November 22

Could someone with access to the current (post-2000) Oxford English Dictionary advise whether it mentions same-sex marriage, and quote the relevant definition. The reason I ask is that:

• Our article on same-sex marriage claims that "The Oxford English Dictionary has recognized same-sex marriage since 2000", citing this article, but not the OED itself.
• I have the 2007 6th edition Shorter Oxford English Dictionary which does not mention same-sex (or gay) marriages at all.
• According to the Preface to the 1993 4th edition, the SOED "sets out the main meanings and semantic developments of words current at any time between 1700 and the present day".
• According to the Preface to the 2007 edition, "We have taken advantage of the work in progress for the third edition of the Oxford English Dictionary".

I.e., if the OED has included same-sex marriage since 2000, I would expect the 2007 SOED to include it also, but it does not. So now I’m trying to do two things:

1. Test (and possibly refute) my general assumption that any modern word in the OED would also be in the SOED.
2. Verify the accuracy of the same-sex marriage article's claim that OED recognizes same-sex marriage.

Mitch Ames (talk) 03:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the OED does include same-sex marriage, someone with access to it might like to add the OED as a reference to the same-sex marriage article, so that we have a direct citation, rather than only the current indirect citation. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is what the OED (current online edition) has as the primary definition of Marriage:

1. a. The condition of being a husband or wife; the relation between persons married to each other; matrimony. The term is now sometimes used with reference to long-term relationships between partners of the same sex.

So the Slate article seems right. If you wish you can add this citation to the article. Abecedare (talk) 04:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like the language in the article needs to be tempered. Pointing out that "some people use word X to refer to situation Y" doesn't mean OED is 'recognizing' (which can be a codeword for 'endorsing') it. I myself am a proponent of same-sex marriage, but this kind of slanted language in an article just sounds like grasping for an argument. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, dictionaries are in the business of recording word-usage, not recognizing social constructs. A better way of phrasing the OED reference in the article would be something like: "Since 2000, OED has included 'long-term relationships between partners of the same sex' under its definition of the word marriage", or "Since 2000 OED has recognized that the word marriage is sometimes used to refrence 'long-term relationships between partners of the same sex'." Abecedare (talk) 04:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree with that. Many advocates of same-sex marriage would consider the term "marriage" to be limited to the same type of officially recognized relationship that traditional "marriage" implies; the OED's "long-term relationship" seems to imply a less restrictive sense. Best to just quote what the dictionary says and leave the interpreting to the reader. --Anonymous, 07:33 UTC, November 22, 2009.

I would be inclined to leave dictionaries out of it. Does anybody dispute that the word is sometimes used that way? We don't need citations for simple undisputed facts. We don't cite a dictionary for every article to confirm what a key word in its name means. --Tango (talk) 15:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is disputed, though. In Australia, for example, marriage is legally defined as "the union of a man and a woman ...". Mitch Ames (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legal definitions are often more restrictive than common usage; that is not evidence against Tango's claim. Algebraist 12:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of any "disputes" over the use of the term "same-sex marriage", both numbered points in my original post have been answered (thanks Abecedare). Incidentally (and again, independently of any "disputes") I shan't add the OED citation to the article myself because I never cite a reference that I haven't seen personally. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this symbol in a rebus, that I and some colleagues were trying to solve during a break Friday. I don't have the source in front of me, so it's drawn from memory. I'm certain about the cross, the first (leftmost) loop, and the apostrophe at the top right, but not quite sure about the second loop. I've browsed through a bunch of symbols in the charmap utility of Windows, and looked at various unicode tables and tables of astronomical, astrological and alchemy symbols, without success. (The closest is the symbol for Saturn). Does anyone recognize this? --NorwegianBlue ^talk 10:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be む? --ColinFine (talk) 12:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Japanese hiragana お (o) or maybe あ (a). 124.214.131.55 (talk) 12:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese hiragana お it is! Thanks! I'll see how "o" works out in the rebus tomorrow. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 12:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking for a simple context-free grammar (CFG) that can be used to explain the syntax of English sentences to, say, someone who's beginning middle school. The grammar does not need to be complete—simplicity is more important. It would be sufficient if it can explain the structure of maybe 95% of sentences encountered by the learner. The goal is to give the learner an understanding of the constituents of English sentences, and how simpler constituents build up to progressively more complex ones, eventually producing a grammatical sentence. Phenomena like subject-verb agreement, the case/person/number of nouns/pronouns, subject-verb inversion etc. need not be accounted for, at least not by the CFG itself.

I've seen examples of such grammars in books on natural language processing. However, the example grammars tend to be very incomplete and seem to have been designed to have just enough generality to explain the given example sentences. What I'm looking for is a learning tool that balances complexity (in terms of the number of constituent types and rewrite rules) on one hand, and generality and completeness of the other. (The trade-off is not precisely defined.)

Can someone help? -- 14:32, 22 November 2009 173.49.12.182

Due to syntactic research results established 50 years ago (Chomsky's Syntactic Structures etc.), it's pretty much impossible to have a context-free grammar which will accept 95% of sentences of English, unless it also accepts a vast number of "ungrammatical" sentences which are not English. What's wrong with just using a small "toy grammar" to demonstrate basic concepts? AnonMoos (talk) 14:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(The OP responding to AnonMoos:) I'm aware of the result that English cannot be (completely accurately) described by a CFG, but I'm not writing a parser or grammar checker for English. My goal is much more modest: to come up with a relatively small number of rules that can help someone understand the syntactic structure of most English sentences, i.e. what words go together to form a unit, and how sub-units nest inside bigger units. It's OK if the grammar allows the subject and a corresponding reflexive pronoun in a sentence to have mismatched gender—constraints like that can be addressed outside of the CFG. The "toy grammars" I've seen in NLP books seem to be intended for illustrating how the syntax of English can be described using a CFG; communicating the syntax rules of real (meaning not a small toy subset of) English doesn't seem to be the goal. In my case, what I'm trying to help someone learn is not CFG as a theoretical tool, but the syntax rules of a real language, which is English. --173.49.12.182 (talk) 23:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know who coined the word ‘context-free grammar’ and its intended meaning of the original author? If it was the meaning to say, for example, ‘simple’ (free from contexts, e.g. various types of phrases and clauses), then the rules of syntax is interesting and sufficient for middle schools. The GG (the context grammar and some complex syntactic rules) as we know today is the syntax theory that is available (but not sufficient) to explain how a sentence forms within the rules of the language.

As for as I know, there isn’t any syntax theory that is sufficient to honestly explain the rules of the language within the phrase structure rules until now . However, some linguists have achieved varying level of successes on this process.-Mihkaw napéw (talk) 17:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(From the OP:) I'm not sure if the question was addressed to me; I do understand the technical meaning of "context-free". As I indicated in my response to AnonMoos's comment, I'm not looking for something that's completely precise—I believe any precise formal description of English will be way too complicated for my purpose. Can you suggest a CFG for English that's suitable for middle school-level learners? --173.49.12.182 (talk) 23:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how much time you have to spend on it, but Liliane Haegeman's Thinking Syntactically is a good introduction to generative-transformational syntax that is not too theory-specific—i.e., it teaches the basics about phrase structure rules, syntactic trees, etc., without being too specific to GBT or any other theory. I read it when I was in college so I'm not sure how appropriate it would be for a middle-schooler, but I remember it as being an accessible introduction. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the basic syntax (phrases structures rules) is accurate enough for middle school learners if they are not confused with the sentences that are beyond their rules of phrase structure trees. And as the middle-school learners still have to learn the language unconsciously, the basic syntax can support their unconscious language learning, though not all the simple sentences can be taught within these syntax rules. However, if you are looking for something like Venpa (prosody syntax) or NSM (cultural scripts) as CFG, I do not have any cue about those.-Mihkaw napéw (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 23

Not sure quite how to phrase my question, so I'll try twice:

I'm planning on constructing a language.

1. What are all the words or grammatical concepts necessary for the language to be able to express any idea (anything that can be expressed in any other language)?

...or maybe this is a more focused version of the question:

2. What are all the words or grammatical concepts that can't be explained with other words?

For example, I could describe words like "house," "swim," and "where" with other words; I could convey their meanings without using them. A language doesn't need those words to be a functioning human language. But I don't think I could explain words like "or", "in" and "what" without using another language, synonyms, or those words themselves.

I can make all my verbs and nouns, and decide the order is SOV and direct objects should end with -ut, etc., but the language still won't be able to express "The house that I told you about burned down yesterday." Any obscure tribal language can express this; any language could also express the concept of a computer, even if it doesn't have a word for it.

The idea is that once I put a certain set of words or grammatical features into my language, there won't be any English sentence I can come up with that the constructed language can't somehow express.

Is the answer something to do with parts of speech, or recursion, or dependent clauses...? Do I just have to invent a certain number of closed class words (but then I still wouldn't necessarily have recursion, would I)?

Thanks,
Jeff 74.105.132.151 (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recursion and embedding are definitely one of the necessary things, especially if you want to get by without a lot of vocabulary. (For example, if you don't want the word 'house', embedding is needed to say 'place where people live'.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One must be very careful on stating what is "necessary" for a language. I can't remember the name of the researcher or tribe, sorry, but I do recall a story about a tribe in South America, I think, where the language did not have recursion/embedding. It was mentioned that there was some controversy about that fact, as the conventional wisdom was that the capacity to embed was one of the prerequisites for language. Sorry I can't give more details, but my main point is that whenever you state "language must have this", you run the risk of some isolated tribe somewhere showing you up. -- 128.104.112.237 (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Pirahã, but as you pointed out, other linguists disagree with Daniel Everett's claim that the language doesn't have recursion, and I think it's such a rare exception that it can't really be used yet to say that a language doesn't have to have recursion.

Rjanag, thanks for your answer, I figured that would be the case. But I still don't know exactly--what specific set of concepts or structures must be included before the language becomes a fully creative language, capable of expressing anything. I don't know if that's beyond the scope of the Wikipedia Reference Desk, if it's even answerable at all.

Jeff 208.252.2.254 (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is probando?174.3.102.6 (talk) 09:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1]. Deor (talk) 09:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gender

Does the phrase "circulus in probando" change when referring to feminine or masculine, or neuter, or neutral? What other cases does it change?174.3.102.6 (talk) 10:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Circulus is a noun (not an adjective), while probando is a neuter gerund, so the genders would never change. The case of circulus would sometimes change if it were used as part of sentence... AnonMoos (talk) 11:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In a historical text about the Nazis' information management applications in the Final Solution, I 'm editing a sentence with the description:

• "...a proto-computer data-bank system using Hollerith machine punched cards."
  

Is the wording in italics valid? If not, how might it be rewritten or otherwise improved? -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was a data tabulation system -- such system can count selected items, and tell you how many individuals with characteristic A also possess characteristic B, but it's not a full computer database in the modern sense. AnonMoos (talk) 11:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I chose "data bank" rather than the modern term "database". Does that qualify? Also, besides the tabulation you describe, I suppose it could also sort and arrange content for easy access according to encoded parameters. (from my personal experience operating an IBM card sorter in 1974)-- Deborahjay (talk) 11:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Call it a tabulating machine - simpler, clearer and more accurate than "proto-computer data-bank system". Gandalf61 (talk) 12:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um. The language is quite deliberate: The author is emphasizing the early computerish aspect of the Nazis' system that used Dehomag equipment with its Hollerith-IBM connection. I'm trying to formulate a wording that doesn't lose the "computer" element. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So ... the part I don't understand is why you or the author think that a tabulating machine is a "proto-computer". When IBM moved into the production of electronic computers in the 1950s it adapted its existing standardised punched cards and associated card punches and readers as a convenient way of storing data and programs off-line - and the sale of blank cards was a profitable commercial sideline - but a tabulating machine is just an electro-mechanical sorter, and is in no sense a computer. The phrase is like describing a horse-drawn cart as a "proto-automobile" because it has four wheels and two axles. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding the "tabulating" part heading in another direction, because my understanding of the "data bank" aspect has to do with information storage and retrieval: i.e. data processing, not necessarily tabulating. Is it "electronics" that defines a computer, being other than an electromechanical sorting machine? -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The generic name for the equipment manufactured by companies such as Dehomag is unit record equipment. The central piece of equipment, called a tabulating machine, could read punched cards, sort them into categories according to criteria set up by the user on a control panel, and track simple statistics such as the number of cards allocated to each category. Our computer article says "The defining feature of modern computers which distinguishes them from all other machines is that they can be programmed. That is to say that a list of instructions (the program) can be given to the computer and it will store them and carry them out at some time in the future". A tabulating machine did not store data - this was all held on the punched cards - and it did not store its instructions. Therefore it lacked key aspects of our modern definition of a computer. To describe such equipment as a "proto-computer" is at best confusing, and at worst positively misleading. The most you can accurately say is that some of the technology developed for unit record equipment was re-used in early commercial computers. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if this is obvious: why don't you consider the punched cards as part of the computer? 86.140.144.63 (talk) 20:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because a computer could not automatically select and load the punched cards that it needed - this had to be done by a human operator. I suppose someone could in theory build a computer that wrote data to punched cards with a card punch, stored the cards in an equivalent of a tape library and automatically selected and loaded cards when it needed the data - this would be a form of tertiary storage device. As far as I know, such a contraption was never actually built. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I say leave "proto-computer" alone. It's correct that unit record equipment was not programmable, but it did have two characteristics that we would associate with computers today. First, it took advantage of information-carrying electrical signals to perform a series of rapid, repetitive, automatic decisions. Second, it was configurable as to exactly what these decisions were (which column of the card to look at). It's not a computer, but it anticipates some capabilities of computer technology. That is exactly what "proto-computer" means. --Anonymous, 22:08 UTC, November 23, 2009.

Resolution: I'm submitting "data processing with a precursor to the computer." And thanks to you all! -- Deborahjay (talk) 05:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is Diallelus (circular logic)? Usually I can break down latin, like in in medical terminology, but this word seems like there is no morphology in it.174.3.102.6 (talk) 10:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's Greek in origin - di allelon through or by means of one another.--Rallette (talk) 11:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the fallacy, or what is the fallacy called, when one changes the subject?

For example:

Speaker	Statement
1	Considering only color, should I buy a red or a green car?
2	The green one has a strong engine.

