Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

February 28

Hardenstein

I've got a stub worked up in my sandbox about the castle described in this German Wikipedia article. What would be the proper English translation of the title? Hardenstein? Hardenstein castle? Hardenstein Castle? Hardenstein ruins? Hardenstein castle ruins? None of the above? Thanks for any help. — Dulcem (talk) 03:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Short followup: A check of Category:Castles in Germany shows that there is apparently no standardization in the naming of German castle articles. I guess I can take my pick, though suggestions are still welcome. — Dulcem (talk) 04:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

And I've decided to put it at Castle Hardenstein, as that name gets exactly one more Google hit than the reverse does (when removing text swiped from Wikipedias). — Dulcem (talk) 05:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion, but I believe one criterion to be considered is the usage of the words Castle v Schloss in published references in English. Neuschwanstein Castle is very famous, and English uses the translated name more often than not. Schloss Leonberg is not very famous, and here the German name might be preferable for en.wikipedia's lemma. (Interestingly, the article on Schloß Pötzleinsdorf even uses orthography before the German spelling reform of 1996 - Schloß instead of Schloss). Here are all the lemmas starting with Schloss (redirects are in italics). There's a similar discussion going on right now at Talk:Lake of Gruyère. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Also consider that the terms Caste and Schloss (or Schloß) are not synonyms.

• A castle is a medieval structure, real or faux architecture (as Neuschwanstein).
• A Schloss is, typically, a Baroque building. The translation proper would be palace or - when smallish - mansion.

In Vienna, for instance, you will find the Hofburg (13th century) and Schloss Schönbrunn (construction 1696).

There seems to be some inconsistency in the titles. Ambras in the Tyrols is called Ambras castle in the en.wikipedia and Schloss Ambras in the de.wikipedia, for instance. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 09:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Schloss Hardenstein actually gets a few more hits than the other alternatives, but not to any English sites. I guess I'll just take the German Wikipedia's lead, which calls it "Burg Hardenstein". — Dulcem (talk) 09:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The solution Sluzzelin suggested is more or less the one (I) proposed on List of castles and fortresses in Switzerland. As far as I'm concerned, please avoid "Hard rock castle". -- User:Docu

precum in spanish

how do you say it, preeyaculado? i had trouble explaining this term while in latinaméricaCholga^talK! 03:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Spanish Wikipedia calls it líquido preseminal, and precum even redirects to that article. I suppose fluido de Cowper might work too. I don't know a colloquial word, but wordreference.com's forum offers some suggestions. --Sluzzelin talk 07:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

江宜玲 in english, pinyin etc

is it joyce chang?Cholga^talK! 03:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

A google search suggests "Joyce Chiang". Chiang is more likely than Chang in any case, because the pinyin of the Chinese name is Jiāng Yílíng. See also 江宜玲 (links to wiktionary). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Grammar: before me, or before I did?

Which is right here:

"You knew the answer before I did" or

"You knew the answer before me"?

I have a feeling it's the first choice, because "before" is acting like a subordinate conjunction and not like a preposition here, correct? I'm sorry, I really wasn't sure when I started typing this, but now I'm almost positive. I only submit this question know to make sure. Thanks in advance.

There is no right or wrong here. Both are seen, and both are commonly accepted. More pedants will object to the second sentence than to the second first [*ahem*], for what that's worth. The first sentence is more likely to turn up in formal contexts, and the second sentence in less formal contexts.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 04:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Of there there's right here -- both versions are right.

If there are pedants who object to #2, they are seriously misguided. They are presumably "reasoning" from analogy with these sentences:

3. You are smarter than I am.

3A. You are smarter than I.

4. You are smarter than me.

among which they think that #4 is wrong because it uses "than" as a preposition. But even though they may think (wrongly) that "than" cannot be a preposition, nobody thinks that "before" cannot be a preposition.

--Anonymous, 05:02 UTC, February 28, 2008.

Quite so, Anonymous. They would be mere pendantasters, would they not? Not worthy of the badge. Nevertheless, since almost no pedant would object to the first sentence and some recreant pretenders would censure the second, what I say holds good, no? (Allowing for the digital slip that I have just corrected, that is.)

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 07:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

However, there are some situations (the original question isn't one of them) when writing "before" followed by a personal pronoun where you do have to be very careful in order to avoid ambiguity. "He urinated before me" could mean that he urinated in front of the speaker, splashing their shoes and trousers, or it could mean he urinated first, and then the speaker did. Context usually helps, but even with context it's not always absolutely clear what the writer's trying to communicate. If the second interpretation was the right one, to avoid any possible misinterpretation the writer would be duty bound to write "He urinated before I did". -- JackofOz (talk) 07:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that this specific "in front of" meaning of "before" is obsolete in the US. We understand it with difficulty in some contexts (e.g., swine and thrones), but if he urinated before me in the US, my only concern would be that he got it all in the urinal so I wouldn't have to stand in it when I got there. Nobody would say it that way if he meant "right in front of". Is that "before" really the usual way of putting that Down Under?

It's certainly still a current meaning in the UK. "He stood before me..." and other such constructions. Although it can sound a little formal, and I don't think it is used in all places "in front of" can be used. Skittle (talk) 12:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

-How dare you fart before the Queen!

-I'm sorry, I didn't know it was her turn. 80.254.147.52 (talk) 11:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I rest my case. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

urinal in spanish

how do you call it in spanish, i wan't to translate the article.Cholga^talK! 04:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Mingitorio or urinario. The interwikilink to Spanish Wikipedia was missing in the English article on urinal. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Subject-verb agreement

1. What is the proper verb (singular or plural) when you have a noun and a parenthetical noun that differ in number?

2. What is the proper verb (singular or plural) when you have a compound subject, each of which differs in number?

3. What is the adjective / relative pronoun (singular or plural) when you have a compound subject, each of which differs in number?

• 1. I think that even one hazing incident (not to mention, the fraternity's three incidents) _____ inexcusable. Do we use "is" or "are" in this sentence? And why?

• 2. The parents or the child _____ required to show identification at the door. ( that is, 2 parents OR 1 child must do so ) Do we use "is" or "are" in this sentence? And why?

• 3. The parents or the child must show _____ identification at the door. ( again, 2 parents OR 1 child must do so ) Do we use "their" or "his" in this sentence? And why?

It is clear that any of these sentences can be rewritten to avoid this problem. Nonetheless, what is the correct grammatical form for these sentences as currently presented? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC))

For 1, the parenthetical text can be ignored, as if it weren't there. Solution - use "is". For the others, I'm ambivalent. -- JackofOz (talk) 10:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

For 2, I think the answer is that there is no right answer. Neither "is" nor "are" is correct, so rewriting the sentence is not only possible but essential.

For 3, you don't need to use either. "Show identification" is fine on its own. But if you must use something, refer to the answer I gave to 2 above. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

For 2 (and possibly applicable to 3, though I agree with Richardrj that the sentence is best recast), the usual advice in style manuals and grammar guides is that the verb should agree with the nearer of the parts of the compound—thus, "The parents or the child is required …" but "The child or the parents are required …" Deor (talk) 13:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure? Neither of those sound like good English to me, although I stand to be corrected. Do you have a source for a style guide that says this? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 13:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll answer you from what I have at hand; most of my style guides are at my office. Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage (first ed., s.v. or) says, "If alternative members differ in number &c., the nearest prevails." In the examples given, such as "either he or you were"/"either you or he was," the difference happens to be in person rather than number, but the principle has been stated clearly. Words into Type (page 352, under "Plural and singular substantives joined by "or" or "nor") has "When a subject is composed of both plural and singular substantives joined by or or nor, the verb should agree with the nearer." Examples given include "Neither money nor men were lacking" and "Others are trapped by the fear that their interests or their property is being threatened." Deor (talk) 14:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

For 3, "their" is the simple solution. But then you may be swooped upon by people who insist that Shakespeare was PC gone mad... Skittle (talk) 13:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I was going to stay out of this. English isn't like Boolean algebra or anything; we fly by the seat of our pants a lot of the time. I think that natural speech in my part of the USA has it 1. "is", 2. "are", 3. "their". For number 1, "is" is the only way to go; basic grammar, dude. As for 2 and 3, I think we usually hear a plural when it's a compound subject, but not always. This time, though, yes. The "or" is construed like an "and" for counting. We get caught in these conundrums in speech, and we do our best at the time; we paint ourselves into a corner and just have to walk on the fresh paint to get out. Nobody dies. In writing, though, we should avoid such constructions wherever possible. --Milkbreath (talk) 13:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Green eye-shaded

What does green eye-shaded mean? I suspect it means something like "shrewd" or "penny-pinching". Bonus points if you can explain how it came about.

Here is the context:

They had two reactions," Stiglitz says wearily. "One was Bush saying, 'We don't go to war on the calculations of green eye-shaded accountants or economists.

from The Guardian [1] Dforest (talk) 08:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It's explained in the article on green eyeshade. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating. How did I miss this? Dforest (talk) 09:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(Japanese) イラク日本人青年殺害事件 in english

what does this say?Cholga^talK! 09:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"Iraq Japanese Youth Killing Incident" --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

A Japanese young man killed in Iraq. 事件 is an incident or a case as User PalaceGuard008 translated, but I think it can be omitted. Oda Mari (talk) 14:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, in fiction, "事件" is often appended to the title of a case, and is often moved the front of the title when translated. So, if that was a fictional title, it would be something like "The Case of the Irag Japanese Youth Killing". ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's about this murder. Oda Mari (talk) 14:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Oh, I see. ja:イラク日本人青年殺害事件 is the article name of the en WP article above. Oda Mari (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

¡Ou!

Why is D'oh! translated into Spanish that way? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Because that is the term used in the Spanish episodes of the Simpsons and is a relative equivalent of the vocalization in Spanish. D;oh was made up in English. But in Spanish it didn't make sense to borrow D'oh but the existing Ou to express annoyance or discomfort was close enough sounding and voilà!Cholga^talK! 09:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

English to Vietnamese translations

How would you say, "He works exclusively for Falcon Studios and is famously one of the only men to have topped Matthew Rush." This is regarding this article.vi:Erik Rhodes (diễn viên khiêu dâm).Cholga^talK! 09:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You'd have better luck asking in that article's talk page. I'm not sure about Vietnamese gay sex terms, I guess I can ask someone how to translate "top". For now, I'll leave that blank.

“ Anh chỉ hoạt động cho hãng Falcon Studios và nổi tiếng là một trong những người đàn ông duy nhất đã _________ Matthew Rush. ”

DHN (talk) 17:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Simplest Sinoxenic Character

Which is the simplest sinoxenic character? In other words, which Sinoxenic character has the fewest strokes? Thanks.68.148.164.166 (talk) 11:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Never heard of the word "sinolexic", but by deconstruction assuming it to mean "Chinese word" -- then "一", pronounced "yi" in pinyin and meaning "one". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant sinoxenic and Sinoxenic. Does that change your response?68.148.164.166 (talk) 09:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

乙 also consists of only a single stroke. -- Visviva (talk) 12:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant sinoxenic and Sinoxenic. Does that change your response?68.148.164.166 (talk) 08:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That's one of the most enigmatic threads I've ever seen. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant sinoxenic and Sinoxenic. Does that change your response?68.148.164.166 (talk) 08:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That might be because 68.148 originally used the word "sinolexic" both in the subheading and in the question. Both occurrences were changed to "sinoxenic" after PalaceGuard had replied to the original question. See sinoxenic languages for which languages the querent is asking about (Bai, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, and Zhuang according to the article}. This is why it is better to strike out your error and add the correction when someone has already responded. Now people might think PalaceGuard is dysxenic dyslexic.---Sluzzelin talk 11:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant sinoxenic and Sinoxenic. Does that change your response?68.148.164.166 (talk) 08:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Woe is me. =( --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant sinoxenic and Sinoxenic. Does that change your response?68.148.164.166 (talk) 08:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"Sinoxenic" excludes Chinese, but the one-stroke character "一" is also used in Japanese kanji, and I don't think you can get simpler than that.  --Lambiam 14:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant sinoxenic and Sinoxenic. Does that change your response?68.148.164.166 (talk) 08:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I added my response after you changed "sinolexic" to "sinoxenic", and the response itself uses the term "sinoxenic" and refers to its meaning ("sinolexic" would definitely not exclude written Chinese), so no, that does not chnage my response.  --Lambiam 09:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so, but maybe it depends on exactly how the term is defined. 乙 and 一 both occur in Korean (and Japanese), although 一 is certainly much more common. Both can occasionally occur in isolation, 一 as "1," and 乙 as "B" in contracts etc. -- Visviva (talk) 08:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant sinoxenic and Sinoxenic. Does that change your response?68.148.164.166 (talk) 08:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know old Zhuang (sawndip), but can we also approach the question from another direction? Given that we've identified "一" as our upper limit in terms of complexity, how would we describe a character that is "simpler" than that? My view is that the only thing that can be simpler than "一" would be a dot, something like "•". Is that a meaningful character in any of these languageS? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that was getting really annoying. I lined out the ad nauseum repetition.

Yes, <丶> is a character, with its own pronunciation. I think that counts as simpler than <一>. However, I think it is only used to refer to itself, the way single hangul are used in Korean. kwami (talk) 09:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yoon

Before yoon were diminished in size, did yoon follow only after [i] morae/graphemes/sylables/kana?68.148.164.166 (talk) 10:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the question, so I don't know to what extent the following is an answer. In actual use, a yōon always follows a kana ending in the sound i and forms one mora with it. The kana used as yōon are diminished versions of standard kana; used in normal size, they are a mora by themselves, also when following a kana ending in i. For example, キヤ "Kiya" is the 2-mora name of a brand of lingerie.  --Lambiam 14:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you asking whether the change from キヤ to キャ historically preceded the introduction of combinations like ティ? I think it did, but I'm not certain. -- BenRG (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You are mixing phonetics with orthography, which makes answering your question a little difficult. Yōon are phonetic sounds and were never "diminished in size"; only the orthography used to express them later diminished them by size. So I will attempt to mix to the two together in an attempt to answer your question.

