Revision as of 08:35, 11 April 2008

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

• WP:RD/L

Main page: Help searching Misplaced Pages

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: Misplaced Pages: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.

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

April 5

cretivity and achievement in english

is there a significant relationship between cretivity and achievement in english?202.88.252.28 (talk) 08:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)remy

For the question to be meaningful, a definition is needed of the population. For example, the Russian avant-garde, although quite creative, is not particularly known for its achievement in English. A clarification of how creativity should be assessed is also welcome.  --Lambiam 10:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Great minds are thinking alike with the same idea here on the humanities desk. Julia Rossi (talk) 04:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

horse or reindeer riding accessory

I looked through many pages about riding horses and reindeers, but could not find exact name of the object. This thing was used by Siberian people - Yakuts, and in Russian has the name "tebenki". It was placed on the back of the horse or reindeer under saddle, consisted of two rug-like square parts, connected with two belts, and hung on those belts on both sides of the horse below the saddle on the level of stirrups. It might have some pockets and could have garments made of beads, etc.The names that I managed to find were blanket, shabrack, body-cloth, caparison, horse-cloth, horse-cover, saddle-bag,- but descriptions and pictures of none of them matched my photos. What can be the exact name of the object, wearing Russian name "tebenki"? Thank you.Seaweed71 (talk) 10:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the generic English word for a thing of that kind is "pannier". If you want a more specific name for writing about it in English, I think you can call it by the transliterated Russian name in italics, tebenki, and briefly describe it the first time you use the word. That happens a lot, where a thing does not have a name in English because we never saw one. There might be an English word for a tebenki, but I don't know it, and a search of the OED for "under near saddle" yielded nothing. --Milkbreath (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You could try asking the specialists, as opposed to us generalists on the refdesks. I would suggest the good folk at the Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Equine. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not a biscuit!

passes for a biscuit in the US. What would we call such a thing in the UK? ----Seans Potato Business 12:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

A scone? Deor (talk) 13:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Our biscuit and Scone (bread) articles discuss the terminology. Make sure to note the discussion on the talk pages. Rmhermen (talk) 14:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about a standard name but Delia's How To Cook Book One has a goat's cheese, potato and onion "bread" that's very similar (i.e. based on SR flour, egg, milk and cheese). AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 23:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It's like a herb scone but the 30 minute cooking time is too long (about double) for scones. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If I may redirect the original questioner's puzzlement at the use of the word "biscuit" back in his direction... I've known for a long time that cookies are called biscuits over there. But (from the biscuit article) I now learn that crackers are called biscuits too! Really? Can we possibly take seriously a system of culinary nomenclature which fails to distinguish Oreos from Saltines? Your version of the definition of "biscuit" appears to be so wide-ranging that one must wonder whether it might also include beer and/or rope. This word, as you use it, has nearly the same degree of semantic content as Smurf. --tcsetattr (talk / contribs) 21:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hardly. Neither beer, nor rope, nor smurfs are "small, flat, crisp unleavened cakes" (OED def. of biscuit). Nor is the biscuit that was originally the subject of this section, hence the confusion.

One might equally be astonished at the fact that the American use of "cookie" fails to distinguish choc-chip cookies from custard creams. This line of argument seems a lot like the problem of Distinguishing blue from green in language. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's bring in Sapir-Whorf! (I'd add that crackers are only really referred to as biscuits in the context of cheese, in practice. Which is presumably why Cheddars are referred to as cheesy biscuits.) 130.88.140.121 (talk) 13:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Swahili greetings

The Swahili Wikibook states that "Greetings in Swahili are a crucial aspect of Swahili culture; it is not uncommon for a conversation to last five minutes before it actually moves beyond saying 'Hello'." The second part of this has a citation needed tag and seems rather dubious to me (but quite interesting if true). Can anyone shed any light on this? -Elmer Clark (talk) 23:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is one source; it says This greeting can last between 3 to 15 minutes under normal circumstances. 65.92.188.177 (talk) 23:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and they can speak so quickly for those 3-15 minutes that it's hard to follow.

Greetings are extremely important throughout Africa. I've seen strangers spend several minutes saying hello, inquiring about every possible relation and livestock, even when they don't speak the same language and have no idea what the other's actual words are. If you are a teacher running late for class, and someone says hello to you, you stop and greet them properly. The students can wait: If you don't stop, your principal will chew you out for embarrassing the school. If you approach someone and say, "Excuse me, Sir. Could you tell me where X is, please?", he'll likely grunt and point you in the wrong direction: Why bother with you, if you're going to be that rude? However, if you take the time to say hello, in many areas there are no real words for 'please' or 'thank you' (though there are in Swahili, due to the Arabic influence). The politeness is in the greeting, and after that you can just say "Gimme your shirt!" or "Gimme your food!" without causing the slightest offense. (Actually, in some places, "Gimme your shirt!" is equivalent to "What a nice shirt!" — it's not actually a request, the exact opposite of much of East Asia, where if you say "What a nice shirt!" they'll feel obligated to give it to you.) kwami (talk) 00:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and one of the worst insults you can make is to tell someone they're impolite. It's equivalent to "your mother!": It means that their entire family is too ill bred to have raised them right. Don't ever tell anyone that their child was disrespectful, unless you don't want the kid to be able to sit down for a week. I've only done that once (he deserved it), and I've never seen a kid so terrified. kwami (talk) 00:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, interesting stuff! Thanks to both of you. -Elmer Clark (talk) 07:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

April 6

becoming a conference interpreter without a degree?

I am an American but also fluent in Hungarian, and after doing all my studies in America, where I grew up (taking French in school) I returned to Hungary and did some education here. So, I now speak English and Hungarian at a native level and French at a very high level. The problem is I never got my degree. So...how would I go about becoming a freelance interpreter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.110.205 (talk) 00:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You've probably been to our articles on Interpreting and Translation with their many links that might give you some idea about the scope. The bodies arranging conferences might like some proof of your skills and starting in other areas with less formal requirements might be a first step. Otherwise, if you qualify as a special case, there's possibly a way to have university entrance or credits awarded in some other way. Did you start your degree and didn't finish, or are you looking to skip the degree? In that case there may be a non-university qualification you could do. Speaking to a careers advisor at a university or training college can help. Julia Rossi (talk) 05:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a warning to you: being fluent is never enough to be an interpreter. There are specific techniques that make you a good interpreter, real time spoken translation is very tricky, even if you are completely bilingual. --Lgriot (talk) 07:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

"Can not" vs. "cannot" in the 1860s

Can anyone tell me if the correct spelling of "cannot" has changed since the mid-19th century? I’d better explain why I’m asking this. Two years ago I raised an issue on the Gettysburg Address talk page – here, and Clio’s recent post on the Humanities desk (with which I entirely agree btw) about the most moving and important political speeches in history, reminded me that it went nowhere. It deserves revisiting.

After reflection, I still think it’s quite wrong to record Lincoln as having said "... we can not dedicate ... we can not consecrate ... we can not hallow ...". It’s not that "can not" is not a valid sequence of words; it's quite valid in some contexts (I can not only tell you what this Urdu word means, but also speak the language fluently) but it means something entirely different from "cannot" (I cannot speak Urdu at all). The "can not" spellings may have appeared in Lincoln’s handwritten drafts, but the sense of what he intended the listeners to understand can only properly be conveyed in writing by "cannot"s.

However, this speech was spoken in 1863, and maybe we need to honour the spelling conventions of the time. One poster said "Perhaps you've simply discovered that common usage of that era often spelled out "cannot" as "can not"". It's become common usage these days too, but that doesn't make it correct any more than spelling "a lot" as "alot" is correct, ubiquitescent as it now seems to be.

