Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2006 October 17

=October 17=

language conversion
how would you say the following in Mexican: wow, am I a lucky guy! what a great trip this will be! I am very excited!
 * Something like: "¡Wow, soy un hombre con mucha suerte! ¡Éste será un viaje estupendo! ¡Estoy muy emocionado!" or emocionada if you're a girl. (I guess a lucky guy could refer to a female, as well.) If you've ever been in a Spanish level 1 class, your mediocre attempt at the pronunciation will be understandable, so don't worry.--El aprendelenguas 01:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * emocionado? That has a meaning closer to "moved."  Excitado works much better.  I'd translate the phrase like this:
 * ¡Ah, soy afortunado! ¡Como estupendo éste viaje será! ¡Estoy muy excitado!  Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 05:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Haha, use excitado with caution. In some dialects, excitado means sexually aroused, not excited. (Although I suppose someone could get turned on by the prospect of a trip...) --Philosofinch 07:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well the question was specifically about Mexican Spanish. Do you know if that's the case for the Spanish in Mexico?  There's also entusiasmado.  Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 08:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This blog seems to imply excitado is used to mean "aroused" in Mexico. I don't think it's a dialectal thing though - just something of a double entendre throughout the hispanophone world.  I'd use entusiasmado to mean excited in a happy sense.  But is wow a Spanish word? --   the     GREAT     Gavini   15:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, "Wow" is a Spanish word, used all the time on telenovelas but spelled "¡guau!" and pronounced almost like in English but with a bit more throat sound on the 'silent' g. Don't know the phonetic alphabet spelling for it. Edison 15:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * IPA would be, probably. --  the     GREAT     Gavini   16:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Loanword from American English, likely. Made me think of this old comic book cover... 惑乱 分からん 16:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm confused by representations of Spanish gw as . Considering that  is a velar approximant and  is the same thing just labialized, and the possibility that the latter may spread its labialization to the former.  Couldn't it just be ?
 * Yes, ¡guau! is the Spanish spelling, but I don't think it matters to the questioner. The unrounded approximant pretty much merges into the rounded one . I've never heard excitado mean "excited" in the questioner's sense, but etusiasmado is a satisfactory alternative. Also, cómo isn't used as an exclamatory adverb; they use qué, instead, so if you prefer the second translation, it would be Qué estupendo este....--El aprendelenguas 02:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"Ixnay on the Hombre"
This is a funny expression used on 'The Simpsons' etc and elsewhere. Where is it from and what does it mean? Amists


 * . --Shantavira 08:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I did, I should have been more clear. In common usage it seems to mean "keep quiet" or "shut up", not "down with the man" as per Ixnay on the Hombre, hence me wondering about the provenance of this phrase. Never mind! Amists
 * http://www.snpp.com/ has a lot of Simpsons details, but doesn't mention this. It does have two examples of "ixnay". "Ixnay on the Oojay!": Krusty the Clown is trying to conceal his Jewishness, saying "don't say 'jew'". "ixnay on the ohammar": Moe is saying : "don't say Mohammar". So, Ixnay ("nix") is often used to mean "don't say ..." in conjunction with more Pig Latin. But "don't say 'hombre'" makes little sense, so there may well be a different meaning intended. Notinasnaid 09:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou, I have it now: []

