Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

January 1

Unwritten rules

Is there a name for the unwritten rules that govern language usage? As an example, the phrases "athletic performance is heavily dependent on fitness" and "athletic performance is largely dependent on fitness" are both acceptable even though a dependence can neither be heavy nor large. Also, "heavily" implies an extreme while "largely" does not, meanings that can't be determined from the literal meanings of the words "heavy" and "large". --99.237.96.81 (talk) 01:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd say idiom covers that. To greater or lesser degree, all languages employ words in certain contexts that, when removed from those contexts, mean something different. Different languages use different words in such contexts, which is why a word-for-word translation of a text, without regard to the meaning of words within the context of the text (as opposed to their basic dictionary meanings), often produces a ludicrous outcome. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with just grammar? 69.77.195.242 (talk) 15:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, since you ask, I'll say that both sentences supplied by Friend 99 are grammatically correct. Now, one could also say "athletic performance is sizeably dependent on fitness". It only makes half-sense, but it's still what I would call grammatically correct. But is it idiomatically correct? No way. There may be some languages where size-related adverbs are employed where English prefers those from heaviness and largeness. That's their idiom. Ours is whatever ours is. In translating such a sentence into English, the translator would need to be aware of this and should render the word as "heavily" or "largely", not as "sizeably", as a machine translator might put it. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Can I help who's next?

A couple of the girls I work with call out to the line of customers (which is usually more of a cluster than a line): "Can I help who's next?" Is this correct? It seems to me like it should be "Can I help whoever's next?" but I'm not sure. It could be correct if you think of it as "Can I help [the person] who's next?" but "the person" is omitted as extraneous sentence bits often are in English. But it still sounds weird to my ears. Then again, now that I look at it, my version doesn't sound quite right either. How should it be worded? Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 02:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You can break it down to 2 questions: "Who's next?" spoken to the group, followed by "How can I help you?", directed at the person they've just identified as next in line. But if it's concatenated into one question, it would be more usual to say "Can I help whoever's next?", rather than "Can I help who's next?", because "Can I help" should be followed by a pronoun (e.g. "you"), a noun, or a nounal phrase, whereas "who's next" is not such an animal but a question. I suppose you could repunctuate it as: "Can I help? Who's next?". -- JackofOz (talk) 02:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

For all those stumbling across this post: In the US the form "How may I help you?" is considered a lot more useful in terms of job retention. Some stores and take-out places actually have posters hanging by the phone spelling it out in big letters.76.97.245.5 (talk) 05:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I often hear "can I help the next in line?" (You did say it's more of a cluster than a line, but by saying "line" you're implying an order.) That's commoner in some situations like grocery stores than "can I help the next person in line?" In any case, I wouldn't rush to correct the wording of coworkers, especially if "Can I help who's next?" has the effect of causing the next person to step forward. --- OtherDave (talk) 17:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I often hear this as a statement, "I can help who's next." Everyone says it, everywhere, so I thought they must be trained that way. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

How should it be worded? In whatever way it is most clear to the customers. It doesn't really seem like there's any confusion and a (presumably) retail/service environment can probably be a little lax with the grammar. But it would be cool if they said something like "whomsoever is next in line, having been waiting the longest, let him or her step forward so that I may help in an effort to fulfill his or her requests."  :-) --LarryMac | Talk 14:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Like the Larsen cartoon of the psychic chicken, they could just lose it and shout "Ne-ext!" Julia Rossi (talk) 05:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

"who" is a pronoun foremostly, and there's no need to say "he or she". -lysdexia 14:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, yeees. Sometimes it's a relative pronoun (The man who never was), and sometimes it's an interrogative pronoun (Who is that man over there?). The technical difficulty with "Can I help who's next" is that "who" is trying to be both relative and interrogative simultaneously. It's doing too much work and it runs out of puff, and the whole sentence suffers. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Why are males more interested in non-fiction?

I read a newspaper article a while back that said men generally preferred reading non-fiction rather than fiction. I'm male and that's definitely true for me. I prefer to read newspapers and autobiographies rather than novels. I can't think of any reason why other than non-fiction seems more interesting. By the way, Happy New Year to everyone at the ref desk 165.228.151.7 (talk) 05:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

That must be one of those "6 of 10 interviewed" things. I could not corroborate those results in doing my own tally of the individuals of male persuasion in my Social circle (not the village in GA). My very own specimen of male bookworm subsists on a diet of Science fiction and Alternate history. Among friends and family many genres of fiction are enjoyed. One of my brothers reads stuff like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, some of our friends read popular fiction by the likes of Michael Crichton whereas others devour Crime fiction. Evidently there are reasons why people prefer reading something besides textbooks and the news. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 07:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

C'mon Lisa4edit, logging in isn't that tough is it? hydnjo talk 03:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the journalist was speculating. She observed that most book clubs tend to have females as members. She also noted that book clubs targeted towards males almost always had non-fiction books on the reading list. It's more of a sweeping generalisation than anything based on published studies. Although, I suspect that there's more than an element of truth to her claims. 124.171.130.103 (talk) 10:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from the membership of book clubs. I don't think I know anyone who's a member of a book club, and I wouldn't want join one myself, but most people I know read quite a few books. Off the cuff, I'd say there's not a lot of sex-based difference overall in the ratio of fiction to non-fiction among them. Obviously, what my friends do isn't proof of anything in itself, but my point is that I really don't think book club members represent an average reader very well. (For starters, simply presenting people with a list of books that in itself shows bias like this would skew the results.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 04:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The membership of books clubs is not representative of the general reading public. In a book club one must want to meet with other people, and to talk about the book, in addition to actually reading. Another interpretation of the results is that women are more likely than men to want to socialize with others about a book, and the men who do want to discuss a book, are more likely to prefer non-fiction. Perhaps because non-fiction is a harder read or it brings up issues that are better absorbed after discussion. (For example, I'm a male who likes to read fiction, but I actively dislike discussing them afterward. I wouldn't join a book club, not because I don't read fiction, but because analyzing a book ruins it for me.) -- 128.104.112.113 (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we were talking about book sales clubs rather than book discussion clubs here. (The idea is that the former, being organized and keeping records by necessity, would yield decent statistics, while the latter, being informal and having a pretty small (and often nebulous) membership, would not -- at least not easily.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Double period

Hi. In English, is it ever appropriate to use two full stops (..) at the end of a sentence? This is not homework. If so, when, and why isn't there are article? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 19:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

No. Algebraist 19:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

There is: Haplography. You're welcome. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

That appears to say no to double periods. --Nricardo (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It does, because Algebraist's answer was correct and complete as to whether it is ever appropriate. I took the OP's "if so" to apply only to the "when", and I was answering "why isn't there an article?". (Interestingly, in standard American usage, that last sentence would not have the final period.) --Milkbreath (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, a sentence can end with an ellipsis to indicate that it is deliberately incomplete. This is normally written as three dots and often is typed by pressing the "." key three times. So in a sense the sentence ends with two dots (the last two of the three). But those dots are not serving as full stops (periods), just as a decimal point is not; they are really just part of the ellipsis. --Anonymous, 09:58 UTC, January 2, 2009.

The only systematic use of two dots I've seen is in OED and SOED, where they are regularly used instead of the usual three-dot ellipsis. In quoting OED I typically replace that custom single-character ellipsis with three dots (such as Anonymous has just mentioned): the only sort of ellipsis I ever like to use, and the only one recommended at WP:MOS. I do not like to use the preformed single-character ellipsis (…). The CD-ROM SOED's two-dot ellipsis, strangely enough, is two separate dots rather than the OED's single-character implementation; but SOED sometimes has such an ellipsis next to a full stop, and then it uses a single-character for the three dots together. (Don't get me started on ellipses with four dots, or spacing between the dots and around the whole ellipsis, or associated kerning, or hard spaces preceding or following, or effects of adjacent punctuation on such spacing, or the general chaos and ignorance concerning ellipses and indeed hard spaces – or waterboarding.)

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 12:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

So, you're saying that every single time I see something in an article written with two dots (eg. "This is an incorrect solution..") that isn't quoting something else, I should correct it to either one period or an ellipsis? ~AH1^(TCU) 16:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying you have a sighting in the wild? Point us to it, please. --Milkbreath (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Such an occurrence in the wild would almost certainly be a mere slip, MB.

Astro, yes. The doublet is either a mistake for a full stop or a mistake for an ellipsis. Determine which is intended, the best way you can, and make it either a single full stop or a proper ellipsis. Now, here's the more important point: even if the mistaken doublet occurs within a quote, it should be corrected to either a standard full stop or an ellipsis. This is quite normal "silent" correction of a sort advocated by both Hart's Rules and Chicago Manual of Style. Only if the doublet is textually important should you retain it and annotate it with "[sic]" – when the topic itself is, say, non-standard or sloppy punctuation. For the general idea I have raised see "allowable changes" in the Wikipedia Manual of Style; for "[sic]", see immediately above that subsection.

By the way, you might like to revisit eg., which is an abbreviation of two words: exempli gratia. The punctuation is therefore normally e.g. or (sometimes nowadays) eg without any dots.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's a sighting in the wild: Charles Schulz routinely ended sentences with two dots in Peanuts (example). He also used zero, three and four, but I'm not sure he ever used just one. I've always wondered why.. On an unrelated note, double periods are used (in place of ellipses) for numeric ranges in many programming languages, including Pascal, Perl and Haskell. -- BenRG (talk) 01:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

If you are communicating to a computer via a command-line interface, entering two periods accesses the parent directory. (See the last heading at DOS Command: CHDIR.) However, the syntax of programming languages differs from the corresponding rules of natural languages.

-- Wavelength (talk) 03:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Punctuation Predicament

I am not sure if my punctuation is correct in the following phrase:

Without realizing it, I whispered "Nice job."

Does anyone agree with this? Disagree with this?

Thanks. --Think Fast (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

From your "To Do" list, I'm guessing you're American. You folks put the period inside the quotes, whereas others put the full stop outside the quotes (on the basis that a sentence can end only with a full stop/period, question mark or exclamation mark, never with a quote, comma, colon, dash etc etc). If you are an American, I would say it's well punctuated. Some people feel the need to put a comma before a quote (in this case, after "whispered"), but that's unnecessary. Well done. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm one of the people who feel the need to put a comma before a quote, and I do consider it necessary. If I were your English teacher, I'd dock you half a point for not writing:

Without realizing it, I whispered, "Nice job."

And I think even non-Americans would put the period/full stop inside the quotation marks in this case since in context, "Nice job" is a complete sentence, so the period/full stop belongs to it. —Angr 22:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

He answered "This non-American would never do that, nor would any of his teachers or countrymen". -- JackofOz (talk) 22:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

In what way is "Nice job" a complete sentence? It is just a noun and an adjective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.196.156 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 2 January 2009

Kinda like Oh, Pretty Woman with an interjection or Good job Brownie as popularized by W? hydnjo talk 02:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

"Sentence" has different meanings. In this context it includes a fragment; the point is that if you were writing it down outside of quotation marks, you'd end it with a period. Therefore the period inside the quotation marks is appropriate. --Anonymous, 10:01 UTC, January 2, 2009.

Absolutely right, Anon. As JoO says, it's a complete sentence in the sense relevant to punctuation, just like Absolutely right, Anon. Much confusion is wrought by not attending to the distinction. Much.–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 10:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm the one who said that. Jack says he'd put the full stop outside the punctuation, and would even do so in the case of a complete sentence with a subject and verb, as shown by his above response of 22:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC). —Angr 12:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Angr. Of course you're right. Though JoO did seem to have assumed the same "punctuational" meaning for sentence, he did not make the statement I attributed to him.–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It was 2009, but let's not quibble over a trifling 366 days.  :) Which of the following looks right:

• A. "Without realizing it, I whispered "Nice job. Really good." He answered "Thanks." Then we had lunch.
• B. "Without realizing it, I whispered "Nice job. Really good". He answered "Thanks". Then we had lunch.

