This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dbachmann (talk | contribs) at 06:48, 19 July 2007 (→View Korean Text). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/headercfg

• ]
• WP:RDL

July 13

Two left feet

Is there a corresponding idiom in German that I can use? As in, 'everyone was dancing but I have two left feet' --iamajpeg 00:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

My dictionary says you can use the exact same idiom in German: Ich habe zwei linke Füße. I've never heard anyone actually say this in German, though. —Angr 06:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I've heard it, though not as often as in English, and definitely not as often as: "Ich habe zwei linke Hände" for "I'm clumsy, unskilful with my hands, all thumbs and cack-handed" It seems possible to me - beware, this is entirely unreferenced - that "zwei linke Füße" crept up with the help of more recent anglo-exposition. The only "literary" reference I can come up with is Farin Urlaub, who used it in Ich gehöre nicht dazu: "Denn ich hab' zwei linke Füße, Tanzen ist für mich tabu" ("For I have two left feet, dancing is taboo for me.") I might have even heard the phrase in English first, thanks to "two left feet, but oh so neat". But I may be dead wrong, and its usage may be far older then what I found. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! After looking through Google I went for two left hands --iamajpeg 17:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Germans usually dance with their hands? Nil Einne 19:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, they make use of their hands while dancing. Haven't you ever seen that traditional Bavarian dance where they smack each other upside the head? —Angr 15:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Letters of the alphabet

What letter is in all 66 languages?

Which 66 languages? There are far more than 66 languages used on Earth. -- JackofOz 02:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Would I be correct in guessing that the a (ah) sound is common to all languages? Sandman30s 11:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, what do you mean by "the ah sound"? Looking at IPA sounds that you might be referring to (and just clicking around randomly), Persian has only /ɒ/, Hopi has only /ɑ/, and Nahuatl has only /a/. So right there, it's impossible for every language to have any one of these sounds. (I think there's almost certainly some language without any sound at all like /a/, I just don't know it.) Tesseran 07:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

How about this: would he be correct in guessing that all languages have one or more open vowels? I suspect he would, and in guessing that all languages have one or more close vowels too. —Angr 07:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Yanesha' language (aka Amuesha) uses only /e a o/, i.e. low and mid vowels but no high vowels. I also remember seeing a description of some protolanguage reconstructed as using only two vowels, neither of them high; but it's best not to take such things too literally. —Tamfang 18:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The article indicates that /e/ and /o/ also have high realizations, so it's a purely academic question whether the underlying phoneme is high or mid. Proto-Indo-European is sometimes alleged to have had only /e/ and /o/ (not even /a/!), but (1) that ignores the good evidence that PIE did have /a/ (though it was rare), and (2) that assumes that /i/ and /u/ are just syllabic allophones of /j/ and /w/. —Angr 07:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The heading is "letters of the alphabet", so I think the questioner is interested in letters (ie. shapes), not sounds. (The same letter in different alphabets doesn't necessarily represent the same or even a similar sound.) This is not a simple question, as a glance at the "Characters" set in the editing box shows. For example, there are at least 10 different diacritical forms of the letters A, E, I and O, and 15 forms of U. Are these all considered different letters? I think the answer depends on which language you're talking about - some count diacritical forms as variants of the base letter, but others regard them as entirely distinct - and no language uses all of them, just their own sub-set. And that's just the vowels. Alphabets derived from the Latin#Basic Latin Alphabet gives a table showing 30 alphabets and their use of each of the 26 letters. All of these 30 use the letters A, E, G, H, I, L, M, N, O, P, R, S and T. Then there's a list of 18 further languages that use "at least all the 26 letters". English is mentioned both in the table and the list, so the total is 30 + 18 - 1 = 47. Looking at the languages that use the Cyrillic alphabet, the 20 of which our article gives details all seem to use A, E, H, M, O, P and T (so we can eliminate G, I, L, N, R and S). The Greek alphabet also uses these same 7 letters. That seems to make at least 68 alphabets that use A, E, H, M, O, P and T (whatever the sounds are). So the question seems to be based on a false premise. However I've been focussing on upper case letters, and when we look at lower-case letters and italicised letters, the story gets ever more complex. Then there's the issue of whether some languages should be excluded because some consider them to be merely dialects of other languages, even where there are differences between the 2 alphabets. It's all too hard really. -- JackofOz 06:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hawaiian also has A, E, H, M, O, and P, but not T. Korean hangul has letters that look like E, H, O, and T, but not A, M, or P. --Reuben 15:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

True. So that makes at least 70 languages that all use E, H and O. -- JackofOz 01:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Trainer?

which is correct trainor or trainer??

Trainer. A quick visit to Wiktionary would have made that evident. The Jade Knight 03:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Even simpler, google does it too.

Unknown 'S' Symbol

Ever since grade school, I've wondered the origin/meaning of this symbol (sorry for the ASCII art, it's the best I could do):

        ^
       / \
      /   \
     |  |  |
     |  |  |
     |  |  |
     |  |__|
      \  \
      _\  \
     |  |  |
     |  |  |
     |  |  |
     |  |  |
      \   /
        V

It's hard doing a search for a symbol... -- MacAddct1984 14:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

All I can make out from the ascii art is that it's an S - the article has a list of S#Similar letters and symbols which might be of use to you. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 14:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you might mean:

• ʃ - Esh (letter)
• § - a Section sign

--HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 14:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

And if the leads provided by User:Hughcharlesparker prove inadequate, you can also try symbol search. dr.ef.tymac 14:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but this looks a bit like the NC State symbol (the way people hand-draw it) to me. Might it be from a college or University near where you went to grade school?--Falconus 14:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

... and also like the Stanford Cardinal symbol – but isn't that simply because both are based on the letter S in a common block letter font used for lettering on athletic shirts?  --Lambiam 15:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses. I did have a quick look at the S page, but to no avail. Maybe it doesn't mean anything, just something easy and interesting to draw on the margins of one's notebook ;) -- MacAddct1984 14:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could scan/photograph/draw a specimen and post it? --TotoBaggins 21:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

My friend who introduced this S to me calls it the Superman S although the ascii S does not look like it. Your ascii S probably caught on because it was artistic; it was a "block letter"; the curves of the S are fused together. --Mayfare 21:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen the symbol used somewhere, or is it only something you saw when your friend drew it for you? --Anon, July 13, 21:37 (UTC).

