Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2014 October 27

= October 27 =

To comma or not to comma
I'm generally pretty good with punctuation, but I'm torn on this one:

"The conflict is a result of the differing value systems of Jack and Amy, upholding the principles of individuality and free thought, and tyranny and authority, respectively."OR"The conflict is a result of the differing value systems of Jack and Amy, upholding the principles of individuality and free thought, and tyranny and authority respectively."Which reads better? Those are two pairs of "principles," each being upheld by a separate party. Since this is for publication I changed the "principles" listed, as I don't want anything on a popular website to set off an automatic plagiarism checker, but the sentence structure is the same. Evan (talk&#124;contribs) 03:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * First, you haven't provided us with a complete sentence, so no answer on punctuation is possible. Second, you should be saying something like "upholding the principles of individuality and free thought, and upholding the principles of tyranny and authority, respectively" μηδείς (talk) 03:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but I don't think the subordinate clause's context was ambiguous enough to make any difference punctuation-wise. Updated now, anyway. The "principles of... principles of" formulation is the way I originally had it, but it seemed quite wordy. Thanks for the reply! Evan (talk&#124;contribs) 04:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Or "upholding the principles, respectively, of A and B, and C and D". --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  03:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that might be less cluttered. Might sleep on this one. Thanks! Evan (talk&#124;contribs) 04:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest "respectively upholding the principles of A and B and of C and D". No commas needed at all within that construction.  (The second "of" eliminates any ambiguity in the grouping of "and".) --174.88.134.249 (talk) 04:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That might work wonderfully, but not if the sentence starts, The difference between classical liberalism and Prussianism is... That's why I said a full sentence is not an option, we have to have one to answer any such question. μηδείς (talk) 05:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What am I missing? It looks like a complete sentence to me.  Has a subject, a predicate, and a gerundial clause (or maybe it's a participial clause).  I vote very strongly for option 1. --Trovatore (talk) 05:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You are missing the fact that Evanh2008 improperly went back and changed his original question without indicating he had done so, making nonsense of every answer, which original you can see here:

I'm generally pretty good with punctuation, but I'm torn on this one:"upholding the principles of individuality and free thought, and tyranny and authority, respectively"OR"upholding the principles of individuality and free thought, and tyranny and authority respectively"Which reads better? Those are two pairs of "principles," each being upheld by a separate party. Since this is for publication I changed the "principles" listed, as I don't want anything on a popular website to set off an automatic plagiarism checker, but the sentence structure is the same. Evan (talk&#124;contribs) 03:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * μηδείς (talk) 06:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So "Updated now, anyway" is "improperly" not noting that I had changed it? I can see the cause of the confusion, but it wasn't improper, and I did note it. Evan (talk&#124;contribs) 14:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It would have been fine if you had put the new matter [in square brackets] or italics and said, material in brackets added [signature with new time stamp], otherwise there's no way for anyone to notice what was updated. μηδείς (talk) 16:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Why not just write the sentence more clearly to begin with? e.g., "The conflict is a result of the differing value systems of Jack, who upholds the principles of individuality and free thought, and Amy, who upholds the principles of tyranny and authority." rʨ anaɢ (talk) 06:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Another alternative The conflict is a result of the differing value systems of Jack and Amy, Jack upholding the principles of individuality and free thought, and Amy those of tyranny and authority. The first version (from the original question) is punctuated better, but the problem is that the wording is less than clear to begin with, because with 'and' occurring three times it's hard to match 'respectively' with the right construction. Peter Grey (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * 174.88.134.249, your suggestion "respectively upholding the principles of A and B and of C and D" seems neat, but I'm troubled by the distance between "respectively" and its subjects. That word always pertains to multiple items or groups of items, and should be located immediately adjacent to those items.  The items in this case are "A and B" and "C and D", but there are 4 words between them and "respectively", and this makes for lack of certainty.   Eliminating as many commas as possible is not something to be overly concerned about.  --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  07:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I like commas fine, but not when an alternative expression without commas would do the job better. "Respectively" always relates at least two groups of items: in the sentence in question, "Jack and Amy" and the expression we're abbreviating to "of A and B and (of) C and D".  In my draft "respectively" is immediately adjacent to one of them, namely "Jack and Amy".   I think that's a better choice because the short expression "Jack and Amy" has no substructure and we don't need to use commas to show how a one-word adverb relates to it.  But of course "better" is a matter of opinion. --174.88.134.249 (talk) 04:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, I already said respectively "always pertains to multiple items or groups of items". And it refers back to previously mentioned multiple items, which in this case are "Jack and Amy". The two groups of items in this case are (1) A and B, and (2) C and D, and the word "respectively" belongs adjacent to them, not adjacent to "Jack and Amy".  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  09:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd make it more like "...Jack, upholding the principles of individuality and free thought, and Amy, upholding the principles of tyranny and authority." —Tamfang (talk) 07:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Strange Translation (presumably from Hausa)
"My dad was a pastor; Boko Haram went to our house and killed him. They also shot my mum in the stomach; they gave her 2,000 Naira ($12) to have the bullet."

