Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/L

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

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.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia: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.

October 8

Shark

Both the shark and the Yucatec Maya language articles contain the claim that the word "shark" may come from the Maya language. The claim seems to be based on an unsourced and rather casual remark made in Michael D. Coe's book Breaking the Maya Code (I have the book). I wonder if anyone here is aware of any scholarly sources relating to the supposed etymology. Cheers.--K.C. Tang (talk) 08:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Latin "sharkus" meaning rough skin is the most likely origin according to the discovery website. http://www.discovery.com/stories/nature/sharkweek2000/sharkweek2000.html

Hope this helps. Wikisaver62 (talk) 10:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even without looking in my dictionary I can promise you there is no such word as "sharkus" in Latin. —An gr 09:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re sharkus. What is it about this combination of letters that makes it obviously not a Latin word? Just wondering. Wanderer57 (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) Latin had no "sh" sound. 2) Latin orthography had no "sh" spelling. 2) In Latin orthography, the letter "k" tended to be used only in a very few words (almost always before the vowel "a"), as in "Kalendae" (the 1st day of a month), etc. AnonMoos (talk) 17:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if someone could conact the discovery channel and tell them how wrong they are (I was wondering about whether 'sharkus' was real or not too). Wikisaver62 (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I can't even find the word "sharkus" on the page you linked to. Of course, on my computer (with three different browsers) the entire right-hand side of that page is just black. —An gr 18:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page was a quiz with four possible etymologies of "shark". "Sharkus" was the first option; another was that it comes from "sharp", and two others I had never heard of before. I couldn't get the page to load the answer but I think Wikisaver may have misread or misinterpreted what he was looking at. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was "sharcus", not "sharkus". But I still doubt it's a Latin word. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

here is an etymological alternative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 10:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there's a convincing etymology for the word (actually I don't believe there're convincing etymologies for most words); I'm just curious about how people came up with the (dubious) Maya etymology, and I'm rather inclined to remove the claim in the relevant artitcles, but it's safer to ask the experts here first.--K.C. Tang (talk) 10:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarx (σαρξ), root "sark-" (not "shark"), is the Greek (not Latin) word for flesh (not "rough skin") , but I don't know of any plausible path by which this ancient Greek word could have acquired the current pronunciation and meaning of the word "shark" in English... AnonMoos (talk) 12:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The OED says "Of obscure origin. The word seems to have been introduced by the sailors of Captain (afterwards Sir John) Hawkins's expedition, who brought home a specimen which was exhibited in London in 1569. The source from which they obtained the word has not been ascertained. Cf. Ger. dial. (Austrian) schirk sturgeon: see SHIRK n.2. The conjecture of Skeat that the name of the fish is derived from SHARK v.1 is untenable; the earliest example of the vb. is c 1596, and the passage alludes to the fish." BrainyBabe (talk) 19:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally I've consulted the OED, as well as using JSTOR to search relevant articles, but to no avail. The more I search, the more the supposed Maya etymology looks fishy.--K.C. Tang (talk) 02:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, consider the Homeric fragmental epos, The Hunting of the σnαρξ. The mysterious disapperance of Homer and all trace of him when composing this, his last, poem, has given rise to the theory that the very σnαρξ of the title was a Boojum...... --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar question

For the sake of this experiment my company is called Blue Sky. Which of the following is correct and why:

Blue Sky supply the food or
Blue Sky supplies the food.

Thanks for any help! --217.227.113.167 (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It could be either. If you want to use British English (or a related dialect), the first could work. If you want to use American English, the second would be preferable. See American and British English differences. --LarryMac | Talk 19:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You also need to remain consistent, meaning, if you treat it as a singular, then you have to use singular pronouns elsewhere in the same text, e.g.

Blue Sky supplies the food ...... it also does X
not Blue Sky supplies the food ... they also do X
or Blue Sky supply the food ... it also does X. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One right out of three! The first one is correct in formal North American English, as you might see in a business report or legal document. But the second one is not wrong; it's standard informal North American English, as would be used in a conversation or casual writing. In the third one, on the other hand, you mean "they also do X". --Anonymous, 21:47 UTC, October 8, 2008.

No, I meant what I wrote. No. 3 was another example of what not to write, the reverse of No. 2. But you're right that the rule applies to formal writing, and you can get away with less rigour in other contexts. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As to #2, it's not "getting away with" something, it's idiomatic usage. Outside of formal contexts I'd say #1 is wrong. As to #3, sorry I misunderstood your intention with the not/or thing. --Anonymous, 03:45 UTC, October 9, 2008.

Your views are becoming more firm. First you said #1 is correct in formal contexts; now you're saying it's wrong in any other context. I don't subscribe to the view that one must always adopt the idiom of whoever one happens to be with. What if they had the same philosophy? Nobody would know how to talk at all, for fear of getting it wrong. #1 may not be the dominant version in informal contexts, but that doesn't make it "wrong" to use it in such contexts. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that there exists a field of usage (milieu, dialect, community, register, call it what you will) in which #1 is wrong, in just the same way as there exist fields of usage where only one of "center" and "centre" is a correct spelling. Obviously other people have conflicting usages. Your comment about "getting away with" appeared to be denying that such usage existed. --Anon, 18:12 UTC, October 9, 2008.

Not at all. That phrase actually acknowledges that deviances from some "norm" (for lack of a better word) do actually occur, because otherwise there'd be nothing to get away with (or with which to get away, if one prefers). To get away with something in a linguistic context is my way of saying it would be generally acceptable, although if you look hard enough you'd find a copy editor who'd change it (and you mightn't have to look all that hard). I agree that you could find a particular milieu, dialect, community or register where #1 would definitely be out of place. But to say it's wrong for all such contexts is itself a wrong statement. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listas repr.

If I switch my iPod to the Spanish language setting, "Playlists" are called "Listas repr." What is "repr." short for? I can't seem to find any words that would make sense in context. jeffjon (talk) 19:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to a Google search [1], it's short for lista de reproducción. It seems to be somewhat idiomatic in Spanish, so that's why it doesn't make much literal sense, other than the meaning connection between reproducción and recording, replay, etc.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 01:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you'd think it would have occurred to me to do my googling on the spanish-language site. Thanks, jeffjon (talk) 13:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, reproducir is the most suitable translation of play in this usage. The re- prefix is associated with the idea of producing back the sound. Fair enough, this meaning is not recorded in the current edition of the DRAE, though it will appear in the 23rd edition of the dictionary: "Hacer que se vea u oiga el contenido de un producto visual o sonoro." Pallida Mors 21:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 9

ENGLISH

would i say Corey has been with the company six months longer than I or me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.134.212.121 (talk) 03:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Formally, it is "than I": he has longer than I have: since "I" is the subject of the verb "have" (even if you don't actually say the have), it should be "I", not "me". However, colloquially it's than me: pronouns take the object form after any connecting word, even "and", in colloquial English ("John and me went to the store", etc.). However, you can only say "than me" if you do not say the assumed verb "have". kwami (talk) 06:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These rules are very beautiful in a surreal kind of way.--Radh (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)A pedant would say "longer than I" because it's short for "longer than I have been". Some idiolects may still prefer it. But in almost all other circumstances, "longer than me" is acceptable. It's completely idiomatic; so much so, that to say "longer than I" would make most people wonder which planet you were from. And that's not the point of communication. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone better at pedantry (me, say) would recognize the "formal" analysis as wrong, because it is based on reasoning in the wrong direction. It assumes that because "than" is a conjunction in "longer than I have been", it must also be a conjunction in the shorter expression. But usage determines what is proper. "Longer than me" is, as Jack says, perfectly acceptable to most people, from which we conclude (1) that it is correct, and (2) that "than" can also be a preposition. And if you look in dictionaries that's generally what you'll find -- try www.onelook.com to check several of them. --Anonymous, 18:15 UTC, October 9, 2008.

