[[Ca

May 8

How does the number 25 relate to english? 71.190.2.208 00:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps in the sense that the English language contains the words "twenty" and "five", which, when placed together ("twenty five") convey in words exactly the same concept as the number "25". Sorry if that's not helpful, but the meaning of your question seems somewhat elusive. JackofOz 01:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is also: 2 + 5 = 7; and there are 7 letters in the word "English". --Bielle 02:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a homework question, which we cannot answer, but you might find something to start you off here. -Elmer Clark 06:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would hate a teacher who set such a vague question as homework. How does butter relate to friendship, or zygarchy to jellyfish? A good answer is: they don't. It sounds like a puzzle question to me, with a hint given through the header in the form of the word "Literature".  --Lambiam^Talk 07:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone who can read Arabic please take a look at User:CreativeArabs and see if the content given is in conformation with Wikipedia policies? Thanks!--thunderboltz^(TALK) 06:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a quote from some innocuous literature min al-munfa ila l-munfa (not familiar with it). Drmaik 07:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) It is all about a poem and looks like (a stab at) an article in desperate need of wikification as well as assertion of notability through reliable sources. I see no violation of policy. This used to be a (multiply created and deleted) article with the same Arabic title (presumably the name of the poem). The last time it was created here, moved to main space by the author, and moved back here by an admin.[1][2]. It looks like no-one has cared to engage with the author through their talk page about any of this. An article with the same title was AfD'ed and deleted on the Arabic Wikipedia: ar:ويكيبيديا:تصويت_للحذف/من_المنفى_الى_المنفى. Disclaimer: my understanding of Arabic is severely limited.  --Lambiam^Talk 07:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks. Can you also see why the article was AfD'd on the arabic wiki?--thunderboltz^(TALK) 13:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The delete reason is "Wikipedia is not a platform for publishing amateur poetry and the article is not encyclopedic". Adam Bishop 15:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right. The userpage is harmless then. Thanks! --thunderboltz^(TALK) 16:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is your fathers sisters ex-husband (or any other combination of ex-husband that fits) still officialy an uncle, and would they have to be declared on aplication forms etc. that ask if any relative is in the same company/organisation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.254.97 (talk • contribs)

If you're not sure, its always best to ask your boss. However, in the absence of any definition of "relative" I think you would be safe in saying "No". "Relative" is usually taken to mean blood-relative. But, in any case, you could certainly argue that he's no longer a relative.--Shantavira 11:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IANAL, but I also think that legally you're quite safe in not identifying him as your uncle. He is not married to your aunt, and therefore is not your uncle-by-marriage. (Informally you could refer to him as your ex-uncle, I suppose, as he is your aunt's ex-husband.) —Angr 14:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me to understand the following: Volunteering to get someone a coffee is quick way to power and influence. Once you know someone is a 22 or a white without, you can ask them pretty much anything.

What is "22" in this case? I understand it refers to coffee, like "someone who preferes 22 coffee", also, what is "white without"? Does it mean coffee without cream? Please help, I need it for the correct translation and understanding as well. Thank you! Elena —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.33.196.2 (talk) 11:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The following is speculation, I could not find definitive references. "White without" would most likely be coffee with cream but without sugar. I'm nearly stumped on the "22" but I think perhaps the digits should be separated, thus "two two" not "twenty two," and that would be coffee with two cream and two sugars. Where did you find this information about coffee being the way to power? --LarryMac 14:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'White without' could also mean with milk (rather than cream) but without sugar. I suspect the 22 is a reference to the codes that you have to key into a vending machine to get your coffee. So 22 could mean white with milk etc etc. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think RIchardJ is right..22 is a code on my coffee machine at work (well they say Coffee, water dressed in brown perhaps is more accurate). I expect that "white without" is meaning no-sugar, but with milk (or perhaps cream). I guess the idea is that coffee introduces a situation where there is no employer/employee mindset and so means you could 'connect' on a level. Similar to how I notice that people who smoke in my office often have a camaraderie with each other that (and I can say this with a degree of certainty) wouldn't exist without that link. I suspect the idea of coffee getting you ahead is similar to this. ny156uk 17:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was this sentence written or uttered by a Canadian? Because a 'double-double' is common Canadian slang for coffee with two sugars and two creams.[3] --Charlene 01:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm with Charlene. It's almost certainly 'double double white without (sugar)'. Anchoress 13:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all!!! This sentence is from a humorous book by Guy Browning. The author is British. I guess 22 does refer to the vending machine, since it is used in similar context (with respect to the vending machine) further in the book. As for coffee being the way to power, it is just a joke I guess, since the book is a humorous one;) Also, thanks for "white without" :) But for you, I might have got it wrong. Elena

To this Brit, the sentence is completely clear. "White without" means with milk and no sugar (we usually refer to coffee as "white" or "black" rather than saying "with/without milk", (and we never say "cream" except on the rare occasions when we actually mean cream and not milk or non-dairy whitener). And I would immediately understand '22' to mean the code on the particular vending machine they share - but without knowing the machine, I would have no idea what particular variety of beverage that was. --ColinFine 18:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am intending to take a course in Japanese at university, but I don't know if i wll be able to cope with it. I have some language background in that i am fluent in french so am familiar with learning a language. Any thoughts?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.178.251.218 (talk • contribs) 10:32, 8 May 2007.

Basic spoken Japanese is very easy: no tones, easy Italianate sounds, hardly any grammatical inflections. You could pick up the essential structure in a weekend and be able to hold a basic conversation (where do you live, what time is the next train to Osaka, two beers and a pizza please etc.) within days.

What are you talking about? Japanese is agglutinating (e.g. mi-ta-kuna-i see-want-not-nonpast "I don't want to look"), and I don't think postpositions are easier to learn than suffixes. --Ptcamn 15:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting beyond that, and understanding nuance and attitude and any conversation where it isn't obvious at the outset who is doing what to whom, is rather more complex, given that Japanese leaves out many of the words we'd use in European languages. Think about the way in English we might say "another?", where the situation makes it obvious that we really mean "John, would you like another beer?" - we don't bother to put in the non-necessary words. Well, trying to understand Japanese is like working out all the time what "another?" means when you're not familiar with the situation. Another what? For me or you? Who's offering?, etc.

Learning vocabulary (beyond basics) is complicated by the preponderance of short homophones in Japanese: a simple two-syllable word such as 'seikoh' can have at least half-a-dozen meanings, and there are no tones to distinguish them - only the context. (And the way it's 'spelt' in Chinese characters, though that's not much help if you're on the phone.)

