Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 July 11

= July 11 =

How Often Do Linguists Study the World Languages Again?
I want to know how often do linguists research and re-classify the world languages in different language families. Do they research languages again every year, every five years and what? There are some languages which were popular a half century ago but now they are endangered. Some ethnic groups had spoken earlier languages but now they have creolized their languages or adopted new spoken languages, therefore their languages would be under a different language family. Sonic99 (talk) 02:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's an ongoing study - research is always going on. There are some languages which change classification unexpectedly because of new research, especially smaller, less studied languages, such as Australian languages, Amazonian languages, and so on. More and more languages are becoming endangered languages, or worse, moribund languages. There isn't an overrunning society or group that handles or monitors the research, so it's mostly everyone does it as their interested, or as they have data for different languages, rather than being assigned projects. Steewi (talk) 03:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The closest to such a society is SIL International, which maintains and publishes its Ethnologue list specifically to support its work in Bible translation. The last two editions were in 2000 and 2005: however, as the Ethnologue article discusses, much of the information is not updated from one edition to the next. --ColinFine (talk) 23:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

"Considering that we" or "considering we"?
Which of the following phrases is more grammatically correct?


 * 1) We should marry, considering we have been in love for a long time.
 * 2) We should marry, considering that we have been in love for a long time.

Thanks in advance. --XxCutexXxGirlxX (talk) 04:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1 is better, although I prefer "We should marry, since we ..." Clarityfiend (talk) 06:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * They're both correct. Version 1 implies "considering that", but it's possible to drop "that" without doing any damage.  However, "considering we" is not a felicitous juxtaposition, so the best options are to go to Version 2, or do what Clarityfiend said.  --  JackofOz (talk) 06:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Question on Entertainment desk
Would anyone like to answer this question? --Bowlhover (talk) 06:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I was directed to ask here
Is 大戲, or Cantonese opera, in A flat Major?68.148.164.166 (talk) 06:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You might have better luck if you try asking in a Cantonese discussion forum like this one. FWIW my understanding is that Cantonese music doesn't employ just the major and minor keys like we have in the West (which is more or less the answer you were given previously). In any case, what makes you think it is (all?) in A flat major? Perhaps you should follow up the source of that information.--Shantavira|feed me 07:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I particularly asked a yesorno question to elicit more response, and to get responses that would provide as much information as possible. Yes, thank you, I didnt' think Cantonese music employed Major and minor keys like in the West, which exactly brings up another question, what exactly do they employ then?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.164.166 (talk) 08:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As I answered here, the sound clip in the wikipedia article is in C# Pentatonic Major. I'm sure of this. It's possible that the instruments used are tuned to make A Major a popular key. I'm not sure if the Erhu is used but that's tuned to D on one string and A on the other which means D and A, G and E and their relatives would be comfortable keys to play in on this instrument. A minor and C major are related to eachother, they could be in either one depending on how they construct their melodies (In that sound file they were clearly in major). They could also have happened to tune their instruments a half step flat and end up playing in the key they were playing in in that song. Traditional East Asian music nearly always sounds primarily pentatonic, that's part of the characteristic sound. -LambaJan (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the specific melodies used in Cantonese Opera, but in general, as a derivative of 南戲 it most likely used a variety of melodies based on the pentatonic scale. If you can read Chinese, see the following two articles: 1   2  sorry for the hyperlink mess Aas217 (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The simpler way to link to the above articles is thus: zh:諸宮調, zh:五聲調式. —Angr 23:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't read any of that but by the numbers it looks like they use some form of just intonation which can account for some of the difference between the sound of their music and western music. -LambaJan (talk) 01:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

What is the reference desk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2008_July_4#Means

To Julia, I thought that the desks were a place to ask questions, not to a dicussion board.68.148.164.166 (talk) 07:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * User:Julia Rossi was asking if you thought it would be a good idea to copy the answer for that question from your talk page to the reference desk so that other people using the page could see it, if they happened to have the same question. That isn't at all idle discussion, it directly addresses your question, so I don't understand your point.  -- tiny plastic Grey Knight &#x2296; 08:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Because if they had the same question, then they can ask it themselves. Otherwise, it is discrimination if I can't ask a completely original question such as User_talk:68.148.164.166 second run response68.148.164.166 (talk) 08:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It would be better to copy-and-paste it for them to read, it's just a courtesy. I don't know why you're talking about discrimination, the discussion you link there seems to be about thread bumping?  If you want to refer back to an old thread, just link back to the old discussion at the top of your new thread, and then add only the new detail, like you did in this thread.  Reference desk archives are sorted neatly by the date of the question, so it's pretty easy to find things compared to some other archive setups.  -- tiny plastic Grey Knight &#x2296; 08:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Another reason to copy the answer here (or at least a link to it) is to prevent someone from unnecessarily going to great lengths to give you the answer when you already have one on your talk page. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Semantics
What does “summer home” mean: Swami_Vishnu-devananda


