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'm using livemocha to learn Italian but they are giving the English translation of "he has a white beard" as "lui ha la barba bianca" but from my of knowledge of Italian so far and my knowledge of Spanish it seems to me that it should be "lui ha una barba bianca" instead. Can anyone confirm whether I or not I am right? --212.120.246.239 (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not wrong: una usually goes with "due", "tre" etc. Because the guy cannot have 2 white beards, indicating whether he has "una" or "la" makes not difference in the meaning. I think "la" would be by far the prefered way. Una would be understood, but they might wonder why you specify the number of them, could he have "due"? some people might actually translate "lui ha una barba bianca" into "He has one white beard" --Lgriot (talk) 02:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly in French, 'il a la barbe blanche', if my memory serves me correctly. This happens with all facial features and body parts. As Lgriot states, it is not necessary to specify how many of a certain feature a person has, unless that person actually has an unusual number of them, such as the Cyclops of Greek Mythology, or you are only describing one of two of them. The definite article is usually used. After all, can you count the hairs on a person's head?--ChokinBako (talk) 19:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure does, specifically the first sentence of Note 13 on p. 286. According to the text, not only was made dictator, but also consul, tribune, and patrician.--El aprendelenguas (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that sentence says Then Carolus [Charlemagne] was named consul, tribune, universal dictator, and patrician by the emperor, pontiff, senate, and Roman people, by the given law. If you're looking for more than that for translation, let me know and I'll try, but the rest of Note 13 is slightly beyond my expertise.--El aprendelenguas (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How could he be named dictator by emperor? By which emperor? Or he made dictator himself? And 'perpetuus' probably should mean 'permanent', not 'universal'?--Dojarca (talk) 21:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the history aspect, someone else will have to step in to give a good answer. I was reluctant to use "permanent" for the translation because it wasn't recommended by any of the four dictionaries I checked [2][3][4][5]. "Lasting" or "continuous" might be better.--El aprendelenguas (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Dictator perpetuus" is often translated as "perpetual dictator" or simply "dictator for life". The rest of the note says: "The charter given by Charlemagne, the beginning and end of which I [the editor I guess?] attach here, is still preserved intact in Regensburg in the monastery of St. Emmeram. 'Charles by the grace of God king of the Franks and of the Lombards, and Patrician of Rome, grants [this charter] to the monastery of St. Emmeram, which is situated (as it is said) beyond the walls of our city of Regensburg. Granted on the 8th day before the Kalends of May [April 23] in Frankfurt in the 26th year of our reign [c. 793/94]. As for who is naming him all these things, probably Pope Hadrian I, whom Charlemagne saved from a Lombard invasion. This is probably all hyperbole; Rome wasn't much more than a pile of rubble, where the Pope, some petty nobles, and lots of peasants lived. That covers the pontiff, senate, and people; I suppose "imperator" should be understood in the Roman sense of "commander", not emperor, which probably also refers to the Pope. Charlemagne was not called emperor until 800, and it is certainly not the Byzantine emperor (actually empress at the time), who was very opposed to anyone being called emperor in the west. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What part? All of it, or note 31? It just says he held a meeting in Rome, "of which he was consul etc." Note also that this was all written by Johannes Aventinus in the 16th century, not by a contemporary chronicler. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In ancient Roman politics, the word "dictator" referred to a military commander who was given extraordinary powers of limited duration in an an emergency... AnonMoos (talk) 23:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are the Turkish Language and the Uyghur Language mutually intelligible?
Are the Turkish language of Turkey and the Uyghur language mutually intelligible? Can they understand at least 50% of each other spoken language? Sonic99 (talk) 22:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Osmanli and Uzbek are close enough that people can come to understand each other fairly quickly, but I don't know about Uighur. kwami (talk) 11:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uighur is supposed to be mostly intelligible with Turkish, from what I've read, but in the way that I (in Australia) can understand a Scotsman in broad Scots. I know what's going on, but he'll have to repeat himself a bit. Steewi (talk) 12:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Light-hearted side note: One of my favorite quotes from a Scandinavian tour book answers basically the same question about the Nordic languages as follows: Swedes and Norwegians can speak with each other, but when dealing with Danes they prefer to speak English.
Questions like this actually do have answers, although the answer is not always known. Such phrases often turn out to be much more recent than you might expect, but "kiss my ass" really is quite old. In the Historical Dictionary of American Slang, vol. 1, p. 41, it's traced back to ca. 1554 - 76 in G. Hughes Swearing p. 104: "Com kiss myne arse!" HDAS also notes that the appearance of this phrase in a literal sense in Chaucer's Miller's Tale, ca. 1389, strongly suggests its existence metaphorically as well in Middle English. John M Baker (talk) 22:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See Hyphen#Compound modifiers. I would consider that the hyphen is required in this case, but today it is becoming more common not to use it. --Anonymous, 04:40 UTC, August 10, 2008.
