Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/L

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

October 7

The missing Arlésienne

I learned today that the term "Arlésienne" is used in French to refer to a person who is expected to be in a certain place at a certain time, but fails to show up. Is it only ever used in the feminine form, whether the person is female or male? Is the A always capitalised, or does it appear as arlésienne/arlésien? Do other languages have such a lovely and useful term for such a person? Would it be reasonable to use this French word in English with this meaning, and expect people generally to know what it means? I mean, I'd love to use it somewhere, but definitely not if I have to immediately explain what I'm talking about. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your question of would it be reasonable to use this word in an English context, unfortunately I think you answered your own question when you stated in the first sentence, "I learned today that the term...." In other words, you yourself discovered this by chance from a book or other source -- and most likely people reading or hearing the word will not know it either. There are almost surely no statistics, but there are probably not a lot of English speaking people who know that word. But you can do a google search for English websites to get a better sense of that. Bottom line, most people probably dont know it, so do not use it without a gloss, unless you are confident that your particular audience (e.g. French literature enthusiasts in Australia or Irish teachers of French etc.) know the word. --71.111.194.50 (talk) 09:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In French an inhabitant of Arles is un Arlésien/une Arlésienne, A is capitalised. The adjective is arlésien(s)/arlésienne(s) with a small a. The stock phrases are either jouer l'Arlésienne or C'est l'Arlésienne. The phrases apply for both male and female persons and things. They refer to any person or thing which, although much talked about, never materializes. — AldoSyrt (talk) 09:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalizing the "a" is unnecessary.

It depends on the reference and how pedantic you are! There is no mention of arlésienne(s) as a common noun in the Dictionnaire de l'Académie française (9e éd.) [1], neither in the Trésor de la langue française informatisé [2]. No entry as a common noun in Le petit Robert (1986), but there is one in Le petit Robert (2004); For Le petit Larousse illustré (2004) see hereunder. — AldoSyrt (talk) 07:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harrap's Standard French and English Dictionary (2 large volumes, London, 1934) gives only the uncapitalized geographical meaning of arlésien, -ienne without reference to the figurative or literary meaning. The Larousse Modern French-English Dictionary (one medium volume, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1960) has no entry for Arles, arlésien or arlésienne. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your question: Do other languages have such a lovely and useful term for such a person? I think that English itself has a related term: "être l'arlésienne" is "to stand (people) up" (however, note that the more common phrase is: "c’est l’arlésienne", and that it may refer to inanimate objects as well). The verb "to stand (people) up" must have both adjectives and nouns (some of which I know) - in other languages (probably many languages). HOOTmag (talk) 11:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the English term for "a person who is expected to be in a certain place at a certain time, but fails to show up" is a flake. Pais (talk) 11:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A flake is simply an impractical - or an unreliable - person, generally. HOOTmag (talk) 12:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The English term I know best is no-show. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a useful term, but not a particularly lovely one. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about Godot, as in Waiting for Godot? I seem to recall it being used in an "Arlésienne" way. BTW, "Arlésienne" is often used for events, concepts, etc that always seem to be about to come about but never do..."L'union des partis de gauche, cette éternelle arlésienne de la vie politique"= The union of left-wing parties, that ever-receding horizon of politics. Rhinoracer (talk) 13:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Here's an interesting discussion of Arlésiennes, Godots, Rebeccas, Kayser Sozes and their ilk. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

¶ The dictionary part of my 2004 Petit Larousse Illustré gives this figurative or secondary meaning of L' Arlésienne, feminine noun (after the straight use of arlésien, -ienne to describe things or people from Arles)

personne dont on parle tout le temps et qu'on ne voit jamais (par allusion à l'opéra de Bizet où ce personnage ne paraît pas sur la scène.)

roughly, "someone about whom one talks all the time yet never sees (by allusion to the Bizet's opera where this [title] character does not appear on stage.)" So the parallel to Godot (or to George Spelvin) seems pretty close, and the derivative sense of a perpetual latecomer or absentee tertiary. ¶ And to answer Jack's other questions, L'Arlésienne is capitalized and treated grammatically as a feminine proper noun by Larousse, because L'Arlésienne is both the title and the title character. But I wouldn't use this in English conversation, since this is the first time most of us (including me) have ever encountered it in this sense, although I did dimly recall L'Arlésienne as a painting from around the Impressionist era (it was by Van Gogh). Cf. L'Arlésienne (Bizet) and L'Arlésienne (novel and play)#Trivia, from which I arrogantly and hastily conclude that Larousse might have better cited Daudet's novel and play than Bizet's opera. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, I was moved to look up the Petit Larousse en couleurs (1980), and find the dictionary part gives only the geographical, but not the figurative, meaning of arlésien. The cyclopaedia part gives a brief mention of Daudet's story and Bizet's opera, without discussing the plot, theme or characters. But the corresponding part of my 2004 Petit Larousse Illustré gives a one-sentence synopsis of the plot, from which one might possibly infer the secondary meaning without looking at the dictionary section:"Amoureux d'une Arlésienne – qu'on ne voit jamais sur scène – dont on lui apprend l'infidélité, un jeune paysan de Camargue perd la raison et se suicide." which I translate (rather shakily) as: "In love with an Arlesian – whom one never sees on stage – about whose infidelity he is told, a young peasant of the Camargue loses his reason and kills himself." (corrections very gladly welcomed) —— Shakescene (talk) 08:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you all for your most enlightening posts. As for using it myself, I'll reserve it for a special occasion. But I did find it in the article I linked in my question, and I assume that if something's mentioned in Wikipedia, it's *obviously* going to be well known before long (perhaps not part of the lingua franca (pun) in the sense of an expression one hears every day, but still ...). :) -- JackofOz (talk) 20:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A good parallel from English literature is "Mrs Harris" from Martin Chuzzlewit; one would have to be sure of one's audience before expecting this name to be understood, though. Tevildo (talk) 19:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's a good parallel, but doesn't seem to have entered the language as a standard expression the way Arlésienne has in French. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slang word for "understand" with sci-fi origin

I'm trying to remember a slang word meaning "grasp, understand, comprehend" whose origin was in a science fiction story. I think in the original story it meant something like "completely absorb and assimilate". I think the slang word was popular on college campuses in the U.S. in the '60s and '70s, but that was before my time. My first thought was grep, but that means something else. Does anyone know what I'm talking about? Pais (talk) 11:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grok? --130.237.179.182 (talk) 11:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the one, thanks! Pais (talk) 11:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The term is still used at Curtin University in Perth, Australia. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Learning an African language for "fun"

