Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/May 2006
= May 1 =
Word meaning
What is the word that means "user of big words"?
d
It sounds something like ....syscapalian...(sp?)
I just heard it in a movie..
68.18.41.190 03:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
:Sesquipedalian —Seqsea (talk) 04:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
::[http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sesquipedalian|...and here's a link] Howard Train 04:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt reply!
The link doesn't show anything of value?
:Try [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Sesquipedalian this one] instead... Joe 05:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
:I saw a tee shirt once which said Eschew sesquipedalian obfuscation. I couldn't have put it better myself. Notinasnaid 19:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
does this make sense?
does this make sense? how should it properly be written?
For example, blindness, a disability which encounters many things such as, one not being able to see anything, one being able to partly see, one being colour blind and one being low vision.
thank you
For example, blindness is a disability which encompasses everything from partial blindness (i.e being able to see with one eye {?}, colorblindess, and low vision) and total blindness (absolute loss of sight)
I'm not sure of this is right. Btw, low vision and being able to partail see???
when i say low vision i mean some one who can't see clearly and the other is partly blindess
:My suggestion: Blindness is a broad term encompassing varying degrees of visual impairment [now go on to explain the various conditions]. Also, see Wikipedia's article on blindness. —Wayward Talk 09:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
:Another suggestion: Blindness is a broad term used to describe varying degrees of visual impairment. —Wayward <small><;font color="#6BA800">Talk 10:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Use of initials with/without periods/fullstops
While reading articles in Wikipedia I see that there is considerable use of abbreviation initials that are peppered with periods. I'm thinking of "U.S." for example. There are hundreds of similar.
Is there any definitive preference for "U.S." or is "US" permissable?
If I'm editing an article can I change any "U.S." style abbreviations to "US"-style?
Lin 08:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
:In current usage, including them is more of an American thing, and leaving them out more of a British thing. Look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Acronyms and abbreviations , Wikipedia:Manual of Style (abbreviations) etc. AnonMoos 08:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. You're very kind. Lin 06:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Post sco ergo propter sco
A favorite band of mine recently put out a new album and the last song is entitled "Post Sco Ergo Propter Sco". So I was wondering if "Sco" is an actual Latin word and if so, what does this phrase mean? Thanks, Dismas|(talk) 09:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
::It's a deliberate alteration of "Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc", the Latin name of a well-known fallacy... AnonMoos 09:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
:::Well, okay... I know about Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc and I can see that it's one word different but that doesn't really answer my question. Dismas|(talk) 09:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
:::Sco isn't a real word. It could be a wrong version of scio, I know. Daniel (☎) 09:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
::::Thanks! Then I guess it's just an inside joke in the band maybe... Dismas|(talk) 10:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::Sco is a rich acronym, maybe scots. --DLL 20:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
rwanda
What happened in the Rwanda genocide? Why did it happen? What was the United States goverment's response? Why? What was the aftermath?
:Please search first: Rwandan Genocide. Notinasnaid 19:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
A word for...
Ok, this may be a dumb question for some but it isn't for me. I'm looking for a word for this definition. I've known someone for a long time, but I didn't even know it. PLEASE...find a word for this and if you do..email it to me [e-mail removed to avoid spam]
Thanks
:How can you know someone and not know that you know them? Do you mean like deja vu? Can you give an example to make it clearer what you mean? --Shantavira 16:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The word "florentine"
Does anybody know how the word "florentine" came to mean "served with spinach" when it is appended to the name of a culinary dish?
- Wow, that was a fun search, and now I'm hungry. The story involves Catherine de' Medici[http://ezinearticles.com/?Florentine-Style&id=14850]. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
::Larouse Gastronomique says that A La Florentine is used mainly for fish and eggs on a bed of spinach and covered with Mornay sauce. Lin 06:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
= May 2 =
People
I need some 'exotic' (to an English-speaker's ears) sounding words for 'people', 'man', or 'human'. The intent of the word is to be relatively easy to spell, non-insulting, and very general - I just need a cool sounding word to name a fictional group of people. Any help is appreciated! DuctapeDaredevil 00:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
:Running down a list from my thesaurus, I found two exotic and understood words: mortal and earthling. Here are a two others, but they are less common and less likely to be understood, and I am not sure about the nuances in their meanings: Adamite and tellurian. Perhaps another option for you to consider is Homo sapiens, which has now developed a homorous sense outside of the scientific community because of its similiarity in appearance and pronunciation to homosexual.--El aprendelenguas 01:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
:Terran. --Nelson Ricardo 01:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
::Less like refering to humanity as a whole, and more like refering to the Roma people, like a name for a tribe or culture. DuctapeDaredevil 01:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
::Tellurian. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
:Anthromorphic biped? Biped ? Anthropoid? I don't if these will be accurate. More :Bipedal primate ? --Jondel 02:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
:I always like "wight"--K.C. Tang 11:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
:Ugly bags of mostly water -- Ferkelparade π 14:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
::Ha, nice reference.--Andrew c 20:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
::Appleeaters. Hatbearers. Shoefooted. Goingbalds. Cellulardriven. Teeveelets. Shirelings ? --DLL 20:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
::I like mench. Lin 06:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
power point
hi my name is brandee rose and i was just wondering how do i do my teachers project on this web on uusing power point becass i really want o know how i have an e-mail address it's [email removed to avoid spam]
:I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you doing a project about Wikipedia and want to know more? If so, read the articles Wikipedia and Wikipedia:About. Or do you want to know how to use Microsoft Office PowerPoint? It's not that hard, write out the outline of the text for your presentation and type it in to the PowerPoint template. --Canley 02:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
::Powerpoint reads also from a .doc or .rtf formatted text. Title 1 gives pages and subtitles give the text. Write your text, apply title styles, save, then open PP, select File | Open and choose the document with the said file type. You can save PP files in an .html format if it has to be a web page. --DLL 20:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
What are the best ways to learn a language?
I know that the best way to actually learn a language fluently is to live in a country where that language is spoken. Falling short of that does anyone have any tips on how to actually learn "to speak the language" not simply in the grammatical sense. Thanks in advance!
:Acquainting yourself with native speakers is always good, if there are any in your area. If there's any amount of media output (movies and especially TV) in the language, that can also help, though of course it gets expensive if you have to import... —Zero Gravitas 08:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Read novels of increasing levels of difficulty using a dictionary. But you must be careful when choosing novels. Start with simple books that don't use colloquial expressions, idioms, and misspellings on purpose. For example, if you wanted to learn English and picked up Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn as your first English novel, then you would certainly go ballistic trying to figure out the meaning of words that aren't in the dictionary because they have been intentionally misspelled.
Also, I think listening to educational podcasts is better than television. There are podcasts in Japanese, Chinese, German, Spanish, and other languages. But first you need to pick up some essential vocabulary before anything else.Patchouli 13:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
::My daddy always used to say that the best way to learn a language was in bed. Of course, access to an appropriate native speaker of the requisite gender and tendencies is not guaranteed. ;^p --Diderot 19:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
:::Find some music you like with lyrics in the language you want to learn, and sing along. David Sneek 20:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I carry a mini-dictionary and a small notebook filled with example sentences and sample phrase. While walking or riding the bus, I try to memorze them and create dialogs .--Jondel 10:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
:Here's what I do:
:*Read books
:*Listen to internet radio
:*Read a billingual newpaper
:*Memorize vocabulary flashcards
:*Go through a grammar book
:*Listen to CDs and repeat the phrases.
