Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/L

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.

July 22

How do languages change?

How and why do languages change over time? By this I mean what is the mechanism that causes the small changes to occur in a language that leads to its becoming a new language. For example when French split off from Latin, did one of the few people who were literate suddenly decide for instand "Maybe I'll spell sum as sus" and then later sus became suis (I'm just making this up, this isn't a real example). It's hard to understand because today's languages change differently than languages did back then since today while we constantly add vocabulary structure changes little because of regulation and communication (ie I don't think "I done be gone to the sto'" will replace "I went to the store" anytime soon!) And unrelated note what is it called when one uses "done <verb>" to express past tense rather than "have" or just inflecting the verb to the preiterate. 76.199.166.85 (talk) 00:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The basic way that languages change is that a pronunciation that isn't completely standard (but what is standard?) starts becoming widespread within a language group. After a while it becomes the normal way to pronounce that sound/word/phrase. The same thing happens with syntax. Some people start saying something with a slightly different order of words. It's not the normal way to say it, but it's still understandable. After a while, most people are using the new way to say it, and the old way sounds old fashioned, or even wrong. It's not about spelling, or even writing. The spelling only represents what people are saying (well, in the past it did - it's more complex now). Widespread literacy is a relatively new concept, and a standard, correct way of speaking and writing is even newer. Steewi (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But that begs the question: Why do "some people start saying something with a slightly different order of words", or slightly different words? Sometimes the new way sounds more euphonious or less fussy or more direct, and that's basically a good thing as long as it doesn't violate some sacrosanct precept. But sometimes it's simple ignorance. I don't mean that pejoratively, except insofar as the degree to which teaching of language is inadequate. For example, once upon a time, people used the subjunctive case far more widely than they do today. They'd say "If he go ..." rather than "If he goes ...", or "If I were to do that ..." rather than "If I was to do that ...", and similar examples. But it was also reinforced by being taught at school. Nowadays, who gets taught about mood? or voice? or tense? or case? or even nouns, verbs, prepositions and adjectives? There may be good reasons why these basic building blocks of the language are at best glossed over nowadays, but the outcome is still that users of the language make it up as they go along to a much greater degree than they once did. Again, that freedom of expression may be considered a good thing by some people. But some would see it as a needless abrogation of discipline and solid foundations that worked well for centuries. I am not arguing that we should go around talking and writing as if we lived in 1850. But language change can occur to its heart's content without the need for an abandonment of the teaching of the basic principles on which all language rests. Thus endeth today's lesson. Go in peace. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 05:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure this question was asked just a week or two ago. Anyway, there are lots of books and articles specifically on this topic; for something relatively fun, and accessible to a reader without a linguistic background, I would recommend John McWhorter's The Power of Babel. Most introductory linguistics textbooks also have a chapter about this (look for historical linguistics and language change). rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The evolution of language is a reasonable analogue to biological evolution, in that it becomes "localized", i.e. it changes to meet the environment, in this case to meet the needs of the people who use it. A simple example would be the growing trend to use "they" instead of "he or she", which purists hate, but "they" is just less awkward than "he or she". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question I like to ask is, when did "forecastle" get to be pronounced like "folks'll" instead of like "forecastle"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're neglecting the fact that having a single "official" language standard with dictionaries and grammar guides is a relatively modern concept, and prior to that time most people weren't literate. Traditionally, language standards were passed more-or-less informally from one generation to the next, like a long-term game of Chinese whispers. This, combined with the fact that most people didn't get more than 10-20 miles from their birthplace, lead to gradual drift of languages, to the point where the language spoken in one town could vary quite a bit from the language spoken a days journey down the road. It wasn't that any particular change was "better", or was deliberately made in reference to some official standard, it's just gradually different. -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it becomes localized. If the Roman Empire had had television, we would probably all speak Latin instead of English (which itself is kind of a stepchild of Latin). Yet that Latin also would have evolved over time. If you read or listen to English from a hundred years ago, it's somewhat different from today, despite the availability of mass media in the last century. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Historical linguistics and Category:Historical linguistics. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is "done been gone", not "done be gone" as Google will clearly show. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See, there's a wrong way of speaking the wrong way, and a right way of speaking the wrong way. :) -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 22:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google translate errors - reliable references etc required

Please excuse this link to another desk - topic spans two disciplines - please see Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing#Google_translate_errors as per this question title heading if you can be of use. Thank you. 77.86.76.47 (talk) 02:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Latin translation

At Netherland Line, the motto Semper Mare Navigandum is translated as "Always sail the seas". Is this strictly correct in terms of the tense/mood (or whatever the correct term is) of "Navigandum"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.87.236 (talk) 03:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"navigandum" is a gerundive. The phrase could more literally be translated as "the sea is always to be sailed" or "the sea should always be sailed". ---Sluzzelin talk 03:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would translate it as: "The seas are always for sailing." 92.229.13.132 (talk) 08:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will not change the article myself, but if it needs changing then perhaps someone else would do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.162.10 (talk) 13:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being a shipping line's motto, would "Always Sailing the Sea" be both correct and more apposite? [Disclaimer, my formal Latin lessons ended around 40 years ago.] 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be more like Semper mare navigans or Semper mare navigante. (But my last Latin lesson was 30 years ago, so I'm not much better.) Marco polo (talk) 19:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might it be translated "Forever to sail the sea"? Marco polo (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That could work too. There really isn't a snappy one-word equivalent to the Latin gerundive, so sometimes the English equivalent has to be creative. ("Mare navigante" wouldn't work though, that would mean "while the sea is sailing" or similar, and the sea can't sail itself!) By the way, another famous use of the gerundive is from Harry Potter, "draco dormiens nunquam titillandus", and that gerundive could be translated numerous ways as well. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Online Conversations for Language Learning

This fall I am traveling to South America and would like to brush up on my Spanish language skills. A friend told me he knew a woman who learned French in a few months through Skype, so I looked for this sort of thing on the Internet. I found several sites (listed below) that allow users to converse with other language learners, and I wondered if anyone here had any experience with these or other sites or had any suggestions about this sort of language learning. Thanks. --Think Fast (talk) 03:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I personally use SharedTalk quite often, but only for text chat - I'm not into voice chatting or 1 on 1 conversations so I use the group chatrooms usually. It's good because you are guaranteed to get almost exclusively people who are interested in learning the language (or your language) and not people who join just to play around trolling or looking for webcam sex like on ICQ and other chats. As far as I can remember, there is a chatroom for Spanish learners. You can also find speakers of Spanish and contact them (through the one on one chat facility). This one I can recommend. As for the others, I have no idea. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 05:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Word meanings

"Turn down a glass" appears to be an expression used by Americans (U.S.A.) What does it mean?---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.37.101.50 (talk) 08:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It means saying "No, thank you" to someone offering you a glass of wine. Turn down = say "no thank you." 92.229.13.132 (talk) 10:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"turn down" = "refuse", if you ask me; "politely turn down" would equate to saying "no, thank you", but not even that, because you can't say "I'm politely turning down this glass" instead of saying "no, thank you" - so the equivalency only goes one way Rimush (talk) 12:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has a physical meaning - turning the glass upside down tells whoever is pouring wine not to fill one's glass. Zoonoses (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do people do that in the states? Here (in the UK) you would put your hand over the glass when the person with the bottle came round if you wanted to physically indicate that you didn't want a top-up. --Tango (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In OZ beer drinking culture it has another meaning (perhaps only well-understood in certain pubs) - an empty upright glass means you'd like a re-fill, an empty sideways glass means you're done drinking, and an upside down glass is a challenge to the bartender to a fight. Zoonoses (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are some pockets of Oz culture where an upturned beer glass means you're offering to shout the entire bar. If you do not honour that offer, even though you had no idea of the meaning of this action, you're in big trouble. So I've heard. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Mistress Masham's Repose, by T.H. White, the main character "turned down an empty glass" in response to a toast to people she had every reason to dislike. White is thoroughly British (wrote "The Once and Future King"), and the setting is thoroughly British, so there's no US influence here. So I think the meaning of refusing to have the glass filled (for some reason) must not be limited to the United States.

rc (talk) 05:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The aspirate doesn't have an aspirate.

Is it only me? I have noticed that recently (last few years only) more and more people when spelling a word will pronounce the name of the letter 'H' as "haitch" rather than "aitch". The name of the letter has always, to my knowledge, been spelled 'Aitch' and, as such, has no aspirate. I hear this (mis?)pronouciation even from educated people these days.

Am I alone in noticing this - and does everyone agree that there is no aspirate when pronouncing the name of the letter 'H'?

Gurumaister (talk) 12:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In British English, "haitch" is a long-standing pronunciation which I have always considered dialect, uneducated or idiosyncractic. It's not that uncommon, but I can't say I've particularly noticed an increase in its use in recent years. 86.174.162.10 (talk) 13:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

This is canvassed at H:Name in English. Some people do indeed aspire when they say the name of H. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Northern Ireland it's a shibboleth - Protestants pronounce it aitch and Catholics pronounce it haitch. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 21:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A common cliché (stemming from a degree of actuality) in 19th- and early 20th-century writing portrayed lower-class characters who were attempting to sound more genteel as continuing to drop initial 'h' as they normally would (and as I do in casual register), but adding superfluous initial 'h' to words beginning with vowels. As the letter H is pronounced in Standard English roughly "aitch", the latter produced "haitch." 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never hear this in the United States. Marco polo (talk) 19:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Negative words for male whores

