ping|cmglee}}</code> to your reply)</span> 23:39, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
:::<small>Agreed (I read Honours Astronomy at university), but I thought this, like other highly specialised scientific usages, lay outside the scope of the OP's question. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} [[Special:Contributions/90.210.150.115|90.210.150.115]] ([[User talk:90.210.150.115|talk]]) 08:24, 29 August 2025 (UTC)</small>
== Is the word ''shush'' the only English word (besides its derivatives), containing two sounds of ʃ, and not being a compound word (like ''shapeshifter'' or ''shoeshine'')? ==
:::::I can't say I've thought that much about it, but I would have thought that it was a straightforward third conjugation in ''reverto'', which my little pocket dictionary confirms — very odd! I also thought that, if we allow compound verbs to be counted, we could have the semi-deponents ''confidere'' and ''diffidere''. --[[User:Garzo|Gareth Hughes]] 11:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
[[Special:Contributions/2A06:C701:745A:B800:B559:3320:A4F4:C460|2A06:C701:745A:B800:B559:3320:A4F4:C460]] ([[User talk:2A06:C701:745A:B800:B559:3320:A4F4:C460|talk]]) 21:00, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
== surname ==
:[[Yogi Bear]] often used the interjection, "Sheesh!" ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 21:21, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
:No. [https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/sheepish Sheepish]. [[User:Bazza_7|Bazza <span style="color:grey">7</span>]] ([[User_talk:Bazza_7|talk]]) 22:55, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
::Also ''shortish'', ''sharpish'', ''hashish'', ''shisha'', ''baksheesh'', ''mishmash'' etc. '''[[User:cmglee|cmɢʟee]]''' [[User_Talk:cmglee|τaʟκ]] <span style="font-size:80%;">(please add <code>{{ping|cmglee}}</code> to your reply)</span> 23:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
::P.S. This Python script:<syntaxHighlight lang="python">
#!/usr/bin/env python
import re
with open('cmudict-0.7b.txt') as f:
for row in f.read().splitlines():
if re.findall(r'(.*\bSH\b){3}', row): print(row)
</syntaxHighlight>run on http://svn.code.sf.net/p/cmusphinx/code/trunk/cmudict/cmudict-0.7b found no words with three ʃ.
::P.S. I must show ''conscientious'' ''appreciation'' for your ''initiation'' of the ''negotiation'' on our ''relationship'' ;-) '''[[User:cmglee|cmɢʟee]]''' [[User_Talk:cmglee|τaʟκ]] <span style="font-size:80%;">(please add <code>{{ping|cmglee}}</code> to your reply)</span> 00:12, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:By the way, I'm not sure on whether ''showshine'' is a typo for ''shoeshine'', I've seen some products with names like ''showshine'' or ''showsheen'', though... [[User:Wakuran|惑乱 Wakuran]] ([[User talk:Wakuran|talk]]) 12:04, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:[[shish kebab]] – [[user:filelakeshoe|filelakeshoe]] ([[user talk:filelakeshoe|t]] / [[special:contributions/filelakeshoe|c]]) [[user:filelakeshoe/kocour|🐱]] 12:05, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
::Oh, sorry, of course it was just a typo. Thanks to your attention, I've fixed it! [[Special:Contributions/2A06:C701:745A:B800:B559:3320:A4F4:C460|2A06:C701:745A:B800:B559:3320:A4F4:C460]] ([[User talk:2A06:C701:745A:B800:B559:3320:A4F4:C460|talk]]) 13:25, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
= August 29 =
I am looking for anyone who might know something about the surname Mocio. We think is Polish but then we think it might have roots from somewhere else, as it is not very common in Poland either (one of us is Polish but can't find any information)and I can't find either. For example, if you seach for Mocio in an Italian website, you get results, but nothing really related to a surname. I can't find anything in genealogy websites either.
Anyone who might have an idea about meaning, origin, anything at all and solve the mistery?
thanks a lot :)
:It seems Italian; when I google it some of the first results are for Stefano Mocio, the mayor of [[Orvieto]]. [[User:David Sneek|David Sneek]] 19:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
== frontispiece ==
Can a frontispiece of a book be a quote or does it have to be an illustration?
: I've found no references that say it can be merely a quote. But there's no reason why an illustration could not incorporate words. You could start off with a quote, illustrate the words, and that would qualify as a [[frontispiece]]. [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 19:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
So, if I want to use only a quote and not an illustration, would I still put it where the frontispiece goes?
:Yes, but you call it an [[epigraph]], not a frontispiece. [[User:Angr|Angr]]/<small>''[[User talk:Angr|talk]]''</small> 20:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
* Hmm, this gives me another question: What do you call the title page that preceeds the title page? I mean when you have a page consisting of just the title (and possibly the author) followed by a more elaborate title page on the next page? I remember that there was a word for it in German, but what's the English word? Or does it qualify as a frontispiece as well? --[[User:BluePlatypus|BluePlatypus]] 06:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
:I think a frontispiece is by definition a picture. What's the German word? [[User:Angr|Angr]]/<small>''[[User talk:Angr|talk]]''</small> 06:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
:: I think it's "half-title" (see [http://dogbert.abebooks.com/abe/TextToHtml?t=Glossary&h=x&f=glossary.htm here]). [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 07:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
::: As well as "bastard title" and "fly title". So many names, and I didn't know a single one! :) --[[User:BluePlatypus|BluePlatypus]] 07:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
:: "Schmutztitel" (dirt-title). --[[User:BluePlatypus|BluePlatypus]] 07:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
:::Admissions of lack of omniscience lend a person a certain ''je ne sais quoi'', BluePlatypus. [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 07:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
::::My German dictionary glosses ''Schmutztitel'' as "half-title", so I think we have our answer. [[User:Angr|Angr]]/<small>''[[User talk:Angr|talk]]''</small> 07:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
== Lancelot ==
I know he's French, and I know his name is French, but I'm trying to translate the 'du lac' bit into Welsh. Since I don't know Welsh, I used a translator. Going from 'of the lake', I get 'chan 'r llyn'. Using 'du lac', I get 'unrhyw llyn'. Which is a better translation? [[User:Ductapedaredevil|Ductape]][[User_talk:Ductapedaredevil|Daredevil]] 20:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
:And is there any way I can crush it into one word, like Bedwyr's 'Bedrydant', 'of the perfect sinews'? [[User:Ductapedaredevil|Ductape]][[User_talk:Ductapedaredevil|Daredevil]] 21:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
::[[Welsh language|Welsh]] often signifies possession by placing the words together: ''y gath yr eglwys'', the church cat. --[[User:Garzo|Gareth Hughes]] 21:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
::::Yes, but you don't double the definite article. It's ''cath yr eglwys'', not *''y gath yr eglwys''. [[User:Angr|Angr]]/<small>''[[User talk:Angr|talk]]''</small> 06:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
:::But it's not posession. It's not Lancelot's lake, it's the lake he is from. [[User:Ductapedaredevil|Ductape]][[User_talk:Ductapedaredevil|Daredevil]] 21:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
:I wouldn't count either of them as a satisfactory translation - "unrhyw llyn" means "any lake", and I can't figure how you got "chan 'r llyn" - you don't get consonant + 'r anyway, and do you really mean "chan", mutation of "can", a song? I'd say "o'r llyn" anyway... - [[User:Arwel_Parry|Arwel]] ([[User talk:Arwel_Parry|talk]]) 22:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
