Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Language/2006 October 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< October 1	<<Sep | October | Nov>>	October 3 >

Humanities Science Mathematics Computing/IT Language Miscellaneous Archives

The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions at one of the pages linked to above.

Contents 1 Citation question; this is a tricky one 2 Arabic (or Farsi/Urdu?) to English translation requested 3 A Dutch question 4 Pronounciation of "Guillaume" 5 "me repito como el ajo" 6 Thamban 7 Words with two x's 8 "Get your freak on" origin 9 Irony 10 People v. Persons

[edit] Citation question; this is a tricky one

Hi, I have a question on how to provide a citation for a piece of information I added to the article Southern Pacific 4294. The information I added was told to me by personnel from the museum which owns the locomotive. So how do I go about citing this?

Gabeb83

I don't think the reference desk is the place for this question. Anyway, I don't think it's an acceptable source. Unless the museum has the information available on some sort of record that people can verify themselves, the information probably is not verifiable. I suppose that one could theoretically just ask the personnel again themselves, but that doesn't seem particularly reliable. Maybe the museum got the information from some sort of record that you could cite, or maybe they display the information somewhere in the museum? I really don't know what to say. --Maxamegalon2000 21:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

You can't. See the following example from Verifiability:

A good way to look at the distinction between verifiability and truth is with the following example. Suppose you are writing a Wikipedia entry on a famous physicist's Theory X, which has been published in peer-reviewed journals and is therefore an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article. However, in the course of writing the article, you contact the physicist and he tells you: "Actually, I now believe Theory X to be completely false." Even though you have this from the author himself, you cannot include the fact that he said it in your Wikipedia entry

You could discuss it on the talk page, but not put it in the article. --ColinFine 23:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arabic (or Farsi/Urdu?) to English translation requested

Howdy there.

A friend of mine has a piece of scrap paper that they found. They want to know what it translates to in English.

The image of it is located here: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/BookMasterJMV/lastscan.jpg

Thanks!

Whoever wrote this has an awful writing. However, I don't think it's Arabic, because i didn't understand a word. It may be Farsi. CG 04:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Dutch question

Hi - am I right in thinking 'mein heer' is Dutch for 'my lord'? thanks Adambrowne666 00:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The common word corresponding to Mister/Sir is mijnheer (Mijnheer Jansen = "Mr. Jansen"; Ja, mijnheer = "Yes, Sir"), which is one word formed from the two words "mijn heer". The latter indeed literally means "my lord". There is also a version meneer which seems to be more colloquial. I further find de heer Jansen, literally "the lord Jansen", which seems to be a more formal form of address.  --Lambiam^Talk 01:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks very much - I don't know what I'd do without the Reference Desks. Adambrowne666 03:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

'De heer Jansen' is indeed more formale, but still simply means 'mister Jansen'. Btw, your spelling 'mein heer' seems to mix up Dutch and German because German would be "mein Herr'. DirkvdM 07:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Interresting typo I made. It is indeed only used for males. :) DirkvdM 07:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

... and 'mein Heer' (in German) means 'my army'.---Sluzzelin 09:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

-You and which army? -My army! =S 惑乱 分からん 10:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pronounciation of "Guillaume"

How is "Guillaume" pronounced in French? --HappyCamper 01:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Roughly: "Gi-yo-mm". (Gi rhymes with key, yo rhymes with blow) - Rainwarrior 01:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

And it's a "hard" G, as in "Geek".  --Lambiam^Talk 02:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

And in IPA: [giˈjom]. Ƶ§œš¹ ^{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 02:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful! This is so helpful. Thanks! --HappyCamper 02:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "me repito como el ajo"

I was reading a Spanish messageboard and came upon the sentence "Ya sé que me repito como el ajo, pero GRACIAS", which I took to mean "I think I have already repeated myself excessively, but thank you." I searched the phrase "como el ajo" and found that it often appeared in the phrase "me repito como el ajo", which has 659 ghits. Is this some kind of idiomatic expression or it is just a normal sentence I haven't been able to parse? Thanks! Bhumiya (said/done) 02:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

"I repeat myself like a garlic.", sounds like an idiom to me... 惑乱 分からん 10:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, this is what it means. When you eat something with raw garlic, say garlic mayonaise or pesto, sometimes you burp and get the taste of the garlic you ate again, and again, and again. Garlic is notorious for that. That is what is meant when someone says, "se me repite el ajo" (literally: it is repeating to me the garlic, in unidiomatic English). Also, repetirse refers to repeating yourself, as in saying the same thing over and over again. So, "Ya sé que me repito como el ajo, pero GRACIAS" would be a humorous way of saying "I know I'm saying it yet again, but thanks. mnewmanqc 13:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't really have a clue. Bhumiya (said/done) 19:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thamban

what is the meaning of the tamil word 'thamban'

