Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Reference desk

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 128.104.112.179 (talk) at 16:08, 23 October 2009 (→wikipedia etiquette). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.
skip to bottom
Select a section:
Shortcut
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.
See also:


October 16

Boccaccio

What are various spellings or variations of the name "Boccaccio"? 12.171.237.36 (talk) 00:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is often misspelled (by me) as Bocaccio or Boccacio, but that's not really a variation as much as it is just wrong. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just imagine the fun customers could have with a food place called "Boccaccio's Focaccia". If it were a notable establishment, its WP article would need 15 redirects.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Off with his/her/their head(s)!

How would one go about saying "Off with his/her/their head(s)!" in German?

Filosojia X Non(Philosophia X Known) 00:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

In this translation of Alice in Wonderland, the Red Queen Queen of Hearts says "Ihren Kopf ab!" (for "her head") and "Ihre Köpfe ab!" (for "their heads"). Deor (talk) 00:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!!! Filosojia X Non(Philosophia X Known) 00:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philosophia X Known (talk • contribs)

To complete the series, "Off with his head" would be "Seinen Kopf ab!". Marco polo (talk) 01:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And if the ruler was seriously annoyed, would it be "Seinen Dummkopf ab!" as in "off with his fool head"? →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 07:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I realise you're probably joking, but still: nah, despite having "Kopf" in it, "Dummkopf" always refers to a person, not a head, so that sentence wouldn't make sense. TomorrowTime (talk) 09:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But you could say "Seinen dummen Kopf ab!" to mean "Off with his stupid head!". Marco polo (talk) 12:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It occurs to me that Dummkopf is a good example of a bahuvrihi compound. +Angr 14:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoying someone's support

There are 252 million google hits for "enjoy support". That tells me that "to enjoy <someone's> support" is a very well-accepted expression. But it's hardly colloquial, not in my part of the world anyway. People usually talk about something or someone "having" support, or not. Except that I heard a local politician being interviewed on radio this afternoon, and he was talking about a proposed new casino. He was saying that such a proposal would need to "enjoy bipartisan support" to be a goer. He used that expression about 6 times in 2 minutes. Which got me wondering about the use of the word "enjoy" in this context. The only entities that can usually be said to enjoy anything are animate beings. How can an abstract idea, such as the establishment of a casino, be said to "enjoy" anything? Where did this expression come from, and why is it still used in certain registers but not others? -- JackofOz (talk) 07:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's used a lot when the support is the support of someone/something that would be seen as beneficial, and where 'enjoy' roughly means 'is lucky enough to have'. i.e., "the proposal enjoys the support of the charismatic Bill Clinton" or something like that. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 07:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is kind of an annoying media-hype term, yes? Regardless, my old Webster's gives two definitions of "enjoy": (1) To have satisfaction in experiencing, possessing, etc.; and (2) To have possession or use of; to have the benefit of. The latter would seem to fit the media usage, and squares with what Rjanag just said above. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 07:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hear it quite often during pledge drives on my local NPR radio station. It's usually used in a sentence such as "NPR enjoys the support of Larsen's Biscuits". Meaning that Larsen's gave NPR or the local VPR affiliate some money to fund whatever program is on at the time. Dismas|(talk) 09:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be acceptable for inanimate entities to be said to "enjoy" the support of someone or something. I don't think it is far removed from the enjoyment logically experienced by sentient beings. Bus stop (talk) 10:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the very sentience of sentient beings is what enables them to have perceptions and feelings. Ideas and proposals are not sentient and have no awareness of anything. But let's not get too distracted by this. I understand that "enjoy" has different meanings in different contexts. I'm now more interested in how and when the word came to be used for the sorts of cases I referred to in my question, when it normally refers to a person or animal having positive feelings when they eat a bone, or listen to a piece of music, or read a book, or have sex. Or edit Wikipedia. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant sense is the OED′s sense 4, "to have the use or benefit of, have for one's lot (something which affords pleasure, or is of the nature of an advantage)". The early quotations cited for this sense—going back to the mid 15th century—all have personal subjects; the first one with an impersonal, or at least a nonhuman, subject is from 1874: "Animals enjoying a much lower degree of intelligence." (That example would seem to me to belong rather to the following section of examples, in which the word is "sometimes used catachr[estically] with obj. denoting something not pleasurable or advantageous", but what do I know? The earliest citation for that particular usage with an impersonal subject is from 1871: "The reigns of Alexander Severus and Caracalla … enjoyed an unhappy distinction for their grinding taxation.")
Aside from one quotation from 1950, presumably added to show that the sense "to have one's will of (a woman)" is still current (the next most recent quotation for that sense being from Milton), the whole entry for the verb enjoy contains no quotations later than the 1870s; so it has probably undergone essentially no revision since it was written for the first edition. One would have to look elsewhere for early uses of the specific expression "enjoy support". Deor (talk) 12:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question about your question. You say, "…why is it still used in certain registers but not others?" My question is, in what registers is it not used? Bus stop (talk) 13:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've never heard it used that way in any conversation I've ever had with anyone, or overheard. I have heard politicians use it, and I have read it as used by journalists. That's what I meant. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You wouldn't really hear it in conversation because it's writing language. That doesn't necessarily make it weird; there are plenty of things (like "purchase" as a verb?) that appear almost exclusively in writing. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My Webstr's is from about 1960, so this usage is clearly not new, although it seems to have become used more frequently over time. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 14:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the phrase is fashion-forward, so it probably gets more than its fair share of abuse and misapplication. Bus stop (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back (as ever) to The Bard (1564–1616), (Sonnet 29):

  • How, may you ask, can he be least-contented with what he most enjoys? But (as indicated above) "enjoy" refers to the qualities, talents and possessions that the Author does possess, rather than to his present satisfaction with or delight in them. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice example, thanks Bardscene. One would need to be careful about bandying this expression around, though. Someone who said "I enjoy bipolar syndrome, occasional suicidal feelings and peptic ulcers", would need to be very prepared to be misunderstood. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution: ...the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial... – That's not media hype, is it? —Tamfang (talk) 08:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third cousin twice removed

Does anyone know hot to say something like "third cousin twice removed" in French? Or if it's more complicated that that, is there any pattern in French for the "names" of cousins? Thanks for your time. 169.231.34.158 (talk) 08:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Xth cousin is "cousin au Xième degré", but this may be wrong. You can also say cousin germain for 1st cousin, and cousin issu de germain for 2nd cousin. [1] may help, and [2]. 129.67.37.143 (talk) 12:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "X times removed" part seems to not exist in many (European) languages other than English. --80.123.210.172 (talk) 13:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to my dictionary (Robert &Collins Senior 2002). First cousin = cousin germain, second cousin = cousin issu de germain or petit cousin. Once removed = au deuxième degré, Twice removed = au troisième degré. I think we can infer: "third cousin twice removed"= petit-petit cousin au troisième degré or arrière-petit cousin au troisième degré. But I have never read or heard about such phrases in French. I am not a specialist of French genealogy vocabulary. – AldoSyrt (talk) 14:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen such degree of precision used in French either. After "issu de germain", you would fall into "cousin éloigné" (distant cousin). --Xuxl (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen such degree of precision used in English! The system exists, but few outside genealogical circles understand it. I think two people linked by such a distant relationship as third cousin twice removed would have no more in common genetically than two people chosen at random from an ethnic group. --Tango (talk) 14:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Funnily enough, when I tell people that my second cousin four times removed has his own Wikipedia page, their eyes tend to glaze over. Marnanel (talk) 17:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See here [[3]] for an amazing degree of precision (in French) — AldoSyrt (talk) 12:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect anagrams of notable people's names

Here's your homework for the weekend.

I've been wondering lately (I do a lot of wondering, in case you hadn't noticed) whether there are any good examples of two notable people whose names are perfect anagrams of each other.

When I say "perfect anagrams", I mean that close is not close enough.

The people don't need to have anything in common other than notability, but if they do have other commonalities, so much the better.

There are many trivial cases, but let's ignore them. Cases where just one of the names is altered (e.g. Ronald Smith/Roland Smith) fall into my definition of trivial. There has to be some mingling of all the letters, more than just John Andrews/Andrew Johns.

The more well-known both people are, the better.

You can use their full names or just their given names + surnames. Or any other forms by which they were commonly known. So, in JFK's case, you might come up with an anagram of John Kennedy (such as Donny E. H. Jenk, if such a person existed and was notable), or of John F. Kennedy, or of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Or indeed of Jack Kennedy.

