There was a definition linked to an online english dictionary, in a post maybe a a week ago.

(The original poster posted after me about a week ago, so this link may have appeared several days afterward.)

I am curious which dictionary this was. I am not sure if this was on the humanities desk, or language desk, or possibly entertainment desk.174.3.110.108 (talk) 05:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to say without knowing what the context was. Have you tried looking in the Archives or searching them using the box near the top of this page? AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a transparent proponent of Wiktionary -- always a good place to start...--达伟 (talk) 16:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or if you prefer professional lexicography, several dictionary companies have made their dictionaries accessible online, although free access may not include their largest dictionary. Several of these free dictionaries and other reference sources can be searched simultaneously using the site www.onelook.com. --Anonymous, 17:47 UTC, March 10, 2010.

List of online dictionaries. --Normansmithy (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first 8 or so volumes of the 12-volume Oxford English Dictionary as published in 1933 are out of copyright, and some work has been done to get scans online. I'm not sure how many are up right now. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When referring to The Congo, as in the Republic of the Congo, does this refer to:

• the river
• the basin
• something completely different?174.3.110.108 (talk) 06:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The country (usually the Republic of the Congo. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what is: "The Congo"?174.3.110.108 (talk) 06:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The country (usually the Republic of the Congo). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Versus "Republic of Congo"? Why the determiner?174.3.110.108 (talk) 06:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because the country formerly known as Zaire changed its name to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Actually I wouldn't be so sure about which country "Congo" refers to these days. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So we have no etymology for "The Congo"?174.3.110.108 (talk) 07:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it refers to the Kongo people, their language, and their kingdom, if that's what you mean. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But you don't say, the republic of the france.174.3.110.108 (talk) 07:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In French, the full name is "French republic" (République française). The article isn't part of the name either. --Kvasir (talk) 07:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But we do say 'The Sudan', which refers to the region or the country. My belief FWIW has always been that these were names given to areas of Africa in the exploratory days of the 19th century and have stuck for whatever reason. Originally they referred to a diverse group of aboriginal people that it was inconvenient to refer to separately so the region rather than the people were named. Then there is 'The Lebanon'. . . Richard Avery (talk) 07:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't Bonaparte call himself Emperor of the French? —Tamfang (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I don't know why there's a "the" in there. Other countries include "the" as well: the Gambia, the Netherlands; island groups, like the Philippines, the Maldives, the Comoros, the Solomon Islands, the Marshall Islands; most countries whose name is "descriptive," like the United States, the United Kingdom, the United Arab Emirates, the Czech Republic, the Dominican Republic; and formerly the Ukraine, the Argentine, the Sudan, the Ivory Coast, the Lebanon. (And perhaps El Salvador counts too…) I'm sure there's a name for this phenomenon, but I don't know what it is. —Bkell (talk) 07:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, The Ukraine is incorrect.174.3.110.108 (talk) 08:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The Ukraine" is falling out of use indeed. "The Gambia" can be easily explained. Originally it referred to the river Gambia. "The Netherlands" is such because "Netherlands" means "low lands", so The Lowlands make sense. (In French it's the same: Les Pays-bas, never just Pays-bas by itself). As for island groups it's because the name is "descriptive" like Bkell mentioned. --Kvasir (talk) 08:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very worthy entrant for our FAQs. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not just countries but other geographical features - the Peloponnese, the Crimea, the Wirral, the Levant.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See our article on this issue: The#Geographic_uses. --Kvasir (talk) 08:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disappointingly, a paragraph rather than an article - and it doesn't shed any light on why the "the" is used for some places but not others. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The Ukraine" is not incorrect, it's just old-fashioned now. The Congo has a "the" for the same reason the Gambia does, because the country is named after the river. "The Yucatan" is another example that is probably old-fashioned nowadays. +Angr 08:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OP answered his/her own question in the question: "When referring to The Congo, as in the Republic of The Congo...." In this case it unequivocally refers to the Republic of The Congo, because this is specified using the words 'as in'. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they did. They unequivocally refer to the use within the country's name. The question could (I think) be rephrased "The Republic of the Congo is the republic of which geographical feature or other thing named 'the Congo'?" Regions can be named after people (e.g. England, France) or things (e.g. Rhineland) that can be found there. It's not obvious, I think, to the OP (or me) what this country is named after. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, after this long roundabout discussion it eventually became more clear what the OP was trying to ask. He could have saved a lot of trouble if he had just said "What does 'the Congo' in The Republic of the Congo refer to?" rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OP's question seemed pretty clear to me. It's hardly any different from your rephrasing of it. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 15:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Rjanag:Maybe because your interlanguage borrows from many different languages?174.3.110.108 (talk) 01:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proper noun which takes an article (such as Internet) are referred to as "weak" proper nouns, I believe. Here is a discussion on language log about them. This post from today, notes that the presenc eor absence of an article might be an arbitrary feature, like gender: "Now, my default hypothesis is that this is a genuinely arbitrary syntactic distinction. There's no explanation; the functionalists who (doubtless) will run around in circles trying to find a subtle semantic link between all strong proper names, and a subtle distinction between them and weak proper names, will be wasting their time. "The Internet" is a weak proper name, so the definite article is obligatory. End of story." Circéus (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is "language log".174.3.110.108 (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Language Log. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And let's not forget Bongo Congo. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear colleagues, The British author Anthony M. Daniels, better known under his pen name Theodore Dalrymple, wrote an article 'Where nobody knows your name' in the Globe and Mail on 16 february 2008. In it Daniels wrote: "In a way, I am an expert om pseudonymity. In my time, and for a variety of reasons, I have written under four different pen names." He is a prolific writer and he writes both under his own name and under the pen name Theodore Dalrymple. In the past he has written under the pen names Edward Theberton en Thursday Msigwa. So he has published under four different names, including his own name. Strictly speaking, I think, there must be a fourth pen name (a relevant sentence in the current article is based on this strict interpretation), but I doubt whether this is intended in the phrase quoted above. My guess would be that when he wrote it Daniels thought of his own name as one of his pen names. Does this guess sound plausible in a British or American ear (I am Dutch)? Theobald Tiger (talk) 13:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To my British ear, it (his counting his real name as a pen name) sounds like a perfectly plausible minor slip or deliberate variant usage of the term, but it's equally plausible that he was obliquely alluding to a fourth pen name in the strict sense, making five published names in all. The ambiguity cannot be resolved without direct evidence (such as identifying a fifth name, or asking Mr Daniels directly). 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the usage is the same here in North America. Incidentally, if anyone thinks that four pseudonyms is a lot, they should take a look at John Creasey. --Anonymous, 17:53 UTC, March 10, 2010.

Or R. L. Fanthorpe. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your answers. Though I do think that four or five names is quite a lot, I didn't expect anybody to be surprised at it; I just wanted to know how many. Theobald Tiger (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience as a long-time book collector, former bookseller and former book editor, anything up to half-a-dozen is not particularly unusual. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is Katholic a misspelling, or is it a proper variation of Catholic? Or do they have separate meanings? Shadowjams (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, it is a mispelling; "Catholic" is always spelled with a "c". However, in some languages the word for "Catholic" begins with a "k": cf. de katholisch, nl katholiek, pl katoliki, but fr catholique. Where did you see this particular spelling? Xenon54 / talk / 02:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

German spelling, except it's Katholik. German often uses a K instead of a hard C. A couple of other examples that come to mind that are cognates are Klasse and Dokument. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, the Latin catholicus comes from the Greek katholikos ("universal"), so one could argue that the Germans are the ones spelling it the right way. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c with above) "Katholic" is not a German word, although the noun for "a Catholic person" is der Katholik. I would still guess it's a misspelling, however this question probably can't be answered for certain without context... Xenon54 / talk / 02:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the original article that prompted this, but here are some other examples: Katholic School Etten-Leur (part of the name so slightly different), Twello (a good example of a typo, if that's what it is), and Neuhofen (listing x number of "katholics", which is the original context I saw it in).

I'm thinking of writing an AWB rule for this but wanted to be sure first. Also, it might be useful to know if there are other, legitimate uses (like the school name). Shadowjams (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went searching for "katholic" and also found Katholic School Etten-Leur, which if correct would suggest that is the Dutch spelling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Google it's "Katholiek" in Dutch, and it looks like that article has it mis-spelled. More research needed to be certain. Google Translate does not find "Katholic" as being a valid word. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) The Dutch words are katholiek (adjective) and de katholiek (masculine noun). Googling doesn't bring up anything useful so I'm pretty certain it's a misspelling. Xenon54 / talk / 03:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the place, either the article should be titled with the Dutch Katholieke Scholengemeenschap Etten-Leur, or a proper English translation ("Etten-Leur Catholic High School", or similar) should be used. Is the place even notable? Deor (talk) 03:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created over 3 years ago by this editor [1] who has a grand total of 6 edits, all on that same day. I'm guessing he was or had been a student of that school. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've moved the article to Katholieke Scholengemeenschap Etten-Leur and requested speedy deletion of the resulting redirect, so some of the links above may be turning red. Deor (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why to delete the redirects. There are countless examples of misspellings in redirects that are entered or retained purposely, in order to lead the casual speller to the right article. A good example of that is Nucular. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all in favor of redirects from plausible search terms. In this case, with the misspelling of "Catholic" and the unlikelihood that anyone would enter that exact sequence of characters as an English version of the school's name, I don't think it's a plausible search term. Some random admin will decide. Deor (talk) 02:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favor of making things easier for the reader. The usual justification for deleting redirects is when they are a gross violation of the rules, such as BLP violations or blatant POV-pushing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone. Shadowjams (talk) 05:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When the founding fathers penned the United States Constitution they had an understanding of the words they used and were very particular in their useage. I have read that the word "amend" in their time meant "to add to or remove from for the purpose of clairification without changing the original intent". I have a copy of the 6th printing of Black's Law Dicitionary and the word "amend" simply say "to change". I am fairly sure that I have read a copy of the 1st printing from 1861 where I think I got the first definition I quoted. After having had a kidney transplant and experiencing the related drugs my memory is now shy of what it used to be and am hoping for further light on this topic. thanks, SterlingSterlingangle (talk) 03:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The word itself comes from Latin ēmendāre ('to correct, free from fault') and its meaning in the 13th century (when it was borrowed into English) was "to free from faults, rectify." The meaning of "to add to legislation" is basically novel to the process of constructing the American constitution and its first use that way is in 1777. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 03:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I need to amend :-) Aeu's American constitutional reference there. In the OED 1st edition, the oldest cite for this sense of "amend" is indeed from 1777, but it's Edmund Burke talking about a bill being amended before being passed by the British House of Commons. The definition given, by the way, is: "To make professed improvements to (a measure before Parliament); formally, to alter in detail, though practically it may be to alter its principle, so as to thwart it." So this may still have been a new-ish sense when the US Constitution was written 10 years later, but the constitution certainly did not originate it.

