September 22

On this page, we're told that the poet Hallfreðr vandræðaskáld død ved 1007. Google Translate thinks this means "death by 1007", which I think we can assume should be more like "died by 1007", but also lists "dead on" and "dead at" as alternative translations for død ved. There are slightly different meanings here – the ambiguity being whether he died in 1007, or is known to have been dead at that point – which I'd like to clarify for use in the article 10th century in poetry. Can anyone offer clarity on which of the meanings is correct? Thanks in advance! – Arms & Hearts (talk) 01:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page has a very long account of his life and work, in Danish. The relevant part is rendered by Google Translate as follows:

Then had Hallfreðr rest no longer, he was still on holidays (summer 1005 he sailed to Iceland and Gunnlaugr with him), his joy was over. His last trip to Iceland he did to hænte all his, as he intended to stay with his eldest son in Sweden. They had a hard storm, and Hallfreðr was sick. Once he sat down tired of spoon, then beat a wave of the ship, it tore him, and sail pole fell on him. Shortly after he died, his body was in a coffin thrown overboard. The coffin washed ashore on Jona and was found by the abbot journeymen. They broke it up and plundered it. But their misdeeds were discovered, as in the saga called, in that King Olaf appeared in dreams to the abbot - this poetic narrative features denotes the heartfelt relationship that had existed between the king and Hallfreðr -. The body was later buried, and the treasures that were in the coffin, used for lime, altar cloth and candlesticks. Once this is done, can not be determined a priori, but it is most reasonable that it occurred omtr. The 1007th

In spite of the broken English, that seems clear enough for your needs. Looie496 (talk) 02:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd render it as "died in 1007". Here's my (human) translation of the same Danish text above, with a few notes on things that are a little unclear:

Hereafter, Hallfreðr had no rest; he was constantly travelling (the summer of 1005, he sailed to Iceland along with Gunnlaugr [another poet]); his zest for life had gone. He took his last trip to Iceland in order to collect his things, as he intended to stay with his oldest son in Sweden. They ran into a severe storm, and Hallfreðr was sick. As he sat down, tired from scooping [water out of the ship, given the storm], a wave struck the ship, knocking him down and causing the mast to fall on him. He died shortly thereafter; his body was thrown overboard in a coffin. The coffin washed up at Jona, and was found by the abbot's explorer [I think "svende" is an old word; Google offers up "squire" and "journeyman" as well]. They broke it up and plundered it—but their misdeeds were discovered, as it is told in the story, when king Olaf appeared in the abbot's dreams. This poetic narrative denotes the intimate relationship that had existed between the king and Hallfreðr. The body was then buried; the valuables in the coffin were used for lime, an altar cloth, and candle sticks. When exactly this happened is difficult to say, but it is most sensible [or reasonable, etc] to say that it occurred sometime around 1007.

 dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 03:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose "Jona" actually means Iona, for what it's worth. It seems a little unlikely that his coffin would have washed up there, but not impossible. Looie496 (talk) 17:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a little unlikely that a small ship (I guess it was small, because bailing was feasible) would be carrying a coffin, just in case somebody died. If the risk was considered great enough to make carrying a coffin worthwhile, I think I'd skip the journey to Iceland to retrieve my valuable lime (seriously, lime?). Perhaps he had a deathwish.  Card Zero  (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Svend' is unambiguous. "Svende" is plural. See the etymology in Sven, i.e. squire, in its original meaning, as parodied by Sancho Panza's relationship to Don Quijote. Assistants of a king or nobleman of high rank, carrying their weapons, traveling with them (hence journeyman edit: see my post below), and assisting in battle. "Sven", "Svend" and "Svein" are common Scandinavian given names. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 19:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, I never knew that—"squire" isn't exactly a common word nowadays, so I suppose that's why I'd not seen it before in any language but English. Are most people named "Sven" (or Svend or Svein) familiar with the origin of their name? I dunno how it is in European countries, but here in the US, most people seem to be unfamiliar with the origins and meanings of names.  dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 20:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If they have paid attention in their history classes, I suppose they will know the origin of the name, at least if they're my age (in their fifties). Whether the term is used when teaching history today, I don't know. I tried it out with a sample of one (age 23, not named "Sven"). She didn't know. Regarding the etymology: our article states that the original meaning is 'young boy' or 'young warrior'. The term "Svenn" (current Norwegian spelling) or "Svend" (current danish spelling) has another meaning in Norwegian and Danish (don't know about Swedish, there's no interwiki link). A "svenn" is someone who has completed an apprenticeship and is fully educated in a trade or craft, but not yet a master. The test you must pass is called is called "svenneprøve", which is a term that just about every Norwegian above the age of 18 will be familiar with. The same system appears to be is use in Germany, see de:Gesellenprüfung. Following the wikilinks then led me to the page journeyman, which explains some of the confusion: A journeyman is someone who has completed an apprenticeship and is fully educated in a trade or craft, but not yet a master. ... The terms jack and knave are sometimes used as informal words for journeyman. Hence the expression "jack of all trades, master of none". --NorwegianBlue ^talk 08:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The related English word swain from Old Norse sveinn has become archaic, but means (mostly) a young man courting his would-be sweetheart. This use is somewhat self-consciously old-fashioned, but not so rare or archaic as the other meaning of "a rustic peasant/yokel".

Thanks everyone! – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without knowing what notation is used in that database, even in Norwegian saying that someone died ved 1007 sounds odd. I suppose that one could have said før (before), omkring (around)/cirka (circa) or i løpet av (during - for which the preposition could be dropped altogether, leaving us with død 1007), but these might not meet the specifics of what is required here: If we want to say he died in or before 1007, we can't use før alone, and if we say he died around 1007 that also gives us some leeway beyond 1007. If the website were to state that he died during 1007, that might seem a bit to specific, given that it's not always possible to date events that far in the past accurately (i.e. he could also have died towards the end of 1006). V85 (talk) 16:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astarte (just one example), I get boxes instead of characters, which I assume mean that I need a font to render something in an unusual language. Words in Ugaritic, Akkadian, and Etruscan show up as a series of boxes.

Can you help me get these characters to show properly? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.99.183 (talk) 07:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to have installed some font that includes the relevant range of Unicode. (I can't see them either.) —Tamfang (talk) 08:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some tips and links are available at Help:Multilingual support (though of the three scripts you've specifically mentioned, only in the case of Akkadian does the page link to a downloadable font). Deor (talk) 13:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to article Ishtar you can see the Akkadian name in small images. If you go to Image:Ugaritic-alphabet-chart.svg and scan the ʕ-θ-t-r-t characters in sequence, then you can get an idea of what the Ugaritic would look like. The Etruscan alphabet is kind of quasi-intermediate between the Greek and Roman alphabets, and so is much less exotic than Akkadian or Ugaritic... AnonMoos (talk) 15:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The characters are displaying correctly for me. For Akkadian, you can install this font, for Etruscan and Ugaritic, this font seems to work. - Lindert (talk) 15:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. I tried loading those two fonts, without success. This isn't a major issue, but it would be nice if there were a simple fix for this issue for Wikipedia users. Something like: "Want to show all those weird fonts? Click here to get them all installed." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seidensticker (talk • contribs) 22:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some applications and operating systems simply can't handle things beyond the Basic Multilingual Plane... AnonMoos (talk) 06:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! What is the Arabic in the image File:Tizi Ouzou Tasdawit.jpg and in the image File:Kabylia-3lingual sign.jpg? I want to post what the signs say in those languages on the Wikimedia commons.

I would also like to know what the Arabic translations are for "Signs in the University of Tizi Ouzou " and "A multilingual traffic sign in Kabylie (Algeria), depicting Arabic, Tamazight and French."

Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 16:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help with translating into Arabic, but for the first image, the "Faculty of Letters and Humanities" one is: "كلية الاداب و العلوم الإنسانية "; "Auditorium" is " قاعة المحاضرات"; the economics one is "كلية العلوم الإقتصادية" ; "rectorat" is " رئاسة"; and the library is " مكتبة الجامعة". In the second image the Arabic is " بلدية يسر ترحب بكم". Adam Bishop (talk) 18:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Adam! I notice that "كلية العلوم الإقتصادية" (for "economics") is the first part of the Arabic in its sign, but there is some Arabic below it too (probably to reflect "et des sciences de Gestion") - Would it be alright if you captured that Arabic as well? Also for "Rectorat" "رئاسة" is the first part, but there is some Arabic after that too WhisperToMe (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry, I was having trouble copying and pasting and some of it got deleted. The whole economics one is:

" كلية العلوم الإقتصادية و علوم التسيير"

And the rectorate in full is "university rectorate":

" رئاسة الجامعة"

Hope that works this time. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Signs in the University...

علامات في جامعة تيزي وزو

A multilingual sign in Kabylie....

علامة متعددة اللغات في منطقة القبائل (الجزائر) باللغة العربية والأمازيغية والفرانسية

Wrad (talk) 22:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adam and Wrad, thank you so much :) ! I added the Arabic to the descriptions and file annotations WhisperToMe (talk) 00:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 23

Is it even a real name? I'd thought the Code Lyoko writers just made it up, but then I saw it was used in a Soviet sci-fi novel/movie. --128.42.223.219 (talk) 05:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a google search turns up dozens of those sketchy "baby names" sites, but the consensus there is that the name means "Noble", as in a varient of "Elite". It isn't a common name, but it also isn't a completely made-up name either. There are real people with it. --Jayron32 05:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remember it's a French series so it may help to ask French-speaking editors. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Alexei Tolstoy invented this name, for the Martian girl in the eponymous novel (1923). There was no "meaning" per se, but the name was meant to side sufficiently romantic and "Martian". -- Vmenkov (talk) 03:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ngram agrees.--Luboslov Yezykin (talk) 04:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! For File:TiziOuzou University-Thesis.JPG what is the Arabic and French for "The first Algerian Ph.D. Thesis in Berber Linguistics, Tizi Ouzou University, May 28, 2003" ? (For French, is it "la première thèse de doctorat des langues berbères, Université Mouloud Mammeri de Tizi Ouzou, 28 maï de 2003"?)

Secondly, for the board, is this a good English translation for what is there?

• Defense of Doctorate Thesis
• Presented by M. Mohamd Akli Haddadou
• Jury: Mrs. Noura Tigzire, M. Comp, UMMTO President
• Mr. Rabah Rahlouche, Professor, UMMTO Reporter
• Mrs. Dahla Morsly, Professor, U. Angers Examiner
• Mr. Vermondo Brugnatelli, Professor, U. Milan Examiner
• Mr. Boutelja Riche, M. Conf, UMMTO, Examiner (check spelling to make sure the names are spelled right, please)

It would be nice to also have an Arabic translation of the board listing too, so I can post it on the Wikimedia Commons entry Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 07:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can help you for the French part: it would be "la première thèse de doctorat sur les langues berbères, Université Mouloud Mammeri de Tizi Ouzou, 28 mai 2003". For the English part, I would say "Defense of doctoral thesis"; as for the spelling, I read "Mohand", "Tigziri" and "Kahlouche". Hope it helps! Bryan P. C. C. (talk) 12:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone more intimately familiar with the French university system can probably clarify better, but it seems to me that Mme Tigzire was presiding over the defense, not that she was president of the university. "Rapporteur" is not a reporter, but maybe the student's thesis advisor? The others must be internal and external examiners. "M. Conf" is "maître de conférence", a specific rank in the French academic system, roughly equivalent to a "lecturer" in English although it differs depending on the English system. (Whenever I have had to translate that, I just leave it as a proper French noun).

