This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NeonMerlin (talk | contribs) at 06:18, 31 July 2009 (→Big fish: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

• WP:RD/L

Main page: Help searching Misplaced Pages

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

July 25

Archaic expletives.

Hallo all, I've been looking for archaic expletives and insults for a short story and poem I'm writing; I've been browsing the web for a while, but can't seem to find anything other than words that are still used today with relatively mild effect. If anyone could point me in the right direction, I'd appreciate it, since I'd like something not still in use. Thanks, · AndonicO 00:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Gadzooks, here are a few you might like. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant, I see several I could use in there, thanks! · AndonicO 00:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I like doggone which, I think, is an old euphemism for goddamn. 195.35.160.133 (talk) 12:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Martin.

Take care not to be accused of gadzookery, though. Tonywalton  12:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Transliteration of names

Hello! What are these names transliterated in Japanese and in traditional Chinese letters:

• Tokunaga Shigeyasu
• Domdey Martin ( pronounce "-ey" as in English "eye" )

Doc Taxon (talk) 14:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The first appears to be a Japanese name, thus probably has kanji (Japanese Chinese characters) associated with it. There are various possibilities for what those kanji might be. 徳長 is a common way of writing Tokunaga. There are even more possibilities for Shigeyasu. 茂安 is one of them.

As for Domdey Martin, I'm not sure about your pronunciation guide. In katakana, which are usually used for transliterating foreign names in Japanese, it would be either ドムダイ (if it's "Dom-dye") or　ドムディー　(if it's pronounced "Dom-dee"), and Martin is マーテン. As for a Chinese character version, it doesn't seem like a name that readily adapts to kanji. I'd stick with the katakana for that one. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

If you mean Tokunaga who was a paleontologist/geologist and a professor at Waseda University, it should be 徳永 重康. And who is Domdey Martin? Oda Mari (talk) 16:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Because there are more possiblities to write Tokunaga Shigeyasu in Japanese/Chinese characters, how do I know the writing, if I only know the name by hearsay? So the Japanese population has the same problems to write dictation of some Japanese names, or not? How do they handle it? Doc Taxon (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

If there are various possibilities for a particular name, and you don't know the specific characters used to write it, then you need to ask someone who knows how that person's name is written. If that's impossible, sometimes people use katakana instead, ie: トクナガ　シゲヤス. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

If you are looking to translate Domdey Martin into Chinese (as opposed to Chinese characters used in Japanese) - Martin is usually 馬丁. Domdey is a little unusual - something like 多姆代, perhaps. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

July 26

Cor blimey trousers

Apart from the lyric to the song, what is a cor blimey trousers? ~ R.T.G 12:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

to my English knowledge they don't exist outside the song and I think you'll find they are 'gawd blimey' trousers, I know, not much help but it might be easier to find an answer. I think, only an opinion, that they are trousers that for whatever reason make the observer say 'gawd blimey'. Whether this is because of their extreme stylishness (hmm) or their bad fit or their state of wear and cleanliness we can only guess. But dustmen (garbage collectors for US readers) in the 60's were not among the smartest or cleanest of dressers. what a shame Lonnie is not here to advise us. Richard Avery (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Gawd blimey is a variation of the more common cor blimey. The song is by Lonnie Donegan, and I'm fairly sure the lyric is cor blimey, not gawd blimey:

Oh, my old man's a dustman,

He wears a dustman's hat,

He wears cor-blimey trousers

And he lives in a council flat

A quick look online reveals one opinion (offered by someone's mum) that "Cor Blimey trousers were commonly worn by dustmen (as in the song) and coal merchants. They are tousers of courderoy (sometimes moleskin) - very baggy and are tied just below the knee with string or rope ." Personally, I'm inclined to think that "cor blimey" is just being used to suggest the condition of the trousers, as in "cor blimey those are awful trousers." Exploding Boy (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I half didn't expect to find an actual cor blimey trouser. Cor! Blimey! Thanks for the answers ~ R.T.G 11:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I always heard it as 'gor-blimey trousers' .--ColinFine (talk) 23:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

A "logical defect" in English grammar?

Let's look at the following sentence:

• David can see John.

Now I can ask a WHO question, whereof the sentencial structure determines whether I ask about David or about John. The two alternatives are consequently:

• Who can David see?
• Who can see John?

Now, let's look at the following two sentences:

• Yesterday, David thought John sold it.
• David thought, John sold it yesterday.

Now I can ask a WHEN question, and again I might want the sentencial structure to determine whether I ask about when David thought or about when John sold it. If I don't know the English grammar quite well, then I naturally might suggest two pseudo-alternatives of sentencial structures - as follows:

• When did David think John sold it? (Answer: Yesterday, David did).
• When David thought did John sell it? (Answer: David thought, John did that yesterday).

Unfortunately, as opposed to the first case about David who can see John - wherein the English grammar does allow us to use two different sentencial structures - thus letting us distinguish between a WHO question about David and a WHO question about John, in the new case - about David who thought about John - the English grammar does not allow us to use the second sentencial structure, but rather the first one only, which consequently does not let us distinguish between a WHEN question about David and a WHEN question about John...

What a pity! Is it really just a "logical defect" in the traditional English grammar? HOOTmag (talk) 12:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Not really, you can say "When did David think, John sold it yesterday?" It's actually a quote, "David though, 'John sold it yesterday'", so "When did David think, 'John sold it yesterday'?" It might be confusing in speech (where it might seem to ask at what point yesterday John sold it) but not if you punctuate it properly in writing. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Assume that: I don't know when David thought, nor do I know when John sold; What I do know is just that David thought John sold it, that's all.

Now, I might want to ask two WHEN questions, i.e. about when David thought (John sold it), and about when (David thought) John sold it. How should I build my two WHEN questions, without any usage of quotation marks? Note that, in the first case about David who can see John, I needed no quotation marks for distinguishing between the different alternatives of two WHO questions!

HOOTmag (talk) 13:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Taking into account that "think" here means "believe" or "have the opinion that", I think (or believe, or have the opinion that) you'd have to construct it along something like the following lines:

• When did David have the belief that John had sold it?
• When was it that, in David's opinion, John sold it? -- JackofOz (talk) 13:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Your first WHEN-question is grammatically-answered by the following statement: Yesterday, David had the belief that John had sold it.

Your second WHEN-question is grammatically-answered by the following statement: In David's opinion, John sold it yesterday.

However, I'm looking for two WHEN-questions each of which is grammatically-answered by one of the following two (different) statements:

• Yesterday, David thought John sold it.
• David thought, John sold it yesterday.

This grammatical problem could have been solved, had the English grammar allowed us to use the following two pseudo-alternatives of sentencial structures - as follows:

• When did David think John sold it? (Answer: Yesterday, David did).
• When David thought did John sell it? (Answer: David thought, John did that yesterday).

HOOTmag (talk) 14:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

We should probably not drop "that", and say "David thought that John sold it yesterday." Thus, "When did David think that John sold it yesterday?" Of course, this is still ambiguous, because it could be asking when David thought it, or at what time yesterday John sold it. I suppose you could also ask "When yesterday did David think that John sold it?" but that is also ambiguous. The way the sentence is currently constructed I don't think ambiguity can be avoided. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Why do you keep indicating the "yesterday" in the question? As I've already requested, please assume that: I don't know when David thought, nor do I know when John sold; What I do know is just that David thought John sold it, that's all. HOOTmag (talk) 14:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You said: "I'm looking for two WHEN-questions each of which is grammatically-answered by one of the following two (different) statements:

1. When did David think (that) John sold it?

• Yesterday, David thought (that) John sold it.

2. When, David thought, did John sell it? Or "When," thought David, "did John sell it?"

• David thought, John sold it yesterday.

Another way of punctuating the answer gives us the question I think you're looking for:

When did David think John sold it? or When did David think that John had sold it?

• David thought John sold it yesterday.

Exploding Boy (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Replace "thought" by "knew".

Replace "John" by "David's friend".

The answer should be either:

• Yesterday, David knew David's friend had sold it.

or:

• David knew David's friend sold it yesterday.

HOOTmag (talk) 15:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you just asking questions that you know cannot be answered the way you have phrased them? Is this some sort of riddle? It doesn't seem very productive. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I just ask to know whether the English grammar is infected by a logical defect.

My question is very productive, e.g. for rebuilding a better grammar (even just a pseudo-grammar), e.g. for computer languages. Note that, in other human languages (other than English), one is permitted to choose one of two alternatives for WHEN-questions, which could have been translated into Pseudo-English - as follows:

• When did David know David's friend sold it? (Answer: Yesterday, David did).
• When David knew did David's friend sell it? (Answer: David knew, David's friend did that yesterday).

For example: I've read that, in Chinese (which I don't speak), you can build your question-sentence as follows:

• When David knew David's friend sold it? (Answer: Yesterday, David knew).
• David knew David's friend sold it - when? (Answer: David knew, David's friend sold it yesterday).

Could any Chinese speaker approve that, please?

