Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2006 August 31

< August 30	Language desk archive	September 1 >

Humanities

Science

Mathematics

Computing/IT

Language

Miscellaneous

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 at one of the pages linked to above.

Linguistics[edit]

How does psychology affect the learning of foreign language?

To start with, do you really want to learn it, or are you just fulfilling a requirement? AnonMoos 02:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly what you asked, but Sapir–Whorf hypothesis has a lot of food for thought about how the grammatical structure of a language affects the way one thinks. Dar-Ape 03:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or how it doesn't. --Kjoonlee 06:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP has some more info here pointing to a study on motivational strategies in the language classroom. ---Sluzzelin 08:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, it reminds me of how a friend, when we were kids, warned me about computer programming and how it could make people answer questions with just "yes" or "no", which could prove disastrous if, say, a girl asked you to go with her to the movies. :-) Anyway, I wonder if this could be applied to mathematics – would we think differently of mathematics with a different notation? —Bromskloss 20:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Idioms[edit]

What is the meaning of the expression "shoeless in Gaza"?

Thank you.

Literally it means "(being) in Gaza without shoes". While I don't know the context, this is wordplay on Eyeless in Gaza, the title of a novel by Aldous Huxley. The title is derived from a poem by Milton, Samson Agonistes: "Ask for this great Deliverer now, and find him / Eyeless in Gaza, at the mill with slaves, / Himself in bonds under Philistian yoke." This refers to Samson, who was betrayed by Delilah to the Philistines, made a slave in Gaza and blinded. --Lambiam ^Talk 06:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't Samson rather "hairless in Gaza"? 惑乱分からん 10:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His eyes were also poked out. Unlike his hair, they didn't grow back :-P Skittle 20:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hyphen in compound noun[edit]

Can we hyphenate compound noun 'fund of funds'? Is it ok to hyphenate it in adjectival cases, e.g. fund-of-funds route, and leave without hyphen in case of compound noun only? Or should it be hyphenated in both the above-mentioned cases? Please suggest.

I'm not sure what "fund of funds" means, but I would say it should indeed be hyphenated as an adjective and without as a noun. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 10:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A 'fund' (in UK) normally means a Unit Trust - where investors pay money into a common fund and experts buy shares with the money (so investors benefit from expert choices and bigger spread of investment than they could achieve on their own). 'Fund of funds' normally means a Unit Trust where experts buy into other unit trusts rather than shares (supposedly more expertise and spread). Rentwa 10:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's exactly what I would suggest too. Mind you, I would cut my own head off before using such an adjectival expression as "fund-of-funds route", but vive la différence!, JackofOz 10:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calendar dates: BC vs BCE[edit]

Does WP follow a policy on whether to use BC or BCE for calendar dates? Click here to understand what I'm referring to. (I'm asking because of recent activity on various pages replacing BCE with BC). Thank you in advance for replying. ---Sluzzelin 10:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Either are acceptable, according to the Manual of Style. Of course, BC/AD is not particularly appropriate for certain articles dealing with non-Christian religions. -- the GREAT Gavini 12:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the pointers. The pages I saw used BCE consistently and were (consistently) changed to BC. Of course there are exceptions, but events dating BC/BCE, by definition, frequently happened in a non-Christian context. ---Sluzzelin 13:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an argument for an official policy. I would support BCE, which is increasingly the academic standard.mnewmanqc 13:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If some born-again Christian if going through Wikipedia changing BCE to BC for no reason apart than their own agenda, they need a slap on the wrist. Sorry I mean a piece of friendly editorial advice.--Shantavira 14:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I would not have a problem with someone who had such an agenda. I'm not a Christian, but I think it would be a shame if BCE took over from BC as standard usage. Common Era discusses the issues but my personal view is that the Christian system should be allowed to prevail in this case. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 14:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both era notations are allowed under policy, however the guidelines specifically forbid changing from one system to another (without good reason and consensus). If someone is changing BCE to BC (or vice versa) they are breaking policy and are essentially vandalizing wikipedia. Would you mind stating what pages have been effected?--Andrew c 15:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, for clarifying that. I now reverted it on the Ravenna page. This particular user has a history of vandalism, but I've seen it happening on other pages too. ---Sluzzelin 16:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So it's like the policy on American English versus English English. Either goes, as long as an article sticks to one of them. But I should note that I never saw the BCE thing anywhere else than on Wikipedia, so it's not much of a standard. Also, it doesn't change the christian basis because the numbering is still the same. I am not a chrsitian and I don't think it's a big deal, so I don't see the need for a change. It's just confusing. DirkvdM 06:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BCE is frequent in history texts. Of course, it still assumes that the years begin with (presumably the wrong year for) the birth of Jesus, and of course using one form or the other is not a big deal. Still, I would use BCE because, it reduces the christocentrism slightly. In any case, this topich reminds me of an old joke.

A rabbi teaching Hebrew schools at about this time of year says. "This is the Jewish year 5767. The Chinese year is 4704. What does that tell you? A boy responds, "that the Jews had to do without Chinese food for 1063 years?" mnewmanqc 16:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC) CE[reply]

Names in other languages[edit]

I have a question about names in other languages. Specifically about the name Ptolemy. What I want to find out is how common the name is in countries like Greece, Macedonia and Egypt today. Where would I be able to find this sort of information? Carcharoth 23:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC

I have the impression that the name is not current in Greece. Πτολεμαῖος gets about 750 hits on Greek pages, as far as I saw none referring to a living person. Compare Παναγιώτης with about about 889,000 hits, Αλέξανδρος with about 688,000 hits, and Ευάγγελος with about 352,000 hits. --Lambiam ^Talk 03:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um. Would you be able to "translate" (or rather transliterate) those more popular names? Thanks. Carcharoth 11:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Παναγιώτης = Panagiotis

Αλέξανδρος = Alexandros

Ευάγγελος = Evangelos. JackofOz 13:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Carcharoth 09:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]