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.

February 18

Is the following sentence ambiguous?

There’s no question that gravity wins in that circumstance.

Does it mean that gravity wins? Or does it mean that gravity does not win? Can it mean either depending on the circumstance? Kindly explain. 117.211.88.149 (talk) 11:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)Vineet Chaitanya[reply]

Unfortunately it can mean either – at least in British English, which often uses "No question (of)" to mean "No possibility (of)": see here (under the heading "No doubt that"). In an American context, on the other hand, it would definitely mean that gravity wins. Lfh (talk) 12:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't they say "No question of gravity winning"? I thought that this construction takes a continuous verb in BrE. On the other hand, AmE would use "no question that" and a different verb. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, that would be the more common construction in BrE - but it would still be helpful to know whether the OP's quote comes from a BrE or AmE source. I'm sure they discussed this topic on Language Log a year or two ago, but I can't find it - does anyone else remember? Lfh (talk) 13:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all ambiguous. It means that gravity will always win in the specified circumstances. However in circumstances other than that specified, gravity will sometimes win and sometimes lose depending on some other condition. Astronaut (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"That circumstance" sounds unusual to me. I would use "that case" or "those circumstances". Thoughts? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly unusual, but far from unprecedented. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 17:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to warn about the last link you posted, Jack. My antivirus took action against some "Iframe.B.Gen virus". Maybe it was just me. Anyway, I wanted to share the warning. Pallida Mors 16:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My system was (and remains) oblivious to it, but thank you for noting that circumstance, Pallida Mors. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 16:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of 17th-century German book title

If someone could help translate the 17th-century German book title at "commons:File:Christoph Hartknoch, Kupferstich von Frauenburg (1684).jpg" into English that would be great. Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the

Alt- und neues Preussen, oder, Preussischer Historien zwey Theile: in derer erstem von desz Landes vorjähriger Gelegenheit und Nahmen, wie auch der Völcker, so darinnen vor dem teutschen Orden gewohnet, Uhrankunfft, Lebens-Beschaffenheit, Sprache, Religion, Hochzeiten, Begräbnüssen, Hausshaltung, Kriegsrüstung, Republic und andere Sitten und Gewohnheiten: in dem andern aber von desz teutschen Ordens Ursprung, desselben, wie auch der nachfolgenden Herrschafft vornehmsten Thaten und Kriegen, Erbauung der Städte, der itzigen Innwohner Uhrsprung, Religion, Müntzordnung, Rechten und Policeywesen gehandelt wird

bit? Not a native speaker, but with a little help from Google Translate (uncertain translations marked with †, very uncertain left untranslated):

Old and New Prussia, or Prussian history two parts: In the first, of the country's historical† opportunities† and acquisitions, and also, how the people lived prior to the Teutonic Order, ancient arrival, quality of life†, language, religion, holidays, Begräbnüssen(burial customs/items?), housekeeping, armaments, governance†, and other customs and habits. In the other, however, the time from the Teutonic Order's origin itself will be dealt with, also, the subsequent governments'† principal deeds and wars, the building of cities, the origin of jewish[1]† itinerants†, religion, coinage, rights, and Policeywesen(police powers?).

Hope that helps. -- 174.21.250.120 (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some stuff:

"Hochzeiten" means "weddings" (not "holidays")
"Begräbnüssen" does indeed mean burials
Here, "itzig" is derived from "itzo" and is an old word for "jetzig" meaning "present-day".
"Innwohner" is "Einwohner", i.e. "inhabitants"
I'd translate "[...] der itzigen Innwohner Uhrsprung, Religion, Müntzordnung, Rechten und Policeywesen" as "[...]the present-day inhabitants' origins, religion, coinage laws, rights, and police matters"

---Sluzzelin talk 19:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To give this a little more coherence and accuracy:

Old and new Prussia, or Prussian history's two parts: in the first of them the country's ancient position and names, as well as the people who lived there before the Teutonic Order, their ancient settlement of the region, ways of life, language, religion, weddings, burials, livelihood, armaments, politics, and other customs and practices are covered; in the second the origins of the Teutonic Order itself, as well as the subsequent rulers' finest deeds and wars, construction of towns, the origins of the present-day inhabitants, religion, coinage (currency), laws, and government.

Note that some of these German words have meanings that are obsolete in present-day German. For example, Policeywesen in the 17th century (which would now be spelled Polizeiwesen) meant much more than "police matters" as we would define that term. See for example Polizeiwissenschaft. Policey in the 17th century referred to all areas of government control and regulation. Note also that the subject covered in the first part of this work is the Old Prussians and that the work as a whole refers to the historic region of Prussia rather than the later kingdom of Prussia. I am not a native speaker, but I spent a few years immersing myself in dusty German books and archival documents from this period and a little later. Marco polo (talk) 21:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for everyone's help! — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still have one remaining question regarding your (excellent) translation, Marco polo: How did you come to the conclusion that "Uhrsprung" was the sole possessed referent of "Innewohner" as a possessor? Grammatically, the possessor's pre-positioning makes the plurality of possessed referents "Uhrsprung, Religion, Müntzordnung, Rechten und Policeywesen" possible as well. Semantically, I think both interpretations can make sense too. That is why I chose to reflect this ambiguity in English by pre-positioning "the present-day inhabitants' " (instead of "of the present-day inhabitants"). I lack the feeling and knowledge regarding historical documents though, so I may be missing something. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sumerian

What's the ~~Mesopotamian~~ Sumerian translation for "Bringer of Death"? --75.15.161.185 (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no past or present language called (in English) "Mesopotamian." Various languages have been or are spoken in the region called Mesopotamia: which of them did you mean? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually a little microcosm of changing middle-east lingua francas: Sumerian, Akkadian, Aramaic, Arabic... AnonMoos (talk) 08:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you were addressing that to me, AnonMoos, I am well aware of the region's ancient linguistic history, and didn't want to confuse the OP with too much detail before he could clarify. If you were addressing the OP, your indent was misleading. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 12:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I was addressing anyone -- just making a general observation on the mutability of time (in reply, however, to your message, and not the OP's...) AnonMoos (talk) 14:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to "Sumerian". --75.15.161.185 (talk) 19:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something like "nam-úš túmu" seems plausible to me.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 01:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 19

Does any language have such an arrangement? I know some have aspirate/breathy in stops and breathy/modal in sonorants, but I'm specifically looking for /kʰ gʱ g/, for example. It just kind of *feels* like that would be more stable than the /k gʱ g/ of PIE, but I'd like a bit more trustworthy source. Lsfreak (talk) 02:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A number of books by people like Ian Maddieson survey sound inventories of many languages. Anyway, the Glottalic theory has been argued about for almost 40 years without having become accepted as the main default hypothesis by most scholars... AnonMoos (talk) 08:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

French

In French written slang (i.e., in IRC and informal online boards), one will often see something like "p'wet". What does this mean? 72.128.95.0 (talk) 03:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In French pwet/pouet/pouêt (the "t" is pronounced) is an onomatopoeia from the sound of a bulb horn (old car klaxon). The meaning heavily depends on the context, but in IRC I guess that the meaning for pouêt-pouêt ! (or pouêt for short) is: "you are obviously wrong, so you'd better keep your mouth shut". — AldoSyrt (talk) 11:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Languages in The Eagle

The film The Eagle (2011 film) is specifically set in the year 140 AD, mostly north of Hadrian's Wall. In the film, a Roman and his Brigante slave, Esca, encounter a tribe which the movie calls the Seal People. I'm not sure if they're supposed to be Picts, but their warriors keep themselves covered in dried mud at all times (I'm not sure what woad-dyed skin would look like, so I don't know if they're supposed to be Picts or not. As a Brigante, Esca claims that his people were allied with the Seal People against the Romans, so he is welcomed into their village. Esca serves as a translator between the Seal People and the Roman. At one point, when Esca introduces himself to the Seal People, he calls himself "Esca mac <his father's name>.". Now am I correct in assuming that, as a Brigante, his native language would have been something Brythonic, and therefore in his own language he would have been Esca ap <his father's name>? If I'm correct, then what he's doing is using Scots Gaelic to speak to the Seal People. But Scots Gaelic appears not to have been introduced into Scotland until about the 4th century. Is this an anachronism in the movie? What language/languages would the people living north of Hadrian's Wall have spoken? Something Brythonic? Corvus cornix_talk 07:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ogham inscriptions, even in Wales and Cornwall, use MAQI for "son"... AnonMoos (talk) 09:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are we trying to disprove the notion of P-Celtic and Q-Celtic here? It's pretty fringe to dispute that Brythonic speakers had map rather than mac. This is surely just a blunder on the part of the film makers, who weren't interested in such subtleties, correctly assuming that most of the audience wouldn't know the difference. They probably figured that "Hey, Scottish people are the only 'Celts' around there now, aren't they - so why don't we make them all 'macs'".--91.148.159.4 (talk) 01:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert in Celtic linguistics; however, I do happen to know that Ogham inscriptions, even in Wales and Cornwall, use MAQI for "son", so I mentioned the fact... AnonMoos (talk) 02:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not an expert either, but at least the mac vs map thing is pretty basic and undisputed; as for the Ogham inscriptions, our article says the inscriptions are mostly in primitive Irish - even those outside of Ireland. Apparently Ogham was above all an Irish thing, and its use on the other side of the sea was connected with admixtures of Irish origin in the population and/or with Irish cultural influence. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If they are meant to be Picts, then no one really knows what the Pictish language was like. Some kind of Celtic? Some other Indo-European language? Not IE at all? Adam Bishop (talk) 09:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This probably goes beyond what the film intended (and I don't recall it from the book on which the film is based), but the name "Seal People" carries a suggestion of a reference to Selkies, a Scots folk legend of "were-seals". It has been suggested that this may derive from encounters with Sami kayakers who occasionally visited Scottish shores.