::Like I said, I don't speak Welsh, so I used an online translator. (Sorry, just noticed the last part. Thanks!) [[User:Ductapedaredevil|Ductape]][[User_talk:Ductapedaredevil|Daredevil]] 01:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
:::I agree with Arwel. If the machine translator gave you ''chan'' as Welsh for "of", it's completely unreliable. (Even worse than most machine translators.) "Lancelot of the lake" meaning "Lancelot from the lake" is ''Lancelot o'r llyn'', while "Lancelot of the lake" meaning "The lake's Lancelot" (possession) would be ''Lancelot y llyn''. [[User:Angr|Angr]]/<small>''[[User talk:Angr|talk]]''</small> 06:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
::::Thank you! [[User:Ductapedaredevil|Ductape]][[User_talk:Ductapedaredevil|Daredevil]] 21:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
:I think [[Michael Lafosse|"Prince Michael of Albany"]] says in his book ''Bloodline of the Holy Grail'' that ''du Lac'' was really a mistaken form of ''del Acqs''. I have no idea whether mainstream scholars agree with this, though. [[User:Ardric47|Ardric47]] 00:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
::Coming a bit late to this, two things. First, there is at least one (and possibly more than one) web-based English/Welsh translation program whose results have been causing hilarity on Welsh mailing lists and and weblogs for a while, to the extent that people were feeding it song titles for entertainment. This looks a very typical sample of its output. Second, Lancelot apparently has his own name in Welsh: Lawnslot! This is according to ''Geiriadur yr Academi'', which is a big English->Welsh dictionary. (Alas, it offers no opinion on du Lac, sorry.) --[[User:Telsa|Telsa]] [[User talk:Telsa|(talk)]] 16:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
= February 9 =
== Schwa accent ==
I am trying to convert a document from plain text that has the following note. (Note: Weston's first "Titan" above had schwa accents over the vowels, the second "Titan" had macron accents over the vowels). I found what the macron accent was but I can find no reference to a schwa accent that could be put over a vowel. From all I see a schwa is ə. Here is the lines the note is refering to with the macrons added in: ''M. Van Gennep in his Rites du Passage, that the original form was Titan, 'White-clay men,' which later became Tītān, 'Giants,' and she draws attention to the fact that daubing the skin with white clay is a frequent practice in these primitive rituals.'' Any help would greatly appreciated the full text is at [[s:From Ritual to Romance/Chapter VII#ref_16]]. The paragraph follwing the 16th footnote.--[[User:BirgitteSB|<font color="#f4a460 ">Birgitte§β</font>]] ʈ [[User talk:BirgitteSB|<small><font color="#778899">Talk</font></small>]] 00:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
:It will be a [[diacritic]] that marks a [[reduced vowel]]. The [[IPA]] letter /ə/ is used to mark a mid-centralised vowel that is often called a [[schewa]]. The mark is probably a [[breve]]: ǎěǐǒǔ. --[[User:Garzo|Gareth Hughes]] 01:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
::What GH has shown there aren't breves ‹˘› but [[caron]]s ‹ˇ›.
::Schwa with [[macron]] ‹¯›: ‹ə̄›
::Schwa with breve: ‹ə̆›
::Schwa with caron: ‹ə̌›
::As for the “schwa accent”, Wikipedia says:
:::''“A [[mid-centralized vowel]] is a vowel closer to the center of the vowel space than some point of reference. That is, it is closer to schwa [ə]. The diacritic used to mark this in the International Phonetic Alphabet is the over-cross, [ ̽].”''
::Hence, it would be ‹Tı̽ta̽n›.
:::''“The diacritic for <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[Centralization (phonetics)|centralisation]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> in the International Phonetic Alphabet is the dieresis, < ¨ >.”''
::Hence, it might even have been ‹Tïtän›.
::However, I seriously doubt that all this current IPA usage is of any help, seeing that [[Jessie Weston|Weston]] died in 1928. [[User:Wikipeditor|Wikipeditor]] 23:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
= February 10 =
== Tone ==
The internet has caused us to be very demanding of the written language, and in English this seems to cause a lot of problems with tone because there don't seem to be very many effective and well known ways of communicating the proper tone in English. So if I want to tell a sarcastic joke and make the person I'm writing to laugh, I'll probably make them upset because unless they know me in real life and know I wouldn't say that unless I was joking. So people invented emoticons to pick up the slack, but they're kind of annoying and not always effective.
So my question is: Are there other languages where tone isn't a problem and written internet communication is a lot easier? And what are the best mechanisms built into in languages to communicate tone? -[[User:LambaJan|LambaJan]] 03:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
:I don’t think there are any natural languages or [[Constructed language]]s which would fit the bill, not even imaginary languages (certainly not [[Klingon language|Klingon]], for example. I suppose you could point to [[Formal language]]s, but in the end they can only tell you that 1=1.
:Whether in speech or writing, in any human language, words and their meanings are only a relatively small part of what is communicated. Tone, gestures, eye movements, pauses and hesitations, and numerous other signals convey not only THE message but a host of sub-messages as well, most of them unconscious. In turn, what the hearer/reader understands is influenced by an equally vast complex of conscious and unconscious, intellectual and emotional, experiential and intuitive expectation. That’s why [[Data transmission|data communications]] are so much simpler. --[[User:Halcatalyst|Halcatalyst]] 03:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
::Yeah, simpler, but more difficult because most of those cues that you mentioned are lost in the transmittion. Is there any language that even comes close to accomidating this? I suppose it wouldn't have been so necessary in the past... But it would be nice to know about now. At least to know what mechanisms have been effective in this regard. -[[User:LambaJan|LambaJan]] 04:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
::: There are languages with more explicit [[grammatical mood|moods]] than English (''e.g.'' [[Japanese (language)|Japanese]]). Maybe [[setting tone|tone]] can be conveyed more easily in these. [[User:Eequor|‣<font size="+1">ᓛᖁ</font>]]<span class="venus">[[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|♀]]</span>[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:User talk:Eequor}} <font size="+1">ᑐ</font>] 04:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I kind of like the method used by one contributor here, fake HTML tags:
<sarcasm> George Bush is the guardian of our personal freedoms. </sarcasm>
[[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 04:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
:Don't know if it can convey proper tone, but romance languages share many common words, these were collected and combined with an ultra simple grammar to produce < tada sound effect >[[Interlingua]]. And its very natural. No new constructed words are used.--[[User:Jondel|Jondel]] 11:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
:<sarcasmo> George Bush es le guardator de nostre libertates personal. </sarcasmo>
::Some languages do use [[tone (linguistics)|tone]] to do a lot more than we use it for in English, and in some writing systems ([[Burmese alphabet]]) these are marked. Other languages use grammatical particles (little words) to express shades of meaning that we cannot mark in English (this is especially true of some American languages, and borrowed in the constructed [[Láadan]]). In written English, we can use a number of features that suggest that the words are not to be taken literally:
::#George Bush is the Guardian of our Personal Freedoms. (sometimes a bit too subtle)
::#George Bush is the 'guardian of our personal freedoms'.
