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

October 26

Magazine name

hi every one! i'm gonna start a new magazine! suggest me short stylich meaningful names of any language............... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.103.140 (talk) 07:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, what's the magazine about? You want a name that's actually relevant to the topic, not just some random word, right? (If you do just want some random word, try hitting Special:Random or wikt:Special:Random a few times till you find a word you like.) —Angr 07:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Will the name express something of your magazine's purpose or intent? Though it's a typo, "Stylich" sounds catchy for a mag about style, say. Julia Rossi (talk) 21:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Especially if the intended audience is liches. Or maybe it's Style-itch? —Tamfang (talk) 01:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

"NEW!" usually catches the eye.--89.168.224.110 (talk) 09:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Truck driver who likes to drive in stocking feet

Moved to misc desk here . FiggyBee (talk) 13:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Subject / verb agreement

I received an email, and I was typing my reply. My very first sentence was this: Your email brings two thoughts to mind. I continued on, typing the rest of the email. Then, I went back to the very first sentence and I added in the following parenthetical: (and its accompanying questions). Now, my first sentence read: Your email (and its accompanying questions) brings two thoughts to mind. Mentally, I went back and forth 100 times, wondering if the verb should stay as singular brings or should be changed to plural bring. I was taught (I think?) that a parenthetical is absolutely irrelevant to sentence structure. The sentence should be able to stand alone if the parenthetical were completely removed. This leads me to believe that the correct verb should remain singular brings. However, at the same time, introducing the parenthetical seems to make the subject of the verb change from singular to plural. And hence require plural bring. No? So, here are my questions. (Question 1) In the new and revised sentence, with the added parenthetical, what exactly is the subject? Is it merely "your email" or is it "your email (and its accompanying questions)"? And, thus, what is the subject's appropriate verb? (Question 2) Would the answer to Question 1 change in any way if I rewrote the sentence by simply deleting the parentheses symbols and doing nothing else? In other words, is there any semantic / grammatical / linguistic difference between Sentence A and Sentence B below? Certainly, their substance and what they are communicating are exactly identical ... or no?

Sentence A: Your email (and its accompanying questions) brings two thoughts to mind.

Sentence B: Your email and its accompanying questions bring two thoughts to mind.

I understand that I can change words around, etc., to fix this problem. My question, though, presumes that I do not want to do so. Help! Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC))

I suggest that you start by reading this thread above, so that folks don't have to repeat the responses they made there. Afterwards, if you have any remaining questions, let us know what they are. Deor (talk) 16:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks. I had not seen that above thread from a few days ago. But, on certain levels, neither did I find it helpful. Maybe some "language ref type" can help? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC))

The only difference I see is that A makes the questions a bit more subordinate. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

In this case, it sounds like it's not even necessary to refer to the accompanying questions. If you received a letter, you wouldn't respond with "Thank you for your letter and its content". Whatever your response is, "your letter" refers not to the physical object that arrived in your letter box, but to the content of the communication. Same principle with an email, where the content can include the main message plus attachments. In some cases you may, in the body of your reply, need to refer to a specific attachment to identify a particular sentence you're commenting on, but your introductory thank you is all inclusive, whether there are attachments or not. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, you MUST formulate your sentence to read correctly when read out loud (i.e. where parenthetical marks are not possible). So it MUST be Your email (and its accompanying questions) bring two thoughts to mind. Hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.90.101 (talk) 22:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It would help even more if you weren't quite so categorical in your responses. Please let your words speak for themselves, without the need to emphasise them unduly. If you believe there's one and only one correct answer to a controversial question, please provide your authority. (Btw, your answer to the thread above has been questioned as well.) -- JackofOz (talk) 01:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

And, by the way: a sentence containing a parenthesis needs to make sense with the parenthesis deleted. Keeping this rule in mind can help you not put the closing ')' in the wrong place. —Tamfang (talk) 01:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Having commented on the sidekick related question above, I thought I should give my view here. It's exactly that: an opinion. The problem is the word "and". It seems to make the subject "your e-mail and ... questions" not just "e-mail" so a plural verb should follow. If you want to have a single subject - the e-mail - I would definitely suggest avoiding problems by saying something like "Your e-mail, as well as the accompanying questions, brings ...". But I can't see what stands to be gained by complicating this. So "Your e-mail and the accompanying questions bring ..." works for me. With one small exception, that "accompanying" seems to imply that the questions were somehow separate from the e-mail. This seems a bit odd. If the questions were in the e-mail, why not refer to "its questions" or "the questions is contains". If the questions were separate, why not say "Your e-mail and the questions sent in an accompanying note ..." or similar. That's if, as a careful writer, you think any of this really matters in this particular case.86.139.236.224 (talk) 13:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Laugh(ing) like a drain

Where does this expression originate?--GreenSpigot (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

This [1] says: "This is a UK phrase, from around the time of WWII. It is first recorded by Eric Partridge in A dictionary of forces' slang 1939–45, 1948. He describes it as 'Ward-room and also Army officers’ slang'". The etymology / sense seems unclear. The link speculates on some implied onomatopoeic gargling gurgling pun. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Could it be refwerence to the gurgling sound as when pouring water down the drain pipe?--GreenSpigot (talk) 22:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops, it´s them gargoyles gurgling at the dentist´s spitoon I was laughing about in my Freudian slippers. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

And possibly an open mouth/throat like a drain to produce the uninhibited noise? Julia Rossi (talk) 01:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Good name?

I met this guy (from India) a while ago on holiday and he asked me what my good name was, I had no understanding of what he meant until someone explained it to me, at which point I responded. When he said "good name" I thought it might be a type of name such as forename and surname.

When I went on holiday in summer, on the plane I saw a movie called Outsourced, in it, a man meets this Indian guy who asked him what his good name was, he also seemed quite confused. Why do some people ask "What is your good name?" and not just "What's your name?"?

I understand that they are complimenting your name, but that seems kind of wierd as they haven't even heard it yet - so how can you compliment it if you haven't heard it (the compliment seems almost insincere).

I live in the UK and have never heard this phrase used there, and I concider myself a well-travelled man and have only heard it the one time. I have never heard this phrase used in America either. So is this just a phrase used in India, or is it used anywhere else in the world? Thanks. W.i.k.i.p.e.d.i.a - Reference desk guy (talk) 23:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

"Your good self" and "your good name" have a certain colonial/post colonial ring to them. Some things just become the uninspected bedrock drift of customary phrases, perhaps. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for putting it like that, because I have heard "Your good self" many times before, but never thought about it like that (i.e. associated it with the oddity that is "your good name").W.i.k.i.p.e.d.i.a - Reference desk guy (talk) 01:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

In The Namesake (film) (about an Indian family in New York) the son's "good name" is mentioned several times. If I remember right, the son is given an informal name at birth, and later a "good name"; and in his teens he says he wants to change his "good name" from one of his given names to the other. —Tamfang (talk) 01:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

So is that just the name they prefer to be called, like a nickname? W.i.k.i.p.e.d.i.a - Reference desk guy (talk) 02:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I got the impression that it's a formal or ceremonial name. (It's best to indent by one more than whatever you're responding to.) —Tamfang (talk) 05:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

"Your good name" in the Indian context is the same as saying "your honorable name;" it is just an old way of being polite. In the other sense, your good name is your reputation, and this usage is quite common in American English. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's actually none of the above (although some replies, such as DOR's, come close). Here's the Oxford Companion to the English Language (p. 259): "When, for example, South Asian speakers of English ask, What is your good name?, they are transferring an expression from another language into English."

