This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wrad (talk | contribs) at 23:04, 21 October 2007 (→Why is 'fucker' used as an insult?: ce). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

• WP:RD/L

Main page: Help searching Misplaced Pages

How can I get my question answered?

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

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

October 15

Æ

I've created a stub for Aeneas MacKenzie, but should it have been Æneas MacKenzie instead? I'm going to make a redirect one way or another, but this is a royal pÆn, so to speak. Clarityfiend 00:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the man may have actually used Æ (so a redirect would be appropriate), but you put the article at the right place, in my opinion. Wareh 00:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say yes - if that's how he's listed on IMDB, that's probably his real name. You should definitely create a redirect one way or the other. NASCAR Fan24 00:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I made Æneas MacKenzie a redirect page, since it's harder to type. But out of curiosity, what exactly is the status of "Æ" in English? The article doesn't really say. Clarityfiend 01:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Obsolescent. Wareh 02:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Although occasionally seen in older encyclopædias, especially articles on mediæval subjects. Bazza 12:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Suffice

Which is grammatically correct and why? Suffice to say or suffice it to say 68.206.98.67 02:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC) Grandma Sue

It's a fossilized phrase—both versions are significantly remote from contemporary English, which somewhat nullifies the question of which is grammatically correct. However, suffice it to say has a subject (a dummy subject, more specifically), while suffice to say does not. Canonical English phrases always have subjects, so if you had to label one more correct than the other, I suppose suffice it to say is "more correct". Strad 02:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

That was a mighty careful answer, Strad. In case you're left in any doubt, Granny, "suffice to say" is wrong. Grammar don't enter into it. Idiom is what it is because there is only one way to put it. --Milkbreath 10:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say "suffice it to say" is a little better, as suffice is a verb and it provides it with a subject. It may be fossilized, as Strad says, but I'd say it's still part of standard English, if a little old-fashioned. Plenty of people use it, and there are millions of hits on Google, including 672 on the English Misplaced Pages. Xn4 14:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

A related discussion from the archives. --LarryMac | Talk 14:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Webster's uses 'suffice it to say' as an example in the first definition of the word 'suffice' as an intransitive verb.

Mademoiselle

What is the short form (like Mrs. for missus) of Mademoiselle?

Thank you, 138.192.140.113 02:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Mlle, which in French usage doesn't have a period after it. (Wiktionary: French, English.) Wareh 02:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Reprehensibly OT, but Mrs is not the short form for missus. Mrs is short for M/mistress , which in addition has a colloquial form missus/missis. Bessel Dekker 17:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Jar and jug

Are "jar" and "jug" different or interchangable? I consider in the context of having a water jar or a water jug on the dinning table. --Chan Tai Man 10:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't ever use 'jar' in that context. A jar is a small glass vessel with a wide neck. Jug is the word you want; "pitcher" would be an alternative. And "jug of water" sounds better than "water jug". --Richardrj 10:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Jam comes in jars, water comes in jugs. DuncanHill 11:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I cannot think of any circumstance under which the words might be interchangeable. See jar and jug--Shantavira| 12:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"Jar" is British English slang for a pint (of beer) - as in the invitation "Fancy a jar?". Bazza 12:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Since moonshine traditionally comes in jars in the U.S., we would expect quite a stronger effect than you get from your jar. Rmhermen 13:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"Water jug" sounds fine to me, but I agree, jug and jar are not that interchangeable. --Falconus 20:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

A jar doesn't have a lip to pour, a jug does :) This is probably half-true/not the main difference, but I'd guess it's the most helpful thing to someone trying to learn words that don't have exact parallels in their head. Skittle 22:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks all for your answers. --Chan Tai Man 13:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chantaiman (talk • contribs)

Is it ever correct to say "these ones" or "those ones" in English?

Is it ever correct to say "these ones" or "those ones" in English? I have done some searching around the internet and grammar pages, and have found somewhat conflicting answers. It seems quite natural to me to say "these/those ones," and http://www.english4today.com/englishgrammar/grammarfaq/grammarfaq_answer.cfm?qid=340 seems to agree with me. However, another site seems to disagree, http://crofsblogs.typepad.com/english/2006/05/these_ones_thos.html . Where can I find the definitive answer? (I assume there is a definitive answer, for if it is not definitively incorrect, then it is permissible, right?)

Thanks for your help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.40.204.51 (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Disregard the advice in your second link; it amounts to saying that ones in "these ones" may often be unnecessary, and thus it would be better style to omit it, so that the usage may be entirely missing from the collected works of careful writers. But I don't think there is anything prescriptively wrong about "these ones" and "those ones." Wareh 16:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree. I would call the form colloquial and dialectic. I'll say it like that sometimes, and I talk English good. The OED shows a similar plural "one" from 1953 in Donegal and calls it Irish English (Are there any X? You'll find ones in the shed.)

The second link says "English is full of rules, half of them broken." I say "English has very few rules; usage is all" (in the long run). If everybody around there says a thing a certain way, it is correct by the only definition of "correct" that makes any sense. Whether a locution is appropriate in writing for an audience who expect standard English is another matter, and I would leave the oneses off, myself.

Incidentally, I wouldn't go back to the first link for advice about English because they think "drawer" is spelled "draw". Come here, instead. --Milkbreath 17:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The exotic Irish-English citation is beside the point, since ordinary English countenances "She ate those small ones you left on the table." (KJV example: "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones...") It's just that without an attribute like "small" or "little," "ones" is redundant and can/should be omitted. Wareh 18:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I hear a semantic difference. Sure, you can say "those little ones", but can you say "those five ones"? Not so much, and the latter is heard in "those ones", to my ear. I only noted the Irish citation because it sounded similarly alien.--Milkbreath 19:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Milkbreath, I see a bit of a disconnect between what you're saying here and what you said in a previous question, "Idiom is what it is because there is only one way to put it". Can you clarify? -- JackofOz 22:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The previous question was about "suffice it to say". That has a fixed form and is of a piece, what Fowler calls "cast iron idiom". No variation is possible except as a conscious play on words. Usage trumps "rules" every time, eventually, but usage often, perhaps always, goes through a phase where its new formulation is a mistake. In years to come, "suffice to say" may become the norm, used by all the best writers, and then that will be that. But right now it's a shibboleth of less-than-complete literacy.

Here, we're talking about a casual locution, not a fixed idiomatic expression. What authority can we look to? The only authority I recognize on the correctness of an English string of words is the body of literature, interpreted by my ear and verified by consensus. Grammaticality is another matter, but more often than not what is not grammatical also sounds wrong. Our "those ones" is perfectly sound grammatically, and it is idiomatic in some dialects; it is therefore correct (and would be even if it defied one's personal idea of grammar if you ask me). Besides, I use it. It does not, however, seem to be standard American English, which is an institutional-size can of worms we can open later.

Don't get me wrong, I'll hit you if you call me a descriptivist. There is usage that is just plain wrong, but "those ones" isn't an example. I hope I've answered the question you asked and not one I thought you asked. --Milkbreath 01:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Whichever question you were answering, what you say makes sense to me. Thanks. -- JackofOz 03:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm finding it hard to think of any context in which "ones" would not be redundant. I guess in "Would you like those cakes or these ones?" the "ones" indicates that the speaker is still talking about cakes and not carrots. A quick search shows that neither phrase occurs in the Bible or the works of Shakespeare, and even Misplaced Pages, not known for its eloquence, has surprisingly few occurrences in article namespace.--Shantavira| 17:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

If you think that there are no longer any rules about correct usage, and accept that common = correct, do what you want. If you want to write something that is grammatically correct, don't use a phrase that is redundant. The only "correct" usage I can think of, would be within quote marks attributing the usage to a particular individual. Steve Pastor 19:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

For a recent discussion about this on the Language log see here and the follow up. If you read the post immediately above this one here and are left worried that by writing these ones you have implicitly accepted that there "are no longer any rules" please rest assured that there is a very large (sensible) middle ground. Stefán 21:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that the word "grammatical" is being stretched and abused by such statements as (to quote the original languagelog observation) "to my ear it isn't quite grammatical." An appeal to the ear is usually a test of whether language is being used idiomatically, not grammatically. "These ones" is not part of the "best usage," it may be stylistically awkward and redundant, but it is not ungrammatical, as it leaves every principle of syntax and logic unscathed. Redundant and awkward language, in general, is not necessarily ungrammatical, unless it is also illogical ("most favorite" I'd be more willing to consider). Wareh 21:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This is discussed on Pg.111 of "British Or American English?: A Handbook of Word and Grammar Patterns" by John Algeo; but it's not previewable in Google books. I surmise he's saying it's more common in Britain than America, which accords with the Language Log posts referred to above, and with the British National Corpus (these ones those ones). Here's a British textbook: Lambotte, Paul (1998). "Demonstrative adjectives and pronouns §3". Aspects of Modern English Usage for Advanced Students: A Comparison with French. De Boeck Université. pp. Pg 58. ISBN 2804126765. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

'One' is used in all registers after 'this' and 'that' to refer to a countable.
'These ones' and 'those ones', on the contrary, are only used in colloquial language (and some people do not like them at all), while 'these' and 'those' are more formal.

