Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 August 22

= August 22 =

Ancient Chinese
What language was spoken by pre-Mandarin people of China? What was the spoken language in Shang and Zhou dynasty's times? And also seeing how most of northern china is mandarin speaking, were there older distinct northern dialects of Chinese spoken in the north? --Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 02:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The answer to your second question is Old Chinese, though there was an intermediate Middle Chinese stage before Mandarin. As to your third question, in fact, there are a variety of Mandarin dialects. Each of these seems to be a direct descendant of Middle Chinese. That is, there was no intervening non-Mandarin dialect in most of northern China that was supplanted by Mandarin.  That said, the various dialects of Mandarin may be giving way to standard Mandarin, especially in cities. Marco polo (talk) 02:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

There are 54 languages in China, one of which is Mandarin, and the precursor of that was, as stated above, Old Chinese. Are you asking what language was spoken before Chinese was? I guess it would be all of them (except Russian and Korean, which were introduced later). You need to specify a place if you want a specific answer. China is actually quite big. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 08:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * See Varieties of Chinese for information on the disputes about the classification and delineation of spoken Han Chinese. Orthodoxy in China is (if I remember correctly) that there are 5 dialect groups / major dialects / languages: Mandarin, Wu, Cantonese, Min (Fujian/Hokkienese) and Gan.
 * In addition to Han Chinese, as Kage mentioned, there are a lot of non-Han languages in China.
 * It is posited that some languages were widely spoken in China before they were supplanted by Han Chinese; see, e.g. Yue peoples and info on their (posited) distinct language. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The pre-Mandarin speech in the north-west of China were non-Sinitic languages, mostly Turkic and Mongolic languages. In the north-east, there are tiny leftovers of non-Sinitic languages such as Palaeo-Siberian languages (i.e. Manchu. Ramsay's Languages of China is a good reference to look for if you want more information. Steewi (talk) 02:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've never seen a classification which lists Manchu as Palaeo-Siberian: it's Tungusic, which many consider to be part of Altaic. --ColinFine (talk) 20:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

How is Wikipedia pronounced?
I'm trying to find out if I pronounce it correctly. Please no IPA wingdings in the answer—I have no idea how to read it. I pronounce wiki, standing alone, wick-ee (wickie) but when I pronounce wikipedia I pronounce the second "i" the same way as I do when I say the word "it". Is this correct or do you say wikeeepedia? (which sounds wrong to me).--162.84.164.115 (talk) 03:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I usually pronounce "Wiki" by itself "Wih-KEE" but turn the second syllable to a schwa-sound in Wikipedia, "Wih-kuh-PEE-dee-uh" since the "ki" syllable changes from a stressed syllable in "Wiki" to an unstressed one in "Wikipedia". -- Jayron  32  03:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Everyone I know pronounces it "wicky-pedia", to rhyme with "tricky-pedia". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I love "tricky-pedia" - how true! &mdash; Sebastian 06:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sticky-pedia? —— Shakescene (talk) 07:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I usually pronounce it "wee-kee", which is how the word wiki is pronounced in Hawaiian. But when I get lazy I sometimes use the pronunciation Jayron described. &mdash;Kal (talk) 04:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * A middle-age couple gets off the plane in Honolulu and are greeted by lovely maidens with leis for each of them. The man turns to them and says, "Now that we're in the Aloha State at long last, can you settle a debate we've been having for years? Is it 'Hawaii', or 'Havaii'?"
 * "It's Havaii, sir."
 * "Thank you!"
 * "You're velcome!". - Nunh-huh 08:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Henny Youngman just called. He wants his joke back. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Pronounce it as 'mickey-pedia' like the mouse, but with a 'w' instead of an 'm'. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 08:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

