Revision as of 03:39, 9 March 2008

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

• ]

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

March 3

Pronunciation: IPA for the word "anole"

Could someone throw the IPA for anole at me please? HYENASTE 00:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The OED gives /ə'nəʊlɪ/. The word is spelled anoli there, though. Deor (talk) 01:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

A more American pronunciation is /əˈnoʊli/.  --Lambiam 05:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Just go to dictionary.com and click on "Show IPA Pronunciation" on the first entry. Their IPA conventions are very similar to what we use here. Anyway, I added it to the article. kwami (talk) 05:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Deor and Lambiam, for the answer, and thank you, kwami, for showing me where to go next time. HYENASTE 06:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Corrected colloquialisms: "proof in the pudding"

looking for the correct colloquialism. most people incorrectly quote "the proof is in the pudding." the actual quote is "the proof of the pudding is in the set." is this correct or not?Derharjo (talk) 01:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I've always heard it as "The proof of the pudding is in the eating". -- JackofOz (talk) 01:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No wonder the phrase has never made sense to me; it's always been said wrong! HYENASTE 01:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, your version does make sense, Hyenaste; it might be said that one test of a pudding's having been prepared well is whether it sets up properly (particularly if the pudding is what most folks in the United States first think of when the word is used—the creamy Jello dessert thingie). That version isn't, however, mentioned in Michael Quinion's discussion of the expression. Deor (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

As JackofOz states, I have always heard the "long version" as The proof of the pudding is in the eating. However, The proof is in the pudding is not so far off base. It is simply short-hand / abbreviation for: The proof (of whether or not it is tasty) is in (actually eating) the pudding. Or ... The proof (of whether or not it tastes good) lies within the actual pudding itself. Those latter two sentences are just shortened -- as all of these sayings tend to get -- into a compact The proof ... is in the pudding. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC))

I thought I'd also heard the in the set version, albeit rarely. At least, it makes sense. However, it doesn't get a single Google hit, compared to 90,000 for in the eating. It's kinda like you can't have your cake and eat it too - it doesn't make any sense until you know where it comes from. kwami (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Robert Bly poem

Last line is: "We are perishable, friends. We are salty, impermanent kingdoms" What is it called? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.100.32.151 (talk) 01:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be an improvised poem which he recited, but never published. You can listen to him read it (he recites it twice, along with three other wonderful poems) here: http://www.kuow.org/defaultProgram.asp?ID=13857.

My transcription follows (I warn you, it is completely subjective and I make no claims to his spelling, punctuation, and line division; those are purely mine):

Improvisation on im:

The nimble ovenbird, the dignity of pears,

the simplicity of oars , the imperishable engines inside slim fir-seeds:

all of these make clear

how much we want the impermanent

to be permanent;

we want the hermit wren to keep her eggs,

even during the storm;

but that’s impossible.

We are perishable, friends;

we are salty, impermanent kingdoms.

It's a beautiful poem. Thanks for sharing! СПУТНИК 05:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

- Thank you!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.174.163 (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds: dental, alveolar, and postalveolar

Why are dental, alveolar, and postalveolar sounds allophonic, except for the fricatives? HYENASTE 03:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

First, although that's true for English, it's not true of all languages; other languages do have phonemic distinctions among non-fricatives at those places of articulation. Second, the only answer to the question "Why are they allophonic" I can think of is "Because there are no phonemic contrasts made between these places of articulation", but that isn't really an answer, it's just restating the question as a statement with different words. Basically, there is no real reason why a possible phonemic distinction isn't made in a language, it just isn't. —Angr 05:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Many Australian languages are famous for having phonemic contrasts of stop sounds in this area of the mouth... AnonMoos (talk) 05:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the acoustics of it, but small differences of place are easier to hear in fricatives than in stops. You get the something similar with bilabial vs. labiodental (although I've heard the argument (speculation?) that's because it's hard to make labiodental stops if you have gaps between your teeth). kwami (talk) 05:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Rounded lips during and

Why do we (in English at least) round our lips when makes these sounds? Several pages mention that we do it; none tell why. HYENASTE 06:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The French also do it. Perhaps it's an areal feature. kwami (talk) 07:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

All coronal fricatives involve some labialization compared to stops. We do it more with these sounds than with the alveolar fricatives because of the amount of noise required to produce them. Try saying ʃʃʃʃʃʃʃʃ with your lips as spread as possible versus with your lips rounded, and see how much noise you get for each. — Zerida ☥ 07:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't get what you're saying. I can make the same volume of noise for regardless of labialization. It feels a bit weird, but that's because I've always rounded lips. HYENASTE 04:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The airflow should be more obstructed with the lips in their normal position, so there is less turbulence. It's similar to whistling. Acoustically, you get more turbulent airflow from a narrower channel than a wider one. So if you imagine your oral cavity being a tube that narrows at one end and you blow through it, you should get more turbulent airflow like you would if you were whistling. I suspect this is why we typically round our lips when we shush someone. Not all languages have lip rounding during , but they end up being acoustically different sounds. — Zerida ☥ 06:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Isn't that like asking why we pronounce /t/ and /d/ as alveolar rather than dental? It's just the way our language has evolved. Though I might speculate that labialization enhances the (already existing) acoustic differences between alveolar and postalveolar sibilants.

There have been a number of linguistic changes that are attributable to increasing the phonetic differences between two similar phonemes; it's easier to distinguish between and than and , it's easier to distinguish and from than , etc. If I recall correctly, another driving factor in phonetic change is ease of articulation; it's easier to pronounce /t/ as palatalized before front vowels (), it's easier to pronounce than , it's easier to pronounce pre-obstruent nasals as homorganic to such obstruents, etc. — Ƶ§œš¹ 08:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Knowledge of communication skills in discussions

-Team work -Taking part in discussions -What is expected in a discussion at workplace? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.167.134.1 (talk) 09:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Groan. I hate homework. Anyway you could try our article on Small-group communication, or find something in the library or on google about teamwork and leading a small group (our article "Leading small groups" is not relevant since it's a political cog in China). There's usually a leader and up to 12 people in the group. You must have notes about your subject that these questions are based on. Did you read them? Julia Rossi (talk) 10:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

March 4

Prepositions at the end of a sentence

Is this grammar rule true? bibliomaniac15 I see no changes 01:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No, dear B15. Such a thing is never "true". Is it a widely promulgated rule, favoured by that species of pedant who dedicates her life and language to making life and language awkward for humanity at large? Yes, though it has little currency recently. Someone else will quote Churchill on this; myself, I refuse to.

– Noetica Talk 01:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you mean that "This is a situation up with which I will not put" thing?

But I actually came here to deliver a joke. Guy goes to Harvard University, walks into the library and goes to the desk. He asks the librarian there, "Can you tell me where the student union is at?". Librarian looks at him a second, arches his eyebrows, and replies in a cold sneer, "Here at Harvard, we do not end our sentences with prepositions." Not missing a beat the guy says, "OK, can you tell me where the student union is at, asshole?" +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 02:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is my first smile of the day, and it isn't even past lunchtime. Thank you for that! 206.252.74.48 (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the sort of made-up quotation up with which I will not put! —Keenan Pepper 02:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Whew! Found my Grammar Grams books; wonderful little lessons on language usage. Here's what they have to say about this matter:

You can end some sentences with prepositions (particles) because the preposition (particle) is part of the verb.

For instance, look at the following:

I ran away.

He shouldn't lead you on.

But some sentences are confusing if they end in a true preposition (and not a particle that is part of a verb):

A preposition is a word you shouldn't end a sentence with.

Why not just say, "You shouldn't end a sentence with a preposition"? Whatever you do, remember that many people object strongly to ending sentences with these words, whether they are prepositions or particles. Be prepared for criticism.

In our efforts to be clear and precise, we sometimes double our prepositions, especially with the words which and whom, as in the following:

Is this the person to whom you would like to speak to? (Get rid of that last to.)

Now hasn't this been a Grammar Gram you can put up with? With which you can put up? Up with which you can put?

Good stuff; I recommend these little pamphlets to anyone who cares about words. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 02:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Away isn't a preposition. Anyway, there isn't much difference between those examples and end with — merely the degree of grammaticalization. If you wish to topicalize 'a preposition' by fronting it, there isn't much choice in colloquial English other than saying A preposition is a word you shouldn't end a sentence with. "With which" is just not colloquial anymore. kwami (talk) 03:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

When was it ever colloquial? I thought that was the point of those tortured, supposed Churchill quotes. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 04:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Was it just an attempt to imitate Latin grammar? kwami (talk) 07:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably. The rule was first formulated by John Dryden in 1672. However, most 20th and 21st century commentators on grammar don't believe that prepositions should be banned from the ends of sentences. Merriam-Webster's Concise Dictionary of English Usage says: "The preposition at the end has always been an idiomatic feature of English. It would be pointless to worry about the few who believe it is a mistake." --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It was a widely-enough known "rule" to have provided an opportunity for one of the more amusing historical headlines. When kidnapper Richard Loeb was killed in prison in 1936, the initial reports were that he had been slain by a fellow inmate after Loeb had tried to sexually importune him. The story, as reported by the Chicago Daily News: "Richard Loeb, despite his erudition, today ended his sentence with a proposition". - Nunh-huh 10:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that's rich! Where do you find this stuff? 206.252.74.48 (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The idea that there is a rule that prepositions should not appear at the end of sentences was well known both in 1936 and today. But it's not a rule that contemporary grammarians are inclined to uphold, nor is it a rule that most professional writers consider themselves bound by. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

My father was a stickler for grammar, but enjoyed this sentence, that ends with many prepositions: 'What did you bring me this book to be read out of from for?'

It gets better: the little boy whose mother brought a book about Australia upstairs to read to him at bedtime said, "What did you bring this book about Down Under up for?". ;-) —Angr 20:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

We can expand further: "What did you bring the book you wanted to be read to out of from up for?" SaundersW (talk) 18:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

And those 3 examples neatly provide a counter-example (if one were ever needed) to the "rule". What ... for as a synonym for "why" cannot be reversed as for ... what without offending idiom. Not even a pedant would ask "For what did you do that?" -- JackofOz (talk) 22:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a small niggle there, which is to say that sure, one could say that ("For what did you do that?") and be grammatically (or at least syntactically) correct. Perhaps it's like that definition of a gentleman: one who can play the , but refrains from doing so. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 01:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

How to say "bad-mouthing" in a less informal way?

