Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

February 2

What is Neutral Spanish?

While browsing NetFlix, I noticed many movies have subtitle options like this:

English, French, Spanish (Neutral), Chinese Simplified, Portuguese

What is Neutral Spanish? RudolfRed (talk) 03:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

See Standard Spanish. Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 04:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. That helps! RudolfRed (talk) 16:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Phonetic evolution, or lack thereof, of classical personal names

How did phonetic evolution affect classical names? My first impression is that "learnedness" prevented many changes from happening, so "David" and, to a lesser degree, "Alexander" are recognizably similar to their respective original versions (rather than French having ?*Dage and German ?*Tät for David (did I get the sound-changes right?)). "John", however, seems to have taken the full brunt of linguistic change in every language. Can someone please point me to a discussion of this?
Also, did "unchanged" names (like David) sometimes develop doublets with evolved versions of the same names?
I'm also interested in the process by which biblical names, specifically, were updated in modern European languages from Greek- and Latin-based versions to resemble Hebrew more closely (Josue > Joshua, etc.).
Many thanks! Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 04:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Biblical names were borrowed into the Germanic languages centuries after Grimm's law had applied, so that Grimm's law changes would not be expected to be found. (However, local dialect forms in far south German dialects may have been affected by a second much later round of changes somewhat similar in effect to Grimm's law; I don't know the details.) Protestant translators of the Bible into English in the late 16th and early 17th centuries made a conscious decision to go back to the original Hebrew for many (but not all) Old Testament names, while Catholics stuck with the old Latin Vulgate forms of the names (mostly straightforward Latin adaptations of forms found in the Septuagint / Greek New Testament, where all Hebrew sounds not found in Hellenistic Koine Greek were omitted or clumsily indirectly indicated, case endings were sometimes added, etc.) until at least 1750. Some well-known or commonly-occurring names were left unaffected (Solomon, Moses, etc.), while other Old Testament names had their English forms fairly systematically revised in the light of Hebrew. This led to such anomalies as the Hebrew name ישוע Yeshua, Greek Ιησους being transcribed into English as "Jesus" in Biblical passages when it refers to Christ, but "Jeshua" in other contexts... AnonMoos (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

In the case of German, I'm thinking of the High German consonant shift, in which d > t in 8th or 9th century, certainly after all Germans were converted to Christianity. In the case of French, surely the disappearance of voiced intervocalic fricatives happened long after France was completely Christian? Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 04:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I think some of the difference must be due to the fact that before the Reformation, New Testament names were much more common than Old Testament names in daily life. In French, for instance, Matthieu, Jean, Paul, Pierre, etc. were all common names and thus had gallicized forms, whereas David, Abraham, Isaac, etc. would usually only be encountered in the church liturgy (or among Jews, of course), so they stayed closer to their Latin forms. I think we can say the same for German and English. Lesgles (talk) 05:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Though Matthieu seems not to have evolved fully (> ?*Macheu). On the other hand Jacob seems to have been fairly common in France, but it is only slightly modified as Jacques. Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 13:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Still, all these names did under the Great Vowel Shift in English, so we have [eɪ] rather than [ɑː] in David and Abraham and [aɪ] rather than [iː] in Isaac. Angr (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

English/French

je voudrais militer dans ce pataquès car les traductions automatiques en ligne, sont à la limite du Français "petit Nègre" ... Et Wikipedia mérite mieux, il m'est arrivé il y a qq instants de vouloir juste rectifier le français correct,la machine, m'a botté en touche! ! ! amitiés JCQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johannkevinzero (talk • contribs) 15:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

C'est Wikipédia anglaise. La Wikipédia françaises est à http://fr.wikipedia.org. Bonne chance! --Jayron32 18:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Et on y peut poser des questions ici. Marco polo (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Ryuichi Sakamoto translate lyrics

I copied this from WP:RD/H. Nyttend (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Ryuichi Sakamoto's song "Diabaram", heard here, lyrics found here, what do those lyrics mean in English, and what language are they originally in? Bus stop (talk) 23:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds African to me, and Google says that he wrote that song with Youssou N'Dour, so I'll guess that the language is Serer. Can't help with translation. It says elsewhere in the Internet that "diabaram" is "my wife" in Senegalese (which is, strictly speaking, a misnomer, because there's no single Senegalese language, there are at least three different languages spoken in Senegal, not including French.)--Itinerant1 (talk) 04:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Itinerant1. The language might be Serer as the lyricist of the song is Youssou N'Dour. According to the ja article of the album "BEAUTY", it's a song about a man who falls in love with his friend's lover. Oda Mari (talk) 05:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, everybody. It's a nice song. I hadn't a clue what it could mean, as the language is utterly unfamiliar to me, as are most languages. Bus stop (talk) 13:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This: https://www.metafilter.com/123196/Diabaram-diabaram-diabaram-nena-dou-ko-baye says that it is in Wolof (corroborated by another military-seeming forum where someone asks for a translation as his Wolof is a bit rusty. The page I reference also says that there is a translation to French on some album cover 'which is almost enough to get the gist'

February 3

closer to greedy

Do we have a specific English word that describes a person who fools someone to get the biggest share in something. e.g money, food etc. greedy is close but is there a word closer to that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.201.250.56 (talk) 04:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Conman, hustler, fraudster... --TammyMoet (talk) 10:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Swindler? rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Why would someone fool someone else to get the biggest share of something? Wouldn't that just be 'advice'? KägeTorä - (影かげ虎とら) (TALK) 12:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean "avarice"? Bus stop (talk) 14:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Manipulative? --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Deceitful? Deceptive? Underhanded? Slimy? Cheating? Here's a bunch more. How about mendacious? Bus stop (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

In American English, the term Republican comes close to your meaning. ;-) Marco polo (talk) 14:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Or just government in general for the last 30 years in the UK. KägeTorä - (影かげ虎とら) (TALK) 14:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

If you're looking for a noun, I think we should add "charlatan" as the best match, though "confidence man" would be close also, or "mountebank". How to turn these into adjectives (charlatanish? mountebanklike?) is beyond me. And I'll admit, they're not an ideal fit for the concept you're describing, though I think they're awfully close. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 06:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

They are close to the word I'm describing but not exactly the right one. Guess there's not really an English translation for this word. Thanks everyone. I learned new words though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.201.250.56 (talk) 07:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I think duplicitous is fairly close in meaning to what we are aiming for. Bus stop (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

February 4

caisson - refine meaning?