HOOTmag (talk) 13:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I've no idea what question you're asking any more. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking for two WHEN-questions each of which is grammatically-answered by one of the following two (different) statements:

• Yesterday, David knew (that) David's father sold it.
• David knew (that) David's father sold it yesterday.

HOOTmag (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) By omitting the complementisers, you are disguising the fact that these are embedded sentences. In one case you are WH-inverting the matrix sentence, which is a normal operation in English. In the other you are inverting the embedded clause. These are very different operations, with very different restrictions (in particular, different matrix verbs subcategorise for different kinds of object), as people have pointed out above. There is no structural reason to expect to be able to perform the same operation on the two cases. Whether or not there is a logical defect here seems to me to be about as useful and meaningful as arguing about which kind of knife is best for cutting water with. --ColinFine (talk) 23:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

What I'm trying to claim is that English grammar is (to some extent) "inferior", compared to other languages - which do permit to choose one of two alternatives for WHEN-questions, which could have been translated into Pseudo-English - as follows:

• When did David know David's friend would sell it? (Answer: Yesterday, David did).
• When David knew would David's friend sell it? (Answer: Tomorrow, David's father would).

For example: I've read that, in Chinese (which I don't speak), you can build your question-sentence as follows:

• When David knew David's friend would sell it? (Answer: Yesterday, David did).
• David knew David's friend would sell it - when? (Answer: Tomorrow, David's father would).

HOOTmag (talk) 12:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You keep changing your theoretical answers too. To get an answer meaning "David knew yesterday that John had sold it" using a when question, you could ask, "When was it that David knew that John had sold it?" or "When did David know that John had sold it?"

But if the answer you're getting at is "David knew that John sold it and that he did it yesterday," you would have to ask "Did David know when it was that John sold it?"

You could get both answers by asking "Did" questions: 1: "Did David know yesterday that John had sold it?" 2: "Did David know that the day John sold it was yesterday?" But I don't see why you think it's a logical fallacy that a when question can't grammatically produce both answers. Exploding Boy (talk) 03:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• As opposed to what you've claimed, I do keep asking my original questions, though they're not for you but rather for the other wikipedians, but when I address to you I prefer to change my original question in order for you to get my point - which you haven't got in my original question.
• Note that I keep looking for a WHEN-question (so your "DID"-questions are inappropriate ).
• The answer I keep looking for is: "David knew that David's father sold it yesterday" (i.e. "David knew that yesterday David's father sold it).
• The logical defect is the absence of a WHEN-question answered by the statement: "David Knew that David's father sold it yesterday".
• This logical defect does not exist in other languages (e.g. Chinese).

HOOTmag (talk) 12:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Sigh, the original question wasn't that complicated. The OP was asking whether you can add apply an interrogative word to a subordinate clause without it becoming a content clause. AFAIK, the answer is no, in standard formal English, you can't. Wh-movement only brings the wh-word to the front of the clause, and can't transform the entire sentence into a question. Yes, it's a "logical defect" if you think natural languages ought to allow every conceivable permutation of grammar, but that's just not the case. By your standard, HOOTmag, all natural languages are defective in some detail or another. Anyway, ambiguity is great!

I should mention, however, that IMO there's usually a solution to this issue, at least in the casual or informal register. E.g. "David knew that John sold it when?" just substitutes the question word for its anticipated answer, without any wh-movement. The prosodic stress on "when" indicates to the average English listener that the speaker is asking a question (and not dangling a subordinating conjunction). However, I don't think this workaround still applies if you have two embedded dependent clauses. I'd be interested to hear an opinion from an actual syntactician, though. :) Indeterminate (talk) 08:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about the formal grammar, rather than the informal one.

The formal Chinese grammar forces you to put the "when" after the subordinate clause to which the "when" refers, thus avoiding "logical defects".

Even under Wh-movement rules, the English grammar could have avoided such "logical defects" had it allowed us to use pseudo-sentences like:

• When David knew would David's friend sell it? (Answer: Tomorrow, David's father would).

As opposed to the following grammatical sentence:

• When did David know David's friend would sell it? (Answer: Yesterday, David did).

HOOTmag (talk) 12:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hootmag wrote: "The logical defect is the absence of a WHEN-question answered by the statement: "David Knew that David's father sold it yesterday"." "When David's father sold it, did David know?" might produce that answer. But it seems to me this question needs to be wrapped up. You've had multiple answers that establish that this use of "when" doesn't work in English. It is not a "deficiency" or a "logical defect" that a given language's grammar doesn't allow certain constructions, and certainly not all languages permit the kind of construction you're talking about. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

What I'm trying to claim is that English grammar is (to some extent) "inferior", compared to other languages (e.g. Chinese) - which do permit to choose any of two alternatives for WHEN-questions.

Note that your suggestion, "When David's father sold it, did David know?", is not a question about when David's father sold it, but rather about whether David knew. If you've intended to suggest a pseudo-sentence asking about when David's father sold it, then I've already suggested one: "When David knew did David's father sell it?"

HOOTmag (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

To claim that any language is grammatically inferior is itself a logical fallacy.

In response to your claim about "pseudo sentences," "When David's father sold it, did David know?" is not a pseudo sentence; it at least makes grammatical sense although it is a question about whether David knew at that time rather than at which time. The sentence "When David knew did David's father sell it?" is meaningless in English. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I've never claimed that English is inferior or that it has a logical defect, but rather that it's "inferior", and that it has a "logical defect", i.e. I've put scare quotes around the phrases: inferior, logical defect. Those scare quotes indicate that the phrases - around which the scare quotes are placed - should not mean here what they usually mean.

You can ask: "When David's father sold it, did David know that?", i.e. that David's father sold it, but I've never come across such a sentence (without "that" at the end) like: "When David's father sold it, did David know?", and I don't think such a sentence is grammatical, and that's why I called it: pseudo-sentence. However, If you mean: "Did David know when David's father sold it?" then it's not a WHEN-sentence but rather a DID-sentence. Anyways, even if there could exist such a sentence like: "When David's father sold it, did David know?" (with the meaning mentioned above), it's still not a WHEN-sentence, because a WHEN sentence should ask about when David's father sold it (or about when David knew), whereas your pseudo-sentence asks about whether David knew. As I've already pointed out, I've been looking for a WHEN-question - asking about when David's father sold it, so that the answer be (for example): "David knew that David's father sold it yesterday".

My pseudo-sentence "When David knew did David's father sell it?" - is really meaningless in English, just because English grammar doesn't let us use such sentencial-structures; However, had it been a grammatical sentence, it could have removed the "logical defect" from English grammar, and this is my main point I want you to get.

HOOTmag (talk) 22:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I really have no idea what you are going on about now. Your last comment "this is my main point I want you to get" comes across as rather patronising to me, I'm afraid, because there is no point to what you're saying and there is nothing to get. If your use of the phrase "logical defect" doesn't mean what it usually means, what on earth does it mean? Exploding Boy has spelled it out quite clearly for you – what you are looking for doesn't exist, and his example was not a "pseudo sentence", whatever that might be. My head is hurting. --Richardrj 23:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Patronising? no way. when two persons are talking to each other, either one wants the other to get one's point, although nobody tries to patronise.

I've already pointed out (at the beginning of the thread) that English grammar does not let us distinguish between a question asking about when David knew, and another question asking about when David's father dold it, so Exploding Boy doesn't have to spell out what I'm quite aware of since the beginning.

My point is what I've been claiming all along: English grammar has a "logical defect" (please pay attention to the scare quotes). This "logical defect" does not exist in (e.g.) Chinses, which enables you to build both a question asking about when David knew, and another question asking about when David's father sold it. This possibility is absent in English, and I called this absence: a "logical defect", whereas other people may call it: a "tolerable deficiency", and other people may call it: "cock-a-doodle-doo", etc. It does not matter how we call it, because the main point is the very phenonemon mentioned above, rather than its naming.

I wish you (including your hurting head) all the best.

