Language desk
< May 3	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 5 >

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 4

Rather

Is it possible to say: "I will be able to fix the car without having to call a mechanic thus."?68.148.149.184 (talk) 05:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, it's possible to say it, but it doesn't make any sense. "Thus" means "therefore", "accordingly", "as a consequence of what I've just been saying". Just leave the "thus" out. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Thus" can have the meaning Jack says, but not in that position: it would have to be "Thus I will be able" or "I will thus be able" to have that meaning. This would make sense if that's what you intend to say.

Another meaning of "thus" is "in this way", typically accompanied by actually doing the action or by some appropriate gesture. This is possible in the position "call a mechanic thus" -- the action might be pushing a certain button on an intercom panel, for example -- but it doesn't make sense in this sentence because it's about not calling a mechanic. --Anonymous, 05:45 UTC, May 4, 2009.

Thanks: How would you say "in that way"?68.148.149.184 (talk) 06:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, we'd need to know why you want to use this expression, and where you intend to have it in the sentence. As Anon said, you've just said you can fix the car yourself, so there's no need to explain how you would call a mechanic, since that's precisely the thing you've said you're not going to do. Maybe what you're wanting to say is "I will be able to fix the car without having to call a mechanic. What I plan to do is ....".

The use of "thus" in this sort of context is virtually always accompanied by a physical gesture, showing the person you're talking to how you would go about doing whatever it is you're talking about, and it usually applies to simple actions rather than relatively complex procedures such as fixing a car, which could involve many dozens of different actions. Hence, it doesn't have much of a place in written contexts. In real life, it's visually obvious what "thus" refers to (your actual actions), but in writing it's not obvious, and you'd need to explain what you were doing when saying "thus". JackofOz (talk) 06:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's possible that the sentence comes after an explanation of how to call a mechanic.

"Broken tail pipe? Well, sure you could fix it yourself. But if you screw up and need a hand, just stand on one leg in this circle, reach for the rope and pull sharply 3 times saying 'I am a fool and am not worthy to own a car'."

"I will be able to fix the car without having to call a mechanic thus."

Without context, we cannot know whether the sentence works. 80.41.127.59 (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2009 (UT

I can tell you that this example sure as heck doesn't work for me. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think a more usual way of expressing that would be "I will be able to fix the car without having to call a mechanic like that." --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that "thus" is modifying "call." Is that right? Were you trying to avoid a split infinitive? Split infinitives are grammatically correct and are used in the most formal of writing. You could say, "I will be able to repair the car without having to therefore call a mechanic." This would be like saying, "I can repair the car; therefore, I do not have to call a mechanic."75.89.30.159 (talk) 05:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But you might want to start the sentence with 'thus', assuming that some explanation of how you can fix the car without help comes first. E.g. "I've looked up what's wrong on the internet. Thus I will be able to fix the car without calling a mechanic." At the same time, I'm struggling to see why 'thus' will ever be the best choice of words in a sentence like this. Without more context, it's impossible to be completely sure.62.25.109.195 (talk) 12:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Italian translation

Please could somebody translate the following? As far as I know, it's a letter between 16th century Italian merchants. Many thanks! --Auximines (talk) 09:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1]

First tentative:

Addì 10 di novembre (?)

a (?) al corsin(?)

Mag, (?) più fa noi vi aviamo scritto cquesta preghandovi ci diate particholar

raghuaglio in che grado sieno le cose di Filippo Ghualterotti

e cquello che si spera chavare e in che tempo et se im breve e' ci sarà

cosa alcuna da distribuire, e a usare ogni diligienza in suo beneficio

come in voi si confida. Siamo pronti alli vostri

comandi. Dio vi guardi di male (?)

Nice . Co (?)Capponi(?)

November 10, (?)

To(?)

More than(?) ago we wrote this (letter) asking you for particular

information about the state of the trades of Filippo Ghualterotti

and what one may hope to gain, and in how much time, and briefly if there will be

anything to share; and (asking you) to use all accuracy in his interest

as you are expected to do. We are ready to your wishes.

May Lord protect you from evil.

Rmk: in modern Italian the spelling is somewhere different:

aviamo=abbiamo, cquesta=questa, preghandovi=pregandovi, particholar=particolare, raghuaglio=ragguaglio, sieno=siano, chavare=cavare, et=e, diligienza=diligenza, alli=ai.

