Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2014 June 7

= June 7 =

Japanese fire extinguisher image question: transcription and translation
Is anyone interested in transcribing this image: File:Japanese Symbols.jpg ? What does this mean? WhisperToMe (talk) 09:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 消火器/fire extinguisher. 使い方/instruction. ピンを抜いてレバーを握ると消火液が出ます/The agent will come out by pulling out the pin and squeezing the lever. Oda Mari (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! I added the annotation WhisperToMe (talk) 02:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * @WhisperToMe:  Personally, I think it's better to use "intructions" or "directions" here (see entry 1.c) instead of the singular "instruction". FWIW, you could also translate 使い方 a little more literally as  as "how to use". Moreover, "Pull the pin and squeeze the lever to discharge" is probably a little more natural sounding in this case (like they do here). It might also be a good idea to use numbers (perhaps even a numbered list) even though the original image doesn't. For example, something such as "How to use: (1) pull pin, (2) aim, and (3) squeeze lever to discharge." - Marchjuly (talk) 08:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, "the agent will come out" sounds like a spy telling his parents he's gay. Angr (talk) 08:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You can translate the same words (消火液) verbatim as the fire extinguishing liquid (will gush out/discharge).--Jondel (talk) 09:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Oda Mari and also think "agent" (not "liquid") such as in "extinguishing agent" or "chemical agent" is the preferred term in this case; I just feel its meaning is somewhat understood so there's no real need to explicitly mention it here. In addition, many fire extinguishers these days seem to use gas, chemical or foam mixtures so I don't think "gush out" is appropriate; The agent doesn't really gush out, its more of a "spray". I think "discharge" is probably the best because often some kind of compressed air or other gas is used to force the extinguishing agent out. No big deal really since the meaning would be understood pretty much whichever of the above you chose. -Marchjuly (talk) 11:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your help! WhisperToMe (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You asked for a transcription, not a translation.  KägeTorä - ( 影 虎 )  ( Chin Wag )  11:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

An easy one
Just checking that the capitalisation of die Vogel schnarch is correct  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  12:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "Der Vogel Schnarch" is a vernacular German name for the Celebes rail or Snoring rail used in the title of a 1932 book by ornithologist Gerd Heinrich. In that case "Der" is capitalised in the title, "Vogel" is capitalised as a noun and "Schnarch" is capitalised as a proper name. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The reason I'm asking the question is that I know how that book title is capitalised, but just want to use Heinrich's name for the bird to explain the derived English common name. I'd assumed that as a phrase rather than a title, "der" would be lc, "Vogel" capped as a noun, and "schnarch" lc as an adjective. I know no German, as you have probably gathered, but you seem to be saying that the last word should be capitalised anyway&mdash;or have I misunderstood?  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  16:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not an easy one, by the way. The word Schnarch in the book title is a hapax legomenon, a word that occurs only once in the corpus of a language. The capitalisation indicates that it is a proper name or noun, also Vogel (bird) is capitalised as a noun. And the expression starts with der (the, masculine gender), corresponding to the masculine gender of Vogel. Der is only capitalised in the title, not in other positions in the sentence. The melodramatic title "Der Vogel Schnarch" is a bit jokingly, it is not the normal German name of the bird (Schnarchralle, capitalised as a noun, meaning and corresponding to snoring rail). As a phrase in an English context it could be used like "Heinrich reported on his expedition to a broader audience in his book about the Vogel Schnarch." It is unclear to me whether this alludes to The Hunting of the Snark or to a snoring bird. The author's son, however, translates the book's title to The Snoring Bird, so it is presumably not an allusion to Snark. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 17:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

