Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 June 7

= June 7 =

Latin: Niger vs Ater
Both words mean black (according to searching). In this case where we have two words meaning the same thing, is there any real difference? From doing a translator search on Whittaker's Words, it suggests that ater has undertones of being gloomy, dark, etc, whereas niger simply means the colour black. Am I right? Could you use ater (and its declined values) as a perfect synonym for niger? I'm not fluent in Latin so I can't really tell from classical sources. Peter Greenwell (talk) 13:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE26.html. -- Wavelength (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Lewis and Short say "black; and specif., coalblack, lustreless-black, sable, dark (opp. albus, lustreless-white, and diff. from niger, glossy black)." It does have sinister undertones, while "niger" is just plain old black. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, thanks guys. Peter Greenwell (talk) 13:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone else uses Whittaker's? There was me thinking I was alone. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 14:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Everybody uses Whitaker's Words. It's brilliant! Adam Bishop (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * See William Whitaker's Words. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Cassell's New Latin Dictionary says that ater is "black, dark (dead black, opp. abuls, while niger is shining black)". Applied to a sea it means stormy, and it has the transferred meanings dark, gloomy, sad, unfortunate and malicious, poisonous. Niger, on the other hand, is "black, dark-coloured, with the transferred meanings blackening; relating to death; unlucky, unpropitious; and (of character) black, wicked.  So one is gloomy and malicious and the other is wicked and to do with death.  Sounds like there's not much to choose unless you're actually talking about colors.  --Anonymous, 07:20 UTC, June 9, 2009.


 * Nevertheless, the Battle of Allia was called dies ater (not niger)... AnonMoos (talk) 07:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Johns Hopkins
As far as I know, the name Johns is not a common first name in English. Do you know other examples? Thanks. --Omidinist (talk) 13:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * According to this page, "Johns Hopkins' unusual first name was a family attribute—Johns was the maiden name of his great-grandmother, and the given name of Hopkins' grandfather, for whom he was named." In general, the use of family surnames as given names isn't all that uncommon, but I can't offhand think of any other Johnses. Deor (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I knew an Adams Douglas (named, according to a friend, for John Quincy Adams). —Tamfang (talk) 04:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I knew a Williams Mark. You can imagine how often he had to suffer seeing his "s" get migrated to his last name from his first, or how often he had to explain that he had not, in fact, written his name in last-name-first order. +Angr 08:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There's also the tenor Rogers Covey-Crump. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Also Rogers Hornsby. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And Prince Rogers Nelson. —Tamfang (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

English GCSE
Nearly everywhere that requires qualifications in England requires English GCSE at C or above, wheras Science and Maths are only "highly recommended". Why is this? Why is the ability to analyse poetry considered more important than being able to calculate the angles on a triangle, or name the elements in Group II? Vimescarrot (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe they can't make them compulsory so as to not completely disadvantage student who might not do those things, but still might just be good for the job. That's sort of the way jobs work now: it's far more 'recommended' based, I am told, although that doesn't mean that they are de facto required. There may well be other reasons. FTR, I believe poetry analysis is in fact, normally in English Literature, which is not in any way compulsory; and naming elements in group two isn't in the Chemistry, let alone Science GCSE (although knowing their properties is, I think). The question in still valid though. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 14:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A C at GCSE is regarded by our current education system as a baseline in a subject, indicating the minimum level that an "average" person of unimpaired intellect ought to be able to attain, given a degree of application to study and an adequate standard and quantity of tuition. That's why five GCSEs at grades C or above is the benchmark for measuring pupil attainment in relation to other schools, with Cs in Maths and English regarded as the most important components of the five (Science is a core subject and compulsory, but a C is not specifically demanded within the benchmark criteria). For an employer looking to recruit someone up to the job in terms of ability and attitude, a lack of a C or above in English and Maths may well be interpreted as a sign that the applicant has failed or not bothered to achieve something basic that an average person might reasonably be expected to achieve, which may influence his/her choice of candidates.  The ability to communicate adequately in verbal and often written English with others is a near-essential skill for the majority of jobs in England, whereas Maths and Science skills are jolly useful but are vital to fewer posts, hence (I would guess) the relative emphasis given to English as the OP describes. (As Jarry says, this is GCSE English, not English Literature, which is indeed where the poetry analysis comes in.)
 * This, of course, illustrates the dangers of relying on raw data. Yes, applicants without that magic C may perhaps have spent years messing about at school instead of studying, but equally they may have physical or intellectual disabilities that affect their ability to pass exams but not to do the job in question; they may have had their education interrupted for many reasons beyond their control; they may have been educated abroad and not sat the relevant exams; English may not be their first language, and so on.  In England we have a Disability discrimination act to help ensure the first type of applicant gets a fair chance, but others must either find a way of achieving the required grades or apply for jobs that don't demand them.  In my experience jobs in the civil service and local government and the like, rather than in industry, tend to be the ones still demanding English and/or Maths as an automatic requirement.  These are jobs that attract a high number of applications per post and have rigid selection criteria, so the qualifications threshold is just a part of the screening process to reduce the number of candidates to a manageable level for consideration.  Demanding certain grades means you may not find the best person for your particular job, but who's to say you ever will, no matter what your criteria are?   Ka renjc 18:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "... communicate adequately in verbal and often written English ..." - I'm not sure there is any way of using English that isn't verbal. A way of clearly distinguishing between spoken and written language is to call the former "oral", or indeed "spoken".  --  JackofOz (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * When I did my GCSE's (about 6 years ago), both English and English Literature included poetry. As I understand it, lots of people were choosing not to take Eng Lit and somebody thought it important that everyone study poetry so added to English, which is compulsory. --Tango (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A C in Maths is a very common requirement. Science is less important, most jobs you can get away without much knowledge of science. English is needed for pretty much any job, since you almost always need to be able to communicate. Maths is needed for most jobs, though, even if it is just for filling out an expenses form and filling in the total at the bottom. The standard required to get a C at GCSE isn't very high, it just indicates a basic working knowledge of the subject. --Tango (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. I still object to the whole thing, though. I feel I can communicate perfectly well but I still got below C for the two English GCSE courses I took. Vimescarrot (talk) 08:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You should retake English GCSE, then. Or, you could take Level 2 Key Skills Communication, that is often considered roughly equivalent to GCSE English (it isn't as broad, but is of the same level). Your writing here seems perfectly good, so I would expect you could get a C in GCSE English if you tried. I suspect it wasn't lack of ability that resulted in your poor grade but either poor teaching, lack of effort on your part, or something else going on in your life at the time that made it difficult to concentrate on your work. Whatever sixth form college you apply to should be able to help you retake English alongside your other courses, especially if you can explain why you did poorly the first time. --Tango (talk) 02:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't know how to answer "Describe yourself". Leaving a question blank probably did not help my case, but I did prtty badly at the ones I did answer as well... Vimescarrot (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a good start... so you know you had difficulty answering an open-ended description task. That means it is something you would need to ask for help on, and practise, before you retook. Seriously, Tango is absolutely right. It's well worth getting this sorted now, when you can get support more easily. Most sixth form colleges will have a couple of people in your situation, and be able to help you fit the studying and exams into the rest of your timetable. You should ask about it when considering where to go. 80.41.126.158 (talk) 01:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Your GCSE results are almost always entirely trumped by any future education. If you have 2 years experience in the field you are applying for a job that is likely more 'valuable' than a C in English at GCSE. Similarly if you have a D in English but now have a degree in Psychology (or whatever) then that degree trumps your GCSE result. These things are stepping-stones, and whilst it is beneficial to have them at a good level, their importance diminishes with every 'higher' attribute you attain.

