Language desk
< September 28	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 30 >

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 29[edit]

Netherlands[edit]

What language is used in the Netherlands? GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch language? Fribbler (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GO-PCHS-NJROTC, you could have found this on your own by reading the wikipedia article Netherlands. People, as stated above, please do a minimum of effort on your own. --Lgriot (talk) 00:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it is much easier to type "Netherlands" in the search box, as to type the whole question on the RF. Mr.K. (talk) 10:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzle Clue[edit]

What phrase would these words form. They are....IT OM LTI MUL MU TA; MO NE NIA NOV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.211.41.6 (talk) 00:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They look like fragments of Latin words (omnia, multa, moneta, etc.), but it's hard to know how to solve a puzzle without knowing what kind of puzzle it is... AnonMoos (talk) 02:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be "MULTI MULTA; NEMO OMNIA NOVIT". - Nunh-huh 03:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's good (the first sentence needs an implied NOVERUNT to be translated). AnonMoos (talk) 04:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in the meaning please? From my non-existent knowlegdge of Latin, I am guessing something like "Many more; No one is always new" or "No one knows everything"?? --Lgriot (talk) 07:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Many people [know] many things; no one knows everything". AnonMoos (talk) 11:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so there is a root for "nova" which means "new", but another root for "novit" which means "to know". I guess it is an indoeuropean cognate to the English "know"? --Lgriot (talk) 23:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be a G there in pre-classical Latin, which survived classically when there were prefixes (as in, for example, "recognoscere", the root of the English "recognize"). As far as I remember it is related to Greek words like "gnomon", and English "know" (and German "kennen" etc etc). Adam Bishop (talk) 02:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.210.170.49 (talk) [reply]

Right, novit "knows" and novus "new" are from two different Indo-European roots, *ĝneh₃- and *newo-, and both are cognate with their respective English glosses. —An gr 05:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology[edit]

Can a strait properly be called a watercourse?

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 00:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say no, it's all about the flow - see Watercourse. Mikenorton (talk) 10:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proto-indo-European spoken out loud.[edit]

when I complete my task of taking over the World, the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European language will be the official language of The Empire since several billion people are at least somewhat familiar with one of its descendants (primarily English). But here's the thing: I can't find any source online where I can learn PIE, and what's more, I can't find any recorded samples of it (I would be tickled pink if I could find a recording of Schleicher's fable so I could hear what PIE really sounded like). Is the reconstruction so incomplete that no one can say with any certainty what PIE really sounded like? If anyone knows where I could find some recordings of spoken Proto-Indo-European, I'll probably cede a large portion of Antarctica to you when my global conquest is complete.

Thanks! 63.245.144.77 (talk) 00:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are many sound in PIE which have been identified without knowing how they were pronounced. So yes, PIE studies is mostly a written subject matter. --Lgriot (talk) 01:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "Schleicher's fable", do you mean the original mid-19th-century version (which certainly does not accurately represent Indo-European) or the revised late 20th-century version (which must remain somewhat speculative due to the nature of the subject)? We possess much knowledge concerning Indo-European, but there are still strong obstacles to being able to reconstruct PIE in such detail and correctness that a PIE speaker would understand what we were saying. For one thing, we simply aren't able to reconstruct in detail -- with any reliability or certainty -- as far back as the period when Indo-European was one somewhat unified language spoken over a relatively small area. And subsequent to this earliest period, Indo European spent a number of centuries as a dialect continuum, where influences spread back and forth between related nearby languages (though the dialects spoken by geographically non-adjacent language communities would often have been quite distinct from each other). When reconstructing backwards, it's very difficult to know if the various features that we've reconstructed ever all existed together at the same time, or in the same dialect. Even if by some miracle every single individual feature of the Indo-European language were to be reconstructed correctly, it still might be the case that we were putting together these language features into a reconstructed proto-language in a way that resulted in a hideous anachronistic and anti-geographical mish-mash, jumbling together things belonging to widely separated historical periods and dialects in the dialect continuum...

