2600:8806:4807:e700:e463:7594:9ce9:2722 (talk) you should take it to the talk page before you [un]hat threads. We've had to talk to you about this too many times now. |
take it to ani; you're vandalizing my comment. |
||
Line 328: | Line 328: | ||
::<small>I'm surprised that there isn't a [[Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Reasonable guesses]]. I would support its creation. [[User:Akld guy|Akld guy]] ([[User talk:Akld guy|talk]]) 02:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)</small> |
::<small>I'm surprised that there isn't a [[Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Reasonable guesses]]. I would support its creation. [[User:Akld guy|Akld guy]] ([[User talk:Akld guy|talk]]) 02:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)</small> |
||
:::What's stopping you? ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 04:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC) |
:::What's stopping you? ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 04:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC) |
||
{{hat|'Hat This' per Medeis.}} |
|||
:::: The OP has made it quite clear he wants us to guess. Anybody want to second the motion to hat this? Any objections? [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 04:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC) |
:::: The OP has made it quite clear he wants us to guess. Anybody want to second the motion to hat this thread? Any objections? [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 04:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC) |
||
{{hab}} |
|||
::::: I don't see where he wants us to guess. I did guess, but one could always link to a thesaurus that shows a range of antonyms to the word in question. That would be the ideal way of answering the question, being a reference; it would certainly be better than finding ways of not answering it. -- [[User:JackofOz|<font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz</font>]] [[User talk:JackofOz#top|<span style="font-size:85%"><font face="Verdana" ><sup>[pleasantries]</sup></font></span>]] 05:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC) |
::::: I don't see where he wants us to guess. I did guess, but one could always link to a thesaurus that shows a range of antonyms to the word in question. That would be the ideal way of answering the question, being a reference; it would certainly be better than finding ways of not answering it. -- [[User:JackofOz|<font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz</font>]] [[User talk:JackofOz#top|<span style="font-size:85%"><font face="Verdana" ><sup>[pleasantries]</sup></font></span>]] 05:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC) |
||
::::::Agreed. We should be trying our best to parse answerable questions out of posts here rather than searching for a "gotcha" that allows us to simply declare them unanswerable by RD standards and close the discussion. Hatting someone's question should be a last resort for when there's simply no possible way to give even a vaguely useful answer no matter how generously we interpret things (obviously not the case here since Jack already suggested a reasonable answer), or when the question fundamentally violates core RD guidelines like asking for medical or legal advice. Doing so is a good way to ensure that the questioner never returns, and it's not like leaving a "bad" question open (and just not answering it) does much harm. -[[User:Elmer Clark|Elmer Clark]] ([[User talk:Elmer Clark|talk]]) 06:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC) |
::::::Agreed. We should be trying our best to parse answerable questions out of posts here rather than searching for a "gotcha" that allows us to simply declare them unanswerable by RD standards and close the discussion. Hatting someone's question should be a last resort for when there's simply no possible way to give even a vaguely useful answer no matter how generously we interpret things (obviously not the case here since Jack already suggested a reasonable answer), or when the question fundamentally violates core RD guidelines like asking for medical or legal advice. Doing so is a good way to ensure that the questioner never returns, and it's not like leaving a "bad" question open (and just not answering it) does much harm. -[[User:Elmer Clark|Elmer Clark]] ([[User talk:Elmer Clark|talk]]) 06:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:55, 16 May 2017
of the Wikipedia reference desk.
Main page: Help searching Wikipedia
How can I get my question answered?
- Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
- Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
- Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
- Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
- Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
- Note:
- We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
- We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
- We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
- We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.
How do I answer a question?
Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines
- The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
May 8
Polyglot?
On the internet (mainly on YouTube and Quora), I've seen some people brag about their ability to use many languages. The funny thing is that most (if not all) of those langs are Latin-based: English, French, Spanish, etc... I mean, is it really impressive? They are similar and can be seen as dialects! I'm Algerian and I might claim to know: Standard and Classical Arabic, Algerian, Tunisian, Moroccan, Egyptian, Palestinian, Gulf's, and basically all Arabic variations, in addition to (my poor) English and French. Am I wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.110.188.195 (talk) 09:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- You're right, really. The distance between "languages" can be smaller than the distance between "dialects". This is often discussed in regard to Chinese. By the way, English is a Germanic language, not a Latin one, but it has so much borrowing from French and Latin that vocabulary learning becomes quite easy. I found French much easier to learn than German. But knowing both English and a bit of German learning Dutch or the Scandinavian languages is relatively easy. Another thing to watch out for is whether people claiming to be polyglot can speak and listen as well as read and write. Since I speak some Spanish and have worked through Portuguese on Duolingo, I can read Portuguese without much difficulty, but I wouldn't be able to follow a radio broadcast. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- The concept is (somewhat jocularly) known by the phrase "a language is a dialect with an army and navy" Which is to say that factors entirely unrelated to linguistics are often used to identify distinctions between varieties of speech; as noted there are varieties of some languages (such as Chinese languages and Arabic), which in common terms are treated as a single language, whereby other more closely related varieties of speech (such as, for example, the North Germanic languages of Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian) are treated as distinct languages. --Jayron32 10:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- Let alone the 'languages' of former Yugoslavia... --KnightMove (talk) 10:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- KnightMove, see Serbo-Croatian; aside from the alphabets used, it's basically all the same. Write a Serbo-Croatian text in IPA, and unless the text itself gives hints (i.e. it's something you could learn from a translation), the reader won't know whether the author's a Bosniak, a Croat, a Montenegrin, or a Serb. Nyttend (talk) 00:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, this was exactly my point. --KnightMove (talk) 04:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Hindi and Urdu are another case of a single language split by writing system (and politics/religion). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- KnightMove, see Serbo-Croatian; aside from the alphabets used, it's basically all the same. Write a Serbo-Croatian text in IPA, and unless the text itself gives hints (i.e. it's something you could learn from a translation), the reader won't know whether the author's a Bosniak, a Croat, a Montenegrin, or a Serb. Nyttend (talk) 00:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Let alone the 'languages' of former Yugoslavia... --KnightMove (talk) 10:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- The concept is (somewhat jocularly) known by the phrase "a language is a dialect with an army and navy" Which is to say that factors entirely unrelated to linguistics are often used to identify distinctions between varieties of speech; as noted there are varieties of some languages (such as Chinese languages and Arabic), which in common terms are treated as a single language, whereby other more closely related varieties of speech (such as, for example, the North Germanic languages of Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian) are treated as distinct languages. --Jayron32 10:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- In everyday use, the distinction relates to mutual comprehensibility. While I (an Englishman) might not understand every word spoken by someone speaking broad Scots, or even broad American, I should be able to understand roughly what is being said. However, having never studied Spanish or Italian I would not be able to understand, even though I might recognise some words because of shared etymologies with English or French (which I have learned). I would call myself polyglot, not because I can understand the Scots and the Americans, but because I have learned several languages which I could not have understood without making the effort to study them. Wymspen (talk) 11:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, but the Scots language is treated (at least at Wikipedia) as a distinct language, while American English is treated as a dialect of English. So.... --Jayron32 12:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- I think Wymspen may have been referring to Scots English rather than Scots language. Loraof (talk) 14:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- Right, and if you or he had read the article, it mentions that Scots, Scots English, and other related varieties of speech, are on a dialect continuum. Which was the point I was making; the word (language, dialect, etc.) used to categorize these things is less interesting than understanding their nature and relationships. --Jayron32 15:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- I think Wymspen may have been referring to Scots English rather than Scots language. Loraof (talk) 14:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, but the Scots language is treated (at least at Wikipedia) as a distinct language, while American English is treated as a dialect of English. So.... --Jayron32 12:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- The issue is mutual comprehension, and this is not always symmetrical. Portuguese have no problem reading or understanding spoken Spanish, while they may not be able to speak it. I can read and understand basic Italian as a French and Spanish speaker, and can produce some terms. But while I can read it at a very high level, I can't understand spoken Portuguese at all. I can read Dutch with ease, knowing German and being a native English speaker. I could never understand or produce it in spoken form.
- One should count the number of languages one knows only if one finds they are mutually unintelligible in all aspects. Yugoslavia basically had three major languages, Slovene, Serbo-Croatian (with a huge amount of dialect variation) and Macedonian, which is basically a dialect of Bulgarian, no offense. I managed to speak clearly enough in Rusyn (an East Slavic language) with a Croatian speaker (South Slavic language) to conduct a basic business transaction. Thank God he understood when I told him I was Rusyn, and did not understand Croatian, since once he thought I knew his language he started a long monologue I found inscrutable. I would not claim to speak any Slavic language fluently, although I and my now deceased relatives did use Rusyn as a cant and from affection.
- See also Standard Average European. μηδείς (talk) 02:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Previous discussion. In short, two things must be noticed: 1) There is no consensus of what is "to know a language". Some think it's enough for them to know 100 words and basic phrases to brag about being polyglots, others may be more modest and self-critical and may say they know "not enough" even after many years of studying and a pretty advanced level. 2) There is no consensus for the definitions of "language" and "dialect". Though, this has been discussed thousands of times before, so there is no point to repeat banalities.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Pan (Genus), origin of the word
The question above on the Arabic word for chimps made me wonder: where the genus word "Pan" come from? Wiktionary does not list this meaning of the word, just the cooking pans and other similar-shaped objects and the figurative uses.
Was it just made up by a European naturalist out of nowhere, or is there a Latin root that it comes from? --Lgriot (talk) 13:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- The genus name is from Πάν, the Greek god of nature and wilderness. —Stephen (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- Yes. Pan was first used as the genus name in 1816, in the book Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte by Lorenz Oken. —Stephen (talk) 14:40, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- But the synonyms listed in the Common chimpanzee infobox include Pan niger in 1812 by Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, which is odd if he coined Troglodytes niger the same year. jnestorius(talk) 16:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note that Wiktionary entries are case sensitive. The word you were looking for is at Pan. DTLHS (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
May 9
Words with the -ine ending that describe things like specific animals
- Serpentine ==> snake
- Ursine ==> bear
- Feline ==> cat
- Canine ==> dog
- Bovine ==> cow
- Equine ==> horse
- Swine ==> pig
Why are there terms for these animals but not human? Is there a word that means of or relating to humans? What about a bug (worms, soft-bodied mollusks, hard-shelled arthropods)? What about fish? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 00:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- There is hominine (thouth it refers to all Homininae, not just humans) and also piscine. (And of course swine is more of a coincidence here; the word that fits your pattern is porcine). ---Sluzzelin talk 00:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) The etymology of the suffix is here at etymonline, you can read it yourself. As to "why not", the answer is that language is rarely perfectly consistent, especially as some morphemes are no longer productive. If -ine is not used to create new words in a logical way, it isn't a productive morpheme. This is common with morphemes which are connected to loanwords (like Latin roots noted above). --Jayron32 01:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- There's also asinine, and juvenile (the ell in -ile is a dissimilation from juvenine to avoid two enns in a row. Swine is of course very appropriate, and not actually a coincidence, it was just formed earlier than the rest. Sus and sow are cognates, and -ino- is a PIE suffix.[1] Of course there is also Orcine, for "troll". μηδείς (talk) 02:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Here's a pretty full list. [2] is worth reading too. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 02:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- "Swine" doesn't belong in the list, as its trailing "-ine" is a coincidence. The right one to use there is "porcine". That one and the others are all generally adjectives about their subjects. Another one is "ovine", which means "pertaining to sheep". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Bugs, you repeat a falsehood, I gave the EO link above. Swine is the Germanic version of suine, the only difference is that swine comes from su-ino- through Germanic, while suine comes from latine. The only really relevant terms in this list are, again, juvenile and asinine, as well as perhaps Ohine, the Latin word for janitor at Ohio State. μηδείς (talk) 04:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- That's not how I read it. But in any case, "swine" isn't really used the same way as the others nowadays; it's more typically a noun. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Do you have a reference for that? I tried looking up "orcine" and "ohine" in my browser and got no such definitions. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 11:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- It was two subtle insults against you. Orc being "a big ugly subhumanoid monster" and troll being a different kind of the same, also troll as in internet troll, someone who disrupts internet communities by pretending to be sincere but really isn't. Ohio State janitor, because your IP addresses generally geolocate to the Columbus, Ohio area which is the location of Ohio State University, I assume janitor because she's trying to imply you aren't bright enough to hold a different job. Jokes usually are less interesting when they have to be explained. --Jayron32 11:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- It was two subtle insults against you. Orc being "a big ugly subhumanoid monster" and troll being a different kind of the same, also troll as in internet troll, someone who disrupts internet communities by pretending to be sincere but really isn't. Ohio State janitor, because your IP addresses generally geolocate to the Columbus, Ohio area which is the location of Ohio State University, I assume janitor because she's trying to imply you aren't bright enough to hold a different job. Jokes usually are less interesting when they have to be explained. --Jayron32 11:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Do you have a reference for that? I tried looking up "orcine" and "ohine" in my browser and got no such definitions. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 11:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- That's not how I read it. But in any case, "swine" isn't really used the same way as the others nowadays; it's more typically a noun. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Bugs, you repeat a falsehood, I gave the EO link above. Swine is the Germanic version of suine, the only difference is that swine comes from su-ino- through Germanic, while suine comes from latine. The only really relevant terms in this list are, again, juvenile and asinine, as well as perhaps Ohine, the Latin word for janitor at Ohio State. μηδείς (talk) 04:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Off-topic comment on Jayron32's response. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 00:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Orc seems reasonable. But, I don't think you're using the word "troll" correctly. I have looked up the word "troll" online and found this definition: "In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion." Nowhere in the definition does it say that the troll is "insincere". In fact, the definition of troll says that the troll has the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. If you want to say that a person is insincere, then just use "insincere person". If you use a term that does not even give a hint of insincerity, then that goes against the point of effective communication. Also, the assumption that someone who works as a janitor isn't bright enough to hold a different job is disputable. In reality, working as a janitor is actually better than working as an agricultural laborer who gets paid intermittently and under-the-table (see the film Living on One Dollar), which is better than living completely outside of society without any survival skills. Though, anyone who lives outside of society probably does not have access to the Internet or knowledge of written language, because both the Internet and written language are part of society. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 00:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC) |
- As to references, EO calls swine a noun and bovine an adjective.[3][4] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- There are lots of these words, and some of them are human. They come from the Latin suffix -īnus:
- leonine, bovine, lupine, elephantine, canine, alpine, hircine, anatine, passerine, thylacine, albine, aretine, libertine, asinine, orcine, pantherine, pulvine, bubuline, beluine, agrigentine, caelestine, amitine, colline, divine, aquiline, vervecine, feline, laurine, pavonine, anserine, platanine, annotine, feminine, Arretine, perendine, caprine, byzantine, amygdaline, equine, augustine, agnine, argentine, cupressine, andine, acanthine, philippine, vulpine, colubrine, vaccine, agrippine, viverrine, caballine, corvine, olorine, thylacine, vitelline, palatine, sanguine, vulturine, iecorine, jecorine, Erasmine, Clementine, laricine, vicentine, viperine, Constantine, veline, abacine, medicine, rubine, peregrine. —Stephen (talk) 06:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- There are lots of these words, and some of them are human. They come from the Latin suffix -īnus:
- Don't forget Feminine and Masculine... Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- ...and a fart of zebras - X201 (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Don't forget Feminine and Masculine... Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- I'm surprised some of those didn't show up in my "pretty full list" linked above. Most did, of course. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Jack, as all too often, is right.
- These words almost all have both adjectival and nominal usages; "I saw four different kinds of bovine and three different canines on my Afro-Indian safari." In PIE, there really is no difference between adjectives and nouns, and this is reflected in phrases like Spanish el blanco where blanco means an entity, not an attribute or the quality itself.
- English is an outlier, requiring a distinction with "the white one", where the "adj." one indicates nominality--otherwise we say "whiteness".
- Finally, *-inos is a PIE suffix, with -inus simply being its Latin reflex. But it occurs across the PIE family, and many of the words listed above are actually Greek, w ith 'ινος' glossed in Latin as -inus. Russian even has a construction with -in- where one can form a possessive Sasha > Sashina with names ending in -a where "Sashina" means Sasha's, even though this is more derivational than a true genitive. μηδείς (talk) 01:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- I'm surprised some of those didn't show up in my "pretty full list" linked above. Most did, of course. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Not unlike a Charles having a "Caroline" period named after him. In Russian, Sasha can refer to a male (Alexander) or a woman (Alexandra), and the adjective Sashin, -ina, -ino is declined exactly like any other adjective of that form. Russian adjectives agree with their referent (Sashin stol, Sasha's table; Sashina kniga, Sasha's book; Sashino pero, Sasha's feather), not with the gender of the Sasha in question. Otoh, adjectives and pronouns that refer to Sasha must agree in gender et al; hence moy Sasha, my Sasha (m.), but moya Sasha, my Sasha (f.). -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 03:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, Jack. (I did pick Sasha as masculine, after my nephew, and was indeed thinking "Sashina kniga".) I only had one semester of Pomoskowsky, and about a total of 6 years of ponaszomu, with moya baba's tutoring in Pomoskowsky as she had been taught before the schism when she was a grade-schooler. (Ganz verrueckt, nicht?) The only place I came across the -in- affix was in Pomoskowsky in my one semester of Pomoskowsky at University. (I tried auditing it again when I was older, but they didn't even use cursive at that point.) μηδείς (talk) 04:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
word for...
