Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2013 January 18

= January 18 =

Has the NYC-area phrase "to stand on line" replaced the phrase "to stand in line" in any other dialects?
In the US, and presumably elsewhere, people "stand in line" to wait for things, which in Britain, and presumably elsewhere, may be also referred to as standing in queue. The greater New York City dialect (including North Jersey and at least western Long Island, for example) has innovated, and refers to this activity as "standing on line", almost to the point of defining the dialect. I am curious if there is any evidence this has spread non-contiguously to other areas, or to other areas not within the NYC television broadcast area. Google searches are not very helpful. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 03:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not relevant to your main question, but queue (unlike line) normally needs a definite or indefinite article in British English. One stands "in line" or "in a queue" (one can also stand "out of line" or "jump the queue").   D b f i r s   08:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't know, but 'stand on' and 'stand in' could easily sound the same depending on the accent and speed of speech: "standun" or "stand'n." Writing would or could be different -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, Medeis is correct that it is definitely "on line". New Yorkers do definitely use the preposition "on".  No idea if any other dialects do, so I can't answer her question, but it definitely isn't a confusion with "in".  The two words would be pronounced completely differently, and would not be confused.  "Stand on line" and "Stand in a puddle" would be different.  -- Jayron  32  14:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That may be true for some dialects or but is not true for all. Running together words is not an uncommon speech pattern. eg. stan'n'line, stan'nupuddleAlanscottwalker (talk) 17:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but as I mentioned below, one asks "Are you on line?" in which case the word is not reduced and becomes abundantly clear in all its barbarity. μηδείς (talk) 07:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Since I spent all my pre-college school years in South Jersey, I was surprised by stand on line" when I heard it. It was when people would ask quite clearly, "Are you on line?" that I realized that I was not mishearing them. μηδείς (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As to that general issue, there are probably also dialects that would use those interchangeably, or rather have a minority-majority or situational usage. Eg. if one means, where they are standing: 'in';  however, that they are waiting upon or for (something): 'on.'

"A shot at the title"
I've come across the expression "a shot at the title" a few times in British English. What does the "title" refer to, literally? (I assume the word is used figuratively.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.11.16 (talk) 04:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "A chance at winning the championship". This is not unique to British English. Common since th 1930's http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=a+shot+at+the+title&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=0&smoothing=3&share= μηδείς (talk) 05:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think "a shot at the title" and "title shot" are most closely related to boxing where the matches are not regularly scheduled but individually arranged only for talented individuals. And the title is a literal title (and usually a Championship belt.) A related expression is "winning a belt" but only if successful. Rmhermen (talk) 14:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Of Mice and Men
Just finished reading that... I find the very ending rather abrupt. To those that have read it, is that an intended effect or due to a lack of further imagination? Last few lines, George kills Lennie out of love [....] At the last line, it is said that Curley and Carlson wonder what is "eatin' Slim and George" as they go for a drink following Lennie's sad death. The author built up such a good plot, why was it so suddenly ended? Cheers. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 12:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If you read the Wikipedia article, it explains that Curley and Carlson don't understand George's motivation in killing Lenny, but Slim does. Since Slim and Lenny have come to an understanding, Curley and Carlson feel "on the outside" of the situation.  Also, I'm not sure what you mean by abrupt.  The story is about the relationship between George and Lennie.  Once Lennie is dead, there's no impending reason to carry on the story of George.  I'd counter that the story ends at the exact right time; had it gone on I'd have said it dragged.  But De gustibus non est disputandum and all that.  -- Jayron  32  14:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Of course,John Steinbeck could have made the story about George, with Lennie only being one chapter of his life, but that's not what he chose to do. StuRat (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Steinbeck was certainly capable of writing life-long epics (East of Eden and Grapes of Wrath come to mind), but this novels focus the whole time is clearly the George-Lennie dynamic, and it isn't trying to be more than that. Of course anyone could choose to write anything, but the IMHO, the novel ends where it needed to.  -- Jayron  32  18:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This question reminds me a lot of what I see as often a difference between American and British mystery films. It seems traditional in American films to finish with all the mysteries resolved, while in British films it's OK, almost expected, that some answers won't be provided. Maybe Steinbeck didn't know about the formula he was expected to follow. HiLo48 (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hollywood films also need a happy ending - even The Grapes of Wrath (film) was rewritten to avoid Steinbeck's dismal ending and finish on a cheerful note. Alansplodge (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A related (though less literary) instantiation of it - Rankin's Let It Bleed (1995) was published with an additional chapter in the US, as the American publisher felt that ending on a note of suspense was fundamentally unworkable. (An interesting corrolary: Rankin later noted "One reason the crime novel has not been taken as seriously as it should be by the academics and by the literary establishment is because of that sense of closure. There’s that sense that things are wrapped up too neatly in a crime novel, therefore it is not like real life." Strangely apposite in this discussion!) Andrew Gray (talk) 12:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * To answer the OP's question ... it was certainly an intended effect ... and it was hardly due to a lack of further imagination. Please remember that this was written by Steinbeck, a literary heavyweight.  Side note: this is one of my favorite books of all time ... and the films were also good.  Thanks.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Chinese Syllabary?
