Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language
| |||||||||
How to ask a question
| |||||||||
|
| ||||||||
After reading the above, you may
. Your question will be added at the bottom of the page. | |||||||||
How to answer a question
|
| ||||||||
See also Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language/FAQs for answers to frequently asked language and usage questions.
If you would like to have a text translated, you might want to post on this Wiktionary page.
May 3
Word from the definition
I recently started reading To Kill A Mockingbird and there is a part where the main character goes outside while it's snowing and hold out her tongue to catch a snowflake. She proceeds to say to her brother that it burns. He tells her that it is just so cold that it feels really hot. What I was wondering was what is the term used for this, that is something being so cold it feels hot, and the word for something being so hot it feels cold. Thanks. schyler 01:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think there's a specific word, unless painful fits the bill. Did you see cold burn? --Shantavira 08:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- If nobody else answers, you might try reposting in Science. Don't do it while this is still up, though, they tend to get bitchy about double-postings. Black Carrot 21:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know, but if you want to make ice cubes, don't use a metalic tray, buy a plastic one instead. I've got my fingers burnt with a very cold metalic one once. – b_jonas 22:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Difference
What is the difference between Pashto and Farsi?
Literary Response
I have a test coming up tomorrow. This is as much as we know, we get a poem or story, analyze it, and then talk about mood, point of view and so forth. We've also been told to talk about syntax, diction, and language. These all look the same (to me they really do) but their apparently different. Does anyone know how? I know language is "type" of language, ie. jargon, fomral. I was wondering if anyone knew a good website with a layout of how to write one of these essays or instructions on how to anaylze the story/poem (as I did poorly last time). Possibly something that has more suggestions on what one could write about as well, since I'm always short. Any help appreciated, thanks. C-c-c-c 02:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- I always hated these kinds of assignments too; I'll try to help you out. Syntax is the arrangement of the words, i.e. which order they go in. An author might delay an important word until the end (climax) or arrange three words in increasing order (tricolon crescens). Diction is the choice of which word to use. A good way to discuss these kinds of things is to say "if the author had used [some other word] instead, it would not have been as effective, because..." and then say the reason. Another sure-fire thing: if it's prose, talk about how it's like poetry, and if it's poetry, talk about how it's like prose. I'm not kidding, it worked for me. If you still have a decent amount of time to study check out Silva Rhetoricae; knowing a word like hendiadys or synecdoche and using it correctly is sure to win you points. —Keenan Pepper 02:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Longest Word
What is the longest word in the English language? Consider: "pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis"(sp?) -this is a lung disease but I need an English word instead of scientific names. Please help me. Thank You in advance. --Siddhant 06:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Please see Longest word in English for a discussion of this issue. Angr (talk • contribs) 06:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Thankx. You pointed the exact link. --Siddhant 07:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Upside down circumflex
What's the proper name for an upside down circumflex? --HappyCamper 06:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Caron, although you see háček a lot when referring to Slavic languages. --Diderot 06:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- In Slovene it's called a strešica. David Sneek 07:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The hacek is different from the breve. The latter is rounded, so is like an upside-down circumflex. -lethe talk + 11:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- But circumflexes are pointy like háčeks, not rounded like breves. Angr (talk • contribs) 12:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm, I guess it is as you say. I guess I have been under a mistaken impression for a long time. Is the circumflex never rounded then? -lethe talk + 17:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Not in the Latin alphabet, but the Greek circumflex is rounded. Also, there's a rounded symbol like an inverted breve that's used to indicate tone in Serbian/Bosnian/Croatian, but that isn't usually done except in linguistics discussions. You won't see it in S/B/C books, newspapers, etc. Angr (t • c) 18:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm, I guess it is as you say. I guess I have been under a mistaken impression for a long time. Is the circumflex never rounded then? -lethe talk + 17:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Haus des Meeres - correct article?
There is an aquarium in Vienna called the Haus des Meeres (House of the Seas). I don't understand why the article in the name is des - shouldn't it be der? The table here [1] shows that the plural definite article in the genitive is der, and Meeres is a plural noun. --Richardrj 08:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Nope, Meeres is genitive singular, so des is correct. Plural would be Haus der Meere -- Ferkelparade π 08:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- So Meeres means 'sea'? Then what does Meer mean? --Richardrj 08:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Meer is nominative singular, Meeres is the genitive singular form. German is one of those languages that actually distinguish between different cases of nouns (at least to some degree, the accusative form is the same as the nominative, dative is strictly speaking Meere but in today's usage, everyone uses the nominative form for dative) -- Ferkelparade π 09:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks very much - I didn't realise nouns as well as articles changed depending on the case. One more thing to learn... --Richardrj 09:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- This is of course identical to English in this regard. The sea's house. The final 's' indicates possession, both in English and in German. -lethe talk + 12:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- But when the word order is reversed in English, the final 's' is dropped - the house of the sea. The German is more like 'the house of the sea's.' --Richardrj 05:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Not quite, the German doesn't have a word corresponding to "of" in this construction. When you do use a preposition, then "the sea" is in the dative and has no "s": Das Haus von dem Meer. Using the English syntax, as in des Meeres Haus, sounds very poetical in German. It's not usual in colloquial speech or even in prose writing. Angr (talk • contribs) 05:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- But when the word order is reversed in English, the final 's' is dropped - the house of the sea. The German is more like 'the house of the sea's.' --Richardrj 05:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- This is of course identical to English in this regard. The sea's house. The final 's' indicates possession, both in English and in German. -lethe talk + 12:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks very much - I didn't realise nouns as well as articles changed depending on the case. One more thing to learn... --Richardrj 09:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Meer is nominative singular, Meeres is the genitive singular form. German is one of those languages that actually distinguish between different cases of nouns (at least to some degree, the accusative form is the same as the nominative, dative is strictly speaking Meere but in today's usage, everyone uses the nominative form for dative) -- Ferkelparade π 09:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- So Meeres means 'sea'? Then what does Meer mean? --Richardrj 08:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
On the same subject, when I get letters, they are addressed to Herrn [my surname]. Why is this? I understand now that Herrn is the genitive singular of Herr, but I don't see why that should apply here. The genitive case relates to possession - what is possessive about this? --Richardrj 09:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- It's short for "An Herrn Lastname" ("to Mr. Lastname"), and the preposition an requires a genitive. -- Ferkelparade π 10:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Genitive? Herrn is also the accusative and dative form of Herr, and an goes with the accusative, e.g. An den Bundespräsidenten (to the federal president) where dative would be dem and genitive des. —da Pete (ノート) 10:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- No, the preposition an requires an accusative, and the accusative of Herr is Herrn. Herr is a so-called "weak noun", meaning all the cases except the nominative end in n in the singular:
- Genitive? Herrn is also the accusative and dative form of Herr, and an goes with the accusative, e.g. An den Bundespräsidenten (to the federal president) where dative would be dem and genitive des. —da Pete (ノート) 10:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
der Herr des Herrn dem Herrn den Herrn
- Angr (talk • contribs) 10:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Argh, yes. Stupid mistake on my part... -- Ferkelparade π 10:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- More a mistake on my part - I was the one who mentioned the genitive :) I'm new to German and I'm struggling with the cases, especially the difference between the accusative and dative. I always thought the accusative related to the direct object of a verb, and the dative to the indirect object. But in the example above, An den Bundespräsidenten is apparently accusative, whereas I instinctively thought it would be dative (the letter is addressed to the president). Doesn't the presence of the word to automatically indicate that the object of the verb is indirect, and therefore that the dative applies? --Richardrj 10:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Unfortunately it's not as simple as that. Where there's no preposition, the accusative represents the direct object and the dative the indirect object: Ich schickte meinem Vater (dative=indirect object) einen Brief (accusative=direct object). But with prepositions, the rules are different. Usually where a preposition indicates goal-oriented motion, the accusative is used, while if there is no motion or if the motion isn't goal-oriented, the dative is used. Thus there's a difference between Die Kinder liefen in die Straße ("the children ran onto the street", i.e. the street was the destination of their running) and Die Kinder liefen in der Straße ("the children were running on the street", i.e. they were on the street and were running there). Then certain verbs adjectives take prepositions, and you just have to remember what case goes with those prepositions. For example, Ich bin stolz auf dich "I'm proud of you" takes the accusative, though it can hardly be called "goal-oriented". Or Ich glaube an dich "I believe in you" also takes the accusative, though it can also hardly be called "goal-oriented". It's one of the toughest things to learn in German grammar. I've lived in Germany for almost nine years now and speak quite good German, but this is one area I still get mixed up about. It just takes practice and, frankly, rote memorization. Angr (talk • contribs) 11:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks very much. I'm going to print that out! --Richardrj 11:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Unfortunately it's not as simple as that. Where there's no preposition, the accusative represents the direct object and the dative the indirect object: Ich schickte meinem Vater (dative=indirect object) einen Brief (accusative=direct object). But with prepositions, the rules are different. Usually where a preposition indicates goal-oriented motion, the accusative is used, while if there is no motion or if the motion isn't goal-oriented, the dative is used. Thus there's a difference between Die Kinder liefen in die Straße ("the children ran onto the street", i.e. the street was the destination of their running) and Die Kinder liefen in der Straße ("the children were running on the street", i.e. they were on the street and were running there). Then certain verbs adjectives take prepositions, and you just have to remember what case goes with those prepositions. For example, Ich bin stolz auf dich "I'm proud of you" takes the accusative, though it can hardly be called "goal-oriented". Or Ich glaube an dich "I believe in you" also takes the accusative, though it can also hardly be called "goal-oriented". It's one of the toughest things to learn in German grammar. I've lived in Germany for almost nine years now and speak quite good German, but this is one area I still get mixed up about. It just takes practice and, frankly, rote memorization. Angr (talk • contribs) 11:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- More a mistake on my part - I was the one who mentioned the genitive :) I'm new to German and I'm struggling with the cases, especially the difference between the accusative and dative. I always thought the accusative related to the direct object of a verb, and the dative to the indirect object. But in the example above, An den Bundespräsidenten is apparently accusative, whereas I instinctively thought it would be dative (the letter is addressed to the president). Doesn't the presence of the word to automatically indicate that the object of the verb is indirect, and therefore that the dative applies? --Richardrj 10:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Argh, yes. Stupid mistake on my part... -- Ferkelparade π 10:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Angr (talk • contribs) 10:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
How do languages with free word order preserve qualifier-qualified associations?
