Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 July 25

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous 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.

July 25

Animated movie

There was an animated movie a number of years ago, I never saw it but wanted to it was set in the future in space, all I remember is the trailer, and a guy sitting in the cargo hold of a spaceship looking out at supernovas. any idea, I know this is vague but any help would be appreciated. The animation was more Disney/Pixar than Animae, or more western than eastern, if that helps. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 09:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Try the Entertainment Ref Desk... Rkr1991 (talk) 11:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Entertainment#Animated movie

moved there for a more likely response83.100.250.79 (talk) 12:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Pre computer presentations

Before computer projectors and powerpoint presentations were common, presentations were often carried out with photographic slides (I think) - about 20years ago I remember these. Typically they would have a blue background, with type and diagrams.

Does anyone know how they were made, was there a name for them, or the process that produced them?83.100.250.79 (talk) 12:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

See Overhead projector and transparency. Also Slide projector. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

No not that, I meant how the slide were made..83.100.250.79 (talk) 13:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

See also film recorder. My dad serviced these for like 20 years, so I am a bit familiar with them. --Jayron32 13:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure - the film recorder would make the transparency then - but how did they make the digital image back then - I'm not even sure that it was digital (probably was but don't know) What software/hardware did they use for the digital image?

I have heard real golden oldies refer to things called "viewgraphs" which sound a lot like Powerpoint slides. As for creating them, they didn't use computers for the most part, they make up the page normally (drafting the graphs carefully, using cut-out text), and then take a photograph of it, or something along those lines. Here's a nice little guide to making them from the good old days, that explains some of the different ways to do it. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that's too old - the 'viewgraphs' appear to be a form of transparency for an overhead projector, I'm sure the things I'm thinking of were made as 35mm slides, and used a standard projector eg Carousel slide projector. One thing I remember about them was that they were always blue, but I don;t know if this was a design choice, or part of the process that made them.83.100.250.79 (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe they shrunk viewgraphs onto 35mm slides - I haven't got a clue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.250.79 (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Used lots of presentation methods through the years. Photo projection was by a simple slide projector, and colour negative film. Views, portraits, graphs, anything that could be photographed. Then came cassette projectors with up to 80 slides and a cable remote. The other major method in College was the Overhead Projector (called a viewgraph in the US I think.) This was a light box with a prism on an arm. So a transparency could be laid flat on the OHP screen and it would be projected onto a vertical screen. These transparencies could either be hand drawn, produced by photography or by photocopier. Then computers grew up and along came Powerpoint. One thing the OHP allowed, however, was that one could draw or write on the transparency in real time. No tutor/classroom was without one!86.200.128.250 (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)DT

There's a missing link - the images were via slides not transparencies (not that that matters), but the slides were accurately type set - white text on a blue background - ie using a proper font, not handwriting - does anyone know how these were made (20 years ago)83.100.250.79 (talk) 16:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Harvard Graphics, for example, was computer-based - but you would use it to print to transparencies which would then be projected onto a screen using an overhead projector. You could technically do the same thing with Power Point, except that with high-quality computer projectors available now, there's no need to take that extra step - you can project directly from the PC. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That sounds more likely - I remember that they were generally used in presentations by visitors from big companies eg Imperial Chemical Industries - I imagine it was expensive at the time.83.100.250.79 (talk) 17:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Honestly I wish people would read the question - I said they had a blue background with type, and I said they used photographic slides - does this match an overhead slide in any way? I don't really want to read a lot of brown noise in the answer.83.100.250.79 (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll find that if you harsh on people who give you some information but it's not exactly what you want, you'll end up getting no information in the future. We're telling you what we know, not knowing if you want us ONLY to answer if we know about the SPECIFICS of your description. We're trying to be helpful. Please be a little more gracious, or go somewhere else for your question-answering. Everyone here is a volunteer and could easily be spending their time better elsewhere. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry you took it so personally - but I'm not asking for peoples recollections of stuff that I clearly haven't asked for. I'm just asking people to read the fucking question.