So, would Lincoln’s schoolma'am have corrected his drafts to change all the "can not"s to "cannots"? -- JackofOz (talk) 02:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

what are you talking about? "closed" form, cannot, is just a stylistic choice. it's not a special grammatical construction. your style guide will tell you to prefer it, but that's it. you don't have to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.24.203 (talk) 04:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The OED has citations for "cannot" going back to 1400. Its only citation of "can not" is from 1451. Its latest citation, from 1827, also the closest to Lincoln's time, also uses "cannot." -Elmer Clark (talk) 04:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting because I vaguely recall seeing something about newspapers combining words to save white space but can't remember anything about it except that it was some kind of wartime (as in first or second ww) economy – maybe it was just newspeak. Is "alot" all over now? For no reason I've always written it that way, inviting heaps of correcting from other people. Now will just say with confidence, it's ubiquitescent like the ubiquitous drunk. Julia Rossi (talk) 04:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it really just a stylistic choice, 79.122? The two forms mean quite different things. Just as you can't use "cannot" in "I can not only tell you what this Urdu word means ...", you can't use "can not" in "I cannot speak Urdu at all". Any well-written encyclopedia article, newspaper, novel or thesis will not use "can not" except in special contexts, and they use varying styles. If all the style guides agree on this, then it's not a style issue but a spelling issue. (Btw, I'm tempted to take with a grain of salt any written advice on spelling that spells the first word of its sentences without capitalising the first letter.) -- JackofOz (talk) 06:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think he's right about it being a stylistic choice. The OED calls "cannot" "the ordinary modern way of writing 'can not.'". -Elmer Clark (talk) 06:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm a bit thick today, but I remain very unconvinced. There's a world of difference between one's inability to do something (I cannot do X), and a person's prerogative or freedom to not do something that they're capable of doing (I can not do X). How does style enter into such a choice? -- JackofOz (talk) 07:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a better way of clarifying the distinction, as I see it, is that the "not" in "cannot" negates the "can"; whereas the "not" in "can not" not only doesn't negate the "can", it has nothing whatever to do with it, since it refers to whatever word follows "not". -- JackofOz (talk) 09:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Jack, are you proposing cannot not? There's a place for that, definitely. Although it's beginning to look like "carrot" Julia Rossi (talk) 09:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Julia, can you not see that I'm not proposing cannot not?  :) However, you've identified yet another valid form of words. (This movie is absolutely superb. You simply cannot not see it! - to which a rebellious type might respond I can not see it if I so choose). -- JackofOz (talk) 09:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Consider:

"I can NOT only tell you what this Urdu word means, but also speak the language fluently." and

"I can tell you what this Urdu word means, as I speak the language fluently." or

"I can only tell you what this Urdu word means because I speak the language very poorly."

"I canNOT tell you what this Urdu word means because I do NOT speak the language at all."

The word "not" in the first sentence negates the "only". The speaker clearly can tell and will tell what the translation is. The "not" implies that s/he can do more than just (only) translate a single term.

In the last case the "not" negates the "can" as the speaker is illiterate in the specific language. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 09:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's exactly what I'm on about. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Why does it have to be one meaning or the other? Sure, there are times when "not" can follow "can" without meaning "to be unable to," but there's really no reason to believe "can not" doesn't also sometimes simply have the same meaning as "cannot" (whew!). Language isn't that logical. -Elmer Clark (talk) 10:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this beginning to be about the not-Urdu word for carrot not in a can or not carrot-can? Because I can't... not as in cannot see it. PS Elmer Clark can't not be valiant in this attempt to stick with it, the not of it. Nor the can. Julia Rossi (talk) 11:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Jack's question is really about spelling, which was catch-as-catch-can back then. I think the comparison with "a lot" is valid; the adverb should be "alot", I love you alot, but we stubbornly spell it like the noun. Spelling is arbitrary and has no correlation with meaning. It is true that we can now make the distinction between "can not" and "cannot", a distinction ably if necessarily confusingly described above, but it should come as no surprise that it was not always so. It is a simple matter to construe "can not" the way we now construe "cannot". As for Lincoln, it was a speech, and it doesn't matter how he would have spelled it or how it would have been spelled in his day because it isn't a written thing. It has to be spelled so as to make sense to the reader now, and "can not" has come to mean something other than "cannot". It is no longer a stylistic choice; "cannot" is not a spelling option but a separate word. --Milkbreath (talk) 14:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

As it was a speech, I would suspect that Lincoln's drafts reflect how he intended to deliver the speech, emphasizing the "not" in "cannot" by pronouncing the two words distinctly, rather than trying to be grammatically correct. — Laura Scudder ☎ 14:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, Lewis Carroll was fond of the spelling "ca'n't" with TWO apostrophes... AnonMoos (talk) 12:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty then, let's delve into this a bit more.

• @ Elmer Clark: You're saying that when we read "I can not understand <whatever>", we automatically interpret it as a statement about my inability to comprehend something, not as anything else. Your mind isn't tricked, even momentarily, into thinking it's going to be about something I can do? Well, I have to tell you that my mind is tricked. Maybe that's because it was thoroughly ingrained in me in my younger halcyon days that "cannot" must be used in statements of inability or incapacity (or, as in Lincoln's speech, statements about what we must not do), and "can not" is reserved for other meanings. Maybe I would have been tricked anyway; I'll never know now. I never momentarily misinterpret "I do not understand ..." as if it's going to be about something I do (rather than something I am failing to do). "I can not understand ..." is a different ball game, though. I suppose people who were never taught this rule are lucky not to have become its psychological hostages, and maybe I'm just an inflexible old git.
• @ Julia: I'm speechless. (I'd have said that in Urdu, but I cannot speak the language.)
• @ Milkbreath: I think you're agreeing with me, that the text of the Gettysburg Address should use "cannot"s rather than "can not"s. Welcome to the team. You'll receive your instructions shortly.
• @ Laura Scudder: Normally, in a neutral context, I pronounce "cannot" with a slight stress on the "can". But it's curious that when I want to emphasise my inability to do something, I tend to stress the CAN part, not the NOT part. The more fervently I deny my capacity, the more I stress the CAN part. I know it isn't logical, but we're all agreed logic has no role here. Perhaps the NOT part is normally stressed in the USA. If a writer wishes to stress a particular syllable, there are ways of doing this. We underline, we highlight, we use stress marks, we capitalise the syllable etc; but we never simply separate the syllable, except maybe in a rough handwritten draft of something. If your theory is correct, I cannot think of any other case where the way of stressing the final syllable of a word is to separate it out as an independent word.
• If the advocates of the style theory are right, "cannot" and "can not" are just different ways of spelling the same thing, and if one uses both versions in the same text, all they're guilty of is stylistic inconsistency, not of any spelling error. Well, try re-spelling the example I gave above: A - This movie is absolutely superb. You simply can not not see it!. B - I cannot see it if I so choose. That doesn't work for me, I'm afraid. This proves, if nothing else, that are cases where you have to use "cannot", and there are cases where you have to use "can not". Is that not sufficient to demonstrate they're different in nature and meaning, and not simply spelling variants of each other? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Wunnerful, Jack. Just wunnerful. Use and choice is everything. I'm glad to have a lot cleared up, too.  ; ) Julia Rossi (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You can use the spelling difference with cannot, with can not meaning "able to not do", but I'm not sure it would be enough on its own to get the point across. In other cases you need italics or some other form of emphasis: "I'm not talking to my brother. Well, I'm not not talking to him, I'm just not talking to him." kwami (talk) 00:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Would I be wrong in using the word "reinstatement" to recall an employee who resigned the job voluntarily

where does the word "reinstatement" orginate in employment law? (or) what is the meaning of the word "reinstatement" in employment law? (or) One of my employee resigned from the job voluntarily and I want him to come back and do the same kind of work in the same position he held before. Can I write to him telling that the company is offering you "reinstatement"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.143.21 (talk) 13:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The good old dictionary gives the definition of reinstate as "to put back into a position formerly held" Looks like the right word to use in your situation. I'd doubt that the word originates from employment law though, as that is a relatively new concept. D0762 (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Or use Plain English and write: "We are offering you your old job back." 64.228.89.112 (talk) 16:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"Reinstatement" doesn't sound quite right to me - it has overtones of the situation where someone has been unfairly or illegally fired and gets their job back. I'd agree with 64.228 in recommending plain English in this case. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, it suggests a rank, standing or other capacity in which the person was first instated, but which was revoked. Dictionary.com has this example of use: to reinstate the ousted chairman.. Since your company does not "instate" its employees, they can't be "reinstated", even if they were "ousted". If you really want the former employee to return, why not use warmer language: "We miss you and would be happy to see you come back."  --Lambiam 23:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Lambian. Can you please explain the meaning of instate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.143.21 (talk) 11:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Again from the good old dictionary, instate: "to put or place in a certain state or position; to establish in office; to install" D0762 (talk) 18:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"whose" or "of which" - when referring to inanimate objects

• What's more grammatically correct: "a house whose door is red", or "a house the door of which is red"?
• What sounds better: "a house the door of which is red", or "a house of which the door is red"?

