Revision as of 22:40, 7 December 2010

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

• WP:RD/L

Main page: Help searching Misplaced Pages

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

December 1

Pronounciation

We have a question regarding pronounciation of a character word. The character word is spelled "Egor", the humpback slave character. How do we correctly pronounce the name??? Is it "eee-gor" or is it "i-gor". We are having a family fun time with this and any response is appreciated. Thank-you in advance,

Bart and Brooke and Kathy. Blessings —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.127.5.49 (talk) 02:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The conventional spelling of the hunch-backed assistant to a mad scientist is "Igor (fictional character)". The name itself comes from Eastern Europe (see Igor (given name)), and is usually pronounced "eee-gor". This convention was notably changed in the film "Young Frankenstein", where the character Igor (Young Frankenstein) tells Dr. Frederick Frankenstein that his name is pronounced "eye-gor", after Fredrick pronounces his last name as "Fronkensteen". -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 02:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) See Igor (given name). It's always pronounced with an "ee" opening syllable by Russians, although I have heard the "eye" version spoken by Americans (a la "eye-ris" for Iris). Yegor, sometimes spelt Egor, is a variant of the Russian equivalent of George, and unrelated to Igor. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 02:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if anyone said "eye-gor" prior to the film Young Frankenstein. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Cognate

What are some false cognates (words that look similar but not etymologically related) that are similar in meaning between English and any other language (especially the languages with less contact with English). I'm excluding the obvious "mama" and "papa" and probably "nana" too. 24.92.78.167 (talk) 03:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

See False cognate, oddly enough... --Jayron32 03:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Might the false cognate be in some sense equivalent or similar to the biological Convergent evolution? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I would say no, because in convergent evolution the gross similarities between the two phenotypes (which are expressions of rather different genotypes) are selected for by the similarities in their environments, whereas in the case of false cognates their 'linguistic environments' are quite dissimilar and the resemblances are down to sheer statistical chance. Dissenting assessments welcome, of course. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 13:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking for a word

Me again :) I'm looking for a word that means "time right before" or "prelude" as in the time right before a war. I'm thinking it has *fore in it. 24.92.78.167 (talk) 03:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

On the eve of X. See and . Oda Mari (talk) 05:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Vietnamese help

• How do you say "Logo of the Houston Independent School District" in Vietnamese?
• The image that needs the description is at: File:HoustonISDVietnameseLogo.PNG
• "Houston Independent School District" in Vietnamese is "Khu Học Chánh Houston"

WhisperToMe (talk) 03:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Poston (Japanese American internment camp)

What is the pronunciation of the Japanese American internment camp "Poston" used in World War II? 99.13.195.179 (talk) 05:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Rhymes with "Boston", the city in MA. Roger (talk) 09:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

So then /ˈpɔstɨn/ (/ˈpɑstɨn/ˈpastɨn/ with the cot-caught merger)?—msh210℠ 16:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Who or what was it named for (or after)? The actor Tom Poston pronounced his name like "postin'". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. 99.13.195.179 (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Mail Administrator's grasp of English, or mine?

I keep getting emails from someone called Mail Administrator stating that "This Message was undeliverable due to the following reason". Surely it is not necessary to use both the words "due" and "reason". Why not just "This Message was undeliverable due to" or "This Message was undeliverable because"--Shantavira| 10:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

"This Message" — or, better, "message" — "was undeliverable because:" works pretty well, but "...due to" doesn't if what follows is, for example, a clause. (E.g., "... due to: The user could not be found" is comprehensible, certainly, but bad English.) Even better might be "undeliverable. Reason:". As for the original, "...due to the following reason", it sounds stilted and is certainly redundant, as you say.—msh210℠ 15:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

See http://web.ku.edu/~edit/because.html. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not particularly good English, but is there any doubt as to the meaning? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

'Due to' is a preposition, and needs a noun. 'Reason' is the noun. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

But it's not undeliverable due to a reason, as though a reason came along and jammed the mail queue. There is a reason x it's undeliverable, and it's undeliverable due to x. Marnanel (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The following sentence is the reason, of course, and the word 'reason' tells us it's the reason. I really have no problem with this. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Change it to ""This Message was undeliverable for the following reason"? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

That's good, though, again, with a lowercase message.—msh210℠ 22:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Doh! Quite right: lowercase message. I blame case-sensitive computer programming for this - A 'Message' is something entirely different to a 'message' in Java for example. This tends to encourage unthinking retention of case when copying prose... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm stunned that any of you expect great English from the kind of nerd who usually exercises the power to create such automatically generated messages. HiLo48 (talk) 22:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Good grief: what an insulting piece of prejudice. Marnanel (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a job I have done myself. With all due humility, I know that I had a much better grasp of good English expression than a lot of others I encountered in similar roles. It may be a bias based on my location in Australia, where a high proportion of people studying and working in IT are relatively recent immigrants of south east Asian background. Great IT skills, but not a great knowledge of idiomatic or formally correct use of English. Pure OR being displayed by me here, so feel free to ignore it. HiLo48 (talk) 08:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

My father, an electrical engineer, has made the same observation about his colleagues' writing skills. It's not utterly ridiculous to suppose that verbal eloquence and technical competence are quite often inversely proportionate, if only because modern educational methods encourage the development of the one at the expense of the other. LANTZY 02:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

due is an adjective which needs a noun, and the only one available is message — but the message is due to the (intended) recipient! —Tamfang (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Do these emails have links in them? Do they have your original text in them? Because they sound like they could be spam to me. Spammers often try to make their words sound like good English but fail to do so, and they also try to make their emails look like they are something they're not. Just a thought, --Viennese Waltz 08:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with it, at least grammatically. Sometimes British speakers object to due to in the sense of because of, but it's an unremarkable construction on this side of the pond. If you substitute because of, getting "... was undeliverable because of the following reason:", you have an unnecessarily ponderous piece of prose, but that's a style issue, not a grammar issue. --Trovatore (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

For me (BrE), "due to the following reason" and "because of the following reason" are equally bad. It should be "for the following reason". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.36.106 (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I certainly agree that that solution is better stylistically. But there's nothing wrong grammatically or even logically with "because of the following reason". --Trovatore (talk) 17:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's not strictly ungrammatical, but I would argue that it's illogical because the word "reason" already encompasses the notion of "because". 86.135.25.44 (talk) 21:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

That just makes it redundant, not illogical. --Trovatore (talk) 02:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

discovery of biblical greek

Hi, I read somewhere (I think it was in Teach yourself Biblical Greek) that once upon a time (before about the turn of the last century) Biblical Greek was unknown outside an ecclesiastical context, and it was conjectured that the dialect was specially developed for scriptural purposes. The reference claimed it was only after the discovery of early documents that scholars saw the language was actually the common language for all administrative matters, and was used by the Biblical and early patristic writers in order to reach the masses. This does not look at all consistent with the article, and sounds a little strange. Is there any truth whatsoever in such an assertion? Thanks in advance, It's been emotional (talk) 10:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The text of the Greek New Testament was certainly known, but it was thought that it was in some respects an "artificial dialect", and the systematic differences between the Koine of that time and earlier classical Attic Greek were not entirely understood. It was discoveries of Koine letters, contracts etc. in Egypt which threw new light on the subject. It's rather notorious in some circles that the American Standard Version Bible translation "improved" on the KJV by applying strict classical Attic tense rules to its English translations, only a few years before papyrus discoveries cast strong doubt on whether such rigid translations were valid... AnonMoos (talk) 12:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. See also the suggestions I made two years ago at Talk:American_Standard_Version#Criticisms... AnonMoos (talk) 12:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Following up on AnonMoos's correct answer, note the articles Koine Greek. Unfortunately there is little discussion of this interesting issue (both historical consideration of mistaken understandings about varieties of Greek at this time and current insights into the relationship among these varieties). The article does say, "There has been some debate to what degree Biblical Greek represents the mainstream of contemporary spoken Koine," and does give a 2nd century BC Roman decree as "Sample 1," though, so check it out. Inscriptions and papyri are our main source of insight into non-Judeo-Christian Koine Greek. Unfortunately, we don't seem to have a good article (I can find) on the language and society revealed in Greek documentary papyri of this period found in Egypt. I would recommend the Duke Papyrus Archive, with its several articles, as the starting point to learn more. Wareh (talk) 16:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for those interesting answers. It's been emotional (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

addressing and closing a letter to a British ambassador in another country?