I have seen suggestions that the Picts were not monoethnic, but a confederation which included both Gaelic-speaking tribes and non-Gaelophones. Having lived in the formerly Pictish Kingdom of Fife (where some think or thought that the Ninth Legion was wiped out), I dearly wish there was more evidence available about the Picts. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 12:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some information about Pictish here. Alansplodge (talk) 13:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that the Picts were Iberians? Corvus cornix_talk 05:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Sims-Williams, Patrick (2004). The Celtic Inscriptions of Britain: Phonology and Chronology, c. 400-1200. The Philological Society. ISBN 1-4051-0903-3., Sims-Williams discusses in order the "ninety-eight Brittonic sound changes between the first century BC and the twelfth century AD" listed by Kenneth Jackson in Language and History in Early Britain (1953). These do not include the change Q -> P, unsurprisingly, since that is one of the defining characteristics of Brythonic (or Brittonic). The index to Sims-Williams' book certainly includes plenty of instances of "MAQ(I)" and "MAC(C)V and compounds thereof: every one of them is doubly underlined, meaning "probable Irish names".

In other words, "MAQ" and "MACCV" are well-known in Inscriptions from mainland Britain, but are confidently interpreted as being Irish names. --ColinFine (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - there was substantial Irish settlement in both Wales and Cornwall in the "Dark Ages". Some more information about Ogham and Irish incursion here. Alansplodge (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

piano ripple

Hello everybody, I hope this is the right place for my question (sorry if it's not!). I'm trying to get my head arround a review of a mainstream rock album that I'm supposed to summarize. However, the style of the text is a bit too flowery for me. Anyway, here is the phrase that I'm failing to understand: "The song is a three-minute rock opera, complete with humming, liquid-toned guitars, tympani-style drums and ripples of piano."

Does anybody know what "ripples of piano" is supposed to mean here? How can a piano sound like it's dabbling? ;) Could it mean that the piano is phasing in and out of the mix, i. e. that quiet and loud passages are alternating.

I'd be glad if someone could help me out on that. Thanks in advance! --84.148.25.251 (talk) 11:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I've encountered the term before, I've always understood it to refer to the repeated and gentle playing of fast arpeggios. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 12:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also perhaps liberal use of glissando is implied. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your helpful replies! I've just found the song on Youtube (don't be surprised by the opening falsetto scream ;). It's very classical influenced and there are indeed many arpeggios in the intro. But I think the author was referring to the verses and chorus part where the piano mostly plays chords... Here's the sheet music by the way. --84.148.25.195 (talk) 16:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help writing Urdu script

How do I write the Urdu at http://npiskuwait.com/dsPortal/dsFls/templates/fronted/default/images/npis_text.jpg in computer text? I want to add the Urdu to the New Pakistan International School article WhisperToMe (talk) 13:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite small and blurry, but as far as I can tell it's in Arabic, not Urdu: المدرسة البكستانية الدولية (can't make out the last word). AnonMoos (talk) 14:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Logically, the last word would be expected to be الجديدة but I really can't tell with any degree of confidence whether the blur is that or not... AnonMoos (talk) 14:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fourth word is الحدیثه, meaning new. --Omidinist (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not too sure what the difference in meaning between jadīd and ħadith is... AnonMoos (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"al-jadida" would mean "new school" as in replacing an old one, whereas "al-haditha" means contemporary or modern, which can also be translated as new. --Xuxl (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Word 'crisis' in Chinese

Does it mean 'risk' + 'opportunity'?Quest09 (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crisis is: 危機. The first "letter", 危, means: risk (or rather; danger), whereas the second "letter", 機, means: machine.

On the other hand, opportunity (or rather: chance), is: 機會. The first "letter", 機, means: machine, whereas the second "letter", 會, means: meeting.

Hope this helps. Comment: I'm not a Chinese speaker, so take it into account.

Cohneli (talk) 21:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does not, and we have an article on this: Chinese word for "crisis". rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A wealth of information here. 86.161.110.118 (talk) 21:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I knew that! That was just idle talk of the multicultural consultants! (or motivational speaker). Quest09 (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear god! What's next? Is somebody going to say the Eskimoes dont have n-1 words for snow? TomorrowTime (talk) 17:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe.... I assume you're being sarcastic, but just for others reading along: The Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax (short pdf version), and our article on Eskimo words for snow. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The second character 機 began as meaning "mechanism", and in particular the triggering mechanism on a crossbow. From this meaning of "triggering mechanism", it came to mean, metaphorically, a crucial triggering or turning point in an event. It is in this sense that it is used in the translation of "crisis", perhaps most literally translated as "dangerous trigger point". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 20:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In what language does one say: to complain "from" somebody, instead of: to complain "about" somebody ?

Cohneli (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian, for example. We say: оплаквам се от някого. --Theurgist (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I need more languages. How about Romanian? Cohneli (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Romanian you can say: "a se plânge de cineva"; de is a widely applicable Romanian preposition, but often means "from" or "of", and usually not "about". --Theurgist (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish - "quejarse de algo"·Maunus·ƛ· 23:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although the Romanian and Spanish examples are probably better seen as examples of languages that say "complain of somebody" - the de in these contexts isn't a directional but a genitive.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you cannot translate 'from' as 'de'. Prepositions don't have a direct translation, they are they use. 81.47.150.216 (talk) 14:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does "they are they use" mean? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He means they are their use. And he is absolutely right - no preposition corresponds completely to a preposition in another language.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OP's comment and clarification:

*Bulgarian is a bad example, because от means "of", rather than "from", i.e. you don't use от in the directional meaning, right?

Let me explain again my question: I'm looking for a language, having a word, say "X", so that:

1. The English sentence: "I flew from Chicago to NY" is translated into the second langauge as: "I flew X Chicago to NY" (the words: "I", "flew", "to", being properly translated into the second language).

2. The English sentence "I complained about him" is translated into the second language as "I complained X him" (the words: "I", "complained", "him", being properly translated into the second language).

Is this clear enough now?

Cohneli (talk) 19:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the examples already given still apply. French also works; you would use "de" in both of your sentences. At least in French, "de" means "of", "about", "from", and other things. This comes from Latin, where "de" also had multiple meanings. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. Bulgarian does use the same preposition in the directional meaning, as do Romanian and Spanish. Maunus' comment about these being cases of "of" and not "from" was misleading, since the Romance languages in question actually use the same preposition in both senses (both "genitive" and "ablative"), so it's hard to say with certainty which sense applies in the case of "complain". Bulgarian is an even purer example, because the preposition от is only "ablative" ("I flew от Chicago to NY"), never "genitive".--91.148.159.4 (talk) 14:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thank you, I didn't know that.

How about other Slavic languages? Are they like Bulgarian? Cohneli (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting question. Curiously enough, Russian is not like this ("жаловаться на" = "to complain on somebody"), and neither are, apparently, Serbian and Czech ("žaliti se na", "stěžovat si na" = again, "to complain on"), and Polish. I'm actually surprised by this agreement of Slavic languages that are otherwise pretty divergent. Bulgarian might turn out to be pretty much alone on this one. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 20:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Thank you. Cohneli (talk) 11:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the Spanish example can be thought of a figurative ablative ("from"). That's the general approach for a prepositional complement linked to a pronominal verbal form. For reference, the New Spanish Grammar cites this figurative ablative, and gives the examples arrepentirse de algo and curarse de algo, among others. Pallida Mors 00:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ablative? Can you use the "de" in sentences like "I flew from Chicago to NY"? The examples arrepentirse de algo and curarse de algo, don't involve the directional meaning I'm looking for. Cohneli (talk) 17:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as I believe others have already said. An online Spanish dictionary gives the example "viajar de Edimburgo a Madrid", "to travel from Edinburgh to Madrid".--91.148.159.4 (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 20

What is considered the gold standard German/English translation dictionary?

