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

= May 21 =

Wash the car? Not my remit.
Is the word "remit" in the sense of "scope of responsibilities" widely used in the English-speaking world? The dictionaries that I have (from 1980's) and the online dictionaries that I have access to (from the New Age, perhaps) do not convincingly tell me that this word is utterly understood everywhere. --Pxos (talk) 00:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I've tended to encounter this usage from (quasi-)military types of people, if that's any help. --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  01:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * For me, there is nothing unusual about this usage. However, I notice that http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/remit?view=uk calls it "chiefly British" (I am British), which may be why people from other parts of the world aren't as familiar with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.222.57 (talk) 01:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * A peculiar usage. To "remit" is to "send back". How did that evolve into "job" or "responsibility"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Just because it's chiefly UK (confirmed by Wiktionary) doesn't make it "peculiar". I don't find anything unusual about it either. --Viennese Waltz 14:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * So how do you get from "send back" (verb) to "responsibility" (noun)? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * OED says only that the noun is derived from the verb, but doesn't provide an answer to your question. One sense of the noun is "the transfer of a case from one court or judge to another, or to a judicial nominee. Also: an instance of this." Perhaps there was a transformation of meaning from "an instance of a case being sent from one court to another" to "the jurisdiction or scope of the authority of a court to which cases are sent". — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * And in British English, it's usually "Not in my remit". Bazza (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Either way, "remit" is a verb, not a noun. The noun is "remittance". And either way, to remit something or to send a remittance is the fulfillment of a responsibility, but is not the responsibility itself. But maybe Brits evolved the word as some kind of short cut. Or maybe it's an abbreviation of some other word? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Uhhh, no, I don't think so. When we talk about something being within an individual or organization's remit, we are using the word as a noun. OED confirms this. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Except they don't explain why or how it got to be that way. So apparently they don't know. It's just one of those English-language peculiarities. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * In British English it most certainly is a noun - confirmed again by Wiktionary. It has a different meaning to "remittance". Bazza (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary, as with Wikipedia itself, is user-entered, and is not a reliable source. It's obviously used in British English. I'd just like to know how the verb "remit" got to be a noun with a different meaning than the verb or its noun form. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe the same way "permit" became a noun? (Though etymonline doesn't explain "how" that happened). ---Sluzzelin talk  14:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Except that the verb and noun forms are connected: I permit you to do this, or give you permission to do this, by giving you this piece of paper called a permit. That works. It doesn't work for "remit". But it appears that usage's evolution has been lost (or at least not found yet). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * See (16). Bazza (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That still doesn't explain the usage "responsibility", but it might have evolved from that legalistic definition. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * From the OED: - Sense 2a) "The referring or consignment of a matter to some other person or authority for settlement; (Law) the transfer of a case from one court or judge to another, or to a judicial nominee. Also: an instance of this." - earliest example 1650. Sense 2b) "A set of instructions, a brief; an area of authority or responsibility. Freq. in within (also beyond, etc.) one's remit." - earliest example 1870. So we have: - (verb) to send back > (verb) (for an authority) to send (back) (to a responsible person) (a specific matter) to decide > (noun) the act of sending a specific matter from one authority to a responsible person to decide > the terms of reference under which a specific matter sent from another authority must be decided > the terms of reference under which a matter not specifically sent from another authority must be decided. Seem like a logical progression to me from the particular to the non-particular. Valiantis (talk) 05:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Now it makes more sense. Thank you. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's worth pointing out that, just as with permit, the verb form of the word in Br.E takes the stress on the second syllable [/rɪˈmɪt/], whereas the noun form meaning "purview" stresses the first and elongates the vowel sound: [ˈriːmɪt]. I haven't heard the alternative meaning for the noun form - a different take on remittance - before, but a look in my Oxford dictionary suggests it's pronounced the same way as the verb rather than the other noun form. And yes, as a Br.Eng speaker I'm entirely familiar with the usage, and an example landed on my desk in a memo only today. - Ka renjc 17:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What about "remission" which is listed as a noun and does mean to lessen work-load?165.212.189.187 (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Remission" doesn't mean to lessen a workload, it means "a sending back" or "a slackening", like what happens when a disease goes into remission. Remission may lighten your burden, but that's not its meaning, it's just a possible outcome. It's the etymological opposite of "mission" which is a sending forward, or sending abroad. All of these words (and also including "message") derive from the Latin mittere "to send". The "responsibility" meaning which the Brits have assigned to it does not make sense by itself. I wonder whether the idea of sending a "remit" within a court of law suggests a play on words like "the ball is in your court", i.e. it's your responsibility to do something. That's the closest I can come to seeing any sense behind that usage of "remit". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * So I suppose you will be changing the wiktionary article then?165.212.189.187 (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