Hi,

I've seen some advice (specifically here: http://www.usgs.gov/usgs-manual/handbook/hb/431-2-h/chap4.html) on addressing a letter, and closing it, as it pertains to a foreign ambassador in your country. Would it be the same for a British embassador or is there a special style a British ambassador would prefer? If so, what is it - how should the letter be opened and closed?

For reference, what I am using now is from the section "Foreign Ambassador in the United States" :


His Excellency (Full Name)
Ambassador of (Country)
Washington, D.C. (Zip Code)

Excellency:
Very truly yours,

Thanks! 88.182.221.18 (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

p.s. the person is an ambassador in a European country, not America. 88.182.221.18 (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at the website of Debrett's, specifically the page entitled How to address a British Ambassador (accredited to a foreign country). You will have to do some research here to find out if the recipient's title is "Mr", "Sir", "the Rt Hon" or if he is a peer. Xenon54 (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much, I was looking at that page and getting so confused! I thought it just wanted my own title or something (which would be Mr.) I had for some reason assumed that being an ambassador totally supersedes anything else you might be. Oh dear. I think I'll just call them tomorrow and ask the secretary! 88.182.221.18 (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Be careful about using US guidance in a European context. While "Very truly yours" is (apparently) common in the US in professional and formal contexts, it would be regarded as either odd or even rude (Valediction#Yours truly, has an explanation) in the UK. For an ordinary letter, British usage prefers "Yours sincerely" if you know him (or at least you know his name) (and it sounds like you do). Use "Yours faithfully" otherwise. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Japanese sounds

Common schemes for transliterating Japanese into the Latin alphabet indicate sound changes like:

sa, shi, su, se, so
ta, chi, tsu, te, to
etc.

I guess this is based on how the sounds are perceived by Western (primarily English-speaking?) people, but do native Japanese speakers perceive the same differences? Or do they perceive the first sounds in these syllables as being the same? 86.173.36.118 (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC).

Well, "sh" and "ch" sounds can also occur before a, o, and u vowels, so it's hard to say that s/sh and t/ch are simple allophones. In handling recent loanwords from foreign languages, there are ways to write sequences such as , etc. See Katakana#Table_of_katakana... AnonMoos (talk) 22:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Is it possible that しゃ, しょ etc. are perceived as "si-(y)a" and "si-(y)o" etc.? Also, I've read that sounds in loanwords tend to be pronounced as the nearest native sound, irrespective of the attempt to reflect the source language pronunciation by inventing new Japanese syllables in the spelling. However, your knowledge of this may well be greater than mine... 86.173.36.118 (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC).

You seem to mix up mora (linguistics)#Japanese with syllable. Japanese sound system consists of moras, not syllables, and Japanese pitch accent. One hiragana/katakana is one mora, except Yōon. They are the combination of one and half hiragana/katakana and one yōon like sha/しゃ is one mora. See Japanese phonology. You can listen to Japanese moras here. and . But the woman's pronunciation of sha is not good. Oda Mari (talk) 06:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

While the mora plays an important role in Japanese phonology and poetics, it is not the case that the syllable plays no role in Japanese at all. According to some versions of moraic theory, onset consonants are not part of the mora, which means that , , etc., are monomoraic syllables but not moras. And even according to the versions that do include onset consonants in the mora, , , etc., are both moras and syllables, rather than being only moras. Either way, the OP is not wrong to describe the sequences in question as syllables. —Angr (talk) 11:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

86.173.36.118 -- It's very common in language borrowing situations that old loanwords are more fully nativized and assimilated into the language's phonology, while more recent loanwords remain somewhat anomalous. It's very likely that at one time / and / in Japanese were purely positionally-conditioned "automatic" allophones without any distinctive phonemic status (like English aspirated and non-aspirated stops), but that doesn't seem to be fully true in current modern Japanese. Analyzing as /sya/ is a kind of abstract phonological analysis which linguists have been fond of off and on during certain periods (see generative phonology etc.), but I'm not sure whether it would cast much light on whether Japanese perceive and as the "same" or "different" sounds... AnonMoos (talk) 11:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any references, but I think studies have found that older native speakers conflate "chi" (チ) and "ti" (ティ), while younger speakers don't, because of the recent introduction of ティ as a separate syllable for loanwords. Certainly to a Japanese speaker (even a non-native speaker like me), the morae are really "si", "tu", etc., even if they're pronounced more like "shi", "tsu", etc. (just as "forty" is pronounced more like "fordy" in my dialect of English). -- BenRG (talk) 11:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2

French word for Danish (food)

What's the French word for Danish (food)? --75.33.217.61 (talk) 01:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I have seen "chausson danois" , but oranais is the closest frequently used specific term I could find (though not exactly the same thing). More general: feuilleté (sucré) or viennoiserie. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Lard is what I think of when people talk about Danish food. DuncanHill (talk) 12:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Not danish pastry? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Nope, Danish Bacon. DuncanHill (talk) 13:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Paradoxically the Danish word for danish is wienerbrød (viennese bread). ·Maunus·ƛ· 00:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought the Danish word for 'danish' was 'dansk'. I have never heard anyone say "Jeg er wienerbrød"... :) I presume you meant to say 'danish pastry'? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Then there's the item called French Fries, which the French simply call Fries. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Technically they call them "potato fries" or "fried potatoes" ("pommes frites", with pommes being short for "pommes de terre" which means potatos). --Saddhiyama (talk) 01:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

And technically in America they are "French fried potatoes", with "French fries" or just "fries" being the abbreviation. I had thought they were just plain "frites" in France, but it's been a long time since I was there, and it might vary depending on the restaurant. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, we call them chips in the UK - no reference to France at all. The thin spindly ones we get at MacDonalds are sometimes called fries - mostly by the people who work there - but we usually call them chips, too. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in the UK they're called chips, presumably because they are "chipped" off a whole potato. In the US, "chips" are thinly sliced, more like what the Brits call "crisps", which is kind of hard to say, like "lisps" and "asps". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I will agree that 'crisps' can be difficult to say, which is why in my dialect (Scouse) we leave off the final 's', so all we say is 'crisp', even in the plural. I can't speak for the rest of the people on these islands, however. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Corblimey - even Cockneys can manage to say "crisps" - it ain't that difficult! Alansplodge (talk) 02:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Aye, actually I had this conversation wiv anavva savvnah yesterday, and he says he puts the 's' on the end, so it might be us Northerners. Might have something to do with them not costing £5:90 a bag up here :) --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

In Danish they are "Pommes frites" usually pronounced {{IPA|} or simply "Fritter" - chips/crisps however are called "Franske kartofler" meaning "French potatoes". ·Maunus·ƛ· 01:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

that is actually very interesting and... bizarre. It would be fun to make a table of which words contain/do not contain the word 'French' in UK English, US English, Danish, and French. There seems to be no overlap whatsoever, and the word 'French' is inserted at random. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Here are a few, although they left out French doors. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The best one is slang for a condom; in England it's a "French letter" and in France "une capote anglaise" (an English overcoat). Alansplodge (talk) 02:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

To guard against VD, "the French disease". But why "letter"? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Someone gives a derivation from "let" (i.e. a hindrance) here, but I can't vouch for its truth. Someone once said to me "Playing Scrabble with French letters is really difficult", and I couldn't resist saying "Yeah, nonoxynol-9 makes the board all slippery." Marnanel (talk) 15:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

You have to know about this jargon to understand the following conversation:

• "I've been invited to visit France".
• "By whom?"
• "I don't know. All I know is I got this French letter and it had "come" in it". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Another geographically confusing viennoiserie can use France in its French name: the coeurs de France ("hearts of France"), but they are mainly called that in Swiss French, I think. In France-French, as in English, they are often called palmiers, without geographical reference. Swiss German uses the French language demonym for the German kingdom/state of Prussia, and calls them Prussiens. :-S ---Sluzzelin talk 05:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Germans apparently call them Schweinsohren, pig-ears. Rimush (talk) 14:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Sixties Slang

Which of the words "neat" and "cool" was used first as American slang? Ccountry (talk) 03:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Etymonline gives the first recorded use of cool at 1933, and first recorded use of neat at 1934. Hope this helps. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 04:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW, the margin of error for the attestation of slang in writing is wide enough that the above cannot be considered evidence that "cool" is actually older than "neat". —Angr (talk) 11:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes - both words were probably in use in the spoken language some time before the first recorded use of them in litereature. However, this use is not recorded (hence the phrase 'first recorded use'). Strictly speaking, we can only go on the available evidence, and if the OP wants to know which of these two words came into general usage first (before their first recorded use), then that question cannot be answered (because it's not recorded).--KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

While it's hard to pin down a year, and hence the OP's question is unanswerable as such, the evidence still points out that these terms pre-date the 60s by at least 3 decades. Bill Cosby used that expression frequently in his early recordings, which suggests it was already well-established. "Cool" has persisted, while terms like "neat", "tough", "boss", "groovy", etc., have seen their day. There is an implied connection between "cool" and "neat", in that "cool" (and its companion "chillin'") implies calmness and hence a sense of things being well-ordered and under control; which is more directly expressed by "neat". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Both 'cool' and 'neat' are definitely still around. Lexicografía (talk) 15:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

True. I sometimes say "neat" myself, but hardly ever "cool" just because it's so annoyingly ubiquitous. I know folks who say "groovy" also. But I'm fairly certain that "neat" is not nearly so broadly used as "cool". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Both "neat" and "cool" fall into the category of "you just told me something that happened today and I wasn't really listening so I'll reply with a word that covers mostly everything". 'Groovy' is narrow enough to imply that you actually think so. Lexicografía (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that you can sometimes still hear neat and groovy. However, I don't think that they are really current slang in the way that cool is. I don't think that anyone under the age of about 35 uses the word neat in this way. As for groovy, I think it definitely has a retro feel and is typically used ironically or self-consciously by a person wanting to evoke the 1960s. Marco polo (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I tend to use "hip".·Maunus·ƛ· 18:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly the same as nonchalant (not hot). 213.122.13.97 (talk) 00:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

True, but saying that somebody is "not hot" is way different from calling them "cool". Virtually the opposite. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

And saying that someone is nonchalant implies nothing whatsoever about their popularity. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

"Nonchalant" literally comes from "not hot" but it means "indifferent to" or "not concerned about". The closest English equivalent might be to say that you're "lukewarm" about something, as opposed to being "hot" about it, meaning "enthusiastic". "Cool" is used differently. It can mean "hip" or in-fashion (in which case it's also "hot"); it also means "everything's OK", as in "it's cool". One old-fashioned expression for the latter would be "jake". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but an earlier sense of "cool" is as in "playing it cool", with a sense of "calmly audacious", which smells to me very similar to "nonchalant". I don't really know what point I'm trying to make here, though. I just thought it was kinda nifty. :) 213.122.13.97 (talk) 01:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Even a cool cat needs a lot of sangfroid to be nonchalant after icing somebody in cold blood. LANTZY 02:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

You bet! "Playing it cool"... calm, collected, under control, low-key... appearing to be nonchalant, yes. Projecting the sense that "everything's A-OK". Keeping oneself under control, as discussed in one of the songs in West Side Story, as the gang attempts to settle down after their violent encounter with the other gang. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The 'nonchalant' sense of 'cool' has largely been replaced by 'chill', to avoid confusion with the 'hip' sense of 'cool'. Chill, dudes! Lexicografía (talk) 02:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, although "chilling" is the process by which someone or something becomes "cool"... temperaturewise, and temperamentwise. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, so, from all of this, I see it is OK for me to say that I think U2 are nonchalant? I am also nonchalant with the Tories and their cuts (<- random political statement used purely to illustrate this)? And if I should not be so 'chalant' about this (the opposite of 'nonchalant'?) then I should 'nonchalant'-out, as per Lexi's idea (=chill)? Nonchalant! --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 03:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

No, Kage Tora, that is not idiomatic anywhere in the anglosphere I'm aware of. An individual is said to be acting nonchalantly; even a group of people could be acting nonchalantly on a particular occasion. But one is not said to be nonchalant about any particular person or thing; and if you really like a person or group and you regard them generally as "cool", it doesn't convey the same meaning to describe them as "nonchalant". Sorry. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 06:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Jack. I neglected to put in the </sarcasm> tag. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I feel that square needs to be mentioned. One can be square. And one can be a square. It's not cool to be a square. Bus stop (talk) 03:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Oddly enough, though, it is Hip to Be Square. --Jayron32 04:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

There are many images for "square hips". Bus stop (talk) 14:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Help me correct this phrases please.

Confusing about which tense should be use in the following phrases:

"In this respect, when the court questions the applicant until it is ensured that there is a ground for issuing a warrant of arrest or search pursuant to section 59/1 and issues such warrant, it shall then submit to the applicant by means of facsimile, electronics or other appropriate means of information technology a copy of the warrant."

I am not sure that if writing as above would be correct.

Clumsily (talk) 14:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the perfect way to phrase it, but I would put it something like this:

Hope this helps... Ks0stm 14:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the second of the above amendments is that it changes active to passive. In general active is usually better as it removes any doubt as to who did what. So if it is the court that issues arrest warrants then I would say it is better to leave it as in the original version, except that I would change "such warrant" to "such a warrant". --Viennese Waltz 15:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Such is common in legalese.—msh210℠ 16:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

"Liebchen - sweetnessheart, what watch?" — "Ten watch." — "Such watch?" —Angr (talk) 19:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

But, to answer the original question directly: as to tense the sentence is perfectly normal English. Non-native speakers often write "will question" etc in this context, but the result of that is not natural English. --ColinFine (talk) 21:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the tenses are OK, but the sentence is rather long for clarity and does include one passive. How about:

I can't see a way to split the sentence. Dbfirs 22:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The ensurance (to coin a word) comes not from the court but from the facts found.

is a ground means some specific tangible fact exists which suffices; I prefer it to are grounds, which in ordinary language could mean a broad vague impression. —Tamfang (talk) 22:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Points accepted. (I'm not trained in legal language, so my attempt to express the sentence in everyday English may have been misguided.) I still think that the job of the court is to ensure that one or more valid "ground" exists. Dbfirs 22:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Name for self-multilation

What is one called or what is it called when one likes to hurt onesself or does self-multilation?--Doug Coldwell 19:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK the former is masochism and the latter is self-mutilation, sometimes called cutting.—msh210℠ 19:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Body modification? Apotemnophilia? Bus stop (talk) 19:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It could also be Munchhausen Syndrome. What it is called depends on the reason for doing it. Roger (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Self harm is the phrase most familiar to me (actually 'self-mutilation' above redirects to that article). --ColinFine (talk) 21:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

December 3

counter-clerks

Who are they, i.e. what does it mean, in the following sentence: 'to the theatre then they came, an invading army of factory slaves, navvies, guttersnipes, emacited counter-clerks and care-worn women suckling babes in arms'? Thanks. --Omidinist (talk) 06:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably a derisive term equivalent to "desk jockey" or "pencil pusher"; i.e. a middling bureaucrat or middle management. --Jayron32 06:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Derisive here, but what it would mean is someone who sits or stands behind a counter and deals with customers as they approach, like a bank teller or a clerk at a government office. Not middle managament. --Anonymous, 06:33 UTC, December 3, 2010.