That expression is more like, "What is your auspicious name?" and, in the vernaculars themselves, it is considered a form of politeness. In other words, asking someone their name, matter-of-factly and unadorned, might be considered rude, especially in a society ridden with caste hierarchies where the (sur-) name itself is often a reliable clue to caste (and class) status. I should add that "good name" (in the Indian context) usually implies the full name, but it certainly includes the last name (or surname). After all, what would be the point of this verbal subterfuge on my part if my interlocutor's answer, say, in the form of only their first name, doesn't give me the ability to place them.

That is roughly how the expression got started. The people who use it in South Asia today might not be themselves translating it from another language; they might have actually learnt it in the English lessons, and for them, it is just a polite way of asking someone their name.

"What is your good name?" has been commented upon for at least the last 50 years and mocking it is the staple of Indian literary works in English. Its naive use today by someone is itself a marker of class status; the upper crust convent school educated crowd in South Asia wouldn't be caught dead using it. Even among the larger population, the expression might soon (sadly) become a casualty of the global leveling of speech ushered in by cable TV. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. W.i.k.i.p.e.d.i.a - Reference desk guy (talk) 18:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

good doctor

On a distantly related note, how did "the good doctor" become a cliché? —Tamfang (talk) 01:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Dunno. Reminds me of what my father always used to call my mother, "Good my lady". —Angr 10:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

American 'save the world' films

Why is it that the 'President' on all films where America saves the world talks big but always speaks a type of English that makes him sound like he dropped out of school when he was 16? I know for a fact that educated Americans (and even American presidents!) do not talk like that. I am talking about Impact Earth and Independence Day, as well as others. Watching this stuff is like reading the Sunday Sport - full of emotive language and cliches.--ChokinBako (talk) 23:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I would guess that films portray American presidents as ignorant ill-educated fools is because they (usually) are! You say American presidents don't talk like that, I can't comment on Impact Earth or Independence Day as I havn't seen either, but they don't talk as if they are educated either. Generally, American presidents talk rubbish. I have never read the Sunday Sport, so I can't comment on that.

Generally fiction needs some realism - aliens, time travel and other obsurdities are within the realms of one's imagination, but an intellectual American president - now that's going too far. I suggest if you wan't something so impossible to be depicted in film, you make your own. Please don't take this paragraph too seriously!

It is believed by many people (not including me when talking about Americans in general) that Americans (especially American presidents) aren't very intelligent *understatement of the year*. Clearly the makers of the films you mention believe that playing on this cliche of a stereotype enhances their film in some way - this stereotype can be (and often is) exploited for great comic effect.

Hope that helps.W.i.k.i.p.e.d.i.a - Reference desk guy (talk) 00:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Reference Desk is not a soapbox for diatribes about how much you despise people from some country other than your own. There are blogs for that sort of thing. Edison (talk) 15:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, you are making sense. Also (at the risk of this question becoming unrelated to language), why is it that the nuclear bomb is the answer to everything? Haven't the directors of these farcical films realised yet that the end of their stories are so incredibly predictable, with a President talking like a teenager and a nuke at the end? Oh, no, of course, these films are aimed at the uneducated masses (of which we have our fair share here in the UK, so this is not a dig at the US)....--ChokinBako (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

One doesn't watch a show like Independence Day for sophisticated writing. (Sophisticated visual effects, yes.) —Tamfang (talk) 01:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, most people aren't very intelligent as you've outlined, and so the fact that most films share the same plot and are unbelievably predictable means nothing because most people are to stupid to notice. Quantum of Solace for example is coming out in 4 days and I'll probably go to see it (mainly for conversational purposes), even though I'm sure it will have a similar plot (if not the same) to every other Bond film made. It will probably also have many factual errors and continuity errors, none-the-less it will undoubtedly be a major success (just like Casino Royale).W.i.k.i.p.e.d.i.a - Reference desk guy (talk) 01:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

One doesn't watch a movie such as Independence Day for the erudite dialogue because of the lack of erudite dialogue. Though I do wonder why one would watch a show like Independance Day at all.W.i.k.i.p.e.d.i.a - Reference desk guy (talk) 01:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Bill Pullman's speech in Independence Day (film) is one of the greatest by any president real or fiction. Grsz^Review! 01:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

In what way? I'm not saying you're wrong (as I haven't seen the film), I'm just enquiring. W.i.k.i.p.e.d.i.a - Reference desk guy (talk) 01:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

(EC)Right, and the aliens' computer just happens to be able to understand DOS, or whatever other human computer language the virus was written in. Oh, and they also used a USB or some such other human interface. Total crap.--ChokinBako (talk) 02:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

From that statement, It does sound as if it is "total crap"! W.i.k.i.p.e.d.i.a - Reference desk guy (talk) 03:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Independence Day does use the Hollywood OS and yes, it is rather predictable. But it's a fun movie. It's mental bubble gum and visually pretty cool for its time. It wasn't supposed to be the next Citizen Kane but it's a long way from Ishtar. As for Bill Pullman's speech, I don't remember it word for word but given that the speech was impromptu, not written by speech writers on the president's staff, and directed towards a bunch of refugees in their own country assembled on the tarmac who were portrayed as everyday Joes (I don't recall right now whether they were able to broadcast the speech at that point in the movie), I don't think that they did that bad with it. I wonder what the OP's opinion of Air Force One is... Dismas|^(talk) 05:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

"full of emotive language and cliches" That's the way most politicians talk when they're making speeches for general consumption, regardless of nationality. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The main problem with the speech is that he claims July 4 will now be the world's Independence Day. Lame. There is a radio program from the British point of view that discusses that (Independence Day UK). By the way, is "Impact Earth" supposed to be Deep Impact? I would say Morgan Freeman is a better president than Bill Pullman but I don't recall his speech at all. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The speech is reminiscent of the President's speech in the final movie of Battlestar Galactica - very emotive and patriotic. And, it wasn't Deep Impact - although I do have the misfortune to have seen that, too. Impact Earth was a docudrama on Discovery Channel. As for Air Force One, I have not seen that, but was intending to until it came up in this thread. If there is any relevance at all to the theme of this thread, then I may give it a miss.--ChokinBako (talk) 09:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget that this is the same Hollywood that caters to the lowest common denominator; it's not just that many are too dumb to notice, becasue if that was the case, there wouldn't be people complaining about it. However, there are people who complain a lot about how Hollywood "never makes anything original." And, the reason is because people pay for it, and that many times, studios are so afraid to make a mistake that they always try the "tried and true" formula, even if that formula is now all stale and moldy.

