From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Wikipedia Reference Desk covering the topic of language.
WP:RD/L Language #eee #f5f5f5 #eee #aaa #aaa #aaa #00f #36b #000 #00f language Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language Language WP:RD/L

Welcome to the language reference desk. Before asking a question Search first. Wikipedia is huge, and you can probably find the answer to your question much more quickly by looking for it yourself. Use the search box on the left or Google site search for searching Wikipedia. If there is no relevant information on Wikipedia, try an Internet search engine. Do your own homework. The reference desk will not give you answers for your homework, although we will try to help you out if there is a specific part of your homework you do not understand. Make an effort to show that you have tried solving it first. Do not request medical or legal advice. Any such questions may be removed. If you need medical or legal advice, do not ask it here. Ask a doctor, dentist, veterinarian, or lawyer instead. See also Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer and Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer. Do not start debates or post diatribes. The reference desk is not a soapbox. How to ask a question Include a title and a question. It is easier for our volunteers if question formatting is consistent. Be specific. Make the title meaningful, so volunteers who can help with your question will find it. Clearly state your question and include any information that might help to understand the context (for example, a wikilink or a link to an online resource). If your question deals with local or national issues, make sure you specify what area of the world it applies to. Do not provide contact information, such as your e-mail address, home address, or telephone number. Be aware that the content on Wikipedia is extensively copied to many websites; making your e-mail address public here may make it very public throughout the Internet. Sign your question. Type ~~~~ (four tildes) at the end of your question, to let the reference desk know who is asking. Do not cross-post. Post your question at one section of the reference desk only. Be patient. Your question probably will not be answered right away, so come back later and check for a response. Questions are normally answered at the same page on which they were asked. A complete answer to your question may be developed over a period of up to four days. After reading the above, you may ask a new question by clicking here. How to answer a question Main article: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines Be thorough. Provide as much of the answer as you are able to. Be concise, not terse. Please write in a clear and easily understood manner. Keep your answer within the scope of the question as stated. Provide links when available, such as wikilinks to related articles, or links to the information that you used to find your answer. Be polite and assume good faith, especially with users new to Wikipedia. Don't edit others' comments, except to fix formatting errors that interfere with readability. Don't give any legal or medical advice. The reference desk cannot answer these types of questions.

skip to bottom Choose a topic: Computing desk Science desk Mathematics desk Humanities desk Language desk Entertainment desk Miscellaneous desk Archives   See also: Help desk Village pump Help manual

Contents 1 June 9 1.1 Book Info 1.2 Please help me. 1.3 Japanese 1.4 German Prefix 1.5 Talking horse 1.6 Question about the American Heritage Dictionary 1.7 insertion of unnecessary word (of) 1.8 Chinese Written Standards 1.9 The Meaning of "aleek betho" 1.10 Possessive with proper nouns such as businesses 1.11 Typing Korean 1.12 The core rules of English 2 June 10 2.1 Insults in Calvino's Cavaliere Inesistente 2.2 Proper term for a flipboard? 2.3 Question! 2.4 Mystery character 2.5 "Adolf Hitler und sein Weg zu Großdeutschland" 3 June 11 3.1 Etymology of "decidedly" and "eventually" 3.2 Anhaltelager (Nazi-Deutsch) 3.3 Italian translation 4 June 12 4.1 Same word with two origins? (i.e. college) 4.2 Introductory subject "there" and subject-verb agreement in English 4.3 The first word... 4.4 Wrong 4.5 Communications job title 4.6 Native American naming 4.7 diploma 4.8 High vs. tall 4.9 extant vs existent 5 June 13 5.1 Position of "not" 5.2 "mock group" 5.3 hebrew writing 5.4 Translation of "Bhole Nath" - Sanskrit 5.5 phonetic script of Kachhi (Kachchhi) language 5.5.1 kachhi (kachchhi) language 5.6 English = Latin? 5.7 "Blog this..." 6 June 14 6.1 Is there a name for this kind of fallacy/rebuttal? 6.2 pronunciation 6.3 Anglo-Norman 6.4 German grammar 6.5 neutral insults 7 June 15 7.1 Hyphen-help-request 7.2 Heliciculture 7.3 Grammar question 7.4 Explanation of a poem by T.S Eliot

[edit] June 9

[edit] Book Info

I need a MLA citation for the Book , Seeteufel erobert Amerika, by Felix von Luckner. I don't have the book, nor can I find anything online. Thank you.--Xtothe3rd (talk) 01:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It's listed in the bibliography of our article on Luckner, with all the information you need for an MLA citation. -Elmer Clark (talk) 05:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please help me.

I need a Farsi-English or a Farsi-Spanish translator please. PLEASE. 190.49.115.183 (talk) 01:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I can help in the first case, if it's not more than a few sentences. --Omidinist (talk) 04:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Since Farsi is the rarer of the two and those editors may not frequent the Language reference desk, try directly contacting English-language Wikipedia Farsi speakers (who've indicated this language and proficiency level among their Babel boxes, Category:User fa) for Farsi>English ; also on the Spanish and Persian Wikipedias to seek those who would know the Farsi/Spanish combination. If you're seeking a translation professional, you're more likely to get results on the Web. -- Deborahjay (talk) 05:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese

I want to say "The night that the birds didn't cry" and "The night when the birds didn't cry", but I'm not sure how to say them. Would 鳥は鳴かなかった夜 work for the former and 鳥は鳴かなかった夜のとき work for the latter?--十八 06:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

鳥が鳴かなかった夜 for the former and maybe 夜、鳥が鳴かなかったとき for the latter. Oda Mari (talk) 08:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No, both of the English sentences that 十八 wanted translating mean exactly the same thing. 'That' is very often used as a subsititute for 'when', especially in American English. 鳥が鳴かなかった夜 is correct. 夜、鳥が鳴かなかったとき means 'Night time, when the birds didn't cry...', implying there will be a clause following. --ChokinBako (talk) 10:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] German Prefix

Alles aussteigen bitte. Alle Leute steigen aus.

Why is the prefix not separated in the first sentence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.102.194.47 (talk) 09:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The first phrase is an imperative (a special case of the imperative plural where the infinitive is used instead of the proper imperative form, because the speaker is not personally addressing a clearly defined group of people but rather the generic group of people who happen to be in the train at the time), the second phrase is a simple statement where the verb has to be conjugated. -- Ferkelparade π 09:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talking horse

A few questions:
1. Is it more correct to use 'stable' or 'stables'? Is there a difference or is the plural just a collection of stalls?
2. When riding a horse, is it correct to say 'John galloped...' or do you always have to refer to the horse galloping?
3. Are there any other horse emotions you can think of instead of 'whinny' or 'harrumph'?
4. Is it correct to say 'the horse nuzzled up against me'?
5. What kind of horse do you think a unicorn would be associated with? I am really interested in general perception rather than anyone looking this up and providing a dictionary definition which I could have done myself. Do you perceive a unicorn as a war-horse, a stallion or a tame mare prancing about in the woods, for example?
Thanks guys, this is for certain elements of a book I've been trying to write on and off for years now. Sandman30s (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

1. "Stable" should be correct, both would be a collection of stalls. IIRC, the buildings in Warcraft II were called Stables, which made it weird when you said "build a Stables".

4. I think this is correct.

5. My idea of a unicorn is more like a wild mare really. Not really violent but not very comfortable with humans. But this is an opinion... --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 16:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Nothing wrong with "stables", as a certain legendary stall mucker could attest to.

3. Skittishness; rolling eyes in fear of predators.

5. A white mare is traditional, though a biologist would no doubt insist on stallions too. Clarityfiend (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that the traditional unicorn (the one of medieval bestiaries) is, as the second sentence of our article Unicorn sort of points out, more goatlike than horselike, both in size and in appearance. Deor (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

1 - I've heard "the stable" and "the stables" both used for a building containing accommodation for more than one horse. "Stable block" is also used of a separate building set aside for horse accommodation.

2 - Can't see a problem with "John galloped...". Cf Browning's poem How We Brought the Good News from Ghent to Aix

I sprang to the stirrup, and Joris, and he;

I gallop’d, Dirck gallop’d, we gallop’d all three

3 - Nicker; neigh; snort; squeal; bray

4 - Nuzzled up to or against me - have seen both used

5 - Whether or not it's a rhinoceros, as some suggest the medieval "monocerus" may be, most early sources seem to agree that a unicorn is "the fiercest of beasts" unless you wave a handy virgin at it. Pliny the Elder described it as having "the body of a horse, the head of a stag, the feet of an elephant, the tail of a boar, and a single black horn three feet long in the middle of its forehead. Its cry is a deep bellow." I've always gone for the more robust fantasy lit ones myself - noble snorting stallions with fiery eyes - probably for this reason. I don't tend to imagine them as timid milk-white mares.

--Karenjc 18:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all, this is insightful and valuable information! Let me give you a little snippet from my book, when the unicorn was first encountered...

