Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 December 23

= December 23 =

One name
Is there a word describing people like Madonna, Prince, Teller, who are known by 1 name? Nadando (talk) 04:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Mononymous persons. Deor (talk) 04:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

"Awful" can mean "Chic"?
''"I look awful, don't I?" [Charity] said at last with a happy sigh.'' ~Summer (novel), Chapter 9.

Charity is trying on a new hat and feels pretty. Why does she describe herself as "awful"? Was that slang for snazzy/pretty/chic at the time, or is Charity being sarcastic? 96.233.7.70 (talk) 05:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)WhartonFan


 * Lots of negative words are used to express positive notions. (e.g. We had a terribly good time. She was hauntingly beautiful.) Not knowing the character described in that book I can only guess that she might have been making a pun (awsome/awful), or trying to ape someone whose opinion of style she doesn't agree with. (Think of a "punk" teenager relaying her "Victorian" aunt's opinion of her.) 76.97.245.5 (talk) 08:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Could it be tongue-in-chic?  Julia Rossi (talk) 11:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's the equivalent of today's "awesome". Look up "awful" in any dictionary. Its common use as "very bad" is a pejorative extension of its core meaning even now. --Milkbreath (talk) 12:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It could also be insecurity ("please tell me I look good"), a request for reassurance ("I'd like to do something different but I'm not sure this is it"), or fishing for complements ("convince me I look good"). When trying on outfits, you want something suitable.  --- OtherDave (talk) 12:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But you wouldn't say it "with a happy sigh" in those situations. —Angr 12:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No, because in that case she wouldn't heave a happy sigh, she'd make a moue. You're making me wheel out the big gun: The OED calls the meaning "Frightful, very ugly, monstrous" slang even now. The meaning intended is "Solemnly impressive; sublimely majestic". She is guilty of hyperbole, not sarcasm. --Milkbreath (talk) 12:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The OP doesn't say when the book was written, or more probably, set, but the moral that words change their meaning over the centuries, becoming, in effect, false friends, is a salutary one. The most famous use of "aweful" in this sense is the contested description of St Paul's Cathedral, often attributed to Queen Anne in 1710: "aweful, artificial, and amusing", or as we would say now, awe-inspiring, cleverly constructed, and pleasing to the eye. The quotation is probably an urban legend, with its bubble well pricked in this linguists' list. BrainyBabe (talk) 12:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * A big part of language is that it is often a "secret code" used among members of a social group/tribe/clique/association/whatever. The use and understanding of the "correct" meaning of words indicates that you "belong" to the "club".  It is a sign of membership in the clan to be able to speak the clan's language.  Its not a conscious choice to create new language to fit a particular clan, but it is a natural part of the evolution of a clique.  The whole idea behind using words in a different meaning is that it quickly identifies the outsiders from the insiders.  If you don't understand what Charity is saying in the quote, or even if you kinda-sorta understand it, but it makes you feel a bit weird, like it doesn't quite work, it just means that you don't belong to the clan that Charity does... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  13:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It was 1917. If we don't quite get it immediately, it just means that we're not 120 years old. --Milkbreath (talk) 14:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

So in 1917 "awful" was probably often (or, compared to now, relatively often) used in its positive sense, at least in Charity's clan (Jayron's word), which probably encompassed all of rural Massachusetts. And to BrainyBabe: Sorry about not providing the date, I thought you would take the link to the article. It was written by Edith Wharton, if that helps. 96.233.7.70 (talk) 19:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)WhartonFan