I've learnt that some languages like Sanskrit are declensional to the point that word order is totally free. If so, how would they map qualifiers like adjectives and adverbs with their corresponding nouns and verbs when there is more than one possible combination? Can someone give examples? -- Sundar \talk \contribs 09:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- If they are completely word orderless, and that declensional, I would assume you'd have different declensions for "adjective describing object noun" , "adjective describing subject noun" , and so on. Otherwise, I would assume that word order may still be a useful thing.
For example, Japanese, due to having sentence particles that denote what purpose a word has in a sentence, still uses word order for some things; adjectives are placed in the proper places, for example, and the verb always follows everything else...
I would assume other languages either use some form of word order (or simply apply adjectives to the closest noun, or even the closest noun that makes sense from context) or rely entirely on context... I'm sorry I can't help much more; I don't know Sanskrit or other examples of such orderless languages. :) Good luck in your quest for knowledge, though. -JC 09:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the answer, JC. I'm still wondering about claims of totally free word order. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 09:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- It depends on what you mean by totally free word order. Speakers generally try to keep words reasonably close to their dependencies, even when there is no specific rule concerning placement. As a result, there's usually not too much ambiguity about which modifiers refer to which words. Some people would argue that this means there are no truly free word order languages. Others would say that this has nothing to do with grammar, it is simply a by-product of speakers desire to minimise ambiguity and the limited short-term memory of speakers and listeners. I tend to fall in with the latter, although I would argue that many syntactic rules are actually a product of speakers and listeners desire to minimise ambiguity, blurring distinctions between syntax and pragmatic constraints on communication. --Diderot 11:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I get it that it's a trade-off between ambiguity and syntactic freedom. But, I want to know if constructs unambiguous in any word order exist? If so, I'd like to see some examples. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 11:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Latin and Ancient Greek are like Sanskrit: word order is completely free. Here's an example: arma virumque cano, Troiae qui primus ab oris Italiam fato profugus Laviniaque venit litora. That's the first couple lines of the Aeneid, and it translates like this, leaving the order unaltered: "arms man and I sing, of Troy who first from shores to Italy by fate driven and Lavinia and came shores". Adjectives are not near their nouns, verbs are not near their subjects, everything's all mixed up. I'm not positive that it's unambiguous; ambiguities certainly can arise, but in most cases, they're ruled out by context. Certainly in this case. Shorter simpler sentences are more immune to ambiguity, and it'd be easy to make a short sentence which is easily and obviously immune: canem agricola senecem caedit, which says "the farmer kills the old dog", in the order "dog farmer old kills". This sentence works in any order (though in Latin, and I expect also Greek or Sanskrit, some orders emphasize different words, and some might sound weird.) -lethe talk + 11:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) in Homer's epics, you can see that an adjective can be four or five words far away from its noun, generally it causes no misunderstanding as the adjective agrees with its noun in number, gender and case... but the Homeric language is an artificial one, we have no reason to believe that the ancient Greek really speak that way.--K.C. Tang 12:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- It may be true that Homeric greek was not the spoken dialect of the day, though this would be hard to back up, since little is known about the time it was written down. It's certainly true of literature at the height of the Roman republic; the written dialect was more effected than the spoken dialect. I think Homer might have come from a much less educated time, so this may not be true of him, but it's not really relevant, is it? All Indoeuropean languages 3000 years ago were heavily inflected and therefore had a large amount of freedom in the word order, spoken dialects as well. -lethe talk + 12:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for all the responses. I got the point that ambiguities in this case are not theoretically ruled out (well, they're not restricted to word-order), but most ambiguities are resolved by the context. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 12:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, ambiguities are theoretically possible. I hope you've also taken my point that sentences that are completely ambiguity free in any word order are indeed possible. That was your question, wasn't it? In particular, the sentence I gave you could never mean "the old farmer kills the dog" or "the dog kills the old farmer", no matter what you do to the word order. -lethe talk + 12:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- (edit conflicted) I noted that point too. I understand that declensions help make many sentences ambiguity-free in any word order. My initial question was about language structures that make sentences theoretically ambiguity-free for any word order. Your other point answered the follow-up question. Thanks. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 12:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- So I've answered the follow-up question, but not the initial question? I'm still not sure what the initial question is. Has it been answered? -lethe talk + 12:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- You've answered both. One part of my question was to know if languages have structures that make *all* sentences theoretically unambiguous in any word order. You've answered that with a "no". The other part was if there are examples where sentences could be unambiguous in certain cases. You've answered that as well. I know I've not been clear enough with terminology (constructs, structures). It's because I'm neither a linguist nor a native speaker of English. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 12:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oh I see. So here's a question: is it possible to imagine a hypothetical very heavily inflected language so that word order can be completely free, and no ambiguity would ever be possible? The inflections that words carry are like little pointers to other words. A feminine ending on an adjective points to a feminine noun. A plural verb ending indicates that the plural noun must be the subject. In order to make the language completely free, each word would have to contain a pointer that uniquely identified every other word in the sentence by its relation. Seems like a word would have to contain the entire sentence, and the notion of "word" would be completely lost. Every sentence would be a single "word" long, which would then have completely free order, since there is only one way to order a single word. But I'm just sort of thinking out loud, I'm not a linguist either, just a guy who minored in Latin and Greek in college, so I don't know how correct my claim is. Maybe not very. -lethe talk + 12:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Interesting thought. Well, isn't there a better way to uniquely represent the words in the sentence? Also, does every word in a sentence refer every other word in the sentence? -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oh I see. So here's a question: is it possible to imagine a hypothetical very heavily inflected language so that word order can be completely free, and no ambiguity would ever be possible? The inflections that words carry are like little pointers to other words. A feminine ending on an adjective points to a feminine noun. A plural verb ending indicates that the plural noun must be the subject. In order to make the language completely free, each word would have to contain a pointer that uniquely identified every other word in the sentence by its relation. Seems like a word would have to contain the entire sentence, and the notion of "word" would be completely lost. Every sentence would be a single "word" long, which would then have completely free order, since there is only one way to order a single word. But I'm just sort of thinking out loud, I'm not a linguist either, just a guy who minored in Latin and Greek in college, so I don't know how correct my claim is. Maybe not very. -lethe talk + 12:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- You've answered both. One part of my question was to know if languages have structures that make *all* sentences theoretically unambiguous in any word order. You've answered that with a "no". The other part was if there are examples where sentences could be unambiguous in certain cases. You've answered that as well. I know I've not been clear enough with terminology (constructs, structures). It's because I'm neither a linguist nor a native speaker of English. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 12:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- So I've answered the follow-up question, but not the initial question? I'm still not sure what the initial question is. Has it been answered? -lethe talk + 12:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- in classical Chinese poetry, you can really write "I bit a dog" to mean "a dog bit me", though Chinese, being an analytic language, has no inflections at all. In those "I bit a dog" cases, the meaning is totally determined by the context and our real life knowledge. So poetry doesn't count.--K.C. Tang 12:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Of course, context may not help with the sentence "fox tiger bit". This would be unambiguous in an inflected language. Then the word order can be put to poetic use. -lethe talk + 12:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- the point is that word order, in poetry, can be totally ignored, as long as the metre fits, no matter one is writing in an inflected language or not. So we should not use poetry as examples.--K.C. Tang 12:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- It's a good point. Poetic license can be used to get away with all kinds of things which are ambiguous or even ungrammatical from a purely syntactical point of view. -lethe talk + 12:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- the point is that word order, in poetry, can be totally ignored, as long as the metre fits, no matter one is writing in an inflected language or not. So we should not use poetry as examples.--K.C. Tang 12:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Of course, context may not help with the sentence "fox tiger bit". This would be unambiguous in an inflected language. Then the word order can be put to poetic use. -lethe talk + 12:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- (edit conflicted) I noted that point too. I understand that declensions help make many sentences ambiguity-free in any word order. My initial question was about language structures that make sentences theoretically ambiguity-free for any word order. Your other point answered the follow-up question. Thanks. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 12:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, ambiguities are theoretically possible. I hope you've also taken my point that sentences that are completely ambiguity free in any word order are indeed possible. That was your question, wasn't it? In particular, the sentence I gave you could never mean "the old farmer kills the dog" or "the dog kills the old farmer", no matter what you do to the word order. -lethe talk + 12:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for all the responses. I got the point that ambiguities in this case are not theoretically ruled out (well, they're not restricted to word-order), but most ambiguities are resolved by the context. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 12:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- It may be true that Homeric greek was not the spoken dialect of the day, though this would be hard to back up, since little is known about the time it was written down. It's certainly true of literature at the height of the Roman republic; the written dialect was more effected than the spoken dialect. I think Homer might have come from a much less educated time, so this may not be true of him, but it's not really relevant, is it? All Indoeuropean languages 3000 years ago were heavily inflected and therefore had a large amount of freedom in the word order, spoken dialects as well. -lethe talk + 12:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) in Homer's epics, you can see that an adjective can be four or five words far away from its noun, generally it causes no misunderstanding as the adjective agrees with its noun in number, gender and case... but the Homeric language is an artificial one, we have no reason to believe that the ancient Greek really speak that way.--K.C. Tang 12:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Latin and Ancient Greek are like Sanskrit: word order is completely free. Here's an example: arma virumque cano, Troiae qui primus ab oris Italiam fato profugus Laviniaque venit litora. That's the first couple lines of the Aeneid, and it translates like this, leaving the order unaltered: "arms man and I sing, of Troy who first from shores to Italy by fate driven and Lavinia and came shores". Adjectives are not near their nouns, verbs are not near their subjects, everything's all mixed up. I'm not positive that it's unambiguous; ambiguities certainly can arise, but in most cases, they're ruled out by context. Certainly in this case. Shorter simpler sentences are more immune to ambiguity, and it'd be easy to make a short sentence which is easily and obviously immune: canem agricola senecem caedit, which says "the farmer kills the old dog", in the order "dog farmer old kills". This sentence works in any order (though in Latin, and I expect also Greek or Sanskrit, some orders emphasize different words, and some might sound weird.) -lethe talk + 11:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
shuck as a noun
I'm reading James Lee Burke's "The Neon Rain", published in 1987 by Henry Holt and Company, Inc. It's the first book in the Detective Dave Robicheaux series. This series takes place in New Orleans, LA and Cajun country environs, as Dave Robicheaux is of Cajun extraction. Having been born in San Diego, I haven't a clue about some of the terminology used in the book. Wikipedia has been a great source for understanding many of the terms used in the book. However, (finally my question!) I have been unable to determine the meaning of the word "shuck" when used as noun. It is apparent that it is slang and probably regional. I would assume that it is related to the phrase "shuck and jive", and while I've heard that phrase before, I'm still not sure what "shuck" means even in this context. Thanks, Stuck-on-shuck --70.230.198.110 17:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Can you use it in a sentence? And are you sure it's a noun? Black Carrot 21:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- The American Heritage Dictonary[2] gives two noun definitions, one of which could be what you're after, lacking an actual example of the usage you've seen:
