Language desk
< August 1	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 3 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 2

Logical fallacy.

I'm sure I've seen it here so sorry but I've been googling it for half an hour and I just can't think of it!! What's the logical fallacy that is something like : it is very unlikely a new discovery is made within a field by someone who is not an expert. ?

sorry forgot to sign, Vespine 01:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal to authority? --Reuben 02:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps we can coin something like "distrust in amateurs".--K.C. Tang 02:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we are qualified enough to coin a new word. Leave that to the dictionaries. HYENASTE 02:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

just for the convenience of this discussion, not for any "original research" on the Wikipedia, to be sure...--K.C. Tang 03:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary writers aren't supposed to coin words. --Anon, August 2, 04:05 (UTC).

In many cases it is very unlikely – depending on how well studied the field is, and how much effort it takes to become an expert. So I'd say this is, in general, not an actual logical fallacy. It would be one for a new field in which there are no experts yet. The argument is vaguely reminiscent of Appeal to tradition. --Lambiam 04:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, if you reason that "it is very unlikely for a new discovery to be made by a non-expert; therefore this claim that there has been a new discovery by a non-expert is wrong", that is the fallacy of appeal to probability. --Anon, August 2, 04:10 (UTC).

The context is I have technophobic friends, who know next to nothing about computers or the internet who sometime come up to me telling me they have this great idea to make heaps of money on the internet; (me working in the IT field have default become the local expert) mind you I don't know much about internet marketing. What I do know is that the IT bubble burst a long time ago and there are a lot of people trying various things to make money on the interent and unless you are getting into gambling or porn, you have to be somewhat internet savvy before attempting to start online business. I'm sure there is a logical fallacy in there somewhere, they knowing NOTHING about the internet think they have a better idea about making money off it then a million people who are trying to do nothing but that. The same thing applies to just about any field you can think of, not just the internet, Vespine 04:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what's the logic behind your friends' thinking "they have a better idea about making money off it"? There can be no logical fallacy if there's no logic at all.--K.C. Tang 05:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lambion sorry your post didn't quite sink in, I didn't word myself correctly, the logical fallacy is the opposite of what I wrote, like you said, it IS, as in see my internet example above. That argument is used to oppose the logical fallacy I'm trying to think of. Vespine 05:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emotional bias or Wishful thinking? ---Sluzzelin talk 11:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, there's a world of difference between an unlikelihood and a fallacy. In this instance, if someone had a new and brilliant idea for making a lot of money (unlikely, perhaps, but possible), then it might be one which could be projected on the internet. Complex though the internet is, no one needs to be a technician to use it as a tool, any more than it takes an aeronautical engineer to fly a helicopter. Xn4 12:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This question was discussed a bit (without resolution, but at least there's some Mencken) over here. --TotoBaggins 17:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked List of fallacies? 152.16.188.107 03:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about Dunning-Kruger effect? --Reuben 04:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spot on, that must be what I was thining of because it's exactly right.. Sorry for the run around! Vespine 04:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian vs English Accent

How come Americans cannot seem to distinguish between an English accent and an Australian? Being an Australian, the two are totally different and can be distinguised within a few words! I know plenty of Australians who say they were often mistaken as being English whilst in America. Do the two accents really seem the same to their ears, or is it because they assume we all speak like Steve Irwin, and anything else is an English accent? :D

Also, just curious, can Americans and English people tell an Australian accent apart from a New Zealander's? I know that I cannot tell an American from a Canadian (except perhaps that Canadians speak a bit less 'harsher', for lack of better word), even though Americans insist that they are way different.

