Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/L

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

July 10

Formatting quandry

Bertrada of Laon has dates of "(710/27 - July 12, 783)", which, based on the edit comments of Feb. 5, 2009, seem to indicate that her year of birth is some time between 710 and 727. However, it took me a little while to figure that out. Can somebody come up with something better than "(born between 710 and 727 - July 12, 783)"? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It could be that she was either born in 710 or 727. I'd do (710 or 727 – July 12, 783) if that were the case. There are some Pharaohs with dates like that, I believe. However, the source on the article's page lists 726 as the year of birth, and the French WP page lists c. 720 ("vers 720"), which is probably better here. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 06:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In academic jargon you often see "710 x 727", but I don't know if that would make any more sense here. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guess the first thing to do then is to ask the editor what was meant. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though it loses a little of the original meaning, you could also go with (fl. 727 - July 12, 783). Grutness...wha? 11:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about ca.710-727 to July 12, 783 ? DOR (HK) (talk) 03:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

kick smb. for a mug

What can the phrase mean: "He spent the next ten years kicking himself for a mug"? 88.84.200.2 (talk) 12:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Seaweed71 (talk) 12:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It probably means "for [being] a mug", i.e. for being a fool.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is meaning 19a in the OED: In the character of, in the light of, as equivalent to; esp. to introduce the complement after verbs of incomplete predication, e.g. to have, hold, etc. (see those verbs), where as or as being may generally be substituted. Other examples: "I know for a fact that you have taken me for a fool." Algebraist 13:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear. He looked like a fool or was cheated or what? It is about a man who had taken decision to send his daughter to the expensive school and after that ... Thank you, nevertheless.Seaweed71 (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read it as 'for the next ten years he was harsh with himself, believing that he had let himself be taken advantage of'. There are two separate idioms here 'kicking himself' and '(being) a mug'. --ColinFine (talk) 00:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Latin phrase

Are there any Latinists available? I'd like to know what nil quae feci means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitefox (talk • contribs) 13:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice to see that The Prisoner of Zenda is still finding readers. I'd translate it "What I've done is nothing." Deor (talk) 13:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See zero copula (that forgets the case of Latin however, where the ellipsis of the copula is quite common). --pma (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to see a sensible answer to this - I'm afraid my first thought was "no shit!" :) Grutness...wha? 11:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With or without?

"Their relationship is often subject to press speculation of either a possible engagement or breakup" - I think there should be an "a" before breakup, shouldn't there? Is there something wrong with this sentence other than that? Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the talk is speculation, then the engagement or breakup are assumed to be possible, so "possible" is redundant. Are relationships "subject to" speculation? How about "There has been frequent press speculation about an engagement or a breakup"? -- JackofOz (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here I have to make it clear then. It is about a couple who separated recently. The entire sentence is "Their relationship was frequently reported on in the media, and was often subject to press speculation of either a possible engagement or break-up" - the second part is somewhat problematic. It can't be "has been" since their relationship is over, and frequent cannot be used as it is already used in the first part of the sentence. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Their relationship was often reported on by the media, with frequent speculation about an engagement or a break-up."? Algebraist 14:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about: Previous media speculation concerning reconciliation or breakup continues at this time. Bus stop (talk) 14:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't speculate about a breakup that's already happened. "Continues at this time" can be more concisely rendered as "continues". All in all, I like Algebraist's version better. -- JackofOz (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JackofOz, Algebraist, Bus stop, thank you very much for the help! Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sh's second question has been answered, but not the first. The construct "either ___ or ___" properly requires independent and grammatically equivalent forms in the two blanks, so Sh is right to say that if "either a P or a Q" is what's meant, "either a P or Q" is not really a correct replacement for it. The force of the article before P can't be distributed to Q. However, in speech or informal writing, people just don't worry about this. Similarly, in this example:

1. either it's on the left or it's on the right

2. it's either on the left or it's on the right

3. it's either on the left or on the right

4. it's on either the left or on the right

5. it's on either the left or the right

numbers 1, 3, and 5 are all correct, but people will also say 2 or 4 in speech or informal writing. --Anonymous, 04:56 UTC, July 11, 2009.

novel characters

How do novelists come up with the names of their characters? Do they just randomly open a phone book, or do they just make up a name that sounds interesting? Googlemeister (talk) 14:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure a great many techniques are used. Do you have any particular novelist in mind? Algebraist 14:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This link provides some answers about J.K. Rowling's characters... Dismas|^(talk) 14:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I was thinking mainly of John Grisham, and Tom Clancy. Googlemeister (talk) 14:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever technique they use, the ultimate test is that they must "feel/sound right". For example - and with great respect to any so-named people out there who may well be superbly qualified for the office - I could hardly imagine a novelist writing about a U.S. President called "Fred Gerk". On the other hand, Joyce Cary created a character in The Horse's Mouth with the completely unlikely name of "Gulley Jimson". I squirm uncomfortably whenever I hear it. -- JackofOz (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Gerk may not be the most attractive of names, but it's better than Peter Faeces.--Richardrj ^talk ^email 15:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or Sheila Dikshit for President of India. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]

What is wrong with the name "Fred Gerk?" What about it would make it unsuitable for the name of a fictional U.S. President? Bus stop (talk) 15:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really convey any capacity of leadership (if at all, it does the exact opposite). Gerk, especially when coupled with Fred, sounds blunt and ugly (IMO, and I'm sure I'm not alone - Jack seems to agree with me). In response to the OP's original question, I'm sure many novelists have very different ways of coming up with names. Sometimes they may have been inspired by the name of someone they know or have met. They could pick an uncommon name to give the character some uniqueness, or they could use a common one to make it more believable. —Akrabbim^talk 16:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly think that a President Fred Gerk could not be believable and eventually acceptable. It would all depend on the character poured into the name by the novelist. Bus stop (talk) 16:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at List of fictional United States Presidents A-F. There's nothing remotely as uneuphonious as Fred Gerk there. I haven't checked out G-Z. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...except, certainly, FXJKHR :P. No such user (talk) 09:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I discounted that, for obvious reasons. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what happens if I write a story which has a villain with a particular name I make up, say an evil chiroipracter, and I describe him in detail, with several unusual characteristics (red haired, balding, short, fat, limps), then up pops some real world chiropracter with that name who happens to have the physical characteristics, and who then sues me for defamation? Does this happen much? Does the publisher defend the lawsuit? Certainly one could do a Google search to try and rule out there being such a real life person with the fictional name, but I suspect many would be missed. If all characters had common names(Fred Smith) there would be more real world matches, but it would look less like defamation than if the villain had an unusual name (Fred Gerk). I suspect the disclaimer that "All characters and events are fictional" does not always prevail in court. Edison (talk) 16:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Twain named a character Escol Sellers, thinking that it was a name unlikely to be borne by a real person, only to have a man of that name threaten to sue. Twain changed the name in subsequent editions, and a person with the revised name also turned up and objected. See The Gilded Age: A Tale of Today#Plot summary, fourth paragraph. Deor (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the original radio and book versions of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams thought it would be funny to name a real poet as the worst poet on Earth. According to the book of the radio scripts, this person actually objected and the name was changed in all subsequent versions. See List of minor characters from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy#Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings of Greenbridge, Essex.

Isaac Asimov writes in his autobiography In Memory Yet Green about how he named a recurring character in his robot stories, when he was 21. She was a female scientist, which was fairly unusual in those days. But Asimov's graduate advisor at Columbia University was a female scientist he admired: Dr. Mary Caldwell. So he named his character Susan Caldwell. But after submitting the manuscript to Astounding Science Fiction, he realized that he hadn't asked Mary Caldwell if she liked the idea; and apparently he was too apprehensive to do so. He happened to be at Astounding's offices a few days later, and asked the secretary to go through the manuscript and change each instance of the name. To minimize her work in fixing his mistake, he chose the most similar name he could think of, and that is how Susan Calvin was named.

I've read at least one British book where the disclaimer about all the characters being fictional also mentions that they "are placenamed", i.e. all the surnames are names of real places.

Oh, and James Bond was named after a real-life James Bond because Ian Fleming thought the name had the sound he wanted -- and he did ask permission.