2. Informal Something worthless. Often used in the plural: an issue that didn't amount to shucks.
- —Zero Gravitas 22:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- OK..... I was trying not to infringe on copyright laws, but since I have fully referenced the author, title, publisher and date, I'll just quote from the book...
- 1. on Page 44:
- "... think you're doing, Purcel?" Segura asked. "That all depends on you, Julio. We hear you're putting out a very serious shuck about my partner," Clete said. "Is this him?" Segura asked. I didn't answer. I stared straight into his eyes. He ..."
- 2. on Page 55:
- "... doesn't know what's involved. If he did, he might be on our team. Fitzpatrick prob- ably gave you a patriotic shuck and you thought you were helping out the good guys." "I don't know what the fuck you're talking about." "You're ..."
- 3. on Page 95:
- "... wants to take her little girl back to San Antonio and study to be a hairdresser." "It sounds like a shuck to me." ..."
- 4. on Page 148:
- "... a hog lot." "I'm not interested, Dave. Did you come by to screw me?" "You think I'm giving you a shuck?" "No, I think you're single-minded and you're bent on revenge. I made the overture the other night and complicated things ..."
- 5. on Page 194:
- "... unlit cigarette in his mouth. "Don't get the wrong idea, Joe. I'm just an impulsive guy. Next time save the shuck for a Fuller Brush route," I said. His face went dead. Didi Gee had reserved a private dining room at ..."
- 6. on Page 241:
- "... on tap, and eating oysters as fast as the Negro barman could rake them out of the ice bins and shuck them open on a tray. After the traffic had thinned and the streets had cooled in the lengthening shadows, I ..."
- 1. on Page 44:
- Still-Stuck-On-Shuck--70.230.198.110 00:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, here we go. #6 seems pretty clearly to be the main "shelling" meaning, but as for the rest, I found this at, of all places, Leo.org[3]:
- The expression "shucking and jiving", according to "The Oxford Dictionary of Modern Slang" stands for "fooling". It is therein stated, as you noticed, that for many blacks it is a survival technique to avoid and stay out of trouble. The verb "shuck" means to deceive or defraud someone; the verb "jive" is polysemous. In context here it also means to "cheat" and "mislead", albeit often in a playful way. Thus we have here a double whammy, an hendiadys, as it were.
- This specifically refers to a verb, but the noun form would presumably work the same way. —Zero Gravitas 01:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, here we go. #6 seems pretty clearly to be the main "shelling" meaning, but as for the rest, I found this at, of all places, Leo.org[3]:
Thanks for the info! No-Longer-Stuck-On-Shuck! --70.230.198.110 02:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
use of the word pandemic
I do not remember the use of the word pandemic when I was younger. When did the word come in to use and who started the use of this word.
Please and Thank You
Stan Putzke
- OED says mid 17th century (and, interestingly, a secondary meaning of 'pertaining to sensual love' appearing in the early 19th c.), so unless you are quite old... dab (ᛏ) 21:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- The New York Times' archive confirms the word has been used with some regularity for more than 100 years. It's in common use now due to fears about bird flu. You might not have heard it a lot when you were a child simply because it's not a word that children would hear a lot. -- Mwalcoff 00:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
erarer
for the purpose of a dinnertable discussion, could you give me, as precisely as possible (we are interested in possible glottal stops), the IPA transcription of the RP of
- ere our arrows fly (from The Hobbit)
dab (ᛏ) 21:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think RP would use linking Rs rather than glottal stops here: [ɛəɹ ɑəɹ ˈæɹəʊz ˈflaɪ]. Angr (talk • contribs) 21:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- For me, similar, though no [ɹ] linking the second and third words. Jameswilson 01:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Top 5 languages used in web searches
I am at this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_in_the_United_States but I don't see any indication here or anywhere on the site where I can find the top 5 languages used in internet searches.
Any help you can provide will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
- Have you looked at Languages on the Internet? As of September 2004, the top five languages are English, Chinese, Spanish, Japanese and German. This site, of unknown reliability is apparently more current, and switches Spanish and Japanese. Looking at the Alexa.com Top 500 websites, the top ranked search-only site is English (Google, #2), followed by the top search site in Chinese (Baidu.com, #4), top in Japanese (Google.jp, #19), Spanish (Google.es, #31) and German (Google.de, #35). I should note that the languages on the internet links are for all uses -- not just searches -- but I have a hard time imagining that one language group is that much more likely to search than another. --ByeByeBaby 02:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- I would suspect, however, that Alexa users are biased to the languages that Alexa is supported in.--Prosfilaes 03:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
May 4
Capitalization of "von" at the beginning of a sentence?
If someone's last name contains the word "von", as in "von Neumann", and one wanted to use just the last name at the beginning of a sentence, would one capitalize it or leave it lower case? Some sentences in the John von Neumann article do capitalize it in this context, but I just want to know if that sort of practice is correct. -- noosphere 04:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, it is correct. (Chicago Manual of Style, 8.7 "always capitalized when beginning a sentence".) In a collaborative environment such as this, however, the big-endians and the little-endians can only come to terms by recasting any such sentence so it doesn't begin with the name. - Nunh-huh 05:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Great. Thank you so much for your answer. -- noosphere 06:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Bias, Landscaping
how do you say Bias or Landscaping in spanish?
(are partial | paisajemiento or áreas verdes correct?) Qrc2006 10:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'd say bias (noun) = prejuicio, biased (adjective) = parcial. Landscaping might be translated as jardineria ornamental. On an urban level it is paisajismo. Lesgles (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Head-first and head-final languages
Give the list of head-first languages and head-final languages. —Masatran 15:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- All of them? If you just need a few examples, see Word order please. David Sneek 15:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Alphabet and language in Transnistria, part of Moldova
Hello,
I was just wondering about the language situation in Transnistria. Transnistria is a breakaway state of Moldova. The country is not widely recognized by the international community.
I heard people say that Moldovan is very similar to Romanian and that some even consider it the same language. I also read that Moldovan is the dominant language in both Moldova (under Chisinau rule) and in Transnistrian, but in Transnistria they use the Cyrillic alphabet, while in the rest of Moldova they use the Latin alphabet.
However, recently I saw a documentary about Transnistria, and not only was everything written in Cyrillic alphabet, it appeared that Russian was the dominant language. There were only a handful of Moldovan schools, and they have to struggle to survive.
Can anyone clear this up for me? I will be very interested in any remarks.
Thx! Evilbu 18:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know much about it, but I was under the impression Ukrainian rather than Russian was the dominant language of Transnistria. Angr (talk • contribs) 19:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Moldovan is Romanian. Most Moldovans I've met would agree. (And as far as Wikipedia is concerned it's the same - the Moldovan-language wikipedia was disbanded after a broad majority of Moldovan editors felt it was redundant). So bluntly, "Moldovan" is purely a political invention. Note that all of Moldova/Basarabia used Cyrillic while they were part of the USSR and the Russian Empire prior to that. Ok, as for Transnistria (Trandniestr) - Basically the raison d'étre of that breakaway republic is the wish to keep stronger ties with Russia (and Ukraine, although that's also inside the Russian sphere of influence, less so since the "Orange revolution" though). As you might know, the whole thing pretty much came about when the Russian 14th army refused to leave. The Russian and Ukranian minority there is sizeable. (IIRC, Moldovans are still the biggest ethnical group there, but not larger than Russians and Ukranians together). If you want to get into the nitty-gritty, the real reason for Transdniestr's existance is the Russian mafia, who's running a highly profitable smuggling and trafficing racket out of there. So in as few words as possible: Trandniestr is basically (with the possible exception of Belarus) the last surviving part of the Soviet Union. (Before someone asks.. Yes, I am interested in Moldova. -Someone's got to take an interest in those obscure corners of the map.) --BluePlatypus 02:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you but I still don't get it. The situation is definitely complex, as Transnistria was once described as the part of Moldova that looks to the east, to Ukraine, but with the Orange Revolution Ukraine might turn more to the west itself.
