Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2014 September 8

= September 8 =

"C.S.C. men" (U.S. Navy)
What did the term "C.S.C." or the phrase "C.S.C. man" refer to in U.S. Navy terminology? I have seen it used in writings from about 100 years ago, and it seems to be some sort of a rank or grade, but I can't find any reference to what it stands for. (It appears unrelated to "Culinary Specialist Chief" is which is a much more recent designation.) Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * There's Command Senior Chief, which would appear to be a variety of petty officer. Not sure how old the designation is though. DuncanHill (talk) 00:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Scrub that, seems to be rather new according to Senior chief petty officer. DuncanHill (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The story I am looking at is from 1913, and Googling turns up uses in the 1910s and 1920s. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * There's a CSC on this list (PDF) as Commissaryman Chief Petty Officer. Debouch (talk) 10:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

"Mystery Wrapped in an Enigma" quote origin - Sarcasm?
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma, but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest." --Winston Churchill

Is Churchill being sarcastic in the first half of this quote? 98.27.241.101 (talk) 01:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I've never read it as sarcasm - do you have any reason to? DuncanHill (talk) 01:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * No, not sarcastic. CBHA (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

It's just the amount of repetition via homonyms, people tend to do that to me when being sarcastic. In addition, he follows the whole thing up with saying a strategy with which he could forecast the actions of Russia. 98.27.241.101 (talk) 12:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * He states that he cannot forecast Russia's actions, then says why - emphasising just how difficult such a forecast would be. He then says that Russia's self-interest may be a clue - Russia will probably do what Russia regards as being in its own best interest. No hint of sarcasm. DuncanHill (talk) 14:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Hard to know what you mean as the "first half" of the quote, but assuming you mean the "riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma", it's an eloquent example of hyperbole. In some respects, it's the opposite of sarcasm. Sarcasm is saying the opposite of what you mean (when someone drops something, saying "oh, well done!") and hyperbole is when you absolutely believe what you're saying, albeit that you know you're deliberately overstated the case. --Dweller (talk) 15:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Lisa Simpson was being funny (though not sarcastic) when she added "...wrapped in a vest" to that description of Nelson in "Lisa's Date With Density". But Churchill was dead serious, it seems. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There was once a New Yorker cartoon showing a mystery wrapped in an enigma served on a bed of lettuce. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not an Enigma, this is an Enigma! What is it, then? I say it's spinach, and I say the hell with it. --65.94.51.64 (talk) 18:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Would you like/Do you want
Why is it more polite to ask someone "Would you like (cream in your coffee, the receipt for your purchase, a glass of whiskey)? than "Do you want (the same things)."  The "would you" form seems like there should be a condition or more information added at the end: "Would you like the receipt for your purchase, since there are no returns without the receipt." "Would you like a glass of whiskey? My treat" "Would you like cream in your coffee, since the coffee is extremely hot and quite strong?" But the "would you" is commonly used without any special conditions added. Edison (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Speculating, but I think it's an extrapolation from I would like being more polite than I want, which is pretty self-explanatory.
 * Interestingly, in Italian, it's not so. Yes, you still say "I would like" (vorrei or prenderei volentieri) rather than "I want" (voglio); this is probably even more important than it is in English.  But you never use the conditional when offering something.  That would make it sound like "I haven't decided whether I'm going to let you have any cream for your coffee, but if I did so decide, would you like some?". --Trovatore (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Using a non-declarative (conditional, subjunctive) form to indicate politeness (Fr. Voudriez vous...?) (Hätten Sie gern...?) seems like at least a Standard Average European Sprachbund phenomenon, if not a universal. Languages from Japanese to those of SE Asia tend to have specific polite forms, I have a cursory knowledge, so someone else might comment on how it's encoded. μηδείς (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, as I explained, it does not seem to be true in Italian, not when making an offer in the second person. Or at least that's how I was taught. --Trovatore (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't doubting you. Compare:  Spanish is a bit odd, using the past subjunctive to express a polite request in the first person, and the conditional in the second person.  This leads to weird issues with tense agreement, since politely asking someone to do something requires both verbs be in the past subjuncive: (from how.com)
 * Quisiera dos manzanas. (I would like two apples.) past subjunctive
 * Quisiera que salieras. (I would like you to leave.) both verbs in past subjunctive
 * ¿Querrías darme dos manzanas? (Would you like to give me two apples?) present conditional
 * So we find English uses a periphrastic, French the conditional, German the past subjunctive, and Spanish the past subjunctive and the conditional present. μηδείς (talk) 23:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Politeness aside, liking something and wanting it are two different things. "Wanting" is actively seeking (#1) something you'd like. You can have the same thing fall in your lap, without wanting it to happen.


