Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

August 23

Unser Vater - German Our Father prayer

Has the German version of the Our Father undergone any revisions within the last century or so. I have heard two versions and I am wondering which one is more recent or popular, unfortunately I dont have them available. One starts Unser Vater, in den Himmel, Dein Name werde geheilegt, dein reich komme, dein wille geshehe... If this piece is enough by which to judge, is this the newer, more common, revised, or unrevised version? Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.136.7.97 (talk)

The German Wikipedia entry Vaterunser shows a couple of different versions. My German isn't great, but it appears that different versions are used in different churches. I can't tell one is newer or older or more or less common, though. - Eron ^Talk 00:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

In English, by the way, we tend to call it the Lord's Prayer. 80.254.147.52 11:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

In English, you tend to call it the Lord's Prayer. In English, while being aware of the use 'the Lord's Prayer', I have always known it as the 'Our Father'. Horses/courses :) Skittle 19:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

"Unser Vater ..." is more recent, used in some Reformed churches, but less common in everyday reference. The Lord's Prayer itself is called "das Vaterunser", one copulative compound word. The possessive "unser" is prepositional in modern German. (Unser Mann in Havanna, for example) Like many famous bible quotes, the postpositional "Vater unser ..." sounds archaic to modern ears. The famous 6th century Gothic translation found in the Codex Argenteus uses the same word oder: Atta unsar, þu in himinam... ---Sluzzelin talk 13:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the first part of the one translation you quoted should be Unser Vater in dem Himmel, dein Name werde geheiligt.... The New Apostolic Church has used this and will continue to use it until Pentecost next year (then what?), and it's from a 1912 Luther bible edition, but it continues slightly differently. "In dem Himmel" instead of "im Himmel" is less common and does sound a bit old as well. There are newer translations which retained the initial "Vater unser" word oder. I suppose we'd need more on the other versions to determine which is the oldest. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Matthew 6:9-13 has been translated from Greek (or Latin) into German many times in the last century. There's the Revised Elberfelder Version (always popular), the Gute Nachricht Bibel (yuck!), and the Buber-Rosenzweig (my favorite), just to name a few. Are you asking if the Roman Catholic version of the Our Father, as recited at mass in Germany, has changed? Some really good information is here. Also, note that the "original" Our Father appears in both Matthew and Luke, and the wording isn't exactly the same. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Further

When using the word further, is there a word furtherest? I know there is a farther and farthest. Thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.144.230.21 (talk)

farther is to farthest as further is to furthest. Hope this makes sense! DuncanHill 01:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

There is not, however, a word furtherest. -Elmer Clark 03:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

However, a furtherist is one who furthers something ... :) Corvus cornix 18:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Far, farther, farthest
___, further, furthest
Can anyone fill in the blank? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Far. Interestingly, farther, farthest are variants of further, furthest, and not derived from far. Further derives form the Old English furthor, which in turn is from fore or forth, with the comparitive suffix -ther. Farther is from the Middle English ferther, a varient sp of further. There is a word furth, meaning forth or outside of, which is a Scottish variant of forth. (From Chambers 20th Century Dictionary, 1983 edition). DuncanHill 22:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Book review

what are the classification of book review? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.133.196.10 (talk • contribs) 03:09, August 23, 2007 (UTC) – Please sign your posts!

Could you clarify the question? There are many classification systems; do you have a particular one in mind? If not, a specific usage of the classification? Are you asking for a classification to be assigned to book reviews, or for classifications being used in book reviews?  --Lambiam 05:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Sanskrit

Sanskrit is a very well established language with millions of books written in this language. Is there any policy here at Wikipedia that a third party Sanskrit-to-English reference book explaining the Sanskrit verses to English audience required? Can a Sanskrit-to-English dictionary be used in order to explain the Sanskrit verses? Can the word to word interpretation from a Sanskrit-to-English dictionary suffice here? What method is currently being used to interpret sentences from a French Book. What are the policies regarding the same with regards to translating established French Books? BalanceRestored 06:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm almost positive we don't have a policy per se on this. If you want to cite a Sanskrit verse in an article, it's probably best to provide your own translation of it, since someone else's translation (if recent enough) will be copyrighted. If you do use someone else's translation, make sure the translation's copyright has expired (published before 1923 in the U.S., or the author has been dead more than 70 years), and cite it. —Angr 06:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been showing sentences from well know and well established Sanskrit literatures at talk pages using dictionary, but I've been asked by fellow editors to get the sentences explained from an ISBN English author. Is this generally done with every other language??? Is this generally required?BalanceRestored 06:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy actually forbids the use of copyrighted material, even if it would normally be allowed under the fair use doctrine, if a "free alternative" is or could be available. A translation by an advanced-level Sanscreature would be such a free alternative.  --Lambiam 07:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Er, wouldn't a translation be a derivative work, and therefore not "free?" Given that, I see no problem with using a copyrighted translation, as long as you stay within fair use guidelines. -Elmer Clark 08:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

My assumption was that the original Sanskrit works were written many centuries ago, and are by now free of copyright. Recent published translations, however, are typically not free.  --Lambiam 09:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, right, ok. Still, this seems a little silly - I would consider this a WP:IAR situation - it's a little unreasonable to expect us to provide our own, unprofessional, unreliable translations when published ones exist and can be cited through fair use... -Elmer Clark 10:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally I don't agree with the policy, but nevertheless, it is policy, not a guideline, and it is rather emphatic about this.  --Lambiam 10:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

A good reason for the policy in this case is that different rules apply for poetry, including translations of poetry, which may not generally be cited without the author's permission. Since much or most Sanskrit literature qualifies as poetry, its recent translations cannot be republished without permission. Marco polo 13:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Two questions. First, doesn't "free alternative" mean "free equivalent"? I think translations of difficult primary texts by Wikipedian language students can get problematic (even tending towards inappropriately original work). So, if there's a public domain translation that equally well makes the point, I'd use it, but otherwise I'd quote and cite a copyrighted translation. Second, I get livid every time I see secondary sources thanking publishers for permission to quote & discuss poems. Surely this is just the publishing industry's orgy of mutual love & not a fast legal principle? I would not think twice about quoting poetic translations, especially, something that is routinely done in scholarly work, journalism (I don't think all the pundits are doing their own translations of Thucydides and Sophocles), etc. (I realize that if a poet primarily writes haiku, and everyone on the internet quotes and discusses their favorite one, a substantial part of the poet's work has been made available for free, but I'm still suspicious of the rule in general form.) Does anyone think there's something wrong with what I did at Praxilla? (I could have made my own virtually identical translation, but I wouldn't have wanted to intrude my personality into the encyclopedia so directly, when I can choose a recognized reference instead.) I can't really find the strict view in the linked policy. Wareh 19:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The copyright-holders of translations frequently enforce their copyrights aggressively, and there have been successful lawsuits. In the eyes of the law, a translation of Dante's Inferno into English is just as much a copyrightable creative work as a screenplay based on the work. It's absolutely against Wikipedia policy to use non-free, copyrighted translations, and for good reason. It could generate a lawsuit just as easily as any copyvio. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, to take your example, The Divine Comedy quotes from at least ten non-free, copyrighted translations. Even though those quotations are quite gratuitous (I tried to take them out once, but I got reverted), it would, in general, bring all English-language discussion of foreign literature to a screeching halt if such an "absolutely against" policy were applied. Fortunately, as far as I can tell, Wikipedia policies countenance limited "acceptable use"; if they did not, it would be a very remarkable (and crippling) difference between Wikipedia and the world of academic publishing, print encyclopedias, etc. Wareh 02:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of verses - I've noted that sometimes meaning of english translation is totaly different from original (one example I rememember is here [1] ) especialy in works like poems and such, so if one is trying to explain meaning of words it could be dificult if there's such a diference, I guess in such case one could use profesional translation along with their own. Also author of the question probably meant explenation of each word in a sentence (e.g. ice stands for frozen water), which might be even less wrong, if only definition is given - each can be referenced, however if one wants to explain by analysing these definitions it seems to turn in to original research again ---- Xil/talk 18:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Irregular nouns and apostrophes