So what about the language then. Everyone used cyrillic that I saw in that documentary, but Ukranians, even if they are dominant together with the Russians, don't speak the same language either. So the Russians enforce Russian on everyone else?
Evilbu 13:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- Ukrainian is written in Cyrillic too; are you sure it was Russian and not Ukrainian? And anyway, lots of Ukrainians do speak Russian, often better than Ukrainian. Angr (talk • contribs) 14:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I can't know what language it was without having seen the documentary. But as said, all three languages can be written in cyrillic. (E.g. "Good morning" is "Bună dimineaţa" or "Бунэ диминяца" in Cyrillic. Which is pretty different from Russian"Доброе утро" and Ukrainian "Доброго ранку"). There isn't much of a language barrier between Russian and Ukrainian. They have a high level of mutual intelligibility to begin with, and most Ukrainians know Russian anyway. (Something like almost half of all Ukrainians speak Russian at home) Most Moldovans and Belarusians know Russian too. (Even if Russian/Ukrainian are pretty far removed from Romanian. - although Romanian does have a clear slavic influence (E.g. "Yes" is "da". Even some non-Russian words are still Russian; "tram" is "tramvai", borrowed from Russian, borrowed from English "tramway"). Officially all three languages are official languages of Transdniestr. But I haven't been there so I can't speak from experience on what languages they de facto use the most. I suspect it's probably Russian for everyday, non-personal talk, since that's probably the language most people know. At home, people of course use their mother tounge. --BluePlatypus 19:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
How to show correct spelling in a mispelled quote.
I have a dedication which I want to quote, but the name of the dedicatee is misspelled. What is the proper method used to show the name as it is printed as well as to show that the spelling used is incorrect? For example, the name is shown as "Fridjof Nansen" but the correct spelling is "Fridtjof Nansen." There is only one letter missing ("t"), but I want to show the correct spelling, preferably inside of the quote. Feel free to correct any of my grammar as used in this paragraph.
- I would either write "Fridjof [sic; Fridtjof] Nansen" or simply "silently correct" it to "Fridtjof Nansen". Angr (talk • contribs) 20:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- As long as it's a minor mistake, with no significance, most editors would be happy to correct it without drawing undue attention to it. I quote a lot in my work, and often have to correct sloppy spellings from Indian writers and publishers. --Shantavira 07:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
This issue comes up a lot when words spoken by some public figure are misspelled when converted into a written quote by a journalist. If I'm quoting the person using the "quote" written by the journo, I'll always correct the spelling because I consider I'm just finishing the journo's job. For example, when I see "can not" in a quote, I almost always change it to "cannot". "Can not" is a different concept and usually not what the speaker intended.
But there's a problem when the misspelled words commenced their life in written form. There's no single solution, it will depend on the circumstances. As well as what Angr and Shantavira have said, two other options are (a) quote them exactly without qualification (Fridjof), or (b) change "Fridjof" to "Fridtjof" and use square brackets to show this is your interpolation. You need to decide whether it's Nansen's name that's the real point, or whether the misspelling is somehow an important issue in whatever you're writing about. JackofOz 01:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Syntax
As a frequent RD contributor, I am quite confident that many who read this board are, as I, grammar pedants, and it is they in particular to whom I address this question, one that has troubled me for some time. A few months ago, I was copyediting a section of the Super Bowl XL article (which section now appears as its own article and changed “…some critics claimed he called it when the play clock had already struck zero. That would have penalized Pittsburgh 5 yards and made it 3rd and 11…” to “…some contended that the play clock hit zero seconds before Roethlisberger called for a timeout, which would have constituted a delay-of-game and resulted in the assessment of a five-yard penalty…”. Another editor, whom I think to be an excellent contributor, removed “the assessment of”, suggesting that the locution was unnecessarily verbose. Even as I have left (and will continue to leave, irrespective of the answers provided here) the sentence in the revised state, I wonder if others concur in my belief that “the assessment of” is, in a syntactic analysis, preferable. My argument, I suppose, rests primarily on the idea that a referee’s determining the existence of (and then whistling) a penalty in American football, or, even more aptly, in football qua soccer, is a significant interpolation between a player’s committing a foul and a penalty’s actually being enacted. While the primary actor in the scoring of a touchdown, for example, is the player (even as an official might make judgments as to whether a receiver caught a ball in bounds or whether the ball crossed the plane of the goal), upon which note I’d rest the contention that we ought to write “Joe Schmoe caught a 19-yard pass for a touchdown” (cf., “Joe Schmoe caught a 19-yard pass, which catching resulted in the ‘’assessment’’ of a touchdown”), the primary actor, IMHO, in the assessment of a penalty is an intervening actor, the referee, inasmuch as most assessments are discretionary (certainly more penalty assessments than touchdown assessments are discretionary), such that a given action doesn’t result in a penalty but, rather, in the assessment of a penalty. We are more likely, I think, to say that “Joe Schmoe caught a 19-yard touchdown pass” than to say that “Joe Schmoe committed a holding penalty” (rather, “Joe Schmoe was flagged for holding”), and I think such preference follows logically from the situation I set out. I certainly have entertained the idea that “the assessment of” ought also to be appended to sentences with respect to touchdowns, since one’s catching a pass doesn’t ‘’result’’ in anything; perhaps the use of result is altogether inelegant in any case. Notwithstanding that, though, is my “assessment” suggestion a hypercorrection/adduction of a distinction without a difference, or can it accurately be said that, since there is a cause more proximate to the assessment of a penalty than a player’s committing the penalty, the “assessment” locution ought to be preferred. (Even if I can’t make the list of users with the most edits, at least I can surely assume my place in the RD’s records book for “longest [and most inane] question.) Joe 00:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- While there is a difference between "the assessment of a 5-yard penalty" and "a 5-yard penalty," I think the difference is not significant enough in this case to merit the extra words. The meaning gets across clearly without them. When choosing between more or fewer words, you should generally go with the fewer if it doesn't significantly change the meaning of the sentence. -- Mwalcoff 00:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- OK sir, we're going to have to ask you to put down the dictionary and thesaurus and slowly back away. --LarryMac 12:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hey, it's not as inane as the discussion at Talk:Mike McCarthy --Maxamegalon2000 04:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- No offence, Joe, but this reminds me of a certain PBF cartoon. —Keenan Pepper 05:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
May 5
German and Sanskrit
I was told that the grammar of the German language is based on Sanskrit. Is this true? --Vikram
- Not really. What's the case is that both Sanskrit and German (as most European languages) are decendents of a single common ancestor, the Proto-Indo-European language (PIE). Nobody knows exactly what PIE was like (and it can only be regarded as hypothetical, although a very likely hypothesis), since there are no written sources of that language. What we do know (and what was instrumental in forming this hypothesis) is that Vedic Sanskrit is one of the oldest languages decending from PIE that there are sources for. So as such, it's the language that's closest to PIE itself. Since all these languages have decended from a common source, they all have a somewhat similar grammar, at least compared to completely unrelated languages like Japanese. --BluePlatypus 05:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- It would be flatly wrong to say that any feature of German is based on Sanskrit—they diverge from fundamentally separate branches of the Indo-European family tree. Nevertheless, from the perspective of an English speaker, a superficial similarity might be seen in their inflectional systems. Both languages are grammatically conservative, having extensive case systems, whereas English is essentially analytic and lacks any sort of productive morphology. Both German and Sanskrit distinguish between nominative, accusative, dative, and genitive cases and both are, I believe, fairly fusional. However, from a German's perspective, Sanskrit wouldn't be familiar at all. Unlike German, Sanskrit has instrumental, vocative, ablative, and locative cases, dual number, not to mention a far more complicated system of conjugation, , and countless other differences. Of course, in terms of vocabulary, German is far more closely related to English. But even in strictly grammatical terms, it's a tenuous comparison. In that repsect, German is far more similar to Latin, Greek, or Irish (or any other Centum language) than to a distant cousin like Sanskrit. Bhumiya (said/done) 21:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing this up BluePlatypus and Bhumiya :) --Vikram
SVO vs. AVO
I would appreciate if someone can explain the reasons for describing English as an "AVO" language rather than an "SVO" language. (ref:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_order)
Vineet Chaitanya
- This is more appropriately discussed at Talk:Word order. Angr (talk • contribs) 08:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Just a guess, "agent" is more precise than "subject"? Though I admit I've never heard of this description before. --Keitei (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- It isn't more precise, it means something different. The sentences John kicked the ball and The ball was kicked by John have different subjects but the same agent. Angr (talk • contribs) 13:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Wouldn't that make English SVO and not AVO? "The ball was kicked by John" is OVA, but still SV(O). --Keitei (talk) 12:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- That's a good example of how the passive voice makes an SVO/OVA disparity, but since English prefers the active voice, it's still SVO and usually AVO. - Draeco 07:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Wouldn't that make English SVO and not AVO? "The ball was kicked by John" is OVA, but still SV(O). --Keitei (talk) 12:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- It isn't more precise, it means something different. The sentences John kicked the ball and The ball was kicked by John have different subjects but the same agent. Angr (talk • contribs) 13:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Learning English in French class
In my traditional American education (note sarcasm), I found that I learned most of what I knew about English as a language from my French class. For a good 4 years, I had no idea what ˆ, `, ´, and ç were called in English. I also learned tenses in French long before I heard anything of them in English (e.g. plus que parfait). My teachers would often teach French through similar English ideas, naming them for the first time to me.
It makes me wonder if anyone else has had this experience, or has mourned years of defining "nouns", "verbs", and "adjectives". Why is it that in English class we learn nothing of English? I've had teachers recommend I take Latin if I want to learn about English. Is there a good reason why English classes in the US focus on literature? And getting into college... --Keitei (talk) 13:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- It's not just America. In Belgium, people defend studying Latin on the grounds that it leads to a better understanding of Dutch and French grammar. The Esperantists make the same case for Esperanto. The logic of this eludes me. Here, no one studies the linguistics of their own language except undergrad linguists, but I think that if they had to study the comparative linguistics of their native language and the second language or languages they're studying, not only could they do without the dead language, but they would have a much easier time with any future language study.