By the way, Indo-European wasn't the "original" language or the "best" language, or the language of any mystic ideology now accessible to us. For a basic look at some of the probable realistic factors in the early spread of Indo-European, see chapter 15 of The Third Chimpanzee by Jared Diamond... AnonMoos (talk) 03:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in Modern Indo-European. —An gr 04:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, there we go. That's exactly what I was looking for! Thanks! 63.245.144.77 (talk) 04:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you're aware that it's rather unlikely that actual historical Proto-Indo-European speakers would have been able to understand "Modern Indo-European" at all easily. Such a language is an endearingly off-the-wall concept, but some of the motivations for its creation appear to have come from misunderstandings of historical and linguistic facts... AnonMoos (talk) 11:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hoi Polloi[edit]

Given the term hoi polloi means the masses, is there a corresponding Greek term used in the English language meaning the élite? Thanks. seresin ( ¡? ) 05:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hoi oligoi ("the few") is the usual opposite of hoi polloi ("the many"). It isn't used often in English, though. —An gr 05:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except in oligarchy. kwami (talk) 12:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, I've heard many a talk show radio host use "hoi polloi" to mean "the elite". I guess because it sort of sounds like "hoity toity"? Drives me nuts, regardless. Dgcopter (talk) 19:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Death suffix[edit]

What root/suffix/prefix, meaning: All/Everything, can I add to "-cide" or other suffix meaning: Death?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by L3tt3rz (talk • contribs) 08:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think such a word exists in common usage, but I would use either omnicide or polycide -- Ferkelparade π 08:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pancide? -- JackofOz (talk) 08:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-cide is Latin, isn't it? So omni- is preferable to poly- or pan- which are Greek. —Tamfang (talk) 08:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) "-cide" doesn't exactly means "death", it means "killing". "The killing of everything" would presumably be "omnicide". (I took the liberty of changing the title of this section since there is already a section called "Question!" on this page.) —An gr 08:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Panthanasia? [1] Bazza (talk) 12:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about the death of everything, or the death of all people? If the latter, you could say "Democide". Corvus cornix_talk 18:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about the Death of All-Living: Man, Woman & Child w/o Discrimination... Would "Anthropocide" work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by L3tt3rz (talk • contribs) 20:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since we know there's only one human race, could "genocide" be made to fit the bill these days? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Humanicide gets me a number of ghits, with varying definitions. It could fit the bill. Steewi (talk) 03:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-cide words usually refer to killing one or more other people. In this case, it would have to include suicide because if the killer's left alive, then not all humanity has been wiped out. (Of course, it would only be matter of time before he dies ...). -- JackofOz (talk) 20:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latin translation[edit]

Quid aliud est mulier nisi amiticiæ inimica

Hi, what would the above mean? I can recognize some words/roots, but I have no idea. Tried searching but got no satisfactory results. --Kjoonlee 09:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"What else is a woman but the enemy of friendship?" The penultimate word should be "amicitiae". Googling suggests it's from the Malleus Maleficarum. —An gr 09:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the purpose of Malleus, I'm reminded of Catherine Carswell's observation, "It wasn't a woman who betrayed Jesus with a kiss." --- OtherDave (talk) 12:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be the late-15th-century scholarly Latinate way of saying "bros before hos"... AnonMoos (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) --Kjoonlee 04:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

requesition letter for an atm card[edit]

Do you have a question? The title is not enough. (I have removed your example image, which seemed to serve no purpose.) Gwinva (talk) 09:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Writing style forum[edit]

What is the best forum in the internet for writing style? Is there any forum out there dedicated to the analysis of texts? Mr.K. (talk) 11:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Political term[edit]

How would you classify someone whose views lie between "moderate" and "liberal"? (since I'm looking for a word, I think the language desk is the right place to post this...)128.239.177.28 (talk) 13:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)SneezingPanda[reply]

If not just "moderate liberal", then "center-left" is all I can think of. AnonMoos (talk) 13:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) By whose definition of "liberal"? In Europe, political parties called "Liberal" tend to be right-of-center, relatively conservative on fiscal issues and relatively progressive on social issues. In the U.S., "liberal" has somehow come to mean "left-wing". If you're thinking of the U.S. defintion (and since your IP address is associated with the US I suspect you are), I guess I'd say "left of center". —An gr 13:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term "moderate liberal" works, too. The Jade Knight (talk) 07:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what age[edit]

how old do you think this kid was who said "a diamond is a TYPE of pearl"? At what age could you have made a mistake like that?

This is an online version of a Reference desk. Your question is inappropriate. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You would expect that by their teens children would know that a diamond differs from a pearl. I guess you assume this is Common knowledge? It seems pretty basic information to me, and i'm not sure why someone would equate a diamond and pearl as enough alike for one to be a 'type' of them - presumably they've never seen either? Perhaps they were confused? Either way you could obviously make the mistake at any age, but you'd expect that as age increases the likelihood of making the mistake decreases - though i guess past a certain age it could start to go back up as dementia and senility start to ravage once brilliant minds. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 15:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what does "by their teens" mean to you? Like, probably by 12? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.111.254 (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not usually. Teens start at 13 (thirteen) in my world. What the kid may have been thinking of is that pearls and diamonds have more than one thing in common. They're both produced as the result of natural processes that take a considerable time (a lot more with diamonds, but pearls don't happen overnight either); they're both forms of jewellery; they're often worn together; they're both very valuable; you'd buy them both in the same shop; and they both often appear in the same song lyrics. I wouldn't judge them too harshly for thinking laterally, even if they did express themselves unscientifically. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, I just said that (see below). And, besides, in some languages, teens start at 'ten', such as Japanese, Chinese, and Korean. We don't know where the OP is from.--ChokinBako (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