I couldn't find anything at apostrophe so I decided to ask here. When one has an irregular noun and an apostrophe, is it true that it is always apostrophe-s? As in, men's is correct while mens' is wrong? What if one has groups of men and women? I thought that men's would refer to all the men as a whole, while mens' would refer to the groups of men (not individually) as s' would "attach" itself to men? x42bn6 Talk Mess 10:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought the rules given under Possessive apostrophe kind of sum it up. Assuming that you have a plural that does not end in an s, the second bullet tells you to add an apostrophe + an s to get the possessive. So mens' is wrong.  --Lambiam 10:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

As Lambiam said, the point being that there is no word mens. DuncanHill 11:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. x42bn6 Talk Mess 11:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

But to contrast, "Everybody needs money, and people's need for money can be a very important force in life." A crappy sentence, but the point is that people refers to "everybody", as the plural of person. Then we have "In the world today there are hundreds of cultural groups, and peoples' need for individual recognition can be an important force in politics." Another really bad sentence, but the point is that each individual people, or cultural group, has a need, so we're talking about the needs of the peoples. The reason we can say peoples' but not mens' is, as noted above, because peoples is a word but mens is not. Tesseran 20:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Except in Latin, eg. Mens sana in corpore sano (two attributes I do not claim). -- JackofOz 02:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

People, though, is not the plural of person (that's persons). People can be a plural noun meaning a group of humans; or a singular noun which can be pluralized (as in peoples of the world). Bazza 15:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Bazza is committing the etymological fallacy. The plural of person is people for most purposes and persons in a few restricted senses only. The fact that people also exists as a singular noun in other senses and has the same origin is irrelevant. --Anonymous, August 25, 05:51 (UTC).

Japanese translation: seeking sources about Yuji Ide to add to Wikipedia article

Is anyone who knows Japanese willing to help me find some texts about Formula 1 driver Yuji Ide? I am seeking info about Yuji's personal life to add to the article. If you can find URL's with info, I can take them through the free Babelfish translation service to read the information in broken English.

Anyone have any ideas on finding someone to pitch in some help finding URLs with info on Yuji's personal life in Japanese?

Guroadrunner 11:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is our very own wikipedia-jp article about the bloke here, if that helps. I also found this page with info about him. It might not be much about his personal life, as such, but it's a start, maybe. If you need help with the translating, contact me on my page and I'll be glad to help out. --Manga 20:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Letters Patent

The letters patent article states that due to the Latin idiom involved, a single document is not a "letter patent" but still "letters patent."

Is this correct, and is it correct in all variants of English and other languages that use this term? Would it be valid to google and replace all occurrences of "letter patent" in this context with "letters patent"? — PhilHibbs | talk 13:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's correct. Replacing every "letter patent" with "letters patent" would probably do more good than harm, but it would be better to review each instance, in case something else needs to be corrected at the same time. For instance, 'letter patent' may have an 'a' in front of it, and if it's the subject of the sentence the verb may need correcting, too. Xn4 14:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

There are different schools of thought on this. Some style guides say you should respect foreign grammar when using foreign phrases in English, while others say you shouldn't need to know any language other than English to use English correctly. "Hoi" means "The" in Greek, but Hoi Polloi is now an English phrase (derived from Greek). The sentence "I have no respect for the hoi polloi" may make Greek speakers cringe, but many style guides say that it's correct English. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That's fair enough, but letters patent has been around in the English language for at least six hundred years. For instance, it appears in documents written for Henry V in English. It should be naturalized by now! Xn4 00:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, INS is notoriously slow. . . ;-) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The La Brea Tar Pits, in which la brea means "the tar", results in "The the tar tar pits". Corvus cornix 23:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, well, "PIN number". —Tamfang 23:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You can satisfy both principles by refraining from using expressions that you don't understand; for example, to avoid the problem of "(the) hoi polloi" say "the masses". —Tamfang 23:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

To understand a word and to understand all the details of its etymology are very different things; following your suggestion would render almost all speech impossible. Tesseran 04:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

What would you call this?

Yesterday, my little boy dropped a tape dispenser, and it came apart. He handed it to me and I put it back together, removed some tape and taped it together so it wouldn't fall apart again. This got me thinking that there must be a word or phrase to describe this. What is it called when you use a tool to fix itself? Thanks, --Czmtzc 15:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess it could be seen as a form of self-reference, and for some reason it reminded me of the barber paradox. The term "self-amendment" exists in law, but I've never heard it applied to mechanical tools. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Self-healing (with a little assistance)?  --Lambiam 18:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, speaking of self-reference: Do you think the last sentence in that article provides a good example of self-healing? "In the case of Wikipedia, self-healing is accomplished by the collective efforts of individuals working on the system. [2]" ---Sluzzelin talk 19:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Random related thing: RepRap Project —Keenan Pepper 22:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The words "bootstrapping" and "recursion" come to mind, but aren't exactly on point. Other random related thing: David J. Gingery wrote a series of books on how to build a machine shop from the ground up (each tool can be built with the previously-built tools). He starts with a small foundry and moves up. --Sean 13:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Etymology

What is the origin of the phrase "keep yor eyes peeled"?

The OED says it originates in U.S. colloquial language and has a text example from 1852. It seems obvious that this is an extension of the primary meaning of peeled given as stripped of skin. Stefán 18:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It would be my guess that the eyelids are what is kept peeled. Marco polo 18:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

No, the skin stays on the eyelids. But the eyelids stay retracted so the eyeballs themselves are bare. —Angr 18:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Damn! I've been doing it wrong! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Have or Haven't

What is more correct, "You have seen nothing yet" or "You haven't seen nothing yet"?

You ain't seen nothing yet. DuncanHill 22:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to be confused with You ain't heard nothing yet. —Angr 05:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

More seriously, though, in Standard Written English, "You haven't seen anything yet" would be the 'correct' way to phrase what you're trying to say. In more informal speaking, especially in certain dialects (such as African American Vernacular English), saying things like "you ain't seen nothing yet" or "you haven't seen nothing yet" are correct --Miskwito 22:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast. Thanks a lot!

Some people, particularly the Scots, say "You've not seen anything yet". -- JackofOz 02:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Which reminds me of Dylan's Quinn the Eskimo - Come on without, Come on within, You've not seen nothin' like the Mighty Quinn. -- JackofOz 02:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

August 24

Translate japaneses please (re-ask)

Can somebody please help tranlate Bladestorm:_The_Hundred_Years'_War#Mercenaries from the japanese-english into plain, readable English.

For instance I imagine that "Diane, blooming on the battlefield, a wild lily." should read "Diane, a young female warrior"?

The original source can be found at: http://www.gamecity.ne.jp/bladestorm/ (press "character" then the yellow button) - the site is flash so unfortunately I can't just copy the japanese characters over. Thanks.

Specifically these

• Bart, a friend searching for the greatest "legend".
• George, Mark's elder brother, never losing dignity, unleashing arrows of mortality.
• Mark, George's brother, "an iron wall for the sake of defending people.
• Karen, dual swords dancing upon the battlefield.
• Nalan, strong and descendent of the blue wolf.
• Yoshimasa, a samurai that breathes loyalty.
• Shakti, a "death god" that becomes a seductive dragon.

Your help appreciated.87.102.79.29 13:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I have rewritten them from Engrish to English. I hope nothing was lost in translation. =] HYENASTE 23:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, (and also thank you for remindind me of the word 'engrish' I was trying to think of that).

Only the reference to a 'blue wolf' confuses me - does this have some contextual meaning in Japan? Anyone know??

