Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

May 22

Russian word "стрёмe"

Can someone please tell me what the word "стрёмe" means? I can't seem to find it anywhere and it's been driving me crazy. It's usually found in the combination "на стрёмe", so I assume it's in the prepositional case. Thanks! Bhumiya (said/done) 15:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Google translate translates "на стрёме" sometimes as "at the aim –"[1] and sometimes as "at the Xtreme"[2], but the latter only if the "С" is a capital letter. Go figure. By the way, Cyrillic "е" and Latin "e" are different characters; you used the Latin letter, which initially made my searches (based on a copy of the string) fail.  --Lambiam^Talk 21:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be a technically incorrect form of the word стремя, but one that may have found its way into current idiom. The normal declension in the singular is:

• стремя in nominative and accusative
• стремени in genitive, dative and prepositional, and
• стременем in instrumental. JackofOz 04:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, how would you pronounce "стрёмe", I find that I can pronounce most cryllic words quite well due to knowledge of both greek and latin alphabets. but the "ст" has me stumped. What sound is this? 213.48.15.234 08:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I get "stryo-myeh" (sorry, i have no knowledge of the IPA)Storeye 09:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah okay so c is sigma-ish? okay that makes sense. 213.48.15.234 09:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm no expert on linguistic evolution, but that would be my guess of its origin. A lot of cyrillic letters look like anglo or greek ones but are pronounced differently Storeye 09:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Es (Cyrillic) tells the tale. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The "C" form of Greek sigma ("lunate sigma") was common within Greek in the early centuries A.D...

It must be some kind of idiomatic expression. It is often put in quotations, so presumably it is used both literally and figuratively. Bhumiya (said/done) 16:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a slangy term for "on the alert, en garde". It is used specifically to refer to a criminal/delinquent who acts as a sentinel when his pals break into premises or commit theft. They say that he stands "на стрёме". His task is to let them know when somebody (police) is approaching. "Стрематься" is a slangy adjective for "to feel scared/ashamed of smth"; "стрёмно" is an adverb which roughly means "unbecoming, unseemly, out of order". --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Bhumiya (said/done) 12:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

French book title

Hello. When I mention a French book in an English article, should I capitalize the words in it? For example, L'être et le néant or L'être et le Néant? Cheers.--K.C. Tang 03:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No. French uses the same capitalization in titles as in normal sentences, so it's L'être et le néant. (Of course the first word is capitalized.) —Angr 04:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

so people never anglicize it (capitalize the words, except articles and prepositions, in it) in an English context, right?--K.C. Tang 04:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Nup. According to any Style guide worth its salt, L'année dernière à Marienbad and À la recherche du temps perdu in English are Last Year at Marienbad and (Yes, I know there are better title translations) In Search of Lost Time. <mild pedantic rant> If you write the title in English, use English capitalisation rules; if you write the title in French, use French capitalisation rules.</mild pedantic rant> --Shirt58 11:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

French usage is not as uniform as it has been presented above. Other possibilities you will see in well-edited French are L'Être et le Néant[3] (capitalization of important words) and L’Etre et le néant[4] (capitalization of the first word not an article; I've seen this in a lot of publications, and French wikipedia confirms, "traditionnellement...tout se passe comme si le titre commençait sans l'article"). In French Wikipedia, you will find these alongside the standard usage given by Angr (the former in e.g. Le Quart Livre = [5], L'Être et le Néant). Wareh 12:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right, Wareh! That's why I asked here. I have to edit some English texts which mention some French book titles, but I'm not sure what the standard practice is, as I've come crossed the inconsistence you mentioned above. Cheers.--K.C. Tang 01:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization of "downtown"

Would the name "Downtown Richmond" be capitalized, it is a neighborhood within Richmond California, with its own article, i reckon since it is a proper name, and a particularization that is a particular place name downtown should be capitalized, what is the capitalization rule for wikipedia?^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 05:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I would say yes, unless you are speaking generically, as in, 'Let's go downtown.' If you read MOS:CAPS, section 7 (directions and regions) it would seem to say that this area, like other neighborhoods, should be capped. The article on Richmond and on Downtown Richmond both seem to recognize this as a specific entity--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 05:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Then you would be mistaken. First of all, MOS:CAPS has nothing to say about this; it only deals with directions as parts of place names (e.g., Southern California, which does get capitalized). Every usage guide I've found says that "downtown [anywhere]" does not get capitalized. Yes, it does indicate a specific place, but that has nothing to do with capitalization. "Downtown" is simply a descriptor, an adjective, and as such it doesn't form a proper name phrase. (There are adjectives that form proper names, like "Old Sacramento", but this isn't the same thing.) This one is pretty unambiguous.

If you want to check, here are some links: [6] [7] [8].

Also [9] and [10]. If you want any more, just holler ... +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

That was my original thought until I looked at the articles the OP is referring to, Richmond, California and Downtown (Richmond), and my reference to the section of the MOS was in relation to 'Southern California', where 'Southern' is used as a proper noun, rather than a direction. It seemed from the context of the articles that 'Downtown' is being used as a part of a proper noun, but I could be wrong. Perhaps a look at the city's website might give an answer (not that they necessarily got it right either).--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 07:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's true: lots of city, Chamber of Commerce, etc., sites are likely to get this wrong. Here are a couple other ways to look at this. First, instead of "downtown", substitute "central" and figure out if that should be capitalized (generally not). Secondly, and this may not be the most apt example, consider describing an intersection: "the corner of 9th and Broadway". "Corner" isn't capitalized here; however, if it becomes part of a place name, like Carsons Corner, then it is capitalized. But not "downtown". +ILike2BeAnonymous 07:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I see your point, I do think it possible that some cities actually define an area, actually name it, in a way that would be capped, but I don't know if that is the case here. Uncapped until proven otherwise is definitely the rule here. In the Big Apple is there not Uptown, or is it just uptown?--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 07:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"Uptown" is different, and is capitalized in those cities where it occurs (e.g., Chicago). For one thing, it becomes the name of the neighborhood: one refers to "Uptown", not "uptown Chicago". Different from downtown, which, again, is simply a generic adjective describing any city's central business district (generally speaking, though there are exceptions), or simply "the place where the tall buildings are". +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Right. Strictly speaking you should only capitalize a term like this if you can find it on a map, i.e. it's a recognized place name. (More loosely, however, in literature you can treat the name of a significant place as a place name even when it isn't literally, e.g. "We went Downtown.")--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Dunno what you mean by "in literature", but any reputable editor at a publishing house would knock that down to "downtown". Not that the incorrect, capitalized version doesn't occur abundantly; that doesn't make it correct (at least for our purposes, here at this eminently credible encyclopedia ...). +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason, in case it isn't clear, is not because Downtown Richmond is never correct (though I don't like it). It's because "downtown" in this sentence acts as a preposition, rather than as a noun or modifier. It would be equally wrote to write "I didn't get Home until almost midnight." Tesseran 21:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

On Interstate signage Central Richmond is also capitalized, i think it should be capitalized since it is a proper noun, its a place which is a noun and it is a particular place, its Downtown Richmond a neighbrhood, were talking about the neighborhood independantly of the city, whereas it would be lowercase if it were downtown Richmond, speaking of that citys downtown area, but in this case downtown is not independant of Richmond, it is a portion of Richmond, in the capitalized Downtown Richmond were not speaking of the city of Richmond we are speaking of the nieghborhood of Downtown Richmond, a particular place/name/placename and henceforth a proper noun, proper nouns are capitalized^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 23:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever seen a highway sign on which the first word was not capitalized? —Tamfang 21:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that any well-formed sentence in English begins w/a capital letter ... +ILike2BeAnonymous 02:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

May 23

Translator Please!

Where can i find a language translator i really want Spanish....please give me reference

Have a look here. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 04:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm bilingual in English and Spanish what may I help you with?, Soy bilingüe en Inglés asicomo Castellano ¿en que manera le puedo ayudar?^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 05:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Dood thank u for the sending me that kink is cool!!!!!!!!! But what is another name for mexicans---spanish Answer: I thing the word you are looking for may be: "Charos"; it is not an insult word nor despective. In fact, Mexicans love it been refered to as Charros which is traditional word used to describe the extra-wide hats worn by Mexican farmers. Furthermore, it has become part the traditional Mariachi (Mexican-Gala) musicians wear during special events. It is also considered to be the equivalent of the United States traditional "Tuxedo". The origin of this word appears to come from the early Spaniard' standard dressing norm in the XVI-century. I hope that helps you! Jammie tgyesgt@yahoo.com

titles in a sentence

Do you underline or put quotation marks around a title of a book in a sentence?

