Language desk
< July 17	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 19 >

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.

July 18

Is the following sentence grammatically correct?

During epidemics, quarantine is a common prophylactic measure. --Bowlhover (talk) 07:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine to me. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 08:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's acceptable, also. Gary King (talk) 08:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The grammar is fine, but you might want to reconsider the use of the word "prophylactic". While correct, many people may think it means a condom, and thus be confused. I suggest "preventative" instead, which conveys the same meaning but is understood by a wider audience. (Note that there are some people who would argue that you should use the most complicated words possible in any given situation. While this may be true if your goal is to impress people with your genius, or perhaps to humiliate those with a lesser knowledge of English, I consider being understood by all to be the more important goal.) StuRat (talk) 15:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No wish for a war but I think the word 'prophylaxis' can safely stand. It is used in this context in its original sense, preventative. The word prophylaxis has been recently hijacked as almost a euphemism for 'prevention of pregnancy and catching of STDs' and has taken on a sort of exclusivity in this sense. I reckon a wider use of the word - as occasioned here - would help to highlight its original, or at least an alternative, meaning. Additionally we must respect the author's way of expressing himself, he originally asked if the sentence is correct, and indeed it is, although there may be alternative ways of expressing the idea. Richard Avery (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many people are stupid, don't dumb yourself down for perceptual ignorance, in fact people dumb enough to think you are referring to a condom are too stupid to wear them and will likely die from some horrible disease.^MY♥_INchile 01:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to figure out how semantics works. --Kjoonlee 02:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, do they still call them prophylactics? Certainly when I was young, they had to be referred to as prophylactics rather than contraceptives, because contraception was in many places illegal. "Sold for the prevention of disease only", said the machines. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive term

I came across the term "picaninny light" which is obviously derived from pickaninny. Does anyone know what the term means? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 08:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that's the correct phrase? It only returns two hits on Google. Gary King (talk) 08:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The OEDgives "Piccaninny: Very small; tiny, baby. spec. piccaninny dawn, piccaninny daylight (chiefly Austral.), earliest dawn, first light."--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I forgot to mention that I found it in a book by Alan John (Jock) Marshall.

CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 16:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Picaninny (day)light is an Australian term meaning first light. It is probably dervived from the defintion of piccaninny "very young" thus "very young light" The OED does not list this term as obsolete so it is believable that you will find newer works with the term being used. Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 16:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Piccaninny" is understood as a reference to a young indigenous Australian, but I can tell you it is never used these days (at least not in the circles I move in). I've never heard or seen the term "piccaninny (day)light" before now. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piccaninny daylight is a term still used by my extended family and friends around Sydney, Australia, but perhaps they are outdoors people. One can barely see piccaninny daylight in urban areas. It is a wonderful time of day if one is sailing, hiking or well away from city lights. It refers to the period when the sky just begins to lighten, when night starts to turn into day. I understood from my grandparents that in the 1890s aborigines taught them this concept. Piccaninnies were their toddlers, so piccaninny daylight is the infant stage of day. The term piccaninny was used affectionately, never offensively in my experience.

i think what they mean't was someone that was very wattered down black, whos parents may be seens as piccaninies.^MY♥_INchile 01:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all who replied. Mirriam-Websters 3rd (Webster's Dictionary#Webster's Third New International Dictionary) has "picaninny" but not "picaninny light" and does not say that the word would be considered offensive. It also indicates that the word can refer to "otter brown" or "loutre". I went and got the book back from the airport and checked the date. It's the 1966 Sun Books edition but was originally published in 1962 and does not appear to indicate when they made their trip. It was Marshall who used the term and does not appear to be quoting anybody. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 08:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piccaninny has several definitions. The orginal really was "a black child" and probably developed as a Caribbean pidgin word; from there it developed more broader meanings. However in this case look at what Shantavira and I noted those are the definitions being used here. Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 20:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A little more information - picaninny is (probably) derived from Portuguese pequeninho. The word is common to both Caribbean and Pacific pidgins and creoles. 130.56.65.24 (talk) 00:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Britic/britic