Thanks again, anyway.87.102.84.56 11:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Go Like Who-Dray-Gah

This is a family expression, meaning to go very quickly. It comes down from the Bohemian side of the family, and I have tried to find out who or what this refers to. The spelling is phonetic, the best I can do.

Didn't you just ask this? Perhaps you could ask one of the family members to write it down. I for years as a child thought my mother was using a word "ennative", which I inferred to mean "caused by", as in "What was that outburst ennative?". Only as an adult did I realize she was saying "in aid of". Whodraygah might have a similar story. --Sean 15:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

They asked it on one of the other desks and were directed here. --Anon, August 24, 16:14 (UTC).

If they're from a German speaking Bohemian background, I suppose it could be seen as phonetically loosely related to Hutträger, meaning "hat-bearer" or just someone wearing a hat. I don't know what would make a hat-bearer's speed remarkable, and I have never heard this simile. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Noddy

In the sense of "simplistic" or "elementary", what is the derivation of the word Noddy? Noddy (disambiguation) suggests it is from the character Noddy but quotes no references. Wiktionary was no help (and I've added 3 more definitions there). -- SGBailey 14:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

In the absense of other infomation it's safe to assume that it derives from the character of the same name - with a nuance of childishness or simplicity (compare mickey mouse eg http://catb.org/jargon/html/N/noddy.html)87.102.75.201 15:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Though http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/n/n0126300.html claims 'noddy' once meant 'foolish' can anyone provide a literary example of this?87.102.75.201 15:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The phrase 'tom noddy' predates Enid Blyton though http://www.bartleby.com/81/12146.html87.102.75.201 15:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

'Noddy meaning a fool or a simpleton is in OED dating back to 1530. DuncanHill 15:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Greek first name in Latin transliteration

This is the first name of a performer in a program of Greek taverna-style music. Per the Hebrew source text — קאיה — it seems to be pronounced KAI-a (to rhyme with "Maya;" sorry, I don't "do" IPA). How to spell it in Latin letters? -- Thanks, Deborahjay 15:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the name in Greek? Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 16:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no other info available. I'd be content to have an approximation based on the above phonology. Would "Kaia" do, perhaps? -- Deborahjay 17:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you know if it's a male or female name? —Angr/talk 17:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I suspect it's female only because of the "-ah" ending, if it's like gender-marked names in other local languages. -- Deborahjay 17:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Update: Just found this link (by searching the name in Hebrew of another member of the band). Seems the lady spells it "Kaya"... therefore, so shall I! -- Cheers, Deborahjay 17:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. If the Hebrew transliteration has the correct sounds and it's a first name, it seems female. I don't know it, but generally only female names have final A. Without seeing the Greek version, either Kaia or Kaya is probably ok, with the first syllable rhyming with eye, not hay. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 17:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

"...generally only female names have final A", true. There are always exceptions, such as the Russian name Sacha and the Italian name Luca. Also, some cultures can allow names to cross over genders, as in José María. Xn4 01:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Andrea, Nicola, Akira, Hidetaka, Beda, Dara, Osama ... Perhaps I'd call them counterexamples, not necessarily exceptions, though the worldwide majority of given names ending in -a does seem to be female. Here another forum collected examples from several languages, with counterexamples and attempts at explaining the phenomenon. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, I was referring to final A generally denoting female names in Greek. And there are exceptions, especially in nicknames or shortened forms, there may be a final A in male names. Eg Andrea and Nicola per above. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 15:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

not much, wazoo with you?

(Hey, what happened to the '+' button on this page?) Hearing the phrase "references up the wazoo" made me wonder, has wazoo ever been used in a literal sense? Or indeed has it any sense more literal than that? —Tamfang 16:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The '+' button has been restored. --MZMcBride 19:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks up the wazoo for that. —Tamfang 22:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to pull a reliable answer out of my wazoo, Tamfang, but all I found was a seven year old rant by Gene Collier in The Pittsburgh Post Gazette:

"Beyond its nauseating proliferation, what's most bothersome about "up/out the wazoo" is that "wazoo" is completely without pedigree in the language. It has no known etymology, at least according to the folks who run the Merriam-Webster Web site. They speculate only that the term came into use in 1983, the circumstances of which are left to the impossible depths of our memory."

I hope someone can find more on origins and first use. The American Heritage Dictionary writes "perhaps alteration of kazoo", suggesting cartoon onomatopoeia and silliness. Zappa used it before 1983, of course, "And who are those dudes in the back seat of Calvin's car?" ---Sluzzelin talk 11:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

As fate would have it, I remember a conversation in 1983 that contained wazoo in the sense in question (I was already acquainted with "Cosmik Debris"). —Tamfang 04:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Malice as a verb

Can the word "malice" (or a homophone thereof) be used as a verb? In particular, would it make sense in the sentence "I am a zombie and I will malice you with a shoehorn"? It's a great word, but since the sentence is spoken by an especially stupid character in a children's cartoon, I'm not exceptionally hopeful. Laïka 17:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I suspect the intended verb was "molest". Is the character prone to malapropism? —Angr/talk 17:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, but molest does have certain connotations (especially in conjunction with shoehorn!) which might it unsuitable in the context. Laïka 18:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The OED recognizes the verb "malice" as current in the sense "To regard with malice; to bear malice towards; to seek or desire to injure" (citations from 1547 to 1981), but seek/desire is an important part of the definition, as the word is used of a threatening posture ("he kept walking sullenly around the tent, malicing us with that blasted shoehorn") rather than of actual assault. Wareh 18:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems that cartoons today are written as much for adults as for children. "...molest you with a shoehorn" seems to use the word correctly in context. What do you do with a shoehorn? You fit something into a tight spot. It is almost certain that the cartoon used that phrase. 152.16.16.75 01:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds similar to the use of "menace" as a verb. Are you sure the character didn't actually say "menace"? --Reuben 18:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Any noun can be verbed, given enough MBAs. --Sean 18:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

(snicker) "Our new verbification solution, to malice." -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 18:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

In Calvin and Hobbes it was said that verbing weirds language, but it's been happening for a long long time. --Kjoonlee 18:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

August 25

Question

What does this phrase mean?"express yourself"Chavosh 01:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It means 'state your opinion'. Xn4 02:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

And here I thought it meant to live your life in the fast lane. :-) StuRat 04:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it has a wider meaning than merely stating one's opinion. A writer expresses himself in his writings, a composer in his music, an artist in his artistic creations, etc. -- JackofOz 04:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I overlooked those. Xn4 23:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

"I couldn't afford the airfare, so I expressed myself to Miami for spring break". Gzuckier 15:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Does UPS offer in-flight snacks (perhaps if your package is within reach of a nice package of cookies sent from somebody's grandma) ? :-) StuRat 12:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Pronounciation of the name "Tuomas" in Finnish

Does anyone know how this is pronounced? Is it like the English "Thomas"?

Thank you. --Pyreforge 04:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The u and o are separate vowels, both of which are sounded. The u is like English oo in boot, and the o is like the oa of boat, but in both cases shorter than in English; just use the first half. Together they form a diphthong, in which the brief oo sound glides into the oa sound, making the start sound a bit like twoa – in which the w is pronounce, unlike English two. The a of Tuomas is like the a in father, a clearly pronounced vowel.  --Lambiam 07:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic, thanks a lot. --Pyreforge 03:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

correct term SAberHawk 82.201.171.42 10:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

need to know the term for example you have the word "LIFE" and if you rotate it 180* it reads "DEATH" its like metagram or betagram or somthing i just cant remember thanks!!!

never mind found it its ambigram thanks any way love wikipedia!!!!!

Is the following sentence grammatical?

Is the following sentence grammatical? "You can not dismiss him merely as a commercial act." Apparently the speaker meant: "You can not dismiss his performance merely as a commercial act." Is this an example of metanomy? Thank you very much. 196.12.53.9 11:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Vineet Chaitanya

What is metanomy? Did you mean metonymy?

