Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/March 2006
= March 1 =
Coupled cluster theory
I wonder...Is there an international dictionary of technical terms in existence? I would like to translate coupled cluster theory into as many languages as possible... --HappyCamper 15:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
: Mostly I've heard "coupled cluster" or "coupled cluster theory" in English, regardless of the language being spoken. (German, Dutch, Scandinavian languages). I think it gets translated in French (they like to translate everything). In Russian they tend to use the Russian word for "coupled" and English for "cluster". --BluePlatypus 16:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
:: Actually it seems like the French also use "coupled cluster". And the Russian is "связанных кластеров". --BluePlatypus 15:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
:Different languages will adapt new terms from other languages differently. It just depends on what falls into common use. Unless a different term does come into common use trying to translate it by using the conventions of every given language is likely to be more useless than just using the English (or other original language) word. What you would probably be better off doing is creating a definition of what the term is in the target languages like "coupled cluster theory" es la teoría... - Taxman Talk 22:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Two Sets Of Adjacent Brackets
I have a sentence "...affinity of the polydactyl ZFP can be adversely affected by a short linker by forcing the helical periodicity of the zinc fingers out of register with the helical periodicity of the DNA subsites (the exact periodicity of which is sequence-dependent) ([bt]; [bu])."
The ([bt]; [bu]) represent my references. Is it correct to merge to the two sets of brackets? --Username132 20:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
:The question is ambiguous. The word "brackets" is used by some (especially in North America) to mean specifically the square brackets "[...]", but it's also used (especially in Britain) to include any of the pairs "(...)", "[...]", "{...}", "<...>", etc., otherwise respectively called parentheses or round brackets, brackets or square brackets, braces or curly brackets, and angle brackets.
:If you're talking about the ") (" sequence after the words "sequence-dependent", then the answer is no; the two sets of parentheses are serving different purposes. If you're talking about any of the marks within the "([bt]; [bu])" construction, then you should be guided by the house style of whatever publication or institution you're writing this for. Or if this is for a course or something and there is no applicable house style, just copy some style that you find in the references you've consulted.
:--Anonymous, 21:35 UTC, March 1, 2006.
::Sorry, I wasn't very careful there. It was the ) ( issue I wanted help with. Thanks. :) --Username132 23:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
: It's a bit of a style question. My feeling is that you should only merge the brackets if the two references are saying the same thing. If you're referring to two seperate facts from two sources, then you should put them individually. --BluePlatypus 03:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
You say ([bt]; [bu]) are references; could you use a superscript number instead? For example, ". . . DNA subsites (the exact periodicity of which is sequence-dependent)."1 —Wayward Talk 04:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
: Please reread the original poster's clarification. They were talking about the two sets of parentheses, not the two references. --Anonymous, 07:00 UTC, March 2.
::I realize that. While not directly answering the question, my suggestion alleviates the multiple-bracket problem. —Wayward Talk 11:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
:::Oh, sorry, of course it does. I was thinking more of the previous response, which referred to the two references. --Anon, 00:44 UTC, March 3.
= March 2 =
Meaning of a Phrase
What does the following phrase mean "i did love the man this side idolatry as any", specifically what does "this side idolatry" mean?
This quotation was from Ben Jonson to Shakespeare in praise.
:It means "this side of idolatry", meaning he didn't love him as much as someone who would worship him, but close to it. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
hebrew word meaining
what the literal translation of word "sharon"
:The biblical place name is שרון Šārôn. It comes from the root ישר yāšar, meaning 'straight, even, right'. It probably refers to the flatland plain called Šārôn between Jaffa and Caesarea Palaestina. However, it could also be interpreted as referring to uprightness/righteousness. It is spoken of in Isaiah, chapter 35, as majestically fertile. In chapter 33, destruction is exemplified by Sharon becoming 'as a desert'. The Bible also speaks of the flower חבצלת ḥăḇaṣṣeleṯ, probably a crocus, which is often called the Rose of Sharon. — Gareth Hughes 16:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Name for Words that Have Vowels In Alphabetical Order
Is there a name for words that have all the vowels in alphabetical order; an example includes "facetiously" where a, e, i, o, u (and y) appear in alphabetical order. What is the name of the word that describes this type of word?
:The only other word I know of (in English) that has this characteristic is "abstemiously;" I don't know if there's a word to describe these two words. I'm sure somebody will be along shortly to prove me wrong --LarryMac 19:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
::There's no word for such a word, that I've ever heard of. Maybe it's time we made one up. JackofOz 20:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
:::Alpha-Epsillic. -LambaJan 20:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
::::Incidentally, there are a handful of others in English; another is "abstentiously". --Anon, 00:45 UTC, March 3.
:Take a digital dictionary and search using the wildcard character '*', thus: *a*e*i*o*u*y*. That should give you a complete listing (at least, as complete as the dictionary is). Alas, I don't know how to use wild cards anymore with modern text editors. Why have they gone? Or have they? I used to use it a lot. DirkvdM 07:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Finding derivations
Is there any resounce I can use to find all words that are derived from a word? For instance, I want to be able to type in or look up "Flower", and get back "Flowering," "Floral," etc. I have university access to online sites such as oed.com, but I can't find anything with this function.
Thanks in advance! — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 18:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- This won't get you exactly what you want, but it matches your general idea: [http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn WordNet] is a large database of connections between words. If you search for "flower" in WordNet, then click "S:" to get possible relations and choose "Derivationally related forms", you'll find connections to other words. The noun "flower" will get you to the adjective "flowery" and the verb "flower", which gets you to "flowering" and "blooming", etc. Oddly, it doesn't seem possible to get from "flower" to "floral", but the other way around works. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
::That seems pretty interesting. I'll give it a go, thanks! — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 19:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
:::"Floral" isn't derived from "flower"; it's more the other way round, hence User:Rspeer's result above. If you search for "flower" within etymologies at the OED you'll get at least 200 results including floral, floricide, florist, florid, florin, floriform, and floriscope. --Shantavira 14:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Jordanhill railway station in IPA
How is "Jordanhill railway station" annotated in IPA? --HappyCamper 18:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
:Believing it to be {{IPA|/ˈʤɔɹ.dənˌhɪɫ ˈreɪɫ.wɛː ˈsteʃ.ən/}}, I've added that to the article. — Gareth Hughes 18:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
::Station doesnt look right? Jameswilson 00:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
:::Actually, I think that should be {{IPA|/ˈstɛː.ʃən/}}. — Gareth Hughes 00:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
::::I'm from Florida and I say {{IPA|[ˈsteɪʃən]}} (actually more like {{IPA|[ˈsteɪʃ̩̩̩n̩]}}). —Keenan Pepper 03:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
:::::My name is Jordan and I've always transcribed it [ˈʤɔɹdn̩] (although I know I've heard it said [ˈʤɔɹʔn̩] too]. Also, railway should be [ˈɹeɪɫweɪ], depending on accent. (However, ɛ cannot be syllable final in English and in English, ɛ isn't lengthened. It's a 'tense vowel'.) Finally, I agree with Keenan Pepper on [ˈsteɪʃ̩̩̩n̩].
:::::One more thing: heavy Scots dialect could also render it [ˈʤɔɾdn̩ˌhəɫ ˈɾeɪɫweɪ] (possibly [ˈreɪɫweɪ], but that's a bit exaggerated/broad). Oh and ən and n̩ are essentially the same thing, I suppose. JordeeBec 20:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
= March 3 =
van der
What does "van der" (as in names) means? What is the proper way to capitialize it? is it part of last name, first name, etc? --Leinart 03:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
:"van der" is Dutch for "from/of the". I believe the convention is to leave both uncapitalized, and that the words are part of the last name. — TheKMantalk 03:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
In English-speaking countries, Johannes van der Waals would appear under V in an alphabetical list as, eg. "van der Waals, Johannes". But in the Netherlands, I believe he would appear under W as "Waals, Johannes van der". I think this means his surname varies depending on which country we're talking about. The non-capitalisation rule seems to apply to him. The only time "van" is capitalised is at the start of a sentence.
But is there a different rule when it's just "van"? Our article on Vincent van Gogh says: "When the surname is written without the first name, the "v" is capitalized: Van Gogh". [Example, compare "the works of Van Gogh" with "the works of Vincent van Gogh".] I’m not sure where that rule came from, or that I agree with it. JackofOz 05:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
:My name is Dirk van der Made, so I should know. :) Indeed, 'van' and 'van de' (without the final 'r') mean something like 'from' or 'of the'. 'Van der' is probably a variation of this in old Dutch. My father was born in the village Made, so he was probably the first in his line to leave the place. (By the way, Harry van der Made (first link) was my father.) It is a bit like 'de' and 'de la' in Spanish names, as in Paco de Lucia. Except that 'van der' is part of the last name. If you leave out 'Paco' you should also leave out 'de', so his last name is 'Lucia'. My last name is 'van der Made'. Notice the 'v' is not capitalised (when not at the beginning of the sentence). My name should be filed under 'M'. For this reason, the name is sometimes filed as 'Made, van der'. The full name is then either written as 'Made, van der, Dirk' or 'Made, Dirk, van der'. Very confusing. I've done a fair bit of travelling and before the age of webmail communication was done with poste restante. In order to prevent having to search through the letters 'm' and 'v' (and convincing the clerk of the necessity) I advised people to leave out the 'van der' when writing to me.
