Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 March 28

= March 28 =

make money
hello?i'm in africa and i have the previlege of having internet acces throughout.Im a great writer and wondered if theres a sit they pay when you submit your letters online.Any genre of letters stories u can write he post on the net.please help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.220.113.117 (talk) 02:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is the Language Help Desk and your question is not directly related to anything linguistic. Better to ask this on the Miscellaneous Help Desk. --ChokinBako (talk) 03:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe, however, the linguists at this desk can take this opportunity to assist our anonymous friend in re-wording his or her question in a more coherent manner.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a (possibly unintended) example of an affirmation. Saying something as if it were already true ("Im a great writer") can't hurt, and may actually help.  Every day and in every way, the questioner is getting better and better.  --  JackofOz (talk) 03:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I actually assumed the OP really is a great writer, but perhaps in another language. Or perhaps s/he writes in English, but in an experimental vein.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Urgent comma help
The Fat Man is scouring a featured article candidate with a fined tooth fine-tooth(ed) comb looking for errant punctuation, grammar and word choice. I keep seeing commas used as in the following example: "She joined the female social club known as the Valentine Club, and helped to inaugurate the first sorority on the UT campus." This flies in the face of everything I was taught in sixth-grade English class (The Fat Man, never a remarkable student, nonetheless regularly achieved perfect marks on the verbal portion of standardized tests). I always believed we must never use commas in such situations unless the clause following "and" introduces a second subject (e.g. "She joined the club, and she helped to inaugurate). Am I not as smart as I think I am?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't believe it's as rigid as that. Sometimes, commas indicate where a natural break would occur if the sentence is spoken aloud.  --  JackofOz (talk) 03:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmmmm..... there must be some sort of rule you can refer me to.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * All the rules I've ever seen say that commas shouldn't be used in this way unless they're in between independent clauses. I've never seen anything to support the use of the comma in this situation without the addition of a "she".  Nyttend (talk) 04:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Having thought about it for a while, I would agree that the comma shouldn't be there. --ChokinBako (talk) 05:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * At heart, I deeply agree with the Fat Man. I was born and raised on correct grammar, as he was (except, of course, in using the occasional fragment in conversation). However, I'm afraid that the general, previously-colloquial use of the comma as any general pause in a sentence (that is, as if in speech) overrides any other rules in regards to comma use, thus agreeing with Jack. Naturally, one would pause where the comma lies. It's sad, though, that most grammar is disregarded nowadays, even in FA candidates...-- MusicalConnoisseur  Got Classical? 05:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That sentence is perfectly acceptable, and it is an example of two independant clauses joined by a coordinating conjunction. If the comma was removed it would become a run-on sentence; if the "and" was removed it would become a comma splice. Divinus (talk) 10:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, in that case it would be a matter of personal choice. To take another example, "The Fat Man Who Never Came Back" would have a different stylistic effect from, "The Fat Man, Who Never Came Back", both of which are plausible. Personally, the sentence given by Fat Man, to me, does not need a pause, and therefore no comma. --ChokinBako (talk) 06:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yo, Fat Man! If you can find the book Eats, Shoots & Leaves by Lynne Truss and the time to read it, it should give you plenty on the whole topic of punctuation, including your question. Retarius | Talk 07:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm with The Fat Man Who Never Came Back and I'm with him all the way. I hate those commas which creep in where they shouldn't be. Xn4  08:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I see it this way. There are certain situations where it's plain wrong to put a comma in, because it alters the sense of what you're trying to communicate, or, there's, simply, no, justification, for, it.  