Language desk
< March 19	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 21 >

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.

March 20

Power Builder 6.5 and 8.0.4 Problem.

Hi,

Is privious version require for installing Power Builder 6 or 6.5 version? Can I call 16 bit application through Power Builder 8.0.4?

Awaiting for your reply

Thanks & Regards,

Rajesh Singh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raja muz (talk • contribs) 10:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably looking for Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing. — Emil J. 12:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phonetic XML schema

I have need to query for phonetic data within an application. Is there a standard or common XML schema for representing phonetic data? A quick idea of what I am looking for would be...

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<Data>
  <Consonant>
    <Place>bilabial</Place>
    <Manner>plosive</Manner>
    <Voice>no</Voice>
    <Character>p</Character>
  <!-- ... -->
  <Vowel>
    <Height>close</Height>
    <Backness>front</Backness>
    <Rounded>no</Rounded>
    <Character>i</Character>
  </Vowel>
  <!-- ... -->
</Data>

Of course this model is too simple to cover everything. If a standard solution already exists, then I would rather use it than reinvent the wheel. Thanks, Bendono (talk) 12:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some googling on Scholar gives something useful at first glance, which references ISO TC37 SC WG1-1.; maybe you should approach the authors directly:
Nancy Ide; Laurent Romary; Eric de la Clergerie. "International Standard for a Linguistic Annotation Framework" (PDF). {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help). Take it on from there... No such user (talk) 14:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That draft does not seem to have been completed, nor is it clear on what exactly it would cover. In any case, I created a custom format sufficient for my needs. Bendono (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two and two

which one correct and why 1:- Two and two make four 2:- Two and two makes four —Preceding unsigned comment added by True path finder (talk • contribs) 17:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're very subtlely different - hence, both are correct in their context - but almost so subtle that it escapes my capacity to explain it very well. But I'll give it a go:

If you're talking about abstract numbers in a mathematical context, it would be "2 + 2 = 4", which would be spoken as "Two plus two equals four", because it's referring to the number 4 (which is singular in itself) rather than 4 objects (which would be plural). "Equals" could be replaced with makes.
If it's in a practical context where you're gathering things together or counting them to see how many of them you have, it might go something like "Ok, Fred, you've got two and I've got two, and two and two make four, so we have enough between us to get the job done". It's make here because the two "two"s are short for "two apples" or whatever, and the "four" is short for "four apples", all of which are plural.

I did warn you it was subtle. -- JackofOz (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Two and two make four' would be correct for me, as there are two things making four together. Some people may disagree, saying that as 'four', the two 2's are a unit, but I don't think that way. Similarly, I would say 'cheese, a burger, and a bun make a cheeseburger', not makes.--KageTora (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say a cheeseburger is more than the sum of its parts... ;-) —An gr 16:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]