Language desk
< March 31	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 2 >

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.

April 1[edit]

Second language acquisition for reading[edit]

What is the best way to learn a language when one intends primarily to read it? I know there are plenty of "packages" with audio, workbooks, etc. aimed at the general public who will need to find a bathroom in Tuscany. For the more dedicated/analytical learner, can one skip the packages and find a well-written explanation of the structure of the language (that is still basic enough to be outside the realm of "linguistics")? This may be an ill-formed idea; I had a tough time finding anything like this at the local college library. FWIW, I'm interested in German, Spanish, or Italian. Thanks. –Outriggr § 01:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many U.S. universities offer "Foreign languages for graduate students" classes, which are for students who want to acquire some degree of reading proficiency in order to fulfill requirements of their Master's or Ph.D. program, but who have little interest in conversational fluency (they're much more interested in reading scholarly papers or professional literature in their own field of study). You could try to find out what books are used in such classes... AnonMoos (talk) 04:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific about your goals? Why do you want to read those languages? What do you want to read in those languages? --Diacritic (talk) 05:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Get any textbook series that goes through all the grammar and has plenty of exercise drills. Then get a good dictionary and start reading. Paul Davidson (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't Remember the Word[edit]

I once found this word in the dictionary that meant something along the lines of "to do a legal thing illegally", but I can't for the life of me remember what it was? Any ideas? I also can't think of a decent example of this, if anyone has any idea on that front it'd be appreciated as well. Thanks. -Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.229.190.19 (talk) 02:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any other clues? How many sylables was it? Can you recall any of the letters? And when you say "do a legal thing illegally" do you mean for example a lawyer does a legal task illegally? Or do you mean something like a person does something which is supposed to be legal (allowed) but violates some law in the process? Rfwoolf (talk) 08:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OP here. I meant it in the second sense above. I could guess at the syllables or letters, but it would be guessing and not much help. Sorry for the vague clues, this happened a few years ago and my memory of it's gotten a bit fuzzy. -Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.229.190.19 (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even understand how doing a legal thing illegally would be distinct from just doing something illegal. Recury (talk) 17:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Misfeasance", defined with examples here. It's mentioned in our article on malfeasance. --Milkbreath (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic! That was exactly what I was looking for. Thanks. -Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.229.190.19 (talk) 01:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, I was certain that this question was a clever April Fools' prank. 130.188.8.10 (talk) 10:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How many words do we know?[edit]

until we can call fluid in a language
to be regarded cultivated

Mr.K. (talk) 04:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean "fluent"?

AnonMoos (talk) 04:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

exatly.Mr.K. (talk) 04:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To me, it depends on how you comprehend the language rather than how many words of it you know. It would be safe to call yourself fluent if you can read local literature and/or newspaper columns in that language. --^La Pianísta! 04:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is very difficult to find numbers in this field, especially, since you never know what counts as "a word" (is teaspoon a different word from tea and spoon?). Then there is the issue of active and passive knowledge: you may very well know the meaning of a word, but not necessarily use that word yourself. I think you are more interested in "active" vocabulary.

A standard "good" dictionary designed for university students usually contains around 60,000 or 100,000 words (which is not the whole language, btw). But a very small number of people would know and use that many words, I suspect that a basic vocabulary (the one used by an uneducated population) should include at least 5,000 words. For a scholar's type of vocabulary, it is likely to be above 20,000. Some people may be able to actively use as many as 50,000, I couldn't say what is the upper limit. --Lgriot (talk) 07:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is necessary to distinguish (at least) between active vocabulary (words you would use) and passive vocabulary (words you would understand). Our article gives an estimate that the average English-speaking college graduate has an active vocabulary of 60,000 words plus 75,000 passive but not active. Algebraist 09:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General reading fluency -> being able to read a local newspaper, general speaking fluency -> being able to hold a conversation with a random stranger.--droptone (talk) 11:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How to say everything and nothing at the same time[edit]