[edit] Words with two x's

Reading this thread, I came across the word "xenotaxonomy", and I got to thinking about words that have 2 or more x's. I can hardly think of any. Maxixe comes to mind, and some chemical names with -oxy, -hydroxy etc components would have them. But are there any common words with this property? I've looked in some obvious places for lists of such words, but no luck so far. JackofOz 03:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

"Executrix". Further some proper names: "Xerxes", "Exxon", "Xenix", "Xerox" (and words derived from the verb "to xerox").  --Lambiam^Talk 05:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm can't think of any others that are not proper names but tex-mex, aoxomoxoa and ex-lax come to mind.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Just for fun, game-related: 19XX: The War Against Destiny, Ataxx, Xbox, Xexex, Xexyz, Zaxxon and Zzyzzyxx. --jh51681 05:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

x-axis of course, then xanthoxenite, xanthoxyl (and derivatives).--Shantavira 08:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)xx

This is definitely a candidate for a new article. Then when that's done, I'll relaxx with a cool beer. XXXX, of course. JackofOz 08:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

There's probably a few African placenames from Wolof or something where «xx» represents [xː]. Another possible source of (non-adjacent) x's is Aztec names, Mexican placenames and other words of Nahuatl origin, e.g. Ixtlilxochitl. --Ptcamn 09:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I would expect quite a few words with the ex- prefix would qualify, like ex-executive. StuRat 11:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't you mean ex-executrix? :) --Kjoonlee 14:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

dyxlexia (over 3000 results on Google)---Sluzzelin 14:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanxx, folxx. JackofOz 04:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Ex-lax ? StuRat 19:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit already suggested that. JackofOz 07:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Any hydrocarbon molecule with more than one hydroxyl functional group will have more than one x in its name; does chemical nomenclature count? -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 02:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Depends who you're talking to. I did mention chemical names in my question. JackofOz 20:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Get your freak on" origin

Hello, I need help with a phrase and I'm hoping you can help me. I am looking for the origing of the phrase "Get your Freak On". I know that it was used by Missy Elliot in a song but I don't belive that she was the first one to use it. I need this for my work since we are launching a new product and we are looking to use this as tag line but before we do want to make sure that the phrase has been used before by many and the origin of it. Can you please help me? If so, how do I know?

Thank you so much and have a great day

Lucy

That's a rather rude expression to use in an ad campaign. You do know it means "go screw someone", don't you ? But, I don't think anyone has a copyright on it, as it's a common slang expression. StuRat 16:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Sex sells, you know... Freaky sex, probably moreso... ;) 惑乱 分からん 18:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

"Get your [verb] on" is a productive (if really annoying) slang way to replace any regular verb. I'm not sure where it originated but "freak" is not the only example of it. Adam Bishop 17:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Check with the United States Patent and Trademark Office --BennyD 21:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Where did you get "go screw someone"? To me it clearly means "let's have sex", or "get ready for sex".  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  03:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

"Screw" is a slang word for "have sex with", so "go screw someone" means "go have sex with someone". --Charlene.fic 10:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

"Screw" mostly sounds just like a G-rated version of fuck to me... 惑乱 分からん 11:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I was attempting to match the level of rudeness with the original expression. Saying "go fuck someone" would be significantly ruder (and more likely to be banned), than "get your freak on". StuRat 12:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

"Go screw someone" sounds like you're trying to say "go screw/fuck off" which isn't a very good translation. I do agree that she's choosing her words to avoid censors, but it's just her little version of "get it on" or "let's get it on", not "go get it on with someone else". Why would she sing about that?  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  12:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding me, we're talking about Missy Elliott, the woman behind such classics as One Minute Man, Tush (Push), Toys and My body... You're no serious hiphop fan, obviously... ;) 惑乱 分からん 14:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm perfectly well up-to-date on my hiphop, thankyouverymuch. I was merely pointing out that Missy Elliot was much more likely intending to say "fuck me" instead of "fuck that old dude over there".  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  12:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, yeah, if that guy is cute, I guess she is entitled to request him for permission... ;) 惑乱 分からん 14:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I was attempting to match the level of rudeness with the original expression. Saying "go fuck someone" would be significantly ruder (and more likely to be banned), than "get your freak on". StuRat 12:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there some double meaning to the phrase that would make it acceptable ? Perhaps your product is called "The Freak" and you wear it, for example ? Other rude expressions, like "jerk your knob off", have been used for their double meaning of removing the radio tuner knob (because you never want to listen to another station), for example. StuRat 12:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, if the music they play has that effect on listeners, it's no wonder they never want to hear anything else.  :--) JackofOz 13:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

