Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2006 July 26

Summer Reading Synopses
I have to read a book this summer and write a synopsis of each chapter. I don't want to make it really boring saying each time, "In this chapter we learn..." or, "This chapter says..." What are some other openings I can use? Thanks. schyler 01:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If you're using headings (i.e. Chapter One at the top of the page or paragraph) you don't need to make references to the fact that its part of that chapter. Just start:
 * Chapter Five
 * Jack and his friend Jill stopped worrying about the risks of hill climbing and decided to grab the pail. The pail symbolizes their disagreement over the use of the well.
 * or some such thing. Since you already have your chapter heading, you don't need to mention the chapter again, just jump right in! Emmett5 01:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any friends called Jill. Pity, really. JackofOz 02:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

change in attitude and latitude
what's the relationship of attitude and latitude? and what does the subject phrase means?
 * Well, if someone gives you a certain latitude to do something, and you abuse that by going too far, their attitude towards you might be affected. Such as, our attitude to you may be a little negative because you used this service to answer what appears to be a homework question, without even attempting to rephrase it in your own words.  That's one relationship that springs to mind.  I'm sure there are other answers.   JackofOz 03:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it all depends what is meant by the words. We are both at southern latitudes, so our attitude when standing is towards stars like Acrux and Alpha Centauri rather than Polaris and Dubhe. Grutness...wha?  03:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe there's a general feeling in North America that moving south to a warmer clime (for example, to the Caribbean) will result in a more relaxed overall feeling. Thus by changing latitude (e.g. from Boston, approximately 41 degrees N, to the Bahamas, approx 26 deg. N), one's attitude (i.e. outlook on life) will change for the better.  cf: Jimmy Buffett's song Changes in Latitude, Changes in Attitude, or whatever it's called, I really can't stand the man's recordings.  --LarryMac 13:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Proto-Indo-European root of "Finn"
According to our article on Finland, the word "finn" was originally a Germanic term for a nomadic hunter-gatherer. Assuming it is Indo-European and not a loanword from some other family, does anyone know the PIE root? Bhumiya (said/done) 03:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it comes from a non-IE language - see section a)Toponyms on this page. - THE GREAT GAVINI  {T-C} 06:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That'll save me some time. Bhumiya (said/done) 20:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Number Words
I've been trying to think of English words that enumerate specific objects, without making reference to the abstract concept of number. Triplets, for instance, is close, but the prefix is really code for the general idea of three-ness. A "couple" (the relationship meaning, not the general one) is closer, since it refers to two and, traditionally, only two things, and refers specifically to people, without suggesting that anything else can come in pairs. I read in a number theory book that such specialized words are fairly common in our and other languages due to our more primitive, less mathematically aware roots, but I can't think of anything that supports their claim. (Correction: I just pulled the book out, and it mentions couple, brace (of pheasants), and century in our language and bolo, koro, and salora in a different one.) Black Carrot 03:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting question, but I cannot find anything to support this either. As you say, there are several words for "two" (yoke is another), but a search for words that mean "three of something" (excluding tri- ter- tre- words) reveals almost nothing. Only "hat trick", which does not really qualify, and "tierce" which is also related to the word "three". "Century" derives from cent = hundred, so I don't think it meets your criteria.--Shantavira 08:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What about "both" and "pair"? User:Zoe|(talk) 17:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * also brace - Nunh-huh 19:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * dozen (12), gross (144). JackofOz 21:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * btw, the definition of gross incompetence is forgetting to give your wife flowers on your 144th wedding anniversary. JackofOz 21:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be an impressive sort of competence if someone managed to pull this off. Whether the word gross also applies probably depends on how this is achieved. DirkvdM 06:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * A"leash" is three hounds,a "prile" is three-of-something in cardgames, and for Jack to make a joke, "score" is twenty-hotclaws**==(81.134.68.10 09:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC))
 * I got a million more where that came from (unfortunately). You'd better learn to accept it. :--)  JackofOz 10:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, century doesn't count. Neither do both or pair, since they're abstract number words that can be used for any group of two things. Same for dozen and gross. I've never heard of leash or prile, and neither have any of my reference sites, but if they exist, they sound possible. Black Carrot 20:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you looking for venereal terms, like a murder of crows, a shrewdness of apes (yes, that's right), a murmuration of starlings? Or (not sure what the term would be) collective noun phrase heads like a bunch of bananas, a host of angels, a litter of puppies? Flights, flocks, troops, yokes, gaggles, bevies, schools, phalanxes, herds, congregations...or do they have to pertain to a specific number of a specific class of objects?  &middot; rodii &middot;  03:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The claim is that, way back in the old days, we didn't think of number as an abstract thing, and so used specific words for specific groups of specific things, in whatever way helped us get through the day. Here's the paragraph that describes it:
 * However, many primitive human languages only have names for numbers of particular objects, and not for the idea of numbers. The Fiji Islanders use "bolo" for ten boats, but "koro" for ten coconuts and "salora" for one thousand coconuts. The divorce between the abstract concept of number and the objects being counted took a long time, and evidence is still visible; a couple (of people), a brace (of pheasants), a century (of years, or runs at cricket).
 * This is from page 22 of The Book of Numbers by J. Conway and R. Guy, an introductory number theory book. So, plural, collective, indefinite, and group words don't really come into it, only very specific counting words. Black Carrot
 * Ah. I think the right way to look at this claim is "bullshit". Fijian isn't "primitive" in any sense. By using selective examples and portraying the Fijian examples as "primitive" but the English examples as remnants of a simpler time, they are writing a just-so story about how our modern concept of number came to be. Try this on: The primitive Englishers use "flotilla" for a small number of boats and "fleet" for a large number, but "squad" for a small number of soldiers and "company" for a large number. I'm sure we could come up with other examples, but I'm doubtful whether there has ever been any systematic scholarship that would agree with this point. It's like Eskimo snow words--folk wisdom that doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.  &middot; rodii &middot;  13:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Russian for 'Baby'
Can someone please tell me the Russian word for 'baby' and how it is pronounced in English? Thanks! --69.138.61.168 06:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's ребëнок, pronounced like REBB-yaw-nock. - THE GREAT GAVINI  {T-C} 06:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That would be rebb-YAW-nock. JackofOz 21:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * IPA ... . --Chris S. 03:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought I had once heard 'baboo'. But I suppose that's the Russian pronunciation of the English word. DirkvdM 06:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I put stress typical of a Germanic language (first syllable)... - THE GREAT GAVINI  {T-C} 06:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, just remember that ë is always stressed. --Chris S. 01:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course, this refers to the meaning "child", not the endearment.--Knyazhna 03:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Origin of -s pluralization in English
As someone with an interest in historical linguistics, I've often wondered how English came to pluralize nearly every noun with -s. (Sure, some animal names take -Ø, such as "cod", "shrimp", "sheep" and "deer", and others -en, like "children" and "oxen", but those are the exceptions). I know how the -s pluralization entered the Romance languages -- the accusative plurals of latin, ending in -s (-ōs, -ās, -ēs) were generalized as languages started just using the accusative (or sometimes oblique/subject systems) -- see Vulgar Latin. But how did it come into English, a Germanic language that previously liked to use -en pluralizations or ablaut come to use -s? Was it due to the Norman Conquest (after all, Old French pronounced the -s, unlike mod French). And yes, the Viking settlements had led to other settlers speaking a very similar language to English living right with the English speakers, so when one person said (inventing here) "horsen" and another "horsu", they'd just say "horse" and split the difference -- whence the end of case in English. But did the Normans, whose langue was extremely influential on English actually dictate the plural? (Not unheard of -- "them" comes from a nordic language, talk about a basic element of a language!) Well, sorry for the rambling question -- I'm just too tired to write better. -- Zantastik  talk  07:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Origin of s-plural --Kjoonlee 07:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The quick answer is that the s-plural in English was already there in Old English, and has a good Germanic pedigree, the fact that it's become somewhat rare in Dutch in German and is (AFAIK) completely gone in North Germanic notwithstanding. The fact that French plurals were formed with -s may have had some influence on the productivity of the s-plural in English, but it was already there as the regular plural of one of the most common declension types even before the Norman Conquest. User:Angr 08:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A look at English plural will show that English uses a large number of different system taken from all sorts of sources. Rmhermen 14:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * According to this page, the -s suffix is wholly Germanic, related to the Scandinavian -ar, etc. plurals. - THE GREAT GAVINI  {T-C} 15:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That makes a great deal of sense; I appreciate it! -- Zantastik  talk  18:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * While we're at it, do you think that the Old English nomative and accusative plurals that end in -s are closely linked to their Latin equivalants? Do they, and -as, -os, -es (plural acc.s) in Latin all come from the same PIE sources? Thanks so much! -- Zantastik  talk  18:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

What a Brit means when they describe something as being "American"
I'm reading High Fidelity by Nick Hornby. He's English and I'm an American, so there are a number of phrases and such throughout the book that I don't quite get but can understand based on the context. I ran into one phrase though that I can't quite understand.