For what it's worth (not much), I'd say you could use simply "a curly font." The essence of a font is its appearance, so the "looking" isn't necessary, any more than it would be in "a bold font," "a thin font," "a small font," and so on. The late George Carlin used to rant that he didn't need a "hot water heater" (a common expression in the U.S.) -- "Who in hell needs to heat hot water?" OtherDave (talk) 13:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, in a storage water heater (as opposed to a demand one), which is the usual type in the US, the hot water is indeed heated, to keep it hot. --Anonymous, 03:11 UTC, August 11, 2008.
Marathi Language its Origin and Age
I would like to know what is the origin of Marathi language (the language spoken and used by a majority of people born and brought up or living in the state of Maharashtra which is a big and important state on the West Coast of India .
There is a lot of commonality between Marathi and Sanskrit . It also resembles a lot with Konkani , Kannada and othet South Indian languages.Sanskrit happens to be the origin of Devanagari and many Dravidian languages.
but i would like to know the exact age and origin and evolution of Marathi script as well as language and dialect and the age in reference to other Dravidian languages.--Sureshkarve (talk) 07:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)srk11in 100808[reply]
A couple points:
Sanskrit is not the source of any Dravidian language.
Marathi is not a Dravidian language.
Sanskrit is not the source of Devanagari. Nagari is a writing system, and Sanskrit was a language—one which wasn't even written.
You cannot date the origin of a language exactly when it evolves gradually from another. There is no absolute dividing line. Very often the same is true of scripts.
Okay, when you say "Marathi script", do you mean Moḍī?
We might be able to give an estimate of when, say, Marathi diverged from Konkani, or an approximate date for when something recognizably Marathi was first put into writting. Our Apabhramsha article it states "The modern north Indian languages are often considered to have begun to develop a distinct identity around the 11th century", and in the Marathi article it says "Marathi is [one of] the oldest of the regional literatures in Indo-Aryan languages, dating from about AD 1000," but I don't know how accurate these figures are. kwami (talk) 11:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Sanskrit is not the source of Devanagari. Nagari is a writing system, and Sanskrit was a language—one which wasn't even written."
Sanskrit was never written? Sanskrit has been written for thousands of years in a variety of scripts, one of which was Devanagari, and continues to be used as an official language of India, again using the Devanagari script.--ChokinBako (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, during the first 7 or 8 centuries or so after alphabetic writing was introduced into India, written Sanskrit texts did not generally take precedence over oral recitations of memorized texts by respected reciters, and the writing of Sanskrit was not really encouraged by the Brahmans who were the custodians of the sanctity of the Sanskrit language. That's why even some highly dry and technical works (such as Panini's theoretical grammar) were put into a kind of hypercondensed poetic form (for easier memorization and recitation). AnonMoos (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
is japanese easy to learn if your chinese is good?
If you speak and read Chinese, it will only help in that you will be able to recognize certain characters and character combinations, which may help you with vocabulary. Moreover, it depends on whether you use traditional or simplified characters, because Japanese uses a combination of both. If you only speak Chinese but can't read, then it will be of very little help at all. As an unrelated language, Japanese grammar and syntax are completely different from Chinese. --ChokinBako (talk) 14:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it that the word for "mother" across many languages, even ones that aren't related like say English and Chinese rather than Spanish and Italian, seem to have similar pronunciation. Specifically, that they seem to make use of "ma" or similar sounds. Is there an explanation for this --212.120.246.239 (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should there be a dash instead of a hyphen in the name of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and in the article about the said act in the section heading "Lincoln-Douglas Debate". On a related note, should Debate be capitalised? I have not received any answer on the appropriate talk page for a while, and I thought some of you might have an idea about this. Thanks, --Dami (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hyphen says there's no definitive rule about hyphenation (no kidding!). In general, though, hyphens have been used to break single words into parts (especially at the end of a line of text), or to join separate words into single ones (book case → book-case → bookcase is a typical evolution).
Dash gives examples of several different dashes and suggests using an en dash to contrast values and show relationships between things (e.g.,『the McCain–Feingold bill,』which is similar in form to "the Lincoln–Douglas debate").
Personally, I wouldn't capitalize "debate," except in something like the title of an article, but that's just my preference. (Oops, I misread that part of the question.) I'd capitalize "Act" because it's part of the title of the act, though in later reference like "other parts of this act..." I would not. OtherDave (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-- (hyphen) vs - (dash) though most people don't bother distiguishing the two (also note there are several schools of thought on -- vs - dash actually states thing opposite than what I just have). Mainly though the difference is how it is being used. A dash is a "hasty stroke" (often used in lists, phone numbers etc) while a hyphen is deliberate character used in writing (complex words, split words, number ranges etc).Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly when a mathematical theorem is named after two or more people, as in Cauchy–Schwarz inequality, the convention on Wikipedia is to use an ndash rather than a hyphen, but it is also true that that convention is usually not followed in the initial version of the article, and then the article gets moved later. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have always thought that 'hyphen' was just another word for 'dash', and they could be used interchangeably (except that I'd never heard of a 'hundred-metre hyphen (sorry, The Olympics are getting to me...:()).ChokinBako (talk) 16:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean the Congress of the United States? I'm not sure, but in the manual of style used by the U.S. Government Printing Office, chapter 8 discusses punctuation, including en dashes. (As elsewhere, I think, "dash" is too general a term for them.) Starts around section 8.60, on page 133 in the html version. OtherDave (talk) 21:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the US Congress, just to get an idea whether they would use an en-dash in the name of the Kansas-Nebraska Act. --Dami (talk) 22:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The GPO is the printer for all three branches of government, so the section of the style manual should give you something to go on. OtherDave (talk) 03:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am having trouble with following statements (especially second statement):
In response that a reliable source that some employer appointed soon at your disposal. I would like to offer myself as a candidate of reporter for the part-time position.