So basically the idea is that if you might be using the name of a living person, you get permission or you make sure you can prove you got the name from somewhere else. Of course, the more common the name is, the less likely that someone will make a fuss about it. But this is the sort of thing that the legal departments of publishers and movie studios worry about.

(Incidentally, I think the Humanities Desk would have been a better place for this question.) --Anonymous, 05:30 UTC, July 11, 2009.

Edison, see Small penis rule. —Tamfang (talk) 17:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy L. Sayers got at least some characters' surnames by visiting the place where the novel was going to be set and discovering what surnames were common in the area. She found some unusual names, like Gotobed, that way. +An gr 17:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hotblack Desiato is named for an estate agents. Algebraist 17:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes the meaning of the name is significant,think of Becky Sharp in Vanity Fair,her surname describes her sharp wits ,or Mr.Knightley in Emma because of his perfect manners...hotclaws 18:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was very common in the 17th and 18th centuries (sometimes in a very unsubtle and heavy-handed way...) -- AnonMoos (talk) 11:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly a number of the character's surnames in the Simpsons (not a book, sure but the same process) are named after streets around where Matt Groening grew up. Infact the article on him shows that to be the case ny156uk (talk) 22:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the soap opera All My Children, there used to be a character named Seabone Hunkle. The creator of the soap said she saw the name on a mailbox when she was driving through the US South. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how he does it, but Jack Vance has an incredible talent for coming up with odd names that just sound right. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, of course, Charles Dickens is famous for this. --Anonymous, 10:00 UTC, July 11, 2009.

Lord Dunsany is another. —Tamfang (talk) 17:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's not a novel, but the creator of the UK Soap Opera "Coronation Street" apparently went round a graveyard in the area in which he had set the series to get the names, so Ena Sharples, Elsie Tanner and Albert Tatlock all existed - but not when the script was written. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J.R.R. Tolkien noted that, shortly after the publication of The Lord of the Rings he had received an interesting letter from an actual man named Sam Gamgee. I don't have the page in front of me, but if I remember right, he feared receiving a letter from someone named S. Gollum. Nyttend (talk) 02:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Translation into Spanish? Please?

So I'm a student filmmaker working on a script for a zombie movie. I need a line translated into Spanish for me; unfortunately, all the people I know who have studied Spanish have forgotten it, and I know better than to trust Babelfish. So is there any chance at all that someone would be willing to translate the following for me?: "Attention. Do not go to Mexico City. Mexico City is dead. I repeat. Mexico City belongs to the dead." Thank you all very much for hearing me out. --Brasswatchman (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The translation I got from babelfish looks pretty good, to me, unless there are subtleties I'm not aware of: Atención. No vaya a Ciudad de México. Ciudad de México es muerta. Repito. Ciudad de México pertenece a los muertos.. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't they use the plural? There should also be a "the", right? "no vayan a la Ciudad de México." My oxford dictionary says that death is indicated with estar, not ser and cities are femininte, so it would be "La Ciudad de México está muerta." I'm not sure how common pertenecer is, but another way of saying it is "es de los muertos." My Spanish is horribly crude, so I could still be missing something, but a slightly more accurate rendition would then be "¡atención! No vayan a la Ciudad de México. La Ciudad de México está muerta. Repito. La Ciudad de México es de los muertos." I remember hearing somewhere that Mexico City is often called "La Ciudad" ("the city") but our article on Mexico City doesn't seem to corroborate that. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 04:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I wasn't sure whether singular or plural would work, it would depend on whom the original questioner is addressing. And you're right, la is probably proper here. México is also used for the city, as is D.F. for Distrito Federal. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not much to add to previous comments. Ciudad de México alone may be used, as far as I know. I would go however for "no vayan al Distrito Federal, etc". Generally speaking, the ~~third person~~ plural would be used, unless the communication is for a sign or banner (which, I assume, is not the case here). 190.1.53.214 (talk) 07:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It also depends on the situation. In Mexico, "el D.F." would be understood, but outside Mexico probably not. Also, is it an official announcement, like at an airport, or is it someone screaming in the street, or whatever? Such subtleties are probably better asked at the Spanish Wikipedia. Maybe here. DirkvdM (talk) 12:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic. Thank you all very much. I really appreciate the help. --Brasswatchman (talk) 18:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

July 11

appointment for?

I know that appointment with is natural. (appointment only in sense of pre-arranged meeting) Do you use appointment for? Do you say "the minister gave an appointment for the war widow"? --Rdbchauhan (talk) 04:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say "the minister arranged an appointment for the war widow". It could also be used thusly: "I made an appointment for a checkup." Clarityfiend (talk) 04:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or both: I made an appointment with my doctor for a checkup. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

or even "The senator had an appointment with the President for discussions on Johnson's appointment to Secretary of State." 71.236.26.74 (talk) 11:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese translation

The page http://alessio.guglielmi.name/index.html advises people against using telephones, then says something in Chinese. What does it say? Thanks. 208.70.31.206 (talk) 07:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The translation is there on the page. I don't use the phone and you should do the same. Oda Mari (talk) 09:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Fewer carbon emissions" or "less carbon emission"?

As in the phrase "Electric cars cause less carbon emission". But I believe that In English, one generally speaks of 'carbon emissions', in plural. So I'm inclined to say 'fewer carbon emissions'. But isn't 'fewer' reserved for discrete quantities, such as tables or cars? If it is a continuous quantity, such as an amount of milk or a distance, it should be 'less', right? But then it has to be singlar, in other words 'less carbon emission'. But somehow that doesn't feel right. Please de-confuse me. :) DirkvdM (talk) 12:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both might be acceptable, but I've heard "carbon emissions" more than I've heard "carbon emission" which seems to imply that people envision discrete emissions. Similarly, although water is continuous, it may be broken up into units of cups. Perhaps the trip to the store, and then the trip back home count as two different emissions. To be technically accurate, "less carbon emission" would be what's desirable in reducing CO2 buildup. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 17:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a case where we must not attempt to reason from logic, but must observe what people say. What they say is "carbon emissions", plural, and they use it as a mass noun, so it has to be "less carbon emissions". (The mass noun article does not admit that a word can be plural when it's being used as a mass noun, but it can, although these uses tend to be disputed. One example is graffiti, as mentioned in that article.)

If I heard "fewer carbon emissions", I'd either think that the speaker was confused or else that the meaning was that the number of different carbon-containing compounds being emitted was smaller. --Anonymous, 20:16 UTC, expanded 20:18, July 11, 2009, formatting fixed later.

It is a phrase that really annoys me, but it does have 6,380 google hits, compared to 1,630 for "less carbon emission". The most popular is "less carbon emissions" with 14,900. There is a really annoying Lexus advert on UK TV at the moment that says "fewer carbon emissions", and though I know what it means I do think "go on then, which compounds doesn't it produce". -- Q Chris (talk) 20:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Fewer carbon emissions" sounds like an understandable hypercorrection. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the versions using "less" and "fewer" sound wrong to me, with "less carbon emission" being the least bad. But I think you can avoid the problem by using "lower carbon emissions". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should really be "reduce" or "lower" (verb) carbon emissions, or a "smaller" volume of carbon emissions. "An emission" is an event - one instance of emission. The "less" and "fewer" imply the measurement of a quantity (uncountable and countable) of carbon emissions respectively. However, the intended meaning of the sentence refers not to the number of instances of emissions, but rather to the volume of emission. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Unindenting) No, it isn't an event. It's a waste product that is emitted. --Anonymous, 21:24 UTC, July 12, 2009.

The waste product is not countable. An emission as a countable noun is an event of emission. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"An" emission could have that meaning, but that's not what anyone's interested in. They're interested in the total amount of stuff emitted. Which is why "fewer emissions" is wrong. --Anonymous, 05:10 UTC, July 13, 2009.

Yes, that's what I meant with that 'fewer' is for discrete quantities. But if one goes for 'less', then it must be singular, so 'less carbon emission'. I suppose that's gramatically correct. But it's not the common terminology. I think I'll go for "Electric cars reduce carbon emissions". that avoids the problem. But it doesn't resolve the linguistic issue. In computer terminology, it's a workaround, but not a solution.

