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

September 15

Present Perfect Tense

Resolved

I am continually frustrated by the translation of the English present perfect tense (have followed by the past participle) in to French. Throughout the time I was learning French, no one ever said a thing about it, and the only possible literal equivalent (the passé composé) translates as the past tense. As far as I know, there are at least three translations of the present perfect:

• The present indicative,
• The imperfect, and
• Venir de before the infinitive, but I believe that may only be used if the action has just been completed.

May I have some clear rules about when to translate the present perfect as which of the three? Interchangeable|talk to me 03:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You aren't going to find any clear rules, all the more so because the use of perfect tenses is not uniform in English. Stop trying to "translate" the tenses. French doesn't have the hardware required to do so, so that any rules would be so complicated as not to be useful. French, like most languages, doesn't have anything that remotely resembles the English perfect tenses, so the decisions an English speaker makes when chosing tenses simply never occur in the head of a French speaker (unless they are speaking English). Instead, concentrate only on learning how to use the French tenses correctly. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

If I'm understanding your question right, you can usually express English present perfect using French passé composé. E.g., "I have read the book" (not in the experiential sense like "I've read that book at some point in my life", but the perfective sense as in "I was told to finish reading this book by today, and I finished doing it") could be translated as J'ai lu le livre. The other tenses you mention above carry different connotations:

• Present indicative je lis le livre is probably not what you're looking for, unless I misunderstood the question.
• Imperfect je lisais le livre expresses the "experiential" sense I described above, not the perfective sense. (It could also express a habitual sense, e.g. "[at some point in my life] I used to read that book every month" or something like that.)
• Venir de (je viens de lire le livre) expresses, as you guessed, "I just read the book".

rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with everything except the experiential bit. I would translate "I have read Hamlet [at some point in my life]" only as "J'ai lu Hamlet" (whereas "j'ai lu Hamlet" could be translated into English as "I read Hamlet" or "I have read Hamlet" depending on context). "Je lisais Hamlet" in my experience implies either an unfinished action ("je lisais Hamlet quand le téléphone a sonné"), or, as you say, repeated action ("quand j'étudiais la dramaturgie, je lisais Hamlet chaque mois"). Lesgles (talk) 05:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, I think you're right. My French isn't what it used to be ;) rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec) No worries. It doesn't help that in other languages it does work that way (at least in Russian—я читал «Гамлет»). Lesgles (talk) 06:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I know what you mean. I had the hardest time figuring out the difference between perfective and imperfective in Polish. You just have to accept the fact that the tenses and aspects just don't match up, and get a feel for the language you are speaking without translating. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

[Edit Conflict]: When translating "J'ai lu le livre", "I read [as in past-tense 'read'] the book" and "I have read the book" are both perfectly acceptable, I think. It's just not an exact match, which is part of the fun about learning any language. As a sidenote, "I'm going to..." in German uses the verb "to become" not "to go" (Ich werde essen - very literally "I become to eat" instead of "I am going to eat"). I mention that not because you necessarily have an interest in German, but because it illustrates that different languages do things VERY differently. The best way to use French is to get to the point where you don't really have to translate it to speak it. If you aren't already there, it will take patience, but it is definitely possible. Falconus^{p t c} 05:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Important point in what you said: translation does not work the same in both directions. As a rule of thumb, English present perfect maps on to French passé composé, but French passé composé can map either on to English present perfect or English simple past. One exception is sentences with depuis in French and since/for in English, in which French uses present (or sometimes imperfect) and English uses present (or sometimes past) perfect ("I have lived in New York for five years" = "j'habite à New York depuis cinq ans"[1]). In general, though, I support Dominus Vobisdu and Falconus's points about learning the tenses in the French context. Lesgles (talk) 06:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. So, in summary, it should be translated as the present tense when in accompaniment with since and for, the passé composé in most aspects, and venir de if the action has just been completed. Is that all correct? Interchangeable|talk to me 15:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Mostly, but you can't really reduce translation to an algorithm. For example, you would not use the present tense to translate "I have cooked eggs for my family", even though that sentence includes the word for. You would use the present tense with depuis only when for is used in an English past perfect phrase to refer to duration. Marco polo (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, a sophisticated enough algorithm could account for such cases. We just don't have them yet. StuRat (talk) 18:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I hope you all know what I meant. In addition, what about the present perfect subjunctive? Does "Do you think that he has been drinking" translate as Penses-tu qu'il boive/bût/ait bu/eût bu? Interchangeable|talk to me 18:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Even French people often can't agree on when to use the subjunctive :P. In this particular case I'm pretty sure it's not necessary. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The subjunctive is required after verbs of believing and thinking when they are negative or interrogative but not negative and interrogative, and not when positive either. So yes, it is required. A better example may be Je crains qu'il ne boive/ne bût/n'ait bu/n'eût bu - which one(s) is/are correct? Interchangeable|talk to me 20:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC) P.S.: Please stop bugging me with junk like "There's no literal translation". I am totally aware of that - I have long been aware that literal translation never works; if it were, we would not have things like Engrish and all languages would be easy to learn. Interchangeable|talk to me

This is trickier. I would go with "Penses-tu qu'il aît bu?" and "Je crains qu'il n'aît bu". In the written language (high style), you could say "je crains qu'il ne bût" (imperfect subjunctive), "I fear that he was drinking", but we lose the sense of consequence in the present. Although normally the present subjunctive can replace the imperfect subjunctive in non-literary French, I don't think "boive" would work, since it would probably be misinterpreted as "I fear he is drinking". And "eût bu" is not an option unless the main verb is in the past tense (je craignis qu'il n'eût bu) or you have some other compelling reason to indicate anteriority to another past event. Lesgles (talk) 04:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. That really helps. Interchangeable|talk to me 14:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Latin: Pro bono publico

Is pro bono publico correct Latin? Does it literally mean "for the public good", or something slightly different? --Cybercobra (talk) 05:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that's the literal meaning. According to the OED, it dates back to the 15th century (Medieval Latin), and the earliest known use in English was in 1640. Lesgles (talk) 06:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

See "Pro bono”.—Wavelength (talk) 15:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Continuity problem in His Dark Materials series (specifically, Once Upon a Time in the North?

Lee Scoresby loses part of an ear in the warehouse fight, but I don't remember ever reading about it in the trilogy. Is this a continuity issue? Thanks. Imagine Reason (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I've not read Once Upon..., but I did read the original trilogy, and don't recall any mention of Scoresby's ear. However, unless the trilogy explicitly indicates that his ears are intact, it would not be a continuity error. AJCham 00:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

That's what I thought. It seems unlikely to me that Lyra's world could have reconstructed Scoresby's ear and to such an extent that no one noticed. I think he dies in The Subtle Knife and I don't think he talked about his ear at death. So it wasn't a continuity error, but it was something. Imagine Reason (talk) 02:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

September 16

Happy in the UK

Is this use of happy in a formal text, exclusive of the UK? If you are happy with phone or internet accounts, you may get a higher interest rate. 88.8.79.204 (talk) 04:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you asking if "happy with" means the same as "satisfied with"? It does here in the UK. "Happy with" is widely used, but it has a slightly informal feel to it. Dbfirs 08:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I think he's asking if this use of "happy" is also found in other versions of English such as AmEng. --Viennese Waltz 09:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

It's used that way in the USA also, although I don't get the part about higher interest rates. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

It's an example of the usage, and relates to opening a savings account, and means that if you're happy with one where you can only make transactions by phone or online (as opposed to in person at a bank branch) then rate of interest on the savings could be higher than for one with an "in-person" service. It's a quotation from this page. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Given the context, that usage is perfectly normal for US English and, I'm fairly certain, for every variety of English. However, the linked Web page is not a formal text, and that usage is definitely not right for a formal text. Formal texts typically don't use the second person. To recast the quote in more formal language: "If the customer is satisfied with telephone or Internet access, he or she may qualify for a higher interest rate." Marco polo (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

It's common in Canada, too; however, happy with to me seems to be a bit less formal that satisfied with. Still, I would accept both in formal and informal writing. Interchangeable|talk to me 14:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

"Satisfied" would not work in this context, it means something different. Saying "If the customer is satisfied with telephone or Internet access..." implies that the customer is satisfied with their current telephone or internet access, which is not what is meant at all. It's basically saying "if you don't mind being restricted to telephone and internet access, you might get a higher interest rate", although that is obviously too informal for an official corporate statement. --Viennese Waltz 14:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The ambiguity exists whether you use "happy" or "satisfied". The word "satisfied" carries no more implication of "existing" than does "happy". I agree that spelling it out in detail is better. Perhaps "prepared to accept"? Dbfirs 16:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Learning a new language

This question may be a little too vague, if it is just let me know.

