Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Language/2006 September 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< September 12 Language desk archive September 14 >
Humanities Science Mathematics Computing/IT Language Miscellaneous Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions at one of the pages linked to above.
< August September October >


Contents

[edit] September 13

[edit] Can "ones" be used as a possessive pronoun?

I don't mean in the case of things like "One must do one's duty," but for things like "A person must do ones duty," that is, referring back to a noun other than "one." I have never heard such a usage and it strikes me as very ungrammatical, but an editor on my talk page said that "ones" (without apostrophe) is a gender-neutral alternative to "his" in such situations that "has a long history as part of English usage." Is this correct? -Elmer Clark 00:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

No. It would be more correct to use "their" in that case, and I'm sure we all know how incorrect some people think that is :) Adam Bishop 00:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Why let such trifle matters as grammar stand in the way of overthrowing the prevalent imperialism of gender normativism? =S 惑乱 分からん 00:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm in favor of "their" as a singular possessive pronoun, but not everyone agrees. In the example you give, the safest construction would be, "A person must do his or her duty." It's clunky but gender neutral and unobjectionable. "A person must do ones duty" misses a vital apostrophe and looks nonstandard to me. Durova 02:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I also agree with "their" as a singular possessive pronoun. You can't use "one's" here, but wherever you do use "one's" as a possessive pronoun, it needs an apostrophe. "Ones" without an apostrophe is a plural noun ("I like these ones, but not those ones"). JackofOz 02:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the best correction is "People must do their duties". If you're generalizing people anyway, why make it a singular? I am very much against the user of "their" as a singular possessive, but I'm also against the idea of changing a noun for an improper pronoun - the pronoun of "person" is "him", not "one". "One" is a specific person, even if it's a general term. I guess it's hard to explain, but I don't think you can use "a person" and "one" interchangeably. —Keakealani 02:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I totally agree with the last post. It's never impossible to rewrite the sentence so that "their" as a singular and "his or her" are avoided. --Richardrj talk email 07:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
But in the above case, "People must do their duties" could be interpreted as meaning that each person had multiple separate duties, as opposed to just one singular duty. "A person must do their duty" (or, "People must do their duty") have the advantage of being unambiguous, whatever you think about singular "they". EdC 12:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Do we know what the background is to this question? What exactly is the problem with "One must do one's duty"? I know that the original poster asked about "A person must do one's duty", and there is nothing much wrong with that except that we don't have any way of knowing what the "one" is referring to, as if we had said "My mother must do his duty", in which case we have to wonder who the "his" is referring to. Anyway none of the alternatives offered are as pithy as the simple and correct "one must do one's duty". Leeborkman 06:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Start with Gender-neutral pronoun, though I admit the section on English is rather short. Ones' without the apostrophe is clearly modelled on 'its' etc, but is new to me: I suspect your correspondent is an advocate for yet another solution to the problem.
The fact is that from the demise of the gender-neutral words mentioned in the article until the latter half of the twentieth century most English speakers were quite content to use 'he' for a unspecific pronoun, but 'they' has also been in use for the purpose for at least 200 years (http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html). I suspect that most people are quite happy to use 'they' in everyday speech, but many people think it appropriate in more formal speech and writing. ColinFine 19:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks guys, this is what I assumed was the case, but the user on my talk page seemed quite sure... -Elmer Clark 00:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Idiom definition

Hi, In my dictionary, one of the senses for the word 'idiom' is defined as "...expression that is peculiar to itself either grammatically (as no, it wasn't me) or in having a meaning that cannot be derived from the conjoined meaning of its elements..." What I can't figure out is what makes "no, it wasn't me" an idiom. How is it grammatically peculiar to itself? This is probably a stupid question and the answer is probably ridiculously obvious, but I have thought about it and just don't see it. So, can someone please help me out? Thanks for your time.