I'm British and have friends from all of these places. I am generally able to recognise the difference between a New Zealand and an Australian accent, and between a Canadian and a US accent. I find the distinction quite small from my point of view, and I know that most other British people cannot tell the difference between them. For me, the Australian and British accents are quite different. Looking at the vowels in the IPA chart for English just shows how clear the difference is. However, I imagine that many Americans do not have the opportunity to hear these accents, properly labelled, regularly. This might be one of the reasons why the NZ/Oz and Can/US accents are difficult for Brits, but I maintain that these pairs are closer than Australian/British. — Gareth Hughes 13:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i can tell Australian from English, but from South African is harder. Not sure if I can tell Australian from New Zealand, which probably means that I can't. Watching TV, I can often detect a trace of Canadian accent and sure enough at the end of the show it turns out to have been filmed in Canada. Gzuckier 14:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm American and can tell all the accents apart (Kiwis from Aussies, Canucks from Yanks etc.). However, I lived in Australia for over a year and can often tell regional accents apart quite well too (Adelaide vs. Sydney vs. Cairns). That being said, I'd say the reason why the "average" American can't spot the differences is simple exposure. Most Americans will never leave America or have a passport. Additionally, our pop-culture representations of the various accents is often off (with Australians playing Americans, Americans playing Brits, and Canadians playing South Africans -- to varying degrees of success). The best example of this is the "accent" of the guy in the Outback Steakhouse commercials in the states -- I've never heard anyone anywhere talk like him. Moreover, the typical northern Queensland-like accent (and to a lesser extent a central "outback"-like accent) is almost the only version of an Australia accent represented in our media (think Crocodile Dundee, Steve Irwin etc.). So when an American that thinks all Australians sound like Steve Irwin, hears someone from say Adelaide, then they often can't place the accent and default it to British. --Cody.Pope 14:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're spot on, Cody. An example of this regarded as a classic over here, is Dick van Dyke's ridiculously awful attempt at a Cockney accent in Mary Poppins. Just laughable. As an aside, a comedian I once saw at London's Comedy Store, did a routine about how Sean Connery never plays Scots, making a living playing Englishmen (e.g. James Bond, or King Richard I) and sometimes Irishmen (e.g. in The Untouchables). Then imagine - one day his agent calls and says "Sean, I've landed you a role in a film about medieval Scotland!" "Really?" "Yes. You'll play a Spanish nobleman! --Dweller 15:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And wasn't he really ancient Egyptian? Corvus cornix 16:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but his current pseudonym at the time was Ramirez. -Czmtzc 19:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As to the original question, I think the reason why British and Australian accents sound similar to American ears is that they have a major common feature: the absence of an American accent. I have heard that to British ears, American and Australian accents sound similar: this would be because they both involve the absence of a British accent. What specific phonological features might be involved, I can't say. --Anonymous, August 2, 2007, 21:40 (UTC).

I had a friend from Texas who hated her accent and overlaid it with phony British. She has been mistaken for Australian. —Tamfang 00:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm English and don't have a bad ear for accents. I have no trouble spotting Canadians, South Africans, Barbadians, and even the broad variations between the US regions, but I do have trouble separating Australians and New Zealanders.

With Australian English, the variations in pronunciations between that and what we could call BBC English are no greater than between BBC English and most UK regional dialects (several of which are regularly heard on TV in the US), and on the whole Australian turns of phrase are much nearer to English English than to American English. So if some Americans think Aussie is an English accent, it doesn't surprise me.

I can't agree with Anonymous that there is such a thing as a 'British accent'. Would anyone from the UK use that term? I wouldn't, myself. Xn4 01:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hell,no! There's a difference between a Salfordian accent and a Mancunian one and they are neighbouring cities.hotclaws 08:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, it seems that many Americans use the words British and English as if they were interchangeable, and intuitively pick the word that is incorrect for the context in which they use it. Thus they might describe Gordon Brown as the prime minister of "England", before going on to suggest that he has a "British accent".

Put simply, to talk about a "British accent" is nonsense. People from Britain have English, Scottish, Welsh etc accents. Anyone who can't distinguish between the accent of someone from Kirkcaldy and the accent of someone from Truro would probably think an Australian accent was "British" too. 64.236.80.62 10:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There, see? --Anon, August 3, 21:16 (UTC).

