Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

The Wikipedia Reference Desk covering the topic of language.
Language #eee #f5f5f5 #eee #aaa #aaa #aaa #00f #36b #000 #00f language Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language Language WP:RD/L

Welcome to the language reference desk. Want a faster answer? Main page: Help searching Wikipedia How can I get my question answered? Provide a short header that gives the general topic of the question. Type ~~~~ (four tildes) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when. Post your question to only one desk. Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. We'll answer here within a few days. 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. How do I answer a question? Main page: Wikipedia: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.

skip to bottom Choose a topic: Computing desk Entertainment desk Humanities desk Language desk Mathematics desk Science desk Miscellaneous desk Archives   See also: Help desk Village pump Help manual

August 6

It's literally the antonym of itself.

Several dictionaries have acknowledged the common misuse of the word literally and now list "figuratively" or "virtually" as one of its definitions. (e.g., Merriam-Webster) I think this is ludicrous, but this is not the debate. What I am wondering is if there are any other words which are their own antonyms. Thank you.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 02:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

There are some listed in our article on auto-antonym, antagonym, Janus word, enantiodrome, self-antonym, antilogy, addad, enantiosemy, enantionymy or antilogy... ---Sluzzelin talk 02:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Cleave. Compare definitions 1 and 2 here. To wit, cleave can mean "to adhere firmly" or "to divide". --Jayron32 02:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

"Here" and "there" can both be opposite places, depending on perspective. This may be neither here nor there, but the odd pro wrestler also finds the literal misuse ludicrous. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:42, August 6, 2014 (UTC)

WHAAOE! Thanks.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 02:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Your welcome. Rather then link to the fifth Grammar Slam, I'll just say it's out their. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:50, August 6, 2014 (UTC)

Another one, which I assumed was on that list above, is "old". If someone wants their "old face" back, they may want the one they had when they were young, or when they were old. Or, in the context I just used it there that reminded me of here, the face someone else borrowed from her, then later stopped using. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:39, August 6, 2014 (UTC)

I hate it when people abuse the English language, despite being a native speaker. Two overly used words include 'like' (meaning 'such as') and 'literally'. Even news readers misuse 'literally', inserting it into a metaphor, or simile, does not in fact emphasise the applicability of the figure of speech. It just makes you look like a simpleton, and the shame of it all, is that the error does not occur to the general public of today. Does that mean then that the general public are lingual simpletons? Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Yep. "Decimate" bothers me. It originally meant a precise 10% reduction. It now seems to mean something more like 90%, or even a complete destruction of an enemy or similar. HiLo48 (talk) 06:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

What a random thing to say. You're such a random guy, HiLo. Like, totally random. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:13, August 6, 2014 (UTC)

The only reply I have to that is "Apple other better did whether is!" Plasmic Physics (talk) 07:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

That's much closer. Thanks for not choosing "monkey" for the noun. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:57, August 6, 2014 (UTC)

Chinese has a word, 简直, that is in a similar situation as "literally". The word's literal meaning is "totally/completely/literally", as in "he's literally crazy". However, it's usually (I would say almost always) used to mean the opposite: that the sentence is hyperbole. 他疯了 ("he is insane") could mean that he's actually insane, whereas 他简直疯了 ("he's literally insane") means he's not actually insane.

In English, I see no reason why "literally" can't or shouldn't be used metaphorically. Similar words have been used metaphorically for a long time: "I'm totally gonna kill him", "he's completely crazy", etc. --50.46.159.94 (talk) 08:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Because "literally" is the precise antithesis of "metaphorically". To use it metaphorically, in a phrase such as "I was so angry, I literally exploded", would be to say "I was so angry that I didn't just feel like I was exploding, I really, actually, physically, literally blew up into thousands of pieces of bloody flesh and shattered and charred bone". And that would be a lie, and lying offends anyone who thinks about stuff like this. Not every instance of someone saying something that isn't exactly true can be swept under the carpet with "Cool down, he was just speaking metaphorically". More often than not, they're just mistaken in their choice of word. We're all humans; it happens. A reasonable education in what words actually - yes, literally - mean, doesn't go astray, but one doesn't hold one's breath these days. Like when people say something is "the most unique" whatever. There's only ever one US President, one UK Prime Minister, one Danish monarch, etc. That makes each occupant unique in their own context. That's what "unique" means - not just "very unusual", but there is exactly and only one of its kind. So, which one of these heads of state is the "most" unique? Doesn't really compute, does it. Unless, of course, you use the standard fallback of "you know what I meant". Oh, that's right, I forgot. It used to be the speaker's responsibility to ensure their message was transmitted clearly; now, it's somehow become the listener's responsibility to work it out, which often means gleaning some scrap of meaning from words apparently chosen at random from a hat. I suppose I should be surprised at this turn of events, but I'm not. That's because absolutely everything is "amazing" these days, which means that absolutely nothing is amazing. So, back to square 1. "Amazing" has become an empty, vacuous, trite nothing. Not amazing at all. It's its own antonym. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