HOOTmag (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

All I can say at this point is meh. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Cock-a-doodle-doo. HOOTmag (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

HOOTmag: don't start debates. Everyone else: don't encourage people to start debates. Malcolm XIV (talk) 00:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm XIV: don't start new debates about who has been the first one to start the debate in this thread which began with a simple question (and with no debates). HOOTmag (talk) 09:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Portuguese grammar

The question is about the term "Bibliografia sul-riograndense". Rio Grande do Sul is a state in Brazil. "sul-riograndense" in this term is an adjective. What intends the Portuguese grammar for the capitalization of an adjective standing for a state, a town or a village? Do they capitalize "sul-riograndense" or do they write it with a small initial letter? Or do they capitalize "sul" and write "riograndense" with a small initial letter? Doc Taxon (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't know about Portuguese specifically, but the majority of "continental" European languages do not capitalize adjectives derived from proper names... AnonMoos (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

But I want to be quite sure ... Doc Taxon (talk) 17:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

This google search indicates that both "sul-riograndense" and "Sul-Riograndense" are used, and that "Sul-riograndense" is not used. --NorwegianBlue 23:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Adjectives derived from locations are not capitalized in Portuguese. For example, a Brazilian is translated as "brasileiro" and Portuguese as "português". In your specific case, sul-riograndense is an adjective and means "from Rio Grande do Sul", which means that the same rule applies. If that helps making you quite sure, I'm Portuguese. 62.48.209.152 (talk) 16:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

English - Irish translation

How would 'you are a dirty mermaid' be translated in Irish with correct grammar?.. I can find the literal translation but it doesn't include the grammar... And I know it doesn't really make sense on any language... Long story... Thanks for any help81.34.108.202 (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Is maighdean mhara shalach tú if being a dirty mermaid is a permanent characteristic of the person; Tá tú i do mhaighdean mhara shalach if the person has not always been and/or is not always expected to be a dirty mermaid. If you want to put more focus on the fact of being a dirty mermaid, you can say Is maighdean mhara shalach atá ionat or (with more emphasis on the dirtiness while taking the being a mermaid for granted) Is salach an mhaighdean mhara atá ionat. +Angr 12:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

What if 'mermaid' is permanent and 'dirty' is not? —Tamfang (talk) 05:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

July 27

Naming of Polish Villages

Greetings! Quite a few Polish village names - for example Rymiatowszczyzna, Moniatowszczyzna, Spitowszczyzna Sibitowsszczyzna, Zborowszczyzna - end on szczyzna, i.e. (name of another village) + (szczyzna) = new village name. What does this ending mean? I was not able to find it in Polish dictionaries. What could be its root? Thanks very much for your help!. -- 06:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grey Geezer (talk • contribs) P.S. Sorry, I signed (logged in) with "Grey Geezer", however Signature was not translated.

Could be the Polish counterpart of Russian "-shchina", as in "Yezhovshchina", and also a number of placenames... AnonMoos (talk) 07:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm ... "the time of"? -- 10:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grey Geezer (talk • contribs)

It does not mean "time of". It is a sort of general purpose possessive derivational suffix, it has no particular meaning on its own. — Emil J. 12:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It exists as far south as Slovenian Ajdovščina. Still, that extra "z" in szczyzna makes me wonder if they're true friends... No such user (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, I was considering adding this, but comming up with no other Slovene -ščina town or village, decided against it. In the Slovene language, the -ščina suffix is used in mass nouns, for instance: "poljščina" = "polje" (field) + "-ščina" (indicates mass noun) = anything you might grow in a field. It is by far most common to form language names, though: TomorrowTime (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Trying to interpret: Then Zborowszczyzna would mean something like "Zborow-likish"? Is it that? Greetings -- 12:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grey Geezer (talk • contribs)

I would say, more like "Zborow-hood" -- sort of generic suffix (of, by, belonging to), but which is applicable only to certain words. No such user (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

We're moving seriously into guesswork here (especially considering I don't even speak Polish, only Slovene), but I think No such user might be right. TomorrowTime (talk) 15:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I also left the question on the persPage of a Polish WP-User - but it seems he is on vacation. (using the Button to sign) -- 07:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grey Geezer (talk • contribs)

-Szczyzna/-cczyzna is a combination of two suffixes: the adjectival suffix -ski/-cki and the nominal suffix -yzna. The former, as you probably know, is commonly found in Polish family names, especially noble family names. The latter is often used in the meaning "territory, domain, etc. of...". For example:

• ojciec, father → ojczyzna, fatherland.

It is not uncommon that a noun is converted into an adjective with -ski, and then again into a noun with -yzna. The -sk- cluster gets palatalized into -szcz- in the process and you get -szczyzna. Examples:

• pan, lord → pański, lord's → pańszczyzna, serfdom;
• król, king → królewski, royal → królewszczyzna, crown land.

The names of villages you're asking about most likely come from the names of their original owners. Rymiatowszczyzna, Moniatowszczyzna, Spitowszczyzna, Sibitowszczyzna and Zborowszczyzna were probably founded by Messrs Rymiatowski, Moniatowski, Spitowski, Sibitowski and Zborowski. Geographic names ending in -szczyzna/cczyzna may also refer to regions named for their major towns:

• Wilno → ziemia wileńska, Wilno territory → Wileńszczyzna;
• Nowy Sącz → ziemia sądecka, (Nowy) Sącz territory → Sądecczyzna.

The same pattern may be used to refer to languages:

• angielski, English (adj.) → angielszczyzna, English language
• polski, Polish (adj.) → polszczyzna, Polish language

Now you can ponder how to render into angielszczyzna the phrase used by Julian Tuwim, the great Jewish poet of the Polish language, to describe his real home: ojczyzna polszczyzna. — Kpalion 17:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds similar to "-ingen" in Germany, which roughly means "the place of the followers of <insert medieval warlord name here>", for example, modern Böblingen, reportedly named for an ancient warlord named Bobilo. This town name suffix is very common in parts of southern Germany. Cheers 91.32.107.15 (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

In English – according to at least one book I've read – there are a number of pairs like Blanking(s) and Blankington or Blankingham, where the ton or ham was smaller, perhaps at first only a single farm. —Tamfang (talk) 05:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Hard /ð/ (voiced dental fricative)

In IPA transcription, the < d > of Spanish is represented by /ð/. However, at least in some dialects, its pronunciation is much closer to /d/ (although the tongue is still kept in the /ð/ position). I.e., it is a "hard" /ð/. How can this be represented in IPA? The sound /dð/ or /d͡ð/ seems to come close, but puts the tongue in back of the teeth instead on the tip of the teeth. An imaginary voiced dental "infricative" (as in the voiced dental implosive) would have a somewhat similar sound, but would also be wrong, and furthermore cannot be written in IPA. Is there some way to represent a hard /ð/? — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 06:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Pullum and Ladusaw (Phonetic Symbol Guide, 2nd ed.) describe /d/ and /ð/ as "dental or alveolar" and "apico-dental or interdental" respectively. I guess what you want is a voiced interdental stop, but then again if the tip of your tongue is there I don't see how you could achieve a stop. As the subscripted "+" is IPA for further forward than usual, how about a "d" with a little "+" underneath it? NB (if it's not already obvious) I am not a phonetician. -- Hoary (talk) 06:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. That sounds plausible. — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 07:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Korean /d/ and /t/ are frequently interdental or dental; the tongue tip can touch the bottom/back of the front teeth, if they don't touch the alveolar ridge instead. Anyway, if they touch the bottom/back, they're both dental, and so you can just use the dental sign:

• /d̪ t̪/

This is the normal convention for Korean phonetics, as far as I know. --Kjoonlee 17:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't it simple be a Voiced dental plosive? --BishkekRocks (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

"Alveolo-velar lateral approximant"

Is /lˠ/ technically an alveolo-velar lateral approximant? The term "alveolo-velar" does not seem to be much used, if used professionally at all. But since /ˠ/ velarizes, and /l/ is an alveolar lateral approximant, and, for example, when a velar plosive (/g/) is labialized (/ʷ/) it is a labio-velar plosive (/gʷ/), does that not make /lˠ/ an alveolo-velar lateral approximant? ("Velo-alveolar lateral approximant" would be truer to form, but I can find even less attestation of the term "velo-alveolar".) If the answer to this is unknown, then the root of my question is this: what is the technical name for /lˠ/? — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 07:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. I got the answer elsewhere. — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 08:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

For anyone else reading this who may be interested, the answer is that is a velarized alveolar lateral approximant, also known as the "dark L" and also transcribed , which occurs in most varieties of English (except varieties spoken in Ireland) as the kind of "L" pronounced at the end of a syllable, e.g. in bill, ball. It can be heard at the beginning of syllable (e.g. like) in Scottish English, Australian English, some varieties of North American English, and stereotypical Russian-accented English. +Angr 12:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there not some distinction between between , which is both velarized and pharyngealized, and , which is simply velarized? For example, "wool" has a velarized and pharyngealized ell, while "loot" has simply a velarized ell? — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 17:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not actually true that is both velarized and pharyngealized, at least, not necessarily. The tilde diacritic indicates velarization or pharyngealization. Thus, in Russian is pharyngealized but in Catalan is velarized. Of course, simultaneous velarization and pharyngealization is indeed possible as this is the property of Standard Arabic's "emphatic" consonants (from what I can tell), though the difference is often glossed over. — Ƶ§œš¹ 03:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

French Question

Spotted through Twitter, I notice mention of "Grand Prix de Hongrie". Why is this not "...d'Hongrie?"

Many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.130.5 (talk) 08:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

There are some French words which have a so-called h aspiré (which is a misnomer in linguistic terminology, since no actual phonetic apiration is involved). What it means is that the usual contractions before vowel-initial words don't take place. In many dictionaries, the words with h aspiré are listed with an asterisk. AnonMoos (talk) 08:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

We even seem to have an article on it here: Aspirated_h (though it has problems with respect to linguistics...). AnonMoos (talk) 08:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks, I will investigate! 80.193.130.5 (talk) 09:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

July 28

Capital Spring or spring season?