Who exactly is receiving the bullet at the end of all this? Are they paying her to give the bullet back (which is now useless), or are they paying her an additional fee for the 'privilege' of shooting her, so to speak? KägeTorä - (影虎) (Chin Wag) 04:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Are you certain the last 'they' still refers to Boko Haram? Couldn't that last 'they' stand for something like 'the authorities' or some other undefined 'they'? Maybe the whole sentence means something like: "My dad was a pastor. BH went to our house and killed him. BH also shot my mum in the stomach. She was given 2000 Naira to have the bullet [taken out]." Is there any chance that could be what's intended? For the others, for context, this is the source. See what you can do with that. Contact Basemetal here 04:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure why any authorities would pay to operate on someone, even for forensic reasons, but here is the original article. The actual sentence is below the 6th picture. KägeTorä - (影虎) (Chin Wag) 04:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I meant maybe given her mum money so her mum could pay the doctor to have the bullet extracted. Don't know. Just trying to make sense of this. The idea that BH pays people to shoot them is even harder to understand but who knows. Strange country. Note I'd already given a link to the BBC page in my answer but thanks. Contact Basemetal here 05:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You hadn't given the link. Otherwise I wouldn't have done it myself. You added it after I gave the link. Just a quick look at the page's edit history would reveal that. But thanks for 'doubling-up' for me. KägeTorä - (影虎) (Chin Wag) 06:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Not that it matters but the edit where I gave the link is older than the edit where you have the link by 3 minutes. Contact Basemetal here 06:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Sorry about that. You must have put it in while I was typing, then. For some reason, recently, we are not getting so many edit conflicts. They still happen sometimes, but I've noticed that I can write an answer in, and then when I save, someone else has already written an answer. Previously that would cause an edit conflict. Something must have been changed. Anyway, as I say, thanks for putting the link in, and taking the time to find it. KägeTorä - (影虎) (Chin Wag) 16:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I have no idea about Hausa, but give and take are often the same word, more like "exchange" in many languages. (PIE *ghabh beocmes "have" in Latin and "give" in English.) So it may mean they charged her $12 for the bullet. That article's cartoon depiction of Boko Haram as some sort of cool star-wars type desert warriors has got to be the most disgusting thing I have seen in months. μηδείς (talk) 05:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Word Query 2
Yello!

Need help from hot women and awesome men again!

Non-manipulated/unmanipulated: The internet says both are acceptable, but Ms Word & Wikipedia rejects unmanipulated (creates red wavy line underneath).

Bit: How shall I say, “the mother kept on bitting her child”. The word ‘bitting’ creates red wavy line underneath it in MS word & Wikipedia.

Mediumship: Wikipedians type the word ‘mediumship’ in their article(s), make sense in a way. MS Word & Wikipedia rejects the word (creates red wavy line underneath). Who shall I believe?

Ofcourse: Creates red wavy line underneath it. Note: Some dictionaries do elaborate this word.

What do you peeps suggest I do/use?

(Russell.mo (talk) 06:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC))