Looking at fr.wki it would appear the un rapporteu is the main examiner who has actually read the thesis while "un examinateur" hasn't. The supervisor (le directeur de thèse) isn't specified in the picture. Aa77zz (talk) 15:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for the feedback! I made a preliminary English annotation at File:TiziOuzou University-Thesis.JPG WhisperToMe (talk) 08:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ! From what I saw more than 30 years ago in Lyon , France (but it may be subject to local and chrono. variations) , the "rapporteur" summarizes and presents your work in a rather friendly way (above all if you are one of his students, and if he's inspired the "thèse") while "les examinateurs" tend to tear it to pieces, and harass you, for exemple, for limitating yourself to a hundred cases etc...T.y. Arapaima (talk) 10:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The file description currently says "The first Algerian Ph.D. Thesis in Berber Linguistics, Tizi Ouzou University, 28 May 2003", but the photo is not of the Ph.D. thesis itself but of the people present at the defense. Angr (talk) 10:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The person who uploaded the photo may have been one of the people present at the meeting. Yes, this is an image of the PHD defense hearings. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have this paragraph about Francis Marrash, and there is a sentence about his trip to Paris with his father in 1850, but there are some words I am not able to read; especially the sentence that says he (?) stayed in Aleppo until 1853 (?). Would anyone be kind enough to type or translate these sentences for me? Thank you very much in advance! Bryan P. C. C. (talk) 12:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If no one manages to give you satisfactory assistance here, don't forget that there's the Arabic Wikipedia Language Reference Desk. --Theurgist (talk) 17:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea! Thank you so much Theurgist for telling me about it! I'll go post on it. Bryan P. C. C. (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I use "I'd've" in place of "I would have", but I'm not sure how to put that in writing. Is this the correct way ? Are there any other such double contractions ? StuRat (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You'll've noticed spell check doesn't like these double contractions. μηδείς (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I use these informally, and write them more or less that way—I'd've, wouldn't've, couldn't've, etc. I don't think anybody considers these standard, and most spell-checking software will mark these wrong unless you tell them not to. Mind, most style guides will tell you to avoid contractions entirely in essays and such. Personally, I tend to write with a slightly irreverent, plain-English kind of tone even in those situations, so I let them in anyway, hehe.  dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 18:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sturat, don't forget that you can indicate a non-standard word, pronunciation, or spelling with a single apostrophe. Thus I'd of' is allowed, after eyeing the pronunciation. A less anal editor would probably just write I'd of in prose. In the least formal online forums, if I wanted to be quite colloquial I might even write what I'd of done, etc. Most readers wouldn't even notice - it would just come off as authentic speech. The reason no variation of I'd've really looks right is because this is what is usually done instead. 80.98.245.172 (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that this "authenticity" comes at the price of some actual aural authenticity. To me "I'd've" uses the iv schwa whereas i'd of' uses the ov schwa. So writing "I'd ov" to mean "I'd iv" is cheating ever-so-slightly. But iv and ov (I'd 've and I'd of) are really blending. Most people wouldn't even make the distinction, I think. (This indent is just about the pronunciation that is suggested by the spelling I propose). 80.98.245.172 (talk) 19:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding, IP 80? "I'd of" is a sign of written illiteracy. It has nothing to do with more accurately representing spoken pronunciation, which is perfectly represented by I'd've. People don't speak misspellings. One might as well say "Your a good friend of mine" or "Theirs know they're they're" are "authentic". I had to stop reading a book once where the author intentionally used "I'd of", which brought me up short every time I saw it. μηδείς (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would just write I'd have; [əv] is a weak pronunciation of have even when it isn't spelled 've. Consider a sentence like My brothers have called me ten times this week. I wouldn't write it My brothers've called... but I'd definitely pronounce it [ˈbrʌðɚzəv]. Angr (talk) 20:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But when writing dialog, it's important to convey the level of formality of the speech. Mabye "My brothers 've called" would be better, with a space ? StuRat (talk) 20:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But there's not even really a schwa there--that's a phantom of citation form and our tendency to analyze syllables with vowels. No one ever says "I'd (pause) of". The /v/ in a naturally spoken "I'd've" is perfectly syllabic on its own. μηδείς (talk) 21:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything Medeis has said on this thread. I'd also make the point that what spellcheck may or may not like should be close to irrelevant for good writers (sheesh, it even has a problem with "spellcheck"). I'dn't've thought that was a problem.

PS. StuRat, your love of truth is well known. This question is further evidence of it. I feel supremely confident you'll follow whatever we tell you here. Just as you always do when we tell you the only correct way of writing the possessive adjective its is without an apostrophe. For example. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's important for me to know the proper way to spell it, so I can spell it anyway but that. :-) StuRat (talk) 22:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Well, why didn't you say! Heck, if that's the only problem, I can suggest lots of ideas: it-s, iTs, its. it...s, it/s, it(s), zebra, cheese, love, splinge, spifflicate, ... There must be others. Have at it. Enjoy. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]

I don't agree with Medeis's claim that there's no schwa in I'd've. The lack of a pause between I'd and 've doesn't prove anything. When I pronounce it, there is a moment after I release the [d] before I articulate the [v] during which no active articulator is in contact with any passive articulator, but I'm still exhaling through vibrating vocal chords. And that is the schwa sound. Maybe Medeis pronounces it differently, though. Angr (talk) 06:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Argue all you like, but /v/ is a voiced continuant, and if you can't say it without an independent vowel, you are not a fluent SAE or RP English speaker. You may pronounce a schwa there, but it is not inherent. μηδείς (talk) 21:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say I couldn't, I said I don't. If you actually pronounce it [aɪdv̩] with no period of even a few milliseconds between the release of the [d] and the articulation of the [v], you're probably the only native English speaker who does. English doesn't have syllabic obstruents (except in a few marginal forms like psst!), only syllabic sonorants. Angr (talk) 22:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conversely, the Irish character in Preacher regularly "pronounced" of as 've. Ugh. —Tamfang (talk) 23:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For formal writing, I would say that "I'd've" is fairly atrocious. But for writing in a slangy way, "I'd've" works just fine. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found this on Commons: File:Iwouldnothavecontractedlikethis.jpg. It isn't an article, per se, but it is interestingly germaine to this discussion. WHAPOE maybe? (we have a pic on everything)... --Jayron32 06:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of "ima" (as in Kanye West's "Ima let you finish..."), the remaining three letters/sounds of "I am going to". Adam Bishop (talk) 09:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That in turn reminds me of overhearing a conversation in which one of the parties said "Nome sane?" about a hundred times. You know what I'm saying? —Tamfang (talk) 23:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of what someone posted above. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ Angr, I guess the really relevant question is, are I'd of and I'd've contrasting minimal pairs? While there is a way that I can pronounce I'd of so it sounds indistinguishable from I'd've, it is also possible for me to say I'd of with a schwa in a way that I simply would never pronounce I'd've. You seem, if I understand, to be saying they are not a possible contrasting pair in your speech. I can't say I have ever heard anyone say "I'd. . . of" for "I'd've", but I would love to hear it on youtube (outside an elicited example) if someone has such a link. μηδείς (talk) 22:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis, as the sequence I'd of is impossible in grammatical English, your question is meaningless. But if I misquoted "Beware the ide of March" it would sound just like I'd've. Sussexonian (talk) 09:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not impossible if you use the citation form: The "I'd" of informal speech should not be used in formal writing. The issue is not whether one can pronounce the "I'd of" (or ide of) in the same reduced manner as I'd've, but whether one cannot make a minimal pair of "I'd of" and "I'd've". The fact is that there is no unreduced "I'd've" that sounds like an unreduced "Ide/I'd of". The first is necessarily and always reduced. "of" is not. μηδείς (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How good is the UK English versus American English analogy for the difference between Austrian and German German?

According to the analogy, the STANDARD version of the two basically just have some minor spelling differences, and a speaker to one sounds like an "accent" to a speaker of the other. (assuming an educated speaker speaking in a standard way). is this true? --80.98.245.172 (talk) 19:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds more like the difference between US English and Canadian English. The larger difference between US English and UK English also includes usage differences. Also, since Germany borders Austria, the geographic analogy with the US and Canada is also present. Note that border regions of the US and Canada have a blended accent, does this also happen between Germany and Austria ? StuRat (talk) 20:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The accents of Bavaria and Austria, while not identical, are more similar than they are different, and certainly more similar to each other than they are to the accents of the rest of the German-speaking world. As for the written language, the differences are much smaller than between British and American, or even between Canadian and American. There are no pure spelling differences as far as I know; the differences are mostly in vocabulary (is January called Januar or Jänner? are tomatoes called Tomaten or Paradeiser?) and syntax (ich habe gesessen or ich bin gesessen? - but even that isn't a Germany vs. Austria difference so much as a northern vs. southern difference with Bavarians, Allemanic speakers, and Austrians patterning together). Angr (talk) 20:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

for what it's worth, guys, when it comes to standard English, you can read many chapters before you realize that you have a "British edition" in your hand (maybe it's somethinas small as realise for realize). Other times you might get through the damn book and never know it. So, I would say that in standard, written English there are next to no differences; it really is an "accent" (like speaking with an unpronounced Boston, Southern, or Californian accent) and for this difference only very very rarely makes it onto the page.

