Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 October 28

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 28

Shorthand and ignorance

From time to time I see the (usually unsubstantiated) claim that the use of SMS language (the shorthand people use in txt msgs) leads to ignorance of the rules of written English, which in turn leads to all sorts of horrible things like moral depravity, fascism, and bad breath. Is this scapegoating of a shorthand system a new phenomenon, or has it always been around? In the heyday of telegrams, was there a similar moral panic about telegram style and its adverse effect on Western civilization? What about Pitman shorthand and related shorthands? —Angr 00:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the big difference is that telegraph style and Pitman shorthand were not used by the population at large, but were instead used by trained professionals, who generally learned these methods long after formal training in English grammar, and also learned these methods as adults. This is an important distinction from SMS, which is widely used by the young, often before they have a fully formed understanding of formal English grammar. A better analogy here would be Pig latin, which is commonly learned by the young, and before they have a fully formed understanding of English grammar. Other than words like "ixnay", however, Pig latin never had a pronounced effect on the ability of youth to learn formal English. The moral of the story: SMS is not like telegraph or pitman shorthand, however it probably doesn't matter anyways. Young people will or will not learn formal English for the same reasons that they will or will not learn Algebra or History... and it has nothing at all to do with SMS... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, that may be true about Pitman shorthand, but I'm not sure it's true about telegrams. 70 or 80 years ago, telegrams were ubiquitous in countries like Britain and the U.S.; everyone sent them and received them, not just educated adults. They were really the e-mail of their day, if not the text messaging. —Angr 00:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)The scapegoating has been around for ever. I read (sorry again no reference, I have a very bad memory for my sources) that a latin writer was complaining in the 2nd or 3rd century about the ignorance and lazyness of the Roman people who kept pronouncing latin words as if there where finishing in -o rather than -us, and how bad that was for the society and that it would lead to the collapse of the "proper" Roman civilisation. --Lgriot (talk) 00:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

But it turns out that they were right! Oh Noes! FiggyBee (talk) 00:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

That seems a little early for that particular change. However, what was already an issue in the Latin of the 1st century was "au" vs. "o" -- one somewhat unscrupulous politician changed his name from "Claudius" to "Clodius" in order to seem like a man of the ordinary people... AnonMoos (talk) 02:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Possibly as the first PR manager (of himself) "Clod'" would seem likely to hit the spot with the hoi polloi (clods). =) Julia Rossi (talk) 06:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Lgriot, was it Priscian? That sounds like something he would have complained about. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

David Crystal's book Txtng: The Gr8 Db8 is an analysis of the moral panic over texting (particularly from a British POV, though it's been published in the USA), putting it in a long context of panics over language being threatened by rock 'n' roll, Americans, etc, and showing that most abbreviations used in texting actually have a very long history. There are online discussions/reviews e.g. here, here, here, and here.--Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 11:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Was there really moral panic about the telegram style? Telegrams may have been sent and received by most people between the years 1850 and 1920 (say), but they were hardly as ubiquitous as email. They were expensive to send and caused trepidation when received. They were usually reserved for illness, death, and other major events. I recommend renting Love Finds Andy Hardy (1938), if you can find it, for an example of the attendant panic (and that was already quite late in the history of telegrams). At any rate, it was often the trained operators who suggested the various contractions of style. I doubt that most people, even the educated people, had any great practice in it themselves. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I looked for this unsuccessfully on the following pages.

• Conventional wisdom
• Factoid
• List of common misconceptions
• Urban legend

See also:

• Abbreviation
• Braille contraction
• Dutton Speedwords
• Headline
• Lists of abbreviations
• Tironian notes
• Wikipedia:Edit summary legend

and:

• Country code
• Language code
• Top-level domain

and:

• wikt:Appendix:Internet slang

-- Wavelength (talk) 16:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Planet / Star in Cantonese

The Chinese terms for planet and star are 行星 and 恆星(T)/恆星(S), respectively; differing in the first character. I know that in Mandarin they sound very different (pinyin: "xíng xīng" vs. "héng xīng"), but looking at the most common Cantonese pronunciation of the characters, I think they would both be the same (Jyutping: hang4 sing1). But I can't imagine how they could let this be. Isn't it very important to be able to distinguish these two concepts? How would you be able to teach the children in school about planets and stars if they sound the same? Perhaps one of them is pronounced differently in this case? Or are there no Cantonese-speaking astronomers? --169.232.233.134 (talk) 04:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay I just found this page that confirms that they are pronounced the same in Cantonese (see entries #12 & #22). I am still baffled how people could talk about planets and stars without utterly confusing everyone. --169.232.233.134 (talk) 05:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does cause some confusion in speech, and may need clarification from the speaker. F (talk) 00:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I've always been baffled how people could buy and sell stuff without getting utterly confused. TresÁrboles (talk) 21:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The tones are different. F (talk) 00:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Much of the meaning in Chinese languages is from the context. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

