Language desk
< May 28	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 30 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 29[edit]

Asinine[edit]

Is asinine an appropriate word you'd use? Or does the word contain more of a vulgar kind of tone? Since one of it's definitions from wiktionary is
Failing to exercise intelligence or judgment; ridiculously below average rationality.
A person being called an ass usually resembles similar properties... if you know what I mean! --Agester 05:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the word to carry any vulgar connotation in most circles; indeed, I don't imagine that most, ven in view of the homophony and the coincidence of meaning, associate one with the other (Random House's Maven seems to concur). OTOH, I recall having (when rather young) heard a (not particularly funny) joke that related the two: (rough recollection) My grammar teacher asked us to compose a sentence involving asinine and ruminate, so I wrote that the innkeeper told the guest, "if there's no room in [room] eight, put your ass in nine" (as I said, not overly clever). Joe 05:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asinine is a sophisticated way of calling someone an ass, and is not vulgar for anyone this side of Miss Manners (and maybe not even for her). Clarityfiend 16:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that in American usage, "ass" is a word for "buttocks" that is at least somewhat vulgar (corresponding to "arse" in British usage). "Asinine" has nothing to do with that meaning of "ass", but some people may be uncomfortable with it because of the resemblance (as well as the connection via the animal's name). Whether you think that's worth concerning yourself with is your decision. --Anonymous, May 29, 2007, 22:38 (UTC).

I wouldn't use it unless I wanted to be insulting. While the word technically is not related to ass, some people would still see as related since they would have the genereal understanding that it is not a positive description. You can't count on people to know the real meaning of words. For instance, this guy lost his job for using the word Niggardly, even after it was pointed out what the true meaning of the word was. --Czmtzc 13:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, asinine appears in Potter Stewart's dissent in the landmark Supreme Court case Griswold v. Connecticut. MattDredd (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Farmers golf[edit]

I heard about Farmers golf on the radio and looked it up here. I originally looked it up under "Farmer's golf" since I thought it should be the possessive form. The article seems to be of two minds about this though. The article title is "Farmers golf" whereas the first sentence calls it "Farmer's golf". Which should it be, grammitcally speaking? Dismas|^(talk) 09:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's played by more than one farmer, so it should be "Farmers' Golf", I think. Neil (►) 11:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Too lazy to chase this up in a style guide, but I think the same principle that gives us Shepherd's pie is at work. Incidentally, that article refers (unsourced) to shepherd's pie as an Irish dish, while I had always assumed it was British. The OED gives first known use as 1877 referring to something eaten by the Scots. Anyone know anything about this? Algebraist 12:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But a shepherd's pie is for one shepherd. It's a farmers' market, not a farmer's market. Neil (►) 13:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This website would have us use "Farmersgolf^TM". --Lambiam ^Talk 14:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Facade(with a long a) or Facade(with a short a)[edit]

How do you pronounce facade? Please help me.....camille32 09:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)camille32

Fa-saad, with the stress on the second syllable. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 10:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither long nor short, but broad. It has the same vowel as in father, as opposed to gate (long a) or cat (short a). (God I hate this terminology.) --Ptcamn 10:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And strictly speaking it should be written façade, with a cedilla under the c. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 11:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know Ptcamn may disagree with me, but if you're using it as an English word, the cedilla is optional (and, imo, unnecessary). In a French context of course, the cedilla is mandatory. -- JackofOz 12:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I'd never come across the idea of it being optional in English before. Can you provide a source for this, Jack? Also, why do you believe it to be unnecessary? Personally I would never drop the accent from a word like café. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 14:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AHD lists facade as a variant. --Ptcamn 14:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pretty standard convention, I think. For example, the Guardian style guide gives:

Use accents on French, German, Spanish and Irish Gaelic words (but not anglicised French words such as cafe, apart from exposé, résumé)

(the exceptions presumably being for disambiguation). Wikipedia doesn't seem to have an opinion on this, but we have an article titled facade. Algebraist 15:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Associated Press style forbids all accents (or used to, at least). I believe this was due to the inability of some news tickers to handle special characters. -- Mwalcoff 01:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For writers, I think it is generally a question of following the style your organisation uses, and they all differ in various ways. Hence there is no such thing as "right" or "wrong" when it comes to the use of accents in English. The fact remains that accented letters are not part of the English alphabet. However, if a member of the general populace asked me whether it's necessary to include diacritics in the spelling of words borrowed from other languages, I'd say "No". I do not understand the Guardian's insistence on retaining the accents for exposé and résumé, while allowing it to be dropped for cafe. All three are now recognised English words, so why make the distinction? -- JackofOz 01:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The penny has just dropped that exposé and résumé could be mistaken for expose and resume if the accents weren't there. That's possible, but I believe the context would generally permit the correct word to be understood. We don't seem to need accents to differentiate the many other heteronyms in the language. -- JackofOz 03:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know of three English words in which a soft g is not followed by a front vowel letter (e,i,y): margarine, judgment, digoxin. Other than facade without cedilla, are there any analogous words for c? —Tamfang 07:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another g case in British spelling: gaol (as in The Ballad of Reading Gaol). --Lambiam ^Talk 21:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question on aprostrofy's[edit]

If I were to say: "Heres a poem"', should there be an aprostrofy after or before the "s" in "Heres", or even one at all? Hyper flyin' 13:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there should, before the s. And BTW, the correct spelling is apostrophe. In your heading, the plural would be apostrophes (no apostrophe). --Richardrj ^talk ^email 13:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason you would use an apostrophe is because "Here's" is a shortened form of "Here is," and the apostrophe is used to indicate the omitted letter. An apostrophe can also be used to show possession, as described in the linked article. --LarryMac | Talk 14:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help! Hyper flyin' 14:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also Contraction (grammar)#English. --Lambiam ^Talk 14:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bering Strait pronunciation[edit]