I am interested in learning German, and I am curious to know what is considered the "standard" or at least most widely accepted translation dictionary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.177.127 (talk) 14:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Langenscheidt which has a very good reputation.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Langenscheidt certainly has a good reputation, but you should also consider the Pons dictionary - I haven't worked with the Pons German-English dictionary, but their German-French and German-Italian dictionaries are worlds better than the comparable Langenscheidt dictionaries. For the same price and for books about the same size, they offer almost twice as many entries (by using a slightly smaller font), their translations appear more idiomatic, and they have very useful usage sections for common words. If you have a chance, go to a bookstore or library and compare them side by side - I'm pretty certain you'll find the Pons dictionary superior. -- Ferkelparade π 15:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking for something free online, LEO seems to be the most popular with the Germans I know, although I don't know about the "officalness" of it. -- 174.21.250.120 (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford Duden (produced jointly by Oxford University Press and Dudenverlag) is another heavyweight, alongside the Collins.[2][3]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 21

Groups of words built the same way but from different source languages

I'm looking for a term for certain groups of words, if there is one. I don't know how to describe the idea very clearly, so I'll give some examples: "Foretell" and "predict" are both constructed from a part meaning "before" and a part meaning "tell," but "foretell" uses Anglo-Saxon roots while "predict" uses Latin roots. Again, "undersea" and "submarine" both come from a part meaning "under" and a part meaning "sea", but the sources of the roots are different. A less obvious pair is "only" and "unique"—both are constructed from a part meaning "one" and a suffix which forms an adjective, but from different languages. The names of the cities of Montreal, Monterrey, and Königsberg all basically mean the same thing ("King's Mountain") in different languages. Is there a term for groups of words like this, built from pieces that mean the same thing, but using different source languages for the roots? These aren't calques, because, for example, "foretell" wasn't borrowed into English from "predict" by translating the parts—both "foretell" and "predict" arose independently, I think. —Bkell (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The same construction, similar construction ...? -- the Great Gavini 05:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that's "descriptive" is liable to use equivalent words in the respective languages. It would be interesting to find out of there's a more specific term than "word-for-word translation". One of my favorite examples is that the mountain ranges called the "Himalaya" and the "Sierra Nevada", which are essentially the same term: snowcapped mountains. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly a better match for Sierra Nevada - the Snowy Mountains. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is also "foresee" and "provide". Adam Bishop (talk) 09:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Pseudocalque" is sometimes used to describe this very concept. However, it is more often used to describe a calque that fails, through naivety or by design, to avoid some amusing pitfall of polysemy: "día del pugilismo" for "Boxing Day"; "pozo en mano" for "well in hand"; "converso" for "unmoored", etc. LANTZY ^TALK 13:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that last one isn't a calque, but you get the idea...LANTZY ^TALK 13:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definition

A word that means to take advantage of a person of simple mindHess1466 (talk) 04:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

trick ... decieve ... con ... defraud ... dupe ... swindle ... hornswoggle ... shanghai ... "sell someone a bridge" -- 174.21.250.120 (talk) 07:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

exploit. Bazza (talk) 14:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sell them swamp land in Florida. SemanticMantis (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of a German book title

Another German book title, this time at "commons:File:Fender chains of the Miraflores locks, Panama Canal - 19380308.jpg": Vom Fähnlein zur Fahne in den Tod: Tagebücher und Aufzeichnungen des Leopold Schuhmacher (†1943) Oberleutnant zur See. I translated this as From the Troop to the Flag in Death: The Diary and Records of Leopold Schuhmacher (died 1943), Senior Lieutenant at Sea, but "From the Troop to the Flag in Death" doesn't sound quite right in English. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In den Tod is accusative, so it means "into death", not "in death". (You might want to choose a different preposition than "into", but at any rate it should suggest "and then to" rather than "already in".) Lfh (talk) 08:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So "From the Troop into Death in the Flag"? I'm still quite puzzled as to what this means. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 12:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure either, but Oberleutnant zur See has the equivalence of Sub-Lieutenant in the British Royal Navy and Lieutenant Junior Grade in the US Navy (depending on whether you're translating into Commonwealth English or the American version). See Oberleutnant and Comparative military ranks of World War II. Alansplodge (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason to reverse "Flag" and "Death" from the original German order. It seems to mean "from the troop, then to the flag, then to death".

Googling "in den Tod", I find that Bartholdy's St. Paul oratorio has a section called Sei getreu bis in den Tod, which we've translated as "Be though faithful unto death". And Romans 6:4 in German includes the line "So sind wir ja mit ihm begraben durch die Taufe in den Tod", which in English is variously "into", "unto", "to", or "to the" death. So you could choose between From the Troop to the Flag into Death, or variations with unto, until, to, etc. Presumably the "death" in question is Schuhmacher's death at sea during naval combat in WW2? Do we know anything else about the book? Lfh (talk) 14:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these suggestions. I'm thinking perhaps "From the Troop to the Flag, and to the Death" (or "... on to Death") would be a good translation. I don't know anything about this book. As regards Oberleutnant zur See, I'm not sure it is a good idea to give it a completely British or American translation as that may be confusing. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps you should quote the original German rank without translating it. "Senior Lieutenant at Sea" sounds far too exalted - it's equivalent to the lowest commissioned officer in the RN - one below a Lieutenant. Alansplodge (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Oberleutnant" states that the term is "[t]ranslated as 'Senior Lieutenant' ..."; I am just following that convention. I've added a link to the English Wikipedia article. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I avoided commenting earlier because my German is not all that great, but I think there is some crucial wordplay here. In particular I think Fähnlein, which is a somewhat archaic word meaning "little troop", is here being used to mean the Hitler Youth. The reference to the flag and death relates, I believe, to a Nazi song that has a lyric saying that the flag is more important than death. So the basic meaning, I think, is something like, "from the Hitler Youth to the armed forces to death", but with some extra connotations for native German speakers. As I said, I'm not very certain of any of this. Note though one more thing: in German, nouns must always be capitalized, so you don't need to preserve the capital letters when translating into English. Looie496 (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Looie496 – I wondered if Vom Fähnlein zur Fahne might be an idiomatic phrase, and I couldn't find any evidence that it was, but it stands to reason that Fähnlein and Fahne might themselves have WW2-related connotations, so that helps. As for capital letters: actually we do need to preserve them here, because English book titles are always capitalised in full, except for prepositions and a few other short words. For example we have The Sorrows of Young Werther, not *The sorrows of young Werther. Lfh (talk) 19:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting, Looie496 – hopefully a knowledgeable German speaker will come along and confirm your suggestions. Yes, I am aware that nouns are capitalized in German but not in English – as Lfh notes, I was following the US practice of capitalizing all important words in the English book title. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

de:Fähnlein seems to agree with Looies interpretation. The Fähnlein was part of the organizational Structure of the deutsches Jungvolk, the "younger section" of the HJ. "From the pennant to the flag and unto death." Is the closest I can think of that preserves that distinction. The connotations with the HJ and the Army can hardly be preserved anyways, so I would think about staying closer to the original text. In fact as a native speaker I had to look up whether Fähnlein had been used in the Third Reich at all, I only recalled its usage in Friderician times. --91.97.19.186 (talk) 11:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so you think it is better to use the literal translation of Fähnlein rather than the figurative translation: pennant or small banner rather than troop? Thanks. It sounds like the book is about Schuhmacher's career from the HJ to the Army, and then to his death during WWII. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am. For those knowledgeable it will be an obvious metaphor and it carries the implication of growth, of growing up and then dieing. Where people died those days is very easy to make out. --11:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.97.96.179 (talk)

The word "Data" and plurals

I occasionally see awkward sounding phrases either including the word "datas" or something like "I could literally spend the rest of my research career working on these data - we're just starting to mine them." where although data has no "s" is added, the phrasing clearly implies it is a plural (he is talking about the data collected from many stars). In that particular example, I would have thought "...working on the data - we're just starting to mine it" would work just as well with no loss of understanding. So, how does "data" work in the plural? Is there even a plural for "data" or is it always singular?

Data is plural, although often used as a singular noun. Strictly speaking, the singular is datum. See data.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So with "data" one should always use plural phrasing like "these data"? Astronaut (talk) 12:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Data" predates computing: it means "the things which are given" in Latin. It was used to mean the axiomatic information given in a question itself. For example, here's a line from C.S.Lewis's Perelandra, published in 1943: "It became harder to recall her mind to the data-- a command from Maleldil, a complete uncertainty about the results of breaking it, and a present happiness so great that hardly any change could be far the better." (The italics are in the original, indicating that Lewis saw it as a borrowing from Latin rather than as a naturalised English word.) Since data is a plural count noun in Latin, writers on grammar in more recent years have often said that "these data" is the correct form. But in fact in the mouths of computer people "data" has become a mass noun like "water", so questions of singular and plural don't arise. Outside computing (such as, perhaps, in astronomy), the older rules may still apply. Marnanel (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The OED records a few meanings which are pertinent here:

1.c. pl. The quantities, characters, or symbols on which operations are performed by computers and other automatic equipment, and which may be stored or transmitted in the form of electrical signals, records on magnetic tape or punched cards, etc. In this sense the OED records both plural and singular usage (the latter from as early as 1964) for "data".