While the English language article Yōon only lists the the palatal -j, historically and also dialectically there was also a labial -w. For example, kwazi "fire" which once contrasted with kazi "house chores". The palatal -j only followed the orthographic -i. However, the labial -w followed the orthographic -u. Bendono (talk) 09:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Followed? I'm confused.Asrghasrhiojadrhr (talk) 06:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

/Cj/ and /Cw/ were, I believe, first found in Chinese loans, and only later spread to native words, rather like /ʒ/ in English. Regardless, they've been around for a millennium. ティ and the like come from English (and perhaps other European languages) and are very recent; there are many people who cannot pronounce them 'correctly'. Orthographically, I don't know if they were ever used other than as yōon, but my guess would be no. However, くわ certainly was. kwami (talk) 09:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Islamic versus Muslim

Can anyone advise me on the proper usage of these two terms? I have, at different points in my career, heard different opinions on their appropriateness. Several years ago, a colleague of mine who is an Islamist told me that Muslim should be used (as an adjective or noun) only when referring to people who are adherents of Islam, whereas Islamic should be used in all other contexts (e.g., Muslim worshipers, but Islamic civilization). More recently, I have been told that Muslim advocacy groups prefer that the term Islamic be restricted to features of the religion itself and that all worldly things produced by Muslims come under the term Muslim (e.g. Muslim civilization). Can anyone offer arguments for one or the other of these views, or for yet another view? Should it be Muslim civilization or Islamic civilization? Thanks. Marco polo (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The first way, I would say, especially because Muslim literally means someone who adheres to Islam. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

As a noun, Muslim means: a person who adheres to Islam. Therefore, when used as a modifier, it should mean: "pertaining to adherents of Islam". So it is quite reasonable to use the Muslim community as an English phrase for the Ummah. I'd prefer Muslim doctors over Islamic doctors; the former refers to doctors who happen to be adherents of Islam, while the latter has the connotation of doctors practising some Islamic form of medicine, which is presumably not intended. Conversely, I'd prefer Islamic court over Muslim court if the idea is that the court bases itself on Islamic law. This is not a matter of political correctness, but of the normal rules of assigning meanings to English phrases. I'd say that you can legitimately use either the Muslim world or the Islamic world, where the choice should depend on what you want to convey. If you want to convey the fact that this is the world formed by Muslim people, go with the former; if you mean the world of Islam, go with the latter. If you can call America a Christian country, then Turkey is a Muslim country but not an Islamic country.

For civilization, assuming you are referring to the civilization that came forth from the Islamic Renaissance, I have a mild preference for Islamic civilization. You can also say: the Golden Age of Islam, while the Golden Age of Muslims sounds weird to me. It is true that this civilization was produced by people, the vast majority of whom were Muslims. Nevertheless, the meaning to me is not "the civilization formed by Muslims". Rather, it is the civilization that came forth from the Islamic Empire, which was a caliphate, based in Islamic theology. But if enough people prefer Muslim Empire, I'll eventually follow; the meaning of words is grounded in how people use them and not in linguistic considerations.

See also the section Islamic Golden Age#Criticism of Ascribing the Golden Age to Islam, but note that the objection expressed there to the term Islamic civilization equally applies to Christian civilization; in fact, the argumentation can be turned into a stronger objection to Muslim civilization, as the latter would even more strongly tend to exclude the contributions of non-Muslims to the Islamic Renaissance.  --Lambiam 15:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

In terms of their use as adjectives - is there any difference between 'ismlamic' and 'muslim'? I can't detect any, except on the level of how it feels to say either. Does one seem more respectful than an other for instance. (I must say that 'islamic' sounds more historical, more cultured, and more general than 'muslim' which seems for personal, modern, and human.) So is there any reason why I shouldn't use either (as an adjective) with no fear of making a mistake?87.102.84.112 (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Also would not some of the answers given above be likely to change quite quickly eg cf 'black' and 'negro'; both of which mean exactly the same thing except one will offend the other delight?87.102.84.112 (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Not likely. With negro, the word changes because people start using it pejoratively. The same thing happens with whatever word refers to the mentally challenged. Idiot, then and retarded used to not have negative connotations. In addition to people not using Muslim pejoratively (Islamifascist seems to be the epithet of choice), I'd imagine that there are enough pedantists to ensure that changing the meanings of muslim and islamic would take a while. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 16:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I would use either, there are good points made in favor of Muslim, however precedent would pressure you to use Islamic as would be the "correct" term, especially with regards to a paper.Cholga^talK! 22:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

When it comes to describing individuals, you have to be careful. A person may be called Ahmed Abdul Mohammed, and have been born in Saudi Arabia, but for all anyone knows could be a Christian, Buddhist, Jew or atheist. Describing him, without knowledge of his personal beliefs, as "a Muslim doctor" or "an Islamic chef", just because of his name, origin and appearance, may be way off the mark. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course I would never presume to ascribe a religion to someone without first consulting reliable sources! Marco polo (talk) 01:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Note also that "Islamist" almost always denotes something much different to "an adherent of Islam". It generally denotes someone who is an ideologue of Islam as a political system, and often implies extremism and/or militancy. --Sean 15:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Massachusetts

I support Obama, so I'm not trying to beat up on him: but is it just me, or does he pronounce my home state's name as [ˌmæsəˈtʰusəts], "Massatoosetts"? Many people have commented on this, but it's hard for me to tell definitively whether he's really using a plosive, or just a strange, weak sort of affricate there. What do you think? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard him say it, but I do know there are lots of people who pronounce it that way, so maybe he's one of them. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

spelling of h'or dourve/h'ors dourves

How do you spell these correctly, and where is the article for this item?Cholga^talK! 22:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hors d'oeuvre--Eriastrum (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Except that's a redirect to Hors d'œuvre, which then uses "d'oeuvre" throughout the article. A rather emotive naming debate too! So what do our linguists here think? Hors d'oeuvre or hors d'œuvre? -Gwinva (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC) p.s. I knew that was a redirect since I recently learnt a nifty trick to make redirects green instead of blue. Gwinva (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

In English, we don't use œ generally, like æ. In fact, it's rather non-standard to use letters outside the usual 26. That's not to say that using æ and œ is wrong, but rather it comes across as quirky, and perhaps a little arrogant, like showing off. For this reason I say keep it as 'oe' rather than 'œ', but I'm not a hardliner. Plus, most people use English based keyboards without a simple shortcut to write æ, œ, etc. without resorting to Alt+X combinations, so it will be the more common search. Steewi (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've seldom seen the OED so out of step with the AHD. We Americans know what an or durve is, and the French are free to spell and pronounce and indeed pluralize it any way they want back home. The ligature is passe [sic]. (I am not a linguist.) --Milkbreath (talk) 00:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Was not there a time when the English language was enriched with terms like "Freedom Fries" ? Correct me if I am wrong, but this is about French letters, nést-ce pas? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 00:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what it's about. I just want to be able to type in English without a having to have a toolkit for it. Maybe Steewi isn't a hardliner, but I am. --Milkbreath (talk) 00:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm with you, Milkbreath. The d'œuvre version would never be used by an English-language newspaper, my benchmark for such things (note, I didn't say standard). Whether the letters o and e are tied or not, they're still counted as 2 letters, so why confuse people with antiquated typography that just makes the outcome of debates such as the one Gwinva referred to make Wikipedia seem silly and pompous. Ban all ligatures, I say - that's everywhere, for all time, in all circumstances. What other languages do is their own affair, and if we borrow words from them, we're free to re-spell them in our own English-language way. We drop the acutes, graves, circumflexes, and cedillas from French-source words - because they're not part of the English language - so I just can't understand the resistance to removing the ligature in this case (the argument was that we borrowed hors d'œuvre from French, so we have to spell it precisely as they do - to which I opine "Bollocks"). If some cookbooks want to spell it with the ligature (and most don't), that's their choice - but the rest of the anglophone world is not required to comply. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hear hear! Gwinva (talk) 01:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

On an OED note, while the biggie has "d'œuvre" the Concise has only "d'oeuvre". Gwinva (talk) 01:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Since horse is a regular English word it should be noted that for the plural you can use the regular horses d'oeuvre.

Why not spell it appetizers? — Kpalion^(talk) 12:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

February 29

Proofread some Japanese, please.

Resolved

In this article: Subject Object Verb

私は箱を開けます。is transliterated as "watashi wa hako o akemasu."

Should that not be "watashi wa hako to akemasu"?

を = to

I do not speak Japanese, but I am studying it. I fixed it [2], but then I reverted myself because I thought I might be wrong because the person made the same mistake twice. Plus, with all of the Japanophiles on Wikipedia, this kind of a mistake is not likely. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

O is correct. It "o" when it is is a particle. See Japanese_grammar#Objects.2C_locatives.2C_instrumentals:_.E3.82.92_.28o.29.2C_.E3.81.AB_.28ni.29.2C_.E3.81.A7_.28de.29.2C_.E3.81.B8_.28e.29.-Andrew c ^[talk] 03:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC) Also see Wo (kana). I don't think it's ever to. See hirigana.-Andrew c ^[talk] 03:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops. I misread it. I mistook を for と.

Sorry! Thanks! ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 04:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Correct Sentence

Hi guys, just wondering which of these is correct:

“Train’s the way to go,” said Bob.

OR

“Train’s the way to go”, said Bob.

Thanks 58.168.63.181 (talk) 02:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The first way is the correct American way, and the second way is the correct British way. Marco polo (talk) 02:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No; the second is not correct in UK English. Gwinva (talk) 03:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

British and US usage differ when the quote finishes the sentence.

• UK: Bob said "Train's the way to go".
• USA: Bob said "Train's the way to go."

But where the quote ends in mid-sentence, they actually speak the same language. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, on that last US version, it should be: Bob said, "Train's the way to go." Don't forget the comma after said. Useight (talk) 07:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The comma's needed in British English as well! Bazza (talk) 13:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Basically there are two styles of placing other punctuation marks with quotation marks. What people here are calling the American style places commas and periods before the closing quote. Other punctuation marks take their logical position according to whether they belong to the quoted text. This is the style I was taught as the only correct style when I was in school in Canada. What people are calling the British style places all marks in their logical position (although if there would logically be punctuation both before and after a closing quote, in most cases only one of the two marks is used). This is the preferred style for Wikipedia articles and where the other style might cause confusion. See Quotation marks#Typographical considerations for discussion and WP:MOS#Quotation marks regarding Wikipedia style. --Anonymous, 07:50 UTC, February 29, 2008.

Could Gwinva or some other British English user answer the following question: Are you saying that "Train's the way to go," said Bob. is the correct way to punctuate that direct quote in British English (as opposed to "Train's the way to go", said Bob.)? Or are you saying that the word order or the omission of the definite article is incorrect? The omission of the definite article would be nonstandard in American English, but I didn't comment on that because I thought that the questioner was asking about punctuation. Surely the word order, with said Bob at the end of the sentence, is permissible in British English, as it is in American English? Thanks. Marco polo (talk) 15:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

“Train’s the way to go,” said Bob. is correct in UK usage. SaundersW (talk) 17:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's go further,and demonstrate UK English in various constructs:

• "Train's the way to go," said Bob.
• Bob said, "Train's the way to go." or

Bob said: "Train's the way to go." or

Bob said "Train's the way to go."

Depending on the emphasis/context. The first is standard for dialogue. The second uses a colon for the usual colon reasons (although some authors use it at a literary technique), and the third is for reporting direct speech in prose. Note, this is direct speech so the punctuation is inside the quotes. See later for indirect speech. Jack's comment above was not clear on context, but this is correct for direct speech

• Bob said "Train's the way to go" in a very odd voice. or

Bob said, "Train's the way to go," in a very odd voice.

depending on which meaning you want (the first in prose, second in dialogue, although it's very clumsy grammatically).

• "Don't go by car," Bob said. "Train's the way to go."
• We know from Bob that "train's the way to go".

Indirect quote, so punctuation goes outside. No colon or comma before the quote, unless for other reasons, eg, bracketting:

Trains are, according to Bob, "the way to go".

• Did Bob say, "Train's the way to go"? or

Did Bob say "Train's the way to go"?

• Did Bob say, "Train's the way to go!"?

(Question mark outranks period but equal to exclamation; see archive for discussion of this)

The omission of the definite article is appropriate in colloquial speech, especially here where Bob is talking of all trains, generically, rather than on train specifically:

• "You could go by train, but plane's best, really."
• "I missed the train, and there wasn't another for twenty minutes."

Gwinva (talk) 20:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It needs to be repeated that Gwinva's ideas about what is correct British usage conflict with what other sources state. --Anonymous, 04:20 UTC, March 1, 2008.

Do they? I tried to show a broad and fair representation, but am quite happy to be proven wrong. Which ones have differing British standards? Gwinva (talk) 04:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Punctuation in English

My punctuation needs improvement. Does anyone know a reliable online resource listing rules or guidelines? (Not WP:PUNC, please). I know they vary and are elastic, but I'm just looking for one authoritative and consistent body. It doesn't matter from which side of the pond(s). ---Sluzzelin talk 10:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Now, that's my area. But I can't recommend any online resources that are as good as the many books I know. For general use, and as a source that we could well learn from here at Wikipedia, try [Merriam-Webster's Manual for Writers and Editors]. Some American bias, but pretty damn good all the same. There's a Merriam-Webster's Guide to Punctuation and Style, but you might be better off with the first one I mention. A basically Chicago Manual of Style approach, but more friendly, readable, and refreshingly rational. (I say that as a veteran of the WT:MOS-wars.) There's also a much smaller but very serviceable sibling: [Merriam-Webster's Pocket Guide to Punctuation].

