Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 November 24

= November 24 =

German "Kunststoffdispersion"
There's a product in Germany that is used as an additive in various products. It's generic name is Kunststoffdispersion. It is added to concrete, paint, grout and plaster to improve their properties. It's available under several brand names for the various applications. Some manufacturers use "dispersion of plastics" which looks like a literal translation and I could not find any similar US product with that wording. The stuff looks a bit like polyurethane, but I'm not quite sure whether it's identical, similar or something entirely different than that. Any clues, generic, or product names would be appreciated. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 07:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a composite technical word and is a little beyond me, but it seems to translate as 'polymer dispersions'. Although Kunst is 'art', Kunststoff means 'plastics', 'polymers', or 'synthetic materials'. Dispersion is a loan-word and means 'dispersion'. See here and here. But I found one Kunststoffdispersion called Caparol Capaplex which seems to be sold in English as 'base primer'. Strawless (talk) 12:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "Polymer dispersion" does seem to be the English equivalent. Here is a patent description in which "polymer dispersion" is used in the English title and Kunststoffdispersion in the German text; and a Google search for "polymer dispersion" turns up lots of chemical companies that manufacture such things, as well as information about their use in just such applications as you describe. Deor (talk) 13:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks y'alls. That's going to make things a lot easier than having to go into a long description like: There's this stuff that they use ....  Now I can tell all my friends about it because it's dang useful.  I just have to get my local hardware store to stock it. ;-) 76.97.245.5 (talk) 17:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. @strawless the "kunst" part is derived from "künstlich" = artificial that's how they get to "Kunststoff". Just like the German companies I got stuck at "plastics" there which wasn't it. thks. again. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ponder this carefully, 76.97.245.5, and you may find that Kunst is "derived from künstlich" in just the same way that art is derived from artificial! Strawless (talk) 14:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Post-WWII memorial text in Italian
Working on material about the Fosse Ardeatine massacre, I'm having difficulty translating a memorial plaque's opening words into English. The language is in the first person plural, as though the massacre victims are addressing the visitor(s): The full text, which is somewhat figurative, can be viewed in this photo. Interested volunteers are invited to help improve the page, too. -- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 09:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Viatori assetati di liberta...


 * viatori = travellers/wayfarers (I think --- viator exists in English with that meaning), so it's "Travellers thirsty for liberty, we were gathered from houses, streets and gaols..." better let someone with better Italian than me confirm that though 163.1.148.158 (talk) 10:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * US translation: "gaols" = "jails". StuRat (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Rather belated comment: I basically agree with 163.1, but "a caso" means "by chance" or "at random", it has nothing to do with "house" (that would be "casa"). How far into the text do you need help with the translation? -- Ferkelparade &pi; 23:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Bless you, Ferkelparade, for this absolutely context-appropriate clarification! It's utterly relevant to the collective-punishment nature of the reprisal, randomly targeting whomever could easily be rounded up (ten per each German casualty of the original attack), rather than seeking out the resistance fighters responsible. I can take it from here.  Thanks, all! -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Learning French Online
Which are the top ranked sites for Learning French Online ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baalish (talk • contribs) 11:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't know, but I can recommend this one. --Richardrj talkemail 11:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Check out the BBC (www.bbc.co.uk). Itsmejudith (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The BBC website is vast so that link's not much help. Presumably you mean this page. --Richardrj talkemail 15:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's right, thanks. I'm so used to using the website that I forget that others might have to do some work to navigate around. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know about ranking, but the relatively new FrenchPod is worth a look. --- OtherDave (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Starting sentences with 'which' and 'but'
I have recently seen the use of a lot of sentences beginning with 'which' and 'but'. I was taught from an early age that starting a sentence with 'but' should be avoided and 'which' seems just as incorrect to me.

For example: "Doughnuts are delicious. Which of course makes them bad for you.". I think "Doughnuts are delicious, which of course makes them bad for you.". looks much more natural. Starting a new setence for the second part seems like an unjustified break in the natiral flow of the sentence to me. Another alternative would be substituting the 'which' for 'this': "Doughnuts are delicious. This of course makes them bad for you.". That version looks okay.

The same goes for but: "He greatly enjoyed eating doughnuts. But often found himself with severe bloatedness after eating many of them." does not look right, I much prefer: "He greatly enjoyed eating doughnuts but often found himself with severe bloatedness after eating many of them." Arguably, a comma should go before but - although not a full stop. Am I right or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.96.244 (talk) 12:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * In those examples, I agree with you. But I wouldn't wish to make a categorical rule against beginning a sentence with 'but'. Strawless (talk) 12:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * One of my teachers hated sentences beginning with 'but', but was happy with sentences beginning with 'however', which is just absurd. Algebraist 12:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmn yes, 'however' is not quite so bad in my book, sometimes it looks OK but it depends on the context.62.25.96.244 (talk) 13:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * But that's because we can also use however to mean any which way you want. For example, "However you make the cake is fine with me, so long as I get some." Which brings me to my next point: I have no problem with starting sentences with but, however, or which, even in cases where the use in nonstandard; it provides a subtle pause for emphasis. Matt Deres (talk) 15:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Also note that "which" is perfectly fine when starting a question: "Which witch is which ?". StuRat (talk) 15:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Totally agree. 'Which' is in a different context when used as a question.  Out of interest, what inspired me to ask this question was an article on the BBC website by Robert Peston which said "So part of the hole in the government's revenues to be unveiled after the weekend should be seen as permanent. 


 * Which is why the chancellor will have to announce that taxes are going to rise at a specified date in the future, to fill the structural hole in the public finances. "


 * Most of his sentences seem to start with "so", "but", "these", "then" and even worse, "And". Which is definitely not very good.  And also rather annoying to those who are pedantic about these things.62.25.96.244 (talk) 16:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And that is a kind of journalism which (rightly) has been much mocked. While we may look down on it, I'm not sure we can turn our reaction into any general rules for English. But I do agree with you. So there must be something we can say. These are deep waters. Which, perhaps, all of us here will acknowledge. Strawless (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't mind sentences beginning with "And" when they're in the middle of a paragraph or discourse, but it's weird when "And" is the first word of a poem. (Starting a poem with "Wherefore" is pretty weird too.) —Angr 17:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Angr, I can't help thinking of Hugo von Hofmannsthal's poem Ballade des äußeren Lebens, in which the first four sentences and first two stanzas all begin with Und... not to mention nine of the first twelve lines. Und Kinder wachsen auf mit tiefen Augen... It's a complicated device, and it works. It's a great poem. Strawless (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikisource has it at Ballade des äußeren Lebens. —Angr 18:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The Mr Men books do it. A lot. All the time. In fact. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And William Blake was not averse to using it: "And did those feet in ancient times ..." --  JackofOz (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We've had that one already. While I'm here, I'll add Die Moritat von Mackie Messer and The Cantos. Initial 'and's are independent of political position! Algebraist 18:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That rule is a pedagogical tool, not a rule of grammar. Your teacher taught you not to start sentences with particular words, because he or she wanted you to become comfortable with using commas and other kinds of connecting punctuation, and not just fall back on ending the sentence after every individual thought. But in actual writing, it's fine to start a sentence with a conjunction, if that's what the natural grouping of ideas requires. (Look back a sentence for an example.) Good writers do this all the time.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  18:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you guys are too uptight. Let me start my sentences with the word that I feel expresses the best my state of mind. If I start with BUT, I am starting a contradiction, and informing the listeners that it is such. If I start with AND, I am informing my listeners that that I am continuing something. If I start with WHICH, it just means that I am refering to the piece of information previously mentionned. In fact when I am talking, how can you be sure that I am not still running the same sentence? Or if I am writing, maybe the full stop before the WHICH is just a stylistic way to indicate that there is pause, longer than what a comma indicates. In most cases, SO means the same as THEREFORE, why can't I use it in the beginning of a sentence to express consequence? I feel the above ways to speak are efficient and do not prevent understanding of the fundamental piece of information.
 * Some of you will say that they don't like this style, and therefore won't read what I write. Fine. But then you'll miss out on the content which could be valuable. Or has the content been demoted in importance below the form? --Lgriot (talk) 00:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought most people here are in agreement that it is ok to write this way, so I'm not sure what the uptight reference is about, Lgriot. --  JackofOz (talk) 01:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK I misread some comments as approving the ban, my bad. --202.40.14.58 (talk) 05:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * According to this guy form follows function in the context of design. But even that rule is also subject to adaptation: FFF "seems like good sense but on closer examination it becomes problematic and open to interpretation". Julia Rossi (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hyphen ["break-ages"?]
I was doing a translation a few days ago, and my spellchecker in NeoOffice would not recognize the word 'breakages'. I have it set to British English, and I notice my spellchecker in Firefox (which is set to American English) recognizes it. My British spellchecker changed the word to 'break-ages'. Is this how we write it in the UK? I'm sure it isn't.--ChokinBako (talk) 17:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It's certainly not how I write it. FWIW, the OED countenances a word 'breakage' and not a word 'break-age'. Algebraist 17:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC


 * I've never heard of it, but I can imagine such a word as "break-age", meaning a sort of temporal iconoclast. However, "breakage" is thoroughly accepted everywhere, except apparently in a certain spellchecker.  Jack's Rule No. 1 for writers - ''Never trust spellcheckers; or, if you absolutely must use one, and it comes up with something you strongly doubt, then you almost certainly know more than it does".  --  JackofOz (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It's quite possible the programmers of the spellchecker considered "breakage" a mass noun, so that the plural "breakages" would be nonexistent. (Ironically enough, my Firefox spellchekcer doesn't recognize the words "Firefox" or "spellchecker".) —Angr 19:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Nor "spellchekcer". ;-) Matt Deres (talk) 19:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * See Microsoft Word Spelling and Grammar Check Demonstration.
 * -- Wavelength (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

<(Ironically enough, my Firefox spellchekcer doesn't recognize the words "Firefox" or "spellchecker".)> Yes, Angr, I have said that once before. I think it was even to you.--ChokinBako (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've seen spellcheckers that allows any two words with a hyphen between them. So, if it doesn't recognize "breakages" (which doesn't mean it's not a word, it's just one it doesn't recognize), it may very well propose the compound word "break-ages". StuRat (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree about the inadequacies of spellcheckers. Not only do they fail to accept normal spellings, they also sometimes accept extremely rare words where we would diagnose simple slips. Wordperfect, which some younger refdeskers will not have heard of, used to accept od ("A hypothetical force proposed by Baron von Reichenbach (1788–1869) as pervading all nature, being manifest in certain people of sensitive temperament and accounting for the phenomena of mesmerism and animal magnetism. Also od force. Also called odyl."–SOED). Someone should have told Wordperfect that d is adjacent to f on a qwerty keyboard.
 * Use of hyphens is the most complex problem in English punctuation. One respected style guide devotes about fifty pages of minute analysis to it, without covering all the nuances. The topic is currently controversial for our Wikipedia Manual of Style. See long discussion here, for example. There is more, earlier in WT:MOS; but is has been recently archived. At the core of the present debate is prescriptiveness: the status and role of WP:MOS for the Wikipedia community. I am a reluctant but central participant, though I had given up discussion at WT:MOS as a lost cause, months ago. I may well give up again.
 * – ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝo N  oetica! T– 21:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I just went back to NeoOffice to write up a letter, then did a spellcheck and I was told to replace 'Email' with either 'Em-ail' (whatever that is!) and 'email', the same word, but with a lowercase e! I noticed 'Em-ail' came first.--ChokinBako (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Em and ail are both perfectly good words, but I'm not sure why you'd be hyphening them together. I agree with your spellchecker that email shouldn't normally be capitalized tho'. Algebraist 21:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Offering "Em-ail" instead of "Email"? Wow! If the issue was the capitalisation of "e", why would "Em-ail" (whatever it is) be any more acceptable?  I shudder to think of what they'll come up with next.  Even "E-mail" or "e-mail" would have been better choices.  Givnan, I certainly hope you told that spellchecker where to stick its "advice".  The word "email" is capitalised at the start of sentences, and sometimes in stand-alone and other contexts.  --  JackofOz (talk) 22:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * My local newspaper's website always hyphenates 'South-ampton and I have no idea why. I have never, ever seen the name of the spelt that way anywhere else.  With regard to Email, I often come across "E-mail" but have never come across "Em-ail"; that just seems totally wrong.  These days, at least in British English, hyphenation should only used in an attributive context, ie "He bought a large-scale map".  