Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

April 3

period after first name?

Is there a method of writing the names with a period after the first name followed by an abbreviated middle name and then the last name? For example, Can you write Mohandas. K. Gandhi or Harry. S. Truman? --Sundardas (talk) 01:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

No. I'm not aware of any situation where a period is used after the first name, except if the first name is abbreviated as in J. K. Rowling or J. R. R. Tolkien. Xenon54 (talk) 01:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Periods are used (in this context) to indicate abbreviation. "Mohandas" and "Harry" are not abbreviated, so there's no case for using a period. "K" is short for Karamchand, so a period is required. The "S" in Truman's name is not (despite appearances) short for anything: S was his full middle name, so no period is used in this case. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

S is his middle name but it does get a period. See Harry S. Truman#Truman's middle initial. Rmhermen (talk) 02:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected; although it doesn't seem to be universal - even the official White House biography changed only last year. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If an e-mail address has the form forename.a.surname@hostname.tld, there is a period after the first name.

-- Wavelength (talk) 03:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

http://www.familytreeforum.com/wiki/index.php/Common_Forename_Abbreviations. -- Wavelength (talk) 03:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I think a full stop can sometimes be used if the first name is abbreviated, e.g. Thos. (Thomas), Jas. (James). This type of abbreviation has a rather old-fashioned look, though. Just noticed that Wavelength's link has some of these.AndrewWTaylor (talk) 04:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

abbreviation "a.i."

I've come across the abbreviation "a.i." a few times after a person's name in business correspondence. I think it may mean that the person is only temporarily holding a position, but if so, what do the letters actually stand for? Thanks, --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I would suspect if it means temporary then it means Ad Interim. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes that must be it, thanks very much. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Wallpaper idiom

In Dutch we have a phrase: "Iemand achter het behang plakken" (pasting someone behind the wallpaper) to describe what many would like to do to someone who is particularly apt at driving you up the wall. Is there a similar phrase using the word wallpaper in the English language? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks! In that case my upcoming article needs some additional explanation. If anyone else does know about it after all, don't hesitate to speak up. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You could somehow work in Oscar Wilde's reputed mot, in reference to a particularly ghastly wallpaper, "One of us will have to go". -- JackofOz (talk) 11:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... in the version I heard, his last words were, "Either that wallpaper goes, or I go." —Angr 14:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Abbreviations for first names

Following up on the thread "period after first name?" above, I'm curious about the practice of using abbreviations for first names, such as Thos. (Thomas), Jas. (James), Wm. (William) or Geo. (George):

• When did this practice first appear?
• What is its advantage over spelling out the full name, other than saving a few characters?
• When did it go out of style and why?

--Thomprod (talk) 12:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It was in widespread use in the 18th century - I think some signers of the US Declaration of Independence used such abbreviations. I couldn't tell you the advantages or why it went out of style, but I can tell you that most people today view such abbreviations as "old-timey" (for lack of a better word). However, some abbreviations such as "Ben" or "Theo" have become nicknames. The only current use of a forename abbreviation that I can think of is Jos. A. Bank Clothiers. Xenon54 (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Chas as in Chas and Dave? or Chas Chandler?--TammyMoet (talk) 14:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a number of them fossilized in company names—Wm. K. Walthers, Inc., is another example. Deor (talk) 14:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

For researching current use of language, there is Google News Search, by which I found these pages with Thos. used. -- Wavelength (talk) 14:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.star-telegram.com/metro_news/story/1296114.html (Thos. in paragraph 3)
• http://www.blueridgenow.com/article/20090330/OBITUARIES/903299955/-1/NEWS05?Title=Mollie-Faigin-98 (Thos, in paragraph 8)
• http://www.richmondregister.com/lifestylescommunity/local_story_083070736.html (Thos. in paragraph 3)
• http://blog.mlive.com/pagesofourpast/2009/03/this_week_in_local_history_exc_3.html (Thos. in paragraph 1)

-- Wavelength (talk) 14:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't phonebooks still use such abbrevs? – In my youth I naïvely supposed that Jas was for Jason (my grandfather's name). —Tamfang (talk) 03:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

daddy, what's a phonebook? —Tamfang (talk) 04:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I believe one factor driving the use of such abbreviations really was saving a few characters. They're used extensively in encyclopedias and biographical dictionaries of the era, since replacing every occurrence of "William" with "Wm." could save you quite a bit of space overall. --19:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

That may be close to the theory I've long assumed: that it saved space on shop signboards, thus requiring less wood, less paint, less time by the signwriter, and a saving in money all around. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Division or Department

I am having trouble with above mentioned words. Please have a look at following sentence:

• Foreign exchange division falls under export and import department and
• Foreign exchange department falls under export and import division

Which one is correct?--114.130.8.52 (talk) 15:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There are no cut-and-dried definitions for these terms, but on the whole I would say that a division is normally bigger than a department – indeed, a division will contain several departments. However, many companies will not use either of these terms at all, particularly "department" which is I think falling into disuse as an organizational term. Anyway, to sort out your sentence you'd really need to know which is the bigger operation, foreign exchange or import/export. However, it doesn't really read very well to me either way. Partly because, as I say, "department" is a slightly old-fashioned term these days, but also because the two functions don't really sit well together in the first place and you would not necessarily expect them to fall under the same organizational umbrella. Indeed, I'm not sure whether most companies would have a foreign exchange division or department at all. Foreign exchange would normally come under finance or accounting. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 16:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Huh. At American universities, at least, a division is smaller than a department; a department may consist of several divisions. But the OP's question is clearly about a business, not a university. —Angr 20:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You can do a Google search for organizational chart. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the first response that in corporate usage a division is normally bigger than a department. If the sentence is talking about a typical way that companies are organized, the second version is better than the first. However, if you're intending to talk about a specific company, you should use whatever terms the people in that company use. Incidentally, an expression like "export and import department" normally requires a "the" before it. --Anonymous, 21:46 UTC, April 3, 2009.

In some other contexts, such as public/civil service, a department is the entire organisation, and is bigger than any division, section, branch or anything else contained within it. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

In, say, the British Department for Transport, it's split into directorates-general, which are split into directorates, which are split into divisions. So within the DfT, you have the Directorate-General on International Networks, consisting of the Directorate on Aviation and the Directorate on Shipping. Aviation is then split into Airports Division, Expansion Division etc. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 07:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

April 4

When John met his uncle he took off his hat

I understand that this sentence has multiple meanings. Some Google-sources say 6, one says 108. However, I can't even identify that many... does anyone have anything on this? Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 07:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, off the top of my head, the three pronouns could refer to anyone, not just John or the uncle. So it could be "When John met John's uncle John took off John's hat", or it could be "When John met Frank's uncle John took off Frank's hat", or it could be "When John met Frank's uncle Peter took off George's hat". That gives you permutations involving up to 5 people, although it's still nowhere near 100. That's just lexical ambiguity though; maybe there's some syntactic ambiguity here that I'm missing. Anyone else? Indeterminate (talk) 07:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a good point, I'd only thought of the John-uncle who takes off whose hat issue.

There's also the issue of whether it's a direct narrative or a general statement ("When John met his uncle, he always used to take off his hat" could be written in the form above)... ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 07:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

"Meet" can mean either "be introduced to for the first time" or "encounter (a person you already know)". "Uncle" can mean "father's brother", "father's brother-in-law", "mother's brother", "mother's brother-in-law", and sometimes even "friend of one's parents who is no actual relative by blood or marriage". Maybe we can also come up with multiple meanings for "hat" and "take off" (transitive, of course; the meaning found in "The plane took off" won't work here). —Angr 08:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps there is also here a slightly less than idiomatic use of "to take off one's hat to somebody". So, when John met someone's uncle he showered him with praise or otherwise congratulated him on something.91.180.221.237 (talk) 09:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, we have "When John met his (A) uncle he (B) took off his (C) hat." A cannot be the uncle, but B or C can. Any of them can be John, and any of them can be another person -- the same or different other people. If you think it seems nonsensical to imagine the sentence referring to 5 different people, you only need to imagine the speaker pointing to someone each time she says "he" or "his". The possibilities for A,B,C are:

• 3 other people. 1 way. (Switching the people around can't be counted as a different meaning for this purpose.)
• 2 other people, 1 occurring twice. 3 ways (any two could be the same).
• 1 other person occurring three times (i.e. "his/he/his" are all Sam). 1 way.
• 2 other people, plus John. 3 ways.
• 2 other people, plus the uncle (who can't be A). 2 ways.
• 1 other person, plus John occurring twice. 3 ways.
• 1 other person plus the uncle occurring twice (not A). 2 ways.
• 1 other person occuring twice, plus John once. 3 ways.
• 1 other person occuring twice, plus the uncle once (not A). 2 ways.
• 1 other person, plus John, plus the uncle (not A). 4 ways.
• John twice and the uncle once (not A). 2 ways.
• John once and the uncle twice (not A). 2 ways.
• John occurring 3 times. 1 way.

Which gives a total of 29 readings. I may have missed one or two cases, but this is going to be close to correct. The number 108 is of course equal to 2×2×3×3×3, and I think the person who came up with that number was ignoring the fact that the number of possible readings depends on how many different people the sentence is talking about, and imagining that the different possible meanings of different parts could be combined arbitrarily. --Anonymous, 11:00 UTC, April 4, 2009.

According to that, it's 4 x 5 x 5 (the first pronoun being any of those five less John), which gives 100? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

April 5

What does this sentence mean?

Can somebody check this sentence from a website owned by the government of Kerala?

There is a Council of Ministers with the Chief Minister at the head to aid and advise the Governor in the exercise of his functions, except in so far as he is by or under the Constitution required to exercise his functions or any of them in his discretion.

Seen here. I can't understand what the italicised part means. Sundardas (talk) 10:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC) His function or functions? 121.72.192.28 (talk) 11:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The Council is to advise the Governor, except those situations where (1) the Constitution requires the Governor to exercise his functions collectively in his discretion , or (2) the Constitution requires the Governor to exercise any function specifically in his discretion. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

'Functions or any of them' to mean the general and specific looks a flawed construction to me. Hardly a clear statement and less than logical, isn't it? Sundardas (talk) 02:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It's legalese, and therefore may not be obvious to the casual reader, but it's logical enough. "Them" means his functions. "Any of them" means any of his functions. So "he is required... to exercise his functions or any of them" means that either he is required to exercise (all of) his functions" or he is required to exercise his any of his functions. A constitutional requirement of either type causes this provision to be activated. Oh, by the way, we aren't allowed to give legal advice here, so if you are V.S. Achuthanandan, please ignore this response. :-) --Anonymous, 03:21 UTC, April 6, 2009.

It's not great drafting, no. "any or all of his functions" would be just as precise and more understandable, imo. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that way we'd know that the Governor isn't supposed to make the ministers run on treadmills :-) Nyttend backup (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Native American Personal Naming Conventions

I'm working on a story set in the way-pre-contact Eastern Woodland (the Ohio Hopewell), and I'm having a bit of trouble with names. I've written most of the story without them, but there are a few places where I need a name - mostly just "Go find this person who lives a good long walk in that direction and tell him this."

Is the popular idea of generalized Native American names being something like "noun", "noun noun", "verb noun", or "adjective noun" actually a workable, non-insulting way of naming my characters? Are there any words that I should avoid that, as a person with very little experience with Native American culture, I wouldn't think of as bad? Or maybe a list of real names/nouns that can be used as names from a Muscogean language (as the Creek and Choctaw are two groups that mtDNA testing implies are descendants of the Hopewell)?

Thanks, 71.220.127.228 (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

See http://www.20knames.com/female_native_american_names.htm

and http://www.20knames.com/male_native_american_names.htm -- Wavelength (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I found two good ones there. 71.220.127.228 (talk) 22:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd be wary. ALAMEDA: Native American Indian name meaning "grove of cottonwood" — this is a Spanish word! —Tamfang (talk) 04:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd never trust sites like that (or books, for that matter). Even behindthename.com, which is better than most, is essentially useless when it comes to Indian names. In response to the original query, it would really depend on the language of the group in question, and how you choose to translate it into English. The Siouan personal name Thašųka Witkó can be translated as "His-Horse-Is-Crazy" (very literal) or "Crazy Horse" (more idiomatic, and how he's known to history among English-speakers), for example. Different Indian groups had (and have) different naming strategies. Honestly, my best suggestion would probably just look for the English (translations of the) names of various Muskogean chiefs, warriors, or other famous personalities, if you want your Hopewellian people to be related to the Muskogean Indian groups. --Miskwito (talk) 05:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

We don't know very well what names might have been used in proto-Muskogee, so you can take a bit of licence with it by picking names from this link from Muskogean languages, based on appropriate meanings. Certainly, most readers won't know the difference, but I understand the importance of getting it right from your perspective. Steewi (talk) 05:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It may be useful to remember that Native Americans may have had more than one name throughout life depending on coming of age rituals, nicknames, etc. For example, Matoaka, Amonute, Pocahontas, Rebecca, Rebecca Rolfe are all the same person. Rmhermen (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ha, so I forgot to come back to this and check everything out, and I'm glad I did! Thank you, Steewi, for the link! And I did know to be careful of the names on name sites - that's why I only said two out of that whole page. I cross-checked on Google. Thank you again, everyone! 71.220.107.21 (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyright status of the Swadesh list

There is a 207-item Swadesh list (a list of supposed basic words in any language) at Swadesh list. Can anyone shed any light on the copyright status of this list? Swadesh died too recently for it to have fallen into the public domain. Marnanel (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Depends on whether the list is copyright in the first place. Many lists are not. Secondly, expressions are copyright, ideas are not. If the list is not in the exact form originally published, it is not copyright. Thirdly, presumably the original publication did not just contain the list. Is the list a substantial portion of the original work? In either case, is this an educational/review and criticism fair use (/fair dealing)? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

My copy of the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language (2d ed.) shows the Swadesh 100 without an appropriate notice in the Acknowledgements section, suggesting that it is not under copyright. (I'm sure I have some book with the 200, but which?) —Tamfang (talk) 04:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

April 6

A subordinated clause treated as a complete sentence

Can a subordinate clause be treated as a complete sentence in some exceptional circumstances and end with a period? For example in a certificate? I know that normally it is not considered so. I see that my University Degree Certificate has this incomplete sentence ending with a period and the next one beginning with initial cap:

Whereas it has been certified by duly appointed Examiners that [my name] is qualified to receive the Degree of Bachelor of Arts, he having passed and been placed
in Third Class in Part I,
in Second Class in Part II,
in Third Class in Part III, in [year], [year], [year] respectively.
The Senate of the University confers on him...

I would like to get a bookish answer rather than a commonsensical one for this question. Regards Sundardas (talk) 02:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not a complete sentence and should not be treated as such. Even if the second part of the sentence begins with a capital for formatting reasons, the first part should not end with a full stop.

Contrast the enacting formula of the Westminster Parliament, which uses:

WHEREAS [...]:

And whereas [...]:

[Etc]:

Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty [...], as follows:

None of those lines, though starting with a capital, is a complete sentence, and the punctuation reflects that. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

My (commonsensical) guess is that whoever typeset the diploma form did not grasp that whereas (a word not used in ordinary language) introduces a subordinate clause, or else was in thrall to a superstition that a paragraph cannot end with a comma. (I've seen many contracts in which the word whereas is consistently followed by a spurious comma; try telling the lawyers that it's wrong!) —Tamfang (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Whereas I'd argue that "whereas" is quite commonly used. But it usually appears somewhere other than the first word in sentence, except where it's used (as in the previous sentence) to mean "on the other hand". -- JackofOz (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

JackofOz, if you are using the word whereas to mean "on the other hand", you are using it as an adverb. The example given by the original poster uses it as a conjunction. I have never seen it referred to as an adverb in any dictionary or grammar book. See wikt:whereas. -- Wavelength (talk) 04:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't see much difference between "whilst on the contrary" and "on the other hand". -- JackofOz (talk) 04:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, the sky is blue. is a complete sentence, because On the other hand is an adverb phrase, whereas whilst, on the contrary, the sky is blue is a subordinate clause and a sentence fragment, because it lacks a main clause, whilst being a subordinate conjunction and on the contrary being an adverb phrase.

-- Wavelength (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I see. Mind you, the rules have never stopped anyone from saying But that's not right., or Only if you're talking about gamma rays., or Me too., and others. Sentences like Whereas, I have a different point of view are very commonly heard in my part of the world, and in that sense whereas can only be a synonym for "on the other hand". Maybe it needs to be added to the reference books as an Australian adverb. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Weird message from EU wiki? (from WP:HD)

Resolved

 – by editors from here and here

Hey.. I just got this email from the eu wiki. I wouldn't have a clue what it says. Anyone able to help me out? I don't think I've ever even visited the eu wiki. Google tells me it is the 'Basque' language.. but I can't find a translator that works with it? Anyone else got a similar message? I've posted it at User:Deon555/EUemail. Cheers — Deon555^talk_{I'm BACK!} 10:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't read it either, but I can guess. My suspicion is that it is telling you that there is a message for you on your user talk page at the Basque (eu) Wikipedia. Why is there a message for you there? Because single-user login automatically created an account for you there yesterday, and there is a bot that automatically welcomes people when an account is created for them, and the default Preferences setting is to receive an e-mail every time your talk page is changed. This has happened to me on many occasions. —Angr 11:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah... I viewed a page there yesteday. As another user pointed out on WP:HD, this probably occured because I viewed a page. Awesome, thanks so much for your help, Angr. — Deon555^talk_{I'm BACK!} 11:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Resolved. — Deon555^talk_{I'm BACK!} 11:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, now I understand. I thought it was the EU Wikipedia the OP was talking about. 'Euskara' is Basque for 'Basque', hence the 'eu'. Got it.--KageTora (talk) 23:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

sub-national divisions

The names for the second tier of sub-national divisions tend to be different for different countries. For example, states (USA), provinces (Canada), cantons (Switzerland), prefecture (Japan), départment (France). Is there any basic meaning to these names? (e.g. if territory X, has powers of D, E, F, and legistature set up according to Y and Z, then it must be a Province). Or are the names chosen on random? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.132.11 (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

For a start, see List of terms for administrative divisions. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Remember not to read too much into the English names. The political subdivisions of Japan are called 都道府県, not prefectures. Algebraist 19:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

As for 都道府県, see this article. Oda Mari (talk) 05:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, there is a BIG difference between a situation like the U.S., Canada, and Switzerland, which are "federations" and Japan and France, which are "unitary states". In federal states, the first-tier divisions have certain sovereign powers which are not granted to the National government. In unitary states, the first level divisions are "administrative" divisions ONLY; there is no power for a Department in France to pass laws or organize its own taxation system. It would be better to think about departments in France to be equivalent to County in the U.S., and that France does not have an equivalent to states.

The UK presents a unique situation; it is something between a Unitary State and a Federation; the UK parliament is completely sovereign, but it has at times devolved powers to the assemblies in the Home Nations. However, the Home Nations are NOT equivalent to U.S. states or Canadian provinces, since they ultimately lack true sovereignty. The Federal governments in the U.S. and Canada are consitutionally forbidden from certain actions which are exclusively the rights of the State/Provincial governments. In the UK, the Home Nation assemblies (like the Scottish Parliament) only serve at the pleasure of the UK Parliament; in theory they could be eliminated by simple act of Parliament at any time. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Not just in theory, Jayron. The Parliament of Northern Ireland was suspended in 1972, and abolished in 1973. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

In feudal times, there was at least a nominally consistent system to political subdivisions. In the west, at the top you have an Emperor (Holy Roman Emperor, for example), answerable to no other temporal authority, under whom are kings, dukes, and lesser nobles. A king is sovereign but owes allegiance to the Emperor.

A similar system theoretically applied in Asia, which is why the supreme leader of China, for example, is translated as "Emperor".

This, of course, was by no means a uniform principle of organisation. Small states like Japan often had all the titles and trappings of "Emperor" equivalent to their neighbours, without the same system of imperial organisation. The system also evolved. The relations between local rulers and the Holy Roman Emperor at its beginning was by no means the same as that at the end. In China, the contrast was even more drastic. In the Han Dynasty, the system was truly feudal: the Empire was divided into semi-autonomous kingdoms which raised armies and enacted laws. However, by the time of the Song Dynasty for example, kings and dukes were often merely titular honours, with the actual administration of the country run under a parallel system of (what are translated as) provinces, counties and prefectures.

Internally, a federation is somewhat like an empire: each constituent state has limited sovereignty, and they are answerable in some degree to a central government that also has limited powers. However, in modern times the world has been organised on the principle of equal sovereignty: all sovereign nations are equal. Therefore, a federal or imperial (if they were to exist) would, externally, be the same as a kingdom or a republic. Thus, from a "top-down" view, all first level divisions are the same, differeing only in the arrangement under which power in the country is divided: some give more power to their divisions than others. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

...assemblies in the some of the Home Nations. England does not have an assembly of its own. Bazza (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Then we have the EU, where all member states are subject ultimately to the laws of European Parliament, yet have the right to opt out of certain laws (like Sweden just did with the law recently passed requiring ISPs to keep information on all email sent). Then there is the Isle Of Man in the UK, which has its own laws, and even has the death sentence, which the Queen ultimately prevents being carried out.--KageTora (talk) 23:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Political sub-divisions tend to follow historic ones, which were cultural, political or both. The word 'state' is strictly political though; it refers to either an independent 'country' or a federal state (a state of states). So either as an independent entity or as a part of a federation, a 'state' always has some political autonomy. Whereas the word 'province' tends to convey the opposite meaning. Switzerland, for instance, is a federation, so there's nothing wrong with referring to cantons as 'states'. Like states of the USA or Germany, they have the right to pass their own laws within certain areas. As noted above, there are exceptions of course; many countries have autonomous or semi-autonomous regions, but they don't qualify as 'federations'. OTOH, the situation in Russia is pretty complex, with the degree of autonomy being almost a case-by-case matter as far as the Siberian districts are concerned. --Pykk (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Then there's China, with first-level sub-national administration defined as Provinces (22), autonomous regions (5), municipalities (4), special administrative regions (2) and several claimed-but-never-controlled areas in the South China Sea and East China Sea such as the Senkaku (Diaoyutai) Islands, the Spratly Islands, the Paracel Islands and Taiwan. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The South China Sea islands are almost all administratively part of Hainan province under the PRC (or Taiwan province according to the ROC). Taiwan, both sides agree, is a Province. The Diaoyutai Islands are part of Taiwan province.

The first-level divisions of China are provinces, autonomous regions, municipalities and special administrative regions. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Developing countries in general are more likely to have "weird" names for their subdivisions: for a random example, while in many countries a district is typically a small area, Botswana has districts as its primary subdivision. You can see more examples at {{Articles on first-level administrative divisions of African countries}}. Nyttend backup (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

That only applies to former European colonies that have native English names. In developing countries which have no such heritage, the names are lot more "normal", but only because we translate them into familiar terms.

In a similar vein, some names used in developed countries, like the German land or the French départment, are a little different to what is familiar to Anglophones if translated directly. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Are there any developing countries that have NOT been colonies?--KageTora (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Ethiopia (fairly clear case), Liberia (almost so), Thailand (still developing, right?), and I would guess more but can't think of any right now. Jørgen (talk) 02:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

From the Italian perspective, Ethiopia was briefly annexed as part of the colony of Italian East Africa. From the Ethiopian perspective, however, they were invaded but never subjugated. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Iran and Afghanistan? —Angr 06:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

April 7

dinner was held

This is just a survey on something that has already been fixed in an article. What is the first meaning of "held" that comes to mind on reading this line: "a guest arriving from Berlin was delayed, and for the first time in years dinner was held." Jay (talk) 11:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

On my first reading I understood it to mean "took place" on my second "stayed/postponed/held up". Nanonic (talk) 12:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ditto on the first reading: "a dinner was conducted"; I didn't even think of anything else until I read Nanonic's comment. Nyttend backup (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ditto for me, but only for a second. Then it hit me - did they never eat before this guest arrived, or did they just sit with their plates in their laps in the TV room? And what did their general eating practices have to do with the delay in some guest arriving on one particular occasion? So, it obviously must have meant something other than "took place", and probably should have been "held up". -- JackofOz (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the responses. Exactly the same impressions I got when I read it the first time. I just wanted to confirm I was not off the mark when I had complained, and the modification was accordingly done here. I'm more familiar with "held up" to mean delayed, rather than the single word "held". If I had written the full sentence, again perhaps the reactions would be different. Jay (talk) 07:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Jay has biased the survey by putting "dinner was held" in the heading and boldfacing the word in the quote. The eye is drawn to those places first. The words "dinner was held" are, I think, most often heard in the context of "a dinner was held", meaning a banquet, so in isolation they put this in mind. If the complete sentence had been in the title, people might read the actual context before getting to the word "held", and then they would be more likely to think of the intended meaning, familiar from things like trains being held for passengers connecting off another, delayed train. --Anonymous, 19:32 UTC, April 7, 2009.

Perhaps, but we're not writing poetry here. Meanings should be as immediately apparent as possible, with little opportunity for ambiguity or confusion. We don't want people to have to reread sentences a couple of times to understand which meaning of a word they should take; I don't read headers (given the way I read the desks) and it was only when I got to your response that I saw the intended meaning of the sentence. Although the first meaning clearly didn't make sense, it was only reading Nanonic's comment that tipped me to the right meaning. Even then I assumed that the 'up' had simply been left out. The intended meaning of 'held' as in a train did not occur to me, because I don't expect to see it in that context. 80.41.115.101 (talk) 13:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I was only commenting on the survey, not the sentence. --Anon, 07:13 UTC, April 10.

Ekervally

In Chapter 18 of Great Expectations, a character uses a word "ekervally" in the following context:

Biddy nodded her head thoughtfully at the fire as she took up her work again, and said she would be very particular; and Joe, still detaining his knees, said, "Aye, aye, I'll be ekervally partickler, Pip;"

Joe's speech is often represented in eye dialect, so I wasn't surprised when the OED didn't have this word. I can't find a definition online, because the book is common enough that typing it simply yields digitised editions. Any idea what it means? From the context I guess that it relates to Biddy's "very", and I'm wondering perhaps if it's related to Old English éac, more modern "eke", to mean something like "extra"? Nyttend backup (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Equally? — Emil J. 14:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd say so. Dickens' Cockneys usually mix up their Vs and Ws, so he's trying to suggest the pronunciation [ˈiːk(ə)vəli]. —Angr 15:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hadn't thought of that; a pity that my Old English gets in the way of misunderstanding this. I've seen how Joe will frequently talk of "wery" instead of "very", for example. "Ekerwally" still sounds a bit odd, but then so does a lot more of Joe's speech, so it all makes sense. Nyttend (talk) 15:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The "er" must, I think, be indicating that the speaker also is inserting a vowel epenthetically (or anaptyctically, if you prefer) between the K and the V sounds, like the way some people (especially in Britain) pronounce "film" as "fillum". --Anonymous, 19:35 UTC, April 7, 2009.

It sounds like the dialect of Somerset to me, if I pronounce it out loud.--KageTora (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

What does "Druda" mean?

Hello, I am reading a novel by Friedrich de la Motte Fouqué, in which one of the characters is repeatedly referred to as a "Druda". The novel was originally written in German but I am reading it in English translation. I have already looked at a German-English dictionary without any luck. Does anyone know if "Druda" means anything in German, or if it could be something made-up? Thank you. LovesMacs (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No idea. It seems to be a very rare last name in Switzerland. —Angr 18:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a cognate of the (increasingly rare) Dutch proper name Geertruide. According to this source, that name possibly contains an element druda, which would mean "sorceress". However, this etymology seems more likely. Not sure if this is also meant here. It might simply be an archaic German equivalent of the name, which in Dutch is often shortened to simply Trui, Trudy etc., or it might be a reference to some special quality of the fictional character. Iblardi (talk) 18:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I googled on the phrase "What is a Druda". There were no obviously relevant hits (and Google asked me if I meant "What is a drug"), but it did find Wikipedia's stub page Drudas, a village in southwestern France near Toulouse. I know nothing about the place beyond what's on that page and its somewhat longer French version, which says its inhabitants are called Drudasois. I imagine this is irrelevant. --Anonymous, 19:45 UTC, April 7, 2009.

It does seem to be a form of the name Gertrud, often abridged to Trudl, and apparently sometimes to Druda. See [1] Iblardi (talk) 20:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I may have found an answer in the German Wikipedia, which has an article on Drude. I should have thought of Wikipedia in the first place! Now if only I could read more German... :/ The character is indeed something like a sorceress. Thanks to everyone for working on this! LovesMacs (talk) 23:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

There is also an article on Drude in the en:WP, which seems fairly identical. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 06:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The German wikipedia has it mentioned as form of "Gertrud" e.g. de:Morrien. The article "a" might be a translation slip up "eine (gewisse) Gertaud" (one called Gertraud) would not translate to "a Gertrud". 76.97.245.5 (talk) 23:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

spanish translation

what does "el grullense" mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.192.120 (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The suffix -ense (from Latin -ensis) normally refers to someone or something coming from a certain place. In this case that could well be El Grullo. Iblardi (talk) 19:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is most likely the demonym of El Grullo. A Google search also shows it as a business and place name. It is not included in the dictionary of the Real Academia Española, however.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 20:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

See this article about the meaning of the name (http://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/story.php?story_id=6096).98.18.149.155 (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Plural of the noun "gas"

It's "gases". I wonder why it's not "gasses". Stressed short vowels in infinitive verbs normally take double consonants in the present participle and past tense, to prevent them from being perceived as long vowels - "hit" > "hitting", "fit" > "fitted", and so on. "Gases" could well be quite reasonably pronounced by a lingo-newby as "gazes", and I'd have a hard time explaining why it doesn't rhyme with that word, or with "phrases" or "vases" (US pron.), but with "basses" (fish), "lasses", "masses" and "wrasses", all of which have double consonants (although I appreciate their singulars do too). There's the verb "gasses", but in a context it would be hard to confuse that word with a noun. And we have a multitude of homonyms in English, with which we generally have no difficulty. So why "gases" and not "gasses" for the noun? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I never thought about it, but when used as a verb, certainly, the 3rd Person Singular is 'gasses', present participle is 'gassing', and the past tense and past participle are 'gassed', with the double 's'.--KageTora (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, Merriam Webster does indeed give 'gasses' as an alternative spelling of the plural.--KageTora (talk) 22:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure I've seen "gasses" (n. pl.) in olde-world texts, but it looks antiquated now. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Could it be something to do with "gas" being a made-up word? DuncanHill (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's also bus and yes (noun), whose usual plurals, at least in the U.S., are buses and yeses (although Merriam-Webster gives busses as an alternative for the former). I can't offhand think of any other monosyllabic nouns ending in a vowel + s. Deor (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

They're good examples. Bus escaped my memory when I drafted the question, but I would ask the same question: why "buses" and not "busses"? "Buses" looks like it's something that "abuses" rhymes with. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't really give you an answer, save that English nouns ending in a vowel and a single s, no matter where the stress falls, seem to be pluralized by merely adding -es (aliases, etc.). Apparently, someone's written a book titled The Plural of Bus Is Buses, Isn't It?, having on its cover a picture of a sign reading "Busses Welcome," which sounds as though it should be hung up with the mistletoe. There are a lot of English words that look odd to me—in particular stomachache, which looks to me like a descendant of ancient Greek that should be pronounced stoh-MAHK-ah-kee. Deor (talk) 02:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Can't say I've ever seen that as one word before. But times change, as do words. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The English singular noun bus has two plural forms: buses and busses. The English plural noun busses has two singular forms: bus and buss. A buss is a kiss. See wikt:bus and wikt:buss. -- Wavelength (talk) 03:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

If one were talking about the pros and cons of something, and using mathematical terminology, would it be "the pluses and minuses" or "the plusses and minuses"? If you tell me it's "pluses", that will leave me somewhat nonplussed. -- JackofOz (talk) 10:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Wiktionary says: pluses or plusses. See wikt:plus. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The English singular noun as has the plural form asses. The English singular noun ass has the plural form asses. The English form asses is the plural of two different nouns: as and ass. An as was a Roman coin. See wikt:as and wikt:ass.

-- Wavelength (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

How fascinating. So, the noun as doubles the consonant in the plural; gas does not; and there's a choice with plus. Even for a language replete with exceptions to rules and unintuitive spellings, that's weird. I think I'll give up on English and become a basquophone. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Etymonline doesn't say it's made up, and if you are thinking of 'gasoline', that doesn't have a plural, even when shortened to 'gas'.--KageTora (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The word gas was made up by J. B. van Helmont (1577-1644). DuncanHill (talk) 23:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean. He took it from Gk. Khaos, so it's not as if the words are historically related, just copied.--KageTora (talk) 23:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This American rhymes vases with places, btw. —Tamfang (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I assumed that (my question may look like I thought it rhymed with "gazes", but I wasn't thinking that, although I have heard it pronounced both ways - to rhyme with "places" or with "gazes"). -- JackofOz (talk) 03:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Czech people and English

The coming summer, I figured I'd go to the World Bodypainting Festival again, but this time stop in Prague along the way, as it's conveniently situated along the route from Germany to Austria. However, this would be my first time alone in a foreign country where I don't even understand a modicum of the local language. How well am I supposed to get along with English? Do the locals speak German too? I speak German fairly well but worse than English. I speak absolutely zero Czech. JIP | Talk 23:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Prague has become quite touristy, and I know from personal experience that many, many people speak English there. LANTZY^TALK 23:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, certainly in the shops, restaurants and bars of the Old Town you shouldn't have much of a problem with English. It's worth learning a modicum of words in Czech too though. I always think that if you're in a new country and you learn just six words, those for "yes", "no", "hello", "goodbye", "please" and "thank you", you'll feel a lot more comfortable and will often be quite surprised by how far they get you. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 11:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

When I was in Hungary in 1985, all I could say in Hungarian was "ice cream" and "thank you", which was entirely sufficient for my purposes! —Angr 12:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

"Where is the bathroom" also never hurts. Livewireo (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Are hotel rooms so big in Hungary that you need to ask directions for where to have a bath?--KageTora (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

He means in restaurants and cafes, obviously, and he wasn't talking about Hungary. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 20:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

But that just highlights the absurdity of that euphemism. Having a bath - on the premises - is not something that most restaurant or cafe patrons would ever think of doing, unless a waiter somehow managed to pour a tray of food/drinks all over them, or vomit all over them, so a room with bathing/showering facilities is not something that a restaurant or cafe would ever have available. A room with a toilet, now that's a different matter entirely. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that in Prague, most people you will encounter speak either English or German. I like Richardrj's list, except that I would add "sorry" and/or "excuse me". It helps ward off angry looks or hostility when you bump into someone on the metro. Marco polo (talk) 20:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Changes between positive and negative verb forms

I've found out that in my native Finnish, changing a sentence from positive to negative does not simply add a negative marker, it changes the verb itself into a negative version of itself. For example:

• Minä olen suomalainen vs. Minä en ole suomalainen.

Compare this to the other languages I speak:

• I am a Finn vs. I am not a Finn
• Jag är finsk vs. Jag är inte finsk
• Ich bin Finnisch vs. Ich bin nicht Finnisch
• Je suis finnois vs. Je ne suis pas finnois

In Finnish, the word en is not simply a negative marker, it's an auxiliary verb, so the sentence literally means "I not-do be a Finn". If the auxiliary verb were to be simply left out, the sentence would become Minä ole suomalainen, which is ungrammatical, but nowadays young people use a slang form similar to it: Minä mikään suomalainen ole ("I am not any kind of Finn", the word "not" is left out, but implicit from the context), or even Vittu minä mikään suomalainen ole ("I am not any kind of fucking Finn"). Do any other languages have this kind of feature? JIP | Talk 23:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

(EC) ::Well, there is the obvious one of French, where more and more people would say 'je suis pas finnois', leaving out the 'ne'.--KageTora (talk) 23:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't be a Finn, so I need to ask: Is en used with other verbs? — In Swahili (if memory serves after thirty years) a negative verb has the prefix ha unless it's first person singular, in which case the 'I'-prefix changes from ni to si; and the present tense marker -na- is dropped. —Tamfang (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's used with all verbs. If the person case changes (I, you, we, and so on), only the en auxiliary verb is inflected, the main verb stays the same. JIP | Talk 05:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Korean has different verbs for "is true" and "is false". Korean has different verbs for "does exist" and "does not exist" as well. 나는 사람이다. "I am a person." 나는 사람이 아니다. "I am-not a person." 사과가 있다. "(An) apple exists." 사과가 없다. "(An) apple does-not-exist." --Kjoonlee 23:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The Goidelic languages make use of dependent and independent verb forms, with the result that verbs often have a different form after the negative particle than they do in positive sentences, e.g. Scottish Gaelic glacaidh mi ("I will hold") vs. cha glac mi ("I will not hold") or Irish chuaigh mé ("I went") vs. ní deachaigh mé ("I didn't go"). If it comes to that, the English arrangement of I held vs. I didn't hold seems to be at least superficially similar to what's happening in Finnish. —Angr 06:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It's quite similar, but not identical. An example should clarify: "I hold" and "we hold" are minä pidän and me pidämme in Finnish. Notice the -n and -mme suffices, indicating singular and plural. In the negative they would be minä en pidä and me emme pidä. This time, the suffices are in the auxiliary verb, not in the main verb. Because English has only one verb suffix indicating person, I have to use it to make an example: "he holds" is hän pitää, but "he doesn't hold" is hän ei pidä, literally "he nots hold". As far as I have understood, this "doesn't" construct in English is only short hand for "does not", which is an auxiliary verb plus a marker. If the "not" marker were to be left out, the meaning would change, but the sentence would still be grammatical. This is not the case in Finnish, as the inflection has to be somewhere - on the auxiliary verb if there is one, otherwise on the main verb. A sentence whose predicate is entirely uninflected is ungrammatical. It's difference between a positive sentence and a negative sentence with the "not" word removed that allows for the slang constructs I mentioned earlier. Also, from what I've understood, English used to use a simple "not" marker (as in "I hold not"), just like Swedish and German do. JIP | Talk 17:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that's interesting. I'm certainly unaware of any other language where the negative particle itself can be inflected, but English and Finnish are still alike in that in negative sentences, the inflection of the verb moves from the main verb and onto the particle. The difference is that in Finnish, the inflection moves straight onto the particle itself (so that the particle is effectively an auxiliary verb), while in English, the inflection moves onto a dummy auxiliary verb to which the negative particle cliticizes. Still, I think that of all the phenomena people are listing in this thread, the English construction is most similar to the Finnish. In English, do-support is also found in questions (He holds vs. Does he hold?). How are questions formed in Finnish? —Angr 06:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between yes/no-questions and wh-questions. Yes/no-questions are formed simply by adding a question suffix -ko/-kö (depending on vowel harmony) to the word that is the focus of the question. For example: hän osti sinun punaisen autosi ("he bought your red car"): ostiko hän sinun punaisen autosi? ("did he buy your red car?"), hänkö osti sinun punaisen autosi? ("was it he who bought your red car?"), sinun punaisen autosiko hän osti? ("was it your red car that he bought?"), sinunko punaisen autosi hän osti? ("was it you whose red car he bought?") - but not sinun punaisenko autosi hän osti? ("is it red that your car that he bought is?"), which is ungrammatical. Wh-questions are formed with question words such as mikä ("what"), miten ("how"), miksi ("why"), just like in English. JIP | Talk 15:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I was interested in yes/no questions. So is "Does he hold?" Pitääkö hän?? —Angr 15:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is, well figured. JIP | Talk 16:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