Go to it. I expect a full list of answers on my desk by Monday morning.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 10:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do your own homework.
Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. ;-) —— Shakescene (talk) 20:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, heh. I did say this was your homework. Do you need any help?  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's an anagram website that will do all this work for anyone who wants to. I'll have to find it. I told User:Theresa Knott about it some time back, and that's where she got some of her anagrams. Ironically, this is one question where that one long-standing troll could actually make himself useful. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 14:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is: [4] It doesn't create initials, but it did come up with this for John F. Kennedy:
Fed Jenny Honk
Fed Ken Johnny
Def Jenny Honk
Def Ken Johnny
There's only so much you can do with some of these. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 14:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jenny Honk doesn't seem to be notable. There are a number of anagram sites, but I haven't found any that cite notable name:=notable name. Looks like we're going to have to do our own homework.--Shantavira|feed me 15:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was always my expectation. I'm aware of those sites, but they don't help for questions like this. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From the world of sports, with a slight bit of cheating: Rod Laver/Dave L. Orr. Deor (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm making a list for you. --Sean 19:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A list: User:TotoBaggins/Anagrams. It's not perfect, since I don't have the WP database, so there are a lot of redirects and other cruft, and I only knocked out the top few dozen not-name stop words ("University", etc.), but it's something to look over. It's basically all anagrammatic two-word English WP article titles with name-like capitalization and a variety of cruft-removal schemes applied. There are surely both false positives and false negatives, since there might be a person named "Jack University" out there. --Sean 20:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very good, Sean. I'll have a good look through your list and pick the best of them. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This can become a bit trivial, since some first (Christian) names are anagrams of each other, e.g. Michael and Micheal, or Ronald, Roland, Arnold and Roldan. If your name was Ronald Smythe, you might easily name your son Roland Smythe (In fact when working on a census, I ran across a form where Ronald —— named all his sons with anagrams of Ronald: Roland ——, Roldan ——, Ranold ——, etc.) I think women's first names are even more anagrammable (e.g. Jean and Jane, Mary and Myra). And then there are the trans-sexual anagrams such as Roman, Ramon and Norma or Carlo and Carol. Of course both the parent and the child still need to be notable. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really interested in anything trivial, and I did specify that. An anagram where just one of the names is altered falls into my definition of trivial, and I've added that to the question. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another list. I got a bit carried away. Who knew that "Presidents of Somalia" and "List of Ranma episodes" were anagrams? -- BenRG (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Thanks Ben. I hardly know any of the names, but I'll endeavour to rectify that. As for the others, there are some real beauties, like Potential suicide and Social ineptitude. It's a pity that Scaled Fruiteater is not one of our Featured Articles. There's a challenge for someone. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I constructed something approximating a list of "notable" actors/actresses and directors by downloading the raw IMDB data files of those credits (now about 800 megabytes!) and deleting all names that did not have at least 50 credits, arbitrarily counting a TV episode credit as just 1/50 of a credit. "Actors" here includes people who appear as themselves or who appear in archive footage, but I figure it's appropriate to include those when notability is what we're going for; for example, I was surprised to see that James Dean made the list despite the brevity of his career, due to many appearances in archive footage.

So it turned out that there were 18,203 names on the list. Since we were working in English, I stripped accents as well as punctuation for anagramming purposes, and I found a total of 8 nontrivial anagrams. I have attempted to provide Wikipedia links to the correct person if that person has an article.

  • Joan Chen / John Cena
  • Donna Marie / Edna Marion
  • Michael Yama (actor 1978-) / Michaela May (actress 1965-)
  • Antrim Short (actor 1913-37) / Martin Short
  • Marta Flores (actress 1937-2002) / Rafael Storm (actor 1930-45)
  • Lee Grant / Ángel Ter (actor 1949-87)
  • José Loza (actor 1949-2001) / Lajos Öze (actor 1955-86)
  • Elle Rio (porn actress 1984-93) / Lorelei (porn actress 1990--)

There were also 8 trivial anagrams, which I list for the record.

--Anonymous, 05:50 UTC, October 17, 2009.

Kudos to Deor, Sean, BenRG and Anonymous for your efforts. I will make good use of all your results.
I'm still a little disappointed that there's no example so far of a pair of people who are both "internationally famous" (the definition of which is "a person JackofOz knew about before looking in their Wikipedia article"). Maybe there just isn't such a case. But things can change; who knows, maybe Frode Haltli will become the André Rieu of the accordion one day. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody famous? Obviously Jack hasn't watched enough porn! :-) (Me neither.) --Anonymous, 11:26 UTC, October 18, 2009.
OK, so, how about Wikipedia articles whose titles are anagrams of other Wikipedia articles? --jpgordon::==( o ) 00:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stop right there!! Don't even remember that idea was even posted. Because everyone knows what will happen next: there will be a Wikipedia rule (pardon me, guideline, but try telling that to a robot) WP:NOTAGRAM against creating article titles that are anagrams of existing titles of anything that exists in any Wikipedia or Wikimedia in any language. The burden of searching for such a potential WP:Anagram fork will be on the article's creator, of course, but 'bots will be devised to rename every article that is an anagram of any other. However, I've said far, far too much already. Be like Dad, keep Mum (Le bike Dad, peek Mum.) See you at the WP:RfC. —— Shakescene (talk) 03:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Categories for renaming??? Grutness...wha? 22:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting back

I'm gradually going through the very long list (127 printed pages) that TotoBaggins/Sean created. The best pair I've found so far is Philip Marlowe (the fictional PI) and William Hopper (the real-life actor who played the fictional PI Paul Drake in the original b/w TV series Perry Mason). -- JackofOz (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've now gone through the entire list. The only other non-trivial pair that sprang out at me was Alexander Downer and Andrew Olexander. Both were Liberal Party of Australia politicians who were known for saying and doing incredibly stupid things in their time in opposition. Downer sort of redeemed himself when he decided to become a statesman, and was our longest serving Foreign Minister 1996-2007; Olexander never made it to government. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Old English words

What are these old English words exactly: foundun hauynge ? --74.219.90.114 (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but I found where you found the quote, maybe someone else can help more: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Marie "1380s Wycliffe version of the Bible: Matthew 1:18: Whanne Marie, the modir of Jhesu, was spousid to Joseph, bifore thei camen togidere, she was foundun hauynge of the Hooli Goost in the wombe." Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Those don't look like Old English, they look more like Middle English or simply old-fashioned spellings of modern English. Anyway, foundun is "found" and hauynge is "having". Malcolm XIV (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The full sentence, then, is approximately as follows: "When Mary, the mother of Jesus, was married to Joseph, before they came together, she was found having the Holy Spirit in her womb." Malcolm XIV (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close, but the "of" is important: The meaning is "she was found to have [a child] of the Holy Ghost in the womb." Wyclif was closely rendering the Greek εὐρέθη ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχουσα ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου and wound up with something not quite idiomatic in English. The Holy Ghost was not personally hanging out in Mary's womb. Deor (talk) 21:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not idiomatic in current English, but it might have been in the 1380s. --Tango (talk) 14:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right; all I can say is that I can't recall ever seeing this particular use of intransitive have and that it isn't recorded in the OED or in any of the Middle English glossaries I have at hand. It's still my impression that this is an imposition of the Greek idiom on English rather than a use of a genuinely native idiom. (The Vulgate, following the Greek word for word, has "inventa est in utero habens de Spiritu Sancto"; and that doesn't seem to me to be idiomatic Latin, either.) Deor (talk) 17:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The 1380s would have been Middle English according to our article. --Tango (talk) 14:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see that in the John Wycliffe article it says that he completed his translation directly from the Vulgate into vernacular English in the year 1382. It does not say he translated from Greek, but from Latin. Nowhere do I see that he knew Greek. Am I wrong? --66.76.169.20 (talk) 20:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he translated from the Vulgate; but as I pointed out above, the Latin here is a lexical and syntactic match for the original Greek, so it seems better to go to the original when seeking the meaning of a somewhat obscure idiom that is reproduced in both the Latin and English versions. I'm going to stay out of the subsection below, which, in the most charitable interpretation, deals with matters outside the scope of this ref desk. Deor (talk) 12:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Deor for your response. Noone else cared to tackle this point, so I would have to say you are definitely the doer. I didn't think John Wycliffe knew Greek.--66.76.169.20 (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Ghost

