Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2006 September 23

< September 22	Language desk archive	September 24 >

Humanities

Science

Mathematics

Computing/IT

Language

Miscellaneous

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 at one of the pages linked to above.

< August	September	October >

Please help me

Hi How are you? I am new one in this page and I feel happy that I have got alot of abundance of knowledge from this site. I need help. (EDUCATION IS THIRD EYE OF A MAN)this is topic I need some idea. please would you like to tell me some great points. It's very urgent now.

I aspire that you will not frustrate me. I am waiting for your reply Thankyou very much

I don't understand. What is your question? Do our articles on third eye or education help you? As a metaphor, your phrase makes little sense, as nobody has a third eye but many people are educated. Is this a quotation? If so, you need to find the context. If the third eye represents education, what do the other eyes represent? Also you say "a man", so which man is this referring to? If you just say "man" instead, this is not PC, so it is still a lousy metaphor IMO. If this is a reference to Ambedkar (since there is an important fortieth anniversary imminent), his motto was "educate, agitate, organize". He always put education first (not third).--Shantavira 07:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can imagine it as some type of metaphor: "As our two eyes allow us to see the obvious, so the third eye of education allows us to see those things hidden from the other two." StuRat 08:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but most of us receive most of our education through our two eyes and our two ears already; it's not as though education is additional to sight. So as a metaphor I don't think it works. Besides, "education" is normally output rather than input; "learning" would be more appropriate. "Learning is the third eye of Man." So where does that leave women? As an elderly Indian once said to a friend of mine on learning he was not married: "What is knowledge without college? What is life without a wife?" --Shantavira 11:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the sentence was reversed "Third Eye is the Education of Man", it'd make sense if "education" was interpreted in some broad sense... 惑乱分からん 11:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems obvious that the third eye here is the intellect...what we see (visually) normally needs intellectual interpretation. Thinking is the key to understanding and education helps the development of intellect.

Note that the usual meaning of "third eye" is a Hindu concept of a hidden "eye" that sees into the spiritual realm, as opposed to the two normal eyes, which only see into the physical realm. StuRat 23:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ANSWERED -> Alternate Names

Could u please help me in giving alternate names for the word WARRIORS

Try a thesaurus, like the one at Merriam-Webster: [1]. StuRat 05:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to have symonyms for it. Well, there's "soldiers", "militia", "fighters", "troopers", etc. -- the GREAT Gavini 06:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it does. It provided a link to SOLDIER, which then listed these synonyms and related words:

Synonyms: fighter, legionary, legionnaire, man-at-arms, regular, serviceman

Related Words: servicewoman; cavalier, cuirassier, dragoon, trooper; dogface, doughboy, footman, foot soldier, infantryman; commando, marine, ranger; artilleryman, musketeer, rifleman; archer, lancer, spearman; Confederate, Continental, Federal, GI, guardsman, Rough Rider; guerilla, irregular, partisan; combatant, noncombatant; mercenary, soldier of fortune; veteran, war-horse; conscript, draftee, recruit; reservist

StuRat 09:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...Amazons, berserkers, combatants, samurai, swordsmen, war-dogs...--Shantavira 07:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

grunts,groundpounders,G.I.s ,gyrenes,boots,gladiators,swordsmen,(hotclaws**== 15:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Courtesy thesaurus.com: activist, adversary, advocate, aggressor, airman, ally, antagonist, aspirant, assailant, backer, battler, belligerent, boxer, brawler, bruiser, bully, cadet, candidate, cavalryman, central character, challenger, champ, champion, combatant, commando, competitor, conqueror, conscript, contender, contestant, contester, dark horse, defender, demonstrator, disputant, dogface, doughboy, doughfoot, draftee, duelist, endorser, enlisted man, entrant, exemplar, exponent, expounder, fighter, fighting man, GI, GI Joe, gladiator, Green Beret, grunt, guardian, guardsman, guerrilla, gunner, heavy, hero, heroine, hireling, hopeful, idol, infantryman, jouster, lead, lead character, leader, legionnaire, mainstay, man-at-arms, marine, master, medalist, member, merc, mercenary, militant, military man, musketeer, nonpareil, number one, numero uno, objector, officer, opponent, paladin, palooka, paratrooper, participant, partisan, patron, pilot, player, plug, prime move, principal, private, professional soldier, proponent, protector, protestor, pug, pugilist, punching bag, rank, recruit, rioter, rival, sapper, scout, scrapper, scrapper, selectee, serviceman, slave, slugger, soldier, standard-bearer, supporter, sympathizer, tanker, team member, titleholder, top dog, trooper, upholder, vanquisher, veteran, victor, vindicator, volunteer, warmonger, warrior, white knight, wildcat, winner. --Lambiam ^Talk 16:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But check out the description in a dictionary for exact connotations, several of these examples (slave? victor? winner? rival?) actually seem quite dubious... 惑乱分からん 18:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Eagles? --Maxamegalon2000 18:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed

I added to an article that all consonants in English, as well as all IE languages, are pulmonic. Does anyone know of a resource which backs that up? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 15:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be a very good resource, because that statement's not true. Sindhi, an Indo-Iranian language, has a set of four glottalic ingressive consonants. --Ptcamn 16:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And Armenian has ejective consonants (though the phonology section is a stub, and it doesn't say so). ColinFine 16:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, then is there a resource that says all English consonants are pulmonic? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 17:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess any textbook on linguistics written in English would have it. The sixth edition of An Introduction to Language by Victoria Fromkin and Robert Rodman says that all English sounds are pulmonic eggresive on p. 223. I'm sure a good phonetics textbook (such as A Course on Phonetics) would say the same. --Kjoonlee 09:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Published by Harcourt Brace College Publishers in 1998. Their "editorial correspondence" bureau is at Forth Worth, TX. --Kjoonlee 09:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing the richness of Spanish and English

I would like to know which language has more accepted words, English or Spanish. Also, if possible, i would like links to verify the information. 84.123.117.231 16:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)Jerry[reply]

Ask Oxford. Rmhermen 17:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd guess English... 惑乱分からん 18:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the reason given by Oxford, 'messy' might be a better word than 'rich'. :) Having more than one word for one meaning doesn't make a language richer. Having different words for different nuances of that meaning would, however, make it richer. I'm not sure which is the case here. Having one word for different meanings (ie 'bathroom' in AE) is actually a pretty poor thing. Funny, btw, that Oxford gives being a lingua franca as the reason for adopting so many words. That sounds like nonsense. Indonesian is also a lingua franca and for that reason actually very simple. It is true, though, that English has adopted many words from other languages, especialy French. I haven't a clue why that is, though. French was the lingua franca a few centuries ago, so many languages adopted words from French (see, it actually works the other way around), but none as much as English, afaik. DirkvdM 19:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Indonesian is a standardized dialect, English is a (natural language as well as a) Lingua Franca, not for any practical linguistic reasons, but because of the socio-economical advantages associated with it. 惑乱分からん 20:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English has thousands of French loanwords because of the Norman conquest of 1066. Other loanwords come from simple cultural contact. AEuSoes1 03:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If they're loanwords, could the French demand them back?--Shantavira 07:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're too busy trying to give back the loanwords they've taken. AEuSoes1 08:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, first some quick reasons why there's not really a definitive answer to this question:

Any answer to this kind of question relies on agreeing some assumptions about what constitutes a 'word' (on both a purely linguistic level -- do you count different inflected forms separately, for instance? -- and in terms of what archaic/obsolete terms you include).
Languages are constantly changing and evolving, so even if it were possible to give an accurate count of the number of words in a language's vocabulary it wouldn't be accurate for very long.
'Richness' is a loaded concept. What one language accomplishes by having a large vocabulary, another might achieve with extensive inflectional morphology or even with highly variable word order.