With that said, does the same apply to German German versus Austrian German? Or is it heavier than that? I don't know how Canadians talk. 80.98.245.172 (talk) 22:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can read German or English without noticing which language I just read. On the other hand, I don't think there even are separate German and Austrian versions of books (there may be different editions from different publishers, but, as far as I know, the text will usually be the same same). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that the spelling differences between British and American standards do not represent differences in pronunciation. μηδείς (talk) 02:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With one exception: the two spellings of alumin(i)um do reflect the two pronunciations. But otherwise, no, the pronunciation differences aren't reflected in the spelling, and the spelling differences don't reflect the pronunciation differences. Angr (talk) 06:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of "exceptions", from the top of my head air(o)plane, buro(ugh), and I am sure there are many more. I think all you can say is they usually don't represent a difference in pronunciation. -- Q Chris (talk) 13:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Airplane/aeroplane is indeed another exception (I don't think it reaches the point of simply being two different words like gasoline/petrol), but borough as a standalone noun (as opposed to an element in various place names) is spelled the same in en-US and en-GB. Certainly Americans don't write "Brooklyn is a boro of New York City", at least not in edited writing. Angr (talk) 13:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are lots of differences that reveal whether the text is British or American (a couple that spring to mind are "1 thru 10/1 to 10" and the different meaning of "momentarily"), but I agree that one can sometimes read a whole book without realising that it was published in a "foreign" version. Other "exceptions" where the spelling reflects a pronunciation difference are behove/behoove, furore/furor, haulier/hauler and speciality/specialty. Dbfirs 16:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Things like aeroplane and aluminium are word variants, not reflections of different pronunciations of the same sound. There is no rule in American speech that requires one to drop an o between aer- and -plane, and an American will agree that aeroplane is pronounced "air-oh-plane" without at all affecting a British accent to say it. Conversely, regular phonetic differences are not reflected in spelling. The RP speaking British don't drop their ars in spelling harm or card. Americans with the Mary-marry merger don't spell both Harry and hairy as hary because the say them the same. There may be spelling variants like tyre and there may be word variants like whilst--and there are indeed jocular variants like "toon" for "tune" which do reflect regular pronunciation differences--but there are no standard spelling variations that reflect differences in pronunciation of the same word between British and American. μηδείς (talk) 17:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harry and Hairy are not pronounced the same in the United States or certainly not in most areas (they aren't even close in fact).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? They certainly are in my accent. What distinction would you make? --Trovatore (talk) 02:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Huh?! I pronounce them the exact same and haven't ever met anyone who pronounces them differently. I've lived in the US all my life. Or are you saying that Americans don't pronounce them the same as British English speakers? In which case, I still disagree. Dismas|^(talk) 02:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Northeasterners nor Brits rhyme marry and Mary or Harry and hairy. See the bottom of the thread. μηδείς (talk) 03:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No one I've ever heard in the northeast pronounces them the same. I've lived in New York my entire life and no one pronounces them the same; if anyone ever said "that's one harry dog" they would get strange looks from everyone. Harry is pronounced like harrier jet without the -er. Hairy is pronounced like hair with an -ee on the end. Please don't tell me you pronounce hair the same way you pronounce the harr, in harrier.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I do pronounce Harrier similarly to Hairy and therefore Harry as well. Do you mean that people pronounce Harry like the sarcastic laughter sound of Hardy Har Har? I've never heard this. I also pronounce Hare Krishna like Hardy. But I pronounce Hare like Hair. I just asked my wife if she's ever heard anyone pronounce Harry as you seem to (she's lived in New England her entire life) and she said "Maybe if they're Indian. But otherwise, no." Dismas|^(talk) 18:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the "a" in hardy (har har) is pronounced differently than the "a" in harry. It's very difficult to do this because all of our baselines are different; we're trying to use other words to get a sense of the pronunciation but even they are not pronounced the same as between us. Hmmm. By the way, I pronounce Mary, marry, merry and Marie each distinctly different from one another, as does everyone I know, (as μηδείς indicates above). Let me see If I can find some audio, so you can hear them, which is the only way I can see we're going to actually understand each other. I would upload an audio file but I don't have the equipment or the know how.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is very informative (though you won't really get the audio from it) but it provides the examples of the "a" in pat being the "a" in harry, and the "a" in care being the same as in hairy and that's spot on. As for merry, marry and Mary, strangely enough, though I do not have an Australian accent, this works perfectly fine to show the vowel pronunciation difference betwixt them that all northeasterns I know make.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a strange video. When she says the words by themselves, it's clear enough. But when she uses them in the example sentences, it's very unclear which is which, and you have to rely on the context. "Mary is Jesus's Mum" sounds to me like "Marry is Jesus's Mum", and the Merry in "Merry Christmas" sounds like a hybrid of Merry and Marry. It demonstrates what I've often noticed: that many vowel sounds spoken by younger Australian people (which she is) are distinctly different from those spoken by older people, while still remaining recognisably Australian. The new version of the long o sound (as in "phone home", which is more liable to sound like "fine hime" these days) is particularly different from the one I speak. I imagine HiLo48 would concur. -- Jack of Oz (Talk) 08:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]

It is kind of odd that differently spelled words are pronounced the same way, at least within the confines of the respective accents (color vs. colour) whereas the pronouncation differences seem to arise where the spelling is constant (schedule as "skedule" vs. "shedule"). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Webster's change of -our to -or and -re to -er work because they are both etymological (these are the Latin, not the French spellings) and they match pronunciation. μηδείς (talk) 02:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why was Latin favoured over French here? English was not exactly uninfluenced by the presence of French-speaking people. And how can "color" be considered to match the pronunciation any more than "colour" does? The only thing that changes is the ending, yet that's unstressed no matter which dialect you speak. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 02:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point is not that Latin was favored or that the pronunciation was any closer, (although it was) but that the simpler spelling made no real difference in the case of pronunciation, and that the words did originally trace back to Latin. (Indeed, if the second syllable of honor were stressed, the "or" pronunciation would be more acceptable than the "our" pronunciation by far. And sen-ter for center is much closer to the actual /sɛntr/ (even for non-rhotics) than would be "sentruh" or "sentree".) In other words, it's not so much that the Latinate spellings are more accurate as it is that they are simpler and in no way less accurate. As for color, if you want to stick with the Fraunch it would be couleur, pronounced "cool air". Time you quasi-Brits freed yourselves from the Norman yoke. μηδείς (talk) 21:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Btw, best of luck on your next trip to France, if you pronounce couleur as "cool air". That would be closer to the word couler (not sure if that even exists). -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Cool air"'s a close approximation for English using the available English phonemes. I didn't say it was accurate French; what would have been the point? Reminds me of the stir I made in high school playing Diplomacy (game) with some French exchange students who didn't realize I spoke French. I heard one suggest an attack on me, not thinking I understood. I told the other <<Je t'enculerai bien si tu fait ca...>> to some rather loud jaw dropping. μηδείς (talk) 02:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ Fuhgetta, I don't pronounce Harry amd Hairy the same and you don't, but most people in the US do. Surprised you weren't aware of this. Or of the Harry Baals Center of Fort Wayne. See Mary–marry–merry merger. μηδείς (talk) 02:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. In my experience, most Americans rhyme "Harry" and "hairy". But folks in the northeast, or at least in the New York City area, would say "Harry" with a short "a", as with "half" or "ham" or whatever; whereas they might pronounce "hairy" more like "ferry". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 24

I wondered why the name of Kayseri has a diphthong, as I known in Byzantine Greek by the 11th century αι already became ε. Though I've found in the Wikipedian article that it came through Arabic Kaisariyah. Nevertheless, whether in the 7th century the diphthong αι was still in Greek? I thought that it became a monophthong long before this date.
Another question: why "z" was added in İznik? I perfectly know that all the Turkic languages usually avoid sonorants in the beginning of words, but why not simply İnik?
So, finally, is there any general research on Turkification of the Ancient place names into Turkish?--Luboslov Yezykin (talk) 00:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Iznik comes from a reanalysis of the Greek preposition eis, meaning "into". So just as Istanbul comes from εἰς τὴν Πόλιν (eis tēn Polin) "into the City", Iznik means "into Νίκαια" (Nikaia). μηδείς (talk) 00:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's obvious! I've totally forgotten about Istanbul! Though why have the Turks adapted it with "into the"? Didn't they hear from the Greeks the bare names of the cities or with other prepositions? E.g. "I came from Nicaea" or "Ø Nicaea is a great city" etc.--Luboslov Yezykin (talk) 02:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sort of thing is typical in loanwords, such as Western languages borrowing Arabic words with the al- article appended, such as alcohol;, English speakers talking about "the El Niño", The Zulu language reanalyzing initial consonants in borrowed words as noun class markers, so that the English spoon is analyzed as the root -punu maked with the isi- noun class prefix. Since the izi- prefix marks the plural of the isi- class, the plural of spoon in Zulu becomes izipunu.

For the specific case of the Is/z- prefix, Turkish doesn't use prepositions. So the very common answer to "Where are you going?" which would have a destination with a dative (I believe) case ending in the Turkish language would be answered with a prepositional phrase in Greek, but not be understood that way in a language that lacked prepositions. Note also that eis is a proclitic in Greek, so it did not bear its own stress, and would seem like part of the following word. http://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/lessons/greek-accentuation.asp?pg=9 μηδείς (talk) 02:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, Turkish uses the dative case for the concepts of "to/towards/into something", in contrast to the general Indo-European pattern, where the accusative case is employed for that purpose, usually along with a preposition. --Theurgist (talk) 16:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how it looked in real life. I imagine that once upon a time a Turkish merchant came to Nicaea and asked (in broken Greek) a local the name of the city: "Vot iz neym ov dis siti?". "This city is Nicaea", replied the local. Then after trading he returned to his native city and told his fellow merchants in the bazaar that there is a rich city in the west called Nicaea. So why did he hear from the Greeks not Nicaea (Nikea) but Innicaea (Iznikea)? --Luboslov Yezykin (talk) 03:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because in natural speech one much more often hears "I am going to the city" as a destination than "the city is beautiful", or "on fire". A verbatim google for "to the city" gets 9,450,000,000 hits. That's Nine Billion+ μηδείς (talk) 04:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another example akin to Istanbul or Iznik, but in the other direction Alexandria is transliterated into Arabic as "al-Iskandariyyah"; that is the "Al" from the Greek name of the city is re-appropriated as the "al-" definite article, something similar happened with Iskanderun which used to be "Alexandretta", but the "Al" was dropped from the name, as though it were an optional article. --Jayron32 04:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have never bought the traditional etymology of İstanbul as being εἰς τὴν Πόλιν. That stinks of folk etymology, and fails to explain why the name isn't İstinbul, or does someone want to claim Doric Greek was still being spoken in Constantinople in the 11th century? I'm convinced the -stan- of İstanbul is the -stan- of Constantinople, with a prothetic i added to make the consonant cluster pronounceable, same as the Turks did with İzmir < Smyrna and Isparta < Sparta (and coincidentally the same as Vulgar Latin did with all sC- clusters, hence Spanish escuela < schola etc.) Angr (talk) 06:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This happens in Hungarian, too. The word for 'table' is 'asztal' (from Russian or other Slavic 'stol') and the word for 'school' is 'iskola'. It's common in many languages to add a supporting vowel for unfamiliar consonant clusters from loan words. French even added the supporting vowel, and then dropped the troublesome consonant in 'école'. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish, on the other hand, simply dropped consonants it couldn't be bothered with, which is why it calls Stockholm Tukholma and France Ranska. Angr (talk) 16:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So I suppose you believe equally strongly that con- > i- and -tin- > 0 are perfectly natural developments requiring no special pleading to explain? μηδείς (talk) 16:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I said where the i- came from. The con- and -tin- presumably wore away in the way syllables in long words are always prone to do. Angr (talk) 18:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I may add to the prothetic vowel theory - I distinctly remember that IStanbul was historically called Stamboul, which is perhaps the original contraction of (Con)stan(tino)pol(is). Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 05:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The plausibility of the -tan- as a form of the article in eis tin polin is confirmed by parallel cases such as eis tin Ko > İstanköy, where the etymology is beyond any doubt. I'm not sure what the current views on the explanation of the [a] is, but to the best of my knowledge the eis tin polin etymology has been the firmly held communis opinio in all research since the late 19th century. The alternative derivation from Konstantinupolis was considered back then and is considered obsolete. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the question of when in the last millennium eta started being pronounced as ita. μηδείς (talk) 18:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that one would be early enough, during antiquity, at least in the mainstream varieties. Some eastern, Asia Minor varieties might have lagged back in some of these things though, judging by what is known from their fragmentary modern remnants. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone recommend any good books, popular or technical, on the development of Greek through time from Mycenaean to Demotic? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I often use Geoffrey Horrocks, Greek: A history of the language and its speakers. It's not very strong on the earliest (Mycenean/archaic) phases, but quite nice on the development of post-classical Koine and medieval Greek. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, I'm actually much more up on Mycaenaean than I am on modern developments. Open to other sources. μηδείς (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And what about the Greek diphthongs in the 7th century? Why not Keseri? --Luboslov Yezykin (talk) 13:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno, but I suppose that placename would not have been borrowed directly from Greek to Turkish, but probably through Persian or some other intermediate language. Persian had apparently borrowed the title of "Caesar" in the form "Kaysar" (قیصر). Can't say when that was, but it may well have been a lot earlier than the time the Turks took over central Anatolia, and either Greek or Latin might well still have had a diphthong at that time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed, Lyuboslov, you answered the question yourself in the first post, that the Arabs already knew it as Kaysariyah. That doesn't strike me as problematic. μηδείς (talk) 02:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought myself that it was through Aramaic (less probably through Armenian or Persian) and the city was known to the Arabs (Nabateans?) before the Islamic conquest. I hoped that somebody knew exactly about it.--Luboslov Yezykin (talk) 04:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

J. Robert Oppenheimer famously quoted a line from the Bhagavad Gita, "Now I am become death, destroyer of worlds."

The line itself is usually translated as "I am time, destroyer of all things" by most translators, but I'm not interested in that.