I can't be sure what the author was thinking, but perhaps it is this. In many languages that have cases, in an identity-asserting sentence like "A is B", both A and B are in the nominative case. This is so in Latin, which was historically seen as the shining example of how a non-barbaric language's grammar ought to be. But in English, you say "It is me", where "me" is in some objective case. As this does not fit the Latin model, it is "odd". A possible other aspect viewed as odd is the order of the two parts. In German, you'd say, literally translated: "I am it". English follows the French model here. --LambiamTalk 04:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
To clarify: "It wasn't me" is not grammatically peculiar, but the dictionary writer may have thought it was. --Ptcamn 04:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The theory about the other languages is a good idea, but I left out part of the definion, which specifies that it is an expression in the usage of a language that is peculiar to itself.
The other languages are not relevant except as an explanation of why so many people have the screwy idea that "It wasn't me" is ungrammatical in English. ColinFine 19:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Just to quiten my fevered brain, what is the rule that makes this acceptable grammatically? I know it's perfectly fine idiomatically ... but grammatically, it doesn't seem to do the job at all. JackofOz 20:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
It's simple: modern-day English "me" is no longer an accusative pronoun. As for what it is if not that, I don't know; the Cambridge Grammar probably has some useful terminology. --Ptcamn 21:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
No,
  • the person who did this was not I (nominative). OR
  • I (nominative) was not the person who did this evil deed.

(Im always saying that)--Light current 21:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

However,

--Light current 21:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Ablative?! In English? The case expressing "to" or "for" is dative, also. --Ptcamn 22:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not in English? Sorry I meant dative. Its been a long time!--Light current 22:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

In languages like Latin, nouns and pronouns actually have separate forms for most/all the cases. puellā is ablative, puellae is dative, etc. TheseÇ cases aren't universal: another language might divide would Latin calls the "ablative" in two, three or more distinct cases. But this doesn't meant that Latin's ablative is actually several different cases which all coincidentally have identical forms, and similarly, English does not have a separate ablative case that it doesn't have any distinct forms for. --Ptcamn 23:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The point is that, grammatically speaking, "me" is used only after oblique cases such as the accusative. If that's not true, then why is it correct to say: "Ptcamn, your assertion that "me" is no longer an accusative pronoun surprises me"? JackofOz 22:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Under real, natural English grammar, "me" is allowed to be used in certain situations where it is a subject, or the complement of the copula. This is objective, and can be observed in the speech of people all over the world.
Under some artificial, prescriptivist grammars, such may be considered incorrect. But these grammars are not objective—which rules you choose to adhere to and which rules you ignore are just based on the whim of the standardizer—and I see no reason why we should follow any particular person's idea of what grammar "should" be over any other grammar. --Ptcamn 23:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeees ... but doesn't that mean that people can just make it up as they go along? There would never be any point in asking whether a particular form of words is OK or not, because who is anybody else to say what's "right" or "wrong"? What is the point of having any English grammar rules at all, if nothing is ever going to be tested against them? JackofOz 00:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
People don't just make it up as they go along. They are pretty consistent. Even someone who doesn't know what the word "grammar" means could tell you that "Me and my friends went to the movies." sounds perfectly natural, while **"Me went to the movies alone." is not something a native speaker would ever say in normal conversation. --Ptcamn 00:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Now surely you're getting into the area of common usage, and quite away from grammar. No grammar (or at least, not one that I would place any faith in) would ever sanction "Me and my friends went to the movies" as grammatically correct. JackofOz 00:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Linguists recognize that "common usage" does have its own grammar. When a linguist says something is "grammatically incorrect", they mean it is something a native speaker would never utter, and rejects when it's said by a non-native speaker. Speakers of languages that have never had a grammar written for them still have the ability to reject sentences that don't follow the rules.
What criteria are you using to decide what grammars merit your faith, anyway? --Ptcamn 01:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
You've made two conflicting statements above: (A) "I see no reason why we should follow any particular person's idea of what grammar "should" be over any other grammar". (B) "Under real, natural English grammar, "me" is allowed to be used in certain situations where ....". Therefore, before I answer your last question, my question to you is: If no one person can say what is correct grammar (per A), then who can say what exceptions are allowed (per B)? I'm a native speaker of English. To me, "Me and my friends went to the movies" does not sound "perfectly natural". It sounds ignorant and lazy. Do you speak that way? Even if I were to agree that this is an acceptable exception (which I don't), any talk of exceptions assumes the existence of commonly agreed rules (which are my criteria). Either there is a set of rules (with a moving feast of exceptions) - or there are no rules. You cannot have it both ways. JackofOz 02:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
In (A), I said that "I see no reason why we should follow any particular person's idea of what grammar "should" be", as opposed to the grammar that is already in force, (B). It's true that no one person can say what is correct grammar, but that doesn't mean there are no rules. The rules are not decided or agreed upon by anyone—they're simply the way the English language is. --Ptcamn 04:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, so where do you get your information about the way it "is"? Does that source purport to cover all the different varieties of English that exist in the world today? JackofOz 07:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
"Me" in the phrase "it's only me" is a demonstrative pronoun, which happens to have the same form as the accusative.