I'd say use either "quotes" or italics, or "both" - but not underline. JackofOz 04:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd say always italics for a book title. Quotes would be used when you are referring to something like a chapter heading. Same with music - I'd always put an album title in italics, but a song title in quotes. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 04:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

MOS:T, the title section of our Manual of Style covers this very thoroughly, with many possible examples.--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 05:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Our MOS only applies to Wikipedia articles, not externally. JackofOz 05:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I was always taught that underlining was for when italics weren't available (handwritten stuff, mostly), and basically symbolized italics. -Bbik 05:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

True, and I haven't got my Strunk and White to hand but I think our MOS does follow it pretty closely. Obviously there are many additions to allow for Wiki's added capabilities, but most conventions are followed when possible.--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 05:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

In school, we're told to italisise books, song albums, poetry anthologies, short story anthologies, and magazine/newspaper titles, etc., but to put quotations around individual songs, poems, short stories, and articles. and that underlining takes the place of italisising in hand-writing as handwriting is generally slanted anyway. Storeye 09:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Richardjr and I would agree. In the old days, when copy editors worked on page proofs with true-blue pencils, anything underlined with a single straight line told the typesetter to put the underlined text into italics. The convention in old-fashioned things like typewriters and handwriting was to use a single underline for anything a typesetter would italicize. Book titles were always italicized in typesetting, so they were always underlined in typewritten or handwritten material. A wavy underline meant bold face and a double straight underline indicated small caps. I found this [11] useful link. Bielle 10:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I find that lawyers often prefer to underline the names of court cases, even when italics are available. *shudder* —Tamfang 10:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that lawyers pretty much live in their own little universe. After all, they still use Word Perfect by convention and choice; need I say any more? +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Really? Nearly all the lawyers I worked for in the past several years had switched to Messy-Word because "it's the standard", never mind that the paragraph numbering function always does exactly what I tell it not to. I miss WP 5. —Tamfang 04:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Latin translation help

I have this nice little phrase, in curia sine palatio residentie apud Semedram in sala mogna audientie, and I've been able to translate the major words with online dictionaries, but it doesn't make much sense without the connecting words and proper grammar. Can anyone help me with a real translation? Thanks! -Bbik 05:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the correct spelling would probably be in curia sive palatio residentiae apud Semedram in sala magna audientiae. Sive "or" instead of sine "without" makes it work better. But I sort of have the opposite problem, I'm better at the grammar than the vocab. --Cam 06:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, here's my guess at it: "In the court or residential palace at Smederovo in the great audience hall". --Cam 06:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd guess (the Latin is ambiguous) that residentiae also encompasses curia. The author apparently does not know whether to call the building a curia or the more grandiose palatium. The following preserves the ambiguity in English: "In the court or palace of the residence at S."  --Lambiam^Talk 09:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, that works better than what I was trying to smash together, especially given the sine/sive thing. Thanks to both of you! -Bbik 18:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Native modern Greek speaker needed: vocalisation of some consonants

I was told recently that the letter τ is always pronounced /d/ and not /t/ in modern Greek except when preceeded by a non-vocal consonant, like σ in "στο".

I always thought that you needed the combination ντ to generate the sound /d/ and that τ was /t/, and in my travels in Greece, that is what I though I was hearing. Could I have been wrong for so many years?

Same question for the combination μπ which is pronounced /b/, can π alone be pronounced /b/? I always thought it was always a clear /p/.

Many thanks in advance for your answers. Lgriot 07:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a native speaker, but I think "always" is too strong. At least, I think I'd have noticed if χαίρετε, for example, was normally realized with a /d/. To "English ears", unaspirated intervocalic realizations of /t/ may sometimes sound like realizations of /d/. According to our article on Modern Greek phonology, in the section Phonetic realisation (of consonants), /p/, /t/, and /k/ may be slightly voiced in some dialects, especially in Crete and Cyprus. The article also states that some people have the phonetic–phonemic analysis [b] = /mp/, [d] = /nt/, [g] = /nk/; in other words, the [d] you hear in αντίο is an allophone of the phoneme /t/, with the [n] being absorbed into it. I can't be sure, but to me it seems a reasonable assumption that native speakers as informants would tell the researchers this is all wrong if it is, and then that analysis would presumably not be around.  --Lambiam^Talk 09:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)  

Thanks very much Lambiam! You always do wonders on this desk... The guy who told me that is actually from Cyprus, which now explains everything. So I had heard it right in Athens! --Lgriot 13:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"Not half" in British slang

I've seen various forms of "not half" used on British sitcoms to mean "fully", as in "you don't half fancy her, do you ?". My question is where this expression is used. Is it just England ? Also Scotland and Ireland ? Does it include Australia, New Zealand and Canada ? I'm pretty sure it's not used in the US. StuRat 14:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

For some reason I always imagine it in a Cockney (London) accent, not 'arf. And even then, in an old tv show or something, it doesn't seem to be in common modern usage. The south-east of England is one region I don't know well, but it is furthest from Wales and Scotland so I guess it's unlikely there. Cyta 16:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I associate that phrase with Fluff, who it turns out is Australian.  Sʟυмgυм • т • c  17:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This expression is certainly in use in the United States, at least in the New York-Boston corridor that I have inhabited for most of my life, but, to my knowledge, only in the expression "not half bad". In the northeastern US, "not half bad" means "pretty good" or "better than you might think". It is generally used when the speaker and/or listener would expect the thing under discussion to have been done badly but were surprised to see that the thing was actually done fairly well. Usually, this expression is used for a person's or a company's work or performance. I could imagine the expression being extended to some other negative modifier, such as "not half stupid" (meaning "smarter than you might expect"), but I'm not sure that it is ever used with any complement other than "bad" in my part of the United States. Marco polo 19:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point, I've heard that usage in the US myself. StuRat 05:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think those are actually opposites. In the original example, "not half"="all" (you don't half fancy her = you totally fancy her) and in the US example "not half"="none" (not half bad = good, not bad at all) but what do I know.Gabenowicki 02:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

See litotes. It is widely understood in England, and I believe in the rest of Britain as well. The OED doesn't mention any geographical restrictions for the idiom. --ColinFine 23:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Translation of old photos

Someone (Quietmartialartist) asked me for help in translating some old photos from Korea: Historic Photo 1, Historic Photo 2. Unfortunately, they're in Chinese characters, which don't mean much to me! If someone knows Korean hanja well that would be perfect, but they should be the same as traditional Chinese. Thanks. --Reuben 16:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I only speak Japanese, but I reckon the meaning is something along the lines of: "(A photo) commemorating the welcome back (back, as in "after have being abroad") party for the superintendent/director". Mackan 17:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

That's what my teacher told me it basically meant. Thank you both. Quietmartialartist 23:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Old Jokes

I've been reading The Enjoyment of Laughter by Max Eastman, and there are two jokes near the end that I don't get. The first is on page 316,

...about a man who came to London from Germany and called up a friend on the telephone; the friend was out and he tried to leave his German name, which was Siegmann, with the maid. He spelled it out: S as in sugar, I as in Indian, E as in elephant...."E as in what?" the maid asked, and he laughed so hard that he finally hung up the telephone and gave it up.

and the second is from a speech by Mark Twain for a party in honor of General Grant, on page 325:

I had been picturing the America of fifty years hence, with a population of two hundred million souls, and was saying that the future President, admiral, and so forth, of that great coming time were now lying in their various cradles, scattered abroad over the vast expanse of this country, and then said "and now in his cradle somewhere under the flag the future illustrious commander-in-chief of the American armies is so little burdened with his approaching grandeur and responsibilities as to be giving his whole strategic mind at this moment to trying to find some way to get his big toe into his mouth-something, meaning no disrespect to the illustrious guest of this evening, which he turned his entire attention to some fifty-six years ago-"

And here, as I had expected, the laughter ceased and a sort of shuddering silence took its place-for this was apparently carrying the matter too far.

I waited a moment or two to let this silence sink well home, then, turning toward the general, I added:

"And if the child is but the father of the man there are mighty few who will doubt that he succeeded."

