Language desk
< May 10	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 12 >

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 11

How did a Wildebeest come to be called a 'Wildebeest'?

Did someone back in the day look at one and basically say "What should I call this animal? Hmmm... It's wild... It's a beast..."? --84.69.24.212 (talk) 00:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not so much 'wild beast' as 'wild cattle'. Beast or cattle beast is still occasionally used to refer to cows. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 01:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just like Springbok. It's a male deer (buck) that jumps around when you run after it. Afrikaans is incredibly simple when naming animals.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 02:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Websters, it is from the Afrikaans for 'wild ox' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.203.213 (talk) 00:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

spanish translation

how do you say frosting or icing in spanish, the culinary term? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.67.171 (talk) 03:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not completely sure, but I think you may use the term cobertura. Pallida Mors 06:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At least according to this website of a Argentinian cooking channel, it's either glasé fluido or glasé real, depending on the consistency of the icing, glasé real being more viscous.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 20:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

how bout in span ir mexico? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.67.171 (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Genome

Is genome pronounced GEE-nome, or gen-OME? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The stress is on the first syllable[1][2] --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 09:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, however, when transformed into an adjective -- that is, genomic -- the resulting term is stressed on the second syllable. --71.111.205.22 (talk) 10:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 14:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hindi and Tamil Translation

Hi, I want the Hindi and Tamil translation of (Goat's) lever, gall bladder, etc. If there is any translation website/dictionary in these languages, do please let me know. Bye. Kvees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.100.1.97 (talk) 12:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the website but in Hindi, liver is called 'Yakrat' and gall bladder is called 'Pitta'. Goat is 'Bakri'. So Goat's liver will be 'Bakri ka Yakrat'. I hope I am right. Don't know anything about Tamil though. - DSachan (talk) 14:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The entry liver links to ta:கல்லீரல். I don't know how it's pronounced though. --ColinFine (talk) 23:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be 'kʌlːiɾʌl or something like kull ee rull. Marco polo (talk) 01:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goats parts pronounced in tamil as follow

Head meat - (Thala Kari) liver - (Kul ee rull) Intenstine - (Boati) Brain - (Moolai)

misplaced comma

i remember i read an article about a misplaced comma in a contract that cost a company thousands of dollars. i am looking for the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.8.241 (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remember that this was discussed before on Wikipedia. (Although the Wikipedia subset of the whole internet is not so small nowadays that it makes that search much easier.) Rmhermen (talk) 14:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Googling "misplaced comma cost" suggests Rogers Communications or Lockheed Martin (and we're apparently talking millions), although neither of those articles mentions the cases in question. Try looking through the many other Ghits.--86.25.194.157 (talk) 14:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The two seem to be very different mistakes. In the Rogers case the comma changes the meaning of a sentence, whereas in the lockheed case it is a comma in a monetary amount. -- Q Chris (talk) 14:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was also the plot of an episode of Billable Hours, but maybe that was based on the Rogers story. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not the answer, but there's a Roger connection - Roger Casement was said to have lost his life (execution) over a missed comma. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our Mariner 1 article says it's an urban legend that the rocket had to be destroyed because of the erroneous placement of a hyphen in some source code or data. Tempshill (talk) 22:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Secede" as transitive verb

Is it grammatically correct to say, for instance, "The rebels seceded Texas from the Union" instead of "The rebels caused Texas to secede from the Union" or just "Texas seceded from the Union"? 69.224.37.48 (talk) 15:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Secede' is normally intransitive. The OED mentions transitive usages (e.g. 'A plot to secede the whole Mississippi Valley from the United States and join it to Spain' from William Faulkner) but says that such usages are rare. Algebraist 16:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"PAFE" ... WTF?

My Google-fu has failed me on this one, so I turn to you all in the hope that someone can make sense of this ...

At my job, I recently encountered this acronym (pronounced by coworkers as "PAH-fee"). At least, I assume it's an acronym. I have no idea what it means or what it stands for, and google / wikipedia don't seem to know either. PAFE redirects to an article about some airport because PAFE happens to be the airport code. The only other reliable result I've found on the 'Net is "post antifungual" something or other, which I know isn't the case either.

Context: On a project status report, "Finalize the budget and submit a PAFE for approval". I suspect that this is some kind of "business-ese", but I have no idea what it means. Assuming that it is really business-ese, I'm surprised the Internets couldn't help me figure it out ... Kind of embarassed to ask the coworkers about this, since they all seem to know what it means. Anyway, thanks for the help. Dgcopter (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Off the top of my head, as this is budget related it could be requesting a Funding Estimate (FE). As to the PA, I'm stumped - possibly Project A-- ? Or projected amount? Nanonic (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be embarassed; many companies have their own jargon, based probably on the 4 words at the top of a standard budget approval form that they have. At least it isn't a 27B/6. Tempshill (talk) 22:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my sense is that it's internal jargon. The only way you'll find out what it means is to ask a colleague. If you don't know what it means, you can bet others will be in the same boat, so you might be doing them a service by asking the question. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Projected Actual Financial Estimate'?--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 22:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Project Approval Funding Estimate? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Projected Annual Financial [or, Fee] Estimate is my guess. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are the benefits of using tree structures in linguistic communications?