In German they say Vicky-pedia. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I know someone who calls it "Wacky-pedia", and some days that seems to be true. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no substitute for actually hearing it: File:300 (film).ogg. decltype (talk) 13:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * One of my mates calls it 'wankipedia' for some reason. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 16:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I say "wiki" as "wick-eee" in front of all the other things (species, books, -versity, quote) but on Wikipedia I say "wick-(uh, tending toward short i)-pedia". Sorry for the confusion in the middle of the pronunciation but I don't know how to explain it right ... I agree with all users' posts above. :)  L&#9786;g&#9786;maniac chat? 23:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A schwa, i.e. the same as Jayron above. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I had a coworker in whose mouth it sounded like wilky– (cf milky). —Tamfang (talk) 00:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * hm, I no longer remember that. —Tamfang (talk) 05:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Dutch naming convention question
What does the particle "Ten" mean in names of Dutch orign, such as Abraham Ten Broeck? I have seen it occasionally in different surnames of Dutch origin. I know that "Van" is usually used where the German "Von" is, but I don't know what the "Ten" comes from. Anyone know? -- Jayron  32  03:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It means at. See the Tussenvoegsels section of Dutch names. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 05:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The word "damascan"
I came across the following sentence recently:
 * One can but hope that this self-evident fact will hit them with damascan force before it's too late.

I've looked up "damascan" in Wiktionary (zip) and wherever else I can think of, but I get no results that elucidate the meaning of the word. I presume it's some reference to Damascus, but what does it mean in relation to a force? -- JackofOz (talk) 12:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably from Damascus steel "Damascus swords were of legendary sharpness and strength, and were apocryphally claimed to be able to cut through lesser quality European swords and even rock"
 * Bit of a mixed metaphor in my opinion.83.100.250.79 (talk) 12:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a reference to the Conversion of Paul on the road to Damascus, wherein Paul literally "sees the light", leaving him blinded for several days. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 12:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Interpreting a bit, I think it means "overwhelming" - Saul's conversion was supposed to be from one end of the spectrum to the other in a second. "Damascan force" meaning one immediately turning someone, I'd guess. - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 13:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the writer of the sentence hopes that the clueless "them" will be struck with sufficient force that they fall off their horses. Deor (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

[Edit conflict; hitting the preview button just wipes out my own tentative contributions]

Damascene, as in the Damascene conversion of Paul, Damascene steel and a Damascene sword (not to be confused with the Damoclean Sword), is definitely an adjective. Occasionally, I run across a phrase like "damascene hardness", referring to the steel. Damask is both an adjective, as in damask silk, and a noun for such fabric (damask and lace). All, I've always thought, refer to Damascus, the capital of Syria and one of the longest-surviving cities in the world. I wonder what the writer was thinking of when (s)he wrote "with damascan force" (demonic?) Perhaps the implication was that they would, like Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus, they would be sun-struck by "this self-evident fact" and suddenly convinced of the utter wrongness of their previous views. I'll see if "damascan" is in the OED. —— Shakescene (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Reminds me of the old joke: Teacher: Who can tell me about Damascus? Student: Kills 99% of all germs dead! (ok so it's a UK joke)--TammyMoet (talk) 19:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC) (OMG what happened to the small tag button?)