PalaceGuard, can't one speak of 'the emission of carbon' as in 'the act of emitting'? When people use electric cars, they emit less carbon, so that causes less carbon emission. Right? My gut says no, but my brain says yes, and being a logical purist, I tend to follow my brain. :) DirkvdM (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous (I wish people would stop doing that), DirkvdM -- that's what I meant. The intended meaning here is not referring to discrete acts of emission, it's talking about amount emitted - so the noun emission should not be countable, and so "less emission", or "reduced emission" should be used, not "fewer". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's what the usage should be, but it's not what it is. "Less emissions", plural, is what people actually say, mostly. --Anon, 10:50 UTC, July 14, 2009.

Right. It's more correct in meaning than "fewer emissions" at least. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

July 12

Is this self-made translation correct?

I have translated the self-description of a magazine into English (names removed) and would be grateful for any feedback.

Since June 2009, cline is the main publication of the club, released six times a year (the predecessor, issue 1-200, was called clubzine). It reports activities in the club and the umbrella association, spiced with papers, columns, humor, puzzles and more.

All club members may contribute articles and images of any kind. Deadline for articles and letters to the editors is the 28th of any odd month, to be sent by eMail or fax, +1 2345. Regarding that a two-pager will contain roughly 5,000-5,500 characters, length should not exceed 8,500 in total.

The magazine is printed in full colors. For that we can afford this, we allow members to place an advertisement (for themselves or their enterprises): 1/8 page for € 130, 1/4 for € 250. A standing order for one year (i. e. 6 issues) reduces the respective price to € 100 and € 200.

--KnightMove (talk) 09:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the original? Algebraist 10:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The text is not on the web in this version, but I assume the content to be correct - I'm just asking for correct English grammar, phrases etc. --KnightMove (talk) 10:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "spiced with ...", whilst understood, is not quite idiomatic. You may use "interspersed with" or some synonym. "Odd month" could be improved as odd not only means "ungerade" but also "seltsam". Maybe "... deadline ... is the 28th of the month of publication" or something similar. "Regarding that..." I would replace with "As a two-pager...". The phrase "for that we can afford this" is presumably a literal translation of "damit wir uns das leisten können", it is, however, not quite correct. I suggest "To support our printing costs, bla bla". "Colors" is USian. If you have a majority of US American readers, this is OK, otherwise you may prefer to use the BE spelling, "colours".

Grüße aus Wien. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 11:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much thank from exactly there... go we times on a beer? :) --KnightMove (talk) 11:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the points Cookatoo has noted, there are a few other unidiomatic usages:

"Since June 2009, cline is the main publication" - "is" should be "has been"
"Deadline for articles and letters.." should be "The deadline..." (and for clarity I would say "odd-numbered month")_
"Regarding that a two-pager will contain roughly 5,000-5,500 characters," - "Regarding" should be "Since" or "As"
"The magazine is printed in full colors." - should be "... in full colour"

Hope this helps. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...or "full colors" becomes "full color", if using US English. StuRat (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does, thx. --KnightMove (talk) 11:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also simply omit the "i. e." in the final sentence. (If it's retained, it should be "i.e." [with no space] and should be followed by a comma.) And in the first sentence "issue 1–200" would be better as "issues 1–200." Deor (talk) 12:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and "respective price" in the final sentence should be "respective prices." Deor (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Released" looks odd. I'd translate "ausgeben" as "publish" rather than "release" in the context of a written work. I also find the bit about character counts confusing - maybe "[As a] a two-pager will contain roughly 5,000-5,500 characters, length should not exceed 8,500 in total" makes sense in context. Tonywalton ^Talk 01:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, English language magazine names are typically capitalized. However, in those cases where the name is lowercase on the actual mag, then it's correct to report it that way. StuRat (talk) 13:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest posting a corrected version, with all the above corrections, so we can double-check it for you. Also please state whether you want it in US English, British English, or some other variety. StuRat (talk) 13:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd change For that to So that. A space after € looks a bit odd to me. —Tamfang (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Punjabi ordinal numbers

I need the punjabi words for "thousandth" and "millionth". A good reference would be good as well, if available. Thanks 90.196.64.47 (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thousand is 'hazaar' in Punjabi, according to http://www.punjabonline.com . Not sure how to make it into 'thousandth', but in Hindi its हज़ारवां. Probably its something quite similar in Punjabi. As per millionth, note that Punjabi uses Indian numeral system with lakhs and crores. One million is ten lakhs, das lakh. --Soman (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this sentence wrong? (SAT-style question)

"Although study after study has shown that standardized test scores have little to do with students' real potential for achievement, but such tests continue to proliferate."

"Although" is what the answer key says is wrong. What's the reason for the answer? I can't figure it out. 24.6.46.177 (talk) 23:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I could live with deleting either "Although" or "but"; however, with both, this is not a sentence but two subordinate clauses. // BL \\ (talk) 23:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, "but" does not produce a subordinate clause. The error is that "although A, B" and "A, but B" mean the same thing, but have different structures and can't be combined like that. --Anonymous, 05:14 UTC, July 13, 2009.

I would make it "have shown" also. Algebraist 00:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't. :-) // BL \\ (talk) 00:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a regional variation. If so, it's not explictly mentioned in American and British English differences, though it's sort-of related to Formal and notional agreement Algebraist 00:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And it should be students', not student's (or, alternatively, a student's). - Nunh-huh 00:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was my typo. ;) It's a SAT find the error question, so the only thing you can change are the choices they give you, in this case, "although". Thanks for the quick replies everyone! 24.6.46.177 (talk) 00:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(After EC :-)) While nothing is certain or perfect, SAT-style tests tend to be very careful about ensuring there is only one error if only one error is required to be identified. I suspect, then, given what the answer key maintains is correct, that "student's" is a typo by the OP and that, if "Study . . . has" is a regionalism, the test was created in a region where the singular form of the verb is considered correct, and not notional. // BL \\ (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try the sentence in more everyday language:

Although I keep telling him not to put his gym shoes in the washing machine, but he keeps on doing it.

makes little sense.

I keep telling him not to put his gym shoes in the washing machine, but he keeps on doing it.

Although I keep telling him not to put his gym shoes in the washing machine, he keeps on doing it.

I'd agree with BL - either "although" or "but" is acceptable; if both are there one of the two is an error. Tonywalton ^Talk 00:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

July 13

English translation for chain of law, police and forensic scientists

Hi all,

I'm looking for a nice translation of the Dutch word strafrechtsketen, or if that doesn't exist, ketenpartner. The word strafrechtsketen means something like "the chain of cooperating instances in law and order, like police, forensic institutes and law enforcement" or maybe something like "chain of criminal law"? The word ketenpartner might be translated as something like "chain of cooperating instances", or "partner in the chain". I would be very pleased if someone could help me with the correct word, since neither of them can be found in my dictionary.

Regards, 159.46.2.67 (talk) 12:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a single English word for this. One reason for this might be that German (and presumably Dutch) likes to make long compound words where English likes to keep the words a bit more separate. Also, too much cooperation between those departments might be a bad thing. For example, if the police say "we have our suspect, now we just need you guys at the lab to prove it by giving us a matching DNA test", I'd want the lab to return the actual results, whether that's what the police want or not. StuRat (talk) 13:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The cooperation term I'm looking for points at the fact that each of the three groups (police/order, forensic scientists, prosecutors/law) is responsible for a part of the entire law enforcement procedure. Between the forensic guys (and gals) at the lab and the police, a Chinese Wall is kept up to keep out observer effects as much as possible, to avoid that the lab results are badly influenced by assumptions made at the crime scene. So don't be afraid that the chain is just there to prove police assumptions to be right... :-) But anyway thanks for your help, I'll just try to look for a short definition to write down instead of a single word. 159.46.2.67 (talk) 14:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't anyone watch Law & Order? :) Try the criminal justice system. Indeterminate (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's better: "a house whose door I see", or "a house which door I see", or "a house the door of which I see"?

