Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2011 September 6

= September 6 =

"Front-loaded" antonym?
What's the antonym for "front-loaded"? "Back-loaded" sounds wrong, and "rear-loaded" even more so. Comet Tuttle (talk) 03:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I assume you're referring to the financial sense? There are uses of "rear-loaded" in the more physical sense, but I agree it sounds wrong for like fees and stuff. I can't think of any specific antonym, although I feel like concepts like "hidden fees" seem to express that situation (rather than paying most of the stuff in an early period, you're paying most of the stuff later on)? r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 03:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I meant in the financial sense. The payments-get-larger-at-the-end-of-the-agreement sort of thing.  "Hidden fees" implies the fees are buried in the unread fine print somewhere, but what I'm looking for is a description of the situation where it's just very obvious and black-and-white that the fees grow.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 04:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * "Back end load" seems to be the standard term - see and . Gandalf61 (talk) 08:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I have only ever heard the term "load" used in this sense when reading about mutual funds. The "load" is a term for a fee that's paid.  That differs a little from what I'm seeking.  The larger payments at the end of the agreement I have in mind &mdash; it's a straightforward payment contract for services rendered &mdash; are not extra fees, so calling the payments themselves a "load" isn't quite right.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Balloon mortgage (somewhat specialized). AnonMoos (talk) 18:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Tense in reported speech
Supposed you had a meeting with a customer and he said, "Plan B gives us more options." Let further suppose that the customer has not chosen a plan, and plan B continues to be the one that give him more options. How do you report what the customer said? Do you write The rules I learned about reported speech seem to suggest the first one, but it sounds wrong to me, because it suggests that that plan B gave the customer more options only in the past. The third one seems reasonable, but it changes what the customer said.
 * The customer said plan B gave him more options. Or
 * The customer said plan B gives him more options. Or
 * The customer said plan B would give him more options.?

What are the rules for reporting something said in the past but is still true? --173.49.9.112 (talk) 12:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Changing what the customer said is not the main issue here. In none of the three versions do we see "... gives us more options".  So let that not trouble you too much.  Because, after all this is reported speech, not verbatim quotation.  But one thing I notice is he said "us", not "me", so your version ought to include "them", not "him".  With that change, I'd go with the third option, fwiw.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  13:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd say that in their own way all three are correct. The timing of 'Plan B' is the key point, not the timing of the customer's statement. We already know that the customer said it in the past because each one starts with "The customer said". If Plan B hasn't happened yet then the second and third alternatives would be correct, if Plan B had been completed or the decision to choose Plan B were being talked about in the past tense then I'd be more inclined go with the first one. - X201 (talk) 13:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur with the above. I'd use 1 if the decision had been made, and 3 if it hadn't. I find the mix of tenses in 2 somewhat jarring, particularly since we're not quoting him verbatim anyway (as above). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * See Sequence of tenses.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I have to point out that we are talking about something formally called Indirect speech, but unfortunately the rules for English are not laid out in the article. --Lgriot (talk) 08:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

For Latin speakers, can you find examples of "conscius sibi"?
First let me apologize for a long question; this takes a little explaining. I am writing about the history of the word "conscious". The word derives from Latin conscius, but the Latin word had a different meaning than we might expect: it meant simply sharing information. Our current usage actually derives, as I understand it, from a Latin phrase, conscius sibi, which translates literally as sharing information with oneself, or something like that. I have figured this out using the OED and by looking at English writing from the 1500s -- I'm reasonably confident that it is right, but I would really like to have a couple of examples of usage of the term from major Latin writers, such as Cicero. The difficulty is that I can't read Latin beyond a very minimal degree, so even if I could search out an example I would probably not be able to recognize it. It doesn't necessarily have to be conscius sibi -- it could just as well be conscio mibi or some other grammatical variant. Any help at all in finding such a thing would be appreciated. (I also have an enduring fear that I am somehow botching the Latin grammar by writing conscius sibi -- if so I would very much like to know.) Looie496 (talk) 15:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * To start, let me say that you should probably read the chapter "Conscience and Conscious" in C. S. Lewis's Studies in Words if you are interested in the development of the senses of conscious and related words. One example he gives is from the New Testament—nihil enim mihi conscius sum, "I know nothing against myself" (First Corinthians 4:4). One in which the verb conscio rather than the adjective conscius is used is in Horace's Epistles (I.i.60–61): Hic murus aeneus esto, nil conscire sibi, nulla pallescere culpa, "Let this be a brazen rampart, to know nothing against oneself, to blanch at no fault." Deor (talk) 16:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you -- damn it, how could I have missed that? Looie496 (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Lewis and Short has a section under "conscius" especially for this phrase, and lists several other examples from Cicero, Caesar, Suetonius, Virgil, etc. Cicero's Tusculan Disputations has "Etsi enim mihi sum conscius, numquam me nimis cupidum fuisse vitae" ("even though I am conscious that I have never been very fond of life"). Adam Bishop (talk) 09:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