In my jobs/promotions I don't recall ever being asked about my GCSE results even though i'm reasonably vague about them (they are on my CV as 9 above C, including Math and English). My experience and further-education are clearly a higher priority in their assessing my suitability. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * But the GCSE is quite important if I want to apply to college (English college, the step below university). Vimescarrot (talk) 17:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The GCSE is only important until you get to college/sixth form. From then on they are irrelevant, I think that you will agree that having a GCSE in a subject really does not imply even the most basic of knowledge in that subject area. I have 12A*s, meaningless as I also have 5 A-levels which actually mean something. To get a C in English does not even require the use of parapgraphs, I remember bullet pointing a mock essay and getting a C.....However it does mean more than a C in maths at GCSE, which is a waste of the paper it is written on IMO, to get a C.....no trig, no simultaneous equations, no quadratics....etc. Employers probably know this.


 * If you have 5 A-levels in humanities, but not at least a C at GCSE maths, there are many employers and courses that will want you to brush up on your maths before they take you on. Likewise with 5 A-levels in sciences/maths without a C at GCSE English Language. Or, if they have a choice, they'll pick someone who already has it, as they demonstrate a wider range of basic competence. It's why people who didn't achieve a C at GCSE maths will often continue to try for it while studying for A-levels, or in a college later in their lives. You don't have to be able to do trig, or simultaneous equations, or quadratics (although getting some marks on these questions will give you some slack on the others), but you do have to display a basic competence with a variety of areas of maths to get a C. That's why, for all your scathing, so many people fail to achieve it, and work so hard to do so: so they can demonstrate to an employer (who will never need them to find the angle in a right-angled triangle, or solve simultaneous or quadratic equations) that they are numerate, have some ability to manipulate things in their head, and can use measurements. Getting higher than a C is useful for later study, but the C is enough for most. 80.41.126.158 (talk) 01:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Spanish pronunciation
In spoken Spanish, would there be any perceptible difference between verb forms like lavo and lavó? I know you wouldn't find these on their own anyway, just wondering. 70.162.24.97 (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See Spanish phonology. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, lavo has a high-low syllable stress pattern, and lavó has a low-high. It's the same perceptual difference as the English insult (noun) and insult (verb), e.g., "I took it as an insult," versus "Don't insult me."--el Aprel (facta-facienda) 18:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Verb: to make two things the same
Is there a verb to describe the making of two things the same/comparable. If I have a website with to versions (Dutch and English) and the two versions have different themes/colour schemes, and I am going to make these the same for both sites, what verb do I use to describe the action? Seans Potato Business 19:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Synchronize" might be good. Wrad (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That means bringing one up to date with respect to the other. —Tamfang (talk) 04:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I would go with "harmonize," if you mean to make them similar in some ways but not exactly the same. John M Baker (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 'Conform'. —Tamfang (talk) 04:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Standardise, normalise? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see "conform" working; it's not transitive. The nearest fitting usage is to "make something conform" to a standard or template.  "Standardize" is possible and the mathematical terms "normalize" and "canonicalize" are close.  But I think "harmonize" is best.  This can refer to bringing different things to a common standard; for example, I have seen it used for making bylaws of differity cities conform after they are amalgamated into one, and for merging two taxes into one.  --Anonymous, 23:08 UTC, June 8, 2009.


