What is the guy saying at the beginning of this video? To me it sounds like "Dames en eregen, chama ginni!", which might indicate that my colloquial Dutch skills are lacking. --Lazar Taxon (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dames en heren is the first part. Rmhermen (talk) 00:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait, it's "Dames en heren, we gaan beginnen!" Never mind. --Lazar Taxon (talk) 00:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i am looking for a malay name meaning respect or peace. any suggestions? thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.121.36.232 (talk) 09:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might use "Izzati" (feminine) or "Izzat" (masculine). It means glory, honor, and prestige (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Transwiki:List_of_Malay_names#I).71.30.227.47 (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While checking a letter I came across this part of a sentence: "...enabling you and I to obtain consolidated valuations of your investments". Is "you and I" the object of the verb "enabling", or the subject of the verb "to obtain"? My internal pedant tells me it's the former and therefore should be 'you and me', but that just looks wrong. --86.129.220.98 (talk) 11:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"You and me" is prescriptively correct, as the phrase is the object of "enable". The subject of "to obtain" is what syntacticians call (or at least used to call) "big PRO", a sort of mystical pronoun with no phonetic realization. +Angr 11:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look at all wrong to me. You're entirely right. "You and I" looks to me like simple hypercorrection. ¶ However, if you really want to look closely, matters aren't that simple. Consider "Me want to go there": other than perhaps in some very distinctive dialect, this is plain wrong (unless it's some kind of joke). However, one or other of "Jim and me want to go there" and "Me and Jim want to go there" is likely to sound a lot more idiomatic, and perhaps even fully acceptable for informal speech. Quite aside from hypercorrection (which clearly isn't involved here), it seems that coordinating (X and Y) does odd things to case assignment in English (and for all I know other languages as well). -- Hoary (talk) 11:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have a private hypothesis that "me" in (colloquial) English is a disjunctive pronoun like French moi. Rather than being marked specifically as accusative (or "objective"), it's used whenever the pronoun is not the immediate subject of a finite verb; and when the pronoun is the immediate subject of a finite verb you use "I". So you say "I want to go there" because "I" is the immediate subject of "want", but "[John and me] want to go there" because the subject is the whole phrase "John and me". This is similar (not identical!) to French, where you'd use "je" in "Je veux y aller" but "moi" in "Jean et moi, nous voulons y aller". (I'm almost positive *"Jean et je voulons y aller" is ungrammatical in French.) Likewise, "John is taller than me" (where prescriptive use calls for the nominative "I" instead) is like French "Jean est plus grand que moi" (not *"...que je"). But "enabling you and I to obtain" is a hypercorrection due to pressure to say, for example, "You and I are friends" instead of "You and me are friends". +Angr 11:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But more simply, the accusative is in English (though not in German or I believe in Dutch) something like the default case. Teacher to students: "Who wants a choccie bar?" Students: "Me! Me!" (In German, as I vaguely (mis)remember, [nominative] "Ich! Ich!") ¶ My French is terribly rusty and, well, bad; but for what very little it's worth my interlanguage won't accept *"Jean et je voulons y aller"; for me, and conceivably for authentic francophones too, "je" clashes violently with distinctively plural "voulons". Moreover, "je" and "me" are both better simply regarded as clitics, no? You can't reply to a question with either as a single-word answer; it must instead be "moi" (which of course is compatible with your account). In "Jean et moi, nous voulons y aller", "Jean et moi" is topicalized. In English too, a topic is accusative: compare "Me, I want to go there" and "I, I want to go there", which to me sound respectively deliberate (a proper topic) and merely repetitive (a duplicated subject). However, although "John and I, we want to go there" sounds a bit odd/prissy to me, it doesn't sound as bad/repetitive as "I, I want to go there". ¶ Oh dear, I have to leave the keyboard and do the dishes (from morphosyntax straight to bathos). -- Hoary (talk) 12:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response - good to know my internal pedant was right. Another way if looking at it (in case anyone wants an alternative answer to my own question): if you change "you and me" to "us", then it's not only technically correct but obviously so, even to non-pedants. The context requires "you and me", though, so I ended up rewriting the sentence so the problem didn't arise (almost always the best solution).