So then explain "of the Holy Ghost."--74.219.90.114 (talk) 23:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I did. What is it that you don't understand? The basic meaning of the nominative feminine participle ἔχουσα is "having", but in Greek (especially with the ἐν γαστρὶ in this sentence) it can idiomatically mean "being pregnant"; Wyclif literally translated it as "having", but at the cost of making his English sentence somewhat opaque. The phrase ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου means "of [or 'from'] the Holy Ghost". One might therefore render the Greek as "she was found [to be] pregnant by the Holy Ghost", but Wyclif was trying to produce a word-for-word translation. Deor (talk) 23:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't believe you did to a layman to understand. Explain exactly that of the "Holy Ghost" is, that apparently today is called the "Holy Spirit." Explain in detail to me what this is that is called the "Holy Spirit." I believe if we knew the exact meaning of this term, perhaps the average layman, that is not religious, could better understand what Wyclif was really trying to say. Keep in mind to keep it simple for those of us that don't necessarly believe in the Jesus story or in the Christian faith. Bottomline please explain that of the "Holy Ghost/ "Holy Spirit." I do believe in John Wyclif however.--74.219.90.114 (talk) 12:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Virgin birth of Jesus and Holy Spirit. Deor (talk) 13:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. I did read the complete articles. However still don't get what the Holy Spirit is from a non religious point of view. Please don't have me read several more articles just to skirt the question. Just tell me bottomline in simple layman terms that is not from a Christian point of view what the Holy Ghost is or maybe I'll get the impression you really don't know. Then what you told me above won't have much value and credibility. Perhaps Wyclif knew what he was talking about all along, without others having to put other words in his speaking.--74.219.90.114 (talk) 13:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Holy Ghost/Spirit (the two are synonymous and are both in contemporary use) is an entirely religious concept, so your question makes no sense. --Tango (talk) 14:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trinity might help, although it will probably take a few readings, and giving your imagination free reign, for it to start to make sense. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 15:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is the Holy Ghost? The Holy Ghost is God. The trinity in a nutshell: God the Father is God. Jesus (God the son) is God. The Holy Spirit is God. They aren't three Gods, they're only one God, but three persons. If that doesn't make complete sense, well, it's not really supposed to. The doctrine of the trinity is considered by the Roman Catholic church to be one of the mysteries of faith - things which are taken to be true, but beyond our limited human understanding. The best humans can do is analogies like Saint Patrick's shamrock (three leaves, one stem). The Holy Spirit is frequently represented by a dove or by wind, and most often mentioned in contexts where God sends grace or divine power to someone or some thing. (In Catholic theology, the Holy Spirit is also thought to be the manifestation of God the Father's love for God the Son (Jesus).) In the context of the passage, God the Father is sending God the Holy Spirit to Mary to impregnate her with God the Son. That's why the "of" is critical - it's being used in the same sense as traditional fathering. At the time the passage was written, it would not have been uncommon to say something along the lines of "Susan is hauynge of Steven" meaning that Steven is the biological father of her child, fathering it in the usual way. -- 128.104.112.179 (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Humans make this stuff up and then call it a "mystery of faith". →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 16:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I looked up the meanings of the words with online dictionaries and came up with this:
  • holy = exalted or worthy of complete devotion as one perfect in goodness and righteousness; having a divine quality
  • spirit = The vital principle or animating force within living beings; the part of a human associated with the mind, will, and feelings; the essential nature of a person.
So for a simple combination using both words in that order of "Holy Spirit" one might say that might produce something like:
  • an extremely good spirited person
  • an extremely good vital person
  • a righteousness energetic lively person - a good vital leader
  • an extremely good and righteousness human being
Just by using the direct meanings of the words and not involving religion, it looks like to me it could mean a person that is good, righteousness, and dedicated and immersed in doing righteousness moral things. So maybe he is baptized in the holy spirit - a good attitude, one of good morals. Makes sense to me and certainly no mystery. --66.76.169.20 (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you not involve religion when interpreting a Bible verse? Holy Spirit means that particular aspect of the Christian god, it has no other meaning. The verse is describing God making Mary pregnant, there is no ambiguity there. --Tango (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting point of view, IF you believe in the Christian god and that religion - which millions worldwide do not. It looks like to me more people worldwide do not believe in Christianity than do. So for myself I would rather put these New Testament verses in easy plain English terms that any layman can understand and keep out of this "mysteries of faith." I do not believe in throwing caution to the wind and would rather try to find a good logical answer than just a "mystery." Good logical answers has got me further in life than throwing caution to the wind. Having a God make Mary pregnant does not make sense to me. It is one of those "mysteries", which just doesn't make sense. I have an idea now how babies are made - and I can pretty much guarantee you it isn't that way.--66.76.169.20 (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not religious, but I know that the Bible is a religious text. Therefore, I interpret it from a religious point of view. It is very clear that the intended meaning is that God made her pregnant. Trying to put any meaning into it other than that which the writer intended is pointless. --Tango (talk) 20:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To better comprehend the concept, you have to "pretend that Christianity is true" and try to understand it from that viewpoint. Applying science or geometric logic to religion is like trying to tie a hair-ribbon onto a bolt of lightning (apologies to W.C. Fields). →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 21:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not clear to me that God made her pregnant. Nothing could be more illogical. It is not of the God I believe in would do as a logical item. My God that I believe in does logical things. That is not in the least logical. Maybe to those that believe in the Christian faith, which looks like a minority worldwide, might believe this "mysterious" faith where one has to throw caution to the wind. In the John Wycliffe lines of Matthew 1:18 he writes "she was foundun hauynge of the Hooli Goost in the wombe", which looks like to me then means "she was found having of the holy spirit in the womb." Womb according to online dictionaries is: A place where something is generated. Now we have "she was found having of a moral person in the place where something is generated." Maybe Jesus was not even a person, but perhaps a concept instead. It is alright to give views other than Christianity, isn't it? Wikipedia doesn't kid people off if they give other viewpoints, do they? If that is the case I can not even "pretend that Christianity is true", for I feel it is a mere myth. How do you know what the original writer intended, as you do not know the original writer. That is just your interpretation from a Christian viewpoint. We are allowed to see it from another viewpoint other that that of Christianity, aren't we? To follow up, nobody has answered my point that I do not believe that John Wycliffe even knew Greek - as the article does not mention that.--66.76.169.20 (talk) 22:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is religion. Logic don't enter into it! The theory is that Mary was impregnated directly by God, thus Jesus was born without "original sin". Your next question is probably, "Huh? What?" Like I said, logic does not figure into it. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 22:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We haven't claimed that God made her pregnant, we have said that the Bible says God made her pregnant. That is simple fact. I am not Christian, I consider the Bible to be a mixture of warped history and myth, but I know what it says. There is no point trying to interpret the Bible from any point of view other than Christianity since the Bible is the sacred text of Christianity - it has no other purpose. --Tango (talk) 22:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 22:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Read how Aphrodite was generated, and suddenly the Christian story almost makes sense by comparison. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 22:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Christianity story just does not make sense no matter what. Bugsie, I sure hate to Tango you up, but John Wycliffe wrote Matthew 1:18 as:

  • But the generacioun of Crist was thus. Whanne Marie, the modir of Jhesu, was spousid to Joseph, bifore thei camen togidere, she was foundun hauynge of the Hooli Goost in the wombe.

I do not see "impregnated" in there anywhere or even anything that even remotely looks like that. Ya'lls skirted a couple of points I asked.

1) Wikipedia doesn't kick people off if they give other viewpoints, do they?
2) Nobody has answered my point that I do not believe that John Wycliffe even knew Greek.

From one that does not believe in Christianity I see Wycliffe's line above as:

  • But the production of the formally selected one was thus. Rebellion, that which gave rise to self help, was associated to increase, but before rebellion came together with increase, it was found having of moralities in the place where it was generated.
  • generacion = production
  • Crist = anointed, formally selected one
  • Marie = rebellion
  • modir = something that gives rise to something else
  • Jhesu = help, self help
  • spousid = associated
  • Joseph = increase
  • foundun = found
  • hauynge = having
  • Holy Spirit = moralities
  • womb = place where it was generated
  • "Jesus" (pronounced /ˈdʒiːzəs/) is a transliteration, occurring in a number of languages and based on the Latin Iesus, of the Greek

Ἰησοῦς (Iēsoûs), itself a Hellenisation of the Hebrew יהושע(Yehoshua) or Hebrew-Aramaic ישוע(Yeshua, Joshua), meaning "YHWH rescues" or "YHWH delivers".

  • "Christ" (pronounced /ˈkraɪst/) is a title derived from the Greek Χριστός (Christós), meaning the "Anointed One", a translation of the Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ

I have been talking of the New Testament and John Wycliffe. Have not studied the O. T. I certainly do not see this as a spiritual view, just as a logical view. Makes sense to me. You would have to agree with me that diplomacy is better than a rebellion (i.e. edit wars), don't you? If you do, then it would be the preferred method and the formally selected one. Interesting response I got on this and I can certainly see how entrenced the Christian faith is in our society. By substituting the meanings of the words, the sentence makes sense. But a god impregnating a virgin sounds illogical and a lot like a myth to me. We have not advanced that much in religion over the last few thousand years.
Everyone has chosen not to answer the point that the article on John Wycliffe does not say he knew Greek. So on that bases I will have to assume he did not, therefore the parts of him rendering Greek in a certain fashion does not have any credibility - since apparently he didn't know Greek, therefore could not have translated from it. I read that he translated from Latin.--66.76.169.20 (talk) 12:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this had better be my last comment on this issue. The Virgin Birth is indeed a myth - however, the word "myth" does _not_ imply that the story is _false_. Christians believe it to be true, non-Christians do not. The idea of a god impregnating a virgin isn't _illogical_, unless you consider any sort of miracle to be "illogical" - implying that the "laws of Nature" are on an equal footing with abstract logic, a viewpoint that is by no means universally held. Finally, there have been many better translations of the Bible into English since Wyclif's; if you want to produce your own "logical" translation without starting from the Greek, the NIV or the NEB (execrably bad prose, but an accurate translation) would be a better target. Tevildo (talk) 14:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its a totally different viewpoint and certainly not Christianity and not religion and not beliefs in myths. Now if you want to kick me off Wikipedia for expressing my viewpoints, then it is obvious who has control of Wikipedia. Then no other viewpoints can be expressed other than that religion. --66.76.169.20 (talk) 23:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you want to interpret the Bible from anything other than a Christian viewpoint? --Tango (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One may wish to interpret it from a Jewish perspective. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 19:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps there are other messages here in the New Testament. Perhaps moral messages. In my viewpoint then in what I came up with for Matthew 1:18 I see it as negotiations and diplomacy is far better and a preferred method over a rebellion (i.e. edit wars). You certainly can agree with me on this, can't you? I see messages like this throughout the New Testament since I am not tied to the Christian faith.--66.76.169.20 (talk) 23:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a "message", it's just you misinterpreting a religious text (and getting something that makes even less sense than the Nativity story - at least that makes sense as a work of fiction). What you are doing is no better than the Bible code. --Tango (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have made my detailed logical arguments and am not going to tango any further with you on this since you are not providing logical details, which just bugs me.--66.76.169.20 (talk) 12:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A logical argument is only as good as its assumptions. You are assuming that there is some other meaning to the Bible than that which was intended, which is very dubious. You are extracting information from noise - you can usually find whatever information you like in random noise just be choosing a suitable method of extracting it. That doesn't mean that there is any meaning in it. --Tango (talk) 13:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And who's threatening to kick you off for giving other viewpoints??? And I don't know where you're getting that phraseology from. It says, "But the generation of Christ was thus. When Mary, the mother of Jesus, was spoused to Joseph, before they came together [i.e. before they consummated their marriage], she was found having of the Holy Ghost [i.e. Holy Spirit] in the womb [i.e. she was pregnant already, with God's child]." What's not to understand? →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 23:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well Bugsie, I got that phraseology from just looking up the meanings behind those words. Logical, wouldn't you say? --66.76.169.20 (talk) 00:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's taking something and substituting something else, kind of like spelling "fish" as "ghoti". →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 00:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't see that anyone can object to 66. putting together his own translation of the Bible to fit in with his particular spiritual views. But it might be a better idea if he were to start with the Greek (and Hebrew, if he wants to include the OT) rather than Wyclif... Tevildo (talk) 00:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, you are neglecting context and idioms in your translations. If you "look up" "looking up", you'll see that it means "gaze skyward". "Behind" means "to the back of". "Words" means "a combination of glyphs". A "meaning" is "the significance of a thing" So if you "looked up the meanings behind those words" then logically you must have "gazed skywards at the significance located to the back of a combination of glyphs". While I admire your eyesight to be able to see the small gap between the ink and the paper, I'm still baffled why you had to hold it above your head to do so. Yes, that reinterpretation may be a little convoluted to get get the meaning I wanted, but I believe your reinterpretation of Wycliffe is equally convoluted in search of the meaning you wanted. Language is imprecise - you can't just slice-and-dice words. (When someone writes "Holy Spirit" they don't mean "an extremely good spirited person" any more than when someone writes "New Jersey" they mean "a just-sewn athletic shirt".) To know what a word or sentence meant, it has to be informed by what the speaker/writer wanted it to mean. What John Wycliffe meant can probably be found by looking at the religious movement he was involved in (Lollardy). Unfortunately, their beliefs with respect to the Holy Spirit, the Trinity, and the Virgin Birth aren't mentioned in that article. -- 128.104.112.179 (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably several steps back or forward in the discussion, but you should see John 3:16, Nicene Creed and Apostles' Creed to see how important the fatherhood of Jesus is to Christians (of whom I, too, am not one). For the first four centuries or so after Christ, many theories were advanced, but a combination of many factors (faith, reason, study, prayer, discussion, appeals to religious authority and, not least, raw political power backed by pitiless brute force) have led to a broad common interpretation of the Trinity (and to a lesser extent, the Virgin Birth) among almost all traditional Christians, Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant. That does not of course mean (least of all on Wikipedia) that no one can have a different opinion, and the millions who deny the divinity or Christhood of Jesus of Nazareth are almost bound to. John 3:16 reads "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." ("Begotten" is an old English word for "physically conceived" or "fathered".) Part of the Nicene Creed reads (in the English Book of Common Prayer#1662

