Can anyone help me find sources that explain the etymology of OE Ēl-*ġē for our Ely, Cambridgeshire article please. I think I am close, but not sure I fully understand what I have found as follows:

• Mills^[1] says "ELY CAMBS. Elge 731, Elyg 1086 (DB). ‘District where eels are to be found’. OE Ēl-*ġē"
• Reaney^[2] tells us that "Ely occurs first, in Bede's Ecclesiastical History,^[3] as Elge 'Eel district'. The second element is the archaic ge, corresponding to the German gau, ... in the Anglo-Saxon version of Bede, the name appears as Elig 'Eel island'"
• In Bede^[3] we read "Est autem Elge in provincia Orientalium Anglorum regio familiarum circiter sexcentarum, in similitudinem insulæ, vel paludibus, ut diximus, circumdata, vel aquis, unde et a copia anguillarum, quæ in iisdem paludibus capiuntur, nomen accepit ...". Gile's 1843 translation into English is found in the reference^[3] below. An off line source (I have no permission to name the person here) tells me that "Bede actually wrote Elƺe, with a yogh"
• In VCH "Elge, meaning ell-district, appears to be the correct origin of the name, though willow-place and eel-island are explanation almost equally apt". The same off line source tells me that "the ‘willow’ bit should be utterly rejected – it is definitely wrong"

Sources

1. Mills, A D (1998) [1991], A dictionary of British place-names, Oxford University Press, p. 178, ISBN 0198527586 (also available on line via "Ely" Oxford reference Online (subscription required))
2. Reaney, P H (1943). The place-names of Cambridgeshire and the Isle of Ely. Vol. vol. XIX. Cambridge: English Place-name Society. p. 100. Retrieved 10 January 2012. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)
3. Giles, J A (1843). "chapter XIX". The Complete Works of Venerable Bede, in the original Latin, collated with the Manuscripts, and various printed editions, and accompanied by a new English translation of the Historical Works, and a Life of the Author. Vol. vol. 3 part 2. London: Whittaker. Retrieved 10 January 2012. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)
4. Hampson, Ethel M; Atkinson, T D (1953), "Chapter 2: City of Ely", in Pugh, Ralph B (ed.), The Victoria History of the Counties of England: A history of Cambridge and the Isle of Ely, vol. Vol. IV, London: for The University of London Institute of Historical Research by the Oxford University Press, p. 27 {{citation}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Questions

I suppose I have a number of questions relating to the above.

1. What do the symbols on and around the letters ge in "*ġē" mean?
2. What does the German gau mean?
3. I am guessing I can use secondary sources such as [1] and [2] in the article. Can I use source [3] or is it a primary source?
4. Given all of the above, can anyone re-write (or suggest a re-write) of the existing etymology prose in the article?

--Senra (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gau means "district", as indicated above (as in Gauleiter etc.). There was no distinction between graphemes ƺ and g within Old English orthography itself... AnonMoos (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your first question, the asterisk means that "ge" is a reconstruction, not a word that the etymologists are certain existed in that format. The dot over the g is, I think, an indication that g could be softened to sound like modern English j, or zh, or y. That is consistent with what AnonMoos says about no graphical distinction between yogh and g. The line on the e indicates that the vowel is long. So Bede's elge might have been read aloud "elyay". Itsmejudith (talk) 23:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) With regard to question 1, the asterisk means that ge (in this sense) is an inferred form that isn't actually attested in OE. The dot over the g is used by some folk, mostly in the teaching of OE, to indicate that the g is palatalized (i.e, it sounds more like a modern y than a modern hard g); I think it's unnecessary myself, as g would always be palatalized before e. The macron over the e just means that it's a long vowel. (By the way, the 731 date in Mills refers to Bede's use discussed in Reaney.) Deor (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Q 2: "Gau" also occurs in Rheingau.

Q 3: You can certainly use [1] and [2]. I think you could use [3] if there were reason to discuss the question deeply in the article, but I don't see that there is.

Q 4: It seems fine to me, except that I would remove the '*' and the special 'g' (which is rendering oddly to me). I'd keep the macrons though. --ColinFine (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to everyone that responded. The above has cleared it up for me nicely. I modified the article. Thank you all so much --Senra (talk) 01:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, in Old English ⟨g⟩ before ⟨e⟩ was not always palatalized. If the e (long or short) arose by umlaut from earlier *o (long or short), then the g retained its velar pronunciation, e.g. OE gēs 'geese' was pronounced [ge:s], not [je:s], as shown by the fact that the modern English word is geese, not *yeese. The dot over the ⟨g⟩ in *ġē is thus not redundant at all. Angr (talk) 11:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Silly edit war going on at the Elvis Presley article:

By the time he graduated from high school in June 1953, Presley had already singled out music as his future.

By the time he graduated high school in June 1953, Presley had already singled out music as his future.

Which is right? (U.S. English of course. Brits don't 'graduate' from school at all). AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both are equally correct in U.S. English, so whatever it is right this second should stay, since it absolutely and totally isn't worth changing, and definitely isn't worth changing twice. So, all people should just leave it exactly as it is, unless someone changes it, and then no one else should bother to change it back. --Jayron32 01:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My take: "graduated high school" = young punk's version; "graduated from high school" = somewhat older punk's version; "was graduated from high school" = doddering fossil's version. (I personally can't see "X graduated high school" without picturing someone inscribing marks at equal distances up the side of the building.) Deor (talk) 01:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merriam Webster actually has a usage note about this: [1] (click on verb entry). Their conclusion is that though in the 19th century the "graduated from" was condemned, usage appears to have changed, with "graduated from" being preferred and "graduated high school" being the one condemned. The English usage podcast Grammer Girl Grammar Girl also has several episodes on this [2] [3], concluding the most preferred form is "graduated from", though "graduated high school" is commonly observed. -- 140.142.20.101 (talk) 01:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I cannot let you get away with "Grammer" [sic] Girl on the Language Ref Desk. It's grammar. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 02:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Egg on my face. That explains why it was a red link. - Please don't let my error spoil your opinion of the provided references. They know what they're talking about, even if I don't. 140.142.20.101 (talk) 02:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In BrE, we always graduate from a place (albeit, as mentioned, not from school). Therefore, if AmE is fairly neutral on this point, I think the version with "from" is preferable as pleasing more of the people more of the time. 86.181.204.244 (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, the edit-war seems to be continuing. I think at this point a little trout-slapping might be required. Personally, I'd immerse the trout in liquid nitrogen first, for a little extra impact... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is really simple: "graduate from" is the "I think this sounds better and most people say it"-version. "graduate" w/o "from" is the "Shut the fuck up you motherfucking illiterate idiot moron and get off my page or else I bitchslap you to the moon"-version. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an American and grew up with graduated from. I never heard it without the "from" before I was about 25 years old. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What does http://www.chicagojs.com/jpn/sumirehomepage/logo21.gif say in Japanese? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 03:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's "News/announcement from the kindergarten". This 園 is a shortened form of kindergarten. Oda Mari (talk) 05:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so the characters are "園からのお?らせ" - What is the other kanji character? (the one in place of the "?")

Thanks

WhisperToMe (talk) 05:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

知. Oda Mari (talk) 06:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mari, I'm curious, could you tell purely from the the text 園からのお知らせ that 園 specifically means "kindergarten"? I figured it out, but only after finding http://www.chicagojs.com/jpn/sumirehomepage/endayori.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.61.78 (talk) 14:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't understand what 園 means at first. I googled and saw this page and knew it was kindergarten/幼稚園. Oda Mari (talk) 16:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! WhisperToMe (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For years now, I've wondered how the Hungarian sentence Ki ez? and the French sentence Qui est-ce? mean the same thing ("Who is that?") and are pronounced almost identically, despite Hungarian and French not being related to each other. Are there any other such cases, where sentences meaning the same thing are pronounced similarly in two unrelated languages? JIP | Talk 20:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about full sentences, but you may want to look at false friends as a starting point. One example I can give is that in Osaka dialect Japanese, the word for 'you' is 'anta', which is the same in Egyptian Arabic. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have confused false friends (similar words with different meanings) with false cognates (similar words with similar meanings but different origins). --Theurgist (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did indeed. thank you for the clarification. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to know that Hungarian "szia" and (American) English "see ya" are pronounced almost identically. --Theurgist (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My hungarian friend said that is actually where it comes from. If we had a hungarian version of etymonline.com, we might be able to check. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely. The new edition of Magyar Értelmező Kéziszótár claims “szia” is derived from the greeting “szevasz”. “Szia” is too old to be likely to have come from an English phrase: not only I remember it being common already when I was young, but also Teknős Péter, Kérdezz! Felelek mindenre (Móra, Budapest, 1975, a non-fiction FAQ book on everyday knowledge targetting children) already claims it had been popular earlier. – b_jonas 15:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any verification of this, but I recall reading long ago that the Chinese expression transliterated as "ho ping" has a similar meaning to its English homophone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about that. Chinese doesn't have an 'o', unless you want to diphthongize it, then it becomes 'ou'. The old old Wade-Giles system of romanization used 'o' for what is now in pinyin 'e', which is more like an 'ur' sound when you have a bad cough, or a North Yorkshire accent. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And W-G "ho ping" is "he bing" in pinyin, which could be 合并 ("combination or merger") - but I can't think of any word or phrase meaning anything close to "hoping" which is pronounced "he bing".

W-G "ho p'ing" is "he ping" in pinyin, which can be 和平 ("peace"), but again nothing meaning anything like "hoping" fits "he ping" either.

The English pronunciation of "hoping" is probably best approximated in Chinese (in pyin) as "hou ping", and I can't think of anything pronounced like that which would mean "hope". The usual Chinese expression for "hope" is 希望, romanised as "xi wang" in pinyin, "hsi wang" in W-G. --16:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

"Ach so!" (German) and "Aa soo" (Japanese) both mean "I see", and both take on the role of an almost meaningless affirmative to keep conversations going. A friend of mine who works as a Japanese translator in Germany says she always finds it baffling when she overhears people saying it on the train. Smurrayinchester 20:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the most striking example is that mama and papa have similar pronunciations in many languages. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 06:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Final Fantasy VI, there is a place (Darill's Tomb, if anyone is interested) with four tombstones, carrying four pieces of text.

かに - すら

よや - とも

If you read them from bottom right to top left, it says "Tomo yo, yasuraka ni." "Rest in peace, my friend." But I heard that if you read them in a different way, it translates to "rot and wither". Can anyone confirm this? How would you have to read them to get that line instead?84.198.182.236 (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, if you read them that way they say 'moto yayorasu nika' which makes no sense. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OP here. The kana are on four different stones. You read the stones from bottom right to top left, but you read the kana on each stone from left to right. So that would make it とも よ やすらか に. That's the one way to read it, I'm still at a loss for the other way.212.123.1.140 (talk) 11:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A question on the Science desk triggered a reminder of something I've wondered about: Someone who makes something is a "wright", as in cartwright. Something that has been worked is said to be "wrought", as in wrought iron. Is "wrought" a past-tense form of "wright"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary says the two words are cognate: [4][[5] - root in Proto-Indo-European *werǵ- (“to work”). AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Wrought" is the old past tense and past participle of "to work" OED. It survives today in specific senses with a sense of "work into shape" such as "wrought iron" or "he saw what he had wrought". Valiantis (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how it evolved from "werg-" to "wright"/"wrought" - except that the "gh" might have originated as a guttural "k". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrought is also the past tense of wreak: I will wreak vengeance --> I wrought vengeance. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 10:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, where is your evidence that wrought is the past tense of wreak? As far as I know, wreak has always been a weak verb with the past tense wreaked. Deor (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[6]. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 01:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also wikt:wreak, which compares wrought with snuck as strong past tenses with modern origins. --Trovatore (talk) 01:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The OED specifically lists "work havoc" and "wreak havoc" which effectively have the same meaning and cross references them to each other commenting that for "work havoc" "the pa. tense wrought [as opposed to worked] is common (though it is often interpreted as the pa. tense of wreak)." It does not give "wrought" as a past tense of wreak in any other sense than "To cause or effect (harm, damage, etc.)" and appears to be stating that this is a usage that has originally arisen due to confusion between two similar-sounding phrases with the same meaning as there is no historical/etymological basis for using "wrought" as the past tense of "wreak". (Of course, the fact that it is used in this way means it may be considered as acceptable for this particular sense of the word "wreak"). By the way, "wreak" has not always been a weak verb. It was strong in OE and strong variants (wrake, wroke, wrok) continued to be used up until the 18th C and (later in Scots) OED. Valiantis (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any other sense of the word wreak? That's the only one I know. --Trovatore (talk) 01:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate many won't be able to check the OED link I gave, but they manage to come up with at least 8 distinct meanings. (I can't check the exact number as I'm not at home and don't have my log-in ID to hand, but I recall the one I was referring to was number 8). Valiantis (talk) 14:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are any of the others ones that a highly literate person who's not a scholar of the history of English, might be expected to recognize? --Trovatore (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Now I have the access to check). Several are marked "Obs.", others have citations from relatively modern English (e.g. late 19th C), but mainly from poetry and often in verses that seem to be using archaic-sounding language for effect. The "cause (harm)" meaning would certainly seem to be the main modern usage, but the OED (to simplify) also recognises the senses of "to avenge" and "to give vent or expression to, to exercise or gratify (wrath, anger, etc.)" as non-obsolete but finds examples of "wrought" as a past tense only with the "cause (harm) sense".

