Revision as of 16:07, 6 December 2015

• 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

November 30

Languages on Serbian poster

What languages are on this Yugoslav Wars-era poster? Obviously the top one is English, but after that it looks like a mishmash of Slavic languages and the odd Romance language (is "avion ti gori" Romanian, perhaps?) switching freely between Latin and Cyrillic alphabets. Smurrayinchester 09:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Apart from the first English sentence (and from the first English word of the second sentence) and from the last English sentence, the rest is in Serbian. Note that Serbian uses both Latin script (known as latinica i.e. латиница) and Cyrillic script (known as ćirilica i.e. ћирилица). HOOTmag (talk) 11:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! I knew Serbian used both scripts, but I didn't realize how many diacritics it had – I thought the line that used "č" was a different language to "ć". Smurrayinchester 12:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

"For a long time and good reasons, I have..."

Would it be considered good English to start a sentence with a zeugma like that? (I failed to find examples for practical use.) --KnightMove (talk) 15:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if it's "good" English but I think it's grammatical and sort of poetic and zeugmatic. In my opinion zeugma always sounds a bit lofty, and is usually used in speeches and epics, not real-life conversations. Are you also looking for more everyday examples of zeugma? Or ways to come up with them? There are several types, as described in our article, I find a good way to recognize/generate them is to focus on a verb used in two different ways (which your example does not). So, to get further examples, think of a key verb with a literal/concrete yse, then think of a metaphorical use, then smash them together. E.g. You can fall down and fall off of things, but you can also fall into debt or into last place. So "He fell into danger and water", or "She fell off the house and into trouble" and "My hopes and hand were crushed" are more mundane zeugmatic constructions. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

It's the sort of thing I mostly associate with playful or comedic writing – Terry Pratchett or Douglas Adams perhaps (for instance, Adams' claim that he "took a number of baths and a degree in English"). Not incorrect, but not standard (as SemanticMantis says, it can sound quite poetic), and perhaps poor style in formal writing. Smurrayinchester 16:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess in formal writing you properly follow the MPT-rule, like: "I have been staying here for good reasons for a long time"? --KnightMove (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there's an easy formal/informal split here, and your example sentence sounds awkward to me and I'd prefer the zeugmatic phrasing or a total rephrasing to what you wrote (in most circumstances). But it doesn't matter what I prefer :)

Showy rhetorical devices and figures of speech are very common in important speeches, e.g. the chiasmus in "Ask not what your country can do for you..." Are such speeches examples of formal writing? I'd think the appropriateness of zeugma is more about the expected audience and goal of the piece of writing rather than formality. So I'd say zeugmas are not that useful or welcome in most WP articles (because they might be confusing, though I can't find any guidance by skimming WP:MOS), but these devices are fine in novels, blog posts, essays, etc. They would be fine in some school projects (creative writing) but frowned on in others (technical writing). The Chicago manual of style has recommendations for use and punctuation for elliptical constructions (which often fit the broader definitions of zeugma, type 3 in our article), but I don't have a copy of CMS present and I don't know if it talks specifically about zeugma/syllepsis. So if you really want a more authoritative voice on when it's ok, then look to a language maven like Strunk & White or a style guide like CMS. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Lithuanian vocative

For almost seven years, Vocative case § Lithuanian has had a hatnote requiring attention from an expert, because it claims that it "developed new forms for several classes of nouns." What are the new forms Lithuanian developed? Thanks! — Sebastian 22:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we have anyone on this desk with expertise in Lithuanian. You might have better luck contacting someone at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Lithuania. Marco polo (talk) 15:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Will do, thanks! — Sebastian 16:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

December 1

Is the word total singular or plural or both?

Is the word total singular or plural or both? Sentence A: "The total is much higher than I expected." The subject is total and the verb is singular (is). The sentence sounds fine to me. Sentence B: "A total of 17 prisoners were killed when violence broke out." The subject is total and the verb is plural (were). The sentence sounds fine to me. So, is the word total singular or plural or either/both (depending on context)? Thanks. 2602:252:D13:6D70:9562:88E6:981C:9C76 (talk) 08:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I am re-examining Sentence B, which states "A total of 17 prisoners were killed when violence broke out." If we remove the prepositional phrase ("of 17 prisoners"), we are left with: "A total of 17 prisoners were killed when violence broke out." Or, in other words: "A total were killed when violence broke out." Something seems "off" there? No? 2602:252:D13:6D70:9562:88E6:981C:9C76 (talk) 08:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

"Total" is singular. Some words and phrases in English that are grammatically singular may be construed as plural when they refer to a group of things or people, because they are seen as referring to the things or people individually, not as a unit. Perhaps the most common example is "a number of people", which is plural because it's about the people. "A total of 17 prisoners" is another example of the same thing. --70.49.170.168 (talk) 08:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I once read somewhere in my travels through the world of venery that an appropriate collective term for a group of statisticians would be "a number of statisticians". That would be a singular use.