There are many, many words for a woman who has multiple sexual partners, all of them having negative connotations (whore, slut, harlot, hooker, bint, slag, etc) but there are no negative words for a man who has multiple sexual partners (stud, player, bro, playboy, ladies man, etc). So list me some negative words for a man who has multiple sexual partners. TheFlamingFlager (talk) 13:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't necessary say that "player" is a neutral word -- I'd certainly say it depends upon cultural emphasis and social mores. And perhaps it's related to ancient Judeo-Christian religious sentiments that banned multiple partners for women but not for men. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More like cultural double standards -- Christianity in itself is opposed to adultery by both men and women. AnonMoos (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adultery would refer to prohibited relationships -- my point was that early Judeo-Christianity permitted polygamy while prohibiting polyandry. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First off, the word you're looking for is "polygyny". Second, I really fail to see what polygamy has in common with promiscuity and man-whoring. Third, Christianity has far more often than not forbidden polygyny. While Judaism has historically allowed polygyny, for at least the past 800 years or so it has been quite uncommon except in a few rather remote and isolated communities. In fact, I'm rather unsure what the purpose of your original comment was. AnonMoos (talk) 19:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TheFlamingFlager -- "Gigolo" can certainly have negative connotations in some contexts... AnonMoos (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You sometimes hear a word like "tart" being aimed at men, although its use here is kind of ironical. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 14:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dog is a recent one (1950s) and more recently (etymonline says 1997!) we have horndog. The connotations totally depend on usage, of course. After all, a tart is a lovely thing, and it was originally a term of endearment, and bint just meant "girlfriend". Slut isn't exactly respectful, but it's merely literal in origin. Dog and horndog might well sound somewhat like compliments, but then so might the words for women, as culture changes; whereas if we get a lot of male prostitutes living in desperate conditions... oh that reminds me: rentboy. 213.122.25.52 (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For an older one, there's rake (originally positive, then turned negative). ---Sluzzelin talk 14:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promiscuity mentions womanizer. (As does your link in the first sentence, sorry.) 213.122.25.52 (talk) 15:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

manwhore does not have very positive connotations. --Soman (talk) 15:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me of a song from Finian's Rainbow called "When the Idle Poor Become the Idle Rich"[1] which includes this: "When a rich man chases after dames, he's 'a man about town'; but when a poor man chases after dames he's a bounder, he's a rounder, he's a rotter, and a lot of dirty names." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Slut" is increasingly used to describe males. Example: This Dan Savage column. I have no evidence whether the connotations are identical in any particular culture. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the paucity of negative terms for a male who 'puts it about' excessively says (sadly) a lot about the social perception of that behaviour. Richard Avery (talk) 07:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone has mentioned the names used in Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo. It has been a long time since I've seen the movie, so the only names that come to mind are "He-Bitches" and "Manginas". Mangina is used interchangeably to refer to both the man and his plumbing. There are plenty of other gems to be had throughout the movie. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Me, I see the perjorative view of female putting-it-about as the sad thing.93.97.21.17 (talk) 01:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Equivalent word for illegible with respect to images

Hi! I'm writing a letter the full background of which is not relevant. I am trying to say something like "...pages 7-8, submitted by NAME, are illegibly reproduced photograph copies. I am enclosing legible copies to replace these, so that the your material more closely resembles the original." However, legible/illegible to me denotes the ability or inability to decipher text, and does not quite work for photographs. I can't think of the right equivalent word for a photograph/image. Can you help?--173.68.39.173 (talk) 14:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Indistinct" is probably your best bet, with "clear" for the second bit. Could also go with unclear/clear. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 14:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your response but I don't think "indistinct" conveys the right meaning. It implies that I'm referring to a different photograph/image, that I'm giving them a different one, not a clearer version. I'll go with illegible over that, even if it is a bit of a malaprop in application.--173.68.39.173 (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could also have indiscernibly or fuzzily, but I don't understand your objection to indistinctly. 213.122.51.122 (talk) 01:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, take out the "the" in "so that the your material". Rimush (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blurry? If the images is distorted and it is not obvious or in correct focus, this could be similar to illegible in practice. Aaronite (talk) 18:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I work in publishing, and I think the most usual word for this kind of image is unreadable. I know it usually means the same thing as illegible, but illegible applies pretty specifically to writing. Marco polo (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Usually with images they use more specific words depending on the actual effect: e.g. 'smudged', 'blurred', 'whited out', 'grainy'... I don't know of an over-arching word that covers all possible ways of obscuring the details of a picture. --Ludwigs2 20:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The word "illegible" is used in relation to reading. The word sought here is related to understanding images. After the eyes perceive an image, the brain interprets it. Something beyond seeing is involved, because one can see an image without discerning what it portrays. Perhaps the field of ophthalmology has a word, or even a set of words, for referring to the activity of the brain when it realizes what the eyes are seeing. Perhaps that same field also has a word, or even a set of words, for describing images which can not be clearly recognized by the brain. Therefore, I suggest that you read about ophthalmology and related topics, and also photography and related topics. If that does not answer your question, then at least you might have learned some things of interest to you. Also, someone in Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography (shortcut: WP:PH) might be able to help.—Wavelength (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Photography, with a link to this discussion.—Wavelength (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The direct equivalent would be "unrecognizable", I think. Looie496 (talk) 23:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That certainly sounds more everyday-speak to me. Without further context, I'd interpret "your photograph is unreadable" as "my soft- or hardware cannot process the data in any meaningful way" and I mean computer soft- or hardware, not the human brain. But I'll take Marco polo's word that it is also used in the OP's sense. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Legibility is distinguished from readability at Typography#Readability and legibility (permanent link here). Also, it is possible to recognize an image ("This is the picture which I bought last week.") without recognizing the people and things in the image ("Who is this and what is that?").—Wavelength (talk) 01:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other possibilities: indistinct, unintelligible --Traveler100 (talk) 06:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some links which might be helpful.

—Wavelength (talk) 14:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[On a tangent, you can see ambiguous images at Planet Perplex - Optical Illusions, ambiguous images, hidden pictures, upside downs. —Wavelength (talk) 15:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)][reply]

I have left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neuroscience, with a link to this discussion.—Wavelength (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Limes

Example: "Strawberry Limes" etc. What does the word "lime(s)" refer to? Derived from "Lime" like in "Key Lime Pie"? (although there is no lime in Strawberry limes" or "Limes" like "Smoothies" - i.e; description of consistencies? 62.241.105.149 (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably refers to the Lime fruit, which resembles a green lemon and tastes subtly different. Perhaps recipes such as the one you linked substitute lemon for lime because the latter juice is hard to obtain in some places, although it's well known in the UK and it's a staple in any competently stocked public bar. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for indications - but I'm not satisfied yet (I'm not a native speaker). It is "I'll have a Strawberry Limes!" , right? Is that plural or is "Limes" (how do you pronounce that - do you hear the "e"?) singular? Anybody knows, where the term (for non-lime-containing drinks) originated?? 62.241.105.149 (talk) 08:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that 87 is essentially correct. This recipe (see "Variation" at the bottom of the Kiwi Limes recipe) does use lime juice rather than lemon juice, and I'd take it as being more "authoritative" than the one you cite, if such a word could be used of such a thing. And I do construe limes as the plural of lime, though if I wanted the cocktail—which I don't, as it sounds rather unappealing—I would, in fact, say "I'll have a Strawberry Limes." Deor (talk) 11:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! And the waiter would NOT hear an "e" (in Limes) from you, right? Pronounciation like plural of "lime"? 62.241.105.149 (talk) 16:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, /laɪmz/. Deor (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Case closed. 62.241.105.149 (talk) 11:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of mercy is not strain'd

From Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice, 1596. PORTIA: The quality of mercy is not strain'd.

What does the "not strained" part mean, in 21st. century english? Thanks 92.29.124.244 (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

basically it means 'offered freely'. One cannot insist that another to be merciful (or engage in any other form of altruism), because that wouldn't be mercy at all, it would be something else. It's just like offering someone a gift, and then insisting that they 'owe' you - that's not a gift, but an obligation. --Ludwigs2 19:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it an analogy with physical strain, as in pulling on a rope, rather than straining something through a collander? Could it be paraphrased as "Mercy is not forced"? Thanks 92.29.117.211 (talk) 20:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consider "constrained", a different form of the word, which means "prevented" in a sample sentence, "I would like to run a mile, but I'm constrained by the fact that I lost a leg in an accident". Here "strained" — with an apostrophe to indicate that Portia should pronounce it as a single syllable, rather than "strain-ed" — means "forced", just as 92.29.117.211 says; in other words, "the quality of mercy is entirely voluntary". Nyttend (talk) 17:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was Audrey Hepburn a lesbian necrophiliac?

Ha! I thought that'd get your attention.

Now that I've had my fun, on to my real question. Is it necessary for a sentence to make sense in its own terms, or is it sufficient for it to make sense in its context? Let me give you an example of what I’m on about. Read the following sentence taken out of its context:

After she died in 1979, Wolders became the companion of Audrey Hepburn until her death in 1993.

Does that confuse you for a second? Did you at first think Wolders was some sort of necrophiliac, until you realised Audrey wasn't dead yet, so the "she" must be referring to some other woman? Or did you assume this "Wolders" was the "she", and Audrey Hepburn was the necrophiliac? And a lesbian necrophiliac at that?

Now put it in its context. From Robert Wolders:

He is most famous for his marriage to famed actress Merle Oberon in 1975. After she died in 1979, Wolders became the companion of Audrey Hepburn until her death in 1993.

Now it all makes perfect sense: the "she" was Merle Oberon.

Is it really necessary to rewrite the second sentence to make it totally unambiguous if read in isolation, or, realising it has no purpose or function in isolation, do we just let the context do the work and leave it in peace? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When the context is there I don't believe there is any need for a sentence to be disambiguated in anticipation of it being read in isolation. If we spoke/wrote every sentence that way language would become very clumsy. (For example, that last sentence would have to be rewritten to identify what "that way" refers to.) Obviously, if one were to quote the sentence without the preceding text, it would be necessary to provide the lost information:

After [Merle Oberon] died in 1979, Wolders became the companion of Audrey Hepburn until her death in 1993.

Even that example assumes that the identity of Wolders is understood in the sentence's new context. If not, it may be that one would write [Robert] Wolders instead. AJ Cham 21:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree in principle with AJCham (pronouns routinely are unambiguously used in sentences other than the ones in which their antecedents appear), in this particular case I think "After Oberon died in 1979 ..." would be clearer and would read better. Deor (talk) 00:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Deor that anywhere the antecedent of a pronoun is the least bit ambiguous, the pronoun should be replaced with a noun. In this case, even though careful attention to the context makes the meaning clear, a reader not paying careful attention might forget for a moment that Wolders is a man and have a momentary shock that Hepburn was a lesbian necrophiliac, or the reader might think that Wolders was the necrophiliac and puzzle for a moment over how Hepburn could have died twice. This kind of thing will cause some readers to pause for a moment in shock and search back through the context to figure out what is really going on. Better to make it easy for the reader by avoiding any ambiguity. Marco polo (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

semicolon before "after" is what I was taught to do..83.100.252.126 (talk) 00:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not in all cases, but it would fit in this case. Yes, I think I'll mention Oberon's name and also use a semi-colon. Thanks for all the suggestions, dear colleagues. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Name numbers" for monarchs?

