:::plus, why would an (essentially) stone age tribe have a word for 'hovercraft'? --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 21:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
:::plus, why would an (essentially) stone age tribe have a word for 'hovercraft'? --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 21:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
::::I read where someone developed words in Latin for things like airplanes, so it would probably be possible with "hovercraft" - it would just be a very long word, such as the combination of "boat," "sail," and "air." However, that is only possible becuase once they saw one, they would have a frame of reference. An eel, that would be a little more difficult, as without examining it they wouldn't really be able to tell how to distinguish it from any of the creatures on their moon.It would be doable, but not quite at first glance like a craft that was floating on air as a boat would on water.[[Special:Contributions/209.244.187.155|209.244.187.155]] ([[User talk:209.244.187.155|talk]]) 21:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Revisionasof21:54,19February2010
Welcome to the language section of the Wikipedia reference desk.
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.
I posted this on the entertainment desk a few days ago, but I didn't get a reply, so I thought I might try here. There is a line in the Switchfoot song "Free" (from Hello Hurricane, 2009) which goes "There’s a hole in the neighborhood/Where the shadows fall". When I heard it, it reminded me of the line in the Elbow song "Grounds for Divorce" (from The Seldom Seen Kid, 2008) that goes "There's a hole in my neighbourhood down which of late I cannot help but fall". Is the Switchfoot line an allusion to the Elbow song, or are they both drawing from a separate phrase that I am unfamiliar with? —Akrabbimtalk03:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose then that it is reasonable to assume that nobody else has heard of it before, Elbow coined it, and Switchfoot alluded to it. —Akrabbimtalk01:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OED help, please?
D'oh! includes the following quote about the word's inclusion in the Oxford English Dictionary: "Eight quotations are cited: the earliest is from 1945; two others are Simpsons-related." I'm confused by this statement; does it mean that one is from 1945, two are Simpsons-related, and five are newer than 1945 and unrelated to the The Simpsons?Nyttend (talk) 06:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The OED lists two from 1945, in ITMA scripts spelling it Dooh and Doh. One each from 1952, 1989 and 1991. One from 1993 in a technical document prefaced with the words "as Homer Simpson might say...". Then the first one with the apostrophe and from the Simpsons in Simpsons Comics strike Back! (1996) and one later that from a different program's script. The OED has a separate entry for duh dating it to 1943 in a Merrie Melodies cartoon. meltBanana14:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was used long before the Simpsons. I recall comedies where some blustery person in power would make a grudging agreement to grant some request and say "D'oh, all right, have it your way," a slightly angry and resigned way of saying "Oh, all right." One such character actor, if memory serves, was Roy Roberts. Edison (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please critique the following sentences for grammar and punctuation based on standard American English rules.
Version A: My last question is would I be able to pass a test and receive credit for English 1102 without completing the course?
Version B: My last question, would I be able to pass a test and receive credit for English 1102 without completing the course?
I'd say that version A is acceptable but that a comma after is would be usual, and I would prefer to capitalize would at the beginning of the direct question (though that is optional)—so "My last question is, Would I be able to pass a test and receive credit for English 1102 without completing the course?" You could, of course, rephrase the question as an indirect one: "My last question is whether I would be able to pass a test and receive credit for English 1102 without completing the course." Deor (talk) 15:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Version B is acceptable with a colon in place of the comma: My last question: Would I be able to pass a test...?. +Angr15:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, because the office of monarch of the United Kingdom is supposed to be passed on to a relative. It would only be nepotism if it was an office that was supposed to be assigned to someone on the basis of merit. +Angr13:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's right. And even if Lizzy did not want to become queen, but preferred the life of a wandering troubador or an international tennis star, she would have had no choice. The law made her queen; end of story. She would have had to abdicate to get her way - and she couldn't even do that unilaterally. If the parliament refused to allow her to abdicate, she stays put; end of story. Her only option then would be suicide. For the third and, sadly, final time, end of story. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or a jockey. I think if ERII had actually said, "I won't serve", they would have found a way to accommodate her somehow. Ironically, if Charles were to say that, I suspect they would take him up on it. However, the Royals are raised with a strong sense of duty, and aside from the occasional aberation (i.e. Edward and Mrs. Simpson), there is little likelihood that a British monarch will abandon that duty. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 07:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If Good Queen Bess has anything like her mother's longevity, she'll probably outlive her son anyway. Will that make Camilla the Queen Stepmother? +Angr11:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Technically yes, although the title "Queen Mother" seems to have been a title granted to her mother on QE2's accession by QE2. I've not found any other use of it in history. I suspect Camilla's title will be something like "the Dowager Duchess of Cornwall". --TammyMoet (talk) 16:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Technically no. "Queen Mother" means a Queen who is Mother to the monarch. If Charles dies before Elizabeth, Camilla will never be Queen - the title is not applied retrospectively. There is at least one example of a woman in that position using the title Queen Mother even when she wasn't entitled to it, though. We do, of course, have an article, Queen mother, which explains all this. --Tango (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can think of at least two dozen books or texts written in Elizabethan English that I'd love to read, but unfortunately much of it is totally incomprehensible to me. I could just read notes and study guides alongside King Lear and The Tragical History of Dr. Faustus, but that'd kind of spoil the experience for me. Can anyone recommend to me a resource -- preferably online -- that can help me understand the vocabulary, the syntax, the rules, etcetera? It'd be appreciated. Heracles Thunderface (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have a copy of Romeo and Juliet somewhere with a side-by-side "translation" into current English (I'm sure they exist for other texts too). That might be a good option. Glancing across to the opposite page when you don't understand something shouldn't detract from your enjoyment as much as opening a study guide would. By far the best way to get used to Elizabethan English is to expose yourself to it (the same applies to learning any language), so I think trying to find a Teach Yourself Elizabethan English textbook, or similar, would be unwise. Some of the problems with understanding Shakespeare, though, isn't the language changes by the cultural changes, eg. "Do you bite your thumb at us, sir?" (R&J, Act 1, Scene 1). The vocab and syntax are identical to current English usage, but it means nothing to us without the knowledge that biting your