To keep this in language (marginally, anyway), it's so bad that someone told me once that, at the end of Bogie's speech ("If you don't go wtih...") in Casablanca, they heard a voice from behind them say, "That's so cliche." The idea of Hollywood making copies is so great that people just "presume" anything is going to be cliche, even if it's the original of something! If that's the case, where is the incentive of Hollywood writers to try any harder?Somebody or his brother (talk) 19:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're talking about quite a span of time since Casablanca was made. Young people who see Citizen Kane for the first time often ask what all the fuss was about and why it was considered so great. It had a huge list of innovations, most of which have become standard fare these days. But back then, it was truly a groundbreaker. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

In order to be elected president, you have to be a "regular guy" that people can relate to. That's how George W. Bush beat Al Gore and why Bill Clinton was so popular. Americans like people who do "straight talk" and "cut the crap." This is true in other fields as well -- look at the popularity of people like Jack Welch and Mike Ditka. A boring intellectual like Ben Stein would not make a realistic American president. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Might have to go all the way back to the parody "Calvin Coolidge's Insane Last Speech[2]" to hear one that tops the recent fictional and actual idiotic utterances of some U.S. presidents. For a Brit example, one might consider some of the imagined utterances of Prince Phillip [3]. His actual utterances are about equal to the parody [4]. And all this mighty intellect gets passed along to future monarchs of that line. U.S. Presidents are not always the descendants of their maladroit predecessors, but unfortunately this sometimes happens. Edison (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well, all the European monarchies are in-bred, aren't they? If you get one idiot saying stupid things and acting like Richard III, you'll get them all like that, after all it is hereditary. I'm surprised they haven't all got horrendous physical mutations to add to their suppressed brain capacity (Whoops! I said something naughty! I'd best beware of white FIATs next time I go driving!).--ChokinBako (talk) 23:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you suppose that the heir to a throne is "all ears?" Edison (talk) 05:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Sir Iain Moncreiffe observed that Europe's royal circle – the range of possible mates for kings – is about the size of a village; and through most of history very few people ever in their lives went more than a few miles from their birthplace; thus royalty is just about as inbred as most people throughout history until the railroads. —Tamfang (talk) 21:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

O-: Strange how noone has objected to the characterisation of Ben Stein, that evolution denier, as "intellectual". I completely agree with "boring", though. 92.224.244.224 (talk) 06:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

What's relevant here is the persona he presents, rather than whether or not some of us think he's qualified for it. —Tamfang (talk) 06:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

October 27

Itinerant job?

"After growing up in Liverpool, the brothers, following their father's itinerant job,......"

This is from Red Flag (band).

A person moving often to find work is "itinerant". Is it a) reasonable or b) over-reaching to talk of an itinerant job? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CBHA (talk • contribs) 02:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Itinerant...

• ...as a noun - One who travels from place to place
• ...as an adjective - Habitually travelling from place to place

From this I wouldn't think that you can say itinerant job, but I may be wrong. W.i.k.i.p.e.d.i.a - Reference desk guy (talk) 03:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Jobs don't travel from place to place; people do. I would rephrase it as "...the brothers, because of the itinerant nature of their father's job,..." (However, if an eccentric billionaire paid you to to move around a lot, I'd call that an itinerant job.) Clarityfiend (talk) 06:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

In the globalized era, jobs do indeed travel from place to place. If people in one place aren't sufficiently experienced, educated or expert; happen to be too expensive; or have the bad luck to live in an unstable or high tax jurisdiction, that job is going to hit the road if it possibly can. Pay attention to your productivity and those jobs will stick around. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

From my Google search for "itinerant job" I found some web pages that use the expression, including

Wind Technician III Itinerant Job in House, New Mexico with FPL Group | JobCentral.

-- Wavelength (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

"itinerant" seems fine, and Google shows several uses from job ads; "peripatetic" is the nearest synonym but today applies particularly to people doing a circuit e.g. a peripatetic teacher doing different days at different schools (check recruitment ads). If you're really concerned, then you could leave out the word "itinerant" ("the brothers, following their father's itinerant job, moved to locations such as Montreal and Seattle") since it's implied that the job is itinerant if they're moving around.--Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, I don't really think it's fine. Adjectivally, itinerant means "travelling from place to place". As Clarityfiend pointed out, people travel, jobs don't. Travelling implies the use of some form of locomotion, such as a car, bus, train, aircraft, or even walking. Jobs do none of these things. A job may move, but it doesn't travel. To use the word in reference to a job itself is a neologism not supported by anything much. It may get a few google hits but that doesn't mean much when we can find google-support for virtually anything these days. The Methodist Church uses the term itinerancy, meaning the system of rotation governing the ministry of the church, and preachers who preach from place to place are said to itinerate. But their "job" is not an itinerant one. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Jack, we were just talking about hypallage a week or so ago (a "slow tin of honey" or similar, wasn't it?). This seems a perfectly acceptable instance of that to me. Deor (talk) 00:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hypallage shmypallage. The word has always been used with exceeding imprecision, like most rhetorical terms. I would speak here of metonymy, just to be on safe ground. OED has this for hypallage (with my underlining for emphasis):

A figure of speech in which there is an interchange of two elements of a proposition, the natural relations of these being reversed.

Servius, in commenting on Virg. Æn. iii. 61, explains dare classibus austros as a hypallage for dare classes austris. In Quintilian (viii. vi. 23) the word (written as Greek) has the sense of metonymy, and English authors have sometimes applied it loosely or incorrectly to other variations from natural forms of expression, esp. to the transference of attributes from their proper subjects to others (cf. quot. 1586).

1586 A. Day Eng. Secretary ii. (1625) 83 Hypallage, when by change of property in application a thing is delivered, as to say+the wicked wound thus given, for, having thus wickedly wounded him. 1589 Puttenham Eng. Poesie iii. xv. (Arb.) 183 The Greekes call this figure (Hipallage)+we in our vulgar may call him the (vnderchange) but I had rather haue him called the (Changeling). 1654 Vilvain Theorem. Theol. vi. 153 Names of Men may import Men of name, sith such Hypallages are usual in Scripture. 1789 Madan Persius (1795) 66 note, Casaubon+says that this is an Hypallage. 1844 T. Mitchell Sophocles I. 25 note, Hypallages of this kind abound in Sophocles. 1874 T. N. Harper Peace through Truth Ser. ii. 1. 44 note, The phrase, ‘you also are become dead to the law’,+is a hypallage for ‘the law has become dead to you’.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Swimming halls and pools

What is a building containing indoor swimming pools called in English? Is it just a swimming pool? In Finnish, it is called "fi:Uimahalli", literally meaning "swimming hall", and it's the same in Swedish: "sv:Simhall". JIP | Talk 06:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

"Aquatics Centre" is a common fancy name, as in Beijing National Aquatics Center, but I can't think of a common name that people would actually say. A "swimming pool" is either in someone's backyard, or it is a single outdoor public pool, or a single pool in one of these buildings. Maybe "swimming centre"? I've never heard anyone say "swimming hall". Adam Bishop (talk) 07:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'd agree with that answer. Indoor swimming pools don't really have a special name (in Dutch or English) Aquatics centre is the word people use for such a building, but it in day to day life, it still tends to be called simply a pool. -- Mgm|^(talk) 08:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

For me, the answer would probably depend on what the place called itself. If I was going to the YMCA to swim, I'd probably say "I'm going to the Y". If, when I was an undergrad at the University of Texas, I had ever gone to the Lee and Joe Jamail Texas Swimming Center, I probably would have said "I'm going to the swimming center". And so forth. I don't think I'd have a single generic name for a building containing an indoor swimming pool. In German, though, I'd use "Schwimhalle" (like Finnish and Swedish above). —Angr 08:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

For indoor swimming pools specifically, we, in the North West of England, use 'swimming baths' or just 'baths', while for an outdoor pool, if there was one, we'd say 'the swimming pool'.--ChokinBako (talk) 09:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