HOOTmag (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about the grammar of the particular construction, but "a house with a red door" sounds best to me. 64.228.89.112 (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but (in my first question) I would like to know whether "a house whose door is red" is grammatically wrong. HOOTmag (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"A house whose door is red" is perfectly acceptable standard English. I've occasionally seen this usage hypercorrected to (for example) "a house that's door is red", but that is just plain wrong (IMHO) . AndrewWTaylor (talk)

P.S. to answer your questions more specifically : (1) they are equally 'correct', but the construction with 'whose' is more natural and flows better; (2) I find both of these quite ugly: the second perhaps slightly less so, again on grounds of 'flow'. Use 'whose'. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I still don't know why Collins Dictionary (being a british dictionary) translates "Whose": "Of whom" (rather than: "Of whom, of which"), and gives examples all of which are for persons rather than for inanimate objects.

However, See "COMMOM ERRORS IN ENGLISH AND HOW TO AVOID THEM" (1943, the auther being american), p. 90:

• "Of which is commonly applied to things; whose to persons. Thus: my farm, the acreage of which, etc; Tenth Street, at the end of which I live. whose may be used of any object that has life...whose may also be used of objects in personification...To avoid awkward constructions, whose may be used for of which in speaking of inanimate objects. Thus: a city, whose builder and maker is God, a cube whose sides are made of metal."

Do you agree? HOOTmag (talk) 21:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I use "whose" to refer to inanimate objects in professional writing and have never been corrected. I think things have changed since 1943. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your clear response. HOOTmag (talk) 08:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

What was originally the neuter-gender form of who. That is, these were inflections of the same root. The genitive of both was whose, which was later extended to cover which as well. Later still, when gender was lost in English and who and what came to be seen as distinct words, whose was reanalyzed as the genitive of who, leaving what as defective, without any genitive form at all. There have been various ways of remedying this, none of which have been fully accepted: whats, thats, or re-extending whose.

The OED says that whose is "The genitive case of WHO (and in of neuter WHAT)", but then goes on to give modern example of neuter whose, from

1382 The loond of oyle and of hony, ... whos stones ben yren, to

1981 There were pictures whose context she understood immediately.

BTW, the same relationship held between he and it (originally hit), the genitive of both was his. That's why you get his referring to inanimate objects in the King James bible. Paralleling whose, his was reanalyzed as the genitive only of he, but in this case a new form was universally accepted for it: its. "Whats", on the other hand, doesn't even make it into the OED.

—kwami (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanx a lot. HOOTmag (talk) 08:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

"London, England". D'oh!

Why do American films invariably say "London, England" when indicating by a title where a scene is? This seems absurd, since surely even Americans know where London is, they cannot be that ignorant can they? They never say "New York, USA" (or "Washington, USA" if you like) or "Paris, France". Even if there is some Canadian place called London, its unlikely an audience is going to confuse them. And from a film title I understand there is a "Paris, Texas". Yet I've never seen "Paris, France" as a title. 80.0.106.237 (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a London, Kentucky and a London, Ontario. Don't want to confuse the viewers. Of course, they usually show an establishing shot pf the Big Ben tower, too. Corvus cornix_talk 20:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

My impression is that Americans in movies virtually always do say "Paris, France". I've heard that far more often than "London, England". -- JackofOz (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Good question. I'm picturing a movie, scene change, stock long shot of Big Ben and the Thames, caption says "London, England". That seems right. I think you don't appreciate how insular America is. If it simply said "London", it's not that we wouldn't know which London is meant, it's that it would give too much weight to a city not ours. When a Brit sees the caption "London", the name resonates with lost dreams of empire, with the tolling of that stentorian bell, the very grandfather's clock of history. When an American sees that caption, he thinks, "Just like a Brit; they still think they're the center of the universe." "London, England" takes it down a peg. Same goes for "Paris". Not "Moscow", so much, oddly. I don't know why that should be unless it's the prosaic infelicity of USSR or the importance accorded an enemy. In newer films I'd expect "Moscow, Russia". --Milkbreath (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"Moscow" as a personification of the USSR is like "Washington" as a personification of the US. You get the same with "Tokyo" in WWII films, or these days "Bagdad". Us vs. them: there's no possibility of confusion. You'll see "Moscow, Russia" when it's just a city. And once the scene is set, you no longer need the country: meanwhile, in London, ...

I don't think anyone would think "just like a Brit" if "London" appeared without "England". Hardly anyone in the US knows or cares whether Brits think they're the center of the world, anymore than whether the Chinese or French do. But you're right, Usonians tend to think they are the center of the world. Not including the country wouldn't be so much a problem of ambiguity (hardly any Usonians have heard of London, Ontario), but of people getting lost: "Wait, we're in England now?" Either that, or the city isn't mentioned at all, and the audience has to deduce where the scene is set. kwami (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been to Berlin, Rome, Paris and Vienna without ever leaving a 30-mile area of Ohio. So if you're standing in, say, Newton Falls, Ohio, you really have to give the country name when mentioning a foreign city. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I am from the Canadian London (we even have a fake Thames!), and the local newspaper always puts "London, England" when necessary. Elsewhere in Ontario, newspapers just say London, and "London, Ontario" if necessary. This reminds me of the Jeopardy contestant a couple of weeks ago, who said she travelled from California (or something) to London to see some band...but she meant London, Ontario, har har. (By the way, I could go to London and Paris and Delaware and Melbourne in the same day!) Adam Bishop (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't London, Ontario, residents sometimes refer to the city in England as "The Other London?" Anyway, to flip the original question on its head, one can accuse Britons of erring by not including an "England" or "UK" when they speak geographically. For example, when I saw that Misplaced Pages had a featured article called List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Cleveland, I assumed it would talk about the site of the Michelson–Morley experiment at Case Western Reserve University or the salt mines where they count neutrinos. Instead, it's a list of stuff in England. British people also talk about "Manchester," "Birmingham" and "Bristol" without a qualifier, perhaps unaware that those words mean different things to different people. (As does "Boston," I guess.) To me, Birmingham, unless otherwise differentiated, is in Alabama, Manchester is in New Hampshire and Bristol is in Connecticut or Virginia. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever heard anyone call it "the other London". Adam Bishop (talk) 07:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

A note: 'Site of Special Scientific Interest' is a designation awarded to, ahem, Sites of Special Scientific Interest 'including National Nature Reserves, Ramsar Sites, Special Protection Areas, and Special Areas of Conservation.' (for example my beloved Chessel Bay) in the UK. (And in Hong Kong, apparently). --Joe_Work 12:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

In "Glitter and Be Gay", Cunegonde sings "Here I am in Paris, France", which usually gets a laugh because although it's an American musical, the character is, after all, French herself. But the "France" is required for a rhyme with "bitter circumstance". —Angr 04:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can imagine how being in Paris, France, would be a bitter circumstance. Or anywhere in France, for that matter. --ChokinBako (talk) 05:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it the habit of many Americans when naming US cities to add the name of the state for clarity, as in "Nashville, Tennessee", or "Tucson, Arizona", and mightn't the "London, England" simply be an extension of this? Koolbreez (talk) 08:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If Americans say "Nashville, Tennessee" (not "Nashville, USA") and "London, England" (not "London, UK"), then I would also expect them to say "Paris, Île-de-France", "Rome, Lazio" and "Berlin, Brandenburg". For some reason, I've never heard them saying that. — Kpalion 18:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No. In the Usonian mind, at least, European states are more-or-less equivalent to US states. Paris, France is entirely equivalent to London, England and Nashville, Tennessee. Saying Paris, Île-de-France would be like saying Nashville, Davidson County.

