Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Reference Desk

Science Mathematics Computing/IT Humanities Language Entertainment Miscellaneous Archives
How to ask a question Search first. It's quicker, because you can find the answer in our online encyclopedia instead of waiting for a volunteer to respond. Search Wikipedia using the searchbox. A web search could help too. Common questions about Wikipedia itself, such as how to cite Wikipedia and who owns Wikipedia, are answered in Wikipedia:FAQ.
Sign your question. Type ~~~~ at its end. Be specific. Explain your question in detail if necessary, addressing exactly what you'd like answered. For information that changes from country to country (or from state to state), such as legal, fiscal or institutional matters, please specify the jurisdiction you're interested in. Include both a title and a question. The title (top box) should specify the topic of your question. The complete details should be in the bottom box. Do your own homework. If you need help with a specific part or concept of your homework, feel free to ask, but please don't post entire homework questions and expect us to give you the answers. Be patient. Questions are answered by other users, and a user who can answer may not be reading the page immediately. A complete answer to your question may be developed over a period of up to seven days.	Do not include your e-mail address. Questions aren't normally answered by e-mail. Be aware that the content on Wikipedia is extensively copied to many websites; making your e-mail address public here may make it very public throughout the Internet. Edit your question for more discussion. Click the [edit] link on right side of its header line. Please do not start multiple sections about the same topic. Archived questions If you cannot find your question on the reference desks, please see the Archives. Unanswered questions If you find that your question has been archived before being answered, you may copy your question from the Archives into a new section on the reference desk. Do not request medical or legal advice. Ask a doctor or lawyer instead.
After reading the above, you may ask a new question by clicking here. Your question will be added at the bottom of the page.
How to answer a question Be thorough. Please provide as much of the answer as you are able to. Be concise, not terse. Please write in a clear and easily understood manner. Keep your answer within the scope of the question as stated.	Link to articles which may have further information relevant to the question. Be polite to users, especially ones new to Wikipedia. A little fun is fine, but don't be rude. The reference desk is not a soapbox. Please avoid debating about politics, religion, or other sensitive issues.

November 5

Greek motto

On a wall inside one of the buildings here at FSU there's a crest of some society with the motto ALETHES CHERESTOS ANACKAIOS. ALETHES is obviously the Greek word αληθής ("truth"), but I can't find the other two words anywhere, and I can't think of any reason why the letter combination CK would appear in the transliteration of a Greek word. What does this motto mean and why does it have a CK in it? —Keenan Pepper 00:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The last word could be a lousy spelling of anakaious, a singular active participle of a verb meaning "kindling, lighting up (a fire)", and the middle word could be intended to have some connection with the name of Christ, but the motto does not appear to be correct ancient Greek... AnonMoos 01:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

C was at one point used for Σ (sigma). Is ανασκαιος a valid word?--Siva 02:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not in my Liddell & Scott. —Keenan Pepper 03:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to assume the C is a gamma (Roman C is the cognate of Greek gamma after all). Thus alethes chrestos anankaios (αληθὴς χρηστὸς ἀναγκαῖος, "true, good/useful, connected-by-family-ties" (referring to a person - prob. the motto of a fraternal organization?). Wareh 04:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

That sounds plausible. I guess it's just a bad transliteration, or a misspelling. —Keenan Pepper 22:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I've certainly seen all kinds of Greek blunders in fraternity crests (for example cursive phis and thetas changing places). Unfortunately, not enough of those frat boys are learning Greek, so their traditions are getting garbled. Just to be clear, then, you're saying that it's clearly written in ordinary Roman letters, and that you're certain the transcription you gave above is correct? Yikes, I hope it's not carved in stone! Wareh 01:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

If carved in stone all that is needed is carving one more horizontal stroke turning the C into a G.  --Lambiam^Talk 06:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

However, the word would be more commonly transcribed into English as ANANKAIOS, and "CHERESTOS" has one too many E's by any theory. The original meaning of anankaios is "forced by necessity (cf. Ananke), anyway... AnonMoos 21:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Right. I mean, there are Greek forms of gamma that could easily be mistaken for c (if you believed c to be a Greek letter!); it's a lot worse if the text was presented this way in transliteration. So this is a bit of a mystery, and clearly some information here is bad or missing. But I stick by my translation of anankaios as surely more relevant (cf. Latin necessarius), at least on my totally improvised theory that this is for a fraternal organization. Wareh 21:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Wareh, it's written just like that with capital Latin letters. —Keenan Pepper 03:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

what is the differance between mass and weight?

I am a english student,but doing both math and physics, I have heard people saying my weight is 140 pounds,but they never say my mass is 140 kg, therefore in physics it is wrong to say my weight is 140 pounds.meanwhile mass is the amount of matter in an object, as a human we should be saying my mass is instate of my weight, becuse weight is only describing the force of gravity on us. so can any one explain why we can say my mass is, but we can say my weight is?

This is a science question. Mass is constant everywhere, while weight is your mass times the acceleration due to gravity, g. On Earth, g is 9.8 meters/sec^2 or 32 feet/sec^2. Oddly, the metric system uses a measure of mass (kg) by default, while the English system uses a measure of weight (pounds), by default. Weight, in the metric system, is measured in Newtons. So, if your mass is 100 kg, then you weigh 980 N on Earth. StuRat 10:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[after edit conflict - don't know if I'm saying anything new, but anyways...] Your mass is your volume × your density. It has to do with how much actual matter is contained within your body (as opposed to empty space; think different atoms at different levels of energy: the same volume of heavier atoms like gold or uranium, or the same volume of lighter atoms like hydrogen tightly packed, would be more massive). Your weight is the measurement of the Earth's gravitational force on your body at whatever altitude you happen to be (your proximity to earth). Hence, when you go into space, your mass remains constant, but your weight decreases. Anchoress 10:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I was always taught that the imperial (N.B. NOT english- england use the metric system!) measure for mass was stones, and pounds, and that the imperial weight measurement was pounds weight, equall to pounds times 9.8. Is that right? MHDIV Englishnerd 13:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought that stones weren't used outside UK (possibly Ireland). 2nd, 140 pounds doesn't equal 140 kg, it's closer to 80, I think... Oh, well... 惑乱 分からん 15:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's actually more like 65kg. 1 kilo = 2.205 lbs. Anchoress 15:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

In reply to "N.B. NOT english- england use the metric system!", England does officially use the metric system, but in daily life, body weight is expressed in stones, so it is still an "English" measure. In the past, "pound" could refer to both mass and weight; see Pound (mass) and Pound-force. But since the distinction between mass and weight is not important in popular measurements and because scientists use SI units, pound nowadays refers almost exclusively to mass. Lesgles (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

In response to the original question: The word "mass" is older than the scientific definitions, and never caught on in everyday speech as a measurable physical quantity, just like "luminous intensity" did not gain household currency. In any case, if you step on a scale you're weighing yourself, and from the point of view of a physicist purist there's nothing wrong then with saying that your weight is 140 pounds, or 10 stone. If you were to weigh yourself on the Moon, your weight would only be one sixth of that, about 23 pounds. When a continental now says: My weight is 63.503 kilogram, they are using what officially is a measure of mass to indicate a measure of weight. They ought to say: 63.503 kilogram-force. I don't see that as an issue. Even the international body working on an absolute definition of the kilogram is called (in English translation) the International Committee for Weights and Measures.

--Lambiam^Talk 20:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Some scales measure weight, like a spring scale or a strain-gauge scale, while others measure mass, like a balance scale. That is, your mass would still measure the same on any planet, while your weight would vary. StuRat 21:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

So let me summarize. In physics, mass is how much stuff is in you; weight is how strongly the Earth's gravity attracts you (a force). Gravity is pretty much the same everywhere on the Earth's surface, and that means the two are proportional. Therefore the custom has arisen to use units of the same name for both. This is convenient as long as we stay on the Earth and don't get confused.

By their official modern definitions, both the pound and the kilogram are mass units. However, some of us (like StuRat and I) were taught in school that the pound is a force unit, and this is still common usage in the US when pressures are expressed in pounds (force) per square inch. Similarly in some metric countries it was common to use the kilogram as a force unit and pressures were given in kg/cm². Scientists avoid these force units today. In SI metric, forces are expressed in newtons.

Further confusing the situation is that although physicists consider it an error, the word "weight" is often used to mean "mass", and this usage has some official standing in law. If I say my weight is... well, never mind how many kilograms, I may be thinking of kilograms of force a implied above, but I may also be thinking of weight as meaning mass. In particular, a product labeled as being "sold by weight" is actually being sold by mass.

--Anonymous, 20:43 UTC, November 5.

Actually, that depends on the type of measuring equipment used. If scales with weights are used, the measured quantity will indeed be mass, but if spring scales are used, the measured quantity will be weight. But, as long as you stay on Earth and are not solving a physics problem, the differences in weight for the same mass are negligible and you will sound more normal if you use the regular word for the concept, i.e. "weight". Zocky | picture popups 05:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

No, this is missing the point. If the product is supposed to be "sold by weight", then this is a legal statement, not a physics one, and the meaning is that it is being sold by mass, even when the difference is not negligible because high precision is required. --Anon, 03:15 UTC, November 8.

Alternate Answer: There is a simple answer to the above question and it has two parts.

1. How was the measurement made? If it was done with a weighing machine - like a spring balance, etc., one would be correct in saying that the measured weight is X (weight/force units.) If it was done with a balance, one would be correct in saying that the mass is X (mass units.)

2. What units should be used? If one is expressing mass, the units used should be mass units like pounds or kilograms. If one is expressing weight, the units used should be weight units like Newtons, Kilogram-Force(kgf) or Pound-force(lbf). The main cause for confusion here is that in practice people commonly use kg and lb to express weight, instead of kgf and lbf. This usage, though incorrect is widely accepted. By definition 1 kgf is the force exerted by 1 kg of mass in standard earth gravity. So for most practical purposes kg and kgf are numerically interchangeable - if one is measuring weight on the earth.