::#George Bush is the "guardian of our personal freedoms".
::#George Bush is the ''guardian of our personal freedoms.''
::You don't have to make your writing look like a [[markup language]]. --[[User:Garzo|Gareth Hughes]] 13:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
:::The [[Tone (linguistics)|tonal languages]] use pitch to distinguish words, not to convey subtle meaning, as I believe LambdaJan was asking about. "Tone" is the speaker's attitude toward his/her subject matter or audience; it may be conveyed by word choice, as in
:::*I am firm
:::*You are stubborn
:::*He is pigheaded
:::but more likely in non-verbal gestures, tone of voice, and the like. As mentioned above, there are also many ways to communicate attitude in writing.--[[User:Halcatalyst|Halcatalyst]] 16:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
== Dutch theme song ==
Anybody here know Dutch? I'd like a translation of a Dutch TV show theme song:
Je bent een bluffer,
Je blijft een bluffer,
Je droomt en bluft erop los.
Je bent niet suffer
Maar wel weel duffer
Al ben je soms ook wel de klos.
De wereld gaat niet goed
Dus heb je een idee
Hoe het leven anders moet,
Maar hoe je ook bluft en doet,
Het zit niet altijd mee.
:<small>[I made few minor corrections - DS]</small>
[[KeeganB]]
::You are a bluffer
::You will stay a bluffer
::You dream and bluff freely.
::You are not more dozy
::But a lot stuffier
::Even if you're sometimes a sucker too.
::The world isn't going well
::So you have an idea
::How life should be different.
::But no matter how you bluff and act,
::It isn't always going your way.
:It doesn't make more sense in Dutch. [[User:David Sneek|David Sneek]] 07:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate the translation. [[KeeganB]]
==There is, are?==
Which is correct: "there is a man, a woman and a child in the buidling", or "there are a man, a woman and a child in the building"?
:In US English, "are" is correct. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 11:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
:'are' because you are refering to (plural) a man, a woman and a child. --[[User:Jondel|Jondel]] 11:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
::I agree with that, up to a point. The verb in the expletive construction "there is/are" is governed by the subject that follows it. The subject in this example is not ''"a man"'', but ''"a man, a woman and a child"''. That is plural, hence the verb is "are". But there's the problem of euphony. "There are a man .." sounds ugly and takes effort to clearly enunciate, so most people would naturally say "there is a man .." or "there's a man ..", and only died-in-the-wool pedants would quibble. (These are the same people who would draw attention to the misspelling of "building" as "buidling".) To avoid the clash between theory and practice, it'd be best to recast the sentence. eg. "A man, a woman and a child are in the building". [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 11:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Both are correct (from a prescriptive and otherwise POV). --[[User:Christopher Sundita|Chris S.]] 13:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
*Thank you, JackofOz especially, and I am not correcting the 'buidling' typo because correcting it might render JackofOz's parenthetical illustration slightly less pointed.
::Frailty, thy name is written humour. This was an attempt at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Take the piss out|taking the piss out of myself]] to balance out the lofty academic tone I had adopted. It was not a swipe at your spelling. I had to borrow that reference to make the point that this was not a point I was making. (I think I'm getting into this linguistic quicksand too deep, so I'll just stop now.) [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 01:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I prefer the verb agree with the closest item (agreement by proximity); "There ''is'' a man, a woman and a child in the building." Think of the sentence this way: "''There's'' a man, ''there's'' a woman and ''there's'' a child in the building." —[[User:Wayward|Wayward]] <small><sup><font color="#6BA800">[[User talk:Wayward|Talk]]</font></sup></small> 19:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
==India-born, Indian-born==
Could someone explain the difference, if any?
:The first means 'born in India', the second means 'born an Indian'. I've never actually heard the first one used, but it would be a reasonably way to describe e.g. the British people born in India during the Raj. [[User:Markalexander100|Mark]][[User talk:Markalexander100|<sup>your words</sup>]] 10:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Also note that "Indian" can be taken in the US to refer to [[Native American]]s. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 11:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
"Indian born" doesn't seem to make sense if you're claiming it means "born an Indian". If someone's born an Indian (ethnicity), they're going to die an Indian, or any other ethnicity. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 04:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
:It can also refer to their citizenship. A person born an Indian citizen who later takes out Romanian citizenship would be correctly described as an "Indian-born Romanian". This would not suggest that they have ceased to be ethnically Indian because, as you say, nothing will ever change that. [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 06:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
==Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis==
Ok, I've looked everywhere to see the pronunciation of pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis. I've used very ditionary at the library i could find. I'm geting kind of desperate. Please if you could help me I'd be thankful.
P.S. Don't ask me how I know that word.
:As Sgt. Wojciechowicz on ''[[Barney Miller]]'' used to say when people asked him how to pronounce his name, "Just like it's spelled." [[User:Angr|Angr]]/<small>''[[User talk:Angr|talk]]''</small> 11:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
::Many problems become easier if they're broken into smaller, more manageable segments. Try this: '''pneumo - ultra - micro - scopic - silico - volcano - coniosis'''. [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 12:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
:::You left out a '''no''' between '''pneumo''' and '''ultra'''. [[User:Angr|Angr]]/<small>''[[User talk:Angr|talk]]''</small> 12:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
::::The '''pneumo''' version is the one I've always known, and it gets 744 Google hits. But you're right, the '''pneumono''' version gets 26,000 hits. Which is all a bit academic now since we know it's a hoax word, so there's no such thing as the correct spelling (because if there were, that would make it a legitimate word.) [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 00:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
:I hate long words like this that really should be two words. ''Pneumonoultramicroscopic'' is an adjective, and ''silicovolcanoconiosis'' is a noun. ''Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious'' is the same way. There's no glue holding together ''supercalifragilistic'' and ''expialidocious''. —[[User:Keenan Pepper|Keenan Pepper]] 16:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Let's see: ''pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis'' --> pneu-mo'no-ul'tra-mi'cro-scop'ic-sil'i-co-vol-ca'no-con'i-o'sis, since the syllable emphasisis is presumably similar to that of the word components when used elsewhere in English. ''Coniosis'' [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=coniosis means] "Any of various diseases or pathological conditions caused by dust." So the word refers to a lung condition caused by very fine silicon dust from a volcano. It's good to know what one is talking about; probably the word has a valid use in medicine, grotesque and comical as it may seem to us laypersons. --[[User:Halcatalyst|Halcatalyst]] 16:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
:Not really, it is a hoax, but see [[pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis]] and [[longest word in English]], too. [[User:Rmhermen|Rmhermen]] 17:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
::The [[Oxford English Dictionary]] defines it as "a factitious word alleged to mean ‘a lung disease caused by the inhalation of very fine silica dust’ but occurring chiefly as an instance of a very long word." Note also that Keenan's complaint is right -- adjectives ending in -ic don't normally turn into prefixes without a change of ending. "Pneumonoultramicroscopic'''o'''silicovolcanoconiosis" would have been a more natural, or at least less unnatural, formation. But in fact -scopic- is really not contributing to the meaning anyway, and a scientist who was going to invent a word along these lines would probably omit it. Further, the order of the components is odd. "Volcanoultramicrosilicopneumonoconiosis" seems more sensible. --Anonymous, 02:04 UTC, February 11.