thumb was, when the play was written, equivalent to sticking your middle finger up at someone now. I don't know any better way to understand those kind of comments than a study guide, or annotated copy of the play. --Tango (talk) 14:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I read some of the Canterbury Tales and best of all Sir Thomas Mallory's Arthurian legends without any training. They're a lot older and harder than Elizabethan. The trick I used was just to read it out loud - it usually makes sense if you just imagine that they're rubbish at spelling. Keep your thumb in the glossary at the back to look up any words that are too weird. Keep going and you'll suddenly get with the flow. Well, it worked for me. Alansplodge (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Middle English is much harder than Early Modern English (although I think Shakespeare wrote rather more poetically than Chaucer, which counters it a bit - that may just be my minimal experience of Chaucer talking, though). While you may have been able to understand it by reading it out loud, you would have been completely mispronouncing everything. Chaucer pre-dated the Great Vowel Shift. --Tango (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you're a philistine. In particular, modern pronunciation can destroy both the rhythm and the rhyme of Middle English poetry, since words may not have the same number of syllables or stress in the same place as they did 800 years ago, and two words that rhymed then may not still rhyme now. +Angr21:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you can, the best way to understand a Shakespeare play is to see a *good* performance first rather than just reading a play yourself. The actors and director put a lot of effort into understanding the text in rehearsal and how they play it in performance helps audience understanding. Then read the play yourself afterwards. Most editions have explanatory footnotes or analysis to help understanding. The problem in my recommended approach might be in finding a good performance. There are some I've seen that left me cold but then other productions of the same play have been stunning. If you have access to an R2 DVD player, I recommend the recent David Tennant/Patrick Stewart/RSC Hamlet. The R1 version is out later this year. I also quite liked Kenneth Brannagh's Hamlet and also his Henry V. There aren't many Shakespeare DVDs to choose from though, so look out for live theatrical performances also. If you then later want to go on to read other plays and books that you can't see performed, you'll have had a start in getting your mind/eye attuned to the language.
"Who Dares Wins" is the motto of the SAS and sounds kind of cool, you could probably get away with using it if you're in the US or something where few people would know that, but it might sound silly if you're using it for a kids soccer team in England or something. I've always liked "Today is the day, come what may", which isn't really a motto so much as a line from Crime and Punishment, and now that I think about it that one is probably more fatalistic than encouraging, but I've always liked it. I don't know... AlexiusHoratius18:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'm not a fan, the Tottenham Hotspurs Football Club motto: "Audere est Facere"[1] often translated as "To Dare is to Do" is as elegant as any. Maybe it's the root of "Who Dares, Wins". Where they got it from, I don't know. Alansplodge (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Length per se is not the deciding factor. Metternich said that Italy is not a country, merely a geographical expression. At the other extreme: "If you don't tidy up your room, I'll thrash you to within an inch of your life". Child sobs uncontrollably. Parent says "There, there, I didn't mean it literally, it's just an expression". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to the first dictionary listed at Definitions of expression - OneLook Dictionary Search, an expression can be a symbol. There is neither a minimum limit nor a maximum limit to the size of an expression.
Demonyms, the adjetives that point the country of origin or the noum (such as "Argentine", "British", "French", etc.) must be capitalized. But what about when the word denotes a languaje, such as "Spanish" or "Italian"? Do usages of the word that are mentioning the languaje rather than the demonym go capitalized as well? And what about ethnic groups, are the adjetives that point belonging to an ethnic group denomyns? Meaning, are those capitalized or not? MBelgrano (talk) 01:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, languages and ethnic groups are also considered proper nouns and are thus capitalized in correct writing (as might hopefully be found in our articles). There may be an exception, but I cannot at this moment think of one. Intelligentsium01:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In Spanish, for example, use of capitalization is much more restrictive than in English. Country names are capitalized, their peoples and languages are not. Sentences start with caps as in English. En España, los españoles hablan español. (In Spain the Spaniards speak Spanish). ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 05:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And French practice is halfway between that and English:『En France, les Français parlent français.』 Was the original question meant to only be about English, though? --Anonymous, 08:58 UTC, February 15, 2010.
English orthography is different from the orthographies of many Continental European practices, in that derivatives of proper names (adjectives etc.) are generally capitalized. AnonMoos (talk) 04:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure it's Yiddish in this context. "Thank you" in that language can be a dank aykhora sheynem dank or simply a dank, and it seems to be a response to being given the Mensch's Barnstar, where the Yiddish word מענטש (mentsh) is written. +Angr14:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
is there any website where you can translate bangla into english? I am trying to translate this statement into English: bangla gaan oila ba bahisab aroh bala oila na. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.43 (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi All, are there any website/documents ,where we can learn to respond to sarcasm/cynicism/double meaning queries or expressions from the people, which makes our lives miserable due to unavailability of similar response of bigger intensity?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.36.6 (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comebacks are effective for some people, but not for others; it's really a matter of personality. If you want to learn how to do it, then best thing to do is practice - whenever someone says something sarcastic to you, think about it for the rest of the day and make up a really good response (then enjoy it and forget about, because it will obviously be hours late). if you practice like that for a while, however, it will soon become second nature and snappy comebacks will roll right off your tongue.
however, it's not the only response. me, I use a backhanded approach: when someone says something sarcastic to me, I look at them with a wide-eyed, innocent, uncomprehending expression - kind of an "I don't understand what you mean but that doesn't make a lot of sense" look. Almost everyone will get flustered by that look, thinking that they said something dumb instead of something witty, and as soon as they look flustered enough I laugh at them. big yucks ll around. --Ludwigs216:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To learn how to make snappy comments, study Groucho Marx and Don Rickles, for example. To learn how to make snappy comebacks, study those same two guys. Or if you don't want the argument to keep going, study how the wizard toward the end of Monty Python and the Holy Grail simply stared at the king when he asked for help. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1- Can anyone translate the sentance 'colourless green ideas sleep furiously' into gramatically correct Latin for me?