Again I must take issue with you on the question of right vs. wrong. You speak as if this is (were) an absolute. It's not. The prescriptivist school of grammar, while acknowledging that it's rarely encountered in everyday speech, would not outlaw "longer than I". I was certainly taught that version in school (and then promptly ignored it except for homework and test questions). It is very redolent of Jeeves and his ilk, so although his ilk is a dying breed, it's not as if it's utterly unheard of in practice, and there would still be some people who prefer it. Pernickety ageing school teachers, for example. It's certainly encountered in novels by Jane Austen and her ilk. It's become old-hat; that doesn't make it "wrong". The descriptivist school would definitely support "longer than me", because that's what almost everyone actually says these days. -- JackofOz (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Taking issue"? Jack, I have no disagreement with anything you just said. --Anon, 00:56 UTC, October 10, 2008.

Sorry, I read the sentence "Someone better at pedantry .....", and the one after it, as referring to my previous statement. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on whom you talk to? With friends and people on your own level "I" will sound arrogant (or funny). This I/me thing is complicated only because the two ways of speech (formal) against (informal) are social weapons. People will judge you, according to their own class rules: (prissy, over-correct, old fashioned, stiff, correct, beautiful) or (collloquial, fun, wrong, uneducated, ugly). People love to put others down and your speech is as obvious as your teeth. Wrong spelling, wrong use of I or me, reflect at once on your character.

School rules for I/me are simple: Old rules (up to 1950(?): I is nominative, me is accusative only. New rules (reflecting the "bad" grammar people actually use): me is also used as nominative. On the other hand, undereducated people wanting to be "correct", but don·t know how, very often use I as accusative, thinking "I" must always be right. This is never allowed, not even by the descriptivist school. If you want to have a job with middle class people you should still learn the old rules? --Radh (talk) 15:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Segev

He is an Israeli reporter and writer. Please let me know how his name is pronounced in Israel. Many thanks. --Omidinist (talk) 07:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, User:Deborahjay, who's normally responsible for questions about Israeli Hebrew on the ref desk, hasn't edited Wikipedia in over two weeks. My guess is [ʃɛmuˈɛl ˈsɛgɛv] (roughly shem-oo-EL SEG-ev), but that's really nothing more than an educated guess. —An gr 12:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Here I am, checking in from a furlough in the States during this holiday period, with only intermittent Internet access and lacking a Hebrew-enabled keyboard; thanks, Omidinist for the e-mail head's up and to Angr for the acknowledgement...) I'm not familiar with the named individual, rather than the better-known Tom Segev, a historian (not reporter, though his remarks and articles are often published in the Israeli press, notably Haaretz).

SEgev (both vowels a "short e" - I can't do IPA today) is a contemporary Israeli surname, i.e. not one with Diaspora roots.
SAmuel [sic] would be pronounced as in English, if Mr. Segev indeed spells it this way at home as abroad - ? Alternatively: SHMUel, a common Israeli first name of biblical origin. (see below) -- Deborahjay (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think [ʃmuˈɛl] (shmoo-EL) is more likely. Actually, our Hebrew phonology article transcribes Hebrew mid vowels as close-mid rather than open-mid, so that makes it [ʃmuˈel ˈsegev]. — Emil J. 13:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emil, I'd say this is true in the pronunciation of Israeli Hebrew words—however, names are generally an exception, primarily (I suspect) to distinguish them from the word per se. (e.g. the word "yaFA" vs. the name "YAfa".) The case of SHMUel shows the characteristic shift of accent to the penultimate syllable and shortening (to schwa) the vowel of the antepenultimate (the initial letter "shin"). -- Deborahjay (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah, I'm glad you decided to pop in, even though it's Yom Kippur! Emil is actually talking about the quality of the vowel (open-mid [ɛ] as in "dress" vs. close-mid [e] as in French "été"), not about the location of stress. Both he and I assumed the stress would be on the last syllable, so it's interesting to here it isn't. I knew the Yiddish pronunciation would be SHMU-el with no vowel between the sh and the m and with stress on the first syllable, but I didn't know the Israeli Hebrew pronunciation would be the same. —An gr 19:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear from Deborahjay. And thanks for all suggestions. Well, I thought Mr. Segev might be a Russian emigré in Israel. In that case, his surname would be pronounced like sigof. He is a Middle East correspondent and the author of some books, including Mivtsa Yakhin: aliyatam Ha-hashait Shel Yehude Maroko Le-Yisrael. --Omidinist (talk) 04:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

中國人如何學好英語？

流利得像你們一樣--Wmrwiki (talk) 13:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

多看、多聽、多說、多練，就是如此簡單而已。 Aas217 (talk) 16:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

学好英文的人应该常常根说英文的人说话。如果你主宰的城市有外国人，跟他们做朋友。别只为了练习英文跟他们做朋友，可是除了跟他们说话，联系英文，没有很多好方法学好英文。也能用skype还是msn做朋友。有一点更难，可是如果没有外国人跟他们说话，就网上找到人联系英文也可以。 Aas217写的也很重要的。看英文电影，听英文音乐，看英文书，都也可能把你的英文听读写说的琉璃提高。 Steewi (talk) 02:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What they said. All I can understand in the header of the question is "Chinese people" (中國人) and "English language" (英語). —An gr 05:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is asking how Chinese people should study English. And the answer is to make friends who will speak English, and get on Skype and MSN, watch English films, listen to music, read books, you know, the usual.--ChokinBako (talk) 21:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English Language Diagram or Graph

Hi all. I am looking for a diagram or a graph on the history of the English language; from it's origination to modern English. Do you know where I can locate this in Wiki? --Emyn ned (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we had one, I suppose it would be at History of the English language, but there's no diagram or graph there. —An gr 15:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, if you go to Google Images and search for "indo-european languages", you should be able to find a suitable diagram. --Anonymous, 18:22 UTC, October 9, 2008.

What do you want this chart to show? If all you need is the sequence Old English → Middle English → Early Modern English → Modern English that shouldn't be hard to whip up, though I wonder why you'd want a picture. Do you want to show the kinship of English to other languages? By "its origination" do you mean the point at which Old English ceased to be part of the Low West Germanic dialect continuum, or something else? Are you looking for something to show the inflow of borrowed vocabulary from Norman etc. as tributaries to a river? —Tamfang (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Anonymous had answered my question and directed me where I needed to go. Thank you everyone for your help..--Emyn ned (talk) 13:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is correct American English?

A. We haven't bought anything yet.

B. We haven't boughten anything yet. Thanks. ike9898 (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A. Boughten is not a standard English word. --LarryMac | Talk 15:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. ike9898 (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would just mention: agree that boughten wouldn't be correct as a verb in standard U.S. English—but I can recall encountering this word as an adjective meaning "store-bought" (vs. homemade). Such usage is likely regional, though offhand I couldn't say where. -- Deborahjay (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is, surprise, surprise (as I never heard it), an entry in the Merriam-Webster on line plus a few more. The use mentioned by Deborah also turns up frequently. For all I know, this is perfectly valid US English. Maybe some native speakers of USian could clarify if it is "merely" colloquial or regional.--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the M-W entry says it is "chiefly dialect." Also note that M-W are usage sluts. --LarryMac | Talk 21:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is a good thing, IMHO. --Kjoonlee 02:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but "perfectly valid US English" is a bit strong? I can not remember boughten from any novel or magazine. Why use it, if you have bought available?--Radh (talk) 15:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right grammar?

Hello,

Could you please tell me if this kind of sentence is good english? (I don't mean if it's ok, I mean, is it really correct and nice-sounding?)

"Some healthy cells may be observed whose somata are on the surface on the slice" [somata = the bodies of the cells]

Thanks!

The nested clauses make the sentance hard to parse. Try a simpler structure "In some healthy cells, the somata may be seen on the surface of the slice" or something like that. Always aim for simpler sentance structure and less words. Compact, easy to follow language is always better than rambling, hard to follow language. Also, use more precise and simpler words where possible (seen vs. observed). --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not hard to parse; there's only one subordinate clause – though it is somewhat uncommon style to separate "cells" from "whose". —Tamfang (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not wrong, except it should say "surface of the slice"; but it can be improved. Does mentioning the somata make a meaningful distinction, i.e. is there a reason you couldn't say "Some healthy cells can be observed on the surface of the slice"? Or do you mean to say that some of the cells (whose somata are) on the surface are healthy, while those not on the surface are all unhealthy? Or am I misunderstanding the sense of "slice"? —Tamfang (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd use the possessive: "the slice's surface". 207.241.238.217 (talk) 07:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I made a mistake, it's on the surface of the cell. In fact, the sentence is taken from a scientific book. The part about the somata has to be kept, because it's only the somata (bodies) of the cells that are on the surface of the slice, not the whole cell (we're talking about neurons, so the parts of the cell which are not in the soma are the axon and dendrites). And the word "slice" refers here to a piece of rat's brain that has been cut.