:Jack, capitalising 'van' would be confusing when it comes to filing such names; 'van Gogh' should be filed under 'g'. DirkvdM 08:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
::re:"Notice the 'v' is not capitalised (when not at the beginning of the sentence)." - I hate to correct you about your own name, but in Dutch the "V" should also be capitalized when a text mentions the last name without the first name, as in the Van Gogh example above. For example, from today's NRC [http://www.nrc.nl/binnenland/article236192.ece]: "Opmerkelijk was de manier waarop GroenLinks-leider Halsema haar collega Van der Laan (D66) enkele keren aanviel..." David Sneek 10:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
:::That would explain the "rule" shown on the van Gogh page - it's a Dutch language rule. But there's no reason why it should be copied in English language contexts. To me, it is visually jarring to have "van Gogh" in some places and "Van Gogh" in other places, (other than at the start of a sentence). JackofOz 10:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
::In Dutch the capitalization makes sense, because it helps to avoid confusion between the very frequent word "van" and "Van" as part of a name. In English there is no reason to do this. David Sneek
- German 'von' and French 'de' aren't usually capitalized before names either. Or considered part of the name. --BluePlatypus 12:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
:Except de Gaulle. Rmhermen 16:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
:: The article on Charles de Gaulle says: "Although strictly speaking it is not a nobiliary particle, the "de" in de Gaulle has been written with a lower-case d for many centuries." --BluePlatypus 16:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Dikke van Dale (a dictionary that is generally considered the 'bible' when it comes to the Dutch language) has 2 1/2 pages on the little word 'van', but only a short entry on the use in names; "familienaam beginnend met van-". Notice 'van' is written small here. But a better argument is of course the name of the dictionary itself - officially, it's called just 'van Dale'. Check the cover. The 'van' is not capitalised. Same at the top of the title page. So that would seem conslusive. But then there is a sentence saying the name Van Dale is protected. With the 'v' capitalised. And Van Dale Lexicografie is capitalised. But it's completely capitalised, including the word 'Lexicografie'. So that's a brand name, which is free to deviate from the general rules. But then the same goes for the name on the cover (which is basically a logo). So even van Dale is not conclusive. So at least one cannot state with certainty that it should be capitalised. (I haven't won the argument but at least I haven't lost it either - am I happy now? Not sure :) ). Maybe we should ask a bunch of people wose name starts with 'van' how they write their name. But there is no Dutch ref desk, so I'm not sure where to ask then. This is irritating. I'm supposed not to know how to spell my own name? Grrrr... :) DirkvdM 09:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
By the way, a similar discussion has started at Talk:Vincent_van_Gogh#Capitalization. A continued discussion might make more sense there. (Then again, it would make still more sense at van (Dutch)). DirkvdM 10:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
:Well, book covers and brand names are very interesting, but within a text the rule is simple: "Het voorvoegsel van een achternaam wordt in Nederland [okee, niet in Vlaanderen] met een hoofdletter geschreven als er geen voornaam of voorletters aan de achternaam voorafgaan." ([http://www.taalpost.nl/texts/archief/pdf/taalpost_112.pdf PDF]) Sorry... David Sneek 11:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
der is old Dutch, and not used any more except in names. Am I right? deeptrivia (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
:'der' is still used in a somewhat archaic way for 'of the', as in 'commissaris der koning', which means 'commisioner of the king'. In modern Dutch this would be 'van de'. But I suppose you can't use that here, because then 'van der' would be 'of of the', which would be a bit silly. :) DirkvdM 08:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
English language
What is the word for a person who uses technical language when speaking to laymen instead of the less technical terms. It is not snob, show off, insecure, etc. There is a real word for this "condition" Thank you for your help. --207.200.113.184 04:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
: precision, or correctness?--Prosfilaes 07:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
::Sesquipedalianism? ;-) AnonMoos 07:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
:Pedant, perhaps? --LarryMac 15:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
: "Jargoning" is a perfectly good verb. But you'll have to be a bit more specific, do you only mean using jargon in order to intimidate, or do you mean using technical lanugage in general? Obviously not everyone using technical terms is doing it in order to show off. --BluePlatypus 15:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
::"Jargoning" isn't a verb, it's a gerund. "To jargon" would be a verb. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
:: By the bye, 'jargoning' is also a noun, though presumably archaic. I've come across it in Coleridge - possibly he coined it - I think in the Ancient Mariner, where he talks of 'the birds' sweet jargoning'. Maid Marion 14:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
:::"First they came for the verbs, and I said nothing because verbing weirds language. Then they arrival for the nouns, and I speech nothing because I no verbs." - Nunh-huh 05:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
:Human? People have a strong tendency to assume their own frame of mind to be 'normal'. It is just that when this comes to the surface with the lingo they use that it becomes obvious and can be pointed out to those people. The fact that even then it can be hard for people to adjust illustrates quite nicely how locked up in our own minds we are. It's a miracle we can communicate at all. That is, assuming we do. Maybe we just all live on our own little worlds and only imagine we really interact with others. I'll stop now, before this gets too philosophical even for me. (I just realise there are other people reading this who may not have my weird mindset. :) ) DirkvdM 09:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
::I'm pretty sure I completely understood you, so your latter assumption must be false. Unless you're just imagining that I wrote this. ;-) -LambaJan 22:46,
[[Flesch Reading Ease]]
Most websites say that the FRE gives a score of between 0 and 100, however surely since it is simply subtraction, it can be much lower than this - I got a passage that was -33. Or does one simply call sub-zero figures "0" and super-100 figures "100"?--Keycard (talk) 08:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
:This contradiction is right out of Flesch's book where the formula was introduced, The Art of Readable Writing. He presents the computation and then says "The 'reading ease' score will put your piece of writing on a scale between 0 (practically unreadable) and 100 (easy for any literate person)", and he also provides a nomograph with a result scale calibrated from 0 to 100. But on another page he quotes a sentence from a life insurance policy and says that "The 'reading ease' score of this is minus 12".
:The obvious explanation is that Flesch was trying to measure the readability of readable writing; he wasn't interested in measuring degrees of unreadability for passages that nobody could be expected to find readable. If the computed score is lower than 0, the passage is "off the scale" -- it's simply unreadable with any reasonable effort, and that's as much as you need to know. Conversely, "See Spot run" scores about 119 by the formula -- but you don't need a number to know that it's highly readable.
:Useful reading ease scores are between 0 and 100.
:--Anonymous, 10:55 UTC, March 3, 2006.
P
Hi. I'm couldn't find an article explains the dictions of the letter P, for example why "psychodelic" sounds like "sychodelic". Is there such article? psychomelo(discussion) 14:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
:The article psi (letter) is pehaps the one you need, but it doesn't answer your question. Every word beginning with the consonant cluster ps- comes from Greek. In Greek, such a consonant cluster is permitted in syllable initial positions, and has its own letter. In most languages, this cluster is not permitted in syllable initial positions, and is thus pronounced s-, and the p quiesces. This took place in Latin, and, through Latin, came to be the pronunciation of other languages. — Gareth Hughes 14:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
:: Psst.. every word?! Pshaw! --BluePlatypus 15:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
:::Yeah, I thought about watering that one down, but then thought it'd be interesting to see if anyone challenged it. It would be interesting to see if you could find anything more, um, lexical than those great Homeric interjections Ψστι and Ψαου! — Gareth Hughes 15:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
::::Haha, did Homer seriously use those? —Keenan Pepper 17:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
:Good enough. psychomelo(discussion) 14:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
::In some languages it is still pronounced as in German. Rmhermen 16:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
:::Do you know of languages besides English (and perhaps Scots?) in which the p is not pronounced? 21:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
::::Many such Spanish words are not even spelled with a p. The Spanish equivalent of pseudonym is seudónimo. —Keenan Pepper 05:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
von und zu
Following up on the "van der" conversation above, I have read past articles about the use of "von", "zu" and "von und zu" as prefaces of German names. I understand that "von und zu" meant that not only was someone from the place that follows, but they owned it? Are there Germans who still use "zu" in their family names? User:Zoe|(talk) 16:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
: Haven't seen "zu" alone, but I've seen "von zur". I don't think that distinction would be correct though. "von" is used for nobility, and if the family name was also a place-name, it's pretty safe to assume that it was one of their estates. But not all "von" names are place names or all "von zur" names. --BluePlatypus 16:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
::But see Ludwig Freiherr von und zu der Tann-Rathsamhausen. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
:::you are right that it is at the origin. "von" was originally not reserved for nobility; as the names became hereditary, when land ownership changed, the "von X" was retained, but a "zu Y" was added. There was an overkill of "von"s in the 19th century (von Goethe etc., ie. "von" in front of names rather than toponyms), and the "von und zu X" (as opposed to "von X zu Y") was introduced to denote "actual" (lesser) nobility. Today, the "von und zu" is simply hereditary, just like the "von", with no real significance whatsoever, it's just part of the name. See :de:Adel#Niederer_Adel, :de:Adelsprädikat#Deutschland. dab (ᛏ) 21:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
::::For really fun names, you want one with a "von" a "zu" and "und" and a "genannt", like
:::::Those aren't names, those are descriptions. :) And the 'genannt' bit is really weird because that means 'named'. So someone would then be called 'this and that named such and so'. Now which is it? Make up your mind. DirkvdM 08:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
:::::All names start out as descriptions of some sort, but they've nonetheless wound up as names
Abacus adjective
Can anyone tell me the adjective that means 'abacus-like' please? Adambrowne666 22:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
:Well, the Latin adjective would presumably be abacalis, yielding the English abacal, but I can't say that anyone's ever used either of those words. I would just use abacus-like. —Keenan Pepper 23:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
::abacal has been used since as early as 1854 - see [http://www.presscom.co.uk/notation.html this]. JackofOz 23:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much, nice reference, JackofOzAdambrowne666 23:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
what the meaning of Ra'anan
what the litrary meaning of Ra'anan
:Litrary? As in literary? Or literal?Off the top of my head, the first place I think of it is in Psalms 92 which says that (in my translation) "the righteous shall flourish as palm trees, as cedars of Lebanon they shall grow. Planted in the house of the LORD, in the court of our God they shall flourish. They shall still be fruitful in old age; they shall be ever-green and fresh [ra'anan in Hebrew]. To declare that the LORD is upright... etc..." My Hebrew English dictionary gives: "fresh, refreshed, green, flourishing, invigourated, luxuriant..." so that should answer both your questions. СПУТНИКССС Р 22:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
"Dog"
Germanic languages use words similar to hound/hund for the generic "dog". Where did English get this aberration from? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
:From the Anglo-Saxon docga.