Any luck with the OED, Shakescene? -- JackofOz (talk) 08:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In lieu of Shakescene, I can advise that "damascan" is not in the 1971 OED, nor do any of the variants of "damascene" and "damask" have meanings attributed therein that seem relevant to the usage in question. However, "damascan" seems to me to be a sufficiently regular alternative formation from "Damascus" as to be acceptable, and its evocation of Saul/Paul's alleged experience a viable literary allusion. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 12:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems my anonymous friend has coined a new word, from the name of the oldest continuously inhabited city on Earth. Sometimes coinings take some little time, don't they.  Thanks.  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry to respond late; just saw your query. No, my 1933/1971 OED has an impressive array of variants and derivatives, but damascan doesn't seem to be one of them. The closest I see would be damascen and perhaps damasking (from damask). However language does change as people forget (or never learn) earlier forms; how many ordinary people today recognize Cairene for something or someone from Cairo (although I don't know what they'd say instead: Cairo-an?) —— Shakescene (talk) 10:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That's another new word I've learned today. Thanks, Shakes.  --  JackofOz (talk) 10:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Translation - Switzerland
Can I get a translation of this video, please? 121.72.171.75 (talk) 12:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "... as it has been read out aloud and declared here, that in peril we may always remain cheerful and undangerous [ more likely "unharmed", but ungefährlich does mean "undangerous"] . So I plead that God and the Saints [(holy ones)] help me. Amen." (Not quite sure whether I understood everything correctly, using a semi-broken set of phones here. By the way, this is not Swiss German, but (somewhat archaic) Standard German spoken with a Swiss accent). ---Sluzzelin talk  15:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Using a better sound system now. I stand by the first and last bit, but misheard the middle part which I now struck out. (What I had heard was: "daß wir in Gefahren uns stets halten ... freudig und ungefährlich").
 * Now I hear "daß wir befahren und stets halten ... freulich und ungefährlich". (doesn't make a lot of sense)
 * What I (now) think he is saying is: "das wir bewahren und stets halten ... (er)freulich und ungefährlich" which, without further context, I'd translate as "that we keep/protect and always hold ... pleasant/gratifying and undangerous". Hmm ... actually having trouble here, and the mumbling Gemeinde doesn't help much either ... sorry ---Sluzzelin talk  19:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Earthy man
What mean: "Naturaly lovely woman seeks a ruggedly earthy man." Christie the puppy lover (talk) 12:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a down-to-earth man? Nyttend (talk) 15:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * She's probably looking for somebody who's homeless but has a large savings account. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Presumably an outdoorsy type who is not an "egghead"... AnonMoos (talk) 21:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * She has not derived any loveliness through nurture and he should possess a distinct cave-like odor and tend to carry a pocketknife.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 14:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Naturally lovely woman" could mean she doesn't shave. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, they found each other. --jpgordon:==( o ) 20:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Mathematically possible
A certain weird expression has crept into Australian sports-speak. It crops up, for example, when a team is trailing badly towards the end of a game. By saying "It's mathematically possible the can still win" (or something similar), the commentator is acknowledging that there's still enough time for them to put in a mighty effort and get to the front before the final siren. Depending on their voice tone, there may be an unspoken message that they doubt the team will actually achieve this; or they may in some cases be hoping they'll overcome the odds. But exactly the same message - whether hopeful or dubious - is imparted by saying simply "It's possible they can still win". The use of the qualifer "mathematical" is a fine case of unnecessary, superfluous, redundant tautology. :) Is this terrible term just a down-under thing, or is it mathematically possible that other countries' sportspersonages are also afflicted by it?  We know that sports commentators are renowned for their liberal employment of tautologies, but I'm particularly interested in "mathematically possible".  --  JackofOz (talk) 12:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've never heard it that way, but this happens in North American sports when trying to determine if a team can still make the playoffs. The first place team will have a certain number of wins, and the other teams will be a certain number of "games back"; say the first place team has 70 wins, and the second place team has 65 wins, the second place team is "5 games back". In baseball, for example, where only the first place teams get to go to the playoffs, this is often structured as "5 games out of first place". In (ice) hockey, where all but the very worst teams get to go to the very lengthy playoffs, it is "5 games out of the playoffs". I think (American/Canadian) football and basketball have similar systems but I don't really follow those. By the end of the season, if there is a close race for first place, or the last playoff spot, people will pay close attention to the combination of wins and losses a certain pair of teams will need in order to reach the playoffs; for example, there are five games left, and team A will need to lose 3 games, and team B will need to win all 5, in order for team B to surpass team A for the playoff spot. That's the "mathematical" part. This often shows up as a joke; David Letterman used to have a Top Ten List of ways you can tell it's spring, and one of them was always "the (new York) Mets are mathematically eliminated from the playoffs", which is funny because the Mets used to suck, and spring is very early into the baseball season when it would be impossible to tell who would be eliminated in the autumn. (Around here, this joke is also made about the Toronto Blue Jays baseball and Toronto Maple Leafs hockey teams at the beginning of their seasons, since they are perennially terrible.) Adam Bishop (talk) 13:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. So, in a relatively complicated system, one might need to employ a little bit of mathematics to work out whether or not a certain team can make it to the next stage or the final round or whatever.  Some can; others can't, no matter how hard they may try, because they haven't amassed enough points in the earlier rounds.  For the ones that can, that means it's possible they will win.  Just because mathematics are used to determine this, doesn't mean it's "mathematically possible" they will win.  --  JackofOz (talk) 13:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah I guess it's just a way for sports broadcasters to sound fancy. It's not like it's "mathematically impossible" but possible in some other way. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Something similar happens here in Spain, and I also hate it. However, here they normally say that it is "mathematically impossible" for a team to win when in a league competition every team can get e.g. at most 9 points (that is, there are 3 matches left for each team) and the first team is 11 points ahead of the second. My guess is that for sport commentators realizing that is somewhat "mathematically" challenging or they are just "decorating" their language with cacophonous expressions. Another notorious tendency is that, in a futile attempt to avoid the unpleasant sound of constant repetition, they tend to use synonyms... so instead of saying "the ball" they say ridiculous things such as "el cuero" (the leather, well, the ball is made of leather, you know...) or "el esférico" (the spherical one, I love this one). --Belchman (talk) 14:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, I know that one. When there's a list of, say, 8 results being read out, they'll find 8 different ways of saying "defeated" - "Team A beat Team B; Team C defeated Team D; Team F went down to Team E; Team G demolished Team H; Team J was ouwitted by Team I; Team K smashed Team L; Team M just pipped Team N; and Team O had the goods over Team P".  -- JackofOz (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't view this as at all fancy or decorative — to me, it's a way to say "it's theoretically possible but quite unlikely". To go with the baseball example — let's say that there are two teams competing for a specific title.  If one team wins every game in the first half of the season and the other loses every game, it's quite possible for them to end up with an equal record, since the losing team could win all remaining games and the winning team could lose all remaining games.  I would use "mathematically" here because it's quite unlikely for this result to occur.  Nyttend (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * All of that remains true whether the word "mathematically" is used or not. This is not quite the black-and-white thing that "unique" is.  Either something is unique, or it's not, and you can't qualify it.  However, something can be "just barely possible", or "very possible", or something in between.  But all of those gradations of possibility are in a sense "mathematical".  To use this word only  in the case where it seems unlikely is a misuse.  To another person, it may seem a lot more likely, so does it cease to be "mathematical" to that person?  --  JackofOz (talk) 16:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * See idiom. Sometimes the use of a term or word does not carry the same meaning as its dictionary definition.  In this case, "mathematically possible" is an idiom for "no real chance based on past performance, even if techincally still possible to happen".  -- Jayron  32  16:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