 * So politeness not aside, asking whether someone wants something (subtly) implies the question "What are you willing to give for it?" Asking if they'd like it either implies what they get is a gift, or their answer has no bearing on whether they'll get it. "Would you like ketchup in your coffee?" can be asked simply to figure out if that's something one should consider offering at a store (the answer is no). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * We do have an article on honorifics, and Honorific speech in Japanese is quite interesting, showing complicated possibilities in verb forms. But we don't seem to have an article on polite speech but it gets a lot of search hits on-wiki. μηδείς (talk) 00:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * My great aunt (born pre WW1) from the south of Scotland used to offer a drink with "You don't want any sherry do you?" - which the family thinks of as just her own idiosyncrasy but perhaps it wasn't? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * In Finnish, the Turku dialect uses a similar construct. Whereas standard Finnish would say Haluatko sherryä? ("Do you want some sherry?") or Haluaisitko sherryä? ("Would you want some sherry"), the Turku dialect would say Et sä sherryä halua? ("You don't want any sherry?"). J I P  &#124; Talk 10:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The same is normal in colloquial Russian (any dialect): Чайку не хочешь выпить? "You don't want to drink a coup of tea?"--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 07:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Чайку
I thought чайка meant "seagull", Lyuboslov. Is it also the diminutive for чай, "tea"? --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  09:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ha-ha, thanks for making me smile. When the Russian language confuses foreigners is sometimes funny. Yes, colloquial for "tea": чаёк, чайку́, чайка́, чайко́м, (о) чайќе . Ча́йка "seagull" is always stressed on the first syllable and declines differently. Context also helps.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 12:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I always think of Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky as "Mr Seagull", but now I won't be able to get the idea of "Mr Cup of Tea" out of my head. Thanks for nothing.  :)  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * while you're at it, could you also tell why it's not не хочешь выпить (кого-что -- Acc.) - чайкА чаёк? I speak Russian and I don't know! I was thinking about how I would answer Jack's question so I declined the noun чаёк in my head and then it struck me, hey, чайкУ is in the "wrong" case, yet that's indeed how people say it... Asmrulz (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * See §1179-1183.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 08:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * cool, thanks! (and yes, it's Gen., not Acc.) Asmrulz (talk) 11:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Is that the effect of не, not? That word often requires the object to be in Gen rather than Acc, but not in all cases.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do with не. Properly speaking, it is not the genitive but the Russian partitive case.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 15:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Is there a "Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level"-type readability measure for individual words?
I think most of us are familiar with the Flesch-Kincaid readability test, one of which assigns to passages of text an approximate grade level (as in students at what year of education would understand it well). However, I was wondering if there were a similar rating system for what level of education would be required to understand individual words. Does such a scale or test exist? Abyssal (talk) 19:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There are indeed various lists of words sorted by grade level (see here, for example), and some such lists are used in some readability formulas (see Dale–Chall readability formula), but frankly I wouldn't place much credence in any of them. The comprehension of individual words, both in and out of context, is so idiosyncratic and dependent on experience that I doubt that any such lists can be anything more than rough guides intended to pacify and delude teachers. Comprehension of individual words is (or was; it's been many years since I've taken the test) also tested on the SATs, but, again, I doubt that such testing has much value, if any. Deor (talk) 10:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Unable to write concisely. Unable to define problem for more informative title.
There is something I struggle to write concisely in my logbook (record of science experiments).