Is there a technical term for the numbers that monarchs get at the end of their names, like Queen Elizabeth II, or Henry V? EditorInTheRye (talk) 22:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I know they are called roman numerals, but is there a specific name for the practise of putting them at the end of names? EditorInTheRye (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They used to be called "regnal numbers", but lately that's morphed into "monarchical ordinal". -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Regnal number" will do nicely. I suspect "monarchical ordinal" is a phrase invented by a Wikipedian to title our article (is there a term for such a wiki-coinage?). --Cam (talk) 04:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does get some ghits that are not WP mirrors. And it does appear in dictionaries. But I'm with you: "regnal number" was used for centuries, so why do we suddenly need to start using a less plain English term, for the sake of ... god knows what? -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 05:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't go quite far enough. Maybe "monarchical hierarchical ordinal". If they really want to get technical and maniacal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But since when was "ordinal" ever used as a noun, in the sense of a type of number? It's only ever an adjective in this sense, AFAIK. But that doesn't mean I would for a moment accept "monarchical hierarchical ordinal number" over "regnal number". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Ordinal number and http://www.onelook.com/?w=ordinal&ls=a, "ordinal" is used as an adjective and a noun.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 23

Are gulls 'gullible'?

Does the word 'gullible' have anything to do with (sea) gulls? They don't seem like particularly 'gullible' birds to me. Actually, they seem more quick-witted and 'street-smart' than most. --95.148.107.208 (talk) 16:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "gullible" page at the Online Etymology Dictionary says that indeed the word may come from "gull", in the sense of "someone who will swallow anything thrown at them". Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My dead-tree Oxford English Dictionary is a bit convoluted and ambiguous on this one. It claims of gullible that "historically it seems to have been a back-formation from gullibility" which is "apparently an alteration from [and appeared "much later" than] cullibility after gull" in the particular meaning (one of several) of "a credulous person . . ." which is "of doubtful and perhaps mixed origin", natural as a transferred use of "gull" in the meaning of "an unfledged bird . . . (from gull meaning yellow) and perhaps also from gull meaning "to delude", which may be "an application of gull, to gorge, 'cram'."

Meanwhile cullibility means "the quality of being cullible . . . easily made a 'cull' or fool of", while cull in the sense of "dupe, silly fellow, simpleton, fool; a man, fellow, chap" is "perhaps [an] abbreviation of cully, "one who is cheated . . .; a man, fellow; a companion, mate."

Now, gull in the sense of seagull is traced back (by the OED) to various Celtic-language words (Welsh gŵylan, Cornish guilan, Breton goelan, Old Irish foilenn, all presumably from Old Celtic *voilenno-) referring to the bird, while cully is "originally slang or rogues' cant, of uncertain origin . . . connexion [sic] has been suggested with cullion ["a base, despicable, or vile fellow; a rascal"] or its Italian cognate 'coglione', a noddy, a fool, a patch a dolt . . . (Florio) . . . Leland thinks it of gypsy origin, comparing Spanish Gypsy chulai man, Turkish Gypsy khulai gentleman." Incidentally gullet, the oesophagus; a water channel; a gorge or defile, is traced back to Latin gula, the throat.

Phew! What all this seems to suggest is that the words (sea)gull, gull (= unfledged bird), gullet and gullible/cullible have ultimately different origins but may have through metaphorical applications and perhaps repeated confusions influenced one another's meanings over the centuries. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 22:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is most gullible: a gull, a dodo, or a booby? --Wavelength (talk) 14:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Th in older German orthography

Many German words that are currently spelled with a T were at one time (up to say the 18th Century) spelt with a TH - for instance That, thun, Thur. Did the TH ever represent any different pronunciation, or is there some other reason for it? --rossb (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neanderthal is probably the most famous example and our artilce discusses the spelling and pronunciation. Rmhermen (talk) 22:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Words spelled in modern German with 't' that were spelled 'th' before the 1901 spelling reform have been pronounced /t/ since the time of the earliest written records of Old High German. Incidentally, I don't think that the 'th' spelling appears in most Old High German texts. I do not know the circumstances of the origin of the 'th' spelling for the /t/ sound in certain positions, and it will be interesting to see if anyone can find an explanation of its origins. My guess is that this spelling developed with the advent of printing in early modern times because, in some older versions of Fraktur, 't' was a rather indistinct character that might have been mistaken for 'r', 'i', or 'k' when reading quickly, and that 'h' was added in certain positions to improve legibility. Marco polo (talk) 01:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the article th (digraph):

Because neither /tʰ/ nor /θ/ were native sounds in Latin, an original <θ> in Greek loanwords soon came to be pronounced in Latin with /t/. They continued to be spelled with <th> in deference to their etymology. This practice was then borrowed into German, French and other languages, where <th> still appears in Greek loan words, but is pronounced /t/. See German orthography. Interlingua also employs this pronunciation.

In early modern times, French, German and English all expanded this by analogy to words in which there was no etymological reason for it, but for the most part the modern spelling systems have eliminated this. A rare example of unetymological <th> in English is the name of the River Thames.

In English, <th> for /t/ can also occur in loan-words from French or German, such as Neanderthal. --151.51.156.20 (talk) 11:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hypercorrection affected what became the English word "author" (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=author&searchmode=term).

—Wavelength (talk) 13:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that many, maybe most, of the German words that were spelled with ‹th› in the 19th century but are now spelled with plain ‹t›, like roth, thun, That, Thal, Thon, Thor, etc., would have only 3 letters in their basic form (without inflectional endings or any affixes) if spelled without the ‹h›. Perhaps there was a feeling that 3 letters wasn't sufficient for a content word, so they added an ‹h› to pad the words out to 4 letters. The ‹th› spelling was then kept in words derived from these, like erröthen, gethan, Thätigkeit, Thäler, thönern, and thöricht. +An gr 14:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the German "th" I can´t find any hard facts, but I read one reasonable explanation: One linguist argues that the th (but also the less frequent/obsolete ph and rh) may have been / may be a remnant of medieval scribes who transposed the Greek spiritus asper not only to words with a Greek root, but also to Germanic words containing a T, an F or an R. The fact that Martin Luther, a major influence on the development of the language, used the "th" extensively, would have helped to make this a "standard". --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luther's own name is of course an example of this - the h is clearly silent in German, and hence the normal English pronunciation of "Luther", "Lutheran", etc, has no etymological justification. --rossb (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 24

Latin to English translation from Venus and Adonis

Vilia miretur vulgus; mihi flavus Apollo
Pocula Castalia plena ministret aqua.

This quotation is at the beginning of William Shakespeare's poem Venus and Adonis. What is the English translation? Thank you. (64.252.34.115 (talk) 01:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

It's from Ovid's "Amores". "Let the crowd admire vile things; but let golden Apollo supply me with cups full of Castalian water" (i.e., the water of the spring where the Muses lived). Adam Bishop (talk) 04:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! I really appreciate your helpful reply. Thanks. (64.252.34.115 (talk) 16:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Persian question

A hopefully simple question on Persian: The title of Hemingway's The Old Man and the Sea is translated as پیرمرد و دریا (pir mard o daryâ ?). As far as I know, in Persian adjectives are postponed with Ezafe, so I would have expected مرد پير mard-e pir instead of پير مرد pir mard (or pir-e mard?). But I'm sure there is an explanation. --84.190.141.240 (talk) 11:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its verbatim translation is "mard-e pir o darya". Its more literary and more famous translation is "pirmard o darya". Nouns and adjectives can sometimes change their places, as in this case that "mard-e pir" and "pirmard" mean the same thing. In the former case we have two words (noun + ezafe + adjective), while the latter is only one word. I think I have seen its parallels in English too, but I can't remember any right now. You may help me. --Omidinist (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese

Honorifics are so confusing! Could someone help me? Thanks! --138.110.206.99 (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Japanese honorifics. -- Wavelength (talk) 13:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a less all-encompassing question? What particularly is it that confuses you? TomorrowTime (talk) 17:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the quick & dirty guide:

Honorifics are added after a name (family name for more politeness or given name to show closeness). The most common is "san."

~san = most common, polite and usually a good default. ~sensei = always add to the names of doctors, teachers or professors. ~chan = used for babies, toddlers, pets and little girls. Although very "cutesy," it can be used for a woman if that's what the individual prefers. Listen to what others call her and follow suit. ~kun = used for young boys. Sometimes men to be friendly may refer to a woman or younger man with this. It gives kind of a brotherly or fatherly vibe. Older men seem a bit more likely to do this.

SPECIAL CASE: older family members. If you're close you add "chan" after their title (grandma-chan, father-chan, etc.) Families that are more formal with each other might use "san" instead. In otherworldly contexts like anime other suffixes might be used amongst family members but in reality that's pretty rare.

Less common honorific suffixes: ~sama = this is never used in real life except ironically, but in historical contexts or the alternate reality of anime is a sign of great respect or worship applied to the nobility or sometimes the person a main character has a crush on or their idol. ~dono = "my lord." Very archaic. Don't use in real life unless it's obviously ironic. Might come up in historic contexts or anime.

There are some others that are almost never used outside of things like anime. Don't worry about them. 108.3.173.100 (talk) 05:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)TorreyOaks[reply]

Origin of "th" sound in English.

