< September 6	Language desk archive	September 8 >

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 >

September 7

Metalled roads

In UK legislation the term "metalled road" appears frequently but i cannot find a definition of the term. Can anyone assist please, preferably with a legal definition from primary legislation or case law; alternatively from common usage.

Many thanks

In this sense, metal means broken stone. The OED has metal (11): Broken stone used in macadamizing roads or as ballast for a railway.--Shantavira 07:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I work for a civil engineering company - metalled roads are those made from a certain form of macadam or tarmac. doktorb _words^deeds 07:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crosswords

While I'm here...=) doktorb _words^deeds 07:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony in ass-sucking to be a part of number 1? (5)

animals/birds

please help me to fill the following chart

Animal/bird    female     young       sound   
===========    =======    =========   =========
ape
bear           sow, she-bear cub         roar/growl
camel
cat            queen         kitten      meow
chicken        hen           chick       cluck
crow                         chick       caw
deer           doe           fawn
dog            bitch         puppy       bark
donkey         jenny         foal        bray
elephant       cow           calf        trumpet
horse          mare          foal        neigh/whinny
lion           lioness       cub         roar/growl
parrot                       chick       call/Squawk
peafowl        peahen        chick
pigeon         hen           chick       coo (coo)
snake                                    hiss
tiger          tigress       cub         roar/growl       
wolf           she-wolf      pup         howl/bark

220.247.229.57 08:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure all of these words exist... Also, there's often a difference between the onomatopetic word for the sound the animal is making, and for the action verb, as in bark/woof. 惑乱分からん 11:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you forget about the idea of animal "homes". Kennels are a human invention, and somewhat out of fashion. Nests are only used for rearing young.--Shantavira 12:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like homework to me, albeit a very simple one at that... Just a thought. -- the GREAT Gavini 15:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a couple unrelated comments -- In strict usage, "peacock" is a male peafowl. A horse's sound might be whinny instead of neigh. A parrot would squawk, not squark. --LarryMac 17:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if my edits make some of the above editors comments seem confusing. I agree that the "home" section is completely silly (a lions home was given as "cage") and I've boldly removed it. I think we should persevere with the rest; we're doing pretty well so far.

I think chick might describe the young of any bird. So might egg....

If the questioner is not a native speaker, (s)he might find stable useful as a home for a horse.

I had no idea you could make tables like that.... TheMadBaron 19:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems as a very primitive table to me... =S 惑乱分からん 21:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can't make tables like that, or at least shouldn't. It presents an artificial systematicity that is not actually present in the language. --Ptcamn 23:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh.

Nope, sorry, I don't even know what systematiciticity is, but it's a reet good table. TheMadBaron 08:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A female elephant is a cow. --LarryMac 20:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should add male equivalents when appropriate, such as peacock, stallion, tomcat... 惑乱分からん 21:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So much missing here. For instance, a young female often has a name: heifer for cattle, gilt for pig, gimmer for sheep. Or castrated animals: gelding for horse, bullock for cattle, hog for pig, hogget for sheep. Beef, pork, mutton... · rodii · 22:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, of course there's lots missing.... I mean, it doesn't even give the wing-span of a swallow.... I guess that the questioner isn't very interested in castrated animals.... TheMadBaron 09:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would that be an African or European swallow? 惑乱分からん 10:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BURMA! TheMadBaron 11:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See List of animal names - Nunh-huh 02:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish: why vs because

I've begun learning Spanish using audio lessons by Michel Thomas. He mentions that, in speech, question function is indicated by tone where there's no question word in a sentence. For example, "no lo tienne" can be interpreted is "Don't you have it?" or "You don't have it" based on how we utter them. He adds that we need not distinguish with our tone when the sentence has question words like "what" and "why". But, given that "porke" is the word for both "why" and "because", how would a Spanish speaker resolve the ambiguity? -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 08:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Why" and "because" are very different in their orthography and stress. Spanish "why" is written as two words: por qué, pronounced <porˌkeː>, with stress on qué. "Because" is a single word, porque, with little or no stress as far as I can tell. Here's an example:

¿Por qué Esteban no está en clase?