I've been poking around with the relevant section of the Gita. I don't speak or read Sanskrit or any similar language. Am I correct in inferring that the second line from the top here is equivalent to the transliterated line that reads kalo smi ... pravrddho" which is equivalent to the line that Oppenheimer was referencing? --Mr.98 (talk) 01:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly looks like it from that link. Kāla has multiple meanings is Sanskrit, and it is likely a deliberate play on words, very common in Sanskrit literature, and completely lost in translation.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, "been" invariably rhymes with "bin", whereas in the UK it rhymes with "bean". I always thought that the "bin" pronunciation was a conspicuous and idiosyncratic Americanism not used by anyone in the UK, except perhaps by speakers of a highly divergent regional dialect. However, in this clip, Alan Partridge very clearly uses the "bin" pronunciation. I know that Steve Coogan comes from the north of England, but his character is from Norfolk. So what's going on? Is "bin" a northern pronunciation that Coogan used unconsciously, or a Norfolk pronunciation that he was using in character, or something else? LANTZY^TALK 05:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it is used extensively throughout the UK, and in most dialects (with the exception of RP). We even have a joke in English - a rubbish collector walks into a Chinese restaurant and says "Where's yer bin?" and the waiter says, "I bin Hong Kong on holiday." It's very common pronunciation all over the UK. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 05:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I can't help but add the rest of this (rather racist) joke, with apologies; Bin man: "No, I mean where's your wheelie bin?" Restaurateur: "I wheelie bin Hong Kong - you no berieve me?" Alansplodge (talk) 12:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But when these Britons say "bin", is this just a reduced, lazy-mouthed pronunciation of "bean" that they use when talking quickly, or is it the way they would carefully enunciate the word in isolation? LANTZY^TALK 06:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

British food is not known for being wonderful, but we certainly don't have 'bins on toast'. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We always say bin in fast speech or even use a schwa. Except when it's emphasised. "I've bin thinking about that a lot" but "Where've you been?". Itsmejudith (talk) 06:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After some consideration, I'm fairly certain that I say "bean" most of the time, even with my dodgy London accent. Alansplodge (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I, as a scouser, also pronounce it /bi:n/ in most cases. This may be because my accent has changed a bit from dealing with non-native speakers like yourself, Alan :) KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It strikes me as possible than /bi:n/ is an affected spelling pronunciation. μηδείς (talk) 06:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be very hard to prove. Alansplodge (talk) 12:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, I'd like to ask the OP how "seen" is pronounced? Where I am in the UK, 'sid' is a regularly used substitute (for both seen and saw). "Have you sid Brian?" " Not today, I sid him yesterday though." - X201 (talk) 13:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Sid" is an abbreviation of "see'd" (used in place of seen or saw). "Sin" (abbreviated pronunciation of "seen") is also used in some dialects. Dbfirs 16:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the first half of the OP's first sentence. I speak US English, and I pronounce been to rhyme with ben if I'm speaking at slow or medium speed, and only rhyme it with bin at high speed. I'm pretty sure this is typical for the US. Duoduoduo (talk) 14:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Wells, in his Longman Pronunciation Dictionary lists /biːn/ (bean) and /bɪn/ (bin) for British English and only /bɪn/ for American English and writes, "Some BrE speakers have biːn as strong form, bɪn as weak form. — Preference poll, BrE (for strong form): biːn 92%, bɪn 8%." I (an American) also have both /bɪn/ and /bɛn/, though. Lesgles (talk) 14:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To my surprise, my Am Eng dictionary Random House Webster's College Dictionary only gives /bɪn/. Wiktionary is inconsistent about it: for the Gen Amer pronunciation, both stressed and unstressed, it only gives /bɪn/, but under "homophones" for a US accent it gives both "bin" and "Ben".

Is it possible that /bɛn/ is regional in the US? Duoduoduo (talk) 15:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I associate it (very unscientifically) with Appalachian speech. /bɪn/ is far more common in my hearing. -- Elphion (talk) 15:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I used only /bɛn/ for most of my childhood and young adult years (and I'm not from Appalachia) until I saw that dictionaries gave only /bɪn/ either preferentially or exclusively, and now make a conscious effort to pronounce it that way. Similarly, I've pronounced since /sɛns/ for most of my life, unless I remember not to. Angr (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See pin-pen merger for some background on those two vowels. --Jayron32 16:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, though for me at least, it's only these two words where they get mixed up. Pin and pen themselves I distinguish in the usual way. Angr (talk) 16:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I don't have the pin-pen merger but I do have /bɛn/ ("Where have you ben?") and /sɛns/ in free variation. I remember when learning to spell being surprised been wasn't spelled "bin". μηδείς (talk) 18:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I speak a kind of western General American (definitely not Appalachian), and I don't have pen-pin merger except in the names of the letters M and N ([ɪm] and [ɪn]), but I pronounce "been" as [bɛn] (however "since" as [sɪn(t)s])... AnonMoos (talk) 02:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To summarise for the OP. No, it is not regional, either North of England or East Anglia, but typical of casual speech in most or all British English varieties. By the way, Alan Partridge doesn't have a Norfolk accent but something more like Estuary English. John Wells is saying the same as my previous post. "I've bin listening tə this very carefully" vs "But where the hell have you beeeen all this time?" Alan, try reading aloud very quickly and carelessly and I think at least some of your beans will turn to bins. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe some, but still not convinced. "Pussy cat, pussy cat where have you bin? I've bin up to London to visit the..." Doesn't work does it? Alansplodge (talk) 01:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't, good example. The first one is what John Wells calls strong. The second one would count as weak in prose speech, but this is verse. If we're singing, it counts as a beat, so although it would be shorter than the first one (2 beats), there is a limit to how much it can be shortened. In speech though, because English is stress-timed, we could make it very short indeed. "I b'n up to London", stressing up and Lon. In fact, we could even leave it out and reply "Up to London". Itsmejudith (talk) 07:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Money bins, one hopes. That's if they're those magic beans we read about in Jack and the Binstalk.  :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the might be has bins and might have bins. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And coulda bins. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And Ich bin, ein Berliner: The box holding the jelly donuts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the replies. It's somehow pleasing to learn that it's not the cut-and-dry NA/UK shibboleth that I imagined it was. LANTZY^TALK 23:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please get the original abstract for http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTOTAL-WGJY200801006.htm and translate it to English better than the translation provided? I am particularly interested in the phrase translated as "the new unjust phenomenon". Thanks. —Cupco 06:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the Chinese language entry for the same article on that website: http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-WGJY200801006.htm

Here is the Chinese language abstract:

【摘要】：在美国,教育权属于各州,联邦不能干预地方教育改革。然而,各州小班化教育改革,不仅没能很好地提高学生学业成绩,而且造成了新的不公平现象。为了保障教育效率与教育公平的平衡,联邦政府于1999年开展了一场轰轰烈烈的小班化教育改革,其中的经验与教训,对于深化我国的小班化教育实践、拓展我国的小班化教育研究具有借鉴意义。

My translation:

[Abstract]: In the United States, the education power belongs to the states, [and] the federal [government] cannot interfere in local education reform. However, not only has class size reducation education reforms in the states, not done very well to lift students' academic results, but has created new phenomena of unfairness [/inequity?]. To safeguard the balance between educational efficiency and educational unfairness, the federal government began in 1999 a round of fiery [as of a revolution] class size reduction education reform, the experience and lessons of which, has referential significance for deepening the practice of reduced class size education in this country, and expanding the study of reduced class size education in this country.

Note: the original Chinese language abstract has some grammatical errors such as superfluous commas, I have more or less preserved them here so that the translation is more faithful to the original. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That answers my question very well. —Cupco 18:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Hello learned linguists ! I’m trying to pick up the cultural references of the Simpson episode Bart Stops to Smell the Roosevelts for WP fr, & I wonder what that caption exactly means ? Is here "smell" the equivalent of our french slang verb "kiffer" (from the moroccan كيف , meaning now in France "to like", "to love") and could the title mean "Bart is suddenly deeply fond of the Roosevelts" ? Or is it an allusion to a young hound snooping around, & suddenly stopping and sniffing at an unknown scent ? Thanks a lot beforehand for your answer. T.y.Arapaima (talk) 10:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pun on "Stopping to smell the roses", which is an English expression meaning "Taking the time to enjoy life". However, as Bart doesn't seem to particularly take time to enjoy life in this episode, it seems like a rather forced pun. StuRat (talk) 10:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See the Wiktionary entry for stop and smell the roses. Dismas|^(talk) 15:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot ! It appears in France everybody pronounces "Rousevelt" , so the link with "roses" is not obvious...I credited you both : cf note N° 1, in the french version. T.y. Arapaima (talk) 08:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome. I noticed you missed the closing quotation mark, so I added it to the French Wikipedia article. StuRat (talk) 09:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arapaima, you mention that in France everybody pronounces it "Rousevelt". You might be interested to know that in America a minority of people pronounce it that way too. Duoduoduo (talk) 14:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Is it too much of a stretch to say that syringe rhymes with orange?165.212.189.187 (talk) 14:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a matter of opinion, but I would say that the two words do not rhyme. Same goes for lozenge as well. --Viennese Waltz 14:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But The Blorenge does. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that to rhyme, two words must have the same primary-stressed syllable and must be identical in pronunciation from the vowel of the primary-stressed syllable all the way to the end. Syringe and orange are stressed on different syllables. Duoduoduo (talk) 14:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, though in humorous rhymes spoken aloud you often hear words mispronounced to "make" them rhyme. -- Q Chris (talk) 15:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So stress the same syllable. the "ringe" and "range" are pronounced the same afaikt.165.212.189.187 (talk) 15:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It is a marginal masculine rhyme, but it is not a feminine rhyme. In this context I can't resist giving a pointer to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kQBVneC30o. Looie496 (talk) 15:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haliborange also rhymes with orange. Just saying. :) — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In an interview with Ed Bradley, Eminem made lots of good-enough-for-rap rhymes for orange. The only one I remember off the top of my head is door-hinge. Angr (talk) 16:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's the Youtube clip I linked; it was actually Anderson Cooper, though. Looie496 (talk) 16:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, old dead black guy, young white gay guy, it's almost the same thing... Angr (talk) 22:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that syringe is close-but-no-cigars as a masculine rhyme for orange in US English, though it works in UK English. According to Wiktionary, in UK English the last vowel in orange is indeed /I/ as in syringe, but in US English the last vowel in orange is alternately silent (making the word just one syllable) or a schwa. Duoduoduo (talk) 16:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also Words that rhyme with orange.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 20:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They left out East Orange, among others. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eminem may be late, but he is not black; and neither was Ed Bradley gay, although he did rock that earring. μηδείς (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think your slide rule slipped a notch. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have an article covering the concept of an obsolete word? If so, it should be linked in the Dagger (typography) article, just after the mention of the Oxford English Dictionary. 2001:18E8:2:1020:6959:C401:2BA7:1F7E (talk) 16:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that someone redirected it to fossil word. This is incorrect: a fossil word is one that is not obsolete in one or a few settings. The Oxford Universal Dictionary classifies words as obsolete if they've completely fallen out of use, and a sense of a word as obsolete if only other senses are used today, such as "To lift up one's voice; to cry aloud; to sing loud or on a high note" for "yelp" in cases such as "Gude fadir,..To þe we crye and ȝelpe", which is "Good father,...To thee we cry and yelp." 2001:18E8:2:1020:6959:C401:2BA7:1F7E (talk) 19:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is archaism the step before obsolete but the term itself seems absent. meltBanana 00:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! In this article:

• "瑞士人迅速加入慢食队伍." Lianhe Zaobao. 27 September 2007 - Seems to discuss Betty Bossi briefly

It seems to be giving a Chinese name for Betty Bossi - But I'm not sure when the name begins and when it ends Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 18:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably 贝太厨房. Oda Mari (talk) 07:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that's right, though it means "Betty Kitchen". "Bossi" has not been given a transliteration in the article. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the "太" part (pronounced "tai") is only tenuously a transliteration of the "-tty" part of "Betty", it is probably intended to be used in the sense of "Mrs", so that the whole thing can also read as "Mrs Bei's Kitchen", which somewhat parallels "Betty Bossi"'s reference to a (fictitious) person. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could be either, I guess. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 10:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Elizabeth_II#Rewriting_some_lines. I wrote to several other admins and the editor himself, though neither of them responded. Spelling Style (talk) 20:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to recruit people to a discussion on an article talk page.

