Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2015 June 29

= June 29 =

Media use of the word "alleged" to describe suspected criminals when the crime is escaping from prison
Can someone please explain why the media are so conscientious and so careful to describe criminal defendants and criminal suspects as merely "alleged". (For example, the media will never say "He committed murder." They will say "He allegedly committed murder." or "The police authorities claim that he committed murder.")  They (the media) are always couching their language in careful phrases. The media tries to be so careful, that they often go overboard with the use of the words "alleged" and "allegedly". I have a follow-up question, but I'd like to hear input on this question first. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Does it really need to be explained why the media doesn't assert that someone has committed a crime until they are convicted of it? What do you think libel laws are for? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * There was a time when the media did exactly that - for example, to announce the arrest of "the killer", with no qualification. And if they got it wrong, it was very harmful to all. Nowadays, they do like Wikipedia does - attribute it to whoever said it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * A couple of sources: Am I protected if I use the word "alleged" in crime stories? and Newswriting for radio: The Basics: Charges and Allegations. The last sentence of the second source might be helpful: "Not only is it unethical to describe [someone not yet convicted of a crime] as, say, a "murderer" or "embezzler" without the qualification of words like "accused" and "alleged," but such descriptions could turn you into a defendant yourself -- for libel." - Cucumber Mike (talk) 08:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * What they should really be saying is "the alleged killer of the allegedly murdered person" - or something like that. Murder too is alleged before being proved. But that gets rather wordy. The media does talk about "alleged victims" and "alleged murder". Myrvin (talk) 09:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The language gets somewhat confusing with examples like "an East Bexar County woman allegedly was shot and killed by her husband." I assume there is little doubt that she was shot and killed, the allegedly refers to the husband's guilt. Myrvin (talk) 10:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I think I occasionally see that someone has been charged with allegedly murdering someone. See the photo caption here ; and . People are charged with murder, not alleged murder. Myrvin (talk) 10:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You also get the papers saying that someone was allegedly charged with something. . That's the writers getting their alleged knickers in a twist. Myrvin (talk) 10:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Another approach is the use of what I think are called "scare quotes", for example "'Neighbour killed my dog', accuser alleges". 87.81.147.76 (talk) 11:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If you're actually quoting someone, it's not scare quotes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Right. Scare quotes are the kind that mean "someone else calls it this, but I wouldn't normally use the word". For example: The "town" consisted of a few houses and one store. --70.49.171.136 (talk) 21:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Or "city". Yes, although a usage like that is more funny than scary. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Still "scary", though. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * How so? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with "alleged", when used correctly. What I don't like is when they say "he was proven guilty in a court of law".  To me, that should be "found guilty", as what happens in a court in no way qualifies as "proof". StuRat (talk) 13:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree in general. But this is legal proof. I shall be more careful. Myrvin (talk) 13:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, that term is a bad one, implying a level of certainty that just isn't possible in many cases. Maybe in a case where all parties agree on what happened, and they have film of it happening, and lots of other evidence, then it may approach actual proof, not just "legal proof".  Otherwise, "legal finding" seems like a safer description. StuRat (talk) 20:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "The state will prove..." But factually it's still best to say "found guilty" or "found not guilty". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I see that, when it's simple reportage, but also in Wikipedia discussions I see people quoting other editors and putting quotes round their actual words and then they get berated because the person quoted thinks it's done to belittle their comment and calls it "scare quotes".  Also it sometimes seems to be done to indicate that the words are not to be taken in their normal sense. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 15:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * That would be a not uncommon usage on Wikipedia talk pages, yes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Follow up question
Thanks, all. As I indicated in my original question, I would be following up. So, we all pretty much agree that when the media is describing a criminal suspect or a criminal defendant, they (legally) have to use the word "alleged" (e.g., to prevent lawsuits of libel, slander, or defamation; and also as a matter of journalistic ethics). I assume we are all (generally) on the same page with that. So, here's my question. When those two guys in New York (allegedly?) escaped from prison, the media had no problem whatsoever saying that they escaped, calling them escapees, etc. They point blank said it, many times, with no concern for the word "alleged". They escaped (not allegedly escaped) from prison. They stole (not allegedly stole) items from those cottages. They burglarized (not allegedly burglarized) those cottages. Etc. Etc. Etc. So, why is that case any different? The men were accused of (not found guilty of) the crime of escaping from prison and the other crimes. They are "innocent until proven guilty" of those crimes, just as are all of the other (alleged) murderers, rapists, thieves, bank robbers, etc., of the world. No? I am quite curious about this. In particular, the crime of "escape from prison". Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is CNN's story about the escape and recapture. Notice the fine line between reporting what are obvious facts (the escape and manhunt) vs. what is alleged and what is attributed to others. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * That's my point. Who is to say that the crime of escape is "obvious"?  It's no more obvious than when a mass murderer is caught red-handed at the scene (like, for example, that James Eagan Holmes in the Aurora, Colorado, movie theater).  It's not "obvious" that he committed mass murder?  The media refers to him as "alleged".  So, why are Matt and Sweat really any different?   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Killing isn't always murder, and murder isn't always killing. There's self-defense, insanity, entrapment, hired guns, bunch of other stuff lawyers and juries need to consider before making it official. Prisons have well-defined borders and prisoners have well-defined sentences. Cross the line before the time expires, that's pretty much that.
 * On top of that, killing another person is some serious shit, relative to pretty much everything else. Always has been. The damage caused by painting someone as a murderer is severe, so a potential lawsuit will cost more, and the odds of getting it wrong are higher. Higer risk plus higher potential damages equals more precaution. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This is purely academic, and I am playing the devil's advocate (for the most part). But, Sweat could say "I never wanted to escape.  The other guy (Matt) held a gun to my head and forced me to help him with his plan under threat of death." (or whatever).  Not likely, but also not impossible.  Also, there are the other crimes I mentioned.  They broke into the cabins.  They stole supplies.  Etc.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, the crime of "escape" is not as clear-cut as you may think. A defense could be duress, as I mentioned above ("I didn't want to escape, I was forced to.") Another defense could be "One of the guards told me that I could leave, so I left."  Or whatever.  My point is that the crime is still alleged.  And it might not be as obvious as things seem on the surface.  And, still, a crime being "obvious" still does not negate the fact that the person is innocent until proven guilty.  As I said above: This is purely academic, and I am playing the devil's advocate (for the most part).  But, I was still quite surprised that all of the media essentially dropped their typical "allegedly" business in this particular case.  Seems odd to me.  At least, odd enough that I posted this question. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * InedibleHulk, you stated: "On top of that, killing another person is some serious shit, relative to pretty much everything else. Always has been. The damage caused by painting someone as a murderer is severe, so a potential lawsuit will cost more, and the odds of getting it wrong are higher. Higer risk plus higher potential damages equals more precaution." Yes, of course.  But, they (the media) also use "allegedly" for other lower offenses, also.  Even if your crime is minor (i.e., petty burglary, petty larceny, shoplifting, etc.), the media will still report "allegedly".  They don't reserve that for just murder or "big" offenses.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's no fun getting sued, for any amount. So yeah, you'll see some reporters playing it totally safe. But if you have a solid legal department and a hush budget, you may be willing to play a little looser. Throwing around "terrorist" seems fine, lately. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * They don't legally have to, it's just that not doing so leaves them vulnerable to legal action. The omission isn't a crime in itself, but something their editor may likely fire them for.


