Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2007 March 6

= March 6 =

Texan Slang
The laid-back drawl of Texan slang (in the whole southern dialect (hic?) phenomenon) I think could use an article:

Here's what comes to my mind:

What it dew, wonk wonk, cowboy up/aww that's so cowboy, git er done, romp; anything else come to your minds? Studying in Texas I enjoyed the local cowboys and chicanos, with quite potent local language intensity; "you goin' as fag bait?" - to a prepped out blondie pretty-boy. It seems New England (even rural) lives by different standards, incl. linguitic...? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.5.208.146 (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
 * I'm not really sure what your question is. I live in Texas (near Houston), and no one around here talks like that...maybe it's different out in West Texas, though...I suppose. But maybe I'm misunderstanding you--what exactly are you asking or trying to say? --Miskwito 06:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You might find something that interests you in the article Southern American English. We have the articles Philadelphia Slang and Boston slang, but I don't think anything down Texas way.  Wareh 00:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

For television shows that have ceased production, is it correct to refer to the show as a "was" or an "is."
This is currently being discussed at Reference desk/Entertainment but readers of the Language reference desk might have a more definitive answer, especially as to what the preferred style is in academic writing. --Mathew5000 02:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What's the actual context of the sentence? Fiction is supposed to be written in in-universe style, so it should be in present tense. But if you're talking about the non-fiction part of it, then it would be in past tense. If you're talking about cancelled show is/was a sitcom blah blah, then I would personally use present tense, because the show still is a sitcom. --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 03:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The latter -- and though we've agreed that the present tense is generally used for referring to texts, and the past for historical events surrounding production of those texts, there are some exceptions we are not sure about.  These would include:


 * if a character dies before the fictional universe is first shown, does the entry on that character in Wikipedia frame that character's existence in past or present tense? (c.f. Laura Palmer).
 * If all (or most) of the recordings of a television series have no more physical existence, do we move to referring to that text in the past tense?  For example, if all copies and recordings of Alf were destroyed, would we switch the entry's first sentence over to say "Alf was a television sitcom..."?
 * Getting a consistent answer here is crucial, by the way, IF we want Wikipedia to be consistent in its usage.  If you head over to the original question and subsequent discussion, you'll see that our few random searches of television entries shows that, either way, we've got a whole bunch of tidying up to do to create consistency.   Heck, even if we can't resolve the exceptions, Wikipedia is still highly fluid in terms of how it uses and applies present/past tenses to refer to television texts and character issues; someone's got some 'splainin' to do...and some cleanup on aisle 5.   (The was/is project?) Jfarber 10:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I would say for the first case, if a character dies before the fictional universe is first shown, it should be in the past tense. Inuniverse is supposed to work so that it's present tense as you're reading it, like the story is taking place in the present. But if in the story, the character died before the story, then the character is also dead in the present time of the story, so it should be referred to in the past tense.
 * For the second one, I would still say that it is a sitcom, because even though no copies of our favorite cat eater ceases to exist, it's still a sitcom. But frankly, I could lean either way on this one, but I favor that it should be in the present tense for this one. Maybe I should reply at the discussion since no one else replied here. --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 06:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Take
Could someone please give me a more elquoent version of 'takes no shit from no/anyone?' (I don't want to write shit in an essay). Cuban Cigar 05:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "Brooks no contradiction"? "Stands up for what s/he believes in"? —Angr 05:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "Puts in one's place"? "Cuts down to size"? Clarityfiend 06:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd previously considered 'stands up for what she believes in', but it didn't seem strong enough. 'Brooks no contradiction' sounds very proffesional though, so i think i'll use that! Thanks to all who helped.Cuban Cigar 06:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You could also say "doesn't tolerate dissent". That makes it sound more like they are a dictator, if that's the effect you're looking for. 12:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've often heard "doesn't suffer fools gladly" used; it's possibly still too informal for an essay, but it's popular in obituaries. Laïka  20:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought about suggesting that, but not suffering fools gladly isn't really the same as taking no shit from anyone. —Angr 21:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But neither do the other phrases, strictly :-) They're all close enough, in the right context. Skittle 22:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "Takes no shit from anyone" is completely different from "doesn't suffer fools gladly", at least to me -- the former is based on a position of inferiority (one wouldn't say of the President that he takes no shit from anyone; it's true, but as a result of his position, not his personality), while the latter seems to require superiority. Tesseran 07:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * While I would take them both as meaning "Doesn't accept nonsense/insubordinance from anyone", one being slangy and slightly rude, the other being slightly arch and euphemistic. So the meaning is the same, but the contexts they are used in are different. In contrast, 'brooks no contradiction' means "refuses to allow any other view than their own", which can be the same as the others, but not necessarily. It is also arch and slightly euphemistic, although less euphemistic than "doesn't suffer fools gladly". :-) Skittle 17:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

→I do care for something; but in my conscience, sir, I do not care for you: if that be to care for nothing, sir,I would it would make you invisible "Twelfth night" "3.1.28-31" 7th March 2007 Gus87.112.74.135 16:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

DVD - burnt vs blank
Is a burnt DVD or CD heavier (weighs more) than a blank DVD or CD?