Would not be hyphenated in modern usage... AnonMoos (talk) 07:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

In this context (from Melodrama by James Leslie Smith according to Google books) a 'counter-clerk' is one of the most junior (and poorly paid, hence the emaciation) of shop workers; someone that serves the public from behind a counter. The quote refers to the huge influx of unskilled rural workers into the city of London during the early industrial revolution. Blakk and ekka 13:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. --Omidinist (talk) 15:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The emaciated counter clerks might have been servers of food. I don't know if such positions were commonplace at the time and place. It is probably tough to have to serve food while hungry oneself. Bus stop (talk) 20:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that prepared food was not served over counters at that time. Cheap food would have been served from wagons and market stalls, slightly less cheap food served at tables in pubs. I think that the counters in question were shop counters. The word itself indicates that this was originally an object where items (coins, items of merchandise) were counted. Typically it was a table or stand at the front of a shop, often a small retail establishment or a workshop from which wares were sold over a counter. The word clerk strongly suggests work that involves writing, such as keeping accounts. In those days, food service (at the low end) didn't require a "clerk", just someone to dish out the food and collect a few pence. High-end food service would have involved waiters, not clerks. Marco polo (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually pie shops were common in London from the eighteenth century onwards - never heard of Sweeny Todd? Working women and poor accomodation without kitchens led to an early demand for fast food. Fish & chips and eel, pie & mash followed in the 19th century. But you're right - probably shop assistants are the subject here. Alansplodge (talk) 02:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's the real dope. If a counter-clerk encounters a real clerk, they mutually annihilate. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

As far as clerks are concerned, then, counter-clerks are contra-indicated. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Nineteenth century shops generally did not have open shelves, as they do today. To prevent theft, goods were kept behind a counter and customers asked the clerk at the counter for whatever they wanted. As you can imagine, being a counter clerk was not a particularly exalted position. John M Baker (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

latin word order for the perfect passive

In Latin, as we all know, word order is very free, but not absolutely so. In the perfect passive, the auxiliary is almost always written last, as in amatus sum, "I have been loved". Can you go sum amatus, or does that come out as a verb (the copula) followed by an adjective, that is, "I am loved" as opposed to "I have been loved" ? Is there a difference between poetry and prose, since word order in poetry is even freer than prose? Thanks, It's been emotional (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It would never make it a present passive, since that is a different form ("I am loved" is "amor", which happens to look like the noun "love"). Normally it would be "amatus sum", but the "sum" could go anywhere, especially if it doesn't confuse the meaning of the sentence, and can be omitted entirely. It is very often omitted in accusative infinitives and other indirect speech where "esse" is used. I will search for some examples. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, of course, there is a very famous one that I think I've mentioned on the Reference Desk before. "Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres", the opening line of De Bello Gallico. It sounds nicer in English to take "divisa" as an adjective and say "all Gaul is divided into three parts", but grammatically "divisa est" is a perfect passive, and could literally be translated "Gaul has been divided" or "was divided". If he really meant "is divided", Caesar could have said "dividitur" (but I suppose it was no longer divided that way after his expeditions). Adam Bishop (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I see what you are saying. Does that mean sum amatus, and all of its equivalents of the form sum (passive participle), must only be translated, if the translation be literal, as perfect passives, not as adjectives? Your example shows quite sensibly that sum amatus cannot be "I am loved," because that has a different form, amor, but is this a general rule? I always thought the passive participle (ie. past participle passive) had adjectival force in many circumstances, and could be used attributively and predicatively. I'm fairly sure the following is attributive, from the Vulgate: Omne regnum divisum contra se desolabitur. On the other hand, I don't know if I've seen the predicative use, perhaps because I have been invariably confused about whether to read it as a passive perfect or as an adjective, as demonstrated by the original question. It's been emotional (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the participle can normally also be used as an attributive adjective, as in your example. If it said "regnum divisum est", it would mean "a kingdom has been divided" (and not "a kingdom is divided"), but as an adjective it can mean "a divided kingdom" (or, more literally, "a kingdom, having been divided"). The participle is used this way ablative absolutes as well, for example "hoc dicto" ("this having been said"). Another example is in the first few lines of the Aeneid, where "iactatus" and "passus" are both used as adjectives. (Actually Virgil doesn't seem to use the perfect passive tense at all until lines 148-149, "coorta est seditio".) Adam Bishop (talk) 17:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again, great answer, It's been emotional (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

What do these mean?

http://i1214.photobucket.com/albums/cc498/FFNight/wth1.jpg http://i1214.photobucket.com/albums/cc498/FFNight/wth2.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.113.87 (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

They say you should put your Pokemon to sleep and then try again, if that makes any sense (I've never played these games). -- BenRG (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

What, both of them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.113.87 (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. There's a lot of other stuff about how to put them to sleep and how to enter your ID code in various games, but I guessed you probably knew that already. -- BenRG (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess the problem's with my game then. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.113.87 (talk) 23:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the first pic says that if you want to access the Pokemon Global Link, you must first put your Pokemon to sleep. The second pic is just telling you to enter your ID. It uses the word 仮登録, which means 'interim registration'. I assume you do not have an account with the Pokemon Global Link, and that they are making a temporary account for you. This is just a guess, of course. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

December 4

is there an adjective that means 'kookaburralike'?

Kookaburric? Kookaburrical?

Ta Adambrowne666 (talk) 04:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with "kookaburralike"? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

However, it might be clearer to hyphenate as "kookaburra-like"... AnonMoos (talk) 12:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, "kookaburra-like" with the hyphen is the clearest. Roger (talk) 12:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

If you wanted to use such an adjective in a formal scientific paper or article dealing, say, with the genus Dacelo, you would be perfectly entitled to form an adjective appropriately from it, presumably 'dacelic' or 'daceloid' (I'm a little rusty) and expect scientifically educated readers to grok it. Part of the beauty of English (and doubtless some other languages) is that inventing necessary neologisms within the existing rules is entirely permissible. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 13:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

kookaburresque?·Maunus·ƛ· 14:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Not to be confused with kookaburlesque. -- 174.31.199.95 (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

It would depend on context, tone, and the nature of the comparison: whether it's visual, behavioral, auditory, or whatever. In a scientific paper, an adjective derived from the binomial nomenclature would be fine, especially if its meaning were also suggested by context. Addressing a more general audience, you'd definitely want an adjective derived from the English name of the creature. For a visual comparison, I'd just use "kookaburra-like", hyphenated. For a more playful comparison, one might attempt a more playful adjective: "Stephen Harper nodded his kookaburrious head..." If you're making an auditory or behavioral comparison, then you might use "kookaburresque": "When Bruce chundered all over the malonga gilderchuck, a gale of kookaburresque laughter erupted from the sheilas." Of course, "kookaburra" itself could be used as an attributive: "Kookaburra laughter" would be fine. LANTZY 16:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

English adjectival suffixes sometimes differ in nuance. See wikt:childlike, wikt:childish, wikt:sheeplike, wikt:sheepish.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Adambrowne666 (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hebrew help

I know that Adam is Man in Hebrew, and I am wondering how you would go about saying Man-like in Hebrew, would it be possible to do this while keeping the Adam part of the word intact? Failing that are there any words that could contain Adam that could be linked to something warrior-like? It's for a character name and I don't want to use just Adam. I don't really speak a word of Hebrew so answers using this alphabet and not the Hebrew one please. 82.18.201.77 (talk) 16:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Not able to answer the question, as such, but I just put 'manlike' into Google Translate (English/Hebrew), and it gave me 'ivree', which actually means 'Hebrew'. I don't know if it also means 'manlike', but in any case, it is not using the 'adam' root. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, "adam" does not have a special connotation of maleness -- it means mankind in general, not just men, and derives from the word for soil or dirt. The most warrior-like word I can think of containing "adam" is adamant, but that derives from Latin and doesn't have anything to do with the Hebrew Adam. Looie496 (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the use of "adam" to refer to a man is basically metaphoric, and is itself a derivation from a more basic root meaning "red" or perhaps "brown", which was later extended to "earth", and then to human beings. A more literal word for a man is גבר, gever, whence גברי, gavri, "manly, like a man". OP, when you say "man-like", what exactly do you mean? Do you wish to specify masculinity, or humanity? There is the term דמוי אדם, dimuy adam, which means something like "humanoid", and is used (I think) to describe androids and mannequins, among other things. LANTZY 18:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Lantzy, I misread the first letter. I'll stick to my own field from now on. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Lantzy, not "dimuy" (which is another word spelled דמוי as well), but rather "dmuy". HOOTmag (talk) 01:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

My copy of The Signet Hebrew/English English/Hebrew Dictionary, by Dov Ben-Abba, indicates the masculine grammatical gender by the abbreviation ז׳ (z.) for זָכָר (zaKHAR) (IPA: zɑˈxɑʁ), which it defines as "male; masculine". The entry זְכָרִי (zekhaRI) (IPA: zəxɑˈʁi) is defined as "male, manly".