Essentially just for fun, I'm interested in learning an African language. I've found decent-looking resources for Zulu, Xhosa and Swahili... what do people recommend? Either on the basis of most fun, easiest, most elegant: whatever, any views or thoughts at all? ╟─Treasury Tag►co-prince─╢ 18:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean south of Arabic? Of the ones you list, I think Xhosa would be the most fun; Zulu not far behind if you have better material. But the clicks are far from easy: you'd have to have sound recordings, and better yet a speaker. Swahili would be much easier, and can be done without sound recordings. Wolof, Yoruba, Akan, and Amharic are also available, and would be very different from the three Bantu languages you listed, though Yoruba and Akan have tone, so again sound recordings or a speaker would be needed. Amharic might be fun in you like dabbling in scripts. kwami (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My brother thought at one time that he might be working in Ethiopia so he studied Amharic and told me that the complex alphabet was hard to master. He thought people should be less ready to condemn low literacy rates considering the difficulties Ethiopian schoolchildren would have learning that alphabet. —— Shakescene (talk) 09:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur C. Clarke called Afrikaans the 'best swearing language' in the world. And because it's genetically related to Dutch (which in turn is closely related to English) it would probably be easy to learn. Although, of course, not as "African" as those others. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Fun" is very subjective. Personally, I found Swahili to be really enjoyable. I think that it is easy for English speakers because the grammar is relatively simple. The verbs, to my mind, have a logic somewhat similar to that of English verbs. I find the structure elegant. It is fun to be able to make rapid progress in a language unrelated to English. I'm not sure progress would be as rapid in Xhosa or Zulu. The pronunciation of the clicks might be challenging. Marco polo (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you've got a lead on studying Zulu, that'd be my choice for at least one reason not mentioned above: enhancing access to the vocals of Ladysmith Black Mambazo (familiar to many from Paul Simon's album Graceland), Johnny Clegg, and other recent and contemporary music originating in Southern Africa. The printed lyrics that accompany the discs will give you an idea...and perhaps whet your appetite. -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

words translated to Spanish

How are foghorn and ghost said in Spanish?69.203.157.50 (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the University of Chicago Spanish Dictionary, "foghorn" is sirena and "ghost" is espectro or fantasma. Deor (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sirena is more general (=siren, in both senses) though. "Sirena de niebla" can be used if you want to be specific. --Pykk (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Literally "siren of fog". "Fog" is from a Scandinavian term. "Horn" is from Latin "cornu" but the Spanish "siren" as actually more descriptive. Ironically, "siren" comes from the Greek for the maids that would lure sailors to crash on the rocks. "Niebla" comes from the Latin root from which we get the word "nebula". "Fantasma" would be from the Greek "phantasm". "Ghost" comes from the same root as the German "Geist". →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At Wiktionary, the entries Foghorn and Ghost should have some kind of translation. Here though, the es. equivalent of ghost is es:Fantasma. Unfortunately, es.wiki does not yet have an article on foghorn. Create it! Intelligentsium^review 01:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 8

Forms referring to somebody doing an action

I have asked this question before, a few years ago on Wikiversity, but I didn't really get a definitive answer.

Batter

Runner

Beater

Cheater

Hater

Lover

Wisher

Defenestrater

What is this form (I know that in that capacity they don't act like verbs) called?

Thanks, Falconus^{p t c} 04:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are several names for them: agent nouns, agent nominalizations (http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~mabaker/agent-nominals-web.pdf), or -er nominals/nominalizations (http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/wccfl27/abstracts/poster/instrumental_-er_nominals.pdf).71.31.108.120 (talk) 06:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it depends on the context in which the interlocutors exchange their meanings (the pragmatics); in semantics, these are possible ‘back-formation’. A corpus linguist can confirm this according to their origin. If it is the case of back-formation, then the process is called nounizations. Some linguists also refer such process as ‘nominalization’ (a noun which has its origin from a verb). Does it make sense?Nevill Fernando (talk) 22:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to me, it doesn't (make sense), Nevill. I don't believe any of these are back formations, which occur when an apparently more basic form is created from an apparently derived form. "But(t)le", from "butler" is an example of a back formation, but it has never become an established word in English. I don't understand your references to either pragmatics or semantics, and "nounization" is not in wide use, certainly not among linguists. Linguists do indeed talk about nominalization, but they mean the use of a verb as a noun without morphological change (see the WP article): nouns derived from verbs are usually referred to as deverbal nouns. --ColinFine (talk) 07:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Among this list, wisher in particular is not at all what's normally termed an agent within linguistics. CGEL (p1698) calls them "deverbal -er nouns" among person nominalisations (p1697). -- Hoary (talk) 08:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I agree with you, except few misconception (or complications) thereagainst, i.e. on the question why such occurrences are ‘back-formation’ as they are natural occurrences in any language evolution; a word origin consisting of noun-to-verb form is a usual occurrence. A verb-to-noun form is the reverse formation. A corpus linguist with enough quantitative research can analyze and confirm this linguistically. Otherwise, one has to rely on simple analogies.

On the explanation about ‘deverbal’, it seems the examples or the explanations provided on the page are simply ‘infinitives’ in English.

On the explanation about ‘nominalization’, it is simply a transformation of a other word classes in to a noun class (a group of words as a noun) whether it is an agent nominalizations or event nominalizations or a person nominalizations. An example of common misconception is these:

(1) the crying baby in the hall +VP

(2) the baby’s crying in the hall +VP

In these examples, both of the bold phrases are nominal and the transformations are nominalizations. However, the verb ‘cry’ acts as nominal only in the phrase (2) but not in the phrase (1).

Some additional misconceptions can be clarified if one takes these example to a syntax analysis. Is there any additional explanations? Nevill Fernando (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are claiming that noun->verb is somehow more normal than verb->noun. I don't think this is the case (consider Semitic languages, for example, where most roots are verbal).

I agree that the deverbal page is inadequate: I referenced it without looking at it. As I understand the term, a deverbal is any noun which is formed from a verb, by whatever process so 'construct (n)', 'sender', 'crying (n)', 'exclamation', 'employee' are all English deverbals. Of these, only 'construct' and 'crying' are nominalisations as described in our article.

I don't know what the 'misconception' is that you refer to. crying in those two phrases is functionally different, and they are usually classified as a participle and a gerund respectively (though some linguists, eg Peter Daniels, argue that it is not useful to classify them as different forms since they are morphologically identical for all English verbs). As you say, the phrases are NP's, but only one of the instances of crying is nominal.

