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

= February 21 =

Part of speech for interjections
What is the name for this "part of speech"? This is a bit difficult to explain by writing, but can be done very quickly face-to-face. Think of it as an oral, yet nonverbal means of communication. Here goes:

Yes = 2 notes, the 1st lower than the second. Sometimes seen in print as "Uh-huh". No = Just the opposite, 1st higher than the second. I don't know = three notes, the middle one higher than the others, actually sort of humming "I don't know". what? = Hmmm?

Anyway, what is the proper name for these "hummmonyms"?

ThanksBonfiglioli2 (talk) 05:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I've added a title for you.Dncsky (talk) 05:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * They're interjections.Dncsky (talk) 05:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Bonfiglioli2 -- they're kind of interesting because they use sounds that are not regular phonemes of English. The "no" one is [ʔʌʔʌ] with definite glottal stops, strongest stress on the first syllable, and general falling intonation, while the "yes" one is [ʔʌhʌ] with strongest stress on the second syllable, and general rising intonation.  The vowels are often pronounced nasalized.  Not sure that there's any name for them specifically... AnonMoos (talk) 11:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "Often" nasalized? For me they sound flat-out wrong without nasalized vowels. Alternatively they can be pronounced with syllabic [m̩] in place of each [ʌ̃]. Angr (talk) 11:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Angr -- when they're kind of breathily semi-whispered, then they can be unnasalized. AnonMoos (talk) 12:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you say so. When I breathily semi-whisper them, they still come out nasalized. Angr (talk) 12:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Further considering, I guess you're right -- the nasalization is less apparent if they're breathily semi-whispered, but still there... AnonMoos (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * See uh-huh and uh-uh and http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/uh-huh and http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/uh-uh. (See also "Yes and no".)
 * —Wavelength (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What the dictionaries don't have an entry for is the interjection commonly associated with, but not unique to, African-American women,, or even the that means "I don't know". Angr (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, West Africa has been proposed as the place of origin of the expressions uh-uh and uh-huh. Marco polo (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * There's also "uh-oh" [ʔʌʔo] (this one definitely without nasalization)... AnonMoos (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

ˈʔm̩˥˩ʔm̩˧ʔm̩˩] uh uh and uh huh μηδείς (talk) 05:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't like the term "interjection" for what I'm asking. I've looked at three different dictionaries, and each of them claim the interjections always have an exclamation point after them!!! <--I did that on purpose (haha). "Go away!" being an example. Anyway, is this something that DOESN'T HAVE A PROPER DECRIPTIVE NAME? Hmmm? -- 02:36, 24 February 2013‎ User:Bonfiglioli2


 * "Go away" is not an interjection in the sense of a part of speech -- "Go away" is an imperative phrase composed of a verb and an adverb. Interjection is not very specific, but it's the traditional label for most anything which cannot be considered any of a noun, verb, adjective, adverb, preposition, or conjunction... AnonMoos (talk) 02:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

L'Oréal
What are these two symbols in L'Oréal and what are the functions of these symbols? --PlanetEditor (talk) 09:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to the apostrophe and the acute accent? Surtsicna (talk) 09:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --PlanetEditor (talk) 10:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * That article reads like it was taken straight from their own website. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