Are above statements correct? Or should I rewrite second statement: I would like to offer myself as a reporter for the part-time position.
Neither of those sentences is grammatically correct. In fact, I find the first sentence even more problematic than the second; I can't tell what idea you are trying to express. Are you saying that you have heard that they will be hiring someone?
For the second sentence, you could make it work by switching the "reporter" and "part-time position" bits: "I would like to offer myself as a candidate for the part-time position of reporter." You could also say ""I would like to offer myself as a candidate for the part-time reporter position."
The phrase "offer myself as a candidate for..." is grammatically correct, but stylistically it comes across a bit formal and stilted. It would be simpler and clearer to state "I would like to apply for the position of reporter."
Position and post do have the same meaning, though I believe usage varies from country to country. In North America, as far as I am aware, "position" is more common than "post". - EronTalk19:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Eron. So I could write "I would like to apply for the part – time position of Reporter". If it is full time position then Can I write, "I would like to apply for the full-time position of Reporter" or "I would like to apply for this position of Reporter".
As for first statement, actually employer published job advertisement on online and newspaper which caught my attention. In this instance, What could be the beginning (first) statement? --202.168.229.243 (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I assume the job in question is as a reporter. You could write "I am writing in response to your advertisement in (wherever you saw it). I would like to apply for the position of reporter." You only need to specify part-time or full-time if both kinds of positions were advertised and you are only interested in one type of employment. - EronTalk21:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"I am writing to apply for the position of reporter, as advertised in [publication]" is the way I normally do it, then start a new paragraph to state my experience and skills. If I needed to specify part-time or full-time, I would say "position of part-time/full-time reporter", putting the 'part-time/full-time' before 'reporter' and not 'position'.--ChokinBako (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not meant to be derogatory in any way, but reporters typically need to have a firm command of the English language. Your question and comments above suggest that you may not be a native speaker and that you have trouble with various aspects of sentence formation. Obviously, you're free to pursue whatever career you want, but reporting may not be your strong suit. Matt Deres (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
August 11
Was graduated
'John Smith' pursued classical studies and was graduated from Yale in 1991.
OR
'John Smith' pursued classical studies and graduated from Yale in 1991.
Is graduating something a person does or something that is done to them?
Nowadays, either one is fine. In the 19th century, the transitive sense was the only proper use ("He was graduated from Yale,") and the intransitive sense ("He graduated from Yale") was condemned. At present, both transitive and intransitive senses are accepted: the dispute now is over whether a preposition is needed: "she graduated from high school", vs. "she graduated high school". Best use still favors the former, but all three ("she was graduated from college", "she graduated from college", and "she graduated college") are perfectly standard English usage. - Nunh-huh22:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've stated more or less what the dictionary I have at hand says. So Wanderer57 is free to go with the Merriam-Webster 11th Collegiate edition, or with the musings of two Wikipedians, or to consult another dictionary. - Nunh-huh01:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nunh-huh's analysis might be accurate but a bit archaic. The examples actually use two different definitions of graduate. Graduate in the transitive sense is considered outdated, a point noted by even the Oxford English Dictionary. Instead many opt to use the definition "to take a degree". In this sence the second example would fit. Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 05:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Style guides tend to recommend active voice over passive for more precise language afaik though I couldn't find it in WP:MoS have come across it before in the pedia. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's where there exists an appropriate active construction, which would only apply to a transitive verb in any case. "He graduated from Yale" is intransitive, and is neither active nor passive. "He was graduated from Yale" is passive, the active form of which might be "Yale graduated him", or even "<something> graduated him from Yale", but I've never heard either of those forms used anywhere. The absence of an appropriate active version of "he was graduated" suggests the passive version is also malformed. But that's logic, and it doesn't necessarily have much to do with how language actually works. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Between the verbs that have dammas, kasra, or fatahs between the 3rd and 4th consonants.Is there a way to tell from the root or does one just have to 'know'?--Elatanatari (talk) 04:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no I think that's kind of random for verbs of the first pattern. It's usually damma, though. You just have to learn it for each verb. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it proper grammar to switch pronouns in this manner when writing? For example — One can do the things he had always wanted to do, but had never had the time. For some reason, I believed it is, but on review I'm thinking it isn't. seresin ( ¡? )03:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken the liberty of moving your "unrelated question" down into a separate item. --Anonymous, 04:16 UTC, August 12, 2008.