A question yesterday started me thinking. Is English the only Germanic language with a "th" sound? Modern Germans famously find it very difficult to pronounce. If so, did the invading Anglo-Saxons pick it up from the local Brythonic speakers (Welsh has both "th" and "dd" and Cornish has "th" and "dh")? Alansplodge (talk) 16:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proto-Germanic did have a th-sound (written as þ), which developed through the Germanic sound shift from Proto-Indo-European *t (cf. PG *þrijiz < PIE *treyes). Besides English, Icelandic is the other Germanic language to have retained it (cf. English three, Icelandic þrír). German (including Low German and Dutch) shifted this *þ to d, hence we have German drei and Dutch drie. A shift to t seems to have happened in the Scandinavian languages other than Icelandic (Swedish, Danish and Norwegian all have tre). And then there is also the voiced th as in brother, making things even more complicated, but I won't elaborate on it now. Anyway, you can see that English th is not an innovation but a retention. But of course you cannot rule out that Celtic substrate helped in retaining the th, though it could be difficult to prove that. --BishkekRocks (talk) 16:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We also have an article on Thorn (letter). --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article on voiced dental fricative (as in "there"), that sounds occurs in Danish as well (example: the final consonant in "hvid"). ---Sluzzelin talk 17:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Faroese also has ð, but it "isn't assigned to any particular phoneme and appears mostly for etymological reasons" Rimush (talk) 18:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks one and all, especially BishkekRocks. Job done in style. Alansplodge (talk) 19:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Southern American accent

Where can I listen to (the longer the better) a video that clearly shows what is generally known as a "Southern accent"? Most Youtube videos are made by non-Southerners attempting to do it instead of real speakers of the dialect. --Belchman (talk) 18:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is no single "southern accent", so you might have to narrow it down. Texas sounds different from Florida, and from South Carolina, etc. Here is Civil War historian Shelby Foote, who was from Mississippi. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a video of Lucas Black, he has a genuine, and very thick, Alabama accent. +An gr 21:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example of him talking. +An gr 21:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you listen to both clips, you'll hear the two accents are very different, and I don't think the difference is primarily due to the geographic distance between Mississippi and Alabama. Shelby Foote has an educated, relatively upper-class, non-rhotic Southern accent, while Lucas Black has a working-class rhotic Southern accent. The age difference between them (Foote was born in 1916, Black in 1982) probably has something to do with differences between their accents as well. +An gr 21:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the second factor is primary, not the first one. Non-rhoticity used to be a feature of the South(-East) in general, not some kind of "Trans-Atlantic" mark of its upper class only. Most Southerners have reverted to rhoticity in the course of the 20th century, presumably to conform better with GA.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 20:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even within a single state, you will find a wide range of accents, from thick to moderate to almost non-existent, among even the natives. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Parts of rural Virginia and North Carolina also pronounce certain words which sound, to me, like Candian: oot and aboot, for example. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 00:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are some Youtube videos with Hodding Carter III, who has a Mississippi accent. Also Red Barber, who likewise was from Mississippi. You can search for interviews of Dale Earnhardt Jr., who is from North Carolina. Or Southern politicians like Trent Lott or Thad Cochran. Someone seems to have uploaded the Eyes on the Prize documentary miniseries on the UK version of Yahoo Video -- that has the voices of black and white people from across the South. Really you can just find the names of prominant southeners on Wikipedia and then search for videos of them speaking on the Internet. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs is quite right that even natives of Southern states often have little or no discernibly Southern accent. Julia Roberts, for example, was born and raised in the Atlanta area but speaks fairly region-free General American, although as an actress she may have consciously suppressed her Southern accent if she ever had one. +An gr 05:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andie MacDowell supposedly lost some roles because of her southern accent... AnonMoos (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andie's voice got dubbed over by Glenn Close in Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes, because her accent was so strong. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Hunter has an accent that could make paint peel. Fortunately, she didn't talk in The Piano. +An gr 05:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on Southern American English links to "Tawkin' Suthern" which has a number of audio clips (and in turn refers to the Wikipedia article). I only listened to a couple of the recordings, and am not the best judge on authenticity, but supposedly they are spoken by native Southerners. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're authentic. It's interesting though that when he discusses /aɪ/-monophthongization (which he calls "lilt truncation" for some reason), he seems not to notice that the woman he's recording does not monophthongize /aɪ/ before voiceless consonants. He says, "light turns into laht", but then you play the audio and she very clearly says [laɪt] and not *[laːt] (although in other Southern accents, monophthongization does happen before voiceless consonants and it is [laːt]). +An gr 20:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, the male speaker, when asked to say "I feel good", says "I feel good", not "I fill good". He adds: "I'm not sure about that. I think we do pretty good with 'feel' ". ---Sluzzelin talk 21:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've also heard rural northerners say "fill" instead of "feel". There's a built-in assumption that the midwest accent is as flat as the midwest is. However, there are rural accents that are distinctive and are not "southern" as such. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 25

Words with two definitions where only one can be pluralized

Sorry, I know that subject line is confusing. I just thought of the word JUSTICE, which means both (1) the quality of being just and (2) a judge. You can pluralize it to JUSTICES for the second definition, but the first definition doesn't have a plural. Can anyone think of any other words like this? I'm sure there are more, I just can't think of any. Thanks! Fbv65edel — t — c // 19:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beauty: (1) the quality of being beautiful - unpluralizable; (2) a person displaying the former quality - pluralizable. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) There are quite a few. I ~~was paid attention to~~ was taught to pay attention to those in my English classes. Hair and experience could be examples. --Theurgist (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

some off-topic material

Since you mention your English classes, I'll point out that you probably meant either "I paid attention to them..." or "They were called to my attention...". I hope this doesn't come across as mean. I offer it purely because it's an odd phrase that I thought you'd like to use in a natural way. 86.164.66.83 (talk) 20:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the remark! To the best of my understanding of English grammar, the sentence is not incorrect, however odd it might appear. And if it is wrong after all, then I'm not the first one to err that way. It's stricken now, and replaced with something more common as a phrase. --Theurgist (talk) 20:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the expression you used originally is common enough, but it means that someone (usually the teacher in this case) paid attention to you. Dbfirs 20:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original expression was not "I was paid attention to", but instead "I was paid attention to those". The same construction has been used by someone here and here. --Theurgist (talk) 20:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the writers meant "my attention was drawn to" in these examples. Dbfirs 12:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those are execrable examples of "English". I strongly advise you not to emulate them. The only acceptable passive form of "I paid attention to X" is "Attention was paid by me to X", but it's stodgy, clumsy and unnatural. Having one's attention drawn to X by a third party is not a case of "being paid attention to". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]

OK. --Theurgist (talk) 21:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strength? The physical quality is not pluralized but in the sense of "something you are good at" you can have many strengths. (While thinking about this, it also occurred to me that "brains" works the opposite way - you can have a roomful of jars of brains, and brains in the sense of lots of intelligence, but you can't have only one of the latter.) Adam Bishop (talk) 20:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another one is humor. The four humors/four fluids v ha ha humor. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Two heads are better than one when counting how many head of cattle are on this property". There's another well-known use of 'head' that applies only in the singular. It has to do with a kind of donation. :) -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article mass noun gives some examples.162.40.211.165 (talk) 03:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 26

Pronunciation of Los Angeles

I was watching a very, very old film (black & white)... at 1:52-5 in the narrator says "Los Angeles" and pronounces the latter part something like [eiŋgʌləs]... like the word "angle" followed by the word "us"

Here's the video so you can see it for yourself: http://video.google.ca/googleplayer.swf?docid=-3660820995851036415&autoplay=1

Is this the way the city's name was pronounced? When did the hard "g" become soft and the initial "a" change from the sound it makes in "ate" to the sound in "at"? Do some people still say it this way?

Or do you think the narrator's just saying it wrong...? 108.3.173.100 (talk) 05:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)TorreyOaks[reply]

You're not alone, because I've once heard in a modern movie (forgot which one), which pronounced it as 'Los Angs'. I've checked the Cambridge English Pronouncing Dictionary and it shows neither Angles or Angs. Kayau Voting IS evil 05:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first pronunciation listed in Kenyon & Knott is [lɔsˈæŋɡələs], while [...ˈændʒələs] (by the most common pronunciation I've ever heard – including that of my parents, who both grew up there in the 1930s and '40s) is listed second. The third pronunciation given is [...ˈændʒəˌliːz], which I associate with British speakers. Then there's a note saying, "Other pronunciations exist. A resident phonetician writes, 'The only one I've never heard is [losˈɑŋheles] [i.e. the Spanish pronunciation].'" (I wonder whether that resident phonetician was Peter Ladefoged.) I seem to remember that the narrator of Dragnet pronounced it [...ˈænələs]. +An gr 05:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[ændʒəliːz] has always grated on my nerves -- anything but that! AnonMoos (talk) 05:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linguist Dwight L. Bolinger actually led an ad-hoc city-appointed commission about 50 years ago to decide on the pronunciation of the city's name, resulting in [las ændʒələs] being the generally-accepted American English pronunciation; before that time, there was more variation... AnonMoos (talk) 05:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... thanks all! Especially Angr & AnonMoos. You are awesome. 108.3.173.100 (talk) 05:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)TorreyOaks[reply]