is there a word for "able to easily confuse"?68.151.25.115 (talk) 05:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Do you mean "liable to be confused about things", or "likely to cause confusion"? AnonMoos (talk) 06:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- To User:AnonMoos and User:HOTmag: So I would say "i am easily confused" if i am liable to be confused, but "it is confusing" if it usually causes confusion?68.151.25.115 (talk) 06:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- 'Confusible' is a perfectly cromulent word. 'Ambiguous' and 'ambivalent' have similar meanings but are usually taken to imply confusion between two things, rather than three or more. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.60.183 (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Ambiguous normally refers to a statement that can be interpreted in more than one way. Ambivalent refers to a person who has mixed feelings about something. I wouldn't say they have similar meanings. CodeTalker (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Those are, as your "normally" implies, the most common applications of those words, but they can be correctly used in more general situations. From the OED:
- Ambiguous I. Objectively. 1. Doubtful, questionable; indistinct, obscure, not clearly defined. 2. Of words and other significant indications: Admitting of more than one interpretation, or explanation; of double meaning, or of several possible meanings: equivocal. (The commonest use.) 3. Of doubtful position or classification, as partaking of two characters or being on the boundary line between. II. Subjectively. 4. Of persons, Wavering or uncertain as to course or conduct: hesitating, doubtful. Obs. 5. Of things: Wavering or uncertain in direction or tendancy: of doubtful or uncertain issue. 6. Hence, Insecure in its indications: not to be relied upon. 7. Of persons, oracles, etc: Using words of doubtful or double meaning.
- I won't bother to repeat the exercise with Ambivalent. We seem to interpret the word "similar" differently, you more strictly than I. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.60.183 (talk) 10:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Those are, as your "normally" implies, the most common applications of those words, but they can be correctly used in more general situations. From the OED:
- Ambiguous normally refers to a statement that can be interpreted in more than one way. Ambivalent refers to a person who has mixed feelings about something. I wouldn't say they have similar meanings. CodeTalker (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- If you are susceptible to deliberate confusion, then you are gullible. If you are practiced at deliberately confusing others, you are a con-man. -Arch dude (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Gullible is not in the dictionary--look it up! -Arch dude (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- If you're really good at both, then you're President of the United States. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- A con-man doesn't want to create confusion. He wants to create an erroneous certainty. - Nunh-huh 00:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
May 11
Author(s) of a Chinese article
Another editor has added a citation from a news article in Chinese to a Wikipedia article. I'm trying to reformat the citation, but I'm not sure who the author is. The article is signed as 晨报记者 周思立 实习生 孙雁如. Is there one or two authors? — Kpalion(talk) 00:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Two authors. The Chinese text translates roughly to: "Reporter with the Morning Newspaper 周思立 Intern 孙雁如". The first and the third groups of Chinese characters are not names. --98.115.172.183 (talk) 01:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- I am not sure if it is appropriate to recommend this? [5] I don't know any Chinese, so it may be a good or bad quality tool, no idea. --Lgriot (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- The reporter's name is Zhou (surname) Sili (given name), in English transliteration; Zhōu (surname) Sīlì (given name), in pinyin.
- The intern's name is Sun (surname) Yanru (given name), in English transliteration; Sūn (surname) Yànrú (given name), in pinyin.
- The second set of romanisations I gave above have tonal marks, which by ordinary pinyin grammar are omitted when the names are used in normal English prose, but we do include them on Wikipedia if it is necessary to record the native pronunciation. --165.225.80.115 (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- I am not sure if it is appropriate to recommend this? [5] I don't know any Chinese, so it may be a good or bad quality tool, no idea. --Lgriot (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Declined to violence
Just reading through Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge when I got to the last sentence before the heading Third and fourth weeks which reads "Also on January 15, the Oath Keepers anti-government militia group warned of a prospective "conflagration so great, it cannot be stopped, leading to a bloody, brutal civil war" if the situation declined to violence." This strikes me as a odd turn of phrase as I would have expected something along the lines of "if the situation escalated." or "if violence was to occur." I can see violence and declined being used together in a sentence but in the form "violence has declined". So I'm wondering if this is an odd construction or is it a particular feature of certain dialects? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Sounds a bit strange to my (American) ear. I would have said if the situation deteriorated to violence. Loraof (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Or "descended". And it should be "into", not "to". --Viennese Waltz 16:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks both. I fixed it up. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- Or "descended". And it should be "into", not "to". --Viennese Waltz 16:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Simplified language for American troops
I'm trying to find some sources about an adapted, simplified language taught to American troops posted overseas. I'd like know the linguist that created it, success rate, principles behind it. --Clipname (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Basic English was very well-known in the 1930s, but I don't know of any military connection. You probably need to be more specific... AnonMoos (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Are you perhaps thinking of the suggestions in the pages of "Instructions for American Servicemen in Britain 1942"?
- “Almost before you meet the people you will hear them speaking “English”. At first you may not understand what they’re talking about and they may not understand what you say. The accent will be different from what you are used to, and many of the words will be strange, or apparently wrongly used.”
