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

= September 5 =

You're welcome or your welcome?
Which is correct? It seems to me that "you're welcome" meaning "you are welcome" is correct, but what do others think? I actually see more "your welcomes" written than "you're welcomes." What do you use? Which is more correct? Thanks in advance. --Proficient 05:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "You're welcome" is correct. "Your welcome" is plain wrong in the usual context, but this is more often spoken than written.--Shantavira 06:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You're going to see more of your welcome simply because it's the easier of the two. Of course, I've seen people using they're when they meant their or there which is more work in addition to being wrong.  AEuSoes1 06:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Guest: "Your welcome was much appreciated".


 * Host: "You're welcome".


 * We see similar confusion between "to", "too" and "two"; and between "affect" and "effect". Not to mention "its" and "it's" (eh, StuRat).  JackofOz 06:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That isn't confusion, I reject the rule. If "Bob's" means "belonging to Bob", then "it's" SHOULD mean "belonging to it". StuRat 02:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Trouble is, it doesn't mean that, and using it to mean something it does not mean just breeds confusion. Your analysis is too simplistic.  Apostrophes are used to denote possessives and also for abbreviations.  In this particular case, it can't be used for both because it would cause confusion.  So somewhere back in the mists of time, a convention arose that it means the abbreviation, and the possessive has to get by without one, much like he's became the apostrophe-free his.  It's the linguistic equivalent of the square root symbol being defined to mean the positive root only (even though the square root function returns both positive and negative roots).  That is an equally arbitrary and logic-free convention, but everybody accepts it as a useful standard, and gets on with their lives.  But if you want to be rebellious, you don't need anybody's permission.  :--)  JackofOz 12:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Note that in this sentence an apostrophe is used either to specify a contraction or possessive form: "Rover's leash is missing because Rover's being taken for a walk." Why then, shouldn't apostrophes be used when we substitutive "it" for "Rover", in both cases ?  To do otherwise is inconsistent. StuRat 06:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Stu, you're arguing for why the language should be a certain way, but the plain fact is that that is just not the way it is. You can apply logic to language in many cases, but other cases are arbitrary conventions and there's no logic to them.  You recently said you hate ignorance; well, persisting in the misuse of "it's" makes you appear very ignorant - and we couldn't have that, could we.  Why do we spell "enough" that way and not "enuf".  It doesn't matter why, it just is the way it is.  Accept it.  Now, repeat after me one million times: "It's" means "it is" or "it has" and nothing else.  :--)  JackofOz 09:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I will always argue for a logical language. The mere fact that it's illogical in one case does not excuse another.  If people think I'm ignorant, then they don't know that I understand the arbitrary illogical rule currently in place.  Them not knowing why I do it thus makes them ignorant, not me.  And since I've explained it several times now, they may also be retarded, if they keep forgetting. :-)  StuRat 13:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Seconding the above: a surprisingly large proportion of native English speakers misuse apostrophes. Durova 08:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * (Just to confuse matters) you could say 'thankyou for your welcome' ('your' meaning 'that belonged to you').


 * (Although some people object to 'thankyou' and insist on 'thank you'. I don't mind 'thankyou' - I see it much more than 'thank you', but I don't like 'alright' for 'all right'. That had nothing to do with your original Q btw, I just like the look of my own typing.)