I've had an idea from a book I've been reading, 776 Stupidest Things Ever Said (by Ross and Kathryn Petras), and I decided to let it loose on the night before April Fool's. My question is...what is the longest sentence that a Reference Desk volunteer can contrive, while simultaneously incorporating ridicule and absolute nonsense? In other words, to quote the book, speak long-windedly and carry a big schtick? I would love to add some material myself, but sadly, my language skills are restrained to what is boringly useful. ;-) --^La Pianísta! 04:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read longest English sentence yet? Turning one of those into nonsense would be easy with a couple of search-and-replaces. 64.231.10.94 (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I did, but I want to see something fresh from the minds of our fellow editors. =) --^La Pianísta! 22:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. April Fool! Julia Rossi (talk) 23:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gayelle and LexusNexus[edit]

Can someone do a lexus nexus search for "gayelle" for me. It's for a news report on Logo the gay channel, it was a CBS on Logo news report. Can someone help me find the transcript of the broadcast? It was fairly recently but I don't remember the exact date.

P.s. how do you say transcript in spanish?NewAtThis (talk) 05:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LexisNexis has 3 returns. One is for the name of a person involved in a graphic for an Australian newspaper, another is a short article (98 words) on the use of "gayelle" to mean lesbian with no new information provided, the last one is for a broadband TV station from Trinidad & Tobago.--droptone (talk) 11:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Advancement of Learning[edit]

Francis Bacon has an English book by the name of The Advancement of Learning. Do you understand the 'advancement' in transitive or intransitive sense? --Omidinist (talk) 07:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two books by Bacon are printed together, The Proficience and Advauncement of Learning. The second book begins with a proem called The Advauncement of Learning commended to the care of Kings. So (although I haven't read it) I'd say that the answer seems to be transitively, if it has to be one or the other. Xn4 08:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P. S. I've found the text online here. Xn4 11:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Xn4. --Omidinist (talk) 07:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collective nouns in British English[edit]

greetings, Gentlepeople - i'm in search of some insight regarding a difference of opinion regarding the sentence "the band was/were formed in 1962" in an article that's trying to adhere to standard British English. to me it seems that "was" is needed in this sentence, since the meaning is clearly "a unit was formed" rather than "several individuals were formed"; but some editors seem to feel (strongly, even!) that British English prefers plural verbs after collective nouns in every case, regardless of meaning. everyone participating in the discussion has read WP:ENGVAR, but it hasn't helped much, so ... here i am.

i understand the British English tendency to treat collective nouns as plural more frequently than in American English, but until further notice i don't agree that a given article in British English must *always* use a plural verb after a collective noun regardless of the meaning. i mean: to me it's normal if an article has "the band was formed in 1962" as well as "the band were in their 20s". (i also understand that most of these controversies can be sidestepped with a bit of inventiveness, but it's the principle that intrigues me.) thanks for any insights Sssoul (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an oft-debated topic. Have a look at American and British English differences#Formal and notional agreement. As I understand it, WP style is generally to use British English for British groups and American English for American groups. Having said that, it depends on the sentence, and I would tend to agree with you that "was formed" is preferable to "were formed" in British English. It gets more interesting when you are trying to decide whether to put "X is a group" or "X are a group". In this case, I would always go for "are" if the group is British. This seems to be more widely accepted, though, if the group name is a collective plural, such as The Beatles, than if it's an abstract noun like Blur. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 14:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Richardrj - that link is part of what the editors involved have all read and all come to different conclusions about. the article is about a British band, so everyone agrees that British English is what we want; the disagreement is over what constitutes correct British English usage. some editors (who have also read that link) seem to think using "the band were" is required throughout for the sake of consistency within the article; it's my understanding that consistent British English can mean using both plural and singular verbs in the same article, depending on the meaning in each sentence: "the band have all been arrested on various occasions" is not inconsistent with "the band has five members".

fortunately for everyone the band in question does have a plural name, which makes it a bit easier to sidestep the whole controversy, but as i noted i got intrigued. thanks for taking an interest Sssoul (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They may be British, but that doesn't force them into illogicality. The individuals that make up the band were not formed, the band was. Googling on "band was formed" site:uk and "band were formed" site:uk returns 20,800 to 736 ghits. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thank you Milkbreath.

