Is "he is referenced in school textbooks" good standard American English? It sounds poor to my Br. Eng. ears. I would say "referred to in school textbooks" or, better "mentioned in school textbooks". The meaning should be "mentioned", not "used as a source". This is for a biography of an American, so I want it to sound right in US English. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To me (also British) "Einstein is referenced in school textbooks" means that works he authored are used as references. "Einstein is referred to in school textbooks" means that the books mentioned Einstein". I think this is what Itsmejudith is saying too. Are we saying that the meaning is different in American English? -- Q Chris (talk) 10:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering whether it is good American English for the meaning "he is mentioned in school textbooks". I think we have some American copywriters around who would know. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times Manual of Style (1999 ed.) states "reference is business jargon when used as a verb. More natural substitutes include cite, mention, and refer to." Unfortunately, I don't seem to have access to a more recent style guide that discusses the word. My non-expert guess would be that in the 12 years since the NYT guide I quoted was published the use being questioned above has crept into common enough use that it's more or less acceptable. As someone with what I would consider a fairly strong grasp of American English, I have to say the word as used above strikes me as not really right and not the best choice, but only because it was pointed out to me. If I encountered it in a piece of writing or everyday speech, it probably wouldn't set off any alarms. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, so "mentioned" is slightly better but it isn't a big deal. Will leave it till the article is proofread, then. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also an American English speaker, and I would interpret it exactly the same way as Q Chris. "He is referenced in school textbooks" means his works are listed as references; it's not the same as "He is referred to in school textbooks". —Angr (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed (by another US English speaker). StuRat (talk) 09:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would see it as depending upon context. Using "referenced in" as a substitute for "referred to in" might be to avoid that "dangling to". "Mentioned in" or "discussed in" would seem to be clearer alternatives. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know about good American English, but it's very common in Wikipaedia English. That's not a good reason to use it! 90.214.166.169 (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to find the official German and Italian translations of the name of the Hellenic State. As far as I know, these names should exist, considering that it was a puppet government of both Germany and Italy.
I'd like also to know the official Japanese transcription (if it actually existed) of the various names of its former puppet states: in the Mengjiang article, only the Chinese romanization of 蒙疆聯合自治政府 is given (Měngjiāng Liánhé Zìzhì Zhèngfǔ). In the Reorganized National Government of China article, 中華民國, along with a lot of other alternative names, is romanized only as Zhōnghuá Mínguó.
Just another question: what's the (official) German translation of Mengjiang United Autonomous Government? Thanks --151.41.226.47 (talk) 11:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mengjiang is 蒙古聯合自治政府 in ja and the Hepburn romanization is Mōko rengō jichi-seifu. Reorganized National Government of China is 汪兆銘政権/Ōchōmei seiken or 南京国民政府/Nankin kokumin-seifu or 中華民国南京国民政府/Chūkaminkoku Nankin kokumin-seifu. Oda Mari (talk) 14:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After searching in vain for possible German and Italian translations of "Greek State" or "Hellenic State", I'm wondering if that was ever truly an official name for anything. Even in English there aren't really any references for "Hellenic State" referring to the Axis government. Is this one of those things that was just made up for Wikipedia? Adam Bishop (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The WP article seems to suggest the official name in Greek was Ελληνική Πολιτεία. As a puppet government it probably didn't have an official name in German, so would just be translated somehow, like how the WP article says it can be translated as either Hellenic State or Greek State into English. Not being able to see the references really doesn't help, it might well be an invented term. - filelakeshoe 16:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The name Ελληνική Πολιτεία was used in official documents in the occupation period; see here for example. The name "Griechischer Staat" may not have been commonly used as a long form at the time in German. The Gothaisches Jahrbuch für Diplomatie, Verwaltung und Wirtschaft (1943) often shows long-form names for the countries it lists, but Greece is called "Griechenland (Helliniki Politia)." In the article it refers to the "Umwandlung des Königreichs in einen 'Griechischen Staat' (Helliniki Politia) 7. Mai 1941" (conversion of the kingdom into a "Greek State" on May 7, 1941). Note the quotes around the name.--Cam (talk) 03:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the third time that "Louie496" has deleted one of my posts. Please stop!92.15.1.9 (talk) 14:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there another word I can use instead of "reflection" in the sense of thinking about one's actions with a view to improving them next time? An essential part of professionalism, but the word is easily misunderstood to refer to mirrors etc. 15:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.245.12 (talk)

Can't think of one off the top of my head, but if you say "self-reflection" then that rules the mirror ambiguity out. - filelakeshoe 15:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Self-critique" would be clearer; other options are "self-assessment" or "self-appraisal". Or if you want to be clever you could call it a post-mortem. Looie496 (talk) 16:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or "self-correction" or "self-improvement" ? StuRat (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gibbs Reflective Cycle is a pretty standard model for reflective practice in nursing and teaching. (Why don't we have an article on this? I know - write it yourself! How much of the linked article can I get away with nicking?)--TammyMoet (talk) 18:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Introspection? Contemplation? Meditation? Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 13:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was taught in school that the Spanish word for hair is pelo. But I was reading the instructions on my shampoo bottle today, and the English instructions were translated into French and Spanish, and in Spanish, they used the word cabello for hair. What is the difference between pelo and cabello? 216.93.212.245 (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Spanish I'm not sure, but if it's the same as in Italian, then cabello (Italian capello) is a hair on your head, whereas pelo (same word in Italian) is a hair on your body, or on an animal. --Trovatore (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The correct, accurate Spanish word for hair on your head is cabello, but colloquially you almost always say pelo, which means hair in general. --Belchman (talk) 21:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, hence peluquería, a hairdressing salon, peluca, a wig and peludo, hairy, There are few words in Spanish relating to hair that derive from cabello. Richard Avery (talk) 07:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting — I'll file that under "things to watch out for when thinking in Italian and trying to speak Spanish". In Italian, pelo seems to carry a sense of something that's just slightly disgusting, something that clogs up a drain or gets stuck on a bar of soap. Peloso means "hairy", not "long-haired", as in you might want to shave your back (OK, I'm not too sure about this one, but that would be my unreliable intuition). A long-hair is a capellone. Take all of this with a grain of salt — I haven't been to Italy for quite a while. --Trovatore (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I lived in Spain for two years some time ago, so my Spanish may be getting a little rusty, but my understanding is that the word "cabello" more closely means "head of hair" or "hair-do," rather than literally "hair." Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 11:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Count Iblis (talk) 19:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The spelling shows the influence of (Old) French table. In the absence of such influence, we'd probably spell the word tabule (since it's origin is Latin tabula) rather than tabel. Deor (talk) 19:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it would result in a change of pronunciation. The word "bell", for example, has a short 'e' sound. The word "table" is pronounced with a sound more like a short 'u'. If we were to have spelled it "tabel", the "bel" in it would be pronounced like "bell" not "bull". Aacehm (talk) 19:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They all rhyme in my (Detroit) dialect (except the first syllable in "Babel"). StuRat (talk) 20:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so, 'table' does not rhyme with the female name 'Mabel', or some people's pronunciaton of 'Babel'? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, English spelling and pronunciation really don't correspond so simply. The English pronunciation of "table" has already changed a fair amount since we took it from French, where it's pronounced /tabl/ (as one syllable). - filelakeshoe 19:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't try to find consistancy in English orthography, like ever. You can find reasons why a word is pronounced, but then to claim that this is some how incredulous or wrong or shouldn't be the way that it is simply doesn't work, if you did that, most of the English language would have to change the way it is spelled. Consider tomb/bomb/comb and your head will explode if you care too much. It is what it is, and you can't argue with it. Just accept it as it is. --Jayron32 20:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron, people are incredulous, things are incredible. People can sometimes be incredible, but no thing can ever be incredulous. Oh, and I still admire the consistency with which you spell 'consistency' as "consistancy".  :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]