HOOTmag (talk) 13:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either the first or third are acceptable English, but not the second. I would go for (1) as less clumsy. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 13:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Option 2 is non-English. Option 3 is pedanticism. Option 1 is the only viable one. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd, Jack, because I would never refer to a house as a "who". Perhaps that's a US English/Australian English difference ? StuRat (talk) 13:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. "Whose" is the possessive, if "possessive" is the word I want, of "which" as well as "who", everywhere. --Anonymous, 10:55 UTC, July 14, 2009.

I like the last one, although I'd add a comma:

"I now come upon a house, the door of which I can see"

Although, I would think this would be more common in the past tense:

"I next came upon a house, the door of which I could see."

However, it's still a bit awkward. Perhaps because just saying you can see something is a bit unusual. Perhaps it would be better if you just recorded something about the door, which would imply that you saw it:

"I next came upon a house with a red door." StuRat (talk) 13:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are other options, but they're still not as idiomatic as option 1: "a house of which I see the door", "a house such that I see its door". +An gr 13:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stu, all your examples are in objective case. Try a nominative example and a slightly more realistic context: "A tree whose leaves are shed during winter is called deciduous" or "A tree, the leaves of which are shed during winter, is called deciduous". I'd go for the first one every time, even though trees do not take "who". -- JackofOz (talk) 13:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tree is alive, so at least a bit closer to being a "who". I would say "A tree which has leaves that are shed during winter is deciduous", or, better yet, "A deciduous tree has leaves that are shed during winter". StuRat (talk) 14:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stu, you're missing the point that Jack (and even I, in a way) made, which is that whose is perfectly acceptable grammatically even if we are talking about an inanimate object. What part of that are you having trouble understanding? Or is this another case where you like to make up your own rules, even if they are incorrect? --Richardrj ^talk ^email 14:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there's any committee of experts chosen to make up the rules of the English language (although there apparently is for French). Therefore, whatever rules there are, they are collectively made up by all of us (myself included). I'm not saying I would ban the use of "whose" for inanimate objects entirely, but would avoid it whenever possible. It sounds very awkward to my ears, perhaps this is a regional dialect issue ? I'm from Detroit, if that helps to identify it. StuRat (talk) 03:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a dialect issue, it shouldn't sound awkward and there's no need to avoid it. It's got nothing to do with "who", it just happens to start with those letters. "A house whose door..." is simply a contraction of "A house the door of which..." Perfectly normal, straightahead English. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 10:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Whose" has nothing to do with "who" ? What ? See wiktionary:whose, which shows that "whose" is the "genitive of who". They also specifically list the "house whose..." example and say it is considered "nonstandard by some". So, I'm not the only one who finds this use awkward, am I ? StuRat (talk) 12:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're not. Some people still stick to the old rule that "who", "whom" or "whose" are used with humans only. But it's stretching it to insist on the full rule these days. I would still never say "The dog who ran though the garden is a corgi" - "that" has to be used there - but I would say "The dog, whose litter was enormous, was exhausted", because "The dog, the litter of which was enormous, ..." sounds unnatural and forced, to comply with a rule that even Fowler had long since abandoned when he was writing in 1926. Maybe some allow "whose" for animates, but draw the line at inanimates. That's another fairly arbitrary distinction. If we had a possessive form of "that", that word would be used. Some have tried to write/speak as if such a word exists - see below - but its existence is not generally recognised. So we're left with "whose". The "whose" construction is easier to say, more concise, less pedantic-sounding, and more immediately understandable and unobjectionable to the vast majority of listeners, than "of which". It's even used with abstract nouns - "Words whose letters are in alphabetical order are rare". That's not to say that "of which" has been abandoned entirely, nor should it be: it's very useful in phrases where an alternative for "about which" is called for. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But why use either awkward form ? In your puppy example, why not say "The dog with the enormous litter..." ? Can you provide an example where using "whose" for an inanimate object is the only option ? StuRat (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The commas in Jack's dog example show that he intended a non-restrictive relative clause. "The dog with the enormous litter" can only be interpreted restrictively. +An gr 14:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can always put the commas back in: "The dog, with the enormous litter, ...". Or you can rewrite it in many other ways. For example: "The dog, which incidentally had an enormous litter, ...". StuRat (talk) 15:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can rewrite it in many ways. But we're discussing whether "whose" can be used for non-human nouns, and I'm arguing it's fine. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm arguing that if it sounds awkward to some people, and you can phrase it in a way that doesn't, you should do so. StuRat (talk) 03:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's what Wikipedia resolved. HOOTmag (talk) 22:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've occasionally seen the hypercorrective (equivalent of) "the tree that's leaves are green", which comes close to causing me physical pain. This page quotes Fowler on the subject: "Let us, in the name of common sense, prohibit the prohibition of 'whose' inanimate; good writing is surely difficult enough without the forbidding of things that have historical grammar, and present intelligibility, and obvious convenience, on their side…". It also mentions his reference to the opening of Paradise Lost: "Of Man's First Disobedience, and the Fruit / Of that Forbidden Tree, whose mortal taste / Brought Death into the World" (my emphasis, of course, and the original may have "mans" rather than "man's"). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to use that vile construction, it should be "the tree thats leaves are green": possessive pronouns don't have apostrophes in English. Algebraist 14:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. This question, in various forms, is a regular vistor to the refdesk. (Some results of that query are false positives.) AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Thats", with no apostrophe, is a word? It's not on any list of possessive pronouns that I know. Perhaps it is of recent vintage. // BL \\ (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only word containing the letters t, h, a, t and s, in that order, and no other letters, is "that's", an abbreviation meaning "that is". It's slightly pointless, ~~Angr~~ Algebraist, to argue for the non-existent apostrophe-free version, when either version is inappropriate in this context. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BL: Neither thats nor that's exists as a possessive pronoun. If either did exist, it would be thats.

Jack: What does Angr have to do with anything? Algebraist 04:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry. I meant your good self, sir. (Easy mistake to make: A, g, r in both names). My take on that is in this context, both "that's" and "thats" are utterly inappropriate, the one because it just doesn't fit, and the other because it isn't a word at all. Hypothetical words are not words; we can argue all day about what form they might take if they were words, but it's futile. Are there degrees of utter inappropriateness? -- JackofOz (talk) 09:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A house with a door I can see.Synchronism (talk) 09:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about: "a house of which the door I can see"? HOOTmag (talk) 11:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's non-English. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 11:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, you do have a permission for saying: "The house, of which the doors I can see are red, is going to be sold tomorrow". Really, it's too clumsy, yet it's definitely legitimate, isn't it? HOOTmag (talk) 22:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And how about "a house of which the door is red"? HOOTmag (talk) 12:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't sound right to me, but I can't refer you to a precise rule that would explain why. "A house, the door of which is red" would be fine. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 12:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"A house of which the door is red" sounds OK to me, though still not as good as "A house whose door is red". +An gr 12:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"A house of which the door is red" sounds like the sort of pedantry up with which I will not put. The version with "whose" is surely the only natural way to say this. Synchronism's "A house with a door I can see" has a subtly different meaning, as it allows for the possibility that the house might not have had a door at all. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I see a house, and I see its door." Bus stop (talk) 17:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see a red door. -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what OED has to say on the topic:

Whose: 3. In reference to a thing or things (inanimate or abstract). Originally the genitive of the neuter WHAT (sense 7); in later use serving as the genitive of WHICH (senses 7 and 8), and usually replaced by of which, except where the latter would produce an intolerably clumsy form.

It cites example of such use dating back to 1382, and by writers including:

Shakespeare: "I could a Tale vnfold, whose lightest word Would harrow vp thy soule."
Milton: "Mountains on whose barren brest The labouring clouds do often rest."
Joseph Conrad: "A newspaper of sound principles, but whose staff will persist in ‘casting’ anchors."
Iris Murdoch: "Toby..marvelled at this light which is no light..and whose strength is seen only in the sharpness of cast shadows."
John Lyons: "Whether there are, or could be, two languages whose vocabularies..."
Ian McEwan: "There were pictures whose context she understood immediately."

So the use of whose in the OP's first example is certainly fine, and has a fine pedigree. The second example is ungrammatical while, to my ears, the third falls into the "intolerably clumsy" category. So I would recommend sticking with "a house whose door I see". Abecedare (talk) 04:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the best formula is "a house of which I see the door" (and the like, see below), and let me explain why:

Look at the following sentences:

"The house, whose door we see, is red, and was sold yesterday".
"The house, whose door we see is red, was sold yesterday".