In a formal report how can I write that Able was bad-mouthing Baker? "Bad-mouthing" seems too informal, so I would like to use a less informal equivalent. Thanks 80.0.127.115 (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Disparaging? —Angr 22:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

In the sense of ridicule, discredit, criticize, defame, insult? Julia Rossi (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Excoriate, execrate, censor, denounce, vilify, malign, traduce, asperse. I wonder whether most languages are as rich in such words as English is. --Milkbreath (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Denigrate, deprecate, belittle... Vrac (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Decry, denunciate, deplore, stigmatise, accuse, depreciate, impeach... Gwinva (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Speak ill of, slander, maledict, calumniate. --Milkbreath (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime I will accumulate the short list of synonyms for good-mouthing. Google indicates it may be even shorter than I thought. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Praise, glorify, exalt, laud, extol, commend, and compliment, to list a few. Although most of them seem more appropriate in reference to a god or gods, they could also be used in reference to a person. HYENASTE 06:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

going on grammatically without any punctuation

I was wondering about how long a sentence someone could make without any punction.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.109.49 (talk • contribs)

I would like to answer your question even though it is not something I have wondered about much in the past but I guess one could write for quite some time without needing any form of punctuation if one kept to a stream of consciousness style which allows you to carry on at great length writing thoughts down but never getting anywhere or pausing for breath in much the same manner as I am doing now although you may find that you want to do it about quite another topic altogether which is quite up to you and I would not blame you for it although others might question whether there is anything to be gained by such a demonstration and consider that you would be better constructing something more formal especially as the problem with these sentences is that they bore the writer and they soon run out of inspiration which is why they finally stop. Gwinva (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Japanese politicians are famous for going on for 20 minutes with a single sentence (though they do pause), so that they don't have to say whether they support or oppose the topic of their speech until they can gage the reaction of their audience. (Japanese is a verb-final language, and it is the verb that indicates polarity (is/isn't, will/won't), so as long as you avoid that final verb, you don't have to commit yourself.) kwami (talk) 23:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Molly Bloom's Soliloquy in Ulysses is a well known example, containg, I think, 8 full stops in this final chapter. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 00:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Forever! See Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo. --Sean 14:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Had(ley) had had had had had had...? Where is that article? Thanks. ~AH1 17:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

March 5

Most heavily punctuated sentence

The above question about lack of punctuation has inspired me to propose an opposite challenge. (But, since this is a reference desk, I shall phrase it as a question!) What is the most heavily punctuated sentence a Ref Desk volunteer can construct? All punctuation must be used according to accepted guidelines and standards. Gwinva (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you accept answers in Morse code ? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I –that is, me, "Gwinva" (a nom-de-plume)– say "Ha!" to that; Morse’s code lacks –indeed, wants– punctuation, so you'd be better striving, working, and concentrating on a complex arrangement, like the extra-ordinary, and heart-warming (in fact, delightful), offering from our friend, "MusicalConnoisseur", below, or, indeed, a run-of-the-mill effort, such as my off-the-cuff response: "Punctuation is, certainly, the finest 'tool' a word-smith, of any kind, has at their –that is, his or her– disposal, regardless of their genre, subject, theme, or field." Gwinva (talk) 07:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that Morse Code does indeed have punctuation for those who wish use of it. People rarely choose this, but it's there. Whether the cipher is Samuel's would be another matter. I'm actually playing a different game here, and hope success. Skittle (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Are we counting marks, or density? I could form a lengthy run-on with nothing more than repeated commas. HYENASTE 04:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

True, but live a little, Hynaste; there's a world of punctuation out there! Gwinva (talk) 07:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

*Whew!* That was a long run. :) --~~MusicalConnoisseur~~ Got Classical? 06:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems that your challenge, if, indeed, it can be called a "challenge", is to write a sentence – an endlessly qualified sentence, for that matter – in the style of the late Henry James, by which I mean, of course, not that the author is dead (which, it goes without saying, he is), but that the sentence under consideration (being, that is to say, the one you are currently reading) is, in some way, evocative of his (Henry James's) later novels.†

†Say, "What Maisie Knew" (1897) or, if you prefer, "The Ambassadors" (1903).

Or, in a different style, how about this:

"You… you mean to tell me," said User:Gwinva (incredulous), "that s/he – was it a 'he' or a 'she'? – said: 'I like the bands Hear'Say, !!!, Menswe@r, and B*Witched'!?!?!!!" Malcolm Starkey (talk) 08:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This sentence has many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many commas. --Kjoonlee 10:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if we're gonna make stuff up, why not,

"B-b-b-b-but I d-don't w-w-w-, w-w, w-, w-wAnna go!" he stuttered.

Why not something that is only incidentally heavily punctuated instead? Like maybe Ben:Jonson, who punctuated his very name?

If you, my Sonne, should, now, preuaricate, / And, to your owne particular lusts, employ / So great, and catholique a blisse; Be sure, / A curse will follow, yea, and ouertake / Your subtle, and most secret wayes.

His 1616 Folio evidently has the heaviest punctuation, which tends to be drastically trimmed in modern editions. Does anyone know of anything he wrote, or other authors, that are more heavily punctuated than this? kwami (talk) 09:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the function of punctuation may have been quite different in days of yore; rather than being used as a tool for organising meaning in a sentence, it was also a way of indicating rhythm and pauses in spoken speech; a guide, as it were, to the actor reciting, to the reader reading aloud, or to the silent reader desirous of reconstituting mentally the spoken cadences of the written word.

Of course, punctuation still retains something of this function: "Hmm...let me think...that's a real puzzler...Yes! I've got the solution--quickly--not a moment to lose!" Rhinoracer (talk) 11:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: I went ahead and moved the above two comments up here from the bottom of the page, where I assume they were placed accidentally. -Elmer Clark (talk) 11:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, but it'd be interesting to see to what extreme it was carried. As far as I can tell, Ben:Jonson used the heaviest punctuation of any well-known author, even given these differences. — kwami (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

How about this punctuation assault, then, from Finnegans Wake?

These paper wounds, four in type, were gradually and correctly understood to mean stop, please stop, do please stop, and O do please stop respectively, and following up their one true clue, the circumflexuous wall of a singleminded men's asylum, accentuated by bi tso fb rok engl a ssan dspl itch ina, — Yard inquiries pointed out → that they ad bîn "provoked" ay Λ fork, of à grave Brofèsor; àth é's Brèak — fast — table; ; acùtely profèššionally piquéd, to=introdùce a notion of time by pùnct! ingh oles (sic) in iSpace?!

And by the way, even if Jonson did occasionally include a colon in his signature, there is no need to call him "Ben:Jonson". Malcolm XIV (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Coming late to the party, but...here is a double example of "sentences" comprising 100% punctuation. Mark Twain was on a book tour and sent a telegram to his publisher, asking how sales of his latest book were going. The telegram read, in its entirety, "?" and the reply was simply "!". BrainyBabe (talk) 13:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ha! I've enjoyed them all; thanks guys. Gwinva (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Saffron and "bastard saffron"

Is there a difference between saffron and 'bastard saffron'? On this page they give 'simiente de papagayos' for 'bastard saffron', but pages in English that I found seem to be saying they are the same. At the same time, azafrán is what is used for 'normal' saffron. What is the difference? 70.162.25.53 (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Your question may be more appropriate for the Science desk. According to our article Safflower, "Safflower flowers are occasionally used in cooking as a cheaper substitute for saffron, and are thus sometimes referred to as 'bastard saffron.'" The article Knysna-Amatole montane forests suggests that a South African tree (Cassine peragua) is also known as bastard saffron. I would imagine that anything used as a saffron substitute might be given this name. Deor (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This Spanish dictionary, s.v. alazor, indicates that simiente de papagayos = Carthamus tinctorius, which is the safflower. Deor (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably surplus information, but for completeness, true saffron is the stamens stigma of the crocus (crocus sativus). SaundersW (talk) 08:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

My local tienda unhelpfully labels their safflower as "saffron" with no hint of bastardization. --Sean 14:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's common practice. Especially when they can't provide you with the real saffron! ;-) Pallida  Mors 15:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Identifying poem and poet: a spider and a watch

Hello-- Would you please help me locate a poem/poet. In it, a watch dial passes in front of a spider and the hands stop. I first came across it via a passing reference to it in a New Yorker article of some years ago. As I recall, apparently both the poem and the poet are pretty well known. I then looked it up in an older edition of the Norton modern poetry anthology and, voila, there it was. Now I can't seem to find it--or the old anthology.
They might have deleted it for this current edition (it's not there). The poem wasn't necessarily "about" a spider or a watch. It was (as I recall from reading it ten years or so ago) a postmodernist, as it were, oblique reference to them. I am reasonably certain 'spider/watch' weren't mentioned in the title. It was a pretty intense idea that was being suggested...hence my pursuit. Thank you. DeanStonewhite 00:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Not an exact match, but could it be Mr Edwards and the Spider, by Robert Lowell (you can read it at http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/poets/r_lowell.php ). Steewi (talk) 00:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Deünhille

what is Deünhille? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.222.230.12 (talk) 15:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Best guess from the available Google hits: downhill skiing. SaundersW (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Latin phrase: "in cauda venenum"

Source and meaning of Latin phrase "in cauda venenum."? Related to Law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.152.170.240 (talk) 15:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello. This phrase ("in cauda venenum") literally translates to "In the tail (is) the poison". Meaning ... the poison is always at the end. That is, "to save the worst for last." By the way ... the following thread appeared on the Misplaced Pages Language Reference Desk on August 22, 2006 (see below). Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC))

Per Misplaced Pages's List of Latin phrases (F–O): Using the metaphor of a scorpion, this can be said of an account that proceeds gently, but turns vicious towards the end — or more generally waits till the end to reveal an intention or statement that is undesirable in the speaker's eyes. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC))

That ought to be: "in the listener's eyes". (Or should that be "ears"?). I've corrected it in the article.  --Lambiam 02:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do you say "listener"? I think "speaker" is correct ... no? The speaker thinks that this is "bad news" and so deliberately waits strategically till the end to spill it --- independent of what the listener may (or may not) think of the revelation. In other words, before the speaker spills the beans, the speaker probably assumes that the listener will be rattled or unnerved by this revelation (because -- in the speaker's own eyes -- it is indeed rattling or unnerving information). After the speaker spills the beans, the listener perhaps may -- or perhaps may not -- be rattled and unnerved ... who knows? But -- in the speaker's eye's (from his perception) -- the listener should have been rattled and unnerved ... because the speaker himself found it rattling and unnerving. What do you think? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