"I believe ... in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, Begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of very God, Begotten, not made, Being of one substance with the Father, By whom all things were made; Who for us men, and for our salvation came down from heaven, And was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, And was made man,..." — English versions of the Nicene Creed in current use#Anglican Communion.

Notice the words "begotten not made", the result of one of the early battles between orthodoxy and perceived heresy. (But if you look at the table at Nicene Creed which compares the Creeds promulgated at Nicaea and Constantinople, you can see the germs of different opinions even there.) —— Shakescene (talk) 00:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note, however, that the "begetting" being done here is not the begetting that involved Mary. The Son was "Begotten of his Father before all worlds." The Son, as a person of the Trinity, existed before the creation, and before the Incarnation.–RHolton≡– 01:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Wycliffe's version of the Bible is at John Wycliffe's Translation. An outline of information about the Trinity is at Should You Believe in the Trinity? - Jehovah's Witnesses Official Web Site, and Matthew 1:18 is discussed under the heading "Jesus a Separate Creation" at What Does the Bible Say About God and Jesus? - Jehovah's Witnesses Official Web Site. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jehovah vs YHWH Sunday Night Smackdown
Beware of anything the JW's have to say, starting with the fact that there was never any such word as "Jehovah" in the O.T. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 18:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See Tetragrammaton. Not only is the Old Testament (primarily & originally) written with Hebrew letters rather than Roman letters, there's no vowels. How the tetragrammaton (which does occur in the Old Testament) should be rendered in English is the subject of much scholarly debate - both Yahweh and Jehovah can be taken as acceptable representations, depending on which vowels you substitute in, and what you believe the "correct" Hebrew->English consonant conversion is. -- 128.104.112.179 (talk) 18:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Information about the Tetragrammaton is outlined at The Divine Name That Will Endure Forever - Jehovah's Witnesses Official Web Site. The table of contents lists several subtopics. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The vowel points used to represent "Elohim" and "Adonai" were misinterpreted as being part of YHWH. "Jehovah" is an artificial invention with no validity. I'm sure the IP who posted the question is amused by the kind of debate these questions can generate. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 20:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The word Jesus is the Latin form of the Greek Iesous, which in turn is the transliteration of the Hebrew Jeshua, or Joshua, or again Jehoshua, meaning "Jehovah is salvation." The word Christ, Christos, the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew Messias, means "anointed." 208.180.136.118 (talk) 21:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except the proper transliteration from Hebrew is more like "Yeshua", referring to YHWH, i.e. "YHWH is salvation". And YHWH is not really God's name anyway, it's the dodgy answer He gave to Moses, and essentially means "I am". And, yes, Jesus and Joshua are etymologically the same Hebrew name, via different paths. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 21:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I yam what I yam, and that's all that I yam, saith Popeye the Sailorman. Cf. the New Testament passage, where Jesus asks "Who is it that men say that I am?", which The Atlantic Monthly made into a cover story about twenty Christmases ago. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He's strong to the finisheth, 'cause He eats his spinacheth. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, are you equating Olive Oyl with Asherah, Bugs? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


October 17

Looking for translation

Dear Wikipedians:

Google is giving suboptimal translation for the following very short Japanese passage, I'm wondering if someone would be kind enough to translate it for me, I need to figure out how to use this piece of ornamental wood for the aquarium:

ご使用前に必ずアク抜きをして下さい.

アク抜きの方法

A:大きめの容器に水を張り,流木を2-4週間つけてぉく.


B:早く使いたい場合は,灯油の空缶や大きめのナバで流木を煮る.

この方法は火を使いますので,火の取り扱い·ヤケド等には,充分注意して行なっください.

Thank you soooooooo much!

70.31.159.242 (talk) 02:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remove lye before use without fail. [I'm not sure what is the best word for ja:灰汁 (アク) in this case although "lye" is the first one in my dictionary.]
Ways to remove lye:
A: Fill a largish container with water. Soak the driftwood in it for 2 to 4 weeks
B: If you would like to use it earlier, boil the driftwood in an empty kerosene can or a largish pan [ナベ, not ナバ]. As this method use fire, please be careful in handling of fire not to burn your skin.
--Sushiya (talk) 02:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Going by this site (under "Curing Driftwood"), I'm going to guess that it's タンニン (tannin), not lye. Indeterminate (talk) 08:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caesarion = Little Caesar?

Hello. I'm not sure if I should ask this here on in Humanities, because I don't know if it's more a matter of history than of language. I don't understand why Caesarion is considered to mean "Little Caesar". How does the suffix -ion make it "little"? For what I could find, the greek -ion was latinized as -ium, but -ium (at least in modern times) is used for either things that are bigger in scope (like auditor > auditorium) or to name chemical elements. Also, I imagine it's got nothing to do with the Latin suffix -ion, which is used to make words into nouns (both in Latin and modern languages). So, could anyone explain to me why Caesarion is considered to have meant "Little Caesar"? (If it's simply because of historical reasons, I guess I'd need to go over to Humanities to find out more.) Thanks in advance, Kreachure (talk) 14:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Ancient Greek, -ion was a diminutive suffix, like -ito in Spanish. So Greek Kaisarion would be the same as Cesarito in Spanish. +Angr 19:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you're right, but I had a hard time finding a source for what you say. It seems it would be one of the most rare forms of a diminutive in Ancient Greek, so that's why I guess I couldn't find it. Thanks. Kreachure (talk) 20:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first one listed at that link is -ι-, and that's presumably what this is: the diminutive -ι- with the neuter nominative singular ending -ον. (Likewise in Spanish, you could say that the diminutive suffix is -it-, to which the masculine ending -o or the feminine ending -a is added.) +Angr 21:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except that in the article, the spelling is 'Καισαρίων' and not 'Καισαρίον'. I was going to answer the same as Angr, but the spelling in the article made me think twice. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


October 18

What kind of hat is this?

What the heck am I?

Is this a fedora? I assumed that it was, but our article on fedoras say that they are made from felt. I was thinking Boonie hat, due to the strap and the fabric, but it defiantly has the distinctive shape of the fedora. Confused, ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like if you took Indiana Jones' fedora and installed air-flow screens. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 00:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This kind. 173.103.183.112 (talk) 00:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"fedora-inspired" Thanks. :) -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My hat! I'm quite fond of it. —Tamfang (talk) 08:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

confidentiality

I understand that if you and I make a pact, and agree to keep it between ourselves, and If I choose to tell some one else. I have broken our confidentiality. My question relates to, am I breaking confidentiality to a loved one? for example, if a loved one is in a facility, and they, ie the clients within the facility, all agree to a code of confidentiality, and a person can call in to a phone booth; that is provided within the facility for such a purpose, to give and receive calls. Have I broken confidentiality, if when the stranger answers, and I ask for the loved one,who may or may not be available, and the stanger and I have a private conversation, where they tell me about themselves, and say something like I have lost my mom, and I tell them I am a mom. Etc. In other words, just a conversation, where one thing leads to another. Have I broken confidentiality, to my loved one?. My thought is, if they, the clients within the facility, have sworn to confidentiality, to each other, And I have asked for whatever I said, to be between us only. Did the client within the facility violate his or herself, when they spoke of whatever to the loved on, or Did I break confidentially, when I had a casual conversation, with a stranger.76.22.96.75 (talk) 07:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain the conversation more clearly? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 07:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you're asking if you break confidentiallity by telling confidential information to a loved one, then yes. Vimescarrot (talk) 10:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, if you have entered into an agreement, whether verbal or written, whereby you are not to tell something about the person you have entered into the agreement with, and then you go on to tell somebody that information without the prior agreement of the person with whom you have entered into the agreement with, then you have broken that confidentiality. It doesn't matter if that person has an agreement with other people regarding confidentiality. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 11:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is how I would interpret your scenario. A is you, B is your loved one, C is the stranger. C has broken their agreement with A, as A asked C to keep the information confidential, and C passed it on to B. C hasn't broken their agreement with B, because C didn't tell A anything that B told C. A and B don't have an agreement of confidentiality in the first place (at least, you didn't say that they had), so A didn't break any agreement. Tevildo (talk) 11:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your question is confusing, partly because you are vague about the confidentiality agreement itself, and partly because I don't see how having a "loved one" involved is important to your example. You say that everyone in the facility has agreed to a "code of confidentiality". You don't explain what exactly is confidential — normally, in any business that I've seen, the employees all have signed confidentiality agreements as part of their employment, but the confidentiality is about all aspects of their work. If you call up a random person, "Abe", at the business and have a conversation, then Abe is not violating his confidentiality agreement unless he talks about the business's internal matters with you. Does that answer the question? Tempshill (talk) 02:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russian heaven?