 * I've never heard of either "non-manipulated" or "unmanipulated".
 * The present participle of "to bite" is "biting", not "bitting".
 * "Mediumship" is a legitimate word.
 * There's no such word as "ofcourse"; someone has mistyped the 2-word expression "of course". --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  07:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * If you are troubled by these questions, you should consult an actual print dictionary. The presence of a word on the Internet indicates only that a million monkeys typing will generate the word, and says little about how those monkeys should spell the word if they wish to be thought literate. MS Word's built-in dictionary is no substitute for a real dictionary. The fact that Wikipedia does't contain an article on a given word (which is all that a red link means in Wikipedia) doesn't necessarily indicate whether that word is spelled correctly or not.
 * In any case, "bitting" is not the correct spelling in the sentence you give, it should be "biting." "Ofcourse" is not a standard English word; you want to use "Of course."
 * For your other questions, a good dictionary should help you with an answer. "Mediumship" appears in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, which will also tell you that the first known occurrence of the word was in 1856. You won't find as straightforward an answer on the question of "unmanipulated" vs. "non-manipulated", as these are compounds.  Experience suggests that both words are used, and which is used may be a question of style or emphasis. I believe "unmanipulated" is more common.  - Nunh-huh 07:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * When he says that Wikipedia "creates [a] red wavy line underneath", he doesn't mean that the word itself is a redlink. He's talking about the automatic spellcheck property of Internet Explorer (or perhaps some other browser) which puts a wavy red line under a misspelled word in the WP text box. --Viennese Waltz 08:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec) I'm afraid that here you'll only find awesome women and hot men :-(. 1. Unmanipulated isn't in most of the dictionaries, so use non-manipulated. 2. Biting is using your teeth to eat food or hurt a person. Bitting is putting a bit into the mouth of a horse. Bitting could also be something to do with a computer key. I think you probably mean "biting" although we hope that mothers don't keep on dong that to their children. 3. Mediumship is the condition of being a medium. If that's what you mean, it's fine. 4. Ofcourse is a misspelling. Should be "of course", two separate words. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * If you don't have access to a good paper dictionary, there are some available free on-line, including our sister project Wiktionary.   D b f i r s   07:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Do you mean 'The mother kept on hitting her child'?Widneymanor (talk) 11:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Good one, you just made everyone look like donuts, including myself. Yes bitting as in ‘knocking the f _ _ _ out!’ Not as in ‘biting an apple’.
 * I thought the same about the unmanipulated/non-manipulated word, I guess I have to go with what mentioned since it goes with the sentence I'm trying to use it with. Received votes by you two in other words for the word 'non-manipulated'.
 * I’ll check out the Wiktionary thanks.
 * Realistically guys, I do need live advice, what I am/have received from all of you; more than one point of view and so on. It filters the CO2 in my brain. Some of the words I mentioned, I have checked or was aware from before, just filtering the air in my brain to be honest.
 * Last confusion to clear for this topic, 'Of course' meaning 'of the hook/direction', I'm looking for the word 'Ofcourse' as in 'certainly'. mentioned someone mistyped, I saw it in a dictionary (hard copy){when I was young} once, I can't find it anymore anywhere. They use to use it in books too. I also read it when I was young. Now a days, in between 12 years the word has changed from 'ofcourse to 'of course'. Thats why I asked.


 * (Russell.mo (talk) 15:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC))


 * If you ever saw "ofcourse" in a dictionary, then please immediately burn that dictionary, as it's worth more to you as a fire starter than as any help with words. I dispute that "they use to use it in books" and "the word has changed from ofcourse to of course".  That is just not the case.  If you can prove me wrong, I will pay you a large amount of money.  Same with "alot" and "incase" - no such words.  Why there's this epidemic of concatenating these and other two-word expressions into one word formulations, escapes me.


 * Now, on top of that, you're confusing "of" and "off". When you say Of course meaning of the hook/direction, what you really mean is Off course meaning off the hook/direction.  It's analogous to The apple has fallen off the table, not of the table.  I thought of "off course" when I replied above, but I decided not to mention it as I thought it would confuse matters.  Little did I realise that someone's grey matter was already confused.  :)  'Ofcourse' as in 'certainly' is indeed spelt "of course".  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  18:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * And how dare people write horrible contractions like "altogether" and "although" and "inside". --ColinFine (talk) 18:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If I may pedantically correct your spelling, you should have written:
 * An d ho w da re pe ople wri te hor rib le con tract ions li ke "altogether" an d "although" an d "inside"?
 * T he quest ion ma rk a t t he e nd i s man da to ry. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Lol. I've also had issues in the past with the two new words you mentioned. Thank you for making me understand the difference too. Kind regards. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 05:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC))


 * Do you mean beating? —Tamfang (talk) 07:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * If you believe The Philosophy of Time Travel, there are Manipulated Dead (which can travel through the Fourth Dimensional Construct) and Manipulated Living (which cannot). The only one not manipulated by God is the Living Receiver, though he is manipulated by the Manipulated. So that might explain why "unmanipulated" or "non-manipulated" are not words for people. Perhaps "godly" is a synonym. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Lol. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 23:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC))

Sentence correction
Does these sentences below make sense?


 * bla bla... This acknowledgement acquired by the age of 7/8.
 * “if it is rightfully his” or “If it is righteously his", then he could use.

