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.
So I was working on a puzzle which has a set of related clues and, while I've actually finished the puzzle through surrounding clues, even with the answers I can't figure out what they're going for. Mind you, I'm no crossword puzzle slouch but these have me scratching my head. Clue: "Fire up, or beat down"; answer: "FLA". I immediately thought, "well maybe they're going for U.S. State abbreviations and this somehow relates" ... nope. The next one is "Prop up, or bite down". Answer: "STI" – uh, what? And another. Clue: "load up, or touch down". Answer: "CAR". I am stumped. Make me slap my forehead please.--108.54.27.24 (talk) 02:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I've seen some weird clues in puzzles like "What 23 across would do if he and 12 down met at 37 down and wanted to 6 across." StuRat (talk) 03:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What's weird about that? It's a normal type of clue in British cryptic crosswords. 23 across etc. refer to other answers in the grid, you have to solve them all in order to solve this one. --Viennese Waltz 05:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prime's link explains all. StuRat (talk) 05:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Coleridge's manuscript of Kubla Khan[probably veering way off-topic because I'd forgotten the poet's spelling] While the others stump me for the moment (and, sadly, it's been years since I've done a true cryptic crossword like the ones I used to do), ALF might refer to Alph, the sacred river in Samuel Taylor Coleridge's unfinished poem Kubla Khan, beginning (as most British schoolchildren once knew), "In Xanadu did Kubla Khan, A stately Pleasure Dome decree, Where Alph, the sacred river ran, Through caverns measureless to man, Down to a sunless sea..." Decades ago, in the British Museum, I saw Coleridge's manuscript, ended prematurely when his post-opiate vision was rudely interrupted by the notorious Person from Porlock on business (a bill-collector?) Even earlier than that I remember a "Weekend Competition" in the New Statesman seeking parodies, one masterpiece of which began "In Golders Green did Aly Khan, a stately Hippodrome decree, Where Alf the bread-delivery man, ..." —— Shakescene (talk) 05:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, Prime's link explains it all. I'd better mark this resolved, before a dozen other people skip that link and offer their own explanations. StuRat (talk) 05:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was just going to say that StuRat and PrimeNumber are absolutely right: in this context, context is everything. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I understand "romaji" to refer to the use of the Roman alphabet to write Japanese words (stuff like "Konnichi wa", "Genki desu ka?", etc.). However, can it also be correctly used to refer to the Roman alphabet generally? For example, in Japanese would you ever say that an English text is written in romaji? Would you ever say that incidental words written in Roman letters but incorporated in a mainly Japanese text (e.g. people's names, terms like "DVD", "CD" etc.) are "romaji"? 86.179.3.13 (talk) 13:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Romaji is transliteration of ja mostly for people do not read Japanese. No, Japanese do not say an English text is written in romaji, but in alphabet. We do not use romaji for foreign words. See the second image of this ja article. DVD is DVD in ja too. See the top left. See these too. ja:六本木ヒルズ and [1]. Oda Mari (talk) 15:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's what I suspected. In that case, what is the correct Japanese term for the Roman alphabet when it is not used to write Japanese words? For example, if you had to translate "English is written in the Roman/Latin alphabet" or "In Japanese we write 'DVD' in the Roman/Latin alphabet" into Japanese, then what would be the term for "Roman/Latin alphabet" in that case? 86.179.3.13 (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
... also, I've remembered now one of the things that originally prompted this question. At Japanese writing system#Use of scripts, there is a section "The Latin alphabet, and its utilization in Japanese called rōmaji (ローマ字?), is used to write the following:", which is followed by a bunch of examples, that, if I am understanding you correctly, are not romaji. Do you agree that that section uses the term "romaji" incorrectly? 86.179.3.13 (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
86.179.3.13 -- Since the complex writing system for the Japanese language already incorporated three separate and distinct subsystems (i.e. a set of more than 2,000 kanji characters, and also two different syllabaries with about 50 symbols each), it wasn't too much of a stretch to also incorporate the 52 symbols of the Latin alphabet (counting upper- and lower-case forms separately). The Latin alphabet is de facto a fourth sub-component of the Japanese writing system nowadays (even if the most foreign and least integrated of the four)... AnonMoos (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea who wrote the Use of scripts section in Japanese writing system. Personally I call アルファベット or アルファベット表記 for Latin-alphabet acronyms and initialisms, romaji for Japanese personal names, 英語表記/in English for corporate brands, and other words intended for international use, xx語で/in xx language for foreign words deliberately rendered to impart a foreign flavour, and 原語(で or 表記)/gengo/in original language or 原文/original text for foreign names, words, and phrases, often in scholarly contexts. I think what to call them depends on people. I remember the word "ローマ字入力"/Roman letter input, an input method when you use a computer keyboard even when you write in ja and I use the method. See Japanese language and computers, Japanese input methods, and Wāpuro rōmaji. Oda Mari (talk) 05:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have removed the mention of "romaji" from that section. 