Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

September 29

Netherlands

What language is used in the Netherlands? GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Dutch language? Fribbler (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

GO-PCHS-NJROTC, you could have found this on your own by reading the wikipedia article Netherlands. People, as stated above, please do a minimum of effort on your own. --Lgriot (talk) 00:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it is much easier to type "Netherlands" in the search box, as to type the whole question on the RF. Mr.K. (talk) 10:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Puzzle Clue

What phrase would these words form. They are....IT OM LTI MUL MU TA; MO NE NIA NOV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.211.41.6 (talk) 00:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

They look like fragments of Latin words (omnia, multa, moneta, etc.), but it's hard to know how to solve a puzzle without knowing what kind of puzzle it is... AnonMoos (talk) 02:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It should be "MULTI MULTA; NEMO OMNIA NOVIT". - Nunh-huh 03:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

That's good (the first sentence needs an implied NOVERUNT to be translated). AnonMoos (talk) 04:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I am interested in the meaning please? From my non-existent knowlegdge of Latin, I am guessing something like "Many more; No one is always new" or "No one knows everything"?? --Lgriot (talk) 07:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

"Many people [know] many things; no one knows everything". AnonMoos (talk) 11:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok so there is a root for "nova" which means "new", but another root for "novit" which means "to know". I guess it is an indoeuropean cognate to the English "know"? --Lgriot (talk) 23:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

There used to be a G there in pre-classical Latin, which survived classically when there were prefixes (as in, for example, "recognoscere", the root of the English "recognize"). As far as I remember it is related to Greek words like "gnomon", and English "know" (and German "kennen" etc etc). Adam Bishop (talk) 02:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.210.170.49 (talk)

Right, novit "knows" and novus "new" are from two different Indo-European roots, *ĝneh₃- and *newo-, and both are cognate with their respective English glosses. —Angr 05:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Terminology

Can a strait properly be called a watercourse?

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 00:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say no, it's all about the flow - see Watercourse. Mikenorton (talk) 10:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Proto-indo-European spoken out loud.

when I complete my task of taking over the World, the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European language will be the official language of The Empire since several billion people are at least somewhat familiar with one of its descendants (primarily English). But here's the thing: I can't find any source online where I can learn PIE, and what's more, I can't find any recorded samples of it (I would be tickled pink if I could find a recording of Schleicher's fable so I could hear what PIE really sounded like). Is the reconstruction so incomplete that no one can say with any certainty what PIE really sounded like? If anyone knows where I could find some recordings of spoken Proto-Indo-European, I'll probably cede a large portion of Antarctica to you when my global conquest is complete.

Thanks! 63.245.144.77 (talk) 00:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

There are many sound in PIE which have been identified without knowing how they were pronounced. So yes, PIE studies is mostly a written subject matter. --Lgriot (talk) 01:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

When you say "Schleicher's fable", do you mean the original mid-19th-century version (which certainly does not accurately represent Indo-European) or the revised late 20th-century version (which must remain somewhat speculative due to the nature of the subject)? We possess much knowledge concerning Indo-European, but there are still strong obstacles to being able to reconstruct PIE in such detail and correctness that a PIE speaker would understand what we were saying. For one thing, we simply aren't able to reconstruct in detail -- with any reliability or certainty -- as far back as the period when Indo-European was one somewhat unified language spoken over a relatively small area. And subsequent to this earliest period, Indo European spent a number of centuries as a dialect continuum, where influences spread back and forth between related nearby languages (though the dialects spoken by geographically non-adjacent language communities would often have been quite distinct from each other). When reconstructing backwards, it's very difficult to know if the various features that we've reconstructed ever all existed together at the same time, or in the same dialect. Even if by some miracle every single individual feature of the Indo-European language were to be reconstructed correctly, it still might be the case that we were putting together these language features into a reconstructed proto-language in a way that resulted in a hideous anachronistic and anti-geographical mish-mash, jumbling together things belonging to widely separated historical periods and dialects in the dialect continuum...

By the way, Indo-European wasn't the "original" language or the "best" language, or the language of any mystic ideology now accessible to us. For a basic look at some of the probable realistic factors in the early spread of Indo-European, see chapter 15 of The Third Chimpanzee by Jared Diamond... AnonMoos (talk) 03:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You may be interested in Modern Indo-European. —Angr 04:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, there we go. That's exactly what I was looking for! Thanks! 63.245.144.77 (talk) 04:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

As long as you're aware that it's rather unlikely that actual historical Proto-Indo-European speakers would have been able to understand "Modern Indo-European" at all easily. Such a language is an endearingly off-the-wall concept, but some of the motivations for its creation appear to have come from misunderstandings of historical and linguistic facts... AnonMoos (talk) 11:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hoi Polloi

Given the term hoi polloi means the masses, is there a corresponding Greek term used in the English language meaning the élite? Thanks. seresin ( ¡? )  05:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hoi oligoi ("the few") is the usual opposite of hoi polloi ("the many"). It isn't used often in English, though. —Angr 05:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Except in oligarchy. kwami (talk) 12:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, I've heard many a talk show radio host use "hoi polloi" to mean "the elite". I guess because it sort of sounds like "hoity toity"? Drives me nuts, regardless. Dgcopter (talk) 19:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Death suffix

What root/suffix/prefix, meaning: All/Everything, can I add to "-cide" or other suffix meaning: Death?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by L3tt3rz (talk • contribs) 08:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think such a word exists in common usage, but I would use either omnicide or polycide -- Ferkelparade π 08:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Pancide? -- JackofOz (talk) 08:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

-cide is Latin, isn't it? So omni- is preferable to poly- or pan- which are Greek. —Tamfang (talk) 08:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) "-cide" doesn't exactly means "death", it means "killing". "The killing of everything" would presumably be "omnicide". (I took the liberty of changing the title of this section since there is already a section called "Question!" on this page.) —Angr 08:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Panthanasia? [1] Bazza (talk) 12:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking about the death of everything, or the death of all people? If the latter, you could say "Democide". Corvus cornix_talk 18:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about the Death of All-Living: Man, Woman & Child w/o Discrimination... Would "Anthropocide" work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by L3tt3rz (talk • contribs) 20:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Since we know there's only one human race, could "genocide" be made to fit the bill these days? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Humanicide gets me a number of ghits, with varying definitions. It could fit the bill. Steewi (talk) 03:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

-cide words usually refer to killing one or more other people. In this case, it would have to include suicide because if the killer's left alive, then not all humanity has been wiped out. (Of course, it would only be matter of time before he dies ...). -- JackofOz (talk) 20:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Latin translation

Quid aliud est mulier nisi amiticiæ inimica

Hi, what would the above mean? I can recognize some words/roots, but I have no idea. Tried searching but got no satisfactory results. --Kjoonlee 09:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

"What else is a woman but the enemy of friendship?" The penultimate word should be "amicitiae". Googling suggests it's from the Malleus Maleficarum. —Angr 09:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Considering the purpose of Malleus, I'm reminded of Catherine Carswell's observation, "It wasn't a woman who betrayed Jesus with a kiss." --- OtherDave (talk) 12:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be the late-15th-century scholarly Latinate way of saying "bros before hos"... AnonMoos (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you :) --Kjoonlee 04:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

requesition letter for an atm card

Do you have a question? The title is not enough. (I have removed your example image, which seemed to serve no purpose.) Gwinva (talk) 09:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Writing style forum

What is the best forum in the internet for writing style? Is there any forum out there dedicated to the analysis of texts? Mr.K. (talk) 11:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Political term

How would you classify someone whose views lie between "moderate" and "liberal"? (since I'm looking for a word, I think the language desk is the right place to post this...)128.239.177.28 (talk) 13:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)SneezingPanda

If not just "moderate liberal", then "center-left" is all I can think of. AnonMoos (talk) 13:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) By whose definition of "liberal"? In Europe, political parties called "Liberal" tend to be right-of-center, relatively conservative on fiscal issues and relatively progressive on social issues. In the U.S., "liberal" has somehow come to mean "left-wing". If you're thinking of the U.S. defintion (and since your IP address is associated with the US I suspect you are), I guess I'd say "left of center". —Angr 13:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The term "moderate liberal" works, too. The Jade Knight (talk) 07:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

what age

how old do you think this kid was who said "a diamond is a TYPE of pearl"? At what age could you have made a mistake like that?

This is an online version of a Reference desk. Your question is inappropriate. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You would expect that by their teens children would know that a diamond differs from a pearl. I guess you assume this is Common knowledge? It seems pretty basic information to me, and i'm not sure why someone would equate a diamond and pearl as enough alike for one to be a 'type' of them - presumably they've never seen either? Perhaps they were confused? Either way you could obviously make the mistake at any age, but you'd expect that as age increases the likelihood of making the mistake decreases - though i guess past a certain age it could start to go back up as dementia and senility start to ravage once brilliant minds. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 15:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

what does "by their teens" mean to you? Like, probably by 12? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.111.254 (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Not usually. Teens start at 13 (thirteen) in my world. What the kid may have been thinking of is that pearls and diamonds have more than one thing in common. They're both produced as the result of natural processes that take a considerable time (a lot more with diamonds, but pearls don't happen overnight either); they're both forms of jewellery; they're often worn together; they're both very valuable; you'd buy them both in the same shop; and they both often appear in the same song lyrics. I wouldn't judge them too harshly for thinking laterally, even if they did express themselves unscientifically. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Jack, I just said that (see below). And, besides, in some languages, teens start at 'ten', such as Japanese, Chinese, and Korean. We don't know where the OP is from.--ChokinBako (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

???? Not to mention ????. That sounds like you're chiding me for repeating something you already said. Let the chronological record speak for itself, I say. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I only noticed it after I posted. I must not have noticed you had posted in the first place. Very unlike me, I must say! Sincere apologies.--ChokinBako (talk) 01:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, ChokinBako. Apology accepted. Your second point is interesting, though. In English. we define "teenager" and "being in one's teens" by the words that happen to end in -teen (13 through 19). Is there an equivalent to "teenager" etc in those other languages? If a Korean "teenager" aged 10, say, comes to the USA, is it a problem for them to understand that they've suddenly dropped back to being a "child", and won't resume being a teenager until they get to 13? -- JackofOz (talk) 01:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It depends how educated they would be. There's no a priori reason to know the difference between various forms of jewelry. As to the nature of the error—it would require more information to know. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I never thought of that. It is probably made even more complicated by the fact that the Japanese sometimes use the English word teen (ティーン) to mean 'teen', but in the Japanese sense of the word (i.e. 10 and older). The original Japanese word 'juudai' (十代) means 'the age of tens', and there is no separate word for anyone who is 13 or older. I suppose it would annoy/confuse them that they are no longer 'teen', even though they are still 'juudai'. I love exploring word equivalency/lack thereof! Let's do colours next!--ChokinBako (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I would not scold the kid for saying something like that. It would be like saying a 'zebra is a type of horse'. Diamonds and pearls are both used as jewelry and are both made from minerals, albeit in completely different ways and both are subsets of the term 'jewelry', but there is some logic logic in it, even though it is mistaken logic. I am not defending the kid, though, because, by that logic, one could say a pig is a type of horse, as they are both animals.--ChokinBako (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

A better analogy would be horse and camel: related not by nature but by use. —Tamfang (talk) 05:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, like husband and wife, perhaps?--ChokinBako (talk) 21:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Request

I need help. If somebody has free time (and it won't be difficult for him) I want to ask him to read my article Sergei Bodrov, Jr. and tell me if the translation is normal or poor. Somebody wrote on article's discussion page that the language is extremely vague. I don't understand if he meant the indicated sentence or the whole article. Thanks.--Slav9ln (talk) 14:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

He meant the sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The article in its entirety has a few odd phrases and inaccurate words that I and probably others will correct. The final sentence in the "schooling" paragraph requires rewording but I can't understand what is meant by the present sentence. Richard Avery (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for help!!--Slav9ln (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"Cheri" in English

A Hot Chocolate song is called "Cheri Babe". Now "chéri" is a French word, used both as a noun ("darling") and an adjective ("beloved"), but in both cases for males only. Now in what way and what meaning exactly is the word used in English? And is its pronounciation in any way different to "sherry"? --KnightMove (talk) 20:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It's just a girls name: [2]. A variant of Cherie. Pronunciation is as "Sherry". Fribbler (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thx, but is it usual to use a name in a construction like this? "Sally babe", "Emily babe"...? --KnightMove (talk) 07:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

"Usual" is relative. It is not unheard of to use "-babe" (or "-baby") as a way of turning a name into a diminutive in the US. It's not terribly common, but few diminuitives including the name are in English. The Jade Knight (talk) 08:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

See, for example, "Sherry Baby."]

what is the meaning of the turkish word balim in english?

what is the meaning of the turkish word balim in english? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.118.77.70 (talk) 21:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

"My honey" in an affectionate way. Fribbler (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It's actually "balım" with a dotless i, though. —Angr 21:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

That's right. Delayed my dictionary search, that did. Fribbler (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't vowel harmony require undotting? —Tamfang (talk) 17:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and because this is a root with a suffix (bal "honey" + ım "my"), vowel harmony applies. But if this had been a single morpheme, it could have been balim with a dotted I, since dotted I is allowed to appear within the same root as back vowels (e.g. İstanbul). —Angr 05:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

whats your interpretation of this quote?