Could someone explain them to me? Black Carrot 21:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the first one's simple. The point of saying"E as in elephant" is to make it clear that you're saying E and not some other letter. If the maid understands the E without the help of "as in elephant", then it doesn't matter whether she hears the "elephant" part or not. So it's illogical for her to ask "E as in what?"

As to the second one, I think the punchline is meant as a humorous way of suggesting that General Grant was in the habit of putting his foot in his mouth. No, this implication doesn't logically follow from what was said before, but there are things that put all the pieces in the listener's mind and one is supposed to mentally jump the gap.

--Anonymous, May 23, 2007, 22:41 (UTC).

Good call on the first one. I've been rereading the second one, and I think I get it now. A quote from the text helps: "In the unpleasant image playfully presented of the military hero and ex-president of the republic in an infantile contortion, you see what poetic humor is. In the concluding tribute to the hero, you see how the comic enjoyment of both these unpleasantnesses can be sanctioned and certified in the mind of an adult by inserting into the heart of them a serious satisfaction." In other words, the joke at first was imagining these (hypothetical) dignified old men as babies in their cribs. The part that offended people was applying this to the guest of honor. What made it okay, and even a little funnier, was a complement - saying that since the man was so successful, so strategically brilliant, who can doubt that the boy was as well? And succeeded in all his endeavors, then as now. Thanks for the help. Black Carrot 23:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's the point of the first one. There should be no reason for S nor I to be given a word. E as in elephant has to have some direct joke. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 17:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No, that is the point of the joke. ([insert name of deity here] knows I'm on thin ice trying to explain a joke here.) It's funny because the person on the other end of the 'phone got the letter ("E"), which was the whole point of the exercise, but was quibbling over the mnemonic device ("elephant?") used to convey it. You could substitute "extraterrestrial" or "exhibitionist" or "eschatology" here and the joke would still work (though, perhaps, much more weirdly ...). +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

A particularly recherché version of the joke could have a question of the form "E as in [Greek word beginning with epsilon], or E as in [Greek word beginning with eta]?". —Tamfang 04:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You guys are over-thinking the first joke. It might help if you say it out loud. I'll wait. Still doesn't make sense? I think the "joke" is that the maid is confused by the idea of elephant starting with an "eee" when it obviously starts with an "ell", as in "L-ifant". Yeah, it's hilarious. Matt Deres 16:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

a type of knowledge

Greetings,

I am looking for a word that describes a type of knowledge. Here's an example: I know that by placing the proper ignition key in the ignition key hole of a properly maintained and operation car that the car will most probably start. I know this fact but it doesn't meaan that I know every sequence of events that happens after I turn the key to the start position. What is this type of knowledge called? ^^^^

Here are some suggestions: empirical, phenomenological, operational, or heuristic knowledge. Maybe one of these is what you're looking for. --Reuben 23:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

And, if you were looking for common terms, how about street smarts versus book learning (no article or redirect ?)? StuRat 04:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the best description for this would be practical knowledge, as opposed to theoretical or technical knowledge. Marco polo 14:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

These two answers seems to assume that knowledge of the "sequence of events" has no practical value. That's not really true: it can be very practical if something goes wrong. I like the answer "operational". Another possibility is "superficial", depending on exactly what the original poster was going for. --Anonymous, May 24, 2007, 23:38 (UTC).

I don't think this particular kind of knowledge is called anything. Empirical, yes, but knowing the sequence of events that happen after you turn the key would also be empirical knowledge. I fail to see what kind of substancial difference there could be between knowing one and knowing the other. They are just different subjects, which happen to be connected because both involve cars, just that.

Of course, one could say that they are connected in the sense that both are explanations of how the car starts. Learning that turning the key causes the car to start would be the first level of the study of the causes underlying the phenomenon that the car starts. A "deeper" level of empirical knowledge would be achieved after learning about the gas, the engine, the piston, the battery, etc. But you could do an even "deeper" study and learn how the fuel burns (and what causes it to burn, and what does it mean to burn), how electricity works, how the battery can store evergy, etc.

It's just that you are going one level deeper each time, and learning more about the sequence of underlying events each time. See also emergence and science. Science is just empirical knowledge, like the knowledge described above.

Knowing that the key causes the car to start can also be distinguished from knowing other underlying mechanisms that make the car start in that it can be considered practical knowledge, as Marco Polo said, but that distinction will also depend on the circunstances: there may be cases where it is practical to know more about how the car starts, as Anonymous said above, but there may be cases where knowing it would have no practical value. And there may be cases where knowing that turning the key causes the car to start will have no practical value at all. A.Z. 00:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds to me like what would be considered everyday, practical, or general knowledge. Although, it does occur that the phrase you might be looking for is "conventional wisdom (knowledge)." -- Azi Like a Fox 08:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

This could be wrong, based on your description, but tacit knowledge is a possibility.--Estrellador* 15:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

May 24

internet or Internet ?

Is it considered correct to capitalize 'internet' in a normal sentence, or is lowercase preferred?--69.118.235.97 15:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That depends on whether you are talking about the Internet and an internet. --LarryMac | Talk 15:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It depends on more than just that. See Internet capitalization conventions. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 15:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Holy cow, we really do have an article on everything! Thanks for that link. --LarryMac | Talk 15:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, we have an article on Holy cow too.  --Lambiam^Talk 22:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, Lambiam, old sport, you might want to get your glasses checked -- it looks like we've got three or four of them! —Steve Summit (talk) 23:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

However

I am a native French speaker and consider myself fluent in English—I have studied economics in Chicago for the past two years—but occasionally encounter constructions with which a native speaker would not have trouble that nevertheless perplex me; if this, then, is an insipid question, you should feel free to ignore it. In any case, in the main page summary of tornado, today's featured article, there appears Tornadoes have been observed on every continent except Antarctica; however, most of the world's tornadoes occur in the United States. To my ear, that sounds off. I'd probably write ...Antarctica; most of the world's tornadoes, however [or though], occur in the United States or ...Antarctica, although most of the world's tornadoes occur in the United States (or perhaps Although tornadoes have been observed on every continent except Antarctica, most occur...). Is the usage in the main page summary prescriptively wrong or syntactically substandard or is it quite fine? Thanks, 69.212.20.103 20:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The usage in the article is fine as is. There is nothing wrong with it. It is really perfect English. Your suggested alternatives are fine, too. All of them are correct. Marco polo 20:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Your suggestions are all preferable. The original phrasing is not grammatically wrong, but it's considered stylistically weaker, at least by Strunk & White: [12]. They suggest that "however" be kept out of the first position. Your revisions also make the sentence into a single, connected unit, instead of two main clauses joined by a semicolon. That's usually an improvement. There is a trend towards using "however" as a substitute for "but," as in "...Antartica, however most of the world's tornadoes..." That usage may or may not have influenced the article you quoted, but it's definitely not standard so far. --Reuben 20:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That usage (xxx, however yyy) is not only "not standard" but just plain wrong. Classic example of a comma splice, bridged by "however". I see it everywhere, here (Wikipedia) and elsewhere. +ILike2BeAnonymous 21:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying the comma should be replaced with a semi-colon? I don't know that many people would insist on that. JackofOz 00:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No, and, as they say, more's the pity, as it's plain wrong. (But, of course, this battle, as well as all others, is hopelessly lost in the age of the Internets, where anything goes ...) Also, do you really call it a "semi-colon"? Usually rendered w/o the hyphen. +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The However link in the title above says this: "However" is not a conjunction, but a conjunctive adverb; therefore, when joining clauses with "however", a semicolon must be used and not a comma.. It gives the example: "I like chips; however, I detest potatoes.". Do you disagree with that, and if so, why? (Yes, semi-colon is the standard spelling where I come from.) (PS. I think you need a comma between "and" and "as".)  :) JackofOz 02:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I agree with that, as otherwise it's a comma splice (two complete clauses improperly joined with a comma); I thought that's what I was trying to get across. (And yes, that comma helps.) +ILike2BeAnonymous 05:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

On the stylistic issue, my opinion is that Strunk and White (and Reuben) got it wrong. There is nothing wrong with moving "however" inside the sentence, but it is stronger in the leading position, and lots of people are happy writing it there. --Anonymous, May 24, 2007, 23:44 (UTC).

One possible advantage of this use of however is that it makes aimless writing stand out like a sore thumb. When two sentences in a paragraph begin with However, it's a strong sign that the passage needs to be torn down and built from scratch. If they were written with but, a lighter word, I think I'd be less likely to notice. —Tamfang 21:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

IS or ARE ?