A lot of words that used to by hyphenated, for example, coordinate (was co-ordinate) and cooperative (was co-operative) have been knocked back to one word (at least according to the dictionary).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.249.220.179 (talk) 23:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Fwiw, I just googled "Em-ail" and, without checking every single hit, I saw no results for anything other than mis-spellings of "email". --  JackofOz (talk) 23:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "Em-ail": A disorder which effects printmakers who are unable to distinguish between an "em" and a "en". :-) StuRat (talk) 04:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That's probably in the same class of words as "affect-ail": a disorder which affects writers who are unable to distinguish between "affect" and "effect". :)  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "Seasonal Effective Disorder": A condition which strikes in early winter, causing employees to become abnormally efficient, just prior to the distribution of Chistmas bonuses. StuRat (talk) 17:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I love it. May I use that, please, Stu?  I'll give due credit ("Oh, I didn't come up with that all by myself, I got it from somewhere on the internet") .   --  JackofOz (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Be my guest. And, since I charge my guests rent, you can send me royalty checks, instead. :-) StuRat (talk) 04:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Credit where credit is due, and cash when they really get anxious. BrainyBabe (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no experience with NeoOffice, but I suspect that you are seeing the result of a faulty algorithm. That is, NeoOffice doesn't bother knowing which words can be conjugated with a hyphen and which can't. It sees a word that it doesn't have in the dictionary, notices that it can be broken into two correctly spelled words, and assumes that you just forgot to put in the hyphen. (And isn't smart enough to know better.) I will note that spell-checkers are notoriously bad with hyphenation. I once had MS Word flag a word (I forget which) and recommend that it be respelled with a hyphen. It then flagged the hyphenated word, and recommended that it be spelled without. I amused myself by going back and forth between the two a dozen times before I finally broke out the dictionary. -- 128.104.112.72 (talk) 22:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Funnily enough, neither 'coordinate' nor 'co-ordinate' are recognized by my NeoOffice spellchecker! I get a red line under the whole word in the case of the former, and a red line only under the 'co' in the latter. NeoOffice is great as a free alternative to MS Office on a Mac, but, hey, come on! And thanks Jack, I did that myself, and the only thing on the first page with 'Em-ail' in the title was a SkyNews article about Gary Glitter, and was actually about email.--ChokinBako (talk) 23:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is another example from my spellchecker (image).--ChokinBako (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

IPA - /ˌjuːnənˈsɛptiəm/
I was trying to read the above IPA on Ununseptium, and to test myself I listened to Image:Ununseptium.ogg. I think that recording is wrong...can someone familiar with IPA take a listen? Thanks. Louis Waweru  Talk 21:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You are correct. The pronunciation in the file is more like /uːnuːnsɛptiəm/. /juː/ is the same transcription for the English word "you". /nən/ is found in the last syllable of Mt. Vernon and 2nd syllable of pregnancy (at least in General American English).-Andrew c [talk] 22:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks. I think I'll remove it from the article then. Are you up for rerecording it? =) Louis Waweru  Talk 22:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't currently have my PC microphone set up, plus I'm a little concerned that I could not find that pronunciation in a 3rd party source (or any pronunciation for that matter, the word isn't in the OED or any online dictionary that I could find).-Andrew c [talk] 17:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

