Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2007 February 9

= February 9 =

Number 8
I debated whether or not to put this in mathematics, but decided that the question was more etymological in nature. If I'm mistaken just delete this or w/e. Anyway, I know that 8 represents infinity. However, the other day I found out that in Chinese the symbol for 8 also represents infinity, however the symbol is two parallel lines which open into an "infinite vastness", as where I read it stated. Now my question is, if the symbols are different, what is it about the number 8 that denotes this meaning of infinity? See I had always assumed the meaning of infinity came from the way the number happened to look, but evidently the number itself has something to do with this representation of infinity. I read the article on the number, but it didn't really provide much info or answer my question. Thanks for any help, sorry if I'm not explaining this well enough.

166.217.37.39 00:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * See Infinity, in particular Infinity symbol. The symbol is not an 8 as such, but a continuous loop that happens to resemble an 8 on its side.  JackofOz 01:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I know that the number 8 itself has nothing to do with infinity, my question is why two foreign cultures both assigned symbols which represent infinity to the number 8. 166.217.126.112 02:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you sure the Chinese symbol for 8 also represents infinity? What's your source for this? --Ptcamn 02:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 8 is 八 in Chinese. Originally it means something like "to seperate", "to split", as the graph is supposed to represent two men turning their backs on each other. Later, this character was borrowed phonectically to represent the number 8. Once borrowed, it's never been returned. 八 doesn't mean infinity. In archaic Chinese, there are a lot of characters meaning "big", but no character meaning "infinity", as far as I remember. In modern Chinese, we use 無限 for infinity, a compound word meaning "limit-less".--K.C. Tang 02:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess it's the source then, it's Remembering the Kanji by James Heisig. Unfortunately I can't view the footnote as I have only the first part in pdf format. Thanks for the help, though. 166.217.126.112 03:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have fond memories of Sam Jaffe solemnly intoning "Man - woman - birth - death - infinity" at the start of each episode of Ben Casey, with an anonymous hand writing the relevant symbols. Oh, to be a teenager again, but know what I know now.  :)  JackofOz 04:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Group number in tag questions
Tag questions are very interesting. They almost always agree in number with the main clause of antecedent sentence. I appear to have found an exception, and I'm trying to find an explanation.

In American English, corporations conjugate verbs in the singular: "Ford makes good money on medium and large models." ; "Volkswagen didn’t skimp on anything building this car". "Intel is not a software house." . (I recognize this is different in British English, but that is not relevant here.) What I've found is that the tag questions for these sentences can (and in my estimation in some cases must) have their verb conjugated in the plural:


 * Ford makes good money on medium and large models, don't they?
 * ?? Ford makes good money on medium and large models, doesn't it?
 * Volkswagen didn’t skimp on anything building this car, did they?
 * ?? Volkswagen didn’t skimp on anything building this car, did it?
 * ? Intel is not a software house, are they?
 * ? Intel is not a software house, is it?

This is also true for (nonplural) musical groups:
 * Coldplay doesn’t deserve a record deal much less a greatest hits.
 * Coldplay doesn’t deserve a record deal, do they?
 * ?? Coldplay doesn’t deserve a record deal, does it?

(Where ?? means more questionable than ?)

What does it tell us about the pluralness of the subjects of these sentences, if we conjugate the main clause in the singular but the tag question in the plural? Is there anything interesting in this observation? Nohat 03:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not only interesting but fascinating that other people notice the same peculiarities of language that I do. I can offer no explanation other than it just sort of feels natural to most people to speak like that, and it would feel sort of goofy to say "Ford makes good money on X, doesn't it".  This is where rules break down.  Sorry.  JackofOz 04:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a note: "Volkswagen didn’t skimp on anything building this car" doesn't have an unambiguously singular verb. —Angr 07:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If you're fascinated by amateurs who notice grammatical peculiarities, you're going to be astounded when you discover the existence of the field of linguistics.
 * And the rules don't break down. Only a certain subset of nouns get plural agreement in tag questions, and they all refer to groups of people (which can be considered as a single group, or as multiple persons). It's a little weird that the agreement would be different between verbs in tag questions and elsewhere, but it's still regular. --Ptcamn 10:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems strange that this observgation would imply a new number category for nouns—nouns that are singular except in tag questions, when they are plural. Are there any other syntactic environments when these nouns reveal their singular-plural dual nature? Is this something idiosyncratic about tag questions, or is it idiosyncratic about these nouns, and it is just tag questions which I encountered that reveals the idiosyncrasy? And why would be it less clearly grammatical for Intel to be inflected in singular than Ford? What are the conditions that trigger this behavior, and to what degree are those conditions semantic, and to what degree syntactic?