I've always been very quick at picking up technical languages (ie programming languages, scientific terminology, etc..) but very poor at learning actual spoken languages. It may be because I've always hated memorization (obviously there's a certain amount of vocabulary building required before you can meaningfully speak another language), but I'm just not very good at it. Is there a non-memorization intensive way to learn to speak a new language? I don't think immersion would work very well either, I'm a grad student and I spend a lot of time around people speaking non-english languages, yet I don't tend to pick any of those languages up. Any suggestions would be appreciated. And again, if this is too vague or open ended just let me know. Thanks. (+)H₃N-Protein\Chemist-CO₂(-) 16:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You're a bit vague about the "spending a lot of time around people speaking non-english languages" thing. Being in an environment where you hear other languages spoken alongside of English doesn't really qualify as immersion. Immersion would be being a non-X speaking person in an X-speaking environment, needing to speak X in order to communicate. Learning a foreign language is a lot of work, and you need a basic vocabulary in order to get started. In my experience, the key success factor is learning to understand the foreign language. A good way of learning to understand a foreign language, is listening to podcasts in the language about a subject that you know. I have successfully improved my Spanish a lot by in listening to Spanish science podcasts. I've also learned to understand quite a bit of Catalan by listening to a Catalan technology podcast. I have at the same time read some grammar, but I have not resorted to rote learning of vocabulary. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 16:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

If you don't like deliberately memorising, then you shouldn't try that method. You probably need a really good up-to-date course, with a book and DVDs, to get you started. Or perhaps some classes. But avoid any scheme where they don't tell you up front how much it will cost. Depending on what language, the BBC website has some excellent free materials. And then NorwegianBlue's suggestion is a good one, get yourself plenty of practice, but in a way that is interesting rather than tedious. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no way other than by memorization, study of grammar, and spoken immersion to learn a language. However, memorization need not mean rote recitation of vocabulary lists. Rather, intensely repeated passive contact with materials works fine. One favorite method is to leave reading material by the toilet. Also by the bedside. Don't strain yourself trying to memorize, just read the material over and over in a passive, relaxed state. Just before bed is ideal. You will find you have mastered it soon enough. As for immersion, that doesn't mean moving in with a family of native speakers (although that method will get you fluent within a few months) but simply making sure that a sufficient amount of time is spent on a regular basis engaging with the material. That can mean attending an intensive course in the language, watching movies and television in the language daily, and so forth. And one does have to learn grammar. Both understanding the principles of grammar and repetition of conjugations and declensions are inescapable necessities. Courses that promise easy learning the natural way without concentrating on grammar are frauds. Get an explicit grammar book and, if it is available, a 501 Linguish Verbs of the appropriate edition. Wheelock's Latin is perhaps the ideal template to work from. μηδείς (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Tell us what language you want to learn and we should be able to give more advice. East Asian languages, for example, have no conjugations or declensions to memorise. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your responses, I think I have a better idea how to approach this now. The podcast idea is certainly interesting, scientific vocabulary is pretty standardized so foreign language science podcasts would probably be a good starting point since I'd already recognize much of what's being said. (+)H₃N-Protein\Chemist-CO₂(-) 02:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Of "something" v Possessive Case

I'm not sure if I'm using the correct terminology for the language desk......

English is my first language, but I know a bit of Spanish & French

In English we can either say:

John's office

or

The office of John

To my ear the second version sounds somewhat archaic or unusual - although, the phrase "the office of my husband, John" reads OK

However, there are genuine occasions when this version is required (and the possessive case would not work)

The House of Windsor

House of cards

Therefore my questions are:

1. Is there any rules concerning when "of" should be used instead of the "Possessive Case"

2. How do Spanish speakers, make the differential that we can in English by virtue of the two options -

Compare:

House of Windsor v Windsor's House (the house belonging to someone called Windsor)

They could only say "La casa de Windsor" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaseywasey (talk • contribs) 19:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The more "animacy" or "agency" (in the linguistic sense) something is perceived to have, the more likely it is to be able to take the English possessive suffix. A number of languages have a morphological distinction associated with "inalienable possession" vs. alienable possession, or "partitive" vs. true genitive etc., but other languages have only one construction for expressing most genitive-related meanings, and don't appear to suffer in any significant way from not making such distinctions... P.S. Many linguists would say that the English possessive ending is more of a clitic suffix than a case inflection in the ordinary sense. AnonMoos (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I can answer your first question, but not your second (I only know about ten words of Spanish, muchos gracias). The crux of the matter is that inanimate objects cannot possess things in the way that living things can. So there is a simple, general rule: if it's alive, use 's ; if not, use of the. However, as you noted, you will probably find exceptions to both, so the answer to "Is [side note: accord your subject and verb; correct is are] there any rules concerning when "of" should be used instead of the Possessive Case" is no. (And, face it, this is English. If there were a rule, there would be an exception...) Interchangeable|talk to me 23:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC) P.S.: Occasionally, the two words alone, the two words joined by a hyphen, or a single word will suffice. For example, the top of the table, the table's top, and the tabletop are all correct (though the second sounds a bit strange to me). Similarly, the cushions of the couch, the couch's cushions, and the couch cushions are all correct (note that in the third example, couch functions as an adjective). However, take caution with this: I recall reading in Michael Moore's "Dude, Where's My Country?" the following curious sentence: "The aluminum tubes discovery also turned out to be a hoax." Here, having aluminum tubes function as an adjective is awkward; better is "The aluminum tubes' discovery" or "The discovery of the aluminum tubes". Interchangeable|talk to me

(ec) Oh, so many exceptions: Zimbabwe's national anthem; aliens have landed on the White House's front lawn; the works of Shakespeare ... -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Though the reversals of all three sound right to me. Interchangeable|talk to me 23:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

But the examples are not strictly possessives. A house of cards is not the card's house. It is a house made out of cards. Like a woolen sweater or a sweater of wool is not wool's sweater. (Although woolen does actually evolve from an old genitive formation, but the genitive of substance, not possession.) Likewise, the House of Windsor is not Windsor's house, but the dynastic house of the Windsor family. One could certainly say the Windsor family's dynastic house if necessary. μηδείς (talk) 02:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

There really isn't a possessive case in English; it's the genitive case, and people are often confused by their mistaken belief that the only time it is used is to show possession. The discussion at <http://alt-usage-english.org/genitive_and_possessive.html> may be elucidative. Some of the examples on this page expressed with "of", for example, are appositive genitives - Nunh-huh 02:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we are better off saying that there is a possessive construction which is not as broad semantically as the roles played by the classic genitive case in older Indo-European languages. I note that no one has linked to the articles genitive case and possessive case. Again, the two examples above, House of Windsor and, especially, house of cards are examples of genitive constructions which are not possessive constructions. μηδείς (talk) 03:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I would just say that English doesn't have cases (apart from nominative and accusative pronouns). Surely adding 's just makes a noun a possessive adjective. I've never heard anyone claim that "my" is a pronoun declined in the genitive... - filelakeshoe 12:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