1. If you want strawberries take these ones. colloquial, same frequency as
2. If you want strawberries take these. more formal

1. These shoes are more expensive than those better than
2. These shoes are more expensive than those ones

1. These coaches arent as comfortable as (those / those ones / the ones) over there.

Anybody purporting to explain why "these ones" is (often) unacceptable needs to take account of the fact that "this one" is (often) perfectly acceptable. Language Log has plenty of posts deploring the "omit needless words" bugbear: many insecure writers over-apply Strunk and White's rules to every nook and cranny of their prose, never trusting to intuition.

My person theory: "it's just one of those things". That "these ones" is more common in spoken than written language is not surprising given its deictic sense. So I think it is sometimes correct to say it, though you may never need to write it. jnestorius 15:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Nicely put, jnestorius. Wareh 16:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

preposition question

Which sentence is correct grammatically (from Jim Corbett National Park):

1. The forests were cleared to make the area less vulnerable against Rohila invaders.
2. The forests were cleared to make the area less vulnerable to Rohila invaders.

--Mattisse 22:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say number two. NASCAR Fan24 22:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

That's right. One defends something against an invader because it's vulnerable to that invader. -- JackofOz 22:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Mattisse 01:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

October 16

Expletives

I have a few questions about expletives -- if anyone can share any insight, I would appreciate that. Thanks.

1. Oftentimes, when a swear word or expletive is referred to in writing, the actual (offensive) word itself will be removed and will be "masked" with a symbol such as "@$!#@$&!". Is there an actual name for this symbol (in the same way that the "&" symbol is called an "ampersand")?
2. Is there a name for a symbol (word) such as "f---" or "f--k" to represent the four-letter word f,u,c,k?
3. Is there a name to describe the phenomenon where we would call the above example "the F word"?
4. Would the term "euphemism" be applicable or inapplicable in any of the above situations, to describe the thinly veiled swear word? Euphemism does not seem quite right -- or is it? If not euphemism, what would be better grammatical / linguistic terminology?
5. Does anyone know the origin of these practices -- or have any references, cites, etc., about their history, usage, frequency?
6. Finally: What -- if any -- is the standard, accepted, conventional way to use expletive words in "formal" writing? Is the standard to use the exact words? To "play it safe"/conservative and use them only in direct quotation marks? To use a generic "expletive deleted" notation? To use the "@$!#@$&!" notation? Or to employ some other alternative? I am referring to an example where it would be essentially meaningless to sanitize the offensive words and "hide" them ... in other words, where using a generic statement such as this is not sufficient: "The teenager shouted several expletives at the police officer and was immediately arrested for breach of peace." If the above scenario needed to be placed into a formal paper, what would be the accepted standard? (I mean, there must be some formal settings -- who knows? a large-group presentation, a police interview, a psychiatric evaluation, etc. -- where you might need to indicate something substantive ... and you can't get away with the above generic-type sentence.) What would be used:

• John called Officer Smith a fucking asshole.
• John stated, "You are a fucking asshole" to Officer Smith.
• John stated, "You are a f------ a------" to Officer Smith.
• John stated, "You are a "@$!#@$&! @$!#@$&!" to Officer Smith.
• John stated, "You are a (expletive deleted)" to Officer Smith.

I guess what I am asking is this. What is the proper professional way to write this kind of stuff in a formal setting where (a) you do not necessarily have to use direct quotes but (b) you can't get away with saying nothing at all and you need to have some substance to the writing? So, I am not referring to a police officer's arrest report -- where he would probably use direct quotations. And I am not referring to a psychiatrist's medical evaluation -- where he would probably use direct quotations. But I am referring to some formal setting, where a generic "John used bad language" statement would not quite cut it. Perhaps a letter to the Pope or the Queen or a Judge or a Senator or the Mayor or a Chief of Police or your kid's school teacher/principal or your boss or ... whomever.

7. Finally, finally: How about the same (above) questions, but when the presentation of the offensive words is spoken as opposed to written (e.g., you are speaking at a Town Council meeting or you are speaking in Court)? Any thoughts on all this? Thanks for any helpful input. (Joseph A. Spadaro 02:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC))

• Representing profanity by a string of punctuation marks is mostly done in comics. See The Lexicon of Comicana: this is one of several comic conventions that Mort Walker invented a name for in jest, only to find it being taken up seriously. The name for them is "grawlixes".
• "The F word" is certainly a euphemism. The deliberate substitution of a weaker word would be bowdlerization. I think "f---" lies on the border between the two.
• As to formal contexts, whether spoken or written, I don't think there is any real standard; it's up to the responsible person or organization. For example, until fairly recently you couldn't find "fuck" in any dictionaries; today reputable ones do include it. If one politician tells another to fuck off, one newspaper will find this fact newsworthy and report it verbatim; another will use "f---"; another will use vague wording. Political forums may have rules against inappropriate language. And so on.

--Anonymous, 04:15 UTC, Oct---r 16, 2007.

• Just for fun, here's an example of that last point. The Speaker of the Quebec provincial legislature ruled this week that it is now impermissible in the legislature to call your opponent a "girouette"... which is to say, a "weathervane"! (News story: in French, in English) --Anon, 05:10 UTC, October 17.

A variant on "f------ a------" that allows the reader to deduce exactly what was said without writing it in full is to replace vowels with asterisks, thus: "f*ck*ng *ssh*l*". This is also done for other reasons; many years ago The Judy's had a song called "Will Someone Please Kill M*rl* Th*m*s", where the asterisks were presumably used in an attempt to avoid a lawsuit. —Angr 05:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The choice of which sort of censorship (which it is, in a way) in the quoting you use is not standardised. It would depend, mostly, on the audience. If it's for the Council for Easily Shocked Grannies, replacing the word entirely with CENSORED would be appropriate. In most cases, it would be acceptable to use f**k, f--- or f@!$, for politeness' sake. It could also be appropriate to use the uncensored text without removing any part, but placing a visible warning before that part of the text, saying that it contains offensive language (like you might see before a movie or on a CD case (if they do in your part of the world). Steewi 07:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC) Edited to add - there is also the possibility that people may be offended by the non-use of swearwords when they obviously occur, taking it as a form of being patronised.

5. The practice of replacing all or part of an offensive word with hyphens appears as a guideline in The Associated Press Stylebook and Libel Manual, the American journalist's stylebook. It doesn't give the practice a name.

6. I think you would have to judge case-by-case. In the highest register, I would tend to go with the exact words in direct quotation. I would expect the intelligentsia to be more offended by the insult to their intelligence that euphemism gives than by the words themselves, and indirect quotation puts the words in the writer's mouth, so to speak. If it seemed advisable to tone it down, I would probably go with the hyphens. Grawlixes are only for the funny papers and fiction. "Expletive deleted" is a euphemism for "censored", and has a comical ring to it. By the way, "expletive" is itself a euphemism for "profanity" or "obscenity". --Milkbreath 11:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

2. According to our WP:Profanity article, this can be called bowdlerization, as suggested by Anonymous.

3. I agree with Anonymous that the "F word" is a euphemism.

6+7. I haven't found any resources on style that talk about this, but in my opinion, when it is important to include the exact words, I would suggest using their completely uncensored forms in quotes in both written and oral presentations. It's annoying (at least to me) to see forms like "f------ a------" and hear "he called him a racial slur." When the intent is to be informative, uncensored forms are preferable since they leave it up to the reader—instead of the writer—to decide how offensive a statement was.--El aprendelenguas 18:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The most professional approach is to actually quote what the person stated, 'he said the officer is a motherfucker'" would be fine. however if you have any restraints such as censorship one of the other alternatives is fine, except the #$%& approach which is childish and comical i.e. Pow! Bam! Kpow! "F-ing A-hole (sic)" might be the best way to state this if you have censopship as an issue.Cholga 21:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The sic in your example above means that the speaker censored their own speech (their utterance sounded like "eff-ing ey-hole"). This seems exactly the opposite effect from the desired one. Tesseran 06:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sic would be inappropriate there. It's normally used to convey that an apparent spelling or factual error is exactly what a previous writer wrote, and should not be attributed to a typo in the current text. -- JackofOz 06:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Our article on Minced oath might be helpful. Rockpocket 18:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations to all contributing here. This f**king brilliant debate wins the ninth User:Dweller/Dweller's Ref Desk thread of the week award. Good job. --Dweller 11:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

A somewhat related old ref-desk thread: Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2006_November_22#Blanking_of_names_and_years_in_older_books (The original question was, "Why does Poe write some names like Mr D--- and Mr G---?") Wareh 19:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the great insights and input -- very helpful -- much appreciated ... Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro 20:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC))

Need a word

What's the word for when you use an item for a use other than its intended use? Like when you use a screwdriver to hit a nail. I'm not describing it well, but its usually used in the context that most people can't see uses for things which would be useful otherwise. E.G. a person is in a room and they need to hammer a nail and all they have is a screwdriver, so they say can't do it.