What I wish to communicate is that:


 * 50 ul of sample 1 were added to each of two separate wells.
 * 50 ul of sample 2 were added to each of two separate wells (distinct from the wells used already).
 * 50 ul of sample 3 were added to each of four separate wells (distinct from the wells used already).
 * 50 ul of sample 4 were added to each of four separate wells (distinct from the wells used already).
 * 50 ul of sample 5 were added to each of four separate wells (distinct from the wells used already).
 * 50 ul of sample 6 were added to each of four separate wells (distinct from the wells used already).
 * 50 ul of sample 7 were added to each of four separate wells (distinct from the wells used already).
 * 50 ul of sample 8 were added to each of four separate wells (distinct from the wells used already).

When I try to write this concisely I get:

50 ul of each of samples 1 and 2 were added to each of two separate wells.... wrong... this suggests there were two wells when there were four.

50 ul of each of samples 1 and 2 were added to each of four separate wells.... wrong... this suggests that 50 ul of samples 1 and 2 were added to the same four wells when I actually used two sets of two.

How do I write this concisely in a couple of sentences? Thanks. 129.215.47.59 (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I defy anyone to communicate that information accurately, in significantly less space, in a way that is comprehensible to the reader. I'd be inclined to (1) leave it as is, or (2) create a simple diagram showing the 28 wells and the volume of each sample in each. A 4x7 matrix would work nicely. Since all samples are the same size, I might omit them from the diagram and add a note, "All samples were 50 ul". &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * (e/c)Is it possible to designate or number the wells? "50 ul of sample 1 were added to well W1 and W2, 50 ul of sample 2 were added to well W3 and W4..." And so on. Matt Deres (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * (e/c) The first comment I'd make is to remove all instances of the word "separate". If you're adding something to each of X wells, what are the options?  Either they're separate wells, or they're identical wells (meaning the same well).  You've probably been exposed to media-jabber such as "There have been 378 separate road accidents just in the first week of the year".  If not separate accidents, were they all the same accident occurring 378 times?  Hmm..  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Then, you could replace "four separate wells (distinct from the wells used already)" with "four new wells". --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Here you go. A picture (diagram) is worth a thousand words.

Eight samples were added to 28 wells as follows, 50 ul in each well. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss (talk) 22:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * How about: "50 ul aliquots of each sample were added to separate wells. Two aliquots were taken from Samples 1 and 2, four aliquots from Samples 3 to 8."? Tevildo (talk) 23:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Slightly more verbose, but with no possible ambiguity: "A number of 50 ul aliquots of each sample were taken. Each aliquot was added to a separate well.  Two aliquots were taken from Sample 1, two from Sample 2, four from Sample 3, four from Sample 4, four from Sample 5, four from Sample 6, four from Sample 7, and four from Sample 8." Tevildo (talk) 23:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * [(This message is addressed to the original poster.) Inputting   on Wikipedia produces 𝜇 (micro-).
 * —Wavelength (talk) 01:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)]


 * I did not know that, but somehow I get by with the HTML code “ ”. —Tamfang (talk) 08:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't see why this is so difficult, just go with something like "50 ul of sample was added to each well (samples 1-2, n=2, samples 3-8, n=4)". This isn't literature, it doesn't need to be pretty, it needs to be concise and accurate. It's pointless to mention separate wells etc, as of course you're not going to mix your sample, and if you were crazy enough to do that, you'd explicitly mention that. 131.251.254.110 (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * "Samples 1-2 were added to 2 wells each, and samples 3-8 to 4 wells each, such that none were added to the same well. Each well received 50 μL."   StuRat (talk) 12:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)