There are other situations where it's plain wrong to leave the comma out.  Then there the situations such as Fat Man's sentence, where it comes down to matters of personal style, personal choice, and general readability.  In these latter cases, it's a little futile to argue about a rule whether you should or you shouldn't have a comma, because different so-called authorities will give different perspectives.  It's certainly possible to over-commatise even without losing the sense of the meaning; but I don't see this as such a case.  It's not as black-and-white as "you must or you must not and there's no third alternative".  Sometimes it's more like "a comma here is not absolutely necessary, but no harm is done by choosing to put one in".   --  JackofOz (talk) 10:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Where's Noetica when you need...it? We went around with this not long ago. The archive is here. I can't think of anything to add to what I said in that archived exchange. To summarize, though, that comma is extraneous—wrong, even, in my book. --Milkbreath (talk) 11:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting interpretation. That discussion pretty much more or less concluded with what I said above, which was that it's not about right or wrong in cases like this.   --  JackofOz (talk) 11:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess I was unclear there; I meant to summarize my position, not the archived exchange, which leaves the whole thing up in the air. That's what you get whenever you let a committee decide anything. --Milkbreath (talk) 12:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Where to put a comma, thank goodness, isn't a matter to be decided by a vote on this Reference desk. In "She died and went to heaven" there's no comma after died, and it would be a mistake to put one in the middle of The Fat Man's sentence. (I would, though, say 'fine-tooth comb' rather than 'fined tooth comb'.) Xn4  12:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh heh; I believe I only claimed reasonable competentcy with the English language (my aptitude as a typist and proofreader are far more suspect). Thanks for all the replies.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, you would want to write that as "fine tooth comb". A comb that uses teeth is called a "tooth comb" and when those teeth are small and densely packed, that quality is called fine. (cf. small lap dog, which neither has a small lap (small lapped dog) nor is designed for small laps (small-lap dog)). Divinus (talk) 10:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree that the comma shouldn't be there. Its presence indicates (to me at least) that joining said club and helping with the event are distinct, and not necessarily related, activities; perhaps separated by a period of time. Leaving it out infers that the joining and helping were part of a continuous activity, in the same hour even. Bazza (talk) 13:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a free world, and you're entitled to your view, but it isn't shared by grammarians. Xn4  14:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks God most grammarians agree that the art of punctuation, to a certain degree, is part of the sphere of style and personal appretiation of the writer. It is true that grammarians (or better, grammar considerations) prohibit a comma placed in certain positions, and demand commas in other stances. But it is also true that the comma arose as a sign of pause in the discourse, as true as the fact that this use adds to the list of the sign's significances in modern days there is still space in the sign's significances to allow for style considerations .  Pallida  Mors  20:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Writing is about communicating, not about adhering to the most arcane rule you can find in some grammar text book or to a black-and-white "rule" your teacher taught you in 6th grade.  School "rules" are necessarily broad because of the audience, and they usually leave aside all sorts of exceptions and nuances and creative possibilities, because such students usually know nothing of style.  If I read "She joined the female social club known as the Valentine Club, and helped to inaugurate the first sorority on the UT campus." embedded in a paragraph, I wouldn't give it a second glance, and I certainly wouldn't mark it as wrong or even query it if I were editing it.  The comma there is perfectly natural; it would have been just as natural if it weren't there.  Getting too fraught about these sorts of things is likely to send you into a comma-induced coma.   --  JackofOz (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Two points. First, things people learn about grammar in elementary school are not always correct.  For example, some people learn that split infinitives are ungrammatical.  If you learned that "and" cannot be preceded by a comma in sentences like this, you learned wrong.