Japanese does have pitch accent to distinguish words. --Ptcamn 15:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The written language is ludicrously difficult and cumbersome - two parallel alphabets (strictly, 'syllabaries'), plus eight hundred Chinese characters just to be able to read a kid's book or simple news story, and more like three times that to read a novel. If you can read and write a simple postcard within a year you're doing well.

That was my experience of the language as a native English speaker while living there for two years, anyway! No doubt other people here will have different observations... RA —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.66.229.8 (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I would expect the pace of the course to take the difficulties of learning the language into account. In the end, all languages are incredibly difficult if you want to attain perfection (the same competence as a native speaker). For an English speaker, there are two or three main difficulties for mastering Japanese at a basic level. When learning French, about half the words have something familiar, but in Japanese almost all words are completely unfamiliar. You'll have no problem with kimono, and to remember that biru = "beer" is also not hard, but there it more or less stops. You'll have to memorize that shako means "garage" (or "partridge"), and so on. The problem of lack of vocabulary will remain until you have progressed quite far. Difficulty number two is the completely different grammar. Japanese grammar by itself is not particularly difficult, but if all you know is English and French, you'll have to do some brain rewiring before you can understand Japanese in real time. The keyword here is lots of practice. Then, if you are the type who can improve their language skills by reading – learning to read Japanese in the Japanese writing system is much more difficult than learning to understand Japanese in the first place, and actually not very profitable unless you already know Japanese. Finding interesting material in romaji is hard. Finally, on the way to perfection, you'll also have to master the language variants and nuances used for speaking "up" (being deferent) and speaking "down" (e.g. to a servant), next to the equal-level variant for addressing colleagues at work and such, normally the only one taught in courses and textbooks. But for getting around in Japan as a tourist you don't need this level of proficiency.  --Lambiam^Talk 16:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 9

I was looking at the item on wiki about poutine and it said something like "Quebecois pronunciation". What is that supposed to mean? I'm not trying to be a smart ass but this is commonly known stuff. Have you really researched the province of Quebec and its population and history before asserting this attribute? I don't think so.

Had you done so, you would have known that québecois is not a nationality or a language, not even as a canadianism. The proper word or words you were looking for are either french-canadian or at the most extreme, joual. (pron. joo-al)

Québec, as you know, is not 100% francophone. The vietnamese population who were born the 2nd generation in Québec are also from the province of Québec but are no more francophone than you are. But they are canadians who reside in the province of Quebec in a country called Canada. Therefore, you can't use something like "quebecois" to describe the roots of a word's origin or how it's pronounced. It's insulting to the other francophones (french-canadians) living outside Quebec and the non-francophones living in Quebec. Unless you've actually lived in a french-canadian community in Canada, it may be a hard concept to grasp but please bring some accuracy to your articles and make this simple edit. 74.104.23.97 02:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC) Benoit Aubry[reply]

As you are probably aware, anybody can edit articles at Wikipedia, thus the "you" you have addressed in this comment could be anybody. This also means that if you feel that something is incorrect in an article, you are free to change it. In addition, you comment might better have been placed in the talk page for the specific article you are addressing, Poutine. --LarryMac 02:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It says how to pronounce the word in Quebec French, which they are saying is a variety of French. People pronounce words different ways; what is so wrong about saying that people who speak French in Quebec pronounce it that way? I'm having a hard time seeing how it is possible to get offended over something like that. Recury 16:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the article was edited after the gripe was posted.  --Lambiam^Talk 08:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in learning the language spoken by First Nations people on Manitoulin Island. See: http://www.wikwemikongheritage.org/language/resources.html Is that Anishinaabemowin? Is there such a thing as an Odawa-Ojibway language and is it different from Anishinaabemowin? Is there a standardized orthography for the language spoken in Wikwemikong or competing systems? Where can I see a full phonology explaining the sounds of that specific dialect or language? The Anishinaabe language dialects page does not mention Manitoulin Island, so I'm not sure which "dialect" is used. The Ottawa (First Nation) page says that Wiky is an Odawa community. Does that mean I'm looking for the Ottawa dialect of Anishinaabemowin? Or does it mean there's more than one dialect or language spoken in Wiky?--Sonjaaa 04:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

♦Answer to your first question: Yes. The indigenous languages spoken on Manitoulin Island are various forms of the Anishinaabe language. The three dialects or languages (depending on personal and academic biases) spoken are mixture of Eastern and Central Ojibwe (ojg and ojc), Odawa (otw) and Potawatomi (pot).

♦Answer to your second question: Yes, there is such a thing as a Odawa-Ojibway language. And no, it is not different from Anishinaabemowin, but rather part of Anishinaabemowin. Now, Anishinaabemowin will have subtle differences from community to community, and sometimes from speaker to speaker. On Wikwemikong, due to the past relocation projects from other areas to Manitoulin Island, this variation is quite pronounced. Often a person from Wiky will jokingly claim the ability to speak 5 different languages (dialects): English, Ojibwemowin, Daawaamwin, Bodéwadmimwen and "Ojiwaadmimwen" (a joke name to describe the form of Anishinaabemowin resulting from the mixture of Ojibwemowin, Daawaamwin/Jibwemwin, Bodéwadmimwen uniquely found on Manitoulin Island). The so called Odawa-Ojibway language is the form of the Anishinaabemowin typically called Nishnaabemwin. Nishnaabemwin is divided into Daawaamwin (Odaawaamowin or the Odaawaa language/dialect) and Jibwemwin (Ojibwemowin or the Central/Eastern Ojibwe dialect of the Ojibwe language).

♦Answer to your third question: No. There is not a standardized orthography for the language spoken in Wikwemikong; however, the Rhodes Double Vowel system is what is used among the academic circles.

♦Answer to your fourth question: Anishinaabe language dialects is the article you want to look at. It does not say "Manitoulin Island" specifically, but it is grouped (for now) with Ontario. Using the ISO 639-3 designation, again, the four dialects of Anishinaabe languages found on the island are ojg, ojc, otw and pot.

♦Answer to your fifth question: No, despite what the article currently says, Wikwemikong is not an Odawa-only community. Most of the people in Wiky are Odawa and Potawatomi, but with high degree of interactions with neighbouring Ojibwa communities, that distinctness Canadians and American love so much but have always been fuzzy among the Anishinaabeg are even more blurred with the communities found on Manitoulin Island.