In the case of the chocolate bar, can you talk about subject vs object in a 'sentence' which has no verb? Or to try a different tack, isn't "Me! Me!" short for "Give it to me! Give it to me!" rather than a direct answer to the question "Who wants this"? --81.136.143.173 (talk) 12:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's often helpful to replace the two pronouns by just I/me and see what seems natural: "...enabling I to obtain..." or "...enabling me to obtain..." - clearly (to me, anyway) the latter is the only possibility. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that analysis. But there's another factor involved here. Saying things like "enabling you and I" is very common, even among people who normally take care to always use the right word. It's almost become idiomatic to ditch the rules in this case. I've had verbal stoushes with people who know their grammar, who justify "you and I" on grounds that they consider have some merit. I'm yet to be convinced, though. Saying "enabling you and me" is not in the same league as answering "Who wants a choccie bar?" with "I!" rather than "Me!", but it's getting closer by the day. It's still in the melting pot, though, and fwiw I always use "enabling you and me". If and when it becomes considered pedantic to say that, I will drop it. Until then, I fight the good fight. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@AndrewWTaylor: that argument has often been put forward. But what evidence have you for its validity? Number agreement does not look inside a coordination (i.e. the grammaticality of "John goes" and "Jill goes" do not imply that "John and Jill goes" is grammatical), so why should case? Joseph Emonds in his 1986 paper Grammatically deviant prestige constructions argues that no natural variety of English uses the case of pronouns in the way that (Latin-influenced) prescriptive grammarians insist on, because there is not enough evidence of grammatical case in the language to allow native speakers to acquire those rules. He suggests that the actual rule applied by native English speakers is something like 'use the subject form when the pronoun immediately precedes the verb under the same node (I haven't got the terminology right and can't remember the details; but for example this licences the unmarked (object) form in a coordination like "Jim and me went", because 'me' is inside the coordination, not at the same level as the verb.) If he is right, then the prevalence of hypercorrection is understandable, because the prescriptive rule requires grammatical information which is not available to unlearned native speakers, and so speakers will tend to substitute a different rule, for example 'the subject form must always be used in coordinations'. --ColinFine (talk) 23:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair (and interesting) points, Jack and Colin. Colin's "actual rule applied by native English speakers" reminds me of when I was a young child in church and was trying to work out the difference between "thou" and "thee", which I realised were both "church words" for "you". The best I could come up with at the time was that "thou" usually came at the beginning of a sentence and "thee" at the end. I didn't notice the analogy with "I" versus "me", and presumably had internalised most of the rules for those at an earlier stage. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone knows that a double comparative is no good. Thus: *My brother is more younger than me. But is having two comparatives next to each other always wrong? What if there are two types of biscuit on a table, identical in all aspects save size. My job is to work out which biscuits to order for a forthcoming event. I think the smaller biscuits are better, but that we should probably have some of the bigger ones as well. So I say to my colleague placing the order: "We should buy both types - but please order more smaller ones." To answer my own question, I think that I should say: "We should buy both types - but please order more of the smaller ones." But does anyone think one could drop the 'of the', thereby creating a kind of double comparative, and get away with it? Ta.62.25.109.195 (talk) 12:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like more in that example doesn't have the same meaning as in a phrase like "more happy." It has more of the meaning of "a greater number of," which might have an important distinction. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 13:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict: "More" is not a comparative in your case, though. It could freely be replaced by "less" or "a few" or "some". It's an adverb, I think. (Not sure, grammar is not my forte.) TomorrowTime (talk) 13:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "more" does not refer to the "smaller" but to the "ones". So it's not a problem. Vimescarrot (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In your case, the "more" implies that the smaller biscuits need to be made smaller, not that the number of the smaller biscuits has to be increased. So, in this context, leaving out the "of the" is wrong and it may lead to misunderstandings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.6.97 (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say leaving out "of the" is wrong, but including it certainly avoids any ambiguity. +Angr 16:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone just made an edit changing "not effective" to uneffective. As I was poised to hit the edit button to change it to "ineffective" as was struck by a doubt. Perhaps both are acceptable. Google proved less than helpful as some online dictionaries do define "uneffective" but Google suggest "ineffective" as a new search term. So is uneffective widely used or not? Rmhermen (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to write that this is one of those cases where one can be completely clear and unequivocal: uneffective is wrong. But perhaps it's never wise to be so firm. I would certainly correct uneffective to ineffective every time. I don't consider uneffective to be widely used except by genuine mistake and I'm pretty sure I've never heard it.GBViews (talk) 17:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But see also litotes: "not effective" is not necessarily synonymous with "ineffective"—the former says that the attempt was merely not good enough, but the latter that it's not good at all. Compare e.g. "not loved" and "hated", where the difference becomes more obvious and strong._{(um, more obvious and stronger?)} No such user (talk) 06:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a word! It can be looked up on Dictionary.com. Therefore, you do not need to change it, although you might want to avoid using it, in case people are not familiar with it.71.30.227.47 (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The OED lists both un- and ineffective; in the case of uneffective it provides examples of use only up to 1670 or so, while it gives usage for ineffective up to 1898. I would change it if I ran across it, but don't foresee myself spending a lot of time hunting examples down. Wholeheartedly agree with No such user about the difference between "not effective" an ineffective, with the latter carrying a stronger meaning. I'd also note that at times ineffective can carry a bit of a moral judgment in its meaning: "treatment of the influenza virus with penicillin is not effective," vs. "General Funkenstein was a competent tactician, but an ineffective leader." Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through the Australian section of the bbq sauce article, I found the statement that "There are various sauces in the market from fruity to brown sauce." I thought it odd that gravy or roux would be considered as a bbq sauce but the link goes to a dab page with other options. Is Brown sauce an Australian term for steak sauce? Rmhermen (talk) 17:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. It means HP Sauce.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 17:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So actually yes, as that article has "HP is a popular condiment...a brown sauce" (redirect Steak sauce). Rmhermen (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda. Bear in mind that the following sentence states that "In the United States, as its name implies, the sauces is predominantly associated with beef, while elsewhere it is often used on a variety of foods". I've not once heard of HP sauce being referred to as steak sauce. Seegoon (talk) 11:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd never use HP Sauce on a steak. Salt, pepper, horseradish, mustard, yes, but not HP. I'd use that on sausages.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 11:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a question on the humanities desk about whether the dissertation at the end of an MSc, etc., is a "Masters thesis" or a "Master's thesis". If anyone knows, could they please reply there? Thanks! --Tango (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Among those who regard apostrophes and their placement as important, I'm sure that "master's thesis" would be strongly favoured. Among those who don't think they are important one can expect to find "masters thesis". --ColinFine (talk) 23:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Searching Google in yale.edu and harvard.edu "master's thesis" seems more common than "masters thesis" (442 vs 283 hits in Yale but 2160 vs 585 in Harvard). The University of Oxford website in the UK has slightly more hits without the apostrophe, while for Cambridge the figures are almost the same. So it probably doesn't matter in general (even if "master's" makes more sense to me), although if you're at a university/college you could check which style is more common there. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 12:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did ask that you reply over there, rather than split the response. I'll copy your answers across! --Tango (talk) 13:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose you were annoyed at someone, for example, for using a digital clock and you wanted them to use an analogue clock, and then someone else (not that person) told you to, for example, "bug the people who use 7th generation consoles instead of 6th generation consoles". Are they actually ordering you to do that, or are they saying they would rather you do that? 58.170.197.97 (talk) 00:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[I changed the heading from "Question" to "Ordering someone or stating a preference?" to make it easier for readers to scan the headings or to search the archived discussions. A question headed "Question" is like an e-mail message headed "Message". See Microcontent: Headlines and Subject Lines (Alertbox). -- Wavelength (talk) 06:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)][reply]

It sounds to me like they're suggesting you do that. Unless they're in a position of authority over you, they can't order you to do anything (well, they can, I suppose, but it would be pointless), but they can suggest or recommend you do something. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're neither suggesting nor ordering you to bug 7th generation console users, they're bringing it up as something that they feel is just as absurd as bugging people about using digital clocks. They hope that you already know that B is absurd, that you will realise B is logically equivalent to A, and thus you will realise that A is absurd.

I'm not sure if there's a term for this. If they phrased the analogy "Would you tell someone who drove a car that they should be using a horse and buggy?" that would be a 'rhetorical question' - they're not expecting you to answer, they assume you already know the answer is 'No'. So perhaps an order that they assume you will immediately refuse, such as "Go bug...", is a 'rhetorical order'? --81.136.143.173 (talk) 10:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of like "Tell it to the judge/the Marines/the Pope" is meant rhetorically? Or even "Here's a Quarter (Call Someone Who Cares)"? +Angr 10:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the opposite of the form of "against" used in "What do you have against x"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.170.197.97 (talk) 00:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[I changed the heading from "Question 2" to "Opposite of a word in context". -- Wavelength (talk) 06:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)][reply]

Interesting question. I don't think there's a corresponding idiom for the positive case of "having something against" X. That sort of suggests you have some evidence to support your stance, or to disprove some claim that X is making. The default position might be that you'd have no reason to have anything against X unless ... you had something against them, if you see what I mean. The opposite would need to be something like "why are in favour of X?" or "why are you supporting X?" or "why are you voting for X?" or "why do you like X?, depending on the context. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the OP's question "What is the opposite of against"? In which case I suggest "What do you have FOR x" (my emphasis). - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 12:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is correct?:
- Sergei Rachmaninoff by his Steinway grand piano.
- Sergei Rachmaninoff at his Steinway grand piano.