 * Second, in this particular sentence, the comma improves it. Forget about "pauses"; its function is to make it explicit that the things being joined by "and" are clauses several words long, rather than just a few words.  Without a comma, the reader is apt to first try to parse "Valentine Club and helped" as a unit and then have to realize that this is ungrammatical. In this case that's an easy realization because "helped" could not be a noun, but if you're in the habit of not using commas in such situations, it's easy to find yourself writing garden path sentences like "The movie director found himself in complete sympathy with the crew and cast the defective light meter into the garbage." --Anonymous, 21:36 UTC, March 29, 2008.

Indeed, punctuation (like spelling) can be a matter of personal taste if all you want to do is to communicate a meaning, although irregularities in either can sometimes cause confusion. "Use a comma before 'and' when what follows has a different subject" is still the rule and is a soundly based one. The Fat Man Who Never Came Back said he was "scouring a featured article candidate... looking for errant punctuation", so he was (perhaps still is) aiming to achieve an encyclopaedic standard. Irregular punctuation is almost never found in good encyclopædias. If anyone can find an example of that particular rule being broken in the Encyclopædia Britannica, then I shall be surprised. Xn4 11:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If your quote is the precise wording of the rule, then it's open to interpretation. It doesn't say "Use a comma before 'and' only when what follows has a different subject".  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Groan. That was a shorthand. For a more restrictive version, please see the first post in the thread. But surely we all know the rule? Xn4  08:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Proper demonym for New Zealand
Hi there. I'm just wondering if anyone knows the correct demonym for a person from New Zealand. In Karen Walker (Will & Grace), at the top it says "For the New Zealand fashion designer, see Karen Walker (designer).". However, saying "New Zealand fashion designer" doesn't really sound properly.. you don't say "Canada singer", you say "Canadian singer", you don't say "America President", you say "American President", etc.. is this correct or is there a better word? Save-Me-Oprah (talk) 03:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is one. Some countries just don't seem to have them, like Greenland, for example. I think a better wording may have been 'fashion designer from New Zealand'. --ChokinBako (talk) 04:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Zeeland --> Zeelandic; thus New Zealand --> New Zealandic. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've heard "New Zealander", but only as a noun. --Masamage ♫ 04:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, 'Greenlandic' does exist, too, but I've heard that only once or twice. I've never heard 'New Zealandic'. --ChokinBako (talk) 04:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, "Icelandic" too! But what about "Laplander"? Doesn't that take "Laplandish" as the adjective? I think you've discovered a defective; nobody's ever got around to determining a correct adjectival form, so it floats according to the inclination of the speaker. I think the New Zealanders themselves prefer to use "New Zealand" as the adjective. Retarius | Talk 07:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "Lappish" Paul Davidson (talk) 11:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The correct form is "New Zealand fashion designer", and does not need rephrasing. Equally correct are "New Zealand singer" and "New Zealand prime minister".   This is the case in all forms of English, including New Zealand English, and would be seen in a New Zealand dictionary.  I know this, since I am a New Zealand Wikipedian.  You might find Icelandic, English, Scottish, and so forth, but we simply have New Zealand. Although, we might want to get parochial and refer to the North Island fashion designer, or the South Island singer.  Unimaginative, perhaps, but we cope.  Gwinva (talk) 07:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Why not just use Kiwi? :) -Elmer Clark (talk) 08:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's really informal, is all. You also wouldn't say "George Bush is a yank" in his Wikipedia article, even though it's true. :) --Masamage ♫ 17:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * True. Despite his phony Texas accent, he was born in Connecticut and is thus a true Yankee. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 21:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I news article in britain might use yank as a synonym to avoid repetition. aussie and kiwi are widely used in the u.s. and aren't very informal if ya ask me. And on will and grace kiwi would be very appropriate. You do say "Canada Geese" though don't you? I think using a noun as an adjective is fine in certain circumstances it just is more pleasing to hear as opposed autitively pleasing, its just an exception.NewAtThis (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Depending on the tone of the whole piece, you might see "Kiwi" as a descriptor in a headline, and/or later on in the text, but not in the initial text. For example: "KIWI WRITER WINS OSCAR:  The New Zealand novelist Gertrude Splinge has won the inaugural Academy Award for Creative International Auxiliary Persiflage. ...  blah blah blah blah ... Her work has raised the profile of expatriate Kiwi writers around the world.  ... blah blah blah ".  --  JackofOz (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * AUSSIE CONTRIBUTOR MAKES A GOOD CASE: The Australian Wikipedian JackofOz provides a masterly example of the use of "Kiwi" in journalism, and thus increases respect for all Aussies at the reference desk. "Kiwi" is appropriate in semi-formal or imformal situations; ie. when  Yank, Brit or Aussie would be equally acceptable, although it is worth noting that some people might take exception to it. It is never inappropriate to use "New Zealand" as an adjective, and it doesn't sound odd to us, at least!  Gwinva (talk) 06:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No odder than "New Hampshire", "New South Wales" or "New England" when used as adjectives. The latter 2 don't become "New South Welsh" and "New English", but keep their form.  (Thanks, Gwinva.)--  JackofOz (talk) 10:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Unusual name
While watching Western Kentucky lose to UCLA tonight, I was surprised by the name of one of the players: Boris Siakam. What kind of a name is Siakam? My first guess is that it's Southeast Asian, since it vaguely seems to resemble perhaps Laotian or Thai names that I've heard. However, the man is plainly of African descent: I can't imagine that he's from anywhere in Indochina. Any opinions? Nyttend (talk) 04:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * He's from Cameroon. --ChokinBako (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * A better question might be, why on earth is his first name Boris? Paul Davidson (talk) 11:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I figured: who knows, his parents might have heard it somewhere and liked it. It's easier to get an atypical first name :-) Nyttend