But with those caveats in mind, yes, English has to a first-order approximation about twice as many words as Spanish. The reasons for this are largely historical: despite being a Germanic language English was altered much more by the influence of Latin than is usual; later, the British Empire then allowed English speakers to go around the world stealing people's countries and incidentally adopting a selection of their more interesting words. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 08:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Incidentally, it's also worth noting that although, to pluck a random example from the air, Spanish doesn't have vocabulary to distinguish between a Chairman and a Chief Executive (they're both 'presidente'), that doesn't mean that Spanish-speakers don't understand the difference. Turning the same example on its head, Spanish can inflect to distinguish between a male Chairman/CEO and a female one: compare 'presidente' and 'presidenta'. English can't do that, but it doesn't mean that English speakers can't express the concept of 'male Chairman' as different from 'female Chairman'. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 08:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well just to pluck another "random" example from the air, English doesn't have vocabulary to distinguish between "saber" and "conocer" - not even between some of the most basic verbs in the language, "tener"/"haber" or "ser"/"estar". The roots of that difference are quite significant in my opinion. --RiseRover|^talk 06:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Know" is an interesting case, afaik, all other Germanic and Romance languages keep the distinction between "be aware of" and "be certain of". (I've never understood the difference between tener/haber and ser/estar completely...) 惑乱分からん 11:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The way I learned this, the English language's large vocabulary is partly due to overlap in Germanic and Romance vocabulary: end and finish, street and avenue, etc. These dual versions usually have slightly different connotations. The pattern is embedded so deeply that English has no concept of language purity. English speakers tend to be very welcoming of loanwords that add fresh nuance to the language. Durova 14:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James D. Nicoll made the oft-quoted observation: "The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary." — Catherine\^talk 01:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Question

I'm a professional translator from Japanese to English, but I can't find, on the internet or even from anyone that I know here in Japan (!), the meaning to a particular word. The word is バレ化。Can anyone tell me the meaning?CCLemon 17:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me some sort of context? freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 17:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First guess is that it's to do with 画バレ. I don't pay attention to anime circles but I think that's what they call pages listing screen shots for (upcoming?) anime. Probably from ばれる so they're "revealing" all the images. バレ化 would then be a slangy way to nominize the act, i.e. あの映画、まだバレ化してない？ There's only like 15 hits on google for it so I doubt it's any more than a neologism used by 5 people. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 17:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freshofftheufo-san, how do you pronounce 画バレ (gabare? kakubare?) and what does it mean? --Lambiam ^Talk 10:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say 90% chance it's gabare, literally meaning "image" "reveal". freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 15:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'化" is used in verb 'to change', and the バレ is obviously 'ball' or 'bowl'. Beats me what it means, though. Wooty 03:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bare does not mean "ball" or "bowl", which would both sound like bōru. Although I can't be sure of such an obscure word, it is most likely, as I said, the root of the verb ばれる. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 15:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of -- during my 20+ years in Japan as a native. I'd say it to be, most probably, a typo (or, you might crop the wrong section, say, ネタバレ可 -- typo -> ネタバレ化 -- cropped -> バレ化 ?) . --marsian 14:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spenser Poem

Who lists to see, what euer nature, arte,

And heauen could doo, O Rome, thee let him see,

In case thy greatnes he can gesse in harte,

By that which but the picture is of thee.

Rome is no more: but if the shade of Rome

May of the bodie yeeld a seeming sight,

It's like a corse drawne forth out of the tombe

By Magicke skill out of eternall night:

The corpses of Rome in ashes is entombed,

And her great spirite reioyned to the spirite

Of this great masse, is in the same enwombed;

But her braue writings, which her famous merite

In spight of time, out of the dust doth reare,

Doo make her Idole through the world appeare.

This is a poem by Edmund Spenser - can anyone tell me what they make of lines three and four (particularly the phrase "by that which but the picture is of thee")? The poem is about the ruins of Rome, so I assume line three says that one could "guess in your heart" about the (former) greatness of Rome, but line 4 leaves me baffled. (The rest of it I get, I'm just including it for context.) 165.123.166.240 19:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Random thoughts: "By that which but the picture is of thee" -> "By that which is but the picture of thee" -> "By that which is but the pale shadow of thee" . Maybe. Notinasnaid 19:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lines 1-2 express that a glimpse of Rome would illustrate all the greatness that nature, mankind's craft and heaven are capable of achieving. Lines 3-4 lament that the viewer will, however, be forced to guess at the magnitude of that greatness by extrapolating from the view of Rome's ruins, which is little more than a remembrance of its past glory. dpotter 00:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Random thought from the GREAT Gavini - isn't this homework? -- the GREAT Gavini 06:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not for homework questions =) doktorb _words^deeds 13:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]