There is an ambiguity I hadn't realized. The full story involves two dramatis personæ, A and R. A is the Author of the original Account (the one deemed to have a poisonous tail). R is the Reader or in any case Recipient of the Account, who produces a sort of Review of said Account, which Review uses the Latin saying in cauda venenum. The ambiguity is that "speaker" could refer to either A or R. (It is also possible that A and R are the same person, as when A inserts "editorial judgements" into his or her own Account as a literary device, but let's leave that aside.) In the way the saying is normally used (see e.g. here and here), it is R who exercises and vents the judgement about the tail having a sting. Unfortunately, "listener" is also ambiguous, since this could refer to a third person RR, the Recipient of the Review whom R is addressing.  --Lambiam 16:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, there is much ambiguity. Can the article entry, then, simply be edited to eliminate the ambiguity? Perhaps saying something along the lines of ... Using the metaphor of a scorpion, this can be said of an account that proceeds gently, but turns vicious towards the end — or more generally waits till the end to reveal an intention or statement that is undesirable in the speaker's eyes. Does that make matters better, or worse? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC))

August 22, 2006 discussion

Source of and best translation of the Latin phrase "in cauda venerum"

Are you able to assist me in determining the source of the Latin phrase "in cauda venerum"? If it is attributable to some Latin author, e.g., Catullus, can you also supply me with its "best translation" in the context of the source's text and also the meanings and uses it has when quoted out of its original context. Thank you for your efforts. Duane Larrieu

The correct phrase is "in cauda venenum". Literal translation: "the poison (is) in the tail", meaning "the worst ist yet to come / to save the worst for last" I don't know whether it's by Phaedrus, but it might have been in a fable referring to a scorpion. See more here.---Sluzzelin 19:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Just for fun, in cauda Venerum means "in/on the tail of the Venuses". —Keenan Pepper 21:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The Italian Misplaced Pages states that it comes from Phaedrus, but refers to the Fox and the Crow (with a cheese). I have not been able to find this or a similar expression in that fable, or in any version of the Boy and the Scorpion, or any other Phaedrus fable. --Lambiam 22:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

END of August 22, 2006, discussion

Do you think it is related to English "sting in the tail" ? SaundersW (talk) 17:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If it's not of the same origin, it does at the very least have precisely the same meaning. Sam Korn 17:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct wording: film credits under an assumed name

The Coen brothers are Academy Award winning film directors. They use the name/credit "Roderick Jaynes" when they edit film. This is no secret -- in fact, it's quite publicized and well-known. Therefore, what is the best term to describe this? Alias, pen name, pseudonym, something else? Which is the best fit? And why? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC))

I guess "pen name" is the most neutral and general term for this sort of thing, but more for writers, I think. "Nom de guerre" used to be the way to go, but don't get me started on the tyranny of ignorance I've sadly lived long enough to see. "Nom de plume" has a certain je ne sais quoi that gives a lighter feel. "Alias" has criminal connotations that are best avoided except with tongue in cheek. "Pseudonym" works, but why be so dry? "Assumed name" or "fictitious name" work, too. I might put "nom de guerre" and let God sort 'em out, but "pseudonym" is probably safest and clearest. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"Alter ego", "fictitious Roderick Jaynes"... I see google lists all of Joseph's suggestions and sometimes "the brothers (as Roderick Jaynes)", "also known as" and so on. It's interesting the alias is generally acknowledged as though he's a real personality who just wants to stay out of sight. That's why I like alter ego. Though it's a standing joke, there's also a kind of hidden joke that the credits would look OTT if the Cohens put their name to every job they do on a film. I wonder if the next step is to put Cohen as the last name for every credit on the screen. Julia Rossi (talk) 07:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The article currently says "alias" --- which doesn't seem quite right (as pointed out above). To me, at least, alias implies trying to be hidden / unknown / secreted ... and often connotes criminality. In this case, those implications seem inapplicable to the Coens. So, I would like to strike "alias" from the article and replace it with a more fitting term. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

I've looked at the article now, and "alias" seems OK to me, seeing that the Coen brothers are such jokesters themselves. "Alter ego" doesn't work in situ; that would refer to the pseudonym as a person. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

But he is a person, dear Milkbreath, because the Cohen's rightly sensed he's "distraught" at their suggestion of using a different name yet again. This is for you . Julia Rossi (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, Fargo is timeless, and Brother is matchless. Haven't seen No Country for Old Men yet, but it's coming soon to a theatre near me. Just a bit of trivia for the trivia-minded: Ethan Coen was born on the same day as our new Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

These versus those

In cases such as the following, is there any real distinction between the words "these" and "those"? Is there a correct word to use, or are these/those perfectly interchangeable? I understand the general distinction in things being "close" versus "far" ... for example, "these" books right in front of me on my desk ... versus "those" books way over there on the other side of the room. So, I am asking about examples, as below, where (physical) "distance" is not relevant.

• 2 items: I like pizza and chocolate, but these are not helping me lose weight.
• 2 items: I like pizza and chocolate, but those are not helping me lose weight.

• 3 items: My favorite authors are Shakespeare, Hemingway, and Joyce. All of these men contributed greatly to literature.
• 3 items: My favorite authors are Shakespeare, Hemingway, and Joyce. All of those men contributed greatly to literature.

Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC))

They are not interchangeable, and there is no correct one. I have run into this same problem, and I guess the rule of thumb is to use "these" unless there is a reason to use "those". In your "2 item" examples, standing alone, I'd say "these" is usual, since the pizza and chocolate are right there in the previous clause. "Those" would be better if the next sentence gave alternatives: "I like pizza and chocolate, but those are not helping me lose weight. Salads and vegetables are what I need." In this case, "those" puts figurative distance between you and the Bad Foods. In your "3 item" examples, it's "these" all the way. "These are a few of my favorite things". --Milkbreath (talk) 17:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello and thanks. Your first sentence: "They are not interchangeable, and there is no correct one." Is that not a contradiction? Is there a typo in there? Also, how is the 2-List different than the 3-List? In the next sentence, one can provide alternatives to three good authors just as easily as alternatives to two bad foods, no? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC))

In the first example, I wouldn't use either one; I'd say "they are not helping". In the second, "these" is correct. To me, "those" sounds like you're referring to another bunch of guys you mentioned earlier. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Our aptly named fiend speaks the truth. The first example sounded funny to me, too, but I played it as it lay. The two words are not interchangeable because there is a difference in meaning or something, and neither can be said to be correct because this isn't one of the things English has a rule about. --Milkbreath (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know of any language where the primary purpose of demonstratives is to indicate physical distance. That usually requires a gesture: with the hands, eyes, or voice inflection. Most of the time they indicate conceptual distance - how relevant an item is for the point at hand. (Notice I said "that usually requires", not "this usually requires", because I'm trying to show that point is off-topic.) This (here "this" refers to the thing that is on topic, what's done 'most of the time') is especially apparent for languages like Spanish and Turkish which have a 3-way distinction: The "medial" term is almost never used for medium distance, or physically located near the person you're speaking to, as grammar books claim, but instead refers to 'the thing I just drew your attention to' — it could be a mountain on the horizon. In English, as in most languages, the distinction can be quite subtle, and certainly isn't something you can capture in a book of grammar rules. kwami (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Word choice: using big impressive words

Is there a good word (either a noun or an adjective) that describes people who use big / fancy / intelligent-sounding words ... but only for the sake of using big / fancy / intelligent-sounding words ... such as (a) trying to impress the listener ... or (b) "subtly" boasting their intelligence ... ? Furthermore, is there a good word (either a noun, adjective, or adverb) to describe the person who does so, but indeed does so incorrectly?

Of course, I can't think of a great example off the top of my head at the moment ... but maybe something along these lines:

• A is trying to impress B about how intelligent and educated A is. So, A says to B, something like: "Bush is the US President whom has the worst poll ratings in history".

• Or, A is talking about eating at a fancy restaurant and says to B: "The place had such exquisite delicassies. I was so indelible to go there."

• A: "I have lived in three different states. The first was Texas, the second was Maine, and all of that notwithstanding, the third was Ohio."

So, I am not referring to a person who makes a (true, genuine) error -- but one who intentionally speaks like this (oblivious of the error). Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC))

Looks rather like malapropism to me, with a side-order of hypercorrection. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, hypercorrection is the type of thing I had in mind in my original question. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

Sesquipedalianists are guilty of the first offense, though only a fellow sesquipedalianist would say so. :) --Sean 18:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That "sesquipedalianist" word seems somewhat on target ... and I had never heard that before. Does this word imply that one uses big words for ego-related reasons ... (that is, is the term pejorative) ... or is it merely anyone who happens to use big words for whatever reason? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC))

There's gotta be at least a slang word. There are a lot of TV skits in the US about people from disadvantaged backgrounds who try educating themselves and end up speaking like this. kwami (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sesquipedalian is slightly humorous in effect. How about bombastic which refers not only to the use of long words, but to excessive linguistic padding of any form? SaundersW (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this what you mean? I'm still working on a word for it. --Milkbreath (talk) 20:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Milkbreath - wow, that video / skit hit the nail on the head! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

It seems to me an updated, and somewhat over-the-top, version of the malapropism-laden discourse of George "Kingfish" Stevens on Amos 'n' Andy many years ago. Perhaps we should coin the term kingfishery to describe this sort of attempt at highfalutin' rhetoric while continually tripping over one's verbal feet. (Although Mrs. Malaprop herself was in a way—though perhaps not this precise way—trying to sound impressive.) Deor (talk) 02:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I know precisely of what you speak, Joseph. There's a certain type of personality that's prone to using longish words and constructions in ordinary conversation for, for want of a better word, theatrical effect. People in the theatre, particularly those with a good classic education to flaunt, and even more particularly those with a slight (or sometimes more than slight) tendency to be somewhat superior, or to act as if they were so even if they're really not, often find it hard to be "off" when they're not "on". That's fine if not taken to excess; it's quite a humorous and charming part of their persona. Psychologists and therapists might describe this as a sort of ego-defence mechanism, but we all have a suite of such things in our psychic armoury, so nobody's pointing any fingers here. It's when it's taken to excess, or, heaven forbid, they misuse words as per your examples, that's when it's boorish and revealing. I really wish there was a word for this; if there is, I don't know it. Milkbreath's example doesn't quite fit because it's being done for intentionally humorous effect in the context of an advertisement, and there's no evidence that that gentleman normally speaks that way. (There really should be a word meaning a word for which there is no word.) -- JackofOz (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a satire of an advertisement.

