This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JackofOz (talk | contribs) at 19:23, 14 January 2014 (→Russian translation, worldcat: to 108). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• 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 8

English grammar related question

Hi,

I have a question about English grammar. I first asked at the Teahouse and they recommended that I try here. I hope I'm in the right place. I would like to know if the following two sentences are grammatically correct.

1. This is termed "dropping" the piece or just a "drop."

and

2. This is termed "dropping" the piece or just "drop."

In my opinion, I don't think the "a" is necessary and, at least to me, sentence two sounds more natural. However, another person has said that sentence 2 is not grammatically correct. So, I just would like to hear what some other people think.

Once again, I'm sorry if I have posted this in the wrong place. Thanks in advance. --Marchjuly (talk) 01:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Without further context, "a drop" sounds reasonable. Youll have to give a broader and more detailed context if you want a definitive answer. μηδείς (talk) 04:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'll try to add more context.

1. On any turn, instead of moving a piece on the board, a player may take a piece that had been previously captured and place it, unpromoted side up, on any empty square, facing the opposing side. The piece is then part of the forces controlled by that player. This is termed dropping the piece, or just a drop.

and

2. On any turn, instead of moving a piece on the board, a player may take a piece that had been previously captured and place it, unpromoted side up, on any empty square, facing the opposing side. The piece is then part of the forces controlled by that player. This is termed dropping the piece, or just drop.

Using "a drop" makes it clear that the noun "drop" is used for the process (not just the verb). I would find your version 2 clearer. Version 1 does not make clear how you intend the word "drop" to be used. If it is only used as a verb, then you have already indicated this in "dropping". Dbfirs 08:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. "A drop" sounds perfectly fine as a game term whereas "drop" by itself is odd. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I concur with your disagreement, Clarityfiend. I can hardly imagine how "drop" would be used as a noun, but the only time it would appear without an article would be in a dictionary, or as a plural ("How many drops have there been so far?"). What verb would it take in the following:

Q. What did you do while I was getting a beer?

A. I _____ a drop. (made? did? effected? ...)

Jack of Oz 09:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Oops! I concur with the disagreements above. In my rush to post my comment before going out for the day, I somehow transposed versions in my reply (comment striken above). What I'd intended to say was: "I would find your version 1 clearer. Version 2 does not make clear how you intend the word "drop" to be used." Apologies for confusing everyone! Dbfirs 20:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to every one for their feedback. I was focusing on two things in sentence 1 which is probably why I thought sentence 2 was better: the use of the words the in "dropping the piece" and a in "a drop" as well as how the italics were being used. Since only the words dropping and drop were in italics, I was reading sentence one as "This is termed dropping the piece or just drop (the piece).", even though it's not explicitly written as such. In that case, "a drop the piece" seems wrong to me. I am wondering if, in the same context, either "This is termed dropping a piece or just "(to) drop a piece." or "This is termed dropping a piece or (to) drop a piece." is better. Thanks again for the feedback Marchjuly (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, if the process is never called "a drop" then I suggest that you needn't mention the last bit because "dropping" already implies that the verb is used. If you want to clarify, then use the infinitive: "This is termed dropping or to drop the piece." (or as you suggested above with the repetition of piece). ( If the process is not currently called "a drop" then it probably will be soon because people tend to invent nouns. ) Dbfirs 22:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

@Dbfirs: Thanks for that. I like your suggestion. May I use it? Do you think it's better to use "the piece" or "a piece"? To me, "a piece" seems more natural since the process applies to any or all captured pieces and not just one particular captured piece. Thanks again. --Marchjuly (talk) 23:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The original changes from "a" to "the" because, once you have said "it", you are referring to a specific piece that has been previously captured, so continuing with "the" is appropriate. It's not wrong, though, to refer back to the first part of the paragraph and go back to "a" (just marginally more confusing in my opinion). Other opinions may differ. ( ... and you are welcome to use my phrasing. Phrases are not copyright, and most of the sentence was yours. ) Dbfirs 07:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

But isn't it lovely to be asked anyway? Politeness never goes out of style. -- Jack of Oz 07:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

@Dbfirs: Thanks for the added details and for taking the time to reply -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

@JackofOz: Thanks as well to you for your input. As for politeness, I recently had a somewhat unpleasant experience with another Wiki user, but I prefer to try and spread good karma instead of bad.-- Marchjuly (talk) 11:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should discontinue sticking words/meanings in people's mouths they didn't say/mean, and negatively and unfairly mischaracterizing what they say. (Some people take offense to to that kind of thing, finding it aggressive, manipulative, and WP:UNCIVIL.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

You're right. That comment was inappropriate. I didn't intend for it to be perceived as such, but I should have chosen my words more carefully. I have struck out the offending text and am truly sorry it offended you. Marchjuly (talk) 14:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Bear with me, but wouldn't it be clearer to write "This is called dropping the piece or just dropping", or alternatively "This is called to drop the piece or just to drop", or even more simply "This is called dropping (the piece)"? I still don't really understand the change from gerund to infinitive. I mean, this is both about the same verb, except that you can drop omit the object "the piece", or do I still fail to understand the intention? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

@Florian Blaschke: Thanks for the input. I think your suggestion is pretty good. Sentence 1 was actually a sentence in a Misplaced Pages article and Sentence 2 was my attempt to improve on it (which got undone). You're right in that the easiest thing to do might be just to simply say, "This is called dropping a piece." May I add your suggestion to the one Dbfirs gave above? Thanks again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

But of course! "This is called dropping a piece" should fully comply with WP:KISS. :-) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

is there even something slightly objectionable about two of the same word twice in a row?

Is there something even slightly worthy of revision in case two of the same word happen to follow each other? Like, "He's the one talk to talk to to find out." I don't mean replacing it with stilted "he's the one to whom you should talk in order to find out" - I just mean, would there bea n inclination to quickly refactor it as "He's the one to talk to if you want to find out" for no other reason than because it's slightly better not to repeat a word? "What we thought it was was a ..." etc. in such cases is there some small inclination to rewrite? 212.96.61.236 (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

No, there's no reason that that should be avoided. There is a stylistic rule that says lexical terms (nouns, adjective, adverbs and verbs) shouldn't be repeated within the same paragraph. Novelist and essayist Ayn Rand says this rule should be ignored in the face of necessity in The Art of Nonfiction. μηδείς (talk) 03:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

When most people are reading quickly, their eyes do not scan each word in the printed order, but jump back and forward across a sentence as the brain picks out recognised phrases. Repeating words close together can sometimes interfere with this process and cause the reader to go back to re-read the sentence more carefully. Good writers try to avoid any impediment to the smooth flow of the written text. In spoken language, the words are presented in order, and meaning is made clear by the intonation, so repeated words are common. I agree that strict following of the rule is unnecessary, and sometimes writers will deliberately repeat words to achieve other effects. Personally, I'd just put a comma between your two "to"s, but another modern "rule" claims that commas should never be used unless really necessary (even when they improve readability). I'm not a supporter of absolute rules. It depends on the style of writing, and on what effect the writer wishes to achieve. Dbfirs 08:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I would rewrite this as "He's the one to ask", which is both shorter and clearer. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

There are two types of people, those who don't put the same word twice in a row and those who do do it. -- Q Chris (talk) 11:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

See also James while John had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher and Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo -- Q Chris (talk) 11:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

In reference to Medeis, see also figura etymologica. "He sleeps a deep sleep" tends to be avoided now but in former times it was considered rhetorically elegant – which incidentally reminds me of how puns, even quite raunchy ones, used to be appreciated much more (although such puns in Shakespeare may go over your head if you don't know the original pronunciation).

BTW, I think the OP intended to say "He's the one to talk to to find out", and there's nothing wrong with it, but "in order to find out" wouldn't be significantly more cumbersome. Or indeed simply write, per Gandalf61, "He's the one to ask", in this particular case. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

What is the origin of the modifier "S-class"?