Apparently he thinks he's paying us for this service. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Fuck you too.83.100.250.79 (talk)

No, thanks - I gave at the office. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not a service for you to show off your knowledge either. So I don't need to know that I can connect a powerpoint presentation to a fucking electronic projector do I? Thanks for that amazing piece of insight.83.100.250.79 (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Dude stop acting like a dick - we're all volunteers on the refdesk - insulting people who are just trying to help is a lousy way to behave. Exxolon (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth 83.100.250.79, I sympathize with you. It's common practice here on the Ref Desk for some of the "volunteers" to give the stock answer "it's a free service so you've no right to complain" to defend sub-standard quality. It's a shame as the Ref Desk is an absolutely great resource, when it works. Also, just an FYI, you've being discussed on the Ref Desk talk page here -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.91.128 (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, not only is this a free service entirely run by volunteers, most of whom do try to answer the questions posted here thoroughly, but but there's also no call for being ungracious if you don't get the information you want. Furthermore, our civility policy applies project-wide. I suggest User:83.100.250.79 tone it down. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree 83.100.250.79 over reacted. And perhaps I did too a little bit; it was just Baseball Bugss sarcastic comment that frustrated me, and obviously it angered 83.100.250.79 too based on his reply to it. Pointing out that Wikipedia is a free service should not be a valid defense when there is something wrong. In that case, why bother at all? Why bother to have correct info in articles, why bother to enforce policy and block vandals? After all, the end user isn't paying for the service, so they've no right to complain. I think what I'm trying to say is, that sort of attitude isn't helpful. Thankfully most people on the Ref Desks are extremely helpful and kind, and try their very best to provide a brilliant service free of charge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.91.128 (talk) 22:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I did make photographic slides using Powerpoint around 10-11 years ago, before my department had a digital projector. We used what I suspect is a film recorder to do so -- essentially you printed the presentation in slide format to the film recorder and it exposed a single slide at a time, (digital) line by line, then you'd take the exposed film to the photo supply store/processor for developing and get it back the next day. It was a colossal pain. And I did (as did most people) use a blue background with white or yellow text. However, I'm not sure whether other technology was used earlier than that (but see Presentation program). And previous to that I made my slides by photographing typical printer output of black writing on white paper with black and white negative film and self-processing, giving a presentation of white lettering on black background.-- Flyguy649 ^talk 22:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Many semi-professional presentations were created using Genigraphics. -- Atlant (talk) 01:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

"Viewgraph" as a term undoubtedly comes from the Vu-Graph overhead projectors manufactured by the Charles Beseler Company, which entered the audio-visual market "in the late 1940s, serving primarily military and educational concerns." The City of Detroit's Department of Civil Defense purchased a "Vu Graph" and stand from Beseler in 1953.

Possibly related to the original question is an abstract of a 1978 report from the Lawrence Livermore Lab in California. "The VuGRAPH code offers possibly the fastest method of generating professional-quality viewgraph transparencies. The viewgraphs are constructed on a four-color plotter controlled by a HP-9825A desk-top minicomputer." --- OtherDave (talk) 03:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

3M produced a 'Color Highlight Write-on Film -- Type 212' for use on overhead projectors. This is a transparent blue film that turns yellow when written on by a special pen. It works well for hand writing or sketching during a presentation, or it can be laid over a your prepared film printed with text or diagram(s) and you use the pen to highlight items during the presentation. Thus a Highlight film gets consumed at every presentation, but the effect of blue turning to yellow makes a memorable impression. My kit of 100 sheets and 3 yellow pens is labelled "Reorder No. 78-6969-4279-2". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I remember having made such slides, some 25 years ago. We typed or drew the original in black and white. The photography service at the hospital where I worked, photographed the original using a special type of 35mm film, which produced blue and white slides. One type of film that does this is mentioned here, but as far as I can recall, a Kodak film of some sort was used. I also remember that I took a note of the name of the film type, bought a couple of rolls in a photography shop, and did some experimenting with colour originals. The colours were inverted, not exactly to complementary colours, but the effect was interesting, and usable for graphs. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 21:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit: I think the film type that we used was the one that is mentioned here - Kodak Vericolor (The page is large, search for "Reverse Text Slides on Vericolor Slide Film" to locate the item I'm referring to). --NorwegianBlue ^talk 21:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Here are the details. It appears that coloured filters are used to produce the blue background colour. I cannot remember doing so when I did my experiments, but it's a long time ago. It is quite possible that I used a yellow or orange filter. I did a lot of photography at the time, and had the filters. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 23:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay I have to admit, I find it interesting that after going off on the deep end resulting in a WT:RD discussion, about people not answering the question, the OP didn't seem to bother to thank NB either her or on his/her talk page (apologies if I missed it or it was some other means, e.g. via email) for actually answering it (at least it seems so to me). Obviously thanking people isn't required but it seems to me if you've made such a big fuss about those people not answering the question, you should at least thank those that do... Nil Einne (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Volleyball Serves