"At first nothing happened, as the portal shimmered and flickered from the powerful magic that was sustaining it. Then suddenly a most magnificent animal sprang forth into the room. It seemed as if it was made of white light itself, even outshining Albar’s all-white presence. The unicorn’s coat glistened and gleamed with brilliant energy. It tossed its head up proudly in greeting to the wizards, making a shrill sound not dissimilar to a neighing horse. Its horn was long and spiral shaped, and its body was shaped like a muscular war horse. Vee could sense a great intelligence coming from the animal, and spontaneously bowed to the unicorn in acknowledgement of this. To their surprise, the unicorn bowed back, then tossed its head again and trotted happily to the lake, taking a few sips of water."

As you can see, I have a lot of horse-talk to go through from then on :) Sandman30s (talk) 20:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Definitely a warhorse: a unicorn should be majestic and stately: the prince of horses. Pure white's good, since that's dazzling and magical and a step above the average run of the mill horse. Solid, glistening black would also be stunning, but I don't really see a unicorn being a homely, ordinary brown. Mares would be fiery and warhorse-type, also, I would think. If you're wanting medieval context, then check out Horses in the Middle Ages, which I'm (slowly) working on to take to FA. There you'll find bridles, bits, stirrups, paintings, breeding and so forth. Gwinva (talk) 05:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

More:

1. A stable is a building, stables are several buildings, though "the stables" sometimes could mean either. You build "a stable" or "a barn" or, if plural, you build stables and barns. The individual horse lives in a stall inside a stable, you can also call it a barn.
2. Who galloped is a usage question. People can't gallop, (oh, and see horse gait for more info), so the creature must. However, we Do give our horses cues or commands to move, so, for example at a horse show, the announcer will ask us, "trot your horses, please" (or canter, or hand gallop or stop). As riders we colloquially say "we" galloped, referring to horse and rider together, or "I galloped my horse."
3. Horses don't bray (donkeys and mules bray), but they physiologically can only make a few sounds: the whinny or neigh (which can be used in greeting, to express loneliness or to call out to other animals), the nicker- mostly seen when mares (mama horses) are expressing affection for their foals, or when horses are greeting one another with affection in general; the snort (which can have several emotional meanings from excitement, startlement, or sort of a nostril-flapping sigh that sort of implies relaxation), and the squeal (when angry or in pain)
4. Nuzzling implies they are touching you with their muzzle, if that's what's going on, I'd say, "the horse nuzzled him" (not nuzzled up), but that's JMO.
5. In myth, there are all sorts of different images of unicorns from the powerful to the etherial. Obviously, unless they have babies via cell division, spontaneous magic or something, you would need both males and females! So pick what works for you, I gave you some ideas on your talk page.

Hope this helped! Montanabw^(talk) 00:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question about the American Heritage Dictionary

I am an English learner in China. I am wondering what are the differences among AHD of English Language, AH College Dictionary, AHD 21st Century Reference, and AH Desk Dictionary.

I assume there is no difference in content between AHD of English Language and AH College Dictionary but the latter is a monocolor version, and AHD 21st Century Reference and AH Desk Dictionary shrink in both content and size compared with AHD of English Language. Is that true?--Whw (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

According to Amazon.com,

• The American Heritage College Dictionary, Fourth Edition (21st Century Reference) (Paperback) has 960 pages and a shipping weight of 2.2 pounds;[1]
• The American Heritage College Dictionary, Fourth Edition (Hardcover) has 1664 pages and a shipping weight of 3.2 pounds;[2]
• The American Heritage College Dictionary, Fourth Edition with CD-ROM (Hardcover) has 1664 pages and a shipping weight of 3.8 pounds;[3]
• The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition (Hardcover) has 2112 pages and a shipping weight of 7.8 pounds.[4]
• The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition with CD-ROM (Hardcover) has 2074 pages and a shipping weight of 7.8 pounds.[5]

I suppose that the differences in number of pages and even more shipping weight reflect a difference in content. The website of the publisher gives no information about the number of entries in each.

Of possible interest to learners of English is:

• The American Heritage Dictionary for Learners of English (Hardcover), with 1024 pages and a shipping weight of 2 pounds.[6]

 --Lambiam 13:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] insertion of unnecessary word (of)

In the past few years, I find a very common insertion of the word "of" in sentences like "It's not that good (of) a book", or It's not that big (of)a deal. To me it sounds awkward and unpleasant. Is it grammatically incorrect? It seems not limited to any section of the country. Openbooks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Openbooks (talk • contribs) 20:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Which country is it not limited to any section of? (Any of them, presumably.) I've heard it too, though I can't say I've ever found it awkward or unpleasant. I probably say it myself from time to time. My guess is it spread from constructions like "He's not much of a friend", where *"He's not much a friend" would be ungrammatical. —Angr 20:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not that bad of a habit to insert 'of' between an adjective and a noun, so long as the adjective is short.--ChokinBako (talk) 10:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a terrible habit. It's a slipshod extension of the use of 'of' as a partitive after adjectives of number or quantity ("Too much of a good thing") Rhinoracer (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

People say things like "If you had have read it, you would have (or, would of) realised how good of a book it was", possibly because inserting "have" and "of" makes the speech flow slightly more easily, and spoken colloquial language tends to follow the line of least resistance. But many of the perpetrators actually think that's what these constructions are supposed to be, so there's little point in ever talking to them about it, as I've discovered to my chagrin. Now, I just wince, expunge their names from my Christmas list, and move on. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese Written Standards

Modern Chinese has to2 Standards, Cantonese and Mandarin.

I believe that the reason this is so is because Hong Kong is an SAR. The Chinese government included in the political provisions for a separate written standard for the lingua franca that was and still is spoken in Hong Kong SAR. But most importantly, compared to some other places that are more rural than Hong Kong, the Cantonese written standard first started off in Cantonese opera; as playwrights wrote scripts for their actors and actresses, they wanted to incorporate the vernacular so they used characters not found in Classical Chinese. Are there any dialects that have these written traditions?68.148.164.166 (talk) 02:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)68.148.164.166 (talk) 02:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The background cited above contains significant mis-information. Although various spoken Chinese dialects can be very different, written Chinese remains rather homogenous across the whole China in the last two thousand years or so -- especially after Qin Shi Huangdi -- and remains so. Mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong (and Macau) and Singapore are the four main regions with significant different Chinese cultures. Having said that -- to answer your question -- "the" modern written Chinese language is essentially one, except [not so] trivial differences in choice of word, vocabulary, slang usage, etc; and other superficial variations, e.g. traditional vs simplified characters, vertical vs horizontal writing. --Chan Tai Man 14:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chantaiman (talk • contribs)

You are wrong: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Cantonese#Written_Cantonese and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Written_Cantonese.68.148.164.166 (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

There is only one 'standard' - Mandarin. Cantonese is not considered an official standard, though when HK was British it was used in official communications alongside English. It is not used so much now, as all official communications in HK are recommended to be in Mandarin, and government officials are working towards that (whether they want to or not). As for dialects that use specific characters not found in Mandarin or Classical Chinese, they all do, to varying degrees. Otherwise people would not be able to read or write vocabulary specific to their own dialect.--ChokinBako (talk) 18:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but Mandarin orthography and Cantonese orthography are significantly different enough that they are not mutually intelligible. Here's an example, news reporters use 中文, while the lay people use 粵語. The lay people, Cantonese speakers, without formal training (in their case, Education in grade school) would not be able to understand it. Yes, their text books are written in 中文, but they speak 粵語. In fact they speak 中文 in Cantonese phonology. For the untrained speaker, 中文 phonologically spoken in Cantonese and 粵語 phonologically spoken in Cantonese is mutually unintelligible.68.148.164.166 (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say the WERE mutually intelligible. But, while we are on the topic, I, myself, can understand spoken Cantonese (even though I am a Mandarin speaker), but only because I have studied Ancient Chinese (the phonetics of it, as well as the grammar), Japanese, and Korean, so I can make a guess at what is being said, like an English/German/Danish speaker could guess at Norwegian, or so. In no way did I say that they were mutually intelligible, though.--ChokinBako (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Um ... more mis-information. When one speaks Cantonese, one speaks Chinese -- more precisely a Chinese dialect. Cantonese doesn't parallel to Chinese. The former is an element in the later set. For an uneducated man, who lives in a Cantonese speaking environment who can't read or write, he will understand quite well when read to. Unfortunately, not much so if that Mandarin-style writing, although read in Cantonese dialect, is dotted with linguistic jargons and in a half-witted pseudo-academic style. --Chan Tai Man 10:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chantaiman (talk • contribs)