'Why isn't Steve in class?'

Esteban no está en clase porque está enfermo.

'Steve isn't in class because he is sick.

szyslak (t, c, e) 09:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ben. I get it now. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 09:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is a slight stress on the 'o' and the 'e' is pronounced differently, more like 'ih' in stead of 'ay' (well, it's not really like 'ay' - that is a common mispronunciation by anglophones becuase there is no English sound equivalent). DirkvdM 19:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The stress isn't slight (actually secondary would be the more technical term). It just shifts from one case to the other. I don't think the actual vowel varies much by stress, at least in the varieties I am familiar with. With the exception of Catalan, Romance languages do not change the value of vowels based on stress like Germanic languages tend to do.

It's porque (because)= ['porke] in IPA and por qué (why?) = [por'ke] in IPA.

If you want good examples of all Spanish vowels, together with their IPA symbols, a video of a speaker saying them, and a flash cartoon of tongue movements and step by step descriptions, check out [this incredible site]. The guy's got English ones too. mnewmanqc 13:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link and clarification, people. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using nouns as adjectives that look like verbs

I'm interested in any data I can get on phrases like "blue-eyed," "long-armed," "double-sided," and "three-pronged" -- that is, phrases that use nouns (eye, arm, side, prong) as adjectives, but make them look like verbs or participles (by adding -ed). In particular, is there a name for this practice? Is it "acceptable" (whatever that means) with any noun? ("thick-ulnaed"? "V6-Engined"? "Deep-moated"?) If not, when is it acceptable? Is it just as acceptable without an adjective modifying the noun-cum-adjective ("tentacled monster", "corded phone")? ^L_Wizard @ 09:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See English compound#Hyphenated compound adjectives. --Shantavira 12:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You're referring me, more specifically, to this:

An adjective preceding a noun to which -d or -ed has been added as a past-participle construction:
   * "loud-mouthed hooligan"
   * "middle-aged lady"
   * "rose-tinted glasses"

which doesn't answer very many of my questions. ^L_Wizard @ 19:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your last three phrases are cliches in everyday use and occur in the dictionary because they are used so frequently. One can certainly invent new combinations as needed, especially with numbers, etc. But if you are not a native speaker its probably safer to avoid inventing bizarre new ones - say "with a thick ulna" instead. Jameswilson 23:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there seems to be a finite (but actually rather large) number of nouns that permit this kind of formation. An educated-sounding native speaker with a confident tone of voice could probably pair any noun with any adjective in such a way and give the impression that he's just being innovative or poetic. "The pale-foreheaded man sat in a three-armchaired office." But in a formal setting, or coming from a non-native speaker, it would probably raise some eyebrows. Bhumiya (said/done) 00:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it "acceptable" (whatever that means) with any noun? ("thick-ulnaed"? "V6-Engined"? "Deep-moated"?) The word you're looking for is productive, I believe. Tesseran 23:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptability judgements have their place as well, although they are not grammaticality judgements. An acceptability judgement indicates whether a speech community would accept a particular utterance irregardless of its grammaticality. And if you didn’t just notice “irregardless” then you find it acceptable though it may not be grammatical. — Jéioosh 03:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

meaning

hi what is the meaning of Clarion, and from where does the name clarion originates from.

I only know Clarion (the GPS unit creators). If you want to know where the name comes from, you might have better luck at their corporate website. The article I linked to mentions more things by the same name. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or do you mean the musical instrument? In which case see clarion (instrument). The word is Latin in origin.--Shantavira 12:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess a Roman origin, or the name having the same root as 'clear' to describe the type of trumpet (I'm having visions, for some reason, of an Edwardian brassware manufacturer inventing it on a slow day at the foundry). Rentwa 05:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poem title is THE BRIDES by Alec Derwent Hope

Could anyone help me in getting the complete verse of the below poem.