So, I heard someone use the expression "S-class asshole" recently, and the S-class was tacitly understood by everybody to mean "the apex of the quality that it modifies", even higher than A-class or B-class or C-class. The only reason that I knew what this meant was because of the Chocobo Racing minigames in the Final Fantasy series. But this system of classification obviously comes from somewhere IRL. The S class disambiguation page on Misplaced Pages hints that it's used to brand certain luxury cars, locomotives, and military vehicles. However, none of the linked pages explains what I would like to know: what the "S" signifies ("special"?), or from where it originated. Shrigley (talk) 02:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if it's the origin, but certainly one source of the designation comes from the German "sonderklasse." So yes, "special" is more or less it. Hopefully someone else will add to this if they know an alternative. --— Rhododendrites |  13:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Our article on the Mercedes Benz states (no ref): "S-Class" is an anglicisation of "S-Klasse," a German abbreviation of "Sonderklasse," which means "special class" (in the sense of "a class of its own"). --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The meaning of an English sentence

At this page a handwritten note to the word "bravery" says as I read it: Bravery hitched to a 4-horse wagon load of ignorance! That sounds like some idiom to me but I failed to find it and my English is not good enough to get an idea of the expressed attitude: support, oppose, sarcasm etc. Any help would be much appreciated. --NeoLexx (talk) 03:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a nominal, presumably a predicate nominal phrase. In other words "This is bravery hitched to a 4-horse wagon load of ignorance!" μηδείς (talk) 03:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think it's intended to say something pretty much in the same vein as the rest of that page. "A four horse wagon load of..." would simply mean "a lot of". There is a problem, however, with the next word. "Ignorance" has a literal meaning of simply not knowing something. But particularly in modern English it has a second, derogatory meaning of "stupidity". To guess which meaning applies there is a judgement call. I'm not sure myself. HiLo48 (talk) 03:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Great thanks to both of you! As of the "ignorance" I say the note written ca.1905 (highest probability) and no later than 1926. So I guess I need to look for the most common meaning of "ignorance" at the beginning of XX. --NeoLexx (talk) 03:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

HiLo seems to have addressed ignorance well enough. I wasn't born in 1895. But I don't find the term at all confusing. Indeed, the etymology is simply "not knowing" and that seems quite clear in this context. μηδείς (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• The meaning is, he is brave but stupid. Looie496 (talk) 07:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Probably. But it could also lend itself to a kinder reading, that of someone who is not aware he's not supposed to be able to do something, so he just sets out. It's amazing what can be achieved by people who've had the misfortune to be uninformed about the impossible or the dangerous. -- Jack of Oz 07:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you guys. I am fighting through news publications of 1904-05 and it seems to be often some other way to say things. For a foreigner like me it's just a deadlock sometimes. Maybe the last question on the topic, pleeease :-) This newspaper article says:

H.M.S. Thetis has erected a Marconi mast for the London Times on the North Point to keep up connection with the steamer Haimun, from Chemulpo, and it is hoped to get message over 140 miles.

Can you say based on the sentence, who is in Chemulpo: "Thetis" or "Haimun"? --NeoLexx (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Haimun is from Chemulpo, as far as I can tell from the sentence. --Viennese Waltz 16:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. Looie496 (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Just to make it slightly more explicit - neither ship is in Chemulpo. Haimun was _originally_ at Chemulpo, but, at the time of the article, was 140 miles away from North Point, while HMS Thetis was (presumably) at North Point itself. Tevildo (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

What are these Japanese anime characters saying in this anime parody video?

http://www.nicovideo.jp/watch/sm4109722 108.180.17.36 (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Can a native chinese speaker tell me how to write the following in vertical traditional chinese?

i want "iron strength" what would something like this translate to? 鐵 實 力 is it anywhere close to what i want? thanks Additional Details — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.110.247.106 (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

鐵力 Vertical or horizontal or whatever doesn't change the characters. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

What exactly are you trying to say? If you want to talk about the physical properties of iron, you can say 鐵強度. If you want a metaphor describing how strong someone is, you can say 堅強如鋼 (hard like steel), or the chengyu 堅如磐石 (hard to move as a boulder). Again, context would help a lot.

Also, I assume that by "traditional" you mean in traditional characters, and not "the Chinese from 2000 years ago". All the phrases are gave are modern colloquial Chinese. --Bowlhover (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I suspect the enquirer wishes to use the characters for some sort of decoration, perhaps even as a tattoo. I don't think they are thinking of Modern Standard Chinese or even colloquial Mandarin, but Classical Chinese, indeed: something poetic and metaphorical, nothing to do with physics. Also, probably something positive like "I'm strong as steel!", not "I'm bullheaded!" A bit of common sense would help. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, I understand that chengyu still use Classical Chinese syntax, so your implicit description of a phrase you call a chengyu as "modern colloquial Chinese" is a bit misleading. As widely known and understood quotes from ancient literature, these are conscious archaisms. The closest analogue to a chengyu seems to be a terse Latin quote translated word for word into French (or English), even if the syntax sounds strange. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

If the OP wants to put something on a tattoo, he should say so and also tell us 1) what he wants to say, 2) whether the characters should be simplified or traditional, 3) whether he wants something classical, colloquial, formal, humorous, or something else. Then someone else could come along with a suggestion because I have very bad artistic sense, especially in Chinese. I'm not going to guess and call it common sense in case he ends up with one of these.

As for chengyu, I disagree that they're necessarily conscious archaisms. They're every bit a part of the modern speaker's lexicon as idioms are in English. Would you consider "crossing the Rubicon", "do as the Romans when in Rome", "Achilles' heel", or "straight as an arrow" to be conscious archaisms? I think they're modern colloquial English, despite having ancient origins. --Bowlhover (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The first time I read this I said to myself "This person wants to get a tattoo." However, I didn't post anything because I didn't think it was appropriate and because I don't know Chinese. I used to get asked quite a lot for suggestions by friends and others wanting to get tattoos in Japanese. I'm not a tattoo person so I was probably the wrong person to ask since I typically said "don't." But, I advised them to also be really careful when getting tattoos in "kanji" because there are so many characters that it's really easy to make a mistake, especially by those who don't understand Japanese or Chinese. Use the wrong stroke order and the character can look crappy; Forget one stroke and chances are you end up with something completely different in meaning; Try to combine two characters together that don't really go together and you end up with gibberish or even worse. So just be careful 109.110.247.106 and make sure you find somebody who has lots of experience doing these types of tattoos and then be absolutely sure that what your getting makes sense because if you don't you end up sites like the one Bowlhover posted above. Good luck Marchjuly (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

To emphasize the point: I once met a white guy while traveling, who showed me his tattoo after I said I was born in China. It read 家族, which he claimed meant "family" in Chinese. Well, it kind of does, but more precisely it refers to organizations or companies dominated by one extended family. It can also mean "clan" or "tribe". In any case it doesn't have the connotations of closeness or intimacy that he probably wanted. It shouldn't be surprising that Chinese is as rich and full of subtlety as English, considering that it's been around for thousands of years and is spoken by over a billion people. --Bowlhover (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

That's an interesting example. You're totally right totally about context. Marchjuly (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

There was an example back here about the perils of getting tattoos in languages you can't read. A young lass gets a tattoo with the name of her family members - Amanda, Travis and Jack - in Chinese. Well almost. What she actually got was a tattoo of a phonetic rendering of "Amanda", a phonetic rendering of "Travis", and the word for the device you use to lift your car up with to replace a flat tyre, in Chinese. --Shirt58 (talk) 04:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

That's pretty funny, but probably happens more often than you would expect. As I said earlier, I'm not much of a tattoo fan myself, so usually advise people not to get one. But, if they are set on getting one then I usually say forget getting one in kanji, and get one in in English that they can read or get a one that's a picture instead. Marchjuly (talk) 08:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

家族 means "family" in Japanese, and as wikt:家族 notes, refers to immediate family, thus carries the connotations of closeness and intimacy. wikt:家族 just says it means "family" in Korean and Mandarin. --Kusunose 00:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