—Wavelength (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

As a Hebrew speaker, who is also a linguist, I can promise that Hebrew has no word, other than Adam, which contains the root Adam. This is the most exact (though disappointing) answer the OP can achieve. HOOTmag (talk) 01:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The OP might like a neologism, if something plausible can be offered. Wareh (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, no plausible neologism (i.e. plausible to Hebrew speakers' ears) can be offered, as far as the root Adam is concerned. HOOTmag (talk) 08:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

In that case maybe 'Admoni' (pronounced Admonee). Ariel. (talk) 07:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The word Admoni - which is an existent Hebrew word (See Genesis 25 25) - meaning "red", is related to the root Adom (A.D.M), and has nothing to do with the root Adam (A.D.M) about which the OP has been asking. HOOTmag (talk) 08:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I know, but it sounded to me like he just wanted something that sounded good/reasonable. Ariel. (talk) 09:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The word Admoni could have sounded good/resonable for expressing the idea of Man-like (from the root Adam as the OP wants), only if this word hadn't already been assigned for expressing the idea of "red" (from the root Adom, as opposed to what the OP wants). HOOTmag (talk) 09:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I bet you won't like adom'eh or admor :) But how about loch-dam (from lochem, fight)? Or Adzak (chazak, strong)? Ravdam (from either roveh, rifle; or cherev, sword - but it sounds like "lots of blood" in Hebrew)? 82.18.201.77 - are any of these helpful? How accurate do you want it to be? None of those are real words, nor do they follow proper grammar. Ariel. (talk) 10:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by adomeh? As for "adzak", "loch-dam", "Ravdam": they use half of the word Adam, but unfortunately, no Hebrew speaker can imagine that those semi-words, "ad" and "dam", are intended to be derived from Adam, because Hebrew never uses such semi-words, but rather uses the word dam as a whole word to mean another concept ("blood", as you correctly indicated). As far as I understand, the OP would like to have a word that either can be figured out by Hebrew speakers, or can fit the Hebrew morphology, while this is not the case with your suggestion. By the way, are you a native Hebrew speaker? HOOTmag (talk) 11:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

What about "Enosh"? --Dweller (talk) 11:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The OP explained they would like to have a word that contains the root Adam. HOOTmag (talk) 11:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)#

Ah yes. My mistake. Sorry. --Dweller (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Possessive for proper noun ending in "s"

I am not content with the following sentence. Context.

Redis data model is in its outer layer.

I think Redis should be possessive, perhaps

Redis' data model is in its outer layer.

Or perhaps used as an adjective (but would that change the meaning?),

The Redis data model is in its outer layer.

What should it be?

--Mortense (talk) 20:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Why not "Redis's data model ..."? You would pronounce 3 syllables before you get to "data", so why not write it accordingly? Some style guides say that singular words ending in -s should be possessivised as -s', not -s's, but that works only where the result would be a super-sibilant monstrosity like "Jesus's sisters". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The original is definitely wrong. To avoid the slightly awkward possessive (whether it be Redis' or Redis's), I prefer "The Redis data model...". 86.135.25.44 (talk) 21:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC).

That's a valid solution, but you don't have to justify it by saying the possessive option is in any way "awkward". "Morris's forces were outnumbered by Harris's. Redis's data model is preferred to Optus's". And so on. All perfectly easy to say. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

As Redis isn't a person, I favor "the Redis data model". Clarityfiend (talk) 23:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Verb tense

Consider the following sentence: The new dorm will be built in 2020. The verb in that sentence is future tense. What is the tense of the verb if we change the sentence to the following? The new dorm is being built in 2020. This sentence refers to a future event, yet is seems to do so with a present tense verb. What is the tense of this verb? Is there a special type of name for this type of situation? If the verb is indeed present tense, how can a present tense verb refer to a future event? Thank you for any insights. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC))

No doubt people are going to explain this at some length, but, in brief: English only has two tenses; the present and the past.

I play.

I played.

Everything else is, um, something else. Which means we have pretty much infinite ways of combining modal verbs and context to express different ideas. The new dorm is being built in 2020 is the continuous present, with a time cue letting you know it is really happening in the future. It's the passive continuous present, with a time cue. You can nest these things endlessly in English. The new dorm will have been being built for 5 years in 2020. The new dorm will have used to have been better before the building works in 2015. Try telling me what tense that is :) 86.164.31.131 (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I've never really got to grips with tenses (or much else concerning grammar - it probably shows), but personally, I'd not write The new dorm is being built in 2020 at all. It just doesn't look right. On the other hand The new dorm is being opened on Friday does, which seems to me to imply that there is a problem with the word is being applied to something that does not yet exist. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Would you have a problem with I'm going to Venezuela next year? Or even I'm going to Venezuela in 2020? I probably wouldn't say the latter, because in the next 10 years a hell of a lot could go wrong with my current plans/intentions. I'd probably say I'm planning to visit Venezuela in 2020. But grammatically the I'm going version is unexceptionable. As for the next year thing, if my arrangements were pretty much advanced by now, I'm going fits the bill nicely. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 02:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Part of the flaw in the parallel, I suspect, is that the building of the dorm is an event of considerable duration, unlike the opening. —Tamfang (talk) 06:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Venezuela exists now, so I'd have no problem saying what I intend to do in relation to it. The dorm will only exist once it is built, which is why stating that it is being built in the future seems clunky to me. The 'it' doesn't exist yet. Possibly this actually has nothing to do with grammar at all, but instead with differing perceptions of time, as '81.131.59.67' suggests?

English, German, and I think maybe other Germanic languages, have only two simple tenses, i.e. tenses expressed by only a single word. But I think I'd call some more complcated forms tenses as well. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

This reminds me of an article I was coincidentally reading earlier: A-series and B-series. 81.131.59.67 (talk) 02:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It is traditional to talk about "I will go" as the future tense in English; but in practice it is not always required for future meaning. (Nor does it always convey future meaning, but that's another topic). Syntactically it is questionable whether it should be called a tense at all, since there are no syntactic tests which distinguish "I will go" from "I may go", which is never described as a tense.

I agree that "The new dorm is being built in 2020" is less likely than "The new dorm is being opened next Friday", but I think this is simply a matter of how far in the future it is. "The new dorm is being built next year" is fine, for me. Whether or not they have started it now (i.e. whether it exists) is irrelevant. --ColinFine (talk) 13:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

December 5

Kanji variants

Hi, are the following two forms both acceptable in Japanese?

http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/cgi-bin/wwwjdic.cgi?160073_%C4%E3
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/%E4%BD%8E-bw.png

It's the difference in the final stroke that I'm interested in.

Or maybe the second one is only for Chinese? 86.135.25.44 (talk) 00:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

They are both acceptable in Japanese. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! 86.135.25.44 (talk) 01:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC).