Is this one of those AE/BE things or is there just some editor with his/her own preference around? Should seasons be capital of small? 71.236.26.74 (talk) 10:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Words denoting seasons should in almost all cases begin with a lowercase letter—see Misplaced Pages:MOS#Calendar_items. Deor (talk) 13:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

...keeping in mind that other rules of capitalization still apply. If you're going to the spring dance, keep it lowercase unless its title is Spring Dance. Mitchell k dwyer (talk) 15:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks y'all. I've corrected the article. Resolved

Chinook jargon ?

What does "split the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs" mean ? Is it a common Alaskan expression ? 98.220.252.228 (talk) 18:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Cheechako is a Chinook word meaning tenderfoot, used chiefly in Alaska; a sourdough is a veteran inhabitant of Alaska or Northwestern Canada. So the idea seems weeding out the n00bs, or probably in her case, "true Alaskans," more or less.

I don't find the phrase exactly as quoted above anywhere but out of Palin's mouth, but there's a 1987 book by Thomas Wiedemann entitled Cheechako to Sourdough, and here's a blog post from 2003 about cheechakos and sourdouughs, so the idea of contrasting the two is out there. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation and links. You don't live up to your name! 98.220.252.228 (talk) 23:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Eng. to Ger. "blame culture"

How do you say "blame culture" in German?--Quest09 (talk) 18:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Sündenbock-Kultur? , have a look at this too: . Leo is king! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Good question! First let's google up a good definition of "blame culture". In a welcome change from other keyword searches using Google, no Misplaced Pages page appears in the first screenful. Bliss! The second hit seems to give a good definition: a set of attitudes, for example, within a business or organization, characterized by an unwillingness to take risks or accept responsibility. But how to say it in German? The two links offered by Adam don't work unfortunately. Sündenbock-Kultur? That's one possibility, though I haven't seen it often enough that I would recommend its use without context or explication. Other possibilities worth playing with: Schnell war wieder ein Schuldiger gefunden. Beamten-Mentalität. Dienst nach Vorschrift. Schubladendenken. Duckmäusertum.Vollkasko-Mentalität. Jede Woche / jedes Jahr / ... wird wieder eine neue Sau durchs Dorf getrieben. Besser er als ich. Mönchlein Mönchlein, du gehst einen schweren Gang. Den letzten beißen die Hunde. Some of the above are proverbs. In German writing, proverbs are often pressed into service when an English writer would be riffing on a set of stereotypes or cliches instead. Above all, when recreating a text for a German readership do not worry about the German text running longer, with some sentences or paragraphs suddenly twice or even three times as long as they were in English. The language has its own rhythm and cadences. Go to Youtube and watch a few episodes of Büro Büro for inspiration, maybe also an episode or two of Stromberg. Good luck!--Goodmorningworld (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

A lot depends on context but most of Goodmorningworld's suggestions have a slightly different ring to them than "blame culture". They may still fit your particular use of the term. "...mit dem Finger auf Andere zeigen." or more commonly as "nicht mit dem Finger auf Andere zeigen" embodies the blame part. You could e.g. phrase it as In einer Gesellchaft die gern mit dem Finger auf Andere zeigt. Agreed on "Sündenbock-Kultur". Watch out with Kultur though, many uses are different than the English "culture" which is often closer to "...denken", "Gedankenwelt", Umfeld", "Gemeinschaft" or "Gesellschaft". Another term would be "<etwas> jemand anderem in die Schuhe schieben". You'll have to rewrite the phrase somewhat to use the most common German equivalent "Schwarzer Peter" based on the Old maid (card game). Eine <Unternehmens>kultur die den Schwarzen Peter gern anderen zuschiebt. or "Ein Umfeld in dem man Schwarzer Peter spielt." 71.236.26.74 (talk) 02:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

"Schwarzer Peter": yes, good one. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 08:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC) In any case, we should emphasize that "blame culture" is not so frequently encountered in U.S. English. In business journalism we would expect to see something like "playing the blame game" or "round up the usual suspects" more frequently; this knowledge will inform the choices made in the German-language version." --Goodmorningworld (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

"The profession of being a waiter"

I believe that a profession is such things as being a lawyer, architect, or doctor. Yet on the internet, particularly in American usage, I often see jobs that require much less education being described a profession, rather than as a job or a career. Is there a word that describes this devaluation of the term? 78.147.27.114 (talk) 18:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. You're talking about two different uses of the word. In its traditional sense, a profession is a career requiring the earning of some kind of certification, the components of which are education, some kind of internship, the passing of some kind of test, and official acceptance by one's peers. Accountants, lawyers, doctors, architects, and teachers (please, let's not forget the teachers) fall into this category. There has always been an implied white-collar aspect to the term as well.

The other use basically means someone who gets paid to do a job and does it in a manner that complies with professional behavior. This is a very different concept. While a waiter CAN be very professional in his or her behavior, waiting tables is not a profession, in the strictest sense of the word. One must be very, very, VERY careful in how one uses the term, especially when using it in the more exclusive sense. I'm a teacher, and I had to pass a series of very expensive, very challenging tests to become one, and had to jump through all kinds of other hoops to earn that certification, and I'm proud of the designation. However, to refer to myself as a professional to the exclusion of the custodians and secretaries would be to invite all kinds of angry feelings and resentment. While I do consider my job a profession and their jobs something else, the tactful thing is usually not to express it. Mitchell k dwyer (talk) 20:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

That's about it. It's certainly possible to have a traditional profession (doctor, etc) but not operate professionally, in which case you could be in a lot of trouble from your peers, the law, or both. And it's possible to not have a profession as such but be a street cleaner, say, but do the most professional job in the world, exceeding everyone's expectations. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the white collar bit is important. There are plenty of jobs which require certification of some kind that isn't considered "professional certification". Various kinds of engineers, airline pilots, HGV drivers, nurses, etc. I think to a large extent the term is purely traditional. Some things are traditionally considered professions, anything else isn't. Trying to explain it with rules is only ever going to be an approximation. --Tango (talk) 22:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Nobody's answered the question. 89.243.47.131 (talk) 22:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Pejoration. --ColinFine (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Title inflation is common in businesses where raises in pay are not possible.DOR (HK) (talk) 01:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

"The profession of being a waiter" reminds me of a definition of a sommelier. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I concur with the word pejoration being the answer to the question.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 15:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Dialect/accent

Hi,

In German, different dialects are talked about a lot, both within Germany (eg North vs Bavarian dialects), and between countries. But when Germans ask about English dialects, I feel it's the wrong word, I feel like most different variations of English are just accents - mainly because I don't think the grammar changes between them. Are there actually any good examples of different English dialects, or am I correct in assuming mostly they are just accents?

Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Most of the accents you hear do have their own grammar and language. Scouse, Geordie and Black Country are the most obvious. Black Country, for example, retains some words which are Germanic in origin such as "bin" for "am" (ich bin = I am), and also some words retained from Old English such as eow, eower for you, your. It's just that you have to listen to people talking between themselves to find such examples these days. Also, the standard English accent seems to have changed, and our young people seem to be talking with a mid-Atlantic accent for some reason. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Also Cumbrian dialect - which has a few words of old origin - such as 1,2,3 - see Yan Tan Tethera, however in my experience of people from cumbria they commonly speak very understandable english - possibly in more rural areas - eg shepheards etc .

The same applies to the yorkshire accent - only if you go to very rural areas do you get a chance to here an old dialect amongst the farmers (which can be totally incomprehensible)83.100.250.79 (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

There are grammatical differences between British English and American English, for example in subject-verb agreement. In American English, you can say only "The audience is listening", while in British English it's also possible (perhaps even more idiomatic?) to say "The audience are listening". (There are even minimal pairs like "England is..." vs. "England are..." or "Liverpool is ..." vs. "Liverpool are...".) American English can use the simple past in sentences like "Did you eat yet?", whereas British English can only use the perfect "Have you eaten yet?". Some varieties of British English can use the past participles "stood" and "sat" to form progressives ("He was stood there", "I was sat there"), which isn't possible in any variety of American English. And so on and so forth. The differences really aren't only in accent. +Angr 20:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

There are many differences between American English and British English (see American_English_and_British_English_differences, including the examples given above. Note that this article needs citations for verification. -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 05:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

People talk a lot about "Dialekte" in German, but the differences are (especially as far as grammar is concerned) not very pronounced. Unless we're talking about Plattdeutsch, which is a true dialect in my eyes. For all the other "dialects", I think the German word "Mundart" is more appropriate. 80.123.210.172 (talk) 20:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Plattdeutsch is a separate language with several dialects and accents that can vary from one village to the next. (OR as a cousin of mine proved you could get beaten up as a kid for being from the "wrong" village and speaking with their accent. :-) The fact that many speakers these days started out with Hochdeutsch as their first language has led to a loss of some of the original grammar, vocabulary and language patterns. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 01:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Plattdeutsch is now a (or even many) "dialect(s)", but is also simply an older form of the whole language Deutsch, spoken only in the northern part of the country (an earlier form of which developed into the Dutch langauge centuries ago). So it is not to Hochdeutsch (now spoken) like the Scottish language is to English. Perhaps more like italian regional languages to school taught "Italian"--Radh (talk) 13:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