JackofOz, Ptcamn is correct to say that even the most non-standard forms of English (or whatever) have their own internal grammar. For example in parts of north-eastern England, the past simple and past participle are switched (compared with standard English). "I have went" is correct for them and children naturally pick up that that is the only gramatically acceptable form in their dialect. I.e, there is one set of grammar rules for standard English , but all the other varieties of English have their own grammars which are just as clear-cut and consistent for native speakers. Jameswilson 23:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, James. I understand that. This conversation started with Ptcamn and ColinFine both saying that there's nothing grammatically exceptional with "It wasn't me" (I assume they were talking about standard English because they didn't specify). Later, Ptcamn defended "Me and my friends went to the movies" as grammatically correct. Ptcamn asserts that these sentences are ok because they conform to how the English language "is". He hasn't explained how he came to that conclusion (sorry if he's a she), or where it is recorded just what the English language is at the present time. He acknowledges the existence of rules of grammar, but does not agree that these sentences break any of those rules. This seems to have come down to the position that certain turns of phrase that were previously considered ungrammatical, are now considered grammatical, because one or two persons say so. I remain just as unconvinced about this as I was 2 days ago. JackofOz 02:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, I see. I dont know what percentage of people have to change before one can say that the grammar has changed. And does everyone count equally? If one is talking about standard English should one only accept changes made by educated people? Should young people count more or less? etc, etc. Jameswilson 23:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Good questions. And very pertinent to my query about whether it's possible to make authoritative statements about what the language "is". Of course language changes constantly, but how do we know when a particular change has now acquired general acceptance? The qualifications you mention are but two of many that must be satisfied before that claim can be made without objections from disagreeable characters such as I (or should that be "me"?). JackofOz 04:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, strictly speaking English doesn't have a single grammar. It has many (slightly) different grammars, and choosing which grammars count towards "the" English grammar and which are ignored as variations is based more on whose speech you want the standard to be rather than on any actual linguistic considerations.
However, these usages of "me" are very widespread and quite old, not just new slangy or regional innovations. The OED dates the "me and my friends"-type usage back to the late 14th century, and the "It wasn't me"-type usage to the late 16th, including a quote from Shakespeare. (And note that innovations are often found in speech for a long time before they make it into writing.) I think it would be hard to find a variety which doesn't use "me" that way, besides people who self-consciously alter their speech towards what they think it should be. --Ptcamn 05:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure your position has a sound theoretical basis, but my concern is that it is very likely to be misinterpreted. Some poor school kid will read this thread, and go away believing that it's perfectly ok to speak and write things like "Me and my friends went to the movies", and when questioned by their parents or teachers, they will say that the experts at Wikipedia said it was ok. I think that would be a great shame. JackofOz 23:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
If you wouldnt say: 'Me went to the movies', why do you think its ok to say 'Me (and my friends) went to the movies'? BTW Its between you and me. 8-)--Light current 23:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that what is standard is often a question of choosing some elite group in society (whether by education or prestige) and saying that the standard must be the way they speak (rather than starting with the language itself). This is obviously elitist but it is the way it has traditionally been determined. The problem nowadays is that this has broken down in other areas - the way we should dress for example is no longer led by the "pillars of society". Instead it is young people (or those that sell them clothes) who effectively decide. The same thing is happening in language too but resistance is greater. JackofOz (and all of us to some extent) will probably accept that it is no longer de rigueur to wear black to a funeral but will be much more resistent to the idea of the presiding clergyman referring to "me and my flock". Jameswilson 00:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, most language change does come from young people. I accept that. However, young people (and not so young people) have been saying "Me and my friends did ABC" for centuries, yet it has never gained an iota of acceptance amongst those who hand out advice about how to speak and write good English (as distinct from those who advise on how to speak English good). There are such people as English teachers, and we have been trained to accept what they say, by and large. Do you propose to change this arrangement? JackofOz 06:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] law question

