Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 March 5

= March 5 =

Most heavily punctuated sentence
The above question about lack of punctuation has inspired me to propose an opposite challenge. (But, since this is a reference desk, I shall phrase it as a question!) What is the most heavily punctuated sentence a Ref Desk volunteer can construct? All punctuation must be used according to accepted guidelines and standards. Gwinva (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you accept answers in Morse code ? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I –that is, me, "Gwinva" (a nom-de-plume)– say "Ha!" to that; Morse’s code lacks –indeed, wants– punctuation, so you'd be better striving, working, and concentrating on a complex arrangement, like the extra-ordinary, and heart-warming (in fact, delightful), offering from our friend, "MusicalConnoisseur", below, or, indeed, a run-of-the-mill effort, such as my off-the-cuff response: "Punctuation is, certainly, the finest 'tool' a word-smith, of any kind, has at their –that is, his or her– disposal, regardless of their genre, subject, theme, or field." Gwinva (talk) 07:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that Morse Code does indeed have punctuation for those who wish use of it. People rarely choose this, but it's there. Whether the cipher is Samuel's would be another matter. I'm actually playing a different game here, and hope success. Skittle (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Are we counting marks, or density? I could form a lengthy run-on with nothing more than repeated commas. H YENASTE 04:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * True, but live a little, Hynaste; there's a world of punctuation out there! Gwinva (talk) 07:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Feast your ears, as it were, if possible - that is, not necessarily with the ears alone - upon a Mozart concerto, or, rather, I should say, the epitome of classical grace, that is, style, mysterious in itself, and, quite paradoxically, simultaneously open, as many have said, seemingly reserved, but, at the same time, telling everything in the most direct manner possible; in other words, as my friend and colleague - who does not wish to be mentioned afore you today - has often, or near-often, said, "It is the best and most expressive style amongst them all, expressing the most profound poetry within a few bars, providing all the beauty of a fresh spring crisp upon one's rosy face at sunrise; it has expressed the utmost distinguished poetry, incapable of being explained otherwise," and though I agree with him, his answer seems not to envelop, shall we say, the entire topic, but instead, it only covers a small facet, or miniscule part of it, and thus, it does not do justice to his genius, which is, oddly enough, acceptable, for it is an artform that cannot, as has been quoted before, be expressed in words.

* Whew!* That was a long run. :) -- MusicalConnoisseur  Got Classical? 06:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems that your challenge, if, indeed, it can be called a "challenge", is to write a sentence – an endlessly qualified sentence, for that matter – in the style of the late Henry James, by which I mean, of course, not that the author is dead (which, it goes without saying, he is), but that the sentence under consideration (being, that is to say, the one you are currently reading) is, in some way, evocative of his (Henry James's) later novels.†
 * †Say, "What Maisie Knew" (1897) or, if you prefer, "The Ambassadors" (1903).
 * Or, in a different style, how about this:
 * "You… you mean to tell me," said User:Gwinva (incredulous), "that s/he – was it a 'he' or a 'she'? – said: 'I like the [so-called] bands Hear'Say, !!!, Menswe@r, and B*Witched'!?!?!!!" Malcolm Starkey (talk) 08:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This sentence has many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many commas. --Kjoonlee 10:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, if we're gonna make stuff up, why not,
 * "B-b-b-b-but I d-don't w-w-w-, w-w, w-, w-wAnna go!" he stuttered.
 * Why not something that is only incidentally heavily punctuated instead? Like maybe Ben:Jonson, who punctuated his very name?
 * If you, my Sonne, should, now, preuaricate, / And, to your owne particular lusts, employ / So great, and catholique a blisse; Be sure, / A curse will follow, yea, and ouertake / Your subtle, and most secret wayes.
 * His 1616 Folio evidently has the heaviest punctuation, which tends to be drastically trimmed in modern editions. Does anyone know of anything he wrote, or other authors, that are more heavily punctuated than this? kwami (talk) 09:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the function of punctuation may have been quite different in days of yore; rather than being used as a tool for organising meaning in a sentence, it was also a way of indicating rhythm and pauses in spoken speech; a guide, as it were, to the actor reciting, to the reader reading aloud, or to the silent reader desirous of reconstituting mentally the spoken cadences of the written word.