January 9

Portuguese: "vendedor de cautelas"

I wonder, if somebody would be able to tell me what a "vendedor de cautelas," as occuring in the WP:PT article O Barão de Lavos, is. Translation with dictionaries does not seem to be helpful, so I assume it is a relatively rare idiomatic expression. Thank you very much for any assistance. 115.69.63.229 (talk) 02:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I have since found out, that it is one of those lottery ticket sellers one saw and maybe still sees on the streets of Lisbon and other cities. Do it yourself ;). Cheers, 115.69.63.229 (talk) 03:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it translates literally as "seller of cautions". I wonder if that's kind of a euphemism for what we might say in slangy English: "You spends your money and you takes your chances." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

help with Latinized English

In 1544, the naturalist William Turner wrote that the Black Tern was a parva avis nostrati lingua sterna appellata. Did he mean that this bird was called "sterna" in our language, or is the "a" a case ending, and if so, what would his English word be? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, it is a case ending - everything is! But it's just the nominative case, so "sterna" is the basic form. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

This is somewhat unclear. I'm not even sure that he is saying that in English it's "sterna" - nostrati does not appear to agree with lingua, so I don't know quite what it's doing. The OED mentions this quote in its etymology for tern thus:

"Some consider tern to be related to stearn, stern, which occurs in Old English as a bird-name, and, in the form starn, is a name in E. Anglia of the Common and the Black Tern; it is mentioned by W. Turner Avium præcipuarum historia, 1544, as ‘nostrati lingua sterna appellata’, whence Linnæus took Sterna as a generic name."

but if it is intended as English, I don't think he means the -a as part of the English word. --ColinFine (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

"Nostrati" is the ablative of "nostras", a pre-classical form of "noster". Here it goes with the ablative "lingua" meaning "in our language". There's absolutely no reason to use it in 1544, of course, except as a pompous archaism. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

nostrat-, "of our country", is quite common in post-classical Latin, especially in its plural forms ( nostrates, nostratibus). Iblardi (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. So the conclusion is that he meant that the English name was "stern"? (Incidentally, maybe I should have mentioned that I got the quotation from the OED, but found another source that gave two more words, which I thought might be useful.)

This will go into the etymology section of Tern. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

"Stern" as a transcription of sterna can be sourced to p. 79 of A.H. Evans' 1903 edition. Iblardi (talk) 08:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that! I might use it, though I'm not sure it answers the question of what the word was in 1544. Maybe that answer isn't necessary for the article. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

This is very straightforward: "A small bird which in our language is called a stern". Our article on Tern mentions that the animal is also called a starn or stearn. μηδείς (talk) 04:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, everybody! I'll see if I can get it into "tern". —JerryFriedman (Talk) 17:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Had not got a car – British English

I don't have a car ~ I haven't got a car ~ I haven't a clue are more or less suitable expressions in the present tense. Can one use the expression "I had not got a car" in the past tense in British English, or does it sound unnatural? "When I was a student, I hadn't got a car and used to walk everywhere"? Is this awkward? Is the "got" only natural when used as a real verb as in "Back in the day when my father was still alive, I had not got the Bentley yet and used to drive a Fiat." --Pxos (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

It's OK, but "I didn't have a car" would be more usual. The "hadn't got" construction emphasizes the acquisition over the continued possession. Rojomoke (talk) 06:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

That would be true of American English where "got" has a marginally different shade of meaning, but not necessarily of British English where one can use "hadn't got" without the implication of acquisition. (For example "I hadn't got a clue" is commonly used.) I agree, though, that "didn't have" is probably better on both sides of the pond. Your example of "I hadn't got a car" doesn't sound awkward, but maybe slightly more colloquial than "I didn't have a car". Dbfirs 08:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, actually, in American English, it works the other direction. If you wanted to emphasize that you hadn't acquired a car rather than that you weren't in possession of one, that's when you'd say "hadn't gotten". --Trovatore (talk) 08:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, you are correct -- I'd forgotten that! Dbfirs 14:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Should it be "hadn't had a car" rather than "hadn't got a car"? Both are worse than "didn't have" though? -- Q Chris (talk) 08:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

"Hadn't had" implies that they had never had a car. "Didn't have" simply implies that they did not have one at that point in time (but may have had one previously). "Hadn't got a car" is less precise, could be taken either way, and would be a less usual expression than "didn't have". Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

If you want to be precise, then use "did not own", but the OP asked if it was common in British English to say "hadn't got" in place of "didn't have", and the answer is "yes", though I agree that the expression is less clear to people not familiar with the idiom, and it is probably becoming less common. Dbfirs 14:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

It is my memory that fifty years ago don't have/ didn't have/ do you have were almost unheard in Britain, except in a habitual sense. The usual forms were haven't got/ hadn't got/ have you got, and the purists complained about the got in all of these. The do forms have become much more common since. --ColinFine (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the distinctively British alternatives would be "haven't" / "hadn't" / "have you?" -- U.S. English only allows those constructions when "have" is an auxiliary verb, but British English has also allowed them when "have" is a main verb (meaning "to possess") -- "Said Simple Simon to the pieman, Indeed I haven't any" etc. AnonMoos (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Since you mention Simple Simon, I recall, more than 50 years ago, thinking that the construction "Sir, I haven't any" sounded odd because, in my dialect, we would normally say "Sir, I haven't got any". I've now heard the construction so often without "got" that it no longer sounds strange, and, to the modern British ear, it is probably the standard form. Dbfirs 08:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

That have can form its negation like an auxiliary verb even when it is not used as one, semantically and syntactically, but indicates possession, should be noted in Auxiliary verb#Auxiliary verbs vs. light verbs, and that it can undergo inversion should be mentioned in English auxiliaries and contractions. So far, only the possibility of inversion is mentioned in the one, and the possibility of negation without do in the other. Both phenomena are, of course, throwbacks to Early Modern English, when the periphrasis with do was still optional with main verbs. I do not have or Doest thou have? would have been possible, but understood as emphatic (or habitual), I think, while I have not and Hast thou? would have been pragmatically unmarked or neutral. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I have thought that plain "haven't" or "hadn't" sounds stilted or old-fashioned. Does anyone say naturally "when I was a student, I hadn't a car" or "We are sorry, but we haven't any coffee." even in Britain? Surely not in America. --Pxos (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Mór or less

In the first sentence of Mór (given name), I suspect I should be saying "Gaelic" rather than "Irish", but I'm a bit hazy in this area. Could somebody clear this up? Clarityfiend (talk) 14:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

No. The standard name for the Irish language is Irish. Gaelic can refer to either Irish or Scots Gaelic, a related but distinct language. By itself, it is likely to be understood to refer to Scots Gaelic. To avoid confusion, the term should not be used to refer to Irish. Marco polo (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it depends where you are. As noted in your citation, "Irish Gaelic" or just "Gaelic" are alternate names. "Gaelic football" is an Irish sport. Decades ago, in America, I always heard the term "Gaelic" in reference to the Irish language. Here, at least, the substitution of "Irish" for "Gaelic" seems a relatively recent phenomenon. It seems that the preferred is now "Irish". But that transference could explain the OP's confusion on the matter. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The name "Gaelic" for Irish persisted much longer in the Irish diaspora than it did in Ireland. Still, Marco is right, it's ambiguous and should be avoided. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

You forgot Manx Gaelic. Alansplodge (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it called simply Manx?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 04:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

See Gaelic and the linked individual articles. "Gaelic" is originally the collective name for all dialects descended from Old Irish, whether spoken in Ireland, Scotland or the Isle of Man. However, there's a strong tendency now to associate "Gaelic" specifically with Scottish Gaelic, because "Irish" and "Manx" are not ambiguous when referring to a language (Irish English or Anglo-Irish never being referred to as "Irish" alone), while "Scottish" could also be taken to refer to Scots, so Scottish Gaelic is the only Gaelic where you never drop the "Gaelic", usually – while, "Irish" and "Manx" are, strictly speaking, indeed simply abbreviations of the precise terms "Irish Gaelic" and "Manx Gaelic".

