Language desk
< August 15	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 17 >

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.

August 16[edit]

New page in English[edit]

Hi Admin,

Can I create multiple account for one service. For ex:Geze has non English wiki page http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEZE, now can I create a page in English, if it is possible can you please explain the procedures..

I tried FAQ pages but couldn't find exact answer

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gezedoor (talk • contribs) 01:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand "create multiple account for one service". If you want to create an English Wikipedia page to correspond with a German Wikipedia page, you can certainly do that (although it is possible that something notable to German speakers might not be notable to English speakers). From your name, it sounds like you work for them, and that may indicate you are trying to publicize a company that's really not notable. Do you have reliable sources, preferably in English, which mention this company ? GEZE/Geze doesn't have a page yet, in English, so you could then ad it (pun intended). A cross-wiki link at the bottom of each page to link to the other language page is also customary. StuRat (talk) 02:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subjunctive case?[edit]

A sentence in "Oscar Pistorius" used to read "To decide whether or not he [Pistorius] is running with an unfair advantage, the IAAF monitored his track performances using high-definition cameras ...". Ulmanor changed this to "To decide whether or not he were running with an unfair advantage ..." stating that the subjunctive case should be used. He wrote on my talk page: "Because this is a suppositional/hypothetical case, 'were' is more correct. Cf. 'I wish he were here.' 'If only there were more time.'" I agree that both of the examples cited by Ulmanor sound fine, but the sentence in the Pistorius article sounds awkward. Advice, please! — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 06:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't use the subjunctive there no matter what, based on the strict rule of "it sounds stupid". I would further argue that anyone who insists on using the subjunctive there doesn't really know what a subjunctive is or how it works in English. (Sorry, Ulmanor.) Why not "whether he be running"? Or "whether he run"? It's not really hypothetical anyway, is it? He really is running...the hypothetical part is whether or not it's unfair. Also, wouldn't the past tense be better there, "was running"? Is this referring to one specific instance of the IAAF monitoring him? Adam Bishop (talk) 07:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this was one specific instance of monitoring by the IAAF. Pistorius was trying to demonstrate that his prostheses did not confer any benefits exceeding what an ordinary athlete would have. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with "was running" too. dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 07:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just by the way, it's subjunctive mood, not case. --Trovatore (talk) 07:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The person demanding the subjunctive is incorrect, and probably not a native speaker of English (as this sounds more like how the subjunctive is used in certain other languages). The subjunctive in English is used in very few situations, and English subjunctive sets them out. The present subjunctive (which this is not) is used in the jussive subjunctive (for giving orders) following "that", and with "lest". This "were" is the past subjunctive, which is used in counterfactuals, usually following "if" or "wish" but sometimes with "rather", etc. The clause "To decide whether or not he was running with an unfair advantage" is not a counterfactual, since a counterfactual is something that is not the case. Even in counterfactuals it's quite common to use the indicative these days, so there's no reason to change from "was". --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the input. Another editor has edited the article and changed the were to was. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not actually wrong but it is highly unnecessary and old fashioned, to the point of distracting the reader, which is bad writing. Indeed, the Spanish do not even use the subjunctive after si ("if") in the present tense, and they love the subjunctive. μηδείς (talk) 23:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tankies[edit]

I was wondering when the earliest documented usage of the epithet 'tankie' (meaning those who supported the Soviet interventions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, i.e. 'sending in the tanks') was. I found this document from 1977, but I'm reasonably sure it goes back to at least '68. --superioridad ^(discusión) 11:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything earlier myself, but you're already one up on the OED, whose earliest quotation for the word is from a 1985 Guardian article (by the way, you can send them the source you found, if you want). Lesgles (talk) 16:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That word makes them sound "cute", and I doubt if people would have used such a word during the actual event, it being a rather serious matter, no matter which side you were on. StuRat (talk) 18:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't doubt the use of language characterized by a sense of black humor. The query isn't necessarily about the moment of the event, but in reference to it. Such an epithet would reveal the speaker's critical attitude regarding the topic. -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a name for someone associated with tanks, "Tankie" is the British Army nickname for a member of the Royal Tank Regiment [1][2][3] - every British regiment has a cherished nickname. Since the RTR were founded in 1917, I suspect it must have been coined very shortly afterwards. Alansplodge (talk) 13:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google Ngrams shows a spike for 'tankie' about 1960, which may or may not be related to this usage. --superioridad ^(discusión) 11:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Translation help[edit]

I'm currently trying to translate this article from the Japanese Wikipedia, but Google Translate's translation is difficult to comprehend. Can someone please help in at least a rough translation of the whole article? Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I make no promises but I will give it a shot. Someone else will probably be faster, more efficient, and better than me. I will respond on your talk page if I make any significant progress. LlamaDude78 (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

place name pronunciation[edit]

Everyone must know this answer, but I don't. How do you pronounce the word "tear" in the name of the lake that is the source of the Hudson River, Lake Tear of the Clouds? And how can you be sure since the orginal source was written, not spoken. Logic suggests one pronunciation, etymology another,since the indian name of Mount Marcy, above the lake, was originally Thawus, meaning the cloud splitter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.50.4.144 (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the quote in our article, I would lean strongly towards the "drop from the eye" meaning and pronunciation: "Far above the chilly waters of Lake Avalanche at an elevation of 4,293 feet lies summit water, a minute, unpretending, tear of the clouds—as it were". It's interesting that in the original report he seems undecided between that name and "Summit Water". I don't see anything to suggest that he knew the etymology of Tahawus or that that influenced his naming. Lesgles (talk) 15:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you can have a Broken Hill, why not a Torn Lake? :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I confess I can more easily imagine breaking a solid than tearing a liquid. —Tamfang (talk) 22:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We also have a Broken Bay. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Swallow the old tongue[edit]

Translating Daniel H. Wilson's Amped, I've found the sentence as follows:

It's a simple stimulator designed to treat epilepsy and keep me from swallowing the old tongue.

