Language desk
< May 9	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 11 >

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.

May 10

Math vs. Maths

In the US we say "Math" but in Britain it's "Maths". Why?

I read that if you ask an American whether mathematics is a single thing or plural they'll say it's single ("Mathematics is fun" not "Mathematics are fun"). But in England they think of mathematics as plural (well, it does end with an "s"...)

So why? And is it a plural noun or singular noun? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.8.220 (talk) 03:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics (the discipline) is shortened to "stats" everywhere. Despite the "s", it's a singular noun, like physics, demographics etc. On the other hand, a "stat" is a number - also a singular noun. Britain and some other countries apply the same logic to mathematics, which becomes "maths". Why the Americans call it "math", when they don't talk of studying "stat" - well, you'd have to ask them. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a native speaker of American English, I have taken plenty of "stat". I also say "stats" sometimes. Although I can't account for the distinction, I can tell you that, "how is stat going?" means "how is (your) statistics course?" whereas "how are the stats going?" means "how are the statistics (describing your latest experiment or whatever)?" 134.96.105.72 (talk) 12:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And while 'mathematics' was originally plural, it has been a mass noun for well over a century, even in England. Algebraist 08:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes -- 'mathematics' is definitely a singular in British English -- I've never heard anyone use it as a plural in any dialect of English, in fact. Dricherby (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Mathematics" first occurs in 1573. "Math" enters the language about 1847; "maths" followed in 1911. - Nunh-huh 11:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Urdu

what would be the translation or suitable word for urdu "Naa cheez; (means somehwat like unworthy) IN ENGLISH. this urdu word is used to express humbleness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.128.4.231 (talk) 05:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I once answered this question. Go to [1]. --Omidinist (talk) 11:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Table(au)

What's the difference between the French words "table" and "tableau"? Both of those words are French for "table". —Preceding unsigned comment added by IntfictExpert (talk • contribs) 13:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary might be helpful: wikt:table and wikt:tableau. Algebraist 15:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dialogue question

In the sentence "Have a good time, kiddo?" Should 'kiddo' be capitalized? It's a father talking to his son. And, yes, his nickname for his son is 'kid' or 'kiddo' (pronounced like kid-oh, in case this slang doesn't cross international language boundaries). Dismas|^(talk) 13:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's just an ordinary noun used in the place of a proper noun. Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 13:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree unless it's the case where kiddo has essentially become a "used-name" in place of his given one. If he always refers to his son that way, it would literally become a nickname subject to capitalization, rather than a simple term of endearment, which would not. The name for something is what you call it, so if he calls his son kiddo, then that could be his name. Up next: I show that "I see what I eat" is the same as "I eat what I see." :-) Matt Deres (talk) 14:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Dismas|^(talk) 15:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a different dialogue, however, namely Kill Bill, it would be capitalized, because the character's last name is actually Kiddo. (There, I suppose I've ruined the surprise.) Adam Bishop (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Singular of Rice Krispies

I have a box of Rice Krispies breakfast cereal. If one of these puffed rice grains falls out of the box, would I call it a Rice Krispie? Mr Beans Backside (talk) 14:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. There's a product called Rice Krispie treat, so the singular has become that even if it's not an official word. :) PeterSymonds | talk 14:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might also be spelled Rice Krispy if it is one. (Looks odd, though.) --71.236.23.111 (talk) 17:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cereals names are interesting to play with: There is only one Weetabick left in the box! --Lgriot (talk) 21:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this area is ripe for research. The Australian equivalent of Weetabix is Weet-Bix. It's obviously meant to sound like a plural word (wheat-bicks), yet I never think of a single one as a "weet-bick". I heard an English woman on TV the other day talking about a single "weetabick", and I have to say it sounded extraordinarily naff and embarrassing. Extreme forms of torture could not force me to utter such a word from my lips. We also have Jatz and Clix crackers (what! no articles?), but nobody talks of a single "Jat" or a single "Click" - it's always "This Jatz (or Clix) has cheese (or whatever) on it". But then, I never have just one Clix. I usually stop at 159. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 22:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up question: would a single Twix bar be a twig or a twick? But anyway, while this is all just the result of product-naming and marketing departments wanting to be clever, the fact that there are plural words without an accompanying singular form is in itself not that unusual: you probably would not say you have a single scissor after your cutting tool broke in half, and the same goes for glasses, pants and a score of other things that usually come in pairs. -- Ferkelparade π 17:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even staying with breakfast cereals, we can have a bowl of oats. I'd be surprised if a single bit is an "oat". On the other hand, a person who engaged in licentious activity prior to marriage, but only with one other person, could be said to have "sowed his/her wild oat", I suppose. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 23:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, our article about Avena sativa is called Oat (Oats is just a redirect there), and I would definitely refer to a single one of the objects on the right as "an oat". More jocularly, I would also refer to a single grain of rice as a "rouse". Ferkelparade, your German influence is showing: a single Twix couldn't be a "twig" because we don't have final devoicing in English. /twIgz/ is quite distinct from /twIks/. —An gr 07:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree on the oat. That's like furniture. You have to add a "count word" (forgot the proper term for those, memory's developing gaps allover the place :-). A "grain of oat" would be my guess. I think the grasses go with "a grain of". Corn doesn't that's "a kernel of". Lisa4edit (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it's officially "Rice Krispies Treats" (see [2], [3]), presumably to prevent it becoming a genericized trademark. --Sean 13:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Un stockage dans