 * Awful and terrible are used in the Bible in reference to God Himself. Terrible is still used of a certain Russian ruler named Ivan.  In the sense of "awfully good", "frightfully good show" and "terribly impressive" (or in the negative connotation "he's not terribly impressive, is he", meaning "he's very unimpressive, isn't he"), they are not negative words at all, but terribly, frightfully, awfully positive ones.  --  JackofOz (talk) 20:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Latin expert needed
Please review this edit at Carthago delenda est. It looks like it's been made by an expert, but sense and readability have been badly sacrificed, and there are some perplexing typos. --Dweller (talk) 10:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I reverted, since I don't see any advantage to translating the Latin verb deleo as "to smite". In modern English, the word "smite" has strong associations with the God of the Old Testament (except of course for the derived form "smitten", which has developed its own specialized meaning, which is even more inappropriate as a translation of deleo). AnonMoos (talk) 11:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And anyway, in the Latin Vulgate the word translated as "smite" always seems to be "percutere". Adam Bishop (talk) 02:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

How do you translate into Latin "thank you AnonMoos"? --Dweller (talk) 11:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Gratias tibi ago, AnonMoos, that is, if you really wanted to know. It&#39;s been emotional (talk) 16:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank ye for going behind my back. The early versions (KJV, LV, GB, LXX, etc.) were full of mistranslations. "smite" was not of the first sense which could fit the original text; "slay" would be. "smite" is associated with "smut", and both with the stain in delendus and its degerundives (the proper term for Wp's gerundive). Another rough translation may be "strike" as in "rub out", rather than "wipe out". Moreover, the world wrongly uses the prospective construction "to verb" as the infinitive—it's not, as there is no "to". -lysdexia 12:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That's nice -- however, "smite" is not listed as a translation of deleo in the compendious and quasi-authoritative Lewis and Short dictionary, as you can see here: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3D%2312882, and all of the meanings which are listed there refer to something being obliterated or effaced or destroyed or put an end to, whereas the meaning of "smite" refers to striking a blow of some kind against something (which may or may not have the effect of destroying it). Since furthermore, the word "smite" has strong archaic Biblical connotations in modern English (except in the case of the form "smitten", which has developed an additional further distracting meaning), therefore there's a strong burden of proof on you to demonstrate (with suitable references) how "smite" is remotely appropriate in the context of translating Cato's saying... AnonMoos (talk) 13:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it's not nescius. Dictionaries are not translations; senses are given.  What you need to do is look at their etýmologhies—many dictionaries tell you delere first means blot out, blemish, or smear, from which the other senses came.  The same goes for the meaning of smite.  Both words, in Latin and English, mean the same at their outset and later on.  Your whine is about the former's pejoration and is beside the point of whomever uses the word.  The former edit, of "destroy", is wrong as the Roman would've said "destruenda" instead, of course.  You can't justify the use of one word to mean exactly as another when they're in the same language.  Which is why the parallels of "rub out", "wipe out", or "blot out" are ever better than the lame translation.  How about you make a case for your claim about "smite"'s strong Biblical connotations? and how they dissuade its use in the translation, as it's your lone reason for smitan my edit. -lysdexia 14:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Dude, within ancient Latin destruo has more technical connotations of dismantling or pulling down something, while deleo has broader and sometimes more emotive connotations of completely "wiping something off the map" (as it were). Cato used deleo instead of destruo presumably because he was more a lot more interested in obliterating Carthage as any kind of politically, militarily, or economically significant entity than he was in demolishing a few buildings. Furthermore, if Lewis and Short translate deleo as to "destroy", then I don't see why we can't also. And the simple fact is that "destroy" is dramatically better -- on every dimension relevant to translation -- than would be "smite"[sic] (a word which is semantically and stylistically very seriously inappropriate). If you want to improve the article, then please try to make practical and constructive suggestions for a better translation, instead of continuing to ride your faintly ridiculous "wikt:smite" hobbyhorse. AnonMoos (talk) 03:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Why do you call me "Dude"? Yes, destruo means "I unbuild". deleo means "I smite". Its wiktionary page is lame and without history or citations; "smite" couldn't be more appropriate or better as the contemporary. If you want the "wipe out" sense, then it's "I strike". But the use of another disrelated Latin loanword is the worst translation. Lewis and Short, and other lecsioghrafists and lingvists, are misinformed and miseducated, is why; their job is not translation but popular description with hardly any analýsis. They con the depths of one tonge (one of the classics) but not the other (English, here), so they cannot frame up any whole translation; it's more a sýnoným of a thesaurus, and nearly always in the same nation. (They use another Latin word as the meaning of a Latin word. Their [academic] work is bogus.)  Every keyboard comes with a "delete" key; this originally was on the typewriter, and for the ink or other written medium. So any deletion was the blotout of words to be forgotten—as dele came from the stem of Latin and Hellènic le- and let- words for oblivion, such as letum (death) and letare (slay), and lèthè. So letare is already associated with delere. Your whiny suppression of my [already-]constructive edit has been nothing more than handwaving, without critical analýsis or proof of your own, and you expect for me the burden of proof? The historic record of all of our terms should grant me the right to take off the lame translation, and many others you may find everywhere—as professors-doctors are not even broadlier expert to sheerly and wholly say anything in English, which has been dead for 1000 years. They can only do "Einglish". -lysdexia 05:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.228.70 (talk)
 * Etymological fallacy. Deor (talk) 05:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Which I'm aware of, and my case already makes the distinctions. (The meaning of a word is not by necessity its first, but is contemporary.) -lysdexia 12:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Let us remember that is an old, long-banned troll.  Adam Bishop (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Libel is against Wikipedia's NPA laws. lysdexia was/is not a troll, and I advise you to read the dictionary, which you are sheerly infamiliar with.  Also see User talk:68.127.228.70. -lysdexia 03:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