Yes, sorry for the wrong spelling. 196.12.53.9 13:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Vineet Chaitanya

No comment of the metonymy, but the sentence would read better as "You cannot dismiss him as merely a commercial act." - Eron ^Talk 13:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It sounds very odd to me, though I'm going beyond your question. People are called 'an act' in a few turns of phrase of Standard English, such as "She's a hard act to follow". It may be that in the world of entertainment a performer is called "a good act", "a bad act", "a commercial act"? If so, I'd say it's more jargon than good English. Xn4 23:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the detailed explanation. 196.12.53.9 03:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Vineet Chaitanya

If the sentence is used to refer to a performer whose performance goes beyond mere commercial appeal to have real artistic merit, then I (a native speaker of American English) think that the sentence conveys that meaning. EronMain's change in the position of the modifier is more correct, but lots of native speakers misplace their modifiers just as the questioner has. Marco polo 20:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Feet/Feat of Clay

Can someone give me a hint as to the textured meaning of the colloquialism 'Feet (or feat, m'not sure which one is the original, and which is the pun) of clay?' The former gives the idea that the subject doesn't have a sturdy base, while the latter seems to be about the impermanence of any given work, but I can't find a source on the wik or google, so I'm afraid I'm missing some of the nuance. Double points, as usual, for a reference of origin. Love, 24.250.32.81 13:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure it's feet of clay, referring to a statue with no sturdy base. I associate it in my mind with "Ozymandias" although the phrase doesn't appear in the poem. —Angr/talk 13:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Odd I'd always assumed it meant 'something slow moving of cumbersome' - how wrong I was..

http://users.tinyonline.co.uk/gswithenbank/sayingsf.htm read more much more detail

Etymology: from the feet of the idol in Daniel 2:33 http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=feet+of+clay+ It's 'feet'.87.102.84.56 13:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Not a colloquialism at all, but an allusion...Thanks, I appreciate it.24.250.32.81 13:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

See Nebuchadnezzar's statue vision in Daniel 2 for more background. According to this site, Byron was the first modern author to use it as a metaphor for a "crippling weakness" or a weak foundation, in Ode to Napoleon: "That spell upon the minds of men/ Breaks never to unite again,/ That led them to adore/ Those Pagod things of sabre sway/ With fronts of brass, and feet of clay." Skarioffszky 11:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe the meaning is that the person isn't very brave, as in that their feet could collapse under them at any moment when they attempt to stand up to someone. StuRat 02:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

While that's a nice idea, it doesn't really fit with the history of the phrase; either where it came from or how it has been used in literature. Others have given good, detailed answers of where it came from and what meaning it has been used with. Of course, you can use it in your personal lexicon with your own meaning that completely ignores statues, but others will be prone to misunderstand you. Skittle 22:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a mistake to think that the etymology of a word provides the definitive answer for the only valid current meaning for the word. If we used that method, for example, we would conclude that "salary" means payments made for services in the form of table salt only. Also, it's not just me who uses this meaning. This site: [3] lists definition 2 as: "A villain appears to be really powerful and frightening -- then turns out to be a coward....". StuRat 15:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

On foot vs. by foot

In the Siege of Leningrad article one can see the expression "by foot". I've always been taught the correct one is "on foot". Are, therefore, both correct ? --Taraborn 17:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

"On foot" is more usual, but there's nothing wrong with "by foot." --Reuben 17:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Only difference I know of is a small one- if I'm standing around, I'm "on foot". Saying "by foot" indicates travel, just as you might travel by train or by car. But, "I went 20 miles today, on foot" is fine, as is "I went 20 miles today, by foot". Friday (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Good catch - actually, I think that "on foot" can be used as both an adverb and an adjective, while "by foot" is only an adverb phrase. So you can use "on foot" to describe someone: "a man on foot." But you can use either one to describe an action: "He came on foot" or "He came by foot." --Reuben 17:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --Taraborn 18:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Is "on foot" British? It sounds completely wrong to my American ear, in both cases given by Friday (standing around or travelling). I could say "I've been on my feet all day". For travel, I'd always use "by foot" or more usually "I walked 20 miles today". Ingrid 02:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Which region? I'm from Illinois and "to go on foot" sounds quite ordinary to me. —Tamfang 20:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Bilingual

What combination of two languages has the most bilingual speakers? 68.231.151.161 18:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, it would be a pair of mutually intelligible languages. I would go with two of the Scandinavian languages. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 19:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Not so obviously. It could be a pair of widely spoken languages, such as English and Spanish. A.Z. 19:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with A.Z., 30 million people in the U.S. alone speak Spanish, more than Sweden, Norway, and Denmark's population put together, but I found no statistics saying that Spanish/English is the most frequent pairing. It might also depend on which definition of bilinguism (native or acquired) you use. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot of french speakers in asia/africa - who might also have english - though I guess spanish/english will be more.

Cantonese/Mandarin seems like a good bet - or do they not count being 'dialects'?87.102.84.56 19:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Whether they count as dialects or not doesn't really matter, but I'm not sure how many Cantonese speakers are really bilingual in Mandarin. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of Mandarin speakers aren't bilingual in Cantonese. Another possibility to consider is Javanese/Indonesian, and maybe Bengali/Hindi. —Angr/talk 20:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that if you consider Hindustani to be a language, it would share many speakers with Bengali. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 21:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The answer might depend on what you mean by 'language' - for instance, the French often refer to l'anglais et l'américain, as if American English were a quite separate language from English, a view which I think few English speakers would take. You'd have to get hold of all the available census statistics to work out the answer, but off the cuff I should think it might be between (Standard Cantonese + Standard Mandarin) and (English + Spanish). Of course, you might arrive at the wrong answer, as Chinese statistics generally need to be treated with caution! (And perhaps we could say the same of almost all official statistics everywhere...) Xn4 23:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I only distrust state statistics if they have a reason to lie. For example, I would trust North Korean stats on the number of typhoons that hit NK, but would assume any production statistics from them are outright lies. (Although I suppose they could invent fictional typhoons to explain why their productivity is so low, but that would be rather obvious.) StuRat 01:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, mutually-intelligible languages don't really count if a speaker is "bilingual" only in the sense that he could understand a speaker of the other language, rather than himself communicating properly in that language. Although Swedish and Danish are mutually intelligible, I dunno how many Swedes and Danes actually learn the "proper" versions of each others' languages, and how many just talk in their own respective languages and get by on that. -Elmer Clark 04:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

August 26

CREATIVE WRITING --- SENTENCE OR PARAGRAPH STYLE

I don't know where to post this question, either here or on Humanities (literature). Anyway, I would like to write essays with style. When I read my friend's composition, I noticed all of his paragraphs started with participial phrases. He called this creative writing. In one of his other essays, all the first words in his paragraphs, if combined together, read "WE SHOULD NOT CHEAT," which is exactly the very title of his essay and that is also the last sentence of his essay. I wonder if you can refer to me some links on "styles" of sentences and paragraphs.. I know there are multifarious styles on writing. My friend failed to teach me about this. Thank you for any help you would extend. God bless you. Carlrichard 02:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Constrained writing, perhaps? -Elmer Clark 04:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's what the original poster means. It seems that he just wants to learn how to write (and do it with style). It's a mere desultory event that his friend used constrained writing. A.Z. 05:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The booklet The Elements of Style may contain some advice or guidance that is useful. The essay How to write with style by Kurt Vonnegut is free and on-line.[4]  --Lambiam 16:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Sitting at my keyboard I'm not sure that starting all your paragraphs with participial phrases is a good idea. Having it with every paragraph would be gimmicky. In your second example (having the first words spell out a secret message) you've described a simple acrostic. This is also not a technique a serious writer would use. --JayHenry 06:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hyphen

When describing something as being completely free of animal products, which one of these is correct?