An Australian point of view here. I've definitely seen this when I was going to primary school (which is kindergarten to year 6). I just assumed there was no meaning, but it caught on because it looks nice. - Akamad 00:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Could it be an ampersand sometimes handwritten as a backwards 3 superimposed with a vertical line? Or, if I squint hard enough, it could be a G–clef. ~ hydnjo talk 02:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

From my memories of primary school (also an Aussie here), it looked a bit more like this:

       ^
      / \
     /   \
    |  |  |
    |  |  |
    |  |  |
    |  |__|
     \  \ /
    /_\  \
    |  |  |
    |  |  |
    |  |  |
    |  |  |
     \   /
       V

Where the S was joined together at the back and it looked more like a chain-link of some sort. I agree with Akamad that it probably has no meaning, just a cool looking symbol kids drew on their excersize books. --Candy-Panda 06:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

For what little it's worth, in Pasadena circa 1967 I was taught to draw it this way:

  / \
 /   \
|  |\ |
|  | \|
 \  \
  \  \
|\ |  |
| \|  |
 \   /
  \ /

– starting with the six vertical strokes and joining them with the obliques. No idea what, if anything, it was meant to stand for; but at age 7 or so I found the construction clever. —Tamfang 18:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that's all it is, a way some kid found to draw a stylized "S". It might be a logo, since I know a friend who has a habit of drawing this and adding bubbly letters that spell "Smile" onto the end, but Smile doesn't sohw anything.I'd assume that it's just a schoolyard thing --L 14:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I've only known it as a stylised S with a special method of drawing it - two rows of three vertical lines, then two diagonals, then a broken diagonal, then the points at top and bottom. Confusing Manifestation 04:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

All of these pictures just look like an S to me. The conversation is just as confusing. Am I missing something? Capuchin 07:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Always made me think of Kiss or the Waffen SS, but they are not quite the same. Lanfear's Bane

if you cant beat them join them

Hi,

Can you please tell me what is the origin of the phrase: "if you cant beat them join them"

Thank you

Essentially, take the path of least resistance and stop hitting your head against a brick wall. If you can't win the fight against your enemies, align and assimilate with your enemies. (JosephASpadaro 21:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

The actual origin is lost in time, but this page says the first recorded instance of the phrase is from 1941, where Quentin Reynolds in 'The Wounded Don't Cry' writes "There's an old political adage which says 'If you can't lick 'em, jine 'em.'" 152.16.59.190 05:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Ubiquitous noun

On Slashdot today, somebody used the word "ubiquitousness," which caused at least two posters to get their knickers in a twist, insisting that the only acceptable noun would be "ubiquity." Merriam-Webster seems to be of two minds. (Interesting how neither of their definitions points to the other). Does anybody have citations for a preference of one form over the other? Thanks. --LarryMac | Talk 17:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Chambers Dictionary 1983 edition has only ubiquity. The -ness suffix is highly productive in colloquial English however, and in informal language I would have no real objection to "ubiquitousness". I wouldn't ever (I hope) use it myself tho'. DuncanHill 17:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It gets 78,000 ghits. Unanimousness gets 2,700, and the ghastly anonymousness gets 14,400. Apparently the adjectival form "ubiquitous" is considerably more common than the noun "ubiquity", so much so that many people are unfamiliar with the latter word and have to invent a nominative form. It's interesting. Bhumiya (said/done) 10:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

July 14

"the" in the Philippines

I would like to ask why there is still a need to use the article "the" in countries like the Philippines, the Bahamas, the United States, etc. Why do we say, "I live in the Philippines" and not I live in Philippines? I don't think I have ever heard of anything like "I have been to the Malaysia." Thank you in advance for any elaborate answer that you can provide. Carlrichard 11:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The the is still customary for countries whose names are grammatically plural, such as the Philippines, the Bahamas, the United States, the Netherlands, etc. Some countries and with singular names traditionally had the the as well, such as the Ukraine, the Sudan, and the Gambia, but that's becoming less popular, and more people are saying simply Ukraine, Sudan, and Gambia. Whether the plural names will ever go that route remains to be seen. —Angr 11:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I have the impression that The Gambia is a counterexample, where the article came into official use late in the entity's existence. —Tamfang 18:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but plural in what sense? All I notice is that all the countries that you have mentioned end in -s. Carlrichard 11:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess it's hard to know at what point a place name that etymologically originates as a plural is no longer felt as one. Certainly "Massachusetts", "Athens", and "Thebes", also originally plurals, are no longer felt to be plural, and people don't say "the Massachusetts", "the Athens", and "the Thebes". (I don't know if they ever did!) The Philippines and the Bahamas, of course, are archipelagos, so their names could be considered short for "the Philippine Islands" and "the Bahama Islands" (the same holds for the Seychelles, the Comoros, and the Maldives, but for some reason the Solomon Islands are AFAIK never called "the Solomons"). —Angr 12:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe The Donald can enlighten us. Clarityfiend 20:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

349,000 Google hits say you're wrong. Corvus cornix 20:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Why do we not say the Indonesia (which is also an archipelago and therefore plural in sense)? Carlrichard

Because grammatically the word "Indonesia" is singular, regardless of the fact that it refers to a country that happens to be an archipelago. If you're talking about the archipelago per se, it would be "the Indonesian archipelago". -- JackofOz 21:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Hmm.. I wonder why Indonesia does not end in -s, like the Philippines, which is also an archipelago like Indonesia. Carlrichard 13:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Australia has a military operation in the Solomons, so it's very topical here. We always refer to "the Solomon Islands" or "the Solomons". People also used to refer to Lebanon and Argentina as "the Lebanon" (probably a carry-over from "the Levant") and "the Argentine" (a particularly noticeable practice of media reporters during the Falklands War), but that seems to have stopped. But what about "the Central African Republic" - does anyone say "I'm going to Central African Republic"? On the original question, other than in adjectival usages, I've never heard the U.S. referred to as simply "United States". One lives in "the" United States, not in United States. This is a simple plural denoting a collection of states, so the "the" is entirely appropriate. -- JackofOz 00:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Note that "the United States" could be seen as an example of another pattern; when the name is an actual noun phrase, rather than just a name, it takes an article.* Thus "in Russia" / "in the Soviet Union", "in England" / "in the UK", "in Yugoslavia" / "in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia", etc. This takes place even when the noun phrase is not a formal name: "on the Crimean peninsula", "on the continent of Australia", "within the united city-states of Greece", etc. Tesseran 05:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