Rob, the main character, is describing the television show thirtysomething and he says that it's "...sappy, clichèd, American, and naff..." I don't really get what "naff" means either but my biggest confusion is over the term "American" when used in this way. I don't suspect it's a good thing considering the first two qualities that were listed but since I'm one of those Americans that doesn't understand why anyone would hate Americans in general, I'm really rather confused. So can anyone explain what he probably meant by calling the show "American"? And if you could throw in a definition of "naff" as well, that'd be nifty. Thanks, Dismas|(talk) 09:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * For naff, see Naff. Can't help with the other one, though. Lectonar 10:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * American is very hard to define. In that context, it could perhaps mean cheesy, stupid, annoying, shallow and more. But it is very hard. &mdash; D a  niel  (‽) 10:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't forget glamorous. - THE GREAT GAVINI  {T-C} 15:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with either source, so this frees me to do some wild speculation and even wilder generalisation, with the benefit of creating some new terminology and abbreviations, and perhaps even stereotypes.

Suppose the person saying this is xenophobic Brit (XB). In this case you should be aware that to XB America is a continent. There may be several countries there, but an "American" is someone from that continent. What if XB wanted to distinguish people from the different countries? The need has probably never arisen. In this case XB should be understand to be using American as a specific case of "foreign" (and hence undesirable).

Now let's suppose the person saying this is cultural Brit (CB). CB believes in high culture and art pour l'art. American TV programs aren't really art to CB: they don't embody any worthwhile artistic values, and – worst of all – they are commercially successful, which means they cannot possibly be real art. Since the only US programs CB sees are the commercial ones (or so she thinks; in fact, there are many others but they have a different accent so they don't seem "American"), CB uses "American" as a gesture of automatic dismissal, because if it's American it can't be art.

CB and XB are likely to share a concern about "Americanisation": that a constant diet of American TV and other culture is changing their culture (as they see it) into a second rate copy of American culture, losing jellied eels, morris dancing or whatever quintessentially British things aren't represented.

How about lefty Brit (LB)? Always up to date with the latest causes, LB will have adjusted America (understood to be the USA, unusually), to be Public Enemy #1 based on recent rhetoric (rhetoric is preferred to actual reportage, but there's little in the reportage to disabuse her) on USA foreign and environmental policy. LB would use "American" to mean "product of the world's enemy" and hence it is incapable of being good.

Now, what about parochial Brit (PB). PB lives in Britain, and the things that matter to her are the things around her. American comedy and drama is extremely focussed on what happens in America (the daily rituals of high school, White House or coffee house). These just don't engage PB, so PB uses "American" to mean that it is about things she doesn't much care about.

Beware of witty Brit (WB). WB doesn't believe in very much, but like wits everywhere likes to turn a phrase that puts down a group. The bigger and more powerful the group, the better, if you want to be politically correct. WB knows that using "American" after a string of other negative adjectives will create a general impression: the actual impression depends on what kind of Brit is their audience.

There is also young Brit (YB). Disengaged from the world around her through the usual extreme repression teenagers feel, YB might see American culture as being representative of a golden world where youth culture is mighty and you can do anything you want until you are grounded. YB might use "American" to indicate a golden and desirable land. (Though YB could easily be diverted into XB, CB, LB, or PB).

If you extend this to thirtysomething young Brit (TSYB), a busy professional who travels the world and watches Satellite TV when they aren't on the internet or at tai chi, they will actually engage more with the thirtysomething Americans: dramas about Liverpool council estates are far more alien to their experience. TSYB would have to think twice to remember whether a given piece of entertainment was American or not. Notinasnaid 10:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm deeply impressed; Irony mode on:I was tempted to just link to Anti-Americanism, in a sort of crude, pragmatic German way, but that would have been evil.Irony mode off. Lectonar 10:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * American comedy, to most British minds, is formulaic, written to get the highest ratings by appealing to the lowest common denominator, written by preppy young New Yorkers and performed by pretty boys and girls. Compare our idealised view of British comedy, which is an expressive art form, written and performed by tortured geniuses who sacrifice their own happiness to produce their work. Essentially it's contempt, rather than hatred. HenryFlower 10:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Brits can be divided into groups no more than other population or demographic, we are individuals not members of groups. Philc  TECI 12:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

American comedy has a reputation for being tired, predictable, playing the same jokes over and over, and being very unsubtle, generally american comedy has a bit of a reputation to be shit. Though this generally applies to your television programmes, and to a lesser extent your comedians (I think Rich Hall is hilarious, though I haven't heard many others). American comedy all seems to be the sort of jokes we came up with in the playground when we were teenagers, use of overstatemnt and ignorance to create awkward situations, which then you can pull maybe a few tired old jokes out of is one particularly common part of american comedy. American comedy also has a reputation for being desperately blunt, whereas as other comedies are much more subtle. Philc TECI 11:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Right, Benny Hill is very subtle and cultured humor. User:Angr 12:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Benny Hill is a strange case though. He is often taken as quintessentially British outside Britain, but he hasn't been on TV here for years and was very old-fashioned even when he was around. He is almost better known overseas than in Britain. In any case, the questions was never about whose TV or humour was better or more sophisticated.


 * And don't forget The Young Ones. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

In the context it's been used, I'm certain it's a matter of linking thirtysomething to a genre of "American" sit-coms. Brits are often quite sniffy about sitcoms from the USA (we don't see many non-British sit-coms that aren't American) and "naff" is exactly the kind of word that's used often to describe them. I generally disagree with pigeon-holing, but what the American networks did to "The Office" almost converted me into a bigot. --Dweller 12:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's not forget moralising. A lot of US shows incorporate elements of characters learning important lessons about life and relationships etc etc. To British sensibilites this comes across as a bit twee and cutesy. Of course, Americans may well feel the same. South Park sends up that kind of thing all the time. Still, it's one of the negative connotations of "American" in relation to television. Mattley (Chattley) 12:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Would Brits consider South Park to be "American" in the sense described here? User:Angr 13:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * thirtysomething was not a situation comedy, it was a drama. Viewed with a 21st century lens, it might be seen as laughable, but that doesn't apply to Rob, the protagonist in High Fidelity.  I'd guess that in the particular quote mentioned above that Rob's problem with the show is that it's "not-British."  He might very well have said something similar about Ballykissangel, substituting "Irish" for "American."  --LarryMac 13:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyone seen The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou? That's not very formulaic.......most films by Wes Anderson aren't formulaic. The huge amount of people in the United States compells producers to make films this way, but if you go to the Sundance film festival, or any comedy clubs, you will find that there are very varied styles. I suppose if the US was smaller we'd have a more specific sense of humo(u)r. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 16:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Virtually everything on television is brainless twaddle, in the UK as well as the US. However, it's also true that UK television has the advantage of substantial public funding, while virtually everything on American television is entirely commercial. This is bound to drive the quality down. In any case, most people become desensitized to their own culture's stupidities, but rarely to the stupidities of other cultures. Many Britons are wont to think of American shows as essentially low-brow, sentimental, and obvious, just as lots of Americans think of British shows as snobbish and dull, when both have roughly the same ratio of shit jokes to irony. Try comparing both British and American television to, say, Mexican television. Within a country, there may be huge differences between high-brow and low-brow humor. Try comparing The Colbert Report to something like Yes, Dear, which is perhaps the ultimate bad American sitcom. And for every Blackadder, you've got a hundred shows like Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps and Meet the Magoons. But I guess they don't export those. Bhumiya (said/done) 20:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Re Notinasnaid's America (understood to be the USA, unusually). This is discussed all over Wikipedia all the time.  Citizens of the USA always seem terribly surprised when people from other countries refer to them as Americans.  I've never understood what the problem is.  Nobody would understand 'American' to mean a person from Brazil, or Canada, or anywhere else in North or South America.  People from the USA refer to themselves as American and their country as America all the time ("The American President", "America, America", "God Bless America", "The American Way", etc), so why shouldn't others follow suit.  JackofOz 21:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A vociferous contingent of Spanish-speaking Internet users considers the term "America" to refer exclusively to the Hispanic concept of a single American landmass. Spanish has a convenient term for a citizen of the United States, Estadounidense, and it is only natural to assume that English (and all other languages) should possess an equivalent term. Due to historical weirdness, this is not the case, and most languages use some translation of the word "American" to refer to the nation. This is a bizarrely contentious issue, as this article and its Spanish counterpart, and especially their talk pages, indicate. Some Hispanophones have concluded that the use of the word "American" to describe the United States is nothing less than an act of imperialism, consciously perpetrated by the United States. Anglos tend to disagree with this, which can only mean it is true. A lot of these very Hispanophones seem to have an impression that speakers of other non-English languages share their view, and apparently many culturally sensitive Americans have arrived at the same conclusion, or simply want to seem worldly. Bhumiya (said/done) 21:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the name of the country has been "The United States of America" since 1776, well before there was any significant hispanophone presence, so it's hardly cultural imperialism. Are people just expected to ignore that part of the name?  People in the USA can debate what to call their own country, but the rest of the English speaking world refers to it as: "The United States", "The States", "The USA", "The U.S.", or simply "America" - and I doubt anything will ever change.  As for adjectives, "Usasian" or whatever are just absurd, and will never catch on even in the U.S., let alone anywhere else.  The only reasonable adjective, in my view, is American.  