174.3.102.6 (talk) 10:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A non sequitur? --Kjoonlee 10:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the list of fallacies, it seems close to a red herring... Vimescarrot (talk) 11:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or a green herring? :) Or is it simply "not paying attention to the question"? Being of a literalistic nature, if I were speaker 2, I would respond, "Why should I decide what color you like?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused. Is it a reference to the color in my example?174.3.102.6 (talk) 13:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "green herring" statement was, yes. Vimescarrot (talk) 13:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the original example as asking for guessing a preference, but relating to certain objective aspects of car color, e.g. "Red cars are most often stopped by the police," "Green won't show dirt but will start looking shabby soon after the original finish wears off," etc. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be called "reading things into the question". Which I did also. What the question really is a good example of, is the kind of question that often pops up on the reference desk - where the questioner presumably has something in mind, but the question is worded too vaguely to give a straightforward answer, and requires other questions back at him in order to fully understand the original question. Which is basically what you're doing, except not wording them as questions. The simplest comeback could be, "Why do you ask?", thus impelling him to either give further information or to walk away. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this qualifies as a fallacy at all. A fallacy is an incorrect pattern of reasoning in which the conclusion is not supported by the premises. There has to be some kind of inference. Usually an incorrect argument is called a fallacy only when it is at least somewhat likely to be mistaken for a valid/correct one. --173.49.12.182 (talk) 16:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it weren't for the "considering only color" it would a bit of a post hoc, to take it slightly less literally than the article. Most post hocs are two things put together with the suggestion of a relationship where none actually exists, or at least something rather tenuous. That's my thought anyway. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 17:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is right, it's not a fallacy, it's plainly and simply "not paying attention". The questioner said, "Considering only color", and the answerer considered something besides color. Never mind that there's no obvious reason a green car would have a better engine than a red car, in general. Basically there's not enough information to evaluate. A fallacy would be this joke of Woody Allen's from Love and Death: "A. All men are mortal. B. Socrates is a man. C. Therefore, all men are Socrates." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a reply to me? - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 18:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be a fallacy, but it is certainly a common trick of argument (particularly, dare I say, when politicians are being interviewed). I would call it non sequitur. --ColinFine (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you may dare say it, Colin. Rule # 1 of Politics: Never answer the question asked of you. Answer the question you would like to have been asked of you. Heaven help us if someone ever asks a politician a question they were hoping to be asked. But of course this, by definition, has never happened and can never happen. When they say "I'm glad you asked me that question ...", they never mean "That was the exact question I was hoping to be asked". They mean "I'm still going to say what I want to say, without regard to what I was actually asked; it's just that there happens to be a very tenuous connection between the words I'm about to deliver and the question you asked, and you might therefore like to think I'm answering your question - but I'm not". -- JackofOz (talk) 07:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any derivationally related words to obviate?174.3.102.6 (talk) 13:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

obviation. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "ob-" prefix refers to "facing" (as in the "obverse" side of a coin). The "viate" part is a verb form of "via", which means "by way of". The Latin verb is "obviare". Its adjective form is "obvius", which comes to English as "obvious", although its original definition, "standing in the way of", is no longer used. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the ‘obviative marker’. In linguistics, a) it is an illeism, or b) it is of refering a third person in question who is not important in a discourse. I have not checked this in contexts, but there are few details in WP (e.g. grammatical person).-Mihkaw napéw (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is apparently an "obviated person" (and perhaps an "obviate case") in Cheyenne language. The Latin "obvius", by the way, also meant "obvious" in the modern sense; "standing in the way of" had its own archaic fossilized form, "obviam". Of course, that, and the verb "obviare", come from "via", "way". Adam Bishop (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A trivial aside: The only time I can recall seeing "obviate" in print, other than here and in the dictionary, is in a section of the baseball rules book where it pre-defines some rules concerning what to do if the ball bounces over the fence and such stuff as that, "in order to obviate ground rules..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with it from linguistics articles, which are always claiming that their analyses obviate other more complicated analyses. +Angr 22:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford version of what we used to say, "It's clear that..." or "It follows that..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rules book used to say, "To obviate the necessity for ground rules, the shortest distance from a fence or stand on fair territory to home base should be 250 feet." Nowadays the rules book truncates that opening phrase and says "shall" instead of "should". Left out was the underlying assumption that if the fence was closer than 250 feet, a ball hit over it would be declared a ground rule double instead of a home run. I guess the umps nowadays don't like words such as "obviate" in the rules book. They probably got it confused with "ovulate" or something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is nom de morte?174.3.102.6 (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It means "name of death". I think Mark Gribben coined it to be equivalent to nom de plume, except that Bonin was famous for killing rather than writing. A better writer than Gribben would have said simply "nickname". +Angr 15:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that a better writer could have managed to spell "mort" properly. — Emil J. 17:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Morte" was commonly used in older forms of Anglo-French, like "Le Morte d'Arthur". Probably a proper mistake though. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 17:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I last visited the World Bodypainting Festival in last July, there was a horrible rain storm on one day. I decided to seek cover at the entrance of the festival before the rain stopped. One woman who saw me seeking cover said to me: Sprich! I replied Ich warte nur, bis das Regen endet. Now I know this is supposed to mean "I'm waiting for the rain to end", and the woman understood me, but my question is, was this grammatically correct German? JIP | Talk 21:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's der Regen, not das Regen, and I think aufhören is more idiomatic than enden: Ich warte nur, bis der Regen aufhört. I'm rather surprised by the woman's single-word command of Sprich!, though. It sounds like something you'd say to a dog. Perhaps she wasn't a native German speaker either. +Angr 22:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the German for, "I'd rather watch the rain wash the paint off you!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The woman wasn't painted but fully clothed. Thanks for the replies. JIP | Talk 05:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Sprich!" is grammatically correct and although it may be uncommon to talk like that with potential clients, Germanyis know for its "pay and shut-up" client service. 80.58.205.99 (talk) 13:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of us chooses a number; Afterwards, another person must choose a number other than the first person's number. Note that the first person is absolutley free to choose, while the second person's number depends on the first person's number. Now look at the following sentence:

• My choice is a number depending on which your number is.

Did my choice precede yours, or vice versa?

P.S. If you think you have an absolute answer, look at the following two sentences:

1. Your wife is a person depending on who you are.
2. Your wife is a person depending on whom you are.

Who depends? your wife (on you), or you (on your wife)? The answer for the second question is simple, while it's not simple for the first question (about my choice)...

HOOTmag (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your question. I'd say a man's wife is a person regardless of who he is, and I'd say sentence no. 2 above is ungrammatical. +Angr 22:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of who he is? This is an open theological question, I wouldn't like to refer to. Note that I'm referring to the sentences from a linguistic point of view, rather than from a philosophical point of view.

Ungrammatical? "Your wife is a person depending on whom you are", means that "Your wife is a person on whom you are depending".

Anyways, you've referred to the less important sentences. Refer to the most important sentence, about my choice.

HOOTmag (talk) 22:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't mean that unless you are a little green Jedi Master and we expect to hear you speak that way. In any case, we still don't know your question...if it is "can English be ambiguous" then of course the answer is "sure." Obviously the way out of your first sentence is to write it so that it makes sense; "the number I choose depends on the number that you choose" or something. You don't have to write confusing English just because it is possible. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My question is: "Did my choice precede yours, or vice versa?"

Note that the following sentence:

• "My choice is a number depending on which your number is"

May mean - either:

• My choice is a number that is depending on which one your number is,

Or:

• My choice is a number on which your number is depending.

HOOTmag (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Your first sentence is ambiguous (and your example 2 grammatical) only by a strained interpretation of English grammar, ignoring all the pragmatics. --ColinFine (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I ignore all the pragmatics. Here, what I care about is grammar only. HOOTmag (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(out) These things would not be said in this way. It would be "My choice of number depends on yours" and "Your wife is a person you depend on". The stranding isn't natural. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that it's unnatural; However, it's still grammatical, and that's what I care about (only), in my (unnatural) ambiguous sentence. HOOTmag (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There can technically be some ambiguity in the first sentence (now that I read it very closely), but the second reading ( a number [ADV depending on [which yours is] ] ) is very questionable, and only borderline grammatical. Particularly, "which" generally is not used that way (in this case it would usually be something like "which one", which would remove the ambiguity). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only borderline grammatical? Can't I say: "Which is your number"? Must I say "which one is your number" for being fully grammatical?

Anyways, when I say:

• "My choice is a number depending on which your number is"

it may mean - grammatically (borderline or fully) - either:

• My choice is a number that is depending on which one your number is,

Or:

• My choice is a number on which your number is depending.

HOOTmag (talk) 00:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can only say "which is your number" in a certain context: i.e., when a several numbers (of a limited number, for example "5, 10, and 13") have been presented, and you're asking "which [of the above] is yours"? Otherwise, it's not natural English. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know that, and my sentence should be interpreted in such a context. HOOTmag (talk) 00:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then I don't see how this is a very informative topic. It seems like you're essentially saying "I've found a routine example of ambiguity, but it only works if you accept a nearly-ungrammatical sentence and only in a very specific, unrealistic context". There are plenty of other examples of ambiguity that don't have such restrictions. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you still keep calling it "nearly ungrammatical" (or "borderline grammatical") sentence, and why do you think it's in an "unrealistic" context? Let's assume that both of us are given your three suggested numbers: 5,10,13, out of which one of us has to choose one number. Afterwards, the other person must choose a number other than the first person's number. Such a situation is quite realistic, isn't it? After we chose the numbers, I announce: "My choice is a number depending on which your number is". Note that in the (realistic) context described above, which involves three numbers only, my sentence is quite grammatical (though unnatural), isn't it? Now, a third person, who has heard my announcement, is trying to determine whether my choice has preceded your choice, or vice versa. So this third person must finally fail to determine that, although my announcement is quite grammatical, and would also have been sufficient - had it had only one meaning, right?

My aim is not to find ambiguities in English, since English has plenty of well-known ambiguities. My aim is to point at a new ambiguity, having been unknown before. This new ambiguity is based on a fully grammatical (though unnatural) sentence, and on some specific syntactic properties of English (not of some other languages).

HOOTmag (talk) 01:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And we can add another caveat: it only works in writing, not speaking. In the situation you describe above, prosody would disambiguate the sentence if it were spoken. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, not only is my sentence unnatural, it also works in writing only. Yet, in writing, my grammatical sentence exemplifies a new kind of ambiguity, unique to English syntax (and maybe to other Germanic languages which permit stranding). HOOTmag (talk) 07:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And given the timing of your post here, I'm not entirely convinced your aim isn't to try and prove something about your reading of a sentence above. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My aim has only been: to present a new kind of ambiguity emerging from English syntax. KageTora's sentence - you're now pointing at - is really rather similar to mine, yet I see no other connection between both sentences, because KageTora's sentence can have one meaning only - as we both agreed ibid., and as I myself explained ibid. HOOTmag (talk) 07:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read this entire section carefully, but if I understand the OP correctly, the sentence My choice is a number depending on which your number is clearly means my number depends on your number. If I wanted to say the opposite (using his syntax) I would say My choice is a number dependent on which your number is, meaning on which your number is dependent. Keyed In (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since (in your opinion):

• My choice is a number depending on which your number is

may mean:

• My choice is a number depending on which one your number is

then (in my opinion):

• My choice is a number dependent on which your number is

may mean:

• My choice is a number dependent on which one your number is.

Similarly, since (in your opinion):

• My choice is a number dependent on which your number is

may mean:

• My choice is a number on which your number is dependent

then (in my opinion):

• My choice is a number depending on which your number is

may mean:

• My choice is a number on which your number is depending

P.S. Today (Tuesday), it's Bava Basra 95.

HOOTmag (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your first assumption is wrong; Keyed In didn't say anything about adding "one" after "which". And if you do add it, the ambiguity is removed (only one reading is possible if it says "which one"). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He meant to be clear, not that there should be any ambuguity in that sentence. He was just showing that my suggestion (dependent) is equally ambiguous; I agree, as indicated below. Keyed In (talk) 23:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really, Keyed In said nothing about adding "one". However, he thought that my original sentence should have been interpreted as if "one" were added to it, so I told him that his sentence should also have been treated the same way. HOOTmag (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your first point (first 4 lines), but not your second. I.e. I agree that My choice is a number dependent on which your number is can mean both. I never indicated that this way can only mean one way.

However, I think that My choice is a number on which your number is depending is also not correct. It sounds like many non-native English speakers who use the present participle to indicate simple present tense, e.g. I am thinking that this is a good idea instead of I think this is a good idea. Or, if you prefer, "I am thinking that it is not being correct to be saying that my number is depending on your number." ;-)

P.S. Here in YIH"K it's already Wednesday :-)

Keyed In (talk) 23:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So why do you think my original sentence (My choice is a number depending on which your number is) "clearly means my number depends on your number"? In your opinion, my original sentence is simply ungrammatical, using "depending" instead of "which depends", right?

I agree with you that I had better replace my original sentence by: My choice is a number dependent on which your number is. However, it's still ambiguous, and this is my point.

I wish I was in YIH"K...

HOOTmag (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. My issue was only with the word depending. Changing to dependent maintains the ambiguity without the awkward participle.

(BTW, I'm not one to go around pointing out grammatical errors that others make, but since this is the Language desk, I think I should mention that grammatically it should be "I wish I were in YIH"K," Unless you mean "I wish I once was in YIH"K.") May it be BB"A. Keyed In (talk) 06:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I wasn't clear in my last post, so I would like to clarify: my issue with the word depending was only in one of the 2 meanings. If the original sentence My choice is a number depending on which your number is means My choice is a number depending on which one your number is that is fine. In that case, the present participle depending is used properly. However, if it means My choice is a number on which your number is depending that uses the awkward "is depending" which should be replaced with "is dependent" or simply "depends." I hope this is helpful. Keyed In (talk) 13:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In poetry I'm careful and I write "I wish I were" only; Here, let me write "I wish I was/were", as I'm used to speak and as all of my friends speak and write (prose and the like). Not grammatical? who cares?... :)

I still can't understand how you distinguish - between the grammatical validity of: My choice is a number [that is] depending on which your number is - and the grammatical validity of: My choice is a number on which your number is depending. Both sentences use the present participle depending, so - in my opinion - the first sentence is grammatical if and only if the second one is grammatical. Anyway, dependent is better in both cases.