Is there a Chinese way of spelling out syllables like Kana in Japanese? Some bright spark has suggested that to celebrate the Chinese New Year, our Beaver Scouts learn to write their names in Chinese script. Is that going to be possible? Alansplodge (talk) 14:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think there are standard ways of rendering English words into Chinese characters. Individual newspapers or book publishers may develop certain norms for their own works, but otherwise it is pretty much up to writers to pick whichever characters they feel most accurately reproduces the sounds present in the English words. You could try Pinyin, which uses the English alphabet to represent the sounds of Chinese words, but it would be difficult without help from a Chinese speaker. What you could do is get a Chinese speaker to translate all the names for you. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * See Transcription into Chinese characters. --ColinFine (talk) 14:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * There's the so-called "Bopomofo" if you want something Chinese and exotic-looking which doesn't involve the full complexity of Chinese characters. However, most people in the PRC would probably not understand the Bopomofo.  Transcription of non-Chinese names into Chinese characters is often somewhat unsatisfying, since the result very frequently ends up being far longer than Chinese names, yet does not indicate the original pronunciation in the source language accurately at all... AnonMoos (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * A sudden unexpected flash of inspiration led me to try Google for this. It seems to work. Typing "{name} in Chinese" gives what I can only assume are translations or transcriptions. For example, Michael -> 迈克尔 (Màikè'ěr), Alan -> 阿兰 (Ālán), and Colin -> 科林 (Kē lín). Maybe someone who actually speaks Chinese can comment on the accuracy, but I would suspect these would be enough to give your Beavers some enjoyment and understanding from it. Unfortunately it seems to struggle with less 'English' names, but hopefully you'd be able to get most of the Colony's names this way. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Mike - you're a star! Many thanks everybody. Alansplodge (talk) 22:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a really good idea. — SMUconlaw (talk) 08:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Careful with those English names in Chinese characters, especially if you are thinking of getting some ink-work done.--Shirt58 (talk) 04:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a comment on accuracy from a Chinese speaker: I tried several searches based on randomly picked names and most of the results are indeed the most common Chinese translations for those names. Specifically, "John", "Thomas", "Abdullah" and "Mercedes" all produced correct results. "Jean-Baptiste" got no result. "Jean" got "jeans" (as in denim trousers) rather than transliterations of either the English or French pronunciations. "April" got "the fourth month" rather than a transliteration. "Augustus" got "the eighth month" (apparently from the Dutch).
 * My assessment is that this works for many names, but does not work for less common names, and gets you dangerously off-track results if the name searched happens to have another meaning (or is similar to a word with an unrelated meaning). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that and point taken. I think the main aim of the exercise is to show 6 and 7 year-olds that not everybody uses the Roman alphabet, and that they use a bit of dexterity in copying out a couple of characters. It's good to hear that most of them are accurate, but I don't think that there will be any consequences if they aren't. Alansplodge (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

How to apologize in French
I unintentionally offended someone (a non-English speaker) a few days ago and wish to call them up to apologize, but my French is really rusty and I want say something more meaningful than "Je suis desolé". How do I say I apologize for my misconduct and hope that they don't think ill of me? 70.55.109.212 (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you could say "Je m'excuse pour..." or "Je me regret ...", though I don't know how those would sound with regard to register or tone; they should roughly mean "I'm sorry" or "I apologize" or "I regret". My conversational french has lost a lot over the eons, though, so someone with a more current working knowledge should comment... -- Jayron  32  16:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll try to work out something with the rest. Besides, I'm fairly sure the person won't be overly concerned with grammar as long as he understands me. 70.55.109.212 (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Everything's cool between me and the person now, so thanks for the help! 70.55.109.212 (talk) 02:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This reminds me of a phrase I saw once: I'm desolated to be retarded.  Hope you're not deranged. --Trovatore (talk) 02:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That was quite funny, T. μηδείς (talk) 03:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Or, for a careless translation from French: "Do you mind if I molest you for few minutes ?" (should be "bother") StuRat (talk) 05:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I would say: Je regrette (infiniment) de m'être conduit ainsi et j'espère que vous ne m'en tiendrez pas rigueur. / et j'espère que tu ne m'en tiendras pas rigueur. or Je suis désolé de m'être mal conduit et j'espère... or Acceptez/Accepte toutes mes excuses pour m'être conduit de manière maladroite et j'espère... or Je voudrais m'excuser de ma conduite maladroite et j'espère... — AldoSyrt (talk) 14:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Languages without distinct plurals ?
