Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 March 30

= March 30 =

Spanish translation
how do you say happy birthday in Spanish please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.24.68 (talk) 03:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Feliz cumpleaños. F (talk) 03:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ¡felíz cumpleaños!NewAtThis (talk) 09:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't need the accent over the i, since the z as the last letter indicates that the last sentence is stressed.  Corvus cornix  talk  20:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you meant to write "last syllable" (of the word feliz). --Lambiam 22:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, yeah, my duh.  Corvus cornix  talk  16:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not only is the accent unnecessary; it's wrong. In other words, you don't use the digraph diacritic in such cases, though it marks the correct stress. Pallida  Mors  20:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

==Spanish translation==Italic textCan someone translate Image:Fjce05.jpg please? F (talk) 03:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "Mister Suárez, we shall be going to the Olympic Games! - FJCE". (Strictly speaking "las Olimpíadas" would mean the Olympiads (periods of four years between the games) and Juegos Olímpicos is the official term for Olympic Games. But las Olimpíadas almost always means the Games. ---Sluzzelin talk  05:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "MR. SUAREZ WE WILL GO TO THE OLYMPICS." it's not shall, it's in the familiar form not formal form nor classical form; olimpiadas does not almost always mean the games, it almost always if not in every circumstance means the Olympics. Sr. is Mr. not Mister, which would be Señor. Also no need for exclamation points ¡they aren't used in the spanish version! I would also lose the accent on the a for 2 reasons, they aren't used in English and its not used in the original spanish version, the surname suarez does carry an accent on the a but it is common practice to omit accents when writing in all caps. Another translation could be "MR. SUAREZ WE WILL MAKE IT TO THE OLYMPICS"NewAtThis (talk) 09:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In my idiolect, 'we shall' is not more formal than 'we will'. Both are more formal than 'we'll', but if I expanded the form, I would use 'shall' unless I was emphasising our intention. --ColinFine (talk) 09:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * When shall and will are distinguished (which is increasingly infrequent), the distinction is one of mood, not formality. In the traditional distinction, "I shall, you will, she will" is simple prediction, while "I will, you shall, he shall" implies determination.  E.g. "You will go to town" means you're likely to go to town.  "You shall go to town" means you darn well better!  I believe this distinction was always artificial, and it's not widely observed today, in my experience. Elphion (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Farsi translation of English 'witch'
In the article White Witch (about C. S. Lewis's character Jadis of Charn), a recent contribution claims that 'Jadis' is Persian for 'witch'. I don't know Persian; I tried a free translation service and got back جادوگر (for any of several case and article variations), which as near as I can make out would transliterate to something like jādvgr. (Unfortunately short vowels are typically not included in Farsi spelling, so I imagine there are some more vowels toward the end.) Have you got someone knowledgeable in Farsi who could supply a definitive transliteration, and verify whether any form is closer to 'Jadis'? Elphion (talk) 05:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The Farsi wiktionary entry http://fa.wiktionary.org/wiki/witch ( I don't know how to interwiki-link to a foreign language version of another wikiproject! ) exists and has a redlink to 'پیره زن', which I make out as 'pire zan' or 'pirah zan'. 'جادیس' (which would be the most obvious way of spelling 'jadis' in Farsi, though not the only one) finds nothing in either the Farsi Wikipedia or the Farsi Wiktionary.--ColinFine (talk) 10:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

'Jadu' (جادو) -- not 'jadis' -- means witchcraft in the New Persian. In the Old Persian, it is both witch (جادوگر - jadugar) and witchcraft. It has a short article in the Persian Wikipedia:. --Omidinist (talk) 10:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Omidinist, you can create a wikilink to a different-language wikipedia thus: fa:جادو . (You need the ':' on the front, otherwise it will put it in the interwiki box at the side rather than in the text - and that's the answer to my own question above about linking to a foreign-language wiktionary: if I'd put fa:wikt:witch it would have worked). --ColinFine (talk) 11:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Is that the wikt:witch of the west? --Lambiam 22:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Colin, you can also put it the opposite order without the leading colon: &#91;[wikt:fa:witch]&#93;. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 06:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, folks. I've used the info here. Elphion (talk) 20:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