Looking through the two entries, it appears they consider that "wrought havoc" was borrowed from "work havoc" because "work havoc" has an earlier citation (surprisingly not before 1900) than "wreak havoc" (not until 1926). However, I do wonder if the Wiktionary entry you link to is not closer to the truth: - the form "wreak - wrought" arising from a false analogy with "seek - sought" at some point a good deal earlier than the OED's citations, and then other speakers coming upon the form "wrought havoc (etc.)" and deriving the form "work havoc (etc.)" from that (but nobody writing it down in the present tense to confirm which verb they thought "wrought" was the past tense of so no citations for future lexicographers). Several of the citations for this meaning of "work" that pre-date 1900 are past tense or past participle (e.g. "the destruction wrought by the sea") so it's very much open to debate as to whether the writer believed he was using an archaic/poetic past form of "work" or what he believed to be the normal past form of "wreak". Valiantis (talk) 06:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yeah, that sounds sort of plausible. I have no idea how to check it, though. --Trovatore (talk) 08:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wreak is from the same PIE root as work anyway. All of these past tenses/past participles in -aught/-ought (bought, brought, caught, ought [originally the past tense of owe], sought, taught, thought, wrought) come from cases where a Proto-Germanic [k] or [g] at the end of a verb root bumped up against the [d] of the past tense, and the resulting [k+d] and [g+d] became [xt], which it remained long enough to be spelled ght in Middle English before the [x] was lost with compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel. (Fought is an exception - it's an ablaut variant of fight; the [xt] cluster there was part of the root rather than the [x] being in the root and the [t] in the suffix.) Angr (talk) 10:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"ASCII" in "ASCII Media Works" should be read:

1. A-S-C-I-I (ey - es - see - ahy - ahy);
2. A-S-C-two; or
3. A-S-C-the second.

Thank you :) --Aristitleism (talk) 08:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've always heard it pronounced like "ass key", and our article on ASCII agrees. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(after ec) Either by spelling out the letters, or by saying (roughly) "ass key" - your second and third options aren't possible because ASCII stands for "American Standard Code for Information Interchange" - the two Is are letterss, not numbers. ASCII (company) has a pronouciation for the Japanese company that became ASCII media works, according to the article, they pronounce it "asuki" (which is a Japanese approximation of the "ass key" I gave above) -- Ferkelparade π 08:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's either A-S-C-I-I (which is rather laborious) or "ASS-kee". It stands for "American Standard Code for Information Interchange", so there's no "2" involved unless someone's trying to be funny. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hmm... transcribing it "ass key" could be taken to mean there's a secondary stress on "key" and that "key" is pronounced with an aspirated k. I'd say ASCII is pronounced "asky". Sort of like "pesky" but without the "p" and with a different vowel before the "s". Angr (talk) 09:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It's not really distinctively "ASS-kee", but more run-together, as you say: "asky". This comes from trying to make words out of acronyms that aren't really intended to be words. Like EBCDIC, for example, which in my day was of course pronounced "EBBsuhdik". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my day, an acronym was by definition a word (note the -nym); so, AIDS was an acronym but HIV wasn't. Which is extremely weird since it's easier to say hiv than aitch-eye-vee, and the very strong tendency is always to reduce the syllables, and here's open invitation to do so - but no, we've all somehow abstained with HIV. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 10:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone once said that WWW is the only abbreviation that takes three times longer to say than what it stands for. Probably not literally true since English is stress-timed rather than syllable-timed, but still, "double-you-double-you-double-you" has nine syllables while "world wide web" has only three. Angr (talk) 10:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I render it "dub dub dub", when I say it at all, which isn't very often — ordinarily I just say "foo.com" instead of "www.foo.com". You almost always get to the same place typing foo.com anyway; not sure whether that's an official rule, but I've never seen a serious exception (meaning it takes you to a website controlled by a different party). --Trovatore (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I say it at all, I say "woo woo". Angr (talk) 01:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"asky" doesn't work for some British-English speakers for whom the "a" in "ask" is long — /'ɑːski/, "AHSS-key". It's /'æski/, so "ASS-key" might be better. And for the same speakers, EBCDIC is /eb'sidik/ "ebb-SID-ik" with the stress on the middle short "i". Bazza (talk) 14:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We just have to remember dear old Arthur Askey, pronounced "Arthur ASCII" as he was from Liverpool. Not all British-English speakers have a long "a" in "ask". -- Q Chris (talk) 14:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bazza, that's precisely why I didn't say it was like "ask" + "-y". I said it's like "pesky" without the "p" and with a different vowel (namely [æ], regardless of how you pronounce "ask"). Angr (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's an old science fiction short story with the following synopsis (I don't know the author or title, nor the name of the characters, but I think I read it from the Galaktika journal).

Mad scientist Nicholas feels unrequited love towards Gwyneth, wife of the rival Mark. Nicholas invents a machine that makes perfect duplicate of any object. Once the machine is perfected, he uses it to copy Gwyneth so that he and Mark can have one of her each. But the copy is so faithful that she still loves Mark and wouldn't leave her for Nicholas.

My question is, how do you rewrite this synopsis such that it becomes a pun on the word “wiktionary:faithful”, suggesting both the meaning that the copy is exactly the same as the original, and that she's faithful to her husband?

For search: clone, precise

– b_jonas 16:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the synopsis as you wrote it already contains that play on the two meanings of faithful. I wouldn't quite call it a pun, because the play is on two meanings of the exact same word, rather than on two words that sounds similar. Angr (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a homonymic pun. It just lacks the cues that make you look for a joke (or perhaps "isn't funny", whatever that means). It's a problem that a faithful (as in exact) copy will love Mark because it is exact, right down to her romantic feelings, making the other meaning of faithful superfluous.  Card Zero  (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try adding this to the end: "So the question is, how to make a faithful copy that's unfaithful ?". You might also want to use the words "fidelity" and "infidelity", although in English "fidelity" isn't often used to mean a good copy, unless it's of audio. StuRat (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat: good idea, I guess that would work provided I don't mention “faithful” before that question at all. Thank you all for the replies. – b_jonas 08:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that should work. I'll mark this question resolved. StuRat (talk) 04:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In hopes of shopping more effectively at my local Iraqi-owned market, I'm trying to identify and learn the numbering system they use on their hand-written signs. I ended up at the Eastern Arabic numerals article, and am now more confused after reading it than I was before. Could someone decipher the pedantic gobbledygook in the "North Africa" section for me? Is it saying that numbers are read from the smallest place to the largest (ie, "five hundred and forty two" is "two and forty and five hundred") and consequently are written the same way (245 instead of 542); but, because Arabic script is written from right to left, the numerals appear to untrained Western eyes to be written "the right way" while everything else is "backwards"?

Also, the Google is strong with me, but does anybody have offhand knowledge of a website that would be helpful in my number-learning quest? Or is the chart in the aforementioned article an accurate representation of the numerals I'll be encountering, such that, if I memorize that chart, I can go forth and confidently buy my markdown fava beans without a hitch?

Thanks! - Fullobeans (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decimal-base numbers in RTL languages (like Arabic, Hebrew etc.) are written in most-significant-digit-leftmost order, just as in LTR languages such as English... AnonMoos (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The "pedantic gobbledygook" is actually about partial correlations between the ordering of number-words in various spoken languages and written decimal numbers, which is not all that relevant to the topic of the article... AnonMoos (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in Arabic, numbers, when "read aloud," are read from right to left. 45 is "five and forty," etc. Wrad (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just like in German. 80.122.178.68 (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And "four and twenty blackbirds". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it the same as German? Because the literal translation from German would be "Five hundred two and forty." --Fullobeans (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, hundreds come first. Wrad (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to understand German fairly well, although I don't speak it anywhere near natively. It is true that in German, tens and units are read right-to-left, in the opposite order to English, or my native Finnish. But this applies only to the relation between tens and units, or this relation multiplied by any power of one thousand. For example, 123456789 would be ein hundert drei und zwanzig millionen, vier hundert sechs und fünfzig tausend, sieben hundert neun und achtzig in German, meaning "one hundred three-and-twenty million, four hundred six-and-fifty thousand, seven hundred nine-and-eighty". Not "nine-and-eighty seven hundred, six-and-fifty four hundred thousand, three-and-twenty one hundred million". JIP | Talk 20:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it would be: einhundertdreiundzwanzig Millionen vierhundertsechsundfünfzigtausendsiebenhundertneunundachtzig. Germans are so fond of long words they spell out numbers smaller than one million as one word. --Theurgist (talk) 01:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me of the time I noticed that despite people from central and western Europe claiming Finnish has ridiculously long words, the word for "one-way ticket" is kertalippu (ten letters) in Finnish, but Einzelfahrschein (sixteen letters) in German. JIP | Talk 19:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So let's say I went to the grocery store and stole the label off a very expensive loaf of bread, which the cashier has informed me costs $1,234. Then I sat down with my stolen label and translated each individual East Arabic numeral into a West Arabic numeral, without changing the order, as though it were a simple substitution cipher. Would the resultant string of West Arabic numerals read (left to right): 1234, 1243, or something else entirely? --Fullobeans (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is 1234 (and "1243" is right out -- the only alternative answer that would make any real sense would be "4321"). AnonMoos (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phew, that's straightforward enough. Thanks, everybody. --Fullobeans (talk) 22:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've made an attempt at clarifying the passage in the Eastern Arabic numerals article which originally threw me for a loop. If anyone more knowledgeable on the topic would like to peer over my shoulder, please do. I've also added a ref which could be helpful. --Fullobeans (talk) 23:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

short and sweet. sounds like vernacular to me, but I see it in some of our articles. --80.98.112.4 (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on how it's used, probably. If you don't stop eating that ice cream so fast you're liable to get a headache — that's informal. But I'm sure someone can come up with a sentence that uses it in the sense of e.g. legal liability, and then it would be standard (not coming up with an example off the top of my head, though). --Trovatore (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Garner's Modern American Usage says "liable should not be used merely for likely. Liable best refers to something the occurrence of which risks being permanent or recurrent." So presumably he would disapprove of Trovatore's example sentence, but would approve of If you don't stop smoking cigarettes you're liable to get cancer. Whether Wikipedia editors need to feel bound to follow Garner's personal opinions is a different question. Angr (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an Australian, no ;-) HiLo48 (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Persons convicted of capital murder are liable to be put to death under the laws of the State — that seems completely standard for formal written English, if a bit grim. --Trovatore (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's certainly something whose occurrence risks being permanent. Angr (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the distinction I was making is more that this is "liable" in the sense of "being subject to a legal liability". Slight tangent: I would pronounce this liable with three syllables, but the ice cream one with two. --Trovatore (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you write the wrong thing, and in doing so you right the wrong wrong, you're liable to be charged with libel. Luckily, the things that you're liable to read in the Bible can be quoted without fear of causing such trouble. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 00:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The OED has no objection to liable in the general sense "likely"; it merely gives that sense as "dial. and U.S." Probably Garner would say it's "dial." even in the U.S. But the OED cites two American usage guides (Horwill 1935, Evans & Evans 1957) which illustrate its acceptable use in sentences where no threat of permanence or recurrence, or even "risk", seems to be implied.--Rallette (talk) 07:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Liable actually means 'legally obligated', so you can only use 'liable to' properly in a sentence like "John is liable to pay Jane $X in the event that…". Even there, though, most people would use 'liable for' (John is liable for a payment of $X…). 'Liable to' is almost always deep south vernacular for 'likely', usually in the sense of a personality characteristic ("John's liable to get a mite piqued at that there load a' hog-swallop") --Ludwigs2 23:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's your source for the assertion that liable "actually" means 'legally obligated' and for the assertion that using it to mean 'likely' is "almost always Deep South vernacular" (as opposed to anyone else's vernacular)? Angr (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 'legally obligated' sense is just the first of three current senses given in the OED. The sense of 'exposed or subject to, or likely to suffer from' is equally valid, and has been used since 1593, with the related sense 'subject to the possibility of' cited from 1682. The slight extension of meaning (considered slightly "improper" by some on both sides of the pond, but common in the UK and Australia) seems to have arisen spontaneously by combining these two other senses in many regions independently. The OED cites a usage in Somerset dialect from 1888. Is this before the earliest US usage? Dbfirs 01:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do people in America pronounce the <t> in <importance> as an alveolar tap (as in "butter"), or a glottal stop (as in "button")? Or does it depend on the speaker? Thanks. --Kjoonlee 00:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