Of course, punctuation still retains something of this function: "Hmm...let me think...that's a real puzzler...Yes! I've got the solution--quickly--not a moment to lose!" Rhinoracer (talk) 11:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: I went ahead and moved the above two comments up here from the bottom of the page, where I assume they were placed accidentally. -Elmer Clark (talk) 11:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Certainly, but it'd be interesting to see to what extreme it was carried. As far as I can tell, Ben:Jonson used the heaviest punctuation of any well-known author, even given these differences. — kwami (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * How about this punctuation assault, then, from Finnegans Wake?
 * These paper wounds, four in type, were gradually and correctly understood to mean stop, please stop, do please stop, and O do please stop respectively, and	following up their one true clue, the circumflexuous wall of a	singleminded men's asylum, accentuated by bi tso fb rok engl	a ssan dspl itch ina, — Yard inquiries pointed out → that they	ad bîn "provoked" ay Λ fork, of à grave Brofèsor; àth é's Brèak — fast — table; ; acùtely profèššionally piquéd, to=introdùce a notion of time [ùpon à plane (?) sù ' ' fàç'e'] by pùnct! ingh oles (sic) in iSpace?!
 * And by the way, even if Jonson did occasionally include a colon in his signature, there is no need to call him "Ben:Jonson". Malcolm XIV (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Coming late to the party, but...here is a double example of "sentences" comprising 100% punctuation. Mark Twain was on a book tour and sent a telegram to his publisher, asking how sales of his latest book were going. The telegram read, in its entirety, "?" and the reply was simply "!". BrainyBabe (talk) 13:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ha! I've enjoyed them all; thanks guys. Gwinva (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Saffron and "bastard saffron"
Is there a difference between saffron and 'bastard saffron'? On this page they give 'simiente de papagayos' for 'bastard saffron', but pages in English that I found seem to be saying they are the same. At the same time, azafrán is what is used for 'normal' saffron. What is the difference? 70.162.25.53 (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Your question may be more appropriate for the Science desk. According to our article Safflower, "Safflower flowers are occasionally used in cooking as a cheaper substitute for saffron, and are thus sometimes referred to as 'bastard saffron.'" The article Knysna-Amatole montane forests suggests that a South African tree (Cassine peragua) is also known as bastard saffron. I would imagine that anything used as a saffron substitute might be given this name. Deor (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This Spanish dictionary, s.v. alazor, indicates that simiente de papagayos = Carthamus tinctorius, which is the safflower. Deor (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably surplus information, but for completeness, true saffron is the stamens stigma of the crocus (crocus sativus). SaundersW (talk) 08:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * My local tienda unhelpfully labels their safflower as "saffron" with no hint of bastardization. --Sean 14:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's common practice. Especially when they can't provide you with the real saffron! ;-) Pallida  Mors  15:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Identifying poem and poet: a spider and a watch
Hello-- Would you please help me locate a poem/poet. In it, a watch dial passes in front of a spider and the hands stop. I first came across it via a passing reference to it in a New Yorker article of some years ago. As I recall, apparently both the poem and the poet are pretty well known. I then looked it up in an older edition of the Norton modern poetry anthology and, voila, there it was. Now I can't seem to find it--or the old anthology. They might have deleted it for this current edition (it's not there). The poem wasn't necessarily "about" a spider or a watch. It was (as I recall from reading it ten years or so ago) a postmodernist, as it were, oblique reference to them. I am reasonably certain 'spider/watch' weren't mentioned in the title. It was a pretty intense idea that was being suggested...hence my pursuit. Thank you. DeanStonewhite 00:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not an exact match, but could it be Mr Edwards and the Spider, by Robert Lowell (you can read it at http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/poets/r_lowell.php ). Steewi (talk) 00:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Deünhille
what is Deünhille? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.222.230.12 (talk) 15:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Best guess from the available Google hits: downhill skiing. SaundersW (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Latin phrase: "in cauda venenum"
Source and meaning of Latin phrase "in cauda venenum."? Related to Law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.152.170.240 (talk) 15:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello. This phrase ("in cauda venenum") literally translates to "In the tail (is) the poison".  Meaning ... the poison is always at the end.  That is, "to save the worst for last."  By the way ... the following thread appeared on the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk on August 22, 2006 (see below).  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC))