There is actually a technical vocabulary available if one wants to make more than vague statements. English most certainly does have case syntactically and case declension in pronouns. A sentence like He showed her it on his computer has pronouns acting as subject, indirect object, direct object, and possessor roles. Although the dative and accusative pronoun forms have fallen together in English as the object pronoun form, the roles are still differentiated because, as in sentences like the example, "he showed her it" can only mean he showed it to her, and not he showed her to it. The fact that nouns do not decline for case beyond marking the possessive does not mean that English lacks case. Moreover, possessives are not adjectives. If John's were an adjective we could say "The big red John's book is lying on the table." We cannot. (The evolution of possessive 's towards being a clitic also provides problems for this analysis. Would we describe the first five words in "The man I saw yesterday's house burnt down" as an adjective?). This is a fruitful field of study with plenty of scholarly writing available. μηδείς (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

However, no one denies that my, your, his, her etc. are possessive adjectives, yet we still cannot say "The big red my book is lying on the table". I believe the rule has to do with English adjectival order: the proper order is possessive adjectives (but no article can be used if a possessive adjective is), origin, size, shape, age, colour, nationality, religion, material, and finally nouns used as adjectives. Interchangeable|talk to me 20:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I deny it, and I don't think I'm the only one. My, your, his, her etc. are determiners, not adjectives. Angr (talk) 20:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

No, you aren't. μηδείς (talk) 22:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

September 17

Une famille bourgeoise républicaine

The Cecile Brunschvicg page, evidently translated from its French WP counterpart, renders this as "[a] bourgeois republican family." As a native speaker of American English unfamiliar with French history, I don't understand the "republican" part. What would be a more suitable translation? -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I would interpret it to mean "supporting republicanism", i.e. supporting a form of government with an elected head of state rather than a monarch. Between 1792 and 1870, France fluctuated back and forth between being a republic and being a monarchy, but has been continuously a republic since then. Describing her family as republican then presumably means her parents and grandparents were always on the pro-republic, anti-monarchy side. I don't think there is a better English translation; it just requires some knowledge of the context to understand. Angr (talk) 08:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess it's important to note the lower case "r" on republican. HiLo48 (talk) 08:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Aha, so this qualifies that they weren't royalist-bourgeois. Now I'm wondering about word order, punctuation, or a slight rewrite, such as "bourgeois family of republican sympathies." I already took care of the over-literal "confessing Jews" (fr: de confession juive). Suggestions welcome. -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The English is missing what happened after she met her husband ("...which led her to become an ardent feminist" or however you would like to translate "qui l'amena à militer pour le féminisme"). Adam Bishop (talk) 10:43, 17 September 2011

Thanks for the head's up and suggested addition, AB. And Angr, I'll follow your lead by adding the republicanism link. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

By the way, as late as the 1920s, there remained a very significant number of people in France who were still basically unreconciled to the French revolution (some royalists, some not), so that republicanism could by no means be taken for granted... AnonMoos (talk) 12:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm uncertain that "bourgeois" is the best word in English. It has negative connotations in English that may not necessarily exist in French. Perhaps "middle-class republican family" would be better. Angr (talk) 13:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I concur with the negative meaning, and, also, "middle-class" is understandable to a wider audience than "bourgeois". StuRat (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

If you are writing for non-academic Americans or even an audience with a large non-academic American component, I would try substituting "anti-royalist" for "republican". Americans who have not taken European history at an elite university would otherwise tend to assume that the family's politics were in line with those of the U.S. Republican Party. Marco polo (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm editing the WP page, right here. Your reasoned suggestion is perhaps more effective than my interim solution of an internal link for republican, though the latter seems more encyclopedic and suitably accessible so I'm inclined to leave it stet. -- Deborahjay (talk) 18:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

They haven't gone away yet... see the official website of the French Monarchist Party (PMF) "The PMF considers that the Republic, like all regimes in history, has arrived at an end, at least for this cycle, if we accept the ancient cycle of Royalty-Republic-Empire." (please excuse any translation errors and omissions). Alansplodge (talk) 19:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this should read she was born into a middle-class republican (i.e., anti-monarchist) Jewish family. The article needs to stand on its own for all readers. Were the article a book, the meanings of the terms would be clarified early in the work. In an article it does not make sense only to provide a link to clarify a term which many readers will find misleading and the word bourgeois is indeed less neutral in connotation than middle-class. μηδείς (talk) 02:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The next question about that article (at least as far as I'm concerned) is how to pronounce Brunschvicg in French. My first hypothesis is [bʁœ̃ʃvik] (with the understanding that [œ̃] has merged with [ɛ̃] in Parisian French, which she presumably spoke). Any other guesses or, better yet, sourced confirmation? Angr (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, not used to using IPA, but, to use French spelling, it might be more correctly pronounced "Brounchvic", i.e. the first syllable isn't necessarily nasalized. A question on French wikipedia might settle it. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll post the pronunciation query on the French Wikipedia's Language Ref Desk. -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I waited an hour and you didn't ask, so I did. Angr (talk) 10:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I got the answer that it's [bʁœ̃svik], so I added that to the article. Angr (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The Duden Aussprachewörterbuch (2005) confirms that: "Brunschvicg fr. brœ̃sˈvik". Lesgles (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

French question

One strip of Viivi & Wagner shows two old ladies asking Wagner to speak French, because French is such a beautiful language. Wagner replies something like:

• Merde! Foutez la champ! Vieilles taupes!

After which the old ladies admire Wagner's French skills and the beauty of the French language very much. What does the quote actually mean? As far as I can understand with my limited French skills, it's something like "Shit! Get out of here! You old cows!" Is this correct? JIP | Talk 09:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

That's correct. It's usually "foutez le camp" though. And a "taupe" is literally a mole but "old cow" or "old bag" sounds normal in English. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Root origination

What is the root origination for the word "cost"? Where did that word come from?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Ultimately from the Latin "constare", but through French "coster" (which ended up as "coûter" in modern French). "Constare" is also where we get the English "consist", although that comes more directly from the Latin form "consistere". And "constare" in Latin is actually "stare", "to stand", plus the prefix "con-", usually meaning "together". Adam Bishop (talk) 13:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

See also http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=cost . Lexicografía (talk) 13:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

That was answered well. Thanks!--Doug Coldwell ^talk 14:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Predicate Adjectives in Russian and other slavic languages with zero copula

• Must Predicate adjectives in such languages be declined to indicate number, gender and case? (Presumably nominative?)
• If there is zero copula in such languages, how can the mood and tense be indicated for predicate adjectives? For instance, if we have an adjective, say, "good" do we have to form a verb "to be good" by some regular pattern? --Quentin Smith 14:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Predicate adjectives would normally be in the nominative case, but yes, they are declined for number and gender. The zero copula is only found in the present indicative. Other tenses will find an inflected verb form like wona byla... "she was...". μηδείς (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

See Zero copula#Russian and Russian verbs and http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/быть.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Help needed with Chinese map

Could someone with a knowledge of Chinese tell me the names of the 6 divisions of Outer Mongolia and the 3 divisions of Tibet shown on this 1945 map of the Republic of China? (Warning: it's rather large.) --Lazar Taxon (talk) 17:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Northernmost Mongolian province is Urianghai. Then west to east under it are Khobdo (Khovd), Zasagt Khan, Sain Noyon [Khan], Tüsheet Khan, and Setsen Khan. West to east in Tibet are Ngari, Hou-tsang (Tsang), and Chian-tsang (Ü).--Cam (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Translation into Russian

How do you say in Russian: Welcome to the course of Michael Mikhail, two thousand eleven

Note that Michael Mikhail is the name of the course.

I'm looking for the correct pronunciation (in English letters please), inc. the stress on the correct sylables, rather than for the correct spelling.