For others of us, saying "I'm going to the baths" means something quite different, which probably doesn't involve swimming at all. Then there's the option of going to The Baths, which probably involves swimming outdoors in the ocean for most people. —Angr 09:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

In eastern Oz we tend to say we're going to the pool (which includes any number of pools available), or more specifically, use the name of the leisure or swim centre (eg, I'm going to "Bubbles" or whatever). We use baths in the term "ocean baths" rather than "ocean pool", though they may be a built up swimming area around the beach and ocean, or a cemented tidal pool. Julia Rossi (talk) 10:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want to be Latinate, you can call it a natatorium. That's what the building containing the swimming pool at my high school was named. Deor (talk) 10:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

My English-English (i.e. of a kind) would certainly not recognise "swimming baths" as being outside. (An exception to this might be made for "thermal baths".) In my childhood town the local swimming facilities were called the "Walsall baths". These indoor facilities offered, from memory, a 25m pool, a small 'paddling' pool and a 'brine bath' which was salted and warm. (And lovely.) Now living in the Home Counties, I would still tend to say "swimming baths" or simply refer to the "swimming pool" even though our local facilities offer more than one pool. The number of pools is not often important when the idea of going for a swim first comes up. For a centre with lots of slides and flumes etc., I'd say "water park" or something like that. I have never seen "aquatics centre" used in the UK, except to refer to shops selling tropical and other fish.86.139.236.224 (talk) 13:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Your 2012 swimming venue is called the London Aquatics Centre. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Being a keen supporter of the 2012 Games, I'm pleased to be corrected! There's a first time for everything (I don't mean being corrected - there are plenty of opportunities to put me straight! - but the use of the word aquatics in that context). There's also a London Aquatic Centre (admittedly no 's', but a Google search for the Olympic facility throws up some s-less references) that falls into the pet products category.86.139.236.224 (talk) 14:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I would just call it a pool or swimming pool, but I've heard Lido for an outdoor pool. As said above, it could also be called an Aquatics Centre, although I haven't heard it called that. W.i.k.i.p.e.d.i.a - Reference desk guy (talk) 15:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

In Dublin, the (defunct) Blackrock Baths and Dún Laoghaire Baths were outdoors. [5] jnestorius^(talk) 20:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

What would you propose to rename the article Tapiola swimming hall to then? Tapiola swimming pool? Tapiola baths? Tapiola aquatics centre? Tapiola natatorium? JIP | Talk 21:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

How about Tapiola swim centre? Tapiola baths isn't so bad. Aquatics may take in all the other sports like water polo, training for synchronised swimming, swim gym for seniors and babies etc, including a cafe and goggle shop, but swim might cover it.

Ah yes, natatorium. I too fondly remember one ("the Nat"); in my case it was in Madison, Wisconsin, although I vaguely remember playing squash there too. :) The OED, by the way, says of "natatorium": "orig. and chiefly N. Amer." and all five or six examples cited there are from Canadian or US sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd actually change it to Tapiola Swimming Hall, if that's the formal title of the establishment. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jack. If the obvious translation of uimahalli is "swimming hall", go with that (capitalized as part of a proper name) in the article's title. You might, however, change the first sentence to something like "Tapiola Swimming Hall (Finnish: Tapiolan uimahalli) is an aquatics centre …", since "swimming hall" isn't really used as the common designation of such a building in English. Deor (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The city of Espoo officially calls it the Tapiola swimming pool, so I have moved the article to use that name. JIP | Talk 17:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Mandarin Chinese: “Wŏ bú shì hěn qióng。“ vs. “Wŏ bú shì qióng。”

I saw on livemocha.com in the course Mandarin Chinese 101, Unit 1, Lesson 2, Listening Section, Slide 16/40 (link) that they say that the way to say "I am not poor." in Mandarin is “Wŏ bú shì qióng。”, or “我不是穷。”. This does not go with common sense, as I would think that it would be “Wŏ bú shì hěn qióng。” or “我不是很穷。” as all you are changing is that you are adding the negative “bú/bù” or “不” to “Wŏ shì hěn qióng。” or “我是很穷。”. This site does often have minor errors (such as forgetting some miscellaneous pinyin markings) and I am therefore not sure if this translation is right or not. Online translators are not reliable enough for me to check how valid this is as they could just as easily be wrong. Do any of you know which one is right? Thanks! Yakeyglee (talk) 21:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hěn ("very") is often used as a semantically gratuitous intensifier, or even just a space filler, that is called for more in some grammatical contexts than in others. So for example Chinese–English Frequency Dictionary (Yong Ho, 2002, p. 50; Chinese characters omitted):

Hěn is usually obligatory when an adjective is used without qualification: jīntiān hěn lěng (it is cold today). In this case, hěn serves a grammatical function and may or may not carry the meaning of very.

There is a certain logic to leaving out the hěn in negation. For one thing, negation is a kind of radical qualification, is it not? Also, if we were to say jīntiān bù hěn lěng for the standard negation of jīntiān hěn lěng, we would be missing the mark: it is not very cold today leaves open the possibility that it is still somewhat cold.

Mandarin (or let's call it Putonghua), I am told, tends often to add extra elements for clarity and a kind of a buffer against curt incivility. Perhaps this use of hěn works like that. Compare English Why yes! or Yes, certainly! as against the gruff monosyllable Yes! Compare French Mais oui!, which the grammars advise us to use instead of an unadorned Oui!

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 22:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Neither is correct. '是' is not used with simple adjectives like '穷'. The sentence should be '我不穷。' and the opposite would be '我很穷。'.--ChokinBako (talk) 23:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course you are right, Givnan-ChokinBako! I kick myself for not noticing. Shì is normally not used with an adjective, like qióng in the example. (A point rarely made: it can be used, for special emphasis. So wŏ shì qióng would mean I AM indeed poor! ) But the rest of the analysis stands, does it not? Just remove all instances of shì. How did they get there in the first place, we wonder? How about Wŏ [bú] shì [hěn] qióngde, though, in which qióngde functions as a noun? I am [not] a poor person.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course, it is OK for emphasis, and with the nominalisation of the adjective by the addition of '的', but neither of these factors were was mentioned in the OP's original question.--ChokinBako (talk) 00:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Quite right, G-C. Neither was mentioned. :)

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

HaHa! My English gets corrected!--ChokinBako (talk) 00:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Or to put it another way, somebody has done the equivalent of going up to you and tucking your shirt into your trousers, because that person's opinions about clothing don't permit wearing it the way you were. --ColinFine (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Read that tucking in its context, CF, including the tucker's earlier self-deprecation: "Of course you are right, Givnan-ChokinBako! I kick myself for not noticing." Incidentally, shouldn't that be "wearing it the way you did?" :)

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 22:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope, because Colin's statement was an ellipsis, for 'wearing it the way you were [wearing it]'. Progressive tense, mate, needs various forms of the verb 'to be'. Anyway, leave him alone. He is the only person in Bradford that speaks Albanian. He's probably the only person in Bradford that speaks English, too!.--ChokinBako (talk) 23:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I still hold him liable. Consider your expansion:

wearing it the way you were [wearing it]

For full propriety this assumes a participial context, like this:

he was wearing it the way you were [wearing it]

But in fact the context made wearing gerundial (as we might put it):

that person's opinions about clothing don't permit wearing it the way you were [wearing it]

The second wearing here is participial, while the first is gerundial. (A zeugma or a syllepsis? You decide!) On the other hand, consider:

that person's opinions about clothing don't permit wearing it the way you did

Here there is no pretence that did can be grafted onto the same stock; did wear it is assumed, but nothing about the presumed syntax is imported through a mere surface similarity of forms.