Thank you. Fanoftheworld (talk) 01:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this instance, both are correct. Technically, "by" means that Rachmaninoff is located next to his piano, and "at" means that Rachmaninoff is sitting down in front of the keys, ready to play. Logically, Rachmaninoff cannot be at his piano without also being by his piano. (He could, however, be by his piano without being at his piano, if he was standing up.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 01:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...I should perhaps add that the reason I say "technically" is that it's a kind of a nitpick! If Rachmaninoff is leaning against his piano and someone says that he's at his piano, it's not really incorrect -- but it can be a little inaccurate or misleading, though probably not in any way that's going to make any difference to anyone. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 01:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"At his piano" is more idiomatic. It's like a dinner table. Are you "at the table" or "by the table"? It's mostly a question of whether or not you're sitting, and which way you're facing. In this case, Rachmaninoff is unambiguously at his piano. LANTZY^TALK 04:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To me, 'at his piano' implies 'seated as though he has been playing or is about to do so', while 'by his piano' does not imply that, and so by Gricean implicature might suggest that he is not so seated. --ColinFine (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't necessarily imply that to me. If I were told that someone was "seated at the piano", my mental image would be of them facing the keyboard, with their hands either on the keys or resting on their thighs. But there's more than one mental image that could qualify for "at the piano", and the picture above is one of them, imo. He's certainly not "by" the piano. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that out of the "by" or "at" the better word would be "at". But I think that "in front of" would be better than those two. Eiad77 (talk) 05:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a latin word meaning 'bureaucracy', or something similar? Ideally one that would have held similar negative connotations in Classical Rome? --superioridad ^(discusión) 08:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it had negative connotations, but the "scrinia" were the various imperial bureaucracies. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My research finds scrĩnium to be a box or case of some sort. [1] [2] Is there a reference, somewhere on the World Wide Web, supporting the meaning "bureaucracy"? If "bureaucracy" is an extended meaning, is there an explanation of how that meaning developed? -- Wavelength (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, just Google "roman bureaucracy scrinia" (or "scrinium"). I don't know specifically how it evolved but I suppose the different ministries were departmentalized with different boxes for each of their duties. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When someone writes "I HATE ALL CAPS" in ALL CAPS, what is the humor called? Is it irony? Also what is the difference b/w sarcasm n satire? --59.182.9.110 (talk) 11:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you examined our articles on irony, sarcasm, and satire? Note also that simple dictionary definitions may suffice for the latter question: sarcasm and satire. My understanding of the first is that "I HATE ALL CAPS" could be construed as verbal irony, but is not likely to be universally accepted as such. For the latter, sarcasm is frequently (though not always) a component of satire. — Lomn 14:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the caps mean the headgear cap, and could it be a pun? Oda Mari (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Muphry's law. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While a thoroughly amusing link, it's not the phenomenon in question. Muphry's applies to people who criticize someone's grammer [sic]. I interpret "ALL CAPS" as an intentional statement for humorous effect. If it were accidental then I'd concur with you; I just don't think that's the scenario presented. That said, I consider the accidental version more ironic than the intentional, which is why my first post is laden with caveats. — Lomn 17:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Fumblerules. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe self-referential humour, assuming it was done with humourous intent, which may not have been the case. It's not uncommon for people to break their own rule in the very act of pontificating to others how they should behave. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Galations 6:1. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the relevance. The question is about a humorous version of Epimenides paradox, so if any Bible verse was relevant, it'd think it to be Titus 1:12. --Pykk (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My reference to Galatians 6:1 was in response to the preceding comment by JackofOz, and not to the original questions. That is why I indented my comment as I did. See Wikipedia:Talk page#Indentation.

-- Wavelength (talk) 05:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might find something applicable in Category:Humor. -- Wavelength (talk) 02:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Come on in! Would you like some sweets?" "Sweets? What's the occasion? Did you get a promotion?"

In the above quote, the presence of the word occasion is O K? What does it mean? --Logicanter (talk) 14:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's fine. It just means what is the reason for offering the sweets – the assumption being that they are being offered for some special reason. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An "occasion" is when something has "occurred", so basically it is asking "What has happened?". The word "occasion" has connotations of being something special. --Tango (talk) 19:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It needn't be an occurrence, though; the 'occasion' could be a birthday or the like. —Tamfang (talk) 23:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huzzah! I heard this word had a meaning of: "I fight to the death." Today its common meaning is equated to "Hurrah." Was there an archaic meaning, from a different culture/language than English, matching what I heard? I know an Ethiopian who seemed to recognize it as the meaning I noted. Her expression changed immediately to a grim one when I said it and she made no denial when I defined it as noted. Brother of Attila (talk) 17:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huzzah (We do have an article on almost anything. :-) 71.236.24.129 (talk) 17:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

in which I have just replaced the bald claim that it had its origin in a Mongolian war-cry to the mention of this as one theory. See Talk:Huzzah for my reasons. --ColinFine (talk) 22:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The second is more common (according to google), but is the first wrong?--80.58.205.37 (talk) 17:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from some rather strained uses (eg 'That's nice from you!' meaning (ironically) something like 'I don't think you've any right to say something like that'), I would be surprised to hear 'nice from you' from any native speaker. --ColinFine (talk) 17:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've often heard from Germans, though, who are unsure which translation of von to use when mentally translating nett von dir into English. +Angr 17:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Germans also sometimes use "from" when English speakers would use "by", such as "Now the Fifth Symphony from Beethoven we shall hear". -- JackofOz (talk) 23:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "German", I believe you mean "Yoda". -- Captain Disdain (talk) 04:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is here anybody, who can transfer the Chinese term 中国经济昆虫志 into Latin letters? Thank you, 79.219.192.76 (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Google Translator says "China's economic insects Chi", I suspect that may not be entirely accurate! Hopefully someone that actually speaks Chinese will be along soon. --Tango (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And SysTran "helpfully" says "Chinese economical insect will". Neither of the translations seem completely loopy, though - try a Google search on the Chinese phrase then translate the resulting pages and they seem to be about insects with an effect on the Chinese economy, for example this. Where's KageTora when you need him? 86.151.150.202 (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The term refers to a Chinese scientific journal. Something around the lines of "The Effects of Insects on the Chinese Economy." Literally the characters would be translated: "Chinese Economy Insect Magazine." bibliomaniac15 22:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The pinyin for this is Zhōngguó Jīngjì Kūnchóng Zhì.

The official translation is "Economic Insect Fauna of China".

The literal translation would be "Chinese Journal of Economic Insects" or "Journal of Chinese Economic Insects".

"Economic insects" does not refer to parasitic bankers - it means insects which can be farmed or otherwise exploited commercially - in English probably more likely to be called "commercial insects".