--pma (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! --Auximines (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

name in different languages

I would like to know how to write

    Smith family

in different languages: Flemish, Luxembourgish, French, German

99.144.254.189 (talk) 12:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want the word "Smith" translated too, or just the word "family" (and if necessary, the word order changed)? In German you'd write "Familie Smith" (or "Familie Schmidt" if you want the name itself translated). —An gr 12:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In French, "la famille Smith" (ou la famille Lefebvre - different spellings are possible - if you translate that too). --Xuxl (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try our Smith (surname) article. In Dutch, Smith is Smit or Smet. Rmhermen (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luxembourgisch: de Famillie Smith.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 23:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without wheels?

An object that has no wheels (specifically, a computer mouse) is:

Wheelless
Wheel-less
Wheeless

...I'm 99% sure I know which it is - but I have a very stubborn person disagreeing with me. Is there some resource I could point to that would unambiguously state which is correct?

Thanks! SteveBaker (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wheelless unambiguous enough? —An gr 17:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The OED also says that 1 is the answer. I don't happen to have a copy of the latest edition of the Chicago Manual of Style at hand, but if memory serves, it also concurs. Deor (talk) 18:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merriam-Webster accepts wheel-less as well: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wheel-less; your third alternative is definitely wrong. --NorwegianBlue^talk 18:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that wheel-less (unlike wheelless) does not actually appear in the entry; it just leads one to the entry when used as a search string. Deor (talk) 18:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that when an expression is used in two or more of the three forms "A B" (two words), "A-B" (hyphenated), and "AB" (solid), dictionaries will not always list all of the ones they find used. If you're just trying to prove #3 wrong that's one thing, but if the issue is between #1 and #2, you may need to see if the dictionary has a policy on the subject. --Anonymous, 18:52 UTC, May 4, 2009.

I looked in the Chicago Manual of Style without success. Its rule for "-like" is that it's usually written together, but hyphenated after words ending in "l" (and also after capitalized words, with the exception of "Christlike"), but it doesn't mention "-less". The rule I learned as a proofreader for "-less" is that it's written together except after words ending in "ll" (i.e. "wheelless" but "shell-less"). —An gr 19:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, contributors demonstrate their tireless devotion to finding wheely good answers. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if a wheel and a wheeless are really attracted to each other, mightn't the two Hot Wheels engage in a little wheel play and engender a third wheel, who might, as an adolescent, feign illness to skip school, thus becoming a Ferris wheel? Deor (talk) 23:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks - yeah the guy I'm arguing with came up with Wheeless (and actually demanded that a co-worker change the title of a document to spell it that way). He said this on the grounds that when you type "Wheelless" into Google, it says "Did you really mean 'wheeless'?"...sheesh! I was inclined to say "Wheel-less" - but "Wheelless" wouldn't have bothered me. Anyway - between the OED and Merriam - I think I have the evidence I need. Thanks guys! SteveBaker (talk) 04:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does? Huh, so it does. And the reason is apparently that "Wheeless", a surname, is more common than the word "wheelless". You might have him look at th e top hits on Wheeless, too. --Anonymous, 15:42 UTC, May 5, 2009.

Phonetics

Is it possible to pronounce a biblial lateral fricative? I know a lateral approximant is impossible, but is the lateral fricative not just blowing out the sides of one's mouth, with the center area blocked by one's lips? User:Spacevezon^talk 22:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If someone asked me to make a bilabial lateral fricative, I'd have the centre of my mouth closed and make a fricative sound (voiced or voiceless) out of one or both sides. I don't know of any language that uses it as a speech sound. Certainly I don't know of a standard IPA symbol for it. That having been said, the definition of lateral implies that it is performed with the tongue, so it might be stretching the definition a bit. Straying from *linguistic* phonetics into simply sounds issuing from the vocal tract, that is certainly a sound possible to make, and that is how I'd describe it if someone asked me to describe it. Steewi (talk) 03:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can make such a sound unilaterally but not bilaterally; but acoustically it's virtually identical to [β], which is much easier to articulate. —An gr 06:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is a bilabial lateral approximant impossible? — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 06:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a 1993 IPA chart (similar to this[2]) that says the lateral fricative and lateral approximant are both "judged impossible" in this position. I think they're on stronger ground ruling out a glottal lateral approximant or fricative; but maybe the issue is as Angr says that it's essentially the same as the non-lateral. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 11:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]