Eklimonda 12:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There shouldn't be any change in weight. Consider the conservation of mass law.  That says any mass lost from the CD would have to go somewhere.  So, if it loses mass, where does it go ? StuRat 12:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Because burning a CD/DVD involves "scoring" the plastic -- that is, making tiny GROOVES which represent the ones and zeroes of a binary storage system -- If anything, a burned CD or DVD might weigh slightly LESS than a blank. Ever smelled that "burning plastic smell" when making a CD/DVD?   That's a TINY bit of lost mass, there in your nostrils...Jfarber 15:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If you read the article Compact disc, you will see that for recordable CDs, their surfaces are coated with a substance whose properties may be altered by heat or light. None of the substance is lost or gained.  Its properties merely change through the application of energy.   (After edit conflict:  Jfarber may be right about burning plastic.  But you would not be making grooves with your home computer.  CDs with grooves (beneath the plastic) would be made in a special manufacturing facility.) Marco polo 15:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, just noticed that -- I meant to specify that home-burned CDs involve heating dye, not actual pitting...but shot my accuracy in the foot trying to type and teach class at the same time.  I would point out, though, that changing the chemical properties of the dye inside COULD change the weight, albeit not in a particularly significant way.


 * Incidentally, the article on CD burning specifies that this is a slightly different process for RW and non-RW disks, but in both cases, as the Compact Disk entry makes clear, "Pits are much closer to the label side of a disc so that defects and dirt on the clear side can be out of focus during playback." tIn other words, the "burning" happens on a SUBsurface data layer, which is not part of the "coating" but rather underneath a clear plastic layer of protective surface. Jfarber 15:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course, even with a chemical change, the conservation of mass still applies. Thus, the weight of all the products of a chemical reaction exactly equals the weight of the reactants.  If fumes are given off, then the weight might be slightly reduced, but this amount is certain to be insignificant unless it fills your house with thick smoke. StuRat 17:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Really? Are "weight" and "mass" actually the same in this case?  And...disks are tiny, light things -- would a single disk produce enough fumes to make that much smoke?  I had understood otherwise in both cases, but IANAE.  Jfarber 15:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Mass and weight are related, according to W = mg, where g is the acceleration due to gravity. Thus, unless your house is in a variable gravitational field (which actually sounds like quite a bit of fun), the mass and weight are always proportional, yes.  And if you doubt the volume of fumes that would be needed to add up to an appreciable mass, consider the amount of smoke that can come off a piece of bread stuck in a toaster, with no apparent reduction in mass. StuRat 17:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, this would have been an excellent question for the Computer Ref Desk. StuRat 15:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * And was also an excellent question for the Science desk, since it was about the science of what happens to the disk, rather than computing itself. It would probably fit in either place, but I would have asked it here, and expected a better answer here. I've clearly gone slightly mad and forgotten where I am :-) Sorry. Skittle 22:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That's all well and good, Skittle, however I think we should be encouraging people to direct their questions to the most appropriate desk. Wherever it best belongs, the Language desk was not the place for it.  JackofOz 00:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Also looking for a word
There's a word used to describe writing meant to be inflammatory as opposed to satire, but not quite scathing. And yet, for the life of me, I can't remember it. It was, among other things, used to describe the writing of Ann Coulter, although the current article does not use the word any longer. Anyone know what I'm thinking of here? It is driving me crazy that I can't remember what this word is. :/ Sethimothy 15:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's start with the S's: Sardonic, sarcastic ? StuRat 15:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * None of those. It's a technical term, I know that for a fact, and I -thought- it started with an "A" although that could, with my track record, ensure it starts with an X.  I know for a fact there is at least one vowel and one consonant in the word, though, if that helps.  :/ Sethimothy 15:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not a technical term, but... acerbic? Edited to add: FWIW, A lot of people describe her as acerbic. Anchoress 16:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If I tell mean-spirited jokes about Linus Pauling and vitamin C, does that mean I have an ascorbic wit ? :-) StuRat 16:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That'd be the one. Although, yeah, it isn't a technical term, so now I'm wondering if there was another similar word... regardless, much appreciated.  Thanks.  Sethimothy 16:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Polemic/Polemical?--Fuhghettaboutit 16:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Philippic ? StuRat 19:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

OUNDLE
How do you pronounce the word Oundle?

Oundle is an ancient market town on the River Nene in Northamptonshire, England, with a population of 5,345 (2001 census). It is 80 miles north of London and 12 miles south-west of Peterborough.wcstockWcstock 20:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's, i.e. the first syllable rhymes with gown or noun. —Angr 20:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)