“Greatness lies not in being strong, but in the right using of strength…” - Henry Ward Beecher —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.233.251 (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Do your own homework? I mean, honestly, just read it over, it's not impossible to make sense of. Consider whether the US intervention in Iraq has been a display of American greatness or lack thereof, as a concrete example. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

September 30

"upwards of"

I'm wondering about the expression "upwards of".

For example, does "upwards of fifty" mean - less than but close to fifty - more than fifty - somewhere in the vicinity of fifty?

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 01:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

At least fifty, but probably more. (Not as much as 60, of course, else you'd say "pushing 60", or similar .) Think of it as "above". Gwinva (talk) 02:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyone know this Kanji?

Does anyone know this Kanji? 鑑. In my document, it is used as '[verb]ことに鑑み' and comes at the end of a clause. Cheers!--ChokinBako (talk) 12:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

My kanji dictionary says かんがみる, meaning "in view of [a situation]". TomorrowTime (talk) 12:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, that makes perfect sense!--ChokinBako (talk) 12:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Name of a report?

If I'm making a report to my manager to assess the current situation of a service and making suggestions on what changes and options are possible to improve the quality and efficiency of the service and how to reconfigure and optimize the workflow or the way phone lines are set up, what is that called? an "assessment and suggestion report"? surely there must be a standard term for this kind of research and recommendations document. in the end it's the manager who receives the report who can decide what he wants to do, but now he is fully informed of his options.--Sonjaaa (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Name the report something logical to what you are doing "Optimisation of Phone Line to Improve Service Quality and Efficiency" would seem to be alright. Something such as Project_management#Project management artifacts might be a place to consider more official sounding titles. The problem is that every company will incorporate different 'tools' and so will have different report naming conventions. ny156uk (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Italian translation

Hy there, could someone translate me this Italian sentence: "NESSUNO COME NOI"? Much obliged. Flamarande (talk) 17:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it means "no one like us". —Angr 18:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I think so too. —Tamfang (talk) 17:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Mama and papa

Some articles said the similarity between "mama" and "papa" in many less related languages is "false cognate". Are there exist some opposite linguistic theories or evidences that support other viewpoints? I am thinking about that maybe some of these "mama"s are real cognate because recent researches suggest that all the people have same origin. luuva (talk) 20:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

If you haven't already, check out mama_and_papa. A question very similar to this came up on this Language Desk a month or so ago. You might find more information in the Archives.--El aprendelenguas (talk) 20:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

USA v UK abbreviations

Why is it that Americans abbreviate every thing with initials, whereas Brits use a 'shortened' form. e.g. Video Cassette Recorder, US = VCR, UK video Television, US = TV, UK = telly Automatic teller machine, US = ATM, UK = hole in the wall Improvised Explosive Devise, US = IED, UK = bomb

Thanks, Colin, a Brit living in the US —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.170.128.65 (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

We stopped saying 'hole in the wall' when people started stealing them, and they were, literally, a hole in the wall! What era did you come from?! --ChokinBako (talk) 23:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm 28 from the UK. I say "cash machine". The term "hole in the wall" is now a trademark of Barclays Bank! doktorb _words^deeds 23:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

We also do use the Lloyds TSB copyrighted term 'Cashpoint' quite a bit as it's easier to say that Barclays' copyrighted 'hole-in-the-wall'. Nanonic (talk) 23:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Terms like that are uncopyrightable. I think you mean they are trademarks. Algebraist 09:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Because British and American English are different dialects. No, seriously, that is all the answer there is. We say 'lorry' but Americans don't, what we call a 'mobile' Americans usually call a 'cellphone', and so on. Because they're different dialects. It may be the case that Americans use more initialisms, than we do, but I'm not convinced. I don't think many Americans would talk about their 'GP', for example.

Incidentally, I'm dubious about both 'telly' and 'hole in the wall'. I don't deny that they are used, but not in the same way as 'TV' and 'ATM': I don't think I would say 'telly' except jocularly, and I normally say 'cashpoint' or 'cash machine' rather than 'hole in the wall'. Come to think of it, one reason for 'ATM' being less readily taken up in the UK may be that the word 'teller' is very much less common that in the US. --ColinFine (talk) 23:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Meh, these things vary of course. I'd say 'telly' as easily as 'TV', but 'hole in the wall' definitely has a jocular edge for me - only used in certain moods and circumstances. Maybe 10 or so years ago I would have considered it the normal word for the people I heard say it. Would never use ATM though (except as abbrev. for at the moment). Cash machine would seem more every day usage. 130.88.52.36 (talk) 18:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I expect British soldiers serving in Iraq would use the term IED; IED is a specific type of bomb. All IEDs are bombs, but not all boms are IED's. Calling an IED a bomb is the equivalent of calling a sturgeon a fish. The Jade Knight (talk) 03:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

"no no" ( babyish expression..)

To say that soemething is a "no, no " is quite common in current English.I don't like it , especially outside its pediatric context , as it sounds infantile and trivialising. I *believe* it originated from Dr Benjamin Spock, but I have been able to find an origin, Can anyone help ? Feroshki (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The OED gives a 1942 citation. The noun form appears in L. V. Berrey and M. Van den Bark's The American Thesaurus of Slang. In the 1953 edition, "no-no" appears on page 297. Spock's book Baby and Child Care was not published until 1946. Michael Slone (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not a "no, no"; it's a no-no. While the phrase is obviously older, it was popularized in the 1960s by Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In. --Anonymous, 05:25 UTC, October 1, 2008.

Before Laugh-In, there was "that's a Bozo no-no".... I see our article on Bozo lacks the Bozo no-no, "Cram it, Clownie!" story, for which, see here- Nunh-huh 18:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

October 1

Bach title

I've tripped over an arrangement of a Bach composition, subtitled in German "Wenn Meine Trubsal als mit Ketten". While I can translate each individual word adequately, I can't put them together into a coherent phrase. Trubsal should be Trübsal, distress; Ketten are chains, but how would you render than into, say, a cantata title in English?

(If my distress was all in chains? Were my distress like chains?)

--DaHorsesMouth (talk) 03:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This gives the following translation of the Aria:

Wenn meine Trübsal als mit Ketten

When my sorrow as if with chains

Ein Unglück an dem andern hält,

joins one misfortune to another,

So wird mich doch mein Heil erretten,

then will my saviour rescue me,

Daß alles plötzlich von mir fällt.

so that everything suddenly falls away from me.

Wie bald erscheint des Trostes Morgen

How soon appears a morning of consolation

Auf diese Nacht der Not und Sorgen!

after the affliction and worry of this night! -- JackofOz (talk) 04:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Jack beat me to it. I was just going to say you need the next phrase too. Grsz^talk 04:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The translation has a couple of (relatively minor) issues, namely:

• So wird mich doch mein Heil erretten: "Heil" is not the saviour but that which the saviour (German "Heiland") brings; I'd probably translate it with "salvation" or "grace".
• Wie bald erscheint des Trostes Morgen: there's a genitive that's not correctly rendered in the English sentence; "Trostes Morgen" should be "consolation's morning".
• Auf diese Nacht der Not und Sorgen: this is also not quite correctly translated, it should be "this night of affliction and worry".

And the first word is open for interpretation as it's a bit ambiguous in German; a (temporal) "when" certainly works and makes sense in the context of the cantata, but a case could also be made for a (conditional) "if" which would change the tone of the passage slightly -- Ferkelparade π 08:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Exposition to alcohol causes...

Is it appropriate to use the word "exposition" in place of "exposure"? --Seans Potato Business 09:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No. Why would it be? Algebraist 09:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It would be if the definition of 'exposition' aligned with the intended concept, obviously. I have a lecturer who insisted that it was appropriate and that the word is used in this way in scientific literature on the subject of epidemiology. ----Seans Potato Business 11:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Google scholar seems to agree with him, unfortunately. What a horrible usage. Algebraist 09:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Only if you tell your troubles to the bottle. —Tamfang (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

even more probable to be true

How can you express the idea that if A is true, B is even more probable to be true. (i.e. there is even more evidence to B). Mr.K. (talk) 10:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"A makes B more likely/probable."? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe correlation? Not quite a perfect match to the described scenario but sort of similar. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 11:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Bayes' theorem is perhaps a more closely related concept than correlation, in my opinion (though as you're asking on the Language ref. desk page you're probably not after mathematical concepts anyway).--85.158.137.195 (talk) 12:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if this is a general question or if you have a specific example in mind. In general, one might say: "A implies B". In particular cases, there are many ways to express the idea depending on how strongly A and B are linked. Wanderer57 (talk) 12:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

A forteriori? Provided A does not imply B, but there are stronger reasons to believe B is true.80.58.205.37 (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

There's no such word, AFAIK. Did you mean a fortiori? — Emil J. 15:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

yes, I meant a fortiori. 80.58.205.37 (talk) 17:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Scottish

Why is there a Scots wikipedia? Surely the language has to be the first language of a group of people to be at all useful; and seeing as in Scotland the first language is Scottish English; which all business education and broadcasts etc. are conducted in; who does this benefit? Te only people that can read it can read the English (probably better, as they probably only learnt the semi-archaic Scots for a bit of fun) and the English one has far more content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.62.154 (talk) 12:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no "first language" criterion for a Wikipedia to exist; indeed there is an Esperanto Wikipedia. A Wikipedia in a given language exists purely when there is enough interest (and then enough activity) for one to exist. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

My personal opinion on this has long been that one of the things Wikipedia isn't is Asterix; therefore Wikipedias should exist only in languages used as the medium of instruction somewhere, rather than every language and dialect someone thinks it would be neato to have a Wikipedia in. I don't know whether Scots fulfills that criterion though, and anyway it's only my personal opinion, not Wikimedia policy. —Angr 12:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Scots and Esperanto both have native speakers. And seeing as Scots is a recognized language with a fair number of speakers, a Wikipedia has been created in it, and has done fairly well. One of the reasons to have Wikipedias in native languages is because people sometimes prefer to use their own language over a more common one. For example, though there are no monolingual speakers of Welsh or Norman that I'm aware of, individuals often feel that their own language is just as valuable or useful as the dominant language. Additionally, different cultures give different priorities. Articles which have been deleted here for being non-notbale on the English Wikipedia (such as Diex aie) have been decidedly kept on other language Wikipedias where they are considered notable to that culture. The Jade Knight (talk) 04:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the people over at Meta.Wikimedia.org have pretty much adopted a "no new dead-language Wikipedias" policy, which means that there will probably be no further Wikis like Latin, Classical Chinese, and Old English. The Klingon Wikipedia and the Tokipona Wikipedia were shut down 2-3 years ago... AnonMoos (talk) 13:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Sweet suffering succotash, this notion is enough to make me wish I knew enough Latin to start a online encyclopedia. How does the GNU general public license restrain me from doing so? (Answer: it doesn't.) The policy listed above deals with new language subdomains of existing projects on Wikimedia (who, fortunately, don't seem to view themselves as the Galactic Emperor). The esteemed Finlay, above, shows good sense: if a bunch of people want to have an online encyclopedia in Scots or Latin on Klingon, so what? If they succeed, they succeed; if they fail, they fail. Some folks need more important things to worry about, like whether Andy Murray is a British tennis player or a Scottish one. The world wonders. --- OtherDave (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