They should do likewise in Missouri, where some say it "mih-zir-ee" and some say "mih-zir-uh". Jack Webb on Dragnet always said it the way I expect to hear it, which is "loss ANJ-uh-luss" (sorry, IPA doesn't work on my PC). If you listen to a proper Spanish pronounce, that latter English pronunciation is really not too far off. Contrast that with a 60s song, "flying into Los Angeleez, bringin' in a couple o' keys" or whatever it was. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not too far off? "Lodge" is not too far off from "Loch Ness", and "Jay" is not far from "Hay"? Hmm.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I say Missourah just because it's more fun. Rimush (talk) 07:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, AnonMoos' done a great job here – never dreamt that someone would do that just to decide on the pronunciation! Mind you, I will try not to pronounce 'Los Angeles' in front of you because I pronounce it as [ændʒəliːz]. HeeHee! Kayau Voting IS evil 07:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or just do it the easy way: "L.A." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a pronunciation, that's a spelling. L.A. is pronounced 'El Al' (i.e. like the airline, but with the final 'l' silent) in German ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe how non-Hebrew speakers pronounce the name of the airline El Al! That's correctly pronounced EHL AHL (equal stress on the two syllables and divided that way), whereas the abbreviation of Los Angeles (in the 60's through early 1980s when I lived there) is pronounced eh-LEY. The pronunciation of "Los Angeles" by locals varies widely, as it's one of the most cosmopolitan, mixed-ethnic and immigrant-populous cities on the planet.-- Deborahjay (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(slightly off-topic) Someone proposed the change of Estonia's name in English to "Estland", and the Georgians officially demanded new names for their country in Hebrew and Lithuanian. --Theurgist (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the pronunciation given by the OP [lɔs 'eiŋgʌləs] is a pronunciation I've heard often from German speakers. Marco polo (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Yorty, the LA mayor elected on a platform of having garbage and recyclables picked up on the same day, pronounced the city's name "Los Angle-eez" -- Mwalcoff (talk) 19:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was a trend, starting in the 19th century among Anglo settlers of the Mexican Cession, to pronounce Spanish place names based on their spellings, using interpretations of those spellings as remote from Spanish pronunciation as possible. For example, Pueblo, Colorado was pronounced something like [pju'wɛbloʊ kɑlə'ɹædoʊ]. I'm guessing that [lɔsˈæŋɡələs] or, even more so, [lɔsˈæŋɡəliz] is probably an instance of this trend. Based on my acquaintance with old-timers from this region, this kind of pronunciation was motivated at least partly by contempt for the existing Spanish-speaking population and by a desire to assert that these were now English-speaking places. Marco polo (talk) 19:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think pronouncing the ending -es of "Los Angeles" as if it were spelt "Los Angeleeze" actually seems somehow classicizing - as in "Hercules", "Pericles", "faeces" etc..--91.148.159.4 (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The LA suburb of El Segundo is pronounced with a short "u," but it wasn't a name left over by the Spanish. The name dates to the 1910s and Standard Oil's second oil refinery on the West Coast. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Webb in Dragnet used to pronounce some geographic feature called "San Pedro" as if it were spelled "san peedro". He also pronounced "Figueroa" as "figure-owe-uh". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

San Pedro, is, in general, pronounced Peedro. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

reference

I would like to use the followig article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinesthetic_learning but I have no idea where to find citation information for it. Can you please help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.213.115 (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the bottom of the "Toolbox" list on the left side of the page is a "Cite this page" link that will lead you to the information you need. Deor (talk) 16:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Odd Phrasing in BBC News Article

This BBC article says something which strikes me as very odd.

"In 2005, as part of an event in the run-up to the 600th anniversary of Zheng's first voyage, the Chinese paid a visit to Lamu to undertake DNA tests on a Swahili family, who were found to have had traces of Chinese ancestry."

'The Chinese'? Like, all of them? Considering there is no mention anywhere in the text of any kind of team or anything, it strikes me as very odd phrasing that the name of the nationality should be used for 'a specific group of people of this nationality that we haven't mentioned before and will not mention again'. What if this had been 'the Australians', or 'the Cockneys', or 'the inhabitants of the Isle Of Man'? Any thoughts on this? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a way of quickly implying some sort of official group sent to represent the interests of the wider group. So, a group standing in for, and representing, the whole of China paid a visit to Lamu to carry out DNA tests. It strongly implies the group were representing the Chinese government in some way. 86.164.66.83 (talk) 17:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the comment above - however, I have to agree that the phrasing is somewhat loose for an organisation like the BBC, whose English is normally more precise. Gurumaister (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, that is exactly what I am thinking - the BBC is our flagship news agency, supposedly, and I would never expect this kind of phrasing in an article by them, as acceptable as it may well be during a chat down the pub. Of course, the meaning itself is not lost on me - I would guess it was a group of scientists or a research team and not an Olympic skating team, given the context. The phrasing, however, is just not right to me. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it sounds fine to me. The BBC news website is not an academic journal, it's a reliable news source written for an intelligent lay audience. You get that sort of phrasing all the time in journalism, where space is often at a premium and the word count is important, so that things are often boiled down somewhat. I don't think it's odd at all. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 17:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read BBC all the time. You'd be surprised how many of their articles contain small mistakes, especially the newest ones before they get corrected, and those from faraway places (from my eurocentric perspective). I don't mind at all. --84.46.39.217 (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; I would expect better from the BBC. --Tango (talk) 18:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think a bigger problem is "found to have Chinese ancestry". What does that mean? They just happened to stumble on a family that interbred with Chinese sailors 600 years ago? Sounds more like a publicity stunt, especially since Zheng He's other supposed voyages are so popular at the moment... Adam Bishop (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. I have just noticed the ambiguity in that phrase, too. The Swahili family was found to have Chinese ancestry? Was this before the DNA tests or after them? If after, then why was this family singled out for such tests? If they were found to have Chinese ancestry before the DNA tests, how did this happen? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The word "bread" meaning "money"

When was the first use of the word "bread" meaning "money"? Where did it originate from?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 23:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page (and numerous others) suggests that it is cockney rhyming slang, money rhymes with "bread and honey", which of course also carries the connotation that money quite literally means bread on the table. Such origins would probably mean that it could be quite old, a least a couple of centuries, possibly more, with the first written recorded usage being from the mid 19th century. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) This generally reliable source says that it's from the 1940s. The OED, which says that it's of U.S. origin, has a citation from 1939, but the citation is bracketed, indictating that the lexicographers aren't sure that the word is actually being used in the relevant sense. Both that citation and the next-earliest one deal with the world of jazz, so I think it's safe to assume that this use of bread originated in jazz musicians' slang. Deor (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, "dough" used to also be slang for money, but you don't often hear it anymore. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not bread strictly speaking, but wheat was used as a symbol of wealth back to ancient cultures. Googlemeister (talk) 13:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See http://www.fun-with-words.com/money_words.html. -- Wavelength (talk) 21:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Spain they use pasta, "¿Tienes pasta amigo?" - "Got any dosh mate?" Richard Avery (talk) 15:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese translation?

Can anyone help to translate the text found in File:Japan Labour-Farmer Party poster 1928.jpg? --Soman (talk) 23:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The words across the top are 黨農勞本日。Note that until the end of WWII, Japanese, when written horizontally, went right-to-left (nowadays it goes left-to-right like English). That just means (literally) "Japan Labor Farm Party" but spells "labor farm party" in an old fashioned way. The spelling has since been simplified from 勞農黨ーー>労農党　（Note that I wrote all that from left-to-right like in modern Japanese so you can see how the characters evolved). "Farm" (the middle character) stays the same, but the modern spelling for "labor party" is 労働党. That's a start anyway... I'll add more later when I have time if someone else hasn't translated the rest. Good luck! 108.3.173.100 (talk) 00:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)TorreyOaks[reply]

It's a fill-in-the-blanks poster. 月/month, 日/day, 時/time, and 於/at. 政見/political views, 議長/chairman, 大演説會/big speech meeting, and 辯士/speaker(s). I'm sorry but the three black characters on the red background are too small to read. Oda Mari (talk) 05:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~So basically, it is sort an empty template for announcing meetings of the party?~~ --Soman (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC) I read Oda's comment to rash, not noticing the "fill-in-the-blanks" sentence, thanks. --Soman (talk) 15:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Translation

What’s Latin for “We come in peace”? Venimus et quaerimus pacem ...? 108.3.173.100 (talk) 23:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)Rorrim[reply]

That could work, but there is some extra info that's not in the English. "Venimus in pace" would suffice. (You can find "in pace" elsewhere, like "requiescat in pace", "ite in pace", etc.) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The word "venimus" as such is ambiguous. I learned Latin with macrons. The word "venīmus" (present tense) means "we come; we do come; we are coming". The word "vēnimus" (perfect tense) means "we came; we have come". Help:Macrons can help editors to type with macrons. The conjugation of "veniō" (with macrons) can be seen at http://la.wiktionary.org/wiki/venio. My translation of the text is "Venīmus in pāce."

—Wavelength (talk) 14:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess, but that's an artificial modern teaching tool. No one ever wrote Latin with macrons (well, actually, lines like that were used for abbreviations and numbers, but not to distinguish vowel length). It's no more ambiguous than "put" or "let" or any other English word where the present and past are the same. I still have to use the macrons when scanning poetry, so I don't mean to sound like a pompous ass (again), but they aren't part of normal Latin and people shouldn't depend on them. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People in the Renaissance sometimes used a light sprinkling of circumflexes to mark selected long vowels in brief Latin texts (especially the ablative singular first declension ending, which is only distinguished from the nominative singular by length). AnonMoos (talk) 02:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Multas gratias vobis ago! :) 108.3.173.100 (talk) 21:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Rorrim[reply]

July 27

Does Portugal have this problem too?

Hi all. As a speaker of "traditional', "British", "Commonwealth" English (however you want to describe it), I know the problems that variety of the language faces from the media and web saturation of American English. The differences may be only subtle between the two, but US English is different than/from UK English and its use subtly colors/colours speech and writing, as well as making projects like Wikipedia more difficult to organize/organise.

What I've wondered for a while, though, is does Portugal have the same problem with Brazil? Brazil has a considerably larger population than Portugal, and is one of the world's up-and-coming economic and media hubs (as the old joke goes, Brazil is a future world leader, and always will be). Do Portuguese speakers of the language have difficulties with the subtle differences which surely must exist in Brazilian Portuguese?

Thanks in advance, Grutness...wha? 00:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might not be what you had in mind, but I'll answer from a Brazilian perspective. I'm half Brazilian and from what my Brazilian parent and relatives say, Portugal Portuguese & Brazilian Portuguese sound quiet different and it can be hard for them to understand Portugal Portuguese. They find Portugal Portuguese rougher (but they're biased, obviously). But even within Brazil there are many accents! For example in Rio there is no "ch" sound, this is replaced by a "t" sound, but up north in the country there is a "ch" sound and they don't use "t" as much...