 * His parents might have been educated in Eastern Europe or the USSR. I have a Russian friend in the United States who's occasionally addressed in perfect Russian by African immigrants, which threw him at first. — kwami (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Columbite
Possibly the Science desk would be better equipped to answer this, but it is etymology so I guess this is where it goes. Columbite aka Ferrocolumbite. Why is it called that? --superioridad (discusión) 09:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's the primary ore of "columbium", now called niobium. According to the OED, Columbium got its name because it was discovered in rock from Massachusetts (Columbia = America). — kwami (talk) 10:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

English compound words and hyphens
I don't think this rule is covered in the article I linked above. How would you hyphenate something like "golf ball sized" when it's used as an adejctive, like "golf ball sized" piece of candy? Would there be a hyphen between all three word? Would there be just one, between ball and sized, because "golf ball" is the phrase? Thanks, Fbv65 e del — t — c // 14:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Do what you think is natural. If you want to hear some other people's opinions, some are given at The Trouble With EM &#8217;n EN in the en dash section. However, kindly note opinions are not rules that should be blindly obeyed or worshiped. --Kjoonlee 17:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless, of course, it is the opinion of the wonderful and infallible *me*. It's "golf-ball-sized", if those little horizontal lines between the words are considered to be hyphens. Writing is not a natural act. --Milkbreath (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, if you say so. Writing is a very arbitrary act. ;) --Kjoonlee 19:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The rule I've always seen is that when a hyphenated phrase is in turn hyphenated, the original hyphen drops. So, a golf-ball dimpler, but a golf ball-sized piece of candy. However, I've sometimes seen hyphens vs. en dashes used: golf-ball–sized piece of candy. The latter is more precise, but the former follows the less-is-more philosophy of modern punctuation. More than one hyphen is normally only used when all the elements are linked at the same syntactic level, as in less-is-more philosophy. — kwami (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (Sorry, I see I'm just repeating Kjoon's link, and not as well. — kwami (talk))


 * It's just three hyphens, that's all. "Golf ball-sized" is plain wrong; that says it's ball-sized and leaves "golf" swinging in the breeze. This ain't a hard one. Look in any competent stylebook; the Wikipedia MoS is of no use for this. The en-dash is used when there is a multi-word proper noun (post–World War II), not any time a conceptual difference can possibly be discerned among the elements. [I'm trying to flush out Noetica.] --Milkbreath (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In Kjoon's link "Golf ball–sized" is the recommended one-mark form, as the en-dash shows that a hyphen was dropped. But by using two hyphens, you're implying that golf modifies size rather than ball, which is just as wrong. Thus the conundrum. In any case, I see a single hyphen/dash much more frequently than two. — kwami (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The statement in Kjoon's link that you seem to be referring to cites The Chicago Manual of Style as its source, but it oversimplifies the practices actually recommended in that work, which in fact accord with what Milkbreath advocates. Two examples given in CMS (15th ed.) that are more or less parallel to "golf-ball-sized" are "wheelchair-user-designed" (p. 263) and "time-clock-punching employees" (p. 303). With regard to the first example, it says that to have used an en dash between user and designed (as in your "golf-ball–sized" above) "would merely have created an awkward asymmetry; the meaning is clear with hyphens." Deor (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I co-wrote the hyphens and dashes sections at WP:MOS. It's a triple-bunger, not ideal, but it requires either two hyphens (golf-ball-sized) or the occasionally used en dash, which I personally dislike: golf ball–sized yuck. If the item comes after the noun it qualifies, you can get away with "golf-ball sized". TONY   (talk)  05:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Greek word
I give you here below a list of entries in Oxford dictionary:

Euhages, or Eubages [L ( Amnianus Marcellinous). The form euhages is due to a misreading of Gk οὑατεῖς, Strabo’s rendering of a Gaulish wd = L vates.The other form is a scribal error.] (Celt. Antiq.) An order of priests, or natural philosophers, among the ancient Celtae.