Does svarga is Russian mean heaven? And does dievas mean gods? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.11.117 (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Svarga and dievas may be two starting points. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 15:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No and no. The Russian word for heaven is "небеса" (nyebyesa), related to "небо" (nyebo, sky). The Russian word for gods is "боги" (bogi). — Kpalion(talk) 18:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the OP may be talking about the pre-Christian / polytheistic mythology and not about the terminology in current use. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So is the paragraph in Svarga which says In Slavic religion Svarga is Heaven, the residence of god Svarog. wrong? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know for sure, but I generally suspect any unsourced Wikipedia article about old Slavic religion to consist mostly of neopagan fantasies. — Kpalion(talk) 20:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article on Svarog has some references on early Slavic mythology. You may be able to check a library for one of the listed academic sources to avoid neopagan waffle. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

October 19

ASL Sign Identification

Hello! I'm trying to identify a peculiar ASL sign I repeatedly saw used between two young signers. The handshape and position was with the back of the right hand resting in the palm of the left hand, and the right hand's index and middle fingers curled toward the ceiling and the rest of the fingers bent pointing inward to the palm. Then the right hand in this handshape moves in a counterclockwise circle (the back of the right hand rubbing against the palm of the left, both parallel to the ground). Is anyone familiar with this sign (sorry for the poor description)? Thank you!--el Aprel (facta-facienda) 02:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your description is quite good . . . but it would help if you could provide some context for the conversation; since it seems they were conversing with each other, was it likely to be a technical/professional conversation or a friendly and joking conversation, possibly even with a rude theme? Maedin\talk 08:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

two words, Gaelic to English translation

I am in a band, and my friend wants to name one of our songs "Roisin Dubh" (Ro-sheen doo) - and tells me that this means "my sweet, black rose" in Gaelic (as he was told by a gaelic speaker), but I don't believe this. I think there is some kind of trick being played on us here. Can anyone verify this or tell me what it translates to? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.70.94 (talk) 12:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Róisín Dubh. — Emil J. 12:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In short, it just means "black Rose" (Rose as a girl's name, not the flower); "black" in this context means "black-haired", not black as in black people (who are called "blue" – [gorm] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) – in Irish, don't ask me why). +Angr 19:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Qaeda as name

Since Al-Qaeda simply means "the base", is it reasonable to suppose that it is also used thoroughly with no reference to the infamous terror organization? For example, someone could call his pizza parlor "Al-Qaeda - the best dough", his air company "Al-Qaeda" or construction company "Al-Qaeda".--Quest09 (talk) 16:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a regular word, and can be translated lots of ways...I seem to remember it, or something with the same roots, also means "square" in mathematics (kind of like The Pentagon in English). I don't know if people use it in names of businesses, that might be a little uncouth. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind that it was an unremarkable word for a long time before bin Laden and his bunch adopted it (probably precisely because it was 'low profile'): it would be interesting to know if that's adversely affected the perception and everyday use of it in the Arabic-speaking world. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a side-question, I doubt anyone would be done for copyright if their pizza-place was named 'Al-Qaeda' (although they may receive orders to change the name in certain jurisdictions if this was in the West), but what about naming a place 'The Pentagon'? Just a question. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 10:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(EDIT) ah, it would appear there's one in India. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 10:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some interesting musings upon the name. meltBanana 00:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

american weevil

i am bambazed(101 points in scrabble).zyzzva is a search engine of scabble- also the last word in the fourth dictionary of American heritage. it is a genus of the word weevil as is bambazed as described in the Times, Britain today-are all thes words somehow linked? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.102.194 (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Bambazed" is old Scots dialect meaning "amazed, confused, puzzled", considered by some dictionaries to be the origin of the more common English word "bamboozled". Zyzzva was deliberately made up so that it comes near the end of alphabetical lists - see [5]. Apart from their usefulness to the Scrabble player, there's no connection between them. Tevildo (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Concise Scots Dictionary (Aberdeen: Aberdeen UP, 1985) lists bambaize [sic] as a variant spelling of bumbaze, which it suggests is in fact derived from (rather than the source of) English bamboozle, influenced by the Scots baised ("dismayed, confused, bewildered"), itself a descendant of Middle English abaise. Deor (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Checking the reference, the weevil is actually Zyzzyva. And we do have an article on it. Tevildo (talk) 19:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 20

Accent

Does the mellifluous Ronald Colman have any particular British accent? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at his biography, particularly his early years which indicate his area of upbringing and education, I strongly suspect he had a clipped, middle class English accent, common among actors of his period. I do not recall hearing his actual voice but I'd put big money on it. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 07:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Àu contraire, he spent many years in the US, and in the latter part of his career, if one didn't know he was British, it would have been hard to spot it. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point Jack but our accent, by and large, is determined in our early years: Coleman was about 31 when he went to the US. Watch and listen to this clip[6] and see if you can hear any US accent or whether he has a generic English middle class accent. He may of course adopted an American accent in films. Nice to see Sophie Tucker too. Richard Avery (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of accents, there's none on the "a" in au contraire. +Angr 13:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Hmmm... that's a grave error. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*groan* --Tango (talk) 14:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now acutely aware of my error. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Well, it was understandable under the circumflexes. --Anonymous, 01:55 UTC, October 21, 2009.
(drums fingers on desk) It's OK - the rest of us can wait tilde you've finished this discussion... Grutness...wha? 00:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having listened to the clip linked by Richard Avery, I would describe his accent in that instance to be British Received Pronunciation (RP) with a slight but detectable American tinge, verging on what in Britain is sometimes called "Transatlantic". RP is by definition a learned accent intended to lack regionality and class, and is one of the first things any actor of that period would learn or perfect in acting school. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RP isn't always intentionally learnt these days, although there is a definite difference between people that learn it in elocution lessons and those that just learn it organically. --Tango (talk) 17:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RP is supposed to lack class? +Angr 18:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Theoretically, yes. It's distinguished (socially downwards) from the "Hyperlect" or "Kensington" accent - "wrinde and wrinde the wragged wracks the wregged wrescel wren." Roy Jenkins was the last public figure who really spoke like that, in my memory, at least. Tevildo (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think that what made Colman's voice distinctive (and I've always said that if I could magically be gifted with anyone's voice, I'd ask for his) was the relative lack of "clippedness" and the unusually wide variation of pitch in normal speech, both as compared with other actors using RP—Basil Rathbone, for instance. As an exercise, compare him with the interviewer in that bit on Youtube. Deor (talk) 17:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He certainly doesn't sound anywhere close to American, to me. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most obviously, when he says "... a lot to do and a lot to be seen" (0:48), "lot" comes out as "laht", which is more characteristic of an American than an English accent. Also, his use of the phrase "set-up" (0:57) is definitely an Americanism for 1948 (although that's not an issue of _accent_, of course). Tevildo (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Deor. I've been trying to figure out what makes his voice so distinctive. Even while watching one of his silent films, I could hear it. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Akkadian logograms

According to this: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%F0%92%8A%95#Akkadian the sign in question is used logographically both for rēšu and for qaqqadu. In practice, how were these two readings distinguished? Were there phonetic complements in Akkadian, as in Sumerian? Cevlakohn (talk) 05:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about Akkadian, but I would imagine some of the difference is in context. Many Chinese characters (and their equivalents in hanja and kanji) have numerous readings, and it's never a big problem. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name for particular expression

What is the name for things like "fair and square" or "even stevens"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikespedia (talk • contribs) 06:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean idiom?--Shantavira|feed me 07:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think what he means is catchphrases that rhyme. Dunno what they're called either. TomorrowTime (talk) 11:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Even steven" is, I believe, an example of rhyming reduplication; see Reduplication#English. I don't know whether there's a name for rhyming synonymous pairs like "fair and square"; more common are alliterative synonymous or nearly synonymous pairs like "might and main", "chop and change", and "footloose and fancy-free", the use of which goes back quite far in English (as is shown by the obsolete sense of main in my first example). Deor (talk) 11:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
alliteration. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 09:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nah -- alliteration would be "The blue ball blew blastfully in the basking beach breeze." I'm not saying that makes much sense, but at least it's alliterative. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 03:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reduplication sounds like the right term, and English is full of them: higglety-pigglety, piggly wiggly, hither-and-thither, loosey goosey, et al. And even in Yinglish: fancy-schmancy, and such. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 21

Unfortunate or intentional?

