Language desk
< May 6	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 8 >

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 7[edit]

Miscounting the letter "F"[edit]

I believe there is a technical term for the miscounting of the letter "F" specifically with regard to the it's use in the word "of", where those of us who learned to read with phonics see "ov" instead of "of". It is fascinating to see how many people when asked to read a sentence containg several occurrences of the word "of" cannot accurately count the usage of the letter "f" due to this phenomenon. Does this error, indeed, have a name? --Nidansan (talk) 01:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nidansan (talk • contribs) 01:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I know the specific sentence you are talking about, where the word 'of' was placed twice in succession, at the end of one sentence and at the beginning of the next. The object was to count the number of "F"s. Most people say that the failure to notice this is due to the problem with phonics, as you say, but I rather believe it was more to do with the fact that one of the English language's shortest words was placed not only at the end and beginning of two lines, but also repeated in such a way that a person would not expect it to be there. Most people read sentences by whole, not letter by letter, and in the same way people read words by shape. If it was a problem with phonics, then how many other letters with multiple pronunciations would have the same effect? "S" would be one of them. --ChokinBako (talk) 02:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC) EDIT - Here is the sentence, formatted slightly different from when I first saw it 14 years ago at university:[reply]

Finished files are the re- sult of years of scientific study combined with the experience of many years.

But I believe most of what I said above still applies, in that we gloss over smaller words when we read quickly :) --ChokinBako (talk) 02:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many may know this as an old hat and there are no "f"s but:

Aoccdring to rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer is at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by itslef but the wrod as a wlohe.

-) 71.236.23.111 (talk) 09: 28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Clunetoss ahrouts, heevwor, siltl hilpapy issint on flinowlog dullaferdy osetlobe snilpleg. 83.78.175.138 (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aywnay, taht Elingsh uinervtisy was the Uernistviy of Cmrbdigae. Jack^(Lumber) 14:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently not]. --LarryMac | Talk 14:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough, I used to use similar sentences when teaching speed reading to adult learners of advanced English when I was in Japan. I also basically explained to them that in a way, even English is read in the same way as Japanese kanji are read, in that at an advanced level of reading ability people pay more attention to the shape. I also used to use spelling mistakes by substituting certain letters with other letters of similar size or shape and these were never noticed until I pointed them out. All of this was fascinating to me, as well as them. Whether they ever used what they learned in real life, I'll never know, though...--ChokinBako (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese translation[edit]

Hello, I am attempting to translate these two lines into English, and I think I've gotten pretty close, but since I want to possibly use these in this article, I want it to be as accurate as possible. FYI 鳥の詩 at the beginning is the name of a song, so when translated should be kept as "Tori no Uta"; and the AIR right after is for Air.

鳥の詩は、AIRのテーマ性を念頭に、自分の中でイメージを固めていくのに非常に苦労しました。

The image of "Tori no Uta" in my mind as Air's characteristic theme is set although it was a very difficult process.

プレッシャーもすごかったし（笑）歌曲は、まだまだ苦手分野なので、最も自分の中で強化したい部分ですね。

Despite there being a lot of pressure for the song, since I'm still inexperienced in this field, I want to strengthen myself more.

--十八 07:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No offense intended, but your English translations don't make sense to me. A good deal of re-wording will be required to get the Japanese ideas across. Here's my own attempt at it:

1. Even though I have made up my mind that the the song "Tori no uta" best captures the themes of Air, arriving at this was extremely difficult.

2. Besides being under a lot of pressure, I'm still quite inexperienced in the field of music. This is the area I want to become stronger in most of all.

Paul Davidson (talk) 08:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; your English does make much more sense, though at least I understood what was being said (despite being unable to explain it well).--十八 09:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; I'm just starting out as a Japanese-English translator, and I've found that even when you understand the source completely, organizing it into something that an English speaker will understand is a real challenge. Paul Davidson (talk) 11:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, のに means 'in order to', not 'even though'. I would translate it as "It was extremely difficult for me to imagine Tori No Uta as the main theme of Air." --ChokinBako (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another is/are[edit]

A coupled with B is/are ... ? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have some more context here? Without being sure what 'coupled' means here, I'm not sure which is correct. Algebraist 13:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. The context I used it in is:

Rising prices coupled with a stronger currency is/are given as a reason/reasons for ...

Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely 'are' in my (UK) idiolect, since even if we consider 'coupled with a stronger currency' as a phrase modifying the subject (rather than allowing the prices and the currency to be joint subjects in some sense), the prices are still plural. Perversely enough, I think I would go with 'a reason' as well, but I'm not sure I can explain why. Algebraist 14:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is "rising prices" not singular though? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've provided a good example of the problem. If "rising prices" is singular (and it is), then "rising prices coupled with a stronger currency" (the actual subject) is singular, too. "Coupled with" is different from "and" and makes the two factors a unit. The trouble is, in my estimation, that the reader boggles at making that big pile of words singular no matter what logic says. It comes down to a matter of ear. Logically, it "is", but we have to allow "are" to those who like it. For my money, if it matters, it's "is", though I'd probably have to think about recasting; I try to recognize conundrums I've written as a bad sign. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, "rising prices" is a plural construct, even if all the prices that are rising together only form one reason for something. "Rising prices are a reason" is correct. If the sentence was reversed, it would be "The reason is rising prices" -- the verb agrees with the subject, but the subject doesn't have to agree with the complement.

The question is trickier if the sentence is changed to begin "The rise in prices(,) coupled with a strong currency(,) ...". Now it's possible to view "coupled with a strong currency" as a parenthetical phrase and "the rise in prices" as the grammatical subject (hence singular), especially if the "coupled with" part is set off by commas. But it also makes sense to view the whole thing as the subject (hence plural). People will disagree as to what's best, I think. --Anonymous, 15:38 UTC, May 7, 2008.

Thanks, everyone. I decided to rephrase. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 06:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

vegetables[edit]

I was unable to find the list of plural forms for vegetables. cALVIN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.38.216 (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi cALVIN 69.225, good question to hit on a rarity. There are some: hand of bananas, cluster of grapes, pod of peas, hill of beans, sack of potatoes, punnet of strawberries – so there must be more vege ones in the trade at least. General but in use are bunch of..., case of..., crate of..., crop of..., stand of (usually with trees)... Not many specifically for veges, though maybe Gwinva would know? (See List of collective nouns by subject A-H and I-Z and List of collective nouns by collective term A-K and L-Z.) Maybe you could make up some, a spike of pineapples, a flag of spinach, a club of zucchini. Julia Rossi (talk) 02:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peas and beans are fruit? Definitely potatoes aren't. Anyway, I thought the OP was asking for plural forms, not collective nouns.--ChokinBako (talk) 02:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a nutritionist recently told me: the seedbearing part of a plant is its fruit botanically but nutritionally it may be considered a vegetable, e.g. tomatoes, squash, etc. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons: I was thinking vegetable as in not animal or mineral (thank you, since removed fruit); plural forms, wouldn't that just add an "s"? so I took it to mean collective nouns. Are there other "plural forms" that would require a ref desk question? Or is it about the latin plurals of genera? In that case, need more information. Julia Rossi (talk) 05:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russian question[edit]

I have two Russian work colleagues, and they keep talking in Russian all the time. I can make out some of the words, such as "nyet ponimai" (I don't understand), but not nearly all. They keep repeating a couple of words, most prominently "bilyat" and something that sounds like "dokha" or "dukha" or possibly "yokha" or "yukha". I asked my big half-brother, who speaks Russian almost fluently, about these, and he told me that the first one is the equivalent of "fuck", but he couldn't identify the second one. What does it mean? JIP | Talk 18:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had a russian friend in Japan who only spoke Japanese to me, and he used your first word all the time, even in Japanese. I thought the spelling was 'bilyat', but other russian sources since then have told me it's spelled 'blyat'. Your assumption of the meaning is correct, though. The other word, I have no idea.--ChokinBako (talk) 00:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word you're going for is блядь (blyad'), which means "whore". It's a swear word often used as an interjection. Not sure about the other. Joeldl (talk) 13:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Khaned/Khanned OR Khaganed/Khaganned?[edit]

If I wanted to use the name(s) Khan/Khagan as some kind of a past-tense-verb...what would it be, exactly?

Ref.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khan_%28title%29 & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khagan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.93.179 (talk) 23:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you will be coining the word you get to decide. It's the joy of the word coinage system. Either work but I think that Khaned and Khaganed looks better and comes out less trippingly over the tongue and raises less doubt as to pronunciation. Leftus (talk) 00:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT CONFLICT - ::Verbing a noun which is a title? I can only suspect that you mean this in the sense of, for example, Sir Paul McCartney being 'knighted' (from knight), so Genghis was 'khaned'. I don't think that is possible in English for foreign words, but it is surely possible in Mongolian, from what I know of the language. Sure, you could make it up, but that would be your word. Just remember, though, Bush wasn't "presidented", Elizabeth wasn't "queened" and when somebody gets "prime ministered" it sounds like something completely different. --ChokinBako (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from verbifying whatever you like, someone like the upcoming Khan would likely be "made Khan" though there are heaps of specific words for various top appointments: crowned, ordained, came to the throne, etc which is more work to find out – and obviously I don't want to do the work : ) As for wikipedia's policy see Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. Julia Rossi (talk) 02:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's the verb "to duchess", but it doesn't mean turning a woman into a duchess, so I guess it doesn't count. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, if Henry was playing draughts, he might have been kinged. --LarryMac | Talk 17:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]