We also say The Czech Republic, though I have seen attempts to change that to Czechia. Corvus cornix 19:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be perilously close to Chechnya? +ILike2BeAnonymous 08:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, the Philippines is plural in form in Spanish (Filipinas) and Latin (Philippinae). Since we're here, does anyone know why there's a 'the' in "The Hague" ?--Jondel 06:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The_Hague#History has some info on its naming - it is Den Haag (the hedge), or s'Gravenhaag (the Count's hedge) in Dutch. DuncanHill 09:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Seychelles, strangely enough, often appears without the "the," as in the title of the Misplaced Pages article. The government of Ukraine has made a conscious effort to stamp out the "the" in its name, since the "the" made it look like a region rather than a country in its own right. The irony is Slavic languages like Ukranian and Russian don't have a true equivalent to our word "the." -- Mwalcoff 13:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the names of the Misplaced Pages articles for all these countries don't have a the: Comoros, Philippines, Netherlands, Bahamas, United States, etc. I think the Ukrainian government's efforts to get rid of the the worked in English, but not necessarily in other languages. I think most people in German still say die Ukraine, but then Germans say die Schweiz, die Slowakei, die Türkei, der Iran, and der Irak, without any implication that those places are mere regions, not countries. And in Irish virtually all country names take the definite article (the notable exceptions being Ireland and Scotland, which only take the definite article in the genitive, and England, which never does). —Angr 14:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

(By the way, why do we say the United kingdom, and not the United Kingdoms of Great Britain?

Because it is just one Kingdom. With one King (or Queen obviously). Queen Elizabeth is Queen of the United Kingdom. However the one kingdom consists of many nations. Cyta 16:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Also because it is not the United Kingdom of Great Britain, but rather the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland not being part of Great Britain at all. Algebraist 16:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

And as the monarch reigns over all those countries collectively but none of them invididually individually, it is wrong to refer to the Queen as "The Queen of England". The last time there was a "Queen/King of England" was at least as long ago as 1707, and even arguably as long ago as 1284, when Wales came under the control of England, the new entity becoming for some purposes known as "England and Wales" (but it's not clear cut).-- JackofOz 21:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I thought Wales, Scotland and England were all "kingdoms"; that's why, I asked why we say only the United Kingdom and not United Kingdoms, like the United States. Carlrichard 13:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Not any more. They were all once upon a time independent kingdoms (or, in Wales's cases, a principality), but the way they ultimately came to comprise the United Kingdom of Great Britain bore no resemblance to the way the American colonies/territories came together to form the United States. -- JackofOz 21:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Though, Queen of Canada, Qo Australia etc. would be correct. Independent countries.martianlostinspace 21:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. But try telling that to most Aussies who want a republic. They argue that we don't need an "English" or "British" monarch, but a home-grown head of state. They forget, or maybe never knew, that we have a "Queen of Australia", entirely distinct from any other crowns that Elizabeth Windsor happens to wear. I agree with their sentiment about having an entirely Australian head of state, but not with their uninformed argument. -- JackofOz 23:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

July 15

Mathemiticians names in IPA

I've begun putting together a "Mathematician pronunciation guide" for myself at User:Foxjwill/Mathematician pronunciation guide, and because I'm interested in IPA, I thought it would be fun to try and put the pronunciation in IPA. But since I'm what would be called an "amateur," I'd really like it if someone (or -ones) could check the pronunciations for me, and explain why my mistakes were mistakes. Foxjwill 05:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Are these supposed to be as the mathematician would have pronounced their own name, or as it's pronounced in English today? Tesseran 05:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

In the first case, what a challenge! I am not sure that Descartes would pronounce its name today in the same way as he used to do it in 1610: French pronounciation has evolved. --AldoSyrt 13:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It would actually be very interesting to try for both! Foxjwill

For Mandelbrot and Peano (in current French and Italian pronunciations) see Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2007 April 12#Names.  --Lambiam 14:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I think /nˈj/ in Agnesi should be /ˈɲɲ/.  --Lambiam 14:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Why /ˈɲɲ/ apposed to /ˈɲ/? Foxjwill 02:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

In d'Alembert /əm/ should be /ɑ̃/ (I think). Also note that French has no word stress, but only phrasal intonation.  --Lambiam 14:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by French not having word stress? Foxjwill 02:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There's some information under Stress (linguistics)#Timing and placement and Prosody (linguistics). ---Sluzzelin talk 13:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not feel confortable with IPA, thus FWIW (Today standard French from Île-de-France):

Alexis Claude Clairaut - /klɛʁo/

Jean le Rond d'Alembert - /dalɑ̃beʁ/

Gérard Desargues - /dezaʁg/? /dɛzaʁg/? /dəsaʁg/?

Pierre de Fermat - /fɛʁma/

Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier - /fuʁje/

Camille Jordan - /ʒɔʁdɑ̃/

AldoSyrt 19:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Latina derriere

A girl who wants to be a ballet danser describes herself as having a "curvaceous Latina derriere". Am I right if it is a fat bottom? But why Latina?

She's referring to the popular stereotype of Hispanic women as gluteally gifted. Bhumiya (said/done) 10:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

She is Latina, perhaps? — gogobera (talk) 04:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

See also Vida Guerra. Ballet is (in)famous for imposing very strict, very lean body standards on its dancers. --TotoBaggins 17:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

A useful word here is steatopygous Adambrowne666 21:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, stereotypes like steatopygia have captivated white male minds for a long time, see also Saartjie Baartman. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

July 16

what does the "H" mean ?

Here's one for you. What does the "H" stand for /mean in the saying "Jesus H. Christ"?-shredder0288

Oh ye of little faith. Believe that Misplaced Pages has an article on everything, and it will. Just click on Jesus H. Christ. Happy reading. -- JackofOz 04:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

His middle name was Henry. Capuchin 07:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No, his middle name was Harold. Thus the Lord's Prayer - "Our father who art in heaven, Harold be thy name." --LarryMac | Talk 16:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought Harold was the angel's name, as in Hark, the Harold angels sing. —Angr 16:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Haploid. —Tamfang 23:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Grammar usage

Mr. & Mrs. Smith have a daughter, Mary. Mary marries Tom Hanover. Which of the following is correct?

