Language desk
< January 13	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 15 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 14[edit]

Learner's dictionary[edit]

Hey--

When I was at college, the college bookstore sold a dictionary for learners of English (similar to Cobuild. Tjis was apparently aimed at ~~speakers~~ learners of American English, and had some illustrations. This was apparently based on up-to-date materials, as the word "angst" had something about "the world" in the definition, and "grunge" was included and defined as a style that young people often wore in the early 1990s. "Unacceptable" was defined as something so bad that it should not "be allowed to continue", with the example sentence reading "Karen's behavior at . . . was unacceptable". There was an illustration at sleep that showed an (apparently) African-American man named Mike sleeping during work, and "cross-legged" showed a boy in a dress shirt sitting Indian style and was captioned "Tony is sitting cross-legged". Given what I remember about this dictionary, I have tried to google bits and pieces hoping it will come up, but it hasn't. Does anybody know what dictionary this is? Linguogeek (talk) 06:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider "cross-legged" to be a synonym for Indian-style sitting, as the first means one thigh on top of the other, or at least one leg on the knee of the other, as opposed to the Indian-style, where only the feet are on top of the opposite knees. StuRat (talk) 01:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're thinking of the Lotus position. What we were taught as Indian-style (presumably meaning American Indian) has the feet on the bottom. I think now the kids are taught to call it "criss-cross applesauce". --Trovatore (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is the book you are looking for listed at Advanced learner's dictionary, a subset of Monolingual learner's dictionary? Those are aimed at foreign students (those for whom English is a second language). What you describe, dictionaries "aimed at speakers of American English", would presumably have as their target buyers American teenagers headed to university. That group of publications is colloquially known as "college dictionaries", and many publishers produce one: it is a lucrative market. See for example a list of major English dictionaries. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of these look like it. And yes, I did mean a learner's dictionary. "Aimed at speakers of American English" should be "aimed at learners of American English". Linguogeek (talk) 03:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Linguogeek: You'll not find other learner's dictionaries that are not listed already in the first article provided above. If you are sure it was about American English, then most likely the dictionary was by Merriam-Webster.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 08:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where you were at college (i.e., in what country, rather than in what institution)? --Orange Mike | Talk 00:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gothika[edit]

Why is it Gothika and not Gothica? --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because that's what the authors decided to call it.

Why is your username "Pp.paul" and not "Pp. Paul"? Or, indeed, "Bob". 86.20.193.222 (talk) 21:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because "Bob" is already taken. Linguogeek (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Poor Bob.

It also occurred to me that this is a bit like a Heavy Metal Umlaut - and when I checked that article, I noticed it does specifically mention that "Its use has also been attributed to a desire for a "gothic horror" feel".86.20.193.222 (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a form of foreign branding intended to give it a Teutonic quality? --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, see also: Amerika. --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:C03A:9D20:31EF:82F7 (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which one? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Related as well, more generally: sensational spelling (mentioned in the Heavy Metal Umlaut's "See also" section). ---Sluzzelin talk 13:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the whole "k replacing c" thing actually has a bit of a long history: Satiric_misspelling#K_replacing_c. The practice seems to have a bit of an anti-establishment edge to it and has been used by members of both the right and left as a signal of discontent. I think it's very possible the makers of Gothika weren't consciously aware of this history, but they probably had seen examples of the "k replacing c" thing and unconsciously absorbed it as something kool and kinda edgy. Bobnorwal (talk) 03:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whose mom was it?[edit]

Cops gun down man who attacked his mom with screwdriver in Queens. How can the sentence be changed to be less convoluted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.4.136.147 (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Police fatally shoot man after he threatens mother with screwdriver - still written in shorthand headline-speak English, but at least it's a bit clearer.86.20.193.222 (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This does not look better than the 1st sentence, which was OK in my opinion. "Shoot down" does not imply "Shoot dead", and "attacked" is not "threatened."

I think that's actually more ambiguous than the original. As written, the mother could be anyone's mother. IMO, the best phrasing would be "Man who attacked his mother with a screwdriver shot dead by cops". If you want to absolutely remove all ambiguity, "Man who used a screwdriver to attack his mother shot dead by cops". Iapetus (talk) 12:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It has to be the mother of the man who was shot down. If the sentence were "Cop guns down man who attacked his mother", then yes, it would not be clear whose mon is that. But "his" is singular, and "cops is plural", so the former can't refer to the latter. --Hofhof (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could just throw in "...his own mom...." too.86.20.193.222 (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Yes, I know that it gives different (more) info, but check the link/google, such as [1] - it's a real story which happened a few hours ago. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The second version looks like the mother had the screwdriver and the son was threatening her. I don't think there's any succinct way to sum it up and newspapers don't care anyway. The more ambiguous and eye-catching the better. Reminds me of the best headline of all time: "Stadium air-conditioning fails; fans vent anger". Akld guy (talk) 00:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing "convoluted" about the original version: it introduces the various elements in a sensible and natural order, and doesn't do anything like jumping around from one to another (unless the shooting was in Queens but not the screwdriver attack, and I don't think that's the intent). So it can't really be made "less convoluted". If you wanted to use a simpler sentence structure you could rewrite to not use a subordinate clause, but it then it would become unnecessarily wordy. --69.159.60.210 (talk) 00:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Phillips-wielding would-be Queens matricide dies in gendarme hollow-point fusillade. μηδείς (talk) 02:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. So Prince Charles tried to kill Queen Elizabeth using his father? And this was done overseas. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly, except that the omission of the apostrophe was intentional. μηδείς (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Can't spell his father's name either - Prince Philip. Wymspen (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually the doubling of the l was also intentional. 81.129.13.239 (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I suppose you Brits are confused, as you call them spanners. μηδείς (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Er, no. We call them screwdrivers. We call wrenches which turn nuts and the like spanners. Bazza (talk) 11:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        As the clerk at the emergency room desk told me when I placed my rather gruesomely and obviously broken left arm on the counter and told her it was broken, "We are the professionals, we will be the judge of that." μηδείς (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Phillips. 80.4.70.229 (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Melee in Queens results in misuse of screwdriver and death of son. Bus stop (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tragedy in Queens proves failure to enact tool control legislation affects women and children the hardest --107.15.152.93 (talk) 11:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Like μηδείς (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 911 attacks can be argued to have been possible precisely because of inadequate tool control legislation (not banning box cutters on flights). It can also be a problem in prisons, where a stolen tool can be fashioned into a shiv. StuRat (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Metallurgy run amok seen to be causative in familial dissolution. Bus stop (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matriarch attacked by male offspring armed with screw-fixing hand tool fortuitously saved by lethal volley of projectiles fired from hand weapons of law enforcement officers in Queens. Akld guy (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like Bus stop (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]