What is it you are looking for explanations of? --ColinFine (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, deverbal noun. Thank you. I knew that there had to be a word for it. Falconus^{p t c} 00:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Der Teufel sitzt im Spiegel

On reading the Herta Müller article, I see she published a book called Der Teufel sitzt im Spiegel, which the article (or probably the official English translation, rather) translates as The Devil is Sitting in the Mirror. It's been a long time since I did German grammar, but can someone verify (or falsify) my reasoning as follows: "im Spiegel" is a contraction of "in dem Spiegel", and as Spiegel is masculine then "dem" means this is the accusative case. This note confirms my recollection that, for a two-way preposition like "in", the accusative denotes motion towards (not just being at a location). So, am I right in thinking that a literal (if unavoidably ungainly) translation would be "The Devil sits into the mirror" (in that he's not in there all the time, but we're talking about the momentary action of his sitting in there)? Looking at wiktionary:sitzen, I can't see an alternate way of expressing setzen that would allow for a gainly English sentence that properly implies the motion; is "the Devil sets himself into the mirror" what the German is intended to mean (which seems more poetic than a little devil on a little chair, which sounds rather twee to me). -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 16:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it would help to read the book and learn what the context is. To me, "The devil sits in the mirror" would mean that the devil is positioned in the mirror. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finlay McWalter, I think your confusion may come from the fact that im Spiegel is--unless I'm mistaken--in dative case, not accusative. See the Wikipedia article onGerman_articles: im = "in dem", which is dative. Also, isn't the verb in question sitzen not setzen? German does the same thing as English sit-set: sitzen is to sit (intransitive), and setzen (transitive) is to set. I think the "devil" is merely sitting, not setting himself. --71.111.194.50 (talk) 17:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm pretty sure a better translation would omit 'sitting' entirely. "The devil is in the mirror", (akin to "devil in the details"). It's not implying the devil is literally sitting in front of the mirror. It's that the devil is inherent to the mirror; that the mirror has (or mirrors in general have) evil properties. (E.g. as a symbol/cause of vanity) --Pykk (talk) 17:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, im is dative, and I agree with Pykk that this use of sit is not idiomatic in English. German often uses verbs meaning "sit", "stand", or "lie" where English would use the verb "to be". A better translation would be The Devil Is in the Mirror (i.e., looking back at you). Marco polo (talk) 19:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Pykk and Marco Polo. As for sitzen and setzen, 71.111 is right that the former is intransitive and the latter transitive; however, sich setzen is used for the action of sitting down (as opposed to the state of being in a sitting position, which is what sitzen means); in this case, you would use the accusative after in, e.g. Der Teufel setzt sich in den Sessel ("the devil sits down in the armchair"). +An gr 06:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the verb sich setzen can also function as a linking verb (copula), e.g. Das Schloss setzt sich schön. If this example is a correct form, then the reflexiveness of ‘sich’ is the factor that causes the transformation. Or, is this just a synonym?

Otherwise, it seems the verb ‘setzen’ is a kind of verbs that depend on an accusative object for a complement and a dative object as an adjuct. Is this correct? Nevill Fernando (talk) 23:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency rhyme

In Swedish and Norwegian, there is a term, "nödrim" (lit: "emergency rhyme"); meaning something like: "the use of nonsensical / unusual words just to make two lines rhyme". It's a somewhat derogatory term, and pop song lyricists are frequently accused of employing them. Is there a corresponding word or term in English? Thanks, decltype (talk) 18:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Britain at any rate, "forced rhyme" or "contrived rhyme" are probably about the closest. I like the "emergency" idea much better though :D ╟─Treasury Tag►presiding officer─╢ 18:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of half rhyme is similar, but the connotation is not identical to nödrim. (That's a really cute term. I notice "nöd" must be cognate to German Not as in Notausgang. Interesting, does German have *Notrhym or something?) -71.111.194.50 (talk) 18:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answers. Yes, you are right about "nöd / Not", assuming "Notausgang" = "Emergency exit". That's a "nødutgang / nödutgång" in Norwegian and Swedish, respectively. Regards, decltype (talk) 18:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TreasuryTag's terms work in American English too. Marco polo (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The term i would use is "Poetic Licence", the article on Artistic Licence gives a number of other similar terms.
Cynical and Skeptical (talk) 23:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I like "emergency rhyme" and I think we should all start using it in English! --Anonymous, 04:48 UTC, October 9, 2009.

71.111, the German word for rhyme is Reim, not *Rhym, so a German calque of nödrim would be Notreim. That word does not appear in either my Duden or my Wahrig, but it does get 250 hits at regular Google, and 197 at Google Books. Here's one example. My impression is that it isn't an established term, but that (like so many compounds in German) it's a semantically transparent compound that can be created whenever needed by a speaker/writer. (P.S. English also has a cognate to nöd and Not, namely need.) +An gr 06:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that info, Angr. Wow, *Needrhyme, sounds like something from Beowulf :)

Yup, if the Normans hadn't invaded, perhaps English would use the word more too.. Just imagine! Instead of "necessarily" we could have been saying "needwendishwise" :) --Pykk (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Anglish --68.175.44.30 (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--68.175.44.30 (talk) 10:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Thanks all! decltype (talk) 06:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 9

Lambda

My physics prof keeps pronouncing the Greek letter lambda as "lam-buh". From what I can tell of the IPA in the article, this is incorrect. And I've always pronounced it "lam-duh". Who's right? Dismas|^(talk) 09:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merriam-Webster's says \ˈlam-də\ [3], so I would say you are correct. Gabbe (talk) 09:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the only thing strange about your physics professor, consider yourself lucky! --Zerozal (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forget professors! My physics teacher in high school had a lot of strange quirks, one being his inability to pronounce the word 'organism' without stuttering and correcting himself time and time again. Only this word though! We all 'knew' why. :) --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 02:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No no. This isn't the only off thing about this guy. He also pronounces "entropy" as "enthropy", the reason for which I haven't figured out just yet. He also constantly gets off on tangents. Most to do with growing up here in rural Vermont. In a 1 hour and 15 minute class period, we'll get to maybe twenty minutes of real actual physics work. Dismas|^(talk) 04:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had lecturers with the same tendency to go off on tangents (often telling the same (vaguely) humorous anecdotes repeatedly) - they usually know how much they can get away with and still finish the syllabus. It can be a good way of giving people a chance to catch up if they write notes slowly. --Tango (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are both sentences the same?

"The" or no "the": "The Responsibility to Protect: Ending Mass Atrocity Crimes Once and for All." or "Responsibility to Protect: Ending Mass Atrocity Crimes Once and for All."

"Close on" or "close to": "Between February and December 1942, close to half a million Jews were killed in its gas chambers by the German SS." "Between February and December 1942, close on half a million Jews were killed in its gas chambers by the German SS." Mr.K. (talk) 17:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Close to" or "close on" are colloquialisms. "Nearly" or "approaching" might be better. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, "nearly" and "approaching" seem better alternatives, at least regarding style. But do all 4 options mean the same? For example, if they were 500,488 Jews, is it still "approaching half a million?" Or "approaching" always means "almost"?--Mr.K. (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Nearly" and "close to" and "close on" mean "almost". 500,488 is "over" half a milion. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Approaching" in this case is almost always seen as approaching upwards, e.g. "Unemployment Approaches 10%". If one has surpassed a number like 500,000, then it's already been approached, and can't be approached in the opposite direction (I'm talking about the rhetorical sense here, not pure logic.) The same applies to "nearly" and "close to". "Close on", which is idiomatic and not universally clear, might be more slightly more ambiguous. However, one could easily call 500,488 "about", "around" or "approximately" 500,000 without the reader assuming it was either above or below that number. How about "more than 500,000", or "over half a million"?