I'd go with B every time. Having an end quote followed by a space (or 2 spaces) and then the first letter of the next sentence just looks somewhat unfinished to me. I appreciate the rationale for including the period inside the quotes, because it's a part (at least a grammatical part) of the person's utterance. But how does that theory hold when it comes to a comma, which Americans also include inside the quotes, even though it is most definitely NOT a part of the speaker's utterance in cases like:

• "Without realizing it, I whispered "Nice job," and he answered "Thanks." Then we had lunch. - which I would render as:
• "Without realizing it, I whispered "Nice job", and he answered "Thanks". Then we had lunch. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

1. I'd put a comma before the quote (though otherwise I don't like commas much) and
2. put the stop inside the quotes because it belongs to the quoted sentence and stands as a stop for the whole statement. Outside the quotes in this form it looks like a dot rolled away.. .-) Julia Rossi (talk) 06:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Complete book of myriad treasures / wanbao quanshu

There was a household encyclopedia published in Ming dynasty China called The Complete Book of Myriad Treasures. It sounds really interesting, but I don't read Chinese. Has it ever been translated into English or French? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.251.48.59 (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing that can be located online. It seems to be transliterated as Wan bao quanshu [1] This one's spelled in two words. They don't have a translation, though. [2]. The German Institute of Chinese Studies at the University of Heidelberg seems to have a copy in Chinese, but no translations either. [www.sino.uni-heidelberg.de] Portuguese might actually be a better bet for a translation than English or French, but I couldn't find anything there either. Good luck. Lisa4edit76.97.245.5 (talk) 07:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Translation from Hungarian into English

This greeting was on a postcard. I think it is Hungarian. Need English translation: Naggom sokszer csokol benneteket.63.215.26.209 (talk) 22:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It is Hungarian, but you need to check the exact spelling. Is it this:

Nagyon sokszor csókol benneteket

And does a name or some other wording follow?

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 08:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Mean - Many time send kiss for you... Zn1d09 (talk)

January 2

spanish translation

how do you say gastric bypass surgery in spanish? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.82.231 (talk) 05:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

On the Spanish obesity page [3] under "Cirugía bariátrica" it's called "bypass gástrico" or for the full term "Cirurgia bypass gástrico" (confirmed by googling). Lisa4edit76.97.245.5 (talk) 07:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

polín

what is a polín, i looked it up at rae.es (la real academia española website) but didn't understand most of the words in the definition, what is it? is it like "rafters" or "wood" or "barn"? could someone translate the definition for me? "Rodillo que se coloca debajo de fardos, bultos, etc., de gran peso, para que, girando, los transporte." and "Trozo de madera prismático, que sirve para levantar fardos en los almacenes, y aislarlos del suelo." What i really don't get is what a "fardo" is defined as "Lío grande de ropa u otra cosa, muy apretado, para poder llevarlo de una parte a otra. Se hace regularmente con las mercancías que se han de transportar, cubriéndolas con arpillera o lienzo embreado o encerado, para que no se maltraten." I don't understand lío in this sense, as i thought it meant, issue or problem or polemic. is it pully? anyways, what is polín in english?Troyster87 (talk) 08:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Polín comes from French poulain, which first means "a colt; a young horse", and then has derivative meanings that correspond roughly to those for polín in the DRAE. First, it's a little rodillo, which is a roller. Such rollers you might place under a heavy object to move it along without friction. Second, a similar piece of wood, or other such protective padding, placed under bulky objects to keep them off the ground. There is an exact English word corresponding to this latter meaning, but for the moment it eludes me. There is a third, regional meaning in DRAE: Traviesa de ferrocarril. That's a railway sleeper, which I think helps to elucidate the other meanings.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 11:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

And that's what's called a railroad tie in American. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

foal; caster; chock. -lysdexia 13:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

French beard

"French beard" is a common name for goatee in India. Was the slang introduced by the British? Is it prevalent throughout the Commonwealth? Jay (talk) 10:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't remember hearing it in Australia. It is not in OED; and since it does appear here in an online dictionary of Indian English, I suspect that it is confined to India.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 11:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

When I read French beard, the image that came to mind matched the description in the goatee article of the "musketeer" style of beard. So I don't think it is hard to image the connection of the term French beard with these subtypes of goatee. Rmhermen (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Understanding foreign accents

How difficult is it understanding a foreigner who doesn`t differenciate between:

-[ʌ] and [ɒ] -[æ] and [a]

Cosidering that it`s the vowels that differ more between local variants of English, is it a huge problem?--88.27.176.105 (talk) 12:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The second merger ([æ] and [a]) is pretty common in foreign pronunciations of English, and I think that most English speakers would have no trouble understanding someone who made that merger. The first merger ([ʌ] and [ɒ]) is not one that I am used to hearing in a foreign accent. I think that English speakers could generally understand someone who merged those vowels, but there would certainly be cases of ambiguity, since those are common vowels (at least in American English), and they are phonemic. So I think that listeners might be confused and/or misunderstand some of that person's speech. Marco polo (talk) 01:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like a fun game. Come up with a few dozen minimal pairs and then go into the world pronouncing them all with the same vowel. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 04:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Je n'ai plus besoin d'eux

I was just listening to "Non, je ne regrette rien" and noticed that at one point Piaf sings "Je n'ai plus besoin d'eux." Why is this okay? I think my high school French teacher would have marked it wrong if I had written that instead of "Je n'en ai plus besoin." Is it colloquial? Is it poetic license? Is something else going on here that I'm unaware of? —Angr 21:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Normally you would have Je n'ai plus besoin d'eux for persons, and Je n'en ai plus besoin for animals or things. In the song, the line preceding is Mes chagrins, mes plaisirs, so en is expected. But Grevisse (Le bon usage, 1959, §498) allows d'eux also, in reference to things personified or "déterminés et individuels", or to avoid an ambiguity. There is a case for considering the chagrins and plaisirs as in a way personified; and anyway poetic licence generally, and the demands of prosody and of rhyme (with J'ai allumé le feu) in particular, justify d'eux.

Reciprocally, Grevisse allows (at §502) that en may be used for persons. The first example he gives is one using peuple – a rather "impersonal" way of referring to people en bloc.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Surely your high school teacher would have pointed out that it's a song, not a dictée. Or would he or she have been too busy trying to correct Georges Brassens? --- OtherDave (talk) 15:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

French translation please

Hi - I mistakenly posted this on the Humanities Desk, but have moved it here, with some amendments. Can anyone tell me what a 'tableau of the dead' would be called in French (as opposed to a tableau vivant)? - and while you're at it, what would the French be for a 'tableau of the half-alive'?

Thanks all Adambrowne666 (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

PS - I moved Adam Bishop's answer too, which was responding to a slightly different query.

I guessed "tableau mort" might be the opposite, and Google suggests that that refers to an image created with dead, preserved animals, or a depiction of someone's death. (That seems not to be really the opposite of a tableau vivant but I imagine it would be difficult to use dead people to stage a scene...) Perhaps for "tableau of the half-dead" you could use "tableau mort-vivant" (borrowing from the French title of "Night of the Living Dead"). Adam Bishop (talk) 13:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Btw, if it's about "still life" in art, it's "nature morte" in French. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Julia - nature morte is great - would tableau semi-vivant work for a tableau of the half-alive? 18:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I suspect semi-vivant is semi-alive and demi-vivant is half-alive. You might like to google the works of Helen Chadwick who (I think) combined living and dead objects, but not totally sure. The thing about "nature morte" is that things may be living (like food oops, fruit and flowers) or dead (game birds) or just not moving around (inkwells, books and musical instruments) so I'm wondering if there's a demi-life implied in "nature" and "morte"? Much more interesting if you can push it further though, Julia Rossi (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

January 3

Since the dawn of time

Where did this phrase originate? I'm suspecting that it was coined because it seems awkward to ascribe a dawn to time itself; how can there be a dawn of time if time didn't even exist? Thanks for any input. --Bowlhover (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

See Arrow of time for some interesting ideas of how time works. The idea is that time only exists as a means of ordering events. Before there were events, there was no time. So, before the universe was created (see Cosmogony and Big Bang) there were no events, so there was no time. Time began when events began to happen that needed ordering. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Time also has sands. Julia Rossi (talk) 11:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

But that comes from directly watching hourglasses (some old-timey soap-opera introduction began with the narrator intoning "Like sand in a hourglass...", I believe). AnonMoos (talk) 16:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

"… so go the days of our lives." Not all "sands of time" references are related to hourglasses, however. Many derive ultimately from lines in Longfellow's famous "Psalm of Life"—"Lives of great men all remind us / We can make our lives sublime, / And, departing, leave behind us / Footprints on the sands of time"—which some think were inspired by the discovery of fossilized dinosaur footprints in sandstone. (Certainly, Johnny Mercer seems to have had Longfellow's poem in mind when he wrote the lyrics to "I Wanna Be a Dancin' Man" for Fred Astaire: "Gonna leave my footsteps on the sands of time, if I never leave a dime.")

On the "dawn of time" question, I, like Julia Rossi, am drawing a blank. All I can add is that the OED, s.v. dawn, has no quotations illustrating this expression—the closest is "dawn of history" from 1878, but that's not really the same thing. Deor (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The actual quote is "Like sands through the hourglass, so are the days of our lives". (I can't believe I've actually watched this show sufficiently often to have memorised it, but there you go, life's rich pageant has enough for all of us.) -- JackofOz (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; those links are interesting. In case I've been misunderstood, I was asking who first used the phrase "since the dawn of time" in a piece of writing, not whether it makes sense. --Bowlhover (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I return with google-fu in tatters, having found that the origins you seek are lost also in the mists of time. Send out the next one while I tell you a story, that essay checkers hate the phrase, Shakespeare won't own it and even the writers of Genesis eschew it though ghits show that multitudes use it every time it turns around. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

OED records no such figurative senses before 1633:

["Dawn, n."] 2. fig. The beginning, commencement, rise, first gleam or appearance (of something compared to light); an incipient gleam (of anything).

1633 P. Fletcher Purple Isl. xii. xlvi, So spring some dawns of joy, so sets the night of sorrow. 1752 Johnson Rambler No. 196 32 From the dawn of manhood to its decline. 1767 Babler II. 100 If he possesses but a dawn of spirit. 1823 Lamb Elia Ser. 1 Old Actors, You could see the first dawn of an idea stealing slowly over his countenance. 1878 Stewart & Tait Unseen Univ. ii. §50. 69 From the earliest dawn of history to the present day.

OED would record any earlier occurrence it was aware of; so we can conclude that as far as OED is concerned dawn of time is later than 1633.

Here is one from before November 1694, if the author in question is indeed John Tillotson (1630–1694):

They loved; but such their guileless passion was

As in the dawn of time informed the heart

Of innocence and undissembling truth. (In James Thomson, The Seasons and The castle of indolence, 1727)

Here is one from 1906 that seems to echo Tillotson, with rather more ferocity:

He nodded to her, and she came and sat by him, and they had more drink, and then he went upstairs into a room with her, and the wild beast rose up within him and screamed, as it has screamed in the jungle from the dawn of time. (Upton Sinclair, The Jungle, chapter 22)

But none of those is strictly since the dawn of time. The earliest I find for that is from Transactions of the Annual Meetings of the Western Literary Institute and College of Professional Teachers, 1839. See the text on the page here in Google books.