No disrespect to the first couple of posters, but be wary of anyone offering you a translation via an automatic translation engine.... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we both made it clear how little we thought of our machine translations. --Tango (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh of course. It was intended as a comment about the translation engine, not the editors... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For context, see Insects#Relationship_to_humans. "Economic insects", to my mind, means insects with a measurable effect on the economy, not necessarily only ones that can be bred commercially. The term might legitimately include those with a negative effect (housefly, termite) as well as the positive ones (pollinators such as the bee, textile manufacturers such as the silkworm, food uses known as entomophagy, and once again respectable maggot therapy). BrainyBabe (talk) 11:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had to, as part of my work, take a 9-year-old Japanese girl to the dentist to get her front teeth fixed, involving lots of 'shaving' of the teeth and me holding her hand and translating for the dentist. A terribly horrific experience for me, as I had my front teeth taken out without anaesthetic when I was a kid, but the child was loving every minute of it (except the part where she nearly drowned in the water from the drill). What is the word for a fear of dentists?--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 02:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS - don't say 'dentophobia', because that would be fear of teeth, not what I'm on about.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 02:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The dental fear article suggests odontophobia among others. Cycle~ (talk) 02:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! That'll be the one! This happened nearly a year ago, but stuck in my mind as a horrific experience. BUT, I have managed to get my teeth cleaned and get some fillings since. Just the whole thing of watching a little girl having her teeth 'shaven' was really horrific for me. Thanks, you gave me the answer.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 02:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Humph. "Odonotophobia" should also mean "fear of teeth". "Fear of dentists" ought to be odontiatrophobia. +Angr 06:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, right. And being a man I could only think of one reason why I should fear teeth, but we won't go into that. 'Odontiatrophobia' it is then. That'll be a lovely word to teach. Let's see if she can pronounce this one! She is extremely advanced in her English, but the father asked me to go just in case. Cheers.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 11:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a reference to the vagina dentata? BrainyBabe (talk) 11:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A phrase I always find myself wanting to sing to the tune of Hakuna Matata. +Angr 11:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I'll do that next time I'm at karaoke! Watch the bottles flying from the ladies!--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shall there be a space between the number and the "%"?

For example: 98% or 98 %

Thank you for helping. Fanoftheworld (talk) 11:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus. See percent sign#Spacing. — Emil J. 11:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I personally would not put a space in there. I get paid per character, and the space is a character, and I've been told specifically not to put it in, in cases like this. Anyway, I don't think it's necessary, and I am so used to not putting it in that it actually looks silly to me now. I'd go with the 'no space' bit.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 11:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

98 % is certainly wrong. If you're going to use a space at all, it should be a non-breaking space: 98 %. Algebraist 13:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we are going to discuss different kinds of spaces, then it should be a thin space: 98 %. — Emil J. 13:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should it? That's not mentioned in the article you linked. Algebraist 14:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'm not sure where I got it from, maybe I'm wrong. — Emil J. 14:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, there should be no space. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Percentages. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to ascertain the relationship and degree of mutual intelligibility between Hindi (a macrolanguage, I recognize) and Rajasthani. Apparently Hindi is a Central Indo-Aryan language and Rajasthani is a Western Indo-Aryan language, yet formerly Rajasthani was classified as a dialect of Hindi. How much mutual intelligibility is there? Are there any rough comparisons that can be made, e.g. like Spanish (Castillian) compared to Portuguese, or to Catalan, or to French or Italian? Thanks for everyone's help --71.111.205.22 (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely sure what you mean when you refer to a Spanish-Portuguese level of intercomprehensibility, since it's somewhat notorious that Portuguese speakers often find it easier to understand Spanish than Spanish-speakers do Portuguese. AnonMoos (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, if it was 'formerly classed as a dialect of Hindi' there must be a reason for that, i.e. that they were mutually intelligible. Your question answers itself.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We need some researcher to come up with some sort of measurement and scale for these language or dialect pair relationships, it would be a brilliant breakthrough in language classification. --Lgriot (talk) 03:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Languages similar to French. -- Wavelength (talk) 04:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure whether that link is really too helpful; French has a number of structural similarities with Spanish and Italian, but the intercomprehensibility of spoken standard French with spoken standard Spanish or Italian is very low... AnonMoos (talk) 07:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My reference to that page was in response to the preceding comment by Lgriot, and not to the original questions. That is why I indented my comment as I did. See Wikipedia:Talk page#Indentation.

-- Wavelength (talk) 05:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting website, thanks Wavelength. I was looking for something more academic, though, with a proper methodology on how to decide those cactuses and percentages (use standard printed dictionaries A and B, use grammar features X, Y and Z etc.). --Lgriot (talk) 05:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this is a more productive question: to what comparative degree do native / advanced speakers of Hindi (perhaps from Delhi/New Delhi/ Uttar Pradesh) understand Punjabi, Gujarati, Rajasthani, or Marathi (etc.), without having studied them? (the Guj. and Punj. alphabets differ from Hindi Devanagari so perhaps we should focus on oral comprehension) Can any useful comparisons be made with German speakers understanding Dutch, English, etc. or Spanish speakers understanding Portuguese, Italian, etc? BTW, I totally agree with Lgriot and AnonMoos. Thank you. --71.111.205.22 (talk) 10:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by language has links to Category:User hi and Category:User raj. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese was never classed as a dialect of Spanish, and Dutch was never classed as a dialect of German. However, Luxembourgish sometimes is classed as a dialect of German, Dutch and even French (and one idiot even claims it to be a dialect of English), and when I speak Luxembourgish to people of any of those areas, they still understand me, even though it's also classed as a separate language - people who class things as such and such tend to have a real knack of making it complicated by disagreeing with each other.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the suffix “up” on the following words, and how did it come about?

act up; add up; back up; bang-up; belt up; bone up; break up; brush up; buck up; buckle up; bundle up; butter up; button-up; buy up; call up; catch-up; choose up; clam up; clean up; cozy up; crack up; curl up; cut up; dial-up; dig up; do up; doll up; double up; dream up; dress up; drum up; dummy up; face up; fed up; fix up; follow up; foul-up; frame-up; gang up; gear up; give up; gussied up; hard up; jam-up; keep up; lead up; lighten up; loosen up; make up; mark up; measure up; mix-up; mop up; open up; pass up; pay up; pipe up; play up; pony up; power up; ring up; round up; runner-up; scare up; screw up; sew up; shack up; shake up; shape up; shape-up; shoot up; show up; shut up; sign up; sign-up; size up; souped-up; speak up; start-up; stink up; sum up; sum-up; tag up; talk up; tear up; tie up; touch up; trade up; trump up; trumped-up; tune-up; use up; wait up; warm up; warm-up; wash up; wind up; wise-up; work up; write up; write-up