The next older sense in the OED is the one the original poster was thinking of: "Law. To correct (an error committed in legal process) or rectify (a legal document)." This is cited as far back as 1429. So yes, at one time an amendment did just mean a correction, but the newer meaning was in use before 1787. --Anonymous, 04:57 UTC, March 12, 2010.

Thanks, anonymous. FWIW, remember that it's the constitution itself which is being amended, and as a constitution is a document that sets out the powers of government and rights of citizens, we could consider that a single amendment would really work more to tweak or correct the way a society/government operates. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 06:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So when certain politicians some years back were belittling the Bill of Rights as "just some amendments", they were inadvertently saying, "just some corrections"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would explain why there was virtually no discussion on the bill of rights, though I imagine it was also because the content in the BoR was considered assumed by the original drafters of the US constitution. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 06:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "discussion", as I recall from history class, was that without the first 10 amendments, the Constitution would have been rejected by enough states that it would have failed. There were actually 12 items in the proposed Bill of Rights, of which one of the remaining two was never passed; but the other, having to do with Congressional compensation, quietly worked its way through 2 centuries of approval processes and was finally passed a decade or two ago. That kind of thing is why amendments nowadays have a built-in statute of limitations for approval, which is how the ERA was defeated. But the original BoR had no built-in limitations, and while some questioned the appropriateness of counting ratification votes from generations earlier, Congress was not so dumb as to realize that vigorously opposing it was bad politics. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Constitution did pass ratification without the BoR, though if I recall correctly, when people said they wouldn't ratify it without one, there was a promise by federalists to include it. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 18:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Had the BoR not been offered fairly promptly, likely some of the States would have revoked their ratifications (sooner than some did). —Tamfang (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The other lost clause of the BoR, by the way, became irrelevant (by its own terms) when the population reached ten million. —Tamfang (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the OP is asking whether the Constitution's authorization of amendments to itself was an authorization merely "to add to or remove from for the purpose of clarification without changing the original intent." That this is not so is demonstrated by the fact that the Constitution forbids unequal representation in the Senate (absent the unequal state's or states' consent) even if an entirely new constitution is drafted (much less an amendment). If it were understood that amendments (again, much less entirely new constitutions) were simply for "clarification" and could not change "the original intent," there would be no need to explicitly state (in a relatively short document) that the Article One requirement for equal representation in the senate cannot be changed without consent even if the entire Constitution is scrapped and a new one written. This is a basic legal conclusion based on the rules of construction. 63.17.64.195 (talk) 10:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you pronounce "Allegheny" as in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania? I can read IPA, by the way. Yuunli (talk) 06:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[.ælə'geɪni]. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And for those of us who can't, it's "al-uh-GAY-nee": As in Capone's first name; a hesitation when talking; not-straight; where your leg bends. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another way to describe it is: the first three syllables are the same as in "alligator", and the last is like "knee". The pronunciation at [2] is OK, but I put more stress on the first syllable than that speaker does.

Of course the schwa in the second syllable can have different sounds. For my somewhat-Pennsylvania accent, the "uh" is more like the vowel in "lip". The same thing is true for "Appalachian"; I don't have a true "uh" in either one. — Carl (CBM · talk) 07:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About the stress: it's the opposite for me, I put primary stress on the "ghe" (and, hence, it doesn't quite sound like "alligator" in my pronunciation). As for the schwa, I agree, whatever I produce is more ɨ-ish, I was just doing a broad (read: lazy) phonemic transcription ;)rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I put more stress on the third syllable in "allegheny" than "alligator"; just the vowels are the same. But I am pretty sure that I put a little more stress on the first syllable then the audio recording I linked above. — Carl (CBM · talk) 07:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. When I say it out loud, it's really more like "alligainy" than "alluhgainy". If you were to say "alligator" with emphasis on the third syllable instead of the first, it would be about the same. Key question: app-uh-LAY-chun, or app-uh-LATCH-un? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a "key question", but an "off-topic question". However, since such beasts are not exactly unheard of around here, I'll counter that I've always heard 'Appalachian' pronounced exactly like 'appellation'. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"AppuhLATCHun" tends to be considered a 'redneck' pronunciation, at least in my experience. (And I'm from Appalachia myself.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States, the ch in Appalachian is always pronounced [tʃ] rather than [ʃ], so its pronunciation differs from that of appellation by one consonant (cluster). Marco polo (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not "always"—in fact, not usually. I, and most people I know, including many thru-hikers and people who work at the Appalachian Trail Conservancy, pronoounce it [æpəlɛɪʃn̩]. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your pronunciation guide looks like little boxes on my old PC. So are you saying "latch" or "laytch"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't say either, I say roughtly "laysh". That is the standard pronunciation. The "latch" pronunciation is the one I was referring to as being considered somewhat rednecky. "laytch" to me just sounds like what someone from far away would say (i.e., someone who's never heard "Appalachian" before); I have not heard it pronounced that way very much. 129.237.62.53 (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC) (Rjanag editing while logged out)[reply]

When I was a kid in a northern school, it was "laytch". When I lived in the south for awhile, it was "latch". I have very seldom heard "laysh" (or "lash", for that matter). I've become convinced over time that "latch" is correct, as it's consistent with other geographical features with the same root as "Appalachian". Although that doesn't necessarily prove anything, given that "Arkansas" has two different and equally valid pronunciations for different features. In any case, Appalachian State University is pronounced "latch". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must pipe in to agree. The only reason the pronunciation Appa-latch-an sounds "rednecky" is because, I reckon, it's a southern pronunciation, and negative stereotypes about southern Appalachian people continue to the present day (even among self-identified Appalachians). I grew up saying Appa-laysh-ian, being from the north. But I've come to prefer Appa-latch-an. Note the -an instead of the -ian too. The southern form is particularly well suited to the term Appalachia, the cultural/historical region: Appa-latch-a. Nice and crisp. Another point--the term originated in the far south in the Florida panhandle and the Apalachicola Indians. Now tell me, would you pronounce the name of the Apalachicola River "Appa-laych-i-cola"? And they say southerns have a drawl! Pfly (talk) 08:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, how appropriate: when Eric Idle in his monologue about Australian wines mentioned an appellation contrôlée (a term unknown to me on first hearing), I thought he was talking about an Appalachian variety (though he didn't pronounce it quite as I'd pronounce either Appalachian or appellation). —Tamfang (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, Tamfang! You probably won't believe this, but when I made that post, I was thinking of somehow referring to Eric Idle's appellation contrôlée, but I couldn't see a way of working it in. You've done it for me.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the original question, it occurs to me that an even closer parallel is "allegation(s)", whose first 3 syllables, along with the stress on the third syllable, is well nigh the same as with "allegheny". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much, although the third syllable in Allegheny is a bit more nasalized (because of the following [n]). If you pronounce just the ge/ghe from each word, you can hear a slight difference (in my dialect, at least). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Observing that fine of a differentiation certainly requires a cunning linguist. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a further tangent. It is curious how the word Allegheny has at least three widely used spellings: Allegheny, Alleghany, and Allegany. Firefox tells me only the first is right, but what about Alleghany County, North Carolina and Allegany County, New York? Pfly (talk) 08:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The word nightmare references to mythological/folkloristic figures in a lot languages.
For example, are related to Mare: English (nightmare), Dutch (nachtmerrie), Danish (mareridt), Norwegian (mareritt), Swedish (mardröm), Icelandic (martröð), French (cauchemar), Romanian (coşmar), Lithuanian (košmaras), Polish (koszmar), Russian (кошмар). A lot of them seem to have just borrowed from French.
From Elf: German (Albtraum, Alptraum), Anglosaxon (ælfādl).
From Incubus: Latin (incubus), Italian (incubo).
From Will-o'-the-wisp: Hungarian (lidércnyomás).
From Ephialtes: Greek (εφιάλτης).
Now, my question is, what's the etymology of Arabic (kaabuus), Urdu (kābūs) and Turkish (kabus)? Are they related to Incubus?
And Czech (noční můra), Serbian (noćna mora)? Are they related to Mare?
And Irish (tromluí), Welsh (hunllef), Hebrew (סיוט ), Albanian (ankth), Occitan (cachavièlha), Basque (amesgaizto)? --151.51.61.156 (talk) 09:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re Slavic, "Croatian Language Handbook" [3] says that "mora" is an Old Slavic word meaning "plague" or "pest", and is a cognate with Latin "mors" and Sanskrt "maras", meaning "death". "Košmar" also exists in Serbo-Croatian in the same meaning, but it is a borrowing (as in other Eastern European languages) from French "cauchemar". Note that there also exists Mora in Slavic mythology, so it is a relative with Mare, and they share the same root. No such user (talk) 11:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For a non-mythological root, haveFinnish painajainen, which refers to a physical or spiritual feeling of pressure or weight, or that of being held down. Pitke (talk) 12:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kabus كابوس derives from a verb root meaning to "press" or "squeeze", and I would assume it comes mainly from the traditional folkloric belief that a malicious being comes in the night and sits on your chest and presses on it... AnonMoos (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite understandably, since the sleep paralysis that is sometimes experienced in the hypnagogic or hypnopompic state (as I have) feels exactly like this. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Irish tromluí means literally "heavy lying" ("lying" in the sense of lying down, not in the sense of telling a lie). +Angr 14:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the Spanish and Portuguese words for nightmare (pesadillo, pesadelo) are derived from weight, and refer to the same folkloric belief (according to their wikipedia articles). --NorwegianBlue ^talk 19:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<sub<It's actually 'pesadilla' Caesar's Daddy (talk) 11:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basque amesgaizto looks straightforward enough: amets means "dream", and "gaizto" means "evil". Esperanto knows "koŝmaro", "inkubo", and "premsonĝo" ("pressure" + "dream"). The pressing image is sometimes used in German too, in combination with mythology: "Alpdrücken". ---Sluzzelin talk 22:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious about the etymology of one of the Rumantsch words for nightmare: "dischariel". Normally, the prefix "disch-" corresponds to "dis-" in English. Perhaps a reference to Ariel's more malicious side, or simply a bad spirit? ---Sluzzelin talk 03:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And they say Chinese are superstitious. Nightmare in Chinese is simply 噩夢 / 噩梦: bad dream. --Kvasir (talk) 05:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

