I was wondering what linguistic/typographical term described the little flourish at the end of a "u" in some fonts (not when you make it like a smile, but with the little thing at the end to make sure people don't confuse it with v). I've gathered that it may be called a minim but that seems to be the general term describing any downstroke of the pen.
Nope, that's not what I'm referring to. You could draw a lower-case u like this, but I'm referring to the thing that makes this lower-case one different. When you hand-write it, usually there's a little curve that comes off it. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nricardo is correct. The typographical term for the little curve coming off the second 'u' or the curve on a t is most definitely a serif. --JayHenry05:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that all the fonts on the List of Sans Serif typefaces have those "things"; thus the things are not likely called serif. Perhaps the things are in fact an organic part of the minim in "u" and "t", not "flourishes" for them; and it's the thing-less "u" and "t" which are fanciful.--K.C. Tang06:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Futura (typeface) does not have the "things" on u and t. I've looked up all manner of interesting terms like "beards" "beaks" and so on, but none seem to apply exactly to those "things". They are not "tails" or "hooks" either, it seems. I would agree with Nricardo that they are serifs, and that "sans serif" is thus a comparative term! SaundersW11:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the curve at the bottom of a "t", I've heard "hook". The thing on a "u" -- which is not present on the screen font I'm typing this in -- looks like a serif to me too. --Anon, 13:19 UTC, October 2, 2007.
Comparison of the letter "u" I've uploaded a picture of what I think the differences are between serifs and what I'm referring to. I believe the thing on the left (Times New Roman) has a serif at the end of the thing I'm talking about, the thing in the middle (Helvetica) has no serifs and does have the things I'm talking about, and the thing on the right has no serifs and does not have the thing I"m referring to (Futura). I believe there is a difference between serifs and this thing. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 14:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to The Complete Manual of Typography by James Felici (Berkeley (2003): Peachpit Press, ISBN 0-321-12730-7) it's called a terminal. His definition of terminal is: "The end of a character stroke, which may or may not be adorned with a serif", and the illustration is of the hook at the bottom of a lower-case t, which most typefaces (both serif and sans-serif) have, but Futura (for example) doesn't. —Angr15:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Serifs should be at an angle [1]. Not strictly a "hook" for the "t" as that is a different component [2], although as a description here it's understandable. Bazza15:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Terminal sounds like the definition I'm looking for. I'll go with hook, too. Thanks a lot. (The discussion sprang from a math class where the textbook was referring to , , and (vectors t, u and v) and it was confusing because the t could be mistaken with a plus sign, and the u – if drawn without its terminal, could look like the v. We then got into a fun discussion about what those thingies added to the u and t were called.) --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 23:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I hadn't had the benefit of this thread, I'd call the right vertical of u a stem, like the left vertical of n. —Tamfang22:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hopi question
Is there anyone here with access to a dictionary or other resources on the Hopi language? It's claimed that "Hakomi" means "How do you stand in relation to these many realms?", but I'm skeptical and would like confirmation. (See Talk:Hakomi.) --Alivemajor09:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll not fix your computer.
Hi, I ran into this sentence the other day.
I'll not fix your computer.
I will not fix your computer.
Would you say the two sentences are equivalent? I'm asking because for me, the first one sounds as if the speaker has specifically made up his mind to tell someone that he won't fix the computer even though he can.
No, I'll not fix your computer.
And I think this sentence is very funny, because to me, the "not fix" sounds like it doesn't go well with "No,". What do you think? --Kjoonlee21:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Related question: I tried searching for "No, I'll not" on Google, and found only old texts, mostly. But I did find "No, I'll not even think about doing that." Somehow, this sentence sounds OK. What do you think, and why do you think so? I'd appreciate some comments/insights. Thank you! --Kjoonlee21:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You'll get different answers depending on who you ask, but "I'll not fix your computer" is practically impossible in my dialect (Middle Atlantic, USA), and I would never write it that way in my own voice. Given the words involved, "I won't" is normal, and "I will not" is extraordinarily emphatic. --Milkbreath21:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To me it sounds wrong if used in normal discourse with a neutral tone of voice. I'd always go for "I won't fix your computer", never *"I'll not...". However, "I'll not" can be used in ironic or sarcastic-sounding statements when the "not" is strongly stressed: "I'll not fix your computer". I'd say this is purely colloquial, however, and would not be used in any sort of writing. (Mid-Atlantic US dialect) Macnas22:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think if you wanted to get technical about it, "shall" goes with first-person pronouns and "will" goes with 2nd and 3rd, so it would be, "I'll not…" and "I shan't…," and then you get into the whole deal where nobody even says "shan't" anymore, so who knows. It's not wrong to say "I'll not," but I'd say more people say "I won't." They are equivalent, though. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 23:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The way I was originally taught, in English, the long form of answering yes/no questions: "yes, I will do it" / "no, I won't do it" seemed to me to be compulsory. Also answering "what is your name?" with "my name is JIP" seemed compulsory. Keep in mind that I was ten years old and English was the first language other than Finnish I had ever been exposed to. This caused an experience I shall probably never forget. On a class trip to Italy, Italian children asked, in English, what is my name. I replied as above, which caused them to laugh a lot. Only later, when watching M.A.S.K. cartoons on TV, did I find out that yes, in English, it is just as possible to reply with your name only just as in Finnish. JIP | Talk19:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a useful remark for me, as an ESOL teacher, to bear in mind, lol! I always strive to let my students (adults) know that, of course, in "normal' conversation, one tends to answer succintly, if not lazily. But getting learners to answer fully is simply good practice for the grammar. "What's his name? His name is George. What's her name? Her name is Lisa." etc etc. Students who are only taught the "natural" responses will have a hard time producing the full forms when they need them. As for the "yes, I will do it" stuff -- I prefer to get people to absorb the "1,23 pattern, as in "Yes, I will", "No I won't. If anything, I find it hard to break people from the habit of answering with unnecessary information, as in "what did you do last night? I watched TV last night." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.62.134 (talk) 06:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any problems with it. It's not functionally any different from "I'll never fix your computer" - simply replacing "never" with "not". I agree that it's not as common, but it's perfectly valid and understandable.
origin of the word unique
I have looked everywhere trying to find the historical origins of the word unique. When did it first come into use? Is it derived from a Latin word. How long has the word been in use etc.. Can you please help? Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.121.5.54 (talk) 22:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merriam-Webster states that it came from the Latin unicus via French. Regarding how long it's been in use, it says:
Unique dates back to the 17th century but was little used until the end of the 18th when, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, it was reacquired from French. H. J. Todd entered it as a foreign word in his edition (1818) of Johnson's Dictionary, characterizing it as "affected and useless." Around the middle of the 19th century it ceased to be considered foreign and came into considerable popular use.