Slumgum 23:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
::Which apparently had a more specific meaning than the Old-English "hund", which it eventually forced out of use. The origins of "docga" are...mysterious. [http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=dog]. -Nunh-huh 23:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
:::I wonder if any etymologist has ever investigated whether the -cga is distantly related to the Latin canis. JackofOz 00:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
::::I would strongly doubt it -- it's one of a series of animal names (dog, hog, frog) which had a double "g" in Old English or early Middle English, and an unclear origin (only "frog" has even a partial legitimate comparative etymology). AnonMoos
:This came up in December; try here. Shimgray | talk | 23:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
::Thanks, guys. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
= March 4 =
derivation of a baseball slang term: "slide to third"
My wife uses the term: "She doesn't know me from a slide to third" meaning she has never heard of (me).
I can't figure out where the phrase came from.
Although it seems familiar.
Any background out there?
:If she's from the American South, it could be original with her. Why don't you ask her? Or maybe she remembers where she got it.
:The article on Etymology isn't very helpful on original expressions, but take a look there anyway. Its links and references may lead you somewhere useful (and certainly interesting). --Halcatalyst 16:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
:*Plus, you could consult a slang dictionary. Try slang dictionary on Google or another search engine. --Halcatalyst 16:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the baseball reference is interchangable. I was once talking to a pastor about the pipe organ in his church and he said "I don't know a b-flat from a petunia." lol. -LambaJan 22:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Luke Vibert
How is the surname of musician Luke Vibert pronounced? Is it pronounced as it would be in French? "Vee-beh"? Or more like "vy-bert"? He's Cornish, if that helps at all. —DO'Neil 04:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Brominated vegetable oil in German
What is the word for brominated vegetable oil in German? I couldn't find it in any of my Langenscheidt dictionaries. Thanks. Gilliamjf 10:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
:I think it should be 'bromiertes Pflanzenöl'. However, the only reference I can find to it is on a mirror of an old version of the German Wikipedia. [http://www.faktedon.com/wiki/de/br/Brom.htm] A German Mountain Dew fansite doesn't mention it as an ingredient. [http://www.mountaindew.de/] Markyour words 12:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
ukranian
hi would it be possible for someone to translate this for me form ukranian into engliah plase? "Bliat kak zhe ti menia zaebala. Huli tebe nado? Ja ne lesbijanka. Ot'jebis ot menia. Perevodi, suka". thanks alot 86.129.82.87 16:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
: That's some foul language. Why do you ask? --BluePlatypus 17:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
:: someone wrote it down on a piece of paper which ii found in a class of mine, is it very rude? i would still apreciate a translation please 86.129.82.87 18:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
::: Ok, well more-or-less it says "Wh--e as you and me f---d. Why must you? I'm not a lesbian. Get the f--k away from me. Translate, b--ch." --BluePlatypus 21:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
:::: hmm, ok thanks a lot thats wierd. 86.129.82.87 22:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
::::Ehm, c--ld y-- als- g-ve us a tr---lation i- En--ish? DirkvdM 08:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
::::: Just following the Wikipedia:Profanity guidelines. :) I have no doubt you can find a dictionary of bad words for either English or Russian online if you really want to know. --BluePlatypus 09:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
::::::Reading those rules I'd say it's perfectly fine to use the word 'fuck' if it is part of the translation. DirkvdM 08:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
:It's worth noting that this is Russian, not Ukrainian. And the first phrase is idiomatic, meaning roughly "you really annoyed me". The rest of BluePlatypus' translation is correct. --Ornil 21:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
= March 5 =
Latin Translation
How do you say I think, therefore I am correct in Latin? — Ilyanep (Talk) 03:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
:Cogito igitur sum verus. Four years in latin pays off. If you're a girl, replace verus with vera. If you're nothing, replace it with verum. -zappa 04:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
:How about "Cogito ergo rectus sum"? AnonMoos 04:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
::That's if you're male — if female you'd say "recta". Another word for correct is "verus" (feminine "vera"). Both adjectives can translate "correct" as used in "that answer is correct", and "rectus" is also "correct" in the sense of well-behaved, but my dictionary doesn't clearly cover the sense where "I am correct" means "I am speaking correctly", which I assume it what's wanted here. "Verus" can also mean "truthful", but in English "truthful" is opposed to "lying" rather than "mistaken". Still, my thinking is that "verus" ("vera") is the better choice. --Anonymous, 06:27 UTC, March 5, 2006.
:::Yes, I meant correct as in I am correct and winning this argument. — Ilyanep (Talk) 16:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
:::Neither rectus sum nor verus sum sounds idiomatic to me. 'Cogito ergo non fallor' (or non falli possum) sounds more plausible, but it would be nice to think of a positive way of expressing the notion rather than resorting to the negative. Gareth Hughes could help us here - are you there Gareth? Maid Marion 11:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
:::Recte opinor? Maid Marion 15:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
:And how would you say "copulo ergo sum" in Ukranian (without the hyphens, please)? :) DirkvdM 08:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
:: My Ukrainian is rusty, but: Я злучаюсь, тому я існую. :)--Ornil 21:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
An
"An" is used before a vowel. Is "an unicorn" or "an unicycle" correct? it doesnt sound right--152.163.100.134 04:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
:"An" is used before a vowel sound, but since "unicorn" and "unicycle" start with the {{IPA|/ju/}} sound (IPA) it would be preceded by "a" (unless you've got a dialect of some sort that pronounces it as 'oonicorn') — Ilyanep (Talk) 04:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
:Is this the same with an university? Kilo-Lima Vous pouvez parler 14:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
::I pronounce university as yuniversity so i use 'a' — Ilyanep (Talk) 16:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Can someone expalin then why the usgae "an hotel" seems to be legal? The letter H can hardly be called a vowel.
:I am guilty of using "an historic," but never "an hotel." One page I found seems to be rather laissez-faire about the whole idea [http://www.longman.com/ae/azar/grammar_ex/message_board/archive/articles/00053.htm ], leaving it up to the speaker who is allowed to choose based on whether or not the first syllable is stressed; another blames the French [http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/dictionaries/english/data/d0081472.html ], for cases (like hotel) where the H would be silent. --LarryMac 21:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
::Why do some people drop the 'h' on homage or herb? Are they the same people who say 'Garage' instead of 'car-hold'? Or the same people who add an 'h' to the word 'aitch'?
Slumgum 21:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
:::What the hell's a 'car-hold'? I usually pronounce herb without an h, because that's the way I learned it, but just because that usually seems easier. Black Carrot 21:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
::::It's from a Simpsons reference. Wiggum thinks it's wrong to pronounce words with a French accent, such as 'garage'.
Slumgum 21:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
man
Using "man" as a general term for "human" became unpopular about thirty years ago. Assuming we don't bring the usage back, what's the best way to say things like man's inhumanity to man, man's fate, man through the ages, the environment has been spoiled by man, the place where the hand of man first set foot,etc.? (I'm looking for word substitutions, not rewrites, which are always possible and even easy, but which remain circumlocutions. --Halcatalyst 04:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
:Typically you can use "humanity" or "mankind": at least one of those two will work in each of the examples given. There's also "humankind", if you prefer it. --Anonymous, 06:35 UTC, March 5.
::Sidenote: "the first man on the Moon" leaves open the option that a woman landed before that man and thus cannot be translated as "the first human on the Moon". Lacking further knowledge, that is. DirkvdM 09:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
:::Someone has recently made that very claim - see Talk:Neil Armstrong ("Not the first person on the moon"). JackofOz 09:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
::: Many of those phrases leave open some variant on that idea. Man's fate in particular seems like it could be contrasted with woman's fate. Much language is untranslatable without further knowledge; "the baby is in the pen" may mean a playpen or a writing pen.--Prosfilaes 18:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
:Why would you want do ruin a beautiful phrase like "man's inhumanity to man" just to suit some insane fad? Black Carrot 19:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
:: If I were someone who would use the phrase "insane fad" to apply to something just because I disagreed with it, despite the fact that it's likely to give offense to my readers and not likely to encourage calm discussion, then, I probably wouldn't want to make that change. Otherwise I might consider communicating with my audience important and make what changes were needed for that.--Prosfilaes 02:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
::Not an insane fad, but definitely an attempt to "legislate" language. --Halcatalyst 02:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
:::If you want to be so meticulously correct, why bother using colourful language in the first place? Problem solved - there isn't one. DirkvdM 05:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
::::Though I'm not sure exactly what you're implying there, I'd argue that the notion that "man's fate" is somehow more colourful than "one's fate" is largely a result of native English speakers being accustomed to the idiomatic use of the phrase. Certainly, had the phrase "one's fate" existed in place of "man's fate" from the beginning, we would give the same value to its colourfulness? When you learn another language the idiomatic phrases always seem literal and cold at first, but after you've experienced the words in context long enough for your brain to adapt the colourfulness of the words emerges, probably simply because of the weight that can be assigned to the word's meaning. freshgavinΓΛĿЌ 07:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Persian
Can someone write this in text (Farsi script) for me? I am assuming it reads:
:Mun tu shudam tu mun shudi,mun tun shudam tu jaan shudi
:Taakas na guyad baad azeen, mun deegaram tu deegari
If not, please transliterate the above into Farsi script.