:I hope that helps. --Think Fast 23:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
T.I.M.E. acronym
Technical Instrument Measure Existence
Simon Le Page 1988
:And your question is? --Bth 11:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
"Something"
I can't figure out what I am hearing when native English speakers talk, so I need some help.
- John: Many people like to say quote unquote African-American instead of black.
- John: Many people like to say quote and quote African-American instead of black.
Please tell me which of the italicized words John is using.Patchouli 13:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
:He's saying Quote-unquote - it's a way of conveying some sort of ironic distance from what you are saying, the same way you would do by putting something in quotes in written language (We're going to have some "fun" is an entirely different thing than We're going to have some fun). Some people wiggle their fingers while saying the word to be enclosed by quotes, but those people should probably be shot on sight. -- Ferkelparade π 13:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
:Thank you.Patchouli 13:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Why should they be shot on sight? --Jesusfreak 14:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
:They just should. -- Slumgum | yap | stalk | 15:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
::It tends to be done in a very irritating way, and to be paired with other more recognizably obnoxious habits. And yes, it's quote-unquote, which is much less irritating, as it happens, than quote putting the punctuation unquote where it actually belongs. Black Carrot 22:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The word used was 'warrant'
I recently went to an unclaimed property site. I found my name on the list of unclaimed property/ I noted that it said the property was more than 100 dollars. YEA!!! I sent a claim ove the net. I recieved an e-mail. The e-mail was from the IRS.....Scary!!!!!! They said to fo to thier site and in a mailcenter at thier whoa!!!!...What do you call the IRS? Extortioers?? It referred to the money as a warrant....or were thry talking... ARREST....say it ain't so Irene!!! Information asap would be fabulous, Thanks, One Scared ole Woman
:For Goodness' sake, read a dictionary!
::Noun
::warrant (plural: warrants, past tense: warranted)
:: 1. Authorization or certification; sanction, as given by a superior.
:: 2. Something that provides assurance or confirmation; a guarantee or proof: a warrant of authenticity; a warrant for success.
:: 3. An order that serves as authorization, especially: A voucher authorizing payment or receipt of money.
:: 4. Law. A judicial writ authorizing an officer to make a search, seizure, or arrest or to execute a judgment.
:: 5. A warrant officer.
:: 6. A certificate of appointment given to a warrant officer.
:-- Arwel (talk) 14:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
:::This sounds very much like some form of Internet fraud. For a start, the IRS do not store people's "unclaimed property" for them. I suggest you check with the police before parting with any money. --Shantavira 16:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
::::The IRS also does not send e-mails. This is almost certainly some sort of fraud. - Nunh-huh 21:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
types of language
how language differs from dialect?
:According to Max Weinreich, a language is a dialect with an army and a navy... AnonMoos 19:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
::So... does that make American English, British English, and Australian English different languages? —Keenan Pepper 19:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
:::Noah Webster certainly tried to answer yes. --Diderot 19:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
::The dialect article discusses this problem. David Sneek 20:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
There is an estimated or there are an estimated?
Hello,
Please let me know which phrase is correct:
There is an estimated 50,000 landmines in Uganda.
There are an estimated 50,000 landmines in Uganda.
Thanks!
:The important word is landmines. It's plural, so you say there are instead of there is. —Keenan Pepper 19:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
:(Edit conflict) "There are an estimated 50,000 landmines in Uganda." The rule is: Use "there is" for singular and non-countable things; use "there are" for plural things. —Seqsea (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
::Hmmm, I am trying to find a way to reword the sentence that would support the there are construction, but I cannot think of it. Nevertheless, the plural are seems to be the right choice to me. The word an is what is confusing me. Landmines are an estimated 50,000 there in Uganda. This sentence is not fluent to the ears, either. I am wondering what an modifies. Any thoughts? Can it somehow modify the figure 50,000?--El aprendelenguas 01:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
:::Perhaps it is short for an estimated number of 50,000'. --Chris S. 02:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Really, either of them work. They work because the person you say it to will understand. If you are writing a paper, however, I agree with Keenan Pepper. schyler 01:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
:To ensure verb-noun agreement, a pedant might insist on: "There is an estimated number of 50,000 landmines in Uganda". Personally, I think you can get away with "There are an estimated 50,000 landmines in Uganda". However if you want to avoid all problems with pedants, you could say "It is estimated that there are 50,000 landmines in Uganda." JackofOz 03:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
::Or better yet, "There are about 50,000 landmines in Uganda.", or say who did the estimating: "A report by Johnson and Smith estimates that there are...". —Keenan Pepper 12:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
:::I'm not sure. The problem is that "there is" is often contracted to "there's", but "there are" doesn't contract so easily. Therefore, lots of people use "there's" for either the singular or the plural, especially when there are other words like "about," "an estimated," etc. My gut reaction would be "there's (or "there is") an estimated 50k landmines in Uganda," "there's about 50k landmines in Uganda," but if we take out the "about" or "an estimated," then I'd say "There are 50k landmines in Uganda." I'm not sure exactly why, but that's what "feels right." However, if you're looking for a "grammar book" answer, go with "there are." Linguofreak 17:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Japanese news anchors
Word from the definition
I recently started reading To Kill A Mockingbird and there is a part where the main character goes outside while it's snowing and hold out her tongue to catch a snowflake. She proceeds to say to her brother that it burns. He tells her that it is just so cold that it feels really hot. What I was wondering was what is the term used for this, that is something being so cold it feels hot, and the word for something being so hot it feels cold. Thanks. schyler 01:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
:I don't think there's a specific word, unless painful fits the bill. Did you see cold burn? --Shantavira 08:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
::If nobody else answers, you might try reposting in Science. Don't do it while this is still up, though, they tend to get bitchy about double-postings. Black Carrot 21:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
:I don't know, but if you want to make ice cubes, don't use a metalic tray, buy a plastic one instead. I've got my fingers burnt with a very cold metalic one once. – b_jonas 22:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Difference
Literary Response
I have a test coming up tomorrow. This is as much as we know, we get a poem or story, analyze it, and then talk about mood, point of view and so forth. We've also been told to talk about syntax, diction, and language. These all look the same (to me they really do) but their apparently different. Does anyone know how? I know language is "type" of language, ie. jargon, fomral. I was wondering if anyone knew a good website with a layout of how to write one of these essays or instructions on how to anaylze the story/poem (as I did poorly last time). Possibly something that has more suggestions on what one could write about as well, since I'm always short. Any help appreciated, thanks. C-c-c-c 02:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
:I always hated these kinds of assignments too; I'll try to help you out. Syntax is the arrangement of the words, i.e. which order they go in. An author might delay an important word until the end (climax) or arrange three words in increasing order (tricolon crescens). Diction is the choice of which word to use. A good way to discuss these kinds of things is to say "if the author had used [some other word] instead, it would not have been as effective, because..." and then say the reason. Another sure-fire thing: if it's prose, talk about how it's like poetry, and if it's poetry, talk about how it's like prose. I'm not kidding, it worked for me. If you still have a decent amount of time to study check out [http://humanities.byu.edu/rhetoric/silva.htm Silva Rhetoricae]; knowing a word like hendiadys or synecdoche and using it correctly is sure to win you points. —Keenan Pepper 02:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Longest Word
What is the longest word in the English language?
Consider:
"pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis"(sp?)