Sirrom1 (talk) 04:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think there's really a "suffix" up, in the usual meaning of the word suffix. However, there's prepositional up ("up there"), adverbial up ("go up"), and verbal particle up ("give up"). The examples you give are verbal particles, and their origin is the same as that of English verbal particle constructions in general. AnonMoos (talk) 07:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might find [3] interesting (make sure the book pic displayed says "Phrasal Verbs") 71.236.24.129 (talk) 07:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Am I correct in thinking that the word feedback was coined by Norbert Weiner, the founder of cybernetics? And that its first published use was in the 1948 book Cybernetics: Or the Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. Paris, France: Librairie Hermann & Cie, and Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press? I did read a paperback edition of this book once years ago - it is a non-technical popular account. His Wikipedia article mentions a classified secret monograph written in 1930 and made public in the early 1940s which might predate it, but I've never read it and it seems to have had only a small readership. 84.13.54.183 (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The earliest quote in the OED (with the spelling 'feed-back') is from 1920, appearing in Wireless Age, whatever that may once have been. Algebraist 17:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was a radio communication magazine. Indeterminate (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A patent filed in September 1915 and issued in September 1916 contains the phrase "feed-back circuit" (p. 2 ff.). --Cam (talk) 23:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Is there any information on when it came into wider use please? Our world has been changed a lot by that idea I think, and people who were brought up before it became widespread may see society in a more dictatorial way. 84.13.54.183 (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on. The OED distinguishes two meanings for 'feedback' (well, three, but the third one - the howling noise you get from a PA system - is not relevant). The older is a technical term in electronics, and it is this that goes back to 1920. The second meaning (which is what our feedback article mostly covers) the OED dates to 1943. --ColinFine (talk) 15:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say it is "not relevant"? All three terms are related in meaning (mechanically similar), only differing in the medium of the feedback. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The terms are related in origin, and if you understand the physics you can see the relationship; but their meaning is different. You can hear feedback³ and cover your ears whether or not you have the least idea what causes it. Feedback ² is more abstract: while it may refer to perceptible entities (eg words, or voltages) they are feedback only in respect of how they are used, not in respect of any intrinsic quality. And feedback¹, while technically an instance of feedback², is so specialised that you need to understand its field (electronics) to know what it is about. Actually I would distinguish a fourth meaning: comments and reactions, whether or not they are to be used to modify or refine a process. --ColinFine (talk) 22:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What all meanings aneka can have? Literally, it means that is not one/more than one. However, some online vedic or scriptural interpretations give the meaning of many or even innumerable. When did this word come to have the meaning of many? Can somebody tell? --Sankritya (talk) 18:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that aneka (अनेक: अन् + एक) literally means "not one". The disctionary meaning follows:

• Monier Williams' dictionary: not one , many , much ; separated.
• Capellar's dictionary: not one; many or much (also pl.), manifold.
• Macdonell dictionary: more than one, various; many, several.

I didn't find any standard dictionary define aneka as innumerable; I guess that would be a justifiable extrapolation, but don't know when that meaning was first applied. Apte gives the following Sanskrit translations for innumerable: asaṃkhya, gaṇanātīta, saṃkhyātīta, agaṇya, asaṃkhyeya . Abecedare (talk) 19:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I asked a question on the talk page of American and British English differences. The page writes as I know that the possession is normally expressed by the verb have. But chiefly in Britain (?) you can use the phrase have got and in American slang you can simply use got. That's OK, I know, but I'm confused about their tenses and their time references. I'd like someone to complete (and correct) this table below.

    have             have got             got                              blah-blah
I have a car.    I have got a car.    I got a car.  These sentences refer to the present, I have that car now.
I had a car.          ? ? ?              ? ? ?      This sentence refers to the past, I had that car in the past and don't have it any longer. How would it be said with (have) got?
I've had a car.       - - -              ? ? ?      This refers to a part of the past or present it's not important, it's importance is the experience I've ever owed a car. I think it would not make sense with have got, but what about got?

Thank you, --Ferike333 (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is:

(1) The phrase have got as opposed to have is somewhat more common in Britain (especially in negative and interrogative sentences), but it's used in both British and American English. Generally speaking, have got is more colloquial than have.

(2) The phrase have got can only be used in the present tense. So, we can't say I had got a car. We can only say, I had a car and I have had a car (or I've had a car).

(3) I've got a car sounds more natural than I have got a car.

(4) Got for have is nonstandard, and it should not be used in writing.

I'm [dʒæˑkɫɜmbɚ] and I approve this message. 22:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And while we're at it:

Consider the question, "Have you got a car?"

A British person would answer, "Yes, I have." or "No, I haven't."

An American would answer, "Yes, I do." or "No, I don't.", as if the question were "Do you have a car?", which is the more common form in American English.

I'm [dʒæˑkɫɜmbɚ] and I approve this message. 23:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In American English, I got a car does not mean I possess a car. It means I acquired a car, generally in the recent past. Tempshill (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I retract that it doesn't mean "I possess a car". It can mean that in the most casual of circumstances. Who's got a car? Oh, I got a car. But it would be regarded as improper even to us provincial loutish Americans. Tempshill (talk) 23:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can also say "I had gotten". I was thinking you could also say "I have gotten", but that sounds weird to me. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I had gotten" and "I have gotten" both sound okay to me. "I have gotten 19 people to sign my petition." No use of the word "got" is appropriate in formal writing at present, though, among my generation, it is a very very common expression. As for, "I had got a car," I think that that's something that some people might say, but it definitely is not correct grammatically. --Falconus^{p t c} 04:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could say "He had got out of bed and had showered and was half-dressed before he realised it was Sunday morning and he was due for his sleep-in". I never use gotten, so I can't say whether that "word" could replace got here. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

The only real differences between British and US usage is that in the U.S. "gotten" is used as the past participle of the verb "to get" in contexts other than indicating simple static possession. So in the sentence "I've gotten five votes over the last hour", the meaning of the verb in context is to obtain or recieve, which is why "gotten" is used in American English. But in "I('ve) got enough money in my pocket", British and American are the same... AnonMoos (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Guys--let's keep it simple. As a long-time ESL/EFL teacher, I know how easy it is to confuse learners.

As for got vs. gotten:

Generally speaking, the past participle of get is gotten in North America and got in most of Britain and Australia--when it does not indicate static possession or obligation.

(N. Amer.) I have gotten 19 people to sign my petition. = (Eng., Aus.) I have got 19 people to sign my petition. (= I have made them sign my petition; I caused them to sign my petition.)

In English English and Australian English, this I have got (19 people) looks like I have got (a car), but it's semantically and grammatically different. Quite different.

Also note that, in English English, "I got enough money in my pocket" and "I've got enough money in my pocket" are always different; the latter indicates possession, the former does not.

If you look up the word have in a good learner's dictionary, such as Merriam-Webster's, you will find all of the senses of have for which the phrase have got can be used. In contemporary NAmEng, these are the only possible uses of got as the past participle of get.