More kanji variants
Hi, please see:

http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/183/kanjivariants3.png

On the left-hand side is what I understand to be the usual kanji form. On the right-hand side is a variant, with the feature of interest highlighted. What I would like to know, for each pair, is the status of the right-hand variant in Japanese (e.g. commonly used / occasionally used / never used). 86.160.222.57 (talk) 01:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * They are never used except #5. #1, 4, 6, 7, and 8 look like simplified zh. #2 is simplified zh and #3 is traditional. The difference of #5 is the design of font and the one on the right is more like handwriting. I'll check the kanji later as I may be wrong. BTW, did you see my reply on 葛? And please consider creating an account. Oda Mari (talk) 10:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, yes I did see your reply about 葛. Is there a specific connection between that kanji and the ones I'm asking about here? 86.160.87.28 (talk) 11:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As for #1, 穴+犬 is traditional ja and zh, and it's acceptable and occasionally used in ja. I didn't know, but the origin of the character was, as the combination tells, the way "A dog suddenly runs out of a hole". I couldn't find whether the right side 雨 is simplified or not. But we do not write that way in ja. #8 is an acceptable and occasionally used variant in ja. As for the reply of 葛, did you understand it? I wasn't sure if I could explain about it well as I don't know much about computer fonts and the history. Oda Mari (talk) 09:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you, I understood about 葛 quite well -- certainly well enough for my needs. 86.160.82.229 (talk) 13:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * ... oh, by the way, is the variant in #8 "acceptable and occasionally used" in all characters that contain that element (e.g. 要, 煙, 票, etc.)? 86.160.82.229 (talk) 19:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'd like to correct this. The variant in #8 is "acceptable but rarely used". See ja:襾部. As a radical, the middle one is the standard today, especially joyokanji like 要, 煙, 票, etc. Oda Mari (talk) 09:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

neuter sanskrit gender in asana names
What is meant by User:Khamgatam's edit summaries:



?Curb Chain (talk) 01:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Seems to be changing each word from an abstract stem to a specific neuter nominative/accusative singular form. In all the "classical" Indo-European languages, the nominative and accusative case forms of words with neuter grammatical gender are always identical to each other, and in the Sanskrit a-declension neuter singular, the nominative-accusative ending is "m"... AnonMoos (talk) 03:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * So in the context of asana nomenclature, should the asanas be suffixed "asam"?Curb Chain (talk) 06:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify: So in the context of asana nomenclature, should the asanas be suffixed "-asam" instead of "-asana"?


 * Sorry, I own a Sanskrit grammar, and know enough general and Indo-European linguistics to look up various things in it, but I really don't know anything about Yoga terminology. AnonMoos (talk) 08:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Does the same conjugation have the same process as Surya Namaskar -> Surya Namaskara?Curb Chain (talk) 18:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * If we are not talking about yoga terminology, which is the correct form, "-asam" or "-asana"?Curb Chain (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I really don't know what you're trying to ask, since the diffs show a change of "asana" to "asanam", not to "asam"[sic]. In any case, to verify whether these words are neuter, I would need a specialized dictionary (which I don't have), and not just a grammar (which I do have)... AnonMoos (talk) 01:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Odd message received by me
Sakide dec fanol

Sadren moj aero de f'astren la nomadic vase nik gas bunto zar ozea. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  09:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd ignore it. That user seems to be inserting gibberish on several people's talk pages.  Rojomoke (talk) 12:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Vandal, sock. --jpgordon:==( o ) 13:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * FWIW it looks a little like Esperanto to me. Google Translate‘s “Detect Language“ thinks so, too, but makes no sense of it.—Odysseus 1 4 7 9  06:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Does the verb “to deface” implies a bad faith?
Is expression “don’t deface” really an insult so serious that a proportional response to it could be a two-days-long flamewar?