---

In ancient Greek, the word planetes (literally "wanderer") was pretty much elliptical for aster planetes ("wandering/moving star"), and could sometimes refer to anything not fixed against the celestial background of the night sky (comets, meteors, etc.)... AnonMoos (talk) 10:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Russian translation

Odd request from me. Can someone give me -exactly- what this means. I would say it's important, but it isn't really. Machine translators are useless. It's from [1].

  ТТХ

• Изготовлен: ОКБ 754.
• Главный конструктор: Николай Степанович Соколов.
• Полное наименование: Шагоход01 прототип.
• Классификация: Мобильная Стратегическая Ракетная Платформа — (МСРП)
• Экипаж: 2 человека (носовая кабина).
• Год постройки прототипа (первый этап сборки) — 1961 год.
• [Вооружение]
• Противопехотное: два 12,7 мм крупнокалиберных пулемёта ДШКМ с ДУ.
• Противовоздушное: 8 ракет "Стрела-10" и зенитный пулемёт ДШКМ с ДУ.
• Противотанковое: 12 ТУР 9К119 «Кобра» и 100 мм пушка низкой баллистики ДТ-10ДРП «Зарница».
• Основное: баллистическая ракета среднего радиуса действия РСД-10 «Пионер» с тремя разделяющимися головными частями по 150 Кт каждая.
• Снаряжение: 1000х12,7 мм патронов, 8 ракет «Стрела-10», 12 ракет «Кобра», 20х100 мм снарядов, 1 ракета РТ-12М.
• Длина: 22,8 метров.
• Ширина: 6,5 метра.
• Высота: 8 метров.
• Боевой вес: 152,5 тонн.
• Тяговооружённость: 65 лс на тонну.
• Силовая установка: 4хГТД 5000 + 2хТРД Соловьев Д-30.
• Максимальная скорость на грунте (без ускорителей): 80 км/ч
• Максимальная скорость с ускорителями: 520км/ч.
• Радиус действия на одной заправке: 650 км.
• Ёмкость баков: 8500 литров.
• Броня: эквивалент 250 мм гомогенной катаной брони. Материал: сталь, керамика, полимеры, титан.
• Система защиты от РХБЗ: есть.
• Ночные системы наблюдения: ИК ночной прицел ТПН 1-43А.
• Радар: Станция РЛС см-диапазона в радиопрозрачном обтекателе на крыше кормовой части.
• Навигация: Инерциальная система с астрокоррекцией.

Just ran it through Promt and I got this, which is pretty good but has some untranslated bits and bobs.

• It is made: ОКБ 754.
• the Main designer: Nikolay Stepanovich Sokolov.
• a full name: Shagohod01 a prototype.
• classification: the Mobile Strategic Rocket Platform — (МСРП)
• Crew: 2 persons (a nasal cabin).
• Year of construction of a prototype (the first stage of assemblage) — 1961.
• [arms] * Antipersonnel: two 12,7 mm of large-caliber machine gun ДШКМ with ДУ.
• Antiaircraft: 8 rockets "Arrow-10" and antiaircraft machine gun ДШКМ with ДУ.
• Anti-tank: 12 ROUND 9К119 "Cobra" and 100 mm of a down of low ballistics ДТ-10ДРП "Summer lightning".
• the Core: a ballistic missile of average radius of action РСД-10 "Pioneer" with three divided head parts on 150 Kt everyone.
• equipment: 1000х12,7 mm of cartridges, 8 rockets "Arrow-10", 12 rockets "Cobra", 20х100 mm of shells, 1 rocket РТ-12М.
• Length: 22,8 metres.
• width: 6,5 metres.
• height: 8 metres.
• fighting weight: 152,5 tons.
• Tjagovooruzhyonnost: 65 лс on ton.
• the Power-plant: 4хГТД 5000 + 2хТРД Nightingales Д-30.
• the Maximum speed on a ground (without accelerators): 80 km/h
• the Maximum speed with accelerators: 520km/ch.
• action Radius on one refuelling: 650 km.
• capacity of tanks: 8500 litres.
• the reservation: an equivalent of 250 mm homogeneous катаной the reservation. A material: a steel, ceramics, polymers, the titan.
• system of protection from РХБЗ: is.
• night systems of supervision: ИК night sight ТПН 1-43А.
• the Radar: sm-range Station RLS in radio transparent обтекателе on a roof of a fodder part.
• navigation: Inertial system with astrocorrection.

Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 05:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

And, as usual, "Nasal Cabin" and "Fodder Part" would be good names for rock bands. Deor (talk) 13:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

latin-english translation

I was after the Latin translation for 'What comes around, goes around —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.56.233.124 (talk) 06:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well you could translate it literally as "quod circumvenit, circumit", but it's better to look for a Latin idiom that means the same thing. From the Bible we get "to reap what one sows", which in Latin (at least in Galatians 6:7) is "quae enim seminaverit homo haec et metet". Adam Bishop (talk) 07:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Although, therefore, ....

I'm just wondering if this makes sense as the start of a sentence: "Although, therefore, a relationship existed,... ". To place this in context the preceding sentence demonstrates the relationship existed.

Thanks for any opinions! --Fir0002 06:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It makes sense, but strikes me as rather clunky. I'd rather see the "therefore" moved firmly inside the clause by putting it before "existed", without commas. --Anonymous, 09:01 UTC, October 29 28, 2008.

So "Although a relationship therefore exisited,..."? Anyone else with a preference?

That would be saying something different, as can be seen by the use of, um,... parentheses. The version you gave first above has this hierarchical structure:

• Therefore [although a relationship existed...]...

The version you now give has this structure:

• Although [therefore a relationship existed...]...

(Because punctuation like commas can be used for interpolations, the strict order of the words doesn't matter a lot, and is in fact deceptive.) It all depends on precisely what you want to say. Rather than inefficiently speculate on that, I'd like to see more context. If you don't want to give the actual words, make up something that has the same general form, OK? Show us a version of the problematic sentence, and of the preceding sentence, which you tell us is also involved.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 11:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

<edit conflict> OK sure. Bob and Bill, now in their mid twenties, have been best friends since primary school. Although, therefore, a relationship of trust exists, it is doubtful whether Bob would lend Bill his brand new Audi R8 to drive across the Nullarbor. Hope that clarifies a bit - but yeah I'd prefer not to post the original sentences. But basically what I'm trying to say is two things: <previous sentence = reason for claiming a relationship existed> therefore a relationship existed; and although a relationship existed, blah won't necessarily happen.

Perhaps "Although there was, therefore, a relationship..." --Richardrj ^{talk email} 11:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like what I want - thanks! --Fir0002 11:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want to stress the "although" element, a neater way might be to say, "Despite this relationship of trust, it is doubtful that Bob would lend Bill his new car." Just a thought.GBViews (talk) 12:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Another thought: "Although Bob and Bill, now in their mid twenties, have been best friends since primary school and have developed a relationship of trust, it is doubtful whether ...". Or you could take it that having been best friends since primary school implies a relationship of trust, and simply write "Although Bob and Bill, now in their mid twenties, have been best friends since primary school, it is doubtful whether ...". -- JackofOz (talk) 21:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions but Richardrj's suggestion works best in the original paragraph --Fir0002 23:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

"Bob and Bill, now in their mid twenties, have been best friends since primary school. Although, therefore, a relationship of trust exists, it is doubtful whether ..." Hmm. Why not simply say, "Even though a relationship of trust exists...?" Not sure I would use "therefore" anywhere. Being best friends since primary school doesn't (logically) imply a relationship of trust. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't it? Is there a term for "people who've been best friends for 20 years but still don't trust each other". That seems to be a contradiction in terms, and an abuse or misuse of the term "best friends". -- JackofOz (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The Beatles?  :) Well, that is why I used "logically." If there is a relationship of trust (i.e. complete trust), then why wouldn't he lend his brand new Audi? If his reasons for not lending the Audi have to do with things other than trust (i.e. not having the insurance that includes other drivers), then why bring up trust? It seems that we have a case of not enough trust, i.e. we are saying, "Even though there is trust (or as you suggested, "Although there is trust"), there is not enough trust."Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

So I think we agree that being best friends for 20 years does after all imply a relationship of trust - but that term does not mean trust in all possible situations. For example, he might trust his friend with his life, and trust him to look after his money without stealing from him, but if he was going away for a month, he probably wouldn't trust his friend to share his wife's bed without something untoward occurring. Nor would he even trust his wife in that circumstance. Which is why none of the 3 parties would ever even suggest it. But that doesn't mean the relationship is no longer one of trust. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Second Question

"defence from liability" or "defence to liability"?