Can the axons and dendrites, which are not on the surface, be seen? If not, I'd say "The somata of some healthy cells can be seen on the surface of the slice." —Tamfang (talk) 23:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pollepel Island

Anyone know how to pronounce this island in the Hudson River? kwami (talk) 21:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google provides this from the Dutch: "not Pol-luh-pel but Pol-lay-puhl" meaning spoon, maybe a ladle. Julia Rossi (talk) 07:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

neutral toward religion

What would be a good word to describe a person who is neutral toward religion, neither a believer nor an atheist, not even an agnostic, because s/he has not really pondered the theological problem, but who is aware of and interested in the role of religion in society? (I'm not looking for the name of an academic discipline.) --Halcatalyst (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A (non-observant) observer, perhaps? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That captures the idea... could there be something more specific? --Halcatalyst (talk) 23:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An apatheist? Deor (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for a word that implies interest but not commitment. --Halcatalyst (talk) 23:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like a non-academic anthropologist? kwami (talk) 00:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sort of like that -- but maybe not self-conscious about it. --Halcatalyst (talk) 12:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that having a noun for this position makes it slightly self-conscious after all. I thought of "indifferentist" coming from "indifferentism" meaning the belief that differences of religious belief are not important. Though I feel we are not there yet, it suggests "indie" +/- any cultural theism. Julia Rossi (talk) 07:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for introducing me to that word. It would seem that an indifferentist has taken up a position, though, so it's still not quite what I'm looking for. --Halcatalyst (talk) 23:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. It's descriptive rather than an academic or otherwise position afaik. By neutral do you mean someone who has no position either way? More like a theistical virgin or natural born (as in non-academic) anthropologist perhaps. Theistical observer maybe... Julia Rossi (talk) 07:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 10

Anglicisms in other languages

Why do other languages take the an English word in the gerund and use it as a noun? For example, in France: one parks his car at the parking or gets a shampooing. Thanks, Lazulilasher (talk) 01:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example from the French wiki Parking: Les parkings sont souvent choisis comme lieu d’action dans les œuvres culturelles telles que les films et les jeux vidéo. (Parking lots are often used for actions scenes in cultural works such as fims and video games") Lazulilasher (talk) 01:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russian has смокинг (smoking), meaning a dinner jacket or tux. It's derived from "smoking jacket". I guess every language does things its own way, and some just happen to do it this way, sometimes. There's probably a better explanation. --JackofOz (talk) 01:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smoking is used exactly like that in Norwegian, Swedish, Danish and possibly Finnish as well (although the kilts in the image in the Finnish article seem somewhat strange to me...) --NorwegianBlue^talk 20:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

As an aside, I once read in a book of patterns for men's clothes from circa 1900 that sometime in the 19th century the "smoking jacket" used to perform the same function as the dinner jacket does now, ie. it was worn to informal dinner parties, and the theatre if it's not a premiere, etc. Hence the name "smoking" for the d. j. in several foreign languages. Unfortunately I haven't the book on hand so I daren't put this in the article "Smoking jacket". But I do dare put it here. It does square with the history of the dinner jacket as described in our article.--Rallette (talk) 10:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Un smoking" is French, too. I think "un smoking" refers to a tux, though, in French. The Jade Knight (talk) 04:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My view (sorry I don't have a reference book to prove it) is that, most of the time, it is simply an abbreviation of a longer phrase, and the phrase is too long to remember for someone who does not understand it, but the first part sticks and enters the language. A parking lot -> un parking, some shampooing cream -> du shampooing, a smoking jacket -> un smoking. There may be exceptions to that rule, but quite recently (I mean recently from a language life point of view, at the end of the 1990s), you could hear, on the French radio channels for youngsters, some pop music commentators that were talking about "les smashing"... they were talking about the smashing pumpkins, but were lazy enough not to make the effort to pronounce the whole band name. I think it simply starts that way. --Lgriot (talk) 06:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, Franglais has an inordinate fondness for the -ing ending. I think it's at least partially attributable to the fact that French doesn't have the /ŋ/ sound in native words, so using it emphasizes a word's Englishness. —An gr 06:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm. The French speak French, not "Franglais", and couldn't care less about the Englishness of "parking" or "shampooing", which they pronounce /ʃɑ̃.pwɛ̃/ anyway. Equendil Talk 09:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The French speak Franglais as well as French. --Kjoonlee 23:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm French but thanks for telling me what I speak. The French borrow words from other languages, it's hardly unheard of and doesn't constitute a whole new brand of language. Back to words ending in "ing", Lgriot above is likely on to something, though I would also point out that nouns ending in "ing" is a relatively common construction in English in the first place: marketing, merchandising, trading, awakening, dealing, fencing, accounting, reporting, acting ... just a few instances, the first two are used in French. Equendil Talk 00:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Not really. Franglais in that sense is a way of referring to the use of certain anglicisms in French. But they're still speaking what they consider to be modern-day French, and would probably vehemently deny they're speaking Franglais. Wars have been fought over less. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I wouldn't call Franglais to be a distinct language or anything like that. Konglish isn't Korean, after all. --Kjoonlee 02:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saline solution or water?

Which is more conductive of electricity, water or salt water?--Ye Olde Luke (talk) 05:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the language reference desk. The science desk is down the hall and to the right. —An gr 05:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But saline solutions conduct electricity better, thanks to the sodium and chlorine ions. --Kjoonlee 07:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a sec, is this a trick question about language? Salt water is also water. ;) --Kjoonlee 07:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translation request: English → Esperanto

Could someone please translate one of the following, for an image caption?

English:
a) Stephon Marbury prepares to shoot a free throw.
b) Stephon Marbury at the free throw line.

Thank you~ Louis Waweru Talk 14:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanto:

a) Stephon Marbury preparas pafi ~~ŝoton liberan~~ liberan ĵeton.

b) Stephon Marbury ĉe la ~~linio de ŝoto libera~~ liberĵeta linio.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 01:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC) Scratch that. I had a look at Esperanto's article on basketball and found better terms for free throw and the line.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 01:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, interesting language. Thank you~ Louis Waweru Talk 10:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is pafi used in that broad sense? I'd have guessed it's only for firearms. —Tamfang (talk) 04:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that eo:Korbopilkado does not use paf–. In this context how about preni? —Tamfang (talk) 05:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translation from Italian requested

The following appears without translation on the Antonio Beccadellipage. Can anyone give a good translation?

IN QUESTO

CHE FU ANTICO PALAZZO

DE' BECCADELLI BOLOGNA

NACQUE DI QUELLA STIRPE

ANTONIO DETTO IL PANORMITA

ONORE DI SUA CITTÀ E D'ITALIA

NEL XV SECOLO

--rossb (talk) 14:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this (building), which was the ancient Palazzo De'Beccadelli Bologna (ie, the palace of the De'Beccadelli family), was born of that family Antonio, called "the Palermitan" (the one from Palermo), pride of his city and of Italy, in the 15th century. -- Ferkelparade π 14:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or: In this, which was the former palace of the Beccadelli Bologna [family], was born ... Given that Antonio's surname is given as Beccadelli not De' Beccadelli, I'd read the monument's "DE'" literally as of the. —Tamfang (talk) 04:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 11

Japanese Question: 抑揚がない?

In the margin of the results from an oral exam my Japanese professor wrote, concerning my Japanese:

イントネーションに気をつけて
よくようがない時が多い

I understand the first part means I should be careful about my intonations, but I'm unsure about the second sentence.

Is this a compliment meaning, "There are many times when you seem to have no accent (while speaking Japanese)",

or does it mean, more likely given the context,

"There are many times when (your Japanese) lacks (the correct) intonation/accent"?