If you have a question for which there's a reference, we can help you. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about the best way to rewrite her early life, and did not feel it was necessary to copy and paste the whole thing again... What do people think of what's been written? Should it stay as is or be rewritten? Spelling Style (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't read what I wrote. You're asking us for our opinions on a piece of writing, or our suggestions for improvement. We're not here for that. We're here to help people answer their questions by producing references, citations, research material etc. That's why it's called a Reference Desk. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 23:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The OP might want to go to ::WP:RFC but not here. μηδείς (talk) 23:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 25

Hello,

I have reviewed all available style, punctuation, grammar, and article guidelines available on Wikipedia and I can't seem to find any definitive guides. Any recommendations? PeterWesco (talk) 00:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed some don't actually define the term in the first sentence. I hate this, since when you roll the mouse over a link you expect to see the definition pop right up. Having to actually click on the link to track down the definition disrupts the flow of reading the original page. StuRat (talk) 00:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We also have an expectation that the lede will be written for a general audience (or as general as that topic will allow), while complexities like derivations of formulae be further down, in the body of the article. StuRat (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for topic sentences on subsequent paragraphs, they don't all need to have one, since paragraph breaks aren't always due to a change in topic, they are sometimes just added because a paragraph on one topic gets too long. Also, the title of each section and subsection may sometimes serve as a topic sentence. StuRat (talk) 00:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this provides some level of guidance. I am working under the belief that the topic sentence defines the paragraph and all subsequent sentences are supporting details of the topic sentence. It is different for Encyclopedic information on new, or newer, topics that are in flux and the details are added, by various editors, in a semi-frantic fashion. Would you agree that, at some point, these articles need a full copy-edit and the facts grouped in clean paragraphs with topic sentences?PeterWesco (talk) 00:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly, yes. I often do exactly that, often to articles with which I had had no prior involvement. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 02:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a reluctance to impose style guidelines that will intimidate people with knowledge from adding material. Lots of people who have expertise on some topic are not particularly good writers. Looie496 (talk) 03:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To which I agree and my desire is to not impose rigid standards as there are countless articles that are composed of a collection of "one liners" or "quick blurbs". Everyone plays a roll and these contributions benefit Wikipedia and will eventually be structured. PeterWesco (talk) 03:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, my biggest pet peeve is the non-definitive lead sentence, along the lines of "The fratistats are a group of organisms belonging to the Fratistatidae". Or the lead sentence that defines the title of the article instead of what happened: "The Contested 2000 United States presidential election is an election that was held in the Ustited Nates on Yovember Nerth, in the year bum thousand and itch." I have rewritten the leads for a lot of articles such as fish, mammal, reptile with at least the goal of getting the subject defined in the first sentence and the main points of the entire article summarized in the lead. You run into two problems: experts who think a certain theory either should be mentioned in the lead although it's marginal, or should not be mentioned in the lead because it's become outmoded, even though historically it's hugely important (for example, Dinosaurs should not be mentioned in the lead of Reptile because the historical view that they were cold-blooded is false); and fanboiz who insist their fancruft (Gila monstaz is poisonous) has to go in the lead. Is this a ref desk question? μηδείς (talk) 03:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if I am understanding your question, this is a ref desk question that I posed. Similar to your pet peeve, I have come across numerous articles that have been "corrected" to eliminate punctuation, sentences, paragraph structure, etc. I do not consider it an achievement to reduce sentences to less than 10 words and forgo the use of commas. Today, while searching in the WP:Manual of Style, I was pleased to find the WP:COMMA section.  :) PeterWesco (talk) 05:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget that you can, memetically stated, ignore ALL the rules! Any rule which states that leads like the 'fratistat' example are OK (other, similar forms I can picture occurring somewhere include "fountain pens are a kind of pen" and "bedspreads are a fabric designed for placement on beds") should be ignored, IMHO.  dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 07:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My own pet peeve is tautological definition sentences in articles whose titles aren't proper names but self-descriptive phrases ("Elbonian grammar is the syntax and morphology of the Elbonian language"; or even worse: "Elbonian military decorations refers to military decorations awarded by Elbonia". But thank God we don't need to resort to IAR to solve this; the guidelines at WP:MOSBEGIN are actually quite reasonable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's something dictionaries are famous for, as the alternative would be to define the same root word over and over. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or you can get a loop definition, where a fweeble is defined as qwimstat, and a qwimstat is defined as a fweeble. Sometimes you can get quite a long loop, but the definition eventually returns to the original. In some cases this might be necessary, but they should define things in simpler terms, whenever possible, even if this requires more words. StuRat (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look through my contributions log for the phrase "my holy mission" ;) —Tamfang (talk) 00:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! What is Turkish for "A homeless man in Paris" - I want to add it to File:HomelessParis 7032101.jpg Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 07:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to Google Translate it's "Paris'te evsiz bir adam". Gabbe (talk) 08:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although the "bir" (meaning "one") is not really necessary. --Xuxl (talk) 11:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing the question earlier today, I also was going to guess "Paris'te evsiz bir adam" exactly, but refrained from posting since my Turkish skills are limited. In any case, remember that if you choose to set off the Turkish in all caps, the i's still must be dotted: "PARİS'TE EVSİZ BİR ADAM". Not keeping the dot of a dotted İi is a mistake in Turkish, because that produces another letter, the dotless Iı. --Theurgist (talk) 16:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Paris'teki evsiz (bir) adam" looks like a more correct option, though I'm still not completely sure about that. The -te ending turns Paris into a locative, and then the -ki ending turns the locative into an adjective. You really should consult a Turkish speaker for a definite answer (see Category:User tr). --Theurgist (talk) 15:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my understanding, the -ki suffix is only used when the noun is definite. So "Paris'teki evsiz adam" would mean "the homeless man in Paris" (as opposed to the one in Rome), whereas "Paris'te evsiz bir adam" would mean "a homeless man in Paris." Not completely sure either, though, I agree about finding a more fluent speaker. Lesgles (talk) 23:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In German, how are statements like "Thank you for doing something" said? When I look up phrases like "Thank you for visiting" or "Thank you for helping", they inevitably give the translations "Danke für Ihren Besuch" or "Danke für Ihre Hilfe" - in other words, they rewrite the sentence so the thing that the speaker is grateful for is a noun, rather than a verb. However, I've not found any site that explains what the more general pattern is, in cases where there's not necessary an obvious noun (apart from the verb infinitive) covering the act. For instance, "Thank you for bringing my glasses" - would that be something like "Danke für Ihr Bringen von(?) meine Brille" (Google translates that as "Danke, dass Sie meine Brille" or "Danke für die meine Brille", but that sounds grammatically odd, and like it's thanking someone for the glasses themselves, rather than the act of bringing them)? Smurrayinchester 11:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Thank you for bringing my glasses" would translate as Danke, dass Sie meine Brille gebracht haben. Google strangely fails to translate the verb. The general construction is with a dass subclause. --Wrongfilter (talk) 13:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both your phrase books and Wrongfilter. If "Xing" in "Thank you for Xing" can be conveniently converted into a noun, that's probably the most idiomatic way of saying it. If it can't, then a dass phrase is the way to go. Angr (talk) 13:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Doing", "visiting", "helping" are all nouns, not verbs. Bazza (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, not quite: they are gerunds, a special category in English that shares structural properties of nominal and verbal syntax. The reason for the observed difference with German is just that German does not have such a category. The syntactic frame "to thank (sb.) for (sth.)" ("danken für"), being prepositional, requires a nominal complement in both languages. English has this convenient trick of using a gerund phrase in that place, which can act like a noun phrase outwardly but still have fully verbal syntax internally. German can't do that; it only has nominalized infinitives, which are much more unambiguously noun-like than English gerunds. ("Danke fürs Blumengießen"; "Danke für das Gießen der Blumen"). That's why the most elegant option is often a paraphrase with a real noun, or the "that" alternative. Wir bedanken uns, dass Sie heute Wikipedia für Ihre Informationsbeschaffung gewählt haben, wünschen Ihnen noch einen schönen Nachmittag im Internet und hoffen, Sie bald wieder auf unseren Seiten begrüßen zu dürfen. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some disagreement whether the -ing forms used in the English present progressive tense are gerunds or present participles. In English, the two forms are morphologically identical, so you can't distinguish that way.

We just went through that question a few months back. The derivation is gerundive: "I am on singing > I am a-singing > I am singing". μηδείς (talk) 04:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't seem to find that discussion in the archives. When you say "gerundive", are you just using an adjectival form of "gerund", or do you really mean something parallel to the Latin gerundive (Cartago delenda est)? --Trovatore (talk) 04:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Italian, you can tell, and you use the gerund (e.g. facendo), which is an adverb, not the present participle (facente), which is an adjective. But in Italian, the auxiliary verb is stare ("to be", but in the sense of "to stand" or "to stay"), so conceivably an adverb makes sense.