What does "swallowing the old tongue" mean?

Please help.--Analphil (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a myth that someone having an epileptic seizure may accidentally swallow his or her own tongue. Sometimes people go so far as to say that you stick a spoon in the affected person's mouth, but this is unnecessary and can be dangerous. I don't know whether the author/narrator believes this, but the word "old" suggests he's being jocular (compare it to the "old" in "good old Joe" and "back on the old farm"). Lesgles (talk) 16:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) :It is widely believed (though incorrect) that people having seizures are in danger of choking on, or "swallowing", their tongue. See, for example, this. The "old" in the sentence is presumably just a term of familiarity, as in "Ta ta, old bean" (Bertie Wooster is fond of this usage, as I recall; he's alays putting on the old soup and fish and the like.) Deor (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's comic relief, the subject is disturbing when literally considered (I had a friend who died 2011 from an epileptic attack) so he is lightening it by being mildly jocular. μηδείς (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was an construction that was used by the English upper classes and is sometimes used in parody, for instance in Carry on Jeeves, "when the jolly old storm clouds rolled up, Bertie Wooster turned instinctively to his man Jeeves" and Blackadder, "...decent scrap with the fiendish Red Baron - bit of a jolly old crash landing behind enemy lines...". The author above is American, so not sure if that applies in this case. Alansplodge (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Old" is very common in colloquial use in English, referring to a body part or most anything else that's "familiar" in some way. Just recently some newswoman was featured on a home improvement show, and said something about testing a chair and whether it would fit "the old caboose", meaning her own rear end. Getting even closer to the OP's seeming area of interest, I recall a line from "Porky's" (a classic film if there ever was one - ha) in which Kim Catrall angrily told the older woman teacher to "stick it up the old wazoo". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The irony being the current age of Kim Catrall's wazoo. --Jayron32 23:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. In this case, the wazoo in question belonged to Beulah Ballbreaker (Nancy Parsons), who was in a feud with Kim's character "Lassie". Don'cha just love the classics? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt the usage was limited to the British upper class. I agree with Jayron, it is a common (and in this case) affectionate diminutive. μηδείς (talk) 02:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not something I would associate with American English, but we live and learn. In an English English, I believe it's usually used in parody of higher echelons of society, unless I'm wrong about that too. Alansplodge (talk) 12:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are. As a moderately aged Brit I have heard it used in all echelons of society, including decidely working class ones. It tends to be deployed in non-formal and non-serious contexts, but has no particular class connotations. Although some parodic portrayal of an upper-class character might use it as a feature, it would be equally plausible in the mouth of a Cockney (such as some of my relatives), for example. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.109 (talk) 21:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well maybe (I live in East London) but it's not something that springs into my mind. I'll have my ears open for it from now on. Alansplodge (talk) 00:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surely in that case you've heard the stereotypically Cockney "Awright, me old china!" (Or do people just say that on the telly?) Similarly "the old dog and bone" [4] seems to be close to a fixed idiom - at least as far as a Google search can show - and "the old rub-a-dub" [5] seems also to be close to a set phrase. I concede that many of these are as likely Mockney as things genuine Eastenders would say, but clearly this jovial use of "old" is widely perceived as a typical feature of working-class London speech. Valiantis (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is obsolescent in American English, and is seen as characteristically English. Someone mocking RP would likely end his sentences in "old chap." μηδείς (talk) 23:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To me, although "old chap" seems stereotypically old-fashioned British, "to keep me from swallowing the old tongue" doesn't. It sounds perfectly ordinary for an American to say that, just as with "the old one-two". Angr (talk) 00:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aspie in Spanish?[edit]

What is the Spanish equivalent of the English word "Aspie"? BarneyLuvsYou (talk) 23:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two Spanish-language versions of "Asperger syndrome" (or "Asperger disorder") are "es:síndrome de Asperger" and "trastorno de Asperger".

—Wavelength (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But how do Spanish-speakers express the concept of "person who has Asperger's"? BarneyLuvsYou (talk) 01:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that I should point out that "Aspie" isn't really a word in English. It's a slang abbreviation, which some people find somewhat offensive. So, do please be careful. HiLo48 (talk) 23:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it isn't really a word, what is it? No linguist would deny it is a word. μηδείς (talk) 02:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some people find it to be inoffensive. See "Aspies For Freedom".

—Wavelength (talk) 23:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True, and that's good, but one should always be careful when using slang. HiLo48 (talk) 23:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course one should. But don't interpret a social restriction on a certain word as a denial of its very existence. In order to be classified as slang, something must first be a word. Lots of words don't belong in formal writing, but they're still words. We don't even normally abbreviate "do not" or "they are" to "don't" and "they're" in formal writing - that's how restrictive it can be. Aspie is a word. Think of it as one of the farts of the language; we don't give vent to them in polite company but they certainly exist. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 01:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an acknowledgment of the growing acceptance of the term (which I personlly still find to be rather coarse, if not offensive), the young readers novel Trueman Bradley - Aspie Detective may be of interest.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 05:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I rather like the term "Aspie", since the alternative, saying "I have a case of Aspergers", always seems to invite the reply: "Does that come with fries ?" :-) StuRat (talk) 05:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC) [reply]

To me, "Aspie" sounds like what you might call a baby venomous snake. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]