Thanks! deeptrivia (talk) 05:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
It's Amir Khusrau:
:Man tu shudam, tu man shudi, man tan shudam, tu jan shudi;
:Taakas nagoyad ba'ad azeen man deegaram tu deegari.
translated:
:I have become you, and you me; I have become the body,
:you the soul; So that none hereafter may say
:that “I am someone and you someone else.
Dlayiga 07:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Could you write it in Farsi script, so that I have text instead of image. That's what I want. Thanks! deeptrivia (talk) 17:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Here:
من تو شدم تو من شدى من تن شدم تو جان شدى
تاكس نگيد بعد ازين من ديگرم تو ديگرى
Dlayiga 05:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
::Thanks! deeptrivia (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
English words ending with the letters -gry
I received an e-mail this morning containing a riddle asking which other English word ('other' as in 'apart from hungry and angry') ends with -gry. This mystery word is apparently quite well-known and used daily by most and yet and I am still to figure it out. Any help would ease my frustration and thus would be muchly appreciated. Thank you.
:See Gry. —Wayward Talk 09:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
You'll find this page answers your question.
http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutwords/gry
--81.156.73.81 22:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Macbeth Act 5 Scene 1
What is the modern translation of Macbeth Act 5 Scene 1
::Shouldn't that be "What is the modern translation of the Scottish Play, Act 5 Scene 1"? See Theatre superstitions
:Shakespeare wrote in modern English. Which other language did you want it translated to? - Nunh-huh 18:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
::Perhaps s/he wants it translated from Early Modern English to, uh, contemporary English? --Chris S. 18:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
:::That wouldn't be a translation. It would be a paraphrase. If he is having problems with a specific sentence, he'd do better to ask here for an explanation of its meaning, if he wants some useful help. - Nunh-huh 03:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
::::I don't see why it wouldn't be translating. It's taking a source text that's in one dialect and transforming it to a text in another dialect. That is the essence of translation.--Prosfilaes 05:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
:::::Translation is a rendering from one language into another. It's not about dialect, it's about language. - Nunh-huh 11:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
::::::In the most general sense, translation is taking something from one form to another, preserving the essential properties. The 1913 Webster has "5. ... to explain or recapitulate in other words." and offers as a quote "Translating into his own clear, pure, and flowing language, what he found in books well known to the world, but too bulky or too dry for boys and girls." Just as importantly, the distinction between dialect and language isn't exactly clear cut. A translation between British English and American English, much less Early Modern English and modern English, is no less possible than a translation between Serbian and Croatian.--Prosfilaes 20:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Yes, if one is motivated enough one can find a figurative definition of almost any word. Nonetheless, the fifth definition in a 1913 dictionary is pretty much irrelevant here, as is the asserted "uncertainty" of the distinction between language and dialect. People who actually do the editing required to gear a book towards an audience expecting American English or British English do not characterize their work as "translation", and the questioner clearly was not interested in such a process. - Nunh-huh 09:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
:::::::So words have changed enough in the last century that a 1913 dictionary is no longer useful? Then why do you wonder about someone trying to decipher a text much, much older? The way words are actually used does matter; take a press release from the University of Surrey that says "Apart from the translations into foreign languages, it also has to be translated into American English[...]". Morever, the difference is more than that between British and American English. The Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged doesn't cover any words obsolete by 1750 (so not Early Modern English and the Oxford English Dictionary covers it as subset of an extended range including Middle English. And I think the questioner was interested in Shakespeare in a language he could understand; I see not the difference between him asking it to be translated into modern English or French.--Prosfilaes 08:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
::::::::That a child or student may need a gloss to understand Shakespeare is unremarkable: those who would call that sort of assistance "translation" show the same sensitivity to nuances of language as would be expected of a press release, and are probably ill-equipped to provide that assistance, even armed with a 1913 dictionary. - Nunh-huh 20:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
::::::::: And what type of sensitivity to the nuances of debate does someone show who's forced to resort to personal attacks rather than discussing the topic?--Prosfilaes 06:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::: I suppose that might be relevant if the topic were debate rather than language. - Nunh-huh 06:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
:::::Maybe they prefer a Texan American paraphrasing? Doctor: Go to, go to; you have known what you should not. / Doctor: Now git. Y'ain't spos'd ta know thaet. I don't have the never to paraphrase the whole thing. freshgavinΓΛĿЌ 06:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
::::::Good job. You might not have the never, but do you have the nerve? Elf | Talk 20:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
:::::::I ain't got nun a that neither! freshgavinΓΛĿЌ 05:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
:::::I wanted to resist but can't:
:::::*Surfer translation: Medic: Oh, like, wow, you better getta outa here, dude, you know? Like, you already have, like, you know, wayyyy to much information, you know? Duuuude?
:::::*System engineeringese (might need updation): System Monitor: Abend. Protection fault.
:::::However, user might consider downloading the [http://www.nosweatshakespeare.com/modern_macbeth_online.htm Modern Shakespeare e-book]] (not free, I don't think).
Updation
Is "updation" a word in the English language? --HappyCamper 21:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
:No. I think 'update' or 'updating' can cover any possible occasion where 'updation' might be used.
Slumgum 22:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
::On the other hand, it gets almost 400,000 Google hits, and it seems to be a commonly used word in various contexts. It may not have made it into dictionaries yet, but that happens only after the word becomes an accepted part of the language. JackofOz 22:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
:::I'd support it if it meant "the process of moving up the date", but not if it was another noun form of the verb "update", which is just simply rediculousness. freshgavinΓΛĿЌ 00:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
::::I would never use it either. I abhor most IT-speak and marketing-speak neologisms on the grounds that they are unnecessary, and almost all of the few that can be justified are ugly and embarrassing. How come the human race got by thus far without the need for this word? One could quibble all day along these lines, but that won't alter the fact that "updation" is now a word, and its users will determine its meaning(s). It would be nice if we could control the creation of words and their meanings to fit our own personal likes and dislikes, but such a luxury is not available. I use the words I like and ignore the rest. JackofOz 02:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
:::::Hey dude, I was just attachéing my 5-yen to the case, I have absolutely no intention of controlling the English language! freshgavinΓΛĿЌ 06:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
::::::Sorry if that's what came through, it wasn't what I meant. I was agreeing with you. Maybe I need an updation of my language skills :-) JackofOz 06:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
:::::::I think I need to de-sarcasmitize my English. freshgavinΓΛĿЌ 05:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I tried a Google search and likewise got almost 400,000 estimated hits, but then I tried actually asking Google for the hits (you can ask for up to 100 per page and you can page through up to 1,000 in total). Even after I asked it to include "very similar" pages, there were only 992. However, I don't know if this is because the estimate was way too high, or because the 1,000-hit cutoff was applied before some sort of filtering that in this case eliminated 8 hits. I have seen this sort of effect on Google phrase searches before, but not with searches for a single word, that I can recall.
As to dictionaries, [http://www.onelook.com http://www.onelook.com], which searches several major online dictionaries and other reference sources (including Wikipedia), does find one that defines "updation": [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=updation&r=66 this http://dictionary.reference.com/ entry], credited to "Webster's New Millennium(TM) Dictionary of English, Preview Edition (v 0.9.6)", which calls the word informal.
--Anonymous, 05:22 UTC, March 6, 2006.
:I think it's only used by suitly types trying to foist their emphazism on the rest of us. —Blotwell 07:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
= March 6 =
L and R
This question was asked at Talk:Japanese_phonology. I'm sure it's a question that has been asked many times before and I thought I'd put up the answer for everyone to see. freshgavinΓΛĿЌ 00:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that Japanese doesn't have an "l" or "r". Is that why some native Japanese speakers mix l and r when they speak English? I'm not trying to offend anyone here.Cameron Nedland 00:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
:Though it's not the greatest article, check out Engrish, which explains a little bit. You basically answered your own question. In Japanese, there is no sound equivalent to the English "l" or "r" sound. Because of this—though it may sound suprising to a native English speaker—many Japanese lack the ability to reliably differenciate between the two sounds (the same applies for "v" and "b", and the many sounds symbolized by the letter "a").
:The fact that many/most Japanese people don't generally think in roman letters, but instead in katakana, which is the native alphabet they use to spell most foreign words (and which, of course, lacks individual spellings for "r" and "l"), it makes it difficult for them to remember which words are spelled with "r" and which with "l", even if they are among the minority who can pronounce them. freshgavinΓΛĿЌ 00:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
::Just to clarify one point, "has no 'l' or 'r'" may be misleading. Japanese does have a sound that is conventionally transcribed "r" in English. For example, you may have heard of the cities of Hiroshima and Sapporo, the Emperor Hirohito, and actor Toshiro Mifune. --Anonymous, 05:28 UTC, March 6.
:::Ok, and to clarify on the clarification, the Japanese sound that is conventionally transcribed as "r" in English is called an apical postalveolar flap, which is often considered an "r" even though it isn't because... well... it's a lot easier to say that than apical postalveolar flap. freshgavinΓΛĿЌ 06:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
::::Basically, the formation of this consonant is halfway between that of "American" R and L. Makemi 06:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
:::::If them serving raw fish (sashimi) isn't enough to scare you away from a Japanese restaurant, their offer to put it "on a bed of lice" will surely do so. :-) StuRat 19:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Most recent
Which one of the 26 alphabets was added most recently and when?--Suraj vas
: In American and British English, alphabet refers to a system of writing, a collection of letters. There is the English alphabet, which has 26 letters. --Prosfilaes 08:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
: I think perhaps the question is which of the 26 letters in the English alphabet is most recent. It's the letter J. --BluePlatypus 09:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
:: By the way, my co-workers from India use "alphabet" in the way seen in this question. --Anonymous, 23:15 UTC, March 6.
