Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2006 October 5

Mostellaria
Is anyone aware of what exactly this word means? I know it means, 'Ghost-house' or 'Haunted-House', but what is the root behind it? I imagine it is something along the lines of "Well, it comes from an ancient greek word MOSTE meaning ghost..." or something similar, but I am curious as to what the real story is. Thanks! Duomillia 00:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It is the name of a comedy by Plautus. Literally the word means something like "having to do with ghosts", as in Mostellaria fabula: "A ghost tale". It is by itself the feminine form of an adjective derived from a noun mostellum, which is a diminutive variant of monstrum, which can – among other things – mean "an apparition". At least, that appears to be the usual explanation. --Lambiam Talk  02:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Eye Contact vs. Eyes Contact
Hello All! I would like to propose a question regarding the usage of `eyes contact`. Can anyone tell me why this is gramatically incorrect? I would like to, as clearly as possible explain this to an ESL student.

Can you also provide me with a similar example, (as of why eye contact is indeed the correct phrase)?

Thanks- Pinky101 05:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm taking a shot in the dark here, but I'm pretty sure when you're talking about two subjects and a verb, the subjects are singular. Compare car accident to "cars accident" or nuclear war to "nuclears war". "Eyes contact" could also be misheard as "Eye's contact", which doesn't seem too bad in itself but in a case like "nuclears war" it might sound like a guy named Nuclear started the war. Wooty 06:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Nouns are singular when they modify other nouns*. "eye" is describing what kind of contact is going on; it modifies "contact". Similarly "car" modifies "accident" in Wooty's example. ("Nuclear war" is a bad example, because "nuclear" is an adjective.)
 * (*Not counting possessives, like "the cars' engines".)--Ptcamn 06:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, eye contacts is a clearly different matter... (Bad puns, a proud answer desk tradtion...) 惑乱 分からん 10:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

"Three Tall Women"
Can anyone help me find an html transcript (for free) of Edward Albee's play "Three Tall Women"? Any help would be greatly appreciated.


 * You are unlikely to find this on the web (presumably you've already used a search engine) as it is copyright material. You can pick up a second-hand paper copy very cheaply somewhere like Amazon.--Shantavira 12:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Or try looking for it in a library. 惑乱 分からん 12:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know of a secondary source for geek license ?
Geek license is on AfD - debate is here. At present, it fails WP:NEO because no references in the article are secondary sources (articles about the history or meaning of the term) - they are all primary sources (examples of usage). It seems to me that there probably are secondary sources out there somewhere for a phrase like this that has been in common circulation for years. Does anyone know of any ? Gandalf61 09:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I imagine not. I understand what the "phrase" (slang is a more accurate term) means, although I've never actually heard it used before, so don't be so quick to assume it's in "common circulation". It was obviously started as a joke, and we generally don't have articles on Wikipedia for joke neologisms. Try http://www.urbandictionary.com/ and don't worry, you're not going to lose your geek licence because you didn't manage to proliferate your wonderful vocabulary in Wiki-world. freshofftheufo  ΓΛĿЌ  12:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Aha - thank you - Urban Dictionary has a definition for the synonym geek cred. I think that will qualify nicely as a secondary source. Gandalf61 12:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Umm, no. Urban dictionary is not considered a secondary source. UD is where all the neologisms that aren't fit for an encyclopedia get tossed. freshofftheufo  ΓΛĿЌ  12:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * ...in your opinion. There is precedent for citing UD as a sole secondary source in Wikpedia articles - see race traitor, fashioncore, emo. Gandalf61 12:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a horrible precedent, if true. Adam Bishop 15:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it. It can be given as a reference, for the sake of information, but it is not used or intended as a reliable source. freshofftheufo  ΓΛĿЌ  16:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As there seems to be some scepticism, let me be more precise. The only external link or reference in the articles race traitor, fashioncore and emo is to a UD entry. Therefore either these articles are using UD as a secondary source or they have no valid secondary source, and so currently fail WP:NEO. Gandalf61 11:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

what are the facts confirming the tie of slavery and religion
24.173.243.62 16:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)c


 * Ermmmm...try Slavery and religion. --   the     GREAT     Gavini   17:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Asterick in Proto Languages
When reading all the linguistics articles, there is no definition of what the symbols mean that show (for example) *kw- or how they may have been pronounced, etc., for the proto-languages. Where would I find such a definition?

Thanks! Hires an editor 23:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The asterisk denotes a word that's been reconstructed (from later forms in daughter languages), not attested in writing. The pronunciation of dead languages is per necessity uncertain. 惑乱 分からん 23:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * *word basically means "we're fairly sure word existed, but we're inferring this and have no proof of it". Shimgray | talk | 23:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Check out Asterisk --Chris S. 00:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)