I asked this at the other place as well.

You're a lwayer and in court and you have a prosecution case your proesucting and you cna't raise the convictions what the criminal your proseduting has had in the past, unless teh defense bring it up. What is this callled? Is it latin or rench?

Meaning no offense, and not knowing the answer to this question, I've restated the question in the hopes of making it a bit clearer:
A prosecutor is not allowed to bring up any prior convictions of the defendant unless the defense mentions them first. What is this legal principle called? Is the name Latin or French? (Note: I have no idea what jurisdictions this is actually true in.) Tesseran 23:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Its generally true in England but I dont remember having heard a French or Latin phrase for it. Jameswilson 23:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plural form of "ozone"

Is there a plural form of the word "ozone"? If so, what is it?

Ozone is a mass noun. — Dunc|☺ 15:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
...therefore there isn't a regular plural form. -- the GREAT Gavini 15:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
If there were a plural form (which is likely in the case of proper nouns), it would be ozones. AEuSoes1 20:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
It's a form of oxygen. There's no plural for that either. DirkvdM 06:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, thinking about it no. Oxygens can be used as a plural count noun when referring to an oxygen as an atom. Similarly, ozones (O3) could be used when referring to multiple molecules of ozone, as in "3 ozones decay to 2 diatomic oxygens". But that's a bit obscure. — Dunc|☺ 12:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you can use these supposed plurals like that. *"Two hydrogens plus one oxygen make one water, so four hydrogens plus two oxygens make two waters." Shudder. --LambiamTalk 16:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Another possible use of the plural oxygens is when referring to different isotopes of oxygen. What if you were talking about ozone molecules with different molecular weights, analogous to heavy water versus normal water? Might you then speak of several different ozones? —Bkell (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
And different waters? (Not to be confused with "where silent waters flow".) DirkvdM 06:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Old English Translation

My daughter, only 11, has homework to translate 8 word into old english. First of all we are not sure if it is old or Middle english the teacher is after...but also...we cannot find anywhere on the internet to do this....the words are simple...like school, magazine (or equivalient), pyjamas..etc...please help....I told her I would find a link, but she muist do the work heself as she spent an hour search (as I have as well)...Thanks!!!

I don't understand this homework. You could check out Old English language, slthough my impression is that she's supposed to realize for himself that these are more modern loanwords for concepts which Old English lacked... =S Anyway, please return here when the homework is finished and the teacher has explained the point behind it. Which words are you supposed to translate? 惑乱 分からん 18:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The word school is very old, and the OED gives the Old English as scól. Magazine is from Old French magazin and pajamas is from the Persian and Urdu paë (paÿ) jamah and only entered the English language in the 19th century.--Shantavira 18:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
For the record, "magazine" (i.e. of paper) is early 18th century. -- the GREAT Gavini 18:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) *winces* Harsh homework! If it's Old English (Anglo-Saxon), this is quite useful. But pyjamas? And magazine? I'd like to know what the teacher who set the homework was thinking... -- the GREAT Gavini 18:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
That's why I thought the homework really was about learning loanwords. I have trouble finding a reasonable matter for giving such a task to normal 11 year-olds. 惑乱 分からん 19:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

An interesting site to find where words came from, and if they have an Old English translation, is the Online Etymology Dictionary at http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=s&p=7 . Edison 21:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

A magazine is a storehouse. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Originally, yeah, I'd guess so... 惑乱 分からん 06:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Old English is almost completely unrecognizable. I suspect the teacher meant old modern English, not Old English. I noticed my grandmother had a completely different vocabulary from me:

Me       Grandma
======== ===========
pants    trousers
faucet   spicket
glasses  spectacles

Maybe that's the type of translation they mean ? For this type of translation, pajamas might be "night clothes", for example. StuRat 12:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Spigot, not "spicket". Although your transliteration does approximate the common pronunciation. --LarryMac 14:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Mine is an accepted variation, according to at least one dictionary: [1]. StuRat 09:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish question

what is ` my name is laura ` in spanish?

Either (literally) "Mi nombre es Laura" (mih NOM-breh ess) or more commonly "Me llamo Laura" (meh YAAH-moh), (literally "I call myself...") 惑乱 分からん 19:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Ay dios mío, spelling pronunciation. In IPA it's [me ˈʎamo] or [me ˈʝamo] depending on dialect. The literal translation isn't nearly as common. Also, laura is pronounced differently but I can't remember if the a and u constitute a diphthong like the ou in house or if they're separate syllables. AEuSoes1 20:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think they constitute a diphtong, although with a regular /u/ sound. 惑乱 分からん 21:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Spanish 'laura' is pronounced kind of like 'lowry' as in Malcolm Lowry, except the 'r' is softened, halfway between a 'r' and a 'd', with a flick of the tongue on the hard palate. Don't know if that's what you're wondering, lol. And I'm assuming the way I've always pronounced 'lowry' is correct; it's the same 'ow' sound as in 'growl'. Anchoress 07:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Not trying to criticise, but do you think that someone who doesn't know how to say "My name is Laura" in Spanish would understand IPA symbols? -- Mwalcoff 22:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
It is more exact, and it's thoroughly explained on Wikipedia, for people who would be interested... I thought a more English-like pronunciation approach would be better here (although I'm not a native speaker, myself, and don't always do it correctly).惑乱 分からん 23:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I know it is more exact, but I doubt it would be much help for the person who asked the question in this case. -- Mwalcoff 23:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Anyone can look up the IPA characters if they'd like. The questioner may not know IPA but I figure giving both guides can be helpful. And I'm anal about pronunciation. AEuSoes1 06:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] crossword help

could u help with these clues

conduct hostilities(4,3) wage war --Richardrj talk email 19:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

nuclear weapon (_-bomb) a or h --Richardrj talk email 19:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

obscure sinister(4) dark --Richardrj talk email 19:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

pink wading bird (8) flamingo --Richardrj talk email 19:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

(user of ) standard textbook (6) reader --Richardrj talk email 19:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

amble (6) stroll --Richardrj talk email 19:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

enthusiastic (5) eager --Richardrj talk email 19:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

relating to holtilities (7) martial? --Richardrj talk email 19:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

warlike? User:Zoe|(talk) 02:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

give the final blow (to keep the pot warm ) (3,3,3,2,2) put the lid on it --Richardrj talk email 19:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

fruit of the may tree 93) haw --Richardrj talk email 19:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

sailing boat (4)starts with y yawl --Richardrj talk email 19:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

victor of agincourt (i want to know if it is henry the fifth ???) yes --Richardrj talk email 19:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

rush voilently (6) hurtle --Marco polo 19:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

sharer of accomodation (8) flatmate --Richardrj talk email 19:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

roommate. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

mischievous spirit (9) hobgoblin --Richardrj talk email 19:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

very low priced (4-5) dirt cheap --Richardrj talk email 19:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

borders' town with abbey (8) possibly Jedburgh --Richardrj talk email 19:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

