Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 August 10

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.

August 10

Serious question

Can any one please tell me where the phrase 'kiss my ass' originates thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.242.64 (talk) 02:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and venture a wild guess - you can probably figure it out. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

There's an episode of literal ass-kissing in The Canterbury Tales, and Mozart wrote a canon on Leck mich im Arsch. The humiliating and indecent overtones of the concept have probably existed for millennia. Strad (talk) 04:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Questions like this actually do have answers, although the answer is not always known. Such phrases often turn out to be much more recent than you might expect, but "kiss my ass" really is quite old. In the Historical Dictionary of American Slang, vol. 1, p. 41, it's traced back to ca. 1554 - 76 in G. Hughes Swearing p. 104: "Com kiss myne arse!" HDAS also notes that the appearance of this phrase in a literal sense in Chaucer's Miller's Tale, ca. 1389, strongly suggests its existence metaphorically as well in Middle English. John M Baker (talk) 22:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

curly looking or curly-looking?

Which is right?

a curly looking font or a curly-looking font.

Is either acceptable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.168.2.59 (talk) 04:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

See Hyphen#Compound modifiers. I would consider that the hyphen is required in this case, but today it is becoming more common not to use it. --Anonymous, 04:40 UTC, August 10, 2008.

For what it's worth (not much), I'd say you could use simply "a curly font." The essence of a font is its appearance, so the "looking" isn't necessary, any more than it would be in "a bold font," "a thin font," "a small font," and so on. The late George Carlin used to rant that he didn't need a "hot water heater" (a common expression in the U.S.) -- "Who in hell needs to heat hot water?" OtherDave (talk) 13:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course, in a storage water heater (as opposed to a demand one), which is the usual type in the US, the hot water is indeed heated, to keep it hot. --Anonymous, 03:11 UTC, August 11, 2008.

Marathi Language its Origin and Age

I would like to know what is the origin of Marathi language (the language spoken and used by a majority of people born and brought up or living in the state of Maharashtra which is a big and important state on the West Coast of India .

There is a lot of commonality between Marathi and Sanskrit . It also resembles a lot with Konkani , Kannada and othet South Indian languages.Sanskrit happens to be the origin of Devanagari and many Dravidian languages.

but i would like to know the exact age and origin and evolution of Marathi script as well as language and dialect and the age in reference to other Dravidian languages.--Sureshkarve (talk) 07:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)srk11in 100808

A couple points:

1. Sanskrit is not the source of any Dravidian language.
2. Marathi is not a Dravidian language.
3. Sanskrit is not the source of Devanagari. Nagari is a writing system, and Sanskrit was a language—one which wasn't even written.
4. You cannot date the origin of a language exactly when it evolves gradually from another. There is no absolute dividing line. Very often the same is true of scripts.

Okay, when you say "Marathi script", do you mean Moḍī?

We might be able to give an estimate of when, say, Marathi diverged from Konkani, or an approximate date for when something recognizably Marathi was first put into writting. Our Apabhramsha article it states "The modern north Indian languages are often considered to have begun to develop a distinct identity around the 11th century", and in the Marathi article it says "Marathi is [one of] the oldest of the regional literatures in Indo-Aryan languages, dating from about AD 1000," but I don't know how accurate these figures are. kwami (talk) 11:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

---

"Sanskrit is not the source of Devanagari. Nagari is a writing system, and Sanskrit was a language—one which wasn't even written."

Sanskrit was never written? Sanskrit has been written for thousands of years in a variety of scripts, one of which was Devanagari, and continues to be used as an official language of India, again using the Devanagari script.--ChokinBako (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, during the first 7 or 8 centuries or so after alphabetic writing was introduced into India, written Sanskrit texts did not generally take precedence over oral recitations of memorized texts by respected reciters, and the writing of Sanskrit was not really encouraged by the Brahmans who were the custodians of the sanctity of the Sanskrit language. That's why even some highly dry and technical works (such as Panini's theoretical grammar) were put into a kind of hypercondensed poetic form (for easier memorization and recitation). AnonMoos (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

is japanese easy to learn if your chinese is good?

is malay easy to learn if your english is good? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.13.3 (talk) 12:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

If you speak and read Chinese, it will only help in that you will be able to recognize certain characters and character combinations, which may help you with vocabulary. Moreover, it depends on whether you use traditional or simplified characters, because Japanese uses a combination of both. If you only speak Chinese but can't read, then it will be of very little help at all. As an unrelated language, Japanese grammar and syntax are completely different from Chinese. --ChokinBako (talk) 14:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

and malay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.65.135 (talk) 12:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This American Government site gives Malay as taking 36 weeks to learn. This is a shorter time than many European languages. Fribbler (talk) 12:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

mother

Why is it that the word for "mother" across many languages, even ones that aren't related like say English and Chinese rather than Spanish and Italian, seem to have similar pronunciation. Specifically, that they seem to make use of "ma" or similar sounds. Is there an explanation for this --212.120.246.239 (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

There's an etymology here — Matt Eason ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 13:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

And Wikipedia has the article mama and papa. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys, That's actually what I thought might be the reason for it --212.120.246.239 (talk) 01:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hyphen vs. dash

Should there be a dash instead of a hyphen in the name of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and in the article about the said act in the section heading "Lincoln-Douglas Debate". On a related note, should Debate be capitalised? I have not received any answer on the appropriate talk page for a while, and I thought some of you might have an idea about this. Thanks, --Dami (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hyphen says there's no definitive rule about hyphenation (no kidding!). In general, though, hyphens have been used to break single words into parts (especially at the end of a line of text), or to join separate words into single ones (book case → book-case → bookcase is a typical evolution).