2- What was the original, untranslated inscription on the gates of hell in Dante's Inferno?
3- I read somewhere that the Spanish sometimes criticise a messy place by saying 'This looks like a republic in here', but what would that have been in Spanish?
I can answer 2: Per me si va ne la città dolente, per me si va ne l'etterno dolore, per me si va tra la perduta gente. Giustizia mosse il mio alto fattore: fecemi la divina podestate, la somma sapienza e 'l primo amore. Dinanzi a me non fuor cose create se non etterne, e io etterno duro. Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'entrate
As for your Latin request, I am stuck because I don't think that there is a single word that means "colorless" in the sense of being without color. You would have to use a circumlocution such as non coloratae ("not colored" or "uncolored"), or, if you are looking for a contradiction, you could use something like rubrae ("red"). Assuming that you want to preserve the meaning, you could try Notiones virides non coloratae vehementer dormiunt. Marco polo (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to Lewis and Short, "Gloss. Philox." (whatever that is, a gloss of Philoxenus I suppose) has "incolor" as a translation of the Greek "achroos", which means "colourless". L&S also has "incolorate", which means "without specifying a cause" in Justinian's Digest, which is etymologically from "incoloratus" although there is no entry for that. But that just means it wasn't a classical word. What do they know anyway? Fortunately "incoloratus" is a much-used scientific/neo-Latin word, as Google shows us. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did check out Fowler, but find I'm no clearer. That man's writing gets less plain English by the day.
A. "Whoever keeps doing this deserves to be shot".
B. "I am going to shoot <...> keeps doing this".
In B, my head says that "whomever" is the right word, but my gut says "whoever", and I've learned to trust my gut. It seems that the object of "shoot" is not just "whoever", but "whoever keeps doing this", so the 'whoever' is not declined.
I guess I am going to shoot whomever you choose could be an example of what you're looking for. Whomever is the object of choose and the whole subordinate clause whomever you choose is the object to shoot. Pallida Mors20:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The case of "who(m)ever" gets decided by the "downstairs" clause, i.e. the narrower clause within the sentence. So Jack's gut is right that it's "I am going to shoot whoever keeps doing this" and Pallida is right that it's "I am going to shoot whomever you choose". It's also "Whomever you want to marry will always be welcome here", because it's the object of "marry" in the narrower clause, while the object subject of "will" is the whole "whomever you want to marry". +Angr21:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Angr, isn't the close "whomever you want to marry" the subject of will [be], rather than the object? Or maybe I just missed something in your post... Pallida Mors22:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who/whom isn't easy to judge by intuition, but he/him is easier, usually. You can try substituting he/him for whoever/whomever and juggling the words to make it sound right. If "he" fits better, use "whoever". If "him" fits better, use "whomever". --Kjoonlee23:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to shoot "he who" keeps doing this. -> whoever
The first example doesn't work for me, because "he who" there would be "him who", and thus "whomever" - which is the wrong result. The second example doesn't work because it doesn't seem to involve an -ever word at all. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
just figure out whether the who(m)ever is the focus in the minor phrase. for instance, in the phrase "Whoever keeps doing this" whoever is the is the focus of 'keeps doing this'; in the phrase "whomever you choose," 'you' is the focus (you choose whomever).
Then I can't see the relevance of that example. How does it help me decide whether 'whoever' or 'whomever' is the appropriate word to use? Sorry, Kjoonlee, but your advice, while well intentioned, just doesn't help. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The rule is: if you would use 'who', use 'whoever'. If you would use 'whom', use 'whomever'. If you don't know whether to use 'who' or 'whom', you can read about it in our article on whom. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Whom' has passed out of usage, so you might as well worry about the grammar of Elizabethan english. I read somewhere that not even the pedants use Fowler anymore. 89.242.101.230 (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To whom it may concern: I must respectfully disagree. 'Whom' is used less and less, that's for sure, but it ain't dead yet. If you don't believe me, may I remind you that it's you for whom the bell tolls. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 04:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact we are using it strongly indicates that it has not passed out of usage. Who may be regarded as an acceptable, or even preferable, substitute in many dialects, but that isn't the same thing as it having passed out of usage completely. 86.182.38.255 (talk) 13:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a word that means specifically a line of dialogue from a play? I guess something like 'stanza' for a poem, but referring to the line spoken by a single character. That line could span multiple sentences.
Obviously within the context of talking about plays 'line' will do just fine since every line within a play is dialogue (unless it's a stage direction, which I guess would be referred to as such). However sometimes you might want to refer to the play meaning from outside that context, and it seems cumbersome to say 'line in a play', and too nonspecific to say 'dialogue line'.
"Speech" is commonly used for a gobbet of uninterrupted dialogue spoken by a single character. Is that what you're referring to? Deor (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Deor, I want the word to refer to smaller dialogue too like interjections and between-character banter... Also it needs to be technical enough to recall the context of a play from outside that context, in the way that 'stanza' does with poetry - 'speech' is in too common general use to immediately bring to mind plays. Amoe (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it quite literally is called a "line", as in the director saying "start with the first line after ________ in scene II" or actors asking for a line prompt during rehearsal. Perhaps "dialogue", or something similar is more what you are looking for? Ks0stm(T•C•G)00:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, among literary scholars who publish books (at any rate), the word IS "speech," even if it refers to only one word. So "He." (the fifth line of Hamlet) is a "speech." There's no other common word for what you describe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.17.55.100 (talk) 03:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have access to a dictionary right now, but it would be worth looking up 'stich' and 'hemistich'. And while you're at it, just for fun, look up stichomythia. Maid Marion (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A Greek friend tells me there's a word in her language for people able to sense the future through their nose, also used to describe dogs' sense of smell. She doesn't know how to spell it -- phonetically it's os-fri-ssi -- can anyone give me the word?