I'm [dʒæˑkɫɜmbɚ] and I approve this message. 19:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I got a car is past tense. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it? In the meaning "I obtained a car" it's past tense, but as a contraction of I've got a car, with the meaning "I have a car", not really... AnonMoos (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard, nor used, that construct in present tense. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't you ever heard Ray Charles sing "I Got A Woman", or Chrissie Hynde of the Pretenders sing "Got Brass in Pocket"? AnonMoos (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, but that doesn't mean they're using standard English. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever -- you may not like it, but it's nonsense to say that you've "never heard" it, then... AnonMoos (talk) 02:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Am.Eng. 'You got a cigarette' can be an acceptable substitution for 'Do you have a cigarette?', which is not only Am.Eng. but also Southern Br.Eng. In the North of England we'd say 'Have you got a cigarette?' (also acceptable in some parts of America). 'You got a cigarette?' (question form, hence the question mark) to me, would be simple past tense referring to having actually obtained a cigarette. This is something I also as an EFL/ESL teacher for many years find trouble explaining to students (most of whom need to learn Am.Eng. to pass exams).--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 23:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's still not grammatically standard American English. I don't know what you mean by "acceptable substitution". Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's nonstandard, and I made that clear in my very first post. I'm [dʒæˑkɫɜmbɚ] and I approve this message. 23:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please find some proof that it's standard English. [4] says it isn't. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please give me some proof that you can actually read! I said NONSTANDARD time and time again. I'm [dʒæˑkɫɜmbɚ] and I approve this message. 00:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, giving us some proof that you understand Wikipedia protocol and can be polite, as we are all trying are best to answer your question, but we are also talking to each other either agreeing/adding information/disagreeing, would also be nice. Calm down and don't shout.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I was growing up (in Southern England) "do you have?" was a strange thing that Americans said. It was not normal in English English (except for the frequentative:"Do you have dances in your village?"). My observation (OR) is that when "have" is an auxiliary, it patterns as an auxiliary ("have you seen?" "I haven't seen") in all varieties of English, but when it is a substantive verb North American English tends to use it like an ordinary verb ("do you have any?") but British English has tended to continue pattern it like an auxiliary ("have you any?"). This distinction has been reducing over the last thirty or so years, so "do you have any?" is reasonably common in the UK now - I haven't noticed any difference in Northern and Southern usage there, but there may be. I believe that the prevalence of "Have you got?" in colloquial British English is partly because of the prosodic preference for a stressable element in non-first position: in lects where "do you have? is normal, this can be stressed as "do you HAVE", but where this form is (or was) unavailable "HAVE you?" is weaker than "have you GOT?". The same argument can account for the affirmative construction, with a bit of fiddling: "I have got" (with full 'have') is comparatively unusual except in contrastive use, but in the colloquical register where 'got' is common, so is contraction, so "I've got one" is much more common. Here again the 'got' gives us something stressable in second place. --ColinFine (talk) 13:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

o.O Thank you very much. Let me please, write a short conclusion so that you can see whether I've understood or not. Have is the most widely used, however it's uncommon in Southern Britain in simple questions like Do you have any apples?. In this case a Southern British person would choose the have got form which is common in whole Britain. Got is nonstandard, only used in American slang. They really do, I know as I've heard people saying that in a film (called: Chicago). The form have gotten cannot be used to express possession, only as the past participle form of get, and this form is chiefly American, in Britain, standardly, got is used for past simple as well as past participle. Had got and gotten can neighter be used for possession, it sounds strange even to me, I just asked because one of my former teacher said it was to express possession in the past, something like the past form of have got but it's not true, and I haven't heard eighter. So have got and got can be used only when referring to the present, even though have got is formally a perfect phrase. Have got is naturally and ususally shortened to 've got (eg: I've got...). Though, I won't always use the short form because on my keyboard it's a bit difficult to put an apostrophe so I usually write the full forms as it takes fewer time than putting apostrophes (or when I don't have to be official I simply omit them). I think that's all we've already mentioned, right? If I skipped something important, please remind me, it's not easy to follow a such long text like this. And now, more questions: Chiefly Americans often use ain't instead of numerous negative short forms (aren't, haven't, am not, etc.). By this way, can I say I ain't got any eggs. or I ain't have any eggs. instead of I haven't got any eggs. (both sense) and I don't have any eggs.? --Ferike333 (talk) 15:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I ain't got any eggs" (or more likely "I ain't got no eggs") is grammatical in the nonstandard dialects where it occurs, but *"I ain't have any eggs" (likewise *"I ain't have no eggs") is (AFAIK) totally ungrammatical in any variety of English, standard or nonstandard. +Angr 15:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much to all! Now I understand. It was interesting to discuss it with you. Really it was. :) --Ferike333 (talk) 19:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"had got" (or rather "'d got") for possession the past is certainly possible in British English, but I think less common than in the present. "He'd got a car" is more colloquial than "He had a car", but I think the distribution of these two is different from the distribution of "He's got a car" vs. "He has a car". "Gotten" is not usual in any British variety of English in any sense, AFAIK.

"Ain't" is not standard in any modern variety of English, but is widely used in non-standard dialects throughout the world. There is some uncertainty how to contract "am not", and "ain't" is a solution which at certain times was regarded as acceptable. My grandfather, I'm told, used to say "amn't I" but I have rarely heard this. In English English it is common to say "aren't I", but in the affirmative "I'm not" is the only common contraction. (I say 'English English' because Scottish English often takes a different tack with these contractions). --ColinFine (talk) 23:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

