What's a good website where I can learn Klingon for free? --75.50.52.102 (talk) 01:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible wikipedia has an article on the subject, but I simply went to google and entered [klingon language] and this website[1] was the first one on the list. It seems to have at least some basics. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because Klingon (Tlh'ingan Hol) is a conlang, it's actually under copyright, unlike most languages, which are nobody's property. For this reason, one can't simply write one's own Klingon Language Course. It's a bit of an unusual situation. All natural languages, and most other conlangs are, for want of a better word, open-source. There aren't restrictions on teaching and learning, for the most part. Some natural languages (such as Australian aboriginal languages and other indigenous languages of the world) do have some restrictions due to understandings of cultural possession and connections to spirituality. Steewi (talk) 03:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see a RS ref that it's actually under copyright. AFAIK, one can't copyright a language or a script. kwami (talk) 06:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our own article (not a reliable source, presumably, but a start) says "Paramount Pictures owns a copyright to the official dictionary and other canonical descriptions of the language. No challenge has been brought to court." I assume this would mean you can't go around publishing your own dictionaries and textbooks. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okrent, Arika (2009). In the Land of Invented Languages. Spiegel & Grau. ISBN 978-0-385-52788-0. Page 228:

"There is one invented language that is essentially owned by a private company, though the terms of ownership have not been tested in court: Klingon is protected by a trademark held by Paramount Pictures."

--ColinFine (talk) 10:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but trademark protection is completely different from copyright protection. +Angr 11:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Klingon" would be the trademark. The language itself would be copyrighted. Obviously, a language is not a trademark. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so the implication here is that we won't know whether a language can be copyrighted until someone tests it in court. Jonathan ^talk 22:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any other copyrighted conlangs? --84.62.197.235 (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IANAL, but any conlang which has been invented in the past hundred years or so and which hasn't been explicitly released to the public domain is necessarily copyrighted. The author might not complain about your use of the language (they'd probably be rather happy about it), but it's still copyrighted. Marnanel (talk) 17:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I challenge that. Languages are not copyrightable. Companies can purport to hold a copyright on them, which Paramount is currently purporting. The copyright office in the US will just register the copyright on their dictionary without comment. The dictionary itself is copyrightable but facts are not; in this case the words of the fake language are the facts. As stated above, this fake copyright has not been tested in court. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(after ec) Quoting further from Okrent (op. cit., p. 227): "Brown claimed he owned the rights to the vocabulary of Loglan. Did he? Brown did have copyrights on his books, incluiding the dictionary. But copyright does not extend to each individual word in a copyrighted work ... Would it have been possible for him to copyright each Loglan word separately? Perhaps, but he didn't ... Can the rules of a languae be owned? Probably not ... There is, however, some blur in this area within the murky world of software patents, so given the right lawyer and the right judge, who knows?" --ColinFine (talk) 18:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point, but what does "Would it have been possible for him to copyright each Loglan word separately? Perhaps, but he didn't" mean? It's not as though copyrighting something involves a deliberate action. You have copyright in your creation from the moment it exists in tangible form. Marnanel (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To give a possible answer to the question about conlangs with lawyers and money behind them, I think the most obvious parallel is with Tolkien's conlangs. I'd like to see what would happen if someone published a new creative work which had sections written in the Arda languages but leaned on no other part of the Tolkien corpus. Marnanel (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Blissymbolics may be copyrighted. If I remember the story correctly, Mr. Bliss spent a lot of time and money trying to popularize his symbols, to no avail. A teacher at the Ontario school mentioned in the wiki article was digging through some old materials and found his symbols, and realized they could be used at their school for students as a introductory step before teaching them to read. When Bliss found this out he was overjoyed, bought tickets to Canada to visit them and went around talking everyone up at the school and trying to charm them. As time went on, he got violently upset that they weren't using his symbols 'correctly'. They were 'corrupting' them, etc. He tried taking legal action and caused a mess for a long time. Finally, the school decided it was best to just 'buy' the rights to his symbols so that he couldn't harass them anymore. Bliss promptly spent the money on publishing a large number of reference manuals to Blissymbolics. There were more details in the "In the Land of Invented Languages" book that Colin Fine quoted above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.132.252 (talk) 23:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the earlier question about Klingon copyright, I'm pretty sure it's possible to copyright the dictionaries and the grammar description but not the language itself (otherwise you would be violating copyright whenever you spoke the language). The only other way I could imagine it being an issue would be if, for example, I made a movie in which people spoke Klingon and I made a lot of money off of it. For what it's worth, the language copyright issue issue also came up (briefly) just a couple days ago at WP:Articles for deletion/Na'vi language. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure about that. Dictionaries of all kinds of languages are copyrighted, but the language itself is not; it's in the public domain. However, Klingon is not in the public domain unless its inventors have declared it to be - it's a work of fiction, hence as copyrightable as anything. They couldn't stop you from talking Klingon with someone, but if you tried to profit from it, I would think it's likely they could enjoin you from doing so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]}. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does "le desordre c'est moi" mean? I thought Babelfish would tell me but I don't really understand the result. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 13:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a play on the famous phrase "L'état c'est moi" (Louis XIV of France#Quotes)... AnonMoos (talk) 13:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And it means: "Chaos is me" or "I am chaos". Also, it's spelled "désordre". --Xuxl (talk) 15:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, both those translations might be considered inadequate to fully render the connotative force of the original French construction (and "chaos is me" is kind of distractingly similar to "woe is me"); that's why "L'état, c'est moi" is often left untranslated in English-language works... AnonMoos (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all! Dismas|^(talk) 11:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The context:

"Thank you, sir. God bless you." "Gods have nothing to do with this. You're welcome."

God bless you would be: 上帝保佑你. In that, 上帝 is used as "god", pronounced "shangdi". -- kainaw™ 16:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but what about the question? Thanks. 67.243.1.21 (talk) 18:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What question? It asked to translate "gods" into Chinese within a specific context. In that context, the translation is 上帝. -- kainaw™ 20:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The full translation might be something along the lines of 上帝不管这个 or 这和上帝没有关系, but without more context (specifically, what "this" is), it's hard to say. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find that to be a good translation as the second speaker does not appear to subscribe to the monotheism of the first speaker. 67.243.1.21 (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The plural is not expressed like that in Chinese, so there's no straightforward way to give that impression anyway. And personally I don't see that to be an important part of the original English either. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you attempt to change it from a monotheistic god to some sort of random collection of sub-gods (in order to make the joke), it will be completely lost in Chinese. There are many words for "god". So, the response will use a completely different word for "dieties" or "spirits" instead of "god". It is similar to translating a bad Chinese pun into English and getting: "How old is your son?" "He's four." "Oh, I'm so sorry for asking." (I'm sure all the Chinese speakers are cringing at such a pathetic pun!) -- kainaw™ 02:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was horrific, in both senses of the word! :) --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 11:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tetraphobia, for those who are wondering... AnonMoos (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was not an attempt at a joke; believe me, I know better ones. I simply wanted to make a point. 67.243.1.21 (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been suggested to me "这和诸神无关系". It sounds good. What do you think? 67.243.1.21 (talk) 14:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that you want it to mean "All the gods in heaven", but I've never seen 诸神无 used. That doesn't mean it isn't used - I've just never seen it. They way it is written, it literally looks like someone who doesn't know Chinese looked up the characters for "all", "God", and "heaven" and decided to cram them together. -- kainaw™ 01:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, "无关系" is the other word. In other words, "这和诸神没有关系". 67.243.1.21 (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Microsoft Winsows computer often tells me this. Shouldn't it be "Automatic updates are turned off"? You might say that "Automatic Updates" is a singluar piece of software, but automatic updates seems more like a verb or process that would happen more than once, and hence should have a plural. 84.13.181.49 (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's one of two possibilities. It's either that "Automatic updates" is, as you say, the name of a specific feature or piece of software, or it's another example of Microsoft software being illogical because the programmers didn't think it through. Why, for example, must you press the "start" button to turn the computer off? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I loathe Windows as much as any other Mac user, but I don't have a problem with that last one. You press 'start' to start the process of turning the thing off. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 20:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wish everyone didn't blame the programmers for the shortcomings of the UI designers. Marnanel (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another example of a technical writer forgetting a cardinal rule: "Keep your audience in mind". I have to enter my email address and password to access my emails. On that page, there's a separate box for each of these 2 bits of information. Underneath is the legend: Please note that email address and password is case sensitive.

To normal humans, they're two things, so the verb can only be "are". But obviously to a programmer, they're part of the same overall piece of data, because case sensitivity will apply either to both (sub-)pieces of information or to neither.