(Unindenting)

What Jack is missing is that when people say "possible", they usually mean that there is a significant probability. "Mathematically possible" is a way of saying that that's not the sense, that the word "possible" is being used in its strict sense as in mathematics. (And there's also an implication, because the speaker troubled to use the word, that there is only a small probability.) In short, it's a useful expression. "Mathematical(ly)" is used with a similar meaning with words like "exact" ("Okay, it's not mathematically exact, but pi = 3.1416 is good enough for our purposes here") and "logic(al)" (Dialogue from The Caine Mutiny (film), quoted from memory: "I proved it with mathematical logic".) --Anonymous, 17:00 UTC, August 22, 2009.
 * What commentators have done is to take "mathematically eliminated" or "mathematically impossible", which is a certainty, and flip it around to "mathematically possible". Baseball is a good example. If you're 9 games behind with 10 left to play, you've still got a theoretical/mathematical chance of winning, but you would have to win 10 in a row and the first place team would have to lose 10 in a row. Possible, but unlikely. The larger the margin gets, the smaller the probability is. The Mets lost a 7 game lead with 2 weeks to play a couple of years ago, and that was considered amazing - as with the Yankees catching the Red Sox in 1978 after being 14 games out with a month to play. However, if you're 1 game back with 2 to play, then you've got a very realistic chance, especially if you're playing against the first place team - which, by the way, describes exactly the final two games of the 1949 season, when the Yankees won 2 against the Red Sox and won the pennant. Looking at the MLB standings right now, the Nats are 27 1/2 games behind the Phils in the NL East, 29 out on the loss side, and have the worst record in MLB. Yet they still have a mathematical chance to win the division. But you could safely bet your life savings that it won't happen. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That's ok, but the point was, what mathematics has to do with all that? I've also heard these odious expressions used by sport reporters, with other variations. Usually, it is apparent that for them mathematics is indeed, the science of computing the scores of soccer teams and draw "mathematical" consequences... --pma (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, just as the accumulation of batting, fielding and pitching records are referred to as "statistics", despite the fact that the closest thing to a mathematical statistic is dividing something by something else to come up with a "mean", e.g. the batting and fielding averages, and the earned run average. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If something's arithmetically possible, isn't it ipso facto mathematically possible? {"'Taint mathematically so...?") —— Shakescene (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But see, I have the same issue with the expressions "arithmetically possible" (yourself) and "mathematical chance" (Baseball Bugs). "Chance" by itself means nothing other than there's a possibility - it may be a slim possibility, or it may be a virtual certainty.  It's still a chance.  Both numbers can be deduced mathematically, so one is no more or no less "mathematical" or "arithmetic" - or "algebraic" or "statistical", for that matter - than the other.   People also talk about a "technical breach" of some rule or law.  I've got some news for them: all breaches are "technical" breaches.  The murder of 50 schoolchildren is still a "technical breach" of the law against murder, and the breach of some fine print that wouldn't normally get you into any trouble is just as much breaking the law as murder is.   --  JackofOz (talk) 22:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In the standings, saying someone still has a mathematical chance simply means they have no practical hope of winning but have not yet been mathematically eliminated. That expression wouldn't be used for a team that's close to first place. Such a team is said to be "in the hunt". The Nationals are mathematically still in the race, but no one would claim they are "in the hunt". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, I've always known what it's intended to mean. But it's also used in a positive sense: two commentators are talking about a match.  One says "Well, the Tigers can kiss their hopes goodbye now.  They're out of the race".  But the other one says "Not so fast.  It's still mathematically possible they could get up."  The second guy is acknowledging the chance is slim, but not non-existent, so there's still hope, and sporting history is littered with cases where most everyone had given up on a team but they came through anyway.   I just don't get why they don't say what they mean - "only a slim chance" or something like that, rather than this absurd "mathematically possible".  But I guess hoping that sports commentators will ever adhere to my idea of English is asking the impossible (that's not "mathematically impossible", btw, just practically impossible).  --  JackofOz (talk) 01:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sports announcers are more given to hype than pedantic accuracy. When "Mine That Bird" won the Kentucky Derby this year, the track announcer called it an "impossible" result. Well, if it happened, it can't be impossible, now can it? And how about the overuse of "Unbelievable!" or "Incredible!" when an athlete makes a spectacular play? The only slack I would cut for that is for Jack Buck ("I don't believe what I just saw!") when Kirk Gibson hit his homer in 1988 while seemingly having just stepped out of a wheelchair to pinch-hit. And even then, the great Vin Scully remarked that "the impossible has happened". Holy Toledo! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've always interpreted "mathematically possible" to mean "possible judging just by the scores". If you take other things into account (that one of their upcoming fixtures is against a team they haven't beaten in years or that one of their key players in injured, or whatever) then you may determine that the chance of them winning (or reaching the playoffs, or whatever) is negligible (in everyday speech, we often say things that have a negligible chance of happening are impossible). So, it is "mathematical" because it is based on the numbers, as opposed to being based on all sorts of less quantitative factors. --Tango (talk) 21:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This is an exercise in the futile art of nitpickery: The discussions above seem to deal with probabilty and not with possibility.  However, in fuzzy logic there does exist the concept of possibility theory.  Lofti Zadeh has written about it some 30 years ago, but even if the possibility of me having forgotten all about it were 1, it would leave the current precision of my memory undefined.  In other words, stating (in the constraints of fuzzy logics), that X has a possibility of 1 does not imply any statement on the probability of X (which is between 0 and 1, but remains undefined).  It is only the possibility of 0 which precludes x happening.  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * To apply some true statistical analysis to baseball, you would have to look at the number of times a team has been 1 game behind with 2 to play and see how often they've managed to duplicate 1949. That gives you a probability of that event. Then look at how often a team has been 7 behind with, say, 15 to play, and see often that kind of lead has been overcome. Then you've got something to look at in terms of probability theory. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