Thus if your bathroom scale in Timbuktoo reads 100 kg, you would be correct in making the following statements: a. My weight is 100 kg. b. My mass is 100 kg.

Bibliography of Wikipedia

Do I include Wikipedia as an online source, or an Encyclopedia? I am using Chicago Cytation Style, on the article about the Egyptian deity, Anubis. Thank you, Hannah

Hi Hannah. Fortunately, Wikipedia has a nifty tool that will help you cite your source. Go to the article you want and click the link marked "Cite this article" under the heading "Toolbox" on the left side of the page. A page should appear with citations in the most commonly used styles, including Chicago. Lesgles (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Rather than cite Wikipedia directly, I would cite sources listed in the article of interest. The same is true of any encyclopedia, it's better to go to the actual source of knowledge, as the encyclopedia is just "hearsay". StuRat 21:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

momism or real phrase

ĶĶĨ My mother was a legal secratary 60 years ago and used the phrase " how some ever" in talking. I think it was in continuing a conversation when she had been interupted and thought that and felt the interuption had no merit to what ever she was saying. Then again I was raised in Canada so maybe this was something she just did on her own. I used the phrase and now I need to it back up as my co-worker likes to rib me about it all the time. Is it real or is it mom-erex?67.168.136.85 18:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)ĴÁĆ

Just because it is a momism doesn't mean it isn't a real phrase. It is no accident that the first language we learn is known as the mother tounge. [And my mother obviously couldn't spell, I blame wikipedia for perpetuating my mother's errors.] Maybe the momism comes from saying it as three separate words, it is more often written howsomever. For luminaries other than your mom who have used the word try: Shakespeare "How somere their hearts are seuer'd in Religion, their heads are both one." (although this is a slightly different usage) or Walter Scott "Howsomdever, I object nothing to Captain Cleveland." Nowadays though it is more usually confined to toe-curlingly bad representations of dialect speech: J. M. Barrie "How-some-ever, I daur say we could arrange to fling the grounds open to the public once a week on condition ‘at they didna speak to the geniuses." MeltBanana 19:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Nope, not a momism but a germanicism. It's a variant of "howsoever" and ultimately "however". It originally means, roughly, "anyway". So your usage would be consistent with that. But "howsoever" has become a more formal way of saying "to any extent" (which, if you think about it, does mean the same thing as "anyway"). The reason is it's not a conjunction of how-so-ever but rather how-soever, "soever" meaning "in any way", and is in turn of course a compound of so-ever. These "-soever" and -"ever" endings are very old and a shared Germanic thing, for instance the German it corresponds to "-auch immer" and the Swedish "-somhelst". So for: "How(so)ever", "what(so)ever", "whoever" you have "wie auch immer", "was auch immer", "wer auch immer" in German (usually written seperately) and "hursomhelst", "vadsomhelst", "vemsomhelst" in Swedish (usually written as a compound). So it's probably very old kind of construction, older than the word "ever". --BluePlatypus 15:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd say "whatever" and "whatsoever" have slightly different meanings, though. "Whatsoever" would correspond to "at all", "He doesn't have any common sense, whatsoever." 惑乱 分からん 19:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, definitely. The same historic origin naturally doesn't require they have the same meaning today. --BluePlatypus 20:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

There are a few hits on Google for the phrase; how-some-ever, looks like it's frequently hyphenated. Keep it as your signature phrase, too, and pass it on to the next generation. -THB 00:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Titular versus Eponymous

I'm not sure why titular is used for the title character of a literary work. In most instances (besides for Princeton's site), titular is about the title of a person, such as Lord, King, etc. (see Cambridge dictionary and Dictionary.com). Order also matters as far as the title got its name from the character, or vice versa. However, eponymous (see Cambridge and Dictionary.com) seems like a much better term for the title character than titular, and it's a literary term, which fits title characters much better than titular. So my question is, why is titular used on WP over eponymous, and should eponymous be the standard since it's more accurate than titular? --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 20:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Eponymous is the correct word, and people are using titular incorrectly. Titular really means "holding a title without responsibility". By the way, the most common correct use of "titular" by far is not with respect to lords or kings but with respect to Roman Catholic bishops. A titular bishop is one who's been raised to a diocese (or see) that no longer has any Roman Catholics living in it. There are hundreds of titular sees in North Africa, for instance; before Islam came along that area was almost totally Catholic. --Charlene 00:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The character of Hamlet in Hamlet is eponymous, not titular. Michael I is the titular king of Romania, because he still uses that title even though he does not perform the office of king (because the Romanian monarchy has been abolished). JackofOz 02:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Titular bishops aren't necessarily assigned to any diocese, AFAIK. "Bishop" seems to be both a title and a position, and holding the title seems to be a requirement for the position, not the other way around. Also, Michael I would be the pretender to the abolished Romanian throne, not the titular king of Romania, as Romania has not conferred such title on him. Zocky | picture popups 05:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Very true, my bad. Know any better examples? JackofOz 01:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The Chancellor of a British university is a titular office - in theory they are the head of the university, but in reality their role is purely ceremonial, with the vice-chancellor actually in charge. -- AJR | Talk 14:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

November 6

"Davka" in Hebrew

How would the word "davka" be used in Hebrew? Examples would be particularly useful. Mo-Al 05:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't speak Hebrew, but a friend of mine uses it as a kind of expletive both in English and (of all languages) in Swiss German. He says it means something like in spite of and contrary to what you expected, with that certain touch of Jewish paradoxical humor. I can't give you any examples in Hebrew, I'm afraid, but Linda Grant exemplifies it with: I went to the wedding, davka the bride looked nice. On the same site she offers some more thoughts on the word. It seems to be commonly used in Yiddish as well. Hope this helped a bit. ---Sluzzelin 08:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Mock English?

In English, there are things such as mock German, where English speakers make fun of what they perceive to be the nuances of other languages. Does this phenomenon exist in relation to other languages, though? Is there mock English in German? In French? In Japanese? —DO'Neil 06:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Good question. I once saw a Venezuelan soap opera with a character who was supposed to be a stereotypical non-Spanish-speaking American. I remember him saying "I...necesito..." ("I...need..." something or other) and I found this amusing because an English speaker would probably learn the word for "I" ("yo") quite early, and if he hadn't gotten that far, he certainly wouldn't be able to conjugate "necesitar" ("to need"). But I suppose to a Spanish speaker, "I" is one of the most recognizable English words, whereas "need" isn't.

One more anecdote - I once overheard some Asian exchange students talking and laughing on the bus. They were obviously sharing a joke at the expense of an English speaker, because the only phrase in English was "Credit card for coffee!" which they repeated over and over.

Sorry this wasn't quite on topic, I look forward to seeing any other answers to this question. --Grace 10:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Deja vu! See pseudo-English. Also Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Language/July 2006#pseudo-English?. --Shantavira 11:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

And see Wikipedia:Reference_desk_archive/Language/March_2006#Imitation_of_English, where people were reminded of the English airmen in 'Allo 'allo. Skittle 01:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes it exists, probably in every language, and probably has existed as long as there's been different languages. The oldest example I know is the origin of barbarian, the proto-Indo-European "*barbar-" which is most likely an onomatopoeic for some foreign and/or unintelligble speech. --BluePlatypus 11:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, there are several indigenous languages of Mexico named Popoloca, which is the Aztec word for "gibberish".

I think both barbar- and popol- are based on children's babbling (there's another very similar onomatopoeic word, babble), rather than any particular kind of foreign speech. --Ptcamn 12:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought "babble" was named after the biblical Tower of Babel, where God was supposedly so angered that He caused everyone to speak different languages, and hence sound like babbling to each other. StuRat 17:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The original French version of Asterix in Britain has some fun examples of this sort of thing: one that comes to mind is a character saying "Il est, n'est-il pas?" (It is, isn't it?) which is incorrect French and obtained by simply translating word-for-word. All before Altavista had ever been thought of! ;) Loganberry (Talk) 15:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Many years ago, a Hispanic actor in the U.S. (perhaps Ricardo Montalban) said that as a youth, he would see U.S. tourists walking around in his native Mexico. They were pale skinned, and wore shorts, and said things that had "midwestern "R" sounds" which to him (speaking no English) sounded like "Horse dorf garb farg." I see car names created by Asian companies for sale in the U.S and they seem like the same thing, as if non-English speakers were sitting around making up English-sounding names.Edison 16:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

There's mock English in English, it consist of speaking very loudly and over-stressing syllables. RJFJR 16:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I heard once that Japanese comedians imitate Anglos by strongly stressing the penultimate syllable of every word. —Tamfang 07:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

'Named for' vs. 'named after'

I've noticed an increasing use of 'named for' in sentences such as "X [building] is named for Y [person]". Is this an Americanism? As a Brit, I would always use 'named after'. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"Named for" is fairly common in North American English, and in the US possibly more common than "named after".  --Lambiam^Talk 10:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as an English person I would only ever use named after. Which ever way I look at it named for just feels wrong. Englishnerd 18:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh that's just all wrong. It should be "after whom it is named". ;) But yes, after doing some amateurish searches online, it seems that it is indeed a recent thing, and probably a USism. You can find some 17th century texts using "named for", but then only in the sense of "named for a position". What seems kind of funny is that while "named after" is more common, "for whom.." gives more google hits than "after whom..". But "after whom" seems much older, and more common in older texts - seems like it might be a hypercorrection, or given that whom is obsolete, a hyperarchaism. (a phenomenon which does seem more common in US english) --BluePlatypus 00:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Blue Platypus, maybe your humour was too elevated for my humble brain, but could you indulge me with an explanation. "This building is after whom it is named X" sounds rather absurd to me. You seem to be thinking of a construction such as "He is the person after whom the building was named". But that's talking about the person, not the building. 01:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's "who the building was named after" versus "after whom the building was named". --BluePlatypus 19:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

That passive construction was never part of the question, or of the discussion. We were talking about the active sentence "X [building] is named for Y [person]". JackofOz 02:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Which is a passive construction. You mean we weren't talking about relative clauses. —Tamfang 05:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

FWIW: As a Canadian (Toronto/Ottawa) I'm accustomed to "named after," and "named for" sounds odd to me, though I've run into it a number of times. So perhaps it's a USism rather than a North Americanism, if my one datum sheds much light. I can't speak for all Canadians. --Coppertwig 14:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm in Calgary. Sometimes we'll say that a person is "named for" another person. Not inanimate objects though; they're always "named after" someone. --Charlene 15:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure its much of an Americanism. I'm American and I always say "named after."