No. Legible. But elementary school teachers would say incorrect when pupils write the kanji in the second way. See these pages for children. , , , and . I never write it in the second way. Oda Mari (talk) 05:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The second one is the common accepted mordern form. I think the first one can be found in calligraphy.--刻意(Kèyì) 08:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

At least not in Japan. We don't write the second form. See wikt:低 and this linked page and click the links at the bottom. The second one is simplified Chinese. Oda Mari (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Oda Mari, am I right in thinking that you're a native Japanese speaker? 86.184.235.197 (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I am a native ja speaker. Oda Mari (talk) 04:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

"Not to be mistaken as..."

Not to be mistaken as being associated with Misplaced Pages.

This has been staring me in the face at the top of the (rather busy) Wikileaks article for 24 hours now. Without getting back into the argument as to whether we need this disambiguation at the start of the article, can someone please confirm that this isn't proper English, on either side of the pond? I'd made a comment on the Talk page Talk:WikiLeaks#Not to be confused with..., but not changed it since every time it is changed, somebody seems to prefer another version. Perhaps a grammarian can step in and beat it into shape... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not a common expression (as in "not to be mistaken for ... "), and "mistake" is usually a ditransitive verb with the indirect argument introduced by "for"; but it does occur as a simple transitive without a complement. So I would say there is nothing either ungrammatical or unclear about it. Furthermore, I can't think of a succinct way for rewording it using "mistaken ... for". --ColinFine (talk) 13:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I think a simple disclaimer would be clearest: WikiLeaks is not associated with Misplaced Pages or Wikimedia. Someone not knowing the idiom could take the existing language to mean Make no mistake: WikiLeaks is associated with Misplaced Pages. —Tamfang (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I personally find the original sentence a bit odd and awkward, although I can't exactly put my finger on a grammatical error. Tamfang's suggestion seems preferable to me. 86.184.235.197 (talk) 18:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC).

I think it's because it's passivising a construction that's almost always heard in the active. "Take care not to mistake A for B" or something similar does not sound so good as "A should not be mistaken for B" or just "Not to be mistaken for B". That's if people thought that WikiLeaks and Misplaced Pages were somehow the same thing. But when the assumption is not necessarily that they're the same thing per se but that they're related entities (e.g. Misplaced Pages obviously runs/owns/manages/controls WikiLeaks, or vice-versa, because they both start with "Wiki" - duh!) - then it's even murkier in the passive to warn readers not to make such assumptions. Far better to say what Tamfang said. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 02:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, it currently reads Note: WikiLeaks is not associated with Misplaced Pages, which does the job for me. (Though, to be pedantic, the problem is that it is sometimes 'associated', but wrongly...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It's the passive-voice of the original version that grates on you (and me also). The above is definitely and improvement, and could be even more so by saying, "WikiLeaks is not connected with Misplaced Pages." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

That's also passive, btw. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 04:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

"Affiliated"?—msh210℠ 18:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Chinese expression

what does '解手' mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.78.167 (talk) 03:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Google is your friend --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 04:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Podestà

What is the female form of Podestà?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

What is the female form of Majesty? I think podestà is feminine. —Tamfang (talk) 06:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The Latin word ("potestas") certainly is, and I assume it still is in Italian, but it just means "power" so it's not really a title. To feminize it you have to say "donna di podesta" or "moglie di podesta" (or some other feminine noun). Adam Bishop (talk) 07:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

In Italian it can be both. It's normally masculine: "il podestà". "La podestà" is the feminine variant, but is very very rare (this figure was almost always a man). Usually other similar words become: attore>attrice, direttore>direttrice, governatore>governatrice, presidente>presidentessa, segretario>segretaria... --151.51.32.232 (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Origin of the word "Cover"

I read Cover version#Origin of the term, it had a lot of text, but didn't seem to actually answer the question. My guess is something to do with the physical cover of the album? Ariel. (talk) 07:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that it's a metaphor with market presence equated to visibility. A competitor reduces the visibility of the original, thus "covering" it. --Anonymous, 15:55 UTC, December 5, 2010.

I wouldn't think it has anything to do with the physical cover. I'd guess it means "cover" in the sense of "protect oneself by responding to", like someone saying "we need to cover their latest move", for example. 86.184.235.197 (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC).

The treatment in the OED suggests that Anonymous is correct. This sense of the noun is treated as a development of the sense "anything that is put or laid over ... an object, with the effect of hiding, sheltering, or enclosing it"; and the first cited use of the verb (1965), which antedates the noun usage, is in the sentence "A phonograph record company is said to cover the recording of another phonograph record company when it releases a competitive recording of the same song." Obviously, the meaning has become a bit more generalized over the years (since a "cover band", for instance, is not really competing with the original recordings it tries to recreate or restyle), but that seems to be the origin. Deor (talk) 01:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Does anonymous imply that the new version of the song would literally have covered the old one on the record store's shelf? Blakk and ekka 11:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Anon can answer for him/herself, but "a metaphor with market presence equated to visibility" certainly suggests that s/he's not so suggesting. Deor (talk) 12:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand that, it's just that if the new version literally covered the old one it wouldn't be a metaphor. Perhaps it's a term similar to album, which was originally a set of 78's bound into a book-format but now refers to any collection of music sold as a thematic collection. Blakk and ekka 12:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

When did the "thou", "thy" begin diseppearing?

Hello Wikipedian friends, please excuse my approximative English, I'm a Frenchy.

In British churches I saw many times phrases likes : "Thou arst" or "thy soul" and recently I leafed through a play from Shakespear in which I found such words. I know what these words mean because in French we say "tu" to our friends and "vous" to other people.

Question : when did the English speaking people in the world begin shifting from the "thou" to the "you" to everybody and how long did it take? Thank you very much for your explanations. Joël Deshaies. Rheims-France.--80.236.119.185 (talk) 13:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Our article Thou is actually pretty good. It's hard to draw a clear line when thee/thou died out, because it continued in many dialects and still exists today in a few rural areas. The picture is also confused by the use of thee/thou in religious texts, because translators tried to preserve the distinctions in the original language. As our article says, this led people to associate thee/thou with religious solemnity, and many Christians grow up with prayers that call God 'thou'. This is the only everyday use of thee/thou most people encounter, and you will see 'thee's and 'thou's used in churches long after ordinary use had died out. Particularly look at Thou#History :) 86.164.31.131 (talk) 13:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thee/thou is still common in the Sheffield area. In fact, a derogatory nickname for Sheffield natives is "Deedars", in imitation of the way they pronounce these two words. This usage extends around the South Yorkshire area, and is also common around the Black Country. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the questioner means "thou art" (you are) and not "thou arst" which might be mistaken for "thou arse" ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 14:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The article is generally good, but it's pretty vague as to precisely when and why the pronoun disappeared from the acrolect of London society. Here's my summary of what Stephen Howe has to say in The Personal Pronouns in the Germanic Languages: Old English did not possess a T-V distinction in the modern sense, simply a distinction between singular and plural. The first clear attestation of a V form (that is, "you" with a singular referent) dates from the 13th century, and was apparently formed by analogy with the French usage of "vous". The fact that this form was imported recently may explain why it was so promiscuously applied. The mere use of "you" became a mark of cultivation. In the 15th century, "you" spread from the nobility to the up-and-coming mercantile classes, further diluting its original significance. Upwardly mobile middle-class women were particularly zealous about using "you", which may account for why "thou" disappeared from private life as well as from formal, public discourse. "You" was simply perceived as the more refined, "proper" form. The "thou" form became regarded not as the basic second-person pronoun but as an exceptional variation, reserved for intimacy or derogation. Finally, the nail in the coffin of "thou" was its adoption, in the middle of the 17th century, by radical religious groups like the Quakers. Their use of the pronoun invested it with the stink of fanaticism, leading respectable people to deliberately avoid it. LANTZY 16:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that "thou" is beginning to fall out of favor in religious contexts as well. I think that the New Revised Standard Version was the first notable version of the Bible to eliminate it. Ironically, this is due not only to etymological scrupulosity but to the desire, on the part of theologians and religious authorities, that Christians not perceive religiosity as something stiff and formal, and that they might have a more "intimate" relationship with the deity. (Or whatever.) The Christians most opposed to this change are those who most enjoy the idea of an iron-fisted führer in the sky, and who in their innocence imagine "thou" to be a mark of groveling prostration. And I suppose, from a descriptivist point of view, they're absolutely correct. "Who dost thou think thou art?" certainly sounds loftier than the alternative. The Biblical association has caused "thou" and "you" to switch places. LANTZY 17:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

