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.

June 4

English pronunciation of the Hungarian name Gyula Décsy

I am going to be interacting with a relative of the Hungarian linguist GyulaDécsy. (Not the same as the Gyula Décsi for whom we have an article.) I am assuming "Jula Daitschy" (i.e., /'dʒula 'dejtʃi/ in broad transcription) is a reasonable English approximation. Can any native or educated Hungarian speakers comment? (PS, I have obviously looked on google and English and Hungarian wikipedias.) Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 01:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no standing as a magyarophone in any formal sense, but one learns many things about languages in one's travails, and I would say your suggested pronunciation is more than reasonable. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like they say something like [ɟula] in all of these. Closest en approximation would probably be /gjuːlə/ or (/gjʊlə/ if you come from a place where /uː/ is long and central). — Lfdder (talk) 09:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Jula" ('dʒula) is not awful, but I think you will get a little closer on the first syllable by thinking of the second syllable in the word schedule and starting it with the consonant cluster in adze, then adding a glide for the long 'u' (dzʲul), then slur it slightly. The Hungarian consonant is an affricate much like English 'j' (dʒ), except that instead of the front of the upper tongue touching the front or center of the alveolar ridge, the middle of the tongue touches the back of the alveolar ridge. Marco polo (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually more concerned with the vowels. Especially, should the last name be Debt-she or Date-she or something else in an English approximation? μηδείς (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first syllable of Décsy is long (unlike in "debt-she") but a monophtong (unlike "date-she" in the majority of English speaking dialects). I don't know how do approximate this in English without referring to certain dialects that might pronounce "date" as a monophtong (and as a mid front unrounded vowel). It's a similiar problem to approximating the second syllable of the French verb coupé for English speakers. Help:IPA for Hungarian uses "pay" for approximation, a diphtong in most English dialects, and Help:IPA for French does the same for approximating "é", hence "Chevrolay Coupay" ---Sluzzelin talk 21:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wanted the length and character. Is it tense or lax? (I do understand all about the difference between diphthongs and long monophthongs and between palatal stops and alveolar fricatives. I can properly pronounce German, Russian, (and French with some effort). My fault for not making this clear.) μηδείς (talk) 21:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, at 2:42 in this "KultúRandevú" program, the moderator pronounces the name Décsy-Paál Enikővel. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, definitely tense as opposed to lax. I did speak to Mrs. Décsy this afternoon. μηδείς (talk) 01:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Indians call indians

What do people from India call indians in the americas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.221.207.235 (talk) 08:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They might also say "Indians", although nobody really calls them Indians anymore, at least not in Canada. I'm not sure about the US, but here everyone usually says "natives". "Native Americans, like us." "No, I mean American Indians." "Like me!" Adam Bishop (talk) 09:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A white friend of mine who has spent many years working with Athabaskan-speaking people in Alaska told me that while white people avoid the term "Indian" and usually say "Native American", the Indians themselves still call themselves Indians. (And people who don't care about cultural sensitivity at all may distinguish between "woo woo Indians" and "red dot Indians".) To get back to the original question, Hindi Wikipedia's article corresponding to Indigenous peoples of the Americas uses the word इंडियन (iṇḍiyan). Angr (talk) 11:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there needs to be a distinction, people will use the term "American Indian" sometimes, which always refers to "Native Americans" The similar term "Indian-American" would usually refer to South Asian Indians who immigrated to the U.S. --Jayron32 12:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, but what do you call an Indian citizen of American descent? An American-Indian I suppose, rather than an American Indian, but you can't always count on people hearing the hyphens. --Trovatore (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is the OP asking "what do people from India call people from India who are settled in the Americas"? In the UK, such people tend to call themselves Desi, especially the younger people who are descended from those who immigrated here in the 50s and 60s. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We would call them Indian-Americans or sometimes when making a distinction "India Indians". Rmhermen (talk) 14:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since the question is about "the Americas" as a whole, it might be worth noting that in the Caribbean people of Indian heritage are usually referred to as East Indians. In relation to Latin America, Salman Rushdie said in The Jaguar Smile that the Nicaraguans referred to him as "el escritor Hindú". Hindú meaning "from India" but given his cultural background, and what was to occur to him later, it was quite ironic. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many places in the Caribbean have a large number of people with ancestral connections to India. Demographics of Guyana for example draws a distinction by using the phrases "East Indian" for such people, with "Amerindian" for Native American peoples. Demographics of Trinidad and Tobago calls people with ancestry from India "Indo-Trinidadians", while people of Native decent are identified by the specific Native American ethnicity, basically Caribs. Demographics of Belize calls people with ancestry from India "Indians", while referring to people with Native American ancestry as either "Mestizo" (mixed) or by the specific Native American group (Maya, mostly). --Jayron32 17:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While people of African-Caribbean origin are widely known in the UK as West Indians. Alansplodge (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Supposing that the OP wants to know how people from India call Native Americans: In Indian English, "Red Indians" seems to be fairly common. I guess that would be considered derogatory in North America, though. --147.142.246.226 (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

latin

What is the name when qui, quae, quod open a sentence and functioning as a conjunction and personal pronoun? example here: [1] Quae pueros basiant. = Et haec pueros basiant. thanks82.81.78.228 (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page you linked to calls it the "connective relative". Angr (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And Gildersleeve and Lodge's Latin Grammar calls such sentences "relative sentences". Deor (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It helps to remember that relative pronouns are found at the beginning of what we would think of as a new sentence because Latin did not have modern punctuation. This is sort of obscured by editions which punctuate Latin according to the rules of English or another modern language, but Latin used to use words as punctuation instead. And sometimes the grammar just doesn't fit into English - a sentence like is actually just a relative clause from the previous sentence, but we don't like that sort of construction in modern languages. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to find the right word for "support"

I am trying to find the right word to mean the same thing and the opposite thing as "support". Although I am more familiar with "fail to..." instead of "do not...", I am wondering if "do not..." is also acceptable. Typically, people use "reject and fail to reject" because it's easier to deny something than it is to accept something fully and universally. However, people sometimes use "support" and "reject" as if they are opposites of each other.