Wouldn't it be - what's the word? anti-autological? to have a word for a meaning for which there is no word? kwami (talk) 01:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, 'lexical gap'? 'lexical lacuna' ? kwami (talk) 01:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's now incumbent on us to identify the person or character who's the supreme example of this behaviour, and eponymise him/her in a new coining. There are plenty of examples in literature and film, and not a few in real life. Sir Humphrey Appleby must be near the top of the list. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

An applebyism? Or an humphreyism? Gwinva (talk) 03:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Humphrey Appleby used sesquipedalian and obscure language for obfuscation, that is in order to confuse and distract from the real import of his speech. He was not simply motivated by self-aggrandisement, and he knew exactly what his words meant! SaundersW (talk) 11:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes. (One is of course attracted to those who employ correct usage, and repulsed by others, who are consigned to the oblivion they richly deserve, so one might be forgiven for temporarily forgetting the original question, which was about the latter.) I can't leave without remembering the day Jeeves enquired whether his master Bertie Wooster would like to go for a swim, by asking him if he would be "interested in partaking of a little aquatic disportment". I've been borrowing that phrase for years. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

And was Mr Wooster, until he worked that out, stuck like a cat in an adage? (My favorite Woosterism.) —Tamfang (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally I wonder whether Sir Humphrey was named from this: "In 1957 Mr John Applebey remarked that those responsible for the public accounts seem to confuse themselves as well as everyone else." (Parkinson's Second Law) —Tamfang (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It's also one meaning of the word Logorrhoea. The extreme examples in the article are quite amusing. Graham87 12:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

How do you say mouse in Japanese?

Is there a "chu" in the word somewhere? 64.236.121.129 (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, our article Mouse links to ja:ネズミ, which is nezumi if I remember my katakana correctly. But there may be other words for "mouse" in the language. —Angr 18:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you trying to compare with Korean 쥐 jui? No, mouse and rat are both nezumi, except in Sino-Japanese technical or literary terms, when the character 鼠 is pronounced so or syo (cognate with Sino-Korean 서 seo) in compounds. kwami (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, then where does pikachu and raichu come from? In Zelda, they have something called bombchu. They are all mouse related. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Most probably from onomatopoeia for a mouse's squake, squeak I'd guess. Pika describes flashes and rai reminds me of raiden — thunder and lightning. --Kjoonlee 21:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"Chu" is the Japanese word for the sound that a mouse makes, and it is a "cuter" way of referring to mice. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Right. Also, chu is also the sound for a (light) kiss, AFAIK. --Kjoonlee 21:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

chuu-chuu チューチュー is what mice say in Japanese, according to my native speaker informant. Needs to be reduplicated. chuu チュー or chuʔ チュッ (not reduplicated) is for the kiss sound. – ishwar  (speak) 01:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

So Japanese mice say the same thing as American trains? Wow. —Angr 06:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, Japanese u doesn't sound a lot like English u, unless maybe you're a surfer dude. (Not even then, really.) kwami (talk) 08:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"chuuchuu-chan" is a pretty common kiddie word for mouse, based on the sound a mouse makes (as noted above). Paul Davidson (talk) 11:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Just in case you mistook one language for another, you might be interested in that both "mouse" and "rat" in Mandarin Chinese is 鼠 (shŭ), and sometimes 老鼠 (lăo shŭ ). Hope this helps. Thanks. ~AH1 17:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Vietnamese is cognate with Japanese (and Chinese and Korean) and the word for "mouse" is chuột. BrainyBabe (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Although Vietnam is one of the traditional chopstick countries, and also one of the countries where Hanzi writing (in some form) had been used, the Vietnamese language itself is not cognate with Chinese, Japanese or Korean. --Kjoonlee 12:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me for simplifying. It is my understanding that a few hundred of the most common and basic Vietnamese words (especially concrete nouns) are related to those in the other 3 languages. (A parallel: English is descended primarily from Anglo-Saxon but derives a good few common words from Norse.) So the words are cognate even if the languages, overall, are not that closely related. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Punctuation: use of the slash in complex cases

At first, my sentence started: "The human DRM/Gremlin gene homologue..." then I decided I wanted to differentiate between the animals to which the alternative names apply: "The human DRM (rats)/Gremlin (Xenopus) gene homologue..." but this separates DRM and Gremlin in a way that I find I don't like. Is it correct? ----Seans Potato Business 19:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It is very awkward/unclear, though not necessarily incorrect once you've parsed it. I'd expand it to something like "the human homologue of the DRM gene found in rats and the Gremlin gene found in Xenopus ...". --Sean 20:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There's really no clear way to punctuate that word order. If I wrote it I'd put spaces around the slash as a hint that it didn't related just to the adjacen word on each side, but it's certainly better to express it differently. Since this is technical writing, on first use you can define an acronym or short phrase to mean this thing what you're talking about, so you only have to give the full explanation the first time. "By DGH we mean the human gene homologous to DRM (in rats) and Gremlin (in Xenopus). DGH has three alleles..." --Anonymous, 00:30 UTC, March 6, 2008.

Hyphenation in complex cases

If I was talking about an inhibitor of cheese, I'd say a "cheese-inhibitor" with a hyphen, right? What if I'm talking about a "bone morphogenic protein (BMP) inhibitor" with the abbreviation in brackets? Is bone morphogenic protein (BMP)-inhibitor correct? ----Seans Potato Business 19:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your first question, no; if you're using the term as a noun, then it's just "cheese inhibitor". If it's used as an adverb or adjective phrase, then it gets hyphenated: "a cheese-inhibiting bacterium", "a cheese-inhibitor obsession", etc. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that answers my second question too, but what if we were talking about a "cheesey-wotsit (CW)-inihbitor obsession"? ----Seans Potato Business 20:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like an adjective phrase, so it should be hyphenated as you've done. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Usually when you embed a hyphenated modifier within a larger modifier, the original hyphen drops out. That is, an A-B X, where (A B) modifies X, but an A B-C X, where (A B) modifies C, and ((A B) C) modifies X. However, I've seen different sized hyphens (hyphen vs. en dash) depending on the level of embedding: an A-B–C X. kwami (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"Needs cleaned"

Is there a formal term for the colloquial usage 'needs cleaned', 'needs deleted', etc? Possibly it's just not included an assumed "to be", but I've also encountered a further stage "needs clean". As in "The bath needs clean". Just interested in reading anything on it, if it exists. Skittle (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It's dialectal, not colloquial. You might find something under Southern/Black/Texan US English. Also, I would guess that the clean form is not distinct grammatically, but is a phonological reduction of consonant clusters, and the people who say this also say fren for friend. If you get a verb that ends in a vowel, I bet the final d doesn't drop. kwami (talk) 20:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there is a term used in the dialectological literature for it, but I can't remember what it is. As far as I know, it's characteristic of Pittsburgh and nearby parts of Pennsylvania and Ohio. I never heard it in Texas. —Angr 20:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, why not both dialectical and colloquial? I know someone who uses that construct, by the way ("needs cleaned"); they're from "back East" (PA, U.S.), and they do not say "fren" for "friend", etc.; standard American English usage for the most part. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 20:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

(EC)Hmm, I'll have to trust you on the distinction between dialect and colloquial. The people I have heard say 'needs clean' certainly pronounce a 'd' on the end of friend and are aware they are saying the word 'clean' rather than 'cleaned'; it's not a swallowed syllable for them. I'll have a look under those dialects, but they are not the dialects of the people I know who use them. I said colloquial because they only seem to be used in 'relaxed' situations; the people who use them (and I find myself occasionally using it for the fun of it) do not use them in more 'formal' speech. But then I'm not quite seeing the line between colloquial and dialect-used-only-in-colloquial-context. Skittle (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

According to http://www.bartleby.com/61/79/N0047901.html the construction is common in Scotland; according to http://www.linguistlist.org/issues/2/2-555.html#5 it's even standard in Scotland, and is also found in New Zealand. It doesn't seem to have any special name other than "the need + past participle construction". If you google for "needs washed" and "needs cleaned", you'll find a bunch of hits. I don't know about the "needs clean" construction, though. —Angr 20:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

In the Atlas of North American English, William Labov et al. found the "needs washed" construction throughout the Midland, i.e. not just in Central Pennsylvania and Eastern Ohio, but on through Cincinnati and Indianapolis; as well as in eastern Tennessee (Chattanooga and Knoxville), the Great Plains (Kansas City, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, western South Dakota), and parts of the Rocky Mountains (Colorado, Montana, Idaho, as well as Phoenix). —Angr 20:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I do remember it from Pittsburgh, come to think of it, but I have a friend in Austin you also uses it. Evidently in your case, Skittle, we are talking about two different constructions. I wonder if 'needs clean' is a reduction of 'needs cleaned', or an extension of 'needs salt'? kwami (talk) 20:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, Austin's where I grew up, and the first time I heard the construction was in a linguistics class at university. Postscript to above: ANAE also says that African-Americans in Atlanta use "need + past participle" but others there don't. —Angr 20:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I wonder where he got it, then? Well, good to get it right. kwami (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've read once that "The cat wants out" is standard and acceptable in Scotland. --Kjoonlee 21:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty standard in California, but "The cat wants washed" is not. kwami (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly widespread in the UK as far as I know. Thanks for the stuff so far guys. So, we don't seem to have a set name but it's certainly a documented thing. It's highly regional, although fairly widespread in the UK, patchy in the US. No news on whether the 'needs clean' variant is simply a shortening (I suspect so, but not a swallowed sound) or from a different route. It's a start :) Skittle (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If I remember what I read a while ago, this construction was brought to western PA by the Scots Irish who settled in western PA.--Filll (talk) 21:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly where my parents are from, though they're not Scots Irish. kwami (talk) 00:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I honestly thought it was local (which to me means central Virginia, USA), but I "might could" be confusing it with other local peculiarities. I tend to pick up the strangest bits of dialect, I tell you what. :-) --LarryMac | Talk 21:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Refs in Amer. Sp.:

* Murray, Thomas E.; Frazer, Timothy C.; & Simon, Beth Lee. (1996). Need + past participle in American English. American Speech, 71 (3), 255-271.

* Murray, Thomas E.; & Simon, Beth Lee. (1999). Want + past participle in American English. American Speech, 74 (2), 140-164.

* Stabley, Rhodes R.; & A. L. H. (1959). 'Needs painted,' etc., in western Pennsylvania. American Speech, 34 (1), 69-70.