It's clear that the answer to the OP's question "Is the word total singular or plural or both?" is: It depends on the context. -- Jack of Oz 09:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

What is "off" is the grammatical analysis of Sentence B. "A total" is not the subject, modified by "of 17 prisoners". The subject is "17 prisoners", modified by "a total of". This can be shown by removing the modifying phrase. "A total was killed when violence breaks out" does not retain the essential meaning of the sentence. "17 prisoners were killed when violence broke out" does. --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Looking for the essential meaning is something we were doing naturally and easily back then before the era of computers, before we started to "think" like computers... Akseli9 (talk) 12:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

When I was learning grammar, we used to do a lot of sentence diagramming. And this sentence would have used total as the subject, which would then have required a singular, not plural, verb. But I think that Nicknack009's version of it is really how we construe such a sentence.

I guess the problem is that the preposition "of" demands an object, and the only possible object is prisoners. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The word of is usually a preposition, but it can also serve as a particle linking a quantifying modifier to a noun in a phrase. Other examples are a lot of, not even one of, a variety of, and so on, where of is a particle linking a quantifier with a plural noun or pronoun. Even though the pronoun after of is in the objective case, the entire phrase serves as the subject of the sentence, with the apparent object of of determining the number of the verb. Marco polo (talk) 15:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The distinction being drawn here is between notional agreement and grammatical agreement; in deciding whether a verb should be conjugated to agree with the plurality of the word itself or with the plurality of the thing the word represents. This is not as settled matter grammatically, and there are lots of dialectical differences, as well as many idiomatic differences that defy direct logic or any systematic analysis. The deal is, sometimes English verbs will match the grammatical number of the word (as in "total ... is ...") and sometimes English verbs will agree with the sense of the concept (as in "total ... are ..."). There is no "one size fits all" system you can follow to fit every situation. --Jayron32 15:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that link to notional agreement, which redirects to synesis. Until now, being "construed as plural" was the only expression I knew for this concept, with the noun for "construe" being "construction"; I would have said that Misplaced Pages has no article on it. Certainly neither construal nor grammatical construction is about this. I think some hatnotes or redirects are needed, but I'm not sure offhand what they should be. --70.49.170.168 (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

As the anonymous user has pointed out, it's a general problem. They gave the example "a number of people". Here are some additional examples: "most of the people", "the majority of them", "a minority of them", and the like. HOOTmag (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

When one sees this kind of situation, though, there is not always agreement on how to handle it—and that's entirely aside from the fact that UK and US English don't always handle in the same way. So, I would agree that "a number of them are" and even "most of the people are", but I would write "the majority/minority of them is". The majority/minority in question is a specific, defined group. But what do I know? StevenJ81 (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

This brought to mind the Hoagy Carmichael song, "What Kind of Man Is You?", written about 80 years ago. Akld guy (talk) 18:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Follow up

Let's look at this sentence again: A total of 17 prisoners were killed when violence broke out. What is the subject of that sentence? Is it "a total", with "of 17 prisoners" as a prepositional phrase? Or is the subject "17 prisoners", modified by "a total of"? Thanks. 2602:252:D13:6D70:F5ED:8E01:7F6E:E9DE (talk)

There is only one total, so it is singular. For multiple totals, try this example: "Cashiers, bring me your totals by the end of the day, please". StuRat (talk) 17:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

That's a different usage and irrelevant.