Anyway, Albanian? Hats off to the man! And thank you for writing that and not who, in He is the only person in Bradford that speaks Albanian.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Whoops! I meant to write it without the 是. I'm just very new at learning the language...but thanks everyone for your responses, and it makes much more sense now! Yakeyglee (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, in certain parts of my work, it is required that I use American English. I got stood up the other day for saying 'eraser' instead of 'rubber'. I will be more careful in future.--ChokinBako (talk) 08:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Adding extra letters to words

It's very common for people to shorten words and expressions; reasons include convenience, laziness, a perception that life is too short, human nature, etc. That's why we have all manner of acceptable abbreviations and acronyms. And it explains why the possessive apostrophe is often dropped ("I am not my mother's husband's son" becomes "I am not my mothers husbands son").

However, there's also the reverse phenomenon, whereby people go against this trend by actually increasing the size of words. Typically, they do this by adding an
-s, but there are other ways that don't spring to mind right now. Examples include:

• daylight saving time becomes daylight savings time
• surnames such as Gibb, Stephen, Andrew, John and Jeffery are rendered as Gibbs, Stephens, Andrews, Johns, and Jefferys (or Jeffries)
• its (the possessive pronoun, requiring only 3 characters) is spelled as it's (4 characters). This is a curious one because the people who tend to drop the possessive apostrophe where it's actually required (don't, can't, I'm > dont, cant, Im or im) are often the same people who needlessly expand its to it's.

What is this action called? I'm not referring to inaccuracy or error, but to the linguistic counterpart of abbreviation. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what this is called, I don't think it has a name but I'm probably wrong. I have always called Daylight Saving Time, "Daylight Savings Time" because that is what I have heard it called, and I haven't bothered to further educate myself on the subject (although from now I will use the correct term).

I have never heard or known of anyone referring to people by their name plus "s", e.g. referring to Mr Andrew as Mr Andrews. Maybe this is done because they perceive it as easier to say? (Sorry about the appalling wording’’)

I believe the misuse of apostrophes though, is simply due to the lack of understanding of how to use them. W.i.k.i.p.e.d.i.a - Reference desk guy (talk) 21:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

How about misuse of a comma? —Tamfang (talk) 01:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

In the case of the surnames, it's no coincidence that all your examples are also used as forenames - the -s is a patronymic. FiggyBee (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Really? I don't quite see it that way. I once worked with a guy named Jim Gibb. He had lots of friends, many of whom always pronounced his surname "Gibbs" as if that were how he spelt it. They knew he didn't spell it "Gibbs", and never referred to himself as "Gibbs", but they said "Gibbs" anyway. We had governors-general named Ninian Stephen and Michael Jeffery, but it was very common to hear them referred to as Stephens and Jefferys, even by media commentators who did know (or at least should have known) better. Now, there really are other surnames such as Andrews, Stephens, Johns, etc., and those are where the patronymic comes in. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Well in the case of people mistakenly adding the -s, I guess it's because the -s form is more common, and people's minds just tend to go down the more familiar track if they're not concentrating. My own surname has an "a" where an "i" is more common, and it's frequently misspelt, including by friends, by government departments, and in cases where the writer was reading it (correctly spelt) off one document and writing it on another. FiggyBee (talk) 23:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

This reminds me of the following.

-eroo: meaning and definitions — Infoplease.com

Signature#Function and types of signatures (mentioning "flourish" and "paraph")

-- Wavelength (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

(econ) @ Refdeslguy, agree. Then there's the habit of sms shortcuts (leaving out the apostrophe for speed) resulting in unfamiliarity, a build-up of ignorance and therefore compensating elsewhere. Just wondering, while it's Daylight Saving, is there a missing poss in there when you talk about Daylight Saving's Time? ;)) Julia Rossi (talk) 22:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Shall we coin elongation (or rather add a new linguistic meaning to the existing word)? The new linguistic concept defined by Jack and coined by the language reference desk! Maybe we will get eternal recognition by the future community of linguists. BTW, Jack, have you read "The Unfolding of Language" by Guy Deutscher. It is really an amazing read, and really did explain to me why language goes towards the shortening direction exactly at the same speed as it goes towards the lengthening direction. --Lgriot (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you're conflating several unrelated phenomena, Jack.

• Phonology: processes involving adding sounds include epenthesis, paragoge, etc.
• Lexicon: "daylight savings time" IMO sui generis error/change by false analogy with "savings bank" etc. The stress in "daylight saving time" should really be on "daylight", not "saving". Spelling it "daylight-saving time" would help.
• Spelling: "it's": failure to learn an arbitrary one-time rule
• Morphology: -s onto surnames is a diminutive or hypocoristic suffix.

jnestorius^(talk) 00:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a point; it isn't an arbitrary one-time rule. No english pronoun has an apostrophe in the genitive; his, hers, its, ours, yours, theirs, whose. FiggyBee (talk) 01:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Since we're striving for accuracy, Figgybee, let's get this right too. Most English pronouns have an apostrophe in the genitive: one's, nobody's, someone's, everyone else's, whoever's, another's, neither's, and so on. It's just that several of the most common genitive forms (and the correlated possessive adjectives) do not have an apostrophe. And they include his, hers, its, ours, yours, theirs, whose.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 01:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well... okay then! Personal pronouns, perhaps? FiggyBee (talk) 01:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

OED, for "Personal": "Used as the distinctive appellation of those pronouns which denote the first, second, and third persons respectively, viz. (in English) I, you, he, in their various genders, numbers, and cases."

But in the relevant entry for "One" OED says this: "One is often used as an indefinite personal pronoun (one 20); and the words self and own, used to strengthen the personal and possessive pronouns, are sometimes classed with them."

So what exactly is a "personal pronoun"? Is who? If it is, what about whoever? And if one is, what about someone, anyone, somebody, anybody, and the rest? Why should it be a "personal pronoun"? If it is included, why not something?

Don't believe the slogans!

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

"... conflating several unrelated phenomena", jnestorius? I prefer to see it in terms of patterns some people notice and others don't. Language analysts can and do create ever finer distinctions between different aspects of the same phenomenon, but that doesn't necessarily make them different phenomena. I guess it depends on one's viewpoint. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

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 [6].

  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)

October 29

Opposite sex insult

What's the name given to the act of deliberately and offensively calling someone the opposite sex of what they are? 58.170.198.49 (talk) 10:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is one, but if you want to start one off, we could use 'misgenderisation', or 'misengender' as the verb. However, I think these words would mean more that it was not deliberate. Maybe, 'disengender' might be better, but that sounds to me like physically neutering someone. Anyone else?--ChokinBako (talk) 12:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Apart from "insult", for example calling a man a "girl" is a verbally "castrating" or disempowering gesture. Calling a girl a "bloke" (here in Australia) is saying she is not feminine. Gender-abuse, perhaps? It might fall under the label Mysogyny for knocking/dissing[7] women and Misandry for insulting men this way. Julia Rossi (talk) 13:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

(Funny, I would say that calling a boy/man a girl/woman was misogyny; insulting(?) the individual man by/but disparaging the gender.) Saintrain (talk) 17:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

If it is calling a man a girls name, wikt:emasculation is as good a word as any. Not sure what the converse for females would be... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

"Immasculation"? —Angr 21:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

See the article "Gender transposition". -- Wavelength (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Bill Lawry could comment here. Some years back, as a cricket commentator, he got a LOT of community criticism for describing a (male) fielder as "running like a girl". (I'm very surprised it's not mentioned in our article, so I shall be taking steps to rectify that.) -- JackofOz (talk) 22:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I heard that John Goodman had to learn to throw left-handed as The Babe, and remarked, "I'll never say 'throw like a girl' again." —Tamfang (talk) 06:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Form of the name "Harbour Town": why the letter "u"?