In English, by that reasoning, because the auxiliary is plain to be, which normally takes an adjective, the -ing forms should be viewed as present participles. But you'll find sources claiming either. --Trovatore (talk) 21:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Oh, now I see that you weren't actually talking about the present progressive tense. Sorry about that.) --Trovatore (talk) 21:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, I didn't know Wikipedia had its own stewardesses. Angr (talk) 14:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The joke survived Google Translate, too. :>) Bielle (talk) 15:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, when I was in Germany a few months ago, I decided to speak German with Anglo-Saxon influence, and it got understood, but people said it was weird. There is no present progressive tense in German, because the gerund itself can only be used as an adjective, so 'ich bin dich folgende' would describe a state in which you are always following the person, which is a bit creepy. This is not what my friend wanted to hear me say when we were walking very quickly to the train station in a dark tunnel in Munich. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Ich bin dich folgende" is flat-out gibberish. You can use am + gerund or dabei + infinitive phrase to form a progressive in German, and folgen takes the dative, so: Ich bin dir am Folgen (I guess, though that still sounds mighty weird to my non-native-speaking ears) or Ich bin dabei, dir zu folgen (which is grammatical but not a pragmatically sensible way to say "I'm following you" to a friend in a dark tunnel near the train station). However, the am + gerund construction is only really standard when the verb doesn't have any object (accusative or dative), e.g. Wir sind am Grillen. Constructions with an object, like Ich bin den Wagen am Reparieren are grammatical only in the Rhineland dialect. See de:Rheinische Verlaufsform for more info. If the verb has a convenient verbal noun, you can use bei plus the verbal noun instead of dabei + infinitive clause, e.g. Ich bin bei der Arbeit for "I'm working" instead of Ich bin dabei, zu arbeiten. Angr (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She was one of the Germans relocated from Russia to Germany after the fall of the Soviet Union, having been one of the descendants of people who had followed Catherine the Great to Russia in the 18th Century, and still speaks the German of that time, so maybe this is why she understood it that way. Not sure, but this is how she explained it to me. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 04:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ Trovatore above, my bad for using gerundive, yes, I meant it as an adjectival form but should have known better. Here is at least one of the discussions of the "to be on gerunding" source of the progressive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2012_August_9 It has a link to a relevant discussion of the issue. μηδείς (talk) 04:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone. Smurrayinchester 17:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the general rules the name of this person should be /sɛrvij/. Though there is a quite homonymous word "servile" and the final part of the surname homographic with "ville". So it can be also /servil/. But my opinion that the surname came from the first word, and the bearer modified it to avoid any bad connotations, this is why there is not -ile, but -lle, which should be pronounced as /-ij/. How should it be pronounced anyway?--Luboslov Yezykin (talk) 13:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As /-ij/. Your opinion that there is any connection between the name and the word "servile" is highly unlikely, and any similarity is coincidental. The name is a toponymn from Serville, a village in France, and there is no plausible reason to suspect that the name of the village is related in any way to the word "servile", either. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it comes from a village Serville, then it should be pronounced with an /-il/. The word ville is pronounced that way, as are most if not all the place names ending in ville. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Judith on this. The "-ville" suffix in surnames is almost always pronounced "/vil/", similar to (but less diphthongy) the English word "veal", and the "l" isn't the "dark l" typical in final English L's. But it definately isn't usually /j/ at the endwhich would appear in words like "travail", or "work". (My mom's surname is a -ville name, and I've heard it spoken in Quebecois French many times. I don't think Metropolitan French deals with it much differently.) --Jayron32 16:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting then, what is the etymology of Serville? "Serre ville"? "Serf ville"?--Luboslov Yezykin (talk) 03:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on which Serville. For Serville in Eure-et-Loir département, it comes from Servo villa. "Villa" is the latin name of domain and "Servo" is the name of a germanic person: The domain of Servo. The reference: Les noms de personne sur le territoire de l'ancienne Gaule. For Serville in Belgium, and Daubeuf-Serville in Seine-Maritime French département, I couldn't find the etymology. — AldoSyrt (talk) 07:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believed it starts with the letter "O"

Basically, the meaning is active Communists who actively sought out "traitors" of the Soviet ideal, sometimes innocents tu curry favours with the authorities. Eisenikov (talk) 14:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the words for informant in Russian is осведомитель, osvedomitel'. Not sure if this is what you were looking for. Lesgles (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found out where I read about it, in an old article of Foreign Affairs. It's either a poor translation or a made-up word, because there doesn't seem to be that many relevant search results, even less if you drop the "soviet." Perhaps it has an alternate spelling. The word is oshestvennost, meaning "organised public opinion," namely in the form of Young Communists making sure everyone is upholding the Communist spirit, reporting lack of thereof to authorities. Link: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=obshestvennost+soviet&kl=ca-fr Eisenikov (talk) 04:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a common word общественность [4][5]. Though in the Soviet times it can bear additional connotations.--Luboslov Yezykin (talk) 06:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I notice a lot of places in Liège (province) contain the digraph "xh", both word-initially and word-internally. What sound is that meant to represent? My guess would be /x/ or /ç/ (being as "ch" signifies something else in French). 137.205.238.4 (talk) 15:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to xh (digraph), "In Walloon to write a sound that is variously /h/ or /ʃ/, depending on the dialect." So there you go. --Jayron32 16:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In modern French, a lot of these towns are pronounced with /ks/ instead of /x/ or /h/. For instance, fr:Fexhe-le-Haut-Clocher, according to the French Wikipedia, is [fɛx] in Walloon but [fɛks] in French. For fr: Xhendelesse, we find [(h)ɑ̃dlɛs]. Note that the Liège province is one of the few places where (some) people actually still aspirate the aspirated h. Lesgles (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

is the word fish plural or singular in the sentence below?

Fish can't live in the air.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.186.80.130 (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] 

Plural. If it were singular, it would have taken the indefinite article "a". Compare to "Dogs can't live in the water", which is gramatical, but "Dog can't live in the water" which is not. Since the only possible grammatical construction there uses the plural form of "dogs", it would mean that "fish" in the sense of your sentence is plural. --Jayron32 18:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he's asking about whether you want to know about an individual fish. The point is that fish can sometimes be a mass noun (as in "I like fish"), and in that case would be grammatically singular. My intuition is that the mass-noun sense of fish refers to fish as food, not as individual organisms, and that they therefore would not usually be "living" at all. --Trovatore (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but fish is also used in a plural, countable sense, as in "I have three fish in my aquarium at home" is a perfectly acceptable sentence. In the case of the sentence give, I think it is ambiguous, as both countable and non-countable nouns work. Consider "Cattle can't live in the water" vs. "Cows can't live in the water" vs. "Cow can't live in the water" The first two are fine, the third is not. Since "Fish" plays the same role as "Cattle" and "Cows" in the first two sentences here, there isn't any way at all to resolve the difference. --Jayron32 18:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is easy. Fish is uncountable when it is used as a kind of food: Fish is a good source of protein. Rice is a good source of carbohydrates. But the OP's example could be paraphrased as "Fishes aren't able to live in the air" which is unambiguously plural. The ambiguity lies only in the fact that fish happens to be an irregular plural, and can is a defective verb that shows no agreement with number. μηδείς (talk) 18:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a really good explanation, Medeis. The "defective verb" thing is something I hadn't thought of in this sentence, but it is a very relevent point. Good response. --Jayron32 19:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I also accept stars. The trick to questions like these is the use of paraphrase to see what distinctive elements will substitute for others. That's how I worked this one out--the essence of language is analogy--I didn't have an answer ahead of time. μηδείς (talk) 19:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I did the same thing (see the dog and cow examples), but I missed the verb altogether. That does make a difference here. I don't have the linguistic background you do, I suspect, based on question answers, which is why your answers here are usually spot on. --Jayron32 19:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, when I was teaching English in Korea, I had to constantly remind students of plurals, because Korean doesn't have plurals for most nouns. "I like fish" is ambiguous - does it refer to fish as food, or as animals? "I like dog" was a complicated one, because I was in Korea, and made the students laugh. Basically, the way I worked it out was, in cases like "I like chicken" vs. "I like chickens", we tend to count how many there are (usually just the one, or maybe a few), whereas with 'fish', they are caught by the hundreds or thousands, and not easy to count. Similarly, "I like rice", not 'rices' (which would refer to different types of rice), and then the usual joke about lice, as opposed to 'rice'. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I don't think the defective-verb thing is very explanatory here. It's true that can is a defective verb, in the sense that, for example, it has no past participle (you can say I have been able to but not *I have could), but it's not defective in the sense of lacking a third-person singular. It's just that the third-person singular happens to be identical with the third-person plural. That sort of thing happens all the time; by itself it doesn't make the verb defective.

Happens all the time? I am sorry, Trovatore, but unless you have some secret list of English verbs the rest of us don't know about, it is the defective verbs and only the defective verbs that lack a separate -s marked third person singular form. μηδείς (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What happens all the time is different spots in the paradigm happening to have identical forms (not limited to third-person-singular-present-indicative). "Defective" means that the spot is actually missing, not that the entry in that spot is identical to an entry in another spot.

"Can" has a third-person singular present indicative; it's "can". It doesn't have a past participle (or present participle, or infinitive, or second-person-plural-present-subjunctive) at all, which is what makes it defective. --Trovatore (talk) 17:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I mentioned the food aspect first. --Trovatore (talk) 09:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can say "I have canned", as in "I have canned some apples". KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...but that's a different verb. Marnanel (talk) 13:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is readily apparent if you exchange the ambiguous (both in terms of sing/plural and in terms of food/organisms) "Fish" for the unambiguous "Octopi" and "Caviar" respectively. --Dweller (talk) 12:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*twitch* Octopuses. Marnanel (talk) 13:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of people more intelligent than I am, and some of whom are experts on the order of octopoda, are equally happy to follow the OED. --Dweller (talk) 13:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*twitch twitch* Octopodes.  dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 19:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*twitch twitch twitch* Octopussy. --Jayron32 19:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ Trovatore above. That's a matter of analysis. One can surely say that the defective English auxiliaries lack a separate third person form that all normal verbs have. The fact that this is unique to all the defectives is telling. On the other hand one could perversely argue they aren't even defective, but just show suppletion with "to be able", etc., and that just as a third person form "exists" an infinitive "exists". Assuming I accept your narrow definition of defective, what other term would you use to describe the fact that these verbs and they alone lack inflected third persons singular forms? μηδείς (talk) 18:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have found these sources which refer to the English modals as defective and "neutral": [6] [7]. μηδείς (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So she seems to be using neutral to mean what you are calling lacking inflected third-person singular (I could quibble with that description too, but whatevs). Honestly I've always just called them modal verbs; I don't know that I ever thought of them as defective until you pointed it out, but sure, they're reasonably described as being defective in the past and present participle. The fact that their third-singular-present-active-indicatives are the same as the other present active indicatives, though, I don't think is reasonably described as defectiveness. It's just a morphological coincidence.

We have an extension-v-intension issue here — the verbs whose third-person-singular-active-indicatives are the same as the other active indicatives may be extensionally the same as the defective verbs (at least, I can't immediately think of a counterexample) but not intensionally. Compare with other languages: In Italian dirimere, "to resolve", is defective in the past participle (no idea why; the regular form would be *dirimuto, but apparently it just doesn't exist), but it's certainly not a modal, and as far as I know the paradigm is otherwise regular. --Trovatore (talk) 22:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 26

Even on those many occasions when I do my own thing writing-wise, I still like to know what the pedants would have preferred, if only to be prepared for criticism. Sometimes, I'm a touch unsure. A case in point is this bit of text I wrote in Music written in all 24 major and minor keys:

• E-sharp major and minor (4 and 1 double sharps respectively)

My inner pedant says I ought to have written:

• E-sharp major and minor (4 double sharps and 1 double sharp respectively).

There's a similar issue on the next line:

• F-flat major and minor (1 and 4 double flats respectively).

I'd appreciate the views of others as to whether this is a trifling point I can safely stop worrying about, or a shocking error I must correct immediately. Or something in between.

Thank you. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 03:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I am offended, (and I am clueless), but shouldn't this go on miscellaneous or entertainment or humanities? μηδείς (talk) 04:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was a language issue. Viz, whether it's OK to write "1 double sharps", or not. The context has no relevance to the issue in this case. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 04:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. You mean, should you have written "four sharps and one double"? That would be standard modern usage. μηδείς (talk) 05:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)It's a language question, isn't it? All answers will be subjective, but I think Jack's alternative structure reads a little more cleanly. If there had been more than one key change, the original structure would be a good start. You can probably get rid of "respectively," but that's also a personal preference. Zoonoses (talk) 05:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. Yes, if I finally understand you, the respectively makes the "4 and 1 double sharps" fine. μηδείς (talk) 05:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Sorry for assuming people would know that a "double sharp" is not just 2 sharp signs but a different symbol entirely - see sharp (music). -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 07:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"One double- and four sharps" might also work. μηδείς (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think your inner pedant's preference ("4 double sharps and 1 double sharp respectively") is the clearest and the least likely to be misunderstood. Angr (talk) 17:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the input, folks. I could rewrite it as per Angr, but I’m still undecided what I should do if the circumstances didn't lend themselves to a rewrite. I applied the issue to a contrived case:

• Roosevelt, Nixon and Bush senior were elected four, two and one times respectively.