America is a big place with many dialects and accents, I suspect you would find both variations. I personally use the alveolar tap, but I don't know if that is universally American. I suspect you would find all sorts of variations. --Jayron32 01:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I use the glottal stop in importance. Angr (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The glottal stop is certainly the usual pronunciation in my speech; you would only get the alveolar tap if you somewhat stressed the last syllable of the word, which doesn't sound very natural. AnonMoos (talk) 04:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron, what dialect of English do you speak? I find it hard to believe that [ɾ] could occur for the <t> in 'importance' in any variety of English - the [ɹ] immediately preceding would make it difficult to tap without trilling (which no American would consider Standard English) Are you sure it is not [ʔ] as Angr said, or even [tʰ], as it is for me? [ɾ] in that position would seem to be a stereotypical Slavic accent. 24.92.85.35 (talk) 04:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I speak a fairly "neutral" variety of American English, with a bit of influence from my native New England accent which creaps in in a few places. I definately tap the roof of my mouth with my tounge at the "t" in importance; it isn't a glottal stop. The toungue stays in contact with the roof through the n, (I don't really pronounce the "a") and then slides forward and down slightly for the sibilant ce. The tap doesn't happen for the "r", it happens for the "t". The r is either an approximant r, either retroflex or alveolar, I can't really tell the distinction. But at no point is my glottis involved. --Jayron32 05:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I pronounce it similarly to Jayron which I would say is [ɪmpɔɹt̚n̩s] with an unreleased [t]. RamsesWPE (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

24.92.85.35 --- There's a retroflex-tap sequence (or maybe a retroflex-flap sequence; I never did understand the distinction very well) in the ordinary pronunciation of words such as "shorter" and "border" in my idiolect... AnonMoos (talk) 04:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, so americans don't just omit the “r” sound and say just “im-paw-tance”, even in words like this where it would be really convenient, lest they are thought British? – b_jonas 08:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are words where Americans drop the "r", but this isn't one of them. "Governor", usually pronounced /ˈɡʌvənɚ/, is one of them. Since we do pronounce the second "r" in that word, though, no one will suspect us of being non-rhotic. Angr (talk) 09:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, they wouldn't. The "r" in "importance" is treated like "r" in any other word. It has nothing to do with being thought British. ~Besides, there are some American accents that are arhotic, like RP, in New England, New York and the South, just as there are some British accents that are rhotic, like American, in the West Country, for example. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dropping the "r" would make it sound similar to "impotence" which could be rather embarrassing.--Colapeninsula (talk) 09:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there anybody here who pronounces it: /impordns/ ? 77.127.119.214 (talk) 08:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[ɪmpɔrʔns], General American. rʨanaɢ (talk) 11:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But, would [ɪmpɔrdns] sound unnatural? 77.127.119.214 (talk) 12:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It would sound quite unnatural. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about " butten button"? must it be pronounced [bʌʔn], or may it also be pronounced [bʌɾn] or maybe even [bʌdn] (as far as American accents are concerned)? 77.127.119.214 (talk) 13:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean "button"? That has to be [bʌʔn̩] or [bʌtn̩]. A [ɾ] or [d] sounds quite unnatural to me. Angr (talk) 14:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. 77.127.45.32 (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

???I pronounce the t's the same in button and butter, and I also pronounce the t in importance. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then you may not have a "General American" type of accent... AnonMoos (talk) 02:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I know, I do. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the article T glottalization, in describing American English, states "The T in coda position is changed to something somewhat similar to the glottal, but the tip of the tongue hits the roof of the mouth, but doesn't flap (there is no designated IPA symbol for this). In words where the T is not the first sound in the word and is followed by a short vowel, it may instead become an alveolar tap R (for example, the intervocal T in butter or neater)." The article goes on to note that the T becomes fully glotallized when before a short vowel-n combination (as in importance), but it mustn't be universal, as I don't do this. I pronounce the "t" as described in the quote I provided. --Jayron32 05:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

.

@The Mark of the Beast, you've written: "So far as I know, I do". Note that "So far as I know", instead of "As far as I know", is generally a Britishism. So, maybe your pronouncing the t in "importance" is a Britishism as well. Are your parents Americans? 84.229.64.109 (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark of the Beast, I can say very confidently that if you pronounce the ts the same in "button" and "butter" then you are not speaking a General American accent. Neither [bʌɾn̩] nor [bʌʔr] are American pronunciations. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is unfortunate that no one has bothered to explain to Mark of the Beast, who is presumably a non-linguist, that in American English [t], [tʰ], and [ɾ] are all allophones of the same phoneme /t/, so while he might believe he is pronouncing them the same, he is actually pronouncing them differently without thinking about it.

@Mark of the Beast: Try saying these words (normally, do not try to emphasize the <t>) top, stop, butter, button. You should notice that the <t> in 'top' has a little puff of air that comes with it, whereas the <t> in 'stop' does not and almost sounds like you are saying 'sdop'. The ⟨tt⟩ in 'butter' might sound like a 'd' said quickly, almost like 'BUH-der'. The ⟨tt⟩ in button might sound like the t in top, or it might sound like 'BUH(t)-n', with a held t (i.e., your tongue does not leave your alveolar ridge to release any air). 24.92.85.35 (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My father grew up in Northern California, my mother in Oklahoma. They are American.  :) I can say without hesitation that I do not use a glottal stop in those words. And I really can't read IPA. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never said you use a glottal stop in both of them. But if you 'pronounce' the <tt> in "butter" (rather than flapping it, like budder) then you are not speaking with a General American accent. Likewise, if you do flap it in "button" (i.e., like buddon) then you are not speaking with a General American accent. These words just don't have the same t in American English. See 24.92.85.35's message above for a more detailed explanation. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Romanian, are the given name "Ion" and the word "ion" pronounced the same? "ion" is a word of two syllables: i-on, and not yon. What about "Ion"? --Theurgist (talk) 00:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to Romanian phonology, it would be 'yon'. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 03:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's how I've always thought it. But according to Romanian phonology, "ion" would also be yon. While there are good etymological reasons why it's not, I recently saw the name "Ion" transcribed as [iˈon] in the lead of a Wikipedia article, and hence the question. --Theurgist (talk) 05:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian native speaker here. This is a good question, and I'm ashamed to say that I'm not really sure about the whole thing... I've definitely heard the name Ion pronounced in two syllables, and I pronounce it like that on occasion as well. Sometimes it seems like the two-syllable version is used for emphasis: "A venit cu Ion". "Cu I-on?!" I have also pronounced the chemistry ion in one syllable, contrary to what the DEX says... Also, I don't know what you guys are referring to with yon - if it's pronounced in the General American way, such as in yonder, then it's definitely wrong 80.122.178.68 (talk) 13:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do you pronounce Romanian ion in one syllable if not like the first syllable of yonder? Is it just the quality of the o-vowel that you're calling "definitely wrong"? Is it more like yawn or "yoan" (if that were a word)? Angr (talk) 14:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the o-vowel. It's more like "yoan", indeed, but shorter. 80.122.178.68 (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'yon' is a Romanian pronunciation respelling. How else could I have written it? 'ion' is ambiguous, and nothing else would do. Interesting. And what's with derivatives and diminutives like Ioan, Ioana, Ionuț, Ionel, Ionescu? --Theurgist (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of English when I saw yon because you almost never see y in Romanian. Our article mentions the word yacht, but AFAIK it's been spelled iaht for a long time. Ionuţ, Ionel, and Ionescu: Io-nuţ, Io-nel, Io-nes-cu(there are some people who say I-o-nel, but it sounds like something someone "from the country" would say - I've never heard the hiatus in the beginning for Ionuţ or Ionescu). Ioan and Ioana and pronounced differently, since the "oa" is a diphthong: Ioan is pronounced I-oan, while Ioana can also be pronounced with a tripthong at the beginning: Ioa-na (but it's mostly I-oa-na). 80.122.178.68 (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hi. I was idly ressearching Mao because Chinese history is an interest of mine and I came across a mention that he was a poet and his poems are still studied in Chinese schools. Was this because they were actually good, or just because he was the supreme leader and founder of the country, the personality cult that developed around him? Thanks. 24.92.85.35 (talk) 04:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is more of a Humanities Desk question... AnonMoos (talk) 04:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) It is because he was the founder of the country. There was no personality cult in China, like we see in North Korea. And subjectively speaking, his poems were not pretty good. Li Bai et al were far better. But that is just opinion. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 04:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with "There was no personality cult in China...". Mao's Little Red Book was a lot like Mein Kampf, practically mandatory reading for anyone who wanted to stay out of trouble. The large posters of Mao all over the place were another indication. StuRat (talk) 04:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, i had a copy of that when I was at school in China. There was no personality cult. Most young people of my age (at that time - 1993) hated him because of the Cultural Revolution which ended up destroying 5,000 years of culture. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 05:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KageTora -- The ordinary definition of "personality cult" is a relentless and pervasive government campaign of official glorification, regardless of whether everybody is persuaded by the campaign or not... AnonMoos (talk) 06:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Mao is no longer treated like a god doesn't mean that he wasn't once. The objects of personality cults often are discredited after death, as happened with Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin. StuRat (talk) 04:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand others disagree about the personality cult, such as this and this. Also things like Chairman Mao has given us a happy life give a very good impression of one. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 05:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think KageTora is speaking of post-1976 China, when the personality cult of Mao had been dismantled. Before 1976, there was definitely a personality cult.

Mao's poetry is still praised as being very good in official literary criticism, with such opinions usually emphasising the epic and heroic tones of the poems. On the other hand, more recent and possibly more objective scholarship tends to say that Mao's literary achievements were exaggerated by sycophantic reviewers.

Associated with the view that Mao wrote good poetry is the view that Mao's calligraphy was brilliant, a view which remains quite widely held today. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Minor correction: the poster actually says "the happy life that Chairman Mao has given us", not "Chairman Mao has given us a happy life".

I'm probably a generation younger than KageTora, and 2 generations younger than people living during the Cultural Revolution. From the few years I went to school in China, I only remember 1 poem from Mao in my textbooks. Many of the articles we learned in class were propaganda pieces glorifying the accomplishments of the People's Liberation's Army, but aside from that 1 poem, I don't remember reading an actual work of Mao, and I've never seen Mao's Handbook. Interestingly, my 6th grade teacher discussed Mao's poetry, but had a low opinion of it. In denouncing the Cultural Revolution, she said that Mao became too arrogant and thought his poetry was superior to that of everyone else. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Between 1976 and the late 1980s there was a concerted effort on the part of the Chinese government and the communist part to purge Mao from text books. 140, I am probably closer to KageTora's age and thus a little older than you, and in my day there were no propaganda pieces about Mao in the school textbooks at all. Greater emphasis was placed on the legacy of Zhou Enlai and Zhu De, who were presented as the "nice guys" among that first generation of communist leaders.

It was only in the late 1990s and thereafter that there has been an unfortunate resurgence in the glorification of Mao, glossing over the horrors of his reign. This was when banknotes were gradually replaced with portraits of Mao, and Mao began also to creep back into school textbooks. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I didn't know about this re-glorification process until now. I went to school in China from the mid to late 2000's, and I'm too young to remember anything from the 1990's, so my memories fit pretty well with the historical circumstances. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 02:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I need to know the scientific terms for the rainforest layers (emergent layer, canopy, understory, and forest floor) in Chinese. From canopy (biology)'s interwiki link, I surmise canopy is 林冠; can someone help me with the other three layers? I'm looking for the actual scientific terms that would be used in, for instance, a Chinese-language ecology paper. I can do "literal" word-by-word translations myself--for example, doing that, I can translate "forest floor" as 林地--but my literal word-by-word translations may not actually be the scientific terms, and I am looking for the scientific terms. Thanks in advance. —SeekingAnswers (reply) 07:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some searching and haven't yet found the exact list of layers that you want, but I've found several other versions.

This (English version here) gives

• 树冠层 (overstory)
• 冠层 (canopy)
• 林下叶层 (understory)
• 矮树层 (shrub layer)
• 地面表层 (ground level)

This gives

• 乔木层 (arboreal layer)
• 灌木层 (shrub layer)
• 草本��地被层 (herbaceous layer and ground layer)

although it also mentions that these layers can be divided into more sublayers. It seems that the level of granularity in describing these layers is different in our Wikipedia article than in what I've found on Chinese sites so far. rʨanaɢ (talk) 08:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I looked more closely, it sounds like the "emergent layer" is the same thing as the "overstory", and the forest floor probably comprises both the shrub layer and the ground layer(s). So I would probably translate your four layers as: 森林树冠层、林冠层、林下叶层、and 地被层 (the last is literally just "ground layer" though). rʨanaɢ (talk) 08:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To OP: it is generall not valid to translate word-to-character - 林地 means "woodland", not "forest floor" - but it can be helpful to look up the whole term in a dictionary. For example, from a quick online search "forest floor" apparently translates as "森林地被物" or "森林地面".