 * Also, Ptcamn, you would be wise not to fling around accusations of amateurism in a semianonymous forum such as this. Nohat 19:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Amateurs! Well really!! JackofOz 12:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I shouldn've assumed you were an amateur, Nohat, but I am pretty sure JackofOz is since it would be pretty unusual for a professional to be unaware of his coworkers. (And I meant "amateur" in the "not doing it professionally/getting paid for it" sense, not the "lacking skill" sense.) --Ptcamn 22:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Despite that disclaimer, I'm still at a loss to discern what point you are making by labelling anyone here as an amateur. That sort of distinction seems utterly irrelevant in this forum, which is open to all comers.  JackofOz 02:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * He justifies his previous post, a humorous comment on your apparent surprise. Jocular remarks are perfectly appropriate and he didn't intend offense. As for the topic, it seems to be (yet another) irregularity linguists can point out in American English. In a related subject, I recall learning in n class that the "American" correct answer to "Aren't you human" is, of course, "Yes." The agreement with antecedent clauses in your examples is obviously erroneous, but besides finding more reasons to laugh at our convoluted language, I say "deal with it." z ε n   &#xF8FF;  07:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll just point out that this quirk of casual usage in North America is not limited to tag questions: it extends to all contexts where a pronoun is used to refer to a corporation or similar entity. So not only do we say things like "Intel is not a software house, are they?" but also things like "Intel is not a software house; they make semiconductors." (In both sentences, an Intel employee would typically use "we" instead of "they".)

I say "casual usage" because this doesn't apply to formal contexts such as legal documents. In legal contexts a corporation is a kind of person and is referred to by the singular pronoun "it". This is also often seen in business writing, where specific actions performed by the corporation (rather than its employees) are being discussed. "Intel has announced a takeover bid for Out-tel. It is offering $17.29 per share."

--Anonymous, an amateur, February 9, 2007, 22:55 (UTC).

Disarming Words
Is there a term for those words which, while positive, can disarm or denegrate by use. The classic example is 'nice' - by its use we declare something as being superficial, bland, irrelevant... for example;
 * Person One: "I think that 1984 was the greatest work of English literature, a penetrating look into the human soul, and a frightening representation of the extremes of political thought"
 * Person Two: "Yes, it was nice."

Here person two has not directly contradicted the first person, but their choice of 'nice' shows that they do not have the same feelings, indeed thinks that these are somehow a silly way of thinking about something. Another similar word is 'pretty'. Describing someone or something as handsome, attractive, sexy or similar gives them a power, a prestige, however 'pretty' doesn't - it gives an impression of 'attractive but bland'. I find it intriguing that these words are also quite childish - perhaps suggesting in their use that one is that which one is describing. While I'm posting, does anyone have any examples of similarly 'disarming' words?


 * In German you can have the same effect, somewhat counterintuitively, by saying ganz gut. By itself ganz means "completely" or "entirely" and gut means "good". But if you say something is ganz gut it has pretty much the same effect as saying that 1984 was "nice". It becomes little more than a polite way of saying it's crap. —Angr 13:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It sounds to me that person two doesn't care about what one is saying. Two is just giving an answer without sincerity. (Or he doesn't like 1984 at all)--Fitzwilliam 05:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the expression is "damning with faint praise".--Pharos 13:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's an example: the ending of Hemingway's Sun Also Rises: One character says plaintively, "Jake, we could have had such damn good time together" (if it wasn't for WWI and other stuff explained throughout the book), and Jake responds, "Isn't it pretty to think so?" zafiroblue05 | Talk 21:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

CLINES --- i need information about this
I would like to find out which site has information on clines. It has something to with order of intentisy of adverbs. I have been searching for an hour, but my effort seemed futile. Help me please. Thank you.Carlrichard 13:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * All we seem to have here is a brief description of the linguistic use of "cline" at the disambiguation page Cline. --Lph 18:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

GUzuntight?
when I watched cartoons, I had heard the word Guzuntigh(?) after they sneeze. I don't even know how it's really spelled correctly. Can u please tell me what that word is? thank you.


 * gesundheid is the German word for 'health', which you say to someone who's just sneezed, to wish them health... ie even though you've just sneezed I hope you aren't getting sick. (In French they say, 'a vos souhaites' which means to your 'to your wishes!' Duomillia 13:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Particularly American, I'd think. In the UK, people'd generally say "bless you". 惑乱 分からん 14:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia article is at Gesundheit, of course.--Pharos 14:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Throw your mother's old shoes
Please translate into Cantonese. Thanks. If anyone wonders, I heard this phrase in a movie.