That statement is way too absolute to fly. At best the status is disputed. The Council of Europe, the German government and the Dutch government classify it as a language. I don't have any knowledge of the differences between regional Italian languages and school Italian. I do know that there is far more difference between Hochdeutsch and Plattdüütsch than just a couple of shifted vowels. You end up in a lot of mess if you divvy up the various Plattdüütsch dialects and declare them to be separate dialects of Hochdeutsch. There are separate dialects of Hochdeutsch in areas with the same Plattdüütsch dialect and vice versa. Earlier hopes by some that all Plattdüütsch speakers would just die off an the whole region would switch to Hochdeutsch have been proven false. Following a brief period of the local rural population trying to teach their children Hochdeutsch as a first language fizzled and many have reverted to either a bilingual or Plattdüütsch first, then Hochdeutsch. (The advantage in school they had hoped to gain for their children in teaching them Hochdeutsch first often didn't materialize.) In towns and cities on the other hand Plattdüütsch is usually only acquired by some interested parties. Most of the written Plattdüütsch originates there. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 15:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

When using the words "dialect" and "accent" to refer to different speech-varieties of the English language, "accent" tends to be used to refer to different pronunciations of somewhat quasi-standard English, while "dialect" tends to be used for varieties which depart very significantly from quasi-standard English, and show marked local features. AnonMoos (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and it's possible to speak, say, Scottish English using exactly the same local words as a native Scot would use, but with a Spanish accent; or Jamaican English with an Albanian accent, or ... . -- JackofOz (talk) 21:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The Scottish English page describes grammatical and vocabulary features of the dialect of Scottish English. Scots language (and the Northern Irish variant Ulster Scots) is clearly distinct from standard English with grammatical differences, different phonemes, and many unique vocabulary words, and people argue if Scots is a distinct language or one or more dialects of English. Indian English is very different again, not just in vocabulary. (I'm not entirely sure if the question means "dialects of England" or "of the English language", so if this doesn't answer the question, that's why.) --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 11:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

AA(V)E differs syntactically from standard US English; the WP article on it includes a brief attempt to describe the differences and you'll find a good treatment in Lisa J. Green, African American English: A Linguistic Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002; ISBN 0-521-89138-8). Belfast English also differs syntactically, and in ways that are of some interest to "Minimalist" analyses (though not described in Mid Ulster English, which appears to be the most relevant article in WP); you'll therefore see its salient points mentioned in recent theoretical grammars of English (not for the faint-hearted!) by Andrew Radford and others. -- Hoary (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Japanese names

I'm looking for a comprehensive web site giving the correspondences between Japanese given names in hiragana/katakana (and possibly rōmaji) and their kanji form(s). For example, Akane (あかね, アカネ) can be written as 茜, 亜伽音, 亜佳子, 亜兼, 哀華音, 愛茜, 愛果音, 愛光. I'd like also to find an Internet resource providing a list of nanori for every kanji, as they are always extremely hard to find in normal online dictionaries (even in Wiktionary). --151.51.21.110 (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a difficult thing, so I'm told, even for Japanese people, to know how to write some people's names because there are different ways to write a name, as you know. The reverse is also true, that characters can be read differently as names. There are a few resources listed at the bottom of Japanese name, but I don't know any truly comprehensive ones. Steewi (talk) 00:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You could try Jdic.com if you know the reading/hiragana. There's a book by PG O'Neill called Japanese Names too. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

A conventional (dead tree) 漢和中辞典 is likely to give you plenty of bizarre but attested readings for each kanji. If you happen to be in Japan, look in a used bookstore: these things are dirt cheap. Look up a few characters and see if there's a subheading for personal names: in the dictionary I happen to have in front of me now there is not, but in the one I have halfway across the city there is (if I remember right). -- Hoary (talk) 09:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

ENAMDICT has 170+ entries for あかね and KANJIDIC has nanori (though not a complete set). Both are searchable through WWWJDIC (jdic.com). For the first choose ENAMDICT from the "Dictionary" drop-down, for the second follow the "Kanji Lookup" link. You can also download the data files and use offline readers, which are available for every major OS and many handhelds. -- BenRG (talk) 10:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Summarizing of "Crisis" section of "War of the Pacific" article and style of references

The following is a "summarized" version of a section in the War of the Pacific article:

"The dry climate of the Peruvian and Bolivian coasts had permitted the accumulation and preservation of vast amounts of high-quality nitrate deposits such as guano and saltpeter over many thousands of years. In the 1840s, the discovery of the use of guano as a fertilizer and saltpeter as a key ingredient in explosives made the Atacama desert strategically and economically valuable. Bolivia, Chile, and Peru suddenly found themselves sitting on the largest reserves of a resource that the world needed.

During the Chincha Islands War (1864-1866), Spain, under Queen Isabella II, attempted to use an incident involving Spanish citizens in Peru in order to dominate the guano-rich Chincha Islands and re-establish Spanish influence over an area that they had previously controlled with the Viceroyalty of Peru. After the bombardment of Valparaiso, Peru and Chile signed a defensive and offensive alliance against Spain in December 5, 1865. Together, with the minor aid of Bolivia and Ecuador (who had previously had an inconclusive war with Peru from 1858 to 1860), they forced the Spanish to withdraw after achieving victories at Papudo, Abtao, and Callao.

While during this time Peru and Chile enjoyed an alliance based on mutual interests, a conflicting situation between Bolivia and Chile developed due to that no permanent borders had been established between both nations. Claiming their borders according to the uti possidetis principle, Bolivia and Chile disagree on whether the territory of Charcas, originally part of the Viceroyalty of Peru and, later, part of the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata, had access to the sea. Eventually, the two countries negotiated the Boundary Treaty of 1866 (commonly referred to as the "Treaty of Mutual Benefits") that established the 24th parallel as their national boundaries, and entitled Chile and Bolivia equal rights to share the tax revenue on mineral exports from the territory between the 23rd and 25th parallels, which comprised a large part of the Atacama desert. In 1872, Peru began to get involved in the dispute when it attempted to use its naval power in order to help Bolivia gain a definite boundary.

The population of the Atacama became quickly populated by Chilean investors backed by European, mainly British, capital. Due to the natural barrier that the Andes mountains created between the Bolivian altiplano, Bolivians were not able to colonize the area with as great a quantity. Chilean and foreign enterprises in the region eventually extended all the way to the Peruvian saltpeter mines. During the 1870s, Peru decided to capitalize on the guano exploitation and nationalized all industries in the region, which caused Peru to hold 58.8% of all saltpeter production, while Chile held 19% and Great Britain 13.5% of the production. After the War of the Pacific, Peru was left without saltpeter production, Chile decreased its production to 15%, and Great Britain increased its production to 55%.

On February 6, 1873, Peru and Bolivia signed a treaty of defensive alliance which guaranteed the independence, sovereignty and the integrity of their territories, and obliged them to defend each other against all foreign aggression. An additional clause kept the treaty secret among the allies. Argentina had begun talks with Peru and Bolivia to join the alliance, and the Chamber of Deputies, in a secret session, approved the law, but the Argentine Senate postponed the matter to 1874. Chile was not directly mentioned in the text of the treaty, but was not informed about its existence, which leads Chilean historians to believe that the treaty was in reality aimed against Chile.

In 1874, Chile and Bolivia superseded the boundary treaty signed in 1866 with a new boundary treaty granting Bolivia the authority to collect full tax revenue between the 23rd and 24th parallels, fixing the tax rates on Chilean companies for 25 years and calling for Bolivia to open up. Heavy British capital investment drove development through the area, and most of the exploitation of the coastal region of Atacama was conducted by Chilean companies and British investments. On December 26, 1874, the recently built ironclad Cochrane arrived in Valparaiso; it remained in Chile until the completion of the Blanco Encalada, throwing the balance of power in the south Pacific ocean towards Chile. Following this turn of events, Peru postponed the Argentine signing of the defensive alliance treaty."

The Questions

1. The first question is simple. Do any of you think it is possible to further summarize this section without taking away the most important points? If yes, can you give some examples?
2. The second question is in regards to the references. Is it necessary to include excerpts (Quotes) of the information found on books? Wouldn't it be easier just to do a normal MLS citation in regards to books?

Here is a sample reference from the paragraph I just posted:

See Private note of Riva-Agüero to Novoa, November 20 1872. Godoy papers. Cited in Gonzalo Bulnes, Chile Peru, the causes of the War 1879, page 58 and 59:

It is desirable that once for all, and as soon as possible, the relations between the two Republics should be defined, because it is necessary to arrive at an arrangement satisfactory to both parties. If Chile dealing with this boundary question seizes the most favourable opportunity to take possession of that coast-line, it is necessary that their plans develop before Chile is in possession of the ironclads under construction, in order that in the definite settlement of this question, the influence, which we are in a position to exert by means of our maritime preponderance may have due weight.

