Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/L

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
Note:
- We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
- We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
- We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
- We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

October 31

using commas

When should we use commas?

See Comma (punctuation). -- Wavelength (talk) 00:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's good advice. It's a big question, Anonymous! I'd normally refer a question about punctuation to WP:MOS first of all, but there isn't much about commas there. They're so common, and so hard to get right! Even accomplished writers and editors disagree on the details. Glance at the section called Serial commas, then follow the links from there. If after that you need more specific guidance (with examples, perhaps), come back here.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check this for an example of when you should use commas... Sandman30s (talk) 08:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A good book on English grammar and usage is a worthwhile investment. I'm partial to Strunk and White's The Elements of Style myself (it's short), but others seem to prefer Fowler's A Dictionary of Modern English Usage. There may be others that those on the Ref. Desk prefer. All will deal with the proper usage of the comma, and at least one should be for sale at your local bookseller. --128.104.112.72 (talk) 16:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Chicago Manual of Style is also highly regarded. (I still like Fowler's presentation of a philosophy of usage, though it's not easy to use as a reference.) —Tamfang (talk) 07:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laying or lying

Mental block help needed here – the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown had an eye injury resulting in blindness in one eye in spite of measure including "lying in a darkened room" blah blah. Is it correct or does a person lay in a ... ? Thanks, Julia Rossi (talk) 04:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on whether you want prescriptive or descriptive, Julia. The rules say "lying", but many, many people say "laying". Technically, "to lay" is a transitive verb, e.g. to lay a carpet, or lay some concrete. When referring to oneself becoming prostrate in a bed etc, it's lying (down). And that's no lie. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 05:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See List of English irregular verbs. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys, for helping me to "lie straight in bed"; evidence I'm not the only one having difficulties.[1] :) Julia Rossi (talk) 07:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone identify this poem?

The Assyrian came down like a wolf on the fold
And his cohorts were gleaming in silver and gold
For the sheen of his spear was as blue as the sea
Where the moon shines so brightly on deep Galilee

This is a poem I studied over 40 years ago and I have forgotten the name of it. I would like to reread it in its entirety now that I am an adult.

Thanks for any help... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.195.109.135 (talk) 11:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Destruction of Sennacherib by Byron. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of Máj

Does Máj mean the month of May or something in Czech? If it isn't then what does the title of the epic poem by Mácha mean? Exactly how is it pronounced? (It's not like English for sure, but I can't imagine it otherwise.) By the way, I cannot read IPA. 203.188.92.70 (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word "máj" indeed means May, but it is archaic, May is normally called "květen" in contemporary Czech. It is pronounced [maːj], which is similar to English "my", but the vowel is longer. — Emil J. 14:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So did the Czechs start using Latin names of months, like Slovaks still do, at some point in history and then they switched back to original Slavic names? — Kpalion^(talk) 21:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know Czechs didn't use Latin month names. A tidbit of info regarding Southern Slavs and month names. Slovenes use the Latin names (Maj applies with us :), so do Serbs, and until recently so did the Croats. In an attempt to differentiate Croatian from Serbian (to break with the old Yugoslavian way of forcefully merging the two into Serbo-Croatian), Croatians reinstated their archaic month names, but they didn't stick with the common man, so nowadays Croats just use numbers (for instance, May would simply be 5th month in Croatian). TomorrowTime (talk) 22:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So Croatian months are like Chinese months. (In fact, in Chinese, Monday is "week one" (or something like that, not sure about "week", there's got to be a better word), Tuesday "week two", and so on. Sunday is "day" or some synonym of "sky".) Sorry that's deviating from the topic. Vltava 68 (talk contribs) 09:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind – all fresh and new to me. Julia Rossi (talk) 12:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Czechs used native Slavic names for months, except for May, whose original name was lost, and it was called by the Latin-derived "máj". In the beginning of 19th century, language purists introduced the neologism "květen" instead (it was modeled after Polish "kwiecień", which however means April). — Emil J. 13:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the 18th century, Quakers named the months and days of the week with numbers, because they objected to references to pagan gods and goddesses [2] AnonMoos (talk) 12:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the whole topic of Slavic month names is fascinating. Generally, modern Slavic languages can be divided into those that use Latin-derived names only (e.g. Russian, Slovak), those that retain old Slavic names (e.g. Czech, Ukrainian), and those that mix Latin and Slavic names (e.g. Polish). The Slavic names are all derived from natural phenomena or labors of the month, a little like French Revolutionary month names. This is what it looks like in Czech:

Month in English	Month in Czech	Meaning of the root word	Month in English	Month in Czech	Meaning of the root word
January	leden	ice	July	červenec	worm (referring to the Polish cochineal)
February	únor	to float (referring to ice floe)	August	srpen	sickle
March	březen	birch	September	září	rut
April	duben	oak	October	říjen	rut
May	květen	flowers	November	listopad	falling leaves
June	červen	worm (referring to the Polish cochineal)	December	prosinec	to shine through (referring to the sun shining through the clouds)

To those who speak at least some French, I recommend this website with a comparative table of month names and their meanings in all Slavic languages. — Kpalion^(talk) 13:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My favorite in descriptive month names is the "translation" of the French Republican Calendar into English: Vendémiaire, Brumaire Frimaire == "Wheezy, Sneezy, and Freezy"; Nivôse, Pluviôse, Ventôse == "Slippy, Drippy and Nippy"; Germinal, Floréal, Prairial == "Showery, Flowery and Bowery"; and Messidor, Thermidor, Fructidor == "Wheaty, Heaty and Sweety"... AnonMoos (talk)

The last three are also known as "Hoppy, Croppy and Poppy". -- JackofOz (talk) 22:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Slovaks use Latin month names, probably to differentiate themselves from the Czechs just like the Croats. I think the word "Máj" was popular during the Communist era in Czechoslovakia; for example, the downtown Tesco store used to be a store called Máj. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just found out there's a whole series of (unsourced) articles about Slavic month names: Bulgarian months, Croatian months, Czech months, Macedonian month names, Polish months and Ukrainian months. I wonder if it would be a good idea to merge them all into one Slavic month names article with a comparative table like the one I linked to above. The only possible problem would be to find reliable sources for all the etymology, especially since the origin of some month names is uncertain or disputed. — Kpalion^(talk) 10:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In modern Czech, "máj" appears as (1) a poetic or archaic expression for May, or (2) in the phrase "První máj" = May Day. The latter was a major holiday in Communist era, hence other stuff tended to be named after it (including the store you mention). — Emil J. 13:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 1