(edit conflict) It's from French, unique, from Latin, unicus, with a similar meaning, from unus, "one". The OED has its first appearance in 1602, with our present spelling. "Unic" is seen around the same time straight from the Latin. --Milkbreath23:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, except that genitives usually (not always) precede what they modify, so νοῦ ὀφθαλμός is more likely. Even more likely is ὁ τοῦ νοῦ ὀφθαλμός with definite articles to mean "the mind's eye". —Angr09:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is a word-for-word formulation; Angr's Greek is good—this exact phrase is found in the Corpus Hermeticum (also in the plural: eyes of the mind; comparisons between nous and ophthalmoi, mind and eyes, & their roles, can be found elsewhere). My interest would be in a Greek equivalent as used by a Classical author. What comes to mind first is Aristotle's discussion of perception (De Anima), where he uses the term phantasmata for the mental images that appear to the mind's eye. Thus the faculty is called φαντασία, phantasia (follow the external links for complete lexicon entries showing the whole range of usage for an Ancient Greek word). (The other Greek word worth looking at in this connection is θεωρία, theōria, since its meaning was extended from being a spectator visually to contemplation & speculation.) If your point in asking about the Greek characters is to inscribe it as a motto somewhere, you may wish to use all caps: ΦΑΝΤΑΣΙΑ (and ΘΕΩΡΙΑ and Ο ΤΟΥ ΝΟΥ ΟΦΘΑΛΜΟΣ). Wareh17:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Format for Dates
Is it proper or improper ... ambiguous or unambiguous ... acceptable or unacceptable ... conventional or unconventional ... correct or incorrect ... to express a calendar date in the following format?
2007-08-03 to represent August 3, 2007
The reason that I ask is this. When we have several dates written in the first format, those dates can easily be sorted (in numerical or "alphabetical" order) so that the dates are listed in a chronological order. When we attempt to sort dates written in the second format, the chronology is incorrect in that (for example) April 1, 1999 would sort before November 1, 1862 -- which is correct alphabetically, but incorrect chronologically. And, furthermore, to make matters worse ... something like April 20, 1888 would sort before April 3, 1888 as the computer sorts the "2" in "April 20" before the "3" in "April 3". Any insight? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro04:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I'd say that, depending on the context, it can be proper, acceptable, conventional and correct. But it is certainly ambiguous. It could be taken to refer to either 3 August 2007 or 8 March 2007. -- JackofOz04:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In a context where the format is specified, such as a computer application where all dates need to be in the same format, and assuming this is the required format, it would satisfy all your 5 criteria. But where the format is not explained, it's clearly ambiguous. If I read in a newspaper "Joe Bloggs blew his brains out on 2007-08-03", I'd be unsure which date was meant. -- JackofOz04:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be. The year-first format is the only numbers-only format I consider unambiguous. 2007-08-03 definitely means 2007-08-03. It's the two year-last formats that are ambiguous. When I see 08-03-2007 (or with other punctuation as a separator, like 08.03.2007 or 08/03/2007) I don't know whether August 3 or 8 March is meant. —Angr09:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, if the bloody Americans didn't insist on writing their dates in the wrong order, as opposed to a sensible and logical progression via order of magnitude from day to month to year, then there wouldn't be any ambiguity. 80.254.147.5213:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need to get NPOV POV about it. The "bloody American" system is very logical because it matches the most common way of saying dates in North America. Now of if only the bloody British would say their dates the right way... :-) but never mind, that's why we have ISO 8601. --Anon, 13:52 UTC, Oct. 3.
I assume you mean "no need to get non-NPOV" about it. But in this case, as with all the other bloody-minded things Americans do unlike everyone else on the planet (like avoiding the metric system), it's the Brits' fault the Americans do it this way. Back in the 17th and 18th centuries, the British also wrote "October 3, 1707" and not "3 October 1707". So if the Brits had just adopted "a sensible and logical progression via order of magnitude" a few centuries earlier, we wouldn't be in this mess. —Angr14:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I meant POV. There. Sorry, I was in a hurry to get to an appointment. --Anon, 2007-10-04, 00:41 UTC.
Jack, it's true that someone determined to find ambiguity can find it anywhere, but does anyone in the world in fact use the form yyyy-dd-mm? —Tamfang22:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't know, Tamfang. That's why I said "if" I read this expression in a newspaper. You could just as well direct your query to Joseph. I assumed his question was not simply about how things are done in Wikipedia but in a wider context - otherwise the question belongs at Wikipedia:Help. -- JackofOz23:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK yyyy-dd-mm is the standard order in East Asia (in Japan, today is 2007年10月4日 -- well, by now it's 2007年10月5日 there, but you see my point). —Angr18:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I ask my question in the context of a Wikipedia article: Is it proper or improper ... ambiguous or unambiguous ... acceptable or unacceptable ... conventional or unconventional ... correct or incorrect ... to express a calendar date in the following formats? The first chart looks more normal and understandable, recognizable and standard -- but it cannot sort correctly. The second chart looks odd and unconventional (possibly meaningless or confusing to many) -- but it can sort correctly. Thoughts? Input? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro12:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Number
President
Date of Birth
Date of Death
Date Term Began
Date Term Ended
1
George Washington
February 7, 1983
March 15, 1876
December 6, 2007
May 1, 1937
2
Abraham Lincoln
November 27, 1804
April 15, 2000
January 16, 1973
September 17, 2008
3
John F. Kennedy
June 5, 2004
August 30, 1982
October 9, 1962
July 23, 1837
Number
President
Date of Birth
Date of Death
Date Term Began
Date Term Ended
1
George Washington
1983-02-07
1876-03-15
2007-12-06
1937-05-01
2
Abraham Lincoln
1804-11-27
2000-04-15
1973-01-16
2008-09-17
3
John F. Kennedy
2004-06-05
1982-08-30
1962-10-09
1837-07-23
If you wikify the dates, they will appear for logged-in users however the user has set to view dates in their preferences. So typing [[2007-10-03]] appears as 2007-10-03 and still sorts properly. —Angr13:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yyyy-mm-dd makes most sense because it is the big endian system that we use in our numbers too. Take the year 1987. That's 1 millennium, 9 centuries, 8 decades and 7 years. Ever smaller. So it makes most sense to continue after that with months and days. And after that with hours, minutes and seconds, which is usually done like yyyy-mm-dd hh:mm:ss. The much used little-endian system (dd-mm-yyyy) makes some sense 'internally', but not compared with how we otherwise use numbers. The middle-endian system used in the US makes no sense whatsoever, and only works if everyone agrees to use it.