Additional refs in these articles. – ishwar  (speak) 01:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I recognize this as something my Newfoundland and Northern Irish in-laws say. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

In the United States, this is not usual in either the Northeast or in Northern California, where I have spent most of my life. Marco polo (talk) 02:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)By way of comparison, the form "needs + -ing form" was frowned until quite recently. It was too slangy; only "needs to be + past participle" was allowed in standard British English. BrainyBabe (talk) 13:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

March 6

Say what?!?: use of multiple punctuation marks

Inspired by the question on most heavily punctuated sentences, is it grammatically acceptable to end a sentence with multiple punctuation marks???? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It appears that you can place ! and ? limitlessly when they end quotations. See the first few comments of this question. HYENASTE 06:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That answers a different question. I'm not asking if you can have several ending punctuation marks in a single sentence that are separated, but whether you can smush them together, one immediately after the other, without living in fear of the grammar police. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It depends on the context. Something like ??? would be fine in a personal email, but I wouldn't want to see it in a formal letter or article. --Richardrj 09:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Such multiples, "smushed" together, are frowned on in style guides and punctuation guides.

See Interrobang for an interesting coalescence, and Ellipsis for a use of three full stops effectively frozen into one character, sometimes realised as a single Unicode entity (…), quite rightly deprecated at WP:MOS. Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS) and a few others talk about four-dot ellipses, too: but that's quite confused and confusing. At least one other guide takes a swipe at CMOS, and make a point of saying there is no such thing: a three-dot ellipsis is just sometimes preceded or followed by a full stop.

–Noetica!Talk 09:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Since the interrobang is so seldom used, does any MOS promote !? or ?! ? Then, which pair refers to which mood: a question asked with surprise, or an exclamation tinted with doubt? HYENASTE 18:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Presumably-misplaced comments moved to Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Language#Most heavily punctuated sentence. -Elmer Clark (talk) 11:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

How are sound changes found?

I found myself reading the article on the Great Vowel Shift, and wondered how sound changes from this long ago are discovered/verified. Presumably, audio recordings from the 1500s are hard to get hold of, so how do they do it? AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 15:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Comparison with other languages, both those genetically related (like the other West Germanic languages) and those that provide loanwords (like French); and comparison with other dialects (like varieties of Scots in which the Great Vowel Shift behaved differently or didn't apply at all). Rhyming poetry often gives us a good idea about when sound changes happened and what they entailed (when lamb started rhyming with ham, you know that the b has been lost). And although languages that have been written down for a long time often have great divergence between their pronunciation and their spelling, languages with brand-new writing systems are usually spelled pretty much as they're pronounced. So although you don't want to trust Modern English spelling as a guide to pronunciation, you're much safer trusting Old English spelling as a guide to pronunciation. —Angr 17:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to add to Angr's information, there are also some phonetic descriptions by comptemporary writers. Of course at this early period, phonetic theory and the understanding of the human vocal tract was less developed that it is now, making these descriptions difficult to interpret, e.g. calling a vowel "thin" or "clear" is hard to figure out (if at all). And some writers were better than others at describing the phonetics. An example: John Hart wrote an important work Orthographie in 1569. Here's something from his book referring to the pronunciation of the letters t and d:

"bei leing ov iur tung full in ðe palet ov iur mouθ, and tučing hardest of iur fortiθ"

That's in his own phonetic transcription system (adjusted somewhat). You can convert this into Modern English: "by laying of your tongue full in the palate of your mouth, and touching hardest of your fore-teeth". From this, we can gather that the sounds he describes are dental consonants. 100 years later we find a description characterizing the sounds as "end of the Tongue to the Goums" , which suggests an alveolar consonant. So, we know that sometime between middle of 16th century and middle of 17th century there was a shift from dental to alveolar.

As for the vowels, it is harder to figure vowel phonetics because we dont get good descriptions until the 19th century. But, if an English writer compares an English vowel to a French vowel and we have a better description of that French vowel, then we can make some guesses about the pronunciation of the English vowel.

As you go further back in history, the phonetic theory is worse as are the descriptions, which are fewer. So you have to rely on orthography, comparison (see comparative method), and poetry. Interpretations of early pronunciations are often built upon multi-layered and interconnected arguments based on evidence of several types from several different sources. – ishwar  (speak) 17:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This is fascinating. For a second, I thought fortiθ stood for fortis, as in fortis and lenis. Just curious, why did he transcribe <of> twice with a and once like we normally spell it? (We don't seem to have an article on John Hart, BTW). — Zerida ☥ 18:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not entirely clear. According to Roger Lass, Hart transcribes the final consonant in of with v approximately 400 times and with f 41 times and that most of instances of f can be attributed to the influence of a voiceless consonant in the following word (although he doesnt say how many are accounted for by this conditioning environment). Obviously, this wont account that f above. Generally, Hart is careful about the voicing contrast and explicitly says that he is marking the contrast unlike the spelling. If we also see what Lass says about the voicing in the regular plural suffix and the voicing in sets like wolf - wolf's - wolves - wolves’, the f in of above could be (1) a printer's error, (2) a perceptual error by Hart, (3) variation in the voicing of weak syllables, or (4) a phonetic realization of voiced obstruents in word-final position similar to Modern English where by they become partially or mostly devoiced (and Hart only had a simple dual voiced/voiceless distinction). There is variation in Shakespeare and others in the f~v voicing before the genitive ’s, and Chaucer & Caxton regularly have voiced v before the genitive. Lass seems to favor a variation explanation. See his "Phonology and morphology" chapter in The Cambridge history of the English language Vol. 3. – ishwar  (speak) 20:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that is interesting since in a situation like this one would expect to see it voiced before a following sonorant. Another aspect that intrigues me about his transcription system is that he seems to be treating the palatal glide the same as the high front vowel rather than as a consonant. If we go by the orthography alone (I know this is not terribly reliable), it would suggest to me that the final sound in of was voiceless at some point and later became voiced, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. Thanks for the reference. — Zerida ☥ 23:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Brief translation of Japanese, please.

From the Japanese version of WP:IAR:

また、ルールを表面上しか守らない行為は、必要以上にルールを複雑にする原因にもなります。例えば、あなたの家の前で、たびたび犬のフンがされて困っているとします。そこで、あなたは家の前に「ここで犬にフンをさせないでください」と張り紙をしました。ルールを表面上しか解釈されないのなら「犬の小便ならいいのか」と反対に解釈されたり、今度は猫のフンをされたりするかもしれません。今度はそれに対応するように張り紙の文面を付け加えなければならないでしょう。そうすると今度は空き缶が家の前に……。というようにだんだん文面が複雑になっていきます。つまり、「ここで犬にフンをさせないでください」という張り紙は、「ここを綺麗に保ってください」という意味に解釈すべきでしょう。

Google's translation is quite hilarious:

Also, the rules of busting act only on the surface, unnecessary rules also complicate the cause. For example, in front of your house, the dog often has been in trouble Hoon said. So, you are in front of the house "where the dog to prevent Hun, please" poster. Interpretation of the rules not only on the surface, "I wish the dog's urine?" Interpreted by the opposition and there is still a cat or a Hun might. Now, as their corresponding付け加えなけれmust sign language. So there is still empty can…… front of the house. Increasingly so in the face of a complex. In other words, "a dog in here, please Hoon to prevent" the poster said, "please keep cleanly here" may be interpreted to mean.

☯  Zenwhat (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, actions that follow the rules in a superficial manner only serve to make those rules more complex than necessary. For example, dogs might frequently defecate in front of your house. In response, you might put up a sign that reads "please do not let your dog defecate here". A superficial and incorrect interpretation of this rule might lead to the assumption that it is okay for dogs to urinate in front of the house, or that cats may defecate there instead. It then becomes necessary amend the sign in response. Then perhaps empty drink cans will be discarded in front of your house. And so the rules get more and more elaborate. In other words, a sign saying "please do not let your dog defecate here" should be interpreted instead to mean "please keep this area clean".

(That's my own quick translation.) Paul Davidson (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like something that might be used in a write-up on Wikilawyering. Your translation somehow loses some of the literary quality and tension, though, of Google's narrative rendering ("the dog often has been in trouble Hoon said"; "I wish the dog's urine?").  --Lambiam 16:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll admit, it's hard to find the right register when translating "fun" (dog poop, rendered as the fictitious Mr. Hoon by Google), but you can never produce a perfect translation of Japanese anyway. Paul Davidson (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The most interesting part is that it's sometimes spelled "Hoon" and other times "Hun". So it's not just a broken dictionary entry: Google's in-house translation software has a whole list of words to choose from, yet somehow considers these rare proper names more plausible in every context than the rather common word for animal droppings. I'm fascinated by the lengths that automatic translation software will sometimes go to find a wrong translation. Years ago I briefly used one which rendered いらっしゃいませ as "it comes and is precocious", which I remember thinking was surprisingly clever for such a foolish error. For kicks I just tried いらっしゃいませ in Babelfish and it returned "Be and others the っ plain gauze be". I swear I'm not making this up. Google gets it right, though ("welcome"). -- BenRG (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, Google Translate and Babelfish use unrelated translation software, so one might succeed where the other fails. Babelfish does a slightly better job on this particular passage, but it's still essentially unintelligible. -- BenRG (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Authors "writing as"

Joseph A Spadaro's question above about the Coen brothers' use of an alternative name which most everyone knows is really them, reminds me of an occasional practice where an author not only uses a pseudonym, but identifies themself as the real author. I'm hard pressed to remember or find an actual example I could show you, but I've seen book covers that show the title and then, where the author's name goes, there's something like "Mary Smith, writing as JANE BROWN". Technically, the author would be listed as Jane Brown, but there's no possible doubt that the real author is Mary Smith. I wonder whether this doesn't utterly defeat whatever the purpose of creating the Jane Brown pseudonym was. Is there more information about this odd practice? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