just for completeness: is there a clearcut British-English preference for "the band have released 10 albums" rather than "the band has released 10 albums", when that total doesn't include the various members' solo releases? i'll google that as well, but my interlocutors have been rejecting evidence from the media as "creeping Americanism", so what i'm looking for is a prescriptive-grammar-type viewpoint. thanks very much for taking an interest Sssoul (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I normally don't Google to support a usage stance. The sample is skewed in a million ways, most damningly toward unedited illiteracies. But when you get 28–1, where there's smoke there's fire. You are not going to find a "a prescriptive-grammar-type viewpoint" because this is not about grammar, it's idiom. The only way to determine correct idiom is to ask the speakers of the variety of English you want to know about. The answer will vary with the degree of focus employed, too. It might be that Londoners are more apt to say a thing one way, while Cornishmen will say it another. You can analyze writings statistically for the relative frequency of alternate locutions, but the data might not be current, and writing might not reflect spoken usage as it exists in the wild. Me, I just sort of keep my ears and mind open, and I'd expect your average Brit to say "the band have released 10 albums" and an American the other thing. --Milkbreath (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks again Milkbreath - yeah, i'm hoping some British English speakers will say something about it here, to add to what my local British speakers say. i reckon British grammar books do state something about what verb forms to use after a collective noun under what circumstances - i even believe i know what they say - but the other editors (who are all over the globe) seem to believe they know what they know too. funny how that works, isn't it 8) thanks again for your insights. Sssoul (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would definitely be "the band was formed" in standard British English. Once formed you could say "the band were on form last night", etc. In some areas of Yorkshire they would say "the band were formed", but that is only because "were" is the general past tense of "be" - they would also say "I were late for work", or "she were right pretty" (See Yorkshire dialect and accent#Vocabulary and grammar). This would be considered incorrect in most of the UK. Of course the subjunctive mood would use were, as in "if the band were formed in 2001 then the this 1999 poster would be a forgery" -- Q Chris (talk) 07:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thank you Q Chris. the sentences being discussed aren't in the subjunctive, nor is the band in question from Yorkshire, so ... so the band was formed. i'm glad. thanks. (wouldn't that past subjunctive be "if the band had been formed"? 8) outside of Yorkshire anyway) Sssoul (talk) 07:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it would be a lot easier to say "the band formed", as opposed to "the band was formed" or "the band were formed". Unless they're a manufactured boy band, there's no need to use the passive, and you thereby bypass this petty debate.

Furthermore, as a general rule you can sidestep it by referring to the group by their name rather than "the band". "The Beatles were formed", for example. (In normal British English, this applies whatever the name of the band is.) If this gets repetitious, there's a nice little third-person pronoun called "they" which you can also employ. This way, you won't have to debate about semantics, and will instead be able to improve the article. Malcolm XIV (talk) 08:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Malcolm XIV - in the article i've already employed those deft sidesteps you suggest, but as i've noted the principle is of interest to me as well. so far i gather my grasp of it is right: British English swings both ways after a collective noun, depending on the meaning, and in this particular case "was" is normal in UK *and* US English. thanks for taking an interest Sssoul (talk) 09:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm writing a book and I have to be careful about this. In my book is an organization called the Triad that I refer to in the singular eg. "The Triad mobilized its forces". However, when I refer to its members, I simply say "The members of the Triad are..." to avoid a petty debate. The debate can get a bit more complicated if you refer to a sports team - do you say "England has beaten Australia" or "England have beaten Australia"? I've seen both versions from reliable sources. Another hot debate is "None of them are..." or "None of them is..."? My opinion is that you get the the old school with hypercorrective "Queen's English" fuddy-duddy grammar, and the new school that condones and accepts common grammatical errors into mainstream English, because it "sounds right". Sandman30s (talk) 11:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is a coroner a police officer ?[edit]

Hello ! Can you answer my question please ? When I translated in French your fine little article "William Palmer" ( about a XIX° century english MD & serial killer) , I thought better to let the word "coroner" stay in the french text : " les soupçons naquirent quand Palmer essaya de corrompre des personnes de l'entourage du coroner " looked to me quite clear...But a contributor wrote " officier de police" in the place of "coroner". Does the fact that the coroner ( by formation a lawyer or a MD ) is appointed by the crown makes him properly a member of the police ? Thanks a lot for your answer . By the way , I am afraid I won't be able to retrieve the exact place where you will put your answer ...Would you be kind enough to write it down on the discussion page of "William Palmer" ?. Thanks a lot ! signé Arapaima , a french WP user --91.168.136.18 (talk) 17:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at Talk:William Palmer (murderer)#Coroner = police officer ?. Bovlb (talk) 18:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

also can't remember a word[edit]

