Language desk
< September 27	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 29 >

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.

September 28[edit]

Shortest sentence[edit]

Is there any sentence shorter than

My, or I am as sly as a pi.

that uses all nine parts of speech? (This has 17 characters with just letters, 19 with puncuation, and 27 with everything, including spaces.) Indeed123 02:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you care to use contractions (which still contain all the appropriate parts of speech), you reduce the first and third categories by one each. It's still 19 with punctuation, though. (My, or I'm as sly as a pi.) — Michael J 02:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where's your preposition? jnestorius^(talk) 02:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the second 'as' was being deemed to be a preposition, but I doubt it is. It strikes me that 'pi' can be an adjective, so you could say 'as pi as a mu'. Xn4 03:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Merriam-Webster:

as¹ ... Function: adverb ... 1 : to the same degree or amount <as soft as silk> <twice as long> ...

as² Function: conjunction .. 2 : in or to the same degree in which <soft as silk> -- usually used as a correlative after an adjective or adverb modified by adverbial as or so <as cool as a cucumber> ...

as⁴ Function: preposition 1 a : LIKE 2 <all rose as one man> b : LIKE 1a <his face was as a mask -- Max Beerbohm> 2 : in the capacity, character, condition, or role of <works as an editor>

So the first as is an adverb and the second is a conjunction. All caveats at part of speech apply. jnestorius^(talk) 08:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The choice of traditional "parts of speech" is largely arbitrary, and modeled on classical languages. Coordinators ("coordinating conjunctions", e.g. or) are very different than subordinators ("subordinating conjunctions"), which are not represented in that example sentence. Strad 04:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see the discussion here recently on the question of the part of speech of "as" (where Strad and I also gave our 2 cents). Wareh 18:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you can start the main clause with "or", grammatical prescriptions aside. How about "O, I'm as bi as a pi or mu." That's 16 letters (17 if you expand the contraction -- then again, if we allow contractions, why not replace or with 'n' ?). Am I right that you're considering articles to be a part of speech? If you are willing to start with "or", we can get down to "O, or I'm as bi as a pi." This (14 letters) seems close to optimal. Tesseran 04:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about "not". IIRC, that's a part of speech by itself.--Estrellador* 07:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In traditional grammar, not is an adverb, a catch-all class also including yes. In modern grammar, there ain't nine parts of speech, so the whole discussion is moot. jnestorius^(talk) 09:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O, if so, I'm U to a T! — 12 letters. jnestorius^(talk) 00:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was always taught "I am" is the shortest sentance in the English language.--hotclaws 12:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the OP specified using all nine parts of speech. (Joseph A. Spadaro 01:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

To digress a little, "I am" would not be the shortest sentence anyway. An imperative such as "go" would be the shortest, methinks. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 01:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we are going to digress, then any one-character sentence would qualify as the shortest. Example: Someone asks, "Who wants ice cream?" ... A valid response would be "I." Example: Someone asks "What is your middle initial?" ... A valid response would be "Q." Etc. A valid response is a sentence, in these cases, with an implied verb. ("I do." or "Q is.") No different than an imperative sentence ("Go.") which has an implied subject, as opposed to an implied verb ("You, go."). (Joseph A. Spadaro 03:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

how do you pronouce charis?[edit]

with a hard k sound (like care) or soft ch sound (like chinese)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.126.19.150 (talk) 05:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering other English words of ultimate Greek origin that begin with X (e.g. character, chasm), a hard k is more likely.--K.C. Tang 06:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about the name, then it is in fact k. Drmaik 06:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is definitely a hard k. As K.C. Tang says, this is the general rule when the Greek letter chi shows up in an English word. (The only exceptions occur when the Greek went very early into French or Italian and became naturalized there. Examples I can produce offhand are archbishop, and the other arch- words except for archangel, and machine.) Despite the general reliability of this rule, I have heard a Classics genius pronounce Cheops with the same consonant as lamb chops. Wareh 18:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My teacher says it's a French word, pronounced with a "sh" sound and with the "s" silent. But she's not my French teacher, so I'm not sure. --166.121.36.10 04:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

accent advice please[edit]

Hello.

I'm designing a promotional brochure which is pretending to be a menu (of services).