What does the "is" refer to? Does it refer to the house, or to the door?

Answer: Although both sentences begin with the same words: The house whose door we see is red, the "is" in the first sentence - refers to the house, whereas the "is" in the second sentence - refers to the door!

Undoubtedly, the only way for overcoming the difficulty of that ambiguity, is by using commas, or by continuing the sentence (i.e. by adding some words after the word "red"). However, if we don't use commas, nor do we continue the sentence, we'll never be able to exert the full meaning of the first words: The house whose door we see is red.

That ambiguity, which is typical in sentences using phrases like "whose door", could be avoided if one replaced the word "whose" by "of which": Thus, the two sentences would look like:

"The house, of which we see the door, is red, and was sold yesterday".
"The house, of which the door we see is red, was sold yesterday".

Note that even when we drop the commas, and add no words after the word "red", the "is" must refer to the house - in the first sentence, and to the door - in the second sentence, so no ambiguity arises!

Conclusion: The first step for making sure that the sentence has only one meaning, is: avoiding the "whose"!

HOOTmag (talk) 11:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that analysis is that you're taking a single example and making your proposed solution apply to all examples where "whose" might be a candidate. You can't extrapolate from the particular to the general (nor, in many cases involving language, the other way either). For the record, I intensely dislike "The house, of which we see the door ...", and I would never say or write it, not even to save my life. It's just as valid to have:

"The house, whose door we see, is red, and was sold yesterday" and
"The house, whose door we see is red, was sold yesterday". -- JackofOz (talk) 12:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "the house of which I see the door", +An gr disagrees with you: please see his opinion here (the current thread) at 13:23, on 13 July 2009. Of course, I don't intend to claim that his position is better than yours, but I found it important to emphasize your dispute.

Regarding my "extrapolation" (as you've put it), I'm sorry, but you missed my point! I've never claimed that using "whose" is illegitimate: In most cases it's definitely legal! I just noted that "The first step for making sure that the sentence has only one meaning, is avoiding the whose". you see? just "for making sure", i.e. for avoiding any undesirable case, e.g phrases like "the house whose door we see is red", when one drops the commas and doesn't continue the sentence (thus not enabling the reader to decide whether the is refers to the house or to the door). Your examples use commas, so they are legitimate, of course.

HOOTmag (talk) 12:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

German

What does this mean: "erhöht bei benutzung die stufe eines heldem um 10"?174.3.103.39 (talk) 13:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Increases hero's level by 10 when used". Playing a German-language RPG? -- Ferkelparade π 13:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does Heldem mean? Yea, I was playing warcraft 3.174.3.103.39 (talk) 07:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Heldem" is (most probably) a typo for "Helden", the genitive form of "Held" (meaning "hero"). -- Ferkelparade π 08:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

how do you say Regina?

Regina Benjamin will probably be the new US Surgeon General. I just edited the article a bit. How does one usually say "Regina". Is it like Re Geena? Or rhymes with vagina?

How does one say Regina as in Regina, Saskatchewan. WP has the phonetics but I don't know how to read that style.

Question one: woman's name Regina. Question two: city of Regina.

Thank you. User F203 (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the city, the "Re" part is pronounced either like the first part of "red" or "rid", and the "gina" rhymes with Dinah (or the 2nd part of vagina), with the stress on the 2nd syllable. So Reh-JIE-na or Ri-JIE-na. Not sure about the name, but I'd assume it's the same. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 15:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't. I've known a few women named Regina in my life, and they all pronounced it re-JEE-na. +An gr 15:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded, my wife among them. She finds the vagina-rhyming pronunciation objectionable. I think this may be a US-vs-UK/Canada difference. -- Coneslayer (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Backing up Flyguy649 here:

The city is "Reg-eye-na".
The word, used to mean "Queen" (as in Elizabeth Regina) is pronounced the same
People are allowed to choose how their names are pronounced. Any adolescent girl spending five minutes in a playground would probably choose Reg-ee-na, for reasons made clear by Flyguy649. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may well be a US vs UK/Canada thing. Since the US doesn't have the Queen as head of state, Americans are probably comparatively unfamiliar with expressions like "Elizabeth Regina" (re-JYE-na), not to mention being unfamiliar with Regina, Saskatchewan. On the other hand, the largest single Christian denomination the US is Roman Catholicism, and Catholics (especially those who grew up before Vatican II) will be quite familiar with "Regina Coeli" and "Salve Regina" and so forth, and those, being Ecclesiastical Latin, are pronounced "re-JEE-na". And the pronunciation of a girl's name is usually decided by her parents years before she has ever stepped foot in a junior high school or heard of a vagina. +An gr 15:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I named a daughter Regina (which I wouldn't), I would use (and encourage her to use) the Latin-esque pronunciation just to prevent these, umm... obvious school-yard monikers! -- Flyguy649 ^talk 16:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I agree with all of the above. I thought, but wasn't sure, than the girl's name in the US is one way and Regina, Sask. is the other way. I wasn't sure if the city was vagina, but thought it probably was. User F203 (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if you're composing a limerick, it's pretty clear which pronunciation to use... -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But it's Re-gee-na in Latin is it not? I remember the "R" in case citations being introduced to as as coming from "Rex/Regina" (re-gee-na) at law school... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The hard G is the classical pronunciation (well...probably). Ecclesiastical Latin has long pronounced it as a J (and the hymn Regina Coeli that Angr linked to could be pronounced like "rejeena chelly"). Adam Bishop (talk) 02:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To get back to the original question, a reporter on NPR mentioned Regina Benjamin this morning and said it "re-JEE-na". +An gr 06:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its pronunciation in Latin depends entirely on which Latin pronunciation you espouse. Classical Latin must have had something like [regi:na], Church Latin something like [redʒi:na] and (English) legal Latin [rɪdʒaɪnə]. --ColinFine (talk) 07:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the album Soviet Kitsch, Regina Spektor is called "re-gee-na" by someone else on one track. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 12:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But she's Russian; she probably pronounces it that way herself. +An gr 12:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Languages of Spain

Reading the Languages of Spain article, I started wondering about spanish given names. Do people from Catalonia, Galicia and the Basque country (and possibly others) have regional translations of given names? I know that, technically speaking, translated forms exist: for example the castilian José (Joseph) is localized as Josep in Catalan, Xosé in Galician and Asturian, Chusep in Aragonese and Joseba in Basque. What I mean is: is it a normal/diffuse/marginal/nonexistent habit to be christened with local forms? Do people have only official castilian names and use their regional one only in informal situations? Do they have a double name registration? Can they freely choose to have a regional name? And if so, how many people have translated names?
I'm asking it also because in other countries with local languages/dialects, people almost always have standard given names. For example, in Italy, Giuseppe is the universally accepted form for Joseph, dialectal (Friulian, Sardinian, Neapolitan...) forms exist as well but they are never official registered.
N.B.: I'm also curious about spanish family names. --151.51.50.16 (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would they need to translate their names? If you would be named Joseph you wouldn't translate your name if you moved to Spain. If someone was given a Catalan name then they'd use it. Only in some circumstances like someone wants to show patriotism and was named in Spanish by his/her parents I could think they might apply for a name change or use a Catalan translation instead. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's not uncommon to be called a local version of your name in some Spanish speaking areas. I've known Johns who were called Juan when visiting South America, for example, and Marys who were called Maria. Steewi (talk) 00:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a long-running talk page debate (going back to about 2006!) about whether it's correct to refer to the Catalan Pablo Casals as such, or as Pau Casals. Apparently, it was originally Pau, but became Pablo in other parts of Spain and in the rest of the world. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably my statements weren't clear enough. Let me try to explain my original question: are children born in ((insert every spanish region with a local language other than castilian)) officially christened with local forms? Is it a common custom or is it a marginal or non existent one? (for example: 99.999% of catalan children gets only a catalan name, while galician names are totally nonexistent). Basically I'm asking for an explanation of the onomastic situation of Spain regarding the official recognition of local languages. It would be amazing if you could reread my first post in the light of these considerations. Please note that I haven's asked if a foreign person living in Spain is requested to change his name. :-) --151.51.2.141 (talk) 09:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is as much a political as a language question. During the Franco regime local languages were suppressed. There has been a period of renewal, but in at least one survey of children and young adults in Catalonia they identified castellano as the language they were most likely to use in conversation, despite the fact that they said català as their native tongue. Pau/Pablo Casals and others may well have been forced to use the Spanish form during the Franco regime. As I said above in such cases the local version may be chosen "because they now can" in an act of patriotism. For babies both forms seem to be popular. e.g.[1]. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 21:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

July 14

What

What is "Sun tanner": image caption?174.3.103.39 (talk) 07:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I expect it's a tanning lamp. --Anonymous, 11:00 UTC, July 14, 2009.