Just so you know, I know exactly what I'm talking about. Chinese is a very general term, in fact, it is so unspecific, that it is hard to exactly know what one is talking about when they say they speak Chinese. It is accurately established that many dialects of Chinese are not mutually intelligible. Cantonese and Mandarin are perfect examples. I used the word 中文, when the Written is established on MANDARIN. Many articles have a 粵語 version and a 中文 version. When read to an PURELY Cantonese speaker, a 粵語 version of an article will be intelligible, but the same 中文 version will not be intelligible.68.148.164.166 (talk) 20:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I am sure that your comment: "... is dotted with linguistic jargons and in a half-witted pseudo-academic style." is racist. It is a fundamental linguistic principle that any dialect is capable of expression equally well as any other dialect.68.148.164.166 (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, well, well. If I had been accused of hypercritical on one's writing style and logical agrument or the lack of them, there might be some grains of truth in it. Racist? I don't have a clue where does it come from. Take the second sentence of the above paragraph as an example. I challege if there exists such so called "fundamental linguistic principle". I hold that the expressiveness of different Chinese spoken dialects varies and depends very much on context. --Chan Tai Man 11:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That is not true. Whatever you want to call it, linguisist. But I know, my very first linguistic class even said, that any dialect, language, grammer etc. etc. is equally adept in expressing anything they want. Would you argue that Irish is for fairy tales and that it couldn't be used to express academic literature?68.148.164.166 (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Does that "principle" has a name? It would be good if a reference can be cited. At the same time, here is a counter example, 係咩, 係囖, 係喇, 係o架, 係嘅, 係阿 cannot be transcripted into Mandarin style writing very accurately and certainly not with the same conciseness and mood. While one is quite liberally wandering away from Chinese dialects and making blanket statement on all languages, there are more counter examples. There are no direct English translation for 兄, 弟, 姊, 妹, 姑表, 姨表, 舅表, 'cos English culture doesn't have such fine grain differentiation. OTOH, it would be a challenge to find one-to-one Chinese translation for good, very good, excellent, brill, superb, wonderful, amazing, outstanding, wicked; or leopard, cheetah, jaguar, panther, puma. Again it is down to cultural and geographical differences. On that note the following is interesting, "The vodka is good, but the meat is rotten." Nature languages are quite nature in the sense that no single authority -- government or linguist -- can not easily dictate rules or "principles". They are mostly observational on actual usage. Of course, there are exceptions, for examples, by killing or other forceful means. It happened big twice in Chinese history, and more subtlely during Ming and Ching dynasties. --Chan Tai Man 11:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if the principle has a name. But I am sure it exists. You are talking about translative semantics, which has nothing to do with "...linguistic jargons and in a half-witted pseudo-academic style...", which is what I am talking about, which is the racist statement that you made. You are saying that Cantonese, compared with Mandarin, has "...linguistic jargons...", which is impossible, because the definition of "...jargons..." excludes the context of this use. Second, you are saying these jargons are used "...in a half-witted pseudo-academic style...", meaning that these jargons are incompentent. Or you are saying that Cantonese is "...a half-witted pseudo-academic style...", blatantly meaning that Cantonese is lower in calibre than Mandarin.68.148.164.166 (talk) 22:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the background given by the original poster in his question is very misleading. Besides the things other people mentioned, there are many more dialects/languages in current and common use besides Cantonese, among them Shanghainese and Taiwanese. —Lowellian (reply) 21:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right. My question is, as leading from my reply with chinese characters, is maybe Shanghainese or Hakka has these written orthographies. Could you list them?68.148.164.166 (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm certain that both Cantonese and Taiwanese have a history of finding ways to write down constructions specific to those dialects, even sometimes inventing new characters not used in written Mandarin. I strongly suspect this is also the case for all the other major Chinese dialects, including Shanghainese, Hunanese, etc., though perhaps their written forms are less well-known outside of China due to them not being spoken in areas like Hong Kong and Taiwan that have a history of being at least de facto politically separate from mainland China. —Lowellian (reply) 00:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suspect this is also the case for all the other major Chinese dialects, including Shanghainese, Hunanese, etc.....

– Lowellian (reply) 00:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:68.148.164.166#Your_question_on_the_Reference_Desk_about_Chinese

What are the other major Chinese dialects? Is there any way to get all those characters?68.148.164.166 (talk) 01:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You can look at the articles Spoken Chinese and list of Chinese dialects for information and lists about the major Chinese dialects. As for getting those characters, I can't really help you there. For the dialects less well-known outside of China, you would probably only be able to find them on Chinese-language websites. Even for the dialects like Cantonese and Taiwanese more well-known outside China, it would be difficult to find them, because almost everything on the Internet written in Chinese is written as it would be in Mandarin. —Lowellian (reply) 01:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I know probably the greatest standardized source of Cantonese characters are in the scripts of Cantonese operatists. Are there any other corpora for for any dialects? Thanks.68.148.164.166 (talk) 01:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably, but I don't know where you would find them. —Lowellian (reply) 01:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It is good that 68.148.164.166 has now clarified that s/he is considering written characters not spoken dialects. Versions of the Bible in Cantonese (in Chinese characters), Shanghaiese (in Chinese characters) and Hakka (in romanisation) dialects have been around for quite a while. However, their circulations are tiny compare to that of the Mandarin Union version. In Hong Kong there might be a [not so] significant sub-culture of written Cantonese in youth magazines. Nevertheless, pupils are taught Mandarin-ish written Chinese in schools. The Hong Kong government has a Big-5 Hong Kong Supplementary Character Set (HKSCS) as part of the ISO 10646 standard [7]. Nevertheless, there are just hundreds of characters among a collection of tens of thousands. So, to answer his/her question: Cantonese, yes; Hakka, no (or very few and became unknown) based on second handed information from native Hakka speakers; Shanghaiese, I'll leave it to someone more knowledgeable. --Chan Tai Man 09:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chantaiman (talk • contribs)

Has this question been moved forward to today?--ChokinBako (talk) 01:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Not much at all. Part of my confusion was the OP keeps switching the discussion from written Chinese language to spoken Chinese dialects rather liberally, and to a point even claiming "Chinese" is not a well defined term. At the risk a total misinterpretion of the OP, I attempt to paraphrase the orginal question. Q: Modern written Chinese is largely based on the Mandarin dialect, are there any dialect-specific written Chinese characters? A: Yes, Cantonese has a few hundreds of such characters which has been codified quite explicitly. It is possibly much fewer in other dialects, and it is hard to find a definitive list. --Chan Tai Man 11:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You have no right to blame other people for you just slightly imperfect english.68.148.164.166 (talk) 20:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It must have been mis-read. Nobody has said anything remotely along that line. On the contrary the discussion seems going very well. However, putting forward personal opinions as they were indisputable facts is a bit irritating. --Chan Tai Man 08:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chantaiman (talk • contribs)

Well that's hypocritical.68.148.164.166 (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Good, now we have an answer that expands a little on the answer I gave to what I understood to be the original question.--ChokinBako (talk) 12:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Cantonese is a language; the difference is that a native user of a core language should be able to well understand someone speaking a dialect of that language (e.g., Standard American English and Southern American English). "Mandarin" is an out-dated term for what is now called [[Putonghua]] ("Common language") in the People's Republic of China (and many other places, and [[Guoyou]] ("national language") in Taiwan and Taiwan-related communities. One who is fluent in Putonghua or Guoyou cannot understand more than a few words of Cantonese. In addition, there are significant differences in diction. For example, "road" or "street" are two words for the same (general) thing, and the choice of which is more commonly used is diction.DOR (HK) (talk) 03:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Meaning of "aleek betho"

Hello,

I have seen this saying before in a book some years ago and I tried to find the meaning then but was unsuccessful. Today I received an email from my boss and she had written "aleek betho" in her message.

I have been trying for two hours to find the meaning on the internet, as an old english saying or a French phrase, but I come up with nothing. I need to email her back and I'm hoping my answer to her question does not involve this phrase.

Does anyone know what "aleek betho" means?

Respectfully, --67.36.24.60 (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like Arabic to me. 'Aleek' would mean 'to you' or 'upon you'. 'Betho', I'm not sure about. My Arabic vocabulary is quite limited, and I can't guess it from the romanisation. I imagine it would be something nice, like harmony, blessing or somthing. Steewi (talk) 01:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not Arabic. 'aleekum' means 'with you' or 'to you', not 'aleek' (unless it was very informal). Where is this boss from? It seems more like Urdu to me. Do they have many Urdu speakers in/near Wyandotte? --ChokinBako (talk) 01:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As an arbitrary combination of Arabic and Persian, it means "Hello to you." --Omidinist (talk) 10:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

So, literally translated, it would mean 'with you to you'? How bizarre.--ChokinBako (talk) 11:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers. My boss is Irish. To make this more clear, she asked for someone's email address as follows:

Would you please forward to me "aleek betho" (person's name) email address?

I was wondering what she was saying about the person; hopefully something polite. The person in question is a female and her first name is Alexis. I thought aleek might mean Alexis in another language. I hope the additional information helps. Respectfully, 67.36.24.60 (talk) 12:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)--67.36.24.60 (talk) 12:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, so we were all totally off track! Amazing what you can do with a little context! I can only guess that this person is from Ulster, but without the correct spelling I can't say what it means. Why not aske her, and then tell us afterwards? I think there are a few people here now who would like to know!--ChokinBako (talk) 13:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to ask her tomorrow what "aleek betho" means, because it's driving me crazy not knowing! I will post what she says. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.36.24.60 (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possessive with proper nouns such as businesses

Is it correct to say "I am going to Kroger's grocery store" or only correct to say "I am going to Kroger grocery store." Is the "Kroger's" being possessive there or can it not be used in a possessive form in such a case? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.48.49.98 (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

If the store is owned by one Kroger, then it's correct to say Kroger's. But it may be owned by a family of Krogers, and/or known as "Krogers Grocery Store", or even "Krogers' Grocery Store", in which case use whichever spelling applies. You'd never say "I am going to Kroger grocery store"; but you might say "I'm going to the Kroger grocery store". For example, if the formal name of the business was just "Kroger" (cf. Aldi, K-Mart, etc.) you might normally say "I'm going to Kroger", but if talking to someone who didn't know what Kroger was, then you'd add the explanation " ... to the Kroger grocery store". Or even "... to Kroger, the grocery store". -- JackofOz (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

In this case, the correct form appears to be "Kroger", without the possessive. Marco polo (talk) 01:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It's more complicated than this, and I'm sure there's been studies of it, but I can't think what to look it up under. At least in British usage, it's common to refer to businesses, especially shops, with "'s" even if there's no personal name - but not always. The supermarket chain headquartered here in Bradford is formally "Wm Morrison Supermarkets" but always referred to as Morrisons. Similarly Sainsbury's, with the apostrophe. On the other hand, Tesco - which is not anybody's name - is always written thus, not "Tescos" or "Tesco's" - but I would normally say "I went to Tesco's". On the third hand, I don't think I'd ever say I was going to Asda's.