Quel est le sens de "un stockage dans la saumure", de cette article dans le Wikipedia francais: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feta --Bowlhover (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it seems pretty obvious to me: Feta is stored in "saumure" which is water with high concentration of salt. But maybe I am missing something. --21:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lgriot (talk • contribs)

OK, thanks. I was confused as to whether the meaning is "a stock [of feta] in brine or "a stock in [of] brine." --Bowlhover (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish verb "castrar" with "birthday" as the object

The article Deborah Secco contains a very strange mistranslation, but I can't tell what the actual word should be. The Spanish version of the article says: Ella castra de cumpleaños (27 años) de Playboy (la edición brasileña), en agosto de 2002. This got translated into the English version as "She castrates of birthday (27 years) of Playboy (Brazilian edition), in August of 2002."

My Spanish-English dictionary gives the following translations for "castrar": ZOOL. "to castrate, geld, fix"; FIG. "to emasculate"; HORT. "to prune"; MED. "to dry up (sores or wounds)". None of these sound like they could take "cumpleaños" ("birthday") as the object. Does anyone have a better translation? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The birthday goes with Playboy and would thus be the 27th anniversary (party/edition) of the Brazilian Playboy. As to what she did, sorry, no clue. It might be like "cleaned out" or something. --71.236.23.111 (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At first I thought it was vandalism, but it was there in the oldest version of the article. It even occurs twice, meaning it's unlikely to be a typo either. The de separating the verb from cumpleaños is weird to. I'm trying think of some verb X that fits semantically into "She X's of birthday/anniversary (27 years) of Playboy (Brazilian edition), in August 2002", but I'm not having much luck. —An gr 17:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like the translation to English, the sentence is grammatically incorrect in Spanish (whatever verb you use). My guess is that it's a mistranslation from Portuguese, since the verb castrar isn't commonly used for much else than the act of emasculation. That sub-section isn't on the Portuguese Wiki article though. Bottom line, it makes no sense to a Spanish speaker (like me). Kreachure (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we all misunderstood the tragical sufferings of the barely dressed folks depicted in the pages of the above mentioned literary aid for manual dexterity?

Maybe the media mogul behind the periodical has, in diligent and surgical precision, accumulated rows and stacks of fomaldehyde filled jam jars on the many mantle pieces of his marbelled fire places as a diabolical memorial to the pre-operative magnificence of the centrefolded post-emasculated castrati?

--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I better go ask on the Spanish Wikipedia reference desk before you come up with any more ideas along those lines. ;-) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence was written by 201.67.230.210, an unregistered user apparently based in Montevideo, Uruguay, who created the page on 23 February 2007. His or her only other edit of the Spanish Wikipedia took place about one minute later. On the same day, the same user made this quite clumsy edit to the English Wikipedia. However, if we look here we find that this IP address has so far made no edits of the Portuguese Wikipedia. I suspect castra is just a typo which has puzzled all readers ever since and defied correction. Xn4 15:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good news. I think I figured it out thanks to Xn4's comments. I looked at 201.67.230.210's version of the article and I noticed some other awkward phrasings -- such as saying that Secco played a "zapato del maria-fútbol" (shoe of maria-soccer) in a soap opera. The article also began "El Deborah Fialho Secco ..." (The Deborah Fialho Secco ...) which is incorrect (personal names aren't normally preceded by the word "the" in Spanish either). This suggested that 201.67.230.210 had used an automatic translator to translate the then-existing Portuguese version of the article. That version said, "Capa de aniversário (27 anos) da Playboy, Agosto de 2002." "Capa" is a Portuguese word meaning, among other things, "cover", but it also is a form of the Spanish verb (possibly a Portuguese verb as well), "capar". "Capar" also means "to castrate" (probably from the same source as the English word "capon"). So the phrase should probably be interpreted as "Cover of the 27th anniversary of Playboy, August 2002", but "capa" was mistranslated as a verb meaning "she castrates" rather than a noun meaning "cover". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And Secco's "zapato del maria-fútbol" character on a soap opera was in Portuguese a "pt:maria-chuteira" which seems to mean something like a "soccer groupie" but literally translates as "Maria-soccer shoe". In short, this article seems to have incorporated some mechanically translated language which will have to be cleaned up by reference to the original Portuguese version to see what it meant. I didn't realize this earlier because the language from which this material derived is no longer included in the current Portuguese version of the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, Metropolitan! By the way, there are other translation problems in the Spanish article, like proponer instead of posar. Looks like a bad translation of English pose. Pallida Mors 22:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of this Poem