Should the article Britic be presented as lowercase? In britic, the name is apparently not capitalised, however I can see no reason in English as to why a title/name such as this would not be capitalised having read WP:MOS, Wikipedia:MOSCAPS#Mixed_or_non-capitalization, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) etc. When used mid-sentence, obviously it will not be capitalised, however as a title and as the encyclopedia is written in English, should the title of the page not be Britic (capitalised)? Cheers Nouse4aname (talk) 09:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be capitalized, considering that the iPhone, which is branded in non-caps, is spelt like that on Wikipedia, and since britic is marketed without a capital letter, this should also be reflected. MinYinChao (talk) 09:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be capitalised. iPhone is only allowed the lower case i because it has a capital as its second letter. MoS is clear on the subject For proper names and trademarks that are given in mixed or non-capitalization by their owners (such as k.d. lang, adidas and others), follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules.

Nouse4aname you can make article start with a capital by removing the {{lowercase}} tag at the top of the article. - X201 (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, per an issue raised on the talkpage, britic now has a capital as its second letter, placing it in exactly the same position as iPhone. MinYinChao (talk) 09:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, just noticed. All but one of the stylised ʀ 's will have to go though, the first one is allowed to show the normal trademarked representation of the name but all other occurrences of it should be in standard lettering i.e. bRitic. - X201 (talk) 10:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. MinYinChao (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cleanliness is next to godliness

can u tell me about the proverb cleanliness is next to godliness in about 100 words 122.167.50.37 (talk) 13:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia will not do your homework. Stifle (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try asking Google (especially the http://phrases.org.uk link). Don't copy-and-paste it, your teacher will find out :-P ; take the information and write it in your own words. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 13:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've always found that "cleanliness is next to impossible". :-) StuRat (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's deep. ;-) -LambaJan (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For that matter, so is godliness. That's why they're next to each other. —An gr 18:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No go ahead and copy and paste it i'm sure you won't get caught! turning in plagiarism is better than not turning in anything at all, just switch around some of the words and throw in a sentence or two that you have written yourself, poorly.^MY♥_INchile 01:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even better, paste it into Word and use the inbuilt thesaurus to blindly change words without bothering to pick words you're familiar with. Thesauruses pick synonyms, right? 79.66.90.252 (talk) 08:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What planet are you folks on? We draw the line at doing homework (fair enough), but we're quite happy to volunteer ideas on how to cheat (or, to put it in its best possible reframe: to get away with doing as little actual thinking or actual work as possible)? Come on. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This thread seems to have been on planet sarcasm for a while now. Algebraist 11:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<sarcasm>Yeah sarcasm is really helpful. The Refdesk has certainly equipped the OP with all the tools necessary to do his/her homework.</sarcasm>Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The idea being that it is really bad advice to follow if you actually want to avoid trouble. Sorry if that wasn't clear. 79.66.90.252 (talk) 19:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck it, here it is in 190-somthing words:

From time to time we have come to encounter the term, "Cleanliness is close to godliness", but what does this truly mean? To explain what truly embodies this idiom both "god" and "clean" must be defined and agreed upon by the target demographic. For example, god must be defined as something other than a higher power for an atheist and similarly an individual with habits resembling that of a filthy swine must be defferenciated from an obsessive-compulsed "neat freak". Once this has been done it must be determined why people veneterate their higher philsophical beliefs and how this may translate to organizational abilities and sucess. Cleanliness is though of as close to godliness or godessliness since in the Arbamaic religion's "god" "allah" and "yahwe" (respectively Christian, Muslim, and Jewish names for the same deity) their supreme being is infallable. Therefore since cleanliness is seen as ideal, and something typically accomplished by a perfectionist, god would naturally be clean due his inherant infallability. People wish to be clean for logical health reasons but are seen as aspiring to a higher purpose when they excel at it due to this religious undertone.

for the lazy at heart.^MY♥_INchile 23:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking to form a plurality...