William Wordworth Daffodills.

Was william wordsword's daffodils a imaginative piece or did he really experience it?

Apparently, this is based on an actual experience, recorded in a journal entry by Dorothy, William Wordsworth's sister, describing the occasion. See for example this page.  --Lambiam^Talk 18:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Btw, his name was neither Wordworth nor Wordsword, but Wordsworth. :) JackofOz 01:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

serbian..cyrillic alphabet help.. please, i'm confused enough as it is...

I have tried to find a way but I am confused. The english words are roughly " my sweet little male cat" which I belive in serbian translates to "moje malo mačak" I know the mačak is correct because it is my cat's name. I am having trouble reading handwritten cyrillic.... and matching up some of the letters. So if anyone could be of help, great.

I think Моје мало Мацαк  is correct I know it doesn't mention sweet... but any help??

17:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I would think it should be "moje dragi mali mačak", but the word "little" in English in a phrase like this is often better translated with a diminutive ending, which would be "moje dragi mačakić". Marco polo 18:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

This is the most literal translation:

my sweet little male cat -> moj slatki mali mačor -> мој слатки мали мачор

"male cat" when translated is "mačor", but "mačak" (мачак) can also be used. "Mačor" sounds more masculine btw. "dragi"(драги) in english is "dear". "sweet" is "slatki"(слатки). If you want to use a diminutive version, use this: "мој слатки мали мачорчић". Just for the exercise, here is a version if it was a female cat: "моја слатка мала мачкица". When talking about female cat diminutive version sounds more natural (female, non-diminutive version is "mačka"). Shinhan 13:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that "mačak" (мачак) is slightly more common than "mačor" (мачор). And it has diminutive connotations, as well, so it would be preferred in this kind of sentence ("mačor" would be used to stress the masculinity). There's also the third, even more informal/hypocoristic form, "macan" (мацан), which may be used in the given context as well. "Mačorčić" (мачорчић) is possible but sounds stretched, and "mačkić" is definitely wrong. Duja^► 08:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. ...and, quoted "моје мало" is neuter grammatical gender, as opposed to requested masculine, so the third word could easily be "mače" (маче) which translates as "kitten". Duja^► 08:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Why were glyphs rotated?

I'm curious as to why glyphs rotated 45 degrees (or how). For example, the latin 1 used to be horizontal, and the latin A used to be on its side. A lot of the other glyph transformations seem like logical steps, but this one doesn't.

Much help appreciated! Xhin 20:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure there was any general "glyph rotation". The early 1st millennium BC Phoenician letter Alep looks like a rotated capital "A" (rotated a little more than 90 degrees, rather than 45 degrees), but the actual shape history of its later evolution through Greek into Latin is in fact somewhat more complicated. Indo-Arabic numerals have a completely different history than Latin letters (and the two have been used together for less than a thousand years, I think). AnonMoos 21:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Early alphabetic writing wasn't necessarily unidirectional. See Boustrophedon, for example. Also, letters tend to be modified over the years by scribes to make them easier to write, so when adopting the right-to-left alphabet of Phoenician to the left-to-right of Greek, some reversals make sense. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, see History of the alphabet, and in particular the nice little comparison graph. You'll see that the Latin alphabet hasn't really been rotated compared to Phoenician one - I can only identify A and S as rotated. But B,C,D,E,P and R could be considered to be mirrored. Flipping letters is very common among dyslexics, children and people learning an alphabet. So it's probably not strange that some letters would get flipped when a culture decided to imitate the others' alphabet. Now, the numbers have nothing to do with the alphabet; The Roman numeral "1" had always been vertical. Whereas the Greek and Latin (and most European) alphabets had more or less taken their final form before the Indo-Arabic numerals were introduced into Europe, with Fibonacci's Liber Abacci. (Which I tried to find a facsimile of just recently. Unfortunately there's no copy online, nor any decent English translation. (It's a bit hard since he wrote in 13th century Tuscan Latin) --BluePlatypus 00:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The way a person writes letters, including the angle, can change over a person's lifetime and especially during the first few years after the person was taught to write, as he/she establishes a handwriting style and figures out ways to write faster. So it's not surprising things would change over many generations. --Coppertwig 14:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Editing

Are the commas correct too?

Near its starting point is the small and little-known, Citadel Valley (the valley below David’s Tower), which joins the Hinnom Valley to its south.

Today, the route from the Jaffa Gate eastward to the Western Wall and down David Street and the Street of the Chain, follows more or less the line of the Transverse Valley.

(0) There should be no hyphen here in "little known". (1) Leave out the comma following "little-known" (preferred), or else perhaps put a comma after "small" (so that "and little-known" is offset between commas, like a parenthetical remark). (2) Does the route go to the Western Wall and then down David Street? Then I'd insert "then" for clarity: "... to the Western Wall and then down David Street". You could put a comma before the word "and" to indicate a slight but natural pause (preferred), or else omit the comma after "Chain". Together: "Near its starting point is the small and little-known Citadel Valley (the valley below David’s Tower), which joins the Hinnom Valley to its south. — Today, the route from the Jaffa Gate eastward to the Western Wall, and then down David Street and the Street of the Chain, follows more or less the line of the Transverse Valley." (3) If David Street and the Street of the Chain come before the Western Wall, just leave out the two words "and then".  --Lambiam^Talk 22:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Lambiam, I'm curious about why you numbered your comments starting with zero. Was it because the first comment was not directly related to the question, or do you have your own personal method for such things?  :)JackofOz 01:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The proximate reason is indeed that I inserted (the incorrect) remark (0) after I had already written (1) and (2), and felt the number appropriately suggested "before we start...". Having said that, in formal expositions I have been known to succumb to the temptation of the Dijkstra style of numbering, shown here.  --Lambiam^Talk 08:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

My little-used degree in mathematics failed me, I'm afraid. Thanks anyway. JackofOz 08:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is how I would edit your passage:

"Near its starting point is the small and little-known Citadel Valley (the valley below David’s Tower), which joins the Hinnom Valley to its south.

"Today, the route from the Jaffa Gate eastward to the Western Wall—down David Street and the Street of the Chain— more or less follows the line of the Transverse Valley."

The route from Jaffa Gate to the Western Wall runs down David Street and Street of the Chain. That is, the route is 1. Jaffa Gate, 2. David Street, 3. Street of the Chain, and 4. Western Wall. Sometimes it is best to set off elements that break up the sentence structure with em-dashes, as I have done. "Little-known" should be hyphenated—as should all adjectival compounds beginning with "little", unless they follow a copula—per the Chicago Manual of Style.

Marco polo 22:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

November 7

Use of the word "horta" as evil/demon

I have read the definitions given in wikipedia and dictionaries.

I saw an old Vincent Price movie-believe the title to be "Diary of a Madman" but I may be wrong. The invisible demon was called a horta and destroyed by fire. It "spoke" to Price and the children in the school where he taught. To avoid communicating his intentions to the children or the horta, he had to think of a stone wall. Apparently the horta was unable to leave a locked room.

I think I have heard or seen the word used in this context before, but don't know where or how it came into being. Perhaps Yiddish?

Can anyone give me a clue?

Thank you!!

"Woe to us! Woe to man! He has come, the--the--what does He call himself--the--I fancy that he is shouting out his name to me and I do not hear him--the--yes--He is shouting it out--I am listening--I cannot--repeat--it--Horla--I have heard--the Horla--it is He--the Horla--He has come!" Guy de Maupassant (Le Horla) ---Sluzzelin 09:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You're also confusing and conflating several things. The old thinking-of-a-brick-wall-to-stop-the-children-knowing-what-he-was-thinking trick was in either Village of the Damned or Children of the Damned (the latter, I think). And the horta was a silicon-based life form in an episode of Star Trek called "The Devil in the Dark". Grutness...wha? 09:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Both the Village and the Children are based, of course, on John Wyndham's novel the Midwich Cuckoos. The brick walk device was used in the Village of the Damned to stop the children detecting that the professor had a bomb. Clio the Muse 10:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Four different types of PDF file(s)

A recent "correction" to an article prompts me to wonder which is correct: "these are four different types of PDF file" or "these are four different types of PDF files"? Context: Portable Document Format#External links. Notinasnaid 18:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I would go for 'file'. And "there are" is preferable to "these are" too. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 18:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I tried to keep it short, but "these are" follows on from another part of a rather horrifically long sentence in the original context. Notinasnaid 18:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I'd use "files", although I often interpret plural sentences with an impersonal singular otherwise. For instance, I recently wrote constructions like X is common, similar to It is common with constructions like X. 惑乱 分からん 23:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Definitely files. It's "two types of people" not "two types of person". --Kjoonlee 01:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Why do people keep on asking questions that assume there is only one answer? Language doesn't work that way.