Again, it depends on what you want to say. Try making a little more of an effort to help us to help you. :)

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 11:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Does it depend? I'd have thought it was consistent. Anyway an example: Even if Fred is found negligent for failing to provide a safe service, he has a defence from liability because he was insane. --Fir0002 11:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does depend. Surely there is some link between liability and defence, but it isn't a simple matter of defending oneself against or from liability. One defends against a change or against a civil action of some sort, but one escapes liability. (See Strict_liability_(criminal), for example: "...if defendants might escape liability too easily by pleading ignorance...". Now that I see the context, I would advise something like this:

Even if Fred is found negligent for failing to provide a safe service, he can escape liability because he was insane.

Other niceties in legal talk are another matter, and I do not suggest that this version is proper in all respects.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok fair point - so possible better to phrase as "Fred had a defence to negligence because he was insane"? I'd like to keep the word "defence" in there...--Fir0002 23:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You know, that doesn't sound right, but I'm struggling to come up with a better alternative. I think the problem is that it isn't that he had a defence because he was insane - rather, insanity was his defence. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm not quite... because Fred can be found guilty of negiglence irrespective of his sanity. But, even if found guilty, he has a defence to/from liability (having to pay the plaintiff) because he was insane. (oh and note insanity is just a dummy defence so don't get hung up on it - substitute any defence to/from (?!) liability you'd like - eg contributory negligence, volenti, limitation of liability clause etc).--Fir0002 00:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, but that still leaves the linguistic issue unresolved. Whether he's arguing not to be found liable in the event that he's found guilty, or whether he's arguing not to be found guilty in the first place, the expression "defence to negligence" doesn't sit well with me. If the charge were murder, and Fred was hoping to at worst get a manslaughter conviction, or preferably an acquittal, would we refer to his "defence to murder"? I just don't think this is a standard expression, but "defence of murder", "defence from murder", "defence about murder", and "defence in respect of murder" don't fit either. I really think we talk about "defending a charge (of X)", not "defending X", so you can't associate "defence" with "X" by simply using a conjunction like "to", etc. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I'll take up the suggestion below "defence against liability". Thanks for the suggestions/comments! --Fir0002 01:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I specialize in legal translation, and, although not a lawyer/solicitor, I translate the Japanese equivalent of the OP's question as 'defence against liability', and this is always accepted by the legal institutions I translate for. 'Liability' in itself is a charge, whereas 'murder' is an act (though, by extension, it is often thought of as a charge), so the second example (Jack's) would be 'defense against the charge of murder'. Hope this helps.--ChokinBako (talk) 00:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I take that as authoritative, CB. A google search confirms uses of the phrase defence [or defense] against liability. In Ballentine's Law Dictionary, for example, we find this:

assumption of risk. A defense against liability for negligence...

Nevertheless, very many of the hits from Google have liability used adjectivally ("defence against liability claims"), or employ the notion of defence loosely rather than in the strict forensic sense, even though the general context is legal. And none of this supports defence from liability or defence to liability.

Good, anyway, to see that young Fir0002 now has the guidance he was after.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 01:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. However, the word 'liability' is not being used adjectively in the phrase 'liability claims'. This is a noun qualifying another noun. The substantive nature of the 'claim' is not one of being 'liable', but being a 'claim' of 'liability' toward the defendant.--ChokinBako (talk) 03:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You miss the mark, CB. Look at OED's entry for adjectivally:

In an adjectival manner, as an adjective; + adjectively adv.

1867 F. W. Farrar Greek Syntax Introd. §38 The fact that substantives are frequently used adjectivally. 1928 E. G. R. Waters St. Brendan p. cxcvi, The tonic forms of the possessive pronouns are frequently used adjectivally.

My application of adjectivally has innumerable impeccable precedents. But let's drop the matter. This is not a forum for chit-chat or tangential disputes.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 03:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Funny, the authority you quote from spells 'adjectively' as 'adjectivally', a spelling that my spell-checker does not recognize. Great authority, eh?--ChokinBako (talk) 12:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I hope that is intended as one of your quirky jokes, CB. Adjectivally is the more standard form in current English – certainly in the contexts we are discussing – and that is what I have used, and JackofOz has used earlier on this page. I would back OED against your spell-checker any day! Nevertheless, OED does record adjectively also.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 21:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Salutations

This has probably been asked before but I have not seen it.

While writing to companies, corporations, or authorities I am disinclined to start with "Dear" anything, since they are not 'dear' to me in the least, especially since my letter is usually a complaint or criticism. So what do I start with, my favourite is "Sirs" but that is probably PC these days of female C.E.O's.