But then, sleep paralysis is 鬼压身: ghost pressing on body. :) Indeterminate (talk) 10:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this helps, but other forms of nightmare in Romansh are: derschalet (Sursilvan), darschalet (Surmiran) and dischöl (Puter&Vallader). Surmiran has also fulet and ischier. Fulet is similar to Italian folletto (Imp, fairy). Moreover, in Friulian (a sister language) it's čhalčhut (probably from čhalčhâ, to press). In Ladin(Fassano) it's strassomech (is it related to 'strassomeèr, to disturb?) and trota--151.51.61.156 (talk) 12:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, dischöl is of Gaulish origin and is a cognate of Walloon dûhin, dûhon, goblin, Basque tusuri, devil, Cornish dus, devil, Breton diz devil, Irish dásachd madness, rage. From [4] --151.51.61.156 (talk) 14:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing special about the origin of the Bulgarian word. It's кошмар (koshmar), a derivative from French. It also has a figurative meaning - "a bad or terrifying experience". The English word has this meaning too, but I can say nothing about the other languages. --Магьосник (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just started reading Great Expectations and I've been wondering what a wittle is? Kayau Voting IS evil 14:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that you've read wittles, which would be Dickens's representation of a dialect form of victuals, meaning food and drink. Does that make sense in context? Maid Marion (talk) 14:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Vittles" with a v was widely used in a jocular or pseudo-dialectal or pseudo-Wild-West way in the United States through the mid-20th century (not sure how many young people would understand it today, though). AnonMoos (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though there was still a pet-food brand "Tender Vittles" until a few years ago... AnonMoos (talk) 14:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's eye dialect, though; victuals is correctly pronounced "vittles". +Angr 14:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be eye dialect if it didn't actually feature a pronunciation change. I believe a work that might help out in desciphering some of Dickens's use of dialect is Stanley's Sound and symbol in the dialogue of the works of Charles Dickens (1967). — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 18:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Wittles" isn't eye dialect, but "vittles" is. +Angr 23:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what does 'sumever' mean? Kayau Voting IS evil 14:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And this would be a dialect form of 'soever', eg howsumever would be equivalent to howsoever. Maid Marion (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

a wittle is wess then a wot. Googlemeister (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

The shift from [v] to [w] was apparently typical of a Kentish dialect in the time of Dickens. See this source. Marco polo (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it makes perfect sense in the context. Kayau Voting IS evil 23:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A friend of mine tried to argue that the term Slavic (as in the people) is related to the word slave. He told me about slavery in the Middle East and it seemed plausible, but I want a second opinion. I read the article about Slavic people and the origins of the word, but it left me a bit confused. 129.3.179.87 (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's true. The word slave is derived from the Medieval Latin word for "Slav".[5] +Angr 21:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The way that you word the question leads me to assume that your friend was trying to argue that the term slavic came from the word slave, when it was the other way around, as Angr says. —Akrabbim^talk 21:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Just to reiterate, the word slave is derived from Slavic, not the other way around. See also our article on slavery, particulary the Etymology section. Coreycubed (talk) 21:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to know the origins of the word Slav, this entry suggests that it comes from a Slavic word meaning word and ultimately from an Indo-European word meaning fame. So the name may originally have meant something like "people of the word" or "people of fame". Marco polo (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Webster's indicates that "Slav" came from the name of a tribe, and that "slave" came from "Slav" - as Angr and others have said here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course that's right, though Slav or Slovene probably referred to an ethnic identity that encompassed more than one tribe. I was offering a source on the roots of the ethnonym. Marco polo (talk) 00:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anecdotally, at least, it seems that in many cases a people's name for themselves is basically "the people". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In one of the Czech courses I took, I was told that the root for "Slavic" was the same as the root for "slovo", the Czech word for "word" (as Marco polo pointed out), and also that the Czech word for "German" (německý) shared the same root as the Czech word for "mute" (němý). Presumably this is because the Czechs had a reasonable chance of understanding other Slavic speakers, but German was very different and incomprehensible. —Bkell (talk) 05:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Russian word for German (in different senses) is similar - немец (n'emets), немка (n'emka), немецкий (n'emetsky). I always assumed it was cognate with 'nemesis' - enemy, but немой (n'emoy) = mute is also plausible. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, in essence, those terms come down to "people whose language we do/don't understand"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think it's more like, "people who can't speak properly". Marco polo (talk) 14:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the names of Germany, please have a look here: Names of Germany. Apart from the languages listed there, I can think of at least two more that use a word derived from the same root, though for the language and demonym only. In Bulgarian, the country is called Германия (Germaniya), but the language is немски език (nemski ezik). There is also the word немец (nemets), feminine немкиня (nemkinya), which could mean "a German person", but the same word, and especially its plural form немци (nemtsi), could be used as a collective name of all peoples who speak German, that is Germans, Austrians, German-speaking Swiss people, etc. The other language I have in mind is Romanian. It is not a Slavic language, but has experienced a considerable Slavic influence over the history of its development and uses a lot words of Slavic origin in its modern form. The country's name in Romanian is Germania, but there are neamţ for "a German man" (cf. Piatra Neamţ), nemţoaică for "a German woman", and limba nemţească for "German language". However, in modern contexts the words german, germancă and limba germană instead are preferable. --Магьосник (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard a native Romanian use the word "germancă" Rimush (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it exist somehow, doesn't it? hu:wikt:germancă, lt:wikt:germancă. --Магьосник (talk) 23:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Hungarian, the word for "German" is nemet, so it's presumably a borrowing from a Slavic language. Romanian likely works out the same way. 66.127.52.47 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

In German the verb hängen (to hang) has two past tense forms:

Er hängte das Bild an die Wand. (He hung the picture on the wall.)
Das Bild hing an der Wand. (The picture hung on the wall.)

hängte indicates there was motion, while hing does not. (This is important in German because it determines in which case the preposition an takes its object -- accusative or dative.) Recently, I was told that the same difference exists in English. "hanged" indicates motion, while "hung" does not, and the first sentence should read "He hanged the picture on the wall" in order to be grammatically correct. However, in Wiktionary, not an actual dictionary, nor a Google search, I cannot find anything to support any usage of "hanged" outside of "executed". Has anyone else heard of this difference? Xenon54 / talk / 03:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Related questions seem to have been discussed at [6] and [7]. Not sure if any of these will help answer your question... rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a hung man is certainly a different thing from a hanged man - if he's hung he is "well-hung", that is to say, he has "good things hanging from him", referring to admirable genitals. A hanged man was executioned by hanging. When talking of objects and other stuff that can be hung on something, I'd always use hung since hanged gives such a strong feeling of the gallows. I've never heard that in English hung and hanged would contemporarily have any sort of difference between "motion" and "non-motion". Logically thinking, if you want to make clear that there is motion (or there is none), you'll need to add adverbs or similes to make the point. From [www.dictionary.com]: "Hang has two forms for the past tense and past participle, hanged and hung. The historically older form hanged is now used exclusively in the sense of causing or putting to death: He was sentenced to be hanged by the neck until dead. In the sense of legal execution, hung is also quite common and is standard in all types of speech and writing except in legal documents. When legal execution is not meant, hung has become the more frequent form: The prisoner hung himself in his cell." Pitke (talk) 06:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From Blazing Saddles: "They said you was hung!" "And they was right!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you are describing as a difference of motion is described by linguists as a difference of valency. "Hang/hing" is an stative (intransitive) verb, "hang/hängte" is a transitive verb (and its weak conjugation suggests it is a derived form as opposed to the strong root verb). English has many examples of verbs which have both stative and transitive meanings (besides 'hang', there is for example, 'stand', 'sit' and 'rest'), but I cannot offhand think of one where the two forms have different past tenses. "Hang" certainly does not. At some time in the last three hundred years, the past forms "hung" and "hanged" have become distinguished in meaning but in a different way, as "hanged" is only used in the sense of "executed by hanging". The latter form is necessarily transitive, but "hung" is used both statively and transitively. --ColinFine (talk) 08:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hanged in English basically always refers to execution by hanging. "I hanged the prisoner at dawn" is a correct sentence but "I hanged the picture on the wall" is ungrammatical. The poem A Visit from St. Nicholas mentions "The stockings were hung on the chimney with care", if that matters. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 11:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Webster's, somewhat surprisingly, says that either one is correct, but that the conventional usage is as you say. I like to say that the rope itself was hung, and the prisoner was hanged. Kind of like, the ball flew out to left field and was caught for an out, hence the batter flied out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever "I hanged the picture on the wall" is, it is certainly not ungrammatical. It uses a word in a sense that is not usual today, and those who get their kicks from judging other people's use of language may well call it 'incorrect' - but that is only the choice of word, not the grammar.

In The Language Instinct, Pinker discusses "flied out" at length, arguing that the "weak" inflection ("flied vs flew") is because the verb is taken from a noun phrase, which blocks its connection with the normal verb "fly". (It read oddly to me, who knew nothing of baseball, and wasn't familiar any of the terms). --ColinFine (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you hear "flied out" for the first time, it does sound kind of funny. If you hit a fly ball for an out, you have flied out. If you hit a ground ball for an out, you have grounded out. And if you take a third strike for an out, you have third-striked out. No, you haven't - you've struck out. That's where the analogy breaks down. d:) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but "I hanged the picture on the wall" still sounds ungrammatical to me (native US English speaker). Not "wrong choice of words", but "syntactically wrong". I would say I'm interpreting "hang" (what you do with a picture) and "hang" (a way to execute prisoners) as homonyms--different words with related but differing meanings, spelled and spoken the same way--that I'll distinguish by writing "hang1" and "hang2", where hang1 has an irregular conjugation while hang2 does not. The preterite (simple past) of hang1 is "hung" while for hang2 it's "hanged". I do not hear the sentence as "I hanged the picture on the wall" as erroneously containing the verb hang2 where it should instead have hang1. I instead hear it as containing an incorrect conjugation of hang1, which is to say I hear it as a grammatical error. However I guess it can be taken as iffy, since apparently not everyone hears it that way. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, review my expostulation here on the uses of the word 'arsed'.

Now, it seems to me that 'arsed' in "I can't be arsed" is the passive form of the putative verb "to arse". This is never used in the active form in the way that 'trouble' or 'bother' can be used. Examples:

• "I can't bothered to get up" cf. "Could I bother you for a match"
• "He is a troubled youth" cf. "Could I trouble you for the time"

But

• "I can't be arsed looking this reference up" has no active counterpart such as "I'm really hoping this new project arses me somewhat. I'm rather tired of being unable to be arsed".