2. In pl. Facts, esp. numerical facts, collected together for reference or information. In this sense the OED does not record any singular usage.

But separately: 3. Used in pl. form with sing. construction., which shows data being used in singular sense in both of the senses described above as well as the other senses - the earliest quote is from 1807 but most are from the 20th century and in a scientific (but not exclusively computing) context. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute the claim that "'data' is plural" in modern English. Certainly it was in Latin, and certainly it is for some English speakers today. But a significant minority of uses are with a singular verb: see the table of corpus counts below.

Phrase	BNC	COCA
"data are"	491	2081
"data is"	465	1307

For many users "data" is a mass noun, and therefore always singular. --ColinFine (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which is not the same as saying "questions of singular and plural don't arise" (Marnanel, 2011). -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 01:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It might depend on whether you're using "data" as a synonym for "facts" or "collection of facts". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's the question, do you say "dah-tuh" or "day-tuh"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I say "dah-tuh" but OED is quite adamant that it's "day-tuh" (and datum "day-tum"). What do you say? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what vowel are you trying to represent here? I hear it Template:Pron-en in the UK, and Template:Pron-en from Americans on TV, but I've never heard /ˈdɑːtə/, which is what dah-tuh seems to be suggesting. 86.163.4.148 (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

/ˈdɑːtə/ ("dah-tuh") would be the norm in Australia. I'm surprised to hear /ˈdeɪtə/ ("day-tuh") from the UK, because that and /ˈdætə/ ("datt-uh") both sound very American to my ears. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really "dah-tuh", I just couldn't think of a good way to emphasize the short-a. I hear both long-a and short-a in America. The Star Trek character was pronounced "day-tuh", and I'm not sure if that counts as an American or a British production. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to clarify - I pronounce it the Australian way as described by JackofOz. I tend to think the American "dat-ta" and the Australia "dah-ta" are of the same type, but just affected by typical treatment of the long "ah" in the respective accents, whereas the British "day-ta" is more different. Before this discussion I had always assumed "day-ta" was American and "dat-ta/dah-ta" was British/Commonwealth! --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite see how it's predictable from the typical treatment of the long "ah" in the respective accents; American English does not shun long "ah"s in principle ("father" or "calm"). Perhaps you were thinking of the difference in the pronunciation of the words of the "bath" type (resulting from the trap–bath split), but "data" is not one of them. I guess one could argue that the Australian and American pronunciations are similar in that they are both aimed at some type of historical-ish Latin pronunciation, whereas the UK sticks to the traditional English pronunciation of Latin. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 12:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, finding the phrase "data is" in a database is not definitive proof that the author uses it as a singular. The phrase could occur as part of a larger phrase like "Our interpretation of the data is...", even in cases where the author normally treats data as a plural. The opposite is true too: an author who normally treats data as a singular could still write "Several analyses of the data are...". —Angr (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Imply vs infer?

I know this probably sounds like a high school question, but what's the difference (outside of dictionary definition)? Any good mnemonic for keeping them straight? --70.167.58.6 (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I can't give you a mnemonic, but infer is what you do when something is implied by something else. Does that help? --TammyMoet (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was once taught: I sighed and implied; you heard and inferred to help keep them straight. Ka renjc 18:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, implying is something that a speaker can do but a listener can't; inferring is something that a listener can do but a speaker can't. Implying is a form of saying, inferring is a form of understanding. Looie496 (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Piggybacking off of Looie's explanation: When you imply something you convey a message without explicitly saying it. When you infer something you understand a message that hasn't actually been said. If someone ask me "How was your date last night" and I say "the food was good", then I imply that the conversation was not good; for her to understand that the conversation was not good, she has to infer it from what I said. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone has covered it nicely, but the OP may be interested in this exchange from 'The Simpsons' [4]. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you implying that The Simpsons can be educational? Bus stop (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was an inference of yours. Lexicografía (talk) 19:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which nicely demonstrates that they don't always go hand-in-hand. I could infer something without that meaning ever being intended by the speaker; and I could subtly imply something but my audience may be too insensitive to pick up on it. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What one person implies is not necessarily what another person infers; what is inferred is not necessarily what was implied. Bus stop (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, usually when one intends to imply something, s/he hopes the listener will infer appropriately, but this is often a source of mis-communication. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For example, your teacher may not have explicitly taught you that "one" does not take a pronoun but has to be repeated at every mention; he/she may have implied this by use of examples and left it for you to infer the rule, but that doesn't seem to have happened. :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for off-topic de-rail, but are you implying there is something ungrammatical about my previous sentence? `"One" does not take a pronoun' sounds like rank prescriptivism. Why shouldn't "one" be able to play antecedent like any other noun? Would you find the sentence acceptable if "one" were replaced by "someone" or "somebody"? (feel free to post on my talk page if you don't want to further clog this thread.) Cheers, SemanticMantis (talk) 22:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it does fall under "rank prescriptivism", but then, prescriptive grammar exists for a reason. The way I was taught, if one does not want to have to write monstrosities like "If one wishes to keep one's friends, one must do all in one's power to not alienate them", one must resort to something that does not use "one". Because once you use "one", you're stuck with it for the rest of the sentence. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 01:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I've never heard of that rule, it does have the advantage of reducing the use of singular 'they'. Thanks for explaining. SemanticMantis (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is that "one" functions not as a noun or even as an indefinite pronoun like "someone" (strictly speaking, it's normally a numeral), but as a personal pronoun like "he", "she" and "they" (similarly to French "on", German "man" etc.). Once you have used a certain personal pronoun, it's customary to stick to it and not change your mind to "he/she": "one should talk to one's father", not *"one should talk to his or her father". BTW, singular "they" is very nice, IMO.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 12:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And well-meaning English teachers all over the world have inferred symbolism into books that wasn't originally implied.... Lexicografía (talk) 21:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether this will help you, but it may: "infer" comes from a Latin word meaning "bring in" (the word "in" means the same in both languages). Inferring something is bringing a meaning from context into your mind. [I'm sure someone else will jump in if I don't mention that "imply" also originally contained in, because it means "fold into". But you can at least remember that the one which actually contains the English word "in" means to bring something "into" your head.] Marnanel (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And if I may offer a suggestion of a mnemonic: you implY when you saY; you infeR when you heaR. No such user (talk) 07:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An anecdote repeated in our article on W. Somerset Maugham:

In 1934 the American journalist and radio personality Alexander Woollcott offered to Maugham this bit of language advice: "The female implies, and from that the male infers." Maugham responded: "I am not yet too old to learn."^[1]

BrainyBabe (talk) 23:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Might want to lose that orphaned <ref> tag, which is causing a cheery red warning message at the foot of the page. 81.131.61.161 (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Immersion' in a submarine simulation

From our Silent Hunter III article: "A stated goal of the developer was to fully immerse the player." Now, I'm sure that immersion is a good idea in video games in general, but this looks like an unfortunate choice of words in a submarine simulation! Any suggestions for an alternative wording - I can't think of one with the intended meaning. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with "... immerse the player in the game environment." or more wordily: "... immerse the player in the virtual environment of a German U-boat." Funny case of ambiguity due to context :) SemanticMantis (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Involve the player"? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Engage"? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I for one think the original sentence is fantastic. Just add a citation and put a fork in it. 109.128.213.73 (talk) 01:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, what exactly did the developer say? Perhaps the verb immerse was intentionally used. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 05:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, the article is rather lacking in references, so we may never know what the developer said. Relying purely on WP:OR, I can state that the sim is definitely immersive in the 'involving' sense, and that the obvious pun has been made many times on the relevant forums. On reflection, I'm inclined to leave this as is. Thanks for the suggestions though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"of" vs. "'s"

Are both forms correct: "Law of attraction" vs. "Attraction's law." As a non-native speaker of English, I tend to think that the first is correct, but I don't know why or if I'm right. Quest09 (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only correct form is "law of attraction". The English possessive is more limited in scope than the genitive case of some other languages. It generally works to use the possessive only when you really want to indicate possession, or belonging to. This "law" does not belong to "attraction". It is instead a law relating to attraction, a relationship that cannot be expressed by the possessive. You could speak of "England's law" or "King George's law" but not "attraction's law" or "gravity's law". Marco polo (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) We say Boyle's law: because Boyle was the one who formulated it. "The Law of Boyle" is comprehensible, but unheard of, so don't use that.

We say The Law of Attraction: because it's about the concept of attraction (cf. the Law of Large Numbers). It's not like there was a human being named Attraction, and he came up with this law, so never say "Attraction's Law". -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This somehow makes me think of the Emily Dickinson poem:

 Ruin is formal — Devil's work
 Consecutive and slow —
 Fail in an instant, no man did
 Slipping — is Crash's law.