How would you say "intriguing / interesting question",   in one word?
HOOTmag (talk) 19:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what you mean buy intriguer but you might try poser. μηδείς (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "buy". Anyways, I mispelled "intriguing".
 * A poser is more a "difficult" question, rather than an "intriguing" one. HOOTmag (talk) 19:21, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No one in fiction ever calls a question a poser and then expresses his lack of interest in solving it.
 * quandary ? That mentions dilemma, perplexity, [an] uncertainty. None seem exactly right but maybe one will fit.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 20:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Conundrum? --   Jack of Oz  [[Image:Gay flag.svg|15px|  ]]   [pleasantries]   21:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's more a "difficult" question, rather than an "intriguing / interesting" one. Note that not every difficult question (e.g. "How old was my neighbor's sister's dog when it died") must be intriguing/interesting, and vice versa. HOOTmag (talk) 22:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Another: puzzler, which then suggests enigma.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 21:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, it's more a "difficult" question, rather than an "intriguing / interesting" one. Note that not every difficult question (e.g. "How old was my neighbor's sister's dog when it died") must be intriguing/interesting, and not every intriguing/interesting question (e.g. "Who is knocking at my door right now?") must be difficult. HOOTmag (talk) 22:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you give an example of an intriguing/interesting question? Would "Where did the Basque language come from?" qualify? --   Jack of Oz  [[Image:Gay flag.svg|15px|  ]]   [pleasantries]   22:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The question in your example is both intriguing and difficult, so it is - accidentally - a conundrum. However, there are intriguing questions that are quite easy to answer, e.g. "who is knocking at my door right now?", "Who sent me the letter awaiting in my post box?", and likewise. Anyways, I'm looking for one word, whose meaning is "intriguing question", whether a difficult one or not.HOOTmag (talk) 02:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What tells you there is such a single word? My family makes an art form out of trying to guess what's contained inside the wrapping before they open a present.  They shake it and feel it and smell it to glean some clues, then if they're pretty sure, they'll say what they think it is, all before actually opening the damn thing.  Or when receiving a letter with no external clues as to who it's from, they'll go through a process of trying to guess the sender, before finally opening it and finding out.  I've never heard anyone use a single word for the object of their curiosity.  Their comments are more in the vein of "What can this curious object be?", or "Who on earth would be sending me a letter from Kazakhstan?".  Not "I have a _____".  --  Jack of Oz  [[Image:Gay flag.svg|15px|  ]]   [pleasantries]   02:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I suspect there's no such word or someone would have mentioned it by now. One reason is I've been trying to think of names used for instances and collections of interesting 'questions', and it's either something already mentioned or something obvious. 'Enigma', 'puzzles', 'quiz', things like that. If there were a word that meant 'interesting question(s)' the puzzle/quiz publishing industry would surely had co-opted it for the cover of books and magazines.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 03:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thought-provoking. Bus stop (talk) 22:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 1. I've asked for one word. 2. I've asked about the concept of "thought provoking question", rather than about the concept of "thought provoking" only. HOOTmag (talk) 07:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Riddle. Bus stop (talk) 11:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you sure every riddle must be intriguing/interesting? Here is an example of a very boring riddle (which is not easy to answer): Without using any computerized tool, please try to find a word that: begins with "s", ends with "e", and has eight letters - two of which are "c" and "o"... HOOTmag (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Silicone.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 22:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Language can be found which communicates but does so in a way that is felt to be less than optimal. Different phrases and different words express shades of meaning that can be overlooked without communication being compromised unacceptably. You may be right that "riddle" may be less than ideal for a given use. My counterargument would be that the use of a word such as "riddle" may nevertheless communicate an idea in a way deemed acceptable. Bus stop (talk) 13:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see how "a word such as 'riddle' may nevertheless communicate an idea in a way deemed acceptable" (as you've claimed), although not every interesting stuff must be difficult, and not every difficult stuff must be interesting. "Riddle" is a "difficult" (question) - rather than an "interesting" (question), whereas I've been asking about an "interesting" (question) rather than about a "difficult" (question), and I can't see any connection between "difficult" and "interesting". Please recall, that Mathematics is considered by many people as "boring and difficult to figure out", while legends are considered by many people as "interesting and easy to figure out". HOOTmag (talk) 11:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * People can have opinions on questions. Some people may consider questions interesting. Other people may consider questions boring. There are interesting trees and there are boring trees. It depends both on whose opinion on trees in general we are following and it depends also on the particular tree under consideration. A tree that wears a nest of robins in her hair would probably be considered by a lot of people to be a fairly interesting tree. But the language doesn't have a word for "interesting tree" and "boring tree". The word "question" is a word for "interesting question" just as it's a word for "boring question". The particular significance of the word depends on other factors besides the individual identity of the word itself. A listener familiar with the language in question is also going to be familiar with the bottlenecks as may be found in the language. If you use the "wrong" word, the native speaker is going to make allowances for that language's inability to express in one word the concept of "interesting question". Everything isn't spelled out. Some things are implied. Communication relies on terminology creating a notion of that which needs to be conveyed. Where language needs to be nailed down such as in legal communication, there would not likely be a need for one word to embody "interesting question". Bus stop (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You mean, "interesting" is a relative notion: what is interesting in my son's view - may be boring in my view, and vice versa: Therefore, the language should not be expected to have a specific word for the idea of an interesting question. However, please notice that "difficult" is also a relative notion: what is difficult in my son's view - may be easy in my view, and vice versa: Nevertheless, the language does have a specific word for the idea of a difficult question: "riddle"... HOOTmag (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