Hi, Sluzzelin, nice to see you, and thanks for the answer - this is my girlfriend's response: 'I think that the word osfrissi is a general word for smelling! Humans who make excellent predictions regarding the future are told that they have a good osfrissi. My parents who are primary educated described it to me years ago and i was misled to think that it referred to dogs who have an excellent sense of smell and humans who can sense the future.' - so was she misled? Does the word mean 'sense of smell'? is it sometimes used idiomatically to refer to someone with a keen precognitive sense? Adambrowne666 (talk) 11:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"osphresis" is an English medical term (derived from Greek) that refers to the sense of smell. I don't know about the idiomatic usage, but it wouldn't surprise me. People often use smelling metaphors when describing intuitions. "I smell a rat", "Something smells fishy here", etc. Indeterminate (talk) 23:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The noun is όσφρηση and the word described as "smelling something likely to happen" is μυρίζομαι (pronounced: mi-rii-zo-me, I don't know how to use phonetics...). Hope I was to some help! This is also posted on the WP Greece page. Pel thal (talk) 13:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What does this mean? For example "It matters not how strait the gate" in Invictus. I think there is a novel with a similar title in translation Strait is the gatebyAndre Gide. The discussion page of the Invictus article claims there was another very similar poem with the same phrase. And any reason why it is strait rather than straight? Thanks. 78.146.222.3 (talk) 02:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Strait' means "narrow." It's a little archaic and most often found in biblical quotes or references such as the ones you cite, or in established phrases such as "straitened circumstances" (which refers to temporary poverty). However, "strait/straits" is also a still-current geographical term (often used in the plural form) referring to a narrow seaway, such as the Strait of Gibraltar or the Strait of Malacca. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 02:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In case it's not clear, the phrases you cite are an allusion to Matthew 7:13–14 in the King James Version of the Bible: "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." Deor (talk) 02:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Matthew 7:14. It's archaic except in the phrase "strait and narrow." See http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/strait-and-narrow.html -- "it calls on a now rather archaic meaning of strait, that is, 'a route or channel, so narrow as to make passage difficult'. This is still found in the names of various sea routes, e.g. the Straits of Dover." nowadays people acept "straight and narrow," even though that's (probably) not the original expression: "The 'confined and restricted' meaning of strait still also lingers on in straitjacket, dire straits, strait-laced and straitened circumstances. All of these are frequently spelled with 'straight' rather than 'strait'. These spellings, although technically incorrect, are now widely accepted and only 'dire straights' comes in for any sustained criticism." Dire Straights -- now THERE was a cool band! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.17.55.100 (talk) 02:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Use of the word 'liberal' in America
I seem to be getting the impression that the word 'liberal' is used in the US as an insult, however I fail to see why. The word 'liberal' here in the UK can be used in politics to mean a number of things, all generally good, or at least neutral in felling. How did the word develop such negative connotations in the US? In fact, can anyone clarify to me what those connotations are? --KageTora - (影虎) (A word...?)17:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My experience as a Brit living in the US is that it appears to be insulting to claim someone's further left on the political spectrum than you are. I have no idea why. And "liberal" is used to mean "left-wing" over here, despite the presence of neoliberals on the US right. (When people on the mainstream US left, which seems to be a little right of the UK centre, want to refer to their political position, they seem to use the word "progressive".) This is all OR, of course. Marnanel (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Liberal" in the U.S. is only an insult when used by people who wish it were one. And it only seems to mean "left wing" in the U.S., when actually people called "liberal" in America (like Obama and the Clintons) are right-of-center, and therefore match up quite nicely with the parties called "liberal" in Europe (e.g. LibDems, FDP). In fact, there is practically no left wing in American politics at all, just the right-of-center Democrats and the far-right Republicans. +Angr18:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would point out that there is a genuine left in the United States. Those are truly left do not identify as "liberals". Liberals are seen as bourgeois, in the Marxist sense of the word. US leftists identify as radicals or progressives. However, the true left is so demonized in the hegemonic media and in the mainstream political culture that it has been effectively marginalized. The true left probably makes up less than 5% of the adult population and has almost no political representation thanks to our winner-takes-all electoral system.
People in the United States who do identify as liberal (a much smaller group than those, including many centrists, or even center-right politicians, who are labeled as liberal by the right) tend to support a strong regulatory and redistributive role for government, but, most liberals would argue, a role that advances the long-term interest of all sectors of society, including that of the capital-owning class. I would add that people in the US who identify as liberal tend to be highly educated and to belong to well-paid professions (though some poorer members of minority groups would probably identify as well.) The right has used the "liberal" label as a way to draw on the resentment of broad masses of moderately or poorly educated white people toward liberal professionals, labeled "liberal elites" by rightwing pundits, and toward liberal policies that seem to favor non-white groups or groups such as homosexuals who violate the conservative morality of many less educated (and religious) Americans. Demonizing liberals helps to mobilize these disfranchised white people against the government in general, which helps to provide popular support for a rightist agenda of eliminating government regulations that stand in the way of corporate gain or that redistribute the incomes of the wealthy through taxation. A book called What's the Matter with KansasbyThomas Frank explores how this strategy works. Marco polo (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both 'liberal' and 'conservative' can be used as insults, although 'liberal' more so. I'm honestly not sure why and have wondered about this, too. 'Progressive' is the term sometimes preferred by liberals in the US. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Oh, I'm well aware that there's a genuine (in the worldwide understanding of the concept) and largely unrepresented left wing in the US; I was trying to differentiate this from the merely relative left-wing in mainstream politics by my use of the word "mainstream". Perhaps this wasn't the best idea. Marnanel (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