French Michel

Pronounced like Michelle, Michael, or is it more of a personal preference? If yes, which is more common? Thanks, Grsz ¹¹ ^→Review! 00:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's like Michelle. As far as I know, the names are completely homophonous in French. —An gr 00:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that traditionally, Michelle would have an optional trisyllabic extension in certain forms of poetry and singing (with final quasi-schwa vowel), while Michel wouldn't, but that may not be too relevant anymore. AnonMoos (talk) 02:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, as noted, in French the two sound identical. In French many final consonants sounds are "dropped" from the pronounciation, such as s, z, t, and x. In words or names with masculine or feminine versions, the feminine version pronounces this letter, while the masculine doesn't. This is accomplished in written form usally by and adding an e. Thus we have "boulanger" /boo-LANZHE-eh/ (male baker) and "boulangère" /boo-LANZHE-air/ (female baker) or "étudiant" /ih-TOO-dee-ahn/ (male student) and "étudiante" /ih-TOO-dee-aunt/ (female student). If, however, the masculine form has a pronounced consonant at the end (l is typically pronounced as a terminal consonant in French) then there is no pronounciation difference between the masculine and feminine forms, thus Michel and Michelle are pronounced exactly the same. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle is a rare, old-fashioned name in France, though not Quebec. Don't know if the homophony with Michel influences this. There are unisex names in French, e.g. Dominique, Camille. jnestorius^(talk) 03:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, because in the U.S., you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a Michelle. If I am in a room with more than about 20 random females within 10 years of my age (say 20-40 or so) I'd be surprised NOT to have atleast one Michelle in the crowd... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And how often does it happen that you are in a room with 20 or more random females within 10 years of your age? .................Never mind!! I don't want to know. CBHA (talk) 16:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And then there is also "Michèle" as another version of the female form. It is prnounced the same way as the other two versions. ៛ Bielle (talk) 04:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It also works in reverse, Jayron. Names like Hubert are virtually unheard of in anglophone countries these days, but they're relatively common in France. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for completeness, and to bring it back to the original question, how would the French pronounce that? I doubt it would be like the Anglophone equivalent /Hue-burt/ (sorry, I'm no good at IPA.) -- 128.104.112.72 (talk) 20:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

H is always essentially silent in French; the U-sound is one that does not exist in English, but is sort of like "ew" as in "few"; B is B; the ending sounds like "air" as in Stephen Colbert's name (although the R is not made the way we do it); and to the extent that there's any stress it's always on the last syllable. So Ew-BAIR would give you the idea. --Anonymous, 02:27 UTC, November 2, 2008.

Back to the original question, the name is also not pronounced exactly like the English pronounciation of Michelle. In French, the letter "i" is usually pronounced like the english "ee", though of shorter duration. So Michel is prounced more like /MEE-shell/ and not like /mish-ELL/ as you would pronounce Michelle in English (and in french, the female version is also pronounced /MEE-shell/). --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Word stress is always on the final syllable in French, so if anything, it is /mee-SHELL/. This also applies to all the other examples above, such as /boo-lanzhe-AIR/. — Emil J. 16:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Word stress is always on the final syllable in French,...? This is debatable. See Stress (linguistics), for example (in which I would fix some details!):

French words are sometimes said to be stressed on the final syllable, but actually French has no word stress at all. Rather, it has a prosody whereby the final or next-to-final syllable of a string of words is stressed. This string may be equivalent to a clause or a phrase. However, when a word is said alone, it receives the full prosody and therefore the stress as well.

French words may sound to speakers of other European languages as if they are stressed on the final syllable. This is because of an audible difference from the early word stress typical of English, Czech, Hungarian, etc. French dictionaries do not mark stress; and for a different reason, nor do dictionaries of Hungarian, in which stress is always on the first syllable. Nor do Spanish dictionaries, in which the spelling reliably predicts the stress, as opposed to English and Italian dictionaries, in which the position of the stress must often be shown explicitly.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 22:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Greek translation?

In an online version of The Bacchae, I found these lines:

πᾶν κρεῖσσον ὥστε μὴ ᾽γγελᾶν βάκχας ἐμοί.
ἐλθόντ᾽ ἐς οἴκους . . . ἃν δοκῇ βουλεύσομαι.

My English edition of The Bacchae has "[Wait; I myself] shall consider my decision," but I have a feeling that that only accounts for ἃν δοκῇ βουλεύσομαι. Can anyone tell me how the ancient Greek works grammatically—what the words mean and how they fit together? Thanks, I'd really appreciate it. —anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.85.198 (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The T. A. Buckley translation has "Anything is better [πᾶν κρεῖσσον] than to be mocked by the Bacchae [ὥστε μὴ ᾽γγελᾶν βάκχας ἐμοί (᾽γγελᾶν is a form of ἁναγελάω, 'to laugh loud')]. We two will go into the house [ἐλθόντ᾽ ἐς οἴκους] … and I will consider what seems best [ἃν δοκῇ βουλεύσομαι]." Does that make it clearer? If you need further help with parsing it, let us know. Deor (talk) 01:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's perfect. Thanks. —anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.85.198 (talk) 01:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Consonants

I have moved the huuuuuuuge table for the Template:Consonants to Template:CSS IPA consonant chart. It has been wikified and I hope that it will be more easy to maintain than a messy table. --✉ Hello World! 06:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's your question? :P —Tamfang (talk) 07:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Sorry. Just a notice. --✉ Hello World! 07:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the language reference desk. Perhaps you were looking for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Phonetics. —An gr 10:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation of noun

"I can't really help set one up in Amsterdam since I'm never there and have no affiliation with the university there" - should 'universtiy' begin with a capital U because I'm talking about a specific university? ----Seans Potato Business 12:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. You would only capitalize the word if it stood for the full proper noun itself, i.e. if you could replace it with "Amsterdam University" without any change of meaning.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be lowercase in present English style. In older English style, especially formal English, you would've capitalized it, but that's been out of fashion for a century or so. In fact such shortened forms used to be treated as if they were the original noun typographically (even if they grammatically didn't fit in place of the original noun), even going so far as to italicize them if the original noun would've been italicized, as in, "a paper appearing in last month's edition of this Journal said that...". A modern author would instead simply say "of this journal". --Delirium (talk) 04:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

essay

can i have a conclusion for my essay on the topic solar energy??

a little urgent please......................... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Varsha 95 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the idea behind an essay that you write it yourself? Have you read our article on solar energy? There are lots of ideas there.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wittiness and clever comments are usually best for openings, but if you're stuck, they can be okay for conclusions. Use what someone said about the sun (quotes can easily be found online) and compare it to what you learned about how solar energy is used.

But, if you must...*Sigh* Okay, here goes.

"The preceding information I looked up on my own. I couldn't think of anything clever to write, though, so I looked on Wikipedia. But, don't worry, (teacher's name) I didn't use any sources from there. I only had complete strangers write conclusions and picked the one I liked best. This will dock me points, I'm sure, but 90% of something is better than nothing, right?"