I think i heard it in AP Psychology

Micah J. Manary 05:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The more formal word is expedient, but you can also say make-do, makeshift, stopgap... ect. But is that what you mean?--K.C. Tang 06:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Pragmatic? -- JackofOz 06:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

No, the word is for a mental block when you CAN'T see another use for an item. Micah J. Manary 06:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

So the word is used to describe the feeling "Hey, I can't make do with that!"?--K.C. Tang 07:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It's two words, but how about "blind spot"? Clarityfiend 07:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The word is "to utilise"-- which is not just a fancy synonym of "use", but literally means "to turn something into a tool"; Thus, "I utilised a wire coat-hanger for a TV antenna. Rhinoracer 08:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if this is what you are seeking ... but as I read this post, the phrase "tunnel vision" comes to mind ... (Joseph A. Spadaro 13:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC))

Makeshift? 195.35.160.133 15:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC) Martin.

By looking at etymology, abuse would be a good choice (ab = "away from"), but at least for your hammer example, it's probably not what your looking for since it has a strong negative connotation.--El aprendelenguas 17:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• True, "abuse" would be very negative: what you seem to be looking for, is just alternative use. Since this requires creativity, the mental activity needed might be called lateral thinking, the resulting physical act would be improvisation.
• If you fail to recognize the alternative use of the screwdriver, this could, it seems to me, only be described in negative terms: you fail in lateral thinking, you are unable to improvise.
• This is not mental block, which occurs if you cannot even access "normal" uses: e.g., there is a hammer in the room, but for some (emotional?) reason you fail to recognize its use. Bessel Dekker 17:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you're looking for functional fixedness. risk 00:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you've got it.--K.C. Tang 01:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Still another word for using something for a new purpose is "repurposing". This is a relatively new word and won't be in most dictionaries. I think it tends to imply that the original usage is being abandoned. --Anonymous, edited 01:43 UTC, October 17, 2007.

To Macguyver? Confusing Manifestation 05:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Pronounciation??

Looked up Anne Parillaud (actress). How to pronounce her name? WIKI listing shows pronounciation as "an paʁi'jo" Read article on IPA pronounciation, can't figure it out. Is it really pronounced "ANN PARRY JOE" ?? ANSWER.COM has a button so you can hear the word. See here for example: http://www.answers.com/Comedy?nafid=3

That would be a good feature to have on WIKI. Else, use standard english words so we can guess the proper pronounciation.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.81.244.170 (talk) 07:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

A more accessible description of the pronunciation would be "aan par-ee-YAW". The 'r' is the French 'gargled r'. The problem with English-based pronunciation descriptions is that many of the people who come to Misplaced Pages have different accents in English (my Australian 'look' is pronounced differently to a New Yorker's 'look' as well as that of a Georgian, a Londoner and also a German who has only just learnt English. IPA is independent of accent, so once you know how one of the symbols sounds, it's the same, no matter what accent or language you speak with. I hope that helps you understand the difficulty. The only other useful option is to attach a sound file to each description, but I don't know that that would be practical. Steewi 07:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You're telling us that yaw and yo are pronounced alike in Oz? —Tamfang 21:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

In my accent, 'yaw' is pronounced . 'Yo' is pronounced . Perhaps I should have been more specific, that I was writing for my accent, as I don't know what accent to write for 76.81. Steewi 03:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

A more useful reference than the IPA page is IPA chart for English which shows the j represents an English y sound (as it would in German). It is pronounced something like Steewi said but the last syllable is more like -oh to me than -aw (or?). See IPA is useful I can't even work out what is meant! Cyta 07:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, adding audio files with the pronunciation of a word is done on Misplaced Pages, but requires someone to have made the file, uploaded it in the right form and put it in the article. Skittle 16:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

j as in Latin, Finnish, all Germanic languages except English, and those Slavic languages that don't use Cyrillic (as well as some that do) – any others? —Tamfang 21:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hungarian, of course. Not sure about Baltic languages. —Tamfang (talk) 03:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

'Only in London' in Latin

Can anyone suggest a definitive translation of the phrase 'only in London' into Latin? A colleague has suggested 'Londinio solus'. Inter-trans suggests 'Tantum Londinii'. Is one more correct than the other? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.229.8 (talk) 10:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not expert at Latin, but I would think that the best way to render this in Latin would be 'Londinii solum'. The correct form for 'Londinium' is 'Londinii' because in Latin, the locative case was used to indicate location in cities and towns. It should be 'solum' rather than 'solus' because 'solum' is the adverbial form. Typically, modifiers such as 'solum' follow the word or phrase that they modify, hence 'Londinii solum'. 'Tantum Londinii' doesn't look right to me. 'Tantum' can mean 'only', but in the sense of 'only so much', I think. For example, 'I'm only halfway finished'. 'Tantum' might work if you were saying something like, "I'm on my way from Brighton to Cambridge, but at the moment I am only in London." Marco polo 15:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest "modo Londinii." modo means "just" or "only." solus -a -um means "alone," and while it probably could be used in some construction in Latin to mean "only" (since many Romance languages' words for "only" do derive from solus -a -um), I think that using modo just works better.--El aprendelenguas 17:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I have the impression that the meaning of modo is nearer to "merely" than to "uniquely" which seems to be what's wanted. —Tamfang 21:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Women's underwear

What word do Americans use to refer to suspenders? The page at suspenders is, inevitably, all about braces (and, by the way, some of the most unencyclopedic rubbish I have ever seen); moreover, the redirect to garter belt does not help.

"Garter belt" is not a synonym for "suspenders", it is a synonym for "suspender belt". So what do Americans call the suspenders themselves? 80.254.147.52 13:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If Americans use a different word, then we don't know what your word means, right? Suspenders are the elastic straps that go over the shoulders to hold your pants up. Please describe the thing you're asking about so we can tell you what it's called. --Milkbreath 13:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't use your word to describe it if I don't know what your word is. I suspect that you are being wilfully obtuse. What do Americans call the bits that hang down from the "garter belt" (if you will) and attach to the tops of the stockings? 80.254.147.52 13:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually Milkbreath has a fair point. You are supposing that he understands what you mean, but if he is American, he might not. He didn't ask you to use the word, but rather to describe the item so that s/he could help you. A suspender belt is a synonym for garter belt as suspender is a synonym for garter. The suspenders are attached to the suspender belt as the garters are attached to the garter belt. It kind of explains itself. Perhaps reading the garter belt article first paragraph again slowly and considering the content would help - to which garters are attached to hold up stockings.

As for finding the suspenders article "unencyclopedic rubbish", why not improve the article rather than complaining? Be bold.

Also don't forget that raw text is ambiguous and often seems ruder than the same words coming from a person standing in front of you and assume good faith, you may find people more willing to help you. Lanfear's Bane 13:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't have a point or a clue. The only dealings I've had with this whole business was the time I dressed in full drag for Halloween (which resolves the s/he issue), and I wore pantyhose, anyhow, which I'm man enough to admit felt nice, incidentally. Tell you what, the experience gave me a new and lasting respect for the athleticism of the average woman. Have you ever tried to look good walking in heels? It ain't easy, and in fact it hurts.

I'd like to assure 80 (may I call you 80?) that I did not intend to be rude and that I am well able to be obtuse unintentionally. What I was there was lazy. Further, I can be one infuriating sarcastic bastard, I've been told (I'm married, you see), and you'll have no doubt about my intentions if I ever do go that way here.

Anyway, it looks like they're called "garters" (AHD) despite the fact that the word also means that thing the best man removes from the leg of the maid of honor. --Milkbreath 14:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

So what do Americans call garters? I mean the things that go around the tops of stockings or socks, not the bit that connects the top of the stocking to the suspender-belt. DuncanHill 13:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it is simply called the top band (when I look at the stocking page). There is also a garter of course which is a single band seperate from the stocking. I think the heavier band of material around the top of a stocking must also be erroneously referred to as a garter as it conceals a band of plastic tractive material which helps hold the stocking up but is known as a hold-up or stay-up (myself included in this error up until now). I never knew so much about stockings until now. Thank you Misplaced Pages, thank you. Lanfear's Bane 14:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like there isn't an article on mens garters then - the ones that hold socks up?87.102.12.235 18:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

We used to wear garters in the Cubs. DuncanHill 18:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard anyone refer to a garter belt as having parts: it's a garter belt, and the straps and clips are part of the garter belt. After all, when would you wear one part without the other? (Would you wear a suspender belt without suspenders? Or, even more bizarre, suspenders without a suspender belt? I think not.)

A garter is definitely the elasticized band that holds up socks and stockings (and shirtsleeves once upon a time.) Garters are generally worn only at weddings for a strange ceremony in which the best man removes said garter from the bride's leg and flings it at a crowd of men, one of whom then puts it on the leg of the maid of honor. You know, if it's an underwear-flinging sort of wedding.

Suspenders are elasticized or adjustable straps that go over the shoulders to hold up pants. Grammargal 04:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Which in British English would be "Braces are elastic or adjustable straps that go over the shoulders to hold up trousers." Bazza 12:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Bad English?

Just checking, is the phrase "I am me", bad English? I would've thought that since the subject and object are the same, it should be reflexive (I am myself). It doesn't sound too strange, but if you put it in other persons (e.g. "she is her" or "they are them") it sounds much more incorrect. Just curious. Thanks in advance. - _Aquí 16:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Prescriptive grammar dictates "I am I". "Am" is copulative, making the second "I" not an object but a predicate nominative. "Me" is in the objective case, and "I" is nominative.