Alternatively, I have found a couple of sources which use a similar scheme to the ones you prefer:

http://blog.onlycollege.com.cn/29833/viewspace-18757 (an education-related blog):

* emergent layer: 露生层

* canopy: 树冠层

* understory 灌木层

* forest floor 地面层

http://aer2.sbc.edu.hk/~twf/AL%20Geo/vegetation04.ppt (from a school in Hong Kong) has:

* emergent layer: 露生層

* canopy: 樹冠層

* young tree layer: 矮樹層／中間層

* shrub tree layer: 灌木層

* undergrowth layer: 低生植物層

Hope that helps. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

wider than higher or wider than high? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.8.51 (talk) 12:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

most people would say "wider than it is high" or, some completely different variation like width greater than height etc. --80.99.254.208 (talk) 12:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"wider than high" is definitely more common and probably more correct, though Google suggests "wider than higher" is at least a fairly common mistake. Compare "smaller than small", "more stupid than evil", etc, which use the comparative first and plain adjective second. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Norwegian, the word for Envy has a corresponding antonym ("Unne" vs "Misunne"). The word is used to describe when you are happy for someone elses desirable qualities, achievements or possessions. When a good friend gets something you think (s)he deserves, your feelings on that would be the opposite of envy. It strikes me that this word does not exist in English, and you would need a phrase ("I'm glad to hear that"/"I'm happy for your [insert benefit here]") to express the same exact meaning. Is that correct, or have I missed something? DI (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that a different opposite is possible. If envy is wishing you were in someone else's circumstances, the opposite could be when you are glad you are not. The old expression "There for but the grace of God go I" and the new expression "It sucks to be you" seem to cover this. Or, we could get yet another antonym if we interpret the opposite of "being unhappy with somebody's good fortune" as "being happy with somebody's misfortune". German has a good word for this: schadenfreude. StuRat (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

English does not have a direct antonym of "envy". Thesaurus.com has a few words listed: see http://thesaurus.com/browse/envy , but I wouldn't describe any of them as good direct antonyms of envy; that is a word that means the true opposite of envy. In English, if we wanted to convey that one felt the opposite of envious for a person, you might say something like "I feel very happy for them," which idiomatically means roughly that you are the opposite of envious; but there is no single word which directly and succinctly captures the concept you are looking for. --Jayron32 14:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about pride? Can you be proud of someone else (instead of for your own achievements? – b_jonas 16:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Making one deadly sin the antonym of another? But no, being proud of someone isn't the same thing as being happy for them. Angr (talk) 16:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The antonym ought to be disenvy or disenvious, but neither are in common usage (or apparently in any dictionaries). Perhaps it's a little similar to disgruntled where we're left with the antonym of a word that's fallen into disuse? Blakk and ekka 16:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about antonyms to 'envy' in other languages than English? --95.34.141.48 (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in Esperanto you just reverse the word by appending "mal" to the front of the word. Don't know enough about other languages to say; but you might check Norwegian-Whatever dictionaries. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

German has Gönnen/Missgönnen, which I assume are cognate with the Norwegian terms. Angr (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closest to a real antonym in terms of current usage I can think of is "disdain." Collect (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but that doesn't capture the sense the OP is looking for. Disdain is "actively disliking what other's have", whereas the OP is looking for the sense of "happy for someone else for what they have". English has the word "content", meaning "happy in what you yourself has", which is kinda-sorta another antonym of envious, but still doesn't capture the sense that the OP is looking for. English simply doesn't have an equivalent word meaning something like "vicarious contentment" or "being happy that someone else has good stuff". It just doesn't exist in English. --Jayron32 19:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was going back to Shakespeare on this one <g>. "Disdain" means you do not want something the other person has, while "envy" means that you do want it. Collect (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disdain means that what the other has is not worthy of you wanting it. The OP is asking for the sense that the thing that the other has is worthy of wanting and that you want it for them rather than yourself. That isn't what disdain means. The OP specifically states they want a word that means, in their own words, "you are happy for someone elses desirable qualities, achievements or possessions" Disdain and happiness are not compatible concepts, and as such, that word doesn't work. --Jayron32 20:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comity is close. Also, just saying that you are "not envious" conveys that you are happy for something someone else has, received, or achieved. Bus stop (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't convey that sense to me. "Not envious" says you are really glad it's not you, for whatever reason. You wouldn't envy someone who literally has the Midas touch, for example. I would not envy someone who wins $50 million in a lottery, who's never had more than $1,000 in the bank. "I don't dislike him" conveys something rather different from "I like him". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, as Jack says, when I say "I'm not envious of him" that is almost always used as a litotes. In English "I am not envious of him" almost always means the same as "Wow, sucks to be him!" In other words, it is an expression of disdain rather than compassion or comity, as the OP seems to be looking for. --Jayron32 20:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But "sucks to be him" is more an expression of sympathy than disdain. And I'd say "I don't envy him" is more likely to have that meaning than "I am not envious of him". I would be most likely to interpret "I am not envious of him" as meaning literally exactly what it says, no more, no less. Angr (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree with Jack. The Norwegian word "Unne" has a very precise and unambigous meaning. It means that you are genuinely happy for the other person's fortune and that you acknowledge that it is well deserved. Stating that you are not envious, could very well mean that you do not recognize the value of whatever benefit the other person has received or even that you are glad not to be in his shoes.DI (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Angr, I can't imagine how you'd even get to be talking about envy or lack thereof in the first place, unless envy was already a subject under discussion. If someone said "I wish I had Bill Gates's millions" (not to deprive him of his own property, but to have as much themselves), that's an expression of envy. To that, you might say "I'm not envious of him", meaning that you have no such feelings. That statement would be made specifically to counter the previous statement. But if there was no such previous statement, and there had been no mention of envy from anyone, and you came out with "I'm not envious of him", people would be right to question you about that, because there's virtually no difference between the meaning of that form of words and that of "I don't envy him" in that context. It's as pointed a statement as saying, without any prior discussion of murder, "I've never had the desire to kill anyone". While agreeing with the sentiment, any person in their right mind would immediately wonder why you made that statement. They'd look at you almost as strangely as if you'd said you were thinking of killing someone. This is what suggestion is all about. Just saying a word, even if only to deny it, brings whatever it connotes into the consciouness of the listener. So, if you said, out of the blue, "I'm not envious of him", you're now talking about envy when up till then nobody was talking or even thinking of envy, but now they are thinking of it. See the power words can have. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 04:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the input so far. It seems that a word truly is non-existing. StuRat's reference to Schadenfreude above inspired me to list all four possible combinations of feelings of happiness or unhappiness towards someone's fortune or misfortune:

1) Happiness for someone's fortune - No English word (Gönnen in German, as suggested by Angr)

2) Happiness for someone's misfortune - No English word (Schadenfreude, as suggested by StuRat)

3) Unhappiness for someone's fortune - Envy

4) Unhappiness for someone's misfortune - Sympathy

Would that in a way sum things up?DI (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if envy is simply unhappiness for someone's fortune. To me it implies wanting that fortune for yourself. Informally at least, envy often implies only wanting someone else's fortune for yourself without necessarily wanting them not to have it. For example, a friend of mine once told me she envied me my religious faith. She didn't mean she didn't want me to have religious faith, she only meant she wished she had it too. I don't know whether German Missgönnen carries the exact same connotations as Norwegian misunne, but in German Missgönnen really means wishing the other person didn't have something, without necessarily wishing you did have it. Envy--wishing you had something someone else does--is expressed by a different word, Neid. Angr (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the US we used to have a word for this, but congress outlawed it in the 1980's because it was deemed 'bad for business'. --Ludwigs2 23:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that "unhappiness for someone's fortune" is more accurately described as jealousy, not envy. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which language says Pervodom? I found this Quran book with Arabic text and Pervodom translation. On the Arabic side on the book cover, it said "Ma'aniya". What does "Ma'aniya" mean? Sorry for not clearing it up. I am curious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.106.102 (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prevodom (not pervodom) apparently means "translation" in some Slavic language(s). 80.122.178.68 (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"ma'aniya" probably means "meaning" in Arabic.--99.179.20.157 (talk) 00:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"p(e)revod" means "translation" in various Slavic languages. Then "p(e)revodom" should be the instrumental case form for that word, and by itself it could mean: "with (the) translation; by (the) translation; by means of (the) translation", but it could also perform some other functions depending on the context. I think it'd be great if we could know some more details. Isn't this word within a sentence or a text? Is it written with Latin or with Cyrillic letters? Are there any other words nearby that appear to be in the same language? --Theurgist (talk) 01:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume it's Latin, as the OP would probably stress otherwise. I will guess that the language is Bosnian (same as Serbo-Croatian), as 1) Bosniaks are most numerous Slavic Muslims 2) they use Latin alphabet and 3) "s prevodom" means "with translation" (which is stressed because the only true Quran is in Arabic). Here's one Bosnian edition of Quran, with inscription Kur'an s prevodom on the cover. No such user (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnian is not quite the same as Serbo-Croatian, Nsu. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 07:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's like saying Australian English is not quite the same as English. Serbo-Croatian is a cover term for Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, and "Montenegrin", which everyone whose brain isn't clouded by chauvinistic nationalism knows are just slightly different varieties of the same language. Pais (talk) 12:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you No such user. That was the one I saw in the mosque. So, it is Bosnian then. Huh.