I've never claimed to be smart, or right, about anything. In fact, I'm pretty well convinced that everything I do is wrong. --Jayron32 05:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Jack, he was neither consistent nor consistant in his spelling of 'consistency' as 'consistancy', as he only wrote it once. :) --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notice I wrote "I still admire the consistency with which you spell 'consistency' ...", not "spelt". I was referring to Jayron's general tendency, not just on this thread. Consistency is a wholly admirable quality. I would much prefer to see a word always mispelled the same way, than sometimes right and sometimes wrong. I've made this kind of point in probably hundreds of edit summaries in article space over the years. I, too, believe in consistency.  :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Those who use "spelt" are going against the grain. StuRat (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read this and you'll never need to ask a question like this again :) - filelakeshoe 21:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the wording on that page is very similar to some of the wording in my copy of the book Crazy English.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

English makes perfect sense if you realize it was never coherently organized. By that I mean no one ever sat down and wrote the rules in a uniform way. Some words from this language, some words from that language. Common exceptions to rules come from rules in other languages (normally two vowels together the first is the one pronounced... except "ei" and "ie" in words of German origin, for instance), common usage changes pronunciation, stressing of vowels changes (the two acceptable pronunciations of "economics" for instance). If you know where a word comes from it can help (tomb and bomb are both from french and originally had a silent 'E' at the end), but even that's not sure-fire. HominidMachinae (talk) 08:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Ghoti, (pronounced fish) is always helpful when seeking logic in the English language. HiLo48 (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In The Matrix Revolutions, we see the character of Agent Smith appear again, who throughout the trilogy has a very distinctive way of speaking. But what's interesting and amusing is how well Bane, who is supposed to be infected with Smith's mind via the Matrix, manages to copy this same distinct pattern of speaking. What's amusing is that the ability to talk in just this manner is clearly infectious; just as the seed of vampirism has spread throughout "Vampire Goths", it is plausible that someday a whole high school subculture will have millions of children infected with this Agent Smithspeak. But I'm not very observant linguistically and it's hard for me to tell - does the uniqueness of Smith/Bane's speech depend on what they say or how they say it? How hard is it to copy this speech pattern convincingly? Wnt (talk) 03:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's more a question of prosody, rather than the actual words they say. As for the question "how hard is this to copy?": the answer will vary heavily from person to person. Gabbe (talk) 07:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the way he speaks was partly a result of Hugo Weaving attempting to speak with an American accent. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Weaving lived in Nigeria, then England, Australia, South Africa, England again, and Australia again. Add to that an attempt to speak with an American accent, and it's no wonder what comes out is a little mongrelised. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Bane, played by Ian Bliss, takes on this manner of speaking after being infected with the Smith program. It is crucial to the scene that the average viewer recognizes that he is recognizably speaking in the same way. Part of it is that he has a way of asking questions about himself, but I don't think that is all. Wnt (talk) 13:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The thing I most distinctly remember about Agent Smith's way of talking is his peculiar rhythm, the tiny little...pauses and the way he always gives a bit of extra...stress to the first syllable...following the pause (often accompanied by a small...raise in pitch). Watching the Bane scene on youtube, I was surprised to see Ian Bliss doesn't do that very much at all...I haven't watched Matrix Revolutions so it's possible the effect is more noticeable in the context of the movie, but just form that scene, I think he did a rather poor job of sounding like Smith -- Ferkelparade π 16:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Queen Elizabeth II's visit to the Republic of Ireland contains the following section (emphasis added):

"Media coverage

The visit was covered extensively by Raidió Teilifís Éireann (RTÉ) and TV3. RTÉ and TV3 extended their normal programming. RTÉ broadcast events on television, radio and internet. The Queen and Us, by Tommie Gorman, was broadcast on the night of 17 May at the end of the first day of the visit.[21]

The visit was marked with several documentaries, including: " (three programs are listed)

I'm seeking opinion here. In this context, does "marked with" carry a positive or negative connotation, or it is simply a concise and neutral way of saying that the three programs were shown at the time of the visit because of their relevance?

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my reading "marked" doesn't have a particular positive or negative implication, but it does have a subtle meaning. Firstly, it implies that the showing of the problems now wasn't coincidence; also that the either the programmes were commissioned to be shown now, or else some effort went in to showing them now. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems neutral to me (I would have said "marked by", though, not "marked with"). You might be confusing it with "marred", which is definitely negative, as in "the protest was marred by several outbreaks of violence". StuRat (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To me, "marked by" and "marked with" are slightly different, although it's hard to think exactly what the difference is. I think "marked by" would be more general, like things that merely happened while the Queen was there, whereas "marked with" makes it sound like a very exact event, like the marking of an anniversary with a festival or whatever. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that both "with" and "by" are both neutral terms. The distinction might be clearer if we make the sentence slightly more prolix - "The television companies marked the visit with several documentaries", as against "The television companies marked the visit by producing several documentaries". The first sentence answers the question "What did the television companies mark the visit with?", while the second answeres the question "How did the television companies respond to the visit?". So, "with" carries a (fairly well hidden) assumption that the television companies were going to do _something_ to mark the occasion, while "by" leaves open the possibility that they might not have done anything at all. Tevildo (talk) 22:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there's also an active voice/passive voice distinction. To my ear it's "The television companies marked the visit with several documentaries," but "The visit was marked by several documentaries." In the first it's the television companies that are doing the marking (and they use the documentaries to do so), but in the second the documentaries are the ones doing the marking. I don't like the "The visit was marked with several documentaries," as that associates the documentaries into part of the essential character of the visit itself, as opposed to being the work of a separate agent applied externally to the visit. Although, if the documentaries were planned by the Queen's staff and seen as part of the associated festivities, I would see the case for the passive+with (e.g. "The visit was marked with several press photo opportunities.") -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 02:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Could somebody please let me know how the name "Joana" would be written in Arabic? Thank you. 95.136.3.2 (talk) 08:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it's different to "Joana", but "Joanna" gives both يُوَنّا Yuwannā and يونّا Yuwannā (the latter is described as used in Arabic translations of the Bible). AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that those are exactly the same, except the first one has short vowel markings. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a transcription of "Joanna" from English into Arabic, جوانا juwānā might be best; this singer's Arabic Wikipedia page uses that name. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^{spik ʌp!} 22:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if the subject line gives the wrong impression of my question, which is: would formal written (British) English require an apostrophe after "structures" in the following sentence? Please don't offer recasts of the sentence! And don't worry about other changes of style/tone/register. It's just the question of the apostrope that interests me.

"I do not want to start saving too much to the shared hard drive pending the file structures we need being set up on our behalf."