Is it legal to kick the volleyball on a serve?174.3.103.39 (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

No. Paragraph 12.4.1, which is in the “Service” section of the rules, says “The ball shall be hit with one hand or any part of the arm after being tossed or released from the hand(s).” Red Act (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, what is the reason?174.3.103.39 (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

There really isn’t a way to answer what the reason is. The FIVB doesn’t generally explain the decision processes that went into deciding the various rules. I presume kicking the ball during a serve has been discussed, but I highly doubt that that discussion was recorded or made public. You’d have to have a friend on the FIVB rule board who was present during that discussion to have any hope of finding out why kicking isn’t allowed during a serve. Red Act (talk) 15:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems kind of arbitrary, don't you think?174.3.103.39 (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

There’s no way to objectively judge how arbitrary that decision was. Maybe when they changed the rule to allow kicking, one guy said “so, should we extend this to serves?” and everybody just shook their head. Or maybe they had a half-hour conversation carefully considering how allowing kicking during the serve would affect the game. There’s really no way of knowing. Red Act (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

EC, but answer unchanged: You see, I'm thinking of the disadvatages of introducting kicking on serves. Which I find none: if you use too much power on the kick for the serve, it goes out. I don't see any disadvantage of kicking a volleyball, unless it (somehow) damages the ball (read my previous discussion).174.3.103.39 (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

All rules are arbitrary. Why is it that in soccer you can only handle the ball on a throw-in or when you're the goalie? Because that's how they wanted it. As a practical matter, kicking from a volleyball serve is probably a dumb strategy anyway. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

All rules are not arbitrary. If they let a kick in, the ball would fly across the field, which is not the intension of trying to keep the ball where it exited out of the field. Although I have no citation for this, I think this is more logical then madeup.174.3.103.39 (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You're making the same argument I did, that it's a dumb strategy, because it's so much harder to control. But that's not a reasonable reason for making it against the rules. The drop kick in football is a fairly dumb strategy also, but it's still allowed. The purpose of the rules is to keep the game fair and balanced, not to pre-empt dumb strategies. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The drop kick made a nice retirement present for Doug Flutie. It's probably a good play about each time the last person who made one is dead. PhGustaf (talk) 03:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Each time the last person who made one is dead? Huh?174.3.103.39 (talk) 05:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Floutie did it in 2006. The last guy to drop kick the ball died in 1964. Therefore, by PhGustaf's prediction, the next time someone drop kick's a football of the American variety, Floutie will be dead. Dismas|^(talk) 05:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't exactly complain if someone did it after the next time the Cubs won the World Series and Steve Goodman came back to sing about it[1], though. PhGustaf (talk) 07:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

What argument have I made that is the same as yours? I have never/not yet declared any strategy dumb. Nor have I yet declared anything harder to control. I'm saying that volleyball makes kicking the ball on service "against the rules".174.3.103.39 (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I can’t know for sure, but I think I have a pretty reasonable guess as to why kicking the ball is allowed on a hit, but not on a serve. Originally, all ball contact below the waist was disallowed. In general, longer volleys are more exciting to the players, because there’s more of a sense of accomplishment when you finally get a point after a long, hard-fought volley. Making the change to allowing a ball to be kicked on a hit adds an extra defensive option (and would be a useless offensive strategy, because the angle would be very poor to use on offense), which helps prolong the average volley a little. But allowing a kick on a serve would do nothing to prolong the average volley, and people don’t like it when you change rules too much, so there was no incentive to change to allow kicks on the serve. But that’s just an educated guess. Red Act (talk) 22:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea, but disagree with it.174.3.103.39 (talk) 05:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Soccer Rules

It is illegal to run outside of the field (during a game, excluding breaks, half-times, substitution, etc.), right?174.3.103.39 (talk) 16:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "outside of the field"? Unlike games like basketball and American football, the boundary lines in soccer are in play, and the ball can be played from "out of bounds" as long as the ball stays on or inside the boundary lines. Or at least that's the way I recall it from P.E. class some years ago. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