(Russell.mo (talk) 15:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC))
 * Both could conceivably be clauses of a sentence, given the right context, but neither is actually a sentence the first is not a sentence, and neither of the two options under the second bullet are intelligible without further clarification. "If it is rightfully his, then he could use" is technically a grammatically complete sentence, but it is effectively meaningless, since we don't know what the "it" referred to is, and the verb "use" has no object. Evan (talk&#124;contribs) 17:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Russell: It definitely would be a good idea to present whole sentences. It's easier to answer such questions in context. In the meantime: "This acknowledg(e)ment acquired by the age of 7 or 8..." could conceivably be part of a grammatical sentence although an acknowledg(e)ment is more usually 'received' or 'given' than 'acquired'. "If it is rightfully his ... then he could use ..." seems ok. But not normally "If it is righteously his...". I've never heard that something could 'righteously' belong to someone. At least you'd have to stretch the language. <font style="color:#C0C0C0;font-family:Courier New;">Contact <font style="color:blue;font-family:Courier-New;">Basemetal <font style="color:red;font-family:Courier-New;">here 18:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * True!
 * I know the meanings, I wanted to mean "he gained/understood the complete knowledge fully which was provided by them", in the shortest way since the one's who were teaching were aforementioned in the paragraph. Maybe I'll just write, "He acquired the knowledge what was taught by the age of 7 or 8", instead of making things complicated. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 06:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC))
 * Acknowledgement had a meaning closer to "recognition" than "knowledge". "The knowledge acquired by the age of 8" would seem to convey your point much more accurately. MChesterMC (talk) 09:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! -- (Russell.mo (talk) 11:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC))


 * If the two examples are unconnected, "righteously his" is acceptable when uttered by either a '60s hippie or a priest. Otherwise, "rightfully" is the way to go. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'm talking about angels and devils, I guess it enters the priest category. Beside Whatever is considered 'old' English. I'm quite into old English. I think they use to speak formally and in a clever way, not like nowadays where we've mixed with foreigners so much that we've began to talk half broken English or so called modern English.
 * I'm quite into 'old' English words and sentences. Any idea how I can improve in regards to this matter? I am currently reading a lot nowadays, which improved 10% of my knowledge, e.g., saith, hadth, ye, thee, thy. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 06:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC))
 * For old English (as opposed to Middle English and Old English) you might read Shakespeare and the 1611 version of the bible (called the King James, or Authorised version). It's "hath" by the way, not "hadth". These old words should not be used in modern English unless you intend to sound archaic.  ( Also, just to help, and not intending to "nit-pick", the past participle of the verb "to begin" is begun; "began" is the simple past. Some native speakers of English get confused by this irregular verb. )    D b f i r s   13:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has an article saying hadth. I don't know where it is now and I can't really look for it now.
 * And when you are correcting my English, I'm more than grateful, appreciate it & happy. Thank you. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC))
 * No, "hadth" is not a word in the English language. It does not appear in Wikipedia except as a foreign name and a typing error.  It does not appear in Wiktionary, nor even in the biggest edition of the Oxford English Dictionary.    D b f i r s   18:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Could be a typing error. I'll post it if I come across it again. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 23:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC))

I'll insert a full sentence next time. Thanks guys. I think I'm clear for now and had a little more understanding. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 06:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC))

Huzur
Does anyone knows what it means? It is used mainly to call a Muslim priest, quite common in Bangladesh, India and Pakistan. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 15:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC))


 * First off, Muslims would generally deny that they have "priests" in any sense of those with a special sacramental or sacrificial role, or privileged to participate in religious rituals denied to the ordinary believer. However, in Arabic حضور means "presence", if that's relevant... AnonMoos (talk) 17:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The people who deny, they don't have common sense. Its the same thing in every religion but with different title. They all do similar work one way or the other, e.g., Praying together, seeking advice's and so on. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 07:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC))


