Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2007 May 8

= May 8 =

Literature
How does the number 25 relate to english? 71.190.2.208 00:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps in the sense that the English language contains the words "twenty" and "five", which, when placed together ("twenty five") convey in words exactly the same concept as the number "25". Sorry if that's not helpful, but the meaning of your question seems somewhat elusive.  JackofOz 01:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There is also: 2 + 5 = 7; and there are 7 letters in the word "English". --Bielle 02:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This sounds like a homework question, which we cannot answer, but you might find something to start you off here. -Elmer Clark 06:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I would hate a teacher who set such a vague question as homework. How does butter relate to friendship, or zygarchy to jellyfish? A good answer is: they don't. It sounds like a puzzle question to me, with a hint given through the header in the form of the word "Literature". --Lambiam Talk  07:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Arabic userpage
Can someone who can read Arabic please take a look at User:CreativeArabs and see if the content given is in conformation with Wikipedia policies? Thanks!--thunderboltz(TALK) 06:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems to be a quote from some innocuous literature min al-munfa ila l-munfa (not familiar with it). Drmaik 07:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * (after edit conflict) It is all about a poem and looks like (a stab at) an article in desperate need of wikification as well as assertion of notability through reliable sources. I see no violation of policy. This used to be a (multiply created and deleted) article with the same Arabic title (presumably the name of the poem). The last time it was created here, moved to main space by the author, and moved back here by an admin.. It looks like no-one has cared to engage with the author through their talk page about any of this. An article with the same title was AfD'ed and deleted on the Arabic Wikipedia: ar:%D9%88%D9%8A%D9%83%D9%8A%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%A7:%D8%AA%D8%B5%D9%88%D9%8A%D8%AA_%D9%84%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%B0%D9%81/%D9%85%D9%86_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%86%D9%81%D9%89_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%89_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%86%D9%81%D9%89. Disclaimer: my understanding of Arabic is severely limited. --Lambiam Talk  07:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thanks. Can you also see why the article was AfD'd on the arabic wiki?--thunderboltz(TALK) 13:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The delete reason is "Wikipedia is not a platform for publishing amateur poetry and the article is not encyclopedic". Adam Bishop 15:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * All right. The userpage is harmless then. Thanks! --thunderboltz(TALK) 16:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Is a divorced uncle still an uncle?
Is your fathers sisters ex-husband (or any other combination of ex-husband that fits) still officialy an uncle, and would they have to be declared on aplication forms etc. that ask if any relative is in the same company/organisation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.254.97 (talk • contribs)


 * If you're not sure, its always best to ask your boss. However, in the absence of any definition of "relative" I think you would be safe in saying "No". "Relative" is usually taken to mean blood-relative. But, in any case, you could certainly argue that he's no longer a relative.--Shantavira 11:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * IANAL, but I also think that legally you're quite safe in not identifying him as your uncle. He is not married to your aunt, and therefore is not your uncle-by-marriage. (Informally you could refer to him as your ex-uncle, I suppose, as he is your aunt's ex-husband.) —Angr 14:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Coffee matters
Please help me to understand the following: Volunteering to get someone a coffee is quick way to power and influence. Once you know someone is a 22 or a white without, you can ask them pretty much anything.

What is "22" in this case? I understand it refers to coffee, like "someone who preferes 22 coffee", also, what is "white without"? Does it mean coffee without cream? Please help, I need it for the correct translation and understanding as well. Thank you! Elena —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.33.196.2 (talk) 11:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC).


 * The following is speculation, I could not find definitive references. "White without" would most likely be coffee with cream but without sugar.  I'm nearly stumped on the "22" but I think perhaps the digits should be separated, thus "two two" not "twenty two," and that would be coffee with two cream and two sugars.  Where did you find this information about coffee being the way to power?  --LarryMac 14:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 'White without' could also mean with milk (rather than cream) but without sugar. I suspect the 22 is a reference to the codes that you have to key into a vending machine to get your coffee.  So 22 could mean white with milk etc etc. --Richardrj talkemail 14:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think RIchardJ is right..22 is a code on my coffee machine at work (well they say Coffee, water dressed in brown perhaps is more accurate). I expect that "white without" is meaning no-sugar, but with milk (or perhaps cream). I guess the idea is that coffee introduces a situation where there is no employer/employee mindset and so means you could 'connect' on a level. Similar to how I notice that people who smoke in my office often have a camaraderie with each other that (and I can say this with a degree of certainty) wouldn't exist without that link. I suspect the idea of coffee getting you ahead is similar to this. ny156uk 17:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Was this sentence written or uttered by a Canadian? Because a 'double-double' is common Canadian slang for coffee with two sugars and two creams. -- Charlene 01:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm with Charlene. It's almost certainly 'double double white without (sugar)'. Anchoress 13:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all!!! This sentence is from a humorous book by Guy Browning. The author is British. I guess 22 does refer to the vending machine, since it is used in similar context (with respect to the vending machine) further in the book. As for coffee being the way to power, it is just a joke I guess, since the book is a humorous one;) Also, thanks for "white without" :) But for you, I might have got it wrong. Elena


 * To this Brit, the sentence is completely clear. "White without" means with milk and no sugar (we usually refer to coffee as "white" or "black" rather than saying "with/without milk", (and we never say "cream" except on the rare occasions when we actually mean cream and not milk or non-dairy whitener). And I would immediately understand '22' to mean the code on the particular vending machine they share - but without knowing the machine, I would have no idea what particular variety of beverage that was. --ColinFine 18:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Learning Japanese
I am intending to take a course in Japanese at university, but I don't know if i wll be able to cope with it. I have some language background in that i am fluent in french so am familiar with learning a language. Any thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.178.251.218 (talk • contribs).
 * Basic spoken Japanese is very easy: no tones, easy Italianate sounds, hardly any grammatical inflections. You could pick up the essential structure in a weekend and be able to hold a basic conversation (where do you live, what time is the next train to Osaka, two beers and a pizza please etc.) within days.


 * What are you talking about? Japanese is agglutinating (e.g. mi-ta-kuna-i see-want-not-nonpast "I don't want to look"), and I don't think postpositions are easier to learn than suffixes. --Ptcamn 15:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Getting beyond that, and understanding nuance and attitude and any conversation where it isn't obvious at the outset who is doing what to whom, is rather more complex, given that Japanese leaves out many of the words we'd use in European languages. Think about the way in English we might say "another?", where the situation makes it obvious that we really mean "John, would you like another beer?" - we don't bother to put in the non-necessary words. Well, trying to understand Japanese is like working out all the time what "another?" means when you're not familiar with the situation. Another what? For me or you? Who's offering?, etc.


 * Learning vocabulary (beyond basics) is complicated by the preponderance of short homophones in Japanese: a simple two-syllable word such as 'seikoh' can have at least half-a-dozen meanings, and there are no tones to distinguish them - only the context. (And the way it's 'spelt' in Chinese characters, though that's not much help if you're on the phone.)


 * Japanese does have pitch accent to distinguish words. --Ptcamn 15:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The written language is ludicrously difficult and cumbersome - two parallel alphabets (strictly, 'syllabaries'), plus eight hundred Chinese characters just to be able to read a kid's book or simple news story, and more like three times that to read a novel. If you can read and write a simple postcard within a year you're doing well.


 * That was my experience of the language as a native English speaker while living there for two years, anyway! No doubt other people here will have different observations... RA —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.66.229.8 (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC).


 * I would expect the pace of the course to take the difficulties of learning the language into account. In the end, all languages are incredibly difficult if you want to attain perfection (the same competence as a native speaker). For an English speaker, there are two or three main difficulties for mastering Japanese at a basic level. When learning French, about half the words have something familiar, but in Japanese almost all words are completely unfamiliar. You'll have no problem with kimono, and to remember that biru = "beer" is also not hard, but there it more or less stops. You'll have to memorize that shako means "garage" (or "partridge"), and so on. The problem of lack of vocabulary will remain until you have progressed quite far. Difficulty number two is the completely different grammar. Japanese grammar by itself is not particularly difficult, but if all you know is English and French, you'll have to do some brain rewiring before you can understand Japanese in real time. The keyword here is lots of practice. Then, if you are the type who can improve their language skills by reading – learning to read Japanese in the Japanese writing system is much more difficult than learning to understand Japanese in the first place, and actually not very profitable unless you already know Japanese. Finding interesting material in romaji is hard. Finally, on the way to perfection, you'll also have to master the language variants and nuances used for speaking "up" (being deferent) and speaking "down" (e.g. to a servant), next to the equal-level variant for addressing colleagues at work and such, normally the only one taught in courses and textbooks. But for getting around in Japan as a tourist you don't need this level of proficiency. --Lambiam Talk  16:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)