Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2013 August 21

= August 21 =

What is X?
Suppose a French person mentions "un livre", but you have no idea what it is, so you want to ask what is 'un livre'? How do you ask this? "Qu'est-ce que c'est, un livre"? Any less cumbersome ways?
 * EDIT: as a follow-up, how do you say "what is this book" and "what is in this book"? --74.43.43.6 (talk) 02:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Reminds me of Dave Barry's translation of qu'est-ce que c'est &mdash; "what is that, that that is?". --Trovatore (talk) 01:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The answer to which, of course, is: "That that is is that that is not is not that that is not is not that that is that that is is not that that is not is that not it". --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  03:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * See qu'est-ce que c'est and qu'est-ce que.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 03:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Simpler: Qu'est-ce qu'un livre ? Akward but common (spoken language): Qu'est-ce que c'est qu'un livre ? — AldoSyrt (talk) 08:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Or colloquially: "C'est quoi un livre ?" ou "Qu'est-ce que c'est un livre ?" --Xuxl (talk) 08:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In colloquial Quebec French (not sure if strictly speaking this is Joual) : Koss&eacute; &ccedil;a un livre or Kess&eacute; &ccedil;a un livre - I don't think you can get much shorter while remaining intelligible. Effovex (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Follow up questions:
 * What is this book?: spoken: C'est quoi ce livre ?, written: Qu'est ce que ce livre ?
 * What is in this book?: spoken: Il y a quoi dans ce livre ? written: Qu'y-a-t-il dans ce livre ?
 * --Lgriot (talk) 08:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think "Qu'est-ce que" is very cumbersome in speech: /kɛskə/. It's a penful in writing, but so what? --ColinFine (talk) 10:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, I agree, it isn't cumbersome, but no one that I know personally actually sais it. I would only ever hear it on TV from some presenters or politicians (but then a assume they are very self conscious).--Lgriot (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all the answers! Lgriot: why does nobody say it, and what do they instead?  I had the impression that "Qu'est-ce que c'est?" is the standard way of asking "what is it?"  --50.47.84.246 (talk) 04:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * There is a big trend in French (at least in France) to say: C'est quoi ? instead of: Qu'est-ce que ?; and to say: C'est qui ? instead of: Qui est ?. But we usually say: Qu'est-ce que c'est ? or Qu'est-ce que tu dis ? (C'est quoi ce que tu dis ?'' is sub-standard French) — AldoSyrt (talk) 07:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not sure why, I guess the sentence structure is simpler that way. As AldoSyrt pointed out, Qu'est-ce que is not dead in spoken French, yet, it is still used in some cases. It is an interesting trend where the written language is getting different from the day to day spoken one, for example we only use "nous" in writing and say "on" when we speak. But we avoid "on" as the 1st person plural in writing, because it makes you look like you don't know how to speak properly (even though it is ok to say it all the time). --Lgriot (talk) 07:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * That's extremely new and surprising to me. So if you're with a group of friends, and you meet one other friend, you would say "on va manger à McDonalds" instead of "nous allons manger à McDonalds"?  How would you say the equivalent of "tu veux venir avec nous?" if you're using "on"?  Also, would you still say "allons-y"?  --50.47.84.246 (talk) 08:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * — On [=we] va au McDo. — Tu veux venir avec nous ? — Ouais [= oui, yes] — Allons-y ! [=we + he/she ] / On =[we + he/she] y va !. — AldoSyrt (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * To answer the questions. Yes, we would usually say "On va manger au MacDo". There is no equivalent for "tu veux venir avec nous", we must use "nous". And we would say either "allons-y !" or "on y va !". — AldoSyrt (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Term for the U.S. plus Canada (or: North America minus Mexico)
What's the term for this? I don't think it's North America, as that would include Mexico. But I feel like this is a word for this (i.e., the WASPier part of North America). Thank you, r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 04:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe anglophone North America, but even that excludes parts of Canada. BTW, there are 23 sovereign nations in North America plus numerous other territories, not just the 3 you mentioned.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  06:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I remember in middle school social studies class, the textbook we read taught about Latin America and Anglo-America (although it included the US and Canada and didn't include the Carribean nations, Belize or Guyana or exclude Quebec unlike the wiki article).--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 06:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There is also the term Northern America which may fit more your description, although I doubt it is widely used. Also North America actually includes Central America all the way to Panama, so the region you are referring to would be North America minus Mexico and Central America.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 06:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hm, I guess there isn't a straightforward term like I was imagining. Thanks for the clarification regarding Central America; I tend to think of it as its own thing in my mind (i.e., North, Central [plus all those islands], and South America) and thus often use North America to refer to just these three "big" countries, and forget that technically that's not right. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 08:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I was taught at school that North America includes all the countries north of Panama (and parts of Panama itself), and our article has a map concurring, but apparently in American schools they are taught differently? --Lgriot (talk) 08:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I was taught at school (in the U.S.) that North America includes Central America all the way down to Panama, as well as all the Caribbean islands. In other words, Central America is part of North America, not distinct from North America. As for what to call Canada + the U.S., perhaps "First-World North America", though the map on the page includes Greenland in the First World. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This may be a case when the only unambiguous term is simply to call it "Canada and the United States". --Xuxl (talk) 10:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * "US and Canada" is 13 characters, including the spaces. I doubt if you'll do better. HiLo48 (talk) 10:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "US and its hat" - dang. that adds an extra space with no fewer characters. --Onorem (talk) 17:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The movie industry uses "North America" as in North American box office figures. It only means U.S. and Canada. Rmhermen (talk) 15:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * "Greater United States" - surely those far northerners agree :).  Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Even a seemingly straightforward geographic term can be misleading, too - my first thought was to recommend "North of the Rio Grande" to describe the U.S. and Canada, but even that phrase would mostly be used by U.S. Americans to describe the U.S.A. specifically, often to draw contrasts with Mexico/Central America. The best option I think is also the most common: just "U.S. and Canada."  In writing you'll sometimes see something like "US/Canadian investments in Asia..." or "American and Canadian interests in the region..."  Personally I'd enjoy something like "the Western Hockeysphere," but I'm guessing that's not likely to catch on.  ☯.Zen  Swashbuckler  .☠  17:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That reminds me of seeing "north of the 49th parallel" used to mean Canada, in a Toronto newspaper. From Toronto, to reach the 49th parallel, you have to drive north for maybe 5-6 hours. --Trovatore (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