There's a Klingon Wikia, but there isn't a Klingon Wikipedia anymore. There is, however, an established Latin Wikipedia (just like I already said above). AnonMoos (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Right you are; my misreading. The point's the same, though: whatcha gonna do if someone starts an online encyclopedia in, say, Elvish? Send Jimbo Wales to beat them up? --- OtherDave (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

They're welcome to do so, but not under a subdomain of wikipedia.org... AnonMoos (talk) 21:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I remember they tested out Quenya in the Incubator but I don't think it took off. bibliomaniac15 21:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

OtherDave, I have no issue with someone starting a website of any form, in whatever language they like, but I just thought the cost incurred by dead language wikipedias may be wasted funds, as no-one benefits from it. If they do it in their own domain they can do what they want. But this is an organization that depends on charity to make ends meet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.62.154 (talk) 00:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

For Latin, at least, it is fun, and good practise, and we get to communicate with other Latinists from all over the world in a common language. The English Wikipedia doesn't really benefit anyone in any meaningful way either; what could be more of a waste of time than contributing to a encyclopedia that is essentially unusable, since by its own definition it can never be complete, and welcomes all sorts of meaningless crap from anyone with spare time and a computer? But here we are anyway. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.210.170.49 (talk)

Oh, what a naughty thing to say, Adam. You speak as if WP were here solely for the benefit of the editors. What about our primary clients, the readers? That's who I always keep in mind when I'm writing or editing articles. There's a reason why WP has become one of the top 5 most visited sites in the world, and only a small percentage of visits are from editors. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The real problem with many (if not most) Wikipedias in dead or constructed languages is that they don't attract a "bunch of people want to have an online encyclopedia" in that language, or at least not enough of them to actually produce a reasonable approximation of one. The Latin and Esperanto Wikipedias are the positive exceptions, with about 22,919 and 104,591 articles respectively — that's not bad at all. Welsh is doing fine at 18,892 articles, and even Norman has 3,125 articles. On the other hand, the Klingon Wikipedia had a grand total of 67 articles when it closed, while the Toki Pona Wikia currently has 372 "legitimate content pages". —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Unidentified symbol

This question comes by way of Ryan North, of Dinosaur Comics: Does anyone know if there are any languages that have a symbol that resembles this? -- MacAddct1984 ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen it, but if there were a language spoken only by cricketers, it might in a cryptic sort of way represent the word for a sticky wicket (see sticky wicket for what I'm talking about). -- JackofOz (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You could ask over at omniglot.com. The Jade Knight (talk) 04:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks rather like a UK road sign you might see on a three lane motorway, meaning that the left hand lane is blocked somewhere ahead. 163.1.148.158 (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Journalist with foreign accent?

Is it my impression or the CNN journalist here does have a foreign accent? Is it possible to be a journalist not being a native speaker?80.58.205.37 (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

What? Is there some sort of requirement that people only take jobs in the country they were raised in or something? 70.90.171.153 (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The journalist in question is named as Felipe Barral; according to this page, he is "assignment editor/producer for CNN en Español". I guess he can occasionally be called upon to do reports for CNN in English if it's simpler than sending a native speaker to a place where he already is. In general, broadcast journalists will be native speakers; historically, even those with regional accents were rarely allowed on the air (hence "BBC English" and General American#General American in the media). However, if a reporter has a particular unusual speciality, that may outweigh the disadvantage of an accent. In particular, foreign correspondents for a news organ are often natives of the country reported on rather than of the news organ's home market. CNN International, being global, has lots of nonnative English speakers. jnestorius^(talk) 19:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Utterly unthinkable. What do those foureen mutts imagine, appearing on CNN like that?

Dear IP Adress, you, sir, have some serious issues that need to be dealt with. Or maybe you just have some growing up to do, that's possible, too. TomorrowTime (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Naughty naughty; feeding the trolls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.62.154 (talk) 01:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not a troll and not all edits from my IP are my edits. It was a serious question and it was answered seriously. Consider that where I am, there are only native speakers in journalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.37 (talk) 07:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If you are in Spain, as me and as your IP indicates, I must say that many journalists here have foreign accents. It depends on what you call foreign of course. They are clearly native speakers of the Latin-American Spanish. However, I suppose that in professions deeply dependable from language skills, like journalism, non-native speakers will be only a minority of the working force. Mr.K. (talk) 08:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Although she was born in London, Christiane Amanpour was raised in Iran, and has a slight accent. She is a well-respected reporter. And are you saying that there are no native-Basque speakers on Spanish television? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I was not saying there are no native Basque speakers. I just said non-natives are a small minority, even smaller when compared with the general population. I suppose there are some native-Basque speakers and native-Catalan speakers, however I would also call them native-Spanish speakers since they are bilingual.Mr.K. (talk) 08:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, Sylvia Poggioli, though American, is NPR's Rome-based European correspondant, and she has a distinctivly Italian accent. Interesting, since she was raised New England. I have always admired her reporting, but her accent seems a bit of an affectation. Likewise, their China correspondant Rob Gifford is distinctly British. While still fairly entrenched in most media, it seems the general attitudes towards the accents of our news presenters is changing slightly... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Foreign correspondents in Spanish TV also have sometimes a slight accent. Although I believe they are native speakers who lived overseas for a long time. Mr.K. (talk) 08:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I've never noticed Syliva Poggioli's accent except when she pronounces Italian words, then she pronounces them as an Italian would, rather than as an American would. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's start with an assumption of good will. In some countries, journalism is not a profession open to non-citizens. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Please translate the following?

The words SVAZ PRAEL USA JIHOZAPADNI ALLIANCE appear on a lapel pin showing the Statue of Liberty. What does it mean and what language is it? ForgetergalForgetergal (talk) 20:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Czech. Grsz^talk 21:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Svaz=Association Jihozápadní=Southwest Grsz^talk 21:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It's Czech. It should read "Svaz přátel USA, jihozápadní aliance", which means "The Union of Friends of the USA, Southwest Alliance". It is a name of an NGO[3][4]. — Emil J. 13:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2

english language

importance of language in administration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.219.254.32 (talk) 00:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I concur (after all what else can I do with a statement) but please see English grammar and note that all english sentences should have a verb and a subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.62.154 (talk) 00:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Really? Crikey. :) --Kjoonlee 01:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

But I do agree with one thing: you can't just write a noun phrase and a prepositional phrase and call it a sentence. --Kjoonlee 01:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm adding this in case the person who started this section is confused by these notes. Nobody can answer your comment because it is very vague. Wanderer57 (talk) 01:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course we can answer. 41.219: read the articles about importance, English, language and administration for that purpose. Mr.K. (talk) 08:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Translation

I'd appreciate if you could tell me what language this is / give me a translation:

blya izvilni

9 teb9 sproi/| 4e eto takoic

ya videl tebya no ne dumai

ehto you rus

70.162.28.222 (talk) 02:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This is Russian put into a transliteration for computing purposes. I can't read it well enough for a translation. A better transcription might be something like: Byla izvilni. Ya tebya sproil(?) che eto takoits. Ya videl tebya no ne dumaj. Ehto you rus. была извилный. я тебя спроил ... ето такоиц. я видел тебя но не думай. Ето ю рус. I don't speak Russion, so that will be full of mistakes.

The only bit I can guess is: It was ???. I ???ed you ... this ... I saw you at home. ??? ??? ???. Steewi (talk) 03:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) If it's all one piece of text, it seems to be Russian, although some of the transliterations are very wonky. The only line that is indisputably Russian is "ya videl tebya no ne dumai" (I saw you but do not think ..).

blya izvilni - probably "byla izvilini" (there were bends/twists)

9 teb9 sproi/| 4e eto takoic - I think this should be "ya tebya sprosil <something> eto takoe" (I asked you <?> what it is)

ehto you rus - probably "chto" (what/that), but "you rus" has stumped me.

Putting it together: There were twists I asked you <?> <?> what it was I saw you but do not think that <?> <?>.

Best I can do with the material, sorry. Where did this come from, if you don't mind my asking? -- JackofOz (talk) 03:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Got far further with it than I did. FWIW, I seriously doubt that the last sentence is Ето у рысь ("It is with a lynx" :) Closest sensible sentence I could come up with is Что у нас, which IIRC means something like "what is ours". Possibly its some related language like Ukrainian rather than actually Russian? Grutness...wha? 04:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Two statements

Which is preferable?

"Your goals can easily be achieved." or "Your goals can be achieved easily."

Am I correct in saying that they are both acceptable and mean the same thing, but the first one is a better choice?

--The Dark Side (talk) 03:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this is also possible: You goals can be easily achieved. Some English adverbs are very flexible about where they can occur. --Kjoonlee 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

IMO, yes. The Jade Knight (talk) 04:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

All three are grammatically correct but personally the first one sounds more natural. "Your goals can easily be achieved." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.96.244 (talk) 08:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

While possibly equivalent in meaning, there may be a slight difference in emphasis. The second has a bit more emphasis on the "easily", and may be preferred in contexts where the achievement of goals was not in doubt, but the difficulty of that achievement was in question (perhaps implicitly). e.g. if the lead-in question was "Is it possible to do X?", I'd go with "Your goals can easily be achieved.", but if the lead-in question was "How hard is it to do X?", I'd probably go with "Your goals can be achieved easily." -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Power to seniority - one word?

Resolved

Hello,

Sorry I don't like the "is there one word" questions usually, and now I find myself asking one of those question! I am looking for a word with Latin roots or Greek roots, or both (in case someone coined it already), that would describe the power structure in Japanese traditional companies, who tend to give the promotions purely on seniority (that is how long you have been in the company and/or how old you are) rather than give promotions to those who deserve it (which I would call a meritocracy). None of my attempts (senioricracy, senatocracy, senilocracy, senocracy) seem to work. Thanks in advance. --Lgriot (talk) 04:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Cronyism? Grsz^talk 04:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I was looking for a "-cracy" or "-archy" word (democracy: power to the people; theocracy: power to god, well rather, the religion; Monarchy: power to the one; oligarchy: power to a few), but I didn't know cryonism, very interesting. It is not exactly the concept I am thinking of, though. --Lgriot (talk) 04:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

There's always gerontocracy. The Jade Knight (talk) 04:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, it is what I was looking for, but now that I remember the word, it seems that I can't use it, because it sounds like the power is in the elderly, not just the "older than you" type of people. Thanks anyway. --Lgriot (talk) 07:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Is seniorate a word in English? If it is, this could be an answer to Lgriot's question. If not, then this article should be probably moved to a different title. A Google search for this word (restricted to English) returns relatively few hits, most of them in the context of Polish or Czech history, so it might be just a calque from the Polish seniorat or the Czech seniorát. pl:Seniorat and cz:Seniorát are both interwiki-linked to Agnatic seniority, which is a little narrower term. — Kpalion^(talk) 17:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, with English, anything can become a word if it catches on. I've never heard "seniorate," though. In the U.S., you'll hear "the seniority system" often, though that's not the single word you're looking for. Could you use something like "a kind of corporate gerontocracy," extending the metaphor to show you mean that status results from time with the organization (rather than just age)? --- OtherDave (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

War with oneself

Hello,

Can you help me? What phrase can be used in order to express a man's war with himself (when he fights against his bad qualities)?--Slav9ln (talk) 05:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

In English, perhaps self-improvement or self-help. In Islam, this is one of the main meanings of jihad. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You are your own worst enemy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.96.244 (talk) 08:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Fighting his demons? - X201 (talk) 08:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps "inner struggle"; or, more extremely, "inner conflict". jnestorius^(talk) 08:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Psychomachia? Deor (talk) 12:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for help!!--Slav9ln (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

A study about English

Please help me describe the relation between online English study and English. please elaborate the question. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Griffplll (talk • contribs) 09:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid I do not understand the question, could you please say more? Strawless (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the second "English" refers to a subject at school. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Would it help to look at English as a Foreign or Second Language and Electronic learning? BrainyBabe (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there an equivalent to "teenager" etc in those other languages?