American English (2)
Why spell it "metres"? It's meters in American English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.20.67.137 (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not just for Americans. Our articles can use either British or American spellings. Looie496 (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And it is metres in British English. The British spelling is older, the American spelling differences (the inversion of -re to form -er, the change from -our to -or, etc.) date to the spelling reforms of Noah Webster.  This is one of those arbitrary differences that doesn't have any qualitative value; i.e. the two different spelling systems are different, but neither is better.  You may want to read American and British English differences for a scholarly approach to the difference between them, and Manual of style for how Wikipedia deals with it in articles.  -- Jayron  32  16:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Br/CommEng is smart er than that . A met re is a unit of length.  A met er is a measuring device.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  20:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and? -- Jayron  32  20:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Just saying, for those who may think "meter" is not used in BrEng. --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  20:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah. I thought you were making the counterclaim about American English being stupider because it doesn't make said distinction.  -- Jayron  32  21:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you think that's the case, so be it. Moi, I never said anything like that. :)  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  21:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you certainly implied it... -- Jayron  32  01:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I implied no such thing. You, on the other hand, certainly inferred it.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  03:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Man, do I have to explain logic to you as well? The discussion set up for comparison two items, one of which you elevated to the level of "smarter", which by necessity makes the other part of the pair "the less smart".  It didn't actually require any leaps to make that, you overtly said one of the only two items up for comparison was the smarter of the two items.  I didn't have to make any inferences, you stated it directly.  If it was not your intent to make that comparison, why did you overtly make it?  -- Jayron  32  04:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This is one of those occasions where labelling something as "smarter" does not mean that some other thing is automatically less smart. It just means that the thing itself is smarter for this circumstance than it itself otherwise might have been.  It reflects on other things not at all - not negatively, not positively, not at all.  Logic has its place in language, but it can only be taken so far, particularly with English, and I think you just took it beyond its elastic limit.  In another context, I might just as well have noted how in AmEng the name "Herb" is aspirated but "herb" isn't.  That's a smart distinction, but it doesn't mean that BrEng or ZimEng or IndEng or any other Engs are stupid for not having it.  But even if such a comparison were being made, the alternative of "smarter" is not necessarily "stupider"; that's the polar black-white opposite, but there's a multitude of other, grey possibilities in between, some just as desirable as "smarter".  Boolean logic won't tell you any of that, but it's still the case.
 * However, in the spirit of reconciliation, and acknowledging that I am responsible for the response to my communication, I have amended my post above by removing all words except those I actually had in my head when I wrote it. --  Jack of Oz   [your turn]  05:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As noted in the article, "metre" and "meter" both come from the Greek word for "measure". The ever-smart Brits appear to have dropped the accent mark from the first "e" on the French-originated word, hence it's unclear if it should be pronounced "mee-ter" or "met-ray". The American English spelling clears that up. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * But the Brits don't pronounce centre, theatre, litre etc as sen-tray, thee-a-tray or lee-tray, so why would they say met-ray for metre? --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  11:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Beats me. But that's why we spell them center, theater and liter. No confusion. The only time they're spelled the British way is when they're trying to be fancy-schmancy. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * They dropped the accent from the first e. It was 'mètre', it was never pronouced 'met-ray'. &mdash;Akrabbimtalk 11:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Er... the French don't pronounce them as sen-tray, thee-a-tray, or lee-tray either.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   14:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Right. They have the accent mark, which tells you which syllable to stress. With the British rendering, it's unclear. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Rubbish. Have you ever been to a cafe but thought you were in a /kayf/ because it failed to have an accent?  And while you were there, did you order a /lat/?  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  21:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We Brits don't have accents on our words if we can help it. We just learn how to pronounce them, usually from our parents or at school. Alansplodge (talk) 12:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It al boils down to assumptions about pronunciation though. Like the millions who think they know how to pronounce Moët & Chandon, with the wonderful irony that Del Boy Trotter was one of the few people in the UK pronouncing it correctly. - X201 (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

German advanced learner's dictionary?
Is there something like Oxford's advanced learner's dictionary for English but for the German language? --Belchman (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not an exact equivalent, but Langenscheidt offers a line of dictionaries for German-language learners. Marco polo (talk) 17:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've got a Langenscheidt, but don't use it, because online dictionaries are so much quicker. Beolingus (Chemnitz university) is particularly good, I find. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hueber, Duden, Pons, and de Gruyter all also have dictionaries of "Deutsch als Fremdsprache", but I can't say which of them is best. Personally, I just use the same German dictionaries that Germans do, Duden and Wahrig. Angr (talk) 18:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Me too. I haven't seen the "Deutsch als Fremdsprache" dictionaries, but I find my Wahrig more than adequate.  Marco polo (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks guys, checking those. --Belchman (talk) 21:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

May I pile on here, please?
Related question I've always wanted to know: is there any German dictionary or equivalent that lists word families, by root? For example, I'd like to look up heben, and find underneath it aufheben, erheben, etc; under steigen find absteigen, ansteigen, einsteigen,and umsteigen, and so forth.