- Carbon Caryatid (talk) 21:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- On a different tack, War and Liberation in France: Living with the Liberators by H. Footitt mentions (p. 32) a programme called "Parlez-vous for GIs", which through a series of cartoons in Stars and Stripes, taught basic French phrases, many apparently focusing on how to chat-up French girls. Alansplodge (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- A simplified, hybrid language is called a pidgin, and several of them have developed into full-fledged languages on their own with native speakers, known as creoles. Perhaps one of those is the words you are thinking of. --Jayron32 01:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- Here is a Melanesian Pidgin English phrase book written during WWII for navy personnel. (But the language already existed at that point--it wasn't created specifically for American troops.) Herbivore (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Well mercy buckets and silver plates! μηδείς (talk) 00:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
You may be thinking of the Yale romanization of Mandarin Chinese, which was invented to help American soldiers communicate with Chinese allies by hewing to English spelling conventions. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 19:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
English word that means "to walk around the perimeter of land"
I remember a math textbook reported that, a long time ago, people would walk around the perimeter of their own land to establish that the land was theirs. Later, I discovered quite accidentally that there was a formal term that meant exactly this, which then triggered my memory to the time I read that math textbook. What was that term? By the way, why did people have to walk around the perimeter of their property in the first place? Did they really have to walk? Could riding a horse suffice? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 23:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Circumambulate? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Beating the bounds refers to walking the boundaries of ye olde parish. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- As to why... in various places, at certain times, one might buy land based on the time needed to travel it. For example, in colonial Pennsylvania, Thomas Holme purchased as much land "as a man could travel in two days." William Penn was able to buy of the local Indians "as much land as could be walked around in one day by one of his own young men." His sons bought land in the amount of "two days' journey with a horse, as the said river doth go; northwesterly back into the woods, to make up two full days' journey as far as a man can go in two days from the said station." These sorts of tract transfers were to be "walked, travelled, or gone over by persons appointed for that purpose." So the reason was a sort of primitive surveying. Obviously you'd be selling more land if the travelling were on horseback rather than on foot, so the two methods were not interchangable. - Nunh-huh 23:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- In New England, this is an old practice called Perambulating the Bounds and it has survived into modern times as an excuse for town officials to get drunk. Here and here are more examples. --Jayron32 00:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, circumambulate was what I was looking for. I'll go with JackOfOz's answer. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 03:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- Perambulation works in British English too; see Perambulation of Epping Forest. Alansplodge (talk) 10:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- To answer the question of why they did it, the boundaries of a settlement were often described in words, and it would be useful to go round once a year to see whether "the old ash tree" was still a meaningful landmark. It is clear it was also a ceremonial occasion. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- And to make sure that everyone knew which tree or stone it was; "the boys were themselves whipped or even violently bumped on the boundary-stones to make them remember" according to our article. In the perambulations of Royal Forests which I mentioned above, officers of the Crown would check that nobody had illegally enclosed forest land, or sometimes change the boundaries to increase the tax yield. I suspect that these royal perambulations were done on horseback as a boundary might be dozens of miles. Alansplodge (talk) 13:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- To answer the question of why they did it, the boundaries of a settlement were often described in words, and it would be useful to go round once a year to see whether "the old ash tree" was still a meaningful landmark. It is clear it was also a ceremonial occasion. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- Perambulation works in British English too; see Perambulation of Epping Forest. Alansplodge (talk) 10:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, circumambulate was what I was looking for. I'll go with JackOfOz's answer. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 03:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
May 12
"Are you embarrassed of me ?"
This phrase is used in a TV ad running in the US now (the father, wearing a dog suit, is instructed by his daughter to let her off a block from the school, but it turns out it's the ugly car that embarrasses her). However, this phrasing just seems wrong. I would change it as follows:
- "Are you embarrassed of me ?" -> "Do I embarrass you ?"
But, oddly, I would do the reverse with the word "shame":
- "Do I shame you ?" -> "Are you ashamed of me ?"
Does everyone agree with my preferred usages ? If so, is there some reason these phrases are treated differently, or is it just an oddity of how they have been used in the past ? StuRat (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- ngrams analysis shows that "embarrassed of" is almost entirely unknown, especially in comparison to the more common "embarrassed by". --Jayron32 16:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- To my (American) ear, "are embarrassed of" sounds totally normal, as does "are embarrassed by". The former puts more emphasis on the person who is embarrassed, with "embarrassed" being an adjective derived from a verb, while the latter is a passive verb construction putting a bit more emphasis on the person (or car) that is doing the embarrassing thing. Maybe this is a regionalism? Loraof (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- Interesting. To my American ear "are embarrassed of" sounds completely wrong. Changing to the noun form, "you have an embarrassment of a car" sounds proper, though overly dramatic. (Of course, Jayron32's ngram analysis is more informative than my personal opinion.)--Wikimedes (talk) 19:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- It sounds completely wrong in British English too. Is it some regional American usage that has been picked up by the advertisers? Dbfirs 19:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- "...are embarrassed of..." sounds fine to my southern Ontario ears (as does the "by" version), though now that I think about it, "by" makes more logical sense. Matt Deres (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Two lines I can't make out in a song in a Norwegian dialect
It's this song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZO3MmYaQng
I would be grateful if a native speaker can take a listen to a couple of seconds of it. I don't think I'll need a translation of the lines, just seeing them in written form would be enough. The lines I can't make out are the following (I include the preceding and following sentences):
0:33-0:38: (og ringte for å sjekke) ............... (det vakke så lett å skjønne hva a sa.)
01:04-1:06: (den fyste kvelden gikk jeg for meg sjøl;) .............. (- hadde lyst på litt øl.)
Thanks,
--84.238.136.52 (talk) 22:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- Pinging User:NorwegianBlue (who may not be following this page as he hasn't posted here in a while). ---Sluzzelin talk 13:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- 0:33-0:38: (og ringte for å sjekke) å det kosta dette huset (det vakke så lett å skjønne hva a sa.)
- "å det kosta" = "hva det kostet".
- (den fyste kvelden gikk jeg for meg sjøl;) på den lokale kroa (- hadde lyst på litt øl.)
- --NorwegianBlue talk 21:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- 0:33-0:38: (og ringte for å sjekke) å det kosta dette huset (det vakke så lett å skjønne hva a sa.)
May 13
Conocer with or without the a?