- The story as I understand it is that the decline of prescriptive grammar study resulted in its replacement with practiced-based reading and writing in English classes. This was, in fact, a good idea and the right thing to do. You will become a far better speaker and writer of your native language, and you reach far higher levels of literacy, if your class time is spent reading engaging texts, writing essays and receiving corrections and constructive criticism of your own texts, rather than studying largely fictitious rules. This is fairly well established in the education literature, and is part of the logic behind whole language reading curricula. It breaks down for students with poor literacy or who are not fluent speakers of standard English, and this is much of the reason why phonics came back, but if the goal is socially acceptable language usage among competent native users, you still get more bang for your buck by reading texts and writing essays.
- I think students should get some general notions of linguistics in school, especially enough phonetics to identify the place and manner of articulation of consonants, and learn to understand the vowel triangle (actually a trapezoid). This does them an enormous service in dealing with foreign languages. But also, learning to identify agents and patients, subjects and objects, modifiers and prepositional phrases, and diagramming sentences would be a good thing, if nothing else because it makes second language study much less of a mystery. But I don't think it can or should replace a serious literature curriculum. --Diderot 14:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Certainly some schools still teach grammar in English classes. It may be less common but it is not completely abandoned. Rmhermen 16:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- The story goes that there was a study back in the 70s that showed that teaching grammar had no effect on writing test scores of native speakers of course. I don't remember the citation. This had a lot of resonance because the skills and interests of people who become English teachers are not those of people who like to understand grammar. Also, the grammar being taught was traditional grammar which tries to squeeze English into a kind of jerry-rigged system developed for Latin, not to mention the incoherencies of prescription. For instance, to claim that English has a future tense makes no sense considering that the ways of expressing the future are periphrastic, whereas the way we express the past is inflectional. In Latin all three tenses were inflectional, as they are today in Romance languages.
- I don't think grammar will make much of a comeback although it would be a lot more effective than learning Latin in teaching how to think analytically about patterns found in nature, overcome many of the myths about one language being better than another, and help with foreign language learning later. The reason for my pessimism is that English teachers won't want to learn it, and either will those who teach them. mnewmanqc
- I found that learning Spanish made it much easier to teach the English language later in life to ESL students. I knew of things like passive voice and perfect tenses from Spanish class. -- Mwalcoff 22:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- i certainly learnt no grammar whatsoever in English classes at school (Britain). Our French teacher had to explain what a preposition was, the concept being unknown to us. Its not the same everywhere though - Spanish eleven-year-olds have already been taught all about the (Spanish) pluperfect subjunctive passive, etc. Jameswilson 23:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think a lot of English grammar is taught at a point where students are typically too young to retain the technical knowledge. In my experience, English classes had switched entirely to writing (and usually writing about literature) by 8th grade. We had been taught the language stuff, why focus on that again, is the line of thinking. If you don't start learning French until high school, that transition doesn't occur until later. As for the names of accent marks in English, I'd say most people aren't taught that because accent marks are not an important part of the language. - user:rasd
- I'm in Ireland and find the exact same thing. I've said it several times to teachers that it's current manifestation as a subject is a "joke of a subject". Everyone I know, including some teachers, agree that it should be more focused on grammar and stuff like that, as opposed to literature and drama. I'm hoping some of these years they'll update the Junior Cert. English, since they're currently on a streak of updates of syllibi. Also the same is true for what you said about learning the names of tenses only in other languages, in my case: Irish, French and Spanish. Even in books, in the middle of a sentence in English, they refer to a tense as "Passé Composé" or "Aimsir Caite" etc.. - RedHot 12:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Where goes the possessive?
This sentence from Detroit, Michigan: "When Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick found himself behind in the polls in the 2005 election, his campaign tried to draw attention to his opponent, Freeman Hendrix's, support in the suburbs." It was recently changed from "opponent's, Freeman Hendrix, support" to the above. I would have guessed that the original was correct. Rmhermen 16:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think generally, either wording is going to be confusing. Technically, I think the second version is correct, but is confusing as Freeman Hendrix ends up straight after the possessive. The problem is, Freeman Hendrix is in a seperate clause thing, and if done correctly you should be able to read the sentence without anything from the clause. "opponent, Freeman Hendrix,'s support" obviously doesn't work. I think it needs to be reworded. "to the support his opponent, Freeman Hendrix, received in the suburbs"? Skittle 16:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- The original looks OK if you remove the commas around Freeman Hendrix's. Jameswilson 23:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- In spoken English, the rule is that the 's goes at the end of the last item in the possessive series. For example, "Have you been to my friend Bob's house?" The same rule is carried over to written English, but it may receive criticism since it is not in common practice. In addition, the inclusion of commas with the appositive make the position of 's more difficult. The best alternative is to use a construction with the word of, sometimes called a genitive construction. Therefore, the best way to word the example above is "...tried to draw attention to the support of his opponent, Freeman Hendrix, in the suburbs."--El aprendelenguas 23:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- I may be wrong, but I would have said "his opponent's, Freeman Hendrix's, support", although I can't say why. It just seems more natural to me. Bhumiya (said/done) 00:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
face vs construct validity
I think the link for "face validity" goes to "construct validity."
- I disagree. Vehemently. Loomis51 23:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
The A was B, who had Ced themselves
The Royalists' major asset was the Navy, who had declared themselves for the Prince of Wales.
— Three Hundred and Thirty Five Years' War#Origins (Emphasis mine)
Is the above sentence's grammatical number correct? “Themselves” feels wrong. I'd say “itself” or “herself”, but I am not a native speaker of English. If the word “Navy” is used like “police” in that sentence, shouldn't it be “The Royalists' major asset were the Navy, who had declared themselves for the Prince of Wales”? Wikipeditor 17:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- There are two points here. The first is that the verb must agree with the subject, not the complement, e.g. "Clouds are vaporized water" and "The last crop was potatoes" (I took these examples from Fowler). In more complex sentences, even native English speakers sometimes get confused, but the rule does not change. Since "asset" is singular, it must be "the asset was".
- The second problem is the word navy, a collective noun which can be singular or plural depending on context. Here, it is taken as a plural, hence "themselves". This usage is rare in American English, however, which is probably why it feels wrong to you. For example, as an American speaker, I would say "The Royalists' major asset was the Navy, which had declared itself for the Prince of Wales." Lesgles (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Ignoring the unrelated issues raised below, Lesgles is right. The use of "was" is correct, and the only option, no matter where you live; the use of "themselves" is correct in British usage, incorrect in American, and completely unrelated to "was". Tesseran 21:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I currently do not have the time to read through all replies yet, but will try to do so later. Thanks to everybody for contributing, and especially to Lesgles for summing it all up. Wikipeditor 15:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Ignoring the unrelated issues raised below, Lesgles is right. The use of "was" is correct, and the only option, no matter where you live; the use of "themselves" is correct in British usage, incorrect in American, and completely unrelated to "was". Tesseran 21:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd say "The Royalists major asset was the Navy, which had declared itself... "Were" and "themselves" just don't sound right to me. Of course, I'm an American, and we treat almost all group nouns as singular, except for things like "police", whereas the British would be more likely to say "...were the Navy, who had declared themselves..."
In any case, mixing "was" and "themselves" is wrong by either the British or the American standard. It was probably written by an Englishman and proofread by an American or vice versa. Linguofreak 18:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- It actually isn't a mix, as the two verbs do not have the same subject. As I mentioned above, was agrees with the word asset, which is singular (the asset was). Themselves agrees with Navy, which can be construed as plural (the navy were). As an American speaker, though, I would rephrase the sentence the same way you would. There might be a better way to construct the sentence, but it is grammatical as it stands (in British English, at least). Lesgles (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- The rule about number agreement is not always clear cut. When referring to a single person whose gender is unknown or unimportant, using "he or she" in all its forms is tiresome, so it's now usual to use "they" and "them". What's the reflexive form? Is it themself, because a single person has only one "self"? Or is it themselves, because "selves" has to agree with the grammatical number of "them"? Hard to say, but many sources say "themself" is not really a legit word. In any event, if you type the word "themself", most spell checkers will change it to "themselves", and so we get things like "The person who did this really has to sort themselves out". Most writers will accept that change without blinking, because it reflects the way most people speak (which may, ironically, have something to do with the tyranny of the spell checker to begin with). In this respect, Fowler (2nd edition, 1978 reprint) was not up to speed with current PC-think (although this may have changed in the 1999 3rd edition). His 1978 preferred solution was to avoid "themselves" in such cases and assume masculine gender ("himself") because that was the convention in the interpretation of legal documents. He also takes the piss out of himself by concluding "Whether that convention ... is an arrogant demand on the part of male England, everyone must decide for himself (or for himself or herself, or for themselves)". JackofOz 00:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed, singular they has always been a tricky problem (separate from the one brought up by Wikipeditor). My personal solution is to restructure the sentence whenever possible. Lesgles (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- The rule about number agreement is not always clear cut. When referring to a single person whose gender is unknown or unimportant, using "he or she" in all its forms is tiresome, so it's now usual to use "they" and "them". What's the reflexive form? Is it themself, because a single person has only one "self"? Or is it themselves, because "selves" has to agree with the grammatical number of "them"? Hard to say, but many sources say "themself" is not really a legit word. In any event, if you type the word "themself", most spell checkers will change it to "themselves", and so we get things like "The person who did this really has to sort themselves out". Most writers will accept that change without blinking, because it reflects the way most people speak (which may, ironically, have something to do with the tyranny of the spell checker to begin with). In this respect, Fowler (2nd edition, 1978 reprint) was not up to speed with current PC-think (although this may have changed in the 1999 3rd edition). His 1978 preferred solution was to avoid "themselves" in such cases and assume masculine gender ("himself") because that was the convention in the interpretation of legal documents. He also takes the piss out of himself by concluding "Whether that convention ... is an arrogant demand on the part of male England, everyone must decide for himself (or for himself or herself, or for themselves)". JackofOz 00:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
"SCHM" prefix
I saw a billboard for a Mini Cooper that had the tagline "OPEC, SCHMOPEC". I've often seen the "schm" prefix, used to show disdain for something or someone. Is there a name for this type of phrase?