By the same token I am never "Yours Faithfully", "Sincerely", "Truly" or "Love"! "Yours ect" is my usual send off, but there must be something better. Any ideas please? --89.168.224.110 (talk) 09:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's not really in your gift to change the rules with regard to opening and closing letters. There are certain conventions which are normal in business writing and you are expected to abide by those (rightly, in my view). If you're writing a letter of complaint, you should do so politely or you will never get anywhere. So, here are the rules (at least as I understand them in the UK, things might differ elsewhere):

• If you don't know the name of the person you are writing to, start with Dear Sir or (preferably) Dear Sir/Madam.
• If you do know their name, put Dear Mr/Mrs So-and-So, or Ms So-and-So if you don't want to make assumptions about her marital status.
• When signing off, put Yours faithfully if you have started the letter with Dear Sir.
• Put Yours sincerely if you have used Dear Mr/Mrs So-and-So.

And note, there is no capital letter with "faithfully" or "sincerely". --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

There's also "To whom it may concern", but that's at a rather impersonal level. There used to be a whole set of special stylistic conventions for writing impersonal business letters ("recd yours of the 5th inst." etc. etc.), but I think that's been in decline since the 1960's... AnonMoos (talk) 10:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

See AMS Simplified Letter. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

October 30, 2008

Mr Jones,

I am writing to you . . .

Best regards,

DOR (HK) (talk) 06:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

As I explained above, that would be wrong. You need "Dear" before "Mr Jones". "Best regards" you might possibly get away with, but that is more acceptable in an email than in a standard business letter. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Richardrj, for what it's worth. I think a "Dear" is essential before "Mr Jones" - even if you know and hate the bloke - and this would then naturally lead to "Yours sincerely". "Best regards" is the sort of phrase I frequently see at the end of e-mails, but it would jar in a business letter IMHO. And I'd also treat others in the way I'd like to be treated. If my bank manager wrote to me on a Bad Day and signed his letter "Best regards", I might move banks. On Good Days I'd smile wryly and wonder about the chap's schooling.GBViews (talk) 10:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I can see no problem with beginning a business letter "Sirs", which is old-fashioned but correct. I do it myself when I really do not want to write "Dear Mr X". However, "Sirs" will look odd if you do not then use the equally formal ending which goes with it: it can just give the impression that you have never learnt how to write letters. When I want a format which is even more stand-offish, I fall back on the memo style, that is, at the top "To J. Smith", on the next line "From J. Strawless", then "Date 29 October 2008", then what I have to say, ending with no signature. Strawless (talk) 15:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everybody, Strawless is my favorite answer and much appreciated. --89.168.224.110 (talk) 17:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Frequency of Initial Letters of the Alphabet worldwide or on wikipedia

I am looking to find out the frequency of initial letters of the alphabet used in words in English and other languages worldwide on the internet.

Some information is available for English, for example on wikipedia here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_analysis) BUT this only covers the general frequency of the letters NOT the frequency of initial letters in English. [CORRECTION: I meant here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_frequencies]

It does refer to a web page here (http://pages.central.edu/emp/LintonT/classes/spring01/cryptography/letterfreq.html) which provides general frequencies and also the 10 most frequent initial letters:

Start of Word Letter Frequencies

Letter	t	a	i	s	o	c	m	f	p	w
Freq.	0.1594	0.1550	0.0823	0.0775	0.0712	0.0597	0.0426	0.0408	0.0400	0.0382

From this several questions:

1) Is it true Wikipedia does not have info on the frequency of initial letters in English (ie I would like to initial frequencies of ALL 26 letters not just the top 10 in English)?

2) Your article has some interesting comparisons on general letter frequencies across several languages, any idea where I might find a similar comparisons for ALL initial letters?

3) My ultimate goal is to investigate the frequencies of ALL initial letters in ALL languages used on the internet. Sounds like a BIG project right? But perhaps there is a way to arrive at an approximation for wikipedia... ie what are the most common initial letters in articles on wikipedia in all languages on wikipedia and their frequencies? This would provide a data set for Wikipedia which would be interesting and might reflect the frequencies on the web in general...

If there are any linguists, statisticians or others out there who could help shed any light on this topic, I would be very curious to know the answers.

Thank you.

PS trying this question again since there were no answers last time around... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Careyz (talk • contribs) 10:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Frequency in what context? Do you mean how many individual words (in an English dictionary) begin with A, how many with B, etc? Or do you mean the frequency of these initial letters across a broad sample of written text?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

See Secret Language (near the bottom of the page).

