Language desk
< February 21	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 23 >

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.

February 22

Citing the OED on Wikipedia

Does anyone know how to cite the OED in a WP article? None of the standard templates seem right. Of course, the OED is the ultimate authority, so if I ran WP <ref>OED</ref> would be sufficient to end all debate! (O.E.D could be used in place of Q.E.D. perhaps?) Anyway, I use the online edition, so the 2nd Ed publishing details are not appropriate, but the webpage link is inadequate since it is subscriber (furthermore, it is through my local library's website, so not the OED itself). The answer's probably obvious, so please feel free to smile smugly and tell I'm an idiot (as long as you give me an answer)! Gwinva (talk) 01:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since there have been no other suggestions, I think it would be fine to put simply "OED online edition" together with the access date. I imagine the bulk of the entries online are still the same as the 2nd edition, so if you know they are the same, reference to the 2nd edition might be simpler. Also you might find a recommended format for citation somewhere on the OED website.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the reference list at American and British English spelling differences, there seems to be a variety of ways of citing the OED being used, including simply "Oxford English Dictionary, [word]", or, even simpler, "OED, [word]". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I normally do basically as Shantavira said. example If it's not 2nd edition material, I will cite the draft revision date and date retrieved. example But don't forget to include the name of the entry you are citing, including the part of speech, if it is part of the title. Dforest (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. The examples are helpful. I just didn't like to think I was missing something obvious. (I did look on the OED website, but couldn't find any "how to cite this" kind of advice; which doesn't mean it's not there, of course!) Gwinva (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shall English now divide?

It has become evident that the English language is too complex (or bastardized) to compete in the 21st century. Shall we draw a division between the international English and the traditional English? When was the zenith? Was it the Elizabethan age, or the 19th. century?LShecut2nd (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compete with what? Support your contention. Corvus cornix_talk 02:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

znith rite b4 txt msging lol HYENASTE 04:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ceiling cat approves of this message.hotclaws 23:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And evident to whom? What is the evidence? SaundersW (talk) 09:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This question reminds me of this comedic Norwegian sketch of the Danish language (warning: there's some swearing; and let's be clear that the movie is a joke; Danes really can understand each other just fine). English is a living, evolving language (or more accurately, a complex web of living, evolving dialects), but it hasn't evolved to the point where, say, Shakespeare is unintelligible to the average adult English speaker. --Diacritic (talk) 09:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the pronunciation of Shakespeare's time was different enough that mutual intelligibility would be lower than we often perceive it to be because we spell words similarly. The "bastardization" or complexity of English has its roots in the Norman Conquest of 1066 with the introduction of many French loanwords. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 11:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that the Old English Language is very different than modern English; most people cannot understand it hardly at all; Middle English is better, but still very different. We still call them English, even though they are very different, even with grammar, than modern English (which actually includes Shakespeare). Old English, for awhile, actuallly even used an entirely different runic alphabet. --Falconus^{p t c} 11:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is "the" international English and what is "the" traditional English? If the former involves using improper grammar, such as adding extra "the"s, then no. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I live in the U.S., in an area where English is competing with Spanish. Signs abound in corrupt English. In competing for a job that interfaces with all slices of the public, such as public school teacher or bank teller, one's chances of being hired are greater if you speak Spanish. International English would be the English devoid of obscure words and most idioms. If you want to be understood in foreign contries, you had better avoid idioms. Even in my neighborhood, if I said "his dream was realized" instead of "his dream came true," I would not be understood. When working in the financial district of New York City, I had to often dumb-down the spoken language. The Japanese make up "English" words that confound native speakers here. The traditional English would be the English used on Wikipedia and most printed matter in the English-speaking world. All in all, it was a late-night thought meant to provoke a response.LShecut2nd (talk) 14:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, maybe what we need is simply a phonetic spelling of the language and better schooling, by those who love the subject. (But we haven't even gone metric! So a revised spelling would be most difficult.)LShecut2nd (talk) 14:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore Roosevelt tried to introduce phonetic spelling. Despite his charisma, that didn't go over too well. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relax guys and gals. Your position as guardians of the language (Cura Linguae?) is secure. I wrote the article under the influence of the grape: fermented/bitter. I was celebrating having finished the final on-screen edit of a book that has cost me many years of work and on which I will lose a few thousand dollars taken from a dwindling 401(k). I enjoyed a large bottle of Cabernet Sauvignon and channel surfed, then settled into Beethoven's Piano Concerto No. 5, op. 73 performed by Friedrich Gulda and the Munich Philharmonic Orchestra. Later I got on the Internet. The sour grapes (O rabbia!) is a result of the fact that my work will do very poor in sales because, as one person put it, it's not airport reading. The reading public can not deal with the long sentences of the nineteenth century, which often require great attention. Only those who enjoy reading books of nineteenth-century travel will get involved in the book. It will not reach a new "audience." Look at what subjects sell best: murder/fame & fortune/sex/religious self-improvement. Most are printed with a large font with large leading to make the book appear worth its price. I enjoy Agatha Christie, but the common use of murder as entertainment strikes me as distasteful. As far as fame and fortune (I do play the lotto: "three dollar quickpick on the Mega") But Robin Leach's (sp?) "exclusive" means "no" to me and probably you. I clean multi-million-dollar apartments of rich people. They can be just as miserable as any human. Reading about sex is like a hungry man reading a menu without the means to order. And the religous fluff that's out there! People seem to know the mind of God. Forget poor Jesus, he wants you to be rich, rich, rich. They are often written by tele-evangelists. Well there. Mea Culpa, mea culpa. (No hail-Mary's, I was brought up Southern Baptist.) Anyway, many thanks to the Wikipedia contributors. Your knowledge made research much easier. I guess I've vented my spleen. Now I have to put my Polly to bed.LShecut2nd (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your tastes for Friedrich Gulda and short sentences do not seem to be connected. Xn4 02:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was tempted to delete the entry altogether, but thought that would violate the spirit of comraderie. I therefore wanted to keep my "confession" short and dashed off some sentences after returning from work, before preparing supper. You must be a Gulda fan. When I first saw a DVD of him performing, I thought the dynamics were too "contrasty." Later I recognized my own prejudices: the performance was so relaxed and unorthodox. I should hope that one could express his thoughts here without eliciting school-marmish attempts at humiliation. I also enjoy Italian (Verdi mostly) and French opera (DVD's these days). My sound system is not up to a level that I can play Bach or French organ music (so neglected these days). One advantage of living in a Dominican neighborhood is that you can play your music loud without anyone complaining. I never go beyond 10 P.M., though the neighborhood-parties can go on 'til 5 A.M.LShecut2nd (talk) 13:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Curious, suspicious and trying