I've been using the yymmdd on my computer for several years now for files or directories for which it matters when they were made, such as my photographs, precisely for the sorting-advantage it gives. Note that I shorten the year bit to just two figures because I happen to have started doing this at the beginning of a century. I've written some more about this sort of thing on my user page. DirkvdM07:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that it makes more sense -- precisely for the reasons you cite and for the sorting capability. However, that being said ... it doesn't make much sense at all if a notation such as 2007-08-03 is confusing or meaningless to the reader. In the latter case, it is communicating no information or, at least, no useful / meaningful information. That is the gist of my original question. (Joseph A. Spadaro18:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
In that case, there is no other solution than to always use the full name of the month. But I agree with Jack that if you put the year first, then it is obviously not one of the two most used systems, so it has to be done for a logical reason. And since yyyy-dd-mm would be really silly, it is obvious to the intelligent reader that yyyy-mm-dd is meant. Alas, very few people are intelligent. DirkvdM18:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite convinced that the format (2005-08-03) has caused blunderings, though it should not have, merely owing to Murphy's law.--K.C. Tang04:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dirk, I do the same in various logs, with a slight refinement: I use just one character for the month, {123456789abc}. —Tamfang19:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not {1234567890ab}? The 0 for October would be helpful. Actually, why not {ab1234567890}? Then, the numbers in september october, november and december make more sense. Now, I always have to add two (september is the ninth month, not the seventh). If you use your own system you can do whatever you like. Also more fun if it confuses anyone snooping through your files. :) DirkvdM19:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, of course, numbers before letters. Silly me. I have, however, encountered programs that sort letters before numbers. Can't remember which, though. DirkvdM08:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's say that a person has to do two (or more) different / separate / distinct things. I would think that that would call for plurality -- a plural subject with the appropriate (plural, not singular) verb form. In the following sentences, which is correct -- the plural or the singular ... and why? They all sound correct to me. But, grammatically, shouldn't one be correct and the other incorrect? If not, why not? Thanks.
Make sure to bring your driver's license and a credit card. Those are the requirements.
Make sure to bring your driver's license and a credit card. That is the requirement.
The requirements are to bring your driver's license and a credit card.
The requirement is to bring your driver's license and a credit card.
-
Place your signature, date of birth, and social security number on this form. Those are the requirements.
Place your signature, date of birth, and social security number on this form. That is the requirement.
The requirements are to place a, b, and c on this form.
The requirement is to place a, b, and c on this form.
-
Pick up some milk and drop off the laundry. These are very important.
Pick up some milk and drop off the laundry. This is very important.
Both the singular and the plural forms are correct. Which to use is a question of emphasis. If you want to emphasize the two items as separate requirements or imperatives, then you use the plural form, which indicates that each is a separate requirement. On the other hand, there could be a single requirement to bring two or three documents or to perform more than one errand. If you want to emphasize that both or all items are part of a single requirement, then you use the singular form. In your last set of examples, "This is very important" indicates "The request that I have made is very important", whereas "These are very important" indicates "The items that I have requested are very important. Marco polo13:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The first two use a pronoun for a subject. The pronoun and verb have to agree in number, and they do, so the grammar is OK. Any difference lies only in the meaning of "requirement", which I think is better in the singular. The requirement is to bring a set of things, and so the third fourth sentence is unexceptionable. The fourth third is wrong. "To bring" is an infinitive acting as a predicate nominative to "requirements". Number does not agree; there would have to be another predicate nominative for the plural subject, as in "The requirements are to bring your driver's license and a credit card, and to wear a tam-o'-shanter."
Your second set has similar problems. I don't like "requirements" referring to the individual items. I can't call it wrong to use "requirements" that way, but I think it is.
The first two in the third set are both correct enough grammatically. They differ in the antecedents to their pronouns. "This" refers to an unnamed thing, a set of errands defined in the previous sentence. I see no problem. "These" refers either to milk and laundry or to the picking up and dropping off of them, grammatically speaking. That ambiguity makes the sentence faulty semantically. Pronouns are wriggly. If I understand right, the last two sentences are meant to follow "Pick up some milk and drop off the laundry." If so, the same applies to "it" and "they" in them. --Milkbreath13:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As already mentioned, both forms of the above examples will work, and the difference is in the semantics of the sentence. You can use punctuation to help clarify meaning; for example, in the first sentence, I would write, "Make sure to bring your driver's license, and a credit card. Those are the requirements." That way, the reader knows I am listing two items, hence "those". In the second sentence, I would write, "Make sure to bring your driver's license and credit card. That is the requirement." By removing the indefinite article in front of "credit card", you combine both items into one requirement. I would apply the same reasoning to the third and fourth sentences. This way, the fourth sentence is not necessarily wrong as you are again creating one requirement by combining the two items. --Jclu15:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I messed up (see strikeouts above). I meant that the sentence "The requirements are to bring your driver's license and a credit card" is wrong. We're talking about grammar here, not communication. One could say that sentence aloud and not cause a single raised eyebrow, but it's not grammatical. "The requirements are your driver's license and a credit card" would be. --Milkbreath16:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the best alternative is "Bring your driver's license and a credit card" without "requirements" or otherwise "It is required to bring your driver's license and a credit card." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.232.148.109 (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know it as "taut ship", but, as always, Google has me in the miniscule minority. I'll go out on a limb here and say it is nautical in origin and refers to not letting the sails luff too much or not having slack ropes flopping around. --Milkbreath20:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
:) Google also has you in the minority for "miniscule" (2.7 mill) versus "minuscule" (5 mill), but I imagine the "mini-" spelling will become accepted at some time down the track. -- JackofOz23:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No smileys needed, unless there's one for kicking me in the pants. I hate it when I do that. I'm a better speller than my orthography would indicate, you know. --Milkbreath00:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pretty straightforward dictionary definition, as best I can tell. Reporting (verb 2) for duty is showing up and presenting oneself to a superior as per orders. — Lomn22:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One thing worth adding about this expression is that it is (or in some armed forces was) mostly used as a standard way for a serviceman or woman to introduce himself or herself to a superior officer. "Corporal Jones reporting for duty, sir" is much more military than "Er, hello, sir, here I am, I'm Corporal Jones, by the way". Xn423:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it just by chance development of language or some rule I don't know about that defines adjectival suffixes (and what are they actually called anyway)? It's just idle moments when I wonder why things aren't Shakespearesque, we don't speak Spanese or eat a Chinan take-away that make me ask.