Another reason why "Gaelic" may be more strongly associated with Scotland now than it used to be could be Classical Gaelic, which was used longer in Scotland than elsewhere, but never specifically Scottish. Also, due to the Irish spelling reform, standard Scottish Gaelic is the written form of Gaelic most closely resembling Classical Gaelic. Moreover, Scottish Gaelic tends to be more conservative than Irish in general, not only on the written level, but also the spoken and dialect level.

Does the name "Mór" also occur in Scotland? If so, "Irish" would be misleading, but I'm not sure what the best way to phrase it would be: "Gaelic" is too ambiguous and "Goidelic" too technical. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 11:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Mór, Mórag.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 14:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Since the name apparently occurs in both languages, I would say "Irish and Scottish Gaelic". Marco polo (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Ack! I'm just going to be a bit more nebulous, and leave it at that. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

To The Wonder/ A La Merveille

Is it an old idiom? How old is it? Where can I find its oldest usages? Is it derived from Latin? Any comment would be appreciated. Omidinist (talk) 16:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The English phrase to the wonder conveys no meaning to me without context, so I conclude that, at least in the English I know, it is not an idiom. --ColinFine (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the OP means something like "To the wonder(ment) of the audience"? We definitely do need a clarification, per CF. μηδείς (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that the context is To the Wonder, "a 2012 romantic drama art film". A brief look at Google shows that "A la merveille !" seems to be a French exclamation, especially in 19th century books; I'm not sure how you would translate it but "To The Wonder!" doesn't sound right at all. Alansplodge (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

So far, so good. I also refer you to this famous battle cry, Coucy a la merveille, which is from the Middle Ages. Omidinist (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

January 10

"Film" vs "Movie"

I've observed for a while that "film" is the convention in Misplaced Pages. For example, we have Romeo and Juliet (2013 film). Somebody just "corrected" some text in List of sports films from "Sports movies" to "Sports films". I have no problem understanding either form, but as an Australian I don't think I'd be likely to use "film" in this way. I'd be far more likely to say "movie". Last night I went to see a movie. I didn't go to see a film. Well, I did, but "movie" would be my usage. (It was The Railway Man. Very powerful.) It's interesting that both terms are now a bit anachronistic. "Movie" is presumably short for "moving picture", and they've all been that for 80 years now. True "film" format is being replaced by digital forms. But am I out of touch? Is this an American convention? Or something else? HiLo48 (talk) 11:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

As I understand it, there are two reasons "film" is the preferred term at Misplaced Pages: (1) "movie" sounds rather colloquial and less formal than "film" (and encyclopedic tone should be somewhat formal, which is why we also avoid contractions in articles), (2) "movie" sounds like an Americanism to British ears, while "film" is region-neutral. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Industry folks and critics often use the term "picture" instead of "movie", both of which derive from "moving picture". We in America used to regard the term "film" as applying only to pictures that were considered kind of pretentious, like Ingmar Bergman's work or whatever. In contrast, calling the work of Ed Wood "films" would seem like giving him too much credit. However, "film" is technically valid and lacks the slangy character of "movie" and "picture". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

This was all thrashed out back in July 2005.--Shantavira| 17:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe they should reopen it, since actual film is rapidly becoming obsolete. "Movie" is at least a correct term, whether the media is film or digital. StuRat (talk) 17:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I note that the company is still called Lucasfilm despite their move to digital. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not becoming obsolete at all. A film shot on video or digital is still a film. It's a generic term. --Viennese Waltz 19:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

If you refer to a "digital film", then that leaves us with the unfortunate alternative of a "film film". Until recently, we could perhaps assume that any "film" was not digital, without having to specify this, but this is no longer the case. StuRat (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Then it's a movie too! I think there might still be linguistic difference around the world. People here often speak of going to the movies, but never of going to the films. HiLo48 (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we never say "going to the films", but we do say "going to see a film". We would say "going to the cinema" to imply going to see a film, and never "going to the movies". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I've seen non-moving pictures less than 80 years old. —Tamfang (talk) 06:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

This is yet another rehash of the word vs thing debate. Perhaps nominalism? As noted above, the slangy term "moving picture" has come to reflect the essence, while the literal term film', encountered in the Spanish película and the French pellicule, as well as the borrowings Film in German and film in French, have become obsolete, given the technology involved. μηδείς (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not debating anything. I'm seeking knowledge. In Australia we get a lot of our knowledge of the speech of foreigners, like Americans and the British, from the movies and TV. But people on films and TV rarely talk about going to the movies, so I'm asking here. I'm suggesting that, although we understand it, "film" is rarely used, so the Misplaced Pages usage seems a bit strained to my colonial ears. So, if you were going out to see one, would speak of seeing a film or seeing a movie? I would definitely be using the latter, and it wouldn't feel all that "colloquial". HiLo48 (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

It's perhaps interesting to note that the Academy Awards have to the with the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Science, a title which would seem to cover any kind of movie you can think of. In America, the casual fan of the cinema (and there's another synonym) is most likely to say "movie". Siskel and Ebert always called their shows something with "the Movies" in the title. So did their various imitators. Leonard Maltin produces an annual Movie Guide. The term "film" is slightly high-falutin' and seldom used in everyday talk about the movies. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

In the UK, "film" predominates. "Motion picture" is never used as far as I know. We do have the British Film Institute and the British Academy of Film and Television Arts. Obviously "movie" is understood, but not used much except "action movie" which describes an escapist Hollywood spectacular with lots of guns and explosions. There are "film studios", "film sets", "film crews" and "film stars". Shooting a movie is called "filming", a skill which is learnt at "film school". People "go to see a film", "go to the cinema", or more colloquially, "to the pictures" or "the flicks". Alansplodge (talk) 03:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

And there are feature films (not feature movies), filmographies (not movieographies), literary characters portrayed "on film", and so on. Then there's the Internet Movie Database. -- Jack of Oz 03:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Alan, "film" is far from "highfalutin", it's by far the most common manner in which to refer to a moving picture, a feature film, whatever, in the UK. And since the UK (and India, where "film" is also commonplace) are responsible for as many, if not more films than the US, it seems odd to prescribe the word "movie" as being the de facto standard across the world. A quick search also appears to reveal that China and Russia commonly use "film" over "movie". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Or their translators do. HiLo48 (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

It would be odd to select a British term unless they really meant it, what with the universal language of the internet being US English. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Many film festivals are categorized in Category:Film festivals.

—Wavelength (talk) 03:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't accusing you of debating anything, Hilo. I am pointing out that a lot of our questions, including this one, are based on some sort of unclarified etymologogical premise. In this case, we have moving pictures recorded on celluloid film. I don't think there's any way I can be clearer than that. μηδείς (talk) 04:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• According to , film started as a verb (in 1896) for making a noun, motion picture, which was shortened to movie in 1912 (possibly '08). But sure in America they go to the movies, although they learn how to make them in film school, where they dream of shooting movie stars (but not killing them). Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• • Yes, that source says it started as a verb in 1896 meaning "to make a movie of". HiLo48 (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Right, but movie was not in derived until later from motion picture. People may not have wanted to fully say motion picture anymore, and could find it awkward to say 'let's film a film.'Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

In the UK, we would say "let's make a film". We have an article - Filmmaking. Allow me to attempt to summarise this discussion before it starts to deteriorate....