What I mean by outside of the field, is say, we have 11 players on each side. 1 player on side A runs out of the field. Player 2 passes to Player 3. Then Player 1 runs back into the field; Player 3 then passes to Player 1. For instance, is this allowed?174.3.103.39 (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The rules for the Football Association can be found here. what's with all the sports questions all of a sudden? Dismas|^(talk) 17:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You can leave the field of play during the game, but the ball cannot. If the ball fully crosses over the line then it becomes a goal-kick/throw-in (or goal!). If a player is removed from the field due to injury they will (normally) be required that the ref signals them back onto the pitch, but if in the course of a passage of play a player runs off the pitch (but the ball does not) that's fine. Dion Dublin, for instance, rather famously stood behind the goal-line waiting for Shay Given to score a very unusual goal (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y0kpT_DD6I). ny156uk (talk)

Isn't there some rule (link seems not to work for me)about no player leaving the field of play without the referee's permission. Whether that covers brief tactical excursions might need clarification if someone has access to the rules. Richard Avery (talk) 22:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The English pages are too fragmented to find anything in a hurry, but the German page de:Fußballregeln says: No player may enter or leave the field during play without the referee's permission. Violators are to be penalized. Exceptions are Throw-in and Offside (association football). Hope this helps. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Concur, Law 12 - Misconduct (association football)#Cautionable offences (Yellow Card). Nanonic (talk) 23:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

In practice players come and go off the edges of the pitch all the time. Very often at corners attacking or defending players will end up 'off' the pitch and not request referee's agreement to come back on. Strikers stand around the keeper, defenders stand behind the goal-line (ignoring the person taking the corner as they have to leave the pitch to take it). From my experience this law must be very rarely enforced - in my 20 years as a football-fanatic i've never seen a player stopped let alone booked for leaving the field of play during ongoing play. The only exception is injured players who leave for treatment must get permission (they seem to be keen to enforce that rule). ny156uk (talk) 08:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but what about passing? Is it possible to pass to one player, then exit the field just to enter the field again to be passed back the ball?174.3.103.39 (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The same applies. In ongoing play, no player is ever penalized for stepping off the pitch briefly and then stepping back on it again. It's just not an issue. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 22:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the issue is we're talking about potentially semi accidential and minor 'off' the pitch incidents which are allowed to fly. If a player leaves the field during play for a long time e.g. to go to the toilet, or to take a rest or are just being stupid an official's permission, you can bet they would be sanctioned in some way Nil Einne (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Austria and the German language

Having visited Austria for the World Bodypainting Festival four times now, I have begun to wonder. The official language of Austria is German, the exact same language they speak in Germany, save for local dialects and accents that don't affect the actual correct language. How do Austrians feel about having their official language belonging to another country? From what I've understood, for the past two hundred years or so, Germany and Austria have been very distinct from each other, and Germans and Austrians have been very clear about their countries' borders - save possibly for the brief Anschluss period during World War II, but after that, Germany and Austria have again been very distinct. JIP | Talk 19:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Austrians feel that their language "belongs to" Germany. From an Austrian point of view, both Austria and Germany are German-speaking countries. (This is similar to the perspective of people from the United States, who generally do not feel that their English language "belongs to" England, notwithstanding the narrow-minded belief by some Englishmen that it does.) Historically, the term "Germany" included Austria before the dissolution of the German Confederation in 1866. Before 1866, a person could have said that he was travelling to Vienna, Germany, for example. Austrians could have claimed to be part of Germany right up until the creation of the German Empire (Deutsches Reich) in 1871. After 1871, the term "Germany" was generally redefined to coincide with the German Empire, which excluded Austria, though there was still a concept of a Großdeutschland that included Austria, a concept that Hitler invoked to justify the Anschluss of 1938. The Nazis so sullied Großdeutschland that few Austrians (except for a fringe of neo-Nazis) desire such a union today. That does not diminish their German cultural heritage, including their language. Marco polo (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought that answer was very good, apart from the inclusion of the rather rude "notwithstanding the narrow-minded belief by some Englishmen that it does" bit, though I have to agree that I might have inadvertently been identified as onesuch when I was last in Las Vegas. We had been travelling around from hotel to hotel by taxi for nearly 2 weeks, and most of them were driven by non English speaking drivers, mainly Polish or Lithuanian, even several Russians. And one day, the driver was clearly a local, and I happened to mention that he was the first driver we had had who spoke English, whereupon he told me rather brusquely that "he didn't speak English either - he spoke American". I thought it best not to ask whether that would be Canadian or Spanish (Mexican variety of course). 92.22.84.14 (talk) 20:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The cab-driver wasn't in the worst of company: both the fervently-nationalistic Noah Webster and the famously-cynical H. L. Mencken wrote books about what they called the "American Language". [Consulting my own wiki-link, I see now that Webster published an "American Dictionary of the English Language", so he was a little less extreme.] And having kept most of my British accent after half a century living in the States, you must remember that Americans have no way of telling what attitude you might be holding behind that accent: some are impressed, but others fear that you're trying to assert some kind of cultural superiority and naturally resent it. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I've encountered one editor who seemed to think that the word 'Germany' had no referent between Roman times and 1871. —Tamfang (talk) 07:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Before 1800, there were dozens of sovereign and semi-sovereign states, of which Austria was the largest, that could equally claim German as their official and mother tongue. And nearly a dozen states and city-states that could do the same for Italian.