Resolved

– StuRat (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the plural of noria ? The caption for the pic in that article seems to just use "noria" as the plural, while the caption on the same pic in our article on Hama, renowned for having more than one noria, uses "norias". Are both correct or does one of our articles need a fix ? StuRat (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Noria, its origin is in Spanish, from Aramaic nā’urā, Aramaic n’ar "to shake, roar"; Semitic root נער (n’r). So looks like "noria" is singular, and I'd give it a Spanish-style plural, which I think just works out as "norias". --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 16:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The OED lists this as the earist reference to noria in English "1696 P. AYRES Revengeful Mistress 24 Their usual Recreation in the Evenings, was..to view the Norias or admirable Water-works, with which the Spaniards industriously water their Gardens, or supply their Fountains" Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all, it looks like it's "norias". I see the caption in question has already been fixed. StuRat (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another random French question ...

A few weeks ago, I asked a couple of questions about French, and the folks who responded were very helpful. So, thanks for that, first of all!

Now I have another random French question ... I've been practicing my French by watching various French shows/movies. One thing I've heard a couple of times is when person A is trying to get person B to stop doing something, if person B doesn't stop, person A will emphatically say, "J'ai dit stop!" (literally, "I said stop!"). I found it a little odd that a French speaker would slip into English to make a point or a demand more emphatically ... What's up with that? Is it common for French speakers to slip into English (or other languages) to make a point? I suppose English speakers do stuff like that occasionally, but it just struck me as odd that it would be done at a moment of heightened emotional tension; I'd think one would prefer to stick with one's native tongue in those situations.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts ... Dgcopter (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say they're not so much slipping into English as using an English loanword while speaking French. It gives what you have to say a certain je ne sais quoi, n'est-ce pas? —An gr 18:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe "stop!" is a french exclaimation. My french is a little rusty but this might help French Wikitionary Stop Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the dictionary articles are enlightening ... according to the definition there, "stop" in French refers exclusively to mechanical things. The stop signs in France apparently say "stop", which makes sense in that context. Although, apparently the Québecois also have "Arrêt" on their signs. The definition of "stopper" (the verb form) seems to indicate that it's only used in reference to machines (trains and boats are provided as exmaples). Very interesting ... Dgcopter (talk) 19:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the shows do you know if they are using "stop" or "stoppe" (a form of stopper)? Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 19:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's a good point ... I imagine it would be "stoppe", since that would be imperative, wouldn't it? Dgcopter (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The homophone changes things a bit; possibly since stopper means to "stop motion" (of a vechile), it could be used to mean to stop motion of a person. I don't know enough french to tell you more. Best of luck Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been kind of amused lately watching a German soap opera and find it funny how they slip into and out of English. There was one scene where there were two guys arguing over a girl, and she found out about it and yelled at them to stop, and one of them said, "Sorry" and the other said "Enschuldegung". I'd love some insight into when and how someone chooses to use English when it isn't their native language, and they're conversing in their native language. Corvus cornix_talk 23:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you should bear in mind that just because they use a word that sounds like English and means the same thing as it does in English, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are using English as such -- it's entirely possible that they are using a loanword or engaging in slang. In Finnish slang, for example, it's common to say "sori" instead of "anteeksi" when you're apologizing for something minor. It comes from English, of course, but no one considers it an English word in that context, or really even associates it with any language other than Finnish. "Sori" and "sorry" are pretty much two different words, even though they are pronounced just about the same way and mean the same thing. English does much of the same thing, of course -- words like "sauna" (from Finnish), "entrepreneur" (from French), "calamari" (from Italian) and "aficionado" (from Spanish) are used in daily speech by people who speak English and aren't considered to be foreign words, even though their origins are in other languages. It's just the way languages grow and develop over time. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 01:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo. :) --Kjoonlee 02:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese use 'stop', too, specifically when a mother is talking to a naughty child. This probably caught on through spending most of the day pickling their brains on mindless childrens' TV programs where English is chic. --ChokinBako (talk) 11:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bah. :( --Kjoonlee 07:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop has been introduced in French probably a century ago and is now fully part of the French language. Road signs spelt "Stop" are all over the country. --Lgriot (talk) 02:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First use of Stop in French in 1792 as an interjection. The verb stopper was first introduced as navy slang and thus refers refers more to the end of a movement whereas arrêter refers to the end of a process, but there significant overlapse in everyday french. For example, at a "Stop" road sign, a french car marque l'arrêt ! Something like english to stop and to halt. 88.178.189.194 (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