I recently came across a Vietnamese noodle soup restaurant named Phở King. Is this pronounced the way I think it is? Is this an old joke that I just haven't seen in my sheltered life? SDY (talk) 01:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Common enough so people want to put pictures of the various so-named restaurants in the article. --jpgordon::==( o ) 02:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's apparently a Vietnamese restaurant in Canada called Phở Shizzle, which I think is cleverer. +Angr 05:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And there's a place in the Seattle area called What the Phở. I think clearly some of the proprietors of Phở restaurants have a healthy sense of humor. :-) Jwrosenzweig (talk) 06:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PH is pronounced as an aspirated P. See Phuket. I'm not sure where the F pronunciation comes from but it's not used in the East.--Shantavira|feed me 07:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) That's Thai pronunciation, which may not be similar (Thai is Sanskrit-influenced, Vietnamese more Chinese-influenced). Different (albeit linked) language families. SDY (talk) 15:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since I have no idea what the squigglies on Vietnamese letters do, I always pronounced that word like "foe". I guess I've never actually heard anyone say it correctly. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to try to decipher the IPA used in the Phở article (although I'm confused as to why it links to "IPA for Vietnamese". Surely an international phonetic alphabet shouldn't need such distinctions?). But anyway, my understanding is that a more correct pronunciation would be "fa" as in "a long long way to run". However, when asking a friend to lunch, I'll say "let's go for 'foe'". --LarryMac | Talk 12:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even the International Phonetic Alphabet has to adhere to certain language-specific conventions, especially for broad transcription. Having language-specific IPA pages also reduces the number of symbols a reader has to wade through to find the one he's looking for. +Angr 16:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to know that the restaurants around here aren't the only ones with kitchy sorts of names. "Wok and Roll" and "Men at Wok" are two names of Chinese restaraunts near me. Dismas|(talk) 08:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still amazed that no Greek food place I've ever seen has had the wit to call itself "You Should be Souvlaki". It would be very appropriate to have such a place in Kylie Minogue's (and my own) old haunt, Camberwell, Victoria. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My favorite was Dr Ye's dental clinic in Taiwan. The dentist's given name was Ling, and the sign maker decided it should be advertised as the Yelling Dental Clinic. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even going to try to do the IPA, but on a recent episode of The Amazing Race in Vietnam, they seemed to be pronouncing it as something like "fuh". 99.166.95.142 (talk) 15:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That brings to mind the old one about a census taker in a place with a high Asian-American population, San Francisco perhaps. Two consecutive houses, the man of the house is named Fu King. At the third house, the weary census taker says, "You Fu King, too?" And the man says, "No we watching terivision!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Our article discusses a putative French etymology from feu, "fire", which is one way of explaining the pronunciation (as noted above, roughly "fuh").
The origin of the word was one subject in a seminar on phở held in Hanoi in 2003.[1] One theory advanced at the seminar is that the name comes from the French feu (fire), as in the dish pot-au-feu, which like pho uses the French method of adding charred o­nion to the broth for color and flavor, one of the techniques which distinguishes pho from other Asian noodle soups.
BrainyBabe (talk) 07:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To get back to the pronunciation, in Vietnamese phở is pronounced [fɤː] (with a "dipping tone" that English speakers needn't worry about because we won't get it right anyway). That is indeed like "foe" (pronounced with a Scottish or a North Dakota accent), but with unrounded lips. Basically, spread your lips as if you're saying "fay", but retract your tongue as if you're saying "foe". Speakers of non-rhotic accents (most of England, Wales and the Southern Hemisphere) can probably get away with making it homophonous with "fur"; speakers of rhotic accents (Scotland, Ireland, North America) can pronounce it like "fuck" without the final /k/ sound, i.e. to rhyme with "duh!". +Angr 10:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Origin and explanation of common definitions of Atheism

Hi, I was recently embroiled in a discussion regarding Atheism vs Agnoticism. I have a tangential query at the humanities desk regarding the origin of the concept of 'weak atheism', but here I am wondering about the definitions that I have come across.

From what I have seen there is a prevalence of the 2 following definitions:

S: (n) atheism, godlessness (the doctrine or belief that there is no God)

S: (n) atheism (a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods)

On reading one of the sources[7] used in the Atheism article I find that it states:

This would seem to imply that an Atheist is either:

A person who is without a belief in any deity. This definition would mainly include those who are simply unaware of the existence of any deity. It would also include a person who is either too young or who lacks the mental ability to conceive of a deity. A person who totally rejects the existence of any deity. Some may keep this belief to themselves; others may assert this belief to others.

emphasis mine.

So my question is, does the above definition / explanation seem authoritative? Is the source considered reliable for a definition, and more importantly an explanation of the definition, which is somewhat elusive to find.

Thanks! Unomi (talk) 09:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of descriptive linguistics would seem to say that if the word is used both ways in practice, then neither one is authoritative. Some sources distinguish "strong atheism" from less strong versions, where strength means about what you'd expect. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 09:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am not quite sure what to expect regarding strength, excluding the case of being unaware of a deity, the weak position seems exactly encapsulated by agnosticism, it seems a somewhat strange expansion of the domain of the word atheism, especially when you consider that there are a number of sources that refer to atheism as the doctrine of, or philosophy which leads to the position that there are no gods. How weak atheism relates to those unaware of deities, I do not know. If you would though, could you point me to the sources that use the weak / strong wording and do you have any thoughts on how prevalent its use is in literature? Unomi (talk) 09:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really follow such things, but the article Weak and strong atheism might be a good place to start. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 10:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These definitions may not be universally accepted, I would define the terms like so:
  • An agnostic doesn't know if there are any gods or not so doesn't have an opinion on the matter (this would include those that have never considered the matter, IMO).
  • A weak atheist thinks there probably aren't any gods so works under the assumption that there aren't.
  • A strong atheist thinks there definitely aren't any gods.
It is worth pointing out that I have never met or even heard of a strong atheist. Strong atheism is basically a religious belief - it has the same characteristic lack of evidence and claim of absolute Truth. People usually want someone out of their religions, and you don't get anything out of strong atheism, so very few people subscribe to it. --Tango (talk) 10:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Dawkins would beg to differ. :) He would probably argue that atheism is liberating. Atheism is not a religion, although it seems to have some characteristics, especially the rejection of anything that doesn't fit the premise; specifically, that religion has value to many of those who subscribe to it. Atheism falls more into the area of "skepticism": "You claim there is a God - prove it." Obviously, you can't "prove" a religion in the scientific sense, or there would only be one religion. The "proof" to believers is self-evident but is hard to pin down. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dawkins is, I think, a weak atheist in Tango's scheme. It's a rather odd scheme, though. I am a weak atheist in the same sense that I am a weak believer in the existence of the sun: all the evidence supports it, but I'm aware that I could somehow be mistaken. Algebraist 12:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dawkins has a slightly more granular scheme (see Spectrum of theistic probability) and puts himself just short of what I've described as strong atheism. It seems we all have different examples of things we think are possible in the same way the existence of deities are possible! Algebraist has doubts about the existence of the Sun, Dawkins thinks there might be faeries at the bottom of his garden and I think that when I hold up a pencil and let go of it it might fall up. We are all trying to make the same point, though. --Tango (talk) 12:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Believing in a physical object vs. a spiritual being are two different things. Also, there is no dispute that I'm aware of as to the existence of the sun or of gravity. No one has gone to war over the nature (or lack thereof) of those things. And you can demonstrate their existence over and over, so they pass the scientific test. Fairies in the garden, eh? Dawkins might be playing a joke there. There is one thing in common among these beliefs, or lack thereof - subjectivity; or narcissism, to put it more bluntly: The notion that whether we believe in the existence of something or not, has anything to do with whether it really exists. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't understand any of that comment. I suspect you have misunderstood me - you do realise I was intentionally overstating the amount of doubt we have regarding the sun, faeries and gravity, don't you? We certainly haven't made any claims that our beliefs affect reality... --Tango (talk) 13:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm just saying that believing in something or not believing in it has nothing to do with whether it really exists. Those objects can be subjected to scientific tests. Religion cannot. And that's the reason why religion is controversial, while the sun and gravity are generally not controversial. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Atheists beg to differ. Religion can be subjected to scientific tests, and fails (in part). That is how the atheist conclusion is reached. Your argument that religion is somehow exempt from reasoning that can be applied to everything else seems quite hollow. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 13:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has claimed that belief does affect existence, so there is no need for you to say that. While we can test the existence of the sun (eg. by looking at it), we can't distinguish scientifically between the sun existing as a mass of incandescent gas and, say, it all being an advanced illusion by some alien species or a mass hallucination or whatever (similarly for gravity and faeries). In that same way, we can't distinguish scientifically between there being no gods and there being a god or gods that just make it look like there aren't any (since we don't observe any evidence of gods). In the case of gravity, faeries and the sun we choose the simplest option (that things will continue to fall down and won't suddenly change to falling up, that there are no faeries at the bottom of the garden rather than faeries that we can't see and that the sun is exactly what it looks like rather than being something else that we are somehow made to see as if it were the sun). We should apply that same logic to religion and choose the simplest option, which is there being no gods. We can't be sure that we are right about any of these choices, but Occam's razor does tend to give useful results. --Tango (talk) 13:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My position, as an agnostic, is one where I do not believe that there are gods, but I also am conscious of not believing that there are not gods. I think the crux of my interest in this matter at this point comes from a certain resentment that 'new age atheism' is seemingly trying to blur the distinction between the blind faith that I take most atheists to have and skepticism. I find that the position of atheists to be peculiar, particularly as they seem to feel entitled to take it 'for free'. That is, completely reject one side of a binary proposition without admitting to have taken the other side. The agnostic position is not one of rejection as much as it is of exploring. I don't view agnosticism as 'weak atheism' but rather as strong rationalism. I find the popular trend of expanding the bounds of Atheism as cheap way to claim numbers, this is particularly bothersome in the example of List of atheists now pointing to the veritable catchall that is list of nontheists. Anyway, time permitting, may we all see interesting discussions ahead. Unomi (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Using the terminology I defined above, only strong atheists have anything that could be described as "blind faith". Weak atheism is just an application of scientific principles to the question of the existence of deities. In science there are no absolutes, we just weigh up the evidence and when we have a theory with a very large amount of evidence we assume it is correct (unless we're actually testing the theory). If you apply that to theism you find that there is lots of evidence for an absence of gods (at least, gods that actively intervene in human existence, which is all that really matters) and absolutely no evidence for the existence of gods, so we assume they don't exist. --Tango (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bertrand Russell always made an interesting distinction (in the days before any difference was made between flavours of atheism hmm, good name for a rock band, that.) in that he was an atheist (that is, he did not believe in any gods) as a matter of practice, but technically remained an agnostic from a philosophical standpoint as the entire matter was beyond empirical examination. To me, that is now what we would now call "soft atheism". The edge to "hard atheism" is much harder to pin down. For some people, it's a matter of saying "There's no point in remaining agnostic over everything, no matter how unlikely, and I consider gods to be unlikely, so I therefore explicitly deny the possibility that they may exist and am a strong atheist." Other people feel a more definite affirmation is required. Requiring "more than that" leads to essentially a religious attitude (hard belief about something for which there is no proof either way) and is, in my opinion, unneeded and unhelpful (and as noted above, very unlikely to be a serious position). Matt Deres (talk) 16:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When did the terms 'strong' / 'weak' and what I take to be the somewhat less colloquial 'positive' / 'negative' first see use? Unomi (talk) 12:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The 3rd paragraph of Weak and strong atheism answers that question, albeit not very well (there is a citation needed tag). --Tango (talk) 12:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I was hoping someone would hold in their possession more information on the matter, from our articles it seems they are constructs posited by proponents of atheism. Implicit/Explicit in Atheism:_The_Case_Against_God (Google can provide a pdf) and positive/negative here Where the author, Flew, states that this is an interpretation of atheism that is not consistent with 'establised common usage'. Both of these are from the late 70's / early 80's. Unomi (talk) 13:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