86.181.203.230 (talk) 11:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to Daijisen Japanese dictionary, ローマ字 (rōmaji, 'Roman letter') means the Latin-alphabet, while ローマ字綴り (rōmaji-tsuzuri, 'Roman letter spelling') is to write a word using the Latin alphanet, including romanization. Here is a real word example. IT Word Dictionary explains that US-ASCII consists of rōmaji, numerals, symbols and control characters.[2] --Kusunose 02:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now I'm confused. Are you saying something different from Mari? For example, in the sentence "私は、このＣＤプレイヤーをただで得ました" would you say that "CD" is "romaji"? 86.179.115.10 (talk) 11:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wouldn't. I say it's アルファベット. Because it's a loan word and an acronym of コンパクト・ディスク/compact disc. See this online encyclopedia entry. It says "Romaji is letters transliterated ja by using alphabet in en". You cannot romanize CD as it's not written in original ja characters. As for コンパクト・ディスク, it is not an original ja word though, it can be romanized as konpakuto disuku as it is written in katakana, but WP:MOS-JA#General guidelines says "For transliterations from katakana, use the English spelling if available". See this image. The proper name part is romanized and the ordinary word part is translated in en on road signs in Japan. See also this. But I have no idea what the agency for cultural affairs says about CD. Oda Mari (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I would say "CD" is "romaji" in a sense of the word "romaji." "Romaji" could be used to mean "roman letter spelling" as in ローマ字綴り or ローマ字表記, in which it would mean the representation of Japanese words using roman letters, in which case "CD" would not count as romaji. However, it can also simply mean the "latin alphabet," in which case "CD" is clearly romaji. That, in fact, is the more common meaning taken in Japan. When used in that sense, it could also alternatively be referred to as romamoji (ローマ文字), or ratenmoji (ラテン文字).--Newquestions? 20:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(OP) Hmmm, that is a conundrum. I guess we conclude that it means different things to different people. 86.160.85.108 (talk) 01:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I recently discovered some of my essays from school in my loft and was amazed by the quality of my handwriting compared to how I write now. I'd like to improve my handwriting but all the googles I've done are focused on teaching kids to write or are somebody's stylised idea of how to write.
Are there classes in the UK to teach people how to improve their handwriting (I'm not talking calligraphy, just everyday writing)? Or any online courses? Or do I simply have to sit and write page after page of letters like I did in school?
The keyword to look for is "Penmanship", which is the everyday version of calligraphy. There are quite a few Google hits for "penmanship lessons for adults". Here's an example that has videos:
I've had a peek at the video link you've provided and it may well be what I was looking for. The penmanship article was also interesting, especially since I'm a graphic designer. Now I understand more about the origins of the fonts I'm using. Thank you very much, Mike --87.112.205.14 (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking from my own experience, having arthritic hands, I find my handwriting is now almost illegible whereas I used to write a beautiful, calligraphic italic style. I find that I can improve my handwriting by (a) using a fountain pen, and/or (b) using a thicker grip. You can buy rubber grips for pens from shops specialising in aids for disabled people. They help me to hold a pen without pain and to write in relative ease. Maybe worth a try. Certainly, biros are death to legible handwriting as far as I'm concerned. --TammyMoet (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear that Tammy. I don't have arthritis but I have had occasional problems with RSI for a fair few years so I'll try using my fountain pen to see if that helps my handwriting. I do find using pens/pencils uncomfortable if I'm using them for more than a few minutes which is often a requisite at work so I'll also try to get some of those rubber grips you've mentioned. Thanks again, Mike --87.112.205.14 (talk) 11:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Writing larger might also help, both for legibility and to make it less painful. StuRat (talk) 06:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's mainly a matter of slowing down. Most of my handwriting is things where I don't care how it looks, like a shopping list, so I rush, and it shows. When I want to do something nice-looking, like signing a birthday card, I take my time and it looks much better. StuRat (talk) 07:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly enough when I write something like a birthday card I plan what I'm going to write then write it at my normal speed. If I try to write more slowly/carefully I find that I lose my 'flow' and it all ends up a mess. However, following the link from Dominus I've found myself writing much more slowly so hopefully I will improve the quality even if I lose the speed. I'll try the tip for larger writing but that might be a bit difficult after almost 40 years of small handwriting, even in school people commented on the quality of my handwriting being nice but too small. Cheers, Mike --87.112.205.14 (talk) 19:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like hesitating may be your problem. For some types of pens that's far worse than others. A fountain pen or felt-tipped pen can leave a spot of ink if you do that. With a ball-point pen, it's usually less of a problem. You might want to plan each word, write it, then plan the next word. StuRat (talk) 05:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Grammatical forms sounding weird in Colloquial English, as compared to their ungrammatical parallels.[edit]
"Am I not?" - as opposed to "Aren't I", is not what I'm looking for, because, although "Aren't I" is probably ungrammatical, its grammatical parallel - "Am I not" - does not sound weird. I'm looking for grammatical forms sounding weird in Colloquial English, as opposed to their ungrammatical parallels.