A copy of our report and your report is enclosed.

A copy of our report and your report are enclosed.

The first is correct if you are referring to a single copy containing both reports. If in fact there are two copies, one of each report, then it should be worded as follows:

Copies of our report and your report are enclosed.

Marco polo 20:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

What if its a copy of our report but the actual your report. Then #2 is the shit!!--71.185.132.25 21:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, technically, all of the examples and suggestions given here are ambiguous. Like the first: does that mean "a copy of our report and a copy of your report", or "a copy of our report and your original report"? So it would be better to be explicit. Don't use "shorthand" to save a few words: say what you mean, man! +ILike2BeAnonymous 21:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

A very similar question was asked a week ago: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2007 May 16#Useage of IS/ARE. Check out the answers given there.  --Lambiam^Talk 22:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of reading it as 71. did. The wording does not suggest that meaning. If 71.'s reading is the intended meaning, the following would be much clearer:

Your report and a copy of our report are enclosed.

Marco polo 14:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Chinese character identification.

I sell jewelry of all sorts on eBay, and recently came across a gold pendant with a different Chinese character on either side, and was wondering if there are any Wikipedians out there who would be kind enough to identify/translate them for me.

First character, second character.

Thanks in advance, and just a warning, the host puts thumbnails of other random images they host on all their pages, some of which may not be safe for work. Cyraan 22:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

1st: 壽; 2nd: 福. Cheers.--K.C. Tang 01:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

People from Colombia?

I've seen a number of wikipedia articles that refer to people from Colombia as Columbians, isn't the correct term Colombians?--69.118.235.97 23:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed; they are Colombians. English-speaking people commonly pronounce Colombia as Columbia, but that's incorrect too. I just noticed our article says that the English version of the name of the country is Columbia, but I've removed that until and unless someone can prove it. JackofOz 00:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

"just kidding" figure of speech

Is there a generic name for the rhetorical device where one makes an assertion, pauses, then withdraws the assertion, or qualifies it in a manner tantamount to withdrawal? Examples:

• That's funny — not!
• You can have my gun — when you pry it from my from my cold dead fingers.
• I had to think about it — for about five seconds.

A trawl through the list in figure of speech leads me to think it is a species of hyperbaton or paraprosdokian. Or perhaps "irony disclosed"? jnestorius^(talk) 23:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it is Irony. --201.253.205.216 01:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Reminds me of metasyntactic negation: I don't like you; I love you. --Kjoonlee 19:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

metalinguistic negation. Thanks, Kjoon, I'm fond of you too :) jnestorius^(talk) 17:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

May 25

French book titles again

Hello. If the second word in the book title is a noun, it has to be capitalized, such as tour in Le Tour du monde en quatre-vingts jours, right? --K.C. Tang 01:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I found this reference [13] on Google, in About.com. The experts don't seem to agree on everything, though there are many authorities listed that you could check.Bielle 03:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Bielle, that's useful. Now at least I know that there's no standard practice. Cheers.--K.C. Tang 03:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The above reference (from About .com) refers to Le Bon Usage and Le Petit Robert but in a wrong way. The author tries to guess rules from how book titles are printed in them. I think that we should refer to typographical rules. French typographs seem to agree on most of the rules. See Lexique des règles typographiques en usage à l'Imprimerie nationale or here [14] and for French Canadians here [15]. (Sorry, all these references are in French). Note that contrary to the above reference (from About.com), the rules are not based on the importance of a word in a title, but on the syntax of the title. It worth reading again the above reference (from About.com) after having studied the typographical rules. AldoSyrt 10:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The document linked by AldoSyrt breathes a strong air of authority—I think I'll use it in the future myself. In connection with the previous discussion, it would prescribe L'Etre et le Néant because (1) Etre is the first word after the definite article (indefinite doesn't count, pace about.com), (2) Néant is "in parallel or in opposition to" Etre. But, as I suggested previously, the actual usage in well-edited French publications is inconsistent. Note that the current French edition prints L'être et le néant on the cover (as I was aware before; I sophistically left this example out because it complicated my point!). This exemplifies that Angr's original suggestion is the rule followed sometimes. But, again, that cheat sheet by Anne-Marie Mortier of the Département des lettres of the Université de Lyon is so Gallically lucid and logical that I will follow it slavishly for the rest of my days. Wareh 17:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

But K.C. Tang's original interest was in an authoritative rule for referring to French titles within English writing. The Modern Language Association Handbook says,

There are two widely accepted methods of capitalizing French titles and subtitles of works. One method is to capitalize the first word...and all proper nouns [= Angr's original suggestion above]... This method is normally followed in publications of the MLA. ...[examples, e.g. La guerre de Troie n'aura pas lieu]... In the other method, when a title or subtitle begins with an article, the first noun and any preceding adjectives are also capitalized. [= vaguely stated version of system described in AldoSyrt's link; all the examples have definite article by the way]... In this system, all major words in titles of series and periodicals are sometimes capitalized: Nouvelle Revue d'Onomastique.

I'm sure the Chicago Manual of Style has something similar, perhaps more opinionated or lucid. But the basic point for K.C. Tang's original question is that English stylebooks seem to prescribe following the foreign language's capitalization standards. I am certainly a fan of this; I hate it when English publications print German nouns uncapitalized (in my opinion, unless they've entered English as fully as kindergarten, they keep their capital). Wareh 17:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks all. Cheers.--K.C. Tang 02:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"Laughing Stock"

What is the origin of the term "laughing stock"?

According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, laughing stock was first recorded in "1519, formed by analogy with whipping-stock "whipping post," later also "object of frequent whipping" (but not attested in writing in this sense until 1678)". Its used in Shakespeare's The Comedy of Errors, and its often erroneously claimed he coined the idiom. It probably arose from the custom of mocking and jeering those who where placed in the stocks: our article notes "public humiliation was a critical aspect of such punishment." Rockpocket 02:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Grammar question on spelling and then writing numbers

Often in contracts one finds a spelled out number and then the number itself written. For example: twenty (20). Is there a formal name for this numerical repetition and is it grammatical? What is not clear about either the number 20 or the word "twenty" that would require both?

It's descriptively grammatical, in the sense that it's a commonly used device in such contexts. I can't see anything prescriptively ungrammatical about it. From my own involvement in formal writing, I believe it's to make the quantity absolutely clear so that nobody can argue about it later. It may stem from the days when contracts were typed on a typewriter, each document had to be separately typed, and no errors or whiteouts were allowed. If a typo did slip through unnoticed (say, rendering the 20 as 200), the word "twenty" would let the reader know there was an inconsistency that they ought to check out before signing it. It may also be a hangover from the olden days when everything in a contract was spelled out in words (Signed on the Twenty-seventh day of February in the year of Our Lord Seventeen Hundred and Sixty Four, etc). JackofOz 04:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, as a side note, there is no legal requirement that numbers be so spelled out, just as there's no requirement that a contract be written at all (though it's a damn good idea, as verbal ones are not easily enforced). At this point in human history, both writing the number and spelling it out is basically legalese overkill, which some folks may think makes a document "more legal": it doesn't. (Keep in mind, of course, that IANAL.) +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC). Link added -- Anonymous, May 25, 05:07 (UTC).

Of course you mean oral contracts are not easily enforced. All writing (other than mathematical notation) is verbal, i.e., in words. (I assume giggles about one use of the word oral are why verbal tends to displace it.) —Tamfang 04:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason it's a good idea is that numbers written in digits are more legible but lack redundancy: any typo is likely to produce a different number with no hint that it was wrong. If a typo turns the number 348 into 384 or 349, there's no way to tell. If it's written out as "three hundred and forty-eigth" or "three hundred and forty-eighy", it's more trouble to read, but you can see the error. (Whether there's an "and" in there depends on what national version of English you speak.) Note that it's not just contracts where the amount is written twice; it's also customary on checks if they are not printed by a computer.

As to grammar, I think "twenty (20)" may be considered a form of apposition. Specifically, it is a parenthesis — the term does not refer to the punctuation mark here, but the construct.

--Anonymous, May 25, 2007, 05:04 (UTC).