1. If Harbour Town is an American place, why does it have the "u" in its name?

2. Is this the correct reference desk for this question? 58.170.198.49 (talk) 10:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I can answer the second question. 'Yes', it is perfectly correct. As to why it uses British spelling, I can only assume that it is a place named after a place that existed in Colonial times.--ChokinBako (talk) 10:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively, they may have spelled it that way because they thought it looked "ye olde sophisticated". —Angr 10:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Aye, þæt wolde rihte beon!--ChokinBako (talk) 11:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not alone in the US - cf. Aquia Harbour, Virginia, Bal Harbour, Florida, Harbour Heights, Florida, Indian Harbour Beach, Florida. Strawless (talk) 15:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

And conversely, Victor Harbor, South Australia, which apparently was simply a mistake. 219.90.207.164 (talk) 15:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought I heard there was a time in the late 19th century or so when Australian English was considering following the Americans in using u-less spellings in such words, thus also the spelling of the Australian Labor Party. —Angr 16:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The moving from "ou" to "o" spellings in American English largely date back to Noah Webster's first dictionary published in 1825; it quickly became the standard American spelling. The place name is likely older than that date and has never been changed. --Xuxl (talk) 18:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it is a modern place. It is fairly common for names to ape British or old-fashioned spellings in an attempt to seem prestigious. Hence the many theatres, harbours, ye olde shops, etc. Rmhermen (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• In fact, if it had been an old place name, it would have been changed. About 120 years ago there was an attempt in the US to standardize all spellings used in place names throughout the country. Apostrophes were dropped, Pittsburgh became Pittsburg, and so on. Pittsburghers were annoyed enough that that change was reversed (see Name of Pittsburgh), but the others have generally stood.. --Anonymous, 04:41 UTC, October 30, 2008.

Haha, that is because deep-down you love us, even if you do blast away indiscriminately at our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq ("Fire in the hole!!!!!")--ChokinBako (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that U.S. wedding invitations will often request that invitees "favour" the hosts with the "honour" of their presence. jnestorius^(talk) 20:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

More often it's merely "request the honour of your presence". I always found that pretentious, and argued strenuously against it when my sister got married, to no avail. But when I got married, I was careful to "request the honor" of the guests' presence – even though I got married in a Church of England church! —Angr 21:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

So this dropping of the 'u', is that where 'yo' came from, as in "I am yo bro, yo mofo"?--ChokinBako (talk) 21:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The Australian Labor Party's name-change was part of anti-British politicking, fair dinkum, but it's pervasive in most official Englishes, not just Commonwealth (other countries than English-speaking ones have official versions of English; believe me I know, I had to familiarize myself with them for a World Bank Conference wordprocessing pool back in the '90s; Japan spells things this way, China that, Taiwan different from HongKong, Singapore different from Malaysia. But the -our is most common and remains a point of pride in Canada, or obligation.....same for centre/center although the former is gaining ground in Canada; there's a certain amount of perverse pride in the Canadian-owned Kodak Theatre in LA, though, as it uses the Canaidan spelling on American turf.....;-D.Skookum1 (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

That change occurred in 1912; it's covered at Australian Labor Party#Etymology. It seems to have been more about pro-American sentiment than anti-British as such, as the party's direction was influenced by the U.S. labor movement. The main proponent of the change was King O'Malley, who was born close to the U.S.-Canada border (officially in Canada as a British subject, but there are many who believe he was born in the USA, as a U.S. citizen). -- JackofOz (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Valley Falls, Kansas is nowhere close to the US-Canada border. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 19:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Very true, but he claimed to have been born in Quebec, which is. That version was accepted as gospel, which is why he was officially a British subject when he came to Australia and did not require naturalisation before entering parliament. Only later were doubts raised as to his true birthplace. Kansas seems more likely, but we'll never know for sure now. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, the census record shown at Talk:King_O'Malley#Dubious_statements indicates that he was born in Ireland.  :) Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 23:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Kansas is pretty close to the US-Canada border as seen from Australia, one might think. —Tamfang (talk) 00:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, not really. That would be like saying Brisbane is close to Tasmania as seen from the USA. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

So what's the problem? —Tamfang (talk) 07:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Re "Kodak Theatre": "Theatre" has now become the more common spelling for live theater in the U.S., mostly due to the pretentiousness of theater-goers. Our National Theatre (est. 1835) uses this spelling, though there's nothing official about its "national" status. Even low-brow American cinemas (e.g., AMC Theatres) use the Brit. spelling. —D. Monack ^talk 22:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Expression [meaning of "dressed up to the sixes and nines"]

Dressed up to the sixes and nines.

What does it mean?

"Dressed to the nines" means being very well dressed. I've never heard "sixes" being used in that phrase (maybe it means you're 2/3 as fancily attired). A bit more info is available at To the Nines (novel)#Explanation of the Novel's Title. Clarityfiend (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

There's also At sixes and sevens which is something else completely.GBViews (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Although only tangentially related to the question, Chinese has a number of idioms related to numbers, including, sixes and sevens. Steewi (talk) 01:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops, the one I was thinking was actually 7 and 8: luanqibazao 乱七八糟 "all messed up". Steewi (talk) 01:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget two and six. Bazza (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Not to be confused with two and six... —Angr 10:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Latin question

Am I right in thinking the latin word "Britannicum" makes no sense alone? But rather has to be placed after other words, ie Historia Britannicum? Incidentally, what is the "Matter of Britain" in latin? Thanks...--87.112.30.84 (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

No. Britannicum is (one form of) an adjective which means "British"; it should agree in number, case, and gender with the noun it modifies, so Historia Britannicum is wrong (historia is feminine; Britannicum neuter).

• The idea of the Matter of Britain is unlikely to have been treated even in Mediaeval Latin; but Materies (or Res) Britannica springs to mind. There are several other possibilities. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Res Britannica is 'The matter of Britain'. Good old Julius supplied us with that 2,000 years ago.--ChokinBako (talk) 19:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Citation, please; it's not in De bello Gallico V, where I would expect it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The "matter of Britain" that (I presume) the OP and Pmanderson are referring to is one of the three "matters" into which the topics of medieval romances were divided. I can't recall having seen any discussion of these in medieval Latin works, so there may indeed be no authoritative Latin version of the expression. Deor (talk) 20:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, was it in De Bello Gallico? Oh well, funny that Julius should write a whole book about the Brits and the troubles here. Nothing has changed!--ChokinBako (talk) 20:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Polydore Vergil's Anglica Historia has res Britannica a few times, as in "Fuit res Britannica superior eo praelio, viceruntque egregie qui vinci consueverant." Strawless (talk) 01:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I remember reading about Res Brittanorum "The Matter of the Britons", but I might be confusing it with the title Rex Brittanorum. Steewi (talk) 01:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

So the word "Britanicum" on its own is nonsense?

