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

= March 22 =

Numerals in Khmer
Since apparently Khmer has no digits beyond "five" (six is "five one", etc.), how would one recite e.g. a decimal fraction or telephone number in the language? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.48.178 (talk) 00:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * longer pause between the numbers? Just like when you want to say "41; 32; 29 are the number that came up at the lottery last night." How do you know it is not "40 ; 1 ; 30 ; 2 ; 20; 9"? because there is a pause between the numbers, but here is none between forty and one in forty-one. Lgriot (talk) 02:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Category:Wikipedians by language has a link to Category:User km. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See http://n-e-x-t-u-s.com/#Khmer. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See Khmer numerals. -- Wavelength (talk) 14:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Consider how you can tell the difference between "blackbird" and "black bird". They both have the same sounds, but the difference in stress, length of vowels and other subtle hints of pronunciation show that in the first, both syllables are part of the same word, but the second has two separate words. For example, bpram meuoy, 5 1 will sound different to bpram-meuoy 6. Steewi (talk) 01:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Most ambiguous acronym
Hi Wikipedians,

I was just looking to read up on Spanning Tree Protocol, and being lazy I just searched for STP, which came up with an interesting collection of other STPs out there, and I got to thinking, there must be some acronyms which are used by masses of different things. Does anyone know what is the longest disambiguation page for an acronym? (or any other term, for that matter - but I'd bet an acronym would be the longest)

I ask purely out of random curiosity btw, so don't go spending any significant time/effort on finding out :) Monorail Cat (talk) 02:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I will start the ball rolling by first pointing out that 'STP' is not an acronym. It's an abbreviation.--KageTora (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that our article on acronyms CLEARLY disagrees with the above user. If you are going to be pedantic, you might as well be right... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  03:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Our article does no such thing. It notes that the meaning of 'acronym' did not originally include such things as 'STP', and that most dictionaries still follow this usage, but that the meaning has since widened, and that some dictionaries recognize this as well. That doesn't CLEARLY do anything very much. Algebraist 04:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, that's the whole point, isn't it? If you are going to make pronouncements from on high over the definitions of words, you should probably be pretty darn sure that your own personal definition matches common usage 100% of the time, otherwise, one should probably not say things that involve emphasized italics on the word not, when CLEARLY, there is not agreement among the linguistic community over the use of the term, so one cannot be sure enough to use the little italics on the word "not" as though anyone who used the word differently than your own personal definition somehow deserved scorn and derision.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  02:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd call it an intialism, personally, but I don't tend to point that sort of thing out. I don't call them abbreviations, except maybe things like amphetamine. hmmm. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 11:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * See Springfield, Victoria, and Washington (disambiguation). -- Wavelength (talk) 05:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * See List of two-letter combinations. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The one I've encountered most often is "PC", having used it myself for programmable controller, personal computer (which itself has several meanings), and politically correct. StuRat (talk) 06:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Not to mention police constable.--KageTora (talk) 11:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've heard that on BBC police shows: "This directive comes from the PM and MPs, right down to the DCIs and PCs". StuRat (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've heard it in "Maxwell's Silver Hammer": "PC 31 says, 'We caught a dirty one'...". —Angr 12:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Could be Personnel carrier as well. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 11:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * After you've gone through the two letter ones Wavelength linked Disambiguation and abbreviations has links to the 3 letter lists. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 14:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And NPC for Non-Personnel Carrier. ''' Lanfear's Bane