Another one that used to have me tearing my hair out every time I saw the ad on TV: "Whether you're at home or out on the job, your local Telstra shop are here to help you". The rationale seemed to be that there were many physical shops, in many different locations, and they were all there to help their local communities, so it was a plural thing. But to refer to them collectively as "your local Telstra shop" and still use the plural verb - I can only assume the ad was written by someone who was not a native speaker of English. Or maybe it was a cunning ploy to get the audience's attention. It worked. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"But obviously to a programmer, they're part of the same overall piece of data," ^{[citation needed]} --LarryMac | Talk 20:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what else could explain someone writing "A and B is ..." rather than "A and B are ..."? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Off the top of my head I can think of a) non-native English speaking programmers and b) incorrect design. But to state "obviously" how a programmer thinks is just wrong. As a programmer-American who has written on or two log in routines, I can't imagine how anybody would write a functional system that could treat user name and password as a single data element. --LarryMac | Talk 20:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I withdraw my outrageous slur against programmers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can easily imagine someone half-remembering a teacher telling them that "is" follows a singular noun, and saying to themselves, "well, 'password' is a singular noun..." Marnanel (talk) 20:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the OP's question, "Automatic Updates" is indeed the name of the service, and so it's technically correct to say "Automatic Updates is disabled" (cf "The Merry Wives of Windsor is not one of Shakespeare's greatest plays", although italics would probably be used in that case). I can also see another reason - in disabling Automatic Updates, you've disabled automatic updating for _Windows_, but not for any other application. Someone might read "Automatic updates are disabled" as implying that _all_ automatic updates are disabled, which isn't the case. Of course, Microsoft's choice of name for the service is open to criticism for the reasons mentioned above, but there's little anyone can do about that. Tevildo (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@JackOfOz: it is common in British English to refer to a collective such as a government, a committee, or a shop with a singular or plural verb, depending on whether it is being regarded in context as an entity or a bunch of people. I know that this is not customary in the US, but I thought Australian agreed with British here - perhaps I'm wrong. Certainly to me, 'your local Telstra shop are there to help you' is unexceptionable. Pinker, discussing a text from a particular subject in The Language Instinct, notes that "My bank are awful" is grammatical in British English, and I concur. --ColinFine (talk) 21:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Hence, the cabinet is meeting today but the cabinet are divided. (Of course, the latter should be impossible.) Here, "Automatic Updates is" is the other side of a coin of common usage - the other being "Norwich City are". On a side note, "Red Hot Chili Peppers"- singular, or plural? - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 21:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the above, but this is a different case. The name of each shop was "Telstra Shop". They were all operated by Telstra. There were many of them, in different locations. Each one was, to its local community, the "local Telstra Shop". Each local Telstra Shop serviced one and only one local community. One could think of the Telstra Shop as a single nation-wide organisation (is) or as many different outlets (are), but when it comes to talking about local Telstra Shops, that's different. So, the options were:

• "The Telstra Shop is/are here to help you", or
• "Your local Telstra Shop is here to help you", or
• "Your local Telstra Shops are here to help you".

They were like local branches of a bank; one might say "The bank is .." or "The bank are ...", depending on the context, but one would never say "Your local branch of XYZ Bank are always at your service". Would one? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I probably wouldn't, but I might say "Your local branch of XYZ Bank are always at your service" if I had a point to make about the staff (i.e. a plural by implication). I think, in reality, that it's all down to choice, context etc. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 21:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The local HSBC have contributed £1000 to the fund". That looks OK to me (BrE). Not "The local HSBC branch", though. Tevildo (talk) 22:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The branch has" and "The branch have" are both fine for me, as a Brit. As said before, it all depends on whether the speaker sees the branch as a single entity or a collection of staff members. I would think, for me, at least, that the plural verb in this case suggests familiarity and therefore friendliness, this could be why 'your local Telstra Shop are' was used in this case, to suggest this sort of closeness and friendliness. --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 11:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the following on the back of a car the other day:

БОГ ЕСТь ЛЮБОВь -- ИОАННО 4:8

In Russian, are the names Ivan and Ioanno considered two different names? Woogee (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "Ioanno" is used specifically for the Evangelist, as it is here? Adam Bishop (talk) 00:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found these Russian versions of 1 John 4:8 online.

• 1-e Иоанна 4 Russian Synodal Text
• 1-e Иоанна 4 Russian koi8r
• Russian Version (KOI8-R Encoding)- Book of 1 John Chapter 4
• Библия онлайн: 1 Иоанна 4:1-21 Священное Писание — Перевод нового мира - Официальный веб-сайт Свидетелей Иеговы

-- Wavelength (talk) 01:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Иоанн (Ioann) is the original Slavonic version of what is generally now written Иван (Ivan = John). It was derived from the Old Greek name Ioannes. Ioann is still used in relation to religious figures such as John the Evangelist. For example, the Russian equivalent of Gospel of John is Евангелие от Иоанна (Иоанн appears here in the genitive case, Иоанна, being governed by the preposition от).

Tsar Ivan IV of Russia ("Ivan the Terrible") was a Ioann in his day, as were various others, and that form is still occasionally seen in reference to him - such as in A. K. Tolstoy's 1898 play Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich, about Ivan's son Tsar Fyodor I, whose patronymic is now usually given as Ivanovich.

Ioanno might be some antique oblique case, or maybe just a mis-spelling. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the word that describes the perception of a face in a crisp? Kittybrewster ☎ 10:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pareidolia? +Angr 11:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spot on. thank you, my mind went blank. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, so did mine. I just googled "seeing human faces" and Wikipedia's article on Pareidolia was the first hit. +Angr 15:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's also Simulacrum.Paul Davidson (talk) 11:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Usage problem; this is my (US English) initial attempt at distinguishing two different meanings of "behalf":

• The deacon presented the "Outstanding Student" award on behalf of the faculty committee.
• Only one neighbor came to testify in the accused's behalf.

Is the choice of preposition (on vs. in) a matter of sentence structure alone, or are they associated with the two different meanings? If the latter, would the second sentence be correctly rewritten as:

• Only one neighbor came to testify in behalf of the accused.

Searching the web, I came up with this line cited on the Washington Post 's "D.C. Wire" quoting the Los Angeles Times (so I'm not sure which style sheet applies):

• "...R., who once served on the board of the S....... school, spoke on behalf of J. [who was accused of misconduct]..."

Consulting Webster's 10th Collegiate online, I got (and failed to comprehend) this:

• : interest, benefit; also : support, defense <argued in his behalf>
• — on behalf of or in behalf of : in the interest of; also : as a representative of
• usage A body of opinion favors in with the “interest, benefit” sense of behalf and on with the “support, defense” sense. This distinction has been observed by some writers but overall has never had a sound basis in actual usage. In current British use, on behalf (of) has replaced in behalf (of); both are still used in American English, but the distinction is frequently not observed.

What are we to make of all this? -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it'll help, but BrEng would never use "in", always "on": "on someone's behalf", "on behalf of someone". AmEng seems to suggest "on" with a legal sense, in the least. I'm struggling to see a "interest, benefit" sense of "behalf" TBH. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 12:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an American English speaker, I will weigh in by saying that in behalf is not part of my repertoire. I would not think of using the preposition in with behalf in any context. I accept the evidence that in is sometimes used, but I strongly doubt that most American English speakers would use one preposition for one set of meanings and another for a second set of meanings. Marco polo (talk) 14:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In these cases, the usage of these prepositions is very difficult to detect in terms of their intented meanings. I am not sure but there might be some variations to refer a temporal cause of event as salient and permanent versus the agent in question is not central to a meaning. That is--

• ‘I am writing in behalf of Mr. X’ is to mean that I will remain the agent for Mr. X.
• ‘I am writing on behalf of Mr. X’ is to mean that I am the agent for Mr. X at the time of an event.

If this is not the case, then it is difficult (i think) to make any other meaningful assumptions about utterances that make differences in prepositional ostentation. —Mihkaw napéw (talk) 17:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Solving a cryptic crossword, I came across the clue "Joining the team, act on gin mixture likely to befuddle" for which the answer somehow came out as INTOXICATING. I can see a partial anagram in "act on gin," but that leaves the letters "TIXI" unaccounted for, and I can't see how to get that from "Joining the team." Can anyone help me out here? Thx, It's been emotional (talk) 14:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suspect it's a reference to the Big 12, but I don't know American football well enough to know if it's obvious to call that "the team". Tevildo (talk) 14:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no, it's a cricket team. Joining "INTO" the team "XI" act (on) gin (mixture) "CATING". Tevildo (talk) 14:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could equally be a football team. --Dweller (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(after ec) Thanks, Tevildo, because I was just about to say it looked like a cricket team, since the term "the XI" is often used for the 11 players. The rest I still couldn't figure out, perhaps because I was unaware of just how obscure they were willing to be. I guess it's fair with anagram clues. It's been emotional (talk) 14:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I + XI = XII. There are XI members in teams in a number of sports, and adding I is equivalent in meaning to "joining the team". --TammyMoet (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the “XI” in “London XI” derived from the fact that a soccer team has 11 members? --84.62.205.233 (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard "XI" used to refer to a football team. Cricket, yes. Marnanel (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, "XI" on its own usually refers to a cricket team (and "XV" to rugby union), but London XI was a soccer team, and the XI does refer to the number of members. Tevildo (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Not true: "XI" is sometimes used in a football context, although it is not common. As an example, the 1955–58 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup had several teams that represented cities, because of a rule that only one club from each city could attend. Cities with several clubs got around this rule by choosing the best players and sending one side. Xenon54 / talk / 17:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Tammy Moet's suggestion is relevant. Tevildo has given a correct and complete answer IMO. --ColinFine (talk) 19:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it's a cryptic crossword and I gave you how I would arrive at the answer! What's irrelevant about that? There's usually more than one way to arrive at the answer to a cryptic clue! --TammyMoet (talk) 11:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ya gotta luv it when they criticize free advice. Meanwhile, cryptic books I've run into usually explain the answer in addition to just giving it. I wonder if the OP should maybe find a better crypic book. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, ColinFine is correct and Tammy Moet's suggestion was not only irrelevant but incorrect, since it doesn't operate in accordance with the accepted methods of giving cryptic clues. There is most certainly not "more than one way to arrive at the answer". And you can't get to this answer with it anyway. As for the ever-chatty Bugs' contribution, why do you assume it was a book? It was almost certainly a crossword in a newspaper, which only prints the solution the next day without explanations. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 11:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tammy's suggestion was not correct, Colin's comment was rude, and if the newspaper doesn't explain it, then maybe get a different newspaper. Cryptics are fun and challenging. But if they don't explain it, then you can't learn anything from it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, Colin's comment was not rude, it was a perfectly sensible intervention. And there is no newspaper in the world, AFAIK, that publishes explanations for its own cryptic crosswords. There are books and websites you can read if you want to learn how to do them, or you can just work them out for yourself. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 12:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was rude, as you should be able to discern by Tammy's defensive response. He could have simply said it was incorrect. On the other hand, they could probably both defend themselves, they don't need us to do it for them. And the mere fact the OP posted here indicates the shortcoming of the newspaper's explanation. "XI" to mean "team" is pretty freakin' obscure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not in countries that are not America. Malcolm XIV (talk) 12:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back from your vacation. I'm a baseball fan, but if "IX" were the clue it wouldn't suggest "team" to me. It likely is a cultural thing, as indicated below. It's unfortunate if papers don't cover the explanations. Puzzle books typically do, hence it's possible to learn from them. But I would think newspapers would at least give the breakdown: INTO + XI + CATING in this case. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this is all you get. Marnanel (talk) 12:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously that makes it more of a challenge, but insufficient as a learning experience. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest it's a cultural thing. In the UK it's reasonably common to write "the first XI" to mean a school's primary cricket team, or "the second XV" for rugby, and so on. The clue is not particularly obscure (and there wouldn't have been an explanation). Marnanel (talk) 12:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of a newspaper publishing explanations (as opposed to solutions) either. I first started buying my own daily newspaper at the age of twenty or so almost purely so that I could read the cryptic solutions day by day and work out the rules by induction. Marnanel (talk) 12:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have a reference to this in the article 11_(number)#In_sports --Dweller (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