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 11:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Or, as a lighter introduction to the subject, try Eats, Shoots & Leaves by Lynne Truss. Bazza (talk) 13:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions, Noetica and Bazza. I've always meant to borrow the Panda book from my sister one day, and will order one of the suggested hardcopies eventually. I guess I need an online version because I write (and edit) from all sorts of places, and would like to look things up when not at home too. Well, I suppose the pocket guide might fit in my coat pocket. Still, if anyone knows a reliable online version, I would be deeply gratified. I found a citation guide that looks alright, but I'm really looking for punctuation in general. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

But note that American reviewers criticised Lynne Truss's punctuation, and the British will pale and tremble with rage and despair at the Merriam Webster/Chicago Manual requirements. NZers are generally with the British, and Australians frequently lapse towards the American. While it might not matter to you "which side of the pond", it might matter to those who read your work. So, whichever path you choose, be prepared to be burnt at the stake by some dogmatic pedant! :) Gwinva (talk) 20:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That's right, Gwinva. Many other suggestions could be made, of course. There are several rather good little guides – and several dreadful ones. None is complete, and it is rare to find one that does not contradict itself. Even New Hart's Rules does that. As for pondlike divides, such as the Tasman but writ larger, one could simply get a cheap little guide from each side, and compare where necessary.

The most thorough treatment of the apostrophe that I have seen anywhere is our own article. Same for the serial comma. Both should be read circumspectly, like everything else at WP; but editors do tend to watch over them pretty well, and weed out zealotry or inaccuracy.

Sluzzelin, if you enjoy windy diatribes about punctuation then do by all means read Truss. But you'll get precious little guidance. She does not even distinguish the kinds of dashes, as we do crisply and precisely at WP:PUNC (which remains faulty in other ways, of course). She says she only discovered how to input what she thinks of as a "proper" dash when someone happened to tell her, while she was putting her book together. Beyond that she shows no awareness of the issues that we address very clearly.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 21:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

So we are infinitely superior and should publish our own guide. Or Noetica should, at least. Never have I read a finer examination of "an" with "h" that the one produced by St Noetica the other day. However, I have one quibble. While the Atlantic might be a pond, I've always thought of the Tasman as a ditch. In fact, in order to prove my point I have even googled a fine selection of examples, particulary acrosstheditch.com which (to quote the site) exists "to promote inquiry into and discussion of the multi-dimensioned relationship between Australia and New Zealand"! But getting back to Sluzzelin's problem, RL Trask has written The Penguin Guide to Punctuation, which is a slim paperback, and presents examples and rules from both sides of the pond (and ditch). It is clear and concise and would stuff itself into a pocket or briefcase nicely. Gwinva (talk) 22:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You are too kind, Gwinva. (Not that I'm complaining; and I am in awe of your knowledge of Medieval equestrialia.) I have examined Trask's little book. It is widely respected, and recommended in Butcher's Copy-editing. Some would deem that high praise. I remember noting some inadequacies in it, but I have been meaning to look through it again. I'll do that.

There is also How to Punctuate: Penguin Writer's Guide, by George Davidson (2005; 300pp.). That's longer, and very detailed. It gives coverage to American and British differences – with the em dash versus the en dash, for example. Davidson is much more readily available in bookshops, at least in Australia. I might compare these two Penguins when I have the opportunity, and report back here. Give me a few days.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 03:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that bit of praise, Noetica; it's all the more warming since I must deduce you followed my trail there... All quite accidental knowledge, really. Anyway, this isn't a mutual praise forum, so I shall cease wittering. Gwinva (talk) 04:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Gwinva and Noetica, for those suggestions (and also for the entertainment; this place is so different from de:Wikipedia:Auskunft). Please note that I wasn't doubting its quality in any way when I said "no thanks" to WP:PUNC. By definition, Wikipedia's Manual of Style can't ever be stable, and I need unchanging text lest I get confused when re-iterating passages I already read. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, I believe Humanities have discussed the German cultural differences by looking at literature; it seems they could have also looked at Reference desks! Gwinva (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Wedding Wording

'X and Y request the pleasure of your company in celebrating their marriage at...'

Is this a grammatically legitimate sentence? Can it be accepted in the context of an invite? 195.60.20.81 (talk) 10:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I see no problem with it. It has all the elements a sentence requires, provided you finish with the location.

• X and Y = subject
• request = verb
• the pleasure = object, of your company = prepositional phrase
• in celebrating their marriage at... = prepositional phrases

—Dforest (talk) 12:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, but what does "in celebrating" modify? I sense conflation. We "take" pleasure "in" things, but we don't "request" pleasure "in" them. We "join" others "in" celebrating, but we don't request company "in" it. We have company "on" a trip or "for" an occasion. This reads to me like a failed attempt at elegant language. Don't ask me how to fix it, though. I'm far too plain-spoken for your mother-in-law-to-be. --Milkbreath (talk) 14:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You can just say "to celebrate". Adam Bishop (talk) 15:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

In the construction in + <gerund> in English, in can mean "at the time of", "on the occasion of", or "by means of". For example, "We ask you to join us in celebrating our marriage." So this is an adverbial prepositional phrase modifying the verb phrase request the pleasure of your company. Marco polo (talk) 15:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You can't just define "in", the little words have to be used idiomatically. Your "join someone in something" is idiomatic, but our "request something in something" is not. And "X and Y request the pleasure of your company to celebrate their marriage at..." is no better. What does "to celebrate" belong to? --Milkbreath (talk) 17:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't 'belong' to anything. It looks to me to be a purpose clause (I'm thinking of Latin ut) which follows the request for company; i.e., We request the pleasure of your company with the purpose of celebrating our marriage. IMHO, the first sentence was fine too - I agree with Marcopolo's assessment, in+gerund (that's celebrating, a verbal noun) can indicate at the time of; the OED, among its very comprehensive definition of in, gives: "In the process of, in the act of; in case of: often equivalent in sense to a temporal clause introduced by when, while, if, in the event of." СПУТНИК^{CCC P} 19:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

What's the most ferocious creature in the world?

The Panda.

Anyplace with Pandas will be pandamonium... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.6.248 (talk) 17:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think this honour goes the the Drop Bear. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 20:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Humans. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Damn, forgot that one. I agree wholeheartedly. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 21:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I've heard it claimed the hippopotamus is the most dangerous herbivore. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 06:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Where it occurs, the hippo is evidently the most dangerous mammal, in terms of the number of people killed. I'm not sure that's the same as 'ferocious'. And ferocious to their prey, to each other, or to passers by? kwami (talk) 08:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

And though google's first hit when searching "the most ferocious creature in the world" suggests the piranha [3], the candirú "have a reputation among the natives as the most feared fish in its waters, even over the piranha" (referenced !) ---Sluzzelin talk 19:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hm. The piranha is only ferocious once it gets started feeding. You can swim a meter over a school of them and they'll ignore you, unless you're injured. Or so I read years ago in a little book on piranha some Amazonian ichthyologist wrote after trying it out. The candiru may be feared, but I'd hardly call it ferocious. That has more to say about our fears over the vulnerability of our genitals than the behavior of the fish. Does 'most ferocious' mean most likely to prey on humans, or most likely to attack when disturbed? Lots of 'ferocious' animals, like moray eels, are quite gentle if you approach them right. There are some large squid that will attack humans readily enough, but at 2 meters I don't know how dangerous they are. In parts of the Rift Valley, elephant have taken to hunting people, evidently out of vengeance. People have to set up watch and flee camp if they hear them coming: They'll literally rip all your limbs off, and tenderize the rest. But for people who live in the open, lions and tigers are justifiably feared: they readily hunt humans for prey, not just vengeance or to protect their cubs.

They say that in Alaska, you should wear bells on your ankles so that you don't surprise a grizzly with cubs, and carry pepper spray just in case. Get them ready if you see grizzly scat. You can tell it's grizzly scat if it has little bells in it and smells like pepper. kwami (talk) 06:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Typhoon and cock

I can't find any of these interpretations in online dictionaries but am I mistaken in thinking that :

• A typhoon can be a ship's fog horn.
• A cock is the name for a ship's cook.

Thank you. 200.127.59.151 (talk) 21:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't confirm either of those, however "cock" has a few nautical meanings. A head ship was sometimes called the "cock-ship" (just as the leader of a group could be "cock of the school" etc), and the "cock" or "cock-boat" was a ship's small boat. There's also the "cox" or "coxswain" who controls the helm. Gwinva (talk) 04:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Me, too. I gave it my best shot in the OED, but no dice. That doesn't mean they don't mean those things, of course. That "typhoon" one especially rings a bell, and it will haunt me until that moment several years from now when I stumble across it, too late to do you any good. --Milkbreath (talk) 13:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Does English have a nickname for the ship's cook? German has "Smutje", but I only found "SC" in one of the nautical glossaries I scanned. Interestingly, both the Foghorn and the Typhoon are cocktails a ship's cook might mix, when there is gin and lime juice at his disposition. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

This page describes a lightship as possessing "2 500mm lens lanterns, 15,000cp; air diaphragm horn (Leslie 17" typhoon) and AN/SPN-11 radar." A particular type of horn, perhaps? Deor (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

As for Leslie, take a look at this. Oda Mari (talk) 16:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The Dutch word for the noun "cook" is kok – not just a ship's cook, but any cook. Also, coc is the Old English form of "cook". Perhaps there is some connection with the use of the word cock for a ship's cook.  --Lambiam 22:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

March 1

Air Force's new slogan

The USAF has just adopted a new slogan, "Above All." Does this translate into German into what some other message boards are telling me it does -- "Uber Alles" (as in Deutschland uber alles)? (Pardon my lack of umlauts.) Faithfully, Deltopia (talk) 04:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Alles (all) is a declinable pronoun. Thus, a more correct translation would be "über allem", where the word allem is in the dative case. The preposition über / above may require the use of the dativ or the accusative, depending on the context.

The accusative must be used when a direction is referred to, whilst the dativ indicates the location.

The phrase über allem thus refers to an object which already is above all, whilst über alles implies an object which is moving there. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 14:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No objections, but no matter how you do it, the pun gets lost in translation; "above all" in the sense of "above and beyond all other consideration and taking everything together" would be something else in German ("vor allem", "in erster Linie" etc.) ---Sluzzelin talk 15:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the nuance may be slightly different, but my understanding is that the line "Deutschland über alles" was very much intended to mean "above and beyond all other consideration" - additional connotations along the lines of "having power over all other nations" came about only later, due largely to its use under the Nazis.

I guess we'd tend to use "over all" for the issue of power, making the USAF's slogan less ambiguous in that sense, but a skilled propaganda campaign could probably shift that just as easily as the German... - IMSoP (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair point, but you gave the answer yourself. One of the handicaps of "über alles" is precisely its burdened usage in the past. (Nazi connotations of the Deutschlandlied's first stanza, which is no longer part of Germany's national anthem) Nowadays I'd only use it in connection with the verb "gehen", (e.g.) "Ihre Gesundheit geht über alles", meaning "Your health comes first (before everything else)". I find it almost impossible to read "martial proper noun" + "über alles" without thinking of "evil" aggressive nationalism, but then maybe that's just me (and maybe it's intended). ---Sluzzelin talk 18:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it denotes a similar range of concepts (to the extent that prepositions ever align between two languages) but has gained strong connotations where the English phrase has not. - IMSoP (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

More subject / verb

In a prior post (above), we examined the following sentence.

• I think that even one hazing incident (not to mention, the fraternity's three incidents) _____ inexcusable. Do we use "is" or "are" in this sentence? And why?

We concluded that you can ignore the parenthetical, and thus the singular noun "one hazing incident" controls ... thus the correct verb would be the singular "IS".

So, what happens if we do not place the parenthetical within parentheses --- but, rather, keep it within the actual sentence structure?

• I think that even one rule violation, not to mention the three that you have accumulated, _____ inexcusable. Do we use "is" or "are" in this sentence? And why?

Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC))

Still is. It doesn't matter how you punctuate it; "one rule violation" is the subject of the verb. Deor (talk) 06:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It's still parenthetical in nature despite there being no actual parentheses. Rearrange it as "I think that even one rule violation is inexcusable, not to mention the three that you have accumulated", and you'll see why "is" is correct. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I, and in fact countless English speakers around the world, am not in agreement with this.  --Lambiam 13:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, you, and your crowd, has it wrong. --Milkbreath (talk) 14:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

What counts is that the verb is in agreement. —Tamfang (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. So ... is Lambian's above sentence correct to use the singular verb "am"? I, and in fact countless English speakers around the world, am not in agreement with this.

And would this change (if so, why?) --- if Lambian decided not to make the thought parenthetical (that is, not offset by commas)?

In other words, what's the difference below:

(Sentence 1) John (and all of his 9 brothers, too, for that matter) is moving to Hawaii.

Sentence 1's parenthetical can be simplified to:

(Sentence 2) John (and his 9 brothers) is moving to Hawaii.

So ... how and why is Sentence 2 different from Sentence 3?

(Sentence 3) John and his 9 brothers are moving to Hawaii.

I am confused ... is it the parenthetical punctuation that controls or just the parenthetical concept (regardless of punctuation choice)?

Or is there a distinction as to whether or not the phrase "his 9 brothers" is considered parenthetical versus considered not parenthetical to the sentence? (Whatever "considered" means.)