 * We say 'you're' because, as you say, it's a contraction of 'you are'. Rentwa 08:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth: Google counts 10'900'000 hits for "you're welcome" and 4'280'000 hits for "your welcome". Of course "Your welcome" includes phrases such as "Improve Your Welcome Message" or "Your welcome party is a not-to-be-missed event" etc. The first "your welcome" on google's list discusses the spelling; it is used intentionally and correctly here too. So the actual count of wrongly used 'your welcome' hits is probably less than 4 million. I guess it depends on what you read, but I don't think you generally see more "your welcomes" than "you're welcomes". Still, 4 million is frightening enough. ---Sluzzelin 08:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * For something really scary: "Thank you. You're welcome." gets about 21,800 Google hits. "Thank you. Your welcome." gets about 535,000 Google hits. --Lambiam Talk 09:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep, that is scary. A ratio of 1:25! I guess Proficient's observations can be generalized after all.---Sluzzelin 09:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I wonder what is the most misspelled word on the Internet. From where I sit, Google.co.uk suddenly looks different and seems to have stopped counting hits, and I can't get Google.com. Is this an upgrade perhaps?--Shantavira 09:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Both worked fine for me just now. --Lambiam Talk 09:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't rely on Google for correct spelling. The internet is a place that has a surprising large population of users that can't spell correctly, probably due to sms/texting shorthand. - Mgm|(talk) 09:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but, by definition, whichever spelling is most often used is the correct spelling (or, at least, one correct spelling). StuRat 02:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The day a dictionary lists "your", "you're" and "yore" as acceptable alternatives for each other, I'll quit the language business and go and do something worthwhile. Your philosophy (or maybe I should now say "You're philosophy ...") is a vote for the dumbing down of the language and a net decrease in humanity's knowledge of itself and its roots.   JackofOz 04:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you really mean that? I agree that any literate person ought to wince at "your welcome" and "thankyou", but if language can indeed be "dumbed down" and thereby alienate its speakers from intelligence itself, we must be a hell of a lot stupider than the Proto-Indo-Europeans, who incidentally couldn't read or write. We lost declension. We're down to depending on word order! Looking at the big picture, we appear to be speaking a pretty "dumbed-down" language, wouldn't you say? I doubt that the transformation of "you're welcome" (itself a drunkenly slurred bastardization of "you are welcome") into "your welcome" would strike a speaker of Latin or Sanskrit as a meaningful downturn in linguistic integrity. "The shitty language doesn't even have gender, and this they're ashamed of." Language change is inevitable. It's awkward and inconvenient, but it's usually slow enough to maintain continuity in time, and it certainly doesn't mean that everyone will become stupid. That's just silly. Bhumiya (said/done) 06:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I certainly meant the basic thrust of what I said, particularly the last bit about losing knowledge of our roots. I've read your post a number of times, but I can't discern the essence of what you're saying.  You say literate people should wince at "your welcome", but later argue that we have no option but accept change.  That confuses me.  Are you arguing for acceptance, or for resistance?  I never said that everyone will become stupid, but we do stand to lose our cultural memory, in the long term.  Again, you might argue that that is inevitable too, so why fight it.  I understand perfectly well that language changes, and that is a healthy thing.  I don't oppose that concept.  What I do oppose is the attitude that says confusing a "verb-adjective" construction ("you're welcome") with an "adjective-noun" construction ("your welcome") is somehow okay.  And what I do oppose is the education system that obviously no longer provides the first-principles-based skills to understand the difference between them.   To a linguist, confusing different parts of speech is as disastrous as confusing carbon with sulphur would be to a chemist, or confusing bricks with steel would be to a builder, or confusing rhythm with melody would be to a musician, or confusing prime numbers with differential equations would be to a mathematician.  If that's not dumbing down, what is?  JackofOz 11:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I fear my comments on the Google search have been misinterpreted, so I will attempt to clarify:


 * A spelling or usage which is most common on Google is likely to be correct, because, while many people make errors in spellings or word usage, I don't believe that the majority typically do. An example would be "their" (7.49 billion) vs. "thier" (25.3 million).


 * Also, once a neologism gets more hits than the original word or usage, then it should be taken as one acceptable form of the word. An example would be "blog" (2.88 billion) vs. "weblog" (431 million).