-this is a lung disease but I need an English word instead of scientific names.
Please help me.
Thank You in advance.
--Siddhant 06:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
:Please see Longest word in English for a discussion of this issue. Angr (talk • contribs) 06:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Thankx. You pointed the exact link.
--Siddhant 07:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Upside down circumflex
What's the proper name for an upside down circumflex? --HappyCamper 06:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
:Caron, although you see háček a lot when referring to Slavic languages. --Diderot 06:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
::In Slovene it's called a strešica. David Sneek 07:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The hacek is different from the breve. The latter is rounded, so is like an upside-down circumflex. -lethe talk [{{fullurl:User talk:Lethe|action=edit§ion=new}} +] 11:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
::But circumflexes are pointy like háčeks, not rounded like breves. Angr (talk • contribs) 12:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
:::Hmm, I guess it is as you say. I guess I have been under a mistaken impression for a long time. Is the circumflex never rounded then? -lethe talk [{{fullurl:User talk:Lethe|action=edit§ion=new}} +] 17:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
::::Not in the Latin alphabet, but the Greek circumflex is rounded. Also, there's a rounded symbol like an inverted breve that's used to indicate tone in Serbian/Bosnian/Croatian, but that isn't usually done except in linguistics discussions. You won't see it in S/B/C books, newspapers, etc. Angr (t • c) 18:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Haus des Meeres - correct article?
There is an aquarium in Vienna called the Haus des Meeres (House of the Seas). I don't understand why the article in the name is des - shouldn't it be der? The table here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_grammar#Articles_and_article-like_words] shows that the plural definite article in the genitive is der, and Meeres is a plural noun. --Richardrj 08:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
:Nope, Meeres is genitive singular, so des is correct. Plural would be Haus der Meere -- Ferkelparade π 08:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
::So Meeres means 'sea'? Then what does Meer mean? --Richardrj 08:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
:::Meer is nominative singular, Meeres is the genitive singular form. German is one of those languages that actually distinguish between different cases of nouns (at least to some degree, the accusative form is the same as the nominative, dative is strictly speaking Meere but in today's usage, everyone uses the nominative form for dative) -- Ferkelparade π 09:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
::::Thanks very much - I didn't realise nouns as well as articles changed depending on the case. One more thing to learn... --Richardrj 09:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::This is of course identical to English in this regard. The sea's house. The final 's' indicates possession, both in English and in German. -lethe talk [{{fullurl:User talk:Lethe|action=edit§ion=new}} +] 12:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
::::::But when the word order is reversed in English, the final 's' is dropped - the house of the sea. The German is more like 'the house of the sea's.' --Richardrj 05:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Not quite, the German doesn't have a word corresponding to "of" in this construction. When you do use a preposition, then "the sea" is in the dative and has no "s": Das Haus von dem Meer. Using the English syntax, as in des Meeres Haus, sounds very poetical in German. It's not usual in colloquial speech or even in prose writing. Angr (talk • contribs) 05:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
On the same subject, when I get letters, they are addressed to Herrn [my surname]. Why is this? I understand now that Herrn is the genitive singular of Herr, but I don't see why that should apply here. The genitive case relates to possession - what is possessive about this? --Richardrj 09:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
:It's short for "An Herrn Lastname" ("to Mr. Lastname"), and the preposition an requires a genitive. -- Ferkelparade π 10:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
::Genitive? Herrn is also the accusative and dative form of Herr, and an goes with the accusative, e.g. An den Bundespräsidenten (to the federal president) where dative would be dem and genitive des. —da Pete (ノート) 10:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
:::No, the preposition an requires an accusative, and the accusative of Herr is Herrn. Herr is a so-called "weak noun", meaning all the cases except the nominative end in n in the singular:
der Herr
des Herrn
dem Herrn
den Herrn
:::Angr (talk • contribs) 10:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
::::Argh, yes. Stupid mistake on my part... -- Ferkelparade π 10:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::More a mistake on my part - I was the one who mentioned the genitive :) I'm new to German and I'm struggling with the cases, especially the difference between the accusative and dative. I always thought the accusative related to the direct object of a verb, and the dative to the indirect object. But in the example above, An den Bundespräsidenten is apparently accusative, whereas I instinctively thought it would be dative (the letter is addressed to the president). Doesn't the presence of the word to automatically indicate that the object of the verb is indirect, and therefore that the dative applies? --Richardrj 10:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
::::::Unfortunately it's not as simple as that. Where there's no preposition, the accusative represents the direct object and the dative the indirect object: Ich schickte meinem Vater (dative=indirect object) einen Brief (accusative=direct object). But with prepositions, the rules are different. Usually where a preposition indicates goal-oriented motion, the accusative is used, while if there is no motion or if the motion isn't goal-oriented, the dative is used. Thus there's a difference between Die Kinder liefen in die Straße ("the children ran onto the street", i.e. the street was the destination of their running) and Die Kinder liefen in der Straße ("the children were running on the street", i.e. they were on the street and were running there). Then certain verbs adjectives take prepositions, and you just have to remember what case goes with those prepositions. For example, Ich bin stolz auf dich "I'm proud of you" takes the accusative, though it can hardly be called "goal-oriented". Or Ich glaube an dich "I believe in you" also takes the accusative, though it can also hardly be called "goal-oriented". It's one of the toughest things to learn in German grammar. I've lived in Germany for almost nine years now and speak quite good German, but this is one area I still get mixed up about. It just takes practice and, frankly, rote memorization. Angr (talk • contribs) 11:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Thanks very much. I'm going to print that out! --Richardrj 11:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
How do languages with free word order preserve qualifier-qualified associations?
