Language desk
< May 11	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 13 >

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 12[edit]

Monte Davidoff[edit]

How do you pronounce his full name? He's been one of Bill Gates's partners. Thanks. --Omidinist (talk) 07:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would pronounce it as Mon-tee Davi-doff. Although some people prefer their Monte to be pronounced as Mon-tay. - X201 (talk) 11:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can hear Bill Gates pronounce it at 08:21 in the audio file linked to from this page. Timeineurope (talk) 19:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your care. --Omidinist (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latin language[edit]

Which one of the following is closest to Latin,

English
German
Spanish
French
Portuguese
Dutch?

--71.118.41.218 (talk) 09:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

German and Dutch are relatively far (from Latin), Spanish French and Portuguese are the closest, while English is in the midst. Eliko (talk) 09:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying English is in the midst because of all the loanwords? — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 18:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About 50% of the english vocabulary overlaps Latin. Eliko (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I wanted to learn the basics of 2 languages in the following order

Spanish or French
Latin,

then would it be wiser to learn Spanish or French?--71.118.41.218 (talk) 09:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish, because it's easier (5 vowels only). French is much more difficult to learn, mainly because of the complex phonetic system (about 20 vowels, and complicated rules of pronuciation), but also the french verb-system is more complicated. Additionaly, Spanish is nowadays much more widely-spoken than French. Eliko (talk) 09:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Latin is equally easy to get to from either starting point. You should use other criteria for deciding whether to learn Spanish or French, such as who you want to talk to, whose literature you want to read, etc. If what you're ultimately interested in is learning Latin, just learn Latin. There's no need to approach it through a modern Romance language. —An gr 09:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but he's probably a student and has probably been obligated to study both Latin and one of the six languages he has indicated, so the best is probably to choose Spanish. Eliko (talk) 10:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answers.--71.118.41.218 (talk) 10:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latin was my third language, after Esperanto. Of the choices offered, yeah, go with Spanish: the kinship with Latin is easier to see than in French, which has had more drastic sound-changes. —Tamfang (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"There do exist some"[edit]

Is "there do exist some", meaning "some still do exist" a violation of English grammar or acceptable, even if using uncommon syntax? ----Seans Potato Business 10:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why violation? absolutely acceptable. Eliko (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could probably streamline it slightly by saying "there exists some". If however that "still" in the equivalent statement is to be conveyed, you'd probably have to say "there do still exist some" or "there still exists some". Laïka 13:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase is equivalent to "some [of the things referred to] do exist", and thus I think the confusing word is 'there', which in this case is indeed used as in "there exists". I hope this was helpful...? >.< Kreachure (talk) 13:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong or unusual about "There do exist some (people)," so long as the thing that exists is in the plural. Saying "there exists some people" or "there does exist some people" would be unacceptable to the same people who find "there is some people" unacceptable. Joeldl (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like to interpret English syntax as having an implied "do" hidden inside every verb. During certain syntactical movements like the asking of yes/no questions (did you burp out a chicken egg?) and in negation (she doesn't know what she put in the bread), the do comes out and takes the conjugation. In the case of the OP's example, I think that this is an example of pulling out the do for emphatic purposes. (I did wash the car). — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 18:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would toss out the "exist" and go with "there are some" or "there are still some". Lisa4edit (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In certain contexts (especially in conversation), "exist" might be appropriate (funny, we don't have an article on dialogic syntax). Sometimes people go overboard in attempting to eliminate passive voice, which is frowned upon by a number of writers and editors. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 05:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feminist language[edit]