To sum up; thee / thou leaves standard English at the end of the 17th Century, but continues in some northern dialects to the present day. Also used in the 18th and 19th centuries by poets and the writers of hymns and religeous works. The Book of Common Prayer (finalised in 1662) continued in use in the Church of England until about 1970 when it begins to be replaced by more modern texts, although the traditional forms remain in limited use. Many well known hymns using this style of language remain in common use. Alansplodge (talk) 09:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I'm the OP. Thank you very much for all your answers. I read the thou article, it's a very good one, I think. I remember meeting "thou" in some of Hawthorne's short stories when people were addressing to something as Mother Nature. Rheims-France---80.236.119.185 (talk) 13:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Chinese-English chapter translation

I am currently researching the origins of a Buddhist iconographic motif regarding the celestial bird Garuda sitting at the apex of the Buddha's throne. It seems to be prevalent in Tibetan Buddhist art and, strangely enough, in Chinese fiction. I have found that the motif's portrayal in Journey to the west lightly borrows from the Avatamsaka Sutra. The Story of Yue Fei mentions the theme, but my English translation has been redacted. The translator left out these supernatural elements on purpose to give the novel a more realistic feel. In order to see if I notice similarities between Buddhist scriptures and the novel, I need to read the un-redacted version of the first chapter. In Chinese, this chapter is called 天遣赤须龙下界 佛谪金翅鸟降凡. This page has a transcription of it here. If anyone is interested in translating the chapter, please let me know. Thanks. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

This seems like an interesting topic and I'm willing to give it a go. However I can't see to open the link you provided there. Do you mind copying out the text and creating a subpage somewhere, perhaps under your user name? I can then edit that to give a translation. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I have placed the text in my sandbox. Thank you for the effort. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Azcrostic?

What is the name for a sentence, or passage, that uses the alphabet as its initials? For example, such a sentence may open: 'Any boy can do engineering generally, however....' So far the best suggestion on my own word blog has been 'azcrostic', which I love, but is there a more popular term?58.175.131.253 (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

According to the article, this is merely a simple form of Acrostic. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

But the question is what this particular form of acrostic is called. According to Merriam Webster's Encyclopedia of Literature it's an abecedarius. EDIT: Just noticed we have a page on it. --Antiquary (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

In the Psalm 119 article it's called an "alphabetic acrostic"... AnonMoos (talk) 23:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair points, Antiquary and AnonMoos: I've added text and a link to the Acrostic article. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 13:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

December 6

Chinese negation of 吃

If someone asked me 你吃了吗？ How would I negate that, 没 or 不? I'm leaning towards 没. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 04:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You would say "还没", "没吃", or "没有" (literally, respectively, "Have not yet", "Have not eaten" and "Have not had"). I conceive of the difference between 没 and 不 as the former denoting "not existing or possessing", whereas the latter denoting "not logically true". 没 can usually be followed by 有 to make 没有, which means something is not located here, is not within someone's possession, or has not happened. By contrast 不 cannot be followed by 有 but can usually be followed by 是, to make 不是, which is the logcal "No", and means "is not" or "do not".

In this specific context, 没吃 means "have not eaten", whereas 不吃 means "do not eat". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

To put it more simply, the question is asking about a past event (I know, Chinese doesn't have grammatical tense, but still), and 没 is used to negate the past (没 is like "didn't", 不 is like "don't"). The only context where I could imagine using 不 in response to this question would be if you aren't planning on eating anything today, in which case you might say "我不吃". (But that is offering too much information anyway; in my experience 你吃饭了吗 is like "how's it going" in English, they don't actually want to know the real answer!) rʨanaɢ (talk) 11:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you'd have to be more specific than "我不吃" if referring to a future meal. "我不吃" is "I don't eat", as in "I don't eat lunch", rather than "I don't plan to eat lunch today".

Whether the person is actually interested in your meal habits depends on the context. If it is while running into a neighbour or friend on the street or alleyway, then it might just be "hello", but in other contexts it may be a genuine question. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Ending sentence with ellipses in a quotation

What would be the proper form for punctuation in a sentence which contains a quotation that ends with ellipses? The ellipses in the quote are used to imply the speaker's voice trailing off as he spoke. Can ellipses end a sentence inside the quotes, or would a comma-quote-period be required? For example:

• He said "blah blah blah..."
• He said "blah blah blah...".
• He said "blah blah blah...,".

Or something else? Or is it just bad form to use ellipses in this way? Arakunem 19:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any justification for a comma at all - so that's out. I'd always choose the second option. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the comma should never be included. The second option is standard in the United Kingdom and other countries following a British-derived standard, such as Australia. The first option is standard in the United States. In the United States, the standard would be to add a period to the three points of the ellipsis but to set that period within the right quotation mark. Marco polo (talk) 19:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies! Would the comma be required if the sentence continued, or would it supplant the ellipses?

• He said "Blah blah blah...," then turned away from the podium. Arakunem 19:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Even as an American, I'd probably go with your second option. I'd also put the comma outside the quotes, if for no other reason than aesthetics: "He said "Blah blah blah...", then turned away from the podium". Lexicografía (talk) 20:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Lexicografía, I am an American, and in my personal writing, I too put all punctuation that doesn't belong to a quote outside the quotation marks. However, that is not standard style in the United States. In my work as a professional editor, I always put periods and commas inside quotation marks, since that is the style preferred by my employer and by virtually every U.S. publisher. Marco polo (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

See also Ellipsis#In English. A space before the ellipsis indicates that the third "blah" is a complete word, whereas an ellipsis following immediately, without a space, indicates that the third "blah" is the beginning of a word, perhaps *"blahsko".

—Wavelength (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

A rule more honoured in the breach than the observance, if WP articles are any guide. A great many examples of ellipses following complete words (and that's the vast majority of ellipses) do not have a space in between. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 04:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought

The following sort of expression is reasonably common:

• I would have thought that most people in those days didn't have a phone.

When the speaker says "I would have thought ...", surely they mean "I definitely think ...". No? Is it always perceived as a polite or euphemistic way of saying that, or is it really what it purports to be, an expression of some degree of uncertainty or non-categoricality?

On the face of it, it could even be interpreted as "Had some condition applied, I would have thought that; but since it didn't, I don't think that". But I doubt anyone actually thinks the speaker is saying "I don't think that ..." - rather, exactly the opposite.

The other aspect of this question is how the conditional mood is often extended to the object of the opening verb, so we get:

• I would have thought that most people in those days wouldn't have had a phone.

A sort of double conditional. Is this legit? I can't really see why we'd need two "would have"s.

Any thoughts? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Re your first question, I would have thought usually implies, well, what you 'would have thought', had new information or an alternate scenario not come up, e.g. "I would've thought that he would have chosen the green one, but looks like he went with red". I don't know why you have to use the conditional twice, but it sounds a little awkward if you don't. Lexicografía (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that the conditional in the second clause is correct only when the second clause describes an action subsequent to the thought described by "would have thought", but in that case, I think that a present/future conditional rather than a perfect conditional would be more correct. That is, from an editorial standpoint, I think the correct versions of the statements above are as follows:

• "I would have thought that most people in those days didn't have a phone."
• "I would have thought that he would choose the green one."