 * I did not, however, mean to say that something which is demonstrably wrong, but still has the majority of hits, should be accepted as correct. For example "could care less" (4.27 million) vs. "couldn't care less" (2.17 million).  This is quite a rare occurrence, however, where the majority uses a word or phrase incorrectly, and I acknowledge that I did not account for this exception in my original statement.  StuRat 12:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Both can be right depending on how much the speaker cares. But "couldn't care less" is "right" because it shows he cares VERY VERY little. So little in fact that it can't be any less. - Mgm|(talk) 11:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * There is an argument that we are "worse" at English than our forebears. They lived in an entirely oral culture and there wasnt much to do on a winter's evening except sit around and talk. So they told stories, played with the language a lot more and used many more synonyms than we do. I have no idea if this argument is true but I have seen it made. Jameswilson 23:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation
I need to know how to pronouce the firm "Neuberger Berman"
 * If it's in German, something like NOY-berr-gerr BERR-mun, I'd guess... 惑乱 分からん 14:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The IPA would be something like . --  the     GREAT     Gavini   15:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * eu represents in standard German, not .  AEuSoes1 20:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * To be exact, apparently . 惑乱 分からん 13:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strange, considering the IPA for neu is  at de.wikitionary... --   the     GREAT     Gavini   15:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm going with Oxford and the Wikipedia phonology pages, although it could be dialectal. AEuSoes1 20:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Neuberger Berman and its founders are US-American. I'd pronounce it "Newburger Burman".---Sluzzelin 16:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd just call up the company and (after about twelve circles of voice mail hell) see how a receptionist actually answers the telephone. Some German names retain their original pronunciation in the States, but I wouldn't be surprised if this has shifted. Durova 18:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, that's a possibility I hadn't considered... --  the     GREAT     Gavini   19:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

translation into Greek
Hi, I'm looking for the greek translations of "our world" and "one world".

Thanks, Deb


 * In Modern Greek "our world" = ο κόσμος μας and "one world " = ένα κόσμος. Disclaimer: I'm not a native speaker. --Lambiam Talk 17:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * (After Edit Conflict) Would you like Ancient or Modern Greek? 惑乱 分からん 17:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

In doubt about the correctness of two Latin sentences.
Hello,

on a forum there was a topic about Latin.

However, there was some doubt :

1. "Who will put himself on this"(="Who will add here") (we were talking about a list of people who had taken some Latin)

Now the proposed translation was "Quis ad hic addent?". I proposed "Quis ad hoc se addet?"or... maybe simply "Quis ad hoc addet?" is better?
 * Quis hic (nominem suum) addit? (Latin isn't my mother tongue though)---Sluzzelin 19:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, so "Quis hic (nominem suum) addet?" for the simple future? But now you are not using "ad" anymore and you use "hic" as adverb instead of pronoun.  Is there something wrong with "ad hoc", when saying "right here, at this" without "this" being a pronoun, simply THIS.Evilbu 21:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

2. Which of these sentences is correct : "Nos omnes moribundi summus?" or "Nos omnes moribundi sumus"? I'd go for the last one (I make sense with that "nos")... or is it possible the adjective summus could be used here after all?

Thank you very much,Evilbu 17:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd go for the last one, 'sumus'/'we are', too. I don't think the adjective summus fits here, especially not in its singular form.---Sluzzelin 19:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"Apponere" might be a better verb here, I don't think "addere" has that sense in Latin. "Quis ad hunc (indicem I guess) se apponet?" You can't say "ad hic", although maybe you could say "quis hic se apponet" (so "hic" means "here", not "this"). Perhaps "apud" might be better than "ad" (but it also takes the accusative). By the way, the accusative of "nomen" is also "nomen" - it's neuter. For the second one, "sumus" is the first person plural form of "esse", which is presumably what you want ("summus" means "highest"). What are you trying to say though? "We are all dying?" Like, you are sick and about to die? Maybe "nos omnes morituri sumus" would work but that probably also implies an imminent death. Adam Bishop 23:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hic as an adverb means "here", but this word can also be a masculine demonstrative pronoun meaning "this" (hic, haec, hoc). Moribundus can also be used in the sense of "mortal"; Vergil has used it that way. The futurus does not necessarily have a sense of imminence; the context can determine a wider time frame, like that something will happen at the end times – you can't get much more respite than that. --Lambiam Talk 04:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Some months ago I made the (respectful) suggestion that we stop kidding ourselves in relation to Latin. There are not enough Wikipedians with a working knowledge of the language. Even those that venture onto discussion pages are capable of the shocking howlers already pointed out on this page (nominem forsooth!) I'm not claiming to be any better, but given that there are not enough competent Latinists in our group, we just make fools of ourselves if we persist in this. Let's stick to modern languages! Maid Marion 15:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's true...I think we're doing pretty well for a language that no longer has native speakers. There are plenty of competent Latinists here, like Lambiam right above you for example. Adam Bishop 01:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This is probably not the right place for a debate (what IS the right place?) But just to give the context of my original remark, months ago, I had been reading a contributor who argued that our policy of entirely open access, without review by experts, could lead and was already leading to lack of credibility for the whole Wikipedia venture. On the same day I happened to alight on the Latin Wikipedia, and found that it contains hardly a single sentence free of some gross blunder and/or ugly infelicity of phrasing evident to anyone with reasonable knowledge of the language. This seemed to me, and still seems to me, to support the contributor's argument. If we are holding ourselves out as a source of information, we really shouldn't look like this. As a lover of Latin, I don't want to discourage anyone from playing with the language - but we are just not capable of writing an encyclopedia in convincing Latin. Maid Marion 09:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * So in order to conclude