These words can all be used in ambiguous ways. Without a context:

"He is a curious person" could mean: (a) he is interested in things, inquisitive, etc (he's the one exhibiting curiosity); or (b) he intrigues others or appears strange, odd, different, to them (others are exhibiting curiosity about him)
"She is a suspicious person" could mean: (c) she distrusts people without good reason, she's paranoid, etc (she's the one doing the suspecting); or (d) she's acting in some inappropriate way and perhaps should be brought to the attention of the authorities (others are doing the suspecting, about her)
"I'm trying" could mean: (e) I am endeavouring, striving, working towards a goal (used as a verb); or (f) I irritate, frustrate or test people, as in "trying their patience" (used as an adjective, based on a verb).

Obviously these are all the stuff of puns, which usually rely on ambiguity for their humour value - but is there a name for this particular type of usage where an adjective used attributively, apparently about a certain person, may in fact turn out to refer to other people (first 2 examples), or an apparent verb may turn out to be a gerund (3rd example)? I'm sure there are other examples. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm. Interesting question. If the ambiguity's been done deliberately for effect, then I'd say it's a double entendre. Other than that, I don't know of a specific term - "ambiguous homonymy", perhaps? Grutness...wha? 07:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These examples don't quite fit (because they're not quite opposites), but there is auto-antonym. Bovlb (talk) 04:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the third (trying) could be considered a homonym, if not an auto-antonym, but the first two are neither: the word has the same meaning, just attributed to different subjects. "Ambiguous" sums it up! Context helps: "He was a nervous and suspicious person" shows it is his characteristic; "She was an intriguing and rather suspicious person" suggests the judgement of the writer. The ambiguity of the simple phrase should cause a careful writer to choose an alternative phrasing: "She acted suspiciously at times"; "His behaviour seemed suspicious"; "She exhibited much suspicion of others.." etc. Gwinva (talk) 22:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the "suspicious" example Jack; I've always reacted to the police-speak about "suspicious cars" or "suspicious activities" by asking, "Of whom were the cars suspicious?" or "What did the activities suspect?"

I think that "suspicious" should only be used to describe an entity experiencing the sensation of suspicion, i.e. doing the suspecting. The adjective for the object of suspicion, I believe, should be "suspect" (It can also serve as a noun: The suspect was..); the adverb describing behaviour attracting suspicion should be "suspectly". E.g. "He was behaving suspectly."

So, here's a template for usage:

"The suspicious suspectors suspiciously suspected the suspects who were suspectly engaging in suspect behaviour."