Marco polo (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

@ Lexicografia: Here are a large number of live examples where "I would have thought" seems to mean, euphemistically, "I do definitely think now", rather than what I would have thought had not the alternate scenario presented itself. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Huh. That strikes me as a strange usage (just a roundabout way of saying "I think"), but alright. Lexicografía (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It's just a polite conditional. In the same way, saying "I'd love it if you'd pass the salt" is more polite than the indicative "I want you to pass the salt", which is itself more polite than the imperative "Pass the salt". Embedding an opinion in a conditional expression reduces its force, and that suggests humility, non-aggression, etc. LANTZY 22:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

In fact, we can create a little hierarchy from most to least forceful: "I think..." > "I would think..." > "I would have thought...". The indicative is stronger than the conditional, and the conditional is stronger than the counterfactual past conditional (or however grammarians term it). All three express (or can express) a currently-held belief. LANTZY 23:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Eh? Those all seem to be expressions of slight doubt, not of certitude. I looked at the first five:

1. Clio the Muse is surprised that Dismas finds Are You Being Served hilarious without it being marred by the arguably homophobic character of Mr. Humphries. (Although Clio seems to conflate Dismas with all Americans, so this one is a bit subtle.)
2. Matt Deres would have thought he could get hold of a particular kind of form, but he can't.
3. Wirbelwind would have thought you rinse out mouthwash, but is confused by some stupid website.
4. 173.179.59.66 would have thought something or other about water pressure, but apparently not.
5. Dbfirs would have thought that clocks should use a rigid support instead of a spring to improve accuracy in some way. He might think he's right, but I wouldn't say he's certain of it, particularly in light of the information that springs are in fact used.

213.122.35.14 (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Anti-shadow?

I'm looking for a word to succinctly denominate this phenomenon: Light is reflected by something shiny, perhaps a chandelier or a pair of eyeglasses or a mirror, and falls in a little pattern upon a distant surface. An observer may notice this pattern, drifting back and forth across the wall, and not be able to determine its source. In my family we have several made-up words for these things, for instance "krones" and "wallygoggles", but I am searching for a word (more precisely, a countable noun) that would be generally understood, or at least capable of being looked up in a dictionary. Perhaps there is a word in a language other than English. I would welcome any suggestion. The closest I can come is "reflection", which is completely inadequate. LANTZY 22:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Caustic (optics), glare, luminance, radiance. 92.15.18.168 (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Someone or something deleted most of my answer above - now restored. 92.15.18.168 (talk) 23:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Our article on the Heliograph (which uses your "wallygoggles" to send Morse code messages) uses the word "sunbeam", which is rather charming. "Jesus Wants Me for a Sunbeam". Alansplodge (talk) 09:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Sparkle, sun-sparkles? 92.15.11.224 (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Refraction? Refractive shimmer? Rivertorch (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

This assortment of words might help: Source for thesaurus terms relating to the word "chimera". I think "dancing light" might suggest the phenomena. Bus stop (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I would much more value a personal, family, coinage such as "krones" but if you want to have one you can point to in a dictionary then the Scots "glaik" might suit you, "The rising sun was…sprinkling the floor of the forest-aisles with glaiks and gleams." John Galt (novelist) Lawrie Todd (1830) meltBanana 20:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

December 7

Spanish leismo

I have a question about the Spanish variation of leismo which is common in Spain, if anybody can answer. I understand that in leismo, le replaces lo referring to an animate direct object, like a person. My question is in the following joke, does the latter part of the bolded line use leismo, and can you explain?

Entra un borracho a una cafetería y dice, celebrando, con voz balbuceante: ¡Feliz año nuevo! A lo que una dama le contesta: ¿Feliz año nuevo? ¿En pleno abril? Y dice el borracho: ¿Ya estamos en abril? ¡Ay, mi mujer me va a matar, nunca había llegado tan tarde!

Thanks, Grsz 11 03:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how that joke is an example of leismo. The only "le" is in "le contesta", which means "answers him" or "replies to him". The drunk ("le") is simply the indirect object of the verb, while the unstated direct object is the remark the lady addresses to him. If it's a case of leismo, it's a borderline case. A translation of the joke, for those interested: A drunk walks into a tavern* and slurs merrily, "Happy new year!" To which a lady responds, "Happy new year? In the middle of April?" And the drunk says, "We're already into April? My wife is gonna kill me, this is the latest I've ever been out!" (* In this context, "cafetería" clearly signifies a liquor-dispensing place that is a few notches classier than a dive bar, hence the presence of a "lady". "Gastro-pub" or "wine bar" would probably capture the spirit of the original.) LANTZY 03:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, no leísmo here. If we were to reflect upon the drunk's destiny, we would say that su mujer lo va a matar, without leísmo, or else, in the leistic way, su mujer le va a matar. Pallida  Mors 17:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Gaelic translation

Could someone please help me translate this Gaelic text into English. "do mh´ eudail bho chridhe na h-Alba a thug spiorard ùr, cùrsa ùr, neart ùr dhomh" Thanks in advance. P. S. Burton (talk) 10:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Until someone who actually knows Scottish Gaelic comes along, I'll do my best based on my knowledge of Irish. I think it means something like "To my benefit, it was the heart of Scotland that gave me a new spirit, a new course, new strength." Where's it from? —Angr (talk) 15:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help so far. It's from Public Relations: Concepts, Practice and Critique by Jacquie L'Etang. P. S. Burton (talk) 22:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Font on part of US dollar

What font is used for the part that says "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private"? 20.137.18.50 (talk) 13:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be a basic Sans Serif, maybe with some influence from Bank Gothic styles... AnonMoos (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Words from comics and cartoons.

Good day; For my column at a blog for comics fans, I am currently writing a series of articles about words and idioms that have entered the language through comics and cartoons. My first article is here: http://www.tcj.com/hoodedutilitarian/2010/12/keeping-up-with-the-goonses-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-13721 I am asking your help in finding idioms particularly from British and Commonwealth sources. I already have a few, such as 'a curates egg' or a 'colonel Blimp type'.

Expressions in languages other than English, for example the french 'il tire plus vite que son ombre' would be helpful, too.

Thanks very much for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhinoracer (talk • contribs) 13:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Heath Robinson (much like your American Rube Goldberg. DuncanHill (talk) 14:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Sadie Hawkins, poindexter, sad sack. 81.131.29.220 (talk) 15:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I was aware of Heath Robinson.

I also knew Sadie Hawkins; I wasn't clear, sorry, but I didn't include animation-- which Poindexter belongs to (from the Felix the Cat TV cartoon). Sad sack was already in the language before the cartoon appeared.

For some U.S. stuff, see Tad Dorgan#Slang and Billy DeBeck#Characters and story. Deor (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Try Dagwood sandwich. --Jayron32 20:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Pointy-haired boss 67.162.90.113 (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, Jeep. --LarryMac | Talk 20:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Horrendous Space Kablooie? Adam Bishop (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Why not just one language?

I understand that humans radiated out from east Africa. In that case, why do we not just have one lanuage? Did language only arise after humans had spread across the globe? 92.15.11.224 (talk) 16:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Language changes as it is used (see our article on Language change). Different groups of people using language change it in different ways, so languages start to diverge. A good, accessible book about this is The Power of Babel by John McWhorter.

For a concrete example, take the Romance languages (French, Spanish, Italian, Romanian, Catalan, Occitan, Portuguese, etc.). A few thousand years ago there was just Latin. But the people speaking Latin in what is now France slowly started speaking it a little differently, as did those speaking it in what is now Spain, what is now Italy, etc. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I recommend you read our article on the origin of language.--Shantavira| 16:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The nature of linguistic change is such that if a population speaking a single language splits into two geographically separated and somewhat disconnected populations, then just 500 to 1,000 of divergent accumulated changes can very significantly impair the mutual intelligibility of the speech varieties of the two populations, and effectively split one language into two. If fully modern language has existed for 50,000 years, then it's no suprise that all humans don't speak a single language... AnonMoos (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

One only has to look at Shakespearean English or the King James Bible to see English as we don't know it. HiLo48 (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Dam/Damn

In which dialects of English, if any, are dam and damn not homophones? I know the n is usually not pronounced in damn but usually pronounced in damnable. Is it ever pronounced in damning? The Hero of This Nation (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages resources for researchers
• Misplaced Pages help forums