In the terminology I learned in school, the subject is "A total of 17 prisoners" and the bare subject is "total". (Your terminology may vary.) The point is that in English the verb does not necessarily agree in grammatical number with the subject, as discussed in the original section. --70.49.170.168 (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

One could argue that the "a total of" part is unneeded. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course it's unneeded. Those words are typically used in that manner as a quick workaround to obey the stylistic rule that a sentence should not start with a digit (because you can't capitalize digits—well, I've seen something like it done in Reader's Digest, in the Canadian edition, but in conventional typography you can't). But the presence of those words does change the grammatical structure, which is what we were asked about. --76.69.45.64 (talk) 21:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

"There were 17 prisoners." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that says exactly the same thing. Oh, by the way, I'm the same person who was posting from 70.49.170.168 above. --76.69.45.64 (talk) 04:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, all. 2602:252:D13:6D70:BD83:3784:351:F8B4 (talk) 02:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2

Doubling final consonant

Why isn't the final n doubled when adding -ing or -ed to the words "happen" and "listen" even though those words end with Consonant-Vowel-Consonant (CVC)? GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The rule, is not what you think, but rather only refers to verbs ending with a stressed CVC (therefore: "merited" "murmured" - rather than "meritted" "murmurred", and likewise).

Please notice that, for the rule to be applicable, the last consonant should not be one of: j,q,w,x,y (therefore: "bowing" "fixing" "saying" - rather than "bowwing" "fixxing" "sayying", and likewise). HOOTmag (talk) 07:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

There's a phonological reason for this. Vowel + consonant + vowel indicates that the first vowel is long. Vowel + doubled consonant + vowel indicates that the first vowel is short (e.g. rota, rotten. This is not infallible - in English there is always the exception that proves the rule. 86.191.97.201 (talk) 11:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

What happens varies according to the English variant being used. Bazza (talk) 13:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

If you click through User:Bazza 7's link above, you'll see that American and British approaches differ most often where -l-/-ll- is the doubling in question, and that they do not always differ. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

To address HOOTmag above, /y/ and /w/ are really not acting as consonants in the context given, and /j/, /qu/, and /x/ represent /dʒ/, /kw/, and /ks/, hence they are already consonant pairs according to generative phonology. Furthermore, /qu-/ is not found in the syllable final position in English. There are no verbs of the form CVqu in English, so no fear of the form CVququing.

As for /l/, in native verbs, it is spelt double when syllable final: call, pull, fall, tell. When it is found in borrowed words like travel, the same stress rule I mentioned above applies. Travel retains the stress on the first syllable, so there is no fear of the form truh-VEEL-ing. That being said, I prefer the British "travelling" for aesthetic reasons. μηδείς (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

You write: "To address HOOTmag above, /y/ and /w/ are really not acting as consonants in the context given, and /j/, /qu/, and /x/ represent /dʒ/, /kw/, and /ks/, hence they are already consonant pairs according to generative phonology. Furthermore, /qu-/ is not found in the syllable final position in English. There are no verbs of the form CVqu in English, so no fear of the form CVququing".

The rule about CVC, does not refer to a sound of CVC - i.e. to the sound of words like "push" and likewise, but rather to letters of CVC - i.e. to the letters of words like "fix" and likewise, so I really don't understand how your point is intended to challenge my claim about the letters j,q,w,x,y being an exception to the rule. Anyways, according to how you interpret the rule about CVC - as referring to a sound of CVC, would you claim that - adding the "ing" to the verb "fish" (for example) - results in "fishshing"? HOOTmag (talk) 08:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The digraph sh in English comes from the /sk/ sequence in Old English (fish from fisc, e.g.), and for that reason is normally only proceeded by short vowels. Hence no need to double the digraph. I have moved your comment out of the middle of mine, the indentation is sufficient to establish the sequence, and I prefer my comments not be split in half, even though you did nicely copy the signature. μηδείς (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you claim that the CVC rule depends on the etymological source of the verbs? So why is the t of "put" whose sound is /pʊt/ (Old English: to put = "putian") doubled in "putting", while the k of "look" whose sound is /lʊk/ (Old English: to look = "locian") isn't doubled in "looking"?

How about the verb "lash" (that imitates the sound of the whip and means: 'strike with a whip')? would you write "lashshing"?

Would you write "graphphing"?

The verb "bow" derives from Old English "bug" (to bow = "bugan"), so would you write "bowwing"?

In my view, that must be "lashing" and "graphing" - just because the CVC rule does not refer to a sound of CVC nor to Old English but rather to letters of CVC in the current English - this explaining also the difference between "putting" and "looking" (despite the sound of CVC in both verbs), whereas the reason for "bowing" and "fixing" - is because the letters w,x (along with j,q,y) are exceptions to the rule.