In Polish, the verb "to be" changes to "to have" when negated in expressions equivalent to "there is/there is no...". For example, you walk into a grocery and ask if they've got some bread: Czy jest chleb? ("Is there bread?"). If they have, then the answer is: Jest ("There is" where jest is the third person singular form of być, "to be"). But if you're back to the 1980s and all they have in stock is vinegar, then the answer is: Nie ma ("There is none" where ma is third person singular form of mieć, "to have"). In other words, instead of "There is no bread", you'd say "There has no bread" (Nie ma chleba). This happens only in the present tense and only in sentences expressing the physical lack of something or somebody. — Kpalion^(talk) 07:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

And of course in Russian, in the same situation, you would use no verb at all: Khleb yest'? ("There is bread?") — Khleba nyet ("No bread"). — Kpalion^(talk) 07:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

In Japanese, in informal speech, 'aru' (there is/are) changes to 'nai' in the negative (as opposed to the hypothetical and rule-conforming *aranai, which doesn't exist) . This doesn't happen in formal speech, however, where they are 'arimasu' and 'arimasen' respectively. --KageTora (talk) 08:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

And the negative of 'da' (is) in Japanese is 'de wa nai/janai/denai' (take your pick!).--KageTora (talk) 08:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Arabic has a negative form of "to be", "laysa", which is conjugated in the perfect tense but has a present meaning. (Arabic doesn't actually have a present tense form of "to be" but it does have one for the past tense, "kana".) Adam Bishop (talk) 08:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

In fact, there are even further differences between positive and negative sentences in Finnish. There is a suffix that has both a positive form: -kin (meaning "also" or "after all") and a negative form: -kaan/-kään depending on vowel harmony (meaning "not even" or "not after all"). The positive form may only appear in positive sentences, and vice versa. For example, hän osti leipääkin ("he also bought bread") vs. hän ei ostanut leipääkään ("he didn't even buy bread"), or hän ostikin leipää ("he bought bread, after all") vs. hän ei ostanutkaan leipää ("he didn't buy bread, after all"). In questions, either form of the suffix may appear, but the meaning changes. For example, ostiko hän leipääkin? means "did he also buy bread?" but ostiko hän leipääkään? means "did he even buy bread?".

Furthermore, Finnish has separate telic (completed) and atelic (ongoing) direct objects. For example, hän osti auton ("he bought a car, now it's all his") vs. hän ostaa autoa ("he is currently in the process of buying a car"). However, in negative sentences, telic objects become atelic, even if the meaning is still "telic" (completed). It is correct to say hän ei ostanut autoa but not hän ei ostanut auton, even though both mean "he didn't buy a car". Does something like this happen in other languages? JIP | Talk 18:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Not off the top of my head in any languages I know. Estonian and Saami would be the obvious ones, but that is not what you are after, I know, as they are too close to Finnish. It would be interesting to get some answers on this post from a Hungarian speaker, and see if there are any similarities there.--KageTora (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

April 8

'Faux' For French "False", "True" English For French

faux pas is French for "false step". What is "true" (English) in French? What is "true step" in French?68.148.145.190 (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Vrai is true, vrai pas, I guess, would be "true step". Wrad (talk) 00:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course, even in French "faux pas" is idiomatic, so it's literal opposite "vrai pas" may not make much sense. People would probably understand it, but it would seem a strange usage, much like in English people using terms like "chalant" as the opposite of "nonchalant" or something like that... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

"Whelmed" vs. "overwhelmed" :) Wrad (talk) 03:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, adjectives normally follow nouns in French, so pas vrai might be better. (Faux pas is an exception to that, possibly because it's an idiom.) Unfortunately, however, pas vrai would probably be interpreted as "not true" rather than "true step". —Angr 06:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

If I remember from my year of college French, adjectives normally precede nouns when they're words that have to do with beauty, goodness, size and a fourth property that I don't remember. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 06:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Age. Wrad (talk) 17:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Merci. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 05:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

One more thing: I don't think "faux" means "false" in the sense of "not complying with truth/reality" here, but in the sense of "not complying with the norm". French Wiktionary has "des actes irréguliers, incorrects, insuffisants, manquant à leur destination" for this usage. I would suggest something like "un pas juste", "un pas régulier", "un pas correct". I wanted to suggest "un bon pas", but that usually means "a good pace" (as in fast). Where are Noetica and his fat reference works? ---Sluzzelin talk 07:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

On wikibreak, unfortunately. —Angr 10:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

How does Timon Screech pronounce his name?

As in TIE-mun of Athens or as in Tuh-MOAN and Pumba? LANTZY^TALK 07:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, Japanese Wikipedia calls him Taimon Sukurīchi, suggesting the first. But you could e-mail him and ask. —Angr 10:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it "winner" or "winners" if a sports team has won a competition?

Which of the following sentences is correct:

"The sixth-placed team will qualify for the UEFA Europa League if League Cup winners Manchester United or the FA Cup winner finish fifth or higher"

or

"The sixth-placed team will qualify for the UEFA Europa League if League Cup winners Manchester United or the FA Cup winners finish fifth or higher"?