Nobody should get excited about this, it's not that big a deal.   JackofOz 01:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I fully agree it's a tempest in a teapot. It isn't U.S. citizens who get excited about it. Nevertheless, some umbrageous Hispanophone inhabitants of the Americas feel the need to take offense. There's no audible controversy in the U.S. over the terminology, and most Americans are surprised to learn that Spanish doesn't use the term "Americano" to mean "of the USA". There are, however, some extra-sensitive Americans who use terms like "U.S. citizen" and "U.S. American" when there is no ambiguity, to avoid seeming presumptuous or imperialistic. Bhumiya (said/done) 04:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If you interpret the name of the country that way (the united states of the whole of America) then the name of the country itself is imperialistic and should be changed. Preferably to something that leaves an unambiguous name for its inhabitants this time. Turns out we've all been barking up the wrong tree. Btw, it's hardly "not that big a deal" if there is so much controversy over it all the time. DirkvdM 07:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And who exactly would interpret it that way, my friend? Maybe a 5-year-old school child who knows nothing of history or geopolitics.  Certainly nobody else does that, or ever would.  This has nothing to do with cultural imperialism, and more to do with sour grapes on the part of the hispanophones.  If Spain had had its way, all of the Americas would have been part of the Spanish Empire.  If that's not cultural imperialism, nothing is.  Where's the evidence that the USA has ever wanted to emulate that?  There is none.  The Portuguese and the British and the French all had their go, too.  Saying the USA should change its name is amongst the less enlightened of your contributions to these pages, Dirk.  Names for countries and regions differ from language to language.  Names for everything differ from language to language.  That's why we have translators and interpreters.  For the hispanophone lobby to expect the English language to suddenly conform to their view of the world, while accusing the USA of cultural imperialism, is utterly breathtaking hypocrisy.  They are the latecomers to the USA.  When in Rome etc.  JackofOz 10:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ehm, it's you who interpreted the name that way. I merley reacted to that. We must be misinterpreting each other. Not quite your finest contribution either (tongue sticking out). :) DirkvdM 06:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it's not as though every Hispanophone feels that way, and Spanish-speaking immigrants to the U.S. rarely take issue with English usage. I am not of the "English only" bent, and think it fair that English compete with Spanish in a "marketplace of tongues"&mdash;I object only to those Hispanophones who use a simple lacuna as an outlet for rancor. I don't see the need to indict Hispanophones for past imperialism, given that the majority of them these days are descended from the imperialized. The issue, for me, is one of ignorance and linguistic bigotry: to assume that the term "American" is the result of conscious conspiracy on the part of the United States shows a very limited comprehension of the history of the English language, its pluricentrism, and its essential lack of central control. Bhumiya (said/done) 17:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, in Spain, americano can be a synonym for estadounidense or norteamericano. Then again, the term sudamericano can be applied to Mexicans and Dominicans in Spain, something that is really confusing. To be technical neither estadounidense nor norteamericano to mean USA people is unambiguous. Mexicans and Canadians are geographically Northamericans and Mexico is legally Los Estados Unidos Mexicanos. Of course, the whole controversy reflects a larger (and I think more reasonable) resentment. mnewmanqc
 * In principle, I agree that americano may be used by Hispanophones living outside the Americas, but I believe that even in Spain there is a very strong preference for Estadounidense. I've never in my life heard Norteamericano used to mean "Canadian" or "Mexican", since there are already unambiguous demonyms for these people (canadiense and mexicano respectively). Also, because most Spanish-speakers use the six-continent model and do not divide the new world into North and South America, it would be anomalous for them to use the term Norteamericano in a continental sense. Obviously, the root of the complaint is the long history of Hispanic resentment toward the US, which is of course justified. But it's unfortunate to see legitimate grievances become an excuse for petty bickering. Bhumiya (said/done) 17:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you mean the way the west of what is now the USA was taken from Spain/Mexico? Is there still resentment over that in the Spanish speaking world? DirkvdM 06:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's ancient history. Yes, you have MEChA and El Plan Espiritual de Aztlán, but those ideas are not at all widespread, even among Mexican immigrants to the USA, and are most likely not a preoccupation of South Americans, who seem to be the ones most offended by this usage. It has more to do with the modern geopolitical situation. Many people in South America strongly resent the influence of the United States (i.e. imposition of unfair trade agreements, subversion of democratically elected governments, indifference to poverty, etc). That produces a vapor of anti-US sentiment, especially among young people and those with left-leaning tendencies, in which suspicions about US culture, once they appear, are difficult to resist without seeming like a stooge. The linguistic and cultural barrier only increases the mutual paranoia and makes misunderstandings more common. Not that we've gone off topic or anything. Bhumiya (said/done) 04:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Not at all. Actually, we've almost gone full circle. :) DirkvdM 17:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Mattley about the moralising. "Too American" for a drama/comedy to me would suggest too much "message" (families should stick together, father and son stuff) getting in the way of the jokes, action. I regret to say British TV is increasingly going down that road. The clasic British sitcoms had virtually nothing in the way of heart-to-hearts between characters and were the better for it!
 * "Homicide" for example was great until the characters were suddenly given personal lives, with "issues" to be worked through. Jameswilson 00:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Luckily, there's still stuff like Coupling. DirkvdM 07:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Despite all this cross-Atlantic animosity we manage to build the biggest encyclopedia mankind has ever seen. Maybe there is hope for mankin dafter all. :) DirkvdM 07:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Confused about consonants at the end of French words
In French one doesn't always pronounce all consonants.