You hit on the difference yourself, by linking Île-de-France, which tells me you understand that most people aren't going to know what that is. Having to look the clarification up in an atlas defeats its whole point. kwami (talk) 20:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Koolbreez is on the money. They distinguish the Ohio Springfield from all the other Springfields in the USA by saying "Springfield, Ohio". They distinguish the French Paris from the Texan Paris by saying "Paris, France". That does the job, and there's no need to get as specific as Kpalion suggests. If there were another Paris in France, say in Provence, then they'd need to specify which French Paris they're talking about. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the original question needs a big "citation needed" banner. --LarryMac | Talk 13:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Many areas around the world with historical British influence use English and European place names. For example, there's Paris, Ontario, Delhi, Ontario, and Lucknow, Ontario, and there used to be a "Berlin, Ontario", before it was renamed Kitchener in WWI. Also, many place names in England adn elsewhere in Europe are street and town names in Ontario and elsewhere in Canada, such as Abbotsford, Aberdeen, Adelaide, Amsterdam, Arthur, Bathurst, Birmingham, Brant, Brisbane, Bristol, Britannia, Brock, Buckingham, Burnaby, Caledon, Camelot, Cambridge, Canterbury, Charleston, Cochrane, Cockburn, Darlington, Delaware, Denmark, Don, Dorchester, Dublin, Durham, Edinborough, Essex, Exeter... you get the picture. In fact, a large percentage of formerly-British places have such names. Checking my atlas, there's at least 4 Londons, 4 Berlins, and 7 Parises. Hope this helps. Thanks. ~AH1 23:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Lucknow is European? —Tamfang (talk) 00:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, while from non-Americans "Washington" is usually sufficient, people in the U.S. will invariably write "Washington, D.C." to distinguish it from Washington state or the many small towns also named Washington. --D. Monack | talk 01:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

In my American experience London and Paris by default mean the ones in England and France, unless there's a local context. And to add to the list of placename duplicates -- there is the fun example of Vancouver (British Columbia) and Vancouver, Washington. The[REDACTED] page names tell you something about which tends to be the default, yet the Washington Vancouver is quite a bit older and seems to harbor a low-level, semi-fun resentment of that upstart Vancouver up north. And to add to confusion, if you get onto I-5 in Washington you can go north to Vancouver or south to Vancouver. I have even heard about people who have driven for hours before realizing they were going the wrong way. Pfly (talk) 01:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

To the original question – my guess is that if American movies consistently say "London, England" (can't say I've noticed!) it's not so much because the audience might otherwise mistake it for one of the many lesser Londons, as because the writer thinks the audience needs to be reminded just which foreign country London is in. It's less likely to occur in dialogue, I think, because each syllable takes time while a longer written title does not. — By the way, I live in California, but I visited New York once, and found it closed for Sunday. —Tamfang (talk) 00:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

April 7

A plus...

Reflecting on the "in bed" question above, it seems there are words with an a- prefix which mean being at something and it seems like a remnant thing that is sometimes in use now but some have faded out. I'm thinking of await, abide, aside, asleep, abed, even awake. Some might not be the right thing (I'm just a-guessing), but were these abridged from at+ and now have changed back to having at instead and what is this a+ called? Julia Rossi (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

According to the OED the a- in words like abed and ashore is from the Old English preposition on (= "in"). In words like afresh and anew, it's from OE of. And there's a few other origins in other kinds of words—for instance, in your await example it's already there in the French word from which the English word comes (Fr à). Deor (talk) 01:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The 'a' in 'awake' comes from OE 'gi', which in this sense means an action which has happened, so "I am already wakened".--ChokinBako (talk) 05:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think that in bed and abed show the same evolution of grammar: in both cases preposition plus noun phrase has been reduced to almost a single unit, so that the noun no longer has much independent existence. In neither case can the noun occur in the plural, or be modified by an article or an adjective. There's very little difference between a prepositional phrase such as in their new beds, where the preposition links a noun with a verb, and an adverbial phrase such as abed, where the noun modifies the verb. In bed is now practically an adverb.

This a-, by the way, can also be found in phrases such as nowadays, three times a day, ten cents a sheet. —kwami (talk) 06:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that "a" just the indefinite article? I've always assumed these expressions were abbreviations of "three times in a day" etc. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 08:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, three times on a day → three times on-day → three times a day.

The OED has,

a, prep. : A worn-down proclitic form of OE. preposition an, on. In 11th c., on began to be reduced before consonants to o, which from its tonelessness soon sank to a (ə). The separate form a is now rarely used, except in a few verbal constructions, as to go a begging, to set a going; and in temporal distributive phrases, as twice a day, once a year, where it has been confused with the 'indefinite article.' But the preposition a really remains in a large number of combinations, where present spelling treats it as a prefix to the governed word, and the whole as a compound adverb, as abed, afoot, aback, around, atop, afloat, asleep, alive.

Other modern remnants: aboard, ashore, afield, afore, ahead, aside, asunder, apart.

As a preposition, the original construction was a plus a noun: a live, a sleep, a work, a jar, a thirst, a blaze, a fright, a float, (the float was the foam on the water) a stare, but some of these were homonymous with verbs, and so in modern times the construction was reinterpreted and extended to any verb: a-wash, a-swim, a-blow, a-run, a-gaze, a-howl, a-tremble, a-shake, a-jump. kwami (talk) 09:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating. And how is this related to Scottish English? "My heart's in the highlands, a-following the dear deer" for example. --Kjoonlee 11:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That comes from the Gaelic construction 'ag' or 'aig' + present participle to show the present tense and the present progressive. (There is another simple present form, but it is only used in writing, mostly, and hardly ever in the spoken language.) --ChokinBako (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Things like "a-following" are used in English dialects that have never been in contact with Gaelic. It's from "on" as well. —Angr 04:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

And the loss of that on is why in modern English the present participle has the same form as the gerund. —Tamfang (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Amazed, thanks all. Julia Rossi (talk) 11:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

British English vs. American English

The following questions refer to every native english speaker:

If you're British (or Irish or Australian or New-Zealandian), then please tell me which way you find better (in formal speech):

• "He claimed that when he was dead - nobody would be sad".
• "He claimed that when he were dead - nobody would be sad".

If you're North-American, then please tell me if you can say (in formal speech):

• "He claims that when he will be dead - nobody will be sad".
• "He claimed that when he is dead - nobody will be sad".
• "He claimed that when he will be dead - nobody will be sad".

If you're a native english speaker, then please tell me if you can say (in formal speech):

• "He claims that when he be dead - nobody will be sad".

Thanks. HOOTmag (talk) 07:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

As a BrE speaker: I would always use ".. when he was dead .. " for the first question. For the third, I would say "no". (All this applies to standard, modern, non-dialect English.) AndrewWTaylor (talk) 08:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. What about: "He said that if I were late I'd be punished"? Should one prefer: "He said that if I was late I'd be punished"? HOOTmag (talk) 09:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

All of those sound incorrect somehow. "He claimed that when he was dead - nobody would be sad" sounds okay, but "He claimed that when he died - nobody would be sad" sounds better, meaning either that he would die someday or he already died between his claim and the report of it. "He claims that when he dies - nobody will be sad" sounds good for a present claim. The subjunctive and future perfect don't sound right in any of these sentences, especially the last one. (Note that I am Canadian which usually falls in between British and North American somehow). Adam Bishop (talk) 08:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. What about: "He said that if I were late I'll be punished"? Should one use the subjunctive here? or should one prefer: "He said that if I was late I'll be punished"? HOOTmag (talk) 09:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Both of those would require "I would be punished" (but "He said that if I am late I'll be punished"). Adam Bishop (talk) 10:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. What about: "He said that if I were late I'd be punished"? Is it wrong? and what about "He said that if I was late I'd be punished"? Wrong? HOOTmag (talk) 10:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Those sound fine to me, although "if I were late" is less likely to be used. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. HOOTmag (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm North-American and the middle phrase of my options is the only one that sounds correct. The last one is similar to Ebonics, though to be more correct in that dialect it would be "he claim that when he be dead - nobody gon' be sad." This probably doesn't make grammatical sense considering the semantics. — Ƶ§œš¹ 08:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. What about the first option of the three, i.e. "He claims that when he will be dead - nobody will be sad". If you think it's incorrect (or uncommon) so how would you say? "He claims that when he..."? HOOTmag (talk) 09:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

after EC:

The only one that I would use (as a Brit) is

• "He claimed that when he was dead - nobody would be sad".