I'd use the quote idea if I were you; just Google "sun" and "quotes".Somebody or his brother (talk) 22:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I've seen people wanting us to do their homework, but seriously, this takes the cake! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is yes, unless you were around the desks at the same time as the Physics Guy. Urngh. Except this one demands mentalism. Still, one star for your optimism and chutzpah Varsha95. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using the word "superlative"

Is it wrong to use the word "superlative" in the sense of the word "favorite"? Like, instead of saying "My favorite ice cream is vanilla", say instead "Vanilla ice cream is a personal superlative of mine". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.16.88.147 (talk) 18:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you can't use it like that. Check out Wiktionary's article for more information.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 20:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be superlatively wrong. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you can use it like that. The wiktionary article supports your icecream, 69.16.88.147. with this: "superlative: Exceptionally good; of the highest quality; superb." Instead of using superior, absolutely, best or other mundane term, you've bumped it creatively into the top bracket by using "superlative". Julia Rossi (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uuuh? ...is a personal superb of mine? a personal superior? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly, but don't worry about it. Btw, Wiktionary seems to accept the word as both adjective and noun. So does the popup dictionary: "2. (usu. superlatives) an exaggerated or hyperbolical expression of praise : the critics ran out of superlatives to describe him. 3. something or someone embodying excellence." Something new to me, Julia Rossi (talk) 00:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is the adjectival use of the word, and it can't be converted to a noun that way. It is possible to use superlative as a noun, though - e.g. Guinness World Records are published by a company called Guinness Superlatives; and we have articles containing Superlatives - see Academy Award for Best Actress#Superlatives, where each individual record is called a superlative. But I've never heard it used as a noun in reference to a personal favourite, in the way you're suggesting. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does it need a precedent or is this creative license? Just wondering it through, Julia Rossi (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence would make sense if the OP went around saying things like "Bogart was 'vanilla ice cream' in Casablanca", but substituting the word for "favorite" would require either creative license or being the President of the United States. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Julia, as I wandered through your reply I saw the until-now-unheard-of expression "wondering it through", so clearly, one can use words any way one pleases in poetic and other contexts. The question is, do they necessarily make any sense? Superlative has connotations of record-breaking, best (or better than), top notch, absolutely first class or indeed in a class of its own, the first to achieve some significant milestone, etc. Favourite does not have any of these connotations, because just because X is a favourite of mine does not mean I'm necessarily claiming it's the best of its type. Even people who use loose expressions such as "He's a great/wonderful/fantastic/the best actor" when they really mean "I really like his acting", recognise that there's no accounting for tastes. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I didn't see the op's statement as extreme (thinking of an article where an actress decided not to use fantastic, amazing etc for ordinary things like cushions when she turned 30 !? anyway) but comparative and a personal opinion. It's interesting to explore what seems unofficial yet makes sense. I've learned that (maybe) superlative is a superlative of its own degree (good/better/best). Appreciate your patience, ;) Julia Rossi (talk) 02:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Bogart was "vanilla ice creamiest"? Still laughing @ the "accurate" inaccuracies of the great Bushismo. How does he do it? A speech-writer? Julia Rossi (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am ice cream and I come in several varieties, of which vanilla ice cream is a personal superlative of mine. That's how I would understand your sentence. — Kpalion^(talk) 18:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting Translation from antique to modern English.

Following are two quotations from the Book of Mormon. They are included in the Wikipedia article Book of Mormon (Mormon's record) as "important teachings."

Can someone please provide a paraphrase or a summary of this in modern English?

Yea, behold, I write unto all the ends of the earth; yea, unto you, twelve tribes of Israel, who shall be judged according to your works by the twelve whom Jesus chose to be his disciples in the land of Jerusalem. And I write also unto the remnant of this people,... that ye may know that ye must all stand before the judgment–seat of Christ, yea, every soul who belongs to the whole human family of Adam; and ye must stand to be judged of your works, whether they be good or evil; And also that ye may believe the gospel of Jesus Christ, which ye shall have among you; and also that the Jews, the covenant people of the Lord, shall have other witness besides him whom they saw and heard, that Jesus, whom they slew, was the very Christ and the very God. And I would that I could persuade all ye ends of the earth to repent and prepare to stand before the judgment–seat of Christ. (Mormon 3:18 - 22)

Now these things are ... to be hid up unto the Lord that they may come forth in his own due time. And this is the commandment which I have received; and behold, they shall come forth according to the commandment of the Lord, when he shall see fit, in his wisdom. And behold, they shall go unto the unbelieving of the Jews; and for this intent shall they go—that they may be persuaded that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God; that the Father may bring about, through his most Beloved, his great and eternal purpose, in restoring the Jews, or all the house of Israel, to the land of their inheritance, which the Lord their God hath given them, unto the fulfilling of his covenant; (Mormon 5:12 - 14)

I tried to follow this text but got bogged down at "And also that ye may believe". CBHA (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I dunno. Murky pseudo-Jacobean stuff it is. Try this, which I whipped up in haste, with a little glossing and interpretation along the way:

Look, I'm writing this for everyone everywhere – for you twelve tribes of Israel who will be judged by the twelve disciples Jesus chose in the land of Jerusalem. Yes, for those of you who remain from the tribes, so that you will all know: you will be judged at the seat of Christ, along with every other human from the family of Adam. You must stand and be judged, for your good and evil deeds. I write so that you will believe the gospel of Jesus Christ when it comes to you; and so that the Jews, with whom the Lord entered into a contract, will have evidence (beyond the man himself when they see and hear him) that Jesus whom they murdered was indeed both their God and their Christ – the anointed Messiah they had been waiting for. I urge you and the whole world to repent, and be ready for Christ's judgement.

These things are to be kept secret until God in his own good time comes and lets them be known, as I am instructed. They will be revealed at God's command when he in his wisdom sees fit: to those Jews who do not believe, to persuade them that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. This is so that the Father may achieve, through his most Beloved, his great and eternal purpose, and restore the Jews – indeed, all of the house of Israel – to the land of their inheritance, which the Lord their God has given them, and so fulfil his contract with them.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 22:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Behold and harken to my words of wisdom:

Hast thou studied this [3] learned, but not compiled by the late obscurantist angel Moroni, article? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

? [4]. 79.66.37.142 (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Often articles that are difficult to read are much in need of editing. CBHA (talk) 20:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 2