 * Something like escape is way more obvious than most crimes. Saying a prisoner who isn't in prison and wasn't released has escaped is virtually a sure bet, and it's only slander if it's untrue. Very low-risk. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't want to re-type my comment above (about the crime being "obvious"). See my comment above, which is time-stamped 02:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC).  Thanks.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * In this particular case, the survivor is already in prison for life without parole, so any charges they might decide to file against him would be just for show. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Sort of. But there are ways to legally get out of prison without parole. If a governor or high court decides to overturn or commute the murder sentence, he'd still have to serve out the escape sentence. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Plus, perhaps under prison administrative rules, his life "behind the walls" will be subjected to harsher penalties (i.e., less amenities) if he has several sentences (not just one) being served.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think there is an important point here. Prison escape is a crime. This legal def. says: "In order for an individual who has been accused of escape to be convicted, all elements of the crime must be proved. Such elements are governed by the specific language of each state statute". So, the media should be saying someone allegedly escaped from prison. We shall have to wait for the court case where someone sues a paper, or sues for unlawful arrest or something. Myrvin (talk) 10:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * For the legal eagles, this seems good. Myrvin (talk) 10:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This is all pointless hair-splitting for the sake of debate. There is nothing unusual or inconsistent in not referring to Matt and Sweat as "alleged" escapees.  See this example of a story on the escape from a British newspaper . Note the phrases "Sweat and Matt used power tools to cut their way out of Clinton correctional facility" and "broke through steel walls, slipped through a steam pipe and emerged from a manhole outside the 170-year-old prison." The newspaper is reporting the facts of what they did.  They were in prison, then they weren't. Ergo, they escaped. No amount of specious "a defense could be duress" can change those basic facts. --Viennese Waltz 13:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You miss the entire point of this discussion, if that is your response. In fact, I personally knew a guy who escaped from prison.  It "looked" just like you would expect it to look.  In court, he claimed that he "ran for his life" out of fear of being raped (and the prison staff was indifferent to his predicament).  It worked.  His conviction was thrown out.  Legally, he did not escape.  (That is, he did escape, but with a defense / justification.)  Therefore, he did not commit the "crime" of escape.  (I could find the legal cite, when I have time to look.)   So, I don't understand your comment: "No amount of specious "a defense could be duress" can change those basic facts."  A defense does not change facts.  It can – and does – offer reasons (i.e., defenses) to legally ascertain that the person maybe did the conduct, but did not commit the "crime".  (That is, his conduct did not meet the elements of the crime and/or there was justification.)  This is no different than self-defense.  I'd say: "Yes, I killed that guy.  But it was in self-defense.  Therefore, I did the killing.  But I am not legally guilty of the crime of murder."  Same thing.  As in the case I described.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * When a newspaper writes "He escaped from prison", they're not talking about the crime of escape. They're just reporting the fact that he escaped from prison, i.e. one minute he was there and the next minute he wasn't.  Nothing to do with guilt or innocence of any crime. By the way, I'd love to know where these prisons are that you can just run out of without being stopped. --Viennese Waltz 13:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You state: "When a newspaper writes "He escaped from prison", they're not talking about the crime of escape." So, you are saying that the newspaper is not using the legal definition of "escape", but rather the vernacular everyday layman's use of the word "escape".  Correct?  Then, how would that be different from the word "murder"?  There is a strict legal definition; however, there is also the vernacular everyday layman's version of that word.  So, your argument – if correct – by logic, should also apply to the media labeling a person a "murderer" before he is convicted of murder.  We know that never happens.    So, with murder, they always use "alleged".  And I can't imagine the media defending their non-use of the word "alleged" by claiming: "Oh, when we wrote up that story, we were using the vernacular everyday layman's definition of "murder".  We were not using the strict legal definition of "murder"."  Clearly, that argument would never hold water.  So why is "escape" different, according to your interpretation?   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You state: "By the way, I'd love to know where these prisons are that you can just run out of without being stopped." Good question.  Many "escapes" are not of the dramatic Sweat and Matt version.  An inmate can escape from a low/minimum security prison.  Yes, he can essentially just walk away (as the minimum security prison will likely not have "fences" or other obstacles to contain him).  In other words, it is not only a maximum security prison from which an inmate can escape.  Also, many inmates go out into the community on a work detail, for example.  (For example, in my state, they are the men you see on the highway, picking up the trash.)  An inmate can easily escape (i.e., walk away) from an outside work detail.  So, we shouldn't always associate the crime of "escape" with a maximum security prison and/or with the sensationalistic and dramatic Sweat/Matt version.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You're right. The escape is a verifiable fact. There's also the matter of "clear and present danger", which trumps any need for weasel words. Note that Spadaro was making similar hare-splitting arguments earlier this month about whether these guys would be owed the reward if they turned themselves in. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * What does a former Help Desk question about reward money have to do with this discussion? Why are you bringing that up here and now?  And, by the way, that question was indeed a valid question.  And, by the way, many legal issues do, in fact, depend on hair-splitting and parsing of words.  Were you really not aware of that?  In fact, that massive case that would either affirm or repeal Obamacare entirely hinged upon the Supreme Court's interpretation of four words (namely, "established by the State").  That is, four words from legislation that numbered in the thousands of pages.  (In the end, the Supreme Court affirmed Obamacare by mincing words and claiming that it was simply a "tax", which Congress was indeed allowed to pass.)  So, hair-splitting, parsing of words, and linguistic gymnastics are part of the legal landscape.  And part of any legal discussion.   So, what's your point exactly (above)?    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)