Theediscerning23:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In some ways, there are chance processes going on, but the way such a new adjective turns out has a lot to do with the moment when the word is first needed and who needs it... and does it come upwards from the vernacular speech or move downwards from Latin or French? For instance, 'Spanish' is a word with medieval Anglo-Saxon origins, like 'English', 'Scottish', 'Irish', and 'Danish', formed with a Germanic suffix, whereas 'Moldovan' wasn't needed until much later and followed the pattern that geographical names ending in an a form an adjective by adding -n, as in the Romance languages. Sometimes, more than one form of a new adjective comes into being, but almost always one of them drives the other(s) out, because the arbiters of language somehow form a consensus on which form is most correct. Who do I mean by 'arbiters of language'? It used to be scholars, later it was newspapers, now it's more likely to be broadcasters. Xn400:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was pondering this a few days ago. I think -ese is from Latin -ensis, and tends to follow nasals (Chinese, Japanese, Burmese, Taiwanese, Viennese, Pekinese), though there are exceptions (Genovese) and it is worth pointing out that most of those are East Asian (though Korean, Siberian, Laotian are counterexamples).--Estrellador*19:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SOED confirms that -ese derives from Lat. ensem (ultimately), and distinguishes between
"belonging to, originating in" [a town or country] and
connected with [an author]: Carlylese, hence journalese (and officialese and quite a few others)
I'm not sure about the nasal and the Asian connection: Portuguese and Senegalese come to mind.
Portuguese follows the French "portuguais" and "Senegalese" follows "senegalais". To be consistent, it should have been "senegais", though. As for the others, it is hard for an adjective of nationality to be anything else than -n when the country name is -(vowel)a, thus Korea: Korean, Samoa: Samoan (Genovese is from Italian Genova, not the traditional English rendering of Genoa) Croatia: Croatian, Papua: Papuan, even Sahara: Saharan. SaundersW08:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True: -ese usually follows the French -ais, and in Italian derivatives seems to come straight from the Italian (Genovese, Veronese etc.). Bessel Dekker11:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad to learn from all of the above, but perhaps it's an example of me posting the question too late at night when all I could think of were country-based examples. I'm just as interested in other adjectives, so why Romanesque and not Romanese? ... and many more I've blanked on.
It's interesting that the French "romanesque" can in certain contexts be translated in English as "romantic", the English term "romanesque" corresponds (at least in the architectural history context) as "roman", which also as a noun means "novel" in the literary sense, and the English adjective "Roman" translates into French as "romain".
I also thought once I posted originally that the French -ais and the Germanic -isch (and English -ish) were from the same source so the differences might not be meaning as much as my query implies. But at least I raised a discussion. Theediscerning20:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
October 4
Lingua Franca
Can English be considered the Lingua Franca for business in the U.S.? Or is there a better term for this? A member of a online forum that I moderate posted a thread about how none of the staff besides the manager at a McDonald's spoke English and I thought that Lingua Franca might apply in this instance. As he is in the U.S., he expected the staff to be fluent in English. Yes, I know we don't have a national language here in the States, but I think it's logical that a non-ethnic based business would do business in the language which a majority of the population speaks. And this wasn't in the southwest, it was in Maryland. As far as I can see it would be a stretch for the definition of the term, so is there a better term? Dismas|(talk)01:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're not the only one trying to figure out what to call the relationship between the U.S. and the English language. Last year, the US Senate approved two amendments to the immigration-reform bill, one of which declared English to be the "national" language, and the other saying English was the "common and unifying" language of the country. Neither language would have had any substantive impact on the law, and the bill didn't pass anyway. -- Mwalcoff02:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say English is the only lingua franca for business in the US. 'Common language', mentioned by Mwalcoff, describes a language which the members of a group of people all share, although some or all of them have a different mother tongue, so you'd need to be careful in using it. When the forum member you mention in your question wrote "none of the staff besides the manager at a McDonald's spoke English", writing about a McDonald's in Maryland, I find it hard to take that literally. There's not too much of a problem with back-room staff who speak no English, so long as there's someone around who talks their language, but I should have thought McDonald's in Maryland would look foolish if English speakers couldn't be understood by all but one of the staff. Could the writer have meant that all the staff except the manager had some other language as their first language? Xn402:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In his retelling of the story he stated that he was forced to use the number of the meal that he wanted in order to be understood by the clerk. He eludes to the idea that he first tried ordering using the specific names of the items that he wanted but eventually broke down to just the number and a simple selection of sauce. He went on to say that he lost something in the parking lot which must have slipped out of his pocket but that he went through three people trying to explain that he was asking if anyone had turned it in. The third was the manager and even the manager barely understood him. Thanks for the response. It seems that "lingua franca" would be the best term in this case. I didn't want to turn this into a political debate about the use of English in the U.S. but thought that the details helped in asking my question. Dismas|(talk)08:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think lingua franca is appropriate in this case. Lingua francas (linguae francae?) are used among multiple groups of people who do not share a native language. It makes sense to talk about English as a lingua franca in international contexts, but within the US, English is just the majority language, and there's only one major minority language. --Alivemajor08:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If he couldn't make himself understood in English, then it wasn't acting as a lingua franca! A lingua franca is one that is intelligible to all the people concerned (but not their fist language). SaundersW11:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but why don't you just use the standard term, that english is the de facto national language of America? That's what we say about Swedish in Sweden (it's not recognized as the official language, but in reality, it is). Seems to me to be pretty obvious. --Oskar15:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Syllable division signs in IPA