gayelle
could someone help me find sources for the use of the term "Gayelle" What's the history or herstory behind it? I have seen a report about it on CBS news on Logo but can't find the source in print or online to cite it in the article...help?NewAtThis (talk) 09:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Without doubt, despite being NewAtThis you must be the most knowledgeable expert on the neologism, "gayelle" (a synonym for lesbian, for the non cognoscenti). My additional - and rather spotty - research indicates that lesbians tend to regard it as insulting, as it is the feminised version of the male label "gay".
 * As per Wiktionary, it is also a Caribbean term used in cockfighting, another concept with is not intuitively associated with lesbian women.
 * That the word sounds like girl (plus an Irish accent) can hardly endear it to women who have survived their puberty.
 * Personally, I think that the word gayelle is about as useful as a strap-on dildo in a urinal is for a pee.
 * As you are aware, the term gayelle and a related painful term for bisexuals, hipshe (proposed by the same mob) are registered / trademarked. I am not entirely sure if this aids your attempt to have the entry listed in the WP.
 * --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

economics term
demand has _____ from traditional tvs to flat-screen tvs.

meaning that demand for traditional tvs decreased because flat-screen tvs entered the market and demand for flat-screen tvs increased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.62.14 (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Moved, shifted, transferred? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Also changed. But please never use "transitioned". --  JackofOz (talk) 22:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

cross worn on the body
What is the English name of the cross that is worn by Christians on the neck string under clothes? It's strange, but I didn't find it in any article. Thank you.Seaweed71 (talk) 14:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Often called a crucifix, although strictly speaking I think the cross has to have a representation of the figure of Christ on it to be a crucifix. A cross on its own is just called a cross. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you thinking of a scapular? hotclaws 06:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If it's the one on a priest's or cleric's chest, it's a pectoral cross and definitely not under clothes but I thought you might enjoy the whole range – and the style is being taken up by some laity according to the article. †® ; )  Julia Rossi (talk) 08:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

'out of 10' vs. 'of out 10'
Does this sentence from the Guardian sound strange?
 * Most women prisoners have mental health problems, and nine of out 10 were convicted of non-violent offences.

Who says 'out of' and who says 'of out'?217.168.3.246 (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a mistake. It should indeed read 'out of'. --Richardrj talkemail 16:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hence the paper's nickname - The Grauniad. Nanonic (talk) 17:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Funny how the rest of the sentence loses conviction too... Julia Rossi (talk) 08:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Possessives
In this sentence, I don't see an object to which the possessive belongs (the blue square indicates the correct answer). Thanks. 66.65.143.85 (talk) 23:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your question. — kwami (talk) 00:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure I understand the question either. Clearly, the full sentence ends with "East African cave paintings".  Is this the object you're talking about?  --  JackofOz (talk) 00:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The word "her" in the sentence obviously refers to that of Mary Leakey, but the only appearance of a name is in "Mary Leakey's contributions." I didn't think you could use a pronoun possessive until you've introduced the object as a noun. 66.65.143.85 (talk) 00:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) The question is asking which of the five answer choices is the best replacement for the underscored portion of the sentence at the top (a standard sort of question on U.S. standardized tests). What the test writers are getting at with this one is twofold: (1) the lack of syntactic parallelism of "with her discovery …" and "painstakingly documenting …" needs to be corrected and (2) the "In addition to her work …" phrase works better if the sentence's subject is contributions rather than "Mary Leakey" (since it's her contributions rather than she herself that is "in addition to her work"). The second point may be somewhat debatable, but it's the only way I see of choosing between options 3 and 4. Deor (talk) 00:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's possible that the point raised by 66.65.143.85 enters into this as well, but I thought that U.S. standardized-test writers had discarded that shibboleth after a controversy arose when a question involving it was included on a New York State Regents' Exam a number of years ago. (Some people think that you can't have a possessive pronoun referring to a following antecedent unless the antecedent is also in the possessive case. They're wrong, but the opinion seems to be fairly widely held among schoolmarm types.) Deor (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) Usually the absence of an antecedent is a mistake. An example of Fowler's illustrates this: "An American Navy League Branch has even been established in London, and is influentially supported by their countrymen in this city." "They" are obviously supposed to be the Americans, but they don't appear in the sentence. There has to be a word for the pronoun to refer to, not just an idea. The case in question here is not so bad. Ms Leakey is there, really, she's just wearing a different case. Take "Harry's pants were down around his ankles." We have to think way too hard to see a problem with that sentence, and this one is like that one. --Milkbreath (talk) 01:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but there's also nothing wrong with the sentence "Because his pants were down around his ankles, Harry began to blush," even though some folk think it is "wrong" but "Because his pants were down around his ankles, Harry's face began to take on a rosy hue" is "acceptable." Deor (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Mary Leakey is always a noun phrase; the fact that it appears as Mary Leakey's doesn't change that. Strad (talk) 01:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)