You're welcome to carry on saying 'two types of files' Kjoon, but however 'definitely' you do so, you're not going to stop me saying 'two types of file'. Definitely. ColinFine 16:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm usually a descriptivist, so I should have said "I would definitely say files." --Kjoonlee 01:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

But tell me, would you say "two types of person?" --Kjoonlee 01:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no doubt you'd say "two types of furniture," and I'm asking to see if you treat file as an uncountable noun. If so, do you never say "two files?" --Kjoonlee 01:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

'Half assed/half arsed'

Does anyone know where this term originates (e.g. 'doing a half assed [or 'half arsed' for the Brits] job')? I notice that WP has an article on the Half Ass (or Onager). Does this have anything to do with it at all? Which came first anyway - 'half assed' or 'half arsed'? --Kurt Shaped Box 19:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the phrase itself, but Americans use ass when others would use arse because, for some reason, ass came to refer to both the animal and the rear. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I looked the phrase up in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) and in two American dictionaries: Merriam Webster's and American Heritage. The two American dictionaries listed the term (as "half-assed"); the OED did not list it in any form. According to Merriam Webster's, the first attestation of the phrase dates to 1932. This suggests that the term originated as American slang. This makes sense, because the word "ass"—conflating ass/donkey, with its connotation of stupid, and ass/arse, an awkward or vaguely embarassing body part—plays a big role in American slang. Think of expressions like "ass-backwards", "dumb ass", or for that matter, "dumb-assed". Marco polo 20:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Do Americans ever use 'assed' in the context of "not being 'assed'" to do something? "Not being 'arsed'" is quite a common occurance amongst us Brits... ;) --Kurt Shaped Box 21:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The correct phrase is "I couldn't be asked" meaning I can't be bothered to do something voluntarily and wouldn't even do it if you asked me to. In short meaning "I can't be bothered" Arsed has come into usage due to mis-hearing badly spoken English "asked" where the K is not pronounced is easier to say than "asked" where the k is pronounced.

Occasionally, but not commonly. --Wooty  Woot? | contribs 21:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard it and wouldn't have known what it meant. People might assume you were saying "not being asked" to do it - in some dialects, "asked" sounds enough like "assed" that there might be confusion. I do this; I live in Canada, though. --Charlene 22:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Not 100% certain of the etymology but I *think* "I can't be arsed" originates from "I can't be bothered to get up/it's not worth getting up off my arse to do it". --Kurt Shaped Box 22:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, I've never heard anyone say "I can't be asked to do it.". --Wooty  Woot? | contribs 22:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Cassell's Dictionary of Slang dates it to mid 19th century America but doesn't offer a cite. Perhaps it is related to half-cocked, dated to early 19th century. If half-cocked originally meant badly primed as in a gun, half-assed may have developed to highlight its double meaning. MeltBanana 00:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Half-Cocked has nothing to do with Half-arsed. Half arsed means incomplete or not very well thought out. Half Cocked means that something will not work as it should. It originates not from the priming of a flintlock weapon but the fact that the hammer had two positions. Pull back once would raise the hammer so the weapon could be primed (ie gunpowder put into the flashpan) In this position it would not fire by depressing the trigger. The hammer had to be pulled back further to position 2 to render it useable. Hence half-cocked = will not work

Calling somebody "a horse's arse" used to be a very derogatory insult. Maybe it came from that. JackofOz 08:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

What I meant to say was that it is still a very derogatory insult, but it's not commonly heard these days. JackofOz 08:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Wiki from Waka Waka?

Article Wiki claims: "waka waka, a Hawaiian-language word for fast." Is that true? --Li-sung 20:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

"Waka waka" is vandalism that slipped in at some point, which I have removed. If you look on the WikiWikiWeb article, it says that the name came from reduplication of the Hawaiian word wiki meaning "fast".

Pac-Man was obviously a precursor to the name Wiki. :P --Wooty  Woot? | contribs 21:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Adding r after words ending with vowels

Ever since I moved to the UK it's been bugging me that people sometimes add an r at the end of some words, seemingly at random. "No idear" (no idea) would probably be the best and most common example.

Why do people do this, does it have a name and is it an exclusively British thing? My reason for thinking it's a British thing is that when I lived in Sweden, most of the English that'd come to me through movies, TV, etc would be American, where I never noticed the "r thing". -Obli (Talk)^? 22:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like an accent thing, though I once had a professor that added R on words ending with -a though ("Chinar"). So I dunno. --Wooty  Woot? | contribs 22:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It is simply an accent (I'm not quite sure exactly where, though-it sounds a bit West Country). Try travelling around: you will find great variations from region to region, nation to nation. Clio the Muse 23:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

In most British accents, an 'r' is pronounced after final vowels only when the following word begins with a vowel. In such an accent, a person would say "I have no idea" but "I have no idear if she knows". The same thing happens in American accents that leave out final 'r's, such as the Boston accent. See rhotic and non-rhotic accents. Marco polo 23:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Rhotic accents are those that routinely pronounce R where R is written; nonrhotic ones don't except before a vowel. Thus to nonrhotic speakers, "super fine" sounds like "supa fine", and this spelling "supa" will be seen in British brand names. Pronouncing "idea" like "idear" when a vowel follows is a related thing but not known by the same name. I have seen it described as "hyperrhotic" and as the "intrusive R". --Anonymous, 23:54 UTC, November 7.

Intrusive R. It's not random, because the R is only present when there's a following vowel; law and order is pronounced like "lore and ordə". --Kjoonlee 00:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The main reason (in common with many phonological rules) is "ease of pronunciation". --Kjoonlee 00:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

That's an awfully strong statement to make. I would say it's more likely to be hypercorrection, but that could be argued. Tesseran 10:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

As a speaker of RP, with both linking R and intrusive R, I disagree extremely strongly with the common accusation that intrusive R is hypercorrection. --Kjoonlee 10:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

At this point, of course the reason is simply that it is a feature of the dialect; what I should have said is that (I believe) this phenomenon originally began as hypercorrection. (That doesn't mean that my comment was an accusation, though.) A question: if the reason for intrusive R is ease of pronunciation, why not have intrusive L? "The ideal of it" is also easy to say---but my feeling is that such a hypothetical "intrusive L" would never arise spontaneously. Tesseran 11:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• If it is hypercorrection, it must be conscious. Intrusive R is automatic (like other phonological rules) and people might not even be aware of it; I was unaware till a few years ago, for more than 15 years.
• If it is hypercorrection, then people must regard intrusive R as correct, and "no intrusive R" as incorrect. It is the opposite, since some people proscribe against intrusive R.
• It does ease pronunciation since you don't have to insert silence and stop your vocal folds from vibrating, and you can avoid saying two schwas in a row. I think the R can also make recognition easier, but I'm not sure about that. --Kjoonlee 11:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

1) Hypercorrection does not have to be conscious, even when it first takes hold. 2) What you should say is that people must regard non-rhoticity as incorrect ("marked" would be a better term), which has certainly been true in many [NOT all] areas of America in the last century. 3) I don't disagree that linking R and intrusive R both can make pronunciation easier. I don't see how intrusive R can improve recognition, though, since it creates homophones that otherwise would be distinguished. Tesseran 11:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

1) I agree about the first bit, but is there an example of initial hypercorrection being unconcscious? 2) I don't understand. Non-rhoticity is the norm in RP, AFAIK, and I not all people with RP have intrusive R, AFAIK. Rhoticity doesn't have much to do with intrusive R in RP, AFAICT. --Kjoonlee 12:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

3) Dissimilation of vowels. (Not words.) --Kjoonlee 12:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The origin of intrusive R is probably the fact that lore and law are homophones. --Kjoonlee 11:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the ease of pronunciation argument doesn't work. When one vowel follows another, the easiest thing to do is to is not to insert an [ɹ], but a glottal stop, dissimilate, or simply drop one element. No one would insert an [ɹ] (meaning consonantal r) in the ant you either dissimilate as in standard rules or drop the schwa as in many non-standard variaties or insert a glottal stop. Also, the hypercorrection explanation makes no sense in Britain because the non-rhotic varieties are more prestigious than the rhotic ones.

The answer is, as Kjoonlee also says, entirely phonological rule. Here's the somewhat complicated explanation: First phonologically non-rhotic speakers have a phoneme /r/ in words like lore car and deer, meaning that the /r/ is there in mental representation of the word. There are different variants to this phoneme. That means the speaker has rules that says that this phoneme can be realized in different ways depending on various factors. One variant is zero (meaning silence) and another is [ɹ] in cases like lore. Another possibility is [ə] (schwa) in cases like deer. Which alternative to [ɹ] is used (zero or schwa) depends on the preceding vowel and dialect. In either case, [ɹ] is used fairly systematically before vowels, but in many non-rhotic dialects in cases of emphasis. However, the bulk of the time, the /r/ is zero or schwa, depending again on the preceding vowel.

Second, speakers often classify words that happen to end in vowel combinations that are also the results of the r-dropping phonological rule as having an /r/. Sometimes, these become homonyms of words ending in /r/: such as law and lore. Therefore, in circumstances, such as a following vowel or emphasis that they would pronounce the /r/ as [ɹ] in lore, the do the same with law . At other times, they are not strictly homonyms, such as with idea, which has the characteristic vowel plus schwa combination of r-dropping. Where they would pronounce an [ɹ] in deer they do it with idea. Proof that this is right explanation is that they do not add an intrusive r to words like dew Jew"' or "bee or see because these vowels are not the results of r-dropping. That's as simple as I can think to make it. mnewmanqc 14:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I think your second explanation makes perfect sense, and that was what I had in mind when I said "ease of pronunciation". --Kjoonlee 14:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Mnewmanqc, re "No one would insert an [ɹ] (meaning consonantal r) in the ant", I have heard Australian TV journalists doing this. Not with those exact words, but with something not too dissimilar (I wish I could remember the actual examples). But that could be attributed to journo-speak, which as we know is often sub-standard. I've never heard real people do this, so your point is reasonable. JackofOz 01:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe they were saying the rant (only kidding). I guess the moral is never say never. mnewmanqc 13:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

November 8

New Year's Eve

Does New Year's Eve 2006 refer to December 31st, 2006, or December 31st, 2006? Thanks! --Philosofinch 01:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

My intuition tells me 2006-12-31. --Kjoonlee 01:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Ditto, but New Years Day 2006 would be January 1, 2006. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 01:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

To original poster: But who would say something like "New Year's Eve 2006"? --Kjoonlee 11:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, Dick Clark does. --Philosofinch 18:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Here in Scotland, the 'eve' would be Hogmanay and the 'day' would be ne'er day, each in different years. Easy eh?