I've learnt that some languages like Sanskrit are declensional to the point that word order is totally free. If so, how would they map qualifiers like adjectives and adverbs with their corresponding nouns and verbs when there is more than one possible combination? Can someone give examples? -- Sundar \talk \contribs 09:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
:If they are completely word orderless, and that declensional, I would assume you'd have different declensions for "adjective describing object noun" , "adjective describing subject noun" , and so on. Otherwise, I would assume that word order may still be a useful thing.For example, Japanese, due to having sentence particles that denote what purpose a word has in a sentence, still uses word order for some things; adjectives are placed in the proper places, for example, and the verb always follows everything else... I would assume other languages either use some form of word order (or simply apply adjectives to the closest noun, or even the closest noun that makes sense from context) or rely entirely on context... I'm sorry I can't help much more; I don't know Sanskrit or other examples of such orderless languages. :) Good luck in your quest for knowledge, though. -JC 09:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
::Thanks for the answer, JC. I'm still wondering about claims of totally free word order. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 09:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
:It depends on what you mean by totally free word order. Speakers generally try to keep words reasonably close to their dependencies, even when there is no specific rule concerning placement. As a result, there's usually not too much ambiguity about which modifiers refer to which words. Some people would argue that this means there are no truly free word order languages. Others would say that this has nothing to do with grammar, it is simply a by-product of speakers desire to minimise ambiguity and the limited short-term memory of speakers and listeners. I tend to fall in with the latter, although I would argue that many syntactic rules are actually a product of speakers and listeners desire to minimise ambiguity, blurring distinctions between syntax and pragmatic constraints on communication. --Diderot 11:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
::Yeah, I get it that it's a trade-off between ambiguity and syntactic freedom. But, I want to know if constructs unambiguous in any word order exist? If so, I'd like to see some examples. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 11:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
:::Latin and Ancient Greek are like Sanskrit: word order is completely free. Here's an example: arma virumque cano, Troiae qui primus ab oris Italiam fato profugus Laviniaque venit litora. That's the first couple lines of the Aeneid, and it translates like this, leaving the order unaltered: "arms man and I sing, of Troy who first from shores to Italy by fate driven and Lavinia and came shores". Adjectives are not near their nouns, verbs are not near their subjects, everything's all mixed up. I'm not positive that it's unambiguous; ambiguities certainly can arise, but in most cases, they're ruled out by context. Certainly in this case. Shorter simpler sentences are more immune to ambiguity, and it'd be easy to make a short sentence which is easily and obviously immune: canem agricola senecem caedit, which says "the farmer kills the old dog", in the order "dog farmer old kills". This sentence works in any order (though in Latin, and I expect also Greek or Sanskrit, some orders emphasize different words, and some might sound weird.) -lethe talk [{{fullurl:User talk:Lethe|action=edit§ion=new}} +] 11:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
::::(edit conflict) in Homer's epics, you can see that an adjective can be four or five words far away from its noun, generally it causes no misunderstanding as the adjective agrees with its noun in number, gender and case... but the Homeric language is an artificial one, we have no reason to believe that the ancient Greek really speak that way.--K.C. Tang 12:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::It may be true that Homeric greek was not the spoken dialect of the day, though this would be hard to back up, since little is known about the time it was written down. It's certainly true of literature at the height of the Roman republic; the written dialect was more effected than the spoken dialect. I think Homer might have come from a much less educated time, so this may not be true of him, but it's not really relevant, is it? All Indoeuropean languages 3000 years ago were heavily inflected and therefore had a large amount of freedom in the word order, spoken dialects as well. -lethe talk [{{fullurl:User talk:Lethe|action=edit§ion=new}} +] 12:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
::::::Thanks for all the responses. I got the point that ambiguities in this case are not theoretically ruled out (well, they're not restricted to word-order), but most ambiguities are resolved by the context. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 12:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Yes, ambiguities are theoretically possible. I hope you've also taken my point that sentences that are completely ambiguity free in any word order are indeed possible. That was your question, wasn't it? In particular, the sentence I gave you could never mean "the old farmer kills the dog" or "the dog kills the old farmer", no matter what you do to the word order. -lethe talk [{{fullurl:User talk:Lethe|action=edit§ion=new}} +] 12:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
::::::::(edit conflicted) I noted that point too. I understand that declensions help make many sentences ambiguity-free in any word order. My initial question was about language structures that make sentences theoretically ambiguity-free for any word order. Your other point answered the follow-up question. Thanks. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 12:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::So I've answered the follow-up question, but not the initial question? I'm still not sure what the initial question is. Has it been answered? -lethe talk [{{fullurl:User talk:Lethe|action=edit§ion=new}} +] 12:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::You've answered both. One part of my question was to know if languages have structures that make *all* sentences theoretically unambiguous in any word order. You've answered that with a "no". The other part was if there are examples where sentences could be unambiguous in certain cases. You've answered that as well. I know I've not been clear enough with terminology (constructs, structures). It's because I'm neither a linguist nor a native speaker of English. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 12:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::Oh I see. So here's a question: is it possible to imagine a hypothetical very heavily inflected language so that word order can be completely free, and no ambiguity would ever be possible? The inflections that words carry are like little pointers to other words. A feminine ending on an adjective points to a feminine noun. A plural verb ending indicates that the plural noun must be the subject. In order to make the language completely free, each word would have to contain a pointer that uniquely identified every other word in the sentence by its relation. Seems like a word would have to contain the entire sentence, and the notion of "word" would be completely lost. Every sentence would be a single "word" long, which would then have completely free order, since there is only one way to order a single word. But I'm just sort of thinking out loud, I'm not a linguist either, just a guy who minored in Latin and Greek in college, so I don't know how correct my claim is. Maybe not very. -lethe talk [{{fullurl:User talk:Lethe|action=edit§ion=new}} +] 12:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::::Interesting thought. Well, isn't there a better way to uniquely represent the words in the sentence? Also, does every word in a sentence refer every other word in the sentence? -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::::: in classical Chinese poetry, you can really write "I bit a dog" to mean "a dog bit me", though Chinese, being an analytic language, has no inflections at all. In those "I bit a dog" cases, the meaning is totally determined by the context and our real life knowledge. So poetry doesn't count.--K.C. Tang 12:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
::::::::: Of course, context may not help with the sentence "fox tiger bit". This would be unambiguous in an inflected language. Then the word order can be put to poetic use. -lethe talk [{{fullurl:User talk:Lethe|action=edit§ion=new}} +] 12:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::the point is that word order, in poetry, can be totally ignored, as long as the metre fits, no matter one is writing in an inflected language or not. So we should not use poetry as examples.--K.C. Tang 12:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::It's a good point. Poetic license can be used to get away with all kinds of things which are ambiguous or even ungrammatical from a purely syntactical point of view. -lethe talk [{{fullurl:User talk:Lethe|action=edit§ion=new}} +] 12:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
shuck as a noun
I'm reading James Lee Burke's "The Neon Rain", published in 1987 by Henry Holt and Company, Inc. It's the first book in the Detective Dave Robicheaux series. This series takes place in New Orleans, LA and Cajun country environs, as Dave Robicheaux is of Cajun extraction. Having been born in San Diego, I haven't a clue about some of the terminology used in the book. Wikipedia has been a great source for understanding many of the terms used in the book. However, (finally my question!) I have been unable to determine the meaning of the word "shuck" when used as noun. It is apparent that it is slang and probably regional. I would assume that it is related to the phrase "shuck and jive", and while I've heard that phrase before, I'm still not sure what "shuck" means even in this context. Thanks, Stuck-on-shuck --70.230.198.110 17:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
:Can you use it in a sentence? And are you sure it's a noun? Black Carrot 21:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
:The American Heritage Dictonary[http://www.bartleby.com/61/80/S0378000.html] gives two noun definitions, one of which could be what you're after, lacking an actual example of the usage you've seen:
:
2. Informal Something worthless. Often used in the plural: an issue that didn't amount to shucks.
:—Zero Gravitas 22:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
::OK..... I was trying not to infringe on copyright laws, but since I have fully referenced the author, title, publisher and date, I'll just quote from the book...
:::1. on Page 44:
::::"... think you're doing, Purcel?" Segura asked. "That all depends on you, Julio. We hear you're putting out a very serious shuck about my partner," Clete said. "Is this him?" Segura asked. I didn't answer. I stared straight into his eyes. He ..."
:::2. on Page 55:
::::"... doesn't know what's involved. If he did, he might be on our team. Fitzpatrick prob- ably gave you a patriotic shuck and you thought you were helping out the good guys." "I don't know what the fuck you're talking about." "You're ..."
:::3. on Page 95:
::::"... wants to take her little girl back to San Antonio and study to be a hairdresser." "It sounds like a shuck to me." ..."
:::4. on Page 148:
::::"... a hog lot." "I'm not interested, Dave. Did you come by to screw me?" "You think I'm giving you a shuck?" "No, I think you're single-minded and you're bent on revenge. I made the overture the other night and complicated things ..."
:::5. on Page 194:
::::"... unlit cigarette in his mouth. "Don't get the wrong idea, Joe. I'm just an impulsive guy. Next time save the shuck for a Fuller Brush route," I said. His face went dead. Didi Gee had reserved a private dining room at ..."