Well, the word "Britanicum" on its own is a misspelling of "Britannicum", which is an adjective in the masculine accusative or neuter nominative/accusative. It means "British". On its own, it isn't nonsense any more than the English word "British" is. I suppose it could be a substantivized adjective meaning "a British thing". —Angr 12:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Russian Song Lyrics

Can anyone help me on this? Forget the guitar bits, I just need the lyrics translating.

ЛЮБЕ - Конь

   Am             C       Am
1) Выйду ночью в поле с конем

Am             G       C
Hочкой темной тихо пойдем

Dm       G  C          Am
Мы пойдем с конем по полю вдвоем

Dm             E      Am     2 раза
Мы пойдем с конем по полю вдвоем

2) Hочью в поле звезд благодать
В поле никого не видать
Только мы с конем по полю идем
Только мы с конем по полю идем

3) Сяду я верхом на коня      
Ты неси по полю меня         
По бескраинему полю моему
По бескраинему полю моему

4) Дай-ка я разок посмотрю
Как рождает поле зарю
Ай брусничный цвет, алый да рассвет
Али есть то место али его нет

5) Полюшко мое родняки
Бабы, ребетня, мужики
Золотая рож да кудрявай лен
Я влюблен в тебя Россия влюблен

6) Будет добрым год хлебород
Всякое дурное уйдет
Пой злотая рож пой кудрявый лен
Пой о том как я в Россию влюблен

Something about horses, apparently.--ChokinBako (talk) 21:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

From my Google search for "Выйду ночью в поле с конем english translation", the first result is

Любэ (Lyube): Конь (Kon') Lyrics with English translation. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Cheers! Perfick!--ChokinBako (talk) 08:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

We even have an article on the band Lubeh. —Angr 12:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks a bit like My Lovely Horse to me... ;) FiggyBee (talk) 06:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

October 30

Translating Articles

Hello, I've recently have become interested in translating Wiki articles into other languages. Normally the English articles are very well cited w/ lots of links to relevant articles. However, I noticed that most of the resources available on the web tend to be written in English, and finding material in other languages can be quite difficult. So my question is, How do I handle references when translating articles? Should I just translate the content w/out refs ? or Should I include them even if their written in English? Are there some Wiki guides to translation? One last thing, is there a way to check the word count on articles (besides copying the text into a word processor)? -- GateKeeperX (talk) 12:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd look for sources in the target language, of course, but if all you find is sources in English, I'd say sources in English are better than no sources at all. I don't know of any other way to count words of readable prose besides copying and pasting into a word processor. —Angr 12:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

If you click "search" in the search bar, instead of "go", it will tell you how many words an article has, but I don't know what that counts; I suspect it is everything in the editing box, including all the templates and stuff. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

There's a tool for assessing an article's readability at http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/view/Readability. Also, User:Dr pda has a script for assessing the prose size of articles. Gwinva (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• During translation mistakes can creep in, so you should always provide the original source if you translate something. You should also aim to provide as much sources in the local language as possible. 0 Mgm|^(talk) 23:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

MATTHEW HENSON

WERE DID HE DIE

Please read the article Matthew Henson. —Angr 15:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I see our article doesn't say. The German article says he died in New York City, but (typically of German Wikipedia) the claim is unsourced, so make of it what you will. —Angr 16:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

ANB says he died in New York City, and was buried there before his 1988 reinterrment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

This [8] says "Location of death: New York City / 
Cause of death: Cerebral Hemorrhage / 
Remains: Buried, Arlington National Cemetery". --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Translation from Spanish or Portugeuse

We're pretty sure it's a name of some kind, but any other ideas would be nice.

"trevilla de iturbide olvera"

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Can-Dutch (talk • contribs)

House of Iturbide was the Mexican royal family. Grsz^Review! 17:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

All three are semi-common Spanish-language surnames (Trevilla, Iterbide, and Olvera). Many Hispanic cultures are known for complex surname compositions with lots of "y"'s and "de"'s in them. I would not be surprised if this were merely someone's surname... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Age [use of hyphens]

Which is correct (or, do you prefer - I imagine there is not one correct answer): "17-year-old" or "17 year old"? Willnz0 (talk) 23:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The correct form for the adjective is "17-year-old" (as in "17-year-old student"). It is probably the same for the noun, but I do not have a reference ready. See:

• Hyphen#Compound modifiers, paragraph 5
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Hyphens, section 3, point 7

-- Wavelength (talk) 00:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

October 31

using commas

When should we use commas?

See Comma (punctuation). -- Wavelength (talk) 00:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's good advice. It's a big question, Anonymous! I'd normally refer a question about punctuation to WP:MOS first of all, but there isn't much about commas there. They're so common, and so hard to get right! Even accomplished writers and editors disagree on the details. Glance at the section called Serial commas, then follow the links from there. If after that you need more specific guidance (with examples, perhaps), come back here.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Check this for an example of when you should use commas... Sandman30s (talk) 08:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

A good book on English grammar and usage is a worthwhile investment. I'm partial to Strunk and White's The Elements of Style myself (it's short), but others seem to prefer Fowler's A Dictionary of Modern English Usage. There may be others that those on the Ref. Desk prefer. All will deal with the proper usage of the comma, and at least one should be for sale at your local bookseller. --128.104.112.72 (talk) 16:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The Chicago Manual of Style is also highly regarded. (I still like Fowler's presentation of a philosophy of usage, though it's not easy to use as a reference.) —Tamfang (talk) 07:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Laying or lying

Mental block help needed here – the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown had an eye injury resulting in blindness in one eye in spite of measure including "lying in a darkened room" blah blah. Is it correct or does a person lay in a ... ? Thanks, Julia Rossi (talk) 04:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It depends on whether you want prescriptive or descriptive, Julia. The rules say "lying", but many, many people say "laying". Technically, "to lay" is a transitive verb, e.g. to lay a carpet, or lay some concrete. When referring to oneself becoming prostrate in a bed etc, it's lying (down). And that's no lie.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 05:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

See List of English irregular verbs. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys, for helping me to "lie straight in bed"; evidence I'm not the only one having difficulties.[9] :) Julia Rossi (talk) 07:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Can someone identify this poem?

The Assyrian came down like a wolf on the fold
And his cohorts were gleaming in silver and gold
For the sheen of his spear was as blue as the sea
Where the moon shines so brightly on deep Galilee

This is a poem I studied over 40 years ago and I have forgotten the name of it. I would like to reread it in its entirety now that I am an adult.

Thanks for any help... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.195.109.135 (talk) 11:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The Destruction of Sennacherib by Byron. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Meaning of Máj

Does Máj mean the month of May or something in Czech? If it isn't then what does the title of the epic poem by Mácha mean? Exactly how is it pronounced? (It's not like English for sure, but I can't imagine it otherwise.) By the way, I cannot read IPA. 203.188.92.70 (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The word "máj" indeed means May, but it is archaic, May is normally called "květen" in contemporary Czech. It is pronounced [maːj], which is similar to English "my", but the vowel is longer. — Emil J. 14:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

So did the Czechs start using Latin names of months, like Slovaks still do, at some point in history and then they switched back to original Slavic names? — Kpalion^(talk) 21:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know Czechs didn't use Latin month names. A tidbit of info regarding Southern Slavs and month names. Slovenes use the Latin names (Maj applies with us :), so do Serbs, and until recently so did the Croats. In an attempt to differentiate Croatian from Serbian (to break with the old Yugoslavian way of forcefully merging the two into Serbo-Croatian), Croatians reinstated their archaic month names, but they didn't stick with the common man, so nowadays Croats just use numbers (for instance, May would simply be 5th month in Croatian). TomorrowTime (talk) 22:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

So Croatian months are like Chinese months. (In fact, in Chinese, Monday is "week one" (or something like that, not sure about "week", there's got to be a better word), Tuesday "week two", and so on. Sunday is "day" or some synonym of "sky".) Sorry that's deviating from the topic. Vltava 68 (talk contribs) 09:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Never mind – all fresh and new to me. Julia Rossi (talk) 12:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

In the 18th century, Quakers named the months and days of the week with numbers, because they objected to references to pagan gods and goddesses [10] AnonMoos (talk) 12:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

To me, the whole topic of Slavic month names is fascinating. Generally, modern Slavic languages can be divided into those that use Latin-derived names only (e.g. Russian, Slovak), those that retain old Slavic names (e.g. Czech, Ukrainian), and those that mix Latin and Slavic names (e.g. Polish). The Slavic names are all derived from natural phenomena or labors of the month, a little like French Revolutionary month names. This is what it looks like in Czech:

Month in English	Month in Czech	Meaning of the root word		Month in English	Month in Czech	Meaning of the root word
January	leden	ice		July	červenec	worm (referring to the Polish cochineal)
February	únor	to float (referring to ice floe)		August	srpen	sickle
March	březen	birch		September	září	rut
April	duben	oak		October	říjen	rut
May	květen	flowers		November	listopad	falling leaves
June	červen	worm (referring to the Polish cochineal)		December	prosinec	to shine through (referring to the sun shining through the clouds)

To those who speak at least some French, I recommend this website with a comparative table of month names and their meanings in all Slavic languages. — Kpalion^(talk) 13:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

My favorite in descriptive month names is the "translation" of the French Republican Calendar into English: Vendémiaire, Brumaire Frimaire == "Wheezy, Sneezy, and Freezy"; Nivôse, Pluviôse, Ventôse == "Slippy, Drippy and Nippy"; Germinal, Floréal, Prairial == "Showery, Flowery and Bowery"; and Messidor, Thermidor, Fructidor == "Wheaty, Heaty and Sweety"... AnonMoos (talk)

November 1

French Michel

Pronounced like Michelle, Michael, or is it more of a personal preference? If yes, which is more common? Thanks, Grsz^{11 →Review!} 00:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It's like Michelle. As far as I know, the names are completely homophonous in French. —Angr 00:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that traditionally, Michelle would have an optional trisyllabic extension in certain forms of poetry and singing (with final quasi-schwa vowel), while Michel wouldn't, but that may not be too relevant anymore. AnonMoos (talk) 02:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, as noted, in French the two sound identical. In French many final consonants sounds are "dropped" from the pronounciation, such as s, z, t, and x. In words or names with masculine or feminine versions, the feminine version pronounces this letter, while the masculine doesn't. This is accomplished in written form usally by and adding an e. Thus we have "boulanger" /boo-LANZHE-eh/ (male baker) and "boulangère" /boo-LANZHE-air/ (female baker) or "étudiant" /ih-TOO-dee-ahn/ (male student) and "étudiante" /ih-TOO-dee-aunt/ (female student). If, however, the masculine form has a pronounced consonant at the end (l is typically pronounced as a terminal consonant in French) then there is no pronounciation difference between the masculine and feminine forms, thus Michel and Michelle are pronounced exactly the same. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Michelle is a rare, old-fashioned name in France, though not Quebec. Don't know if the homophony with Michel influences this. There are unisex names in French, e.g. Dominique, Camille. jnestorius^(talk) 03:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, because in the U.S., you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a Michelle. If I am in a room with more than about 20 random females within 10 years of my age (say 20-40 or so) I'd be surprised NOT to have atleast one Michelle in the crowd... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

And then there is also "Michèle" as another version of the female form. It is prnounced the same way as the other two versions. ៛ Bielle (talk) 04:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It also works in reverse, Jayron. Names like Hubert are virtually unheard of in anglophone countries these days, but they're relatively common in France. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Just for completeness, and to bring it back to the original question, how would the French pronounce that? I doubt it would be like the Anglophone equivalent /Hue-burt/ (sorry, I'm no good at IPA.) -- 128.104.112.72 (talk) 20:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Back to the original question, the name is also not pronounced exactly like the English pronounciation of Michelle. In French, the letter "i" is usually pronounced like the english "ee", though of shorter duration. So Michel is prounced more like /MEE-shell/ and not like /mish-ELL/ as you would pronounce Michelle in English (and in french, the female version is also pronounced /MEE-shell/). --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Ancient Greek translation?

In an online version of The Bacchae, I found these lines:

πᾶν κρεῖσσον ὥστε μὴ ᾽γγελᾶν βάκχας ἐμοί.
ἐλθόντ᾽ ἐς οἴκους . . . ἃν δοκῇ βουλεύσομαι.

My English edition of The Bacchae has "[Wait; I myself] shall consider my decision," but I have a feeling that that only accounts for ἃν δοκῇ βουλεύσομαι. Can anyone tell me how the ancient Greek works grammatically—what the words mean and how they fit together? Thanks, I'd really appreciate it. —anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.85.198 (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The T. A. Buckley translation has "Anything is better [πᾶν κρεῖσσον] than to be mocked by the Bacchae [ὥστε μὴ ᾽γγελᾶν βάκχας ἐμοί (᾽γγελᾶν is a form of ἁναγελάω, 'to laugh loud')]. We two will go into the house [ἐλθόντ᾽ ἐς οἴκους] … and I will consider what seems best [ἃν δοκῇ βουλεύσομαι]." Does that make it clearer? If you need further help with parsing it, let us know. Deor (talk) 01:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

That's perfect. Thanks. —anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.85.198 (talk) 01:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:Consonants

I have moved the huuuuuuuge table for the Template:Consonants to Template:CSS IPA consonant chart. It has been wikified and I hope that it will be more easy to maintain than a messy table. --✉ Hello World! 06:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

What's your question? :P —Tamfang (talk) 07:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Sorry. Just a notice. --✉ Hello World! 07:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the language reference desk. Perhaps you were looking for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Phonetics. —Angr 10:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Capitalisation of noun

"I can't really help set one up in Amsterdam since I'm never there and have no affiliation with the university there" - should 'universtiy' begin with a capital U because I'm talking about a specific university? ----Seans Potato Business 12:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

No. You would only capitalize the word if it stood for the full proper noun itself, i.e. if you could replace it with "Amsterdam University" without any change of meaning.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

essay

can i have a conclusion for my essay on the topic solar energy??

a little urgent please......................... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Varsha 95 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the idea behind an essay that you write it yourself? Have you read our article on solar energy? There are lots of ideas there.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Using the word "superlative"

Is it wrong to use the word "superlative" in the sense of the word "favorite"? Like, instead of saying "My favorite ice cream is vanilla", say instead "Vanilla ice cream is a personal superlative of mine". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.16.88.147 (talk) 18:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)