Dash gives examples of several different dashes and suggests using an en dash to contrast values and show relationships between things (e.g., "the McCain–Feingold bill," which is similar in form to "the Lincoln–Douglas debate").

Personally, I wouldn't capitalize "debate," except in something like the title of an article, but that's just my preference. (Oops, I misread that part of the question.) I'd capitalize "Act" because it's part of the title of the act, though in later reference like "other parts of this act..." I would not. OtherDave (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

-- (hyphen) vs - (dash) though most people don't bother distiguishing the two (also note there are several schools of thought on -- vs - dash actually states thing opposite than what I just have). Mainly though the difference is how it is being used. A dash is a "hasty stroke" (often used in lists, phone numbers etc) while a hyphen is deliberate character used in writing (complex words, split words, number ranges etc).Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Certainly when a mathematical theorem is named after two or more people, as in Cauchy–Schwarz inequality, the convention on Wikipedia is to use an ndash rather than a hyphen, but it is also true that that convention is usually not followed in the initial version of the article, and then the article gets moved later. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I have always thought that 'hyphen' was just another word for 'dash', and they could be used interchangeably (except that I'd never heard of a 'hundred-metre hyphen (sorry, The Olympics are getting to me...:()).ChokinBako (talk) 16:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Does the Congress use the dash in their materials?--Dami (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean the Congress of the United States? I'm not sure, but in the manual of style used by the U.S. Government Printing Office, chapter 8 discusses punctuation, including en dashes. (As elsewhere, I think, "dash" is too general a term for them.) Starts around section 8.60, on page 133 in the html version. OtherDave (talk) 21:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the US Congress, just to get an idea whether they would use an en-dash in the name of the Kansas-Nebraska Act. --Dami (talk) 22:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The GPO is the printer for all three branches of government, so the section of the style manual should give you something to go on. OtherDave (talk) 03:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

So, if I read it correctly, they wouldn't use the en-dash in Kansas-Nebraska Act. --Dami (talk) 17:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Cover letter

I am having trouble with following statements (especially second statement): In response that a reliable source that some employer appointed soon at your disposal. I would like to offer myself as a candidate of reporter for the part-time position.

Are above statements correct? Or should I rewrite second statement: I would like to offer myself as a reporter for the part-time position.

Does Position and Post have same meaning? I need standard format so that employer will not get bothered after seeing its lead section. Thank you--202.168.229.243 (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Neither of those sentences is grammatically correct. In fact, I find the first sentence even more problematic than the second; I can't tell what idea you are trying to express. Are you saying that you have heard that they will be hiring someone?

For the second sentence, you could make it work by switching the "reporter" and "part-time position" bits: "I would like to offer myself as a candidate for the part-time position of reporter." You could also say ""I would like to offer myself as a candidate for the part-time reporter position."

The phrase "offer myself as a candidate for..." is grammatically correct, but stylistically it comes across a bit formal and stilted. It would be simpler and clearer to state "I would like to apply for the position of reporter."

Position and post do have the same meaning, though I believe usage varies from country to country. In North America, as far as I am aware, "position" is more common than "post". - Eron^Talk 19:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks Eron. So I could write "I would like to apply for the part – time position of Reporter". If it is full time position then Can I write, "I would like to apply for the full-time position of Reporter" or "I would like to apply for this position of Reporter".

As for first statement, actually employer published job advertisement on online and newspaper which caught my attention. In this instance, What could be the beginning (first) statement? --202.168.229.243 (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I assume the job in question is as a reporter. You could write "I am writing in response to your advertisement in (wherever you saw it). I would like to apply for the position of reporter." You only need to specify part-time or full-time if both kinds of positions were advertised and you are only interested in one type of employment. - Eron^Talk 21:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

"I am writing to apply for the position of reporter, as advertised in [publication]" is the way I normally do it, then start a new paragraph to state my experience and skills. If I needed to specify part-time or full-time, I would say "position of part-time/full-time reporter", putting the 'part-time/full-time' before 'reporter' and not 'position'.--ChokinBako (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not meant to be derogatory in any way, but reporters typically need to have a firm command of the English language. Your question and comments above suggest that you may not be a native speaker and that you have trouble with various aspects of sentence formation. Obviously, you're free to pursue whatever career you want, but reporting may not be your strong suit. Matt Deres (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)