HOOTmag (talk) 20:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

You're going to have to explain why the course is named "Michael" for us to know how to translate it. We could, for example, change it to the Russian equivalent, "Mikhail". However, if this course is about a specific person, like Michael Jackson, you would normally leave the name in the original language. StuRat (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Michael is an acronym, pronounced just like Mikhail. HOOTmag (talk) 21:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

That's ambiguous itself. Most Westerners say "mick-hail", but the Russians say it more like "Mikh-ah-ill", with clearly 3 syllables. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

And neither of those sound like Michael, which I pronounce "Mike-L". StuRat (talk) 21:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm talking about Mikhail, rather than about Michael. Please look again at my original question. HOOTmag (talk) 23:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

@Jack of Oz, I'm talking about the Russian pronunciation of Mikhail. HOOTmag (talk) 23:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

So far as I understand your question, I would translate it as "Добро пожаловать на курс «Михаил» две тысячи одиннадцатого года" (da-BROH pa-ZHAHL-a-vat na koors mee-kha-EEL dvye TIH-sya-chi ah-DEE-na-tsa-ta-va GOH-da, "Welcome to the Michael course of the year 2011"). If it's really an acronym, it might help to capitalize it: MICHAEL/МИХАИЛ, though the acronym will almost certainly not work in Russian (e.g., USA in Russian is США, "S-Sh-A"). Lesgles (talk) 16:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, thanks a lot! That's what I've been looking for!

So, the phrase курс Михаил takes no case, e.g. dative and likewise?

How about 2012, and 2013?

HOOTmag (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

If the course is actually called "Михаил", then you use an appositive construction, and the case is the same as the preceding word, курс (in this case, accusative, which looks the same as nominative). If the course is about Michael, then you could say "курс о Михаиле" (koors a mee-kha-EE-lye). For 2012 and 2013, change одиннадцатого to двенадцатого (dvye-NA-tsa-ta-va) or тринадцатого (try-NA-tsa-ta-va) respectively. Lesgles (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. HOOTmag (talk) 06:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

How do I say Jasmine Rice in German?

I'm translating a recipe name into German. This is the name of my recipe: 'Grill Pan-Baked Beef Tenderloin with Herb-Garlic-Pepper Coating in Red Wine with Jasmine Rice'. I have already translated this bit: 'grillt-Pfanne-bäckt Rindflieschfilet mit Kraut-Knoblauch-Pfeffer Schicht in Rotwein mit ...' (and yes I know the name is probably expressed incorrectly). So how do I say Jasmine rice? Also, if someone wants to correct my translation, that would also be nice. :p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 22:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The German Wikipedia has it as Jasmin-Reis. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Weird, that wasn't linked on the Jasmine Rice article. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 22:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, the Jasmine rice article, yes. I didn't look there. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I think BlackBerry is one of the few cases where having case sensitive searching makes sense, though I don't know why I capitalised rice. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 01:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Fixed! Who knew you could link to subsections in the 'language' sidebar? 86.164.76.231 (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd go with "Jasminreis" (new spelling may encourage the dash, though). You have a lot of modifiers in that recipe name... I'd' go with "Rinderlende mit Kräuter-Knoblauch-Pfeffer-Kruste in Rotwein aus der Grillpfanne, dazu Jasminreis" (or, more pretentiously, "an Jasminreis"), but I'd really try to drop some of the adjectives ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds about right, but that's the actual name of the recipe, it's more lecker that way. :p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 22:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Lecker? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Lecker (German) = delicate, dainty. Deor (talk) 22:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

bullshit, lecker means "yummy!" mmmm, lecker! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.234.207.120 (talk) 22:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

That's what my Treffpunkt book says, yummy or delicious (Das ist mir lecker (that's yummy for me basically)). You can also say etwas (something) schmeckt gut. In Saffa speak, it means the same thing as cool. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 22:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I guess I have to replace my old Langenscheidt's with something more up-to-date. Deor (talk) 11:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Ja, Sie sollen den große Duden kaufen [2]. Es ist nicht zu teuer. ;p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 14:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's another question, how do I say bundt cake pan, slapchopper (one of these things) and herb mincer (this thing, in fact this exact model :p)? xD Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 22:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

"Gug(e)lhupf-Form" for the cake pan. I cannot make out the images very well - can you link to the full product pages to provide some context? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The noble Herb mincer and One of these thingies. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 23:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd call both of those "Nutzlose Schrankfüller". However, Amazon has the first as "Kräuterroller" oder "Kräuterschneider" here. The other thing has no real name - Amazon calls ist a "Zwiebelhacker", or you can call it a "Gemüsezerkleinerer", but its mostly known by way of a genericized trade mark as a "Zick Zick Zyliss". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh my, how incredibly rude of me. Thanks very much; you were a big help! Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 21:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Just something per your original question: I'd be happy to review the full translation. Just give me a holler on my yet nonexistent talk-page. --Abracus (talk) 12:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

question to ask yourself to determine if you're in a dream

is there a set question you can memorize, that requires such high mental parsing that it only makes sense when you're awake? Then if you can answer it, you're not dreaming. Something dificult, like, Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.234.207.120 (talk) 22:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess I must be dreaming, because that question doesn't make any sense at all to me. Looie496 (talk) 22:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

What does it mean to you? Anyway this was just an example sentence, I'm looking for another/better one. If you are dreaming, however, then as a test I guess it works on at least one person. 82.234.207.120 (talk) 22:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Your sentence seems to do the job pretty well. I can't think of a better one right now; maybe when I wake up. Hans Adler 22:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I actually came across that sentence "elsewhere" and it seemed to imply to me that I'm dreaming now, as I can't parse it. I repeated it to you guys to see if someone else would be able to parse it. But you guys are also dreaming, apparently. Is anyone here NOT dreaming??? I think I'm about to wake up... 82.234.207.120 (talk) 22:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

In case you are not trolling: your example question is a meme whose claim to fame, and humour, is that it makes no sense. That is the point: it cannot be parsed.

If you still want a way to determine if you are dreaming, I find almost anything works if you convince yourself you cannot do it when dreaming. So if you decide that pinching yourself will always wake you up if you are dreaming, or that you cannot scream while dreaming (useful for nightmares), or that you cannot read any text while dreaming (and so all text must be nonsense or blank), or... Then, generally, it becomes true. Or, I suppose, you can just try to take off, if you're in the habit of flying in a safe-to-test way in your dreams. Although that sometimes leads to major disappointment, when you wake up from a dream where you tried flying "like you do in dreams" and found it worked in "real life"...

On a more serious note, it is always wise to act as if the world you find yourself in is real, and as if you are awake, because the consequences of an error are greatly reduced this way. If you are seriously struggling with reality, I recommend speaking with your doctor. I do recommend this reality check for people fearing they are descending into The Matrix: have you ever tried to take more or less steps than a flight of stairs provides? You were absolutely positive, without even thinking about it, that there was one more, or one less, step. And yet, your foot did not support your weight in the air, nor did it pass through the floor: reality asserted itself. Your strong belief did not change reality, your expectations were averted. You are awake. 86.164.76.231 (talk) 23:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

It is always wise ... unless there's a reasonable chance you might be schizophrenic or hallucinating.  Card Zero  (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The lucid dream article includes the section Reality testing "...a common method used by people to determine whether or not they are dreaming", with several methods listed. Mitch Ames (talk) 23:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

It's possible to think you know or understand something in a dream and then wake up to find you don't really know or understand it (source: personal experience), so I don't think this approach would work. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Building name (Korean)

Hi! In Seongnam, Gyeonggi-do, Korea, there is a building called " 판교세븐벤처밸리 "

Does it have an English name? How would it be romanized in Korean? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 23:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

'Pangyo Seven Venture Valley'. NOTE: This is not a translation. This is actually what it says. If you really need a transliteration: pangyo-sebeun-bencheo-baelli

--KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

September 18

Explaining when to use in, at, on and into to someone whose native language is Semitic