:::6. on Page 241:
::::"... on tap, and eating oysters as fast as the Negro barman could rake them out of the ice bins and shuck them open on a tray. After the traffic had thinned and the streets had cooled in the lengthening shadows, I ..."
::Still-Stuck-On-Shuck--70.230.198.110 00:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
:::Ah, here we go. #6 seems pretty clearly to be the main "shelling" meaning, but as for the rest, I found this at, of all places, Leo.org[http://dict.leo.org/archiv.ende/2003_01/26/20030126083905g_en.html]:
::::The expression "shucking and jiving", according to "The Oxford Dictionary of Modern Slang" stands for "fooling". It is therein stated, as you noticed, that for many blacks it is a survival technique to avoid and stay out of trouble. The verb "shuck" means to deceive or defraud someone; the verb "jive" is polysemous. In context here it also means to "cheat" and "mislead", albeit often in a playful way. Thus we have here a double whammy, an hendiadys, as it were.
:::This specifically refers to a verb, but the noun form would presumably work the same way. —Zero Gravitas 01:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the info! No-Longer-Stuck-On-Shuck! --70.230.198.110 02:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
use of the word pandemic
I do not remember the use of the word pandemic when I was younger. When did the word come in to use and who started the use of this word.
Please and Thank You
Stan Putzke
:OED says mid 17th century (and, interestingly, a secondary meaning of 'pertaining to sensual love' appearing in the early 19th c.), so unless you are quite old... dab (ᛏ) 21:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
::The New York Times' archive confirms the word has been used with some regularity for more than 100 years. It's in common use now due to fears about bird flu. You might not have heard it a lot when you were a child simply because it's not a word that children would hear a lot. -- Mwalcoff 00:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
erarer
for the purpose of a dinnertable discussion, could you give me, as precisely as possible (we are interested in possible glottal stops), the IPA transcription of the RP of
:ere our arrows fly (from The Hobbit)
dab (ᛏ) 21:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
::I think RP would use linking Rs rather than glottal stops here: {{IPA|[ɛəɹ ɑəɹ ˈæɹəʊz ˈflaɪ]}}. Angr (talk • contribs) 21:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
:For me, similar, though no {{IPA|[ɹ]}} linking the second and third words. Jameswilson 01:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Top 5 languages used in web searches
I am at this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_in_the_United_States but I don't see any indication here or anywhere on the site where I can find the top 5 languages used in internet searches.
Any help you can provide will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
:Have you looked at Languages on the Internet? As of September 2004, the top five languages are English, Chinese, Spanish, Japanese and German. [http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats7.htm This site, of unknown reliability] is apparently more current, and switches Spanish and Japanese. Looking at [http://www.alexa.com/site/ds/top_sites?ts_mode=global&lang=none the Alexa.com Top 500] websites, the top ranked search-only site is English (Google, #2), followed by the top search site in Chinese (Baidu.com, #4), top in Japanese (Google.jp, #19), Spanish (Google.es, #31) and German (Google.de, #35). I should note that the languages on the internet links are for all uses -- not just searches -- but I have a hard time imagining that one language group is that much more likely to search than another. --ByeByeBaby 02:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
:: I would suspect, however, that Alexa users are biased to the languages that Alexa is supported in.--Prosfilaes 03:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
= May 4 =
Capitalization of "von" at the beginning of a sentence?
If someone's last name contains the word "von", as in "von Neumann", and one wanted to use just the last name at the beginning of a sentence, would one capitalize it or leave it lower case? Some sentences in the John von Neumann article do capitalize it in this context, but I just want to know if that sort of practice is correct. -- noosphere 04:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
:Yes, it is correct. (Chicago Manual of Style, 8.7 "always capitalized when beginning a sentence".) In a collaborative environment such as this, however, the big-endians and the little-endians can only come to terms by recasting any such sentence so it doesn't begin with the name. - Nunh-huh 05:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
::Great. Thank you so much for your answer. -- noosphere 06:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Bias, Landscaping
how do you say Bias or Landscaping in spanish?
(are partial | paisajemiento or áreas verdes correct?)
Qrc2006 10:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
:I'd say bias (noun) = prejuicio, biased (adjective) = parcial. Landscaping might be translated as jardineria ornamental. On an urban level it is paisajismo. Lesgles (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Head-first and head-final languages
Give the list of head-first languages and head-final languages. —Masatran 15:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
:All of them? If you just need a few examples, see Word order please. David Sneek 15:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Alphabet and language in Transnistria, part of Moldova
Hello,
I was just wondering about the language situation in Transnistria. Transnistria is a breakaway state of Moldova. The country is not widely recognized by the international community.
I heard people say that Moldovan is very similar to Romanian and that some even consider it the same language. I also read that Moldovan is the dominant language in both Moldova (under Chisinau rule) and in Transnistrian, but in Transnistria they use the Cyrillic alphabet, while in the rest of Moldova they use the Latin alphabet.
However, recently I saw a documentary about Transnistria, and not only was everything written in Cyrillic alphabet, it appeared that Russian was the dominant language. There were only a handful of Moldovan schools, and they have to struggle to survive.
Can anyone clear this up for me?
I will be very interested in any remarks.
Thx!
Evilbu 18:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
:I don't know much about it, but I was under the impression Ukrainian rather than Russian was the dominant language of Transnistria. Angr (talk • contribs) 19:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
: Moldovan is Romanian. Most Moldovans I've met would agree. (And as far as Wikipedia is concerned it's the same - the Moldovan-language wikipedia was disbanded after a broad majority of Moldovan editors felt it was redundant). So bluntly, "Moldovan" is purely a political invention. Note that all of Moldova/Basarabia used Cyrillic while they were part of the USSR and the Russian Empire prior to that. Ok, as for Transnistria (Trandniestr) - Basically the raison d'étre of that breakaway republic is the wish to keep stronger ties with Russia (and Ukraine, although that's also inside the Russian sphere of influence, less so since the "Orange revolution" though). As you might know, the whole thing pretty much came about when the Russian 14th army refused to leave. The Russian and Ukranian minority there is sizeable. (IIRC, Moldovans are still the biggest ethnical group there, but not larger than Russians and Ukranians together). If you want to get into the nitty-gritty, the real reason for Transdniestr's existance is the Russian mafia, who's running a highly profitable smuggling and trafficing racket out of there. So in as few words as possible: Trandniestr is basically (with the possible exception of Belarus) the last surviving part of the Soviet Union. (Before someone asks.. Yes, I am interested in Moldova. -Someone's got to take an interest in those obscure corners of the map.) --BluePlatypus 02:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you but I still don't get it. The situation is definitely complex, as Transnistria was once described as the part of Moldova that looks to the east, to Ukraine, but with the Orange Revolution Ukraine might turn more to the west itself.
So what about the language then. Everyone used cyrillic that I saw in that documentary, but Ukranians, even if they are dominant together with the Russians, don't speak the same language either. So the Russians enforce Russian on everyone else?