♦Answer to your sixth question: Yes, you are looking for the Ottawa dialect of Anishinaabemowin, if you are looking at a predominantly Odawa, but as said before, other than the otw, there are ojc, ojg and pot spoken there as well. This was part of the reason why when Richard Rhodes compiled the Eastern Ojibwa-Chippewa-Ottawa Dictionary (Hardbound - ISBN-10: 0899251145/ISBN-13: 978-0899251141; Paperback - ISBN-10: 3110137496/ISBN-13: 978-3110137491), he grouped them together in this work. He also breaks down collection of communities with these codes in that dictionary:

1. (unmarked) - common to both Jibwemwin and Daawaamwin
   1. Oj - common to Jibwemwin
      1. CL - found in Curve Lake, ON
      2. R - found in Rama, ON
   2. Od - common to Dawaamwin
      1. BC - found in Bay City, MI
      2. CC - used by a speaker from Cape Croaker, ON
      3. CV - used by a speaker from Cross Village, MI
      4. M - found on Manitoulin Island
      5. S - used by a speaker from Sarnia, ON
      6. W - found on Walpole Island
   3. Pot - words that came from Potawatomi

The other "standard" work for the Nishnaabemwin, other than Rhodes' "EOCOD", is Rand Valentine's Nishnaabemwin Reference Grammar (Hardbound - ISBN-10: 0802048706/ISBN-13: 978-0802048707; Paperback - ISBN-10: 0802083897/ISBN-13: 978-0802083890). CJLippert 14:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to our artice Ottawa (First Nation), the Ottawa (Odawa) language is considered a divergent dialect of the Ojibwe language, the latter being also considered a group of languages and then called, also including Algonquin, Anishinaabemowin. So, apparently, Odawa is a dialect of (a language belonging to) Ojibwe (also called Ojibway or Ojibwa). The Ethnologue report on Ottawa calls its use "Vigorous on Manitoulin Island".[4] This is the only language for which the reports mention Manitoulin Island, so it must be the major indiginous language there (and thus apparently including Wiky), even if, as the report states, all speakers are bilingual or trilingual: "All speakers also use English, some use other Ojibwa varieties."

I can't help you with the other questions; perhaps some other user can, but this is very specialized. But I bet that among the linguistics departments of the universities in Ontario there are linguists with a special interest in Anishinaabemowin languages and dialects, who can refer you to proposals or standards of orthography and phonological studies, if such exist (and I bet they do). I hope this answer is helpful.  --Lambiam^Talk 14:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've always been told, you write out any number under 10 and use the numbers for 10 and above (i.e. "He has seven cars." vs "He has 12 cars." Is this proper form for Wikipedia articles? LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 04:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, except "ten" goes the other way. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Numbers in words. --Anonymous, May 9, 2007, 06:01, corrected 10:12 (UTC).

Huh. I had always heard to write out any number expressible in a single word (one through twenty, as well as thirty, forty, fifty, sixty, seventy, eighty, ninety, hundred, thousand, million, etc.). —Angr 14:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a style question. Having worked for several publishers, I can report that the style for writing out numbers varies depending on the publisher, and sometimes depending on the publication. What does not vary is that a given style should be applied consistently throughout a publication, document, or series of documents. If Wikipedia's style is to write out numbers below 10 but to use numerals from 10 up, then you should adhere to that for Wikipedia. I have also seen 13 and 21 used as cut-off points below which numbers are written out. Incidentally, most style guides called for writing out any number that begins a sentence (though that usage should be avoided for large numbers.) Marco polo 15:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still another style that some of us techies prefer is to use digits for any number that's viewed as a simple count or measurement, no matter how small. Thus "He has 3 cars", just a count, but "He has three cars: a Ford, a Lincoln, and a Roosevelt", viewing them as three different things. But that's certainly not Wikipedia style. --Anonymous, May 10, 2007, 05:54 (UTC).

Or in mathematics, where you might "take two 3-manifolds; if one is a knot complement, then there exists exactly one harmonic 1-form on it." "Adding 2 to a number preserves its parity; adding two even or two odd numbers results in an even number." etc. Tesseran 18:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29#Numbers_in_words Unimaginative Username 02:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hello

right now i'm in primary school and my german lote teacher has given the yr 7s a german weather report speech as an assignment (or project) and i have to do a weather report for 6 different cities around the world. but i'm having trouble translating what i want to say , from english to german. could you please help me find what these words/sentences are in german (it's a pretty long list): _______________________________________________________________________

degrees celcius (as in 24 degrees).

In paris, it is the middle of winter and it is very cold. It is snowing and it’s very dry. Not ideal if you are trying to avoid bad hair days.

In cairo it is scorching hot and also very dry. The sun is up every day, so wear a hat and sunscreen if you are planning to visit.

Over on the other side of the world.

beijing, los angeles, brisbane, amsterdam. _______________________________________________________________________

i really appreciate you helping me. i'm not really good at german,but i want to get a good mark on my report card.

thankyouHamburgla 08:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, we won't do your homework for you, but here are some links that may be helpful:

• de:Wettervorhersage, the article on Weather forecasting at the German Wikipedia
• Wetterzentrale, a German weather forecast site, where you can read Wettervorhersagen in German.

This may help you to find the right words and expressions to use in your weather report. And, by studying this, you will actually improve your German-language skills, which is more important than good marks on your report card.  --Lambiam^Talk 08:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thankyou for the help lambiam!

I've searched for a definitition and derivation of the term "shiz-niggle" without success.

I have heard and read it used in describing a noun, e.g., he's the shiz-niggle.

I'm new at posting here and I hope this is an appropriate query.

BeeSssJay 11:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complete guess here, I would say it's a continuation of shit --> shiz --> shizzle --> shiz-niggle, so therefor he's "the shit". Someone might have a better answer though. 213.48.15.234 12:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For those not familiar with this colloquial usage, calling something or someone the shit conveys a very favourable view on it, like saying it's the bee's knees. See our Shit article, which is quite the shit. Indeed, the uses of shizniggle on the Internet appear to have the same meaning.[5][6] (Most uses I could find spell it without hyphen.) In [http://blog.myspace.com/blog/rss.cfm?friendID=28345867] – I can't link this live because blog.myspace.com is on the Spam blacklist – it is used in combination with the shit, and in a grammatically freer way: I finally went out and bought my new car and holy friggin shizniggle, I love this car. Infiniti G35's are the shit.  --Lambiam^Talk 13:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You, Lambiam, are the shizizznizziggle-nizzigglizziggle-iggleniz. What? No article? 213.48.15.234 13:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting read on the "iz" infix and the "izzle" suffix is here, which I found in a reference on the Snoop Dogg page, the performer who popularized this particular form of slang. --LarryMac 13:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Victoria, Australia "the shizz" (or shiz - I'm not sure how it's spelt) means the tops, or the best. It may or may not be related. Storeye 06:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's precisely related, as it's an abbreviation of shizniggle, and means exactly the same as above! Natgoo 10:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon it could also be related to relatively early "shiznit" or could be derived from something like "it's the shit, nigger". Chances are, though, that it's just made up. Aaadddaaammm 03:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also -izzle. jnestorius^(talk) 18:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've recently started learning Japanese (only started a couple weeks ago), but there are a few small things I've come across that I'm curious about. I've got hiragana, katakana and some basic Kanji down, and am learning some vocab in tandem, just to give you an idea of where I'm at. So far I've been unable to find any answers through conventional means, so if anyone could answer I'd be grateful.