So my girlfriend's a fine yekke Israelit (don't worry about those terms if you don't know'em, they're not important). Her native language is of course Hebrew, and in Hebrew, you just say b[thing] in many cases where you have several words in various IE languages. So how do I explain to my little lady when to use the four prepositions above. She's quite confused as a result of the way you construct things in Semitic languages. What about to and for as well L[something]? I'm surprised she picked up most everything else given the complications. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 04:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the finer details of preposition usage can vary quite a bit even between fairly closely-related languages (e.g. English and German), so I'm not sure Semitic vs. Indo-European is too relevant. AnonMoos (talk) 10:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep, English and German, that is exactly the case (and can be a pain in the ass at times). However, she has more troubles because there are so few prepositions in Hebrew (that I know of, I'm only in my third semester of it mind you). The question still stands; how does one teach the differences? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 14:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

There are a few rules of thumb you can come up with, for example, that "into" always implies movement, from outside to inside, but "in" usually doesn't. But they are pretty weak (eg the movement is a bit abstract in "marks burnt into the surface"; and with certain verbs of motion "in" is often acceptable as an alternative to "into" - eg "put it in the fridge"). Given that the use of these prepositions varies even between dialects of English (UK "at school" vs US "in school", for example), there is no shortcut to learning them. --ColinFine (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

She prefers UK English; she finds it sexy apparently. So she mostly has to learn them on a case by case basis then? :p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 17:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Rules of thumb I use:

"In", "into" = "inside of", as "I put the weasel inside of/in/into the car".

"At" = "at the location of", as "I left the flaming car at the location of/at the accident".

"On" = "On top of", as in "The semi was on top of/on my car". StuRat (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

So:

In 2011 (in two thousand eleven) = inside of 2011

At 20:11 (at eight eleven) = at the location of 20:11

On 20/11 (on 20 November) = on top of 20/11

???

HOOTmag (talk) 23:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb, a rule of thumb is only correct roughly 4 out of 5 times. Including this one, since it's also a rule of thumb.</tongue in cheek> --Kjoonlee 04:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they only works for physical objects. Another non-physical example is a web page. You can post "at" a web page, leave a comment "in" it, or place a picture "on" it. StuRat (talk) 05:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with these conceptions. Don't we talk about time like we talk about space? You can approach a date, which is in a month, and the particular event is on that date. And then, when the event is over, you go passed that date and leave it in the past, behind you. Time is generally conceptualised like space, isn't it? It might not be natural English to say "inside of 2011", but then "inside of the fridge" isn't natural English in my dialect either. The concept remains the same, so I'd have thought it was still helpful. 86.164.76.231 (talk) 15:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Prepostions are a fantastically hard thing to learn in a new language; usage is so idiosyncratic that it is hard to come up with concise rules as to their use; oddly native speakers seem to master these rules in childhood, and seem to be able to keep track of the multitude of "rules" without ever conciously codifying them. Since the only other language I know any of besides English is French, one of the things you learn about French is the difficulty in translating prepositions between the languages; take the French preposition "à" for example. It can be translated into English as "to" or "from" or "of" or "at" depending on the context. You just kinda have to learn all of the little situations where a preposition is appropriate in a specific context; again with the caveat that different dialects even within English will use different prepositions in the same context. --Jayron32 04:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Over the years, I have had several French colleagues who fairly consistently used "into" in cases where it was not appropriate (one instance I recall which actually did cause problems was a phrase "the characters are read into the buffer" - the intend meaning was "read from the buffer"). I assume, but have not verified, that these particular people had been taught a rule of thumb that one particular French preposition corresponded to "into". --ColinFine (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

French doesn't have any short single-word expression which mainly translates English "into". One thing I've noticed about French is that in many contexts, French speakers seem to have little problem using "de"+noun several times close together in a sentence, something which would be stylistically awkward in English... AnonMoos (talk) 08:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You talk about what the oddly native speakers do, but what about the perfectly normally native speakers?  :)

Just being serious for a micro-second, though, what do you find odd about the ability of people to absorb the byways and idiosyncracies of their own languages and use them in a completely natural and intuitive manner? Compared with any latter-day learners from other languages, surely it's the native speakers who have the colossal advantage here; they've lived their entire lives being totally immersed in their own language, and children copy every little nuance perfectly from their surrounding environment. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 10:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not that native speakers are odd; its that the ease of their use of their native language does not jive with the ease of explaining what they do. As you say, it is very normal for native speakers to learn their language, that is obviously common, and in that sense is the most normal thing possible. What makes it odd is the ability to follow a consistent system with ease which is so complex that it can't be explained easily. To sum up: What you say is true, but it doesn't contradict anything that I said. Or, at least, meant. --Jayron32 16:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

But then, children don't sit down and say "OK, we have to master our English prepositions. Let's have a look at all the rules, grammar, idioms and exceptions before we go out and play cowboys and Indians". They don't perceive it as a system of rules - complex or otherwise - at all. Only adults or at least adolescents do that, and you can't compare adult learning with childhood learning, because they're totally different. A person who learns a new language as an adult, and learns the vocab and idioms so well that he can write like a native, will never be able to speak like a native. He might get very close, but there will always be those little tell-tale things that reveal he's somehow "different" from the natives. A young-enough child never has this burden.

So the question is not:

• "Why do children find it so easy to do what is so hard to explain to adults?".

It's:

• "Why do adults assume their way of learning a language is appropriate, given they struggle with rules they find so complex and replete with exceptions, and given that children just accept these things as normal and natural and learn them quickly and easily? Where are adults going so badly wrong in their whole approach". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

JackofOz -- It's quite likely that children have special language-learning brain circuitry, which withers away after the "critical period", so adult language learning can't really be the same thing as child language-learning. AnonMoos (talk) 08:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Crossword puzzle help

I believe I have the answer to a clue from the surrounding answers but I still don't understand why the answer is what it is. Four letters. The clue is: protectors of tiny shirts. The only thing I could think of was possibly "moms" (or less likely but, "dads") as in they keep their children's baby cloths and would protect them from disposal—reaching I know. It turns out the answer is apparently "libs". Can someone clue me in why?--108.46.107.181 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC).

Most likely it's supposed to be "bibs" Hot Stop talk-contribs 05:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Smacking forehead. Of course it's bibs. Thank you. This is one of the weird ones where the surrounding answers all looked correct. The "l" in lib came from luggage, when the answer was properly baggage, and you can see why that might have fit perfectly but still been wrong.--108.46.107.181 (talk) 05:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

haha. That is a toughie. Hot Stop talk-contribs 05:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Whose English is most "authentic"?

If someone born in England in the 16th century would be warped to current times, would he be more at ease in London, Scotland, Texas, New York, Delhi, Canberra or anywhere else? Joepnl (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I was led to believe that the main accents we were stuck with in the US (other than Midwest, Texan, Southern and Bostonian) are closest to the accent in the GB at that time. English has evolved a lot since the time of Early Modern English. We could understand him, but he would not be able to understand a lot of our phrases I bet. Language aside though, I don't think he would feel very easy at all what with all the harnessing of the sun in glass tubes, people talking to themselves in black boxes, horseless carriages that sound unnatural and flying metal machines. I bet he would also accidentally get into a few fights with Irishmen, Blacks and maybe a Jew or two if he saw one and made an off-colour remark. :p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 18:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking the mountains of eastern Kentucky or western North Carolina. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's very common for Americans to make this claim; a big [citation needed] tag is required before we proceed. Alansplodge (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Hell if I know or even remember where I read that. Must have been one of those silly stories on MSN Today. I'd personally prefer we spoke with the modern accent associated with England. :p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 22:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I suspect it would depend where in England he was born. Someone from 16th century Norfolk would quite likely find the current Norfolk accent easier to understand than that of Huddersfield say - accents in remote rural areas have probably changed the least. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Can't the oppose it also be true? I mean think of a place like Chile, it's somewhat isolated and that just means the language evolves differently (Chilean Spanish is just strange to many Spaniards). Then again, in the case of Chile, it's a lot of Mapuche influence, so I could just be talking out my ass. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 23:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the point Andy was making (which I would have made if he hadn't, and I will now proceed to do in my own words) is that, even in this modern day of global connectivity, there's a huge variety of Englishes within England itself. Take yourself back to the 16th century, and there would have been even more variety. So, it would very much depend on exactly where in England the person came from as to which English they are comparing to which current version. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]}

As the person in question is coming in from the backend of the Great Vowel Shift (which was really still ongoing - see the chart in that link), I would hazard at somewhere like Newcastle upon Tyne or Scotland. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Scotland? How do you figure that? Do you mean the fellows in Scotland who speak Scots or the Scots who speak English with what's regarded commonly as a Scottish accent? Also, what about the hazard of the many wild haggi? :p

Some years ago when I was researching the role of John Proctor in The Crucible, I learned that the dialect of the pilgrims (which would have been similar to one spoken in England at the time) would most closely match a modern "Northumbrian dialect, spoken through clenched teeth". I've no idea how accurate that info was, nor can I remember the source. Also, the play is set in the late 17th century, so may not be applicable to the OP. However, this plus KageTora's observations about the GVS suggest that North-East England may be a good bet.