XI, although it doesn't redirect to that page, lists it. Interestingly, the OP got the XI reference but was confused by the anagram. Cryptic writers love those anagrams. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if Tammy found my reply rude: it was not intended to be, but a straightforward statement of my opinion. --ColinFine (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For a few days, I had thought that Bugs seen here, had his account hacked by someone with half a brain and a sense of respect for the reference desk. I have now returned to my senses. Football Insects (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that I can't be more specific. For all I know it's completely decorative and means nothing, but I'm still curious. http://i50.tinypic.com/11u8gpi.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.10.93.219 (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

功夫: Chinese for Kung fu. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly, sir and/or madam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.10.93.219 (talk) 20:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and/or ?? or, I think. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In reading the translation above regarding "God bless you", I stopped to consider the expression. My first observation was that this is ungrammatical as the subject and verb do not agree. Changing it to agree would produce "God blesses you". Upon further thought, though, I suppose it would make more sense to interpret it as an abbreviation for "[May] God bless you". However, trying this with similar sentences does not produce grammatically acceptable sentences: "May the priest bless you" -> *"The priest bless you", "May she win the gold" -> *"She win the gold" etc. Are there any other common expressions or constructions that permit exemption of grammatical agreement? 124.214.131.55 (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"God bless you" is short for "May God bless you". As with the implied "may" in the song "God Bless America". In effect, you're praying for God to bless. You don't need to pray to the priest to bless. You just go ask him. You might also get the argument that "God" is a trinity, hence He's both a singular and a plural. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The wording "God bless [whatever]" also has the unfortunate effect of appearing to be issuing an order to God. "Yo! God! Bless America! Ya hear?" God may listen, but He does not take orders. I recall Red Skelton used to end his programs with, "Good night, and may God bless." That's more proper usage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

God bless you is a fossilized instance of a subjunctive construction expressing an optative or hortative mood. It is only used this way in fixed phrases, usually religious in nature, such as God bless..., God save..., God forbid..., Heaven forbid. Historically, it would have been possible to say The priest bless you. However, that is no longer part of the grammar of modern English. Marco polo (talk) 19:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) 'God bless you' may be short for 'May God bless you' in today's English, but it was not when the expression came into use, nor is there a lack of grammatical agreement. It is an example of the present subjunctive, now rare in English, though still found in subordinate clauses in some formal contexts, eg "we demand that the question be put". It is extremely rare in main clauses, generally only in set phrases such as 'God bless ...', 'heaven help ... ' and 'long live ... '

It is also not an imperative, and there is nothing improper about it, Baseball Bugs --ColinFine (talk) 19:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But it sounds like an imperative. I recall reading some comments after 9/11, when everyone started singing "God Bless America" at public events, to the effect that it sounded like someone was giving God an order. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And your examples work with "may". "[May] God save our noble Queen...", "[May] heaven help us", "[May] the king live long [and prosper!]" All of those uses are an implied hope or prayer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Language Log had a rather fascinating post on misinterpretation of present subjunctives. They point out that in Ray Charles's rendition of America the Beautiful, he translates "God shed his grace on thee" into AAVE as "God done shed his grace"..., which indicates that he read it as an indicative, in the past tense: "at some time in the past few hundred years, God shed his grace on thee". Marnanel (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's also Ray's artistic license. He also said, "And crown thy good... He told me He would... from sea to... shining sea." And the backing choral group sang it the normal way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inserting may before these expressions works because the modern English way of expressing the optative mood is "may + [infinitive]" or "let + [infinitive]". It is something of a coincidence that the third person singular present subjunctive and the infinitive are identical in English. Marco polo (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remember discussing this construction in a linguistics class. The professor pointed out that this use of the bare subjunctive is really found only in certain fixed phrases, not in newly created sentences, so that while in church we may say "The Lord be with you", in Star Wars they say "May the Force be with you" not "The Force be with you". +Angr 20:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then, the figure of speech is an imperative in idiom (though it is not a metaphor), because of the lack principle of compositionality in grammatical agreements. —Mihkaw napéw (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mihkaw napéw, there is neither a figure of speech nor a metaphor involved. What are you trying to say? Marco polo (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, I don't understand what Mihkaw is trying to say. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all for the informative responses. I had not considered the subjunctive, something that I apparently need to brush up on, but the explanations all make sense now. 124.214.131.55 (talk) 00:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my Chinese class, we were given a set of sentences with the instructions "Change this sentence so it makes logical sense". I've gotten most of them, but #9 has me stumped. It is "我愛吃蜜蜂". But I cant see anything grammatically wrong with it, and it is too short for me to rewrite any more simply or clearly. Is this a trick question? —Sarah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.227.223 (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; indeed. I enjoy eating honeybees as well. Intelligentsium 19:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like Intelligentsium suggests... the error is not in the grammar, the error is in the vocabulary. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

蜂蜜 can mean honey, but 蜜蜂 means honey-bee. It's not a logical mistake, truly, because it is possible that there is someone out there who likes to eat bees. However, it is many times more sensible that the hypothetical speaker wants to say that they like to eat honey, so the mistake is that they switched the characters around by mistake. Steewi (talk) 02:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Chicago there used to be a place that specialized in delicacies, one of which was Chocolate Covered Baby Bees. (Dead ones, presumably.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume larvae rather than imagines? I'd have thought an adult bee would be too - hairy - to eat, even with chocolate coating. Tevildo (talk) 01:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Entomophagy is the practice of eating insects as food. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recently had a thought - why do the words Potato and Tomato have such similar names? Searching around I found some mentions of Spanish which I assume is why they are similar to a degree. But what does the -ato suffix mean? I looked around but all of the definitions and meanings of the suffix didn't seem to relate much to potatoes or tomatoes.

And finally, which word came first, Tomato or Potato? and whichever came first, did it influence the naming or the other? thanks! 86.138.142.155 (talk) 01:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary lists unrelated origins:

Tomato: E17. ORIGIN French, Spanish, or Portuguese tomate from Nahuatl tomatl.
Potato: M16. ORIGIN Spanish patata var. of batata.

Potato came first (mid 16th century), tomato later (early 16th). Mitch Ames (talk) 01:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)According to my old Webster's, "potato(e)" is from Spanish "patata", which was originally the name of the sweet potato, further derived from the Taino "batata". Meanwhile, "tomato" is from Spanish "tomate", which is from the Nahuatl "tomatl". Those are both ancient crops, so it would be hard to say which actually came first. Interestingly, potatoes and tomatoes are both in the nightshade family. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And despite the old song, potato is only pronounced with a long "a", whereas tomato can be either a long "a" (preferred) or an "ah". Curiously, both Spanish words would have an "ah". Another Spanish word for potato is "la papa". Not to be confused with "el Papa" (the Pope) and "papá" (Dad). It's a fine line. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patate is also used in French for potato, although the more common term is pomme de terre (lit. "apple of the earth"). Whenever I heard people use patate it was always with a bit of a tongue-in-cheek chuckle, so it may be a bit slangy. Not sure if it comes from another Romance language. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, that immediately upon reading you question, I questioned the accuracy of your assertion that they have similar names at all. Do firecracker and baker have similar names because they end in -ker? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 06:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And forgot to mention, in response to Rjanag, that potato in Hebrew is tapood, a contraction of tapooach adamah (apple of the ground). DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 06:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which part is which? Is the "adamah" the "of the ground" part? And does it have any connection with Adam? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked it up, and the answer to my question is, "That's a big 10-4!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One assumes that's a calque from the French. --Sean 15:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@ Baseball Bugs: What do you mean by "preferred" in relation to saying tomato with a long "a"? That's not the way I say it, and I may as well tell you now, I won't be changing. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 06:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Preferred" as per Webster, which would be American English. Americans typically say "tah-MAY-toe" unless they're trying to be funny, effecting an upper-class pronunciation "tah-MAH-toe". Or "tah-MAY-ter" if they're trying to sound like hicks (as in the tow truck "Mater"[2] in Cars). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That song has perpetuated the idea that there are only two widespread pronunciations of tomato: "to-MAY-to" in the U.S. and "to-MAH-to" in the U.K. But isn't it the case that Canadians say neither of those, but rather to-MAT-o (IPA /təˈmætoʊ/)? +Angr 10:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't do IPA, but I'm guessing you mean "MAT" to rhyme with the "mat" in "doormat"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. +Angr 13:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where are? In Ontario, we say toe-MAY-toe (or tah-MAY-toe). I only ever hear the short a when someone is affecting an accent or funny voice. Matt Deres (talk) 15:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's a generational thing? I seem to remember a woman from Canada (British Columbia I think, though I could be mistaken) complaining that her children used the "American" to-MAY-to pronunciation instead of her own to-MAT-o pronunciation, which she blamed on TV. +Angr 23:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth pointing out that in "hillbilly" English, these items are called taters and maters, so it's not unreasonable to wonder if they're related terms. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth pointing out that lots of folks besides hillbillies employ that peculiar dropping of the first syllable in some words (called Apheresis (linguistics)), one of which is "gator" for alligator - pronounced to rhyme with mater and tater, but with no apparent connection to those fruits. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to have most of the makings of a limerick here. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 12:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

The challenge would be working the word apheresis into it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A linguistically-challenged young 'gator

Met a nice girl, decided to mate'r

But his rampant aph'resis

Was combined with di'resis

So she told him "Go suck on a tater!"

Best I could do on short notice. Matt Deres (talk) 15:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. You roped that one in. Hence the term "Poet Lariat". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Di'resis" leaves us to wonder whether the 'gator had to pee or followed the New Yorker manual of style. Either way, things stayed platonic. --Sean —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.94.172 (talk) 01:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Injecting some confusion, I'll note that they're both in the nightshade family. --Sean 15:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Best prepared stir-fried with a mixture of fugu fish, acorns, and mushrooms of unknown origin, then gently spread on a salad of rhubarb leaves. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case the original questioner is confused, the simple answer to his or her question is that it is a coincidence that tomato and potato both end in -ato in English. The two words are unrelated, and there is no -ato suffix. While both words came to English through Spanish, they do not have the same -ato ending in Spanish, and each originally comes from a different, unrelated Amerindian (Native American) language. Marco polo (talk) 15:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The OED records only a single example of 'tomato' before 1750 (1604, in the spelling 'tomate'), but several examples from 1753 on. This very much suggests that the word effectively entered English only in the eighteenth century. This might account for why in British usage it retains the exotic pronunciation [-a-], whereas 'potato' entered English in the 16th century before the great vowel shift was complete, so its vowel underwent the shift to [-ɛɪ-] with native words. This doesn't explain why American usage has assimilated 'tomato' to a native English pattern, though. --ColinFine (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone! 86.138.142.155 (talk) 16:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can anybody give a translation (easy) or source (hard?) for the German text at Talk:Huie's Sermon? Respond here or there- thanks. (I don't know if it's a quotation of some well-known source, or was made up for the film.) Staecker (talk) 02:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be Wenn der Mensch etwas mit der Sonne zu schaffen hätte, wäre sie heute nicht aufgegangen, ja? I'll see if I can do a word-for-word and see if anyone who actually knows German gets to it first. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No can do. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"If mankind were to make something out of the sun, they wouldn't be able to get up in the morning (lit. today)." Tevildo (talk) 02:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, so "aufgegangen" means to "get up". What are they getting at with this expression? Sorry, I failed English lit. because I wasn't good with metaphors. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Don't it always seem to go, that you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone..." :) If we were to manufacture something using the sun (doubtless, something for the general good of humanity), we would lose the pleasure of getting up in the morning (and just have to live under permanent fluorescent light, if we survived at all). Tevildo (talk) 02:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Manufacture something using the sun..." Like cutting it up and selling little bottles of it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c*3) Can "mit jm./etw. zu schaffen haben" not also be used as an idiom to mean "to have a problem with so./sth."? I admit it doesn't fit as well with the context. (Bugs: Perhaps it's referring to using the Sun in such a manner that it is no longer available to heat the Earth. Xenon54 / talk / 03:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not one that I've heard, although I wouldn't describe myself as "fluent" by any means. "mit etw. nichts zu schaffen haben" is (literally) "have nothing to do with" (as in "I don't want anything to do with that"), but - if a good German speaker says otherwise, I'm in no position to argue. Tevildo (talk) 03:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was my assumption, from Tevildo's explanation. It's often human nature to take something good and screw it up. Like if someone decided to put a venetian blind on the sun. Or closer to reality, when the dim bulbs of Minneapolis took the minor natural wonder St. Anthony Falls and tunneled under it, and caused it to collapse. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wäre is singular, not plural, so sie refers to the sun, and etwas mit X zu schaffen haben is an idiom meaning "have something to do with", so: "If mankind had anything to do with the sun, it wouldn't have risen today". (And "to get up (in the morning)" isn't aufgehen but aufstehen.) +Angr 09:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all- I guess nobody recognizes the quote's origin? (If indeed it comes from anywhere other than the film.) Staecker (talk) 01:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've not been able to find it anywhere. Considering the accurate translation ("If mankind had anything to do with the sun, it wouldn't have risen this morning"), I'm not surprised - that probably wouldn't make it into any dictionary of quotations. I think my translation was much _better_, even if it may not have been _right_. :) Apologies to anyone misled. Tevildo (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only mention I found online had a slightly different word order ("Wenn der Mensch mit der Sonne etwas zu schaffen hätte, wäre sie heute nicht aufgegangen"). The "proverb" is introduced with "as my Granny always said...". Personally, I don't recall ever having heard it (not that that means a lot) and I found no other source apart from Scrapothekerin's grandmother. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was watching the movie earlier today, and there's a scene where Harry Dawes (Humphrey Bogart) goes over to Maria Vargas' (Ava Gardner) house in an attempt to talk her into doing a screen test (this all takes place in Spain). Meanwhile, Maria and her brother argue with their mother in Spanish, and I'm interested in having that dialogue translated. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 03:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a transcript of it anywhere? If you can find the Spanish, I'm sure someone here can give it a shot. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda hard to find a transcript of a copyrighted film, don't you think? 24.189.90.68 (talk) 06:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are a lot of "scripts" of copyrighted movies floating around the Internet (but mostly for films that are somewhat prominent in the pop-culture of the last 15 years or so). AnonMoos (talk) 09:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I had in mind. Alternatively, maybe closed-captioning with Spanish selected as the language? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are Spanish subtitles for the film (it's just a zip file containing the transcript as text files). The scene in question begins at 00:16:04,160 if any Spanish speakers would like to give it a shot. --Sean 15:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the entire transcript is Spanish, and since I haven't seen the film, you need to also tell us what the endpoint is. I'm assuming this is the starting point?

Sabe lo que es un test de imagen? [Do you know what a screen test is?]

Si [Yes]

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notice in a dictionary the word "cinderella" can mean: a person or thing of merit, undeservedly neglected or forced into a wretched or obscure existence. Can you give me a couple of sentence examples? Would the word then be capalized? When was the word first used in English? --Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a metaphor based on the fairy tale (now linked in the heading) and has been around for awhile. Bill Murray used it in Caddyshack when talking to himself while playing golf, but I think it was applied to the 1969 New York Mets, as well as a number of other teams, although that may be retrofitting to some extent. And although it's a bit inaccurate to put it this way, a Cinderella team is always subject to the question, "Will it turn back into a pumpkin at midnight?" as with Cinderella's carriage (not Cinderella herself). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My copy of Dickson's Baseball Dictionary, one of the earlier editions, has a citation from a newspaper in 1986, in reference to a high school game; but I'm fairly certain it predates that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The term might be more recent than I'm remembering. The 1970 Baseball Guide refers to teams like the 1914 Braves, the 1951 Giants and the 1969 Mets as "Miracle" teams. "Cinderella" is nowhere in the team's season writeup. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You for some reason forgot to mention another unexpectedly successful team. But even the obvious fanboys who wrote that article didn't say "Cinderella". I'd have trouble imagining Yaz in glass slippers. PhGustaf (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Blush) Yes. They were known as "The Impossible Dream" team. Unfortunately, they woke up after a Cardinal nightmare. >:( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a clip of Murray in the 1980 film Caddyshack: [3] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of usage is Cinderella stamp, a term that has been around since at least the 1950s, (judging by the article on Cinderella Stamp Club). ---Sluzzelin talk 14:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In German, the term "ein Aschenbrödeldasein führen/fristen" ("to lead a Cinderella existence") is quite common. Not being a native speaker, I can't judge how common the term "Cinderella existence" is in English, but it gets a number of hits on google books. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[4], check the bottom of the page. Richard Avery (talk) 16:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The OED's first citing is possibly literal, but its second, from 1877, is "Others..declare that it [sc. Shoulder of Mutton] is the Cinderella of meat - a beauty misunderstood and fit for princes." --ColinFine (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this is great stuff! Thanks all for these examples.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How could you all forget the movie Cinderella Man. 195.35.160.133 (talk) 12:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Martin.[reply]

What would "nothing comes between us" be in Latin? My best guess, and a poor one, would be "nil *something* inter nos". Thanks in advance. Peter Greenwell (talk) 01:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, this might relate a little bit to the next section. "Come" and "between" are Anglo-Saxon words. I can't do Latin conjugations, all I can give you is the Latin infinitive. "Come" is venire and "between" is inter. This might start to look familiar. The Latin-via-French for "come between" is "intervene". So it would, or at least could, be something along the lines of nil venire inter nos. That's fractured Latin, but it's a start. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When translating, you need to be careful not to do a literal translation of a figurative expression. Figurative meanings tend not to translate. Inter nos nil venit literally means something like "Nothing comes among us" or "Nothing comes into our midst". Instead of this literal translation, I would try for a translation of the meaning behind the English expression, which is really something like "Nothing breaks us apart". So, based on my imperfect knowledge of Latin, I would try something like Nil nos dividit. Marco polo (talk) 04:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Latin has two specific compound verbs, intercedo (literally "to go between") and intervenio (literally "to come between"), but neither can really mean "to separate" or "to be a cause of dispute" (though intercedo can mean "to interfere" and intervenio can mean "to interrupt"). My suggested translation would be NIL NOS DISSOCIABIT. AnonMoos (talk) 07:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nihil nōs sēparat. [5] -- Wavelength (talk) 08:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone for the help. Peter Greenwell (talk) 14:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest nihil nōs sēparābit? [Using the future indicative.] Pallida  Mors 12:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the New Years Eve party I was at last night, they were playing a video of "Let me entertain you". Naturally, I started wondering about the words 'entertain' and 'entertainment'. It occurred to me that, since the noun from 'detain' is 'detention', and since 'detain' and 'entertain' are etymologically related, then the noun from 'entertain' could reasonably be 'entertention'. But no. There's only 1 google hit for entertention, and it's not used in a serious way. Why don't we have 'entertention' rather than 'entertainment'? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 02:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The most amazing questions can arise when you've had a few Fosters. Both "entertain" and "detain" come from the Latin tenere, "to hold". The Latin-based suffixes "-ment" and "-tion" both mean "action, state, concrete instance, result" and the like. The nearest I can come to figuring out the difference is that "-ment" is used to describe a process more than a single action. So why isn't it "detaintion"? Probably just the way it evolved. Detention, retention, intervention [see previous section]; vs. entertainment, containment, and whatever else. The versions with the second "e" seem to be closer to the Latin. The ones with the "ai" seem to more filtered through French. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is the word "contention", but it's not thought of as related to "contain", but to "contend". OTOH, "retention" is from "retain", not from "retend", whatever that might be. (Oh, and I was drinking Cascade, if that makes any difference.) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ya learn something new every day, I tell ya. In the USA, "Cascade" is one of the leading brands of dishwasher detergent.