any word is an insult if it's used to insult people, you silly morpheme. generally the term 'liberal' is used in the US by highly conservative people to assert that basically moderate people are licentious, unscrupulous, and untrustworthy - it's a scarlet letter that has little to nothing to do with the actual political meaning of the word liberal. the whole thing stems back to the Newt Gingrich/Moral majority days, when 'liberal' meant the remaining voices of the 60's/70's cultural revolution (civil rights, gender equality, gay rights, environmentalism, abortion - all the anathemas of kneejerk conservatism); it got adopted as a political code word and it stuck. sooner or later, some radical will come along and flip-flop it again: adopt 'liberal' as an anti-conservative banner and re-elevate it to a good term. might take another decade or two, though... --Ludwigs219:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no reference for this, but I think I'm right. This all started in the 1988 U.S. presidential election, when George H.W. Bush went out of his way in every paragraph of every speech to use the term "Massachusetts liberal" or simply "liberal" to deride his opponent, Michael Dukakis, who weakly responded that it was OK to be a liberal. There were editorial cartoons showing Bush saying "Liberal liberal, liberal liberal liberal liberal liberal!" in campaign speeches. When Dukakis did the tank ride and looked ridiculous, and then when he lost the election, it may be that the associated term "liberal" was tarnished by proxy. This link claims that "Dukakis has been blamed for allowing "liberal" to be considered a bad word", so it's not just me. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO this is getting quite off-topic - especially for WP:RD/L - and might be worth moving to the Humanities desk, despite KageTora's wording of his question. -- the GreatGavini20:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so basically what I'm understanding of this is that 'liberal' can be used by right-wingers to refer to anyone who is not as right-wing as them, and while the normal meaning of the word (at least in the case of UK politics) is 'centre' (and therefore not as right-wing as right-wingers), it can be used to refer to people who are left-wing (who, of course, are also not as right-wing as right-wingers) even though in the UK sense of the word these people would never be considered liberal. Also, as right-wingers generally have a contempt for left-wingers (and everyone else - even other right-wingers), the term 'liberal' (meaning in this case 'left[-of-me]-winger') can be used as an insult. Interesting, thanks. --KageTora - (影虎) (A word...?)00:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To put it a little bit bluntly, "liberal" in the US has a shade of dog-whistle politics. It became a perjorative in US politics in the 1980's or so, when conservative politicians characterized the social programs of the 1960's (e.g. Great Society) as taking away the hard-earned money of (cough) real Americans, in order to give it away to lazy do-nothings (which basically meant anything that benefited people of the wrong skin color). Much of the energy in this movement came from resentment in various demographics against the civil rights movement of the 1950's and 60's (i.e. by racism). See also southern strategy. 66.127.55.192 (talk) 08:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the term has been rehabilitated somewhat in the past few years. Until the mid-2000's even actual outspoken followers of social/economic liberal ideology were afraid to be called liberals, and instead used the term "progressive" (which is still in use). I don't remember ever hearing anyone call himself/herself a liberal (in the US) til towards the end of the second Bush administration. I had a European houseguest in the late 1990's who was into leftwing politics but referred to it as "liberal" and I had to remind myself that the term didn't carry the same sense in other countries. 66.127.55.192 (talk) 09:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so in terms of its modern usage in the US, I would be safe in assuming that, as it now encompasses basically everyone besides the speaker, it is basically just a meaningless insult (which is, of course, what many insults are - you can call someone a bastard without having any knowledge whatsoever of the circumstances of his/her birth). Thanks for the replies, guys (and gals). --KageTora - (影虎) (A word...?)16:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think its connotations (when used as an insult) are somewhat more specific, as described above. It could be taken to mean something like "weakling". It connotes somebody who is excessively sympathetic to the Other (i.e. members of the wrong race, religion, ideology, etc.) and wants to impoverish or endanger the speaker's group for the Other's benefit. An example might be someone who proposes subjecting accused Middle Eastern or Muslim terrorists to regular criminal trials, instead of simply torturing them til they expire. That person would be a liberal weakling, because of the "otherness" of the accused. On the other hand, if a regular American (rather than an Other) is accused of terrorism, it's just normal due process, not liberal weakness, to put the accused through a regular trial. 66.127.55.192 (talk) 02:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
February 17
place name and family name
It may or may not be true, but it is a reasonable guess, that Marvin Minsky is descended from someone who once lived in the city of Minsk.
There does not seem to be a city called Chomsk. Any idea where Noam Chomsky's forebears might have hailed from, going just by his name? (Looking up his actual biography doesn't count; I'm wondering more where these names get their origins).
If Wikipedia did have an article on it, it would be at Khomsk; the Russian spelling of the last name Chomsky is Хомский, although Noam Chomsky himself is sometimes called Ноэм Чомски in Russian. (I once heard that there are Russians who have heard of both the outspoken American political dissident Ноам Хомский and the American linguist Ноэм Чомски but don't realize that the two are the same person; I can't verify that that's true though.) +Angr10:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We do have pl:Chomsk and be:Вёска Хомск though. According to my (bad) understanding of Polish, it had 1700 residents in 1921, and was seat of a gmina, but since most were Jews, it was practically wiped out during the Holocaust. While it is certainly not a proof, it may well be prof Chomsky's...what's the correct XXXnym here? Eponym?No such user (talk) 13:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But that's not what he means. The idea is that the Chomsky family is named after Khomsk, not that Khomsk is named after Chomsky. +Angr15:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see there is also a city called Kholmsk, in a part of Russia quite distant from Belarus. Also, WP search for "Khomsk" finds the biography of David B. Steinman, which indicates that Khomsk is/was part of Brest, Belarus, which is a bit more of a population center and therefore likely to have produced more emigrants than a town of 1700 people could. 