The results support the hypothesis.
The results do not support the hypothesis.
The results fail to support the hypothesis.
The results confirm the hypothesis.
The results fail to confirm the hypothesis.
The results reject the hypothesis.
The results fail to reject the hypothesis.

Now, in a different situation with people:

Some people support the new law that, while in effect, would provide a practical solution to the societal problem. Other people reject the new law.

My question is: why do they sound like reiterations of the same thing? Also, in a situation where a person wants a new law to be realized but somehow fails to support it publicly, maybe that scenario can be described as "fail to support" and not "reject"? I mean, such a person does not really reject the new law; he just fails to support it. Could there be a difference between failing to do something and not really doing it? Sneazy (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Fallacy of the excluded middle. If there were a binary possibility, then you could have two perfect antonyms: Either the hypothesis is supported or refuted. However, there is a third possibility which is that the hypothesis is neither definitively supported or refuted, and language like "Fails to support" or "fails to reject" captures this middle proposition. There are also "shades of gray" which one can consider; that the acceptability of a hypothesis could be considered a continuum of possibilities between "Absolutely and total confirmed beyond the slightest doubt" and "ain't no possible way". --Jayron32 15:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shades of gray. How is that connected to the sexually explicit novel of the same name? In other words, why is the novel called that? Sneazy (talk) 16:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shades of gray was a known idiom for decades before the novel came out. It means, roughly, the idea that when an issue is presented as two alternatives (commonly called "Black or White"), there exists also a continuum of other possibilities between black and white, those being the various shades of gray. It's exactly the fallacy of the excluded middle. The title of the novel comes from the name of one of its characters (Christian Grey), and is catchy because it recalls the well-known idiom, but does so in a double-entendre in the sense that something which is "shady" is dark and dangerous. --Jayron32 16:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

French meaning of "campement"

A website said that the La Tapoa, Niger airport was " distance 3 km du Campement" - What does that mean in French? WhisperToMe (talk) 16:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, it just means "encampment", unless it's a proper name for a settlement or location in Niger, that is perhaps there is a city or village or other locale named "Campement" there. --Jayron32 16:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing it on Niger tourism websites with the meaning "campsite", which is "un camping" in standard French. So I think the website is telling you about a campsite that is only 3 km from the airport. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it seems that a "campement" is the usual word for the safari-type encampment/campsite/campground found in this part of the world. [2] Itsmejudith (talk) 17:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!WhisperToMe (talk) 17:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are we not actually discussing the English meaning of the French word "Campement"? (I'm not being picky or pedantic here; but for my sins my unique mind really does go into a tailspin of confusion in cases like this.) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Campement veut dire planter une tente dans la nature et essayer de ne pas être mangé par un lion. --Jayron32 01:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also found a place called "Doutchi" - Is this short for "Dogondoutchi"? WhisperToMe (talk) 17:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found a source saying it is WhisperToMe (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Latin translation please

Hi, all - I'm writing a chapter about a palimpsest - in the course of the story, we learn the original, semi-erased text is actually a message or letter. The original text is termed the ''scriptio inferior'', and I'd like to say something like 'the scriptio inferior is actually a scriptio epistolaris' - or some such - what I need is the second term - 'scriptio epistolaris' is obviously my crap faux Latin. Can someone provide something like that please? - pref. something with 'scriptio' as the first word?

Thanks in advance.

Adambrowne666 (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why you want to call the "writing beneath" something else, but, if so, why not simply call it the epistola?

I think you need epistolae if you mean "the writing of the letter", since epistolaris looks like the wrong declension (3rd rather than the correct choice of 1st). I think you would need the genitive, so not epistola. You might also like scriptio vera, or "true script". Then the average reader has more to go on, since it is a simple and pithy thing to read. I'm la-1 by the way. IBE (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I took epistolaris to mean epistolary, in which case -aris is correct, if a bit clunky. μηδείς (talk) 23:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

just to clarify, for dramatic reasons, I'd like the dialogue to be something along the lines of 'it's not scriptio inferior, it's scriptio xxxx!' - where xxxxx is a word meaning letter or message. Does scriptio epistolae work? Scriptio epistolaris? Thanks for the replies so far Adambrowne666 (talk) 00:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"scriptio epistolaris" (or "epistularis") is actually fine, grammatically. It would mean something like "the sort of writing found in a letter", which is a bit odd (in the sense that there are other ways of expressing that in "proper" Latin), but it fits what you're looking for. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make sure you understand that inferior means underneath, and not second-rate. (It seems an odd contrast to say "It's not the script underneath, it's the script of the letter.") That being said, scriptio or scriptum or even corpus with either litterarum (gen pl.) or epistolae works. μηδείς (talk) 01:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Medeis, yeah, got that - wouldn't make sense otherwise in the palimpsest context. And thanks too for scriptio epistolae - we have a winner! (I suffer from my Australian state school education, in that there was no hint of Latin or Greek - I was probably glad of it at the time, but now, as a writer, it can be a real handicap). Adambrowne666 (talk) 01:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hate the word 'palimpsest'. Hate it. Hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate it. I hate it. I really hate it. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]

But, Jack, what do you really feel? μηδείς (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]

I have a whole list of spleen-ventworthy words. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Hmm, some of those might be words I Just Like Saying. Some of the words I Just Like Saying are chupacabra, Tucumcari, synecdoche (the last one only after I found out how it was pronounced). --Trovatore (talk) 21:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appendectomy is obviously from appendicectomy by haplogy. μηδείς (talk) 00:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're probly right. But why not "appenditis"? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that would just be silly. μηδείς (talk) 02:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hindi

I started to watch Commando with subs and became surprised as nearly every second word they speak is English (like "Chinese", "charges", "proof" etc). The article on that film says it's in Hindi, but maybe it's some pig Hindi or other variation?--93.174.25.12 (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Code-switching, Hinglish. — Lfdder (talk) 01:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been told that the use of English words and phrases is very common in Hindi movies. — SMUconlaw (talk) 08:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

English is hip. :-) — Lfdder (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 5

What's the difference between cohabitation and domestic partnership?