Please Someone tell me what this poem means.

The Prophet - Abraham Cowley

Teach me to Love? go teach thy self more wit; I am chief Professor of it. Teach craft to Scots, and thrift to Jews, Teach boldness to the Stews; In tyrants courts teach supple flattery, Teach Jesuits, that have traveled far, to Lye. Teach fire to burn and Winds to blow. Teach restless Fountains how to flow, Teach the dull earth, fixt, to abide, Teach Woman-kind inconstancy and Pride. See if your diligence here will useful prove; But, pr'ithee, teach not me to love.

The God of Love, if such a thing there be, May learn to love from me, He who does boast that he has bin, In every Heart since Adams sin, I'll lay my Life, nay Mistress on't, that's more; I'll teach him things he never knew before; I'll teach him a receipt to make Words that weep, and Tears that speak, I'll teach him Sighs, like those in death, At which the Souls go out too with the breath; Still the Soul stays, yet still does from me run; As Light and Heat does with the Sun.

'Tis I who Love's Columbus am; 'tis I, Who must new Worlds in it descry; Rich Worlds, that yield of Treasure more, than that has been known before, And yet like his (I fear) my fate must be, To find them out for others; not for Me. Me Times to come, I know it, shall Loves last and greatest prophet call. But, ah, what's that, if she refuse, To hear the whole doctrines of my Muse? If to my share the Prophets fate must come; Hereafter fame, here Martyrdome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.211.80 (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would love to help, but that's a bit difficult not knowing what your level of English is and where your problems with comprehension are. I assume that you are not looking for an interpretation, since you didn't post this in Humanities, but rather in languages. Not knowing what level you are at, makes explaining it a bit cumbersome. The first bit, for example is a fragment of an ironic question "Do you want to teach me to Love?" which then translates to a statement as "I don't think you are qualified to teach me to love and I don't think I need to be taught. As you can see this could get rather lengthy. --Lisa4edit (talk) 22:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wikiboxes: prescriptivism versus descriptivism

Has anyone got a fancy wikibox about prescriptivism and descriptivism? I mean in the linguistics meaning of this words of course. --Lgriot (talk) 21:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by wikibox? A userbox? I can't find one at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Grammar, but you could make one. —An gr 22:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, yes I did mean a userbox. I'll look into making one. --Lgriot (talk) 06:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where should I put the adverb?

What's better, and what's illegal (if any)?

has clearly been stated.
has been clearly stated.
has been stated clearly.