~ In written Japanese are there no clearly seperate "words"? Just an observation, but when presented with a block of text I'm often at a loss as to where a new word begins and ends, as there dont seem to be any discernable spaces. Is this overcome by Japanese by just recognising each word as its read, or is there something I'm missing (looking at particles or other signs)?

~ Learning Kanji. I suppose this is the crux of why Japanese is so hard to learn, but it seems like there's alot of stuff to remember even with one Kanji. The character itself, the stroke order, on and kun readings, what they mean and how they should be used seem pretty hard to memorise in "raw" form. I suppose what I'm asking is: has anyone come across an effective method of linking these things together, or just making them easier to remember by way of a system?

Thanks for your time folks, any answers would be appreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.145.242.23 (talk) 15:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Japanese is one of the world's easiest languages to learn how to speak, but at the same time is one of the world's hardest languages to learn to read and write. The short answer is "No, Japanese is generally not written with spaces between words". This means, you have to know not only the single Kanji words, but multiple Kanji words (but most are in groups of 2 - though there may be several of these groupings strung together). In addition, the Kana, like the Kanji, are written without spaces as well, which means you have to know when to read the Kana as a pure phonetic element or when to read it with a special pronunciation due to its grammatical function... which just means practice, practice, practice. Don't sweat. Even Japanese have problems. As for the On/Kun readings, this too do have some flexibility, so don't get hung up on it. The best way is to take in the concept of the word and not down to the mechanics of the word. Focus on how the language is spoken, and then just drudge away at making the written language fit the spoken. Sorry if this wasn't too helpful. CJLippert 15:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some general rules. Kanji are usually (but not always) pronounced in their On form when they are in groups of 2 or more. They are usually pronounced with their Kun form when they are on their own, and very often they are accompanied by hiragana in this case. Speaking about the kana not having any spaces, I know of a particular example that usually can be worked out by context:

Sign at the entrance of a hotel or hot spring: ここではきものをぬいでください。 Is that 'kokode, hakimono wo nuide kudasai' or 'kokodewa, kimono wo nuide kudasai'?

You just get used to it after a while. Scouse Mouse - 日英翻訳 19:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kanji are hopelessly complex, and the Japanese managed to lumber themselves permanently with a system totally unsuited to representing their language that just has to be learnt by brute force of memorisation, but there are few bits of good news. First is that even the most complex kanji are always made up of a few smaller ones bunched together as one. Once you know a mere 800 or so basic kanji, you'll find it reasonably easy to pick up the complex ones because you can think ah, this one's just a composite of three kanji: 'rain' on top, 'foot' bottom left, and 'ritual self-immolation' bottom right.

Second is that Japanese can make a huge range of very subtle compound words by combining sequences of kanji. It's a bit similar to the way in which we can coin words in English from Latin or Greek roots: if I made up a word like 'symphonophobia', for instance, you'd probably guess that it was something to do with a fear of large-scale orchestral music based on a logically evolving motivic premise. Well, Japanese can do stuff like that all the time. The catch is that, because it's written in kanji, you'd know exactly what it meant at a glance if you encountered it in print, but might not be sure of the pronunciation. Even if you were, the pronunciation would be so bland thanks to all those pesky homophones that the spoken result wouldn't be comprehensible (it would just sound like another jumble of koh, kyoh, kyo, ku, sha, shi, ka etc).

In short: kanji are maddening but fascinating, with a magnificent illogic all of their own. If you like language you'll love delving into their complexities and quirky beauties. And (just as English speakers love talking about our comically inconsistent spelling) the Japanese love talking about kanji as this monstrous but strangely rewarding shared burden. It's a wonderful and intriguing system; it's just rubbish for writing a language with. All in my humble experience anyway etc. RA —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.66.229.8 (talk) 08:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Basicaly, there are 1600 kanji that people learn up to high school, and then another 400 extra ones that do not have to be strictly learnt at school, but do help when reading newspapers and literature. However, there are over 6,000 kanji in use (not exactly daily use), and as said above, there are new ones being either imported from China or being newly constructed. The traditional kanji are the easiest to remember to read, as the modernized ones tend to have lost some of the 'logic' in them. There was no real standard-simplification rules for the kanji, which is also compounded even more in Japan as only some of the simplified kanji were borrowed from China, whereas Japan simplified others in their own way, and furthermore, both simplified and unsimplified are in current use.

The biggest problem, however, is with names of people and places. People's family names are fairly straight-forward, as there are not many of them. Given names are harder, as someone may have a 'standard' standard name, like 'Shinji' or 'Emiko', but if you don't know the person it can be very hard to work out the actual pronunciation of the name. Plave names are worse. Sometimes, like 東京 'Tokyo', it is very straightforward, but the smaller towns can have names where the kanji is the same as one of the major towns (神戸 'kobe', 'kanbe', depending on which town you are talking about), or the kanji might be completely unrelated. Plus, the Japanese pronunciation of Chinese place names will either have its own Japanese pronunciation of the name, or the 'English' pronunciation, like 北京 'Pekin' and 香港 'Honkon'.Scouse Mouse - 日英翻訳 12:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answers guys. It seems alot of Japanese relies on the context of the conversation/writing your reading, rather than the definitiveness of an isolated statement. I guess its something you get accustomed to the more you practice, but it is strange when you first start learning.

So with the Japanese language as a whole, does anyone who's studied it have any general tips or methods of learning they've found effective? It seems every book and website suggests different styles of learning, how much to learn in a given time, etc. For example, I've seen some suggest learning to speak Japanese before even picking up a pen to write it (just listening and reading romaji), while others discourage the use of romaji. Just wondered if you guys who've been there and done it have any wise words.