:::Well, you best set them straight then. Do they use the same word in India both for "an individual letter" and "the collection of all letters used in a language" ? If so, this might explain why they make this mistake in English. StuRat 19:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Fijnmazig
Does anyone know what a good translation for the Dutch word 'fijnmazig' would be? Literally that would be 'fine mazed', but that sounds horrible. I want to use it in the context of public transportation with many cars (minivans) with many points to get on or off, thus forming a 'fine maze'. DirkvdM 14:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- A "fine mesh" or something "finely meshed" is what I think you're looking for. --BluePlatypus 14:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
::Googling 'finely meshed' gives several usages, including for cloth or webs, but also for a transportation grid, so that seems a good term. I almost wished it would have been a bad answer so I could have said "there's another fine mesh you've gotten me into", but now I seem to have managed to sneak that in here anyway. :) Thanks. DirkvdM 17:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
::::That "fine mesh" joke seemed a bit strained. :-) StuRat 19:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
:::lol, good use of paralipsis. —Keenan Pepper 17:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
::::The second element would be network. Dont know about the first though. Jameswilson 00:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Free lance taxi drivers
Is there a word for a system where people with cars tell a central organisation they are going somewhere and people without cars tell them where they want to go and the organisation then tries to match them. A bit like the designated driver thing, but with strangers and not necessarily with exactly the same point of origin or destination, effectively making the car owners free lance taxi drivers. And while I'm at it, are there good examples of where something like this is put into practise? DirkvdM 14:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
:I do not have a name for the system, but as a rudimentary example, I offer the "ride board" that was available at my college student center. Students could post notices indicating either that they needed to get to some destination and needed a ride, or that they were going to some destination and would accept passengers. Back in my day, of course, this was all done with index cards. Perhaps today it could be done using [http://www.craigslist.org/about/cities.html CraigsList] --LarryMac 14:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
::Posted too quickly -- looking at my local CraigsList, I see that there is indeed a "rideshare" category. --LarryMac 14:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
: You mean like a Carpool or Carsharing? --BluePlatypus 14:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
::Carpool (aka ride sharing). That's it! I knew I knew it, but I had forgot. Actually, the term carsharing sounds more appropriate. The meanings of the two terms should be the other way around, but I suppose we're stuck with this. Thanks, guys. DirkvdM 18:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
:The term "dynamic ridesharing" is used on the [http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm34.htm Ridesharing] page of the Victoria (BC, Canada) Transport Policy Institute] for matching drivers and riders for individual trips, not just for commuting. There are several interesting examples of local implementations. --LarryMac 18:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
::That's even more precisely what I meant. Thanks for the useful link! DirkvdM 08:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
paregorina
In Joan Didion's book, A Book of Common Prayer, she uses the word "paregorina" at the end of the first passage in the middle of page one. I cannot find this word in either english of spanish, nor in any web site reference. What is the meaning and derivation? Steve T.
: Not sure about that word, but "paregoricus" is "soothing" in Latin, from Greek "paregorein", "speak soothingly to". --BluePlatypus 19:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
::Which gave paregoric, a medicine known for its antidiarrhoeal properties. --DLL 22:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Grammar question re: hyphens
Would the sentence "The skin is gray-white and has areas of tan epidermis" have a hyphen between gray and white?
moose24
: Yes. JackofOz 19:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
:I would say so. But "the skin is a grayish white" would be acceptable, at least to my eyes. Shimgray | talk | 19:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
:Agree, but maybe "pale gray"? After all, if you just keep adding black to white, it just becomes gray, so "gray-white" to me sounds sort of like "black-white" which doesn't make much sense. But I guess I'd have to see context. But, in the general case--e.g., "the skin is blue-green and...", yes, there's a hyphen. Elf | Talk 20:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
The answer is yes and the explanation is that gray-white is a compound adjective and that for purposes of clarity it's wise to use the hyphen. An example of possible confusion: "I have newspaper wrapped fish to take home." --Halcatalyst 04:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
:Is the question "a hyphen as opposed to a space" or "a hyphen as opposed to an en-dash"? If the former, then definitely yes. I would be interested in an answer to the latter question and a justification. (I'm tempted to use an en-dash, basically because "gray" doesn't qualify "white": they are equal partners.) —Blotwell 07:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
::Are you not referring to a printing style rather than a grammar standard? --Halcatalyst 15:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
:::Am I? Why is it that distinguishing correct use of a colon from a semi-colon is grammar but distinguishing correct use of a hyphen from an en-dash is printing style? —Blotwell 01:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
::A hyphen is definitely favored over an en dash in this case. En dashes are typically used in compound adjectives only when one or both parts of the adjective consist of multiple words. --TantalumTelluride 01:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
:::I was thinking of the usage I find mentioned in Dash#En dash:
::::The en dash is also used as a hyphen in compound adjectives for which neither part of the adjective modifies the other.
:::The context in which this is usually applied is, as it says, scientific naming, but my proposal seems like a logical extension. However, I'd accept that it's, at best, not much practised. —Blotwell 14:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
= March 7 =
Courtship and "seeing each other"
When was the first time the phrase "seeing each other" as in ..."we're seeing each other" first used? Is it something that came up around the 1900s? --HappyCamper 05:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
: Etymonline says: Sense of "escort" (e.g. to see someone home) first recorded 1607 in Shakespeare. Meaning "to receive as a visitor" is attested from c.1500., so while the meaning may have narrowed to the romantic visit, my guess is that it isn't a very recent development. --BluePlatypus 15:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
::Ah, I see. So the semantics has changed over time, but the usage has been quite prevalent already. Thanks! --HappyCamper 17:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
:::On the other hand books from the first half of the twentieth century tend to use "They are courting" or "he/she is stepping out with X" (both obsolete now) Jameswilson 23:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
::::Seems to me that the usages mentioned by BluePlatypus may be relevant to the origins of the sense that HappyCamper is asking about, but they're clearly not the same sense, so this isn't really an answer. Having said that, I don't have an answer myself. --Anonymous, 00:43 UTC, March 8, 2006.
::::And "walking out" was a Victorian phrase; all variants on what the modern world has as "going out". "Courting" is still in use in some areas, though often quite ironically... Shimgray | talk | 00:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
:::::lol...this analysis is giving me a headache. Why do these things need to be so euphemistic? --HappyCamper 02:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
::::::What would be the non-euphemistic equivalent? I'm not so sure "seeing each other" is euphemistic. That might be true where it's used in the limited sense of something sexual going on between the 2 people. In general, however, it means a lot more than just sex, and may not even include sex at all. JackofOz 02:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
:::::Like "going steady", which was apparently popular for awhile. Black Carrot 21:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Origin
What was the origin of the phrase "Albatros around my neck"?
:By coincidence, I referred in a posting just yesterday to The Rime of the Ancient Mariner by Samuel Taylor Coleridge. You should read it. Maid Marion 15:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
::In fact, we have an article on it. —Keenan Pepper 17:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
"You're the wind beneath my wings, Peg."
"And you're the albatross around my neck, Al."
- Married With Children
StuRat 19:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I'll throw in the link to the original document at Wikisource: The Rime of the Ancient Mariner. It's really not that long, and a good read, if a little odd. I love classic lit...*sigh* --Cromwellt|Talk 02:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
== TRANSLATION OFF A DUTCH RAILROAD RESISTANCE WW2 MEDAL ==
ENGLISH PLEASE FOR: TER HERINNERING AAN DE EENDRACHTIGE OPVOLGING VAN HETV STAKINGSBEVEL 17 SEPTEMBER 1944.
Originally posted by user User:71.106.103.115 at newcomers help page, and moved by me to here. Chachu207 18:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
There's a spelling mistake, it should be "van het", and the exact sentence is translated on [http://users.skynet.be/hendrik/eng/39NL.html this page] as:
In commemoration of the unified adherence to the strike order, September 17, 1944.
I only wish I had found the page before I had finished with my own (sloppy) translation. freshgavinΓΛĿЌ 05:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Derivations
I've got a question that, surprisingly, I can't find a clear answer to anywhere. Are the words 'butt' and 'buttocks' related etymologically? Black Carrot 23:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
:Very likely. They both seem related to the Old English word buttuc, meaning "end" or "piece of land", from a Proto-Indo-European root meaning "to strike". —Keenan Pepper 01:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
::So Land's End would then be Britains butt in two senses? DirkvdM 08:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
:::That made me crack up. :-) StuRat 19:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
:The OED says that butt is the diminutive form of buttock, and gives the first recording of buttock as in the thirteen century, the first recording of butt as in the fifteenth century. Perhaps more to the point, the words are of "obscure origin", likely to be Old Norse. The trail starts with Danish and Low German but -> Dutch bot (meaning short, thickset, stumpy). It also gives an etymology related to stumps/logs of wood. Seqsea (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
::And the Dutch word 'bot' now means 'blunt'. Or a fish one doesn't want to catch (Dutch in-joke). DirkvdM 08:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
:::Land's End in one sense only, as the UK equivalent is bottom or botty and Chambers Concise gives butt the meaning here as U.S. coll. along with eight other meanings, including fag-end which I hesitate to translate into USian. See also the Butt of Lewis, complete with photograph. ..dave souza, talk 11:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC), modified 12:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
= March 8 =
commenting and commentating
a commentator can both comment and commentate on a topic (doing the latter when the subject is a sport, or generally when his commentary is of the running sort). I can't *oper my computer, I have to operate it); I can't *or on a subject, I have to orate—but I can but I can both comment and commentate on the peculiarities of English vocabulary. Is this borrowing of both the Latin agentive form commentator and the Latin verb stem comment- unique? —Charles P._(Mirv) 04:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
:There is something similar in the verb 'to orient' or 'orientate' oneself, with 'disoriented' and 'disorientated' both in common use. Maid Marion 12:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
:Some of this might have something to do with Latin iterative verbs as well -- to form an iterative or frequentative verb in Latin, you add verb endings onto the stem of the passive perfect participle. AnonMoos 13:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
:There is also the common use of both 'preventive' and 'preventative'. In this case the latter word always seems plain wrong to me, but it is so commonly used that others must think differently. And I've just noticed the use of 'frequentative' by AnonMoos - 'frequentive' wouldn't be right, though the verb 'to frequent' is frequently used, whereas we would never say 'frequentate'. I can't see an underlying pattern here. Maid Marion 13:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
::How about the absence or presence of a final t in the verb stem as an underlying pattern? ← wild, uninformed guess
It depends on whether the English word was derived from a present tense Latin verb form or a perfect passive participle. The perfect passive participle ends in -atus, -ata, or -atum in the nominative case. Brian G. Crawford 20:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
= March 9 =
German translation please
Sorry to ask this, but could someone please translate the following German: "Das lied heißst tätsachlisch 'porompompom' und ist IMHO ein traditional aus mittel-bzw. Südamerika. Das teil wurde von hunderten interpreten aufgenommen. Am besten du suchst mal im shop deiner walh in der folk/sudamerika-ecke." KeeganB
:Why apologise? This is a lingo ref desk - if you can't ask this question here, where else? Anyway, here goes: "That song is indeed called 'porompompom' and is IMHO a traditional from Central or South America. That part was recorded by hundreds of performers. You'd best have a look in the shop of your choice in the folk/South-America corner." DirkvdM 08:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
::Replace “that part” (which would be “der Teil”) with “it”. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikipeditor (talk • contribs) 11:02, March 9, 2006 (UTC).
