Language desk
< December 4	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 6 >

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 5[edit]

Hebrew[edit]

I have an odd request: I need to say "Hebrew" or the equivalent in Hebrew characters. It is for a conference and there are various other languages listed. I don't know if I need an article or not. The list is like, we have this website in these languages. Thanks. --Cody.Pope 04:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Hebrew. -THB 04:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, use the version without the vowels, עברית‎, like for instance on this website. --Lambiam ^Talk 07:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He-brew = beer for real men (near beers need not apply). :-) StuRat 07:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to remind you, the French don't call their language "French". Similarly, in Hebrew, Hebrew isn't called "Hebrew". I love that sentence It's "Ivrit", which is what Lambiam has spelled for you. StuRat, you need to come up with a whole new pun. --Dweller 15:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't entirely new to start with: [1]. --Lambiam ^Talk 16:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, that would be pronounced ee-vreet (with the accent on the second syllable). Mo-Al 01:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite - the two vowels aren't equivalent in length; the first is shorter. More like iv-REET. --Deborahjay 11:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys. --Cody.Pope 02:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irony?[edit]

I'm wondering whether I'm using the word ironic correctly in the following sentence: "It is rather ironic that, although there is an entire section of the Wikipedia reference desk devoted solely to the subject of language, and which seems to have many worthy contributors, the Wikipedia language article itself is plainly a piece of shit." 24.11.177.133 04:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --Wo o ty Woot? contribs 04:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the classical sense, but most people would use it the same way and understand it. -THB 05:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! What, then, is it called when you respond to a statement you know to be ironic (and arguably meta-ironic) as if it weren't? 24.11.177.133 06:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would that be "feigned naïveté"? -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I suppose it would. --24.11.177.133 12:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise called "disingenuousness". --Anonymous, 23:31 UTC, December 5.

And now, we're on to sarcasm... --Diderot 13:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patience? -THB 15:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disinterest? Boredom? - Seejyb 16:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say to the original poster that such usage constitutes a mis-use of language, the most (and least) profound well of misery and scorn in the English-speaking world. Theavatar3 16:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And this, I believe, is a fine example of hyperbole.--24.11.177.133 00:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Made a few changes. :) Theavatar3 18:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

schrodinger's cat[edit]

how is this concept of quantum physics, "schrodinger's cat" used in english language?

Oh, it's me, hehe... Schrödinger's cat 07:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit uncertain, but might be used to mean that the result of an action isn't known until examined. For example, the expected Baker-Hamilton Report on Iraq due on Wednesday might be called a SC, at least until it is released. StuRat 07:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is used as a noun. --Diderot 10:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a rhetorical device, like bugbear or elephant in the room. Theavatar3 16:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear question. But to add to the above, if the questioner is asking about how the words are used an English sentence, a convenient place to see it in action be at the entry on Schrödinger's cat. -- Seejyb 17:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish computer error message?[edit]

Innri villa 1 - Gluggakerfi

What is the English translation of the above message (supposedly a Finnish computer error message)? Thanks in advance. 61.94.149.218 10:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not Finnish. It's Icelandic. It means "Internal error 1 - window system" --Diderot 10:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I could tell, it appears to be a calque of English. 惑乱分からん 14:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A dutch equivilent of the term "freethought"?[edit]

Is there a Dutch equivilent of the English term freethought?

The interwiki links on the left hand side under "In other languages" links to http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vrijdenkerij meltBanana 14:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English[edit]

Are English speakers more interested in, concerned about, obsessed with, or analytical of English as a language than speakers of other languages are about their own languages? -THB 20:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. B00P 00:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The English don't even make an attempt at anything coming close to the French Academy. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, the French, I could have answered my own question. Thanks!!! -THB 06:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization in Titles[edit]

What words should be capitalized in a title/heading? Why should the word in not be capitalized above? Thanks --Weird question? 20:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can, depending on what guidelines you adhere to. See Capitalization, there's a great section on titles and the degrees of capitalization. -THB 20:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In summary, title capitalization policies vary in the number and type of words which should be capitalized. But even the most capitalization-friendly guidelines usually recommend that prepositions like in not be capitalized unless they are the first word in the title. I don't know of any capitalization guidelines that recommend capitalizing Every Single Word In A Title. Nohat 00:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Capitalization. It's one end of the spectrum. -THB 01:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever?[edit]

Let's say someone says to me, "Whenever I went to the store, I bought something," and then another person said to me "When I went to the store, I bought something." One person says "when" and the other says "whenever." I realize there is a difference in meaning here, and I know when to use each one, so that's not my question. My question is, what is the technical name for this difference? Is it just a situation of continuous vs. progressive? --BennyD 00:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the two sentences are meant to have distinct meanings, the first speaker has used what I'd call a past general temporal construction, and the second a past simple temporal construction. (I'm modelling the terminology on that used for conditional sentences; if you consult that article, [A] note that both of your adverbial clauses fall under the classification realis, [B] have a look at the section on Latin conditionals, as the terminology is somewhat fuller.) Now to explain my proviso ("Assuming..."). In good English, your second example may, in context, have the generalizing meaning. And in nonstandard colloquial U.S. English, the first is often used without the generalizing meaning. Neither sentence implies anything in the continuous or progressive aspect. Both seem to refer to discrete events. However, both verbs in the generalizing sentence fall under the more general imperfective aspect, which is used for repeated in addition to ongoing action. Wareh 00:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will say there are some people who use "whenever" when they ought to use "when" and it's an error. -THB 01:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It's too categorical in many contexts. Just as some people say "never" (not at any time) when they mean "not" (not on this occasion). JackofOz 02:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This error is actually what prompted me to ask. Someone I know always uses "whenever" in place of "when" and I couldn't determine what the difference was, grammatically. Thank you, Wareh. --BennyD 04:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please. It's not an error. It's English's way of differentiating habitual vs. one time. 'Whenever' shows that it happens more than once - on a regular basis. 'When' refers to a single instance. --69.138.61.168 14:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But the point is that some speakers use "whenever" without any reference to habitual or repeated action. "Whenever it started raining yesterday, we went inside." Definitely nonstandard, and confusing to boot. I can't find any discussions of this usage on the web, but I've heard it in the U.S. for decades. (Also note that, even in good English, "when" need not refer to a single instance: "We used to dance and sing when the first snowstorm came.") Wareh 19:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that sentence, "when" could be replaced with "whenever" with no loss of meaning. But such a replacement does not generally work. JackofOz 03:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merriam-Webster has an adverbial sense for whenever meaning "at whatever time" [2], as in for example We can leave whenever you want. When whenever is used in this noncategorical way to refer to a single time action rather than a habitual action there is a subtle semantic implication that the particular time is of no consequence, whereas when does not carry that implication. This sense I think is usually used to refer to the future (using either the present or future tense). When this whenever is used in the past tense, the categorical sense is much more salient, so sentences which use the noncategorical sense sound a bit odd. Nohat 18:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]