Neither YIH"K nor BB"A.

HOOTmag (talk) 19:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, a word about the present participle (taken from the participle article):

The present participle in English is in the active voice and is used for:

• forming the progressive aspect: Jim was sleeping.
• modifying a noun as an adjective: Let sleeping dogs lie.
• modifying a verb or sentence in clauses: Broadly speaking, the project was successful.

Now, back to your example (I am using the disambiguated sentences for clarity). In the sentence My choice is a number depending on which one your number is, the word "depending" is an adjective, modifying the noun (my) number, i.e. a number depending on... That's perfectly grammatical.

However, in the second understanding, My choice is a number on which your number is depending, which can be simplified (ignoring those who say that prepositions are not words to end sentences with) as My choice is a number which your number is depending on, the participle is used as a verb; in the clause on which your number is depending the noun is (your) number and the verb is is depending. When used as a verb, the present participle can only be used if it is used to indicate the progressive aspect, i.e. an action in progress. I am thinking about your proposal (action in progress) is fine, but I am thinking that this is a good idea is not. She is depending on him to deliver the message (continuous state of depending) is fine, but My number is depending on yours is not.

Cheers, Keyed In (talk) 07:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the present participle can be used as an adjective. However:

Look at the following descriptions:

1. A number that is depending on yours.
2. A person that is wanting to know me.
3. A person wanting to know me.
4. A number depending on yours.

Do you agree that:

1 is grammatical if and only if 2 is grammatical.

2 is grammatical if and only if 3 is grammatical.

3 is grammatical if and only if 4 is grammatical.

4 is grammatical if and only if 1 is grammatical.

?

HOOTmag (talk) 09:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're both equally questionable. Stative progressives in English are usually awkward or unacceptable. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 10:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Both"? Notice that I've presented four!

Keyed In thinks that the original sentence:

• "My choice is a number depending on which your number is".

is grammatical if and only if it means:

• My choice is a number depending on which one your number is.

while it's ungrammatical if it means:

• My choice is a number on which your number is depending.

However, I think that the original sentence with its first meaning is grammatical if and only if the original sentence with its second meaning is grammatical, because both cases involve the word "depending" used as a stative progressive.

Anyways, when looking for a grammatically valid example of ambiguity of "my" type, the word "depending" should be replaced by "dependent".

HOOTmag (talk) 11:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Rjanag pointed out, all four of those phrases are ungrammatical. The confusion here seems to lie with two uses of the word is. Consider the following two sentences:

• The ball is big.
• The ball is rolling.

Both are perfectly valid sentences. The subject in both is (the) ball. But there end the similarities. In the first, the verb is is, followed by the predicate adjective big. In the second, the verb is the present participle is rolling, indicating progressive action. If it wasn't progressive, it would be ungrammatical.

Now let's consider our two meanings:

• My choice is a number depending on which one your number is.
• My choice is a number on which your number is depending.

In the first, the phrase a number depending contains no verbs. Depending is an adjective. If it were a verb in the present participle, it would have to be prefaced with is. The word is at the end of the sentance is unrelated, but serves as the verb for the noun number in the second clause of the setence. In the second sentence, the verb for the noun number in the second clause is the present participle verb is depending, which is not progressive and thus ungrammatical.

Obviously, even if we reambiguate the sentence to its original My choice is a number depending on which your number is, the distinction remains, i.e. in the first meaning, the last word of the sentence, is, will be a simple verb of the second number and depending will be an adjective modifying the first number, while in the second meaning, is is part of the participle is depending. Keyed In (talk) 18:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rjanag has said nothing about the "four" (but rather about "both").

Try to be consistent:

1. On one hand, you said: "all four of those phrases are ungrammatical", so you were referring also to the fourth phrase: "a number depending on yours"; So, in your opinion, it's ungrammatical to say "a number depending on yours", although the word "depending" is used there as an adjective.
2. On the other hand, you said: "the phrase a number depending contains no verbs. Depending is an adjective", thus explaining why (in your opinion) the sentence:

• My choice is a number depending on which one your number is

is grammatical...

HOOTmag (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you're right. I misread the last two phrases. Only the first two are problematic. The rest of what I wrote, I maintain, and I believe is consistent. I apologize again for the confusion. Keyed In (talk) 06:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the rest of what you wrote is consistent. you wrote: "since this is the Language desk, I think I should mention that grammatically it should be "I wish I were"; But 36 hours later - you wrote: "If it wasn't progressive, it would be ungrammatical"...

Don't take this seriously... :)

Your position is clear: "a person that is wanting to..." is ungrammatical, while "a person wanting to..." is grammatical; However, in my opinion, the first sentence is grammatical if and only if the second one is grammatical. Anyways, I think we should present this as a question at the Language desk.

Gut Shabbes.

HOOTmag (talk) 09:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL :) Actually I believe there might be considered the conditional mood and not the subjunctive mood, and thus warrant was, but I'm not positive, and I'm in too much of a rush to research it now.

Good idea to ask this question there. Good Shabbos! Keyed In (talk) 10:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now we've got another inconsistency:

On one hand, you wrote: "If it wasn't progressive, it would be ungrammatical"; Later, you wrote: "If it were a verb in the present participle, it would have to be prefaced with is". Now you write: "there might be considered the conditional mood...and thus warrant 'was'..."

Gut shabbes or Good shabbos? or Good Sabbath? As to me, it's always: Shabbat Shalom...

Neither YIH"K, nor BB"A, it's Israel oh man, Israel... :)

HOOTmag (talk) 10:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:) SS"U. Keyed In (talk) 12:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SS"U (and BB"A in YIH"K). HOOTmag (talk) 14:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shabbos is over in YIH"K, right? HOOTmag (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Where are you? I assumed in the US but it's not over yet there...and until you start your userpage I know nothing about you... :) Keyed In (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why US? Why not UK, or Australia, or Zew Zealand (or Israel), or (if I'm irreligious) South Africa, or Ireland, or Canada? Anyways, I've started my userpage (don't forget that it's not a forum here). HOOTmag (talk) 11:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 24

I need to know the marriage date of Louise Marguerite of Guise.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 02:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Italian:

• Il 24 luglio 1605, per volere di Enrico IV, convolò a nozze nel castello di Meudon con Francesco di Borbone, principe di Conti. Il contratto matrimoniale era stato firmato il 1º maggio di quello stesso anno con l'intenzione di riunire in un forte vincolo l'antica dinastia di Lorena, da sempre cattolica, con la dinastia dei Borbone, di fede protestante. [1]

German:

• Am 24. Juli 1605 wurde sie auf Wunsch Heinrichs IV. im Schloss Meudon mit François de Bourbon, dem Fürsten von Conti, vermählt. Der Heiratsvertrag zu dieser Verbindung, welche die alte Adelsdynastie Lorraine enger an die Bourbonen binden sollte, wurde am 1. Mai des gleichen Jahres auf Schloss Fontainebleau unterschrieben. Die Historiettes von Gédéon Tallemant des Réaux behaupten, dass Heinrich IV. zuvor selbst eine Heirat mit Louise-Marguerite erwogen haben soll, doch sie sei 1590 von Gabrielle d’Estrées in der Gunst des französischen Königs verdrängt worden. Da Louise-Marguerite aber zu jener Zeit gerade einmal zwei Jahre alt war, gilt dies nach heutigem Forschungsstand als widerlegt.

It's pretty obviously July 24, 1605. Were you looking for a complete translation? You might try Google Translate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No if you are sure. I just noticed in the middle it mention a second date (1 May); I didn't know if the first was a betrothal and the second the marriage date or not. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 02:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak either of these languages, but at a cursory glance it looks pretty likely that the marriage was announced on 1 May and held on 24 July. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, July 24, 1605, the wedding took place; on May 1 of that year "the marriage contract had been signed with the intention of reuniting in a strong connection the old dynasty of Lorena...with the dynasty of the Borbone."--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 05:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In English usage, which here generally follows the French, the houses would be those of Lorraine and Bourbon, so my shaky translation from the Italian would be something like

On 24 July 1605, at the wish of Henry IV, she married François de Bourbon [Francis of Bourbon], Prince of Conti at the Castle [Château] of Meudon. The marriage contract had been signed on the first of May of the same year, with the intention of uniting with a strong link the ancient House [dynasty] of Lorraine, Catholic as always, with the House of Bourbon, of the Protestant faith.

Henry IV (or Henry of Navarre, 1589-1610) had been the leader of the Protestants (or Huguenots) in the French Wars of Religion, but changed his faith to secure the French throne, with the famous, or notorious, comment "Paris vaut une messe" (Paris is worth a [Catholic] Mass.) The Guise, which le Petit Larousse illustré describes as a cadet branch of the House of Lorraine, led the ultra-Catholic faction in the Wars of Religion. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our article provides a translation of the poem and we also have it translated on Wikisource, but the translations don't match. For example, our article translates ludo mentis aciem as Deceptive sharp mind, while our Wikisource article has it reworked from a rather different angle and instead has as fancy takes it, completing the thought from the line previous. There are other differences as well. Since neither of them make any attempt to be "poetical", could someone who knows Latin give them a look and see which at least translates it more properly? My dead-tree translation (by David Parlett) makes an incredible effort to preserve the metre and structure (but sometimes fudges the literal meaning) and has that line as shifts us like pawns in her play. It's one of my favourite pieces; I'm a little annoyed that I might have fallen in love with a mistranslation! ;) Matt Deres (talk) 04:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the two construes the poem exactly as I would, but on the whole I think the Wikisource one matches the meaning of the Latin better. For instance, with regard to the passage you quote, our article's "Detestable life / now difficult / and then easy / Deceptive sharp mind" translates the verbs obdurat and curat as adjectives ("difficult" and "easy"), leaving "Deceptive sharp mind" (awkward for several reasons, particularly since all three words in ludo mentis aciem are nouns) in some sort of extrasyntactic limbo. (I like to think that aciem hovers ambiguously, able to be taken as the object of the preceding obdurat and curat or, in parallel with the following egestatem and potestatem, as an object of dissolvit. Nevertheless, as punctuated, a literal translation would be something on the order of "In its play, hateful life now hardens, then cures, keenness of mind; it melts both poverty and power like ice.") Deor (talk) 05:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand your meaning, but it reads kind of strange in English, doesn't it? As read, it seems that life can harden keenness of mind and also cure keenness of mind, both of which seem like odd expressions. Would the original Latin have implied that it was the hardness that could be cured or is it more like curing someone of illness (i.e. cure=removal), so that life hardens keenness of mind (i.e. makes it slower or less nimble) and then may cure it (i.e. remove it completely)? Matt Deres (talk) 11:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the meaning, expressed less literally, is "alternately dulls and sharpens one's mental acuity". Deor (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that pretty much fits with the rest. Thanks very much! Matt Deres (talk) 23:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This question is actually something I've pondered for several years. In cursive handwriting, is there a way to "italicize" text? If I were to write, say,

"According to The Chicago Manual of Style, italics should be used for words in a foreign language, such as knäckebröd."

in a handwritten letter, how would I properly emphasize the italics? In the past I've sometimes resorted to underlining... decltype (talk) 10:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In handwriting, I would underline the book title and put the foreign word in quotes. I was under the impression this was standard. BrainyBabe (talk) 11:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, going back to my early school days, handwritten essays would have followed that. With the ubiquity of keyboards these days, though, I think almost anything hand-written would be informal enough not to worry about any MoS guidelines. Now, if you just want to have something that stands out slightly (as italics do in regular text), I've also seen instances in novels and such that simply switch back to normal text, as in It was a dark and stormy night; the worst in years. Matt Deres (talk) 11:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm old enough that only a couple of my pre-college papers were typed (on pre-Selectric typewriters that required either underlining or the red part of a typewriter ribbon for emphasis). If one's cursive handwriting is upright, then it is (I've found) possible, if not completely effective, to slant it for emphasis, but underlining is the usual (and generally-understood) way to emphasize a word or phrase (or to indicate foreign words or technical terms within other prose). Another way (although enhanced by underlining or enclosing in quotation marks) is to use non-cursive ("print") letters, slanted or upright, or even SMALL CAPITALS and l e t t e r - s p a c i n g: this can be a good practice, anyway, when spelling out a name or a foreign word where every individual letter should be independently clear. These other methods wouldn't work well, however, for sentences and paragraphs. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's generally accepted that underlining on a typewriter or in handwriting is equivalent to italicizing in print (except for mathematical equations like x = 2y, where the x and y are italicized in print but plain with a typewriter or handwriting). Note that just as italicizing is inconvenient or impossible on a typewriter or in handwriting, so underlining of text was inconvenient with traditional (hot or cold metal) typography, so there was a convenient duality between the two forms of marking. With phototypesetting and now digital media we now can do both italicization and underlining if we want, but this is new enough that no standard way has developed to use them with distinct meanings. --Anonymous, 22:33 UTC, November 24, 2009.

And in the mathematical examples, it might be dangerous, or at least confusing, to underline the unknown variables x and y since underlining and overlining often indicate mathematical characteristics, connections or conventions. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since underlining can mean many things, newspaper proofreaders often double-underlined words to be italicised and triple-underlined those to be put in bold-face, usually accompanied by a marginal or interlinear notation like "bf". (My Merriam-Webster Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary gives a different convention, perhaps oriented towards books with more typographical flexibility than newspapers: single straight underlines for italics, double for SMALL CAPITALS, triple for ALL CAPS, and single wavy for boldface.) But that's markup for printing; I'm certainly not recommending it for simple handwriting. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

our housename is called 'ikonganaku' - can anyone tell me what this means or where it would originate from. Google shows nothing - i've been told it's possibly japanese or afrikans? Any info would be much appreciated. Thanks 213.52.216.196 (talk) 11:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What if it's split as "Ikonga Naku"? "Ikonga" is a placename and personal name in the Congo, and "naku" appears also to be Congolese. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is definitely not a Japanese name, but, just for interest I can tell you that if it were Japanese, it could mean 「遺恨がなく」(pronounced 'ikonganaku') - 'without a grudge'.  :) --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 18:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could that be it? A bit like Sans Souci? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, possibly. I misunderstood the word 'housename'. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 02:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone translate this for me? It's a caption for an old Dutch religious print showing a couple of artists painting God and the angels. One labelled A is fine, but B is being grabbed by the devil. I wondered what B has done wrong.