DBC Pierre's an example of one who was open about his writing name from the beginning. He even has a double identity, preferring to be a Mexican. "Stage name" from theatre, seems to sit comfortably with holding a double identity without hiding behind one and denying the other, or rushing off to the deed poll office. Oh and the double naming on the cover works both ways, sometimes it's been added in later editions to reveal it's cachet – was Graham Greene one of those? Julia Rossi (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Some authors create a second name for writing in a different genre. Readers have been known to get nasty when they are fooled into thinking they have another cosy read, and instead find themselves in a new world that requires thinking. I certainly have been disappointed with P.D. James, for example, when she left Adam Dalgliesh and Cordelia Gray briefly and produced the quasi-sci-fi The Children of Men without warning me, although I might well have really liked the book if I had been expecting the change. Eleanor Marie Robertson as Nora Roberts writes romances and then, under the name J.D. Robb, writes sci-fi "police procedurals". Confuse the two at your peril, especially if the flight is long, and you have already seen the movie! ៛ Bielle (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, Bielle, I understand why they choose a different name, or a suite of names, to compartmentalise their writing. But do the examples you provide show both their real name and their current pseudonym on the dust jacket? I'm talking about where they do precisely that. Re stage names, Julia, many people who use stage names are quite open about their real identities. But at the same time, they're never billed as, e.g. "Starring Judy Garland (who in real life is Frances Gumm)". -- JackofOz (talk) 22:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Since it became common knowledge that Richard Bachman = Stephen King, most of the republications of the Bachman books have had "Stephen King writing as Richard Bachman" on the covers, as here. Our article Richard Bachman explains why King used the pseudonym early in his career (basically, so that he could get twice as many books published, thus making more money). Deor (talk) 23:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I often wonder whether it isn't usually a case of "Stephen King writing as Richard Bachman", i.e. the author originally wrote under the pseudonym without the intention of revealing themselves, but once their identity was known, the book publishers decided it would sell more if they put the famous name on top. After Bachman's identity became public, that still didn't mean every potential reader automatically knew who Richard Bachman was, so the publisher slaps the name "Stephen King" on top of the Bachman books, hoping this will encourage King fans to buy the Bachman books. It worked on me, and I wondered how anyone could fail to tag Bachman as King. Scary stories, set in Maine, featuring predominantly young male characters who swear like sailors... who else could it be? But back to Jack's question, I think it's the publisher's decision to write "Mary Smith, writing as JANE BROWN" on the book cover, not Mary Smith's decision. —Angr 23:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Ruth Rendell and Barbara Vine for another example: The cover of No Night Is too Long has "Ruth Rendell writing as Barbara Vine". ---Sluzzelin talk 23:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Ian Rankin and "Jack Harvey" is another example. On Rankin's site, he explains the reason for the pseudonym: The Rebus books were still at this time relatively short and uncomplicated affairs, and took about three months to write. Meantime I was filing away lots of ideas for non-Rebus projects. My agent came up with a plan: a pseudonymous series of mainstream thrillers. Publishers, I was told, don't like to put out more than one book a year by one particular author. Speculation from here on: I guess once the Rankin name became a big seller, they were re-issued under the "Ian Rankin writing as Jack Harvey" banner to bring in more sales. As "Jack Harvey" they probably wouldn't have been republished: Rankin himself admits they were not a big success firts time round. Gwinva (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I get it now. Thanks for those examples, dear friends. I was under the impression that it happens on first publication, but it seems to be confined to re-publications. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

So does that mean we won't be seeing "The Sisters Mary by JackofOz writing as Various Vegetables" on first publication? What a shame...it has a certain cachet... -Gwinva (talk) 00:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha ha. Funniest thing I've read in the past fortnight. Maybe I'll attribute it to Simeon Gravely; that name has a suitably reverent tone (or is that lugubrious?). On re-publication I might then reveal the true author, Simeon's 83-year-old dominatrix Minnie Ganderplast, and wait for the sparks to fly. Oh, and the title won't be "The Sisters Mary". What it will be ... well, you'll just have to wait and see.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 06:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

As a side noe - J D Robb and Nora Roberts have co-authored a book. The author(s) justify this by saying that there are elements of both Robb's and Roberts' writing, style and content in the book, so both authors are given. Steewi (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping that one would die without further notice, Steewi. ៛ Bielle (talk) 02:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Some grammar: singular or plural in continuing a sentence?

Should the word "use" have an "-s" in the following sentence?

Through the analysis of the various letters written, their use as a method of characterization will be compared in the two novels.

As well, when writing an academic paper should "19th Century" be written out: "Nineteenth Century"?

Thanks. Acceptable (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"Use" is right. If they had more than one use here, we could talk. Make it "nineteenth century", spelled out and lowercase. --Milkbreath (talk) 23:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

things that are impossible to talk about?

Can someone give me an example of something that is impossible to refer to? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.23.26 (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I can give an example, but you may want to read about the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis. Bovlb (talk) 23:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a wonderful example. Unfortunately, this marginal universe is too small to contain a description of it.  --Lambiam 23:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

(after e.c., heh heh Pierre de Lambiam) 79.122: The set of things "impossible to refer to" is a member of the set of things to which it is possible to refer. What you are asking for reminds me of Russell's paradox. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

--Milkbreath (talk) 23:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Ineffability... AnonMoos (talk) 00:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

In my extensive filing system I have a long list of things like this. Unfortunately, I can't refer to any of them, for the obvious reason, so they must remain a secret known only to me.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

"The Tao that can be spoken of is not the true Tao." Pfly (talk) 03:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Fight Club? --Onorem♠Dil 03:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Chess Club? x42bn6 Talk Mess 03:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure:        .

–_⊥Noetica!– 05:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If I told you, you'd lose The Game. —Angr 06:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Damn it, Angr! I just lost last week! Can't I spend at least a month without losing? 206.252.74.48 (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

But seriously, questioner, why do you think we can do the impossible? We're good, but not that good. Think about it; if you can conceive of some concept, then no matter how abstract or unreal it might be, you must be able to say something about it or about your response to it, thus "referring to it". The only things that are impossible to refer to are those that have never even been dreamt of in the mind of any sentient being whose existence is generally accepted. That's not necessarily to say that such things themselves have never existed or don't currently exist, just that there are, or may be, some things that are unimagineable to us mere humans. If we've never imagined such a thing as X, how can we possibly refer to X? (Maybe this is what Hamlet was on about.) -- JackofOz (talk) 06:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

"Whereof we cannot speak, thereon we must remain silent". (Apologies to Jung.) SaundersW (talk) 09:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Which would of course be Ludwig Wittgenstein, not Jung :P --Ferkelparade π 09:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

...and of course thereof. (And one cannot speak, etc.)

–_⊥Noetica!– 09:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

M. A. Numminen's interpretation of that quote remains distinctive and without equal. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• retires crushed, repenting off-the-cuff comments made before the fourth cup of tea of the day* SaundersW (talk) 11:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There are only countably many utterances in any language, so (if you believe in uncountable sets) most mathematical objects can't be mentioned. For example, almost every real number can't be described in any human language, even given an unlimited amount of time to make the attempt. -- BenRG (talk) 11:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating Aida's song Taboo explores this question. One of the suggested answers is smegma. Xn4 21:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It's the -. ~AH1 17:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The meaning of life, maybe? Thanks. ~AH1 17:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

March 7

Aboriginal languages in Northern Ontario?

Which aboriginal language(s) would be used the most in the Cochrane, Ontario area?

I think it's Moose Cree...

--Sonjaaa (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks from Cree language that it might be Moose Cree, but it's close to the border with Ojibwe. Not sure how much the Cree map reflects current vs. historical ranges. Definitely Algonquian, though. (It's Ojibwe around Lake Abitibi on the Quebec border west of La Sarre.) Note also that Ojibwe has similar internal diversity as Cree, and that the borders between dialects of either may be ill defined, which explains the straight lines on the Cree map. — kwami (talk) 00:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The predominant aboriginal language of the Cochrane District is Cree: . -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

meaning of "works"

What does it mean in the following sentence? "The people love empirical things because none of them are harmful; but the physicians are ashamed because great works prefer the villages." --Omidinist (talk) 07:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The quote continues: "...where the marketplaces resound in their praises of empirical remedies." The passage refers to medicinal lore and seems to be taken from Science and the Secrets of Nature by William Eamon. It looks like the author of the quote, the Dominican Friar Nicholas of Poland means God's great works or (God's deepest secrets) which prefer and reveal themselves to the village with its appreciation for the empirical as opposed to "learned physicians" who rely on their reasoning in their ivory towers. In one of the next sentences in the paragraph you quoted, Eamon interprets: "The secrets of nature are known empirically, not by philosophy." ---Sluzzelin talk 08:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Sluzzelin. Now I can find it in many places of the Bible, like in Psalms. --Omidinist (talk) 08:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

languages : how to say the F word in German, French, Japanese, Spanish, and Italian

how to say the f word in german, french and japanese,and spanish and italien? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invisiblebug590 (talk • contribs) 08:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

(Assuming you mean "fuck", see the page on F word and please clarify if you mean another word) Wiktionary has all sorts of translations of several meanings in all sorts of languages including the ones you are asking about. Note that neither German, nor French, nor Spanish, nor Italian use the corresponding vulgar verb for "having sexual intercourse" as an interjection the way English does. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm no expert on Japanese, but I can tell you that the three insults I know are roughly chikksho- (animal), bakayaro/baka (idiot), nanda kore (what's this). --Kjoonlee 09:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

None of these comes close to the offensiveness of 'Fuck', though. Japan doesn't really have any very offensive swears. Phileas (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Japanese has no literal equivalent. While one can be quite rude in Japanese, the language does not rely on scatalogical and religious shock-words like European languages do. Paul Davidson (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the other languages, but the vulgar verb for intercourse is "ficken" in German and "chiavare" in Italian. The standard interjection (as in "Fuck! I spilled my coffee!" or "what a load of fucking nonsense") is "Scheisse" or "Scheiss" in German (literally "shit") and "cazzo" in Italian (literally "dick"). I think it's quite interesting how different languages use very different vulgar words as a standard interjection - it is, of course, original research and blind guessing, but I think it's possible to deduce something about a language's culture from the standard vulgar interjection (in a very catholic country like Italy, the concept of a penis is the largest possible taboo, while in a culture based on orderliness and cleanliness like in Germany, the most vulgar thing imaginable is a pile of shit...and it's quite funny to see that the Scandinavian languages use "faen" which does not mean anything but is just a generic word that is considered offensive) -- Ferkelparade π 09:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Maledicta Press regularly publishes insights on this topic. (I remembered it from an interview with the publisher, Reinhold Aman, Here's the interview, in German unfortunately).

I've seen the taboo zones being divided into "religious", "sexual", and "excremental" (Pinker, for example), but Aman distinguishes between insulting the family, blasphemy, and violations of prudish sensitivities (including sexual intercourse, body parts, and excrement). Blasphemy is mainly attributed to Catholic cultures ("from Bavaria to Brazil"), insulting the family is more popular in Asia, Africa, and Oceania, while Americans are mentioned as the example par excellence of prudish culture.