What's the difference between cohabitation and domestic partnership? Where would renting out parts of the house be classified? How about having a roommate who is also a person's parent/guardian, relative or friend who shares the same household duties? Or are both cohabitation and domestic partnership formalized? Sneazy (talk) 02:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{ec} Have you read the entries? As for "how about", we don't do speculation. μηδείς (talk) 03:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of these questions have very different answers based on where you live. --Jayron32 03:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

off topic

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Medeis, how is this "speculative" under any accepted definition of "to speculate"? Bielle (talk) 03:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about your uncle's monkey, if he's in one of those countries that gives human rights to apes? Can they be domestic partners? Or how about a heterosexual illegal alien couple who aren't married, with whom you live in what would be considered half of a common-law marriage, having fathered a child on the woman? Would you, as a man, be the de facto domestic partner of the man your baby's mother? Sneazy didn't link to the articles, I added those links in the header so he doesn't have to search. If he has serious questions once he reads them, he can ask a defined follow-up question limited to a specific jurisdiction as Jayron has suggested s necessary. That we can answer. μηδείς (talk) 03:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But none of that goes to speculation. There was no speculation in the question. The "how about" part of the question was the OP wondering whether those circumstances would qualify as either cohabitation or a domestic partnership. The reason - the only reason - we can't answer it is that it's far too broad. Please don't introduce red herrings and furphys. And please accept the advice tendered by many of your colleagues that your judgment in these matters has generally been shown to be poor. If tempted to play the unelected and self-appointed sherriff, you might in future think twice. Or more. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a fixation on the definition of speculation. I don't really care what word you want to use, we can't answer such general questions, as Jayron pointed out. It's moot, and I'll be pleasantly surprised if there's a relevant follow-up question.

Thank you, ~~Alice in Wonderland~~ Humpty Dumpty. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, you are simultaneously trying to provoke me under the "clean and jerk" thread, calling me names here, and giving sinister hints that something has to be done on the talk page. What gives? μηδείς (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What gives? I can only answer that if I accept your apparent premise that I am prosecuting some anti-Medeis campaign. But I don’t, because there is no such campaign. I call each circumstance as I see it. The personality or identity of the participant(s) is irrelevant to me. I have a long track record of commenting on behaviour and not on editors personally, and encouraging others to do likewise. Not to be big-headed about it, but I should point you to this essay.

This case here was one where you accused the OP of speculating, but two editors have opined they weren’t, and none has supported your claim. Your tangent about my being fixated on the definition or meaning of a word was not worth a serious reply. It reminded me of Alice’s conversation with Humpty Dumpty, but I misattributed the quote. "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." So, thank you, Humpty Dumpty.

The clean and jerk case was one where you were speculating. I called that for what it was and explained why. I added a link to remind you that you were acting contrary to the proscription you decree to others.

The talk page: There is nothing sinister, and I gave no hints. So far from hinting, I came right out and said, plainly and unambiguously, that the thread should not have just drifted off into nothingness but should have a clear outcome, for which there are a number of possibilities. I was not involved in discussing the primary issue raised by Ferkelparade; I took no position either way. I made a couple of incidental comments, while remaining otherwise uninvolved. I only came in latterly, five days after the last comment, because the question was unresolved, just left hanging, and that always pains me. Now it’s gone off onto another fruitless tangent about fannies. This is why, as I said, I generally refrain from getting involved in those sorts of discussions, and I now regret having done so on this occasion.

Finally, I assure you that provoking you would be the very last thing on my mind. My joy would know no bounds if I and/or others could finally succeed in causing you to desist from making inappropriate utterances. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I answered the question by linking to the relevant articles and agreed with Jayron during an edit conflict we couldn't answer the rest diff. That's utterly reasonable and if the rest has any relevance it belongs on the talk page. μηδείς (talk) 00:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think domestic partnership has legal recognition in some jurisdictions, while I don't think cohabitation ever does. Heterosexual domestic partnership may have some overlap with common-law marriage (I've never heard of a common-law gay or lesbian marriage anywhere). At a more intuitive level, domestic partnership to me implies a level of longevity that cohabitation doesn't. Angr (talk) 14:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage#Canada "In 1999, after the court case M. v. H., the Supreme Court of Canada decided that same-sex partners would also be included in common law relationships." 64.201.173.145 (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sanskrit asana terminology

In regards to asanas, when are they "-asana" versus "-asan"? Compare virasana and "virasan".Curb Chain (talk) 03:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say they're āsana when pronouncing things the Sanskrit way and āsan when pronouncing things the Hindi way. Hindi apocopates the final a, which is also the reason for the variation between Bhārata (Sanskrit) and Bhārat (Hindi) as the name for India, or why modern Indian men named after Ashoka tend to be called Ashok. Angr (talk) 08:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reynier Casembroot

Do we have a Knowing Dutchman around to pronounce this name for me, please? --Omidinist (talk) 04:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first name 'Reynier' (also spelled Reinier) is fairly common, and can be heard e.g. in this video, around 33 seconds from the start. The second name I was not familiar with, but it can be heard in this video at around 0:10 seconds. - Lindert (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. --Omidinist (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Arabic title of television program

I found a program that had English subtitles saying "An Interview with: The Former Swedish Ambassador, Knut Burnstrom."

Is the original Arabic of the title Arabic: مقابلة مع سعادة السفير السويدى كنوت بيرنستروم)? (I wasn't sure if the ending part of the first word was a "ة"

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first word is لقاء , not مقابلة. The other words are correct. --Omidinist (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 18:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 6

An unpoked pig

I responded to a request for a WP:3O involving a dispute between two editors over the use of a comma after the word newspaper in the first sentence of the lede of William Hickey (columnist):

"'William Hickey' is the pseudonymous byline of a gossip column published in the British newspaper the Daily Express."

