Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 March 24

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Language desk
< March 23 << Feb | March | Apr >> March 25 >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk 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 on one of the current reference desk pages.


Contents


[edit] March 24

[edit] What language is this?

What language is this and what does it mean? thanks F (talk) 04:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ya! Ni wae munja ssip uh?

It's Korean. Speech level: haera-che (very casual). Register: Slang. Dialect: Possibly Gyeongsang dialect, although I wouldn't bet on it, due to the ending.
Roughly, it means: "Hey! Why are ya ignorin' [my] text messages?" --Kjoonlee 10:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • And for all you beginning Korean students who can't make head or tail of it... here are some hints.
  • 니 is a form of 너 that can be frequently seen in 니꺼, 니가, and in some cases in 니네집. The reason people say 니꺼 or 니가 instead of 네 것 or 네가 is because 네 (second person) and 내 (first person) are becoming more and more alike. Thus we say 니 for the second person. 니 is also the normal second person casual pronoun in the Gyeongsang dialect.
  • 문자, literally characters, mean text messages.
  • 왜 씹어? is a casual wh-question, of "why." With questions in other speech levels, the verb will change like "왜 씹으세요?" or "왜 씹으십니까?" The verb 씹다 means "to chew", but in slang, 씹다 means "to deliberately ignore something, especially speech/messages/phonecalls/etc."
  • I hear Korean textbooks rarely cover these topics. So don't feel bad if you don't understand these things yet. You'll get there eventually. :) --Kjoonlee 10:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you getting text messages like this? If so, maybe someone here could make a reply that you can send to tell the sender that you are not the intended recipient. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 16:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Very detailed answers. :) Yes, I am getting these messages but it seems they have stopped sending it. F (talk) 10:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] JC-1 H1 History: Realpolitik? Kremlin? Manichean?

It's me again. This term we are studying the Cold War. I don't understand the three words above. They are from my notes about the Long Telegram and Iron Curtain speech. Can someone explain the words? Thanks. --166.121.36.232 (talk) 05:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, Wikipedia has articles on Realpolitik, The Kremlin (but see also the article on just "Kremlin"), and an article on Manichaeism. Manichaean is also often used for modern worldviews of moral dualism, as in good and evil. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
On second thought, also have a look at Kremlin (disambiguation). In your Cold War context, the Kremlin almost certainly refers to the Government of the Soviet Union, not the building. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] waterboarding

¿como se dice waterboarding en el castellano?

Je ne sais pas, mais c'est "tortura de agua", je crois. --Kjoonlee 10:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
el submarino. (Interwikilink added now). In Mexico there seems to be a torture known as the tehuacanazo "in which carbonated water is poured up his nose, into the sinuses." [1] (Apparently it's named after the mineral water Tehuacán). ---Sluzzelin talk 10:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Which in particularly mean places is known as "the ginger beer trick". Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 05:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Registered Trademark usage

If I am correctly citing a word that is a registered trademark by using the R within a circle, must I also reference the company that owns the trademark?

I wouldn't have thought so. I've certainly seen registered trademarks mentioned in print without such a reference many, many times. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 16:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
This is actually a legal question... AnonMoos (talk) 00:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course this is not a legal question. It's a style question. Here's what the Chicago Manual of Style has to say on the subject: "Brand names that are registered trademarks should be capitalized if they must be used.... Although the symbols ® and ™ often accompany trademark names on product packaging and in promotional material, there is no legal requirement to use these symbols, and they should be omitted wherever possible. Note also that some companies want people to use both the proper and the generic term in reference to their products ("Kleenex facial tissue," not just "Kleenex"), but here again there is no legal requirement." (CMS 15th ed., p. 365, section 8.162). Basically, ® and ™ are used by companies to protect their own trademarks, and you don't need to use them. - Nunh-huh 05:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
But the question was whether he also has to mention Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. when mentioning Kleenex® facial tissue. And I'm pretty sure he doesn't, but IANAL. And in that sense, it really is a legal question. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 18:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
It's a question you don't need a lawyer to answer. As current editing practice makes abundantly clear, there's no obligation to use either the marks or, if used, to mention the company that has registered the trademarks. - Nunh-huh 00:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The marks are something used by a company to claim the signs as trademark. There is no obligation on you, who don't own the trademarks, to proclaim them as trademarks on behalf of the company. The only obligation on you is not to use the trademark in a proscribed manner - e.g. as a trade mark. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Textbook for X bar Theory

Hey! I'm looking for a textbook or reference on X-bar Theory and I'm hoping someone could recommend some good titles and/or authors. Yes, Wikipedia has great articles and the editors have done a fabulous job, but I'm trying to understand X-bar Theory in a little more depth and I'm hoping for suggestions for additional source (particularly recent ones). Thanks! Peter Grey (talk) 23:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

One semi-classic work is Ray Jackendoff's book, but that may be of limited relevance to current linguistic debates, sinc the "up-to-date" theory in this area seems to have changed somewhat radically every ten years or so... AnonMoos (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I must get better acquainted with my long-lost cousin.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Until a linguist comes around to suggest some standard textbooks: Googling gives around 100k hits (in English and German). There are dozens of references listed which (lacking expertise in the discipline) I can not evaluate. My own knowledge is not much more than the WP article.
Also consider the library of the UWO (or even the Toronto Public Library) for any current references on the Chomsky / Jackendoff theory. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey, London has libraries too! (Although the UWO system is far superior...) Adam Bishop 01:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Here are some:
  • Cowper, Elizabeth. (1992). A concise introduction to syntactic theory: The Government-Binding approach.
  • Haegeman, Liliane. (1994). Introduction to Government and Binding theory (2nd ed.).
  • Napoli, Donna Jo. (1993). Syntax: Theory and practice.
  • Radford, Andrew. (1988). Transformational grammar: A first course.
Radford was really the standard textbook. Jackendoff (1977) isnt a textbook. You know, you can look for reviews of these in journals (and sometimes on the internet) to get an idea of how well they get the concepts across. After you get through one of these, you should read a textbook on the Minimalist program (which is Chomsky's subsequent theory after Government Binding). And, in my opinion, you should supplement this with some non-Chomsky theories (e.g., Role & Reference Grammar).

Also take a look at a previous RF discussion about the quality of Chomsky here 217.168.3.246 (talk) 13:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)