"Oh, here comes that cannonball guy. He's cool." InedibleHulk (talk) 09:54, August 6, 2014 (UTC)

Are you being sarcastic, dude? Adam Bishop (talk) 21:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

(In related news, my new Foundation For the Prevention of Polysemy is accepting applications. With your help, we can end contextual dependence!). SemanticMantis (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

You've just described language change. Speech errors of the type you described are responsible for creating every word in every human language. There's no reason to believe they're any more common now than in the rest of history. --Bowlhover (talk) 22:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The recent use of "literally" to mean "literally the exact opposite of 'literally'" is one of two language peeves I allow myself. Yes, language use evolves, and English in particular does novel and crazy things that make it fun to use; but I have to draw a line at wholesale instantaneous meaning inversion (my other peeve is when people use the phrase "I could care less" to mean "I could not care less.") See previous refdesk discussion here. Sigh; I suppose I'll give the community another link to the Gayroller and walk away from the little voice in my head spouting obscenities and calling for literal figurative war against the hideous and stupid bastards who use these terms. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 19:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

My inner anti-pedant badly wants to hat this sad trail of peevery. Words mean what they mean, guys, not what you want them to mean, or what your teacher said they mean, or even what your favourite dictionary says they mean. Well, they usually do mean all those things, but they often also mean what people use them to mean. --ColinFine (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

That is all true, Colin. Meanings of words do indeed change, sometimes to the direct opposite of what they formerly meant. But is it OK for any individual to suddenly start using "banana" to mean "nuclear holocaust"? Sure, there's no law against it, but there's no chance he'd be understood, so it's pointless. The real issue comes when people use a word they've heard and think they sort of understand, but they don't really understand and neither do most of their interlocutors, to mean something it never meant before. That's just theft, fuelled by ignorance (itself usually fuelled by lack of decent education), and by lack of any sort of discipline in seeking out the most appropriate word/s in any given situation. People generally want the best of everything, subject to affordability. Well, words cost nothing, yet there's an "anything goes" attitude. Maybe if we charged for the use of words, they'd have more of a value and people would choose them more wisely. I must put my mind to implementing such a scheme; I'll make myself the Word Tax Collector-General, naturally. One cent for every word used correctly, ten cents in all other cases. Sounds fair to me. It'll make people think twice about the endless vapid chatter in which they engage. Speaking of which, bye now.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Just a reminder that we, our teachers and our dictionary compilers are people, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:02, August 7, 2014 (UTC)

• I have never understood the objection to the use of "literally" in this manner. We allow for all sorts of exaggeration, hyperbole, and other non-literal meanings in English. Why, among all hyperbolic language we use (and to the great benefit of English speakers, for it adds to the variety and depth and poetry of our language ), the hyperbolic use of the word "literally" is singled out for derision. Leave people alone who use it in exaggeration, or at least start campaigns against the use of hyperbole in general, if you did that you'd at least be consistent. The incongruous way indignation is heaped upon that one usage is really annoying. --Jayron32 23:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

• Words need consistent meaning if they are to work effectively. The problem with the "literally" situation is that when I then use the word "literally" with its traditionally correct meaning, those who think it means the opposite will misunderstand me. I know that. They don't. So I can't use the word the way I have always used it because of its misuse by ignorant people. The dumbos have stolen a word from me. HiLo48 (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