If a native speaker would answer, I would greatly appreciate it. (I'm leaving for Fall Break, otherwise I would just ask my Japanese professor). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.239.177.28 (talk) 06:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The correct interpretation is the second one. Oda Mari (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Oda Mari. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.23.131 (talk) 13:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Condolezza Rice

What languages does she speak? Vltava 68 (talk contribs) 06:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She appears to be fluent in Bushese. (Sorry, couldn't help myself.) kwami (talk) 06:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the past she has claimed to be fluent in Russian, but when she was interviewed by a Russian talk radio show she had to speak English, and when a caller asked her in Russian if she wanted to become president one day, she misunderstood the question and said "Da, da" until the host repeated the question and she said "President? Nyet, nyet, nyet, nyet". So all she actually said in Russian herself was da and nyet. —An gr 08:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Президент (prezident) is a Russian word, so let's give her marks for that one, too. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 22:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that to be fluent in Bushese means a person can say they are fluent in Russian and get away with it until they are out of the country. ;) Julia Rossi (talk) 07:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without taking a political stance here, we all know that sometimes the media asserts that people have claimed certain skills when in fact they've never made such claims. As I understand it, she's said she "speaks" Russian, French and Spanish. That doesn't necessarily means she speaks any of these languages fluently, or fluently enough to get by in a live interview. I claim to "speak Russian" too, but in such a situation, I'd probably be just as lost as Condy was. My claim means that I can conduct a low-level conversation at slower than normal speed, using simple words and structures. Whenever I watch a Russian movie on TV, I need the subtitles just as much as anyone else, because without them I can only catch one out of five words, sometimes less. Normal conversational Russian (and most other languages) is a whole new ball game compared with the formal language we're taught in college. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ř

How in the world is this Czech letter pronounced? I can't quite get it... Vltava 68 (talk contribs) 06:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Make a trill, then hold it while you raise the body of your tongue until you get something like a [ʒ] (French J) sound. Or perhaps you could make a [rʒ] sequence, then move the two sounds closer and closer until they overlap. If you pronounce Dvořák as "Dvoržák", then shift the syllable break from [dvor.ʒaːk] to [dvo.rʒaːk] so that you can say "ržák" on its own, then you're pretty darn close. kwami (talk) 06:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is a trill? 203.188.92.70 (talk) 07:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The regular Czech R. Or a Spanish rr. kwami (talk) 07:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Trill consonant. --ColinFine (talk)

The Guinness Book of Records says: "The rarest sound is probably ř, termed a rolled post-alveolar fricative, which occurs in very few languages and is the last sound mastered by Czech children". If that's true, you'd need special training from a native speaker, and lots of practice, and with the best will in the world, you won't master it from any answers we could give here. I worked with a Czech lady once, and I asked her to help me get it. I'm very good with making unfamiliar sounds and mimicking foreign accents, but no matter how hard I tried, over a period of years, I could never make the exact sound she was making. You can get close, which is probably close enough for general use. But if you're wanting to pronounce it as a native does, you may have your work cut out for you. (It may be best to go back to your childhood and start there.) -- JackofOz (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not even all Czechs can pronounce the letter correctly. The best way to think of Ř is a zh made at the same time as a Spanish r. -- 76.190.138.251 (talk) 04:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read here that even Václav Havel has problems with this letter. 203.188.92.70 (talk) 09:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have expected that we'd have an article on the sound. Hmm... what title should it have? Steewi (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on the letter Ř. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could one of you add a stub class or whatsoever it's called thing there? 203.188.92.70 (talk) 09:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean ř? It is added there already. --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 09:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I had a question which answer is likely to vary from person to person"

Which of the following is correct "I had a question which answer is likely to vary from person to person", "I had a question whose answer is likely to vary from person to person" or something else?

"I had a question, the answer of which is likely to vary from person to person" or "I had a question; its answer will likely vary from person to person" both seem (IMO) better. "I had a question; likely its answer will vary from person to person" seems better yet. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I at least am more likely to say "the answer to a question" than "the answer of a question", so I'd say "I had a question, the answer to which is likely to vary from person to person" or "...a question to which the answer is...". —An gr 17:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely: 'I had a question, the answer to which is likely to vary from person to person'. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See: Relative pronouns. Who / whose is used when the antecedent is human, which is used in the context of animals and things. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A strong vote here for "... whose answer....". "Whose" can be used in this context for an inanimate antecedent, and gives a smoother sentence. (P.S. see lots of discussions of the subject.) AndrewWTaylor (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "whose" can be the genitive of "which" as well as the genitive of "who", but in this case, I think "to which" is more natural. —An gr 18:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I say it's less natural. But that's a matter of personal style. (Or to put it another way, it's a point of variation whose preferred choice is likely to vary from person to person.) In any case I hope everyone agrees that the original version with "which" is wrong. --Anonymous, 21:41 UTC, October 11, 2008.

I agree with Anonymous: I like AndrewWTaylor's best, and Angr's second; and "...a question which answer..." is ungrammatical. The others are grammatical but I dislike them all. Some people (possibly a British-American thing?) dislike the use of "likely" as a standalone adverb, as in Finlay's second and third suggestions. jnestorius^(talk) 23:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the whole sentence meant to be reporting something that's in the past now? I know the focus has been on the which/whose issue, but there may be more to it than that. Juxtaposing "I had a question" with ".. answer is likely ..", sounds a little odd to my ears. I'd use either "I have a question ... answer is likely" or "I had a question ... answer was likely". -- JackofOz (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 12

P. that W.'s?

In reading a story by P. G. Wodehouse, I came across this strange phrase I've never heard before, and couldn't figure out. Now, his writing has a lot of old British slang... but I'm completely baffled by "P. that W.'s". Here it is in context:

"Well, one day he happened by good luck to blow in the necessary for the good old P. that W.'s, and now, whenever they want someone to go and talk Rockefeller or someone into lending them a million or so, they send for Samuel." -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 01:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two sentences before that one, you read, "And, mark you, before he got hold of this book—The Personality That Wins was the name of it, if I remember rightly—he was known to all the lads in the office as Silent Samuel or something." Does that give you a clue? Deor (talk) 02:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doh! I feel dumb now. I was caught up in assuming it was some saying I didn't even think of that. -~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.63.158 (talk) 02:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just teasing you. Actually, characters' using initials to refer to something whose identity has been established earlier in a conversation is quite frequent in Wodehouse. It must have been a recognizable feature of discourse among the members of the relevant social stratum at the time. Deor (talk) 02:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though I seem to recall examples where the item was obvious without being recently named, like "egg and b[acon]". —Tamfang (talk) 05:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of Wodehouse

"Wodehouse was a prolific author, writing 96 books in a career spanning from 1902 to 1975."

Is "spanning from" redundant?

Would "spanning 1902 to 1975" be correct?

Or "in a career from 1902 to 1975"?

I have a sense that neither "spanning from" nor "spanning" is quite right. Wanderer57 (talk) 05:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To me it reads okay without "spanning" or "in a career" assuming that if he wrote 96 books from 1902 to 1975 it implies his career and a length of time already. I'd go for a rewrite such as: "Wodehouse was a prolific author, writing 96 books in his 73-year career." With "beginning in 1902" as an optional extra. Julia Rossi (talk) 07:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about "a career spanning 1902 to 1975" or "a career spanniing 73 years". Julia Rossi (talk) 08:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or how about: "... writing 96 books in a career spanning 73 years (1902 to 1975)". -- JackofOz (talk) 08:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons of capitalization

Hi! In monitoring edits to some television character articles, I noticed an issue of capitalization. Is a television series season capitalized? For example, in the article Jim Halpert (from The Office) I notice conflicting examples of capitalization of "Season 4"/"season 4"... as it's simply describing the number of the season and not actually a proper noun (per se) I don't think it should be, except in cases of capitalization at the beginning of the sentence of course. My rudimentary straw poll of other characters shows that Elliot Reid has both ways. Can anyone provide some grammatical argument for either way? I think it should be consistent throughout each article, at the very least. So, Season or season? DaRkAgE7 _[Talk] 06:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes DVDs are given season-specific titles, e.g. The Office: Season 1, Little Britain - Season 4, etc. So, if you're quoting the name of the DVD, depending on the formality of the context, you may have to use the full formal title. But if you're simply referring to a particular season of a program, then the lower case would apply. "Egbert had a conundrum: whether to watch the first episode of season 4(^) of Little Britain on TV, or to put on his new DVD The Office: Season 3". Something like that, perhaps? -- JackofOz (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^ Where "season 4" is another way of writing "the 4th/fourth season". -- JackofOz (talk) 21:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this one can reasonably go either way. In connection with books, we write "page 4" but usually "Chapter 4" and "Part 4", and "Act 4, Scene 4" in a play. In the sort of TV series where each season has a distinct flavor due to cast changes or plot development, it makes some sense to count it like a part or chapter or act and therefore capitalize "Season 4". But the point seems arguable. I see nothing relevant at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters), and I suggest raising the question on the talk page of that article. At the same time, you might want to ask about "Episode 4", which is likely to arise on some pages. --Anonymous, 20:04 UTC, October 12, 2008.