Evilbu 13:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
:Ukrainian is written in Cyrillic too; are you sure it was Russian and not Ukrainian? And anyway, lots of Ukrainians do speak Russian, often better than Ukrainian. Angr (talk • contribs) 14:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
: Well, I can't know what language it was without having seen the documentary. But as said, all three languages can be written in cyrillic. (E.g. "Good morning" is "Bună dimineaţa" or "Бунэ диминяца" in Cyrillic. Which is pretty different from Russian"Доброе утро" and Ukrainian "Доброго ранку"). There isn't much of a language barrier between Russian and Ukrainian. They have a high level of mutual intelligibility to begin with, and most Ukrainians know Russian anyway. (Something like almost half of all Ukrainians speak Russian at home) Most Moldovans and Belarusians know Russian too. (Even if Russian/Ukrainian are pretty far removed from Romanian. - although Romanian does have a clear slavic influence (E.g. "Yes" is "da". Even some non-Russian words are still Russian; "tram" is "tramvai", borrowed from Russian, borrowed from English "tramway"). Officially all three languages are official languages of Transdniestr. But I haven't been there so I can't speak from experience on what languages they de facto use the most. I suspect it's probably Russian for everyday, non-personal talk, since that's probably the language most people know. At home, people of course use their mother tounge. --BluePlatypus 19:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
How to show correct spelling in a mispelled quote.
I have a dedication which I want to quote, but the name of the dedicatee is misspelled. What is the proper method used to show the name as it is printed as well as to show that the spelling used is incorrect? For example, the name is shown as "Fridjof Nansen" but the correct spelling is "Fridtjof Nansen." There is only one letter missing ("t"), but I want to show the correct spelling, preferably inside of the quote. Feel free to correct any of my grammar as used in this paragraph.
:I would either write "Fridjof [sic; Fridtjof] Nansen" or simply "silently correct" it to "Fridtjof Nansen". Angr (talk • contribs) 20:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
::As long as it's a minor mistake, with no significance, most editors would be happy to correct it without drawing undue attention to it. I quote a lot in my work, and often have to correct sloppy spellings from Indian writers and publishers. --Shantavira 07:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
This issue comes up a lot when words spoken by some public figure are misspelled when converted into a written quote by a journalist. If I'm quoting the person using the "quote" written by the journo, I'll always correct the spelling because I consider I'm just finishing the journo's job. For example, when I see "can not" in a quote, I almost always change it to "cannot". "Can not" is a different concept and usually not what the speaker intended.
But there's a problem when the misspelled words commenced their life in written form. There's no single solution, it will depend on the circumstances. As well as what Angr and Shantavira have said, two other options are (a) quote them exactly without qualification (Fridjof), or (b) change "Fridjof" to "Fridtjof" and use square brackets to show this is your interpolation. You need to decide whether it's Nansen's name that's the real point, or whether the misspelling is somehow an important issue in whatever you're writing about. JackofOz 01:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Syntax
As a frequent RD contributor, I am quite confident that many who read this board are, as I, grammar pedants, and it is they in particular to whom I address this question, one that has troubled me for some time. A few months ago, I was copyediting a section of the Super Bowl XL article (which section now appears as its own article and changed “…some critics claimed he called it when the play clock had already struck zero. That would have penalised Pittsburgh 5 yards and made it 3rd and 11…” to “…some contended that the play clock hit zero seconds before Roethlisberger called for a timeout, which would have constituted a delay-of-game and resulted in the assessment of a five-yard penalty…”. Another editor, whom I think to be an excellent contributor, removed “the assessment of”, suggesting that the locution was unnecessarily verbose. Even as I have left (and will continue to leave, irrespective of the answers provided here) the sentence in the revised state, I wonder if others concur in my belief that “the assessment of” is, in a syntactic analysis, preferable. My argument, I suppose, rests primarily on the idea that a referee’s determining the existence of (and then whistling) a penalty in American football, or, even more aptly, in football qua soccer, is a significant interpolation between a player’s committing a foul and a penalty’s actually being enacted. While the primary actor in the scoring of a touchdown, for example, is the player (even as an official might make judgments as to whether a receiver caught a ball in bounds or whether the ball crossed the plane of the goal), upon which note I’d rest the contention that we ought to write “Joe Schmoe caught a 19-yard pass for a touchdown” (cf., “Joe Schmoe caught a 19-yard pass, which catching resulted in the ‘’assessment’’ of a touchdown”), the primary actor, IMHO, in the assessment of a penalty is an intervening actor, the referee, inasmuch as most assessments are discretionary (certainly more penalty assessments than touchdown assessments are discretionary), such that a given action doesn’t result in a penalty but, rather, in the assessment of a penalty. We are more likely, I think, to say that “Joe Schmoe caught a 19-yard touchdown pass” than to say that “Joe Schmoe committed a holding penalty” (rather, “Joe Schmoe was flagged for holding”), and I think such preference follows logically from the situation I set out. I certainly have entertained the idea that “the assessment of” ought also to be appended to sentences with respect to touchdowns, since one’s catching a pass doesn’t ‘’result’’ in anything; perhaps the use of result is altogether inelegant in any case. Notwithstanding that, though, is my “assessment” suggestion a hypercorrection/adduction of a distinction without a difference, or can it accurately be said that, since there is a cause more proximate to the assessment of a penalty than a player’s committing the penalty, the “assessment” locution ought to be preferred. (Even if I can’t make the list of users with the most edits, at least I can surely assume my place in the RD’s records book for “longest [and most inane] question.) Joe 00:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
:While there is a difference between "the assessment of a 5-yard penalty" and "a 5-yard penalty," I think the difference is not significant enough in this case to merit the extra words. The meaning gets across clearly without them. When choosing between more or fewer words, you should generally go with the fewer if it doesn't significantly change the meaning of the sentence. -- Mwalcoff 00:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
:OK sir, we're going to have to ask you to put down the dictionary and thesaurus and slowly back away. --LarryMac 12:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
::Hey, it's not as inane as the discussion at Talk:Mike McCarthy --Maxamegalon2000 04:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
:::No offence, Joe, but this reminds me of [http://70.86.201.113/imageserv2/temporary/PBF020BCPenguinEnemy.html a certain PBF cartoon]. —Keenan Pepper 05:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
= May 5 =
German and Sanskrit
I was told that the grammar of the German language is based on Sanskrit. Is this true? --Vikram
: Not really. What's the case is that both Sanskrit and German (as most European languages) are decendents of a single common ancestor, the Proto-Indo-European language (PIE). Nobody knows exactly what PIE was like (and it can only be regarded as hypothetical, although a very likely hypothesis), since there are no written sources of that language. What we do know (and what was instrumental in forming this hypothesis) is that Vedic Sanskrit is one of the oldest languages decending from PIE that there are sources for. So as such, it's the language that's closest to PIE itself. Since all these languages have decended from a common source, they all have a somewhat similar grammar, at least compared to completely unrelated languages like Japanese. --BluePlatypus 05:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
: It would be flatly wrong to say that any feature of German is based on Sanskrit—they diverge from fundamentally separate branches of the Indo-European family tree. Nevertheless, from the perspective of an English speaker, a superficial similarity might be seen in their inflectional systems. Both languages are grammatically conservative, having extensive case systems, whereas English is essentially analytic and lacks any sort of productive morphology. Both German and Sanskrit distinguish between nominative, accusative, dative, and genitive cases and both are, I believe, fairly fusional. However, from a German's perspective, Sanskrit wouldn't be familiar at all. Unlike German, Sanskrit has instrumental, vocative, ablative, and locative cases, dual number, not to mention a far more complicated system of conjugation, , and countless other differences. Of course, in terms of vocabulary, German is far more closely related to English. But even in strictly grammatical terms, it's a tenuous comparison. In that repsect, German is far more similar to Latin, Greek, or Irish (or any other Centum language) than to a distant cousin like Sanskrit. Bhumiya (said/done) 21:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing this up BluePlatypus and Bhumiya :) --Vikram
SVO vs. AVO
I would appreciate if someone can explain the reasons
for describing English as an "AVO" language rather than
an "SVO" language.