A few years ago I noticed, while doing some data entry, that of the 45 pairs of digits there are damn few that can't be confused in sloppy writing. If a number is expressed in two different ways it's harder to get it wrong in the same way twice. —Tamfang 04:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Legal language is littered with redundancies, so I'd have been surprised if the lawyers had not taken advantage of such an opportunity to pad their billable hours. To wit: "cease and desist", last "will and testament", "on or about", "null and void", "give, devise, and bequeath", "remise, release, and forever discharge", "aid and abet", "fit and proper", "unless and until", and so on. --TotoBaggins 17:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it has rhyme and reason (hah!) because judicial systems used to use both Anglo and French terms. --Kjoonlee 19:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

In some of those examples, the terms yoked have subtly or not so subtly different meanings. Cease means stop; desist means don't start again. Fit means suitable for the purpose, without respect to ethics; proper means (roughly) ethical, without respect to fitness. Unless and until emphasizes that if you do X before Y happens, Y doesn't retroactively let you off the hook (as it might without until). —whups, forgot to sign it. Tamfang 21:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

default

It seems to me that using the word "default", as we do in computer science, is wrongly used. Can anyone enlighten me as to how we came to use this word as we do? Thanks wsc

In connection with computer interfaces, "default" is shorthand for "default value", which is the value taken "by default". In this fuller form, the use is quite standard. The shorthand form is not – or, at least, not (yet?) outside the context of computer programs for which some parameter may be specified but may also be omitted. By itself, however, such shortenings are a normal language mechanism, like how "Turkey fowl" (because the bird was traded via Turkey) was shortened to "turkey". Other computer jargon is "to default to", as in: "This option defaults to not selected" ( = "The value taken by default for this option is not selected").

I don't think it's really wrongly used at all. Default is like what happens if no actions have been acted upon it. So default settings, factory default, winning by default, etc, all seem to fit fine. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 23:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I've heard people use the word "delivery" as short for "delivery address" (as in: "The delivery turned out to be an empty warehouse"). Maybe this is not "wrongly used", but it is definitely not common usage. Whether "default", when used as a noun with the meaning "default value" or "default setting" instead of as a modifier, is wrong or not, it is not commonly used as a noun with this meaning outside the context of computer programs - or at least not until recently; perhaps it is escaping from that context as this jargon works its way into user manuals and such. The usual and conventional meaning of the word "default" as a noun is "failure to fulfill an obligation" (such as to appear in court or at a match, or to pay an installment), as in: "Reimbursement of the incurred damages as a result of this default will be levied".  --Lambiam^Talk 06:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Although the propriety of the term is not addressed in our article, you may want to read default (computer science) anyway, as it was written, in large part, by a rather brilliant editor. :-) StuRat 00:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

May 26

Hyphenated gerunds

Which phrase is correct: "came a-runnin'" or "came a runnin'" or "came arunnin'"? And, where can I find more information about phrases like those? Thanks. --MZMcBride 00:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

"Came a-runnin'", though I can't tell you exactly why; I've seen constructs like this enough to know that this is correct. (The apostrophe I can explain, as it indicates the dropped ending "g".) My sense is that the hyphen keeps this non-standard formation "at arms length", as it were. +ILike2BeAnonymous 05:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Here Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1), "Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary", gives aringing as an example of the use of prefix a-, so there is no hard rule that a hyphen be inserted. But putting in a hyphen is definitely more common.  --Lambiam^Talk 05:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your responses. Cheers. --MZMcBride 05:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The hyphen is more-or-less optional. I wouldn't use a space, though. The apostrophe is to show that [n] is used instead of [ŋ] in an unstressed place; all these features are from Scottish English. --Kjoonlee 19:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not really a gerund, is it? Isn't it a supine? Adam Bishop 13:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a- + a present participle. The historical origin of a-, a reduced form of the preposition on, shows that (also historically) the grammatical function of the present participle is a (verbal) noun. In English, the present participle used as a verbal noun is called a gerund, as in "Bob loves swimming". The infinitive can also be used as a verbal noun in English, as in "Bob loves to swim", and then is called a supine. This is a somewhat arbitrary reuse of ill-fitting terms from Latin grammar, but gerund seems to be the conventional term of choice here.  --Lambiam^Talk 14:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not like that analysis, Lambiam.

The old Germanic participle apparently had -nd, and the gerund had -ng (modern standard German -end vs -ung). In English a phrase containing a gerund, on —ing (later a-—ing), took over the function of the participle, so that today we say the participle has -ing; but this doesn't mean that form was a participle – it wouldn't have been used as an adjective. It is a- + gerund. To those of us whose dialect has forgotten that form and turned -ing into a true participle, it looks like a- + participle, but I say it's wrong to analyze it that way, like it would be wrong to say the word consul comes from the Latin for "minor diplomat". —Tamfang 08:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, please replace throughout "a/the present participle" by "what we now call a/the present participle", if that makes you more happy.  --Lambiam^Talk 21:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Aid'e Memoir or Aid d' Memoir?

Can someone, please explain or tell me what's the correct U.S.-ENGLISH spelling for and pronounciation for the word or phrase: Aid'e Memoir or Aid d' Memoir? ....Please, remember I need to know the United States (American English), form.

It's French, so it doesn't matter what sort of English you're using. The spelling is "aide-mémoire" (you might write "aide-memoire" if accents aren't available). See here. --Anonymous, May 26, 2007, 01:23 (UTC).

Since it's in most English dictionaries, most people would consider "aide-mémoire" an English word now, with a French etymology. - Nunh-huh 01:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

New Oxford American Dictionary has "aide-memoire |ˈād memˈwär| noun ( pl. aides-memoires or aides-memoire pronunc. same)," if that helps. Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Since it's now accepted as a word in the English language, we drop the accent over the e (same for cafe, latte etc). JackofOz 03:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

In Canada, perhaps because we are supposed to be bilingual, the words User:JackofOz uses as examples, we spell the way he suggests, with no accents; however, we usually pronounce them as if the accents were still there. In England and in Australia, I heard "caff" for "cafe"; even in English-speaking Canada, it is still always pronounced "caffay". Bielle 06:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh indeed, the pronunciation doesn't usually change. "Caff" is encountered here, but only as an informal colloquial shortening - nobody would believe it's spelled that way. On pronunciation changes, some uninformed people say "coo de grah" for coup de grace, assuming (I assume) it somehow rhymes with pate de foie gras, but they'd still spell it "grace". JackofOz 07:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Funnily enough :), in the English mispronunciation of aide-memoire, I usually hear /ˈeɪdmɛmˈwɑr/ instead of the original /ɛdmeɪmwaʁ/, so the first two vowels got swapped. The accent aigu is useful as an aide-mémoire of the right pronunciation.  --Lambiam^Talk 11:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The plural is (AFAIK) "aides-memoire" (with or without the accent). Someone correct me if I'm wrong. Daniel (‽) 11:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you drop the accent over the e, but it is by no means a requirement. English words can and do have accents if the writer so chooses. --Ptcamn 12:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I would usually spell it without an accent myself in English -- but the dictionary I cited above gave it only with an accent, so I went along. As we've seen, there is some disagreement on that. By the way, the literal translation of aide-mémoire would be "help-memory", where "help" is a verb, but what it means is "memory helper". French has a number of expressions constructed that way. An aircraft carrier, for example, is a porte-avions, literally "carry-airplanes". --Anonymous, May 26, 2007, 22:40 (UTC).

Other Romance languages also have such forms, e.g. chupacabras (sucks goats) = goat-sucker. —Tamfang 04:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the verb form used is always the present third person singular, but can't think of an example in which it can be distinguished from the imperative. Are there any that use French -ir verbs? —Tamfang 08:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

For future reference, if you ever see a French phrase with d'[consonant] you can be sure it's wrong (unless the consonant is h, which swings both ways). The apostrophe in French (and Italian) appears where the vowel of the particle is elided before a following vowel. Which also means, by the way, that the spelling d'Angelo reflects a pronunciation identical to Dangelo, not di Angelo. Grr. —Tamfang 04:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Is maître d' in "Matthew informs the Maître d' that he can't be fired" followed by a consonant?  :)  --Lambiam^Talk 14:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant, since maître d' that is not a French phrase. :P

(The full French phrase is maître d'hôtel, as perhaps you knew.) —Tamfang 21:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Surname sorting of names beginning with "de"