A translation from Dutch
Can someone please help me with translating the following text from Dutch, please? I get the gist of it but I'm trying to translate the article, so I need to be as accurate as possible. Thanks. Leptictidium (mt) 10:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Mogelijk was Johann Georg Hiedler die in het Derde Rijk officieel voor de grootvader van de Führer doorging niet de biologische vader. Als mogelijke vader van Alois komt ook de broer van Johann Georg in aanmerking, namelijk Johann Nepomuk Hüttler die in Spital Nr.36 woonde en waar Alois Hitler werd grootgebracht.


 * Forget about that, after giving a good though to it, I've found out what everything means! Leptictidium (mt) 11:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

How many languages do you need to know to be able to speak to 50% of the world?
The statistics on these pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_total_number_of_speakers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_number_of_native_speakers

are good, but I want to know is how many languages do you need to know to be able to speak to 50% of the world? or 60% etc. Because of the overlap (bilingual, multilingual) in the lists above, its hard to come up with an answer. - NominalActor (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * A lot hinges on what you mean by "speak to." Take the "usual estimation" of 618 billion who speak English as a first or second language.  Are you asking them where to wait for the bus, or trying to get your kitchen made over, or explaining collateralized debt obligations?  For example, I may understand individual words like sill, header, sole, plate, stud, king, and jack, but I can't make sense of them in the context of building a wall, the way my brother-in-law the carpenter can.  Yet I've been a native-speaker of English for quite a while.  --- OtherDave (talk) 12:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 618 billion? Mr.K. (talk) 13:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Typo; I'd used the 1.8 billion (or whatever) from the high estimate. Try and deal with it, Mr. K.  --- OtherDave (talk) 14:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I heartily concur, and would add the refinement that the ability to understand what people say back to you is another skill altogether. Those who are not used to foreign accents, let alone dialects, let alond wildly varying levels of competence, may be in for a shock, just because they can issue statements or orders and have them acquiesced to or obeyed.  BrainyBabe (talk) 12:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * By speak to, I mean basic talking and understanding, not specialist stuff, like carpentry or philosophy. I know that's an ambiguous definition, but I'm just looking for any figures from a good quality source. I don't want to get too bogged down with definitions. - NominalActor (talk) 13:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Just for reference, this was just asked like a few weeks ago, see . I'm not sure we came up with a definative answer, because of overlap in the statistics and such, but if you start with a world population of 6 billion and then add together the languages at the top of the list, you can get a rough idea.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  13:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was me, diff username (forgot password). The trouble with just adding the languages is that you soon go over 6 billion because of the overlap. - NominalActor (talk) 13:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You could also start with an assumption that no one speaks more than 2 foreign languages and see how much languages you have to know to reach 3 billion people. Mr.K. (talk) 13:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There are problems with using the numbers in the list of languages by total speakers to answer this question, because "languages" such as Arabic and Chinese actually consist of several mutually unintelligible dialects. Also, I strongly suspect that the "highest estimates" in that list must include people who know only a few words in a given language, such as "Hello" or "Good morning, teacher!" (which I heard from children numerous times during my travels through Tanzania, although I was not their teacher and had never seen them before).  