Om mat ghy de stercker tot de deugt verweckt sout worden, soeckt ende volght [A] d’exemplen der Heyligen, meest van uw’ Patronen, ende versoeyt [B] de sonde, die u van deselve treckt, ondersoeckt wat sy van dese deught hebben gevoelt, en geschreven; hoe sy die hebben geoffent door ‘t ingeven van den [C] H. Geest.

Thanks in advance. BTW, this not work or homework, but trying to help solve a puzzle at a blog post [2]. Gordonofcartoon (talk)

I am native Dutch, so I'll give it a try. First, there may be some transciption errors in your text. "Om mat" is maybe "Om dat" or "Op dat"? And "versoeyt" is probably "verfoeyt"? Also "geoffent" may be "geoffert"? Could you check these please? 195.35.160.133 (talk) 12:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Martin.[reply]

Very very rough translation: So that you will be stronger stimulated to the virtue, seek and follow [A] the examples of the Holy ones, like(?) most(?) of your Saints, and abhor [B] the sin, which pulls you away from this, research what they have felt of this virtue, and written; how they have sacrificed this by the inspiration(?) of the [C] Holy Spirit. So the text does not seem to indicate what [B] did wrong, unless I am missing some subtlety in the old Dutch. Maybe some other Dutch person can do better, but I hope this is a start. 195.35.160.133 (talk) 12:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Martin.[reply]

I looked at the image at the link, and my very uneducated guess is that the one painting is too frivilous, so the devil takes the artist, while the other painting is nice and religious so that artist is safe from the devil. 195.35.160.133 (talk) 12:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Martin.[reply]

Brilliant! Thanks, Martin. That is actually sufficient; I just wondered what was happening to him and why (my first guess was that it was anti-Catholic, because he's painting Mary rather than Jesus). But the translation makes it clear that the label B refers not to the artist, but to the creature representing "sonde" (sin) distracting him. I'm sure you're right about "verfoeyt" - I read the f as a "long s". Here's the page in question: [[3]]. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The archaic Dutch literally reads (my English may be imperfect): "Because thou wouldst be incited to virtue the stronger, search and follow [A] the examples of the Saints, most of thy Patrons, and despise (verfoeyt) [B] sin, which pulls thee from the same, investigate what they have felt of this virtue, and written; how they have practised (geoeffent) it by the inspiration of the [C] Holy Spirit." [Followed by: "The best example of all virtue is the [D] Mother of God, Mary; of zeal and diligent prayer [E] S. Paul..."] The book was published by the Society of Jesus in Antwerp and is entitled "The Way of the Eternal Life". Iblardi (talk) 20:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks also. I was being rather dim to think it might be anti-Catholic; I didn't spot it was a Jesuit publication! Gordonofcartoon (talk) 04:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen the use of ibidem in a sentence as an adverb but as an abbreviation for citations, like:

4. E. Vijh, Latin for dummies (New York: Academic, 1997), p.23.

5. Ibid.

6. Ibid., p.29.

Is this example (see:in context) in WP correct? -Mihkaw napéw (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about if a Manual of Style translates (or refers) "ibid." not as ‘the same author’ (same citation) but as ‘in the same place’? To the latter case, the first two citations is correct but not the third. Mihkaw napéw (talk) 18:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)-[reply]

I haven't seen a manual of style that does that. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) It's the same "place" in the sense of being the same book. You can't use it to refer to a different paper by the same author. — Emil J. 18:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not checked any recent manuals of styles. But just to refer ‘the same book’, the citation would be ‘id.’. To refer ‘in the same place’, the citation would be ‘ibid’. So a simple correction would be:

4. E. Vijh, Latin for dummies (New York: Academic, 1997), p.23.

5. Ibid.

6. Id., p.29.

That means ‘the same book but in page 29’ (though it is different in legal quotations; cf. id.). Are there any recent manuals that recommend avoiding these abbreviations for adapting any other English forms in modern writings? Or are these still preserved abbreviations?-Mihkaw napéw (talk) 19:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legal usage differs from other usage, as it says clearly in the very article you linked (Ibid.). Just because it meant "the same exact" place in Latin doesn't mean it's always used that way today, and there is nothing wrong with the usage presented in the article. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Latin abbreviations are supposed to be avoided now anyway. If I remember correctly, the latest Turabian (and presumably also the latest Chicago Manual) just repeats the author's last name (and the title if necessary), no idems or ibids or anything. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 25

For example, if I'm discussing Company A's payroll figures and budget, does that include benefit costs the company pays? I suspect in America these are calculated separately. But in China most "benefits" take the form of cash additives to monthly paychecks, making things a bit murkier. Is this something that varies from company to company? I haven't been able to get a definitive answer anywhere and am hoping a CPA or other such expect drops by and sees this... Thank you. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 09:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My dictionary definition of "payroll" : a list of a company's employees and the amount of money they are to be paid : there are just three employees on the payroll.

• the total amount of wages and salaries paid by a company to its employees : small employers with a payroll of less than $45,000.

I'd say no. Benefits are a cost to the company but not on payroll. Hope that helps. A8UDI 16:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consider the following sentences:

Q1: Where did you get the birthday present for Mary?

Q2: Where did you get the birthday present for Mary from?

Q3: Where did you get the birthday present for Mary at?

A1: I got it at Sears.

A2: I got it from Sears.

Are the prepositions at the end of Q2 & Q3: (i) grammatically acceptable (ignoring the style "rule" about not ending a sentence with a preposition)? (ii) necessary? Assuming that Q1–Q3 are all acceptable, which of them sounds most natural to you?

Between A1 & A2, which of them sounds more natural (assuming that they are both grammatically acceptable)? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.11.55 (talk) 13:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smells like a homework question. +Angr 13:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. --173.49.11.55 (talk) 14:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Q2 specifically asks you where you were when you got the birthday present.

Q3 asks where were you when you got the present. So you would answer: "I was at Sears when I got the present.".

Q1 asks "Where did you get the birthday present?"

Both Q1 and Q3 are especially similar, but Q2 specifically asks where you were.174.3.102.6 (talk) 14:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get that interpretation from them at all. The questions all mean the same thing. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Edited) I expect different people to understand the sentences differently, based on the degree to which they analyze them and the interpretation adopted. I expect many people to understand them as synonymous or near-synonymous, but you can also make an argument that Q2 & Q3 emphasize different aspects of the acquisition. Q2 can be interpreted as asking about [a place but in its role as] the seller in the transaction, and Q3 about the place at which the present was acquired. If the person who got the present for Mary got it at a flea market, the seller is not the same as the place of acquisition. --173.49.11.55 (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After thinking about it some more, I think the flea market comparison is not a good one because the question is a "where" question. (The answer should be a place.) --173.49.11.55 (talk) 17:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would never use Q2 and Q3, as they sound awkward, to my ear. In addition, "I got it at Sears" implies, to me, that I went to a store and bought it, whereas "I got it from Sears" could mean you bought it online from sears.com. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The exact wording of Q3 is uncommon, but you see this same kind of structure in things like "Where are you at?" (Which also sounds awkward to me, but it's quite common anyway.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very useful question when you have little or no idea about the state of play with an individual's involvement in a certain issue. It's akin to "Where are you up to with ...?", or "What stage are you at with ...?" or "How are things progressing with ...?". When you and your other half haven't exchanged any words about your relationship for over 12 months, it's always good to unexpectedly come out with "Where are you/we at with our relationship?" over dinner. Or "Where are we going with our relationship?" But pick your mark, because left-brain types have a really hard time coming up with any answer at all to such questions. They'll just sit there looking bewildered, their brains obviously in extreme overdrive, but nothing comes out of their mouths for many minutes, while the questioner waits patiently. Finally, they might ask "What do you mean?". I know; I was that person.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 20:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can here the difference between Q2 an Q3 as, "I got it at the mall" and "I got it from the mall". Two very different statements. While Q2 and Q3 are asking the same question in principle, there is some difference. In the case of the Sears example. "I got it at Sears" could mean going in to the actual store, but "I got it from Sears" could suggest online shopping, catalogue shopping, or Sears sending the gift to you and you re-gifting it. Aaronite (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For me, Q1 is correct (no prepositional phrase), Q2 is correct (contains the phrase "from where", rearranged), but Q3 is wrong because the phrase "at where" is wrong. Why is it wrong? I don't know, it just is. "What store did you get it at?" would be fine, because "at what store" is a valid phrase, but not with "Where did you get it at?" --Anonymous, 19:45 UTC, November 25, 2009.

I had an answer very much like Anon's building up in my head as I was reading the replies. I believe we're both SW Ontario, so there may be regional variation regarding these distinctions. My friend from Newfoundland would pick Q3 as standard - and he would also use the somewhat parallel construction "Where'd you put it to?" if the current location was in doubt. Matt Deres (talk) 15:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is "PL'r"?

What is "OL'ing"?174.3.102.6 (talk) 14:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a guess. PL'r = power lifter, OL'ing = overhead lifting? --173.49.11.55 (talk) 15:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from the rest of the content of that page, I might agree. But those abbreviations are not used on the page supplied. Maybe the entry that used them was taken off the home page? Dismas|^(talk) 15:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The web page contains dynamic content that changes from one retrieval to another. The dynamic content looks like reader comments or testimonials. The abbreviations are used in one of the reader comments. --173.49.11.55 (talk) 16:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the etymology of "religiosity"? 64.138.237.101 (talk) 17:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From Latin "religiositas", "religiousness". That comes from "religiosus", "full of religion", which, of course, ultimately comes from Latin "religio", which probably comes from the lig- root that also appears in "ligament", "obligation", and the Latin word for "law" ("lex"), so it probably means something like "binding together". Adam Bishop (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Adam Bishop, that gives me excellent details on this word. When was the word first put into use? Could "religiosity" and "pius" be used somehow in a sentence? 64.138.237.101 (talk) 19:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Religio" means taboo or restraint. Same sentence? OK: One who is pious has much religiosity. Although it would be less awkward to say that one who is pious is very religious (adjectives); or who one has piety has religiosity (nouns). ("Pius" is the Latin, "pious" is the English via French. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pious tends to be used in a straightforward way. Religiosity has a straightforward meaning of religious, and also a commonly conveyed implication of insincerity of religious devotion. But piety tends to mean just what it says — a strongly spiritual involvement. Bus stop (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, I don't see that "religio" ever means "taboo". It's just "religion" in basically the same way we think of it. Anyway, the first time "religiosity" was used, according to the OED, was in Wyclif's translation of the Bible in 1382. Ecclesiasticus 1:17-18 says "The drede of the Lord [is] religiosite of kunnyng. 18 Religiosite shal kepen, and iustefien the herte." This is a translation of "timor Domini scientiae religiositas, religiositas custodiet et iustificabit cor iucunditatem atque gaudium dabit", so you can see that this was one of the cases where Wyclif had no equivalent English word and made one up based on the Latin. That passage of the Vulgate is one of the three citations given in Lewis and Short's Latin dictionary, the other two are "App. Dogm. Plat. 2, p. 16, 3" and "Tert. Apol. 25 al." but I can't find what those mean (well, Tert. is presumably Tertullian...) Adam Bishop (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going by the word origin as stated in my old Webster's: "religion, noun. [Old French, from Latin religio, properly taboo, restraint]." Taboo is defined as "under restriction, prohibited". Ligament comes from ligare, "to bind". So it's possible the words religio and ligare are connected. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, weird...Lewis and Short, the Oxford Latin Dictionary, and the OED don't say anything about taboo. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was a little odd also, but I'm just reporting what Webster said. Does the OED indicate that "religio" originally meant "restraint" or something similar? My own Latin dictionary gives a whole bunch of words that "religio" means, including "religion", of course, but that's not very helpful. The concept of religion being a restraint seems to fit, though, and that's where one definition of "taboo" comes in. Nowadays "taboo" is taken to mean "forbidden", but it also means "restricted". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if I read just a little further down, the OLD does say "religiosus" can mean "taboo" (the adjective), so nevermind :) I do see how it could mean that, especially since Roman religion was so secretive. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a 1995 edition of the Pocket Oxford Latin Dictionary, which includes the following translations for religio: supernatural feeling of constraint; scruple; sanction; religious awe; superstition; sanctity; ritual; conscientiousness. I don't see "secretive" as the issue, but rather "restraint". With religion comes moral laws and the like. Before you jump in, I'm not saying moral laws are necessarily a product of religion, as some religionists do. Atheists or "secular humanists" have moral laws also. But I'm saying that a given religion typically has moral laws connected with it, i.e. constraints or restrictions on behavior - with the added bonus of the threat of divine retribution for failure to obey. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would then this be a more or less correct sentence? A son of religiosity in pius to his father. - meaning a son of binding together in great respect and devotion to his father. 64.138.237.101 (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would that be a sentence, and what is it you are trying to say? Give me an example using more common words if possible. Bus stop (talk) 23:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example sentence: He was thought by some to be a pious individual, but to those who knew him, his outward signs of religiosity merely hid a life of crime. Bus stop (talk) 23:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something like: He was a pious son of religiosity towards his father. - meaning he was a very devoted son towards his father to the point of being religious (divine worship). Could you come up with this idea using BOTH words of pious and religiosity? 64.138.237.101 (talk) 23:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC) 64.138.237.101 (talk) 23:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 26

Seule héritière survivante de son père et des biens de la maison de Bourbon du Maine, Louise Marie Adélaïde de Bourbon (+ 1821) apporta le château et le domaine de Dreux dans les biens de la maison d'Orléans, par son mariage avec Philippe Égalité. Elle fut la mère du futur Louis Philippe. Le domaine est aujourd'hui propriété de la Fondation Saint-Louis.

The only surviving descendant of her father and of the estate of the house of Bourbon du Maine, Louise Marie Adelaide de Bourbon brought the castle and the domain of Dreux into the estate of the house of Orleans, through her marriage with Philippe Egalite. She was the mother of the future Louis Philippe. Today, the domaine is the property of the Saint-Louis Foundation. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, except for the French spellings "Saint-Louis" and "domaine" left in the English. The "+1821" was omitted; the plus sign should be a dagger, and what it means is "died". In English we would usually write "(d. 1821)" (or "(?-1821)" if her date of birth is unknown, rather than if we just don't happen to know it). --Anonymous, 04:33 UTC, November 26, 2009.