Is there a preferred manner of sorting surnames where the names begin with "de" "del" such as Francisco de Aguirre, Pedro de Valdivia, and Rodrigo de Quiroga? Would the "de" be included as part of the sir name (ie. de Aguirre, Francisco) or as part of the given name (ie. Aguirre, Francisco de)? Bartlett's English Usage isn't clear on this. --JAXHERE | ^Talk 15:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I assume this is a question about indexing, not about English usage. There are different systems of indexing, but in English language books and directories d', de, and del are usually treated as part of the surname. If you look in a UK phone book you will find the de entries are all together, so that de Sousa, for example, precedes Deacon. This is a fairly standard way to do it.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Correct, I'm concerned about indexing, such as you would find in Category:Royal Governors of Chile. I'd be inclined to follow the phone book example, but I wanted to see if there was some specific treatment preferred in Wikipedia. --JAXHERE | ^Talk 17:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

One weirdness of that approach is that you could end up with a phone book where almost everyone is under "D". I once read a Far Side book that had an index at the back where the heading letters "A-S" and "U-Z" were all present, but empty. Every cartoon was under "T" because they all had titles like "The one about the prehistoric poodles", "The one with Jane Goodall", etc. :) --TotoBaggins 18:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Sort of like looking at an index of Irish language authors: virtually no names in "A-L", then a bunch of "Mac"s, a few "Ní"s (there aren't many women authors who write in Irish for some reason), then a whole slew of "Ó"s, then virtually nothing for the rest of the alphabet. —Angr 21:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

One issue is that in Spanish, French and in Italian, the "de" component is not usually part of the surname per se. Thus, Spaniards would file Francisco de Aguirre under A for Aguirre. And we acknowledge this in our article when we refer to him as "Aguirre", not "de Aguirre". On the other hand, an English descendant of this person, say James De Aguirre, would be considered to fall under D for De Aguirre. (There are some exceptions, such as Charles De Gaulle, whose surname is not simply Gaulle but De Gaulle; likewise for Andrea De Cesaris- btw our article spells his name "de Cesaris" but I believe he spells it himself with a capital D.) Similarly for the German nobiliary particle "von". Frederica Von Stade, being an American, has the surname "Von Stade", which comes under V, but her German forebears were "XX von Stade", and they considered their surname to be Stade, not von Stade, so they would come under S. A system that I've employed privately to useful effect is to catalogue a person under the surname they were considered to have in their native country. Thus, I file Ludwig van Beethoven under B, Vincent van Gogh under G, Charles De Gaulle under D, and both Ernő Dohnányi and his grandson Christoph von Dohnanyi under D. Whether this would work for everyone is another question, but it works for me. It does require a certain level of knowledge about the persons involved, though. JackofOz 07:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

With respect to Wikipedia, there are some hints on this in Wikipedia:Categorization of people#Ordering names in a category. The transcluded uses of template:DEFAULTSORT illustrate how this is actually interpreted. A few examples:

• Macgrath, Finian (for Finian McGrath)
• Qawuqji, Fawzi (for Fawzi al-Qawuqji)
• Rothschild, Edmond James de
• De Ruyter, Michiel
• Di Cesnola, Luigi Palma
• Beethoven, Ludwig van
• Van Gogh, Theo
• Von Stade, Frederica
• Dohnanyi, Christoph von

 --Lambiam^Talk 09:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Conclusion

So the current guidelines would have Francisco de Aguirre sorted as De Aguirre, Francisco , Pedro de Valdivia as De Valdivia, Pedro, and similar names in the same fashion unless they are widely known in English by their single syllable surname--JAXHERE | ^Talk 16:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Valdivia is three or four syllables, but WKWYM. —Tamfang 00:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I meant single word surname --JAXHERE | ^Talk 14:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Unconclusion

I though this was pretty well concluded but I'd like other users who are familiar with this theme to take a look at User talk:Rbraunwa#Sorting of surnames which begin with "de" the next subsction (below) which is a discussion that prompted me to place this inquiry in the first place. (Perhaps it should have been moved over here, but it wasn't). Your comments please ... --JAXHERE | ^Talk 14:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Parallel discussion transferred from Rbraunwa user page

Jaxhere and I have also being having this discussion. There are some relevant arguments and examples I would like to add here. I was just going to transfer my arguments, but since this was a discussion, with postings responding to each other, I think it's better to transfer the whole works. Sorry if it's long, but I think there are some good points here, not all of them previously discussed on this page.

I don't agree with the reversion you made to Alonso de Ribera, and I had the intention of correcting the sorting of all articles I could find which don't include the "de" as part of the surname. The fact that it is commonly used, as in the category you cite, doesn't make it correct. I've put in an inquiry to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language to see if there is any existing convention or preference. To further support my position, I just checked in the Chilean Telephone Directory and see that all surnames with da, dal, de, de la, del are sorted with the preposition as part of the surname. It might be different in Mexico but, in the end we need to be guided by English rules, not Spanish ones since this is an English publication. I have, at hand, an old edition of a Funk & Wagnalls Encyclopedia in which articles such as De Soto, Hernando and De Vries, Hugo are in the "D's", but in some cases such as De Kalb, Barron there is a cross-reference to an article in another location (Kalb, Johann). There is no cosistency, but the tendency is to include the "de" as the beginning of the surname unless the person is well known without it. In Chile, Pedro de Valdivia -- I think -- is more likely to be associated with de Valdivia, rather than Valdivia. --JAXHERE | ^Talk 15:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jaxhere. Thanks for your message. There is a policy on this somewhere, but I'll have to hunt for it. It says basically that for individuals who are already known in English by a particular variant of their name (de Soto is a good example), the English Wikipedia article should follow that usage. For individuals who are not well-known among English speakers, the article should follow the subject's own usage. This latter proviso would cover most of the historial cases of "de" in Spanish names, I think. There was a debate about this at the Vasco da Gama article awhile back, and there they applied the second part of the rule rather than the first. That one surprised me, but I didn't follow all the details of the debate. I am also surprised about the Chilean phone book information. I haven't looked at Mexican phone books, but I have never (literally) seen a Spanish name containing "de" alphabetized under that particle in encyclopedias or historical works. Also, my unscientific impression about the current state at Wikipedia is that it overwhelmingly follows the rules I paraphrased above. --Rbraunwa 16:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. This is not the policy I was looking for, but it's also relevant: "Where known, use terminology that subjects use for themselves (self-identification). This can mean using the term an individual uses for himself or herself, or using the term a group most widely uses for itself. This includes referring to transgender individuals according to the names and pronouns they use to identify themselves." (Wikipedia:MOS#Identity). I'm still looking for the other policy.

Rbraunwa, I've looked over the links you've provided and several others which seem to relate to the topic but most of these are dealing with the naming of articles, not the sorting of them in a category or list. If we were to follow the accepted practice of naming articles about people, the article about Alonso de Ribera would be in the "A's", not the "D's" or "R's". My concern here is the position of the name in a list, such as the Governors of Chile that you referred to. In a relatively short list, such as the one you mentioned, the order doesn't make a lot of difference, but we have to be aware of the fact that some of these names might be included in very long lists where the sequence becomes important. In the absence of a clear policy, I'd be inclined to follow the example used by the phone books in the US. --JAXHERE | ^Talk 17:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jaxhere,

There is a problem with using the names and alphabetization of immigrants as a model for the names and alphabetization of historical figures. (The two things are closely related, since a person is alphabetized under his/her last name. The name has to be determined before the alphabetization can be done. Our disagreement is really about the names.) If we applied the U.S. phonebook rule to Polish names, the following names of historical figures are incorrect in Wikipedia because Polish immigrants to the U.S. have overwhelmingly dropped the diacritics: Bolesław Bierut, Ignacy Daszyński, Jarosław Kaczyński, Jędrzej Moraczewski. The same thing applies to Spanish names in Wikipedia (accents and eñes are retained for historical figures), even though some descendants of immigrants to the U.S. have dropped them (Lee Trevino for instance).

Another problem with the phonebook example is this. The link is to a U.S. national listing of telephone numbers. Searching for names beginning with "de " returns "more than 300" entries. That still leaves open the possibility that the overwhelming majority of names of this type are alphabetized under the other system. It would be impossible to check that.

A better model is other English-language encyclopedias. I have tried to assemble some links here that show how Britannica alphabetizes names, and also how various on-line encyclopedias do it. Most of these links are to index pages, because for most of these encyclopedias the article itself gives no clue to the alphabetization (as is also the case in Wikipedia).

Britannica print, Britannica CD and Britannica Online:

Siloé, Gil de, Cervantes, Miguel de, Carranza, Bartolomé de, Godoy, Manuel de, Unamuno, Miguel de, Mendoza, Antonio de, Cueva, Juan de la. Not even Soto, Hernando de is an exception.