Several apparently native English speakers try to convince me that it is, but I suppose that they say so because defend their friends in conflict with me, and/or because of antipathy towards me. Suggestions? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Not particularly a language question (more behavioral) but depending on context, it may seem insulting. Flame wars are frowned upon, however, and may lead to other consequences. The trick is to be the one that decreases the conflict. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Is a flamewar called for? Of course not, a flamewar is never called for. Does "deface" assume bad faith? Yes, it definitely does. Look at [Merriam-Webster's definition: "to mar the appearance of : injure by effacing significant details". Look at the examples it gives: "The building was defaced with graffiti. He was fined for defacing public property."  The synonyms: "vandalize (!), trash".  Certainly a negative word that implies bad faith. [[User:Writ Keeper|Writ Keeper]] &#9863;&#9812; 13:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Strictly speaking the implications still depend on context: "Don't do that bad act" may imply nothing about the good or bad faith of the actor -- it may just be, "don't do that bad act," regardless of motive or faith, which is a message similar to many of our policy pages. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, fair enough, though I'm not sure I totally agree. The context relevant to the OP's question was that the word "deface" was used in a warning to another editor, so it was used in a context of "that was defacing" and/or "don't deface again", which I would say does imply bad faith, as it's calling a previous action that the editor did defacement. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 14:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. But if I say to you "you have rendered that infobox unreadable by adding that code, please don't deface it." It does not matter to my statement that you thought it a good faith idea (ie., that you were acting with the best of intentions), or bad faith idea (that is you were trying to render it unreadable out of malice). Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, I don't think I agree; if you don't mean to imply that the person messed up the infobox in bad faith, then I think "deface" is the wrong word, because it implies that I did (as evidenced by the "vandalize" synonym; one cannot vandalize with good intent). Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Not if I am using it in its descriptive sense (eg. "to render disfigured"). That is just the consequence of your act, whatever your good or bad intention, or even if you had no intentions at all, in that regard.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think your use would be widely misunderstood. If you told me to not the deface such- and- such infobox because of some bad code I'd entered, I would see that as a clear imprecation against my intentions. If the positions were reversed, I would say something like "Hey, I noticed you made an error in coding the infobox; putting that extra = in there makes it display incorrectly." Matt Deres (talk) 16:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You can say it all kinds of ways but what you cannot do is assume an implication, I did not intend, not only because it is not required by the language, but also because you are assuming bad faith. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And you can rationalize it however you wish, but your usage is widely understood in a way different than what you're saying. The complement to AGF is to communicate in the clearest manner possible. Like "retarded" and "faggot" and many other words, "defaced" has disparaging associations that you can't just ignore because you happen to want to use it another way. Retarded just means delayed (first def), but I strongly urge you not to call your boss that when he's late for a meeting. Matt Deres (talk) 21:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No. Those analogies are absurd.  Most people do not mistake a descriptor of an act for an epithet of a person. Moreover, it is poor advice to take umbrage so easily, and in such and extreme manner, because it is nonsensical, and would be the barrier to actual communication. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I see the difficulty now; you think we're giving advice to the listener. That is not so; we are giving advice to the speaker. You tell the audience to be patient, but advise the speaker to be succinct; you tell the audience to assume good faith, but you tell the speaker to be careful of what they say. My advice to the speaker is: don't use words like "deface" unless you specifically mean to imply that there were poor intentions; my advice to the listener is: maybe the speaker doesn't know what the word "deface" means. Matt Deres (talk) 02:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As you say, we are giving advice to both, which is why it is more of a behavioral and context issue than an issue of the word. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Puts me in mind of a Franglish phrase I saw somewhere: I'm desolated to be retarded.  I hope you're not deranged. --Trovatore (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * To "deface" is equivalent to "vandalism", a term that gets abused in Wikipedia from time to time. So, yes, it does imply "bad faith". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In this context, I'd say deface does have a negative connotation. However, note that the term is also used in a technical sense in relation to coats of arms and flags to mean altering an existing coat of arms or flag by adding an additional element to it. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If English is a second language for the person using the term "deface" then we should be interpreting that term's meaning with greater latitude than we would if that person were a native speaker. Bus stop (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably, but they should know that it does imply bad faith, and that they shouldn't use it unless they mean to imply bad faith in the future. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 14:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Deface" has a thoroughly negative connotation. The "technical" sense would more likely be called a "reface", or a "face lift". If someone's using "deface" that way, they're using it incorrectly. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The technical term is as SMUconlaw stated; it's not "reface" or "face lift". Bazza (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * A bizarre but thankfully obscure usage. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As someone who has been speaking and listening to English exclusively every day for the past 36+ years (give or take), I have never heard the word "deface" used where it didn't have a pejorative or negative connotation. YMMV, and like any word, I'm sure there are arcane or specialized definitions which don't have the same usage as the most common one, but if someone said something was being defaced, nearly every native English speaker would assume that meant it was being ruined.  -- Jayron  32  15:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Flags are said to be defaced when an additional symbol is added to them, but this vexillogical usage has no negative connotation. Textorus (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * See above. --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  22:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that would qualify as "arcane or specialized" usage of the term. Even vexillogists would get pissed if you told them you defaced their car with a can of spray paint.  -- Jayron  32  03:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to all who spent a time for my request! It was helpful. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