The IPA has a sign for indicating the division between syllables, but most pronunciation examples on Wikipedia don't use it. Is there any guidance as to whether use of this sign is required or optional? --rossb10:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The symbol is the period (full stop), and its use is optional. It's generally only used when the syllable boundaries within a form are important to the discussion at hand. —Angr15:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me I've seen another symbol, possibly '$', used to mean "syllable boundary" (where '#' means "word boundary") in sound-change rules. —Tamfang19:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little confused with stress. I read my text book and the article for stress. What exactly is it in layman's terms? My text book gives an example: Confused and that the CONfuse part is stressed. --Agester17:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In layman's terms, stress is extra emphasis put on certain syllables of words that have more than one syllable. If you compare the noun "a project" and the verb "to project" you can hear that the noun puts more emphasis on the first syllable--"a PROJect", while the verb puts more emphasis on the second syllable--"to proJECT". (With your example "confused", the stress is on the second syllable, "conFUSED". Does that help, or should I get more technical? —Angr18:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I'm not quite sure what you're asking, but I'll give it a go. The vowel in a stressed syllable gets its full value. A vowel in an unstressed syllable is a schwa. An example is the word "defense" in its two common pronunciations, (duh-FENSS) [I'm using "uh" for a schwa], as it is pronounced in "self-defense", and (DEE-fenss), as it is pronounced by redneck football fans. The first has only one stressed syllable, "fence". The second has primary stress on "de" and secondary stress on "fence". Note that the vowel also gets its full value in a syllable with secondary stress. I can't imagine where you got "CONfuse". Boss Hogg might say it like that, though.
This is the layman's idea of stress. There is another concept to do with stress that I've heard of but know nothing about. --Milkbreath18:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that, in American English (and perhaps other variaties of English), the vowel in the stressed syllable is typically pronounced for longer and at a higher pitch than the vowels of unstressed syllables. The main exception would be the rule that, in questions, the last syllable of the last word in the question gets a higher pitch than other syllables in the same word, even if the last syllable is unstressed. In this case, the stressed vowel is still typically longer than the final high-pitch unstressed vowel. See Stress (linguistics) and Stress-timed language. Marco polo18:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to my phonetics professor it's very difficult to define stress (he didn't bother), so if you feel confused, take it easy. :) Stress has many factors, such as pitch, length, muscle tenseness, amount of air involved, and loudness. BTW, Ladefoged said it's easier to tap your finger on the table when you're pronouncing a stressed syllable (rather than an unstressed syllable). --Kjoonlee19:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, there are some counterexamples about stress and pitch. Let's look at my pet example,
Sentence: Ah, Gloria! You're not ugly! [You're gorgeous!]
Stress: S S S S
Pitch: H M L H M L H
Ahh i understand much better with the "project" example. But would you be able to find the stress in noninterchangeable words like, "germane" (a review exercise in my text book), or "platypus". I had a lot of trouble noticing any stress in these words for the exercise. Also if it helps I understand IPA pretty well.
In response to the "confuse" comment by Hogg, I'll quote from my text book in case I made an error, "When we hear a word such as confuse, we recognize it not only because of the particular phonemes that comprise it but also because of the inherent stress pattern of the word. Try saying this word by changing the first syllable, that is, CONfuse. The word now sounds somewhat odd to you..." Okay it was my error. I apologize, i misread. --Agester18:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one way is to say the word multiple times, each time with an exaggerated stress on a different syllable, and see which is identifiably the same word and which is not. GERmane is clearly further from the pronunciation of "germane" than gerMANE, so we know MANE is stressed. Eventually you shouldn't need to exaggerate the stress and just "be able to tell." -Elmer Clark07:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But that sounds a bit like circular logic. You need to know the stress to find the stress. Is Agester a native speaker of English? --Kjoonlee08:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you're still confused about the stress on the word confuse. If you are having trouble figuring out how to say CONfuse (that is, how to say it with stress on the first syllable), try saying CONgress. Use that same CON sound, but with the fuse ending. It doesn't sound right because it's supposed to be conFUSE. Ingrid01:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think i got it! Thanks for all your help! Elmer your advice helped a lot on finding the stress, but i need to work on it. Better to have some strategy than none, which is what I had before. Thanks again! --Agester02:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
what is the meaning of the following sentence in urdu?