The above question reminded me of a word that I can't remember. I saw it in an unabridged dictionary and it means something like "schadenfreude", but is more specific, having the definition of causing someone a lot of unnecessary work for personal satisfaction. What could it be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilhelp42 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably "trolling". Julia Rossi (talk) 23:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks! It was just an april fools question after all.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.82.24 (talk) 23:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sadism, perhaps.--71.119.163.203 (talk) 02:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or simply management. Deor (talk) 03:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Accent: Pronunciation of have[edit]

Consider the following questions

Have you finished your homework?

or

Have you done it again?

What I wish to know is whether in everyday American speech the majority of people say \hæv\ or \həv\ in these particular questions? [See here if you have questions about my phonetic symbols.] --71.108.24.177 (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to get a couple of hundred million answers, but here's one: it depends. Usually, I, a Middle Atlantic type, Philadelphia area, pronounce that "have" completely, with the "h" and the perfect short "a", \hæv\. When we're being sloppy, it's more like \ɪv\, with the "ɪ" of very short duration. I believe broadcst English, a la Johnny Carson, throws a bit of a twang on the "a", just a bit. --Milkbreath (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Southern American English here. Same pronunciation, \hæv\. However, when "have" comes right after a stress (as in, "what have you done?"), it turns into \həv\, or even \əv\. HYENASTE 21:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can versus have at the beginning of questions[edit]

At the bottom of the screen at http://www.americanaccent.com/ you see and hear that

Can we get it?

has \kən\ pronuciation for can. Why not \həv\ in

Have you done it again?

You see that both have and can are helping verbs in my examples.--71.108.24.177 (talk) 21:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can give you an absolutely terrible answer just to hold you until a linguist shows up. The fact that they are helping verbs has no effect on the pronunciation. American tends to lazy articulation, ligation, and elision. "Can we" becomes a unit, and the "n" is barely audible as a nasalization of the schwa, something like the overstated example at that amusing site you sent me to. ("Kwee" is a little too much, but the rest are right and sound like John Malkovich.) It's the sequence of sounds that dictates the careless pronunciation. --Milkbreath (talk) 23:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What variety of English do you speak? Seems to me like the have in "have you done it" is reduced; the dissimilarity between the reduction of the two words probably has to do with the ease of articulating a distinct /k/ and /n/ versus /h/ and /v/. According to Lisa Lavoie in "Some influences on the realization of for and four in American English" (Journal of the IPA 2002), function words differ from their citation forms in fluent speech more than other words. Word pairs like for/four, him/hymn, and you/yew have identical citation forms but reduce differently.— Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]}

Native Philadelphia area, South Jersey, modified by some years in Tampa, affectedness, and stage experience. I try to render my roots speech here. The "you" becomes "yuh", of course, and the "t" in "it" is a very quiet, nasal glottal stop. --Milkbreath (talk) 10:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make a stab at it, but it's just a guess: The weak form of have reduces its h as well as its vowel. That's not likely to happen when it's intonation unit-initial. Can (and do), on the other hand, face no such restriction. That's not much of an answer, though. — kwami (talk) 09:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about this some more. Since /h/ is a voiceless form of the following vowel anyway, there's probably a preservation of the vowel from basically pronouncing it twice as long. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 04:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

japanese and chinese characters[edit]

what is the symbol for the term "live for today"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.56.1.146 (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Japanese 今日を楽しめ! means, "Live for today!" in the sense of "Thoroughly enjoy this day!" 96.233.6.203 (talk) 03:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)AyeAye[reply]

Don't do it. Given that you're asking for a translation of a motivational phrase and you don't even care what language it's in, it sounds like you're about to get a tattoo in a language you can't read. Those tend to be embarrassing, especially when you encounter someone who actually knows the language. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 10:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL @ that picture! First thought in my mind was "flat". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My first thought was that freckled people shouldn't get tattoos. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]