(somewhat light-hearted question) The word "anti-Semitic" is supposed to mean only anti-Jewish, even though Arabs are the largest Semitic group. If I hate all Jews, Arabs, Mandaeans, Mhallami, and other Semitic peoples, what word should I use to describe myself? --140.180.15.97 (talk) 00:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, your "light-hearted question" is not totally dissimilar to formerly commonly-seen dishonest propaganda tactics, when some Arabs claimed that they couldn't possibly hate Jews because they were "Semites"[sic] themselves (even though in modern correct scholarly use, the word "Semite" has no real accepted meaning when used in relation to modern peoples, as opposed to ancient tribesmen of 1000 BC). In any case, "Semitic" was used by the non-Jewish inventor of the word anti-Semitism because it fit in with a whole series of 19th-century mock-grandiose euphemisms, such as "Celestials" for Chinese, "Sons of Erin" for Irish, "Romans" for Italians, etc. etc. Some of them sounded rather elevated, but when used by white Anglo-Saxon Protestants to refer to others, they were really rather condescending (not complimentary or respectful). Also, during the late 19th-century, the term "Jew-hating" could be considered a little too harsh to be used in mixed company when Podsnap's innocent Young Person was present, so that "anti-Semitism" was more acceptable as a genteel polite euphemism for drawing-room use. AnonMoos (talk) 02:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is certainly unfortunate, but it doesn't imply that I identify with, agree with, or even know about, any of those Arab propaganda tactics. I'm also surprised that "Semite" has no real accepted meaning. We have a whole list of Semitic peoples, I've read in every single article that Hebrew, Arabic, and Aramaic are all Semitic languages, and Wikipedia's articles on Mandaeans, for example, calls them Semites. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 03:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In any meaningful non-racist discussion of modern groups, "Semitic peoples" pretty much means exactly and only "Semitic-language-speaking peoples". The link Semitic peoples actually redirects to article Semitic, which predominantly discusses languages, ancient tribes, and modern racism. AnonMoos (talk) 03:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More important to the point, etymology does not exactly equal definition. Understanding where a word comes from does not actually correctly capture the meaning of the word in its actual usage. Knowing that the "Semitic" cultural groups includes more people than just Jewish people doesn't make the term "Anti-semitic" mean anything different. It means "biased against Jewish people" because that is what speakers and listeners of the word understand it to mean. The etymology of the term is a valid thing to know, but it doesn't change its meaning from actual usage. Confusing etymology with definition is a common mistake, and not just with this word, but in this case it can be particularly harmful in understanding the actual sense of the word as anyone realisticly uses it. --Jayron32 02:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not confusing etymology with definition. I explicitly said that I know what "anti-Semitic" means, never said that I disagree with its definition, and was asking how I would describe someone who hates all Semites and not just Jews. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 03:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such term in any language of which I am aware, as there is no recorded incidence of such a peculiarly specific prejudice. Most folks who hate Semites in general do so because they are non-"white" people, and also hate Polynesians, etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The way to describe yourself in that hypothetical would be "bigot". :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(after multiple edit conflicts): Other than merely "asshole"? That word captures such a person well... In all seriousness, the general term bigot seems to work fine. There isn't always a specific word for every type of bigotry, and when one has bigotry that extends to an entire list of groups, bigot works fine. I don't think there's enough people who are specifically and only bigoted against "Jews, Arabs, Mandaeans, Mhallami," et. al. specifically because of their supposed ethnic connection to each other (i.e. that someone hates them specifically because they are all historically ethnically connected) so no word has ever developed to describe such a hypothetical bigotry. But more to the point, the phrase "Anti-<blank> bigotry" works fine in all cases if you insert the proper ethnic term for "blank", so we don't need to create any new words for specific concepts, and for people who hate a broad swath of ethnic groups, generally "bigoted" works fine. --Jayron32 03:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The initial response by AnonMoos and some subsequent points such as Jayron's are reasons why writers and editors (such as myself) have adopted the closed (non-hyphenated) form, antisemitism, for this term widely understood as meaning "biased against the Jewish people." We feel this mitigates the ambiguity inherent in the hyphenated "-Semite" form. -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A separate question would be what English-language term would denote a bias against Moslem Arab militants, e.g. of the 9/11 sort, so as not to include all Arabs (not all of whom are Moslems) or all Moslems (not all of whom are Arabs), etc. I would contend that such bias does extend to all who appear to be Moslems/Arabs (e.g. at checkpoints in the West Bank,Homeland Security profiling, etc.), making a scrupulously descriptive term (anti-Jihadist?) inadequate to describe the phenomenon. -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I've never seen such a form of bias. This nearly always degenerates into general bigotry about "towel heads" , "rag heads", and so on, with most of those expressing such bigotry failing to be aware of the difference between Arabs, Persians, Afghans, Pakistanis and even Muslim Indians, much less of the differences within the Arab world. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There cannot possibly be "bias" against "Muslim Arab militants". Unless you come up with silly stuff like "they stink". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not possible? I fear you misunderestimate the capacity of the human psyche for irrational fear and hate. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 12:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Fearing and hating them is by definition not bias, and they need to be fought and eliminated. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By WP:AGF, I assume you try to refute the claim by pretending to be an example? In this case, it's usually recommended to add a proper emoticon, since humor does not always travel well over the internet or between varying social and cultural groups. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you lost me on that one. What do you mean, humor? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you hate and fear someone, whether it's justified or not, then of course you're immediately biased against them. For example, if you have an irrational hatred of all Muslims/Jews/Catholics/Australians/Chinese/gays/Democrats/whatever, and your daughter says she wants to marry such a person, you're going to do all in your power to prevent her going ahead with it. Aren't you. That's bias. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're not talking about irrational fear. We're talking about rational, well-justified fear based on facts by definition; and that's not bias. Your examples are irrelevant: there cannot be any rational, well-justified fear of the groups you listed. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say we were talking about "rational, well-justified" fear? How can fear of Semitic people, whether it be all Semites or just Jews, possibly be rational or well-grounded? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The conversation has deviated from Semites a long time ago. Based on the indentation pattern, I assumed we were talking about bias against Muslim Arab militants, since that's what Deborahjay's question was about. I don't fear Muslim Arab militants because the probability of one attacking me is low, but it's certainly rational and well-justified for people more at risk to fear them. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If my daughter said she was going to marry a gay man, I'd try to prevent her going ahead with it, but not because of any hate/fear/bias against gays. Angr (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. But what if your son (assuming you have one) would have said the same thing? JIP | Talk 20:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be more concerned if my son wanted to marry a straight man, to be honest. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think people are using "bias" in different ways. Is it called bias if I hate serial killers and think they should be eliminated? I suspect Choyool would say no whereas Jack would say yes, but whose opinion is superior is a semantic question that I consider pointless. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But, isn't bias always some form of ignorance? (contrary to the hate of Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 towards violent Islamic fundamentalist). You can hate a group of people, say rapists/violent groups without overgeneralizing or being ignorant about them. 88.9.215.240 (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the original question: since there doen't seem to exist an established term for this specific kind of hatred, you are free to invent your own. My suggestions: Semitophobe or Japhethohamist (suggesting you disapprove of the descendants of Sem, but not of those of Japheth and Ham). — Kpalion^(talk) 00:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My standard stock reply to those who try to resurrect the old tired chestnut that Arabs can't possibly hate Jews because Arabs themselves are supposedly "Semites"[sic] (has only happened once on Wikipedia, fortunately) is to point out that if you want to coin a distinctive word for hatred of Arabs, then by all means do so -- there are plenty of theoretically valid possibilities, such as "Arabophobia", "Misaraby", "anti-Arabism", etc. etc. But the problem of hatred of Jews is not the same as the problem of hatred of Arabs -- and for that reason and several others, it's quite pointless to attempt to redefine or quibble over the accepted and established term which has meant "hatred of Jews" in the English language for well over a hundred years. The abstruse and purely theoretical possibility raised by 140.180.15.97 is even less of a reason to redefine anything... AnonMoos (talk) 12:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They don't hate them because they're Semites, they hate them because they're Jews. Duh! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all. This says Baldizzone was born in Asti on the 27th of "V" 1946. Does the "V" mean May? --Shirt58 (talk) 12:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. See Roman numerals#Modern non-English speaking usage. AJCham 13:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grazie mille. (Just thought I'd better check it with WP:RD/L.) --ShirtLVIII (talk) 10:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard some English jokes that make fun of similar pronunciation of words with different meanings, but there is one I don't get. I've heard the following jokes of the same type:

• I just played cards with an African tribe.
• Really? Zulus?
• No, in fact I won.

• My wife went to the Caribbean for her holiday.
• Really? Jamaica?
• No, it was her own idea.

• My wife went to Indonesia for her holiday.
• Really? Jakarta?
• No, she went by plane.

What does the last joke mean? JIP | Talk 19:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pun on "did you cart her?", like Jamaica is a pun on "did you make her?" The Jakarta joke, which usually starts "my wife's gone to the East Indies", is, I think, a play on the well-known Jamaica joke, which normally goes "my wife's gone to the West Indies". --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I had already figured out the Jamaica joke, so there was really no need to explain it to me, but it was good that you explained the Jakarta joke to me. I had always thought it had something to do with the word "car", but I couldn't figure out what "ja" and "ta" were supposed to mean. JIP | Talk 20:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if Americans all rhotic speakers can figure out these jokes.

How about the Zulus joke? I don't think that "Zulus" sounds like "Did you lose", though. 87.68.214.227 (talk) 22:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its just the shortened form "you lose?". -- Q Chris (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But the "Zu" in "Zulu" doesn't sound like "you", does it? 87.68.214.227 (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They're mondegreens, which do not have to be exact homophones to work well. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But "Jamaica" really sounds like "Did you make her", at least in a speedy (British/Aussie) speech, while Zulus doesn't sound like "Did you lose", even in a speedy speech, does it? 87.68.214.227 (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It works in my Detroit accent, where "did you lose ?" becomes "didja lose ?" or even "ja lose ?" StuRat (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But "Zulus" doesn't sound like "ja lose". 87.68.214.227 (talk) 23:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does to me. StuRat (talk) 23:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does it? "did you lose" is pronounced like "ja-lose", the stress being on "lose", while "Zulus" is pronouced like "zoo-lose" - the stress being on "zoo"... 87.68.214.227 (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no point protesting, Agent 87. To some people, they do sound sufficiently similar for the pun to work first time. They don't need to justify that to anyone. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course they don't have to justify what they hear and how they're kidding. However, my point is that there is a difference between "Jamaica", and "zulus", at least to my ears: "Jamaica" really sounds like "Did you make her" - at least in a speedy (British/Aussie) accent, while "Zulus" sounds (to my ears) like "zoo-lose", and I would never hear it like "ja-lose". If User:StuRat does hear it like "ja-lose", then I find that interesting, that's all. I mean, I find it interseting to know that the people of Detroit pronounce "Zulus" like "ja-lose" (the stress being on "lose") instead of "zoo-lose" (the stress being on "zoo"), which is how I have been taught to pronounce that word. 87.68.214.227 (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then tell me what you make of this one: "I went to the Middle East to listen to my favourite band." "Kandahar?" "No, they played live." Totally off topic, but I'm thinking the OP has got his answer. IBE (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's all about playing along with the joke, 87. Nobody actually hears "Did you lose" when someone says "Zulus", but they immediately recognise when a joke is being made, and if they're in the right space, as most people are most of the time, they'll play along with it. That's all there is to it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 01:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Agent 87 has missed the joke... by that much.--Shirt58 (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

.

I have no difficulty playing along with the joke, but I've suspected the Zulus joke has been invented by somebody who pronounces "Zulus?" excactly like "Did you lose", so I have (implicitly) wanted to know which variety of English accent - really enables such a definite identity between "Zulus?" and "Did you lose". Now, thanks to User:Bluap's response (just below my current response), which I find to be very informative, I think I can solve the riddle, as following: User:Bluap has explained that, in their southern English accent, "Zulus?" (with a question mark) is pronounced: "dzoo-lose" - the emphasis being on "lose". Wow! that's interesting! Because, as far as I know, some British accents pronounce "Did you lose" (in a speedy speech) as "Due lose" (which is impossible in the American accents, for example), and also pronounce "due" as "dz-you" (which is impossible in most of the English varieties, including the RP). To sum up, the fellow who's invented the Zulus joke, probably pronounces (in a speedy speech) - both "Zulus?" and "Did you lose" - as "Due lose", i.e. as "Dz-you lose" (the emphasis being on "lose"); So the inventor is probably British - from a very specific region in UK. Anyways, all of these jokes, including the Jakarta joke and the Jamaica joke, can't be figured out by Americans some rhotic speakers for example... 87.68.214.227 (talk) 10:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're greatly underestimating people's ingenuity -- there are plenty of Americans who speak non-rhotic dialects, but even many of those who speak rhotic dialects wouldn't have too much difficulty in figuring out "Jamaica".. AnonMoos (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All right, thanks. I struck out "Americans", and replaced it by "some rhotic speakers". 87.68.214.227 (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my (southern English) accent, "Zulus" is pronounced "dzoo-looz". Without a question mark, the emphasis is on the first syllable. However, with a question mark "Zulus?", the emphasis moves to the second syllable, which has a rising tone. This sounds very similar to "did you lose", which it is possible to pronounce as "dyoo looz". The only difference is the "dz" vs "dy", which is a short, unstressed consonant at very beginning of the phrase, and likely to be "chopped off" by the listener. Bluap (talk) 01:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's understood in my Nowerthen English accent an' all, Bluap. 'Appen yer'd 'av ter axerally 'ear it, then it'd be reet gradely. As fer IBE's "Kandahar" joke, sorry, I don't get that one. Tonywalton ^Talk 01:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Seems you need to understand "canned" as "recorded", then understand "ahar" as Pirate. Poor. Very poor. Tonywalton ^Talk 02:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you so much! No, seriously, thanks for the reply, since I was really just trying to change the topic, in case it turned unpleasant - it looked like the start of something negative, but all is well. A-ha is the band, fwiw, so there wasn't much pronunciation involved. I just wanted to change before it turned into the 87 show, but it seems everyone ignored me. Same as in real life. IBE (talk) 12:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Eveyone ignored you: Neither User:TonyWalton nor me did (or rather: here I'm doing that now). As far as the other users are concerned, I think they noticed your own declaration: "Totally off topic", and they felt it would be needless to refer to a totally-off-the-topic response. Anyways, I find your Kandaher example to be pretty nice; I loved it. BTW, like the other jokes here, also yours - can't be figured out by Rhotic speakers. 87.68.214.227 (talk) 12:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Bluap, for your instructive response. Can you give here another example for moving the emphasis to the last syllable - because of the question mark? Anyways, I find your response to be very interesting, because, as far as I know, some British accents pronounce "Did you lose" (in a speedy speech) as "Due lose" (which is impossible in the American accents, for example), and also pronounce "due" as "dz-you" (which is impossible in most of the English varieties, including the RP); So the fellow who's invented the Zulus joke, probably pronounces (in a speedy speech) - both "Zulus?" and "Did you lose" - as "Due lose", i.e. as "Dz-you lose" (the emphasis being on "lose"), so the inventor is probably British - from a very specific region in UK. Anyways, all of these jokes, including the Jakarta joke and the Jamaica joke, can't be figured out by Americans some rhotic speakers for example... 87.68.214.227 (talk) 10:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's also possible that it originated from a lolcat.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 11:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recognise either of the features that Bluap mentions (Londoner who has lived in Northern England for 20 years). In my experience "Zulus" is pronounced with /z/ not /dz/ and is stressed on the first syllable irrespective of intonation. To me the joke is a near-enough match, not a close one. --ColinFine (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for User:Bluap to respond. I can't imagine that the person who's invented the joke could have invented it - if they had not pronounced "Zulus?" the same as "Did you lose". Anyways, I must admit I was quite amazed by Bluap's testimony, and their clarification might be helpful. 87.68.214.227 (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you like these puns, look up the song "Delaware" somewhere like YouTube. It's a hoot. --Jayron32 20:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a child, I once learned similar puns and verses with just letters of the alphabet that sound like words, for example: "C-D-B? D-B S A B-Z B, S-N D?" — Michael J 05:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, there's "F-U-N-E-X? S-V-F-X" (a conversation in a grocery store for those who have no idea what's going on). Mikenorton (talk) 10:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That particular line was famously used (and possibly invented for) the "Swedish made simple" Two Ronnies sketch, which is set in a "Swedish" restaurant. It can be found on YouTube; an entire conversation is held in a similar vein. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, how could I forget (all too easily these days). Mikenorton (talk) 16:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can't the Swedes say "yes"? If they can, then I think that "F-U-N-E-X? E-S, V-F-X" would be more precise, wouldn't it? 87.68.214.227 (talk) 11:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But then you're saying "ee ess", which is a poorer approximation for "Yes" than just "ess". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 12:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In a speedy speech, "ee-ess" is almost identical (if not definitely identical ) to "yes", whereas - to my ears - "ess" alone can never be heard as "yes". That's why I'm asking whether the Swedes pronounce "Yes" as "ess". 87.68.214.227 (talk) 12:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I quite get these jokes. I think the first one is "See the bee? The bee is a busy bee, isn't it?" but I haven't a clue about the second one. Anyway, I think the Swedish pronounce "yes" as "yes", not as "ess". At least that's what Finns do, and Finns and Swedes should pronounce English nearly the same way. JIP | Talk 18:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Have you any eggs?" Yes, ve have eggs - spoken with a Swedish accent. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I guess Swedes have the same problem of distinguishing between the consonants "v" and "w" as Finns do, as the consonant "w" is not natively used in either language. JIP | Talk 19:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To echo my comment above, this is a near-enough match. Hardly anybody knows (or cares) whether a Swede might pronounce "yes" as "es" or not, or for that matter whether a Swede might pronounce "have" as "ef" or not: it is close enough for the joke to work and that is all that matters. --ColinFine (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an Edwardian-era music-hall type joke which only works in non-rhotic dialects: "Why is a man who is afraid of getting seasick in the Bay of Biscay similar to a man whose mother-in-law is accompanying him and his wife on their honeymoon voyage? Because he doesn't know Via Marseilles". I think I like grape jokes better (anybody remember the fad for those?)... AnonMoos (talk) 12:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now this is a joke I don't quite get. Does it have something to do with the pronunciation of "Via Marseilles" when "Via" is pronounced as if it were English and "Marseilles" is pronounced the French way sounding something like "why her ma says"? JIP | Talk 18:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't pronounce fully Edwardianly... It's "Why her ma sails". Not really a very good joke, but authentically early 20th-century according to Robert Graves (though I've paraphrased the set-up from memory). AnonMoos (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That pronunciation makes sense for the second part of the question. I don't get what it has to do with the first part. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Via Marseilles would have been pronounced [vaɪəmɑːseɪlz] among those who first told the joke. AnonMoos (talk) 09:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What would be an approximate English equivalent for that? There seems to be a gap in my vocabulary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They're going from the UK to some Mediterranean destination, so travelling overland north-to-south through France and taking ship at Marseilles is an alternative to sailing around through Gibraltar, in order to limit the exposure to possibly choppy northern waters to a short Channel crossing. I kind of like the joke because it's so unabashedly Edwardian-Britain-centric, but I didn't think it would require quite so much explanation... AnonMoos (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see. Yes, it's a bit labored as jokes go. Them nutty Edwardians. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "V" in "via" was pronounced as "W" in Latin. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True, but irrelevant. AnonMoos (talk) 09:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, isn't that how they get "why her" out of it? Adam Bishop (talk) 10:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On yet another thread, I just remembered the Cockney alphabet, and to save any trouble, all of them are fully explained. IBE (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