I imagine that you are using "he were" as the rarely used subjunctive. "If he were" would be correct, because it is a conjecture, but "when he was dead" is a certain event, and so the subjunctive or any other conjectural mood is not appropriate. SaundersW (talk) 08:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.

Would you like to tell which english you use?

What about: "He said that if I were late I'd be punished"? Should one really use the subjunctive here?

HOOTmag (talk) 09:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

GA speaker: None of the first three are any good. GA does not have relative tense, and you cannot use the modal will in a relative clause. (This is often given as evidence that English has no grammatical future tense.) The last option (he be dead) sounds archaic, but I don't know if it'd actually be acceptable. For me, the one Ƶ§œš¹ liked would only be acceptable if it were gnomic rather than present tense: He claimed that when he is dead, nobody is sad — that is, he's been dead many times, and it never bothers anyone.

He said that if I were late I'd be punished.

He claims that when he is dead, nobody will be sad. —kwami (talk) 09:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for answering the question which I asked Adam Bishop. See below my comment. HOOTmag (talk) 10:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(Australian) The tenses don't match: his death is in the future relative to his time of speech, so you might say "He claimed that when he would be dead, nobody would be sad." Or better yet, "He claimed that if he died, nobody would be sad."

I also think it would be better to use a comma rather than a dash. The dash separates the two parts of the sentence. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. What about: "He promised that when he in the US he would visit me"? HOOTmag (talk) 10:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You can also say He claimed that when he died, nobody would be sad, if it's clear that that is just the past tense of He claims that when he dies, nobody will be sad. That would probably pass unnoticed in conversation. However, if you stop and think about it, it sounds like he's saying that he died, which may be why PG8 prefers He claimed that if he died, nobody would be sad — another example of why to look at corpora of actual conversation rather than rely on grammaticality judgements, which are often unreliable. kwami (talk) 10:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. What about "He promised that when he in the US he would visit me"? HOOTmag (talk) 10:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

He promised that when he was in the US he would visit me, or

He promised that when he is in the US he will visit me, or

He promised that if he were (ever) in the US he would visit me, or

He promised that if he is (ever) in the US he will visit me. kwami (talk) 10:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanx. I assume that whatever you've indicated is according to GA usage only, whereas in British-English, which does have relative tense, one would never say: "He promised that if he is...".

By the way, what did you mean when you wrote: "you cannot use the modal will in a relative clause"? Can't the Americans say: "he claims that if he will.."? Can't the British-English speakers (as well as the Americans) say: "He will claim that if he will..."? HOOTmag (talk) 10:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any of this has to do with English/American differences. I (an American) agree with everything the non-Americans have said here and have never heard that things like this change in different forms of English. Both "He claims that if he will..." and "He will claim that if he will..." certainly would sound unnatural here. -Elmer Clark (talk) 11:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Would you agree with the Americans here? for example, what about: "He promised that if he in the US he would visit me"? and what if we changed the "if" into "when"? HOOTmag (talk) 11:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Elmer. To the best of my knowledge, this is basic English grammar and there's no difference between British and American English. Jack 15:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you did not answer my second question! what about: "He promised that if he in the US he would visit me"? and what if we changed the "if" into "when"?

HOOTmag (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

He promised that if he was in the U.S. he would visit me. Same if you substitute when for if. "If he were" implies a condition contrary to fact. Jack 15:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanx. Anyway, you disagree with kwami, who (like you) uses American English, and you also disagree with SaundersW, who hasn't indicated which English he uses. HOOTmag (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No, he doesn't. Kwami only said that "...were..." would be acceptable with if and speaking in the subjunctive - "was" is more likely to be your intended meaning in the "if..." sentence; in the "when..." sentence you can never use "were," since "when" can't take the subjunctive. Again, this has nothing to do with American/UK usage. Read English subjunctive for more information. -Elmer Clark (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thankxs a lot. And what do you think about PalaceGuard008's reply? He indicated that he's Australian, and stated that one might say: "He claimed that when he would be dead, nobody would be sad." HOOTmag (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I don't understand the insistence on seeing these questions as related to dialect, despite several editors having indicated that such is not the case. You also left off an important part of PalaceGuard's reply, giving a much more natural sentence to use in place of the tortured syntax that he indicated one might say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LarryMac (talk • contribs) 20:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you've got me really confused here. It seems like you're trying to prove some point rather than actually get a useful answer. -Elmer Clark (talk) 21:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Who? Are you talking to me or to LarryMac?

I just want to know whether the subjunctive usage has the same rules in all of the english dialects. If you say it has - then I believe you, but I still want to know why other users have given apparently different replies, That's all. If you say that all of you have given the same reply - then I believe you again. I don't want to prove anything. HOOTmag (talk) 21:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hoot, I am not sure how closely you are reading this discussion. I clearly said "as a Brit", and also I do not disagree with Jack of Lumber. "If I was" never even entered my comments. SaundersW (talk) 10:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• I keep reading this discussion very closely.
• Sorry for having skipped over the "as a Brit".
• You wrote (some days ago): "If he were" would be correct.
• Jack wrote: He promised that if he was in the U.S. he would visit me..."If he were" implies a condition contrary to fact.
• I understood that Jack insists on "If he was" (since "if he were" - implies a condition), so I wrote to Jack: you also disagree with SaundersW.
• That's all. I hope you now understand what I've meant.

HOOTmag (talk) 10:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

" is bias"

Why is the phrase " is bias" being used in place of " is biased?" For example, I frequently find people saying that a particular "article is bias". As can be seen by the link, this form of incorrect grammar is not isolated but quite common throughout forums and Misplaced Pages talk pages. Is this a product of international users using incorrect grammar? Is this a case of English speaking peoples omitting the easy to ignore "-ed" sound in biased? Is this an emerging trend that is rapidly being accepted? Lastly, is anyone else frustrated by how common this phrase is used? 128.227.81.59 (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you have it with the "not hearing the -ed sound" conjecture. You also hear people say things like "you're so prejudice" - I'd imagine that this is the same phenomenon. To my knowledge this is not considered correct by anyone, and yes, it is rather annoying. -Elmer Clark (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

A great example is this About.com page which manages to correctly use "prejudiced" but incorrectly uses "is bias" in the same sentence. Thanks for mentioning " is prejudice." I had completely forgotten how common that phrase is especially since it was probably around before " is bias" became popular. 128.227.81.59 (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Dialectically in the US, final consonant clusters are reduced, so that for example friend rhymes with Ben, as in the delightful Michael Jackson theme song of that light-hearted movie, Ben. I think it's probably not that people don't hear the final C in these particular words, but that they don't have such sounds at all. kwami (talk) 20:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Not in my dialectic :) Clearly, in the idiolects of the people who use "bias" instead of "biased" and "prejudice" instead of "prejudiced", the final consonants in these words are absent. But I bet most of these people have words in their idiolects that, phonologically if not phonetically, exhibit word-final (homorganic) consonant clusters such as /st/ and /nd/ (a case in point is the phrase "so-and-so is bias against", where the final word ends in /st/). I don't think the tendency for some dialects to simplify consonant clusters can account for the majority of cases where an English speaker uses "bias" as an adjective. --Diacritic (talk) 01:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suspect that the words are used by people who do not do a lot of reading. If you have only ever heard these words, the endings are easy to miss. It happens easily if the language is not your native one, and the construct is not familiar to you. I do similar things in French all the time, having heard a phrase, and then repeated it with some of the "swallowed" bits missing. It sounds fine to me, but not to a native speaker. ៛ Bielle (talk) 03:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Could be, but could also be that the writer says bias agains, but knows that against has a silent tee at the end. Then, if the words were used rap music, people which do have final consonant clusters might be first exposed to them that way, and learn them without the ending. kwami (talk) 06:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