I was recently at a store that had a sign that said this in bold letters: "Conozca nuestro Gerente y comparta su experiencia de __________." Having learned Spanish as a foreign language in secondary school, I think the conocer should be complemented with a personal a. Saber means knowledge of facts, while conocer means knowledge of people. Then, I did a quick search and found some examples that suggested it might be acceptable to not have the personal a. Still not sure if they are correct, though. What is the rule for using the personal a? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 00:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- You definitely would not leave out personal a in ¿Conoces tú al profesor?. Here it doesn't sound too grating, but that may because in speech the -a ending of the verb would tend to be combined with the preposition. My feeling is that it is substandard. You wouldn't leave it out in "Primero, maten a todos los abogados…" μηδείς (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- My informant has confirmed that Conozca nuestro Gerente y comparta su experiencia... is uneducated, and typical of second generation immigrants to America. The personal a is mandatory here in standard Spanish. "Gerente" should not be capitalized either, it's another Anglicism. μηδείς (talk) 03:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- It's common for second generation immigrants to write conozca nuestro gerente because "conozca" and "conozca a" are pronounced exactly the same. If a different form of conocer had been used, such as conoces, the personal a would have a distinct sound and would probably have been written. —Stephen (talk) 12:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Diacritical mark on the e in wretched and winged
I don't get why wretched and winged both have two syllables instead of one. Sometimes when written, there is a diacritical mark above the last e. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 01:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that "wretched" has 2 syllables but "winged" seems like 1 to me. "Saying "wretched" as one syllable would sound like "retched", meaning "vomited". StuRat (talk) 02:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- There are two meanings for "winged". The past tense of "to wing" (to shoot at a bird but only hit the wing) has one syllable. The adjective that means something has wings (the mythical winged lion) has two syllables. -Arch dude (talk) 05:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, dictionaries agree that "winged" as an adjective can be pronounced with one syllable. See in: Collins, Merriam-Webster, American Heritage, Oxford, and MacMillan. However, the first three of those say that the two-syllable pronunciation also exists. Collins specifically associates the two-syllable version with US and poetic usage. --76.71.6.254 (talk) 05:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- See also Grave_accent#English.--Shantavira|feed me 06:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- When such words were used in poetry or in songs, there was a custom of adding the accent to the final "e" to indicate that it should be emphasised (to fit the required metric pattern). It was particularly common on the word "blessed" when used in hymns. Wymspen (talk) 09:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- I'd say the 2-syllable version is still more prevalent, and not just in hymns. The 1-syllable version crops up as a past tense verb in simple declarative statements like "The priest blessed the child", "I've been blessed with good health", that sort of thing. But the 2-syllable version is most everywhere else, including all or most adjectival/gerundive uses: the Blessed Sacrament, the Blessed Trinity, of blessed memory, Brian Blessed, Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta (before she was canonized) ... -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- It's the loss of the vowel between Chaucer and Shakespeare that needs to be explained, not its retention in certain cases. Originally, all simple past verbs in -ed pronounced it as a full syllable: "roll-ed" and "ask-ed" had two syllables. Over time, the -ed was assimilated to a -t after voiceless consonants and -d after voiced consonants and vowels, except in words ending in the dental consonants "t" and "d" where confusion would result (you would not be able to distinguish wound from woundd with the vowel missing.
- Stu has it right that in many cases adjectives like wretched would be confused with other words. The usage continues in archaic forms "dearly beloved", poetry (or where meter matters), and where two different senses exist: "learned" meaning "educated, adj." and meaning "was taught". That the wretched forms are original is shown in texts from Shakespeare to the 19th century, where the silent e was replaced by an apostrophe--the writers were aware the original sound was being dropp'd.
- BTW simple past and English_verbs#Past_tense have absolutely no references, and seem to be written by people without the historical knowledge to explain the phenomenon. Here's a source from the OED, scroll down to the weak past tense. μηδείς (talk) 17:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- Obligatory reference. HenryFlower 21:50, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
How to find language partner for Cajun French?
Hello, I am from Latin America and I am visiting the US and Canada for one year and part of that time I have an internship nearby Lafayette, in the state of Louisiana. I am told that there are many French speakers there in that part Louisiana, but theyre French is very different. Before I move there in October I would ask to get some practise learning Cajun French (I speak a very little Europe French). Is there some web site where I can ask and find a person who can tutor me maybe over Skype? And I can teach language or music lessons for as an exchange. Thanks for advise! 209.197.170.140 (talk) 23:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- I'd just suggest you study up on your French and maybe buy a book on Cajun vocab. For example, look up the origin of the term Zydeco. Accent is pretty easy to pick up, and the Cajuns should understand you, even if you don't understand them. It's like being American, and watching a Monty Python sketch in a heavy local British accent. You get it eventually. Hopefully someone else has an actual source, but youtube might be a good place to start. μηδείς (talk) 03:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- It's worth pointing out that only about 10% of Lafayette residents speak some form of French at home (and I would guess that the overwhelming majority of them are fluent in English as well), so it's certainly not necessary to learn any French of any variety to get around there. But it's definitely a fun way to experience some of the local culture. There are some resources here, but the free online course offered by Tulane that they link to sadly seems to have disappeared from the Internet entirely. -Elmer Clark (talk) 06:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed. It's not Cajun French they need to learn, but Cajun English, by which I mean English, but with the addition of all those terms and pronunciations that have made it into English from Cajun French. It's quite unlikely they would ever be required to speak any form of French in Louisiana, as businesses there will mostly cater to English speakers. A good start might be in watching videos on Cajun cooking, like this one from Justin Wilson (chef): [6]. In that one 10 minute video I heard "sausage" pronounced "sawseej", "onion" pronounced "annie-on", "siren" pronounced "sireen", "chicken" pronounced "shicken", "things" pronounced "tings", and "gizzard" pronounced with the emphasis on the last syllable. The terms borrowed from French I heard were roux and andouille. He also used the unusually phrasing "What I'm gonna did" and he opened with a joke. So, this is a more entertaining way to learn Cajun English. StuRat (talk) 20:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
May 14
Cow-Honeybourne