'Collectible'
On the Wikipedia entry for Imperial Leather (don't ask why I was reading that!), it said that they used to produce two different metal 'toys' which 'are now discontinued and collectible'. I would have thought anything was collectible, even if it wasn't discontinued.--ChokinBako (talk) 22:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It should probably say "highly collectible". Clarityfiend (talk) 00:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I would take "collectible" to imply "likely to increase in value". The single largest factor in making something likely to increase in value is rarity, and an item isn't likely to remain rare if it's still being produced.  StuRat (talk) 01:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There may be a hint in there of valuable, but surely collectibility and rarity are quite distinct from each other? It seems to me that quite common things can be collectible, and, indeed, very rare things can go down in value. I suspect the writer of "discontinued and collectible" meant "discontinued and collected" - that is, there is demand from collectors. Xn4  ( talk ) 02:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It would be quite unusual for something rare to decline much in value. StuRat (talk) 02:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, no, it happens quite a lot. That's because of fashions of various kinds (changes in demand rather than supply) and also for other reasons, such as the weakness of particular economies or currencies. See here for what has happened to the Sotheby's share price over the past year - the whole art market has seen stormy weather in recent months, for obvious reasons. Xn4  ( talk ) 04:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Our friend Clarityfiend has definitely got this right. At least to UK readers "highly collectible" would be very much the right phrase.  It implies that the thing being collected is both valuable and collectible.  For example, one might write: "Despite their apparent worthlessness, marketing trinkets are often highly collectible and can often fetch large sums at auction."  But this is many words where fewer would do.  "Marketing trinkets are highly collectible" has precisely the same meaning (at least as far as I can see) - though it does lose the specific reference to auctions.62.25.109.195 (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * At the risk of sounding cynical, in the U.S. "collectible" is sometimes a marketing term, meaning "something we hope you'll buy and hang onto without using, you and millions of others." It's especially favored by companies who can manipulate the supply, as with Cabbage Patch dolls, Beanie Babies, and anything from the Franklin Mint.  OtherDave (talk)


 * It has to do with the confusion between two similar definitions of the suffix -ible or -able. One definition means "able to be " and the other means "likely to be ".  Consider the word "flammable".  Anything can be made to burn if you get it hot enough.  Throw a steel beam into the sun... it'll burn.  However, we take flamable, not to mean "can be made to burn under any conditions", but "likely to be burned under normal conditions".  Under that understanding, collectible means "likely to be collected by normal people" not "can be accumulated".  Anything is collectible under the second definition, but most people mean the first when using the term.--Jayron32. talk . contribs  21:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * My take is that a "collectible" (noun) is something which is not merely capable of being collected (anything is in theory so capable) but rather something which is in practice collected. The adjective has the same sense. Perhaps a better example than Jayron32's "flammable" is "lovable" -- someone whom "only a mother could love" is ipso facto "lovable" in a literal sense, but clearly not lovable in the usual, idiomatic sense. jnestorius(talk) 23:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I see that Jnestorius, like me, prefers collected. It's a plain word with no spin, and surely the point the writer is aiming to convey is not that these metal toys could be collected, or that they are likely to be collected, but that as a matter of fact they are collected. Xn4  ( talk ) 01:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Jayron, I respect your views, but you first say that '-able' means 'able to be....', while '-ible' means 'likely'. This is complete utter nonsense. Especially considering the examples you give of 'flammable' and 'flamable' (which is not a word) both end in '-able'.--ChokinBako (talk) 01:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I said "-able/-ible" means BOTH "able to be" and "likely to be", not seperately as words, but as a class taken together. And I missed the "m" key when typing the word "flammable".  I understand that you have never made a typographical error, but please don't call what I say utter nonsense because I did.  It's rather rude to do so... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  11:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, mate. Just an example of how a typo can make someone read something completely wrong, just like I so innocently did. I apologize.--ChokinBako (talk) 12:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Simplest distinction I've encountered in US English usage: a collectible [n.] is an underage antique ( the latter being, per Merriam-Webster's, "a work of art, piece of furniture, or decorative object made at an earlier period and according to various customs laws at least 100 years ago"). -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)