On the other hand, I've heard it said a few times that the accent of Massachussets, particularly Martha's Vineyard, is the least changed in the past centuries. I don't know if give that much credence though - in my experience it is not uncommon for the upper-class, old-money types to insist that their version of the English Language is the 'correct' one and that everyone is speaking a corrupted variant.

All that said, I'm ignoring Andy's very good point - that presumably there would have been significant variation in dialects back then too, so yes, the location of our time-traveller's upbringing would also be relevant. AJCham 00:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

---

The "Appalachian preservation of Elizabethan English" thing is pretty much a pure myth (language change doesn't work that way). During much of the 16th century, many of the vowels must have been very different from those of almost any modern dialect. Even if any one modern dialect were any "closer" (however that would be defined) to 16th-century English than other dialects, that wouldn't make it more "authentic" in any valid linguistic sense... AnonMoos (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I think we all went with the second part of the question, about where our visitor would feel most comfortable, because we all know that calling any regional dialect more 'authentic' than any other is just nonsense. Even our visitor's English would be no more 'authentic' than any of ours, because English didn't magically appear in the 16th Century and had been around (and called English) for at least a thousand years before that. Our time traveller would have a hard time talking to a saxon warrior straight off one of Hengest and Horsa's boats. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's a partial answer to the question. In the United States, the most conservative accent is found in northern Iowa. What this means is that, among Americans, their vowels are the closest to what are hypothesized to have been those of the English settlers in 15th- and 16th-century America. (There isn't a lot of variation in consonants throughout the English-speaking world, so only vowels really matter.)

This doesn't fully answer the question, obviously, because it says nothing about dialects outside the U.S., and also likely because the dialects of those settlers were not representative of England as a whole at that time, which had many different dialects.

My source is here: [3] 96.46.200.119 (talk) 10:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not aware of any English-speaking settlers arriving in the 15th Century. Jamestown, the first permanent English settlement, wasn't set up until the beginninng of the 17th Century (1607). KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

As Shakespeare was born in Stratford-on-Avon, England in the 16th century, it would be reasonable to assume that the modern West Midlands accent would be close to what he spoke. At least that's what I was told when I grew up in the Black Country and studied Shakespeare. Certainly some of the words used (especially by the minor characters such as Bardolph or Falstaff) were familiar to me as a native Black Country dialect speaker. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that there's more regional pride than linguistic evidence behind these claims. Certainly when Charles Dickens tries to phonetically reproduce 19th century working class accents, it doesn't sound like anything recognisable today. Alansplodge (talk) 12:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

That may be, but most linguists agree that Northern English has always been the most conservative of all the dialects, as it preserves the vowel sounds to a greater degree, and still uses thou/thee/thy, along with numerous other features. A lot of dialect words from Yorkshire can be traced back to Old English (i.e. these words disappeared from other dialects (and hence what became standard English) in the Old English period). --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

That's Stratford-upon-Avon, Tammy. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the claims on here need tagging with Citation needed. This would be deleted on sight if it were an article. - X201 (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

In the book The Sounds of Language: An Introduction to Phonetics by Henry Rogers, there's a short transcription of a few lines from the play Julius Caesar, transcribed as Shakespeare himself would probably have pronounced it (pp. 106):
'frɛnz 'roːmənz 'kʌntrɪmən
'lɛnd mi juɹ 'iːɹz.
ʌj 'kʌm tə 'berɪ 'seːzəɹ
'nɒt tʊ 'preːz ɪm.
ðɪ iːvɪl ðət 'mɛn 'duː
'lɪvz 'æːftəɹ ðəm
ðə 'gʊd ɪz 'ɔːft ɪn'təːrɪd
wɪð ðəɹ 'boːnz
'soː let ɪt 'biː wɪθ 'seːzəɹ
ðə 'noːbl̩ 'bruːtəs
əθ 'toːld ju
'seːzəɹ wəz æm'bɪʃɪəs
ɪf ɪt 'wɛːɹ 'soː
ɪt wɔz ə 'griːvəs 'fɔːlt
ən 'griːvəslɪ
əθ 'seːzəɹ 'ænsəɹd ɪt. --Terfili (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like that would be easier to say after a few pints of cider :-) KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, or if you talk like a pirate, shiver me timbers! AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Scholars like Ben Crystal, David Crystal, and Paul Meier have already worked out the probable pronunciation of English in Shakespeare's time, base on rhymes, mispellings and historical relics in modern dialects. How close it is is anyone's guess, but it's highly likely that it's closer to the original than any modern acccent. There have even been stagings of Shakespeare plays with this "original pronunciation". Just type in >shakespeare original pronunciation< into YouTube to hear the results. There are also recreations of what Chaucer's Middle English and Beowulf's Old English sounded like, too. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Whenever I hear the reconstructed London pronunciation from that era, I am reminded of certain accents today in rural Ireland (central Ireland, certainly not the North). This isn't so surprising, considering that English came to that part of Ireland for the first time in the Elizabethan era. Marco polo (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... English arrived Kenya in the 19th century; it doesn't mean that Kenyans speak like 19th century Englishmen does it? Alansplodge (talk) 18:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Australians speak somewhat like 19th-century lower-class Englishmen (to a certain degree)... AnonMoos (talk) 08:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been to Kenya, but I have been to Tanzania, and they do use some very oddly 19th century expressions. For example, an observation will often be introduced, "I say, ....", for example, "I say, that's a fine-looking chicken, isn't it?" The accent there is heavily conditioned by Swahili and other indigenous languages, so I don't think it sounds much like 19th-century speech in England. Likewise, the Irish accent is no doubt colored by the Irish language. Still, it reminds me of reconstructed Elizabethan. Marco polo (talk) 18:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I have just listened to "KU Theatre - Students perform Shakespeare in original and the pronunciation sounds somewhere between a Northumbrian and a Yorkshire accent. I have heard "Yorkshire Dialect" versions of Shakespeare from the Northern Broadsides and its amazing how the language suddenly sounds natural; thee, thy, and nowt (nought) are still in current usage in Yorkshire. -- Q Chris (talk) 19:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

English accents aren't my strong point, but I didn't think that Yorkshire or Northumberland had rhotic accents these days. Of course, Elizabethan English was rhotic, like Irish and American. Marco polo (talk) 18:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

There are some rhotic accents in Northumbria, the maps in the Rhotic and non-rhotic accents article indicates that its gone but I have heard it recently in farmers I have met while walking in the Cheviots. I expect that it has gone from the larger towns and cities though. A lot of web sources say that there are rhotic accents in parts of yorkshire, but I have only heard this from members of the Asian community and I don't think that is what the websites are talking about! -- Q Chris (talk) 10:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

That's actually what the article on pronunciation of Yorkshire dialect says - apparently it's more common on the border with Lancashire. I find that odd, because Lancashire dialects are generally non-rhotic. They must be just isolated cases. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