Q.1. Prescriptively: "one" does not take another pronoun, so once you've started with "one", you've got to stick with "one" ("One is proud to say that one learned to read before one turned 4"). Descriptively: most people who don't know the rule would probably not use this word in any case because it's often associated with a kind of "upper-class" way of speaking. But those who do use it generally adhere to the rule, but they choose their moment carefully. So, people would generally either know the rule and follow it, but use it sparingly; or not know the rule and not use the expression at all. There must be exceptions to this, but I can't think of a good real-life example where "one" is followed by another pronoun. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this one depends on what country you're in. In Britain the rule is as Jack says, but people in the US who use the pronoun "one" at all commonly do switch to another pronoun rather than repeating it. Traditionally the other pronoun is "he", but these days people who object to "he" in gender-neutral contexts will substitute some alternative such as "he or she" or perhaps a "singular they". --Anonymous, 04:23 UTC, August 12, 2008.
JackofOz is right pronoun should remain constant. You have started with the non-gender one you need to stick with the non-gender form not switch to the masculine he (some argue that the pronoun here should be their but the use of the plural as singular non-gender isn't probably going to be settled anytime soon). A person might also see the use of one as a pronoun in student papers (at least if the student has a picky English teacher and cares about a good grade). Since formal writing should not contain 1st or 2nd person, one can be used as a substitute for you ("If one imagines..."). Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 05:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Release from future liability
As an unrelated question, is there a word meaning 'to release from any future liability', and especially protect from a lawsuit? I was thinking about "indemnify", but that has several meanings and one of them is somewhat related, but not as much as I previously though it did. Thanks! seresin ( ¡? )03:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Immunity is the closest I can come up with. ---Sluzzelintalk 05:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC) (Never mind, I misread your question, but had my coffee now. I can't think of a verb meaning "to release from any future liability". ---Sluzzelintalk08:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I suspect you may not get any closer than "indemnify" to the meaning you want. Indemnify has a fairly broad meaning of releasing or protecting from liability. For example, "director indemnification" is about protecting the directors of a corporation from being personally liable for things that might go wrong as a consequence of their decisions. Wanderer57 (talk) 13:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Terminology
Recently I was having a conversation with a friend in which they were discussing the notion that a person thinks that they are inherently proficient at a certain task or skill without any previous attempts or formal training. Specifically, my friend assumed that they would be great a javelin throwing to the point in which they would be the best in the world.
I said that there was a specific term used to describe this notion of inherent superiority, but I could not think of the word.
"Innate" ability conveys the idea of something a person is born with. (It is a bit of a stretch to imagine an innate ability to throw a javelin but I suppose someone might be born with the "right" genetics" to develop skill in javelin throwing.) Wanderer57 (talk) 12:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When considering something you've never done before, there are at least 2 attitudes you could have: (A) I assume I'd be crap at it, so I wouldn't even bother trying; (B) Until proven otherwise, I assume that with training and practice I'd be good at it, maybe even very good, maybe even .... This is Olympic season, and kids all over the world are being encouraged to dream BIG dreams, and to imagine themselves one day up there on the winner's podium - "If she can do it, so can you, Brianette" etc. Without such a dream, success almost certainly won't occur. If little kids should have big dreams, why not adults? This reminds me of Jascha Heifetz - the violin was his thing, only the violin (he played piano quite proficiently, but he never touted himself as a pianist). He was once asked if he could play the trumpet, and rather than replying "No, of course not", he said "I don't know, I've never tried". Keeping an open mind about one's own abilities is a very positive thing to do; thinking that you'd be the best in the world before you've had any training ... hmm, maybe a bit premature, but not necessarily unrealistic in the long run. I wonder if Muhammad Ali always thought he was the greatest even before he had his first boxing lesson, or whether he developed his thinking only after he started, and found he had great natural ability. Sorry, I've meandered a little; I guess my attitude is to encourage my friends' dreams rather than to label them. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the original poster's point was that his friend intimated that he would be the best javelin thrower in the world pretty much from the get-go, without a training regime and whatnot. That's certainly the impression I got. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 23:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another Walter Mitty, or fantasist out of touch with reality on the one hand, on the other, at Braggart there's a nice list for boasting. Your friend then puts you in the pozzie of not being able to prove or disprove it. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS, I did hear of a man who won something like long jump for Australia at the Olympics sometime, and claimed his only training was to stop smokiing a month before. Don't know his name if it's true, anyone? (oops forgot tosign)_ Julia Rossi (talk) 03:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Found him: Long jumper Jai Taurima - the man who proved you could smoke, eat pizza, drink bourbon and still win an Olympic medal[6], it was silver. Julia Rossi (talk) 03:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not in ordinary usage; suffixes are supplied by context. We talk about the XVIII ("eighteenth") century, the XXIX ("twenty-ninth") Olympiad, Henry V ("the fifth"). Although in French, "Louis XIV" is read as "Louis Quatorze," literally "Louis Fourteen." — OtherDave (talk) 14:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
In the following sentence is the colon used correctly?『Therefore, regardless of Sarah’s true reason for raising her hand, she could not have committed assault since Ben suffered no psychological distress: the crux of assault.』The additional text after the colon is meant to indicate that psychological distress is the crux of assault. Many thanks, --Fir000213:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One use of the colon is to expand or explain a statement. That might apply here, though to me the sentence is lengthy and unclear (this is description, not criticism). if the key point is that assault requires psychological distress (I have no idea), this might work better:
Although Sarah did strike Ben, the effect lacked the crux of assault: psychological distress.
Thanks for your suggestion, and yes I do agree it's much clearer but the first part of the sentence (reason for raising hand) is essential to the sentence (when in context with the rest of the piece). --Fir000222:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On a semi-related rant, don't you hate it in Braveheart when everyone lazily says "prima nocta"? That's not even a word! At least Patrick McGoohan had the sense to enunciate "prima nocte" which is the phrase in the ablative for some reason. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A question
Hi! I wanted to know opinions about the language in the article I had edited. I'm not an Englisman and I wanted to know my competence
in language. I've put article for peer review but nobody answered. Tell me please if it is possible to do a thing I want or not?--Slav9ln (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First thing I noticed that the article alternate between refering to its subject as "S. Bodrov" and "Sergey". I would have used "Bodrov" throughout. Is that a Russian versus English difference? Due we have a style policy on these usages? The "S. Bodrov" seems unusual. Rmhermen (talk) 22:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is odd. In an equivalent Russian context, Russian writers would normally choose from "S. S. Bodrov", "Sergei Sergeyevich", or "Bodrov" - but not "S. Bodrov". And particularly not in this case, where the subject's father was also an S. Bodrov. I'd be changing them all to either "Bodrov" or "Sergei Bodrov", and use "Sergei Bodrov Jr" only where necessary to disambiguate him from his father. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Something about perestroika, glasnost, October and democracy.
Hi, I'm writing about Czechoslovak history and I would appreciate if somebody could translate the Russian words in this post stamp? Thanks in advance. Thuresson (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This question came up in a current FAC. Should one use orornor in the following sentence? "No damages or/nor fatalities were reported." PlasticupT/C20:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a colloquial English phrase that is used when a man carelessly sits down to fast and inadvertently squashes his plums causing pain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.184.142 (talk) 01:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that one, but if a Roman emperor sat on his laurel wreath he could be said "to be resting on his laurels". :) (Also, why would he have fruit in his vicinity if he was fasting, and why would he need to sit down to do so?) -- JackofOz (talk) 02:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If he hadn't mentioned plums (which was unknown to me as a term for testicles, and apparently most others on the desk), my brain wouldn't have made a false connection between eating (fruit) and fasting. I think my confusion is reasonable under the circumstances. If others read between the lines immediately, 10 points to them for perspicacity; but then, my mind generally dwells on higher matters. (*cough*) I'll use this sentence in my next lesson about the use of to, too and two, to illustrate how things can go badly wrong with the wrong choice of word. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've done it myself, too, a fair number of times. When you sit down with a client it can be doubly embarrassing as they notice your facial expression.--ChokinBako (talk) 10:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention your attempts to subtly rectify the situation. I'm afraid we're not really supplying the OP with an answer to his question, though. —Angr10:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Careful, the bench might tumble if two were to sit too fast and if the bench was located under a plum tree well... I suppose it could be called "having had one too many" -hydnjotalk11:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If a man who had done this very violently and caused severe injury to himself, would such a man be said to be playing with his ball, rather than his balls, as my manager very often seems to be doing when processing holiday requests?ChokinBako (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the following sayings could be invented (if they do not already exist):
Ohh I just Crushed my nuts
Ahh I just Scrambled my eggs (tho I never heard em called eggs)
After slowly thinking about the implications of "sits down to fast", decided it was "too fast" but y'all knew that. Yes, I missed the JackOz stuff... time to eat something for the brain. :) Julia Rossi (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean quantum programming language, internet technologies, communications or theory? And do you want to be on the science desk, computer desk, or here? Julia Rossi (talk) 03:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will it make sense if you replace "issue of quantum" with "issue of size" or "issue of amount"? If so, that's probably it. If not, please provide more context. Also see this. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The below is an explanation by the original poster, which he mistakenly posted on a usertalk archive. I am copying it here to help editors respond to his question
issue of quantum
"issue of quantum" as used in law regarding multiple jurisdiction....... possibly from the concept in physics about particles moving rapidly through and existing in different dimensions at the same time............ I just like the way it sounds........ planning on using it in everyday speech to impress......
I think in a legal context it means quantum meruit. Nothing to do with physics except they use the same Latin word. The word "quantum" seems also to be used in a legal context to just refer to "an amount", which is again in keeping with the Latin. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 01:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hy there. I'm looking for a Latin phrase which tells more or less the following: "It is Greek, and it isn't read". AFAIK it comes from the middle ages when monks where making copies and translations of ancient texts, and being ignorant of Greek invented this sentence/poverb. Much obliged. Flamarande (talk) 10:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I remember that this occurs in Hugo's Notre Dame de Paris, when the evil Frollo is lamenting the decline in classical learning. He deplores the fact that when a Greek phrase is met with, the reader typically passes over it, muttering 'Graecum est, non legitur' (ie 'It is Greek, one doesn't read it'). This is slightly better than 'non potest legi' ('it cannot be read').Maid Marion (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This passed into a proverb from Franciscus Accursius, a famous Jurisconsult and son of another Accursius, who was called the Idol of the Jurisconsults. Franciscus Accursius was a learned man of the 13th century, who, in expounding Justinian, whenever he came to one of Justinian's quotations from Homer, said Graecum est, nec potest legi. Afterwards, in the first days of the revival of Greek studies in Europe, it was often said, as reported by Claude d'Espence, for example, that to know anything of Greek made a man suspected, to know anything of Hebrew almost made him a heretic.
The segments are [miʎanmr̩dakovitɕ]. (The last name is four syllables, the first one having a syllabic [r] as its syllable peak.) Someone else will have to help you with vowel length and pitch accent. —Angr11:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm doing a translation of an article from Turkish into English. The article is concerned with poets from the 14th-century Germiyanbeylik. Anyhow, there are a number of extracts from poems in the article, and these are in Turkish.
However, Ottoman and pre-Ottoman poets in Turkey typically used Persian, not Turkish, for the headings or titles of the different sections of long poems such as mesnevis, and one of these headings is quoted in the article I'm translating. It's in the modern Turkish alphabet in the article, of course, but in the Arabo-Persian script it would be this:
صفات بهار و مجلس عشرت ساختن خسرو با شيرين
I'm still learning Persian myself (I'd say I'm about early intermediate or so), so I know all the words there, no problem. However, I'm still not very good on the subject of long infinitives like ساختن and exactly how they interact with all the elements around them, so that ساختن is confusing me there a bit (along with a couple of other things).
Anyhow, to cut an already long story short, could anyone clarify the (more or less exact) meaning of this heading for me? I would appreciate any help very much. —Saposcat (talk) 13:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ساختن is 'to make'. مجلس عشرت ساختن is a verbal group, meaning 'to make (to arrange) the feast of love'. Altogether the phrase means: the traits of spring and the picture of Khosro arranging the feast of love with Shirin (who is his sweetheart). --Omidinist (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
name of an english tense
What is the name of the (usually irritating) tense that runs: Fred would (later) become King of England, ie. using the conditional as a kind of "future past," and why is it so awfully common on Wikipedia? Is there a wikiproject to try and extirpate it? It's been emotional (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar, OUP, 1994, page 166 "Future in the past: A tense that from a time in the past looks towards its own future. Traditionally this label is given to a certain type of verb phrase containing the word would such as: "They doid not realize then that by 1914 the two countries would be at war"." DuncanHill (talk) 18:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I think what the OP is talking about is the use of the conditional in contexts where the simple past would be sufficient, as in his example sentence "Fred would (later) become King of England", which could be re-phrased "Fred (later) became King of England" without any change in meaning. —Angr18:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd call it "This Is Your Life tense", "ET tense", or "Hollywood tense". It makes its way into TV shows where events in a person's life are mentioned chronologically. They start out with "She was born in ... on ..." (not "she would be born ..") but from that point on it's fair game ("and would attend ABC college. Her parents would divorce when she was 9. She went to live with her grandparents, who would abuse her - financially, sexually and constitutionally. In 1981, she would move to NY City looking for success as a school librarian, but she would find only love and marriage, so she considered her trip a failure and would try to kill herself every morning when she woke up to the sound of 7 screaming babies. But even that would prove to be a failure. It was at her darkest personal nadir that her greatest triumph would happen. She would be plucked from utter obscurity, without so much as a day's acting training and having never expressed any interest in the theatre or movies (she hardly ever even went to the movies because of her extreme short-sightedness which required her to wear inch-thick glasses, which would give her neck an odd shape and her face a permanent frown as she would struggle with the effort of keeping her head upright under the weight of her glasses) - to star as Scarlett O'Hara in the James Cameron/Steven Spielberg/George Lucas remake of Gone With the Wind", and so on). Because many of WP's articles relating to popular culture are written in various forms of journalese (in many cases the only literary genre the editors have ever apparently had exposure to), they often come out this way because the editors think that's a good way to write. Well, if the "professionals" write this way, it must be good writing, mustn't it. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "future in the past" is best used when you're not writing entirely chronologically. You might say (to make up a hypothetical example) "In 1914 Joe Bloggs joined the army. He was soon promoted, and would eventually reach the rank of sergeant major. He wrote a series of poems about life in the trenches, which he published after the war ended." You get to talk about the progress of his army career and his poetry separately, even though they happened simultaneously, and avoid implying that he wrote all his poems after he was promoted to sergeant major. --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
what is the persian (farsi) word for philosopher?