What is the Korean romanization (both Revised Romanization and McCune-Reischauer) for "삼국지: 용의 부활" (Three Kingdoms: Resurrection of the Dragon)?

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google Translate can do Korean romanization (I think Revised but I'm not sure). Unlike Chinese romanizations, I'm pretty sure Hangul to romanization is pretty much one-to-one, so it should be pretty reliable. I tried this one here and, based on my limited knowledge of Korean, it looks correct to me. From there, getting the other romanizations should be doable from the charts listed in the articles linked from Korean romanization. (I don't know if there's a page anywhere with a table comparing all the romanizations and Hangul, a la Uyghur alphabets#Present situation...if there's not, there ought to be!) rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do I romanize the Korean on Google Translate rather than have it translated? The link shows it being translated. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Press the A-umlaut in the text box, and the romanization appears below the text box, on the left. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I did not know that. That's pretty cool! Thanks! WhisperToMe (talk) 00:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google won't give you a very good romanization, though it's nice that they can do hanja too. It's all one-to-one, which (except in academic texts) is not how Revised works. For example, g at the end of a word is transcribed "k", and before an m it's "ng", but Google transcribes it "g" everywhere. So it enables you to identify the hangul letters, but does not tell you how to romanize them. (However, anyone who knows how to read Korean will be able to read it without any problem, and it's actually far more accurate than Revised would be.) — kwami (talk) 03:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have no idea how it interacts with Google, but among linguists, the Korean hangul orthography is famous for being fairly highly morphophonemic (rather than straightforwardly phonemic or phonetic). AnonMoos (talk) 03:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wish the general Korean public were aware of this. Reading the ko-wiki page for "Hangul supremacy" feels like propaganda about how it's the best phonetic alphabet for all languages. The page has gone downhill IMHO. --Kjoonlee 09:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kjoonlee -- Hangul is both featural (i.e. sub-phonemic) and morphophonemic (i.e. supra-phonemic). Some linguists have greatly admired it (e.g. Geoffrey Sampson), but in its current form it's closely calibrated to the particular characteristics of the Korean language, and would need to be restructured somewhat to be a good fit for writing any other language... AnonMoos (talk) 10:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, there are letters which change pronunciation depending on what other letters are next to them (a fact that even crosses word boundaries), letters which are not pronounced, whole clusters of letters not pronounced. It's almost like Tibetan :) KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 09:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the descriptions I've seen, the complications are generally based on alternations (allomorphy) observable in the current-day Korean language, and there's not the heavy accumulation of purely historical details that you see in Tibetan or Irish Gaelic writing (to a lesser degree also in English). AnonMoos (talk) 10:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Is the phrase "It would be remiss of me" considered good formal English? I know it is better to say "I would be remiss to..." but the parallel construction I am working with right now would make that very awkward. Thanks. 24.92.85.35 (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds OK to me, but not something used in general conversation, more likely to be used in a formal situation in something like an acceptance speech, as in "it would be remiss of me not to mention all the hard work of ...". Mikenorton (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, "It would be remiss of me" is the usual phrase in my experience. You say it's better to say "I would be remiss", but I can't say I've ever heard or seen that form of words. Is is standard where you are? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, "remiss" with a verb is always construed with the gerund (eg "remiss in paying") not the infinitive *"remiss to pay", (except, oddly, in the negative: "remiss not to pay"). So the examples for "remiss" in the OED have five examples of "remiss in ...ing", and one in "remiss ... not to have offered", but not a single example of "remiss to ...". So "I would be remiss in ...ing" would be acceptable. Like Jack, I judge that "It would be remiss of me" is more common; but Google ngrams doesn't agree with me, and shows "I/we would be remiss" increasing in both US and UK English significantly since 1940, while "It would be remiss of me/us" flatlines. --ColinFine (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken quite some time to write what I now have, but there are a few areas in it that I feel could do with a bit of improving or even be re-written completely. If you help me improve any areas that you might think weak or substitute words in there with better ones where and if it is needed, it will help me not only here and now, but it will also help me in the future as it will contribute to improve my understanding of the english language which I'm trying to improve, even though I think my english already is decent. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Here it goes:

Before them stood an old, hooded man with a strange-looking staff and a long white beard reaching almost down to his belly. He were dressed in old purple robes which may once have looked exquisitely grand and majestic, having showed him as a man of importance, but now it looked worn and its once rich color had long since faded from years and lengthy use. No doubt these robes had been a constant companion of his on many a journey. Although the long white beard had easily revealed him as an aged man it was first when he removed his large hood that one could actually see his face; he looked a man just past sixty, with a bald head and deep lines running across the forehead and around his blue eyes. He greeted them with a simple “hello”. His voice was deep and husky like was typical of an old man, but it did not sound frail and he did not otherwise seem like a typical sixty-year old. He stood upright like a young man, healthy and strong, and he did not lean on his staff as much as he carried it. Also, there was something about his eyes that made him look more… alive than one might have expected, like as if he had the eyes of a younger man. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I've highlighted the words/areas that I'm most displeased about in "fat writing" and which I think is in the most need of improving. I'm otherwise generally quite pleased with what I have managed, but I'm sure there's always room for improvement.

The Highlighted areas:

- I'm unsure whether its right to use both deep and husky to describe the one and same voice as these two words have very similar meaning.

- As for the other two areas I have highlighted I kind of lack the words to describe what I want... I think I manage to say what I want to say, but I feel that I say it in clumsy ways due to lacking the right words. So I guess I'm looking spesifically for ways to improve these two sentences and my english skills.

88.90.31.111 (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a native speaker, but I have a few things to point out: it should be "he was dressed", not "he were dressed". Also, you slip into the singular later on, when you should still be using the plural: it should be "now they looked worn and their once rich color..." Also, at the end, you shouldn't use both "like" and "as if" (I would only use "as if"). The highlighted parts seem fine, especially the one with the staff sounds Dickensian to me. This was just after a quick glance, and I've said nothing about the style of writing - I kept to pointing out some obvious errors. 80.122.178.68 (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My first thought is that you are apparently describing a man of considerable chronological years, in spite of his youthful bearing, and then you claim he is 60 years old. I hate to disillusion you, but most 60-year-olds (male and female, and older) are still working and running busy, active lives. Some famous ones are, for example: Donald Trump (65), Tina Turner (72), Pierce Brosnan (59), Paul McCartney (turns 70 this year), Mick Jagger (68) and Mitt Romney (64). I think you need to advance the chronological age by at least 20 years. Bielle (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Deep and husky" isn't redundant - "husky", when applied to a voice, means "hoarse and rough-sounding". Although most husky voices are deep, they're different enough that it's not so much redundancy as repetition for emphasis. I like the staff description, though I would tighten it up by using parallelism: "and he did not lean on his staff as much as carry it." The ellipses on the last is the big issue - drop it. I get you're trying to show uncertainty, but forcing pauses into prose is an effect that's easily overdone. There's probably also a way to tighten things up. Perhaps something like: "Also, there was something about his eyes that made him look younger than his six eight decades." (I agree that you need to make him older), although I'd recommend getting rid of the "also" and finding a different way to make the transition. Additionally, I find your second ("He were was dressed ...") and fourth ("Although the long ...") sentences too long and confusing - you're trying to force too many ideas into one sentence, and it's coming out garbled (I suffer from this affliction, too). Minor points: I'd go with either "years of lengthy use" or "time and lengthy use". You should also mind comma usage - you're missing one after "as an aged man", which makes the fourth sentence even more awkward. -- 71.35.113.131 (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for feedback so far. I'm a bit prone to fall into the trap of changing to singular from plural in some cases. Probably because of the way my own language works, which differs a little bit in that regard from english.

As for me claiming 60 years to be old, you are right of course, and it is my bad to forget to mention that this old man is a man of the old days - from the middle ages you might say. People had shorter lives back then, and 60 years would be counted as old. But you make a fair point, seeing as i forgot to mention this. I apologize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.90.31.111 (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC) "it was first when he removed..." — I think you mean "it was only". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks goes also to the one who gave the last of three replies so far. You seem to have a bit of knowledge about this and you explain very well the reasons for your views. Your feedbacks are strict :P but that is good, I need that. You make some good points and I will try to take lesson from them. 88.90.31.111 (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would rewrite it like this:

Before them wearing a hood stood an old man, a long white beard covering his chest. In his hand he bore a staff of gnarled wood, sinewy and two-toned. The purple robes he wore may have once proclaimed his prominence. They may have accompanied him on important journeys. But now they were faded from use. A bald head was revealed when he removed his hood. Deep lines traversed his forehead. His eyes were blue. His greeting was simple. His voice issued forth voice deep and throaty without a trace of frailty. He carried his own staff—his stature upright and steady. His eyes were unexpectedly youthful.