There seems to have been a small flurry of instances of since the dawn of time in America from then on, including this lovely one from 1840.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 02:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

In the nick of time, this beautifully meandering thread defies what I got from the arrows of it. : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 05:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the responses! They were extremely helpful. The reason I asked this question was that I have always heard "since the dawn of time" being criticized as a sentence that students should avoid in their essays. The first time I've seen it used appropriately was several days ago, when reading the second sentence in 2001: A Space Odyssey. That really sparked my curiosity. --Bowlhover (talk) 05:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Recliners found in cells

"Texas jail closes after recliners found in cells" is the headline of this AP report. Among the other objectionable items found in the cells, why did recliners make the headline? Perhaps I lack the imagination to use one in a nefarious way, or is this some other device? If the latter, the recliner page could do with a revision.-- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 07:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Jails are for punishment, not for relaxing as if one were at a vacation resort. --Nricardo (talk) 08:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Somehow this seems a marginal consideration relative to the other offenses noted in the body of the article. (On the other hand, it certainly attracted my attention the way other headlines don't!) If this were just a matter of "quality-of-life" items, it's certainly less portable, therefore less fungible, than the usual drugs/cigarettes/weapons. I posted this query to the Language RD rather than Miscellaneous , wondering whether this is a Texas regionalism that's escaped me in the decades I've been reading about my native USA from overseas. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I grew up in Texas, and I've never heard "recliner" used to refer to anything other than a recliner. But Texas is a big state, and I can't claim to speak for everyone's lexical competence. —Angr 12:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

In the context of the story, though, it seems like more than just that. What I'm thinking is that any upholstered furniture can be used to hide things in. —Angr 10:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

How would anyone hide a recliner in a cell? Julia Rossi (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I meant, someone might hide a knife or a gun in the recliner. —Angr 11:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean relatives might smuggle in a metal file when they bring a cake or a... recliner? Julia Rossi (talk) 12:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Considering that some of the cells locked from the inside, I suspect not much hiding needed to be done. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Online Italian language resources

I find myself living in a city that borders on Italy (literaly, see Nova Gorica vs. Gorizia), and it turns out that not being able to speak Italian is often a bother, so I want to learn at least some basic Italian. Could somebody point me to a good online resource for studying Italian? A google search finds some sites, but I can't really make out which are good and which not, hence the question here. TomorrowTime (talk) 11:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

For vocabulary, see LanguageGuide: Foreign Language Vocabulary, Grammar, and Readings.

-- Wavelength (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

When I was starting to learn Italian, I was surprised by the huge number of pretty high-quality resources to be found for free on the web; excluding a dictionary (which you'll definitely need to buy), it is possible to learn the basics of the language without spending any money at all. However, most of the sites I used were in my native German, so I'm not sure they will be of much use to you. I found this online course in German pretty well-structured and a good way to get all the basic grammar rules, then there's a free Italian-German online dictionary here. In English, I found this series of tutorials pretty useful although they are not as well-structured and interactive as the German course I linked to above. Here's a huge resource of vocabulary games which are great to practice basic vocabulary and grammar rules if you have 10 minutes to spare. A hugely useful resource is Italian Verbs which gives you a complete searchable index of all Italian verb forms (great for finding and practicing irregular forms). As a sidenote, once you've got the basic grammar and a solid basic vocabulary, I found the Italian Wikipedia a wonderful (and, of course, free) resource for reading lots of interesting stuff and expanding my vocabulary - its coverage of Italy-related topics is often much better than here on en (just compare Cinema of Italy and it:Cinema italiano) -- Ferkelparade π 15:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Merging vowels

This is a follow-up to Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#Understanding_foreign_accents.

What English vowels are merged more frequently by foreign speakers and what are the worst mergers?--88.27.176.105 (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Naturally it has to depend on the the vowel inventory of the speaker's native tongue ...--K.C. Tang (talk) 14:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

[æ] (the "short a" vowel as in cat) is not too widely distributed as a vowel phoneme among the languages of the world, but slightly mispronouncing it does not usually lead to serious miscomprehension (as long as you don't merge it with [ε], the "short e" vowel as in pet). What I find really kills overall comprehension (more than pronouncing one or two specific vowel qualities slightly off) is not pronouncing English with strong stress and accompanying vowel reductions in unstressed syllables. Getting this wrong is guaranteed to make your attempts at speaking English sound quaint and very very foreign (the linguistic terms are "stress-timed language" vs. "syllable-timed language"). AnonMoos (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

minding your "BI" business

I grew up in New York City and in the 1960's-70's we commonly used the phrase "mind your BI business" to say "mind your own business." Problem is none of us knows what the "BI" stood for or what the origin of that phrase is. Alternatively, some think the phrase is "bee eyed."

Internet searches have yielded nothing so far. Anyone have any ideas?

I always thought that it meant "Big Idea". I dont know if that clears it up any more, or only creates more confusion, but that's what I was told as a child in 1980's NYC. - J.R. 12/09/09.

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcapucci (talk • contribs) 16:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I've heard that, too. I thought it was the "bi" in "biz", like "show biz". --Milkbreath (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The B.I. doesn't stand for anything. It is used to indicate that the speaker means "bizness" as in the slangy version which is supposed to be more serious than regular "business". As in, not BU- business, but BI- BIZNESS. It is similar in structure to, for example, "small-c capitalism". -- 3D, 5-2-2013

I am rather certain that the "B.I." stands for a buttinsky--a person who butts-into other peoples business. The origin of buttinsky is likely either Polish or Yiddish. The phrase in question essentially conveys "stay out of this" and "mind your own business." A little late but I hope helpful, July 2011

"however" as conjunction

What is the status of "however" as a conjunction, in a sentence like this?:

The work contains the grand scale of historical painting, however[,] it presents ordinary people, rather than heroes, reacting to the unfolding drama.

Merriam-Webster tells me it's a conjunction, but in the same sense? This usage feels like a run-on sentence to me. I always reword these sentences or insert a semi-colon. Is the above grammatically and stylistically valid? You see it quite often. Thanks, –Outriggr § 16:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The role of "however" is certainly a matter of opinion. In your sentence, however, it's wrong. You need a comma after it to prevent reading "however it presents" as "in whatever way it presents". This is mandatory. Put the comma in, and we have "The work contains the grand scale of historical painting, however, it presents ordinary people, rather than heroes, reacting to the unfolding drama." Now there is another problem. "However" wants to attach to the first clause. A band-aid solution is a semicolon: "The work contains the grand scale of historical painting; however, it presents ordinary people, rather than heroes, reacting to the unfolding drama." This at least kind of works, and it is the format that purists object to, I think. Me, I usually leave that the way it is when I run into it. It's clear enough, and enough people do it to make it de facto OK. I don't write that, though. It's awkward, and it lacks in expressiveness what it saves in ink.

Not that it is wrong but I would suggest reducing the comma load by moving around the parts to read "The work contains the grand scale of historical painting; however, it presents ordinary people reacting to the unfolding drama rather than heros." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leftus (talk • contribs) 17:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

"However" is also called an adverb by [2 MW], and I can't say the distinction is clear to me. This is one of those cases where the parts of speech fail us, I think. (Does anyone know how to make a link like that display right?) --Milkbreath (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I think "however" can also be used to describe an adjective, for example: "The motorboat cannot overcome the rapids, however fast it may be." ~AH1^(TCU) 18:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I strongly favor a semicolon before "however" and a comma after it in such sentences. AnonMoos (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

---

I agree with MB's analysis well enough, including the requirement for a comma to make clear that in whatever way is not meant. I also agree with AnonMoos (AM) that in cases like this there should be a semicolon, and that this is no mere band-aid solution, pace MB. So AM and I would want this (assuming that the words themselves are not to be altered):

The work contains the grand scale of historical painting; however, it presents ordinary people, rather than heroes, reacting to the unfolding drama.

I also agree with MB that parts of speech are a slippery matter, and that this is manifest here. OED and SOED classify however only as an adverb. (And note, Astro: it remains an adverb when it modifies an adjective.) The much more subtle and expansive Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English (1999) has it this way: however is an adverbial (and being a single word it is an adverb). Specifically, it is a linking adverbial: it "shows the speaker/writer's perception of the relationship between two units of discourse" (p. 875). Some others in this same category are lastly, for one thing, to conclude, in other words, and therefore. But however belongs to a different subcategory than those. The linking adverbials on the other hand, alternatively, and in contrast are contrastive linking adverbials; and though and anyway are concessive linking adverbials. Longman gives however, along with yet, intermediate status as a contrastive/concessive linking adverbial (pp. 878–9, 881).

NOW: all of that applies to however in one sense. It does not apply to it in sentences like this (inspired by Astro's example, but with fast as an adverb now):

However fast you drive, you'll still run out of fuel.

How are we to classify however in this sentence? The matter is rarely addressed well; but I was surprised to find that even Longman does not, so far as I can see, settle the matter. It puts whenever and wherever in the category circumstance adverbials, with an implied subcategory marking condition and contingency (p. 844). (Note the linking function here too; circumstance and linking functions overlap.) But however in our sentence does not comport itself exactly as those two do.

Nevertheless, there does seem to be a way forward. We could substitute like this:

However fast you drive, you'll still run out of fuel. [Our original]

Whenever you drive, you'll still run out of fuel.

Wherever you drive, you'll still run out of fuel.

But also:

However you drive, you'll still run out of fuel.

However can function by itself to mark condition and contingency, making it parallel to whenever and wherever; but it also enters into the construction of indefinitely many complex adverbials such as however fast, however well, and so on, each of which is itself parallel to whenever and wherever. I intend to continue my search through Longman's minute analyses; but we could wish to see all this set out more lucidly. Longman is corpus-based, and very ambitious; I suppose it can't achieve everything, or make everything equally transparent and retrievable.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for the analysis. I certainly agree with the semicolon approach, but had a moment of doubt given how often I see the construction in question (though never, come to think of it, in professional writing). –Outriggr § 06:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Arabic language translation

For the article Fahd's Revolutionary Organization, how should the following be translated?: منظمة فهد الثورية : اضطرار مؤسسها القائد العمالي الرفيق حكمت كوتاني للجوء في كندا ورحيله عن الدنيا في منفاه البعيد --Soman (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

My own understanding is that it means that the organization went defunct as its leaders went into exile in Canada. Correct? --Soman (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there anything after that last word? Wrad (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

No, the last word is البعيد. The source of the text is [4]. --Soman (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It talks about how its founder and leader was sentenced to exile and went to Canada and died early in his exile. I don't see anything about the organization being defunct, but it would seem to be a natural reaction. Wrad (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Soman (talk) 09:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

german to english

Can you please tell me what the following says. I was sent this from my nieces husband that doesn't write english.

"ne, aber Jen ist krank und ich musste putzen und kochen, damit alles vorbereitet fuer die Ankunft meier Eltern war"

Mary —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hinano55 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

"Nein, aber Jen ist krank und ich musste putzen und kochen, damit alles vorbereitet fuer die Ankunft meiner Eltern wäre" means "No, but Jen is sick and I had to clean and cook so that everything would be prepared for the arrival of my parents." German "Ne" might be equivalent to English "Naw". (See pronunciation: nein, ne, nö, net - WordReference Forums.)

-- Wavelength (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I think "war" rather than "wäre" is okay too; the implication is that everything was in fact ready for his parents' arrival, but he had to cook and clean to get it that way. I'd have spelled the first word "Nee" with two e's, but it's mostly a spoken word rather than a written one, so spelling can vary. —Angr 23:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

latin numbers declinability

Hi, I've made some effort to find this one out for myself, and I'm fairly sure I know the answer, I'm just looking for explicit confirmation. Are latin numbers like viginti unus declinable? I know the books say all numbers from 4 to 100 are not, so obviously that includes 21, but I'm wondering if the terminal part, the unus, is considered declinable, on the basis of unus, -a, -um, while viginti is kept indeclinable. I would expect not, since unus is singular, and viginti unus plural, but it's good to get it precisely. I am also interested in general in what happens to numbers like 101, 102, 103, and 1001, 1002, etc. Thanks, It's been emotional (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

In Gildersleeve and Lodge the indeclinability is only stated with respect to simple number words, while "Compound Numerals" are discussed separately, and the specific example of annos unum et viginti ("twenty one years", accusative case) is given... AnonMoos (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

See Genesis 11 Latin: Biblia Sacra Vulgata and Esdrae 2 Latin: Biblia Sacra Vulgata.

-- Wavelength (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Wavelength's examples show quite clearly what is also illustrated (but not, damnit, made explicit, as AnonMoos points out) in Gildersleeve and Lodge (see §96; §94 is in fact misleading, since it gives for example ūnus, ūna, ūnum for "one", but only vīgintī ūnus for "twenty-one"). Where they occur in higher compound numbers, ūnus, dūo, and trēs are in fact declined.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 01:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the interesting and helpful answer, once again, It's been emotional (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

January 4

Pronounciation of "Albeit" and "Whey"

I'm not too good with the pronunciation key, so a dictionary isn't much help. How does one pronounce the word "albeit" and "whey" (as in whey protein)?

Is "albeit" pronounced al-BE-it and "whey" pronounced "whee"? Acceptable (talk) 03:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I am pretty sure it's "all be it" (like the three words) and "way" (like a path or method of doing something; you can hear the pronunciation in the common nursery rhyme Little Miss Muffet.) 99.245.92.47 (talk) 04:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

See (and hear) Results for albeit and Results for whey. -- Wavelength (talk) 04:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I relate to the second of all-BEE-it emphasising the second syllable; and of whey, is there a "h" in there? Pop-up: whey – (h)wā (just checking as a non-IPA-er) Julia Rossi (talk) 05:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Whether "whey" is pronounced "way" or "hway" depends on your accent of English. If you pronounce "whine" like "wine", "which" like "witch", and "whether" like "weather", then you'll pronounce "whey" like "way". But if you say "hwine", "hwich" and "hwether", you'll also say "hway". See wine-whine merger for details. —Angr 07:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Though I'm totally inconsistent with them all. :) Julia Rossi (talk) 07:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

That's okay. As long as you know what the rules are, you're perfectly entitled to break them. —Angr 15:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Me, I'm inconsistent with some of them, but not with the others.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there a single word that means "uncared about"?

My mental lexicon seems to be out of whack today and I can't find this word I'm looking for, if it even exists. Is there a word that applies to something that isn't cared about? "Neglected" is not right because I don't want the implication of "not attended to". 99.245.92.47 (talk) 04:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

There is the word "unappreciated". -- Wavelength (talk) 05:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Mm... not quite the sense I want. I want to evoke something that has no empathy for it whatsoever, not just something that isn't necessarily liked or enjoyed or understood. 99.245.92.47 (talk) 06:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

"Disregarded" as adjective. M-W says "...to treat as unworthy of regard or notice". –Outriggr § 07:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

"Unloved"? Overlooked or underrated? Julia Rossi (talk) 07:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

"Ignored"? Bunthorne (talk) 08:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

"Forlorn"? --Milkbreath (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean that some entity (someone or something) is "uncared about" in the sense that a person is apathetic or indifferent about that entity? -- Wavelength (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Forsworn? Abandoned, surrendered, lost? Unused? – Julia Rossi (talk) 04:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

unadored? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Shunned? (I feel a whole lot of un- words coming on) Julia Rossi (talk) 09:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Floccinoccinihilipilificated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.29.166 (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

See Floccinaucinihilipilification. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

English grammar [A number of people was, or were?]

"A number of people" was affected or were affected? Kittybrewster ☎ 09:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

A number of people WAS affected - because the subject of the verb is the singular "number." I know, it doesn't quite fall on the ear right, but that's how it goes. If you really don't like it, you can always rephrase, or quantify more exactly if possible. - Aletheia

The Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary gives the following examples: A small number of children ARE educated at home. and (SLIGHTLY FORMAL) A large number of invitations HAS been sent. —Daniel Šebesta {chat | contribs} 10:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Aletheia, it is usually nothing more than sheer pedantry to insist on one or the other choice as "correct". The best choice will often depend on context and register. Were affected is almost always used, in fact. This sort of question (agreement of the verb with a group term in the subject) comes up again and again. Please hold back from responding unless you have some authoritative or well-researched answer to offer.

Google searches are blunt tools, but this ought to tell us something:

• "A number of people was"

[284 hits; almost all are portions of larger constructions: "One of the things I mentioned to a number of people was..."]

• "A number of people were"

[about 146,000 hits]

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 10:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is not a matter of context and register. "A number of people" is always construed as plural. "Was" is simply wrong. I can't post a direct link, but look up "number" in the online American Heritage Dictionary; you'll find this explicitly stated in a usage note at the end of the entry. "The number of people" is construed as plural singular, but that's a different expression: it's about the number, while "a number of people" is about the people.

There are many expressions in English where a subject that appears to be grammatically singular takes a plural verb and vice versa. In some cases the practice does depend on "context and register", or on whether you're speaking British or American English. In others, it doesn't. I imagine Wikipedia has an article discussing it. Or perhaps several articles discussing it and saying different things. --Anonymous, 04:49 UTC, January 5, 2009. (Confusing error corrected later.)

I'm sorry too, Anonymous. No one said that this was a matter of context and register, exactly. The point, against naive ideas of "correctness" (such as what we saw from Aletheia, who gave the "wrong" verdict, as it happened), was this:

Ιt is usually nothing more than sheer pedantry to insist on one or the other choice as "correct". The best choice will often depend on context and register.

This was followed by a statement excepting the case under discussion: A number of people was affected (hardly ever used) versus A number of people were affected (the clear standard). As for your continuation, I think you must mean this:

"The number of people" is construed as singular, but that's a different expression: it's about the number, while "a number of people" is about the people.

Of course. All of that said, you ignore sentential context where it is needed. You say this:

"A number of people" is always construed as plural.

That is simply wrong. Consider contexts like this:

A number of people is hard to estimate, unlike a number of houses. People move around too much.

Precision! :)

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 12:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

that's totally contrived. it would be "the number of houses is" and "the number of people is".

here's the rule:

“ the number...is

 a number...are

”

[–Unsigned, by Anonymous.]

Yes yes, Anonymous. Of course it usually works out that way. I have said the same myself, way back where I presented evidence from a Google search. And AskOxford states it just as you would bluntly have it. But AskOxford and you are incautious, and imp[r]udently pedantic when you present this as an iron-clad rule. My counterexample may look contrived to you, but it is perfectly unexceptionable. Your rewriting of it would not be apt in all broader contexts. Try this, too:

I'm not sure how to interpret the text, here. A number of people is normally stated with precision in Sturt's journals, but this is just "three or four dozen". I think it refers to the horses, not the people.

Contrived? Only in the sense that I have made it up; not in the sense that it is unnatural English that stretches grammatical "propriety". The better rule to make is simply this:

Number of people is singular when it refers to the number, but plural when it refers to the people.

And then give full examples in short sentences, rather than make clipped and inaccurate pronouncements. The risk if you do the latter is that you will be cited as proscribing more usages than you intended – or (let's face it) than you even thought of. This problem comes up again and again, with servile literal readings of incautiously stated style-guide rules.

:)

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 21:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Noetica's improved statement of the rule and concede that there exists a context where "a number of people" can be singular.

However, I want to defend my original response (except for the singular/plural slip, which I have corrected, thanks). The original query did include a specific context: "A number of people was/were affected." I took the mention of "context and register" to be saying that there are registers or larger contexts where the usual sentence "A number of people were affected" would need to be corrected to use "was", and that's wrong. Also, I point out that the Google evidence was not presented as an "exception" to the statement that right and wrong often does not apply. That's why I felt it necessary to respond.

Finally, for the sake of clarity, the "Unsigned, by Anonymous" text was contributed by some other anonymous poster, not me. --Anonymous, 23:13 UTC, January 5, 2009.

Very well, Anonymous. Please do sign your contributions one way or another. For the record, it was I who added "[–Unsigned, by Anonymous.]" after the earlier anonymous post. That fact is itself recorded in the history of this page. Someone has to see that the discussion is structured so that we can know who said what, and which anonymous contributor is which (still unclear, without tedious research in the history). Everyone should sign, always, in a way that clarifies who they are among the several participants, and who they are not.

As for the rest of your response, fair enough. It is not possible for writers to cover every conceivable reading or misreading every time they put fingers to keyboard. Already these threads become bloated with codicils, caveats, and recherché qualifications. It is often more efficient to express oneself with a moderate level of specificity, and then correct where the need arises, as it did in this case. Conversely, readers ought to apply a principle of charity: consider whether your first reading is likely to be right, or whether there is an alternative way of construing things that accords more rationality and good sense to the writer. Who knows? Reader and writer might agree more than they had expected to.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 01:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Certainly in some of these English-usage threads it becomes difficult to say who said what. For the record, I believe I am the only person on the Reference Desks who signs as "--Anonymous" or "--Anon" with a double hyphen and followed by a time and date that's not in the misplaced-time-zone format that you get from ~~~~; and I always do so. (But, for personal reasons, I am not registering with WP and that's as much of a signature as you're getting.) --Anon, 07:42 UTC, January 6, 2009.

A number of people were standing outside the office and A number of people is standing outside the office wouldn't both be usable (but perhaps not the best) if the second sentence refer to something like "a number of people are standing outside the office, which number?" That is, them standing in the formation of a number. — chandler — 04:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Chandler, do you mean the figure or shape of a number (like 2), like the figure or shape of a letter (like A)? Now that is contrived! It is exactly as acceptable as this would be:

A letter of people is standing outside the office.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 07:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes I meant like "A letter of people is standing outside the office" — chandler — 08:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I have now got it.

• A number of cats have lost a leg as a result of car accidents
• The number of dogs which are bred to fight is now a matter of grave concern to the police.

- Kittybrewster ☎ 11:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Czech word for "tailor"

How do you say "tailor" in Czech? - Aletheia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.139.75 (talk) 09:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

google translate says its "krejčí". --Soman (talk) 09:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I can confirm that. Another reference is here. —Daniel Šebesta {chat | contribs} 10:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

To be exhaustive, one thing needs to be added: krejčí is a masculine noun; the feminine equivalent (and tailors surely are often women) is krejčová. —Daniel Šebesta {chat | contribs} 21:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! My best friend had ancestors who came from Czechoslovakia to the United States, and she knew that their last name was pronounced "Craychee" (she didn't know how to spell it) but that when they came to the U.S., they took the surname "Taylor." She was under the impression that a lot of "Craychees" became "Taylors" here, but wasn't sure if it was an exact translation or just custom. I promised her I would find out. Now I can also tell her how they spelled it! - Aletheia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.139.75 (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Edgar as a German name?

Would the pronunciation of Edgar (as in Edgar Feuchtinger) in German be [ɛt.gaɐ] as would be expected from the spelling and the presumed syllable break between d and g? Or is the pronunciation something different? --Iceager (talk) 09:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The Duden 6 – Das Aussprachewörterbuch gives the following pronunciations: 'ɛtɡar, engl. 'ɛdɡə, fr. ɛd'ɡa:r. Note that they don't list all systematic variants (such as the different pronunciations of r) for each entry and that they don't show aspirations and other systematic features. —Daniel Šebesta {chat | contribs} 10:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, Duden's rule for coda R is that it is vocalized to nonsyllabic [ɐ̯] only after long vowels, but remains consonantal "[r]" (however you want to realize that) after short vowels. In real life, however, few Germans make that distinction. So while Duden says ['ɛtɡar], Iceager's guess of [ɛt.gaɐ] is actually closer to reality. If you want to be really pedantic (and who at this ref desk doesn't?), you'll add the glottal stop at the beginning too, and transcribe it [ˈʔɛtɡaɐ̯]. —Angr 15:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Angr, my Duden (the 2005 edition, p. 54) has a slightly different rule: ‘Konsonantisches r [r], auch vokalisches r [ɐ̯] [n]ach den kurzen Vokalen [ɪ ɛ ʏ œ a ʊ ɔ] am Wortende oder vor Konsonant. Im Allgemeinen wird in der Lautschrift nur [r] verwendet′. Otherwise, you are absolutely right about the glottal stop; that was—along with the aspiration—one of the systematic features that are not given for each entry in the dictionary. —Daniel Šebesta {chat | contribs} 21:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed explanations Daniel Šebesta and Angr, including the rule for coda R! Korean transcription of German names assume all final r that follow vowels to be vocalized, and I had wondered if that was consistent with German pronunciation rules. --Iceager (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Definition of a Classic Novel

What characteristics define a classic novel? 142.46.8.26 (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

In my view, it's all a matter of opinion. Some novels, such as Pride and Prejudice and The Portrait of a Lady, are sure to get into the list, but there really isn't a satisfactory definition of classic novel. Our stub at Classic book is a poor beginning, but to give you a start try Harvard Classics and Western canon. Strawless ^(talk) 19:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It has to have a pic on the front of a randy, bare-chested farmhand tearing at the naughty princess's bodice as they fall into the hay. That's how you identify classic literature. StuRat (talk) 02:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't know if it's literature, but it's classic. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

A classic novel is a work of fiction that's been so widely recognized and praised by people of distinguished literary tastes that no one reads it anymore unless forced. - Aletheia "When I Write the Great American Novel, I'm Putting a Randy Farmhand on the Cover to Keep the Lit-Snobs Away" James —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.139.75 (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Language death and Extinct language

The articles don't exactly do much to explain the difference between the two, and what they do say about it seems to imply they are basically the same thing. In fact, one part of the language death says that there is such a thing as "complete language death" (which from what gathered elsewhere in the article would suggestably be the same as language extinction). A look around the internet seems to show that whatever the "exact" meanings of these two phrases, they are used completely interchangeably. Thoughts on the matter? mɪn'dʒi:klə (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, they shouldn't be used "completely interchangeably". Language death is the phenomenon whereby languages die or become extinct. An extinct language is a language that has undergone the aforementioned phenomenon. There's quite a difference in the meanings. One could write an article on language death without mentioning any particular language,but just explaining what causes languages to die. That would hardly be possible in any useful article on extinct languages. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

These are not terms I have any great expertise with, but perhaps another distinction might be between a language which is no longer spoken and which no one is really sure how to pronounce, which still exists in some written form (I should call that a dead language), and a language of which not a word survives. Rightly or wrongly, I might refer to the second as extinct. Strawless ^(talk) 19:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

That would be a distinction between a "dead language" and an "extinct language". "Dead language", which describes a language that is no longer viable, is not the same thing as "language death", which is about the process of languages going from viable to non-viable. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

If 'language death' were plain English, which perhaps it isn't, it would surely mean the moment when a dying language becomes a dead language. In any event, 'dead language' seems to me to come into this. Strawless ^(talk) 22:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Another thought on the matter is the inapt (not to say inept) nature of the metaphor in "language death." It's understandable that many people want a nice, clean distinction -- like "Dolly Pentreath was the last native speaker of Cornish; she died in 1777." Is Cornish, which no one learns from childhood as his only language, dead? What does "dead" mean in this context, and are different groups of people (the general public, language specialists, language-preservation advocates) going to agree? --- OtherDave (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

To Strawless: Yes, these terms are obviously related. But not even non-plain English speakers could refer to a dead or extinct language as "a language death", any more than they could refer to Julius Caesar as "a human death". He's an example of a human to whom death has occurred, but he himself is not death, no matter how it's qualified. He's just dead. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless he is a Roman death, perhaps? – Julia Rossi (talk) 04:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistent pluralisation, and inconsistent spelling generally

I can understand why some people use an apostrophe to make a plural; it's a simple misunderstanding of the spelling rules. What I have never been able to understand, though, is why we often see commercial billboards etc that list products on offer, where some plurals have apostrophes and others don't. For example, we see restaurants offering "steaks, hamburgers, pizza's, sandwiches, drink's". Can anyone suggest why they feel the need to put apostrophes with some plurals and not with others.

Another example of inconsistency, one that I've seen time and time again on these pages, is a word in a header that's spelled differently in the text of the question. Usually, it's spelled the same way throughout the question where the word is repeated, but in hundreds of cases that I've seen, that same word appears differently in the header. What's going on here? Thanks for any ideas. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Cases of dyslexia aside, I think the inconsistencies mostly spring from a very simple thing: people just don't care. It's not so much that they don't know the correct form or that they make a mistake, it's that they don't even think about what they're doing beyond the minimum effort required to communicate the message. It's like a guy painting the side of a house and not worrying about a few paint spills and splatters, as long as the the paint job gets done. And while I think that's kinda sloppy and stupid, and not a trend I enjoy, if all you want to do is sell some "pizza's" and really don't give a shit about whether someone thinks you're ignorant, I often find it kinda hard to fault that, as long as your sign gets the job done... except on principle. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 23:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the general and alarming apathy mentioned by Captain Disdain (which I certainly agree is a factor), there are the following considerations:

In fact the English use of an apostrophe for non-possessive plurals, especially of words ending in a and o, was common before the modern standard was settled on. OED, at "apostrophe²":

2. The sign (') used to indicate the omission of a letter or letters, as in o'er, thro', can't; and as a sign of the modern English genitive or possessive case, as in boy's, boys', men's, conscience', Moses'.

In the latter case, it originally marked merely the omission of e in writing, as in fox's, James's, and was equally common in the nominative plural, esp. of proper names and foreign words (as folio's = folioes); it was gradually disused in the latter, and extended to all possessives, even where e had not been previously written, as in man's, children's, conscience' sake. This was not yet established in 1725.

This is confirmed in David Crystal's Think on My Words (2008), a close study of Shakespeare's language. Apart from the general fluidity in early use of the apostrophe (still going strong in catachrestic practice), words ending in vowels other than mute e were and are less common in English, and their plurals tend to look unnatural, or to be mistaken for some other form. This was probably more the case earlier, when English was often interspersed with Latin. The English plural arenas, to snatch a quick example from the air, might easily be misread as a Latin accusative plural (meaning "sands"); but arena's could not be so mistaken. (I've just been editing at Apostrophe, in fact; I keep meaning to incorporate some of these points there. Next time, perhaps.)

Our modern practice, such as it is, was gradually established during the 18th and 19th centuries; but it is still not thoroughly settled, as the variant guidelines surveyed in Apostrophe amply show – even in formal, regimented use. And we, who are sensitive to such matters and cleave to such norms as have been settled on, continually underestimate the complexity of the sometimes arbitrary rules, and the consequent difficulties that others have in following them – or indeed in taking them seriously.

As for the variation in spelling between headings and the text that follows them, here on this page, I speculate that the task of making a marked-up heading is one to which many of our "clients" are unaccustomed. That might account for a certain self-consciousness, and therefore a lapse in their performance.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's more like "it's" as in it has it's food. People were never taught the correct way, for nowadays, "English teachers" do not teach grammar,spelling, anything that smacks of work. They "teach" the students to "emote" and somehow that will make it all correct.

I very much doubt most English teachers would agree with that assessment. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Doubt as you will, CD. I agree with the anonymous editor that standards of English teaching are low – at least in Australia, which is the scene I know best. In my experience many teachers at secondary and tertiary level give low priority to these matters, and are often enough woefully ignorant themselves. Many could not remedy their students' errors even if they wanted to. Beyond the most glaring errors, most do not attempt to fix punctuation even sporadically.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems like my response to CD was censored. Why, pray tell?

No response from you appears in the page history, so I'm guessing some sort of technical error occured. Why not post it again? Algebraist 03:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous, we can't see what you mean. All we see are two unsigned contributions from you: the one immediately preceding what I am writing now, and an earlier one: "I think it's more like "it's" as in...[etc.]". Was there more, and was it somehow deleted? It will help if you do things the standard way. Sign your name by typing ~~~~ at the end of your contributions; indent, using the appropriate number of colons (:). See how other editors do these things, OK?

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 03:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone mentioned Greengrocers' apostrophe yet? Wait for the section to turn up after clicking on the link. There was an Australian joke that you could tell a (school)teacher by their spelling mistakes. ;) (There's also this thread from last year.[5]) Julia Rossi (talk) 04:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That's close to the mark, Julia. Near me is a cafe that proudly advertises "Sandwich'ez and hamburger'z". It's getting worse. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That is painful on the eyes (eye'z?), Jack! Aleta ^Sing 21:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe that article could be retitled "Greengrocer'z apostrophe's" to bring it up to date? Building on someone's warning in the former thread, it can now mean: Look out! Here come's a Thing and it'z trailer's. :) Julia Rossi (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

A stall on my local market once had a sign advertising "Cactu's Pear's" AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, some responses. Captain Disdain, your theory would work better for me in explaining why so many possessives these days are apostrophe-free. We see "Americas/Australias/Gippslands favourite <whatever/whoever>", "mens and womens clothing", and so on. Apathy and ignorance explain why they don't bother to write the required apostrophe. But writing it where it doesn't belong actually takes some effort. Hence, it surprises me that "it's" as the new way of writing the possessive pronoun "its" has become so widespread; the pronoun is somewhat more common than the abbreviation "it's" (short for "it is" or "it has"), so people end up writing many more keystrokes than they need to. If every plural were apostrophised, I'd give them props for trying, and further props for consistency. But this theory still doesn't explain for me why they make an effort (however misguided and unnecessary it may be) in some plurals but not in others. Noetica, your theory would ring more true if we were talking about people who have an above-average knowledge of English and who are deliberately trying to write in a pre-18th century style. But, sadly, the perpetrators I'm talking about generally have rather less English skills than that. Stereotypically (and unfairly in some cases), they wouldn't even know the difference between a noun and a verb, let alone the finer points of how spelling has varied through the ages, and why. Nevertheless, what you say might have a germ of truth in it. Plural nouns that you can just about guarantee to see apostrophised in these parts include "pizza's", "foccaccia's", "calzone's", etc. These are "foreign" words in the sense that very few native English nouns, or even French, end in -a (or, as you say, -o). So, maybe, without ever realising it, they're applying an 18th century solution to what they see as a 21st century problem. It may also be as simple as copying what others do (which explains a hell of a lot, including "alot"). And since English teaching was abolished some decades ago (well, it may as well have been), there's nobody around to show them the right way, except for us ageing fogies who, by definition, are deserving of less respect or being taken notice of than worms. A young fogey who knows (or, dare we even hope it, cares) about these things would be a rare and wonderful discovery indeed. But, CD, you're right in saying that they don't care. Whenever I pluck up the courage to comment on these things to their perpetrators, I get blank stares, shrugs of shoulders, and similar reactions. So I don't do that anymore. I just sit sipping my coffee while grinding my teeth, with my chalk or my marker pen kept securely tucked away. But I have been known to annotate table menus with a biro, in the (probably forlorn) hope that someone in authority will notice my irreverent scribblings, see what I'm on about, twig to the issue, and make changes in the next print run. What a cross it can sometimes be to have been born with editorial genes into a world that doesn't want to be edited but still doesn't notice even while it's being done to it. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

When I say people don't care, that has little to do with the effort it actually takes, I think. I mean, whether or not you hit an extra key when typing, or even dab a little extra paint if you're painting a sign by hand, we're not talking about an appreciable expenditure of time and energy here. It's pretty much a non-issue. I know that there are people who love to point out that when they type "u" instead of "you", they're saving time, but that's like saying that you can save wear on your shoes if you take just a little bit longer steps. Technically, that may be correct, but you'll never notice the difference. I don't think that affects the situation at all; mostly, it's just that a lot of people don't know the proper usage, and they don't care enough to learn or to even pay attention to what they're doing -- either because they're just that lazy, or because it just isn't at all important to them.

And trust me, I don't like that any more than you do... but at the same time, I have to admit to a certain pang of guilt. I mean, my own attitude towards mathematics, beyond a certain pretty basic level, is pretty much comparable to this profound lack of interest in the written language, and that has been known to elicit reactions that are entirely comparable to how I feel about people who should know the basics of English (or Finnish), but obviously don't, at all. But I have no real use for that math and no interest in it, so I really don't give a damn. I mean, I do think that this kind of basic understanding of the language is more important than that of mathematics, the language being such an important part of the communication we depend on just to get through the day... but perhaps that's just because the language is what I earn a living with. I can live with the occasional misplaced apostrophe or typo, though. What sets me off is the blattant disregart for speling and grammer borderring on ilitteracy the internets particlurly ful of... which is to say, all the time.

And Jack, my brother in the struggle, clearly that same editorial blood runs in both our veins, as I also have engaged in the occasional spontaneous clandestine copyediting. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 05:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Jack, you misread my "theory" if you take it to suppose familiarity with earlier English practice among current folk. I did not say or suggest any such folly. All I sought to show, as a closer reading would reveal, is that the same sorts of uncertainties as affect modern use of punctuation also affected the very first uses (first uses for the apostrophe, anyway). I gave the example of Latin; you added current examples like pizza's and foccaccia's, and called this an application of an "18th century solution". But there is nothing 18th century about it (17th, more like it, if anything). It is essentially the same use, with the very same pressures bringing it about. Only the provenance of the foreign words has changed. There may have been a period in which schooling produced more uniform regimented usage – covering a long stretch somewhere between 1800 and 1950, to take an educated guess. But the same sorts of "aberrant" practices probably lurked even during that period, with the same sorts of "errors" needing correction to a conventional and pedagogically imposed standard. We all agree – don't we? – that schooling has dropped that responsibility; and the results are plain to see. I omitted to mention the other chaotic uses of the apostrophe that Crystal remarks upon: its and it's used in the same sentence, both as possessives; possessive forms of proper nouns randomly with or without apostrophes; and so on. In fact, none of that has to do specifically with Shakespeare, or even with his time. It has to do with the underlay of chaotic usage that has always been with us – a tide that has intermittently been dyked back by imposed countervailing norms. Just now, our schools are not imposing those norms as they used to (in Australia, at least). As I have said, the teachers themselves are often not even versed in the norms. We'll see how things unfold, as the world is swept further into the web-vortex, and people develop yet another set of technology-driven attitudes to traditional text and its values. We ain't seen nothing yet.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 11:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Jack, you may be seeking a logical explanation when much of human behavior is not logical. the answer is more like the question of whether ignorance or apathy is more widespread: most people don't know and don't care.

Only a small percentage of the English-speaking population attended school prior to the 19th century. Our evidence of writing practice is skewed; we've got more from people who did more writing. Even at that, documents like diaries kept by soldiers during the U.S. Civil War suggest that expression was then, as today, more important than form. In spelling (and punctuation), they could be downright Shaxperian.

So-called norms can be skittish. Imagine the fulmination around 1860 as American practice shifted from "the United States are" to "the United States is." What were the schools not doing? It wasn't the fault of schooling (or schooling's fault, or schoolings' fault, or sc'ho'ol'in'g's fault); it was one small shift among many in the flowing current of one major stream of English.

That's not to say there's no such thing as standard practice. But where and when the hypothetical standard applies is hard to say; how far its writ runs, even harder. Trumpeting Fowler, Strunk and White, or your high-school grammar text is mostly harmless and probably produces an endorphin rush in certain trumpeters. --- OtherDave (talk) 12:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

On the "mens and womens clothing" mentioned above, this gracefully morphed a few years back—at least in English department stores—into signs reading “Menswear” and “Womenswear”. And it’s true. They do. —Ian Spackman (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, we have them too, Ian. But we still see "mens clothing", "childrens apparel" etc advertised. As for "im", "dont", "mightnt" (for I'm, don't, mightn't), etc, I think this is a cunning ploy to create new words for Scrabble. Currently, being abbreviations, they can't be used, but removing the apostrophes turns them into words that can be used with gay abandon. So to speak. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

See Retired Teacher Reveals He Was Illiterate Until Age 48 - San Diego News Story - KGTV San Diego.

-- Wavelength (talk) 06:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It makes sense to me that people would use apostrophes to pluralize foreign words. We use apostrophes in many cases where unusual letter combinations would result otherwise. For example, we write OK'd and (often) 1920's. And no matter what the dictionary says, I will always have trouble with words like subpoenaed - I would much prefer subpoena'ed, if only it were permitted.

As another example, in Polish, the property of Baire is własność Baire'a. The apostrophe is used to form the genitive of the name of René Baire, because the e in Baire is silent, the last sound being an r. Bairea would strike people as a confusing combination of the characteristically French silent e and of the Polish suffix -a. (If his name really ended in an e sound, it would actually be indeclinable.) On the other hand, Baira would be an unacceptable deformation of the man's name. So Baire'a is used.

In a word like pizza's, it may well be that the apostrophe is likewise used, as Noetica suggests, to avoid the juxtaposition of the foreign a and of the very English plural ending -s. Joeldl (talk) 13:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. That might explain why they write banana's and tomato's, but not apple's, orange's, pear's or mandarin's. Very interesting, Joeldl. As for subpoenaed: the standard rule for forming a past tense is to add -ed where the verb ends in a consonant (march > marched, act > acted, merit > merited) or -d where the verb ends in a vowel (charge > charged, impinge > impinged). I've never quite understood why verbs like subpoena don't just add -d (subpoenad). I know it looks weird, but that's probably only because we're not used to seeing it written that way. It's no more weird than the inconsistency of saying act-əd and merit-əd but not march-əd or freak-əd out. If I had to choose between subpoenad and subpoena'ed, I'd prefer the former. Btw, do we have a list of English verbs that end in a vowel other than e? I'm struggling to think of examples other than subpoena, but there must be many more. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

January 5

joke / allusion

Hi, could someone please explain that joke to me? It seems to me that he discovers "a corpse in the cupboard", but I don't understand the reference to dating or marriage. Thanks, Flipote (talk) 06:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the point is just that Asok is so desperate for a girlfriend that even a skeleton with a wig will do. And Wally is also so desperate for a girlfriend that he considers a skeleton with a wig a "babe". —Angr 07:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Angr, can you please explain the next one?[6] Julia Rossi (talk) 08:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

If I may, I think the suggestion is that Asok chipped his tooth while kissing the skeleton. Dismas|^(talk) 09:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Dismas, that makes sense now. I felt it wasn't quite right that the skeleton wouldn't be attracted by his chipped tooth. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

We might think also of a macabre oblique reference to the film Psycho, and Norman's skeletal but still hair-topped mother. (The horror...)

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 11:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

When dating a skeleton, one never has to worry about her gaining weight. Hmmm.... StuRat (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Or about her complaining about one's own weight (or any other aspects of one's appearance or personality). —Angr 16:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

For other advantages, see Necrophilia#Research. —Angr 16:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

And mouthguards. Julia Rossi (talk) 11:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Name of Lightning-globe

What was the word for that spherical glass thing in museums that generates tiny purplish streaks of lightning inside it when touched? I know it had a name. 96.233.7.70 (talk) 11:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Curious

Plasma lamp. Nanonic (talk) 11:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Bah! You beat me! Dismas|^(talk) 11:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, the name was a lot simpler than I thought it would be. Thanks! 96.233.7.70 (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Curious

I thought it was a Van de Graaff Generator?--TammyMoet (talk) 13:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a different thing. (Van de Graaff generators are made of metal instead of glass, for starters.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Japanese!

I found an interesting article on this website: http://www.tsuyama-ct.ac.jp/kats/papers/kn7/kn7.htm but because I don't know any japanese, I don't know if the article is written by an evening course student (and if so, if the article is approved), or if it's written by a teacher. Any japanese wiki-editors who can help me? Lova Falk (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It is written by a teacher. Oda Mari (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Lova Falk (talk) 14:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

January 6

I have 2 younger brothers - help!

Actually, this is a grammar question! I'm the oldest in a family of four children - two brothers and two sisters. The difficulty arises when situations arise in which I find it convenient to talk about my siblings without using their names. My sister is easy - she's just "my sister" or "my younger sister." My brothers pose a difficulty, however, since they're both younger and there are only two of them. I can't refer to the elder of the two as "my elder brother," since he's actually my younger brother. Referring to the younger of the two as "my youngest brother" feels wrong to me since I only have two brothers, and therefore it's grammatically incorrect to refer to one as "youngest" relative to the other. Calling them "the elder of my two younger brothers" and "the younger of my two younger brothers" is frightfully wordy even for me, and "my older younger brother" and "my younger younger brother" is just weird. Short of selling one of them on eBay, which might not be a bad idea actually, does anyone have any ideas? - AJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.139.75 (talk) 04:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

"Younger" and "youngest" are perfectly acceptable. The age base for comparison is yours: one is younger than you are and the other is the youngest of the three of you. (He may also be the youngest of the four of you, but you haven't said if that is true.) You can also use "young" and "younger", though I find that confusing if you have more than one younger brother. A reference to "my young brother" usually means, to me, either that you have only one brother and he is younger than you are, or that you have more than one brother but he is the only brother who is younger than you are. ៛ Bielle (talk) 04:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why youngest brother would be wrong, he is the youngest of your bothers. I would call the other, "my middle brother" though I don't know if that's correct in English, it is usable in my native though. — chandler — 04:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You could also call the youngest "my baby brother", although he might find that insulting, but that could be a bonus, couldn't it ? StuRat (talk) 04:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm in a similar situation - I have two elder sisters. I usually say "my oldest sister" and "my second sister", or more wordily "the older of my sisters" and "the younger of my sisters". But you're right, it is inconvenient to refer to them like this, so usually I just say what their names are first off, and then refer to them by name. —Angr 09:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I am in much the same situation though mine is doubled. I have four siblings, two of each gender, and all are older than me. Calling the oldest brother my "oldest brother" is not grammatically wrong as you, OP, seem to be saying. "Oldest" is a word and "brother" is a word. So saying "oldest brother" is not incorrect. When speaking of them to someone, I generally point out at the beginning of the conversation that I have two of each and they're all older. From then on, in the conversation, if not wanting to use their names, I refer to them as my "oldest brother/sister" and my "younger older brother/sister". This last one sounds contradictory but it isn't. It is simply a statement of fact. It's also the shortest vocally. And Angr, I generally don't use names very much because then people can easily get confused and ask "so, this is the older one?" or some other question because with all four names, they can't recall very well just where each name falls in the chronological order of siblings. Dismas|^(talk) 10:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on what you're saying about them, but most of the time when I'm talking about my sisters, their relative ages are unimportant to the story anyway. But if it is, I prefer "second oldest sister" or just "second sister" to "younger older sister". I suppose we should all pity Malcolm in the Middle, who would have to talk about his oldest brother, his younger older brother, his older younger brother, and his youngest brother. —Angr 10:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Like Angr, I should side-step all this by saying "My brother Hannibal", or whatever. If you need to say more, "My brother Hannibal, he's the youngest of us" (oldest of us/one in the middle/younger brother but older than me/etc.) Strawless ^(talk) 12:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I have Malcolm in the Middle's problem. I have two older brothers. When I want to distinguish between them I have to talk about my eldest brother and my younger older brother, or my second older brother. Traditional Chinese kinship allowed you to talk about 1st, 2nd and 3rd older brothers, etc., because big families were common. But then, traditional Chinese kinship terms are a nightmare. 130.56.65.25 (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Latin origin of the word 'limen' still relevant today?

Hi, I can't make sense of a reply from a user regarding the way the dictionary "works". I have tried to reply as a prompt for clarification, but it was unsigned, so no talk page. Can you help make sense of it for me? Either reply here, or continue the discussion. The post is here. Thanks...—F^red11⁴ 07:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Erm, we have an article, "Liminality" and afaik, limen pops up in several think-fields, as this thumbnail article attests. Hope this helps, Julia Rossi (talk) 11:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

In reference to words, the statement that X comes from Y is ambiguous, but it can be disambiguated with the statement that X is etymologically derived from Y while being a translation of Z. See limen - Definition of limen at Your Dictionary.

-- Wavelength (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your very easily understood explanation. That is helpful. I'm arguing that the meaning of Y can still have relevance today, and should be included in our encyclopedia. The meaning of the word 'limen' would still have meaning in the non-psycholgical sense if it wasn't for psychology. We just need to work a bit harder at finding it. Why shouldn't it? —F^red11⁴ 18:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I found 28 "occurrences" of the English word threshold at Bible Concordance: Threshold. It counts one occurrence for a verse, even if that verse contains the word more than once.

The respective multilingual pages are as listed below, where the Latin Vulgate version is shown fourth in the first column. In these web addresses, the hyphen separates chapter and verse, and does not mean a series of verses. In some of these passages, the English word threshold corresponds to another expression in the Latin Vulgate, but I have excerpted some portions which use limen or a form thereof. (See also Psalms#Numbering).

http://multilingualbible.com/judges/19-27.htm (in limine)

http://multilingualbible.com/1_samuel/5-4.htm (super limen)

http://multilingualbible.com/1_samuel/5-5.htm (super limen)

http://multilingualbible.com/1_kings/7-6.htm

http://multilingualbible.com/1_kings/14-17.htm (ingrederetur limen)

http://multilingualbible.com/2_kings/12-9.htm

http://multilingualbible.com/2_kings/22-4.htm

http://multilingualbible.com/2_kings/23-4.htm

http://multilingualbible.com/2_kings/25-18.htm

http://multilingualbible.com/2_chronicles/3-7.htm

http://multilingualbible.com/2_chronicles/34-9.htm

http://multilingualbible.com/esther/2-21.htm

http://multilingualbible.com/esther/6-2.htm

http://multilingualbible.com/psalms/84-10.htm

http://multilingualbible.com/jeremiah/35-4.htm

http://multilingualbible.com/jeremiah/52-24.htm

http://multilingualbible.com/ezekiel/9-3.htm (ad limen)

http://multilingualbible.com/ezekiel/10-4.htm (ad limen)

http://multilingualbible.com/ezekiel/10-18.htm (a limine)

http://multilingualbible.com/ezekiel/40-6.htm (mensus est limen, id est limen)

http://multilingualbible.com/ezekiel/40-7.htm

http://multilingualbible.com/ezekiel/41-16.htm (limina et fenestras obliquas)

http://multilingualbible.com/ezekiel/41-25.htm

http://multilingualbible.com/ezekiel/43-8.htm (qui fabricati sunt limen suum iuxta limen meum)

http://multilingualbible.com/ezekiel/46-2.htm (super limen)

http://multilingualbible.com/ezekiel/47-1.htm (subter limen)

http://multilingualbible.com/zephaniah/1-9.htm

http://multilingualbible.com/zephaniah/2-14.htm (in liminibus)

-- Wavelength (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps some elementary facts need to be laid out explicitly: The Latin word limen ("threshold, lintel") is at the root of common English words like eliminate ("to throw out over the threshold"), lintel, preliminary, possibly sublime, and certainly subliminal (which is directly relevant to the use of limen in psychology, and does something towards clarifying the meaning of subliminal). In the history of some such words the Latin word limes ("path, boundary, boundary path") is influential also, though its own etymological connection with limen is uncertain.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 22:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Definitely, the meaning of Y (Latin limen) has relevance today, because of its use in the Bible, and because of the medical and non-medical definitions of X (English limen).

• limen - Definition from Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary
• limen - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Also, the word is used in the names of some organizations and in their web addresses.

• Limen Group Ltd. The Mark of Experience.
• Limen Construction Ltd
• Limen House – A Threshold to Recovery

Fred114, does someone object to including the meaning of Latin limen in Wikipedia?

Which article(s) do you want to include it?

-- Wavelength (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

For me, this dispute arose at this edit here. As you can see, I deleted the word "latin" arguing that the origins of the word liminality were the english origins, not the latin. I was clearly confused, partly because the article on limiality was mainly psychological, and partly that I was wrong. I added an explanation at the talk page here. Your contribution to the discussion has not only ironed out the origins of the word, but add other important sources of its meaning. The bible was a brilliant place to look. I've learnt something from that. But also your construct has also helped. The latin origin of the word is in my reading of the article the 'english' origin, the psycho bablle stuff. I want to see the latin origin given more promience in liminality. Perhaps this work has not yet been done. In a crossed discussion which I began here, an editor contributed that the original meaning of 'limen' cannot be bought back today, because it has no relevance. I hope this makes sense. —F^red11⁴ 01:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The word limen is declined at limen - Wiktionary.

See also In limine and Quinquennial Visit Ad Limina.

List of anatomical topics has a red link to Limen insulae. (See column 2, line 2, at http://www.uams.edu/radiology/education/residency/diagnostic/pdf/sylvian_cistern_RSNA2003.pdf.)

With macrons, the i after the l is marked long in līmen, līmes, sublīmis, and ēlīmināre. (See Help:Macrons.)

-- Wavelength (talk) 03:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The seven moods of English and five persons of grammar

I'd like to make some additions and corrections for my earlier section.

The seven moods of English

You shall heed. (As it fits.) You should heed. You will heed. (As it wants.) You would heed. You mot heed. (As it goes.) You must heed. You do heed. (As it makes.) You did heed. You can heed. (As it works.) You could heed. You owe heed. (As it needs.) You ought heed. You may heed. (As it comes.) You might heed.

as ~ whenever mot ~ feel like shall ~ likely Many say "should" instead of "ought". Mood is contrasted with aspect (progressive), tense (prospective), and person (imperative). In my notes I also list the five genders (common, masculine, feminine, epicœne, neuter), declinations (gerundive, nominative, accusative, dative, supine), positions (locative, ablative, stative, allative, demonstrative), cases (vocative, paritive, ablative, genitive, possessive), quantities (frequentative, diminutive, comparative, augmentative, superlative), persons (imperative, active, objective, indicative, passive), tenses (prospective, past, present, future, causative), aspects (progressive, optative, perfective, subjunctive, infinitive), and some of their Middel and New English equivalends, prepositional and enclitic:

many small more great most -el -ick -er hr- -est O for by of with -ow -r -o -'s -u where from at tom til -ham -ey -borne -ward -n when fro an to as -ing -am -em -im -m thuh this the thy that -l -a -e -i -t

-lysdexia 11:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

"...mot heed..."? Is it a typo? Strawless ^(talk) 12:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not a mistap. However, some use the modern spelling "mote" as in "so mote it be", under risk of confusion with the other mote. -lysdexia 14:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.164.45 (talk)

Maybe it should be "mot the heed." Matt Deres (talk) 14:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Lysdexia, do we need to remind everyone again that you are a banned troll, and also insane? Adam Bishop (talk) 14:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Troll or no, it's best not to be in a mood for this piffle. If you can't consistently spell words like "middle," you ought not to waste your substance on a chimera like reforming a language. --- OtherDave (talk) 14:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Bila Tserkva (in Ukrainian)

The page tells us that Bila Tserkva "literally translated means 'White Church.' " Is that so? Where Once We Walked (first edition), a gazeteer of Eastern European place names, cites among the older names Belaya Tserkov, Biala Cerkiew, and unaccountably the English White Field (and in Hebrew, the literal translation Sde Lavan). Could the current and/or former names have meant "White Field" or something similar? My knowledge of the Ukrainian language is virtually nil. -- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 13:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not know about Ukrainian in particular, but cognates of tserkva in other Slavic languages indeed mean church, not anything related to field. (Now that I think about it, Slavic cerk- would derive by palatalization from older *kerk-, which sounds too similar to Germanic kerk (Dutch), Kirche (German), church to be just a coincidence.) It could be that "White Fields" is simply an alternative name of the place. — Emil J. 15:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

(I'm not entirely sure of the original vowels, it also might have been cьrk- < kirk- or something.) — Emil J. 15:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No coincidence. The Slavic and Germanic words both derive from Greek kyriakon "of or pertaining to the Lord". That's not the usual Greek word for "church", though. —Angr 16:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

As for White Field, the usual word for field in Slavic languages is pola, polya etc. It's where Poland derived its name from. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Linguistic background of Indian salt workers?

Would the poorest and hardest working salt workers of Gandhi's Salt Satyagraha to Dandi have primarily spoken Oriya language, Kutchi language or some other language?

I assume that you are talking about the salt workers at the Dharasana Salt Works, the site of the Dharasana Satyagraha which followed the salt satyagraha, since the salt satyagraha was not directly involved with salt workers. In fact, the point of the salt satyagraha was to show that Indians did not need to rely on salt from British-controlled salt works such as the one at Dharasana. There were many British salt works other than the one at Dharasana, and the workers at the various salt works would have spoken the various regional languages where they lived and worked. As for Dharasana and Dandi, they are both located in the Navsari district of Gujarat. Therefore the villagers at Dandi and the salt workers at Dharasana would have spoken the local Surati or Southern dialect of Gujarati. Marco polo (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Psalm 151 by Haile Selassie

There are many different versions of Biblical Psalm 151 floating around. When Haile Selasse recited Psalm 151 in full, which version was it? Was it a particular Amharic translation? Which English translation would be equivalent to the version Haile Selassie chose?--Sonjaaa (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

If you mean the time when he recited it to his Council of State, then he may have used the Amharic of Abu Rumi's translation, but he also may have used a more traditional Ge'ez version. In English, the best parallel for either is probably the Authorized King James Version, which has a very long tradition of use by the British royal family. An even older English translation is that in the Great Bible. Strawless ^(talk) 18:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, as Strawless suggests, the English Bible translation closest in sociological terms to the Ge'ez Bible in Ethiopia would probably be the King James Version, certainly the most traditional of English versions. However, it is likely that Haile Selassie would have used one of the Amharic translations that he himself sponsored in the mid-20th century rather than the older Abu Rumi translation. In that case, the closest sociological equivalent might be one of the more "authoritative" mid-20th-century English translations, such as the New English Bible or the Revised Standard Version. However, none of this gets at the English version most similar in meaning or in style of translation to the version used by Haile Selassie, if that's what you are looking for. If you are looking for the version most similar in meaning, there is really no way to distinguish among English translations, since they are derived from the same original Greek and Hebrew sources as the Ethiopian versions. If you have a translation of something in Language A to something in Language B, there is no way to determine whether one translation of that same source in Language C is more equivalent than another Language C translation to the Language B translation. On the other hand, you can distinguish among translations in terms of the approach to translation. Some translations aim at literal equivalence. Literality often comes at the expense of readability, since expressions and idioms common in one language are not easy to understand when translated word-for-word into another language. Therefore, other translations aim more at functional equivalence, or getting the larger meaning across in terms familiar to speakers of the target language at the expense of word-for-word correspondence to the source language. It would be possible to identify an English translation with a similar approach to the translation used by Haile Selassie, but that English translation would still not really be "equivalent" to the Ge'ez or Amharic translation. Marco polo (talk) 01:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

"In language there are only differences without positive terms" (Saussure Course in General Linguistics)

F. de Sausure said "In language there are only differences without positive terms". I'm struggling to discover what the phrase "without positive terms" refers to. Is this a reference to some mathematical principle? Does it have to do with mathematical operations relative to positive terms vs. negative terms, as 1 subtracted from 2 vs. -1 subtracted from 3? I'm assuming that the phrase "without positive terms" is an important component of the proposition or else Saussure wouldn't have added it.

I have pursued this question without success throughout documents about both linguistics in general and Saussure in particular. Perhaps the meaning is so obvious it doesn't merit clarification. Nevertheless, the significance is lost on me. 68.157.93.254 (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

This famous statement (occurring here) is given an explanation here.