 * What does that mean in English? I may help.--Fitzwilliam 05:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

French Pronunciation
I've been learning French off and on for the last few years, and I am trying to refine my pronunciation. Can somebody transcribe how the following letters should be pronounced in IPA? Assume that the final letters are silent.
 * 1) -ai
 * 2) -ais
 * 3) -ait
 * 4) -aît
 * 5) -ain
 * 6) -aie

Are each of these always pronounced the same? Or does a certain tense, such as future or conditional, always posess the same sound (such as [ɛ] or [e])? Thanks in advance. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 15:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In my dialect, all of them except "-ain" are pronounced the same: [e]. "-ain" is pronounced [ɛ̃].  The word "paraît" as in il me paraît que... sounds the same as "paré" and not like "pareille", but there may be dialects that make the opposite choice. --Diderot 16:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Really? So the future and the conditional sound identical? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 19:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not a native speaker and indeed am struggling with this very area. But I have found http://www.languageguide.org/francais/grammar/pronunciation/index.html, which claims that "-ai plus any consonant" is pronounced the same; except that the sound changes at the end of a sentence; and that -ai without a consonant following on a verb is pronounced differently from other word forms (so je serais, conditional, and je serai, future, are distinguishable, so my teacher tells me though I struggle to hear the difference). -aie is not mentioned, and -aît, I seem to remember my teacher saying, would be lengthened. Notinasnaid 19:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * So apparently -ai is pronounced as [e], and coupled with any consonant it is [ɛ], but it laxed language they can all be [e]. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 19:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I had to learn French for eight years and I'm still amazed how difficult the spelling is. Anyway, as far as I know, the futur and the conditional are NOT the same.  "Je parlerai" has a "ai" sounding like "é", while "je parlerais" has a "ais" sounding like "è". The pronunciation of "parlerait" in "il parlerait" is completely the same as that of "je parlerais".
 * However, the "ai" in "aimez" sounds like "è"! So your problems are understandable...


 * In most of the south of France, "ai" is [e] and "ais" is [ɛ], but in standard French (if any such thing exists), there is no difference: all are pronounced [ɛ], and I think that is what you should learn. If I hear any [e] for the future tense, I always think "Are these people from Nice, Marseille or Toulouse?", but if the answer is actually "NYC", I'd be startled.
 * "ain" is very different though, as it it nasalised:  --Lgriot 23:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

latin
Is the latin thought pattern really  or am I being lied to?
 * Are you referring to "Subject Object Verb" word order? I think Latin word order was flexible, since meaning depended heavily on grammatical case. 惑乱 分からん 16:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * See Latin grammar. Word order is flexible for style or emphasis or clarity, but the very basic pattern is Subject-Object-Verb.
 * Try not to confuse "word order" and "thought pattern". --Ptcamn 22:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Latin to English translation of fairly small paragraph please
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
 * --WindintheWillows 19:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Lorem ipsum meltBanana  19:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

German genitive
Statt in German generally takes the genitive. However, in a phrase like "Waffen statt Essen", there is no 's' on the end of the Essen, even though as Essen is neuter (at least I presume it is here), and so 'should' have an 's' on the end for the genitive. Does anyone have any idea why? Thanks. Trebor27trebor 20:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The phrase is grammatical but wrongly capitalized. It should be "Waffen statt essen" (as in the title of this article: Surfen statt essen).  Statt is indeed a preposition that takes the genitive (statt des Essens "instead of the food").  But it's also a conjunction (= "rather than")&mdash;Willst du trinken statt essen?  You'll also see statt zu + infinitive.  Wareh 01:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

"grace" in arabic
I'm having no luck recalling the female singer whose name translates from Arabic, maybe roughly, as 'graceful'. Any help? Wolfgangus 20:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Based on 45 seconds of consulting Arabic dictionaries -- Jamila? AnonMoos 23:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * In fact, it's since been discovered to be Shakira but thank you. Wolfgangus 23:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * &#1588;&#1575;&#1603;&#1585;&#1577; means literally "woman who gives thanks" in Arabic, not really "graceful" (more "grateful"), as far as I can tell... AnonMoos 08:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Shakira would translate literally to شكيرة in Arabic. Not grammatical, but it's used in some dialects. The correct spelling would be شاكرة as AnonMoos said.