Actually, to Australian ears, often, when Americans try to do an Australian accent, it sounds like Cockney, which might be what the questioner means by an 'English accent'. I think it's indicative of how many working class Londoners were transported here as convicts. Adambrowne666 12:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the Cockney is most similar to the Australian accent, although certainly not the same. But with Dick Van Dyke and Bart vs. Australia as references no wonder the Yanks can't tell the difference. Incidentally, I can't tell Canadian from American unless they say aboot (which I learned from the South Park movie) and sometimes they sound a bit Irish. To tell New Zealanders from Aussies I need to hear the i sound (e.g. fish and chips vs fush and chups), but they do sound similar. Maybe it's my experience but there seems more variation between regional British accents than in other Anglophone countries. Compare Scouse, Brummy, Geordie, Mcncunian, Cockney, West Country and Yorkshire (and many many more) not to mention all of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland! Cyta 09:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Part of it may also be that folks in the U.S. don't often hear Australian and English accents side-by-side, and it's difficult to make the comparison. I'm certain that if I were to hear an Australian person and an English person conversing with each other, I could tell the difference; but to hear them individually a day apart might be more difficult. It's just because we don't have the experience in identifying such accents. (On the other hand, I can easily tell by an accent where in the U.S. someone is from, probably because I'm more familiar with them. It's easy to distinguish accents from Texas, Boston, California, the Midwest, Pennsylvania, etc. And I've noticed different Canadian accents that I assume are regional, but I don't have the experience to know what region is what.) — Michael J 11:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an afterthought, whilst generally this discussion has been very good at not saiying english when you mean british, do we know that james bond was english? any reason why he couldn't be scottish?welsh? northern irish?

Non-Surety Bond

Definition of "Surety Bond" is here, but read an article with a "Non-Surety Bond" and cannot make sense of it without the proper legal definition... --Binkywright 13:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An explanation can be found here. Not being familiar with the notion, I can't guarantee its correctness. Furthermore, the precise meaning may be jurisdiction-dependent. --Lambiam 22:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

to play catchup

In the letter I came across such phrase: "I'm playing catchup here". What does it mean?--Seaweed71 14:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It means you're having to "catch up" with other people - like for example if they know something you don't. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 14:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The metaphor is of people running, one falling behind and needing to catch up. —Tamfang 01:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of English

When a judge finally disposed a case, what is the right expression: disposed off, or disposed of?

Disposed of, although personally I am not familiar with the term - is it a legal term to signify the end of a case? --Richardrj ^talk ^email 15:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a general English term. The meaning of "to dispose of an issue" is: "to deal with the issue" – in a conclusive way, so that no further dealing will be needed. A quote from the Nebraska Administrative Code: The Hearing Officer disposes of any pending motions, petitions or stipulations and other matters that need to be dealt with before evidence is taken. --Lambiam 17:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All that needs adding to this is that in the systems of common law, disposing of a matter isn't in itself final or conclusive, as most decisions are subject to appeal, within whatever time limits may apply. This is sometimes true even of interlocutory decisions. Xn4 21:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drop that idiom!

Is the term "butterfingers" used in British English? For the record, that would be used for someone who is prone to dropping things, and I want to use an adjectival form in an email I'm sending to a friend in Birmingham (e.g. "should be safe from butterfingered neighbors.") --LarryMac | Talk 15:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but those who are buttefingered are neighbours. — Gareth Hughes 15:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the writer is American, he would drop the 'u' even if he is writing to an English friend. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 15:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will parenthesize the u, to make a colo(u)rful statement. :-) --LarryMac | Talk 15:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free dictionary for download

Is there a free dictionary of the english language available for download in a readily accessible database format (e.g. excel, access)? And if not, why? Who owns my language!

Nobody may own the language, but dictionaries are original and copyrighted works, so it would not be surprising if they weren't available for free download. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 16:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's at least one dictionary which has lapsed into the public domain which has been scanned and OCR'd, although I've lost track of it. I'm sure google would turn something up without too much effort. 65.91.98.102 21:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try the Compact Oxford English Dictionary online here. Xn4 02:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

65.91.98.102, I had done some googling before wasting wikipedia helpdeskians time, but was using the wrong search terms: "free" and "dictionary" weren't getting me anywhere. Thanks to your post, I have searched for "public domain dictionary" and have found what I was looking for (see [1]). I suggest that a link to this is put on the dictionary page as this is a useful resource.

As far as I am aware, no one can copyright any definition of a genuine word in a dictionary. The trick they use to catch plagiarists is to include made up words, the definitions of which are copyrighted. When someone dumps the whole text of the dictionary somewhere, the extra word is included as a sneaky little legal virus (or trojan horse if you prefer), and they get into loads of trouble. Same with maps - they include a bogus country. So I've read. 203.221.126.206 15:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other open/free dictionaries and word lists:

Our own multilingual Wiktionary
Grady Ward's "moby lexicon"
The Princeton WordNet [2]
The Project Gutenberg 1913 Webster's Unabridged
The Project Gutenberg Roget's Thesaurus
A /usr/dict/words-style list based on the 1934 Webster's Second International

—Steve Summit (talk) 01:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The trick words 203.221 refers to are fictitious entries (in maps they are known as trap streets), although they can't actually be used to prove copyright infringement in court, at least in the US (see Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service). Laïka 20:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to pronounce, but I did it

Hi. I was reading the guiness book of world records, and I saw a list of the longest word in 14 languages. I parcticed saying each word many times, then started recording the time on a stopwatch, until I got the fastest time. I'm not sure if there are any world or local records for fast speech of certain long words, and I doubt I broke any of them, but here is a list of words, their language, and the fastest time I recorded of me saying them without making errors (although likely I said them with a heavy accent). Here goes:

Japanese: chinchinmogamaga (transliterated): 0.5 secs
Castilian: superextraordinarísimo: 0.82 secs
French: anticonstitutionellement: 0.84 secs
Italian: precipitevolissimevolmente: 1 secs
Portuguese: inconstitucionalissimamente: 1.03 secs
Icelandic: hæcstaréttarmalaflutinsmaður (the o accent actually looks like a slightly bent cross): 1.03 secs
Russian: ryentgyenoelyektrokardiografichyeskogo (transliterated): 1.5 secs
German: Rechtsschutzversicherungsgesellschaften: 1.5 secs
Hungarian: megszentségtelenithetetlenségeskedéseitekért: 2.07 secs
English: pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcano-coniosis: 1.69 secs
Dutch: kindercarnavalsoptochtvoorbereidingswerkzaamheden: 1.62 secs
Danish: speciallægepraksisplanlægningsstabiliseringsperiode: 1.96 secs
Welsh: llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch: 1.9 secs
Finnish: lentokonesuihkuturbiinimootoriapumekaanikkoliupseerioppilas: 2.84 secs
Swedish: nordöstersjökustartilleriflygspaningssimulatoranläggningsmaterielunderhållsuppföljningssystemdiskussionsinläggsförberedelse-arbeten: 5.28 secs.

So, if there are any records for quick pronounciation of these words, did any of my times come close? What does a test to see how quickly one can say words in a given language tell you about the participant? how quickly, in theory, would the world's fastest speaker say each of these words? Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 16:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Icelandic word should be "hæstaréttarmálaflutningsmaður". The letter you find hard to recognize is eth. As for your questions, I have no idea. I doubt there are recorded or well-defined records for this. Haukur 19:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The dutch and swedish words also contain minor mistakes, (dutch: ...bereidings... and swedish: ...spanings...) and I wonder how on earth you can pronounce these words without knowing these languages and their rules for pronunciation??? Lova Falk 12:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just fixed the words you mentioned and the letter eth. Since they are very long, it it easy to make typing mistakes. Basically, I just guessed how to pronounce them, and I realise I may have made a few mistakes because I might not have looked over some of the words hard enough. I also memorised a few of them, although likely still with a heavy incorrect accent. How fast do you think an average person could say them in a way they think is correct? Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 15:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you guess the pronunciation of this place name, and how long does it take you? Xn4 22:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh: Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch

Bwa ha ha. Some of us speak (some) Welsh. I actually have a song with that place name memorized. I can pronounce it accurately in about 2 seconds (I don't have a stopwatch, so I can't be exact). The Jade Knight 22:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the Russian word, all the ys indicate palatalization of the preceding consonant; they don't have a vowel sound. The g near the end is spelled as g but pronounced as a v. --Reuben 22:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I tried to look at the word and figure out a pronounciation, but it made my eyes hurt (mainly because it was on a computer, and I didn't wan't to print it). So, I went to the article (which you linked), and looked at the englishicisediversionatriously written form with the conveinient hyphens so my eyes don't hurt as much. It look around 15-20 minutes to learn the pronounciation, which is about the same amount of time it took to memorise the approximate pronounciation of the other words around this length. Part of the time was spent trying to look for a stopwatch, but I couldn't find it 8-[|= . So, I decided to use a digital clock. I estimate that the fastest time on that word was around 1.85 - 1.95 secs. In fact, once I learn the pronounciation of a long word, I seem to remember it. For example, without even looking, I'll try to type out the approximate spelling of the long swedish word (without accents because they may cause memory loss and eye damage because I would have to scroll up all over and look at the word that I've typed thourougly). Here goes: nordosterjokustartillerifygspanningssimulatoranlaggningsmaterielunderhallsuppfoljningssystemdiskussionsinlagsforberedelse-arbeten. So, how did I do? (Is it possible to use speech and memory tests like this to detect IQ, personality, diet, etc?) Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 23:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can pronounce "inconstitucionalissimamente" in about half a second. Keep practicing. :-) Hús ö nd 03:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Yes, but that's because you just happen to be Pt-n, en-n, sv-2, and ru-2, and I just happen to be en-4 and fr-1, so I can't really pronounce all of them that well, as can you. Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 14:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1.85 seconds for Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch is acceptable. Your picture is now on the Welsh flag. Xn4 21:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis is misspelled too. You're missing an "l" in the "volcano" part near the end. Mike Dillon 22:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Oops, How did I miss that? Anyway, I found the stopwatch this time, and without actually looking at the spelling or the pronounciation this time, the welsh word took 1.9 sec or so at the fastest, and where did you get my picture?! Also, I can now actually memorise the approximate pronounciation and spelling of practically all of these words. Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 16:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, good job on pursuing this, but I suggest you do a little more research before launching off so ambitiously. "ð" is nothing like "ò", and Swedes, especially (nothing against), will thrash you if you mess "å" with "ä"! ALTON .ıl 21:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I updated the times, fixed a spelling error, and tried to pronounce them more accurately. Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 22:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes instead of Da in a Russian movie

I just finished watching the Russian movie Night Watch and noticed that the English word "Yes" was used instead of Russian (twice in the scene where the boy Yegor asks his mom about vampires). Is it common for "Yes" to replace "Da" ? Is it perhaps used to indicate the family's origins, or maybe something else? TresÁrboles 19:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, we do not say yes instead of da in Russia. I think it has something to do with the nationality of the family. But we usually say yes if we want to show that we are very glad and satisfied with something. So, if you learn somethng pleasant, you say Yes!

Is it possible they were saying "Есть" (yest’) and it just sounded like "Yes" to you? —Angr 21:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate on why this is likely: if Yegor asked "Mama, do vampires really exist?" and she answered "Yes", she might well have used the Russian word есть (yest'). In this context, the word means "there exists", in the sense of "Do vampires really exist?" "They exist." Tesseran 00:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably it -- a happy coincidence "they exist" in Russian sounds like "Yes". I uploaded a (fair-use I believe -- delete if not) small audio sample so the context can be checked. The English subtitles were:

(Yegor) Mom...

(Irina, talking to someone on the phone) You can't?

(Yegor) Mom? Are vampires real?

(Irina) Yes, Yegor.