german spelling

Is "Über den ersten und vierten Gaußschen Beweis des Fundamental-Satzes der Algebra" correctly spelled (particularly "Gaußschen") and capitalized? Thanks. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 09:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The German WP uses "Gaußschen" for Gaussian and does not use a hyphen, ie they write "Fundamentalsatz". --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 10:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The OP should have mentioned that this is the title of a book published in 1920 and, yes, in 1920 this was correct spelling, capitalization and hyphenation. Today you would indeed spell "Fundamentalsatz" without a hyphen - the rest is still correct195.128.251.53 (talk) 23:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks, I kept the hyphenation from the original work [8], but changed "Gaussschen" to "Gaußschen" on the idea that the original spelling was due to typography limitations. I hope I did the right thing. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 03:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article ß lists the ss vs. ß spelling rules, including the effects of the 1996 spelling reforms. (summary: both pre- and post-1996, 'ß' is acceptable.) Also note that the title in your link is in all caps. It's conventional to represent 'ß' as 'SS' when capitalized, as 'ß' is lower-case, and doesn't have a capitol form. -- 128.104.112.179 (talk) 18:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks, the transcription from all-caps to mixed-lower-case is why I made the change from SS to ß. I just wanted to make sure it was correct, which it sounds like it is. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 02:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of River Lugg

How is River Lugg that flows through Wales and England pronounced? Is it [lʌg] as one would expect, with the STRUT vowel and homophonous with 'lug'? Or is it perhaps [lʊg], with the PUT vowel? Or something else? Ideally, I'd like to know how someone who knows the 'correct' local pronunciation would pronounce it in RP. --Iceager (talk) 12:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As someone whose family is from that area, the pronunciation used locally is to rhyme with "bug". However, it's on the edge of the Brummie/Black Country dialect, and it's possible that the vowel might migrate to the front of the mouth on occasion. RP, note, is not a local dialect and there are very few people from that area who use it. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure the above is correct, but in the Welsh name for it, Afon Llugwy, the U is pronounced rather like the English I in PIN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alansplodge (talk • contribs) 19:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! So [lʌg] it is, then? I specified that I wanted to know how it would be pronounced in RP because I saw that some local dialects like Brummie don't have the foot-strut split according to Wikipedia, and wondered which vowel would be used by someone who does have the split, like an RP speaker. Usually when we want to know the pronunciation of a place name, we don't try to follow the local dialect phonology but find out what the correct phonemes are and pronounce them according to our own varieties of English (most of which do have the foot-strut split), so I thought that might help. --Iceager (talk) 01:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. As a Brummie I do have the foot/strut split. (I presume that means that foot and strut are pronounced differently.) I'm not an expert in phonetics though so I'm not going to change the article. Sometimes the experts can pontificate all they want, but the real experts are the ones who actually do the speaking... --TammyMoet (talk) 12:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It means foot and strut don't rhyme (of course the f- and the str- parts are different). And even if it's true that the Birmingham accent generally lacks the foot-strut split, that doesn't mean that 100% of all Brummie speakers do it 100% of the time. +Angr 12:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, any description of dialects should be taken with a grain of salt, since the literature tends to become outdated quickly and you wonder whether the generalized descriptions were correct in the first place. I'm not familiar with the Brummie dialect, but if I compare the dialects and accents I know well and the descriptions I find on Wikipedia and elsewhere, I usually find a number of outdated or bizarre descriptions. --Iceager (talk) 11:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The new Great Vowel Shift

Is it just me, or are vowel sounds changing in US language? There's an ad on TV for a regional supermarket whose slogan is "what you want, when you want", but the announcer says, "whut you wunt when you wunt". I just heard somebody on the radio talking about a light "bolb". And I'm always hearing people pronouncing -el- like -al-. An example was a radio announcer in Los Angeles who always referred to the airport, LAX, as "al a x". Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was always confused when I heard people talking about "the Golf War". -- JackofOz (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, vowels are shifting in most dialects of English. Within the United States, the nature of the shifts varies regionally. Marco polo (talk) 01:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can read about one such series of shifts at Northern cities vowel shift (the section "Backing of /ʌ/" in which may explain the "bolb" observation). Deor (talk) 10:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Italian to English Translation

Google translate keeps giving me weird answers. If anyone is bilingual, i would really appreciate it. Also, the spaces or spelling might be mixed up, so if it doesn't make sense, try rearranging the spaces or the spelling. Thanks in advance!!!

Normal mente qui la sera vedo le stelle ma oggi vedo solo due stelle verdi strana mente negli occhi di lui

71.58.87.38 (talk) 23:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Normally here in the evening I see the stars but today to my surprise I see only two green stars in his eyes". A rough translation, but you get the idea. Marco polo (talk) 01:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both instances of "mente" above should be written together with the preceding word: Normalmente and stranamente. Otherwise I think the spelling is correct. +Angr 10:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 22

Seminal architect

Good evening.
I'm a contributor in the french wikipedia. I found the following sentence in Holy Trinity Cathedral (Chicago, Illinois) : Louis Sullivan, one of the seminal architects of the 20th century. I would like to know what is the meaning of seminal in this context. Thank you Dhatier (talk) 01:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It means 'very influential'—particularly, something original that provided the basis for future work/research. For example, "the article by Bever (1970) was a seminal work in cognitive science". The etymology of the word is related to semen and seeds... rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rjanag's interpretation of that sentence is definitely correct, but the sentence itself is a little bit awkward. "Seminal" used in that meaning would normally refer to a work or an invention, not to a person. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 02:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be tempted to say "one of the most influential" rather than "one of the very influential"; seminal means influential, but implies that few if any are more so. As such - and assuming my French is not too horrific - I'd translate it as "Louis Sullivan, un des architectes le plus influents du vingtième siècle." Grutness...wha? 05:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the answer. Your translation is near perfect (just replace le by les). Dhatier (talk) 11:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the claim that the original sentence is awkward. The extension of "seminal" from the works to the person seems natural to me. --Anonymous, 18:55 UTC, October 22, 2009.
Neither do I see anything awkward in such a usage. It would be more awkward if, instead of calling Sullivan (or Kafka, Picasso, Einstein) seminal you would have to list their innovative works. Seminal comes from semen and those are - in a wider, not gender oriented sense - responsible for evolution and revolution. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. The online Oxford English Dictionary def 4(a) is "Having the properties of seed; containing the possibility of future development. Also, freq. used of books, work, etc., which are highly original and influential; more loosely: important, central to the development or understanding of a subject". The citation in the old 2-volume print edition that came closest to using the word to describe people was "1838 MILL Bentham in Westm. Rev. Aug. 468 Jeremy Bentham and Samuel Taylor Coleridge--the two great seminal minds of England in their age" but the online version gives the more recent "1977 New Yorker 6 June 122/2 That the two pianists, each seminal, agreed to play together at all was startling". So maybe that reflects a changed or new usage and it's still awkward in an older sense.
I suppose that the invention of Coca-Cola in 1885 gave birth to the entire global soft-drink industry and many associated cultural artifacts. So I wonder if it's proper to describe Coca-Cola itself as a seminal fluid ;-). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.171.150 (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

german math translation

  • Neuer Beweis des Satzes, dass jede ganze rationale Function einer Veränderlichen dargestellt werden kann als ein Product aus linearen Functionen derselben Veränderliche

Thanks. Cite is from Fundamental theorem of algebra. There are a few words I'm not sure of so I thought I'd ask here.

