Language desk
< July 29	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 31 >

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.

July 30[edit]

What would be the adjective for the following feeling?[edit]

I have asked many people this question previously, yet none seem to know... and that is the feeling one feels when, say, someone tells a 'joke' which isn't funny at all, though it is meant to be... how does one describe such a 'um...o...k...' feeling? Thanks!

The word that jumps to mind is "nonplussed". +ILike2BeAnonymous 08:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This smacks of insincere politeness, like when you laugh politely but don't mean it. The closest word I can think of for this behaviour is 'ingratiating' Sandman30s 12:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with "bemused". --TotoBaggins 14:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the answers seem to be describing the social action rather than the internal feeling, which might be described as disillusionment, letdown or possibly dismay --JAXHERE | ^Talk 15:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would go with "skeptical", since 'um...o...k...' doesn't imply distress, or trying to please the other person, but rather a sort of conditional acceptance. --Śiva 16:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In colloquial (not literary) Korean, jokes that aren't funny at all are described using the descriptive verb "썰렁하다". 썰렁한 이야기: story which is not funny. It doesn't matter if it's meant to be funny or not, 썰렁함 (the state of being 썰렁) is up to the listener to decide. --Kjoonlee 17:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat related ... the event is anticlimactic. (JosephASpadaro 19:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

"Ambivalent" could possibly work, or maybe "equivocal". 38.112.225.84 05:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good question, because though many of the answers have got close, IMHO I don't think anyone's actually hit it on the head - maybe we need to borrow the Korean term - make it part of the vernacular? Adambrowne666

Heh. 썰렁하다 means (literally) chilly. --Kjoonlee 20:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, in this case, we can rightfully say "The joke was met with a chilly reception" ... or "a lukewarm reception" ... no? (Joseph A. Spadaro 02:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks - so how do I say it, can you transcribe it in Latin letters for me? Adambrowne666 12:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

썰렁하다 (sseolleonghada /s͈ʌllʌŋhada/) 썰렁한 (sseolleonghan /s͈ʌllʌŋhan/) 썰렁함 (sseolleongham /s͈ʌllʌŋham/). You can look at RR and IPA chart for English for help on pronunciation, but to give you a hint, it sounds roughly like "hull lung" but with an /s/ sound, and a slight stress on the first syllable. My code-switching intuition tells me that I'd use it like:

That's the most 썰렁 story I've ever heard.

--Kjoonlee 16:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent - I might try and start using it - thanks - it's a word the language needs... Adambrowne666 04:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

etymology of Canada[edit]

Has anyone heard the posited etymology of the word Canada as coming from the Spanish, a que nada, meaning something like 'here is nothing'? It's pretty dodgy, I know, and doesn't get a look-in at Canada, but I'm curious how widely it is now or ever was accepted as the true origin of the word, and who first proposed it. Thanks Adambrowne666 09:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, aquí nada or acá nada would both mean "here nothing" in Spanish, but frankly it's a pretty ridiculous theory. In any case, the only accepted theory (which has a great deal of evidence) these days is that it comes from the Laurentian word for "town" or "settlement" (compare Mohawk kaná:ta’). I don't know the history of theories about Canada's name, but I'd be surprised if this was ever more than a fringe theory by one or two people. I was going to suggest looking at Canada's name, but it basically says the same thing as Canada--it used to mention some other theories though. Also there's this. --Miskwito 15:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I heard that from some Americans once...it seemed to be well-known to them, but I had never heard it before. We know the ka-na-ta one better because of the Heritage Minute about it ("I know this language and this nation's name is ka-na-ta!" "But I'm sure he means the houses, the village!"), and I guess because there is an actual town called Kanata. Adam Bishop 16:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, both of you - thanks especially, Miskwito, for the link to the old Canada page, very useful. I came across the theory in an Australian book of etymologies called A PAGEANT OF WORDS, by Kevin Kennedy, published in the 70s. Adambrowne666 22:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For general interest, see Certain Persistent Errors in Geography by Henry Gannett in Bulletin of the American Geographical Society, Vol. 33, No. 3 (1901). There certainly are places whose names have arisen from "Nothing there" or even "I don't know" in the local language. Xn4 11:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian Ministry of Sport Orlando Silva speaking at press conferencea[edit]

Question:

At the 2007 Pan American Games in Brazil, Minister of Sport, Orlando Silva is seen in photos, news, speaking to press, audiences, in the US, Canada and abroad in addition to Rio de Janeiro.

Does anyone know if he requires an interpreter (English or Spanish) in his interviews with the press, i.e. the Canadian sport Minister, ambassadors or other ministers from other countries?

16:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)16:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)~ AnnickSweden

Comparison[edit]

a comparision between A.J.Cronin's An Irish Rose andHatter's Castle —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Latedu (talk • contribs) 13:20, July 30, 2007 (UTC) – Please sign your posts!