What is the Chinese on the sign?
What is the Chinese on the sign in this picture? File:Buford Highway.jpg

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It means "Warehouse Farmers' Market". Marco polo (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What are the hanzi characters? I want to annotate the file with them. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 倉庫農夫市場 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.87.28 (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! WhisperToMe (talk) 02:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Portuguese names
José Luís do Amaral Nunes was a member of the Portuguese parliament in the 1970s and 1980s. He gets almost no Google hits (even when I don't exclude Portuguese), so I wonder if I formatted the name wrongly. I know that Spanish people often have two last names and use only one of them; is this also commonly done in Portugal? Or are there any other names that people in Portugal have but don't commonly use? Basically I'd like to know if there's another combination of names more commonly would apply to this guy. 2001:18E8:2:1020:2974:F1B5:B231:24B3 (talk) 19:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has an article named Portuguese name. Perhaps that could help.  -- Jayron  32  21:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * "do Amaral" is part of his full name but in practise it wouldn't be used (sort of like an English middle name). Jose Luis Nunes seems to have been leader of the socialist party in Parliament under the Mário Soares government(s). It's hard to find him on Google since this is a pretty stereotypical combination of Portuguese names, heh...He's listed on pt:Partido Socialista (Portugal), but he doesn't seem to have a Portuguese article either. He's also listed with his full name at pt:Assembleia_Constituinte_(Portugal), and seems to have been a deputy from Porto, where he has a street named after him, which may be useful info. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Plot device terminology
I'm curious which term (if any) is used for the plot device in which one character says or does something seemingly benign or irrelevent but in turn provides a clue or solution to a problem being worked on by another character.

A classic example would be in Independence Day when the father mentions David catching a cold, which in turn provides David—in a moment of clarity—with the idea for a computer virus. The closest I've come in my searches is MacGuffin. However, using the previous example, I think that would describe the virus itself, not the plot device which provided the idea to the character.

I'm assuming the term will be something in Latin, à la Deus ex machina. Thanks for any help. DKqwerty (talk) 19:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmm, well, I don't know about an official literary term, but I've seen it referred to as a Eureka moment, which on wikipedia, redirects to the Eureka effect. Is that closer? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Chekhov's Gun. ÷seresin 05:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, see this. Woe to any man who clicks that link without hours to spend. ÷seresin 05:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