Mary Hanover's maiden name is Smith.

Mary Hanover's maiden name was Smith.

Thank you,

M

This would be a great question for the English Language Reference Desk. Both usages are current, but it seems that "was" is used more often. I am not sure which is preferred in edilect (formal written English). The Jade Knight 12:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It is still her maiden name, so 'is' is correct. However, as it's a name she may no longer use, 'was' would also be idiomatic. — Gareth Hughes 12:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

One could make a distinction between "My surname was Smith" and "My maiden name is Smith". But I agree with JK and GH that "was" is idiomatically ok for the second example.

If, prior to marriage, Mary had changed her surname legally to e.g. Coburg, then she could quite accurately say "My maiden name was Hanover Smith but now it is Coburg". Sounds odd, admittedly. -- JackofOz 13:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

After Mary snuffs it shuffles off this mortal coil, however, I'd say her maiden name was Smith. —Angr 15:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

She just began her new life with Tom and we're already planning for her death? For shame... Joe 18:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

types of actors in C 17th france

Hi, I'm looking for a list of the strange synonyms for 'actor' that were used in 17th century Europe - can't remember if they were idioms or epithets, or descriptive terms for the different types of theatre in which the actor subtypes performed. Can anyone help me with this? I'm particularly hopinh for derogatory terms suggestive of overacting, pantomime, general hammishness.

Thanks all, Adambrowne666 12:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

See Commedia_dell'arte#The_characters... AnonMoos 15:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, but they're more characters than types of actor - I'm looking for a list of words like 'histrion', 'mummer', that kinda thing. The kind of words that might be scornfully uttered by someone religiously disposed to a mistrust of theatre. Adambrowne666 00:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not, "hypocrite" used to be a standard word for 'actor' I believe the word itself derives from the name of an Ancient World actor-- Hypocras. 'Le chariot d'Hypocras' was a French periphrase referring to the acting profession. Rhinoracer 12:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I never knew that, thanks - although this would have it different about the etymology, I know etymologies are often quite iffy - thanks, too, for the word periphrase - didn't knew that one either.

Anyone turned this up independantly?

I'm trying to find (Again) A General History of the Pyrates, which I KNOW I found on some North Carolinian univeristy's page (It wasn't Chapel Hill/Ibiblio), however all I'm getting are noxious reprints on Google. The original is definitely out of copyright (17something!), but Wikisource's is this useless thing with maybe 8 paragraphs: s:A General History of the Robberies and Murders of the most notorious Pyrates. Thanx, 68.39.174.238 16:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you ask User:Sherurcij where he got the text to add to Wikisource? —Angr 16:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at this book. I know nothing about this book, but some of the text from your title (as read in this limited preview) matches. Wareh 16:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I found this which may be helpful. DuncanHill 20:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking of asking him too quickly given the very defective state I found it it @ WS, however I probably should since he couldn't fabricated that out of thin air. 68.39.174.238 21:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There are several copies for sale at abebooks.com, though they spell it Pirates. And check for ISBN 1585745588. Corvus cornix 18:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

what does he says?

At this audio at the minute 04:45 there is a word that I don't understand. He says something like "huge tanks of ??". Could a native speaker of English tell me what he says.

• Molten salt-Andrew c  20:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Thanks!!

And why does this make me think of huge... tracts of land? :-) --Anon, July 16, 22:16 (UTC).

July 17

Latin phrase

What does 'Quibus Societas Nobis Intemporaliter' mean in English? --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 02:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

No great shakes with Latin, but it's something like "Who of the Society of the Lords of Time" = "Doctor Who, the Time Lord". DuncanHill 09:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too sure about that -- quibus is an ablative/dative plural, societas is nominative, nobis is the ablative/dative plural of the 1st. singular pronoun, and intemporaliter seems to be a negative adverb. It's rather enigmatic in isolation from a larger context, but my proposed rough translation would be: "by means of which, an alliance/partnership with us not for a short time". If nobis is in apposition with quibus, the translation would need to be revised, but it's very difficult to know how without the larger context... AnonMoos 12:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be missing a verb... Marco polo 14:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

A google of the phrase shews that it is used as a Username in certain forums. A bad Latin effort at "Doctor Who the Time Lord" seems just the sort of thing one would find in such a context. DuncanHill 08:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

What are some one-word synonyms for this phrase?

"...at an all time high." Got no help from Thesaurus sites.

Thank You, Marcie

The synonyms branch depending on whether you are discussing a physical phenomenon (record breaking temperatures, water level, etc.) or an intangible (level of skill, emotion, etc.). I would suggest that "highest" and its synonyms would apply in most cases. 152.16.59.190 05:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

"Unprecedented" is probably the best word for what Marcie wants. Of course, it doesn't necessarily imply an all-time high. But if the context is already established that something is rising, it will convey the meaning. "Global warming has caused unprecedented temperatures" would suggest that they are at an all-time high. "The ice age has caused unprecedented temperatures", on the other hand, would suggest an all-time low. In "the accident was caused by an unprecedented combination of circumstances", the word does not suggest anything numerical. But that's the sort of answer you get when you ask for a one-word synonym of a five-word phrase. --Anonymous, July 17, 2007, 04:27 (UTC).

Also, "unsurpassed" works. (JosephASpadaro 05:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC))

"Superlative" is another possibility. Clarityfiend 07:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

A "peak"? Rhinoracer 12:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Zenith - X201 12:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

"Peak" and "zenith" don't really work, because they imply that this is the highest point that will ever be reached. An "all-time high", if it was in the past, was a zenith or a peak. If it is in the present, however, whatever it is may go still higher in the future. "At an all-time high" really means "at its highest point up to now". Marco polo 14:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "peak" doesn't work, but I say it's for the opposite reason -- it could refer to a "local maximum", which is merely the highest point within a particular time period. --Anon, July 17, 17:26 (UTC).

In some context, simply the word "record" is used: "record temperature" to mean "all-time high temperature". Of course, there can be ambiguity in this, as a record temperature could mean all-time high or low. Then one must rely on other information. (Is it summer or winter?) — Michael J 23:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Alphabetical Order

What is the generally accepted order in which to alphabetize the following example?

1. The Good Earth

2. The Goodbye Girl

In other words, in #1 (The Good Earth) ... what character follows the "d" in "Good"? Is it the "blank" character? Or is the "blank" character simply ignored and you move on to the next character, "E"?