I'm looking for the original (Greek) text of Aesop's fable "The Gnat and the Bull." I would rather not have a translation BACK to Greek from English, but rather the original text. Thanks for any help-
You have to admit, "cone-face" is a pretty cool name for a gnat/mosquito. Almost as good as Russian "honey-eater" for bear. Wareh23:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But if you wish to find a particular plural on the basis of a known singular, you could try [4]: enter the singular and in the box below, click Wörterbuch Wortformen. Bessel Dekker01:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have been trying to search the meaning of my last name Ceaser yet it is quite difficult because my last name is often redirected automatically to Caesar. I was wondering, is that way on your site because it is often misspelled or because Ceaser is just an americanized version of Caesar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.136.223.206 (talk) 04:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The standardised spelling of names is quite recent. My beloved has been hunting through census records from 1851-1901 which are now available online for his family history, and he has found one individual whose surname was spelled *l, *ll and *le in different records and as he moved around the country. Thus it is certainly possible that the spelling of your name reflects how it was heard and interpreted by one particular official at a particular time. SaundersW08:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Ceasar" used as a name is almost certainly a variant or misspelling of "Caesar", which derives from the Julii Caesares family of Rome, and specifically Gaius Julius Caesar. It's a redirect on wikipedia exactly because it is such a common misspelling (influenced, doutlessly, by the anglicised pronunciation of "sees-er" - the original Latin pronunciation is closer to the German "Kaiser"). FiggyBee09:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And in fact the words Caesar and Kaiser ("Emperor") are cognates etymologically. Your name, therefore, may be taken to mean "emperor". Bessel Dekker12:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure we can rush to conclude that "Ceaser" is a variant of "Caesar". According to records linked from this source, "Ceaser" was a widely held surname in the United Kingdom during the 19th century, with clusters in Aberdeenshire, Hampshire, Lincolnshire and Yorkshire, and on either side of the Solway Firth in Dumfries- and Kirkcudbrightshire and in Cumberland. It might be, but isn't necessarily a preliterate misspelling of "Caesar". It could also be an organically English and Scottish surname, possibly derived from the word "cease", meaning "stop". Or, it might have been derived from the word "seize", but the spelling "ceaser" might have been adopted to avoid negative connotations. Without more information, we can't be sure. Incidentally, if you want to avoid redirects to "Caesar" when searching, try putting "ceaser" in quotation marks in the search box. Marco polo14:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, the cognomen "Caesar" did not survive to become a modern surname in Britain, and almost certainly not anywhere else. So it is highly unlikely that the name "Ceaser", even if it originally alluded to "Caesar", indicates descent from the ancient Roman family. Marco polo15:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Marco hit a good seam there. Compare Seymour (pronounced 'Seemer'), not a rare surname, of which our article says "It is thought to derive from the contraction of Saint-Maur, a region in northern France". There are a few dozen Seymour descendants of a Norman knight, including the present Duke of Somerset and Marquess of Hertford, but for most of the other Seymours the dab page Seamer gives more likely explanations. Xn402:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seymour is interesting. The OUP Dictionary of Surnames gives two derivations, one from St Maur des Fosses in Northern France (or just possibly from St Maur sur Loire in Touraine), and the other from the English place-name Seamer (two places in Yorkshire, and possibly also from Semer, three places in Norfolk, Suffolk, and Yorks), which derives from the Old English sǣ meaning sea or lake, and mere meaning lake or pond. DuncanHill12:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sentiers battus
Chez soi, comment présenter son plateau de fromage, si on doit faire un choix de, de cinq fromages ?
Bon, je pense qu'il faut essayer de tenir compte du public auquel on s'adresse. C'est-à-dire que, si vous avez des invités qui connaissent un peu le fromage, on peut aller sur des pâtes un peu plus recherchées. On peut sortir aussi des sentiers battus.
I found that in a free on-line French listening comprehension exercise and I'm puzzled at the last sentence. The translation given is "well-beaten paths", pretty literal, so I still don't get it. What does that last sentence mean in that context? --Taraborn08:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there's also another class of common words you can't play in Scrabble: those that are over 15 letters long, such as "transcendentally" or "disproportionate". --Anonymous, 06:11 UTC, October 5, 2007.
Er, can't you just add letters to an existing word to make a new one? In your examples you could add "entally" to "transcend" or "ate" to "disproportion".--Eriastrum17:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably Norwegian - I base this surmise on the only other Ryssdals I could find being Norwegian, and -dal is a fairly common name-ending in Norway (it means "valley"). DuncanHill22:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What form of the word do you want? The citation form (which you'll find in dictionaries) is נשם nasham, the infinitive "to breathe" is לנשום linshom, the imperative/command "breathe!" is נשום neshom to a man or נשמי nishmi to a woman. Is one of these what you want? Macnas15:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
this is great .. thanks :)
you've been super helpful. --202.175.29.206:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
like breathe... when you're stress you say "breathe... wusaah" something like that.[reply]
Where did this irritating type of question come from? For example, you trip while walking, and someone says "walk much?" I never thought about it when it was just something young people said, but now my father has picked it up...does it even have a definite origin? Adam Bishop02:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this is "walk much?" used to mean "do you walk much?", then it's just a form of verbal shorthand which all languages seem to develop to some degree. This clipped use of language became normal in the British Army in the nineteenth century, if not before. Probably you'd have heard "walk much?" even then. Also, perhaps the staccato headlines of newspapers and the invention of the telegraph and later the Marconigram (with the message being charged at so much a word) promoted such forms of language. Xn413:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've also heard it in the form of "adjective much?", for example in the movie Heathers, where one character says to another, "Jealous much?" meaning "Are you very jealous?" —Angr13:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you a patient even if you're just in for routine medical exams?
If a person is not being treated for any illness, etc., but is simply going for routine checkups, are they still considered a patient of their doctor? I know a broad term would be clientele, but that, to me, is the whole group. ("The doctor refused to consider lying to his clientele.") And yet, saying the person is the doctor's client makes it sound more like the doctor is a lawyer. I suppose the parent of a child could be a client of the pediatrician, or part of the clientele, but the child would be...what? A patient anyway?
Maybe it's one of those times where words just don't look right, but it seems a little odd, as I'm used to thinking of patients only in hospital settings. Thanks.4.68.248.13012:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to Chambers 20th Century Dictionary, a patient is "one who bears or suffers: a person under medical or surgical treatment: a physician's client". Xn412:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, that's kind of what I was thinking - but that's where it's confusing, becasue is a person under medical treament if they are simply in for a checkup. If the doctor dismisses the person and says, "You're fit as a fiddle," and prescribes nothing for him/her, has he really treated the person by that standard? Or is being checked as a precaution stil considered treatment? I guess the doctor has, in a sense, prescribed something - for isntance, saying to continue the regular course of action the person has been taking to stay fit, etc.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.68.248.130 (talk) 13:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC) 4.68.248.13013:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By its origin the word suggests bearing suffering. However, "a physician's client" (see above) doesn't. In the UK, the word is used in all medical contexts, including GPs' surgeries. I can't think of another one we use here, so someone going for a routine check-up is a patient. Indeed, here you are called a GP's patient if you are registered on his or her list, so you can be a patient without ever having a day's illness. Xn413:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I, an American, would also call them a patient. Going in for a check up does provide care for the patient, it's preventative care. Dismas|(talk)13:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's assume that a patient is a person "under medical treatment" (Advanced Learner, SOED). This does not necessary imply he is ill: a check-up may be considered to be medical treatment (after all, in countries where health services are not free, it has to be paid for). The etymology of "sufferer" is distinct from its present-day meaning. Bessel Dekker13:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Etymologically, a patient is a passive party, as an agent is an active party. Thus it is perfectly appropriate for somebody undergoing tests. SaundersW22:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Treatment" is any (appropriate) attention paid by a doctor to their patient, including checking them out and saying "You're 100% fine. Come back for another check-up in 6 months". -- JackofOz03:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is that the usage among medical professionals? (In my layman's usage, I distinguish between consultation and treatment.) I think "patient" has acquired, through usage, a modern meaning of "client of a medical professional"; the modern meaning is not a reinterpretation of the literal meaning(s) of its etymological roots. --71.175.68.22410:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree "patient" means simply "client of a medical professional" regardless of the form of treatment or the nature of the visit. In fact, I'd say a client of a medical professional is a patient even if there is no visit: if you see your doctor by chance at the movies and say hello, when the doctor goes home he may well tell his wife, "I saw one of my patients at the movies", even though there was no medical investigation going on at all. —Angr11:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is surely correct. Etymology does not, after all, tell us anything about the true meaning (usage) of a word: it relates to its true root or true provenance. Bessel Dekker12:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sign language curiosity
I was reading the sign language article and was curious about a few things, so if anyone happens to know...