Spanish is the official language (sometimes together with an Amerindian language such as Quechua) of twenty Latin American nations, none of which has been under Spanish sovereignty in 110 years, and while Spanish institutions such as the Royal Spanish Academy still enjoy some of their respect, I don't think Latin Americans feel that Spain "owns" their language. (Each nation has her own language-dictating academy.) There is certainly friction (e.g. in Bolivia, Guatemala or the Mexican state of Chiapas) between those outside the big cities who grow up speaking Amerindian languages, and more-literate urban classes who speak only Spanish. but after the breakup of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1918, there are relatively-few such non-German-speakers (e.g. Serbs or Czechs) left within the borders of Austria. Although many have tried to establish the English-language equivalent of the Académie Française or the Real Academia Española, none has succeeded, but I don't know if such an linguistic authority exists for the German language, and if one should exist, how it's regarded by Austrians. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

German orthography reform of 1996 might illustrate things a bit. Germany has several government bodies dealing with language. The Duden has a de facto monopoly on German spelling in Germany. I assume you have read Austrian German. Assuming you speak English: how do you feel about your language being "owned" by Germans living at the Baltic coast whom it was named after? "Official languages" aren't usually spoken equally well by the entire population they are supposed to cover and local varieties always exist. Germans from Northern and Southern Germany can communicate when they modify their language to be closer to the official version, but they have to work at that. Governments can try to control what's taught at schools and what people are supposed to do, but they don't always succeed. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 23:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that when I took a taxi from the railway station to my accommodation place (a sort of "Bed&Breakfast", I can't afford hotels for such a long time, when the trip alone costs over 500 €), that the driver spoke standard, textbook "German" German to me, but a heavily dialectal Austrian German to the locals. I could understand what they said, but sometimes only barely. The most prominent dialectal feature was replacing "a"'s with "o"'s, for example "ocht" instead of "acht". Is this normal for Austrian German? Is it specific to Carinthia or common to the whole country of Austria? JIP | Talk 19:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Replacing "a" with "å"/"o" is fairly typical for the entire Austro-Bavarian dialectal region. There are some specific features of the Carinthian dialect which you may have noticed. Very noticeable is the "Kärtner Dehnung" (Carintian elongation ?) of the vowel "a", probably an effect of the influence of the Slovenian language. --62.47.152.122 (talk) 22:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

How to Americans feel about having to speak the English language? How do Mexicans feel about having to speak Spanish? It's a really common thing for the people of one country to speak a language that originated someplace else. SteveBaker (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well, it used to be the English language. We Yanks now have an absolute majority of the language's native speakers; I think that means the center of control has shifted. In a spirit of tolerance we still allow it to be called English. 1/2 :-). --Trovatore (talk) 23:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I sometimes buy French translations of originally English-language books (generally SF novels), and have noticed that those written by British authors generally carry the description "Traduit par l'Anglais", while those by US authors often say "Traduit par l'Americain." I think most people in the UK would be quite happy for the majority language of the USA to be called "American" - if nothing else it might discourage those of a more parochial attitude from complaining about "incorrect" spelling when they encounter prose from the opposite camp. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 03:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Could be. Just in case my "absolute majority" remark was misinterpreted (not sure; the reemergence of the word majority in your comment made me wonder), what I was saying was that an absolute majority of native English speakers in the whole world live in the United States. --Trovatore (talk) 04:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Depends on your definition of "native English speakers". I was born in England, live in the U.S. and know of no Asian ancestors, so I have no personal cause to push, but there might well be an equal or greater number of English speakers in India. In not too many decades, there certainly will be. On the other hand, the overwhelming majority of those English-speakers in India spoke another language to their families when emerging from infancy. English is one of India's official languages, together with Hindi and over a dozen regional tongues. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Note that I specified native speakers -- that is, English as a first language. Huge numbers of Indians learn English in school, but very few grow up speaking it at home. This is not my opinion -- you can look it up. I think it's actually a strong supermajority, on the order of 2/3, of native English speakers are in the US, or it might be the US plus Canada; not sure on the latter point. --Trovatore (talk) 06:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