Thanks again in advance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.145.241.7 (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

What works for one person may not work for the next. Also, an approach that is good if you spend eight hours or more a day studying Japanese may be less effective if you spend no more than ten hours a week on it. Keeping that in mind, learning to read and write katakana and hiragana really well is relatively easy and almost certainly worth the investment. My advice, for what it is worth (my efforts to learn Japanese have had very limited success), is to also start early with learning kanji: since it will take you a couple of years to master this, you don't want to start late. Make sure you learn, with each character, how to write it with the correct stroke order. But take it easy, say one character a day, and as CJLippert already said, concentrate on the meaning and don't sweat memorizing the on and kun readings – they will come naturally as your Japanese improves. Don't expect, though, that in this stage you will be able to understand a text, even if you already know all characters; usually you won't be able to. So this is all next to and relatively independent of learning the (spoken) language. If you are immersed in a context where people constantly teach you spoken Japanese and patiently listen to your fumbling attempts to speak it, then by all means skip reading & writing romaji texts. Otherwise, I don't see how avoiding romaji can be helpful. Once you have reached the stage that you comprehend most romaji texts without too much effort, start reading texts in the Japanese writing system with a comparable level of complexity. In the end, the only thing that works is practice.  --Lambiam^Talk 17:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most beginners' manuals worth their salt actually have sentences written in more or less standard written Japanese (i.e. with level-appropriate kanji) and include furigana (kana on top of the kanji to show the pronunciation). These type of books allow you to get used to seeing the language written at the same time as being able to pronounce the sentence properly (and look up words you don't know in a dictionary). As reading material for when your language gets a bit better, I would definitely recommend manga, as they are almost all written like this. Scouse Mouse - 日英翻訳 19:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that seems to be the general consensus, going by what other people have said too. Thanks for the help guys.

BTW Scouse Mouse, just read your profile, and blog, nice to see a fellow brit. What's it like actually living out there, if I may be so bold?

The name for the Rhine river in German, "Rhein", is very perplexing to me in terms of how to pronounce it...I'm a Spanish student, and pretty much the only word I know in German is how to say "bless you". Is the Rhine river pronounced like "rain", or is it obvious and pronounced like its English name? --Kitty ^who? 23:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of der Rhein, via dict.leo.org. Jacek Kendysz 00:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link doesn't work for me. o_O --Kitty ^who? 01:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like "rine", with a German R sound.--Sonjaaa 04:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okie dokie, thank you. --Kitty ^who? 12:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 10

Most languages seem (at least to me) to have a unique sound. For instance, although I do not know German, I recognize it by its guttural sounds. I don’t know any Indonesian languages, but I find that many place a lot of emphasis on open mouth sound, particularly –ongs and -uls. (Not unlike Gamelan Music.) So my question is, to a non-native speaker, what is English’s characteristic sound or personification? What sounds do people use to identify English? S.dedalus 04:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well: We do not have the gutteral "r" of German, the trilled "r" of Russian, or the "ch" of German. We do have an "h" that I think French at least doesn't have. umm... We have no particiular system of connecting words together to sound nice (such as Turkish's euphony rules or the complicated rules about French constanants on the end of words) which may lead to clashing parts of speech. We have no specific voice modulation for words like there is in Thai and many other Asian languages. It is a very Europeany/Romancy language. errr... I would personally think of English as very plain, unmusical, yet varied in vowel sounds. Others may disagree, and of course, a language sounds different when spoken by different people or in different places. Hope that helps Storeye 06:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I think I’m developing an inferiority complex :-) S.dedalus 07:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This question probably needs a non-native English speaker to answer it, but I'd say somewhere between German and French (our two major language influences).Cyta 07:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One thing English has that a lot of languages don't is the two different "th" sounds. --Anon, May 10, 08:13 (UTC).

I think the most obvious sound in English that identifies it as "English" for someone that does not speak English is the "r". The English r is very particular among European languages, I can't think of any other European language that has that sound. On the coneither roll it like the Spanish or Russian "r", or gutturalise it like the French or the German "r". There may be other languages in the World that have that soft r like in English, but I have not heard of them. Now Lambiam or some other Ref desk guru is shoot down my theory :-) Lgriot 08:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, a common imitation of native English (esp. US) speakers by foreigners is to insert a lot of rolled Rs (even when not speaking English). I guess that also mimics the way that American L2 learners sound when trying to speak a foreign language. Well, I know at least one :-). Duja►

The sound you linked to (also known as alveolar trill, IPA /r/) does not occur in English – except Scottish English. You probably mean the alveolar approximant, IPA /ɹ/, which occurs in rhotic accents of English. It is not rolled but produced by a steady airflow.  --Lambiam^Talk 14:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the consonant clusters that do not occur in some other languages, and the unusual consonants of English (consontal 'r' and the voiced and unvoiced 'th'), English is unusual in the prevalence of schwas. Most unstressed syllables have this vowel. Only stressed syllables have strong vowels. To speakers of other languages, English may sound like a series of staccato syllables with strange consonants and schwas, punctuated by long stressed vowels. Even the stressed vowels tend to at least start as central or open vowels, though many of them are diphthongs that end in close vowels. English has fewer strong close vowels [i] and [u] than most other languages. So English probably sounds rather consonantal and mid-mouth to speakers of other languages. Marco polo 14:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Northumbrian English has a strong Germanic "r" sound, quite unlike the Scottish "r" which is more of a trill. --Tony Sidaway 17:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the original questioner: I'm a native speaker of both Spanish and Catalan and, since a very very young age, I've always recognized English by a perceived omnipresence of "r"s. The great difference between English r and the Spanish and Catalan ones was probably responsible in part for this. When I was about three years old and I saw someone speaking English on TV, I was like "hey, this guy only says something like wrourrarruour". --Taraborn 13:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether that's partly because of the reduction of unstressed vowels, as Marco noted above, to what can pass for a nonrhotic /r/ (if that's not an oxymoron). Without that, I imagine that the large repertoire of vowels would stand out. —Tamfang 21:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

im just curious to know what "in too deep" means in the song that has the line "coz im in too deep, and im trying to keep up above in my head..."