HOOTmag (talk) 17:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

wie es eigentlich geworden ist

What does the phrase mean? It is some kind of a variation of "wie es eigentlich gewesen" by Leopold von Ranke". --Pxos (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

As to the second question: probably yes. It means "how it has actually become" or "what actually became of it". - Lindert (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

"wie es eigentlich geworden ist" means "what actually became of it". "wie es eigentlich gewesen (ist)" means "what was/what has actually happened" 165.120.163.167 (talk) 23:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

In the context of the historiographical discussions hinted at by the original poster, a more fitting translation would probably be: "wie es eigentlich gewesen ist" = "how it actually was / how things actually were"; versus "wie es eigentlich geworden ist" = "how it actually evolved / how things actually came about". Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

+ 1 to Fut.Perf. "study how it evolved" was Karl Lamprecht's counterposition to Leopold von Ranke's position "study how it was". --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 13:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

December 3

Convert Russian GPS format to English

How do you write the this Russia GPS coordinate "47°17′58″ с. ш. 39°40′25″ в. д." in English? Presumably the Cyrillic letters are referring to cardinal directions, but I don't know which one. I'm also not sure whether they use the same (latitude, longitude) format or not. 731Butai (talk) 04:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

According to Google-translate, "northern latitude" is "северной широты" in Russian, which would fit with your "с. ш.", and "eastern longitude" is "восточной долготы", i.e. your "в. д.". Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

And 47 degrees north is the latitude of Germany and 40 degrees east is the longitude (roughly) of Arabia which would put this place (whatever it is) inside Russia. 86.155.7.31 (talk) 07:29, 3 December 2015

In this context, those two expressions are in the genitive case, hence the -ой and -ы endings. But when referring to them nominatively, they'd be "северная широта" and "восточняя восточнaя долгота". English makes no such distinction. -- Jack of Oz 09:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Small typo correction: "восточняя" should be "восточная". --Amble (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Quite so. Thanks. -- Jack of Oz 22:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Can you decipher this tattoo in Hebrew?

I can't make any sense of the Hebrew in the tattoo in this picture. (Another picture, same tattoo). If this is to be read as מהנד אמיר then I've found a Google+ page with that name but without any actual content. It could be a name, maybe a name in Arabic. But there could be other alternative readings: for example the second word could be אמ''ר and not אמיר. Contact Basemetal here 19:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

In Arabic the transcription of the Hebrew would be مهند أمير where مهند is a common Arabic name Muhannad and أمير could be a name Amir or Emir but also means emir. But then why would he have transcribed the Arabic into Hebrew letters instead of using Arabic letters in his tattoo in the first place? Contact Basemetal here 20:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The resolution isn't very good on this screen, but the second word looks like אסיר ("prisoner", "captive") to me.--William Thweatt 22:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Is it a photo of an extreme rightwing Israeli? The words are definitely written in block script, and I'm wondering if the second word is a reference to Yigal Amir? --Dweller (talk) 13:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC) (NB I know Amir spells his surname with an ayin, not an aleph, but why shouldn't tattooists in Israel be exempt from this malarky? See () --Dweller (talk) 13:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the guy is from Nablus (see here), but it might be the tattoo was part of his attempt to pass himself as a Jew. I'm curious what tattoo he picked. No luck so far. Contact Basemetal here 13:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the right-hand word's spelling as given by OP User:Basemetal describes, though I don't know what it might mean. For the left-hand word: intriguing as User:WilliamThweatt's suggestion is with its criminal association, the second letter is probably not a samekh which is unlikely to be widened at the base as in most Hebrew typography it's curved or even pointed (similar to the Hebrew tet). So the word on the left appears to be AMIR, spelled alef-mem-yod-resh, a not-uncommon surname or male first name, far more so than the almost-homonym spelled with ayin described by User:Dweller, above. The Hebrew Misplaced Pages happens to have a Language Reference desk - shall I cross-post this query for you there? -- Deborahjay (talk) 14:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes thank you Deborah. Please go ahead and post it there. Contact Basemetal here 16:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally is מהנדס ("engineer") ever used as a title? If yes is it ever shortened to מהנד like say "Dr." for "Doctor" in English? (Leaving aside what מהנד might actually mean in this tattoo) Contact Basemetal here 16:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I can't recall seeing "engineer" abbreviated as a professional title in Hebrew though several others are in use: att'y, accountant, social worker. Possibly the early 20th C. European immigrants had some equivalent for the honored Ing. designation. -- Deborahjay (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Question about "ghast..." words

