Language desk
< December 16	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 18 >

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.

December 17[edit]

Ahorita[edit]

Is the word used outside of Mexico? I know a Mexican-American who learned Spanish only recently, and not to the point of fluency. He uses "ahorita" profusely, even to the point of never saying "ahora". He doesn't grasp its true significance. He treats it as merely a cute, distinctively Mexican way of saying "now". He once claimed (with pride) that some Argentines in his youth soccer league routinely mocked him for using the word, but perhaps they were mocking him for misusing it, or using it affectedly. Would the word, properly used, be particularly jarring or ridiculous to people outside of Mexico? Or is it just that Mexicans are particularly fond of it? LANTZY ^TALK 00:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Spanish-English dictionary lists both ahorita and ahoritita as "American informal". The more "formal" way to say "right now" is ahora mismo. The informal one I always used to hear, which was adopted into English, is pronto or muy pronto. There's also the obvious cognate, inmediatamente. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As noted here,[1] ahora comes from the Latin hac hora, which means "this hour". There was a discussion recently about just what "a moment", "a minute", "a second", etc. really mean; and it's clear that it's not always clear, especially if your mother says "now" meaning "right now", and you think "now" means "within the hour". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And how does that reply contribute in the least to answering the question, Bugs? The question was about usage, not meaning. --ColinFine (talk) 08:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Spanish dictionary (Collins) marks ahorita as "esp[ecially] S[outh ]Am[erican]", implying that as far as they know it's less common in Mexico than further south. As for the double meaning discussed in the blog post Lantzy linked to, I'd say English right away has the same double meaning - depending on context, it can mean "this very instant" or "as soon as possible / as soon as I get around to it". German sofort (usually glossed "immediately") also has the double meaning. If your mother tells you to do something sofort, you start work on it within three seconds. But if your waiter tells you he'll be with you sofort, that means within the next 10 to 15 minutes, if you're lucky. —Angr (talk) 09:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I first heard the word in Columbia. It was used a lot. In the contexts I heard it, it meant "in a moment". The "moments" tended to be quite long. Definitely not "pronto" or "ahora mismo". --NorwegianBlue^talk 23:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A question for Sanskrit afficionados[edit]

I know I'm taking a shot in the dark here, but can anybody translate what the characters in http://i53.tinypic.com/2yw6auo.jpg say? I asked a few places under the assumption it was Japanese, but one person told me it was more likely a form of Sanskrit. Irrelevant Supporting Character (talk) 04:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sanskrit has been written in many different scripts in its long history. A few are shown here. To my unturored eye, your characters most resemble the Tibetan script out of those shown, and may of course be some other language (Standard Tibetan or one of the other Tibetan languages?) written in that script. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 06:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does look more like Japanese to me, but I wouldn't rule out Siddhaṃ script. What's the source? —Tamfang (talk) 07:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's from Mai Hime: Unmei no Keitouju, which is what originally made me think it was Japanese. Tibetan would probably fit Akane's whole tiger motif, though. Irrelevant Supporting Character (talk) 06:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be written vertically, which AFAIK rules out any abugida derived from the Brahmi script, including Tibetan and Siddham. It looks like grass script to me; if so, it could be Chinese or Japanese. —Angr (talk) 09:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must be japanese.--刻意(Kèyì) 07:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Improving my English - simple question, should i use 'shot in', 'broke in' or something else ?[edit]

Speaking English, when three people are having a conversation and two of them end up talking the most and adressing mostly each other as they speak while the third person remains quiet for a while, then if the third person suddenly responds to something which one of the other two said, is it correct to say that he/she "shot" in or "broke in"?

I'll show an example here.

"I think what you did was great, Anne," John said, "and I can easily understand why you have gotten so much praise in the local newspaper,"

"I did only what anyone would have done in such a situation," Anne explained, insisting that what she did wasn't all that great.

"Don't be so modest," Lisa shot/broke in, "be proud of what you did, and don't be afraid to take in the praise, for you have deserved it."

Can i say that, that Lisa 'shot in', or 'broke in'? It doesn't sound entirely right to me, and perhaps there are another word, or even several other words that I should rather use? Or maybe I should simply formulate myself differently?