Unknown language

Does somebody here know what language/dialect/language group this is? Maybe also a translation?

Ála nári sunt bhéran frájosli, sunt sámu θuhnithoni ét ráhtoni kwa. Sunt déhani hnés-shafn ét hónwéjθanun hón, ágent-tsha úθrásθenes enen hgájsthon bróhθirshafs i.

I think in IPA it would be:

aːlɑ naːri sunt bʰeːrɑn fraːjɔsli | sunt saːmu ðuxnitʰɔni eːt raːxtɔni kʷɑ || sunt deːhɑni xneːs.sxɑfṇ eːt xoːnweːjðanun xoːn | aːgent.tsxɑ uːðraːʒenes enen xʰaːjstʰɔn broːxðirsxɑfs i

I don't know whether the IPA transcription is okay, but it looks very likely to me. I don't think it is Italic, Germanic, Slavic or Greek. Maybe Indo-Aryan? Susyr Otlev (talk) 09:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could be a conlang (the occurrence of good ol' "sunt" and "agent", along with the simultaneous use of both θ and þ, makes me suspicious). I suspect it was cobbled together partly from Latin and Gothic, and partly from somewhere else (or arbitrary invention). AnonMoos (talk) 11:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

θ and þ is my mistake, it should be úθrásθenes and not úθrásþenes. Susyr Otlev (talk) 11:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks pretty conlangy to me too. I'm not aware of any language normally written in the Latin alphabet that uses the letter θ. Where do these sentences come from? —An gr 15:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

θ is written as a d, but it is striked, like Ð, but then not capitalized. I don't know how I must write that letter, so I chose an alternative. It is written on a notition paper I have found inside of a book in the library. So it is a conlang based on Latin and Gothic? Susyr Otlev (talk) 17:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it ð? That's a letter used in Icelandic, Old Norse, and Old English. But you must know how to write that letter, since you used it in your IPA transcription. Is it đ? That's used in Serbo-Croatian, though sometimes it's also found where ð would be correct. It doesn't like any Indo-Aryan language I've ever seen. I'm pretty sure it isn't Old Norse, though some strings like "hafn" and "bróhđir" look tantalizingly like it. Could the book where you found the piece of paper provide a clue? Or the country where the library is located? —An gr 17:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try something. Ála (all) nári (from nēri PIE?) sunt (they are) bhéran (to bare) frájosli (free), sunt (they are) sámu θuhnithoni ét (and) ráhtoni (right) kwa (and). Sunt (they are) déhani (given) hnés-shafn (li: -sjap, -ness) ét (and) hónwéjθanun (hón = con, wéjðanun = weitene = knowing: conscience) hón (with), ágent-tsha úθrásθenes enen (one) hgájsthon (guest) bróhθirshafs (brotherness) i (in). Article 1 universal declaration of human rights maybe? --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For comparison, here's the English text: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." I think you're right about what this text is. Maybe an attempt to write it in Proto-Germanic, or a Germanic- and Latin-inspired conlang? —An gr 19:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look Germanic to me, though I'm Germanic (hopefeully) Don't know Proto-Germanic to be honest, but if it would look like this, I would immediately change it... Agent, ét and sunt look very Latin, maybe a lost Old Italic language? :) --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 19:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wouldn't consider it a successful attempt to write in Proto-Germanic either, but it could be a poor attempt! But if you're right about what the text is, it has some definitely Germanic characteristics: the -an ending of bhéran "born", the fr- of the "free" word, and especially the apparent use of a word cognate with English "ghost"/German "Geist" to translate "spirit" all seem very Germanic. However, that word is only used for "spirit" in West Germanic languages; it's not the usual word in the Scandinavian languages or in Gothic. —An gr 19:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bhéran is a past particle, no prefix looks ungermanic to me (though Scandinavian languages and some Others like English have lost them) The Welsh word for "free" is rhydd and Slovak for friend is "priateľ". If it would be Indo-European it's not Italic, unlikely to be Germanic, not Slavic, not Celtic, not Greek, not Indo-Persian. Doesn't look Albanian to me and I have no idea what Armenian looks like in Latin script, but I guess it won't be this. Has there been a period of one Germanic-Italic language? --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 07:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen a proposed family tree that puts Italic with Celtic (see Italo-Celtic) and Germanic with Balto-Slavic; so, probably not. —Tamfang (talk) 05:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm... --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 11:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

モバイルダイアリ

Is there some kind Ref Desk translator who can tell me what the title says and what language it is? Thank you. ៛ Bielle (talk) 14:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's Japanese Katakana and it says mo-ba-i-ru-da-i-a-ri — "Mobile Diary." --Kjoonlee 15:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Kjoon. That looks like some imaginative detective work, as well as language knowledge. Now that we know what it says, does anyone know what it might mean? Could it be a text messaging connection, for example? Thanks again. ៛ Bielle (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where'd you hear it? The first google hit is a mobile phone diary (in the sense of a news journal) named モバイルダイアリ. Louis Waweru Talk 17:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I have no idea if this means anything in Canada or Japan, but in Austria the term is used in "mobile patient diary", this being a networking option between medical databases and the normal mobile phones of patients. Via some special software modules patients can record relevant parameters (heart rate, Riva-Rocci, et al) and transmit such data to a central database. Vice versa, an automatic texting system is executed by the central application to remind patients to take their medicine or to call for other feedback information.

Presumably there are similar mobile blogging services available for various professional purposes. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am searching for a specific person in Tokyo, someone with an English name. (For privacy reasons, I cannot included the name here. Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM) may be onto something as this person does have a serious illness. The title text was on a page with a lot of web sites in a list, followed by this person's name and the text above. There were a lot of other English names on the site. Now I have found the name again. This time it is beside:

は見つかりませんでした。

Can anyone translate this for me? It came from a Japanese web page about Newton Technology. I really do appreciate the help. ៛ Bielle (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just says something cannot be found.--ChokinBako (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, ChokinBako. Even negatives may be useful. ៛ Bielle (talk) 20:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery language? Code?

While googling for one of the words listed in the sentence in #Unknown language above, I came across this page, which is not written in any language I can identify. I spot-checked some of the links from that page, and they're all written in the same language (if that's what it is). The website's domain is .dk, which is Denmark, but this ain't Danish, Faeroese, or Greenlandic. After looking at a few pages of the the Lojban Wikipedia, I don't think it's Lojban either, but maybe it's some other conlang. I also considered the possibility of its being a code, but the fact that it looks basically pronounceable (vowels and consonants alternate the way they do in most languages) makes me doubtful of that hypothesis. Does anyone else recognize this language, or have other educated guesses? —An gr 18:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't identify it :( At first I would say somekind of Danish dialect (see title bar: ech ech ni) but than... --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My immediate impression from Ihimli and Cekid was something related to Turkish, but as I read on, I quickly abandoned that notion. I clicked some of the links but I could not find a single word that gave me any clues. Certain words, in isolation, look vaguely like words in Maltese, but the rest of the text does not. -- JackofOz (talk) 18:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "-ob" endings faintly recall Volapük, but otherwise there doesn't seem to be much specific resemblance... My overall impression is of some kind of Celto-Dutch

AnonMoos (talk) 18:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do those tables mean? And those capitalised words? Names? --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. Another curiosity is the absence of any diacritics or letters other than the bog-standard 26 of the English alphabet. —An gr 19:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I checked a few terms and stumbled across a page on paralingua. Just a guess, as I have no idea about this, but there are some identical words. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Examples: [2], [3]. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it at least isn't a variant of Limburgish I'd say :) (Though Limburgish itself is often less mutually understable than Limburgish and Dutch, I do understand some Dutch, but no Hasselts or Genks...) --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 19:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know Limburgish, Hasselts, or Genks, but if presented with a page of any of them written down I'd at least be able to identify it as some sort of West Germanic language/dialect. Cookatoo may be on to something with the Paralingua page. —An gr 19:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't identify Hasselts as Germanic... (doesn't have standard spelling, so everybody uses as much strange letters as possible hsecould mean "I see") Though (Dutch) Limburgish is the only tonal language in Europe (and only Germanic language with a locative) it still looks West-Germanic indeed. That image on the first example of Cookatoo looks very frightening to me... --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a translator on one of the pages I linked to. The first sentence, "Cekid acte ohhesre segel ke hade" means: "God! Sleekest, cheekier headache." or "Hot-headed geek screeches alike".