What is the opposite of 'empirical'?
Taken from my Statistics textbook: "Some faculty think that a course is good or bad independent of how well a student feels he or she will do in terms of a grade. Others feel that a student who seldom came to class and who do so poorly as a result will also (unfairly?) rate the course as poor. Finally, there are those who argue that students who do well and experience success take something away from the course other than just a grade and that those students will generally rate the course highly. But the relationship between course ratings and student performance is an empirical question, and as such, can be answered by looking at relevant data." The opposite of "empirical" in this sense seems to be "arbitrary" or "subjective" rather than "non-observable". The speculations of the possible relationships between a student rating the course highly or poorly and the course itself are observable in the sense that the observations are based on personal feeling or experience, which may be quite useful in Bayesian statistics. Right? 140.254.226.238 (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe the author of the passage is warning that one should do empirical study rather than making a priori assumptions; so perhaps a priori is what you want. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  16:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If that was directly quoted from your textbook, the publishers need better proofreaders... --TammyMoet (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * According to our Empiricism artcle, alternative approaches are "rationalism, idealism, and historicism" It later says "It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation." Alansplodge (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I wonder if aphorisms would count as a priori statements. They hold knowledge about the world without reason, but with intuition. They are "true", because people experience the meaning of those aphorisms and claim them to be true. On the other hand, it's also possible that aphorisms could be a posteriori, because they depend on human experience and are true pertaining to human experience. 140.254.226.238 (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I would say that "empirical" is being used here as an opposite of "theoretical". Looie496 (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't like using the word "theory" or any of its forms in this context. It certainly is a common usage, but such a usage confuses the meaning of what a scientific theory is, and causes untold wailing and gnashing of teeth over such misunderstandings.  When people say 'theoretical' in this context, what they really usually mean is hypothetical, but even in that case I don't think it makes a good antonym.  Empirical in this case means "extends from the data"; i.e. a rough synonym for empirical here would be inductive reasoning, which is the idea that big ideas need to derive from smaller, established principles.  In this case of the scientific method, inductive reasoning implies that theory is built from experimental results: you gather data and draw conclusions based on the data.  Deductive reasoning, on the other hand, is reasoning built from the top down: it starts from the Big Idea, and attempts to make predictions of future or unknown events based on that.  Induction tells you what the theory should be based on the data, while deduction tells you what to expect based on the theory.  Contrary to the OPs presumptions in this case, I think the use of "empirical" here IS meant to be contrasted with "non-observable" or at least "not established by data".  Empirical here just means "observed", so the opposite in this context might be "deduced".  -- Jayron  32  18:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * "Anecdotal" might be the opposite of "empirical". Bus stop (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Not really. Anecdotes are still data, of a kind.  It would be shitty empirical evidence, but it still wouldn't be the opposite.  As empiricism is "deriving truth from evidence", the opposite would be "deriving truth from deduction".  Whatever word you want that captures that would be fine.  But that isn't what anecdotes are.  -- Jayron  32  22:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Unless they're anecdotes relayed n-th hand, by which time they tend to lose whatever veracity they ever had. Anecdotes told by the people directly involved might be OK; even then, different direct observers will report different things.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  23:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but it still isn't an "opposite" of empirical. The two concepts come from the same general class of concepts, but they aren't opposites.  -- Jayron  32  05:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The opposite of empirical as such is a priori, which I refrained from posting given the question was slightly different, but which has been given above, and is correct. μηδείς (talk) 05:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the opposite is dogmatic or methodic? According to the OED, empiric has its roots in the Latin empīricus and, as the noun "Empirici: A member of the sect among ancient physicians called Empirici (Ἐμπειρικοί), who (in opposition to the Dogmatici and Methodici) drew their rules of practice entirely from experience, to the exclusion of philosophical theory."   --  Senra (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

German and French requests
For File:Swissair 111 debris.jpg The description "Debris recovered from Swissair 111 crash. The center, doorlike object is a cargo door. note how the material curls on impact." What is that in French and German? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 21:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * French. Débris récupérés après le crash du vol Swissair 111. Au centre, l'objet en forme de porte est une porte de soute. Notez comment la pièce s'est courbée à l'impact. To avoid repetition we could simply say (for me it's better): Au centre, une porte de soute. — AldoSyrt (talk) 09:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * German: Nach dem Unglück von Flug Swissair 111 geborgene Wrackteile. Bei dem Objekt in der Mitte handelt es sich um eine Frachttür; man beachte die Verformung des Materials durch den Aufprall. The English is kind of awkward, so I have not translated literally. Lectonar (talk) 10:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much :) WhisperToMe (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think the English is awkward... 86.128.3.165 (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I do think "the doorlike object is a door" is fairly awkward. Angr (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)