1. Does the interior monologue of a native signer consist of visualized signs?
2. Could one "mutter" in sign?
I'm genuinely curious. Thanks! Bhumiya (said/done) 15:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I don't know the answer to either of these questions, but I can answer one you didn't ask, namely, "Can babies babble in sign?", to which the answer is "Yes". Babies of people who use sign language "babble" with their hands in the same way babies of parents who use spoken language babble by saying "ba-ba-ba-ba-ba" or "ga-ga-goo-goo". This is true regardless of whether the baby in question himself is deaf or hearing. —Angr15:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe one could mutter in sign. When a friend showed me some sign language once, and I tried to copy, he noted that the signe symbols has to be very crisp and clear, for one to get the message. If one does a halfhearted sign with their hands, perhaps that would be considered muttering or mumbling.209.244.30.22116:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and just like spoken language has places of articulation and manner of articulation, the hand shape, the hand position, and the movement of the hands are all factors which influence meaning. Sign language#Linguistics of sign has more details. --Kjoonlee17:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone please translate this song into English? It's "Motteke! Sera Fuku" (Take It! My Sailor Uniform):
Aimai 3 cm
sore PUNI tte koto kai? chou!
na kyuubunka seifuku
na furitte koto nai? BOON!
ganbacchau?
yacchacchau?
son tokkya KYACCHI ANDO RIRI-SU yo!
I SAY! WHOO! I SAY! WHOO!
no tanima ni DARLING! DARLING! PLEASE!
nan kataru
nanka deru
aishiteru!
are?
ikko ga chigatterun run!
nayaminbo, koutetsubo, oishinbo!
iikagen ni shinasai!
tondetta aisu mo moteru ka na,
datte iwayuru futsuu no onna no ko!
odoroita!
atashi dake!
tonkotsu, harigane, okawari!
DA-DA-DA-DA-DA!
BON! BON!
ouendan!
LET'S GET CHERRY PIE!
RAN! RAN! kangeikai!
YOU HAVE SENSATION!
HIGH!
sonzaikai, tenten shouwakusei!
butsukatte! tokemashita! bouzen! ooi ni utatte! SING AND DANCE!
motteike, saigo ni waracchau no wa atashi no hazu!
SE-RA- fuku dakara desu ketsuron!
getsuyoubi na no ni kigen warui no, dou suru yo?
natsufuku ga ii no desu! KAWAII!
seifuku in 3 PI-SU!
sorya matette chuucho da! YAN!
ganbatte!
YEAH!
harikitte!
YEAH!
MY DARLING! DARLING! PLEASE!
mori jou ga rin mori ka ga rin koishi tarin mada naisho ni shi te tte rin rin
amaenbou youjinbou tsuushin bo choushi koi te gyokusai!
fun de tta aitsu ni koyubi itai tte oogesa chira ri kuro niihai
zettai jan ryouiki jan sei ashi tsuru pika o nedari DADADADADA
MON - MON mousou den Let ' s Go! paru shinden
YAI - YAI sooran bushi What ' s UP tenputeeshon
oi! soushitsu kan ( zen zen) arubaito
sagashi tara mitsukatte to zen jinsei maru tto kenennaashi
yatte mina! shinki ni neracchau no ha atashi no chousen
Sera fuku gi ga e te mo atashi
shuumatsu ha dou yo chira mise nante ari ki tari!
seifuku ha kan ta n yo rakuchin
fuusoku 3 meetoru dakitsui te gaman da GYU
mune dokkin koshi zukkin I'm Sugar sugar SWEET!!
BON - BON MON - MON Day Let's get! Uh Uh Ah!
RAN - RAN chop chop kick look up! Fu Fu Ho!
HI! Education!! Love is ABC
un da ka da un da ka da uni unya hare tte hore tte hire n ra
motteike, saigo ni waracchau no wa atashi no hazu!
SE-RA- fuku dakara desu ketsuron!
getsuyoubi na no ni kigen warui no, dou suru yo?
natsufuku ga ii no desu! KAWAII!
yappari ne saigo ni waracchau no ha atashi no hazu
SE-RA- fuku dakara desu ketsuron!
aimai 3 senchi sorya punitte koto kai WAO!
ra ppinguga seifuku yo shi furi tte ko ta nai pon
ganbacchaccha yacchaccha an to kyaa ppu & jaaji de ha
From a quick search, this is the Lucky Star OP, is it? I don't suppose you've got it in Kanji at all? It's amazingly hard to translate some things from romaji. (Not that I'm saying I can or will translate, but kanji/kana would make it easier.) Confusing Manifestation06:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
October 7
Demonstrating the tones in Mandarin using music notes
(after edit conflict) The difference in pitch between the low of a low tone and the high of a falling tone can be as much as a fifth, as shown in Fig 1 of this article. However, it is hard to express the contour patterns as a sequence of notes, because in conventional notation a note holds a steady pitch for a certain amount of time, while here we have continuously changing pitch. Even in a portamento the extremal notes are typically identifiable, but not so here. You can use the referenced figure to make up your own approximating sequence. --Lambiam16:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both come from the Latin verb spondere, meaning "to engage oneself" or "to promise". So the metaphor of a close bond between spouses was used to describe implements which hold one's hands together. Bhumiya (said/done) 06:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, English bond is the operative term, and is itself no different, in fact: its connotations may be quite positive (marriage bonds, bond between mother and child, bonds of friendship etc.) or quite negative (archaic plural bonds meant "fetters, manacles, ties" etc.). Bessel Dekker13:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so it wasn't just a coincidence. BTW, the Swedish word for "married" sounds the same as the word for "poison": gift. --Kjoonlee14:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably related with to give and its cognates. Same in Dutch: gif(t) means "poison", gift means "present, something bestowed", and both derive from the same root, geef- "giv-". It seems that the usage referring to gift="poison" as a gift="present" was originally a euphemism (and rather a forceful one at that).