There's no danger of influence from Portugal Portuguese, because Brazilians (based on anecdotal evidence from my family) mostly don't like the sound and so usually won't watch TV from Portugal. Hope someone can give you an answer from Portugal's point of view! 108.3.173.100 (talk) 00:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)TorreyOaks[reply]

I wonder if the same thing occurs within the Spanish language community? Spanish language novelas come from a variety of countries, do they use some sort of standard Spanish, or do Mexican viewers watch Argentinian shows with no problems with the pronunciation? BTW, "Different than" is substandard in American English, too. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can only give you an anecdotal example about Spanish. One is that in Cuba that almost don't say the "s" in many cases, so "How are you?", spelled ¿Cómo estás? sounds almost like ¿Cómo e-tá? Another very obvious difference is the lisping of the "s" sounds in Castilian Spanish, which is typically not done in the western hemisphere. I think they can all understand each other reasonably well, though. Then there's Catalan, which is kind of a cross between Spanish and French, but that's another story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Bugs. Couldn't resist here. I spent two years in Spain, and I heard all sorts of stories about how the Castilian "zeta" began. I might just be overly defensive of the language because I speak it and enjoy it, but it's actually not a "lisp" any more than the "th" in English words like "think" and "thousand" are "lispy." Additionally, it's not pronounced on S's, but only on Z's and soft C's. So, a word like paciencia ("patience") is pronounced somewhat like "pathienthia" in Spain, where it's pronounced "pasiensia" almost everywhere else. However, I've always considered the zeta quite a bit gentler than the English "th" sound, in that the tongue barely touches the back of the teeth, if at all. It's pretty. It also allows, without relying on context, differentiating between words like (off the top of my head) casar ("to marry") and cazar ("to hunt"). When people I meet tell me that Castilian Spanish has that funny "lisp" thing, I try to remind them where the Spanish language originated. Oh yeah. Spain. :-) Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 12:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And again, I may just be over-defensive because my two years in Spain were spent in Catalunya, but writing that Catalan is a cross between Spanish and French is kind of an oversimplification. They're similar, but there's a lot more rolled in there than that. Fun to answer a question (or try to) about Castillian and Catalan today, though. Thanks! (Or should I say, "Grathias!" Ha! Ha!) Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 12:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Distinción makes Spanish very hard to understand for someone who is not a native speaker and who learned the language the seseo way. Rimush (talk) 13:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also Reforms of Portuguese orthography especially the reform adopted in 2009 where Portugal seemed to get more changes than Brazil's style did. See ther http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7807116.stm BBC article] which mentions some resistance in Portugal to "Brazilian spellings". Rmhermen (talk) 02:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To answer another part of Everard's question, I'd say that Spanish dialects are almost perfectly mutually understandable, either in written or oral form. You will find "neuter" editions of novels, but you have to suffer dialectical novelas. The suffering part derives from the content, not the dialect! :(
And, since the phonetical aspects of peninsular ~~ceceo~~ distinction have been mentioned, let me tell you that, as a Latin American speaker with seseo, I find it fascinating and quite pleasant to my ear!
On a side note, I'm watching some Galician TV for a planned trip to Galicia, and I understand 98% of the stuff. I can't match that figure with the aforementioned Catalan, though. Pallida Mors 16:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I remember my Portuguese ex-girlfriend was very cross that "Portuguese" on the web (and elsewhere?) often really meant "Brazilian". 213.122.65.209 (talk) 03:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Brazilian Portuguese discusses differences between Brazilian Portuguese and European Portuguese.

—Wavelength (talk) 14:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Portuguese Wikipedia (permanent link here),

"Portuguese articles can contain variations of writing, as European Portuguese and Brazilian Portuguese have variations in vocabulary and usage. Articles can contain written characteristics of one or the other variant depending on who wrote the article.

In 2005, a proposal to fork Portuguese Wikipedia and create a Brazilian Portuguese (pt-br) version was voted down by the Wikimedia community."

—Wavelength (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A word that means either a patronym or a matronym?

Is there a word that can refer to either a patronym or a matronym? --173.49.12.202 (talk) 08:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure what you are looking for. You mean like the word surname?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think he means a general term that refers both to a surname reflecting your father's given name and to a surname reflecting your mother's given name. But I can't help. I imagined something like "parentonym", but I only find it on a couple of Norwegian websites, so it's clearly an ad-hoc neologism in Norwegian.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 11:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's correct to call it an "ad-hoc neologism". Those Norwegian websites to which you refer, pretty much confirm that "parentonym" is an established term in Norway (One is the Norwegian Ministry of Justice and the Police, another is from the Department of Linguistic, Literary and Aesthetic Studies at the University of Bergen. The word has also been acknowledged by the Norwegian Language Council. decltype (talk) 11:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I didn't bother to actually read the google hits. Still, while the government has apparently introduced the term in 2002, it doesn't seem to have caught on very much anywhere.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's reasonable to expect new Norwegian words to "catch on" anywhere outside Norway. It's not as if Norwegian is a widely spoken international language. Or are you saying it hasn't even caught on in Norway itself? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the IP may have been implying the latter, but keeping in mind that parentonyms are unusual in Norway (for example, the notability of Audhild Gregoriusdotter Rotevatn rests in part on her parentonym!), I think the term is unlikely to occur outside of discussions directly related to the 2003 amendment to the Naming Law (which explicitly allowed parentonyms), and thus unlikely to garner a lot of google hits. decltype (talk) 16:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, patronyms may be little used today in Norway, but they are actually a very old tradition both in Norway and in Scandinavia (in fact, in much of the per-modern world), and remained common throughout Early Modern times, indeed as late as in the beginning of the 20th century. The reason why nobody has needed the cover term "parentonym" is probably because matronyms have been very uncommon. Even this is surprising, since matronyms tend to turn up wherever you also have patronyms, and one would have expected a cover term to have been devised at least in scientific circles. The OP's question was about English, and it is even more surprising that "parentonym" or something similar hasn't been created as a scientific term outside of Norway yet. Perhaps the right word is in fact out there and we just haven't been able to find it yet. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 19:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help translating from German, please

From this document I am having difficulty translating a very long sentence. In German it is:

Eine alte Tradition sagt nämlich, daß im Jahre 286 zu Trier unter Rictius Varus, dem Präfecten des Kaisers Maximianus, theils am linken Ufer der Mosel in der Nähe der Brücke, wo im Mittelalter die Kirche zum h. Victor gestanden, theils in der Nähe der St. Paulinskirche, wo ein Campus Martius als Lager und Uebungsplatz der Truppen eingerichtet gewesen, eine Cohorte der Thebäschen Legion hingerichtet wurde, weil sie Christum bekannte, den heidnischen Göttern nicht opfern und gegen die Christen, welche aus Furcht vor der Verfolgung sich zu den empörten Bauern (Bagauden) gesellt hatten, nicht kämpfen wollte; genannt sind nur ihre Anführer: Thyrsus und Bonifacius.

With some tweaking, an online translator gave me this:

An old tradition says that in 286, Rictius Varus, the prefect of the emperor Maximian in Trier, and partly on the left bank of the Moselle stood near the bridge, where in the Middle Ages, the Church of St Victor, partly in the vicinity of the Paulinskirche St., where a Campus Martius as a warehouse and training ground of troops have been set up, a cohort of Theban Legion was executed because they confessed Christ, the pagan gods and sacrifice not against the Christians, who for fear of persecution revolted to the were peasants (Bagaudae) joined, did not want to fight, only their leaders are called: Thyrsus and Boniface.

And, largely ignorant of German and not entirely understanding what's going on, I've come up with this:

An old tradition says that in 286, Rictius Varus, the prefect of the emperor Maximian, was stationed in Trier, where a Campus Martius as a warehouse and training ground of troops had been set up (where in the Middle Ages, the Church of St Victor, partly in the vicinity of the Paulinskirche St., and partly on the left bank of the Moselle, stood near the bridge). A cohort of the Theban Legion, along with their leaders Thyrsus and Boniface, were executed here because they confessed Christ and would not sacrifice to the pagan gods against the Christians, who for fear of persecution had revolted and joined the peasants (Bagaudae), but did not want to fight.

May I please request improvements, suggestions, corrections, advice? I'm not sure my "translation" is accurate enough, nor that it even mostly reflects the author's intended meaning. There also seemed to be a verb missing, relating the prefect to the Campius Martius, so I added "was stationed". But I clearly need a German speaker to make more sense of this! (For context, I've got all of the text and a rough translation here.) Thanks, :) Maedin\^talk 12:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I've come up with (also inspired by what you already had): An old tradition says that in the year 286, under Rictius Varus, prefect of the emperor Maximian, a cohort of the Theban Legion (only their leaders, Thyrsus and Bonifacius, are named) was executed in Trier, partly on the left bank of the Moselle (near the bridge, where the St. Victor’s Church had stood in the Middle Ages), partly near the St. Paulin Church (where a Campus Martius had been set up as a warehouse and a training ground for the troops), because they had converted to Christianity, did not want to bring sacrifices to the pagan gods, and did not fight against the Christians who had joined the outraged peasants (Bagaudae) out of fear of persecution. Rimush (talk) 13:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's excellent! It's so much better than what I got, :) Thank you! Maedin\^talk 14:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Rimush's translation is basically right, but he missed the last phrase, which means: "only their leaders are named: Thyrsus and Bonifacius". Marco polo (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm? It's there? "...a cohort of the Theban Legion (only their leaders, Thyrsus and Bonifacius, are named) was executed in Trier..." Maedin\^talk 19:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I were translating this professionally, I would break it up into three or four sentences, as the original author should have done. There's simply no excuse for this kind of writing. +An gr 19:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Marco Polo: I added it in there somewhere, because I took some inspiration from what Maedin had done ~~himself~~ herself. @Angr: I agree, such sentences are not even fit for German :D Rimush (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am a "herself", :) And yes, there are several sentences in the document that are desperately too long. Once the more literal translation is completed, I intend to edit for style. Can't guarantee that I'll improve it much, but I'll try! Maedin\^talk 05:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the more glad to have helped you if you are a "herself" :P Rimush (talk) 08:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest a few further tweaks:

"viz.: An old tradition says that in the year 286, under Rictius Varus, prefect of the emperor Maximian, a cohort of the Theban Legion (only their commanders, Thyrsus and Bonifacius, are named) was executed at Trier, partly on the left bank of the Moselle (near the bridge, where St. Victor’s Church would (later) stand in the Middle Ages), and partly near the Church of St. Paulinus (where a Campus Martius had been established as a camp and a training ground for the troops), because they were of Christian confession, did not want to bring sacrifices to the heathen gods, and did not want to fight against the Christians who had joined the rebellious peasants (Bagaudae) for fear of persecution. Ehrenkater (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can only agree. And I sure hope you're a native speaker. And maybe you could help with the rest of the translation on that talk page. Rimush (talk) 18:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good improvement on Rimush's already good work. Thank you, too! It's probably not worth you German speakers having a look at the rest until I've done more of the grunt work, and at the moment I'm only half-way through the document. Of course, you're welcome to, but I don't want you to waste your time with the rubbish beginnings, :) Maedin\^talk 19:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British accent