I mean ... the final concept is that TEN people are moving to Hawaii .... the 9 brothers and John, too.

In terms of language / grammar / communication / etc. ... is the controlling factor whether or not the speaker/writer considers the 9 brothers component to be parenthetical or non-parenthetical?

Totally confused here ... thanks for the help.

I understand that people can disagree ... but I assume that grammar rules anticipated this type of scenario, also, no?

So, let me boil my question down to this. How do we fill in the blanks for the following verbs:

• (A) John and his nine brothers ___ moving to Hawaii.
• (B) John (and his nine brothers) ___ moving to Hawaii.

"A" would seem to take the plural "are", hands down. Seems like any run-of-the-mill 5th Grade grammar question. "B" would seem to take the singular "is" due to the parenthetical. But, in "B", if you remove the parenthetical punctuation, "B" looks exactly like "A" -- which would call for the plural "are" ... no? And, per above, parenthetical punctuation is irrelevant.

A lot of times on this Language Board, people will revert back to the "easy" answer ... just rewrite the sentence in a different way. But Sentence "A" and "B" above are really pretty easy, clean, straight-forward, basic ... one can't do much to rewrite it, even if they wanted to. (But, yes, that is always an option.)

Can anyone clear all this up for me? Thoughts? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC))

It's OK to be confused. We are. Tom Stoppard observed that English "makes up for in obscurity what it lacks in style" (or words to that effect), and he should know. The exchange above that puzzled you went roughly thus: JackofOz made an essentially correct statement about verb number in sentences containing parenthetical elements. Lambiam (half-jokingly, I think) gave us a thought-provoking, self-contradictory counter-example in which the parenthetical is so long that the reader has forgotten the number of the verb by the time it arrives. I (Milkbreath) countered with a counter-counter-example that made an additional play on the number of the word "crowd", which will be construed as singular or as plural depending on who you are. Lambiam's sentence is right, but it sounds wrong. My sentence is wrong, but it might sound right to some.

As for your two sentences, I'm afraid number 2 is flawed. Simply shoehorning a couple of parentheses in does not make a phrase parenthetical (I know, I know). "And his nine brothers" is read as part of the sentence no matter what you do, and the reader (this reader, anyway) sees the parentheses themselves as a mistake on the part of the writer. Sorry. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. You say that this sentence does not have a parenthetical (regardless of throwing in some punctuation marks like parentheses):

• John (and his nine brothers) ___ moving to Hawaii.

So what, if anything, distinguishes that from these below sentences (also explored above). How are they different, if at all?

• John (and all of his 9 brothers, too, for that matter) is moving to Hawaii.
• I think that even one hazing incident (not to mention, the fraternity's three incidents) is inexcusable.
• I think that even one rule violation, not to mention the three that you have accumulated, is inexcusable.

I thought that all of the above "stuff" was considered parenthetical, regardless of punctuation choice ... and thus correctly calling for a singular verb. (You re-affirmed JackofOz's statements.) So, grammatically speaking, what distinguishes whether or not some phrase/words is or is not parenthetical? Surely, it is not simply "a lot of words" versus "just a few words"? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC))

Be assured that I know exactly what you are asking. If my answers seem a bit nebulous, it's only partly because my mind is a junkyard. The "rules" of English are few and catch-as-catch-can. When in doubt, we just try to sound good, and you have led us into the fringes of English, where opinion reigns. If you ask me, and you just did, the difference is auctorial distance. It's the writer's real voice we hear inside parentheses, not the narrator's persona. If there is insufficient justification for the shift in point of view, the reader rejects it. (P.S.--Doer's reference below is right on the money in my book.) --Milkbreath (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again, I can offer you a style manual's advice, which you can take for what it's worth. In its discussion of subject-verb agreement (pages 350–356), Words into Type says, among many other things, "The number of the subject and verb is not affected by intervening words introduced by with, together with, including, as well as, no less than, plus, and similar expressions." So if you were writing "John, with his nine brothers, …" or "John, as well as his nine brothers, …" or "John, plus his nine brothers, …" or the like, you'd want to use "is moving." On the other hand, with regard to words introduced by and and punctuated as if they were parenthetical, it says, "The copy editor should not be misled by punctuation that makes a plural subject appear to be a singular subject followed by a parenthetical phrase." The examples that follow are punctuated with commas rather than parentheses; one of them is "The great diversity of the risks covered, and the complex nature of the business, introduce production problems of of an unusual character" (emphasis added). Following this advice, you'd write "John, and his nine brothers, are moving …" and presumably "John (and his nine brothers) are moving …" As I said, take it for what it's worth. Deor (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Your comments state that the following are BOTH correct?

• John plus his 9 brothers is moving to Hawaii.
• John and his 9 brothers are moving to Hawaii.

It seems the bottom line is this ... if something is parenthetical, its existence is irrelevent to the subject/verb agreement in number ... and if something is not parenthetical, it is part of the actual sentence structure and thus relevant to the subject/verb agreement in number. So, ultimately, how do we know what is versus is not parenthetical. The two sentences above ("John plus his 9 brothers" ... "John and his 9 brothers") are really saying the same exact thing, no? Most people would equate "plus" as another word for "and". So, what makes one a parenthetical thought, irrelevant to subject/verb consideration of the main sentence ... and one not? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC))

I can't give you any answer better than this: Although you may think of plus as "another word for" and, most folk would parse it grammatically, in this use, as a preposition; and tacking a prepositional phrase onto a singular subject does not change its number. And, on the other hand, is a conjunction; and a subject consisting of singular nouns joined by and has traditionally been construed as plural. As Milkbreath said, "You have led us into the fringes of English, where opinion reigns." That said, I think few people whose native language is English would write or utter the sentence "John plus his nine brothers is [or are] moving to Hawaii" except in the context of a discussion like this. Deor (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I agree that the John/9 brothers/Hawaii sentences are unlikely in "real" life ... but they served as hypotheticals for sentences like the fraternity/hazing/violations ones that are quite realistic. As many have stated, at some point, this all enters the realm of opinion. I would opine that the word "and" (while certainly useful to create a conjunction / plural noun) can also indicate the "preposition" (if you will) signaling a parenthetical. As in:

• Person 1 says: John is moving to Hawaii.
• Person 2 says: I heard that he is taking all 9 of his brothers with him, when he moves.
  • Person 1 can add in (if he desires) Person 2's information as unimportant, an after-thought, peripheral, tangential, and parenthetical ... and he can use the word "and" to do so, for example ...
• Person 1 says: John (and -- oh, yeah, now that you mention it -- his 9 brothers) is moving to Hawaii next week.

Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC))

Just some thoughts about the word "plus". Its primary usage is mathematical (e.g. "one plus one is two"), and it's used colloquially and informally, but it really shouldn't be used that way in any writing that's at least semi-formal when there's no mathematics involved. "John plus his nine brothers ___ moving to Hawaii", is not an example of a mathematical context (even though in our heads we automatically compute that 1+9=10); in this case, "plus" is simply a poor-cousin synonym for "and", which would have been a much better choice of word. "Plus" can be better used as a conjunction or an introductory phrase meaning "not only that", "as well as that", "moreover", "further" - and always followed by a comma ("John is moving to Hawaii next week; plus, he's leaving medicine and becoming an astrologer!"). But these are difficult and abstruse questions, Joseph. If presented with "John, plus his 9 brothers, ten in all, ___ moving to Hawaii next week", I'd be very tempted to use "are", but I know that some would argue for "is". In many cases, the best solution should be the most obvious, natural and intuitive one, because resort to the strict letter of the "rules" often gets us into difficulties by making us sound like we're speaking like prescriptive grammarians, and we couldn't have that. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

People do not speak according to what some grammarian has decided is right, but according to a grammar acquired by hearing what other speakers say, which becomes internalized as "this sound right" and "this sounds wrong". A grammarian should discover and describe the grammar based on how people speak, and not prescribe rules that go against how people actually speak because they mimic the rules of Latin grammar, or they appear more logical, or they are what was taught in school. If a rule produces something that sounds wrong, it means the rule is wrong. In the sentence "My brother, as well as I, ... watching football", both "is" and "am" sound wrong. So neither of the rules "discard parentheticals" and "the verb agrees with the nearest component" is right. In this case the subject is felt to be plural, and the verb form has to agree and be plural "are". If something else sounds right to you, it means you have acquired a different grammar. It is not necessarily the case then that one grammar is wrong; different dialects and sociolects of a language may have subtly different grammars.  --Lambiam 23:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Ouch! Lambian - your statements are rather broad and sweeping, no? If grammar was based on "how people speak" and "what sounds right or wrong" ... it would be perfectly acceptable to have "ain'ts" peppered all over the place ... as well as "I been tired" ... "he be acting like a fool" ... etc. Unacceptable. Take this sentence: Smith is the man whom police credit for solving the case. We can all agree that "whom" is correct. Yet, 99% of speakers would probably say (incorrectly) "who". And, to most, "whom" sounds wrong or stilted or stuffy or arrogant or pretentious. "Who" sounds just fine, to most. Why have grammar at all, if the only rule is "do whatever you want as long as you think it sounds right"? Granted, the above discussion relied on some rather esoteric examples and subtle nuances of grammar rules. But, basing grammar rules on "how people speak" is only asking for trouble. And conceding that no rules need exist and, thus, grammar itself need not exist. Shakespeare (or, more likely, Strunk and White) would be rolling over in his (their?) grave (graves?). Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC))

As far as the field of linguistics is concerned, Lambiam is right on target. You are confusing "grammar" and "usage". Grammar is the set of mechanisms that allow you to produce and understand utterances (grammar usually means syntax and morphology). Usage is the set of conventions your 9th-grade English teacher tried to pound into your head and which drive you to ask questions about what is "correct". From your comments above, it seems that you are interested not in whether a given construct is grammatical or not, but whether it conforms to the norms of some idealized register of English--say, "formal educated American English." In that register, "whom" in object position is entirely appropriate, while "who" in the same position may be inappropriate; "ain't" is unacceptable; "be" as a finite verb form is ungrammatical; etc. But there are plenty of fluent English speakers who encounter sociolinguistic situations where who-as-object is the most appropriate or only appropriate choice, where "ain't" is acceptable or desirable, where "be" as finite verb is grammatical, etc.

Regarding subject-verb agreement, as a fluent speaker of English you should have the requisite expertise to answer this question. If you can't come to a definite answer, it probably means that your example sentence is out of the ordinary. What do speakers typically do when they need to say similar sentences in real time? Say the first thing that comes to mind and move on with the conversation. --Diacritic (talk) 09:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. But, I must stick to at least some of my points. Regardless of whether it is called grammar or usage, Lambian advocated that when we encounter a sentence similar to "my brother, and I also, ___ is/are watching the football game on TV" ... we go with "how people speak" and "what sounds right". So, I was addressing that point (indifferent to whether the point is classified under the topic of grammar or usage). Also, much of this deals not only with speaking, but writing. In fact, the origin of this entire topic was my undertaking of editing a Wikipedia article. I noticed that someone used the word "sic" improperly ... and then I noticed that he did it again. So, my comment was something like "I believe that the "sic" (much less, both "sic"s) _____ is / are incorrect" ... or, something along those lines. That is what got me thinking about all of this. Thanks for all the input and feedback. Very informative. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC))

Since you've mentioned the alleged unacceptability of "ain't", let me raise the flag for its continued use - in the right context. There is only one right context (says he, prescriptively):

"He's a genius, isn't he? You're a genius, aren't you? I'm a genius, ___ I? Well then, let's all stop arguing about what idiots think, and get on with creating our masterpieces".

What goes in the space? "Amn't"? Maybe in some grammars, but this alleged word is not recognised in my personal world view. "Aren't"? Hardly. We don't say "I are ...". No, the beautiful word "ain't" has been around for eons for precisely this usage. I send truckloads of horse dung to all those (well-meaning but nevertheless rotten) teachers who banned the word for all time in all circumstances, and didn't give their students enough credit for being able to discriminate. Hell, those kids at their tender ages already learned the language better than most damn adult foreigners ever could. Those teachers have done us all a huge disservice by creating a gap where "ain't" belongs, and so if the only correct word is disallowed, what we end up with is a variety of square pegs being forced into the round hole and creating misery for us all. Let that be a lesson to them. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Surely the correct words to go in the space are "am I not?" --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Think about it. That would end up as: "I'm a genius, am I not I?". True, one could replace "ain't I" with "am I not" - but I was talking about the acceptability of the word "ain't" in constructions such as "ain't I". -- JackofOz (talk) 09:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I realised, of course, that strictly speaking I should have written "replace ain't I with am I not". But I couldn't be bothered, either. My point was precisely that the word "ain't" in constructions such as "ain't I" is not acceptable, and that only "am I not" should be used. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Far be it from me to tell anyone how to speak, but I think the case for "ain't" is less straightforward than that. It does seem to fill a void in the tag question paradigm, and I have no problem with the idea that for some speakers it would be acceptable to say "ain't I?" but unacceptable or less acceptable to say "ain't he?", for example. But the distinction can only go so far, because, at least in my experience, the sociocultural stigma attached to "ain't" (which I neither advocate nor criticize) applies regardless of its subject. To be honest, if I were to say the example utterance in an informal setting, I'd say, "I'm a genius, aren't I?", not because I'm consciously avoiding "ain't", but because "aren't" fills that slot in my idiolect (even if I don't say "I are". It's not so very different from the fact that I say "I go" (not "I wend") but "I went" (not "I goed"). Word forms can take on a life of their own. Language is sometimes funny like that). In formal settings, I think I would have to say, "I'm a genius, am I not?" But I have no problem with people for whom "ain't" is part of their active vocabulary using it as freely as they wish. --Diacritic (talk) 08:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I would never use "ain't" except in a first-person context, and then only in the the expression "ain't I". I would probably avoid it in formal writing, but I can hardly even imagine a circumstance where I'd be faced with the choice in such a context. For colloquial use, I have some support - Fowler, @ Be. 7(a):

• "Ain't is merely colloquial, and as used for isn't is an uneducated blunder and serves no useful purpose. But it is a pity that ain't for am not, being a natural contraction and supplying a real want, should shock us as though tarred with the same brush. Though I'm not serves well enough in statements, there is no abbreviation but ain't I? for am I not? or am not I?; for the amn't I of Scotland and Ireland is foreign to the Englishman. The shamefaced reluctance with which these full forms are often brought out betrays the speaker's sneaking fear that the colloquially respectable and indeed almost universal aren't I is 'bad grammar' and that ain't I will convict him of low breeding."