"7" as a letter

Reading at random, I came across an article about the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh, a First Nations people in the southern part of far western Canada. Not having seen a 7 used as a letter before, I was curious and looked up Sḵwx̱wú7mesh language, and I'm still not certain: what does it sound like? Is it perhaps like an ʿayin in Hebrew and related languages? The IPA version of the name of this group of people is sqʷχʷúʔməʃ I don't understand IPA, so I'm only guessing on the ʿayin. Nyttend (talk) 22:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the IPA, the 7 seems to represent /ʔ/, a glottal stop. Algebraist 22:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder where that came from; "7" isn't really part of any transcription scheme I've come across before (except that in old Internet ASCII Arabic, "7" means the pharyngeal ح). AnonMoos (talk) 23:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just venturing a guess here, but I assume that when an orthography for Sḵwx̱wú7mesh was being devised, they wanted letters that could be typed on an ordinary typewriter (ḵ and x̱ can be achieved on a typewriter by typing k or x, then backspace, then _). ʔ isn't on a typewriter, and they probably wanted to keep ? free for use as a punctuation mark, so they picked 7 as being roughly the same shape as ʔ. —An gr 06:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The somewhat traditional general-purpose way of transcribing a glottal stop on typewriters was as an apostrophe (as in Hawaiian, Saltillo (linguistics), etc.). By the way, we have an article section Glottal_stop_(letter)#Vernacular_orthographies (devoted to languages in Canada) which doesn't mention "7"... AnonMoos (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is pure speculation, but it's possible they avoided the apostrophe so that (for example) the consonant cluster [pʔ] could be spelled in a way distinct from the ejective stop [pʼ]. As for the section of Glottal stop (letter), 7 isn't mentioned because that article is about using ʔ as a letter in an orthography, not about the various ways the sound [ʔ] can be represented orthographically. —An gr 13:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting how many native Canadian names are "officially" in an unusual spelling like that, when I (and I assume others) know them as simply "Squamish". This is also the case with Nuu-chah-nulth (Nootka) and Kwakwaka'wakw (Kwakiutl). Has this happened in the US too? Adam Bishop (talk) 06:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite often the case. Autonyms of tribes are often quite different from their common name - and sometimes even derogatory terms from tribal enemies. While the source of the word Eskimo (still in use among Alaska tribes) may be debated, other examples include Sioux which traces to an Odawa term menaing "speaks foreign language" while the Sioux call themselves various names including Lakota, Sicangu Oyate, etc., or Apache, possibly meaning "enemy" in Zuni but who call themselves Nde. Rmhermen (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Indigenously correct" names are standard-usage in Canadian, especially in B, media and acdemic circles. Nootka and Kwakiutl of names for particular gropus transposed to the whole ethno-linguistic group in each case; Kwakiutl is an anglicization (so-called) of Kwagyul, t he people at Fort Rupert that was extended by Franz Boas to mean all peoples speaking a lreated language; and yes some enmities were involved in that case and in others; Nootka means "go around" in the now-named Nuu-chah-nulth language, which were teh driections given Capt Cook when he popped by; the people at that location are the Muchalaht; "Nuu-cha-nulth" in that language mans "along the outside" ("of the mountains" or "of the coast" is implied apparently); not all members of th ethnic group accept it (Ditidaht, Pacheedaht, Makah - Makah is an English usage, though, adapted from another language, their name for htemslves is way more complex looking than that. The other two have been historically spelled and are on geographic names as Nitinat and Pacheena.) Anyway I meant to butt in by explaining that the "7" glottal stop characger is a print adaptation of a 7-like character wher e he tail drops below the baselin like a g or y; it's used in some native language orthographies and the ordinary 7-form hs becomde regularly used in major media like the Vancouver Sun and though I'd haev to give it some thought as to examples, it is familir to readers of English articles concerning BC (i.e. I mean in regular media in that context, local papers and such...; one place that comes to mind is Axa7, on the west side of Lillooet Lake from Mount Currie, on the fan or Ure Creek, where there was a notable logging protest back in the '80s; that's an older spelling system of hte language in question; today it might be "Axac" or "Aca7" I'm not sure which. Sta7mes is a Skwxwu7mesh village whose anglicization is better known as Stawamus Chief. /7/ is kind of a special case; other special characters that look more like regular English are harder to decipher; the colon in Sto:lo makes the pronunciation "Stahlo" and the apostrophes in St'at'imc make in combination with the t a /tl/ sound (in other languages this is often a plosive or ejective t). Although I'm opposed to complex roman diacriticals like underscore x's and overscript lines and superscripts and such, the 7 has no simplification other than maybe an apostrophe; but it's not the convention for hnames that use it, i.e. in the English as used in th regions where those names are found. True we're seeing a lot more underscore-g but to me it's all about typability and ease of use. "7" is jarring to see and causes a head-scratch; but at least it's easy to make compared to other special characgters....Skookum1 (talk) 23:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the articles for Aleph and Ayin, it seems the former is more often a glottal stop in Hebrew. jnestorius^(talk) 00:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aleph is always a glottal stop in old Hebrew (except where it became silent in syllable-final position rather early, as in the word for "prophet" נביא). AnonMoos (talk) 13:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw the question header, I immediately thought of Se7en. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 15:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat related

Now that this I've understood a bit better (thanks!), I was curious about another use of 7: as you may know, J. R. R. Tolkien was professionally a professor of Old English, and therefore highly familiar with its use. Two volumes of the The History of Middle-earth series include some bits that he wrote in Old English; these texts often use 7 as "and". I've read some Old English, although a somewhat simplified version, but I've never seen such a usage outside of Tolkien. Is this a common feature of Old English, or rather more rare? I don't see it used at all when I browse random articles on the Old English Wikipedia. Nyttend (talk) 01:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's very common in OE and other medieval manuscripts. See Tironian notes, including the image at top ~~left~~ right (although the version used in the insular pointed minuscule script in which most OE manuscripts are written looks even more like a 7). I'm off to look for an image. Deor (talk) 01:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here, there are lots of them scattered throughout this page, as at the very beginning and the middle of the second line. Besides using the symbol for the conjunction and (or ond), scribes also found it useful for representing the negative or oppositional prefix and- (or ond-), corresponding to modern German ent-. To save parchment and labor, medieval scribes were wont to make liberal use of abbreviations and notae—less so in elaborate manuscripts such as fancy Bibles, but to a frequently bewildering extent in manuscripts intended for merely educational or private use. In modern editions, except for diplomatic editions, these are almost invariably expanded. Deor (talk) 02:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Tironian et has its own Unicode entity at U+204A ⁊; it's still used in Irish as an abbreviation for agus "and". (See the image at the bottom left of the page Tironian notes.) —An gr 06:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tolkien represents the Old English writings of which I speak as the reminisces (sp.?) of an individual, not likely to be published to the individual's contemporaries, so I see how this would make sense. Thanks much for explanation! Nyttend (talk) 12:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 3

Messed-up Unicode

Is there any way to make it so garbage unicode is visible? What I'm trying to say is, I have something like this:

Ýé!Ñìîòðè,êóäà âû èä¸òå

And I want to know what it is in Cyrillic, how would I go about this? Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 00:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably using some character encoding other than Unicode, which was common for writing alphabets other than Latin until Unicode became more widespread; probably Windows-1251. Actually this site confirms it is Windows-1251, and converts it to the following Unicode: Эй!Смотри,куда вы идте. --Delirium (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See mojibake for this phenomenon. We used to have an image of a package mailed from France to Russia that had been addressed by hand in mojibake. The recipient had e-mailed his address in Cyrillic to a buddy in Paris, and the computer screwed it up, but the Parisian didn't know that and thought Russian must really look like "Ýé!Ñìîòðè,êóäà âû èä¸òå", so he carefully wrote out all those characters by hand when mailing the package to his friend. Fortunately, someone at the Russian post office knew how to decipher it back into Cyrillic, and the package was delivered. (Unfortunately, our image of this package got deleted for lack of adequate source information.) —An gr 06:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And that line of text in Russian means "Hey! Look where you're going", for anyone who's wondering. --Xuxl (talk) 16:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except that "идте" is a misspelling. I'd suggest it should be "идите" or "идëте". -- JackofOz (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The origin of the word "pipa"