- I <3 Wikipedia! —Keenan Pepper 00:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- <3 ? -LambaJan 18:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Love. Tilt your head to the right and use a little imagination, and it looks like a heart. Angr (talk • contribs) 18:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- <3 ? -LambaJan 18:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was too lazy to open GNOME Character Map and get one of these doohickeys: ♥ —Keenan Pepper 21:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Chinese translating.......
Good afternoon....I am looking for a program or web page for translating Chinese into English. Any help would be greatly appreciated, Thank you.
MLA
how do i put info i got from an article on this website into my works cited? how is it supposed to be formatted and look?
- See Citing Wikipedia. You can also use the cite tool by clicking on the "cite this article" button on the toolbar to the left. Note that questions like this are more suitable for the Help desk than the reference desk. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 23:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
May 6
Translation
hi, I just wrote an artice in English and I know that the same article exsists in Hungarian and Swedish, but I can't find the link to. Usually they are on the left side, but not this time. I want to be able to change the language of the article by one click. Can you please help me to do that? thanks
- You have to put links to them at the bottom, in the form [[hu:Article name]] or [[sv:Article name]], where hu and sv are the ISO 639-1 codes for Hungarian and Swedish. I'd do it for you but you didn't mention which article. =P —Keenan Pepper 02:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Translation
Hi, it's me again, I just tried like you said, and it seems to work. btw the article is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soltvadkert it's about my hometown. thanks again
- No problem. I noticed you also added links to German and Japanese, where the article doesn't exist yet. This can't really hurt anything, but it's kinda useless and it might give people false hope that there actually is an article in their preferred language. —Keenan Pepper 02:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Question on the English Language
A riddle is going around on email saying that there are 3 words in the English language that end in "gry". Two are "angry" and "hungry". What is the 3rd? The only clue given is "wiki", but I am completely confused by your site. I am assuming that the clue means to use this site. It says: "There are three words in the English language that end in "gry". ONE is angry and the other is hungry. EveryONE knows what the third ONE means and what it stands for. EveryONE uses them everyday; and, if you listened very carefully, I've given you the third word. What is it? _______gry?" The email claims if I send the riddle to 5 people that the answer will automatically appear on my screen. I know that won't happen. But if you could point me in the correct direction, or if you can get the answer, I would truly appreciate it.-----Judy Thomason
- And please don't forward it. Most people have heard it before. Is there a name for this type of "please forward" spam? I haven't been able to find an article about it. --Shantavira 09:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Vowel Quadrilateral
I'm writing the linguistics page of the Chaozhou language and would like to add a vowel quadrilateral like in the french phonology page, i tried to decipher the codes on the edits page, and tried replacing some vowels with the ones i want but i still can't do it. Can anyone tell me how i can make one? i'm quoting the French one here:
The vowels to the left of the dot • are unrounded; those to the right are rounded. See Vowel roundedness.
Merci! Shingrila 03:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- I never figured it out either, which is why I just used drawings for the vowel charts at Ulster Irish, Connacht Irish, Munster Irish, and California English. Drawings also let you be much more precise about the relative positions of the vowels. Angr (talk • contribs) 09:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hi. I was the one who made the French table, so I can tell you how I did it, but it might also be easier to just make a graphic as Angr said. I took the full vowel chart from Vowels, then went to the sandbox to play around with it. The top section defines the headings at the top (front, central, back), and the bottom section defines the side (close, open, etc.). Then each of the middle sections is for one of the rows. You will have to go in and delete all the vowels that do not appear in the language. All you have to change is the part inside the IPA tags. I put in their place, although I don't know if that's strictly necessary. I don't know if that was at all clear, but you might also consider just making a picture. Lesgles (talk) 00:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks Lesgles and Angr, but i still don't quite get it :<, could you demonstrate it by making one with only the cardinal vowels?
the vowels i need for Chaozhou are [a], [i], [e], [o], [ɤ]/[ɯ]/[ə], [u], and their nasalised counterparts. Shingrila 06:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- All right, I was bored so I tried this. You might be able to modify it to make it better:
Blocked on Hungarian Wikipedia
Hi, I was writing acticles in English about Hungarian towns. Then I went and added a link on the Hungarian sites so people will see that the article is also available in English. But for some reason I have been blocked from the Hungarian Wikipedia. Please help me! Thanks,
Eddie
- This kind of questions probably belong on the help desk, but have you tried contacting the admin who's blocked you? - ulayiti (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- If you're the same guy who asked before about Soltvadkert I think your block log says: "blokkolva 1 nap lejárattal (generating invalid iw links en masse)". So it's only a one-day block. I guess you'll need to be a bit more careful to check that you're links are correct. (And perhaps get a username, the admins are probably more forgiving then.) --BluePlatypus 19:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- Haha, maybe I spoke too soon when I said links to nonexistant articles couldn't do any harm. =P —Keenan Pepper 04:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
May 7
language
how to write a letter given my apologise?
- Pardon? —Keenan Pepper 03:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
This is one way to do it.
You start with stating in the most sincere and regretful tone exactly what you're apologizing for. You then go on to describe how this matter affected you and others involved in your hearts and lives. Then you write the lessons you learned from the situation and how they will help you to do better in the future. Then you offer any assistance that may help to alleviate any suffering that was in some way caused by your actions. You close by talking about some of the wonderful qualities this person has and how they have positively affected your life. You might want to open with that also. Hmmm... I think that's everything. But this is for a personal letter, if it's a professional memo the guidelines change quite a bit. -LambaJan 18:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Just one thing I'd add to that: it's important to accept responsibility for what you've done--to say "this was my fault" in one way or another. Many people (especially politicians, it seems) try to get away with "non-apology apologies," that is, issuing a statement that on its surface seems to be an apology, but on more careful review is not one, often because it lacks acceptance of responsibility for the unfortunate incident. Cynthia McKinney has been widely criticized for her "apology" regarding the recent incident with the U.S. Capitol Police, as it did not include any acceptance of responsibility for the incident on her part. Chuck 20:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Turkish help
Could someone please translate this for me?
Beyaz atlı sımdı gectı buradan
Surarısı can elınden vurulmus
Cıksın daglar taslargayrı aradan
Beyaz atın suvarısı yorulmus
Ellerı elıme deymez olaydı
Gozlerı gozumu gormez olaydı
Bu gonul o gonlu sevmez olaydı
Beyaz atlı sımdı gectı buradan
Thanks! deeptrivia (talk) 01:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Cem Karaca lyrics; his article could sure use improvement! --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that's right! Still waiting for translation though. deeptrivia (talk) 16:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Try asking one of the people listed at Wikipedia:Translators available#Turkish-to-English. Angr (t • c) 17:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Red-eye effect in photography
Does anybody know the technical term for the "red-eye" effect in photography? I thought that it began with "hemo-", but I might be totally wrong. Please, please, please, if anybody knows, I'd greatly appreciate it. (I doubt that I'll be able to sleep until I find out!)
- Not sure what you mean by technical. "Red-eye effect" seems to be the principal term, as far as I can tell—at least, I can't find any other. It needn't be long and Latin-derived to be "technical". —Zero Gravitas 05:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- I've been trying to find words that start with hemo-, which means "blood" in Greek. Maybe hemophthalmia, "an effusion of blood into the eyeball" [4]? Could be confused with the red-eye effect. :) Lesgles (talk) 05:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Language
I have two questions:
Where is the Brahmi language mainly used today? What does the message mean and what does it say behind the picture of Anne Frank?
- as usual, readings of the Brahmi and of the Anne Frank articles are highly recommended. Cheers.--K.C. Tang 06:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
sprunge
A Frenchie is translating an article into French, as is baffled by a word, sprunge. The sentence whence it comes is: James VI/I traced his origin to Fergus, saying, in his own words, that he was a "Monarch sprunge of Ferguse race". I told the budding translator to just ignore this quote, as nobody's going to miss it. I had a quick search through online dictionaries and a massive uni-owned one, with no reference to the word. However, I felt generous, and tried to sniff out a reference, and a few websites hinted it is a Middle English word, maybe related to the word sprog (the British definition). Anyone who knows more about Middle English, can they give a hand? Was my advice of "ignore things you can't translate" apt? Blimey, I do feel generous today. --Wonderfool 11:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think this is just "sprung" with an e on the end, as was done in "olde englishe". James is saying he was from the line of Fergus. I guess it would be "un monarque jailli de la ligne de Fergus" in French. Hope this helps... СПУТНИКССС Р 11:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Just in case it isn't obvious, sprung comes from spring. Spring, sprang, sprung. Like sing, sang, sung, via ablaut. --KJ 23:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- "A Frenchie"? Ignore article content? ... Ardric47 05:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Aunt/Uncle and Niece/Nephew
Does anyone know if there's a gender neutral tem for aunt/uncle and niece/nephew. I can't find one anywhere but it seems odd if there isn't since every other relative word I can think of, has one. Anyone know? - RedHot 17:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- The only thing I can think of would be a compound term: 'parent's sibling' and 'sibling's child'. It's a little clumsy, but unless you invent a new term and it catches on, you're stuck with things like this. English is not a perfectly gender neutral language. -LambaJan 18:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- A friend of mine who was studying anthropology told me once the term "nibling" had some informal currency among cultural anthropologists as a gender-neutral term for "niece or nephew". Angr (talk • contribs) 20:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- I occasionally use 'niefling' among my family. Comes from somewhere. Skittle 22:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- "parent's sibling" and "sibling's child" cover only half the story. There are also "parent's sibling's spouse" and "spouse's sibling's child". JackofOz 03:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for those answers. I just find it strange that those two (aunt/uncle and niece/nephew) are the only ones, except of course for cousin which is neutral by nature. - RedHot 12:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
What is this Russian Text?