What's this called, when a verb is used only passively. Are there any other examples?

Also, it seems that the expression "can't be arsed" uses the British/Commonwealth spelling "arse" exclusively, and never the US version "ass". Maybe it's just not used much in the USA; but if it were, it'd be "can't be assed". Maybe? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not an expression used in the US as such, more likely to be "can't be bothered to get up off it", which I assume is what it implies in British/Aussie English? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arse can be used actively, as in "stop arsing about!", but that doesn't have the same sense as "being arsed." More than that, I can't be arsed don't have time to think about at the moment. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I concur, it's not an American expression, although I've started using it since hearing British co-workers use it. And when I do, I do say "can't be arsed" with my rhotic pronunciation of arse, a word I otherwise never use. I've read somewhere (don't remember where, so I can't provide the source) the hypothesis that the phrase might have originated as "can't be asked" which in non-rhotic "broad-BATH" accents like Southern British sounds practically the same (/ɑːskt/ undergoing consonant cluster reduction to /ɑːst/). I don't know if there's a term for verbs that occur only in the passive; could it be a rare English-language example of a deponent verb? +Angr 13:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might relate to "buggered" as in the idiom "I'll be buggered if I do that" which means there's no chance of me doing that - but in that case the verb makes sense as "I'm as likely to do that as I am to engage in homosexual intercourse". "I'm buggered if" is "used to show that you certainly will not or cannot do something"[8].

Or it might be just a typical swearword thing. "fucked" is sometimes used in a similar context "I can't be fucked to do that", and in numerous expressions like "get fucked", without meaning anything in particular. Sorry I can't find any more information at the moment. --Normansmithy (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a short section on "Passives without active counterparts", giving the example of rumored. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The info in the urban dictionary may be of interest:[9] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating how it's been highjacked for so many different meanings. Tks. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a modern invention - I had to ask for a repetition when I first heard it in the 1990s. Alansplodge (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ Normansmithy: I get what you're saying about the literal meaning of "I'll be buggered if I do that". But funnily enough, when someone who is into receptive anal sex (e.g. some male homosexuals) utters this expression - and they do - it means the exact opposite of what it would otherwise mean. In those cases, they engage in buggery on a regular basis, but are expressing a very negative attitude to whatever this other thing is.
I also just realised that if you go off half-cocked, you're likely to do things half-arsed. Funny that. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know why the above explicit comment is any less offensive than my harmless (and implicit) comment about menstruation that created such a brouhaha. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then maybe you should read the talk page, as people told you, where people explain why they found your comment offensive. Hint: it wasn't because they were prudes. 86.178.167.166 (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If they're offended by a normal biological process such as menstruation, then there is nothing they have to say to me that's worth reading. Hence the talk page remains off my watch list. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And if you're not going to read why people were actually offended, it is somewhat ridiculous to ask for people to explain why they were not similarly offended by a completely different thing. Why should they explain themselves to you here, when they have already done so elsewhere? You have assumed it was the topic that offended people, on the basis of nothing. 86.178.167.166 (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They had no valid reason to be offended by my comment unless they're squeamish about menstruation, which I'm not, and hence it never occurred to me that anyone would rip into it with some of the most over-reactive remarks I've ever seen here, and I have no reason to read more of those over-reactive comments on the talk page. I got the idea in part from a drink called "Shark Attack", which used to be sold at Red Lobster and is apparently currently sold at Joe's Crab Shack. The link someone provided in that one section had something about one woman stuffing yogurt into another woman during menstruation. The mental picture of red and white was provided by the article, and also triggered my recollection of the Shark Attack drink. Feel free to quote me on the talk page, but I'm not going there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How crazy this is. You're defending yourself here, and on your own talk page, but refuse to do so in the actual place where the issue has been raised, and refuse to actually read what the issue is that you're defending here. But next time you have a problem with some "fly-by", what are you going to do? Raise it on the ref desk talk page but studiously avoid reading anything else there? All on some nameless principle? And then expect us to take you seriously? You remind me of a child who holds his breath till he turns blue. Best of luck, young man. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that's actually your picture on your page, I noticed that not only are we about the same age, but we look a lot alike. I wonder if you're my long-lost brother who stowed away on a ship heading for the far east? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First and only time in the 4 years that photo's been there that anyone's ever questioned its veracity. But please let us not be sidetracked; we're already in an off-topic conversation for this thread. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've had over 100 of the damn things, so I am well past being squeamish about them. If squeamishness were the reason, people would have reacted to the original question and sensible answer. Either read the talk page, or accept that you have no idea what people's objection actually was. 86.178.167.166 (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no valid excuse for the comments to the effect that my harmless little quip was the most horrible thing they've ever seen on the internet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But by definition you don't know who they are and don't know what their experience of the internet is. Denying that somebody else feels the way they feel, or has a right to feel the way they feel, is absurd. You have to deal with what is, not what you think should be. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do see that they are perfectly at home talking about anal intercourse, but that anything about women's bodies is "ooo, gross". So there is unlikely to be anything useful being said on the talk page - more likely just the usual suspects taking their usual shots at registered users, until they get tired of it and wait for the next victim to pounce on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But you'll never never know if you never never go there, so .... -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like a translation of the text on this poster: here. As near as I can make out, it says "El angel de La Paz de los fascistas!" and "Las juventudes libertarias lo Sabran destruir !". (It's really in all caps, but I know how people here hate that, so I changed it to mixed case.) The first part, I believe, translates as "The angel of La Paz of the facists!". I have more trouble with the 2nd part, though. The best I can come up with is something like "Youths, it is up to you to liberate or destroy Sabran !". Also, any interpretation of what they're talking about would be helpful. There's a swastika in the picture, and it was suggested it might be about Spanish collaboration with the Nazis, but La Paz is the capital of Bolivia and Sabran is a region in France, so I'm fairly confused. StuRat (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess Bolivia is not involved, "el angel de la paz" means "the angel of peace".—Emil J. 17:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And a quick Wiktionary search confirms that "sabrán" is not a proper name either, "lo sabrán destruir" apparently means "will know how to destroy it". I'll leave the rest to someone how actually knows Spanish.—Emil J. 17:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I only speak intermediate Spanish, but here goes: the first phrase translates to "the angel of peace of the fascists", while the second phrase is something along the lines of "the Juventudes Libertarias (Libertarian/Anarchist Youths, members of the Federación Ibérica de Juventudes Libertarias, I would guess) will know how to destroy it". I don't know what they're referring to. Rimush (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly a propaganda poster from the Spanish Civil War. The poster is clearly meant to encourage support for the FIJL, which in turn would have supported the Popular Front Republican government in its conflict with Francisco Franco's Nationalists, whom the Republicans labeled Fascists. The poster draws on fears that the German Nazis (notice the swastika in the poster), who were providing military support to the Nationalists, would bomb Republican cities with poison gas (note the gas mask). Marco polo (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cf. Calgacus' ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant. Deor (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't speak Latin, so you'll need to translate that into English for me. StuRat (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The last eight words of the quotation in the article I linked. Deor (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"...they make a solitude and call it peace" ? What does that have to do with this poster ? StuRat (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• More traditionally translated as "They make a wasteland and call it peace." - Jmabel | Talk 21:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fascists' idea of an angel of peace. Deor (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or rather what the Federación Ibérica de Juventudes Libertarias claim is the fascist's idea. StuRat (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm stuck, does anyone know what this letter is? It looks sort of like a capital L with an apostrophe or something next to it. It's in Ptolemy's 'Geography' in the original Greek, and appears quite a lot throughout the book in the coordinates given. (Go to Claudii Ptolemaeus: Geographia and type the page "xxiv" into the page no. box at the top. It's in the list on the bottom of the left hand page.) Zooming in also helps. According to the 'Index numerorum fractorum' in the book, the L on it's own means a half. But what letter is it and what is the name of the letter? Can I find it on Unicode? Your's thankfully, Yazmyn (talk) 21:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that mention of the character can be added to Greek numerals. -- Wavelength (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is definitely related to the Greek numerals, but it is not one of the standard symbols, apparently. I also don't really get why the symbols are fractions instead of having their normal values. Rimush (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See A Manual of Greek Mathematics - Google Books, page 20. -- Wavelength (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At http://unicode.org/charts/PDF/U10140.pdf, the official name by Unicode is "GREEK ONE HALF SIGN" and the hexadecimal code is "10175". Apparently, it does not correspond to a letter. -- Wavelength (talk) 00:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, excellent! :) Thankyou, I also found a book here explaining it, and I'll add the signs to that Wikipedia article, but does anyone know how to get a picture of the letter in an article, the link for quite a few ancient Greek numbers no-one has done is here and there are three versions of the half sign: 1, 2, 3. Only comes in Cardo font though :/ Yazmyn (talk) 02:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can look for Greek numerals in Character Map in Windows, and in a similar program on a Mac computer.

-- Wavelength (talk) 03:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find the following two sentences equally acceptable:

(1) Turn the computer off

(2) Turn off the computer

I also this sentence acceptable:

(3) Leave the computer on

But this one strikes me as questionable(it also gets about half as many Google results as sentence 3, for what that's worth):

(4) ?Leave on the computer

What underlying rule could be behind my grammatical intuition? Or is it just that I haven't heard the construction from (4) nearly as often, if at all(I don't think I'd heard anything like it before I came up with it)? 69.107.248.69 (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that "turn (...) off" is a phrasal verb, and "leave" is not (it's a normal verb that can take all sorts of complements, like "leave the computer in my room"). Phrasal verbs, in many situations, allow the object to come either in the middle ("turn [the computer] off") or after the particle ("turn off [the computer]"). Since "leave" is not a phrasal verb, it doesn't allow that; "on" is not part of the verb so the only structural position where it can appear is after the object. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The missing corresponding statements would be, for (1) Turn the computer on; (2) Turn on the computer; (3) Leave the computer off; and as you note, (4) doesn't work, unless you're literally leaving some object on the computer, such as a sticky note. In this case "turn" is a colloquial synonym for "power". "Turn on" or "turn off" is also a mild double entendre: "Did you turn on the computer?" "Yeh, and what a night we had!" or even, "Yeh, I got my revenge!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of a pun from Canadian Bacon: "It's time to turn off that war machine and turn on our children! I mean...turn on our children...". 22:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's quite correct to say "turn" is a colloquial synonym for "power." The OED gives citations for "turn on" starting in 1833, and my impression from reading them is that this phrase had already been in colloquial use for some time. It seems likely that the first uses of "turn on," used with gas, steam, etc., were referring to the literal action of turning a valve or knob, and then this phrase was applied metaphorically to other situations (the third citation, from Mark Twain in 1866, refers to turning on "honest snickering.") The OED's first citation for "power up" is from 1925, and "power down" apparently didn't appear until 1962. So it's "power" that's the newcomer, not "turn." —Bkell (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the suggestion that "turning on" a switch or function derives from turning a knob before, but I don't believe it. Deciduous trees "turn green" in the spring, and the fall weather "turns them yellow"; this type of use is equally sensible as a possible origin of "turn on", and is old enough. --Anonymous, 00:23 UTC, March 13, 2010.