:When you refer to the [[P45|p45]] article, you may realize that it was not a hoax. It was a funny hypothesis that made sense. Like poesis (poetry), you first imagine reality and then it becomes real. Hoaxes do sometimes. --[[User:Harvestman|DLL]] 13:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
== What do you call... ==
Given that one collecting coins is numismatic, what would you call a collector of clean jokes or humor? Just curious--- Thank You- JAC, Pittsburgh, PA. USA
:How about ''humorista''? (modeled on ''turista'') --[[User:Halcatalyst|Halcatalyst]] 03:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
:I looked all over for a proper Greek word for this, but couldn't find one. [[Roget's Thesaurus]] lists ''humorist, wit, wag, joke, jester, funnyman, quipster, tease, teaser, gagster, gag writer, wisecracker, jokesmith, ironist, satirist, lampooner, caricaturist, cartoonist, comic, comedian, straight man, clown, buffoon''. —[[User:Keenan Pepper|Keenan Pepper]] 18:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
:If a Latin root will do, we can turn to ''ludicrous'' << L. ''ludicrus'' << ''ludus'', a play or game, and add a Greek suffix to derive ''ludicrousmatic''. Perhaps that will do? Or '''ludichrismatic''', maybe? ..."annointed with fun," a glaringly awful Greek-Latin amalgam which might strike some people as funny, and has the added advantage of sounding somewhat parallel to ''numismatic''. --[[User:Halcatalyst|Halcatalyst]] 02:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC) <small>(forgive me)</small>
::Actually, a collector of coins is a '''numismatist''', so a collector of jokes might be a '''ludichrismatist'''. [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 02:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
*Just look at what we've [[Neologism|contributed]] to the world [[Half-life|today]]. {{user Very Happy}} --[[User:Halcatalyst|Halcatalyst]] 04:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you SO much. being a "ludichrismatist" is perfect. Whether it is in Webster's yet or not makes no difference in my situation. Way too long of a story but, I just needed a viable word and you have come through for me. Many thanks to you Halcatalyst. The best definition for me personally (meaning as a person) is 'Buffoon' but that is yet another story. ;)
== English,Chinese Learning ==
--[[User:HydrogenSu|HydrogenSu]] 16:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
:: 我其实会说中文。可是我的中文不太好。我觉得数学比中文容易！我有很多中国朋友，他们在美国学习，他们没告诉过来我你写的字。对不起我说中文说
得糟糕！[[User:Dmharvey|Dmharvey]] 15:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
:It's ok. You've tried your best. Great. What you wrote have some grammar problem,like:
:我其实会说中文。可是我的中文不太好。我觉得数学比中文容易！我有很多中国朋友，他们在美国讀書，他们没跟我說過你所写的字。对不起我中文说得很糟(糕)！
:For the above,I've given you totall which will be better.
:The word 糕 can be ignored. Keep trying and you'll improve in 中文!
:Might:In Taiwan,早點=早餐. In [[Mainland China]],people say 早餐,not早點. And saying "早上好(Good morning)" not 早安(said by Taiwaneses).
--[[User:HydrogenSu|HydrogenSu]] 17:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
----
:You would never say "have some stuck" in any English, but would either say "have some trouble" or "get stuck". The phrase "advice in appropriate time" is also awkward, and you should say "quick advice", instead. Let's look at another one of your sentences:
''The Chinese leader thought something hide in his mind:Wow......I don't understand what this tall white guy talking about in public.''
:That should be:
''The Chinese leader thought to himself: "Wow...I don't understand what you're talking to the public about."''
:Also, it wasn't clear whether the "you" is the Chinese leader or the US President. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 17:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
::The Chinese leader is Hu. The US President is "who?". [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 05:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
:"Je vais chercher ___" means "I am going to look for ___". [[User:Ardric47|Ardric47]] 05:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
*I feel that En. always exists some trouble in it and makes confusing. That is while people is going to express "You / Your" of some of you. (1 or more You?) .....Wound it be 1 or more?
:If the same cases in French or in Chinese...etc--It's much better.
:EX:
:'''Vos calendiers ; Votre calendier''' ; Ton .... ; Ta.....
:'''=Your several ones' cal.''' ; Your.....
:Not talking about 中文 here. 'Cause too difficult for most Westerns. --[[User:HydrogenSu|HydrogenSu]] 14:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:And-d what I critized was for "Languages", '''NOT LIKE''' ... do it for a "PERSON".--[[User:HydrogenSu|HydrogenSu]] 14:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
= February 11 =
== coëval ==
Any idea what this word means in the following sentence. I can't see how it means "contemperary" in this context. ''whose gardens were kept forever green by the streams from the neighboring hills, and shaded with the trees sacred to Minerva and '''coëval''' with the foundation of the city, — whose circuit enclosed''--[[User:BirgitteSB|<font color="#f4a460 ">Birgitte§β</font>]] ʈ [[User talk:BirgitteSB|<small><font color="#778899">Talk</font></small>]] 00:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
:It means the trees existed when the city was founded. —[[User:Wayward|Wayward]] <small><sup><font color="#6BA800">[[User talk:Wayward|Talk]]</font></sup></small> 01:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
::Thanks for the quick answer. It is a rather obtuse way of wording, but obtuse seems to his style.--[[User:BirgitteSB|<font color="#f4a460 ">Birgitte§β</font>]] ʈ [[User talk:BirgitteSB|<small><font color="#778899">Talk</font></small>]] 03:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
==Missouri==
Hi. Some time ago, I added a question at [[Talk:Missouri#Pronunciation]] about the pronunciation of [[Missouri]]. There were lots of non-IPA answers (i.e. ones that didn't really help me). The only proposed IPA was /mɪsˌsɚɹi/ and /mɪsˌsɚɹə/, both of which look kind of awkward to me. Could someone check these for accuracy, or provide correct ones? Thanks in advance. --[[User:Rueckk|Rueckk]] 12:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
:Done. [[User:Angr|Angr]]/<small>''[[User talk:Angr|talk]]''</small> 13:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
::Thanks a lot! --[[User:Rueckk|Rueckk]] 14:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
= February 12 =
== Chinese head dress ==
What is the name of the cone shaped hat worn by chinese workers especially those working in rice paddies?