I've taken the liberty of leaving a lot out, and rearranging some of the ideas, and just using expressions that I like. I've elaborated on the man's staff—if it was "strange-looking" I wanted to describe it. You may want to assign different qualities to it. Bus stop (talk) 23:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Your English is quite good, though a little shaky, but your quality of expression shows natural ability, so don't worry there. Still, the passage needs pruning, then having been pruned, it needs regrowth - you need to lengthen some bits, though not sure quite what. Here is my liberal version, showing at least where you should be thinking of cutting and adding. This definitely is not assumed to be particularly good, but it shows the sort of thing you need:

Before them stood an old, hooded man with a strange-looking staff and a long white beard reaching almost down to his belly. He was dressed in old purple robes which might once have looked grand and majestic, showing him as a man of importance, but now they looked careworn and faded. No doubt these robes had been with him on many a journey, no doubt they had seen toil and danger, sorrow and trouble, strife and repose. Although the long white beard had revealed him to be an aged man, it was only when he cast back his large hood that one could actually see his face; he looked just past eighty, with a bald head and deep lines running across the forehead, and sweeping around his sovereign blue eyes. He greeted them with a simple “Hello”. His voice was deep and husky, in keeping with his advanced years, but it did not sound frail, nor did he otherwise seem like a veteran of so many seasons. He stood upright like a young man, healthy and strong, and he did not lean on his staff as much carry it. And there was something about those eyes that made him look more alive, as if they were the eyes of a much younger man.

Not at all definitive, but I do feel that "No doubt these robes had been with him on many a journey" falls slightly flat on its own - I'm sure your creative talent can improve quite a lot on this. Bus stop's version with "accompanied" might be an improvement. I was also going to write: "And there was something about those eyes that made him look more - what was it? - alive - as if they were the eyes of a much younger man." - but I took 71's advice on not forcing the pause. As for general help, on improving your English, this is how to go about it - submit your work for feedback somewhere. IBE (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What colour is "sovereign blue"? Bielle (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What colour is royal blue? I really don't know, I just thought it fitted. IBE (talk) 00:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Royal blue is a known colour; when you use the two words together, I (and others) know more or less exactly what you mean. I don't know a colour named "sovereign blue". I don't think it is an expression in English, and thus it is meaningless -to me, at any rate. Bielle (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the issues here is the capability to lose the original flow and individuality of the writer. When copy-editing something we have to take care with is to leave as much of the original writer and their style as we possibly can. There are some areas where obvious mistakes are made, some where grammar can be improved, and some where prose can be improved. I would not say that rearranging things is a good course of action though. The originality has to be preserved as much as possible to avoid rewriting it in ones own style. I would have copy-edited and rewritten some parts as:

Before them stood an old, hooded man holding a strange-looking staff, his long white beard reaching almost down to his belly. He was dressed in ancient purple robes which may at one time have looked exquisitely grand and majestic, showing him as a man of importance, but now looking worn and faded, their once rich color long since darkened by the years of lengthy use, a constant companion on many of his journeys.
Although the long white beard had revealed him as an aged man, it wasn't until he removed his large hood that one could actually see his face; he looked like a man just past sixty, with a bald head and deep lines running across his forehead and around his (piercing/soulful/timeless/knowing/etc.) blue eyes.
He greeted them with a simple "Hello", his voice deep and husky, most unlike that of the typically frail voice of an old man - nor did he seem much like a typical sixty-year old as he stood upright, healthy and strong, carrying the staff rather than leaning on it for support. Similarly, there was something about his eyes that made him look more alive than one might have expected, as if he had the (keen/bright/etc.) eyes of a younger man. Chaosdruid (talk) 02:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the above comment about preserving the original author's style. I sometimes get the urge to change wording for no good reason other than suiting my style. The real issue is clarity: does it say what it means? But there's more than one way to skin a cat.

• "He stood upright like a young man, healthy and strong, and he did not lean on his staff as much [as] carry it." (from IBE) I think that does a great job at keeping the spirit of the original while sharpening the lean–carry distinction, and it took fewer words to express it. However, sometimes you have to break the flow with dashes and semicolons! "He stood upright like a young man, healthy and strong; he did not lean on his staff—he carried it."
• Maybe "sixty-year old [man]" → "sixty-year-old [man]" (extra hyphen)?
• Invaluable: Tony1/How to improve your writing

Regards. Braincricket (talk) 03:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only person who can say if any given version retains the "spirit of the original" is the person who presented the original version. We are not "copy-editing something". The original poster articulated a request. They didn't mention "copy-editing". Bus stop (talk) 03:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you did not read their request fully "If you help me improve any areas that you might think weak or substitute words in there with better ones where and if it is needed ..." Chaosdruid (talk) 04:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh. Lets not argue over who is allowed to identify the spirit of a text and who isn't. The original poster was looking for ideas on trimming "fat writing" and general improvement. Copy editing is certainly a way to do that. Completely re-writing everything is also a way. I was talking about improving clarity with minimal change. Sometimes all it takes is the removal of a single word. Braincricket (talk) 04:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think "fat writing" is a reference to that which is in bold text, as in "3 apostrophes will bold the text." Bus stop (talk) 04:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Ya you're right about about that one. My points are still valid, though. Watch: I'll strike it out. :-) Braincricket (talk) 04:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No need for anyone to disagree or worry about me copying directly from what you say. All advise given here have proven good advise, even the ones I don't use. It still helps to see how other people would express the same thing that I am trying to express. It helps me to see how things can be done, not necessarily how it must be done. As one of you said before, it's usually more than one way to do/achieve something. It is important that I keep the orignality of what I first wrote, I agree about that, because I'm the one doing it.

I learned from much of what you said, not only in regard to this particular writing about the old man, but in general as well. Some of the mistakes you have pointed out are obvious ones which I already knew deep down, but I needed someone to highlight them for me before I could see them. Besides, I was also out to improve my vocabulary a little, which I did.

I might paste my finished version here soon, IF I finish it relatively soon. I haven't really decided yet the appearance of the staff (except that it's a wizard's staff with a gem placed on the tip) or how to make the transition at the end to allow myself to continue writing from here. So there's also chance I'll end up writing at another front for a while :P Tnx again — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.90.31.111 (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC) ____________________________________________________________________________________[reply]

This is what I have decided to go with, if of any interest:

____________

Before them stood an old, hooded man with a strange-looking staff of gnarled wood and a long white beard reaching down to just below his chest. He was dressed in old purple robes which may once have looked exquisite, having showed him as a man of importance, but now they looked worn and their once rich color had long since faded from years of lengthy use. No doubt these robes had accompanied him on many a journey. Although the long white beard had easily revealed him as an aged man, it was only when he removed his large hood that one could actually see his face. He looked a man just past sixty, with a bald head and deep lines running across the forehead and around his knowing blue eyes. He greeted them with a simple “hello.” His voice was deep and husky, in keeping with his advanced years, but it lacked the frailty that was typical in an old man’s voice, and he didn’t otherwise seem like a typical sixty-year old either. He stood upright like a young man, healthy, lean and strong, and Galverey took notice that he did not lean on his staff as much as carry it. There was something about his eyes as well that made him look more alive than Galverey might have expected from a man his age, as if he had the eyes of a younger man. There was little doubt that this had to be the wizard from Nalanther that the prior had spoken of.

____________

I liked the word "gnarled", and it described well what I was aiming for so I had to put that in. As for more details on the staff, it will be described very soon, after or in tandem with the dialogue that is about to start off between the old wizard and the named man (main character). As for someone saying that one or two of my sentences were too long and confusing, I have split sentence 4 into what is now sentence 4 and 5. I see it works better, and usually I do aim to avoid making too long sentences. I will keep doing that. I also removed two adjectives (Grand and majestic) from sentence 2 to make it less... confusing as u said. I think this also works better. Other than that I feel some minor changes done to the last half improved things a great deal. "In keeping with his advanced years", I liked that one.

There's two minor things: in the sentence second to last I use the word "alive", but I also considered "lively". I didn't quite manage to decide which one worked best but I felt I had to go with "alive".

Also, "...deep lines running across the forehead and around his knowing blue eyes." here I considered the possibility of instead saying "...deep lines running across the forehead and around a pair of knowing blue eyes."

Anyway, I certainly found these lines challenging tnx for replies.

88.90.31.111 (talk) 14:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is maybe a word in English? I doubt it. But a judge once wrote to me and the only thing I remember from his letter is that he split an infinitive. So if his English had been a little better it may be that his intended message would have fixed itself in my mind. Kittybrewster ☎ 00:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then what is your question? To maybe or not to maybe? My 1980 OED accepts it, fwiw, IBE (talk) 01:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And incidentally, the modern OED apparently accepts split infinitives, but they say it takes a careful judge, IBE (talk) 01:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking if the word "maybe" is recognizable by English language speakers? I doubt you would find a single English Language dictionary that would be without it, nor would you find a single fluent English speaker who was unfamiliar with it. You have access to dictionaries, I presume, so I don't think you need us to look it up for you. --Jayron32 01:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both "maybe" and "may be" exist.

• maybe = perhaps, probably, possibly
• may be = may + be - same as "may eat", "may sleep", "may die", and same as "might be", "can be", "should be"

--Theurgist (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Split infinitive discusses whether split infinitives are grammatical, and notes that "most modern English usage guides have dropped the objection to the split infinitive". --09:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

They've been descriptively grammatical forever, since English speakers and writers, for some odd reason, have never felt the need to follow the rules for Latin or any other foreign language. How naughty of them. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to seek out sources for the woefully undersourced Muhammad Ilyas Qadri article - there's very little out there, but there are two passages in Soufisme et politique au Pakistan by Alix Philippon which might be worth a look. Unfortunately, my graps of French is based on Eddie Izzard shows, and so anything not involving a monkey in a tree is a bit beyond me. If some helpful Francophone has a few spare minutes and wouldn't mind translating the relevent passages for me, they can be found here. Thanks in advance, Yunshui 雲‍水 13:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One paragraph, starting from end of p138, to p139:

Ilyas Qadri exhorts (us) therefore to "fear the punishment of God" and to "beg forgiveness" from him, and gives an overview (?) of all that Islam forbids, and which could lead straight "into hell": mixing between men and women at public gatherings or ceremonies, taking photos, watching television, going to the beach and looking at women etc. Exchanging of looks between men and women is particularly condemned by Qadri and is subject to a specific punishment, that of "the nails" (??), which God would have told/indicated to to the prophet at the time of his miraculous journey (the mir'aj). This punishment applies similarly, according to a poem of Qadri included in the brochure, to those who look at photos or listen to music, fishermen (???) likened to "allies of Satan." In their case, the nails will go "in their eyes and their ears." Laughter is also a condemnable practice. Qadri invokes a hadith and a work of the Imam Ghazali to support the idea according to which "The person who has laughed too much in her life will cry a lot the day when she goes to hell." Fear is in effect one of the emotions which Muhammad Ilyas Qadri attempts regularly to arouse in his readers: "Perhaps you will not have the heart to finish this reading, but perhaps it will help you on the day of the last Judgment," he writes in the introduction of one of his many discourses (no 25), "The uninhabited palace". There he recounts the story of the Sufi Junaid Baghdadi who went to Kufa where he saw a grand, floodlit palace, swarming with servants busy helping the guests totally dedicated to their pleasures and their entertainment. (don't know if it means the guests are dedicated to their own pleasure, or the servants are dedicated to it, suspect the latter). At the entrance of the palace, a singer hums "No one will be sad, no one will destroy this house." A few months later, Junaid returned in this direction, but he found the palace empty. Only the singer was present, who explained that the prince and his servants were dead: "This house is an example to those who have faith in this life and not in the other," she said. According to Ilyas Qadri, this story teaches a fundamental lesson: life is a trickster, it it is necessary not to forget the reality of death. He therefore exhortes his readers to focus every day on this inescapable issue, that they may neglect the pleasures of this low world, and not hold in contempt the Day of Final Judgement. In a poem, he writes: "Change the style of life (?)" "You should not be interested by this world" or again "You should change your life now and beg forgiveness."