How did Honeybourne get its name? The article indicates the place in England goes back centuries, but does not give any indication of the origin. And more odd are the related "honeybone," "honeybum," "honeybun" and still stranger "Cow-Honeybourne." I seem to recall an Old Testament story about bees making an animal skull into a hive, which would be a kind of "honeybone." . A "honeybun" in some parts of the US is a large donut-like thing. "Bourne" or burn is an old word for stream. A website says it is from "pre-7th century old English "hunig" or pure and "burna" or brook. Does this seem plausible? I could only verify the "brook" part with online Old English dictionaries.And how did the "Cow" get added?Edison (talk) 03:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- I have two good place-name dictionaries here, Eilert Ekwall's Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Place-Names and A. D. Mills' Dictionary of English Place-Names. They're agreed that the first element comes from Old English hunig, "honey", and the second from Old English burna, "stream", the whole thing meaning "(places on) the stream by which honey is found". They differ about the first word in Cow Honeybourne. Ekwall speculates that it "is no doubt cow the animal", but Mills finds a 1374 reference to the village as Calewe Honiburn, and therefore derives it from OE calu, "bare, lacking vegetation", which seems much more likely. Both of your links show that the surnames Honeybun, Honeybum etc. come from the place-name rather than any Old Testament stories, and Reaney and Wilson's Dictionary of English Surnames confirms it. Like you, I couldn't find the meaning "pure" for hunig in any online Old English dictionaries. --Antiquary (talk) 09:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- I've added an etymology to the Honeybourne article. --Antiquary (talk) 09:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- A bare place, lacking vegetation, where there is lots of honey? Edison (talk) 14:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- The stream that the village lies on is called the Honeyborne. On my road atlas it looks 8 or 10 miles long. I suppose the villages were named from the stream (in fact now I look Ekwall specifically says so) and Cow Honeybourne was the bare spot on it. Of course, why anyone would choose to settle at such a place is another question. --Antiquary (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- Lacking vegetation? Ideal – means you don't have to spend months chopping down trees and burning off other vegetation to clear a place to build your houses and plant crops. Remember that the primaeval state of most of England (post ice-age) was thick forest before we began to populate and modify the landscape. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.60.183 (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- The stream that the village lies on is called the Honeyborne. On my road atlas it looks 8 or 10 miles long. I suppose the villages were named from the stream (in fact now I look Ekwall specifically says so) and Cow Honeybourne was the bare spot on it. Of course, why anyone would choose to settle at such a place is another question. --Antiquary (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- A bare place, lacking vegetation, where there is lots of honey? Edison (talk) 14:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Chinese quotation style
In Chinese, what is the proper format to attribute a quote to its author and work, or song lyrics to the singer and song name? I mean something like:
”千里之行,始于足下。“
--老子《道德经》
or
你问我爱你有多深,我爱你有几分
--《月亮代表我的心》邓丽君
219.75.40.52 (talk) 05:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- See Quotation_mark#Chinese.2C_Japanese_and_Korean_quotation_marks. —Stephen (talk) 12:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think the article is right with respect to mainland China - inverted comma quotes (“”) are almost universal in print, except in newspaper headlines, where corner quotes are used.
- OP: you would put quotes around the quoted text, then use the long dash (——) to connect the quoted text with the source, and then the author, and the work in book quotes (《》). It is common, but not necessarily usual, to include the dynasty (if Chinese) or country (if foreign) in which the author lived, in parentheses before the name of the author. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
'not' favourable
what is the antonym (opposite) of "favourable/favorable" (unfavorable/unfavourable is not the answer).68.151.25.115 (talk) 11:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- Adverse? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 11:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- What is your basis for saying "un-" is not the answer? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- i mean 'give me a word without the prefix un-'.68.151.25.115 (talk) 03:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- So you don't object to "unfavourable" as such, it's just that you would like a list of additional antonyms. Right? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- i mean 'give me a word without the prefix un-'.68.151.25.115 (talk) 03:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- A word has no significance in a vacuum, there is never any such thing as "the correct word" just floating there, contextless. Give us the paragraph in which the word you want is located and we can give you a reasonable guess. μηδείς (talk) 23:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- I'm surprised that there isn't a Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Reasonable guesses. I would support its creation. Akld guy (talk) 02:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- What's stopping you? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- I'm surprised that there isn't a Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Reasonable guesses. I would support its creation. Akld guy (talk) 02:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see where he wants us to guess. I did guess, but one could always link to a thesaurus that shows a range of antonyms to the word in question. That would be the ideal way of answering the question, being a reference; it would certainly be better than finding ways of not answering it. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 05:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed. We should be trying our best to parse answerable questions out of posts here rather than searching for a "gotcha" that allows us to simply declare them unanswerable by RD standards and close the discussion. Hatting someone's question should be a last resort for when there's simply no possible way to give even a vaguely useful answer no matter how generously we interpret things (obviously not the case here since Jack already suggested a reasonable answer), or when the question fundamentally violates core RD guidelines like asking for medical or legal advice. Doing so is a good way to ensure that the questioner never returns, and it's not like leaving a "bad" question open (and just not answering it) does much harm. -Elmer Clark (talk) 06:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see where he wants us to guess. I did guess, but one could always link to a thesaurus that shows a range of antonyms to the word in question. That would be the ideal way of answering the question, being a reference; it would certainly be better than finding ways of not answering it. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 05:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- As for an attempt at an answer, depending on the context, you might be able to use inopportune (unless that counts as violating the "no prefix un" rule), bleak, or dismal. -Elmer Clark (talk) 06:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- No, Elmer. This is not the "what the OP should have asked desk". It is not our place to "correct" people's questions. If they want answers, they can clarify themselves. μηδείς (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- The OP seems to have moved on to other things, so boxing this section might be appropriate now. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- No, Elmer. This is not the "what the OP should have asked desk". It is not our place to "correct" people's questions. If they want answers, they can clarify themselves. μηδείς (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Swedish and swahili in "Out of Africa"
Following quote from Karen Blixen "Out of Africa". "At the time when I was new in Africa, a shy young Swedish dairyman was to teach me the numbers in Swaheli. As the Swaheli word for nine, to Swedish ears, has a dubious ring, he did not like to tell it to me, and when he had counted: 'seven, eight', he stopped, looked away and said: 'they have not got nine in Swaheli!" What is that "dubious ring" in Swedish ears? ZygonLieutenant (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- Nine in Swahili is "tisa", and in Danish and Norwegian (according to the translations on Wiktionary), "tisse" means "to pee". Swedish seems to have a different word for that at the moment, but maybe it also used tisse back then. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
"She got pregnant with her/his/their/the couple's baby."