What is the correct term?
What is the correct term when a two-word phrase is mistakenly (or intentionally) spoken by reversing the initial letters or syllables of each word? For example, the classic phrase "Pobody's Nerfect" for "Nobody's Perfect". That sort of thing. Is there a literary or linguistic word for that? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Spoonerism. Deor (talk) 21:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * That's it! Thanks!    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I will ponder this term as I enjoy a cough of cuppy. StuRat (talk) 05:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Good one!  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It took me 3 minutes to get what a "cough of cuppy" was. I guess I need one right now. Or maybe it's because I'm a fence motherducker today. - ¡Ouch! (hurt me / more pain) 06:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Evolution of language
Why did vocal language independently evolve across almost every race as a primary means of communication instead of say hand signals or face-expressions? Lastwine123 (talk) 23:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Who says that language independently evolved across almost every race? For all we know, humans could have been speaking well before any significant population of Homo sapiens left Africa.  The populations that left Africa and settled Eurasia, Australia, and the Americas were all anatomically and behaviorally modern--except, of course, we have no way to tell if they had language.  --Bowlhover (talk) 00:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The OP is the ref desk troll, a sock of a banned user. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:02, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Meh, if they're asking relevant questions as opposed to what we typically think of as trolling, I don't really care that much. Bali88 (talk) 15:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Banned users are not allowed to edit. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:37, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Does that include the WP:RD and other Talk-like areas? I'm not sure if it doesn't, but asking a qustion is quite different from editing an article. - ¡Ouch! (hurt me / more pain) 06:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * From WP:BAN: "A ban is normally a site ban (prohibiting all editing), but it may be limited to, for example, a topic ban (prohibiting editing in certain topic areas), or an article ban or page ban (prohibiting the editing of certain pages)". So unless specified otherwise, it does.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 06:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Same source: "An editor who is site-banned is forbidden from making any edit, anywhere on Wikipedia", so "editing" in the context of WP:BAN is indeed a change to any WP file/page, not necessarily an article. - ¡Ouch! (hurt me / more pain) 11:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It;s been speculated by several scholars (such as Jared Diamond) that the transition to Behavioral modernity was the same as the transition to fully developed modern human language from some communication system that wasn't yet quite fully developed modern human language... AnonMoos (talk) 07:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it developed independently. I mean, all sorts of animals have vocal communication, so likely vocal communication in humans began prior to humans emerging as a distinct species as opposed to evolving into humans and then separating into races and then developing language. Now, understand I'm saying vocal communication as opposed to language. A tweet or bark or howl of a monkey is vocal communication and we likely had something similar before developing what we now think of as language. It simply doesn't fit with what we know of about evolution for our vocal cords (and language) to develop after the races developed and we were separated by continent. Our vocal cords would evolve differently. Also, we do use facial expressions as well as gestures for communication. Not to the degree that we use verbal language, but they are an important part nonetheless. Bali88 (talk) 15:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Do we have a list of species which imitate the voices of other species? It's not as uncommon a trait as many think. It might explain, too, why many verbs sound like the action they represent. it's not uncommon among animal names either (many names resemble the sounds the animals make), and that might well be a relic of the hunter-gatherer past of H.sapiens. - ¡Ouch! (hurt me / more pain) 06:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)