< September 13	Language desk archive	September 15 >

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.

< August	September	October >

September 14[edit]

Spelling[edit]

Would you expect a ten year old child to spell the word 'Chauffeur' when spoken in a test?. Im not sure I even spelled it right now.--Light current 02:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the child is French, I would. :) Yes, chauffeur was spelled correctly above. ---Sluzzelin 03:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't you seen those ten years olds on the National Spelling Bee? And I wouldn't necessarily expect a ten year old child to spell the word 'Chauffeur' when spoken in a test. It would depend on the nature and the nurture of the child. So I guess the answer would be "it depends."

If the doom and gloom stories in the British press are accurate, I wouldn't expect an "average" ten year old kid to spell driver correctly, never mind chauffeur. --Dweller 09:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If they had been set the word 'chauffeur' on a list of words to learn for a test, then yes (if they had practised). Out of the blue? Not an average child. Skittle 10:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the questions (and answers) on these pages are written by ESL people, but many are written by native speakers, and I assume most of them are a lot older than 10. If some of the spelling that appears is anything to go by, I would hardly even expect a college student to be able to spell "chauffeur" these days, let alone a 10 year old. JackofOz 20:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Next year they'll try to spell Cee (as in Cee Cee Chauffeur). T'will be the Nat'l Spellin' Cee. -- DLL ^{.. T} 19:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has always struck me that spelling bees are an odd contest. The hard words are often those recently imported from languages other than English, and often the trick of spelling them correctly is figuring out what somewhat arbitrary choices were made in transliterating them into our alphabet from Hebrew, Cyrillic, Greek, etc. Add to that the fact that other hard words are those which were spelled phonetically a few centuries ago, but now have "silent letters" such as the "k" in knight or knowledge. The final words are often so obscure that one could attend college for 12 years without ever encountering them, making it doubtful that accurate spelling of them will advance the person's career. In countries where the spelling is literally phonetic, do they have spelling bees? Here it is made to seem like a test of the intelligence or thoroughness of education of children, but it seems more like a memorizing contest, with a large well defined list of words to be memorized.Edison 21:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accented Characters[edit]

I've tried and looked and looked again but I can't find anything that says just what needs to be entered to create an accented character in wiki. Can someone please help me with this?

Thanks, Mathew

If you look right below the edit box you'll see a handy clickable list. In the future, by the way, questions about Wikipedia itself should be posted at the help desk for a faster response. -Elmer Clark 04:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The other thing that you can do is use the "alt+#" shortcut. For example, "alt+222" gives you Þ. You may need a number pad for this to work (and make sure number lock is on). --AstoVidatu 04:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you are using Microsoft products, which are not the whole world! On Linux using KDE, I use the KCharSelect tool, though I admit its user interface is not of the best. ColinFine 08:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively I sometimes find it quicker to paste characters across from another window or application. (This only works if they're ANSI, i.e not a specially designed font).--Shantavira 08:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may work with other fonts, depending on your systeem ColinFine 08:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something I do with MSword and similar programs is adjust the autocorrect feature so that if I type 'a* it comes out á, `a* is à, |a* makes ā, etc. I have a little fun with other characters /d* makes ð, (e) makes ə, (ae) makes æ, )g* makes ğ and many many more. I think word itself has a function so that if you press ctrl+', let go, and then press a it'll make á.AEuSoes1 02:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are using Mac OS X, enable US English Extended input method, and press option+e and the letter you want to input it. See this article for details. — Yao Ziyuan 12:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dates[edit]

Why is it that events such as 9/11 are recorded as month then day ? In other countries it is day then month .