"Everloving" as an oath
"Are you out of your everloving mind?" How did "everloving" come to be part of an oath? Always struck me as a strange expression. Maybe it's the same thing as when you substitute frick for fuck or shoot for shit (there's a word for that), but I can't think of what everloving is substituting for. Oh, wait a second: «everloving motherfucking»...? Maybe?--162.84.164.115 (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In the film version of West Side Story, the Jets sing something about "the whole buggin', ever-lovin' street". In the stage play, I've heard them singing "mother-lovin' street". Make of that what you will. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * A slightly archaic meaning of "ever" in contexts such as this is "always"... AnonMoos (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Either a minced oath or expurgated (though the latter article doesn't cover this case). I haven't thought about 'ever-loving' before, but as soon as I think of it I would assume that it is an expurgated form of 'mother-loving' or more conventionally 'mother-fucking'. --ColinFine (talk) 23:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * HDAS has ever-loving back to 1919 or so, so it was an established term long before West Side Story. It's even older as a noun, meaning one's spouse or sweetheart.  It appears to be an intensifier in its own right, and not a euphemism for something else.  John M Baker (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Monduan
what is Monduan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.182.5 (talk) 19:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I give up. What's Monduan? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 19:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It is a specific term for manillas, used by the Yoruba people. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Rudolf Caracciola
Hi, I don't know if this is the right place, but could someone who knows their IPA please check how I did the pronunciation of Rudolf Caracciola? I did one course of linguistics at university, but I wasn't really listening. :( His surname should be pronounced: "Car (carry) acc (catch) i (sea) ola (cola)"


 * Is it really with a long 'i' ([i:])? In Italian the 'i' would have no vocalic force at all, but would just indicate the preceding consonant is palatalised . I can imagine that in a non-Italian milieu it might be pronounced, but I'm surprised that it should be lengthened. --ColinFine (talk) 23:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Could be. Your suggestion sounds right. I've really only heard it said by English speakers, so there is a high possibility that pronunciation is not right. Aptery  gial  00:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably. Many English speakers say "Jee-o-vahnee" (Giovanni) and "Jee-a-como" (Giacomo), etc, when really they should be "Jo-vah-nee" and "Ja-como".  --  JackofOz (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So apparently the "i" following the "G" is merely to indicate that it's a "soft G"? Because if it lacked the "i" it would be pronounced "Go-vahnee" and "Ga-como"? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Precisely. --  JackofOz (talk) 06:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I just observed another example of this while watching ESPN "Outside the Lines", in which Bob Ley referred to Commissioner A. Bartlett Giamatti as "Jamatti", phonetically speaking. There's no IPA in Giamatti's entry here. Maybe there should be? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * So does anyone have any idea if is right, or how to fix it?  Aptery  gial  07:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In my dim memory (I must have heard his name mentioned a few times on Austrian radio in my childhood in the last millenium). the vowel "o" is both stressed and long, so the [ː] symbol should be moved. Maybe the editor wanted to use the stress symbol and selected the wrong IPA caharacter.  If need be, I can check on the German WP if any local infracentennarians have a clue.  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 10:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And most likely with the accent on the second "a". Here they don't have the pronounce of the surname Caracciola, but they have the more common Caracciolo, that differs only in the last vowel. --pma (talk) 17:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)