Then how would you do it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.123.152 (talk) 15:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Broke in" may work in some colloquial way, some dialects would recognize it and others would not. It may be better to use the more formal "interrupted" instead. --Jayron32 15:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thank you. I have already considered using 'interrupted', but that didn't feel entirely right either, because I don't feel that she's interrupting anything. She was always there and part of the conversation after all. She didn't come from nowhere and interrupt them if you understand what I mean. But maybe you're right. I'm sure 'interrupted' is better than what I was ending up with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.123.152 (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, try the word "interjected". It more captures what you are trying to say. --Jayron32 15:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the conversation would be taking place in the US - "gotten" would not be used in British English. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree w/ Jayron...interjected would be my choice. Buster Seven Talk 15:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would confirm that gotten is specific to North American English (where it is the standard form). I think gotten is widely used in Canada as well as the United States. I also agree with Jayron that interjected is the best word to use here. Shot in is understandable but not standard; broke in sounds too much like burglary. Marco polo (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To me it depends on what type of writing you are trying to do. If you are writing a report or something formal, "interjected" would be your way to go. If you are writing a novel, you have a lot more license. "Broke in" does sound very odd, but "shot in" could be something that would convey what you intend, especially if the other character is prone to talking a lot very quickly, for example. It's not standard usage, but it's not wrong usage in the proper context (in my opinion). I could see it being used as "'Liar!', Kathy shot in as Theo was talking." I may not choose that word combo, but it works for me (American English, North Carolina). Falconus^{p t c} 16:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Shot in" seems very peculiar to me. "Broke in" is possible. If I was talking about the conversation rather than writing aobut it, I might say "came in with": "Then Lisa came in with 'Don't be so modest'". --Anonymous, 17:07 UTC, December 17, 2010.

Came in with suggests that she has just entered the room. On the other hand, chimed in would work nicely, I think in most varieties of English. Marco polo (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Threw in could also work. By the way, I've heard it suggested that all these verbs for different ways of saying things, such as "That's how it was," Sarah explained, or "Gosh," Jimmy ejaculated, or "Wouldn't you like to try some?" Samantha inveigled, are just distractions from the story and are really poorer style than simply using said consistently. 81.131.62.210 (talk) 19:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Gosh", Jimmy ejaculated - a phrase for the ages. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Butted in is a regularly used colloquialism in British English [2]. Blakk and ekka 19:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I would do:

 "I think what you did was great, Anne," said John.
 "I did only what anyone would have done," said Anne.
 "Don't be so modest," said Lisa. "Be proud of what you did."

Looie496 (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For a work of fiction, "said" is bland and repetitive and doesn't carry any meaning to indicate the manner of the conversation. --Jayron32 23:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's one point of view... —Tamfang (talk) 01:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fiction writer Elmore Leonard has personal rules for writing it doesn't hurt to review. Third on the list: Never use a verb other than said to carry dialogue. Fourth: Never use an adverb to modify the verb said.

"Not so fast!" said Tom swiftly. -- 174.24.216.113 (talk) 04:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As ever with "rules" on creative processes, it would be better to say "be careful not to overdo X" rather than "never do X". It's ridiculous to say "never use a verb other than said to carry dialogue" and to say "never use an adverb to modify the verb said". Rather, an author should think twice about doing either of those things: is the character's state of mind when speaking already clear from the context without using a fancier word like "interjected" or "ejaculated" and without using an adverb to modify said? If so, leave 'em out. I really don't think there's anything wrong with using "asked" with a question. "Where are you going?" Martin asked surely sounds as good as, if not better than, "Where are you going?" Martin said. And of course Ring Lardner's famous line "Shut up," he explained would lose all its charm if you replaced explained with said. —Angr (talk) 12:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. And the most important situation where "said" is out of place is when the volume of voice is unusual. "Come here, girl," said Timmy to his dog Lassie, who was in the grass 100 yards away. Doesn't work, does it? But it is still a good rule of thumb to let the emotions and attitudes be conveyed by what the speakers say rather than by describing how they say it. Looie496 (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about "to chime in"? -- 78.43.71.155 (talk) 16:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds of me grade 4, when we were learning how to write short stories, and a girl in my class wrote that one of her characters "inhaled a sign". Adam Bishop (talk) 03:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

French grammar question[edit]