Well, when "Eve" is attached to a day, such as "Christmas Eve", it refers to the day before. So, "New Years Eve 2006" would refer to the day before "New Years 2006". IOW, Dec 31 2006. --Mabris 21:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

"...difficult, if not impossible..."

Does this expression mean the task is definitely possible or only that it may be possible ? StuRat 06:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The latter. Hard to the point where accomplishment verges on the impossible, though, in theory anyway, still achievable Clio the Muse 06:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it could theoretically mean either, depending on intonation. It is most commonly used with the latter meaning though. --Ptcamn 06:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "if not" seems to have two contradictory meanings... AnonMoos 07:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Not really. It's saying if the subject isn't impossible, it's at least difficult. --Wooty  Woot? | contribs 07:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand it as, "if this is actually possible, it's still difficult". --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 09:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The other meaning would be easier if you said something like "difficult, but not impossible". I can see how you could interpret it that way, but most speakers will think of a different, clearer sentence first. ugen64 22:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I think "difficult, but not impossible" and "difficult, if not impossible" clearly have different connotations. "difficult, but not impossible" definitely sounds more encouraging than "difficult, if not impossible" Shingrila 07:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

To me, this clearly means: "Could be impossible, if it is not impossible it will be difficult." Another common use which is less difficult to interpret is: "Most, if not all." This makes the general term easier to understand in my oppinion. Vespine 23:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I said, I think.... I'm getting to confused now =P --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 01:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I remain somewhat, if not totally, confused. :-) StuRat 03:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

How can we help you, Stu? Wirbelwind and Vespine had the best answers imo. The thing may well prove to be impossible, but even if it is possible it will still be difficult. I'm finding it difficult, if not impossible, to understand why don't understand this. Maybe an example would help: In the 1940s, I'm sure scientists would have said "Getting to the moon will be difficult, if not impossible". Even in 1969 it was difficult, but it proved to be possible. JackofOz 04:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

So everyone is saying it means "it's difficult, and may even be impossible" ? StuRat 07:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

In a word, yes. JackofOz 06:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Landstraßer Hauptstraße

There's a district in Vienna called Landstraße, and its main street is called Landstraßer Hauptstraße. My question is, why does the street name have that additional 'r'? My first thought was that it might be something to do with the genitive, but I don't think the genitive case is appropriate here, and according to my dictionary Straße doesn't change in the genitive anyway. Any help gratefully received - thanks very much. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Landstrasser is a proper (geographical) adjective, and toponymical adjectives formed from German (as in the language) place names are usually formed by adding -er to the proper noun, or just an -r if the name already ends in -e. In your example it's Landstrasse >> Landstrasser. In some cases the older -strassener or -strassner might have prevailed as well. Famous exceptions of the rule are München >> Münchner and Zürich >> Zürcher, though they end in -er as well. Landstrasse Hauptstrasse, without the final r would sound like an intersection of two streets. ---Sluzzelin 09:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks very much. I didn't realise Landstrasser was an adjective in this case. I had a look at German adjectives - this would be an example of 'strong inflection', right? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. Geographical and proper adjectives don't get inflected at all, though I didn't see this mentioned in the article on German adjectives. For example, compare: Dein Haus steht an der langen Hauptstrasse with Dein Haus steht an der Langstrassener Hauptstrasse.---Sluzzelin 09:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Not all geographical adjectives are of this kind, e.g. "schweizerisch". Sometimes, both variants are more or less common (schweizer/schweizerisch, hamburger/hamburgisch, kölner/kölnisch). The -isch variant behaves like usual adjectives.--gwaihir 10:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right, gwaihir. Nations and regions often use -isch, and I should have specified: The non-inflection rule applies to geographical proper names ending in -er. Most adjectives derived from cities are formed this way, with a number of exceptions, as you pointed out, though I thought that Hamburgisch specifically referred to the local dialect(s).

I have to say, I never learned the grammar of my tongue. Formally, that is - by usage, I have spoken it since young. My teachers spent more time on Lit. A pity, I suppose. I don't know much, I looked it up, and this is how it goes: Hey!

Sorry, this is how it goes:Hungarian website for learning German. It's in German, and the rule is explained just before the purple/pink table-box. Zwiebelfisch also has an interesting column on the intricacies of correctly naming the inhabitants of German cities. ---Sluzzelin 22:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

For hamburgisch, just consult google.--gwaihir 22:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Right on, I learned something new. Thanks, gwaihir. ---Sluzzelin 23:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The word "rug"

Hi, I recently bought a fluffy blanket, a small one meant for your lap. The packaging said it was a rug. (My Engrish sensors started to ring.) For me, rugs were meant for your floor, definitely not your lap. It was made in China. (The bells started getting louder.) I had never seen a blanket labelled as a rug before, but the blanket was fluffy enough to be called a rug, so I couldn't really dismiss the possibility that it really was a rug. (OK, it didn't have a rubbery bottom, but anyway.)

Later on, I found out that Merriam-Webster lists "lap robe" as the first meaning of rug. Pardon me for my ignorance, but is this an American thing, or was I in the dark? :) --Kjoonlee 15:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm English, and I had never come across 'rug' meaning 'blanket' before either. However, it seems from the OED that this usage predates a rug being something on the floor. There is "I wished 'em then get him to bed, they did so, And almost smothr'd him with rugges and pillowes" (John Fletcher, 1625); and "Mighty hot weather; I lying this night..with only a rugg and a sheet upon me" (Pepys, 1667). The earliest usage meaning carpet is from Jane Austen, 1808: "She does not doubt your making out the Star pattern very well, as you have the Breakfast-room-rug to look at." --Richardrj ^{talk email} 15:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. :) I can now appreciate "snug as a bug in a rug" instead of wondering about it. :D --Kjoonlee 15:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I'm American and have never before heard of rugs being used anywhere but on the floor. I think that this is an obsolete usage. Marco polo 17:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that they are using an obsolete meaning of rug. There seems to be a problem that dictionaries leave the first definition the same, even though it is now obsolete. Then, someone for whom English is a second language reads that dictionary, and believes them when they claim it as the primary meaning. Thus, it's more the fault of English dictionaries than the foreigners. If the Chinese start selling "happy-time hot dogs", they may well be marketed as "gay wieners". :-) StuRat 21:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

At least in the OED, the first entry isn't meant to be the 'primary meaning' but the first meaning; ie, the first recorded use of this word had this meaning. Skittle 21:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a problem then, how are we to know which meanings are obscure and which are common ? StuRat 03:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You look at the latest citations to see if there's a recent one. --Kjoonlee 05:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC).

... which isn't the best way, since M-W Online doesn't have citations. --Kjoonlee 06:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

just for the very bored - "rug" is also used within the UK to describe a Wig. --Charlesknight 21:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Or just one's hair, as in Martin Amis's splendid phrase for a haircut, "rug rethink". --Richardrj ^{talk email} 22:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Just because someone mentioned the OED, I thought I'd bring it is a source. The first listed meanings are: (1) (obsolete) a rough woolen material, or a kind of frieze, (2) "A large piece of thick woollen stuff (freq. of various colours) used as a coverlet or as a wrap in driving, railway-travelling, etc.", (3) "A mat for the floor, usually of thick or shaggy stuff". The meaning "wig" is also found in the U.S. (the OED actually lists it as "U.S. slang") Lesgles (talk) 03:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm Australian and use rug and blanket interchangeably (for the small lap cover; what goes on the floor is always a rug and what goes on the bed is always a blanket). Perhaps it's an Australasian idiosyncrasy. Natgoo 18:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Natgoo's evidence shows that the OED has made the right choice in not yet marking this usage obsolete (which it should do for truly obsolete meanings). They need a more recent Australian citation, because as it is the most recent they've got are from the 1870's (e.g. Jane Welsh Carlyle's letters: "We had to wrap our invalid in quite a heap of rugs and shawls"). Wareh 14:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

November 9

The French [ç]

I always hear some French speakers producing an h-like fricative sound at the end of some words and I came across this on the St. Takla Church French audio course again. Please listen to la nuit, which i hear as [la nɥiç] and could someone enlighten me on this? Are there any rules governing the use of this [ç] or is it just totally haphazard? Has anyone done any research into this? Or does this phenomenon even have a name? Thanks! Shane Shingrila 06:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I can only confirm that it must be dialectal, since it is certainly not standard French. In terms of rules, I think it can only appear after the sound [i], it would be extremely odd after another vowel and even more after a consonant. And with words ending in [i], your mouth is exactly in the right position to start a [ç]. I have never heard of a name for it. --Lgriot 08:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Lgriot. I'm not sure if it's a dialectal thing because when I used to study in England, I had a French friend who came from Meudon, which is just outside of Paris and I would expect her to speak standard French or at least a variant of it which is close enough to the Parisian dialect, but she seemed to regularly do this which she didn't even notice herself. And can this fricative sound have other realisations such as [x] after back vowels like [a]? Have you personally heard people doing this or do you do it yourself? Do people from your region do it? Merci beaucoup! Shane Shingrila 09:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It's really just phonetic vowel-devoicing at the end of an utterance. If the tongue position of the vowel [i] is maintained, but the vocal cords stop vibrating, and there starts to be some degree of occlusion in the mouth (i.e. the jaw closes slightly) while air continues to flow from the lungs, then you automatically get a German ich-laut type sound (IPA [ç]). I bet it has more to do with speech style than geographical dialects in the ordinary sense. AnonMoos 14:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Occasionally the spelling "ouich" or "ouiche" is used to express the result of this process as applied to the word "oui"[1] [2]... AnonMoos 14:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

AnonMoos, you're right, that sounds like a reasonable explanation for this, but le wiktionnaire transcribes ouiche as [wiʃ]. Is a [ʃ] equally likely in this case then? Surely the tongue has to be moved to get a [ʃ] rather than a [ç]? Shingrila 17:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Ouiche with that pronunciation is actually interpreting the German ich-laut sound in terms of ordinary French phonemes. /ʃ/ is the French phoneme which approximates the sound [ç] most closely. I bet that sometimes ouich or ouiche is a crude transcription of [wiç] -- but when it's pronounced [wiʃ], it's being made more into a separate real word of French (instead of being just a low-level speech-style variant of oui). AnonMoos 12:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

If it's just phonetic vowel devoicing then it wouldn't be [ʃ]. [i] (and any other vowel) is dorsal; postalveolar sounds are apical or laminal. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

In Belgium it is pronounced 'la nuit' like the word 'oui'

Corpora

Does someone out there know any corpora of spoken language online for free with a scientific quality?