:I've always heard them called [[coolie hat]]s. [[User:Angr|Angr]]/<small>''[[User talk:Angr|talk]]''</small> 15:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I associate those hats more with the Vietnamese than the Chinese. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 21:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
== Language Academies ==
Why is that English speaking nations never bothered to create an institution for defining their language, like France?
:Perhaps they feel, as I do, that any attempt to define the language will ultimately fail, as languages evolve over time. It's quite similar to planning a city, versus letting it evolve naturally. Planned cities usually outgrow the planned area and continue to evolve naturally, as would any language. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 18:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
::A language is shaped by its speakers and writers, then defined, in a limited and very technical sense, by specialists (linguists, lexicographers, grammarians, etc.). In France the Académie Française, which did once arguably fulfil a useful function, now neither shapes nor defines the language and is largely ignored. In short, I think that if English-speaking countries felt the need for such institutions, they would have them. - [[User:Mu|Mu]] 19:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
::Perhaps because we fear people might enforce its rulings... --[[User:Garzo|Gareth Hughes]] 19:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
: French doesn't have a body for 'defining' it. The French academy makes recommendations (which few care about), and print dictionaries, but they don't define the language. Neither does a dictionary: definition is in usage. Linguists don't make up words to be included in a dictionary and used by the people. It's the other way around; people use words and the linguists put them in the dictionary. Most institutions don't even make recommendations, the Swedish Academy, heavily similar to the French one, are satisfied with awarding Nobel prizes, publishing dictionaries and a century-long project of creating an [[SAOB|etymological one]]. But they don't even try to make recommendations on usage. That said, there are some instances where it's successful, as with the Icelandic language committee. Most European languages have had several official spelling reforms. English could certainly use one. Paradoxically, English is very liberal towards introducing new words, and very conservative towards spelling. Which makes for the massively inconsistent English spelling. --[[User:BluePlatypus|BluePlatypus]] 21:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
::Part of the reason for that is that the pronunciation of many words has changed over time (and continues to do so, and at a seemingly increasing rate). To try to keep pace with pronunciation changes by constantly altering spelling would not be a good idea. The inconsistency of English spelling is a part of the charm and challenge of the language, and moreover it keeps a lot of teachers and linguists employed. [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 22:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
:::The opinions of the various national academies do carry a certain weight in society though. I remember a Spanish girl, who was being teased about her southern accent, replying that she was "permitted by the Real Academia" to pronounce "Z" as "ss" not "th" because she was from Andalucia and it was an officially-sanctioned regional variation. This was said spontaneously in the middle of a normal teenage conversation about something else entirely. So obviously she at least had been conditioned into thinking that these things matter. [[User:Jameswilson|Jameswilson]] 00:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
:::: Oh definitely! Since the rise of modern society, up until the late 20th century, regional dialects all over Europe have been in trouble. Ranging from having low status ("You sound like a farmer!") to being banned outright (Franco's Spain). Institutions have played a very important role in helping increase the status of and promote dialects, as you point out one of the many examples of. But there's of course a bit of difference between an institution telling someone to be proud of how they speak and telling them to speak differently than they do. --[[User:BluePlatypus|BluePlatypus]] 17:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
::: I disagree. The main problems in English are loan-words (which English alters the spelling of less than other languages, and I believe I can prove that), and the retention of archaic spellings from before spelling had been regularized. All languages have shifting pronunciation, so that's not a problem particular to English. --[[User:BluePlatypus|BluePlatypus]] 17:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
::::OK. Let's say we decide to reform English spelling to better reflect pronunciation. Next question: which pronunciation? There are so many local varieties of spoken English that it would be impossible to ever reach consensus about which is the "correct" one. To have a different spelling for each different pronunciation of the same word, would be a recipe for confusion far worse than that which obtains today. [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 21:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
::::: On one hand that's true; on the other, beyond wide spread and consistent vowel shifts and likewise consistent pronounciation of r issues, the major dialects of English are fairly consistent in broad pronounciation. If you largely take a pass on the fine details of vowels (since there are way more vowels in English than we have vowel letters to spell them) and leave the r's alone (since they represent one pronounciation, and where they are lost and found in other dialects is fairly predictable), you could devise a better spelling that better represents all major dialects of the English language.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] 22:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
::::::But is there really a great desire for change? Really? I think that there is such a huge amount of intellectual capital invested in our love of words and their lore, that any serious impetus for change would be resisted very strongly indeed. I've read many proposals for revised spelling, but have never been attracted to any of them because, well, they just don't look right and they don't produce the right feeling in my breast - which is the best explanation I can give. Once a person has a reasonable grasp of any written language, they no longer perceive words letter by letter but as discrete word-units. Make any change to the "look" of those units - however well justified that may seem - and you're in for trouble immediately. A spelling such as "yoosij" (instead of "usage") looks foreign to me, and I have to consciously process the meaning before I move on the next foreign-looking word, which makes for a slow, unpleasant and tiring experience, exactly the opposite of how reading should be. So spelling reform is really only pandering to those who have not yet started to learn the language, to the complete disregard of the billions of people who already have. Think of the huge issues it would create, far worse than any issues it would seek to address. Would the whole of English literature need to be re-spelled retrospectively? If so, who would have that unenviable task? If not, we'd have 2 separate canons of writing co-existing, which would inevitably create "us and them" issues. There is a significant right-brain, emotional, gestalt component to reading, speech and communication generally, which is not commensurate with the entirely mathematical, logical, left-brain approach that some proponents of spelling reform advocate. [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 23:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
::::::: Now we're at the heart of the issue; people aren't happy with change. Responding to the non-emotional parts of your post...
::::::: It's true that those who know English know would have to relearn spelling, but that would be a one time event. Every child has to tediously learn the connection between the written word and the spoken word, in a way that's much more complex than any other language written with an alphabet, and those billions of children outnumber the current speakers of English.