If the "blank" character counts, I assume the correct alphabetical order is The Good Earth ... and then The Goodbye Girl. If the blank character is simply ignored and you move on to the next character, "E", I assume the correct alphabetical order is The Goodbye Girl ... and then The Good Earth. Please advise. Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 05:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC))

See Collation#Alphabetical order. Mike Dillon 06:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The short answer is that both ways are accepted. Dictionaries typically "alphabetize by letters" (i.e. #2 comes first): this is a great advantage when dealing with expressions that are spelled spelled either as one or as two words (like "back seat" and "backseat"), because it means that both forms sort together and so you don't have to guess which form the dictionary uses in order to look it up. But other types of lists, like indexes in books, often "alphabetize by words" (i.e. #1 comes first): this has the advantage of keeping together all phrases that begin with the same word (for example, if you also had "good apples" on the list, you would want it grouped with "good earth", not separated by "goodbye").

Since your example was movie titles, I'll note that early editions of Leonard Maltin's annual movie guidebook alphabetized by words, but now they alphabetize by letters. This makes some sense since titles like "Man Eater" and "Maneater" now sort together, but those are rare enough that I still think the other way worked better.

--Anonymous, July 17, 2007: 17:40 (UTC).

Telephone greetings

Why do many languages have a greeting for answering a telephone which differs from another greeting? 76.106.103.106 06:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You might as well ask "Why did people start using smiley faces and stuff with the advent of computers, and not before?" (i.e., in letters). It seems to be an outgrowth of the technology used for communication, I'd say. +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Before telephones, the word "hello" was often spelled "halloo", and it was used more for attracting people's attention from a distance than to start a close-up face-to-face conversation... AnonMoos 12:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

According to the common story, Bell wanted to use "Ahoy" as the telephone greeting. Gzuckier 14:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Which is why in The Simpsons Mr Burns says 'Ahoy, Hoy?'. Lanfear's Bane

It's an interesting question. It shows that answering the phone is a different communication situation from greeting in other contexts. I wonder what effect seeing the identity of the caller on a mobile phone has: I know I often say 'hi John' etc. on a mobile, while I'd say 'hello' on my landline: knowing who the caller is changes the situation to something more like normal interaction. So may be greeting on the (landline) phone is different and often uses a different word because I don't know who it is I'm greeting (and I'm not expected to know either). Drmaik 19:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Some people answer the landline saying "2242" or whatever, some say "Hallo", etc. - CarbonLifeForm 11:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

2242?! 68.39.174.238 15:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I answer the landline with the number, but the mobile I usually say "Hullo " DuncanHill 15:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Caucus of one

What type of phrase is this? How would you explain its meaning in the simplest terms possible? I wasn't able to find the phrase in Misplaced Pages. Am I correct in assuming it is a tongue-in-cheek reference to a politician taking a different position from the colleagues they would traditionally caucus with? Thanks. Gfloner 09:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a play on Army of One, a former recruiting slogan for the US army. A lot of people laughed at that slogan because it sounds more like they're recruiting lone wolves than soldiers in an organized army where teamwork is important. So your "caucus of one" may refer both to the original slogan, and to its unintended connotations. --Reuben 16:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Latin as a spoken language

Since John Wycliffe was an Oxford scholar then he would have known Latin very well, perhaps as much as English. My understanding is that if a person knew Latin, that it not only was a language the Church used in it writings (i.e. Bible, documents), but that it would have been actually spoken among the European scholars of the Fourteenth Century - especially if that was the only language in common among themselves. Is that correct?--Doug 13:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

In the fourteenth century, Latin, or more precisely, Medieval Latin or Renaissance Latin, was certainly a spoken language used as a lingua franca by Europeans who spoke different native languages. This was certainly true of 14th-century scholars, most of whom were also in some way connected with the Church, whose official language was also Latin. Marco polo 15:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Latin continued to be a spoken language for centuries; it's how George I communicated with his Privy Council, when he did. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Mass was conducted in Latin and the pope recently lifted the restrictions on this - http://en.wikinews.org/Pope_to_lift_restrictions_on_Latin_Mass. Lanfear's Bane

Latin was a pretty standard academic language into the 19th century (Newton and Gauss both wrote important works in Latin) and really only fell into decline in the 20th century. For Wycliffe, it's entirely possible that he may have actually spent more time speaking Latin than English. There were some missionary priests during the Elizabethan era who were educated on the continent and spoke more Latin than English (although that's also an extreme case). It explains some of the odd Latinisms in the Douay-Rheims translation of the bible. As an aside, the mass that Wycliffe would have celebrated was not the Tridentine mass, but more likely the Sarum Rite. The Tridentine mass was codified by the Council of Trent in the 16th century, long after Wycliffe had died. Donald Hosek 17:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

And Linnaeus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to presume that Petrarch spoke and wrote then in the Renaissance Latin. Which Latin would Wycliffe have known, both?--Doug 16:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Arg, people keep editing when I'm editing. Wycliffe would have known the Latin of his era. He would have had no problem reading classical latin, and over time, the structures of Latin became simpler (so it's much easier to read, say, any church document of the late middle ages than it is to read Virgil or Cicero. Caesar, on the other hand is pretty straightforward. What exactly are you trying to get at with this series of questions? I've grown intrigued (although if it turns out that this is some convoluted scheme to get out of a speeding ticket, I'm going to be PO'd). Donald Hosek 17:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

If you have the vocabulary; Wyclif's Latin might have included a lot of jargon, depending on the subject. But there's not really that much difference; more a matter of style, pronunciation, and choices of spelling than anything else. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Well -----> history has shown that Wycliffe and Petrarch never contacted each other, however lived in the same time periods. Hypothetically (keep in mind I am not saying it is so), what if Petrarch and Wycliffe met. Petrarch did not know English, Wycliffe did not know Italian nor French --> however they both knew the common language of Latin. Then (hypothetically) they could communicate. Now I know there might be some that will get excited about this "hypothetical example", however keep in mind I said hypothetical. In this example then, it looks like to me they could have easily communicated, since the common language is Latin (which they both knew). See, it had nothing to do with a speeding ticket, which obviously will be real easy to settle compared to this "hypothetical example" I just threw out. What do you think, is it not possible then with the common language being Latin they could have communicated with each other? Both Wycliffe and Petrarch knew Latin extremely well, so to me it seems possible (should they have ever met, which history said they did not).--Doug 17:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Wycliffe's Latin would have been transitional between Medieval and Renaissance Latin. The distinction between the two is not much more than stylistic. I find it hard to imagine that Wycliffe would have spoken more Latin than English. I think that spoken Latin would have been reserved for formal occasions (e.g. lectures) or conversation with foreigners. Wycliffe was born and raised in England and spent virtually his whole life in England. Most of his colleagues at Oxford would have been English. It is hard to imagine that they would have used Latin for everyday conversation when they all spoke (Middle) English as their first language. On the other hand, it would not be surprising for Oxford scholars to mix Latin phrases into their English conversation. Marco polo 17:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