Traveling through India, which supposedly has a large proportion of English speakers, I found that most Indians outside of tourist centers could not really communicate in English.  If your goal is communication, not just for basic travel necessities ("Where is the train station?"), but actual conversation, you should steer away from the higher estimates.  Finally, there is the problem of overlap, particularly for English, since probably a large percentage of the non-native speakers of English also speak one of the other top ten languages, especially Hindustani.  Given these concerns, it would be best to stick to our list of languages by number of native speakers and to allow for maybe 300 million additional proficient speakers of English, most of whom would be Europeans, and probably 100 million additional proficient speakers of Malay-Indonesian.  Then you have to discount the numbers for Chinese and Arabic to reflect the numbers of people really proficient in the most widely understood mutually intelligible dialects of those two languages (Mandarin Chinese, with maybe 1 billion proficient users, and Standard Arabic, with maybe 100 million).  Taking these precautions, and avoiding languages (such as German, Punjabi, and Javanese) a large proportion of whose native speakers are likely to be proficient in a more widely spoken second language, you would probably need the following ten languages, at a minimum, to reach 3.3 billion people (about half of the world's present population): Mandarin Chinese, English, Hindustani, Spanish, Portuguese, Bengali, Russian, Malay-Indonesian, Japanese, and Standard Arabic. Marco polo (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You should note, though that that would leave you with "white spots" on the world map where you still couldn't talk to anyone, whereas in other places you could (pretty much) talk to everyone you met. (Given that both me and my nephew are thought to speak the same language, communication is still not assured.)76.97.245.5 (talk) 01:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Apostrophe usage
Say I want to contract "It's okay" into "sokay" [deliberate sic]. Do I use two apostrophes (" '' sokay), to compensate for the contraction of the apostrophe in "it's", or just one? This may seem a stupid question, but I'd like to know what the usage rules are with regard to apostrophe inclusion and omission. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 13:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Short answer—no. I think I can safely say that if you adopt as a fundamental rule "Never use two apostrophes one after the other," your life's journey will be smooth and unvexed. Deor (talk) 13:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But what if I have to talk about Socrates' 'cello? —Angr 14:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I recommend that you insert a word space between the apostrophes—as in fact you did. Deor (talk) 15:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I recommend you no more spell "cello" with an apostrophe than you would do so with "phone". With the convergence happening these days with technology, some bright spark will no doubt come up with a telephone embedded in a violoncello, and then the pedants might be forced to write things like "I was playing Bach on my 'cello'phone, when it rang".  --  JackofOz (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The expression "o'clock" is a contraction of the phrase "of the clock". One apostrophe alone represents both the missing letter "f" and the missing word "the".
 * -- Wavelength (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See o'clock - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
 * -- Wavelength (talk) 16:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * For this specific example, the abbreviation I've seen most is "'s OK" Steewi (talk) 22:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Also see Gershwin's 'S Wonderful. — Michael J  21:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see in the OP's question, there were four apostrophes, "okay". And my quotation marks have just added another two.--KageTora (talk) 10:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Edit - no, they didn't They just made everything bold, for some reason.--KageTora (talk) 10:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

'Should' or 'would'?
I've recently seen a message that begins "I should like to thank you all..."