In Canada, the term appears to be North America. Canadians use that term very frequently, and it never seems to include Mexico or points south. --Trovatore (talk) 22:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I wonder if they ever intend it to include Saint Pierre et Miquelon or Greenland. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Greenland, I'm almost sure not. Saint Pierre, I doubt they bother to notice whether it's included or not. --Trovatore (talk) 00:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Here in the US, "North America" rarely includes Central America. We would say "North and Central America" if we meant both.  "North America" may also exclude Mexico, depending on the context. StuRat (talk) 07:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. North America is a geological continent, and unambiguously includes most of Central America.  Countries have nothing to do with it &mdash; it's a matter of physical geography. --Trovatore (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do with geology but more the common terms that we are taught and use, certainly in the UK it follows the Canadian way that North America would only include the USA and Canada and never Central America. MilborneOne (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You're certainly correct that it has nothing to do with geology, because that's the study of rocks. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  19:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's awfully reductive, Jack. Geology includes the study of large-scale processes, such as the ones that produce continents.  --Trovatore (talk) 20:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's me all over, Trovatore. There's absurdity everywhere, and we should exult in it, and it's my job, Michelangelo-like, to strip away all that is not absurd.  Even the foregoing link is absurd.  That's what I'm talking 'bout.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure if you're joking or not. In any case, geology most definitely includes the study of the large-scale structures of the planet, including continents. --Trovatore (talk) 20:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Joke? Moi?  :)  Actually, I was going on your "it's a matter of physical geography".  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Geology and physical geography have a very considerable overlap. --Trovatore (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've learnt much from this interchange, but I still think it should be kept out of sight of the younger fry.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  00:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * How about "US and Canada"? drt2012 (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Japanese help: PohnpeiAirport.jpg
When you zoom into File:PohnpeiAirport.jpg there is a blue sign in English and Japanese. What is the Japanese text? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 07:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I know enough to tell you the meaning is the same as the English text above (it starts with Youkoso (welcome) Ponpei, and I recognize pasupooto (passport), entorii peemitto (entry permit), paasu (pass)), but my Kanji knowledge is too poor to give you a transcription. Effovex (talk) 18:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Some characters are not clear enough and I could not read them.The first two ?? might be 帰国, but I'm not sure. ようこそ　ポンペイ州へ 入国申請書を記入しパスポート、？？航空券、及び、 エントリーパーミット　（？？証）を携え　ブースまでお進み下さい. Oda Mari (talk) 05:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This may help finding the characters: Since "航空券" according to the dictionary "Jisho" is "airline ticket" "？？航空券" may correspond to the English "Onward Ticket" - And then "（？？証）" may correspond to "(If Applicable)" -- 証 means evidence, proof, or testimony or to prove or to verify
 * The full English is: "WELCOME TO THE FSM, POHNPEI STATE. Please have your completed 5004 Form, Passport, Onward Ticker and Entry Permit (if Applicable) Available upon approaching the booth"
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