 * This is really not the place to debate theological concepts at length, but unfortunately for you, there is a significant difference between such roles as prayer leader, pastoral counselor, interpreter of religious law etc., vs. the most specific and significant definitions of the word "priest"... AnonMoos (talk) 23:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Huzur or Huzoor (Dev. हुज़ूर) may be used in Bangladesh, India and Pakistan as an equivalent to 'Sir' or 'Lord'. It ulimately comes from Arabic ḥuḍūr حضور which means 'presence' as AnonMoos mentioned. Note that, even though it comes from Arabic, its use is not restricted to Muslims or to address Muslims. But conceivably some Muslim dignitaries are customarily addressed that way in the area. They don't have to be the equivalent of Christian 'priests'. Russell may have used that term loosely anyway. It's true that there aren't priests in Islam but I've heard Sunni muslims accuse the Shi'i of having a 'clergy' "like the Christians". <font style="color:#C0C0C0;font-family:Courier New;">Contact <font style="color:blue;font-family:Courier-New;">Basemetal <font style="color:red;font-family:Courier-New;">here 18:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * A piece of trivia regarding the ḍād, the sound ض‎  in the middle of  حضور  ḥuḍūr: in classical Arabic it was a very peculiar sound, so special to Arabic that Arab grammarians referred to Arabic as "the language of the ḍād"  لـغـة الـضـاد  "lughat al-ḍād" (you can also find "lugatu l-ḍād" from sticklers for grammar, the final vowel u being the mark of the subject, and of course the l is assimilated to the following ḍ: the pronunciation is actually "lughat aḍ-ḍād" or "lugatu ḍ-ḍād"). That sound seems to have turned into z in Farsi and then Hindi/Urdu that got most of its Arabic through Farsi. Hence what you see above. In modern Arabic that sound is mostly a voiced counterpart to ṭāʼ  ط , but that wasn't its original pronunciation (which was not preserved anywhere not even when reading the Qur'an). You can read all about it in article Ḍād. <font style="color:#C0C0C0;font-family:Courier New;">Contact <font style="color:blue;font-family:Courier-New;">Basemetal <font style="color:red;font-family:Courier-New;">here 20:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The sounds of ض and ظ merged in spoken Arabic dialects centuries ago, and are now only kept apart in tajwid or tajwid-influenced pronunciations. I don't know anything about Farsi or Urdu other than what's in the articles in The World's Major Languages (ISBN 0-19-506511-5), but that source indicates that both Arabic ض and ظ appear as [z] in both languages, and I wouldn't have expected something else... AnonMoos (talk) 00:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I kind of know its called 'Sir' but didn't know it was called 'Lord', I've done a bit of research before posting. One issue with the countries aforementioned, they speak Arabic language without knowing the meaning; not fluently, just the Qur'anic bits and during prayer (Salah), and while reading the Qur'an. They have adopted many words what means something but they define in other ways. Huzur/Huzoor what is truely pronounced in Arabic 'Hudur' in this sense, they mean particularly a religious person who's competent in teaching Qur'an or a person from the mosque.
 * About the 'd' to 'z', I know what you mean, usually 'Fadr' & 'Dhuhr' (Morning and afternoon Salah) is classified as 'Fazr' & 'Zuhr' in the countries aforementioned. I think 'd' is the formal one!
 * Thanks guys, I guess I have to, slightly, work my way round in this matter. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 07:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC))
 * Any idea why the 1st Imam (Hudur) is Obese, 2nd Imam (Hudur) is fat, and the 3rd one is a twig? It's common worldwide. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 07:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC))
 * No. Why? <font style="color:#C0C0C0;font-family:Courier New;">Contact <font style="color:blue;font-family:Courier-New;">Basemetal <font style="color:red;font-family:Courier-New;">here 10:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Wondering because its a common thing in most mosques. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 11:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC))

'...'
What does this mean?

Love…The other. This “…” is conjoined with the left and right word. Many Wikipedia articles use sentences like this. (Ignore the words I mentioned to define the question) -- (Russell.mo (talk) 15:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC))
 * See Ellipsis. Deor (talk) 15:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Different people's usage varies regarding whether an ellipsis has spaces before and/or after. For Wikipedia's style guide on the subject, see WP:MOS ("ellipses" is the plural of "ellipsis") and specifically the subsection on "function and implementation". --174.88.134.249 (talk) 05:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! -- (Russell.mo (talk) 07:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC))

Soviet Rally Cry
I have a PC wargame set in Stalingrad in WW2. At the beginning of each turn, forces on both sides attempt to 'rally' by throwing two dice. If the dice are successful, they rally, and each side has their own distinctive rally cry. The Russian one sounds like they are shouting 'Huzzah!' or something, which is bizarre for me, as Russian does not have an 'h'. Can anyone guess what it might be? Not sure if this is relevant, but in the game, the soldiers on both sides speak English, but with accents relevant to their nationalities (German, Romanian, Hungarian, and Russian). Maybe this 'huzzah' is an English word I am not familiar with. Also, it's is definitely a 'z' or 's' in the middle, and not 'hurrah'. <font face="MV Boli" color="blue">KägeTorä - (影虎) (Chin Wag) 16:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've not played the game, so I don't know what the Russians are saying, but we do have an article (Huzzah) on the English exclamation. Deor (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is amazing... Thanks, Deor! I owe you a pint. <font face="MV Boli" color="blue">KägeTorä - (影虎) (Chin Wag) 16:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * And as you can see by clicking on the interwiki link there, the Russian equivalent is Ура! ("Ura!"). — Kpalion(talk) 17:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I actually did know that, because in most of my games, the soldiers speak their native languages. This is why I was confused about 'huzzah'. Thanks, anyway. <font face="MV Boli" color="blue">KägeTorä - (影虎) (Chin Wag) 03:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)