To answer HiLo's question; "movie" is used in everyday speech in North America and it seems, Australia. "Film" is preferred in the UK and some other Commonwealth countries, although use of "movie" is not unknown. On both sides of the Atlantic, "film" is used in more formal contexts, although in the US, "motion picture" is a valid alternative. A film is still a film, whatever technology is used to record it. Correct? Alansplodge (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Russian translation

was presented as a reliable source for the claim:

Andrei Fursov, a Russian historian and academician at the International Academy of Sciences in Innsbruck, Austria, was interviewed in 2012 by the Russian publication Terra America and asked to comment on the characterizations of LaRouche in Western media. He replied that intellectuals who have called LaRouche a fascist do not deserve to be called intellectuals, and that the charge has no basis in any real scientific analysis of politics. Fursov said that LaRouche is little known in Russia, and has insignificant influence

My very rudimentary finding seems to be that the last sentence would be petter para[hrased as

Fursov said that LaRouche is little known in Russia, but that it is not the "quality but the quantity" that counts.[

But I am concerned lest my wording might actually be reversed. Can someone please word the claim properly and accurately at Lyndon LaRouche and at Views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche_and_the_LaRouche_movement? Merci Collect (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that literal translation will do better. Fursov means that by his opinion it's more important that LaRouche is well-known to the definite narrow professional circles than to Russian ordinary general public.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, your wording is reversed. His response is "I wouldn't rush to say 'significant'. I think that in Russia not so many people know of Larouche, although, of course, the important thing is not the quantity, but the quality." The question was whether a significant number of Russian intellectuals have been influenced by Larouche. The answer implies that the influence may be significant even if the number of people so influenced is not great. The claim you quoted is a bit out of context and misleading given the whole interview. --Amble (talk) 14:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

It's also not obvious to me whether Fursov is a reliable source or a notable person whose opinion merits a place in the article. Is the International Academy of Sciences a significant institution? I don't find a Misplaced Pages page for it. Fursov certainly says some silly things, such as that former Obama administration advisor David Axelrod is Leon Trotsky's great-grandson. (Yes, there is a David Axelrod who is a great-grandson of Trotsky. No, he's not that David Axelrod.) --Amble (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Doctor Aybolit

Доктор Айболит, according to our article Doctor Aybolit, can be translated to "Ouch, it hurts". But an IP with these edits claimed it translates to "Dr. Feelgood". Google translate agrees with the IP. However people can add random (and perhaps wrong) translations to Google translate. Assuming good faith, I just fixed the entry. But, is it a legitimate translation? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

From my limited knowledge of Russian, and considering he is known as "Dr. Au, mă doare", i.e. "Dr. Ouch, it hurts" in Romanian, I would say that's the more accurate translation. 92.81.68.23 (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Correct. Ай is an expression of pain, such as "Ouch", "Ow". Feelgood is the polar opposite of the literal translation of болит, the 3rd person present of the verb болeть, which means "it hurts" (the 1st and 2nd persons are never used). It and its plural counterpart болят crop up in expressions like:

• у меня болит в ухе, I have an earache,
• у меня душа болит, my heart bleeds
• у него зубы болят, he has toothache. -- Jack of Oz 22:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, agreed with the above editors and the original "ouch, it hurts" literal translation. Aj, mne boli zub means "Ow, to-me it-hurts the-tooth". μηδείς (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • What is the language in your example?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 05:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
    • My grandmother used to sing this national anthem, Ljuboslov. μηδείς (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

"Dr. Feelgood"? I have no idea from where did it come. BTW, Google Translate is notorious for its buggy "translations" of names. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I can imagine it being an ironic take on his name. I used to play a card game called Grass, which features a "peddle card" called Doctor Feelgood, but that was all about stuff that really does make one feel good. So I'm told. -- Jack of Oz 08:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

To Engish it was translated as Dr. Ouch.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 08:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• I just want to comment that this sort of thing can cause a big problem for a translator. In America the name "Dr. Ouch" has bad connotations -- it certainly doesn't make that doctor seem appealing. It's possible that the literally equivalent name has quite different connotations for Russians. I don't know whether that's true, but it seems likely, and if it is, then a literal translation would be quite misleading. Looie496 (talk) 17:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point. "Ouch" in English is usually something sharp and immediate, so it sounds like the doctor is jabbing you with something. The Russian word doesn't only refer to pain, but also to being sick. I suspect that for a native Russian speaker the name "Dr. Aybolit" sounds more like a patient telling the doctor what's wrong so that he can fix it. --Amble (talk) 18:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I suspect that for Americans the name of a doctor suggests what the doctor does, while for Russians it suggests what the doctor cures. But that's 100% unadulterated speculation. Looie496 (talk) 18:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

One needs to consider the distinction between "translation" and "transliteration" — the former requiring context; this is particulary true when dealing with idiomatic or colloquial terms. If the original intent refers to a doctor who "fixes" patients who has an "ouch", then Dr. Feelgood might be the better translation; whereas if the intent is more derogatory, then something like Dr, Ouchy would be better. ~Доктор зная:71.20.250.51 (talk) 02:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Not so much transliteration as literal translation vs. sense-for-sense translation. But in any case, Dr. Feelgood does have an idiomatic meaning that's completely different. --Amble (talk) 02:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you all for your help. I left it on the page but moved it to "See also".. It is a disambiguate page so people looking for "Dr. Feelgood" might be interested in Доктор Айболит. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • By the by, Google translate translates Айболит as a single word to Veterinarian. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

January 12

"Pandian" meaning in Chinese

Can anyone tell me the meaning of "Pandian" in Chninese? Some one said that it meant for occupied land. Can anyone give me the link of Chinese-English dictionary to refer the meaning of "Pandian" in English? Someone told me that in chinese it refers to "Occupied Land". But I can't find that dictionary in online and what dictionary it is.

There are five places in the name of Pandian in China. Dozens of Highways are there in China in the name of Pandian. One of the online chinese dictionary shows "Pandian" meant for the words related to Tax and Wages.

But I want to know why that places named as "Pandian" and in Which period That places were named and by whom they were named. Tag my name if any one answer.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 10:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

@Tenkasi Subramanian There are two different Chinese words transliterated into English as Pandian:

盘店 is the process of transferring your shop and goods to someone else. 盘 is difficult to translate accurately but similar to transfer. 店 is simply a shop.

潘店 is a common place time whose etymology is difficult to determine without reading related chorographies, because all of five places (I listed three of them in Chinese Misplaced Pages) are rather small towns. My best guess is that 潘 is a surname (because other meanings are extraordinarily rare), while 店 refers to occupied land. That is to say, 潘店 is likely to be a occupied land owned by the Pan family in ancient times. Although this kind of naming is quite common in China, I'm not sure whether all of five places are named after a Pan family in history.

--HNAKXR (talk) 14:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

User talk:HNAKXR Thanks for your info Dude.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Russian surname of a married woman

Our article Eastern Slavic naming customs says, "On marriage, women usually adopt the surname of their husband" and "As with all Slavic adjectives, family names have different forms depending on gender — for example, the wife of Борис Ельцин (Boris Yel'tsin) is Наина Ельцина (Naina Yel'tsina)." But how are surnames in -ovich feminized? I know that patronyms in -ovich have feminine equivalents in -ovna, but is this true of surnames as well? Dmitri Shostakovich's wife's name was Irina; was she Irina Shostakovna? Irina Shostakovicha? Something else? Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't change at all, even in oblique cases: Irina Shostakovich, Iriny Shostakovich, Irine Shostakovich etc.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Are surnames in -ovich even considered adjectives then? The article does also say, "Noun-family-names like "Lebed'" ... are not changed based on gender - the feminine form is the same as masculine." Does the masculine form inflect in oblique cases (Дмитрия Шостаковича, etc.)? Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes. From his Russian WP article: "Прадед Шостаковича по отцовской линии ...". -- Jack of Oz 19:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, they (surnames on -ov, -in, -ovich) were considered possessive adjectives some a thousand years ago. :) Now they are nouns.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 07:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Why are the -ovich names declined only for masculine holders of these names? I know the -in and -ov names are declined for both sexes (). -- Jack of Oz 07:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Because -ovich came from the masculine form -ov-itjь of possessive adjectives. I don't know why the feminine form -ov-ьna in surnames hasn't lived till our days.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 08:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I would say it doesn't decline because no feminine name ending in a consonant (or -o) ever declines. Once it's set that there's no feminine form of this name, i.e. that nominative ends in -ich, it can't decline. As to why there's no feminine nominative form ending in -a (which would decline), I don't know, but probably because it would look too much like a patronymic, and unlike -ov and -in forms, no male-line ethnic Russian would have this as a last name, it's a typical South Slav last name (or Jewish). Male forms declines like a patronymic purely as a coincidence, all foreign male last names ending in a consonant decline. --108.202.177.21 (talk) 08:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

So, hypothetically, I could construct a sentence about Dmitri Shostakovich and his wife, where they were the object of a verb and their names were in accusative; the word "Shostakovicha" would refer to the composer (although it looks like the feminine nominative form, if there were one), and the male-looking "Shostakovich" would refer to his wife. Cool. -- Jack of Oz 10:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

That's how it works in Serbo-Croatian, more or less. However, since it resists indeclinable nouns more strongly than Russian, female surnames (on -ić, but others as well) are supposed to be "possessivized" back when the first name is omitted: Video sam Dmitrija Šostakoviča i Ninu Šostakovič > Video sam Šostakoviča i Šostakovičevu. In practice, they are often left undeclined, and there's even a difference in Serbian (requiring adjectivization) and Croatian standards, AFAIK.
On the other hand, all female surnames are supposed to be possesivized in Czech and Slovak, in all forms: see sk:Angela Merkelová, sk:Ana Ivanovićová. No such user (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Russian translation, worldcat

What would be a good translation of the "Publisher" line from this page? --Soman (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Odessa : Kollegii︠a︡ propagandy sot︠s︡ial'nogo soznanii︠a︡ pri Ob"edinënnykh Anarkhicheskikh organizat︠s︡ii︠a︡kh ; 1920

That means something like "Odessa: College of Propaganda of Socialist Consciousness of the United Anarchical Organisations; 1920". -- Jack of Oz 18:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

"United Anarchical Organisations"? Isn't that an oxymoron? Rojomoke (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I thought so, too. But there we have it. -- Jack of Oz 00:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be "social consciousness" rather than "socialist consciousness"? --Amble (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I thought it could be either, until I checked. Thanks, Amble. -- Jack of Oz 01:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it better "under"?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 07:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

"College" is technically correct, but confusing to a modern reader. It has the same sense as in electoral college, not as in an educational institution. --108.202.177.21 (talk) 08:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

So "Board of... under...".--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 09:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I beg to differ on that one. Where I come from, colleges are almost always educational institutions. -- Jack of Oz 09:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

What are you differing on? 108's point is that English college sounds like it refers to an educational institution, but this коллегия isn't an educational institution. So Lüboslóv suggested board instead. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

My indenting indicates I was responding to 108, not Lüboslóv. I thought 108 is saying "college" would suggest an electoral college to "a modern reader", whereas what he feels we need is a word that suggests an educational institution. Is he saying that neither of these meanings is the one we need here? (If so, his wording is no less confusing than that which he draws attention to.) And how do we know just what we need; in the absence of any context to guide us, just the title of an entity, wouldn't the default translation of коллегия be appropriate here? -- Jack of Oz 21:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

(I am the same user as 108.202.177.21 above). I am sorry for confusion. Коллегия can only mean a commission, or a board, a group of officials tasked with something, or something of that sort. It can't ever mean a university. Because it's cognate with English "college" (both come from Latin collegium), you may be tempted to translate it as "college" because "college" can be and was used in this sense also, as in electoral college, college of cardinals, etc., but it's a bad idea because that's no longer its primary meaning. "Board", on the other hand, is unambiguous and is better here. --172.56.30.6 (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Would "Committee" be an acceptable translation? That would be the most usual word for such a group of persons in English. Tevildo (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

To 108 turned 172: I never imagined that there is some sort of formal school where one went to learn how to be socially conscious about anarchy. In English we have things like the Royal Australian College of Physicians etc, which you only get into once you've done your formal learning at university and demonstrated you've acquired a certain degree of professional skill in practice. I take the point that the entity in question is probably more like a board/commission/committee, but "college" is not necessarily inappropriate. -- Jack of Oz 19:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

January 13

difference between pool and pond

What is the difference between pool and pond? If there is one in the fields dug for watering the plants, which should be used? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.202.187.153 (talk) 05:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

A pool has more defined edges and shape, with something forming the outside of it. A pond is more like a small lake, with soil defining the sides and bottom. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The term "pond" is cognate with "pound" and implies an enclosed space (in this case, filled with water). The term "pool" means "small body of water", and while what Mike said is true for a swimming pool or other small bodies of water, the term "pool" can also designate an area within a larger body of water, often with a specifying adjective, such as the "plunge pool" of a waterfall, or a "whirlpool", or a calm pool such as the one just ahead of the brink of Victoria Falls, as shown by these knuckleheads. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I would call the body of water dug in the fields for watering the plants a pond. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Pond is more specific - a pool can be anything from a puddle in the palm of your hand to a largish lake. Not sure about the "defined edges" argument, see Dozmary Pool. Alansplodge (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, that may have "Pool" as part of its proper name, but having seen it in Google Street View, if I encountered it without knowing its name I would refer to it as a pond. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

If it were in The Land of 10,000 Lakes, it would most definitely qualify as a "lake". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The word pool has connotations of depth and/or of being a place where water collects. In North American English, it refers to 1) a place where water has collected, in which case it is synonymous with puddle, 2) a purpose built basin for wading or swimming, or 3) a deep spot in a stream or river, for example at the base of a waterfall. The word pond refers in North American English to 1) a small artificial reservoir, or 2) a small lake. The word pool cannot refer to a lake in North American English. Marco polo (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I can't think of an argument for Marco Polo, so here's some soppy poetry instead:

"A GARDEN is a lovesome thing, God wot! / Rose plot, / Fringed pool, / Fern’d grot— / The veriest school / Of peace..." Alfred, Lord Tennyson.

Fact remains, pond is a better word, whichever side of the pool you're on ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Glad he did not ask for the difference between a Sea and a Pond (see Billington Sea.) Collect (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

A bit more Googling suggests that in England, a "pool" can be an artificial lake (Blue Pool), a coastal bay or cove (Chapmans Pool) or even a river (Rusland Pool). Alansplodge (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Generally, seasonal wetlands in the US are called vernal pools, -- one supposes it maybe possible to artificially create one. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

My feeling is that it is a matter of size. A vernal pool is more like a puddle than a pond. It's a deep spot that water drains into, seasonally. Anything larger than about 80 meters in width would more likely be called an intermittent pond or lake than a vernal pool. Marco polo (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Using the word however.

Hi,

I've got an English question that has to do with the transitional phrase however. More specifically, where it goes in a sentence. Another editor is changing every sentence which begins with however in a particular article I am watching and leaving almost never a good idea to start a sentence with 'However', - Malleus in the edit summary. In some cases, it actually seems like an improvement, but in others, I'm not so sure. To be honest English wasn't my strongest subject at school so I tried looking online. It seems like there are lots of sentences that begin with however. I guess it could just be a matter of personal style, but not sure. Here are some examples of sentences that were edited.

• Original: However, there is no clear record of when drops were introduced.

  Edited: There is no clear record of when drops were introduced, however.

• Original: However, it is thought that these were only played to a very limited extent.

  Edited. It is thought that these were played to only a very limited extent, however.

• Original: However, this is not equivalent to the more traditional way of "gaining professional status,"

  Edited: This is not equivalent, however, to the more traditional way of "gaining professional status",

I not sure why the first two edits were needed since moving however from the beginning of the sentence to the end IMO does not seem like an improvement at all. I can understand the third edit and it does seem better to me.

Is there a specific rule relating to the word however and where it should go in a sentence? Thanks in advance. Marchjuly (talk) 07:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

You forgot to add these, as well ...

• Original: However, if this occurs with one player giving perpetual check, then that player loses.

  Edited: If this occurs with one player giving perpetual check, however, then that player loses.

• Original: However, the game has been relatively slow to spread to countries where Chinese characters are not in common use.

  Edited: The spread of the game to countries where Chinese characters are not in common use, however, has been slower.

• Original: However, if a piece occupies a legal destination for an opposing piece, it may be captured by removing it from the board and replacing it with the opposing piece.

  Edited: If a piece occupies a legal destination for an opposing piece, it may be captured by removing it from the board and replacing it with the opposing piece.

• Original: However, in practice, a pawn is promoted whenever possible, for the most part.

  Edited: In practice, however, a pawn is usually promoted whenever possible.

• Original: However, if this occurs with one player giving perpetual check, then that player loses.

  Edited: If this occurs with one player giving perpetual check, however, then that player loses.

• Original: However, partially because the traditional pieces are already iconic by size, with more powerful pieces being larger, most Western players soon learn to recognize them, and Westernized pieces have never become popular.

  Edited: Most players soon learn to recognize the characters, however, partially because the traditional pieces are already iconic by size, with more powerful pieces being larger. As a result Westernized pieces have never become popular.

• Original: However, either capture or promotion may occur normally on subsequent moves by the piece.

  Edited: Capture and/or promotion may occur normally, however, on subsequent moves of the piece.

• Original: However, other pieces may be dropped to give immediate checkmate.

  Edited: (Although other pieces may be dropped to give immediate checkmate.)

• Original: However, like chess, the game can be divided into the opening, middle game and endgame, each requiring a different strategy.

  Edited: Like chess, however, the game can be divided into the opening, middle game and endgame, each requiring a different strategy.

• Original: However, since a knight cannot move backward or to the sides, it must promote when it lands on one of the two far ranks and would otherwise be unable to move further.

  Edited: A knight must promote, however, if it reaches either of the two furthest ranks (see Promotion).

• Original: However, since a lance cannot move backward or to the sides, it must promote if it arrives at the far rank.

  Edited: A lance must promote, however, if it arrives at the furthest rank (see Promotion).

• Original: However, this is an influence of international chess and is not required, even as a courtesy.

  Edited: This is an influence of international chess and is not required, however, even as a courtesy.

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The idea that a sentence should never start with "However" is rather outdated. Most writers these days use it in that way, and Fowler's Modern English has no objection to it as long as it is immediately followed by a comma, and gives the following example from William Golding: "I should be so angry if the situation were not so farcial. However, I had a certain delight in some of the talk."--Shantavira| 08:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that however should be used between two clauses. One suggestion is to join two sentences with a semicolon; however, the two sentences should be relatively short ones. Note however, that you also can refer indirectly to the previous sentence or idea. ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 09:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, however can also be used as an adverb (it's in the class that also includes who(m)ever, wherever, whatever, whenever), and it is certainly not followed by a comma in that case: However you do it, I want it finished by 8 o'clock. -- Jack of Oz 09:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for all of the replies. I think you're all right. This other editor is, of course, trying in good faith to improve the article; However , it does seem (at least to me) that they strongly feel that their way is the best way regardless. I'm not so sure if that's the Misplaced Pages way. But, life goes on and so do I. Thanks again. Marchjuly (talk) 10:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC

Your I'm not so sure if that's the Misplaced Pages way seems to be suggesting that I've been violating WP policy or best practice(s). (If not that, then what are you suggesting, and on what basis??) I am a serious good-faith editor on WP and do my best with every edit. You are a relatively new user, and on what basis are you seeming to suggest that my editing is inappropriate or counter-best WP practice(s)?? (I'd like an answer, please!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I can't figure out why you and Eric Corbett are being so darned snippy. The OP was clearly just asking whether there are any "rules" in English, and specifically on WP, regarding the placement of however in a sentence. Though the question was promped by your edits, he wasn't challenging them in particular and made it a point not to name you. He just wanted information, and this is the reference desk, not WP:ANI. What Eric's problem is, I can't imagine, except perhaps that when one is a malleus fatuorum for long enough, everyone else starts looking like a fatuus. I apologize to everyone for attracting his attention by linking his name. Deor (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey Deor, I've made my objections clear. They have nothing to do with the grammar issue, only their out-of-context nature along w/ innuendo comment. If anyone is treating this as an WP:ANI it is you. I have no reason to know you or debate you. Please go away. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC) p.s. The point about "never being named" is ludicrous; anyone w/ a modicum of edit history research skill could easily identify the user in question. (With making BS points like that ... are you a troll!? The fact you're taking this opportunity to take a tacky swipe at Malleus supports the contention, if I wanted to make it.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

You seriously need to relax and take a break. See WP:LAME, and remember that this one would definitely be one of the lamest. --Bowlhover (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

And your drive-by comment/insult isn't lame!? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC) p.s. Please don't answer. I have no reason to post here again unless there is more obvious antagonism. And who are you to give advice w/ a mere 2,569 edits since 2005 mostly in WP space?!

@Ihardlythinkso: Once again, I am truly sorry for any comments I made here that offended you. I have stuck them out as well as a sign of my sincerity. I wasn't my intent to call into question your integrity as an editor. I should have chosen my words more carefully. Marchjuly (talk) 14:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Strunk & White recommend placing "however" first when it means "in whatever way" or "to whatever extent", and not placing it first when it means "nevertheless" . This is not a firm grammatical rule, but it does have some support even before The Elements of Style and is now accepted by many as good style (largely on the authority of the book). Malleus The other editor is enforcing this rule, but in a slightly odd way: the examples in Strunk & White place "however" within a clause, not at the end. Their clear preference is for "however" in second position. I'm not at all sure they would approve of placing it at the end of a sentence, even if it is consistent with the rule as they stated it. The rule about "however" is one of the visible signs that distinguished people in different camps on questions of grammar and style. You don't have to follow it, but following it won't hurt anything -- and it will make some people happier. Personally, I follow the advice from The Elements of Style, but I wouldn't impose it on someone else's writing.

Although you didn't ask about it, there are a couple of things that should certainly be avoided:

• Using "however" as a fancy version of "but".
• Dropping in a "however" sentence to try to argue for or against something. This often leads to Misplaced Pages articles with whole paragraphs that run "However, A. However, B. However, C." They seem to be arguing with themselves.

These are bigger issues than whether or not you follow the however-first rule. --Amble (talk) 15:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Amble for all that great info. I actually felt putting however and the end of those sentences made them sound slightly worse. I thought about changing them back to the original sentence and then asking for a discussion, but this other person seemed so sure. I have no idea who Malleus is and I tried searching on the Internet, but had no luck. Plus, this other person makes so many edits in a short period of time, self-reverts many of them within a few minutes, and then goes back and re-edits them to something else. So, I thought it would be best to let the dust settle first and ask here. I kinda agree with you in that using too many howevers may spoil the broth. Thanks again --Marchjuly (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

"Malleus" presumably refers to the Misplaced Pages user Malleus Fatuorum, now User:Eric Corbett, who must have at some time expressed the opinion quoted in the edit summary. For a case in which the sentence-final positioning of however is absolutely perfect, I can't avoid mentioning the last sentence of Garrison Keillor's short story "End of the Trail". Deor (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The user formerly known as Malleus is indeed me, and I stick by my opinion that beginning a sentence with However is almost always a bad idea, almost as bad an idea as using with as a linking word. Eric Corbett 21:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you explain why it's so bad, Eric? If it's used as a synonym of "nevertheless", why doesn't your rule extend to that word as well? Putting "nevertheless" at the end of a phrase would be "almost always a bad idea", so why not "however"? -- Jack of Oz 21:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. In what universe is "however" a synonym for "nevertheless"? Eric Corbett 23:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

In any universe containing a thesaurus. --Amble (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Professor Irwin Corey, who is due to turn 100 in July and already looked old in the 1960s, would sometimes start his lectures with "However..." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Baseball Bugs for the reply. People who have lived to be 100 probably are right more times than not. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Not directly related to your question, but we should be very cautious about using the word "however" in Misplaced Pages articles at all: see WP:EDITORIALIZING. --ColinFine (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks ColinFine. I'm learning new stuff about Misplaced Pages each and every day. I didn't know that, so thanks for the link. Marchjuly (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

See WP:MOS#Semicolon before "however".

—Wavelength (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Wavelength Marchjuly (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's get something straight User:Marchjuly; I'm not trying to improve the article, I am improving the article. Eric Corbett 21:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Have I wandered into the middle of somebody else's fight? I honestly have no idea who you are Eric. You are definitely not the other editor I was referring to above. If you are, then the name you're using here is different. Anyway, I'm truly sorry if I somehow confused you with somebody else. My bad. I'm still making lots of mistakes on Misplaced Pages, but have been making mistakes in English for even longer. So, sorry if either rubbed you the wrong way. I just posted here looking for different opinions, and not necessarily only ones that I like. Thanks for the input. Marchjuly (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

So which editor are you referring to? Eric Corbett 23:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Well it isn't doesn't appear to be you Eric. Unless it was a long time ago. None of you show any real interaction. See Eric Corbett and Malleus Fatuorum and Marchjuly or Malleus Fatuorum and Marchjuly. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be not you, but someone else invoking your former username in an edit summary: --Amble (talk) 00:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Amble. You are right. That's what I meant when I wrote Another editor is changing every sentence which begins with however in a particular article I am watching and leaving almost never a good idea to start a sentence with 'However', - Malleus in the edit summary. in my original question. I didn't realize that it was confusing. I also didn't feel it was appropriate to use the other editor's name, since I was just interested in finding out what others thought and not publicly shaming anyone. Once again, Eric I am sorry if this bag of cr*p somehow landed on doorstep. That was never my intention. Marchjuly (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

FYI, the edit sum quotation referred to by User:Marchjuly above, was in quotes: . User:Marchjuly failed to reproduce the quotes when quoting the edit sum. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso is correct. I mistakenly left out the quotations marks for the name Malleus in that edit summary. It was completely unintentional and silly mistake on my part. I should have been more careful. I sincerely apologize to Ihardlythinkso, Eric Corbett and anyone else misled by my mistake.Marchjuly (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I mistakenly left out the quotations marks for the name Malleus. No, I never put name Malleus in quotes -- only what (I remembered/thought) he said. (And, I haven't always done that consistently either, when misquoting Malleus.) I understand your apology, and accept it, WP:AGF. You are new-ish editor, and I realize same, you need some slack. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Malleus, sorry for misquoting you (especially invoking the ungrammatical "with"!). I shouldn't quote without having the exact quote in front of me. (I've been trying to find it, but it's difficult. I believe it is somewhere.) I did find this:

Do you have any guidance on the correct use (aka overuse) of the word "however"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I do; avoid it when there's no contradiction and when there is, never start a sentence with it. Malleus Fatuorum 02:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I also found this by User:Noleander:

It is almost always a bad idea to start a sentence with "However", especially at the start of a paragraph. --Noleander (talk) 20:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

... so it's possible I melded the two in my head over time. (But I don't think so; I think Noleander may have been paraphrasing you! ) Thanks for not saying I shouldn't quote you (I feel quoting you is stronger than quoting MOS); if I quote you again I promise to try to do it correctly. Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: As you can see above in this thread, the article was a mess. I tried to improve it. (I did improve it.) It's a bit demoralizing to have an editor come here and display a selected fraction of my edits on the grammar issue, and then suggest my copyedit work might not be "the Misplaced Pages way". (The background is that I reverted this new-ish editor at the article early on, went to his user Talk to attempt a WP:BRD, and since then he has been consulting grammar reference boards over minor aspects of my overall editing, leaving innuendo remarks – such as reminding reference board participants how polite he is and of his "spreading good karma" in comparison to the "unpleasnat experience" he had with me on his user Talk. An editor here has gone to the user's Talk as a result of this thread to assure him he was "polite all around". Oh sure. That's a selective point of view. While I'm the editor receiving the negative innuendo comments by this user. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I've never interacted with you, Marchjuly, or the article before this point, but see WP:LAME. You don't like politeness? Fine, let me be rude to both of you. NO READER GIVES A DAMN WHETHER HOWEVER COMES AT THE BEGINNING OR END. NOT A DAMN. NOT A FLYING FUCK. The article was not a mess before, nor is it a mess now, nor was it ever a mess in between. All your complaints about Marchjuly are minor and inconsequential, as are Marchjuly's complaints about you.

By the way, being an old or new editor doesn't grant you extra privileges. That really is not the Misplaced Pages way. --Bowlhover (talk) 16:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Malleus gives a flying fuck. And so do many other respected editors (like, SandyGeorgia). (Who the fuck are you?!? No boon to building the encyclopedia with your putrid edit count since 2005, I'll wager.) Go away, troll. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Then Malleus and the other editors should find something more important to work on. Also, see WP:NPA. Personal attacks are also not the Misplaced Pages way. --Bowlhover (talk) 18:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Wipe you mouth.

When you want to ask somebody to remove the sauce or any bits of food left around his mouth after eating, is it okay to just say, "Wipe your mouth."? Thank you.203.228.255.210 (talk) 14:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

That seems a bit insistent and I would only use it with a close friend. With someone else I might say, "You have a bit of food..." and then point to the same place on my own face. Dismas| 14:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't even use it with a close friend. If I had children, I would use it only with them. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

In most varieties of English, using a simple imperative form like that implies that the person speaking is a superior and the person receiving the command is an inferior. It is most often used by parents toward children, but it might also be used from a commanding officer in the military to a subordinate or from a prison guard to a prisoner. If an adult outside a military or penal institution uses the simple imperative toward another adult, particularly when it has to do with the recipient's body, the person receiving the command will feel disrespected and insulted. Even in the workplace, a boss would not normally say to a subordinate "Wipe your mouth" because it would be insulting. (Maybe an abusive boss would do this.) On the other hand, in some workplaces, it is okay for a boss to use the simple imperative to command a work task that does not refer to the employee's body (for example, "Make 20 copies of this report.") In my workplace, bosses would not use the simple imperative even to assign a work task. Instead, they might say "Could you make 20 copies of this report?", softening the command by putting it in question form. Because the command to wipe the mouth has to do with a person's body, even the question form would be insulting. You would not normally say "Could you wipe your mouth?" I can imagine a wife saying that to a husband, because they are intimate, but even then the husband would feel a bit disrespected or put down. Instead you would say something like, "You might want to give your mouth a wipe." Even this is something that you can only say to someone you know. If it is a stranger or someone you don't know well, the most you can do is say, "Um, excuse me..." and then maybe pantomime with a napkin, and smile in a friendly way. Marco polo (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, with a minor provision that tone is important when it comes to issuing commands like this. Between close friends, even something as blunt as "Wipe your mouth!" could still be acceptable, if the tone of voice and/or body language made it clear that the command was in fact just a suggestion. Matt Deres (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Just added "please" after would soften it enough for me. StuRat (talk) 21:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Why do we care?

The question demonstrates the discomfort most people feel around others who aren't aware they have stuff around their mouths. It extends to speakers who frequently develop little patches of white spittle on their lips or the corners of their mouth, and some are notorious for it (John Howard, for example).

I wonder why it bothers us so much. -- Jack of Oz 21:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Because as they talk there's a significant chance that sauce or spittle may fly your way ? StuRat (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

That per se never bothered me, I must say. Just the look of it is enough. Often, when I saw Howard speaking on TV (where there was zero chance of being sprayed), I had the urge to reach out and wipe it off his mouth, or shout something unrepeatable at his minders who had failed in their duties. -- Jack of Oz 22:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe white stuff around the mouth can be an external sign of one of those evil, possibly highly contagious diseases "we" realised we needed to avoid thousands of years ago. HiLo48 (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

If a speaker is careless about his personal appearance, it can compromise his message. A good example would be if the guy has his fly open. Are you listening to the speech? Or are you focused on his open fly, and wondering if he's really that unobservant, and if so, whether what he has to say reflects that inattentiveness. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

January 14

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