"whom are you looking for?" - as opposed to "who are you looking for", is not what I'm looking for either, because, although the grammatical form: "whom are you looking for?" - does sound weird in Colloquial English, its parallel: "who are you looking for?" is not ungrammatical in standard Modern English.
So, does anyone here have an example satisfying my condition, i.e. a grammatical form sounding weird in Colloquial English, whereas the more acceptable parallel is ungrammatical? 84.229.66.148 (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would "This is the sort of pedantry up with which I shall not put" qualify? --NorwegianBluetalk 18:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure the more acceptable parallel ("This is the sort of pedantry I won't put up with") is not grammatical? Yes, I know of the rule about ending sentences with prepositions, but nowadays, sentences ending with prepositions are no longer regarded as ungrammatical - as far as Colloquial English is concerned - whereas "Aren't I"is regarded as ungrammatical, although that phrase does not sound weird, and is even more common than "am I not". 84.229.66.148 (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's grammatical to end this sentence with with. However there is a way here to satisfy the non-rule about ending a sentence with a preposition. That's "This is the sort of pedantry with which I won't put up." In this case, up is an adverb, not a preposition. In fact, the fact that it's not a preposition is what makes "up with which I won't put" ungrammatical and ridiculous. 64.140.121.160 (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, it's both ungrammatical and weird - its grammatical parallel ("This is the sort of pedantry I won't put up with") being both grammatical and acceptable, whereas I'm looking for the opposite case, i.e. for an ungrammatical acceptable phrase - whose grammatical parallel sounds weird. 84.229.66.148 (talk)
I agree that it's grammatical to end sentences with a proposition as well. Even if supposing that's not the case, "put up with" is a phrase, so breaking it up for comical results makes as much sense as saying "I New Love York".Anonymous.translator (talk) 04:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) One of the issues you run into has to do with what makes things sound "weird". What does and does not sound "weird" is primarily due to familiarity of usage. Forms which match common usage sound "good", and forms which go against that usage sound off. But then you run into the notion of what makes things grammatical. If you take the descriptivist perspective, things are grammatical because they match the rules of common usage. Even if you take a prescriptivist perspective, you have to account for where the grammatical rules came from, and the answer to that is originally common usage with occasional imports from common usage of Greek/Latin/French (as language is a human construct, and there are no "natural laws" of English grammar). Simply put, "sounding weird" is effectively just a statement that the expression is agrammatical in the dialect you are used to using. So what you're really looking for is expressions where a large number of people have switched over to a new grammatical form, but the "official" way of rendering the expression has stagnated to such an extent that the majority of people no longer recognize it as grammatical. If you take a descriptivist view of things, that's not going to happen (the majority of people using a form means it's grammatical to a descriptivist, by definition). If you take a prescriptivist view, you might still be able to find them - in fact, your last example would likely rankle a Victorian prescriptivist. The "grammatically correct" rendering would actually be something like "For whom are you looking?" rather than the more mellifluous (to us) "Who are you looking for?", which commits the double "sin" of ending the sentence with a preposition, along with the who/whom case confusion - neither of which are currently agrammatical, but that's due to modern descriptivist "corruption". -- 67.40.209.83 (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By "weird" I mean subjectively-weird, i.e. weird to your own ears (i.e. 67.40.209.83's ears). By "grammatical", I mean what's being taught in the schools as "grammatical". For example, when we're young we are taught that "I ain't got no idea", is ungrammatical, because of the double negation and likewise: That's why the teacher won't accept such a phrase in a composition and likewise, while "who are you looking for" is regarded as grammatical, and that's why the teacher will accept such a phrase in a composition. 