Language desk
< October 4	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 6 >

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.

October 5

Number of speakers of any second language

most spoken second languages in the world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.58.190 (talk) 01:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can find that by substracting the numbers given in List of languages by number of native speakers from the numbers given in List of languages by total number of speakers --Lgriot (talk) 02:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cashing some Travellers Cheques in Korea.

Hi. I'm in South Korea for the next few weeks and I've run out of cash, so now the time has come to cash some of my travellers cheques. Unfortunately, my Korean is terrible and I can't find any of the right vocabulary on the internet, (I don't know how to say travellers cheques, for instance). So if any Korean speakers could help me out by providing a few bits of sample dialogue about how such a transaction would occur so I can memorise before heading to the bank. I can just about read hangul, but I'd prefer if it was written out in latin characters. Gamsa hamnida! Ninebucks (talk) 04:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Traveller's check is called 여행자수표 (yeohaengja supyo IPA: [jʌhɛŋtɕa supʰjo]), but for foreigners, there are clerks able to speak English to assist them in any big bank such as KEB. If you need more help from me, well, I think I need more time to search for necessary information on that. Look at this English webpage. [1] --Caspian blue (talk) 14:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The clerks at currency exchange places are used to visitors who don't speak any languages they (the clerks) know. It's enough to just show them a travellers' check and indicate that you want to cash it. The clerks often do speak some english but even if they don't, they carry out this type of transaction a zillion times a day and you can really get by without speaking a single word of english or korean. 67.117.147.133 (talk) 08:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

End of meeting - adjourned/dissolution

If I am writing the minutes for a meeting and the meeting ends, do I write the time that the meeting "adjourned", or is that only a break? Does it make a difference whether the meeting could not properly finish due to a lack of time and a new meeting must be scheduled to discuss matters still on the agenda? According to my dictionary "dissolution" is the "termination of a meeting". Would that be used when the meeting comes to proper conclusion (such that the next meeting is scheduled, say, a full month afterwards)? --Seans Potato Business 09:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's mostly a function of whether you're talking about meeting of a long-running committee (which e.g. meets weekly). For such a long-running entity, it is empanelled (or convened) at the start of its run, meets several times (with adjournments between meetings), and is finally dissolved. It gets a tad more complex for things like a US Congress, where one dissolved congress is followed by an election and the seating of a new congress (with the same purpose and most of the same people); but it's still thought of as being an essentially new body. If your meeting is a one-off (these same people or their surrogates will never meet for this same reason again) then "concluded" seems reasonable; dissolved seems unnecessary, as it wasn't integrated long enough to require disintegration. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, the American Heritage Dictionary (for example) says adjourned means "To suspend until a later stated time". So if you're never going to resume, it's not an adjournment. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some organizations have adopted "rules of order" that cover meeting procedures, including minutiae such as whether meetings adjourn, prorogue, fade away, etc. If your organization has such rules it is a good idea to try to follow them. However in my experience most people neither know nor care. Wanderer57 (talk) 01:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Going along with Finlay McWalter, in the U.S. Congress, the final session of each term (Congresses have two terms since under the Constitution they must meet at least once each year) adjourns sine die -- without a (set) day to reconvene, though most often that's pronounced "sine-y dye." It's a misnomer, since each House has a pretty good idea of the date for the start of the next session. If your meeting isn't likely to have a successor, or to have one soon, you could simply say it ended. Or concluded, if you need more syllables. --- OtherDave (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed

In Australian English, when starting a sentence with 'indeed' is it the convention to use a comma after it? E.g. Indeed, had John told Mary about the spider in her hat, it is highly unlikely, given Mary's arachnophobia, that she would have put it on. --Fir0002 11:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, yes. It's parenthetical in nature, meaning it could be safely omitted without changing the meaning of the sentence. Therefore, it must be set off by commas. You could re-write it as: If, indeed, John had told Mary about ..., and it becomes even clearer why commas are required. -- JackofOz (talk) 18:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I consider this to be sentence adverb and not an interjection. These (ie sentence adverbs) can be placed at the beginning of the sentence, at the end or medially and - in all cases - need to be separated from the subsequent / preceding sentence / fragment by a comma.