I opined that it shouldn't be there and it has now been removed by the editor who objected to its presence, but the other editor has — quite reasonably, in my opinion — expressed incredulity over whether that awkward construction could possibly be correct. I've suggested some changes to make it slightly less awkward, but they seem rather like putting lipstick on a pig. The original comma-objector is probably only interested in commas and the original comma-keeper says he's giving up. Should we keep the pig, paint 'er up, or just leave her as she is in all her glory? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the reference desk is really all that useful in dispute resolution issues. If you seek a wider audience than WP:3R perhaps WP:DRN would be useful to you? --Jayron32 17:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read the discussion, but why not "... in the British newspaper Daily Express"? Deor (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...or "...the Daily Express, a British newspaper", which neatly avoids the problem (and it's hard to contest the comma clause in this case). Andrew Gray (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Uh, I'm the most active volunteer at DRN. I was really looking for some expert opinion on English grammar in the belief that the dispute at that page had gone away and, perhaps, left the page in a less than desirable state about which I was less than certain. (And one can, I fear, derive some indication of my grammatical skills from that last sentence.) One of the disputants has now weighed back in on the talk page; if the other one does as well, then perhaps I'm wrong about the dispute having gone away, but whatever happens some expert advice would be useful. Still, if this is too DRish, I'll see if some of my DR colleagues have opinions on this matter. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this page is not best suited for the discussion to take place, this is not pertinent here, but I should make a clarification nonetheless that I think is of utmost importance: when the second editor "expressed incredulity over whether that awkward construction could possibly be correct", this was with regards to the totally incorrect wording (ie, lack of a comma) in "...a gossip column published in the Daily Express a British newspaper.", not the original edit, "...a gossip column published in the British newspaper the Daily Express". (Though he may also feel incredulous over that edit.) Deor, I did suggest that wording, but on further consideration I see no reason to drop the "the" over some very slight clunkiness when you would otherwise always use it (eg. "I bought the Daily Express", not "I bought Daily Express"). Please see Talk:William Hickey (columnist) for the full discussion. Alexetc (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. As the "other editor", I certainly did not express incredulity over the fact that Alexetc's wording "could possibly be correct". I objected to it initially (and still dislike it), but what I did express incredulity over was TransporterMan's claim that the same principle of omitting the comma should be applied to a further ("C") wording that I had proposed (and, at that point, implemented), which was precisely the wording suggested above by User:Andrew Gray. Anyone still interested in further discussion had better go back to the article talk page ! Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've been wrong about just about everything here. This does, indeed, need to go back to the article talk page and, if no resolution can be had there (in which I will not participate further), should go on to DRN, where I will also not participate. Sheepishly, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TransporterMan, please see me most recent post on Talk:William Hickey (columnist) (as at 22:11, 6 June 2013); unfortunately Ghmyrtle has been significantly inconsistent on two counts and I think that this has poisoned the well and sabotaged your adjudication. I was confident that when you said "now I've done some research on the matter", you had reached the same conclusion as me and your decsision was correct; if you do feel however you've "been wrong about just about everything here", that is up to you to say (I was certainly concerned by some of the suggested alternatives - yours and others - beyond Wording C, but I think, that aside, you did in essence get the argument!). It really does boil down to one of the most basic English rules - you don't put a comma between an adjective and a noun - and my latest post explains this with specific regard to a united common and proper name. I've begun to explain why Wording C is unnecessary with regard to "clunkiness" and is not the WP consensus with regard to the normal phrasing used in such sentences; I've already gone on enough but I would be more than happy to expand on this if requested to. Wording B really is the only option. I would welcome your response. Alexetc (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear me. I made one mistake in confusing wordings A and B - a mistake now duplicated by Alexetc in his own latest post ("..me most recent post...") on that talk page. These things happen - I'm very sorry. But it's not very important, and to suggest that in some way I have "sabotaged" an "adjudication" (which wasn't an adjudication anyway, it was an opinion) is as completely preposterous as the suggestion that the sentence can only be worded in one way. Anyway, not a matter for this page, I think. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your clarification and correction of your confusion over Wording A and B. It seems I have done the same in my last post, so I in turn also apologise and have corrected it. I also apologise for the use of the word adjudication, it is indeed an opinion. If that opinion wasn't subsequently put into doubt, though, I think we would now be on Wording B, since TransporterMan's initial opinion ended, "thus no comma [as in Wording B]" and made no mention of a Wording C. Until TransporterMan or someone else provides an opinion, that I guess is moot at the current time. So, we both made a mistake in confusing wordings A and B, have apologised and corrected it; I'm fine with that. Attacking a spelling mistake ("me") that has no material impact on the discussion, though, is not going to get you very far (though it marks one of the very few actual arguments you've made); accidents happen (see your "Oh dear me. I made one mistake..."). My point about your change to Wording C still stands, as I have now discussed back over on Talk:William_Hickey_(columnist). Please check my posts, however; I have never made "the suggestion", nor for that matter explicitly said, "that the sentence can only be worded in one way". It clearly can be, but as I have argued, should not be: I said, "Wording C has no WP:CONSENSUS on how such sentences are normally phrased on the majority of pages and should not be used". Again, I've now discussed this back over on Talk:William_Hickey_(columnist). Alexetc (talk) 11:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Wording B really is the only option." (your words). That is, "..the sentence can only be worded in one way." (my words) Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's further nit-picking without contributing your own argument, as I would have said "only correct wording" if that's what I meant, but I should have been more clear: Wording B really is the only option that should be considered. That is very different to your "..the sentence can only be worded in one way.", which I never said and certainly haven't argued. In addressing this exact point, I just said, "I have never made "the suggestion", nor for that matter explicitly said, "that the sentence can only be worded in one way". It clearly can be, but as I have argued, should not be", before going on to explain myself fully and rigorously. Alexetc (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the etymology of the "dukes" part of "ma dukes" or "mama dukes"