:I would say 'Der teil' means 'the piece'.
Slumgum 11:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
::"Teil" does indeed literally mean "piece", but in colloquial German (which this was blatantly written in), it can be used to substitute most nouns, usually one referenced previously. Here, I think replacing it with "it" (as suggested above) or "the song" is most appropriate, IMO. — QuantumEleven | (talk) 18:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
:::"Blatantly"? JackofOz 20:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
::::Of course, my German's not perfect, but I would say 'piece' is most apt, particularly when speaking about a classical or traditional 'musical piece'... "The piece was recorded by hundreds of performers."
IMO
Slumgum
:::::I don't think Teil has that meaning in German- they would use Stück. Markyour words 01:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
::::::Precisely. I found it a bit strange, so I stuck to a literal translation. I can only interpret it as being about a part of a song. DirkvdM 10:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
:::::::A quick comment from a native speaker: "Teil" basically means "thing" in informal speech, so translating it with "it" is pretty much spot-on. "Piece" (in the sense of a piece of music) would indeed be "Stück". To confuse things further, note the distinction between "Das Teil" (some thing which is not specified further) and "Der Teil" (a part of a whole) -- Ferkelparade π 11:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
::::::::Even more colloquial is "Dings". I've only heard it be used by teenagers, actually. Igor the Lion(Roar!) 13:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
::::::::: I agree to the colloquialism interpretation: "Das Teil" = "That stuff/thingy" Azate 00:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
a short class-room speech
Please help to edit or write something on the below headings for my project. (1) i wish i could celebrate.... (2) the day i turn sweet 16 and the day i turn 21. How do the relate to valentine in terms of my nerdy valentine and a velentine date from hell. If asked to say something on 'will you be my valentine?' what should be written about? Same as 'nerdy valentine' and 'a valentine date from hell'. i try to find a website but couldn't find one. kindly help me. thank you.
:{{dyoh}} —Keenan Pepper 21:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
:I will add just a little. This isn't a quiz; there isn't a right answer. Your teacher expects you to be creative, to write about what you know, and what you feel, not to copy someone else's idea. How do you feel about valentines? Angry, excited, embarrassed, puzzled by what all the fuss is about? Whichever one it is, you have a starting point for expressing yourself on the subject. Notinasnaid 12:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
::Might I suggest that you rewrite the lyrics to "My Funny Valentine" as "My Nerdy Valentine" ? You could include lines like "While you may not be able to lift a car, I love you the most, by far". StuRat 19:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
::Also note that if there is any possibility that these people can be identified, then you need their permission before you write about them, or they might get quite angry at you. StuRat 19:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
The history of the verb "used"
Hi I was wondering if any clever person out there knows what the history of the verb use/used (or more relevant to my dissertation used to)is? or where i could find such a thing out.I have traced its use back as far as the middle English period but am stumped as to how or if it was used in the old English period. If it wasn't used in Old English did thay have an equivalent? If so what was it? ANY information on this matter would be thankfully and gratefully recieved at this time. Thanks in advance Liz --Soue79 10:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
:Because the "use"-root can also be found in romance languages (French "user" "usager" "usiner", Italian "uso", "utente", Spanish "usuario"), my guess is that it first appeared in Middle English after the Norman Conquest of England. For an Old English equivalent, you'll have to wait until a real linguist reads this page. David Sneek 11:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
: Yes, "use" is from Latin. It replaced the Old English "brucan" as the word for "use" (compare modern Swedish "bruka"). Another OE word for "use" or "apply" is "befæstan" (compare mod. Swe. "befästa"). --BluePlatypus 12:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
::"Brucan"! I suspected it would be something like that, thinking of Dutch "gebruik", "bruikbaar" &c. and German "Brauch". David Sneek 13:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
:::"Broken" in English, of course. Note that something can be used but not broken; if broken, it must have been used in some way, but not necessarily (maybe it was broken while being made). --Halcatalyst 03:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
:But you're talking about used to. Not sure quite what you mean. Which example is appropriate? both?
:*I used to like skiing.
:*I am used to skiing.
:The only other language I know well is French. As far as I know, they would never use the verb user in either way. --Halcatalyst 03:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
:*
Hi Liz here again. Thank you so much for that information very useful. I mean "used to" in the first sense ie. an action that has now passed but was once habitual. (I think it is an adjectival use in the second sense you mention.Would that be right? )I wonder if you also know whether or not "used to" is a marginal modal when forming an interrogative or negative with "do" (e.g Didn't you used to like skiing? I didn't used to like skiing )Or as the Oxford English Grammar seems to think that when being used with do it is a main verb. I am confused as this is the only source that has this opinion. My interest in this particular matter has to do with the fact that if as the Oxford English Grammar states that it is a main verb when being used with do then "used to" is the only past tense form of a verb that can follow dummy do. Or at least it's the only past tense form i can think of that can follow "do / did/ don't /does ". If anyone can think of another one that would be great i'v been racking my Brains for months. I think there is an acceptable one in American English "I don't got it" (If this is acceptable i'm not sure)
:Liz, I don't know enough to follow all you say here, but one thing I think I do know is that some of your examples are incorrect. For example, I think one says 'Didn't you use to like skiing?' rather than 'used', just as you would say 'Didn't you use a dictionary', not 'used'. I'm not sure if this helps with your main questions though. Maid Marion 10:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Maid Marion. Yes it does sound rather odd doesn't it. "I didn't used to play football" is perhaps a better example of what i'm driving at. "I used a dictionary" has an entirely different meaning ie. i utilised the dictionary.(The pronnunciation is also different compare uSed to and uZed to) I am looking at "used to" as something that occurred habitually in the past. e.g Did you used to play football No I didn't used to play football.
The spelling is another matter entirely although many sources say the "d" should be omitted when forming questions and negative sentences, there are some that think the "d" should be left. I think this boils down to the phonology because of the "t" in "to" follows the final "d" in "used" it doesn't get pronnounced.A bit like when "have" is followed by "to" it becomes something like "haf to" so "used to" becomes (in this sense at least)always pronnounced use to thus also affecting the spelling. I hope that helps you understand what I mean. I'm not the best at explaing things. Thanks again for your comments.
::This is where conventional grammar helps. When we use "used to" as an auxiliary verb, do we say "I used to polish my car" or "I used to polished my car"? Answer, the first one; i.e., the verb "polish" appears in the standard infinitive form and is not conjugated in the past tense; the auxiliary "used to" provides the past tense. Your example is more complex because its auxiliary verb is "did use," not just do/did and not only use/used. But the same rule applies. The verb "did" provides the past tense and the verb "use" should be in the standard infinitive form, not conjugated in the past tense. —Wayward Talk 10:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
:Sorry Liz, I'm obviously not making myself clear. What I was trying to say is that the verb in using a dictionary and being used to skiing is exactly the same verb, and its inflections are exactly the same. The fact that it has evolved two rather different senses makes no difference to this, nor does the fact that we sometimes pronounce uSe, sometimes uZe. What I'm saying is that, in my opinion, the sentence 'I didn't used to ski' or 'Did you used to play football?' is just wrong, and the only reason anyone writes that way is because of confusion between the past tense in 'I used to ski' (negative: 'I didn't use to ski') and the adjectival use of the participle in 'I am used to skiing'. Maid Marion 13:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Halcatalyst. I have just read what you said about the French not using the verb in either of the senses you mention. This is interesting because it is similar in Welsh. In Welsh for "i used to live in that house" you would say something like " I was living in that house....(at one time/once)". The past continuous is used instaed. Do you know what the equivalents are in French. Or does anyone have any examples from other languages? The past continuous doesn't seem to convey the same sort of meaning. Are there any foreign language learners that have had problems understanding the English verb "used to"?
Fowler (Modern English Usage) has something to say about this: As an intransitive verb, meaning "be wont to", use is now confined to the past tense. We may say "He used to live in London", but not, as we might once have done, "He uses to live in London". The proper negative form is therefore "he used not to" (or, colloquially, "he usedn't to"); but "he didn't use to" should be regarded as an archaism rather than the vulgarism, like "He didn't ought to", it is generally thought to be in England.