Translation please

Zerfall in diverse Nebenlinien

[[Datei:Hanstheyounger.jpg|thumb|upright|Das Herzogtum Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg wurde durch Johann III. begründet und zerfiel nach seinem Tod in zahlreiche Duodezherzogtümer]]

Nach dem Tod Herzog Johanns 1622 wurde das Herzogtum unter den erbberechtigten Söhnen aufgeteilt und aus dem Haus Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg gingen mehrere Nebenlinien hervor. Die Namen der einzelnen Linien wurden um den jeweiligen Residenzort ergänzt, die Söhne Herzog Alexanders – ein Sohn Herzog Johanns – erhielten oder erwarben zum Teil Territorien außerhalb Schleswig-Holsteins zu ihrer Versorgung.

Einige der neu entstandenen Teilherzogtümer verfügten nur über wenige Quadratkilometer Grundbesitz und ihre Herren waren nur Titularherzöge. Die neuen Linien hatten zum Teil nur kurzen Bestand und fielen durch Erbfälle oder Konkurse an die anderen Linien oder auch an das dänische Königshaus.

Das Haus Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg wurde weitergeführt durch Herzog Alexander, residierend im Sonderburger Schloss. Nach einem Konkurs 1667 ging der Sonderburger Anteil der Herzogtums an den dänischen König. Aus der Linie gingen unter anderem hervor
1. Die Linie Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Franzhagen mit Sitz auf Schloss Franzhagen bei Schulendorf, begründet durch Herzog Hans Christian
2. Die sogenannte katholische Linie Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg, begründet durch Herzog Alexander Heinrich
3. Die Linie Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Wiesenburg mit Sitz auf Schloss Wiesenburg in Sachsen, begründet durch Herzog Philipp Ludwig
4. Die Linie Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Augustenburg, begründet durch Herzog Ernst Günther residierend im Schloss Augustenborg. Die Linie erlosch 1931, ihr bekanntestes Mitglied war Auguste Viktoria, die letzte deutsche Kaiserin.
5. Die Linie Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Beck, begründet durch Herzog August Philipp. Hieraus ging später hervor
  1. Die jüngere Linie des Hauses Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, heute zumeist Haus Glücksburg genannt. Begründet 1825 durch einen Nachfahren Johanns III., Herzog Friedrich Wilhelm. Familienmitglieder dieses Zweiges gehören bis heute zum europäischen Hochadel und stellen unter anderem die aktuellen Königshäuser von Dänemark und Norwegen, sowie mit Philip Mountbatten, Herzog von Edinburgh den Prinzgemahl der britischen Königin Elisabeth II.
Die ältere Linie Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, begründet durch Herzog Philipp, residierend auf Schloss Glücksburg in Glücksburg. Die Linie erlosch 1779.
Die Linie Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Ærø, begründet durch Herzog Christian, residierend in Ærøskøbing. Herzog Christian starb 1633 ohne Nachfahren und sein Besitz wurde unter den übrigen Söhnen Johanns III. aufgeteilt.
Die Linie Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Plön, begründet 1623 durch Herzog Joachim Ernst, residierend auf dem Plöner Schloss in Plön. Die Linie erlosch 1761. Aus ihr ging hervor
1. Die Linie Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Plön-Rethwisch, begründet durch Joachim Ernst II., residierend in Rethwisch. Diese Linie erlosch bereits 1729.
2. Die jüngere Linie Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Norburg, begründet durch August von Schleswig-Holstein-Norburg-Plön. Diese Linie wurde durch Herzog Joachim Friedrich 1706 wieder mit dem Plöner Herzogtum zusammen geführt.
Die ältere Linie Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Norburg, begründet durch Herzog Johann Adolf, residierend auf Schloss Nordborg auf Alsen. Nach einem Konkurs 1669 wird der Besitz 1679 der Plöner Linie zugeschlagen.

The dukey Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg was founded by Johann III. and split after his death into several smaller ducheys. After the death of Duke Johann in 1622 the land was split between the elegible heirs and from each of their Houses there branched out several bylines. The names of the bylines were amended with the name of the place of residency, while the sons of Duke Alexander, a son of Johann, were given or aquired territories outside of Schleswig-Holstein for provision. (This sentence makes little sense in the German text as well. It would be better to split it in two)

Some of the new ducheys consisted of only a few square kilometers of land and their Lords were only duke by name. Some of he new lines had only a brief existence before going extinct either because of bankruptcy or lack of heir. Their land was seither given to other lines or to the danish royalty.

The house Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg was founded by Duke Alexander, residing in Sonderburg Castle. After bankruptcy in 1667 the sonderburgian part of the duchey went to the Danish King. Form his line branched out the following bylines:

1. The Line Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Franzhagen with residency in Castle Franzhagen near Schulendorf, founded by Duke Hans Christian.

1. The so called catholic line Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg, founded by Duke Alexander Heinrich.

1. The line Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Wiesenburg with residency at Wiesenburg Castle in Saxony, founded by Duke Philipp Ludwig.

1. The line Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Augustenburg founded by Duke Ernst Günther residing in Augustenbourg Castle. The line expired in 1931, most notable member was Auguste Victoria, the last German Queen.

1. The line Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Beck founded by Duke August Philipp out of which rose the

1. 1. The younger line of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, commonly named House Glücksburg today. Founded in 1825 by a descendant of Johann III., Duke Friedrich Wilhelm. Members of this line still belong to the european high nobility and provide the royal houses of Denmark, Norway and with Philip Mountbatten, Duke of Edinbourough husband to Queen Elizabeth II.

The older line of House Glücksburg, founded by Duke Philipp residing in Castle Glücksburg in Glücksburg. The line went extinct in 1779.

The line Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Ærø founded by Duke Christian,residing at Ærøskøbing. After the Dukes heirless death in 1633 his land was divideed between the remaining lines of the sons of Johann III.

The line Schleswig-Holstein-SOnderburg-Plön, founded in 1623 by Duke Joachim Ernst II. residing in Plön Castle in Plön the line expired in 1761. From it were founded:

1. The line Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Plön-Rethwisch founded by Joachim Ernst II., residing in Retwisch. The line expired in 1729.

1. The younger line Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Norburg founded by August von Schleswig-Holstein-Norburg-Plön. The line was unified again with the Plön line in 1706 by Duke Joachim Fridrich.

The older line Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Norburg founded by Duke Johann Adolf residing in Nordborg Castle upon Alsen. After bancruptcy in 1669 the posessions went to the Plön line in 1679.

Not perfect, but maybe usable --91.6.61.162 (talk) 09:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't comment on the accuracy of the translation, but "duchey" should be "duchy", plural "duchies". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some brief comments:

The term Duodezherzogtum is a pun, meaning a small and irrelevant duchy. It is equivalent to a microstate. Duodez itself is a printing format (below an octavo).

Point 1 says "weitergeführt", meaning that the line Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg was continued by Duke Alexander (the founder had been Duke John).