The Transhumanist 20:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It makes it easier to visualize the relationship between concepts, as in all diagrams, without going through a long-winded explanation. And please do not post on multiple RefDesks.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the purpose, yes, but what are the benefits of visualizing the relationships between concepts?

By the way, I honestly need the feedback from multiple fields. Trees are used for different things in linguistics than in math, than in humanities, etc.

So in other words, "tree structures depict possessive relationships between entries for ease of understanding?" And "they show what belongs to what, or what is related to what"?

What are the benefits of that, and are there any other benefits that you can think of?

Take the example in the article tree structure for example. What would the benefits be of having an entire encyclopedia rendered into a tree?

The Transhumanist 02:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my answer, it makes it easier to visualize the relationships, rather than a whole bunch of text. That's why we have pictures in books, rather than things being explained vividly. Written languages can be very tiring on the eyes. If something is set out in diagram form, it's easier. That is the benefit. That's why they are used so much in seminars and on PowerPoint, for example. It's easier for the listener(s) to see what the speaker is talking about. It sounds like you are asking me what the benefit of something being easier is. That IS the benefit.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 02:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This helps a lot. But I need it further reduced. Though I think I've got it: easier to understand = Faster = Saves time. Also, consider that each node of a tree is linkified, say to a Wikipedia article. That makes the tree a faster navigation tool of Wikipedia than links buried in paragraphs. The Transhumanist 02:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See A picture is worth a thousand words. -- Wavelength (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That hits the nail right on the head. I see now what KageTora meant by visualize. By the way, the article is in error. Not all tree structures are graphical. But your comment made me realize that the structure of a tree apart from the words contained in it conveys information not in the words. But worth many words. Just like a picture. Beautiful. The Transhumanist 02:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What has this to do with language? —Tamfang (talk) 03:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's...

To name a few. The Transhumanist 02:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This got asked on all the RefDesks. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I skipped a couple. I need feedback from different points of view. Trees are applied to various fields in different ways. The discussion on how trees are used in computers over at the science ref desk was very enlightening with respect to the functional aspects of trees. But I still need to know more about the benefits non-graphical tree structures used directly by humans, such as hierarchical outlines. The Transhumanist 02:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have said this before. You can get differing points of view from all fields just by posting on ONE RefDesk. We all work on all of the RefDesks, so we are all the same people. If you keep doing this and ignoring our requests to stop posting on multiple RefDesks, people will start to ignore you. Please comply with Wikipedia protocol. (Also, please do not post links on talk pages without explaining what the link is. I was on this page a few minutes ago, then got a big yellow bar at the top saying I had a message on my talk page, I clicked on the link you supplied and it brought me back to this page. Actually quite annoying, sorry to say.--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 02:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And for every rule there's an exception. Posting this general but multi-faceted query on several ref desks keeps the answers in context at each one. Language-related applications and implications of tree structures should be posted here. The mathematics answers should stay on the mathematics refdesk, and not here. Otherwise, you'll get more people asking "what does that have to do with language?" Besides, a lot of refdeskers specialize, and I need as much input as I can get, from every related specialty. The Transhumanist 03:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. Maybe I could give some advice, then. If you could pose the question in a different way on each desk, maybe even to make it more relevant to that desk (even if it is relevant wording can work wonders), you will maybe get more answers. People are seeing this exact same question on other desks and thinking, 'oh, well, it was answered over there, so no point in answering it here.' I think you see what I mean.--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 03:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea! Thank you. I'll make the changes right away. The Transhumanist 03:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are two primary uses of tree structures in linguistics. Tree diagrams (sentence trees) are sometimes useful for determining and showing common and uncommon syntactic relationships, such as those between phrasal units and clauses. They are especially useful for examining analytic and isolating languages. Different tree structures are also used to show the genetic relationship between languages. Thus tree structures are especially useful for both language typology (based on shared grammar alone) and linguistic phylogenetics (based on relatedness through time).Synchronism (talk) 06:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name of a grammatical structure

I often see articles with sentences like this:

Born in 1923 and raised in Dry Gulch, he was elected President of the United States of Utopia in 1985.