I understand what a caisson is in reference to building bridges (sinking the foundations). But I can't figure out how the military "caisson" is related to that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srsr esq (talk • contribs) 05:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

See limbers and caissons. The only thing that the two have in common is that both are "box"es of a sort. Looie496 (talk) 05:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srsr esq (talk • contribs) 16:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

SimSimi

How to correctly pronounce "SimSimi"? Would it be "Sim-Sim-i" or "Sim-Si-mi" or else? Thank you so much. --Aristitleism (talk) 09:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

In order to get the answer 'from the horse's mouth' I asked SimSimi. He/She/It gave the answer, and I quote: "NOO TELLAH CAUSE IT'S TE RITE WAY". Ahem... - Cucumber Mike (talk) 09:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Jokes - the translation of, and for connected purposes

"Two cows are standing in a field. One says "Have you heard about that 'mad cow disease'?", and the other one replies "Doesn't bother me; I'm a duck!".

Can this, and others like it, be accurately translated into other languages? Is word play/punning really such a brick wall against the translation from (or into) English?

doktorb _words^deeds 10:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Unless there is a word play here that I'm completely missing, this particular joke should be translatable into most languages that have a term for "mad cow disease" which includes the correct meaning of the word "mad". Which is, I think, almost all of them. Mainly because this is a very recent term that originated in the English-speaking world and got translated into other languages. It does not work in Russian, because the informal name of the disease got translated into Russian as "furious/rabid/berserk cow disease". But that seems to be an exception. In German, Spanish and French, "mad" in "mad cow disease" becomes "wahn", "locas", and "folle", which seem to have correct connotations in all three cases.--Itinerant1 (talk) 11:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't get the joke as it is. 92.80.9.138 (talk) 11:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

You're not missing much. Contrast sense 1 of the word mad with sense 6. Dbfirs 12:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Er... I don't think that joke is an example of what you are describing. In this case, the punchline is that the other cow is already insane, correct?

Correct. Not sure what Dbfirs is laughing at. Alansplodge (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Well I was groaning rather than laughing, but, yes, that is exactly the point I was linking. Dbfirs 21:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see what "sense 6" has to do with it. First cow is worried about going mad (insane); second cow isn't worried because she's already mad (insane). Boom boom! Alansplodge (talk) 01:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

But you are missing the point of the question. Bovine spongiform encephalopathy didn't gain its common name because cow psychologists (if they exist) judged the cows to have lost their reason! Dbfirs 20:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

You wouldn't have any problems with it in translation. Mad can be substituted for the other language's word for insane/crazy and the punchline would still be funny. Though I must say "mad-cow disease" is a discrete name and not usually translated.

A more apt example would be something like: "I wondered why the baseball was getting bigger. Then it hit me."

In the latter case, the phrase "It hit me" in English, in addition to its literal meaning, is synonymous with "I realized why", "It occured to me", "It dawned on me", "I got it" etc. In other languages it may not. In our language for example, there is no equivalent. The closest we have is the matter-of-fact "Kabalo na ko" ("I know now") and the interjections "Aw oo!" ("Ah, yeah!") and "Tumpak!" ("That's right!").-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 13:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

That's probably closer to what I meant :) It's always interested me, how certain jokes can be understood and others not, and how certain idioms lose all meaning just by crossing a geographic border. Thanks for the replies so far. doktorb _words^deeds 13:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The jokes which don't translate in this fashion can almost all be classified as puns - jokes which rely on the same word (or two similar sounding words) having different meanings. The humor comes from the implicit or explicit substitution of one of the meanings where a straight reading of the joke would imply the other one. ... And the reason that translation is difficult is that other languages might not have the two different meanings connected by the single word/phrase. In fact, even in the origin language, the joke relies on precise word choice. "I wondered why the baseball was getting bigger. Then I understood.", "Have you heard about that 'bovine spongiform encephalopathy'? - Doesn't bother me; I'm a duck!", and "Any man seriously considering marriage ought to be institutionalized." aren't really jokes. (Although the cow one has some residual humor from the cow calling himself a duck, as ducks are funny.) -- 67.40.215.173 (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

There could also be jokes that don't translate because of cultural differences, like "She's getting married again ? What color wedding dress will it be this time ? Plaid ?". This relies on the "virgins wearing white wedding dresses" culture. StuRat (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

For another example of one that might not translate: "Any man seriously considering marriage ought to be committed." This relies on dual meanings of "committed", as "dedicated to making it work" and "confined to an institution for the treatment of mental disorders". StuRat (talk) 20:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Or "A man isn't complete until he marries. Then he's finished".

I'm also reminded of "If I said you have a beautiful body, would you hold it against me". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Marriage is a wonderful institution, but who wants to live in an institution? Angr (talk) 11:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

A. "How are you?" B. "Better" A. "Better?" B. "Better not to ask" ...is a mildly funny joke, favoured by one of my family, who uses it [wearingly often] in English, German and Hebrew. For all I know, it may work in most languages. --Dweller (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

"Lycidas" by John Milton (page on Wikipedia)

How do you pronounce "Lycidas"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.149.73 (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Listen 77.125.249.87 (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, you can know how Yale graduates are going to pronounce it: [1] --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

"International Lease Finance Corporation" in Spanish

Hi! For es:International Lease Finance Corporation (en:International Lease Finance Corporation) I want to explain what the name "International Lease Finance Corporation" means.

So would the best translation be "Empresa Internacional de Arrendamientos financieros y Finanzas"? Would the translation depend on the national variety of Spanish?

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking for languages, other than English, in which "to be" and "to see" rhyme.