I don't, but here's a good corpus of written language: [3]--Janneman 17:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks anyway. Spoken language seems more complicated to get.

Um, your question was in two places? Anyway, the University of Michigan has free archive of conversations organized into a corpus. Check it out here. --Cody.Pope 20:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

If you want recordings, I remember seeing English sentences in 8bit 8kHz mono. There should be speech recognition or phonetics sites with samples. --Kjoonlee 04:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

If you Google for "Ah Gloria you're not ugly" you should be able to access a site that links to some samples. If you know where the files are on the server, you can download them all. --Kjoonlee 04:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

But I'd feel uneasy with doing research using those files, which someone else had used to do their own research.... Hmmm... --Kjoonlee 04:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

http://www.ling.ohio-state.edu/~tobi/ame_tobi/

The utterances accompanying the guide are available to any interested user, but only for non-commercial use.

The utterances that accompany the "Guidelines..." are now available both in Emu format at the Emu home page at Macquarie University and as wav RIFF files with accompanying praat TextGrid files.

--Kjoonlee 04:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

free public domain language courses

A while ago someone posted a link to a website that hosted free public domain language courses. They were from the US armed forces and dated back to the 60s. There were manuals and sound files to download. I've lost the link and can't find the site again through google. Does anyone have it? Many thanks. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 15:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I found it - http://fsi-language-courses.com --Richardrj ^{talk email} 23:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

When will American English mutate to being incomprehensible to British English speakers?

Seriously, this is not a criticism, it's a genuine question. Last night my wife and I watched a movie on TV starring Susan Sarandon as a nun who was counselling Sean Penn as a death row murderer/rapist (Dead Man Walking). It was set in Louisiana and both of us said afterwards that the accents were so heavy they were almost incomprehensible to us. I personally missed about 80% of the dialogues(s). Now I know as an Englishman living in Scotland that English varies across the globe. But I am increasingly conscious of the drift in American spoken English mostly because we watch so many US movies. And I am therefore curious to know whether, one day, those of us (non-Americans) who want to travel to or trade with America will have to buy a Berlitz course of US spoken English, and also what effect that might have on the global dominance of the US movie industry. It was a very powerful story with brilliant acting, no question of that. But I genuinely didn't understand the dialect. Do other, say, North American people have similar problems when listening to southern dialects? Thanks in anticipation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.69 (talk • contribs)

Its things like global dominance of the movie industry that prevents the split, I think the gulf has been thinning eversince cross atlantic communications were readily available, and trade of products that carried the accents, in the last century we have picked up hundreds of americanisms like the word ok, and phrases like sure thing. The accent has travelled across aswell, and often we dont even notice the accents anymore, but any particularly heavy accent seems incomprehensible, I saw a movie about essex boys were the speech was so slurred and heavy in local dialect that it needed subtitles, this doesnt mean essex is going to develop its own language of course. Geordie is another difficult one, but dialect is different from language, as they are so centrally controlled languages dont evolve as much, as when they do, it is just labelled wrong, and people revert to the original way. Philc _T^E_C^I 18:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

As Phil says, the volume of trans-Atlantic communication probably keeps the two standard varieties of English from diverging much further and keeps nonstandard varieties from diverging much further from their local standards. So the process of divergence which began roughly in 1700, depending on the colony, was arrested in about 1920 with the spread of radio and has remained arrested ever since. If radio and television technology should disappear, which does not seem unlikely as fossil fuels run out over the next century, we might expect the two national standards to resume their divergence. Typically, language varieties separated geographically become mutually incomprehensible in just a few centuries, say 400-500 years or so. When you consider that Shakespearean English is near the margin of comprehensibility to present-day English speakers (despite the mitigating influence of mass media) this seems about the right timespan. Considering that American and British English have already diverged for about 200 years (up to roughly 1920), another 300 years of separation should do the trick. Oh, and, by the way, I saw Dead Man Walking. I am from the northeastern U.S. but had no trouble understanding anything. So your trouble is definitely trans-Atlantic in nature. On the other hand, I have had trouble understanding speakers from parts of the rural mountain South (Appalachia). Marco polo 18:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, studies have shown that media and television actually have no significant impact on dialect and accent. You don't learn to speak from television, you learn to speak from the people physically around you. I'd say that there are certain dialects that are already mutually unintelligible (as the example above indicates) but as far as General American ("standard" American English) and Received Pronunciation (standard British English) it might take longer than 300 years. Maybe double that. It's hard to say because language change is largely unpredictable. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Well something has caused a collapse on local dialects in britain, hundreds of varying accents into about 3, northern, southern and midlands. Even these are under threat from what is known as BBC english. the name is the hint to where it has come from. Philc _T^E_C^I 20:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

As a foreign speaker, I think the standard varieties are much easier to understand than dialects. I saw Dead Man Walking with subtitles, thus I din't think about it being particularly difficult to understand, on the other hand, I saw Lord of the Rings without subtitles, and I thought Gandalf's and that dwarf's mumbling was very difficult... =S 惑乱 分からん 21:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I recall reading somewhere that around 1930, when the first talkies started coming out, British audiences would complain about difficulties understanding the dialogue in American pictures. Pretty soon they got used to Yank accents, however. I for one saw Trainspotting in a theatre in the UK (ie. without subtitles), and being a non-native speaker I couldn't make head nor tail of the dialogue. I imagine it would have been the same for many Americans. As to the OP's example, Sarandon is from New York and Penn from California, so they may have been laying the Louisiana accent on a bit thick, as actors sometimes do (haven't seen it myself).--Rallette 20:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it already is. Anchoress 21:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks folks. I am grateful for all the above info., especially the bit about the two versions diverging until the arrival of movies etc. And I had forgotten that Penn and Sarandon were from different areas of the US and wouldn't have spoken with true local dialects. I live near where Trainspotting was made in Edinburgh and agree that anyone outside the housing estate where it was set would have had difficulty understanding it without subtitles.

Interesting. My wife hails from South America and has quite the opposite complaint. She has little trouble following American broadcasts, but can rarely follow any British telecast because of her problems with the accent (she has no clue watching Monty Python, for example).

The two versions didn't stop diverging because of movies. If anything, it's because of increased travel. BBC English is considered the standard dialect, which is often considered superior and therefore more of an influence than other dialects. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 05:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

....in the U.K. -THB 05:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

My Horse has fallen/fell down the toilet

I would like to know this phrase in as many languages as possible (please mention the language too) thanks! san 18:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)18:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)18:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

---(i'm at my work computer, so i can't type in japanese text)...'[boku/watashi/atashi/ore] no uma ga toire ni tsumazuita.' in polish: 'muj kon' wpad do toalety.' poor thing. :( --Coolsnak3 19:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)coolsnak3

Which one? My horse fell or my horse has fallen? That's two phrases. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think there are two senses of fallen here, so the pun would probably look rather weird translated to several other languages. 惑乱 分からん 19:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

either is good thanks san 20:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)81.243.78.213 20:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Finnish: Hevoseni putosi vessanpönttöön.--Rallette 20:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

French: Mon cheval (vient de tomber/est tombé/tomba) dans (le cabinet/la toilette).--Siva 21:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Italian: Il mio cavallo è caduto nel (something).--Siva 21:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

("nella toletta", possibly...) 惑乱 分からん 00:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Latin: Equus meus cecidit in latrinam.--Siva 21:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Spanish: Mi caballo se cayó en el wáter.--Siva 21:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Swedish: Min häst har fallit ner i toaletten. 惑乱 分からん 21:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Norwegian: Hesten min har falt i do. 62.16.185.24 22:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Russian: Моя лошадь упала в унитаз, Moya loshad' upala v unitaz. What a weird sentence.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Polish: Mój koń wpad w toalete. I did a similar experient back when I was at school, except my phrase was (vulgar)"go 'sleep with' your mother" ;). My school was very multicultural and I found it interesting that each language seemed to have an insult which translated to mean that, both eastern and western cultures. I had 13 in the end. Vespine 23:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Even if the culture lacked such an insult, any natural language should contain all the necessary vocabulary to construct such a sentence. 惑乱 分からん 21:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

"boku/watashi/atashi/ore no uma ga toire ni tsumazuita" according to coolsnak3, which would be

Japanese: 僕の馬がトイレにつまずいた (boku no uma ga toire ni tsumazuita)

All of these words for "I" is correct, but they carry different connotations. "Watashi" is neutral. "Boku" is colloquial male speech, "Ore" the same but I think slightly more macho and "Atashi" is used by girls and women, see Japanese pronouns, unless you'd want to emphasize that it's my horse, it might be simplest to just exclude the pronoun and the "no" genitive marker

馬がトイレにつまずいた (The horse fell in the toilet)

惑乱 分からん 12:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

---

danke schön for that one, wakaran. :D depending on the area of japan, some people use pronouns like they're going out of style. personally, i would rather say 'uma ga toire ni tsumazuita'. however, i would imagine a native japanese speaker would translate it using the pronoun just because it's such an odd sentence. it looks like something that belongs in one of haruki murakami's novels.