"Get your freak on" has been used to mean something similar to "get down and dance", "get your funky dance shoes on", etc., to little effect.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  12:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irony

The Aled Jones article says (in reference to The Snowman) "Ironically, the version in the film was not performed by Aled, but by Peter Auty." Is this correct usage of the word "ironically"?--Shantavira 17:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• If there's any irony it it, the usage of the word is correct. But see Wikipedia:Words to avoid, which makes a strong recommendation against "Ironically, amusingly, unfortunately, interestingly, etc [Words which editorialize]". I'm on something of a crusade against irony. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Even if there was some rivalry, not mentioned in the article, between Bangor and St. Paul's Cathedral choir boys, I fail to see any irony strong enough to justify using the word. At the very least, it should be explained, since it doesn't seem to be common knowledge. ---Sluzzelin 18:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's ironic because it's what he's best known for, but he didn't sing the version everybody seems to think he did. So he's best known for something he didn't do. But yes, it probably doesn't belong in an article. Skittle 21:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] People v. Persons

When talking about multiple human beings, when should "persons" be used, and when should "people" be used? I hear "persons" being thrown around so frequently these days, but I doubt that many of these individuals know the actual rule. Many times it seems they are simply doing it because it sounds politcally correct. Can anyone enlighten me as to the correct use of each one (with examples, if possible)? Thanks. --BennyD 21:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

You can basically always use "people" as the plural of "person". There used to be a linguistic prescription stating that if preceded by a numeral, "persons" was required: "A table for eight persons, please." However, the form "eight people" is now the common one. On the other hand, "an eight-person Jacuzzi" is normal (I mean the use of "person" here, not the tub size).

What you cannot do in general is use "persons" for "people": *"He doesn't like to have persons around when he is cooking." -- that doesn't sound right. In order to use "persons" you need some determiner like "the", "these", "some", "two" indicating you are talking about specific (although possibly unspecified) individuals. If you are talking about human beings in general, you must use "people".  --Lambiam^Talk 22:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

What about when you want to say something like "persons of Hispanic descent?" Should that actually be "people," becuase it's talking about a general group of human beings? Or should it remain as "persons" because they are a specific type of person? --BennyD 22:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Either sounds OK to me, but I feel a slight preference for "persons of Hispanic descent" for somewhat official or formal written text. Actually, our own article Hispanic says: "Hispanic is one of several terms employed to categorize all persons whose ancestry hails either from the people of Spain, any of the various peoples of Spanish-speaking Latin America, or the original settlers of the traditionally Spanish-held Southwestern United States." (my italics) You could also say "Hispanic persons" or "Hispanics", which ought to be equivalent but for some reason sounds not 100% politically correct.  --Lambiam^Talk 23:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I feel that basically every use of "persons" comes of as incredibly pretentious. Even worse, the phrase "persons of Hispanic descent" sounds to me condescending to the point of having borderline racist subtext. I don't think either of those is a very common reaction to the word, but there you go. zafiroblue05 | Talk 05:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

As an effect of PC speak, it indeed now sounds like being of Hispanic descent is a disability.  --Lambiam^Talk 06:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm being ignorant, but this subject is something I've never really understood. Why is it always said "missing persons" instead of "missing people?" Is there even a rule anymore, or is it basically just whatever the writer wants to say? --BennyD 19:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I think "persons" emphasize their unique humanness, while people is somewhat more "flock"-like... Sorry if that explanation hardly makes sense... 惑乱 分からん 23:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Wakuran (he/she of the Japanese characters) that "persons" refers to plural individuals, whereas "people" refers to collective humanity. In fact, I think that "persons" is close to synonymous with "individuals." Marco polo 00:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The Elements of Style recommends using "persons" for the plural of "person" in all contexts. That said, I think The Elements of Style is way off the mark here, and "people" should almost always be used as the plural of "person", with rare exceptions (where you intend to use nonstandard language). The Jade Knight 01:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Most persons would agree with you.  --Lambiam^Talk 01:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)