The phrase "in too deep" means that you've gotten into a situation that you can't handle and things are overwhelming you. The lyrics, as you posted them, don't really make any sense. "I'm trying to keep up above in my head" just doesn't make grammatical sense. Dismas|^(talk) 13:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"In too deep" implies that one is in water over one's head, and presumably can't swim. I read "Trying to keep up above" in the sense of trying to keep one's head above the water. Here is further discussion of this very lyric (albeit with a not-too-friendly tone). See also idiom --LarryMac 13:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thank you.. you have been very helpful. Carlrichard 19:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)210.1.82.53 06:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The US Army used to have a slogan: "Be all the you can be". How would you translate this into german-- it's a very nonstandard use of "be" and the tenses are insane? Now that I think about it, I'm suprised I can even understand "Be all that you can be" in English, although that's my native language.

Bonus points if we can find a translation that was "official", i.e. used by the US Army. --Alecmconroy 16:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I find nothing non-standard about it.

• Be all that you can be.
• Eat all that you can eat.
• Go everywhere that you can go.

These are all fine, IMHO. --Kjoonlee 17:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Sei alles was Du sein kannst." 213.201.189.242

The first 'be' is imperative mood — it's a command — while the second is infinitive as it's the object of 'can'. As a slogan, and a rather poor one at that, it should, perhaps, read „Seien Sie alles, daß Sie sein können“, but I'm not entirely sure about it. — Gareth Hughes 16:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I like the anon's version better. First, I think "du" is better in this context (it's supposed to reach you on a personal level). Second, "daß" is wrong, it has to be "das" (it's a relative clause). And finally, I'd never use "alles, das" but "alles, was" (this is purely my gut feeling, but I think it's because no actual object is given). </nitpick> --Dapeteばか 19:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, "alles" always takes "was" as a relative pronoun. "Alles das" or "alles dass" is incorrect. -Elmer Clark 01:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Be quiet!" "Be careful!" More examples of "be" as a command, as Kjoonlee said. The slogan might be more clear if "become" were used: "Become all that you can become", i. e., "Become as good as you can possibly become". "Be" is shorter and catchier. Does that help any with the English version? Unimaginative Username 04:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked in dictionaries and asked french canadians how to say "pickles" in french. (I was wondering because i work at a Subway in New Hampshire and get customers who speak french.) Despite my research attemps I can't find a sound answer to my question. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.177.70.228 (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I think the word you are looking for is cornichon. "Pickles" would be "des cornichons". - Eron ^Talk 17:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if that translation was used for Stu Pickles, Didi Pickles, Dil Pickles, Angelica Pickles, and Tommy Pickles in Rugrats in Paris: The Movie. StuRat 03:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with the New Hampshire use of the term pickle. For pickle in the sense of "(pickled) gherkin", cornichon is right. If pickle is used for "(pickle) relish" (typically chopped, not necessarily (only) gherkins), then it appears the French for this is also relish, as in: Avec de la relish?[7].  --Lambiam^Talk 09:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of relish in France. My dictionnary gives the French word achards (alaways plural) for relish. My French dictionnary gives pickles as a synonym for achards.195.33.65.134 16:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This may be Canadian French. Achards appears to be more like Indian pickle (also known as achar). No cucumbers but other vegetables like for example beans, carrots, cauliflower, and cabbage, and typically containing turmeric. Indonesian acar is similar, but seems to contain no oil.  --Lambiam^Talk

You are right. The Grand dictionnaire terminologique [8], from the Office Québecois de la langue française translates "relish" by relish and adds a note: ((Le nom de ce)) condiment américain est intraduisible en français d'autant plus que le mot lui-même veut dire goût, saveur, soupçon, amuse-gueule, condiment ou assaisonnement

Ce condiment nord-américain sucré est bien éloigné des achards dont certains ont songé à lui donner le nom. 195.33.65.134 06:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone impart some wisdom? Is Znüni Masc. or neut.? It's a type of snack if that helps. MHDIV ɪŋglɪʃnɜː(r)d(Suggestion?|wanna chat?) 20:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Duden Deutsches Universalwörterbuch it can be either masculine or neuter. (My nonnative intuition favors the neuter, though, because it's a diminutive.) It's discussed at de:Zwischenmahlzeit#Vesper, Znüni und Zvieri, but only occurs either without overt case/gender marking or in the dative, so you can't tell which those authors prefer. —Angr 20:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Helvetism also has "der/das Znüni".  --Lambiam^Talk 09:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Masculine and neuter are both acceptable in Swiss German dialects and in Standard German (as a borrowed helvetism - see the article Lambiam linked to). There are regional preferences, but there is also the phenomenon of flexible license, perhaps more so in spoken dialects with few standardized and codified norms. As a native speaker, my usage is inconsistent, and I believe I use both grammatical genders for all the names of meals beginning with the letter 'Z':

es or en Zmorge (breakfast, from zum Morge, to/with morning)

es or en Znüni (morning snack (or second breakfast?), from zum Nüni, to/with nine o'clock (am Nüni means at nine o'clock. The noun nine is Nüni (neuter), not an unflexed Nün/Neun (f) like in Standard German. I don't think 'Znüni' is a diminutive.)

es or en Zmittag (lunch, from zum Mittag, to/with noon)

es or en Zvieri (afternoon snack, from zum Vieri, to/with four o'clock. vier/Vieri same numerical substantivation as with 'nün/Nüni')

es or en Zabig (dinner/supper in some dialects, from zum Abig, to/with evening)

es or en Znacht (dinner/supper in other dialects, from zu de Nacht, to/with night).

For a text written in Standard German, I'd probably choose the masculine version. To my ears, it would give the word more of a Helvetic feel in a German Umfeld. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 11

Which of the following is wrong?

you will = you'll. you all = you'll.