84.229.66.148 (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Ain't" is an interesting case. It used to be completely acceptable in tag questions like "I'm the King, ain't I", where it was the legitimate contraction of "am not I". It was never correct to use the word elsewhere, such as "I ain't the person you're looking for". But the proscription became extended to a total ban on the word in all contexts, which is a damn shame because now people seem to think it's OK to say "aren't I" even though they'd never say "I are". Bring back "ain't I", I say. -- Jack of Oz[your turn] 21:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I think "amn't", used in some English varieties (e.g. in Ireland and Scotland), is linguistically more legitimate contraction than "ain't" is. Btw, how do Aussies say? (I'm asking mainly about the youth, rather than about the adults). 84.229.66.148 (talk)
What do you mean "linguistically more legitimate contraction"?
"Aren't I" is all too common here. So are constructions of the form "between he and I", even though many would not blink an eyelid at "Him and me did <whatever>". -- Jack of Oz[your turn] 20:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. As for your question, I mean that from a linguistic point of view - it's much clearer to figure out how "am not" became "amn't" - than to figure out how "am not" became "ain't". 84.229.66.148 (talk) 12:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Who is it?" "It's I". HenryFlower 02:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"It is I" sounds much more acceptable to me than "It's I." Of course, almost everyone says "It's me." 84, I think instead of "grammatical," it would have been more accurate to use "traditionally prescribed" or something similar in your question. "It's me" is perfectly grammatical in my opinion. 64.140.121.160 (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I really meant: traditionally prescribed, and I really had to make it clear - in my question (as I did later in one of my responses in this thread). Anyways, "It is me" is "ungrammatical" (in the sense mentioned above), so the example of "It is I" satisfies my condition, and that's why I said: "excellent". 84.229.66.148 (talk) 12:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overzealous copyeditors will sometimes replace less with fewer in cases like "a thousand words or less." "I see what you are talking about" is better than "I see that about which you are talking," even though the preposition is at the end, contrary to the traditional prescriptive view.
Here is a sentence which has no correct equivalent, other than a paraphrase. "I saw a boy that I didn't know where his parents were." ("Whose parents' whereabouts I didn't know" would work.) Everybody knows it's wrong (in a real sense, not just from a prescriptive standpoint), but many will still say it in informal circumstances. 64.140.121.160 (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I've already stated, I regard - sentences ending with prepositions - as grammatical, because they are accepted by our teachers when we write a composition, so your first example ("I see what you are talking about") does not satisfy my condition.
As for your second exmaple: I need also the weird grammatical version, and you failed to present it. Additionally, the "grammatical" version you suggested ("I saw a boy whose parents' whereabouts I didn't know"), which is not weird at all, is not the translation of your original ungrammatical version ("I saw a boy that I didn't know where his parents were"), but rather is a translation of the following ungrammatical version: "I saw a boy that I didn't know his parents' whereabouts". In fact, the grammatical translation of your original ungrammatical version is: "I saw a boy where whose parents were I didn't know". Yes, quite weird (Compare: "I saw the boy between whose parents and your parents I was sitting"). 84.229.66.148 (talk) 12:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know where you draw the line, because composition teachers vary in which fake rules they endorse. If they say that "It's me" is incorrect, they may well also say that "the book I'm talking about" is incorrect. The sentence "I saw a boy where whose parents were I didn't know" strikes me as being ungrammatical (in the usual sense). If I'm correct in asserting that there's no correct form, then my example doesn't meet your criteria. I thought I'd mention it anyway because it was interesting. What would you say the "correct" form is of "I saw a boy that I didn't know whether his parents were coming"? 64.140.121.160 (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As for your first question, about where I draw the line: Well, I had already drawn it, when I presented my original question (in the beginning of this thread), where I explained that - neither "Aren't I" nor "who are you looking for", were the examples I was looking for. So this is my line (as a given).