66.127.55.192 (talk) 02:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a mix-up there: there's only one Khomsk/pl:Chomsk in Belarus (I saw census data in the meanwhile), which is in the area of Brest, Belarus indeed (pl:Obwód brzeski). Noam Chomsky's father has origins from present-day Ukraine, which is near enough. The fact that the village of Chomsk had only 2,000 people doesn't mean that it was the source of numerous immigrants: all it takes that one man back in time gets named "Chomsky" (after the village or something else), and that he has a sufficient number of male descents so that the surname does not get extinct. Likelihood of pl:Chomsk being the origin of Noam's surname is increased because it had a numerous Jewish population, so it matches his origins. No such user (talk) 07:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, it looks like there is a city formerly named Trotsk. I knew that Leon Trotsky was a self-selected nom-de-guerre, so I wondered if it was inspired by the name of the city. But it looks like the city was (temporarily) named after Trotsky instead. Which makes me ask, ok, how did Lev Bronstein pick the name "Trotsky"? 66.127.55.192 (talk) 05:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it was a real surname he had encountered, because other people have it (see Trotski (disambiguation)). Could be a distorted (contracted) form of Troitsky, a surname and adjective corresponding to to the locality name Troitsk, both ultimately derived from troitsa, "(Holy) Trinity". Another theory is that it comes from Troki (an old name of Trakai, Lithuania).[3] As for why he chose it, I don't know anything and it may be that he never gave any explanation, but I suspect it was just for the resonant sound of it; it sounds kinda militant and rrrrevolutionary, with a Russian rolled R. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
i do not find these words in my dictionnary, gulp > help
i just watched again One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and was wondering about the meaning of the title : answer : Title interpretation : ok ok ok but (my mother tongue is french) i do not understand some words of the rhyme (probably kiddy pronunciation?!) and its whole meaning anyway, sigh--- Vintery, mintery, cutery, corn = ??? -- thanks in advance for any help -- kernitoutalk17:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think they are oldish words for various common farm-related things: 'vintery' is likely related to grapes of wine processing (like the word 'vintner'), 'cutery' is a place or a thing involved with cutting (possibly another name for a mill), 'corn' (obviously) is grain. 'mintery' - at a complete guess - is someplace where farm tools are fabricated. The sense of the rhyme, though, has to do with the cuckoo, which is a metaphor for an unsavory transformation (cuckoos lay there eggs in other bird's nests, so from the perspective of other birds, their offspring turn into monstrosities) - basically it implies that just by randomly flying around the countryside one can find oneself 'changed'. --Ludwigs218:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you google those 4 words together you find all kinds of references, some to just the poem and/or the film, others to past questions on other sites about what the first line actually means, and no one seems to know except that it seems to be simply a nonsense rhyme. Maybe a bit like "hickory, dickory, dock; the mouse ran up the clock". That word "dickory" seems to be made up. I also saw versions that start with "Intery" instead of "Vintery". ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 06:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't help with the translation, but I can tell you why Google's translation was gibberish - the Chinese you have written here is Cantonese, and Google only does the standard language of China. --KageTora - (影虎) (A word...?)21:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The sentence uses non-standard characters / idiomatic character usage to reflect Cantonese pronunciation / usage rather than standard mandarin.
Those sometimes show up in informal Chinese and slang, sometimes as borrowed abbreviations (such as "ML" from 'make love'--even though no one in English says "ML", I've heard it in Chinese) and sometimes because the letter sounds like a Chinese word (such as "B" for 屄, which is pronounced bi in Pinyin and means something quite bad). rʨanaɢtalk/contribs23:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I second PalaceGuard008's translation as a native Cantonese speaker, although the original tone is more vulgar (but not quite full on insulting) than what his translation may appear. --antilivedT | C | G00:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First thing I thought of was a reference to ADVENT--one of the puzzles requires you to get past a giant snake, and the way you solve it is by releasing a small bird into the same room. The bird then attacks and drives off the snake. *shrug* Anyway, it's what came to mind. Not sure why it would be referenced in Chinese (well, Cantonese) or why it would be insulting, so I'm probably wrong. 24.247.163.175 (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
February 18
Sai Ong lost a horse ... (done)
Based on the 2200 year old parableofThe Daoist Farmer who lost his Horse (horse +one comes back, son rides horse, breaks leg, soldiers get drafted, son gets spared..), the Chinese are supposted to have a proverb saying "Sai Ong lost a horse..." meaning "Okay, bad luck right now, but who knows...?".
(a) Is that true?
(b) What is the correct Latin and Chinese Transcription of this proverb?
After typing here the mandarin transliteration of the four characters you wrote above, it suddenly occurred to me that you were in fact asking what the proverb is in Chinese and whether your version is correct or not. If that is the case, unless no-one knows the specific answer (I don't, sorry), you may have to fall back on Google. I've just tried but for some reason a lot of the online dictionaries and proverb lists I usually use seem to be all simultaneously either down or having serious trouble fully loading. It may just be me and not the entire internets, so you could try. --KageTora - (影虎) (A word...?)11:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The characters above are already a condensate of what can be found on the web. However, I'd like to receive a feedback of a native speaker, whether (a) "the proverb thing" is right and (b) if yes, how it's exactly written. Background: I am writing a WP-article about the subject (still waiting for a book to arrive which contains the "official" translation of the parable [which you can find 100.000-fold on the web - but with all kinds of additions and twists]). 213.169.161.126 (talk) 11:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find it myself - I'm no native speaker, soy knowledge of Chinese sayings are small. If you can read the characters alright, this is a list of saying about horses: [4]. I hope there's something usable there. Steewi (talk) 05:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was reading the article on Copy Protection and came across two words in the beginning of a short paragraph that reads:
"Companies that choose to publish works under copy protection do so because they believe that the added expense of implementing the copy protection will be offset by even greater increases in revenue by creating a greater scarcity of casually copied media."