The root of "contend" is tendere, "to stretch", hence terms like "tension". Oddly enough, "tender" comes from tenere, not from tendere. Then there's "tentacle", which comes from tentare, "to handle/feel". I have to think that there's some common etymology among all those different Latin verbs that start with ten-, but that would take a more cunning linguist to investigate. I should point out that my source for most of this stuff is my old Webster's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's the Laphroaig typing, but I can't resist noting that there's an article about tentacles that one would not feel comfortable displaying to one's maiden aunt from Dubuque. PhGustaf (talk) 03:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you don't know my maiden aunt. She's heavily into tentacles.

That one illustration might have been a rejected idea for a poster, for a certain James Bond film. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the movie Licence to Krill. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of the -tain verbs come from prefixed forms of the Latin verb teneo/tenere by way of the (Norman) French tenir. In the cases of detention and retention, a version of a Latin noun (respectively detentio and retentio) came to English through French. By contrast, containment and entertainment were formed directly from -tain verbs in medieval or early modern times by attaching the -ment suffix (which likewise came from Latin to English via French). There is or was, for example, no Latin noun *intertenementum. In fact, the verb entertain itself lacks a Latin cognate. (There is or was no *interteneo/intertenere, so there could be no *intertentio.) Entertain was coined in Middle French by combining the prefix entre- (from Latin inter) with the verb tenir. Marco polo (talk) 04:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Marco Polo and everyone else for those answers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the pronunciation of Chriqui in Emmanuelle Chriqui, Dushku in Eliza Dushku and Schmidt in Rob Schmidt? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qoklp (talk • contribs) 03:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say about the first two. The third, if it's pronounced the conventional way in English, is German for "Smith" and is pronounced "shmit", if that helps. The "d" is virtually silent. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems from this clip that Emmanuelle Chriqui pronounces her name /ʃəˈriːki/ (though I would've guessed by her Quebecois origin that it was /ˈʃriːki/). In this clip Dushku is pronounced /ˈdʊʃkuː/. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 04:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this clip Dushku says "it's 'Dush' like 'push'."--Cam (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An earlier version of the Chriqui article had the pronunciation described to be like "shriek-ee". Dismas|^(talk) 03:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's say I'm attempting to transcribe some speech in the IPA, and I hear a sound which(due to bad recording, background noise, etc) I can't identify specifically, but I know its general class(say, stop consonant). Are there IPA symbols which denote "unidentified stop consonant/fricative/sonorant/etc"? 69.111.79.27 (talk) 07:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, but you can establish your own ad-hoc conventions for that sort of thing. For example, you can use a symbol that doesn't have an IPA value (capital letters are good for this) and inform your readers that you're using it to stand for an unidentified stop or whatever. +Angr 14:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Such ad- hoc conventions usualy are the interjection and exclamations. —Mihkaw napéw (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mihkaw, did you mean "Such ad-hoc conventions usually use exclamation marks and question marks." ? 86.177.121.171 (talk) 17:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the suprasegmental feature is an example. —Mihkaw napéw (talk) 18:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OP didn't ask about suprasegmentals, he asked about cases in which you can't even identify what the segment is. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ad-hoc symbols are common even at Wikipedia. Numerous articles describe the phonotactics of a given language using notation where C means a consonant and V means a vowel. This is not IPA, but clear nonetheless. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 23:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is the correct headline for a newspaper? Happy New Year or Happy New Year's

I'd say Happy New Year. +Angr 17:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year vs. New Year's Day. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard "New Year's" used to mean the holiday period surrounding New Year's Eve.

• "What are you doing for New Year's?" - "We're spending a few days at the beach house".
• "And what about New Year's Eve itself?" - "Oh, <whatever>". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"New Year's" would imply the time around New Year's Eve and/or New Year's Day, or something connected specifically with the year rollover as opposed to the entire coming year. Hence I don't think you would ask, "What are you doing for New Year?" as that could imply the full year. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't indicated which country you are asking about. In the UK, "New Year's" is uncommon. --ColinFine (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has anybody shared the word 'pre-dumptial'? it is an agreement that dating couples sign that describes behavior during and after the relationship ends.Dbrior (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard the word before, but it is clearly a reference to pre-nuptial agreements. --Tango (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a cute neologism, but it has no googlehits and Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Karenjc 18:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's also nothing at Urbandictionary.com. Dismas|^(talk) 09:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could anyone help me out by telling me the English translation (or translations, if the words have multiple possible equivilents) of http://i45.tinypic.com/1zy8mmv.jpg? I'd appreciate it a lot.

It looks like a title for a porn movie. Do you really want to know what it means? --Kjoonlee 19:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup.The Fantastic Mr. Fawkes (talk) 19:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese title is 〜実録のドキュメント〜豊満巨女のリアル性癖, which roughly translates as "Documented Real Account: The Real Inclination of a Large-breasted Woman". Like Kjoonlee indicated, it's likely the title of a porn movie. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume "inclination" as in "desire", rather than "angle to the horizontal"? Either would work in context. :) Tevildo (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course it means tendency or propensity. It could be translated as preference in the context. As for 巨女, means an obese or big woman. Oda Mari (talk) 05:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I don't really speak Japanese, but... reading the Kanji (with my knowledge of Hanja) made it sound more like "Authentic Documentary: The Real Propensities of a Buxom BBW" to my ears. --Kjoonlee 05:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does actually mean 'fat woman', but the size of breasts (as Nihonjoe) pointed out can be implied. '性癖' means 'sexual habits', as well as just simply meaning 'habits, inclinations, propensity, etc.' --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 13:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the full cover here if you wish (Google strikes again!). In this case, it's definitely a large woman. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to make up for a boring, easy question by asking something interesting, but I can't think of anything. How about: had dictionaries not been invented, and set definitions, acceptable words and spellings/pronuncations in stone, do you think English would be quite different today? Shakespeare got all the fun of making up words, it seems sad that we've pretty much lost that. (Although we gained the ability to torture some people by saying "there writings definately effected us".) The Fantastic Mr. Fawkes (talk) 19:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definitions, acceptable words, spellings, or pronunciations are definitely not set in stone by dictionaries, making this an "invalid" question, in my humble opinion. --Kjoonlee 19:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you try to work new words into conversation, even if their meanings are perfectly clear, a lot of people will object because they're not in the dictionary and thus not cromulent. That's something that wouldn't have happened 400 years ago.The Fantastic Mr. Fawkes (talk) 19:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's an invalid reaction in that response, I think. Let me explain, please. Dictionaries record words and their meanings that already exist; if a perfectly acceptable new word isn't in the dictionary, then it just means the word didn't meat the criteria for inclusion (maybe the word wasn't very wide-spread, or maybe the word is related to a fad and could die out soon) or the dictionary is lagging in updates. --Kjoonlee 19:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the words invented by Lewis Carroll are now in all standard dictionaries. You might be interested in Wiktionary's policy on neologismsand protologisms. Dbfirs 20:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki link: Neologisms Protologisms

I appologise if I sounded tightassed. You have a good point and they're good valid questions. I feel this must be said. --Kjoonlee 20:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also inaccurate in the OP's question is the assertion that "Shakespeare got all the fun of making up words." Shakespeare is cited as the earliest known usage for a good number of words, but that doesn't mean he coined them, it means he was the first to write them down. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question should not just be about dictionaries, but about language standardization in general; I think we can all agree that English (or any other standardized language) would be different if it hadn't been standardized. But speculating about what the specific differences would be is probably not very productive. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