If I can interpret this, since "used" is used only in the past tense, the question "Did you use to play football?", while firmly established colloquially, would generally be considered ungrammatical. It would need to be something like "Used you to play football?" (yeah, right), or "Is it the case that you used to play football?", or expressed a different way, eg. "Did you ever play football?". The "correct" options for the "didn't you" type of question are even more limited: "Isn't it the case that you used to play football?", or (with a different nuance) "You used to play football, didn't you?". However, "Didn't you use to play football" wins hands down in the colloquial speech stakes. Nobody quibbles when somebody says that, it's only when we come to write these words down that they look not quite right. JackofOz 21:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Traditionally, as Fowler says, "Did you use to" is regarded as a bad error, and, in Britain at least, very socially marked. It is a modal verb (like can, must) so the question form is "Used you to live in London?" Same with the negative "I used not". No auxiliary (did, have, etc) ever when you conjugate modal verbs. (The same applies for "ought to" - no did/didn't).
Many European languages use the imperfect tense for this idea, but in English that died out, so we have this weird phrase. Spanish has a near-equivalent "suelo (present)/"solía (past), but it's regular and they dont say it as much anyway because they can use the imperfect to convey the same idea.
- As for "I am not used to driving on the right", "used to" is not a verb (the verb is "am" only) and it is interchangeable with "accustomed to". The "to" is a preposition (so followed by -ing) not part of the infinitive. Jameswilson 00:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- Jack, the French would say je vivais en France to indicate I was living in France, j'ai vécu en France to mean I lived in France. Again, I can't think of a way to say, "I used to live in France." I believe one might rather use some phrase like "recently" or "formerly" or something like that. Il y a longtemps j'ai vécu en France. Long ago I lived in France.
- Liz, you have yourself a very interesting question.
- About whether it's "use to" or "used to" -- this is only about spelling, and you can make your class distinctions about that all day long. Go back a couple of hundred years and it's not an issue. --Halcatalyst 01:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
::"je vivais" (Spanish "vivía") is what I was getting at when I mentioned the use of the imperfect. In our terms, it can do double duty "I used to live" AND "I was living". I'm 99% sure that used to be true LOL in English too. If you need to emphasise it you would, as you say, put in another word, ("antes, vivía en Londres" in Spanish, for example), ie "Before/previously, I lived in London but now I live in Scotland"). But unless you need emphasis, the choice of tense is enough to convey that. So the default translation of "I used to live" is simply "je vivais".
Jameswilson 02:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
:::I'm sure I'm not as well-read or linguistically knowledgeable as these scholars (though hopefully someday...), but I would like to add my 2¢. You are correct, Liz, that it is an adjectival use in the second sentence, as JamesWilson pointed out. As far as American English is concerned, "I don't got it" is not acceptable. "I don't get it" meaning "I don't understand it" is accepted, as is "I haven't got it" or "I don't have it," both of which mean "It is not in my possession." There was a Clint Black song (showing my roots, but oh well) called "What I use to be," and I have always felt that was an error. It should be "What I used to be." But that is parallel to the discussion, rather than actually answering any questions. Looking closely at your example of "I didn't used to play football," I think that we (from the US) might not notice or we might consider it a sort of redneckism, like Jeff Foxworthy's "usedtacould": "Can you dance?" "No, but I usedtacould." I think if we did notice it, we would prefer one of JackofOz's alternatives. But in "Didn't you used to play football?" would be much preferred over "Didn't you use to play football?" I think I'm with Oxford on this one, that "used to" is a marginal modal which always keeps the same form regardless of its context, even if some people (like Clint Black) don't pronounce it or even spell it that way. No, I think I've got it backward. I've talked myself into a tangle, and probably fallen in the error Maid Marion mentioned. As Al Pacino said in Scent of a Woman, "If you get yourself tangled up, just tango on." So I'll tango on out of here and leave this to the experts, though I may dip my feet in the water some other time, if no one minds. :) Probably on a less complicated question, though, or one I understand better. I thought I had this one figured out (at least what I thought I knew about it, in US usage), but I see now I don't have it. Well, anyway, best of luck to you, Liz. --Cromwellt|Talk 03:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Liz again Thanks all you guys for your really helpful input. It has helped me to figure out what the general thinking on this subject is.
I would just like to ask Wayward how sure you are about the infinitive rule applying to "used to"?I mean i know it applies to every other verb but this modal just seems to be behaving differently and it always occurs in the past tense.
I also just have to say to Maid Marion you sound like you are a prescriptivist. Yes ok the examples were PERHAPS incorrectly spelt but i had to spell them that way to convey my message. The fact also remains that from the studies i have carried out and looking at the Bank of English data....the majority of people now say "didn't used to" and "did you used to". I am not so concerned with what people SHOULD say but rather what they DO say. This way language change can be documented and questions can be asked. I also think you'll find that "using a dictionary" and "being used to something" are not exactly the same and i would even put money on the fact that the two have different etymyologies. "Be/get used to something" is something different entirely.What i am using in my "incorrect" examples is the marginal modal "used to" which ALWAYS occurs in the past tense. This is why i wanted to know: If "used to" occurs in a sentence with "do" does "used to" then become a main verb. The answer to this would then explain the spelling inconsistencies. You said my examples were incorrect, I hope i have now helped you to understand how they were not incorrect and made my purpose a bit clearer to you. But thanks anyway for your input.
Just on a final note as Halcatalystand jameswilson say the social/class implications of this are clear. I just love that word "redneckism" Cromwellt, great stuff. Its also interesting what you say about "didn't used to" being preferred over "didn't use to". (maybe it is towards America we have to look for seemingly newfound acceptability of this construction). Is i didn't got to really not acceptable American? Can you not say something like "you don't got to (gotta) jump if you dont want". I mean i know it wouldn't be acceptable in written American but i was under the impression that the majority of Americans would say constructions like the above example. Is it maybe a dialectal thing a redneckism as you say, although this sounds more Brooklyn to me. But i admit this judgement is made purely from the amount of American films i have seen and not from any first hand experience. Anyway Thanks again all you guys. Very Helpful. Liz
::Hi again Liz. I'm not trying to be prescriptive, I just thought you were misunderstanding something and was trying to help identify for you where you were going wrong. (And I'm not saying that I'm right, and you're wrong - it may be the other way round or we may both be wrong - but at least if I outline my understanding of the matter it may help wiser people, yourself included I'm sure, to get to the truth.) So to say again, in a slightly different way, what I was trying to say before: I don't think people say 'I didn't used to play football'. What I think they say is a collection of sounds something like 'I didn't youssto play'. The question then arises, how do we represent this in written English? Knowing the origins of the expression - namely the use of 'use' in the sense of 'be wont to' - I personally represent these sounds as 'I didn't use to play football', which means I follow in the footsteps of older authors such as Shakespeare, and I don't have any grammatical peculiarity to explain. (As the quotation from Fowler explains, this usage may be an archaism, but it is certainly not ungrammatical.) Whereas 'I didn't used to play football' appears to me to be inexplicable under any rules of grammar, and (I believe) arises purely from people's misrepresentation in writing of the sound 'youssto'. They are induced into this misrepresentation because of the common (and completely correct) use of 'used to' as an adjectival phrase in 'I am used to that'. Once the misinterpretation has taken hold, there is then a grammatical peculiarity to explain, namely how can a past tense such as 'used' consist with another past tense such as 'I didn't'? (And I think it was this grammatical anomaly that you were trying to explain with your original question, correct me if I'm wrong.) But on my interpretation, this is a problem entirely of our own manufacturing, which does not arise on a correct interpretation of the 'youssto' sound. Hope this clarifies my thinking, which is not offered prescriptively, or as the only possible view on the subject. Maid Marion 15:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
::Oh, and in support of the above remarks, I have just done what no doubt I should have done earlier, namely referred to the Chambers dictionary on my bookshelves. Under the entry 'used to' it says 'There is often uncertainty about the correct negative form of used to. The following are all acceptable - He used not to do it, He usedn't to do it, He didn't use to do it. The following are usually considered incorrect - He usen't to do it, He didn't used to do it'. Maid Marion 16:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
:Perhaps you might the following quote from [http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=u&p=12 Online Etymological Dictionary] useful:
::Verbal phrase used to "formerly did or was" (as in I used to love her) represents a construction attested from 1303, and common from c.1400, but now surviving only in p.t. form.
:Further I find it interesting that the adjectives gebräuchlich (German) and gebruikelijk (Dutch), derivatives of the verbs gebrauchen and gebruiken respectively (OE brucan), have a meaning comparable to the phrase used to: "usual, customary, habitual, common". --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 12:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
:: What's even more interesting (I think) is that the "use" vs "usual" connection you point not only exists for the Germanic ("gebrauchen" etc) but also to the unrelated Romance language word "use", e.g. Spanish "usuar" and "usualmente" --BluePlatypus 18:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
::On how to spell it, I would prefer "did you used" to "did you use". This would at least be consistent with "did you ought". Although it's rather got lost in the mists of time, don't forget that "ought" started out as the past tense of "to owe", and there was never any question the negative/interrogative of "I ought to" being "I didnt owe"/"did you owe to", nor "did you ough" without the past-sounding -t. . I'm sure those who stopped using "I oughtn't" went straight to "I didn't ought to". So if we are arguing that a new class of verbs is in the process of being created, I would say that "used to" (like "ought to") is invariable with all the conjugating happening on the auxiliary (don't, doesn't, did, didn't) not on the word itself. We are gradually reaching a situation where "used" like "ought" are no longer past forms even though they may look like it because of the final -t and -d. After all ther's nothing to say English verbs can't end in -t or -d in the present infinitive. Jameswilson 00:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
wuthering heights
has anyone read wuthering heights? if so, what do you think of heathcliff? is he a villian, just a man desparately in love?