English names for forms of baby motion

My niece recently learned to move on her own. She lies on her stomach and pulls herself along with her arms. Because I am interested in seeing how she develops, I want to know the specific English names for the ways babies move. Finnish has fi:ryömiminen for a form of motion where one lies fully flat on the stomach and uses the whole of the arms and legs to move, and fi:konttaaminen for a form of motion where one rests oneself on the hands and knees, with the upper part of the legs off the floor. I don't know what they are called in English, or even if English makes a distinction between the two. What are they called in English? JIP | Talk 19:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Planking?  ;) The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

English uses 'crawl' for both. If you want to make a distinction, the first would be 'crawl on one's stomach' (or replace 'stomach' with 'tummy', as it's a baby - 'tummy crawl') and the other 'crawl on all fours' (or 'crawl on hands and knees'). --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The first can be known as prone crawling or belly-crawling. Personally I only previously knew of the term "prone crawl" in a military context (okay, virtual-military context - video games, paintball etc.). However, it seems the phrase does also apply to babies, as demonstrated here. This paediatric paper uses the terms "belly-crawling", and refers to the second form as "hands-and-knees crawling". AJCham 00:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Army crawl, perhaps, for the first, although you're really not flat on your stomach. Lexicografía (talk) 01:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

A term used by cavers for wriggling forward on your belly when there isn't room to use your arms and legs effectively is "thrutch". A quick Google shows that it's also a term used by climbers with a rather similar meaning; Wiktionary says: "(caving, climbing (sport)) To push, press, or squeeze into a place; move sideways or vertically in an upright position by wriggling the body against opposing rock surfaces." Apparently from the Old English þryccan "to press". Alansplodge (talk) 12:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

"Thrutch" is "to squeeze", as into a tight spot. So I don't think it would work for a belly-crawl. Actually, I'm not sure "crawl" works for a belly-crawl: you'd need to spell it out. English doesn't seem to have a word for this. But I think I'd just say "pulls herself along with her arms". — kwami (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

September 19

Cascella

How to pronounce the surname of the late artist, Pietro Cascella? -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

In Italian, it would be /kaʃe'lla/ /kaʃɛ'lla/. Hope this helps. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Except with the stress symbol on the second syllable: /kaˈʃɛlla/. Lesgles (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Dang! I always put that stress mark in the wrong place..... --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

And /ʃ/ is always geminate between vowels in Italian, so /kaʃˈʃɛlla/. (Not that that will make a difference when transliterating his name into Hebrew.) Angr (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it might at that! If the [s] closes the first syllable and the [ʃ] opens the second, the proper rendering in Hebrew would indicate the first with the letter samekh and the second with shin. I intend to consult over on the Hebrew wikipedia Language Ref Desk and report findings back here for you interested folks. -- Deborahjay (talk) 05:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

There's no [s] in it. It's just one long [ʃ]. Angr (talk) 07:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Just a bit of fun while we wait, but I've come up with this:
כאַשֶּלָּ
Probably too many dagheshes, though..... :) --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, not enough. There would have to be a dagesh lene in the kaph at the beginning of the word. But in fact, qoph is usually used for /k/ in foreign words, and there needs to be a silent letter like a heh or an aleph at the end so that even in unpointed text the reader knows the word ends in a vowel (so that we can distinguish Cascella from Cashel). I'd go with Template:Hebrew. Angr (talk) 12:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Aye, it was after I posted that I realized there should have been another daghesh in the kaph. I had thought about using qoph, but decided against it - thinking about Arabic qaf. I was also thinking of putting an aleph at the end, but definitely not a heh. Anyway, I was close, I guess (looking at it now, I have no idea why I put an aleph as second letter). I'd go with yours, though, Angr. Let's see what Deborahjay has to say about it. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

currently pursuing her PhD (etc.) at/ from a certain university?

from/at a certain university? Which preposition is the more natural one?--117.253.190.252 (talk) 13:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd go with "at". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes definitely 'at'. 'From' seems to imply the doctorate sprouting legs, and making a dash for freedom... :D AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

You "have a degree from X" (if you've finished your course) but "study at Y" (otherwise). --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a niche situation where you might say "from", if you are taking a degree accredited by a university but studying at a different institution. I know someone who is studying for a degree from Leeds Metropolitan University at Bradford College. -- Q Chris (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

By the by, and vis-a-vis an earlier thread, one pursues an academic qualification but not to the point of persecuting it.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Oojimy?

I have played through the text adventure game Jinxter, and have learned the spells used with the five charms, which seem to be common English placeholder names. However, one of them seems to be unusual: oojimy. Is this word really used in English? At least a Google search for oojimy yielded only results about Jinxter, whereas a search for any of the other four spells also yielded results not relating to the game. JIP | Talk 19:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Oojimyflip, Oojimicallit... are like "Whatjamacallit", "Thingummybob", "Wotsit". Itsmejudith (talk) 19:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Yup - see Oojamaflip [4] AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

What language would be practical?

If i intended to take a trip to visit places including Antioch and Damascus, what language or languages would practically help most? I wouldn't want to be 'trapped' in English, but the only other languages I speak are French and German. It's difficult to tell from our articles on the regions what language would let you practically get by. For example, the official language of Syria is Arabic, but I gather very few people speak 'pure' Koranic Arabic, and you really need the local variant to communicate? If one learnt Syrian Arabic, for example, could one be understood in Turkey? And would ordinary people one is likely to meet speak it? Learning a language is a big investment of time for me, for all that I'd love to speak more of them, so I'd like to get an idea of how feasible this is.

For the purposes of the question, assume I'm just poking around Antakya and Damascus, plus I guess the route between them. What language would I need, practically speaking, and would it be enough to effectively communicate with most people I meet? 86.164.76.231 (talk) 21:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a good question, what language do people speak in the Hatay region? I imagine many would speak Turkish of course, but it only joined Turkey in the 30's. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 21:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Syria#Demographics includes a link to Syrian Arabic. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Depending on your purpose for learning, and how much time you intend to spend conversing with the locals, you may find that Egyptian Arabic will be sufficient for your needs. It is the most widely spoken colloquial dialect, and the one used on TV (except for news, of course), and music, etc., and also the one for which it is easier to find learning materials. If you learn Egyptian Arabic, you will have no trouble communicating in Damascus, or anywhere else in the Arab world. Antioch will be a different matter. I guess if you don't want to use English there, you will only be able to use Turkish, but with it being so close to the border, Arabic may prove useful. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Standard Arabic or colloquial Egyptian Arabic in Syria, and Turkish in Turkey. Arabic and Turkish are completely unrelated, though you will undoubtedly find Arabic speakers in a border town like Antioch. It would be impractical to learn the local Arabic dialect unless you plan on living there for a long time and really need to communicate directly with uneducated locals. With English, German and French, though, you'll have little trouble finding someone to communicate through. Even with English alone. I can't imagine what you have in mind when you say "trapped". English gives you quite a bit of freedom. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Turkey has been pretty successful in wiping away traces of Arabic from Hatay over the decades it has controlled the territory. Having visited the place, I can tell you Turkish is the everyday language there. But since it's also a touristic area, there are lots of persons, particularly in tourism-oriented businesses, who speak English or German - French less so. In Damascus, which I've also visited (not that you would want to go there now), the local dialect is very close to Modern Standard Arabic, i.e. the language spoken by newscasters and understood by every Arab with a primary school education. The Egyptian dialect is quite a bit different. French, English and German are spoken by some, but not nearly as many as in Antakya, given Syria has been a much more closed society than Turkey in the past 50+ years. --Xuxl (talk) 08:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Lots of German spoken in Turkey, so Arabic would probably be a better return. But Turkish is such a fun language! — kwami (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Syria used to be administered by France, and I once had a conversation with a Syrian woman in French because it was the only language we had in common. But I don't know how far French will really get you in Damascus. Probably farther than German at any rate. Angr (talk) 06:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Is kennen lernen treated as if it were one word?