 * In what context does this appear? -- JackofOz (talk) 08:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Literally, a home used only in the summer. Context is always useful in this kind of question, as the term may be used metaphorically.--Shantavira|feed me 09:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the context is given in the link:
 * The first Yoga camp, in 1961, was at the summer home of some students, who opted to surrender material comforts, to sleep on the floor and take cold showers.
 * Summer home redirects to Summer colony but I don't think that's it. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Summer house might be the correct article. Fribbler (talk) 09:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Non-linear logarithmic
What does “non linear logarithmic” mean: Psychoacoustic_model?68.148.164.166 (talk) 08:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is best asked at the Mathematics desk. --  JackofOz (talk) 08:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It would appear to be a tautology. There are linear functions and logarithmic functions (and many others). Logarithmic functions are not linear.--Shantavira|feed me 09:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe you meant oxymoron, Shantavira? --  JackofOz (talk) 09:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It should have been "non-linear logarithmic" to avoid the possible contradiction. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think Shantavira meant pleonasm, Jack. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 12:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I was actually confident he meant oxymoron. But I was perceiving it as "non (linear logarithmic)", rather than "non-linear logarithmic".    --  JackofOz (talk) 22:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Some context would help - sometimes a logarthymic plot is used for exponential functions - to give a straight line - so if a function/set of data gives a non linear logarithmic plot then the function/data does not follow an exponential relationship? But really need more context here.87.102.86.73 (talk) 13:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "Logarithmic" in the context refers to the relationship between response and stimulus. The phrase in the article should be punctuated as "non-linear, logarithmic response". "Logarithmic" implies "non-linear". I suppose whoever wrote that wanted to emphasize the non-linearity aspect of the response function. --71.175.20.73 (talk) 18:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note that logarithmic functions aren't the only non-linear functions, there are also non-linear exponential functions, etc. So, to make things perfectly clear, a list of functions might be divided as follows:


 * 1) Linear functions.


 * 2) Non-linear, logarithmic functions.


 * 3) Non-linear, exponential functions.


 * This would be most common when communicating with non-mathematicians, as a mathematician would know that both logarithmic and exponential functions are non-linear. StuRat (talk) 17:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd go further, to:
 * 1) Linear functions.
 * 2) Non-linear functions:
 * a) logarithmic functions
 * b) exponential functions
 * because your "Non-linear, logarithmic functions" could suggest there are such animals as "Linear, logarithmic functions. --  JackofOz (talk) 01:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That's certainly better when listing them all in outline form, but doesn't work as well when only mentioning one. Saying "Today, class, we will discuss non-linear, logarithmic functions" works a lot better than "Today, class, we will discuss


 * Non-linear:


 * Logarithmic functions." StuRat (talk) 13:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't a teacher be better off saying something like "Today, class, we will discuss logarithmic functions. These are non-linear functions"?  --  JackofOz (talk) 13:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Even that could imply that only the logarithmic functions discussed today are non-linear. The teacher would have to state it explicitly: "All log functions are non-linear, but not all non-linear functions are logs". StuRat (talk) 19:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think it does imply that, Stu. A student who assumed these are the only exceptions might infer that; but a student with an enquiring mind might ask "Are there any other types of non-linear functions?".  The teacher could explain in their introduction that there are various types of non-linear functions and today we'll be looking at one of them, log functions; but they might also be wanting not to bamboozle the students with too much information.  It probably depends on the class where the line gets drawn.  --  JackofOz (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

proverb
what do you have to say about the proverb- Time and tide waits for no one in 100 words.122.167.53.212 (talk) 10:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In four words, I say, "Do your own homework." —Angr 11:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If you don't understand the proverb, it's explained at the top of Time and Tide (disambiguation). Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And the usual form is 'Time and tide waits for no man'. Algebraist 11:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * How about:
 * The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
 * Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
 * Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
 * Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.
 * 167 words, but what can you do? --Sean 13:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What base are you counting in, Sean? -- LarryMac  | Talk  14:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Count each lowercase letter (112) as 1, uppercase (11) as 5 => 167. What, you've never used "Seanwords" before? Clarityfiend (talk) 17:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I used to use "TotoBagginsWords", but I thought they were obsolete. -- LarryMac  | Talk  17:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops: that's what I get for relying on a tool instead of my brain. It's 167 characters (with a couple of stray spaces) and I looked at the wrong number.  --Sean 20:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We're well over 100 words by now anyway. Algebraist 20:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Tide here does not mean the tide of oceans, but rather time. (Tide here is an old word for time. tid still means time in Swedish.) --Kjoonlee 01:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Only until the 16th century. These days it means the tide of the sea. (OED)--Shantavira|feed me 05:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes... I should have been more careful to just note the origin. :) --Kjoonlee 17:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

word Innuuendo
Its meaning could be found,117.195.5.127 (talk) 11:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC) but how to use it practically in translatios?