unexceptional (6) normal --Richardrj talk email 19:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

vision (5) sight -- the GREAT Gavini 19:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

remind (with elbow or stick)(4) prod --Richardrj talk email 19:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

fate -auction item (3) lot --Richardrj talk email 19:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

sorry for the long list seems like im no good at crosswords ,but i love doing tem even if u guys solve it way before me , thanx in advanceMightright 19:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, you might need to suitly emphazi your voilent holtilities. :) JackofOz 20:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Someone with "voilent holtilities" is unable to keep them in the holster. :-) StuRat 12:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Try this site: http://dictionary.reference.com/crossword/index.html. It is a crossword puzzle dictionary. You enter the clue and as much of the unknown word as you can.

doctor or lawyer's record (is it practice or casebook)Mightright it is casebook. --Richardrj talk email 05:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Shafted"

My sister told me that the term "shafted" comes from crypts (specifically in New Orleans), when to make room for a new body, an older body is pushed into the shaft at the back of the ledge it was resting on. Can anyone verify that?

According to Wentworth and Flexner, "getting the shaft" (being taken advantage of etc.) refers to the image of having something, such as a barbed shaft, inserted up one's rectum.---Sluzzelin 21:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
If you ve been shafted, youve been f**ked.--Light current 22:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I always though it came from the t.v. show. schyler 23:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a "classic" country song whose lyrics run something like "We got divorced, and she got the gold mine, while I got she shaft"... AnonMoos 11:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
The lyric is "...I got the shaft". But, I suppose, in the case of divorce, you could call it the "she shaft". :-) StuRat 12:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editing

Does a comma follow also.....and is Northern Irag in caps..i.e....there are many areas in Northern Iraq, what about Southern Syria...

Northern/southern/etc. are capitalized when they are part of the name of a formal administrative region (e.g. Western Australia). If it's simply a geographic area, the adjective is left in lowercase. --Ptcamn 23:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

In general, commas are not used in conjunction with also. For example, "He also owned three dogs and a cow." Do you have a specific example? +AstoVidatu 13 September 2006

The only situation I can think of where you would is in sentences beginning with also, e.g. "Also, I'm not sure you're correct." -Elmer Clark 04:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

That's what I thought too, but it just sounds awkard. There are better ways to organize sentences than to start them with "Also." --AstoVidatu 04:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can somebody help me?

Can a person and a dog have a baby?

Assuming your question means 'can people and dogs interbreed', the answer is no. Dogs can interbreed with coyotes and jackals. Being of the same species, they can also breed with wolves. It's genetically impossible even for foxes and dogs to interbreed, let alone humans and dogs. See canid hybrids. WP describes Cynocephaly as a 'condition', but if it is a condition, it's a mythological one.---Sluzzelin 02:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

As said above, it is impossible for a dog/human hybrid to occur. A popular misconception is that the first sperm to reach the egg fertilizes it. In fact, there is a membrane surrounding the egg that prevents just anything from fertilizing it. The first sperm (plural) to reach the egg bind to this membrane, and break it apart. Only when this membrane is broken can the egg be fertilized. There are some exceptions to this rule (i.e. a Horse + Donkey = Mule), but even then, the hybrids are infertile, due to disproportionate numbers of chromosome pairs. AstoVidatu14 September 2006

If you are living alone with a dog, then if you get pregnant (by a man) then you and the dog will have the baby living with you (obviously). But you may just want to stick with the dog -- its cheaper as dogs only live for about 7 yrs whereas you have to look after a child for 18 yrs.--Light current 02:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Your dogs only live for 7 years ? Other people's dogs live twice as long. You do need to feed them occasionally, you know. :-) StuRat 12:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe dogs move out and get a job when they turn 7? Just like his kids?  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  12:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
7 years is not an unreasonable life expectancy for certain "giant" breeds of dog like Mastiffs and Great Danes. Rmhermen 15:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't even want to think about what prompted this question. --Dweller 09:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Curiosity? Black Carrot 15:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)