And in some other countries there is yet a different order: year, month, day. Have a look at the articles on calendar date, date and time notation by country, and endianness.---Sluzzelin 07:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that neither day, month, year nor month, day, year make sense in the context of the endianness of our numbering system. Day, month, year is more consistent (going from small to big - little endian (not to be confused with 'ten little indians ')), but our numers go the other way (big endian), like years: 2006 reads from left to right as 'milennia, centuries, decades, years'. So it makes sense to continue with months and then days, resulting in year, month, day. DirkvdM 07:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 is recorded that way round because it is the way it is done in the USA, and it was a US event. As it was used such a lot to describe the event, people picked it up even if their own country uses a different order for dates. Skittle 10:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that 9-1-1 is the phone number for emergency services in the US, so it has a double meaning. StuRat 12:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah thats weird aint it? Do you think Ossy Bed linen planned it that way??--Light current 02:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's cultural courtesy; the October Revolution is so named around the world, even though by most countries calendars, it happened in November. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 17:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"9/11" has also become the accepted (and very convenient) way of referring collectively to at least 4 separate (but related) events that occurred in at least 3 different places on that day. If I were talking about some unrelated event that happened that day, like having my appendix removed, I would not say it happened on "9/11" but on "the 11th of September 2001". JackofOz 20:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which events are that, the plane hijackings? Not the Chilean coup of 1973? 惑乱分からん 21:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. By "that day", I meant 11 September 2001 specifically. In "at least 4 events" and "at least 3 different places", I include: the hijackings; 2 of the aircraft flying into the WTC (NY) about half an hour apart; the United 93 incident that ended in Pennsylvania; and the attack on the Pentagon (DC). All of these come under "9/11". JackofOz 23:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the order day/month/year used for numerical dates in the US comes from the fact that dates given with the month name instead of number are recited in the same order: "September 11 2001." EDIT: Also, I would say that some unrelated event on the same day (such as the trip to the optomitrist that I made), as having occured on 9/11, because that day was so memorable that I (and I think most other people as well) automatically associate any events on that day with "9/11." You don't say to somebody, "where were you on September 11, 2001?" you say, "where were you on 9/11?" Now, if you're reffering to September 11 of some other year, you will almost certainly use the month name and the year. Linguofreak 22:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've always recorded dates that way, way before "THE" 9/11. It just follows the "verbal" recitation of the date: "September (9), 11th (11), 2001 (01)". That's the way it's done in English North America. If you were to write a post-dated cheque before 9/11, in the US and English Canada you'd still write "9/11/01", regardless of the attacks. It gets very tricky in my part of the word, where both systems are used, depending on one's language. It's pretty obvious if one of the first two numbers is over 12, as in my birthday: "8/23" in English and "23/8" in French. It's obvious to either linguistic community that my birthday is August 23rd. However for dates like "5/9" it can get tricky ... does this mean May 9th or September 5th? I'm not sure how, but somehow we seem to manage. Loomis 18:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, I always wrote dates that way, and still do, but spoken, "nine-eleven" pretty much always means 9/11/2001. And even in writing, if it's given without a year, it pretty much always means 9/11/2001. Linguofreak 01:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By and large, yes we do. But this ambiguity has often led to incorrect dates showing up in reference texts. Nothing beats primary sources, ie. a birth certificate; but very often historians and writers have to make do with secondary ones, or worse. If the source they have says "born 5/9/1923", it may come down to an educated guess as to whether this means May or September. In an ideal world, a writer would not leave it to chance, but would find out definitely what the correct date was. But an ideal world is still some way away. Once an error gets into a reference book, particularly one with a wide readership, it's hard to eliminate it from the public mind. Thank God for Wikipedia. JackofOz 03:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of 'Que nem jiló'[edit]

I would like to know what the English translation of the Brazilian song title Que nem jiló should be. The context of the phrase within the song is: "Saudade assim faz roer / E amarga que nem jiló". The jiló is a kind of eggplanty vegetable and it seems to have a bitter taste. Does the phrase mean "(and bitter) unlike the jiló" or "(and bitter) in a way not even the jiló is" or which is the proper translation here? Thank you for helping me out. It's always the little words that prove to be difficult.---Sluzzelin 07:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got the answer I was seeking from a native Brazilian, thank you anyways.---Sluzzelin 21:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, would you give the translation to use? 惑乱分からん 00:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. Apparently it simply means 'like (the) jiló', or 'and bitter like (the) jiló' in the song. While the Portuguese normally use the word 'como' these days, 'que nem' seems to be an old phrase, occasionally still used in Portugal, but frequently used in modern day Brazilian Portuguese. Or so I was told. ---Sluzzelin 02:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somogy!![edit]