What's the first part called? And why do editors often connect two quite unrelated things by use of this device? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember what the first part is called, something like 'run-on-[something or other]' (or maybe that's for the second part). In this sentence, though, the purpose of the two dates is to show how old he was when he was elected, and the 'United States of Utopia' presumably has some connection with Dry Gulch.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 22:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) It's called a participial phrase (actually, there are two coordinate ones in your sentence). I'm not sure what your second question means—are you referring to dangling modifier problems? Deor (talk) 22:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we sometimes form sentences like this to imply a connection beyond the fact that we're talking about the same subject. "Born in 1923, he remembered the Great Depression only too well", for example. In Jack's sentence the only connection is the subject. I don't know how to put this linguistically, but I interpreted Jack's observation along these lines. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well, if you're right, I don't see why there has to be any syntactic connection other than the subject. Jack's sentence just seems to me a slightly more elegant way of imparting the information "He was born in 1923. He was raised in Dry Gulch. He was elected President of the United States of Utopia in 1985." The construction can certainly be used in such a way that the result is a non sequitur ("Born out of wedlock, he attended Columbia University"); but that's not a grammatical problem, and I don't see Jack's example as being of that sort. Deor (talk) 23:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-- Wavelength (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dangling modifiers are part of the problem, but this is not that. Sometimes it's like "Educated at Dry Gulch University, he was elected President in 1985". That's not a dangling modifier, because both parts of the sentence are talking about the same person. But there's no connection between where someone was educated and the circumstances of their election as head of state. I often see it used in articles that are, frankly, very poorly written, by editors who would not normally have participial phrases as part of their linguistic armoury. I get the impression that the writers have seen this sort of construction elsewhere, and feel that they're somehow supposed to use it whenever they're writing a biography; or that its use lends an air of professional polish it might not otherwise have. That's fine if it's used appropriately; but so often that's not the case. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a trick to avoid boring repetition. In biographies you get a lot of sentences in the form "He was...", "He did...", "He <verbed> ...". It can get stilted very quickly. Conjunctions, dependent clauses, and participial phrases can "dress up" the prose, eliminating some of the repetition. You're probably correct in that writers of mediocre talent likely copy such techniques from more talented writers, but then do not give proper thought to the overall meaning of the new sentence which they have constructed. -- 128.104.112.117 (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Wavelength noted, it can be called a nominative absolute. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A nominative absolute has a subject which is different from the main subject of the sentence. In that respect, it differs from a participial phrase. -- Wavelength (talk) 03:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence you presented above uses a device called a contrast clause. "Even though he was born in some hick town out in the middle of nowhere called Dry Gulch, he rose from such humble beginnings to prominence as president of the entire nation just 62 years later." Your sentence presents that context (by implication), but in far fewer words. It also leads the reader to draw his own conclusions, pulling him into actively reading the text and thus capturing his interest more completely. "Wow, from Dry Gulch to president. Impressive." Though 42 years would be much more impressive, and would benefit more from this device. The Transhumanist 02:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that reading didn't occur to me. One sees it so often in flabby journalistic writing, I can't believe the construction always has that purpose. I suspect it's usually done because the writer has a bunch of fluff items (born here, educated there, jai-alai fan, mother of three) to stick in somewhere – and a deadline to meet – and so hangs them wherever they'll sorta fit, whether or not the result is coherent. —Tamfang (talk) 03:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I can see how that might work in some cases. In this particular case, if it's U.S. presidents were talking about, is where someone was born really relevant to anything? Is there some assumption that all presidents were born in large cities? That's certainly not the case, historically speaking. The contrast factor doesn't seem to be relevant in most cases where these kinds of clauses tend to be used. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviation of "I have not"

The question "Do you have any apples?" could be answered in the negative a number of ways:

No, I don't have any apples

No, I have no apples

No, I haven't any apples

No, I haven't got any apples

some others.

The question "Have you ever been to Uruguay?" could be answered in the negative a number of ways:

No, I've never been to Uruguay

No, I haven't been to Uruguay

No, I've not been to Uruguay

some others.

It seems to me that the "I've not" form could not be used with the apples question. You couldn't say:

No, I've not any apples.

I've probably heard "No, I've not got any apples", but it sounds non-standard.

So, if "I've not" and "I haven't" are both abbreviations of "I have not", why is it that both forms are available for the Uruguay question, but only one of them ("I haven't") is available for the apples question? Is it simply because the verb "have" is denoting possession in the apples case, but past tense in the Uruguay question? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I've not got any apples" is very common in the North of England.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because there are two different verbs here. 'Have (auxiliary)' patterns like an auxiliary (forms questions by inversions, and negates by a suffixed 'not' or 'nt') in all varieties of English. 'Have (substantive verb)' may pattern like an auxiliary or like a substantive verb (negation and question by 'do') depending on the dialect, the construction, and the whim of the speaker. As I've just been discussion on WP:RD/M it is more commonly treated as substantive in North American and more commonly as an auxiliary in UK: I don't know about Oz. It happens that that particular bit of auxiliariness is not common today, though it was more so in the past ("Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels and have not love"). --ColinFine (talk) 23:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, true. But one would never say "I've not (any) love", whereas one could conceivably say "I haven't (any) love". -- JackofOz (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, in your example, "I've not been to Uruguay", there is a past particple in it, same as mine. Your last examples just now are not the same, and could not be used in "I've not to Uruguay".--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 23:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Not any" is not a usual construction these days. If one possesses zero apples, the contemporary common usage seems to be "I have no apples" (or, more colloquially, "I haven't got any apples"). The older usage is "I haven't any apples". "I've not any apples" is unusual. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Yes, We Have No Bananas...

-- AnonMoos (talk) 04:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'ven't got a problem with "I haven't got any apples".217.18.23.2 (talk) 08:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]