I know this may seem like a bit of a challenge, but then again the several times I have been here I have received extremely positive results. Thanks in advance for everyone who helps.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 21:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

July 29

Indian English: acceptable or not

Misplaced Pages's article on Indian English lists various ways in which the English language spoken in India differs from "Standard English", however, the article does not say which is more acceptable among the "educated classes" in the country. In India, are you more likely to get in trouble in polite company for using the Indian variety of English or for using the Anglo-American variety? What about different forms of writing: a newspaper article, a grant proposal, correspondence with the government, business-to-business communications, legal drafting? --Goodmorningworld (talk) 13:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Though I'm not Indian, I know that, traditionally and formally, the British style is considered more "correct", due to the historical grounds in India; However, in the last decades, Indian English undergoes a clear process of Americanization, even among the educated classes, so nobody may get in trouble when using American properties of English. HOOTmag (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, but that was not what my question was about. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought your question had been about the British English vs. the American English, but now I've just noticed that your question had been about the Indian variety of English vs. the Anglo-American variety. As far as I know (and again, I'm not Indian), nobody gets in trouble for using any style of English, but let's wait for the indians here to answer your question directly. HOOTmag (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no simple or single answer to your question, because:

• Some of the quirks of Indian English (-ji and shree; use of "Kindly" and "respected" in formal correspondence) are considered more acceptable in formal use than their Anglo counterparts.
• Other quirks (most of the examples listed in Grammar quirks), are looked down upon by the "educated classes", and not (usually) found in newspapers etc.
• Yet other quirks (most of the examples used in Interjections and casual references) are colloquialisms mainly prevalent among teens and youngsters, and used chiefly in conversation with their peers (cf. dude, yo etc)
• Finally there are some differences in vocabulary, and terms such as lakh (hundred thousand), crore (ten million) are routinely used and often preferred over million, billion etc.

In short, written Indian English is not very different in grammar from British English; as mentioned above, there are differences in vocabulary as the language has adapted to account for local foods, habits, customs etc. In my judgment, there are more differences in spelling and usage between British- and American English than between (written) Indian- and British English. Try reading an Indian newspaper (say, The Hindu) and see if you spot any differences in grammar. Abecedare (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

That was very insightful Abecedare.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 20:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :Yaar, good stuff LOL! Okay, here's a (strictly hypothetical, of course) situation: Let's say you're working for an Indian company and you're being asked to send a memo to the home offices in Mumbai. Now, your letter is in somewhat bland but perfectly ordinary English as spoken by Brits and (former) colonials including 'Murcans. HOWEVER.... The boss asks you to show him the memo before you send it off. Then he says, "Fine but change this and this." Turns out, he wants you to use prepositions in non-standard ways. Instead of, "A performance OF Verdi BY the Haffenreffer Opera Company," he wants you to write, "A performance ON Verdi OF the Haffenreffer etc." So, do you tell him he is WRONG (and piss him off)? Do as you're told (and risk bringing down the wrath of the home office on your boss)? What? --Goodmorningworld (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

That depends on who is more likely to "fire" you!

Sticking to grammar, are you sure the boss understand the intended meaning correctly ? The sentence he wrote would make sense if he thought that Verdi is a member of the Haffenreffer Opera Company, and the performance was about Verdi. Perhaps the situation can be elided by rephrasing the sentence, "The Haffenreffer Opera Company performed a composition by Verdi ..." and hoping that the Indian boss doesn't suspect the reason.

§: In somewhat colloquial Indian English "to fire" someone can mean that you scolded the person, rather than laid them off; also used as "I got a firing from my boss today morning" :-) Not sure if such usage is prevalent in UK or US. Abecedare (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Abecedare, you're a treasure. One fine morning we're all going to wake up and discover, it's official: Indian English has forked from Anglo-American English and become a language in its own right. And it will be Abecedare's regular language column in The Economist informing us of the event. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

In the American English sense, the word "fire" (in job-related terms) simply means that you no longer have your job because your boss, well, "fired" you. The only "good" meaning for "fire" that I've ever heard in the US is when somebody tells you that "You're on Fire" (you're doing extremely well in something). Even then, you should probably still check whether you're actually on fire (as in burning). lol.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 21:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's a difference: The Hindu uses the word "thrice" about seven times more often than The Times does. But of course that's a difference in vocabulary, not grammar. I can't think of a way to reliably check its use of the progressive present with a stative meaning (I am knowing him very well). +Angr 20:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that you'll find sentences like "I am knowing him very well" in edited writing, although such use is common enough in spoken Indian English.

Aside: Channel V (a competitor of MTV India) had a series of promotional spots, starring the character Quick Gun Murugan and tag line "We are like this only", that parodied a certain genre of Tamil/Western action movies and Indian English. Some of the clips can be seen on youtube: , , . Abecedare (talk) 21:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Attributing sentence to author

Which sentence is better?

1. According to Peruvian writter, Emilio Luna Vegas, Cáceres's troops faced against the better equipped and armed Chilean troops with the usage of archaic weaponry such as machetes, spears, slings, clubs, stones, and few old muskets.

Or

1. Cáceres's troops faced against the better equipped and armed Chilean troops with the usage of archaic weaponry such as machetes, spears, slings, clubs, stones, and few old muskets.

I ask this because there's a user who is essentially having almost every other sentence have "According to," which really destroys the readability of the article. It makes it end up sounding more like a term paper than an encyclopedia.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Using the "According to ..." phrasing casts more doubt on the statement. That is, mentioning that it is "according to" one person draws attention to the fact that there are others who disagree. Using just the reference, on the other hand, implies that the statement is generally accepted by most people familiar with the subject. In your case, the fact that the nationality of the writer is included further changes the statement, implying that being Peruvian is somehow relevant to Vegas's assessment of the situation. - The character of the underlying statements is the ultimate arbiter of what is best. If they are generally accepted statements, and we're just using Vegas as an authoritative reference, the second option would likely be preferred. If, however, there is serious disagreement among historians as to the veracity of the statements, drawing attention to who said it and their potential biases is a good thing. However, if it is indeed every other sentence getting this treatment, a better form may be to use separate paragraphs, with only the first sentence doing the disclaiming and following sentences being left with an implicit disclaimer. (e.g. "According to {Scholar 1} ... {Sentence}. {Sentence}. ... {Sentence}. {Paragraph break} {Scholar 2} disagrees, stating that ... {Sentence}. {Sentence}. {Sentence}.) I'd suggest dropping a note on the user's talk page asking what concerns he's trying to address. It could be a simple misreading of the WP:Neutral point of view and Misplaced Pages:Avoid weasel words policies, thinking (incorrectly) that every time we reference someone, we need to explicitly say who it is in the text. -- 128.104.112.87 (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 18:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the issues discussed above, there are also minor flaws with the punctuation and/or word usages in both versions. Possible improvements would be:

1. According to the Peruvian writer Emilio Luna Vegas, Cáceres's troops faced the better equipped and armed Chilean troops with archaic weaponry such as machetes, spears, slings, clubs, stones, and a few old muskets.

and

1. Cáceres's troops faced the better equipped and armed Chilean troops with archaic weaponry such as machetes, spears, slings, clubs, stones, and a few old muskets.

Arguably "better-equipped . . . Chilean troops" (note the hyphen) would be more correct, but in this instance it would also require "-armed" (i.e. "better-equipped and -armed Chilean troops"), which is a little awkward. Also, as "troops" implies a body of regular soldiery, would "Cáceres's forces" be more appropriate? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 02:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. "Caceres's forces" is probably more appropiate. There were some regular troops under his command, but the vast majority were simple militia or rebels (Montoneros in Spanish).--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 03:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sentence Check

Can any of you please analyze the following sentence?

"After a taxation controversy in a territory disputed by Chile and Bolivia, the crisis worsened following the Chilean invasion of Bolivian territory and the discovery of a secret defensive alliance between Bolivia and Peru."