When did that 't' in against go silent? --LarryMac | Talk 13:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Conversely, when I was a kid in the UK, I remember most of my friends saying "I can't eat because I'm allergict.' instead of 'allergic'. This obviously came from the fact that 'allergic to' was the most common use of the word and they guessed that the word 'allergic' must have a 't' after it even when 'to' does not follow.--ChokinBako (talk) 22:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

April 8

Words

I know this is a stupid question, but do we have any idea of how many words there are in the English language? The estimates given there are a bit unspecific on what counts as a seperate word, whether they count both hurried and hurriedly as seperate words or not seems like a bit of an issue. But ROUGHLY speaking, what number seems about right? Thanks a lot, and again, sorry for the stupid question. 81.96.161.104 (talk) 00:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not a stupid question. The Oxford English Dictionary provides meanings for over half a million English words, which are listed under about 300 000 head words. Many of these are archaic, and thus rarely (if ever) encountered in modern works. Gwinva (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That means there are 300,000 words, then. The rest are combinations and derivatives, as the Oxford English Dictionary article says. --ChokinBako (talk) 01:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

How do you correctly spell, "dubious"?

I was reading an interesting book, and I kept happening upon the word, "dubious", and I have no idea what it means. Please help me out of this dire situation. --The'yellow'poet (talk) 00:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Try dictionary.com rather than wikipedia. kwami (talk) 00:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Or Wiktionary. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 00:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hint: Most words with this suffix "ous" go back to a Latin root. In this case it is dubius -a -um . (1) act. , ; in opinion, ; as to action, . (2) pass., ; n. as subst.; 'in dubium vocare', ; 'procul dubio', . (3) fig., . Adv. dubie, ; 'haud dubie', ., as per http://catholic.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lookup.pl?stem=dub&ending=io. Any old online Latin dictionary will do. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't need a Latin dictionary to find this English word. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

"Dubious" is the correct spelling (re: title of this post).--ChokinBako (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hebrew translation

I'm looking for the Hebrew translation for the word Zest. This word was used to describe the name of that particular day you were born. Not sure of its orgin. But I would like to see the Hebrew interpreation based on the Zohar or any other mystical teachings. Thanks for your help. P.Robinson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.141.64 (talk) 00:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Which language is "zest"? kwami (talk) 06:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The English word "zest" does not "describe the name of that particular day you were born".

The Hebrew lexicon does not contain such a word pronounced ZEST.

The Hebrew word "of that particular day you were born" is: יום הולדת (see: Ezekiel 16,4). Sometimes (and usually in the bible, e.g. Genesis 40,20; Ezekiel 16,5) it's spelled without the fifth letter, i.e. יום הלדת, but it's not the usual spelling in regular texts.

Eliko (talk) 08:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Modern idiomatic usage runs the two words into one another, dropping the ה. --Dweller (talk) 10:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

In slang only. The user who asked for the translation is looking for traditional texts, not for texts written in slang. Eliko (talk) 10:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I guarantee that whatever the OP is looking for, it's not יום הולדת! --Dweller (talk) 11:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, He's been "looking for the Hebrew translation for the word Zest... used to describe the name of that particular day you were born", so I answered him - as clearly and loudly as I could - that "The English word 'zest' does not describe the name of that particular day you were born", and that "The Hebrew lexicon does not contain such a word pronounced ZEST". I've also added, just by the way, that "The Hebrew word of 'that particular day you were born' is: יום הולדת", thus letting him understand that if he wants to get more information from the judaic sources about "that particular day you were born" - then he may find it by referring to יום הולדת. For example, he may look here, including the bibliographic sources below, mainly footnote no. 10 (about the mystical perspective). Eliko (talk) 12:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

OP, I don't have a source to back this up, but traditional Hebrew texts like the Zohar may not help you too much, as traditionally not much importance was ascribed to a birthday. Death days, however, were and are recorded and marked and, in the cases of great leaders, for perpetuity. On the other hand, there was some intersection of astrology/Zodiac and Jewish mysticism, but I think it was more about the constellations from which the "star signs" take their names, than about applying them to individuals based on birth date, though I could be mistaken on that. --Dweller (talk) 11:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Synonym for "split up"

I'm currently reviewing a potential FA candidate for LOCE duties, and I come across the phrase "split up" pretty frequently. I've consulted two thesauri for a possible synonym to replace it but haven't come to a good word yet. Any ideas? --Pianísta! 03:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Divide, subdivide. Wrad (talk) 03:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, fast response! However, Wrad, that isn't the context of the word. Here's the sentence: "However, on April 21, 2003, during a live onstage performance, S Club announced that they were to split up." --Pianísta! 03:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"Break up", "separate", "go their indivdual ways", "dissolve" the group or partnership? ៛ Bielle (talk) 03:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Disband = "to break up or cause to cease to exist" as per http://en.wiktionary.org/disband is a possibility. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 09:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Perfect! Thanks, guys, for all your help. =) --Pianísta! 17:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sponsored run?

What do you call a race where people agree to donate a certain amount of money to charity based on how far you run? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.121.36.232 (talk) 04:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Charity run?  --Lambiam 06:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

There is also fun run, which is when you do it dressed as a banana, and other silly stuff. Also, sponsored run, as you say in the title. --ChokinBako (talk) 08:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Walkathon? APL (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What does "to be instructed in the ways of sth" mean?

I'm trying to translate some text from english and I need some help. Can someone tell me what does "sb is instructed in the ways of the world" mean. I supposed that it means that that person knows very well how to live, how to work and she or he knows social reality. But I'm affraid that it has some other specyfic meaning. I would be gratefull for the answer! Rafał —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.173.11.252 (talk) 06:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

They learned / were taught not to be naive. kwami (talk) 06:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!79.173.11.252 (talk) 07:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"The ways of the world" means the wicked ways: deceit, and the pursuit of pleasure. The aim of the instruction is usually not to enable somebody to emulate this, but to make them aware of and able to recognize it, so as not to be ensnared by it.  --Lambiam 07:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Word Meaning a Small Input Causing a Large Output

Hello,

I'm trying to find out if a word exists, but so far reverse dictionaries have not been helpful. I want to know if there is a word to describe the concept of a small input causing a large output (in any system or situation).

Thank you in advance for your help.

--Grey1618 (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Hm. Butterfly effect might be helpful in your search. --jpgordon 16:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Or snowball - people say stuff like "things just snowballed out of control", or perhaps avalanche - but that's probably not going to get the concept of small-to-large, just purely large. Snowball shows up as "to grow rapidly in significance, importance or size" from here (http://www.answers.com/snowballed&r=67) ny156uk (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Depending on what context this is to be used in, how about something related to similar concepts in electronics: amplify or relay? jeffjon (talk) 17:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

'Disproportionate' might help. --Richardrj 17:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Positive feedback is relevant but would be misunderstood. --jpgordon 22:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"Smart" effect? The concept is sometimes around "minimum effort, maximum results" as in "work smart", "smart mob" or "smart" technology that does more than is normal (eg "Smart bullet") but can't find in dictionary. Then there are hollow point bullets that make a small entry point, expanding as they leave their target, but no term for that effect in their description. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

In electronics, a device that results in a large output from a small input is said to have the property of gain. --Polaron | Talk 22:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Efficient, productive, profitable... Wrad (talk) 22:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

When you divide one number by another, the more tiny the denominator is, the more enormous the quotient becomes. How about we coin "microdenominator"? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Disproportionate effect, high gain, chaos, hyperbolic, catalytic, potent, magnify, efficient, influential, impregnate, germinative, virulent, trigger, spark, nudge, voice behind the throne, foment, instigate, leaven ("an agency which produces profound change by progressive inward operation"). kwami (talk) 23:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"Sensitive dependence on initial conditions" is a phrase I've seen used to describe butterfly effect-type situations. -GTBacchus 23:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Spelling help.