In some African American dialects, you can refer to your mom as "ma dukes". What does the dukes part mean?--Jerk of Thrones (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology on Line almost always has the answer. I suspected Cockney rhyming slang, and EO says either that or Romany. See this. μηδείς (talk)

Oops, I read your headline, but not the comment. Can you give a source for that phrase? I have never heard it. It may come from the name, as in Marmaduke. Urban dictionary says. μηδείς (talk) 19:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Cockney rhyming slang "dukes" is now entirely obsolete, but in my 1960s childhood, people still used to say "put up your dukes" (ie, "raise your fists") if they were jokingly challenging someone to a fight. I haven't heard it said in years. Alansplodge (talk) 09:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Biggie Smalls uses the phrase in some of his raps when referring to his mother. I have heard other people from Brooklyn say it as well. There also use to be a soul food restaurant called Mama Dukes in my neighborhood. And where does urban dictionary (hardly a reliable source, but that's beside the point) say it comes from Marmaduke?--Jerk of Thrones (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, you tell me. Where does Urban Dictionary say that? μηδείς (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, where does any reliable source make such a claim? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, Jack. Whoever is suggesting there is one should post it. μηδείς (talk) 00:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We're only discussing Marmaduke because someone - their name escapes me for the moment - speculated that it might be the source of "dukes". If that person cannot come up with a source, they should withdraw their speculation and promise never to speculate again, in accordance with their frequent enjoinder to others. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A young African American man called me today to my place of business and said I'm coming with my dukes. I din't misunderstand his reference. When I asked him what it meant he said, "mom". 50.249.186.206 (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't. That would be more of that speculation we welcome with open arms around here. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Open arms and closed fists ... Clarityfiend (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 8

Pronunciation of -ova names

Hi, English speakers typically pronounce Russian -ova names with the stress on the penultimate -o- syllable (e.g. Maria Sharapova). However, a few (e.g. Svetlana Kuznetsova) seem to be pronounced with the stress on the preceding syllable. Is there any basis for such distinction in the original language, or is it just a random choice by English speakers? 86.160.218.94 (talk) 01:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a random choice, in Russian the surnames are pronounced Sharápova and Kuznetsóva, that is vice versa of the English practice.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 01:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's the villainess from the greatest James Bond film ever made, Katínka Ingabogóvinana.

OK, thanks. Is there any known reason for the different stress patterns in the Russian pronunciation? 86.167.19.205 (talk) 11:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Russian has free stress, and there's no real way to predict. Stress affects pronunciation very strongly, and it can even vary by case. You just have to learn it. μηδείς (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any exception to this rule (which doesn't mean there isn't one): The feminine name is stressed on the same syllable as the masculine name it's derived from. So ShaRAPov, ShaRAPova; KOURnikov, KOURnikova (that one's hard to say for anglophones). --Trovatore (talk) 18:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The exception is for the names that end in stressed -in: Fomín, Fominá; Karamzín, Karamziná; etc. But unstressed -in does follow your rule: Nikítin, Nikítina. Lesgles (talk) 21:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool; thanks. --Trovatore (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Digressing — I do find it slightly annoying that plenty of people in the press don't seem to know that surnames in Russian, Greek, etc, are declined for gender. I saw a piece recently on Zubeidat Tsarnaeva and her son, "Tamerlan Tsarnaeva".) --Trovatore (talk) 18:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I knew very well that surnames are declined for gender in Russian, Czech, and I assume Polish and most/all Slavic languages. It had never occurred to me that they might be declined in Greek. How many famous Greek women's names do we know for reference? Melina Mercouri, Nana Mouskouri. Is i a feminine ending? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]

The infobox in Mercouri's article says her father's name was Mercouris. I knew a girl with the last name Voutsina; I had always assumed the masculine form was Voutsinos, but in searching I find Voutsinas. So maybe they just leave off the s for the ladies. You know, what with the Greek economy and all, they don't have spare esses just lying around to waste on the girl babies. --Trovatore (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is correctly termed variable stress. It is lexical, for given word stem it usually occupies the same place in all flections, including M/F variations, yes. About “affects pronunciation very strongly”… IMHO is it a reference to vowel reduction in Russian, a great inconvenience when you hear a word and want to know its spelling (but then you hear where is a stress), and not a serious obstacle when you pronounce a word with given spelling, because reduction can be ignored without making a Russian pronunciation really corrupted. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

В нашем диалекте (по-русински) нет аканья, и ударение как в польском языке — ставится на предпоследнем слоге. μηδείς (talk) 19:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Originally these surnames are singular possessive adjectives. But as I personally noticed (I don't know if there's a exact rule and if it always works) -ov surnames bear stress exactly like in the genitive plural form of the corresponding or resembling word: kuznéts "blacksmith" - (of whom?) kuznetsóv "of blacksmiths" => Kuznetsóv(a). So you just need to look for that (genitive plural) form in a dictionary (like this) to predict the right stress.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few exceptions to that too, like Быков, which apparently is stressed on the first syllable in order to avoid the association with бык. But it probably works in 90% of the cases. Lesgles (talk) 01:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite see how that avoids the association with бык. It seems to almost guarantee it. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say, just to avoid confusion with быко́в, a plural genitive form of wikt:бык. BTW this is a case where the stress jumps to a word ending from the stem: it occurs for some nouns, but for others do not, without a regularity. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I remembered where I read about it—in Boris Unbegaun, Russian Surnames: "Another tendecny governing stress-shift is semantic or, rather, psychological: it reflects the desire to get away from a vulgar or commonplace etymology. This happens mainly in disyllabic surnames, as, for example, Býkov (byk 'ox', gen. byká), Kótov (kot 'tomcat', gen. kotá), Lómtev (lomót' 'hunk', gen. lomtjá), Zërnov (zernó 'grain'), but cf. also Stárikov (starík 'old man', gen. stariká), Žívotov (živót 'belly', gen. životá). In most of such cases a well-established family tradition is involved" (p. 28). Lesgles (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It can get tricky with eponyms. The dessert is correctly pronounced pav-LO-va but, as educated New Zealanders and Australians know, the ballerina after whom it was named was Anna PAV-lova. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maths / Math

I teach Mathematics, in Australia. We shorten that word to Maths, always. That appears to be the case in the UK too.