• So, what your saying is that every time someone uses any word in for exaggerated effect, for hyperbole, they're dumbos who stole your language? That's a rather boring and trite outlook on the English language. What a fantastically boring world where words must never be used except in a literal sense, and there's no room for hyperbole at all. Where we can't call someone "a giant among men" and not have everyone think he's 20 feet tall. Where we can't call someone a captain of industry because they hold no formal military commission. Where we cannot speak of being out to sleep by a boring movie, or where our excitable children can't be described as bouncing off walls, or really, any other poetic use of the language because the entire English speaking world must be on walk on eggshells for mortal fear of stealing words from HiLo48. Or maybe, we can allow people to use exaggeration and not pretend we don't understand them when they are doing so... --Jayron32 00:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not talking about exaggeration. HiLo48 (talk) 01:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, but people who use the word "literally" in an exaggerated way are, and don't merit your scorn for doing so any more than any of the examples above. --Jayron32 01:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• They aren't using it in an exaggerated way. They are using it in a way the reverses its meaning. And they're doing it in ignorance. Should I pander to that ignorance, and change my usage to theirs? HiLo48 (talk) 02:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• Why do you assume that it is ignorance? Why must everyone who uses the word in an exaggerated matter be a "dumbo" and exhibit "ignorance". It is the sign of an intelligent and creative mind that is able to use words in creative ways and is able to expand the meaning of a word beyond its literal definition, especially when using words in hyperbole, exaggeration, sarcasm, irony, and the like. I am gobsmacked that you assume that this mysterious "they" (and do you mean "all of humanity". "They" is rather vague) is somehow incapable of the use of language in that manner. That can't be what you mean, so I am forced into the untenable position (and yet it is the only one you leave me to conclude) that, while you accept that "they" are capable of using language in hyperbole, exaggeration, irony, etc., that "they" are singularly incapable of doing so with a single word among the millions of such words in English. I am still confused why you can allow that people are being hyperbolic in other areas of speech, with other words, and yet the word "literally" is immune to such creative usages, and instead it must either only be used in non-hyperbolic speech, lest anyone using it thus is a "dumbo" and "ignorant". I still don't understand how you can accept the existence of hyperbole, and yet deny that anyone could so use it with this one word. --Jayron32 02:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
• The OED has a good definition: "c. colloq. Used to indicate that some (freq. conventional) metaphorical or hyperbolical expression is to be taken in the strongest admissible sense: ‘virtually, as good as’; (also) ‘completely, utterly, absolutely’. They agree with you that it reverses the sense, but I don't. It doesn't mean "figuratively"; nobody says "This passage should be understood literally" when they mean it should be understood literally. It's just used to emphasize figures of speech. Nevertheless I don't like it, because I'd like to be able to say "It was literally freezing in there" and have people understand that the temperature was below the freezing point of water. Words such as "totally" and "absolutely" don't lose comprehensibility in their original senses when their used for emphasis.

I might add, HiLo48, that no one is asking you to change your usage. However, there are times when you can't rely on people to understand "literally" literally. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 02:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Jayron, there's plenty of scope for hyperbole and metaphor in our language, and always will be. The interplay of literal vs metaphorical utterances is part of what makes language fun. But when you introduce the word "literally" as a way of being metaphorical - the very thing that it is NOT - you muddy the waters. The word contains a guarantee that whatever it's used with is NOT metaphorical, but is really, actually true. That is a special property of the word, that is not present in "absolutely" or "completely" or "totally" or others. Saying "I literally exploded" when you really mean "I metaphorically exploded" would be like saying "JFK was metaphorically assassinated in Dallas" when you really mean "JFK was literally assassinated in Dallas". You'd never use "metaphorically" to downplay something that actually happened, so why is the reverse any different? If people had a wider vocabulary, they'd find plenty of other and more appropriate ways of hyperbolizing than the misuse of "literally". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

If I may interject, I would use the adverb 'metaphorically' when the metaphor is uncommon, to the point of possibly being taken in a literal sense. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

No, you most certainly may not interject!  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

"Recently, strangers I meet seem particularly peeved by people who use `literally' to mean `figuratively,' the ones who say things like, `He literally exploded with rage.' As is often the case, though, such abuses have a long and esteemed history in English. The ground was not especially sticky in "Little Women" when Louisa May Alcott wrote that `The land literally flowed with milk and honey.' Tom Sawyer was not turning somersaults on piles of money when Mark Twain described him as `literally rolling in wealth.' Jay Gatsby was not shining when Fitzgerald wrote that he `literally glowed.' Such examples are easily come by, even in the works of the authors we are often told to emulate.

How did literally come to mean the opposite of what it originally meant, either `word for word' or `exactly'? By the late 17th century, `literally' was being used as an intensifier for true statements. Jane Austen wrote of being `literally rocked in bed on a stormy night.' In such examples, `literally' is being used for the sake of emphasis alone. Eventually, though, `literally' began to be used to intensify statements that were themselves figurative or metaphorical. You can find examples throughout the 19th century, but no one seems to have objected until the early 20th. In 1909, the satirist Ambrose Bierce included the term in "Write it Right," a little blacklist of literary faults. `It is bad enough to exaggerate,' he wrote, `but to affirm the truth of the exaggeration is intolerable.'

[...]

Usage writers often single out one of the meanings [of Janus words] as wrong, although the right definition is simply the older one or the one more frequent when 18th-century grammarians began to examine language systematically. In fact, the literal meaning of `literal' is something like `according to the letter.' So when we use `literally' to refer to something other than individual letters, we're already walking down the figurative path. If we end up with people eating curry so hot their mouths are literally on fire, how surprised can we be? And why don't we also complain about using the word `really' to refer to things that aren't real? In "Little Women," when Meg moans that `It's been such a dismal day; I'm really dying for some amusement,' she's not the one who's really dying.

The one sensible criticism of the way `literally' is often used is that it can lead to confusing or silly-sounding results. In this case, the answer is simple. Don't write silly-soundingly."

Jesse Sheidlower in an NPR interview, 2005. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The Devil can quote Scripture for his purpose. Calling on hallowed names for support suggests that every single word they ever wrote is some kind of holy writ. It's not. You can't get much more hallowed than Shakespeare, but if we wrote and spoke the way he did, we'd fail most exams miserably, before being laughed out of town. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that Austen was using literally for emphasis alone in the example above. I've been in beds that actually physically were rocked by storms before. DuncanHill (talk) 22:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Loan collection

My wife just had one of her works accepted into a loan collection which has made me think about the term. I looked it up and see that a loan collection is simply described as a collection of works that are loaned by the owners for public display. But I've heard this term used with a sense of distinction about it. And considering my wife's work had to be voted on to be in the loan collection, it's obviously not that simple. So can anyone tell me how this became, in a broad sense, a matter of merit instead of just the literal act of loaning an object? Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 17:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Especially odd considering the other meaning of the term, where somebody keeps calling your home night and day to get you to pay off on a loan in which you are in default, or, in the case of a loan shark, they break your legs. StuRat (talk) 17:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

That's debt collection. (Some people do call 'debt collection' 'loan collection, but they are abusing language -- the collector is not collecting a loan, but a debt ;) SemanticMantis (talk) 18:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

If you really want to get picky, he's collecting payment for a debt, not the debt itself. StuRat (talk) 18:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you have your own answer. People in the art world only use the word "loan collection" if it's something that is somewhat competitive and exclusive, i.e. the good stuff that people want to see. I could loan out a collection of my doodles, but nobody would be talking about my "loan collection," and it would be basically wrong of me to bill it as such to the art world. If you search google for /art loan collection/ you'll see all kinds of universities and museums that have prestige and selectiveness associated with their loan collections. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

August 7

Ecclesiastes 9:11

What is the Hebrew like for this verse? "...the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill" (KJB) is, in my opinion, some sexy English. Most translations follow this prose more or less exactly. Is it because it's a straightforward translation of the Hebrew or just because it's so good? As a followup question, in what English translation was this formulation first seen? And finally, what's the deal with the Vulgate's translation? It seems to be accusative-infinitive in indirect statement but with genitive plurals where I would expect obvious datives of advantage (if I were translating the English to Latin). Is the sense that the things do not belong to their counterparts? ÷seresin 03:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The Latin strikes me as a literal translation of a construct state in Hebrew. Unfortunately Hebrew completely confounds me so I can't check the original... Adam Bishop (talk) 03:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The Hebrew has no construct forms in this verse. - Lindert (talk) 09:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

See the top of the central column at http://biblehub.com/multi/ecclesiastes/9-11.htm

and click on "Hebrew" to see http://biblehub.com/text/ecclesiastes/9-11.htm.