(ref:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_order)
Vineet Chaitanya
:This is more appropriately discussed at Talk:Word order. Angr (talk • contribs) 08:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
:Just a guess, "agent" is more precise than "subject"? Though I admit I've never heard of this description before. --Keitei (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
::It isn't more precise, it means something different. The sentences John kicked the ball and The ball was kicked by John have different subjects but the same agent. Angr (talk • contribs) 13:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
:::Wouldn't that make English SVO and not AVO? "The ball was kicked by John" is OVA, but still SV(O). --Keitei (talk) 12:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
::::That's a good example of how the passive voice makes an SVO/OVA disparity, but since English prefers the active voice, it's still SVO and usually AVO. - Draeco 07:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Learning English in French class
In my traditional American education (note sarcasm), I found that I learned most of what I knew about English as a language from my French class. For a good 4 years, I had no idea what ˆ, `, ´, and ç were called in English. I also learned tenses in French long before I heard anything of them in English (e.g. plus que parfait). My teachers would often teach French through similar English ideas, naming them for the first time to me.
It makes me wonder if anyone else has had this experience, or has mourned years of defining "nouns", "verbs", and "adjectives". Why is it that in English class we learn nothing of English? I've had teachers recommend I take Latin if I want to learn about English. Is there a good reason why English classes in the US focus on literature? And getting into college... --Keitei (talk) 13:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
:It's not just America. In Belgium, people defend studying Latin on the grounds that it leads to a better understanding of Dutch and French grammar. The Esperantists make the same case for Esperanto. The logic of this eludes me. Here, no one studies the linguistics of their own language except undergrad linguists, but I think that if they had to study the comparative linguistics of their native language and the second language or languages they're studying, not only could they do without the dead language, but they would have a much easier time with any future language study.
:The story as I understand it is that the decline of prescriptive grammar study resulted in its replacement with practiced-based reading and writing in English classes. This was, in fact, a good idea and the right thing to do. You will become a far better speaker and writer of your native language, and you reach far higher levels of literacy, if your class time is spent reading engaging texts, writing essays and receiving corrections and constructive criticism of your own texts, rather than studying largely fictitious rules. This is fairly well established in the education literature, and is part of the logic behind whole language reading curricula. It breaks down for students with poor literacy or who are not fluent speakers of standard English, and this is much of the reason why phonics came back, but if the goal is socially acceptable language usage among competent native users, you still get more bang for your buck by reading texts and writing essays.
:I think students should get some general notions of linguistics in school, especially enough phonetics to identify the place and manner of articulation of consonants, and learn to understand the vowel triangle (actually a trapezoid). This does them an enormous service in dealing with foreign languages. But also, learning to identify agents and patients, subjects and objects, modifiers and prepositional phrases, and diagramming sentences would be a good thing, if nothing else because it makes second language study much less of a mystery. But I don't think it can or should replace a serious literature curriculum. --Diderot 14:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
:Certainly some schools still teach grammar in English classes. It may be less common but it is not completely abandoned. Rmhermen 16:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
:The story goes that there was a study back in the 70s that showed that teaching grammar had no effect on writing test scores of native speakers of course. I don't remember the citation. This had a lot of resonance because the skills and interests of people who become English teachers are not those of people who like to understand grammar. Also, the grammar being taught was traditional grammar which tries to squeeze English into a kind of jerry-rigged system developed for Latin, not to mention the incoherencies of prescription. For instance, to claim that English has a future tense makes no sense considering that the ways of expressing the future are periphrastic, whereas the way we express the past is inflectional. In Latin all three tenses were inflectional, as they are today in Romance languages.
: I don't think grammar will make much of a comeback although it would be a lot more effective than learning Latin in teaching how to think analytically about patterns found in nature, overcome many of the myths about one language being better than another, and help with foreign language learning later. The reason for my pessimism is that English teachers won't want to learn it, and either will those who teach them. mnewmanqc
::I found that learning Spanish made it much easier to teach the English language later in life to ESL students. I knew of things like passive voice and perfect tenses from Spanish class. -- Mwalcoff 22:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
::i certainly learnt no grammar whatsoever in English classes at school (Britain). Our French teacher had to explain what a preposition was, the concept being unknown to us. Its not the same everywhere though - Spanish eleven-year-olds have already been taught all about the (Spanish) pluperfect subjunctive passive, etc. Jameswilson 23:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
:I think a lot of English grammar is taught at a point where students are typically too young to retain the technical knowledge. In my experience, English classes had switched entirely to writing (and usually writing about literature) by 8th grade. We had been taught the language stuff, why focus on that again, is the line of thinking. If you don't start learning French until high school, that transition doesn't occur until later. As for the names of accent marks in English, I'd say most people aren't taught that because accent marks are not an important part of the language. - user:rasd
: I'm in Ireland and find the exact same thing. I've said it several times to teachers that it's current manifestation as a subject is a "joke of a subject". Everyone I know, including some teachers, agree that it should be more focused on grammar and stuff like that, as opposed to literature and drama. I'm hoping some of these years they'll update the Junior Cert. English, since they're currently on a streak of updates of syllibi. Also the same is true for what you said about learning the names of tenses only in other languages, in my case: Irish, French and Spanish. Even in books, in the middle of a sentence in English, they refer to a tense as "Passé Composé" or "Aimsir Caite" etc.. - RedHot 12:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Where goes the possessive?
This sentence from Detroit, Michigan:
"When Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick found himself behind in the polls in the 2005 election, his campaign tried to draw attention to his opponent, Freeman Hendrix's, support in the suburbs."
It was recently changed from "opponent's, Freeman Hendrix, support" to the above. I would have guessed that the original was correct. Rmhermen 16:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
:I think generally, either wording is going to be confusing. Technically, I think the second version is correct, but is confusing as Freeman Hendrix ends up straight after the possessive. The problem is, Freeman Hendrix is in a seperate clause thing, and if done correctly you should be able to read the sentence without anything from the clause. "opponent, Freeman Hendrix,'s support" obviously doesn't work. I think it needs to be reworded. "to the support his opponent, Freeman Hendrix, received in the suburbs"? Skittle 16:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
::The original looks OK if you remove the commas around Freeman Hendrix's. Jameswilson 23:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
:In spoken English, the rule is that the
::I may be wrong, but I would have said "his opponent's, Freeman Hendrix's, support", although I can't say why. It just seems more natural to me. Bhumiya (said/done) 00:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
face vs construct validity
I think the link for "face validity" goes to "construct validity."
::I disagree. Vehemently. Loomis51 23:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
The A was B, who had Ced themselves
{{"|The Royalists' major asset was the Navy, who had declared themselves for the Prince of Wales.|Three Hundred and Thirty Five Years' War#Origins (Emphasis mine)}}
Is the above sentence's grammatical number correct? “Themselves” feels wrong. I'd say “itself” or “herself”, but I am not a native speaker of English. If the word “Navy” is used like “police” in that sentence, shouldn't it be “The Royalists' major asset were the Navy, who had declared themselves for the Prince of Wales”? Wikipeditor 17:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
:There are two points here. The first is that the verb must agree with the subject, not the complement, e.g. "Clouds are vaporized water" and "The last crop was potatoes" (I took these examples from Fowler). In more complex sentences, even native English speakers sometimes get confused, but the rule does not change. Since "asset" is singular, it must be "the asset was".