The term positive is complex, having several subtly distinct meanings in philosophy which have migrated into linguistics and general academic discourse. The sense intended in Saussure appears to be something like "absolute, unconditioned, objective", as opposed to "relative, contextual, subjective". So once more we have a broad pleasing parallel (like those supposed to obtain in literature and the other arts, and in morals) with Einstein's roughly contemporaneous Theory of Relativity, according to which there are no absolute positions, motions, or points of view. There are only differences and relativities.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 21:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The basic insight is that language is inherently relational, rather than being an assembly of isolated non-interacting items. AnonMoos (talk) 03:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention and the clarifications. However, I'm still uneasy especially in light of the clause that occurs near the famous proposition: "Even more important:a difference generally implies positive terms between which the difference is set up; but in language there are only differences without positive terms." This is what makes me think there is some reference to mathematics or possibly logic: "a difference generally implies positive terms between which the difference is set up"65.34.215.75 (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Cricket St Thomas

The article states the word "cruced", which corrupted to "cricket", derives from Anglo-Saxon. I understand the word "cruced" is actually Welsh. Can the Editorial Team review? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taurito (talk • contribs) 21:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Which article? Our article, Cricket St Thomas, makes no mention of "cruced", but states it's from the Anglo-Saxon word "cruc," meaning a hill or ridge. The Oxford Dict. Placenames offers more detail:

Cruche 1086 (DB), Cruk Thomas 1291. Celtic crǖg 'a mound on a hill' with the later addition of O French -ette 'little'. Affix from the dedication of the church.

So, no cruced there either. I know no Welsh, so don't know if cruced is Welsh, but it's a little irrelevant (the village is in Somerset, England, and some way from Wales) but the Celtic languages do share similar roots, so it is not surprising that there are similar sounding words. Hope this helps. (By the way, there is no "Editorial Team" at WP: we are just a community of like-minded volunteers.) Gwinva (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

To clarify: Anglo-Saxon is not a Celtic language. My discussion referred to the ODPN's "Celtic crǖg". WP's contradictory Anglo-Saxon ref is from a guide book, so I'd trust Oxford on this one. Gwinva (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Cricket St Thomas isn't near Wales per se, but it is in the part of England where placenames of Brythonic origin are not unusual (Welsh and Cornish are both Brythonic languages). —Angr 14:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

January 7

"Job" as a euphemism for faeces

When I was kid, my parents (and other adults of my acquaintance) referred to faeces as "job". It's not that the subject came up very often, but kids sometimes have accidents, and sometimes in toilet training and other educational contexts there's a need to refer to the actual matter excreted by the body. "Faeces" was, I suppose, too technical for kiddy use. "Pooh" and "poop" were considered too vulgar for my straight-laced upper middle class social stratum. "Crap" was unknown to me until I was a teenager. "Turd" was too vulgar, and also too specific - it had to be of a certain shape to qualify, whereas faeces does not necessarily assume such a shape. "Shit" was simply abhorrent (to the point that it was one of those words that could only ever be spelled out, never uttered as a word). The only word that was considered acceptable was "job", and it was also used amongst adults, not just when speaking to children. I'm trying to find where this word usage came from, but I can't find anything about it in the usual places. I'm guessing it's from "he did a job", therefore the thing he produced was "job". Any other suggestions? -- JackofOz (talk) 00:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming you grew up just about as far from where I did as is possible, so it's amazing that we use a similar expression here in New Jersey. We don't call the stuff "job", like "Watch out, that diaper is full of job", but we do say "He did a job in his diaper." It's "to do a job", no variation possible. I've always thought it was very old, like from England old. --Milkbreath (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. This is the first that I've ever heard of "job" being used in this way. I have heard "He did a real job on his final exam" meaning that the subject did poorly on his exam. And for the geographical record, I grew up in the Midwest US and now live in the Northeast US. Dismas|^(talk) 01:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

See business - Wiktionary, definition #16.

-- Wavelength (talk) 01:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You got me wondering, so I went to the OED on line. Our "job" is there as definition 9, with a quotation from 1990 by American writer Nicholson Baker that includes the phrase "to labor out a small pebble of job so that it fell onto the toilet paper", which is the usage you report. My usage is there, too, as the usual one. The OED calls it "U.S. colloquial" and "euphemism", and it sends us to an entry under "big", "big job", saying that that is found "esp. in speech to or by children". The earliest citation is from 1892, and one from 1899 is from a word book of Virginia "folk-speech".

The reference to children leads me to believe that the expression stems from potty training, the mother praising her big boy for doing his big job so well. --Milkbreath (talk) 02:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, y'know. I like a little praise myself. Applause is optional. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 02:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I've used the expression "a big job" myself, although it refers to the effort, not the results. It was most often used in contrast with urination: "I have to use the bathroom, Mommy." "Is it a big job, or do you just have to pee ?". StuRat (talk) 07:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the main usage given by Milkbreath ("to do a job"), the Dictionary of American Regional English mentions "job" in the sense of "human excrement" in the works of Henry W. Shoemaker (1930, but referring to usage c. 1900), and also "job" as a verb ("If you eat green apples, you'll job and job and job till you die"). Frederic Gomes Cassidy, Joan Houston Hall (1985), in Dictionary of American Regional English, p 144, Harvard University Press, ISBN 0674205197)---Sluzzelin talk 03:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

'Job' is well used in British English in this way, but we usually say 'big jobs'. I was educated at a catholic monastery school, and it always brought a laugh in class when we had to read the Book Of Job.--KageTora (talk) 06:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Good job answering Jack's question, guys. Take that however you want. ;-) Matt Deres (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I grew up in the New York suburbs, just across the river from Milkbreath's New Jersey. Since then, I have lived in Rhode Island, California, Germany, and Illinois. I have now lived in Massachusetts for about a decade. Like Dismas, I have never heard of this use of the word job in my life. I think that it is not common in American English. It may be an old-fashioned expression that lives on in some American families, and it may have a class dimension (I'm guessing upper class, since otherwise I should have heard of it). Marco polo (talk) 15:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

While we're on the topic of poo, when I was a child, it was called [ˈkiːkoʊs] in our family. I don't know how to spell it, as I've never seen it written down, but "keekoce" would do. Has anyone else ever heard this term, or is it another one of those words that is truly unique to a single family? —Angr 15:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Never heard of it. In my family, it was "bumpty", which I've never heard anywhere else. Marco polo (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

If you lived in Germany, they have something similar to "business" = "Geschäft". And I'd go with Dismas on the "doing a job" thing (e.g. we put him on the potty to do his job) from the U.S., Washington State. Have heard it in the South, too. Lisa4edit76.97.245.5 (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for those lovely bits of information, everyone. You've all done a good ... er, thing. I guess it was just one of those 50s Australian Irish-Catholic things. I can honestly say I've never heard it since then. -- JackofOz (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Icelandic (?) poem

In an Icelandic detective novel, the protagonist is asked what Christmas presents he had received as a child and he replies that it was like in the old poem 'Candles and a Game of Cards' ..." (well, I have a German copy giving "Kerzen und ein Kartenspiel"). The reference was supposed to signify that his family had been poor, like everyone else at the time.

Anyway, my question: What poem is he referring to, and could someone give me a translation in English (and the original Icelandic text would be nice too, of course)? ---Sluzzelin talk 07:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

No precise information, but I wonder whether it is connected with the second Christmas song on this page. According to a number of Web sites, candles and playing cards used to be traditional Christmas gifts for children in Iceland. Deor (talk) 13:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

See this page [7]. DuncanHill (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sounds like that's the one, "kerti og spil" corresponds well to "Kerzen und [S]piel". Note that 'kerti' can be either plural or singular. What's the author of the detective novel? Arnaldur Indriðason? Haukur (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift responses and links, everyone. How wonderful, it's a song, and you gave me the sheet music! I didn't think of googling "deck of cards" instead of "game of cards". I wouldn't call a Yule song a "Gedicht" (poem) in German. Does it have something to do with the Icelandic word for poem/song?

Yes, Haukur, it is from Röddin (Voices in English, Engelsstimme in German) by Arnaldur Indriðason. Duncan's link confirms my continental cliché of Iceland being a nation of readers, selling more books per capita than just about any other country in the world. (See also demographics of Iceland). I think somewhere in Islandhoch, Tagesbruchstücke, Sarah Kirsch wrote that one has to reach Iceland by boat, to understand how far out it is. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If the original novel indeed had "kerti og spil," quoting the Yule song, it's possible that the German translator, unfamiliar with the traditional minimal gifts, slightly mistranslated what would be better rendered as "eine Kerze und ein Spiel Karten." Deor (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Lexicon development during childhood

I am looking for some statistics on average lexicon development during childhood. Which language and country doesn't matter, and it could be something very simple, just like:
1 y o - xxx words
2 y o - xxx words
etc.
Anybody who can help me? Lova Falk (talk) 09:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This might be of use: (http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Papers/Py104/caselli-et-al-1995.html). I don't think it's exactly what you want but it's got a fair bit of info regarding lexicon development rates. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! It's a very interesting article that I can use in other contexts, but the children in your article are too young for my purpose. They are 8 - 16 months, and the ages I need are approximately 1 - 10 years old. Lova Falk (talk) 13:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You can find a checklist of language developmental milestones covering ages 0-5 years at this page, though few of them are actual vocabulary counts.

• 18-23 months: says 8-10 words
• 2 years: knows 50 words, says 40 words
• 4-5 years: says 200-300 words
• 5 years: understands 2000 words

- Nunh-huh 15:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

He didn't used to smoke

Why is this wrong? Kittybrewster ☎ 15:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Because the past tense is marked twice: once on "did" and once again on "used". Negating "He used to smoke" as "He didn't used to smoke" would be like negating "He smoked" as *"He didn't smoked" (a mistake I often encounter among Germans speaking English). —Angr 16:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

But "he didn't use to smoke" is OK, right? I know the most correct way is "he used not to smoke," but that's not too common, in American English anyway. Catrionak (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

"He didn't use to smoke" is correct. "He used not to smoke" is not common American usage and certainly sounds awkward to American ears. (I can't comment on British usage, but I suspect that that form is not common in British English either.) In spoken American English "He didn't used to smoke" and "He didn't use to smoke" have the same pronunciation. ("Used to" and "use to" are both pronounced [ju:stə] in informal speech.) Since "used to" is the more common form, it's easy to see how someone might make the spelling error in the negative form. Marco polo (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute. That's not right, is it? "Use" is present tense and "Did not" indicates the past. Wouldn't it be more correct to say, "He never used to smoke (but now he does)." The real problem in the first sentence is the "did", not the "used". Matt Deres (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

They're both okay, but they can mean slightly different things. "He never used to smoke" means he does now (or at least strongly suggests it), while "He didn't use to smoke" is neutral on the question of whether he smokes now. —Angr 17:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The American Heritage Book of English Usage[8] says the following are correct:

We used to live in that house

You did not use to play on that team.

Didn't she use to work for your company?

This follows because "she did not use" is the negative of "she used". --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I remember being told that "she used not to ..." is the "correct" form, but I've mostly ignored that advice. Although, I must say it has its uses, particularly if one is speaking in a deliberately bourgeois fashion, as one is, naturally, wont to on occasion. In the positive, I was also told that "she used to <verb>" is common and vulgar, and the more appropriate form is "she used <verb>". However, that was not from my English teachers but from my mother, who, with the greatest respect and love, sometimes told me things that, well, haven't stood the test of time, shall we say. I can't even report that I used say it this way, because I never once did. Sorry, Mum. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Where was it that "he didn't used to smoke" ? Was it where the "pews used to been " ? :-) StuRat (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hebrew

Several synagogues in the USA are named "Rodef Shalom", including the landmark Rodef Shalom Temple in Pittsburgh. What does this mean? I know "shalom" means "peace", but being curious (and not being one who understands Hebrew) I consulted a lexicon of the Hebrew Bible to see what "rodef" means; the only thing I could find was רד