I also prefer (1), but it's an interesting distinction. I don't think the second sentence is quite senseless, it's just that virgin is being used as group label, which is a little uncommon and clunky. Either that, or it's a mass noun :). Matt Deres (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the edit in question, which removed the "s," was just a test edit and not an attempt to improve the grammar at all. +Angr22:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic: this is an example of how all of these porn star articles are written in a very inappropriate way. They relate the starlets' self-promotional claims about their sexual history as God's truth. It's obvious that the actress and their manager are not "reliable sources" about this and nothing they say on the subject can be taken at face value, because it's all part of the product and its advertisement that is intended to titillate and excite the audience, just like their orgasms on camera are "unverifiable". What texts like this should say is "she says she had never done sexual act X before the flick", "she says her first time involved her paedophilic uncle and a vacuum-cleaner and her second time was with 20 Yakuza men who gang-raped her" (this is actually a real example, although I don't remember the name of the actress). But all of this stuff is presented uncritically as fact - apparently because that's what fans and their penes want to believe, and such articles are inevitably written by enthusiastic porn fans. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard that the Saran Wrap method is discussed in Heloise's Helpful Hints. In any case, that sentence could be worded better. For one, it could begin, "In her bio, she states that because they were both inexperienced..." ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 14:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The colour bronze - translation to Latin
I've fretted over this issue for quite a while now, what is the name of the colour bronze in Latin? I know bronze is aes but I want to avoid confusion with coins. Therefore, I'm here with this query. 130.238.56.209 (talk) 13:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not in my experience. "Recidivism" would be used in the contexts listed in the question. I think the "-tion" suffix in the question is just due to Ms. Amherst not being familiar with the word. -- Coneslayer (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A subtle distinction, I think, between the two: are you primarily watching the person, or the act? "Giving" for the first, "give" for the second. Bazza (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, in response to Bazza (though please bear in mind that I´m no native speaker), I was tought that the (bare) infinitive form marks that the act (of giving birth) is observed almost completely, while the -ing form refers to a partial observation. Pallida Mors17:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is, indeed, the case in isolation; but the original question was about "someone give/giving birth" and it was to this more complex consideration that I directed my response. Bazza (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was on the London Underground yesterday and was struck that the automated announcements use the word "alight" (as in "Alight here for the British Museum"). I can never remember anyone using the word "alight" in conversation and I suspect would be unknown to anyone who has English as a second language. Is there a better word they could use? "Get off" seems a bit blunt. Alansplodge (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think trams in the USA would simply say, "[such-and-such] Museum" just as the train is stopping. "Get off" is redundant. Obviously you have to get off the train if you're going to see the Museum. "Alight here" is funny usage, but you never know about them Brits. It gives me a mental picture of the passengers sprouting wings and gently landing on the platform like a pigeon or something. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 17:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The stop isn't actually at the museum, it's just the nearest stop to the museum. The automated announcements often list the tourist attractions that are best reached from the next stop. --Tango (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec x 2)I was considering this last year while on the Underground. It seems that the only context in British English in which this word is used with this meaning is on the Tube! What about "depart" or "leave the train here for..."?--TammyMoet (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Exit" would be good. I still say it's redundant. However, someone new to the city or someone not speaking English natively might imagine that they are now physically in the museum, so telling them to exit the train is probably safer. Although I would word it as, "Please exit the train", just to be clearer. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 17:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Bugs, I should have made the question clearer. The whole announcement goes: "This is Russel Square - alight here for the British Museum". So you would need to replace "alight" with another verb. Alansplodge (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Please exit here for the British Museum, the Royal Pub, and many entertaining street performers." The front part of that would seem to be a better way to say it. I wonder if the folks who manage the Tube are reading this right now? If not, they are not likely to change it. :) ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 18:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "alight" is certainly the Standard English word for "get off/out of a vehicle", I don't think anyone is questioning that. The question is whether it is unnecessary to use the precise word when a more general, and better known, word would convey the same information. --Tango (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't they also say "Mind the gap", which also seems likely to be confusing to nonnative speakers? ("Watch your step" would be the corresponding warning in AmE, I guess—just as confusing to anyone unfamiliar with the idiom.) The only thing I regularly mind is my manners. Deor (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Mind the gap" wouldn't be confusing to Norwegian speakers - the Oslo Metro have introduced the word "gæpp", which is how "gap" would be spelled in Norwegian, in a campaign, and in in written warnings next to the doors. [9][10] Thankfully, they haven't started using it in spoken announcements, though. --NorwegianBluetalk20:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Mind the gap" is much more precise than "watch your step" and, in this case, that precision is useful. "The gap" refers to the gap between the platform and the train, which can sometimes be quite large (especially at stations with curved platforms). They only give the warning at stations where there is a significant gap. I don't think "mind the gap" is really an idiom, it says precisely what it means. --Tango (talk) 18:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the latest version goes: "Please mind the gap between the train and the platform" and as Tango says, is used where there is a curved platform and a big gap between the end doors of each car and terra firma. Alansplodge (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That fuller explanation would make sense even to us Americans, although if the gap had been sufficiently wide to present a potential hazard, the gap would probably be filled in, to reduce the likelihood of lawsuits. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 19:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You need to imagine a curved, tubular tunnel with a platform on one side and the rails on the other. The train runs a few inches from the far wall[11][12]. There is no way of filling in the gap without re-boring the tunnel and straightening it. As trains don't do corners very well (especially in tunnels), it would mean changing the course of the tunnel for hundreds of metres. It would cost billions and mean years of travel disruption (up to 4 million passengers a day use the Tube[13]). Therefore, we have an announcement. Alansplodge (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I live in Boston, one of the older cities in the United States, with curved tracks and inevitable gaps between the train and platform, just like London. I swear I heard the train conductor say the other day in his Boston accent, "Please mind the gap between the train and the platform". This is not a standard, recorded announcement, and it isn't made every time, but it is understandable enough for Americans. Marco polo (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it may "sound funny" and there may be other phrases to use but we English all understand it and it works fine for us. As usual some people find things outside their experience "funny" but that qualifies the person more than the topic. 'Alight', 'Alight here', 'Do not alight when the vehicle is moving' and other variations have a long and well understood usage in the UK and refers to the leaving of transport vehicles. It is one of the innumerable differences in the English English and American English vocabularies. "Mind the gap" is a pretty outdated and little-used warning in my experience, I can't remember the last time I heard it on the London Underground. It might be needed in some older stations but a very few, and then only maybe. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 20:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Alight" is a very formal word, but I suspect it is used because there isn't an equivalent of middling formality. In normal speech, we would say 'get off' or 'get out', but those feel too colloquial for an announcement. (We don't "exit" a train in the UK).