1. "Quis ad hoc se apponet" could be correct? 2. it's definitely "sumus" not "summus" There aren't many native speakers of Latin, few people speak it all. But there is a wikipedia in Latin (believe it or not) and my life does not depend on the accuracy of these answers. In fact, it may be these frequent Latin questions on Wikipedia that in fact my renewed my interest!Evilbu 01:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi..Question about a Scripture on a necklace..
hi there.. my name is Lynn,

i've recently purchased a necklace that is very old. on the back, there is a writing and a pictorial-like image above that. i, for the life of me, have had no luck in trying to translate this. although i've ruled out tibetan, hindu and similar scriptures like that. ANY info would be sooo greatly appreciated! im totally stumped on this one. the only thing i do know is i cant wear the necklace because i have trouble with accidents (such as flat tires, car stallings, locking in keys, bad equalibrium, etc.) the necklace was purchased with the notion SOMETHING was up with it.. i didnt know it brought such bad luck though. so maybe the script on the back can give me some insight about this little treasure ive acquired... the link where i put the photos has been added at the bottom of this page...

thank you soo much, lynn sheridan

http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/astrally_visible/album?.dir=/b012re2


 * Maybe Thai. The art certainly looks Thai-ish. I can’t read Thai at all, though. It could also be one of the other Pallava-derived scripts. See Genealogy of scripts derived from Proto-Sinaitic for more details. — Jéioosh 23:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict) Looks like Hebrew to me. But it's really hard to tell from those photos/that particular engraving. Rueckk 23:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd go for Hebrew as I can recognize some Hebrew letters quite clearly in the second photo. Daniel Šebesta (talk • contribs) 23:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Definitely Hebrew, but the only word I can make out is the last one ("עול" - it appears to mean "evil" or some related concept). --π!  00:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I concur that it's Hebrew. It's extremely difficult to read. The letters look like they were badly formed to start with and (if this is a very old necklace, as you say) they've probably eroded slightly over time, too. I suggest you do a rubbing of the necklace, as this may give a much clearer impression than a photograph (it also gets rid of shadow problems). If you, please post an image of the rubbing. One other, less palatable thought is that it may be a pseudo-old necklace written in pseudo-Hebrew. I've seen items like that, where the "Hebrew" has been written by someone who's simply copying letters he likes the look of in a fairly random way (i.e. "art") and because he's unfamiliar with the script, inadvertently makes errors. On balance, given what you've said and what I've seen so far, I'm still inclined to think you've got a "real deal" Hebrew item; it's just dang difficult to read. --Dweller 09:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Postscript: For the sake of accuracy, it's worth pointing out until the text is actually read and understood, all that can be said is that it is using Hebrew script, not that the language is Hebrew. Languages commonly written in Hebrew letters include Yiddish and Aramaic and just about any other language can be less transliterated into Hebrew letters, much as can be done with Hebrew, Russian, Thai (etc) into English. --Dweller 09:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Some of the letters could pass for Hebrew, yes – one does look compellingly like a he (the second time today I've cited that!) – but others cannot; and hasn't anyone noticed the Buddha on the other side of the piece? Thai is a good bet, or one of its many cousins, spread from India to the Philippines.  &mdash;Tamfang 07:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's Thai language.
 * First line starts with the word "พระ-" (lit. Buddha or Buddha image). I cannot read the rest of them though. For my best guess the full word is the name of a monk.
 * Second line ends with the word "-มงคล" (lit. prosper). The full word might be "ภูมิมงคล" (intelligence + prosperity)
 * The last line says "๖ เม.ย. ๒๙" (6 April 1992), the date
 * These all I can read --Manop - TH 11:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)