So it looks like (bottomline) in my "hypothetical example" that Petrarch and Wycliffe could have easily communicated with each other, since both had this common language of Latin. In my "hypothetical example" this would have been where they had conversations with foreigners , since each would have been a foreigner to the other - especially since neither had a common language with each other outside of Latin. I don't know about Wycliffe speaking Latin more than English, however Wycliffe knew Latin very well. Also Petrarch knew Latin very well, so bottomline I don't see that they would have had any problem communicating with each other (should they have ever met). Now according to history Wycliffe never left England and Petrarch never visited England, so this of course could not have happened ---> but in my "hypothetical example" they could have in fact communicated with each other very well.--Doug 19:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

A small quibble: Wycliffe actually did leave England at least once, according to our biography, to attend a peace conference in Bruges, Flanders (present-day Belgium). However, Petrarch did not attend that conference, so far as we know. Marco polo 19:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You happened to have hit upon something very interesting. It looks like Wycliffe was at this conference in Bruges on July 26, 1374. According to history, Petrarch died July 19 in his 69th year - which just happens to be a week before! If I am not mistaken, didn't Petrarch visit this area, perhaps more than once in his life? So while it may be "a small quibble" it is an important fact - if nothing else other than a pure coincidence. Now continuing with my "hypothetical example" - what if history had not recorded that Petrarch had not died then and he met up with Wycliffe there in Flanders (an area within a week's travel), could they have not easily communicated with each other. What if history said instead that Petrarch died in Arquà Petrarca, where coincidently Petrarch was buried for the second time in 1380. Again, I'm sure there will be some people that will get excited over this, however keep in mind this is just a "hypothetical example". The point I am making is that ""hypothetically" Petrarch and Wycliffe could have easily communicated with each other - had they met. However history does not record such an event, so it is meaningless that Wyclif's Bible came out in 1382 (which is the first English version of the New Testament).--Doug 21:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

"Easily" may be stretching it. They could have easily corresponded writing in Latin (although Petrarch probably would have written much more classically-influenced Latin), but if they were able to speak it fluently, and they may not have been, they may have had wildly different accents and may not have been able to completely understand each other. Adam Bishop 01:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Doug, just so that I'm clear, are you saying that your example is hypothetical?  :) -- JackofOz 02:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, since history has recorded that Petrarch died on the evening of July 19, 1374 (when he was 69 years old). He just happened to have been moved and buried again in 1380 at Arquà Petrarca (that's purely coincidential). Just because Wyclif's Bible came out in 1382 - that would again be just coincidential! Bottomline, in my "hypothetical example", Petrarch and Wycliffe could have in fact communicated with each other - had they met, which history has recorded they did not. Just because the only time Wycliffe left England was to go to Flanders, which happened to be one week after Petrarch died - that has nothing to do with anything, it is just coincidential. Bruges just happens to be within a week's travel from where Petrarch died - again purely coincidential. Flanders just happens to be an area Petrarch previously visited - coincidential. Yes, let me make it perfectly clear, I am saying "hypothetical." It's got to be hypothetical, because history has recorded Petrarch died July 19, 1374. History also records that it was his daughter Francesca that found him at his desk with a pen in hand and Laura in his heart. History records that it was Francescuolo da Brossano who was the executor of his estate - which of course has nothing to do with this at all. So I hope I have made myself clear on this: these 600 year old facts that just happen to look coincidential are just that - purely coincidential. The "hypothetical example" of Wycliffe and Petrarch being able to communicate with each other since they both knew Latin very well - is just a hypothetical example, nothing more. If you are thinking something different (whatever that may be) that would be up to you to conclude - my examples are just hypothetical and coincidential. History has recorded certain events and certain dates, so I will have to go with this "recorded history" since that certainly can not be wrong. Another coincidence is that nowhere in recorded history does it say Wyclif's Bible came out before 1380. Let's just say "interesting" - and certainly coincidential, nothing more than that. Since the consenses is that the "Babylonian Captivity" (Petrarch's coined phrase) of the Avignon papacy was for 69 years (1308 - 1377) would be coincidential. If I were you, I would not look into this and investigate it further - since all these are just merely coincidences - especially the events of Wycliffe after his trip to Bruges in 1374. It seems to me that Wycliffe and Petrarch were both opponents of the Avignon system and would have been considered ecclesiastical annoyances. It looks like to me they had very similar viewpoints they could have shared. History has recorded however that they never met - so obviously they could not have shared these.--Doug 13:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is coincidental at all, it's just a bunch of stuff that happened. I don't know what you're up to but it doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Adam Bishop 20:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

How do you write this in Korean?

Hi. I was wondering how your write this in Korean: "Sorry, I meant to say, 'I am tired'." --JDitto 21:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of ways and expressions including the somewhat literal '죄송합니다. 피곤한다고 말씀을 하려고 했습니다.' Mumun 無文 21:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

'죄송합니다. 피곤하다고 말하려고 했었습니다.' would be more accurate and grammatically correct translation. :) eDenE 03:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice, Mumun Man, you beat me here =) Good friend100 00:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, it's just a whole bunch of question marks on this computer... --JDitto 04:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Difference between homophone and oronym

What ist the difference between homophones and oronyms? Does homophone only refer to single words whereas oronym is more often used for longer phrases? -- 80.136.49.23 23:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd never heard of oronym before. Reading the article, I'm told "While they initially sound like mondegreens, reading the lyrics will reveal that this is not the case". I have serious doubts about this sentence. The thing about mondegreens is that the listener does not have the written words in front of them; all they know is the sounds they hear, which they mistakenly interpret as certain words when in fact they were intended to mean certain other words. What a person hears is not necessarily what a speaker says. Chinese whispers relies on this principle. A mondegreen more often than not occurs when the listener mishears the sounds actually made by the speaker, but that is not a necessary condition for a mondegreen. If that were not so, the oft-quoted classic mondegreen “Gladly my cross I’d bear” vs. “Gladly, my cross-eyed bear” would not be a mondegreen at all.