And I saw "Mind the gap" painted on the platform last week (not a spoken announcement, I admit). It wasn't in London: I was going from Yorkshire to Edinburgh. It was probably at my local station. --ColinFine (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And it's not just curved platforms. The suburban station I use has straight platforms but occasionally the bottom of the train's door is about 0.5 m higher then the platform. In those cases, we sometimes get a "mind the gap" announcement. Astronaut (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jan Nowak-Jeziorański, a member of Polish Resistance who was shuttling between Warsaw and London during World War II, almost got killed when he was being smuggled inside a bomb bay of a British bomber and misunderstood a sign reading "Do not alight while the engine is running"; he thought it meant "do not smoke while the engine is running". — Kpalion(talk)13:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because the holiday is officially called "[George] Washington's Birthday" there is no official preference of one or the other. "Presidents Day" and "Presidents' Day" are more commonly used than "Washington's Birthday", and as a result both are considered to be correct by most dictionaries and style manuals. "President's Day" is not frowned upon but not endorsed either (and therefore is considered the "least correct"), as the apostrophe's placement refers to one person rather than a group of people. See Washington's Birthday for more information. Xenon54 / talk / 20:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably "we", but it's hard to tell without a longer extract. Should "now" be "know"? If so it's almost certainly "we", as it's (part of) the subject of the verb). "Us" in this sort of context is fairly common in informal speech, though. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 21:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this isn't directly Wikipedia related (before someone jumps down my throat about not maintaining a global view *rolls eyes*): There is little doubt that we Americans now live in a luxurious environment, as compared to most of the rest of the world. I changed it from "us" to "we", and I think that I'm happy with that, but I wanted to see what others said about it. — V = IR(Talk • Contribs)21:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The short answer is that you should use the same word that you would use if "Americans" was omitted. In this case that's "we". --Anonymous, 22:50 UTC, February 18, 2010.
On the other hand, the objective case is used in What do foreigners think of us? and therefore in What do foreigners think of us Americans?
Why do people say "the statute of limitations has expired"? The statute itself certainly has not expired. Quite the opposite, what people really mean is that the statute has kicked in! --173.49.9.55 (talk) 02:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And often there's no such thing as a "statute of limitations" applying to the particular offence in the particular jurisdiction. Just as there's no "law of averages" that can be adduced to explain every conceivable event in the history of the known universe. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 03:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That detail was also mentioned in one of the ref desks a day or two ago where someone was asking about the statute of limitations in regard to Roman "Pulaski". Don't know if it was the same IP or not. It's kind of amusing to have two questions about such a specific thing in the same week. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
well, the Pulaski thing was hursday - he's not likely to use an IP
the reason people say the statute of limitations has expired (or passed) is that it's a corruption of the longer phrase "The time in which the crime could be prosecuted under the statute of limitations has expired." It's basically the same effect as my own personal pet peeve "breaking the law", which is nonsensical shorthand for the older phrase "breaking the peace established by law". mostly I think that people have a hard time with legal concepts and tend to muck them up. --Ludwigs204:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It stuns me that anyone, but particularly regular contributors to the Language reference desk, is "annoyed" by extremely commonly used idiomatic expressions that don't happen to be literally true. How did you ever get through your lives up till this point without regularly contemplating suicide? Are you all in such a permanent state of psychological turmoil over the richness of our language that you would, if you had the power, outlaw any expression that a robot could not deal with? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
what makes you think I have gotten through my life to this point without regularly contemplating suicide?
I don't mind idiom, but I do mind idiom that's wrong. 'breaking the peace established by law' suggests the necessity for enforcing neighborliness in a liberal democratic society; 'breaking the law' is an authoritative claim about the necessity of obedience to rules qua rules. --Ludwigs219:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you're joking, Ludwigs2. Please tell me you're joking. Do you seriously expect ordinary men and women to talk about "breaking the peace established by law"? Fat chance, my friend; not even trained lawyers talk in such terms. But more to the point, there's no such thing as an "idiom that's wrong". Idioms are what they are. Languages develop certain forms of idiomatic expression, and people know what others are talking about, even if a forensic examination of the individual words might lead one elsewhere. That would be as worthless and silly an exercise as subjecting the manuscript of War and Peace or Beethoven's 9th Symphony to scientific examination and concluding that they had no more value than the cost of the paper and ink. I know you know this, so your entreaties fall into the category of confected outrage. I have yet to divine what your real, underlying point is. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I expect people to say 'breaking the peace' or 'violating the law'. and where is this coming from, anyway? have you even read Wittgenstein? because, seriously, he'd have a field day discussing the odd language games you're playing now, too. if you're jonesing for a philosophical spitball fight, let's do it somewhere else. --Ludwigs221:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that this is a colloquialism. In a more formal context, a lawyer might say "the limitations period has expired," "the claim is barred by the statute of limitation," or "the action is time-barred." John M Baker (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Navi was a made up language for a film, so the vocabulary is very, very limited. Besides, why would they have a word for a creature that does not live on their moon that they have never encountered? We do not have much of a chance of helping on this question. Googlemeister (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I read where someone developed words in Latin for things like airplanes, so it would probably be possible with "hovercraft" - it would just be a very long word, such as the combination of "boat," "sail," and "air." However, that is only possible becuase once they saw one, they would have a frame of reference. An eel, that would be a little more difficult, as without examining it they wouldn't really be able to tell how to distinguish it from any of the creatures on their moon.It would be doable, but not quite at first glance like a craft that was floating on air as a boat would on water.209.244.187.155 (talk) 21:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Ludwigs2 16:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Ludwigs2 21:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
. generally the term 'liberal' is used in the US by highly conservative people to assert that basically moderate people are licentious, unscrupulous, and untrustworthy - it's a scarlet letter that has little to nothing to do with the actual political meaning of the word liberal. the whole thing stems back to the Newt Gingrich/Moral majority days, when 'liberal' meant the remaining voices of the 60's/70's cultural revolution (civil rights, gender equality, gay rights, environmentalism, abortion - all the anathemas of kneejerk conservatism); it got adopted as a political code word and it stuck. sooner or later, some radical will come along and flip-flop it again: adopt 'liberal' as an anti-conservative banner and re-elevate it to a good term. might take another decade or two, though... --Ludwigs2 19:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done 130.238.56.209 (talk) 13:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
![[14]](http://www.popartuk.com/g/l/lgpp30385.jpg){kind=link}