Chinese: 我的馬掉到馬桶下了 (wǒ de mǎ diào dào má tǒng xià le), the character for horse and the first character for toilet (the term I use anyway) are the same, but pronounced with a different accent for me, btw. And it actually means my horse fell under/below the toilet. You can say into the toilet, which would be the correct term to use when you "drop" something into the toilet. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 01:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: It should actually be 我的马掉在马桶里了 (wǒ de mǎ diào dào mǎ tǒng lǐ le). Both translations are acceptable, except 里 actually means "in." This is also simplified chinese.

Correct grammatically but that's why I left a long note. And mine was in Traditional Chinese, pronounciation in Mandarin. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Cantonese: 我隻馬跌咗落廁所度 [ŋɔ¹³ tsek³³ ma¹³ tit³³ tsɔ³⁵ lɔk²² tsʰi³³ sɔ³⁵ tou²²]

(Edited) Or, in the predominant broad transcription notation used by Chinese dictionaries for transcribing Cantonese: /ŋɔ⁵ dzek³ ma⁵ dit³ dzɔ² lɔk⁶ tsi³ sɔ² dou⁶/ --71.246.4.172 23:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Cantonese does not have voiced stops or affricates, instead, it contrasts aspirated and unaspirated stops and affricates. Please check it carefully before you correct something, as this will lead to confusion. You can learn more about its phonology in Standard_Cantonese. If you can't distinguish a voiceless unaspirated and a voiceless aspirated consonant, you can read more about it in aspiration (phonetics). Shingrila 04:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I was not wrong about the pronunciations, but we're using different notations. According to the Standard Cantonese Pinyin article, the notation that my dictionary uses is an IPA broad transcription system devised by S.L. Wong, in which the initials that you transcribed as [tsʰ] and [t] are transcribed as /dz/ and /d/ respectively. --71.244.101.6 16:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Teochew: 我隻馬跤留落廁所塊 [ua^53-24 tsie^{22-55 m}be^53-24 ka³³ lao^55-11 loʔ^55-22 tsʰe^213-53 so^53-24 ko²¹³]

Welsh: Syrthiodd fy ngheffyl lawr y toiled (my horse fell...); Mae fy ngheffyl wedi syrthio lawr y toiled (my horse has fallen....). Big toilet! -- Arwel (talk) 19:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

German: Mein Pferd ist in die Toilette gefallen. Rueckk 20:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Malay: Kuda saya telah jatuh ke dalam tandas (My horse fell/has fallen into the toilet.) Joshua Chiew 02:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

High Alemannic German, Zürich German variety (hey, you said as many as possible!): Mis Ross isch i 's WC gheit. ---Sluzzelin 20:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

English word meaning "a saying that at first appears to be insightful, but upon further examination is so obvious as to be trite"

I just can't remember this word. I know it was a fairly obsqure word, but it was common enough to be in my dictionary.

Any guesses?

Truism? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 20:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

sort of like it, would be conundrum...

A logical fallacy? Counter-intuitive? Anchoress 21:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

'Really'?

Due to your suggestions, I was able to find the word I was originally looking for. "Vacuous" It looks like I both mis-remembered a noun form, and thought it meant something much more specific than it really does, "an empty statement devoid of substance"

Thanks for the help!

Related to vacuum, by the way... 惑乱 分からん 00:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Platitude? --Shantavira 08:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you will find that "specious" almost fits the bill, if you substitute "not right" for "trite". 0atcake

A Question for the Brits

I was watching Richard Dawkins' new BBC documentary, and this guy from London used the word pedophilia. His pronunciation was very odd to me (something like pea-da-filly-ah), was this just this guy or is this akin to the aluminum British English vs American English pronunciation battle? --Cody.Pope 21:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

That's the British pronunciation, yes. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 21:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The explanation for that is that the word is actually paedophilia, and ae, at least in Latin- and Greek-derived words, is usually pronounced as [iː] (a long "ee" sound). I believe the reason why Americans say "PED-uh-filly-uh" [ˌpɛdəˈfɪliə] is that they don't spell it with an ae (an unfortunate consequence of spelling reforms such as those advocated by Noah Webster).--Siva 21:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, what is aluminium British english? Secondly, jep that's the recieved pronunciation; please don't use british english, if you go to scotland, or wales or even parts of england things will be almost completely different in terms of pronunciation. Thirdly, I can't think of any other way of saying it; what is the recieved USA pronunciation of peadophile? P.S. what is the american version of recieved pronunciation / the queen's english? MHDIV Englishnerd 21:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I meant the strong differences between the UK and the USA for words like "aluminum", "harassment", and "advertisement" for example. There are a lot of little differences, but these words always stand out to me as some off the strongest examples, now I can add pedophilia to the list. --Cody.Pope 21:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

We had a Californian friend stay with us in Scotland this year and I was taken aback when he replied to my offer of a drink that he would take any drink without 'carbonisation'. I would have asked for a still or a non-fizzy drink.

Yeah, even here in the states, we don't have a single word for soft drinks. --Cody.Pope 21:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that the word was not "carbonization" (which is something like charring — Edison's first light bulb used a carbonized cotton thread for the filament) but carbonation, which is what I would have said also. --Anonymous Leftpondian, 02:25 UTC, November 10.

Englishnerd, we Americans don't have anything that we call "received pronunciation". All the same, there is an unofficial U.S. standard pronunciation, with minor regional variants, sometimes called General American. People in the U.S. with regional accents work to learn this standard pronunciation for broadcasting careers. Americans pronounce pedophilia "ped oh FEEL ee yuh" or "ped oh FILL ee yuh". In either case, the first syllable rhymes with "bed". Marco polo 22:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

In response to Siva, I would argue that Americans have merely accelerated the trend towards changing æ/ae and œ/oe to e. Think of words such as estuary and edify, which used to be æstuary and ædify, and which are universally pronounced with a short e. Lesgles (talk) 03:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Americans tend to think that anyone who uses "æ" should be tied up with a ligature and thumped with an encylopædia.. :-) StuRat 03:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

My favourite example is "vaginal". Brits and Aussies, not unreasonably, put the stress on the "i" exactly as in "vagina", but the Americans have turned it into "VAJ-inal". JackofOz 05:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we're all getting this wrong... you sure that the original question wasn't asking about pedophilia (i.e., foot fetish) rather than pædophilia (i.e., kiddies)? (Do Americans really pronounce it as "PEDDA-filia"? That's just weird...) Oh, BTW, Lesgles, how do you explain the US pronunciation of æther? Grutness...wha? 06:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC) (please insert liberal use of smileys into the above)

Americans say ether. StuRat 07:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

As an American, I generally hear pay-do-philia or ped-o-philia, but I've always been under the impression that this is incorrect and that it is actually meant to be pee-do-philia. Though as one who generally hears such words from pretentious high schoolers and not from the news, a lot of what I hear is putting on airs. --Keitei (talk) 07:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the difference in pronunciation is not due to spelling. If anything, it's the other way around. Spelling rarely affects pronunciation, especially in dialectal differences. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 07:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm so glad I asked the question because these are the best answers/rantings ever. --Cody.Pope 22:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

We're not done yet. The people who say "pay-do-philia" are probably the same people who pronounce Pedro and allegro as "Pay-dro" and "a-lay-gro". God knows why they do that, it's just so far removed from the original. JackofOz 05:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

...and 'Bay-zil' for 'Ba-zil' (basil). What's up with that? Skittle 23:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

addition of word to the English language

Please help me settle an ongoing dispute. I am an amateur student of the language, and have often argued over the years that the word "wellness" is not an accepted part of the language, though we often see it used in the media and everyday life. I am fairly certain that it wasn't a word, but rather slang in common usage. I recently referenced it in several dictionaries. Is this a case of slang acceptance due to general use?

I checked both the Oxford English Dictionary and the American Heritage Dictionary. Neither of them tags "wellness" as slang or dialectical, although the OED does mention that it is "rather a nonce word than of settled status like illness". I think that it is a perfectly respectable word, since it derives in a straightforward way from respectable Anglo-Saxon roots (well and -ness), but that's just my opinion. --Siva 22:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

English is very much still a live language. There is no "one single authority" on the English language and it is evolving constantly. Words obtain new meanings and new words fall into and out of common use more frequently then most people think. See here and here. According to answers.com wellness has been used since the 50s and came into common use in the 70s, I'd say that makes it as acceptable as any word. Vespine 23:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Or to put it another way, the words "not an accepted part of the language, though we often see it used in the media and everyday life" are self-contradictory. --Anonymous, 02:50 UTC, November 10.

Correct. What the OED accepts and what people on the street accept/create are different sets of words (with considerable overlap, obviously). Words are created by the people on the street. Except for infamous cases such as dord, dictionaries never create words, they merely record their existence and meaning, and by definition they are always behind the game. There is still quite a bit of snobbiness in dictionaries, due no doubt to the snobbiness of the lexicographical community. This is not a put down, just noting an occupational hazard of people whose business is words and who have their own favourites and relegate others to "slang". Also, lexicographers tend to be highly educated and come from certain strata of society - so a lot of words that nobody in the 'hood would think twice about might need to pay their dues for a while as "slang" amongst the lexicographical community before being fully accepted as "words" without qualification. JackofOz 04:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

"Wellness" was the official name of my high school gym (physical education)/health class. I've never heard it used in a slang context... (this is in New England). --Keitei (talk) 07:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

From The American Heritage Book of English Usage:

Like the adjective well-baby, the noun wellness has the ring of a recent coinage and medical jargon, especially when used attributively, as in a wellness clinic, but the word is first recorded in 1654. Despite serving a useful function as a means of describing a state that includes not just physical health but fitness and emotional well-being, wellness has never received the acceptance of its antonym illness. Sixty-eight percent of the Usage Panel finds the word unacceptable in the sentence A number of corporations have implemented employee wellness programs, aimed at enhancing spiritual values, emotional stability, fitness, and nutrition.

dpotter 23:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

November 10

Crest translation

i recently found my families crest and was wondering if you could translate "firmiius et pugnan" for me.