Similarly there used to be a club in Bradford called 'The Maestro', but I never heard anybody refer to it as anything but "Maestro's". --ColinFine (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, when I was a kid, I lived about two blocks from a Kroger supermarket; and I'd always say to my mother as I walked out the door, "I'm going to Kroger's. Is there anything you need?" Deor (talk) 22:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Typing Korean

How is it possible to type Hangŭl on a foreign (Japanese computer) keyboard using MS-IME2002 without all the letters appearing separately, and in fact, not having anything to do with the QWERTY? I mean, if I type 'sŏnsaeng' (teacher), it comes out as 내ㅜㄴㅁ둫, which is totally incorrect. How could 'nai-u-n-m-tuh' be the same as 'sŏnsaeng'?--ChokinBako (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The core rules of English

I’ve been mentally diverted by ColinFine’s phrase in Referring to words above – "The rules of the English language, insofar as they exist ...". Style guides and grammar texts pronounce on all manner of things, and each one gives a different set of rules, albeit with various overlaps. That's understandable, since the only value in publishing a book that's consistent with an existing book would be to give more/less detail, or pitch it at a different audience, etc. I also understand that some issues are ones of style rather than syntax, although exactly where the dividing line is is sometimes a fraught question. So, I’ve been wondering if anyone has ever sat down and recorded the core “rules” that everyone agrees on, or is it such a moveable feast that this would be an endless and impossible task? But then, I muse that if the French can do this for their language, surely the English are up to the task (assuming they could be bothered). To partially answer my own question, we also have to consider that the "English" as used in one part of the world can be close to unintelligible to "English"-speakers from elsewhere. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I just stick with the habits I've become accustomed to, based on the 'rules' I learned at school in the UK and the 'rules' I teach as an English language teacher. Actually, my native dialect (scouse) shuns many of these rules that I have learned and teach from the textbooks I use, but that just goes to show that there is not just one form of English, there are many. Plus, as English is used as a first language in so many 'jurisdictions', so to speak, we will never get the co-ordinated effort to make a standard that the French have managed to achieve (The French just did that because they were annoyed that the Lingua Franca of the modern world had become English and not French, as if it ever was). I'd just accept differences, but still put forward one's own opinion as to how one has experienced it in the past - they become the rules you have learned, and if someone is asking about them, then they deserve an answer.--ChokinBako (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Plus, Jack, with more and more 'average people' getting onto the media scene (with blogs, and websites, and reality TV, and all sorts), the language is changing, I would say, far faster than it was 100, 200, 300 years ago. The rules we learned at school are breaking down, and new ones are forming. We just have to get used to it, so that one day we can accept 'LOLZ' and 'I can haz cheezburger' and all that bollocks. Cheer up, Jack. It's not the end of the world, just the language as we know it. :) --ChokinBako (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I understand the changing nature of language, much as I might resist some of the changes until they've become faits accomplis. It's just that we often see, on this desk and elsewhere, robust discussion about what's "right" and what's "wrong", and I was wondering if there was a published collection of all the rules that absolutely nobody whose opinion is worth anything disagrees with. Thanks for your thoughts so far, CB. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, as you said yourself, there have been books written about the basics, and the only reason for other books to be written would be to add to or detract from what has already been written. No point in writing a book with exactly the same rules in it. So, there are no actual rules, at least, not recognised by the British government. Anyway, who are these so called learned individuals who dictate how our beautiful and powerful language should be? We can decide for it ourselves. After all, we speak the language at least as well as (and probably far better than) those people who just write books so they can afford the mortgage for their stately homes and a couple of bottles of sherry each day. WE decide how the language is formed and how it works, and so does everyone else. This is part of the fun of the language desk here on wikipedia. No worries, mate!--ChokinBako (talk) 02:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, it's true that some people may be die-hard 'THIS is how it is!' (or 'robust' as you call it) argumentative types, but that is all part of it. These people will not listen because this is what they believe, because this is the language as they have experienced it, however 'right' or 'wrong' it may be. You are right in searching for a 'core set of rules', but there are none, really, not now that English has become a global language. The Yanks would never agree to a total spelling reform and grammar amalgamation, because they just don't want to be part of Britain or have anything to do with Britain (as a whole, even though their people as individuals say 70% would love to marry a Brit!!!). Point is, the language is disintergrating. Look at it in 30 years, and you'll see the kids in High School looking back on our English and using dictionaries, as if we were writing Romeo & Juliet.--ChokinBako (talk) 03:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

In reference to the inital question, I'd have thought that the 1860-page Cambridge Grammar of the English Language [8] would be pretty damn comprehensive. However, that seems to purely cover descriptive points of English. As for the prescriptive ones, well, there isn't going to be a list of every single one, because they depend on an individual's taste. As a side note, I doubt that English will change as much as you claim in 30 years, ChokinBako. Semantic drift and sound changes just don't seem to happen that fast. Plus, Standard written English is fairly slow to change - as has already been said, we're not about to have a spelling reform, sadly, and slight differences of vocabulary shouldn't impede communication to the extent you suggest. --Estrellador* (talk) 08:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I was conscious in using the phrase that it might provoke comment. Of course I believe that there are rules of English. But nobody ever argues about them, or even writes them down except for foreigners (or in academic grammars like the one referred to above). That's because nobody needs to - we all (native speakers) know them anyway. The rule that says that 'the' precedes the noun phrase it determines; the rule that says that adjectives of colour generally follow adjectives of size; the rule in some dialects but not others that you don't use the simple past with a specific time reference that includes the present ("*I didn't see him today"). As a descriptivist, I regard these as the only rules of English - but there are quite a lot of them, and some are very complicated and subtle. And of course they do change over time, but mostly quite slowly.

Questions of usage that arise here and in similar places are not usually of this kind. (Sometimes they are, when English is not the questioner's language). IMNSHO they are often appeals to authority from people who have been taught to distrust their native judgment. A lot of them are about punctuation (which is in a sense very little to do with language - like the rest of writing it is an entirely learnt activity, but even more arbitrary), and I almost never engage with these, because I simply don't care whether you put the full stop before or after the inverted commas.

Oops. I seem to be ranting. I'll stop. --ColinFine (talk) 22:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Just piling on to what Estrellador said, people have compiled comprehensive descriptions of Standard English (the form of the language used for most printed works and formal speeches), the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language by Huddleston and Pullum being the most recent. You will find that in describing the language from the ground up, the vast majority of the rules are firm and undisputed—for example, the always precedes the noun it modifies, just as it has since before recorded history. Other, non-standard forms of English (Hiberno-English, AAVE, etc.) have also been the subjects of comprehensive description, though perhaps not to the same extent as Standard English. If you are looking for a gentler bottom-up description of Standard English than the Cambridge Grammar, I suggest A Student's Introduction to English Grammar, also by Huddleston and Pullum. Strad (talk) 23:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Lots of meaty responses. Thanks, everyone. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June 10

[edit] Insults in Calvino's Cavaliere Inesistente

I recently ran across this list of insults, allegedly "in all the languages of the Christians and the Moors", in Calvino's Cavaliere Inesistente:

-Khar as-Sus!

-Escremento di verme!

-Mushrik! Sozo! Mozo! Escalvao! Marrano! Hijo de puta! Zabalkan! Merde!

I recognize "escremento di verme" and "merde" and can guess at the meaning of "hijo de puta", but what about the others? Are they actual existing insults in any language, or are they just random vaguely Arabic-sounding words? Knowing Calvino, I would expect the list of insults to be some sort of pun, and I fear I might be missing the joke here. -- Ferkelparade π 07:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

"Khar as-Sus" is the same as "escremento di verme", in Arabic. We have an article about marranos. "Mushrik" is a sinner, from shirk. I don't recognize the others. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

"Sozo, mozo, escalvao!" is from Contrasto con la donna genovese by Raimbaut de Vaqueiras. It is Genoese and this book translates it as "filthy, stupid and cropped like a thief". DAVID ŠENEK 11:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Zabal (Ar.) and zebel (Per.) mean "dung"; and kan is the same as khan in some names like Genghiz Khan. Together they refer nowadays to an astute, crafty person. --Omidinist (talk) 11:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone - that covers everything. -- Ferkelparade π 18:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proper term for a flipboard?