I guess, the rest is quite obvious and simple :) --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good :) But what language is it? --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 19:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English, written in sentence-by-sentence anagrams. But if those are really the only two possible translations, then it still doesn't say anything. —An gr 20:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't think the page I first linked to is in anagrams, because then you wouldn't expect entire words to be repeated from sentence to sentence. But both "cekid" and "ohhesre" appear several times on the page, which makes sentence-by-sentence anagrams unlikely. —An gr 20:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The interwebs have a couple of language-guessers, to which I fed a sample paragraph. TextCat says Unknown; XRCE says Romanian which it plainly ain't. My guess is a Markov generator. —Tamfang (talk) 05:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still have not worked out if paralingua is a joke or not. Where is Ms Germknödel when you need her? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Ms Germknödel", indeed! >:-( I can't make heads or tails of Paralingua either, but I can assure OosWesThoesBes that Limburgish is not the only tone language in Europe. (Scottish Gaelic and Swedish distinguish words by tone, and I think Norwegian, Serbo-Croatian, and Slovene do too, but I'm not sure. —An gr 20:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those are pitch accents :) --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 06:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I can shed absolutely no light on the subject of the querry, I can just quickly confirm that Slovene (my mothertongue) does indeed have a couple of distinct pitch pairs of words. However, these are very few in number, and if you ask an average Slovene about what they think makes their language unique, they'll imediately start fawning over the dual. TomorrowTime (talk) 17:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Limburgish has over 100 words which have tonality making difference in singular and plural and uncountable more of meaning, daag with different tone can mean day or days, while graaf with different tone can mean hole next to the road or grave. :) --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While there are indeed repeated words among the pages, I have yet to find a link where the word displayed for the link actually occurs on the linked page. While I wouldn't expect the linked word to occur on the page every time (we are familiar with link that say 'here' or 'see also', I would have expected to find an example in the first half-dozen I tried. I conclude that it is either code or gibberish - or, I suppose, sentence level anagrams. --ColinFine (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's a transliteration of the Voynich manuscript. :-) Deor (talk) 22:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is having fun at our expense. This site is weird, there is no information about the webmaster, no links to any external site etc. It must be a joke in order to keep puzzling people: make it look real, while it is just gibberish generated automatically and formated into a shape that seems to be logical. Even the tables with caption and headers and everything don't make sense when you try to do anagrams on the columns and row titles.--Lgriot (talk) 04:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polyglot 3000 fails to place it as any of the 474 languages it knows. The Jade Knight (talk) 05:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's gibberish. Haukur (talk) 18:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But high-level gibberish. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The letter frequencies look very similar to English, moreso than most other European languages including German and Danish[4]. (for 2 paragraphs I got a 8.39% b 1.51% c 2.89% d 4.75% e 17.81% f 1.31% g 1.99% h 4.26% i 7.08% j 0.07% k 0.62% l 3.44% m 2.20% n 6.33% o 9.15% p 1.38% q 0.00% r 5.36% s 5.91% t 8.32% u 2.68% v 0.48% w 1.93% x 0.14% y 1.99% z 0.00%) The lack of one-letter words is puzzling if it is based on English word lengths; unless it is produced by some rule that excludes one-letter words. The fact that the URLs are all of the form geko.dk?p=XXXXXXX suggests it is automatically generated. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 12:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistics

Let me begin by apologizing, since this is not a question about language per se. It seems many people here on the reference desk are really quite passionate about linguistics, and I am a seeking advice on whether or not a minor in Linguistics is worth the time. I love languages, but I am ignorant about Linguistics. I would appreciate an explanation of a few of the pros and cons of the study as experienced by Linguistics. I am not necessarily going to base my decision on any particular response, I would just like to hear generally why people who have had experience in the field think of it. Many Thanks. By the way I am majoring in English at New York University, I speak Spanish and English, and took five years of Latin. This is my language experience. 20:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.245.244 (talk)

My humble opinion, as someone with 4years of honours B.A. in linguistics and 5 years of Latin, is that Linguistic is very useful and worthwhile. First of all, it's just plain lots of fun. It will give you a clearer understanding of how language and communication works and if you are ever planning on learning a new foreign language (which is also a great thing to consider doing) it will make that fantastically easier to do. You will have no problem wrapping your tongue around new consonants and vowels, having studied IPA. You'll recognize new grammatical patters, and definitely expand semantic understanding of the world. We know that a thing is not the same as the word used to refer to it, but do we really understand the significance of that fact? You may discover that there is another way of dividing the world up into named categories - and that may expose you to a new way of seeing and thinking about the world.

Linguists get to travel the world, studying different people, cultures and the way they view the world and do things and describe all that with words. Or even (via imagination and historical linguistics) travel back in time and study previously existing people and thoughts and ideas and languages. Read the article on proto-indo-european and see if that interests you, peeking back in time thousands of years.

Duomillia (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One good thing about learning linguistics is that you can scoff and laugh at all the stupid things the press says about language; the bad thing about learning linguistics is that you notice all the stupid things the press says about language. If you read Language Log you should get a rough idea pretty quickly, I think. --Kjoonlee 08:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One bad thing about learning linguistics is that once people find out that you're a linguist, they always ask "So how many languages do you speak?", which of course is a bit like asking a music theorist how many instruments he plays. —An gr 08:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's because people who really do speak lots of languages, and who've not necessarily studied linguistic theory, are also called linguists. To avoid this ambiguity, maybe we should coin the word linguisticist for the theoreticians. :) -- JackofOz (talk)

People who speak many languages are more correctly "Polyglots"... AnonMoos (talk) 20:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We already have the word linguistician, but, as the Wiktionary article mentions, is a lot less popular because it's more difficult to say than linguist, though it does protect against that stupid "cunning linguist" pun. :)--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 22:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before committing to spend N hours in a classroom, you might first read a couple of books in the field. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language by David Crystal is a useful overview (and may be easy to find second-hand). I enjoyed Historical Linguistics by R. L. Trask. —Tamfang (talk) 05:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best book in linguistics ever (?): Bloomfield, Language.--Radh (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signing Versus Subtitles

In the UK most television channels do a small number repeats of programs and films with sign language. This is in the form of a regular program with a small window in the corner showing a single person signing along to the action. This is probably due to some public service charter requiring a certain proportion of programs to be signed. They are usually in the form of repeats very late at night.

My question is, is any extra information conveyed over subtitling? Do deaf people (as a general rule) prefer to watch the signed version of the subtitled version, for example does it convey more emotion?

To me, although I can’t understand the sign language, it would seem to be very distracting -- more so than subtitles. However I can watch subtitled versions of foreign films and don’t feel I’m missing much, it is better than a dubbed film, which seems to be analogous to the signed, the signing seems to be essentially dubbing every character with the same “voice”.