Thanks. 164.36.38.240 (talk) 14:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing no posession associated with the word "structures", I would say no apostrophe is needed. --Thomprod (talk) 14:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Not unless the word "structures" is meant to be understood posessively. In this case, it clearly isn't. If we need file structures, then the inversion of that phrase ("the file structures we need") as no possiveness implied for the word "structures". In this case, the phrase "the file structures we need" has a missing, but implied, word "that", which is frequently left out of English in most non-formal settings. The phrase means "the file structures that we need" or maybe "the file structures which we need" but the connecting term is left out. --Jayron32 15:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be grammatically correct, although rather sloppy, to say "the file structures' being set up", with "being" acting as a noun (a gerund) rather than an adverbial participle. But if you separate that with a relative clause it looks extremely sloppy. - filelakeshoe 15:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't even think that is correct. In this case "being set up" appears to be an adjectival phrase to modify "structures" (it is adjectival phrase of the second type mentioned in the article Adjectival phrase). It answers the question "Which file structures?" Answer: "The ones being set up". It serves the same purpose as though we had said "Which file structures" Answer: "The red ones". Structures would only be possessive if "being set up" were meant to be understood as a noun phrase; i.e. it meant "the state of being set up", and such understanding is tortured at best; I can't see anyone understanding the sentence to take that meaning, and if it should, then a different phrasing should be used instead of the current one. --Jayron32 15:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting answers already. Thanks! I must say that I was thinking along the same lines as Filelakeshoe in terms of "being" acting as a gerund. The test I normally apply is whether a "normal" noun would take a possessive - "I do not want to start saving too much to the shared drive pending my dog’s emergency operation" - but I wasn't satisfied with the comparison and couldn't quite get to the bottom of the question. I'm not completely convinced by the fact "being set up" is an adjectival phrase. But I am convinced using an apostrophe would be very contrived, to say the least.164.36.38.240 (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's awkward and contrived both with and without an apostrophe. Why not just say "...until the file structures we need have been set up on our behalf"? Finite verbs are good; you don't have to turn everything into a noun. —Angr (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question for someone who knows how to search (with Google, for instance). Latin@ is currently a redirect to Hispanic and Latino Americans, but I wish to either add a section to that article or write a separate, short article on the use of the at-sign in "latin@". If you're not familiar with this, it's to avoid the grammatical gender inherent in Spanish--it's both "latino" and "latina," because of the typography of the symbol. It's brilliant!

The problem is I can't search for it: look what happens in Google. Now I am convinced that scholars have already used this term (I've seen it in print), and I am pretty sure some of them will have written on it--but how do I find results specifically for "latin@" when that makes Google search, apparently, for "latin"? Thanks! Drmies (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may be better off asking this at the computing desk. I am not absolutely certain, but I suspect that it can't be done with Google. In my experience Google generally ignores all special characters, and this is also stated at http://www.google.com/support/websearch/bin/answer.py?answer=134479 86.179.118.185 (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, well, hard on the heels of my reply above, I just found that searching for "latin@s" (with quotes) does seem to recognise the @. So, seems I don't really know what I'm talking about... 86.179.118.185 (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article "At sign".—Wavelength (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hy there. I'm hereby asking for some help and insight in a German-to-English translation.

The original sentence in German seems to be the following:

Gewalt mit krassem Terrorismus und selbst mit Grausamkeit auszuüben, war und ist meine Politik. Ich vernichte die aufständischen Stämme in Strömen von Blut und Strömen von Geld. Nur auf dieser Aussaat kann etwas Neues entstehen, was Bestand hat.

My translation would be:

To exercise violence with crass terrorism and even with gruesomeness was and is my policy. I destroy the rebellious tribes with streams of blood and streams of money. Only of this seed may something new emerge, which will remain.

However the given English translation is:

The exercise of violence with crass terrorism and even with gruesomeness was and is my policy. I destroy the African tribes with streams of blood and streams of money. Only following this cleansing can something new emerge, which will remain.

First of all I know that translations are inherently a tricky business. To translate the figurative meaning of a sentence is IMHO more important than a word for word translation. However the given translation is IMHO weird: the German original doesn't speak of 'African tribes' at all but of 'rebellious tribes' and 'Ausaat' IMHO doesn't mean 'cleansing' but rather 'seed'. However not being a native English-speaker I'm unsure if the sentence: "Only of this seed may something new emerge, which will remain." makes any sense and if it carries the same weight. I need to know if my translation is indeed better than the given one and if not, why so? Much obliged. Flamarande (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There may be something to do with the fact that "rebellious tribes" doesn't quite imply "tribes of rebels", which I guess is what's intended. It depends on when this was published, but nowadays if I heard "rebellious tribes" it would make me think less of the Rwandan Genocide and more of a large, rebellious group of people such as protesters or rioters. The "seed" bit sounds very poetic in English, it might not so much in German, not sure... - filelakeshoe 21:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And if I translate it into "rebel tribes"? Would it be better? Flamarande (talk) 01:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aussaat in the original is a metaphor, so it would probably be best to use a similar metaphor in English, while being careful not to mix it with another one. Maybe some variation of the idiom of "reaping what one sows", e.g. "only by sowing in this way can we reap something permanent". —Angr (talk) 23:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is from Lothar von Trotha and the tribes in question were Namibian. This would perhaps explain why the (rather weak) translation glosses them as "African" rather than simply translating the word aufständisch. Both translations rely too much on false similarities between German and English words that share an origin but have diverged in meaning. Mit krassem Terrorismus might better be rendered as "With out-and-out terrorism" or "with the stark application of terror"; Grausamkeit is simply "cruelty". Aussaat is an act of sowing as well as seed (as a collective noun). The implication seems to be that the streams of blood and money function as a scattering of seed. I'd render the whole thing as:

The exercise of force with the stark application of terror and even cruelty was and is my policy. I exterminate the rebellious tribes with torrents of blood and torrents of money. Only from this scattering of seed can something new emerge, which will endure. Valiantis (talk) 02:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like your translation even better. But why not use 'rebel tribes'? Flamarande (talk) 03:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment: I would translate vernichte as "annihilate", rather than "destroy". Zerstöre corresponds to "destroy", vernichte is much more emphatic. But "exterminate" is not quite it, either, in my view; that's more like rottete aus in German. Gabbe (talk) 08:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW We have an article about the event - Herero and Namaqua Genocide Roger (talk) 12:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's the whole problem: the article uses the given translation which IMHO is of poor quality. Flamarande (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that a better translation would/could be: The exercise of force with the stark application of terror and even cruelty was and is my policy. I annihilate the rebel tribes with torrents of blood and torrents of money. Only from this scattering of seed can something new emerge, which will endure. Flamarande (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have an intelligent lady friend who is exchanging a lot of email with me because we can't be together for a while. I'd like to flatter her in perhaps ridiculously, obviously, overblown ways - preferably using achaic, obscure, difficult words that'll send her scurrying for a dictionary. I've been doing reasonably well for a few days - but I'm running short of good words. I just know you smarty-pants here can come up with some good ones in the name of silly romanticism. Oh - and if there are some doozies in French or Italian, that would also work. TIA! 70.112.128.105 (talk) 00:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want archaic and obscure, try reading some of Shakespeare's sonnets (it's been awhile, but he was good at that sort of thing). Be VERY careful, he loved double entendres, and (if I recall correctly) can be fairly explicit sometimes. As for specific words, none are coming to mind, but my brain doesn't always work too well that way. I suspect you could also find some stuff in some of his plays, such as Romeo and Juliet for example. Many, if not most of his plays involve some crazy romance in one way or another, which obviously are expressed in 16th-17th century words. Falconus^{p t c} 03:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Double entendres are OK...just so long as she'll have a mental work-out to find that to be the case. 70.112.128.105 (talk) 11:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And for French, Cyrano de Bergerac comes to mind. That being said, French is not my first language, and I have not found need to focus my efforts on building vocabulary around romance. I cannot tell you if Cyrano's words are "doozies" or not, but it's the best I got. Falconus^{p t c} 03:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you can be together in the future, she might impress you by "preparing" fine cuisine. Would you like to find out later that she had purchased the food from a luxurious restaurant?