1911 Britannica:

Juan de Mena, Pedro de Mena, Antonio Hurtado de Mendoza (alphabetized under "M"), Miguel de Cervantes de Saavedra. Hernando de Soto is not an exception. Notice the absence of "de" entries here and here.

The Canadian Encyclopedia Online:

Bodega y Quadra, Juan Francisco de la, Fuca, Juan de.

Catholic Encyclopedia:

Alcedo, Antonio de, Añazco, Pedro de, Abieto, Ignacio de, Azara, Féliz de, Balbuena, Bernardo de. De Soto, Hernando is an exception, but notice the total absence of other Spanish surnames beginning with "de". (There are three or four French ones, however.)

Jewish Encyclopedia:

I was going to check this one too, but the site has been down the last two days. It will have to wait.

Nuttall Encyclopædia of General Knowledge:

Alarcon y Mendoza, Juan Ruiz de, Alava, Ricardo de, Almagro, Diego d', Alvarado, Pedro de. Except for De Soto, there are no Spanish names under "de" (index).

Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography:

Benalcazar, Sebastian De, Acosta, Jose De, Tejada, Miguel Lerdo De (alphabetized under "T"), Balboa, Vasco Nunez De, Mendoza, Andres Hurtado De (alphabetized under "M"), Ocampo, Gonzalo De. Again, notice the absence of "de" entries here and here. Soto, Fernando De is not an exception.

Biographical Dictionary of the Organ

Aceves y Lozano, Rafael de, Alvorado, Dioge (Diogo) de, Aranda, Luis de, Araujo, Pedro de. No names of Spanish origin are alphabetized under "de" (here, here or here).

The same rules seem generally to apply to Portuguese, French and Italian names, although that is outside my area of expertise.

Add to this the current usage in English Wikipedia, where a large majority of these articles are alphabetized under the substantive name, not under the particle. In short, alphabetizing names under the particle "de" (at least from Spanish) is simply not standard English usage. The situation is not that different from "John Doe, Count of X" (or "conde de X"), which would clearly be alphabetized under "X" (or perhaps "Doe"), never under "of" or "de".

--Rbraunwa 13:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Rbraunwa, from the inquiry which I mentioned above at the reference desk, finally came the Wikipedia guideline which resolves this discussion:

People with multiple-word last names: sorting is done on the entire last name as usually used in English, in normal order and not (for example) according to the Dutch system that puts some words like "van", "vanden", "van der", etc... after the rest of the last name. Example: [[Category:A.C. Milan players|Van Basten, Marco]] (don't forget to capitalize the first letter of the last name in this case)

Exceptions:

Note that some people are typically called this way in English, for example: Beethoven, [[Category:Classical era composers|Beethoven, Ludwig van]]; similarly: Montesquieu, [[Category:Enlightenment philosophers|Montesquieu, Charles de Secondat, Baron de]]

This is from: Wikipedia:Categorization of people#Ordering names in a category and I think the lengthy discussion you mentioned but counldn't remember where you'd seen it is on the talk page for this subject. So, will you go along with the sorting order of Alonso de Ribera as De Ribera, Alonso, or would you like to try to get a new consensus on the existing guideline?

No, Jaxhere, I'm afraid I still don't agree. The guideline applies to "the entire last name as usually used in English". That's the rule that gives "De Soto" instead of "Soto", and I have no problem with that. But there is no form of "Alonso de Ribera" "as usually used in English". Hardly any English speakers would know who he was. It's simply not the case that "de Rivera" is his last name as usually used in English. And standard English usage is overwhelmingly in favor of "Rivera", as the examples above show. It's not possible to argue either that "de Rivera" is usual in English for this individual, nor that it is the usual rule that applies to all individuals with this type of name.

Ribera does not have a large presence on the Internet, but here are a few links to English publications that alphabetize his name under "Ribera": from Juana the Mad, from Discourses of Empire, from Hispanic American Essays, from The History of Chile and from Blood and Silver: Piracy in the Americas. I could find no publication that alphabetized this name under "de".

There is another analogy as well. At one time, there were English names that correspond almost exactly to this form, for example, Anselm of Canterbury, Adelard of Bath, William of Ware. These individuals are alphabetized in one of two ways — under the personal name (like the first two examples), or under the place name (like the third example), but never under "of [place name]". Persumably that was the case at the time, and it is certainly the case now, in Wikipedia and other reference works. Many non-English speakers whose names were translated into English (William of Ockham, for example), are handled the same way. He is never alphabetized under "of Ockham". [My mistake: William of Ockham was English. He wrote in Latin, but I don't know the Latin variant of his name. A non-English example would be Rainald of Dassel.]

The situation may be different in Dutch, I can't say. But from Spanish and probably from other Romance languages, English usage is very clear.

--Rbraunwa 18:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You make some strong points, Rbraunwa, but due to the guideline and the points raised in Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Surname sorting of names beginning with "de" I'm not convinced. I've asked participants of that discussion to review your points here but I'd suggest that if you have any further thoughts you move them over to that discussion. I don't think we're doing much good holding our own private discussion to determine a broad concern. JAXHERE | ^Talk 14:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jaxhere, I'll move my arguments over there. I would have posted there before, but I didn't know about the ongoing discussion. --Rbraunwa 14:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It may be true that hardly any English speakers would know who Alonso de Ribera was, but that is not quite the point. Would knowledgeable native English speakers, writing about this person in English, refer to him as "governor Ribera" or "governor de Ribera"? In the first case, apparently his "entire last name" is taken to be "Ribera", in the second case "de Ribera". I don't think you would be able to find an instance of "governor de Ribera", or if you did it would very likely also be quite apparent from the rest of the writing that the author is not knowledgeable about the subject. Conversely, you expect to see "governor De Graaff", not "governor Graaff". Of course, things are not always so clearcut as with these extremes; although "governor Neve" may be the most common usage, there are plenty of references to "governor de Neve", including our own article on Pueblo de Los Angeles and Zanja Madre.  --Lambiam^Talk 22:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Bokmal and Nynorsk (2)

Are Bokmal and Nynorsk mutually intelligible? Heegoop, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

According to our article Norwegian language:

Spoken Norwegian forms a continuum of local and regional variants that are all mutually intelligible.

The emphasis here on Spoken is because Bokmål and Nynorsk are two official forms of written Norwegian — roughly corresponding to extremes in the continuum. The mutual intelligibility of these extremes is not 100%, but is hard to test because all Norwegians get exposed to both. Without the continuum and the political situation, the two would naturally be considered different languages.  --Lambiam^Talk 23:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

How long has it been done?

How old are the current sexual connotations of the verb do? NeonMerlin 23:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Possibly as old as the verb itself, which may harken back to Proto-Indo European. And don't forget the unmistakable connotations of the pronoun it!  --Lambiam^Talk 23:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

But you don't only "do it", you also "do someone", which I doubt is very old. —Angr 05:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

And then there are perverts who do the laundry... So perhaps the intended question is: how old is this specific current idiom? It is used several times in the lyrics of the hip hop song "I Used to Love H.E.R.", released in 1994. It may have originated as hip hop slang.  --Lambiam^Talk 06:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

This neither goes back to Proto-Indo-European (cognates in other languages don't have this meaning), nor did it originate in hip hop slang. It seems to be at least a century old.

not that I care two straws now who he does it with

— James Joyce, Ulysses (1922)'

--Ptcamn 08:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

There are two different idioms here of undoubtedly different ages. One, illustrated by the Ulysees quote above, is "to do it", which is probably quite old, though I'd be reluctant to put it to Proto-Germanic or Proto-Indo-European without evidence. (The German equivalent is es treiben, with the verb cognate to "drive", although es tun would probably be easily understood.) The second idiom is "to do someone" (as if Joyce had written, "not that I care two straws now whom he does"), which is probably younger and may have originated in hip hop slang. There's a definite difference in register between the two, at least for me: "Did you do it with her?" is far less vulgar than "Did you do her?". Perhaps if NeonMerlin is still reading this, he could tell us which of the two idioms he meant (although I suspect either way he isn't going to get a much more definite answer than "I dunno"). —Angr 10:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I furthermore think that in the older idiom to do it, it is really the word it, used as a euphemism for carnal knowledge, that carries the weight of sexual connotation, while to do is, well, to do whatever it is that is being done. Or does the verb to get also have a sexual connotation? In French you can say le faire avec, and faire, like to do, comes from PIE base *dhe-.[16]  --Lambiam^Talk 10:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the difference between the two ("to do it" and "to do [someone]") the difference between transitive and intransitive, technically speaking? Which if so, brings up the question of which is more intransigent, the transitive or the intransitive ... +ILike2BeAnonymous 20:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Both uses are transitive.  --Lambiam^Talk 21:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