Ovate [ f. an assumed L pl. ovates, repr. οὑατεῖς = vates, soothsayers, prophets, mentioned by Strabo as a third order in the Gaulish hierarchy.] An English equivalent of Welsh offyd, now applied to an Eisteddfodic graduate of a third order, beside  ‘bard  ’ and  ‘druid’.

Vates [L]. 1. A poet or bard, esp. one who is divinely inspired, a prophet-poet. 2. pl. One of the classes of the old Gaulish druids.

The Latin Oxford dictionary:

Ouates ( Uatis ) [ of Italo-celtic origin, cf Ir. fath, ‘bard’, Welsh gwawd ‘ song of praise’; cogn. Also in Goth. Wods ‘frenzied’, ‘possessed’] 1. A prophet, seer ( regarded as the mouthpiece of the deity possessing him). 2. A poet ( regarded as divinely inspired), bard.

I tried to identify the Greek word ουατείς but was unable to trace this word. Could you please help me in this endevour?

213.207.169.158 (talk) 09:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.207.165.245 (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, doesn't the first definition state that it is not, in fact, Greek, but Gaulish (or Italo-Celtic)? It says the Latin cognate is vates, look up vates.

Aas217 (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Business name change
Wikipedia to me is my google,and i always use it,.I am changing my business name from xxxxxxxx Group to xxxxxx Wealth Management and want to inform my clients of the name change.Can someone help me on this,i would be greatly indebted to wikipedia. i need a sample letter asap —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.220.113.117 (talk) 18:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Do your own homework... or rather, fee-generating business marketing. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Transitive procrastination
How do you construct a sentence using "procrastinate" to say what responsible activity you were avoiding? Is it "I procrastinated my homework," or "I procrastinated from my homework," or what? --Masamage ♫ 19:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The OED only has "to procrastinate the matter", but I've always said, "I procrastinated doing my homework". — kwami (talk) 19:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is interesting. I would have sworn that "procrastinate" was always intransitive. I can't say "I procrastinated my homework", and I don't know why. Maybe I'll try to find out tomorrow. --Milkbreath (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't say "I procrastinated my homework" either. However, the two OED examples sound okay, even poetic. (The other is "procrastinated the truth".) Maybe it's okay to use an indefinite or generic object, but not a definite object like "my homework"? It would be less transitive. — kwami (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You can always say "I put off my homework," which may be a bit more natural. --Diacritic (talk) 23:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe it's technically transitive but it's simply become unidiomatic to use it that way. I'd notice if someone used it that way, and ask them where they learned English.  --  JackofOz (talk) 23:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe this phrase isn't used as much in Australia? A quick Google search using the terms "put off homework" suggests that many English speakers are completely comfortable with this construction. --Diacritic (talk) 00:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I was referring to the phrase "I procrastinated my homework", or "I procrastinated ". --  JackofOz (talk) 10:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. I agree with you. --Diacritic (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Huh, kwami's is interesting. "Procrastinated [verb]ing" actually sounds okay to me. --Masamage ♫ 00:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * My ancient dictionary lists the transitive meaning first, but it sounds quite wrong to my American ears. Even "procrastinate [verb]ing"; 'Procrastinate' is strictly intransitive for me.  However -- I love that heading phrase: "transitive procrastination"! Elphion (talk) 05:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I could see it evolving from transitive to intransitive, as procrastination tends to be a character defect, and not restricted to any particular action. — kwami (talk) 06:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I would love to agree with you 100%, except I can't quite find the time and energy to get around to it. :) --  JackofOz (talk) 08:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I would encourage you to get on with it, but... --Masamage ♫ 02:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What took you so long to post that? :)  --  JackofOz (talk) 05:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Harakat