Hi there - looking for a little help as to what a flipboard is actually called? Wikipedia refers to them as a type of dynamic display, but I'm sure there's a more specific name for them. I'm looking for a good image of one, but it's kind of hard to search without the proper term. Thanks in advance! --131.111.135.84 (talk) 09:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Split-flap display, or Solari indicators, after the manufacturer. — Pek, on behalf of Tivedshambo (talk) 13:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question!

How do you add the suffix -ian to the name Kelly, properly?

'Kellian', I would assume. 'Kellyan' just looks funny, and 'Kellyian' is definitely not right. You could also hyphenate it as 'Kelly-an', but that looks like a girl's name, and not an adjective.--ChokinBako (talk) 10:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I would avoid the suffix if at all possible and instead use phrases like "inspired by Kelly", "followers of Kelly", "students of Kelly", or whatever. If you absolutely must tack on the suffix, I would prefer "Kellyan", even though I agree that it looks funny, because "Kellian" looks inaccurate to me. It suggests something associated with a person or place named "Kell". Marco polo (talk) 12:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

'Kelly-esque', perhaps? Obviously it depends on the context, but if this fits, then it seems perfectly ok to me. --ChokinBako (talk) 12:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

For Chomsky, it's "Chomskyan", so I don't see why it couldn't be Kellyan. —Angr 16:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Kellyan is probably the best choice, if such a word has to be coined. Kellyesque (no hyphen, btw) would be used to describe some behaviour (by others) that resembled whatever Kelly was known for, rather than something associated with Kelly personally. This class of adjective seems confined to certain select notable people (Victorian, Edwardian, Georgian, Carolingian, Shakespearean, Beethovenian, Mozartian, Dickensian, Churchillian, Shavian and a few others). It's not generally extendable to all notable persons (although who gets to decide who's "in" and who's "out" beats me). We never hear, for example, of the "Kennedian" period, or the "Nixonian" approach to truth in government, or the "Gershwinian" style, or the "Goethian" genre. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

We do, however, occasionally read about "Goethean science", some of us even went to schools where it was taught. :-| ---Sluzzelin talk 23:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, whaddaya know. Thanks, Sluzzz. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

In fact, here's a list of them. There are quite a lot more than I imagined, but it's still a tiny proportion of notable people.-- JackofOz (talk) 06:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I saw you visited that list two years ago, and I had the same question now as you did then. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Great minds, etc. Thanks for reminding me; I had completely forgotten. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 22:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mystery character

Hello all; I've been trying to find Unicode codepoints for all the characters on the Wikipedia puzzle-globe; I think I've managed most of them, but there are still one or two mysterious ones, namely the two to the left of the Hebrew resh (which is U+05E8). You can check my table of research on m:Talk:Errors in the Wikipedia logo for reference. Any thoughts? --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 12:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think any of the letters had ANYTHING to do with Wikipedia, and that they were just random letters from different scripts. After all, Hebrew 'resh' has nothing to do with Wikipedia because 'wikipedia' has no 'r' in it. The one to the left of 'resh', though, looks like Lao to me, but the one further to the left is impossible to see.--ChokinBako (talk) 12:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Large version of WP logo to help ease the eye strain. - X201 (talk) 12:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. But I can't even begin to guess what that is. It looks like a central asian script, but I have absolutely no idea which one.--ChokinBako (talk) 13:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Some of the pieces were supposed to say "wi" or the nearest equivalent, apparently, but others were apparently just chosen because they looked nice! I agree that that one looks like Lao, but it looks even more like Telugu or Kannada; or maybe some relative. It'd be nice to know what the actual current character is as well as identifying those two "replacements" suggested on the external link... I don't know, it's a bit confusing. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 13:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's a previous thread on this subject. This thread is also interesting. It looks like the glyphs in the logo were never proofread by readers of the scripts in question, some of them don't even exist, and Nohat (or the Wikimedia Foundation?) has no intention of fixing them. Frankly I think this is pretty embarrassing for such a prominent logo. I'm surprised the katakana puzzle piece hasn't shown up at Hanzi Smatter. -- BenRG (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, it even made The New York Times, and that was a year ago. I think it would be a good idea to fix this. It's too easy to read it as cultural insensitivity—I'm sure they would have quickly corrected a similarly serious error in the Roman script (say, if the W was missing a stroke or mirrored so the stroke weights looked wrong). I guess most Japanese and Indian users will just snicker and move on, but still. -- BenRG (talk) 18:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That's one of the things that got me into this investigation in the first place. I think the main stumbling block in fixing it was that User:Nohat had lost the original source file he used to create it, and hadn't managed to recreate something that looked right. I've got an idea on how I might be able to pull it off, but I need to get actual fonts and codepoints for the different characters, hence my problem. At the very least I want to get that Devanagari bug fixed, whenever I get to the proposal stage I'll probably include optional "change all pieces to 'W'/'WI' or the equivalent", and somebody has brought up "get rid of the Klingon piece" too.

Anyway, discussion of the more general "fix the logo" topic should probably centralise on m:Talk:Errors in the Wikipedia logo, and leave this topic just for "what are these two characters?". In particular I want to know the edgemost one, I was intending to replace that Indic-looking one with the Kannada mentioned here anyway so it's less of a deal. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 20:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, you can replace the omega with a digamma. Deor (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Decided to go with "What does that language's Wikipedia call itself?", so the Greek one worked out to be beta (possibly with iota). You can comment on that part here; never mind about this existing mystery character I guess, I've just replaced it with Georgian. Any further comments to Meta please, I'm dewatchlisting this page now. :-) --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 17:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)It is Kannada. It's transcription is 'vi', but I can't attest to whether it's properly constructed. The part that corresponds to the '-i' is the little circle at the top left of the character. The one on the left of the Kannada syllable I have no idea. Steewi (talk) 00:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The Arabic letter is y/i, the second letter in "wikibidia", and since w doesn't connect to the following letter in Arabic, the "wi" combination isn't necessary (although that would be true of any letter since they all have stand-alone forms). Adam Bishop (talk) 11:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Adolf Hitler und sein Weg zu Großdeutschland"

My query, with details and context, is posted on the discussion page for Austria at the Time of National Socialism. An answer there would be appreciated; I'll sort out and restore the linguistic content here, with due attribution, after responses are received. -- Thank you, Deborahjay (talk) 13:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June 11

[edit] Etymology of "decidedly" and "eventually"

"decidedly": Was this ever used to modify a verb to suggest it was the result of an actual decision? That is to say, the result of an act of human will? Or has it always simply been a broad magnifier?

"eventually": Has this always simply indicated the modified verb would occur at some vague future time, or in the end (depending on which definition[9] you read)? Did it ever suggest that the modified verb was dependent upon an event? E^robson (T^alk) 00:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The OED has eventually 1. In the event of something happening, but there's only one quote and it's from much later than the other uses. Decided and decidedly appear to have always related to the earliest meaning of decide: 'To determine (a question, controversy, or cause) by giving the victory to one side or the other; to bring to a settlement, settle, resolve (a matter in dispute, doubt, or suspense).' Something is decidedly the case if it has been decided and is no longer in doubt, but the decision doesn't have to be an act of human will. Algebraist 10:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The Online Etymology Dictionary has this entry for "event": 1573, from M.Fr. event, from L. eventus "occurrence, issue," from evenire "to come out, happen, result," from ex- "out" + venire "to come" (see venue). Eventually "ultimately" first recorded c.1680; eventuality is 1828, originally "the power of observing in phrenology." Eventful is from 1600. Event horizon in astrophysics is from 1969. Kreachure (talk) 12:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anhaltelager (Nazi-Deutsch)

The German Wikipedia's page on Anhaltelager indicates that the term is "a euphemism" (for ?). There's no page (yet) in English, nor for Anhaltelager Wöllersdorf. For openers, I'm seeking both a literal and an idiomatic English-language translation of this term. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Direct translation "Stopping Camp" I suppose. Anhalten = Stop and Lager = a camp/holding area. In english, I'd go with Internment camp or Detention camp. Fribbler (talk) 12:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"Detention" seems more euphemistic. I found the following in Brackmann, Karl-Heinz and Renate Birkenhauer, NS-Deutsch: "Selbstverständliche" Begriffe und Schlagwörter aus der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus, Straelener Manuskripte Verlag (1988) ISBN 3-89107-021-7:

• Anhaltelager - in Österreich in der Zeit des Ständestaats (1934-1938): Sammellager für politische Gegner

... but Sammellager in the German Wikipedia redirects to Durchgangslager ("transit camp"), which is more on the order of the Drancy deportation camp and not reflective of the Austrian camps as I understand them. So I'm not quite sure where this leaves us. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The German Wikipedia calls Anhaltelager a euphemism for an illegal prison camp. Why not just use the term prison camp? Or, if you are looking to retain the euphemism, detention camp. Marco polo (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Italian translation

Please translate the following texts below from Italian to English. Thank you very much :) :

"Il 13% dei musei italiani si trova in Toscana. In Italia ce ne sono 4.120, qui, 553, alcuni tra i più famosi al mondo, a cominciare dagli Uffizi. Di questi 553 musei, 246 raccolgono capolavori d’arte, 88 sono archeologici, 48 raccontano la storia della scienza e della tecnica, 40 dedicati alle tradizioni locali, artigiane o contadine e il resto a temi specialistici, dall'archeologia industriale al calcio, o alla storia del territorio. Quasi la metà appartiene agli Enti locali, 86 allo Stato o alle Università, 61 agli Enti ecclesiastici. La maggior parte è a Firenze ma molti sono nei piccoli comuni."