Should the word Entrees have an accent on the middle e? (ie the one after the letter r).

thanks 08:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Either entree or entrée is correct. [1] Lanfear's Bane 08:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thankyou 83.104.131.135 09:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the intended effect is (apparently) mock elegance, I'd definitely include the accent. (But then I'd do so anyway 'cos I'm a pedant.) —Tamfang 06:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Entrée" in this form is French, though it needs the article, and means, I believe, an appetizer; "entree" in this form is English (of a sort) and means a main course. How does a pedant deal with this? :-) Bielle 02:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With a ten-foot pole. —Tamfang 19:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Englishman's home[edit]

We have a saying in England "An Englishman's home is his castle" meaning that an Englishman is inviolable in his own home. I'm guessing this was never actually true, but do other countries have an equivalent saying? Or is it a peculiarly English attitude?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the Netherlands, we don't have castles, but we have Dutch mouths ("You have a Dutch mouth!"), which means that we can ask for the way when we get lost. Lova Falk 10:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's "house", isn't it? A man's house is his castle. I, an American, have been aware of this maxim since childhood. Bill of Rights, don't you know. --Milkbreath 10:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In England (Or even in the United Kingdom!) it's 'home'. Subtle difference, I wonder why? 4u1e 11:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a true US/UK difference. "House" is probably just the first way I heard it. I just went and googled on the two variations unfiltered, site:edu, and site:uk, and "home" is much in the majority. That is not to say "house" is at all rare. Some of the earliest citations I saw even use both in the same sentence. But I'll continue to say "house" because it's parallel with "castle". --Milkbreath 11:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the literal sense yes, but I wonder if 'home' and 'castle' as more abstract concepts make a more interesting pairing? Both being places of security. 4u1e 12:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Growing up in the US, I always heard it as "A man's home", not "An Englishman's home". —An gr 12:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - more appropriate in any context other than where I'm sitting! 4u1e 12:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Edward Coke, English jurist, in his "The Third Part of the Laws of England", published 1628, has "For a man's house is his castle, et domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium[and each man's home is his safest haven]". DuncanHill 13:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This saying is used in Australia, pretty much the same ("A man's home is his castle"). It even forms the basis of a (very good) film a few years back - The Castle. --203.208.110.207 14:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of disambiguating the link. —Tamfang 06:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In some states here in Amurika not only do we have this saying but it is referenced and actually codified in the so-called Castle Doctrine laws (see the "Origins" section for some more context on its roots in English Common Law). Laws which some might describe, disparagingly or otherwise, as peculiarly American. Contrast this with current British legal trends in regards to home intruders, which I'm led to believe draw more on Wikipedia policies such as AGF and NPA; the attacker/intruder must refuse your offer of tea and crumpets at least three times before you are allowed to politely ask him to leave the premises. Though I suppose that with so many CC cameras, everyone's safety is pretty much perfectly guaranteed by the state. Three cheers. 38.112.225.84 16:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you're joking, but it should be pointed out that most of the 'not allowed to repel burglars' things has come entirely from the tabloids, not from fact. In England, you're allowed to use reasonable force to protect yourself, your family, your possessions, etc. So certain people are asking that people be allowed to use more force than a jury finds reasonable. For example, a jury found it unreasonable to shoot a child in the back as the child ran away from your house, even though they had robbed you. As long as the right to trial by jury is preserved unsullied, I fail to see the problem :) 79.65.119.193 23:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here in the rebellious colonies, the trial by jury is sullied by the exclusion of jurors who confess reluctance to leave their conscience at home and accept the judge's version of the legislature's version of right and wrong. One juror in a drugs case in Colorado was even prosecuted afterward for not volunteering, unasked, information that would suggest she was unlikely to vote for conviction. If the defense tries to persuade the jury that the law is unjust, or invites them to consider the severity of the sentence, the judge will dismiss the now tainted jurors and start over. How is it in England? —Tamfang 19:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IPA for Australian name Brabham[edit]

Brabham (as in Jack Brabham and the Brabham Formula One racing team) is pronounced 'Brabbum' to the best of my knowledge. Going by the IPA chart for English, that would be rendered IPA: [bɹæbam]. Could someone from the sunny side of the English speaking world confirm whether I've got this right? Ta very much (It's for the FAC of Brabham BT19.) 4u1e 10:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very much from the rainy side of the English speaking world, but the vowel in the second syllable is a schwa, and it needs a stress marker, so it'd be IPA: ['bɹæbəm], I think. --Nicknack009 11:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compare the pronounciations [ˈdɜɺəm] or [ˈdʌɹəm] for Durham and ['gəʊtəm] for Gotham. --Lambiam 13:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I took 'a' from the IPA chart's representation of the 'u' sounds in 'run' - but that was because I'd already re-written it as 'Brabbum' in my head, I suppose. I will use the version Nicknack suggests. Cheers. 4u1e 16:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm Nicknack has got it in one. -- JackofOz 23:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And with a name like that I'm guessing you are from the sunny side of the English speaking world? Thanks for the confirmation. 4u1e 08:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Classical Greek font[edit]