As for your last question about the "correct" form of "I saw a boy that I didn't know whether his parents were coming":
Well, if you accept the grammaticalness of:
1. "I saw the boy, between whose parents and your parents - I was sitting".
Then you should also accept the grammaticalness of:
2. "I saw a boy, where whose parents were - I didn't know".
And if you accept that, then you should also accept the grammaticalness of:
3. "I saw a boy, whether whose parents were coming - I didn't know".
Admittedly, #2,#3 sound quite weird (as I have already stated with regard to #2). However, from a purely generative linguistic point of view, I can't see any difference - between the extent of grammaticalness of #1 - and the extent of grammaticalness of #2,#3.
(Former 64.140.) I don't see the same parallelism you do between #1 and the other sentences, and in any case I have serious doubts about the acceptability of any of these sentences. If you're interested, perhaps you can ask the opinion of other native speakers.96.46.197.161 (talk) 00:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by: "I have serious doubts about the acceptability of any of these sentences"? Do you include #1? if you're claiming now that - you "have serious doubts about the acceptability" - even of #1 (which is probably accepted by every native speaker - as far as I can assume), then let me ask you: Where you draw the line? Do you accept: "I saw a boy, whose parents - I didn't know"? If you do, then do you accept: "I saw a boy, about whose parents - I had been asking"? if you do, then do you accept "I saw a boy, between whose parents and your parents - I was sitting"? if you do, then how would you explain the difference you see - between the latter sentence - and: "I saw a boy, where whose parents were - I didn't know"?
.
As for your claim that you "don't see the same parallelism" - I do - "between #1 and the other sentences": Well, you already claimed this, regarding #2, but then you asked about the correct form of "I saw a boy that I didn't know whether his parents were coming". So, in fact (as far as I could understand), you claimed (not by words) that - even if I had been right regarding my suggested correct form of "I saw a boy that I didn't know where his parents were" - I would still have had a difficulty in finding the correct form of "I saw a boy that I didn't know whether his parents were coming". So I answered that if one didn't really have a difficulty in finding the correct form of the former sentence, then one would very easily find the correct form of the latter sentence - as well; So, I couldn't understand your claim. I also added that I couldn't see any difference - between the extent of grammaticalness of #1 - and the extent of grammaticalness of #2,#3. Btw, I still doubt if you can explain any such a difference (from a theoretical linguistic point of view).
.
Anyways, I have already admitted that #2,#3 sound weird, so I can't see how any "native speaker" (as you suggested) may help me on this matter. 84.229.66.148 (talk) 07:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently undergoing my AS English Literature/Language coursework. I'm now on my final draft but my teacher is asking for more detailed accounts of language change.
Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and Truman Capote's In Cold Blood are the two novels I must use. In the extracts I've chosen, Frankenstien (published in 1818) contains insults like 'ogre' and 'wretch' whilst In Cold Blood (published in 1966) uses insults like 'bastard' and 'hell'. I was hoping the etymology of these words could be explained and why words like 'wretch' would no longer be used within novels of the 60s. Thank you Sgulley (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Wretch" might still be used in the 1960s in certain semi-fixed constructions or phrases, such as "ink-stained wretch", etc. Also, "bastard" and "hell" saw plenty of use in the speech of some individuals in 1818, but were not always considered suitable to be written down in books whose main readership was among middle-class women... AnonMoos (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"wretch" is stil used today, at least in the UK, though usually light-heartedly, and without the force of meaning it once had. 86.179.3.13 (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from vocabulary, you might also want to look at things like the use, or not, of the subjunctive, and typical length and complexity of sentences and paragraphs. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.209 (talk) 23:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Today I discovered User talk:༆. (1) What is the name of the symbol ༆? (2) What is its Unicode category? (3) What is its Unicode hexadecimal code? (4) In what language or in what field is it used?
—Wavelength (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Searching Wikipedia for ༆ takes me straight to the page Tibetan alphabet, unicode values are on that page. Nanonic (talk) 21:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See graphemica.com/༆. The name is TIBETAN MARK CARET YIG MGO PHUR SHAD MA. The Unicode category seems to be "Other Punctuation". The Unicode hexadecimal code is ༆. --Theurgist (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for your replies. After I posted those questions, and before I returned to the computer, I realized that I had not tried searching for the symbol on Wikipedia.
Resolved