The word "pipa" is the same meaning inhungarian,spanish,english maybe in other languages too.I'm asking aboutthe origin of the word curiousmaty —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curiousmaty (talk • contribs) 08:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi curiousmaty, which pipa do you mean? There's the Chinese lute and the toad (and possibly others?). Julia Rossi (talk) 10:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the "pipa" used for smoking. Spanish: pipa, Catalan: pipa, Hungarian: pipa, Italian: pipa, Swedish: pipa, Slovenian: pipa, and related words in German, Finnish, French, Dutch, Norwegian and Turkish. Did I get all the language prefixes right? --NorwegianBlue^talk 18:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The origin of the word is Latin "pipare", which is onomatopoeia for the chirping of a bird. It originally referred to the musical instrument, and the other meanings are derived from their similar shapes. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation [Googling a term in biochemistry]

I'm trying to find out how the enzyme rubisco should be spelt. The only differences are capitalisation (Rubisco/RuBisCO/RuBisCo), so google is not much help. Any tips how I can go about researching this? Thanks. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably be looking at more specialized search engines, or looking for "authoritative" references. Instead of a general search engine, use a science paper indexing site like Pubmed or Google Scholar, and look at what variant seems to be preferred in official publications. For example, searching the journal Nature through its website indicates that most titles/abstracts use "Rubisco", with a smattering of "RuBisCO"/"rubisco"/"RUBISCO". Science seems to mostly prefer "RuBisCO", with a smattering of "Rubisco"/"rubisco"/"RUBISCO" and even a few "RubisCO" Alternatively, you can look for a trusted reference, and see what they list: The ExPASy enzyme classification site agrees with the RuBisCO article, and only lists RuBisCO as a variant [5]. BRENDA seems to prefer "Rubisco". The undergraduate biochemistry text at hand (Garrett & Grisham) uses "rubisco". Sorry if there isn't a clear answer - it's probably a style issue. If you look at a plant/photosynthesis journal, they may explicitly mention how to write it in their "Instruction to Authors". - I'll also note that if you ask over at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing, they may be able to help you in doing case-sensitive web searches. -- 128.104.112.72 (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"In the tank"

On a recent visit to the U.S.A. (urban Pacific Northwest), I would occasionally encounter this expression in the press. By the time I realized I don't quite grasp what it means, I had no good examples at hand till just now: a comment in The Oregonian regarding the paper's election endorsements, claiming the moderator of the VP debate was "...in the tank for Obama.". What does this mean, and where/when did it first surface? Which sense of tank? (aquarium? gas? Sherman?) Do other prepositions collocate with the phrase? -- Deborahjay (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an article about the phrase and its origins. Recury (talk) 19:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]"Find it curious"The expression "find it curious" strikes me as odd. How can a situation have curiosity? Can a 'curious person' be both someone who is interested in finding things out, or someone who rouses curiosity in others? Is there a word for this type of adjective that means something, and can also mean that it causes others to feel it? I hope this question makes sense....24.147.171.20 (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]I think there is such a word, but I can't recall it, and I haven't so far found it: I think it may be something like unaccusative (though that is a class of verbs, not adjectives). 'Suspicious' is another example, and 'welcome' is similar ('it is welcome' = 'I welcome it' rather than *'I am welcome of it'). --ColinFine (talk) 00:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]"Curious" has two meanings:Eager to know or to learn somethingStrange, unusualIf someone says "the situation is curious", they probably mean that the situation is strange or unusual in some way. CBHA (talk) 05:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]However, "I find it curious" is not generally used of the situation per se (as in "I find this situation curious") - although it certainly can be used that way - but as "I find it curious that <such and such is the case>", e.g. I find it curious that you persist in wanting me when I've always told you I consider you the most odious person I have ever known. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]Jack, do you say that before or after you take out an AVO on one so odious? Julia Rossi (talk) 11:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]My understanding is that when "curious" occurs as a subjective complement (as in "John is curious"), it means, "inquiring, inquisitive, etc.;" however, as an objective complement ("I find John curious" (less common) or "I find it curious"), it means "odd." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] PS And here is the OED: "5. a. Desirous of seeing or knowing; eager to learn; inquisitive. Often with condemnatory connotation: Desirous of knowing what one has no right to know, or what does not concern one, prying. (The current subjective sense.) 16. a. Deserving or exciting attention on account of its novelty or peculiarity; exciting curiosity; somewhat surprising, strange, singular, odd; queer. (The ordinary current objective sense.)" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] To echo CBHA, I seem to recall that on the original Star Trek, Mr. Spock would respond to an unusual entity/situation by simply saying, "curious," a way of showing he was intrigued and yet not showing emotion, since he was a Vulcan. Of course, you can complain all you want that we're talking about human usage. :-) Somebody or his brother (talk) 12:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]So, if we were talking about a 'curious cat', would be meaning a 'cat which is curious' (which is totally usual) or an 'unusual cat'? Similarly, are we saying that Curious George is a weirdo?--ChokinBako (talk) 07:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Cats and George are, of course, curious in the sense of "eager to explore and learn". But when Alice found things not merely curious but "curiouser and curiouser", she meant more and more unusual. (And I'm pleased to see my browser's spellchecker is educated enough not to question the word "curiouser".) —Angr 08:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]November 4Age/aged 18In reference to subjects used in an experiment, were they "age 18 and older" or "aged 18 and older"? ----Seans Potato Business 14:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]I'd say you'd refer to either "people aged 18 ..." or "people of age 18 ...", but not "people age 18 ...". -- JackofOz (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] They both sound okay to me, and Google Books shows a statistical dead heat between them. —Angr 14:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] What JackofOz says is grammatically sound, but Angr is correct too about actual usage. It seems that an equal number of authors (I checked Google Scholar) now seem to be preferring "age 18 or older." Since most publications in the list were medical or public health journals, I wonder if this form has arisen out of a need to avoid confusion (among physicians who are strapped for time?) between one meaning of "aged" (i.e. "aged" (adjective) = "having reached the age of") and the others ("aged" (verb; past simple) "grew older" and "the aged" (noun substantive) = "the elderly.") Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Possibly, although I honestly can't see why any such confusion should arise. I think it's more a product of people getting used to a somewhat casual way of speaking, i.e. dropping the -d (easy enough to do, without even trying very hard), and then transferring that usage into their writing. If they thought for a second, though, they'd realise we don't refer to "people height 1.5 metres" or "people weight 85 kilos", so why should we refer to "people age 18"? But I know these things are not logical, and that usage always prevails over prescription. Still, in formal writing, I'd very strongly recommend "aged 18". If I were approving a text for publication, with "people age 18" in it, I would require it to be changed before it received my imprimatur, and I don't believe that has anything to do with pedantry or even being particularly picky. Think of it this way: a lot of people say "anythink" instead of "anything" - but they know not to write "anythink". So, why not apply the same standard with "age/d 18"? -- JackofOz (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]I suggest that rather than the -d being dropped, it may have been the "of" in "people of age 18". Not that it really makes any difference. --Anonymous, 17:54 UTC, November 4, 2008. Saying "My son is age 18" is perhaps illogical, but no more so than saying "What color is his hair?" After all, hair isn't a color, it has a color, just as a person isn't an age but has an age. But, we say it anyway. —Angr 19:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] And indeed there is an exact counterpart in "What age is you son?". Also "What size is that jacket?" and "What temperature is the water?" It appears that there is a rule in English which allows certain properties to be expressed as complements in WH questions, but not traditionally in other constructions - but in at least some cases the use is now spreading to declarative sentences. --ColinFine (talk) 23:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] I could just about accept "He is age 18" in response to "What age is your son?", cf. "It is size 24" in response to "What size is this jacket?". In a group research context, "What age(s) are you studying?" could be answered by "They are age 18", or "They are age 18 or older". But the construction "I'm studying people (who are) aged 18 (or over)" seems to require "aged". -- JackofOz (talk) 03:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]i need prepation sheets of english / secondary school/ AlgeriaI want to recieve preparation sheets of English secondary school / new programme / Algeria —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.221.17.252 (talk) 14:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]It might help to translate the slashes to something a bit more explicit. —Tamfang (talk) 16:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]If you want materials to prepare to learn (or teach) English at a secondary school in Algeria, then you should ask the school how to find the right materials. Marco polo (talk) 19:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]how do I get to the lowercase numbers?the title above of 7 as a letter reminded me about a long problem I've had: getting to the lowercase numbers. I realize they're out of favor these days, but surely I can insert them somehow? Or are they just not even part of the character set? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.209.97 (talk) 14:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]Not sure what you mean by lower case numbers – could you give an example? --Richardrj ^talk^email 14:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]OP is probably asking about text figures. You will usually need to purchase a separate or extended font in order to get these. These are sometimes called "expert" or "old style" fonts, e.g. Bembo Expert, and will usually include proper small caps and f-ligatures as well.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] (ec) I suspect he means the numerals that look like those in the image to the right, where some digits are only as tall as lower-case letters. This is a font issue, you have to find a font (like Georgia) where the numerals are designed to look like that. They don't have separate Unicode points from "normal" numerals. —Angr 14:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] On a side point, I tried to illustrate this by typing <span style="font-face:Georgia">1234567890</span>, but it didn't work: 1234567890 displays in the same font as the rest of the text (for me, Arial). What did I do wrong? —Angr 14:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]The CSS property you are after is called font-family, not font-face. I don't have the Georgia font to test it, but this should work: 1234567890. — Emil J. 15:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Yes, it works, thanks! I thought font-family was just for "serif" and "sans" and other general terms, not for specific font names. —Angr 15:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]Road map for peaceWhy is this a road map? Kittybrewster ☎ 15:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]In this case, the phrase "road map" is simply being used as a Metaphor and is intended to mean that the "road map for peace" provides directions or a path to follow to get from where we are now (strife and unrest in the region) to where we want to go (peace between all groups involved).--Zerozal (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] The phrase 'road map' is widely used in technological industries to mean little more than a broad plan: ask Google for "product road map" and you will find many examples. I suspect that for many people it has almost lost its connection with the literal meaning, and has just come to mean a general plan. --ColinFine (talk) 00:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]Articulating in writing?Is it OK to say that someone "was able to articulate himself well in writing" or "was able to articulate complex opinions in writing"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.10 (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]The second sounds okay. I'd say "express himself well" for the first one. —Angr 16:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]Someone who is capable of articulating complex ideas may be perceived as an idiot, because true ideas are clear.--Radh (talk) 16:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]Radh: Are you implying that if something is true then it is easy to explain clearly? CBHA (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]It need not be easy to explain, but if something "in the world" is true (and we are not talking about some deep religious truth hidden-to-the-uninitiated), it should be possible to make it clear. If you cannot make it clear to others, you yourself probably have no real knowledge of the thing. Complex situations still have to be explained step by step, the complexity has to be reduced in analysis. Muddled ideas and "perceptions" are in reality not necessarily bad and probably all we ever get about 99.99% of our common sense "knowledge", but to read "not capable to have a clear thought about the stuff he is working on everyday" in an evaluation would look pretty grim to me.--Radh (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]Thank you. You may appreciate these quotations: "When a thought is too weak to be expressed simply, it should be rejected." - Luc de Clapiers, Marquis de Vauvenargues"You may say that it is a matter of semantics, but semantics make a good test. As a writer I can tell you that trouble in writing clearly invariably reflects troubled thinking, usually an incomplete grasp of the facts or of their meaning." - Historian Barbara W. TuchmanIMO, one of the ultimate tests in this regard is being able to a) comprehend and b) explain quantum mechanics. CBHA (talk) 20:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]I guess the clear thought theory applies to sciences even more than anywhere else, but you need a certain basic training?--Radh (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]Radh, someone who is incapable of articulating complex ideas clearly may also be perceived as an idiot. That doesn't seem to leave much room for us non-idiots. Is it possible you meant "incapable"? If so, does this mean you yourself were incapable of expressing your idea clearly? And if so, what conclusion might we draw about your sanity? :) -- JackofOz (talk) 22:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]Where was I talking about sanity? I am all for expressing complex ideas clearly, but have obviously not managed this to do myself. People who are incapable of articulating complex ideas may also be perceived as idiotic...Like Noam Chomsky in politics or more like Derrida?--Radh (talk) 23:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]That's what I said. You were talking about those who are capable of communicating their ideas clearly - who still, according to your thesis, can come across as idiots. But I'm not sure why you'd think that, which is why I wondered if you actually meant "incapable" when you wrote "capable". -- JackofOz (talk) 03:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]There surely is no need for us to disagree? The beauty of clear expression is that it is dangerous, some people may see through you right away. Clear ideas don't equal right or clever ideas, why should they? But if you say that because the world is a chaos each and every muddled chaotic unarticulated idea is true and right, you have given in completely. How do you distinguish one muddled inarticulate thought from the next? Even in religion simplicity counts.--Radh (talk) 10:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]I'm not at all sure I'm disagreeing with you. I just don't follow what you're saying, and your message on my talk page has, if anything, made it less clear. Sorry. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]"The untrained man reads a paper on natural science and thinks: ‘Now why couldn’t he explain this in simple language.' He can't seem to realize that what he tried to read was the simplest possible language – for that subject matter. In fact, a great deal of natural philosophy is simply a process of linguistic simplification – an effort to invent languages in which half a page of equations can express an idea which could not be stated in less than a thousand pages of so-called ‘simple’ language." —Thon Taddeo in A Canticle for Leibowitz —Tamfang (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] I agree with that sentiment completely! —Angr 22:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]Untitled"This study showed that both the lutein- and the zeaxanthin-enriched eggs significantly increased the plasma levels of each of these xanthophylls, respectively." - Does this sentence say that each egg type respectively increased the level of xanthophyll for which it was enriched? It's supposed to say that. Any mistakes? ----Seans Potato Business 18:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]Its ambiguous... Did the xanthophyll levels go up in the plasma, or did the plasma levels go up in the xanthophyll? Yes, I know what you are trying to say, but the phrasing makes it hard to follow. Perhaps ""This study showed that both the lutein and zeaxanthin enrichment significantly increased the xanthophyll levels in the plasma of eggs." That seems much less ambiguous... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]In addition to 5 feet 10 inches, I have all my hair.The sentence above is quoted from a translation of Guareschi's Little World of Don Camillo. It's not English, as far as I am concerned. But what might explain it? (The rest of the translation, by Una Vincenzo Troubridge, has not thrown up any more such oddities.) I can't find the Italian original - and don't speak the language - but don't imagine Italian uses "to have" for both height and hair. (No doubt I'm wrong.) So is it ye olde English (the translation dates from 1953)? And did Guareschi actually write that he was 177.8cm tall?GBViews (talk) 19:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]Perhaps the original said 178 centimetres. If so, 5 feet 10 inches would be accurate to better than 1/10 of an inch. CBHA (talk) 20:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]In French you can use "to have" for height, weight, and age. Italian seems to be the same; Googling "ho 175 cm" suggests it is normal usage for height. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]It's still an odd combination of facts, though, even for a funky book like Don Camillo. It would be more likely for someone to say "I'm 83 and still have all my hair". Is it possible it's a mistranslation of some sentence like that? Or maybe this gets us into the untranslateable world of idiomatic expressions; they either have to be recast in the target language in order for them to have similar meaning, or translated accurately but with the attendant risk of exactly this sort of question being asked. Maybe the translators decided not to meddle with it too much and take the risk. Or maybe, in the context, they had no choice. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]I can well believe that such a syllepsis may be used for comic effect in the original. I don't think the English really works, but I can't come up with a better rendition. --ColinFine (talk) 00:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]"I'd be about 5'10...if I didn't have all this hair..."The sentence might convey: "I'm tall and I'm not even starting to go bald. I'm a handsome guy." What is the context? CBHA (talk) 02:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]I think I'd say "As well as being..."Una preguntaQué es la diferencia entre "jornada" y "día"? Gracias —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlmostCrimes (talk • contribs) 20:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]"Día" is the generic word for day -- one day as opposed to another -- or day as opposed to night (the time when the sun is above the horizon). Jornada implies a span of time, such as day in the sense of the 24 hours from midnight to midnight, or a working day, or a day of travel. For more details, check out the dictionary of the Real Academia Española. --NorwegianBlue^talk 23:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]Same idea as "jour" vs. "journée" in French, then? --Anonymous, 02:14 UTC, November 5, 2008.My French is rusty, but this site confirms that the answer is yes. --NorwegianBlue^talk 17:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]Learning about other cultures<moved from humanities desk> I request that a linguist responds to my suggestion to find out whether or not the word "surculturation" would be an apporopriate usage in my Text's third edition ("Understanding Cultural Diversity in today's Complex World?" The word "enculturation" is already exists in our Lexicon, meaning learning about your own culture. I have no word to use when I tell my students learning about other cultures is as equally important as learning about ours. I did some research and found nothing about "surculturation." Please help me to feel confident using this word in my text. I appreciate your response75.72.123.5 (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]As I understand it, "enculturation" means "the gradual acquisition of the characteristics and norms of a culture or group by a person or another culture". Since sur- means both super- and sub-, which meaning do you need? Also, you will get more linguists at the language desk here[6]. Julia Rossi (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]Assuming "sur" to mean "under" or "below" (as in the French or Spanish), then my guess is that surculturation is the assimilation of a minority culture into the hegemonic culture; i.e. the loss of cultural idenity of an underclass and the assumption of that underclass of the culture of the power class. That is a TOTAL WAG, however... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]The definitions I've seen have listed both "below" and "above" (even for French), but I think the most accurate is probably "beyond" or "additional" (e.g. surcharge, surfeit). Wiktionary has an entry[7], but it doesn't have any sources. Anyway, "surculturation" is (to my mind) a bit ambiguous: is the "sur-" or "-ation" morpheme more closely bound to "culture"? I.e., does the word describe a process of exceeding or going beyond culture itself? Or does it describe some process that is similar to, but beyond culturation (perhaps more advanced or more extreme)? If you're going to coin a word for learning/acquiring more than one culture, I'd suggest multiculturation or omniculturation. They're a bit of a mouthful, but I don't think the implications of "acquiring an excess of culture" from "surculturation" are really what you're going for. But feel free to use it; I think confidence is more important than accuracy when creating new words. Indeterminate (talk) 23:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]Where does sur- mean 'below'? Everywhere I can think of, it is a form of 'super', meaning 'above', or 'beyond'. The OED gives only this meaning for the prefix. In any case, to me your word suggests no immediately obvious meaning. You are of course free to use it as you wish, but why is it so important to have a word for it that you're willing to accept that sesquipedalian monstrosity? --ColinFine (talk) 00:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]Rarely though they exist e.g. surreptitious and surrogate. Julia Rossi (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Julia, it may be misleading to identify the sur- in those words as standing in for sub-. Perhaps it is better to think of the prefix proper as represented only by the su-. Sub- sometimes loses its b (as in suspect), or has it assimilated by internal sandhi to a following consonant (as in succumb, suffuse, and your rare examples with r). Sometimes sub- becomes sus-, as in suspend, sustain (original Latin elements sub+pend-, sub+ten-), though this is not what happens in the similar-looking suspect (original Latin elements sub+spect-). Sometimes there is no assimilation: substance (original Latin elements sub+stant-.) See the start of the SOED entry for "sub-", showing that the details can be construed in various ways, I think: f. or after L, f. sub prep., = under, close to, up to, towards. In L sub- was reduced to su- before sp- and usu. assim. before c, f, g, m, p, r; a by-form subs- was normally reduced to sus- before c, p, t. Finally, it is worth noting that Latin sub and Greek ὑπό (hypo) are from the same PIE source. Subcutaneous = hypodermic, substance = hypostasis, etc. Similarly for Latin super and Greek ὑπέρ (hyper). Supersensitivity = hyperaesthesia, etc. –_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 22:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Thanks Noetica – pity my dictionary didn't have you at the pointy end before it came out. It only goes to Latin "sub" for these examples. :) Julia Rossi (talk) 06:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]Latin phras:e questionI am looking for the latin phrase that includes the letters muti, ta;, nia, nov - I am playing at game that I must answer a question that asks for a phrase that includes these letters —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.71.207 (talk) 23:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]This question was discussed in September. Michael Slone (talk) 00:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]November 5Welsh lyricsI'm looking for the lyrics of Cowbois Bottanws Rhos's song Y Cariad Cadfridog and if possible a translation. I'm happy to pop it through babelfish and work it out, but I can't even find the Welsh lyrics online. Any leads? Steewi (talk) 02:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]I tried to look online for you, but all the websites were in Welsh. Sorry!--ChokinBako (talk) 08:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] That was my problem - my Welsh is quite limited. Steewi (talk) 23:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]November 6English to Latin or vice versa translation site?Can anybody recommend a good site for machine translation from English to Latin and vice versa? Thank you.There aren't any. Machines are terrible at translating Latin. The best you can do is individual words, like William Whitaker's Words program (here), but even that will give you impossible words (and the English to Latin program is very bad). Othewise you'll have to slug it out the hard way and just learn the language. It's worked for 3000 years! Adam Bishop (talk) 02:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]3000? What are you counting as the beginning? —Tamfang (talk) 05:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]Hmm...I don't know. 2500 years then? Adam Bishop (talk) 09:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]Ant and ent words (mainly adjectives)We often see –ant words misspelled with –ent: relevant, resultant, resistant > relevent, resultent, resistent. And we often see –ent words mispelled with –ant: ambient, consistent, independent, deficient, coherent, competent > ambiant, consistant, independant, deficiant, coherant, competant. There are lots of other examples. Although, certain words seem immune, because I’ve never seen significant or important spelled with –ent, or president spelled with –ant. I guess some people are naturally better spellers than others, or somehow got the right spellings into their heads at an early age. I count myself lucky that I’m in that category; when I see the wrong spelling, it immediately hits me in the eye. But others don’t seem to quite know which way to jump with some words. Is there some guide that lists all the –ant and –ent words with their correct spellings, and, more importantly, explains why some are –ant and others are –ent? In the absence of that, is there a failsafe method to work out which way to go, or is it ultimately down to memory? -- JackofOz (talk) 02:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]-ant words come from Latin a-stem verbs ("first conjugation"), or sometimes from French verbs; -ent words come from the other three Latin paradigms. So if you have a Latin dictionary handy you take the word in question, replace the {ae}nt with o (because Latin dictionaries list verbs by the "I do" form, which ends in o), and see whether the next form has -are or something else. —Tamfang (talk) 02:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]Oops, you may have to try eo as well as o. —Tamfang (talk) 02:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]It's pretty much down to memory. It would certainly be handy if we had adopted all these words directly from Latin, so that we'd know to use a in words derived from first-conjugation verbs and e in words derived from verbs of other conjugations. That rule works for some of the words you cite and for certain others; but, unfortunately, some of these words come to us through French, in which, for example, résistence (which is what one would expect from Latin resistere) had been changed to résistance before we got hold of it. Learning the detailed history underlying the spelling of each word is considerably harder than just learning how to spell each by rote, I think. Deor (talk) 02:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]It can get worse, too. In the usual British spelling, "dependent" is only an adjective while the corresponding noun is "dependant". American spelling usually has the first spelling for both parts of speech. --Anonymous, 08:42 UTC, November 6, 2008.Oh yes, I know about that one all too well. In a previous life, I worked in an organisation that had members, some in their own right, and some by virtue of being dependent children of adult members. Those dependent children were called dependants. I couldn't tell you how often we had discussions about the correct spelling of these words. One faction wanted to keep it simple and have -ant for both words; the other faction, to which I belonged, fought a running battle to keep the distinction. My faction was usually successful, but now that I've moved on, I fear the debate may also have moved on, but not necessarily in a forward direction. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]Redundant clichésWatching the news and reading any variety of literature, I see what seems to be a plague of redundant repetitions (pun intended), like "visible to the eye," "added bonus," "close proximity," and the most annoying, "past history." So I'm wondering - is it redundant to say "as of yet"? —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 02:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]I'd say it's not only redundant but also incorrect in itself. The standard form is "as of X", where X is a date, a year, or the word "now" or some synonym. You can also say that something has "not yet happened" or "not happened yet" but not "as of yet, it hasn't happened". -- JackofOz (talk) 05:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]Good thing you said "seems to be". "Visible to the eye" contrasts with things like "visible to ground-penetrating radar" or "visible in a microscope". "Past history" can mean the history of a period that ends in the past as opposed to one that is still continuing. "Added bonus" and "close proximity" may be overused, but they basically serve as emphatic forms, and there's nothing wrong with those in principle. And "as of yet" may not be an idiom recognized by Jack as of yet, but it's natural to me, logical or not. --Anonymous, 08:50 UTC, November 6, 2008.tot seffens in belgium mean?if i type in " tot seffens" in the english version--there isn't a page. but if i type it in the netherlands version---there is a page but it's in danish even though it says translated into english. how can i read it in english? it's a local way of saying bye--i think. i want to read the page in english, know what it means and hopefully find out the history of the phrase since in our country seffens is a surname. thank you in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 934pen (talk • contribs) 06:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]What are you talking about? The Netherlands version of what? There isn't a page at nl:Tot seffens, so you don't mean the Dutch version of Wikipedia. —Angr 07:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]It doesn't appear to have an entry on Wiktionary either (which, going by your description, would be a more appropriate place), in either English or Dutch. -Elmer Clark (talk) 13:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Okay, according to nl:Wikipedia:Belgisch-Nederlands, seffens is a Belgian-Dutch word for straks, and according to wikt:straks#Dutch, straks means "later today", so I conjecture that tot seffens is a Belgian-Dutch way of saying "See you later (today)". In other words, if I'm right, the OP is also right when he says "it's a local way of saying bye". But I still don't know what page he found that's "in danish even though it says translated into english". —Angr 13:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]Native speakers of British English needed!I wrote an article about a Singaporean politician, Denise Phua. Within several days, the article should be ready for a GA nomination, but there is an issue regarding British English usage that needs to be resolved first. We need native speakers of British English to participate in the discussion and give their input. Please do not let comments by others mislead you. The issue is not whether British English should be used (everyone agrees it should), but how serial commas and collective nouns are handled in British English. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]Serial commas are known in UK English as Oxford commas, because they are endorsed by Oxford University Press. In others words: yes, serial commas are often used in UK English, and are essential in situations which might otherwise be ambiguous. (See Serial comma#Usage, which outlines the mandatory/not mandatory opinions: you will see there no simple geographical split.) As for collective nouns, if they are considered as a unit, then they are treated as singular. If the context treats them as a collection of individuals, then use a plural. eg. The government has raised the taxes by 10% this year; the cabinet are divided on the issue. Gwinva (talk) 09:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]