Language desk
< October 7	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 9 >

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 8

Assistance of/from

Is there a difference (in meaning) between the following sentences? Also, should I use the article "the" in the first sentence?

I completed the project with (the?) assistance of Mrs. Williams.
I completed the project with assistance from Mrs. Williams.

—Such a gentleman 09:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's no difference in the meanings of the sentences. You have to use "the" in the first sentence, otherwise it's incorrect grammatically. Biggs Pliff (talk) 09:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the first sentence needs "the". But I would say "with the assistance of" and "with assistance from" mean slightly different things. "With the assistance of" means you and Mrs. Williams were both equally responsible for completing the project. "With assistance from" means you were mostly responsible, but Mrs. Williams helped you in some way (but did not do as much work as you). Adam Bishop (talk) 09:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To me they mean exactly the same thing, that Mrs. Williams did less than half the work, in either case. Also, the "the" in the top sentence is required in US English, but I'm not sure if it is in UK English. StuRat (talk) 13:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is necessary in UK English aswell.Biggs Pliff (talk) 13:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I personally read a slightly different meaning between the two. "with the assistance of" implies to me that the project could not have been completed without Mrs. Williams' contributions, regardless of what percentage of the overall work they entailed. "With assistance from" sounds to me like Mrs. Williams made completing the project easier, but that the person speaking could have done without her if necessary. However, I don't find any documents that support my hearing them that way, and find quite a few that use both within the same document. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 16:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Troodeloo (?) in Rebecca (1940 film)

Hello Learned Ones ! In Hitchcock's Rebecca (1940 film) , sleazy Jack Favell (George Sanders) takes his leave (after sneering at the other characters), by saying a cooing word who looked to my old ears something like "Troodeloo" . He'd say nowadays "See you", I think. Has something an idea about that word ? Thanks a lot beforehand. T.y. Arapaima (talk) 10:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More likely to be toodle-oo, I think. (Which I now know comes from the French à tout a l'heure.) AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may come from à tout a l'heure, but that's far from settled. See World Wide Words. --ColinFine (talk) 11:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you're right. The OED gives "Origin unknown; perhaps < toot n.", with no mention of the French phrase. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I've edited the Wiktionary entry accordingly. --ColinFine (talk) 20:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aw yes !... Now you say it, toodle-oo has some slight resemblance with « à tout à l'heure" . Another word brought back by the Tommies, I think...And, paraphrasing (approximately) Voltaire , I'd say : "...sans doute. Mais il faut avouer qu'en venant de là jusqu'à nous, il a bien changé sur la route" » (..."well , yes, sure. But one must admit that, while coming from over there to us, it has changed a lot on the road"). Thanks a lot A.T. & Colin. Toodle-oo ! Arapaima (talk) 08:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appears there are three toodle-oos in Rebecca. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The customary response to "toodle-oo" is (for some reason) "ta-ta", the latter having survived a little longer in modern British speech. "TTFN" was popular in the 1970s, meaning "ta-ta for now". Alansplodge (talk) 19:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification needed about an African Language

I met this African guy who comes from Cameroun (if I remember well), and being a language lover I started to try learning his language, which is a Bamileke language. I searched Wikipedia for info on the phonology of the language, which he says is called Kwa, but not only did I find nothing: I also found info contrasting what my friend said. Indeed he specifies his language does NOT end with an apostrophe (i.e. is NOT called "Kwa'", but rather "Kwa", without the '), because the apostrophe means the vowel is "fatter", which probably means breathy voiced or something of the likes, whereas Wikipedia says Kwa is Nigerian and Kwa' is Camerounian, but he comes from Cameroun, so he couldn't speak a language from Nigeria. I submitted an article on this language with what I managed to get out of my friend, referred to in that article as "my consultant", but someone declined the submission saying it was more a request for clarifications, which in part it is, though in part it's an attempt to put information gathered from a mothertongue on Wikipedia which ended up as a submitted article because of the problem above. That user redirected me here. So could someone help me clarify 1) What the apostrophe in "Kwa'" means and 2) Where I should put the phonology info I gathered from him which can be found at https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Kwa, admitting that by the time someone answers the article, submitted for creation approximately in April 2013, hasn't been deleted in the meantime so I can finally put the info where it belongs? Thanks. PS Maybe the information is somewhere on the Web but I'm not good at searching outside Wikipedia so I wasn't able to find it anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MGorrone (talk • contribs) 14:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell you anything about the languages and their spellings beyond what can be found on Ethnologue and here, but about your last question: much as I appreciate the fruits of your fieldwork on your informant's phonology, and much as our existing articles are in need of expansion, according to our WP:no original research policy we won't be able to accomodate these findings in our articles. Our articles need to be based on published research literature, not on our writers' own investigations (interesting as they may be). Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take notice that in Africa the state borders never correspond to the ethnic/linguistic ones (apart from Madagascar, maybe). So saying "Kwa is Nigerian" is wrong strictly speaking, the Kwa languages spread in several West African countries. Though in Cameroon they're indeed practically absent.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 17:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnologue says that Kwa' is the language of Cameroon which we have a stub for at Kwa’ language and Kwa is the language mainly in Nigeria. Rmhermen (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Africa has somewhere between 1500 and 2000 dialects depending on the source. I can say from "field" experience, having had various speakers tell me, that the Fula language is actually called Fulani or Pulaar, or a whole host of other things. The same with Olof/Wolof. I studied Zulu with a native speaker whom most Zulu would insist is Ndebele. There is a desperate need for published material in most African languages. Although I know nothing of Kwa, I can competently suggest that Wikipedia is not the place to work this out. I suggest contacting a local university. μηδείς (talk) 01:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Making out"