Zain Ebrahim 11:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of you all being shortened to you'll. The nearest shortening of You all that I have heard of is the American Y'all. - X201 11:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above. 213.48.15.234 12:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Y'all mentions some evidence suggesting that y'all is not actually a contraction of you all; see under Controversy.  --Lambiam^Talk 13:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In South Africa, "You all" is shortened in some communities to "you'll" (pronounced "Yoll") - but this is certainly slang (sometimes we call it 'Kitchen English' which is an extention of Kitchen Zulu which is a common vernacular spoken by South African indigenous people so that they can understand each other - much like Swahili is spoken in Africa) Sandman30s 13:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How would this exhortation be: "Learn to speak, man" or "Learn to speak man"? --Taraborn 13:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first, with a comma. See also this earlier question: What's the rule that.... If, contrariwise, you wanted someone to become able to speak Manx, the commendation would be: "Learn to speak Manx", without comma.  --Lambiam^Talk 13:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Just wanted this as a proof against an idiot that claims the other one :) --Taraborn 15:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Learn to speak man" could have an interesting interpretation: "Movie very good, many big explosions, many naked women, me much like". :-) StuRat 00:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could be advice to a nonhuman going into interstellar trade. —Tamfang 04:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, does any one know where i can get books written by Rasputin? He supposidly wrote a few one called: My life in Christ and another called: My thoughts and meditations. Among others. Are these available in English? And if so where? NB, I am not interested in books about him, that I already know. I want to read what he had to say Thanks Guys81.144.161.223 14:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've asked this before, and received rather extensive answers: [9]. --LarryMac | Talk 14:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I did not have any luck in finding his books. Therefore I have asked again. Sorry, but i really need this. Thanks again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.144.161.223 (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Well, as indicated on the linked archive page, it doesn't appear that Rasputin wrote anything called My Life In Christ, and perhaps the only way to get My Thoughts and Meditations in English is from the Maria Rasputin book, My Father. Since that book is out of print, you would need to find it in a library or from a used book seller. I note that AbeBooks.com and it's counterpart in the UK AbeBooks.co.uk both list available copies. --LarryMac | Talk 16:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confirm, based on library catalog information: Mariia Grigor’evna Rasputina's My life does supposedly contain "My thoughts and meditations, by Gregory Rasputin. [Short description of a visit to the holy places and the meditations on religious questions aroused thereby]": pp. [121]-157. Also, "The Story of the Revolution was written by Rasputin, and done into a booklet by Fra Pir Bakks."—this note appears in the said booklet, which was published [Greenville, Ohio]: Benares & Co., 1934 (just a little pamphlet: 31 pp.). The only library in WorldCat that owns it is Cornell University. Wareh 19:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to think of a word to describe the soft, breathless, whispy, comforting and even slightly sexy sounding female voice when used by female singers, such as Amy Lee on Hello, KT Tunstall on Heal Over, Dido's general sound and many others I like such as Dar Williams or Beth Nielsen Chapman occasionally.Scraggy4

In phonetics I believe this is known (logically enough) as breathy voice. Gandalf61 20:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it logical to call a breathless voice a breathy voice?  --Lambiam^Talk 21:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A breathless voice would be no voice at all. A breathy voice emphasizes the sound of breathing. —Tamfang 22:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I once (honestly!) told a woman that her voice was like the low notes of a flute. --TotoBaggins 21:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not tell her it was like the brown note ? StuRat 23:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 12

What is the difference and which one should I use? 69.218.237.116 00:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In what context ? StuRat 00:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Spear' and 'distaff' to mean male and female respectively are examples of metonymy; but while 'distaff' used to be commonplace, I don't think 'spear' was so common in this sense. 'Paternal' and 'maternal' for these purposes are examples of synecdoche, unless you are referring specifically to male and female as parents, in which case they are literal terms, but fairly high-register ones (compared, say, to 'fatherly' and 'motherly').

Any of these may be appropriate depending on the context and what effect you are trying to achieve. --ColinFine 07:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference between the words that are mentioned above? 69.218.237.116 00:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Child, Offspring, Infant, Issue, and Progeny. -Elmer Clark 01:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was recently at the Serbian Orthodox church in my area (which has a large Yugoslav community), and I saw this engraved into a stone on the side of a building in the church's annexe. It has a date - September 15, 1991 - and some of the Cyrillic letters look very old fashioned, like the sort of thing the Russians expunged from the alphabet after the revolution, though I could be entirely mistaken here.

Here's a picture of the sign, could anyone tell me what it says? —DO'Neil 01:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are ordinary Serbian letters, and transliterate as 'osvećenje temelja obavljeno'. I'm not sure what it means, but this page about Belgrade has the exact phrase in it, under the heading 'CRKVA SVETOG ALEKSANDRA NEVSKOG' ('Church of St. Alexander Nevskiy'!), and the context seems to be something like 'building completed in'. I note that 'temelja' appears in the Bosnian version of Five pillars of Islam, but I suspect the meaning is 'foundation' or 'building' rather than literally 'pillar'. --ColinFine 08:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the phrase means something like "The inauguration ceremony of the foundation was performed on".  --Lambiam^Talk 09:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian does have six(?) letters not used in Russian, and this sign shows three of them. —Tamfang 21:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sign literally says "Foundations were consecrated in 15. 09. 1991." Check out Consecrated#Consecration of a church. Shinhan 08:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading Romeo and Juliet right now, and many past tense words are written with an "é." Using the word "belovéd" as an example, would I pronounce the "éd" as a separate syllable, or should I pronounce it like "belov'd"? bibliomaniac15 03:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The accent has been placed there by the (helpful) editor to let you know that it should be a separate syllable, in order to fit the meter, so "belovéd" should be 3 syllables, not 2. If two were required by the meter, the same editor might let you know by writing "belov'd". - Nunh-huh 04:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usually it's a grave accent: è, not é. In some editions of Chaucer's poetry, a dieresis diacritic can be used -- ё -- to indicate word-final E that wasn't actually silent, but counted as a separate syllable with respect to the poetic metres used. AnonMoos 16:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tolkien, in spelling Quenya, used the diaeresis in that way (a point not grasped by all fans). —Tamfang 21:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The New Yorker and I think also The Economist still do, for words like "coöperate". --TotoBaggins 12:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re Chaucer, mentioned above, the matter of his meter is quite controversial. In Chaucer, it's a safe rule to pronounce any final e written (in the best manuscripts) except for cases of elision (and it's the degree to which elision should be applied to regularize his meter that's controverted: the number of stresses per line may be fairly regular, but there seems to be some freedom in adding extra syllables between them), so I'm not sure that such diaereses are either helpful or widely used in Chaucer texts. But I'm no expert on this. Wareh 13:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference in meaning between "at a loss" and "at loss"? or Is it that only the fist one is grammatically correct? Thanks 196.12.53.9 10:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)Vineet chaitanya[reply]

At a loss literally means: "at less than cost". If you sell goods at less than cost, you are making a financial loss. To be at a loss for something is further idiom for being utterly flummoxed at how to arrive at the desired something – usually a solution to a problem. In both cases it is unusual to omit the article a before loss, but not unreasonable to do so in "telegram style", as used for instance in newspaper headlines. There is no separate specific meaning for "at loss".  --Lambiam^Talk 12:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My gut says the short form is less likely to be used in the second sense. —Tamfang 21:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then you must be a ventriloquist! My gut agrees with your gut, and so does Google search: #[sell at a loss] : #[sell at loss] = ~47000 : ~97; #[we were at a loss] : #[we were at loss] = ~29000 : ~27, or (relatively) more than twice as infrequent.  --Lambiam^Talk 22:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the detailed explanation as well as information about frequency of use. 196.12.53.9 05:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Vineet Chaitanya[reply]

Does not "at a loss" mean something like you forgot about what you had been talking about all the time, so you stopped and started thinking about your last words, and said "Fellas, i'm at a loss."? or maybe there is another term for that. What do you think? Correct me if i'm wrong. 210.5.95.46 18:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does. I think Lambiam covered that above, when he said '... being utterly flummoxed at how to arrive at the desired something'. --ColinFine 22:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you say:

"This is my mother" in Latin?