Киа дефиа легиа фервор'
Ве! Ла либер', чу суперос тиујн главојн?
Или кун швит' спит', ескит' кај терор'
Венос, форпренос, чу тенос ниан хавојн?
Јам тамбурас ла хиспан'!
Јам Поркул' импетас,
Ли аванце де лонтан'
Ал Берген' импетас.
Берг'-оп-Зом',
Кун реном',
Спиту ал хиспано.
Ниа хом', ниа дом'
Савај кун елано!
--Quentin Smith 18:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- It's in Cyrillic, but it isn't actually Russian. This is an identical text in Roman script, which is apparently an Esperanto translation of the Dutch song Het beleg van Bergen op Zoom (The Siege of Bergen op Zoom), referring to an event of the War of the Austrian Succession. This looks like the original text. —Zero Gravitas 18:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Not Russian cyrillic either given the "Ј"s. Probably Serbian cyrillic. --BluePlatypus 20:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Serbian has those ubiquitous DJ and TJ mergers, which I don't see in this text. But maybe it's just a transliteration from some other language. -lethe talk + 20:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Zero Gravitas already said what language it is: it's Esperanto, written in Cyrillic for some reason. Angr (talk • contribs) 21:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Serbian has those ubiquitous DJ and TJ mergers, which I don't see in this text. But maybe it's just a transliteration from some other language. -lethe talk + 20:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- J is a pretty common letter in Esperanto. Probably the program or person that transliterated the text didn't know to write a Cyrillic й. PeepP 09:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- So you mean they'd lack knowlege about a common, easily transcribable letter, yet still know something more obscure like that the Esperanto letter "ĉ" is equivalent to "ч"? Doesn't seem probable to me when "Ј" is a perfectly good letter of the Serbian Cyrillic alphabet. It is also the one that'd correspond to the Esperanto "j". --BluePlatypus 11:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think it's probably not language specific. Cyrillic J is a convenient transliteration of Roman J, and it's not a translation, so it need not conform to a local variety of Cyrillic. For example, when we transliterate Hindi from Devanagari to Latin, we often write ã with a tilde for nasal a = आँ, but that doesn't really mean we're using the Portuguese Latin alphabet. We transliterate the voiceless postalveolar fricative ब as š with a hacek, but that doesn't really mean we're using the Czech Latin alphabet. It just means that when transliterating, we need to find symbols which represent the source language well. As long as it's not a translation, there isn't really a need to conform to the orthography of any target language. I think the same thing applies here: when transliterating from Esperanto to Cyrillic, we just take whichever letters fit well with Esperanto, and don't worry about which local national varieties of Cyrillic they come from. So I think the presence of Js doesn't justify the assumption that the transliterater preferred Serbian to Russian. -lethe talk + 11:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- That doesn't work, because "j" is the same letter as "й". They have the same sound, and both versions work just as well as a translitteration of Esperanto "J". But "J" for "je" is a local variant, it's only used in Serbian and Macedonian and most cyrillic alphabets use "й" instead. There's no point in only translitterating all the letters but one and keeping a foreign letter like "j", unless you don't consider that to be a foreign letter. --BluePlatypus 10:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think it's probably not language specific. Cyrillic J is a convenient transliteration of Roman J, and it's not a translation, so it need not conform to a local variety of Cyrillic. For example, when we transliterate Hindi from Devanagari to Latin, we often write ã with a tilde for nasal a = आँ, but that doesn't really mean we're using the Portuguese Latin alphabet. We transliterate the voiceless postalveolar fricative ब as š with a hacek, but that doesn't really mean we're using the Czech Latin alphabet. It just means that when transliterating, we need to find symbols which represent the source language well. As long as it's not a translation, there isn't really a need to conform to the orthography of any target language. I think the same thing applies here: when transliterating from Esperanto to Cyrillic, we just take whichever letters fit well with Esperanto, and don't worry about which local national varieties of Cyrillic they come from. So I think the presence of Js doesn't justify the assumption that the transliterater preferred Serbian to Russian. -lethe talk + 11:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
From Dutch language
Could someone kindly explain the cultural references in this quotation? It comes from Dutch language
- "There have been many definitions of hell, but for the English the best definition is that it is the place where the Germans are the police, the Swedish are the comedians, the Italians are the defense force, Frenchmen dig the roads, the Belgians are the pop singers, the Spanish run the railways, the Turks cook the food, the Irish are the waiters, the Greeks run the government, and the common language is Dutch."
--HappyCamper 21:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Cultural references -You mean stereotypes? They seem pretty obvious. But in short Germans are fascists, Swedes are boring, Italians are cowards, French are lazy, Belgians have no culture (Ever heard Plastic Bertrand? ;)), Spanish railroads are never on time, Turkish food (i.e.: kebab) is bad, Irish are rude, Greeks are corrupt and Dutch is an ugly language. --BluePlatypus 21:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- I heard a slightly different version of the joke. It's about the difference between heaven and hell: In heaven, the British are the police, the Germans are the scholars, the French are the chefs, the Swiss are the bankers, and the Italians are the lovers. But in hell, the Germans are the police, the French are the scholars, the British are the chefs, the Italians are the bankers, and the Swiss are the lovers. Angr (talk • contribs) 22:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
airplane pronounciation
hi, why do we say airplane but say (certainly in UK english)"aeroplane". is this what it used to be called? it seems weird when we pronouce airport phonetically... (even more weird is the french who say aéroport but then bail and call an airplane "un avion"). any suggestions?
- Because "aeroplane" is the British word for a heavier than air flying machine. To me, "airplane" is very much an Americanism. --Arwel (talk) 00:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Not quite right. The general term for a machine capable of flight is an "aircraft". An "aeroplane" is a powered heavier-than-air flying vehicle with fixed wings. So a helicopter is an aircraft but not an aeroplane. A 747 is both. But yes, "airplane" is an Americanism for "aeroplane". JackofOz 07:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
umlauts
hi, what are umlauts (german) called in english and french? (i.e. citroën) thanks
- To be more specific, it's called an umlaut when it changes the quality of a single vowel, and a dieresis when it marks one vowel as being separate from another. —Keenan Pepper 23:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Usually, in my experience, the symbol is called an dieresis even when being used for umlaut.--Prosfilaes 23:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Not so in typography, according to umlaut (diacritic). --KJ 23:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Not so in heavy metal, either. -LambaJan 23:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- In my experience, the symbol is usually called an umlaut even when being used for dieresis. Angr (talk • contribs) 23:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Not so in heavy metal, either. -LambaJan 23:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Not so in typography, according to umlaut (diacritic). --KJ 23:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Usually, in my experience, the symbol is called an dieresis even when being used for umlaut.--Prosfilaes 23:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
In French it's called tréma. The distinction between diaeresis and umlaut (diacritic) might not be strong in French. Both of them link to fr:Tréma. --KJ 00:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- I can't think of a french word where the tréma changes a single vowel. Tréma comes from the same greek word meaning dot or hole, like in monotreme, those beasts having only one. First dotcoms, I think. --DLL 19:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
May 8
French Translation of Chimera
Does anyone know the French word for chimera? Thanks. --Think Fast 00:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- The article links to the French Wikipedia article: fr:Chimère. --KJ 01:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. Sorry I didn't see that when I looked at the article. --Think Fast 02:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Croatian
I have been looking to learn the Croatian language for a long time now (ever since I heard what it sounded like on ER). I would really appreciate any help in finding what would be the best way to do this (save going to Croatia or taking a college course). I am looking to be able to buy some sort of Audio disk package and/or book combination. If anyone knows of anything, that would be great. Chuck(척뉴넘) 06:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Many people said "Teach Yourself Serbian" by David Norris and Vladislava Ribnikar is good. They also have "Teach Yourself Croatian", which should differ from Serbian only in dialect and script used, so I'd imagine the course is as good. Mind you, I'm a native speaker and didn't actually use it, but people recommended it. You might also consider renting some of Višnjić's movies while you are studying the language. :) Serbo-Croatian is not particularly hard, most Americans I know got the pronunciation right after a while (or at least, very close to right), but 7 cases singular and plural combined with genders do make it a bit of a nightmare sometimes. You might also consider hooking up with a person from Bosnia/Croatia/Serbia (it's essentially the same language) and asking for help. --dcabrilo 07:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- This could also get you started. --Shibo77 09:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much...I'm probably gonna buy "Teach Yourself Croatian". Chuck(척뉴넘) 11:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Refer me to translator. (Old Norwegian)
I have very old letters written in Norwegian from 1895 to about 1924. I am having a hard time finding someone to translate them for me. I understand the language has changed since then and I am wondering if that is why everyone I give them to can not translate them. If you could refer me to someone I would be grateful. Thanks. Beverly Bowman
- You could try asking directly at the talk page of any of the people listed at Wikipedia:Translators available#Norwegian-to-English. (You might want to check their contributions first and make sure they're still around. You could also click "E-mail this user" to send them an e-mail.) But don't call it "Old Norwegian"; most people understand that to mean Norwegian before about the mid-14th century. What you have is simply old-fashioned Modern Norwegian! :-) Angr (t • c) 17:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, Norwegian from circa 1900 should not be difficult at all to anyone who speaks Norwegian. Even to someone who speaks Swedish it should be comprehensible. -From what I understand, a lot of Swedes read Ibsen in high school, in the original 19th century Norwegian. (Similarily, most English don't have problems reading Mark Twain either) If they're short, I might be willing to help out. Try my talk page. (Although I find that for documents from that era, reading the handwriting is often a lot harder than any archaic the language) --BluePlatypus 08:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I will check it out.