77.125.249.87 (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Spanish: ser and ver. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The closest German word for English "to be" is "sein", but there is also the close "bestehen" (more like "to exist") which rhymes with "sehen", "to see". --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Italian and Portuguese work.  Omg †  osh  21:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I speak neither Italian nor Portuguese, so would you like to add more details? 77.125.249.87 (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Italian: essere and vedere. Portuguese: ser and ver. Derived from Latin, as with the Spanish. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Italian "essere" and "vedere" do not rhyme. The former gets stressed on the first (or third-last) syllable (ES-se-re), the latter on the second or second-last syllable (ve-DE-re). ---Sluzzelin talk 10:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

If you use some less-usual words in Latin, they rhyme, existere + specere/adspicere/inspicere. (Videre wouldn't rhyme in classical Latin but I guess you could get away with it in medieval/ecclesiastical Latin). 09:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but in Italian, essere [ˈɛssɛre] doesn't rhyme with vedere [veˈdeːre], and in Latin, exsistere [ɛk(s)ˈsɪstɛrɛ] doesn't rhyme with specere [ˈspɛkɛrɛ], a(d)spicere [a(d)ˈspɪkɛrɛ] or inspicere [ĩːˈspɪkɛrɛ]. Angr (talk) 10:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, the "ɛrɛ" parts rhyme, at least. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

But since the "ɛrɛ" parts are unstressed, the words don't rhyme. "Happily" and "funnily" don't rhyme in English either, even though both end in [ɪli]. Angr (talk) 10:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Japanese: "iru" = "be", (used of animate subjects); "miru" = "see". --ColinFine (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Hebrew -- lihyot, lir'ot להיות לראות, even on English Wiktionary -- wikt:להיות , wikt:לראות -- AnonMoos (talk) 04:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I thought of Hebrew, but "rhyme" is a bit of a trivial concept in Hebrew, since the vowels by and large depend on the grammatical function of the word, not which lexeme it is. Any doubly weak very has an infinitive of that shape. --ColinFine (talk) 13:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a bit of a stretch, but Mandarin has 是ぜ "be" and 视 "look at", both pronounced shì. (But 视 isn't really used by itself much, it's generally part of other compounds; and of course these have other pronunciations in other Chinese languages.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 10:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, homophones aren't generally considered to rhyme with each other. Angr (talk) 10:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

.

@Rjanag, how would you pronounce "to be or not to be", and "to see or not to see", when translated into Chinese (in Latin transcription with tones), according to your suggestion? 77.125.249.87 (talk) 10:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Literally it's like "to exist or to 'go out'" (生存せいぞん means 'to exist' or 'survive', not 'to be', but in this case it's a better translation of Shakespeare's meaning). As for your other question, like I said above the meaning of 视 has to do with 'look at', not 'see', and anyway it's not really used by itself as a verb (there are other words that would be used in that instance, like 看み见 kàn jiàn. Like I said, my example was a stretch. rʨanaɢ (talk) 11:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

They used to rhyme in Russian, but the word for "to see" fell into disuse over the last century and it is now considered extremely archaic. The pair might still work in some other Slavic languages.--Itinerant1 (talk) 12:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Which verb for "to see" are you referring to, Itinerant? The two I know are in current use, far from archaic. You're not perhaps confusing this with the present tense of the verb "to be", are you? That is indeed so archaic that most Russians wouldn't even know what it used to be. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

"зрить".

Колика радость нам Тебе врученным быть!
Велика сладость коль себя любиму зрить!
Геройска бьется грудь, смотря Твоих забаву,

А наша, чтоб Твою почтить довольно славу.

- "To the crowning of Queen Elizabeth of Russia", 1742, Gottlieb Friedrich Wilhelm Juncker, translated into verse by Mikhail Lomonosov. --Itinerant1 (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Not quite, but almost in Norwegian: å være is "to be", whilst å se is "to see". Both end with a consonant and an e. :-/ --Eisfbnore ^talk 19:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

You'd have to work pretty hard in order to collect more than a handful of Norwegian verbs that do not end with a consonant and an "e", although some of the most common and basic verbs in the language do belong to that group: å gå, å bo, å fly, å dø. --Theurgist (talk) 16:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Macedonian: да бидам (da bidam) [da ˈbidam] and да видам (da vidam) [da ˈvidam]. However, conjugated forms of those often won't rhyme, because the former is an е-stem verb and the latter is an и-stem verb. There is no infinitive in Macedonian. The two forms here, which do rhyme, are the first-person singular present-tense perfective forms for "to be" and "to see". --Theurgist (talk) 13:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Can the word Am start a non-interrogative sentence?

Note that I'm not talking about the word "Am", but rather about the word Am. i.e. I don't want examples like:

• "Am" is a word.

and the like. Note also, that - by Am - I mean the auxiliary verb following the first singular pronoun. i.e. I don't want examples like:

• Am is better than Fm.

and the like. 77.125.249.87 (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

There is an informal dialect where references to oneself are omitted, and it would work there:

"Am tired. Going to bed now."

Of course, the "Am" might also be omitted.StuRat (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Which dialect? Is it possible in the major informal varieties of English? 77.125.249.87 (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Dialect is perhaps a confusing word to use. It's more a lazy or relaxed way of communicating and is used in Australia, the UK, the USA and elsewhere. In the example given, I don't think many people would say the phrase, but people might write it, perhaps in an e-mail or text message. Another example, which is probably a bit more natural would be:

X: "You're stupid!" Y: "Am not!"

There's also a possibility of using word order changes for emphasis: "Am I tired! I just ran an ultramarathon." - Although I don't know how much of a dialect/ENGVAR issue that is. -- 67.40.215.173 (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

This usage seems rather old fashioned. I recall reading Enid Blyton books in which the characters would speak like this to emphasize something. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 21:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Old fashioned? Perfectly good English it is. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say it wasn't grammatical, just that it seemed rather dated. Mother: "Would you like to have some cucumber sandwiches and jam tarts for a picnic?" Children: "Would we! How perfectly ripping!" — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 22:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

If you want "perfectly ripping", I suggest brown beans. StuRat (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

"Just don't let those jam tarts spoil your appetite for dinner. I'm cooking potatoes in their jackets." "Ooh mother, we shall be hungry!" IBE (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

:-D I feel like we should have a midnight feast right now. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 22:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Am I pregnant? hungry? registered (to vote)? normal? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The question marks sort of give the game away. We're after non-interrogative uses. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 05:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Am I embarrassed. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

If that was a sincere recovery and not a contrived demonstration of the usage, you are very quick on your feet indeed. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 11:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not that Machiavellian. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't find "Am I glad I found you!!!" to be dated. --ColinFine (talk) 00:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that uses like "Am I tired!" are really non-interogative. I've always taken them to be rhetorical questions used for emphasis. I think you find that not only is such a sentence not possible with am, but it's not possible with any conjugated form of to be. 112.215.36.177 (talk) 00:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You might find this in messages where economy of words was important, such as telegrams, military dispatches, or in hastily scribbled notes (the OP's example might fall into this category). Telegram example: "Am proceeding London Tuesday"[2]. Military example: "Am engaging enemy aircraft.” [3]. The meanining is still obvious without the missing "I"; not sure if there's a grammatical term for this kind of shortening. Alansplodge (talk) 10:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi! A subject which is not explicit in its clause is called a null-subject. See [4] for a little bit on these in English. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 11:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Am I supposed to answer this question? Whoops, missed the "non interrogative" -- Q Chris (talk) 11:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggested summary: it sort of appears as though it's perfectly valid, but mainly in rare forms, a bit like a fossil word. IBE (talk) 21:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Am thirsty; will drink. Bus stop (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Am I glad to hear that from you, but I think you're not and you won't. 77.125.249.87 (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

February 5

Chinese: "To be or not to be".

The Chinese Wikipedia translates "to be or not to be" as 生存せいぞん还是毁灭. Could anybody translate 生存せいぞん还是毁灭 back into English - literally (or semi-literally, if a perfect literal translation is impossible)? 84.229.44.114 (talk) 11:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I answered this above before you moved it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 11:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that the literal translation back into English would be something like "To survive or to destroy". Marco polo (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think 毁灭 is being used transitively, though; I understood it as being something more like passive ("to be destroyed") or unaccusative (above I offered "to go out", like a light)--not "to destroy [something else]". rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

"Survival or destruction", I think. There is no indication other than the context whether the voice is active or passive. This is the traditional translation in Chinese, and is very much contextual from the play. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Bouncing baby boys

Why do newborn human male infants in English-speaking countries frequently engage in bouncing? And why is this behavior less commonly observed among comparable females? Nyttend (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Is it true that boys bounce more than girls and that this is more commonly seen in English speaking countries? Is this an anecdotal observation or something you've read or seen somewhere?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The reason babies do anything is because it feels good. It no doubt helps to develop their coordination, but of course babies didn't bounce at all before they had something to bounce on. Last time I dropped one it didn't bounce at all.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It's all in the technique. With the right coordination, you can make one skip thrice before sinking. This usually results in them becoming multi-talented upon maturation.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 16:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Like rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Use that "thumbs-up" thingy while you can, as they are looking to delete it on Commons, as a copyright violation, of all things. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This question clearly needs a cite for its claim. Roger (talk) 15:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Nyttend -- I think that "Bouncing baby boy" is just an old semi-jocular alliterative phrase, and is not founded on any double-blind studies with statistical analysis of variance... AnonMoos (talk) 15:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand that it's just a phrase, and the wording itself was the only reason I asked; if I'd seriously been asking about infantile behavior, I would have gone to the science desk :-) Nyttend (talk) 03:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Rounded and unrounded vowels

Why do /ɯ/ and /ɤ/ sound so similar to /u/ and /o/, even though other unrounded/rounded pairs, like /i y/ and /ɛ œ/, are easy to tell apart? --108.225.115.211 (talk) 16:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Those pairs don't sound similar at all to me. What's your language background? rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

English. --108.225.115.211 (talk) 03:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

My language background is American English and these all sound quite different to me, although I must admit I have familiarity with Mandarin (which has ɤ) and Korean and Uyghur (which have ɯ). Here's a [unfortunately low-quality, since I'm just at home on my laptop] recording of the four of them (in the order [u, ɯ, o, ɤ]). It's hard for me to say them without contexts, though. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

My native language is Polish. In your recording, the first two vowels sound the same to me. — Kpalion^(talk) 23:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

To pronounce [ɯ], just pronounce [u], hold it, and then (while still making the sound) un-round your lips. It might be easier to feel the difference than to hear it! rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

"before" & "beget"

Does the 1st vowel in "before" & "beget" sound like the 1st vowel in "define" or the 1st vowel in "velocity"?

According to this video, minute 4:18, I think it sounds like "velocity". I need a verification.--72.152.250.145 (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

For questions like that, you should go to wiktionary first and look up the IPA. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Dictionaries aren't going to be of much help here, because the pronunication of the first vowel in these words is highly idiosyncratic and inconsistent. It depends on the speaker, and whether they reduce the unaccented vowels. I gernerally reduce all four vowels, and pronounce them like the "i" in "it". Other speakers may or may not reduce any or all of these vowels, and pronounce them differently, whether reduced or not reduced. Even the same speaker may not be consistent at all times. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but for a generic question like this one, a generic answer can be found in a dictionary. Or, 72.152, did you want to know whether that one specific speaker in that one specific video pronounces it that way? In that case, we'd need a sample of the speaker's saying before and beget and define. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

In the above video link, I would say Chris Wallace says "before" like "velocity"--if I am hearing correctly.--72.152.250.145 (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The first vowel in "velocity" is /ə/, the first vowel in "define" is /ɪ/. For "before" and "beget", some dictionaries only give pronunciations with /ɪ/, some give both versions, e.g., wikt:before.--Itinerant1 (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Dictionaries haven't helped me.