 * Per Wikipedia's List of Latin phrases (F–O): Using the metaphor of a scorpion, this can be said of an account that proceeds gently, but turns vicious towards the end — or more generally waits till the end to reveal an intention or statement that is undesirable in the speaker's eyes. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC))
 * That ought to be: "in the listener's eyes". (Or should that be "ears"?). I've corrected it in the article. --Lambiam 02:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Why do you say "listener"? I think "speaker" is correct ... no?  The speaker thinks that this is "bad news" and so deliberately waits strategically till the end to spill it --- independent of what the listener may (or may not) think of the revelation.  In other words, before the speaker spills the beans, the speaker probably assumes that the listener will be rattled or unnerved by this revelation (because -- in the speaker's own eyes -- it is indeed rattling or unnerving information).  After the speaker spills the beans, the listener perhaps may -- or perhaps may not -- be rattled and unnerved ... who knows?  But -- in the speaker's eye's (from his perception) -- the listener should have been rattled and unnerved ... because the speaker himself found it rattling and unnerving.  What do you think?  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC))


 * There is an ambiguity I hadn't realized. The full story involves two dramatis personæ, A and R. A is the Author of the original Account (the one deemed to have a poisonous tail). R is the Reader or in any case Recipient of the Account, who produces a sort of Review of said Account, which Review uses the Latin saying in cauda venenum. The ambiguity is that "speaker" could refer to either A or R. (It is also possible that A and R are the same person, as when A inserts "editorial judgements" into his or her own Account as a literary device, but let's leave that aside.) In the way the saying is normally used (see e.g. here and here), it is R who exercises and vents the judgement about the tail having a sting. Unfortunately, "listener" is also ambiguous, since this could refer to a third person RR, the Recipient of the Review whom R is addressing. --Lambiam 16:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Yes, there is much ambiguity.  Can the article entry, then, simply be edited to eliminate the ambiguity?  Perhaps saying something along the lines of ... Using the metaphor of a scorpion, this can be said of an account that proceeds gently, but turns vicious towards the end — or more generally waits till the end to reveal an intention or statement that is undesirable in the speaker's eyes .   Does that make matters better, or worse?   Thanks.  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC))

August 22, 2006 discussion
Source of and best translation of the Latin phrase "in cauda venerum"

Are you able to assist me in determining the source of the Latin phrase "in cauda venerum"? If it is attributable to some Latin author, e.g., Catullus, can you also supply me with its "best translation" in the context of the source's text and also the meanings and uses it has when quoted out of its original context. Thank you for your efforts. Duane Larrieu
 * The correct phrase is "in cauda venenum". Literal translation: "the poison (is) in the tail", meaning "the worst ist yet to come / to save the worst for last" I don't know whether it's by Phaedrus, but it might have been in a fable referring to a scorpion. See more here.---Sluzzelin 19:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Just for fun, in cauda Venerum means "in/on the tail of the Venuses". —Keenan Pepper 21:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The Italian Wikipedia states that it comes from Phaedrus, but refers to the Fox and the Crow (with a cheese). I have not been able to find this or a similar expression in that fable, or in any version of the Boy and the Scorpion, or any other Phaedrus fable. --Lambiam Talk 22:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

END of August 22, 2006, discussion


 * Do you think it is related to English "sting in the tail" ? SaundersW (talk) 17:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If it's not of the same origin, it does at the very least have precisely the same meaning. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct wording: film credits under an assumed name
The Coen brothers are Academy Award winning film directors. They use the name/credit "Roderick Jaynes" when they edit film. This is no secret -- in fact, it's quite publicized and well-known. Therefore, what is the best term to describe this? Alias, pen name, pseudonym, something else? Which is the best fit? And why? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC))