so we don't have a classic example article, but if we did, it would define classic example, and also give some examples. What examples might it give -- what would be a classic example of a classic example? 79.122.9.184 (talk) 23:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about some classic classical examples, such as Oedipus Rex, a classic classical example of tragic irony, or Mozart, a classic classical example of a Wunderkind, or the term "classical music" as a classic example of ambiguous metonymy. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the most classic classical example, the archetypal of everything, is of course Homer! --pma (talk) 08:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ha ha. very funny guys, but I'm not asking for a classical example. Just a classic example that would illustrate the meaning of the term "classic example"... 94.27.208.52 (talk) 09:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Ford Edsel is often considered a classic example of a poor business decision. The McDonald's Coffee Case (where the victim was burned on the legs by spilled coffee) can be considered, alternatively, a classic example of an extreme jury result in a lawsuit (overly high damages) or of a corporation's uncaring endangerment of the public (in reality the plaintiff was not greedy and the jury damages were ultimately not overly disproportionate). --71.111.205.22 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Careful on claiming Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants is an extreme — as you say, it probably was not extreme. Tempshill (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Magna Carta as an example of restraint on executive power. Wrad (talk) 17:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A classic example of compassion after seeing horrific things done by your own side in a war would be Oskar Schindler.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 20:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking for information about the Commonwealth Essay Competition because I wish to enter the next one. I am from Singapore. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.8.254 (talk) 08:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your local British Council [5] should be able to help with information on the 2010 competition. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 09:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For personal research I require Chorley in Chinese, both symbolic and if possible in Roman script. Cheers doktorb _words^deeds 16:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transliterating non-Chinese words into Chinese characters is not an exact science at all; if there's not an accepted conventional exonym, then probably different people could do it in different ways. The article Harry_Potter_in_translation used to be accompanied by numerous lists of all the Chinese transliterated/translated versions of Harry Potter names and special words, including explanations as to why the Taiwanese and mainland translators sometimes did things differently (but I guess all that got deleted as "cruft")... AnonMoos (talk) 22:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The standard transliteration seems to be 乔利 (Qiaoli), but also seen as 乔莱 (Qiaolai). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, the name means peasants' clearing (according to the article), which ought to be easy to put into Chinese! —Tamfang (talk) 23:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for the replies. It is interesting to consider how the transliterating process can be less than accurate. doktorb _words^deeds 16:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did someone back in the day look at one and basically say "What should I call this animal? Hmmm... It's wild... It's a beast..."? --84.69.24.212 (talk) 00:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not so much 'wild beast' as 'wild cattle'. Beast or cattle beast is still occasionally used to refer to cows. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 01:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just like Springbok. It's a male deer (buck) that jumps around when you run after it. Afrikaans is incredibly simple when naming animals.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 02:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Websters, it is from the Afrikaans for 'wild ox' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.203.213 (talk) 00:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

how do you say frosting or icing in spanish, the culinary term? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.67.171 (talk) 03:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not completely sure, but I think you may use the term cobertura. Pallida  Mors 06:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is genome pronounced GEE-nome, or gen-OME? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The stress is on the first syllable[6][7] --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 09:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, however, when transformed into an adjective -- that is, genomic -- the resulting term is stressed on the second syllable. --71.111.205.22 (talk) 10:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 14:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I want the Hindi and Tamil translation of (Goat's) lever, gall bladder, etc. If there is any translation website/dictionary in these languages, do please let me know. Bye. Kvees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.100.1.97 (talk) 12:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the website but in Hindi, liver is called 'Yakrat' and gall bladder is called 'Pitta'. Goat is 'Bakri'. So Goat's liver will be 'Bakri ka Yakrat'. I hope I am right. Don't know anything about Tamil though. - DSachan (talk) 14:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The entry liver links to ta:கல்லீரல். I don't know how it's pronounced though. --ColinFine (talk) 23:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be 'kʌlːiɾʌl or something like kull ee rull. Marco polo (talk) 01:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i remember i read an article about a misplaced comma in a contract that cost a company thousands of dollars. i am looking for the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.8.241 (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remember that this was discussed before on Wikipedia. (Although the Wikipedia subset of the whole internet is not so small nowadays that it makes that search much easier.) Rmhermen (talk) 14:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Googling "misplaced comma cost" suggests Rogers Communications or Lockheed Martin (and we're apparently talking millions), although neither of those articles mentions the cases in question. Try looking through the many other Ghits.--86.25.194.157 (talk) 14:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The two seem to be very different mistakes. In the Rogers case the comma changes the meaning of a sentence, whereas in the lockheed case it is a comma in a monetary amount. -- Q Chris (talk) 14:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was also the plot of an episode of Billable Hours, but maybe that was based on the Rogers story. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not the answer, but there's a Roger connection - Roger Casement was said to have lost his life (execution) over a missed comma. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our Mariner 1 article says it's an urban legend that the rocket had to be destroyed because of the erroneous placement of a hyphen in some source code or data. Tempshill (talk) 22:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it grammatically correct to say, for instance, "The rebels seceded Texas from the Union" instead of "The rebels caused Texas to secede from the Union" or just "Texas seceded from the Union"? 69.224.37.48 (talk) 15:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Secede' is normally intransitive. The OED mentions transitive usages (e.g. 'A plot to secede the whole Mississippi Valley from the United States and join it to Spain' from William Faulkner) but says that such usages are rare. Algebraist 16:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Google-fu has failed me on this one, so I turn to you all in the hope that someone can make sense of this ...

At my job, I recently encountered this acronym (pronounced by coworkers as "PAH-fee"). At least, I assume it's an acronym. I have no idea what it means or what it stands for, and google / wikipedia don't seem to know either. PAFE redirects to an article about some airport because PAFE happens to be the airport code. The only other reliable result I've found on the 'Net is "post antifungual" something or other, which I know isn't the case either.

Context: On a project status report, "Finalize the budget and submit a PAFE for approval". I suspect that this is some kind of "business-ese", but I have no idea what it means. Assuming that it is really business-ese, I'm surprised the Internets couldn't help me figure it out ... Kind of embarassed to ask the coworkers about this, since they all seem to know what it means. Anyway, thanks for the help. Dgcopter (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Off the top of my head, as this is budget related it could be requesting a Funding Estimate (FE). As to the PA, I'm stumped - possibly Project A-- ? Or projected amount? Nanonic (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be embarassed; many companies have their own jargon, based probably on the 4 words at the top of a standard budget approval form that they have. At least it isn't a 27B/6. Tempshill (talk) 22:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my sense is that it's internal jargon. The only way you'll find out what it means is to ask a colleague. If you don't know what it means, you can bet others will be in the same boat, so you might be doing them a service by asking the question. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Projected Actual Financial Estimate'?--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 22:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Transhumanist    20:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It makes it easier to visualize the relationship between concepts, as in all diagrams, without going through a long-winded explanation. And please do not post on multiple RefDesks.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I often see articles with sentences like this:

Born in 1923 and raised in Dry Gulch, he was elected President of the United States of Utopia in 1985.

What's the first part called? And why do editors often connect two quite unrelated things by use of this device? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember what the first part is called, something like 'run-on-[something or other]' (or maybe that's for the second part). In this sentence, though, the purpose of the two dates is to show how old he was when he was elected, and the 'United States of Utopia' presumably has some connection with Dry Gulch.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 22:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) It's called a participial phrase (actually, there are two coordinate ones in your sentence). I'm not sure what your second question means—are you referring to dangling modifier problems? Deor (talk) 22:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we sometimes form sentences like this to imply a connection beyond the fact that we're talking about the same subject. "Born in 1923, he remembered the Great Depression only too well", for example. In Jack's sentence the only connection is the subject. I don't know how to put this linguistically, but I interpreted Jack's observation along these lines. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well, if you're right, I don't see why there has to be any syntactic connection other than the subject. Jack's sentence just seems to me a slightly more elegant way of imparting the information "He was born in 1923. He was raised in Dry Gulch. He was elected President of the United States of Utopia in 1985." The construction can certainly be used in such a way that the result is a non sequitur ("Born out of wedlock, he attended Columbia University"); but that's not a grammatical problem, and I don't see Jack's example as being of that sort. Deor (talk) 23:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also (something different at) § 1. absolute constructions. 1. Grammar. The American Heritage Book of English Usage. 1996.