More tidbits: Some indigenous cultures are extremely sensitive, and will even take offense from mentioning a dead relative, or from reference to the fact that one sleeps with one's own spouse. Then there are cultures allowing for curses such as "I fuck your mother's dead soul" (Serbian) on the other end of the spectrum. Aman says the Hungarians are among the "best" swearers, combining blasphemy and excrement in the same curse. But Kudos also goes to Russian, Arabic, Greek, Bavarian, Italian, and Spanish. The most clever curses are attributed to Yiddish "May you lose all teeth save one, so you can still have a toothache. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Arabic combines family and sex in the worst expletive (that I know of): "kus ummak", your mother's pussy. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a note on Ferkelparade's claim about 'Faen' above. It is not just a generic offensive word meaning nothing. The swedish version, 'Fan', means "the devil", which puts it in the same category as virtually all swedish expletives, blasphemic ones. I'm not sure about danish and norwegian, though. They might have borrowed the expletive but not its meaning/Kriko (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

F*ck off in French: fous le camp. Hope this helps. Thanks. ~AH1 16:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

However, if you trust babelfish, which you really shouldn't for complicated phrases like this (assuming you mean "f*ck", not "f*ck you" or "f*ck off" or "f*cking" :

• German: Bumsen
• French: baise
• Japanese: 性交
• Spanish: cogita
• Italian: scopata

However, I doubt that these are gramaticly correct for the intended meaning, and the grammar will likely fall apart when you use more complicated phrases involving f*ck on babelfish. Thanks. ~AH1 16:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, German bumsen does mean "have sex (with)", but it doesn't have nearly the level of vulgarity of fuck. Bumsen is literally "bang" and is about equally vulgar in its sexual connotation as English "bang", though bumsen is probably more common in German than bang is in English. In vulgarity and frequency it probably corresponds most closely to screw. —Angr 20:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The exact translation into Spanish is follar which has the same etymology as fuck however it is only used in Spain, in Chile it is culiar and México it is chingar. This is only in reference to sex, when it comes to an insult, as in fuck you, somthing like andate a la mierda (go to shit) or tú madre (your mother) would be appropriately offensive and used in the same situation.Carritotito (talk) 03:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The proper treatment of screws

It has recently come to my attention that of all the languages I have ever had contact with, French is the only one that has a fitting word for screwdriver (tournevis, indicating that screws are actually turned with the thing). In English, screws are driven, in German, they are pulled (Schraubenzieher), in Norwegian dragged (skrutrekker), in Italian even hunted (cacciavite). None of this seems to make any sense (or at least the German does not make any sense, no matter how you look at it...it is of course possible that screwdriver and cacciavite have some subtleties of meaning that escape my non-native speaker's ears). Is there a word for this peculiar phenomenon, other than the overly broad "malapropism"? And has there ever been any linguistic research into the strange verbal abuse screws have to endure the world over? -- Ferkelparade π 12:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Drive is fitting...the usual sense now has to do with cars, but it used to mean "force something somewhere", and there is still "pile driver", "line drive", etc. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

In English the "drive" part means "to force someone or something to go somewhere or do something". You drive cattle to forcibly move them. You can drive a nail into wood (you force the nail into the wood). Hence a screwdriver drives a screw into wood. - X201 (talk) 12:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I am of course aware of that meaning of "to drive"; the source of my puzzlement is the fact that screws by definition are not generically driven in or pulled out (like nails), but always turned - which is not reflected in any word for "screwdiver" except the French. Maybe it is folly to expect words in natural languages to actually correspond to the way their denotat is used, I'm just amazed at how little this is the case in the case of screwdrivers -- Ferkelparade π 12:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: Now I read our article screwdriver and am confused even more - apparently, the word "turnscrew" was used before the word "screwdriver" and then fell out of general use, which means there was an appropriate and exact word that indicated the turning motion that was then replaced by a more generic word. Hooray for natural languages and their inconsistencies - some of these days I think it would be better for everyone to completely forget their mother tongue and instead switch to some nice, clean artificial language :P -- Ferkelparade π 12:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Your think doubleplusgood, Ferkel. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

We still have "turn the screws", but that comes from the torture device, thumbscrew. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Paul Kay has used the exact example of screwdriver to counter the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. See "Intra-speaker relativity" in Rethinking linguistic relativityedited by John J. Gumperz and Stephen C. Levinson. ISBN 0521448905 ---Sluzzelin talk 12:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say that the French term is less fitting than English. Sure, you turn the screw but that's not why we use it. We use it because it puts screws in place. Certainly there's a difference between inserting a nail and a screw and that difference is in the turning aspect, but because it's understood already that a screw must be turned to be driven, it's redundant. In English, if someone came up with a device called a screwturner I'd think they found something that turns the screws around so that you don't have to manually fit it onto the end... or something. The real question is, why don't say naildriver? — Ƶ§œš¹ 18:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

In German, the term "Schraubendreher" (screw turner) seems to replace the non descriptive term "Schraubenzieher" (screw puller). At least in my neck of the woods, which is not that distant from Dr Ferkel´s Munich, the term is found in many hardware shops.

Googling for Schraubendreher gets 1.7 Million hits, Schraubenzieher gives a measly 600 Thousand.

The German Misplaced Pages comments on the meaning of Schraubenzieher and notes that "ziehen" was related to "einziehen" or "festziehen", ie. to tighten the screw. A such, the word starts to make sense, but it seems to be an endangered species, anyway.

For nostalgic handymen and women there is also an interesting Elizabethan manual entitled The Turning of the Screw. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you're confusing it with the Victorian zoological guide The Tame of the Shrew. —Angr 23:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Screws are both turned and driven. The screw will just twirl on top of the wood if you don't apply some directional force to it. You really should be looking for the language that calls a screwdriver a screwdriveturner. Strad (talk) 02:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe we've got it wrong with both referants; maybe the screwdriver should be called screwer and the screw called screwable. — Ƶ§œš¹ 09:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Or, if we're being ORative, maybe we should confine "screw" to the verb, create a new word for the noun "screw", e.g. frimble, then adjust "screwdriver" accordingly. Frimblescrewpush sounds like a plausible word to me.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Translation of Japanese and Chinese Misplaced Pages articles on Zen

I've been wanting to expand and improve English Misplaced Pages's article on Zen, but finding books on Zen history is difficult. I have several books, but none of them are apparently good for this purpose (all on Zen practice, not Zen history). And I can't really afford books on Zen history from Amazon, right now.

However, I figured that Japanese Misplaced Pages and Chinese Misplaced Pages have some good material which could be copied back into English Misplaced Pages, if translated. I looked, used Google's translator, and they do apparently have some good material.

So, if anybody could translate this Japanese article for me, please:

• 禅

And please translate this Chinese article for me, please:

• 禅宗

It would be very helpful. If you don't have a lot of time or you're lazy (like me, but I hope not!), send me a message and I'll tell you which passages are the most important parts that I need translated. Thanks! ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

For translations of foreign articles to English, try posting a request on Misplaced Pages:Translation. Dforest (talk) 20:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Put through, here: Misplaced Pages:Translation/Zen. Anyone who can do this translation, please help! ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I just took a look at the translation area there seems to be pretty slow, useless bureaucracy. The directions are confusing, there appear to be several old cases which have been ignored. I put my case in there (I think), but I doubt anybody will respond.

Any good samaritans here, willing to help? If not, I know some off-wiki sites which may be more helpful. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

From unknown to certain

I need help creating a scale of certainty. It's in the context of memory and retelling of visual memories. I'm trying to find the more subtle nuances but I can't find the words. It would go something like this:

• unknown
• unremembered (?)
• unsure
• possible
• probable
• likely
• certain
• unquestionable

Of course there are going to be problems. For example it is hard to determine if likely is stronger in certainty than probable. Are they perfect synonymes? Does one have more weight than the other? Any help would be appreciated. 200.127.59.151 (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this Misplaced Pages-related? If not, this isn't really the place for your question. If it is Misplaced Pages-related, creating such a scale of certainty would be original research. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no such restriction on questions posted to the reference desks. --LarryMac | Talk 19:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

"Certain" is much more...um, certain than "likely". For example, if something is "likely" to explode then it might explode, but if it is "certain" it will explode (don't know how that example came to my mind, but there you go). Oops, misread your question. Ok then, "probable" means it could have happened, "likely" means it might have happened, if that helps. Actually, that doesn't make any sense. I confused myself? *sigh* Also, "unremembered" doesn't belong there at all. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that probable and likely are more or less the same concept (specifically, anything greater than 50% chance, if you want to get mathematical). Also ... unremembered is probably better stated as not remembered or, better yet, forgotten. That is, you had the knowledge/memory at one time, but subsequently lost it (forgot it) ... as opposed to you never had the knowledge/memory at all (unknown). (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC))

I'm not convinced about some of the distinctions in the proposed list. How can certain and unquestionable be set apart, I wonder? But then, unquestionable does have more of a rhetorical tang of conviction about it, given the everyday overuse of certain. As for probable, it has different senses in historical and philosophical use than in everyday use. When David Hume used the term, as he did very frequently, there is often something of provable about it. The two words are cognate, both come from Latin probare ("to prove"; but that's problematic also!).

In fact, the force of several of these adjectives might vary depending on what they are applied to, and in which contexts.

Some of the listed terms can themselves be graded by qualifications. Take certainty (as a noun for convenience):

Apodeictic certainty is certainty that is warranted by the surest proof, which is called demonstrative proof (like "demonstrating" an incontrovertible truth in mathematics, such as "all three-angled figures have three sides"). We could also speak of demonstrative certainty.

Moral certainty is a lower grade of certainty; the term is not much used these days, and people are a bit uncertain about it. See this from OED, "Moral, a." (my emphasis):

11. Used to designate that kind of probable evidence that rests on a knowledge of the general tendencies of human nature, or of the character of particular individuals or classes of men; often in looser use, applied to all evidence which is merely probable and not demonstrative. moral certainty: a practical certainty resulting from moral evidence; a degree of probability so great as to admit of no reasonable doubt; also, something which is morally certain.

That's a mixed bag! And the definition given at "certainty" is really wayward, and not secured by the examples there:

morally certain: so sure that one is morally justified in acting upon the conviction.

1645 Earl Glamorgan Let. 28 Nov. in Carte MSS., I am morally certain a total assent from the Nuncio shall be declared to the propositions for peace.

1837 Carlyle Fr. Rev. (1871) II. iv. vii. 148 Besides one is not sure, only morally-certain.

Practical certainty is another possible gradation, as we see in OED as cited above.

Indubitable needs to be added to the list, in the techical and Cartesian sense not possible to be doubted. That's pretty strong, as certainties go. Strictly different from unquestionable, I'd say. But that's tricky.

Much more could be said about the other terms. Possible is a bit of a worry philosophically, to say the least. It would need to be interpreted as epistemically possible, for a start. Plausible should be added to the list, too. So should known, because what is known is both believed and true (usually with further conditions added) – but then, one can know something but the strength of the belief element in this might vary, on some accounts of the nature of belief. Context of use of these terms becomes relevant here too.

–_⊥Noetica!– 22:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's an amazing answer! Thank you very much. If anyone has any more words to add I'm interested. 200.127.59.151 (talk) 23:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's also "factual". At first glance, this might seem to be equivalent to "certain" or even "unquestionable", but that's not so. Many, many things once considered "facts" (because most everyone agreed they were true) have turned out not to be true. So, certain statements may appear certain today, but by tomorrow they might have entered the realm of uncertainty or even that of things known to be untrue. Just where on your scale this might go is an open question, and you might even think it doesn't belong there at all. I won't be offended. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You could add the legal expressions: "On the balance of probability" and "Beyond reasonable doubt", but I could not assign a precise percentage probability to many of the terms for degrees of certainty and doubt. Different people use them in different ways, and even vary their definition according to the context and their feelings at the time! dbfirs 09:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a thought ... and a curiosity, on my part. If this gradation list is fraught with such fuzzy definitions, ultimately how will it be of any practical use to you at all in your project? That would need some consideration, I'd think. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC))

Furthermore, your current proposed list looks like this:

• unknown
• unremembered (?)
• unsure
• possible
• probable
• likely
• certain
• unquestionable

... which can just as easily add / incorporate the following gradations:

• known
• remembered (?)
• sure
• impossible
• improbable
• unlikely
• uncertain
• questionable

My point being ... all of these words may ultimately be pretty useless and impractical. And meaningless to communicate any real substance to the reader. I'd prefer "a scale of 0 to 10" (or whatever) where "0" is absolutely not knowing/remembering ... and "10" is absolute perfect recall (or whatever). Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC))

A scale already exists, of course. It is called probability and can be given as a decimal between 0 and 1, or, perhaps more clearly, as a percentage, where 100% is absolute certainty, and 0% represents absolute impossibility. Gambler's odds can easily be converted to this scale, for example: 3 to 1 against means a probability of 25% (with three times this i.e. 75% that the result will not happen). dbfirs 01:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No! No! No! You are mixing apples with oranges, completely! The probability (0% to 100%) is in no way related to the certainty (scale of 0 to 10 or, similarly, 0% to 100%) with which I can recall an event. If I am asked, "Do you remember what day of the week was March 8, 1962?" ... my answer could be "I think it was a Tuesday with a degree of certainty of perhaps 3." In no way does that mean that March 8, 1962 had a 30% chance of being on a Tuesday. It was, in fact, a Thursday. So, there is a 100% "chance" that it was a Thursday and a 0% "chance" that it was any other day of the week ... regardless of how certain or uncertain I am about what day it was. The concept of probability in this particular discussion is wholly inapplicable. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC))

As a matter of fact, the original poster was studying the concept of memory. Clearly, one's memory of an event is a whole different concept of the event itself. Its very definition ("memory") is how well (or not) we remember or recall the event in question ... not whether (or not) the event in question happened and with what probability it did so. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC))

March 8

Sweden-Finland engineering connection: bridge, or tunnel?

File:Aland.interreg.gif

has anyone thought of building a tunnel between sweden aland and bridge(s) or tunnels between aland and finland? and the reason I ask here is because someone can read swedish or finish. Thx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alien from brixton (talk • contribs) 00:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's really a need for it. The region isn't particularly densely populated and could probably never support the costs. The shipping companies that run the cruise ship traffic between Finland and Sweden would probably also fight the suggestion tooth and nail since it would put them out of business.

I tried googling for this idea, but the only thing I came up with was this, which is a newsletter from EAP, the Swedish wing of the LaRouche movement. The newsletter refers to fanciful plans about "the Eurasian landbridges" with maglev trains from Stockholm to Hamburg, a tunnel or a bridge between Stockholm and Turku, and a tunnel (!) under Bering Strait between Russia and Alaska as way to shift economic focus further north. Considering how eccentric the EAP is in general, this is a pretty good indication that a Finland-Sweden bridge is never going to be built.

Peter 07:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The Oresund Bridge connects Demark and Sweden. 80.0.101.168 (talk) 14:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Meaning and language origins of a word: vouzon

I have been reading some old English text during my researches and came across this "... was given a vouzon of ". I cannot find 'vouzon' in French, Latin or Old English dictionaries .. any ideas please? 77.68.126.54 (talk) 09:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you give the word in context? It could always be a typo. — kwami (talk) 10:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in the full text of OED, in that exact spelling. I am reminded of advowson, though:

The ‘patronage’ of an ecclesiastical office or religious house; the right of presentation to a benefice or living. (orig. The obligation to defend its rights or be its ‘advocate’; see advowee.)

And lo and behold, OED has this for vowson:

Forms: 3–4 voweson, 5–6 vouson (5 vourson, -sone, wouson), 6 vowson. Advowson, patronage.

Those variant spellings are getting pretty close to what you're after.

Nothing beyond that in large French dictionaries (including specialised dictionaries of Old French and Middle French by Greimas.) Looks French, though. Would be, in fact. Advowson is from Old French avoeson, which means things like "protectorate, lordship".

But Kwami is right: we need context, if we're to help more.

–_⊥Noetica!– 10:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

What makes something dramatic?

I read a review on the internet about a movie (I think) where the critic gave a list of things the movie did not have such as suspense, conflict, surprise, and several other things, and then said words to the effect "in other words, it is not dramatic". Unfortunately I have been unable to find the article again. Definitions of "dramatic" seem to just say that its related to drama, or describe it in terms of the effect it has one the audience, neither of which are very useful when you want to create a script or story that is dramatic. So what are the constituent parts of something that is dramatic please? I've got suspense, conflict, surprise, emotion - what other things could be included in this list please? 80.0.101.168 (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Timing and pacing, of course. However, while we can point out what makes something dramatic or not, what is or isn't dramatic cannot always be described or quantized, because what is or isn't dramatic is very subjective. --Kjoonlee 20:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Some time ago, in the wee hours of the night, I zapped through the TV channels to mentally switch off before hopping into bed. Puzzled, I stopped at a channel which showed a burning log in a fire place. The only sound was the occasional crackling of the wood and the soft hum of the flickering flames. After 15 minutes of increasing boredom I concluded that the plot was somewhat lacking in dramatic suspense and went for a snooze.

Months later, I stumbled across the same channel. This time, however, there were two lumps of wood burning and crackling.

Mesmerised, I observed the subtly evolving tragedy of burning passion consuming the protagonists.

The eternal dichotomy of life and death,

The raw violence of nature versus nurture,

The profound metaphor of the essence of human existence;

This movie clearly had it all.

Unfortunately I must have dozed off and missed the dramatic climax of this masterpiece of cinematography.

As Klonjee points out, drama and tragedy are subjective experiences. So, by the way, are comedy and sex, but not necessarily in this order. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there a specific name for a town celebrating its 190th anniversary?

TXKay (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's called the "Intenyearsitllbeourbicentennial". —Angr 20:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Not listed at anniversary, but you can try making up your own from the information there. Bovlb (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It won't necessarily help you with the number 190 ... but this site explores your question in some detail: http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/57195.html . It seems that, perhaps, there is not a "name" for each and every numerical anniversary. I'd suspect that the "uninteresting" number 190 would fall in that category. Or, in other words, rather than having a fancy / official name, the word would be merely "190th anniversary". Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC))

By the way ... you might want to take this question over to the Math Help Desk (at Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Mathematics) ... this is more "up their alley" ... and maybe math-type folk are more up to speed on the subtle nuances of terms for "odd" numbers such as 190. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC))

Bob O'Billovich

I just found out about this guy. How in the world did that surname come to be? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

He's also in the category Serbian-Americans which may give you an inkling. Nanonic (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Who knows? Could be some foreign name (the first thought that came to my mind was Slobidan Milosevic) that has been "Americanized" (rather, Irish-ized?) ... from Obelovic ... to Obillovich ... to O'Billovich. Surnames do evolve over time. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC))

If I recall correctly, the Serbian alphabet makes use of the acute accent. American Irish names like O'Reilly and O'Hanrahan have the apostrophe because it was too difficult to use the ó of the original Irish name. It could be the same with the Serbian name. — Ƶ§œš¹ 21:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The suffix -vic or -ovic is a patronym in Slavic surnames, as in Vladimir Vladimorovich Putin or Boris Nikolayevich Yeltsin. Belo or beo means white, as in Beograd (= white city), the capital of Serbia.

It may be that his family upon emigration to the USA anglicised their name. If, as stated avove, he is of Serbian descent than they may have tweaked their Cyrillic name to indicate they are sons and daughters of the "white city".

The origin of the Irish clan prefix O´... is anybody´s guess. As far as I know, accents are only used with sibilants in the Serbian Cyrillic alphabet, as in Radovan Karadžić. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Another possible first element is "obilje": abundance. By the way, Cockatoo, I think you meant that "accents" are only used with sibilants in Gaj’s Latin alphabet, rather than the Cyrillic alphabet, which manages quite well without them. (There is also a modified d in that Latin alphabet). SaundersW (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Foreign surnames beginning with O are often subject to the vagaries of hibernification. A Lebanese friend of mine whose surname is Omari (presumably related to the name Omar, as in Omar Khayyam) is often sent letters addressed to Mr O'Mari. And here’s a discussion from a year ago about a person of German extraction, whose family name was originally Überrhein, a reference to the area above the Rhine River. It’s now become U’Brien, which looks like an illiterate way of spelling the Irish name O’Brien. I'm sure he and his family would frequently have their name "corrected" to O'Brien; and who knows, one day they might just give up the fight and capitulate. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

March 9

A few terms: passive subjectivism, taboo, shifting temporal frame

Hello,

I've searched far and wide in the universe of language on the internet, but I can't come up with definitions to these words. Could you help me?

• Passive subjectivism
• Taboo--in the literary sense
• Shifting temporal frame

thx The Updater would like to talk to you! 01:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

shaft in spanish

How do you say shaft in Spanish, specifically penis shaft?Carritotito (talk) 03:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)