I can't decide if "my mother" goes in nominative or genitive.

Hic est meae matris. Hic est meus mater —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.15.52.92 (talk) 20:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Haec est mea mater.

Only the possessor takes the genitive: "my" (mea) is genitive but "mother" (mater) is nominative. (It doesn't help that "my" is a genitive adjective rather than a standard genitive.) Also, haec and mea need to be feminine to agree with mater. --Ptcamn 20:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If "my" is supposed to be genitive, then shouldn't it be "meae"?

There's nothing genitive at all about mea: mea is a possessive adjective in the nominative case. (You would only use the genitive, meae matris, if you wanted to say "of my mother"). --Lazar Taxon 20:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in parentheses, the genitive adjective complicates things. Meus/mea/meum, in its various forms, serves as the genitive of ego; it also happens to inflect for case to agree with the possessed noun. --Ptcamn 21:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the genitive of ego is mei. Mea is not a "genitive adjective" but rather a possessive adjective (the term used by my Oxford Latin grammar and every other source I've seen). --Lazar Taxon 21:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is just terminology. My translation is still correct, isn't it? --Ptcamn 21:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your translation is correct. ;-) --Lazar Taxon 21:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While correct, a more common word order would be Haec est mater mea.  --Lambiam^Talk 22:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One day a neighbor, seeing me get into my car, asked – in gestures – whether to move her car out of my way. I responded by showing her both palms, waggling each hand as if trying to clean a window between us, signifying that she shouldn't bother. As I drove away, I thought: is there a word for that gesture? (I thought of jazz hands but the oscillation mentioned there seems to be on a different axis.) —Tamfang 21:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find this listed in our Hand gesture article – which suffers from a lack of source citations, and is unclear about the (presumably limited) cultural scope of most gestures listed. While I have not been able to find a name for this two-handed window-cleaner gesture, the basic meaning of the gesture as I know it (in which the hands move in mirror motion) is: I decline the offer.  --Lambiam^Talk 23:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

how bout calling it a double-moutza...that one seems close. With the wiggling, maybe a howlin-double-moutza-burgerGabenowicki 23:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought the gesture meant to show you cleaning off a chalkboard, so "deleting" an offer. StuRat 05:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would call it a "never mind" gesture, and google shows a few relevant hits for "never mind gesture" and "never mind wave".--Pharos 06:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let my correct that. The phrases "dismissive wave" or "dismissive gesture" (the latter of course often a figure of speech) seem most common. There's some discussion of this category of gesture here.--Pharos 07:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too broad; if I see "dismissive gesture" in a narration, my mental image has the character holding the hand out with thumb up and flapping it in a direction perpendicular to the palm; chasing away a fly rather than wiping a vertical surface. —Tamfang 07:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This reflects a problem also seen in identifying symbols: should the name describe the form (shape) or reflect the function? Several symbols are in use for logical and, so don't use and sign when you mean the wedge-shaped symbol ⋀. A case in point among gestures is the designation beckoning sign; different cultures use different gestures for beckoning, and what functions as a gentle beckoning gesture in one culture may not work (and come across as rude) in another. For such reasons, it is (in my opinion) better to use descriptive names (with or without cheese, but go easy on the onions).  --Lambiam^Talk 10:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Along these lines, while reading part of the Vorkosigan Saga I noticed that the phrase palm-out gesture kept occurring, and wondered what the hell it meant. For two senses of "mean". —Tamfang 03:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With cheeseGabenowicki 08:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed several Scottish people pronounce 's' as a 'sh', much like the s in spiel or sport in German. Ally McCoist and Sean Connery are known to do it. The phrase "You're a sight for sore eyes" is often attributed to Connery.

How widespread is it? I've often wondered if it was a regional thing - e.g. is it more noticeable or common in Glaswegians than Highlanders? And is it derived from nature or nurture? Thanks for any answers/suggestions. Sʟυмgυм • т • c  23:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They did parody Sean Connery's reverse lisp (if I may call it that) in Celebrity Jeopardy (Saturday Night Live). bibliomaniac15 00:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's more of a Glaswegian thing, but I'm no expert on Scottosh accents. There's a story (probably an urban myth) that lots of people in Glasgow had their teeth taken out (replaced with dentures or something), and the children imitated the sound their parents then made. Drmaik 09:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well with their taste for Deep-fried Mars Bars it's not impossible ;) 137.138.46.155 11:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To sthart with Shean Connery is (originally) from Edinburgh, sho doesh not have a Glaswegian accshent, i think Ally is from Glasgow, but speaking as a Scot, the Sh sound is more to do with a speech impediment rather than a regional accent, The Namesh, Manster Perry-mankster 13:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 13

I would like to add another question: has the word "CLOSE" ever meant "NOT OPEN"? If so, then, what dictionary cites the meaning? thank you. You have all been helpful. I am expecting a reply.

this question was ignored last time.. i hope there will be an answer to this now. thanks. Carlrichard 06:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=close under "–adjective", several meanings starting at 39.  --Lambiam^Talk 07:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please compare the two:

I am a ten-year old child.

I am ten years old.

I am confused. Why can we not say "I am ten-year old?" Is it because of the last word being a noun or an adjective? I hope somebody will be able to help me out on this. Please lecture me (I hope that's an appropriate word). I am really racking my brain, trying to figure out why that is so.. Thank you in advance.

Normally, when you precede a measure by a quantity greater than one, the word indicating the quantity is put in the plural: We have been waiting for two hours; This pole is ten feet long. However, when such a quantified measure is used as a modifier, the singular form is used: A two-hour wait; A ten-foot pole. Now you may ask: why is "ten years" in "I am ten years old" not a modifier of "old"? Well, there is no particular good reason for why it isn't, but that is the way it has turned out in English grammar. You can also say "He was ten years of age", but not *"He was a ten-year of age child", so these are different constructions.  --Lambiam^Talk 08:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 14