MysteriousStranger 18:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
:I confess that I rooted for Heathcliff when I read it. David Sneek 19:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
:*Very complex psychology here, tied up with early 19th century English social conditions in the time of early industrialization and Romanticism. You might like to read our article on Wuthering Heights. If you're really interested, have a look at Gothic novel. --Halcatalyst 03:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
::And if you're really, really interested, read Wuthering Heights. David Sneek 07:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
:::I've read about 20 pages in the last week, but the language is too lofty and 19th century and uber-cheerful that I can't hack it really! It sounds to me like a bad translations of a foreign text. --Dangherous 23:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
::::I could see "too lofty and 19th century," but "uber-cheerful"? Are you reading the same Wuthering Heights that I read? Maybe you haven't gotten far enough into it to start on the desolate saga that it becomes. But I love that lofty 19th century style (a bit like Dickens, a contemporary, I think), and I would say it is about as far from a bad translation of a foreign text as one could get. Usually after reading anything from the period, I find myself speaking in that more complex style automatically for a while. Things were different then... --Cromwellt|Talk 03:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
:::::If you want lofty, hard-to-read language, try Trollope. Or De Quincey. If you want something absolutely delightful from that period, I recommend Charles Lamb. His language is a little convoluted from our perspective, perhaps because folks then weren't in the gawdawful hurry we always are. --Halcatalyst 23:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
::::::His [http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:vM0KyRdq9SYJ:www.ccweb.co.uk/roastpig.pdf+%22roast+pig%22+%22charles+lamb%22+text&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a#3 "Disquisition Upon Roast Pig"] is priceless. --Halcatalyst 23:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Hmmmm. In looking more closely at this text, I see it's a "translation" of Lamb. For shame! I'll see if I can find the real thing online. --Halcatalyst 23:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
::::::::No luck. --Halcatalyst 23:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Japanese question- 'a Dharma'
In a Japanese novel, the narrator sees an apparition which he describes as 'resembling a Dharma'- at least that's the translation (I haven't read the original). Does Dharma in this context mean a kind of person- boddhisattva?- or is this still Dharma in the usual abstract sense? Markyour words 19:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
:I think it means resembling Bodhidharma (or most probably his representation in form of a Daruma doll.) deeptrivia (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah, thanks! Markyour words 19:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
= March 10 =
english grammer site
I search too much about english gremmer site ,I want the english grammer internet site which have Numerous grammer exercise and Solution
:[http://www.smic.be/smic5022/exercisesgrammar.htm This] seems like a good one. It also offers exercises to improve [http://www.smic.be/smic5022/exercisesmiscellaneous.htm spelling] and [http://www.smic.be/smic5022/exercisesvocabulary.htm vocabulary]. David Sneek 21:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
:Here are a few: [http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/ Guide to Grammar and Writing], [http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/index.html Online writing lab at Purdue University], [http://grammar.uoregon.edu/toc.html The Tongue United]. —Wayward Talk 01:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
:Another good one is [http://dianahacker.com/rules/ dianahacker.com]. It's oriented to her writing textbooks (which are very good) and sponsored by her publisher. Teachers and students use the site for class online work, but it looks like anyone can go in and use the writing exercises there by simply entering a name. --Halcatalyst 15:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
:P.S., there is an English as a Second Language (ESL) section. --Halcatalyst 15:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
A city made of disease
What would be the correct term for a city made of diseases? No illnesses or maladies in particular - just disease in general? Sorry, weird question, I know. Adambrowne666 23:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
:do you mean a city whose inhabitants are uniformly diseased? or a city inhabited solely by disease-causing microorganisms? diseases aren't entities in their own right; they're abnormal conditions of living organisms.
:you might try pathopolis (from the Greek for disease and city), which has been used once or twice before. —Charles P._(Mirv) 00:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Of course - pathopolis - thanks! Adambrowne666 03:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
= March 11 =
Archaic French
In English, when authors want to convey a sense of old fashioned-ness, they would use streotypes like ye, thy, thou, dost, and hither, and etc. I need to write a short story in French, and are there any such old-fashoned steotypes in French?
:Hilarious terms and funny grammar may be found in renaissance authors - Rabelais, Ronsard ... try the french wikiquote or googl - to help building a tasty jargon like : "Doulce amye mienne venoit et me baisoit la main. Dès matines allions ès lieux paradisiaques" (My sweet girl came and kissed my hand. Together whe went in the morning to paradise places ...) --DLL 07:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
::And use "point" instead of "pas". --Dangherous 23:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Use the imperfect subjunctive instead of the conditional, and the pluperfect subjunctive instead of the past conditional. Brian G. Crawford 20:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
:::Hum... it is more in the way it is written (there were a LOT of "s" and "l" that weren't pronounced that have now disappeared). For instance : "un trosne" for "un trône" (a throne) or "Qui estes-vous ?" for "Qui êtes-vous ?" (Who art thou?). In the oral language however, this cannot be rendered.
There were also a few "y" that are now written "i". Most common example is "roy" which is an old fashion way of writting "roi" (king).
Another sterotype is the systematic use of "passé simple" while we now especially use the "passé composé". For instance, we now say "Je suis né en 1965 j'ai vécu à Paris." in an old-fashion way would be : "Je naquis en 1965 et je vécus à Paris".
Another one is the use of the "imparfait du subjonctif", which is almost never used nowadays (we use "présent du subjonctif" instead : e.g. "Il m'a demandé que je fasse attention" (modern), would be : "Il me demanda que je fisse attention". The classic example : "Encore eût il fallu que je le sus !" (if only I've known) which would be said nowadays : "Il aurait encore fallu que je le sache"
Now, what I described, would be a 17-19 century style.
For an older style : a lot of verbs would finish in "oïe" or "oit", and a lot of familiar feminine names in "esse" ("une pauvresse"= a poor girl).
There are a few words of vocabulary that smell like medieval times, like "oncques" (never), "ouïr" (to listen), "parentèle" (kinship), "raillerie" (a jest, mocking), "pendard" (a rogue), "palsambleu" ("gadzooks", literally, "by the blue blood") , "olifant" (an old hunting horn), "occire" (to kill, to slay), "nef" (a ship, a vessel), "morbleu" or "mordiou" ("Ye gods!", literally "the blue death"), "ma mie" (my darling, my beloved), "ménétrier" or "ménestrel" (a fiddler), "arpent" (an acre), "céans" (here), "chaloir" (to matter), "Corbleu" (By Jove), "épousailles" (nuptials), "faquin" (a knave), "goupil" (a fox), "ne... goutte" (not a thing), "hostellerie" (hostelry), "icelle"/"iceui" (she/he), "marri" (aggrieved), "ripailles" (feast), "septentrion"/"meridien"(North/South), "spadassion" (swordsman), "tudieu" (zounds)
A few sentences :
:::*"Oncques ne vit plus pareil triomphe" (never had there been such an outstanding triumph)
:::*"Oïez, oïez, braves gens" (Hark, or hear ye, good peeple)
:::*"Vous m'en voyez fort marri" (I am most aggrieved)
:::*"Je suis le maîstre de céans" (I am the master of this house)
:::Hope this helps... Feel free to ask more questions --Sixsous 03:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Whats it called?!?!?
Hi what do you call it in english poetry where an argument between two people is presented howevever only one part is discussed. An example would be John Donne's The Flea. Thanks
Kingstonjr 16:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
:In this case you could call it sophism if you like: a closely reasoned, empty argument (but very clever in the poem [do you think any woman would be swayed by it?]). --Halcatalyst 18:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
::Well with Donne's vast amount of money, handsomely rugged looks and dangerous way about him.........no, i think it was too early a centuray for that.Kingstonjr 18:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
:You may want monologue. Septentrionalis 22:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
= March 12 =
Warfare
I understand there's a single word that describes an event in warfare where the commander of one army personally combats and kills his counterpart in the opposing army. I recall Churchill using the word in his writing on Marlborough. I also faintly recall that the word begins either with an "m" or a "v".
Could you please try and find out?
Thank you very much
Bhalchandrarao C. Patwardhan
:Jousting may be the word you're looking for. Jousting takes place between knights, who by natural right (as conceived in feudal society) are the leaders. --Halcatalyst 19:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
::Possibly monomachia [Latin] or monomachy. Rmhermen 01:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
See also Spolia opima. Septentrionalis 05:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
:Also "challenge", as in "5b: to call out to duel or combat": [http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=challenge]. If you want it to start with "v", perhaps "vanquish the challenger" ? StuRat 18:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
:: Single combat?
word meaning
KOESISIPELUOVACA seen on wall paper on inside or cottage roof in Fiji island resort.
[[Wiktionary:Wiktionary:Translations of the Week|Wiktionary translations]]
=[[Wiktionary:Wiktionary:Translations of the Week|Wiktionary:Translations of the Week]]=
Image:Globe of letters.pngWe are looking for people to translate the following into as many languages as possible.
Please go to the relevant Wiktionary page and place your translations there
width=100%
|width=33%| {| cellspacing="0" style="width:100%;background:#FFE0E8" | style="width:45px;height:45px;background:#FFB3B3;text-align:center;font-size:18pt" | 1 | style="padding:4pt;text-align:center;" | figure |
|width=34%|
cellspacing="0" style="width:100%;background:#FFE0E8"
| style="width:45px;height:45px;background:#FFB3B3;text-align:center;font-size:18pt" | 2 | style="padding:4pt;text-align:center;" | tone |
|width=33%|
cellspacing="0" style="width:100%;background:#FFE0E8"
| style="width:45px;height:45px;background:#FFB3B3;text-align:center;font-size:18pt" | 3 | style="padding:4pt;text-align:center;" | dress |
|}
Thanks, --Dangherous 15:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)