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

= January 22 =

Crying Frenchman after Nazi victory
There's an iconic film of a Frenchman crying during the Battle of France (perhaps when Paris was occupied). He's standing up straight in a crowd trying to keep his composure although he's obviously very broken up inside. We've seen it dozens of times in various WWII documentaries. I was just wondering who this guy was and what his backstory was.

So, I asked this question on the Humanities Reference Desk but no one really knew for sure.

It turns out that someone else had asked a similar question on the Military_history_of_France_during_World_War_II talk page: 

But again, nobody seemed to know the answer.

I was wondering if any of the French/English speaking editors would be willing to ask this question on the French version of Wikipeda? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There's some information about it on the image description page of commons:File:Frenchman weeps as the French troops leave Toulon, June 1940.JPEG, such as the speculation that it might have been a staged re-enactment. —Angr 08:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think editors on the French Wikipedia would know more about that picture, or even be familiar with it as it comes from an American propaganda movie and seems to be mostly (somewhat) iconic in the United States (As a side note, check | this picture from a simpson episode) . The internal link to the picture on commons posted above by User:Angr provides verifiable information. A caption from the National Archive erroneously claims the picture to be of a frenchman weeping as german troops marched on Paris in blatant contradiction with the movie from which it was extracted. Equendil Talk 20:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Passion for words
Hello wiki frnds. i have a question. you see i like to read dictionaries because it enhances my word power and it also serves as my pasttime. one time i encounter this word and 4got it, till now i still cant remmber wat it is. my question is, if rhetoric is the art of public speaking, wat is the art/ passion of using the correct words called? my question is somewhat related to literature topic. its definition is more or less like wat ive read in Merriam-Webster Dictionary. please help find that word for me please. thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.2.31.50 (talk) 06:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry no answer. I removed your e-mail to protect your privacy. We do not e-mail answers, you'll have to check back here. Please also use the "ask a question" button at the top of the page. A new section with a headline will then automatically be added and people will be able to find your question. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 06:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Elocution, perhaps? (Uh, I hope you don't take offense, but you may also be interested in spelling, because, well, damn.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 08:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Philology is quite literally a passion for words, although it does not cover the "using the correct words" part. -- Ferkelparade &pi; 09:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Switching around Fp's suggestion: logophilia? It can also apply to people who love their words in isolation, so maybe it's not le mot juste. ---Sluzzelin talk  10:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Perfectionism? The pop-up likes Sluzzelin's "mot juste" with adaptations. Julia Rossi (talk) 10:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I also like the term word child. Hilary Burde was less of a mot-justist and more of a foreign language word-buff though. His (and her) mot-justism comes naturally, I guess. Hilary's skills of tongue would be an asset to the language desk, the tongue's side-remarks would likely cause some problems though :) ---Sluzzelin talk  10:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe the word you are looking for is "pedantic", but perhaps you should use your passion for words and love of dictionaries to improve your spelling of simple words. For example: "friends", "pastime", "forgot", "remember", "what".  Astronaut (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I normally hate to do this, but it's appropriate here. Your comment was indented under Sluzzelin's post, as if you were addressing him.  Since you seem to be addressing the OP, it would have been better to have used only one colon.  --  JackofOz (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Wordsmith (as in skilled user of words)? Is there a pedant uprising happening here? :) Julia Rossi (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

there it is!!! Ü its Pedantics ! thanks bro. ur a genius. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.2.31.50 (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.245.5 (talk)


 * If you mean "You are a genius", then why not write "You are a genius". It is not that hard to get the spelling correct :-))  Astronaut (talk) 13:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nor, for that matter, is it difficult to use the shift key to get capital letters. Malcolm XIV (talk) 13:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice to know it's resolved and ur happy! :) Julia Rossi (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you just call Julia a guy?! ~ A H  1 (TCU) 19:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No matter – it's the word, "genius" I'm clinging too. :)) Julia Rossi (talk) 07:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Swedish FOI
Apparently the Swedish Defence Research Agency, or Totalförsvarets forskningsinstitut, uses the abbreviation FOI. How does one get FOI from Totalförsvarets forskningsinstitut? -- SGBailey (talk) 06:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "FOrskningsInstitut" - FOI, changed about ten years ago from FOA ("Försvarets Forskningsanstalt"). For whatever reason, the name 'Försvaret' (Defence) was never included in the abbreviation. Could be to avoid double F:s; It's a half-pronounced acronym, roughly "Foo-eee" (and "Foo-aah") A number of Swedish military abbreviations don't include it. You could also compare to the nondescript "RAND Corporation" (Research ANd Development), which was initially was a US Military operation. --130.237.179.182 (talk) 07:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks -- SGBailey (talk) 07:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

English Grammar
I would like to know whether the following usage is correct-

'that has been to date been unexploited.'
 * You should delete the first 'been'. And whether the rest of it is correct or not depends on what the subject of the sentence is. --Richardrj talkemail 09:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Depending on the context, "not been exploited" might be better than "been unexploited".--Shantavira|feed me 09:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think "to date" smacks of commercialese, and "has been unexploited" seems too positive a phrase to describe inactivity. I'd prefer "...that is so far unexploited" or "...that has not yet been exploited." AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If the same meaning can be gotten with less words and with fewer clauses, then it is always prefered to write as such. "That has not yet been exploited" parses much easier than what you wrote, and it means exactly the same thing.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  03:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)