Real-world grammar ignores all that. "I am me" is also right. It is true that "she is her" sounds unnatural; "she is she" sounds better, oddly. But "they are they" sounds really weird. It's my opinion that "me", anyway, is a special case, that we think of it differently than we do the other pronouns.

People talk the way they talk, and grammar be damned sometimes. If you want to start a fistfight down at Ye Olde Quill and Pince-nez, bring this up once everybody's got a few pints in them. Just watch what happens here. --Milkbreath 16:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Predictably, what happens will be that you lose your pince-nez in the process. Milkbreath is quite right, of course, though I'd amend slightly and say: "Prescriptive grammar be damned sometimes."

Part of this problem, it seems to me, is logical rather than linguistic here. "I am me" voices an identity relation, and seems less logical than "Don't worry, it's me." However, it is hardly less grammatical, if grammar is description of usage. In daily life, how many people would say; "Don't worry, it's I"?

"It is I, LeClerc" Cyta 07:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It is no less interesting that fear of grammatical mistakes may lead to hypercorrection. Thus, a common instance of such grammophobia is a construction like "He looked at my husband and I as if he were going to spit at us." No one, it is hoped, would say "spit at we". Lots of people say "at my husband and I" because of the conjunction and in a wish to err on the safe side (which, in fact, is a very unsafe side here). Bessel Dekker 17:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

'I am myself' is perhaps more natural. Algebraist 20:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Surely that has quite a different meaning? Bessel Dekker 00:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Since I'm not sure what 'I am me' is supposed to connote (since to me it's just unnatural), I can't say. Algebraist 12:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Valid point. To me, both I am I and I am me suggest rather a philosophical point of view: one is what one is, no more and no less. On the other hand, I would (quite wrongly, perhaps) take I am myself to mean "I am acting/feeling... etc. in a natural manner", and would mainly be used in a negative context ("Sorry, I am not myself at the moment"). Bessel Dekker 12:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Decommissioning

This is a question for those who have never heard this usage before. If you read that State Highway 23 was decommissioned in 1984, exactly how would you interpret that? Thank you. (Yes, this is Misplaced Pages-related.) --NE2 19:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I would read it to mean that the stretch of road formerly known as State Highway 23 had lost its designation as a state highway with that highway number. Marco polo 20:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd take it to mean the road was closed permanently. (Or maybe stored underground encased in concrete.) —Angr 20:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Angr's second comment: I would read it as a bizarre misuse of the word 'decommissioned', the normal usage of which is in entirely different areas. Algebraist 20:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Me too :) I was picturing it being carefully taken apart and the pieces taken away... Skittle 21:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's the context: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads#The new "multiplex": decommissioned? Anyone care to help sort it out? --NE2 08:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this a British v. American English difference? See Compact Oxford English Dictionary. Just to widen things further, I'd be seriously worried if members of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning in Northern Ireland attached different meanings to the word Decommissioning. --ReddyRose 11:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a professional vs. "fan community" difference. --NE2 13:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

If a person doesn't know what "decommission" means, they can open up a dictionary. It's really very simple. --Son 14:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I did. It's still not clear and could mean either that the road lost it's status, or that it has been closed completely (dug up and carted away being optional). I suspect this is a GB vs US issue. In GB English, decommission often means "switch off", "close", "make unusable"; so when we decommission ships, power stations, armaments (as mentioned above), etc., it means they are no longer usable. From that logic, a decommissioned road is one which is closed and no longer usable. Bazza 14:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

That's the meaning in the U.S. too: --NE2 14:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I offered my interpretation above based on my knowledge of the United States, where roads are seldom completely removed from service. Instead, highways formerly designated with route numbers become local back roads when they are replaced by a bigger, better highway nearby. Since the expression "decommissioned" seems to be ambiguous and possibly misleading, I would avoid it and instead describe in simpler terms what actually happened: either "the road formerly known as State Highway 23 lost its designation as a state highway" or "State Highway 23 was permanently closed and demolished". Marco polo 14:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"Turned back" (to the county/city) is one term that is used by some departments of transportation. --NE2 15:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not entirely unlike decommissioning a ship. A military vessel can be decommissioned and still serve a civilian use after that (like a museum, or something else low-profile). Hence it 'loses its status', but it isn't destroyed. risk 21:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

When I first read the question, I imagined something like what Marco said, that the route marked "SR 23" would cease to exist as such, and further that the signs would be taken down and maintenance left to whichever governmental unit below state level would ordinarily be responsible. There would thereafter be a gap in the list of state roads at 23, at least temporarily. I knew that was only a guess, though, and I would be a little peeved if that was all my state said. I've heard of a ship's being decommissioned but not a road, and a dictionary is no help if my state is going to just make up terms. --Milkbreath 16:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually it's many Misplaced Pages articles that say only that. --NE2 16:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

(belated comment)

Me, I have no problem with this usage of "decommissioned" as applied to highways, and I'm not sure what all the fuss is.

To me, "decommission" means "lose a formal status" (i.e. a commission) and, depending on circumstances, may mean that the decommissioned entity remains in full use (albeit without the former designation), remains in partial use, is removed from use but still exists (perhaps "mothballed"), or is dismantled/demolished.

(I am a U.S. English speaker.) —Steve Summit (talk) 02:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

allowance in spanish

what would the best way to say "allowance" ($) in spanish? and what about "chart" or "graph" what about "utility" i.e. gas, water, internet; and lastly "single family home" and "single familt detached"?Cholga 21:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

allowance in spanish: mesada / mensualidad

chart / graph : tabla / gráfico utility: servicios single family home: vivienda unifamiliar

bye.

In around 2007

If the precise year of an event isn't known, is it acceptable to say "John Doe was born in around 1390"? Is "in around" cromulent? (nb, I know cromulent isn't cromulent). Or do I have to use "in approximately"? Neil ☎ 21:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I think "in about 1390" would sound better. DuncanHill 21:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

To me, 'around' is more colloquial, and so fine for a record cover, say, but not for a Misplaced Pages article. --ColinFine 22:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I would just use "John Doe was born c1390" 84.68.125.254 22:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I would write "John Doe was born c. 1390". (I'd never spell it out as " ... born circa 1390"). If your readership is not familiar with "c.", you could say " ... born about 1390". Btw, "in" should not go with "around/about", because "in" points to a specific year, whereas "around/about" does not. -- JackofOz 01:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• I would use c., but if I had to choose, I'd do away with both 'in' and 'about' and simply replace them with 'around'. - Mgm| 08:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, we may be encountering different national varieties of English here. "Around" sounds horribly wrong to me, and I strongly feel the "in" is necessary in "was born in about". As to "c" or "circa", I would either write "circa" or "ca.", never "c". DuncanHill 11:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with JackofOz on this. Since he is Australian and I am American, I'm not sure it is a question of different national varieties. I think that it should be either "born around 1390" or "born about 1390". "About" sounds slightly more formal and "encyclopedic" to my American ears. Marco polo 14:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Another possibility: "born approximately 1390." Myself, I'd write c. (circa). Pfly 06:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean you'd write both the abbreviation and the word itself in brackets? -- JackofOz 04:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Not brackets, parentheses! And, no. :) Pfly 08:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

And that's another of those words that varies depending on where you live :P They really do appear in the oddest places. Skittle 21:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That's the...!

I always heard the term "That's the Oldest Trick in the Book" when somebody tries to pull a prank. I've always interpreted this saying as "That is the most clichéd practical joke" well...my question is simply as such: What is the 'Oldest Trick in the Book'? I can think of a few candidates but, still.....

Thanks!

♥ECH3LON♥ 22:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

(If you're a Christian) The oldest trick in the book is when a snake tricked a dumb broad into eating an apple from the wrong tree. Neil ☎ 22:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

See The Oldest Trick in the Book. -- BenRG 01:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Since prostitution is called "the world's oldest profession" and a trick is slang for a prostitute's customer, then wouldn't the oldest trick in the book be the first "john"? — Michael J 03:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

.....or maybe the oldest 'john', like a 103 year old man with a big urge and a fist full of dollars (or euros or pounds!!) Richard Avery 07:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the agents of KAOS are trying to pull on Maxwell Smart at the time. Confusing Manifestation 05:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

October 17

Overly-extended vowels in IPA

Is there a special symbol in IPA that indicates when a vowel is held for an overly-extended period of time, such as several seconds? Or do you just repeat the vowel symbol several times? I'm thinking of cases where you want to describe how a word is said in a particular instance. For example, when the Yankees win a game, John Sterling says on the radio, "Yankees win! Theeeeeeee Yankees win!" — pronounced /ðəəəəəəəə/ not /ðiiiiiiiiː/. Or, the word insane in the Crazy Eddie commercial ("His prices are insane!") is pronounced /ˈɪɪɪnseeeeeeɪn/, while in the song "Time Warp" ("But it's the pelvic thrust / that really drives them insane") it is sung /ɪnˈseɪeɪeɪeɪeɪeɪn/. Or am I doing it wrong? — Michael J 03:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

For most purposes you can either repeat the vowel, as you have shown, or repeat the colon, as in . Both are acceptable, and will probably be determined by the language you're working with and what you are doing with it. It's not necessarily useful to repeat the vowel, in many cases, because it may be ambiguous as to whether there are phonologically multiple vowels or a continuation of the same vowel. Context, of course will probably make it clear. Steewi 03:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

correct or ot not.

Respected Sir/Madam, I would like to know if the following sentences are correct usages of Eglish or not.
1. What beautiful girl!.
2. How beautiful girl is !.
3. If I should fail this time, I will try again.
4. We will meet tomorrow if it should not be very inconvinient to you.
5. I could do so, if I would.
I must tell you that the context of these sentences are not know to me. thanking you with regards sushama —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.53.9 (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Colloquial English would say:
1. What a beautiful girl!
2. How beautiful the (or that) girl is!
3. If I fail this time, I will try again.
4. We will meet tomorrow if it is not very inconvenient for you.
5. I could do so, if I wanted.
SaundersW 08:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• That last one could also be:

5. I would do so, if I could. or simply 5. I would if I could. - Mgm| 08:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

What i want to know is, whether the above given usages by me are correct usages or not. because i know the other colloquial usages suggested by you and i have come accross with these sentence which i wanted to varify. are such constractions possible(grammatically also). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.53.9 (talk) 08:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

1 is wrong because you need the 'a' between 'what' and 'beautiful'. 2 is wrong because you need 'that' (or 'the') between 'beautiful' and 'girl'. 3 is grammatically correct but the first part is rather formal, you might include the 'should' in formal written English but you would always leave it out of spoken English. In 4, 'should' is incorrect. I would rewrite the sentence as per SaundersW's suggestion, except that I would say 'not too inconvenient' (or, more simply, just 'convenient') rather than 'not very inconvenient'. 5 is incorrect - see SaundersW's and Mgm's possible rewrites. --Richardrj 09:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Number 3 may be uncommon but it is not incorrect, it sounds rather old fashioned and formal though, and will invariably bring to mind Rupert Brooke's The Soldier and its famous first lines "If I should die, think only this of me: That there's some corner of a foreign field that is for ever England". Cyta 09:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

A better way of writing 4 would be "We will meet tomorrow unless it is very inconvenient". -- JackofOz 10:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, "We'll meet tomorrow if that's convenient for you." to avoid the double negative.--Shantavira| 11:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced 3 is even grammatically correct. Shouldn't it be "If I should fail this time, I shall try again."? But then I've tried to work out the intricacies of shall/will before, and failed beyond 'I can hear a difference'. Skittle 15:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

See Shall and will, especially Shall and will#Current common usage jnestorius 15:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The shall/will distinction has never been widespread in British English, and certainly is incomprehensible to many Scots. Unfortunately some teachers have tried to impose a particular usage. DuncanHill 15:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Intriguing. My teachers never touched on anything like that, since they were busy calling adjectives 'describing words' *sigh*. And yet, I can hear a difference. Skittle 16:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hang on, are none of the distinctions considered widespread these days? Duncan, can you not hear the difference in meaning in the example given in Jnestorius' link "I will die! Nobody shall help me!"? Looking at the page I agree with the general differences, but think I shall have to stick to 'feeling', as it makes it sound overly complicated! But having heard that the differences don't apply elsewhere, I can see that the example given by the original question asker could be considered grammatically correct. Skittle 16:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I must say I tend to use will and shall in the manner of their Swedish cognates - shall for something that is going to happen, and will for something that is intended to happen. DuncanHill 16:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I doubt if anybody calling for help would really say "I will die! Nobody shall help me!"; the joke is an Englishman's and misrepresents the other dialect (not that I'm condemning it: it's only a joke). The actual difference would be between those who would say "I shall die! Nobody will help me!" and those who would say "I will die! Nobody will help me!" In my Irish idiolect, "shall" occurs in very few contexts, "shan't" not at all, and "should" occurs only as "ought to", "would be well advised to"; never as a near-synonym of "would". When I hear "shall"/"should" outside these contexts, it strikes me not as wrong but as somewhat genteel Home Counties talk. There are contexts where, rather than replacing shall/should with will/would, I would use a different construction altogether. jnestorius 21:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh I wasn't suggesting that it was a realistic situation (would nobody just save them anyway?), but it featured in the article and I was intrigued by the thought that people might not hear any difference in meaning, even in such a construct. (And I'd assumed, probably falsely, that the guy was supposed to be trying to speak like the English people? Meh) Skittle 23:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I have only ever heard "I will die! Nobody shall help me!" as part of an English story about a German visitor to England who falls into a river and shouts it out. Those on the scene understand him to mean he wants to die, so they let him drown. Xn4 21:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

What is a person from San Marino?

Is a person from San Marino sanmarinese, as in our Category:Sanmarinese music, or sammarinese, as implied by Sammarinese lira? Or is either acceptable? Oldelpaso 17:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Both have a solid history of usage in English; a search of public-domain books in Google Books finds both in English works of that vintage. Wareh 18:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The Italians use sammarinese. Xn4 21:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The OUP Dictionary of the World says Citizen of San Marino. DuncanHill 21:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Xn4's statement is true because it is in the present tense, and because contemporary Italian generally hates to preserve etymological spellings at odds with pronunciation. But the Google Books search I mentioned shows that, in public-domain books, sanmarinese was plenty common in Italian. Wareh 21:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense. So in English we preserve the older spelling of the Italian word. For what it's worth, I'm more comfortable with Sanmarinese, in English. Xn4 22:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Fish strike

What's the word for when a fish comes to the surface to eat a fly? Keria 18:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Feeding? --Kjoonlee 19:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it's a rise. Xn4 21:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, thats it! I had a look in Wiktionary and http://en.wiktionary.org/rise doesn't cover our use of the term. Maybe someone can add it (I'm not a native English speaker). Keria 09:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

October 18

Need Translation...

What does "JUNCTA JUVANT" mean? nat 03:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The article on University of Cincinnati and UC's website translate it as "Strength in Unity". iungere means to join/unite, iuncta is the perfect passive participle joined/united in the neutral plural form. iuvare means to help/aid (There's probably a more fitting meaning, but I'm sticking to what I found on wiktionary). Iuncta iuvant literally could be translated as united, they help (one another). There seems to be a legal phrase "Quae non valeant singula, iuncta iuvant." ("What is without value on its own, helps when joined" (? Please correct, if mistranslated, Latin classes are far away.)" This reference interprets it as "(Words)which have no meaning when considered separately, obtain their sense when they are brought in connection with one another." ---Sluzzelin talk 06:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

That works well in the legal phrase but as a motto for a university it's kind of odd. Iuncta is neuter, so if it is the subject of iuvant (and it could be, grammatically), it means some lifeless inanimate joined things are helping! But if it is the object (which it could also be, grammatically), it means "they help the joined things." Seems like it would work better if it were Iuncti or Iunctos... Adam Bishop 07:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

you know...it's also the motto of New College, University of Toronto. nat 09:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The explanation Sluzzelin quotes seems quite satisfactory for the neuter, since the aim of a broad liberal arts education is to unite disparate fields of learning into something greater than the sum of its parts. Wareh 15:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I am guessing that "juncta" is meant to be feminine singular, not neuter plural, and that it is meant to refer to the university (universitas, schola, alma mater) and to mean something like "They support the united ". Marco polo 15:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

But iuncta cannot be the feminine singular object of iuvant. Wareh 15:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course not. Then it would be "junctam". How embarrassing.  ;-( Marco polo 17:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Norwegian Dialects

In http://books.google.com/books?id=CPX2xgmVe9IC&pg=PA335&lpg=PA335&dq=%22middle+norwegian%22&source=web&ots=IJVj3Zzc-U&sig=_uSbhtzkjboI_XuW9brgk7eGau8#PPA337,M1, it says "Runic writing survived into the 18th c. in archaic communities such as Oppdal....". I was wondering which those are the most archaic? Thanks.70.74.35.53 04:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

a latin sentence

What is the meaning of these two latin sentences: "notio quaedam intellectualis n mente aeternaliter facta" and "in qua dicitur non esse". Both are from John Scotus Eriugena. Thank you in advance for your kindly help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.90.156.3 (talk) 08:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

(Note: in mente divina for n mente.) The first is Eriugena's definition of a human being, "and not only of a human being, but also of all things which are created in God's wisdom." It can be translated, "a certain idea of the intellect eternally created in the mind of God." The second quote concerns the "superessentiality" of God's nature. In fact, superessentialitas is the antecedent of the relative pronoun qua, so that Eriugena is saying that, "In God's superessentiality, he is said not to be." This will make sense if you consult this section on Eriugena's negative theology & idea of superessentiality. In general, go to the SEP article for Eriugena's philosophy, and not to Misplaced Pages's article. Wareh 15:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Neither is a sentence; the first lacks a primary verb, and the second lacks a subject. The first means something like "a certain intellectual idea eternally made in the mind" or "a kind of intellectual idea...". The second means something like "in which it is said not to be", but it is hard to know for sure without the context. Marco polo 15:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Drawing a Blank

At some point about two years ago, I saw a http://www.dictionary.com/ posting for a word whose definition was, essentially, the same as "drawing a blank" or having a "brain-fart." That is to say, in the middle of a conversation, you suddenly forget something that you are sure you have knowledge of, but just can't recall at the time.

Anyone have an idea? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.57.82.122 (talk) 09:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• Lapsus memoriae? Sometimes translated as lapse of memory. might, or might not, help. Bessel Dekker 12:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

aporia (aporia)? Wareh 15:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

"At the tip of the tongue" might also work in certain contexts. Duja► 15:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It certainly might, and the article is very informative.

aporia is different, I should think: it refers to doubt, whether genuine (and then it is a philosophical term) or pretended (and then it is rhetorical). Whereas "drawing a blank" is a psychological effect, hence a slip or a lapse. Bessel Dekker 15:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

If we had to depend on Misplaced Pages and dictionaries to guide us, then, yes, we'd find only the philosophical and rhetorical senses. And, in fairness, I don't see why other usages of the word would be encyclopedically notable, though that doesn't excuse the dictionaries' omission. But the core sense, "being at a loss," "not knowing what to do/say," certainly persists, despite the term's having been largely appropriated and narrowed by philosophers. A bit of Googling easily finds it used to mean "a feeling of helplessness," in connection with speechlessness and perplexity in general, etc. These include more and less careful usages, people who do & don't know Greek, people influenced by Derrida & people whose minds remain unclouded by Derrida, etc.—kind of messy, but enough to warrant more attention from lexicographers. There is a long tradition (Buridan's ass) of philosophically worrying the question of the springs of action, which we now tend to think of with the help of psychology. Wareh 16:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a very real difference between
(1) not knowing the answer to a question ("doubt, perplexity, aporia") and
(2) knowing a word perfectly well but being unable to hit upon it ("lapse, slip").
In the first case, the answer is not there (not stored in one's mind), in the second case it is there but cannot be accessed. Bessel Dekker 16:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is possible to draw such a distinction, but I find it a bit too tidy, and I don't think the English expressions brought up in the original question are used only in cases where the answer "is there" in some definite sense (this is a quite philosophical question, and disagreement is possible about whether I "have" the resources of expression and action that are failing me—there's nothing wrong with calling it aporia without addressing this question). Wareh 16:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Linguistically, I think the two are quite distinct: after all, it is a matter of definition (word reference). But let's agree to disagree. Bessel Dekker 17:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably incorrect usage, but lacuna is a "missing space," and is sometimes used in literature. It'd be a novel use of the term, but I think it applies well. -- Kesh 17:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Synonyms

Wondering if anyone can help.

Working on a resume for high school and i need some synonyms for on time. Preferably one word but can be more.

Thanks

--204.218.240.26 12:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Punctual and promt are the two main bad boys. Lanfear's Bane 12:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to prompt you for the missing "p".  :) JackofOz 12:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Thanks those words should help. And thanks for the spelling mistake, word didn't pick up on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.218.240.26 (talk) 12:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops... my speeling isn't all taht grate at timse. Lanfear's Bane 12:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Ha Ha.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.218.240.26 (talk) 12:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you, like Milkbreath, are "a better speller than your orthography would indicate". -- JackofOz 04:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Another synonym: timely.--El aprendelenguas 20:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Salir vs. irse

Salir and irse can both be translated as "to leave" in a literal sense, according the dictionaries I've consulted. Are they interchangeable when used in this sense? I already know that they aren't interchangeable when used for certain figurative expressions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KeeganB (talk • contribs) 18:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Salir = to go out, to leave the room/building etc

Irse = to go away, to take oneself off

reference here SaundersW 20:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, SaundersW pretty much hit the nail on the head with salir = "go out" and irse = "go away." Salir is almost always used with de (="of"): Salió de su casa a las ocho = "He went out of his house at 8:00." Irse means "go away" or "take one's leave": Quiero quedarme contigo, pero tengo mucho sueño y me debo ir = "I want to stay with you, but I'm really sleepy and I ought to go (away)/leave." An example that clearly shows that the two verbs are not interchangeable is Me voy para California mañana = "I'm leaving for California tomorrow." Salgo would not work there at all; you're not "going out" of some edifice. Hope that makes sense.--El aprendelenguas 20:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Creation of a new language

The New Zealand government owned radio station (Radio New Zealand) has been including Maori (local indigenous peoples language) words in discourse. This is in their everyday conversation. Some examples are whanau in place of the Engish word family (I think here, there may also be a spelling change from the original 'Whaanau'), Kia Ora in place of hello, Kai in place of food and Kina in place of sea urchin. This practise has become everyday usage in many forums in New Zealand. In recent times the radio station has increased usage to include many more Maori words and sentences. My question is for language specialists. Is this the beginning of a new language (one could call it "Maolish") a combination of English and Maori? How does it fit in with examples of English and other languages? Is this a type of Pigeon English or is it something else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Platsonzl (talk • contribs) 21:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Surely it will just be the integration of foreign words into the current language spoken. Like how words like (hoping these are foreign) naive, that schadefraud (spelling) word etc. To be fair most of the english language is nicked from other countries, be it part greek words, part latin, part french, part german etc. ny156uk 22:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Try Schadenfreude... and I agree, English has been gobbling up words from other languages for more than a thousand years. It will survive, out there in far-flung New Zealand. Xn4 00:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ny156uk has it correct - to become a new "mixed language", they would probably have to use Maori grammar mixed with the English as well. As it stands, it is simply a variety (similar to dialect) of New Zealand English with a higher frequency of Maori borrowings. At the extreme end of this is a language like Media Lengua, which has Quechua grammar and almost completely Spanish words. If they use a lot of Maori vocabulary and it becomes unintelligible with normal New Zealand English, there might be some justification to calling it a different language. The definition of language, of course, remains somewhat blurry. 130.56.65.24 02:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

A language is a dialect with an army and navy. --Milkbreath 04:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I wonder whether this is merely a matter of substratum words surfacing. Now that Maori as a language is under threat, it seems that there is an official New Zealand language policy to promote the language. This seems to me a different process from the "natural" process of borrowing. Bessel Dekker 17:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds pretty much like Hawaiian pidgin, in a way. Though in that case, they take a lot of the sentence structure of the Hawai'ian language and English, and mash it up pretty spectacularly. -- Kesh 17:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

October 19

bareback in spanish

how do u say bareback in spanish?Cholga 02:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

According to this, it's a pelo (I don't get it- hair?) 68.231.151.161 03:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

maybe al pelo meaning on the hair barehaired instead of bareback...hmmmCholga 04:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This site also gives the expression as cabalgar o montar a pelo - to ride bareback , rather than al pelo. It makes sense as you are sitting on the hair or fur of the horse! SaundersW 12:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It may depend on whether you're talking about riding a horse without a saddle, or anal sex without a condom. -- JackofOz 04:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that people use the word bareback internationally for having anal sex without a condom. The Misplaced Pages in Spanish has an article called bareback. A.Z. 04:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

That's the first time I heard of it. I'm neither a native English-speaker nor Spanish, and I tend to use the phrase bareback for riding a horse without a saddle, not that I come across horses all that much in my daily life. - Mgm| 08:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

That's the first time I heard about the other meaning. I'm also neither a native English-speaker nor Spanish. A.Z. 23:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they don't have the article, despite there being a link to it from the local article barebacking. A.Z. 04:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Spanish Misplaced Pages used to have the article, but it was deleted over a year ago. The reason was: Misplaced Pages is not an English-Spanish dictionary. 11 voters agreed, 7 disagreed. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, the result of the 11:7 discussion was to 'keep. It was deleted for the first time in Feb 2007, and has been re-created and re-deleted three times since then (once for autopromotion, once for being a definition of an English word, and once (three days ago) for consisting of "Se trata de realizar sexo anal sin preservativo". ---Sluzzelin talk 09:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

For those interested in the second meaning, wordreference has a forum discussing colloquialisms in Puerto Rican, Argentinan and other varieties of Spanish. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

poetry rules

I first noticed this when teaching English as a Second Language in Italy, and have never yet been able to find a satisfactory explanation, so I hope someone can point me in the right direction -

In conventional English poetry, all the lines begin with a capital letter, even if the words continue on from the previous line, and do not therefore begin a fresh sentence.

Too many examples to mention, but see:

I WANDER'D lonely as a cloud/That floats on high o'er vales and hills,/When all at once I saw a crowd,/A host, of golden daffodils;/Beside the lake, beneath the trees,/Fluttering and dancing in the breeze.

I had assumed this convention was set in stone, and had never questioned it, but the Italians do not do this (again, one single example from many):

Akab il cavallo/battuto anche oggi/proprio sul traguardo, quando/primo al sole d’Asti chiara/sfidava la città curiosa e pur/leggermente scabra di balocchi/furfanti, nell’ultimo giorno/di fiera: "Al... ber... to!"

And when they asked me why English poets capitalise, I could not answer.

Montims 14:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Nor is it a hard-and-fast rule that they do. There certainly is the convention, which, one would expect, in older poetry is set in stone. On the other hand, moderately modern poetry may diverge. An example from the 1960s:

Snowfall on frond and the exposed root
Old truths concealed, a recent landscape softened,
hypocrisies made tangible, gold
reminder of your skin shadowed by whiteness

Harry Guest, From My Hotel to Yours Whole Seas Away (Penguin Modern Poets:16).
(There is no full stop after root in the first verse.)

• Italian (and other) students might even be more surprised to read e. e. cummings.

• Conventions vary from poet to poet, from age to age, from language do language (in Dutch, for example, usage varies extensively). It may be difficult to account for such variations satisfactorily. It is what people do, which hardly explains much, I'm afraid. Bessel Dekker 16:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

"The Italians do not do this" is false. Italian poetry traditionally has capitalized the first letter of every verse. Look at any older Italian poetry, e.g. here. The expectation to do so was set in stone in both Italian and English from the dawn of printing until relatively recently, say around Eugenio Montale. Wareh 01:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I like questions

What words (or phrases) can be used to describe "somebody who really likes being asked/answering question"? (Perjoratives are welcome too)87.102.7.57 16:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• anorak might be very pejorative (answers questions which have not been asked in the first place)
• source of information
• living encyclopedia
• instructor, mentor, adviser. Bessel Dekker 16:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Font/wellspring of wisdom/knowledge (usually sarcastic, I think)
• Sexual intellectual (f---ing know-it-all)
• Walking textbook/encyclopedia
• Alex Trebek --Milkbreath 17:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow. 'sexual intellectual' certainly is an insult, I love 'walking/living encyclopedia" excellent . any more will be appreciated.87.102.7.57 17:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• oracle (who, however, in ancient times at least, might be less than forthcoming unless drugged first)
• repository of learning (who, even worse, might be less than forthcoming at the best of times). Bessel Dekker 17:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of know-it-alls, see Internet Oracle :) Corvus cornix 18:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages Reference Desk Editor. --LarryMac | Talk 20:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Pedant. - Eron 08:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Excellent - is there a "....-phile" form?87.102.17.46 12:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

eperotemaphile (loves questions) or apocrisophile (loves answers)? (Google yields nothing for either suggestion). ---Sluzzelin talk 15:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

thanks again - well if there are any more ...87.102.17.46 19:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Need help interpreting St. Augustine

Hi. I'm cracking my head open trying to figure out what a certain passage from St. Augustine's The Literal Meaning of Genesis means. The passage in question is Book 2, Chapter 9, "The shape of the material heaven." The passage in question is available as a Google book preview at . He appears to be discussing whether a Christian is bound by Biblical authority to take a particular view on whether the heavens are a sphere completely enclosing the earth or are rather suspended above it on one side. Augustine appears to believe that the heavens are spherical, however it seems that some were disputing this, quoting a passage from the Bible which talks about the heavens being stretched out like a skin.

The difficulty is that in paragraph 21, Augustine writes that "if are able to establish their doctrine with proofs that cannot be denied, we must show that this statement of Scripture about the skin is not opposed to the truth of their conclusions. If it were, it would be opposed also to Sacred Scripture itself in another passage where it says that heaven is suspended like a vault. For what can be so different and contradictory as a skin stretched out flat and the curved shape of a vault? But if it is necessary, as it surely is, to interpret these two passages so that they are shown not to be contradictory but reconcilable, it is also necessary that both of these passages should not contradict the theories that may be supported by true evidence, by which heaven is said to be curved on all sides in the shape of a sphere, provided only that this is proved." That would seem to suggest that Christians interpreting the Bible can use their external, natural knowledge to throw light on the best interpretation of what the Bible is saying.

However, in paragraph 22, Augustine writes that "...the image of a skin presents a more serious difficulty: we must show that it is reconcilable not with the sphere (for that may be only a man-made theory) but with the vault of Holy Scripture." In this paragraph he seems to be saying that all that matters is that Christians' interpretation of the skin passage is consistent with the rest of the Bible, and that divine revelation through the Bible must take precedence over human reasoning, such that the spherical-heaven theory must be rejected if there is no reasonable way to interpret the Bible in a manner consistent with it. Note also that earlier he had said that "The truth is rather in what God reveals than in what groping men sumise," which is more consistent with the theme of this passage.

But it seems highly implausible that a great thinker like Augustine would have contradicted himself in the space of just two paragraphs. Could a fresh pair of eyeballs take a look at Chapter 9 and tell me if there's something I've missed? The main question on my mind is the extent to which Augustine believes that Christians' external, natural reasoning and knowledge should play in their interpretation of Scripture. Paragraph 21 seems to suggest that it should play a big part, but paragraph 22 seems to suggest that Christians may have to place their faith in a certain interpretation even if their reason tells them that the Bible, interpreted that way, cannot be right. (No, I am not worried that the sky is a flat like a vault...lol) Thanks! Schmitty120 21:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The Humanities Desk is probably a better place to ask questions like this. —Angr 07:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I will ask there. Sorry, I was going back and forth between this one and humanities, and picked this one. Thanks anyway. Schmitty120 23:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Which country of spellings?

After being a member of Misplaced Pages for just under a year now, I sometimes come across some spelling misconceptions due to the country I'm in (Australia). Sometimes I see the word 'color' instead of the way we spell it here, 'colour'. Even my computer spell checker doesn't want the u in colour.

I know that all the main English speaking countries sometimes have very minor rule changes when it comes to spelling words and some countries do just spell words differently. So my question is, to what country do we spell to? I can assume that it's either UK or USA we spell it to, but which countries spelling do we follow on Misplaced Pages?

Thankyou. Aflumpire 22:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

(P.S) Even thankyou is different. in the US, there is a space!

See Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style#National varieties of English and WP:SPELLING. In short, we stick to the variation that is most relevant to the subject (i.e. Tony Blair uses UK English, Shane Warne uses Australian), if there is no obvious national bias (i.e. United Nations or Misplaced Pages), we go with the variety chosen by the first major contributor to the article. Note, however, that it isn't always a non-controversial decision. Debate over whether our article should be titled Yoghurt or Yogurt has been ranging for, literally, years. Rockpocket 22:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I doubt that "thankyou" is the normal way we Aussies spell "thank you". If you're saying "Please convey my thankyous to the family", you might get away with it, but its usual spelling is "thank you". -- JackofOz 04:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Um...I actually put 'thank you' in an English written assignement once and I was corrected, also backed up with Australian spelling on Microsoft Word. However, this isn't the place to do it. Im willing to talk somewhere else. Aflumpire 07:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

October 20

Evidence of a syntactically important phoneme/grapheme?

I was wondering if there is any evidence of a certain phoneme/grapheme in a language that carries "weight" as a syntactically/grammatically relevant sound -- as in, it does not modify the word (as the phoneme "s" often pluralizes words in English), but affects the sentence. An example might be (in my mind, this would be the most plausible) a phoneme being added to a word to denote primary stress in a sentence. An example sentence in this hypothetical language would be: "I forgot to call you yesterday, but how about todayx?" (Where x could be any sound.) Can someone point me to a link or something that has more information about this? I have yet to see any evidence of this happen in a language, but fail to see why it could not. --Deshi no Shi 02:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Just so you get some kind of answer, I'll throw this out there (but I think you're looking for a discrete thingie with maybe some morphology but portable). Two things come to mind for English: The way we lengthen a sound to mean "very" (gooo-OOOD or grrrrrrrEAT) and the little coughing "ah" you hear certain preachers do connoting I'm not sure what. --Milkbreath 03:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you'd find a study of the Greek particles interesting, as they'd seem to fit the bill nicely (from mere emphasis to the subtlest gradations of tone and argument). (The standard work is by Denniston, edited by Dover.) Wareh 03:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Various languages have things like focus particles. (There's no article on this subject!!). Japanese particles include this and other functions (unfortunately the bit on 'ga' does not mention focus, but says subject. Oh dear), and you also find focus particles in places like Africa (Bambara):

póyi bé é dè wéle

exploit IMPFV you FOC call

‘It is a great deed which calls you…’ From La prise de Dionkoloni, line 245

and Yoruba

Olú ni ó ra iṣu.

Olu FOC 3S buy yams

‘It was Olu that bought yams.’ M.E. Kropp Dakubu. 2005. “The syntax of focus in Ga and Akan and the significance of related constructions”. Drmaik 05:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

what form of language is this?

To say hate you but mean love you. my best friend write me a love letter and at the end he has written: hate you!IS it just informal writing or there is special form? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.207.212.229 (talk) 07:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Sarcasm? —Angr 07:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Sarcasm is a form of irony that attacks a person or belief through harsh and bitter remarks that often mean the opposite of what they say,but I am sure he does not like to mock me.He want to say love you in a very informay form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.207.212.229 (talk) 08:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have pulled your definition of sarcasm from this glossary, so I will assume you are not familiar with the term sarcasm. Sarcasm is not always used to mock someone; it can be used to tease as well. However, there is probably a more precise term for this phenomenon. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This is one of those things that falls into that 'words are only 7% of the meaning idea. Obviously this is written so the whole 55% non-verbal comm (expression/body language) and 38% voice (pitch, tone, volume, speed etc.) bit doesn't quite fall into it...but the context, your mindset of the individual, the exclamation etc. I think it is more of an in joke than anything else. ny156uk 10:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

As a rhetorical device, I think you can call it antiphrasis. --Milkbreath 17:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

a passage in latin

What does Eriugena mean when he writes "not 'ita ut non sint' but 'ut melius sint'"? It is in Copleston, of course.Omidinist 08:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

"ita ut non sint" could be referring to the vulgate translation of verse 35 in Psalm 104 (Greek numbering: Psalm 103). See here, for example. The literal translation would be "so that they be no more" ("and let the wicked be no more" in the King James Version.) "ut melius sint" means "so that they be better". I don't know what Eriugena meant though. Do you have any more context? ---Sluzzelin talk 13:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

to Sluzzelin

Your response is so helpful. I got the idea. Thank you so much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omidinist (talk • contribs) 05:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Animo libenti feci! ---Sluzzelin talk 11:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Greek and German

How do you write "Distomo massacre" in Greek and German? Neutrality 08:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

In Greek: el:Η σφαγή στο Δίστομο (as seen on the article you linked) − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

German Misplaced Pages doesn't have a separate article on it (the massacre is discussed at de:Distomo), but "Massaker in Distomo" and "Massaker von Distomo" get about equal numbers of Google hits, while "Distomo-Massaker" gets rather fewer. —Angr 09:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

de:Kategorie:Massaker lists 41 "Massaker von ...", 18 hyphenated "...-Massaker", and 0 "Massaker in ...". Personally, I'd choose "Massaker von Distomo" as well. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Apse meaning

I looked in a few dictionaries, and find only the archaic astronomical definition and the architectural definition. However, doing some google searches I find that in the dialect of the Isle of Wight, apse might mean aspen tree i.e., populus tremuloides. From what I have read in a few places, this meaning of apse might have given rise to the place names on the Isle of Wight that include the word Apse, like Apse Heath. Since the aspen tree is native to North America, was it spread to Europe and the Island of Wight, giving rise to this name? Is it not native to North America after all? Is there another tree that is like an aspen in Europe?--Filll 17:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The Common Aspen, or Trembling Poplar (Populus tremula) is native to Europe, indeed the name Aspen is from an Old English word æspe. DuncanHill 17:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

There is an Apsley End in Beds, which is also derived from the Old English æsp. This placename is first recorded as Aspele in 1230. Interestingly, Aspley Guise, also in Beds, is first recorded as Æpslea in 969. From this, I would surmise that the ps or sp sound may have been rather unstable in English, leading to a switching in some cases. DuncanHill 17:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The OED, 2nd ed. has aps, Old English or dialect form of asp or aspen. DuncanHill 17:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as the OED article just mentioned shows, the last written sources actually showing the -ps variant used to refer to the tree date to around the year 1000. If there is any written evidence that people on the Isle of Wight have spoken that form to refer to the tree since then, then the OED article is defective. It seems safe to assume that, as often, the place name has preserved otherwise obsolete words. (Do you actually have evidence that the form was spoken anywhere to refer to a tree after the Medieval period? Of course, it may have been, but it didn't survive late enough and widespread enough to get caught in the written record.) Wareh 19:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It was in a journal article from 1886 that is scanned in by Google. I did not read the whole thing because I could not figure out how to do so, if it is even possible. However, someone in 1886 thought this name for the tree was a part of the local dialect on the Isle of Wight. I do not know how widespread it was, and if any of it still continues to this day.--Filll 22:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is 'fucker' used as an insult?

Seriously!

It does mean 'one who fucks'. Vitriol 18:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Its meaning has become extended and its literal meaning lost. See History of the word 'fuck'.--Shantavira| 18:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but before it was primarily an insult who in their right mind would have used it as one? Well, I assume it used to be used mostly meaning 'one who fucks'... Vitriol 18:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Two ideas:

1. To fuck something can mean break or ruin..

2. In sex being called a fucker wouldn't be an insult - therefor outside of sex it could fall into the class of insults that question ones sexuality

3. Sometimes swearing at someone is not an insult - just an expletive.87.102.17.46 19:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's that "fucker" is short for "motherfucker", i.e. one who fucks his mother, which is a pretty nasty accusation and one of the worst insults in English. -- Flyguy649 22:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yet "motherfucker" can also be a compliment. You're one smart motherfucker! Bhumiya (said/done) 23:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, swear words when used between friends or in certain other contexts can be meant positively. But I wouldn't advise calling a random person a fucker or motherfucker, especially in anger. It could have... serious consequences. -- Flyguy649 23:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I have the same problem with "wanker". If someone calls me that I can only answer "Yes,and jolly good fun it is too"--hotclaws 09:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Sexual words degenerate in meaning very quickly. For example, the word "mistress" used to mean something high and noble. Now...not so much. That's just the way the words evolve. So, in short, it's because the word describes something sexual, and like many sex words, it has degenerated in meaning (become more and more of a negative word) over time. Wrad 19:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Portuguese translation

Can someone who speaks Portuguese please help with a proper (not- Google) translation of this article please? this is in relation to the talk page at Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann Thanks. Jooler 22:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Well the article is not about the Maddie case itself. It's about alleged torture committed 7 years ago by the head cop on the Maddie case. —Nricardo 05:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

October 21

the eme meme

phoneme, morpheme, lexeme, sememe, grapheme — Does anyone know where the eme element comes from? —Tamfang 05:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

well -eme is so widespread because of the emic and etic distinction that Kenneth Pike introduced, (could this be a backformation?), but where the original -eme in 'phoneme' came from, I can't say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmaik (talk • contribs) 06:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

According to the Online Etymology Dictionary it comes from a Greek word phonema "a sound". The word is not in the online version of Liddell & Scott, but corresponds to a regular way of making a Greek noun out of a verb. According to the same source, "morpheme" (or rather French morphème) was formed in analogy.  --Lambiam 12:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Φώνημα is in the online version of Liddell & Scott; see . —Angr 12:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Magellan discovers . . .

It seems to me that the word "discover" is not the right word to denote places and cultures that are encountered by explorers in whatever age. "Discovery" should apply to something or place or culture that were truly unknown, uninhabited and undocumented at the time of the first encounter.

So Columbus undertook to explore over the Western seas and encountered the Bahamas and through further exploration he landed on inhabited land that was eventually named America. I know that we conventionally apply the word "discover" to that historical act, but to me it doesn't sound accurate.

But I concede that if a place, thing or culture enters the written historical record for the first time, it may rate as a "discovery".

Robertg69 14:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Did you have a question, or did you just want to start a debate? Because as mentioned at the top, the latter is inappropriate at the Reference Desk. —Angr 14:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the implied question is "What is a more appropriate word for this situation?" It also says something about not biting newcomers at the top of this page :) DuncanHill 14:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Tricky. From Colombus's point of view, he "discovered" lands he didn't know were there. No problem so far. From the natives' point of view, they discovered a guy in silly pants on the beach. Hmmmm. I think the problem is not so much in the word "discover" as in what we mean by "America" or any land. We don't like the Eurocentricism in speaking of discovering people, but if we think of the landmass itself and use the tiny bit of intelligence it takes to remember that we're talking about Europeans in the age of the great ships, I don't see a problem. I hesitate to suggest PCisms for workarounds, and I can't think of a word that covers all the bases. So far. You've put a bug in my ear.

(There is a clearly implied question: Is there a better word?) --Milkbreath 14:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

One could say "Columbus discovered America for Early modern Europe", just as one could say "Leif Ericson discovered America for the Norsemen" or that the "Paleo-Indians were the first discoverers of America". Or that "Zheng He discovered Africa for Ming China."--Pharos 15:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Me, again. I think there are two contexts. The Europeans were the ones who connected the world up by sailing all over the place and establishing contact. Credit-where-credit-is-due makes it just fine to say that they "discovered" places. I mean, what did the Aztec map of the world look like before Cortez? The Europeans of that time discovered lands that not only they but nobody else knew about. They discovered them for everybody in the end.

On the other hand, if you teach an American fifth-grader simply that "Columbus discovered America", you're giving him a biased view that won't fly nowadays. I don't think it would be PC to say that Columbus opened America. That's my answer, for contexts having to do with world view, "opened".

And, by the way, a fool-proof way of avoiding debate is to not participate. --Milkbreath 15:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Or, you could say that Columbus's discoveries brought America into the "Old World" ecumene (that's a high-relevancy concept, surely).--Pharos 17:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

"Encounter" is a word I've frequently heard used in this context recently. Wrad 19:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

"Columbian Exchange" is a very similar sort of terminology to encounter.--Pharos 19:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

B&M is a bit of a dog-a-lot shop

Is the phrase "dog-a-lot shop" known/accepted as meaning a shop, typically with varying and unreliable variety of stock (i.e. they might have sold something a few weeks ago but wont have it again for the foreseable future) at low prices? Mum says that she got it from her mum... --Seans Potato Business 21:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

's- prefix for Dutch municipalities?

What does it mean? For example, 's-Gravenhage or 's-Hertogenbosch. Also some have a nickname like Den Bosch; what does that mean? Thanks. —MC 22:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

spanish translation

how would you say an allowance in spanish? like money to your kids?Cholga 22:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

According to Google's language tools, it's just paga. According to my Merriam-Webster's dictionary, it's mesada. I remember hearing another word for allowance on a TV show from Spain, but it's not coming to me right now. Hopefully later someone will post a more definitive answer for you.--El aprendelenguas 22:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)