???? Not to mention ????. That sounds like you're chiding me for repeating something you already said. Let the chronological record speak for itself, I say. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry, I only noticed it after I posted. I must not have noticed you had posted in the first place. Very unlike me, I must say! Sincere apologies.--ChokinBako (talk) 01:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, ChokinBako. Apology accepted. Your second point is interesting, though. In English. we define "teenager" and "being in one's teens" by the words that happen to end in -teen (13 through 19). Is there an equivalent to "teenager" etc in those other languages? If a Korean "teenager" aged 10, say, comes to the USA, is it a problem for them to understand that they've suddenly dropped back to being a "child", and won't resume being a teenager until they get to 13? -- JackofOz (talk) 01:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It depends how educated they would be. There's no a priori reason to know the difference between various forms of jewelry. As to the nature of the error—it would require more information to know. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never thought of that. It is probably made even more complicated by the fact that the Japanese sometimes use the English word teen (ティーン) to mean 'teen', but in the Japanese sense of the word (i.e. 10 and older). The original Japanese word 'juudai' (十代) means 'the age of tens', and there is no separate word for anyone who is 13 or older. I suppose it would annoy/confuse them that they are no longer 'teen', even though they are still 'juudai'. I love exploring word equivalency/lack thereof! Let's do colours next!--ChokinBako (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would not scold the kid for saying something like that. It would be like saying a 'zebra is a type of horse'. Diamonds and pearls are both used as jewelry and are both made from minerals, albeit in completely different ways and both are subsets of the term 'jewelry', but there is some logic logic in it, even though it is mistaken logic. I am not defending the kid, though, because, by that logic, one could say a pig is a type of horse, as they are both animals.--ChokinBako (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A better analogy would be horse and camel: related not by nature but by use. —Tamfang (talk) 05:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, like husband and wife, perhaps?--ChokinBako (talk) 21:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

I need help. If somebody has free time (and it won't be difficult for him) I want to ask him to read my article Sergei Bodrov, Jr. and tell me if the translation is normal or poor. Somebody wrote on article's discussion page that the language is extremely vague. I don't understand if he meant the indicated sentence or the whole article. Thanks.--Slav9ln (talk) 14:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He meant the sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article in its entirety has a few odd phrases and inaccurate words that I and probably others will correct. The final sentence in the "schooling" paragraph requires rewording but I can't understand what is meant by the present sentence. Richard Avery (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for help!!--Slav9ln (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Cheri" in English[edit]

A Hot Chocolate song is called "Cheri Babe". Now "chéri" is a French word, used both as a noun ("darling") and an adjective ("beloved"), but in both cases for males only. Now in what way and what meaning exactly is the word used in English? And is its pronounciation in any way different to "sherry"? --KnightMove (talk) 20:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a girls name: [2]. A variant of Cherie. Pronunciation is as "Sherry". Fribbler (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, but is it usual to use a name in a construction like this? "Sally babe", "Emily babe"...? --KnightMove (talk) 07:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Usual" is relative. It is not unheard of to use "-babe" (or "-baby") as a way of turning a name into a diminutive in the US. It's not terribly common, but few diminuitives including the name are in English. The Jade Knight (talk) 08:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See, for example, "Sherry Baby."]

what is the meaning of the turkish word balim in english?[edit]

what is the meaning of the turkish word balim in english? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.118.77.70 (talk) 21:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"My honey" in an affectionate way. Fribbler (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually "balım" with a dotless i, though. —An gr 21:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. Delayed my dictionary search, that did. Fribbler (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't vowel harmony require undotting? —Tamfang (talk) 17:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and because this is a root with a suffix (bal "honey" + ım "my"), vowel harmony applies. But if this had been a single morpheme, it could have been balim with a dotted I, since dotted I is allowed to appear within the same root as back vowels (e.g. İstanbul). —An gr 05:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

whats your interpretation of this quote?[edit]

“Greatness lies not in being strong, but in the right using of strength…” - Henry Ward Beecher —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.233.251 (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do your own homework? I mean, honestly, just read it over, it's not impossible to make sense of. Consider whether the US intervention in Iraq has been a display of American greatness or lack thereof, as a concrete example. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]