-- Wavelength (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dangling modifiers are part of the problem, but this is not that. Sometimes it's like "Educated at Dry Gulch University, he was elected President in 1985". That's not a dangling modifier, because both parts of the sentence are talking about the same person. But there's no connection between where someone was educated and the circumstances of their election as head of state. I often see it used in articles that are, frankly, very poorly written, by editors who would not normally have participial phrases as part of their linguistic armoury. I get the impression that the writers have seen this sort of construction elsewhere, and feel that they're somehow supposed to use it whenever they're writing a biography; or that its use lends an air of professional polish it might not otherwise have. That's fine if it's used appropriately; but so often that's not the case. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a trick to avoid boring repetition. In biographies you get a lot of sentences in the form "He was...", "He did...", "He <verbed> ...". It can get stilted very quickly. Conjunctions, dependent clauses, and participial phrases can "dress up" the prose, eliminating some of the repetition. You're probably correct in that writers of mediocre talent likely copy such techniques from more talented writers, but then do not give proper thought to the overall meaning of the new sentence which they have constructed. -- 128.104.112.117 (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Wavelength noted, it can be called a nominative absolute. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A nominative absolute has a subject which is different from the main subject of the sentence. In that respect, it differs from a participial phrase. -- Wavelength (talk) 03:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question "Do you have any apples?" could be answered in the negative a number of ways:

No, I don't have any apples

No, I have no apples

No, I haven't any apples

No, I haven't got any apples

some others.

The question "Have you ever been to Uruguay?" could be answered in the negative a number of ways:

No, I've never been to Uruguay

No, I haven't been to Uruguay

No, I've not been to Uruguay

some others.

It seems to me that the "I've not" form could not be used with the apples question. You couldn't say:

No, I've not any apples.

I've probably heard "No, I've not got any apples", but it sounds non-standard.

So, if "I've not" and "I haven't" are both abbreviations of "I have not", why is it that both forms are available for the Uruguay question, but only one of them ("I haven't") is available for the apples question? Is it simply because the verb "have" is denoting possession in the apples case, but past tense in the Uruguay question? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I've not got any apples" is very common in the North of England.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because there are two different verbs here. 'Have (auxiliary)' patterns like an auxiliary (forms questions by inversions, and negates by a suffixed 'not' or 'nt') in all varieties of English. 'Have (substantive verb)' may pattern like an auxiliary or like a substantive verb (negation and question by 'do') depending on the dialect, the construction, and the whim of the speaker. As I've just been discussion on WP:RD/M it is more commonly treated as substantive in North American and more commonly as an auxiliary in UK: I don't know about Oz. It happens that that particular bit of auxiliariness is not common today, though it was more so in the past ("Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels and have not love"). --ColinFine (talk) 23:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, true. But one would never say "I've not (any) love", whereas one could conceivably say "I haven't (any) love". -- JackofOz (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, in your example, "I've not been to Uruguay", there is a past particple in it, same as mine. Your last examples just now are not the same, and could not be used in "I've not to Uruguay".--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 23:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Not any" is not a usual construction these days. If one possesses zero apples, the contemporary common usage seems to be "I have no apples" (or, more colloquially, "I haven't got any apples"). The older usage is "I haven't any apples". "I've not any apples" is unusual. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Yes, We Have No Bananas... -- AnonMoos (talk) 04:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'ven't got a problem with "I haven't got any apples".217.18.23.2 (talk) 08:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do Australians pronounce the word Queensland more like 'kwiːnz lənd or 'kwiːnz lænd? Thanks. Marco polo (talk) 01:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See (and hear) http://www.forvo.com/search/queensland/. -- Wavelength (talk) 03:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my favorite reference desk! I have a French question for you. Our entry at Wiktionary for "quelle" says that it's sometimes used as an exclamation. Would any (hopefully native speakers) be able to expound on the use of this word in an exclamation? What connotations it might have, any parallels in English, how often it's used, etc. Thanks. seresin ( ¡? )  05:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a native speaker, but as far as I know, it isn't used by itself as an exclamation, but rather together with a noun to mean "What a ...!". For example, Quelle surprise! for "What a surprise!" (The masculine quel can of course also be used that way, as in Quel dommage! "What a pity!") +Angr 06:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering what the literal translation of 'non sequitur' is in Spanish?.. The internet yielded little results but did say the 'incongruencia' or incongruity could be it but that doesn't really fit with the definition of non sequitur... Thanks for any help 83.33.73.241 (talk) 08:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Posted on the Bayonet discussion page. -- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 08:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this article, the last sentence regarding Napoleon turning Elba into an "operetta empire". Searching through Google, there are very few hits of this word. Out of curiosity, what does this mean and what is it's origin?--Blue387 (talk) 09:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The period equivalent of Freedonia (though that doesn't help with the origin).-- Deborahjay (talk) 09:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC) User:Nunh-huh's response is far more convincing; ignore the above. Deborahjay (talk) 09:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I think Freedonia is a great example. - Nunh-huh 09:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Ruritanian romance; essentially, a kingdom (in this case, an empire) of high romance, ornate spectacle, and elaborate ritual, rather than one with actual power and importance. - Nunh-huh 09:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh-- origins.... this is the type of kingdom featured, at least stereotypically, in many operettas. I'd give examples, but it seems our "List of operettas" has been incorporated into our "Opera corpus", so it's now pretty much useless for this purpose. - Nunh-huh 09:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure of the use of "on" in the French language. I am learning French from Heath's Practical French Grammar which was published in 1901. Modern day French language does not use "on" in the same way as I have learnt. In particular, I am unsure on the following translations (please tell me whether each translation is correct or not):

1. "Somebody rings" - "On sonne"

2. "First, the soup is brought" - "On apporte le potage"

3. "There is no fruit on the table now" - "Il n'y a pas de fruit sur la table maintenant"

4. "People take coffee at dessert" - "On prend du café au dessert"

5. "Then they go up stairs" - "Ensuite on va en haut"

6. "Then they go into the library" - "Ensuite on entre dans la bibliothèque"

My main doubts are:

(a) What are exactly the uses of "on" in the French language? Do my translations above reflect the correct usage?

(b) In 3. above, could "maintenant" have started the sentence? Does it matter, the position of such words in the sentence?

(c) "Then they go up the stairs" - "Ensuite on monte l'escalier". "Then they go up stairs" - "Ensuite on va en haut". Are these translations correct (notice the subtle difference).

Thankyou for your help in advance. I would greatly appreciate it if I was told whether my answers to 1. - 6. are correct or not, rather than a link. I always search many websites before asking questions here, so links are in general of no use to me. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.138.117 (talk) 09:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]