Language desk
< October 20	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 22 >

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 21

Yet another question about French

In French, how does one express extreme anger? I want to say something like "he was fuming", "he was red with anger", or "you could almost see the steam coming out of his ears". Actually, is there an even more concise way to express anger in English? I'm looking for an equivalent of the Chinese 气死了--aka something short, strong, and colloquial. --Bowlhover (talk) 04:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In French, you can say: "il était vert de rage", "il était fou de rage", "il était furieux", "il était hors de lui" or "il était furibond". Informally, you can say "il était furibard", "il était en pétard". BrightRaven (talk) 07:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colloquial: il était furax, il était fumasse. — AldoSyrt (talk) 07:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Il fulminait", "il était rouge de colère". BrightRaven (talk) 07:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the second part of the question, "(to go) ballistic" seems to fit rather well ("He went utterly ballistic"). MChesterMC (talk) 09:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone! "to go ballistic" is perfect--can't believe I forgot that one. Also, it seems like the French have a lot of ways to say they're angry. --Bowlhover (talk) 01:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mysterious script

Hello. Could someone identify the script used on the sign above the entrance of the temple in this picture? This temple is located in China, probably in Kunming. I think it is maybe yi script, but I am not sure. I guess the Chinese characters on the right (佛寺, which means "buddhist temple") are the translation of the mysterious text. Thanks for your help. (Note: I asked the same question on the French Wikipedia and someone proposed Tibetan.) BrightRaven (talk) 07:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't recognize the script as any that I'm familiar with so I did a little research and, unfortunately, found nothing. Now I'm curious as well! After glancing at the table of logographs in Yi script and omniglot, the image doesn't seem to resemble anything there unless it's a stylized or cursive version. Tibetan script is a good guess. The individual letters seem to me to resemble Mongolian clear script written horizontally but, as far as I know, that is only written vertically. Anybody else have any ideas?--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 21:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cursive Tibetan script was my first guess, but our article doesn't show but one version.

Am fairly certain that it's the Thai Tham script used by the Dai people of Southern Yunnnan. Am pretty sure the first glyph says "wat" (temple), the other 2 glyphs either say Buddha or the name of the temple. 199.34.249.6 (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are right: here is a picture with an inscription begining with wat in Lanna script: [1] (Mengle Temple in Jinhong, Yunnan). The similarity is striking. Thank you all for your help. BrightRaven (talk) 09:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny how the mysterious and exotic can turn out to be so mundane once we know what it is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't heard of Tai Tham until now, but looking at the article, I understand know why when I first glanced at the image here I thought the writing system was Burmese. It was only at the second look I realized it wasn't. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You and You

I was thinking about this yesterday night...

Why are written second person singular and second person plural with the same word you? Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 16:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Try Ye_(pronoun). (And, kindly, "last night", or "the night before last" is more usual than "yesterday night" which is ambiguous). Bazza (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhh, thanks for the link and sorry for the expression... I am a non-native speaker of English and sometimes (most of the times I write silly things, like that one.) Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 16:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not silly, it is one most English speakers wonder about when they learn another language. The simple answer is that English used to have both tǘ ("thou") and vos ("you") but around the time of Shakespeare you became more common to address even friends and family, and thou became associated almost entirely with religion. The ten commandments are still taught with "Thou shalt...", which means "You shall..." There are some dialects in Britain that still use thou, or at least they did until recently--one of our UK experts can comment. The Quakers also use(d) a corrupted form, thee (literally the direct object form, "te" in Spanish) and addressed people as thee ("te") instead of tǘ ("thou"). μηδείς (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