As JoO may point out to the chef in a famous misquote, "Frank, my dear, I don´t give a damn!" --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not when you say 'If John had indeed told Mary about...'. I think in this case it implies that John is insisting that he had told Mary, whereas, 'If John had, indeed, told Mary about...,' would mean the same as the sentences in the above examples. Or am I, indeed, making a false distinction here?--ChokinBako (talk) 13:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, you are not. That's a very useful distinction indeed. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, I'll be using "Indeed,...." as and "If..." doesn't fit in with the preceding paragraph (and no I'm not writing about John and Mary or spiders - that sentence mirrors the one I'm actually working with!) --Fir0002 22:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

kind of abbreviation

Hi,

In the Netherlands we have a thing called APK (Algemene Periodieke Keuring), a periodic test for cars etc to check if they're safe and in such state that they're allowed on the road. Anyway, people call this the 'APK Keuring', not the 'AP Keuring' or 'the APK'.

I was wondering if there is a name for this kind of abbreviation, where the last word is repeated...Sealedinskin (talk) 12:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RAS syndrome is the name used for it. It's a form of redundancy (language). Fribbler (talk) 13:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "the" name; it's one example of a joke name for it. As the article says, there are many joke names; I don't think there's any serious name. --Anonymous, 23:43 UTC, October 5, 2008.

Like PIN number, PIN stands for 'Personal Identification Number'. Slightly related, a park near my house in Japan is called '森林公園パーク' (shinrin kouen park), where 'kouen' means 'park'. Incidentally, 'shinrin' is composed of two characters, both of which mean 'forest' (albeit of different sizes, combined in this way to mean 'forest of any size'), so the name means 'Forest Forest Park Park'!--ChokinBako (talk) 14:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And then there are redundant semi-translations, such as Loch Lomond Lake, outside Saint John, New Brunswick. And the Avon River that runs through Shakepeare's birthplace. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ultimate is supposedly Torpenhow Hill (but people have questioned the accuracy of the claim, see the article talk page). AnonMoos (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget the Rio Grande River! —An gr 18:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the same problem with Avon River or River Avon. Does anyone call it the "River Avon River"? "Avon" by itself could mean lots of things. We say "Stratford-on-Avon", which is understood to refer to the town of Stratford situated on the Avon River. But when referring to the river alone, the word "River" is not out of place. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that "Avon", or "Afon" to give its modern spelling, means "river" in Welsh, which would have been spoken (or its ancestor) in that area before the English arrived, so "River Avon" is "River River". -- Arwel Parry _(talk) 22:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Thank you for that enlightenment. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining -- I was being allusive, which is not very encyclopedic of me. (I thought the oppression of the Celts by the English was well-known in Australia!) BrainyBabe (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is, Brainy Babe. But that doesn't mean that I know every word of every Celtic language, or, indeed, any word of any Celtic language. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Och aye the noo. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The La Brea Tar Pits, in which, "la brea" in Spanish means "the tar", therefore we get "the the tar tar pits". Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intriguingly, the UK equivalent of that test seems to have undergone the opposite process: originally an "MOT test", where the MOT stood for the "Ministry of Transport", it is now commonly referred to simply as an "MOT" - possibly because people assume the "T" is for "test". (The ministry, meanwhile, has become the Department for Transport, so the acronym is "unclaimed", as it were.) - IMSoP (talk) 20:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

etymological fallacy might give some perspective; as might analyzability if it existed. jnestorius^(talk) 23:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is a term for it. Tautology! And, there's also a list of tautological place names. Poechalkdust (talk) 11:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Never Ceases to Amaze Me, henceforthe WNCTAM. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese question

This was found on the Japanese Wikipedia at ja:SNC.