Code-switching
"Code switching", "Code mixing", and "Code shifting" are terms used usually interchangeably by the linguistic community. However, a handful use them each with slightly differing meanings. Not so long ago, Code mixing was simply a redirect to Code switching. However, now it is its own page, whilst its description there doesn't show it to be any different to that of "Code switching". What is more, the "Code shifting" page is still simply a redirect to "Code switching". So we have a largely assymetrical and contradictory area here. It would be much appreciated if someone could either weigh in with their views, or if someone who understands the differences in depth, could help build a clearer definition for the Code mixing page. Licqua (talk) 12:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your premise that these were used interchangeably, and the previous situation on the article naming was a stop-gap merely reflecting the lack of material written on the matter here at en.wp. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics is probably a more appropriate venue for this discussion, however, as this is directly relevant to the articles. Knepflerle (talk) 20:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well it's not just my judgement that says this - many qualified linguists do, and even the author of our code mixing page admitted this. Licqua (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's interesting. The article code mixing actually weighs in on the matter and seems to help justify the separation of the two articles.  — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  22:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It may just be me then, but I don't see from that article alone what is different between the two. Licqua (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Collocation
Is this OK: "Which conditions should be accomplished in order to pronounce machines living creatures?" --Voletyvole (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I had a hard time understanding it. How about: "Which conditions should exist in order to declare machines to be living creatures ?" ?  The weirdness was "accomplishing" conditions, "pronouncing" (which can be confused with the way something sounds), and the difficult to parse phrase "machines living creatures". StuRat (talk) 16:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I mean something like "Which check-boxes should have to be ticked in order for a machine to be categorised as, in fact, a living creature [and not as just a machine]". But this sounds too much like computing talk. I agree that "conditions" doesn't collocate with "accomplished", this was the main thing I was worried about. --Voletyvole (talk) 16:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * How about "Which conditions should be fulfilled for a machine to become a living creature?" Xenon54 (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. "fulfilled" is the perfect word. Thanks Xenon and StuRat. --Voletyvole (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't like "become a living creature", though, as that implies a transformation. Perhaps "be classified as a living creature" would be clearer. StuRat (talk) 18:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That occurred to me, too, but in this case I think a transformation is being implied. Machines are made from non-living objects, and what we get in the end is also non-living.  Normally.  But in this case, the sentence seems to be assuming that life can be created from non-living and non-biological matter, no matter how impossible that may seem as a general proposition.  But maybe it's not focussed on whatever process happened to allegedly create life, and more on the criteria we use to judge whether a machine is living or not.  --  JackofOz (talk) 01:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Why impossible? Whether you believe in religion or science, we ultimately came from inanimate matter. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, as I said, "... no matter how impossible that may seem". The physical parts of us are of course composed of mere chemicals, and our bodies can be reduced to a box of ingredients for a child's chemistry set.  The reverse process is a somewhat different kettle of fish; I've always believed there's more to a living sentient being than just its chemistry, but what that extra ingredient is, is a matter of eternal conjecture.  Some people call it a soul.  Even turning inanimate physical objects into a machine that we can use to make our lives better, but a machine that has life in its own right (as distinct from an an intelligent robot or computer that might seem to have a mind of its own), seems to me to be an impossible goal.  Some people would say it's the ultimate obscenity.  Even if it could be done (which I don't for a second believe), it raises horrendous ethical questions: Does anyone "own" this "being"? Can it be sold or traded without its consent?  If it's stolen, is it theft or abduction?  Does the owner have a responsibility to treat it humanely?  Can it get sick, and if so, what if anything must the owner do about it?  Does it have a mind?  If it exercises its mind in a way that's inimical to people around it, do they have a right to destroy it, or merely to defend themselves?  Does the machine have rights?  Can it be charged with an offence?  Can it be legally represented as something other than someone's possession?  And so on. --  JackofOz (talk) 06:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Off tangent cont´d: All these questions can be adequately answered when applied to a common house-and-garden pet.  Apart from dogs and cats there are also special rights which apply to highly intelligent species, such as chimps or octopussies.  There is no need to invent insurmountable ethical dilemmas where a related paradigm already exists.  The problem may arise when sentient machines surpass human intelligence.  The OT tells of such a non-human apparatus, who was profoundly oblivious to the "rights" of "sinners".  Smite! --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 09:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * But then the NT talks about loving sinners and showing them the other cheek. These words were spoken by someone who is believed by many to have been a part of that "apparatus" and simultaneously that entire "apparatus".  Also, animals have an independent existence and no human has ever claimed to have created a living animal out of scrap metal or Lego pieces or anything else, so that analogy is not really relevant.  I don't think this discussion will go anywhere, and it wasn't why I joined this thread, so I'm resigning from it now.  --  JackofOz (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * What are these special rights accorded octopi? As far as I'm aware, even chimp rights are still heavily fought over. This is clearly a live question, and one that will become more live specifically in the context of artificial intelligence as we progress in that area. In addition, it is an area to which people have given little ethical consideration. That a related paradigm already exists, and therefore there is no need to consider this future dilemma, is a strangely mathematician approach to ethics, where small changes typically make a large difference to people's decisions. 79.66.127.79 (talk) 23:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)