English briefly adopted the T-V distinction, where the singular (thou) was used in a familiar sense (to close friends, children, and people you wanted to disrespect) and the plural (you) was used in the singular when you were being formal. But for some reason the familiar sense was dropped - although Medeis is right, there are some dialects, particularly in the north of England, that still use it, usually as "tha". But you'll still see it in older translations of the Bible, and in Shakespeare. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nicknack009 -- It could be considered a relatively brief period given the overall history of the English language, but it lasted for several centuries. And as you implied, "thou" was not dropped because it became "became associated almost entirely with religion" -- rather, "thou" seems to have been dropped mainly because in ordinary spoken language (as used to address other people), "thou" became an extremely intimate and informal term, used mostly to children and between very close friends, while in almost any other uses it was now considered disrespectful or insulting. Once it dropped out of ordinary spoken language, what was left was literary or religious archaisms... AnonMoos (talk) 04:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, "briefly" in historical linguistics terms, which isn't quite geologic time, but does think in terms of centuries rather than years. It's interesting, I think, that while "thou" is starting to fall out of use in Shakespeare, pointing forward to the imminent end of the T-V distinction, at the same time the King James Bible, written in deliberately old-fashioned (for the time) language, is using "thou" and "ye" in a purely singular/plural sense, as if the T-V distinction had never happened, using "thou" to refer to God. In historical linguistics time, T-V in English does seem to have been a bit of a passing fad. --Nicknack009 (talk) 08:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but I think you're saying that, if the T-V distinction is present, then you would naturally use the formal form to address God. I would dispute that. The believer is supposed to be on intimate terms with God. The "V" forms are things of the world, puffery that is not supposed to get between the faithful and their heavenly father. This isn't just low-church Puritanism (which King James would not be expected to have much sympathy for); it's present even in Catholicism, which emphasizes the "divine friendship" going way back (I remember it in Don Quixote). --Trovatore (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to Thou#Religious_uses, William Tyndale in the 16th century deliberately kept the "thou" and "you" separate to avoid losing meaning from the Greek and Hebrew where there was no T-V distinction, and this influenced later versions such as the King James Version. Kahastok talk 17:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some dialects have re-created a separate plural pronoun. In Northern Ireland (where I'm from) we say "yous" as an obvious plural of "you", or even "yous'uns" ("yous ones"). In some parts of America they say "y'all" ("you all").