• The first vowel in "velocity" is /ə/, the first vowel in "define" is /ɪ/. True & clearly understood.
• pronunication of the first vowel in these words (e.g. "before", "beget", "because") is highly idiosyncratic and inconsistent

The above 2 lines are my conclusions from your replies. --72.152.250.145 (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

That may be true for Americans, but for me and many (? most) British people, all four are /ɪ/. --ColinFine (talk) 23:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

As they are for me, an American. The takehome message is that unaccented vowels are pronounced highly idiosyncratically and inconsistently, those in "define" and "velocity" included. Trying to generalize is pointless, and dictionaries offer no useful guidance as they generally ignore vowel reduction altogether, for the simple reason that it is highly idiosyncratic and inconsistent. See this article for more information: Vowel reduction in English. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, just too variable. Velocity is the odd one out for me here in northern England, but I regularly hear it with an /ɪ/. Dbfirs 00:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You don't have to, but if you could put a video or audio link for "vi-locity", then I would eagerly listen to it. (By the way, I live in southeastern United States.) --72.152.250.145 (talk) 01:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds closer to an /ɪ/ in [tch?v=y2R3FvS4xr4 Monty Python]. Lesgles (talk) 03:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I just listened to 0:11 minute of the video and noticed that I definitely hear /ə/ as the 1st vowel sound which is nothing like the 1st vowel in "define"--72.152.250.145 (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I also know about schwi, but the Monty Python video was simply a /ə/.--72.152.250.145 (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

All of the examples here have a first syllable schwa in many English dialects. Schwas come in different 'colorations', so there are i-colored schwas, and u-colored schwas, and both of these schwas can also contain r-coloration as well. See Vowel reduction in English for a quick synopsis of the different schwas. So, if some people here an "e" sound and others hear an "i" sound when the speak those words themselves (or even, when the hear others speak them), it says a lot about a person's own dialect/idiolect. --Jayron32 03:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

February 6

Origin

This is going to be an interesting discussion. In the article salchipapas, a user is arguing that the sources I present do not attribute the origin of a plate to Peru. He argues that the sources should especifically use the word "origin". Yet, from my understanding of the English language, the word "origin" is not required to establish the origin of something. For example, when you call someone a Brazilian, you are refering to that person as having originated in Brazil. Similarly, when you state that someone is "from Brazil", you are stating that the person originated in Brazil. In both cases, the word "origin" is not used, but the concept is understood. Well, to be more direct, here are the specific references in discussion:

• Charles Frazier: "Whether in these nack bars or in one of the many steet stalls throughout Lima, try salchipapas, a Peruvian fast-food mixture of French fries, sliced sausages, and a variety of sauces ranging from mild to firey".
• Dan Perlman: "salchipapa - french fries with bits of sliced hot dogs mixed in, street food from Lima (Peru)".
• New York Magazine: "French fries adorned with sliced hot dogs that turns out to be a straight-from-Lima street food called salchipapa"

What are your opinions?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 05:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, the discussion is whether to use this version of the article or this one. The discussion can be fully read here for further information and additional sources. However I consider this a problem of neutrality more than language usage, I do believe that if an article will dedicate a section speaking about the origin and claim that this origin was exclusively and without any doubt from a specific place, the reference used should be about this topic and provide an explanation of this origin. Otherwise and adding the fact that there were other references listed that made the same comments about the consumption of this dish in other countries, I consider it’s an inappropriate usage of those sources, which I also should point out aren’t verifiable because the link doesn’t point to those phrases. That’s my opinion, hopefully someone can give us a hand. Best regards. 190.129.63.177 (talk) 06:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I happened to see this and started to read the discussions. You'll resolve this as you do more research--I'll bet you could find references buried in the archives of Peruvian newspapers and magazines that would help determine where and when salchipapas first became popular, or at least narrow it down. (Better than thin sources in English, especially if they were written by outsiders.) In the meantime, I would say avoid the words "origin" or "originate." (Both of you, by the way, seem to dislike accent marks! Pls. see the Spanish article.) SeoMac (talk) 06:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

To me, neither of the three sentences you quoted prove decisively that the dish has Peruvian origin (that is, that it was invented in Peru). All they say is that the dish is currently part of Peruvian cuisine, just like chorizo is part of Mexican cuisine despite originating in Spain, or kettlebells are strongly associated with Russia (even though their true origin is controversial, and Scots played curling with kettlebell-shaped rocks with handles about 50 years before the first mention of a kettlebell in Russian literature.)--Itinerant1 (talk) 07:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

No other source has been brought up that disputes that the plate is Peruvian. Also, The IP has his facts wrong. Up to now he has brought up no source which makes the same direct claims as the 3 sources I have provided. In other words, no source claims that this is "a Bolivian plate" or "from Bolivia". I'd alsolike to add that I found a source talking about the origins of recipes and have posted it in the article's talk page (Talk:Salchipapas). It just confirms what these three other sources were presenting. The third opinion reviewer also agreed that the sources define the plate as of Peruvian origin.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

When you say "plate", do you in fact mean "dish"? They're roughly synonyms in general, but not in the sense I think you mean. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello I’m the IP who previously participated in this discussion; I decided to make an account to ease the communications. Thank you very much for all the feedback I think all your opinions are helping me to think about a solution regarding this article. I’d like to bring a question to the board Marshal already dismissed them, his arguments can be read here and here I brought some sources to expand the article but I want to check two of them and see what others think [5] and [6] they say:

The most profitable and frequent activity for them was the cooking and commerce of “typical” foods of the regions of Bolivia from which they were native, such as faux rabbit, soup, broaster chicken, salchipapas, silverside, shad, pork rinds and empanadas salteñas, which…

The other one says:

The Kingdom of the Salchipapa: Bolivia is known among other things for the abundance of aliments and vegetables. Few months ago, within the framework of the national encounter of the tuber, the potato producers of Villazón exposed their variety in Tiwanaku, “which is the potato culture”, explained the archeologist Hugo Avalos, a tuber scholar and of the tiwanakota race roots. Thus the region adheres itself to the celebrations which are being carried out for the potato worldwide. In the celebration it was exposed from the legendary “ajawiri”, passing through the “imilla” potato, the “waycha”, the “revolution” and the “khati”, to the new variety “desirée”. From this tuber, like it couldn’t be otherwise, it’s born one of the specialties that fascinate children and adults: the salchipapa. Prepared with fried sausages, French fries and all the seasonings available, the passion for the salchipapa doesn’t have equivalent here.