I'm starting a new section here to answer a question JackofOz asked in the What age section of September 29. There is an equivalent in Polish. It's nastolatek (feminine: nastolatka), a calque from English, derived from -naście, a suffix appearing in all numbers from 11 (jedenaście) to 19 (dziewiętnaście); plus lata, "years"; plus -ek/-ka, a diminutive suffix. And as you might guess, "teenagers" in Poland are aged 11–19. I don't know of equivalents in any other langauges. Like Jack, I'd be glad to learn, if there are more. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

In German, you just use Teenager. The German ending is -zehn and it runs from 13 to 19 (11 and 12 being elf and zwölf), but since -teen is not a morpheme of German, I don't know to what extent it's associated with ages ending in -zehn in English. Perhaps one of our native German speakers can say whether 11- and 12-year-olds are considered Teenager in German. (Aside: perhaps more common in German than Teenager is Jugendlicher "youthful one", which I think spans from 14 to 20.) Irish uses the word déagóir for "teenager", which is calqued on English using the word déag which forms the numbers from 11 to 19 (11 = a haon déag, 12 = a dó dhéag, ..., 19 = a naoi déag), but again I can't say whether 11- and 12-year-olds are considered déagóirí or not, though logically (as in Polish), they could be. —Angr 09:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

In Dutch there is "tiener". As in English and German, the ending "-tien" runs from 13 ("dertien") to 19 ("negentien"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 09:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

French has "ado" from adolescent, since there is no common ending for the -teen numbers. I'm not sure what ages that covers though. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

In Finnish we have a common suffix for numbers from 11 to 19, but it's not one that would be easily adapted. Instead we have borrowed "teen-aged" from English, mangling the first part into "teini" and translating the rest. The resulting word "teini-ikäinen" is in common use as an adjective, and we use the short form "teini" for the noun "teenager". There's also "teini-ikä", literally "teen age", for "teens". 84.239.160.166 (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I realize I'm late here, but in case someone is still reading, the word teini is not in fact mangled English but twice mangled Greek: diakonos begat Swedish djäkne which in the 16th century begat Finnish teini, originally a junior priest but later a student. The contemporary use of teini as the exact equivalent of teen is no more than a few decades old. (The same thing holds for some other pairs of contemporary Finnish and English colloquialisms as well, eg. dorka and dork, where the Finnish dorka is originally from Russian durak and used to mean a crazy person, but now means an uncool one.--Rallette (talk) 07:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There's also German "Backfisch" (never understood where that one comes from...) AnonMoos (talk) 21:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd still like to know how 11-year old Polish nastolatki feel when they discover they're now younger than teenagers in English-speaking countries. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Backfisch is a term from fishery and describes a young fish. The etymology of that isn't really clear, looking at the German wikipedia. It's an obsolete term nowadays, though. Baranxtu (talk) 13:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Czech uses mládež, literally "(a) youth." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

And adolescent has varying definitions. BrainyBabe (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

"have all but"

"A month ago, Mr. Frome realized that the hobbyists, most of them men over 50 with six-figure incomes, had all but stopped buying the planes and replacement parts — including a new electronic device, developed by Fromeco, that logs flight data. Sales plummeted from a $1 million annual rate to half that level, and they are still falling."

From the New York Times. What does "had all but stopped" means here? From the context, I understand that they have stopped buying the planes. However, I thought that "have all but + V" meant "have all except + V". So the sentence in question would mean: they have not stopped buying.

Other examples are: "We had all but forgotten you, Prince" (=> Not forgotten) "Hope of finding Fossett alive all but gone". (=>there is still hope).

Mr.K. (talk) 09:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

"All but" used to confuse me too, it actually means "almost" or "nearly". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 09:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, 'all but' is even in the dictionary. I was parsing it as 'have all' + 'but' not 'have' + 'all but'.Mr.K. (talk) 09:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

omonimus

in article R3B the word "omonimus" is used. theres nothing i can find on the net which defines it (tho some articles use it) and i just checked my compact oed and nada. any ideas? a misspelling perhaps? thanks Mission Fleg (talk) 10:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

All I can think of is "homonymous", but that doesn't make sense in the context of that article. —Angr 11:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Eponymous? -- BenRG (talk) 11:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ominous? The other two suggestions may work but would be redundant. So I don't know if you want to attribute poor style choices or poor writing to the author.--droptone (talk) 11:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess Monoimus would be right out... -- AnonMoos (talk) 19:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it's a misspelling for "eponymous", but I'd also say the phrase in which it occurs doesn't need to exist at all. It reads as if the LAND detection setup includes a detector called LAND. It's possible to have an array of detectors, known collectively as LAND, and also call one of the individual detectors LAND. But that seems a very confusing way of naming things. Or "omonimus" might be technical jargon for a particular type of detector, of which LAND (the second one) is an example. But I'd expect it to be linked or footnoted or otherwise explained, if that's the case. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that Angr has the word right -- "homonymous" -- and Jack has the reason right, although neither of them believes it! The sentence is trying to say that the word LAND has two meanings, one referring to the individual neutron detectors and another referring to the whole setup containing them. This is not really very confusing -- it's perfectly commonplace to refer to a device in terms of its most important part, or to name it by using its most important part adjectivally -- and hardly needs calling attention to. --Anonymous, 03:13 UTC, October 3, 2008.

ok, thanks for the chuckles :) and the info, i'll change it to homonymous and ask the author. which, come to think of it, is probably what i should have done to start with! cheers Mission Fleg (talk) 08:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Latin jokes

On the printing block used by T&A Constable Ltd / Edinburgh University Press is written "Firma Pererrat Aquas Et Constabilitur Eundo". What is this in English? Supposedly it contains three jokes or puns. Any guesses as to what they might be please? Kittybrewster ☎ 11:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess it means "[something] firm wanders through water and is made stable by moving". I don't see the jokes, aside from the contradictions. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's the pun involving English firm (="company"), for one. And constabilitur as a pun on "Constable" in the firm's name. Deor (talk) 13:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I may be really overthinking this one, but there's also the point that this motto would scan as a hexameter if one read constabilitur with a false quantity in the penult (i.e., as constabilītur), in which case the second half of the verse would sound like "Constable itur eundo"—"Constable is moved by moving." Deor (talk) 02:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I think Deor has this bang on in terms of identifying the intended jokes. As for the meter, the line is certainly intended as a dactylic hexameter (far too much of a coincidence otherwise). As for the false quantity, is it really false? I read the 'i' as long, admittedly because I could see right away that the meter was dactylic. But if the underlying verb is like 'audio' the quantity is correct. I can't say I remember this verb occuring in classical Latin, and I don't have Lewis and Short by me, but it seems plausible to think that it does conjugate like 'audio'. Maid Marion (talk) 13:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like they were trying to be way too clever. Must be a 19th century motto then :) Adam Bishop (talk) 21:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Six sigma projects

i have a question posted for one of the most important thing to me at present regarding six sigma projects, i have had no response whatsoever, is there a way i can expedite the process or reach to the poople of similar interests,would serve a great purposeVikram79 (talk) 18:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

What is the question? --Sean 20:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Titular character

My understanding of the word "titular" is as explained at titular ruler, a person who has a title but little or none of the powers that that title implies. However, I’m seeing more and more examples of its use to mean the title role in a play, movie or opera. Such as:

Inspired by an earlier musical version of the same story by Ken Hill, The Phantom of the Opera opened at Her Majesty's Theatre in London on 9 October 1986, starring Michael Crawford as the titular character, Sarah Brightman as Christine, and Steve Barton as Raoul.

Has this become a recognised usage, or is likely to become so over time? Why did it ever change from the perfectly fine "in the title role", which has had a long history?

I see that Titular character currently redirects to "Title role", which is useful but, like any redirect, it has its downside. People who think that "titular character" is the correct way of describing a title role may not become aware that it’s inappropriate. Until they do (if they ever do), they’ll just keep on writing "titular character" in square brackets and they’ll never be the wiser unless they happen to click on the link they’ve created and suddenly notice that they’re not at the "Titular character" page but at the "Title role" page. Comments, anyone? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The answer to your question "Has this become a recognized usage?" appears to be yes; at least, it's recognized in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, which gives as sense 3 of titular "of, relating to, or constituting a title <the ~ hero of the play>". I'll check what the OED has to say when I get home. Deor (talk) 23:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I see this question has come up before, in 2006 - see [5] @ "Titular versus Eponymous". The view then seemed to be as I described above. Has Merriam-Webster upgraded since then? -- JackofOz (talk) 00:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The copy of M-W I was looking at was the eleventh edition (2003). Now that I've made my way home to my beloved books, I see that the OED (second edition) records the same sense, even specifying as an example "titular character, title rôle." The illustrative quotation containing the expression "titular character" is from the London Daily News of 7 June 1889: "Madame Gargano in the titular character appeared to far better advantage than in 'Il Barbiere'." Make of that what you will. Deor (talk) 01:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

In a related use, the Roman Catholic church has titular bishops. In general, these are bishops not in charge of an actual diocese -- e.g., a coadjutor biship, an auxiliary bishop, a papal nuncio. They are bishop (in the sense of pastor) in name only, since there's no real diocese. Cardinal Angelo Sodano, Vatican secretary of state under John Paul II, was titular bishop of Albano, Italy, which also has a diocesan bishop, Cardinal Agostino Vallini. --- OtherDave (talk) 01:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• The SARA corpus gives more "in name only" uses than "eponymous", but a good few of the latter. There is some potential for ambiguity, I suppose, though not in the SARA examples. Where the same root [title, interest] produces distinct derivatives [entitled/titled/titular, uninterested/disinterested] people tend to confuse them if the difference in meaning is not obvious from the form of the words. It won't do any good to complain about how a useful distinction is being lost: if it were that useful, people wouldn't get confused. And in many cases, the distinction was never clearcut to begin with. jnestorius^(talk) 01:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you look at the etymology of "titular" given in Titular ruler, you see that it means "of or belonging to the title" - so in that sense a "titular character" would be "the character of or belonging to the title (of the play)". The "titular character" meaning is given as valid by the OED online, with usage references for that meaning going back to 1665 (with an actual usage of "titular character" in 1889). Note that the "without power" sense usage examples date back to 'only' 1611. As a sort of folk etymology, it makes sense that the "in title only" connotation of "titular ruler" comes from the fact that it is assumed that a plain "ruler" has both title and power. You only specify he's a "titular" ruler if he doesn't have the power - otherwise the "titular" is redundant, as the possession of the title is assumed. -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 16:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There's a new question @ the Humanities desk that refers to "the titular diamond necklace that so ruined Marie Antoinette". The link takes us to The Affair of the Necklace, a film, although the questioner seems to be referring to the historical necklace and not just the movie about it. Would this be a reasonable use of "titular", given the above responses. It seems odd to me; I wouldn't have even used "eponymous" in this case, but if it came to choice between the two words, I'd have picked the latter. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

October 3

Punctuation question

I have an idea for a "humorous T-Shirt"

I was doing things before they were cool before "doing things before they were cool" was cool. I know there should be a comma (or maybe two) in there, but I don't know where! Any help on punctuating my future-shirt? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NetLace (talk • contribs) 12:54, 3 October 2008

Nothing wrong with leaving the punctuation as-is, as far as I can see. As a T-shirt, it might be a bit long but you can probably experiment with a few designs to test that. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 03:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I see no case for any commas, but can I suggest the wording be:

• I was doing cool things before it was cool to do things before "doing things before they were cool" was cool.

You could even dispense with the quotes:

• I was doing cool things before it was cool to do things before doing things before they were cool was cool. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, Jack---I was secretly hoping you would answer. I stalk these refdesks endlessly but am too timid to ever answer a question myself. *sigh* Your wit and patience, not to mention knowledge, always impresses me.

I must say though, you've completely mystified me. I have a firm grasp on "buffalo buffalo..." but if I'm to wear what you suggest on a shirt, I'd definitely need to understand it better. I don't need a sentence diagram, but maybe you could break it down for me? I apologize if I'm being terribly dense. NetLace (talk) 03:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries, and thanks for the compliment. OK, how do I go about this?

• Today, if you do a cool thing, that's a cool thing to do.

• If you did one of those things before it was generally recognised as a cool thing to do, you could say "I was doing cool things before they were cool". OK so far?

• There was a time when it became a cool thing in itself to have done cool things before doing cool things generally became considered a cool thing to do. Your claim would then be "I was doing cool things before <doing things before they were cool> was cool".

• But what you're claiming, as I understand it, is that even before that, you were already doing things that mightn't have been recognised then as cool, but are now recognised as cool. So now you're saying "I was doing cool things before <it was cool to do things before <<doing things before they were cool>> was cool>".

Does that make sense? I may have omitted some steps in the logic. I must say it's a strange experience to be explaining someone else's motto for them, but there you go. I really like this, and do you mind if I borrow it? I'll give you full credit, but a secret kickback wouldn't go astray. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 03:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Jack, I too admire your patience and helpfulness. As for using someone else's ideas, "credit where credit is due, and cash when they really get anxious". BrainyBabe (talk) 14:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo anyone?!? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

to Jayron--I already mentioned that above!

to Jack--

By all means borrow it but I must say, it isn't my motto. I make shirts that tickle my fancy, another example is: Gazpacho is a dish best served cold.

I fear that you've added a second layer to the "before it was cool." I'm not actually saying that I'm doing "things that are cool." I'm playing with the notion that far too many of my peers take pride in having liked a band/author/movie before it became mainstream. So I'm one-upping them by saying that the entire CONCEPT of "liking something before it was cool" is now passé, and frankly I was doing it before it became a mainstream thing to do. Perhaps I'll go with:

I was liking things before they became cool before liking things before they became cool became cool. I really don't need a comma there?!207.172.71.243 (talk) 04:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. That's fine. You use your version, and I'll lay claim to mine. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Jesus in Shakespeare

Is Jesus the only person to be referenced in every Shakespeare play? --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 05:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think that Jesus is mentioned in all his plays? A quick search through Julius Caesar didn't turn up any references (and any references that did exist would be very out of place). Or do you mean indirect references? Even if that's what you're saying in every play I'd guess you're reading too deep into them. (By the way, this should have been posted on the Humanities desk.) -Elmer Clark (talk) 06:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Coriolanus, Troilus and Cressida, Timon of Athens, and probably others are set centuries before Jesus' birth. Whoever told you this factoid should go into the "trust but verify" category. --Sean 13:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Shakespeare wasn't averse to having a few anachronisms, so it's not impossible that Jesus could have been referenced in plays set before his birth. But afaik there are no such references in those 3 plays. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked through the plays, but I'm sure "oblique" references are being counted (things like "Marry" meaning "indeed", stemming from "By the Virgin Mary", or "Zounds" as an abbreviation of "By God's wounds" - God in this case being Jesus). I'm still not sure we'd find even these in every play. (There's a "Marry" in Timon). - Nunh-huh 21:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Style: "first and only debate" vs. "only debate"

Is the first form better style? How do you call this structure, when you say something that is anyway unnecessary? Other examples: "Wall Street could self regulate itself" vs. "Wall Street could self regulate" or "needless to say, ...." vs. simply not saying it. Mr.K. (talk) 11:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

"first and only" is a tautology; in this case it seems like a rhetorical flourish intended to big up what has traditionally been a non-event event. Whether unnecessary repetition of the same fact is "good" or "bad" style depends on context; it's logical junk, but such is much of politicos' sayings. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 11:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

"First and only" provides important information:

1. McCain and Obama traded barbs in their only debate.
2. Palin and Biden traded barbs in their only debate.

While both sentences are correct, "first and only" in #2 would indicate that no further debates will occur. --Sean 16:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

"Only debate" could imply (or could lead someone to think that it implies) so far. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

"first and only" might mean that several debates were scheduled but, for whatever reason, only the first occurred. —Tamfang (talk) 08:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

a lot vs. alot

Recently a friend of mine (really) had points taken off a paper for using "a lot" instead of "alot." Her instructor alleged that the space between "a" and "lot" is a quirk of Northeast Pennsylvania English. I think he's incorrect on both counts, but I thought I'd solicit some expert advice. What is the proper way to spell "a lot"? Tomdobb (talk) 12:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

"A lot" can be an adverb: "I feel a lot better" or article + substantive: "a whole lot".

"alot" is a common mistake. I wouldn't call it a typo, because people think that it is right. Proper spelling is "a lot", unless your friend meant "allot" like in "allot shares". Mr.K. (talk) 12:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

"alot" does not appear in the American Heritage Dictionary(4th ed) (link), the Cambridge Learners Dictionary (link), the Cambridge Dictionary of American English (link) or the Compact Oxford English Dictionary (link). Asked to find "alot" Merriam-Webster finds "lot" but not "alot" (link) (so I think that's another rejection of "alot", just their search engine is more helpful than the others). EnglishPlus says "Alot does not exist as a word" (their emphasis) (link). So says GrammarMudge (link). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

(An alot is a breed of small hampster that is naitive to North Africa. A lot means a large quantity of something. This is what my teacher taught me at primary school to stop us using alot. 88.211.96.3 (talk) 12:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC))

Alot also seems to be a town in India. Wiktionary has some further info, including some fairly acerbic refutations of its existence by reliable grammar sources. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

"Alot" meaning "a lot" has been creeping its sleazy way into the language for a while, and there will probably come a time when it's more or less accepted. But for a teacher to mark "a lot" as wrong, on the entirely fictional basis of being "a quirk of Northeast Pennsylvania English", is as wrong-headed as it is possible to be. That teacher needs to go back to school. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Alot? What next? Anumber, afew, awholelot, areasonableamount? Afew of us weep at the thought that while alot of people can't spell, anumber of people are just plain stupid. Gwinva (talk) 01:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget that debased illiterate coinage "another"! While we're at it let's expunge "never" and "neither"! Adam Bishop (talk) 04:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there are words which have developed in that way. "Alot" is not one of them yet, though if there are enough instructors who are as poorly educated as the one mentioned it may eventually force its way into the language, sadly. It is really depressing to think that there are instructors out there attempting to teach when they themselves do not have the knowledge necessary to do so. Grutness...wha? 04:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid "alot" is already here, folks. Google gives over 100 million hits for it. The Jade Knight (talk) 08:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Still doesn't make "a lot" unacceptable. It sort of depends on what circles one moves in, what things one reads, etc. But without wanting to be classist or ageist about it, even though there are now multi-millions of people to whom "alot" is completely normal and natural and it would never occur to them to write it as two words, there'd be even more people who will never in their wildest dreams write "alot". JackofOz (talk) 21:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Teh fact taht a spelling eror gets alot of G-hits does'nt make it correct, or even accepted. The four typos in that last sentence each pull more than a million Google hits; 'teh' alone draws forty million. If you look more closely at your putative hundred million Google hits, you'll find that many of them are for private companies (ALOT.com), acronyms (Agricultural Leadership Of Tomorrow), trade and other proper names (bid-alot, save-a-lot, Mixalot), portions of URLs (www.drinkalot.com), mentions of the town in India, and thousands of pages describing to children whose minds have been crippled by texting and IMing how 'alot' isn't a word, and should be replaced with either 'a lot' or 'allot' depending on context. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Not that I disagree with your point here, but note that teh is now very much a word in its own right. Algebraist 22:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

'A lot' is no more 'proper' English usage than 'a many' would be. It has simply become accepted through heavy use over the past 200 years or so. It, along with the synonymous 'lots', evolved from phrases like 'a lot at auction' or 'a lot payed out by a game of chance'... intended to signify a single sub-portion, as the term 'lot' had meant in uncommon usage for centuries, but in some instances like those mistaken for an indication of abundance and thus giving rise to a new meaning. That people actually throw tizzies over 'improper' usage of 'alot' is one of the infinite absurdities of 'static grammar'. Since 'a lot' is itself an illogical construction of singular 'a' with plural 'lot', arising out of the fact that 'lot' was in origin a misunderstood singular term, people hearing it often think it a mistake for 'a whole lot' OR a single non-compound word. Thus, it is indeed the very idea of 'proper grammar' which drives people to assume 'alot' correct. In reality both forms are bastardizations... but then, that's the natural and 'proper' way that language always has and always will evolve. --CBD 00:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

That's all very well, but the "tizzie" in this case was thrown by an instructor who falsely claimed that that "a lot" was characteristic only of a small part of the USA, and is non-standard English. That's the load of rubbish that's being demolished here. Nobody's denying that "alot" is also widely used, or that it may one day even become the preferred form. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

'A lot' is non-standard English. Part of my point. A years ago people wouldn't have a plurals written as a singulars. In fact, they still don't... except for this one term. Which is therefor decidedly not 'standard'. Yes, the person described in the original message was wrong about the origin and which form is currently preferred by the majority of people silly enough to believe that language is defined by a textbook rather than actual usage. However, there is no indication in the posting that they went into any sort of histrionic 'tizzie' about it. --CBD 11:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come on. "Lot" in this usage is a mass noun. A number of items, an amount of food, a majority of people, a lot of wasted time etc. Perfectly standard expressions. There are lots of them. Re: "..the majority of people silly enough to believe that language is defined by a textbook rather than actual usage", I agree that ultimately, usage determines these things rather than textbooks, which I acknowledged up above. But it certainly has not got to the stage yet where "alot" is generally considered the preferred spelling. -- JackofOz (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Alot the brave vandal fighter

I decided see how many "alot" Wikipedia itself has; in addition to finding lots placenames in Israel that have alot as part of their name, it also transpires that "alot" is a fave word of Wikipedia's vandals. I've cleaned up a bunch of unnoticed vandalism by searching Google for "alot", including some nasty stuff on Floyd Mayweather, Jr. I've got to go to bed now, but if anyone is feeling like some grammar fixing and vandal zapping, I got up to page 8 of this query. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm just waiting for the first novel to be published by a reputable house, aimed not solely or not at all at the youth market, with a lot of "alot"s in it. And not just in quotes. I've never even seen it in a decent newspaper (I have seen it in those that pay no attention to these things.) -- JackofOz (talk) 23:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Some, presumably, indecent newspapers: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], et cetera. Not exactly the unheard of hypothetical future occurrence you suggest. --CBD 11:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. They're all great examples of the arcane world of sub-editors' headlines, where for centuries anything has gone. They have never been limited by anything so irrelevant and trivial as the rules of English. Their purpose is to make the reader notice them, and a lot of readers skimming those pages would be stopped in their visual tracks by "alot", so they've succeeded in their purpose. But look within the text of the last two examples, and you'll see "a lot", not "alot". -- JackofOz (talk) 20:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Parallelism Help

Help me out here; i need someone's opinion. In the following sentence, is the nonessential clause (italics) actually parallel?

After many sleepless nights, she decided to research companies that specialize in high-tech surveillance techniques, which would allow her to get incriminating evidence by bugging his phone, and to make friends with his secretary so that she could get access to this office without arousing suspicion.

What is the word "and" (bold italics) connecting here? The gerund phrase by bugging his phone and the infinitive phrase to make friends... or is it joining the infinitive phrases to get incriminating evidence... and to make friends....

I believe it is the latter option, but I am uncertain about this choice. Can someone give me a second opinion? Thanks. 31306D696E6E69636B6D (talk) 13:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the momentary double post. 31306D696E6E69636B6D (talk) 13:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

If the sentence is to make sense, one has to read and as joining "to research companies … phone" and " to make friends …" (that is, "she" decided to research and decided to make friends). Which presumably refers to "high-tech surveillance techniques", which might allow her to get incriminating evidence but which would, I think, be of little use in making friends with a secretary. Deor (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Not that you asked, but the sample demonstrates a good rule of thumb -- the more words in a sentence, the less clarity. At 46 words, there's enough for two over-long sentences.

After many sleepless nights, she decided to research high-tech surveillance techniques. She wanted to bug his phone (to collect evidence) and to make friends with his secretary (to gain access to his office without arousing suspicion).

Two sentences, ten fewer words. Hackneyed phrases remain ('sleepless nights,' 'arousing suspicion'). --- OtherDave (talk) 16:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ten fewer words, two big errors. First, this version says that she's going to research the surveillance techniques rather than the surveillance companies. And second, it assumes that the "and" connected "to bug his phone" and "to make friends with his secretary", but as Deor said, that's the wrong parse -- the sentence only makes sense if it connected "to research..." and "to make friends...". A rewrite that reflects the correct parse is: After many sleepless nights, she decided to research high-tech surveillance companies, to bug his phone and collect evidence. She also decided to make friends with his secretary, to gain access to his office without arousing suspicion.

But that version contains an awkward repetition. It could be further cleaned up this way, for example: After many sleepless nights, she decided both to research high-tech surveillance companies and to make friends with his secretary. The company could bug his phone and collect evidence, and she could gain access to his office without arousing suspicion.

I actually think the original version is legible enough as it stands, because only one reading makes sense. Without improving the wording at all, it could also be made easier to parse by changing the punctuation: After many sleepless nights, she decided to research companies that specialize in high-tech surveillance techniques — which would allow her to get incriminating evidence by bugging his phone — and to make friends with his secretary so that she could get access to this office without arousing suspicion. Parentheses would also work, instead of paired dashes.

--Anonymous, 18:38 UTC, October 3, 2008.

Hey, that's not really the question. He was asking about the parallel structure of the sentence. 76.188.37.208 (talk) 22:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Iconic?

I have a general notion of the meaning of iconic but not enough to answer these questions.

Does it make sense to say: "Juliette Binoche is an iconic French actress"?

Is the word iconic generally enough understood as to be helpful to encyclopedia readers?

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 20:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Is it stretching the meaning of popular to write that The Unbearable Lightness of Being, The English Patient, and Chocolat are popular films?

Iconic generally means "famous enough to be representative of"... From the idea of an "icon" as a representation of... If someone says "think of a french actress" and most people first imagine Juliette Binoche, then she's iconic, because most think of her as representative of the entire cadre of French actressess. FWIW, I think Brigitte Bardot may be more iconic, but that's largely subjective... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Do people think of Bardot that way these days, though? She hasn't made a movie since 1973 and many younger people would never have heard of her at all. She's better known as an animal rights campaigner these days, and it's usually only when she makes the front pages in that context that reference is made to her former movie career. But she's been pretty quiet on that front for a while, ISTR. She's probably a lot better known in France than in the West generally, these days. My definition of popularity is "a movie that I really enjoyed and the people I was with at the time did as well". On that basis, Chocolat is very popular, The English Patient is popularish, and Unbearable was unbearably long and tedious. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

A more useful definition of popularity is that a lot of people saw it and liked it. That might be true of The English Patient, but I doubt it applies to either Chocolat or Unbearable..., both of which I personally liked a lot, but which were definitely "art house films". (I was going to link to that phrase, but it redirects to art film, which is not really quite the same thing.) If you're looking for something verifiable to determine popularity, I'd say that box office receipts would be the best criterion. --Anonymous, 04:27 UTC, October 4, 2008.

Bardot? Definitely. Catherine Deneuve? Possibly. Binoche? Not a chance. The bar is set quite a bit higher than being a reasonably famous actress, just as not every third athlete is a "superstar". I also don't buy Jack's argument that Bardot isn't thought of as an actress first and an animal rights activist second because she hasn't made a movie lately. Neither have Humphrey Bogart or Katherine Hepburn - hasn't hurt their iconic status a bit. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

While we're up, did I misuse the word when I wrote in Heraldry, "The 20th century's taste for stark iconic emblems made the simple styles of early heraldry fashionable again" ? —Tamfang (talk) 08:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The original poster of this question is recommended to read Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms, where "iconic" is one of the words advised to be avoided.--K.C. Tang (talk) 12:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all. To try to protect the remaining shreds of my reputation, I note that I asked the question because the use of "iconic" in the article seemed unnecessary to me. Wanderer57 (talk) 01:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Too many words?

IMO this bit from the article Striptease has language problems:

"In terms of myth the first recorded striptease is related in the ancient Sumerian story of the descent of the goddess Inanna into the Underworld (or Kur). At each of the seven gates, she removed an article of clothing or a piece of jewelry."

• "In terms of myth" - vague.

• It seems to me if something is a myth, it cannot hold a record such as the "first recorded"?

• A lot of duplication between the words recorded, related, and story.

I know I'm being picky. Am I being too picky? Thanks. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the language could be considerably tightened up. Many inexperienced writers seem to think that more words, and excessive language is a sign of better writing. The opposite is true; consise clear writing is always better. have fun!!! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and no, you're not being too picky, Wanderer57. You can't improve a text without being constructively critical, and if WP isn't about continuous improvement, what is it about? Had I been editing the article, I would have changed it to:

• There is a Sumerian story of the descent of the goddess Inanna into the Underworld (or Kur). At each of the seven gates, she removed an article of clothing or a piece of jewelry. This story is mythical, but it is the first recorded description of a striptease. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Or: The earliest known description of a striptease is the myth of... (isn't "recorded description" redundant?) — I agree that "in terms of" is flabby unless it's about a conversion of measurements. —Tamfang (talk) 08:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat nitpicky, but: There is difference between striptease and undressing. Nobody - in my simple and chaste world - performs a striptease before hopping to bed.

I am not familiar with the Sumerian myth, but the article implies that her removing various items of dress had nothing to do with an attempt at sexually arousing any spectators. It appears to have been a symbolic process of discarding protective charms and idols. I fail to see what this has to do with stripping as an "entertaining" performance, the topic of the article referred to by the querant. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This is getting into the issue of whether the reference to this story properly belongs in the Striptease article or not. The question was not about that issue, but simply about the language used in the sentence as it currently stands. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

How many debuts are permitted?

Quoting an article: "The Cannes Film Festival saw the premiere of ...(name of film)... The film was well received by international critics and went on to debut around the world in early 2008.""

Once a film has premiered at the Cannes Film Festival (or, for that matter, the East Oswego Film Festival, the Huttersfield Film Festival, the Alice Springs International Film Festival), can it properly be said to "debut" anywhere else? Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. A debut is different from a world premiere. A film can have many premieres/debuts (its Cannes debut, its American debut, its Uruguayan premiere, etc). The same is true for singers, conductors etc: opera singers make their NY Met debut, their Covent Garden debut, their La Scala debut, etc. And they can have many farewells, as the case of Dame Nellie Melba shows. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I recognize that a film (or play or symphony) may be given multiple premieres in different geographic locations. However my Oxford and Merriam-Webster dictionaries both consider a debut to be a "first appearance", regardless of geographic location, implying that only one debut is possible per film or per debutant.  ??? Wanderer57 (talk) 00:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Debutant(e)s do indeed normally make only one debut, their debut into "society". After that, they could no longer be called a "debutant(e)". But films, plays, symphonies, singers etc can have many debuts. It's simply a synonym for premiere, and there can be various premieres of a film, but only one world premiere. Do your dictionaries actually say "first appearance, regardless of geographic location", or simply "first appearance"? Dictionaries tell you what the basic meaning of a word is, but they don't always tell you the different valid ways in which the word can be used. Take "unique" - it means the only one of its kind, which taken to its logical extreme means the only one of its kind in the entire universe (or, if there are multiple universes, then the only one in all of them). But it's perfectly ok to say "The Long-footed Goose is found in many Asian countries, but in South America it is unique to Chile". -- JackofOz (talk) 01:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd say Jack has it wrong. It is perfectly all right to refer to an animal that "in South America is unique to Chile" or a movie that makes "its Toronto debut" when it had already opened elsewhere -- but we cannot conclude from this that the animal is unique to Chile or that it had a debut in Toronto. In other words, when one of these words is used with a qualification, that doesn't justify referring to the same event or fact by using the word without the qualification. As far as I'm concerned the sentence we were asked about is wrong; it should say "open" rather than "debut". --Anonymous, 04:36 UTC, October 4, 2008.

Me wrong??. Unthinkable!  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 04:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

October 4

I double dog dare ya

What it means to double dog dare someone to do something? Are the consequences of declining a double dog dare somehow different than those for a single dog dare? What about for the issuer of the dare, if the dare is accepted? Is it possible for the recipient to escalate a double dog dare to triple dog before accepting it, and does this happen often, or is the original dare typically withdrawn at that point? Thank you for any enlightenment. 207.241.238.217 (talk) 06:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, we can't answer legal questions at the reference desk. —Angr 07:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Nor can we help someone to abuse an animal's rights. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone's been watching A Christmas Story. Deor (talk) 11:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think these answers do justice to the question.

As I understand it, relying on old memories, "I double dog dare you to do X" means "I threaten unspecified but DIRE consequences if you do X.

If there is such a thing as a single dog dare, I don't recall it. Higher multiples of dog dares are certainly possible and were used. "I triple dog dare you." "I quadruple dog dare you."

Once a discussion went into dog dares, a common outcome would be an exchange of blows and a bleeding nose.

With all deference to BrainyBabe, I do not think the SPCA was concerned with double dog dares. But her name illustrates the value of alliteration, a very important feature of the name "double dog dare".

In regard to A Christmas Story, the term "double dog dare" goes back much further than 1983, when that entertainment was released.

Wanderer57 (talk) 02:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

But, of course, that movie takes place in the 1950s. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't; according to A Christmas Story#Dating the story it probably takes place in 1939. Anyway, I disagree that "I double dog dare you to do X" means "I threaten unspecified but DIRE consequences if you do X". I think it means "If you do X, I will keep or gain respect for you, and if you don't, I will regard you as a coward." —Angr 13:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ned Flanders might be able to answer this question. He's well known for his tmetic utterings. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

How young are young people?

Following on from the discussion on teenagers....

The phrase "young people" is used in British English almost to the exclusion of "teen", "teenager", "adolescent", etc. It is inherently ambiguous, in that it can refer to young adults, economically active people in their 20s (Young people have a hard time getting on the housing ladder); to minors (Young people must stay in education until they are 16); or to no clear age at all (Young people are responsible for most crime).

When did the phrase first ocme to be used in this all-covering and thus dubious way? Is it a euphemism? Is it used in this way in other dialects of English? What other phrases are used instead elsewhere? BrainyBabe (talk) 08:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you may be confusing ordinary, demotic or formal English with journalese. "Young people" in this ambiguous sense sounds just like the kind of lazy phraseology journalists employ. Malcolm XIV (talk) 13:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it is, but it is also the UK government phrase of choice (along with "black and minority ethnic"). And from national and local government use, it appears everywhere in "services for young people". Does this include those of age? I do not know. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not journalese, and I think the inherent ambiguity is what makes it so useful. A 19 year old is a teenager, but not all his/her friends will be. And neither can you call the group "students", since some won't be. So "young people" covers it. 12 year olds aren't teenagers, either, but might need to be discussed in any education context. And so on...

I say "not journalese", because I've regularly heard it used in conversation, often to refer to a specific group context. (Club, church group, family grouping, crowd of friends etc) "What are the young people up to this weekend?" "The young people are organising a ski trip" etc. Gwinva (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

"Indian-American"?

Is there a short and unmistakable way to name an immigrant to the USA from India (like Apu)? --KnightMove (talk) 10:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say "Indian-American". The Jade Knight (talk) 10:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, and this would not be confused with American Indian? --KnightMove (talk) 10:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Not generally, though, if you want to be really explicit, you would say "Indian American from India", or, if you're young: "Indian American, like from India". The Jade Knight (talk) 10:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

We even have an article on Indian Americans. It says the U.S. Census Bureau prefers "Asian Indian" to avoid ambiguity. —Angr 11:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Briefest/most efficient written language

Which language expresses information with the fewest characters, with (or transliterated into) the Roman alphabet? I know it depends on the topic because some languages have more words for certain things, depends on the speaker, etc., but in general.
(For example, "volo" is more efficient than "I want" or "quiero.")
Thanks. 72.88.210.96 (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

In his book Language: Its Nature, Development, and Origin the Danish linguist Otto Jespersen made the case that Chinese is the most efficient language, though his standard for efficiency may have been a little different from yours. For example, Jespersen didn't just look at the number of words used, but also thought that languages in which speakers must remember a lot of grammatical cases (rosa, rosae, rosae, rosam, rosa in Latin) are less efficient than those in which the word always stays the same (rose in English), because the word order makes clear if it's the subject of a sentence or the object, or something else. It's been a while since I read that book, but if I remember it correctly Jespersen also had a look at different translations of the bible and found that the Chinese version needed far less words. DAVID ŠENEK 18:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The Hawaiian language only uses 12 letters from the Latin alphabet, plus the ʻOkina, a glottal stop transliterated by an apostrophe. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 01:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but with only 12 letters, you have to assemble some really long strings of them to make up the rest of the language. --DaHorsesMouth (talk) 02:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I supposed one way of finding out would be to obtain all the different-language translations of a long novel, say the ubiquitous War and Peace, and see which translation produced the fewest pages, after correcting for font size, page size etc. Not saying this is super-practical, but .... -- JackofOz (talk) 02:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd say you hit the nail on the head when you say it depends on the topic. Languages all contain their own unique shorthands, and when a speaker can utilise these shorthands, it saves a lot more time than if he had to explain every concept he was using. Ninebucks (talk) 04:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Homework help

Doing homework for my English class I came upon a sentence for which I cannot give a correct answer within the parameters given.

In this way, you can begin to unlearn a negative piece of body language - and if you suffer from headaches, you should find yourself suffering from them much ______.

At the end I need to write in the last word. The solution that comes immediately to my mind is "less often". Problem is it has to be only one word. And I really cant think of any one-word solution. Of course I will ask my teacher next time I have classes, but considering the rest of the exercise was IMO pretty easy this one problem is driving me nuts. — Shinhan < talk > 17:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I think "less" on its own would be fine. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 17:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Infrequenterly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.111.254 (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

"less" does look like a good solution. Is that a short form of "less often", "less frequently" and similar?

But "Infrequenterly"? Is that a misspelling of infrequently? — Shinhan < talk > 20:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I suspect "infrequenterly" was intended as a joke. Myself, I'd have said "infrequentlier", or simply "rarelier". (Again, as a joke.) More seriously, "seldomer" would work. I don't think I've ever used that word myself, but it does appear in print. —Angr 21:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No, "less" is not short for "less frequently". It just means you are suffering less. It could mean that the headaches are less frequent or less serious or both. --Anonymous, 04:39 UTC, October 5, 2008.

Please share with us your teacher's answer and also the connection between body language and headaches. Wanderer57 (talk) 02:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The text talks about smiling and frowning. — Shinhan < talk > 09:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Ayatollah means...?

I know it means "Sign(s) of God" but what part(s) though? I was reading "Aya" means "Sign(s) of" is this true? So, does this mean "tollah" somehow means "God"? I just need a short, simple & correct breakdown of the word, that's all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by L3tt3rz (talk • contribs) 22:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

See this article. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't really say anything about the grammar. "Ayat" is "signs" but the T is not pronounced unless it is part of a phrase, as it is here. Grammatically it is really "ayatu" with the nominative ending -u, which is sometimes also pronounced -o. I think in Persian -o is standard. So in the phrase "signs of Allah" the "al-" part, which is really the definite article, takes on the preceding vowel, in this case -u, and it is pronounced "ayatullah" (or "ayatollah"). This kind of phrase is called an idafa in Arabic grammar. I hope that makes sense; maybe AnonMoos or someone else with better Arabic can explain it more easily. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Āya or āyat are both singular in āyatollāh (sign of god). O or U in the middle just conjoins the two parts, āyat-o/u-(a)llāh. "Signs" (plural) is āyāt, a little different from āyat. --Omidinist (talk) 08:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

For a bit more clarity, the word is آية الله in Arabic (but written آیت‌الله in Persian). It is made up of two words. The first word is آية, āya, which is the singular word for 'sign' (the plural, 'signs', is آيات āyāt). The '-a' at the end of the singular word here becomes '-at' when followed by a vowel (the spelling doesn't change in Arabic, but does in Persian). Also, in Classical Arabic, case endings are added to words. In this example, آية is in the nominative case, which means it ends in an '-u', making its pronunciation āyatu. The second word is الله, allāh, which means 'God'. When this word follows one that ends in a vowel, the initial 'a-' disappears in pronunciation. Thus, āya+allāh becomes āyatu+llāh, or even āyatullāh, meaning 'the sign of God'. In some pronunciations, especially in standard Persian, the short '-u-' in the middle sounds like an '-o-'. Thus, the standard Persian transliteration, whence the English, is âyatollâh. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 19:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

October 5

Number of speakers of any second language

most spoken second languages in the world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.58.190 (talk) 01:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You can find that by substracting the numbers given in List of languages by number of native speakers from the numbers given in List of languages by total number of speakers --Lgriot (talk) 02:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Cashing some Travellers Cheques in Korea.

Hi. I'm in South Korea for the next few weeks and I've run out of cash, so now the time has come to cash some of my travellers cheques. Unfortunately, my Korean is terrible and I can't find any of the right vocabulary on the internet, (I don't know how to say travellers cheques, for instance). So if any Korean speakers could help me out by providing a few bits of sample dialogue about how such a transaction would occur so I can memorise before heading to the bank. I can just about read hangul, but I'd prefer if it was written out in latin characters. Gamsa hamnida! Ninebucks (talk) 04:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Traveller's check is called 여행자수표 (yeohaengja supyo IPA: [jʌhɛŋtɕa supʰjo]), but for foreigners, there are clerks able to speak English to assist them in any big bank such as KEB. If you need more help from me, well, I think I need more time to search for necessary information on that. Look at this English webpage. [13] --Caspian blue (talk) 14:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The clerks at currency exchange places are used to visitors who don't speak any languages they (the clerks) know. It's enough to just show them a travellers' check and indicate that you want to cash it. The clerks often do speak some english but even if they don't, they carry out this type of transaction a zillion times a day and you can really get by without speaking a single word of english or korean. 67.117.147.133 (talk) 08:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

End of meeting - adjourned/dissolution

If I am writing the minutes for a meeting and the meeting ends, do I write the time that the meeting "adjourned", or is that only a break? Does it make a difference whether the meeting could not properly finish due to a lack of time and a new meeting must be scheduled to discuss matters still on the agenda? According to my dictionary "dissolution" is the "termination of a meeting". Would that be used when the meeting comes to proper conclusion (such that the next meeting is scheduled, say, a full month afterwards)? --Seans Potato Business 09:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's mostly a function of whether you're talking about meeting of a long-running committee (which e.g. meets weekly). For such a long-running entity, it is empanelled (or convened) at the start of its run, meets several times (with adjournments between meetings), and is finally dissolved. It gets a tad more complex for things like a US Congress, where one dissolved congress is followed by an election and the seating of a new congress (with the same purpose and most of the same people); but it's still thought of as being an essentially new body. If your meeting is a one-off (these same people or their surrogates will never meet for this same reason again) then "concluded" seems reasonable; dissolved seems unnecessary, as it wasn't integrated long enough to require disintegration. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, the American Heritage Dictionary (for example) says adjourned means "To suspend until a later stated time". So if you're never going to resume, it's not an adjournment. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Some organizations have adopted "rules of order" that cover meeting procedures, including minutiae such as whether meetings adjourn, prorogue, fade away, etc. If your organization has such rules it is a good idea to try to follow them. However in my experience most people neither know nor care. Wanderer57 (talk) 01:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Going along with Finlay McWalter, in the U.S. Congress, the final session of each term (Congresses have two terms since under the Constitution they must meet at least once each year) adjourns sine die -- without a (set) day to reconvene, though most often that's pronounced "sine-y dye." It's a misnomer, since each House has a pretty good idea of the date for the start of the next session. If your meeting isn't likely to have a successor, or to have one soon, you could simply say it ended. Or concluded, if you need more syllables. --- OtherDave (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed

In Australian English, when starting a sentence with 'indeed' is it the convention to use a comma after it? E.g. Indeed, had John told Mary about the spider in her hat, it is highly unlikely, given Mary's arachnophobia, that she would have put it on. --Fir0002 11:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

In that case, yes. It's parenthetical in nature, meaning it could be safely omitted without changing the meaning of the sentence. Therefore, it must be set off by commas. You could re-write it as: If, indeed, John had told Mary about ..., and it becomes even clearer why commas are required. -- JackofOz (talk) 18:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I consider this to be sentence adverb and not an interjection. These (ie sentence adverbs) can be placed at the beginning of the sentence, at the end or medially and - in all cases - need to be separated from the subsequent / preceding sentence / fragment by a comma.

As JoO may point out to the chef in a famous misquote, "Frank, my dear, I don´t give a damn!" --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Not when you say 'If John had indeed told Mary about...'. I think in this case it implies that John is insisting that he had told Mary, whereas, 'If John had, indeed, told Mary about...,' would mean the same as the sentences in the above examples. Or am I, indeed, making a false distinction here?--ChokinBako (talk) 13:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, you are not. That's a very useful distinction indeed. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, I'll be using "Indeed,...." as and "If..." doesn't fit in with the preceding paragraph (and no I'm not writing about John and Mary or spiders - that sentence mirrors the one I'm actually working with!) --Fir0002 22:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

kind of abbreviation

Hi,

In the Netherlands we have a thing called APK (Algemene Periodieke Keuring), a periodic test for cars etc to check if they're safe and in such state that they're allowed on the road. Anyway, people call this the 'APK Keuring', not the 'AP Keuring' or 'the APK'.

I was wondering if there is a name for this kind of abbreviation, where the last word is repeated...Sealedinskin (talk) 12:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

RAS syndrome is the name used for it. It's a form of redundancy (language). Fribbler (talk) 13:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• It's not "the" name; it's one example of a joke name for it. As the article says, there are many joke names; I don't think there's any serious name. --Anonymous, 23:43 UTC, October 5, 2008.

Like PIN number, PIN stands for 'Personal Identification Number'. Slightly related, a park near my house in Japan is called '森林公園パーク' (shinrin kouen park), where 'kouen' means 'park'. Incidentally, 'shinrin' is composed of two characters, both of which mean 'forest' (albeit of different sizes, combined in this way to mean 'forest of any size'), so the name means 'Forest Forest Park Park'!--ChokinBako (talk) 14:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

And then there are redundant semi-translations, such as Loch Lomond Lake, outside Saint John, New Brunswick. And the Avon River that runs through Shakepeare's birthplace. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The ultimate is supposedly Torpenhow Hill (but people have questioned the accuracy of the claim, see the article talk page). AnonMoos (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget the Rio Grande River! —Angr 18:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the same problem with Avon River or River Avon. Does anyone call it the "River Avon River"? "Avon" by itself could mean lots of things. We say "Stratford-on-Avon", which is understood to refer to the town of Stratford situated on the Avon River. But when referring to the river alone, the word "River" is not out of place. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The thing is that "Avon", or "Afon" to give its modern spelling, means "river" in Welsh, which would have been spoken (or its ancestor) in that area before the English arrived, so "River Avon" is "River River". -- Arwel Parry _(talk) 22:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thank you for that enlightenment. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining -- I was being allusive, which is not very encyclopedic of me. (I thought the oppression of the Celts by the English was well-known in Australia!) BrainyBabe (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It is, Brainy Babe. But that doesn't mean that I know every word of every Celtic language, or, indeed, any word of any Celtic language.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The La Brea Tar Pits, in which, "la brea" in Spanish means "the tar", therefore we get "the the tar tar pits". Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Intriguingly, the UK equivalent of that test seems to have undergone the opposite process: originally an "MOT test", where the MOT stood for the "Ministry of Transport", it is now commonly referred to simply as an "MOT" - possibly because people assume the "T" is for "test". (The ministry, meanwhile, has become the Department for Transport, so the acronym is "unclaimed", as it were.) - IMSoP (talk) 20:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

etymological fallacy might give some perspective; as might analyzability if it existed. jnestorius^(talk) 23:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is a term for it. Tautology! And, there's also a list of tautological place names. Poechalkdust (talk) 11:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Japanese question

This was found on the Japanese Wikipedia at ja:SNC.