Ce sont les filles présentées à Paris. Je vais manger une pomme. C'était parfois une journée.

Please tell me what to do with the consonants in bold, I have used this site but I am in doubt : []

All extra information on problems like these is welcome!

Thanks,

Evilbu 17:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The general rule about pronouncing final consonants in French is that only C, R, F and L get pronounced -- (the menomic device for English speakers is "CaReFuL". However, this doesn't apply to -er infinatives, which is pronounced like é -- "manger" (mã-zhA) However, when a final consonant is followed immediately by a vowel, it gets pronounced due to the liason effect. So, we have "présentées à Paris" (Présenté za Pari), and "parfois une" (parfoi zune).

In Spoken French this rule is often ignored (like in these two cases), but there are some cases in which no native speaker would drop it. For instance, "ils sont" is pronounced "il sõ" while "ils ont" is pronounced "il zõ". Your website is surprisingly good, by the way, it seems. -- Zantastik  talk  18:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. I'm not sure if these are sentences that a native speaker would say.. "It was sometimes a day" is a little odd-sounding. But then, this was about pronunciation not syntax or style

There are actually very complicated rules about when liaison applies between words and when it doesn't. For example, if an adjective ending in a "silent" consonant precedes a noun starting with a vowel, there's liaison: un grand étudiant has the d pronounced. But if a noun ending in a "silent" consonant precedes an adjective starting with a vowel, there is no liaison: des chevaux espagnols does NOT have the x pronounced. And there are times when it's optional, especially if the silent consonant is preceded by another consonant: in Vous êtes ici you can either pronounce the s of êtes or leave it off, both are right. User:Angr 18:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The technical word here is indeed liaisons, in English or French, and they are certainly dangerous. The sound is not just pronounced but moves to the start of the next syllable: becoming part of how the next word is said. Once you realise this, what you hear, and have perhaps been saying by rote, starts to make more sense. There are liaisons obligatoires (e.g. in les amis, vous avez), times it is forbidden (e.g. in les onze ...) and times you can take your pick (e.g. Je suis allé). I'm struggling with this, but I find this page, and its immediate links, digestible: http://french.about.com/library/pronunciation/bl-liaisons.htm. Notinasnaid 19:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Word Translations From English to French & Spanish
I would like to know where I can go to validate some susage instructions that I would like to publish on some cosmetic packages, there are 2 Packages with front and back information. HELP!
 * This site offers French-Spanish/Spanish-French translation, and it's pretty good for most purposes. Bhumiya (said/done) 04:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)