1753-1821. See Louise Marie Adélaïde de Bourbon, which answers a number of other questions (in English), either directly or through links. The hyphen (or dash) should be left in the Saint-Louis Foundation, I think, since it's a foreign proper name; it also helps to lessen the natural assumption among English-speakers that it refers to the largest city in Missouri. Also I'd prefer to leave the accents in Philippe-Égalité, otherwise his name looks as if it should be pronounced "Eagle-ite". Even better, explain who he was, perhaps with a different title. (And please sign your posts.) —— Shakescene (talk) 08:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As to the date 1753 and adding explanations, we were asked to translate, not to write an improved text based on the translation. As to the name of the foundation, I say it should either be fully translated ("St. Louis Foundation") or fully untranslated ("Fondation St-Louis"), but going halfway is wrong. As to signing, please consider "--Anonymous" or "--Anon" followed by a manually generated date to be a signature; it's all I'm doing; sorry. --Anon, 21:20 UTC, November 26 27, 2009.

Perhaps the translation should begin something like

As her father's sole surviving heir, thus inheriting the fortune of the House of Bourbon-Maine...

—— Shakescene (talk) 08:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about this? Le comté de Dreux est un ancien comté de France, nommé d'après la ville de Dreux, sa capitale, située au nord du pays chartrain, sur les confins de la Normandie et de l'Île-de-France, et dépendait originairement du duché de Normandie.

Il fait partie des possessions des Robertiens. Au commencement du Xe siècle il était possédé par un certain Landry, dont la fille Ève le porta en dot à Gauthier, comte du Vexin. Il échut ensuite à Richard Ier, duc de Normandie (942-996), dont la fille Mathilde le reçut en dot pour son mariage en 1003/1004 avec Eudes II de Blois.

Après la mort d'Étienne Ier de Troyes en 1021/1023, le roi de France Robert II l'enleva à Eudes II de Blois, successeur désigné d'Étienne Ier, et le réunit à la couronne. Louis VI le Gros, le donna en 1152 à son fils Robert[1], qui devint le chef de la maison royale des comtes de Dreux.

The countship of Dreux is an ancient French countship named after the town Dreux, its capital, situated in the north of Chartres, between the boundaries of Normandy and Ile de France, and depending originally on the duchy of Normandy.

It was part of the possessions of the Robertiens. At the beginning of the 10th century it was owned by one Landry, whose daughter Eve took it as a dowry to Gauthier, count of Vexing. It fell then to Richard I, duke of Normandy, whose daughter Mathilde received it as a wedding gift when she married Eudes II de Blois in 1003/1004.

After the death of Etienne I of Troyes in 1021/1023, the king of Franche Robert II gave it to Eudes II de Blois, the designated successor of Etienne I, reuniting it with the crown. Louis VI le Gros gave it in 1152 to his son Robert, who became head of the royal household of the countes of Dreux. Silverfish70 (talk) 13:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Silverfish, but one error - enlever means to take away, not to give to. And there are a few other things I would word differently. My text would go:

The county of Dreux is a former French county named after Dreux, its capital, situated north of Chartres on the border of Normandy and the Ile de France. It originally came under the duchy of Normandy.

It was part of the possessions of the Robertiens. At the beginning of the 10th century it was the possession of one Landry, whose daughter Eve took it as a dowry to Gauthier, count of Vexin. It then fell to Richard I, duke of Normandy, whose daughter Matilda received it as a wedding gift when she married Eudes II de Blois in 1003/1004.

After the death of Etienne I of Troyes in 1021/1023, King Robert II of France took it away from Eudes II de Blois, the designated successor of Etienne I, and reunited it with the possessions of the French crown. Louis VI ("the Fat") of France gave it in 1152 to his son Robert, who became head of the royal house of the counts of Dreux.

If this is text for Wikipedia, there are many names that ought to be linked. Do you need any help looking them up? The formats of the names used in our articles on these personages, as well as our naming conventions, should guide the styles you use in this text. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As ffar as I know, ffrench and fforde are the only 2 "English language" surnames that ever appear properly spelt without an initial capital. This site was informative, but didn't tell me why the f was doubled, or why the first f sometimes isn't capitalised. Can someone explain this quirk of spelling to me?

(Oh, in case anyone was going to mention "cummings", I'm going to spoil your fun and tell you that he didn't spell it that way.). -- JackofOz (talk) 07:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's also k.d. lang, although for cummings and lang it's a stylistic choice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've read that doubling the "ff" was an early way of capitalizing the F. Capital letters are a relatively new phenomenon. —— Shakescene (talk)

The "ff" was a way of writing a capital F, but this was after the distinction between capital and non-capital letters had been introduced. Thereafter it persisted as an affectation - a bit like "ye" is still sometimes used as an old-fashioned form of "the". -Ehrenkater (talk) 16:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also the movie ffolkes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, capital letters are older than lower case. THERE·S·A·REASON·ANCIENT·ROMAN·INSCRIPTIONS·ARE·WRITTEN·IN·ALL·CAPS, namely that lower-case letters weren't invented until the Middle Ages. +Angr 08:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the distinction between capitals and what we now (post-Gutenberg) call lower-case, is a relatively-new phenomenon. (I was thinking of uncials, which don't have capital letters.) —— Shakescene (talk) 09:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Romans also had other forms of writing that included "lower case letters", at least in the sense that they weren't Roman square capitals (Roman cursive for example). Adam Bishop (talk) 15:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also Audrey fforbes-Hamilton from To The Manor Born. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, like the long-time venue of the Pittsburgh Pirates, known as fforbes ffield. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

where they fought the ffiladelfia ffillies? —— Shakescene (talk) 09:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. Or was it the Φiladelphia Φillies? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You weren't perchance alluding to the Φiladelφia Φillies, were you? Did the Φillies Φanatic dare to invade fforbes ffield? —— Shakescene (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, the Φillie Φanatic did not make his first appearance until 1978, long after fforbes ffield was ffinished. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See this page[4] Alansplodge (talk) 12:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore typing in all caps is not shouting. Bus stop (talk) 16:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might just be that the Romans shouted a lot. That's part of how they got to be an empire. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A popular misconception. Shouting a lot is part of how an ancient Roman got to be an umpire. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, baseball is much older than is generally believed.[5] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why everything starts "In the big inning...". Matt Deres (talk) 02:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, that's the wrong angle. They wrote in all caps because they hadn't come up with any alternative. If a Roman were around today, he'd wonder why writers are timidly whispering most of the time, but speaking the first letter of certain words at normal volume. It would probably look as odd to a Roman as tHIS dOES tO uS. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That Roman might also wonder whatever became of the Christian figure called IESVS. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about Roman cursive - it may not be lower case as we know it, but didn't lower case evolve from it? BTW, the 1970s BBC TV series "I, Claudius" had the title written in Roman capitals; a common joke at the time was to call it "I Clavdivs" Alansplodge (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack and BBB, you got it backwards! ff stands for "fortissimo". — Sebastian 00:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A quick google yields several people with the surname de Bois, which strictly speaking, doesn’t have an initial capital. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, true. There are many other examples of foreign names incorporating nobiliary particles and such like that now belong to citizens of the anglosphere. Thanks ffor the responses, fffolks. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just for one more example, George Sanders's character in the movie Foreign Correspondent has the surname "ffoliott", which is a real name that you can find examples of on the Web -- but whoever did the lettering for the cast credits got it wrong and spelled it Ffoliott. --Anonymous, 21:25 UTC, November 27, 2009.

How fascinating. With a bit of historical licence, one could re-spell the F of Ffloriott as ff, and then you'd end up with fffloriott.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo! My packet of chocolate coins has ingredients in English and Danish, but I don't entirely trust the translation into English: I'm worried there's some idiom involved. In Danish it says:

Kan indeholde spor af kornprodukter og tørret frug. Opbevares tørt og ikke for varmt.

The English says:

It may contain traces of dried fruits with husk and cereals. Store in a cool, dry place.

My particular concern is that the Danish kornprodukter og tørret frug might actually mean something to do with nuts or peanuts, since dried fruits with husk is not particularly natural English and suggests a strange translation.

Anyone have the skills? 86.140.172.202 (talk) 14:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

kornprudukter=cereal products, tørret frug=dried fruit (see any Danish-English dictionary). No idea where the husk comes from, but it's clearly wrong. Having said that, if you have a peanut allergy, I would not trust random people on the internet to tell you whether it's safe to eat something.--Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well indeed. The English suggests it is safe, but I was concerned as to how well it translated the Danish. I have the dubious honour of being able to identify 'peanuts' in most languages that use the Latin or Greek alphabets, but wondered if some idiom was being used here. Thanks :) And don't worry: the risk assessment is not on you :P 86.140.172.202 (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're discussing comments by a Bulgarian scientist reported in the English media on the Science desk. The discussion might be enlightened by the presence of someone who can read what was said in the original Bulgarian and compare it to what is reported in English. Google translate can only take you so far! 86.140.174.66 (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly is the Bulgarian text? I'm a native speaker of Bulgarian and I can try to provide a translation, but possibly a bit later and from another computer since I will have to leave soon. --195.214.255.253 (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This Bulgarian article is as far back as I could trace the news story. I'm not asking for someone to translate the whole thing (it's huge!), just to comment on whether the English articles linked early in the thread on the Science desk accurately describe what he's saying in Bulgarian. 86.140.171.80 (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's me again, the same guy who promised to translate it, but from another computer. Here comes the translation. But as I pointed out in the below question, I may not express myself in English in the best possible way, I'm just a learner. While translating, I was constantly consulting a dictionary, so I may not have used the most appropriate words everywhere. Should you fail to understand the idea somewhere, ask me, I will try to clarify it further. By the way, the interview seems quite empty of matter to me. Anyway, I hope it will help.