 * Unfair, Bugs- assume good faith. The media would be in deep trouble if they reported that Joe Smith, the murderer was at large - if he hadn't been convicted. He might even get off if there are too many reports to say he did it before he was convicted. Nevertheless, he is surely a "clear and present danger". Viennese Waltz: I think that's what the papers would argue. I'll await the court case. Myrvin (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have found an example of "alleged escape". I'm not sure it helps my case tough. Myrvin (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, in Vietnam .Myrvin (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This says that they even have "escape in the second degree". Here, a man claims he did not escape, even though "one minute he was there and the next minute he wasn't." His argument was that he didn't escape because he "was not [in] custody “imposed as a result” of his felony convictions." (p. 886) They overturned it and made it a "conviction for third degree escape".Myrvin (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This is about someone who might or might not be "guilty of the crime of escape". He was not in prison at all at the time. Myrvin (talk) 16:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think if I were a newspaper being sued for not saying "alleged escape", I would argue that I was using the word "escape" in its simple non-legal sense. I would also cite "1769 W. Blackstone Comm. Laws Eng. III. 415   When a defendant is once in custody upon this process [ca. sa.]..if he be afterwards seen at large, it is an escape.", and "1641 Rastell's Termes de la Ley (new ed.) f. 142,   Escape is where one that is arrested commeth to his liberty before that he be delivered by award of any Justice, or by order of Law." Having now argued both sides of the case, it's time to stop. Myrvin (talk) 16:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You stated: "I think if I were a newspaper being sued for not saying "alleged escape", I would argue that I was using the word "escape" in its simple non-legal sense."  Would that argument fly if the word/crime was "murder"?  Highly doubtful.  For my more detailed response to such a claim, see my above post (which is time-stamped at 05:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)).  Basically, you can't have it both ways.  The newspaper cannot "pick and choose" which crimes it wants to report in the legal sense and which crimes it wants to report in the non-legal sense.  If that were the case, anything would fly, and the media would have no restrictions whatsoever.  Which would nullify the whole concept of slander, libel, and defamation.  So, again, the media can't have it both ways.  And they can't pick and choose different definitions of words for whatever scenario suits their needs and benefits them.  They'd essentially have carte blanche to say pretty much anything.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've already made that argument because I was playing advocate for both sides. For 'escape', the media is having it both ways, and has for a while. It seems nobody has stopped them yet. They have been stopped from calling someone a murderer or a thief, before conviction, because the courts have stopped them. But not yet for 'escape'. As I said, I await the court case. Myrvin (talk) 06:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are correct. They (the media) are trying to have it both ways; they want to eat their cake and have it, too.  But, you don't have to wait for any court cases.  If there is a precedential court case for murder or theft (as you claim), then that very same court case would be applicable to escape.  In other words, you don't need to wait for a specific court case on any permutation of any crime (murder, bank robbery, kidnapping, rape, embezzlement, escape, etc., etc., etc.).  If there is a precedential case, it applies to all crimes.  You don't need a specific court case for every specific crime.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. But I don't know that it has ever happened. Myrvin (talk) 16:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * For the UK I found thia.Myrvin (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Have we thrashed this to death? Myrvin (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Does Google Translate rely on context ?
When I select the from language as French and the target language as English, it correctly translates "Trois hommes et un couffin" to "Three men and a cradle". But, when I just try to translate "couffin" it fails to translate. (And, annoyingly, Google Translate returns the same word as the translation, making it unclear whether the translation failed or whether the word is the same in the other language.) So, why is it unable to translate the word without the sentence ?

StuRat (talk) 12:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, that's because French doesn't have "couffin". It does have "un couffin", or "le couffin", "couffins", and the like. HOOTmag (talk) 13:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm confused. How can it have "a cradle" and "the cradle" without having "cradle" ? StuRat (talk) 13:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Just as English does not have "facto", although it does have "de facto". Btw, although Google translates well "Bahamas", "Gambia", Wikipedia does not have them, but rather has "The Bahamas", "The Gambia". HOOTmag (talk) 14:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Google Translate does not translate word by word, if that's what you're asking. Doing so yields gibberish. Looie496 (talk) 13:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * In that case I would expect an error saying "Single words can not be translated". While I agree that using context can improve the translation by selecting the correct meaning when multiple meanings are possible, in cases where there is a single meaning it's not an issue. StuRat (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I typed ten Portuguese words at random into Google and it correctly translated all of them.  That's not ten words all together but ten separate translations.   My only quibble would be that for the ones where Spanish has an identical word it reports "Spanish detected".   There seems to be some discrimination going on here.   Also, if you don't include the diacritics it's stumped. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 14:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I tried some inflexions and tenses and still got good results.  However, sou, which is Portuguese for "I am", produced sou - Haitian creole detected.   Directing it to Portuguese brought up the right translation.   Why wouldn't it come up with sou which I believe is a French halfpenny?   There must be some ranking involved, like their page ranking system.   I'd be interested to know how it works 87.81.147.76 (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * At https://translate.google.com/#fr/en/couffin you can click "couffin" in the right box to "see alternate translations". For "un couffin" and "une couffin" (une is female) it guesses a translation from the start – not the same guess and you can still click it to see alternatives. But for "couffin" it only says "couffin". Maybe it doesn't want to venture a guess without any context. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This gives "basket, straw basket" and ""bassinet". Myrvin (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * In Google it gives the sentence "Grand cabas souple à anses". When you put that in it translates as "Grand flexible bag with handles". Sounds like the sort of handbag in "The Importance of Being Earnest". Myrvin (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Couffin is masculine. See: https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/couffin. So it can't be "une couffin". HOOTmag (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "couffin de bebe" comes out as "bassinet for baby". Yet bebe on its own comes out as bebe, and baby in English translates to bebe in French. I think it's a glitch. 15:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's a glitch at all.  The word is bebe with an acute accent over both vowels.   Have you ever come across the acronym GIGO in programming, which means "garbage in, garbage out?" 87.81.147.76 (talk) 15:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Quite right. See this.. Myrvin (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * If you tell it you are translating from French, and there is no "bebe" without diacritical marks in French, I would hope it would provide the translation with them, instead, labelled "Did you mean ... ?". This is similar to how a Google search can fix spelling errors.  It sounds like they aren't quite there yet with the translator.  Perhaps they can just plug in the logic from a Google search as the front-end, to figure out what words were meant, before attempting the translation. StuRat (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, "couffin de bebe" no accents - gives "bassinet for baby"  Myrvin (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I hope there's an enlightening analysis somewhere (sorry for not providing one) but I just had some fun with varieties (note the punctuation marks and capitalization) such as "couffin." >> "basket." / "couffin," >> "basket," / "Couffin" >> "bassinet" / "Couffin." >> "Basket." / "Couffin," >> "basket," / "couffin couffin" >> "bassinet bassinet" / "Couffin Couffin" >> "Moses Basket Moses Basket" / ...


 * I certainly can't agree with HOOTmag that 'French doesn't have "couffin"'. Not only does it exist as a lemma, it can be read in ads selling baby cradles too, for just one example. ---Sluzzelin talk  20:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Here are some pictures. Not just a cradle. Myrvin (talk) 20:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * One surprising meaning that isn't found is a coffin. Apparently that meaning somehow developed in English from the Old French word, without it ever developing in Modern French. StuRat (talk) 20:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * What's even more surprising is that Morticia Addams didn't have a coffin-shaped bassinet for her future babies. Well, with all that driving of Gomez wild with her French, I'm sure certain things happened behind closed doors, out of view of the cameras.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I wondered about coffin. The OED has "Middle English cofin, coffyn, etc., < Old French cofin, coffin, little basket, case, etc., < Latin cophinus (later cofinus), < Greek κόϕινος basket". So, couffin may have had little effect in English. Does a French dictionary say couffin came from OF cofin? This suggests so. Myrvin (talk) 06:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The "did you mean" is switched on but you have to direct to the language to access it.  Those Portuguese words I typed in without diacritics translated nicely when I directed to Portuguese.   Estacao (no cedilha or tilde) came up estacao (with diacritics) and translated correctly as "season".   It also means "railway station" - do they only give one meaning?   I remember I was at a Spanish frontier railway station and by the tracks for some reason (they don't have raised platforms - Australia has but I believe the United States don't).   An official came  up to me and spoke to me in Spanish, which I could just about understand, but he kindly used the Portuguese word comboio to alert me to the danger. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

What is the Arabic in the title of the document?
http://www.wlcsd.org/files/1115424/student%20code%20of%20conduct%20-%20arabic_1.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6ZeNtbfFQ

What is the Arabic in the title of this document?

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It's: كراسة مجموعة قوانين سلوك وتصرفات الطالب, 2010-2011
 * i.e.: Handbook of a set of regulations for the student's behaviour and actions, 2010-2011. HOOTmag (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you! WhisperToMe (talk) 00:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Difference between 'git' and 'get'
When I was at university in Leeds, I was often called a 'Scouse git' by southerners. This was all in jest of course, but 'get' is a proper insult in Liverpool. Are there any other dialects with this distinction? KägeTorä - (影虎) ( もしもし！ ) 15:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * A get is a Hebrew divorce decree.  "Get" is a perfectly respectable English word meaning "obtain".   "Git" is an obnoxious English word whether heard in Liverpool or anywhere else. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The OED gives the first use of git from 1949. For get it says "orig. Sc. and north. In contemptuous use = brat. Also spec. a bastard; hence as a general term of abuse: a fool, idiot." Goes back to 1567. Myrvin (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * (ec) 'Git' may be obnoxious, but in the context described 'get' means the same thing. See : 'git' is a variant of 'get', meaning an illegitimate child. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * In American English, "git" is a colloquialism for "get", in the context of being short for "get out of here" or "get lost". So in the Monty Python "Argument Sketch", when Graham Chapman mutters "stupid git" after Michael Palin leaves, the meaning is lost on Americans. EO says "get" in the sense of "bastard" derives from "beget". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The pronunciation [gɪt] for get, mentioned by Bugs, is specific to certain regions of the United States. See Phonological history of English high front vowels. The pronunciation [gɪt] for comic effect may be somewhat more widespread than the pin-pen merger, but in the Northeast it is not common and would invoke regional stereotypes (e.g. of hillbillies and rednecks).  Marco polo (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As in "Git Along Little Dogies". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * In the context of Liverpool, the New Shorter Oxford Dictionary derives "get" from the middle English word meaning offspring; descendants; child (cf beget).  Then it degenerated to brat or bastard (Scotland and north) and a contemptible person, a fool, an idiot, (dialect and slang). 87.81.147.76 (talk) 16:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The term "Scouse git!" was a catchphrase of one Alf Garnett, who in Til Death Us Do Part, had a motivationally challenged Liverpudlian son-in-law. Alansplodge (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the only time I've heard "get" used as an insult, it was in reference to Sir Walter Raleigh. "Git" (as an insult) is heard a little more often in North America, but the source is usually from the UK in some manner. Matt Deres (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * We have an article about the Monkee's song Randy Scouse Git that discusses the phrase -- a great song, by the way; see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejw_LOi-nhk. Looie496 (talk) 13:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * iTunes randomly chose to play me another Monkees song (Nine Times Blue) as I read this section. —Tamfang (talk) 03:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

"Matekua tenenoro kauome kitore"? (Māori? Igbo?)
The lyrics of Dr. Alban's 1992 song Groove Machine 5 consists to 3/4 of the Māori hill's name Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateapokaiwhenuakitanatahu. But what is the last quarter probably supposed to be, in a comment cited as "Matekua tenenoro kauome kitore". I don't know whether that's Māori, Igbo (the singer's native language), gibberish, or anything else - anyone have an idea? --KnightMove (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I know a lot of Ibo people and it's not that.  It's Maori.

Ko te mea hoki kua mate, kua mawheto ia i te hara

is Romans 6 v. 7 in the Maori bible. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 18:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)