From a sociolinguisitc perspective, does feminist vocabulary/terminology affect most American women ? Have some men been reluctant to accept feminist changes to language ? Is this trend now a fait accompli or will the influence of feminism continue to affect the grammar and word varieties of the English language ? 69.157.246.246 (talk) 11:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By "feminist language" do you mean for example, "person hole" instead of "man hole" etc? ----Seans Potato Business 12:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not specifically about American women, but English language in general, but [this study] found that in 1967, around 25% of job advertisements used gender neutral terms (chairperson, bartender etc.) - by 1983 this had risen to 45% and by 2000 almost 95% of job advertisements written in English used language that did not specify gender. On the flip side of the spectrum, virtually no-one uses gender neutral pronouns, and no major advisory body (eg the Oxford English Dictionary or the Chicago Manual of Style) has ever recommended their use, due in part to the popular of the singular they. Likewise, words and terms which are associated with more radical feminism, such as Womyn, have never seen use outside of a few circles, especially given that the foundation for such words is often shaky. Laïka 13:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The best overview is at Gender-neutral language. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I often find plural pronouns used as gender neutral choice for singular individuals of undetermined sex. (A student ... they). However "official" teaching and testing doesn't seem to find this acceptable. Preparation materials for TOEFL for example keep insisting on "he or she" which gets us to sentence monsters like: If a student is unable to locate the group he or she was assigned to, his or her adviser will be able to help him or her. (Ugh!) Contacting ETS as to what they would think of using "they, their, them" resulted in a robot non-answer. Some proposed "...-person" nouns have migrated to more natural alternatives, police-person > police officer, fire-person > fire-fighter, man-hole > access-hole others are still on the way. I've seen one of my clients try "employee-hours" but others still go with "man-hours". --Lisa4edit (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One can usually revise to use the (gender-neutral) plural throughout: "Advisers will be able to help any students who are unable to locate the groups they were assigned to." Deor (talk) 03:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If they could do that in a hurry - apart from writing X-hundred words on an completely alien "familiar subject", in a foreign language, in no time at all - they wouldn't have to take the TOEFL. I usually spend about as much time explaining culture as I do on language. The thing is that the plural pronouns are used in that way (even on university websites). The ETS people just won't say if they'd go by the old school rules and count it as an error. Lisa4edit (talk) 06:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lio[edit]

What does the text in the center frame here say? Dismas|^(talk) 12:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It could be in Chinese or in Japanese (or Korean possibly, I don't know) and means "potted plant". See Bonsai. Joeldl (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. From the context, I expected banzai. I guess it's a pun because the samurai inside the shredder is so small. —An gr 17:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would make sense. Joeldl (talk) 17:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's Chinese and Japanese for Bonsai. In Chinese, it's pronounced "pénzāi." Not sure about Korean, but it's probably Hanja if it were Korean. bibliomaniac 1 5 00:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Thanks! Dismas|^(talk) 00:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a pun it's a kind of a strange one, since banzai and bonsai don't sound similar in Japanese, only when (mis)pronounced according to English phonetic rules, so anyone who can read the characters would presumably not see the pun. Also, I can't make sense of the strip even with banzai in place of bonsai. It's like the shredder says "charge!" and then you open it to find a little toy soldier. Okay, so there's a free-association connection there, but what's the joke? Maybe it's absurdist humor and the Japanese characters aren't meant to be understood at all? Or is it a Shredder reference? But that's clearly samurai armor, not Shredder's vaguely samurai-ish costume. This is very confusing. -- BenRG (talk) 00:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it's typical Western ignorance on Eastern culture. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with BenRG. 盆栽 doesn't mean anything other than "bonsai". It may just be that Tatulli can't hear the difference between the words and thought that was the correct word. To me, that seems like the most likely thing. 万歳 is what should have been used, and would have made it really funny (since a tiny samurai as your shredder is funny all by itself). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I get it now, it was the samurai that cut the paper. Duh. Then I agree, "banzai" would be funny and "bonsai" is clearly a (even funnier) mistake. -- BenRG (talk) 16:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=fEP728fDyg8 (00:11)
http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=D5jxsbQyuT8 (00:39)
http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=MrVHKRC9J6s (00:16)
http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=2QnJjuW_k28 (05:16)
http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=jpPW-w4TJ7o (00:08)

万歳! 万歳! 万歳! -- Toytoy (talk) 17:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ringer test[edit]

Context: "Applicants will be required to complete and return a ringer test to determine basic computer skills."

What does "ringer test" means? 217.168.3.246 (talk) 13:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something to do with electronics? See [1]. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe your question would fare better over at the Computing Desk? Kreachure (talk) 17:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen the expression, but I expect they're testing whether the applicant is a ringer in the sense of faker or imposter. You're applying for a job requiring computer skills, so they want to make sure that you really have them and aren't just pretending you do. --Anonymous, 22:00 UTC, May 12, 2008.