—Wavelength (talk) 04:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell you've never eaten something she cooked...I choose option B!  :-) But seriously, a better analogy would be whether I'd prefer she first considered what food I like, then researched new culinary techniques to produce that goal - then shopped for the finest, freshest ingredients, then prepared the meal with loving care. That is how I write to her - and here I am looking for the precise ingredients for my letters to her. 70.112.128.105 (talk) 11:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be so judgemental. We're not here to pass judgement on why the OP is asking this, or why he shouldn't be. --Viennese Waltz 09:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, a luxurious restaurant as a metaphor for the Wikipedia Reference Desk? More of a greasy spoon, I'd say. Pfly (talk) 09:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Hardly fair - I'm making an effort to make my soul-mate happy (and this will do that - because she has that kind of a mind and that is why I love her). So I need to expand my vocabulary. Is that so terrible? Now the decision is justified - how do I proceed with this goal? I search for a virtual roomful of linguistic experts (Hi! <wave>) and beg them to teach me what I must urgently know to make her happy. This is the thing that will produce her girly laugh when she opens her email tomorrow - there can be no more important thing. If I wish to give her a perfect rose - should I have to grow it from seed? Will a quick trip to the flower store not be adequate expression of my feelings? (Well, perhaps not - but that's life!)

So get with it linguophiles! Her golden eyes are saddening as we speak! You would not want that if you had but glimpsed the depths of the whirlpools therein. This is a full-scale philological emergency dammit! 70.112.128.105 (talk) 11:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could always give her the traditional Yorkshire chat-up line: "Get thi coyt lass tha's pulled" and see if she understands that! --TammyMoet (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is boring! Not one good word? She likes to go walking - and Wiktionary turned up a good word for my sign-off line last night: "Goodnight fair ambulatrix.". But this is hard work! Need help. 70.112.128.105 (talk) 13:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your idea of using a thesaurus is a good one, but you need to make sure that your thesaurus is equally good. The Oxford Historical Thesaurus includes the following words (among others) as synonyms for a beautiful woman: wlonk, sheen, violet, beryl, blossom, bonny, spark, bellibone, bonnibel, nymph, venerilla, houri, belle dame, peri, pantheress. Some of these are obsolete, but that should fit your purpose.

Quotations and poetry are also good sources for this kind of overblown compliment. Phrases like "blushing bud of ever-blooming beauty" (W.S. Gilbert) and "my Luve's like a red, red rose That's newly sprung in June" (Burns) should be good. John M Baker (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the article Problem of evil I find this sentence:

Elihu states that God is perfectly just and good even though He allows evil in the world, because God does is not held to human standards of morality.

This sentence seemes to be flawed. Should the word "does" be removed? Or do you think there is a better formulation? -- Irene1949 (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine the original author started off with something like "God is not to be held to human standards", or "what God does is not to be held to human standards", and didn't like all the "to"'s. If it's not meant as a translation of a specific phrase, how about "God is not [to be?] bound by human standards"? Tevildo (talk) 15:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(I must say that I'm not finding it easy to extract that sentiment from Elihu's speech - he certainly doesn't say it explicitly. Perhaps Job 34:18-19 ("Is it fit to say to a king, Thou art wicked? and to princes, Ye are ungodly? How much less to him that accepteth not the persons of princes, nor regardeth the rich more than the poor? for they all are the work of his hands.") is the reference, but it's by no means unambiguous). Tevildo (talk) 15:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help regarding the formulation. I introduced it into the article.

I don't know whether it is correct to attribute the idea in question to Elihu. I assume that you are right when you doubt that. Maybe it would be good if you edit that. -- Irene1949 (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've bunged in a couple of {{Cn}}s - let's hope someone can come up with a source or (better still) an interpretation that's supported by the text. Tevildo (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the logic of the statement seems flawed, too. Perhaps it would make sense to say "you can't judge God to be evil and unjust", since those terms don't apply. But how can you argue that God is "perfectly just and good", because those terms aren't defined for God ? StuRat (talk) 06:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. This is getting a bit off-topic, but I would interpret Elihu as saying "God is (by definition) perfectly good and just, so any _percieved_ injustice in the world is due to our imperfect human understanding of God's purposes." But that would be WP:OR in the article. Is the disputed sentence referenced anywhere? Tevildo (talk) 13:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mandarin Chinese is probably the most analytic language. What is the most synthetic language, or, what are some of the most synthetic languages? I would prefer an Old World language, comprising IE, Semitic languages, etc, even if you have to take a dead language that's fine. Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 18:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't tell you which one exactly, but old American languages (Mesoamerican and Canadian) tend to be highly polysynthetic. Check out some of the ones listed here. - filelakeshoe 19:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many Old World languages like German, Afrikaans and Welsh all have examples of ridiculously long compound words, like Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft, Tweebuffelsmeteenskootmorsdoodgeskietfontein and Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch, but I suspect this is not what you mean by "most synthetic language". Gabbe (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the Welsh name (LlanfairPG) that you quote was made-up as a publicity stunt at the end of the 19th century - follow the link for details. Finnish might be a better example, with "lentokonesuihkuturbiinimoottoriapumekaanikkoaliupseerioppilas". Alansplodge (talk) 20:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. Apart from a few artificially created place names, Welsh is not especially given to unusually long words. —Angr (talk) 22:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want polysynthetic langauges in the Old World, a good place to start is some of the languages families of far-eastern Russia, such as Chukchi. Voikya (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in Australia. It's very common here, particularly in spoken English but often enough in written language, for people to use the word up when describing travel to a place north of them, and down for places south of them. Obviously this relates to standard northward orientation of most maps. For example, Brisbane is north of Melbourne, and it's quite normal for someone from Melbourne to say. "I went up to Brisbane." Down would be used to describe the reverse trip.

People in Sydney, a coastal city, who engage in snowsports, always a southward journey, commonly speak of going down to the snow. Not being from Sydney myself, and finding that I usually have to go up a mountain to find snow, I find this a rather odd expression.

What I'm interested in is whether this usage of up for north and down for south is common throughout the English speaking world, and even in other languages. HiLo48 (talk) 22:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is in the U.S. When I was a kid, we moved from New York State to Texas, and shortly after we arrived there, I was talking with a local neighborhood kid who startled me by saying "up in North Carolina", since I was still used to thinking of North Carolina as "down". In Irish, on other hand, suas "up" is always "south" and síos "down" is always "north": suas go Corcaigh means "up to Cork" (which is in the south) and síos go Doire means "down to Derry" (which is in the north). West is siar "back", as well. East is soir, which originally meant "forward", but that meaning is really rare nowadays; normally it now only means "east". —Angr (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an answer, just wanted to link to http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=1955. 22:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I've often noticed that the choice of "up" or "down" in our dear land of Oz has nothing, necessarily, to do with either geographic north-south alignment or topographic relative elevation. People could talk of "going down" to Cabramurra (from anywhere), or "going up" to Sydney from Byron Bay. I hear echoes of "We'm come up from Somerset". -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 22:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know for sure, but I assume you would find it anywhere that the mapmakers' convention of putting north at the top of the map is observed. History of cartography says that that dates to Ptolemy, although it doesn't seem to be universal from that time.

On another note, I'm impressed that you have time to worry about it. I'd think it would be distracting, having to hold on to the ground to keep from falling into space. --Trovatore (talk) 22:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)It absolutely wasn't universal for many centuries after Ptolemy. File:Hubbard map 1677.JPG is from 1677, and oriented with West at the top. In fact, during this era, it seems that "West=up" was something of a standard File:The Carte of all the Coast of Virginia by Theodor de Bry 1585 1586.jpg and File:1527-TeraFlorida.jpg from the 1500s also feature west = up. --Jayron32 23:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's like that in most cultures nowadays, but probably not for the Guugu Yimithirr people, at least not historically. See Guugu Yimithirr language#Grammar for the reason (last sentence). Hans Adler 23:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions are archived at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 June 2#Downtown, uptown

and Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 February 24#up/down the street.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 February 20#Who's down under? there is a (less closely) related discussion.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The terminology that comes most readily to my mind in this regard is "up north", "down south", "out west", and "down east". I'm in Canada.

(See next section for a somewhat related topic.) Wanderer57 (talk) 01:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that this is a Euro-centric (or Eurasian-centric) practice. That is, once people had a general idea of how the "old world" continents were laid out, the Europeans were certain to put themselves on top. (They might have preferred the center, but obviously Europe isn't the center of Europe, Asia, and Africa.) If there was a dominant culture in the Southern Hemisphere, the directions might have been reversed.

I've noticed that "upstream" and "downstream" are also sometimes used to determine "upper" and "lower", as in Upper Egypt (in the South) and Lower Egypt (in the North). StuRat (talk) 05:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is the same with Upper Canada and Lower Canada. (These are historical, not current terms.) Wanderer57 (talk) 23:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the responses folks. All useful. And I agree that the up/north and down/south connections are due to mapping conventions. And clearly the usage exists in North America as well as here in Australia. (Even if Jack thinks we're directionless.) I'm still wondering about elsewhere, particularly in other languages. (Oh, and Trovatore, I appreciate your concern, but we're a tough bunch down here.) HiLo48 (talk) 05:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In your maps in Australia, do you conventionally position north at the top of the map? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Although some fun maps are available which are up the other way and which seem to place Australia closer to the middle, still using proper projection of course. HiLo48 (talk) 08:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to reiterate what I said above: in Irish, it's the exact opposite. Up = south and down = north. Whether the Irish ever drew maps with south at the top, I don't know. —Angr (talk) 06:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK we use "up north" and "down south". We also have another directional usage of up, which is that people go "up" to University (Oxford, Cambridge etc) and "down" when terms closes and they go back home, or they get "sent down" if they are expelled. We also say "up" when going to London, and I suspect that this is similar to the Irish usage, in that Dublin is in the south of the country. --TammyMoet (talk) 07:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wanderer57, in Canada people say "down east"? What does it mean exactly? Is it anything like the use of Down East in Maine? I always found that an odd term. People in Boston saying "I'm going down east this weekend", meaning they were going north (and a bit east) to Maine. I understand there's a historical reason for the term. In the US, on a large-scale (ie, cross country), the terms would be "up north", "down south", "out west", and "back east".

Also, while traveling "up" tends to mean north, and "down" south, in some cases elevation trumps cardinality. In Colorado, for example, a person in Boulder might say "I'm going to drive up to Leadville", even though Leadville is southwest of Boulder. Similarly, someone in Yellowstone National Park, camping perhaps, might say "I'm taking a quick trip down to Bozeman, even though Bozeman is north. I live near Seattle and, when suggesting a trip to Mount Rainier would always phrase it, "let's go up to Rainier", even though Rainier is to the south. Pfly (talk) 08:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Railways in Britain typically designate tracks as "up" and "down", with the former generally being towards the principal terminus of that line, the location of the headquarters of the company that originally built the line, or, when on a branch line, towards the mainline. As the principal termninus of most lines was London and most branch lines radiated away from London, "up" is most commonly towards London. As London is in the south of Britain, this means most "up" trains are travelling southbound and most "down" trains northbound. Thryduulf (talk) 09:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pfly, "down east" means in the Maritime/Atlantic provinces (which are physically lower, on the St. Lawrence and the ocean, but I don't know if that has anything to do with it). "Out west" means to the prairies or Alberta (people from down east often go out west to work in the oil fields). "Up north" could mean as far as the arctic, but normally means cottage country in Ontario (which is still much further south than most of the country). Adam Bishop (talk) 15:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This thing about how in Irish up means south and down means north has me curious. I googled it a bit but couldn't find a clear explanation or theory about how this came about. But I got the sense that it has to do with facing east (toward the rising sun maybe?), with the rest following from that, making east "forward", west "backward", south "right", and north "left". Then link to this the old notion of left being "weak" (apparently the word "left" is from Old English lyft, meaning weak). Somehow these ideas lead to the notion of left/north being "down" and right/south being "up", although I'm not sure about all this and am curious. Cardinal direction#Germanic origin of names says the word "north" comes from Proto-Germanic, meaning "left, below", i.e. "to the left of the rising Sun". And south from a word that "is root-cognate to Sun itself, thus "the region of the Sun"". There's more hints on the Relative direction. Also some clues from this book, Encyclopedia of Indo-European culture, p. 159. Can anyone shed more light on this? I find it most curious! Pfly (talk) 09:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In England, southerners will speak of places like Leeds as being "up north", while northerners will speak of places like Oxford as being "down south". On the other hand, "going up to London" can be used from almost anywhere in southern England or even the Midlands, while northerners and Scots tend to say "going down to London". As for the kids going "up to Cambridge/Oxford" (as in university), I've always considered that to be more of a comment on social standing rather then a geographical direction. Astronaut (talk) 10:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's an old tradition that Oxford or Cambridge Universities are "up"[1] but anywhere else in the country is "down". Hence Doctor Spooner's famous injunction; "Having tasted two worms, you will leave by the next town drain". Alansplodge (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To answer Pfly's question. Yes, in Canada "down east" means the Maritimes, i.e., the Maritime provinces - New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island. Googling "down east" +maritimes will find many examples of the use. I imagine the origin of "down east" is that to get to the Maritimes from Quebec and Ontario you go east and for a long time the only practical route was down the St. Lawrence River. Wanderer57 (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here in the Shenandoah Valley, the Shenandoah River and its tributaries run northeast, thus north is the lower end of the valley— we locals often refer to north as down. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See "Yemen" at List of country-name etymologies#Y.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Famously, the east "part" of NYC is called the east side, and the west "part" the west side. In Winnipeg Canada, the usual terminology was (and probably still is) the east end, the west end, and the north end. (I omitted the "south end" because it does not come as readily to mind as the others).

I would like to know the terminology used in other cities, especially in the US and Canada. I'd like to get some input on this before stating a wee theory about this terminology. Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 01:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago has a North side and South side. This comes up a lot when discussing the two Major League baseball teams in the city. The White Sox are often referred to as South Siders. The South side of the city is also known for being a higher crime area whereas the North side is known for being more affluent. That's a city. The state of Vermont has something that we call the Northeast Kingdom (article?) which makes up an area covering the three counties in the NE corner of the state. Dismas|^(talk) 01:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the Cubs are called the North Siders. There is also a West Side, where the Bulls and the Blackhawks play, and where the Cubs once did. The "east side", if there was one, would be Lake Michigan. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saying something is on the East Side of Chicago is an occasional small joke used mostly with people who are unfamiliar with or new to the city Dismas|^(talk) 08:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

London has a West End and an East End. Many cities just use north/south/east/west <city>, e.g. South Los Angeles (often known as South Central LA). Lesgles (talk) 02:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buffalo, New York has an East Side and a West Side (or at least an Upper West Side). Seattle has neither, but the cities east of Lake Washington are called the Eastside. Vancouver has an East Side, a Downtown Eastside, a West Side (no Wikipedia page on it apparently), and a West End. All with different meanings. Pfly (talk) 03:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, by the way, in New York City the terms East Side and West Side are not that common. Sometimes they are used as abbreviated forms of Upper East Side and Upper West Side, which are north of Midtown. Sometimes you hear of "Midtown East" and "Midtown West". South of Midtown, in Greenwich Village, there's the East Village and West Village. South of Canal Street you get the Lower East Side. There is no corresponding "Lower West Side". Of course, all of these are neighborhoods of Manhattan, and reference the geography of that island, not the whole city. In short, Manhattan doesn't really have a simple East Side. "West Side" is more often used by itself, because there is no Lower West Side to confuse with the Upper West Side. Pfly (talk) 03:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, the pages West End, East End (disambiguation), West Side, and East Side might be useful.

Toronto has east and west ends rather than sides. Paris, of course, has a Right Bank and a Left Bank rather than north and south sides. I know of a couple of cities in Ohio which are divided into four quadrants (NE, NW, SE, SW) for addressing purchases; those quadrants are known as "sides," as in the "Northeast Side." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Albuquerque, NM, is divided into four quadrants: Albuquerque,_New_Mexico#Quadrants. Pfly (talk) 04:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boston is rather peculiar, in having South Boston and the South End, both of which are actually north of the center (presumably because Boston has grown south since they were named). StuRat (talk) 05:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I'm a sucker for geography and place names, so I looked around for other terminologies and examples. Boston, yes, is an odd one. Not only South Boston and South End, but also North End and West End. If only there was an East End the city would have all four ends. The Greater Boston area is bounded to the north by what's called North Shore, and to the south by South Shore. The disambig pages South Shore, North Shore, West Shore, and East Shore have a few other examples of usage.

As for other terminologies for large-scale divisions of cities, there is of course Downtown (see Downtown (disambiguation) for examples) and Uptown, and also Midtown. They apparently come from Manhattan originally, but have been used elsewhere. Downtown and uptown often mean south and north, as in Manhattan, but sometimes refer to elevation, older and newer areas, etc. In Manhattan, the downtown-uptown distinction is probably more significant than the east and west sides (after all, the island is way longer north-south than east-west). I saw a music recital once featuring John Zorn, Milton Babbitt, and others; it was described as a downtown-uptown mix of music. Zorn said he was a downtown composer, Babbitt an uptown composer, and another whose name sadly slips my mind, joked she was a "cross-town" composer, suggesting an eclectic mix of both styles.

A few other curious examples. Cambridge, MA, is commonly thought of in terms of "squares", see Cambridge, Massachusetts#Squares. A friend of mine used to live "in Porter Square". New Orleans and its metro area have several terminologies in use, from the historic French Quarter and American Quarter (funny having just two quarters) and the various wards, a downtown and uptown, an East Bank and West Bank, and...well, just see New Orleans metropolitan area#Geographic Terms. Allentown, Pennsylvania mixes things up by having an East Side, South Side, West End, and, to the north, "The Wards" (see Template:Allentown Neighborhoods). Finally, Richmond, Virginia has a nicely mixed system, with four main divisions: North Side (two words), Southside (one word), East End, and West End (see Neighborhoods of Richmond, Virginia).

Now I'm curious about what Wanderer57's "wee theory" might be. Maybe something like the term "end" being more common in Commonwealth countries and "side" in the US? Pfly (talk) 07:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

St. Paul, Minnesota, has a "West Side" which is actually south of the downtown, across the Mississippi River. However, it's effectively the west bank of the river. And speaking of banks and such, there are a number of institutions in Minnesota (banks, insurance, etc.) that are referred to as "Northwest", even though they are closer to the east coast than to the west coast. That's because the "old northwest" of the USA only extended about that far, in the early years. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Northwest Territory (it even included Ohio !). StuRat (talk) 06:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not far from where I live there's a place called Pakenham Upper, which sometimes creates some amusement when said out loud. HiLo48 (talk) 07:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could perhaps explain the joke for us Yanks. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, I didn't think it was that culturally narrow. The second word can sound like "up her...", said sloppily. Does that help? HiLo48 (talk) 07:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a sexual reference: "packing ham up her". StuRat (talk) 07:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, I tried for subtlety and discretion, but you've got it! HiLo48 (talk) 07:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]

It's not that culturally narrow. Bugs must have been having a slow day. I'm American and I got it right off. Dismas|^(talk) 08:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I failed to get it, mostly due to thinking Pakenham would be pronounced something like PAH-ken-hym". Pfly (talk) 09:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In UK places ending "-ham", the last syllable is /əm/, not /hæm/, so any pun would usually be on "'em" not "ham". As in "There was a young lady of Twickenham/Who took off her gloves and was ... ". --ColinFine (talk) 10:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Equally true in Australia. I've never heard anyone pronounce "Pakenham" in a way that ends with the sound "ham". It's like packin' 'em (short for packing them). Now, just what are these "them" that are getting packed up her, that's what I want to know. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]

In Providence, Rhode Island (founded 1636 and now celebrating her 375th), it's pretty firmly established (although there are certainly other neighborhoods that refuse to associate with any of these): the East Side (where I live) but the West End, the North End but the South Side. Referring back to the earlier question, all of these are, of course, considered in their relation to Downcity. Which goes to show that there aren't always two sides to a question. See Neighborhoods in Providence, Rhode Island. But when you consider how different and irregular the layouts and topography of different cities are, the variation in names isn't that surprising. Although it might be a little awkward dancing the Light Fantastic on the Sidewalks of Providence ("East Side, West End...") —— Shakescene (talk) 12:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As Mwalcoff said, Toronto has "ends", but people don't really talk about them like that. We would just talk about particular neighbourhoods, in most cases. Another example of "ends" is London, Ontario, which has an "east end" (which is the stereotypically "bad" part of the city). It also has an Old North (and an Old South, I think?), which is roughly in the centre, now that the city has expanded so much. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the input. The examples given are not enough to test my theory but they don't contradict it.

Can anyone suggest somewhere to find the "geographic" terminology used in specific US and Canadian towns and cities? For cities, it must be "early" because as a city grows the terms used for parts of the city become more specific, largely replacing the original terminology, as Adam Bishop suggests has happened with Toronto. Wanderer57 (talk) 16:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another quirk of place names is that there are more "New" names than "Old" names, like New York and New Jersey, because, of course, places are new when we name them. One exception seems to be a region of Connecticut with Old Saybrook, Old Lyme and Old Mystic (the last two in New London County). I wonder how they got those names. Do they rename towns after 100 years, when they get "old" ? StuRat (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There a number of "old" place names in the US, although often in forms like Old Fields, Old Fort, Old Bridge, etc. There are several Old Hickorys, named for Andrew Jackson no doubt. It's obvious what Old Glory, Texas is named for. Some have disambig pages here, like Old Furnace, Old Forge, Old Mill, and Old Field. A few with populations in the range of Old Saybrook, Lyme, and Mystic are Old Orchard Beach, Maine, Old Town, Maine, Old Jefferson, Louisiana, Old Westbury, New York, and Old Orchard, Pennsylvania. While finding these I came across some others with curious or funny names, like Old Dime Box, Texas, Old Neck Landing, Virginia, Old Ocean, Texas. I also noted an Old Toongabbie, New South Wales. In England there is the nicely self-contradictory Old Newton. I wonder if there are other Old New towns, or New Old towns. Pfly (talk) 05:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio once had two different towns named Washington. The larger of the two is now known as Washington Court House, Ohio and the smaller is Old Washington, Ohio. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are often multiple alternate English spellings for common Arabic names from official sources. For example, نورة is translated as Nora, Norah, and Noura on different Saudi government web sites. More familiar are Koran/Quran, Gaddafi/Qaddafi, and al-Qaeda/al-Qaida. But in some cases, such as An Nawfaliyah, the problem becomes ridiculous. Romanization of Arabic looks to me like a complete train wreck with about twenty different "standards and systems" (three of them from the same ISO source.) What is currently considered the most authoritative system of English transliteration from Arabic? Dualus (talk) 02:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's the problem, authoritative for what purpose? The system of transliteration I am most familiar with is that of the International Journal of Middle East Studies, but if that is a standard, it is probably only in academia (and maybe only in the humanities). And I suppose that only covers classical and modern standard Arabic. What about the spoken dialects? "Arabic" isn't one single thing; it's like trying to come up with a system that would spell Italian, French, and Spanish the same way. I think T.E. Lawrence said something like all transliteration systems are "rotten". The best thing to do is to learn the Arabic alphabet! Adam Bishop (talk) 14:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To echo or reinforce, rather than helpfully answer, the original question, Sporcle actually has a quiz challenging you to come up with the 31 common English spellings of Col. Gadafy's/Kadafy's last name in no more than four minutes (I got only 20). For a long time, the late Osama bin-Laden's official U.S. initials were UBL (for Usama Bin Ladin); see, for example, the glossary of abbreviations on page 429 of the 9/11 Commission Report. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please, tell me which is correct: Roger, David, and Richard or Roger, David and Richard. As you see, the first version has comma before "and" and the second – no. I've seen both versions used on the Wikipedia and cannot decide which is correct. TGilmour (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See MOS:SERIAL.—Wavelength (talk) 21:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Read this. Both are correct in your example, but depending on the context the decision whether or not to put a comma before the conjunction can change the meaning of the sentence. - filelakeshoe 21:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) TGilmour (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed that we write Encyclopædia Britannica in italics but Wikipedia without. Why so? doomgaze (talk) 00:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because Wikipedia is a "project" (that's what the article says), rather than just an encyclopedia? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, according to MOS:ITALICS, Wikipedia should be in italics. Dismas|^(talk) 05:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But that section of MOS:ITALICS mentions that the subject is under discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Internet Sites and WP:ITALICS, in fact fairly vigorous discussion that may lead to a Wikipedia:Request for Comment. I don't like italicizing web-sites that aren't functioning directly like newspapers (nytimes.com but The New York Times), although this seems to run against recommended practice. Boston.com and BBC.com just look weird to me, but one of our citation bots or templates has started doing this willy-nilly. Given how many times I've written Wikipedia in the last few years, it would seem strange to start italicizing it. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{after edit conflict, i.e. simultaneously with, but in ignorance of, Dismas' answer above): These rough-hewn answers would never satisfy a good lawyer, a strict logician or a demanding language professor, but (1) Encyclopædia Britannica is a foreign-language phrase (although now it comes to mind, I'm not sure if it's Greek or Latin) while for better or worse, Wikipedia [not Wikipædia] is treated as English, even being translated into French as Wikipédie, (2) the Britannica is treated as a printed, published, presented or performed work, like The Times, The Messiah, Ragtime or Gone with the Wind, while from the reader's point of view, Wikipedia is at bottom a web site, very few of which are italicized/italicised, although Yahoo! and Bing! can get away with exclamation points. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bing doesn't have an exclamation mark. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 07:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How often is "Wikipedia" actually referred to within articles? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In some articles, rather frequently. —Angr (talk) 08:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, previously I asked a question, but did not get any answer. If someone knows please answer. Thanks! --Goqer (talk) 04:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You got several answers. Two independent quotes were traced for you, one to the movie Juno, and one to a George Carlin routine. I checked urban dictionary, and there are several hits for bad odors, either relating to normal body odor or to unpleasant genital odors. See [2] If those don't work, then try this on for size: It means there is an odor which reminds the person of soup.--Jayron32 04:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You did indeed get answers. Was there something about the answers that I provided that you did not understand? I haven't listened to my George Carlin tapes in years but I may be able to track down the name of the specific routine that the soup reference comes from. Dismas|^(talk) 05:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hello learned people ! I heard Charlton Heston in Major Dundee utter that expression, & I wonder what it means, & where it comes from. Is it an actual dog, or the partner of a fiddler ? Thanks beforehand, t.y. Arapaima (talk) 09:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it means 'very drunk.' According to the Wordsworth dictionary of proverbs, 2006 ed. the expression dates back to 1362, appearing in William Langland's Piers Plowman as "Thenne gon he go for to lyk a gleomonnes bicce, Sum tyme asyde and sum tyme arere." The dictionary also cites Forby's Vocabulary of East Anglia (1830), Northall's Folk Phrases (1894), and F.E. Taylor's Lancaster Sayings (1901), but doesn't give examples. I would say from the age of the expression, that bitch here refers to the fiddler's dog.

John Badcock's Slang: a dictionary of the turf, the ring, the chase, the pit, or bon-ton, and the varieties of life, forming the completest and most authentic lexicon balatronicum hitherto offered to the notice of the sporting world (1823) suggests "'as drunk as a fiddler's bitch' would imply that the patient has the buz [sic] of music in his ears, and will not sit quietly, but danceth about."

T. Hilding Svartengren, in Intensifying Similies in English (1918) mentions the expression, but doesn't comment on it. It does, however note drunk as a fiddler, and comments "the fiddler was of old a frequent guest in taverns and ale-houses, as appears in numerous passages in Elizabethan writers." Further, it points to a similar expression: drunk as a tinker's bitch, and comments "Like master, like man or dog." So if the fiddler is likely drunk, his dog likely is too. The dissertation also discusses the common rhythms of these types of expressions, noting "there are also not a few extended dactylic types...thin as a newsome snipe, thins as a barber's pole, as fat as a bacon hog, drunk as a fiddler's bitch..." Bitch at the end of the expression makes it adhere to this rhytmn.

Whoops, just found one more thing. Forby, in Vocabulary of East Anglia, defines bitch as "a trull; the female companion of a vagrant. Ray has a tinker's bitch. Our tinkers do not keep bitches, but trulls. The fiddling vagabond, with us, is the only one who has such an establishment, and we found upon in an extremely coarse and offensive comparison, 'as drunk as a fiddler's bitch." I can't get a stand-alone definition of trull in the excerpt of Forby I have access to, but OED defines it as "A low prostitute or concubine; a drab, strumpet, trollop." So not apparently the fiddler's dog, but his lady friend of ill repute, at least to some ears. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what is the equivalent term for "going stag" but applied to a female? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.222.12 (talk) 11:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Dictionary says this phrase means "going somewhere solo". I rather suspect there is no exact equivalent term for a woman and that they would just say "going solo" or "going on my own". --Viennese Waltz 11:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard this expression in my life so I assume it's native to some kind of regional slang I'm not familiar with.. but assuming it derives from stag party, how does "going hen" sound? - filelakeshoe 11:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's very common in American English, and this article uses "going stag" itself with reference to girls/women. —Angr (talk) 12:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I need to have the titles of French and Italian laws, mentioned in this article - Universal design#National_legislation, translated into English please. Roger (talk) 15:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How many people are native speakers/writers of American English vs. British English? Also how many foreign language speakers learn each style? I am assuming that most dialects of English can reasonably be aligned with one or the other, though admittedly some dialects (Australian?) might be best be regarded as neither. Dragons flight (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's really possible to measure - such detail isn't requested by the census form. The closest estimate I can think of would be population of the US vs. population of the UK and Ireland (unless you want to count "Irish English" as something separate). Then of course you have Canadian English, which is pretty much halfway between BrE and AmE. English spoken in other commonwealth countries tends to have more similar lexis to BrE but highly different pronunciation from either. As for Australian, that could easily be considered a separate standard, they have their own dictionaries and their own standard pronunciation system.

As for foreigners learning English, differences between AmE and BrE start appearing in textbooks at about Upper-Intermediate level, so people who study in English classes should be learning both. Obviously it depends on what they use English for, who they talk to, etc. People generally are more likely to be exposed to AmE because of Hollywood, music and popular culture in general. But if someone goes to live in the UK then they'd probably learn BrE.

Giving numbers on this is basically too difficult and slippery a task. People from Newcastle-upon-Tyne sound to me like they're talking AmE sometimes, for example, they use "pants" instead of "trousers". A friend of mine from high school went to live in Iowa for a year and came back with an American accent. I don't think everyone could say that they "speak" either variety 100%. - filelakeshoe 17:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that's too difficult, perhaps a more tractable question would be quantify how often British vs. American spellings are used in modern written English, e.g. -ise/-ize, -or/-our, etc. ? Dragons flight (talk) 17:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But note that the -ize spellings are not only American. They're used in Canadian English and in the Oxford spelling of British English as well. —Angr (talk) 21:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at wiktionary:by "At some time before (the given time), or before the end of a given time interval." definition of by, I wonder if the phrase "assignment due by Monday", for example, should be understood as "the assignment is to be completed no later than Sunday midnight" or "the assignment is to be completed no later than Monday midnight"? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess by monday midnight. "Due by" is imho not plain English, I would always change it to "due before" or "due on" in a proofreading to avoid confusion, but "due on" is how I understand it. If it were something really important I'd ask for clarification. - filelakeshoe 17:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Due by" or "due before" would suggest to me a deadline of no later than Sunday midnight; "due on" would be no later than Monday midnight. Lexicografía (talk) 18:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reading it strictly, you would be right. Colloquially, "due by" in this context would indicate "due on". And if it's due at start of business or start of school on Monday, getting it done on the previous day would be a good idea. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even "on" can be ambiguous. "I'm going on leave on Friday" - what exactly does that mean? Friday is my first day of leave, meaning my last day at work is Thursday? Or, I'm walking out of here at c.o.b. Friday and not coming back till my leave is finished? Without any other info, the latter would be a safer bet, but it could easily mean the former. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the "on" in these examples could insufficient. A time of day might be needed also. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I was wondering if someone could tell me the source of the Yang clan totem in the page? The name of the picture is Yeohbookb2.JPG‎. However, there is no source as to where it is from, except that it is posted up by contributor Ralphscheider42. I'm doing a bit of research on Chinese Surnames and would like to know the source. Thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yang_(surname)

Dysan123 (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For similar questions, TinEye can be very helpful. Sadly, it does not help us much here [3]. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader of this image appears to still be active on Wikipedia. Have you contacted him? rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know which book that image is clipped from, except that it looks post 20th century (the whole concept of "totem" in a Chinese context is a very modern concept, especially considering that "tuteng" is a transliteration of "totem"). I very much suspect the whole image as uploaded on Wikipedia is a copyvio.

As to the actual origin of the image, a brief internet search finds a lot of queries about where these images come from, but there doesn't seem to be any real explanation. One thing I found was about the sutiability of these images as tattoo designs. I think it's quite possible that these are modern creations, by taking artistic licence with the character of the surname. As I understand it, only very few surnames actually come from pre-historic totems, Long (dragon), Bo (cypress tree; pronounced Bai in northern China), Feng (phoenix) are a few. However, the images of "totems" widely circulating online relate mostly to the most common modern surnames and very rarely to such ancient surnames, but by the time these surnames arose, e.g. many of them during the Zhou dynasty, Chinese society would have been long past the stage of totems. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just received an e-mail from my sister asking me for help. But since I can't help her on my own, I'm asking you all. What is the equivalent of "bow-wow" (i.e. the representation of the sound a dog makes) in any Australian Aboriginal language (presumably for dingoes) and in any of the Inuit languages (e.g. for sled dogs)? I've looked at wikt:bow wow#Translations and at Bark (utterance)#Representation, and there are lots of languages there, but not for any of the languages my sister is looking for. Further down in the latter article, however, it says that dingoes don't bark in the same way as more familiar dogs, and that the Hare Indian Dog of northern Canada didn't bark at all, so maybe the languages she's interested in don't even have words corresponding to "bow-wow". I know it's a bit of a long shot, but does anyone happen to know, or have an idea where else I could look? Thanks. —Angr (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might try sending an email to one of the bright people at Language Log who like to blog about such questions. Inuit languages often come up in their posts, so they might have something to contribute about that. If not, their readers will know something if you can get them interested. Hans Adler 21:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can try these six academic library reference desks in Australia.

• Macquarie University Library, Sydney, NSW, Australia
• Ask A Librarian - Macquarie University Library

• University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia
• Ask a Librarian

• Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
• QUT | Library | Need help? Ask a Librarian

• University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
• Ask a Librarian | University of Queensland Library

• Southbank Institute of Technology, South Brisbane, QLD, Australia
• Library Services, Southbank Institute of Technology

• Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
• Monash University Library

—Wavelength (talk) 00:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a name for a sentence or statement that makes perfect sense when spoken, but that cannot sensibly be written down? Such statements are ones involving homophones,for example the (nonsensical as written) sentence "There are three twos in the English language." What name is right, or fitting at least? Any other examples? 58.175.131.253 (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that young people today do not know what the word "browse" means and think that it refers only, or at least primarily, to what is done with a web browser? I take the normal meaning to include things like looking through non-fiction bookshelves in a library just in case something you weren't thinking of, and maybe have never heard of, catches your fancy and then you want to know more about it. As opposed to having at least some idea of something that you're looking for.

I've used the term in some discussions of policies affecting the development Wikipedia. Some people have said the purpose of disambiguation pages and topics lists is navigation—helping people find something they're looking for. I have taken issue with that view, saying that's not the only purpose: sometimes they also serve the purpose of browsing, which in some ways is ultimately more important. I wonder if some readers fail to understand what I'm saying because the word "browse" has recently (say within the past 15 years or so) been replaced by a different word that's spelled and pronounced the same way. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before the word browse was used as a verb for the act of casually examining [something], it was used as a verb for the act of grazing [by animals]. (http://www.onelook.com/?w=browse&ls=a and http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=browse&searchmode=none)

—Wavelength (talk) 23:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not grazing, really, since that means eating things off the ground, like grasses. Browsing is more about eating things off trees. A giraffe would be a good example of a browser. StuRat (talk) 01:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has there ever been a woman in the Académie? --75.40.204.106 (talk) 23:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the penultimate paragraph of Académie française#Membership. Deor (talk) 00:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which states: "There have been a total of 719 immortels, of whom six have been women (the first woman, Marguerite Yourcenar, was elected in 1980 — besides the six elected women, 14 women were candidates, the first one in 1874)." StuRat (talk) 02:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all. I've been studying linguistics and I've noticed a trend, that writing systems seem to make languages more analytic over time. For example, more analytic languages such as Mandarin Chinese or Latin have long written traditions, whereas polysynthetic languages such as Ainu, Chukchi, and many New World languages have not until recently had a writing system. My explanation is that extremely long words are hard to read (with phonographic writing systems) so those people who were educated enough to read and write started breaking up words in text, which led to breaking up words in speech, and this just trickled from the educated people down to the vulgar people. Is there any linguistic research or support on this supposed trend? Or am I just barking up the wrong tree? (to put it politely) 72.128.95.0 (talk) 02:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]