I know that Americans say Math, rather than Maths. Is that all Americans, all the time? How about Canadians?

And how about English speakers elsewhere?

And how and when did the difference arise? HiLo48 (talk) 07:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I did a postdoc in math in Canada, but I can't really remember. I do remember them saying zed-eff-see, which I never really did get used to, though I adjusted to Celsius and the pronunciation of ou pretty well (actually, the Canadian pronunciation of ou is just how it's spelled).

I would assume that means they say math, but I'm not really sure.

Anyway, maths appears to treat mathematics as a plural word, which to me is sort of odd, because it takes a singular verb, as far as I know, in all varieties of English (anyone care to dispute that)? It's clearly plural in origin, but it seems to be singular now, and the word *mathematic really does not exist in contemporary language. --Trovatore (talk) 08:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually a discussion of the seeming plural nature of Mathematics in our article on it (3rd paragraph), suggesting that it goes back to Latin and Greek words meaning roughly "all things mathematical". HiLo48 (talk) 08:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I agree, in origin it's plural, as I said. But that was then. You can't really say *mathematics are difficult in any English variety I'm aware of. There seems to be a general tendency for some plurals to singularize. Mathematics and agenda are already gone; I am still willing to fight over criteria, phenomena, and dice. --Trovatore (talk) 08:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody thinks of such considerations when using these words in speech. It's down to whatever one is acculturated to. 'Maths' seems to fit very nicely with 'stats', but I know from earlier discussions on this topic that some people abbreviate the study as 'stat', reserving 'stats' for actual numbers. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a teacher of teenagers I try to present material from wide range of sources, but often have to explain to my students what a die is. (As well as what Math is!) HiLo48 (talk) 08:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've pretty much given up on people treating opera as a plural, too. Angr (talk) 08:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(* wink *) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Mathematics are difficult" sounds perfectly fine to me. — Lfdder (talk) 09:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Where are you from? Are you a native speaker? --Trovatore (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but at least one out of "Math are difficult" or "Maths are difficult" may not. HiLo48 (talk) 09:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about "Physics are difficult"? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 09:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd always say maths/physics is difficult, but I might say mathematics are difficult. It doesn't feel wrong for 'mathematics'. — Lfdder (talk) 09:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it's a moveable feast for me. "What are his politics?", but "Politics is a fascinating subject". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 09:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am from the UK and "mathematics/maths are difficult" sounds impossible to me. 86.167.19.205 (talk) 11:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Canada we say "math". I have never heard anyone say "maths", not even old people who are more prone to Britishisms. I suspect the vast majority of Canadians do not even know that other English speakers say "maths". Adam Bishop (talk) 09:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And that's got me thinking about the fact that Australian kids aren't aware that Americans (or Canadians) say Math rather than the Maths they're familiar with. You see, Aussie kids know an awful lot about American culture from TV, movies and music, but not that bit. Obviously Americans never mention Mathematics in TV programs, films or songs. HiLo48 (talk) 10:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which is weird, since I've been hearing "Math" on American TV programs and movies for longer than I can remember. I'm sure your kids have heard it plenty of times too, but the ability to notice detail seems to be a thing of the past. There's probably an app for that now. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 10:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Yeah, the expression "Do the math" seems common enough, but it doesn't seem to sink in. HiLo48 (talk) 10:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, you've maxed out cynicism. ;P — Lfdder (talk) 10:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm sure it's a skill which grows with age. Anyway, we seem to have confirmed that math is the norm in the US and Canada, while it's maths in the UK and Australia. What about other English speakers? HiLo48 (talk) 11:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's maths in Singapore (former British colony). — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yeah, I thought about the British colony thing. The US and Canada are former British colonies too, but separated much further back. Still interested in where and when the abbreviation evolved HiLo48 (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Online Etymology Dictionary has "math" from 1890 and "maths" from 1911. I bet both of them go back much further. It's not at all surprising that the word should be abbreviated, as school slang among pupils, or by staff issuing timetables. And not surprising that American high schools didn't bother to liaise with English public schools before settling on an abbreviation. Les maths in French BTW. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's interesting. So we don't get to find out if Mathematics is masculine or feminine. HiLo48 (talk) 22:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We do, feminine, cf Wiktionary. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) In Italian, it's feminine singular: la matematica. I assume it's feminine in all neo-Latin languages, but they aren't always consistent ("flower" is masculine in Italian but feminine in French), so I wouldn't guarantee it 100%. --Trovatore (talk) 23:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still use maths (after 39 years in Canada) but my son uses math. I'm not sure though that the length of time has too much influence on pronunciation as Canadians say /lɛfˈtɛnənt/ as opposed to /ljuːˈtɛnənt/. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 05:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who says /ljuːˈtɛnənt/? Genuinely curious. My yod-dropping is pretty minimal by American standards; for example, I keep the yod in news. But I certainly drop it in Lieutenant. So the ones who say /ljuːˈtɛnənt/ — are they Americans who have even less yod-dropping than I do, or are they speakers of some other variety that doesn't say "Leftenant"? --Trovatore (talk) 07:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to Lieutenant#Pronunciation, /ljuːˈtɛnənt/ is a US pronunciation and the guy I was talking to a few years ago from the 109th Airlift Squadron used that form. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You specifically remember the detail that he said lyoo-TEN-ant instead of loo-TEN-ant? I mean, could be, but I'm curious where he might have been from. It's a surprising pronunciation for an American. --Trovatore (talk) 20:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the IPA at Lieutenant isn't correct then. It says ".../ljuːˈtɛnənt/ lew-TEN-ənt...generally associated with anyone from the United States." (Referenced from http://www.bartleby.com/61/73/L0157300.html). Of course I can't find the entry in the reference given but http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/lieutenant gives the IPA as luːˈtenənt.