-- JackofOz (talk) 22:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Good long discussion. My thoughts, tending to agree with certain things that Lambiam and JackofOz have said:

Parenthetic can be taken a couple of ways: enclosed in brackets (parentheses, in American); or in the nature of an aside more generally. I'll say bracketed for the first, and interpolated for the second, but excluding bracketed matter. It makes a difference: bracketings do not, ideally, affect the surrounding material; interpolations do.

I agree that many words and phrases can be substituted for and without compelling a shift to a plural verb (though I don't inlude plus, which I would hardly ever use anyway). This is often useful. My favourite is along with:

I, along with many other editors, am happier with the spaced en dash; but I use em dashes when an article has them already.

Using the first-person singular consistently can make things flow better. I might have written this, instead:

I, and many other editors, are happier with the spaced en dash; but I use em dashes when an article has them already.

The sentence could be improved, of course. I would remove the commas, and therefore have no interpolation, strictly. But even as an interpolation, and many other editors does demand a plural verb. Here is the bracketed equivalent:

I (and many other editors) [are OR am] happier...

The choice between are and am is deeply problematic – so problematic that I would never use a bracketing in such a case. I would simply remove the brackets. The problem with this last bracketing is that it purports to participate in the syntax of the sentence that it interrupts. Sometimes a bracketing can get away with that:

I (and you) enjoy good writers.

It is just a lucky accident that enjoy is the form for all except third-person singular. But try to do a formal parsing of enjoy in that sentence! Substitute the verb to be, and the latent problem becomes visible:

I (and you) [am OR are OR ?] [good writers OR a good writer OR ?].

Transform to an interpolation:

I, and you, are good writers.

The commas are odd, and the order is uncommon, but the syntax is uncompromised.

Don't expect perfect solutions for all problems with sentences. Language is more like politics or cookery than pure mathematics.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 00:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Japanese audio lessons

Is there any site where I can download Japanese audio lessons for free to put on my mp3 player? --124.254.77.148 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

A Google search of Learn Japanese podcast shows several: [4] [5] [6]. In case you're not familiar with podcasts, check out our article. Dforest (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Synonym of worldly

When comparing the personalities of a novel's characters between what they write in their letters and their personalities in "normal" behaviour, what terms can be applied to the two different realms? For example, in the letters, one can say "...the character's on-paper personality highlights..." In their normal social behaviour, one can say "...the character's worldly personality highlights..." But "worldy" sounds awkward. What are some better synonyms? Thanks. Acceptable (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Persona is useful here:

"...the character's public persona highlights..."

Our article Persona is quite good, I think. Have a look. It goes on with more extended senses of the term, but the basic idea as given in the lead is highly relevant.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 00:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

As another set of comparisons, how about "private" as revealed in letters and "public" as shown their other behaviour? SaundersW (talk) 12:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Academic equivalent of pimp

What is an academic equivalent term for a man who is a "pimp" or "Playa"- one who is promiscuous with the ladies? Acceptable (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The only term I can think of is procurer. However, this does sound a bit stilted to me. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The concepts of pimp and player are rather different. By "academic equivalent", do you mean an academically sounding term? Actual academic publications just use pimp if they mean pimp, for example Games Pimps Play: Players and Wives-in-Law: A Qualitative Analysis of Street Prostitution by James F Hodgson (Canadian Scholars Press, 1997).  --Lambiam 23:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Assuming Acceptable means "Playa"- one who is promiscuous with the ladies", not pimp, philanderer and womanizer both redirect to promiscuity and both kind of sound "academic". ---Sluzzelin talk 23:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Acceptable, I misread your question, understanding "pimp" in the context of prostitution. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

As a male equivalent of 'slut', try Lothario, libertine. Neither are very precise, though. kwami (talk) 08:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

And for "pimp", there are pander/panderer and procurer. SaundersW (talk) 09:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2

Interpretation of a symbol:くぁ

Can くぁ represent both qa and qwa?Asrghasrhiojadrhr (talk) 06:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but there's one problem: that isn't used in Japanese except in unusual giseigo (onomatopoeia). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

If you're looking for [kwa], it existed in Late Old and Middle Japanese before merging with [ka] during Early Modern. However, it would have been written as くゎ or く_は. Bendono (talk) 07:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Definitions of the word "interesting"

Is it true that no-one has properly defined the word interesting?86.27.184.127 (talk) 08:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not; it's in all my dictionaries. Pray tell, where did you get that idea?

What I find interesting is that you choose to hyphenate "no-one", which seems a little odd to me; why? +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 08:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I've seen enough people hyphenate no-one recently that it now looks correct and I've found myself doing it. kwami (talk) 08:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the point was properly defined, not whether it's in the dictionary.

BTW, did you know 'gullible' is not in the dictionary? kwami (talk) 08:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Zing. Good one. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 08:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I have seen a dictionary of English that didn't have "gullible" in it. However, it was not a current one; I had a co-worker who collected old dictionaries. (I forget which on this was.) And it did have the root word in it, the verb "gull". --Anonymous, 21:35 UTC, March 2, 2008.

(squeeze): In my dictionary "gullible" is defined as "pertaining to or having the properties of a Kurt shaped box". --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 10:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

No-one has long been accepted along with no one. Check SOED. Interesting, yes?

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 09:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Also Random House, but not the full OED. Well, since it's made it into the dictionaries, I won't feel stupid using it. I always thought it was rather silly to spell it as two words. kwami (talk) 09:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

And in Chamber's, Kwami. OED (CDROM of 2nd edition) has about 30 instances of no-one in all of its examples; but you're right: it doesn't mark this as an alternative spelling. It has about 1200 instances of no one.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 10:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Duh, didn't even think of doing a search. It's recent, but not as recent as I expected. Earliest was from 1852 (not counting a genitive "no-one's"), then nothing for half a century, then the pace picks up. Considering how few quotes there are in the OED from the late 20th century, there were a lot of hits. kwami (talk) 10:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

consuelos consuegros

Anyone know if there's an English word for consuelo: The relationship between people whose children are married to each other? That is, the parents of my son/daughter-in-law are my what? kwami (talk) 08:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

There isn't really an accepted term for this in English, but there are similar terms in the kinship terminologies of other languages, such as mekhutan מחותן in Hebrew. AnonMoos (talk) 09:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

There's also a modern Greek term συμπέθερος (feminine συμπεθέρα)... AnonMoos (talk) 11:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be 'matchmaker'? Or is it ambiguous, or shifted over time? kwami (talk) 11:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not what my small Oxford modern Greek dictionary says. Simbetheros is an almost exact morpheme-for-morpheme Greek translation of Spanish Consuegro... AnonMoos (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed the correspondence. However, I also came across a Bulgarian translation of сват, one of the Slavic roots I actually recognize - unless in Bulgarian сват has shifted in meaning to consuegro. Or maybe it's just a poor translation. kwami (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've found it in Hebrew, Turkish, and Korean. But no English. I thought there might be a little-used term, like sister-wife for the relationship of two women married to the same man. kwami (talk) 09:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's a term either. Time to coin one! Related is the fact that we don't have a word for (say) one's sister's husband's brother, i.e. the person who is my sister's brother-in-law and my brother-in-law's brother is my what? No word for it, though I've used "brother-in-law-in-law" informally. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 10:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I just call him my brother-in-law, though I don't know what to do with his wife! (Separation through two degrees of marriage is too much — that for me would be a sister-in-law in law.) Similarly, I call my sister's husband's mother my mother-in-law. No-one in my family even notices, but other people get confused. kwami (talk) 10:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Some languages have a specific term for "wife's sister's husband" and/or a specific term for "husband's brother's wife" (and sometimes the "husband's brother's wife" term is also used by two wives of the same man to refer to each other), but I don't know of any language with a specific term for sister's husband's brother (though in some languages such a relationship would be terminologically grouped together with some more basic kinship relationship). By the way, is it consuelos or consuegros? AnonMoos (talk) 10:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Argh! You're right. Probably reanalyzed consuelo per the name Consuela and the kin term abuela.

And the Spanish derivation is transparent. Too bad we can't adopt it into English. I guess you could say "we're co-inlaws", but that's not very precise. kwami (talk) 11:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I used to call them "outlaws".

As I was divorced, I can but speculate on the popularity of this endearing terminus. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 13:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I've heard "outlaws" used to describe one's gay partner's parents and siblings. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 14:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops, now that you mention it: I always thought that one of us three was a bit odd. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

亲家, pinyin qìngjiā or qīngjiā is the Chinese term for "my child's parents-in-law". There are various other terms for the other members of the in-law clan. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Chinese does have a nicely developed kinship system, though when I ask people, I find they don't actually know many of the more peripheral terms. (But then, not many English speakers know what a 'second cousin once removed' is.) kwami (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like 亲家 is missing from Chinese kinship. Maybe you could add it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwamikagami (talk • contribs) 19:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Have added it to article - hopefully correctly. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

On the original question, the movie The In-Laws used the plain word "in-law" for this relationship. But it was clearly a humorous neologism. --Anon, 21;38 UTC, March 2, 2008.

is there a hungarian version of this reference desk

I can't see one to the left... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.66.157 (talk) 11:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Even the main WP:Reference desk page doesn't seem to have a Hungarian equivalent. I see it has a Welsh equivalent at cy:Wicipedia:Y Ddesg Gyfeirio, but looking through the history, it seems no one has ever asked a question there. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 11:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what Welsh has to do with it??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.66.157 (talk) 13:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The Welsh example shows that, even when an interlanguage link to another reference desk is given, this is still no guarantee that there is a thriving desk at the other end. Conversely, the omission of an interwikilink needn't mean the corresponding foreign language Wikipedia doesn't have a reference desk. So I looked through the Hungarian WP, but found no refdesk equivalent. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course everyone in wales now speaks English, so unless there was a question specifically related to the Welsh language they would probably get a better reply here. -- Q Chris (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there nobody who feels it their moral duty to alleviate the sad under utilisation of the Welsh reference desk by being the first of all Brythonic inquisitors since the establishment of the RD in November 2003?

Unfortunately, I live in the old province of Noricum, where the Noric language is long extinct and virtually undocumented. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hungarian Wikipedia does have hu:Wikipédia:Kocsmafal (helyesírás). Generally, the various "kocsmafal" (tavern) sites correspond to our village pump, but this particular one is on spelling, style, naming and other things pertaining to the Hungarian language and WP articles. It has no exact equivalent at en.wikipedia, and it's the closest thing to the language reference desk I was able to find. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Use of Latin across the Roman Empire

How widespread was Latin throughout the Roman Empire? How much was it used by non-Romans in conquered countries? Were there some countries that used it more? Are situations in films like Gladiator where all the slaves can converse fluently on first meeting (obviously necessary in a Hollywood film) a realistic depiction of linguistic barriers in the Roman Empire? Thanks for any answers! 81.96.160.6 (talk) 13:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was almost certainly widely used by non-Romans in the countries where the modern Romance languages have evolved. The eastern part of the empire (even before the official split into the Western Roman and the Eastern Roman Empires), however, used Greek as its lingua franca. (Still, I suppose Latin rather than Greek must have predominated in Dacia, since Romanian is derived from Latin.) In Britain, Latin never displaced the native Celtic language, although Welsh still has an enormous number of loanwords from Latin. I don't know how widely Latin was spoken in western North Africa, though. I've never heard of a Romance language (other than French and Spanish!) spoken in Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 14:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The article on Romance languages shows a map from around 20 CE the spread of Romance languages in the 20th century and is irrelevant to this question. The article on Vulgar Latin might interest you as well. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't care what the image description of that map says, that's the distribution of the Romance languages in the 20th century ("20c"), not in "20 CE". —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 15:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. Thanks. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

---

In the Balkans, there's the Jireček Line, while along the western frontiers of the empire ca. 400 A.D., Latin / Vulgar Latin basically prevailed south and west of the Rhine-Danube line. There's a map on page 175 of Les Invasions: Les Vagues Germaniques' by Lucien Musset, which shows how the Romance-speaking area contracted west of the Rhine and south of the Danube from ca. 400 A.D. to ca. 850 A.D., but how the border between Romance-speaking areas and Germanic-speaking areas has only undergone rather minor perturbations over the last 1,100 years.

Elsewhere in the eastern hemisphere, the Latin-speaking areas of the late Roman empire were somewhat similar to the Romance-speaking areas of today, with the major exceptions of the loss of Britain and the province of "Africa" (i.e. northern Tunisia and northeastern Algeria). AnonMoos (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Accessible current studies of this and related questions are Nicholas Ostler's Empires of the Word (a more general and comparative account of the spread of languages) and Ad Infinitum (a thorough study of Latin's penetration). Easy to find at Amazon.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 21:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Grammar correct?

Is the following sentence grammatically correct?

"Unlike the Jack's poem, Jason's poem to John is full of joy and happiness, albeit false"

The part in questions is the last part the "..., albeit false" part. Is that correctly used? 99.240.177.206 (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

"the Jack's" is wrong. kwami (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

But "albeit false" is grammatical. --Anon, 21:43 UTC, March 2, 2008.