"Turn" is not really a synonym for "Power", it's just used that way in this context: "Turn on" = "Power on". You're right, "turn" has many diverse uses in English, as with other words like "up" and "down" and so on. One good "turn" deserves many others. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the Tao of programming item 7.3, about using a fancy workstation as a platform for new programs (i.e. by stacking listings on top of it). 66.127.52.47 (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say "on" here function as a shortened form of "turned on". In other words it is better analysed as an adjective (which dictionaries do agree it can be, even without the "clipped" analysis that gets me there), so the construction is the same as "leave the window open" -> "?leave open the window". Trying to analyse it as an hypothetical "leave on" phrasal verb is just going to lead to a lot of hair-pulling. Circéus (talk) 01:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds to me like it is a faulty translation by a person whose first language is not English, more likely one of the Romance languages where the syntax is different from English. "Déjalo enchufado, el ordenador" - literally "leave it plugged in, the computer" Caesar's Daddy (talk) 11:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone tried to say "leave on" was a phrasal verb... rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to say that. I understood that sentence (4) and the problem of 69.107 seemed to me like they stemmed from an attempt to treat the verb as one. Circéus (talk) 16:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to compose 20 English words such that reading them would give most male readers an erection? What would be an example? (You can blank out some words so they are still unambiguous, but leaving the sentence without the erectory effect). 82.113.121.104 (talk) 01:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone is aroused by different things, indeed at different ages, and depending on degree of sexual self-awareness, what specifically turns them on, etc. Women are stereotypically more likely to be aroused by the written word, as opposed to men stereotypically more likely to be aroused by the visual, but that is not always true or that narrow. Have you done any research on this in Google? The internet is like hog heaven for purveyors of porn of all types, so I should think there would be no problem finding a flood of opinions on the matter, at the very least. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although this also sounds a bit like a sequel to Monty Python's "funniest joke in the world" sketch. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the blanked out words are unambiguous then surely they would have the same "erectory effects"? It will be the meanings of the words, not the letters that make them up, that arouse people. As Bugs says, arousing someone with written words is more likely to work on women than men. --Tango (talk) 01:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This one is from Henny Youngman: "A scantily-dressed young woman came up to me on the street the other day, and said for a hundred bucks she would do anything I could describe in three words or less. I gave her the hundred and said, 'Paint my house!'" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

XD...Anyway, afaik there must be a reason why guys watch porn and girls read it. So probably not... but then, I'm not a guy. I can, however, vouch for the effectiveness of the written word over visuals on females. Go on, read into that. I dare you. :) SS✞^(Kay) 01:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You write porn. *gasp* ...Now that we've got over that, how do you know girls read it while guys watch it? Most of my females friends admit to watching it. And the one I live with has a list of websites in a small book next to her computer. (Why she can't bookmark them, I don't know.) Anyway, I always thought that girls simply didn't admit to things like watching porn. The numbers on this would be nigh-impossible to find; everyone lies. Vimescarrot (talk) 02:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I frequent parts of the Internet where women talk pretty openly about their kinks and sexual practices, as well as their fantasies. The general thing seems to be that they don't watch porn, although they do watch things that turn them on. These things are often the sort of thing that can be broadcast fairly openly, almost dog whistle porn, when there is reason to believe the creators intentionally played up the 'hotness' of the scene (for example, gratuitous use of bondage imagery, as seen in the llatest installment of Doctor Who). But this is not because they do not have a taste for more explicit stuff: much fanfic is most fandoms is pornographic, frequently very explicitly. These women read porn fics, they might even look at pornographic fanart, but they don't tend to look for straightforward porn to wach. Non-fen clearly read things like Mills and Boon, or their personal favourites from 'normal' books: there are some who are turned on by Heathcliff, some by Mr Darcy. I do wonder if it's a question of characterisation: in my personal experience, women are more open about crushes on entirely fictional characters, and often enjoy porn (or porn-a-like) featuring these characters who already have established characterisation and motives. Even Mills and Boon give some characterisation and outside motive, some emotional context for the sex. That's probably easier to achieve in writing: it's certainly easier to achieve in a fanwork that relies on the reader bringing context from the main work. There is an increasing trend for teenage girls to watch porn online, but surveys I've seen indicate it is driven by curiousity and a desire to see what normal grown bodies look like (sadly, porn is a poor source for this). 86.178.167.166 (talk) 03:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by the latest instalment of Doctor Who? Different episodes are shown at different times in different places. The most recent one shown in the UK (which gets them first) was The End of Time, which I don't recall having any bondage imagery. --Tango (talk) 03:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See, you didn't even notice: it was nowhere on your radar. Meanwhile, the Internet is full of screencaps of and squeeing over The Doctor being tied up and gagged, The Master in his dog collar, etc. Yes, in The End of Time. It looked very deliberate, and Rusty is quite attuned to such things. To many women, those scenes were pornographically hot: personally I thought they were rather overdone. You didn't notice them, as was the intention. Do we have an article on fanservice? This is a textbook example of one definition of that. 86.178.167.166 (talk) 10:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I noticed people being bound. I wouldn't consider every binding to be bondage imagery, though. It's not like he was bound with a studded leather belt or anything, was he? --Tango (talk) 06:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend rewatching. Notice the ridiculous use of an actual dog collar and chain on the Master. Note not only that the Doctor is bound and gagged, but the way the Master is interacting with him at the time. I wouldn't normally recommend rewatching those episodes (they really were awful), but it really is there. You can google with the right terms and find endless women saying variations of "unf" in response. Endless icons and avatars from those scenes, endless motivational posters, endless picspams. This is how a certain target demographic received and interpreted those scenes, and Russell T. Davies is very familiar with this group, frequently playing with them. 86.178.167.166 (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the original question; you could probably give a fair number of males an erection with twenty words quite easily - in the right settings. It's embarrassingly easy to do. Five words would probably be enough. But I doubt anyone has done studies of this for us to reference. Um, have they? Vimescarrot (talk) 02:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find a specific study through a quick Google (for some reason I'm grateful that I didn't...), although I came across this Telegraph article: All men watch porn, scientists find. I think that is a leading candidate for "Most Obvious Study Finding Of All Time."

Regarding the actual question, though, I have to agree with you, Vimescarrot: I think pretty much any man, especially younger men, could be aroused by a sentence or two, but exactly what that sentence contains may have to differ -- it might have to be a full 20-word description for some, but for others a name of a woman they found or find attractive might suffice. Xenon54 / talk / 02:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about 7 numeric digits and zero words. I get an erection if my phone rings and a certain number is on the caller ID. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 03:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I once (unintentionally) gave my boyfriend an erection by saying just three words: "I love you". +Angr 10:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions to that expression, as with anything else, depend on the individual. To many, the response to that statement is, "Run away! Run away!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Vimescarrot above: Um... let me rephrase. I think girls are more aroused by reading that sort of stuff, than looking at porn, from personal experience. To me, big deal. It's just another picture/clip. In general, guys are more straightforward; girls have to... feel some kind of connection, I think. But then I'm not exactly average, so yeah. SS✞^(Kay) 07:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Seinfeld once said that for men, sex is like being a fireman - they can be ready in a few minutes; whereas for women, it's like fire - they can get very excited, but the conditions have to be right. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for a word that denotes the concept of incorrectly claiming (illegal) discrimination when some other (legitimate) factor was the cause. Consider these scenarios of legitimate discrimination claims:

• An Australian Aborigine applies for a job but the white caucasion boss doesn't give him the job simply because the man is black. This is racism.
• A woman applies for a job, but the male boss doesn't give her the job simply because she is a woman. This is sexism.

Now consider these cases (and assume that no affirmative action policies apply):

• The Aborigine applies for a job as an engineer but doesn't get it because he only has two years experience. Instead, a white applicant with ten years experience (ie better qualified) gets the job. The Aborigine claims racism, incorrectly assuming that he did not get the job because he is black.
• A woman applies for a job as an accountant at a large bank, but does not get it because she only has experience with a small family business. The job goes to a male applicant with several years experience at another large bank (ie better qualified). The woman claims sexism, incorrectly asserting that she did not get the job because she is a woman.

Is there a word (or phrase, if there is no single word) that describes these erroneous assumptions or claims of racism? The claims of racism/sexism may be honest (the failed applicant genuinely believes s/he didn't get the job because of colour/gender) or they may be deliberately "fraudulent" (applicant knows s/he is not the best for the job, and thus not entitled to the job, but attempts to get the job anyway, by shaming or taking legal action against the employer). Is there one word covering both (honest and fraudulent claim) situations, or a different word for each? Political correctness occured to me, but I don't think that this is correct. PC would describe the scenario where the employer hired the less qualified black/woman so as to avoid the claim of discrimination, but I'm looking for a word to describe the erroneous claim itself (or the concept thereof). Mitch Ames (talk) 03:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Claiming victimhood" (Google search) seems to be fairly frequently used, but perhaps most often by people who are assuming that the claim is self-serving or inaccurate. Deor (talk) 04:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's such a specific concept with little enough public discussion on it that I'd be surprised if there were a single phrase that was commonly used. "(Actions) misconstrued as racism/sexism" might work well to clearly articulate what you're talking about, for example:

• A pygmy applies for a job as a police officer but doesn't get it because he has a DUI on his record. Instead, a Swedish applicant with ten years experience and a congressional medal of honor gets the job. The pygmy misconstrues this as racism, thinking that he did not get the job because he is black."