As for the first question, one can't say without context, since they're not complete sentences. I would put in "The" because otherwise "Responsibility to Protect" sits out there rather vaguely and ambiguously. "A Responsibility to Protect" might be better than both, dependent on the context and the meaning intended. —— Shakescene (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first question was about a published book about the responsibility to protect. "The.." seems more natural, but I was not sure. The author also chose "The...". --Mr.K. (talk) 18:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This may be an artefact of Wikipedia's house style, which prefers to reduce the number of articles beginning with "The" to ease searching and indexing. For example, The United States redirects to United States, The Declaration of Independence redirects to United States Declaration of Independence, and The Law of Nations is empty while Law of Nations (redirecting to Public international law) is not. There are a few exceptions, like The Hague, The Times and The Bronx, but the title of an article in Wikipedia or similar works is not always a reliable guide to current common English-language usage. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, close on sounds nonstandard and dialectal to me. I am a native English speaker and never use that phrase, nor does anyone in my environment (urban northeastern United States). Marco polo (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I had never heard that "close to" is a colloquialism, but it seems plausible. "Close on" is definitely nonstandard in US English though. -Elmer Clark (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Close on" is commonly heard in Australia. It usually seems to imply "very close", even closer than "close to". -- JackofOz (talk) 23:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my childhood home, we used "nigh on" to mean the "next best thing to", especially in the phrases "nigh on impossible" and, worse, "nigh on bedtime". It was, from Jack's comment, our equivlent of "close on", though "to follow close on the heels of" is a relatively common phrase even today. Bielle (talk) 17:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah but close and on the heels are separate modifiers to follow; close on is not a unit in that phrase. —Tamfang (talk) 07:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 10

Gallus gallus

What's the etymology behind calling chickens French twice? KageTora says Latin for chicken is "pullus"; why not "pullus pullus"? This is something of a joint question from both of us. Vimescarrot (talk) 00:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to wiktionary, gallus is the Latin for rooster. Algebraist 00:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Latin, gallus (rooster) and Gallus (Gaul, or inhabitant of present-day France, Belgium, or northern Italy) are homophones. Gallus (Gaul) is an ethnonym probably based on the name that a Celtic people used to describe themselves. Gallus (rooster) is a word probably derived from the Indo-European root *gal-, which meant something like "call" and/or which may have been an onomatopoeic imitation of a bird's call. The English word call is probably derived from the same root. It is something of a coincidence that the two words are homophones, but the Romans liked puns about Gauls and roosters. Marco polo (talk) 00:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As to "why not Pullus pullus?", you'd have to ask Linnaeus - he made the decision, and, by the Principle of Priority, his name for the species stands. Tevildo (talk) 00:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done! And swift, too. KageTora says: "that's what teamwork gets you! a speedy, well-worded and informative set of answers!" So he likes it, too. Cheers, keep up the good work! Vimescarrot (talk) 00:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see Gallic rooster, one of the national symbols of France, hence Le Coq Sportif. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Now it all comes nicely together! Cheers all! --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 02:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I may contribute a pun: There's also the long standing rumor that the element Gallium was named not after France alone, but also after its discoverer Paul Emile Lecoq ('the rooster'). --Pykk (talk) 19:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also on the naming things twice: It's not uncommon for common animals, who've given name to their families, to have such a double-name. I'm far from being a birdwatcher but I do know the magpie is 'Pica pica' and the eagle-owl is 'bubo bubo'. Oh and a funny one: The ocean sunfish is 'mola mola'. --Pykk (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know; rattus rattus, puffinus puffinus. Double-naming has a name, but I don't remember what it was. Vimescarrot (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's also octopus octopus. It seems like sometimes Linnaeus ran out of branches to his naming tree, but each branch needed a name. It's funny how the French went with Middle English for their word for rooster. Spanish stuck with the Latin-based "gallo". →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are even triplets, of course, if one includes subspecies names, my favorite being Gorilla gorilla gorilla, the Western Lowland Gorilla. Deor (talk) 02:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a gorilla megillah. :) →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some biologists have been known to employ a dash (or more) of humor in naming species. (I seem to recall that we have a list somewhere; but I can't find it at the moment, so see here.) I wonder if there's an organism out there named Lui lui. Deor (talk) 12:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poking around at the site I linked in my preceding comment, I found that binomial names like Gallus gallus are known as tautonyms. In addition to our article on the topic, we also have a List of tautonyms. Deor (talk) 15:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tautonym, that's it! Cheers for that. 90.195.179.24 (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"contract conclusion" meaning entering into vs. finishing a contract?

I was given some policy documents to translate at my Chinese firm and upon doing so have been told that my choice of vocabulary doesn't match up well enough with the PRC's English legalese. That's well and good and an easy thing to change, but one particular sticking point that's bothering me is the use of the word "conclude" or "conclusion" when discussing contracts. In this PRC legal document sitting in front of me it's used to mean entering into or beginning, as seen here:

The conclusion of employment contracts shall comply with the principles of lawfulness, fairness, equality, free will, negotiated consensus and good faith.

...not really too striking there as understanding it to mean conclusion of negotiations isn't difficult, but deciding to use "conclude" in this fashion forces the author/translator to write this in another section:

The conclusion, performance, amendment, termination, and ending of employment contracts by state authorities etc. etc.

...which just sounds wrong to my American no-legal-experience ears, especially the "ending of" part - that just looks silly and in my mind should be where conclude is used. I get the impression that the translator simply looked up the CHN word in a dictionary and just chose the wrong word. Conclude works - sometimes - as in the first example, but is the wrong word at other times - like in the second example.

OR, this is a common legal document convention that I am ignorant of - a reasonable possibility and the reason I'm driven to ask this question here... Thank you for any clarification you may be able to provide...218.25.32.210 (talk) 05:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In UK law, "formation" is the general term, although "completion" is used of certain types of contract, specifically those for the sale of real property (real estate). (I imagine this is where your translator went wrong). The actual process of creating the contractual documents is "execution". "Termination" occurs when the contract ceases to operate before it's fulfilled according to its terms ("fulfilment" might be better than "ending" in your translation). See Contract. Tevildo (talk) 11:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick follow-up - if your lawyers tell you to use "conclusion", use "conclusion". That's what they're paid for. :) Tevildo (talk) 11:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OP here, at home now. Thanks for the quick reply. This isn't a lawyer-related issue, it's just my boss looking at the PRC English version of the law that our policy is based on, and comparing it to my translation of the company's Chinese document, and asking me "why are you using contract composition when they say contract conclusion?" and me answering "because I think the government's official translation is wrong...61.189.63.208 (talk) 14:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there's an official English translation of the statute, then it makes sense to use the language that's in the statute, even if it's not the word that would appear in an English legal document. I fear that saying anything else would stray into the area of legal advice. Tevildo (talk) 18:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would interpret it the same as you, but I can see why "conclusion" could mean the start of the relationship described in the contract. "Contract" can be a verb as well as a noun, the verb referring to the act of negotiating and signing the contract - that act is concluding when the relationship starts. --Tango (talk) 18:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the problems in a goevrning statute are the prerogatory rather than statutory as they appear. In social science, it also refers as ‘sanctimonious prose of the orthodoxy’ (not of the religious prose). A small firm may also have such prose. However, a written contract usually a statutory nature with of a prose like: The employment contracts shall comply with the principles of lawfulness, fairness, equality, free will, negotiated consensus and good faith. Nevill Fernando (talk) 23:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the Chinese translator went to an American school and is getting his own back for being told that "commencement" is at the end of the term. Sussexonian (talk) 15:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OED, s.v. 'Conclude (v)', meaning 11. "trans. To bring (a matter) to a decision or settlement; to decide, determine (a point, a case at law). b. To settle, arrange finally (a treaty, peace, etc.)." I certainly do not find anything odd about the phrase "concluded an agreement". But I agree that it could be ambiguous. --ColinFine (talk) 22:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably where it comes from - the _contract_ comes into existence when the _agreement_ is concluded. It's still not normal (or legal) English to compress that into "the conclusion of the contract", though. Tevildo (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Translation from Polish (?) Bulgarian

Could someone translate the following text for me? The information may be helpful in tracking the orthography of a name for an article, unlikely as the source may be. Note that copy-paste has not worked very well for many of the letters, but I don't know enough to make the corrections. The link shows the correct version, I hope:

Kaloyan-Atanasow izmyslil kompiuter zaedno z Clifforden Berry 1939 godina w Iowa State Uniwersity proektiral ustroistwo ABC (Atanasoff-BerryComputer) samo ima edin problem nikuga nie prorabotil taka 4e ako gleda6 6ol na Slavi te towa nie go kazacha estestweno a za Bulgary nie mi gowori gywiach tam i znam dobre kakyw narod sa i nikuga nikuga nie oceniawaj cal narod po niakolko chora ty si ot tozi typ chora kojto gywejat z minalo z towa si izbiwa6 kompleksy 4e w momenta ste naj .....sam si dowyr6y

Thanks. Bielle (talk) 16:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read the language, but the Atanasoff-Berry Computer (which was not what we understand as a "computer" today) was built by John Atanasoff and his assistant Clifford Berry, if those are the names whose spelling you want. --Anonymous, 18:00 UTC, 2009-10-10.

Thanks, 208.76.104.133; I am interested in anything that casts light on the Atanasow/Atanasoff difference. Atansoff's father changed his name to "Ivan Atanasoff". I am looking for the exact form of his name prior to the change which seems to have originated at Ellis Island, and then was formally confirmed by him later. Bielle (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you're aware that in Polish words/names written as "-ow" are pronounced (roughly) "-off", and that American officials at Ellis Island documenting immigrants (many of whom were illiterate and/or non-Anglophone) were apt to write down names according to their own orthography as they thought they heard them, without regard to those immigrants' own usages or preferences? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's Bulgarian, as is the name (Атанасов), which would usually be transliterated as "Atanasov". (Meaning "son of Atanas", a common Bulgarian name, itself derived from Greek Athanasios) The -ov ending is common in Russian and Bulgarian names. (Actually Polish names don't usually have it, they use -ski, but they do have a lot of people of Russian heritage, and in those cases it'd become "-ow", since 'w' is the 'v' sound in Polish) The "-off" transliteration isn't random, I believe it's a French transliteration variant that got carried over into English, esp. in the 19th century. E.g. the Orlov diamond was often written 'Orloff'. And inconsistently: an old edition of the Chekov play might read "Ivanoff, a play by Anton Chekov". Anyway, the original name here would definitely be written "Atanasov" in English today. --Pykk (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I assumed, rather than knew, about the "ow" sounding like "ov", and I did know about the Ellis Island informal name changes. (It happened in other places, too.) The Greek root for the name is interesting and something I did not know. Bielle (talk) 22:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case. . . while I am appreciative of the information provided above by so many, I would still like a translation if that is possible. Continuing thanks Bielle (talk) 01:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the title of you question to attract Bulgarian-speaking users' attention. I hope you don't mind. — Kpalion^(talk) 11:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not being a Bulgarian speaker myself, but it's Bulgarian written by a forum user who has a non-Cyrilic keyboard (see Volapuk encoding) which makes it look like Polish. It starts something like:

"@Kaloyan: Atanasov thought up [the] computer togethr with Clifford Berry in 1939 at ISU [and] planned to build the ABC but one problem, noone [or nowhere?] would take on the work" Why it is written on a Grand Prix forum in an article about Murray Walker I have no idea. Hopefully a proper translation will be along later! Sussexonian (talk) 15:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing like Volapuk encoding (which I hadn't come across - thanks!), but what makes it look odd is the use of 'w' to transliterate Cyrillic 'в': this transliteration works for Polish and German, but in English sources we are more used to seeing it transliterated as 'v'. Incidentally, in Polish the ending cognate with '-ov' is '-ów', pronounced /uf/, not 'ow'. --ColinFine (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 11

Low German map

In the Low German article, the first image represents with yellow color the Low German speaking area. Now, it has two grey "holes" inside it. The norther one should be Saterland Frisian, but I don't know what the other one is. --151.51.3.194 (talk) 10:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's the Oberharz dialect of Erzgebirgisch. +An gr 10:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the standard pronunciation for the affix ‘stein’ that is commonly used at the front and back of some names of persons and places? It seems there is only one option if an ‘n’ is in the coda. That is /steɪn/. An approximate alternative is /staɪn/. Is this correct or is this an exonym from this dialect that a name like ‘Rothstein’ is commonly pronounced as /rɒθstɪːn/ (i.e. ‘stein’ as a 'stean' or 'steen' in the long vowels /ɪː/ or /iː/). Nevill Fernando (talk) 02:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean in the Erzgebirgisch dialect or in standard German? The standard German pronunciation of "Stein" is [ʃtaɪn]. "Rothstein" is pronounced [ˈʁoːtʰʃtaɪn] in German (though the pronunciation of the R varies from region to region).

According to the article, "Hohenstein" is pronounced [huːʂʈeː] in Erzgebirgisch, so "Rothstein" would be [ɰoːtʂʈeː] in that dialect. 195.50.180.194 (talk) 14:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The standards phonemic transcriptions that you provided seems to me a palatalized version than as to their actual representations either in German or in English. To my ears the fricatives ‘s’ seems to be an alveolar. But I do not know. Nevill Fernando (talk) 16:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does grammar reflect the structure of the human world?

And does every human language have subject-object-verb? The Quicksilver (software) seems powerful because it is structured like grammar. Is there any more software that does this? 78.147.28.172 (talk) 13:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Sean 16:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COBOL is pretty English-language/English grammar-oriented. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For an example of a human language that doesn't use Subject Object Verb, see English. In fact, all five other possible orders exist, although some are more common than others. See Subject Verb Object, Object Subject Verb, Object Verb Subject, Verb Object Subject and Verb Subject Object. -Elmer Clark (talk) 01:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I interpreted the question to mean not "Does every language use SOV word order?" but rather "Does every language have subjects, objects, and verbs?", to which my answer is: I've never heard of one that doesn't, but there are lots of things that I've never heard of. +An gr 05:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar is fossilized phrasing: when people say the same thing over and over again, it gets automated, and may eventually get reduced to a grammatical expression, like "I am going to do X" (originally meaning only physical motion toward a goal) becomes "I'm gonna do X" (intention of a goal). So it does reflect society and the human mind, but not directly. If you've ever seen Carol Burnett's elevator skit, where "Floor?" means "Which button would you like me to press for you?" (in the entire skit, I think no sentence is more than one word long), you know how expressive language can be without any grammar whatsoever.

There is no category of "subject" that holds across all languages, so if the word is defined precisely enough to be useful, there are lots of languages without subjects: ergative languages, for example, and those with Austronesian alignment, and even nominative-accusative languages where the nominative is not conflated with a grammatical topic role. "Object" is similarly variable across languages. However, all languages can say s.t. like "X hit Y", where X and Y have different grammatical roles (in some cases, only as suffixes to the verb "X-hit-Y"). All languages have verbs. It's not clear that all languages have nouns: in the Wakashan languages, and to a some extent in Salishan, every lexical word can function as a predicate, so that a word usually translated as "deer" might be more accurately translated as "it-is-a-deer", and the equivalent of "I shot the deer" is both two words and two clauses: "I-shot-it. It-was-a-deer." kwami (talk) 05:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Crystal's Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language is full of interesting stuff like this - well worth a read if you're interested in the topic. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical name meanings

List of Biblical names gives the meanings behind the biblical names. So then where did Roswell Dwight Hitchcock get his list from? When and where did such an original list come from in the first place? Is there a prior list before Hitchcock's list? Why do we claim a biblical name on this list to have its meaning? --12.18.10.148 (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Humanities desk and edited to fit

I was going to suggest you ask the original author of the article, who presumably had access to the book - but that was an IP address that last posted in 2002. Have you looked in Google for the book in question? It's in the public domain, so it's entirely possible that the complete text - including footnotes and explanations, could be available online. Also, many books have the origins of names in general, and the names in the Bible are often Hebrew names whose meanings are well-known. Additionally, many given names have articles of their own in wikipedia. Elizabeth, for example. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your best bet, name by name, is the Jewish Encyclopedia, also on-line. By Hellenistic times, however, the etymology of Hebrew names was no longer in the forefront of anyone's mind.--Wetman (talk) 01:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like further also on this and looking at Google Books does not seem to produce anything. Also the Jewish Encyclopedia website shown from the article does not seem show anything. However with my skills that might not be saying much other than I need further help. For example in the original question of the article List of Biblical names it says the meaning behind Jesus: Jehovah is salvation, deliverer, and help. Where did that come from originally and where did professor Roswell Dwight Hitchcock get that from? --12.18.10.149 (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Jesus" is etymologically the same name as "Joshua". According to the list, both names essentially mean "savior". That's a subtlety that not everyone seems to understand. It's not like they called Him Jesus just because they felt like it. God told Mary to give Him that name, and for a specific and obvious reason. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs -- is that really so? Do you have a source for that assertion? Was the original Joshua's mother contacted by God to call him Joshua as well? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about Jesus. I don't recall offhand where the O.T. Joshua got his name. "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins." (KJV) →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see in the article List of Biblical names Jesus as: Jehovah is salvation; deliverer; help. Jehovah as self-subsisting. So I guess the end result is: "Self-subsisting is salvation." What does that mean? ALSO what does "deliverer" mean. Deliver what to whom? AND that of "help?" Help who with what? Dictionary "subsist": to exist, continue in existence, to remain alive.--12.18.10.153 (talk) 12:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be interesting to get a more specific answer to the above question. When I look in that list it shows Joshua as "a savior" and "a deliverer", not "the Lord saves." To me it looks like Joshua and Jesus meanings come out as the same. What is this of "Self-subsisting is salvation" and that related to the word "help"?--69.95.21.109 (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the OP is asking for the origin of the word in the original language that gave rise to each name in the form we know it, and is thus why we claim a name mean thus-and-so. ~~If the OP is looking for the sources for the meanings, that might be better asked on the Language Desk were there is a lot of etymological expertise.~~ Bielle (talk) 20:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus is just the Greek form of "Joshua", and was used in the original Greek New Testament writings; they would not have been seen as different names. (And means "the Lord saves".) As to the meanings of them all: many are given in the text of the Bible, or given as footnotes by translators. Many of the meanings will be obvious to language scholars, since they are formed from vocab words. I haven't looked at the WP article to see what meanings are given, but if you want to check any particular ones, then look in any footnoted Bible. Gwinva (talk) 22:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Many biblical names are transparent in Hebrew. For example 'Nathan' is the Hebrew root 'n-t-n', which means 'give' (specifically, 'nat(h)an' is the third person singular masculine perfective of the verb on that root, so its primary meaning is 'He gave' or 'He has given'. The many names beginning with 'Ye-' or 'Yo-' are presumed to have a form of the theonym Yahweh, often followed by a recognisable root (eg 'Yonathan' - 'Jonathan' - meaning 'Yahweh has given). Clearly in one sense we cannot be certain of these: perhaps one of them is a borrowing of an unrelated word in another lost language: but as many of them form a self-consistent system, it would seem perverse to discard the obvious etymologies without strong evidence pointing elsewhere. --ColinFine (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some biblical names (esp. those of major characters in Genesis) have their etymology explicitly explained in the text. Some examples would be the names of Isaac, Esau, Jacob, all of the Twelve Tribes of Israel etc. Some other, later characters also have names that are explained in the text, eg Moses. --Dweller (talk) 14:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, the explanations of the names that are found in the text are very often folk etymologies. +An gr 14:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's your POV and not what the source says. If you believed Moses ever lived, there's no reason to doubt that his name derived from an obscure word for the verb "to remove". If you don't believe he lived, it's largely irrelevant what the origin of a fictional person's name was. --Dweller (talk) 14:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) It's also quite possible to believe both that he existed, and that his name is the common Egyptian name element (also rendered as "-mosis" and "-mose") meaning "son" (or "formed of" or "has provided"), perhaps with an original preceding Egyptian-god element such as "Tut-" removed to accord with subsequent Yahwehist sensibilities, given his upbringing as the adopted son of an Egyptian princess. And if you don't believe he existed, its meaning is still relevant to interpreting the folk myths in which the character appears. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 15:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that's possible if you believed he existed but that the bible postdated his life by some considerable period of time. An interesting POV. The bible's own etymology employs a word which is probably Egyptian, given its singularity and the fact that it's ascribed to an Egyptian (not Israelite) namer, which doesn't strike me as particularly "Yahweist", if I understand that word correctly. The OT elsewhere isn't shy of giving us Joseph's Egyptian name, nor, to give another non-"Yahweist" example, the decidedly idolatrous name of Esther (as well as mentioning that her Hebrew name was Hadassah). --Dweller (talk) 15:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, both an interesting POV and a far from uncommon one: see the Documentary hypothesis, which broadly postulates (in its various versions) that some or all of the original sources of the existing Torah were first written down something approaching half a millennium after the purported events of the Exodus. Time enough for oral traditions to acquire both unconscious and deliberate distortions, such as introducing folk-etymological explanations and eliminating the foreign-god element from the name of a Yahwehist hero, bearing in mind that Yahwehist thought followed a trajectory from "Yahweh is our particular god out of the many that exist" through "Other gods are our/our god's enemies" to "Yahweh is the only god that exists." As to contrary instances, complete consistency of approach is unlikely in a body of texts derived from multiple sources variously compiled and redacted at various times. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why exactly would the existence of Moses render the writers of the bible immune from etymological error? Algebraist 15:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A N.T. reference that comes to mind is when Jesus redubbed Simon as "Peter", which means "Rock" - play on words with his "confession of faith", which Jesus also termed a "rock". →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 12