 * I guess "pen name" is the most neutral and general term for this sort of thing, but more for writers, I think. "Nom de guerre" used to be the way to go, but don't get me started on the tyranny of ignorance I've sadly lived long enough to see. "Nom de plume" has a certain je ne sais quoi that gives a lighter feel. "Alias" has criminal connotations that are best avoided except with tongue in cheek. "Pseudonym" works, but why be so dry? "Assumed name" or "fictitious name" work, too. I might put "nom de guerre" and let God sort 'em out, but "pseudonym" is probably safest and clearest. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "Alter ego", "fictitious Roderick Jaynes"... I see google lists all of Joseph's suggestions and sometimes "the brothers (as Roderick Jaynes)", "also known as" and so on. It's interesting the alias is generally acknowledged as though he's a real personality who just wants to stay out of sight. That's why I like alter ego. Though it's a standing joke, there's also a kind of hidden joke that the credits would look OTT if the Cohens put their name to every job they do on a film. I wonder if the next step is to put Cohen as the last name for every credit on the screen. Julia Rossi (talk) 07:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The article currently says "alias" --- which doesn't seem quite right (as pointed out above).  To me, at least, alias implies trying to be hidden / unknown / secreted ... and often connotes criminality.  In this case, those implications seem inapplicable to the Coens.  So, I would like to strike "alias" from the article and replace it with a more fitting term.  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC))


 * I've looked at the article now, and "alias" seems OK to me, seeing that the Coen brothers are such jokesters themselves. "Alter ego" doesn't work in situ; that would refer to the pseudonym as a person. [I love these guys with a love that will never die. Fargo is on my list of 5-star movies on a 4-star scale, and Brother is the archetype of a new genre, neither satire nor parody, but something greater than either, comedic history and not historical comedy.] --Milkbreath (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * But he is a person, dear Milkbreath, because the Cohen's rightly sensed he's "distraught" at their suggestion of using a different name yet again. This is for you . Julia Rossi (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep, Fargo is timeless, and Brother is matchless. Haven't seen No Country for Old Men yet, but it's coming soon to a theatre near me.  Just a bit of trivia for the trivia-minded: Ethan Coen was born on the same day as our new Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.  :)  --  JackofOz (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

These versus those
In cases such as the following, is there any real distinction between the words "these" and "those"? Is there a correct word to use, or are these/those perfectly interchangeable? I understand the general distinction in things being "close" versus "far" ... for example, "these" books right in front of me on my desk ... versus "those" books way over there on the other side of the room. So, I am asking about examples, as below, where (physical) "distance" is not relevant.


 * 2 items: I like pizza and chocolate, but these are not helping me lose weight.
 * 2 items: I like pizza and chocolate, but those are not helping me lose weight.


 * 3 items: My favorite authors are Shakespeare, Hemingway, and Joyce. All of these men contributed greatly to literature.
 * 3 items: My favorite authors are Shakespeare, Hemingway, and Joyce. All of those men contributed greatly to literature.

Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC))


 * They are not interchangeable, and there is no correct one. I have run into this same problem, and I guess the rule of thumb is to use "these" unless there is a reason to use "those". In your "2 item" examples, standing alone, I'd say "these" is usual, since the pizza and chocolate are right there in the previous clause. "Those" would be better if the next sentence gave alternatives: "I like pizza and chocolate, but those are not helping me lose weight. Salads and vegetables are what I need." In this case, "those" puts figurative distance between you and the Bad Foods. In your "3 item" examples, it's "these" all the way. "These are a few of my favorite things". --Milkbreath (talk) 17:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello and thanks.  Your first sentence: "They are not interchangeable, and there is no correct one."  Is that not a contradiction?  Is there a typo in there?  Also, how is the 2-List different than the 3-List?  In the next sentence, one can provide alternatives to three good authors just as easily as alternatives to two bad foods, no?  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC))