English is standardized? o_O?? --Kjoonlee 04:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it has a standard variety. (Actually, Britain, Australia, the US, and even India each have different standard varities, but it's still standardized, as opposed to, say, Monguor or some undiscovered Polynesian tongue.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that's different from having a standardization body (as in Korean, French, or Icelandic). --Kjoonlee 05:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Old English was "standardized" (the written form had a standard variety, more or less) at Alfred the Great's Winchester before there were dictionaries. Or standard spellings. --Kjoonlee 05:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So if I understand your use of the word "standardized" correctly, there may well be a previously-undiscovered Polynesian tongue with several dialects, one of which is the influential "standard." --Kjoonlee 05:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Having a standardization body (such as the Académie française) isn't a prerequisite for being a standardized language. Standardization just means that a particular variety of a language has been set down as "correct" and, therefore, becomes more resilient to change (there still is change, it just happens more slowly--with English, for example, the vocabulary has grown, but syntax has changed little in 200 years). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I begin to see what you mean, although I respectfully disagree with some of it. ;) Well, if there were no standard dialect, I guess it would (quite obviously) have lead to more variation, as you have just implied. --Kjoonlee 05:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Old English had a standard dialect but it didn't stop the language from changing its syntax or morphology and what not. --Kjoonlee 05:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So then an adequate rephrasing of Rjanang's earlier assertion is that English would have been different if its standardization had a different character (e.g. a different dialect chosen as the prestige variety, a greater or lesser degree of artificially imposing Latin grammar, a body that regulates the coining of new words into the language, etc). — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 09:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I just mean if English had never been standardized--if concepts of prescriptively "correct" and "incorrect" hadn't come about, grammars hadn't been written, etc. I think that's roughly what the OP was asking in "had dictionaries not been invented...". rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 10:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The language and spelling in England are still changing, of course, despite standardisation! Dbfirs 16:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May someone please write that Scottish line (?) in English for me. Many thanks in advance. --Omidinist (talk) 08:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I won't risk a translation, but the line is more often quoted as "Thare lerit he tonys proportionate". It's line 226 from Robert Henryson's Orpheus and Eurydice, and the whole verse and poem can be viewed here. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"There he learnt proportionate tones" - "proportionate" in the sense of "harmonious" rather than "appropriate". The verse goes on to describe Orpheus learning the Music of the Spheres. Tevildo (talk) 13:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The verb lere in Scots means "teach", not "learn". My source is The Dictionary of the Scots Language. So that would be "There he taught proportionate tones." Marco polo (talk) 02:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of the verse describes Orpheus _learning_ the music, though, rather than _teaching_ it:

In his passage amang the planetis all

He herd a hevynly melody and sound
Passing all instrumentis musicall
Causid be rollyng of the speris round
...
Thare lerit he tonys proportionate
As duplar triplar and emetricus
Enoleus and eke the quadruplate

Epodyus rycht hard and curius

(The last three lines would require a disquisition on fifteenth-century musical theory that I am not competent to undertake). :) Tevildo (talk) 06:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand those to be rhythm styles - double, triple, extra-metrical, ?, quadruple and ?. Enolean and Epodean rhythms are Latin poetic rhythms, but I don't know their specifics. Steewi (talk) 04:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Dictionary of the Scots Language, lere can mean either "learn" or "teach". Warofdreams talk 12:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. I've always thought when you are referring to a person from Argentina, you say (And I hope I'm not offending anyone)an Argentine, but some people say Argentinian which sounds a bit incorrect to me at least. Which is correct?

2. I've also thought that saying invite instead of invitation sounds a bit dodgy. Again which is correct or is it a matter of, in what context?

Thanks, NirocFX --41.193.16.234 (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the Argentina question, there is a forum discussion on this here. In my personal experience, foreigners (i.e., people not from/in Argentina) tend to use "Argentinian" more...on the other hand, when my girlfriend was living in Argentina she switched to a hardcore "Argentine" user, which suggests to me that people in Argentina (or, at least, the ones she was hanging out with) use that. Judging by the length of that forum thread, though, it seems there is no correct or incorrect, they're both allowable. If what you're interested in is which one is used more, the best way to go about that would be to look into linguistic corpora and do searches for both "argentinian" and "argentine" to see which is more frequent. (Google searching is not likely to be helpful here, because there are too many synonyms and false positive, and the way Google's software works means that hit counts this high are not reliable anyway). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 10:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is of little help, but my Spanish-English dictionary gives argentino/a as the proper Spanish for both "Argentinian" and "Argentine" (note capitalization). Meanwhile, as I suspected, my old Webster's says that "argentine" (note lower case) means "of or pertaining to silver". Interestingly, in the gazeteer it gives "Argentine" as noun and adjective, then "Argentinean" as noun and "Argentinian" as adjective. "Argentina" derives from the Latin argentum ("silver" - chemical symbol Ag), and to me calling yourself "Argentine" suggests that you're made of silver. But common usage apparently says otherwise. The word actually used for "silver" in Spanish is plata, and "silver-colored" is plateado/a. Hence Río de la Plata which borders Argentina. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Argentinean/Argentinian thing is strange...I had always heard that the spelling was a US/Brit difference. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the "-ean" version is essentially obsolete. That dictionary is from ca. 1960. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by these search results, I would say -ean is probably still around, although it may be dispreferred in more formal writing. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Argentina" is short for "República Argentina", which translates into English as "the Argentine Republic". So "Argentine" is already an adjective, making it unnecessary to create a new one from the country name, and making "an Argentine" the simplest noun. Personally I have never seen "Argentinean", so perhaps it's a North American thing, based on such as "Chilean" and "Salvadorean".

"Invite" is similarly unnecessary as a noun created from the verb, as the word "invitation" already exists and is unambiguous. --Sussexonian (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "Argentina" part of "República Argentina", translates as both "Argentine" and "Argentinian". My old Webster's (ca.1960) lists "Argentine" first, implying it's the preferred. It gives "invite" only as a verb. The noun form, shortening "invitation" by a syllable, is apparently a more recent construct. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

or to put it another way, "invitation" is no longer necessary as we now have the word "invite", coined as many English nouns are from a verb. Or to put it a third, neutral, way, both 'invite' and 'invitation' are in use, but 'invite' does not get used in formal contexts. --ColinFine (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add that some use the term Argentine for the demonym, and Argentinian for the general adjectival form. That's how my OALD defines the terms. However, pondering all the previous references, I don't want to pretend that this is the correct usage. Pallida  Mors 12:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After reading all of this I'm awarding top prizes to Argentine and Invitation. However if there are still some folks who disagree with me, I'll just point to all of you guys and say... It was him and him and him and him and him!!!

Thanks guys, --NirocFX (talk) 14:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do Englishmen write

• late 19th century but
• mid-20th century

From the late 19th to the mid-20th centuries, investigators used early tracking technologies to assist their observation, in a research climate that ...

— Eye movement in language reading

217.228.69.145 (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Late" is a standalone word, "mid" is not. "Mid-20th century" is a shorthand way of saying "middle of the 20th century". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More precisely, some people don't accept "mid" as a standalone word. (I'm one of them too.) Others are happy to write "mid 20th century". --Anonymous, 06:42 UTC, January 3, 2010.

The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary lists "mid" as a stand alone word, although it does say "(Freq. with hyphen.)". Mitch Ames (talk) 08:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The same logic applies to the stand-alone word "then", in such phrases as "his then wife" or "the then president". There's no need to hyphenate it, but it's often seen hyphenated. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It could be called "creeping hyphenation". Originally it was base ball, then base-ball, and then baseball. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Creeping hyphenation" is common, but that is not quite what we are talking about here. I would never write "then" as a stand-alone word in this sense (except possibly in parentheses, and in informal writing). In formal writing I would always use "former" or "at that time". Similarly, I would always hyphenate "mid" because it is short for "middle", though the hyphen is sometimes lost in short words such as "midpoint" (following BB's "creeping hyphenation" rule). According to the OED, "mid" has very rarely been used as a stand-alone word (except in poetic or archaic style) since the spelling was standardised several hundred years ago. Dbfirs 15:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphenation seem to be used less and less in UK English; perhaps it should be "creeping dishyphenation". Alansplodge (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using "former" instead of "then" is a common error in some contexts. If the text was about something that happened in 1951, referring to Harry S. Truman within the text as "the former president" would be quite wrong. He was the incumbent at that time, and only became the "former president" after his term finished in January 1953. He should be referred to within that context as "the then president" if necessary, or just "the president" - but definitely NOT "the former president", because that would be referring to any one of Truman's predecessors, such as FDR. If the form "the then president" is chosen, I've never seen any case for making it "the then-president". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that "former" is wrong in that context. I would prefer "the president at that time" in formal writing, or "the (then) president" informally, but I would never use then as an adjective. (I'm also starting a campaign to preserve the English hyphen, so that I don't have to wonder how one can ork a cow!) Dbfirs 00:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To each his own, but I wonder where your aversion to the adjectival 'then' comes from. My trusty 1974 edition of the Hamlyn Encyclopedic World Dictionary lists this adjectival use of 'then', with the example "the then prime minister" - along with 8 adverbial meanings and 1 nounal meaning of 'then'. So it's not as if it's some neologism. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can't deny its use in the past. The OED has this usage from 1584, so it is nothing new. Would you use "now" adjectivally? For example, the now prime minister. Is this where my aversion derives? Dbfirs 10:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will somebody help me to write this sentence correct?:

"These competitions and festivals are for gifted children and young pianists and are meant to support the talents."

Maybe this is more correct:

"These competitions and festivals are for gifted children and young pianists and are meant to be supporting events for the talents."

Fanoftheworld (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These competitions and festivals are meant to support the talents of gifted young pianists. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, Rtganag. These sentences are correct, but you hid few words to fix the sentence. Please read my additional post here. —Mihkaw napéw (talk) 13:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what? The words were redundant and not performing any significant function in the sentence; editing very often involves removal of unnecessary words. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only real _error_ in the original sentence is "the talents" - it should be "their talents". However, it's a bit of a run-on sentence as it stands, which is a problem with style rather than grammar. I would rewrite it as "These competitions and festivals for gifted children and young pianists are meant to support the participants' talents." Tevildo (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your first sentence, Tevildo. But it's not a run-on sentence. A run-on sentence is one "in which two or more independent clauses (that is, complete sentences) are joined with no punctuation or conjunction", such as, for example:

• These competitions and festivals are for gifted children and young pianists they are meant to support the talents.