• Animal-product-free
• Animal product-free
• Animal product free

Thanks! Aaadddaaammm 07:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I think different style guides offer different advice on this problem. The Chicago Manual of Style recommends "animal product–free", with an en dash rather than a hyphen, for cases like this. —Angr/talk 07:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The Chicago Manual of Style sounds good enough for me! Thanks for the quick (10 minutes!) reply! Aaadddaaammm 07:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a strange use of the en-dash. I would go with the third example, definitely not the second. The meaning is clear enough without the hyphens. Personally, I would prefer to recast and put something like "contains no animal products" or simply "suitable for vegetarians", which now seems to be the norm in the UK.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I had option 2 first, then changed it to option 1 then back to option 2 at Angr's advice. Thanks for your input, too, Shantavira - but I don't know if "Much work has been invested in finding methods suitable for vegetarians to prevent stem cells differentiating spontaneously" really has the right ring to it... :P But seriously, does anyone else want to cast a vote? It's for a uni essay in NZ, if that sways anyone's opinion. Aaadddaaammm 10:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Surely 'free of animal products' 'that do not use animal products' would be simpler and clearer, without the agonising? Skittle 22:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

For formal writing, I'd follow the relevant manual of style for whatever you're writing. For informal writing, I would use the completely-dashed-up-version since I think it's clearer. --Sean 12:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

If feasible, you might consider using another phrasing, as you'll never please everyone with this one. My own opinion is that it has to be "animal-product-free" -- Anon, August 26, 15:52 (UTC).

The word 'consultant'

Do you think the work 'consultant' sounds phony What other words do you suggest in this field of people who are selling some form of know how. E.g. analyst, ...

Advisor? Skarioffszky 12:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It may depend on where you're coming from, but to me adviser as an occupational description sounds fishy, while consultant sounds just fine.  --Lambiam 16:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster says that the word consultant has been in the English language since 1697. By the way, know how strikes my ears as quaint and antiquated. I prefer knowledge. --Nricardo 18:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Knowledge and know-how, knowhow, know how have different meanings. I'm trying to think to myself how they differ, but the best I can come up with, is that knowledge means that you know what the components of a radio are, but know-how means that you can put one together. It's more manual than mental. Corvus cornix 16:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd say whether it sounds phony depends on what goes with the word. "Management consultant" sounds fine, but "automotive surfacic detergent consultant" (some guy who works in a car wash) sounds as phony as it is. StuRat 01:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of examples of this. Last night I saw a TV ad for a hairdressing salon in a small town, whose staff glory in titles such as "Senior Salon Executive", "Salon Executive", or "Salon Associate". -- JackofOz 01:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, an episode of Family Ties had Alex promoted at his job at Walmart (or whatever fictional chain name they used) to Junior Vice President in charge of Cat Toys. :-) StuRat 02:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Consultant is a word that has plenty of "phony" connotation; however, in any business environment it's still widely used. You could even use it in more informal settings, like flyering as a "organizational consultant" or, perhaps, "lifestyle consultant" without being too out of the norm. (Though I think the word "coach" is becoming more popular in those contexts.) I think it all depends on context. In very informal settings, you might bill yourself as a "professinal geek" or "nerd" even, these days. — gogobera (talk) 03:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, nothing has become as debased as "analyst", which currently means somebody with a bachelor's who can work Powerpoint fairly well. If he/she can also work Excel, they're a senior analyst.Gzuckier 15:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You're only allowed to be a coach if you're "mathematically challenged" (only people who "rode the short bus" can ask others to give 110%, 120%, or more). StuRat 15:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

August 27

I'm not loving it

The bloody McDonald's advert has made this phrase very common, but to me it sounds wrong. Surely the correct construction is "I love it". For example, I eat burgers, and I am eating a burger mean different things, if you were actively loving a McDonalds you'd have your mouth full, so wouldn't be able to sing a little jingle. So my question is, eventually, is this grammatically wrong, or is it just me? And is this an Americanism, hence why it might sound so awkward to me as an Englishman? Cyta 07:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It probably is an Americanism; at least, as an American I can say that this and similar constructions seem perfectly natural to me. McDonald's has made one particular phrase popular, but there are many others in the same form, such as "I'm liking this." The use of the progressive naturally creates a sense of something happening, of movement through time. Google books hits for "I'm liking this" show that the phrase collocates strongly with adverbial constructions like "more and more." As in "Now that I can get a lifetime worth of cholesterol in a single sitting, I'm liking fast food more and more." ... This may be part of the reason the slogan was chosen -- to project an image of this tired old hamburger chain as a happening place where the experience keeps getting better and better. "I love it" fails to convey the same impression. -- Visviva 08:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

"How are you liking your new job?" implies that you're still in the process of forming an opinion, where "How do you like your new job?" implies that process has finished. Tesseran 11:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a "rule" that stative verbs – verbs denoting a state rather than an action – cannot take the progressive tense. Verbs likely to appear on lists of stative verbs include appreciate, be, believe, belong, conclude, contain, decide, equal, feel, forgive, have, hear, know, like, love, mean, owe, perceive, possess, prefer, remember, resemble, see, seem, smell, suppose, tend, think, understand, and wish. There are two ways to interpret the "rule". One is that it gives a way to figure out if a verb is stative or not: Can you say: I'm preferring coffee over tea? If that sounds strange to you, then, apparently, in your mental lexicon prefer is a stative verb. The other interpretation is prescriptive: some verbs are stative, and if you use the progressive tense for one of those you're an oaf who doesn't know proper English. Whichever of these interpretations you may be being preferring, using the progressive tense has the effect of "de-statizing" the verb, turning it into one of action, possibly for effect. That is easier with some on the list than with some others. I'm having difficulties believing that even prescriptivists wouldn't readily utter I'm having difficulties believing that. Still, where the progressive tense is usually needed in English to signal that some action is ongoing, with stative verbs you can normally use the present simple for describing an ongoing state.  --Lambiam 12:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict - Lambiam said most of what I wanted to say - and more!). I was going to say that certain stative verbs appear in the present progressive when the meaning is of a more temporary nature, or 'tentative' - i.e. the doer of the action is not sure whether what he/she is doing is right but is doing it tentatively. Ever since that phrase started coming out on the MacDonald's adverts I've always thought of the meaning as this.--Manga 12:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I am always interested in how they translate it into other languages...it's just boring old "I love it" in German. Adam Bishop 12:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Some examples from the musical descriptivist side: The old song "I Never Knew I Could Love Anybody Like I'm Loving You" (composed in the 1920s and popularized by Judy Garland), "I'm Loving Nothing" (1968), "Just Imagine I'm Loving You" (1979), "I'm Loving Every Moment With You" (1990). ---Sluzzelin talk 13:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

(Aside to Adam Bishop) English is somewhat unusual in having three present tense forms, whereas many other languages have one. E.g. English "I love", "I do love" and "I am loving" are all equivalent to "J'aime" in French. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 14:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but it's still slightly odd in English, so it's too bad there aren't slightly odd translations! Adam Bishop 17:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The French text, at least in America, is "j'm", which is cute. Tesseran 23:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks all. "I'm having difficulties" does sound ok in a discussion, but I would say, for example, I have difficulties with McDonald's adverts as well, it all depends on context and timing. If the slogan had been ushered by someone in the middle of a meal ("are you enjoying your meal", "I'm loving it") I don't suppose it would have sounded odd to me. Always interesting to learn grammar, I had never heard of stative verbs before, I learned English the easy way, being born into it. Thanks again, especially Lambiam Cyta 14:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Also to Sluzzelin, "Just imagine I'm loving you" suggests sex as much as love to me, and I'd rather not just imagine Justin Timberlake loving a Big Mac. "Do you want to go large on that?" Aggh forgive my immaturity. Cyta 14:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