Is signing television an anachronism in these days of near 100% sub-titling or does it still add something? 78.150.187.19 (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the answer. But I would expect that it depends strongly on the individual, and their history. People who lost their hearing at adolescence or later will have learnt signing as a second language, and may well be happier with subtitles. People deaf from birth will have had to learn written English (or whatever language) as a second language, and will often find signing easier to follow. Be aware that sign language is usually not just a transformation of a spoken or written language, but a separate language with its own (very different) grammar. --ColinFine (talk) 22:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Australian television news is sub-titled in real time by transcription on teletext. The transcription is a few seconds behind the sound, but it's pretty fast, and mostly accurate. I imagine it's equally as useful as having the signing in the corner, but can't guarantee. Steewi (talk) 22:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the reasons given by ColinFine a lot of BBC children's tv programs are repeated on digital with a signer in the corner. Younger kids would not be able to read English faster enough to keep up. I don't know whether deaf children learn English reading & writing significantly later than hearing children, but my (hearing) daughter could not keep up with subtitled films until she was about 12. -- Q Chris (talk) 13:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish/English song translation- Väkirauta by Korpiklaani

Could I get an English translation of this song? The song is Väkirauta by Korpiklaani, and I like it, but don't understand the meaning of the song. You can listen to the song on YouTube here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSrNqn89Bbw

Viere vaino, vihavieras, kulki kauhu, Hiien heitto, polki mannert', anturaine tarpahutti tuhokoura.

Sai se yhen vastahansa, yhen miehen mäkimailta, kera vasken valituimman, rautakouran eikkuvimman.

Veti miekan, riisti rauan, tempo, tuisko, terävällä! Väisi, viilti, veisti, voitti! Maistoi mustaa mahtia.

Turmel' päitä tappoteivas, välähytti väkirauta. Repi, ruhjo, raiskas', riehki, vihaan sorti, vainolaisen.

Helkky loiste metsämailta, valokannel vaarahilta, soitto soiton sankarista, veisti virren voittajasta:

Se on Kauko Suomen seppo, tannermaitten takomiesi, kuka tako mahtirauan, kalkutteli väkivasken.

Riemu, rauha, rajuköyry, voittovakka vimmatuuli, vallitsevi vaarahilla, mekastavi metsämailla.

Thank you very much! C4ffinat0r (talk) 22:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This [5] (possibly dodgy) lyrics site gives an English translation that looks a little clumsy. Are there advances on it? Steewi (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That translation may be a bit clumsy, but that's not saying I could do better myself. I can confirm that it does give you the gist of it: an invading enemy is slain by a hero with a special (possibly charmed) blade, and the hero is celebrated in song.

A word-by-word or literal translation would be impossible, and it would take a pretty good poet to render it effectively in English. The original lyrics are, as you can imagine, in a very archaic style indeed, with words that aren't used in modern Finnish at all and some made-up ones as well, and that's not the worst of it. For example, there is much that appears redundant, as is often the case in "primitive" poetry, and this kind of poetry is rather difficult to properly appreciate for a modern reader or listener, even a native Finnish speaker.

For what it's worth, I'd say that the lyrics aren't half bad as these things go, they are playful and show invention. I've certainly seen much worse: modern attempts at Finnish folk poetry can be quite embarrassing, and this isn't.

As a technical point, however, this song is not in proper Kalevala metre, but in straight trochaic tetrametre throughout. In the Kalevala metre of old Finnish poetry, about half the lines are in trochaic tetrametre and the other half have a trochee and two dactyls, or deviate from the fundamental metre in some other way, even though they're spoken in trochaic tetrametre.

Hope this helps!--Rallette (talk) 08:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 13

Sounds like

I'm sometimes missing something when reading a WP article (an easy example: Granophyre) and the subject pronunciation is described in IPA. I look at the the IPA symbols and have no idea how to pronounce the subject. Am I in the minority about this? Would it be non-encyclopedic to include a sounds like descriptor? When I encounter this situation would I be diminishing the article to include "sounds like" in small print? Is reading IPA so prevalent that I'm a "dinosaur"? I've seen some articles that include both IPA and "sounds like" but I'm uncomfortable about adding the "sounds like" as I've not found any guidelines. My personal opinion is that the less educated (non-IPA) folks who want to reference WP ought to at least be able to pronounce properly without jumping through IPA hoops so, both should be included -hydnjo talk 02:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the same way, but there are two problems with "sounds like" methods. First, it's easy to find examples that work for your own dialect of English and not someone else's -- "caught" may or may not sound exactly like "cot", "merry" may or may not sound exactly like "marry" and/or "Mary", "whine" may or may not sound exactly like "wine". Second, there are some sounds in English where there's no combination of letters that clearly represents that sound and no other. For example, suppose someone's name sounded like "thin" except with the "th" pronounced as in "that", and you were writing an article about that person -- how would you write a "sounds like" for that name?

In fact the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation) recommendation is that IPA should always be used, but it is acceptable to supplement it with "sounds like" methods if you are careful to avoid problems. --Anonymous, 03:24 UTC, October 12, 2008.

This would be a good discussion to post at the Village Pump (or wherever appropriate), because while I do understand IPA and appreciate it, no single IPA transcription can represent every English dialect. I find it especially annoying that some of WP's articles contain the RP IPA while other contain General American. Perhaps we could begin a project to complement every IPA transcription with a Merriam-Webster-like, WP-approved pronunciation?--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 03:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That no transcription system could apply to all dialects is an issue that has been brought up in regards to our transcription conventions laid out at WP:IPA for English (very close to what you've suggested). Take a look at the talk page there. I think the inconsistancy has more to do with the sheer size of Wikipedia and the inability of frame-pushing transcription homogenizers to keep up than with a standard that accepts variation. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 06:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally we'd use a scheme that reflects every phonemic distinction made by any dialect, while accepting that within a given dialect some pairs of notations may sound alike. (I've sometimes seen this called diaphonic transcription, though etymologically that seems a bit fishy.) This is possible because pronunciation differences between dialects have patterns; this is also why it's possible to imitate another dialect without first hearing a sample of every word you'll need. The first OED, I believe, has this property; with IPA, it became a Dictionary of Oxford English. IPA allows for different levels of abstraction, though, so probably it's possible to use a version of IPA for what I have in mind. —Tamfang (talk) 04:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles on Diaphone_(linguistics) and Diasystem, though neither one seems all that great (the Diasystem article seems to define "pluricentric language", not diasystem as such). AnonMoos (talk) 06:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all for your time, attention and thoughts. Given that, I think I'll just add a phonetic pronunciation where I deem appropriate and not feel badly about it. If I get rv'd I'll not war - one unpronounceable at a time I say! ;) hydnjo talk 23:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copied to the Village pump per el Aprel's suggestion. hydnjo talk 03:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What language:

"Li donaríem la paraula a Vicky perquè ens presenti la seva empresa." From a speech given in Barcelona, Spain. Grsz ^X 16:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know for sure, but it could be the Catalan language. --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 17:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed Catalan. A translation via this website gives us this...:

"We would give the word to Vicky so that he|she|it presents us its|his|her|their company"

Later --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lower case Cyrillic "Te"

I studied Russian at school in the UK about 14 years ago (age 12 to 16!). I remember little of it, other than the lowercase of "Te" was not т but a "m" with a line above. The wikipedia article explains that Slavic and Macedonian alphabets have "ш" with a line above instead of "т", but where does the upright "m" with a line that I was taught come from? Why isn't it in unicode? (My teacher was British, with strong links to Moscow) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.241.182 (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's only used in handwriting, where traditionally the m-looking symbol was used for т, and a larger version for Т. Because it can so easily be confused with ш/Ш, it became the practice to put a bar across the top. These days, it's more usual to find a handwritten symbol that looks, in lower case, like a т with an elongated downstroke. In upper case, a normal capital Т is often found, but a symbol that looks like a large Greek pi (the math symbol - don't know how to reproduce it here) with a middle downstroke, is also found. In printed text, the m version of т still appears in italics, but without the horizontal bar: Roman т becomes italic т. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the font; I see a little T — though I seem to remember that on a previous occasion, when a similar question arose here, I saw m when I used a different computer. —Tamfang (talk) 04:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Te (Cyrillic). jnestorius^(talk) 20:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...ussia?