That would be a run-on sentence. Putting a comma before "they" would have made it a comma splice, which, for my money, is a type of run-on sentence and just as loathsome. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I would consider the two clauses of the original sentence as being independent - they just don't have the subject expressed explicitly. Is "I got up and had my breakfast and went to school and had my dinner and went home and had my tea and played on the computer and went to bed" a run-on sentence? If not, what is it? Tevildo (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's just poor style. It is a list of actions. Lists need only one "and", before the last item (e.g. "The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost"); however, putting in extra "and"s may be superfluous and irritating, but not ungrammatical. It certainly "runs on", and on, and on - but lacks the defining characteristic of a run-on sentence. A run-on sentence version of it might be something like:

• "I got up and had my breakfast I went to school, I had my dinner, I went home and had my tea I played on the computer and went to bed". There are many ways of making that a run-on sentence; this is just one possibility. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The minimal amendment I can suggest (and in my former capacity as a textbook editor would therefore employ) is to place a comma after 'pianists' and change 'the' to 'their.' 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. That's sufficient to make the meaning perfectly clear to me (though I suppose that some pedants might quibble about what "their" refers back to). Dbfirs 09:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the noun form of cretinous? In other words, what word means "the state of being a cretin?" Is it cretinousness or something else? 20:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Cretinism. Deor (talk) 20:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Homophone of, and unrelated to, "Cretan", a citizen of Crete. "Cretin", believe it or not, is a French dialect variation on "Christian", according to my old Webster's. What that has to do with the thyroid ailment called cretinism is unstated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely not homophonous: 'cretin' rhymes with "let in", and 'Cretan' with "tree-tən" in my ideolect. The OED backs the article's existing suggestion that 'christian' was intended to emphasise that the sufferers were indeed humans rather than 'brutes.' 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My old Webster's gives a long "e" and then says "especially British", short "e". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would distinguish 'cretinism' for the medical condition from 'cretinousness', pejorative or mildly insulting term for stupidity or foolishness. --ColinFine (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the OP (whoever that might have been) needs to clarify what he's asking. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even know it was a medical condition! The Hero of This Nation (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the vietnam era distance measurement "click" how far is one click? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Autorunr (talk • contribs) 21:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Klick. Answer: one kilometer. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We still use that in Canada, at least, but more for speed than distance (like the speed of a car, or the wind). Adam Bishop (talk)

In other words, meaning one kilometer per hour. I am also in Canada but do not remember ever hearing this. Presumably it is regional or limited to some specific milieu. --Anonymous, 06:44 UTC, January 3, 2010.

I hear it in southern Ontario. I would expect to hear it from my rural relatives more than my urban ones, but I think I've heard meteorologists say it on the news too, about the wind (maybe someone from the Weather Network?). I'm not certain though. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My brother has used the term to mean both speed and distance several times in my presence. I believe that he picked it up from being in the (US) military. Dismas|^(talk) 09:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also from Southern Ontario and I hear it used both ways (distance and speed). "He was doing twenty klicks over the speed limit" or "The cottage is only about twenty klicks away." This makes sense as kilometers per hour is often shortened to just kilometers in speech anyway. I only ever hear it (rather than see it in print), so while the initial k makes sense, I don't know if I would have spelled it that way off the top of my head. Matt Deres (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like it varies by milieu, then. I'm also in southern Ontario. Although not next week... "see" you all later. Anyway, thanks. --Anonymous, 21:24 UTC, January 3, 2010.

Yeah, me neither! I thought it was "click", and must have meant the little lines on an odometer, or something. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I only "knew" it had an initial k from these refdesks. In fact, it was probably this question from a few years ago that twigged me to it. Matt Deres (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's understood in the UK too - amongst hillwalkers anyway (although miles are universally used by motorists, walking scale maps were metricated more than 30 years ago - so much easier to calculate distances in kms) Alansplodge (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In English, is there a word that means the opposite of "virgin" (either as a noun or as an adjective) that is

• free from or neutral in connotations,
• not a euphemism,
• not a derivative of "virgin" or a synonym (so "non-virgin" doesn't count), and
• not a participle (i.e. not an adjective derived from a verb)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.16.188 (talk) 03:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those restrictions rule out the obvious: non-virgin, experienced, woman-of-the-world, etc. Under those restrictions, it would be equally hard to find an antonym for "pregnant". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I googled [virgin antonym], and the first site that came up was this one.[6] They don't list a "direct" antonym, just the "indirect" term, "unchaste". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Sexually mature". rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That might be considered a euphemism, like "[sexually] experienced". Ironically, "virgin" itself is somewhat of a euphemism, as with its synonym "maiden". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is "virgin" a euphemism? What's its literal meaning, if not "someone who's never had sexual intercourse"? -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to the OP, then: No, there is no such word in English. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 07:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A person might be "sexually mature" biologically, ie post-pubescent, but still a virgin. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The other option is "sexually active", but that implies that they're active right now or regularly, whereas someone might be a non-virgin but hasn't had sex in 10 years. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those folks are usually just called married. Matt Deres (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for the responses so far. I understand that there may not be a word that satisfies all the restrictions—I tried and couldn't come up with any. I noticed that people use the clumsy phrase "losing (one's) virginity" to refer to a person having his/her first intercourse. It dawned on me that the whole concept of being sexually experienced is at its core built on the concept of virginity—so much so that there doesn't even seem to be a non-derivative word for it. It seems that virginity is somehow viewed as special, while being sexually experienced is not. This is quite surprising because people also use euphemisms like "becoming a man". That euphemism suggests that being sexually experienced is a status to be attained and it's something positive. You'd think that it merits its own set of words in English—and if that's true—including some neutral in connotation. --173.49.16.188 (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Beyond virginity?" I'm making that up. I don't know if it's used. But I think if I heard it I would immediately understand what was being implied. But I also think "not a virgin" is fine. I don't quite see virginity being implied as something "special," but rather something "simpler." The absence of an activity leaves the simplicity of a void. The presence of an activity quite correctly corresponds to a state relatively more complex. Also, chronologically virginity always precedes "non-virginity," so the derivation of the second term from the first has the logic of sequence to it. To crown a new term the designator of the state beyond virginity would be to put the cart before the horse. Bus stop (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also point out that at many times and places - perhaps most - in human history non-virginity is the normal state for adults. There aren't distinct words for 'not bald' or 'having both legs' either. --ColinFine (talk) 15:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Hairy" and "bipedal"? Vimescarrot (talk) 15:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen it used before, but "beyond virginity" sounds like some marketing slogan. I don't think having a separate word for being sexually experienced is putting the cart before the horse. In other contexts, you have different words for the "before and after" statuses, like "childhood"/"adulthood", "minority"/"majority", "junior"/"senior". --173.49.16.188 (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Vimescarrot: no. While "bald" has a general use to which "hairy" is an antonym, "bald" used of a person invariably means "bald-headed": "hairy" does not mean "with a normal head of hair", unless perhaps a special context has been established by talking about baldness. And "bipedal" means "having two legs" which is a very different thing from "having both legs". --ColinFine (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, here's an idea. I keep seeing stuff about the USA being "post-imperial" and "post-Christian". How about "post-virgin(al)"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On one hand, I like the creativity of it. On the other, "post-virginal" sounds like some kind of medical condition (perhaps because of its similarity to "post-menopasual"). --173.49.16.188 (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does sound like a marketing slogan. Funny, that. No, it is not the same as putting the cart before the horse. I over-spoke. But do you really think the language is sending some kind of message that virginity is "special?" Are you making a distinction between the male status and the female status as regards virginity and non-virginity? You also say that the phrase "becoming a man" has a "positive" implication. "Special" and "positive" equate, in my mind.

It is an interesting point that you raise. The only explanation I can imagine for the absence of the sort of term that we are looking for is an absence of a need. Why wouldn't a word serving the defined purpose have arisen if there was a need over long periods of time up until the present, in the English language? Bus stop (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I suggested an answer to that above: 'not virgin' is in most societies no more needed than 'not bald': it's the normal state of affairs. --ColinFine (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem with that analogy, in that baldness usually comes after the state of having hair on one's head (not bald), whereas virgin comes before the state of being not virgin. Besides, there is inevitably going to be a transitional period consisting of at least a few years, in any society, during which it is both "normal" to be virgin and "normal" to be non-virgin. Bus stop (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have a transitional period for baldness, too ;) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True. I didn't think of that. Bus stop (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily true. I've heard "Oh, I knew her before she became a virgin" said of people such as Doris Day and Grace Kelly.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like someone trying to stuff a keyboard instrument into a mailbox. Tonywalton ^Talk 12:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DEFLOWERED. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a word I considered, but it's not neutral. I sounds negative as it suggests that the pristineness of something or someone has been destroyed. --173.49.16.188 (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's neutral enough, but it's a euphemism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Deflowered is hardly gender-neutral. It does relate well to what happens to a maiden's hymen. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What can happen to a hymen. It's a myth that loss of hymen implies loss of virginity, and indeed vice versa. Marnanel (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, we're all assuming that the adjectival use of the word is being used for a chaste woman - in other uses of the term (e.g., virgin sunflower oil), the opposite would be "refined". This is not, of course, to suggest that a refined woman is not a virgin! :) Grutness...wha? 23:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or man. Bus stop (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about simply sexed or fucked? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 00:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Try asking someone whether they're "fucked" or not. You're likely to get your face smashed in. No wonder there isn't a parable about "The Seven Virgins and the Seven Fucked People". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is a pretty personal question. Are you saying I'd get my face smashed more often than if I asked if they were virgins? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 06:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also "sexed" actually means (according to SOED) "having a gender, ie not neutered" or "having sexual desires", neither of which is the same as "has had sexual intercourse". (Although SOED does list "sex" as a verb meaning "have intercourse", from which one might derive "sexed" to mean "(has) had intercourse".) "Fucked" is problematic - aside from its offensiveness to some people - in that the word is overused so much that it could be ambiguous. Eg: virgin male is making out with girlfriend of Hells Angel (or other large aggressive and possesive male). Things are hotting up when the Hells Angel boyfriend sees them. Now he's fucked!