Professor Filipov: Reading the crop circles can protect us from earthquakes There is not any information about an apocalypse in 2012, thinks the deputy director of the Institute for Space Research of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences Lachezar Filipov was born on January 26, 1953. He graduated from the Faculty of Physics of the University of Moscow. Since 1995, he has been a deputy director of the Institute for Space Research of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. A few days ago he outraged the public with a publication in the "Novinar" newspaper, where he claimed to have participated in an experiment which included his asking questions to extraterrestrial intelligence. - Professor Filipov, after you announced that you had participated in an experiment, in which you had asked questions to extraterrestrial intelligence, a conflict between you and the scientific community arose. Did this information have consequences on you? - The moment when the information about the experiment I took part in was spread was quite delicate considering the arrogant behaviour of the Government towards the Academy. Likewise, I was tormented by my colleagues and the Bulgarian society, but at the expense of that I have about 15 e-mails from abroad. The Chinese Academy of Sciences is highly interested in my work, because these circles, which are supposed not to be made by humans, are of interest to them, too. (He is speaking of strange geometrical shapes in the corn fields, found in various parts of the world - note from the editor) This shows that this subject has not been anathemised anywhere else except in Bulgaria. After the leakage of information, all of the colleagues of mine from the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences who worked together with me on this case fell away from me. As quickly as the next day after that happened they initiated a subscription list to my being removed from the post of a deputy director of the Institute for Space Research. They claimed I was a disgrace to science. And I could ask who is to investigate such phenomena if not scientists. I am the only one not to have withdrawn. Science should be made with boldness and not with fear. In the Academy there are not feudal old men, but there are people who are old by their mentality, there are cowards. Those people must go away from there. - Could you tell us what exactly did this experiment include? - Firstly, I would like to emphasise that neither the Institute for space researches nor the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences have taken up the circles in question. Three years ago I was offered to acquaint myself with Mariana Vezneva's elaborations. She is considered to be the first and, so far, the only woman who is able to read the information encoded in the circles and to carry out a dialogue with their creators. Circles like those appear all over the world and then, after a certain period of time, they disappear. About 150 circles appeared around the globe in May and June this year. There were circles even in Bulgaria - in the corn fields in Dobrudzha and Rila, but they were decided to be nothing more than grass which has been stepped on and mowed down. Vezneva is surrounded by a number of doctors, philologists, a strange society which is dealing with the subject. I was not interested in that. I was explained that she had been working on those circles for 6 or 7 years and found out that they contain symbols which carry certain information. It is alleged that some of this information bodes the end of the world in 2012, concerns the threat of the global warming and the threat of a hit by an asteroid. Those are things that are well-known in science. I was impressed by the fact that her ideas had been turned into a basic concept of several sects that prophesied the apocalypse. This encouraged me to enter this "game", lest this should fall entirely under the control of the sects because it is on the bound of religion. I offered to talk to some colleagues of mine - physicists, astronomers, who could participate in that group. At the end of the previous year I proposed that Vezdeva ask a few questions to the creators of these circles instead of read all these pictures that appear around the globe. We asked more than 30 questions and got 30 answers to them. - How exactly does Vezdeva communicate with the creators of these pictograms? - I am not acquainted with the phenomenon she represents. She falls into trance, she receives impulses from above or below, I do not know exactly. During her experiment it was announced that they had got such drawings in Worksheels. Nobody answered to us why they had appeared exactly there. She copied the circles and, while working, she obtained the ability to decipher the symbols they contained. One of them looked like an Indian [= Native American] head, which meant some kind of cataclysm would happen, and that cataclysm has actually been marked in the Maya calendar. One of the most interesting drawings symbolised "in vitro" children. By this symbol, it or they want to show us that this way of artificial insemination is unacceptable, because it is an interference in the biological processes and violates the connection between the child and the mother. One of the economists asked what should be done in order to prevent further economical crises. The drawing said weapons had to be abolished and people had to stop to be divided into rich and poor. This also concerns the new form of human progress, which includes humans starting to use both hemispheres of their brains. - According to you, how reliable are the answers to those questions? - Vezneva explained the answers to these questions as well. Her reading of them is individual to her. While writing the conclusion on that experiment, I recommended analysing the phenomenon objectively in the future, as Vezneva as an interpreter puts her own fantasy into the work and exaggerates a little. It was important for us that we received concrete answers to our questions in a particular place in England, where there is such a circle. Apart from analysis of these data, we have to make an investigation of the rest of the circles as well, because pictures are a means of communication when the two sides do not know the alphabets of each other and draw pictures for that reason. To me this is quite an early phase of a contact with another informational environment, about which we do not know whether it is a civilisation or not, whether it is near or far. The pictograms contain some information, but I cannot tell for sure where it comes from. I cannot tell if the affair in question is extraterrestrial intelligence, neither. Some colleagues even said to us: "You haven't drawn them yourselves, have you?" - After all, is it possible that they have been made by humans? - It is a fact that these are not footprints, as corn is always bent down by 45 degrees and grains never fall down from wheat-ears which continue to grow. Ten days later the circles disappear. It has been proved that humans do not draw them. This resembles a holographic image - you can draw and transfer information with a laser ray. We, however, do not know whether this is done by means of electromagnetic emission. Obviously there exist other types of information fields in the Universe. Some swindlers have tried to earn money in that way, but this is not the same. We even requested that Vezneva ask them whether such circles are likely to appear in Bulgaria so we can explore them. - How can we be sure that we are interpreting that information correctly? - We are not advanced enough to claim to understand all of the information. We have to extend the number of people who will read it and not rely only on Vezneva. We have something that is being given to us as information, but it remains unclear whether it is reliable. Already at that time I used warned my colleagues against frightening people with the information that the apocalypse will come in 2012. There is not any evidence that the planet of Nibiru is approaching the Earth. If it were as big as our planet is, we would be able to see it already. It is important that this information be understood in the way it should be understood. - If the information from the circles is reliable, then can the disasters be prevented? - Everything can be undone. If we use that information properly, we could prevent them. Some colleagues consider it impossible to predict an earthquake for example, but animals can feel it in advance, which implies that there is some form of field that predicts them. - How would you, as a scientist, comment phenomena such as the prophet Vanga? - Once in Russia there was a quite respected scientist - Vlail Kaznacheyev, who used to speak about the so-called neosphere, a wrapper of the Earth. The informational field, where one generates one's mental energy during one's whole life, accumulates in it. Such phenomena as baba Vanga have the ability to obtain information from the neosphere. In all probability, except for electromagnetical energy, there exists mental energy in the Universe as well, but it is unclear for us what exactly this is. Original Bulgarian text Проф. Филипов: Разчитането на житните кръгове може да ни предпази от земетръси Няма данни за апокалипсис през 2012 г., смята зам.-директорът на Института за космически изследвания към БАН Лъчезар Филипов е роден на 26 януари 1953 година. Завършил е Физическия факултет в Московския университет. От 1995 година е заместник-директор на Института за космически изследвания към БАН. Преди дни той скандализира обществеността чрез публикация в "Новинар", в която твърдеше, че е участвал в експеримент, в който е задавал въпроси на извънземен разум. - Професор Филипов, след като обявихте, че сте участвал в експеримент, в който сте задавали въпроси на извънземен разум, се получи конфликт между вас и научната общност. Имаше ли тази информация последствия за вас? - Моментът, в който се тиражира информацията за експеримента, в който участвах, беше твърде деликатен от гледна точка на арогантното поведение на правителството спрямо академията. Също така аз бях разпнат от моите колеги и българското общество, но за сметка на това имам около 15 мейла от чужбина. Силно е заинтересувана от моята дейност китайската академия на науките, тъй като там също имат интерес към тези кръгове, за които се предполага, че не са дело на човешка ръка. (Става дума за странни геометрични фигури в житните култури, открити на различни места в света - б. ред.) Това показва, че само у нас тази тема е анатемосана. След изтичането на информацията всички мои колеги от БАН, които работиха с мен по тази тема, се отдръпнаха. Още първия ден след случката инициираха подписка да бъда отстранен от поста на зам.-директор на Института за космически изследвания. Твърдяха, че съм позорял науката. Аз питам кой освен учените трябва да изследва такива явления. Само аз не съм се отдръпнал. Науката се прави със смелост, а не със страх. В академията има не феодални старци, а старци по манталитет, страхливци. Тези хора трябва да си отидат. - Разкажете, какъв точно беше този експеримент? - Първо искам да подчертая, че от Института за космически изследвания, нито пък от БАН са се занимавали с изследване на въпросните житни кръгове. Преди три години ми предложиха да се запозная с разработките на Мариана Везнева. Смята се, че тя е първата и единствената досега в света, която успява да разчете информацията в житните кръгове и може да осъществи диалог с техните създатели. Такива кръгове се появяват в целия свят, като след известен период изчезват. Тази година от май до юни са се появили около 150 такива по цялата земя. Дори и в България е имало такива кръгове в житните ниви в Добруджа и Рила, но тук са решили, че това е стъпкана тревата и са ги окосили. Около Везнева има цяла група от лекари, филолози, едно странно общество, което се занимава с тематиката. Това мен не ме интересуваше. Беше ми обяснено, че тя в течение на 6-7 години е работила върху тези кръгове и е установила, че има символи в тях, които носят дадена информация. Говори се, че има такава, която вещае края на света през 2012 г., за опасността от глобалното затопляне и опасността от астероиден удар. Това са неща, които в науката се знаят. На мен ми направи впечатление, че идеите й бяха превърнати във флагман на няколко секти, които вещаеха апокалипсиса. Това ме мотивира да се включа в тази „игра”, за да не попадне изцяло това под контрола на сектите, тъй като е на ръба на религията. Аз предложих да говоря с няколко мои колеги – физици, астрономи, които да участват в тази група. В края на миналата година аз предложих вместо да се четат от Вездева всички тези рисунки, които се появяват по цялото земно кълбо, тя да зададе няколко въпроса на създателите на тези кръгове. Зададохме около тридесет и няколко въпроса и получихме 30 отговора на тях. - Как точно Везнева контактува със създателите на тези пиктограми? - На мен тя като феномен не ми е ясна, изпада в транс, получава импулси отгоре или отдолу, не знам. По време на експеримента й се каза, че в Уъркшийлс са се получили такива рисунки. Не беше отговорено защо точно там са се появили. Тя прерисува кръговете и докато работеше, получаваше способности да тълкува символите в тях. Единият приличаше на индианска глава, т.е. ще има някакъв катаклизъм, който фактически е бил отбелязан в календара на маите. Една от много интересните рисунки символизираше децата „ин витро”. С този символ те или то искат да ни кажат, че този изкуствен начин на оплождане е неприемлив, тъй като нарушава връзката между детето и майката и е намеса в биологическите процес. Един от икономистите зададе въпрос какво трябва да се направи, за да не се повтарят икономическите кризи. Според рисунката оръжията трябва да бъдат премахнати и да няма разделение на бедни и богати. Това касае и новата форма на развитие на човека, при която той започва да работи и с двете си полукълба на мозъка. - Доколко са достоверни според вас отговорите на тези въпроси? - Везнева също така тълкува отговорите на тези въпроси. Нейното разчитане си е лично. Когато писах заключението върху този експеримент, препоръчах в бъдеще да се анализира феноменът обективно, тъй като Везнева като гледачка и тълкувател влага фантазия и леко го украсява. Важното беше, че на определено място в Англия, където има такъв кръг, получихме конкретни отговори на нашите въпроси. Освен анализ на тези данни трябва да направим изследване и на останалите кръгове, защото рисунките са средство за комуникация, при която двете страни не познават азбуките си и затова си рисуват картинки. За мен това е много ранна фаза на допир с друг вид информационна среда, която не е ясно дали е цивилизация или не, дали е отблизо или далеч. В пиктограмите има информация, но откъде идва тя, аз не мога да кажа, както и не мога да кажа дали става въпрос за продукт на извънземен разум. Даже някои колеги казаха: „Абе да не сте си ги рисували сами”. - Възможно ли е все пак да са човешко дело? - Факт е, че това не са стъпки, тъй като житото е винаги наведено на 45 градуса и зърното не пада от класовете, които продължават да си растат. След 10 дена кръговете изчезват. Доказано е, че хора не ги рисуват. Това е подобно на холографската снимка – с лазерен лъч може да рисувате и да пренасяте информация. Не знаем обаче дали това се прави с електромагнитно излъчване. Явно във вселената има и други типове информационни полета. Опитвали са се разни мошеници да събират пари по този начин, но това не е същото. Ние даже помолихме Везнева да ги попита дали могат такива кръгове да се появят в България, за да може да ги изследваме. - Как може да гарантираме, че разчитаме правилно тази информация? - Ние не сме напреднали достатъчно, за да кажем, че разбираме цялата информация. Трябва да разширим кръга на хората, които ще разчитат, да не е само Везнева. Ние имаме нещо, което ни се дава като информация, но дали то е достоверно, не е ясно. Аз още тогава предупредих, че не трябва да стряскаме хората с информацията, че през 2012 г. ще дойде апокалипсисът. Няма доказателства планетата Нибиру да доближава земята, ако тя беше голяма, колкото нашата планета, вече щеше да се вижда. Важното е тази информация да се тълкува еднозначно. - Ако информацията от кръговете е достоверна, могат ли бедствията да бъдат предотвратявани? - Всичко е обратимо. Ако ние използваме добре тази информация, можем да направим превенция. Някои колеги смятат, че например не може да се предвиди земетресение, но животните го усещат, което показва, че има някаква полева форма, която ги предсказва. - Вие като учен как ще коментирате феномени като пророчицата Ванга? - Навремето в Русия имало много уважаван учен Влаил Казначеев, който говори за така наречената неосфера, която е обвивка около Земята. В нея се събира информационно поле, в което човек цял живот генерира своята мисловна енергия. Такива феномени като баба Ванга имат възможността да черпят информация от неосферата. По всяка вероятност във вселената освен електромагнитната има и менталната енергия, но не сме наясно какво представлява тя.

--62.204.152.181 (talk) 03:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Thanks very much! You've really gone above and beyond the call of duty. I agree that what he is saying is bizarre: it's precisely because the media were reporting that he said such unlikely things that we needed to check his own words! When an English newspaper says that the deputy director of the Institute for Space Research of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences is talking about telepathic aliens, it's easy to assume they're just making it up or exaggerating.

Thanks again: you're a star. 86.140.171.80 (talk) 05:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few questions:

What do you mean by the word Worksheels? Perhaps worksheets?

Where it says planet of Naribu, do you recognise Naribu as the name of a planet? Or is it something made up by one of these people?

Thanks very much for the link to baba Vanga: that's the sort of thing you need a smart human for!

Thanks again: this is really useful because it lets us see how much odd stuff he's really saying, and how much he is trying to be scientific about. Very strange O_o 86.140.171.80 (talk) 05:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the original poster of the question on the Science Desk, let me thank you too, o hard-working 195.214-slash-62.204.May I suggest you create an account? It would enable us to keep track of your contributions and thank you in other ways. Are you in a position to comment on the general situation? For example, how would you characterise the Novinar newspaper: does it usually do silly stories? It appears, from my reading of your translation, that he is receiving wide-spread criticism or perhaps condemnaton. Has he been suspended from his job? Perhaps it would be more relevant for you to post on the Science Desk thread. Again, thanks! BrainyBabe (talk) 05:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS the phenomenon he is referring to is known as the crop circle. BrainyBabe (talk) 05:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, I'm very glad to have assisted a little to you and to Wikipedia, which has helped me so much since I started reading it.

Now about the questions by 86.140.171.80. That word cannot be worksheets. In Bulgarian it is spelt as Уъркшийлс, which is a Cyrillic transliteration of an English name and is capitalised, so it is obviously the name of something, maybe an institute as I can understand from the context. The first part of that word - уърк - cannot be mistaken. It obviously stands for "work". The situation about шийлс is not that clear, however. It could be either an English word which is pronounced [ʃiːls], as "sheelce" would be, or the plural form of an English noun that is pronounced [ʃiːl], as "sheel" would be. My dictionaries don't list such entries. It is possible, of course, that they have made a typo and spelt that name incorrectly, originally intending to type it as either Уъркшийтс ("Worksheets") or Уъркшийлдс ("Workshields") or something else. I googled all those variants and there were a few results for "Worksheels" in Cyrillic, but all of them are quotations of that very same interview. The results for "Worksheets" in Cyrillic are merely instructions how the English noun should be pronounced, and for "Workshields" in Cyrillic there aren't any. What professor Filipov means is not understandable for me.

About the planet - I am very sorry, I have made a mistake. I misread the name of that planet as "Naribu" and the professor actually says "Nibiru". There is even a Wikipedia article about that - Nibiru collision. Yes, that is the name of the planet. He says: "There isn't any evidence that the planet [whose name is] Nibiru is approaching the Earth." I will correct the name in my translation to Nibiru; if this is against some kind of Wikipedia policy, please feel free to revert it.

I should have checked more carefully about the name of the phenomenon he is referring to. The Bulgarian interwiki of the Crop circle article is Житни кръгове - exactly the phrase that the professor uses in the interview.

The computer I am using at the moment is my personal computer and the one I used to submit the question below is a public one that everyone can use. I may consider creating an account, but I doubt if I would be able to contribute to the English Wikipedia as everything that I know has already been written here. I do contribute to the Bulgarian Wikipedia though, mainly with translations from here. --62.204.152.181 (talk) 11:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected the term "rings in the corn fields" to "crop circles". Again, if that is against the rules, please revert it. --62.204.152.181 (talk) 11:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You've been amazingly helpful. I wish I could send you something tasty as a 'thank you', but all I can leave is a picture. I give you a giant chocolate egg on a collision course with Earth. The horror! 86.140.171.80 (talk) 12:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the Bulgarian-to-English translation! Nimur (talk) 16:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Think the "neosphere" is probably Teilhard de Chardin's Noosphere... AnonMoos (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After having done some Google search, I consider this is possible. The Bulgarian text contains the word "неосфера", which should be rendered into "neosphere", and not "ноосфера", which would give "noosphere". Professor Filipov mentions the Russian scientist Vlail Kaznacheyev (in Russian: Влаиль Казначеев, in Bulgarian: Влаил Казначеев) while talking about the neosphere. Here's what google.bg gives when you search for Влаил Казначеев неосфера. All of the results are either quotations of that very same interview or a few more publications, all of which refer to "academician Vlail Kaznacheyev, the author of the theory of neosphere". Let's see the results of google.ru for неосфера Влаиль Казначеев. It says that I may have meant "ноосфера" instead of "неосфера" and everywhere results for "ноосфера" have been given. And these are the results of google.com for neosphere Kaznacheyev OR Kaznacheev (the latter being another possible way to transliterate the Russian name). It gives exactly one match - this one. No comment about it. In the interview, professor Filipov describes the neosphere as "обвивка около Земята". I'm not sure how exactly should I translate it so it can sound natural in English - "a wrapper of the Earth", "an envelope around the Earth", "a cover around the Earth" or something else. I'm just a learner, I'm not so fluent, I just aim to help you get the idea. --62.204.152.181 (talk) 02:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a native speaker of English, but just a learner who is able to use it at an intermediate level. I'd like to ask about the meaning of the negated auxiliary verb may not. Let's take the following sentence as an example:

This may not happen.