Is there a better way to phrase this kind of situation? Person A is male. Person B is female. Person A and Person B marry, and Person B gets pregnant. The unborn child is Person A's child and Person B's child.
- She gets pregnant with her baby.
- She gets pregnant with his baby.
- She gets pregnant with their baby.
- She gets pregnant with the couple's baby.
- She gets pregnant. [Make no mention about the parentage.]
50.4.236.254 (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- Being pregnant sort of implies the presence of a baby. How about "She became pregnant to her husband"? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- The phrase "pregnant to (the father)" is not used in any variety of English that I'm familiar with. Can you provide a citation of somewhere that it's been used?
- "Pregnant with her baby" is unusual because a woman cannot be pregnant in any way other than with her own baby. The other four examples seem perfectly acceptable to me. CodeTalker (talk) 21:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- "Pregnant with the couple's baby" sounds to me as if it refers to a different couple's baby, e.g. an implanted fetus following artificial insemination. If you're talking about, ah, the traditional method, then I'd say it has to be "with his baby" or else no mention. --76.71.6.254 (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- Assisted reproductive technology has led us into all sorts of murky waters, not least linguistically. I would concur that with husband and wife doing it the old-fashioned way (sex, marriage, baby carriage), "She got pregnant" is the best and simplest option. But often these days one needs to clarify. Gestational surrogacy involves at least three adults, possible five. "Amira got pregnant with Jim & John's baby, using John's sister's egg." Google Ngrams, anyone? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- A slightly old-fashioned phrasing would be to say that she fell pregnant, or 'fell for a baby' - see under 'fall' here. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 07:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- The expression "to fall for a baby" is not an idiom synonymous with "to fall pregnant" in standard British English. I've removed it from the article that you linked. Is there some regional (Irish?) usage that someone had in mind? Dbfirs 13:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Agree with the mentions above that the inclusion of the baby is probably redundant. That aside, it seems like they'd all be appropriate in different contexts, such as when you need to specify fatherhood and/or motherhood to varying degrees. Rewording slightly to include ordinals might make the sentence sound more natural "She gets pregnant with their first child.", "She gets pregnant with his second child (her first)." That kind of thing. Matt Deres (talk) 14:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- And also a more incorrect one. As I'm sure you're aware, only the woman gets pregnant. You don't talk about a couple expecting a baby, only the mother. --Viennese Waltz 15:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- I was about to make the same comment, though the "they are" form is less of a euphemism, of course. Dbfirs 15:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand the objection. The mother gets pregnant, but surely they're both "expecting" a baby at the end of it. It's a euphemism, but it is handy because it both includes the father while also not assigning him the status of "pregnant", which I find ludicrous. "We're pregnant!" "How handy for you kids these days to share the burden in that way!" Matt Deres (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
May 15
Transliteration from Arabic
I would be grateful if a user could please transliterate from Arabic letters to English letters the entry in a population register shown on the link. <a href="http://chaimsimons.net/Arabicletters.jpg"> </a>Thank you 89.138.85.124 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
How many languages have ever existed?
I've been wondering, has anyone attempted to estimate how many languages have ever been spoken? If so, how are these estimates made, and what are the results? I realize that this question is probably impossible to answer conclusively, but I'd be interested to know of any attempts made. 2602:306:321B:5970:9889:9295:DC56:B865 (talk) 14:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- First define "language" unambiguously, then we might be able to start a meaningful discussion. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- This blog - http://thelousylinguist.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/94000-language-deaths.html - suggests about 100,000 (give or take 40,000) and links to some research on the subject. Wymspen (talk) 14:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Ethnologue has catalogued just over 7000 current languages, but there is always a problem that languages often exist on a dialect continuum and that "There is no universally accepted criterion for distinguishing two different languages from two dialects (i.e. varieties) of the same language". This sort of calculation is bound to vary wildly depending on the criteria used for the counting. After all, people living in Brazil today speak a version of Latin, though the transition from Vulgar Latin to Brazilian Portuguese didn't happen in one instant. There wasn't ever a time when people suddenly couldn't understand their neighbors, like one day a group of Latin speakers woke up and suddenly was speaking Portuguese. Such changes happen gradually over many centuries. So, while we may be able to say, today, that Latin and Brazilian Portuguese are distinct languages, at some point in history, they weren't, and what was THAT? Was that a variety of Latin? A variety of Portuguese? A distinct third language? --Jayron32 14:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- To save anyone the bother of reading the blog which Wymspen linked to, his/her argument is that If we assume that languages come and go at a pace that correlates with populations, then we can assume that the current 6000 living languages are about 6% of the total number of languages that ever existed. That means the total number of languages that have ever existed is around 100,000. Not a whiff of a basis for that assumption. this essay is one of several to mention David Crystal estimating in his Language Death (which I don't have, so I've no idea of the reasoning) between 64,000 and 140,000; it also quotes a figure from Mark Pagel of up to 500,000; and presents a model which I haven't read (but which you might, if interested) which gives a figure of ~150,000. At a minimum, it's not such a silly question that no-one's bothered to ask it. HenryFlower 20:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)