Incidentally, one could argue that systemic racism contributes to fewer opportunities for people of color so that, even if one actually is less qualified, the lack of opportunities for them to become so would itself be characteristic of a racist system. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 07:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It could just as easily be "heightism" in that example, unless there are specific regulations about policemen having a minimum height. The various "isms" apply when the nature of the job does not justify the "ism". For example, Queen Latifah might be a reasonable candidate to play in a film bio of Aretha Franklin, but would probably not be the first choice for a film bio of Brooke Shields. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More generally, List of fallacies mentions Appeal to probability. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lenny Henry did a number of sketches on this theme. Here's one: [10]--TammyMoet (talk) 16:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard making complaints about racism when there isn't really any evidence of it being called "playing the race card". --Tango (talk) 07:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^^^"Playing the race card" was the first term that came to my mind, but it would really only apply to cases in which the aggrieved party claims discrimination based on race knowing that race is not the real issue, or is a side issue at best. The card metaphor connotes a calculated gambit to achieve a particular goal. Someone who honestly believes he or she has been discriminated against based on race and raises the issue would not be playing the race card, though he or she might be perceived as having done so by others. My own understanding of the term and a quick google search for examples of its use suggest that the term is generally directed toward another person, and is a pejorative; the person who claims, whether correctly or not, that discrimination has taken place could be accused of "playing the race card," but that same person would not be likely to say "hmm...my appeal to reason didn't work; maybe I'll try playing the race card." You end up with a sort of circular argument where one person is trying to distract attention away from the main issue by claiming the other is trying to distract attention away from the main issue (there's probably one o' them fancy Latin phrases for that, but I don't know it, or where to look for it right this second). "Playing the race card" also doesn't apply exclusively to the situations Mitch Ames describes above; it would apply to any situation where race is introduced in an attempt to influence opinion, belief, or outcome. Appealing to a group's (hidden or open) racism in order to convince them to do something would also be playing the race card. "Assumption of racism" per below or "perceived racism" would be closer, I think. Or if you're talking about some other type of discrimination, "assumption of" or "perceived" that. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 21:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would probably use the term "assumption of racism" or "false racism", but I don't know if such phrases are used by other people. ~AH1^(TCU) 02:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More generally, there is victim playing. -- Wavelength (talk) 02:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it always correct to form the comparative by using the word "more"? For example: "Anne is more pretty than Jane" instead of "Anne is prettier than Jane." I realize that many adjectives do not add "er" or "ier" in the comparative, such as "beautiful", so the word "more" is necessary. 208.87.234.180 (talk) 17:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Sorry, I meant comparative, not plural!!208.87.234.180 (talk) 17:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think in some cases, using "more" rather than "-er" sounds quite odd, if not absolutely ungrammatical. For example, I don't think a native English speaker would ever say "My brother is two years more young than me." I'm hesitant to call it flat-out ungrammatical, but it's definitely unidiomatic, and I wouldn't recommend saying things like that if you're learning English as a second/foreign language. +Angr 17:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Offhand I think you would use "more" when you're dealing with something that can't end in "-er". Example: Applicant A is more qualified for the job than applicant B is. You could say "more pretty", but it sounds funny to a native speaker. Then there's the clearly ungrammatical, "That woman is more prettier than her sister is". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I think I messed up the title when I tried to correct it. What I meant was: If an adjective can form the comparative with "er" or "ier", is it also usually acceptable to use "more" with the positive form? I agree that it sounds strange to say: "My sister is three years more young than I". I also agree that some adjectives, such as "qualified", must use "more." But how about these examples: fast, strong, silly, ugly? Thanks. 208.87.234.180 (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a spectrum of acceptability. There are some adjectives, like "stupid" and "clever", that sound fine with either "more" or "-er", and there are others, like "young", where using "more" sounds distinctly odd. I'd say the examples you gave fall somewhere on the spectrum between "young" and "stupid". To me, "more fast" and "more strong" sound fairly odd, and are worse than "more silly" and "more ugly", although those themselves sound worse than "sillier" and "uglier". My answer to your question is: If an adjective can form the comparative with "-er", it is usually unidiomatic (to varying degrees, depending on the adjective in question) to use "more" with the positive form, but not flat-out ungrammatical. +Angr 18:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is my sense as well. Also, I think there is some drift over time. For example, I think that "commonest" sounds very strange, but I think someone with a more classical education would probably have been taught that "most common" should be avoided. The same goes for "cleverer". Also see [11] — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that I read somewhere that "er" and "est" are used with adjectives of one syllable, "more" and "most" are used with adjectives of three or more syllables, and adjectives of two syllables can form the comparative and superlative forms by using either of those two methods.

(Of course, "er" and "est" can not be used with participial adjectives, which end in "ing" and "ed".) Unfortunately, I do not have a source.

-- Wavelength (talk) 18:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am a learner of English, and I can tell you what I was taught. Monosyllabic adjectives always take -er and -est. Adjectives with more than one syllable take "more" and "most" unless they end with -y, -ow, -er, -el, -le and maybe a couple of more endings that I can't recall now. And the adjective "stupid" (and maybe some more) can take both: "stupider, stupidest", or "more stupid, most stupid". About the examples you suggested - following that rule, they should be "faster", "stronger", "sillier", "uglier". --Магьосник (talk) 18:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would avoid trying to learn such rules for English and just learn how each word works. There are so many exceptions to the rules that it is actually easier just to learn each word separately. --Tango (talk) 06:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all, for your help. Seems to me that here in northern Ohio we use the "more" method quite a lot. BTW, people here often pronounce "both" as "bolth"; just for your amusement. 208.87.234.180 (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Google search for "adjective comparative superlative er est more most" (without the quotation marks) found http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv268.shtml. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting case is that some people now seem to prefer "more well known" to "better known". - Jmabel | Talk 21:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The expression "well known" (or "well-known") is ambiguous, because it can mean "widely known" or "favorably known".

-- Wavelength (talk) 22:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've ever heard "well known" used to mean "favourably known". I would say "well regarded" or something if I wanted to say "favourably known". Wiktionary says (wikt:well-known) that it can also mean "renowned", which has connotations of favourableness, I suppose. --Tango (talk) 06:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suffixes and Other Word-Final Elements of English, by Laurence Urdang (1982, Gale Research Company) says that -er is derived from Old English -or in the case of adverbs and through Middle English from Old English er, ere, re in the case of adjectives, and states: "By convention, the suffix is used chiefly with one-syllable words, sometimes with two-syllable words, and never with those of three or more syllables. In adverbs and adjectives of two or more syllables, the convention is to precede the modifying word (unchanged) with more." Webster's 3rd says: "used to form the comparative degree of adjectives and adverbs of one syllable [examples snipped] and of certain adjectives and adverbs of two syllables [examples snipped] and sometimes of longer ones; regularly accompanied by a coalescence with final e of the base word, changing the postconsonantal y of the base word to i, or doubling of the final consonant immediately after a short stressed vowel; see ²more." of ²more it says says: "often used with adjectives and adverbs to form the comparative <some of her ~ remarkable sons and visitors -- J. P. Marquand> <the ~ learned the writer...the harder it is -- W. T. Jones>" The only usage I can think to cite of "more" being used with a one-syllable word rather than "-er" is "none; none more black." Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Italian' seems to be the only demonym to which one can add the suffix –ate to make a different adjective ('Italianate'). There's also 'German-ic' and 'Frank-ish', and perhaps a handful of others, but only 1 example of an –ate adjective formed from a demonym.

How did this word arise, and why don't we talk about things being Hungarianate, Russianate, Romanianate, Americanate, Canadianate, Australianate, etc? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because we mainly use the "-esque" suffix in such cases, I would guess... AnonMoos (talk) 21:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, there's supposedly an old Italian saying which goes something like Inglese italianato è diavolo incarnato ("An Italianized Englishman is the devil himself")... AnonMoos (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-esque? Can you give me an example of an -esque word that relates to a country or a people?

-Esque is pretty much linguistically "productive" (in the technical meaning of that term); there's nothing to prevent anyone from using the words Hungarianesque, Russianesque, Canadianesque, Americanesque etc. on the spur of the moment (whether those words have been used before or not). AnonMoos (talk) 15:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, "Italianate" can be used as a verb, a synonym for "Italianize". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Romanesque? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's one. Wiktionary tells me that most –esque words are named after people, such as the extraordinary word Schwarzeneggeresque! Hollywood, London and Rome are apparently the only places that have recognised –esque forms, but the last one is about Roman kinds of things, not necessarily specifically about Rome herself, and hence R/romanesque can appear with or without a capital r. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Italianate" is a slightly fancier way of saying "Italianize(d)". Where I've heard it in reference to Italianate architecture, a very popular 19th century style. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - "Italianized" would describe something that had been made "more Italian" than it had previously done, whereas "Italianate" implies something initially made stylistically Italian. Not really germane to the OP, though. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're disagreeing with Webster's, which redirects the reader from "Italianate" to "Italianize". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary agrees with Baseball Bugs here. Something can be Italianated, meaning made into an Italian style = Italianised. But these are very uncommon words, and the predominant meaning of Italianate is the adjective. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found Genevate, Hispaniolate and Spaniolate in the OED but these are verbs, the only adjective was Tegeate. The choice of suffixes is often more to do with which are popular, and Italiante probably less meant "in the Italian style" and more likely meant "in the finest style of the time" which happened to be Italian when it was coined in the late C16th. Italianated is actually recorded earlier. The OED lists various cacophonous -esque words such as Americanesque, Greekesque and Japanesque. meltBanana 04:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Latinate? 66.127.52.47 (talk) 06:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is potassium ferrocyanide, also known as yellow prussiate of potash. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Close, but no cigar. The form I'm after would have to be Prussianate. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the origin of the form, the OED says it's from Italian italianato. Only some Romance languages are likely to have that specific form.

To my mind, the meaning is very specific: in an Italian visual style, especially architectural. (The OED doesn't agree with me, not mentioning this restriction; but it hasn't an example more recent than 1894: this is an entry which has not yet been updated from the second edition). Googling '"Italianate" -definition" gives 681 000 ghits, while '"Italianate" -definition -architecture' cuts it down to 423 000, and '"Italianate -definition -architecture -style' cuts it down to 285 000, which weakly supports my position, which is that it is not generalisable because it has a rather specific meaning. --ColinFine (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, of course, a prussiate is a salt of prussic acid (and I am surprised to find that it is prussiate not prussate). --ColinFine (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the acid should have been called Prussianic acid (cf. Germanic, not Germic). -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "an" in "Germanic" is not a suffix but part of the root. -- Wavelength (talk) 00:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the term “PIGS” offensive? --84.61.135.112 (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because pigs (the animals) are considered dirty. See Cultural references to pigs. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it probably relates more to "greedy" than "dirty", another connotation of "pig". - Jmabel | Talk 21:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Listen to the Beatles song about "Little Piggies" for a good analogy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought diacritic marks are only below the letter unless there is a descender. How come r̝̊ violates this rule? Maybe the chart should be amended?174.3.107.176 (talk) 07:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you have said is certainly wrong for diacritics in general. Our article says "Sub-diacritics (markings normally placed below a letter or symbol) may be placed above a symbol having a descender" (my emphasis) This is subtly different from what you have said, but I haven't a copy of the IPA Handbook to check the authoratitive text. Unless the original has the prescriptive language you use, then it seems to me entirely reasonable to treat "r̝" like a symbol with a descender - though I guess it would not be wrong to put the "raising" diacritic on top instead of the "voiceless" one. And I don't know why you are suggesting on Wikipedia that somebody else's chart be amended! --ColinFine (talk) 11:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The raising diacritic can also be written to the right of the character it modifies. I would have transcribed the sound in question as r̥˔ instead of r̝̊, but nobody asked me. +Angr 17:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The general statement that diacritical marks are only below the letter may apply to IPA (I don't know IPA) but it is not true as a statement about diacritics in general. For Indic languages see Devanagari or IAST. If the number of phonemes in a writing system exceeds the number used in English, language-specific diacritics (not IPA) will be needed. Buddhipriya (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not true in IPA either, and sometimes it makes a difference whether an IPA diacritic is above or below. The diacritic for nasalization and the diacritic for creaky voice are identical except that the former goes over the letter and the latter goes under it. If you want to mark a letter with a descender as being creaky voice, you have to keep it under the letter, otherwise you're marking it as nasalized. [ỹ] is definitely not the same sound as [y̰]. +Angr 10:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are the synonyms of "encasement"?174.3.107.176 (talk) 07:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary gives emboîtment.166.216.130.80 (talk) 07:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only in the context of genetics, which isn't the most common usage of the world. --Tango (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is "wendo-croat"?174.3.107.176 (talk) 09:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but I found this article: Wends. It refers to a type of Slav, so it stands to reason that Wendo-Croat is the version of Croat spoken by some Wends. Hopefully someone else will give a more conclusive answer! --Tango (talk) 09:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I also find this odd, because as far as I knew "Wend" was another name for the Sorbs. The article Tango links explains that its use was much more varied than that - but there is no reference anywhere in it to the word's having been used for any group of South slavs. Since the writer talks about Slovak "forming the transition from Czech to Wendo-Croat" I find myself wondering whether he might mean Slovenian, which is at least geographically intermediate between West-Slavonic (sometimes formallyformerly collectively called "Wends", according to the Wends article) and South Slavonic languages such as Croat. But I admit that this is mere speculation. --ColinFine (talk) 11:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The word "Wends" is also used on page 4 of the same book where is appears to be synonymous with "Slovenes". It's one of the meanings disussed at Wends #Other uses. I suppose the author uses "Wendo-Croat" to mean either Slovenian and Croatian treated as a single language or some transitional dialect between Slovenian and Croatian. — Kpalion^(talk) 13:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Kpalion is right, then I think the author means Slovenian-Serbian. These south slavic languages are similar, and in many language books, they treat languages in a group.174.3.107.176 (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean you interpret the "Croat" part of "Wendo-Croat" as "Serbian"? It doesn't make any sense to me if this is what you mean. — Kpalion^(talk) 14:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The linked text is from a work titled Racial Problems in Hungary. The author describes Slovak as transitional from Czech to "Wendo-Croat". Slovak is mutually intelligible with Czech but not with Slovene. It is even further removed from Croat. So I think we should look for a language more closely related to Slovak than Slovene or Croat. I suspect that the author may be referring to the Slavic language spoken in what is now Hungary before the arrival of the Magyars in the 9th century. Samo, who ruled territory during this period extending from the present-day countries of Slovakia and western Hungary into what is now Slovenia, was known as "king of the Wends". The language spoken in this region is supposed to have been transitional between proto-Slovak and proto-Slovene. Marco polo (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a primary source that says that slovak is NOT mutually intelligible with czech.174.3.107.176 (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However see Mutually_intelligible#Written_and_spoken_forms--达伟 (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to very strongly doubt that, considering the descriptions of Czech and Slovak contained in chapter 17 of The World's Major Languages (ISBN 0-19-506511-5). -- AnonMoos (talk) 07:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be Pannonian Rusyn? Or maybe Rusyn? I don't know if it has something to do with Wends, but Slovak could be considere a language somewhat between Czech and Rusyn. Or even the Prekmurian dialect, which is strongly linked to the term "Wend". Just an educated guess...--151.51.62.111 (talk) 17:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a side note. The term "Veneti" is used plentifully by protochronistic nationalists here in Slovenia, and it is a term that is claimed by them to be the name of the "great, tremendously advanced and now sadly gone without a trace" precursor to the Wend people. It survives today in the somewhat pejorative Austrian word Windischer. I'd bet some of the, ekhm, patriots here in Slovenia would get red spots just being confronted with the unholy word formation "wendo-croat" :) TomorrowTime (talk) 13:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wends/Veneds/Veneti are so obscure that they probably have been claimed as possible ancestors by most modern Slavic nations. Polish Romanticist poet Juliusz Słowacki, for example, wrote Lilla Weneda, a play loosely based on both legends and historical theories of his time, about the peaceful tribe of Veneds – living in what is now Greater Poland – conquered by the aggressive Lechites. The play may be interpreted as an explanation of Poland's social structure, with serfs descending from the Veneds, and nobles – from the Lechites. See also Vistula Veneti. — Kpalion^(talk) 13:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do the abbreviations in the summary mean?174.3.107.176 (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kings Norton Royal British Legion Youth Marching Band? Karenjc 16:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[I am revising the section heading for informativeness. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments (permanent link here),

sub-subsection "Others' comments", point 12 of 18. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)][reply]

Adam says ""Procuratorate" could have meant "O procuratorship!", but alas it does not.". Why not?174.3.107.176 (talk) 16:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because the Latin root of "Procuratorate" is a fourth declension noun. In second declension Latin nouns, "-e" signifies the vocative case (which translates in English as "O {noun}"). So if the root (meaning procuratorship) had been of the second declension, Procuratorate "O procuratorship" Adam Bishop was probably just making an in-joke (amongst Latin-speakers!). 68.76.147.34 (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry, just a dumb joke. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Tamil article http://ta.wikipedia.org/wiki/அராலி (Araly?) has no interwiki links to other languages. The Tamil article http://ta.wikipedia.org/wiki/யாழ்ப்பாண_நகரம் is linked to the English article Jaffna. I used the article Tamil script to transliterate the first name. What is the relationship between Araly and Jaffna? -- Wavelength (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To judge from the map at ta:அராலி, Arali seems to be a neighborhood or suburb of Jaffna. +Angr 19:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was guessing the same thing, but I am hoping that someone who reads Tamil can answer from the first article. That is why I posted my question on the Language Reference Desk and not on a different one. Thank you, anyway. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

When I see the words "one of the only" in a sentence, I expect them to be followed by a number, e.g., "One the only three", which I would interpret to be synonymous with "one of the three", with the additional connotation of "three" being a small number in the context. However, over the past couple of days, I have come across the following:

1. "... it is one of the only provinces where ..." in Washington Post
2. "... he was one of the only hospital officials ..." in The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks (pg 274)

Is this use (strictly) grammatical and/or idiomatic? What does it mean exactly, "one of the few" or "the only", or ...? Abecedare (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought I had already googled for the answer, but apparently not: this column addresses my question. Abecedare (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are one of the only editors here who could answer such a question so promptly. Buddhipriya (talk) 23:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"One of the only three" sounds horrendous to my British English ear, whereas without a number sounds like a noble member of the group of things I'd categorise as "correct usage that mysteriously seems to be incorrect, when one thinks about it." --Dweller (talk) 14:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I'd agree with that, Dweller. There have been 43 U.S. presidents, but only 2 of them - Truman and Kennedy - were born in the month of May. They were "the only two" with this distinction. Therefore, JFK was one of the only two U.S. presidents born in the month of May. No? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would much prefer JFK was one of only two U.S. presidents born in the month of May. Not sure why, though. Algebraist 07:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that's because any or all of them could easily have been born in May, but only 2 happened to be. It's "so what?" material; it's mundane (not to mention novomundane in this particular case). It's not remotely the first thing you'd mention about either of them. The "the" is certainly optional there. But try a different tack: one where the distinction is much less likely and consequently more noteworthy. Let me contrive an example. Of all the millions of notable people there have ever been, only 3 have been monarchs who've had a sex change. Which do you prefer now:

• X was one of only 3 people in history to have been a monarch who had a sex change
• X was one of the only 3 people in history to have been a monarch who had a sex change.

I'd go for the "the" version in this case. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Jack, I'd go for the first again. "One of the only..." sounds completely wrong to my ears. And while I'm on, in formal writing I would never write 3 as a figure as in your example, I would always spell it out as a word "three". Just sayin', like. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, me too (or should that be "I, also"?). But we're among friends here and not being overly formal, are we?  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

This blog is interesting reading. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are the origin and meaning of the name Xynthia? It certainly appears to be from Greek, with initial X, vocalic y, and consonantal sequence nth.
-- Wavelength (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As storms are often given human names, I believe "Xynthia" is derived from a Greek Κυνθία, Kynthía (from which the more common Cynthia also derives). Intelligentsium 02:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know, but in Greek place names, an "-nth-" cluster is usually a sign of a word which was not formed from inherited Indo-European roots, but which was presumably borrowed from one of the unknown languages that were spoken in Greece before Greek arrived there... 07:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking for books advocating linguistic prescription. Does anything come to mind? Thank you. -Pollinosisss (talk) 05:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the first edition of Fowler (before it was tamed by subsequent co-authors). You'd go nuts if you tried to conform every single one of your utterances to every single rule or prescription laid down there... AnonMoos (talk) 07:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Elements of Style. Also try searching Language Log[12] which discusses prescriptivism a lot. --Normansmithy (talk) 11:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No book actively advocate linguistic prescription under that name, because the word was coined by external observers. Most big-name usage books will do fine, if by "advocation" you mean "complaining about kids these days". Circéus (talk) 11:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think William Safire was big on that, and he wrote some books. And the Academie Française prescribes at a national level. The American Heritage Dictionary caused a stir for trying to prescribe good English. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 12:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found the constrained writing in Ella Minnow Pea to be thoroughly stimulating, and funny too! DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all the suggestions. -Pollinosisss (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is IIe?174.3.107.176 (talk) 08:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't follow the link, but in many cases French for deuxième... AnonMoos (talk) 08:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this case: Apple IIe. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that how a Frenchman might refer to Tasmania? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a reference number in this case, 2e. In other words, an Apple 2 with something special added! Maybe a Mac user will be along to confirm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TammyMoet (talk • contribs) 12:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

e = "enhanced" (it's in the first paragraph of the article). Alansplodge (talk) 13:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And here was I thinking it was the Welsh word for 'place'! (I was going to link to http://cy.wiktionary.org/wiki/lle [Is there a way to interlink to a foreign language Wiktionary?], but that doesn't seem to exist) --ColinFine (talk) 00:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to get yourself some serifs! (And wikt:lle exists, but gives only a Galician word, not the Welsh one.) +Angr 00:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To link to a foreign-language Wiktionary, type [[wikt:cy:lle]] or [[:cy:wikt:lle]]. If you put the language code first, you have to put a colon before it. +Angr 00:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A colleague translating a Polish text is stumped by the last word of this sentence (transcribed here from her handwriting):

We'd appreciate a translation to English (or Hebrew :-). Thanks! -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the last word means: requirements, instructions (I'm not a native Polish speaker). HOOTmag (talk) 09:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be Nie odpowiadać na żadne nasze monity, which I would translate as "Do not reply to any of our dunning letters." If "dunning letters" don't make sense in the context, then please let me know and I'll look for other meanings. — Kpalion^(talk) 10:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had never heard of dunning until I looked it up just now. Perhaps "reminder" might be more widely understood. Alansplodge (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about "reminders" too, but wasn't sure which is better. I'm familiar with "dunning" because this is the word the English version of SAP uses. But SAP is a German company so they may not have used the most common English term. — Kpalion^(talk) 16:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dunning is probably the best English word for its meaning, and it is in use, but it is probably not universally understood in the United States. For American English, a more commonly understood compound would be debt-collection letters or collection letters. Marco polo (talk) 18:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized, Deborahjay, that what you took for a "t" could have been, even more likely, an "ł", which would make it Nie odpowiadał na żadne nasze monity, "He did not reply to any of our reminders." — Kpalion^(talk) 18:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos for a deft pickup, Kpalion: odpowiadał it is! As handwritten, that terminal letter's "crossing" stroke is above and perpendicular to the downstroke; had it been at a slant I'd have been more likely to recognize the ł. -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I worked in accounts departments in the City of London for 25 years without ever hearing the word "dunning". We used to say "chaser" for a letter requesting payment, but that is a bit colloquial. Alansplodge (talk) 09:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See here for my supposing that dunning might be more familiar in AE than BE. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

View it here. Basically I need the word "ПOCЛA" in the main caption, as in "Jewish ..." – especially if it's idiomatic or ironic usage. (Caveat! Not sure I typed the fourth letter correctly, due to the stylized print and my only rudimentary knowledge of the Cyrillic alphabet.) -- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 13:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google Translate renders Јеврејска посла as "Jewish business". — Kpalion^(talk) 14:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. "Posla" is plural of "posao"="job, business". When used in plural, it's ironic and means, how can I say, "Jewish ways" or "Jewish way to live", almost always in negative sense. No such user (talk) 15:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, the most accurate translation would be "affairs". No such user (talk) 12:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that when doctors and lawyers are performing their jobs they are said to practice, while the duties entailed in most other jobs is called work? Googlemeister (talk) 14:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not only doctors and lawyers. Professionals are typically said to practise their professions. See practitioner. Also, from the Online Etymology Dictionary:

"practicing (adj.) is recorded from 1620s in reference to professions, from 1906 in reference to religions".

Profesionals are considered to be practised in their field. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So then engineers and accountants practice as well? Googlemeister (talk) 16:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the implication is "following correct procedure." Thus "practice" is a locution used to highlight standards upheld. I think "practice" carries the implication of "well-rehearsed." This in turn would relate to the lengthy training (educational) period involved in professions. Bus stop (talk) 16:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - if they are professionals, engineers and accountants practice in the US :) Zain Ebrahim (talk) 16:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checking my Webster's, "practice" and its variants go back to Greek, and basically means "to carry out". That's opposed to "theory". So you study the theory (in school or wherever), then you practice it. That sense is the primary definition. Secondary is repetitive performance in order to "get it right", but it seems like the same overall idea - learning about doing vs. actually doing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the lingustic relativity article, there is a mention of Newspeak from Orwell's novel nineteen eighty-four, and how it related to linguistic determinism. I was wondering if anyone has heard of any further literature on this? 142.244.91.82 (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My only contribution is pretty general: In case you haven't read it somehow, the Newspeak article is of course a good source; it has a number of related wikilinks at the bottom. Related is Orwell's essay Politics and the English Language. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned there is something Steven Pinker says in The Language Instinct: in real life, the Newspeak attempt would fail, because cases like creolization and the birth of Nicaraguan Sign Language show that when children are exposed to impoverished linguistic input, they don't grow up unable to think of things they don't have words for. Rather, they expand their language to include words for the things they can think of. As far as I know, virtually no linguists still believe the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. +Angr 20:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually no linguists believe in a simplistic one-way deterministic broad-brush version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis ("the Hopis have no concept of the future", etc.), but studying culture-language interactions of a more subtle or complex kind isn't necessarily out of the mainstream... AnonMoos (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing a research paper on Sapir-Whorf, and I would like to bring in a concrete example. I am having some issues really clearly describing it. Is 1984 a good example of this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.244.91.82 (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Genie (feral child). -- Wavelength (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1984 is a good example of using Sapir-Whorf, assuming it is true. If you want a more modern issue revolving around it, research the Pirahã language. It is *very* controversial though, and you'll find few linguists who are convinced by the assertions that Daniel Everett makes. Steewi (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other novels that embody the idea are The Languages of Pao, by Jack Vance, Babel 17 by Samuel R Delany, and Native Tongue by Suzette Haden Elgin. The last is written by a linguist, and the way in which the language changes the society is left vague (to a degree which undermines the novel, in my opinion - but I suspect that she could not have brought herself to write the simple-minded Sapir-Whorfianism of the other books). The Delany takes the idea to an almost mystical level. --ColinFine (talk) 00:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following names of Fairfax County Public Schools are needed to be placed in text on here: * Arabic: http://www.fcps.edu/otherlanguages/arabic.htm * Chinese: http://www.fcps.edu/otherlanguages/chinese.htm

• • It may be 費郡公立學校 - Would anyone mind confirming if this has all of the characters of the district's name in Chinese?

Yes that's correct. 費郡 is an acceptable transliteration, albeit not 100% faithful. 費 is used here for Fairfax (2 syllables). 郡 = county. This is a common pratice. --Kvasir (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Thank you very much :) WhisperToMe (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The only thing is--technically the terminology Fairfax County Public Schools, New York Public Schools, etc. etc. is synonymous with school district...would we want to establish a rule regarding translations of "XXX Public Schools" being the same as "XXX School District"?--达伟 (talk) 09:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I guess it is up to the district - In terms of English names of school districts, XX Public Schools and XX School District roughly means the same thing, so a district with an English name XXX Public Schools can use a Chinese name that literally means XX School District. Anyhow, for Chinese names of school districts, I would use the Chinese name officially given by the said school district.
        • Also, would you mind checking the Chinese name at Commons:Category:School District of Philadelphia to make sure it matches the one at http://webgui.phila.k12.pa.us/offices/l/language/chinese/ ? WhisperToMe (talk) 10:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Farsi: http://www.fcps.edu/otherlanguages/farsi.htm

• Korean: http://www.fcps.edu/otherlanguages/korean.htm

* Urdu: http://www.fcps.edu/otherlanguages/urdu.htm In all of those cases the text cannot be copied.

In addition, what is the name of the Long Beach Unified School District in Khmer? http://www.lbusd.k12.ca.us/Khmer/ has the name, but the text cannot be copied.

Add: Another one - the name of Montgomery County Public Schools in Korean (From http://web.archive.org/web/20071005091101/montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/personnel/docs/korean.pdf )

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 20:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The FCPS links have links to PDF documents from which text can be copied. Of course, you still have to be able to read the language in question well enough to recognize which bit says "Fairfax County Public Schools", which means I can't help you with any of these languages, but maybe someone else can. For the Khmer of the LBUSD, I can't read the text either, so I don't know which bit is relevant, but if someone else does, this is a link to a Khmer character picker that makes typing Khmer easy. +Angr 20:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is a normal feature of PDFs, but on three different computers, whenever I try to copy and paste Arabic/Persian/Urdu it comes out backwards. But in any case, the Arabic is "مدارس مقاطع فرفاكس الحكومة". I'll see if I can get the other two. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Farsi is "مدارس ﻋﻤﻮﻣﯽ فيرفكس ﮐﺎﻧﺘﯽ" (that they spell "Fairfax" differently and "county" is transliterated...in case you're wondering). Adam Bishop (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, the Urdu is uncopyable, but it is an exact transliteration of "Fairfax County Public Schools", just like the Houston one. I'll have to copy individual letters from the Urdu alphabet article when I have more time. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an Urdu character picker; it may go faster than copying letters one by one from the article. +Angr 21:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, too late, thanks though, that should be useful. The Urdu is "فيرفيکس کاونٹی پبلک اسکولز" (with another different spelling of Fairfax). Adam Bishop (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, thank you very much for getting the Arabic, Farsi, and Urdu :) WhisperToMe (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another question: http://webgui.phila.k12.pa.us/offices/l/language/arabic - Is Arabic: لدى إدارة مدارس فيلادلفيا Arabic for "School District of Philadelphia"? WhisperToMe (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just Arabic: إدارة مدارس فيلادلفيا, yeah. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much :) WhisperToMe (talk) 10:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How did the dutch grammatical “t kofschip”-rule originate? Are there any known reasons for this? I have read the Wikipedia article, but want to know more about why this rule came into being. Trakorien (talk) 11:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The spelling d or t comes from pronunciation. The 'rule' collects the letters that lead to a t spelling in a simple to remember Dutch word, kofschip or fokschaap. It's more an ezelsbruggetje (mnemomic) than a rule. 195.35.160.133 (talk) 12:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Martin.[reply]

See also Talk:'t kofschip for more info about the real rule and the mnemonic. 195.35.160.133 (talk) 12:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Martin.[reply]

when you type quotes, does the period come before or after the quotes? 199.8.158.111 (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In American English, the period comes before you close the quotes and in British English, as logic would dictate, the full stop goes after you close the quotes. See the fourth bullet at Differences_between_American_and_British_English#Punctuation. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2010_March_3#Russian_Runes

Some people confused that I was talking about the russian runes in the discussion preceding, but I was talking about the reforms about the cyrillic alphabet.

Let's give this a go again.