Hi, I was reading a book from my religion (Baha'i Faith) and I found a reference to "philosophers." The book was originally in Persian, so I'm wondering what the original word might have been. Does anyone know what the possibilities are, and given the words, what the possible alternative translations into English could be? My interpretation theologically depends on this, so I'm trying to dig up as much detail as possible. Thanks, It's been emotional (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article says anglicization happens into a more comprehensible English for an English speaker. As a German language native, I can understand that Munich is easier than München, or Moscow for Moskwa (we say Moskau too, mind you). But I never understood the use of Hapsburg for Habsburg, it looks quite ridiculous for a native. Are there other examples for the b -> p change? I think it is a widespread typo. What references are there for stating that it is an anglicization? --Ayacop (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The difference in the German pronunciation between Habs and Haps is simply the length of the 'a', with Haps being the same way pronounced as Happs. How would an English-speaker then pronounce Habsburg? --Ayacop (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I didn't know German and encountered the word "Habsburg" I'd probably pronounce it [ˈhæbzbɝg]. But since it's difficult to maintain voicing across so many obstruents, that pronunciation would probably easily degrade to [ˈhæpsbɝg]. —Angr18:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think that most English speakers would struggle to pronounce "Habsburg" [ˈhæbzbɝg] and not [ˈhæpsbɝg]. I know that English orthography involves lots of odd sound-symbol correspondences, but b-> p is not one of them. While today English proper nouns are rendered in their original English form in German, this is only because almost all German speakers have studied English in school, and German writers can assume that their audience knows how to pronounce English names. This is not necessarily the case for German names in English, since few English speakers study German in school, nor has this always been the case for English names in German. Just today there was a question on the German Reference Desk about the historic German spelling of San Franzisko for San Francisco. Marco polo (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What looks ridiculous to a native is hardly limited to English versions of German words. I don't know German, but in terms of French, many English speakers would not recognize Edimbourg as Edinburgh or Tamise as the Thames. I don't know that anglicization makes things "more comprehensible" so much as "easier." Once a notion gets embedded, it's hard to root out -- as in the case of "the Ukraine," a finally-fading term for a country whose language has no word for "the." — OtherDave (talk) 22:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The phonological principle involved is voicing assimilation. The s in Hapsburg is interpreted as voiceless in English (i.e. as [s]). Because of that, the previous phoneme was interpreted as voiceless - i.e. [p] rather than [b]. Steewi (talk) 01:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Millions of similar examples. Unless the speaker is taking particular care, Canberra comes out as "Cambra", compact disc becomes "compack disc", and so on. But with Habsburg, it's hard to pronounce it as written even when you're trying. Offhand, I can't think of any English word that contains 3 consecutive voiced consonants, so we don't get any practice. My father had trouble with the word "statistics" - it always came out as "sdadistics". Imagine his plight if he had to say "the Habsburg statistics". -- JackofOz (talk) 07:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As in the corner of an eraser? Or is this a specific idiom I am unaware of? '消しゴムの先' (keshigomu no saki) or 'エレーザーの先' (eraser no saki), literally 'the end of the eraser' would normally suffice.--ChokinBako (talk) 20:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'karite' means 'borrow'. Some children in Japan use 'karite' (borrow) instead of 'kashite' (lend), just like some people in English mix the two up. So, I would assume the child is trying to say 'lend me your eraser'.--ChokinBako (talk) 13:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Commas tend to be vague, but in that instance, yes, it is correct to have the comma after the dash. If the text within the dashes wasn't there, you'd definitely have to have a comma, so you still need it, even though it looks a bit odd. --Alinnisawest(talk) 14:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that dashes are meant to interrupt a thought, so they don't belong at the end of a sentence, clause, or list item like they were in this case. -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A dash is sort of breaking into a sentence, like inserting an aside into a speech, but parentheses sort of give extraneous information. It's like you could take the parentheses out altogether and not miss much, if that makes sense? --Alinnisawest(talk) 01:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've always wondered why they call it reduplication, when it's only repeated once, not twice. Moving on, "teenie weenie" belongs to a class of expressions whose name escapes me. The class includes some double dactyls, and some flip flop words, and many Hobson-Jobson terms would be in there as well. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1) Do you intend to study either language at a higher level e.g. college? 2) Which would be the most useful for you to know? i.e. if you live in the U.S., Spanish would be quite useful. If you lived in Europe and holiday in France, then French would be a good choice. Fribbler (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Estonian name
Ah, I feel kind of foolish but I'm getting conflicting answers on the internet. Kat-rin [8]? Kaht-reen [as in Katrina] [9]? I'm sure both are used, I'm just not sure which one (or another?) is used in Estonia. Thanks! Kinou (talk) 02:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC) moved from misc. desk by El aprendelenguas (talk) 20:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is what happens when people use ad-hoc "pro-nun-see-AY-shun" guides instead of the IPA. I'm sure both of those are intended to represent the same pronunciation. My best guess for the Estonian pronunciation is [ˈkɑtrin]. —Angr20:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Singing in English