Term for scholarly or literary "detective work"

More specifically, what I have in mind is the art/science of tracking a fact, claim, argument or idea through various texts back to its source. For instance, let's say I read on some website that tigers like cheddar cheese. The website mentions a book as the source, and in turn the book mentions another book, and so on until-- following the citations-- I get to a firsthand account What would be the term for what I was doing? 69.224.112.30 (talk) 00:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Epistemology? Establishing provenance? Finding primary sources? Historiography? (This is specific to history, rather than, for example, science) Perhaps one of those articles has the specific term you're looking for. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Library research. -- Hoary (talk) 14:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In literary research, the activity of identifying the sources of specific stories or other elements found in literary works is often denoted by the German word Quellenforschung ("source research"), but I've never heard the term used for the more general sort of investigation you seem to have in mind. Deor (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quellenforschung is also in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 6^th edition. The headword is in italics, meaning "...although used in English, is still regarded as essentially foreign". Mitch Ames (talk) 09:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would call this "checking sources." John M Baker (talk) 17:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is a word?

Uh... my sister and I have been discussing agglutinative, isolative, and inflectional languages, and it got me thinking... how do you define a word anyways? I already knew that linguists have basically no perfect way to define a "word". Various imperfect description methods are described on the word page, which concludes that "the exact definition of a word is often still very elusive", even after linguists do their best to consider the semantics, phonetics, and pragmatics of the utterance. So you don't always know whether a certain word/phrase is a single word or many. My question is, why don't we say that Mandarin Chinese is strongly agglutinative instead of strongly inflectional? After all, if each word is represented by a single character, why can't you read a sentence and say that it is all one word instead of six little words? And why can't Japanese be considered strongly isolative, with each of the affixes that make up a long word being its own word?

My initial guess is that, although there is no exact definition in a formulaic sense for a word there is some kind of more subtle mental definition, so that even if you can't follow simple rules you can "just tell" whether something is one word or many. But what if I'm wrong there too? Apparently orthography has a lot to do with how we think of words, especially when we live in a world where orthography is so fundamental (compared to people in the Amazon rain forest who never learn to spell yet speak languages that can be just as complicated as Latin). According to the word page, "ice cream" is supposed to be a single compound word linguistically, and is only spelled with a space in the middle because of its derivation from two separate words. Is it possible that the idea of a "word" is just an abstraction that came with the invention of orthography? Maybe French could have been classified as agglutinative if it has a different orthographical history ("Il y est allé" vs. "ilyestallé")?

In short, how, how, how do we know that Mandarin is isolative while Japanese is agglutinative? thx for any ideas Jonathan ^talk 04:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See English compounds#Sound patterns for how prosody in spoken English distinguishes a compound word from the phrase consisting of the same components as free words. Shanghainese has also come to have word stress in recent times (the first syllable's tone spreads over the multisyllable word and the subsequent syllables' tones are disregarded) but Mandarin and Cantonese do not, sticking with the syllable (= character in writing) as the unit. Nevertheless it is said to be an "ideographic myth" (search on that phrase) that Chinese is a monosyllabic language.

Japanese particles after a word are pronounced as part of the word, i.e. they are effectively case suffixes not independent words. Nevertheless romanized Japanese writes the particles as separate words. Japanese, Chinese and Thai are the only major languages that are written with no spaces in their native scripts.

Japanese verb/adjective endings usually are not independent words (though some that are written as part of the word in romaji descend from independent words in Old Japanese) and go in a fixed order. Chinese independent words with the same functions have some flexibility in word order.

French has indeed evolved - another suggestion by Johanna Nichols is that spoken, colloquial French is now at least partly head-marking, in contrast to traditional dependent-marking in European languages other than Basque language. --JWB (talk) 06:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orthography definitely plays a role. And Chinese has lots of set phrases, which need to be learned almost like words. But there's more to it than that. In Chinese (well, Classical Chinese, anyway), you can use each meaningful unit on its own. In Japanese you cannot. A basic rule of thumb is: If you make a mistake while speaking, how far back to you have to go to correct yourself? That unit that you have to repeat in its entirety is the word. In Inuit, where "I bought some fish last night" is a single word, you really do have to repeat the whole thing if you mess up just the end. kwami (talk) 06:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orthography indeed. Would a word counter count "alot" as one word, or two words misspelled as one? Maybe it's in that twilight zone where it's very commonly seen, but not yet accepted (afaik) by any dictionary as a legitimate word. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find that most linguistic investigations of this kind of thing take orthography as little more than a first stage toward a definition of word. If we make the (dubious) assumption that "a" is a full-blown word (rather than a mere clitic), then "a lot", however (mis) spelt, will be two words, as these could easily be instead "an awful lot". More interesting is "a helluva lot"; clearly it's now so written because of convention (originally of the representation of macho dialogue in second-rate novels, I suppose), but if we were free to overturn convention, might it better be "ahelluv alot"? On reflection, I don't think it should: it seems to me that on the contrary "hell of a" is edging toward the status of indivisible adjective. -- Hoary (talk) 09:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your "basic rule of thumb" looks interesting, but I'm not sure it always works. "I'm going to the theater (doh!) cinema", could be accepted, but how about the following sentence: "This time you won't get away with beat (doh!) it!"... HOOTmag (talk) 09:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This rule of thumb looks very interesting indeed. Hootmag's tentatively proposed counterexample strikes me as odd for unrelated reasons that I'm too lazy to spell out fully; I'd say that "Next time you won't get away with murder (doh!) it" is OK though borderline (I'd guess because "it" seems phonologically inadequate to the task), while "Give the sandwich to it (doh!) him" is fine. In my idiolect, at least. -- Hoary (talk) 09:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about: "We started together, but he beat me to him (doh!) it!..."? HOOTmag (talk) 16:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are certainly intermediate cases like a lot, which are in the process of lexicalizing. Also phonogically weak words which are half-way to being clitics. But it's at least enough to show the general typology of the language.

As for the counter example, if you get the part of speech wrong, you will normally need more context to clarify which word you're correcting. But if both words are grammatically correct ("beat him--I mean it"; "beat--I mean show--him"), then it usually works. kwami (talk) 16:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problems are the circularities and similarities that sometimes undermine entire meanings, though they are necessary for continuum (like kwami points out).