I am taking a Classical Greek class and am wondering if its possible to install a font or switch a setting to allow me to type (with my US keyboard) in Greek letters in Word, etc. Thanks. EdwinHJ | Talk 19:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a polytonic Greek system keyboard driver that is part of Windows (since XP I think). Some 3rd-party software for other customised keyboard layouts is also available ("Tavultesoft Keyman", "Antioch" and others). A polytonic Greek Unicode font (Palatino Linotype) is also part of all modern Windows installations, others are listed at "Alan Wood's Unicode Resources" (try google). Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do I use that? EdwinHJ | Talk 23:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the Mac, you can go to the control panel, and select Greek Polytonic. It's worth noting that Unicode support begins with Word 2004 (=Word 2003 under Windows) which is a prerequisite for being able to do polytonic Greek). Donald Hosek 20:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're using Windows XP, I use this keyboard program (a package that includes Tavultesoft Keyman) and the Gentium font, and I'm convinced each is the best available solution (both are free). If you have Windows, then older versions of Word (at least back to Word 2002) have supported Unicode. Finally, if the appearance of Greek in Wikipedia is important to you, you might want to use a monobook.css file something like mine (which I borrowed & only slightly adapted). Wareh 02:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want your Greek letters to look pretty, have a look at Junicode or Gentium. I think I heard that Junicode's Greek letters are classical, not modern, but I don't know if that's good or bad for you. --Kjoonlee 12:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

.polytonic { font-family: Gentium; }

If you put the above in your own monobook.css page, only polytonic Greek will be displayed in Gentium. --Kjoonlee 13:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the basic aesthetic of Junicode Greek, but the execution seems weak. Instant complaints: lambda is the height of alpha, not beta, and I get square boxes if I put a passage with Greek into italics (the font is beta, so maybe it will improve). My suggestions for runners-up to Gentium (which alone seems to work well as a browser screen font for me): Old Standard, Dioxipe (was available here, has disappeared). Wareh 18:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For me, the typeface for Ancient Greek is Porson. The Greek Font Society has a very nice version called "GFS Porson" that I have in my monobook as the default font for anything tagged {{polytonic}} or {{lang-grc}}. It's not great as a screen font, but printed out it is simply what printed Greek is supposed to look like, IMHO. —An gr 19:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion this Porson is more attractive and Porsonian than the GFS, in the Greek (the Latin characters lack italics and might be considered a bit rustic, though). I am a purist, and Gentium is by far the least traditional of everything I've linked; it just works the best. Wareh 19:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to each his own, I guess. I looked at "your" Porson, and I find GFS Porson more attractive. The image to the right shows GFS Porson on top and "your" Porson on the bottom. As you can see if you make the image to the right bigger, the spacing between the Τ and the ρ of Τροίης is unacceptably wide in the bottom version. Also, "your" Porson's glyph for upsilon with an acute accent also has a superfluous dieresis. —An gr 10:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the spacing (it is simply not a finely-crafted, fine-tuned font; it has obviously not been done with the care I see in the three free fonts I've actually recommended here), but I certainly don't get the diaeresis problem, and, quite apart from the fact that the GFS just doesn't resemble the classic appearance of an OCT as much (most importantly, I guess it's the lighter weight of the letters that seems inauthentic to me), there are some oddities, both in the font design (the spacing of the diacritics in ὃς is not right, and ἱ and ἑ don't seem as well aligned either), and in the drawing of the letter forms (that kappa is a notable departure from OCT Porson, the gamma is very curvy on its way up; then again "my" epsilon starts to look a bit odd under magnification). I personally think the capitals should slope like the rest of the letters, but that is un-OCT-like, so I guess I'm inconsistent. At the end of the day, I know no free Porson that's very convincing (the commercial ones used by Loeb, Oxford, and Mastronarde's textbook are better designed than either of these). Wareh 23:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're definitely right about the diacritics on ὃ being better in "your" Porson than in GFS's, and I'm jealous that you don't get the diaeresis problem, as that makes "your" Porson completely unusable for me. Any well-designed font should be heavier in smaller sizes than in larger sizes; the image uses 12 point in both, so it ought to be sort of medium-light in both fonts. The differences in the gamma and kappa are too minute to bother me. And I do like upright capitals; they help remind us who are accustomed to the Latin alphabet that Greek doesn't distinguish between roman and italic types, however "slanty" the lower case letters may look. I'm afraid with free fonts, as with everything else in life, you get what you pay for! —An gr 10:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russian[edit]

What is the phrase for "April Theses" in Russian (both Cyrillic and romanization, if you can). Thanks. Neutrality^talk 23:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

апрелские тезисы, aprel'skie tezisy. --Reuben 23:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you forgot about the soft sign, Reuben. It's апрельские тезисы. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, it's a typo. Thanks. --Reuben 22:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]