How is Bering pronounced in "Bering Strait"? __Chaduvari 14:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be-ring, with the stress on the first syllable and the 'e' pronounced like the 'e' in bed. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 14:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, IPA: /ˈbɛɹɪŋ/. --Kjoonlee 18:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The dictionaries I've looked at have a few different pronounciations but none of them have the "r" as part of the second syllable. Recury 19:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to have a look at syllable, which mentions ambisyllabicity. --Kjoonlee 00:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two name pronounciation questions[edit]

How do you pronounce Schrödinger, as in Erwin Schrödinger, and Kerouac, as in Jack Kerouac? Thanks -GhostPirate 16:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page of Erwin Schrodinger has a link for pronouncing the name (http://www.answers.com/schrodinger&r=67) I have heard Jack Kerouac said as in...Ker-roo-ack (like Ker as in kerotine, roo as in kangaroo and ack as in pack)? Sorry it does have one of thoes ipa (?) things in the article but i've no idea how to read them!! ny156uk 17:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See IPA chart for English. Using this, the article claims that it's ker (e as in bed) uh (like the initial a in about) wak (like the a in lad). The stress is on the first syllable. Don't know where that IPA came from though. Algebraist 17:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Kerouac article's pronunciation, as rendered in IPA, seems correct to me. As for Erwin Schrödinger, the article gives the IPA for the pronunciation in Austrian German. The problem is that several of these sounds do not occur in English and would be difficult for an untrained English speaker to pronounce. The toughest sound to imitate is the 'ö'. It is the same sound as the vowel in the German schön and rougly the same sound as the vowel in the French feu. It is something like the vowel in "bird" as pronounced in some non-rhotic varieties of English (as spoken in some parts of England, for example). The IPA symbol for this vowel is 'ø'. Rendering the rest of his name in the most similar English sounds, you could pronounce it "EHR veen SHRØ ding uh" with no hard 'g' in the last name. That is, the "ing" in Schrödinger is pronounced like the "ing" in singer, not the "ing" in finger. Marco polo 17:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with "a as in lad" is that people pronounce lad differently from each other. See bad-lad split. There are roughly two ways of solving this sort of problem. The first is the IPA. The second is providing sound recordings. Can anyone upload Erwin Schrödinger for me? In exchange, I'll upload a Korean name of your choice. --Kjoonlee 17:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to that article, a as in lad is unambiguous (always /æ/); it's bad that causes trouble. Marco polo: I agree that Kerouac as [ˈkɛɹəwæk] seems correct (it's how I pronounce it), I just wouldn't mind seeing a source on how he pronounced the name or something. Algebraist 20:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, my mistake, but I wanted to point out that it's not a fail-safe method. --Kjoonlee 17:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

poem[edit]

I have a short latin poem that I would like to translate into english. I don't know what it is called or where I might find an official translation, so it looks like I will have to do it myself. What is the easiest and cheepest way of doing this?

If it's short, you could put it here and a Wikipedian might translate it for free. --Ptcamn 18:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But only if you cheep nicely, of course. Bielle 22:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Information Lost in Time[edit]

I am looking for the word or term for when information in general (i.e. ancient history) goes from one generation to another and each time this happens a bit of information gets lost in time. Ultimately (i.e. 1000 years - 5000 years) enough information gets lost in time of the "little bits" that some important historical facts are no longer in the history books of modern times (i.e. detailed construction of the Colossus of Rhodes or the construction of the Great Pyramid of Giza).What is this "term" or "word"? Is there a term for the opposite of this where then the "original" information is found again (i.e. detailed engineering plans for the construction of the Great Pryamid of Giza found in the center of the structure carved into the walls of a hidden chamber) or another example might be the Rosseta Stone of different languages to be able to then read Hieroglyphs, a skill (knowledge), once lost in time, is then retrieved. This "term"?--Doug ^talk 20:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lost knowledge, no? - Nunh-huh 23:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lossy compression? —Tamfang 07:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You would think there would be a particular word (or term) for this LOST KNOWLEDGE OF THE GREEKS, for example. Perhaps the recovery of this "Lost Knowledge" might be called the Renaissance, which I understand was a term not actually used by the humanist in the Fourteenth Century. What was the word or term used then for this "rebirth" of knowledge lost of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Cicero, etc.- that was recovered ("Found Knowledge") around the 14th to 16th centuries.--Doug ^talk 12:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could have arcanum/arcana, recondite or abstruse. — Gareth Hughes 13:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Yes, I believe you are correct.--Doug ^talk 17:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I have observed. When I go to older encyclopedias (i.e. 1914 Encyclopedia Britannica, 1911 old Catholic Encyclopedia, other older encyclopedias ("Cyclopedias") 50 - 100+ years old, there seems to be bits of knowledge that are no longer in the "modern" versions (for whatever reason). Is this just my observation or is there such a phenomenon? Why so?--Doug ^talk 17:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is certainly such a phenomenon. It's also entirely possible (particularly on short timescales like you're describing) that the bits have been intentionally omitted for a variety of reasons rather than having been accidentally lost. — Lomn 22:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Is there then a term as related to this of "intentional"?--Doug ^talk 16:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of stuff that could be put in an encyclopedia increases each year. Publishers of encyclopedias understandably want to limit the total size. —Tamfang 01:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now I get it - Wikipedia! (paperless)--Doug ^talk 16:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The information has become non-notable. Given enough time, all information will eventually become non-notable, and Wikipedia administrators will roam the world with enormous firepower in order to enforce ignorance. -88.109.200.188 12:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]