It’s just a rough translation of what both references say about the Salchipapa, but correct me if I’m wrong but I consider at least these two sources go in the same line as the previously ones used to claim the origin in Lima, Peru. Of course I would never even consider to switch from a biased version to another biased version, I still consider these sources are as vague as the rest but I think they do contradict somehow what was stated before. So I think at least instead of fighting whether the plate is originated in which country it’d be more adequate to say "it’s an Andean dish" as it seems that most sources speak more about its predominance in the Andean countries even though apparently in Mexico is quite popular [7]. This is a question for the board as Marshal already answered me but I really don’t consider that the sources previously quoted are more reliable than these ones, what I think is that so far there isn’t any scientific study conducted about the origin, most sources talk briefly about them while describing the cities or tourism but nobody focused their research in trying to determinate where and how they were originated, so since there isn’t a study claiming that the wiser thing to do is to avoid taking this as an indisputable truth use a more neutral language and focus on the material we have. Waiting for your feedback, sincerely Teberald (talk) 02:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The language board doesn't deal with such a long drawn-out situation.

In any case, as I told you before, the "Kingdom of the Salchipapa" source is saying that salchipapas originate from "the tuber". I am sure that by "tuber" they mean potato and not Bolivia (though, arguably some countries do look like tubers).

The source about "typical foods" is not conveying the message you think. In its list, it mentions that soup, pork rinds, and empanadas as typical of Bolivian cuisine. That certainly is true, but at no point is the source claiming that these items actually are Bolivian. Soups are also typical in Peru, and in Italy they are the bomb, but soup itself does not originate in either country. What that source does demonstrate is that "Salchipapas" is part of Latin American cuisine; however, the origin remains Lima, Peru. As I wrote before, that is an extremely accurate association (not just "Peru" in general, but "Lima" especifically as mentioned by two reliable sources). Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe I wrote clearly before that the question was directed to the rest of the board as you expressed already your opinion. Which I also linked to provide other editors all the information necessary. I'll leave you a comment though in the article talk page. Thanks Teberald (talk) 03:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Alvin as a Swedish given name

I asked this question here some time ago, and thought maybe some Swedes can shed light on this? There is a recent fashion of naming boys Alvin in Sweden. The question is, is this merely the American name Alvin imported via pop culture of some sort, or is there a historical Swedish name Alvin? Any known bearer of this name in Sweden alive before the 20th century, or indeed before 1970 or so? --dab (𒁳) 10:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is a link to a swedish site giving some bakground on this [[8]]. According to the site, the name dates back to the German name "Albion" and has been used in Sweden since the 16th century (at the time spelt as "Alffwin").DI (talk) 12:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It's been a Swedish name and an English name since berfore the ancestors of the Swedes and the the English split some 1600 years ago. It's probably just a resurgence of a historical name. Name poularity is often cyclical. Your English theory is unlikely, as the name is rather rare in English. Unless there has been a extrordinary interest in chimpmunks in Sweden recently. I saw you asked about the surname "Alvin" in Sweden and found few bearers. This is not surprising, since this is not how Swedish names are usually formed. Try Alvinsson/Albinsson, and you'll find a lot more. Here's some info on etymology: [[9]]. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

In the States, "Alvin" peaked in popularity in 1920s at #71 among all boy names, and by now it's quite rare (the chipmunk blip was insignificant). [10] This site: [11] says that "Alvin" is far more popular today in Sweden (but not in Norway) than it has ever been in the U.S. (8 boys per 1000, as of 2009). [12] also shows 8 Alvins and 11 Albins per 1000 newborns. "Albin" was more more popular than "Alvin" both in 2007 and 2008 and that must be the "original" spelling of whatever it was that influenced the resurgence of that name. Which could be something as simple as a pop star or a soccer player named Albin.

Per Albin Hansson was a famous Swedish politician in the first half of the 20th century (apparently as famous in Sweden as Franklin Delano Roosevelt is in the U.S.), he's been dead since 1946, but maybe his name got back into the baby name lists recently for some reason.--Itinerant1 (talk) 19:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a Wiki article on the first name Albin: Albin (given name). "Albin is a masculine Polish, Scandinavian, and Slovenian given name, from the Roman cognate Albinus." Here is the list of notable Swedish people named Albin. This name has been steadily popular in Sweden as far back as http://www.nordicnames.de/wiki/ has data: [13].--Itinerant1 (talk) 19:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. It is so poplular, in fact, that entirely new and highly original spellings have been devised for it! See Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 23:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I would not be at all surprised if "Alvin" plummeted in popularity in the US after Alvin and the Chipmunks came along in the late 1950s. Just like the name "Elmer" was once pretty common, but thanks to Elmer Fudd, it's almost unheard of now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The Tales of Alvin Maker come to mind. Dru of Id (talk) 15:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

February 7

Optim

I very much like the name Optim. I think this from the Latin root Optim which in English I think means “to be the best.” Is this accurate? Is Optim short for Optimization?

If not, does Optimization have a root word in English or any other language? 202.156.10.11 (talk) 15:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Optimization comes from Latin optimus 'best'. I've never heard of a name Optim, though. Angr (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

What does Optimē mean? Does that relate to Optimus or Optimization? 202.156.10.11 (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Optimē is the adverb corresponding to optimus. It means 'best' in the sense of "most well", while optimus means 'best' in the sense of "most good". Optimē can also mean "very well". Angr (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Optimum and optima are both valid words in English and could also make for strange first names if that's what you are going for. Of course Optimus is a very well known first name. There is also Optus. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

---

202.156.10.11 -- You already asked basically this question less than a month ago... AnonMoos (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I haven't been able to find the meaning of Optim and hence needed to put it in context. Thank you for your patience. I am using this as my company name, so of course want to be sure. Can you please advise what does Optus mean and if there would be any other words that would capture the essence of Optimization that I can use as a company's name?