Last night I had Somogy beans for dinner. I had never had them before and wondered how Somogy is properly pronounced. I've been pronouncing it sa-mO'-gE. So how close am I? Oh, and if you get a chance, try them sometime, they're good! :-) Dismas|^(talk) 08:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Hungarian I would pronounce it something like sho-mo-dj with the emphasis on the first syllable. (I don't know how to mimic the Hungarian 'gy', it's something between 'dee' and 'gee' and 'dj', but very soft and short.)---Sluzzelin 08:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hrmm... I'm not sure how to vocalize that last combination... Thanks though, I think I'm closer now than I was. Dismas|^(talk) 08:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To articulate Hungarian 'gy', I think the tongue needs to touch the front of the hard palate gently, about where it meets the alveolar ridge. It is classed as a plosive, but it tends to be articulated as an affricate with an off-glide similar to the IPA [j]. See Voiced palatal plosive. Marco polo 15:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Hungarian, th first syllable of any word is always the one that is stressed. The letter 'o' in Hungarian, when not accented, is just like the long 'o' in English; photo, go, so, etc. The letter 's' in Hungarian is always pronounsed like 'sh' in English; show, shack, hash, etc. The letters 'g' represent a single letter and sound in Hungarian, which is closest to the 'dg' sound in English; judge, bridge, edge. It is the one of the most difficult sounds in Hungarian for English speakers to produce. A decent pronunciation for someone who's native language is English would be "SHO-modge", with both 'o's being long.

how to put the articles that had been translated by me on the same page?[edit]

Hey, there is some English articles talking about some Chinese stuff. I want to help to translate them into Chinese or maybe I can just start a chinese version description of them. But I don't know how can I put the articles that had been translated by me into the same webpage so that when you read the articles you will know that they had Chinese version as well.

Yuanli

Thanks for offering! These pages may be of help:

Λυδ α cιτγ 23:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you suggest may not be allowed. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources: "Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Wikipedia cannot cite itself as a source — that would be a self-reference." I've decided to 'call in the experts' and asked at that page's talk page. DirkvdM 06:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't a problem, though you're right that Wikipedia articles shouldn't reference themselves. The sources from the original version of the article (even if it's in Chinese) should be used to verify the content. Of course it will be more difficult for editors to verify that the points are actually being verified if they can't actually read the sources, but at least an attempt is made to show that a source was used in the research. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 10:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be belong to[edit]

We are all acquainted with "be belong to" from "All your base are belong to us", and I, not being a native English speaker myself, always thought it was simply massively incorrect. However, in an episode of Nick Carter, Master Detective, I believe I'm hearing "they are belong to him" at 08:23. I guess it's supposed to mean "they do belong with him" or "they do belong to him", but can you really say it the way they do? —Bromskloss 20:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This strikes me as nonstandard. I recall that some English-based pidgins and creoles in Melanesia, and perhaps other places, use forms of "belong to" (or "belong") as a preposition indicating possession or a genitive relation. In such a pidgin or creole, "They are belong to him" would simply mean "They are his." Perhaps this phrase came from a writer or speaker who learned standard English after learning a Pacific pidgin or creole? Marco polo 20:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you certain that it's not a sloppy "they are belong'n to him" or a "they (d)'uh belong to him" which, although clumsy, is grammatically correct? 惑乱分からん 20:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, there. Actually, the sound quality isn't the greatest so I might have been mistaken. Listening to it again, I'd say it could be "they all belong to him", which would explain everything, and make it all too clear that I've just been wasting you time all along. Thanks. —Bromskloss 07:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected as much... 惑乱分からん 22:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That particular instance was such a notoriously bad translation into English that it's sometimes parodied for comic effect. Durova 16:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

language barrier of wikipedia![edit]

I noticed that in the english version of wikipedia that some people from europe had written the articles and that since they have the same ways of pronouncing the words but different spellings which way would be the correct way to spell the words? For example in one article the word meter was spelled metre like the way they spell it in europe! Which way of spelling this would be the correct way for the english wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Asizzle44 (talk • contribs) .

Both American English and British English spellings and usage are acceptable on Wikipedia. In general the Wikipedia:Manual of Style gives guidance on such usage. Generally, articles which are primarily relevant to a specific nation are written with that nations spelling (such as American history is written with American style). In other cases, the first major contributor is the deciding factor. Spelling should be consistant with those first uses. For the guidline, see MOS. --TeaDrinker 23:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not much of a barrier, by the way. DirkvdM 06:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It gives the spelling bot programmers something to worry about. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 08:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]