Well, grammatically it says that Jason's poem is false, not the joy and happiness. That is only inferable through context. To be pedantic, here "false" is an alternate predicate. To specify the correct meaning for a machine translator that can't make such inferences, you'd need to to say "albeit false joy and happiness", which of course don't sound too good. kwami (talk) 06:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Kwami ... your comment (more or less) went over my head ... at least the "pedantic" part of your note. Is the following correct to get across what the OP is trying to say, or is something still off?

Jason's poem to John, unlike Jack's, is full of joy and happiness, albeit false.

Does that work or not really? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC))

If all you're focussing on is whether this way of using "albeit" is correct, then both versions are ok. But I'm having trouble understanding the meaning. I disagree with Kwami as to what 'albeit' refers to. To me, it can only refer to 'joy and happiness', not to 'Jason's poem'. But what's false joy or false happiness? If Kwami is correct, what's a false poem? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, it's poetry. It doesn't need to make literal sense. I mean, what are "blind mouths"? Literal nonsense, but they convey quite a strong impression.

I'm not sure now about the parsing. You can simplify it to

the-poem is full-of-joy, albeit (it is) false

Now, to me it is clear that the meaning is that the adjective 'false' modifies 'joy', the noun embedded in the adjectival phrase full of joy:

the-poem is full-of-joy, albeit (it is) false-joy

So, Joseph, yes, to me it makes sense.

However, if you look only at the structure, I thought at first that, grammatically, the adjective would have to substitute for the adjectival phrase:

the-poem is full-of-joy, albeit (it is) a-false-poem.

(That is, A = X, albeit = Y could be A = X, albeit A = Y: 'the poem is joyous, albeit the poem is false'.)

If you substitute 'joyous' for 'full of joy', then you force this reading:

The poem is joyous, albeit false

can only mean that the poem is false.

The problem is what the unstated 'it' in (it is) false refers to. That's simply ambiguous, and cannot be recovered through parsing. You have to take the context and semantics into account. So, grammatically, I suppose you could argue that either reading is acceptable. However, only one of them makes sense here.

If you created a similar structure, where either reading works semantically, then it becomes completely ambiguous:

the essays are full of quotations, but they're incoherent.

Are the essays incoherent, or the quotations? We have no way of knowing. kwami (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I took the original sentence to mean that the poem was full of joy and happiness ... and that joy and happiness was false. Meaning, that the joy and happiness were disingenuous / fake / insincere / contrived / etc. Something along those lines. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC))

Contextually ... joy and happiness can be "false" (although there are much better word choices, as in my prior post) ... a poem cannot be "false". I'd say. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC))

The obvious mistaken use of "the" aside, this is about usage, not grammar. "Albeit" is not a word people say around here (Middle Atlantic, USA) very much. Let me put that another way: nobody uses "albeit" in speech here, ever. It is a wholly literary, high-register word that therefore has no natural usage to it. It does, however, have an environment it looks comfortable in (how's that for ending with a preposition?), and I would say that in the sentence in question it is missing an element of that environment. It's time for Satan to break out the earmuffs, because I'm about to use Encarta: "even though: used to introduce a statement that modifies a statement just made a difficult, albeit rewarding job". We can talk about the comma later. You need the other thing after "albeit" sets up for it. "Albeit" is often defined as "though", but it is not "though" and requires special handling. If you must use "albeit" there, you have to put "joy and happiness" after it. --Milkbreath (talk) 12:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Use of the signal sic

Can someone please take a look at the introductory sentence of the following article: Writers Guild of America, west ... and notice its use of the signal sic ... not only once, but twice. I'd like to know if the sic is used correctly or incorrectly in this case. The organization has a right to name itself whatever it chooses to name itself -- independent of "conventional" punctuation, etc. I guess the idea is that, if indeed the organization had used proper and correct punctuation, there would be an apostrophe in the word "Writers" and a capitalization of the word "west". (I guess.) But, still, those are not mistakes per se -- but, quite the opposite -- likely very intentional naming techniques on the part of the organization. (They are, after all, a group of writers!) Now, the signal sic is generally used to indicate an error / mistake ... or also to indicate something unexpected (mistake or not). I am just curious if its use is appropriate in this particular instance. I am not sure. Furthermore, it's rather jarring to read the article and -– within the first few words -– a reader gets slowed down not by one, but two, of these sics. And probably has no idea what they even mean. On the article's Talk Page ---> Talk: Writers Guild of America, west#"Sic", I expressed some other thoughts and comments related to this. It may be helpful to read that posting also, as I believe that I included extra information there, as well. Any thoughts / ideas/ comments / feedback / input on all of this? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC))

Update: Since the article has been (since) edited, the original introduction to the article read as follows:

Writers [sic] Guild of America, west [sic] (WGAw) is a labor union representing writers of television and film and employees of television and radio news. The 2006 membership of the guild was 7,627. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC))

I think the use of even one "[sic]" there is pedantry, and the use of two is downright assholery. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well ... to be fair ... it does have its place. I am not sure if it does here, though? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC))

I've removed them from the article. No reason not to be WP:BOLD. Deor (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Deor ... no offense ... I am neither timid ("unbold") nor incapable of editing the article. I am interested to know whether or not this use was correct and appropriate (or not). People can agree to disagree ... as I am sure that the editor who placed both "sics" felt that it was justified and warranted. (I highly doubt some young middle school kid did it for kicks to vandalize Wikipedia.) So, I'd like to solicit the difference of opinions either in favor of or against its use in this very specific instance. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC))

Joseph, I did say "the use of even one '[sic]' there" (emphasis added), referring to the specific place where it was used in the article you mentioned. Of course sic has its place. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. That makes more sense. I missed the word "there" in your original posting. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC))

The sic after "Writers" was particularly egregious. The use of attributive plurals in names of organizations and elsewhere (Veterans Day, for example) is so common that it's unworthy of comment. If it's thought likely that editors may try to capitalize "west" (or move the article to a title with capitalized "west"), one can always add a hidden note about the correct capitalization at the beginning of the article. Deor (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I've made similar comments on the relevant talk page. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

NAEYC

Hi. Is NAEYC (= National Association for the Education of Young Children) an acronym (like AIDS, snafu) or an alpha abbreviation (like NBA, POW)? Or can it be both (like HOV = "high-occupancy vehicle", at least where I am)? Or is it a combination of both types (like IHOP = International House of Pancakes)? I dont know the convention for pronouncing this one. – ishwar  (speak) 22:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on the subject, Acronym and initialism, suggests that there is no ready answer to your question (and indeed, suggests that the distinction between the two is rather unclear, if it exists at all). Carom (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

There is certainly an answer to his real question, which is, "How is NAEYC pronounced? Does one say 'en ay ee wye cee' or something along the lines of 'nake' or 'nay-wye-cee'?" —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

If it's pronounced as a word, my guess would be "NAY-ik." Their Web site includes an e-mail address; why don't you ask them, Ish? Deor (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) In some schools of thought, if the group of letters can be, and usually is, pronounced as a single word (such as radar, QANTAS, ...), then it's an acronym; but if we say each letter separately (FBI, CIA ...) then it's not. This seems a useful and clear distinction to me, but others differ. There are grey areas. There are always grey areas. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've found an NPR radio archive (From School to Summer Camp) with a pronunciation by Jerlean Daniel who is?/was? the director of NAEYC. She pronounces it [ɛneiwaɪsi] (en-ay-why-see), i.e. as an alpha abbrev. I'll take her pronunciation as definitive unless there's any contradiction here.

Carom: there is often a general way that these are pronounced. But, if you dont know, then you dont know (and I didnt know). There may be some variation, but I havent really noticed much. I mentioned HOV because it is always possible there are variant pronunciations. (In Texas there is some variation with HOV: most, in my experience (& I'm not from TX), say it as an alpha abbrev. but I have heard it as an acronym (where it rhymes with dove). Some Texans I've asked react against the acronym pronunciation as being decidedly "incorrect".)

Deor: yeah I dont really want to bother them at work with this question.... I figured Wiki folks like these kind of questions, so I asked here.

Anyway, if anyone actually says this word or has heard it spoken out loud before, then please leave a note. – ishwar  (speak) 00:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Which dove does it rhyme with? dove or dove? —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Both! My sister says /ˈhoʊv/ and my bro-in-law /ˈhʌv/. I believe the latter may be more common, but I don't really know. kwami (talk) 05:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That's funny. I meant the bird dove, like love, shove (but not like stove, drove, or move either). I forgot about the verb. I havent heard it rhyme with stove, drove, dove (v.). It's kinda weird that there're some people who pronounce it like stove, drove. This ...ov spelling is only really in Slavic names seems like — although there is gov (guv), but that seems a bit British — and I would guess most are with a vowel different from stove, drove. Maybe it's the fact that orthographic words dont end with v (pace shiv, rev) that's creating this phenomenon. Interesting.... – ishwar  (speak) 22:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If I were going to pronounce hov as a word rather than by its letters, I think I'd say /hɑv/ with the LOT vowel, which doesn't seem to be anyone else's choice. But in fact, (1) I had never heard of HOVs [by this name; of course I've heard of carpool lanes] until this thread, (2) if I had, I would certainly have said "aitch-oh-vee". —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the word either, but there happens to be a HOV lane near my sister's place (one which reverses direction to handle the morning vs. evening rush hour — there are carpool lanes as well, but that's not the same thing). When I first saw it, I assumed it was /hɒv/ too, but have been told that's not correct.

By the way, in the US .gov is also pronounced with an uh (/dɒt ɡʌv/). Maybe that's as much a source as love or above. kwami (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I assumed it was /hɒv/ too When did Californians (?) become British?! I'd heard that Bostonians have that vowel, but to my ears still doesn't sound very rounded. — Zerida ☥ 23:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that. I'm just used to editing per the Wikipedia IPA transcription system, which marks that distinction for the people that make it. Locally it would be /ˈhɑv/. kwami (talk) 08:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

əəəəʊ nəəəəəʊʊʊ, I didn't realize the Brits were taking over IPA transcriptions on Wiki. Actually, I probably shouldn't say that--I seem to have roused someone's ire for pointing out correctly that Egypt was occupied by British imperialists. Wouldn't it be, like, totally awesome if we used California English for, like, everything! — Zerida☥ 01:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The pronunciation of .gov makes sense because it's not an acronym, it's a clipped form of government, which has the STRUT vowel. My husband, who's German, has a hard time remembering that stove and clove have the GOAT vowel. He's always asking me to turn on the stuv and chop up a cluv of garlic. It's very cute. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 06:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Narratives, use of pronouns: I or me?

Do narratives use I or me?--Backtable232 (talk) 23:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That is an ill-formulated question, Back. First give an informative title, so people scanning for opportunities to help you have some clue about the topic. Then ask a focused question! Of course "narratives" use both words, I and me. What exactly do you want to know?

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 23:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Do narratives use irony ? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm writing a narrative about a childhood memory for my creative writing class and I was wondering if it is alright if a narrative uses I, like, "I recall a time when I went swimming", or do I have to use my name in a narrative, like, "Backtable232 remembers a time he went swimming"?--Backtable232 (talk) 01:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. That would convert it into a narrative in the third person, as if it were somebody else talking about you, which is not what you want. There are hundreds of examples in literature where a narrative is in the first person but the name of the narrator is never mentioned. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Illeism... AnonMoos (talk) 05:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You may, on the other hand, use the third person narrative as a dramatic device to highlight the "otherness" between your current self and the remote "me" of your infancy. In your "I recall a time when I went swimming" you already record, as an adult, an adventure of your childhood.

If you observe little Backtable´s world from the relative omniscience of the present, then the use of I (Backtable in 2008) and he (BT in 1998) seperates those two worlds and personae. Of course, it requires considerably more writing skill to use this temporal "alienation" of the Egos. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 09:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You may also do the reverse in writing your story from the world of the child in 1998 ("I go swimming") and, from your infantile world, speculate what the grown up Backtable ("she" or "he") will remember in 2008, what s/he will have forgotten, what s/he will have "lost" in gaining "adulthood". --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 10:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

March 3

Pronunciation: IPA for the word "anole"

Resolved

Could someone throw the IPA for anole at me please? HYENASTE 00:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The OED gives /ə'nəʊlɪ/. The word is spelled anoli there, though. Deor (talk) 01:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

A more American pronunciation is /əˈnoʊli/.  --Lambiam 05:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Just go to dictionary.com and click on "Show IPA Pronunciation" on the first entry. Their IPA conventions are very similar to what we use here. Anyway, I added it to the article. kwami (talk) 05:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Deor and Lambiam, for the answer, and thank you, kwami, for showing me where to go next time. HYENASTE 06:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Corrected colloquialisms: "proof in the pudding"

looking for the correct colloquialism. most people incorrectly quote "the proof is in the pudding." the actual quote is "the proof of the pudding is in the set." is this correct or not?Derharjo (talk) 01:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I've always heard it as "The proof of the pudding is in the eating". -- JackofOz (talk) 01:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No wonder the phrase has never made sense to me; it's always been said wrong! HYENASTE 01:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, your version does make sense, Hyenaste; it might be said that one test of a pudding's having been prepared well is whether it sets up properly (particularly if the pudding is what most folks in the United States first think of when the word is used—the creamy Jello dessert thingie). That version isn't, however, mentioned in Michael Quinion's discussion of the expression. Deor (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

As JackofOz states, I have always heard the "long version" as The proof of the pudding is in the eating. However, The proof is in the pudding is not so far off base. It is simply short-hand / abbreviation for: The proof (of whether or not it is tasty) is in (actually eating) the pudding. Or ... The proof (of whether or not it tastes good) lies within the actual pudding itself. Those latter two sentences are just shortened -- as all of these sayings tend to get -- into a compact The proof ... is in the pudding. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC))

I thought I'd also heard the in the set version, albeit rarely. At least, it makes sense. However, it doesn't get a single Google hit, compared to 90,000 for in the eating. It's kinda like you can't have your cake and eat it too - it doesn't make any sense until you know where it comes from. kwami (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Robert Bly poem

Last line is: "We are perishable, friends. We are salty, impermanent kingdoms" What is it called? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.100.32.151 (talk) 01:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be an improvised poem which he recited, but never published. You can listen to him read it (he recites it twice, along with three other wonderful poems) here: http://www.kuow.org/defaultProgram.asp?ID=13857.