69.228.171.150 (talk) 02:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google gives "New proof of the theorem that every integral rational function of one variable can be represented as a product of linear functions of the same variable". Assuming "ganze rationale Function" means "polynomial" (which makes a lot of sense), that's exactly the statement of the fundamental theorem of algebra, so I expect it's correct. Algebraist 02:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that makes sense. I thought "ganze rationale Function" might have something to do with entire functions. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 02:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In German, "function" is spelled "Funktion" (the same goes for "Produkt") and instead of "Veränderliche" you would say "Variable", assuming it means the term for the x in 2+x=4. So the sentence would be: "Neuer Beweis des Satzes, dass jede ganze rationale Funktion einer Variablen dargestellt werden kann als ein Produkt aus linearen Funktionen derselben Variablen." I don't have the slightest clue what a "rationale Funktion" or a "polynomial" is, so I can't tell if it's the correct term in German. --213.163.64.43 (talk) 10:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nowadays yes, but if you look under Fundamental theorem of algebra#Historic sources you'll see that Weierstraß (1891) spells Function and Product with C's and uses "Veränderliche" as a noun rather than "Variable". +Angr 10:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW: It was a result of the Orthographische Konferenz (spelling reform) in 1901 that C in loan words was generally replaced by K or Z. On the other hand, the term "Veränderliche" is still used in mathematics. In my understanding it seems to be a straight synonym of "Variable". --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 14:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I didn't realize it was a historic quote. I also did a quick search on Google and it seems, that "Veränderliche" is indeed still used in mathematics. Outside of this context (even inside), it sounds very old-fashioned and strange to me (I'm a native speaker of German), I wouldn't use it in a conversation or in writing. When I was in school (1980s), we used "Platzhalter" (place marker or placeholder) as a synonym for "Variable". --213.163.72.149 (talk) 16:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, ganze Funktion is indeed the German term for "entire function", so the theorem actually reads "every entire rational function etc". This is an inessential variant of the fundamental theorem of algebra (on the one hand, any polynomial is an entire rational function; on the other hand, if every polynomial splits into linear factors, then every entire rational function is a polynomial, hence every entire rational function is a product of linear functions). — Emil J. 17:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"ganz-rationale Funktion" is indeed the German for "polynomial". Slightly old fashioned (I would use "Polynom" instead), but a google search still comes up with a fair number of hits.195.128.250.7 (talk) 22:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The title is from an 1891 paper by Weierstraß cited in Fundamental theorem of algebra, and I'd like to give a faithful translation (old-fashioned is fine, since it's an old paper) of the reference. Right now I've put "integral rational function" there per Algebraist's Google search, but if you think some other translation is better, I'd appreciate any suggestions (or feel free to edit the article directly). Thanks! 69.228.171.150 (talk) 01:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The literal translation is "entire rational function", as I said, or if what 195.... writes is correct, you can simply call it a "polynomial". FWIW, ganze means "whole" in general German. What, pray tell, is an "integral function"? The theorem has nothing to do with integers or integrals. — Emil J. 10:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

British Dialect Question.

Which northern British dialect would pronounce the word 'music' as something like /'mjəuzɪk/? --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you intend that /əu/ to be a diphthong or separate vowels? If you mean separate vowels then I'm not sure I know of any British accents that pronounce it that way. If you mean it as a diphthong then it would be very difficult to distinguish from the more conventional pronunciation in normal speech. --Tango (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I would mean it as a diphthong. Maybe a better way of putting it in IPA would be /mjouzik/. It is definitely not /mju:zik/, as I would normally pronounce it. The area I am thinking of is possibly a certain part of Yorkshire, but may include Lancashire. I can't be sure and would like to pin it down. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My IPA skills are not the best, but it reminds me of the Mackem accent heard in and around Sunderland (sometimes confused with Geordie, though there are significant differences). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 09:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does वृन्दावन क्षाम mean?

I brought some rudraksha beads at a dewali festival. They came with a small orange bag which has a picture of Krishna Radha and the writing वृन्दावन क्षाम underneath. I have looked up Vrindavan, and seen that it is a town in Uttar Pradesh, but the context doesn't seem to fit. I am sure there is some religious significance to the words. -- Q Chris (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read the script, but if the word is Vrindavan, it does make sense. That town is where Krishna spent his childhood, which was the period of his life when he knew and spent time with Radha. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm studying Hindi but not fluent. The word क्षाम can be transliterated Ksham in Hindi, and probably Kshama in Sanskrit. I can't read enough Hindi to determine the context from a Google search, but a Google search of the Romanized transliteration brings up a lot: you can look at the search results for either Ksham or Kshama (e.g., among many others, http://www.rheasrhapsody.co.uk/page_1209258193219.html -- do a text search on the page when you get there) --71.111.194.50 (talk) 00:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having asked a vishnavite friend he pointed to http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?script=HK&tinput=ksaama&country_ID=&trans=Translate&direction=SE which defines kshaama as dried up, wasted, or burnt. I know the word क्षमा (ksamaa) as patience & forgiveness. This makes me think that there are two possibilities. Either it is a mistake and should have said वृन्दावन क्षमा or it is a lamentation on the state of modern India as "Krishna's land wasted/gone to waste". -- Q Chris (talk) 06:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spoken ambiguity

I was in a lecture today and the professor said the following:

There's heparin and coumadin which is the drug of choice in such a case

And it was only after she began the next sentence that I realized I had misunderstood what she was saying.

"There's heparin and coumadin. Which is the drug of choice in such a case?"
"There's heparin...and coumadin, which is the drug of choice in such a case."

She meant the latter, and I was thinking she meant the former. Is it odd that "which is" can refer to both a question and an "assignment"-type reference? DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 23:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In a question the pitch of the voice rises. In a statement (not a question) the pitch of the voice does not rise. I guess she did not make that clear "pitch" distinction. Bus stop (talk) 23:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you havie a rising pitch for a WH questions, you'll just sound like you're not sure you're asking the right question (try it with Why don't you cry about it?). — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 00:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is complex, and subtle. The distinction is all in the delivery, I think. Bus stop (talk) 01:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was sort of an informal lecture for 7 students, and because there was an unusually long pause after the word "case," I was about to answer, when she began talking again. It was only then that I realized there had been no question posed. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 23:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) It's not odd, as "which" itself has two meanings—the complementizer ( = "that") and the wh-word ( = "which one"). What's odd is that her voice didn't contain any prosodic cues (if your account is right) to help out. In the first case, there would be a longer pause after "coumadin" and, as Bus stop points out, her pitch would rise at the end of the question; there would also probably stress on "which". In the second case, there would be a shorter pause after coumadin (and maybe a longer pause after heparin), and her pitch would fall at the end. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 23

Need translation

I dunno what language this is, but I need to translate this phrase to english. "Je baise ta mère!!!!"

French, "I fuck your mother" or "I'm fucking your mother". rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to what Rjanag provides, note that the literal translation of the French "Je baise" is "I kiss" and the possessive pronoun "ta" is in the familiar form (second person) of address. So if the above translation – a profanity – is correct, it's clearly idiomatic – raising the question: used locally (where?), universally, or somewhere in between? I suggest you check it carefully before proceeding. -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Though the noun un baiser still means "a kiss", the verb baiser usually means "to fuck" in France. "To kiss" is embrasser. This unsigned comment was added at 09:46, October 23, 2009 by 194.171.56.13
Well, that's significant! Part of speech isn't particularly noted in my Encarta English>French. For kiss it gives "1. baiser masculin"* and "2. (s)embrasser." Since both end in a form characteristic of a verb's infinitive and I was looking for a verb, it didn't occur to me that the first is also a noun form – though the *indication of gender should've been a tipoff. Checking backwards (:fr:en:) confirms, though without any mention of an association with fornication. -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 10:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not idiomatic, "baiser" as a verb means to fuck. As a noun is just means "a kiss". Note that dictionaries are often not a good reflection of how a language is actually used. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 11:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

drug dealer referral

Suppose that a drug user wants to buy some illegal drugs, but doesn't know any drug dealers in his town, and because of law enforcement stings, the dealers won't sell drugs to strangers without a referral or introduction from someone they do know. Is there a (slang) name for that kind of referral or introduction? (This is of course purely a linguistic question, related to something that came up in editing.) 69.228.171.150 (talk) 02:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"[Making a] connection" - see the lyrics (first verse) of "You Can't Always Get What You Want." Possibly a dated term; I'm not aware of anything more recent. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A term for little things

You know when you come across a word and think "oh, I must remember that"... and then forget? This is one of those queries. So, I'm trying to remember a word I came across while idly flipping through the Concise Oxford Dictionary (so it's common enough to be in a single-volume English dictionary), which is a two word term, I think of one three-letter and one four-letter word (though my memory may be faulty on this, still it's a lead...), from possibly some African language, and meaning miscellaneous small items, trinkets, bric-a-brac, that kind of thing. Somebody please help me before I go mad trying to remember... --81.170.63.251 (talk) 11:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

knick-knack? Maedin\talk 12:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here and here are lists; is the word you are thinking of included? —Akrabbimtalk 12:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, none of those. Although my quest has led me to learn about balikbayan boxes and discover that there is a Wikipedia article on Concealing objects in a book (interesting, if not exactly relevant), I still haven't found the word I was looking for. I may have to systematically trawl the dictionary. --81.170.63.251 (talk) 13:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bits and bobs? Odds and ends? Mitch Ames (talk) 13:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia etiquette

i have once been admonished for stating my question too stongly- so once bitten twice ... Can the linguists out there tell me in simple english the meaning of the words atheist and agnostic. i realise that this is a minefield to enter into other people's beliefs. maybe a linguist can tell me the word for being able to ask a question on something that is sacred to other peopl's beliefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.136.191 (talk) 15:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're not getting a clear answer because there isn't one. Different people have different things they mean when they use the terms "atheist" and "agnostic". Wiktionary has relatively decent definitions: wikt:atheist gives both "A person who does not believe that deities exist" and "A person who believes that no deities exist" - which one is the "real" meaning of "atheist" depends on who you talk to. wikt:agnostic is a little more convoluted, but can in part be condensed to: "A person who holds ... that the existence of God or of all deities is unknown, unknowable, unproven, or unprovable." Note that there are technically four different definitions in that one sentence. Someone can hold that the existence of a deity is unknown without holding that it is unprovable, for example. And someone can hold that an unprovable thing is still somehow knowable. Throw in the closely related "A person who holds ... doubt, uncertainty, or scepticism regarding the existence of a God or of all deities," and you get another three related but distinct definitions. Like with "atheist", which one is the "true" definition of "agnostic" depends on who you ask. -- 128.104.112.179 (talk) 16:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Nguyen, Andrea Q., "The Evolution of Phở," San Jose Mercury News, reprinted at Pho 24 website
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language&oldid=321593449"