self subsisting
What is meant by "self subsisting"? Can you use it in a sentence. Is it a derogatory term?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 13:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Some context would help, but I assume it means the same as self-sufficient, in which case it is not derogatory.--Shantavira|feed me 13:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It commonly appears as an English translation of one of the 99 names of God in Islam, القيوم (Al-Qayyūm). Here's a link to a site translating it in this way, and offering an interpretation of its meaning.  A Google search produces many examples of people asking the same question, and a variety of answers in the general area of "not dependent on external sources".  This document demonstrates that the term is also used in the Bahá'í Faith and there's an explanation of its meaning in the fourth paragraph ("that there is nothing other than Himself upon which He depends for His continuing existence") seemingly in response to a journalist who pointed out that the phrase "means nothing" in the English language.  In any case, it's not derogatory. -  Ka renjc 15:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Aseity is the technical theological term, incidentally. Tevildo (talk) 21:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Help with Swedish!
I need help with the word 'Possum', referring to the animal. It is spelt Pungråtta or Pungråttor? Whats the difference between the two? I am learning Swedish. Thank you. --KuchenZimjah (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Pungråtta is singular, pungråttor is plural. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The word is pungråtta ('possum'), with the plural pungråttor ('possums'). See http://folkets-lexikon.csc.kth.se/folkets/folkets.en.html#lookup&Pungr%C3%A5tta.
 * This is a first declension noun - an 'en' word ending in -a - so the plural is formed by removing the -a and adding -or. This is the same as blomma/blommor and lampa/lampor. The definitive ('the possum') is formed with -en (pungråtten), and the definitive plural ('the possums') is formed with -orna (pungråttorna).
 * Note also that nouns in Swedish only take a capital letter at the beginning of the sentence, just as in English. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The definite singular is pungråttan, not pungråtten. Gabbe (talk) 13:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

In, On or At
What's the right way to say it: I lef s message in/at/on my talk page?  Miss Bono  [zootalk]  19:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "On my talk page" is the usual idiom. "At" is possible, I guess, but "in" is unidiomatic. Deor (talk) 19:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Deor! :) (i asked because English is not my first language and I wanted to make sure I didn't make any mistakes) So you guys didn't make any RLMAO  Miss Bono  [zootalk]  12:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Quite all right, Miss Bono. The idiomatic use of prepositions tends to be one of the most difficult problems for nonnative speakers of a language. My attempts to speak German are notorious for unusual preposition usage. Deor (talk) 20:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * An editing screen is the electronic equivalent of a piece of paper. You write on paper, it being a flat surface. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't help that in Spanish, en can translate as "in", "on" or "at". Usage doesn't necessarily match up between Spanish and English, or necessarily even within English. If I'm having major surgery, I'll be either "at the hospital" or "in the hospital" for a few days if I'm American, or just "in hospital" if I'm British. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Taking a simple case, if I'm "at home" in English, I'm en casa in Spanish. I wouldn't say I'm "in house" in that context, I could say I'm "in the house" or "in my house" or whatever. And I'm not "on" my house unless I'm repairing the roof. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * On means sobre, like when I say That book is on the table?  Miss Bono  [zootalk]  13:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sobre comes from the Latin super, meaning "above" or "over", or in this case "on top of". So would you say, "Eso libro está sobre la mesa"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd say both ways: Ese libro está sobre la mesa o Ese libro está en la mesa. But how does the native English speakers say it?   Miss Bono  [zootalk]  14:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "The book is on the table." The term "upon" could also be used (which can translate as sobre), but that would be a very old-fashioned or literary way to say it. It sounds like something you would find in Shakespeare's works. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So... on is a little tricky for me. When I say I will write an article sobre/relacionado con U2 or frogs (whatever), why should I say I will write an article on U2 or I will write an article on frogs??  Miss Bono  [zootalk]  15:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's where sobre translates as "about" or "on the topic of". You wouldn't say con because that means "with" - unless you were actually collaborating with your subject. You would say you're writing "about" [subject], which I think is the better way to say it. Saying that you're writing "on" [subject] is kind of slangy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's also worth pointing out that a lot of these two, three and four letter prepositions in English have broad and diverse usages. One example is "up", which has more usages than I can count. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, it drives me crazy... two-word verbs with down, up... and a long etc. Will I ever learn?   Miss Bono  [zootalk]  18:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm a native English speaker for decades now, and I'm still learning. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)