(Irina) They're little boys who suck the life out of their parents. TresÁrboles 01:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is есть used in plural as well as singular? —Tamfang 01:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amusing detail: I wrote the above question in MSIE on Windows, and the т looked like m; now I see it in Firefox on MacOS, and it's a slanted T. —Tamfang 08:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Russian hand-written lower-case "T" does indeed look like "m," and that can be reflected in script/Italic typefaces. Not always, though. They're both variants of the same letter. --Reuben 21:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I knew that. Tamfang 04:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Yes. It's interesting to note that yest' is a cognate of English is and Latin est: Indo-European copula. Not obvious whether it's also a cognate of yes: [3] --Reuben 02:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is true of modern Russian, but originally there were different forms of the verb for all the different conjugations, including different forms for plurals (there is a list at Indo-European copula#Slavic languages). I don't know if these would even be understood by your average Russian speaker today. Tesseran 20:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's also used to express possession, like we would use "have" in English. So if Yegor asked "Do you have a pen?" the answer might also be yest'. --Reuben 00:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for completeness, here's the transcription of that audio sample:

(Егор) Мам...

(Ирина) Вы не можете?

(Егор) А вампиры есть?

(Ирина) Есть, Егор.

(Ирина) Это трусливые мальчишки, которые пьют кровь своих родителей.

q:ru:Ночной дозор (фильм) --tyomitch 18:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polish: ryńskich

What is the literal meaning of the word ryńskich, which occurs on XIXth century Austrian banknotes (like this 500 Gulden banknote from 1806)? It stands for the denomination of the banknote, but Gulden is złoty in Polish as far as I know. Timur lenk 20:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the term. Rynek means "market" which sounds like the root of the word, if that's the case "ryńskich" would literally be the possesive form of the noun, as in "of the market", which makes sense I suppose to use as a word for currency. Googling the term, it looks like in other places the word is actually used with złotych, as in złotych ryńskich, golden currency. My Polish is probably only about as good as a 10 year old's, so I could be completely wrong. Vespine 23:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably you're close to the solution: an 1866 one Gulden bill says (on its reverse, lower right hand side corner): Jeden złoty reński. Złoty must stand for Gulden, the currency name, not for gold, since the Austrian Gulden (Gulden österreichische Währung) was a silver-standard currency (however both złoty and Gulden means golden and designated a type of golden coin originally). The denomination is indicated in 9 languages on this bill, but only the Polish version has three words, that's why ryńskich or reński is interesting. The Czech version says Jeden zlaty on the same note, while the Ukrainian says (roughly) Оден реньскіи which also contains rensky. Timur lenk 00:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it's a "Rhenish zloty": [4]. There may have been a few different kinds of zloty at the same time, since Poland was partitioned several times, and I think this was to clarify which kind was meant. --Reuben 01:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe than "ryńskich" is an old spelling – or simply a misspelling – of "reńskich" which would be short for "złotych reńskich" or "Rhine guilders" (in genitive). — Kpalion^(talk) 08:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a hamlet in Poland called Ryńskie as well as a large Ryńskie Lake – which might be the source of the (mis)spelling. --Lambiam 17:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the hamlet and the lake are connected with the banknote but it is etymologically connected to the Rhine. The name Ryńskie comes from the nearby Ryn castle built in the 14th century by the Teutonic Knights. The local landscape probably reminded them of the Rhine valley and hence the name which was later Polonized into Ryn. — Kpalion^(talk) 12:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The translation problem seems to be solved. I still don't see why the Austrian florin (Gulden österreichische Währung) is called Rhine guider (ryńskich/reński złoty) in Polish (and the other language that uses the cyrillic alphabet). Any idea? Timur lenk 08:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article [5] (unfortunatly in Polish but the pictures are interesting) after 1857 in Galicia the old name of the Austo-Hungarian currency was kept. Why it was done is not explained. Mieciu K 18:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slimeball

If we say that a person is a slimeball, what does it mean?

It means we see him or her as "a despicable or disgusting person". ---Sluzzelin talk 20:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]