I have a question about vocabulary. If a person looks at something terrifying, they are terrified, and experience terror. If they look at something ghastly, they are aghast, and experience... what? 212.105.160.248 (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's a good English word for that, the "ghast" morpheme does not appear to be productive in modern English; that is "Ghast" words represent a "closed class" of words, which are set and do not readily combine with other morphemes to produce new, meaningful words. --Jayron32 21:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

There was a rare Old English word gǽstan (to frighten or terrify). Shakespeare used a Middle English version of it in King Lear (Or whether gasted by the noyse I made). Our modern word ghost probably comes from the same root. Dbfirs 21:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it does. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I wrote probably because of the "gh" spelling which came from Flemish gheest. Dbfirs 22:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

"Argghh! Not Shakespearean words again, *groan*... " Martinevans123 (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Pedantry, as usual: Shakespeare wrote Modern English, not Middle English. Deor (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Valid pedantry, but it was Elizabethan, or Early Modern, and this word was left over from Middle English and ceased to be used (except in a few dialects) once Modern English settled down. Dbfirs 22:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

"Well really, dear, my flabber has never been so ghasted!" Martinevans123 (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks also to Dbfirs for the answer. Is "gast" or "ghast", meaning "fear", used by Shakespeare or other authors of that time? 212.105.160.248 (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The noun gast was very rare, but does appear in dialect. The adjective was occasionally used (by Byron and Browning, with the "h" spelling), but the noun seems to be turning into the adjective aghast in: This done, the woman in a gast, and pale as death, comes and tells her lady who had stollen her things she missed, and that they were in such a chest in her house" from Robert Law's "Memorials ..." in 1690. Dbfirs 23:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Thomas Hardy uses it in his 1866 poem "In Vision I Roamed":

"In footless traverse through ghast heights of sky,

To the last chambers of the monstrous Dome,

Where stars the brightest here to darkness die:

Then, any spot on our own Earth seemed Home!" Martinevans123 (talk) 23:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

"If they look at something ghastly, they are aghast, and experience... what?" Horror. Akld guy (talk) 06:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm flabbergasted :-) Alansplodge (talk) 13:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I have a vague idea that a "ghast" is also some kind of creepy malevolent supernatural being, and no I'm not confusing it with "ghost". Anyone? --Dweller (talk) 13:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe because you play Minecraft? I'm pretty sure the "Ghast" character was created for the game specifically; the term AFAIK did not apply to a creepy creature until it was used there. --Jayron32 13:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Minecraft was my first thought too, but of course we have an article called ghast! It is used in other works of fiction as well. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, but they're all neologisms created by the authors for use in works of fiction. None represent a "natural" word that has developed and is widely used among English speakers. --Jayron32 14:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

At a pinch, might one use "aghastness"? I operate on the principle that if one can modify an English word according to the regular principles, then the result, even if rare or unattested, should be cromulent. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 14:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, aghastness has been used in the language since 1845, and is certainly attested with four cites in the OED, unlike the neologism cromulent that has not yet been accepted as a British English word. Dbfirs 14:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

A cromulent is a type of bird, isn't it? KägeTorä - (_虎) (もしもし！) 14:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

In theory, to be "aghast" would be equivalent to "looking like having seen a ghost", but in practice it's rather less than that - it's more like a synonym for "appalled", for example - like "offended". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

December 4

Esperanto

How do you say "I'm a non-Indian Hindu" in Esperanto? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.59.100.28 (talk) 13:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Google translate gave me "Mi estas hindua kaj mi ne indian" - I started with "I am Hindu and not Indian", figuring that would match better with automatic translating and Esperanton grammar. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the intended meaning if heard by Esperanto speakers. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

But if you put a capital I on Indian you get "Mi estas hindua kaj ne hinda". -- Q Chris (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Which is grammatical; the first isn't. —Tamfang (talk) 08:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Adding n to a noun in Esperanto makes it accusative; if you want to make it an adjective, change the o to a. —Tamfang (talk) 08:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