:The second problem is the word navy, a collective noun which can be singular or plural depending on context. Here, it is taken as a plural, hence "themselves". This usage is rare in American English, however, which is probably why it feels wrong to you. For example, as an American speaker, I would say "The Royalists' major asset was the Navy, which had declared itself for the Prince of Wales." Lesgles (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
::Ignoring the unrelated issues raised below, Lesgles is right. The use of "was" is correct, and the only option, no matter where you live; the use of "themselves" is correct in British usage, incorrect in American, and completely unrelated to "was". Tesseran 21:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
:::Unfortunately, I currently do not have the time to read through all replies yet, but will try to do so later. Thanks to everybody for contributing, and especially to Lesgles for summing it all up. Wikipeditor 15:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd say "The Royalists major asset was the Navy, which had declared itself... "Were" and "themselves" just don't sound right to me. Of course, I'm an American, and we treat almost all group nouns as singular, except for things like "police", whereas the British would be more likely to say "...were the Navy, who had declared themselves..."
In any case, mixing "was" and "themselves" is wrong by either the British or the American standard. It was probably written by an Englishman and proofread by an American or vice versa. Linguofreak 18:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
:It actually isn't a mix, as the two verbs do not have the same subject. As I mentioned above, was agrees with the word asset, which is singular (the asset was). Themselves agrees with Navy, which can be construed as plural (the navy were). As an American speaker, though, I would rephrase the sentence the same way you would. There might be a better way to construct the sentence, but it is grammatical as it stands (in British English, at least). Lesgles (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
::The rule about number agreement is not always clear cut. When referring to a single person whose gender is unknown or unimportant, using "he or she" in all its forms is tiresome, so it's now usual to use "they" and "them". What's the reflexive form? Is it themself, because a single person has only one "self"? Or is it themselves, because "selves" has to agree with the grammatical number of "them"? Hard to say, but many sources say "themself" is not really a legit word. In any event, if you type the word "themself", most spell checkers will change it to "themselves", and so we get things like "The person who did this really has to sort themselves out". Most writers will accept that change without blinking, because it reflects the way most people speak (which may, ironically, have something to do with the tyranny of the spell checker to begin with). In this respect, Fowler (2nd edition, 1978 reprint) was not up to speed with current PC-think (although this may have changed in the 1999 3rd edition). His 1978 preferred solution was to avoid "themselves" in such cases and assume masculine gender ("himself") because that was the convention in the interpretation of legal documents. He also takes the piss out of himself by concluding "Whether that convention ... is an arrogant demand on the part of male England, everyone must decide for himself (or for himself or herself, or for themselves)". JackofOz 00:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
:::Indeed, singular they has always been a tricky problem (separate from the one brought up by Wikipeditor). My personal solution is to restructure the sentence whenever possible. Lesgles (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
"SCHM" prefix
I saw a billboard for a Mini Cooper that had the tagline "OPEC, SCHMOPEC". I've often seen the "schm" prefix, used to show disdain for something or someone. Is there a name for this type of phrase?
:Shm-reduplication -- AnonMoos 17:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
::I <3 Wikipedia! —Keenan Pepper 00:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
:::<3 ? -LambaJan 18:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
::::Love. Tilt your head to the right and use a little imagination, and it looks like a heart. Angr (talk • contribs) 18:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::Yeah, I was too lazy to open GNOME Character Map and get one of these doohickeys: ♥ —Keenan Pepper 21:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Chinese translating.......
Good afternoon....I am looking for a program or web page for translating Chinese into English. Any help would be greatly appreciated, Thank you.
: [http://www.google.com/language_tools?hl=en Google language tools]. --Ornil 20:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
MLA
how do i put info i got from an article on this website into my works cited? how is it supposed to be formatted and look?
:See Citing Wikipedia. You can also use the cite tool by clicking on the "cite this article" button on the toolbar to the left. Note that questions like this are more suitable for the Help desk than the reference desk. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 23:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
= May 6 =
Translation
hi,
I just wrote an artice in English and I know that the same article exsists in Hungarian and Swedish, but I can't find the link to. Usually they are on the left side, but not this time. I want to be able to change the language of the article by one click. Can you please help me to do that? thanks
:You have to put links to them at the bottom, in the form
Translation
Hi, it's me again, I just tried like you said, and it seems to work. btw the article is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soltvadkert it's about my hometown. thanks again
:No problem. I noticed you also added links to German and Japanese, where the article doesn't exist yet. This can't really hurt anything, but it's kinda useless and it might give people false hope that there actually is an article in their preferred language. —Keenan Pepper 02:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Question on the English Language
A riddle is going around on email saying that there are 3 words in the English language that end in "gry". Two are "angry" and "hungry". What is the 3rd? The only clue given is "wiki", but I am completely confused by your site. I am assuming that the clue means to use this site.
It says:
"There are three words in the English language that end in "gry".
ONE is angry and the other is hungry.
EveryONE knows what the third ONE means and what it stands for.
EveryONE uses them everyday; and, if you listened very carefully, I've given you the third word.
What is it? _______gry?"
The email claims if I send the riddle to 5 people that the answer will automatically appear on my screen. I know that won't happen. But if you could point me in the correct direction, or if you can get the answer, I would truly appreciate it.-----Judy Thomason
:See gry - Nunh-huh 02:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
::And please don't forward it. Most people have heard it before. Is there a name for this type of "please forward" spam? I haven't been able to find an article about it. --Shantavira 09:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
:::Chain e-mail -lethe talk [{{fullurl:User talk:Lethe|action=edit§ion=new}} +] 09:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Vowel Quadrilateral
I'm writing the linguistics page of the Chaozhou language and would like to add a vowel quadrilateral like in the french phonology page, i tried to decipher the codes on the edits page, and tried replacing some vowels with the ones i want but i still can't do it. Can anyone tell me how i can make one? i'm quoting the French one here:
cellspacing="0px" cellpadding=0 style="text-align:center; background:transparent;" |
style="text-align:center; font-size:smaller;"
| style="width:70px; text-align:right;" | | style="width:60px;" | Front | style="width:60px;" | | style="width:60px;" | Central | style="width:60px;" | | style="width:60px;" | Back |
style="height:30px; font-size:smaller; text-align:right;" | Close
| style="height:210px;" colspan=5 rowspan=7 | 300px {| style="position:relative; width:300px; height:210px; text-align:center; background:transparent;" |
style="width:300px; height:210px; text-align:center; background:transparent;" |
{{IPA| • u}}
{{IPA| • o}} {{IPA|ə}}
{{IPA| • ɔ}} {{IPA|a • }} {{IPA|ɑ • }} |
|-
| style="height:30px; font-size:smaller; text-align:right;" |
|-
| style="height:30px; font-size:smaller; text-align:right;" | Close-mid
|-
| style="height:30px; font-size:smaller; text-align:right;" | Mid
|-
| style="height:30px; font-size:smaller; text-align:right;" | Open-mid
|-
| style="height:30px; font-size:smaller; text-align:right;" |
|-
| style="height:30px; font-size:smaller; text-align:right;" | Open
|}