Is it in correct English grammar? Does it seem to push a POV of some sort? Thanks in advance.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't see any obvious grammatical problems. I also don't see any POV issues. It's pretty much all statements of verifiable facts, except for the assertion that the crisis worsened, which is an opinion which may or may not be controversial, depending on the crisis. The sentence construction, though, implies that there is a link between the taxation crisis and the invasion. If there isn't a clear, verifiable link between the two (like an official Chilean government position that the invasion was the result of the tax crisis), it's probably POV to imply that there is. One additional issue, though, is that I'd prefer to see less ambiguous-ness. "a taxation controversy": Which one? What happened? "in a territory": Which one? - These need not be handled in the sentence itself, but it would be good to treat them in the surrounding sentences. -- 128.104.112.87 (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. Yes, there is a verifiable link (actually, there are links) that link the taxation controversy directly to the invasion. This sentence is in the Lead paragraph of the article; do you think it truly requires explanation in the lead section?--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The sentence is confusing, though, because its construction makes it difficult to follow what happened. Apparently the worsening of the crisis occurred (a) after a taxation controversy and (b) following an invasion and the discovery of a secret alliance. So apparently there was a taxation controversy, then there was an invasion and the discovery of a secret alliance, and then the crisis worsened. The reader is left uncertain how these disparate elements fit together. John M Baker (talk) 20:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It's supposed to be a quick summary of what happened. The sentence is going in the WP:Lead section of the article. The questions you raise are exactly the type of questions that readers are supposed to ask themselves: Therefore, they will look more closely into the article for the response.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

If you're putting it into the lead section, that's even more of a reason for making it simpler and easier to read. The way it's currently drafted, people won't "look more closely into the article", they'll be put off from going any further. For it to work as a summary, it needs to be made less confusing and to be broken down more clearly into its constituent parts. John M Baker is quite right, you need to make it clear how they fit together in the lead. --Richardrj 08:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, if there's any way you can get by the current disputes going on in the article, as every newly added sentence or word starts a bomb of discussion, then I would surely make my best attempts to break and expand the different parts of the sentence: This is currently the article's lead:

The War of the Pacific, occurring from 1879-1884, was a conflict between Chile and the joint forces of Bolivia and Peru. Also known as the "Saltpeter War," the war arose from disputes over the control of territory that contained substantial mineral-rich deposits. After a taxation controversy in a territory disputed by Chile and Bolivia, the crisis was deepened after the Chilean invasion of Bolivian territory and the discovery of a secret defensive alliance between Bolivia and Peru. The war officially began on 1879, after the Chilean declaration of war and the activation of the casus foederis of the treaty between Peru and Bolivia. The conclusion of the conflict ultimately led to the Chilean acquisition of the Peruvian territories of Tarapaca and Arica, as well as the disputed Bolivian department of Litoral, leaving Bolivia as a landlocked country.

The disputed territory is the "Litoral Department," the controversy is a "ten cents tax raise on a British-Chilean company by Bolivia," the Chileans invaded because they claimed that their border treaty with Bolivia had been broken due to the tax raise, and then the Chileans intercepted a letter that led them to discover the "secret defensive alliance." That's pretty much the crisis.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 15:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Anybody willing to give a shot at creating a better sentence based on the information I provided?--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 15:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

July 30

Need help with Arabic

How would you say the following in Arabic:

1) "India and China"? Would it be al-Hind wa al-Sin?

2) "Travels through India and China"?

Thanks. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 04:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

How about "rihla fi'l-Hind wa'l-Sin", Template:Lang-ar. (Or do you have to repeat "fi" the second time?) Adam Bishop (talk) 07:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

No, you don't have to repeat the fii. If you're pronouncing it, remember that al-Siin is pronounced aS-Siin. Steewi (talk) 01:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Non-toxic

How should we hyphenate the word "non-toxic", in the context of;

Dry ice has the advantage of being relatively cheap and completely non-toxic.

Should it be "non toxic", "non-toxic" or "nontoxic"?

 Chzz  ►  08:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I would go with "non-toxic" as per your thread header. "Nontoxic" might work as an alternative, but writing it as two words won't do. --Richardrj 08:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Not everyone agrees with this, but IMHO there is no such English word as "non". It's a word element (like "un", "in", "ab", "ig", "pro", etc), and therefore always needs a hyphen (non-toxic), or at the very least needs to be attached to the word it's negating (nontoxic). -- JackofOz (talk) 08:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a bound morpheme, in other words. Indeterminate (talk) 11:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This is another of those pesky British-versus-American things. Folks on the eastern side of the Atlantic tend to use hyphens in non- words much more freely than folks on the western side, who tend to spell them solid. In Merriam-Webster dictionaries (U.S.), for instance, all non- words, including nontoxic, are entered in solid form; and U.S. style guides also recommend the solid spellings, almost without exception. Deor (talk) 12:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Also remember the (obsolescent?, British-English?) rule ("not so much a code, more of a guideline, really, Ah-harr") where, with non-bound morphemes, one writes for example "The blood-red sky . . ." but "The sky was blood red." 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Efficiency of written languages

The question above about Polish villages got me thinking about the relative efficiency of written languages. By that, I mean, the ratio of the number of letters required to write a text vs. the number of syllables required to speak it. Or some similar measure. Polish looks horrendously difficult for many people because of all the -sz- and -cz- combinations, often appearing side by side, as in "-szcz-", which the languages that use the Cyrillic alphabet handle with just one letter, -щ-. For this sound, written Russian, say, is 4 times more "efficient" than written Polish, because it requires 4 times fewer letters. Then there are converse examples: English and many languages use one letter, x, for the -ks- sound, whereas some other languages have to spell out the component k and s sounds with 2 letters (Russian uses к and с). Then there's the question of diacritics: Vietnamese looks like there are hardly any words at all that don't use at least one; and often up to half a dozen. Then there languages like Chinese and Japanese that use pictograms, sometimes needing up to about 20 brush strokes each, often for not much of a result in terms of spoken syllables. Have any studies been done on this sort of thing to determine the most and least "efficient" written languages? -- JackofOz (talk) 09:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You may want to look at this old Reference Desk thread.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 09:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Although that thread's about information efficiency and Jack seems to be asking about phonological efficiency. There's articles here on the subject, although I doubt they'll be much help. Orthography talks about efficiency meaning grapheme-to-phoneme ratio, Phonemic orthography talks about the same thing. The orthography article also talks briefly about "deep" vs. "shallow" orthographies, but it conflates the idea with "defectiveness"... I'm working on a correction, but in the meantime keep in mind that it's inaccurate. Anyway, I'm not aware of any studies on comparative orthography efficiency, but if you come across any good ones, could you post them on Talk:Orthography? :) Indeterminate (talk) 11:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Polish szcz may look like a mouthful, but in English you need exactly just as many letters to represent the same sounds: shch. Compare it with German, which needs seven: schtsch. But the least efficient language I know is French, where it seems that about only half the letters in any sentence are pronounced, and eaux is just a single vowel! I suppose the most efficient languages should be those for which the alphabets they use were originally designed. Latin alphabet worked well for Classical Latin, but why should it work for languages with completely different phonologies, like English, German, Polish or Vietnamese? Those other languages have to make do with digraphs, trigraphs, diacritics and other ortographic quirks. Cyrillic alphabet was originally designed for Old Bulgarian, so it works well for Slavic languages. If Mieszko I had chosen Slavic-rite Christianity as his religion in 966, then maybe Polish would be easier to spell today (if you know Cyrillic, of course). But he picked Latin-rite Christianity instead, so we use Latin alphabet now. I think the folks who created modern Polish ortography in the 16th century did a pretty good job anyway – it's quite consistent and almost phonemic. — Kpalion 17:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I just had a look at the interwiki links at Nikita Khrushchev. Here's a little breakdown you may find interesting (I included only selected languages, but feel free to add more):

# Letters	Languages	Transliterations of Хрущёв
1	Russian	Хрущёв
2	Bulgarian, Catalan, Czech, Turkish, Hebrew	Хрушчов, Khrusxov, Chruščov, Kruşçev, חרושצ'וב
3	Finnish, Basque, Hungarian	Hruštšov, Khrustxev, Hruscsov
4	Danish, English, Icelandic, Polish	Khrusjtjov, Khrushchev, Krústsjov, Chruszczow
5	Dutch, French	Chroesjtsjov, Khrouchtchev
6
7	German	Chruschtschow

Naturally, that tells us only about the šč cluster and little about each language's efficiency in general, but it may be still some starting point. — Kpalion 18:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Irish is pretty inefficient; a word like bhfuil uses six letters to spell three sounds (the word is basically homophonous with English will), and some words use the two letters "fh" to spell no sound at all. +Angr 21:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Is that not because the 'silent' letters are actually conveying information about how the adjacent non-silent letters are to be pronounced? (Interested in linguistics, but entirely Erse-less.) 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, sometimes. But often it reflects the language's history of phonological change. In other words, maybe it used to be pronounced the way it's spelled. A phoneme in a particular environment might get dropped from the standard pronunciation, but written language changes much more slowly than spoken language, so it takes a long time for the spelling to catch up. These days, if you try to spell things phonetically, people tell you "you're doing it wrong". Ironic, eh? Indeterminate (talk) 01:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ger. Eng. Alleinerziehender = single parent?

Are both words completely equal? I get the impression that in German you have to raise your children alone to be "Alleinerziehender", but in English it possible that you are single and have children (even if uncommon).--Quest09 (talk) 10:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you are considered both alleinerziehend in German-speaking countries and a single parent in English-speaking ones even if the child's other parent has partial custody, if you have primary custody. If both the child's parents live together and share in childrearing, I don't think they're considered "single parents" even if they're not married. It doesn't mean single in the sense of unmarried, it means single in the sense of doing it all yourself. +Angr 11:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you'd be a "single parent" even if you were living with someone who isn't the child's other parent, e.g. in the case of remarriage, or even if the parent was cohabitating with someone who was helping to raise the child. -- 128.104.112.100 (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sentence Grammar Check (Another one)

Hello once again. This is, yet again, another sentence that is being disputed as grammatically incorrect. So, I'd like to know the opinion of the experts:

"Chile was not mentioned in the text of the treaty, but was not informed about its existence, which led the Chilean government to believe that the treaty was in reality aimed against Chile."