Exactly. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unsurprisingly it's 'Maths' in Ireland Stanstaple (talk) 20:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Russian verb conjugation

In wiktionary's section of Russian verbs the conjugation class of each verb is told. There seem to be sixteen different conjugation classes, but I haven't found any explanation of how the conjugations are formed in each class. Can these rules be found somewhere? 85.76.153.6 (talk) 08:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the classification system of Andrey Zaliznyak from his Грамматический словарь, so you could look for that. Another way is to look at the actual templates that Wiktionary uses (English and Russian). There are many different methods, though. See e.g. the single-stem verb system. Lesgles (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google for Andrei Zalizniak Petit dictionnaire pratique russe-français : suivi d'un « Précis de déclinaison et de conjugaison russes », et d'« Éléments de phonétique russe », page 584 and following. You should understand a little French though.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 19:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you understand Russian it's much better to read «Русская грамматика» by the Russian Academy of Science.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 19:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the meaning of pikasheen

Would you please teach me the meaning of 'pikasheen' in "It was a girl like Eve Malone, a little pikasheen who wouldn't have had a drink on her at all, that would end up in hospital."123.227.223.236 (talk) 13:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)dengen[reply]

It obviously means a tiny little thing from the context, but I'm not sure where it comes from, as I don't know Irish. I see the only other reference google turns up is one asking the exact same question on a word reference forum. --Xuxl (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For context, the word appears in the novel Circle of Friends by Maeve Binchy, published in 2007: "Dessie Burns said that there was a lot of truth in the theory that if you fell down drunk, you never hurt yourself, a theory he had tested only too often. It was a girl like Eve Malone, a little pikasheen who wouldn't have had a drink on her at all, that would end up in hospital." Google Books finds no other occurrences. This question has been asked on an internet forum, but didn't get any answer that seemed very convincing. My guess is that it derives somehow from Gaelic. Looie496 (talk) 14:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds very likely to be from Irish Gaelic, but an Anglicised version, since the Irish alphabet has no letter K. The rather similar sounding "Colleen" is from the Irish cailín. Alansplodge (talk) 21:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like it's probably some sort of diminutive of Irish pioc (pronounced "pick"), which means "a bit, jot, whit", although that's usually a negative polarity item usually used only after negatives (i.e. "not a bit, not a whit"). The suffix -ín is an extremely common diminutive (as in cailín "girl", from which the name Colleen is derived), but I'm not sure what the -ash- is doing. I can't find any word in any of my Irish dictionaries that looks likely to be anglicized "pickasheen". Incidentally, Circle of Friends was published in 1990; I assume your copy was simply printed in 2007. Angr (talk) 22:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) A stab in the dark, but picasin (which perhaps sounds a bit like "pikasheen") seems to mean "pickle".[3] Hopefully, a Gaelic speaker will happen by with a better answer. Alansplodge (talk) 22:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No; it says it can't find the word picasin (which isn't orthographically possible in Irish anyway) and is offering you the word picil ("pickle") as a possibility for what it thinks you might have meant. Angr (talk) 22:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do'h! It was the name of a racehorse and I thought I might be on to something. Alansplodge (talk) 23:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This forum discussion suggests "pixie", "piscín", and "pigsney". Piscín, "kitten" sounds the most likely to me (pishkeen > picksheen > pickasheen). Binchy also uses the spellings "pickasheen" and "pickaheen", unless some of those are misprints. Lesgles (talk) 00:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 9

"the more easily"

What is going on with "the" in this sentence:

"That they might run the more easily."

or this one:

"So we can do it all the more easily."

?? Wrad (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assume it's the same as in "the more the merrier", but with adverb as linguistic head... AnonMoos (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a similar structure to All the better to see you with. Not sure what this is called, but it is not an uncomfortable English construction. --Jayron32 21:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible: "… and that they might the better know the men he spoke of".

And here’s a charming thought: "... that they might the better know how to conquer and kill their enemies, and not be easily fatigued by doing so".

All the best to you and your family. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our article the says it is used in comparisons such as the bigger the better, with a slightly different etymology, but it doesn't give a source or link. Wiktionary advises its an instrumental form The etymology 2. This comports with my memory of looking this up decades ago. μηδείς (talk) 00:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 10

Trying to remember a word

I ran across a definition a while back and now I can't remember the word for it. Could anyone help? The word was defined as having painted over an older painting or using an old canvas. There's a word for it that, for the life of me, I just can't recall and it's really bugging me. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 00:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't mean palimpsest by any chance? That is the reuse of parchment, rather than cavas, but it has a similar meaning. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pentimento. Matt Deres (talk) 00:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, I was wrong about the definition as well. I was thinking of palimpsest but now have a new word with pentimento! Thanks to both of you, not only for helping me remember what I had forgotten but adding to what I know as well! Dismas|^(talk) 01:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

June 11

Different word orders in Latin

Would I be scorned for writing Latin in subject-verb-object style? Do most educators insist on subject-object-verb? --66.190.69.246 (talk) 09:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scorned? Perhaps not. But you'd be identifying yourself as someone who (a) speaks an SVO language and (b) formulates their thoughts in their native language, and then translates them into Latin, rather than thinking directly of the Latin words for the concepts they want to speak of. SOV is neither mandatory nor uniform, but it is the commonest standard, and it's best to learn how to that, so that if you see an apparently fluent reader use a different order, you'll recognise that it stands out. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Latin, like in any language, a sentence is usually a lot more complex than subject-verb-object. It's just a general guideline that in Latin, the order is subject-object-verb. Latin uses SVO sometimes too, like Caesar's "Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres". Doesn't that look like it was written and translated by a native English speaker? Adam Bishop (talk) 11:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly the kind of exception I was talking about at the end of my comment. For comparison, here's a slab from further down the first chapter of De Bello Gallico:

His rebus adducti et auctoritate Orgetorigis permoti constituerunt ea quae ad proficiscendum pertinerent comparare, iumentorum et carrorum quam maximum numerum coemere, sementes quam maximas facere, ut in itinere copia frumenti suppeteret, cum proximis civitatibus pacem et amicitiam confirmare. Ad eas res conficiendas biennium sibi satis esse duxerunt; in tertium annum profectionem lege confirmant. Ad eas res conficiendas Orgetorix deligitur. Is sibi legationem ad civitates suscipit. In eo itinere PERSUADET Castico, Catamantaloedis filio, Sequano, cuius pater regnum in Sequanis multos annos obtinuerat et a senatu populi Romani amicus appellatus erat, ut regnum in civitate sua occuparet, quod pater ante habuerit; itemque Dumnorigi Haeduo, fratri Diviciaci, qui eo tempore principatum in civitate obtinebat ac maxime plebi acceptus erat, ut idem conaretur persuadet eique filiam suam in matrimonium dat. Perfacile factu ESSE illis probat conata perficere, propterea quod ipse suae civitatis imperium obtenturus esset: non ESSE dubium quin totius Galliae plurimum Helvetii possent; se suis copiis suoque exercitu illis regna conciliaturum confirmat. Hac oratione adducti inter se fidem et ius iurandum dant et regno occupato per tres potentissimos ac firmissimos populos totius Galliae sese potiri posse sperant.

That's clause-final indicative verbs in bold and clause-final infinitive verbs in italic. The three words in ALL CAPS are the only verbs of either kind that I could find other than at the ends of their clauses; in all three cases there's a good structural reason for their different position. So yes, Caesar's opening sentence stands out - which is how word order is used in Latin. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Game rules interpretation

I have recently bought a table game and am having difficulty interpreting the rules.

Basically, at the start of the game, players are given cards of two types (Type “A” and Type “B”) of which they must keep some and discard others. The line in the rules that I have problems with is…

“At the start of the game, each player is dealt 1 Type “A” and 3 type “B” cards, of which he must keep at least two”

Does this imply that a player must start with a minimum of three cards (one Type “A” and two Type “B”) or with a minimum of two (optionally discarding the Type “A” card and one type “B”)?

Many thanks in advance for your help CoeurDeHamster (talk) 09:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best we can do from that information would be to say "it's ambiguous". It could reasonably be interpreted in either of the ways you've suggested. Maybe if you tell us what the game is we might know someone who's played it who can help. Alternatively, read further on through the rules to see if you pick up any hints - for example, if it refers to playing 3 cards at a time, this would suggest you need a minimum of 3 cards in your hand. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 09:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for that. I guess I could go to boardgamegeek to get a definitive answer, but I was more interested in the opinion of a language expert. It would appear that, as written, the rule is ambiguous. FYI, the game is "Ticket to Ride - Legendry Asia", one of the family of TTR games. Others in the family have this same concept, notably "Ticket To Ride - Europe" but there the rules are explicit saying that the player has to start the game with a minimum of two cards; but the rules have been amended for this newer game. Also, for clarification, the Type "A" cards are "Long Route" cards and Type "B" are "Regular Destination" cards. Many thanks indeed for your help. CoeurDeHamster (talk) 10:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What does this sentence mean?

In a Gangnam Style parody, there is a line "She can put Target to God. She gobble gay." (search for "Gangnam Style misheard lyrics"). I know that it is just a mondegreen of the original Korean line, but please explain it's meaning, as if it makes some sense, using figurative meanings of words like "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously". Czech is Cyrillized (talk) 10:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something sounds like words, doesn't mean it conveys meaning. I suggest you apply your own meaning to this nonsense, just as you have applied your own interpretation to the Korean sounds. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" although nonsensical, there are attempts to deduce a meaning from it (see the article). I want you to do the same with the misheard Korean line above. Czech is Cyrillized (talk) 11:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"She can put Target to God; she gobble gay" is simply a reference to a female person who voraciously consumes lightheartedness or homosexuality and suggests that God shop at Target. Isn't this obvious? Bus stop (talk) 11:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the OP will put an effort to ask the question if it is that obvious to him/her. 203.112.82.128 (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese "fodase"

When someone, like Cristiano Ronaldo, says "fodase", does it mean 'fuck you' (referring a concrete person) or something like 'fuck' (general). 95.20.142.95 (talk) 16:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the word "literally"

Recently on NPR, I've heard them use the word "literally" in a way that I think is wrong. What I'm wondering is if I'm correct or they are.

The first time was in a story about the trial of Whitey Bulger where the reporter said that Bolger was "...literally above the law..." The second was in a story about the recent college shootings in California. They were reporting on the story as it was happening and the reporter said that events were "...literally unfolding..."

The way I see this is that both "above the law" and "unfolding" are being used in a metaphorical sense and cannot therefore be literal. Am I right? Dismas|^(talk) 19:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think about it like this, literally should be used when describing something that is actually happening, the proper form to use in the phrases above would be "figuratively" which describes things more metaphorically. Example: "I am literally on fire." should mean that I am actually ablaze! While "I am figuratively on fire" would mean that I feel like I am on fire. Tombo7791 (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the first one you certainly are. For the second one, if the reporter said "literally unfolding as I speak" or something similar, and the events were actually taking place at that very time, I would probably cut the reporter some slack. Anyway misuse of "literally" is very common. Looie496 (talk) 19:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those are "incorrect" uses of literally - however, in common usage the word has begun to be used more as a sort of superlative than as a word that means "not metaphorically". My favourite example was when a local newspaper claimed that a football team, after a one-sided defeat, had been "literally disembowled". Yikes!

Policing language is a generally futile endeavour, however. 64.201.173.145 (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]