According to List of countries by English-speaking population the US has 215 million native English speakers and 260 million total English speakers. In the entire world, there are 1180 million English speakers and 331 million native English speakers. So - there are around twice as many native English speakers in the USA than in the whole of the rest of the world combined - but Americans represent only about a quarter of the total number of English speakers world-wide. SteveBaker (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

«traduit de», surely? — Once someone asked me in French whether the story I was reading ("And Then There Were None", by Eric Frank Russell) was in English or American, and I had to think: it used bonnet for a vehicle's hood. —Tamfang (talk) 08:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah of course, the infamous native trick. Because only native speakers matter. Non native speakers have no right to influence the course of a language and have to just shut up and do what the native speakers tell them I guess... Nil Einne (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

A further, off-topic question. Is it common for native German speakers to switch to English when talking to non-native speakers? I don't like it when they do that. I want to be the one to decide whether I'm trusting my German skills or falling back on English. A strange example of this happened on the last day of the festival, when I was having a beer at Moserhof, in the middle of Seeboden. When there were still other customers present (all native German speakers), the waiter only ever spoke English to me. Immediately after they had left, and I was the last customer present, the waiter switched to German, and asked me, in full standard textbook German, if I had taken lots of photographs in the festival. I replied, also in standard textbook German, that I had. If he knew I understood German, why couldn't he have spoken it to me all along? Because of the way I feel about being talked to, I also make it a point, that whenever a foreign non-native Finnish speaker approaches me in whatever version of Finnish they can manage, I always reply in standard, textbook Finnish. Only if it's clear they don't understand what I'm saying do I switch to English. JIP | Talk 20:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that bugs me too. But also you have to remember that, just as you'd like a chance to practice your German, sometimes the other person wants a chance to practice his English. That may be the motivation, rather than an implication that your German isn't good enough. --Trovatore (talk) 01:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

One time, eating lunch with a new Hispanophone acquaintance, I invited him to use Spanish for his side of the conversation (I can understand much more Spanish than I can generate), but he found this confusing and switched back to English. —Tamfang (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

One thing to remember is that there are bound to be a number of people who for reasons of pride, embrassment or whatever are the opposite and won't tell or try to turn the conversation to the language they prefer. You may say, tough on these people but on the other hand, there's no reason why you can't be the one who tells the person that you'd prefer to speak in German to practice (or whatever). In this particularly case, there are a lot of possibilities beyond them simply feeling you may prefer English. As Trovatore has suggested, it's possible the person wanted to practice their English although that doesn't really explain why they would switch unless they decided they'd had enough or perhaps with more to talk about (since you were the only one left) felt it may be better to choose German if they were more comfortable with that. Perhaps the waiter wanted to show off or preferred to keep his conversations more private. Also it's not clear to me if this person was a native speaker of German or not. If not, perhaps they were the ones embrassed by their German and so chose to speak English when there were people who they felt may look down on them. Even if not embarassed, if they had an accent or whatever and they felt others may look down on them, perhaps they wanted to say to those people 'at least I know English, do you?' Perhaps even, the waiter didn't realise you spoke German, it's possible he saw you speaking to a patron leaving in German and only then realised. Or perhaps one of the patrons was someone the waiter was trying to impress. Or perhaps one of the other staff. Nil Einne (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No, the waiter was a native German speaker, and spoke German to the locals, but English to me. I spoke English back to him and did not speak to the locals. Only when the locals had left and I was the only customer present did he switch to German. I think he knew I understood German because I had tried to order beer in German before. JIP | Talk 02:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Reminds me of the time I (at age 16) flew on Lufthansa. One of the crew gossiped cheerfully at me in German, of which I understood none, but then caught herself after offering "Kaffee oder The?". —Tamfang (talk) 08:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)