What does that mean as said in that way? Could it mean:

(1) It is possible that this will not happen.

or:

(2) It is impossible for this to happen.

or both?

Meaning (1) seems natural to me, since "This may happen." is equivalent to "It is possible that this will happen," and I have always regarded it as correct. This pattern could be seen in the text "Five facts about Wikipedia that you may not know", which occasionally appears on the top of Wikipedia articles. So meaning (1) must be correct.

As far as meaning (2) is concerned, I encountered a negated "may" while reading the article Microstates and the European Union. Here's what it says:

The Vatican City is the smallest state in the world. As a theocracy, it may not join the Union, even though it is in the heart of Rome, capital of Union member-state Italy.

The context here implies that the Vatican City will not join the EU because this is impossible (and so does my understanding of politics). So meaning (2) must be correct, too.

One could conclude that the negated auxiliary verb may not can be used to express both meaning (1) and meaning (2), thus making it possible to achieve ambiguity. Is it really that way? Thank you in advance. --195.214.255.253 (talk) 17:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Meaning 2 uses "may" in the sense of "give permission". —Preceding unsigned comment added by TammyMoet (talk • contribs) 18:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This can be a real ambiguity in English, especially when writing without the cues of spoken English inflections, so you are not raising a trivial question. The same problem comes up with "might not" ("The king might not have granted the pardon" — was he forbidden to do so or is it a matter of doubt whether he did?) but can be especially tricky if "may not" could be interpreted as a command:

"You may not see the famous royal bedrooms."

could mean you are being ordered to avoid them, or just that you might overlook them if you're not observant.—— Shakescene (talk) 19:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A modern writer concerned about the clarity of their communication would use an alternative phrase such as "is not permitted to" instead of "may not" in this sense, but I think the "permission" usage was more common in the past, and sometimes the senses are difficult or impossible to distinguish. I would prefer to use "might not" for the "possibility" sense. Dbfirs 20:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the ambiguity arises because 'may' has two different meanings, one deontic and one epistemic, which pattern differently with negation. So in the epistemic sense (observing events in the world) it patterns as "this may [not happen]", whereas the deontic sense (about obligations and constraints) it is "this [may not] happen". I'm not claiming that the deontic vs epistemic difference accounts for the syntactic difference (it clearly doesn't because 'must not' vs 'need not' show the same syntactic difference, though both are primarily deontic but can be used epistemically), but rather that this lets us plausibly regard 'may' as two homophonous auxiliaries with different grammar. --ColinFine (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take this last back. As I myself pointed out, 'must not' and 'need not' both have epistemic as well as deontic uses, so there's nothing special about 'may not' in that respect. --ColinFine (talk) 08:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As in the notorious "No Irish need apply" ("Irish need not apply") or the "Latest Decalogue" of Arthur Hugh Clough:

Thou shalt not kill, but needst not strive
Officiously to keep alive.

—— Shakescene (talk) 08:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read that as saying not that they need to not apply, but that they have no need to apply in order to know whether they would have been hired. So it's the usual sense of "need not", used euphemistically. --Anonymous, 21:41 UTC, November 27, 2009.

A bit like "Previous applicants will be considered and need not re-apply" (which is short for "Previous applicants were not good enough, which is why we're re-advertising, but if nobody better comes along we'll be reluctantly forced to salvage whatever we can from the pathetic applications we have so far"). -- JackofOz (talk) 22:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to write the in-text citation for a journal article, which would typically follow the format of (LastName et al., Year), however I'm using two sources that has the same first author, and same year, but different articles. How would i cite this? (Sorry if this is answered in the APA manual, but i don't own one currently.)
In other words it'd look like this, for one piece of info,: (Nguyen et al., 2006; Nugyen et al., 2006) but the article titles are different. --Agester (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would use "Nguyen et al., 2006a" and "Nguyen et al., 2006b", the same as with two papers by a single author and published the same year. Either that or give up on the "et al." and list all the authors for each paper (assuming they're different), so "Nguyen, Smith, Jones, Williams, Hirschfeld, and Kranovitsky 2006" versus "Nguyen, Evans, Edwards, Collins, Stewart, and Sanchez 2006". +Angr 18:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for the quick feedback. I like the first one better, as it's easier to continuously cite throughout the paper, where as the second one can get quite tedious as some of my articles that does fall under into this gap has up to 14 authors which as you can see why I'd be reluctant to type out (especially if used more than once throughout my work). --Agester (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And long strings would be tedious for the reader to read and distinguish. If the second author's different in every paper (which I suspect is not the case), then that second name could be useful (e.g. "(34) Rodgers, Hammerstein, et al., 1956; (37) Rodgers, Hart, et al., 1956"), but if you need three or more, I don't think that would help. I'm speaking here purely pragmatically as an informal reader of books about history and politics, and in ignorance of the actual formal rules of scientific citation. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The convention in bioscience literature is to do as User:Angr suggested. You may wish to look at the "Instructions to Authors" at the journal's website to see if they have any more specific instruction. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 17:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never thought I'd ever ask something like this, but, here goes. I was playing a game recently and someone on the other team was sending messages in what I presumed was Russian, but couldn't understand much of it, just words here and there. However, at one point, he wrote 'йанипонимайу' (exactly like that and with no spaces). I understood this to be 'я не понимаю', but couldn't understand why he'd spelt it in such a way. Is it actually Russian and it's the 'in-thing' to write it this way, or was he actually speaking a different language? --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't be absolutely certain but I'm pretty sure there's no language which has that phrase and spells it that way. I'm sure it's Russian. I've no idea whether this was a private game or whether there is a fashion to do this (cf Oll Korrect) --ColinFine (talk)

See Translit for a possible explanation. I will speculate that the user concerned typed Russian in Latin characters "ja ne ponimaju" or perhaps "ya ni ponimayu". Then the chat software, knowing the user was based in Russia etc, transcribed the input into Cyrillic on a per character basis. The software expected "ya"/"yu" and didn't know the meaning of "ja"/"ju". Or vice versa. Sussexonian (talk) 22:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting, and may be a possible explanation, but that would mean that everyone from Russia typing in Latin characters during the game would have everything transliterated into Cyrillic and this has not been the case up until now. Basically, it's a wargame, and we have a very large number of Russian players online, and I've never noticed this before. Thanks. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 23:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it was purposely mispelled, apparently a common Russian internet meme? Adam Bishop (talk) 04:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was thinking, but didn't get the chance to ask him, and a Google search with the phrase 'as-is' came up with exactly zero results, and without the spaces I got 152,000, but not with the same phrase or exactly the same spelling. Thanks. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 12:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As well as Russian, there are several other languages that are written in Cyrillic (see the first pargraph in that article). Unfortunately, Google Translate was not much help with any of the ones that it is able to translate. Astronaut (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it's the Russian phrase "я не понимаю" ("I don't understand"). There are quite a few languages using Cyrillic, but it would still be too great a coincidence if even one of them contains this word, which in Russian is pronounced exactly in the same way as "я не понимаю". It has been typed in that way on purpose. We do the same in Bulgarian - we intentionally misspell or mispronounce words or phrases in order either to make fun of this ("многу" or "мноу" for "very", should be "много"; "ненам" for "I don't know", should be "не знам"; "любоф" for "love", should be "любов") or to express our disregard or even hatred for what we are referring to ("цецка" and "лефски" for CSKA and Levski respectively, the two major rivalling football clubs in Bulgaria, they should be "ЦСКА" and "Левски" respectively). --62.204.152.181 (talk) 19:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of a strange one, but is there anyone out there who would be willing to translate "happy Thanksgiving" to some form of Native American? I'm looking for something ironic for use today... Not trying to be down on Thanksgiving or anything, but you know. --72.175.196.58 (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also: I realize that it is exceedingly unlikely that a word exists which would translate directly to "Thanksgiving", but I would imagine that a bastardization mash-up of "thanks" and some variation of "give" would have the same effect? --72.175.196.58 (talk) 21:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"thanksgiving" simply means "being grateful for some gift", no? It might be easier to translate "grateful". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a classic Art Buchwald column about Kilometres Deboutish and the "Jour de Merci Donnant"[sic]. Spanish uses "Día de Acción de Gracias". I bet that the currently more widely-spoken American Indian languages in the U.S. and Canada (such as Navajo, etc.) have conventional fixed translations for "Thanksgiving day"... AnonMoos (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This site [6] has examples of Navaho thanksgiving greetings, but I don't know how reliable it is. Steewi (talk) 00:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's from the wrong side of the continent (hey, you wanted irony...), but a somewhat similar kind of feasting custom was the potlatch. A... tenuous connection at best, but might be useful to you. Matt Deres (talk) 02:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 27

I have an article from Variety Jan 1 1967 that twice uses the word tuner in a context that seems to mean a movie musical but I find no such meaning in the dictionaries. Can anyone tell me if tuner has ever had that meaning, or suggest a different word that Variety should have used? Below are the sentences:
[The Young Girls of Rochefort] has charm, sustained human observation, mixed with catchy music, dances and songs to come up as a tuner with grace and dynamism.
Though a fairly classic musical reminiscent of earlier Yank tuners, it has a Gallic froth, tinged with unobtrusive melancholy and character delineation. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Variety is famed for having a lot of jargon terms which are unique to that publication alone (or at best, are used among a rather small group of entertainment industry insiders). It was even parodied as "Varietese" in Doon... AnonMoos (talk) 09:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen "oater" used occasionally to mean a western movie, and "actioner" for an action movie. I haven't seen "tuner" but it's clearly a formation on the same pattern. --Anonymous, 21:45 UTC, November 27, 2009.

I notice different noble family in the Byzantine Empire had different form of their surname based on their gender. Lekapenoi is non-gender, Lekapenos is male and Lekapene is female. I want to know what the surnames Gabalos, Martiniakos, and is in non-gender and female form. Also are the names Mamas, as in Theophano Mamas, daughter-in-law of Emperor Romanos I, and the name Zaoutzes surnames of a family or nicknames or some sort?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 12:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lekapenoi is plural (and so, I suppose, would be Gabaloi and Martiniakoi). I'm not sure if you can add -e to make those names feminine so someone with better Greek will have to figure that out. (And what did they do with non-Greek names like Zaoutzes? I don't know.) Adam Bishop (talk) 18:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, of course, Zaoutzes' daughter was Zoe Zaoutzaina, so there is a feminine form. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Graduate college or graduate FROM college? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.5.208 (talk) 14:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this question here before, a long time ago. I'm not going to look for it now because I haven't got time, but I think the general consensus was that in US English the former is quite common, while the latter is more common in UK English. In either case, both are OK. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 14:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KageTora is correct about the regional variation in the use of the verb, but that does not mean "either is OK". It means that the version that is deemed approriate depends on the surrounding text. In addition, British English really only collocates "graduate" with "university", not "college". See college (disambiguation) to read about some of that word's many meanings. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought of mentioning the distinction between 'college' and 'university' here in the UK, but didn't think it was necessary because the title of the question specifically states that the OP wanted to know whether the preposition needed to be used or not. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Graduate college" (noun phrase) in the UK has the meaning of a college attended by graduates - maybe doing a Post-Graduate Certificate in Education. "Graduate from college" (verb phrase) means that you complete your course and pass it, hence you graduate. Also in the UK we generally use "university" for the place where higher education is taught, but this usage is gradually changing following the liberalisation of higher education courses in the past 10 years or so. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TammyMoet is correct about the noun phrase, which I had not taken into account. It is my impression, however, that one completes or finishes a college course, but graduates from university. For more info on post-compulsory education, see further education and Universities in the United Kingdom. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I searched the Archives for "graduate", and from the top 100 results I selected the following discussions as seeming to be the most relevant.

• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 August 11#Was graduated
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 April 18#Graduating
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 January 26#Intern

-- Wavelength (talk) 17:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm French. As you know it's not easy for us to remember that the H at the beguinning of a word must be pronounced in English because we don't do that in French.

But there is at least one exception. To say it's 1h30 you say "one (h)our and a Half". So 2 questions.

1) Do you know other examples of such words ? 2) Can you explain this or these exceptions ?

Thank you for your explainations. Reims (Champagne area)-France---82.216.68.31 (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they've formed in English as they did in French, with the letters carried over from the preceding word, to skip the "h". In any case, any word with a initial "h" preceded by "an" instead of "a" is a candidate. These include: heir, honest, hono[u]r and hour, and derived words. Some speakers may create others, like "an 'otel" (like the French), but that's not universal. More information about how this came about can be found here.- Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 17:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a small number of English words in 'h-' where the 'h' is never pronounced: Jarry's list above has most of them, but I'm sure there are a few more. ('Heritage' is not in the list, even though 'heir' is; and 'herb' is in this list for Americans, but not for British speakers.)