Huh, I had never heard that meaning of "ringer". To me, "ringer" means "a professional or semi-professional brought in on an ad-hoc basis to help out a group of amateurs". I've mostly heard it used applied amateur choirs who "bring in a ringer" to support an otherwise weak section. But that meaning isn't given in the dictionaries. I guess it's derived from the "impostor" meaning – a professional posing as an amateur. —An gr 04:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see the top definition of "ringer" at Urban Dictionary comes close to my definition. —An gr 19:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Longest One-Sylable Words[edit]

What are the longest one-sylable words (amount of letters) in the English language (any tense). Off the top of my head I have come up with -- scrunched, scratched, stretched, screeched, squelched, strengths, straights -- all NINE letters in length. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andromeda m31 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Longest word in English#Words with certain characteristics of notable length. Joeldl (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was in one of Martin Gardner's columns where the following passage appeared: "'Strengths' can't be beat. I realized this while being broughammed to the airport." However, as I recall, he went on to note that no dictionaries could be found in which "brougham" (which can be pronounced like "brohm" or "broom") is shown as a verb. But you can verb anything, right? --Anonymous, 22:12 UTC, May 12, 2008.

In order to make a point, and given sufficient provocation, one can contrive things that one would normally only imagine in a nightmare. But in less taxing circumstances, perhaps a little restraint ought to be exercised. Descriptivist analysis should not be interpreted as licence to emulate bad language. Otherwise we'd have people going around uttering such monstrosities as I'm going to "dictionary" that word in order to "meaning" it". -- JackofOz (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, I like that! Let's get that usage dictionaried at once! --Anon, 00:48 UTC, May 15, 2008.

The longest two-syllabler I can find is halfpenniesworth or halfpennyworths,traditionally pronounced as hapeth and often spelt as ha'p'orths. I make that 16 letters-2 syllables. Any other contenders? Lemon martini (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TV "set"[edit]

What is a TV "set" a set of? Are there any other analogous uses of the word "set"? --Random832 (contribs) 19:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is the term "radio set", though it is seldom used any more except by ham (amateur) radio enthusiasts. But when radio broadcasting first began in the 1920s, before it became a mass phenomenon, people bought sets of equipment called radio sets or kits and assembled their own radio receivers. By analogy, the first television receivers were called "television sets". The word "television" originally referred to the technology—the process of transmitting moving images via radio waves—rather than to the device for receiving and viewing the images. In effect, the first "television sets" were sets containing a broadcast receiver, a cathode ray tube, and other components, typically housed in a wooden frame. The term "TV set" has lived on even though the association with pioneering radio sets has been lost. Marco polo (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tangential trivia: Because of its many senses—154 numbered main senses, with many more lettered subsenses—the verb set¹ has the longest entry in the OED. And the two nouns set (one of which is involved in this query) are no slouches either. Never assume that the sense(s) of a word that you're most familiar with constitute the whole story. Deor (talk) 03:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that you could also buy TV kits as well. I think my father built a TV from one once (back in the day). – ishwar (speak) 03:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goats[edit]

Is it true that a surprising number of English words and phrases are derived from words having to do with goats? Mr Beans Backside (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a rather capricious assumption. Under whose aegis was it made? —An gr 19:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a tragedy if we couldn't answer this. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's kidding. Gwinva (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, please stop butchering this poor guy's question. According to the Online Etymology Dictionary page on goat, there are several English derivations from 'goat'; perhaps a bit more than I imagined, but not a 'surpising amount' IMO. Kreachure (talk) 23:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The puns in here are udderly awful! Matt Deres (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not as bad as a certain shock site sounding like the word "goats". bibliomaniac 1 5 00:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has Goats (webcomic) jumped the shark? —Tamfang (talk) 20:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

grammar of affliction[edit]

Are either of the following sentences faulted?

"These differences can be exploited to identify the type of cancer from which the patient is afflicted"

"These differences can be exploited to identify the type of cancer from which the patient is at risk or afflicted" --Seans Potato Business 19:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"from which" is not technically correct in either sentence. I'd use "with which" in the first and possibly "of which" in the second, although the addition of the "or afflicted" makes that a tough call. Better to rewrite both completely - 'These differences can be exploited to identify which type of cancer is affecting the patient' or something like 'These differences can be exploited to identify which type of cancer might affect the patient.' (this second one could probably still use work). --LarryMac | Talk 20:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should say afflicted by, as the cancer (subject) afflicts (transitive verb) the patient (object); but 'afflicted with', although not quite right, is so common now that only a pedant would object to it. I agree that "at risk from" is awkward - the idiom is "at risk of", but it's best followed by a verb, so I agree with LarryMac (except that I don't see why 'afflicting' needs to be changed to 'affecting', a much weaker word). Clearly, in the second sentence, you can't run the 'at risk' and the 'afflicted' together. Xn4 21:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed 'afflicting' to 'affecting' because I just could not think of the right preposition to go with 'afflict'. It was late in the day.... --LarryMac | Talk 12:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"At risk" usually takes "for" rather than "of" (when speaking about diseases), in my experience. In plain English, what you want is "...the type of cancer that the patient is at risk for or afflicted by". Sadly, some people reject this construction. --Anonymous, 23:12 UTC, May 12, 2008.

I really wish I could say that "at risk for" is contraindicated, but sadly it gets millions of google hits. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

at risk from suggests a cause, at risk of an effect. "Dentists are at risk of cancer from cumulative x-ray exposure." —Tamfang (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of writing[edit]

Our article on writing gives me the impression that there are only three independently developed systems. "Almost all writing systems in use in the world today are ultimately descended from writing developed either in Sumer - see Genealogy of scripts derived from Proto-Sinaitic - or in China."

So Sumer, China, and Maya. Is this strictly speaking true? If so what are the major qualifications?

Lotsofissues 21:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Jared Diamond identifies those three and adds two other possible ones: Egypt and Easter Island. See Guns, Germs and Steel. Rmhermen (talk) 00:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article History of writing is misleading in suggesting that Proto-Sinaitic and its derived alphabets originated from Sumerian cuneiform. I will correct it. Most scholars think that Proto-Sinaitic is more likely to have derived from Egyptian hieroglyphics, as our article Middle Bronze Age alphabets relates. There is no demonstrable connection between the Sumerian and the Egyptian writing systems. Though the idea of writing might have diffused from one to the other (most likely from Sumer to Egypt), there is no evidence that the written forms themselves diffused. Now, it may be true that most writing systems in use today are derived either from Proto-Sinaitic (and probably ultimately Egyptian hieroglyphics) or from Chinese, but there were several independently invented writing systems in premodern times, including such systems as Linear A, Hieroglyphic Luwian, Indus script (if it is really a writing system), and the various Mesoamerican scripts. One of the Mesoamerican scripts was the Maya script, but there were others, and several of them may have had independent origins. None of them is in use today. Marco polo (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian Hieroglyphs. Hieroglyphics is an adjective.--ChokinBako (talk) 10:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damn you are everywhere Marco polo. Thanks. You even kick Clio's ass. Lotsofissues 15:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Chokin Bako is correct that it should be Egyptian hieroglyphs. Thanks for the correction. Marco polo (talk) 18:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, thanks for the compliment, Lotsofissues, but I have no intention of kicking any part of Clio nor of letting anyone else do so! Marco polo (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it generally agreed that Brahmi (with descendants from Tibet to the Philippines) is descended from Sinaitic? — Other independent creations include hangul, Pahawh Hmong script, Cherokee syllabary, Canadian Aboriginal syllabics; though each of these was created by someone who got the idea of writing from outside. —Tamfang (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How to render a name in IPA[edit]

How would you render in the International Phonetic Alphabet and properly write the name of the article Kitch-iti-kipi? --Doug ^talk 22:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I correctly understand the current pronunciation information, it's /ˌkɪtʃɪtiˈkɪpi/, or possibly /ˈkɪtʃɪtiˌkɪpi/, or maybe I should be using /iː/. Perhaps a local can clear this up (or just someone who knows IPA). Algebraist 23:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Doug, I hope you mean in addition to the explained pronunciation already there because I don't read IPA esp well for acquired language names. : / Julia Rossi (talk) 23:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I first encountered IPA when a student asked me to read what a word he had found printed in IPA would sound like. I couldn't have told them from the IPA, but I could tell them how the word was pronounced. As our article says it's not commonly known in the US. (I think ours is muuuuch easier, but I'm biased.) --71.236.23.111 (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]