::::::: Yes, the whole of English literature would need to be re-spelled; a respelling of the Book of Mormon in [[Deseret]] took a couple hours ([http://homepage.mac.com/jhjenkins/Deseret/BoM.html John Jenkin's page]) for a first attempt; I suspect a computer program could assist a human to do most books in a couple minutes. The only problems would be printed books and books that aren't in regular spelling. A successful conversion would convert everything in print and everything digitalized in a few years. Many libraries I've see replace large parts of their collection every few years; in a decade or two, many public libraries would have the bulk of their material in modern spelling. I don't think it would be hard enough to master two orthographies that there would be a significant us versus them.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] 02:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
::::::::Language and communication is an inherently emotional subject. Ignore that at your peril. You're dead right - people aren't happy with change (and with a colossal change such as this, they would be well justified in their resistance). That is a major issue that anybody seriously contemplating this sort of project would have to think long and hard about. You're way ahead of me on the technical side of doing the respelling. The billions of people I mentioned are not just the people for whom English is their sole or primary language, but also the people for whom it is a secondary or other language, or who have learnt it to some degree but who use it only occasionally. They live in every country on the planet, and they would all need to be re-educated. Best of luck to anybody undertaking this project. [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 03:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
::::::::: But whatever figure you give for the number of people today, you have to figure that people will continue to be born and continue to learn English. And the people for whom it is a secondary or other language are the people who would benefit most, for whom it is the most troublesome to have to learn the spelling and pronounciation of every word seperately, unlike in Russian or German.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] 06:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::That's right. Look, I just think there is no case for anybody embarking on this. Inconsistency is not a reason for the sort of change I think you're suggesting. Humans are brilliant at tackling complexity and inconsistency. The law is a colossal minefield of inconsistencies, but our whole society is based on it. Language learners have to remember thousands of words and rules as it is, most of which have exceptions, so why is remembering these pronunciation-spelling disconjuncts a hugely greater burden? They're no worse than the verbs of motion in Russian, which still elude me. Even if there were a compelling case for spelling reform, the spread of English throughout the world means that the sorts of international cooperation you'd need would make Kofi Annan extremely envious. [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 07:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::If you want an example of a centralised spelling reform, look at [[German spelling reform of 1996]], an attempt to make the (also somewhat archaic) German spelling rules more consistent. The controversy has still not died away, and the result is a mish-mash between people using the old and the new rules. — [[User:QuantumEleven|QuantumEleven]] | [[User_talk:QuantumEleven|(talk)]] 08:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::: Humans have a pain learning English spelling. Note how many adult native English speakers have trouble with spelling? Do you really think that learning 10,000 words of written English partially disjoint from spoken English is no big deal? Vocabulary is one of the hardest things of a new language. To be entirely honest, the US and UK could push it through together. It'd be just like metric and the Gregorian calendar; the big boys pick it up and everyone else has to follow or be left behind.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] 19:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:: Yes, but that's normal. 10 years isn't that long in these terms. It takes a few decades for any such reform to reach full impact. And to answer some of the points above: Noone would have to re-learn spelling, because the new spelling would be more intuitive, since it'd be more consistent with the rest. As for burden: Why make things more difficult than they need to be? Should things be difficult for the sake of being difficult? I just don't buy the arguments. It can be done. It ''has'' been done. And English does have less consistent spelling than most languages. None of the counterarguments raised so far are specific to English. Other languages have local variations in pronunciation as well. Other languages have shifting pronunciations too. Other languages have inconsistencies too. But English has a singularily inconsistent spelling. So, please phrase any further arguments as "Unlike other languages, spelling reform can't be done in English, because unlike other languages English..." --[[User:BluePlatypus|BluePlatypus]] 11:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
::: Yes, they'd have to learn the new spelling, both the principles behind it, and to recognize it fluently. It has been done, but the major written languages, like German, have made minor spelling changes, and the languages that have changed scripts (which this would be almost as bad), like most of the Turkic languages, have had generally low levels of literacy and not a large body of widespread literature.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] 19:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
*The German spelling reforms (a) seem to have been low in number compared to the task faced by reformers of English spelling and (b) were confined to 4 countries, compared with hundreds.
*The Gregorian calendar hasn't been universally accepted, after 424 years.
*Metric is a country-by-country thing (the USA, for example, is still holding out). Don't expect to change English spelling in only one country at a time. It's effectively the language of the world.
*Nobody has suggested making things any harder than they need to be. Spelling and pronunciation of many words has diverged over time because the pronunciation keeps changing. That divergence has occurred gradually, word by word. Spelling reformers are about making massive changes in one fell swoop.
*BluePlatypus, if your last sentence about phrasing was a request, I must graciously decline in order to retain my independence. If it was a command, I refuse. [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 20:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
: I refuse to permit the world to hold my language hostage. Any group has the right to deal with their language as they will. If the US wants to change the spelling of their language alone, then we have that right. More realistically, the half-dozen countries that actually speak English natively--the US, the UK, Ireland, Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa (and arguably India)--can and should feel free to make any such changes and the rest of the world can deal. I don't see any difference between this and metric and Gregorian reforms. Yes, countries could hold out at their own expense, but the only major non-metric country is big enough to ignore the rest of the world.
::You forgot Australia. [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 10:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
::Yes, USA or any country can change its spelling, so off you go then. I'll be the first to congratulate you if you can achieve what you're suggesting. But I wonder this: if the USA has held out about the metric system, why would she be so willing to embrace spelling reform? [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 10:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
: Yes, you've suggested keeping things harder then they need to be. There is no reasonable non-flag day solution to this.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] 04:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
:::That is a flawed argument, which I'll now formally dub the '''"Prosfilaes Proposition"''': ''Those who oppose an idea, no matter how ill-founded the idea may be and how sound the objections may be, are responsible for denying the alleged benefits of the idea to the intended recipients of those benefits.'' That doesn't wash with me at all. It is up to you to demonstrate this idea has merit. I remain unconvinced.
:::An abstruse statement like ''"There is no reasonable non-[[flag day]] solution to this"'' (whatever it means) is certainly no exemplar of the simplicity and ease of communication you seem to be advocating. [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 10:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
::I have to ask, do any of you actually ''want'' to change spellings? I don't have any problem with a rousing theoretical debate, but I hǎv tū wǔndr ūaē ěnē nātiv spēkr wūd wǒnt ěē pyrlē fōnětik sistǔm. Even if the vowels were fudged, it'd look ridiculous, and I just don't see the benefit. [[User:Black Carrot|Black Carrot]] 23:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
::: How can you say it would look ridiculous without even looking at it? I think writing English in [[Tengwar]] would look beautiful; it might be ridiculous, but that's a different matter. You don't see the benefits in making literacy in English vastly easier to obtain by children and students?--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] 04:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
== World records and firsts ==
Two questions below. [[User:Jay|Jay]] 19:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
# A [[world record]] according to the article is the "'''best''' performance in a certain discipline". If a person did something unique in the world for the '''first''' time, would that be a world record ?
# Words corrsponding to best - fastest, highest, busiest, longest, shortest, etc. - would come under the umbrella word "superlatives". What similar category would the "first" words come under ?