I can't decide whether that ought to be "times" or "time".

Or whether it's undecideable, given the clash of plural and singular numbers in the same phrase. There has to be some rule that helps out here. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Seriously, the rule is "rewrite it so it isn't a problem". If you check any decent style guide or writing guidelines or anything like that, the first recomendation when dealing with an awkward construction is to avoid the problem altogether by choosing a completely different way to say what you are trying to say. If that means using a few more words, or something like that, fine. Economy and clarity are sometimes at odds, and when they are clarity should always win. --Jayron32 21:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would also go with something like "four times, two times, and one time, respectively". I can't find the section specifically about this in the Chicago Manual of Style (if one exists), but their advice is generally similar to what Jayron suggested, i.e. to find some other, less confusing way to write the thing, rather than rely on readers to know a convention for writing it the original way. "four times, two times, and one time" doesn't sound bad; the only problem would be if you tried to write something like "four times, twice, and once", which creates a noticeably non-parallel structure.  dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 21:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See, and I would just say "Roosevelt was elected four times, Nixon two times, and Bush Sr. once" or something like that. Unambiguous and clear, and it really isn't much longer than the initial list would be. --Jayron32 21:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Check that. I guess my unstated issue is that, if I rewrote it, some people would see it as being needlessly pedantic, or worse. Let me explain. To resolve the "1 double sharp/sharps" issue, I could rewrite it as I intimated up front and as Angr supported. But that introduces the perception that I'm teaching my readers how to suck eggs. It looks like I'm assuming they would misinterpret 4 and 1 double sharps as "4 sharps and 1 double sharp" (exactly as Medeis assumed above, initially), unless they're told explicitly it's "4 double sharps and 1 double sharp". Most people interested enough in the topic to be reading the article would not have made that reading error, and it seems sorta presumptuous to appear to be over-explaining this minor point and insulting their intelligence. On the other hand, I sometimes read articles of which I have zero subject matter knowledge, and I expect them to be comprehensible. Others do too, and if I write only for some assumed educated elite, I am lower than scum. That sort of writing may be fine in RL, where a writer is free to define his own audience, but here we need to consider the widest possible audience and all levels of knowledge (including none). So, I have to re-write it, and that resolves the "1 double sharps" issue.
• Thanks for letting me think this through and indulging me as I sailed perilously close to the edge of the world, Guidelines-wise. Sometimes, writing my thoughts is the only way I can process them. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading an old book recently, and some of the entries in the book's tables were simply: -do- . I'm assuming from the context that this is meant to equate to "ditto" or equivalent marks (like " ), but can someone confirm? Thanks muchly :) -- saberwyn 10:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. See Ditto mark, and particularly the image used in the article, File:PerthGazette 1833 06 01 1 ditto.jpg, which contains examples. - Karenjc 11:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, that clipping looks like a modernist poem, especially if you read it as "do": "Prime Irish pork, in barrels / Ditto American, do, do. . ." Lesgles (talk) 15:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was in a museum here in Australia two days ago and saw a hand-written table from around 1860 which used the "do" abbreviation. The usage involved putting a longish horizontal line either side, like "- do -", as suggested in the title here. HiLo48 (talk) 22:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the meaning and English translation of "nachgeordneter Zweig" as it appears in de:Johanna von Hanau-Münzenberg? bamse (talk) 16:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's what you'd call a cadet branch in English - "Zweig" in this case means a branch of a noble family, and "nachgeordnet" because the branch is descended from some younger son of the family (and thus is not the main line) -- Ferkelparade π 17:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. bamse (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What in the world does Pat Condell mean by his use of Scandinavian to describe The Guardian 30 seconds into this clip? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess he thinks that Scandinavian countries are as anti-Israel as he perceives the Gruaniad to be. I'm not up to speed on Swedish-Israeli foreign relations and so couldn't comment on the veracity of his thesis. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't figure out if he is using Scandinavian primarily as if it were a regular adjective with which to modify intensity ("The sun shone with a Scandinavian intensity"?) or in a broader scope as if the Guardian itself is somehow Scandinavian. μηδείς (talk) 18:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I parse it as "hates Israel with the intensity of Scandinavians", fwiw. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scandinavian is here used as a reference to the Scandinavian countries being more inclined to supporting the Palestinians, and with them, Hamas and Hizbollah, and condemning Israel for defending its citizens from rocket attacks. (Whether such a perception is justified is, obviously, up for discussion.) I don't know the extent to which this applies to official Swedish/Norwegian-Israeli foreign relations, as much as it would refer to the politically correct segments of Scandinavian media/opinion leaders, and problems of anti-Semitism amongst immigrants in Scandinavia ('Jew' being a frequently used a condescending swear-word in schools), which has been handled so poorly that Scandinavian Jews don't dare display their Jewish identity^[1] and with some even choosing aliyah over staying in the country where they were born and raised.^[2] V85 (talk) 19:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am definitely not looking for a discussion of the politics. My main concern is, how would one linguistically describe the difference between the adjectival uses here? One could interpret Scandinavian as merely an idiomatic modifier of intensity, as if Scandinavians were typically intense, as in "He always plays the car radio Scandinavianly intense; the volume cranked to 11." (Although I have never heard it used that way.) Or one could assume, which seems the consensus, that analogously he meant the Guardian's intensity on the issue was similar to the intensity of Scandinavians on the issue. How might one describe the two different ways the adjective is being used in these examples using linguistic terms? It reminds me of Zulu, which has a small closed class of real adjectives for size and color, and has to use what are more like stative verb phrases along the lines of which-is-Scandinavian elsewhere. μηδείς (talk) 19:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wan't to get into a political debate here, but your^{[clarification needed]} description of the situation for Jews in Sweden is nothing like how it is generllay perceived. It seems you have been watching a "documentary" or read an "article" that had no interest in fair or unbiased reporting. The GuardianCondell is probably right in that there is comparatively strong anti-Israel sentiment in Sweden, though that doesn't automatically mean there's antisemitism, as the supporters of Israel always seem to want to imply./81.170.148.21 (talk) 21:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What we have: Antisemitism in Sweden, Antisemitism in Norway. Not pretty reading. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That kind of coatrack articles never are. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How clever you are, 81.170.148.21. First stating that you don't wan't{ [sic] to get into a political debate, and then doing just that. I have now added several main-stream media sources to your 'citation needed' request; it seems pretty clear that the Jews who have been asked have experience what they themselves would term 'anti-Semitism'. The point here is that while 1 in 3 Jewish children are harassed for being Jewish, compared to only 5% of Muslims, 'islamophobia' receives a lot mot attention than anti-Semitism. V85 (talk) 06:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to "support" Hamas and/or Hizbollah when you don't have to live next door to them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for those refs. Now can someone suggest an answer to the language question as to the two types of uses of the adjective, or do I have to start a new thread? μηδείς (talk) 18:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an amateur linguist, my answer will only be partial, but I think that as has been pointed out on the talk page, the use of adjective here has more to do with rhetoric than with linguistics. I therefore think that words such as 'analogy' or 'metaphor' are probably what describe this use of 'Scandinavian' best. (I wouldn't go for 'simile', since the rule of thumb for that is the use of words such as 'like' or 'as'.) Furthermore, given that there are many things that could be described as 'typically Scandinavian' (and whether 'anti-Semitism', in fact, could be counted as 'typically Scandinavian' is, indeed, a separate discussion with its own merits), I would suggest that metonymy is also a word that could be used in this context. V85 (talk) 18:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 27

Hello L.L. (Learned Linguists) ! I’m looking (to add some "Références culturelles" to the WP fr version of Replaceable You (The Simpson) for an office slang expression meaning that one, through obsequiousness, hard work, constant desk attendance, and usual covering for his department head, finally supplants him and takes over his job. I’m pretty sure that you don’t lack expressions as evocative as, say, "jaywalking" . In french , we’d use, speaking of the ousted one : il s’est fait grimper sur le dos (he has been back-climbed upon) , or, more vulgarly but quite usually il s’est fait baiser . Thanks a lot beforehand for your answers, t.y. Arapaima (talk) 06:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned many different things. An employee who moves up by Machiavellian means might be called a "back-stabber". One who advances by obsequiousness might be called a "suck-up", or, more colorfully, a "brown-noser" (must I explain why ?). One who advances by hard work might be called a "ladder climber". While you didn't mention it, one who advances via sexual favors is said to have "slept their way to the top". Perhaps the term closest to what you want, a combo of all of those methods, is when somebody is said to have "clawed their way to the top". StuRat (talk) 06:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Using others as "stepping stones" (as in (I'm Not Your) Steppin' Stone) would appear to have a similar meaning to il s’est fait grimper sur le dos... AnonMoos (talk) 11:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the "snake in the grass"; but English doesn't have a single term that depicts the brown-noser who is also a back-stabber. "Brown-nosing backstabbing Judas" about covers it, though. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the enlightments ! You'll find some other french equivalents (along with credits, ;-)) in Part II of § "Références culturelles" of the french version of Replaceable You (note N°4) . T.y. (& see you later)Arapaima (talk) 08:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I note that you also added "the casting couch", which really only applies to show business. StuRat (talk) 11:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the article on Haigh–Westergaard stress space, how is the surname 'Haigh' pronounced? What country/region does this name likely belong to? Thanks - DSachan (talk) 07:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Malcolm Westergaard was British according to one website (though another website says he was Danish), so I'm guessing that Haigh was British too. Haigh is a common British surname, usually pronounced /heɪg/ i.e. hay with a final g. (later note) Westergaard was later Assistant Professor of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics at the University of Illinois. Dbfirs

I've found Professor Bernard Parker Haigh (1884–1940) at last! He graduated from Glasgow University in 1904, so he might have been Scottish. His early work was on stress fracture in brass, and he was an instructor in applied mechanics at the Royal Naval College, Greenwich when he received his MBE in 1917. He later became professor there. He married Mildred May Cole in 1915, and his son Ian Parker Haigh of Rockstone Management in Torquay, Devon, UK might know whether he pronounces his name like high, hay or the same as Hague as I guessed. His son took part in Dynamic waves in civil engineering: proceedings of a conference organized by the Society for Earthquake and Civil Engineering Dynamics, held at University College of Swansea on 7-9 July 1970. Are Haigh and Westergaard sufficiently notable to have Wikipedia articles? Dbfirs 09:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have Haigh. Fwiw, I've known people with Haigh as a given name, and as a surname, and I know Gideon Haigh by reputation and from having seen him on TV many times. They all pronounce their names exactly like Hayg. Not Hi. -- Jack of Oz (Talk) 09:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Jack is almost certainly correct in assuming (as I did) that Bernard pronounced his surname /heɪg/, but there are places like Haigh Hall in Haigh, Greater Manchester where the pronunciation is hay. Most people with this surname who have changed the pronunciation to High have also changed the spelling to match. B P Haigh doesn't appear on the Haigh disambiguation page. Should he? (Does having a stress space named after you make you notable?) Dbfirs 10:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A possible odd word for spelling. Is it sizeably or sizably or both? If both, why? Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 13:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I probably need a coffee, but... How would you use such a word, however it's spelled? --Dweller (talk) 13:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, Wikipedia has grown siz(e)ably in recent years? Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 14:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google ngrams indicates that the e-less version (sizably) has always been the preferred form, though "sizeably" is known, it is a later creation and has never been as prominent. And before anyone jumps on this as "damn internet fools can't spell", the "sizeably" form predates the invention of the internet by many decades, having started appearing in the 1920s. --Jayron32 13:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could the more common form in ngrams be a result of an British/American English issue? I first wondered about this spelling when finding that OED only has sizeably and that in it's British English dictionary. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 14:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a British/American difference. The OED (you looked at "Oxford Dictionaries", which is a different dictionary) gives sizable as the main form but sizeable as a variant spelling and says "sizeable has always been by far the more frequent spelling". But both M-W and the AHD (American) give sizable as the first spelling. Compare ageing (British) and aging (American). Lesgles (talk) 16:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which was discussed at some length here a few weeks ago. Alansplodge (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't János Ferenc Sizábly a famous Austro-Hungarian fighter pilot in WWI? μηδείς (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I heard he was a big deal. --Jayron32 18:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 28

Hi all,
After looking for but finding no refs I added a translation at Robin Hood#References to Robin as Earl of Huntington of

Hear undernead dis laitl stean

Lais Robert Earl of Huntingun

Near arcir der as hie sa geud

An pipl kauld im Robin Heud

Sic utlaws as hi an is men

Vil England nivr si agen.

as

Here underneath this little stone

Lies Robert Earl of Huntington

Never archer there as he so good

And people called him Robin Hood

Such outlaws as him and his men

Will England never see again

I'm only familiar with the Middle English of late C14 London (for obvious reasons), so a few questions.