 * Do you mean how to translate an innuendo from one language into another? I think that is a very hard thing to do, it may not be possible without an extended explanation of the original context.  The same would apply to most forms of wordplay, they do not survive translation very well.  -- tiny plastic Grey Knight &#x2296; 12:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * if you are looking for translations of the word "innuendo", try wiktionary: innuendo jnestorius(talk) 12:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe replace with another innuendo - that has the same meaning - may not work when the innuendo is a play upon words in the context of the book/play.87.102.86.73 (talk) 13:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I would just try to go with the overall feel. If the characters tend to use innuendo in certain situations, try to use innuendo as much in those situations as the author did, likewise if you have two statements, one explicit and one veiled, where in the target language the opposite would be easier and more effective, you should do that.  Try to keep the number of innuendos and such around the same, adjusted for the amount it is used in the language normally, unless the target audience is aware of the fact that the work is translated from another language and will accept that. Try to maximize the effectiveness and the main intent of the work, without sacrificing its content, but don't worry about 100% exact same meaning translations.  If your source says "Thousands of ways" don't shy away from saying "Tens of thousands of ways" if that is a better sounding translation (True of Japanese and Chinese, and actually myriad means 10,000, but that wouldn't have made a good explanation of varying meanings, heh)200.42.217.61 (talk) 21:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

mounteback
What is it?89.243.155.109 (talk) 12:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * An Elizabethan term for sexual intercourse. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 12:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Or a misspelling of mountebank. jnestorius(talk) 12:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that seems to have happened here. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 12:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes,thanx,that's exactly where the confusion came from.(such an august institution,being so adventurously misleading!)89.243.155.109 (talk) 12:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Terms for groups of animals, birds, and insects
Animal -- Bacteria/ A culture of bacteria.

Medically, "colony/colonies" e.g. her urine culture grew 100,000 colonies of Citrobacter (or rod-forming bacilli, or E.coli, or whatever). She was colonized with MRSA.

Teddy Knight, transcriptionist, St. Rose Hospital, Hayward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.77.137.57 (talk) 22:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you have a question? --ColinFine (talk) 23:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If you are talking about collective nouns, there are some lists here. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

In the study of Chinese, words such as a "gaggle" of geese or a "flock" of birds would be called measure words. DOR (HK) (talk) 12:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

"wrought" and "worked"
What is the difference between "wrought" and "worked"? How should they be used? Can they be used in the same sentence or do they have different meanings when added in a sentence? I have 3 questions.Coffsneeze (not Coff N. Sneeze) (talk) 23:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It worked!
 * It wrought!
 * Yesterday, I worked a lot on that project.
 * Yesterday, I wrought a lot on that project.

Coffsneeze (not Coff N. Sneeze) (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "Wrought" is no longer actively associated with the verb "to work" by the vast majority of English speakers, and is now rarely used outside of a few fixed forms such as "wrought iron" and "overwrought"... AnonMoos (talk) 23:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh.Coffsneeze (not Coff N. Sneeze) (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "Wrought" is sometimes seen in the past tense of "wreak havoc" (which is in itself is on the way to being an archaic expression). This has some interesting things to say about "wrought havoc", and Samuel Morse's use of "wrought" in the first official long-distance telegraph.  If you want to use "wrought" jocularly, it's best to use it like "the works that I have wrought", rather than "I've wrought a lot on that project".  --  JackofOz (talk) 02:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In addition to the replies above, I believe wrought can only be used as the past participle of work when work is transitive, and usually only in its older meaning "to bring into the desired form or shape". "What hath God wrought" is a common phrase using the word. Paul Davidson (talk) 08:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to go out on a limb and say It wrought! and Yesterday, I wrought a lot on that project. are just wrong, wrought is past tense.

eg
 * I wrought it (I made it)

I think you're using the dictionary definition http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=wrought wrought=worked too literally. wrought=made might be a better fit.87.102.86.73 (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There's also What hath God wrought (and here, of course).  Corvus cornix  talk  20:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, the "What hath God wrought" is referring to what he did with the matter he created, he molded it, or "wrought" it. wrought is the past participle of to work (sth.), and not of to work.  Even if it's to work (on sth.) it does not become wrought, even historically.  "I wrought the clay into a ball," could work, even in a modern context, but it would generally be used jocularly.  I think it would tend to be understood fine? I understand it, but I'm not sure about a percentage of who would know that.200.42.217.61 (talk) 21:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)