Arabic vowelling marks are called tashkil, and the consonant-distinguishing dots are i'jam. However, our article is harakat. Does anyone know if that's synonymous with tashkil, or does it cover both? — kwami (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There is an article on tashkil, which describes it as "the Arabic word for vocalization". I do not agree with that. The word tashkil connotes 'design', and like harakat it refers to the vowel diacritics. So yes, both essentially mean the same thing. It's possible that the use of either term varies by country; in the Standard Arabic used in Egypt, tashkil is the common term for the vowel marks. — Zerida  ☥   04:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * We also have an ʼIʻrāb article. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd say Irab is basically morphosyntax. It covers both Classical Arabic declension and constituent structure. — Zerida  ☥   05:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I merged taŝkīl with ħarakāt. However, this link claims that taŝkīl is the same as i'jam. Looks like it may be a mistake. — kwami (talk) 05:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Classical Arabic originally did not have either dots or vowel marks as you might know, so it's theoretically possible that at one point they were all described as tashkil. This is not true today because while it's perfectly acceptable to write Arabic without the vowel marks (i.e. tashkil), as is always the case in handwriting, it's not at all possible to eliminate the dots because one would not be able to distinguish the consonants otherwise. The merge was a good move; some of it sounded like OR to me. — Zerida  ☥   05:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The i'jam are *never* left out? I saw a building in Turkey with Kufic script inscribed over the door, where there was no pointing at all, but I forget how old it was. (Not terribly, though.) Maybe it was an archaizing effect, like subbing i and v for j and u in English? — kwami (talk) 06:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've never seen Kufic script used except for decoration, so I would assume it was an attempt at archaism. Another possibility is that what you saw was actually Osmanli not Arabic, but I am not terribly familiar with the former. BTW, I should mention that the term i'jam for the dots must be another regional variation, since it would never be called that in Egypt for one, where the literal word for 'dots' is used: [] in spoken EA, [] in the local Standard Arabic. And the answer to your question is yes, they are *never* left out if the intention is to be able read rather than décor. For example, I haven't the slightest clue what this 7th century passage from the Qur'an says, but I have no trouble reading Classical texts if they're otherwise marked. — Zerida  ☥   20:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

riddle mania
my name was changed for fear of connoting an insult.What is it? i thot it was bic which changd itd name coz guyz thot it was bitch...Help
 * I don't understand. Do you mean your Wikipedia username? What was it, exactly? --Masamage ♫ 20:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * S/he's quoting a riddle. — kwami (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ohhh. Narf. --Masamage ♫ 21:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As usual with these 'riddles', it is far too poorly-defined to have a unique answer. James Bond was called Bondo-san (not Bon-san) in Japan to avoid insult. Legend of the Five Rings used to have a family called Otaku before it was changed to Utaku to avoid perceived insult. But I'm sure there are many more possible answers, and neither of these is the intended one. Algebraist 23:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, you're right about the bic biro, sorry, ball-point pen – Marcel Bich did change it for that reason. Clever you, Julia Rossi (talk) 01:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Political correctness has forced changes to many names. I remember hearing that the Fat Controller in the Thomas stories had had his name changed, although I don't know if that was anti-PC hyperbole. 195.60.20.81 (talk) 12:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The Fat Controller suggests it is not as straightforward as all that. And I don't really see how changing a product name to avoid people thinking it is a swearword, and thus being reluctant to buy your product, is 'political correctness [forcing] changes'. If you'd given the example of Darlie... Skittle (talk) 13:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

warden in spanish
is it gerente? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NewAtThis (talk • contribs) 22:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think gerente makes a good translation of the term. A word from the business world, gerente is the analog of chief officer.
 * Anyway, what's the relevant context, NewatThis?. For prison warden, I'd suggest alcaide (not alcalde). For an enforcement officer, alguacil is, in my view, the best option. Encargado may be suitable for designing a chief administrator of an institution. Does this help? Pallida  Mors  23:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's interesting, the first two come from Arabic al-qadi (judge) and al-wakil (someone with authority in general). Adam Bishop (talk) 04:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