This question might have been asked before, but since there is currently some back-and-forth editing on the issue at Premier League 2008–09 between two users, I thought it is better to ask someone who actually knows what is correct and what is not. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 09:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I would go with winners. Teams are often referred to in the plural ("Manchester United are in second place...") Plus, the singular would look funny since you've already used "winners" to refer to Man U. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 11:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

See British_and_American_English_differences#Formal_and_notional_agreement. --Sean 12:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 12:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. And thank you for your dedicated work on updating Austrian Football Bundesliga 2008–09, which I check every week. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 12:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hm. I would have said the sixth-place team. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it can be either. If it's conceived as "the team that was in 6th place", then it's "the sixth place team" or "the sixth-place team"; but if it's thought of "the 6th team that won a place", then it'd be "the sixth-placed team" (or, I suppose, "the sixth placed team"). -- JackofOz (talk) 04:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Nuh-uh. "Sixth-placed" is fine in the first sense, meaning "the team placed sixth". --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

April 9

Affrikaans

What is a "geolect":[2]?68.148.145.190 (talk) 06:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

A version of a language characteristic of a particular geographical area. It's a more specific way of saying 'a regional dialect'. --Nick Boalch\^talk 09:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

objective, neutral phrasing for the worst things a country is able to do (q removed)

This question has been removed as it is not appropriate for the reference desks. Please refer to the discussion here, which you are welcome to join in if you wish. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Unlike all of you, I am not interested in a debate. You want me to debate you, but I just want to learn a good phrasing. I'm not going to join your debate. I will learn a correct phrasing here or elsewhere and then find a forum that will answer me. I have already found ONE good-faith answer, someone told me to read Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States. However that is not immediately at my disposal, and anyway I am not interested in all of American history -- just some of its worst actions, which unfortunately that respondent did not specify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.27.175.226 (talk) 10:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you can't phrase this question as it's currently conceived in an objective way, because it invites a subjective answer. What do you mean by 'worst'? You could ask an objective question inviting a purely factual answer, for instance, 'Which individual action by the government of the United States has caused the most deaths?', but the answer to such a question would be separate from issues of morality, 'goodness' and right and wrong. (For instance, one of the examples already offered, the killing of some 220,000 people in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, has been extensively justified using the precepts of several ethical systems. Whether you agree with those justifications is up to you.) --Nick Boalch\^talk 11:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

This question has been bouncing around various desks for a couple of days.--KageTora (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Last name, first name

I've seen a few examples in Germany and Austria of officials and staff members of one kind or another being referred to in writing by their last name and then their first name. For example, the other day I was given a form by an employee who had signed his name in an official capacity. On the form, his name was printed "last name, first name" and he even wrote his signature in the same order. It seems to come up in official documents a lot. In the UK, you might see "Smith, John" in lists and whatnot, but it doesn't seem to come up nearly as often as it does here. Is this a common form? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 11:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. I've only encountered it sporadically here in Germany. —Angr 11:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

One interesting example in the UK comes from the history of cricket prior to 1962, when the order of names reflected class distinctions. Working-class professional cricketers, 'players', played on the same teams as amateurs of higher social class, 'gentelemen', who could afford to play the sport at a more-or-less professional level without drawing pay. Amongst other distinctions in treatment, players were listed on scorecards with their initials after their surnames (e.g. Rhodes, W, whereas gentlemen were listed with initials first (e.g. WG Grace). --Nick Boalch\^talk 13:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hungarian names are in surname first name order. That might have influenced Austria, but I can't say anything about Germany. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's just because they are in Japan, and have got used to doing it that way. I know I did.--KageTora (talk) 18:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I've been using the surname, name order forever, guess it rubbed on me in school, where that was the prefered order here in Slovenia. I'm told we actually use the name, surname order, but the opposite just sounds much more right to me. As much so that it downright bugged me when people in Japan used the name, surname order when refering to me - I'd keep telling people to go ahead and go surname, name on me, since I'm much more used to that. Looking back now, maybe that just made me look like a fervent weeaboo, though :/ TomorrowTime (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

If you see it in official forms and the name is printed underneath in the order surname, first name, then a German signing it might assume that this is the required order and oblige. Given that failing to fill in forms to a T in Germany can get you into all sorts of trouble it's better to be safe than sorry. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 23:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it Italian? What does it mean?

Are those sentences in Italian or in some local dialect of Italy? What do they mean in English?

1) Che pena! 2) Sem chi! 3) Ma varda lì, cuma la s'è ridota a forsa di mangiar le ortiche. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.14.48.55 (talk) 11:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a variety of the Lombard language (which has no standardized orthography).

• 1) "What trouble"! (or "What a pain!")
• 2) "We are here!" (would be "Siamo qui!" in Italian)
• 3) "But look (varda/guarda) there, how (cuma/come) she has *ridota* herself by force (forsa/forza) of eating nettles." I'm unsure about this one, particularly about "ridota". If it means "ridotta" it would mean "reduced" (lost weight? withered away?).

Do you have any context? Is this about ruminants? ---Sluzzelin talk 12:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

People eat nettles too. —Angr 13:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Correct; I'd say 1) is more exactly "what a pity", (how pitiful she is). "Reduced" is ok. This is from Pier Paolo Pasolini's novel & film Teorema";in 3) they are speaking about the servant, that in the end eats nettles to do penance. Nettles by the way are great in risotto and frittata but I fear she ate them raw. --pma (talk) 15:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The number 3 sounds Milanese to me and is: But look there (at her), how she has reduced herself (in a bad state) by dint of (or through) eating nettles. In standard Italian it would be Ma guarda lì, come si è ridotta a forza di mangiare ortiche. In Italy, nettles are eaten expecially in the Risotto, which is tipical of Milan, but it could have also a metaphorical meaning. --151.51.38.57 (talk) 15:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

French Translations

Hi, I have a few questions on some French translations - thankyou very much for any help:

1. I am supposed to translate (English - French), "Where is the table?" and "Where is it?" (where "it" is representative of the table). So possibly "Ou est la table?" and "Ou est-elle?" (a grave accent on the "u" for both "Ou's"). I am confused about the second translation because I am not sure whether it should be "Ou est-elle?" or "Ou est-la?" (but I am somewhat sure that the first one is correct).

2. Similarly, I translated "I beg your pardon; I have it here." (where "it" represents "pencil") to "Pardon; le voici.". Would it also be correct to translate "Pardon; je l'ai ici."?

3. In English, we may say "Here he is." and "He is here.". Can I translate, "Le voici." and "Il est ici." respectively? Would they both be correct?

4. May I use "elle" and "il" for feminine and masculine nouns respectively? Or is there something different for "it"?

5. I am supposed to translate, "Where are John's and Mary's books?". Is this a correct (French) translation, "Ou sont les livres de Jean et de Marie?"? I am just confused whether I am to repeat the "de" before each person (assume a grave accent above the "u" in "Ou").

6. I am supposed to translate, "She has brothers and sisters." and "Where are they?" (where "they" is representative of her brothers and sisters (so a "mixed gender group")). Would the correct translations be "Elle a des freres et des soeurs." (with a grave accent over the first "e" in "frere") and "Ou sont ils?" (a grave accent over the "u" in "Ou" is assumed) respectively. I am particularly unsure about the use of "ils" in the second translation ("Ou sont ils?"). This uncertainty on my part is not regarding the distinction between "ils" and "elles" but rather whether "ils" should be different as a direct object.

7. Lastly, I am to translate "Where are the pupils' things?" and "They are in the other room.". So, would the translations be "Ou sont les affaires des eleves?" (with a grave accent over the "u" in "Ou" and an acute and grave accent over the "e's" in "eleves" consecutively) and "Elles sont dans l'autre salle." respectively? I am unsure of the second translation, especially the use of "Elles". My justification of this usage is that "les affaires" is feminine plural so I should use "elles" but again this is relevant to my fourth question.

Thankyou very much to anyone who can provide some insight into these translations. I have been worried about these for sometime and thought that the reference desk would be the best place to ask. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.138.117 (talk) 14:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

See TypeIt.org - Type foreign characters easily. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

See Clavier multilingue en ligne LEXILOGOS >>. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

See Pronoun and Subject (grammar) and Direct object. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

See French pronouns. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

See French personal pronouns. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds a lot like homework, however, you've done the work so:

1. "Où est-elle" is correct.

2. Gramatically correct, but unnatural sounding.

3. Both correct.

4. I don't quite understand the question I'm afraid. Neutral gender is not used in French, so it's either "il" or "elle", no third option.