This website says oronyms refer to "phrases or sentences whose sound can be interpreted in more than one way as another valid phrase or sentence". The example they give is "The sons raise meat" vs. "The sun's rays meet". There’s no mishearing of the sounds involved here, merely a misinterpretation of the meaning. I’d suggest that oronyms are a sub-class of mondegreens. -- JackofOz 02:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

However, on reflection, another approach would be to strictly differentiate them as follows:

• A mondegreen is a misinterpretation of a spoken phrase because of a mishearing of the sounds. (The speaker said A, but the hearer heard B.)
• An oronym is a misinterpretation of a spoken phrase, not through any mishearing, but because the sounds correctly heard can validly represent another phrase. (The speaker said A, the hearer heard A, but A represents more than one thing and the hearer's brain chose the wrong one.)

That would require some re-writing of our mondegreen article, and the production of some suitable references, because currently we give certain examples of mondegreens that would not fit this definition of mondegreen, but would fit this definition of oronym. -- JackofOz 05:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It would also require redefining mondegreen. It seems to me clear that the reason that many well-known mondegreens don't fit this delineation is simply that this is not what the words mean. Sure, it could be, in a world where all neologisms immediately mark off a space for their definition and older words accede, but it ain't. Tesseran 17:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I find that there is no difference except that "oronym" isn't really a term (except in the meaning "mountain name" of course). We should turn this into a disambiguation page saying: (1) see oronymy, (2) see homophone. 17:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)dab (𒁳)

Islam's bugbear

What are the Arabic words for Crusade(r)(s)? —Tamfang 23:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Lang-ar, Template:ArabDIN, is the general adjective. Template:Lang-ar, Template:ArabDIN, means 'the Crusades'. Template:Lang-ar, Template:ArabDIN, is 'the crusaders'. — Gareth Hughes 23:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately stemming from "Template:Lang-ar, Template:ArabDIN, "cross". Of course, that is a more recent invention, like the English word "crusade". Contemporaries usually called them "ifranj" or "faranji", "Franks" (since they often came from France), or "Rumi", "Romans" (as a general description of Westerners from the territory of the Western Roman Empire, or because the First Crusade was assumed to be an army from the Eastern Roman Empire), or, sometimes, simply one of the various words for Christian. ("Nazarenes" is a common one, if I remember correctly.) Adam Bishop 01:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, historically, الإفرنج, Template:ArabDIN, would have been the word used. In modern Arabic, it simply means 'the Europeans', but its root meaning is 'the Franks'. الروم, Template:ArabDIN, would be the usual word to describe Constantinople (İstanbul), so it's more likely to describe a Byzantine connexion. النصري, Template:ArabDIN, is an older word for Christians. I would say that this word more likely would have described Levantine Christians of the time. However, there may have been some amount of association. — Gareth Hughes 11:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

July 18

Latin translation

Can you please translate into Latin 'Only God Can Judge Me' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ijr1971 (talk • contribs)

Ovaltinum plus bebite!. But don't get a tattoo of that if you're under 30. Seriously. I don't know anyone with youthful tattoos who doesn't regret them, and a common pop-culture phrase like this -- in a language you don't speak, no less -- has "regret" written all over it. --TotoBaggins 15:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Let Ijr1971 (who I suspect is 35 or 36) make his own decisions. As we already discussed a few weeks ago when this question was asked about French, the translation depends on what precisely "can" means in this context. If you mean "Only God is permitted to judge me", the Latin is "Solo Deo licet me iudicare". (If you want it in all caps for your tattoo, change the u to a V: SOLO DEO LICET ME IVDICARE.)

Alternatively, you could use an already existing Latin motto with a similar message, such as Nemo me impune lacessit. —Angr 15:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Except for us in the UK, we have this around pound coins, not so cool... Lanfear's Bane

And it's rather ironic for a tattoo.  --Lambiam 16:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

where can i find this place?

is grammatically incorrect, but what should it be? in a quiz, the question is shown next to a picture of the place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.121.36.232 (talk • contribs)

Where can this place be found? ? Zain Ebrahim 11:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not grammatically incorrect, but we don't know who "I" is. And places are not usually spoken of as "found". Why not just say "Where is this?"--Shantavira| 13:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Definition of French word

The word commutative (used heavily in mathematics) has it's origins in French. The first usage as a math property was by François Servois in 1814. He said "Les fonctions qui, comme f et g, sont telles qu'elles donnent des résultats identiques, quel que soit l'ordre dans lequel on les applique au sujet, seront appelées commutatives entre elles."

My question is, did he make the word up? If it existed in French already, what was its meaning outside of math?

I'm working on the commutativity page and trying to provide history for the property, so any information would be helpful and sources would be a plus! Weston.pace 15:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Google commutative justice for a concept that has been in English since the 16th c. (Elyot's Governour), reflecting Aristotle's discussion, in his Ethics, of a kind of justice that restores and maintains the apportionment of just shares between parties involved in private transactions (compare the mathematical reference, somewhat different, to terms that may be interchanged; search the article on Ethics for "rectification in transactions" for the relevant concept). The partition of justice by Aristotle and Aquinas (who gives us the Latin term commutativa iustitia) had its influence later on Kant's Rechtslehre, and most of the Misplaced Pages articles (retributive justice, restorative justice, distributive justice, etc.) seem to focus on the later philosophical & legal discussions. Wareh 17:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

There was a pre-existing French word commuter, meaning "to substitute or switch". This is a borrowing into French directly from the Latin commutare. (There is another French word, commuer, meaning "to change", that is derived from Latin commutare through Old French.) The suffix -ative is derived from the Latin -ativus and means "tending to, or serving to...". Very likely Servois drew on the French sense of commuter meaning "to substitute" and the existing philosophical term commutative meaning "shared". Marco polo 17:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the root meaning of "exchange" is immediately felt, with different specific senses, in both the mathematical usage (terms are exchanged with one another) and the earlier use I've mentioned (concerning the exchanges and mutual dealings among people). There is at least one reference to "commutative justice" in 16th c. French, in Rabelais's Tiers Livre. Wareh 17:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input everyone, I think that should be enough to give a history of where the word came from, I'll get around to updating the page as soon as I can get some free time. Weston.pace 17:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Cheers!