And I agree with Medeis - please don't apologise for you (minor) errors in English (we all understood what you meant), or your questions. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's also interesting that several regional American dialects have created distinct forms for the plural you. Southerners say you all or y'all; midwesterners say youze; people from Pittsburgh say yinz; New Englanders say yiz; etc. Looie496 (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a map of plural you forms as used in the United states, with a brief article. In the Delaware Valley, the most common plural is "you guys" in standard speech as well as "youse guys" in substandard. μηδείς (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much all of you guys! Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 17:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating map, though I find it hard to believe only one state uses the correct 'you', weird to see how much American has drifted from English. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 20:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"You guys" in the U.S. is stylistically rather casual, and used mainly as a disambiguator (to clarify that more than one person is being addressed in cases where this might not be obvious in context), so it would be misleading to stick it in the 2nd. person plural slot of a pronoun chart in place of plain "you"... AnonMoos (talk) 04:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I'm British and would use "you guys" in exactly the same way. I'd also use "you lot" (which I would consider even more casual) or more specific forms like "you two" and "you three" - but nothing like "you all" or "youse". Kahastok talk 17:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that "yesterday night" is not used in English, with "last night" being used to mean either "yesterday after the sun went down" or "yesterday after most people went to bed". But also "yesterday evening" is used interchangeably with "last evening" to mean more narrowly "from sundown until bedtime" or maybe "from 6:00 PM until midnight". Also "yesterday afternoon" and "yesterday morning" are correct, but "last afternoon" and "last morning" are incorrect. Duoduoduo (talk) 18:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also "last night" extends all the way until either dawn this morning or whenever the speaker got up. Duoduoduo (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's the "overnight", beloved of journalists who don't know precisely when a reported event happened. Problem is, when that story is picked up and repeated by other agencies a day or more later, readers are still being told it happened "overnight" when it may by now be 2, 3, 4 - or more - days old. Sometimes they bend the rules to breaking point; an event happened more than a day ago, but again the journos don't know exactly when, so to make their report seem as up-to-the-minute as possible, but also to camouflage the lack of precision with a suitable vagueness, they'll report that it occurred "overnight". This happens typically with a death of some former celebrity who's been out of the spotlight for some years, whose family are trying to keep the matter as private as possible, but the fact of the death has leaked out and the journos feel compelled to fill in their knowledge vacuum with something rather than nothing. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that "yesterday night" is not used in English. It's certainly less common than "last night", but I would not find it odd, at least in some uses (though I'm having trouble defining when I would and wouldn't expect it). I also observe that "today morning" appears to be common in Indian English (I don't believe it is in any other Englishes), so I wouldn't be surprised if "yesterday night" were also common there. --ColinFine (talk) 21:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Late late yestreen I saw the new moone, / Wi the auld moone in hir arme". Deor (talk) 12:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia the word "youse" is used by some as the plural of "you". However, that some is the sector of society seen as lesser people by those who think they speak "proper" English. Using it is definitely a class label. HiLo48 (talk) 21:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our article says "youse" is worldwide. But "youse guys" is actually much more common than just "youse" here in the US NE. Especially fun is the possessive, "youse guyses". μηδείς (talk) 21:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many people say "he's" for "his" (although I don't think I've ever heard "she's" for "her/s"). And some even go to the exotic extreme of "He and I's". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a result of the fact that 's is being regrammaticalized as a phrase-final clitic, as in "the queen of England's reign" where the 's becomes detached from the head noun, queen. Our article on the english possessive doesn't seem to address this directly. μηδείς (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily phrase-final, I don't think: This is your room, this here is mine, that is he's and the other is hers. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure these aren't just speakers who have a different line between /iː/ and /ɪ/ than you do? Have you seen this in writing? --Trovatore (talk) 06:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The people I know who say this never say 'hit' like 'heat', or 'Chris' like 'crease', or 'fizz' like 'feaze', or 'jizz' like 'Jeez'. The strong impression I have is that they believe the possessive of he is he's, which makes a kind of sense. But as I say, I wonder why they don't believe the possessive of she is she's. No, I've never seen this in writing. I must ask the next person I hear saying this. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since none of these people have ever told you they imagine he's to be a possessive form of his, and you've never seen it in writing, and the same people never use she's, and no one else seems familiar with such usage, it's considerably more likely that you've just assumed they're intending to say he's instead of his. In any case, it's certainly not common.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not wishing to be an ultimoverbalist, but it's quite common among the good folk in my local community, particularly the more senior ones. I should have made that qualification in my original statement. (Disclaimer: I don't do it - but then, I'm not yet a "local", as I can't claim five generations born here; not even one). However, I don't remember ever hearing it anywhere else, and I agree with you that, generally speaking, it's not common. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Elderly people in Central Gippsland' is certainly a far cry from "many people". It sounds as though people in 'your local community'—or your perception of them—have an unusual pronunciation of his. There's no indication at all that they're actually intending to say he's.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have already qualified my original statement. Still, there are actually "many elderly people" in Central Gippsland (the young people get out and head for the major cities as fast as they can). Your last point is a total strawman: I've been saying all along that these people say 'his' in a way that sounds like 'he's' (heeze); I know they mean the third person singular masculine possessive pronoun 'his' because they only ever say it in a context where anyone else would say 'his' and mean 'his'. These people say (what sounds like) "Sam is very proud of he's new house". I have never claimed that they believe the word is correctly spelt 'he's' (but, as I've already said, I've never seen this in writing, so I cannot say for sure exactly what they believe). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I think I see the source of your confusion: my "The strong impression I have is that they believe the possessive of he is he's, which makes a kind of sense". That wasn't intended to convey that I believe that "they believe the possessive of he is he's". I was simply conveying the immediate impression I always get when I hear people speak this way, but a moment's thought tells me they're otherwise well-spoken and rational and sensible people who would not actually believe this. As far as I know. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a hard, or a soft Gippsland? μηδείς (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hard. We're hard men around here, and you know what they say about a hard man. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That he'll win one for the Gipper? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard anyone use "he's" in this manner (apart from that indicated by μηδείς), and to do so wouldn't be analogous to the widespread pluralisation of you as youse. There certainly aren't 'many' people using he's that way. It would be particularly unusual in normal conversation for someone to say "that is he's" and then clarify that they were actually intending to say "he's" and not "his".--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We all have uniquely different sets of experiences. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That word "youse" I associate with big-city slang, like New York, or maybe especially Brooklyn. Maybe Chicago too, but certainly not in rural areas in the midwest. "You guys" has become more and more widely used, at least in the Midwest, and even when addressing females. The possessive is funny, as one would think "you guys' [whatever]" would be the possessive, but instead we often hear "your guys [whatever]" as the possessive. In the south, the possessive of "y'all" is "y'all's". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We missed you'uns and all y'all. See y'all. Rmhermen (talk) 06:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Youse is very common in Australia, but is usually avoided by careful speakers. However, people who would usually say you for the plural may sometimes use youse where 'you' might otherwise cause offense if it is not clear that the speaker is including more than one person present.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, yesternight is cromulent. μηδείς (talk) 00:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In defence of Miss Bono, "yesterday night" is perfectly acceptable in my part of northern England (synonymous with "yesterday evening"). "Youse" is standard in Scouse (spoken in Liverpool) (with the same caveats as above), and "cromulent" is definitely not cromulent where I live (-- It would not be understood at all. I expect it will take at least another 50 years for the word to become accepted here.) Dbfirs 07:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder where did I hear that yesterday night? Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 12:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cromulent adjective (1) copacetic, satisficient, peachy keen. (derived noun, cromulence) "You could question the cut of his jib, but not the cromulence of his prose." --G.K. Chesterton on Oscar Wilde, The End of the Armistice, p 456. Etymology: from the French cormulent, from Old French cormulon, from the Latin cum Ormulum, i.e., "with the Ormulum", an authoritative 12th century text used as a reliable source in the high Middle Ages. See Ormulum. μηδείς (talk) 17:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being too obscure in normal-sized letters can be misleading. Better to take the more obvious approach so it's clear it's a joke. An example would be when Jay Leno said the etymology of "politics" was "many" + "bloodsuckers". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar only with the humorous neologism coined by television writer David X. Cohen. It's interesting that G K Chesterton coined a similar neologism, but neither word has been recognised by the OED (though I expect that the Cohen version will eventually receive an entry). Where did you find that definition? It must be recent because it contains another neologism probably coined by Bill "Bojangles" Robinson. Dbfirs 21:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note Chesterton is quoted only as an exemplar. Had he coined the term the entry would have said "attributed to" him. μηδείς (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think Medeis was trying to be funny, since Chesterton's book (in the first edition) doesn't run to 456 pages and since the proposed etymology is patently ridiculous. It would be nice if this particular contributor didn't offer misinformation on the ref desks without clearly indicating it as such. Deor (talk) 10:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To re-adapt a comment Bob Uecker once made to Howard Cosell about the word 'truculent': "If you had a crom, and I borrowed it, that would be a crom you lent." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One lovely thing about y'all is that you can use it when speaking to a person representing a company, to make clear that you mean the company and not the person. (For "company", substitute "store", "restaurant", "coffeehouse", whatever.) You guys seems slightly disrespectful used that way. --Trovatore (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't resist linking to this, which coincidentally popped up while this thread is still active. Deor (talk) 14:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the only place you might hear that in Jersey is Union City or Kearny--basically the armpit around Newark. But not anywhere in the state you'd find a cow, or couldn't see the New York Skyline. μηδείς (talk) 17:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]