東京でダンスの楽しみを広げようとしている任意団体の１つ。→SNC (ダンス)

I don't understand any Japanese, and the wikilink on the Japanese Wikipedia is a redlink, so it can't provide any context for me to figure out what it is about. What does the above mean? 195.197.240.134 (talk) 15:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It says that the group in question is 'one of the volunteer groups who are trying to spread the fun of dance in Tokyo'.--ChokinBako (talk) 15:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be referring to this group.--ChokinBako (talk) 15:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plural of "man’s man"

My mother always told me I should be a man’s man, meaning one engaged in manly pursuits and having a manly demeanour. Little did she realise in which direction she was unwittingly pushing me. That aside, I was wondering if there’s any such thing as a plural of "man’s man". We can talk about a number of "ladies men" (or is it "ladies’ men"?), but what about 2 x "man’s man"? Scenario: Woman says "I’m sick of all these effete and sexually ambiguous metrosexuals. What I want in my life is a man’s man. Ah, here come two _____ now". Would it be "man’s men" or "men’s men"? Or "Men men"? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say men's men. Gwinva (talk) 22:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I would say man's men with the first man being more of an adjective. Grsz ^X 23:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"are men's men": about 530 googlehits; "are man's men": 17 googlehits. Vox populi, vox dei jnestorius^(talk) 23:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but "a men's man": about 199 hits. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary says men's men but it gives a conflicting plural of lady's man as lady's men. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The spelling lady's man seems to defeat the purpose of the expression, which is about a man who has "associations" with many ladies. He's interested in playing the field, and not being committed to any one woman. Even a supposedly committed married man who remains a ladies man is unfaithful, or at least flirts, with not just one other woman. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay but what would you call a lady associated with several men? A men lady or a men's lady? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Odd. How come there's no equivalent expression? I'd spell it "men's lady" (cf. my query in my question re "ladies man" vs. "ladies' man"). -- JackofOz (talk) 07:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If forced to choose, I'd also go with that. It's also odd that I prefer the possesive in that case but not the other. Does it tell me something about my character? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of several words for ladies associated with several gentlemen, but alas they are not very pleasant. As a way to twist the sexism, it is salutary to remember that blondes may also prefer gentlemen. (Not sure if Anthony Burgess originated the phrase.) BrainyBabe (talk) 20:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Loos made it famous, but I can't say whether she actually coined it. Those other unpleasant expressions are normally used, but I can imagine a writer wanting to use "ladies man" and "men's lady" together: "Unfortunately for the marriage, Gerald was a ladies man. But the fault was not all his. Little did he realise, until it was far too late, that Felicity was a man's lady". -- JackofOz (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did she codify the stereotype of the Loos woman? —Tamfang (talk) 15:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the improbability of the woman being able to identify a man's man on sight, I'd fill in the blank with "of them" or "such men". When faced with a mongoose problem, I prefer to find a way to avoid it completely. --LarryMac | Talk 19:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Such an avoidance of my question is ... well, avoiding my question. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gentleman's gentleman

There's a similar issue with "gentleman's gentleman", a way of describing a butler or a valet. Would two such persons be "gentleman's gentlemen", or "gentlemen's gentlemen"? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that would depend on if the two men in question are employed by the same man, or whether they do not have the same employer? -- Captain Disdain (talk) 01:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On further reflection, that's stupid. Sorry. That's just false logic; the words "gentleman's gentleman" don't refer to a specific gentleman, but it's rather a job title. I mean, you could be an unemployed butler, but that wouldn't make you a nobody's gentleman. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 09:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The inimitable Jeeves belonged to the Ganymede, a club for (IIRC) "gentlemen's gentlemen". If P.G. Wodehouse is not a sufficient arbitor of this little niggle, I don't know who could be. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That settles is as far as I'm concerned. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wodehouse is not infallible in matters of language; though naturally I have no examples at my fingertips. —Tamfang (talk) 14:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any writer who can put such gems into the mouth of Jeeves as "Does his Lordship wish to partake of some acquatic disportment?" is infallible for my money. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]