"India" in Esperanto is "Barato", so the most literal translation would be "Mi estas nebarata hinduano". But you can also follow SemanticMantis's idea to avoid the word "non-Indian", which has the advantage that you can express the fact that your combination counters the expectation with the word "but": "I am Hindu but not Indian" = "Mi estas hinduano sed ne barata". — Sebastian 21:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Barato is not in my dictionaries (1967, 1969); how long has it been in use? — Note that some country names (Anglujo, Italujo, Hindujo) are derived from names of peoples (anglo, italo, hindo) and some are roots, from which the word for an inhabitant is derived (Nederlando, nederlandano). If Barato is the country, an inhabitant should baratano. —Tamfang (talk) 08:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

In Portuguese barato means "cheap". They had three settlements in their Estado da India - Goa, Damao and Diu, and I believe they occupied Bombay (Bombaim) and ceded it to the British. I wonder if this word derives from inexpensive goods acquired in their trade with the Hindus? The word bom in Portuguese means "good". If they used it to name Bombay they would be in good company - cf Buenos Aires and Cape of Good Hope. "Hope" is also a word frequently employed - cf Esperance in Western Australia. 86.143.177.130 (talk) 12:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Hindu question

Do you know of any individuals who are Hindu but are not Indian? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

"Lol", Have you never been to Leicester? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Can't say I have. But that article is useful. Nearly all of the Hindus there are of Indian ancestry. But it lists a few celebrities who converted to Hinduism. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

This might surprise you, but most of the British Hindus in Britain are British. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. All humans have African ancetry. By British nationality law, it doesn't really matter if your parents, grandparents, or great-grandparents were not British in determining if you are. So there are MANY British Hindus. And many from other countries. Hinduism by country indicates that there are about 60,000,000 Hindus who are NOT from India. That's less than 10% of total Hindus (over 90% of Hindus are Indian), but 60,000,000 is still a sizable number of people. --Jayron32 15:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Of that 60 million, how many are not of Indian ancestry? Clearly there are some. But the Leicester article indicates most of the Hindus there are of Indian ancestry. Unlike Christians and Muslims, Hindus don't generally try to convince (or force) people to convert. So it's likely that the expected few non-Indian-ancestry Hindus have come to it by free choice. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Quite a few; I'd imagine that a sizable number of the 23 million Nepalese are native Nepalese and not from India, and the same for the 13 million Bangladeshi, and 4 million Indonesians, and the 3.6 million Pakistanis, etc. Many of those people have no direct ancestors from India. Indonesian and Malay Hindus, for example, trace back many centuries to native converts from over 1000 years ago, during the Srivijaya and Medang Kingdoms. Those are not recent migrants from India. --Jayron32 19:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Category:People with acquired Indian citizenship contains people who became Indian by citizenship but were not Indian by ancestry. Many of them would be Hindus. -- Jack of Oz 20:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry Jack, I'm not convinced by your logic. There are more Anglicans in India than in England for example. Alansplodge (talk) 23:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The International Society for Krishna Consciousness widely proselytises in the West, George Harrison was a notable convert. Alansplodge (talk) 23:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

What's that, Alan? More Anglicans in Bengal than in Bradford?? Martinevans123 (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Alan, Baseball Bugs is only after one example, presumably to use as a counter-example. Is the Italian-born Sonia Gandhi a Hindu now? -- Jack of Oz 21:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I confess that I've given up trying to disentangle BB's jokes and I'm still none the wiser. Alansplodge (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• What follows is unsourced, so take it for what it's worth, but, as far as I know, not all Hindus accept that one can in fact "convert" to Hinduism. Some (though not all) believe that you have to be born that way. I once talked to a European researcher in Sanskrit who was working on some Sanskrit manuscripts found in the Indian state of Kerala. He told me that at some point he had to visit some place in Kerala that only allowed Hindus in. But becoming a Hindu in a way that was acceptable to that place was extremely easy, you just needed to have some form stamped, and presto you were allowed in as a Hindu. In his case, he didn't actually need the form, as he had some sort of prior official conversion (not this sort of "drive by" conversion) but I don't know with what Hindu community and if it was in Europe or India, but used the form anyway, as it was easier. On the other hand, he told me there are places (he specifically told me about one temple he wanted to visit in Orissa (now spelled Odisha) and another one in Nepal) where no amount of arguing that you'd converted to Hinduism will get you in, and if you try to get in anyway you will risk some serious problems. He even told me that in Nepal he was with a guy who was a Nepali Muslim. He was astonished to realize that the Muslim would have had no problem getting into the temple, even though it was obvious the guy at the entrance knew that guy was a Muslim not a Hindu, whereas he, who supposedly had converted to Hinduism, couldn't. In that particular case the criterion seemed to have been purely racial and/or linguistic. Historically there were barriers even between categories of Hindus. For example not all castes were allowed in all temples, in some cases women were not allowed, etc. That became illegal and now pretty much anyone who looks or sounds Indian will be allowed anywhere. However the discrimination against entry by non-Indian looking/sounding people has not been outlawed, or if it has been, that is ignored. It'd be interesting to compare that with what goes on in Hindu temples in the U.S. or Europe, if anyone knows anything about that. Contact Basemetal here 02:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