Point 1.4 states that Augusta Viktoria of Schleswig-Holstein was empress of the German Empire, not its queen. She was queen of Prussia, but that is beside the point. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's really too long to correct in one go. I would discourage putting it in an article even with Cockatoo's corrections. Genealogy is not a field I know well, but there are several language issues with the text. I'd suggest finding a collaborator at wikipedia babel or putting in a "request for translation" (Can't link that right now.) What you call "line" would probably work better as "house" or "feudal house" for starters. Although there is a Founder effect in genetics, I don't think we would use that for family trees. I'd say starting from Duke Johann Adolf or even entirely different Duke Johann Adolf was granted the duchy of ... or s.th. like that. Also try posting on the talk page of an existing English page for a related house. You're more likely to find s.o. familiar with common wording and vocabulary there. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 20:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adjectival Form Of "Continuum"

What is the adjectival form of "continuum", if there is one. If not, what is the adjectival form?174.3.103.39 (talk) 09:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the continuous presence of homework questions on this board... TomorrowTime (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Are you asking about English or Latin? In Latin "continuum" is already an adjective (continuus, continua, continuum, meaning "constant"). Adam Bishop (talk) 12:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In mathematics (Continuum (mathematics)) it seems that "continuum" is used as an adjective in "continuum theory", "continuum hypothesis", etc. Failing that "of the continuum" seems quite popular. In more popular contexts (if you use the word in more popular contexts) "continuous"/"unbroken"/"non-discrete" etc would probably convey the same meaning. Do you have a particular sentence you want to write? --193.172.19.20 (talk) 13:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that continuous and non-discrete are also technical terms in mathematics, which do not have much to do with either of the two meanings of "continuum". — Emil J. 13:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The mathematical usages aren't really as an adjective, but rather as a noun adjunct. The continuum hypothesis is a hypothesis about the continuum; continuum theory is the study of continua. Algebraist 20:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's "continuous", also you seem to have linked 'adjectival form' to 'derivation' in your first link - which is confusing, and I hope, a mistake..83.100.250.79 (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fly

What is "intestinal hurrying"?174.3.103.39 (talk) 09:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diarrhoea. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same section: what is "Hoyer’s medium"?174.3.103.39 (talk) 10:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same section: what is "solid plate" and "peritreme"?174.3.103.39 (talk) 10:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Hoyer's medium" is Hoyer's Mounting Medium, see Chloral hydrate. "Peritreme" is the part of the exoskeleton surrounding a spiracle. "Solid plate" means solid plate :) in the context of the anatomy of the specific fly larva. Please also note that the Myiasis article, where these terms originally came from, has been edited repeatedly and heavily today; so none of the terms in question are there anymore, at least for now. Readers can use "history" and "compare" functionality of Wiki to see where these terms came from. --Dr Dima (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Hoyer´s medium is a substance used as fixative / adhesive for mounting insects in a display case. Peritreme is the part of the integument of an insect which surrounds the spiracles. Solid plate, assuming this stills refers to insects, seems to be a part of a trap which is covered with insecticide. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that in the present context the "solid plate" term is used to describe the part of the exoskeleton of the larva in question. --Dr Dima (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Memorabilia

If Memorabilia derives from a plural of the adjective memorābilis, is there a singular noun? What is it? AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 12:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can use "memorabilis" as a substantive adjective, "a memorable (thing)". (Well, in Latin, anyway. In English I guess you have to use "souvenir" or something.) Adam Bishop (talk) 12:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Latin, the singular of memorabilia (neuter plural) is memorabile (neuter singular). Memorabilis is masculine/feminine singular and so would mean "a memorable person" (of either sex) when substantivized, and would have the plural memorabiles. +An gr 13:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh...that's right. I must still be asleep. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Memorabilis is a compound of memoria+habilis: "worthy of being remembered", ("habere memoriam"). Incidentally, notice the formation of a third declension adjective by means of the suffix -ĭlis/e, especially from verbal roots. E.g., habilis/debilis (habeo), nobilis (nosco), labilis (labor), ductilis (duco), agilis (ago), flebilis (fleo), facilis/difficilis (facio), futilis (fundo), utilis (utor), mobilis (moveo), missilis (mitto), reptilis (repo),...&c; it's a nice game finding other examples.--pma (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pluralia tantum may be of interest. Pallida Mors 17:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prowlers

In the film Fargo they call police cars "Prowlers." Do they call them that in real life in Minnesota or elsewhere? Mike R (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It presumably derives from prowl car. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Gief" etymology

What is the origin of "gief" as a variant on "give"? Gief explanation! Neon Merlin 22:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I beleive the proper way of putting it would be: "gief explanation, nao!" :)TomorrowTime (talk) 06:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the urban dictionary entry it seems to be another Internet slang respelling, like teh or pwn. Algebraist 22:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone probably took it from an etymolgical dictionary of English -- gief is the West-Saxon singular imperative form of the Old English verb meaning "to give". By the way, in Old English the "g" of "gief" would actually have been pronounced with a "y" sound... AnonMoos (talk) 08:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What, historical etymologians playing pranks on the internets rather then a simple intentional corruption of the very likely fast-typing misspeling "giev"? Occam would be dissapointed... TomorrowTime (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a large number of English-language dictionaries (the more comprehensive ones with etymologies) which include the Old English infinitive form giefan as the source of the modern verb "to give". You don't actually have to know anything about etymology or language history to take note of that... AnonMoos (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

July 15

Speed climbing

What is "ethic": in lead?174.3.103.39 (talk) 00:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An approach to rock climbing, with regards to which methods and equipment are permissable and which are not. For example, Sport climbing is different from trad climbing, and it would be silly to compare climb times between the two. Algebraist 00:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Magyar

Does anyone know what Ungaricae is?174.3.103.39 (talk) 09:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"ungaricus" seems to be a variant of "hungaricus", meaning Hungarian; "ungaricae" is the feminine singular genitive form. I see a lot of references to "rex ungaricus" (king of Hungary) in texts online. --193.172.19.20 (talk) 10:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Hungarian, and I can confirm that Ungaricae means Hungarian. --Ashenai (talk) 11:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Language

God morning if you please help me because i'm Portuguese and I want the WIKIPEDIA in Portuguese.

What can I do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orquideas (talk • contribs) 11:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here. Algebraist 12:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Whom" after "Which": would that be legitimate?

"The country, of which the people - whom I love so much - are black, is Kenya".

is no doubt a legitimate sentence. However, how about:

"The country, the people of which - whom I love so much - are black, is Kenya".

Would this be a legitimate sentence? HOOTmag (talk) 12:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know quite what you mean by "legitimate", but I would never write either of those sentences, with their mangled syntax and unclear meaning. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 12:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Legitimate", i.e. legal and permissible.

"Unclear meaning"? my very question is whether the second sentence really means what the first one does, while the first one is very clear, isn't it? Every part of the first sentence is clear, so why shouldn't the whole sentence be clear? "whom" and "are" refer to the "people", "which" and "is" refer the "the country", so what's unclear?

"Mangled syntax"? the second sentence may really have a mangled syntax, or may not, and this is exactly what my very question was about: does the second sentence have a legal permissible syntax. However, what's wrong with the first sentence? "whom" and "are" refer to the "people", "which" and "is" refer the "the country", so what's mangled?

HOOTmag (talk) 13:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a simple declarative sentence (fine), with a complete non sequitur phrase embedded in it (OK, I guess), with another complete non sequitur embedded in that. At that point, it becomes mangled. Algebraist 13:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about the first sentence, or the second one, or both?

Ok, "mangled", but is it legal? permissible? Is there any connection between "mangledness" and legality/permissibility?

HOOTmag (talk) 13:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "legal"? I wouldn't sue anyone for using that sentence, but I might shout at them. Algebraist 13:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legal, i.e. correctly constructed, i.e. obeys the formal syntactical/grammatical rules. For example, "For went am you mountain", is illegal (doesn't obey etc.), while "you've been climbing up the mountain" is definitely legal (since it obeys etc.).

Back to the two original sentences (appearing at the beginning of the thread), does the first sentence obey the formal syntactical rules? If it does, how about the second sentence?

HOOTmag (talk) 13:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If by "legal" you mean grammatical, yes, it is. But it's difficult to parse and so cannot be recommended for any purpose in which you do not wish to alienate your readers. +An gr 13:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about the first sentence, or the second one, or both? HOOTmag (talk) 13:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The second one, the one you asked about. The first one is also grammatical, and is somewhat easier to parse than the second. Easier still (to tie in with the discussion above) would be "The country, whose people - whom I love so much - are black, is Kenya". But even that is not particularly easy to parse quickly - listeners often get lost when you start embedding relative clauses inside relative clauses - so for both aesthetic and pragmatic reasons it would be preferable to recast the sentence so as to avoid the relative clause sandwich. But syntactically all of them are okay. +An gr 13:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, this is the kind of response I've been awaiting! So, although the second sentence is uneasy to comprehend (as I've always known), it's still correct, as far as the grammar only is concerned. Thank you for your clear response.