Since when did the term "making out" change meaning from "sexual intercourse" to "heavy petting or sexual foreplay"? I have been searching everywhere for the change in etymology of this term, and it's so @#%& time-consuming that I thought I might ask it here. I just know it means sexual intercourse, but apparently some people do not believe me, insisting that "heavy petting and sexual foreplay" is the standard, widespread usage for this term. I don't want to sound like an idiot, yet if two people are engaging in sexual foreplay, I would quickly assume that they are having sex, because most of the time such activities - as portrayed in the movies - lead to sex or the intention to have sex. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 19:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that it has ever meant what you think. Nor does every kiss lead to "nod, nod, wink, wink". See Urban Dictionary's definitions: [1] Rmhermen (talk) 20:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Making out big time" usually means intercourse. Just "making out", not so much. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In respectable mass culture the power of euphemisms seems degrade over time. That's why I stick strictly to unrespectable lumpenproletarian expressions for fucking. Also, it seems like you're subsuming a lot of fucking under genital intercourse, last time I checked Kinsey the undisclosed private variety of human sexual conducts exceeded what Fonzie did to Richie while "parking" &tc. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Making Out has never meant more than kissing and petting where I live since I have been aware of the expression. Urban Dictionary agrees with this. μηδείς (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise. "Making out" strictly means hugging and kissing. In the old days "making" by itself was a lot stronger, hence the censored line in "Hooray for Captain Spaulding". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The line Bugs is referring to is towards the end of this page (but it's well worth reading the whole page).--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So the OED has [2]: "9 d. intr. slang (orig. U.S.). spec. To succeed in seducing, gain sexual satisfaction, have sexual intercourse (with).This expression seems to be have arisen as a specialization of sense 9c; cf. quot. 1939 for 9c there. There is some overlap with sense 9e (which is now the commoner meaning), and in some sources it is difficult to tell which sense is intended. For a discussion of this and related usages see A. F. Moe in Amer. Speech (1966) 41 96–107."

The 9c quote referred to is: 1939 I. Baird Waste Heritage vii. 99 "Oh, say, how'd you make out with Hazel?" And 9c is: " intr. colloq. To make shift, get along; to succeed, thrive; to get on (well, badly, etc.)." 9e of course is: "intr. slang (orig. and chiefly U.S.). To engage in sexual activity (with another person) which stops short of intercourse, esp. kissing and caressing."

You can get the Moe 1966 at [3]. I'll give you a quote from page 100:

"At least since the First World War, and probably earlier, the expression make out has been a popular double entendre. The dual usage was in the form of a question asked of one who had just been out on a date: "Did you make out with (Mary)?" The question, so phrased, was considered to be a discreet inquiry which allowed the one so questioned to interpret it, at his discretion, to be an inquiry either as to the compatibility of the date or as to the successful accomplishment of sexual intimacy. By some, the question was considered to be more discreet if it was prefaced by "How" rather than only by "Did." Even the reply of the sheik, snake, or skirt-chaser of that period (or of his successor, the wolf—or the more recent successor, the make-out artist) was ambiguous, as it was invariably boastful in nature, regardless of the facts. The double-barreled usage with the apt retort was part of the repartee of the day that was considered as being clever."

You can imagine some 1930s hepcats: "So, Johnny, how'd you make out with Hazel? / Oh I made out just fine. / He's lying! He may have "made out", but he definitely did not make out." So how exactly one "made out" would be left to the imagination of the audience of the braggart; so whether it referred to sex or just kissing would not be strictly distinguished. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And exactly when a certain activity ceases being "fooling around/foreplay/making out" and becomes "sex" is a matter of subjective opinion, has never been defined anywhere, and probably shouldn't be. As I discovered a few years back, when I got involved in a heated and protracted discussion that saw two lifelong friends come almost to blows. One insisted that unless a penis was actually being inserted into someone's orifice (and mouths didn't count), it could not legitimately be called "sex" (which meant that lesbians, whatever they do, never have sex, unless they jump the fence once in a while and get it on with a guy; and that gay men who are not into anal sex never have sex either). The other, of course, disagreed. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can I define sex as the intimate stimulation of at least one partner's genitals with the hope of achieving orgasm? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 00:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Permission denied. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]