Does "cheers!" mean something other than "thanks" somewhere? I've only encountered the meaning 'thanks' before, but some people seem to sign-off with it around here after answering a question or just saying something. Are they just saying thanks for the the opportunity to type, or does it have some other meaning? Skittle 16:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Its use to mean "thanks" is British. I've never heard it used that way in the United States. On the other hand, "cheers!" is used as a drinking toast in the United States. I suspect that that is its origin. In effect, the drinker wishes cheer to each of his companions. Its extension to mean "thanks" suggests that the speaker is offering a toast in thanks. Marco polo 17:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Cheers is used as a drinking toast in Britain, and I think this use predates its use to mean thanks. It is also used sometimes to mean goodbye, cf cheerio which can be used to mean goodbye or as a drinking toast. DuncanHill 17:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. I suspected something like this, but I never like to assume with language. That way lies the bulldog in Lady and the Tramp calling Tramp "a bit of alright"! So now I can relax a little, without imagining everyone is thanking people for asking questions (or being really insincere in a discussion!). Thanks guys. Skittle 18:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I use it quite a bit here, but only as a sign-off. It's a common expression in Australia, where it sometimes means "thanks", but is more often used as a toast, and even more often as a farewell. Cheers. -- JackofOz 23:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Benvolio

Hello. Is Benvolio in Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet in any way related to Malvolio in Twelfth Night other than they both share the same -volio suffix? Thanks in advance. --Mayfare 17:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The names mean "good will" and "ill will" respectively. It has certainly been claimed that Malvolio was named "on analogy with, and in contrast to" Shakespeare's earlier character. It has also been pointed out that such names echo the conventions of morality plays (second result here). Wareh 17:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Reminds me of my state's least favorite pseudonym, or at least the construction of it. 68.39.174.238 01:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

language of Jesus?

What name would Jesus have used to call himself in everyday conversation with friends, in his own language. How would it have been pronounced? Something like or did he use a name like Christ?--Sonjaaa 18:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Aramaic ישוע (Yeshua). (See the beginning of the Jesus article). Corvus cornix 18:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that he lived in Palestine, rather than Babylon, wouldn't he have spoken Hebrew, rather than Aramaic? As an intelligent person living in an occupied country, I guess there's a reasonable chance he'd have had a smattering of Latin too, but that's just speculation. Romani ite domum --Dweller 18:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to the Mel, Latin wasn't widely spoken in most of the Eastern Roman Empire. It is almost certain that Jesus spoke Aramaic (1st-century Galilean Aramaic to be precise) rather than Hebrew as his first language. Evidence for Hebrew use is mostly focused on Jerusalem and seems not to have been all that widespread (although some do read the evidence differently). However, Jesus' name is the Hebrew name ישוע, a varient of יהושע. Its pronunciation would be more like . Christ comes from the Greek Χριστος, which is a calque of the Aramaic/Hebrew משיח, meaning 'anointed'. Jesus probably would have known enough Greek to get by. — Gareth Hughes 19:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

And he certainly would have known Hebrew quite well, despite its not being his native language, since it was the liturgical language of Judaism then as now. —Angr 19:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Latin translation please

Could I please get a translation of this:

Frigida Francifci tegit hic lapis offa Petrarcae
Sufcipe, Virgo parens, animam: fate Virgine parce;

Feffaque jam terris coeli requiefcat in arce.

Thanks, --Doug 19:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You can find a published translation of these oddly-rhyming lines here (from which you can also correct the text which you've mistranscribed; see long s). The translation is pretty literal but omits "cold bones" and "in the citadel of heaven." Wareh 19:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The Petrarch Gallery translates it thus:

This stone covers the cold remains of Francesco Petrarca.

Embrace, oh Virgin Mother, his soul, and you who are born of the Virgin forgive it,

and already tired of the earth, may it rest in the high heavens.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.112.135.118 (talk • contribs)

(Edit conflict) I think you've been looking at a Renaissance document that uses the long s. You want:

Frigida Francisci tegit hic lapis ossa Petrarcae
Suscipe, Virgo parens, animam: sate Virgine parce;

Fessaque jam terris coeli requiescat in arce.

According to http://www.eapoe.org/WorkS/misc/pnkdia.htm, this is Francescuolo da Brossano's inscription on Petrarch's tomb. My rough-and-ready translation is:

This stone covers the cold bones of Francesco Petrarch
Virgin Mother, receive his soul: You Who were born to the Virgin, spare it;

And let it, which was worn out by the world, now rest in the citadel of heaven.

And there's nothing odd about the rhyme if you use the Italianate pronunciation of Latin: all three lines end in the sequence . —Angr 20:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

What I thought was slightly odd was precisely the fact that these classicizing hexameters rhyme (perfectly). That's something I usually associate with very unclassical, stress-based medieval forms of poetry. I don't know enough to suggest that there's anything objectively weird about the style of rhyming, though. Wareh 20:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

In other words, what's odd (considering when it was written) is the rhythm, not the rhyme! :p BTW, the Google Books link you provided is apparently another instance of one that can't viewed from outside the U.S. I can't see the quote on that page, anyhow. —Angr 20:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I would have expected classicizing verse with no rhyme, given the return to antiquity professed by the humanists. Wareh 20:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the translations. The scanned in version I was going from was very blurry.--Doug 20:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

American Manual Alphabet

Why is it that in the American Manual Alphabet the sign for R, a very common letter, is rather difficult to make (for me anyway) and looks somewhat like the letter X, while the sign for X, an uncommon letter, is easy to make and looks somewhat like a lower-case R? —Bkell (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

July 19

View Korean Text

How do I make my computer view Korean text? I tried it and all it shows are question marks--although it does translate on Babel fish still. --JDitto 05:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You probably need a font that includes Korean characters installed on your computer. —Angr 05:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It depends on which operating system and web browser you're using. If you search for "Korean computer font" on Google, you should be able to find the right instructions for your setup. --Reuben 06:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

see also Help:Special characters --dab (𒁳) 06:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)