Anything wrong? Is the "but" correctly added into the sentence? Do you think their is any editor POV on the sentence?

This whole thing is dealing with the defensive treaty. The sentences around it go into more detail about each thing.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Something like "Although Chile was not mentioned in the text of the treaty, the signatories' failure to reveal it to the Chilean government led the government to conclude that the alliance was directed against Chile" might be clearer.

(Personal note: I don't think the reference desk is the proper venue for questions like this. Questions about the wording of individual WP articles should be dealt with on the articles' talk pages; and War of the Pacific has a number of grammtical and syntactic problems that need to be addressed. Perhaps you should ask the Guild of Copy Editors to have a look at it.) Deor (talk) 15:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice! Thank you. I will check with the Guild; they seem to have a horrible backlog, though.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 16:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I like Deor's suggestion, but if you were going to go with the original sentence, the "but" really should be an "and" (or "and neither was it informed"). It's giving two independent reasons why the Chilean government believed what it did, either or both of which could have occurred. One of the reasons is not mitigating the other, so a "but" is not appropriate there. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

How could the absence of any mention of Chile in the treaty lead the Chilean government to suspect that the intent was sinister? Surely it was just the secrecy of the proceedings that made them suspicious. Deor (talk) 22:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Believe me. The War of the Pacific is a complicated topic. Diego Portales, a Chilean politician, proposed an idea in the 19th century that any kind of union or alliance between Bolivia and Peru would always be a menace/danger to Chile. For some reason, Chileans have lived with that philosophy ever since it was proposed until modern times. When Chile discovered that Peru and Bolivia had formed a defensive alliance, they immediately saw it as a menace to Chile. Of course, the "secrecy" was part of the reason, but even though Chile was not mention in the treaty, they still see themselves as the nation that the treaty was aimed at (Despite Peruvians and Bolivians telling them otherwise prior to the War of the Pacific, during the War of the Pacific, and ever since the end of the War of the Pacific).--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 06:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The meaning of "Adonio"

Hi, Does anyone know the meaning of this word please? I think it could be latin although it looks italian to me.

Many thanks in advance. Gwen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.206.40 (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

According to the Italian WP is a metrical foot in poetry, consisting of a dactyl and a spondee. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Context would help. According to the DRAE, adonio has the same meaning in Spanish as it does in Italian. A more common Spanish word with almost the same pronunciation is "idóneo", which means suitable. Googling also shows that it is a name, probably a variant of Adonis. --NorwegianBlue 20:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

July 31

Jua de vive - in need of a phrase dictionary

Anyone care to explain what "jua de vive" means in English? There isn't anything at Wiktionary or dictionary.com And I don't know of any reliable phrase dictionaries... So, if you know of one that I could use in the future, please point that out too. Dismas| 00:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The instances that turn up in a Google search all appear to be misspellings of joie de vivre. Where did you see it? Deor (talk) 00:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I was going off my own misspelling and Google didn't correct me. Apparently enough people have misspelled it the same way that I did since Google had several results. I did indeed mean joie de vivre. I've only ever heard the phrase and have never (in recent memory) seen it written, so that's the reason for the misspelling on my part. Thanks, Dismas| 00:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

A term "screw you"

What does the term "screw you" means. Is screw you any different from "f*3 you"? i have try to say this at my graduation, when I said this about sombody, a girl tell me "stop it" Scrw you on google image is just showing 3 finger.--69.228.145.50 (talk) 00:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

wiktionary:screw you Nil Einne (talk) 01:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Screw you is a slightly less offensive way of saying fuck you. It's equally offensive to the person you say it to, but doesn't involve a swear word, so it's less offensive to hear it said. Steewi (talk) 02:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Unless, it is used in the much less likely case of "Be careful, or he'll screw you." Here, the meaning is to cheat or otherwise disadvantage the one being screwed. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Use of 'may' in Indian official English

The Indian official English is replete with the modal auxiliary may. An official who would like to go on leave would write to his superior: "I may kindly be granted leave on 1st August...". I am not sure if this is asking permission. It looks more like a humble impersonal suggestion. "May kindly be approved", "necessary action may be taken" etc. are very frequent. The higher official in turn would approve the action/or grant leave thus: "May be done". Is this use of may purely Indian invention or an obsolete use surviving the backwoods? Incidentally, you don't use may to ask permission in except in questions like "May I come in?", do you? --Clericalmonk (talk) 02:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

who can tell me "kainc" how to pronounce,ok ?

who can tell me how to pronounce"kainc",ok ? ThanQ！ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kainc (talk • contribs) 03:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

What language is it? +Angr 06:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Plural for a proper noun in the Alfred Stieglitz article

Regarding this edit to the Alfred Stieglitz article, is the form "Stieglitzes" correct in the phrase "Over the next fifteen years the Stieglitzes had five more children"? If I can't get an answer I am also happy for someone to reconstruct the sentence to avoid the plural thing (if that is what it is). Cheers, --Commander Keane (talk) 05:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It's okay that way, but "the Stieglitz family" is an easy way to avoid the problem. +Angr 06:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Big fish

If I ever become a big fish in a big pond, will I be a target of someone with bigger fish to fry? NeonMerlin 06:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Aprobando Tratado de Alianza ofensiva y defensiva, celebrado entre las Repúblicas de Perú y Chile
2. ^ Tratado de limites de 1866 entre Bolivia y Chile Template:Es icon
3. See Private note of Riva-Agüero to Novoa, November 20 1872. Godoy papers. Cited in Gonzalo Bulnes, Chile Peru, the causes of the War 1879, page 58 and 59:

   It is desirable that once for all, and as soon as possible, the relations between the two Republics should be defined, because it is necessary to arrive at an arrangement satisfactory to both parties. If Chile dealing with this boundary question seizes the most favourable opportunity to take possession of that coast-line, it is necessary that their plans develop before Chile is in possession of the ironclads under construction, in order that in the definite settlement of this question, the influence, which we are in a position to exert by means of our maritime preponderance may have due weight.

4. http://www.memoriachilena.cl/archivos2/pdfs/MC0000312.pdf Page 50
5. http://www.memoriachilena.cl/archivos2/pdfs/MC0000312.pdf Page 51
6. (See full english version of the treaty in Gonzalo Bulnes, Chile and Peru: the causes of the war of 1879, Imprenta Universitaria. Santiago de Chile.
7. See Gonzalo Bulnes, "Chile and Peru, The causes of the War of 1879" page 57 and 58:

   The Treaty menaces Chile … Never was Chile in greater peril, nor has a more favourable moment been elected for reducing her to the mere leavings that interested none of the conspirators. The advantage to each of them was clear enough. Bolivia would expand three degrees on the coast; Argentina would take possession of all our eastern terrisories to whatever point she liked; Peru would make Bolivia pay her with the salitre region. The synthesis of the Secret Treaty was this: opportunity: the disarmed condition of Chile; the pretext to produce conflict: Bolivia: the profit of the business: Patagonia and the salitre.

8. See Jorge Basadre, "Historia de la Republica del Peru", Tomo V, Editorial Peruamerica S.A., Lima-Peru, 1964, page 2282, "El comienzo de la inferioridad naval peruana y la falta de iniciativa para una guerra preventiva":

   La supremacía conquistada por Chile en el mar ese mismo año de 1874 contribuyó a que el Perú procurase evitar cualquier problema

9. See Jorge Basadre, "Historia de la Republica del Peru", Tomo V, Editorial Peruamerica S.A., Lima-Peru, 1964, page 2286, "El Peru en 1874 y 1878 evita la alianza con Argentina":

   …en agosto, septiembre y octubre de 1875 … el Peru se apresuro a tomar una actitud dilatoria y hasta inhibitoria para la firma del tratado de alianza con aquella republica con el fin de conservar su libertad de accion. La existencia de los blindados chilenos explica acaso la diferencia entre esta actitud y otras anteriores. …

   En 1878 se nego a entregar los elementos navales pedidos por el gobierno argentino y colaboro en la busqueda de una solucion pacifica …

10. Luna Vegas, Emilio (1987). Cáceres Un Peruano Ejemplar. Lima: OKURA Editores. Retrieved July 29, 2009. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |Page= ignored (|page= suggested) (help)
11. Luna Vegas, Emilio (1987). Cáceres Un Peruano Ejemplar. Lima: OKURA Editores. Retrieved July 29, 2009. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |Page= ignored (|page= suggested) (help)

• Misplaced Pages help forums
• Misplaced Pages resources for researchers