So now I can conclude that "whom" can follow "which", as it appears in the sentence:

"The country, the people of which - whom I love so much - are black, is Kenya".

So now we can proceed towards the following question: How about the grammaticality of:

"The country, the mountains of which - which I like so much - are high, is Nepal".

Would that still be grammatical when one changes "people...whom..." into "mountains... which...", thus having "which" after "which"? Note that I'm asking just from a grammatical point of view, not from a practical point of view.

HOOTmag (talk) 14:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, from a purely syntactic point of view those sentences are grammatical too. +An gr 14:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I'm still having a hard time following your reasoning in this thread (and also in the one above, for that matter). As Angr says, sentences of this kind are difficult to parse – in fact, I would go further and say that they are practically unreadable. Now, if you're looking for an answer to the question whether the sentence "The country, the people of which - whom I love so much - are black, is Kenya" is grammatical, I would say that I don't care whether it is or not, because no-one in their right mind would ever write a sentence like that. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 14:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you may not care whether it is or not, but syntacticians don't care about whether anyone in their right mind would write such sentences or not; they care about whether the sentences can be assigned appropriate syntactic structure (e.g. by means of syntactic tree diagrams) without violating the grammatical rules of English. When you study linguistics in graduate school, you get accustomed to judging the grammaticality, and analyzing the structure, of sentences that are difficult to parse and that no real-world English speaker would ever utter. +An gr 14:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You represent my position remarkably. By the way, as a linguist - I know very well all of that matter of syntactic tree diagram (I use it when I programme software for translating texts mechanically from one language into another), yet my mother tongue is not English, and hence my questions arise.

Anyways, I think that it's an important discovery: The English grammar (per se) allows to use "double which"! that's interesting - or even amazing, isn't it?

HOOTmag (talk) 15:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that that is interesting. :D +An gr 15:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the "double that" is a well-known phenonemon. However, my new discovery (thanx to the information you've supplied in response to my questions) is that also the "double which" is syntactically premitted. Wow, I like that! HOOTmag (talk) 15:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I could--could I not?--not to be overly pedantic in how I think--think that through the use of em-dashes to embed parenthetical thoughts in statements like--like I said once--"Once I lived by--by the way, I like saying this--this park whose grass was greeener than any"--any word may--"may" included as well--well be grammatically "doubled" in the way described above. Pfly (talk) 08:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not surprising to find a lot of other examples involving double words. However, I'm sure you'll never be able to find examples of double "the", or double "am", etc. without using quotation marks (e.g. in the sentence: 'I think that "is" is an essential word', etc.). My original thought was that the word "which", too, belongs to this set of words like "the", "am", etc., but later I found a rare example of sintactical construction which does allow to use a "double which", this being the discovery I've talked about. HOOTmag (talk) 09:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about "the", but couldn't you say: "I am--am I not?--Pfly."? Pfly (talk) 09:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right, so the word "am" should be removed from the set of "forbidden reduplication". Instead of "am", you can put "a", or any other word which can't end sentences (except for "which"). HOOTmag (talk) 09:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Latin adjective

Hey all. I'm trying to mirror the name "Encyclopaedia Britannica" (and related), just with the latinised adjective "Colcestriensis", which means "relating to Colchester". I've never seen the adjective in any other form (i.e. declined), but before I just make up something which sounds decent, I thought I'd ask whether there was a "correct" way of putting the two words together. Obviously, the word "Encyclopaedia" was never used by the Romans, and neither was "Colcestriensis" (they called the town Camulodunum), but I still wonder. Any help appreciated! If it helps, modern usage of the adjective: Alma Mater Colcestriensis, sodalitas Colcestriensis. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 12:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You want the feminine nominative singular of Colcestriensis, which is, astonishingly enough, Colcestriensis. Both of the examples you gave: Alma mater and sodalitas are also feminine singulars, so they take the same form of the adjective as encyclopaedia. And even if the Romans didn't use those words, Latin was still used into the Renaissance, so it's not as if we're just making the words up. P.S. Even in British spelling, the word in your sig is correctly spelled "humorous", not *"humourous". +An gr 13:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And yes, using the obsolete spelling of humorous was entirely deliberate *cough* because I, er, wanted to, er... - Jarry1250 ^{[ humorous – discuss ]} 13:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay then. I have nothing against mispellings as long as their delibarate. +An gr 14:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought he was saying he had lots of the fluid kind of humours. Tempshill (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your funny, Angr. im not sure I can match that. Its not easy to create that affect unless youve had lots of practise. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 08:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Euro in Slovenian

Why can't *euro be a Slovenian word? --88.78.8.180 (talk) 14:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Linguistic issues concerning the euro#Slovene. +An gr 15:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christiano in Romance languages

Why can't *christiano be an Italian or Spanish word? --88.78.6.57 (talk) 20:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Italian the h after the c has the purpose to transform its sound from (english pronunciation) ch to (eng.pr.) k. But this works only when ch is before e and i. In italian: ca=ka, ce=che (not se), ci=chi/chee (not si/see), co=ko, cu=ku/koo, che=ke, chi=ki/kee. Cha, cho and chu (as written forms) simply doesn't exist in native words (if you want to convey the same sound you have to write cia=cha, cio=cho, ciu=chu/choo). Also, before consonants, c has always a k sound and it's never written as chr, chl... regardless of etimology (this is due to standardization of the Italian phonology which is particularly corrispondent to the written form), so the correct term is cristiano (n.b.: the same rules are valid also for the letter g)--151.51.27.138 (talk) 21:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Spanish, the combination /ch/ forms the digraph ch, consonantic sound that is only followed by vowels. By the way, the article ch incorrectly states that the digraph is no longer a letter. It is indeed one, though it is treated as a digraph for matters of collation. Must correct that. Pallida Mors 04:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Words that exist only in a phrase

Is there a grammatical name for words that exist only in a phrase? At the moment, I can't think of a good example. These phrases aren't idioms or cliches but instances where a word in English is never seen - written or spoken - unless accompanied by its companion word. In a sense, the two words really make one word. Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fossil word might be what you're thinking of - the article gives some examples. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 22:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Thanks! Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Foot-strut and scottish

How does scottish english have the foot-strut split, when (as I understand it) it was an innovation in southern english english? Did it leapfrog over northern england somehow? Or did scottish and southern english english happen to undergo exactly the same change at a similar time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.132.111 (talk) 23:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For extended discussion of such issues, you can look at the semi-classic "Accents of English" series by J.C. Wells. However, you should be aware that there's a kind of a quasi-standard or "educated" Scottish pronunciation which is very different from traditional local Scottish dialects... AnonMoos (talk) 10:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the Hindi equivalent of fie! or pah!

I'm writing an indian character who needs to make an utterance of disdain - is there an equivalent of 'fie!' in Hindi?

Thanks,

Adambrowne666 (talk) 23:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

July 16

Vokuhila

Why can't *vokuhila be a Hawaiian or Japanese word? --88.77.230.244 (talk) 09:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because Japanese doesn't have any [l] phoneme, and [v] in Japanese is a rather "foreign" sound (rarely used except in certain loanwords). Hawaiian has a [v] allophone, but it's usually spelled with the letter "w"... AnonMoos (talk) 09:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vokuhila actually starts with the [f] sound, but Hawaiian doesn't have that either. +An gr 10:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zzxjoanw

Why can't *zzxjoanw be a Maori word? --88.77.230.244 (talk) 11:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep asking questions like this? Is there any language it can be a word of? +An gr 11:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect he's an alien taking informations on us Earth inhabitants... maybe we better stop giving answer... --79.38.22.37 (talk) 11:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Thomas

Why can neither *harold nor *thomas be an Australian Aboriginal word? --88.77.230.244 (talk) 11:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because they're both English names. +An gr 11:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]