My transcription follows (I warn you, it is completely subjective and I make no claims to his spelling, punctuation, and line division; those are purely mine):

Improvisation on im:

The nimble ovenbird, the dignity of pears,

the simplicity of oars [or ores?], the imperishable engines inside slim fir-seeds:

all of these make clear

how much we want the impermanent

to be permanent;

we want the hermit wren to keep her eggs,

even during the storm;

but that’s impossible.

We are perishable, friends;

we are salty, impermanent kingdoms.

It's a beautiful poem. Thanks for sharing! СПУТНИК^{CCC P} 05:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

- Thank you!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.174.163 (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC) 

Sounds: dental, alveolar, and postalveolar

Why are dental, alveolar, and postalveolar sounds allophonic, except for the fricatives? HYENASTE 03:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

First, although that's true for English, it's not true of all languages; other languages do have phonemic distinctions among non-fricatives at those places of articulation. Second, the only answer to the question "Why are they allophonic" I can think of is "Because there are no phonemic contrasts made between these places of articulation", but that isn't really an answer, it's just restating the question as a statement with different words. Basically, there is no real reason why a possible phonemic distinction isn't made in a language, it just isn't. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Many Australian languages are famous for having phonemic contrasts of stop sounds in this area of the mouth... AnonMoos (talk) 05:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the acoustics of it, but small differences of place are easier to hear in fricatives than in stops. You get the something similar with bilabial vs. labiodental (although I've heard the argument (speculation?) that's because it's hard to make labiodental stops if you have gaps between your teeth). kwami (talk) 05:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Rounded lips during [ʃ] and [ʒ]

Why do we (in English at least) round our lips when makes these sounds? Several pages mention that we do it; none tell why. HYENASTE 06:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The French also do it. Perhaps it's an areal feature. kwami (talk) 07:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

All coronal fricatives involve some labialization compared to stops. We do it more with these sounds than with the alveolar fricatives because of the amount of noise required to produce them. Try saying ʃʃʃʃʃʃʃʃ with your lips as spread as possible versus with your lips rounded, and see how much noise you get for each. — Zerida ☥ 07:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't get what you're saying. I can make the same volume of noise for [ʃ] regardless of labialization. It feels a bit weird, but that's because I've always rounded lips. HYENASTE 04:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The airflow should be more obstructed with the lips in their normal position, so there is less turbulence. It's similar to whistling. Acoustically, you get more turbulent airflow from a narrower channel than a wider one. So if you imagine your oral cavity being a tube that narrows at one end and you blow through it, you should get more turbulent airflow like you would if you were whistling. I suspect this is why we typically round our lips when we shush someone. Not all languages have lip rounding during [ʃ], but they end up being acoustically different sounds. — Zerida ☥ 06:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Isn't that like asking why we pronounce /t/ and /d/ as alveolar rather than dental? It's just the way our language has evolved. Though I might speculate that labialization enhances the (already existing) acoustic differences between alveolar and postalveolar sibilants.

There have been a number of linguistic changes that are attributable to increasing the phonetic differences between two similar phonemes; it's easier to distinguish between [i] and [ɯ] than [i] and [ɨ], it's easier to distinguish [k] and [q] from [dʒ] than [g], etc. If I recall correctly, another driving factor in phonetic change is ease of articulation; it's easier to pronounce /t/ as palatalized before front vowels ([tʲi]), it's easier to pronounce [tɕ] than [c], it's easier to pronounce pre-obstruent nasals as homorganic to such obstruents, etc. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 08:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Knowledge of communication skills in discussions

-Team work -Taking part in discussions -What is expected in a discussion at workplace? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.167.134.1 (talk) 09:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Groan. I hate homework. Anyway you could try our article on Small-group communication, or find something in the library or on google about teamwork and leading a small group (our article "Leading small groups" is not relevant since it's a political cog in China). There's usually a leader and up to 12 people in the group. You must have notes about your subject that these questions are based on. Did you read them? Julia Rossi (talk) 10:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

March 4

Prepositions at the end of a sentence

Is this grammar rule true? bibliomaniac15 I see no changes 01:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No, dear B15. Such a thing is never "true". Is it a widely promulgated rule, favoured by that species of pedant who dedicates her life and language to making life and language awkward for humanity at large? Yes, though it has little currency recently. Someone else will quote Churchill on this; myself, I refuse to.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 01:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you mean that "This is a situation up with which I will not put" thing?

But I actually came here to deliver a joke. Guy goes to Harvard University, walks into the library and goes to the desk. He asks the librarian there, "Can you tell me where the student union is at?". Librarian looks at him a second, arches his eyebrows, and replies in a cold sneer, "Here at Harvard, we do not end our sentences with prepositions." Not missing a beat the guy says, "OK, can you tell me where the student union is at, asshole?" +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 02:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is my first smile of the day, and it isn't even past lunchtime. Thank you for that! 206.252.74.48 (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the sort of made-up quotation up with which I will not put! —Keenan Pepper 02:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Whew! Found my Grammar Grams books; wonderful little lessons on language usage. Here's what they have to say about this matter:

You can end some sentences with prepositions (particles) because the preposition (particle) is part of the verb.

For instance, look at the following:

I ran away.

He shouldn't lead you on.

But some sentences are confusing if they end in a true preposition (and not a particle that is part of a verb):

A preposition is a word you shouldn't end a sentence with.

Why not just say, "You shouldn't end a sentence with a preposition"? Whatever you do, remember that many people object strongly to ending sentences with these words, whether they are prepositions or particles. Be prepared for criticism.

In our efforts to be clear and precise, we sometimes double our prepositions, especially with the words which and whom, as in the following:

Is this the person to whom you would like to speak to? (Get rid of that last to.)

Now hasn't this been a Grammar Gram you can put up with? With which you can put up? Up with which you can put?

Good stuff; I recommend these little pamphlets to anyone who cares about words. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 02:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Away isn't a preposition. Anyway, there isn't much difference between those examples and end with — merely the degree of grammaticalization. If you wish to topicalize 'a preposition' by fronting it, there isn't much choice in colloquial English other than saying A preposition is a word you shouldn't end a sentence with. "With which" is just not colloquial anymore. kwami (talk) 03:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

When was it ever colloquial? I thought that was the point of those tortured, supposed Churchill quotes. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 04:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Was it just an attempt to imitate Latin grammar? kwami (talk) 07:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably. The rule was first formulated by John Dryden in 1672. However, most 20th and 21st century commentators on grammar don't believe that prepositions should be banned from the ends of sentences. Merriam-Webster's Concise Dictionary of English Usage says: "The preposition at the end has always been an idiomatic feature of English. It would be pointless to worry about the few who believe it is a mistake." --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It was a widely-enough known "rule" to have provided an opportunity for one of the more amusing historical headlines. When kidnapper Richard Loeb was killed in prison in 1936, the initial reports were that he had been slain by a fellow inmate after Loeb had tried to sexually importune him. The story, as reported by the Chicago Daily News: "Richard Loeb, despite his erudition, today ended his sentence with a proposition". - Nunh-huh 10:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that's rich! Where do you find this stuff? 206.252.74.48 (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The idea that there is a rule that prepositions should not appear at the end of sentences was well known both in 1936 and today. But it's not a rule that contemporary grammarians are inclined to uphold, nor is it a rule that most professional writers consider themselves bound by. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

My father was a stickler for grammar, but enjoyed this sentence, that ends with many prepositions: 'What did you bring me this book to be read out of from for?'

It gets better: the little boy whose mother brought a book about Australia upstairs to read to him at bedtime said, "What did you bring this book about Down Under up for?". ;-) —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

We can expand further: "What did you bring the book you wanted to be read to out of from up for?" SaundersW (talk) 18:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

How to say "bad-mouthing" in a less informal way?

In a formal report how can I write that Able was bad-mouthing Baker? "Bad-mouthing" seems too informal, so I would like to use a less informal equivalent. Thanks 80.0.127.115 (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Disparaging? —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

In the sense of ridicule, discredit, criticize, defame, insult? Julia Rossi (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Excoriate, execrate, censor, denounce, vilify, malign, traduce, asperse. I wonder whether most languages are as rich in such words as English is. --Milkbreath (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Denigrate, deprecate, belittle... Vrac (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Decry, denunciate, deplore, stigmatise, accuse, depreciate, impeach... Gwinva (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Speak ill of, slander, maledict, calumniate. --Milkbreath (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime I will accumulate the short list of synonyms for good-mouthing. Google indicates it may be even shorter than I thought. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

going on grammatically without any punctuation

I was wondering about how long a sentence someone could make without any punction.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.109.49 (talk • contribs)

I would like to answer your question even though it is not something I have wondered about much in the past but I guess one could write for quite some time without needing any form of punctuation if one kept to a stream of consciousness style which allows you to carry on at great length writing thoughts down but never getting anywhere or pausing for breath in much the same manner as I am doing now although you may find that you want to do it about quite another topic altogether which is quite up to you and I would not blame you for it although others might question whether there is anything to be gained by such a demonstration and consider that you would be better constructing something more formal especially as the problem with these sentences is that they bore the writer and they soon run out of inspiration which is why they finally stop. Gwinva (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Japanese politicians are famous for going on for 20 minutes with a single sentence (though they do pause), so that they don't have to say whether they support or oppose the topic of their speech until they can gage the reaction of their audience. (Japanese is a verb-final language, and it is the verb that indicates polarity (is/isn't, will/won't), so as long as you avoid that final verb, you don't have to commit yourself.) kwami (talk) 23:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Molly Bloom's Soliloquy in Ulysses is a well known example, containg, I think, 8 full stops in this final chapter. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 00:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Forever! See Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo. --Sean 14:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

March 5

Most heavily punctuated sentence

The above question about lack of punctuation has inspired me to propose an opposite challenge. (But, since this is a reference desk, I shall phrase it as a question!) What is the most heavily punctuated sentence a Ref Desk volunteer can construct? All punctuation must be used according to accepted guidelines and standards. Gwinva (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you accept answers in Morse code ? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I –that is, me, "Gwinva" (a nom-de-plume)– say "Ha!" to that; Morse’s code lacks –indeed, wants– punctuation, so you'd be better striving, working, and concentrating on a complex arrangement, like the extra-ordinary, and heart-warming (in fact, delightful), offering from our friend, "MusicalConnoisseur", below, or, indeed, a run-of-the-mill effort, such as my off-the-cuff response: "Punctuation is, certainly, the finest 'tool' a word-smith, of any kind, has at their –that is, his or her– disposal, regardless of their genre, subject, theme, or field." Gwinva (talk) 07:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that Morse Code does indeed have punctuation for those who wish use of it. People rarely choose this, but it's there. Whether the cipher is Samuel's would be another matter. I'm actually playing a different game here, and hope success. Skittle (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Are we counting marks, or density? I could form a lengthy run-on with nothing more than repeated commas. HYENASTE 04:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

True, but live a little, Hynaste; there's a world of punctuation out there! Gwinva (talk) 07:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

“ Feast your ears, as it were, if possible - that is, not necessarily with the ears alone - upon a Mozart concerto, or, rather, I should say, the epitome of classical grace, that is, style, mysterious in itself, and, quite paradoxically, simultaneously open, as many have said, seemingly reserved, but, at the same time, telling everything in the most direct manner possible; in other words, as my friend and colleague - who does not wish to be mentioned afore you today - has often, or near-often, said, "It is the best and most expressive style amongst them all, expressing the most profound poetry within a few bars, providing all the beauty of a fresh spring crisp upon one's rosy face at sunrise; it has expressed the utmost distinguished poetry, incapable of being explained otherwise," and though I agree with him, his answer seems not to envelop, shall we say, the entire topic, but instead, it only covers a small facet, or miniscule part of it, and thus, it does not do justice to his genius, which is, oddly enough, acceptable, for it is an artform that cannot, as has been quoted before, be expressed in words. ”

*Whew!* That was a long run. :) --~~MusicalConnoisseur~~ Got Classical? 06:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems that your challenge, if, indeed, it can be called a "challenge", is to write a sentence – an endlessly qualified sentence, for that matter – in the style of the late Henry James, by which I mean, of course, not that the author is dead (which, it goes without saying, he is), but that the sentence under consideration (being, that is to say, the one you are currently reading) is, in some way, evocative of his (Henry James's) later novels.†

†Say, "What Maisie Knew" (1897) or, if you prefer, "The Ambassadors" (1903).