Sexually active is a phrase I hear often in this context. It's not completely accurate, because it assumes that the person is not only 'not a virgin', but also having some form of occasional sexual activity. Thus a person who had sex once and then became celibate may be excluded. Steewi (talk) 04:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it to or for?:

"The company is delighted to provide a piano to/for the ceremony for John Johnson."

Thank you. Fanoftheworld (talk) 07:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For would be more idiomatic. Deor (talk) 07:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What if the sentence is:

"The company is delighted to have provided a piano for the ceremony for John Johnson."?

I think that "to have provided" sounds incorrect. Fanoftheworld (talk) 08:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's correct, if they're at the ceremony and the piano is already there too. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewrited the sentence ("The company is delighted to provide a piano for the ceremony for John Johnson.") because the ceremony is over. Therefore it was wrong of me to write the sentence in present tense, the sentence should be in past tense.

In past tense it is: "The company is delighted to have provided a piano for the ceremony for John Johnson."?

And yes, the piano was in the room before the audience arrived. Fanoftheworld (talk) 08:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is correct now. I think English speakers might say "to provide" even if they mean to use the past tense, but if the ceremony is over, then it would definitely be wrong. They might use a different construction ("the company is delighted that we provided the piano"), just because the passive infinitive sounds slightly formal. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think "The company was delighted to provide a piano for the ceremony for John Johnson" is better. "To provide" is fine even if the ceremony is over. And by the way, it's "rewritten" not "rewrited". --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam Bishop, there is no passive here. What there is, is a "perfect infinitive", and that is indeed rather formal. In ordinary speech people are much more likely to say "that they provided" than "to have provided".

I would write "The company were delighted to provide ... ", or if I want to emphasise that they are still delighted, "The company are delighted that they were able to provide ... ". Two grammatical notes: 1) I am British, and it is natural for me to say "the company were": American writers generally insist on "the company was". 2) I'm not quite sure why I prefer "that they were able to provide" to "that they provided", but I definitely do. I think it is because "delighted that they provided" sounds more self-congratulatory, and British writers are often uncomfortable with such expressions. --ColinFine (talk) 09:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Er, sorry, that's right. I was thinking "past infinitive". Adam Bishop (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I struggle often to identify the doer and receiver of the action in words ‘precede’ and ‘succeed’, e.g. Mr. X is preceded by Mr. Y, or followed by, or succeeded by. So if Mr. X is an incumbent president, who is the doer of the action? How can these be explained? —Mihkaw napéw (talk) 13:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just like any other active verb in English. If your sentence is "Mr X is preceded by Mr Y", then Mr Y is the doer (which we call the agent. They don't need any explanation, they work the same as other verbs. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Doer" and "receiver" are not always helpful words for analysing grammar, which is perhaps why linguists don't use them. There is no "doer" with these verbs, because they are stative verbs. The agent is the one who precedes, succeeds or follows, and the patient the one who is preceded, succeeded or followed. When the verb is active the subject is the agent; when it is passive, the subject is the patient. --ColinFine (talk) 13:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take a live example.

• Obama succeeded Bush. (active)
• Bush was succeeded by Obama. (passive)

In both cases, the agent is Obama and the patient is Bush.

• Bush preceded Obama. (active)
• Obama was preceded by Bush. (passive)

In both cases, the agent is Bush and the patient is Obama.

Does that help? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the concept of "patient" is applicable in successor/predecessor relationships. The words "succeed" and "precede" are not dynamic verbs, they express relationships between entities but they don't involve any actions. --173.49.16.188 (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our (very weak) article patient (grammar) says you are right, and I should have said "theme"; though it also says "A theme is denoted by a stative verb, where a patient is denoted by a dynamic verb. At the very least, there is debate to this effect". In my experience "patient" is used for stative as well as active verbs, and Thematic relation says that 'patient' and 'theme' are sometimes used interchangeably, though it does not give any reference for this. This is an example I found by Googling of 'patient' used with a stative verb (in this case an intransitive). --ColinFine (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liliane Haegeman (1994), Government & Binding Theory, basically uses patient & theme interchangeably (it explains what the difference is, but then says she thinks that difference is trivial). That is more like a textbook, though, so I'm sure she cites another source in there, which I don't remember offhand. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is schtroumpf pronounced in French? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that German? As I recall from the "German Week" episode of Are You Being Served?, it means "socks".--Nricardo (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you're thinking of "Strumpf, (pl. Strümpfe)", German for stocking(s). - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 21:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's the French name of the Smurfs. I'm not sure about the IPA but it is pronounced "shtroomf", pretty much how it's spelled. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, I go all queasy when I hear people using expressions like "I like to do such and such of an evening", "He regularly does blah blah of a weekend", etc. Putting my queasiness aside and subjecting it to close scrutiny, what's going on with this expression? "Of" doesn't answer the question "when" in any other contexts, does it? How long has it been around, and is it associated with any particular groups of speakers? Could one say "of weekends", or is it always "of a weekend"? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or "of a morning". It's a very old expression. My grandmother used it a lot. I suppose it's shorter than "during the morning" or whatever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another midwestern expression that would probably drive you crazy is what could be called the "dangling with". Example: "I'm going to the store." "Can I come with?" and/or "We were going to return this item. I'll take with." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OED says "51. a. At some time during, in the course of, on.

App. taking the place of the Germanic and Old English genitive of time. Now only implying regularity or repetition (as also in sense 51b), e.g. in of an evening, of a Sunday afternoon. Now chiefly regional" and gives examples from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle to 1999. --ColinFine (talk) 08:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... so would it be considered "non-standard" by some? I can't imagine anyone using the expression in formal writing, but it is common in my own (regional) speech (northern England). Dbfirs 10:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the biggest possible emphasis you can put on a word? jc iindyysgvxc (my contributions) 05:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When writing a word. Bolding it, italicising it, writing it in all-caps, making it bigger... how else can you put more emphasis on it? jc iindyysgvxc (my contributions) 05:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colouring it, decorating it, having flashing lights surround it. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 05:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree. The question effectively doesn't have an answer - maybe you could hyperlink the word to an audio file of the word being shouted in a very loud voice, or being sung by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir? Or illuminate the word in gold leaf? Or … The question does make sense in certain contexts; many publications (including WP) have a "Manual of Style", which is an attempt to ensure that a set of standards are maintained for publications by a specific organisation (such as a newspaper or online encyclopædia). Such a guide will commonly specify how emphasis is to be achieved and may prohibit certain combinations ("do not use both bold and italic", for example). The WP Manual of Style is to be found here, and states that italics should be used for emphasis. Tonywalton ^Talk 13:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Print it in a bold color? Example: A newspaper announces that we've declared war on somebody. The entire front page, occupied solely by "WAR!" printed in blood-red, or maybe international orange. There's really no one right answer. It all depends on what you're printing, what you want to emphasize, that defines what you want to be an attention-getter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or as I saw in some bit of satire, "WA-" in huge letters, with small print saying, "Headline continued on page 2." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On an ordinary computer with the same font and size, UNDERLINING it. If you're not using a browser or word-processing program that offers a button to do so, you can enclose it between the HTML tags "<u>" and "</u>". —— Shakescene (talk) 12:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One question does strike me (prompted by BB's suggestion of using colour): What techniques are used in Braille to provide emphasis? I see the Library of Congress Braille Transcription Manual specifies the "italic sign" (⠨) and there's also a "following letter is a capital" sign (⠠). Are there other Braille idioms which are commonly used to provide emphasis? Tonywalton ^Talk 13:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

>>>LIKE THIS?!<<< --Kjoonlee 14:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And before I begin, a happy new year to the Language forum :)

Two ickle questions about Mac/Mc surnames, if you please.

a) What is the etymology or origin of "MacQueen" or "McQueen".

and partly related, I guess, b) Why has there been no "assimilation" of the adjacent "hard c" in such versions as "McKenzie" or "MacCulloch"? By which I mean, why not "MacUlloch" or "McEnzie" ?

Thanks doktorb _words^deeds 09:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For (a), McQueen (surname) gives some possibilities. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, I'll take a look! doktorb _words^deeds 11:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's said that "Mc" (as in McNamara) is more Irish, and "Mac" (as in Macdonald) more Scottish. But I don't think that's hard and fast. —— Shakescene (talk) 12:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about a (potential) grammatical ambiguity. Compare "They should make it a top priority in their life" with "They should make it a top priority in their lives". The first is ambiguous because it could mean either that the collective shares the object (the life) or that each in the collective is assigned a life. The second is ambiguous because it doesn't make clear whether each in the collective is assigned one life or more than one life. Is there an ambiguity, or am I just thinking about the construction too mathematically? Furthermore, which would be more correct in the case that I wanted to mean "Each person, in their life, should make it a top priority"? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This happens to be vigorously-debated topic at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (several current threads). In the second sense, should one write "Each person in their life", "Each person in his or her life", or (using the older convention that's now rather deprecated of including both sexes within the masculine) "Each person in his life" (cf. Shakespeare's Seven Ages of Man)? Even if someone could show that your logic is faulty (which I doubt), the emphasis and nuance are important rhetorically. Using the singular exhorts each person individually, while the plural suggests a common goal, achieved by common effort. ¶ However, as a matter of style, I'd try to find something fresher, sharper and more forceful than the overused (if sometimes unavoidable) "make it a top priority". —— Shakescene (talk) 13:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you make of it when people, for instance, ask their hostess for tea and say "Can I please have some tea?" vs. "Can I please have a tea?" Seems to be that the former is more correct, as it would be for coffee and anything else in a cup, whereas asking someone for "a Snapple" is appropriate, because the Snapple drink is in a discrete volume within its bottle. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Can I please have a tea?" is "Can I please have a cup of tea?". A cup is a discrete object, so the indefinite article makes sense. "Can I please have some tea?" sounds more correct though. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Measure words. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it is the activity one is suggesting then "a tea" seems appropriate. If the reference is focussed on the liquid then "some tea" seems like it might be best. Bus stop (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]