5. "Où sont les livres de Jean et de Marie?" would tend to imply that you are talking about two sets of books, one set that belongs to Marie, another to Jean. If you are talking about books that belong to *both* Jean and Marie, then you would say "où sont les livres de Jean et Marie ?". The distinction, however, is not obvious and both might be used pretty much interchangably.

6. "Où sont-ils ?" is correct (note the hyphen).

7. You are correct. Equendil Talk 16:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The correct spelling is interchangeably. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou both for your help - I appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.138.117 (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Don't we have a "Don't ask for homework" template somewhere? doktorb _words^deeds 09:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that would be an over-keen application of the rule. As it says at the top of the page:

"If your question is homework, show that you have attempted an answer first, and we will try to help you past the stuck point. If you don't show an effort, you probably won't get help. The reference desk will not do your homework for you."

I think it's fair to say that the user did attempt the answers. 163.1.176.253 (talk) 10:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Wack (hip-hop slang)

Did "wack" used to mean "good" before it meant "bad"? When Kris Kross said in 1991 that "inside out is wiggity-wiggity-wiggity-wack," they meant that it's good, right? Mike R (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Wack was used in 1986 by Keith Haring in an anti-crack mural 'Crack is Wack' so it meant bad then, the good sense seems to have been later. Perhaps Kris Kross used it in an early positive sense but these kinds of words tend to switch back and forth between positive and negative, whacko for instance meant great in the 1940s. meltBanana 17:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

In the 1960s "wack" was Liverpool slang for "man" - as in the usage "Alright, wack?" --TammyMoet (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Supposedly. I'm a scouser, and I've only ever heard non-scousers use that, and telling me it was common in the 60s..--KageTora (talk) 02:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC) That depends if you were around in the 60s. I was and I distinctly remember Scouse bands using it in interviews.--TammyMoet (talk) 08:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I was born in the early 70s, but my dad, who was born obviously not a few years earlier, tells me that it was false, and maybe just the talk of people in bands. You'd never have heard it in the street.--KageTora (talk) 18:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I realized that Kris Kross wore their clothes backwards, not inside out, so maybe they were denigrating the other style of clothing reversal. Mike R (talk) 18:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

How did Chinese in the old time transcribe their Chinese characters which can't be spelled?

How did Chinese "in the old times" transcribe their Chinese characters which can't be spelled like French, English,Korean or Vienamese words? For example: the word "been" in English can be transcribed with phonetic symbols like these : [bi:n], and anyone in any nations in the world who learn English as their second language can splell it easily. But Chinese characters consisting of strokes, dashes, dots ... can't be spelled. I know Korean people also used strokes, dashes, dots...almost same as Chinese, but Korean words can be splelled.Today if we open one contemporary Chinese dictionaries we'll find out that phonetic symbols are printed beside every words,and anyone who learn Chinese today can read the word easily, too. But how about the Chinese in the old times, Chinese in Ming dynasty for instance, how did they transcribe each characters in their dictionary?

Thank you in advance for you reply,

Tykncgmvctt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tykncgmvctt (talk • contribs) 23:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

They didn't. People who could read a dictionary, if there was one in ancient China, were expected to be able to read. Seriously. If there was a word a person couldn't read, they would ask somebody else, I guess. There is a system in Taiwan called bopomofo, which gives the phonetic transcription, and in PRC they use pinyin, but there was nothing like that in older times. It would be like giving a child a phonetic transcription of each letter in English. Not necessary. And in any case, most Chinese don't even know the correct pinyin, meaning that they don't learn to write using phonetic representations. Seriously. There wasn't.--KageTora (talk) 02:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

See the article Fanqie Aas217 (talk) 02:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Before fanqie, people used homophones: "this character is read like ....". Also, most Chinese characters contain a phonetic part (shēng fú 聲符), which indicates exactly or roughly or simply misleadingly (depending on your luck) how the character is pronounced. (Of course the phonetic part indicated correctly how the character was pronounced when the character was first coined; but time flies and sound changes, and the phonetic part becomes a bad phonetic indicator. It's just the same in English: Sound changes but the spellings don't.)--K.C. Tang (talk) 04:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

April 10

Overwhelmed vs. Underwhelmed

I'm interested to see if there are any more antitheses like this. 'Underwhelmed' seems to have recently come into regular usage, and I am all for it. It's a lovely word. But what I would like to ask is, while 'Overwhelmed' might mean 'something really powerful happened to me' and 'underwhelmed' might mean 'something totally powerless happened [today]', a poster above put forward the hypothetical word 'whelmed', which would mean 'something totally normal happened'. I'm interested in knowing how many words might actually be in usage which have these three levels - i.e. not enough, normal, and too much, and if there are none, how many can we make with our beautiful language of suffixes and prefixes?--KageTora (talk) 02:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Understated - stated - overstated; underdeveloped - developed - overdeveloped --Dr Dima (talk) 02:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we could have some fun with "disgruntled" - gruntled, overgruntled, undergruntled, transgruntled, hypergruntled, perigruntled, regruntled, pregruntled, postgruntled, circumgruntled (that might apply to pigs) ... so many possibilities, so little time.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 02:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Overtake, take (to know carnally?), undertake. Please don't over/under-react. Sundardas (talk) 04:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

A curious one is inept and "ept". Clearly ept is not a word. However the OED points out that inept comes from in- + aptus APT. So much for that one. Another one is unkempt. Clearly kempt is not a word. Oh but is it, at least in the OED. kempt, ppl. a. Of hair or wool: Combed. Also with advs., as well-kempt, etc. Cf. UNKEMPT. The things you can learn from the OED.. Pfly (talk) 05:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

See also the article on unpaired word. Back to the question on triplets: there seem to be many verbs and past particples existing on all three levels. I started with wiktionary special pages with prefix = "undera" and found triplets for the following verbs A-F:

(over-/under-)achieve, act, apply, bet, bid, capitalize, charge, clock, cook, cool, count, damp, do, dose, dress, eat, educate, estimate, exaggerate, explain, feed, fund, ...

May have missed some, might continue later. Wiktionary doesn't know " overfucked". ---Sluzzelin talk 06:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

What was it now? That phrase that used to apply to American soldiers in the UK during WW2? 'Overpaid, over-sexed, and over 'ere'?--KageTora (talk) 10:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice one! I particularly like Jack's massive applications of the 'gruntled' stem. I was going to ask to disclude that word from any answers, as all I could think of was the opposite of 'disgruntled' being (logically) 'gruntled' and that it was an old joke, but Jack has taken it to a whole new level!--KageTora (talk) 06:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

need translation "je suis médusé"

I'd like to add a small piece to our current FAOTD. In Asterix the Legionary, our heroes beat the tar out of a group of pirates. Shown floating on a raft in a manner similar to the The Raft of the Medusa, the captain remarks, "Je suis médusé!" The "pun" part is that he seems to be saying, "I am like the raft of the Medusa", while actually saying something else. What does that phrase actually mean? Online translators say it means "I am jellyfish", so I'm guessing there's some kind of idiom involved. Incidentally, the English translators may have surpassed the originals; in the English version, the captain says, "We've been framed, by Jericho!" Matt Deres (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It would be like saying "What do we have in common with paintings? We have both been framed." I don't know the context, framed could mean the pirates were accused of something they didnt do, or the visual of comic frame could look like the painting and that would make his words a metajoke that breaks the fourth wall. Livewireo (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Je suis médusé literally means "I'm petrified", in reference to the effect Medusa had on people. —Angr 14:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

A little less literal: "stupefied". Equendil Talk 14:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"I'm Medusafied!" Wrad (talk) 17:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Angr, Equendil; much appreciated. I appreciate your effort, Livewireo, but you answered the statement part of my post and not the question... Matt Deres (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)