Or, in a different style, how about this:

"You… you mean to tell me," said User:Gwinva (incredulous), "that s/he – was it a 'he' or a 'she'? – said: 'I like the [so-called] bands Hear'Say, !!!, Menswe@r, and B*Witched'!?!?!!!" Malcolm Starkey (talk) 08:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This sentence has many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many commas. --Kjoonlee 10:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Saffron and "bastard saffron"

Is there a difference between saffron and 'bastard saffron'? On this page they give 'simiente de papagayos' for 'bastard saffron', but pages in English that I found seem to be saying they are the same. At the same time, azafrán is what is used for 'normal' saffron. What is the difference? 70.162.25.53 (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Your question may be more appropriate for the Science desk. According to our article Safflower, "Safflower flowers are occasionally used in cooking as a cheaper substitute for saffron, and are thus sometimes referred to as 'bastard saffron.'" The article Knysna-Amatole montane forests suggests that a South African tree (Cassine peragua) is also known as bastard saffron. I would imagine that anything used as a saffron substitute might be given this name. Deor (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This Spanish dictionary, s.v. alazor, indicates that simiente de papagayos = Carthamus tinctorius, which is the safflower. Deor (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably surplus information, but for completeness, true saffron is the stamens stigma of the crocus (crocus sativus). SaundersW (talk) 08:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

My local tienda unhelpfully labels their safflower as "saffron" with no hint of bastardization. --Sean 14:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's common practice. Especially when they can't provide you with the real saffron! ;-) Pallida  Mors 15:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Identifying poem and poet: a spider and a watch

Hello-- Would you please help me locate a poem/poet. In it, a watch dial passes in front of a spider and the hands stop. I first came across it via a passing reference to it in a New Yorker article of some years ago. As I recall, apparently both the poem and the poet are pretty well known. I then looked it up in an older edition of the Norton modern poetry anthology and, voila, there it was. Now I can't seem to find it--or the old anthology.
They might have deleted it for this current edition (it's not there). The poem wasn't necessarily "about" a spider or a watch. It was (as I recall from reading it ten years or so ago) a postmodernist, as it were, oblique reference to them. I am reasonably certain 'spider/watch' weren't mentioned in the title. It was a pretty intense idea that was being suggested...hence my pursuit. Thank you. DeanStonewhite 00:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Deünhille

what is Deünhille? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.222.230.12 (talk) 15:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Best guess from the available Google hits: downhill skiing. SaundersW (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Latin phrase

Source and meaning of Latin phrase "in cauda venenum."? Related to Law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.152.170.240 (talk) 15:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello. This phrase ("in cauda venenum") literally translates to "In the tail (is) the poison". Meaning ... the poison is always at the end. That is, "to save the worst for last." By the way ... the following thread appeared on the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk on August 22, 2006 (see below). Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC))

Per Wikipedia's List of Latin phrases (F–O): Using the metaphor of a scorpion, this can be said of an account that proceeds gently, but turns vicious towards the end — or more generally waits till the end to reveal an intention or statement that is undesirable in the speaker's eyes. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC))

August 22, 2006 discussion: Source of and best translation of the Latin phrase "in cauda venerum"

Are you able to assist me in determining the source of the Latin phrase "in cauda venerum"? If it is attributable to some Latin author, e.g., Catullus, can you also supply me with its "best translation" in the context of the source's text and also the meanings and uses it has when quoted out of its original context. Thank you for your efforts. Duane Larrieu

The correct phrase is "in cauda venenum". Literal translation: "the poison (is) in the tail", meaning "the worst ist yet to come / to save the worst for last" I don't know whether it's by Phaedrus, but it might have been in a fable referring to a scorpion. See more here.---Sluzzelin 19:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Just for fun, in cauda Venerum means "in/on the tail of the Venuses". —Keenan Pepper 21:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The Italian Wikipedia states that it comes from Phaedrus, but refers to the Fox and the Crow (with a cheese). I have not been able to find this or a similar expression in that fable, or in any version of the Boy and the Scorpion, or any other Phaedrus fable. --Lambiam^Talk 22:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

END of August 22, 2006, discussion

Do you think it is related to English "sting in the tail" ? SaundersW (talk) 17:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If it's not of the same origin, it does at the very least have precisely the same meaning. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct wording

The Coen brothers are Academy Award winning film directors. They use the name/credit "Roderick Jaynes" when they edit film. This is no secret -- in fact, it's quite publicized and well-known. Therefore, what is the best term to describe this? Alias, pen name, pseudonym, something else? Which is the best fit? And why? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC))

I guess "pen name" is the most neutral and general term for this sort of thing, but more for writers, I think. "Nom de guerre" used to be the way to go, but don't get me started on the tyranny of ignorance I've sadly lived long enough to see. "Nom de plume" has a certain je ne sais quoi that gives a lighter feel. "Alias" has criminal connotations that are best avoided except with tongue in cheek. "Pseudonym" works, but why be so dry? "Assumed name" or "fictitious name" work, too. I might put "nom de guerre" and let God sort 'em out, but "pseudonym" is probably safest and clearest. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

These versus those

In cases such as the following, is there any real distinction between the words "these" and "those"? Is there a correct word to use, or are these/those perfectly interchangeable? I understand the general distinction in things being "close" versus "far" ... for example, "these" books right in front of me on my desk ... versus "those" books way over there on the other side of the room. So, I am asking about examples, as below, where (physical) "distance" is not relevant.

• 2 items: I like pizza and chocolate, but these are not helping me lose weight.
• 2 items: I like pizza and chocolate, but those are not helping me lose weight.

• 3 items: My favorite authors are Shakespeare, Hemingway, and Joyce. All of these men contributed greatly to literature.
• 3 items: My favorite authors are Shakespeare, Hemingway, and Joyce. All of those men contributed greatly to literature.

Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC))

They are not interchangeable, and there is no correct one. I have run into this same problem, and I guess the rule of thumb is to use "these" unless there is a reason to use "those". In your "2 item" examples, standing alone, I'd say "these" is usual, since the pizza and chocolate are right there in the previous clause. "Those" would be better if the next sentence gave alternatives: "I like pizza and chocolate, but those are not helping me lose weight. Salads and vegetables are what I need." In this case, "those" puts figurative distance between you and the Bad Foods. In your "3 item" examples, it's "these" all the way. "These are a few of my favorite things". --Milkbreath (talk) 17:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello and thanks. Your first sentence: "They are not interchangeable, and there is no correct one." Is that not a contradiction? Is there a typo in there? Also, how is the 2-List different than the 3-List? In the next sentence, one can provide alternatives to three good authors just as easily as alternatives to two bad foods, no? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC))

In the first example, I wouldn't use either one; I'd say "they are not helping". In the second, "these" is correct. To me, "those" sounds like you're referring to another bunch of guys you mentioned earlier. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Our aptly named fiend speaks the truth. The first example sounded funny to me, too, but I played it as it lay. The two words are not interchangeable because there is a difference in meaning or something, and neither can be said to be correct because this isn't one of the things English has a rule about. --Milkbreath (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know of any language where the primary purpose of demonstratives is to indicate physical distance. That usually requires a gesture: with the hands, eyes, or voice inflection. Most of the time they indicate conceptual distance - how relevant an item is for the point at hand. (Notice I said "that usually requires", not "this usually requires", because I'm trying to show that point is off-topic.) This (here "this" refers to the thing that is on topic, what's done 'most of the time') is especially apparent for languages like Spanish and Turkish which have a 3-way distinction: The "medial" term is almost never used for medium distance, or physically located near the person you're speaking to, as grammar books claim, but instead refers to 'the thing I just drew your attention to' — it could be a mountain on the horizon. In English, as in most languages, the distinction can be quite subtle, and certainly isn't something you can capture in a book of grammar rules. kwami (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Word choice

Is there a good word (either a noun or an adjective) that describes people who use big / fancy / intelligent-sounding words ... but only for the sake of using big / fancy / intelligent-sounding words ... such as (a) trying to impress the listener ... or (b) "subtly" boasting their intelligence ... ? Furthermore, is there a good word (either a noun, adjective, or adverb) to describe the person who does so, but indeed does so incorrectly?

Of course, I can't think of a great example off the top of my head at the moment ... but maybe something along these lines:

• A is trying to impress B about how intelligent and educated A is. So, A says to B, something like: "Bush is the US President whom has the worst poll ratings in history".

• Or, A is talking about eating at a fancy restaurant and says to B: "The place had such exquisite delicassies. I was so indelible to go there."

• A: "I have lived in three different states. The first was Texas, the second was Maine, and all of that notwithstanding, the third was Ohio."

So, I am not referring to a person who makes a (true, genuine) error -- but one who intentionally speaks like this (oblivious of the error). Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC))

Looks rather like malapropism to me, with a side-order of hypercorrection. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sesquipedalianists are guilty of the first offense, though only a fellow sesquipedalianist would say so. :) --Sean 18:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That "sesquipedalianist" word seems somewhat on target ... and I had never heard that before. Does this word imply that one uses big words for ego-related reasons ... (that is, is the term pejorative) ... or is it merely anyone who happens to use big words for whatever reason? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC))

There's gotta be at least a slang word. There are a lot of TV skits in the US about people from disadvantaged backgrounds who try educating themselves and end up speaking like this. kwami (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sesquipedalian is slightly humorous in effect. How about wikt:bombastic bombastic which refers not only to the use of long words, but to excessive linguistic padding of any form? SaundersW (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this what you mean? I'm still working on a word for it. --Milkbreath (talk) 20:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

How do you say mouse in Japanese?

Is there a "chu" in the word somewhere? 64.236.121.129 (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, our article Mouse links to ja:ネズミ, which is nezumi if I remember my katakana correctly. But there may be other words for "mouse" in the language. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 18:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you trying to compare with Korean 쥐 jui? No, mouse and rat are both nezumi, except in Sino-Japanese technical or literary terms, when the character 鼠 is pronounced so or syo (cognate with Sino-Korean 서 seo) in compounds. kwami (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, then where does pikachu and raichu come from? In Zelda, they have something called bombchu. They are all mouse related. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Please please exclamation point (puntuation)

At first, my sentence started: "The human DRM/Gremlin gene homologue..." then I decided I wanted to differentiate between the animals to which the alternative names apply: "The human DRM (rats)/Gremlin (Xenopus) gene homologue..." but this separates DRM and Gremlin in a way that I find I don't like. Is it correct? ----Seans Potato Business 19:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It is very awkward/unclear, though not necessarily incorrect once you've parsed it. I'd expand it to something like "the human homologue of the DRM gene found in rats and the Gremlin gene found in Xenopus ...". --Sean 20:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hyphenation

If I was talking about an inhibitor of cheese, I'd say a "cheese-inhibitor" with a hyphen, right? What if I'm talking about a "bone morphogenic protein (BMP) inhibitor" with the abbreviation in brackets? Is bone morphogenic protein (BMP)-inhibitor correct? ----Seans Potato Business 19:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your first question, no; if you're using the term as a noun, then it's just "cheese inhibitor". If it's used as an adverb or adjective phrase, then it gets hyphenated: "a cheese-inhibiting bacterium", "a cheese-inhibitor obsession", etc. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that answers my second question too, but what if we were talking about a "cheesey-wotsit (CW)-inihbitor obsession"? ----Seans Potato Business 20:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like an adjective phrase, so it should be hyphenated as you've done. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"Needs cleaned"

Is there a formal term for the colloquial usage 'needs cleaned', 'needs deleted', etc? Possibly it's just not included an assumed "to be", but I've also encountered a further stage "needs clean". As in "The bath needs clean". Just interested in reading anything on it, if it exists. Skittle (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It's dialectal, not colloquial. You might find something under Southern/Black/Texan US English. Also, I would guess that the clean form is not distinct grammatically, but is a phonological reduction of consonant clusters, and the people who say this also say fren for friend. If you get a verb that ends in a vowel, I bet the final d doesn't drop. kwami (talk) 20:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there is a term used in the dialectological literature for it, but I can't remember what it is. As far as I know, it's characteristic of Pittsburgh and nearby parts of Pennsylvania and Ohio. I never heard it in Texas. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, why not both dialectical and colloquial? I know someone who uses that construct, by the way ("needs cleaned"); they're from "back East" (PA, U.S.), and they do not say "fren" for "friend", etc.; standard American English usage for the most part. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 20:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

(EC)Hmm, I'll have to trust you on the distinction between dialect and colloquial. The people I have heard say 'needs clean' certainly pronounce a 'd' on the end of friend and are aware they are saying the word 'clean' rather than 'cleaned'; it's not a swallowed syllable for them. I'll have a look under those dialects, but they are not the dialects of the people I know who use them. I said colloquial because they only seem to be used in 'relaxed' situations; the people who use them (and I find myself occasionally using it for the fun of it) do not use them in more 'formal' speech. But then I'm not quite seeing the line between colloquial and dialect-used-only-in-colloquial-context. Skittle (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

According to http://www.bartleby.com/61/79/N0047901.html the construction is common in Scotland; according to http://www.linguistlist.org/issues/2/2-555.html#5 it's even standard in Scotland, and is also found in New Zealand. It doesn't seem to have any special name other than "the need + past participle construction". If you google for "needs washed" and "needs cleaned", you'll find a bunch of hits. I don't know about the "needs clean" construction, though. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

In the Atlas of North American English, William Labov et al. found the "needs washed" construction throughout the Midland, i.e. not just in Central Pennsylvania and Eastern Ohio, but on through Cincinnati and Indianapolis; as well as in eastern Tennessee (Chattanooga and Knoxville), the Great Plains (Kansas City, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, western South Dakota), and parts of the Rocky Mountains (Colorado, Montana, Idaho, as well as Phoenix). —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I do remember it from Pittsburgh, come to think of it, but I have a friend in Austin you also uses it. Evidently in your case, Skittle, we are talking about two different constructions. I wonder if 'needs clean' is a reduction of 'needs cleaned', or an extension of 'needs salt'? kwami (talk) 20:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, Austin's where I grew up, and the first time I heard the construction was in a linguistics class at university. Postscript to above: ANAE also says that African-Americans in Atlanta use "need + past participle" but others there don't. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I wonder where he got it, then? Well, good to get it right. kwami (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)