Name Pronuciation
How would the name Matejczyk be pronounced? Thanks, --Chapuisat 17:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- From the page Polish phonology, it seems it would be pronounced something like "ma-TAY-chick", IPA: [maˈtɛi̯ʧɨk]. But I'd wait for a Polish speaker to be sure. Lesgles (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. --19:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
is there a word for the phenomenon when the month, day and year are all the same?
Such as this year, it's June 6, 2006 (or 06/06/06; or previously 05/05/05, 04/04/04 etc.). I have googled using various "key" words and have come up empty-handed, except for what someone else described as "triple date". Any ideas?
- Apocalypse!!! Aaaahhhhh!!! :) --Think Fast 23:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Orchestra
Me and some friends are trying to figure out how many words we can make out of the word orchestra. I've gotten a lot of words but I need help finding the nine letter words. Some of my friends said they have two nine letter words. I can't find them to save my life. I heard that the other two were proper nouns. But I don't know if thats fact or not so, thanks in advance. -- Jesusfreak 22:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- There's "carthorse" for one. —Zero Gravitas 22:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank You so much. If anyone can find anymore let me know. -- Jesusfreak 22:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Chest Roar? or did you want single words? Philc TECI 22:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Try this. -Elmer Clark 23:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I need single words. Thank you. -- Jesusfreak 00:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- The only other word suggested by Anagram Genius, which is pretty thorough, is Carothers, which is a proper noun. Perhaps your friends were looking there. --Shantavira 07:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Has there ever been an orchestra conducted by someone named Carothers? That would be a wonderful thing to have at one's fingertips for a rainy day. JackofOz 13:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Or a carthorse named Carothers? Or a carthorse named Carothers who conducted an orchestra! Angr (t • c) 14:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Has there ever been an orchestra conducted by someone named Carothers? That would be a wonderful thing to have at one's fingertips for a rainy day. JackofOz 13:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well, waddaya know, there really has been a conductor named Carothers, although it looks like she acquired the Carothers name after she finished conducting. In 1986, Rosalyn Harbst was a conductor for the Louisville Youth Orchestra, and she now runs a legal practice under the name Rosalyn Carothers [5]. I wonder if she knows what anagrammatic secrets her new name holds. Maybe we should tell her ... JackofOz 07:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you all so much. I won't hold you back though. If you find more let me know. I found out that it can't be a proper noun. Once again, thank you! -- Jesusfreak 19:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
May 9
Subject/ed to fine?
Glad that I found this forum. On the door of trash chute in my apartment building, following warning is posted: "Persons keeping trash on floor will be subject to fine." This sentence can also be worded as "Persons keeping trash on floor will be subjected to fine." What is exact difference between these two, if any? Thanks. AshishGtalk 01:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Are you sure the first one wasn't subject to a fine? or fines? The way it's written sounds to me that if you keep your trash on the floor, you're going to be forced to fine somebody else, which is quite silly. freshgavinΓΛĿЌ 06:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- The grammatical construction is archaic but not wrong, just like you can say "the prisoners were subjected to torture" -- though I'm going to guess Ashish's dorm is somewhere in the U.K. To answer his question, "subject to" implies a more passive condition in which it will become necessary to pay a fine..."subjected to" is slightly more harsh and makes the fine sound menacing. - Draeco 07:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- I was only referring to the fine in the first sentence; I don't find anything wrong with being "subjected to fine". I meant to imply the difference is that in the first statement, fine should be a noun (at least as I, a Canadian, understand it), and in the second statement it is a verb.
Subject in the first is an adjective (ty gravitas!) so you could compare the first (if a fine was used) to the phrase "be known to a friend", whereas with fine as a verb in the second sentence, you could compare it with the phrase "be asked to perform". I believe you though, that it's probably not wrong, just the fact that if it actually is an archaeic grammar form, it directly contradicts modern grammar. freshgavinΓΛĿЌ 07:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)- The first "subject" is an adjective, actually. —Zero Gravitas 15:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- That makes more sense, thanks! freshgavinΓΛĿЌ 07:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- The first "subject" is an adjective, actually. —Zero Gravitas 15:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- I was only referring to the fine in the first sentence; I don't find anything wrong with being "subjected to fine". I meant to imply the difference is that in the first statement, fine should be a noun (at least as I, a Canadian, understand it), and in the second statement it is a verb.
- The grammatical construction is archaic but not wrong, just like you can say "the prisoners were subjected to torture" -- though I'm going to guess Ashish's dorm is somewhere in the U.K. To answer his question, "subject to" implies a more passive condition in which it will become necessary to pay a fine..."subjected to" is slightly more harsh and makes the fine sound menacing. - Draeco 07:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Common Second Languages taught in the UK
Would it be correct to say that French is the most common second language taught in British schools similar to that in American schools, Spanish is the most frequent taught second language?Chile 02:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Apparently French is in fact the most common second language taught in British schools. See this page. --Metropolitan90 03:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Is there a verb that means 'to move peristaltically'?
Thanks Adambrowne666 03:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- From googling it looks like "peristalse" is a verb. "As a result [of degeneration of nerves] the colon cannot peristalse, or push stool through."[6] "People with irritable bowel syndrome have altered bowel motility; i.e., in particular their small bowel does not peristalse or contract normally."[7] --Cam 03:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- "peristalse" is nonstandard, it's not a form that dictionaries have really picked up. I do know some words for this, but my mom used to yell at me if I used them. --iMb~Meow 04:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks very much - so sounds like 'peristalse' is a back formation from peristalsis - probably only a matter of time before it does get into the dictionaries, but I still wonder if there is an appropriate word there already ...? Adambrowne666 04:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
comprise?
Example sentences: "The system comprises several elements." Or, "The system is comprised of several elements." Any thoughts as to which is preferred? --Richardrj 09:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Comprises (or 'is composed of'). Some people will tell you that 'is comprised of' has now entered the realm of the acceptable, but they're ignorant, illiterate apes. HenryFlower
- In patents (at least in the U.S.) "comprising" and "composed of" are not synonyms. "A system comprising A, B, and C" may have additional elements beyond A, B, and C, while "a system composed of A, B, and C" has nothing else beyond the stated elements (or, sometimes, has no additional elements that materially affect the invention). See [8] for more than you ever wanted to know. I don't think the distinction carries over to ordinary language, however. But all the same, "a system comprised of A, B, and C" is generally not used. Chuck 12:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- I say "is comprised of" and I 1) can read and 2) am not covered in hair, in addition to 3) I can walk upright. --Think Fast 23:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Also you apparently don't understand hyperbole. =P —Keenan Pepper 04:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- And 4) you're wrong.
Imaginary town, one word?
Is there a one word for 'imaginary town' or fictitious town'? The Indian writer R.K. Narayan describes an imaginary town called Malgudy in his novel Malgudy Days. Is there a one word for such a town?
Would 'Ruritania' be appropriate to describe a fictional town?
- Nope. --Chuck(척뉴넘) 15:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- If it is for a novel, Phantasmaborough, Phantasmeville, Civitafantasma, Fantasmagorod ... I like also this one : Dreamgulch. --DLL 18:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- "Nowhere"--Teutoberg 00:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Translating...
Hello! My name is Vitor and i'm a profound admirer of the WikiPedia website and its concept. I've learned so much from this community, and i'm so grateful that i would be so happy to participate and help as much as i can! I haven't edited any article yet (but i haven't known Wikipedia that long), and 've been thinking so much of how to help... I've noticed that the website is translated in various languages, but not all articles! And so i would to help and translate as many articles as i can (all if possible!) to my language (portuguese)! But i've looked around and i haven't found any option to translate. And simply editing shouldn't work, because i would only be changing to portuguese an english article... I really hope i get the chance to help improve this amazing site! I await your answer! Thank you so much, best regards. --vitinhov 16:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well, first of all, do you have an account at the Portuguese-language Wikipedia yet? If not, sign up for one there! That's the place to put your translations into Portuguese. Once you're done, be sure to add interwiki links to both the English and the Portuguese articles connecting them to each other. Portuguese Wikipedia has a category Artigos em tradução for articles that are still very short in Portuguese that need to be expanded by translating them out of English or another language. If you're also willing to translate from Portuguese into English, then add your name to the list at Wikipedia:Translators available#Portuguese-to-English, and keep an eye on Wikipedia:Translation into English#Portuguese-to-English for articles that someone has asked to be translated from Portuguese into English. Boa sorte! Angr (t • c) 16:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- It's not actually a mere "translation" but a separate Portuguese Wikipedia, to which you can add and edit articles like you can here. (Your user account won't carry over, though, so you'll need to create another one there if you don't want to be anonymous) —Zero Gravitas 16:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
May 10
How do I Refrence Wikipedia?
Hi there, i have used your website extensivly for a major university assignment, and i have searched all over the website but cant seem to find information so i can place this website in my reefrence list. Could you please help me to refrence Wikipedia in APA STYLE? thankyou so much for your time
- Use the 'Cite this article' link on the left toolbar. Chuck(척뉴넘) 02:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- The best place to look is Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia. Let us know if you need more help! Isopropyl 02:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia, or click "cite this article" in the toolbox on the left. No one person can be held responsible for writing an article, depending on what style you are using (APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, etc..) you just put the article name or Wikipedia: The free encyclopedia. --
Mac Davis] ⌇☢ ญƛ. 04:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