: 1) Yes, but perhaps a somewhat meaningless record. To be a ''record'' it of course has to be ''recorded'', so the word does imply that it has to be something worth recording, something someone cares about. 2) "First" doesn't have a superlative form because it's not [[comparative]]. It stands for itself: You can't be "more first" or "less first". So "first" is an ''absolute'' adjective. --[[User:BluePlatypus|BluePlatypus]] 21:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
:: 1) Hasn't World Record lost the literal meaning of "recording" that you've mentioned and come to mean a recognition of abilities and events as the definition suggested ? 2)Oh ok, I omit the words "similar category". What general category would the word "first" come under, if I go by Wikipedia:categories naming ? [[User:Jay|Jay]] 22:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
:::"First" is an [[ordinal number]]. [[User:Angr|Angr]]/<small>''[[User talk:Angr|talk]]''</small> 22:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
::: If the word "record" has lost its meaning in that sense, give an example of a record which isn't recorded? (Impossible of course, since you'd be recording it in doing so) But there are record-books specifically for these things.. and in most people's minds being in "the record books" is what makes a record a record. --[[User:BluePlatypus|BluePlatypus]] 17:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
== Crackers ==
From whence comes the term "Crackers"? As in Georgia Crackers, or those little square things we eat?
:The edible crackers are so called because they can be cracked, unlike bread. For the people, see [[White cracker#Etymology]]. —[[User:Keenan Pepper|Keenan Pepper]] 23:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
"Should salt-free saltines just be called '''ines''' ?" [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 06:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
== For ever and ever. ==
One frequently hears the expression "for ever and ever", especially popular in Catholic prayers. Why the redundency? The only explanation I can think of is that one forever would be forever in time and the other forever would be forever in distance.
Any body have any other thoughts on the subject?
:IIRC, in Catholic prayers it's usually a translation of Latin ''in saecula saeculorum'', literally "into ages of ages". Maybe whoever first translated it into English decided to mimic the repetition of the Latin word by repeating an English word. [[User:Angr|Angr]]/<small>''[[User talk:Angr|talk]]''</small> 22:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
:It's a form of emphasis; the theological meaning can be taken as "beyond the ages," that is, eternal. As a religious formula, the expression is similar to Jesus' admonition to forgive "seventy times seven" = always. --[[User:Halcatalyst|Halcatalyst]] 01:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
::The repetition also occurs in other languages, it's not just an English thing. [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 01:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
== bio-poems ==
what about them? [[User:Sputnikcccp|<span style="color: black">СПУТНИК</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sputnikcccp|<span style="color: maroon">ССС</span>]] [[Special:Emailuser/Sputnikcccp|<span style="color: maroon">Р</span>]]</sup> 23:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
:Oh, buy, oh, buy my poems: a penny a line! --[[User:Garzo|Gareth Hughes]] 01:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
::''sp:'' [[biro]]-poems? --[[User:Garzo|Gareth Hughes]] 01:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
:Something by a [[Confessional poet]]? --[[User:Halcatalyst|Halcatalyst]] 01:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
= February 13 =
== organogram, organigram ==
Anybody knows anything about these words?
: [http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-org1.htm This] was the very first hit on my Google search. [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 05:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
::I would have thought 'org chart' was preferred. That's the wording always used in Dilbert. [[User:Black Carrot|Black Carrot]] 22:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:::Yes, that's short for an '''organizational chart'''. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 00:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
== leg-eating ==
We have words such as carnivorous, omnivorous, icthyophagous etc. Can anyone suggest a plausible similar word that might mean 'leg-eating'? [[User:DJ Clayworth|DJ Clayworth]] 16:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
:Well, one could make up the word ''crurivorous'', I suppose. Google does not show the existence of that word, though. [[User:Angr|Angr]]/<small>''[[User talk:Angr|talk]]''</small> 18:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
::'Tis a fine word, and will bear repetition. =P —[[User:Keenan Pepper|Keenan Pepper]] 01:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:Actual existence isn't an issue here. I just need something plausible-sounding. Thanks. [[User:DJ Clayworth|DJ Clayworth]] 22:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
::I was going to suggest podophagous, or podivorous (even though it's mixing roots, it does have a nice ring to it), and found a Google hit to support it, but then i checked it and it turned out to be "arthro-podivorous" and i was disappointed. I did find [http://phrontistery.info/feed.html this] great site though, so all's well that ends well. [[User:Sputnikcccp|<span style="color: black">СПУТНИК</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sputnikcccp|<span style="color: maroon">ССС</span>]] [[Special:Emailuser/Sputnikcccp|<span style="color: maroon">Р</span>]]</sup> 23:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
:::If you'd rather it had Greek roots, I think ''skeleophagous'' is the way to go. [[User:Angr|Angr]]/<small>''[[User talk:Angr|talk]]''</small> 07:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
::I think ''podivorous'' will do nicely. Thanks to all. [[User:DJ Clayworth|DJ Clayworth]] 18:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:::"I asked my friend if he was ''podivorous'', and he admitted that he was a bit of a 'leg man'." [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 00:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
::::Grumble. Should be ''pedivorous''. —[[User:Keenan Pepper|Keenan Pepper]] 03:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::Or ''crurophilous'' [http://www.islandnet.com/~egbird/dict/c.htm] [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 03:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
= February 14 =
== "Summer Reunion" ==
Some friends and I want to name a reunion we're planning for this summer, and we'd like the name to mean "summer reunion" (or something along those lines) in a foreign language but also be aesthetic and relatively short. Any suggestions, polyglots? ;-) Thanks, anon.
:How about "[[wikt:Estival|Estival]] [[wikt:Festival|Festival]]" in Latiny English? --[[User:Garzo|Gareth Hughes]] 01:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
::I like that! But if you prefer "aesthetic" to "esthetic", then you may also prefer the spelling "Aestival Festival". If you move to French, you can get the same meaning -- still a festival or fair rather than a reunion as such -- with similar repeated letters, but no rhyme: "Fête d'été" (pronounced like "fett-day-tay"). --Anonymous, 02:56 UTC, Feb. 14.
== Greek/English word overlap. ==
In English, "Right" can refer to both the direction (Opposite left), and the idea ("Correct", "Ideal", etc). My question is: Is there any word in Greek, or more importantly a common word that can also do this? Thanx [[User:68.39.174.238|68.39.174.238]] 02:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:That relationship is present in many languages. I think the Greek word ''ορθος'' (''orthos'') is what you're looking for. —[[User:Keenan Pepper|Keenan Pepper]] 04:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
::That was a rather [[orthodox]] answer. It's ironic that left frequently has a much more sinister meaning: [http://www.dpjs.co.uk/moon.html]. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 00:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
== Cantador ==
I've checked a number of Spanish dictionaries and there is no definition for cantador. I think it's a variant of cantante but I'm not sure. Anybody know the meaning? [[KeeganB]]
: From "cantar" ("to sing") you add the "-dor" making it an occupation and you get "cantador" ("singer"). --[[User:BluePlatypus|BluePlatypus]] 11:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:My not too big (Prisma) Spanish - Dutch dictionary has the following translations (trans-trans-lated by me into English): Cantante: singer, Cantador: street singer, 'songsinger', Cantaor: flamenco singer, singer of Andalucian folk songs. 'Songsinger' is a literal translation. It suggests a more casual singer of easy tunes. The variation with the dropped 'd' is a consequence of the way the language is pronunced in southern Spain. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 12:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:: Ah. I retract my last answer. I thought he was asking what "cantador" meant, but now that you point it out I realize that it's this subtle difference between 'cantante' and 'cantador' that KeeganB was after. --[[User:BluePlatypus|BluePlatypus]] 12:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
It's the first time I ever hear the word...maybe because it's spanish from spain... but it seems like its meant to mean ''singer'' but the way a child who is learning to speak would say it. --[[User:Cosmic girl|Cosmic girl]] 14:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
== on discourse analysis ==
Dear Sir:
I am writing to inquire if notes about Brown and Yule's book (1983)'discourse analysis' are available in your website. I am now preparing an exam about discourse analysis and I would like to read some introduction notes to the book. Since that book is often chosen as a textbook, I wonder if there are notes (e.g. summary or lecture notes) on that book available on the internet. I tried to search for them on the Wikipedia but I failed to find any. Could you please give me some information about how to get them if you happen to know it?