On working through a book of French grammar, I have come across the question "Depuis combien de temps chante-t-elle dans cette chorale?". I know that this means 'How long has she been singing in this choir?' but my question is what is the function of the lone 't' in 'chante-t-elle'? Is it to stop chante and elle merging into one word or something? Thanks 92.11.32.186 (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liaison (French)#Liaison with inverted verbs. Algebraist 16:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Algebraist, much appreciated. 92.11.32.186 (talk) 16:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To add unnecessarily to Algebraist's complete answer, Latin: cantat illa. Wareh (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out that that is a rather formal style that is not often used in spoken, or even informal written French. (The more common form would be to replace "chante-t-elle" with "est-ce qu'elle chante" or to rephrase it "Elle chante dans cette chorale depuis combien de temps?") Marco polo (talk) 18:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? But to my ears it's definitely not the "-t-" that's formal, but only the inversion if anything. Sentences such as "Qu'a-t-il fait?" appear quite natural to me. Hans Adler 19:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Online conversations with native French speakers (both in text and in voice) confirm that what Marco polo suggests is common, as are declarative sentences typed with a question mark or spoken with a rising tone at the end: "Elle chante dans une chorale?" "Il a fait quoi?" --- OtherDave (talk) 03:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Il a fait quoi?" has a very strong stress on quoi. The neutral way of saying this would be "Qu'est-ce qu'il a fait?" But I think "Qu'a-t-il fait?" is still also unmarked, at least for educated adult speakers. Hans Adler 10:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wareh, I don't think the Latin conjugation affected that; at least, if it did, it did not happen naturally, because in Old French they would just write "a il" or "chante elle" (and, I'm sure, the words did merge together sometimes). Adam Bishop (talk) 03:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fairly well established that lingering remnants of 3rd person "t" endings contributed to French verb inversion liason "t"... AnonMoos (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Well that's pretty neat then. I thought it was just random, like the "r" in some dialects of English ("idear", etc). Adam Bishop (talk) 03:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course English doesn't have such weird consonants. The very idea-r-is absolutely crazy! Hans Adler 10:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, Intrusive R. Just been reading a paper about it. --ColinFine (talk) 11:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was a good pointer. The funny French -t- is discussed in Liaison (French)#Liaison with inverted verbs, and the French Wikipedia covers it in fr:Phonème éphelcystique. Hans Adler 11:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure we were taught chante-t-elle and the like when I did French O Level 25 years ago. DuncanHill (talk) 11:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eponymous adjectives, English monarchy[edit]

If born in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, I am Elizabethan; my grandmother was Victorian, my mother Georgian. Others are Marian (Mary), Henrician (Henry) Jacobite (James) etc. but can you tell me what the correct adjectives for Queen Anne and the Kings Richard might be? Would King John's subjects be Johannine? In this context I'm not referring to 'Tudor' or 'Hanoverian'. I gather Prince Charles wants to be known as George so we won't have the Carolingian/Caroline/Carolinian debate! Thank you, Serenade 81.147.24.198 (talk) 19:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard would be Ricardian, but I really can't answer about Anne. Corvus cornix_talk 19:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for that. No-one I have ever asked has known about Anne. Nannite?! Serenade81.147.24.198 (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to antique furniture and housing styles, they talk about "Georgian", "Edwardian", "Victorian", "Jacobean" and "Queen Anne" varieties. I've never heard of "Annian", "Annite", or similar words. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Queen Anne. Even Merriam-Webster says so[3]. Lexicografía (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly with William and Mary - and claiming to have a 'Williamite and Marian carving chair' might sound a bit pretentious. Maybe with Queen Anne I'm trying to force an eponymous adjective into being where none is prepared to go. Thank you, Serenade81.147.24.198 (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It derives from the Hebrew name Hannah. Maybe "Hannovian" might have been a contender - if it didn't sound too much like "Hanoverian", the dynasty that followed hard upon. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why –ov–? Neither Hebrew nor Latin has Hannow. —Tamfang (talk) 01:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno. Just thinking aloud (or whatever the online equivalent of "aloud" is). Is thinking aloud allowed around here? :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Hebrew formed an adjective from חנה ħanna it would presumably be חנתי ħannati... AnonMoos (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all, wise ones - Serenade 81.147.24.198 (talk) 14:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Portuguese translation for a Wikipedia article[edit]

Could someone please tell me what these two webpages (1, 2) are saying about Rosane Collor, and also whether they look like reliable sources for her Wikipedia article? I am trying to verify the fact that her 11-year jail sentence in 2000 was overturned. (See also: Wikipedia:Help desk#Important information that hasn't been published in English.) Thanks, Brian the Editor (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I have it right, they both state the sentence was annulled; the second indicates a lack of a closing argument for the defense in the original proceedings. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]