"believe" or "believe in"?
When is it ok to add the preposition, and what difference does it make? Is this one of those verbs where the transitive and intransitive forms have no or little distinction?
 * When Susan told her teacher that her dog ate her homework, her teacher disbelieved the story.
 * When Susan told her teacher that her dog ate her homework, her teacher disbelieved in the story.
 * When Susan told her teacher that her dog ate her homework, her teacher did not believe the story.
 * When Susan told her teacher that her dog ate her homework, her teacher did not believe in the story. Sneazy (talk) 21:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * One believes or disbelieves a statement or a testimony or a proposition. So in your examples the teacher disbelieved the story, and did not believe the story. The word "in" is out of place in those cases.
 * "Believing in" is used in much broader contexts, like believing in God, believing in the afterlife, beliving in reincarnation, believing in democracy, believing in capitalism, or believing in one's partner in the sense of trusting they will always tell the truth and never be unfaithful. The expression "disbelieve in" does not exist, as far as I'm aware.
 * It can get confusing, though. In a conversation, Person A might say "I believe in reincarnation", and Person B might reply "I don't believe that there's any such thing".  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  22:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Items 1 and 3 are good, and 3 is better than 1, which sounds kind of formal. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * To state it simpler than above: You believe someone, you believe in a concept. So, you can say "I believe my Rabbi," but "I believe in Jewish theology".  "I believe the President when he speaks" but "I believe in American democracy".  There are uses of "Believe in" with people, but that usage means, roughly, "I have trust or confidence in this person".  That is, if I say "I believe Bill" it means I think he's telling the truth in regards to a specific statement he's made.  If I say "I believe in Bill", it means I think that Bill is generally worthy of respect or faith that he'll get the job done.  When your mom says "I believe in you" she's saying "I think you'll be successful because I have faith in you", in the exact same way that if she says "I believe in Communism", she thinks Communism is going to be successful because it is a sound concept.  If your mom says "I believe you" it just means she thinks you're telling the truth.  -- Jayron  32  23:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Believe--truth, Believe in--existence. μηδείς (talk) 00:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Key comment in an old Andy Griffith Show. Opie meets a telephone lineman named Mr. McBeevee. Opie doesn't fully comprehend, and his story sounds made-up. But in spite of a threat of punishment, Opie won't recant his story. Barney to Andy: "Do you believe in Mr. McBeevee?" Andy: "No. But I believe in Opie." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * To believe means to accept something as true in a specific case. To believe in means to have faith in the existence or reliability of a person, thing, or concept in general and absolutely. Marco polo (talk) 12:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * (1) Disbelief and disbelieving seem to imply not just a lack of belief but a positive belief in the contrary. Many people, for example, will think or say that they don't believe in God, but many of them are agnostics who don't necessarily disbelieve in the Almighty, either ("I neither believe nor disbelieve in God", cf. "I neither believe nor disbelieve in capitalism as such; I only believe what I see with my own eyes or I only believe in what works.") A polite way of declining to agree with someone might begin "I don't believe that's entirely true...", but saying "I disbelieve much of what you just said" is rather stronger. Thus, "I don't believe your story because I disbelieve your motives", or "because I disbelieve in satanic forces." Someone seeking verification might say "I don't disbelieve you, but I still need proof", i.e. I can't believe you without supporting evidence, so I for the moment I have to act as if I don't believe you [although I certainly don't know enough yet to positively disbelieve you.]
 * (2) I don't think it's common nowadays to say that "I disbelieve that (the earth is flat)", more, as in Sneazy's own example, "I disbelieve" in [some noun or equivalent], e.g. "I disbelieve in the flat earth theory" or "I disbelieve the soundness of that theory". Even though it might not make the intensity of the speaker's disbelief or non-belief so clear, I've always heard and seen for such clauses, "I don't believe [that] the earth is flat".
 * (3) The lyrics to popular songs are full of examples of both "believe" and "believe in", sometimes from the same singer, e.g. Dusty Springfield *. The ones that come quickest to my baby-boom mind [so much staler than those of au courant Gen-? trendsetters from Oz ;-) ] are "Oh! Darling, please believe me: I'll never do you no harm; Believe me when I tell you, I'll never make it alone..." by the Beatles and "Do You Believe in Magic? (in a young girl's heart...)" by The Lovin' Spoonful. Looking through all those lyrics might clarify the distinction, but I'm afraid that studying them might just muddy it. * "You Don't Have to Say You Love Me ... believe me! believe me!" and Believe in Me
 * (4) The Apostles' Creed begins, "I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth, and in Jesus Christ ...", but if you want to get confused by early 17th-century usage, see all the ways that "believe" is used (with and without "in" and "on") in Chapter 3, verses 12-36 of the Gospel of John in the King James (Authorised) Version of the Bible (1611), which ends "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life..."
 * (5) Which leads inevitably to the old chestnut, "Everybody should believe in something; I believe I'll have another drink." —— Shakescene (talk) 15:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Trucker lingo
Two questions here: (1) What are "swindle sheets"? Is this some improvised device for dodging scales? (2) What does it mean when they say that the rig is "low"? Is it the same as being "bingo-fuel" (in aviation lingo), or does it mean something else entirely? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 23:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You could have answered the first question by typing "swindle sheet" into Google, with a lot less effort than it took to put the question here. Looie496 (talk) 00:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see looking at your contribs that you've been turning into a serial ref-desk-abuser -- "deballockers" and whatnot. Looie496 (talk) 00:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * A random look at this user's contributions hints that we have an obvious sock, but the questions themselves seem quite reasonable (falconiformes/psittaciformes/passeriformes and red vs white darwf capture) although some seem obvious. But none seem abusive or debate inciting. I have a feeling we have quite a few regulars with socks.  Enough that I think a general check user of all contributors is warrented.  But again, these questions seem benignant. μηδείς (talk) 04:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * One or two questions about random trivia are not a problem. When they multiply into the dozens, it's an abuse.  Take a look at benignant, by the way. Looie496 (talk) 14:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought "benignant" was a humorous made-up word. Interesting to see that it actually exists. 86.160.82.229 (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I try to answer other people's questions about why it takes so long to fly from Atlanta to New York, or how to clean up a THF spill, and THIS is the thanks that I get?! 24.23.196.85 (talk) 02:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You get what you pay for. :) The term "swindle sheets" has to do with forms filled out at truckers' weigh stations. As in the line from "Convoy": "We tore up all our swindle sheets, and left 'em settin' on the scales." The one about "low", I don't know. I'd have to see it in context. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Now that was one helpful answer. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 02:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The only thing that jumps out when I google "low truck rig" has to do with trucks that are low-slung, their underbelly nearly touching the pavement. I wouldn't guarantee that's what the answer is to your second question. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I’ve heard the term “low-boy“ for a flat-bed trailer that’s low-slung for loading tracked heavy equipment without too long or steep a ramp.—Odysseus 1 4 7 9  06:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)