In all other English words an initial 'h-' is pronounced, except for some speakers when they want to put the indefinite article before a word that begins with 'h' in an unstressed syllable. These speakers drop the 'h' and use 'an' instead of 'a': "an historical event". But nobody says *"an history lesson", since 'history' is stressed on the first syllable. --ColinFine (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or you're coming to London, you could learn Cockney and forget the "h" at the start of words like the rest of us. Alansplodge (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We've been fighting against Cockney stereotyping for years, although that's mainly an American thing (the stereotyping, that is). - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 20:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The way Cockneys talk is not the fault of Americans. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, but Dick van Dyke is! --ColinFine (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So have we here Down Under. Many foreigners come out with Cockney when trying to do an Aussie accent, and they think they've nailed it, but to us they're laughably different. As different as the Australian and New Zealand accents are to each other. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most Britons (so far as I know) pronounce the H in "herb" and "herbal" but many—probably most—Americans omit it. I've never been quite sure why. (The French say l'herbe rather than la herbe.) —— Shakescene (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The American pronunciation is the older one, as shown by the /h/-lessness of French herbe. The British inclusion of /h/ is a spelling pronunciation that became established. There are other cases where the /h/-ful spelling pronunciation became standard on both sides of the Atlantic, such as humble: pronouncing it "umble" nowadays sounds either quaintly dialectal or downright wrong, but 200 years ago the "h" in humble was as silent as the one in hour. +Angr 07:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that sounds as if the "h" in "hour" had remained unchanged. But according to David Crystal, Cambridge Encyclopedia of language, 2nd ed., p. 331, "hour" was pronounced like "whore" in As You Like It, allowing the bawdy pun of Act 2, Scene 7. (That was course twice as long ago.) Since it came from Old French, it must have come without the "h", and then changed back and forward. — Sebastian 08:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In French, there typically isn't a comma before the "et" at the end of a list. If a list ends with "etc.", is the comma still omitted before it, since the meaning of "etc." ("and so on") contains the word "and"/"et"? --70.247.253.131 (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the answer, but I observe that 'et' in 'etc' is Latin and not French. I doubt if French speakers feel that 'etcetera' contains the French word 'et'. --ColinFine (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The older convention in written English (sometimes called the Oxford comma, q.v., after the Oxford University Press's style guide), was to put a comma after every item in an enumeration as in:

men, women, and children

and this is what was taught to me in the British schools of the late 1950's, but the more recent and more American convention is to omit commas before conjunctions, as in

men, women and children

This is a current and recurring topic of discussion in various contexts at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style: not so much whether to require the Oxford (or serial) comma, but more whether any guidance should be given one way or the other.

It seems to me that, since "et" stands for "and", one's preference for including or excluding a comma before "etc.", "&c." and "et al." would probably follow one's preference for including or excluding a comma before English conjunctions like "and" and "or". —— Shakescene (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But on second thought, I almost always put a comma before "etc.", and almost never before "et al." and "&c.", so (since I usually though not always omit the comma before "and") I must be applying a different logic. The commas are there to separate different items, and the "etc." in "red, green, blue, etc." probably looks as if it needs separation from "blue". Another consideration is that "etc." usually stands for at least two more items not enumerated individually, so if the list were expanded to "red, green, blue, yellow, orange and brown", "blue" would precede a comma; I think putting a comma before "etc." indicates that more than one item is to follow. In the case of "et al." and "&c." the "and"-equivalent is more apparent. —— Shakescene (talk) 10:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the only way to deal with those who mispronounce et cetera as EXSETERA is EXecution with EXtreme prejudice. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

etc = et cetera = "And the rest" in Latin. The French language borrowed "et" for their language, but in this case it is Latin A8UDI 14:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a native speaker (b. 1953) of American English, I grew up with the expression "dozens of [something]." I can only recall encountering "tens of..." since relocating to Israel, where I figured it influenced by Hebrew-English translation, or perhaps otherwise British English usage. Today I read of "...tens of generations..." in this article in the International Herald Tribune, which as far as I know adheres to AE usage as well as spelling. Is this perhaps a case of the author's preference, approved by the paper's editors, or because this is a science article, or what? Whence this decimal fixation, and what's happened to "dozens of..."? I've persisted in using the latter in my professional writing (which often goes unedited), but now I feel obliged to get this straightened out if possible. -- Deborahjay (talk) 18:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to quote some Google numbers when I found that Google gives 8,250,000 hits for "tens of" and 7,230,000 for "dozens of". However, it gives 7,980,000 for "tens of thousands" and 43,400,000 for "tens of millions" - i.e. five times as many "tens of millions" as "tens of"; so I don't trust its numbers. '"tens of" -thousands -millions -billions' gives 4,600,000, which (if it can be trusted) is significantly smaller than the number for "dozens of".

Certainly "dozens of" feels more colloquial to me (British), except in those phrases: I have no reason to think that there's anything particularly British about 'tens of'. French has the word 'dizaine' as well as 'douzaine', and they seem to get 5,480,000 and 1,690,000 ghits respectively. --ColinFine (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree "tens of" is weird - I think the use is satirical as in the headline: Tens of Bush Supporters Take to the Streets. I think I've heard it in English only satirically - like, "literally tens of (sth)", which is quite funny in a satirical way as normally the expression would be tens of thousands, etc. 92.230.68.207 (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur (British English), and would always assume satire unless otherwise prompted by context. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that we say "tens of thousands" but "ten thousand". I wonder why not "ten thousands". -- JackofOz (talk) 20:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Thousands" suggests a quantity between 1,000 and 9,999. "Tens of thousands" suggests increments of ten thousand, such as 10,000 or 20,000 or 30,000. "Ten thousands" would be 10,000. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but we don't say "ten thousands" when we mean 10,000; we say "ten thousand". Why is this? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er, because it's only one ten thousand. If it was more than that (i.e. 20,000 or 30,000) we would say "tens of thousands". To be honest, I'm not sure I understand why you're perplexed: we say fifty thousand, not fifty thousands and four hundred, not four hundreds, so it's not like there's a parallel being breaking down. When I say "ten thousand", that's exactly equivalent to saying "ten times a thousand"; if I had a thousand units of something in a bag and ten bags, I would say "I've got ten thousand units." But the term "ten thousands" isn't equivalent at all and is really rather ambiguous - do I mean "ten times a thousand" or "ten times some number of thousands"? Vagueness is okay - and sometimes desirable - but ambiguity is rarely useful outside of wordplay. For once English is being sensible; just be glad! Matt Deres (talk) 02:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I'm making myself clear. I'm not losing any sleep over it; just idly curious. You say: .. because it's only one ten thousand. If it was more than that (i.e. 20,000 or 30,000) we would say "tens of thousands". Well, I'd say "twenty thousand" and "thirty thousand". But apply your argument to "million" - "one million" is only one "million"; but "two million" is two "million", so why not "two millions"? That gets me back to square 1. Normally, we add a plural ending to a noun if it's plural; we say "one apple" but "ten apples". "Thousand" in "ten thousand" is by definition plural because it's governed by "ten", so why not "thousands"? Here's a quote by William Pitt referring to "three millions of people". That sounds rather antiquated now, but it at least shows these words were once pluralised in the standard way. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Usually the "tens of thousands" is used with an semi-indeterminate amount. For example, if you know some quantity is in the range of 10,000 to 90,000 but you don't know it exactly, you can say it's "in the tens of thousands". -- 69.128.159.185 (talk) 04:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we may be talking past each other a bit. To me, "one thousand" (or "one million") is singular; I have one group of a thousand. "Two thousand" is multiple; I have two times a thousand. But, saying "two thousands" is both redundant - the two has already indicated we're dealing with multiples of a thousand - and ambiguous - if "one thousand" is one times one thousand, is "two thousands" two times one thousand or two times some indeterminate number of thousands? There are specific times where it's okay though, such as if you're literally dealing with bags of a thousand jelly beans or something, you could say that you sold "seventeen thousands" to distinguish it from the bags of hundreds you'd sold: "Yeah, I sold seventeen thousands and ten hundreds." But at the end of the day, you'd say that you sold eighteen thousand because eighteen thousands is ambiguous - and in this case, very specifically incorrect. Matt Deres (talk) 13:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restating the original query: What are the usage rules in practice for "tens of [x]s" vs. "dozens of [x]s," where [x] is a quantifiable noun (not another order of number)? Of possible relevance: AE or BE.-- Deborahjay (talk) 05:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I can think of here is since decimalisation in the UK, "dozens" has fallen into some disuse as it belongs to the imperial system of measurement: the metric system is now taught in schools in the UK, and generations have grown up using tens, centimetres, grams etc. Whereas our generation (now 50 plus) were used to dozens, inches, stones etc. Of course, imperial terms are still used because so many are still familiar with them and so you will still hear "dozens" used by (mainly older) people. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I once read a quotation from a woman in a metricating New Commonwealth country saying how she'd have to get used to getting ten-egg cartons rather than dozens of eggs. I presume that you can still get eggs by the dozen in Britain and Ireland, or has the Heavy Hand of Harmonisation ended that, too? Twelves fit not only into "12 inches to a foot" but also into "12 pennies to a shilling, so 3 shillings a dozen meant threepence each. —— Shakescene (talk) 11:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes eggs are still in boxes of 6 or 12 because a box of 5 doesn't fit well with machines. However, I saw a box of 15 eggs in Tesco's last week and had to buy it for the novelty value! --TammyMoet (talk) 12:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here in Germany eggs are available in cartons of six or ten. If you want a dozen, you have to buy two six-packs. +Angr 13:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you're feeling flirty, do you play 30.48 centimeteries under the table with your beau? Matt Deres (talk) 13:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:::::No I say "fancy a fuck" like anyone else does... --TammyMoet (talk) 15:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 28

It seems clear to me after looking up other references to IPA that there will always be intellectuals and various anal-retentive types that find IPA both interesting and helpful. My original desire was simply to ask if there are many who find this IPA guide either "intuitive," "natural," or clear. I have a college education with 3.6 GPA and despite my dyslexia, my IQ (which I don't consider very meaningful) measures 134. Simply put, I think I'm above average in intelligence and yet I find the IPA references in Wikipedia consistently annoying and useless. I don't object to them being used inasmuch as there are those scholarly types who appreciate it, but I'm sure the overwhelming majority of your readers find it as useless and confusing as I do. There are so many other pronunciation guide methods available, why don't you try adding them? I am a successful fiction writer and I constantly use foreign and unfamiliar words and almost always include pronunciation hints in my writing. I prefer the informal use of common and familiar syllables, such as "eye" for I, with either bold face or upper case to indicate accent. You may find that inexcusably crude, but that doesn't make IPA any easier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris selby (talk • contribs) 03:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand much of the IPA or have that much use for it, but many of Wikipedia's readers are not native speakers of English, and some of them can use the IPA as a check or guide to their own pronunciation. [Le Petit Larousse, similarly, includes an IPA glossary of its own pronunciation guide for the benefit of non-Francophones.] While I, too, can only really make use of "real world" rhymes and analogies for pronunciation, the argument against using them is the wide variation in pronunciation among English-speaking Wikipedia readers: a good approximation for an Irishman, Liverpudlian or Kansan might seriously befuddle or mislead a Pakistani, Australian or Jamaican. I think that there are some artificial-speech programs that can read IPA entries and pronounce them for users who have those programs. ¶ However, you have as much right to express your opinion and to propose changes as any other reader or editor of Wikipedia. The forums that would be most relevant, I think, are Wikipedia talk:Lead section, Wikipedia talk:Accessibility and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Just as a suggestion, rather than any requirement or prerequisite, you might want to search the archives of the first two talk pages to see the history of the IPA entries and the earlier arguments for and against their inclusion. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A more relevant place would be WT:PRON, Wikipedia:Pronunciation's talk page. And yes, we are aware of your concerns, but there's nothing we can do at an international encyclopedia, besides making the IPA guides as easy as possible. And the only way we can do that is by knowing which parts specifically you find annoying and useless. --Kjoonlee 07:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I am a linguistics major so I had to learn IPA. It is different but once you get a hold of it, it's really helpful for learning how to pronounce words. And it's extremely specific so that even accents can be pronounced in IPA. It's very difficult to explain online but I have a large chart in my textbook regarding IPA, if you'd like to learn more. A8UDI 13:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You (the OP) may find the table at IPA chart for English dialects helpful. It's really not hard to interpret IPA pronunciations if you use that as a guide. Deor (talk) 14:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

where can i find the explanations/applications of similar words (eg. over/above, recently/shortly etc. etc.) to polish my english. thank you. 124.43.149.51 (talk) 08:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A good dictionary will have definitions of those words and will also give synonyms (different words with similar meaning) and antonyms (words of opposite meaning). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For synonyms and (to a greater extent) antonyms, a thesaurus would be better than a dictionary. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the thesaurus (which I was thinking of suggesting) and it depends on the dictionary. Some thesauruses explain the different shades of meaning, and some dictonaries give good lists of synonyms & antonyms, but others skimp on them. Some classic manuals like A Dictionary of Modern English Usage, by H.W. Fowler, or the works of H.L. Mencken and Eric Partridge, explain many distinctions that they think important or difficult. —— Shakescene (talk) 11:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reference book in my local library entitled "Members of Parliament -1213-1702", detailing the returns to early English and British Parliaments throughout that period. All very interesting, though one element has me scratching my head. Can the Language Desk assist?

There are instances where a device "fil'" is included in a Members name. For example from Wiltshire in the 1300 parliament a member "Petrus fil' Warini", or from the Parliament summoned in York "Henricus fil' Herberti" from Derby. What is this middle element representing?

doktorb _words^deeds 09:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Short for Latin "filius" meaning "son of". --TammyMoet (talk) 09:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I love the Language Desk! Thank you very much for your very swift reply! doktorb _words^deeds 09:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So I would presume that many of those are Latinisations of the very common British surname suffix "-son" as in Williamson = son of William (just to cite U.S. Presidents' names: Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, 2 Harrisons, 2 Johnsons, Wilson and Nixon = Nick's son, out of 43 different men who became President). —— Shakescene (talk) 10:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt. "Herbertson" and "Warrenson" (?) possibly from the two examples found. Though of course spelling and pronounciation has caused many different versions of even these over the centuries :) doktorb _words^deeds 10:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The suffix "s" also denotes "son of", so Williams, Phillips, Johns, Nicks, Wills... --TammyMoet (talk) 12:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How to pronounce "where" and "river" in American accent? --AisanGiant33 (talk) 10:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary is your friend! See wikt:where and wikt:river. — Sebastian 10:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which American accent? Boston, Southern? 75.41.110.200 (talk) 14:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Way more American accents than that... A8UDI 14:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen a few times on internet 'fact' lists that the Sanskrit word meaning war literally translated to "the need for more cows". This sounds like, well, bull, but is there any evidence to it at all or was it just made up?

Cheers, Prokhorovka (talk) 14:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's an urban legend, as is clear from the fact that none of these websites specify the Sanskrit term they are referring to. Sanskrit has several words for war, such as vignahaḥ, saṃgrahāraḥ, vairāraṃbhaḥ, vairaṃ, saṃgnāmaḥ, yuddhaṃ and, raṇaṃ (from Apte English Sanskrit dictionary) that are variously based on root words suggesting obstacle, enmity, to grab or seize, and even delight; but no reference to cows. Abecedare (talk) 15:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]