Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2013 May 5

= May 5 =

Flu
Flu here correctly redirects to Influenza. But around where I come from (Australia) it's pretty common for people to declare "I've got the flu" (sometimes "...a touch of the flu" or "...a dose of the flu") when all they have is the Common cold. There's a big difference, and being a pedantic old bastard, it annoys me. Does this happen elsewhere in the world? HiLo48 (talk) 03:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, Australians around here do that all the time. μηδείς (talk) 03:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you fellow pedant. (I could have said smart-a#%&, but that wouldn't be nice.) HiLo48 (talk) 03:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In the U.S., people will sometimes use the phrase stomach flu to mean "gastroenteritis". -- Jayron  32  03:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And even non-Australians will say flu when they mean nasty cold. I get colds twice a year and haven't had a flu since the mid 90's so far's I can remember. μηδείς (talk) 06:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Same thing here as well. But we also have the 40oz flu. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 06:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * People do tend to exaggerate and over-dramatise things. Miracles are a dime a dozen; everybody/thing is "awesome", "amazing", "mind-blowing", "stupendous", and usually with an "absolutely" tacked on to the front; every new movie that comes out has the critics clutching at superlatives; every Next Big Thing in music or movies is "taking the world by storm"; people are constantly being "gutted" and "devastated" by ordinary events; every car accident is a "horror crash".  I've said this at least 40,000,000 times: "Don't exaggerate".  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  06:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That would seem an exaggeration, Jack. μηδείς (talk) 06:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That would seem to be the point, Medeis. My father says much the same thing, except it's only 1 million. Any more than that could be a gross exaggeration. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it have to be 144,000,000 to be a gross exaggeration? --Arwel Parry (talk) 00:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly. If gross negligence is when you forget your wife's 144th birthday, then it stands to reason ...  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  01:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In the UK we often say 'flu' instead of cold, but usually for a heavy cold. Basically we are tough and strong enough to not go the doctor's and find out what it actually is. We didn't build the biggest empire the world has ever seen by snivelling all the way to the doctor, you know.  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  07:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

See m-w.com for verfication. It seems as if "flu" is indeed one of those words, like "million", that despite having a specific sense is nevertheless quite often used in an imprecise way (as in "I've got a million things to do"). Gabbe (talk) 08:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I pity the poor chimney sweep who says he has 'a million flues to do'  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  08:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Here in the UK we have "man flu". Bird flu is the same except the sufferer has to get up to make tea, wash dishes, get the kids ready for school... --TammyMoet (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * One reason we exaggerate because if you phone in sick to work saying "I've got a cold" it sounds lame, whereas with "I've got the flu" your colleagues will understand that of course you can't come in. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's the old Protestant Work Ethic at play: Soldier on, even if if kills you, and even if it kills your colleagues. I exaggerate, of course; but OTOH I have no interest in catching anyone else's cold, so I'm more than happy for them to stay away from work.  I think we're slowly getting around to the idea that having contagious people in the workplace is not a win for anyone.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  08:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * In North America, "flu" is also used as a kind of catch-all (sometimes it means "influenza", but usually means "common cold", and means tummy problems if it's "stomach flu" or "24-hour flu"). I have a bit of a pet theory that it's an extremely old habit dating back to the days when the causes of diseases were unknown and even different kinds of diseases were lumped together. What I mean is, "flu" in this context means, roughly, "something which makes you feel shitty for a few days and then you get better". Contrast with "plague" which means, roughly, "something which makes you feel worse and worse until you die horribly" or "pox", which means "something that makes bubbles to break out on your skin". In all those cases we've kind of retroactively given these things more specific meanings; plague now means the disease caused by Yersinia pestis, for example. 64.235.97.146 (talk) 15:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In Liverpool in the 1970s and 1980s, we called any skin disease 'the lurgy' (with a hard 'g'), and the word (full phrase: (s)he's got the lurgy) was also used to refer to dirty people, or people who looked dirty, or just people we didn't like (or were told not to like, because other people didn't like them). Nowadays it is sometimes used when referring to one's own cold or flu symptoms. It just basically means 'stay away from me because you will catch something'.  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  22:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, the source of that one is well documented. On 9 November 1954, in the seventh programme of the fifth series of The Goon Show, the dreaded lurgy was believed to be going to sweep the British Isles. See here. HiLo48 (talk) 08:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Can you tell the difference? I mean the symptoms are just the same: headache, fever, running nose, sneezing etc. Unless I see a doctor, I never know which one I have. --Lgriot (talk) 08:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

"introduction to hebrew" "in the roman alphabet"
Can anyone suggest a good, comprehensive sketch or introduction of Hebrew that is fully romanized? I don't have time to take a course, which would be the only way I'd master the alphabet sufficiently. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * "A Textbook of Israeli Hebrew with an Introduction to the Classical Language" by Haiim B. Rosén (2nd. corrected edition), ISBN 0-226-72603-7 is fully romanized in all the explanations and vocabulary items (not in all the exercises and sample texts). Be aware that it's kind of grammar-heavy, and not suitable for all learners... AnonMoos (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that's exactly what I am looking for, I want a conceptual overview, not spoken or reading proficiency. A more classical work would be good to if there is a significant difference in grammar. μηδείς (talk) 02:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I hope it meets your needs, but I'm looking through it more, and some of the smaller-text explanations (about niggling little details) and explanations about syntax (i.e. not involving issues of inflection or newly-introduced vocabulary) are also not romanized. Biblical Hebrew is not totally different from modern Israeli, but Biblical involves paying attention to minor vowel distinctions which are basically irrelevant for modern Israeli, and Biblical also has some very common constructions (such as the infamous "wayyiqtol") which don't occur in modern Israeli.  I doubt that you'll find a completely romanized introduction to Biblical Hebrew, since the goal of such books is to set people on the path to reading the Biblical text as it has been handed down.  Some Biblical Hebrew reference grammars use a large amount of romanization, but also assume familiarity with the Hebrew alphabet... AnonMoos (talk) 16:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the sort of sketch I am looking for would ideally be along the lines of the Summer Institute of Linguistics sketches of comparative Uto-Aztecan and its dialects. But you can see how ironic such a work would be in Hebrew. μηδείς (talk) 04:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)