Hey all! I'm an amateur thespian and I've got a part in a play next month. The trouble is, I play a British character whereas I'm just a stupid Yankee ( ; ) ) and I can't quite seem to get the accent down. I also sometimes mix up a British accent with an Australian accent because I've been exposed to Australian English more than British English. Any tips on how to "sound British" (i.e., how to pronounce certain vowels, stress, how a setnecne goes "up and down",etc)? This accent has to be really convincing like people might think I'm really from England because this is a major play and it will have professional critics and everything. And also can somebody give pointers on the differences between AuE and BrE? THanks so much! 64.118.100.189 (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of two pieces of advice:

1. DON'T over do it. Keep it simple and subtle. (ie don't copy Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins :) 2. Pick up a copy of a nice British film from the local video store, or tune in to some BBC on your computer. Or listen to some Youtube clips. The best way to pick up an authentic accent is to listen to someone speaking it. By the way, does your character in the play come from a specific region of Britain? Duomillia (talk) 16:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit technical, but you might find IPA chart for English dialects useful.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australians are prone to high-rise terminals. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Research your character. As part of your usual research, think about what kind of British accent they are likely to have. This doesn't have to be too arduous: is there a character with a similar background in a British film or TV series? Go with that accent.
Research that specific accent. If you've picked a British celebrity or character with a lot of available footage of them talking, you can listen to that repeatedly and work at mimicking it. If you're mimicking a particular person, you're more likely to stay in the accent.
Don't try for a 'generic British' accent, since you'll go all over the place and slip into Australian. Pick an individual, and stick with it. 86.164.66.83 (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might search the archives at http://news.bbc.co.uk for a story they ran a year or two ago about a coach who specializes (specialises) in teaching British actors how to speak American, and vice-versa. The first thing American clients ask her, she says, is to make sure they don't sound like Dick ("Chim-Chim-Chimeree") Van Dyke in Mary Poppins. —— Shakescene (talk) 16:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just read this talk page discussion. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7509572.stm . (For a particularly horrid example of Britons Americanizing Badly, see the earlier episodes of As Time Goes By.) ¶ I have to second what everyone else here has said: please be more specific about your character's geographic origins, class and occupation. Just as there is no such thing as a generic "American accent" (broadcasting schools teach something Midwestern like Walter Cronkite from Missouri, Dick Cavett from Nebraska, Johnny Carson from Iowa or David Letterman from Indiana, on the theory that it's equally understandable in all parts of the U.S.), there's no single "British accent". This was brought home to me rather vividly in May when the BBC showed returning officers with authentic local accents announcing the General Election results of individual constituencies from Land's End to John o' Groats and from Belfast to Brighton. If your character is from the classes which use Received Pronunciation, London, the Home Counties or the Southeast (not East Anglia), I could give you some pointers, since I was born in London and have lived in the U.S. since 1960, but those pointers might be worse than useless for other parts of Britain. After all, as you can learn from The Story of English (which I highly recommend watching), many individual features of what's considered an American accent originated from somewhere in the British Isles. ¶ And having crossed the Atlantic thrice between the ages of 6 and 11, I instinctively and patriotically resisted re-Americanizing after re-Anglicising, so although I've done my share of acting in public, I still, after half a century in the 'States, don't trust my ability to reproduce an American accent believably on stage. Break a leg! —— Shakescene (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, of course, if varies with time, but there's a limit to how accurately you can represent that. The typical middle-class southern accent is much more Estuary in general than 10, 20, 30 years ago. But picking a likely individual to mimick gets around all of this. 86.164.66.83 (talk) 21:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The most recognizable British accents in North America are Received Pronunciation, or RP, and Estuary English. (Scottish English accents are also recognizable in North America, but they are somewhat complex and varied, and therefore difficult to zero in on.) Unfortunately, English accents vary both by region and by class. You might want to cultivate an RP accent if your character is an educated member of the upper middle class. If your character is lower middle class and could be from Southeastern England (including London), Estuary English could work. If your character is clearly working class or underclass, you are going to have to choose a heavier regional accent, such as Cockney on London's eastern periphery, or perhaps a northern accent such as Scouse. Probably the best suggestion is to pick a character from a British film whose persona is close to the one you want to emulate and to closely study and emulate that person's speech. Marco polo (talk) 19:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To British ears, Americans trying to do a "British" accent, even professionally, often sound ludicrously wrong (and no doubt the opposite is also true). For example, lurching between upper-class RP and Cockney in the same sentence. As others have said, there is no single British accent, but see American and British English pronunciation differences for some specific points. In particular be careful of the short "o" sound, as in hot, and other vowel sounds, and note that British speech is generally non-non-rhotic - e.g. "caught" and "court" are exact homophones. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I think you meant only one 'non' there, Andrew. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't exact homophones in my (roughly) RP accent. The vowels are very slightly different ("court" is slightly more rounded than "caught", that's the only difference I can pin down, but I think there is more to it than that). --Tango (talk) 00:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

XVIII century translation, please

Hello. I am a french contributor, and trying to translate this text, the highlighted part of the sentence has absolutely no meaning for me. Can you translate it in french, or in modern english. Thanks.

« ANNE, by the Grace of God, &c. To all to whom these presents shall come, greeting: Whereas Our trusty and welbeloved subiect, Henry Mill, hath by his humble peticon represented vnto Vs, That he has by his great study, paines and expence lately invented and brought to perfection an artificial machine or method for the impressing or transcribing of letters, singly or progressively, one after another, as in writing, whereby all writing whatsoever may be engrossed in paper or parchment so neat and exact as not to be distinguished from print; that the said machine or method may be of great vse in settlements and publick recors, the impression being deeper and more lasting than any other writing, and not to be erased or counterfeited without manifest discovery. »

Dhatier (talk) 16:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"By his humble petition, [Henry Mill] has represented to Us". rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great and fast. Thank you very much. Dhatier (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And if you need that clarified further, it only means "Henry claims that he has..." DaHorsesMouth (talk) 01:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Languages of Russia

I'm trying to find a good map of Russia with regional languages marked. A map similar to this one ([2]) would be amazing. --151.51.156.20 (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This http://www.ethnologue.com/show_map.asp?name=RUA may help. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And here's the European Russia counterpart on the same site. Oddly enough, Ossetic is neither on the map nor on the list.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnologue only features "Osetin" as non-immigrant language under Languages of Georgia and Languages of Turkey (Asia)]. On ethnologue's Languages of Russian Federation (Asia) Ossetic is mentioned as an "immigrant language" with an estimated 515.000 speakers. Perhaps they exclude what they consider immigrant languages from the maps? ---Sluzzelin talk 22:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"100 percent" in Spanish

Which is the correct expression for "100 percent" in Spanish: cien por ciento or ciento por ciento? 69.117.4.4 (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to this site[3] it's cien por ciento. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a good source? According to some Spanish-language websites, the Royal Spanish Academy apparently considers ciento por ciento the correct usage. Can someone verify this? 69.117.4.4 (talk) 05:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard ciento por ciento till now. A site says it's common in Mexico. Then again, someone also says that their dictionary mentions cien por cien, which is also supposedly correct. Rimush (talk) 08:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe both versions are acceptable in some sense, as their meaning would be clear to a Spanish speaker, but cien por ciento might be the "more correct" way to say it. A word that is used as a modifier in front of a singular masculine word (as opposed to the normal positioning afterwards) often drops the trailing "o". As an example, you would say buena suerte ("good luck") but you would say buen viaje ("good trip" i.e. "bon voyage") rather than bueno viaje; although if you said bueno viaje I'm sure you would be understood, it just might evoke a snicker. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My copy of Diccionario de la Lengua Española, published by La Real Academia Española says ciento por ciento but I have usually heard cien por ciento and cien por cien in conversation in Andalucia (where they tend to be more relaxed about these things). Richard Avery (talk) 15:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

cien por cien, cien por ciento or ciento por ciento are all acceptable, cf. [4]. For these cases, I can't help recommending the DPD (Diccionario Panhispánico de Dudas, published by the RAE). Pallida Mors 17:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, each region or dialect may have a "more preferred" choice. Here in South America, cien por ciento or cien por cien are used. Pallida Mors 17:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion also serves to illustrate the apparent "limitations" of Spanish vs. English. Cien por ciento would literally mean the redundant sounding "[One] hundred per hundred". In English it sounds a little more elegant somehow: "One hundred per cent". However, that's just a fancified way of saying "One hundred per hundred." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Bugs, but a language that has different words for an outer corner and an inner corner can't be all bad! Richard Avery (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 28