German questions

1) Could someone explain why "Mir ist kalt" is more proper than "Ich bin kalt"?

2) Could someone explain the use of the article "dem" in simple terms that a layman can understand?

thanks Dismas|^(talk) 18:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) Because you're describing how something feels to you, not a property of your body. You can say "Ich bin kalt", but then it means that the surface temperature of your skin is cold, not that you feel cold. (Okay, the two phenomena often go hand in hand, but it's still a distinction.) "Ich bin kalt" can also mean emotionally cold. 2) Well, it's the dative singular form of the article in the masculine and neuter. You use it before masculine and neuter singular nouns anywhere the dative case is called for: after prepositions that take the dative, with indirect objects (Ich gab dem Jungen das Buch = "I gave the boy the book"), and in other expressions that take the dative (e.g. Dem Mann ist kalt = "The man is (i.e. feels) cold". —An gr 18:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that the confusing bit in "Mir ist kalt" / "Dem Mann ist kalt" is the absence of a subject / nominative case in the syntax. Angr may explain if it is an implied or expletive subject (I am not a multilinguist), as it occurs in "It rains". Basically the full sentence reads "ES ist mir kalt", where "ES" is the implied subject, translated to "It feels cold to me". The objective "to me" is then rendered in the dative and the useless subject "es" is dropped.

Kind regards to the chap on your right (or was it the left?) Always look at the bright side of, well, whatever --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The English word "methinks" is a remnant of a similar phrase construction in earlier English... AnonMoos (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article about the quirky subject. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the responses. I think I get it. Although "Mir ist kalt" sounds to me as if I'm saying "Me is cold" which doesn't make grammatical sense in modern English. Thanks again, Dismas|^(talk) 17:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This helps me, maybe it will help you, too: dative case implies motion toward the object. "I gave the boy the book: --> I gave the book TO the boy." The same in German: "Mir ist kalt --> TO ME [it] is cold." You can also use this mental crutch backwards. If you're trying to figure out if something ought to be dative or accusative, try to rephrase it with a "TO" in it. If works, it's indirect, and thus dative. --Danh, 70.59.115.205 (talk) 23:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never heard the term "quirky subject" until now, but I suppose this is the same as the more technical "ethic dative", isn't it? Adam Bishop (talk) 01:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sago palm

how often do you water sago palm trees? --71.136.63.234 (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know, we're the language desk. You might ask at the science desk or the the miscellaneous desk. —An gr 18:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll answer here and someone who knows how can move the question if they want. There are two kinds of plants called Sago. The more common houseplant known as a Sago Palm is actually a cycad, Cycas revoluta, which requires "sandy, well-drained soil". I have one that I water approximately every week in the summer (northern USA, outdoors), and every two weeks in the winter (indoors). The other plant is the actual Sago Palm, Metroxylon sagu, which doesn't seem to be a common houseplant, and which our article doesn't have any mention of water requirements. jeffjon (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try this website for care Cycas revoluta - "KING SAGO PALM TREE". Watering is about halfway through the article (just under a picture of a guy in a yellow shirt) Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you answer questions in the wrong desks, aren't you motivating people to just ask wherever they feel like instead of asking where they're supposed to? Kreachure (talk) 20:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teaching people a lesson is a lower priority than helping them out by answering questions. It would have been fine to move the question, but willfully ignoring it because the questioner made a mistake would not. -Elmer Clark (talk) 01:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC) here[reply]