Thank you for your attention to my inquiry.
Your faithfully,
Luise Tsai
:Sorry, we don't have notes about textbooks here. This is an encyclopedia. We do, however, have an article on [[discourse analysis]], if that helps. [[User:Angr|Angr]]/<small>''[[User talk:Angr|talk]]''</small> 22:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
== Dr. vs Dr ==
Does the contraction of Doctor have a period? If it makes a difference, I live in the southern United States. [[User:Black Carrot|Black Carrot]] 22:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:In the U.S. (northern as well as southern), it does. In British English, it does not. [[User:Angr|Angr]]/<small>''[[User talk:Angr|talk]]''</small> 22:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I would expect that only female doctors would have a period. :-) [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 23:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:Unless they were (pregnant/prepubescent/menopausal/sterile/freakishly skinny). € = ) [[User:Black Carrot|Black Carrot]] 00:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
::I haven't run into a prepubescent female doctor since I was prepubescent myself. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 05:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
A related question. I read a grammar rule in a dusty book a few years ago related to periods and abbreviations. The rule was that the period is only used to represent missing letters. For example, it is not used in Doctor since the first and last letters are present (D****r). This rule allows the differentiation between Fr. (FRiar) and Fr (FatheR). Does this grammar rule have any substance (in British English at least, since that what I try to speak)? --[[User:Commander Keane|Commander Keane]] 06:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
:There are missing letters in both the 'Doctor' and 'Friar' cases. Are you talking about missing ''terminal'' letters?
:If that was ever a rule, it has certainly gone by the board now. The abstruseness of the distinction would escape all but the most knowledgeable grammarians. Whether a period is used at the end of an abbreviation comes down to style. '''Fr''' and '''Fr.''' could both mean either Father or Friar nowadays. [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 07:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
::It certainly was, and ''is'' a rule in British English that contractions that end in the same letter as the original word do not take a contraction. It isn't just relativley uncommon words such as Dr and Fr - the much more mundane Mr and Mrs are also covered by it. Has it gone by the board now? Well, it may not be widely known but, at the same time, there is still awareness of it in certain circles. Publishing houses are aware of it and often include (and explain it) in style guides. In my experience academics (in the UK) tend to be aware of it and call themselves Dr rather than Dr. with a full stop. The rule is straightforward and regular - but probably has no bearing on US usage. [[User:Mattley|Mattley]] [[User talk:Mattley|<sup>(Chattley)</sup>]] 09:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
The ''Oxford Style Manual'' on the subject:
:''Oxford Style Manual'' (2003), 3.2: ''Punctuation.'' Traditionally, abbreviations were supposed to end in full stops while contractions did not, giving both ''Jun''. and ''Jr'' for Junior, and ''Rev''. and ''Revd'' for Reverend. Handy though this rule is, common usage increasingly fails to bear it out: both ''ed''. (for editor or edited by) and ''edn''. (for edition) end in a point; Street is ''St''. with a point to avoid confusion with ''St'' for Saint. —[[User:Wayward|Wayward]] <small><sup><font color="#6BA800">[[User talk:Wayward|Talk]]</font></sup></small> 09:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
= February 15 =
== Four and Forty ==
Does any one know when and why we stopped using the U in Forty? I believe that it was still in use in the late 14th century with Geoffrey Chaucer's Canterbury Tales..
: ''Fourty'' was displaced by ''forty'' in the 18th century. That's a pretty vague time period, I admit, but the best I can do at the moment. [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 00:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
::Apparently, the "o" and "ou" spellings co-existed for a while. Shakespeare spelled the word "fortie" in [[Coriolanus (play)|Coriolanus]]. -- [[User:Mwalcoff|Mwalcoff]] 04:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
==[[Siddham]] script==
I want a font for the Siddham script. No luck on google. Where should I be looking? [[User:deeptrivia|deeptrivia]] ([[User talk:deeptrivia|talk]]) 02:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
:One of the external links in the article is http://www.omniglot.com/writing/siddham.htm which has [http://www.mojikyo.org/html/abroad/download.html a link] that supposedly includes Siddham in their [[Mojikyo]] fonts package. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</small></sup> 19:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
== right and left ==
:Looks like you forgot to ask a question. Try the search box. —[[User:Keenan Pepper|Keenan Pepper]] 05:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
::Which, interestingly enough, is on the [[left]]. [[User:Freshgavin|<font size="-2" color="white" style="background:blue"> freshgavin</font>]][[User_talk:Freshgavin|<font size="-2" color="blue">ΓΛĿЌ </font>]] 06:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
:::Oh wow. Maybe that's why they were confused. =P —[[User:Keenan Pepper|Keenan Pepper]] 15:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
== Spanish ao ==
Seeing the word "cantaor" made me curious: When Spanish speakers drop the "d" in between vowels, are the wowels still pronounced seperately or are they made into a diphthong? For example, is it can-ta-or or can-taor? [[KeeganB]]
:They'd still pronounce it as three syllables. (can-ta-or). And the d is sort of dropped but not all the way dropped, sort of. I don't know how to describe it. [[User:Proto|<span style="text-decoration:none"><span style="text-underline:none"><font color="#007700">Proto</font></span></span>]]<font color="#555555"><b>||</b></font><small>[[User_talk:Proto|<span style="text-decoration:none"><span style="text-underline:none"><font color="#007700">type</font></span></span>]]</small> 13:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
::Well, Spanish ''d'' is often changed from a [[voiced dental plosive]] to a [[voiced dental fricative]], and it may be even further weakened to some kind of [[approximant consonant]]. See [[Spanish phonology]]. —[[User:Keenan Pepper|Keenan Pepper]] 15:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
When saying it in syllabes it will always be 'can-ta-or' (3 syllabes), but if you just say it like a word its cantaor, all in one time...and it is this way with every single word in which this dropping of the 'd' occurs...this is way more usual in spain, but in latin america it's sometines said for joking purposes or for slang. --[[User:Cosmic girl|Cosmic girl]] 23:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
== Translation ==
Hi,
Can someone please translate the following sentences in German?
Eternal glory awaits you, enlist (in the army) today.
Thanks a million!
| 