-- Wavelength (talk) 17:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

See Constrained writing. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

According to the article Letter frequencies,

"More recent analyses show that letter frequencies, like word frequencies, tend to vary, both by writer and by subject. One cannot write an essay about x-rays without using frequent Xs, and different authors have habits which can be reflected in their use of letters." -- Wavelength (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

See AskOxford: Oxford Word and Language Service. If you find out the answer(s), please tell us. I am interested in knowing. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

See Text analysis, wordcount, keyword density analyzer, prominence analysis

and Text Analysis Info. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback on this and the interesting links. In particular this is of interest: http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutwords/frequency?view=uk

BUT the same problem keeps recurring. There seem to be a number of sources for the frequency of letters in English of which this Oxford page is one of the better ones since it offers frequency in %. However this is for the general frequency of the all letters in the Oxford dictionary NOT for that of initial letters.

So still no answer to Q 1) or 2) which builds on 1) to compare with other common languages (either on wikipedia or on the web thus far).

Then there is Q 3) with is both the hardest and maybe the easiest (if someone at wikipedia would know) namely a)In the English version of wikipedia what are the most common initial letters and their frequency? or b)In the wikipedia universe (all languages) what are the most common initial letters and their frequency?

Not sure if there is someone at wiki who keeps stats on the database that might answer this but thought it might be worth a try

If anyone has any further leads or thoughts please chime in... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Careyz (talk • contribs) 08:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

See Google Directory - Reference > Ask an Expert. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Does Wikipedia traffic obey Zipf's law?. -- Wavelength (talk) 04:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

See Bouillon project » Blog Archive » Back to the basics: Zipf’s law

and The Greatest Resources On The Web » The Zana Zen.

-- Wavelength (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

THANKS for the interesting links. I may try this site: http://www.linguistlist.org/ask-ling/ and see if I have any better luck there.

So far I do not see us making any progress in answering my questions here.

I had hoped someone might have or know where to find stats on the frequency of initial letters for articles on wikipedia at least, but seems not.

I do appreciate all the suggestions and contributions so far...

Morphology of figures of speech

Has anyone ever done a Morphological analysis (problem-solving) of figure of speech (excuse bad grammar)? [NOTE: The original first link in the preceding sentence was later silently amended, but still to a disambiguation page. I have now supplied the page that seems to be intended. See below.-Noetica] I recall a modern computer-assisted morphological study of the classical syllogism that discovered an extra one that the ancients had never found. I am referring to morphology in the sense used in engineering etc. rather than its specialised linguistic meanings. Thanks. 78.151.98.126 (talk) 12:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm kinda disqualifying myself, but what do you mean by "morphology in the sense used in engineering etc."? The link is to a disambiguation page. —Tamfang (talk) 00:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

How can a 'morphological analysis of figures of speech' not be a linguistic concept? And what could it have to do with engineering?--ChokinBako (talk) 00:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't fully understand the question either; but it would be parochial to think that whenever the terms morphological and figures of speech are brought together the reference is to linguistic morphology. Have a look at morphological analysis (problem-solving), instead. That seems to be what is intended.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 02:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

That is all well and good, Noetica, but it still further pushes the Q out of the realm of linguistics. A quick look at syllogism brought it back a bit, as it was concerned with logic, but the OP specifies that this Q is for engineering, and not linguistics. What it has to do with 'figure of speech' is beyond me and will continue to be so until the OP comes back and posts an explanation.--ChokinBako (talk) 03:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

This page is about help with language, not just with the formal apparatus conventionally associated with the science of linguistics. This page is therefore the right place for questions about figures of speech. As I have pointed out, the question is about the application of morphological analysis (problem-solving) to their analysis, so it belongs squarely right here. Let's see if the questioner will come back with more detail, so we can take things further.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 04:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Gentlemen, all the above pedantry is obviously a transparant ploy to avoid having to admit that you do not know the answer. 78.151.135.45 (talk) 22:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's not very nice, Friend 78. It should be transparently obvious that we do not understand your question, and we have asked you to explain what you mean. The ball's in your court. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

That is not mere pedantry, Anonymous. You asked an obscure question, without delineating things clearly, and included an unhelpful link. I have amended the link a second time (with an annotation) so that we can all follow better.

Actually, I think that the whole area of figures of speech needs radical sorting out. I would be interested in attempts to do that. Then we could have a go at fallacies, which constitute a comparable taxonomic and conceptual mess.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Questions about Late Egyptian

1. The article on Late Egyptian says that "Adjectives as attributes of nouns are often replaced by nouns." Could someone please give me an example of this, or better, a couple of examples?