To me, the word 'should' seems a bit out of place, 'would' is the word I would (or should that be should?!) normally expect to see in that context. Is this a common way of writing?62.25.96.244 (talk) 13:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * People from (especially southern) England use should and shall in some cases where the rest of us expect would and will. Very often, this is the case after the pronouns I and we. Shall and will has information about this. Joeldl (talk) 14:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I take it as short for "If I have the proper amount of gratitude, I should like to thank you". Presumably, someone who is ungrateful won't like to thank people.  StuRat (talk) 16:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No. (I take it that you're using should to mean "ought to.") It's a straightforward conditional. It means exactly the same as "I would like to thank you," except that a majority of English-speakers in the world simply don't use should that way. Occasionally, some Americans used to do this too, probably under British influence. Here's an example, dated 1975 and from a U.S. source, taken from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage:
 * ... I should not be bothering you with this letter if I thought the trouble at all likely to end where it is today. Joeldl (talk) 16:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The use of should instead of would as a conditional modal verb after first-person pronouns (I and we) is a historical usage that has gradually faded over the past 200 years or so. During that time, the relative meanings of should and would (which used to be, but no longer are, parallel to shall and will) have shifted.  This can create confusion, because present-day users mistake the older meaning for the newer meaning ("ought to"), as the original poster did.  I think that the older usage was current in the United States during the 18th century, but by 1900, only educated Americans aping British usage still carried on the historical usage.  The historical usage seems to have lasted a bit longer in England, but I think that even in England it sounds stuffy, hypercorrect, and antiquated to most people nowadays.  Marco polo (talk) 16:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Marco is correct that the usage has fallen into desuetude, but it's worth pointing out that as late as 1974 a popular U.S. style guide (Words into Type) was saying:


 * The auxiliaries shall, will, should, and would are classically used with verbs to express simple futurity and determination. The distinctions formerly made between shall and will are breaking down and are little observed in popular speech. Nevertheless the distinctions are observed by many careful writers.
 * 1. In a declarative sentence simple futurity or mere expectation is expressed by shall (or should) in the first person, will (or would) in the second and third persons. …
 * 2. In a declarative or an imperative sentence, determination, threat, command, willingness, and promise on the part of the speaker are expressed by will (or would) in the first person, shall (or should) in the second and third. …
 * This distinction has been blurred for so long that experts debate whether General Douglas MacArthur's statement on leaving Corregidor in 1942, "I shall return," was an expression of determination or simple futurity. It is not even clear which would have been the stronger statement under the circumstances.


 * Deor (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The historic "usage" makes no sense. Why wouldn't both persons share the verb?  If I shall, so shall you; if you will, so will I.

(original research)

The seven moods of English

 * You shall heed. (As it fits.)
 * You should heed.
 * You will heed. (As it wants.)
 * You would heed.
 * You mot heed. (As it goes.)
 * You must heed.
 * You do heed. (As it makes.)
 * You did heed.
 * You can heed. (As it works.)
 * You could heed.
 * You owe heed. (As it needs.)
 * You ought heed.
 * You may heed. (As it comes.)
 * You might heed.


 * as ~ whenever
 * mot ~ feel like
 * shall ~ likely
 * Many say "should" instead of "ought". Mood is contrasted with aspect (progressive), tense (prospective), and person (imperative).  In my notes I also list the five genders (common, masculine, feminine, epicœne, neuter), declinations (gerundive, nominative, accusative, dative, supine), positions (locative, diminutive, allative, augmentative, demonstrative), cases (vocative, paritive, ablative, genitive, possessive), persons (imperative, active, objective, indicative, passive), tenses (prospective, past, present, future, causative), aspects (progressive, optative, perfective, subjunctive, infinitive), and some of their Middel and New English equivalends, prepositional and enclitic:
 * O        for    by    of      with     -ow -r     -o       -'s   -u
 * where  from at     tom	  til         -ey  -ick  -ham hr-  -n
 * when   fro     an    to     as         -ing -am -em   -im -m
 * thuh     this    the   thy   that      -l      -a    -e      -i      -t

-lysdexia 12:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)