Are there any ? That is, if in English we can have one sheep or many sheep, are there any languages where the singular and plural forms are identical for every word ? StuRat (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, there are. I found this article which discusses 'nominal plurality' and includes a nice map. There appear to be 28 languages (of the 291 surveyed - I'm not sure what criteria were used for inclusion) that have no concept of plurality, mainly occurring in the Southern Hemisphere, and mostly around Polynesia. There seem to be a further 130 which either have optional plurality or plurality only in nouns referring to animate objects. Therefore, a majority of the 291 languages (158) have less plurality distinction than English. Having said that, English is listed as "Plural in all nouns, always obligatory", which, as you have demonstrated (sheep, fish etc), is not strictly the case. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Interesting. "Fish" has an optional plural of "fishes", but I don't think "sheeps" is ever right. StuRat (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * See also grammatical number especially its geographical section. Chinese, Japanese, and many SE Asian languages are known for not having distinct plural forms, except perhaps in pronouns, although the can mark plurality by various means and by using numerical classifiers.  Systems like that basically treat all nouns as mass nouns and require a classifier to stand between the number and the noun, something like "five sheet paper" or "ten head cattle".  There is also suppletion such as person/people.  And nouns like sheep don't lack number, they just have identical singular and plural forms whose number is marked in singular/plural verb agreement. μηδείς (talk) 18:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * See also Chinese classifier. μηδείς (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Stu, "fishes" is not an optional plural of "fish"; if only one kind is being referred to, the plural is fish, but if there are multiple species, fishes is correct. So at an aquarium:
 * Tank with only tuna: I'd like to eat up all the fish in this tank!
 * Tank with many kinds of fish: I'd like to eat up all the fishes in this tank!
 * This is a fuzzy distinction; if there are fishes that are technically different species or genera but look alike and are referred to by the same name you could probably use either. 72.128.82.131 (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not really answering the question here, but I remember the South African football team being called Bafana Bafana, which apparently meant "boys" (more than one boy). Can anyone clarify this for me? --TammyMoet (talk) 09:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * All the Bantu languages have plurals which are marked by change of prefixes (and in fact "ba-" is one common form of the plural prefix for human nouns, corresponding to "wa-" in Swahili). I think some of the Malayo-Polynesian languages use reduplication for plural, but not really for an ordinary plural, but rather for a kind of emphasized or collective plural... AnonMoos (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Reduplication. μηδείς (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I once lived in a city with the beautiful and noble name of Corvopolitanus, Latin for "place of many crows". Most of the locals - and by that I mean all of them - preferred to use the legal name of the city, Wagga Wagga.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  19:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * And clear on the other side of the world, we have Walla Walla. StuRat (talk) 00:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Wawa's a little more other side than Walla Walla. μηδείς (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * We have our own Walla Walla, New South Wales. Hmm, that must mean that Australian aborigines sailed around to the eastern coast of the USA and had their way with their women and implanted their language, but left because the democratic system wasn't up the standard they expected.  We should add this now well-established fact to Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contacts.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  08:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Why not the Western coast of the US ? That's where Walla Walla is. StuRat (talk) 07:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Obviously they landed on the Pennsylvanian coast and then travelled by river to Washington state. μηδείς (talk) 07:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I wonder if they met up with the lost tribe of Israel which sailed to the Americas and became native Americans, according to the Mormons. StuRat (talk) 07:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * They were originally known as "Mormon-Mormons". Stormin' Norman was a Mormon-Mormon.  Fun facts made to order, very cheap rates.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  19:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Corvopolitanus means '[inhabitant] of Crow City'. —Tamfang (talk) 05:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)