2. More generally, could anyone recommend any resources on the Late Egyptian language, specifically on how it differs from its predecessor Middle Egyptian, besides Černý and Junge?

Thanks!

—anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.82.242 (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The best book I have seen (and have on my bookshelves!) is 'Egyptian Grammar' by Sir Alan Gardiner. By far the most comprehensive work I have seen to date, and gives a lot of information on all stages of Egyptian.--ChokinBako (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Could the quoted sentence mean that a beautiful thing becomes a thing of beauty? —Tamfang (talk) 05:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Origin of the word Skerrick

thought to be of Australian origin , i believe the the word must originate in southern lancashire / merseyside.In this region it is spelt Skorrick, but as the same meaning,i am looking for confirmation of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.48.212 (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm from Merseyside and I've never thought it was from round here. It sounds Norse to me.--ChokinBako (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

OED lists a first occurrence in 1825:

Jamieson Etym. Dict. Sc. Lang. Suppl. 407/2, I care nae a skourick.

It says "origin uncertain", but links us to scuddick (for which it also gives no etymology):

An extremely small coin or amount. Also, something very small.

Eric Partridge (A Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English) lists the word, but gives no more information than OED does. Oxford's Australian National Dictionary lists it also, and records a first Australian occurrence in 1854. Such an inclusion would suggest a strong Australian connection; but the word is not claimed anywhere as Australian in origin. OED says at the start of its entry:

Now chiefly Austral. colloq. (orig. dial.).

Certainly it is current in Australia, anyway.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 22:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, this Aussie just learned a new word. Steewi (talk) 01:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Really, Steewi? That surprises me; I'd have thought it was very common down here (although I wasn't aware it hasn't migrated elsewhere yet). It's perhaps most used in expressions of disbelief such as "There's not a skerrick of evidence to support that belief", or "If you have a skerrick of evidence, Detective Inspector, than please go ahead and charge me, but if not, kindly *** off" etc., and it pops up all over talk pages on Australia-related subjects on WP - see this search. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I just tried on this website, but their 'etymology' is total bollocks.--ChokinBako (talk) 20:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

That'll teach you to ...

Here's an odd question. Read the following to get the context:

<Question about candidates who attracted only one vote>

<My response>, followed by my comment: Which makes a kind of sense: if even he didn't think he was worth voting for, why would anyone else? A manifestion of the ultimate lack of self-esteem, really, and I wonder why he even bothered becoming a candidate in the first place. -- JackofOz

I don't believe UK election law requires you to be a registered voter in the constituency you're standing in, so maybe he just didn't have a vote there. --Tango

That'll teach me to comment gratuitously ... -- JackofOz

Another editor might have written "That'll teach me not to comment gratuitously", and in a different mood I may even have written that version myself without too much conscious thought.

Is there any real difference between "That'll teach you to do X" and "That'll teach you not to do X" in these sorts of contexts? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Logically, the latter is correct, of course, but I think we do seem to veer towards the former in everyday conversation. When I was a kid, reading the Beano and other comics I used to get confused as to why people said "That'll teach me to..." when it was obvious that they meant "NOT to", but, then, I just put it down to the middle-class writers of kids' comics being totally out-of-touch with the dialects that working class kids spoke. This is why I could never get my head round The Sound Of Music and all the other Mary Poppins stuff.--ChokinBako (talk) 22:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard it used like this, but logically, aren't they are both correct? "That'll teach you to...(some action)" is just as logical as the negative. For example, a child who happens to be a pyromaniac discovers a lighter and subsequently burns his house down. The fireman says "That'll teach you to play with fire." And indeed, this child learned something valuable to him. We all know what the fireman meant, but the child may have heard it from a different perspective. But I imagine the speaker of the phrase can also mean it in the positive sense. If the conequesence that caused the speaker to say it turned out to be a good thing. Though, I have never heard it said like this, even in Jack's example it could work: he got an answer to his (perhaps rhetorical) question by commenting gratuitously. Louis Waweru  Talk  11:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