--125.24.63.200 (talk) 12:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"13% of Italy's museums are to be found in Tuscany. In Italy there are 4.120 museums, there (in Tuscany) 553, some of them among the most famous of the world, to begin with the Uffizi Gallery. Out of these 553 museums, 246 collect masterpieces of art, 88 are archaeological collections, 48 tell the history of science, 40 are dedicated to local traditions, artisans and farmers, and the rest to specialist themes, from industrial archeology to football, or to the history of the territory. About half of the museums belong to local authorities, 86 to the state or to universities, 61 to the church. The largest part is located in Florence, but many are also to be found in small villages." -- Ferkelparade π 12:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June 12

[edit] Same word with two origins? (i.e. college)

Why does the English version of Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College) give the “law” as the origin of the word “college” while the French version of Wikipedia (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coll%C3%A8ge) gives “read” (“lire” in French) as the origin of that same word???

Compare :

English : Originally, it meant a group of persons living together under a common set of rules (con- = "together" + leg- = "law" or lego = "I choose")…

French : Le terme collège provient du latin collegium (du préfixe co- venant de cum, « avec, ensemble » et de legere, « lire » ; d'où « lire ensemble »).

--66.36.139.178 (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Roger Socho

I'm either clarifying or muddying the waters, but from the online etymology dictionary College links to Colleague. If only we could "choose" to "read" a "law" that would make sense of this. :-) Fribbler (talk) 00:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

"leg-" as in Latin "lex" and English "legal", and "leg-" as in Latin "legere", and English "legible", and French "lire", both come from the same original root. So both etymologies are correct. Thanks: I did not know that! --Anonymous, 00:53 UTC, June 12, 2008.

I suspected as much, but need the masked (of sorts) wikipedian to make it clear! :-) Fribbler (talk) 00:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

While Latin leg- can mean "to read", I do not think that meaning plays a role in the etymology of collegium. A collegium was called that because the word originally referred to a body of collegae, that is, co-elects: office holders elected together, in the same election.  --Lambiam 02:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Lambiam. The English college comes from Old French, so it is very unlikely that the modern English and French words have different etymologies. You may find that another masked Wikipedian has just corrected the French Wikipedia. ;-) --Heron (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Introductory subject "there" and subject-verb agreement in English

In English sentences that begin with introductory subject "there" and with "be" (in its various forms) as the main verb, the number of the verb phrase is governed by the noun phrase following "be". This deviates from the usual rule of subject-verb agreement, which says that the number of the verb is governed by the subject.

Is this an isolated exception or is it a special case of a more general rule? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.241.23 (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

There is functioning as an adverbial; the subject of the clause is the element after be. Strad (talk) 03:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep. But note that in informal usage, "there's" or "there is" is often followed by a plural subject (at least in North America). --Anonymous, 05:24 UTC, June 12, 2008.

[edit] The first word...

I believe that the first language was sanscrit. But was was the first word that was ever recorded. Also please correct me if I am mistaken on Sanscrit being the oldest language. As for the English language what was the first recorded word? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.180.131.70 (talk) 01:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Sanskrit was certainly not the oldest language. It is known to have descended from Proto-Indo-European. The hypothetical "first language" of the world is called Proto-World, but it existed long before languages were recorded (if it existed at all) and efforts to reconstruct it haven't been very successful. -Elmer Clark (talk) 03:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

One of the oldest inscriptions in Anglo-Saxon runes consists of the single word "cat"... AnonMoos (talk) 05:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The Anglo-Saxons must have had lots of free time in those days.....--ChokinBako (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

"Anglo-Sakson lolkat" maybe? doktorb _words^deeds 13:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Writing as we know it first developed in Sumer, so the first word ever recorded was almost certainly Sumerian. Because it is difficult to date the clay stamps and tablets on which the first Sumerian words appeared, it is virtually impossible to know which of the remaining examples is the oldest. Marco polo (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong

Not sure if this is the correct RD for this, but...

My younger brother thinks that people from the US call peanut butter jelly and vice versa. Please try to prove him wrong. Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me 12:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

He thinks they use the word jelly for peanut butter? (Or does he mean peanut butter v. peanut paste)? Category:Peanut butter brands lists several US brands using the word peanut butter. The article on peanut butter and jelly sandwich should show that peanut butter and jelly are distinct and non-interchangeable items everywhere, and, according to the article the treat is called peanut butter and jam sandwich in some countries outside the US. Maybe someplaces it is even called peanut paste and jelly/jam sandwich, but I don't think peanut butter is officially called peanut jelly anywhere. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the onus is on your brother to provide evidence to support his hypothesis. He is probably confused by the fact that Americans call jam jelly, and are inclined to eat peanut butter with it.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I would say, rather, that the term in American usage is "peanut butter and jelly" and often, even usually, made with other, more substantial preserved fruit spreads (notably jam, preserves, or conserves, each with its distinct definition). -- Deborahjay (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

This (language refdesk) is indeed the right place by the way. – b_jonas 15:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Communications job title

What job title do you call a person who does research for an organization, writes information material that will go out to the public, and attends conferences and events to represent the organization, convey its message and collect information to bring back to the organization?--99.231.107.226 (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

What's throwing me off is the research responsibility. The other tasks all look like marketing functions to me, so I am wondering what kind of research this person conducts. Is it research on market trends or sales opportunities? If not, then the job doesn't fall neatly into any standard category. If the research is market-oriented, then this is a marketing job. You could call this person a marketing specialist if the person has only a few years of experience and a marketing director if he or she is somewhat more experienced, manages a staff, or is in need of a more impressive title. If the person is also a manager, you could call him or her a marketing manager. If you have a small firm with a corporate structure and this person runs the marketing operation, you could even call him or her the chief marketing officer (CMO). Marco polo (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Well it sounds like an amalagmation of several roles. Press Officer or something within the realms of the marketing executive/marketing-world of work is probably the closest match. Generally occupational titles nowadays seem to be sufficiently vague as to make it impossible to decipher quite what someone does for a living, so something generic like Marketing Consultant/executive/buzz-word of choice would work in my eyes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.133.226 (talk) 15:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It sounds to me like a Public relations manager, perhaps with expanded duties. No? Kreachure (talk) 15:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Native American naming

There's an old joke (it's appeared in a Terry Pratchett novel, though he wasn't the first to use it) based around the idea that Native Americans are given the name of the first thing that the mother (or, in some accounts, father) sees after giving birth. Now I know full well that in most cases that's not true. Sitting Bull was called that because it had been his father's name, not because his mother saw a bull sitting down. I also know that Native American customs were and are extremely variable.

But is the "first thing seen" idea pure folk etymology - Europeans inventing their own explanation for names that seemed strange to them - or does it have any basis in fact, even if only for a specific tribe in specific circumstances? --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 15:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Note that Sitting Bull was not his original name but one he acquired later in life, which renaming was a common practice. Rmhermen (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've heard that in some tribes at least, babies were given simple animal or plant names, but that once they were old enough to have actually done something noteworthy they got a new name based on the noteworthy event. —Angr 17:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Just call me Sitting in Front of Monitor for Ridiculous Lengths of Time - Sitting Mon for short. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

If I might ask a follow-up question, why were the names translated into English? For other languages it is more common to Anglicise rather than translate. (Such as the Gaelic "Donnchadh", which becomes "Duncan" not "Brown battle".) Was it considered more important to retain the meaning rather than the sound, or is it merely some kind of inconsistent white-sttler high-handedness? Gwinva (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It might depend on the semantic relevance of the words used in naming the person (or place), perhaps also taking the difficulty of the original pronunciation into account. Paul Davidson (talk) 06:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps-amusing follow-up story: when my daughter was young I enrolled us both in the Indian Princesses organization (ill-advisedly (it had a lot of religious content I was uncomfortable with)), in which I was obliged to choose an "Indian name". In the present-tense-verb-pronoun-object-noun style of "Dances with Wolves", I chose "Sleeps with the Fishes". Unfunnily, several members of my "tribe" thought it was an inappropriate reference to bestiality, rather than a movie reference. :( --Sean 00:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] diploma

Help! I failed my diploma! What do I do?! What do I do?!Jwking (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Why are you asking the Language reference desk at Wikipedia? You should be talking to your teachers or a guidance counselor at your school or someone like that. —Angr 20:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] High vs. tall

I am confused with the difference between "high" and "tall". As I've come to understand, "high" is related to position, i.e. distance from the ground upwards, while "tall" is related to vertical size. In Finnish, the same word "korkea" ("high") would be used for both, except when talking about the length of the human body, when the word is "pitkä" ("long"). What are the rules in the English language about this? JIP | Talk 20:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think English is one of only a few languages that has a specific word meaning "tall". In Irish, a tall person is called "high", and in French and German a tall person is called "big". But in English, people aren't the only things that can be described as tall; buildings and trees can be called "tall" too. Probably anything whose height is greater than its width can be put on the "short/tall" spectrum. I'd say the difference between "tall" and "high" is that "tall" means "having a relatively great distance from the top of the object described to its own bottom" (including a person for whom the distance from the top of his head to the soles of his feet is relatively far), while "high" means "having a relatively great distance from the ground". Thus the Empire State Building is very tall; a window on its top floor is very high, but a window on its bottom floor is not very high. Likewise Shaquille O'Neal is very tall; his eyebrows are very high when he's standing up, but his toenails are not very high. —Angr 21:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