English, possibly, is lucky in having a rich Romance vocabulary. On second thought, poison derives from the same root as potion, through the French — so let the buyer beware! Bessel Dekker14:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A while ago, I remember coming across a word—possibly one of those composite German nouns—that referred to a literary character's sudden and complete realization of his tragic flaws. An example, I think, would be the ending of Death of a Salesman. Can anyone tell me what that word was, or did I just imagine the whole thing? Cheers, bdesham★17:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it can be translated as "it's raining". Translation is not an exact science, and, depending on context, the latter could be more appropriate. a.z.23:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"I met three people" is informal and correct. "I met three persons" is quite formal and even more correct, so correct in fact that it sounds stilted. The choice in this context between "people" and "persons" is a matter of disagreement among English-lovers. My opinion is that "persons" is correct and defensible, but "people" has won out and is now the norm in any register. "Peoples" is the plural of the "people" we see in "The Lilliputians are a diminutive people." To say "There are many people in that country" means simply that the country has a large population. To say "There are many peoples in that country" means that there are a number of different ethnic groups living within its borders. --Milkbreath23:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It's found in legislation, e.g. where it's necessary to distinguish between "natural persons" (i.e. human beings) and bodies corporate. -- JackofOz01:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You also see it used by purists who don't like "people" because it has no singular form. You can have "one person" and "two persons", but you can't have "one...", well, see? You can't have it. They contend with some justice that "people" is not the plural form of "person". Of course, they don't seem to mind bucking general usage, which is what decides such matters, and has in this case. --Milkbreath02:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These "purists" who contend that the singular "person" cannot correspond o the plural "people" because they are different words are committing the etymological fallacy. They originated as different words, but that doesn't mean they still are. It's like saying that the past tense of "I go" cannot be "I went" because "went" originated as a form of a different verb ("wend" or some related form). It can be and it is, and likewise with person/people. Of course people have the right to disagree with that. --Anonymous, 04:54 UTC, October 8, 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.76.104.133 (talk) 04:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Person is of course used in a derogatory way. A butler in a story by P. G. Wodehouse might say "There is a person at the door who wishes to see you, sir", meaning there's someone there who looks thoroughly undesirable. Even now, if a grand old English lady were to say "I met three persons", that would be a signal of disapproval. Xn402:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even "man" and "woman" would be derogatory in that way. The Schlegels' housekeeper in Howard's End says "There is a woman who wishes to see you" (rather than "a lady") to indicate her disapproval. —Angr06:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, in the BBC's Question Time, Mr Dimbleby when selection a new questioner invariably says: "The woman in the blue dress... No, in the third row!" (Colours and rows may vary.)
That underlines the subtlety of all these matters. In most social contexts, it's a solecism to call all men 'gentlemen' and all women 'ladies'. People in subservient positions are often expected to do so and may risk giving offence if they don't. Xn411:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that three people stresses the collectivity of the group to a certain extent, whereas three persons rather emphasizes their separateness or individuality.
Surely people is not the plural form of person — whereas persons is. The meaning of people, however, is plural, and the word behaves as such syntactically. Bessel Dekker11:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Etymologically, BesselDekker is correct that "people" is not the plural form of "persons". However, in contemporary usage, "people" really does serve as the plural form of certain senses of "person". I am thinking, for example, of references to human beings in a gender-neutral, general way. For example, imagine a training session at a warehouse: "If you a mailing a magazine to just one person in a postal code, use the first procedure in your booklet; but if you are sending the same magazine to two or more people in the same postal code, use the second procedure." There are some senses of the word "person" that require the plural "persons", such as the legal or disparaging usages that others have mentioned. But I think that "people" is the plural form that most English speakers would use for most senses of the word "person". "Persons" could be used in these cases as well, but few would, because it sounds very stilted. Marco polo12:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
October 8
The Mercy Seat technique
I noticed that in different recordings of The Mercy Seat by Nick Cave and The Bad Seeds the verses are in a different order, and the lines are subtly different, but the song retains its meaning as a whole. Is this a specific technique, and does it have a name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fountainmon (talk • contribs) 04:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Midge Ure's surname, and the possessive for words ending in "X"
How is Midge's surname pronounced? Is it rather like "urr"? "Yurr"? Forgive me, I'm not terribly good with IPA.
And on the subject of Ultravox, what is the correct way to indicate possession with words ending in "X"? Would you write "Ultravox's" or just "Ultravox'"? You know, given that there's an "S" sound in the "X" already. Thanks in advance. —DO'Neil06:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Categorized index for Wikipedia:Refence desk/Language
(Posting here, since I have no idea who reads the desk's talk page) I'm toying with a categorized index for the language desk. My attempts can be found here. Improvements, boldness, and feedback are more than welcome. See also the corresponding talk page. ---Sluzzelintalk09:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pull GS - explanation needed
Hi, everybody, pls help me to understand what the expression "pull 5 Gs" means. The context I have is not very illustrative, since it is a joke, so there's no point in providing it. I understand that it might be connected with driving, but what does "Gs" stand for? Thanks!
Elena —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.33.196.2 (talk) 10:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The context of the joke might help. 'G' is used for the force of gravity, so pull five Gs could be about feeling five times normal gravity, which might happen during the fast acceleration of an aircraft. The letter 'G' is also sometimes used by gamblers and others to mean a thousand dollars, or even a thousand pounds. You can pull money from someone who might be called a mark. Xn410:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