...don't forget to visualize the "special sauce". StuRat 14:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, Super Size Me. Marco polo 14:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

In Ireland, you can even say "I do be loving it", 'cos Hiberno-English speakers often borrows from Irish language syntax. EamonnPKeane 17:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I just remembered I had a Mancunian high school teacher who used this phrase quite a bit (in different persons, like "you're loving it"). He also wrote it as "luvin it" once. Adam Bishop 17:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The McDonald's slogan is simply an attempt to sound young and cool. Note that the Quebec French version is "c’est ça que j’m." There's no such word as "j'm" in proper French. It's like SMS (text messaging) talk. -- Mwalcoff 23:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess I am not young and cool then, ah well I knew that anyway. Thanks again Cyta 09:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

In France it's c'est tout que j'aime, which loosely means "I love it all." EamonnPKeane 12:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

http://www.mcdonalds.de/ uses "Ich liebe es". http://www.mcdonalds.fr uses "c'est tout ce que j'aime". Corvus cornix 21:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, the use of progressive present where British English would use simple present is a common feature of Indian English. The McDonald's adverts do annoy me, but then I strongly suspect they would annoy me even if they contained great prose, brilliant acting, high production-values, and were directed by Hitchcock. DuncanHill 21:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

English to Latin [[5]]

Is there a site similar to babelfish that can translate English to Latin? --Czmtzc 17:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Not whole sentences, although this can translate single words and give you all the important grammatical info. Adam Bishop 17:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Perfect! That is exactly what I wanted. Thanks--Czmtzc 12:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Numbers

The Irish language has three sets of numbers:

• one set for counting: a haon, a dó, a trí, a ceathair...
• one for giving an amount of objects: amháin, dhá, trí, ceithre...
• and one for counting people: duine, beirt, triúr, ceathrar...

Are there any other languages sharing this feature? EamonnPKeane 17:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Korean has:

• 하나, 둘, 셋: native numerals
• 일, 이, 삼: Sino-Korean numerals (from Hanja)
• 한 개, 두 개, 세 개: one thing, two things, three things: adjectival forms of native numerals when used for counting

--Kjoonlee 19:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

And if you go into ordinals, there's also 첫째, 둘째, 셋째: first, second, third. --Kjoonlee 19:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Using classifiers with numbers isn't particularly rare among the world's languages, but the Goidelic system (Scottish Gaelic and Manx having more or less the same pattern as Irish), which isn't really a classifier system anyway, is probably unique among European languages, or at least among Indo-European European languages (one never knows what freakiness is going to pop up in Basque or Hungarian). —Angr/talk 19:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Korean does use classifiers, but what Kjoonlee was referring to is actually two completely unrelated sets of numbers, one native Korean, and one derived from Chinese. Deciding which one to use for which purpose can be quite complicated. Then there's another set of words specifically for counting numbers of days, or specifying a date within a lunar month. It's not just a special classifier, but the entire word is not recognizably similar to the ordinary number words. --Reuben 16:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I had forgotten about those. 하루, 이틀, 사흘 for one, two, three days, and 초하루, 초이틀 for first day, second day of a lunar month.. Thank you! --Kjoonlee 04:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Japanese, like Korean, also has a few sets of numbers: mainly native Japanese numerals, most or all of which have archaic and counting variants; and Sino-Japanese numerals derived from Chinese. -Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.29.16.127 (talk) 11:46, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Well, in Russian, there's one set of numbers for counting and giving number of objects, but a different one for counting people. Conscious 15:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Really? I'm racking my brains here, and I can't think of a special set of numbers in Russian for counting people. Surely you can count people like anything else: один человек, два человека, ... I can't think of any other way I've seen numbers of people given in Russian. --Reuben 15:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Двое, трое, четверо, ..., десятеро. Conscious 17:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, I didn't think of that. You could say though that English has very similar words: duo, trio, quartet, etc. (among many other possibilities!) --Reuben 04:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

how do u type this?

I'm trying to put an ene (in spanish, the letter that is an n with the ~ on top)letter on my laptop in ms word, just the lower case one. Can somebody help me?

Ctrl+Shift+~ (tilde key) then press n, and you should have ñ. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 20:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

thanx a lot. wikipedia has saved me so many times!

You can also use Alt+0241.--El aprendelenguas 00:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, ALT+264 (carlrichard) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.5.86.109 (talk) 14:57, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Semantics

A few questions for anyone who can weigh in, please. Thanks. (Question 1): What are the subtle nuances in difference (if any) between the words "reply" and "response" ...? Also, consider the following email exchange.

• Email 1 - Ann to Bob: "Hi, Bob. What are the lunch plans for tomorrow?"
• Email 2 - Bob to Ann: "Hi, Ann. Let's meet 12 noon at the pizza place. Does that work for you?"
• Email 3 - Ann to Bob: "Hi, Bob. That's great. I will see you there!"

(Question 2): How would you phrase the following? Email 2 is Bob's (reply / response / what?) to Email 1? and Email 3 is Ann's (reply / response / what?) to Email 2?

The reason I ask is this. If I am Ann, and I am referring to Email 3, I would hate to say "my response to your response" ... or "my reply to your reply". Is there an easier / less cumbersome way to refer to the reply of a reply ... or the response to a response? Many thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 22:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC))

When in doubt coin a new term, either re-response or re-reply.  :-) --Nricardo 00:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

In this instance, confirmation. Clarityfiend 00:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

"Response" is a more general term, referring to whatever the "hearer" does, or however they react, to the "speaker's" words. This may mean a reply back to the speaker, or it may mean them doing/saying something else that doesn't involve the speaker, or both, or nothing (at least nothing external, because there is always at least an internal response to any communication or other incoming sensory signals). In this case, Bob's response to Ann's email happened to be a reply to Ann. Ann's response to Bob's reply was her reply to Bob. Re the "my reply to your reply" question, it would hardly be necessary to go that extreme. If you're replying to a communication, no matter whether it's the original message or one occurring later on in an ongoing dialogue, it's obvious that your reply is to the last message received. So, "My reply is ..." should suffice. But even that would be superfluous in most cases. If you're replying to a message, it's obvious that it is a reply, particularly if you've added it to the original e-mail message, so labelling it as a "reply", "response" or anything else doesn't add any value. -- JackofOz 00:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

August 28

Hindi to English

can hindi translate into english possible —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajendramouny (talk • contribs) 11:31, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to translate from Hindi to English ? Sure. As with any pair of languages, there may be some words in Hindi which don't have a direct English translation, but they can always be translated to a series of words in English. For example, many languages have different words for "male cousin" and "female cousin", but English doesn't (I don't know if Hindi does). So, you would need to translate that single word in those languages into two words in English.

If you are asking about web sites where you can get either a machine translation or request a human translation from Hindi to English, I don't know of any, myself. Perhaps someone else does. StuRat 11:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

English to hindi machine translation exists, hindi to english seems to be in the experimental phase - there are plenty of places working on it but I couldn't find a working site.

We also have people such as Category:User hi-3 who speak hindi - many of these speak english as well , I haven't found anyone volunteering to do a translation. I don't know if it's polite to just turn up on someones talk page an request a translation - though we are told to 'be bold'. I can't give any more.87.102.90.8 15:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hang on, here http://www.cfilt.iitb.ac.in/machine-translation/hindi-enco/ we have hindi to UNL - that's a start....87.102.90.8 15:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)(though I couldn't get it to work)

Luggage

In the US "luggage" means containers used to carry clothes, etc., during vacations. I get the impression from the usage of the term at the end of the holdall article that in the UK this term means the clothes, etc., themselves. Is this correct ? StuRat 12:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have said so. There is perhaps a distinction in that I (personally) would take "luggage" to refer to the container and the contents, rather than just the container. It all gets a bit metaphysical when you consider what you call the contents of your luggage once you remove them from the container - stuff?. However, I think I can safely say that in common usage, "luggage" does not refer only to the contents, but to the sum total. --Worm ^{(t | c)} 12:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I would have said that "luggage" refers to whatever you are carring around, container or no. Think outside the box 15:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me rephrase the question. In the US you can go to a store and "buy luggage", which means empty suitcases, etc. Would you refer to the empty suitcases as luggage in the UK ? Also, if I'm wrong, then that statement at the end of holdall about putting luggage inside the holdall means putting a suitcase, etc., in the bag, which seems a rather odd thing to do. StuRat 15:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes (or no) - (UK) Luggage is the suitcase/holdall, it also is the contents, it also refers to many types of transported personal goods.