202.156.10.11 (talk) 01:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Optus is already taken, at least down here. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 01:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"Optim" standing by itself doesn't mean anything on its own in any language, as far as I know (certainly not in Latin), but it's the STEM of various Latin words meaning "best" (or having closely related meanings), such as optimus masculine singular adjective, optimum neuter singular adjective, optime adverb, etc. If you want an etymology in pre-Latin terms, then "tim" is an altered form of an old Indo-European tam superlative suffix, while the "op" could be related to that in "opulent"... AnonMoos (talk) 01:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Grammatically correct

Can i say - Trusting that good sense prevails- at the end of a sentence 65.183.7.11 (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

or Trusting that good sense will prevails.

Yes. After a comma, and provided that the subject of the main clause is the person doing the trusting. Your second option, though, is wrong. There should be no "s" after "prevail". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess the OP meant "will prevail", but forgot to cancel the s after they had pasted the previous sentence (to which they had added the "will"). 77.127.89.120 (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

And I guess you meant "the IP" but you were a finger short. Interchangeable|talk to me 18:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

And maybe he did mean "OP", for "original poster". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you can say it, but you probably shouldn't: it will usually be seen as an insult. Looie496 (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting take on an ostensibly positive statement. Are you saying it would be interpreted as "Good sense hasn't always prevailed in the past, so we have to take it on trust it will prevail this time, but we would never be surprised if it didn't"? In other words, when they say "trusting", do they really mean "hoping but not really trusting"? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

February 8

Punctuation help

Can someone please tell me if this grouping of sentences is okay? I feel like there should be at least one common in there: "What makes the perfect prince? Is it his bravery in battle or the sagely laws he passes? His great compassion or the punishment he meters out to the wicked?"

Thanks. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 05:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Your third question is not a complete sentence, you'd need to start it with "Is it..." again to make it so. There is a verb (meters? I assume you mean "metes"), but the verb is part of a dependent clause, "the punishment (that) he metes out to the wicked" (the "that" being implied). You still need a proper subject and verb, which is why you'd have to start the third sentence with "Is it..." to be gramatically correct. But colloquially, especially in conversational English, your sentences don't seem unnatural or odd. You could also fix it by putting a comma in place of the second question mark, so it read "Is it his bravery in battle or the sagely laws he passes, his great compassion or the punishment he metes out to the wicked? --Jayron32 06:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"Sagely" is an adverb, but we need the adjective "sage" before "laws". Also, were you asking about at least one comma (rather than one "common")? The third sentence is not a complete sentence if read in isolation, but in the context of the overall utterance, it's fine. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 07:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I would put commas after "battle" and "compassion", they help the rhythm of the sentences. --Viennese Waltz 09:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't put any commas in these sentences. They're fine the way they are. Each or separates only two terms, so there's no need for a comma before it. Angr (talk) 09:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Very few princes pass laws, sage or otherwise.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Or go into battle, or mete out punishment. It seems to be from an antique context. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Prince Harry and Prince Andrew both went into battle. Angr (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

My immediate presumption was that it's from The Prince, of which perhaps Ghostexorcist is making a new translation, although I haven't spotted the passage in question in a brief skim of my 1961 version translated by George Bull. Assuming I'm correct, Machiavelli uses the term "prince" to mean any chief ruler of an independent state, whether they attained that position by heredity, conquest, election or other means. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.165 (talk) 23:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Revolting, disgusting behaviour

What conclusions can I draw about a person who uses these two words about another. They seem to be very tummy orientated but taste is not involved. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by "tummy orientated"? Roger (talk) 12:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I think a preoccupation with isolation is indicated. The absence of reference to taste suggests a blind spot to the possibility of social activity. Bus stop (talk) 12:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting that you changed what you had written rather than added to it. Both answers were helpful to me but I think the first was closer to the mark. If it helps, the person is histrionic, narcissistic, addicted to dope and very fat. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

One way or another, you've just told us a lot more with this post, than the original question. I would say, for the original question, no conclusions. You mean to say that he is using a visceral description, which means his vocabulary may be lacking, but modern English seems to prefer the use of simple, immediate language ("soft as", "they crucify the English language", "human rights groups slammed the suggestion", and so on). Human consciousness is returning to the limbic system, but I digress, IBE (talk) 14:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Mongolian (cyrillic) help

Hi! I want to type in the addresses at http://www.mongolianairlines.com/contacts There are three street addresses. What do they look like typed? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you want. 109.97.141.213 (talk) 15:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean transliterated? (1) 14257 Narny zam 15, Sүhbaatar dүүrjeg, Ulaanbaatar hot, Mongol uls. (2) Ulaanbaatar 15160, Chingjeltjei dүүrjeg, Zhigzhidzhavyn gudamzh 3, Bod' camhag, 1 davhar. (3) Mөrөn sum, Tөv 4 zam, 50-100 zochid buudal 1 davhar. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Cyrillic:

14257 Нарны зам 15, Сүхбаатар дүүрэг, Улаанбаатар хот, Монгол улс

Улаанбаатар 15160, Чингэлтэй дүүрэг, Жигжиджавын гудамж 3, Бодь цамхаг, 1 давхар

Мөрөн сум, Төв 4 зам, 50-100 зочид буудал, 1 давхар

Elaborating on Pp.paul.4's comment: Mongolian Cyrillic <ө> (<өө>) and <ү> (<үү>) are usually transliterated "ö" ("öö") and "ü" ("üü"). An <э> represents a plain "e" in Mongolian, whereas the iotated "e" is written <е> - so it is <е>, not <э>, that is normally transliterated "ye" (or "je", in the fashion of German and some other languages). Also, <ж> and <з> are not quite like they're in Russian; <ж> /tʃ/ and <ч> /tʃʰ/ on one part, and <з> /ts/ and <ц> /tsʰ/ on another, are pairs of a non-aspirated and an aspirated consonant, similarly to the pairs that are there for example in Chinese. That's why <ж> is standardly rendered "j" (President of Mongolia Tsakhiagiin Elbegdorj). The <х> (IPA: /x/) is often "kh" (cf. the name of the President again), like the Russian <х> is, or scientifically it could also be "x". And also, <й> is usually rendered "i" rather than "y" (the President again), because, unlike in Russian, it's not a consonant, but rather it's a part of the orthographical representation of a long vowel (ий) or of a diphthong (эй, үй, etc). So I'd go for:

14257 Narny zam 15, Sükhbaatar düüreg, Ulaanbaatar khot, Mongol uls

Ulaanbaatar 15160, Chingeltei düüreg, Jigjidjavyn gudamj 3, Bod' tsamkhag, 1 davkhar

Mörön sum, Töv 4 zam, 50-100 zochid buudal, 1 davkhar

See also Mongolian Cyrillic script. --Theurgist (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, theurgist! For the third entry, what is the description before the address? The third entry is not listed in the page's English version. Also what are the cyrillic for the descriptions of the first and second entries? (So I can use the cyrillic on the Wikimedia Commons photo request page) - Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

etymology of "john" meaning toilet

I would like to know the origin of this usage. All the OED says is:

d. slang (chiefly U.S.). With lower-case initial. A lavatory, water-closet.[1735 Harvard Laws in W. Bentinck-Smith Harvard Bk. (1953) 146 No freshman shall mingo against the College wall or go into the fellows' cuzjohn.] 1932 Amer. Speech 7 333 John, johnny, a lavatory. 1946 ‘J. Evans’ Halo in Blood xvi. 181, I‥made a brief visit to the john. 1959 C. MacInnes Absolute Beginners 54 ‘You poor old bastard,’ I said to the Hoplite, as he sat there on my john. 1972 Last Whole Earth Catalog (Portola Inst.) 247/3 Every time you take a dump or a leak in a standard john, you flush five gallons of water out with your piddle. 1973 Black World June 19 They gave me my Status Symbol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.210.113.48 (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

(EC) From http://www.etymonline.com/:

john: "toilet," 1932, probably from jakes, used for "toilet" since 15c.

'Jakes' gives us

jakes: "a privy," mid-15c., genitive singular of jack (n.).

And 'Jack' gives

jack (n.): late 14c., jakke "a mechanical device," from the masc. name Jack. The proper name was used in M.E. for "any common fellow" (mid-14c.), and thereafter extended to various appliances replacing servants (1570s).

So the origin is C15th 'a mechanical device'. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"any common fellow" - well, really! -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

One wonders whether the parents of the US author John Jakes were oblivious or defiant. As I encountered his books before I became very aware of both terms (one being foreign, the other antique) his name's unfortunate aspect never occurred to me until now. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.165 (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Use of the word 'that'

Can someone else with more experience chime in here? I do not doubt my OCD with regard to use of the word 'that' ever since my English prof beat it into me. Removing conversational/subordinate clause 'that' is a more professional presentation which seems appropriate for an encyclopedia. Does anyone have a strong feeling or hurt feelings if one were to remove extra unnecessary 'that's? I did that on a few topics today as I noticed them (nails on chalk board) and they were reversed by Reichsfurst. I am not falling on my sword over it but do not see harm in making the entries more professional like fixing spelling and punctuation changes.Justify265 (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. But grammar is not a strong point for many. Collect (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that wikipedia common use seems to be in favour of keeping the word 'that' if only to reduce ambiguity. I would point to the page Wikipedia:Basic_copyediting, where the second sentence says the 'encyclopedia that anyone can edit'. It would seem silly to have one policy on these two articles and a different one elsewhere, even on the very page that deals with copyediting. Reichsfurst (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I had a look at only one one your changes, which removed a couple of instances of 'that', and neither worked for me. So your "more professional" value judgement is for me "distinctly less pleasant to read". I tend to doubt that there's any grammatical law (or lore) on your side. Perhaps you had a duff and idiosynchratic professor? --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

So without a hard and fast rule for or against 'that' use, it does seem rather unproductive to undo every edit made by another editor removing 'that'. Perhaps since this is the defining reference for such matters is there a professorial or other higher power than can make a definitive stance on whether to remove 'that' if an editor takes the time to do so or for editors to ignore the added 'that's going forward?Justify265 (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by consensus rather than command from 'higher power' - I think we'd be best to leave as is without a much wider debate. Reichsfurst (talk) 16:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I also have a suspicion this is one of those shared language things ... USians, in my estimation, are more likely to drop thats (and various similar words) than are Brits; along the lines of "He said Friday that..." versus "He said on Friday that...". USian newspaper headlines ahve always appealed to me for exactly this reason. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Higher power meaning someone with more definitive knowledge on the subject to help gain consensus. We do not seem to have consensus so far. I agree on the USians versus Brits although perhaps not as strikingly different as gray vs grey. A for American and E for England right?Justify265 (talk) 17:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

(od) Agree with Tagishsimon - for me the changes show, as Fowler puts it, "the unpleasantness of ill-advised omission." Fowler says that where substantival clauses are concerned, certain verbs "prefer that expressed," while some "prefer that omitted", and others "vary according to the tone of the context." Seems agreeable?

In F's opinion, verbs that prefer that include announce and state (i.e. "words that stand on their dignity and will not dispense with the attendance of that."). He says it is unusual with e.g. believe, say, suppose and think. It can be used or omitted, according to tone of context, with e.g. consider, declare, hear, know, propose, say, see, understand.

Fowler suggests adding to his lists for one's own use (so we're all going to do this, right?), and says the question (to that or not to that) may arise with many more verbs than he cites. He notes (in my ragged 1965 second edition of MEU) that "the tendency is to omit that, and some of the words in the first list [verbs that like to hook up with thats] may be thought to have become eligible for transfer to the third [verbs that swing either way]." And he adds, ominously: "Perhaps this is due to U.S. influence, where that is omitted much more freely than it is here . . . [and] this is having an effect on British journalism."

My Guardian stylebook only has this to say: "do not use [that] automatically after the word 'said', but it can be useful: you tend to read a sentence such as 'he said nothing by way of an explanation would be forthcoming' as 'he said nothing by way of an explanation' and then realise that it does not say that at all; 'he said that nothing by way of an explanation would be forthcoming' is much clearer."

Klarity is King. Writegeist (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)