Ok the word is an adjective used when describing art and music its spelled something like (i think) "auviounce" or "onviounce" and sounds somthing like awe (like "im in awe) vi- ounce (like ponce de leon) awe-vi-ounce it sound french hope thats enough info

Ambience. kwami (talk) 23:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

But, really, I don't know why people try to use the French pronunciation (with a stress on the final syllable and all) for what is now an English word. There's nothing wrong with saying "AM-bi-əns". -- JackofOz (talk) 05:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Why do people say "ahn-too-RAHZH" instead of "en-TOO-ridge" for what is also now an English word?  --Lambiam 08:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps because the former is the correct pronunciation of the word in English? --Richardrj 10:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The same reason people in academia pronounce "processes" as "PROH-cess-eez", I suspect. Non-English pronunciation sounds more "learned", and people even use some words with the "learned", foreign pronunciation subconsciously without thinking that they are the same as an ordinary English word. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

PROcess is the pronunciation of the word process when it is a noun. ProCESS is its pronunciation as a verb. The change of stress also applies to words like upset. As for French pronunciation, there is no stressed syllable in a word in French. It is a delicate matter to adjust the correctness of foreign pronunciation to make it intelligible in common speech. Back in my Francophone days I had to adjust the pronunciation of English words to French ears so they sounded "English" enough, but did not use phonemes that French ears could not assimilate. SaundersW (talk) 09:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I say PROH-cess and UP-set for both the noun and the verb. And I don't understand Rspeer's point, either. PROH-cess is the standard English pronunciation. --Richardrj 10:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a British/American thing! The more common U.S. pronunciation has a short O rather than a long O. FWIW I say PRAH-cess (both n. & v.), up-SET (v. & adj.), UP-set (n.) Jack 14:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

And note the final syllable "eez" (rather than "iz") in the pronunciation that Rspeer was referring to. Deor (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't notice that. Yes, I normally use a reduced vowel in processes. Jack 15:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Some of these pronunciative (?) distinctions are being blurred these days. Once upon a time it was de rigeur to say FI-nance for the verb ("to finance"), and fə-NANCE for the noun, but hardly anyone adheres to that rule these days; no, not even I. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

lol. I have a friend who goes apocalyptic when I pronounce "croutons" without pronouncing the final "s". She says I'm being ridiculous and pompous. I say I am ridiculous and pompous, so that's alright then. Actually, and I've no idea about in America, but us Brits are very ambivalent about this issue. There are certain borrowed words we'd always pronounce (or try to pronounce) with their foreign intonation, like "foie gras" (at least I've never heard anyone call it foy grass) and "pièce de résistance", some where some do, some don't ("ambience" is a good example, or "élite") and some where no-one bothers ("cul-de-sac" anyone?). --Dweller (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Purely because this is the language desk and you are a regular (so I hope this doesn't come across as mean) I love the idea of sending your friend apocalyptic with a single word. "Crouton(s)" "And the sea shall be as blood, and the sky shall be aflame, and all shall bow before DEATH! What use then your croutons?" Alternatively, perhaps you meant apoplectic, which isn't nearly as fun :) 130.88.140.107 (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, I used the word advisedly. The end of days shall be as nothing, for I have verily looked into the abyss and it is called women's wrath. With boiling eyes, a great shrieking as if the heavens themselves had split asunder and vessels growing wings and taking flight without care for the ease of their path. And truly, it is a fearful thing, prompted by the little thing with equal retribution as if it were the Great Thing itself. --Dweller (talk) 10:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

April 9

Continental European writing with American spelling

Isn't it strange that continental European often use the American spelling instead of the British?217.168.0.113 (talk) 00:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It's actually becoming increasingly common, probably because of American pop culture. Luckily, I've never seen a European write "I can haz cheezburger?" :). Joking aside, officially when anything in the EU is written in English, it is in British English, the obvious reason being, of course, that we are part of it, and the US isn't. --ChokinBako (talk) 01:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yet! —Angr 06:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There's also Oxford spelling... AnonMoos (talk) 09:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realize/ise that we used both in the UK. I thought '-ise' was British and '-ize' was American..... After all, France is just a train-ride away!--ChokinBako (talk) 14:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

English language instruction these days may legitimately focus on international English rather than specific national variants. BrainyBabe (talk) 21:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL Catz

Has anyone noticed that the LOL cats people are developing their own dialect? For years internet spelling has been taking on its own form, with all sorts of abbreviations and, in many cases, more phonetically correct spelling, but recently I have noticed that now even the grammar is changing, as in the quote in my answer to the last question. Does anyone know where this comes from? I mean, does anyone actually talk like this? There must be some sort of original from where this comes, otherwise it just looks...well...like something a character from Sesame Street would say.--ChokinBako (talk) 01:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the grammar is changing as much as it is becoming obsolete. 'I can haz hugs tiem now plz?' You can still understand it even if there is no structure. 70.162.25.53 (talk) 03:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think the point is that felines have a less than adequate grasp of the English language. Deor (talk) 03:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

70.162.25.53, 'obsolete'? You mean LOLCatese is becoming 'oblivious', or do you actually mean 'outdated and unused'? Or do you mean 'the grammar of English' is becoming obsolete (in the case of LOLCatese)?--ChokinBako (talk) 05:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

For a laugh, check out lolcatbible.com. We were discussing it in my Linguistic Anthropology class. And in my opinion, I think that lolCatz are purposely using this different form of grammar (which has rules and ungrammaticality just like 'standard' English) to show humourous intent - indicating that the cat is the author of these statements (rather than the person we all know to be the real writer), or to comment intertexually on some other internet memes in a way that shows meta-awareness (that is, awareness about one's own choice of medium) - using a form of "txtspeak", alluding to memes like "i'm in ur X Ying ur Z" or "d00d", etc. СПУТНИК 05:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

We even have an article on that, too. How ridiculous is that? I mean, lolcats are funny once or twice... Adam Bishop (talk) 05:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, that is what I mean, Sputnik, that it is meant to be humorous and, in many ways, based on a knowledge of internet txtspeak - but I was wondering where the weird grammar was starting to come from. I was wondering if there was already something in the real world that was the basis for this. Some TV personality, some cartoon character, some...something. And anyway, why would a cat want a cheeseburger? They hate gherkins just like everyone else!--ChokinBako (talk) 05:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it all started with "I can has cheezburger?" - a picture of a chubby gray cat with that caption. You can see it here I can has cheezburger? if you scroll down. After that it just took off, and different subgenres emerged, like the "Invisible X" picture, that started with "Invisible Bike" (I think you can find it on that site) labelling an appropriate picture and then expanded to other items, or like the "i'm in ur X Ying ur Z", which I believe started from "I'm in ur base, killing ur d00ds", which was a response on some online gaming community to "where r u?". The weird grammar is obviously a derivative of internet speak, with an overshadowing ideology of "how a cat would speak" - this accounts for some of the spelling (nuffin for nothing, hai for hi) and grammar (eated for ate, I iz for I am). The question of why it all started, and why it's so popular, is a good one. More investigation is necessary. СПУТНИК 05:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The LoLCat Bible seems easy to read if I use a Jamaican accent, for some reason.--ChokinBako (talk) 05:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting - I never thought of that. Also, I didn't even bother to check if we had an article on it. СПУТНИК 05:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

My take on the reason it's sopopular is that it just looks and sounds so incredibly stupid. That's why I find them funny (the really good ones, at least), they can be hilariously done. The incoherence of the language is really only funny next to a picture of something stupid. That seems to be why it works. It wouldn't make sense with people. 81.96.161.104 (talk) 14:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, people are pretty stupid. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 16:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I saw a picture of a very fat woman with bulging eyes, and the caption was I can haz cheezburger? and it made me smile - just smile - but it just seems like two unrelated concepts juxtaposed when used with a cat, leading me to question the relative intelligence and/or amount of free time the creator has.--ChokinBako (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record: I find Lolcats, whose site I visit daily, mildly-to-highly amusing, often delightfully clever, and above all a genuine viral phenomenon uniting users and viewers in a benign manner. I believe that those who don't appreciate it might best move on, and any disparaging remarks they make are fairly worthless. Take this from a '50s-born, college-educated language professional and devoted Wikipedian who's adopted and supports lolspeak as a fun and entertaining alternate dialect of web-English. -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"Placename" or "place name"?