It may be the container plus the contents.87.102.90.8 15:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

"Would you refer to the empty suitcases as luggage in the UK?" That's just the question. I certainly wouldn't, to me it sounds quite wrong, as wrong as putting a van of furniture into my house, rather than a van-load. If I were to put empty suitcases (or trunks) onto the van, they would be simply that, and not luggage. Xn4 05:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I would certainly not call empty suitcases "luggage". In the limit they might be "empty luggage" if you have just taken the stuff out, but "luggage" is stuff that you "lug" around, not the containers that you put it in. Sometimes you see a "luggage department" in a shop, but shop English is different from the language that people use outside the commercial environment. SaundersW 11:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC) (UK: England)

Are these grammatically correct?

Please tell me if the following sentences are correct:

It is you who are responsible for the action.

It is I who am your friend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.5.86.109 (talk) 14:52, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

First one is no - I'd use, "It is you who is responsible for the action,", but I'm not a big fan of that sentence because it sounds fairly awkward. I think who is replaceable by whom, too. Second one is, "It is I who is your friend," but again sounds awkward. Who replaceable by whom, I think, too. x42bn6 Talk Mess 15:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd say both sentences are prescriptively correct, if rather stilted, and "whom" would be both prescriptively and descriptively wrong in both. More idiomatic, of course, would be "You are the one who is responsible for the action" and "I am the one who is your friend". —Angr/talk 15:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Angr. The sentences are grammatically correct (if very formal) as written. Marco polo 17:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This is just basic English conjugation. "It is you who is" because "It" is the singular subject, and "is" is the singular conjugation for the third person. "It" is the subject of the second sentence as well. "Who" and "whom" are not interchangeable. "Who" acts as a subject, and "whom" acts as an indirect object. Think "Who are you" and "To whom will you give this". You'll find a preposition sits before "whom". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.58.224.12 (talk) 17:58, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

There's some confusion in the previous comment. The original poster's are and am are the verbs of the relative clause, so their agreement is determined by the subject of the relative clause, not by the subject of the sentence (which is irrelevant). The subject of each relative clause is the pronoun who, and prescriptive grammar (as Angr and Marco Polo have said) requires that a relative pronoun referring to the first or second person agree as if it were a first or second person personal pronoun. In other words, since who refers to I, it takes the same agreement (am). Wareh 18:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The original poster's sentences are correct, but several of the suggested alternatives are wrong. Angr, Marco Polo, and Wareh have it right. --Reuben 18:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This surprised and confused me, but "It's they who are your real friends" sounds right to me. Hmm. Tesseran 19:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I would have thought "who am" would be always wrong except in "who am I" and so on. --Kjoonlee 04:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Angr, Marco Polo, Wareh and Reuben. Both sentences need no red-pencilling, but they both sound stilted. To get nearer to natural English, I might say "The person responsible for the action is you" and "You have a friend. I am your friend." Xn4 05:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"It is I who am your friend" sounds odd, because almost nobody speaks that way. Ergo, it's descriptively ungrammatical. But prescriptively, it's correct. This is because in "It is I who am your friend", "who" refers to "I", and "I" is followed by "am", not "is" or "are". (As in, "I who am nothing, I who have no-one ..."). But compare this with "I am the one who is your friend". Here, "the one" is 3rd person, despite the fact that it refers to "I". Hence, it takes "is". -- JackofOz 05:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Automatic Esperanto to English translations?

Is there an automatic Esperanto to English translation service available?

EoGuy 19:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)EoGuyEoGuy 19:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Try http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=esperanto+english+translate&meta= 87.102.18.14 13:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

August 29

Word Category

In which classical word category (preposition, pronoun, conjunction etc.) is the word "as" in "X was very good, as defined by Y"? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.116.228 (talk) 21:35, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

What you're asking about is the part of speech of as in this sentence. The way you've worded it, it's classified as an adverb by the American Heritage Dictionary (sense 3). But I wonder how firmly should we separate this usage from the second conjunction definition, since it can be taken to mean "as it has been defined..." The problem is that as means "in the manner in which," where "in the manner" is adverbial, but "in which" introduces a subordinate clause with a conjunction. It seems to me the AHD adv. 3 definition goes too far in limiting the meaning to "in the [specified] manner"; I think I'd regard it as a conjunction in all these cases, including your sentence. (By the way, some people might take issue with as as a "preposition" in the AHD too.) Wareh 01:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

In this kind of case no two grammarians would agree with each other... and there are plenty of cases like this, which makes us think over the very idea of "part of speech", defined so strictly by our high-school teachers, and supposed to pose no ambiguities.--K.C. Tang 02:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It would probably be marked as an adverb, which is usually where the hard-to-categorize words get dumped. Some prefer instead to slap it with three or four different labels; definitions of as seem to appear frequently with "adverb", "conjunction", or "preposition". For a modern linguistic analysis you might try looking in something like the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (which I don't have access to). Strad 05:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

nordic floating s

Is there an official name for that "floating s" that seems to afflict the English of Nordic folks who don't have a firm grasp of the language? "OK Freds, I've gots no times for dats". Gzuckier 16:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"Unfounded stereotype"? Spiro in My Family and Other Animals does that too, and he's not Nordic. —Angr/talk 17:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Maybe it's a more general thing with English spoken by foreigners with limited English? I still can't find anything vaguely relevant via google, searching for all kinds of things. I can't believe some linguistics PhD hasn't done a thesis on it. After all, if you can find articles on Northern cities vowel shift and Canadian raising. Gzuckier 19:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Swedish/Japanese pidgin or creoles

Hello, does anyone here know of a place to find information on any pidgins/creoles formed from Swedish and Japanese? I'd be very much interested for linguistic reasons, and mostly because those are a couple favorite languages of mine. --69.237.198.63 17:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

There is Rinkeby Swedish, which is spoken today. During the 19th century, there was Yokohama Pidgin Japanese, and during the early 20th century, Japanese-based pidgins developed in Manchuria, Taiwan, Micronesia and perhaps other parts of the Japanese empire. These are no longer spoken, except occasionally by elderly people who remember them. Marco polo 18:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Are there any pidgins that arose from the contact of Swedish and Japanese? ;-) —Angr 21:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

There have been rumours of Gothenburg Whorehouse Japanese and Osaka Business Swedish, but they rarely meet. Xn4 03:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

August 30

Daffynitions

Normally I understand most Daffynitions quite readily. But, despite the hints presented I'm sorry I haven't a clue about the following listed on that page. Could someone explain them please: baby; garbage. Thanks -- SGBailey 08:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The list includes different types of puns. For most examples, the pun lies in the word itself (dynamite: To take a flea out to dinner. (dine-a-mite)) With baby and garbage the pun is in the definition. Same for hula dance: Wild waist show. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. That still doesn't explain them (and I know that analysing these things stops any semblance of humour existing...).