HOOTmag (talk) 22:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what concept you're trying to express. In the first one, "clearly" means "obviously, patently". "X has clearly been stated" could be re-written as "Clearly, X has been stated", meaning "It is obvious that, or nobody doubts that, X has been stated" (as opposed to some Y that hasn't been stated, or not everyone agrees has been stated). Whether X has been stated clearly (as opposed to incomprehensibly) is another matter. So you could say "X has clearly been clearly stated" and "X has clearly been incomprehensibly stated". The latter 2 refer to the clarity with which X has been stated; the last one emphasises the clarity a little more than the middle one, but they're close to synonymous in meaning if not quite in nuance. Is that clear? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, clear enough, because of the ambiguity of "clearly", but what about: "has slowly been pouring the wine"? HOOTmag (talk) 22:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it depends on context. If you've been asked to fill 100 wine glasses with wine, you could do it quickly, without interruptions, or you could take a break after every 5th glass and take all day to do it. Even if each glass is filled as quickly as can be managed without spilling any of the wine, the whole process might be slow. In that scenario, "has slowly been pouring the wine" would fit. But if you're taking a minute to fill each glass, then "has been pouring the wine slowly" would fit better. That would apply even if there were only one glass. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What if we replace "slowly" by "happily"? Are you really sure that "has happily been doing it..." is always possible? Shouldn't one prefer: "has been doing it happily"? HOOTmag (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Has, happily, been doing..." doesn't necessarily mean that the person performing the action is happy about it, but that the person saying the sentence is happy that the person is doing it. If that makes sense. :) Corvus cornix_talk 21:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, so let's sum up: "He has X-ly been Y-ing", means: "X-ly, he has been Y-ing", while: "He has been X-ly Y-ing" means: "He has been Y-ing X-ly". right? if that's right, then what do you think about JackofOz's previous analysis concerning "He has slowly been pouring the wine"? HOOTmag (talk) 21:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corvus's example introduced a new factor, the parenthetical adverb. There's a big difference between "Marvin has happily been pouring the wine" and "Marvin has, happily, been pouring the wine". Case A means Marvin is happy about what he's doing, while Case B means the speaker is happy about what Marvin is doing. If your summation works (and I'm not sure it always works), it could only apply to non-parenthetical adverbs. In many (perhaps most) cases, you can't isolate the adverb to the front followed by the comma without losing the sense. It then becomes a comment on the speaker's attitude to the behaviour rather than a description of the behaviour itself. Your original question just happened to be an example where the sense doesn't change by repositioning the adverb. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So let's ignore "Marvin has, happily, been pouring the wine", and let's refer to "Marvin has happily been pouring the wine", i.e. without commas, versus: "Marvin has been happily pouring the wine". So what's better (if any)? HOOTmag (talk) 07:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say there's no difference in the essential meanings. The first version gives a slightly stronger emphasis to the "happily" part, but it's line-ball. There's nothing wrong with the 2nd version, but I'd generally prefer the 1st version - purely for stylistic reasons, though, not grammatical. Others may see something more significantly different between them. Come on comrades, there's a party going on here and you're all cordially invited. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thankxs. HOOTmag (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both a strength and a weakness

It occurs to me that despite the prevalance of scenarios where something is both a strength and a weakness (in art and life), there doesn't seem to be an English word for the idea. Is there one and I just don't know it? If not, is there an acceptable foreign term that is substituted/fills the role (I'm looking at you, German!)? Thanks for any answers. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 23:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "both a strength and a weakness"? Would you like to give some scenarios (in art or life etc.)? I'm sure it may help us. Eliko (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dimly remember that this was a thread about a month ago, but I can´t find it right now. I try to find the link tomorrow. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 00:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's a real life one: Blair's "conviction politics" described as strength and weakness, and as for art at the moment I can't think of a good example, but I mean situations where the reason for a protagonist's rise later becomes the reason for his fall. Macbeth's ambition comes to mind but I'm not sure it entirely fits. Something like trust could be both strength and weakness. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 00:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While not a word, the first thing that comes to mind is "double-edged sword", as in something that can be both beneficial and harmful to the one involved with it. The second thing that comes to mind is "bittersweet", as in nice and uncomfortable at the same time. But perhaps a better word describing the situation you describe is out there (and I just can't quite put my finger on it...) Kreachure (talk) 02:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The thread Cookatoo is looking for is here[4]. Julia Rossi (talk) 02:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the thread briefly, either I overlooked it or "mixed blessing" is missing. I would consider that to describe something that is something positive that has its drawbacks.--71.236.23.111 (talk) 04:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, not a word, but a verse in the bible: Psalms, 7, 15-16. Eliko (talk) 08:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The previous threads on this, both here and at the miscellaneous desk, were started by me. No real answers then, either, alas. :/ Couldn't even find anything in a non-English language. --Masamage ♫ 05:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a native German speaker I have been racking my brain for a local equivalent (because I thought / think there is one). The closest I can find is Achilles' heel / Achillesferse which, however, pinpoints the weakness in an otherwise strong system. It is not, per se, ambivalent.

Update: The best German term is may be Zwiespältigkeit which defines this contradicting schizoid ambivalence. I can't think of a precise translation, but maybe other volunteers (Sluzzelin, Dr Ferkel, Angr, Dorftrottel et al) find a proper term. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 14:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really what you are looking for, but closely related is "ambivalence", defined as the coexistence within an individual of positive and negative feelings toward something, simultaneously drawing that person in opposite directions.--Eriastrum (talk) 15:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what I would consider a mixed blessing to be. So what am I missing here? --71.236.23.111 (talk) 22:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, I realise this is a bit late, but I'd compltely forgotten about this question until I wrote the phrase in an essay a few minutes ago. Turns out that the semantic turn that lead to the development of epistemic contextualism is both a strength and a weakness. I think I'll use double-edged sword (although I thought all swords had two edges...) Thanks for all your answers, I like zwiespältigkeit best but as no-one has elucidatedon whether it actually applies I'm little afraid to use it. But I knew it would be German. Thanks again.--Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 06:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]