On the other extreme, I once heard that (some) Hindus consider all religions to be subsets of Hinduism! —Tamfang (talk) 08:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Much of Southeast Asia (Hinduism in Southeast Asia) was at one time or another Hindu, including the Austroasiatic Khmer Empire and Malayo-Polynesian Champa. Most of the Khmer temple ruins dotting mainland Southeast Asia, including Angkor Wat were Hindu temples. Today's Khmer, Thai and Lao are "officially" Theravada Buddhists but still include elements of Hinduism in their folk religions such as venerating Phra Phrom and various other Hindu supernatural beings as well as practicing Hindu astrology. The Cham people still living in modern-day Vietnam continue to practice Hinduism. Also, the Balinese people of the Indonesian island of Bali are predominantly Hindu.--William Thweatt 04:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Gautama Buddha was raised as a Hindu, so it would be surprising if Buddhist practice did not include traces of Hinduism. —Tamfang (talk) 08:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Is this trolling? Of course there are tons of non-Indians who practice Hinduism. Go into any New York yoga studio and you'll find some. Here is a fictional example, although of course there are many real examples as well.
On top of that, I fail to see what this has to do with the language reference desk, as Hinduism is a religion, not a language. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, it started as a language question, about Esperanto, from an unsigned ip (thread above), and then BB jumped in questioning the validity of that question, and then this thread got split off. So really it's a sub-thread of the Esperanto one. I think we can assume it's all in good faith. (lol) Martinevans123 (talk) 22:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, I hadn't seen the history. Stricken (I know BB isn't actually a troll, that was meant more in like an "are you shitting me?" kind of sense, but yeah) rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

December 5

Who is or was Hadia Bejar?

Hadia Bejar gets a lot of ghits for the quote "The fragrance always stays in the hand that gives the rose" (although I've also seen it attributed to Mahatma Gandhi). But I can find precisely zero biographical information about this person or their works.

Who is or was he or she? Thanks. -- Jack of Oz 13:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Isn't she this Kenyan Muslim girl? Omidinist (talk) 18:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

If "i dnt bend values fr any being except Allah n ma parents" is an example of her literary utterances, then I really doubt she is the same Hadia Bejar who's been widely quoted.

And why did the real Hadia Bejar only ever say one thing worth quoting? And why does nobody ever say where the quote came from? -- Jack of Oz 21:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Not really an answer, but the quotation is also very commonly attributed to George William Curtis, although I've not been able to find anything more precise. There's a Cuban actress called es:Hada Béjar, on whom we don't have an article, although she does have an entry on es:. Tevildo (talk) 23:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)books? Tevildo (talk) 23:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

December 6

Transcription of a line from a video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9m3NpkeTOmk&feature=youtu.be

What Loki says at 0:29, before "They'll pick them apart.". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.157.90.195 (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Googling "my time has come" resistance "we'll pick them apart" "and the rest" suggests it's "From a few." jnestorius 13:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Strange ! It doesn't sound "from a few ", but rather "for I'm affeared ". I'm really not sure about the "for I'm ", but I'm still quite sure about the "affeared", not only because of what I clearly hear, but also because of his lips, that seem to utter the "d " - of "affeared" - very clearly, don't they? HOOTmag (talk) 15:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.157.90.195 (talk) 13:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Pages automatically checked for accidental language links
• Misplaced Pages resources for researchers
• Misplaced Pages help forums
• Misplaced Pages reference desk