Down the assembly line they roll and pass
.........
For light and music; a place for his cigarette:
Room for his knees; a honey of a clutch.’

Thanks Vasanth044 11:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Vasanth044[reply]

Shouldn't be too hard to google or find at the library? 惑乱分からん 11:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bung it in google book search [1] if you canny get to a library. I don't know if this is the complete poem. MeltBanana 13:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who or That?

A friend of mine is teaching English in Japan, and was asked this question: in the sentence, "He is the only person (who) (that) knows the fact," which is correct? It seems to me it should be "he ...who" but some of the other teachers said it's not "he who knows" in this sentence, it's "person that knows", if you follow. Any thoughts? Thanks- Thedoorhinge 14:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"He is the only person who knows the fact" is right, I think, according to the relative clause article. Jack is the boy who kissed Jenny is the example given there, and it uses "who". -- the GREAT Gavini 15:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are both correct. --Ptcamn 16:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both? That's good, although the answer I gave seems to get the most ridiculing by grammar police when I say or write it... -- the GREAT Gavini 16:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly prefer who, yet when I looked up a similar matter I found they were both acceptable. Durova 18:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think who is the prescriptivist form but actual usage allows that. This is only for when you're talking about people. Animals or objects should never use who: *"the rock who has moss growing on it" AEuSoes1 20:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, "who" is reserved for people, and in a perfect world, "that" would be reserved for non-people. But applying that rule strictly could get us into trouble. The old song "The girl that I marry" would sound rather silly as "The girl whom I marry", even if the latter form is pedantically correct. So, there are cases where "that" is the better word in relation to people, but its use is mostly not justified and, in my opinion, should be avoided. JackofOz 22:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why should "that" be avoided in relation to people? What's wrong with it? --Ptcamn 22:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it comes down to a question of personal preference and style in many cases. Would you say Jimbo Wales is "the person who founded Wikipedia", or "the person that founded Wikipedia"? I prefer the former, and if I see anything like the latter construction in any of our articles, I immediately change "that" to "who". I've had no objections so far. I generally reserve "that" for non-human animals and inanimates. JackofOz 01:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can have your personal preferences, but I don't think you're actually allowed to go around changing articles: The Manual of Style says In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that, when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. (And I'd actually prefer "that" in this particular example, anyway.) --Ptcamn 11:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd always heard that "who" was for people only, "which" was for non-people only, and "that" was fine for anything, even prescriptively speaking. So you're saying that "that" as a relative pronoun functions identically to "which?" -Elmer Clark 01:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone, I have been at the very least lead in the right direction. My take at this point is that in a restrictive clause either "who" or "that" is ok and in a non-restrictive clause only "who" is ok. At least that's what the Japanese are now being taught! Thedoorhinge 03:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I arbitrarily choose whichever sounds correct. --Proficient 06:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to native speakerdom, which means you can rely on that intuition. The problem of figuring out which one is correct in what circumstances or whether there really is free variation between the two is what linguists are paid to solve. Ideally their solutions provide the materials for second language education, but that’s not always the case. Especially when linguists don’t agree, which is fairly often. — Jéioosh 03:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it "flip chart" or "flipchart"? Or does it matter?

Dictionary.com just has "flip chart." But I see on the Internet that businesses use both "flip chart" and "flipchart." Is one correct and the other not correct?

Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary doesn't list "flipchart." The Oxford English Dictionary lists "flip chart" and has several quotes with it as two words, but it also has one quote from 1985 which uses "flipchart." I'd use flip chart, since it seems that flipchart isn't widely acknowledged by dictionaries. Philbert^2.71828 00:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the end though, it doesn’t matter. Whichever looks best to your eyes — and to those of a few other proofreaders — is the one you should stick with. Try not to switch randomly between them, however. — Jéioosh 03:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huge lists of vocabulary

Hi, I'm looking for a knowledge resource where very big lists of vocabulary with their direct translation into as many as possible languages. Anyone? Thanks.

Wiktionary. --Ptcamn 22:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, didn't know the answer was so close.