You can hear the difference between the Queen,s English,American English and Australian English when spoken.Why is it you cannot tell the difference when singing ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.27.249 (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Often, you can. While classically trained singers take diction classes to learn the one acceptable pronunciation of English for their genre, popular singers usually use their native accents when singing. Listen to how Bette Midler, Cher, and Madonna hit their postvocalic R's and you can tell they speak with a rhotic accent. Or how Paul McCartney rhymes "aware" with "her" in "I've Just Seen a Face", and you know he's from northeastwest England. On the other hand, even popular singers sometimes "cover their tracks": despite coming from London, David Bowie sings "Let's D[æ]nce", not "Let's D[α:]ns". —Angr20:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the same time, I've noticed that people sometimes sing a foreign language better than they speak it -- possibly because of the limited and unchanging vocabulary, and examples of pronunciation supplied by listening to other singers for whom it's a native language. (Having said that, I'm remembering a radio interview with Sheena Easton. Her singing was easily understood in the U.S., but for Americans the interview almost needed subtitles.) — OtherDave (talk) 21:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the other extreme are singers who speak perfectly clearly but become virtually unintelligible when they sing, even in English. Many opera singers (bless them) are in this category, and Dame Joan Sutherland would have to be the main offender. Fantastic voice, but what the hell's she singing about? -- JackofOz (talk) 21:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most modern popular music forms originated in America, and people learn by imitation, so the majority of popular singers sing in some kind of approximation of an American accent - sometimes called a "mid-Atlantic" accent - which will obscure the singer's place of origin. There seems to be a small trend in recent years for some British and Irish singers to "reclaim" their own accents - Lily Allen and Duke Special being examples that immediately spring to mind - and I'm all for it. I try to do it myself, but after a liftime of singing along to my favourite records, it's surprisingly difficult. Try singing along to Ian Dury and not going cod-cockney! --Nicknack009 (talk) 10:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting that country singers keep their Southern accents when they sing but so many rock singers, even those who don't speak English as a first language, sound like they come from Cleveland, Ohio. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 11:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Verbs that are only transitive for one object
This Dinosaur Comic from 23 July2008 makes an interesting observation (and I am trusting that Dinosaur Comics is correct): that "poop" is a transitive verb only when applied to "pants". (It could work with others like "diapers", "underwear", but these are just variations of "pants".) Compare "I pooped my pants" to "I pooped the bushes". Are there other verbs like this, that are only transitive for a single word (or a small set of similar words)? Alternatively, are phrases like "I pooped the bushes" technically correct, but seem incorrect because they are so obscure or uncommon? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you could say "I pooped" or "I am/was pooping" (cf. "I pissed", "I am/was pissing"), but normally it takes an object. But it's funny that you can say "I pooped myself/my pants", "I shat myself/my pants", or "I crapped myself/my pants" - but not "I defaecated myself/my pants". Well, you can say it, but it's not a standard expression like the other ones that use the ... less technical verbs. You'd have to resort to "I soiled myself/my pants". (I can't believe I'm actually talking about this rather messy subject online, but every day brings a new surprise.)-- JackofOz (talk) 00:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Counterexample: a common expression in my part of the world for "I made a bad mistake" is "I shat the bed". --Sean13:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gasoline (or petrol) powered. Gasoline comes from petroleum which comes from decomposed organic material, so it could be considered to hold the "fizzy vigour of rotting matter". —Angr09:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reversing order of words
Resolved
What's it called when the order of words in a phrase are reversed in the second part of a phrase? For example: Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. Thanks, Reywas92Talk01:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The taxonomy of figures of rhetoric is notoriously mixed up. So, therefore, are some WP articles dealing with them. Anyway, look also at Glossary of rhetorical terms and Figure of speech. Hypallage is relevant, but quite a controversial one. OED has this to say concerning it:
A figure of speech in which there is an interchange of two elements of a proposition, the natural relations of these being reversed.
Servius, in commenting on Virg. Æn. iii. 61, explains dare classibus austros as a hypallage for dare classes austris. In Quintilian (viii. vi. 23) the word (written as Greek) has the sense of metonymy, and English authors have sometimes applied it loosely or incorrectly to other variations from natural forms of expression, esp. to the transference of attributes from their proper subjects to others (cf. quot. 1586).
A source cited in OED gives counterchange as an alternative to antimetabole (see the OED entries for both of these terms). WP appears not to mention counterchange anywhere in the relevant sense.
Smack verses slap - the same or a little different
In writing a story, I was debating on describing something as a smack or a slap - but when I looked them up they're pretty much the same meaning. Are they? I would think there would be some different, rather than both being a sharp blow. Perhaps a smack meaning a slap wherein one uses one's muscles. (A woman, for instance, in olden times - and maybe even now - might slap the face of a man getting fresh with her, would wouldn't really put any force behind it.) Would that be right, or are they really used interchangeably? (And, if a smack is intended to be a harder slap, how does one determine - i.e.: is a "hard slap" equal to a "light smack"?) I've read a really light slap called a "fwap" but I'm sure that's nto really a word; really just a descriptive sound. (Onomontopeia?)209.244.187.155 (talk) 13:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