 * You've never encountered "conform X to Y"? I have. —Tamfang (talk) 23:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Or "make X conform to Y", but I don't think "conform" works for this. You conform to a set of rules, not to something which follows those rules. --Tango (talk) 23:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sometimes the only relevant rule is "make X match Y". —Tamfang (talk) 02:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In addition to the other suggestions, you could try "uniformise". --Tango (talk) 23:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a new one. The usual way is "make X conform to Y".  But anything's possible these days, when everyone's "transitioning" to new and better ways of saying things.  :)  --  JackofOz (talk) 00:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Look, the fact is that there simply is not a separate transitive verb for every single action one could possibly take. I doubt any language has such a felicitous richness of vocabulary.  This need to create new words where perfectly fine expressions already exist is a pathological cancer that must be subjected to linguistic chemotherapy.  As with all cancers, the patient sometimes dies.  That should be the fate of words like "uniformise" and using "conform" as a transitive verb.  There, I've said it.   --  JackofOz (talk) 00:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait, isn't the patient the English language? Seems a bit risky.... 80.41.126.158 (talk) 07:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do we need a transitive verb at all? "Uniformise X and Y" would be how I would say it (although, the OED tells me it is spelt with a 'z'...). --Tango (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In either case, that verb looks pretty transitive to me. --  JackofOz (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Homoginize...Why not? 67.193.179.241 (talk) 11:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Rana sylvatica
 * The correct spelling is homogenize. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Rationalize? Merge? Integrate? Assimilate? Immerge? Meld? Compound? Admix? Combine? Unite? Synthesize? Unify? Blend? Fuse? Join? Couple? Put together? Wed? Correlate? Reconcile? Relate? Incorporate? Meld with? Systematize? Standardize? (a good one, but already suggested above) Bus stop (talk) 13:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Pronoun itself
Is it correct to use the word itself to describe a (large-group) entity such as, say, a college or a city? For example: "Yale University itself experienced a steep increase in admission applications that year." ... or ... "The state of Illinois had unprecedented unemployment rates of 20% while Chicago itself experienced even worse." Something like that. On the one hand, it seems OK to me. But, on the other, I am not 100% comfortable that the word itself "fits" in situations like these. I recognize that sentences can be re-written and re-worded. But, what I want to know right now is whether or not itself is applicable in such sentences. To be very specific ... this is the sentence that I have edited into a Wikipedia article ... and this is the sentence that prompted my question: It would be ten full years before any state would carry out another execution and 30 years before Colorado itself would do so. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC))
 * It sounds completely normal and unobjectionable to me. I can't think of a reason not to use "itself" in such constructions. +Angr 21:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There may be a American English/British English difference. As American and British English differences mentions, in American English collective nouns almost always are treated as singular (e.g. referred to as 'it'), whereas in British English singular/plural construction depends on whether the group is being discussed as a single entity or as a collection of members. I think that in context, Colorado would be treated as singular by both variants. Since both variants would use 'it' as the third person singular pronoun referring to Colorado, they would also use 'itself' as the third person singular reflexive pronoun. This is all a long way of saying that I can see no reason why 'itself' would be considered incorrect. -- 128.104.112.106 (talk) 22:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Assuming always that the sentence appears in the context of a discussion about Colorado (and perhaps in particular about executions in Colorado). Otherwise, it might well be inappropriate.  By that, I mean that it's not called a reflexive pronoun for nothing.  There are occasions where reflexive pronouns can be used as intensive pronouns.  I, myself, sometimes use them in this way. (that was an example of an intensive pronoun, in case you missed it)  But in the examples we're discussing, I don't think you're wanting an intensifier but a reflexive pronoun, which demands the pronoun have an antecedent, i.e. a previous mention of Colorado.  If that's there, it's fine to use "itself". --  JackofOz (talk) 22:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The name of a place or institution is not a collective noun - and regardless of whether it is or not, is treated as singular whether in British or American English. England expects every man to do his duty. The collective noun for its members is "the English". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Not true in general. True for countries, but not for teams or other institutions. 'Manchester United' may be singular or plural. Come to that, 'England' may be singular or plural when it refers to an England team in whatever sport. I agree that 'England' meaning the country is always singular; but "England are celebrating victory in the Ashes" would unambiguously refer to the English cricket team. --ColinFine (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the input ... much appreciated. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC))