Revision as of 09:31, 12 January 2013

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

• WP:RD/L

Main page: Help searching Misplaced Pages

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

January 6

Difference between for example and for instance ?

What is difference between for example and for instance ? Where are they used ? 106.212.34.233 (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Answer to question 1 is nothing. Answer to question 2 is interchangeably. --Jayron32 18:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

They're effectively the same thing. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

For example is a bit more formal. I would not recommend the use of for instance in business or academic writing. --Nricardo (talk) 04:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

In Legal writing woo-woo, "for instance" might indicate relevance to the matter at hand to one and to only one other relevant matter. "For example" might indicate relevance to the matter at hand to one and/or to more than one other relevant matters.--Shirt58 (talk) 12:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

January 7

Eragrostis = lovegrass : why that name ?

Hello, Learned Ones !

First, all my best wishes for 2013 to all on Ref. Desk, & especially to those who care to answer my (sometimes pointless ) questions on "Humanities", «Miscellaneous», «Language», "Computers" etc...

My question : while enjoying an ethiopian meal and smearing my new pant with red sauce dribbling from the teff made injera crèpe, I wondered what the Agrostis genus has to do with love. Is it because some of its seeds clings to furs or dress ? Thanks a lot beforehand for your answers. T.y. signé Arapaima (can’t log in, I’m staying in a hotel) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.164.0.32 (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

No one knows the reason for the name—at least according to the last paragraph of the description at the top of this page, though some suggestions are reported. The English name "lovegrass" is obviously derived from the first suggested etymology. Deor (talk) 07:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Why does "unsafest" sound wrong?

Wiktionary accepts it, but it still doesn't sound like a "real word" to me. Is there an underlying "unwritten rule" of allowed English wording that I'm subconsciously applying here? 23.30.218.174 (talk) 16:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, see this section above. The rule for comparatives (-er for one syllable words and "more" for longer ones) applies to superlatives too (-est for one syllable words, and "most" for longer ones). So that is why "safest" but "most unsafe" sounds the most correct. - filelakeshoe 16:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

However, that rule doesn't explain "unhappiest", "unluckiest"... AnonMoos (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

FWIW I question the premise. "Unsafest" sounds perfectly fine to me. Firefox's spellchecker likes it too. Angr (talk) 10:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Horses for courses, Angr. You can't really question when someone says that something doesn't sound right to them, as the OP did. -- Jack of Oz 18:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think the underlying issue here is that we don't like to define things by negatives. We don't say "that was ungood" or "that was the unbest meal I have ever had." For example, "He is unmasculine" does not mean "He is feminine." So while the terms might make sense if we force them to, and they have acceptable syllabic forms, "most dangerous" is positive and unambiguous while "unsafest" is in effect a double negative. μηδείς (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • A double negative can be the most unkindest cut of all. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Subject, class, course ?

I'm a non native speaker of English, and struggling to comprehend the way the different subjects are described in secondary school ("high school") in the UK and the US. For instance, what would a student say, if he/she wanted to express his dislike of a certain subject (such as mathematics) : "I've always hated this subject/class/course" ? Or, how would a teacher describes what he/she is teaching : "in the subject/class/course that I teach the student are more interested than in mathematics ?" Thanks for your insights ! 80.13.10.56 (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, in London 40 years ago, we would have said "lesson" - for example, "What lesson have you got next?" answer; "I've got history next." "Subject" could also have been used but not "course" or "class". However, school jargon has changed over the years, I'll see if I can find a younger person to ask. Alansplodge (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it's still the same for UK usage. I don't think many of our younger generation have yet picked up the usage of "course" and "class" from American TV. "Subject" and "lesson" still predominate. "Class" means the set of students being taught. Dbfirs 09:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

In the United States, the first sentence would be "I've always hated this subject" if the speaker is referring to mathematics as a whole. If the speaker means that he or she hates trigonometry as it's being taught this year by a particular teacher, then the speaker would say "...this class". Your second sentence is a bit ungrammatical, so I'm not sure what you're looking for. If you meant to write "Students are more interested in the subject/class/course that I teach than in mathematics", then in the United States, any of those three could work, depending on what the teacher means to emphasize. If the teacher says "subject", then she (let's assume she's female so I don't have to keep typing "he or she") means that students like the field that she teaches better than mathematics, apart from her specific curriculum for that year or her teaching style. If the teacher says "course", then she means that students like the curriculum that she is teaching that year (and possibly her teaching style) better than mathematics. If she says "class", then she is implying that students like a combination of her teaching style and content. In the United States, a subject is a discipline or a field of knowledge, such as mathematics. A course is a curriculum unit within a subject. For example, 11th-Grade Trigonometry would be a mathematics course. Finally, a class is a group of students taking a course under a particular teacher. I think my information is up to date because I interact with teachers professionally. Marco polo (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I live in the Midwest US, was in high school 7 years ago and just finished college. Most often for both, I think I've just heard "I hate calc/psych/rhetoric/etc." With "I hate this X," "class" is what I'd expect to hear, but it's ambiguous between the topic, the teacher, the assignments, the students, or some combination ("I hate this class. It's interesting but no one takes it seriously." "I hate this class, I don't get stuff fast enough.") "Subject" is less common and maybe a little formal, but less ambiguous. I wouldn't expect to hear "course" in high school, just in college. With "lesson" I'd assume they're talking about that day's particular combination of topic and approach. Lsfreak (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Lsfreak about the United States, particularly on students' language. While secondary school students rarely refer to "courses", however, teachers sometimes do. Marco polo (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all ! --80.13.10.56 (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Spanish

I'm a Spanish student, I have a hard time understand this sentence: "pero cómo me les iba a ir si todos de la casa querían que fuera a la escuela." I'm more concern with the part "pero cómo me les iba a ir". What les means? I learn that it would mean something that "to them" or "to you" (many people). If I translate it by myself, it would read "but how I leave to them to go", doesn't make sense to me. 174.20.35.57 (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Are you sure there's not an infinitive verb or some other word missing? Les means "to them". Irse means "to leave" as in "to go away" but it doesn't take an object, indirect or otherwise. This sounds like a bad google translation with either an extra word or one missing. μηδείς (talk) 03:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

A quick search of Google Books shows that the sentence is taken directly from a book called Y no se lo tragó la tierra, written by Tomás Rivera and Evangelina Vigil-Piñón. It is apparently written in the narrative voice of a Chicano boy. Looie496 (talk) 04:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems to make sense - literally "But how was I going to leave them if everybody at home wanted me to go to school" but more idiomatically, "how was I supposed to leave, seeing as everyone at home wanted me at school". Context. He is not literally asking but expressing that it would be improbable that he would try to leave the school, since everyone at home (where he would presumably go if he did) expected him to be at school, in response to the previous sentence "...Y el barrendero todo asustado con la escoba en el aire, listo para aplastarme si trataba de irme." (and the janitor, all scared with the broom in the air, ready to come down on me if I tried to leave) 72.128.82.131 (talk) 04:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Still doesn't make sense to me... I know he is not actually asking a question, it works the same way in English like that. I thought "fuera" means "away or out of" then how can you translate it to "my family want me to be in school?" And I don't get the usage of the word "les", why it is not "to them" or "to you" (many people)? Let do an example: "Yo se (original is les) lo doy" would be translate as "I gave it to them." Why is "me les iba a ir" mean I leave them? It looks like it should be "I leave to them". Explain in detail please.Pendragon5 (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• • So he is a Chicano? Mexican(?) speakers like to make verbs reflexive when the standard European spanish verbs are not. It has a certain sense of 'I was made to ' or 'I decided to' or I myself .eg. me iba=> I (decided to ) to go(I went , a Spaniard would just say Yo iba or iba). The les(answering your question) seems to complement the 'todos'=>everyone.e.g. 'me les =>'everyone wanted me to .., which complements todos de la casa querían. You translated 'Como' here as 'seeing' (correct).--Jondel (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I think les here refers to the school principal and other people in the office who are contemplating a punishment for the narrator. @Pendragon: Be careful! Fuera here is not the preposition as in out, but the imperfect subjunctive of ser ir. Querer que governs the subjunctive but since the piece is written retrospectively (i.e., in the past tense) the imperfect subjunctive is used.

Jondel makes a good point, that in Mexican Spanish (and many other Latin American dialects), there is a little "looser" use of indirect object pronouns than in Castilian Spanish, not only where a physical receiver of the action is involved but also when you want to specify (vaguely) who is being affected. The same thing happens in English: you say, "I gave her the book" and 'her' is an indirect object even though it is not "to her" (though you could also say "I gave the book to her" which just illustrates the pitfalls of attempting to draw a one-to-one correspondence between languages). The verb is irse, to leave - don't even think about the me, it is an idiomatic usage. Me les iba a ir means "I was going to leave them". Personally I would have used dejar which is a little more formal but avoids the multiple pronouns. 72.128.82.131 (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Odd, I have never come across irse with an object. μηδείς (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• I still have huge problems with this. First, fuera here is obviously the past subjunctive of ir, not ser. If "to be" were meant it would be estuviera from estar, not fuera from ser. Second, even if we accept les as the indirect object, the expected form would be "pero cómo les iba a irme si todos...", not "pero cómo me les iba a ir si todos". Do we have a secondary source for this odd construction? μηδείς (talk) 05:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thats my bad; it is ir and not ser. As to the construction, my perception of Latin American Spanish speakers (granted, primarily Puerto Ricans) is that they prefer to keep pronouns together, and though I am not a native speaker, "pero cómo les iba a irme si todos..." sounds extremely odd to my ears. 72.128.82.131 (talk) 23:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

January 8

Is "renowned" derived from a verb?

Greetings.

I just made this edit, with the edit summary: "renown" is a noun; what we need here is a verbal adjective, "renowned".

Then I got to wondering. If "renowned" is verbal, there must be a verb that relates to it. It sounds like it's the past participle of "to renown", except I've never heard of anyone "renowning" something/body. I checked renowned in wiktionary and my own trusty dictionary, and they just say it's an adjective, with no mention of any related verb.

I'm guessing the form "renowned" came into existence when there was a verb, but that verb vanished so long ago that it's not even recorded as ancient or obsolete. Am I on the right track here? if not, how do we explain the the –ed ending? Are there any other adjectives in the English language that end in –ed but are not derived from verbs?

PS. After I wrote the above, I checked the archives and found this thread, where I referred to "famed doctors". So there's another example of an adjective with an –ed ending but without a corresponding verb. "Reputed" would be another, unless one can repute something. Now I'm guessing there's probably a whole class of such words.

Any clues about the above, O renowned colleagues? -- Jack of Oz 07:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes, it's derived from a verb, meaning "to make famous". But the loop seems to be the verb "renown" to "renowned" ("famous") and then back to the noun "renown". Fun one. --jpgordon 08:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

From Etymonline: c.1300, from Anglo-Fr. renoun, O.Fr. renon, from renomer "make famous," from re- "repeatedly" (see re-) + nomer "to name," from L. nominare "to name." The Middle English verb renown has been assimilated to the noun via renowned "famous, celebrated" (late 14c.). So it seems like it was re-nouned. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Such wit re-verberates loud and long in the corridors of my so-called mind.  :) -- Jack of Oz 09:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

JackofOz -- It's not really true that an "-ed" suffixed form comes from a verb. "Double-barreled" doesn't come from a verb "to barrel", "Bow-legged" doesn't come from a verb "to leg", "Long-lived" originally had a completely different pronunciation from the verb form "lived", etc. AnonMoos (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Right, thanks. So, is it possible to come up with a full list of such adjectives? That is, ones that end in -ed but are not derived from or related to a verb in current use. -- Jack of Oz 19:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's one: hallowed ("on hallowed ground"; we never use the verb "hallow" except in special contexts like "hallowed be Thy name"). -- Jack of Oz 22:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Or when quoting LIncoln's Gettysburg Address, "...we cannot hallow this ground..." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hallow is indeed a verb. I use it in the imperative when answering the phone. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

'Besotted' might be a candidate. I don't think you can besot someone, though you can be besotted with someone. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

'Learned' is another interesting one, with different pronunciation from the simple past tense of 'learn', having 'my learnED friend' (educated person I know) differing in meaning from a hypothetical 'my learned friend' (a friend I learned about). KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe that's enough examples, but I also thought of "left-handed" and "right-handed", which appear to have nothing to do with the verb "hand". 86.171.42.77 (talk) 03:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

JackofOz -- It's somewhat productive (i.e. new ones can be coined in some circumstances), so I don't think a fixed list is possible. Someone who had a beard dyed fuchsia could be "fuschia-bearded", etc. etc. Here's one discussion: http://web.tiscali.it/njross/dubarrelart.htm -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

While that discussion is quite entertaining, AnonMoos, the source doesn't talk about the origin of the -ed suffix in phrases like four-legged animal that are outside past-tense verbal constructions. Do you of any source which discusses its origin? μηδείς (talk) 05:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

In volume 6 of his classic 7-volume grammar of English, Otto Jespersen gives some old examples, such as Old English sūr-ēagede "sour-eyed", Chaucer's long y-herd "long-haired" etc. However, I'm not aware of any basic linguistic explanation for such pseudo-verbing. AnonMoos (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

It would seem that noun - ed construction would be derived from the verbs "to be" or "to have": legged (to have legs, or to be one with legs) barreled (to have barrels, or to be a thing with barrels); lived (to have life, or to be alive); bearded (to have a beard, or to be one with a beard); learned (to have learning, or to be one with learning), etc. (In some cases, "to make" also)Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Are these not adjectives, and do you have a source for this theory, Alan? -- Jack of Oz 18:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

They become adjectives. Like renowned comes from 'to make known/famous'. Known like these other (root) words can be a noun: it is known. Are the definitions I mentioned in dispute? (A long-legged man is a man with long legs; a short-lived rumor is a rumor with a short life, etc.) - Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

What I mean is: I fully understand the logical connection between having a beard and being described as a bearded person. It's the specific ending "-ed" that I'm curious about. Why "-ed" and not "-en" or anything else? When I was first thinking aloud about this issue above, I assumed the -ed came from a verb, because that's how the past tense of most verbs is formed. But I was disabused of that idea by AnonMoos, who reminded me there's no such verb as "to bow-leg", but we still have the word "bow-legged". He also says he's not aware of any basic linguistic explanation for such pseudo-verbing. You, however, seem to have a new theory that involves the verbs "to be" and "to have". Can you tell me where you got this theory from, and how does knowing this (assuming it's true) explain why we make these adjectives using the -ed suffix, specifically? -- Jack of Oz 20:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't announcing a theory, so much as making an observation about all the examples (e.g. hallowed - to be or to make holy). They all seem to take a noun root and add ed and the meaning is invariably involving the verbs that mean 'to have' the quality of that noun. So, perhaps "ed" as the suffix that means something has happened (it has become) was the way to do that that made sense. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for translation of Latin epitaph

I'm working on an article about a French village and would like to mention a marble slab that was found in the church. The slab has a Latin inscription along three of the sides – the fourth side is missing. The text is in Gothic lettering and is not easy to read. I have two sources that give the text. The first gives:

Hec est sepultura magri militis, utriusq juris professoris, domini Jordani Bricii, domini castrorum Velaucii et Castrinovi-Rubri, qui fuit judex major Provincie, et fecit edifica...

From here. The book can be viewed in the US but I'm in London and have only "Snippet" view (unless I use a proxy server). The second source gives:

HAEC EST SEPULTURA MAGRI NOBILIS UTRIUSQUE JURIS PROFESSORIS DOMINI JORDANI BRICII, DOMINI CASTRORUM VELAUCII ET CASTRI NOVI RUBEI QUI FUIT JUDEX MAJOR PROVINCIE...

The text is given in note 2 at the bottom of the page here.

The text is about Jordanus Bricius. Velaux and Châteauneuf-le-Rouge are communes near Aix. JUDEX MAJOR is some form of senior judge (juge-mage in French).

Note that the 5th word in the 1st text is militis while the 2nd text has NOBILIS. The text appears to be damaged at this point. How should I translate the epitaph? Thanks Aa77zz (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

"This is the tomb of the noble master (and) one of the professors of the law, Lord Jordanus Bricius, Lord of the castles of Velaux and Châteauneuf-le-Rouge, who was chief judge of Provence."

(That's the second version. For the first, substitute 'master soldier' for 'noble master', and add "and made buildings..." to the end.) If you have an image of the text, I'd be happy to try and work out which transcription is the better. Or is the transcription a copy of the now-missing side? AlexTiefling (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

UTRIUSQUE JURIS refers to secular (Roman) and canon law. Iblardi (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, rather than "one of the professors of the law", it's "professor of both laws ". Deor (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Aha. Thank you. So "professor of both canon and secular law", rather than "(and) one of the professors of the law"? AlexTiefling (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Deor's suggestion is good. Iblardi (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Page 78 of the first source here has a picture - which I intend to eventually upload. Aa77zz (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid Google Books' preview of that book is insufficient for me to be able to see the image at all. Sorry. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

According to this biographical dictionary Jourdain Brice had a booklet printed in 1433, well before Gutenberg invented the printing press. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help, it now makes sense. I hadn't realized that there were two types of law but I can see here that he was "docteur en l'un et l'autre droit". Aa77zz (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "Lefebvre"

I'm giving a presentation soon and am wondering how the surname of French philosopher Henri Lefebvre should be pronounced – "luh-FEV"? — SMUconlaw (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Pretty much. The '-re' (with a schwa sound) reappears depending on the following syllable (so the English possessive of the name, Lefebvre's, has a sort of 'ruhz' sound at the end). The 'b' never reappears. The surname of Louis James Alfred Lefébure-Wély, which is surely closely etymologically related, is pronounced luh-FAY-byoor-VAY-li. Language is weird. Does anyone know about the origin of these names? AlexTiefling (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec) The Lefèvre article on the French Misplaced Pages gives for all variations of the name, including 'Lefèbvre'. - Lindert (talk) 22:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

This is one of the trickiest names for English speakers who don't know any French to pronounce, especially ironic since the name means "Smith". I worked with guy named Lefebvre once, and he pronounced it "luh-FAVE", though IIRC, baseball player Jim Lefebvre pronounced it "luh-FEE-vur" while fellow player Joe Lefebvre pronounced it "luh-FAY". The French pronounciation given my Lindert is probably the best for any native French speaker, with the caveat that many dialects of french drop final "r" sounds, or clip them very short (as in 4 = quatre, and are both heard). --Jayron32 22:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and to answer Alex's question on the origin of the name, it means "Smith", and I'm pretty sure it comes from the same root that gives us "ferrum" latin for iron. I think it comes from an archaic French word, as the modern French word for smith is forgeron. The French Misplaced Pages article cited above by Lindert confirms that it is an archaic word meaning just that. --Jayron32 22:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The name derives from faber, "craftsman". This is unrelated to ferrum, which is probably a loanword, imported from the Near East along with the metal itself (according to Walde-Hofmann, Lateinisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch). Iblardi (talk) 22:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Thanks for that. --Jayron32 22:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The "b" was introduced solely to reference Latin etymology, and so was useless and confusing with respect to French pronunciation from the start. The fact that "v" and "u" were not clearly distinguished as separate letters until ca. the late eighteenth century caused some people to pronounce it "Lefébure" (see Lefébure)... AnonMoos (talk) 01:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone! Looking particularly at Jayron32's comments, I suppose that's why John Boehner is pronounced "BAY-nər"? It looks like the surname was originally German ("Böhner"?) which would make the pronunciation more like "BUR-nər". — SMUconlaw (talk) 03:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

German-origin words in the USA at least tend to be pronounced that way when they include oe, otherwise known as ö. As with Wayne Newton's signature song "donk-uh shayn". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

But then, I've never heard an American refer to Arnold Schoenberg as "Shayn-berg". Nor does anyone ever say "Ine-steen" for Einstein; they reserve the "steen" pronunciation for Leonard Bernstein. -- Jack of Oz 06:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes they'll give it the long-o, so a name like Koenig could be either "kay-nig" or "koe-nig". Hence the joke of referring to the Speaker of the House as "Boner". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems to be reasonably common to render German-origin names with ö (oe) as /ɛ/ or /eɪ/, particularly in the US, though I haven't met it in the UK. I suspect that there is an influence from Yiddish, where words related to German words with "ö" are pronounced with /e/. --ColinFine (talk) 12:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

A German friend of mine indicated once that the "stine"/"steen" difference was related to Yiddish ("-steen" being Yiddish and "-stine" being "normal" German. The "donk-uh shayn" pronunciation is also related to Yiddish. (See notes in Danke Schoen, as well as comparison to Bei Mir Bistu Shein). Note that it's not just Yiddish that leads to dialectical pronunciation issues. John Boehner's pronunciation probably isn't related to Yiddish, but possibly stems from the fact that he's from the Ohio area. (I can't find where his father's line is from, so I'm making a reasonable assumption there's also from the Ohio area.) That area of the US has a large number of "Pennsylvania Dutch", who speak a dialect of German different from standard German, which our article notes has an /øː/ → /eː/ (schön → schee) vowel shift. -- 205.175.124.30 (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

My sense of deja vu made me dig through archives: Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2012_January_27#John_Boehner. Basically, the diphtongization of umlauts seems to be a feature of Texas German dialect. No such user (talk) 09:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Many French names besides LeFebvre are a mess for native-English speakers to pronounce. My last name has an e-accent-aigu in it natively in French, which signifies a vowel sound that simply does not exist in English. The result is that I have met people with my last name that pronounce it three different ways (none with the native vowel, of course, including my family), quite a feat for a name with only 4 letters. It's the same with the German "oe", which again represents a sound that doesn't exist in English, which is why people approximate it so many different ways. --Jayron32 06:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

January 9

Przy Pikrynie i Trotylu

The full title of this book by Roza Bauminger, published in Krakow in 1946 by the CKZP (Central Committee of the Jews in Poland), is:

• Przy Pikrynie i Trotylu: Oboz Pracy Przymusowej w Skarżysku-Kamienne

The words Pikryna and Trotyl are evidently the names of explosive materials used in the HASAG-run munitions factory at Skarżysko-Kamienna staffed mainly by Jewish forced labor. How to translate the book's full title into English? -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, "trotylu" is apparently a Polish nickname for trinitrotoluene (TNT). StuRat (talk) 09:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

By picric acid and TNT: the forced labour camp in Skarżysko-Kamienna.—Emil J. 13:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

According to Explosives by Rudolf Meyer, Josef Köhler, Axel Homburg, the German picric acid based explosive was called "Perlit". The British version was called "Lyddite" after the town of Lydd where it was first manufactured. But I think it would make more sense to everybody to stick with "picric acid". Alansplodge (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Difference between "Play" and "Drama"!

What is the difference between "play" and "drama"? Is it correct: "Play" means a literary composition and "Drama" means a play when it is staged? (a source I have studied) --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

No I don't think that's correct. A play is a story written especially for production on a stage (or film, or television). "Drama" is more generic than that. Plays can be referred to as "dramas" but that would imply that there is no comic element within the play. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

See play and drama.--Shantavira| 08:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Falling in Love Again - translation problem

The original German title of Falling in Love Again (Can't Help It) is "Ich bin von Kopf bis Fuß auf Liebe eingestellt", which in the article is translated as "I am, from head to toe, ready for love". But there are two problems with that:

1. The lesser problem is that while "from head to toe" is idomatically correct, Fuß is "foot" in German, not "toe", and so the translation can't claim to be "literal", this way suggesting a wrong vocabulary. Is there an established way to resolve such problems in Misplaced Pages, like writing "from head to toe " or similar?
2. Much worse: "ready for love" seems to be the usual translation, but it sounds that wrong that my hair stands on end. Checking the online dictionaries, I think the only fair translation would be "attuned to love", but it has hardly ever been translated this way. Some other suggestions, like "dedicated to love" or "adjusted to love", neither were widely used, but would still be better than "ready". It seems that a bad translation has been upheld for decades and is "established" now... but is there something one could do without committing original research?

--KnightMove (talk) 14:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the world of idiom. --Jayron32 14:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem seems to be that the article on the song says that the English translation you quote is a literal translation of the original when quite clearly it is not. The answer would appear to be to remove the word "literally" from the article. --Viennese Waltz 14:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

"Ready for love" appears in "Fit as a Fiddle (And Ready for Love)" and some more suggestive contexts... AnonMoos (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Like I'm in the Nude for Love.  :) -- Jack of Oz 18:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

If you want a more literal translation, try something like "I'm set for love from head to foot". Marco polo (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Singin' in the Rain. But KM, I take it your objection was not to the phrase ready for love per se, but rather with it as a translation for auf Liebe eingestellt, is that correct? As someone with a bare minimum of German, I'm curious why. What is the aspect of the German phrase that's not correctly translated by the English one? --Trovatore (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

"Ich bin von Kopf bis Fuß auf Liebe eingestellt" was no idiom in German, but lyrics forced to rhyme with the following "denn das ist meine Welt". --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

So it would have been a better translation if it had been more awkward in English, too? --Trovatore (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The German phrase could be a be an attempt to translate Singin' in the Rain (I'm ready for love) from 1929. I don't know. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a native speaker, but if the lyricist had just wanted to say "ready for love" in German, I think a more natural translation would have been bereit für die Liebe or bereit zur Liebe. auf x eingestellt means "adjusted", "set up", or "set" like a radio or TV for x. It doesn't really mean "ready". It's sounds a bit odd in German, I think, and as Pp.paul suggests, maybe a contrived rhyme. Marco polo (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Trovatore: The German verb einstellen (and its past participle eingestellt) has many meanings, most of which have nothing to do with the context (like to hire, appoint, abandon, cease...), but many others could actually contribute to a multiple meaning of the phrase.

"Ich bin auf x eingestellt" usually means something like: I expect x to happen, and I am at least mentally prepared for that. So, ready would not be a completely wrong translation, even though with a different emphasis.

However here this is not the meaning, at least not the primary. This is shown in the context, which idiomatically has been translated into English rather well: Love is her nature, she was born that way.

"Ich bin auf Liebe eingestellt" can also be translated as: "I was adjusted/fine-tuned to love ." Further the expression may also hint to a personal paradigm or worldview: "Ich bin liberal eingestellt." = "I am liberal-minded."

To sum it up: To be "ready for love" means a current condition (now you are ready for love, at other times you aren't), whereas "auf Liebe eingestellt" here means the essence of her character (she is that way, has always been, will always be).

So, I think the translation is wrong, but what can we do about it?

Jayron32: This was not too helpful - my question remains. --KnightMove (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, here's fuller answer: When translating from one language to another, the hardest thing for a translator to to is to know the proper way to work with an idiom: because an idiom does not have a working meaning that matches the meaning of its individual words, one must be intimately aware of the usage and context of the idiom in order to know how to equivalently translate it to the target language. It is also important to have a good grasp of the target language because sometimes one will want to translate the idiom into an equivalent idiom in the target language (which may not even have a similar literal word-for-word meaning) to preserve the sense and register of the original usage, or to merely translate the idiomatic usage to a plain, non-idiomatic phrase. It's not a simple matter. --Jayron32 02:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

More preliminaries: The lyrics (quoted from Ich bin von Kopf bis Fuß auf Liebe eingestellt - Marlene Dietrich, http://www.textquellen.de) is

Ich bin von Kopf bis Fuß

Auf Liebe eingestellt,

Denn das ist meine Welt.

Und sonst gar nichts.

Note the perfect vowel harmony in lines two and three, far beyond the end rhyme. I do not eben know a name for this type of harmony. I assume that the line is perfect lyrics (not awkward or contrived) and became idiomatic with the song, which became Marlene Dietrich's signature song. It is not everyday language. You do not address your husband or your friend that way (if you are female), and a man can hardly say it. So it is female love lyrics language, and the ideal translation will respect this. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a form of Assonance; traditional Welsh poetry had verse-types with very elaborate rules of assonance... AnonMoos (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

January 10

1647 French birth record

Can someone verify that this is a 1647 birth record of Guillaume Cartier in Drain in Anjou, France? What date does it show exactly and an English translation of the record where it says the Guillaume information (if it isn't too difficult). Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes:...Mardi, dixneufième jour du fevrier mille six cent quarante sept, à L'église de Drain(?), Guillaume ....est nè. I'll provide a translation in a minute... Lectonar (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

French hasn't changed that much in half a millenium. "Tuesday, nineteenth day of February, one thousand six hundred forty-seven, at the Church of Drain, Guillaume .... is born". --Jayron32 23:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

"...was born", in fact. Naître takes être in the perfect. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Verily. --Jayron32 01:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Um, my aged eyes may be failing me, and my French isn't that great, but I'm not seeing "est nè" anywhere in that. It's a baptismal record written by the priest of the "église de Drain" (André somebody; I can't make out the surname), saying that Guillaume was baptised ("fui baptisé", end of second line) on that date. Presumably he was born some days earlier. Deor (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Deor, I see "fui baptisé", but not "est nè" (or even "est né"). Also, his name seems to be Quartier, not Cartier, but with writing like that, who would really know. -- Jack of Oz 02:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

And according to the third line he was the son of Julien "Quartier" (just an old spelling of the name) and his wife Françoise Bourdin. The names in the last two lines (hard to decipher) would appear to be the names of the babe's godparents and/or sponsors. (And on second look I think it's "fus baptisé", not "fui".) Deor (talk) 02:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the translation. Yes, Julien Cartier and Françoise Bourdin were Guillaume's parents. I assume Guillaume is the English William, oui?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Guillaume is William, and sorry for the break yesterday, I had an internet breakdown. And yes, I obviously expected a "né" (and so read it), but it is "baptisé". Sorry about that too. Lectonar (talk) 12:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Since it hasn't been transcribed here yet, here is my stab at it:

Mardy dixneufiesme jour de fiburier mil six cent quarente et sept, dans l'église de Drain, par Msgr André M(?), prestre fus baptisé Guillaume fils de Julien Quartier et de Françoise Bourdin sa femme, parrain Msgr Guillaume (?)indriau mary de (femme de ?) marrain Marguerite (Fagan?) femme de Jacques du (Pessy?)

Sorry, there are a few things missing, but it lists his godparents too. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Side discussion

Actually, "is born" is cromulent, as is "Christ has died, Christ is risen". Certain English intransitive verbs of motion and transformation historically took to be rather than to have in the perfect. μηδείς (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, except the sense there is of continuing state of being. He has died (in the past), he is risen, in the sense that the state of being risen is where he is now. The difference in tense is purposeful there, since he is no longer dead, having risen. Furthermore, the full statement is "Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again", so you have the nice tripartite symmetry of past, present, and future. --Jayron32 01:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

No, Medeis is correct - English used to exhibit the same behaviour that I originally mentioned with regards to French above: phrases such as "when they were come" crop up quite a lot in the KJV. However, to translate into idiomatically correct modern English, you need to correct for the fact that French has retained this feature and (outside liturgical contexts) English hasn't. But like Deor, I can't see "est né" in the manuscript; from my own study of equivalent English documents, I'd expect to see the birth date in the margin, if at all. AlexTiefling (talk) 02:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Medeis is correct insofar as there is the usage of the verb "to be" for some forms of past tense. I don't believe Medeis chose a useful example to demonstrate that, as I think that the use of "is" in her example actually is meant to be present tense, for the reason I expanded on regarding the full statement. --Jayron32 02:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Minor points. I am fairly certain the use of "has died" instead of "is died" (as opposed to the older "is dead") is simply idiomatic in the way that French and German disagree over ist gewesen and a été. Also, if we don't want to use "is born" as the perfect, we can't use "was born" either--since that's the simple past passive. The perfect (with have) of "to be born" (i.e. naître) is has been born, not "was born". μηδείς (talk) 03:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that "risen" is both a verb and an adjective: has risen vs. is risen. Whereas died is a verb and dead is an adjective: has died vs. is dead. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

But Medeis, the perfect in French often corresponds to the simple past in English, since everyday French has lost the passé simple. --ColinFine (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Bugs, your observation is correct, but its not problematic, and its what I was referring to obliquely when I called dead the older form. Past participles generally are used as adjectives, e.g., "broken", but not those of certain intransitive verbs like cry or laugh. We don't say the "cried child" or the "laughed audience". The perfect actually arises historically in German and Romance from this adjectival aspect. "I have the pie, cooked" > "I have cooked the pie" for transitive verbs, "I am come" > "I have come" for intransitives. I do see how one could, from a modern standpoint alone, reanalyze "is risen" back to an adjectival rather than a perfect construction, but there really is no difference, and we do know that historically verbs like "is come" and "is risen" were being used as perfects with to be because there were no perfect with to have forms to replace them.

Of course the discussion is made difficult to the point of frustration because of idiomatic differences with the very basic and irregular verbs being compared. There is no simple infinitive ✱ to born to compare with French naître. French "he has died", il est mort, is identical to "he is dead", il est mort. English dead and death are native Anglo-Saxon words that both come from the Proto-Germanic *dauthaz (remember I said old?) while the Old English cognate verb for "to die" was déadian, which was replaced by a word borrowed from Norse, deyja, with a (new) past tense coined in English with the productive -ed ending. And all this is, of course, hugely oversimplified.

Yes, Colin, I am aware that as a matter of translation one often uses the simple past in English for the French passé composé. I can't even read the OP's text, and understand that il est né isn't even shown there? But my original point was internal to English, not one of interpretation. μηδείς (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

January 11

Spanish/Galician help

I've put the following Spanish or Galician text through Google translate but it gives me some dubious results:

• En Madrid é protagonista dun dos moitos episodios novelescos que experimenta ao longo da súa vida, ao presenciar dende as fiestras da súa pensión o atentado contra a comitiva nupcial do rei Alfonso XIII.

Can some kind soul render it into reasonable English, please? Thanks. -- Jack of Oz 03:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to the original text? μηδείς (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Funny you should ask. Please see Misplaced Pages:Help desk#PDF file I found on a Google search. -- Jack of Oz 04:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The entire piece is written somewhat over-dramatically for my taste in the historical present. Literally: "In Madrid he is the protagonist of one of the many romantic episodes he experiences throughout his life, upon witnessing from the windows of his pension the attack on the nuptial entourage of King Alfonso XIII." We wouldn't use protagonist like that in English--subject might be a better word, even then it just sounds like bad writing--maybe "In Madrid he undergoes one of the many romantic (or novelesque or storybook) events he experiences.... "Pension" is used in the European meaning of boarding room. (Full disclosure, I haven't studied Gallego more than in general surveys, but the meaning is quite clear from Spanish, French, Portuguese and Google.) μηδείς (talk) 05:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Medeis. I get the general gist now, and it's not something I need for the article (Manuel Quiroga (violinist)). -- Jack of Oz 06:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Website for obscure words

A while ago I stumbled upon a website that gives out several (2-3?) rarely used, obscure English words on a regular basis and asks readers to write sentences using the words. Does anyone know this website? I've deleted my browser history and am seemingly unable to find it via Google. Thanks in advance. --BorgQueen (talk) 04:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

History of Belgium

Am I posting this in the right place?

We are discussing a map on this page (section 17 on the talk page). Maybe people knowledgeable about language history can participate? --Thathánka Íyotake (talk) 06:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I have linked to the article so people can find the talk page section. Better: a direct link. μηδείς (talk) 07:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

That is in fact decidedly un-direct, Medeis. It takes you out of Misplaced Pages and into the big bad internet, and then drags you back in. Very circuitous. A more direct route is this. -- Jack of Oz 10:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I am marking this resolved based on consensus at that talk page to remove the image from the article in question as mislabeled and unhelpful. μηδείς (talk) 08:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Bill

why is bill a nickname for William?. I can not see the connection between the names. --89.249.2.53 (talk) 10:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Neither is Guillaume very similar, but over time and in different regions pronunciations can differ wildly, and a w can change into a b or vice versa. According to this site, "The change in the initial consonant may have been influenced by an earlier Irish pronunciation of the name". - Lindert (talk) 10:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Many others: Margaret --> Peg, Anne --> Nance, and John --> Jack (although Jack's come into its own now as a name in its own right; I've met youngish people who simply don't believe there was a time, not very long ago, when you could be virtually certain that anyone known as Jack was legally a John). -- Jack of Oz 11:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Those were the days, eh, John of Oz? 72.128.82.131 (talk) 02:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting discussion (including a name familiar here!) on this site, with links. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Fascinating read. Certain names seem to automatically go to certain nicknames. Royalty's Henry to Harry, for example (both long ago and modern). ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

William -> Will -> Bill

Robert -> Robin -> Dobbin

Mary -> Molly -> Polly

Margaret -> Meg -> Peg

Frances -> Frannie -> Fannie

To name a few. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting in many of the patterns above is the changing of the initial consonant from a continuant to a stop consonant. Also the Robert -> Bob and Richard -> Dick transformations involve the change from a continuant to a stop. Any reliable sources come to a similar analysis? Sort of like Grimm's law in reverse? --Jayron32 17:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

But see also Robert -> Hob (as in the surname Hobbs ), Roger -> Hodge (as in the surname Hodgson ), Richard to Hick (as in the surname Higson ). None of these are commonly used as hypocoristics nowadays, but they were clearly commonplace in the late medieval period when English surnames became established. Robert has at least 5 variants - Rob, Nob , Hob, and Dob - all of which have produced common English surnames - plus Bob which doesn't seem to have, so seems likely to be a more recent innovation. The changes seem to employ lenition of the initial consonant as well as fortition. Valiantis (talk) 23:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The William to Bill transition might be better understood by considering that the German Wilhelm is pronounced with a V sound where the W is. W to V to B makes some sense. HiLo48 (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Behind the Name - the etymology and history of first names says; "BILL: This spelling was first used in the 19th century. The change in the initial consonant may have been influenced by an earlier Irish pronunciation of the name." Alansplodge (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Voiceless dental affricate

How do you pronounce t͡θ? Double sharp (talk) 12:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Say "cat thing" You just did it. --Jayron32 13:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Dialect-dependent of course, I have a pretty clear for that in my near-GA. A fast, deaspirated one can appear in "fifths" "sixths" and so on for some people. (Yesyes, not an actual affricate, but identical in pronunciation to one). Lsfreak (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• It's common in width, prounced witth. μηδείς (talk) 20:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Mid 19th century (or earlier) dialect question..

I noticed that a decent number of the Latter Day Saint Hymns have in places where words should rhyme the words Lord and Word. Is there (or has there been) a dialect of english where those two words rhyme?

English spelling generally reflects the phonetic pronunciation of the language as of about the 15th century, so the two words did once rhyme. Word once rhymed with the present-day pronunciation of lord. Words with rhotic vowels that are now pronounced in rhotic dialects (as word is now pronounced in most rhotic English dialects) once had a variety of different vowels as reflected in their spelling, such as bird (once pronounced with a rhotic vowel like the one in modern beer), earn (whose vowel sounded much like the one in hair), and work (which like word had a vowel like the one in modern shore). These rhotic vowels began collapsing into . Since this change seems to have happened before non-rhotic pronunciations developed in eastern England, this change had probably begun by the 17th century, when rhoticity probably began to disappear in eastern England. However, I believe that these rhotic vowels still retain distinct pronunciations in parts of Scotland and possibly northern England and Ireland (though I am no expert on British accents and dialects), so I don't think that this shift is universal in English even today. Marco polo (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Went and looked at a rhyming dictionary online and 'word' is the only -ord word that they have that rhymes with bird. So 'word' is the oddity.Naraht (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

This is complete speculation, but most versions of US English are rhotic and are mainly descended from versions of English spoken in the West Country and West Midlands of England and in Northern Ireland in the 17th and 18th centuries. It is quite plausible that the rhotic vowels described above remained distinct in many versions of 19th-century American English, such as the version spoken by the early Mormons. It is also plausible that those pronunciations were replaced by the "standard" pronunciations in the early 20th century with the advent of radio. Marco polo (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC).

I'll have to look to see how many of those hymns were written by Utah LDS and how many of them date to elsewhere and elsewhen.Naraht (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Hymn rhymes are often not very good. An example that springs to mind is from Hark! The Herald Angels Sing, written by Charles Wesley no less; "Late in time, behold Him come, / Offspring of the Virgin's womb". I don't believe that "come" has ever sounded anything like "womb" - it's just a forced (or oblique) rhyme - "a rhyme with an imperfect match in sound" to quote our article. You might also want to look at Eye rhyme, "a rhyme in which two words are spelled similarly but pronounced differently and have come into general use through "poetic license" also known as artistic license". This seems to fit the OP's example perfectly. Alansplodge (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Another example, this time from Isaac Watts's most famous hymn, When I Survey the Wondrous Cross. In all the verses, the first line rhymes with the third and the second with the fourth, except in Verse 2:

"Forbid it, Lord, that I should boast,

Save in the death of Christ my God!

All the vain things that charm me most,

I sacrifice them to His blood."

The prosecution rests its case m'lud. Alansplodge (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Help Identifying a Short Story - Kipling I think

I recall a short story in a book of short stories. It is set in Imperial India and concerns the futility of studying to pass exams or learn a set of facts rather than studying to become educated; also the poor state of education in India at that time.

The point is made in the story by the main character, an inspector of schools, I think. In one 'scene', he is testing a class on their English Literature comprehension. He gets them to read aloud a passage from an English poem that uses the word 'vernal'. He then asks for a definition and is told that 'vernal' pertains to spring - a perfect definition. Then he takes out his pocket watch and points out that it has a spring and asks if it is, therefore 'vernal'. He is immediately told that it must certainly be vernal. And thus the point is made.

My poor memory tells me that it is a Kipling story and certainly the flavour of the story and its politics is Kiplingesque. But search though I have through all my Kipling, I cannot find it. Can anyone help please? Gurumaister (talk) 18:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Board room

Unsure if this is a language or a history question. But why is a board room called a board room? What is the board? (I've been told a reason but am trying to verify it and have failed to find refernces on Google.) -- SGBailey (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Presumably due to terms like Board of directors, which derives from "board" as equating to a table. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

January 12

French translation of tablet

What does this say exactly? Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 00:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Did you give Google Translate a try? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

You can't translate it exactly. That's impossible. This illustrates an example of why. The best you can do is sense-for-sense or word-for-word, but neither would turn out identical in English. Any way, here's my attempt:

In tribute to Guillaume Cartier born at Drain, February 19, 1684. He emigrated to New France in 1684 and he was engaged as miller of the Neuville Lordship near Quebec. He married Marie-Etriennette Garnier and they had 7 children. He died at St-Francous-du-Lac May 31, 1719. Association of Cartiers of America

Not the best translation, but you wanted exact, so i left some of what I felt were oddities in. Mingmingla (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

A few spelling errors: Marie-Étiennette Garnier, St-François-du-Lac. For lordship (seigneurie), see Seigneurial system of New France. Lesgles (talk) 02:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Those were typos, not spelling errors. I also knew that it was Seigneurie, but it illustrates my point about exact translation: the only way to know exactly what it says is to learn and understand French. Everything else is just the gist. (I also not that I completely missed the line about him being the son of Julien. My bad.) Mingmingla (talk) 03:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I provided as literal a translation as possible at the file itself: http://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Plaque_Guillaume_Cartier_Drain.jpg#English_translation. μηδείς (talk) 01:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe those spelling errors are in my translation at the image's file, but you could check for me. I retained Seigneurie de Neuville because the term lordship really isn't used that way in English--but I am not personally familiar with Canada/Quebec, so perhaps it should be changed if "Lordship of XXX" is encountered. μηδείς (talk) 02:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

We just say "seigneurie" in English too, in this context. This is Neuville, Quebec, by the way, now basically a suburb of Quebec City. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

As I suspected, since I have heard of seigneuries before, but not lordships in that sense. μηδείς (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

There are Lordships in English as well, i.e. Lordship of the Isles, Lordship of Ireland, Lordship of Mann. --Jayron32 02:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but those are hardly townships, which is more at the sense here. μηδείς (talk) 02:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

True. I think in this case Seigneuries would better be translated as "Manors" or something along those lines. A French Seigneur is closest to the English Lord of the Manor. --Jayron32 04:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

In this case the word is uncommon but used in English and any simple translation would be forcing it. A simple blue link to Neuville from the file page to Neuville, Quebec would be good. Can anyone show here in nowiki how to make piped links from wikimedia to a wikipedia article? μηδείς (talk) 05:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

What language is that question written in? And what does it mean in English? -- Jack of Oz 07:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

You know I usually answer your questions in good faith, mister. So if you really are confused a short question on my talk page will work. And I do find wikipedia fun enough to provide my services for free. But not fun enough to guarantee a reeditting of my first draft if spell check doesn't catch anything. You got a bad one: "show how" became "shore ho". Spellcheck didn't catch it, so doing free work myself, I wasn't getting paid to catch it either.

It's not like my point was actually that unclear if you applied effort. It's up to you guys if you wanna answer it. μηδείς (talk) 08:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Michigan

I saw a scene in a TV programme in which there was some confusion over the place that a group of American vistors were from. One of the Americans said "There's a world of difference between 'Michigan State' and 'Michigan', and we are definitely from Michigan." What did she mean by that? Was she referring to one of the places called Michigan City? 86.129.18.113 (talk) 01:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Without knowing the context, my guess would be that they're talking about Michigan's two main universities. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

i.e. University of Michigan and Michigan State University. They have an enormous rivalry, naturally. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, when I searched Google I noticed that most relevant links were about the universities, but I ignored those because it did not seem to fit the context. They seemed much too old to be students, for example. I suppose they could have been staff, but I did get the impression that they were referring to their hometown (or, generally, place that they lived). If there's no other explanation then perhaps I misunderstood what they were talking about. 86.129.18.113 (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe they were alumni? For big schools like that with big rivalries, former students will identify with them for the rest of their lives. If you went to a football game between those two schools, the stadium would be full of people like that. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Update: later in the scene, when it's been established that they are from "Michigan", someone says to the Americans "Right, where there's a wine area called the Old Mission Peninsula, is that right?", and they all agree. So they can't be talking about the university, can they? If someone came from the State of Michigan, and someone suggested they were from "Michigan State", is there any reason why they would correct this and say no, they were from Michigan? Could "Michigan State" have such a strong association with the University that they understood it to mean that, rather than the actual State? 86.129.18.113 (talk) 01:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds to me like they are punning. But you would have to know of the intense rivalry and that "Michigan" is also used for one University, and "Michigan State" for another to get that (but everyone from Michigan -- of even the US -- would get that). In short, if you ask someone from Michigan if they are from Michigan State, their first thought would be of the school. Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

New York State is the only one of the 50 states that I have ever heard of by itself referred to as XXX State, because of the contrast with NYC. Otherwise, myself never having been there, I would interpret what was said as meaning exactly what Bugs said. μηδείς (talk) 02:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it can mean that, for the reason I mentioned. I'm suggesting now that the distinction is between "Michigan State" = Michigan State University and "Michigan" = State of Michigan (i.e. geographical area). 86.129.18.113 (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it can very well just be a contrast between the state itself and the state university. I've never been closer to there since Pittsburgh in my childhood, so someone else will have to opine. μηδείς (talk) 02:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The only one, Medeis? Washington, the state, is often referred to as "Washington state", for obvious reasons. And in places like Misplaced Pages, we have to talk about Georgia (U.S. state). -- Jack of Oz 02:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right about Washington--I didn't think that far north west. But people don't say Georgia State, while they may say the State of Georgia. μηδείς (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Washington State is the oddball because of that cesspool sharing the same name. Any other xxx State almost always refers to the state university, whereas Washington State rarely means Washington State University. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

As a Michigan resident, I can confirm the conclusions reached above. That is, "Michigan State" always means "Michigan State University", while "Michigan" normally means the state itself, but, in the context of universities or football, means the University of Michigan (where my brother works, BTW). StuRat (talk) 02:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

"-ise" or "-ize"?

Some verbs ending with "-ise", like fertilise, personalise, etc., are written in American English as ending with "ize", like fertilize, personalize, etc. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashowardhani (talk • contribs) 07:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Both "ise" and "ize" endings are used in British English, in fact the Oxford English Dictionary follows Fowler's advice in using only the "ize" ending for most of these words (though it includes a cite of "fertilise" from as early as 1760). The British rule used to be: if the ending came from Greek then use "ize" but if it came from French, use "ise". Unfortunately, this doesn't always work (e.g. personalize is from French). During the past 50 years, the fashion has changed in the UK, and many schools now teach students to use only the "ise" ending for all words. American educators take the opposing view, but the difference is not just British versus American. Dbfirs 09:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Pages automatically checked for accidental language links
• Misplaced Pages resources for researchers
• Misplaced Pages help forums