東京でダンスの楽しみを広げようとしている任意団体の１つ。→SNC (ダンス)

I don't understand any Japanese, and the wikilink on the Japanese Wikipedia is a redlink, so it can't provide any context for me to figure out what it is about. What does the above mean? 195.197.240.134 (talk) 15:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It says that the group in question is 'one of the volunteer groups who are trying to spread the fun of dance in Tokyo'.--ChokinBako (talk) 15:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be referring to this group.--ChokinBako (talk) 15:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Plural of "man’s man"

My mother always told me I should be a man’s man, meaning one engaged in manly pursuits and having a manly demeanour. Little did she realise in which direction she was unwittingly pushing me. That aside, I was wondering if there’s any such thing as a plural of "man’s man". We can talk about a number of "ladies men" (or is it "ladies’ men"?), but what about 2 x "man’s man"? Scenario: Woman says "I’m sick of all these effete and sexually ambiguous metrosexuals. What I want in my life is a man’s man. Ah, here come two _____ now". Would it be "man’s men" or "men’s men"? Or "Men men"? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd say men's men. Gwinva (talk) 22:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

And I would say man's men with the first man being more of an adjective. Grsz^X 23:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

"are men's men": about 530 googlehits; "are man's men": 17 googlehits. Vox populi, vox dei jnestorius^(talk) 23:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but "a men's man": about 199 hits. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary says men's men but it gives a conflicting plural of lady's man as lady's men. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The spelling lady's man seems to defeat the purpose of the expression, which is about a man who has "associations" with many ladies. He's interested in playing the field, and not being committed to any one woman. Even a supposedly committed married man who remains a ladies man is unfaithful, or at least flirts, with not just one other woman. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay but what would you call a lady associated with several men? A men lady or a men's lady? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Odd. How come there's no equivalent expression? I'd spell it "men's lady" (cf. my query in my question re "ladies man" vs. "ladies' man"). -- JackofOz (talk) 07:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If forced to choose, I'd also go with that. It's also odd that I prefer the possesive in that case but not the other. Does it tell me something about my character? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring the improbability of the woman being able to identify a man's man on sight, I'd fill in the blank with "of them" or "such men". When faced with a mongoose problem, I prefer to find a way to avoid it completely. --LarryMac | Talk 19:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Such an avoidance of my question is ... well, avoiding my question. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Gentleman's gentleman

There's a similar issue with "gentleman's gentleman", a way of describing a butler or a valet. Would two such persons be "gentleman's gentlemen", or "gentlemen's gentlemen"? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps that would depend on if the two men in question are employed by the same man, or whether they do not have the same employer? -- Captain Disdain (talk) 01:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

On further reflection, that's stupid. Sorry. That's just false logic; the words "gentleman's gentleman" don't refer to a specific gentleman, but it's rather a job title. I mean, you could be an unemployed butler, but that wouldn't make you a nobody's gentleman. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 09:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The inimitable Jeeves belonged to the Ganymede, a club for (IIRC) "gentlemen's gentlemen". If P.G. Wodehouse is not a sufficient arbitor of this little niggle, I don't know who could be. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That settles is as far as I'm concerned. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

October 6

Is this source saying "Luçoes" in Portuguese translates into "Luzons" in English?

Anthony Reid, in a chapter in The Austronesians: Historical and Comparative Perspectives, seems to be saying that Luçoes, when said in English, is Luzons. Either that or my interpretation -- not being able to speak Portuguese and all -- is completely conked. I haven't integrated this into the Luçoes stub yet, but I sure would like input on how to proceed with this tidbit:

The first European reports on the Tagalogs classify them as “Luzons” (Port. Lucoes), a nominally Muslim commercial people trading out of Manila, and “almost one people” with the Malays of Brunei (Pires 1515:134).

-- Alternativity (talk) 03:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's really a big deal. Proper nouns don't translate, therefore Luzons is simply an anglisized version of the Portuguese. Like México → Mexico. Grsz^X 03:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Alternativity (talk) 04:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

curriculum vitae

What is the plural of curriculum vitae, please? Is it curriculums vitae? curricula vitae? curriculums vitaes? ???? Thanks 86.148.49.117 (talk) 10:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I would go with "curricula vitae". But the abbreviation CV is more commonly used than the full phrase, so you could just put "CVs". --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, it's curricula vitae if it's all one person's CVs, curricula vitarum if it's the CVs of different people. (You see why you're safer just saying "CVs"!) —Angr 10:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL, that'll teach me for trying to appear clever than I am -- I guess I'll stick with cvs!! 86.148.49.117 (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought the plural of curriculum vitae was "resumes". Silly me... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No, that's the present tense of the verb "to resume".  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I shoulda said "Rez zoom mays". My bad. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Japanese

What would something along the lines of "Hitokoto Nate Yatteyo!" mean? Is it "Tell me that thing/joke you heard!" ?80.123.210.172 (talk) 12:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like the person is saying 「一言なんか言ってよ」　(hitokoto nanka itteyo), which means 'say SOMETHING AT LEAST!', in an angry/excited way. It would not make sense with 'nante'. If it was 'hitokoto nante ittenaiyo' ('I did not say ANYTHING') it would make sense.--ChokinBako (talk) 12:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It's impossible to figure out the right answer. Hitokoto/ひとこと literally means 'one word'. Nate? There's no such word/phrase. Or is it 'datte'? Yatteyo/やってよ means 'do something for me'. 'Hitokoto nante ittenaiyo' means 'I didn't say the word hitokoto'. Not 'I didn't say anything'. It should be 'Hitokotomo ittenaiyo'. I'd like to see the context. Oda Mari (talk) 15:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

「一言なんて、言ってないよ！」 is correct, Oda Mari, meaning 'I did not say a thing,' or 'you are mot saying anything' , but it is still strange. Without proper context we can't do much. .--ChokinBako (talk) 19:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

But I am Japanese, ChokinBako.... Oda Mari (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It's something a foreigner says, so he probably says it wrong. It's from a video on YouTube and the subtitles say what I said, "Tell me that thing you heard". It's from a Gaki no Tsukai show. I don't speak Japanese, but that's how it sounds. 80.123.210.172 (talk) 19:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Link, please. Oda Mari (talk) 19:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Oda Mari, I know fully well you are Japanese. But sometimes things have to be debated.--ChokinBako (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Mari, look on my page, and and you will find a link so we can talk privately about what is and what is not Japanese. We can advise each other, seeing as we are the only two Japanese translators here.--ChokinBako (talk) 20:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Third translator here. Although it turned out, as we see below, that the gaijin here was trying to say 一言ネタやってよ ("Do a gag"), Mari is correct that 一言なんて、言ってないよ is meaningless. It doesn't matter that it might be grammatically correct: it simply is not said, and it certainly doesn't mean 'I did not say a thing,' which, as Mari pointed out, would be 一言も言ってないよ. Sometimes there's room for debate, but in this case there isn't. I've been speaking Japanese for more nearly a quarter century, and professionally translating for about 20 years. I lecture several days a week in Japanese, I write columns and essays in Japanese, and I've graded thousands of reports written in Japanese by Japanese students. There are often cases when I find myself correcting native-speaker students' kanji, grammar, or use of polite language, but when it comes to ordinary colloquial language like this, I learned long ago to trust the gut judgment of native speakers, even if they are half my age. Almost by definition, the native speaker "knows" what "sounds right" and what doesn't. I could greet someone in English saying "What is above?" and although it "works" grammatically, it is meaningless. Any 12 year old knows it should be "What's up?", even if s/he cannot explain why. 本当にいい翻訳者になるには、過信は禁物。でないと戸田奈津子みたいになるよ（笑）。 BTW, the English subtitles of the clip (which was pretty funny) are riddled with errors. 失礼しやした〜〜。 Matt Thorn (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpmfyi8q-n4&feature=related - right after 4:20 (approximately) - he says it a few times - there are also some kana on the screen when he says it, maybe that helps. 80.123.210.172 (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The foreigner is acting the stock character of "white, shit-poor speaker of Japanese". He's saying "ヒトゴトナテヤッテヨ" (hitogoto nate yatte yo - which is pretty much rubbish) and the subtitle says "一言ネタやってよ" (hitokoto neta yatte yo) - which means "tell me a(nother) joke".

(Also, ChokinBako, I'm appalled at you. Didn't I just help you out the other day? :P) TomorrowTime (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. 80.123.210.172 (talk) 21:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I watched the video. The English subtitle is mistranslation. The foreigner correctly pronounced the line only at the first time. See the Japanese subtitles. It's ネタ/neta at the first time. But next two subtitles are ナタ/nata. Grammatically speaking, the word hitokoto in the line is totally understandable, but at the same time totally wrong. It should be 'hitotsu/ひとつ' or more slangy 'ippatsu/いっぱつ/一発'. Oda Mari (talk) 05:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe they would be, and thank god we have a third translator here. I and Mari can not be here all the time, hey :) And by the way, I have been translating for ten years, so we are both on a par, lar.--ChokinBako (talk) 08:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It is all down to a bad subtitler. Let him live, we can have more laughs over this.--ChokinBako (talk) 08:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Inelegant or appropriate?

Quoting from the article Shannen Doherty:

"She has appeared several times, nude, in Playboy magazine. Her first appearance was in December 1993, followed by a spread in March 1994."

Comments please. Wanderer57 (talk) 12:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Padum-pah. —Angr 12:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Surely that would depend on whether it was truly a spread or just carefuly posed. It's not necessarily inappropriate, but it is snigger-worthy. Steewi (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well it's definitely got a bit of a double entendre (spelling?) thing with a spread being another way of saying 'article' or 'feature piece' and then obviously given the context, a spread can mean, well, a parting of legs... 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Audio Japanese dictionary

Hello everyone. I am currently learning Japanese, mostly from books. However my biggest difficulty is to catch the right pronunciation of words. Does someone happen to know an audio Japanese dictionary where I can hear the pronunciation of each word? Thank you. 85.112.95.14 (talk) 15:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't heard of one, but it would be useful. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Latin duck translation

Could some helpful person translate the following into Latin? Many thanks.

"What is the difference between a duck? One leg is the same." Obfuscator (talk) 19:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I've heard the original as "One of its legs is both the same". jnestorius^(talk) 20:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to translate nonsensical jokes into other languages...do you want a word-for-word translation or do you want something that would be equally funny in Latin? Adam Bishop (talk) 02:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If possible, a word-for-word translation so long as it retains the humor of the original joke; and if too much gets lost in translation, simply translating the question without the answer would actually be quite sufficient for my purposes.

By the way, if you do have a joke that would be equally funny in Latin, I would be more than delighted to be humored by it!

Thanks. Obfuscator (talk) 06:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone once wrote some "yo mama" jokes in Latin, and presented them as if they were found in a medieval manuscript...that was the funniest thing ever, speaking as a medievalist of course! But that webpage no longer exists. Anyway, literally how about "quid est discrimen inter anas? Una crus totidem est." It's ungrammatical but it wouldn't really work with perfect grammar... Adam Bishop (talk) 08:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

"Inter anatem", isn't it? —Angr 08:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but I left it nominative just to be nonsensical. Also, "crus" is one leg, but "una" is plural to refer to two legs, even though of course "unum" can't be made plural. Pretty lame, I know... Adam Bishop (talk) 08:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I will attempt a nonsensical translation in Japanese, if you may. 「家鴨の間の違いは何？片方の足は両方一緒だから」means absolute nonsense, as does the English and Latin equivalents above, but in this case it does not even raise a smile! It is just nonsense language!--ChokinBako (talk) 08:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

October 7

Hitler's accent

For me, Hitler's accent doesn't sound Austrian, although he grew up there and his 'r' sound sounded different from modern Germans too. Am I right? Are there more differences? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.K. (talk • contribs) 11:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)