Seems to me that would be SO INCREDIBLY HELPFUL when dealing with apparent synonyms etc -- German is "much better organized" in reusing stems, compared to English which uses a completely different word for board, embark, dismount, transfer, etc. --DaHorsesMouth (talk) 03:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course you may. Actually, I'd like to know that too. --Belchman (talk) 03:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * All I can think of is Wiktionary, where if you look up heben, there's a section called Derived terms where all the prefixed forms are listed. (Well, it's a wiki, so maybe not all forms are listed yet - I just now added erheben to the list - and some of the terms listed may still be red links, but in principle all derived forms could be listed there.) Angr (talk) 05:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A standard reference is also "Deutsches Wörterbuch" (monolingual German dictionary, online). Take the example DWB:heben. Listed are etymology, meaning and examples and if you scroll down to #17 you find "17) vergl. DWB abheben, DWB aufheben, DWB ausheben, beheben, davonheben (2, 865), einheben, emporheben, entheben, entgegenheben, erheben, fortheben, geheben, herheben, heranheben, herausheben, herunterheben, hinheben, hinwegheben, losheben, nachheben, niederheben, überheben, verheben, vorheben, wegheben, zurückheben". --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 07:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Az anyanyelv tisztelete
Tényleg ezen a gép által lebutított, rontott magyar nyelven akarják írni ezentúl a szócikkeket? SZÉGYELLJÉK MAGUKAT! EGYÁLTALÁN MAGYAROK MAGUK VAGY UFÓK?

Dr Végvári József nyugdíjas nyelvtanár — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.245.87.207 (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Google Translate translates the above as:


 * Respect for the mother tongue
 * Lebutított this machine really, rushed to the Hungarian word now want to write articles? Shame on you! Hungarians themselves AT ALL OR UFO?
 * Dr Joseph Végvári
 * retired teacher


 * I think "Hungarians themselves at all or UFO?" is going to become my new catchphrase. Angr (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This is yet another "question" complaining about the quality of the "translations" (Wikipedias in other languages), isn't it? PS: I read the Hungarians themselves bit as "Hungarians themselves at all or GTFO" the first time. --Belchman (talk) 21:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It is, it is. Can't tell you what the whole sentence exactly means but that last but should be "are you Hungarians at all or UFOs?" - file lake  shoe  11:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Does anyone know what the word lebutított means? --Belchman (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Hard to translate. lebutít = "simplify" or "get them idiot" when uncorretcly use their language. Notice that Hungarian immigrant scientists were called in the United States as UFO-s, or Martians in the XX.-th century. ZJ (talk) 17:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

"You really want to write articles in this dumbed, faulty Hungarian language (of today? Be ashamed, what are you all? Hungarians or UFOs?" - that's what the sentence means. :) We get these complaints all the time. Yet none of these people ever try to improve the "faulty language", they all just come and point fingers. That's the easiest of course. 小龙 (Timish) # xiǎolóng de xìnxiāng  17:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Seems like sort of a misplaced complaint. ;) Dear Mr. Végvári did not find the Village pump at huwiki. Bennó (talk) 08:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Polish: Etymology of the word lęk
What is the etymology of the polish word lęk? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.99.185 (talk) 22:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is a discussion of the etymology in Polish, if you can read it. I can't, but with the help of Google Translate, I gather that the noun is derived from the verb lękać się, which originally meant something like "to bend or crouch (in fear)". According to this source, the word (meaning originally "to bend" or "a bend") has deep Balto-Slavic roots.  This is OR, but it apparently has even an deeper Indo-Germanic root: *kleng- ("to bend or twist"), which is ultimately related to the English word link (originally a link in a chain).  Marco polo (talk) 00:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Vasmer's Russian Etymological Dictionary seems to confirm the first part of that: "Proto-Slavic *lęk-, related to Lithuanian lenkiù, leñkti 'bend', Latvian lìekt 'bend', Old Icelandic lengia f. 'belt', Albanian lëngór 'flexible'". Lesgles (talk) 00:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's a more accurate translation of the entry Marco polo linked to above:
 * "lęk 'fear', lękać się 'to fear', lękliwy 'fearful', przelęknąć się, przeląc, zląc się 'to become frightened', our [i.e., Polish sources] only mention 'to bend, to crouch from fear', but still in Church Slavonic slęką, 'I will bend', nalęszti, 'to draw a bow'; with vocalization; conf.: łęk 'saddlebow'; Lithuanian linkti and lenkti, 'to bend'. A strongly Lithuanian-Slavic stem, see: łąka 'meadow', łuk 'bow'; Church Slavonic lęcati, leczą, lęcaią, Czech léceti, léceji, 'to set snares'." — Kpalion(talk) 21:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)