Looie496 (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

English has the luxury of having both the "of" and the possessive "apostrophe s". Latin-based languages such as Spanish only have the "of" (specifically de or something similar). So I wonder how "Boyle's Law" would be expressed in Spanish? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder no more: es:Ley de Boyle-Mariotte. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

¡Gracias! As I suspected, they're stuck with "of". But they're used to it. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that Latin itself has no word for "of", because it has the genitive case to take care of that. Same is true for Russian and some other languages. (OR) English may be the only language that has borrowed 2 distinct possessive forms, being the mongrel that it is. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think all the Romance languages have "of", and if it didn't come from classical Latin in must have been in vulgate Latin somehow... unless it was borrowed from somewhere else? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My Latin dictionary says the possessive form is contained in the genitive case, as you indicated, while de and ex are used with the ablative case to indicate origin. So its use as a possessive must have come later in the evolution of the Romance languages. Interestingly enough, there are possessive pronouns in Spanish, as with Latin. This sounds like a can of worms ready to be opened. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My can opener is currently under repair. I expect it back in about 2017. :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Latin, the most literal meaning of the preposition de is "down from", while a common extended/analogical meaning is "about, concerning". It does not mean "of" in classical Latin... AnonMoos (talk) 02:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which would square with all those terms that have the prefix "de-" as well, yes? Such as descend, decline, etc. Where does "ex" figure into it? Does it imply "out from" as opposed to "down from"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Learnable" ... ?!

I'm writing a presentation in connection with one of my hobbies (railway ticket collecting). Without thinking about it, I found myself writing the horrible-looking word "learnable", thus: a simple graphical interface for the booking clerk (the system was intended to be learnable in half a day)... I'm surprised it's even a word! Surely there has to be a better way of expressing the concept—but my mind has gone blank (I have written 15,000 words so far...). Any suggestions welcomed, even if the consensus is that "learnable" is perfectly legitimate! Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, count me as part of that consensus. I have even gone so far as to use the word "learnability". Looie496 (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. It sounds as if your practical self knows that the word is fine and you used it without a second thought. That is, until your theoretical self piped up and said it's somehow not quite OK. Just thank it for its concern, and carry on. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 22:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just doing a quick google books search revealed that Dickens, John Ruskin, and Thomas Carlyle used the word in their writings. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about "mastered" or "assimilated in half a day"? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. Maybe my brain is fatigued by too much writing, and I'm doing "learnable" a disservice! It just looked so strange on the page... I like "mastered" in the context, though, so have gone for that (thanks Clarityfiend!). Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I agree, though. "Learnable" scans a bit ... ummm ... clunkily. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

my vote: "a simple graphical interface for the booking clerk (the system was designed so that it could be learned in half a day)" - or you can be more emphatic: so that it could be mastered in half a day. 109.128.213.73 (talk) 01:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 22

Taught vs. learned

The previous question brought the following thought to my mind:

In Russian, the standard way to refer to a scientist/academic is "учёный", which literally means somewhat who was taught. Whether s/he learned is apparently not relevant:) In English, the closest literal equivalent is to say that someone is "learned". I don't know of an English word for a wise person that is related to "taught" concept, except maybe "scholar", which I guess is not exactly it. I know Latin has "doctus" which again implies someone who was taught, I don't know if there is an equivalent Latin word that expresses "learned". So I am wondering whether:

there is an English word which etymologically means someone who was taught.
how other languages express this: whether there is a word for academics that is similar to "taught" or "learned", or both.
other random speculation on the subject:) In particular whether you think this is historically rooted in different kinds of educational emphasis in different cultures.

--Ornil (talk) 04:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See wikt:learned, and you will see an almost perfect analogy with Russian: it says "From Old English læran (“to teach”)". Apparently, the word "learn" used to mean "teach", but gradually acquired only the "get to know" meaning. The adjective "learned", when applied to a person, kept that old meaning, but the verb "learn" today has the second meaning almost exclusively. See wikt:learn#Etymology_2:

(now regional slang or dialect)
- 1485, Sir Thomas Malory, Le Morte Darthur, Book VIII:
  And there Tramtryste lerned hir to harpe, and she began to have a grete fantasy unto hym.
- 2002, The Simpsons, (1 Feb 2002) Lisa's thoughts.
  That'll learn him to bust my tomater.

At least in my native Serbo-Croatian (and presume that it's so in Russian too), the verb "učiti" means both "learn" and "teach"; the adjective "učen" means "learned", though it has an archaic or poetic note in it (by my feeling, English "learned" has it too -- today, we'd rather say "educated"). No such user (talk) 07:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing in Slovene - you can sometimes see Slovenes whose English is not their forte mixing "to learn" and "to teach" in English sentences, like "I learned him to play guitar" or similar. "Učen" for "educated" feels only marginally archaic in Slovene, though. TomorrowTime (talk) 13:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So modern standard English makes a distinction between "learn (for oneself)" and "cause another to learn" which was not made in older English, and is still not made in some dialects, and many other languages. (Compare "lend/loan", where one part of the meaning has been supplanted in many Englishes by "borrow"). So the distinction you are making in your question is possibly not meaningful in some languages. --ColinFine (talk) 08:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add one more Slavic example: in Polish, "to teach" is uczyć, while "to learn" is uczyć się – with a reflexive pronoun, so literally meaning "to teach oneself". The perfective variant of this verb is nauczyć (się), "to have taught / to have learned". Related nouns include uczeń, "pupil, student"; nauczyciel, "teacher"; naukowiec, "scientist"; uczony, "learned person, academic"; and samouk, "autodidact". — Kpalion^(talk) 15:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't know that learned used to mean taught in English. That seems to suggest that it is a general pattern across languages. As far as Slavic languages are concerned, in Russian also "learn"="teach oneself", but the word in question really means "taught", and is imperfective. If "learned" was really intended, It would have been more logical to use a perfective form "наученный" (one who is successfully taught), or "научившийся" (one who has learned = taught oneself). I am still curious about non-Slavic languages, so if a language you speak has this phenomenon, please let me know. (As a side-note, I'd say that "a learned man" is not the same as "an educated man". To me the former seems to imply a scholar, the latter someone who may have went to college). --Ornil (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're looking at the whole aspect thing too literally. бритый (shaved), жареный (roasted), вареный (cooked) and many others are also formally imperfective, yet their meaning is definitely perfective (they do not imply that you shaved, roasted, cooked the object for some time and then got bored and left it half-done). It's just conventional.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 11:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Translation from French

Hi all. Could I please have a translation for the following from a fluent French speaker? I think I understand it from my own French knowledge, but I'd like to be sure.

Chaque maison ayant engagé en général trois véhicules, le premier de ces véhicules porte la lettre A, le second porte la lettre B, le troisième porte la lettre C. Un tirage au sort a eu lieu entre chaque maison, et suivant l'ordre des numéros sortis, les véhicules partiront dans l'ordre de ces numéros.

This is for the article 1906 French Grand Prix, and follows the discussion at the bottom of the talk page. Thanks, Aptery gial 09:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google Translate, which tends to translate literally, gives this result:

Each house had three vehicles engaged in general, the first of those vehicles marked with the letter A, the second is the letter B, the third is the letter C. A draw took place between each house, and order numbers came out, the vehicles will start in order for these numbers.

Does this help? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think from the context you gave, house would be like "fashion house" - so that we're to understand "team". I'd say: "The teams usually entered three cars into the competition, and the first of these was assigned the letter A, the second B, and the third C. The teams would then draw to determine starting order, and the cars would leave in the order drawn." (I don't know if that refers to the order of the teams or the order of the a, b, and c cars - sorry). If somebody knows they should reply and say. 109.128.213.73 (talk) 18:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's essentially what I figured. I generally avoid Google Translate, because, as you say, it "tends to translate literally." It would certainly mean starting in the order of the numbers, however, rather than the letters. Does anyone have any alternate translations? Aptery gial 03:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's about as clear as we can get without further explanation in the source. The "entre chaque maison" part seems to imply drawings for individual pairs of houses (cf. "entre chaque ligne" = between each line = between each line and the following line), but a drawing from a general pot seems more logical (?). Another literalish translation: "Each house generally having entered three vehicles, the first of these vehicles bears the letter A, the second bears the letter B, the third bears the letter C. A drawing took place between each house, and according to the order of the numbers drawn, the vehicles will start in the order of these numbers." Lesgles (talk) 06:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From this context maison means Entreprise commerciale ou industrielle (un établissement, une firme, un magasin) see definition B.4 in TLFI, that is a company, a firm, a manufacturer, a store. — AldoSyrt (talk) 09:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a French native speaker I don't unterstand the usage of chaque in tirer au sort entre chaque maison, I would simply say entre les maisons. I read the June 26 1906 edition of La Presse, (digital archives from 1836 to 1918 in Gallica, the digital library of the BnF). First the "maisons" are drawn, and according to the numbers drawn, the A vehicles start in this order, next the B vehicles in the same order, and finally the C vehicles. — AldoSyrt (talk) 10:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added this into the article. I suppose that much prose, in whatever language, can seem clunky when it was written more than 100 years ago. Thanks so much for the help everybody! Aptery gial 10:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

English translation from columns in Caphernaum

Hello, could someone give me the english translation from the incriptions please? --Berthold Werner (talk) 10:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Posting mostly for your convenience. The Latin text reads: PIAE MEMORIAE R P GAUDENTII ORFALI O F M CUIUS DEVOTA OPERA ANTIQUAE SYNAGOGAE LAPIDES SEPTEMTRIONALES ET QUATTUOR COLUMNAE SUIS RESTITUTAE SUNT SEDIBUS OBIT DIEBUS AB OPERE SUO DUOBUS XII KAL MAIAS AD MCMXXVI (=1926 a.d.) CONGRESSU ARCHEOL INTERNAT PLAUDENTE MAGISTRATUS ANTIQUITATIBUS CURANDIS TUENDIS P This is a memory inscription. OFM usually means the order of Franciscans, but Im not very confident in doing a word-for-word translation of this. The Greek reads "Herodes, Sohn des Monimos und sein Sohn Justus errichteten gemeinsam mit den Nachkommen diese Säule" per German translation in the subscript below the picture. This would be: 'Herod, Son of Monimos and his son Justus erected this column with their(?) progeny.'--91.97.19.186 (talk) 12:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"To the pious memory (R P?) of Gaudentius Orfalus, OFM, by whose devout work the ancient northern stones of the synagogue and four columns were restored to their proper spots, he died two days after this work on April 20, 1926." (At least I think that's what it says, but my jet lag-addled brain may not be reading it right.) Adam Bishop (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, there is a Polish article about pl:Gaudentius Orfali. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of tweaks: "To the pious memory of the Reverend Father (Reverendi Patris) Gaudentius Orfalus, OFM, by whose devout work the northern stones of the ancient synagogue and four columns were restored to their positions. He died two days after his work on April 20, 1926." ---- Ehrenkater (talk) 14:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Greek text reads Ἡρῴδης Μονίμου καὶ Ἰούστος υἱὸς ἅμα τοῖς τέκνοις ἔκτισαν τὸν κίονα. The German and English translations provided by 91.97.19.186 are basically correct, though "the children" would be a more literal translation than "their progeny". It's hard to interpret since a father and son don't normally have children together. Perhaps it means Justus's children, who are Herod's grandchildren. —Angr (talk) 23:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your help. --Berthold Werner (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic help

The final page (Attachment F) of http://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/flm/FLM_aohandbook.pdf has a listing of Arabic names of various US Government agencies and positions

What are the Arabic names, and of what agencies and positions are they of? WhisperToMe (talk) 12:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Arabic text is fully translated into English in the right column. The bold section in Arabic is the translation of the page's title. The agencies listed are the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI),Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), Federal Bureau of Prisons, United States Marshalls Service, United States Attorneys Office and the Department of Justice. Is there anything else you are looking for ? --Xuxl (talk) 18:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Term for skepticism towards oneself

There was a term, I think, in philosophy (or maybe even theology?), for 'considering the possibility you might be wrong' about any given theory or belief. I think the term was two words, like "[Someone]'s Law" or something. I think the "someone"'s name started with P. Am I misremembering? Any ideas? 163.1.231.43 (talk) 16:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)hyprocrbridge[reply]

Self-critical. Or, honest, modest, open-minded, liberal-minded, reflective, sober, serious, thoughtful, diligent, conscientious. Vranak (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a famous story about Ben Franklin appealing for compromise at the 1787 constitutional convention: ...But though many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain French lady, who in a dispute with her sister, said "I don't know how it happens, Sister but I meet with no body but myself, that's always in the right"--Il n'y a que moi qui a toujours raison. ... On the whole, Sir, I can not help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument. -- AnonMoos (talk) 04:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's fallibilism, though that doesn't match your pattern "P---'s Law". It links to Münchhausen Trilemma, which is at least [Someone's] [something]. 213.122.60.234 (talk) 10:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pronouncing Boston if you are from Boston, daughter in England

Every Saturday I hear the Car Talk guys pronounce the "o" in Boston. Last week I asked a question about different prounciations of "o" in such words as "cord" and "dog", but I'm not clear on whether IPA has a different symbol for the Car Talk guys' prounciation of Boston.

Also, last night on Chuck an English girl was the daughter of the show's current main villain. I kept hearing the word "daughter" pronounced differently than Americans might. Is there an IPA symbol for that sound as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vchimpanzee (talk • contribs) 18:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you know what part of England she was from, that's going to be tough to answer. Marnanel (talk) 18:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I only know she sounded upper-class.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, the actress is Lauren Cohan. Whether she's doing her usual accent or not I don't know. Never mind, Wikipedia says she's American. Well, she did the accent perfectly. Actually, she did spend some time in England.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest issue here is that the o in Boston and the au in daughter are pronounced in different ways in different parts of England. Those two vowels are also both pronounced in different ways in different parts of the United States. In some places, they may be the same vowel. In others, the vowels will be different. In Received Pronunciation, the usual "upper-class" pronunciation in England, I believe that the first vowel in both words is the same: ɔː. In the Boston accent of the Car Talk guys, the first vowel in both words is also the same, but it is a different vowel from the Received Pronunciation vowel. In Boston, this vowel is ɒː . Marco polo (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that Boston and daughter have the same first vowel in RP? RP does not have the cot-caught merger. If Boston had the vowel of daughter (ɔː), it would rhyme with Causton, which I really don't think it does. Have a listen to the UK audio at [5], the o is short, an ɒ, as in boss. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine any accent in Britain which would have the first vowels in "Boston" and "daughter" the same. DuncanHill (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few very conservative RP speakers who still have the lot-cloth split (apparently including the Queen) might have "Boston" and "daughter" with the same vowels – is "Boston" a CLOTH word? Lfh (talk) 08:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of the same thing, but no, apparently not in RP. I checked Daniel Jones' pronouncing dictionary of RP, which includes the archaic "lot-cloth split" pronunciations as alternative forms in brackets, and no version with ɔː was given for Boston (whereas ɔː versions were indeed given for cloth and cost). That said, some American accents with the split might indeed treat Boston as a "cloth" word (Rhode Island may be one such accent, judging from what Maunus says). The "cloth" domain is quite variable between different accents, New York for instance has many more "cloth" words than Dainel Jones' archaic RP ever did (cawffee, dawg). I'm not sure how New York would treat "Boston" (neither ʷɔː nor ɑː sound completely implausible to me). Boston itself obviously cannot treat its own name as a "cloth" word, since it has the caught-cot merger, which has killed the lot-cloth split.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 11:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. For the record, Boston does seem to be a cloth word in NYC.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People around here (Providence Rhode ISland) say something like ['bʷɔːstɪn] (buorstin)·Maunus·ƛ· 19:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Just to clarify, I was not looking for the England pronunciation of Boston.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for screwing up the RP pronunciation of Boston, even though it wasn't asked for. I had assumed that, since Boston is a "cloth word" in the United States where the lot-cloth split exists, it would be a "cloth word" in England, too, but I stand corrected. Marco polo (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you learn a language with multimedia packages...

...like that (extremely expensive) Rosetta Stone. Quest09 (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you always need to interact with real speakers. 77.231.17.82 (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why they offer Rosetta Stone Latin? --- OtherDave (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]

to interact with the pope? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.169.183.15 (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that Latin is a dead language is a furphy. It may not be the lingua franca of a people any more, but it is still alive and well. There are radio stations that broadcast in Latin, for example. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]

They offer Rosetta Stone Latin because people buy it, of course. They're not a charitable institution. Marnanel (talk) 22:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say much depends on what you mean by "learn." Do you want to be able to read a French newspaper? Get a date with a French speaker? Obtain a job in a French-speaking country? Pass an entrance exam?

I have seen the Rosetta Stone introductory course for French, and find it similar to the free, online course at livemocha.com. Both take an approach that presents you from the start with sets of text, images, and spoken language, rather than with grammar lists, verb conjugations, and so forth. There's further detail in the article on Rosetta Stone software.

You see a different approach, still with extensive visuals and sound, on sites like FrenchPod.com and its elder sibling, ChinesePod.com. (For example, here's a link to the feature tour on FrenchPod.) I'd say that the "pods" include more study material than Rosetta Stone does.

Since I knew some French before seeing the Rosetta and LiveMocha courses, I don't feel able to say whether someone who knew nothing of a language could learn to hold a conversation in it relying only on the course material. --- OtherDave (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it, the principal problem with learning a language solely from a source like a book or a multimedia package is the lack of verification. You don't get to know whether you're really speaking the language correctly or you just think you are. A native speaker, or someone who has otherwise already learned the language, will be able to tell you. JIP | Talk 19:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OR here but I learnt Dutch using Linguaphone, sufficiently well to impress the post office clerk in Ypres! So I'd tend to say yes, but you can't beat interaction. The trouble I found about going to Holland/Belgium and trying to speak Dutch/Flemish to them, was that they were also eager to practise their English on me! --TammyMoet (talk) 09:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Innan vs. före

Swedish has two words which can mean "before", i.e. "at an earlier point in time", innan and före. What is the difference between them? JIP | Talk 19:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikitionary translates both as earlier in time, but före also (primarily?) means "positionally in front of". If someone familiar with Swedish can explain the subtleties, it would be useful to check the entries and perhaps add a usage note there. Here's one possible explanation: "“Innan” is a “subjunction”, which means it is the conjunction between an independent and a dependent clause. Other words from the same category that you probably recognise are “därför att” (because), “eftersom” (since) and “att” (that). “Före” is simply a preposition and only has a relation to a noun, not a whole clause. “Före” means “before” as a preposition, but is also used meaning “in front of” or “ahead of”. (A couple of typos corrected in this quote, so please check its accuracy.) Dbfirs 20:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian has the same two words, not sure the distinction is exactly the same as in Swedish, but to my ears innan (Norw. innen) has a slightly more normative feel, perhaps translatable as no later than. Före (Norw. før) seems to correspond well to "before". (As an extension of this, you could say that innen is

t\leq T

while før is

t<T

, but I think the normative/descriptive nuance is a better description.) Jørgen (talk) 09:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian innen is slightly different from innan. In addition to the "earlier than something else" meaning, innan could also mean "before", synonymous with förut, e.g. Jag har inte gjort det innan (I haven't done it before/earlier). decltype (talk) 13:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I second what Dbfirs said (although I'm not a native speaker). innan mostly introduces subordinate clauses or infinitives (innan jag kommer "before I come"), före mostly introduces nominal phrases (före min ankomst "before my coming"). The rest is details. For example, innan is occasionally used like före in some expressions (innan jul "before Christmas"), but my dictionary describes this use as informal. innan dess "before that" is a fixed expression meaning "before that", with a frozen genitive, which shows that the prepositional use used to be accepted more than it is today; just innan can be used informally as an adverb in the same sense as innan dess: jag visste det redan innan "I knew it already before that / in advance". On the other hand, före certainly can't be used conjunctionally like innan (*före jag kommer is impossible), even in colloquial speech.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 23

Seasonal colouration

What is the term for a seasonal colouration of an animal? The article snowshoe hare uses the terms "summer morph" and "winter morph", but the article Morph (zoology) discourages this use. If we have an article about seasonal colouration in general, I can't find it. 205.193.96.10 (talk) 00:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Polyphenism? Adam Bishop (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't look it. Neither do color phase or polymorphism. The specific mechanism, in mammals, is moulting, or, more specially, shedding, but I haven't found a general article on seasonal animal color changes, either. StuRat (talk) 23:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my. WP:WHAAOE fails then? No such user (talk) 08:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The polyphenism article says "Birds and mammals, however, are capable of continued physiological changes in adulthood, and some display reversible seasonal polyphenisms, such as coat color in the Arctic fox." Adam Bishop (talk) 09:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Skočná and sousedská

How would you pronounce the dances skočná and sousedská? They are Slavic folk dances. I do not understand IPA so a simple English pronounciation would be appreciated. Thanks in advance! 27.32.104.185 (talk) 09:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Skočná: SCOTCH - nah.

Sousedská: SO - sed - skah.

The stress is on the first syllable, as indicated by the capital letters. The "so" is like the word "so". The "sed" is like the word "said". If you're interested in details, the "o" in "so" sounds more like most American English speakers' pronunciation of "so" (not as in Australian English, RP, nor as in Scottish English). That is, the first half of the "o" sound is more like the "o" in "dog" (as pronounced in Autralian or RP), and then comes the "w" part. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 11:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a little correction: according to the rules of Czech pronunciation, regressive assimilation of voice should occur in the cluster ‹dsk›, making the "d" sound like "t": SO-sett-skah. The accents above the á's indicate that those syllables are long rather than short, and have nothing to do with the stress, which in Czech always is carried by the first syllable of a word. Here is the IPA anyway, even though the OP didn't request it: [ˈskot͡ʃnaː], [ˈso͡usɛtskaː]. --Theurgist (talk) 04:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, much appreciated. 27.32.104.185 (talk) 06:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[I am minorly revising my comment. --Theurgist (talk) 12:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)][reply]

Desert's son in Arabic

Recently, I see Gaddafi being referenced (at least in the German speaking press) as "desert's son". Is that a common, or at least possible, way of referencing towards someone in Arab speaking countries? Is it offensive, like calling someone 'hillbilly'? I know that Arabs do not associate the desert necessarily as something good, but Gaddafi is Beduin, so, it may be different in this case. Quest09 (talk) 14:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought that those expression like "sons of the desert" were a Western romantic view of Arabs, not meant to be offensive, but also not accurate. 212.169.188.102 (talk) 14:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Think it has as much to do with Rudolf Valentino era "sheikh" movies as anything; The Sons of the Desert is actually a Laurel-and-Hardy fan club... AnonMoos (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's sort of a pejorative nickname for Bedouins, which Gaddafi is, as you mentioned. I'm not entirely certain, but apparently he also calls himself that? (Also, interestingly, if you search Google Images for the Arabic, "ابن الصحراء", you get lots of pictures of Zinedine Zidane!) Adam Bishop (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have the impression that a Bedouin or desert origin is idealized, not derogated, in Arab society. In the Arab view, I think, the truest, purest Arabs are Bedouins, whose independence, code of honor, and freedom from cosmopolitan corruption are seen as ideals. Marco polo (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I thought it also had a pejorative meaning now, in the sense of being backwards and uncultured...not quite the "hillbilly" stereotype that Quest mentioned, but maybe like a cowboy, kind of archaic. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It can be both simultaneously: On the one hand, as an abstract cultural symbol, Bedouins are the original source of Arabic culture, and supposedly speak the purest Arabic (or did so in the past). But on the other hand, in some areas of the middle east the bedouin are the traditional enemies of the settled agriculturalists, and when a modern educated Arab city-dweller encounters specific illiterate nomads in the concrete, he may be filled with feelings more of contempt than reverence... AnonMoos (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So it's sort of like white Americans' view of American Indians: on the one hand, peaceful noble savages in touch with nature; on the other hand, impoverished alcoholics. —Angr (talk) 09:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Punctuation after italics

I see the MOS says that punctuation should not be italicized unless it belongs exclusively to the section of italic text, rather than affecting the sentence as a whole. Outside of Wikipedia, though, how wrong is it to do it the other way? Italic text followed by a non-italic semicolon or question mark looks awful, since the last letter usually overlaps with the punctuation. 213.122.19.152 (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience this is quite usual in style guides. Try it out with common typefaces like Arial or Times New Roman in your word processor - it should print okay even if it looks a bit strange on screen. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, it was the font's fault, you're quite right. Dammit Baskerville, I thought I could trust you. 213.122.19.152 (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of Japanese term into English

Any Japanese speakers out there? At "commons:File:Tokugawa Yoshikatsu (1824–1883).jpg" I am trying to find out the appropriate English translation for "徳川林政史研究所藏", which is the source of the photograph. The closest I got with the help of Google Translate was "collection of the Tokugawa rin (?) History of Governance Institute". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"collection of the Tokugawa forest management and historical research institute"163.1.231.43 (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)vika[reply]

Brilliant. Thanks very much! — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read it as a research institute for the history of forest management, not for forest management and history in parallel. I would suggest "From the collection of the Tokugawa Forest Management History Institute". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A little odd, perhaps, that a forest management history institute would have a photograph of Tokugawa Yoshikatsu in its archives? But who knows? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's part of their collection in relation to the history of the institute or its namesake and family of its founder, rather than part of their professional collection? ja:徳川林政史研究所 and their official site (http://www.tokugawa.or.jp/institute/) shed some light on the institute's history and evolution. It seems that it was founded for research about forest management but because of its connection with the Owari Tokugawa family (it was founded by the 19th head, Tokugawa Yoshichika), came to hold a substantial volume of historical material relating to the Owari clan. That's my understanding anyway, perhaps one of the native Japanese speakers here will come along and shed more light. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of the holdings of the "The Tokugawa Institute for the History of Forestry" is "A catalog of historical materials concerning the Owari Tokugawa family". Yoshikatsu appears to have been something of a historian with a special interests in photographs, judging from [6] this, the bottom half of which is conveniently in English. -_jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, good job with the research! — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 24

Québécois or Gaspésie expression

My spouse uses an expression he learned as a youth growing up in Montreal. It sounds like the English words "on way don", except with a nasal ending to "don". (Sorry, but I can't do IPA.) He says it is spelled "en oui dans" and means something akin to "are we good to go" or "can we go now". As his spelling in English is, shall we say, suspect, I have little confidence in the French. Does anyone else recognize the expression? Thanks, Bielle (talk) 02:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"En oui dans" doesn't make any sense. The closest expression I can think of is "on y va" /ɔ̃niva/, "let's go", which can also be used as a question: "On y va?" = "Shall we go?" There is also "Va t'en!" /vatɑ̃/ = "Go away!" Lesgles (talk) 04:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In non-IPA, those two expressions are roughly ohng-nee-va and va-tahng". It's possible there's some franglais going on, but I can't imagine what. Lesgles (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that was what he meant, too, Lesgles, but he and I both know the "On y va?"/"Va t'en!" expressions, and he maintains they are not the same. I know that "en oui dans" makes no sense; "on yes in" or similar is meaningless in either language. (While his spelling is awful, his ear is excellent and he has a very good québécois accent. It is my transliteration, as well as his spelling, that may be faulty.) Bielle (talk) 04:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could the first part be ennui, as in "I'm bored, let's go" ? StuRat (talk) 06:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sound is right, StuRat, but I can't make it into a phrase that works. For a start, I think "I'm bored" is reflexive (or whatever it might be called today) as in "je m'ennui". Bielle (talk) 06:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Passive, surely, not reflexive - the active equivalent being something like "things are boring me". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 08:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, passive would be "je suis ennuyé(e)". "Je m'ennuie" is indeed usually called reflexive, although some linguists distinguish between a true reflexive "je me lave" = "I wash myself" and other constructions like this that don't necessarily imply some action done on oneself (see reflexive verb; I think this would be an example of an "autocausative" verb). In French, it is usually called a fr:verbe pronominal, which refers simply to the fact that it contains a reflexive pronoun. You are right, however, in the sense that passive verbs in English are often translated by reflexive verbs in French. Lesgles (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Devant La Télé | Aurélien | Ah oui donc c'est a la dernière coupure pub qu'ils allument la flotte de portables pour "voter" automatiquement ? #DALS. Ah, oui, donc means "Oh, yes, then".

—Wavelength (talk) 06:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've got it! Thanks, Wavelength, and to all who have puzzled over this. Bielle (talk) 07:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I think you're wrong. "On way don" is an English speaker's approximation of "Envoye-donc". In Québécois French, the "v" is pronounced almost as a "w", and the "oye" is somewhat close to "ail" (i.e. the French equivalent of garlic). Plus, the final "c" is silent. Envoye-donc means something like "Go ahead" or "Do it already!", but can also mean "Are you kidding?" if used interrogatively. --Xuxl (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From my Google search for envoie donc, I found 2 Chroniques 2:13 Je t'envoie donc un homme habile et intelligent, Huram-Abi, where Je t'envoie donc means "I am sending you therefore". The expression vas-y means "go ahead; go on".

—Wavelength (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the OP's case, the expression is in the imperative, whereas "je t'envoie donc" is in the indicative. I don't think you will find many examples of the imperative use in print, as it's very much an oral expression used in informal contexts. --Xuxl (talk) 21:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also this thread at wordreference where one contributor translates it as

"In a Quebecer's mouth, Envoye donc! often means come on! When we want to convince someone to do something. As in "Please, pretty please".

And gives the example:

Envoye-donc p'pa! Donne-moi 20 piastres! (Come on dad! Give me 20 bucks!)

---Sluzzelin talk 21:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Actes 10:32 Envoie donc à Joppé, et fais venir Simon, surnommé Pierre; il est logé dans la maison de Simon, corroyeur, près de la mer.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rhotacism among native speakers of Spanish

The Spanish article is vague and useless, but the English article claims that native speakers of Spanish often have difficulty mastering the trilled R, as in "perro", and sometimes substitute some other sound, namely a velar approximant, a uvular approximant, or a uvular trill. But I've never heard a native Spanish speaker who had difficulty with the trilled R, and I can't imagine what sound they would substitute. (Certainly I can't imagine a Spanish speaker using a uvular R except if he were mimicking French or German.) So if a Spanish-speaking child can't articulate "perro", what sound does he produce? As a non-native speaker, I occasionally find myself saying something like "persho" - have native speakers been known to do that? Or do they simply substitute an untrilled R, so that "perro" and "pero" become homophones? LANTZY ^TALK 13:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Spanish answer, but some speakers of other languages with trilled R have similar issues. For Serbo-Croatian, some (in)famous examples are Vojislav Šešelj, whose /r/'s are mostly [ɰ], as far as I can hear. Here is a YouTube clip of his flame speech, titled Kavlobag-Kavlovac-Vivovitica after the purported bowdews of Gweat Sewbia. Another one is Milo Đukanović, who usually goes with a [ʀ] (Youtube). When I was a kid, I used [ð], but mastered the proper trill around the 1st grade. In Serbo-Croatian phonology, the trill and the tap are allophones, so I wouldn't know about "perro" vs. "pero". Anyway, the failure to produce a proper [r] (or [ ɾ ]) is considered speech defect. No such user (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anecdotally, a professor of mine from Guatemala said that he did indeed have trouble producing the trilled R [r] as a child and produced the uvular approximant [ʁ] instead. He said that this was a reasonably common speech impediment among children, but that it rarely if ever lasted into adulthood. -Elmer Clark (talk) 23:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

English for Chinese word 干爹

I am wondering how to put Chinese word simplified Chinese: 干爹; traditional Chinese: 乾爹; pinyin: Gāndiē to English. Basically Gandie should be some kind of father, but it is neither the true father, nor adoptive-, step-, foster-, -in-law, foster-, cuckolded-, social-, etc. A Gandie doesn't necessarily adopt or foster a child. Some online dictionaries suggest that godfather, this may be helpful to understand the relationship, but Gandie is non-religious. The relationship between the 'father', Gandie, varies from adoptive father to a common uncle.--刻意(Kèyì) 14:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The literal meaning is closest to "adoptive father" but the social equivalent is probably most like godfather. Another possibility, depending on context, is patron, in some senses of that word. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The role of a "Godparent" is not necessarily religious, although it started that way. The traditional purpose of godparents is to "sponsor" a newborn, in terms of baptism (which is obviously religious), to ensure the children are well cared for, and also possibly to assume the responsibility of raising the children if the parents die and leave the children orphaned. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see a similar parallel in the evolution of the role of "干爹", which is the vernacular version of "义父", which traditionally would have been recognised via a religious ceremony, but has nowadays become an almost purely social covenant, sometimes quite casual. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Word for 24-hour period

As I speak Finnish natively and understand Swedish well, I have noticed that both Finnish and Swedish have a word that unambiguously means a 24-hour period from midnight to midnight. In Finnish this is vuorokausi, in Swedish this is dygn. As far as I understand, these are only used when disambiguation is necessary - in colloquial speech, both languages use the word for "day" (Finnish päivä, Swedish dag), but "day" can also mean the part of a 24-hour period when the sun is shining, in every language that I understand. What is the case in other languages, is there a specific word meaning a 24-hour period, or does the word for "day" have a more precise meaning? JIP | Talk 20:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I sort of recall we had that question before, so someone please check the archives. (It's inconvenient for me to do at the moment, using a cell phone) No such user (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on nychthemeron has further examples (Dutch, Bulgarian, Esperanto). ---Sluzzelin talk 20:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you probably know, the word day in English is somewhat ambiguous in this regard. If it is necessary to make a distinction, the terms daytime and calendar day will do the trick. Marco polo (talk) 21:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may also want to check out the Wiktionary translations at nychthemeron and day, although I can't vouch for their accuracy. Lexicografía (talk) 21:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar - "without me having to"

Three questions about the phrase "[...] without me having to [...]". 1) Is that correct? Should it be "without my having to"? 2) What's that construction called? and 3) How do you say it in the Romance languages? Lexicografía (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those who believe that "correct" and "incorrect" are meaningful concepts in this context usually insist on "my". Gerund#Gerunds preceded by a genitive, but there's little text and no references. --ColinFine (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation - related to question above

In "...without me having to...", I pronounce it haffing (voiceless), but in "...without my having to...", I pronounce it having (voiced). What is going on here? I know I read something ages ago about haff vs have, but why does it change when I change the pronoun? (I am not Lexicographia) 86.166.42.200 (talk) 00:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unverified speculation based on self-observation: you (and I) think/know that it should be pronounced v; when speaking unselfconsciously the more colloquial "me" and unthinking use of the f predominate, but when consciously using the more correct "my" - perhaps in more formal contexts - we also speak more carefully and deploy the v. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^ Hoyt, Edwin P. (1968). Alexander Woollcott: The Man Who Came to Dinner. New York: Abelard-Schuman. p. 258.

[1] Hoyt, Edwin P. (1968). Alexander Woollcott: The Man Who Came to Dinner. New York: Abelard-Schuman. p. 258.

[1]