See topic. It seems that way to me, because when I wrote something like "Habt ihr euch gelernt kennen", it was incorrect, and kennen gelernt was correct. the only way that could be is if this (err... phrase?) is treated as if it were one word. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 22:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I use the word expression as an umbrella term for words, phrases, and other types of expression.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the actual question I had. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 22:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

You will find kennenlernen listed as a verb in German dictionaries. It behaves like other separable verbs. In this case, kennen is the separable prefix. Separable verbs form past participles, such as kennengelernt (all one word) by compounding the prefix with the past participle of the main verb. Marco polo (talk) 22:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Whoa whoa, seriously? O_O Es ist ein trennbares verb?! That thought hadn't crossed my mind. I'm used to things like um, aus, an, etc being separable prefixes. Any other unusal trennbares Verbs? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 22:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, while this verb was once always spelled kennenlernen, since the reform it can also be spelled kennen lernen. You have free choice; the choice of spelling does not express any nuances. (The old spelling is the one recommended by Duden.)

This is not an unusual verb at all except it is one of a relatively small number for which the old spelling is still allowed. Some other verbs formed in the same way: schwimmen gehen, liegen lassen, sitzen bleiben. Whether it's spelled together or not does not matter for how you form past tenses, and never did, to my knowledge. You say: schwimmen gegangen, liegen gelassen, sitzen geblieben.

I don't know what pattern you were overgeneralising when you were saying "gelernt kennen", as I can't immediately think of any similar expressions that would be handled like that in German. Therefore it looks like a confusion between Imperfekt (simple past) and Perfekt (present perfect) to me. You actually do say lernte kennen, ging schwimmen, ließ liegen, blieb sitzen. Hans Adler 23:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, schwimmen gehen, but I don't know the others. I think we say setzen for taking a seat. I don't think we have learned das Imperfekt yet though. Probably later in the year. I was talking putting it as first verb then subject or w/e [third verb in English] [Second verb in English]. The way I figure is that the basic sequence of verbs at the end of the sentence are in the reverse order of what they would be in English. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 23:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

No, they are not reversed. They are only reversed in Imperfekt, but not in Perfekt. This may be one of the reasons why Perfekt is getting more and more popular in German, to the point that Imperfekt has basically died out in many southern dialects. Hans Adler 23:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

BTW, sich setzen and sitzen bleiben mean different things. Sich setzen is to take a seat, to move from a standing position to a sitting position; it's a dynamic verb referring to an action. Sitzen bleiben is to remain seated, to not get up from a sitting position; it's a stative verb referring to a state. Sitzen itself refers to the state of being seated too, but it doesn't have the "remain" meaning of sitzen bleiben. Angr (talk) 23:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

"Sitzen bleiben" can also mean... having to repeat a school year... Does English have a word/phrase for this "phenomenon"? If it does, I can't think of it right now. EDIT: I think it's "being left back" or something like that. A shoutout to Everybody Loves Raymond. ElMa-sa (talk) 08:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

What about the simple past? Would you really say Ich schwimmenging? I'm guessing no? --Trovatore (talk) 23:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC) Never mind; I didn't read your last sentence carefully. --Trovatore (talk) 23:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

September 20

Translation wanted over at the Science desk

See the thread "What is a chest node?", please. There is a short letter written in Japanese that could clarify an opera singer's medical condition, if translated.  Card Zero  (talk) 13:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Glossary of terms

The Wikipedia search intitle:Glossary terms currently gives 80 hits. intitle:Glossary -terms gives 158. Do we need all those names with "terms" at the end, and is there any system in when to include "terms"? Having one name saying Glossary of Hinduism terms and another Glossary of Islam appears arbitrary to me. English is my second language but "Glossary of ... terms" sounds a bit redundant when a glossary is generally of terms. Is it more formally correct or clear to include "terms"? WP:NAMINGCRITERIA says:

• Conciseness – Is the title concise or is it overly long?

Maybe the extra word isn't worth it even if it is more correct. Some of them would need modification of another word if "terms" was removed, for example Glossary of botanical terms to Glossary of botany. I know the requested move process but would like some general language input before considering whether to go further when so many articles are involved. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

'Glossary of Terms' is a set phrase. This Google Search gets over 13 million hits. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure, "glossary of terms" is widely used, but that doesn't mean it's good usage, or that it should be naively followed ;) I think there is value to consistency in naming conventions; it would be better if all glossary articles conformed to either choice, rather than have both forms. The OP has a pretty good point. Glossaries contain terms by definition. We could also consider the potential merit of including the extra/ superfluous word: is there any meaning change between "Glossary of Islam" and "Glossary of Islamic terms"? Would "Glossary of X terms" be more descriptive or communicative? SemanticMantis (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

True, and I do see the point. I am merely answering the OP's subquestion of whether it was formal to include the word 'terms'. It seems to be so. In any case, even though glossaries are restricted to only containing terms, I don't think the word 'terms' is redundant here. After all, gaggles exclusively contain geese, but we still say 'a gaggle of geese'. Anyway, if a vote was cast either way, I'd say go in favour of the current majority of cases (where the word 'terms' is not present). --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, on second thoughts, glossary can also mean a 'bilingual dictionary' (see). In this case, the verb 'to be' and things like that would never be considered 'terms', so the full phrasing 'glossary of terms' actually clarifies what type of glossary it is. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

September 21

Translating Ionesco

It's been over eleven years since I read Ionesco's La Leçon, and I've been wondering about this ever since. Has anyone translated La Leçon into English (or any other language, but for the sake of discussion I'll assume an English translation). If so, how did the translator handle the line in which the Student asks the Teacher, "Comment dit-on 'grand-mère' en français?" A literal translation would lose the absurdity. An obvious (and appropriately Ionescian) solution would be to translate it as "How do you say 'grandmother' in English?" but I'm not sure how this would square with the translator's responsibility to maintain the integrity of the author's words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.23.124.236 (talk) 04:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Translators make decisions like this all the time. Ever read poetry translated from a foreign language into English which still rhymes? The translator's job is to maintain the integrity of the original work while also working to present the reader in both langauges with the same experience, and that often requires idiomatic vs. literal translation, and all sorts of other choices that a translator makes. It is not an easy choice to make, and one which isn't unique to translating Ionesco. --Jayron32 04:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

You can find the translation by Donald M. Allen on Amazon (in the collection The Bald Soprano and other plays) and use the preview, a trick that often works when Google Books fails you. Allen translates as follows:

Pupil: Oh well, one would say, in French, I believe, the roses... of my... how do you say "grandmother" in French?
Professor: In French? Grandmother.

As it's understood that both are speaking French, the absurdity remains, though of course it's still not quite the same.--Rallette (talk) 07:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Etymology of patent leather

Where did patent leather get its "patent" name? I followed up the government invention patent idea, but the process seems to be very old and not originally patented. There are government invention patents on the process, but I don't think the term originated via invention patent. This website says patent leater came from: "After the Patten shoe which the young women wore in the buttery. When the cream spilled on their shoes, the fat would tend to make the leather shiny." Sounds good, but not sure whether it is true. Etymonline.com does not have an entry. -- Utmoatr (talk) 12:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The OED says:

The process of making patent leather was improved and commercially developed by Seth Boyden (1788–1870), U.S. inventor, but was not invented by him: see Sci. Amer. (1850) 3 Aug. 368/3.

Many of the other etymologies on that site seem pretty fanciful, frog in your throat probably wasn't about medieval doctors using frog medicine, the "chew the fat" etymology is rejected here so I wouldn't put much trust in their folk etymologies. meltBanana 12:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC) It is a large dose of conjecture but it seems likely that Boyden named his development "patent leather" to suggest a wholly new process and one that was protected by patents to warn others off from it. Lacquered leather was a considerably older and similar invention from China, while this article mentions Edmund Prior and someone called Mollersten as earlier developers in 1799 and 1805 respectively. meltBanana 13:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)