Thank you Steve

Firm in the struggle. Clio the Muse 02:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

How do you figure that? "Firm in the struggle" would be "firmus in pugna" in Latin. "firmiius et pugnan" is no language I recognize. May be completely f***ed-up Latin from someone who didn't speak it but wanted to create something that sounded Latinate.--88.73.38.217 08:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You will find that with a lot of 'dog' Latin. My 'translation' is at best an approximation. The literal translation is 'enduringly and fight'. Clio the Muse 08:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but "enduringly and fight" would be "firme et pugna" (imperative singular) or "firme et pugnate" (imperative plural) in my knowledge of Latin. Neither of which makes any more sense than "enduringly and fight".--88.73.38.217 12:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the device is Firmius et pugnant: "They fight even more strongly", or Firmius et pugnam: "Even more strongly into the fight".  --Lambiam^Talk 14:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

That sounds more likely. AFAIK there are very few words in Latin ending in '-n' (a few little words like 'an', 'in' and 'en', and the old neuters in '-men' in the nom/acc sing) and no inflections that do so. Ergo, 'pugnan' must be corrupt. ColinFine 16:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Check against delivery

What does it mean to say, "Check against delivery"?[4]--Patchouli 03:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You see this on prepared remarks distributed before a speech (such as the State of the Union address). I think it means the written version may not match what's actually said. -- Mwalcoff 03:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

So here deliver is used in the sense of delivering the speech, not postal delivery. Thanks.--Patchouli 03:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Danish names (Verner or Werner)

Can anyone help confirm whether a 19th-century Danish linguist, Karl Verner, should be spelt with a 'V' or a 'W' (Karl Werner). His first name is also seen as Carl as well. For the original discussion, including discussion of the Swewdish alphabet, see here (near the end). Thanks. Carcharoth 11:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It'd appear "V", from the info I could find. Where did you find the W spelling, it appears to be a typo? 惑乱 分からん 12:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This swedish website. It doesn't help that Swedish doesn't distinguish between 'V' and 'W'. There was also an obscure professor called Karl Werner in Vienna around the same time. Search in Anton Günther. I think you are right. This seems to be a typo. Google is pretty clear on specific searches for "karl verner" and "verner's law". Carcharoth 12:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

As a footnote, Swedish distinguishes today between V and W, recently having disunified the two letters, but W is almost only found in names and in words of foreign origin, see Swedish alphabet. Many people still pronounce both letters as "v", though... 惑乱 分からん 12:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

modern slang

I found this slang phrase in Philip Roth's novel'The Human Stain' . Did James Ellroy make it famous when he addressed an audience by saying that his book( 'The Black Dahlia'?)would leave them 'reamed, steamed and dry-cleaned'?It seems to be used a lot.modern What does it mean exactly? CLM

It'd appear to mean something like shocked/stunned... 惑乱 分からん 14:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think "reamed" here might have meant the slang sense of "received anal sex", it's rather vulgar, but it fits the context of "figuratively" having been severely "fucked up". 惑乱 分からん 14:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

lawful versus legal

The difference between the terms ‘lawful’ and ‘legal’ is challenging (me). I’ve heard that the law reflects the spirit, while legal represents the form. And that it is possible for something to be legal and still be unlawful. Can you “put it in plain English” for the thickheaded? Thanks heaps!

To me, they're synonyms, except that legal can be used to mean "having to do with the law", for example in legal aspects of the transaction (*lawful aspects doesn't make sense). Both words can be used to mean "obeying the law". —Keenan Pepper 17:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The DMCA is legal, but sending threatening letters to old grannies is unlawful. --Kjoonlee 17:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

language of origin unknown - translation requested

I have recently been tagged with a new nickname from a colleague who lives in Ontario, Canada. I have searched online for a translation as well as asked my many linguistically proficient friends and colleagues for their assistance in deciphering what it means. I think the language may either be Malaysian or it could possibly be a North American Native language.

the name I have been given is Tha’únhl St’áay Sdáng

please help me with the translation as I have a bet on with the person who tagged me...

Thank you, Shannon

Can't help with a translation but the language may be Haida based on Google hits for some of those words.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

ZOMG

What's the Z for in ZOMG? I've never been able to figure that out. "Zoinks" (shades of Scooby-Doo!)? howcheng {chat} 18:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a parody of someone trying to hit the Shift key but hitting the Z key instead. zoMG! --Wooty  Woot? | contribs 18:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

OIC. Kinda like "YOU GUYS ALL SUCK!11!!11!!!!1!!!" Thanks. howcheng {chat} 19:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Norwegian pronunciation of "Kielland"

Can anyone tell me how Norwegian writer Alexander Kielland's surname is pronounced? (I guess I should have asked directly on a Norwegian wikipedian's talk page, but it seemed kind of intrusive.) Thanks! --194.145.161.227 18:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

In IPA; I think it's "ɑlɛksɑndɛɾ çɛlɑnd", at least as a rough approximation... (Don't remember the IPA coding now, if someone else'd bother, I'd be grateful if it'd get fixed...) 惑乱 分からん 18:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm no good at IPA, but from the time when the rig named after him capsised, I seem to recall that it was pronounced "Shay-land" or "Shelland". -- Arwel (talk) 19:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a similar sound, but IPA ç has a slightly different sound than the ʃ representing "sh", and since I think ç and ʃ could cause minimal pairs in Norwegian, you should try learning the correct sound (the "ich-laut" is you're familiar with German). 惑乱 分からん 20:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

...although some speakers merge the sounds, see Kjell. 惑乱 分からん 21:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again, I'm glad to know both of you folks have got the same impression as I have ("shellan" and not "sheelan", to put it in plain English). Although, of course, I'd be even happier if a native Norwegian editor turned up and dispelled my last doubts about this. :) --194.145.161.227 20:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

suppression, repression and oppresion

can anyone explain what are the difference of the three words in terms of usage and connotations? --- John Doe —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.166.86.124 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC).

I'm not totally sure, but I will say that "oppression" has a very negative connotation, like persecution, while "supression" is more like, minimizing the effects of something (like cough suppressant medication). "Repression" is the in-between, since it's still a negative occurance (rather than the largely neutral "supression"), but it is sort of the word that the repressors might use rather than the oppressed. If that makes any sense... —Keakealani 19:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Suppress - hold down
• Oppress - hold back
• Repress - hold in - there is very little to distinguish then apart from customary usage. MeltBanana 20:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Etymologically, they all derive from compounds of the Latin verb premere (past participle pressus, meaning "press"): suppression is pressing down or under, repression is pressing back, and oppression is pressing against. Not sure how helpful that is. —Keenan Pepper 20:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

A repressed homosexual might suppress his natural urges, for fear of being oppressed. StuRat 20:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It's always about the homosexuals, isn't it Stu. --Dangherous 20:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I challenge you to come up with a single sentence, 13 words or less, that uses all three words correctly, without mentioning them. StuRat 21:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Many repressed minorities decide to suppress their unique traditions to avoid being oppressed. -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 02:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

French owls

Over at the French missing articles page we're having trouble distinguishing the difference between fr:Hibou; fr:Chouette; barn owl, owl and other similar terms. It seems that, contrary to what the majority of us have learned in educational establishments, there is not a simple one-to-one translation between owl and hibou or chouette. Any ideas? It may just be case of adding 2 interwiki links to one page, but us missing articles lot are a pedantic lot. --Dangherous 20:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

If it helps, in the French version of Harry Potter the owl is called a Hibou. --Cody.Pope 22:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

One-to-one translations between two words in two different languages very often fail, except if the languages are really close. David 22:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Supposedly a chouette with oreille is a hibou (translation: it's all about ears). MeltBanana 23:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Mixed accent

Having grown up in Australia with native Texan parents, spent my formative teenage years in Newfoundland, Canada, and among expats in Venezuela, and then moved back to Australia in time to finish high school, I have a strange accent that is not native to anywhere. It is a rhotic accent, so I almost always pronounce the R in words like "bored", but my vowels are somewhere between Australian and North American. So to North Americans (including my friends around the time I left Canada) I sound like an Australian, while to Australians I sound American or (more often) Canadian. I once heard Bill Bryson on the radio and seem to recall he had a similarly odd accent. Is there a Wikipedia article about this phenomenon? Or any other information you know of? I'd like to have a smart answer when people ask why I talk funny. --Grace 22:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I remember reading about a TV host (I think it was Alistair Cooke, but it might have been David Frost), who said he'd spent enough time in both countries that he now sounded British to Americans and vice versa — and described this as a "mid-Atlantic accent". Sadly, Wikipedia's Mid-Atlantic article is only about the U.S.-specific meaning of the term, referring to the middle part the U.S. Atlantic coast. --Anonymous, 11-11, 00:00:00 UTC.

November 11

They shall not grow old...

Ode of Remembrance. Anyone know when this was first used in remembrance services? Carcharoth 00:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Since November 1921. Clio the Muse 00:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

searhing for a word

I am searching for a word that was spoken on a radio program that I think means " stupid talk " it is possible that it sounds somewhat like "gallintisis " for the life of me I can't remember the word... sorry to bug you but hope you can help.

Gibberish? --Wooty  Woot? | contribs 02:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)