• For starters, is this translation complete bollocks, or did I get it mostly right?
• The <c> in "arcir" and "sic" would appear to me pronounced /tʃ/. Is this from the Old English pronunciation of OE <c> as either /k/ or /tʃ/?
• It's a quote of a quote of a quote. In the original, would the <d> in "dis" and "der" possibly have been <ð> and pronounced /ð/?
• I wonder about "laitl" and "lais". The <ai> in "laitl" might conceivably be like /lɛtɫ/ in some Modern Scots, but would seem somewhat questionable in the context of Early Middle English. The <ai> in "lais" seems to be anachronistically like the MnE "lies", /laiz/.

Your thoughts?--Shirt58 (talk) 11:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably see Robin Hood's Grave, particularly this sentence: Thomas Gale, Dean of York, claimed to have found a poetic epitaph with the date of death given as 24 December 1247, although the language in which it is written is not the Middle English of the time, suggesting it is merely a forgery.

I don't think you can translate the poem from Middle English, since it isn't in Middle English to start with, and there are errors which mean it's difficult to tell what the author intended. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 12:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it doesn't really look like original Middle English. It seems to be 19th century Yorkshire dialect [8]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should it be "he and his men" instead of "him and his men"? Rmhermen (talk) 16:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it's an object of as: Try rearranging it as "England will never see again such outlaws as him and his men." Deor (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like modern Scots - with some idiosyncratic spelling. Roger (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The translation looks spot on. The phrase him and his men is in apposition to outlaws which is the direct object of the verb see in the following line, so it takes the case of outlaws. The word as doesn't make it accusative. One could say "Such outlaws as he and his men/Will never England plague again" in which the nominative he following as would be correct. μηδείς (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The earliest references I could find for the epitaph is in a letter of Josiah Relph who said he got it from a friend, who in turn got it from Gale's posthumous papers. It is also mentioned as being found in an appendix to Ralph Thoresby's Ducatus Leodiensis which I couldn't locate. There is no first hand claim from Gale to have found it, that I know of, it is just as likely to be written by Relph or Thoresby or Gale unless earlier evidence is found. It is certainly very unlike pre-Chaucerian middle English in vocabulary, orthography, grammar or form. meltBanana 19:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From a book (Robyn Carr FORBIDDEN FALLS (2010)): In the story playing in Humboldt County, California, a priest coming from Seattle inspects his new chruch and states: "It didn't have more rooms - not even for teaching terry..." Later on he refused to wear sweaters or a tweed jacket when he arrived for teaching terry.

Question: Any idea what could be meant by terry? References ? Thanks! GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 13:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wiktionary.org, "terry" is "a type of coarse cotton fabric covered in many small raised loops that is used to make towels, bathrobes and some types of nappy/diaper" -- what I would call terry cloth. This fits in with the fact that he was concerned about sweaters or tweed jackets. Maybe "teaching terry" means teaching people to make the small raised loops? Duoduoduo (talk) 14:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, i think we got it: It's an "Search&Replace"-Error in the german translation. In the english text it's just "teaching", in the german version it's "teaching terry". Thanks a lot, --Tröte (talk) 15:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

During a disagreement, one party is told that they are being "too meta" about it. This is meant to be conciliatory and to convince them that the disagreement is worth dropping. But what does it mean? 92.13.74.22 (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, being "meta" is a slangish term for treating a situation abstractly -- for trying to deal with it on the basis of universal philosophical principles rather than paying attention to the specific circumstances. Our article meta discusses this usage. Looie496 (talk) 17:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aristotle's book Metaphysics was named that because it came after his book Physics in the canon. Since the former books is more abstract than the later, meta- became reinterpreted later to mean more abstract. So you can have historical and ethical arguments about whether an event had a certain effect or whether a certain action is justifiable, or you can have metahistorical arguments about how history itself is actually to be done or metaethical arguments about whether value systems are necessary or arbitrary. Complaining that someone is too meta in an argument means he is being to abstract, probably putting methodological concerns above the facts of the case. If you want a prime example of meta at wikipedia, click "talk" at the to of this page and read the reference desk discussion page. Online Etymological Dictionary is always a good start: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=meta- μηδείς (talk) 18:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Over at Wiktionary, there's a user with the delightful name I'm so meta even this acronym. Angr (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does it? It links to meta-discussion, anyway, which "may seem a waste of time" as that article says.  Card Zero  (talk) 20:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I particular direct your attention to the section Meta#Quine and Hofstadter. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me give an example. Say we want to ask people their names and then record them at the start of a meeting. Here the "data" is the actual names, while "metadata" is information about the names, like how many there will be, how long they will be, whether they will include first, middle, and last names, titles, etc. If somebody insists that we can't start taking names until we set all the parameters for them, then we might say "they are being too meta". Think of Sheldon Cooper on The Big Bang Theory. StuRat (talk) 22:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 29

50 to 60 years ago in Australia, as I was learning many of the technicalities of English, convicted criminals were sent to gaol. Sometimes the word prison was used to mean the same thing. I knew that gaols were jails in America. Sadly, the far more interestingly spelt gaol has now been almost universally replaced by jail in Australia, but prison is still a synonym. I get the impression, however, that jail and prison are different things in the USA, but I haven't been able to properly pin it down from context. Is this the case, and where did the two very distinct spellings of gaol and jail come from? HiLo48 (talk) 01:20, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are held in jail, then sent to prison. The spelling gaol is a Norman French one, the j spelling is from the standard pronunciation. As always, see etymology online: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=gaol. μηδείς (talk) 01:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, I believe they generally use a different term depending on the level of government: city/county jail or state/federal prison/penitentiary. StuRat (talk) 01:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I had forgotten about penitentiary. It's clearly American, because my Australian spell checker has no idea what it is. Thank you. HiLo48 (talk) 02:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised you don't know any felons, Stu. A jail is literally a cage where you are held before conviction; prisons are only for imprisonment to serve time afterward. A penitentiary, where one does penance, is a politically correctly named prison, not a jail. Again, see etymology online. μηδείς (talk) 01:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jails are used post-conviction as well. Usually for misdemeanors. The clearer demarcation is probably that jails are run by cities or counties; prisons, by states or the federal government. I don't know where remanded federal defendants are held pending trial; maybe the feds have an arrangement with the counties to use the county jail. (I have never heard of a "federal jail"). --Trovatore (talk) 02:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did find this document from uscourts.gov. It states, in part "At an initial appearance, a judge advises the defendant of the charges filed, considers whether the defendant should be held in jail until trial" and later "A sentence may include time in prison," which matches the usage of "jail" being before-trial incarceration and "prison" in after-trial incarceration. I agree with you that jails are often used for short-term incarcerations of people convicted of misdemeanors; though that is likely as an expediency; given the difference in security between the two types of facilities, it makes sense. It would sound like a very odd usage in the U.S. for someone to say "I was arrested and spent the night in prison before posting bail". The word used there is almost invariably "jail". --Jayron32 03:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's expediency. The idea is that misdemeanors, even when they attract a custodial sentence, are usually not considered bad enough to put the person in prison. --Trovatore (talk) 03:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Here we go. Regarding Trovatore's question about "Where remanded federal defendants are held prior to trial", see this page. It only covers the state of Georgia, but it notes that defendents in Federal trials are under the custody of the United States Marshals Service and are placed in detention in several Georgia facilities. It lists several facilities that are used, all of which look to be either local jails (some are called "pre-trial detention facilities) or the local U.S. Penitentiary (Prison). So, it looks from that small sample size that the Feds don't have a system of pre-trial detention facilities (jails) of their own; they'll either use the local system where the trial is to be held, or the nearest Federal Prison. (post EC response) I didn't mean exactly expediency, but what you said: minor offenses don't demand the rigamorole that a prison does, so they just use the jail system. But they are distinct systems with distinct primary purposes. --Jayron32 03:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still working off that last link, United States Penitentiary, Atlanta notes that they have a seperate pre-trial detention facility, implying that pretrial defendents are not held in "general population" with convicted criminals, again noting the preservation of distinct "jail" and "prison" systems with different purposes and facilities, even if they occupy parts of the same "campus". --Jayron32 03:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than "A jail is literally a cage where you are held before conviction", I'm assuming that it should read "A jail is literally a cage where you are held before trial." There's a subtle difference ;-) HiLo48 (talk) 02:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And in many US counties, prisoners serving time for misdemeanors often serve it in the county jail, rather than in state prison. Indeed, in this era of various levels of government trying to economize by screwing the next level down, many states have tried to get counties to house longer term prisoners. -- Elphion (talk) 02:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'm fairly certain Medeis is mostly correct here in the U.S. usage. I have a close family member in "the industry" (well, I sleep next to her that is). Jail is where you go when you are arrested and where they hold you when you are on trial. Prison is where you go to be punished. That thing in the back of Andy Taylor's office where Otis used to sleep off his hangover? That was a jail. That place where that Andy Dufresne crawled through half a mile of the most foul smelling shit was a prison. Now, sometimes because of overcrowding, one can be pressed into service for the other purpose: convicts can be kept in Jails waiting for a spot in a prison to open up, and when the local jail is full, they will send a recently arrested person to a prison if they don't have the space. But generally, they are different sorts of detention facilities for different purposes. Prison#United_States also notes that jails may be used to house prisoners on shorter-term sentences, usually less than 1 year. BTW, I checked the etymonline link that Medies provided. Seriously, I'm still rofling. It's usually a pretty straight-laced resource. But that shit was funny. --Jayron32 02:13, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The formal name for many of what we sloppily call "prisons" is "correctional facilities". But those inside are still imprisoned; just as people in jails and gaols are imprisoned. None of them are emcorrectionalfacilitied. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The brain is a funny thing, liguistically speaking. When JackofOz used the em- prefix humorously there, meaning "to be put inside of" I'm reminded of my singularly favorite use of the prefix in French, for the verb "enculer". If one doesn't know what that means, find the definition of the word "cul" in French first, and all will become clear. I don't know why I had to share, but whenever someone uses the em- or en- or im- prefix in that way, I always have that little chuckle from the French word. I have no idea why. I guess my brain is broken. Well, that and the fact that I felt the need to share all of this means my brain is broken... --Jayron32 02:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're brain might be a bad thing, but my mind's such a sweet thing. --Trovatore (talk) 02:52, 29 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Your shore about that, Trov?  :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]