Retarius | Talk 04:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retarius, I suspect we should become close friends. I've often had precisely, exactly that very same identical reaction (to tautologise wildly in a failed attempt to match yours). Yes, "police-speak" - a whole new world. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This minor laxity is benign compared to the practice of applying the word suspect both to the unknown person who did the crime ("Two suspects robbed the Kwik-E-Mart this morning") and to the known person accused of the crime. —Tamfang (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now, that's a new one to me. ("Do you mean to say, officer, that 2 people who were observed robbing the store are actually suspected of having robbed the store? What wonderful advances are being made in police technology".) -- JackofOz (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The peasants are revolting!" "I'll say." —Tamfang (talk) 02:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Language ramen

When I was in Japan eating ramen. I think I remember asking for more ramen by saying "kaidama", does anyone know anything about this. I order 1 bowl of ramen, finished my ramen and said "kaidama" and they gave me some more noddles which I put into my existing bowl.

Can anyone confirm this? My memory is not what it used to be. 122.107.226.136 (talk) 10:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kaedama, maybe? --Kjoonlee 13:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that sounds right. Also, the generic word used for a second helping, e.g. of rice, is okawari. So I believe you could say either. Kaedama would literally mean a second "ball" of noodles. Dforest (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twice Time

Am I correct in suggesting that the phrase "twice times the amount" is incorrect English. I believe it should be either "two times the amount" or "twice the amount" but that combining twice and times is, basically, bad English. (I know from a 'sense' perspective it is readable) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to all. "Twice" is usual, but "two times the amount" will probably be better sometimes. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And "twice" means "two times". Twice times = two times². It's a tautology. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So it is. And when has that stood in the way of language's natural propensity to change?

I very much suspect that it comes from the days when children were expected to learn to recite their (multiplication tables): 'three times two is six, three times three is nine', etc, but 'twice two is four, twice three is six'. In particular, these were conflated in 'twice times table' (which gets quite a few google hits). --ColinFine (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it's relevant to the topic, but imo it was a backward step when children were no longer required to learn their tables this way. Learn them early, and you've got them in your head for life. I've done some maths tutoring for secondary students, and it's a distraction when we have to sit and talk about 12x11=132 before we can get to the topic at hand, which is usually more like calculus, trig or matrices. (End of mini-rant.) -- JackofOz (talk) 02:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When were children no longer required to learn them like this? They stopped doing the 11 and 12 before my time (although I still learnt them), but I thought they still did the others. Of course, many people are bad at remembering them... We did times tables, and were tested on them weekly, from about age 7 to 12, and still people forget them. 79.74.27.178 (talk) 14:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be surprised (or maybe not) at the number of university students I get who can't even write their numbers properly... Whatever happened to the standard of kindergarten education? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're on the language page ... PalaceGuard008 and ColinFine, why are you calling this a "tautology"? Is that really the correct word? A tautology is an uncontroverted statement that is always true. No? In this case ("twice times") would more accurately be described as redundancy or duplicity ... but not as a tautology ... no? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 10:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Maybe the disambiguation page for Tautology will provide your answer:

“

Tautology can refer to:

Tautology (logic), a statement of propositional logic which holds for all truth values of its atomic propositions
Tautology (rhetoric), use of redundant language

”

- IMSoP (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

See also pleonasm. (Stamp out "N-year anniversary"!) —Tamfang (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph, I don't think "duplicity" quite works here. That word suggests an intention to deceive. It has a separate meaning in law, but not to my knowledge in linguistics. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

arabic

what's the difference betwwen the letters ظ and ذ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etaicq (talk • contribs) 22:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at Arabic language#Consonants? There is a description of what distinguishes 'emphatic' consonants such as ~~dhal~~ za (oops). --ColinFine (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult for non-natives to tell the difference without practice. ظ is pronounced further back and harder than ذ, which is like the 'th' in "this" (in Classical Arabic). In some dialects they are pronounced "Za" (again, harder and further back), and "za", like the typical english "z" sound. Wrad (talk) 00:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that we have individual articles for Semitic letters - Ẓāʼ and Ḏāl in this case. I learned how to pronounce the emphatic letters by cupping my tongue and pulling it down to the bottom of my mouth, if that makes any sense. Emphatic letters also change the quality of the surrounding vowels (compare the different vowels in "that" and "tall"), although that's just an accident (my Arabic prof always denied that the vowels were pronounced differently!) They are definitely distinct letters - for example, Ẓafar means victory, and Ḏafar means stench. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess a non-native speaker can only distinguish Ẓafar from Ḏafar by the quality of the first vowel, and if that vowel happens to be kasra, not fatHa, the two words would just sound the same to a non-native speaker. It's really curious that your Arabic prof denied that the vowels were pronounced differently, at least for the fatHa.--K.C. Tang (talk) 18:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think I worded that badly...he meant that it is still fatHa, not a different, fourth, vowel. Since he was a professional linguist he could have told us it changes because of the place of articulation of the previous consonant, but most of the class would have stared at him blankly if he had said that. (One day he had to explain what a noun was.) Adam Bishop (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]