One exception is mountains; they're high, not tall. Deor (talk) 22:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

In addition, tall generally only applies to things that are taller than they are wide and deep (hence mountains and plateaux being high instead of tall). A platform, its breadth and depth exceeding its height, is high and not tall. A stool may be tall, but a desk or bed would be high. A fence or wall, being of great length but shallow width, is tall. Curiously, in Japanese, one does not say a person is tall (high); instead one says that a person has a high back. Paul Davidson (talk) 06:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I did say, "Probably anything whose height is greater than its width can be put on the "short/tall" spectrum." —Angr 17:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, in Korean you say that a person's height is large. --Kjoonlee 09:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Another side note, in Chinese, they's also no distinction, afaik. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] extant vs existent

What is the difference between extant and existent? - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 23:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

"Extant" makes you sound like a big brainiac, so you should always use that.  :) "Q: What's the difference between a flutist and a flautist? A: About five bucks an hour." --Sean 00:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK, extant occurs predominantly in scientific literature, referring to a taxon or a clade of which at least one member has not yet gone extinct. Existent, on the other hand, is a general-purpose, catch-all word in both colloquial and scientific English, denoting anything that, as of this moment, is thought, alleged, or proved to be. --Dr Dima (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that the use of extant is somewhat more extensive than Sean and Dr Dima imply. One might write, "Cotton Vitellius A.xv is the only extant medieval manuscript containing Beowulf," where it would sound mighty odd to replace extant with existent. Deor (talk) 01:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

There is also "existing" to complicate things up a little. GoingOnTracks (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

When you want to say "still existing: not lost or destroyed", the word you want is "extant". "Existent" would be a poor substitute, and would make you sound funny. - Nunh-huh 19:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June 13

[edit] Position of "not"

Considering the sentences:

"Consider, for a change, that this is a moment to be not feared but cultivated."

to

"Consider, for a change, that this is a moment not to be  feared but cultivated."

Are both correct? GoingOnTracks (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

As I see it, both are correct, althought the first one sounds a bit more stilted and clumsy. If the two options were adjectives, it would be the better option. Consider "This is a time when we should not be hateful, but angry" and "This is a time when we should be not hateful, but angry". The commas can clarify it as well. Steewi (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec, but here it is, anyway) I think the position of not is more idiomatic in the second sentence, but if you want to satisfy the schoolmarms by preserving parallelism, you could write, "Consider, for a change, that this is a moment not to be feared but to be cultivated." Even better might be "Consider, for a change, that this is a moment to be cultivated, not feared." Deor (talk) 00:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "mock group"

What does "mock group" mean?68.148.164.166 (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

In what context?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The Evil Council, (aka Councilium Malum Trium), is a mock group founded by three Lancaster, Pennsylvanian high school students in 2005.

68.148.164.166 (talk) 07:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Mock usually means fake or practice. So a mock-group would be a fake-group. So they are either not really a group and are just made-up or they are a group that is mocking something and are therefore more in the realms of (I guess) satire. A mock-exam is a fake/practice exam for example. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Other meanings, imitation, trial, something real but a substitute for another thing... not the real thing? But then remembering google I find that in clinical trials, a "mock group" is the other group in contrast to the "control group". Julia Rossi (talk) 10:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't sound right. The control group is the group given the placebo. If anything, that would be the same thing as the mock group, although I've not heard that term used there. StuRat (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

In this context, I'd say the "Evil Council" isn't actually trying to advance the cause of Evil on Earth, but more likely a bunch of Goths getting together to socialize and/or make fun of the other school cliques. StuRat (talk) 14:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] hebrew writing

I need help... please translate english to hebrew "LOVE THYSELF"

thank you so much cristina --58.69.81.252 (talk) 08:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't get tattoos in languages you don't know. You'll just wind up embarrassing yourself. —Angr 16:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Modern Hebrew with masculine singular imperative would be אהב את עצמך . With imperfect (more colloquial), it would be תאהב את עצמך . There could be other variations... AnonMoos (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

What's with the "thyself"? If that's to indicate a familiar (rather than formal) second person pronoun, modern Hebrew doesn't make that distinction. If it's to indicate an "old-timey" effect, perhaps what cristina wants is Biblical Hebrew? I endorse the comments of Angr and AnonMoos, above. -- Deborahjay (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I assume it's to be parallel with Know thyself and/or "Physician, heal theyself"... AnonMoos (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Translation of "Bhole Nath" - Sanskrit

I know that Bhole Nath is a title for Shiva, and that Nath means Lord or Protector, but what does the Bhole mean? -- Q Chris (talk) 09:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Does it mean something like "innocent"/"simple"? I'm not sure, don't take my word for it. :-) --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 09:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any Sanskrit words end with an "e". The nearest I can find is bholi, which is a camel. There is an on-line Sanskrit dictionary here.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Monier Monier-Williams's Sanskrit dictionary gives it as "Bholā-nātha" भोलानाथ. The first part seems to be derived from "Bhola", which is the word for "the son of a Vaiśya and of a Naṭī" (a "naṭī" is an actress, dancer, nautch girl, or courtesan. —Angr 19:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] phonetic script of Kachhi (Kachchhi) language

Vadhod (talk) 11:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)i have seen some material on Kachhi language, the script written for Kachhi words do not match the pronunciation. i am working on this subject for quite some time. We, in Kachh (Kachchh) use modified Gujarati script for our Kachhi language. I have also prepared Kachhi fonts for the phonemes of Kachhi language using Fontographer software. How can I present these fonts to articles related to Kachhi language subjects on wikipedia ? I am prepared to present article on the subject using this fonts of Kachhi script and English script.Vadhod (talk) 11:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Your fonts will have to comply with the Unicode standard to be of use for Wikipedia... AnonMoos (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] kachhi (kachchhi) language

to the chief editors of wilipedia, how can i present Kachhi fonts to be used in relation to material on the subject of Kachhi language ? please guide. Is it possible to download these fonts and integrate on wikipedia ?Vadhod (talk) 11:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

There are no chief editors, just us normal ones. :-) Are you referring to this article? Changing the fonts on a user's computer isn't possible from here; the user would have to already have the font, otherwise it doesn't matter what the website specifies. If the symbols used are the wrong ones then we should just change the symbol written in the article to the correct one; if the correct symbol is likely to not occur in most fonts then we can mention a link to where such a font can be obtained, perhaps. Can you give an example of some incorrect symbols and what the corrections should be? --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 11:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I checked on Kutchi language, the text given looks like Gujarāti to my untrained eye. Do you mean that the words are spelt wrongly, or it is not displaying on your computer? If it's not displaying on your computer you might like to check the information in Help:Multilingual support (Indic). --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 11:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] English = Latin?

Is English the Latin of the XXI century? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.6.118.85 (talk) 12:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, can you clarify the question? English is a modern lingua franca like Latin once was, if that's what you meant. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 12:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Latin was later used to intentionally obscure things, such as religion, so you had to believe whatever the Church told you, since you couldn't read the Bible yourself, and, to this day, law, so you must hire an expensive lawyer, since you can't understand the Latin terms yourself. English isn't used that way, as far as I know, yet. Perhaps if it someday becomes a dead language they will use it that way. StuRat (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say either of those were intentionally made obscure; they were rendered in Latin long ago, when it was more widespread, and then became obscure as it fell out of use. I make no judgement on whether the legal profession, as a body, intentionally keep their terms of art obscure in Latin for job security purposes, but I suppose it's not impossible! :-) If English dies out (hurry the day!) then existing English texts will obviously become obscure too (until somebody translates them).

Personally I'm quite fond of Latin, maybe I'm biased in some fashion!

--_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 14:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Blog this..."

The term "blog" is an abbreviation for "web log", but is unusual in that it drops letters at the start of the word rather than the end. Do we have a list of similar abbreviations ? StuRat (talk) 14:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

phone, from telephone. I'm sure there are more. -- Q Chris (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

See Clipping (morphology)#Fore-clipping for a few examples. One not included there is bus (from omnibus). Deor (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

And "plane" from "aeroplane"/"airplane". I'm sure we could go on for a while. :-P --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 14:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Copter, dropsy, toon.  --Lambiam 16:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Cello. —Angr 17:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Not trying to hijack the question, but I think there's a slight difference, because "web" and "log" are both words, so if they follow the other examples, shouldn't it just be dropped to "log"? Are there other examples where two existing words (or prefixes/suffixes) are joined as one word, like "telephone", but when it got shortened, turned to part of one word + the full second word? Sorry, this is hard to explain for me, so I'll give an example using "telephone" again. Like, tele + phone became telephone, but shortened to lephone instead of just phone (like in the case of blog). --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 17:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

In Moroccan Arabic a car is called "tomobile". ---Sluzzelin talk 17:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've had some cars that could accurately be called "tow-mobiles". :-) StuRat (talk) 23:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

And "copter" comes close, as "helicopter" is etymologically a compound "helico-" + "pter-". —Angr 17:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

"Dropsy" might also be one, though it's unclear whether Greek hydrōps is actually a compound of hydr- "water" + ōps "face". —Angr 17:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Neo-classical words like hydropsy are hard to analyze. They may be considered compounds or something in-between. If you consider hydr-opsy a compound, then (hy)dr-opsy this is exactly like (we)b-log.

I wonder for how many people the word helicopter is considered to be segmentable. It may depend on knowledge of etymology, which may not be native knowledge.

It's clear, though, that the place where a word is clipped doesnt have to be at a morpheme boundary from clipped forms derived from single morpheme words: rent(s) < parent(s), fro < afro, Kev < Kevin, coon < raccoon.

Finding a compound of free words (and not bound elements) that was clipped from the middle of the first free word to the beginning is hard. I cant think of any. But it's easy to find a clipping with the first free word in a compound being clipped from the end: mutt < mutt(on-head), poke < pock(et-book), pub < pub(lic-house), coke < coc(a-cola) (but maybe people cant analyze the cola as being a real word).

And there are more with multiple morpheme words that arent compounds: bike < bi-c(ycle), pram < p(e)r-am(bulate-or) (the e in per- is not clipped, this is just phonological reduction).

A somewhat different one is org-man from org(anization)-man.

Chemical ones have interesting clippings too: parylene < par(a-x)yl-ene.

None of these are quite like blog but they are similar (more or less). – ishwar  (speak) 18:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should ask Topher Grace. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Or Xander Berkeley. --Deor (talk) 22:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. There's quite a few. Too bad we don't have them all in a handy list. (Clipping (morphology)#Fore-clipping only had a few.) StuRat (talk) 23:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June 14

[edit] Is there a name for this kind of fallacy/rebuttal?

For example, if a person argues "Abortion is wrong because the fetus could be the one who found the cure to cancer", I can argue that "It could also be the person who starts WWIII..."

Another example: Person 1: "The government should listen to the protesters, because it could lead to democracy." Person 2: "without the necessary condition for democracy, the country could also fall into chaos..."

So the point is, something cannot be proven right or wrong when there's an equal chance that it might have a positive/negative result. So does this fallacy/rebuttal have a name? Cecikierk

It's an example of proof by example. --Anonymous, 00:49 UTC, June 14, 2008.

Not exactly. It most likely resembles an appeal to consequences, where the positive and negative forms can be used to support the two abortion arguments respectively. This fallacy stems from wishful thinking. Kreachure (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Kreach has it wrong here, unless the appeal to consequences article is significantly misleading. In the form of argument described there, Person 1 would be saying "The government will listen to the protesters, because it could lead to democracy." In the actual fallacy we're being asked about, the person gives an example of why the thing could be good, and concludes that it is good. (Or bad, as the case may be.) Proof by example. --Anon, 23:10 UTC, June 14.

Note: this question was also asked over on the Humanities reference desk, and various other answers have been suggested there. --Anon, 23:25 UTC, June 14.

[edit] pronunciation

Is it important to teach pronunciation for ESL students? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.186.27.95 (talk) 00:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

They need to be able to distinguish the basic phonemes of English in their speech to be understood clearly, and learning to distinguish those phonemes will also improve their listening skills. So I think that it is important to teach basic pronunciation. However, I don't think that it is necessary or desirable to try to perfect their pronunciation. In fact, for many students, it may not be possible to perfect their pronunciation. Marco polo (talk) 01:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anglo-Norman

Where does the ISO code xno come from for this language? Or does it have no meaning? Nadando (talk) 03:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems like x codes are for languages that would otherwise conflict with a different code (ang is Old English and ano is Andoque, in ISO 639). Adam Bishop (talk) 13:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] German grammar

Mann kann Schellings philosophische Entwicklung als von Brüchen, Sprüngen, wechselnden Grundanschauungen durchzogen betrachten.

In the above sentence, what is the grammatical role of the word "durchzogen"? It seems to be the past participle of "durchziehen". But couldn't "durchzogen" also be "durch" + "zogen" (zog, the past tense of ziehen, +en)? Is the whole part of "als von Brüchen, Sprüngen, wechselnden Grundanschauungen durchzogen" an extended contruction predicating Entwicklung, or is it a subordinate clause?

(I can somehow guess the meaning of this sentence. So, my concern is of its grammatical construction.)

Any illustrative explanation is appreciated.

Yes, "durchzogen" could also be the plural of the past tense of "durchziehen", but in this sentence it's actually the past participle. Your first guess is right: "als ... durchzogen" is a phrase predicating "Entwicklung", not a subordinate clause. The construction is "als X betrachten" = "to regard as X". Building up from the simplest sentence it goes as follows:

• Man betrachtet die Entwicklung als durchzogen.
• Man kann die Entwicklung als durchzogen betrachten.
• Man kann Schellings philosophische Entwicklung als durchzogen betrachten.
• Man kann Schellings philosophische Entwicklung als [von Brüchen ... durchzogen] betrachten.

Make sense? —Angr 15:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] neutral insults

Is there a name for neutral insults (like "asshole", "dick", "bitch") opposed to insults that include other people (like "faggot", "nigger")? GoingOnTracks (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Huh? —Angr 21:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I assume you mean insults that don't purport to allocate the victim to some minority group (racial, sexual preference), as opposed to those that do. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Using the word "neutral" in the question above was perhaps somehow misleading. I meant something like that. Of course, insults that don't allocate the victim to any group - minority or not. Simply, insults that do not include other people. If I call you "asshole", not other people will feel included, since it is no social, cultural, sexual or whatever group. That is: is there a name for non-third-party-including insults? GoingOnTracks (talk) 23:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard of one. And I think "bitch" may not be the best example, as it may be considered to fall into the same class as "faggot" and "nigger". —Angr 23:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June 15

[edit] Hyphen-help-request

Being too lazy to slog through Hyphen, how do I handle "his second hand car salesman friend"? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I would turn second-hand into a compound word, secondhand, then hyphenate: His secondhand-car-salesman friend. It's still not as clear as a rewording might be, but I think it's clear enough. Mitchell k dwyer (talk) 09:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Does it matter? The hyphens suggested by Mitchell look strange and there is no abiguity in the phrase. Apart from making the compound word secondhand, I wouldn't bother with any hyphens. Astronaut (talk) 11:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Heliciculture

Could someone give me the etymology of this word? I know it's probably related to the snail genus Helix but beyond that I'm not sure. Thanks. Nadando (talk) 05:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

For helix (see also article) etymonline has: "1563, from L. [Latin] helix "spiral," from Gk. [Greek] helix (gen. helikos), related to eilein "to turn, twist, roll," from PIE base *wel- "to turn, revolve"."

The word culture in the sense of farming or growing a biological entity in a controlled environment is closer to the Latin verb colere ("cultivate, tend, guard, till") than culture in the sense of "patterns of human activity and the symbolic structures that give such activities significance and importance". ---Sluzzelin talk 05:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh is it just directly taken from the word helix? I guess I expected something else. Thanks. Nadando (talk) 05:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the genus Helix was named for its twisted spiraling or "coiling" shell. (See also gastropod shell), and since the famed escargot seem to originally and principally refer to Helix aspersa and Helix pomatia it's probably what gave the art of breeding any snail its modern name. I wonder whether slug-farming would be arioniculture, since it lacks a shell, but helical fits most land snails. I guess it's something akin to a genericized trademark or maybe a synecdoche? Just in case, derivations of Latin words ending in -ix become -ic when followed by a vowel. (felix >> felicitas >> felicity; matrix >> matricula >> matriculate; helix >> helical, heliciculture, ...)

[edit] Grammar question

Is this grammatically incorrect: "please enter here your account password"? ----Seans Potato Business 07:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not grammatically incorrect, but the placement of "here" is awkward. Move it to the end. Michael Slone (talk) 07:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

... or leave out the "here" completely - the location of where one should enter their password is implied to be in the box (or space) following the phrase. Astronaut (talk) 11:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation of a poem by T.S Eliot

I haven't understood a few of the lines from the poem "Journey of the Magi" by T.S Eliot. Can someone please help me?

...And an old white horse galloped away in the meadow.

Does the "old white horse" refer to Jesus Christ coming as "the conqueror"??Also:

...Hard and bitter agony for us, like Death, our death

Why does "death" begin with a capital "D"? Is it personified? And what does Eliot mean by "our death"? How can the Magus be dead, given that he is the one narrating the story??
Thanks in advance!! 117.194.226.74 (talk) 09:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Different interpetations exist of the old white horse galloping away: the one that makes most sense to me is that it represents paganism making place for Christianity (which is symbolized in the previous line by the "three trees on the low sky", a reference to the three crosses on Golgotha). As for Death, yes, I think it is capitalized because it is a personification, or at least something more mystical than mere biological death. When the magus speaks of "our death", he may be thinking of the old way of life that has come to an end, or of the different views of death that exist in paganism ("our death") and in Christianity ("another death"). DAVID ŠENEK 11:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)