What IL2BA is groping for is the difference between direct object and indirect object: to do someone vs to do to someone. —Tamfang 21:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes, just so. And "groping": nice touch. +ILike2BeAnonymous 21:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I dimly remember that in Lord of the Flies one boy threatens another that if he doesn't watch himself someone is likely to "do you," which I took to mean violence. —Tamfang 21:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that that book equated sex and violence. (But you didn't really have to worry until they started sharpening a stick at both ends.) StuRat 07:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The OED gives the following earliest attestations for certain particular meanings of 'do':

• To hoax, cheat swindle, overreach - from 1641
• (slang)To beat up, defeat - from 1780
• to arrest, seize, catch hold of - from 1784
• (euphem) To copulate (with), Phr to do it used colloq. in the same sense - from 1913

--ColinFine 23:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Add to that list, do her (as opposed to do it or do absolutely), first OED citation is 1959. While actual cognate usages from PIE may not exist, many current European vernaculars have similar expressions. Is French Je voudrais me la faire (or Italian farmela) younger than 1959 & derivative? One wants to know. Wareh 18:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

May 27

Italian wiki article

Not knowing Italian, I was wondering if this Italian wikipedia article was on the same subject as this one from the English wikipedia. Thank you 68.231.151.161 19:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is. —Angr 20:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Figures of Speech

Which figures of speech are used in the following sentences from the short-story Mrs Bixby and the Colonel's Coat by Roald Dahl? 1. The wily fox was making darn sure he didn't leave any tracks. 2. I'm dying for a drink. 3. It reminded her of an ageing peacock strutting on the lawn with only half its feathers left.

Well, I suggest you have a look at Figure_of_speech#Tropes, and click on the articles listed there - all three types are featured. I admit, it's a long list, so focus on those starting with the letters h, m, and s. Please feel free to come back with your suggestions, and we will give you more pointers or advice. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that in general you cannot tell whether someting is a figure of speech without context. "He lost his marbles" could be the explanation why a little boy is crying (he can't find the glass balls he loves so much), or why an adult is behaving in strange ways.  --Lambiam^Talk 12:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Considering the nature of the game marbles, if the little boy lost them, it's more likely they were won by someone else than that he simply misplaced them ;-) —Angr 16:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

May 28

Unknown Language

The question mark language: I went 2 a website and the language was (?)Cant I copy and paste it on a translator or is there a downloadable translator?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.206.210.163 (talk • contribs)

That would be a language using a non-Latin script that you don't have a font installed for. Could you perhaps post a link to the page, so that we can direct you to an appropriate font? -Elmer Clark 08:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Identification of kanji

Last year, while on vacation at Disney World, I bought a souvenir at the Japan pavilion at Epcot, and I only just today hung it up in my room. When I did, I noticed two kanji near the bottom-right. Here is an edited photo of them. I would greatly appreciate it if someone could identify them for me. Technically, all I really require is their reading, either in rōmaji or hiragana; I can easily handle the rest, as I can read hiragana and know the right translation tools. The only thing stopping me is the fact that I obviously can't scan through the thousands of kanji to figure out which they are. :P Thanks in advance! —OneofThem^(talk)_(contribs) 02:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

it reads 京都. Cheers.--K.C. Tang 02:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"The" before foreign book title

I feel it very awkward to have a "the" added before a work which is transliterated instead of translated. "The Qur'an" is ok, as it's well known, but not for others. We don't add "the" when there's already a "the" in the title (Le Petit Larousse), but sometimes you just don't know. Compare Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal and Xinhua Zidian: one author used "the", one didn't. So has any pundit said anything about this problem?--K.C. Tang 02:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that "The Qur'an" follows the established form "The Bible". Tesseran 08:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

If you know the meaning of the title, and you would naturally use the definite article in front of the translated title, then it is natural to also use it in front of the original title in running text (except when used attributively; you also don't say "a the Bible edition"). For example, Bible mean literally "Book", and it would be rather strange to say: I was reading Book last night. Likewise Qur'an means "Recitation", so you would use the Recitation. In Arabic the definite article is used as well: al-Qur’an. Using this rule, it should be "The Xinhua Zidian is the world's most popular dictionary", but "Commercial Press published a new Xinhua Zidian edition".  --Lambiam^Talk 12:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Cringworthy spelling

My Oxford Spelling Dictionary (1998) has cringing, fringing, and impinging, BUT hingeing, singeing, syringeing, and tingeing. Shouldn't they all have -e- or is there some logic behind the difference that I am missing?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, for singeing it's obvious: if you left out the e you'd have singing, which is something quite different. For the others, especially syringing [which my browser's spellchecker accepts and so must be OK in American English], you'd think the e-less spelling would be unambiguous. —Angr 09:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The OED gives hinging and syringing as correct (looks like the OUP need some joined-up lexicography). Tingeing needs that spelling to distinguish it from "tinging: the action of the verb ting" Algebraist 12:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a verb ting? Past tense tang, past participle tung? —Angr 13:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It's intransitive, so no "tung:"

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source ting (tĭng) Pronunciation Key

n. A single light metallic sound, as of a small bell.

intr.v. tinged (tĭngd), ting·ing, tings

To give forth a light metallic sound.

[From Middle English tingen, to cause to ring, of imitative origin.]

(Download Now or Buy the Book) The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

--Falconus^{p t c} 15:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Ahem, also transitive verbs usually have a past participle: sting – stang – stung. Furthermore, to ting can also be used as a transitive verb: ting –verb (used without object), verb (used with object) 1. to make or cause to make a high, clear, ringing sound. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1).  --Lambiam^Talk 16:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, just out of curiosity, what does "Cringworthy" mean - I couldn't find it on dictionary.com.--Falconus^{p t c} 16:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cringeworthy — Matt Eason ^{(Talk &#149; Contribs)} 16:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Just curious...

Which of the following is more correct?

I know that that grammar makes no sense to me.

or

I know that grammar makes no sense to me.

Also, does the first example count as a Double copula?

Whenever I am writing a paper, I invariably find myself using "that" twice in a row. I usually go back and remove one of them, but I don't know which is correct.

Thanks,

--Falconus^{p t c} 15:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not a double copula because "that" isn't a copula. There are two completely different words "that", in fact, but neither of them is a copula. The first "that" is a determiner (or in more traditional terms, a demonstrative adjective) that is used with a noun to specify a particular one of a class (literally or figuratively relatively distant to the speaker, as opposed to "this", for things literally or figuratively closer to the speaker). The second "that" is a complementizer (or in more traditional terms, a subordinating conjunction) that introduces a subordinate class, as in "I know that apples taste good". The complementizer "that" may be omitted, so "I know apples taste good" is also correct. In your first sentence above, you are using both "that"s next to each other, which is perfectly correct. Your second sentence, however, is ambiguous: it isn't clear whether you're using the demonstrative "that" and omitting the complementizer "that" (saying roughly "I know [that grammar (over there) makes no sense to me]") or whether you're using the complementizer "that" and referring to grammar in general ("I know that [grammar (in general) makes no sense to me]"). So if you're referring to grammar in general, only the second sentence is correct. If you're referring to some specific grammar, both sentences are correct, but the first one is unambiguous. —Angr 16:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks; I understand now.--Falconus^{p t c} 16:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Angr beat me to it, and did a fantastic job answering the question. I'll just add that even though your sentence is grammatical, if you don't like the sound of it, go ahead and change something! When the same construction comes up again and again in your writing, take a step back and try to think of ways to rearrange the entire thought. --Reuben 16:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

explicit and explicitly

i want to know when i should use explicit and when i should use expicitely when i form a sentance , anybody can help?

"Explicit" is the adjective. It therefore is used as "He disobeyed the explicit order." "Explicit" went with "order" in that sentence. "Explicitly" is the adverb; it gets used to modify a verb. Therefore the word "explicitly" is used explicitly with verbs. "Explicitly" modified "used" in that sentence. If that doesn't help, maybe someone can clarify it.

--Falconus^{p t c} 16:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)