• "Baby - a very young child" What does that have to do with "wet" and What with "newly-weds". If the answer to the latter is nine months after the honeymoon then fine but not funny. But why Wet?
• "Garbage - unwanted items being disposed of" If the unwanted items are food then they may well smell. But I don't see a direct link and have no idea what the backards is about. -- SGBailey 08:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

ok, here's my lame attempt: The newly-wed/newly-wet evokes associations such as the one you mentioned, and a baby is pretty wet when newly born. The garbage definition, "Eatables smelled backwards", refers to funny definitions such as "stressed is desserts spelled backwards", and the stench of course, as identified by you. Maybe they were lame to begin with, and, again as you already pointed out, dissecting doesn't make them less lame. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks -- SGBailey 09:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not so much that it's wet when it's newly-born, but, as any parent would confirm, you change their nappy (diaper) for the twentieth time today, and a second later it's wet again (or worse) - ie. newly wet. -- JackofOz 01:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Another one. Why would oboe be an English tramp? Surely French would make more sense? Skittle 20:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Because in various English dialects such as Cockney, they tend to drop the "h" at the start of words like house, here, hobo, and, of course, "'allo, 'allo, 'allo, what's all this then?". -- JackofOz 01:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

D HARTE BOI!

What is this charming fellow getting at? What does "D HARTE BOI!" mean?? What language is it? I sure hope it isn't rude! Capuchin 10:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

My guess would be a Denglisch use of the gay slang term boi. Or maybe the author is ignorant of the gay slang but knows the word "boy" from English-language pop music. In this context, "hart" is likely to mean something like English "rough" or "tough". In other words, something like "the rough boi". Maybe this is the author's nickname for himself. Marco polo 13:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

After you saying that it might be gay slang, It's occured to me that he might be another one of those rowdy friends of homosexuals, wishing to proclaim how much D "hearts" boys. Cute. Capuchin 14:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to see how "HARTE" could be a verb meaning "to heart". "Hart" is the Dutch spelling of English "heart", but, assuming that the writer has invented a Dutch verb "harten" (meaning "to heart"), the 3rd person singular form of that verb would "hart", not "harte". This is why I think it is more likely to be an inflected form of the German adjective "hart" (meaning "hard, rough, or tough"). Marco polo 16:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It could also be a fanciful spelling of "The Hardy Boy". —Angr 16:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

"To be lame" meaning

What does the expression "to be lame" (apart from lacking one leg) mean in English? People use it as implying low quality or something similar, but I don't get the exact meaning. --Taraborn 11:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

"Weak and ineffectual; unsatisfactory", "lacking needful or desirable substance" or "not being in the know", "(especially of an excuse or argument) weak and unsatisfactory". The first time I used it in the thread above, I was referring to my unsatisfactory and likely ineffectual attempt at explaining a pun, which, as I suggested further down, might have been lame in the first place. A lame joke or a lame pun is a joke that is ineffectual; though it might elicit a groan, it won't make you laugh, even if you fully understand it. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The literal meaning of lame applied to a body part is: being non-functional, and applied to a person: having some lame body part(s) – especially the legs, and thus being incapable of normal locomotion. There is no specific connotation of the afflicted body parts having gone missing.  --Lambiam 15:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much to both. I thought that it meant both lacking a leg or having a non-functional one because in Spanish the word "cojo" means both and people use the same word for those who lack a leg and those who have a non-functional one. --Taraborn 16:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not so much a non-functional leg as a poorly functioning one. For example, if you had an injury that kept your knee stiff, you would be lame. Similarly with jokes. You can tell what the joke is trying to do, and it might be just a little funny, but not really funny. --Anonymous, 22:45 UTC, August 30, 2007.

Translations

I need translations of the following words:- Paper Presentation Education status of...(a country) Globalisation Developing...(a country) Reservations(social/economical/religious/caste based) Celebrity-...(a question) Agriculture Risk/ management Political chaos in...(a country) (a city)-A hub for bomb-blast/terrorist/extremism Nuclear deal Current issues/General topics —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.98.179 (talk) 13:16, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Are we meant to be able to guess the language that you want them translated into? Since this is the languages desk on the English wikipedia, I would presume you want them translated into English, but they already seem to be in English. Am I missing something here? Capuchin 13:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Going by the IP, the OP is in India, which gives us a few hundred possibilities... Algebraist 19:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

torinese/torinesi

In the Wikipedia article "breadstick," the breadstick grissino torinese appears grissino torinesi. Is this an error, or are both the singular and plural forms used? 69.201.141.45 16:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Linnaeus

It looks to me like an error, as the plural would be grissini torinesi. Marco polo 18:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

"Internet"

My spell-checkers insist that the word Internet be capitalized. Who decided that the word warranted being capitalized? 69.201.141.45 17:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Linnaeus

It's a proper noun. There's only one of it (despite what GWB might think). --Nricardo 18:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This varies according to the style books of individual publishers and publications. In the past, there has been a tendency to capitalize "internet", as if it were a name. However, there has been a trend in recent years (still a minority trend) to lower-case it. This makes more sense to me personally, because I see the internet as a medium or technology like television or "the press". Also, the names of unique referents are not necessarily proper nouns. For example, "sun" is usually lower-case, as is something like "world trade" or, for that matter, "cyberspace". Proper nouns, in my view, should be reserved for the names of persons or of entities with a distinct and singular, recognizable identity. The internet is neither, in my view. However, you should conform to your publisher's style guide. Marco polo 18:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

In a context like "the last rays of the sun" lower case is more common, but in a context like "the planets revolve around the Sun", where the Sun is viewed as a physical object rather than a light source, upper case is more common. In general, the rule "there's only one" does not work; conventionally we have the upper-case North Pole and the lower-case equator. But historically and conventionally it has been "Internet" when referring to the Internet, and that is what most style guides recommend. Some people argue that it "should" be "internet", but I do not buy such arguments for the a priori reason that right or wrong is a matter of somewhat arbitrary convention in such cases, not of logical argument. See also Internet capitalization conventions.  --Lambiam 21:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The space between

When the "o" of Santo is dropped as in Sant' Angelo and Sant' Ambrogio, I find some writers place a space after the apostrophe and others don't. Is one form older? 69.201.141.45 18:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Linnaeus

Without a space is standard and has been in use for a long time (1715 example), though typography is never perfectly consistent (both ways on this 1768 page, compare A, B, C, D). Both usages have a pretty good pedigree; here are three 16th century books that all seem never to use a space, so that has my vote for older & better practice: 1, 2, 3 (let me know if you find an exception). It may help to think about the list of words that elide in Italian. Most are little function words like di, la, ci, ne. I'm sure these would look odd to you if given a space after elision. There are relatively few more significant words (santo, come, senza) that elide. Thus, in my opinion (though I'm not sure whether you're asking because you're looking for a policy to follow yourself) one should probably at least be consistent. Wareh 18:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Puzzle

I want to see if peoples brains here work well with logic as well as facts and resource.

ABCDEFG HIJKLMNO PQRSTUVWXYZ

Rearrange these to make a 5 letter word, using all the letters, or perhaps those singled out, you decide. I`m such a git. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.178.100 (talk) 19:24, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

I won't post the answer to spoil it for others - but it's not exactly a new puzzle ;) Worm ^{(t | c)} 19:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

All I can think of is that the middle section, H to O, sounds like H2O, which is water. Is that it? Trouble is, why the word 'rearrange'? Xn4 20:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It certainly looks like a mucked-up version of that puzzle. 86.144.144.222 20:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The word exercise

I need the word "exercise" translated into the following languages-French, Spanish, German, Italian, Hebrew, Japanese, Chinese, Kenyan, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.28.218 (talk) 22:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This is (I suspect) going to depend on what exercise you mean: there's a big difference between jogging once a day and doing a homework exercise or exercising an option. Assuming you mean physical exercise, and given that I speak only English, the interwikis from our article point to de:Training (Sport) for German, and es:Ejercicio físico for Spanish. Algebraist 23:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't use Training for sport in general in German. I'd use Bewegung or Sport itself. —Angr 04:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no "Kenyan" language. Perhaps you mean Swahili? -Elmer Clark 04:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)