Home alone[edit]

What's most normal in English, to say "I'm home alone" or "I'm alone at home"? --Taraborn 14:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both are pretty normal. Recury 14:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, the former makes one think of the film, whereas the latter doesn't, so there is a slight difference.--Śiva 16:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Thank you very much. --Taraborn 16:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also suggest that "I'm home alone" has more of a connotation of vulnerability or fear, particularly for an unsupervised child, while "I'm alone at home" seems more like a simple statement of fact. I think that this sense predates the film.jeffjon 17:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm alone" has a connotation (in British English) of loneliness. "I'm (at home) on my own" is more usual.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Taraborn 21:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say 'I'm at home by myself'. — Gareth Hughes 00:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The movie was called that because the phrase was fairly common before that. I think I would always say "I'm home alone," and I can't recall ever hearing or reading the other option. "Alone at home" sounds like it is at best an inferior option and at worst a hypercorrection. This is either because "home alone" is an idiomatic set phrase or because of the placement in the other option of the prepositional phrase after the adjective in a somewhat unnatural construction, I think. "I'm alone" and "I'm at home" are both okay, since one is an adjective describing the subject and the other is a prepositional phrase of location, but together they don't work (for me) except as "I'm home alone," with the "alone" acting as an phrasal modifier/adverb there. It may also have to do with the fact that in "alone at home," both seem to be modifying the subject separately but are not parallel (both adjectives, for example) or separated by "and" or at least a comma, while "home alone" has them modifying different things as they should be when adjacent and unseparated. This is all my theory, of course. Either way, my American ear definitely prefers "home alone." --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 06:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need to understand Russian to understand source on 1897 census in Lithuania[edit]

Hello,

I was reading Ethnic history of the region of Vilnius. In that article, the ethnic make-up of Vilnius and the Vilno governate (=roughly the modern Lithuania) are given for several periods of time. Many of those tables gives percentages but not the total, which is a shame. Only one source listed there is actually available on the internet, and that's the Russian 1897 census. Both the table giving the results of census in the city and the one giving the results for all of Lithuania, link to the same page,this one [1]. Being bold, I seem to conclude that the total number of people living in the governate was 1591207. But what about the city of Vilnius? Are the results available on that same website as well? I only understand the Cyrillic alphabet, so I'm afraid I need the help of someone with some knowledge of the Russian language . Thanks,Evilbu 19:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page you linked to is for Vilenskaya, which presumably means Vilenskaya gubernia. There's also one for Vilenskaya (in cities) here: [2]. That presumably includes any other urban areas as well as the city of Vilnius. Perhaps that's what was used in the Wikipedia page for the city stats. --Reuben 22:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but something is not quite right then. I assume "Великорусский" means "Russians". I guess so, because the Governate page gave me a 78623/1591207 ratio for "Великорусский", which is 4.9%, and which is also exactly what the Wikipedia article gives us.

However, doing the same thing with the numbers on the page you gave me, I get 36178/198007 for "Великорусский" in the city, or 18.2%, while the Wikipedia article says 20.9%

To make matter more complicated, assuming that "Белорусский" means Belarussians, I get 15057/198007 for the Belarussians in the city, which is 7.6%, while the article says it's 4.3%? What have I messed up? Am I misinterpreting the Russian?Evilbu 01:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Великорусский" is Russian (see Great Russian language), and "Малорусский" is Ukrainian [or was, once]. Here are some others (which you've probably guessed) from the first page you linked. The top reads "Language or language group" (twice), then Dialect, Men, Women, Both Genders. Along the left: Polish, Other Slavic languages, Lithuanio-Latvian dialects, Romance languages, German, Other Germanic languages, Jewish, South Caucasian dialects, Other Indo-European dialects, Dialects of the Caucusus mountains, Finnish dialects, Turko-Mongol dialects (twice), Mongolo-Buryat dialects (?), Dialects of other Northern tribes, languages of the [cultural people? dialects?] of the Far East, other languages and dialects, people not indicating their first language, TOTAL.

Note that "language group" may not be used the same way we would (see the "Jewish" group). You can probably translate most language names with Google (try including "wiki" in the search string; if you find a ru.wikipedia.org page, check the interwiki links). Tesseran 03:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evilbu, your interpretation is correct. I don't know where the stats in the article are coming from. The drop down menu in the web page doesn't seem to have an entry for the city of Vilnius specifically (I think I would recognize the names it might be under). --Reuben 04:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks everyone. I made some changes now, and I wrote something about it on the Talk Page, as you can see here :[3].Evilbu 15:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International Grammar Symbols?[edit]

Hello. Is there an international set of grammar symbols in sentence analysis? If yes, are bare subjects underlined? Are bare predicates wavy underlined? Are adjectives, subordinate adjective clauses, adjective phrases, prepositional adjective phrases, and the like in round brackets? Are adverbs, prepositional adverb phrases, subordinate adverb clauses, adverb phrases, and the like in square brackets? Are subordinate noun clauses in triangular brackets? Are nouns of direct address squared altogether? Are direct objects double underlined? Are indirect objects triple underlined? Thanks in advance. --Mayfare 22:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of such a system. Where did you find the conventions you have just described? --Śiva 02:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Canadian English teacher taught me this. Perhaps, these conventions are only locally recognized. --Mayfare 14:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typography[edit]

Where can I find information about the page layout and typographical conventions used in traditional Chinese books? Likewise for pre-19th-century French books. --Śiva 22:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the Chinese part, I'm not sure what exactly you're looking for, but I may be able to answer you if you want to know some particular detail. Relevant articles are horizontal and vertical writing in East Asian scripts, history of typography in East Asia, and history of western typography. Cheers.--K.C. Tang 01:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically (or is it generally?), what I'm looking for is information about traditional East Asian book design-- the sort of information I would need if I wanted to make a book that looks like it comes from, say, Song-dynasty China. There seems to be very little information of this nature on Wikipedia. --Śiva 02:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Of course there's a great number of Chinese books which deal with this topic, but I can't think of any English works or sites which talk about that. Maybe I'll write the article later ... not an easy task, though. Cheers.--K.C. Tang 03:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of conventions aren't really written down or codified. Your best bet would be to find some exemplars of the style you're looking for and model your design on those. It's worth noting that there are many archaic conventions in typography which are difficult, at best, to replicate with modern technology (e.g., the old convention of printing the first word of the next page on a slug line at the bottom of the page). 65.91.98.102 18:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, where would I find scans of old Chinese books? --Śiva 23:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]