That clears it up a bit... --Amists


 * If you interpret "Hombray" as Pig Latin, it would be "nix on the rhomb", although that doesn't make much sense, either... 惑乱 分からん 15:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Although I haven't heard the phrase under discussion, the humor probably stems from the fact that, although "Hombre" sounds like a Pig Latinization of a word (homb-ray or om-bray), it doesn't really "code" to anything (brom isn't a word, and rhomb may be meaningless in context).sthomson 15:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The French red big bus
Is there a term used for the position of an adjective in a sentence, in relation to other adjectives? Example: "The big red French bus" is correct, but saying "The French red big bus" or "The red big French bus" or "The big French red bus" or "The red French big bus" are all incorrect. Is there a term like dominant adjective or primary adjective that refers to an adjective that goes before other adjectives? Where can one find out info on the "rules" of adjectives? --Dangherous 14:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Have a look at Adjective. It's quite techy, though. --Richardrj talkemail 14:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The little marks made by librarians in books. What are they? What are they called?
Often times in library books I have noticed little pencil marks on the title and/or copyright page. I think for example that the authors initial get a triple underline, and the end of the title gets a little corner bracket. I'd like to know what this is all about and if there is a place where I can read more about it. ike9898 17:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * They will be something to do with how the book is catalogued. --Richardrj talkemail 17:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That is correct. It is preparation for entering a bibliographic description of the book into the library catalogue. I don't know if they have a name. --Lambiam Talk  17:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring the question
In modern political debates and press conferences in the US, it has become the practice for the participants to almost completely ignore the question that is asked, and instead go on to talk about whatever they had in mind. Is there a term for this practice ? And are there any formal debate rules used to prevent such disrespectful behavior ? StuRat 17:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * TV man : But that was not my question!
 * Georges Marchais : It is my answer anyway! -- DLL .. T 18:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Similar evasive techniques are often called "a (classical/typical) politician's answer". Criticalthinking features the "politician's answer" under Red Herring, in the sense of "going off on irrelevant tangents; can be useful when debate time is limited". But none of this specifically covers the aspect of politicians wishing to get their message out, as suggested in your question. ---Sluzzelin 21:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Excellent question. Now, it's true that Cornflakes have indeed come a long way since they were first popularized by Dr. Kellogg in the late 19th century. But it's questionable whether it will be able to maintain its status as the most popular breakfast cereal in the long run, considering the competition from alternative breakfast foods and increasing public concern about the health benefits of dairy products. --BluePlatypus 22:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Haha :-)
 * My only suggestion is browsing policy debate. Dar-Ape 22:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Try ignoratio elenchi or red herring or just "ignoring the question". Begging the questin is a different fallacy. -THB 00:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * (I'm not here to advance your silly career so here's whar we're going to speak to:) ...and as I have said and my record will show, the real question to be answered is ... which speaks volumes to their arrogance ... and I know too well why they... which is which I, on the other hand... and to respond directly to your question, while the matter is being litigated... promise to you and the entire country... and you sir, should have known that.  ;-)  hydnjo talk 00:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * They all have this memorised: the guide for dealing with difficult questions from Yes, Prime Minister. MeltBanana  00:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Also there's Non-sequitur. Norwegian (and Swedish) have a fun expression for it: "God dag, økseskaft" (Good day, axe-handle!). It comes from a folk-tale about a deaf man who was carving an axe-handle when a stranger approached him to ask the way to town, but the deaf man assumed he was asking about what he was carving. So the conversation went "Good day! - Axe-handle.". --BluePlatypus 00:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * And you of all people Mr. Rat should be more circumspect. This is after all... the interview and the debate should... and as we all know... which is exactly why... and then the terrorists will have won. Oh, and I 'preciate that. hydnjo talk 00:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Then again, even when not done in self-referential jest, this behaviour seems to exist at the reference desk too... ---Sluzzelin 01:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

To answer Mr Rat's last question, formal debate rules vary from place to place. The forum I know best, the Australian Parliament, is a hotbed of questions that never receive their due. During Questions Without Notice, the Opposition (of whatever political colour) is frequently on its feet raising points of order that the answer the Minister is now providing is not relevant to the question just asked. Relevance is a requirement under the Standing Orders. The Presiding Officer has to rule on the point of order, and more often than not says that if the question was, say, about employment rates, then all the Minister has to do to remain relevant to the question is to talk about employment. It doesn't matter if a question specifically about the Government's actual track record in reducing unemployment is answered with an attack on the Opposition's industrial relations policy. This still apparently meets the criterion of "relevance" because it's still about the general topic of employment. It comes down to the Presiding Officer's perception of what the question was about. So, words mean whatever you want them to mean. That's what politics is, sadly, all about these days. The concept is widely applied, eg. your President said he had proof that Iraq still had WMDs in 2003. Such "proof" has never surfaced, but it would be a cold day in hell before GWB would ever say he had lied to his country. (My point was not to start a debate about this, but just to illustrate how words can be used by politicians to mean things that the lexicographers would have a hard time dealing with). JackofOz 02:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course, you weren't using his question to state something totally unrelated that you really wanted to draw attention to. No, you wouldn't do that. :) DirkvdM 07:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm tempted to say that's a bit rich coming from .... but I rise above such tawdry ripostes. JackofOz 12:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * See Public relations. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I voted for Hans van Mierlo several times becuase he is one of that rare breed of politicians who don't give standardised answers but actually think about the answer first (either that or he had a bad memory :) ). But on tv that takes time and tv doesn't have time. So politicians are forceds to give quick answers, so they have to have them prepared so if they get a question they didn't prepare for they have to evade it, because giving one crucial wrong answer can haunt a politcian for years. So, although I totally agree with your complaint, I have to admit that politicians have little choice in this tv dominated era. Or do they? Dutch politicians are starting to write books more and more (starting with Jan Marijnissen, who gained a lot of popularity recently). An interresting recent one is by Femke Halsema, who published a book in the form of an interview! Now that sounds like her ideal answer to this problem. Finally an ability to answer the questions to an interview and be able to take as much time as you wish to answer them. People should do more reading and less tv viewing, especially when it comes to politics. DirkvdM 07:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

What is saint phillip in spanish?
Try San Felipe. -THB 00:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)