Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2007 October 28

= October 28 =

Strategies
When something is funny, is the strtegy it employs ethos, logos, or pathos? Thanks, schyler 02:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * See ethos, pathos, and logos. Consider whether "humor" is a rational or emotional response. -Elmer Clark 02:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I've already looked at the articles but I am still a little confused. For example in such commercials as and. Thank you though. schyler 02:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

hebrew translation
hi good morning to all :)

how do you say LIVE LOVE LAUGH in hebrew? big and small case... please. thanks...

hope someone can help me out.... --202.175.29.2 02:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't help you out, but I can tell you Hebrew doesn't have a difference between capital and lowercase letters. —Angr 06:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest לחיות לאהוב לצחוק (transliterated: lichyot le'ehov litzchok, ch like in German), which literally means "to live, to love, to laugh". And yes, Hebrew doesn't have capital or lowercase letters. Remember that Hebrew is written from right to left, so if you're going to put each word on a different line, לחיות should come first and לצחוק should come last. Macnas 12:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Animal words
Is there an article on the various "animal words" - by these, I mean "ovine" for sheep, "vulpine" for foxes, "canine" for dogs, "delphine" for dolphines, "piscine" for fish, "bovine" for cows, "equine" for horses, "porcine" for pigs, and so on. "Simian" for ape, maybe. What are these words called? What is the equivalent if you want to describe something as human? Neil  ☎  12:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's a long list. I can't vouch for the accuracy of every word in there, but these strange of-or-pertaining-to adjectives do go far beyond just animals. The one for human beings is "human". -- BenRG 12:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * List of animal names (sixth column)? I don't know how accurate it all is - but, still... --Kurt Shaped Box 13:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Kurt, that's a good find, thank you. BenRG, that is an awesome list, thank you very much.  You are very strigine.  It seems there is no special word, sadly - they are just special adjectives.  but now I know the one for humans is "hominine".  Now if I want to say someone is like a anteater, I can find out I should say they are myrmecophagid. Sweet.  Neil   ☎  14:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * For human, also include 'humane', although it has a somewhat more specific meaning than simply human-like. Steewi 02:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Fins-de-siecles
At what point in the twentieth century did "turn of the century" begin to mean "around 1900" and not "around 1800"? When can we expect it to start meaning "around 2000"? --Milkbreath 15:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm popping this in up here, because the discussion below has veered pretty far away from the original question. I think a reasonable question to ask first would be - "was the term 'turn of the century' commonly used prior to 1900?"  If not, then there is no precedent from the 20th century and we are treading new ground.  Just a thought.... -- LarryMac  | Talk  17:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've heard the period around 2000 called "the turn of the 20th century", although I can't yet say I've heard it called simply "the turn of the century". Elderly people probably still mean around 1900 when they say that.  Younger ones might mean something different.  --  JackofOz 16:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I imagine it must be a very slow process, with a long period of overlap. From the 1950s to the 1970s (let's say), there were millions of people about who remembered the year 1900, and there was no doubt that that's what "turn of the century" meant in spoken English. Now, those late Victorians are gone, but all the same most English speakers grew up hearing the expression used to mean "around 1900". Unless people start using it to mean "around 2000" (which I don't think they have yet) then I should think the "around 1900" meaning will linger on well into this century, although sounding more and more ambiguous and being used less and less. Xn4  04:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * When I hear something like "turn of the 20th century", I don't know which end of the 20th century is meant, until I get enough context to figure it out. (It's like "midnight Friday" -- it's obvious to the speaker whether that's Thursday night or Friday night, but not to the listener.) --Anon, 05:16 UTC, October 29, 2007, 21st century.


 * Yes, it troubled me a little too, the first time I heard it. Then I quickly realised that people were still referring to 1900-ish when they said "the turn of the century" because that's what it had referred to for 100-odd years, and the newer expression must be referring to 2000-ish.


 * I'll insert my responses point by point. Are the people who still refer to 1900-ish as "the turn of the century" the same ones who speak of "the turn of" a numbered century?  I don't know that.  --Anon.
 * I don't see it as a question of which groups of people use which expressions, but what is meant by "the turn of the century" whenever it's used in any given instance, given that it has now become ambiguous without a context. In general terms, "the turn of ..." seems to be equivalent to "the end of ...", not "the beginning of ...".  But the end of what, that's the question.  There's no problem with "the turn of the 20th century", because that always means "the end of the 20th century going into the the start of the 21st".  I have no idea whether this has any historical precedent.  I've never read the expression "the turn of the 19th century" in a novel or book set near the end of the 19th century or the early part of the 20th; but I imagine people back then, to whom "the turn of the century" had meant 1800-ish for a long time, must have found a way to refer to the newer time period.

Whether they used "the turn of the 19th century" or something else, we now seem to have an expression that works for us in our time. -- JackofOz 12:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It couldn't mean the period around 2100 unless you're talking about a future event.


 * Right. The question is whether it's being used as an intendedly clearer replacement for the old expression, or whether it refers to the time 100 years later (for which we also have available "the turn of the millennium"). --Anon.
 * See above. --  JackofOz 12:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * On "midnight Friday", I think that midnight is defined to be part of the day just finishing, not part of the day just starting. That's fine for scientists, but it's still ambiguous for normal people


 * Actually, I think "normal people" are the ones least likely to see it as ambiguous; they'll see it as part of the day just ending. It's not fine for scientists, lawyers, or people who deal with schedules.  It really is ambiguous. --Anon.


 * (I'm glad you noticed my subtle little joke.) Sorry, I'm a little confused here.  Your question above suggested that if you heard someone referring to "midnight Friday", you wouldn't know which point in time they were referring to.  Now, you seem to be saying that people generally would understand it.  Except for the groups you mention.  Are you a member of such a group? --  JackofOz 12:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. Also, I've been involved with too many threads about "midnight" in other forums. --Anon, 06:02 UTC, October 30, 2007.


 * - this falls into the same category as other media-speak atrocities like "overnight",


 * Usually the verb tense makes this clear. --Anon.


 * Except that media reports often don't make clear on exactly which date an event happened, and for people who chronicle events and deaths, this is a worry. "The celebrated Pitcairn Island operatic soprano Dame Gertrude Muggleford died overnight" - yes, but when?  Was it before midnight, or after?  --  JackofOz 12:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "yesterday",


 * I find it hard to imagine any ambiguity there, so long as one knows the current date. --Anon.


 * Again, I have many counter-examples. Some media outlets have few qualms about reporting on an Monday that something that actually happened last Friday happened "yesterday".  It makes their news service seem more up-to-date.  I've learned never to trust "yesterday".  In fact, I no longer believe in yesterday.  (I've even seen things that happened more than 48 hours ago reported as having happened "overnight".)  --  JackofOz 12:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * and "the 2005 fiscal year" (is that July 2004-June 2005, or July 2005-June 2006?). --  JackofOz 06:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That one is whatever the corporation in question decides it is, subject to accounting rules in the relevant country. It may be a "corporate-speak" issue, but not a "media-speak" one.  --Anonymous, 09:33 UTC, October 29, 2007.


 * If the text is unrelated to any particular corporation, but discussing the economy generally, it's ambiguous. In Australia, the financial year starting 1 July 2005 and ending 30 June 2006 is best described as the "2005-2006 financial year".  "Fiscal 2006", "the 2005 financial year" etc all presuppose the listener understands the jargon and the definition.  That may be fine for insiders, but for the general public it's meaningless.  --  JackofOz 12:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)