On the question why a language is said to be agglutinative instead of strongly inflectional, the distinguishing factor is the ‘syntheses’ in a morphosyntatic element. That is, few lexemes can be a synthetic element. An inflection on the other hand is the morphological affixsation that is determined by the rules of syntax in a given lexeme.

On the concept that the idea 'a word is just an abstraction that cames with the invention of orthography', yes; it seems to be alike, or other way around like ‘An orthography is the abstraction of word’. That is, a word can still consist of a sign and its referent without its orthography; for example, protowords. Nevill Fernando (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You probably want to avoid basing your definition on a language's orthography, since a language may lump together or separate glyphs for any number of reasons. I prefer to think in terms of "lexemes" rather than "words" — a lexeme being a part of the language that is discreet and has its own meaning, such that it is worthy of inclusion in a dictionary. To take the Japanese example, particles might be bound to nouns in the strictest grammatical sense, but they still have distinct meanings and will be listed in the dictionary. Paul Davidson (talk) 13:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Small point, but I think this discussion has conflated two kinds of particle in Japanese. Kara is an adposition, o is a case-marker, ni can be either. Even o will appear in a dictionary but this says less about its semantic content than it does about lexicographic conventions. -- Hoary (talk) 14:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the glyphs are simply the representations of time in many languages; the duration of time in a grapheme as to its actual phonemic representation. It usually occurs between onset and rhyme or in the coda in general but for the vowels in particular. However, I am not sure on this.

About particles: They are just different lexemes in compound words but in varying syntactic rules in orthography than the regular compound words usually. Nevill Fernando (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Off

I'm looking through a library copy of the book After the Off, photos by Bruce Gilden, story by Dermot Healy. Perhaps the dust cover explains the title but the former was junked before the book was ever lent out. The (remarkable) photographs show the spectators at one or more horse races in Ireland. Perhaps in part because of gimmicky typography, I have great trouble making any sense of the story, but as far as I've noticed it has merely a single, unexplained mention of "off", in "before the off". I know squat about horse racing and normally wouldn't much care, but I'm troubled by my inability even to understand the apparently simple title of a book in English. So: What would a/the "off" be in an Irish horse race? -- Hoary (talk) 12:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The off" refers to the start of the race, e.g. some betting companies allow you to bet "after the off", or check out the usage here [4] Tinfoilcat (talk) 12:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[ec] The search results I'm getting seem to indicate that "before the off" and "after the off" refer to bets placed before and after the race starts ("and they're off!"). None of the results I looked at gave a specific definition, which is why I haven't provided a link, but here's my Google search. --LarryMac | Talk 12:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even in the United States, of course, racetrack announcers invariably say "And they're off …" to signal the start of races. Deor (talk) 13:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, of course. Thank you all! -- Hoary (talk) 13:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"0.57 second" or "0.57 seconds"?

See "0.57 second" or "0.57 seconds"?. ___A. di M. 23:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In English there are few absolute rules. That said, to me as an American, "0.57 second" looks more "correct", but "0.57 seconds" looks and sounds more "natural". I would say that neither form is clearly incorrect, so you can use either form. Marco polo (talk) 00:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Typically an American would say "1 second" and "n seconds" where n is any number besides exactly 1. Even "0 seconds". Why? I don't know. He's on third. :) →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Style guides universally recommend "0.57 second" (for the same reason that one writes "one-half mile", for instance, rather than "one-half miles"). Unfortunately, our template {{convert}} doesn't see things that way; if one enters 0.5 mile into it, it produces "0.5 miles (0.80 km)". Deor (talk) 01:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"One-half mile" would be the formal way to say it, but you're more likely to hear "half a mile", which does use the singular. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a case where the spoken and written forms vary. Style guides may well recommend we write "0.57 second". But reading that out loud literally sounds, well, wrong. In my experience, people are much more likely to say "point five seven seconds". Possibly because ".... seven second" goes against the grain, even if the "seven" here represents only .07. OTOH, they'd say "point five seven of a second" (not "of seconds"). Would style guides recommend "zero second"? I'd be surprised. -- JackofOz, masquerading as 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, as a speaker of Commonwealth/International english, 0.57 seconds both looks and sounds more natural (I don't know of anyonee who would naturally say or write "0.57 second"), though neither looks or sounds as natural as 0.57 of a second (which is grammatically and mathematically accurate - it is part of one second after all). This is also in line with "half a mile", which is likely a natural contraction of "half of a mile". The formal way to say that would be "one half mile", with no hyphen — which again is logical, since two half miles equals one mile, i.e., a "half mile" is an acceptable base unit of measure in itself. Once you include decimal places, it becomes clear that you are not using the "half" as the unit of measurement - 0.5 miles is therefore more appropriate. As such "one half mile" not really a fair analogy to the "0.57 seconds" case. Grutness...wha? 06:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine to call it "Commonwealth English", even though the English of Canada, part of the Commonwealth, is much closer to American English than to the British standard that is really the basis of so-called Commonwealth English. However, please don't call it "International", implying that American English is merely a national variety limited to the United States. Not only is a variety of American English used in Canada (if with mostly British spellings), but American English is the preferred form in Latin America as well as much of East and Southeast Asia. The British standard is a perfectly acceptable standard, but it is arrogant and incorrect to imply that it is the international standard.

Style guides for written text do not always reflect spoken English. On Wikipedia we write 13 October 2009 (or October 13, 2009) whereas I actually say "the thirteenth of September two thousand and nine". -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't it get confusing if you say "September" for the month we write as "October" on Wikipedia? +An gr 16:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why this was posted both here and at WT:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), but it's giving me vertigo. See my reply there, and let's decide where we want to have this discussion. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In English, we don't really have a plural, we have a non-singular: anything other than unity is "plural". "One-X mile" is an exception, possibly because of the word "one". kwami (talk) 06:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dammit, I've just wasted many 0.57 secondses reading this. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was a thread on this subject fairly recently in alt.usage.english (under the subject line "Zero points?"). Summary: usage varies. At least one poster said it made a difference whether the number between 0 and 1 was expressed as a fraction or a decimal. --Anonymous, 10:33 UTC, October 13, 2009.

That's pretty much my point above. Grutness...wha? 12:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 13

English creoles

What English Creole is most intelligible to English speakers? HOOTmag (talk) 10:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Middle English? (a creole according to at least some linguists I believe) Mikenorton (talk) 11:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the consensus is that Middle English was probably not a creole, and even if it was, it is pretty unintelligible to modern English speakers, at least until you get the hang of correcting for the Great Vowel Shift. For speakers of American English, at least, I think that Gullah is relatively intelligible, if only because it shares some features with African American Vernacular English, which may itself be a Creole, in which case it is even more intelligible than Gullah. Marco polo (talk) 13:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic

Can someone who understand Arabic please translate User:Ani medjool wikiped webpage. Thank you.

I'm the truth, and the truth comes from me.

Thanks to God (or rather: Praise to God).

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

bejeebees

i have been in the states for ten years and think i heard of this word as in putting the b into someone as in making them frightened. does such a word exist, how is it spelt and where are its origins? thank you for your time looking into this