NB: I'm fr-2, so I used a dictionary a lot. Better get confirmation on the things I've put in brackets if you need them. IBE (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pêcheurs = "sinners", I think, rather than "fishermen". --ColinFine (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and "Change the style of life" is more "Change your lifestyle". Omg †  osh  16:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are almost certainly correct, even though my dictionary says pêcheurs is fishermen and pécheurs (note the accent) is sinners. The text has the former, but either it's a typo or the language has shifted, because only "sinners" makes sense. Didn't see it in my dictionary, because it was buried in another definition. IBE (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, it's an orthographic mistake in the text, which is odd because these aren't the homophones that they may look to an English speaker.  Omg †  osh  16:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the effect on pronunciation of the second "H" in the name of Surjit Singh Chhokar (murdered in Scotland in 1998, and described as the Scottish Stephen Lawrence)? I can't believe it's an English ch followed immediately by an h. Rojomoke (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Punjabi differentiates a voiceless unaspirated palatal affricate, a voiceless aspirated palatal affricate, and a voiced palatal affricate. Some sources use "c", "ch", and "j" respectively to transliterate these[7] but "ch", "chh", and "j" respectively are reasonable alternatives. This forum post says that "chh" was sometimes used for the voiceless aspirated palatal affricate in transcribing Punjabi. (I can't find what language/ethnic group Chhokar was from but his name sounds Sikh, and Punjabi is the usual language of Sikh names.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So actually English "ch" followed by a "h" sound isn't too far from the truth (it's a little further back in the mouth). --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you put a hand in front of your mouth when you say the words "pot" and "spot", in most English accents you will feel a puff of breath with the "p" in "pot" but not in "spot". The "p" sound in "pot" is said to be aspirated but the "p" in "spot" is not. The distinction is not significant in English - it just depends on the phonetic environment of the consonant - but in many languages, including most of the languages of India, the sounds /pʰ/ and /p/ ('p' with a puff and 'p' without) are distinct sounds, heard as different and often distinguishing different words. The sounds sometimes transcribed "chh" and "ch" (/cʰ/ and /c/ in IPA) are related in the same way. --ColinFine (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks! Rojomoke (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this might just be one of those few questions that goes unanswered in the ref desk, but I might as well try. I uploaded a friend's photo on Facebook, and tagged her, so one of her friends (from her state, Meghalaya, India) commented under it in Khasi. I don't know Khasi, and neither the commenter, nor my friend are willing to tell me what it means, but since it's been made in a very public portal, under one of my own uploaded pics, I feel I have a right to know. So here's the comment, and I'm hoping somebody here can decode it :"Lol meh dang pynkhih lbong hi? ". (PS, I guess "Lol" here is the standard "laugh out loud"). 117.226.245.51 (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has actually been answered multiple times on the Misc Desk where it was originally posted. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

that means "Lol, äre you still moving your thighs? can mean anything — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.64.206 (talk) 08:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sure this has been asked (and answered!) before, but I’m not sure what to search for.

The other day I was watching a television program in which (supposedly) Beowulf was read aloud in the “original Anglo-Saxon”. My question is – how do they know what “original Anglo-Saxon” sounded like. Taking this further then, how do they know what any “dead” language sounded like… Ancient Egyptian, Ancient Greek, Latin etc?

Oh, and apologies, I’m not a linguist – so please don’t go all IPA on me :-) CoeurDeHamster (talk) 10:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For Greek and Latin, you can look at the semi-famous books "Vox Graeca" and "Vox Latina" by W. Sidney Allen, which are not too long or too technical (though they presuppose a basic familiarity with certain linguistic concepts). In general, while there's a lot we don't know about ancient languages, when sufficient information is available, so that evidence can be correlated and methods of linguistic reconstruction applied, some things become overwhelmingly more probable than others. One important methodological principle is a "unformitarian" assumption -- i.e. the same types of linguistic structures and linguistic changes that we see in languages today would also have occurred in ancient times, and conversely, structures and changes which are never observed in living languages would not have occurred in ancient languages either.

In the case of Old English pronunciation, the main uncertainty is the details of the "fracture" dipthongs (ea, eo, ie etc., occurring in both long and short forms).

For ancient Egyptian, the pre-Coptic orthographies (hieroglyphics etc.) almost completely failed to write any vowels, so that there's quite a bit we don't know about the pronunciation of Ancient Egyptian. Traditional transcriptions of Pharaonic-era names follow rather arbitrary procedures in which semivowels often become the Latin letters "i" and "u", glottal stops or pharyngeals become the Latin letter "a", and then enough "e" vowels are sprinkled semi-randomly among the remaining consonants so that the word looks pronounceable... AnonMoos (talk) 10:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Linguistic reconstruction. rʨanaɢ (talk) 11:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having asked one question, I feel emboldened to ask another…

I seem to remember, many years ago, reading a Limerick (AABBA form) where the “A” lines tried to rhyme “enough” with “cough” and “plough” (or some other combination of ough-words). Can somebody please point me to an example?

Many thanks CoeurDeHamster (talk) 11:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find it in [8]. But keep in mind that this could be an example of near rhymes; or, if the limerick is old, it's possible that it was written in a time or place that these did rhyme (English pronunciations have changed a lot over time). rʨanaɢ (talk) 11:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it is a joke limerick illustrating the idiosyncrasies of the English Language.CoeurDeHamster (talk) 11:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I often find it comical / How nature always does contrive / That every boy and every gal / That's born into the world alive / Is either a little Liberal / Or else a little Conservative." -- W.S.Gilbert ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was it one of the ones in here [9]? Mikenorton (talk) 12:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a limerick, but Dr. Seuss once wrote The Tough Coughs as He Ploughs the Dough about someone whose whole life was upended by "-ough" words... AnonMoos (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why he didn't take the opportunity to write 'The Tough Coughs as He Ploughs Through the Dough'? Blakk and ekka 16:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, not a limerick, but I once saw in a "Reader's Digest" the following: "I wonder what would help my cough?

A cup of coughey should.
At least it wouldn't bump me ough,
and it might do me gould"
which is on similar lines. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some bloke on the Internet offers this:

The farmer was tending his plough,
when he suddenly swallowed some dough.
He started to cough
and then to hiccough,
which left him feeling quite rough!

--Antiquary (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the meaning of the end of the following sentence:

This study found that antibiotic use 4-14 days after admission showed a significant reduction in all cause mortality (risk ratio 0.54 [0.34,0.87]), which is quite substantial, and a number needed to treat to alleviate one death at 8.

Does the text in bold means that for every eight treated person one would die if not for this treatment? So if they treat 24 person all of them would survive, but without the treatment 3 would die? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.74.50.52 (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not understand that particular phrasing, but it's likely to be connected with odds ratio, risk ratio... AnonMoos (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Number needed to treat. From the lede: The NNT is the average number of patients who need to be treated to prevent one additional bad outcome (i.e. the number of patients that need to be treated for one to benefit compared with a control in a clinical trial). If you give the treatment to eight patients, one more patient would survive on average than if you do not give the treatment. So my interpretation, without taking the mortality information into account, is that the bolded statement could mean 8/8 survivors instead of 7/8, 5/8 instead of 4/8, or 1/8 instead of 0/8. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 17:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In combination with risk ratio 0.54, this most likely means that, without treatment, 2 out of every 8 patients die, and, with antibiotic treatment, that number goes down to 1 out of every 8.--Itinerant1 (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a town in Australia called Omeo - a four letter word with three syllables. Just got to thinking: are there any three letter words that are three syllables (I'm talking standard English, not foreign languages, and would accept other names, but not abbreviations, acronyms, etc; for example I wouldn't regard aka (when pronounced a-k-a) as a word). I can't even think of any other four letter ones off the top of my head. --jjron (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Area", "urea" and (depending on your accent) "idea" are 4-letter, three syllable words. Rhyme Zone suggests the surname "Cea", which apparently rhymes with "idea", but I haven't a clue how that that would work. Smurrayinchester 15:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, facetiously wikt:baa, as in the onomatopoeic sound of a sheep, can be as many syllables long as your throat can handle. According to Wiktionary, it can be [bæ̰ˀæ̰ˀæ̰ˀæ̰ˀ]. Smurrayinchester 15:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly, a syllable requires a vowel. In that case, we would be looking for a three-letter word, each of which is a vowel and each of which is separately pronounced. I don't think any such words appear in English. Bielle (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Actually, a syllable can be a consonant, but usually that just happens between or adjacent to other consonants--so long story short, you're still right that the word the OP is looking for would have to be three vowels. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

If proper nouns (like Omeo) count, then perhaps 'Aoa or Aoi. There is also a genus of moth called Eoa. There are probably more obscure examples. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather words, it's just that it was the name that got me thinking. Regardless, I believe Aoa would be Polynesian and Aoi is a Japanese actress, so wouldn't fit into the criteria of being English words. Eoa is possibly more acceptable. --jjron (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The state of ioa fits your description. 188.6.94.79 (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We do have an article on such a word, IOU. --Incognito.ergo.possum (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Euro. 84.229.86.183 (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What does it mean if you know "a few words" of a language? I recently said to someone I know that I know "a few words" of a certain language, meaning I can only say "hello" and fifteen nouns, but in Faith Like Potatoes the farmer claims he knows "a few words" of Zulu, and he can put together full sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.22.163.154 (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's really just a vague statement with no exact meaning. In other words, your definition of only knowing some key words, or the farmer's definition of being able to put together (presumably) simple sentences could both be regarded as correct. Conversely the farmer may intentionally be understating his abilities as many people do when they can do something unexpected, and his statement could be taken to mean anything up to "I know a bit of Zulu, but am not fluent in it", or "I speak Zulu well, but it's not my native tongue", or even "I speak Zulu, but don't want to brag about it". --jjron (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I generally understand "a few words" to mean anything from knowing only "yes", "no", "hello" and "thank you" to being modest about knowing enough to hold a conversation. Often, one learns a few basic words and one or two supposedly useful phrases, such as "where is the toilet", though not all phrases are actually useful; see "My hovercraft is full of eels" or "My postillion has been struck by lightning" for some amusing examples. Astronaut (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hello,

if you have legendary English skills, you should find mistakes in these sentences:

1. With city's permission another mass took place (comma missing? Maybe the s-genitive is incorrect)
2. In a meeting with Polish Ambassador Stanisław Ciosek in 15 March 1995, acting mayor of Moscow, Alexander Musykantski, assured him that the return of the church would be complete by the end of the year.
3. In March 2002, members of the cathedral and Catholics from other European cities participated in a rosary led by the Pope by video conference.
4. Latter were fitted out with benches until the closure of the church in 1938; unlike today, the left side reserved for women, the right for men

Thanks.--♫GoP♫_T^C_{N 16:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)} [reply]

1. With the city's permission, another mass took place.
2. In a meeting with the Polish Ambassador Stanisław Ciosek in 15 March 1995, the acting mayor of Moscow, Alexander Musykantski, assured him that the return of the church would be complete by the end of the year.
3. In March 2002, members of the cathedral, and Catholics from other European cities, participated in a rosary led by the Pope via video conference.
4. The latter were fitted out with benches until the closure of the church in 1938; unlike today, when the left side is reserved for women, and the right for men. I don't know what "latter" refers to, but the verb following it ("were") must agree numerically with it.

Bazza (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I assume these are editing questions rather then some random quiz you found in the internet or your English language homework.

1. It could be "With the city's permission another mass took place" referring to the city as a place, or "With City's permission another mass took place" referring to City as the name of a sport's team (papal visits often include outdoor masses in large venues such as sports stadiums). I would consider a comma between "permission" and "another" as optional.

2. "...with Polish Ambassador Stanisław Ciosek in 15 March 1995..." would be better as "...with Polish Ambassador, Stanisław Ciosek, on 15 March 1995..." (added commas and fixed typo in -> on). I am also unsure what "...the return of the church..." means. Is it a portable church borrowed by the city of Moscow for some reason, or maybe the city borrowed some artefact from a Polish church, or maybe a church used by Polish ex-pats in Moscow has been undergoing repairs and it will be returned to use by January?

3. "...cathedral and Catholics from other European cities participated..." might be better as "...cathedral, and Catholics from other European cities, participated..." (commas added). I'm unfamiliar with the ceremonies in a Catholic church, but perhaps "rosary" should be "mass". Finally, "...led by the Pope by video conference" could be difficult to read with the two "by"s close together; perhaps "...led by the Pope via video conference" would be better.

4. It is unclear what it is supposed to mean. Maybe "...was later fitted out with benches, with the left side reserved for women and the right for men, until the closure of the church in 1938." there is perhaps no need to mention the changes seating situation today since the church closed long ago.

Astronaut (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Thanks!--♫GoP♫_T^CN 17:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded my answer slightly. Astronaut (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are benches in the main aisle and confessionals in the side aisles. The latter...--♫GoP♫_T^CN 17:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then maybe "There were benches in the main aisle and confessionals in the side aisles. The latter were also fitted out with benches, with the left side reserved for women and the right for men, until the closure of the church in 1938." Astronaut (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"in 15 March 1995" should be "on 15 March 1995". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm writing an essay for school, and I've mostly finished it. The only remaining problem is in regards to some quotes I've included to emphasize my points. I found all of them on random quote websites. I put who said them in the content of my essay ( e.g. ' So and so said, "blah blah blah" '). My question is, since I included the name of the person who said it, do I have to cite it? And if so, do I cite the random website I got it from, or what? I've searched Google, but I haven't found anything. Thanks, --Thekmc (Leave me a message) 22:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]