 * In the first example, I wouldn't use either one; I'd say "they are not helping". In the second, "these" is correct. To me, "those" sounds like you're referring to another bunch of guys you mentioned earlier. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Our aptly named fiend speaks the truth. The first example sounded funny to me, too, but I played it as it lay. The two words are not interchangeable because there is a difference in meaning or something, and neither can be said to be correct because this isn't one of the things English has a rule about. --Milkbreath (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know of any language where the primary purpose of demonstratives is to indicate physical distance. That usually requires a gesture: with the hands, eyes, or voice inflection. Most of the time they indicate conceptual distance - how relevant an item is for the point at hand. (Notice I said "that usually requires", not "this usually requires", because I'm trying to show that point is off-topic.) This (here "this" refers to the thing that is on topic, what's done 'most of the time') is especially apparent for languages like Spanish and Turkish which have a 3-way distinction: The "medial" term is almost never used for medium distance, or physically located near the person you're speaking to, as grammar books claim, but instead refers to 'the thing I just drew your attention to' — it could be a mountain on the horizon. In English, as in most languages, the distinction can be quite subtle, and certainly isn't something you can capture in a book of grammar rules. kwami (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Word choice: using big impressive words
Is there a good word (either a noun or an adjective) that describes people who use big / fancy / intelligent-sounding words ... but only for the sake of using big / fancy / intelligent-sounding words ... such as (a) trying to impress the listener ... or (b) "subtly" boasting their intelligence ... ? Furthermore, is there a good word (either a noun, adjective, or adverb) to describe the person who does so, but indeed does so incorrectly?

Of course, I can't think of a great example off the top of my head at the moment ... but maybe something along these lines:


 * A is trying to impress B about how intelligent and educated A is. So, A says to B, something like: "Bush is the US President whom has the worst poll ratings in history".


 * Or, A is talking about eating at a fancy restaurant and says to B: "The place had such exquisite delicassies. I was so indelible to go there."


 * A: "I have lived in three different states. The first was Texas, the second was Maine, and all of that notwithstanding, the third was Ohio."

So, I am not referring to a person who makes a (true, genuine) error -- but one who intentionally speaks like this (oblivious of the error). Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC))


 * Looks rather like malapropism to me, with a side-order of hypercorrection. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, hypercorrection is the type of thing I had in mind in my original question. Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC))


 * Sesquipedalianists are guilty of the first offense, though only a fellow sesquipedalianist would say so. :) --Sean 18:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That "sesquipedalianist" word seems somewhat on target ... and I had never heard that before.  Does this word imply that one uses big words for ego-related reasons ... (that is, is the term pejorative) ... or is it merely anyone who happens to use big words for whatever reason?  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC))


 * There's gotta be at least a slang word. There are a lot of TV skits in the US about people from disadvantaged backgrounds who try educating themselves and end up speaking like this. kwami (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sesquipedalian is slightly humorous in effect. How about bombastic which refers not only to the use of long words, but to excessive linguistic padding of any form? SaundersW (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Is this what you mean? I'm still working on a word for it. --Milkbreath (talk) 20:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Milkbreath - wow, that video / skit hit the nail on the head!  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC))


 * It seems to me an updated, and somewhat over-the-top, version of the malapropism-laden discourse of George "Kingfish" Stevens on Amos 'n' Andy many years ago. Perhaps we should coin the term kingfishery to describe this sort of attempt at highfalutin' rhetoric while continually tripping over one's verbal feet. (Although Mrs. Malaprop herself was in a way—though perhaps not this precise way—trying to sound impressive.) Deor (talk) 02:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I know precisely of what you speak, Joseph. There's a certain type of personality that's prone to using longish words and constructions in ordinary conversation for, for want of a better word, theatrical effect.  People in the theatre, particularly those with a good classic education to flaunt, and even more particularly those with a slight (or sometimes more than slight) tendency to be somewhat superior, or to act as if they were so even if they're really not, often find it hard to be "off" when they're not "on".  That's fine if not taken to excess; it's quite a humorous and charming part of their persona.  Psychologists and therapists  might describe this as a sort of ego-defence mechanism, but we all have a suite of such things in our psychic armoury, so nobody's pointing any fingers here.  It's when it's taken to excess, or, heaven forbid, they misuse words as per your examples, that's when it's boorish and revealing.  I really wish there was a word for this; if there is, I don't know it.  Milkbreath's example doesn't quite fit because it's being done for intentionally humorous effect in the context of an advertisement, and there's no evidence that that gentleman normally speaks that way.  (There really should be a word meaning a word for which there is no word.) --  JackofOz (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a satire of an advertisement.
 * Wouldn't it be - what's the word? anti-autological? to have a word for a meaning for which there is no word? kwami (talk) 01:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, 'lexical gap'? 'lexical lacuna' ? kwami (talk) 01:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess it's now incumbent on us to identify the person or character who's the supreme example of this behaviour, and eponymise him/her in a new coining. There are plenty of examples in literature and film, and not a few in real life.  Sir Humphrey Appleby must be near the top of the list.  --  JackofOz (talk) 03:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * An applebyism? Or an humphreyism?  Gwinva (talk) 03:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think Humphrey Appleby used sesquipedalian and obscure language for obfuscation, that is in order to confuse and distract from the real import of his speech. He was not simply motivated by self-aggrandisement, and he knew exactly what his words meant! SaundersW (talk) 11:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh yes. (One is of course attracted to those who employ correct usage, and repulsed by others, who are consigned to the oblivion they richly deserve, so one might be forgiven for temporarily forgetting the original question, which was about the latter.)  I can't leave without remembering the day Jeeves enquired whether his master Bertie Wooster would like to go for a swim, by asking him if he would be "interested in partaking of a little aquatic disportment".  I've been borrowing that phrase for years.  --  JackofOz (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And was Mr Wooster, until he worked that out, stuck like a cat in an adage? (My favorite Woosterism.) &mdash;Tamfang (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Incidentally I wonder whether Sir Humphrey was named from this: "In 1957 Mr John Applebey remarked that those responsible for the [British] public accounts seem to confuse themselves as well as everyone else." (Parkinson's Second Law) &mdash;Tamfang (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's also one meaning of the word Logorrhoea. The extreme examples in the article are quite amusing. Graham 87 12:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

How do you say mouse in Japanese?
Is there a "chu" in the word somewhere? 64.236.121.129 (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, our article Mouse links to ja:ネズミ, which is nezumi if I remember my katakana correctly. But there may be other words for "mouse" in the language. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 18:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you trying to compare with Korean 쥐 jui? No, mouse and rat are both nezumi, except in Sino-Japanese technical or literary terms, when the character 鼠 is pronounced so or syo (cognate with Sino-Korean 서 seo) in compounds. kwami (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, then where does pikachu and raichu come from? In Zelda, they have something called bombchu. They are all mouse related. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Most probably from onomatopoeia for a mouse's squake, squeak I'd guess. Pika describes flashes and rai reminds me of raiden — thunder and lightning. --Kjoonlee 21:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "Chu" is the Japanese word for the sound that a mouse makes, and it is a "cuter" way of referring to mice. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Right. Also, chu is also the sound for a (light) kiss, AFAIK. --Kjoonlee 21:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * chuu-chuu チューチュー is what mice say in Japanese, according to my native speaker informant. Needs to be reduplicated. chuu チュー or chuʔ チュッ (not reduplicated) is for the kiss sound. – ishwar  (speak)  01:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So Japanese mice say the same thing as American trains? Wow. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 06:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, Japanese u doesn't sound a lot like English u, unless maybe you're a surfer dude. (Not even then, really.) kwami (talk) 08:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "chuuchuu-chan" is a pretty common kiddie word for mouse, based on the sound a mouse makes (as noted above). Paul Davidson (talk) 11:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. Just in case you mistook one language for another, you might be interested in that both "mouse" and "rat" in Mandarin Chinese is 鼠 (shŭ), and sometimes 老鼠 (lăo shŭ [but when combined sounds more similar to láo shŭ]). Hope this helps. Thanks. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 17:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Vietnamese is cognate with Japanese (and Chinese and Korean) and the word for "mouse" is chuột. BrainyBabe (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Although Vietnam is one of the traditional chopstick countries, and also one of the countries where Hanzi writing (in some form) had been used, the Vietnamese language itself is not cognate with Chinese, Japanese or Korean. --Kjoonlee 12:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Forgive me for simplifying. It is my understanding that a few hundred of the most common and basic Vietnamese words (especially concrete nouns) are related to those in the other 3 languages. (A parallel: English is descended primarily from Anglo-Saxon but derives a good few common words from Norse.) So the words are cognate even if the languages, overall, are not that closely related. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Punctuation: use of the slash in complex cases
At first, my sentence started: "The human DRM/Gremlin gene homologue..." then I decided I wanted to differentiate between the animals to which the alternative names apply: "The human DRM (rats)/Gremlin (Xenopus) gene homologue..." but this separates DRM and Gremlin in a way that I find I don't like. Is it correct? Seans Potato Business 19:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It is very awkward/unclear, though not necessarily incorrect once you've parsed it. I'd expand it to something like "the human homologue of the DRM gene found in rats and the Gremlin gene found in Xenopus  ...".  --Sean 20:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There's really no clear way to punctuate that word order. If I wrote it I'd put spaces around the slash as a hint that it didn't related just to the adjacen word on each side, but it's certainly better to express it differently.  Since this is technical writing, on first use you can define an acronym or short phrase to mean this thing what you're talking about, so you only have to give the full explanation the first time.  "By DGH we mean the human gene homologous to DRM (in rats) and Gremlin (in Xenopus).  DGH has three alleles..."  --Anonymous, 00:30 UTC, March 6, 2008.

Hyphenation in complex cases
If I was talking about an inhibitor of cheese, I'd say a "cheese-inhibitor" with a hyphen, right? What if I'm talking about a "bone morphogenic protein (BMP) inhibitor" with the abbreviation in brackets? Is bone morphogenic protein (BMP)-inhibitor correct? Seans Potato Business 19:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding your first question, no; if you're using the term as a noun, then it's just "cheese inhibitor". If it's used as an adverb or adjective phrase, then it gets hyphenated: "a cheese-inhibiting bacterium", "a cheese-inhibitor obsession", etc. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose that answers my second question too, but what if we were talking about a "cheesey-wotsit (CW)-inihbitor obsession"? Seans Potato Business 20:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds like an adjective phrase, so it should be hyphenated as you've done. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Usually when you embed a hyphenated modifier within a larger modifier, the original hyphen drops out. That is, an A-B X, where (A B) modifies X, but an A B-C X, where (A B) modifies C, and ((A B) C) modifies X. However, I've seen different sized hyphens (hyphen vs. en dash) depending on the level of embedding: an A-B–C X. kwami (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"Needs cleaned"
Is there a formal term for the colloquial usage 'needs cleaned', 'needs deleted', etc? Possibly it's just not included an assumed "to be", but I've also encountered a further stage "needs clean". As in "The bath needs clean". Just interested in reading anything on it, if it exists. Skittle (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's dialectal, not colloquial. You might find something under Southern/Black/Texan US English. Also, I would guess that the clean form is not distinct grammatically, but is a phonological reduction of consonant clusters, and the people who say this also say fren for friend. If you get a verb that ends in a vowel, I bet the final d doesn't drop. kwami (talk) 20:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there is a term used in the dialectological literature for it, but I can't remember what it is. As far as I know, it's characteristic of Pittsburgh and nearby parts of Pennsylvania and Ohio. I never heard it in Texas. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 20:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm, why not both dialectical and colloquial? I know someone who uses that construct, by the way ("needs cleaned"); they're from "back East" (PA, U.S.), and they do not say "fren" for "friend", etc.; standard American English usage for the most part. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 20:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (EC)Hmm, I'll have to trust you on the distinction between dialect and colloquial. The people I have heard say 'needs clean' certainly pronounce a 'd' on the end of friend and are aware they are saying the word 'clean' rather than 'cleaned'; it's not a swallowed syllable for them. I'll have a look under those dialects, but they are not the dialects of the people I know who use them. I said colloquial because they only seem to be used in 'relaxed' situations; the people who use them (and I find myself occasionally using it for the fun of it) do not use them in more 'formal' speech. But then I'm not quite seeing the line between colloquial and dialect-used-only-in-colloquial-context. Skittle (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * According to http://www.bartleby.com/61/79/N0047901.html the construction is common in Scotland; according to http://www.linguistlist.org/issues/2/2-555.html#5 it's even standard in Scotland, and is also found in New Zealand. It doesn't seem to have any special name other than "the need + past participle construction". If you google for "needs washed" and "needs cleaned", you'll find a bunch of hits. I don't know about the "needs clean" construction, though. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 20:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In the Atlas of North American English, William Labov et al. found the "needs washed" construction throughout the Midland, i.e. not just in Central Pennsylvania and Eastern Ohio, but on through Cincinnati and Indianapolis; as well as in eastern Tennessee (Chattanooga and Knoxville), the Great Plains (Kansas City, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, western South Dakota), and parts of the Rocky Mountains (Colorado, Montana, Idaho, as well as Phoenix). —Angr If you've written a quality article... 20:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I do remember it from Pittsburgh, come to think of it, but I have a friend in Austin you also uses it. Evidently in your case, Skittle, we are talking about two different constructions. I wonder if 'needs clean' is a reduction of 'needs cleaned', or an extension of 'needs salt'? kwami (talk) 20:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, Austin's where I grew up, and the first time I heard the construction was in a linguistics class at university. Postscript to above: ANAE also says that African-Americans in Atlanta use "need + past participle" but others there don't. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 20:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I wonder where he got it, then? Well, good to get it right. kwami (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've read once that "The cat wants out" is standard and acceptable in Scotland. --Kjoonlee 21:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's pretty standard in California, but "The cat wants washed" is not. kwami (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Certainly widespread in the UK as far as I know. Thanks for the stuff so far guys. So, we don't seem to have a set name but it's certainly a documented thing. It's highly regional, although fairly widespread in the UK, patchy in the US. No news on whether the 'needs clean' variant is simply a shortening (I suspect so, but not a swallowed sound) or from a different route. It's a start :) Skittle (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If I remember what I read a while ago, this construction was brought to western PA by the Scots Irish who settled in western PA.--Filll (talk) 21:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That's exactly where my parents are from, though they're not Scots Irish. kwami (talk) 00:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I honestly thought it was local (which to me means central Virginia, USA), but I "might could" be confusing it with other local peculiarities. I tend to pick up the strangest bits of dialect, I tell you what. :-) -- LarryMac | Talk  21:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Refs in Amer. Sp.:


 * * Murray, Thomas E.; Frazer, Timothy C.; & Simon, Beth Lee. (1996). Need + past participle in American English. American Speech, 71 (3), 255-271.
 * * Murray, Thomas E.; & Simon, Beth Lee. (1999). Want + past participle in American English. American Speech, 74 (2), 140-164.
 * * Stabley, Rhodes R.; & A. L. H. (1959). 'Needs painted,' etc., in western Pennsylvania. American Speech, 34 (1), 69-70.


 * Additional refs in these articles. – ishwar  (speak)  01:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I recognize this as something my Newfoundland and Northern Irish in-laws say. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In the United States, this is not usual in either the Northeast or in Northern California, where I have spent most of my life. Marco polo (talk) 02:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)By way of comparison, the form "needs + -ing form" was frowned until quite recently. It was too slangy; only "needs to be + past participle" was allowed in standard British English. BrainyBabe (talk) 13:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)