Pre-Germanic English in modern English

Your articles about the origin of the English language say that it mostly came from German languages with a lot of French words thrown it. What I can't find is how many words in English came from the language of the people of England before the Saxons got there. I found Lists of English words of Celtic origin, which lists words that came from the old Scottish, Irish, Welsh, and Gaul languages, but has anything survived from the pre-Saxon language of England? —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you mean by 'pre-Saxon language of England' if you do not mean the languages of the Celtic peoples on these islands? The Saxons arrived around 500AD (the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle has the earliest arrival of Saxons at 449AD, I believe) and the languages of the Britons had already broken up into Old Scots, Old Irish, and Old Welsh by that time. Proto-Celtic (or whatever the branch specific to Britain would be called) would not have influenced the language of the Saxons, as it was spoken at least a thousand years prior. There is, however, evidence of Celtic influence in certain Proto-Germanic words, such as the word for 'five' and a few other words which did not survive into the Old English period. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After Proto-Celtic had broken into Old Scots, Old Irish, and Old Welsh, but before 449AD, what language were the people of England speaking? —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the area we now call England only came to be called England after the Anglo-Saxons arrived. Prior to their arrival, the area now called England was just part of a broader land called by the Romans 'Britannia' - or 'Britain' as we call it now. This land was inhabited by the 'Britons', which is the name we give to the Celtic tribes living on the largest island of the British Isles. There were fundamentally two types - Goidelic and Bretonnic (various spellings exist for both of these) and the Bretonnic people were the ones that gave rise to the Welsh and Cornish languages. Before the Saxons turned up, these people weren't confined to Wales and Cornwall, though - they were everywhere, but through various processes (war and assimilation) the Saxons and their language became dominant in the area we call England. Therefore, it is safe to presume that the language spoken here immediately before the Saxons arrived was a slightly older version of Old Welsh or Old Cornish or other very similar 'languages' or 'dialects' (depending on how you might look at them at that time in history). --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 04:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that there was remarkably little influence. Normally an invading population will at the very least take place names from the natives, simply because it is so annoying to have to invent new ones -- just think of all the Indian names for places in the United States. But in England virtually the only Celtic-derived place names are for a few major cities such as London, York, etc.. This suggests that there were no Celts around that the Saxons could ask "what is this place called?" The few written accounts say that the Celts were devastated by a plague (in fact the Bubonic plague hit in the 540's), and the few survivors fled to the mountains of Wales. But it's hard to be certain of the truth of that. Looie496 (talk) 02:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, both London and York come from the Latin names of those cities, and many of the larger settlements will also follow this pattern, having probably been home to large Roman armies ('-caster' and '-chester' in many placenames both come from Latin 'castra', meaning 'camp'). It is actually the smaller lesser known places that are more likely to have names of Celtic origin. Hill hill hill hill is a fun example of how the Saxons (and others) probably did ask the original locals what a place was called before deciding to call it that and then adding their own word to it to describe the surrounding area (in the sense that it includes the word 'penn', from a British word meaning 'head'). --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I take it if there was little language transfer there was also little intermarrying. Were the people of England (minus Cornwall) from 449 to 1066 almost pure German? —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There probably was a fair amount of intermarrying. It is just a fact that one of the languages (English) became dominant in this area (England). --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 04:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was evidently a shift in language from Brythonic (Welsh) to English without a correspondingly large change in population. At least in the northeast of England (Yorkshire ~ Northumberland), the local modern English dialect shows Brythonic influence in the grammar, but not in the vocabulary, suggesting that native speakers were for a time a rather small minority among English language users, with the majority of English being spoken by native Brythonic speakers to each other. If one language is perceived as having greater value, languages can be replaced without any population replacement at all. Recently this happened in Angola, which is now maybe 80% Portuguese speaking despite having very little Portuguese ancestry. — kwami (talk) 05:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is Brythonic substratum influence visible in the northeast? I have never heard about such a thing before.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 15:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be more correct to say northwest - see Cumbric language and Hen Ogledd. Alansplodge (talk) 21:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, KageTora, the names of London and York are of Celtic origin. The Latin names are just Latin renderings of Celtic words. And I don't think it's true that "in England virtually the only Celtic-derived place names are for a few major cities". There are really a lot of Celtic place names in England (Kent, Dover), especially the names of rivers (Thames, Severn, Avon). And even if it were true, I wouldn't take the lack of Celtic town names as evidence that there were no Celtic speakers there before the English arrived. After all, the part of England under the Danelaw now has mostly Norse town names, but that doesn't mean it was devoid of English speakers before the Norse arrived. +An gr 06:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Angr, I suppose I should have made a clearer distinction between direct borrowing and indirect borrowing (in this case through Latin). And, ftr, the rest of your post does not refer to my post but to the one above it :) --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Towns, and substantial settlements generally, didn't really exist before the Romans and mostly didn't continue for long afterwards. The only place names which would have - and, in some cases, did - survive relate to natural features, especially rivers, and also in some places the remnants of tribal names. For instance, place names like Devon and (the first element of) Dorset contain Celtic elements, deriving from the pre-Roman tribes which the Romans called the Dumnonii and Durotriges. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is material relevant to the foregoing discussion in Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain, if you haven't already seen that. Also, I recall that someone has recently put forward a radical re-interpretation to the effect that Germanic languages were widely spoken in Britain even before the Roman Conquest. Unfortunately I can't recall his name, although I'm sure we must have material on this somewhere. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Oppenheimer? Adam Bishop (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cowboy slang...from the movies.

It's borderline whether I should be asking this on the Entertainment desk...but here goes.

I'm writing a computer game based around cheesy cowboy movies - and I need to get the lingo right for a crowd of guys in a bar. To be completely clear: I'm not in the slightest bit interested in 'realistic' speech from that era - certainly not if if comes out like the 'Deadwood' TV series!

What I need is some vocabulary - what words identify this as a "cheesy western movie"? Some I can think of are the word "Mosey" - meaning "To Walk", Burro for "Mule". But I'm short on ideas.

Go nuts...what words can you think of that fit the genre?

Thanks in advance... SteveBaker (talk) 01:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pardner (roughly equivalent to 'buddy'), hoosgow ('jail'), Madame & bordello (for some reason westerns never have male pimps). really, just go rent any old John Wayne movie, and you'll be inundated with this stuff. --Ludwigs2 01:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Critter, varmint, tarnation, ornery, tombstone, gulch, vittles, plumb tuckered out. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a good one at the end of this 40-second clip[5] and it's well known, yer dern tootin'! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That clip also has Mexicans saying "vamonos" ("let's go") which was corrupted into the western expression "vamoose". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Bugs, you old carrot-chomping septuagenarian whippersnapper, happy birthday! —— Shakescene (talk) 03:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Hey, t'anks, Doc! Just t'ink - 70 years and only one gray hare! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So Wiktionary says, but I don't see why they pick on vamonos rather than vamos. 213.122.9.117 (talk) 07:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dang nabbit! That blasted scallywag done vamoosed with mah horse! Ifin I gits my hands on him, I’ll string ‘em up! I’m a gonna stretch that no good polecat’s neck! It’ll be a real necktie party! Come on, boys! We’ll head ‘em off at the pass! Who’s with me? DOR (HK) (talk) 08:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to add posse, saloon, gun slinger, tumble weed, shoot out, round up, outlaw, rustler to the list. The "critter, varmint, tarnation, ornery" suggestion given strikes me as more Kentucky/Tennessee/Davy Crockett/hillbilly than cheesy Western? By the way, the best film to watch for inspiration is Mel Brooks' Blazing Saddles, because as a piss-take on Westerns you get all the clichés, :) Maedin\^talk 10:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also check out the overlooked Rustlers' Rhapsody. Andy Griffith plays a hilarious parody of a cattle baron. For motre vernacular, check out Cowboy Lingo. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add "fourflusher" (one who cheats in gambling), "bushwhack" (to ambush) and the noun "bushwhacker", and "tenderfoot" (or, if you're John Wayne, the synonymous "pilgrim"). Deor (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"vamonos instead of vamos" - it's a little more informal in the reflexive form, 'let's go' rather than the imperative 'we go'. Richard Avery (talk) 15:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. There's "dogey" (as in "Git along, lil dogey!"), meaning an orphaned calf. And make sure you pronounce "coyote" as "ki-YOTE". And don't forget your character needs to have "a plug a' tabacky" in his cheek when he says this stuff. Matt Deres (talk) 15:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to watch Carry On Cowboy [6] for every Wild West cliché known to us Brits. Alansplodge (talk) 16:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember how much stereotypical cowboy slang it has, but an early send-up of horse operas was the song "I'm an Old Cowhand from the Rio Grande", written by Johnny Mercer for Bing Crosby. See http://www.cmt.com/lyrics/roy-rogers-country/im-an-old-cowhand/7413395/lyrics.jhtml (an apparently legitimate, unpiratical link, CMT or Country Music Television, citing proper sources, copyright and terms of service). —— Shakescene (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yippee-i-o-ki-ay! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greek and Russian alphabet?

Why do the Greek alphabet and the Russian alphabet have some similar looking characters? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.1.80.1 (talk) 05:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because the Cyrillic alphabet is derived from the Greek alphabet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The name Tsvetelina

Tsvetelina is a Bulgarian name. Does it have any corresponding forms in other languages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.61.234.225 (talk) 08:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Svetlana, perhaps? Best, WikiJedits (talk) 09:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Svetlana is the same name. Svetlana derives from the Slavic element svet meaning "light, world". Tsvetelina seems to be related to names like Tsveta, Tsvetanka and Tsvetan (male). They come from Slavic цвете, flower. Names with the same etymology are Květa (Czech), Kveta (Slovak), ~~Kveta/Kvetka~~ Cveta/Cvetka/Cvetana/Cvetanka/Cvetina (Croatian and Slovene). Names with a similar meaning are Flora (Latin/Italian/Spanish...), Virág (Hungarian), Bluma (Yiddish). --151.51.156.20 (talk) 10:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

South Slavic variant is actually with <C> (/ts/) "Cveta/Cvetka/Cvijeta", but you're right about etymology. Those names are the most popular in Bulgaria, and the more common form is Tsvetana (Цветана). No such user (talk) 10:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The site behindthename.com could be a useful source. It's particularly good at tracing etymologies of given names, but it doesn't seem to contain Tsvetelina in its database. Bulgarian Цветан, Цвета, Цветана, Цветанка, Цветелина (Tsvetan, Tsveta, Tsvetana, Tsvetanka, Tsvetelina) are derived from Proto-Slavic *květъ, meaning "colour" or "flower". Svetlana (and its cognates) comes from Proto-Slavic *světъ, "light", and so is unrelated. Behindthename.com mentions also Croatian Cvita as what would be a corresponding form of Tsvetelina, though I would doubt it could be extremely common. --Theurgist (talk) 11:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose Cvita is an Ikavian variant. +An gr 17:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually quite possible, given the vowel in *květъ, *квѣтъ, is the yat vowel. --Theurgist (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 29

Official test for Russian

Is there a standard, broadly accepted test scheme for Russian, like the DELF/DALF exams for French? Cod Lover Oil (talk) 00:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is ТРКИ. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonian and Bulgarian

Is there an article about the differences between Macedonian and Bulgarian similiar to Differences between standard Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian, Differences between Scottish Gaelic and Irish, Differences between Spanish and Portuguese and Differences between Norwegian Bokmål and Standard Danish? I'm particularly interested about orthographical differences. --151.51.156.20 (talk) 01:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did Confucius really say that?

"One hundred women are not worth a single testicle" is a favorite saying on the web that is attributed to Confucius. No one seems to know where it came from, though. Please help. Thanks. 67.243.7.245 (talk) 02:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]