What does ussia mean? In the Russia, Prussia context, not the rapper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.242.193.191 (talk) 19:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've broken the words into the wrong units. The correct way to break them up is as "Rus" and "-ia" and "Prus" and "-ia". The Rus were a group of Norse invaders that settled in the region of Moscow and Kiev during the viking expansions of the 1000's and 1100's. Thus "Russia" is roughly "Land of the Rus". The Prus were a native Baltic people who settled in area around the modern cities of Gdansk and Kaliningrad. Thus Prussia is "Land of the Prus". Interestingly the modern states bear no connection, ethnographically speaking, to their names. Russia is of course a Slavic nation, not a Scandanavian one, and the 19th century Prussia was a German nation, not a Baltic one... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This brings up the question of why some countries which bear no resemblance to each other except in their geographical proximity have similar sounding names, like Iran and Iraq.--ChokinBako (talk) 08:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Arabic, Iraq begins with a voiced pharyngeal, has a short vowel in its first syllable, and has a prefixed definite article, while none of that is true of Iran, so that the names are really not very similar at all: العراق إيران -- AnonMoos (talk) 12:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English to Welsh translation please

My Welsh is only at conversation level and I need the following translating for my website journeyofabook.com :

Please write in your native language.

Thanks St91 (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The web has lots of good translators, at least for word-for-word translation (many screw up idiomatic translations). The site InterTran which I use regularly comes up with the following English-to-Welsh translation:

"Blesio dorri i mewn 'ch brodor dafodiaith". Have no clue how accurate that is. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not very. Remember "People called 'Romanes', they go, the house" from Life of Brian? I'd use [Ysgrifennwch yn eich mamiaith, os gwelwch yn dda.] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) —An gr 20:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be a separate article Romani ite domum, but it got merged... AnonMoos (talk) 20:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angr's translation is much better. The Jade Knight (talk) 20:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does that centurion bother to make a distinction between accusative and locative, when the case ending is the same anyway? Or is that the joke? My Latin teachers were never like that.--ChokinBako (talk) 10:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because the theory behind it is the important thing. The nominative and vocative of "Romani" are the same too, but they're careful to point out that "Romani" is in the vocative in "Romani ite domum". —An gr 10:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say "Ysgrifennwch yn eich mam-iaith, os gwelwch yn dda", but that is fairly formal. I don't know much colloquial Welsh. --ColinFine (talk) 23:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comma or no comma?

"The question is not whether minimum sentences are inherently in keeping with the principle of restraint, but rather whether restraint is used when setting a minimum sentence." Do I need a comma after "rather"? I don't think I do, but "rather whether" seems like an awkward, tongue-twisting construction. Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 19:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Rather' is redundant in this sentence- 'but' already establishes the contrast. You should cut 'rather' out of the sentence entirely. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But if you do keep rather and put a comma after it, then you need one before it as well. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that rather needs either two commas or none, and that rather is redundant, but I disagree with FisherQueen's explanation. It is not the preceding but that makes it redundant, but rather the following whether, as Cherry suggests. There are a number of optional words in English which can tag the endpoints of paired elements, as in the following:

not X but [rather] Y
not only X but [also] Y
[either] X or Y
[both] X and Y
if X, [then] Y

The optional element is useful if the first [X] element is so long that it might be difficult to parse where it ends and the second [Y] element begins; or if X itself contains and, but, etc. In the original example, the X and Y elements are both demarcated by whether, so there is no possibility of such confusion. jnestorius^(talk) 20:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, everybody. I took out the "rather" and it sounds much better. Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 23:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

inherent-ly is sure-ly wrong (?), it is also complete-ly überflüssig.--Radh (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Inherently" seems fine to me. "The question is whether sentences are inherently in keeping..." The sense is similar to "whether they are by their nature..." or "whether they are essentially...." --- OtherDave (talk) 18:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 14

Stephen Fry on Room !01

A while back Stephen Fry went on room 101 and said a few french words that I would like to know. I typed in what they sounded like into Google and came up with nothing. I know one of the words is "dégagé" but what are the others. This is a link to the episode, he says the words slightly after 3 minutes 30 into the clip.

Thanks.92.4.229.8 (talk) 02:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"She's got to the stage now with slightly fierce, almost pince-nez [eyeglasses], and almost deliberately slightly dégagé grey hair to make it, you know, like a more femme savant bluestocking [inaudible]..." —Tamfang (talk) 04:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haitian Creole-English + vice versa dictionary

Can anyone recommend a good Haitian Creole-English + English-Haitian Creole dictionary? I've found a very good one, but it's only Haitian Creole to English. All the bidirectional ones I've seen so far are very poor. I don't want a picture dictionary, but rather a dictionary for an intermediate student with an ample lexicon. Most I've found are too tourist-y. If anyone has come across one and knows the title—or better, the ISBN—I would really appreciate it. Thanks!--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 02:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did a search at the Tulane University Libraries' website; they sometimes teach classes on Haitian Creole there. There were several hits; I'm not sure which if any are what you are looking for but you could search other University Library websites to get some leads and then google the titles.69.244.5.221 (talk) 00:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NLP Language course

I need to study the NLP Meta model language and need a few contacts of institutions which conduct these courses. Please respond to [Email removed].

Thanks and regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.245.169.75 (talk) 07:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that as in neuro-linguistic programming? --- OtherDave (talk) 18:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

in or at

Hi,
Quick question, is it better to write "actionable at law" or "actionable in law"? --Fir0002 07:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS let me know if you need further context...

It's usual to say "at law. (An "actionable in law" might refer to a curmudgeonly relative.) -- JackofOz (talk) 07:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! and good point about the in-laws :) --Fir0002 09:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Odin's Pig

What ACTUALLY was the name of Odin's pig? If you are into military stories, you will know what book I read.--ChokinBako (talk) 11:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, found it. That put an end to an eight year quest! The pig was called Sarimner

Odin decided over both Gods and humans. To his help he had many animals. His horse was named Sleipner, it had eight legs and could easily run in the sky. His pig was Sarimner, it was boiled and was eaten every night but in the morning it was alive again. Odin never ate of the food that was served, he gave it to his two wolves, Gere and Freke. Odin only drank wine, that was enough for both food and drink to him. Odin also had two ravens that was called Hugin and Munin, they flew every night out into the world and found out all new things that had happend. Later they sat on Odin's shoulders and told him the news, that is because he was the wisest and allknowing of the Gods.--ChokinBako (talk) 12:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And this is the origin of the Sleipnir browser?--ChokinBako (talk) 12:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, but it might be the origin of the saying "A little bird told me". Sarimner reminds me of Kenny McCormick. —An gr 12:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, but does that not originally come from Kilkenny, the lovely Irish bitter?--ChokinBako (talk) 12:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to yourself as Mr.

Is it good etiquette to refer to yourself as Mr. e.g. when introducing yourself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.157.37.42 (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. In UK we just usually use our first name, or the full name if your interlocuter does not know your first name.--ChokinBako (talk) 14:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's okay for schoolteachers to introduce themselves that way, though, so the children know exactly how to address them. It would be strange for a teacher to say "My name is Smith" or "My name is John Smith" on the first day of school, but completely normal to say "My name is Mr. Smith". And with female teachers, it's even more important so the children know whether she's Mrs. Smith, Miss Smith, or Ms. Smith. But I wouldn't do it when introducing myself to another adult. —An gr 14:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the exception would be if you are a Hospital Consultant and entitled (no pun intended) to use "Mr" in a professional capacity. When I had surgery the consultant introduced himself that way. -- Q Chris (talk) 14:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick semi-related question. Why should it be important for school children to know the marital status of their teachers? I can't really figure out how that is meaningful to them in any way... TomorrowTime (talk) 18:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am Mrs Smith does not necessarily mean I am married. It is the way I wish the children to address and refer to me. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, convention where I live now in Raleigh, NC is for all children to call adults "Mr. Firstname" or "Miss Firstname"(regardless of the woman's marital status). This is unheardof where I grew up (New England). --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok, but why would a school teacher require her students to address her as "Mrs Smith" if she wasn't actually married (or at least divorced or widowed)? -- JackofOz (talk) 21:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I was a kid, I addressed my teachers with 'sir' or 'miss'. When I talked about the teachers to someone else, I generally called every female teacher 'Miss [name], regardless of whether she is married or not. Teachers followed the same practise, too, I recall, except that they addressed each other with their first names.--ChokinBako (talk) 23:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language