There seem to be two different ways this phrase is used. One is the more literal way - "That'll teach me to <do something that I should have done, but didn't>", contrasting with "That'll teach me not to <do something that I did, but shouldn't've">. The less literal way , "That'll teach me to <do something that I did, but shouldn't've">, I've normally justified it by reading "to" as "the consquences of"; you could also see it as sarcastic or ironic. In any case, compare the American English "I could care less"... FiggyBee (talk) 23:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Comparable from the logic/lack of logic angle, but not comparable from the frequency angle. Both positive and negative versions of "That'll teach you" occur in roughly the same proportion (at least in my part of the world). But "I could care less" is simply never heard here. Not ever. Never. Except in US movies and TV shows, and spoken by novomundane visitors. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Moreover (at least in the UK; I can't speak for Oz) 'I could care less' isn't just not used by natives, it strikes every native who hears it as complete nonsense. Algebraist 23:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Working in Japan, I heard many American colleagues use that phrase, and it always struck me as meaning something that they cared a little about, rather than not caring at all about. At first, this was natural until I got to know the meaning and I just took it that way on purpose because it is an irrelevant thing to say if you take it at face value, and even if you take it to mean what the speaker wants it to mean, it still doesn't mean that. This is what comes of bastardising a language. Brevity costs accuracy. --ChokinBako (talk) 23:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The same thing goes on with regards to the phrases "fat chance" and "slim chance"; generally Americans of certain dialects tend towards a universal sort of sarcasm, so a "fat chance", which should at first reading mean "A really big chance" means, idiomatically, "no real chance at all." At least in the New England dialect, where I grew up, that level of sarcasm pervades the speech to a level where everyone understands words as meaning their opposites. For example, you would never use the phrase "cool kid" in the New England area to mean anything but an insult "Oh, yeah, who invited the cool kid?" Another related construct to this, common in New England, is the "positive negative". The phrase "So don't I..." always means "I do also". Like "Hey, I really like the chowder down at Legal Seafood." ... "Oh yeah, so don't I..." It confuses people who aren't familiar with the dialect. There is a pretty good description of these sorts of "positive negative" constructs at the Wicked Good Guide to Boston English, along with other unique aspects of the New England dialect beyond merely "pahking the cah in Hahvid yahd"... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a lot of my American colleagues talked a lot about the Boston accent, and kept telling me that 'r' is not pronounced. This confused me, because I wondered how they could pronounce the name of their bloody county - America! Anyway, I took it all with a pinch of salt, but recently I saw a documentary about something or other, I knew from the outset that it was set in Boston. It actually sounds nice to British ears to not have that 'r' constantly cropping up and making you lot sound like you are eating when you are talking......--ChokinBako (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

This is moving further from Jack's initial question (which will, I suppose, teach him something or other, perhaps on matters novomundane or not), but cracks about Americans and their rs always bug me. Why the hell did Brits use the letter so often if they had no desire to pronounce it? Matt Deres (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Another one in the same category is "Yeah, no, ....", as a way of starting to answer a question. It usually means neither "yes" nor "no", but is used in the same sense as "Well, ...". It's astonishing how pervasive this has become in everyday parlance in Australia (I even occasionally catch myself doing it despite my best intentions), and there's been quite a lot written about it. But it's typically used only by a particular sub-set of the community. You wouldn't find politicians or economists or public affairs/arts commentators saying it very much, if at all. But ordinary people in the street and sportspeople use it all the time. When my partner and I watch sport on TV, we see how many "yeah no"s we can count in the pre- and post-match interviews, and in dialogue between the commentators (which is an art form in itself). -- JackofOz (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

A teacher was giving a lecture and stated to his students that "while two negatives always make a positive, two positives never make a negative." A bored voice came from the back of the hall "Yeah, right."  :-) --LarryMac | Talk 20:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Then there's "not too bad", which if read literally is a triple negative, but it turns out to be a positive varying from just barely positive to very enthusiastically positive, depending on the way it's said. -- JackofOz (talk) 10:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Chinese question

The page on isolating languages gives a Chinese sentence with the following translation:

"They are doing homework."

他們	在	做	作業
他们	在	做	作业
tāmen	zài	zuò	zuòyè
they	are	doing	homework.

However, Chinese verbs aren't inflected, right? So zài and zuò could also be translated as 'be' and 'do' respectively?

Thanks, anon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.34.61 (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not an inflection. This is an addition of the word '在' to show that the person(s) in question is/are 'in the process of' performimg the verb.--ChokinBako (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary calls 在 an adverb, but it looks like it might be better described as a particle expressing progressive aspect. Wiktionary says 在 is also a preposition meaning "at" or "in", which reminds me of the way progressives are expressed in Celtic languages: using a verbal noun preceded in Irish with the preposition for "at" and in Welsh with the preposition for "in". —Angr 22:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, being of Celtic heritage, myself, that is how I saw it from the beginning.--ChokinBako (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)