Which of the following is the correct form: "placename", "place name", or "place-name"? Thanks, Black Falcon 06:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The OED uses "place name," but all but its two most recent citations use "place-name." You should be fine with either of those two. -Elmer Clark (talk) 09:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. The hyphen indicates that in English English (let's call a spade a spade) the two-part word was being construed as one and was moving toward union, "placename". I think that the two-word form "place name" is best and safest right now everywhere, but I wouldn't bat an eye at "placename", myself. I'm an American, though, and we don't hyphenate as many compound words as they do over there; we tend to collapse them into one word, like with "cross-bow" and "crossbow". --Milkbreath (talk) 10:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm a Brit and I've never seen 'cross-bow', only 'crossbow'. There is a growing tendency these days in the UK to not use the hyphen in many words, but to merge them into one. Incidentally, you can hyphenate practically anything and it'll go past the spell-check, so it's best to use the unhyphenated form first and see if it's OK, then if not either hyphenate it or separate it.--ChokinBako (talk) 12:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

"Cross-bow" is the entry word in the OED and the only form it mentions. The recent citations all have the hyphen. I do believe you, though. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Black Falcon 20:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

For me, 'placename' is a bridge too far, I much prefer place name. If we write placename, why noy boatname, housename, businessname? Xn4 09:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is a connection there. Why "houseboat" and not "housemusic"? Why "bootblack" and not "blackeye"? Why "fiddlesticks" and not "pickupsticks"? Who knows? But I can see how "placename" would offend the eye of some, hence the recommendation. --Milkbreath (talk) 10:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

In that case, Xn4, 'username' would be incorrect (and my spell-checker says it is!!!).--ChokinBako (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Faroese or Swedish surname?

Hi all! Is Tufvesson a Faroese or Swedish surname? Thank you!--necronudist (talk) 08:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

2p from Dweller

If unsure, perhaps you chaps could help with translating the following into Danish and posting on the Danish[REDACTED] somewhere, asking for them to reply at Necronudist's talk page?

Necronudist's question (slightly edited):

Someone has claimed that Axel Thufason came to Denmark from Føroyar and Tufvesson was his original Faroese surname. The English language Misplaced Pages (and other Danish sources) claim that he was of Swedish origins, but born in Copenhagen. Who's right? Any ultimate source? Plus: does anybody know if he or his family made the surname change official in the public registers? Thank you!

Thanks as ever. --Dweller (talk) 13:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it says a fair bit of info about him here. Maybe that helps. But, 'Tufvesson' looks Faroese to me. --ChokinBako (talk) 13:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

So it sounds Faroese...interesting. Thank you Givnan! And thank you Dweller, too ;-) Hope someone will help with the translation... I didn't want to ask too much... --necronudist (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that's Swedish, not Faroese. But note that the Faroese relatively recently gained a written language and prior to that had to Danicize their names in writing. Also note that in the 19th century some Swedes and Faroese had patronymics and no family names. Haukur (talk) 15:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Necronudist - could you not simplify your life and include both claims, assuming the Faroe advocate has a source? If they have no source, you can simply remove their claim as unsourced possible OR. --Dweller (talk) 15:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not so simple... I think the only way out is to know the truth, also if I understand that there are few chances to make it. As far as we know he can be of Finnish, Russian, Zimbabwean or Antarctic extraction, it's just a matter of finding another source :-) Maybe there's a Danish football expert out there who knows the truth and think that nobody care... --necronudist (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

codswallop

It seems that the term listed by Misplaced Pages is not a logical one. I have read this is a simple old english conjoining of the expression "walloping the cod" - meaning is obvious - has anyone else not heard of this more simple explanation?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.34.142 (talk) 15:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

One should also consider the differences between a piece of cod and a codpiece. As to the walloping of the former or the latter, or, indeed, walloping the former with the latter or the latter with the former, I must remain silent, as the WP:thought police may decipher this to be piscine soap boxing and not soap walloping. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Phrase origination advice

My daughter came to me to say her teacher used the phrase, "clean your clock" to a student. I told her what it meant, but she was curious where it originated. I'm trying to turn this into a chance to learn. Anyone have any idea how to find the answer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.123.223.100 (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's some information at a pretty reliable Web site. If your daughter is interested in the origins of words and phrases, she may want to browse around there, as well. Deor (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

April 10

Niiko in Somali

Moved from Misc refdesk: What does the word "Niiko" mean in Somali language? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 00:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Niiko does not appear in a 30,000-word dictionary. kwami (talk) 22:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

What's the longest word in the Oxford English Dictionary?

85.250.19.223 (talk) 11:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

According to the article on longest word in English it's pseudopseudohypoparathyroidism (30 letters). ... errrmm ... see below! ---Sluzzelin talk 11:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

<e/c>:Serious answer: It depends which edition. The full monty OED will have longer and more obscure words in it... I seem to recall the disease brought on from breathing in rock dust is the longest, but someone will be along soon to clarify. In fact, they beat me and corrected me in one Meantime, the gag answer is "smiles". Because there's a mile between the two esses. --Dweller (talk) 11:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ha. I was right. Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis, at 45 letters, is in the OED, though they don't like it, lol. --Dweller (talk) 11:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Antidisestablishmentarianism seems to be the longest "normal" word which you can actually use in a conversation without everybody scuttling off to consult their non-organic storage media. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I doubt most people would ever have cause to use that in a conversation that wasn't about long words... -Elmer Clark (talk) 08:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Requesting language support

Hi, this is sandy from India, Karnataka... I'm here to enquire is it possible to provide information in Indian languages. There is Hindi, Marathi, etc... likewisw is it possible to implement Kannada also.. Thanks and regards Sandy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fropsandy (talk • contribs) 13:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Sandy. I'm not quite sure what you are asking, but here is a list of the different Wikipedias by language. I see Hindi, Marathi, and Kannada. I hope this is what you are looking for. --Milkbreath (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Our article on Karnataka states that Kannada is the main language spoken in your state. It appears that the Misplaced Pages version using this language could use quite a few serious contributors, as it is, as of now, comparatively small with some 5,000 articles.

With a minor burst of diligence and activity you can overtake those slothful wombats from St. Petersburg. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it makes me look like I am thick, but I missed the joke completely. Who are "those slothful wombats from St. Petersburg", Cookatoo? The russian wikipedians? --Lgriot (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation was established in St. Petersburg, Florida - not the obscure place in Russia - in 2003. It´s no longer there, but the Russian St. Petersburg was not there for a while, either. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an outrageous racist slur on wombats, which are renowned for their industry ... compared with some humans of my acquaintance, that is. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Didn't they relocate to Fog City?  --Lambiam 23:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

April 11

French quotation marks

I was looking at this 1859 textbook. Are the quotation marks here an older French style? 68.18.206.78 (talk) 01:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Quotation mark, non-English usage shows that it isn't the current style for French, but it is the current style for a number of other European languages (including German and Bulgarian). It may be an older style, or they may have been using a non-standard style even for those times. Steewi (talk) 03:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Early Spanish-English Phrasebook

I found a scan of a single page some years ago of a 17th century (I think) Spanish-English phrasebook, purporting to the one of the first of its kind. I have since lost both picture and title, and thought maybe someone might remember what it is, and whether the text or scan of the phrasebook are available online. Google, Gutenberg and Archive.org have not yielded anything to me, but may do so to someone with better search-fu. Steewi (talk) 03:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it was one of John Minsheu's 17th century editions which were based on Richard Perceval's Biblioteca Hispanica (1591). See here, for example. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)