wow very interesting, thank you. i meant prison warden, alcaide is very intriguing nevertheless. How do you say chief petty officer, chief warrant officer, or private by the way? And is Master Sergeant Sargento en jefe and is Gunnery Sergeant Sargento de artillería?NewAtThis (talk) 00:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That's interesting too, Adam... Arabic derivations account for a great portion of the hypertrophied A section (and in particular, the Al subsection) of the Spanish vocabulary.
 * I'm sorry, NewatThis, if I'm of little help with your beligerant pursue. :p I have relatively scarce knowledge of military ranks, either English or Spanish. Sargento Mayor corresponds to Sergeant Major, which may not be equivalent to your Master Sergeant. Suboficial is more or less equivalent to warrant officer, so suboficial mayor is the apparent translation of chief warrant officer. Private is soldado raso. Is petty oficer an equivalent to warrant officer in the navy? This site translates (chief) petty officer as contramaestre, for what it's worth. Pallida  Mors  19:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Spaetzle
How do you pronounce it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.28.8 (talk) 23:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * See Spätzle for an audio file and an IPA transcription of this word. --Diacritic (talk) 23:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That is if you want to say it in German. An American pronunciation is here. We know of and eat the things, too. -Milkbreath (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow. That looks tasty. --Masamage ♫ 00:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Just for fun, there is this Swabian tongue-twister Dr Babschd hots' Schpätzlesbschdeck z'schbäd b'schdelld ("The pope has ordered the Spätzle cutlery too late.") German Wikipedia lists it as an example of a Swabian shibboleth. ---Sluzzelin talk  11:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Dialect and accent domination
This is more of a sociological question than language usage question, but I´ll go ahead anyways. Let´s say a young person has lived her entire life in a rural region or a region where most of the inhabitants have the same accent and speak the same dialect, and those two are seen as inferior to another dialect that is seen as standard in the country, and the inhabitants know well that their way of speaking is looked down upon by others. Let´s say this person moved out and studied in a larger city or a region where the way of speaking was the dominant one, realized his/her way of speaking is wrong or ugly to those around her, went back to her place of origin, and spoke with his/her family and friends in the new way this person has just learned. My question is, what leads people to think that youre being snobby if you talk in one way and not the way they do. And more, what leads people who know how to speak correctly speak incorrectly. Lets use for example many african americans: many have learned to speak Standard American, if such a dialect exists, yet with so much stigma and prejudice against their culture and their dialect now and throughout history, wouldnt the majority want to change others´attitudes and start speaking correctly. I think, in their case, that many are undermining what they have fought for by continuing to speak incorrectly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.4.19.134 (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not appropriate to discuss sociolinguistic behavior in terms of "correct" and "incorrect". In fact, there's no reason to suppose that any dialect of English is linguistically superior to any other dialect, and linguistic research conducted since the 1960s has demonstrated, for example, that African American Vernacular English is every bit as systematic and grammatical as variants of English spoken by whites and promoted in American schools.  Language opinions, like language policies, have nothing to do with language and everything to do with social factors and issues of power.


 * Societies use linguistic features as social markers. When groups make conscious decisions to speak a certain way, they do so for different reasons, but ultimately most people speak the way they were raised to speak; it expresses solidarity with other members of one's in-group and asserts one's identity.


 * One group's prejudice toward a particular dialect should not obligate speakers of that dialect to switch dialects. Clearly, the ones who need to change are those who are prejudiced, not those who are prejudged. --Diacritic (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It is true that the prejudiced should change, not the prejudged, but in practice there are prejudices and people do change their accents, intentionally or otherwise. Some people change their accents depending on the audience without even realising it. I moved to Yorkshire when my daughter was 8 years old, and now at 16 she speaks RP with slight regional influences at home, but on the phone to her friends she speaks with a strong accent. She knows she changes accents when it is pointed out to her but says it "just happens". -- Q Chris (talk) 13:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a typical instance of code shifting. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)