—Wavelength (talk) 05:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

GOD'S WORD®, as usual, screws it up by equating "strong" with "heroes". InedibleHulk (talk) 06:22, August 7, 2014 (UTC)

See Wavelength's links. The answer is that it is indeed a straightforward translation of the Hebrew. The Douay–Rheims Bible translation (relevant portion from 1610) is basically identical, even though it is translated from the Latin: [1]. Wycliffe's translation (1395) is similar, though it uses 'of' instead of 'to', and it adds 'men' to several adjectives: "rennyng is not of swift men, nethir batel is of stronge men, nether breed is of wise men, nether richessis ben of techeris, ne grace is of crafti men" ([2]). I think the first English bible to use the same formulation as the King James is the Geneva Bible (1560): "the race is not to the swift, nor the battell to the strong, nor yet bread to the wise, nor also riches to men of vnderstanding, neither yet fauour to men of knowledge"([3]). - Lindert (talk) 09:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

It is indeed a literal translation of the Hebrew, but not of the construct state; Hebrew, like many languages, lacks the verb "to have" (used in this verse with the sense of "to win", "to get"), and uses the form "something is to someone" to mean "someone has something". Thus, a simpler translation would read "the swift do not win the race, the strong do not win the war..." הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 17:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

That phrase is just a list of words connected by "nor" and "to", which is easy to translate into any language. What's hard to translate are ambiguous words, puns, poetry, idioms ("speak of the devil!") and the like. --Bowlhover (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Any idea what this means?

I was researching hazing deaths and I came across an incident from 1903. I've paraphrased the rest, but verbatim the last sentence:

Shortly after being initiated into ΦΨΧ, German born Loew was found deceased in his dorm room while his South African roomate was found unconscious. Upon awakening, Loew's roomate described the hazing. A week prior, Loew was undressed, blindfolded, and taking into a room where he was laid on a block of ice. He was then carried upstairs to a balcony and thrown over the railing, a drop of 24 feet. Underneath the railing were students holding a sheet. When he fell onto the sheet, he was tossed up and down until he was unconscious. After reviving, he was beaten severely. He was given whisky and quinine that evening. The following Saturday, he took the second degree. In the morning, he was found dead, and his chum, who had just taken the first degree, was in serious condition. source

Does anyone know what that last part means? He took the second degree while his chum took the first degree? I was in a sorority, so it's not some greek term as far as I'm aware. I'm wondering if it's a bit of outdated slang meaning something like, the one guy's beating was less severe than the other guy's. Has anyone come across this so far? Bali88 (talk) 05:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Possibly 'degree' was a term for a stage of initiation - as in the degrees of masonic ritual. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Ditto. Within this context, 'degree' means 'phase/stage/level'. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Might be where Third degree (interrogation) came from. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:44, August 7, 2014 (UTC)

So let's say I wanted to include this example in a wikipedia article, how would you write it? It sounds like these events happened the weekend before he died and another set of events happened the next weekend, directly preceeding his death. Should I go ahead and say that the series of events was repeated? Should I just include the excerpt (and say that it's a verbatim excerpt)? What would you do? Bali88 (talk) 13:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmm...found this additional source, which is slightly clearer.

lever themselves upward

The following comes from Martin Amis's "Lionel Asbo: State of England": "But it would be foolish to suppose that each and every gangbanger and posse-artist(and every Yardie and jihadi) in the entire manor had heard tell of the great asocial. And it was different at night, because different people, different shapes, levered themselves upward after dark... Des was fleet of foot, but he was otherwise unsuited to life in Diston Town." I find the phrase "levered themselves upward" puzzling. What does it possibly mean here? Would you enlighten me on this point? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.221.147.219 (talk) 09:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Probably means they "got up" out of bed. There's an old saying said when seeing an unruly or strange person after dark, "They only come out at night". Des could run away from these shady types, but couldn't do much else with them. Diston Town seems like a rough place. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:50, August 7, 2014 (UTC)

This song doesn't have much to do with the question, but a little. It's also pretty good, if a bit weird. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:53, August 7, 2014 (UTC)

Surely it means "became part of a higher social class". Remember, English people are always obsessed with class! Those who are despised in the day are princes of the night. 92.20.30.40 (talk) 00:06, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

That's sometimes true, but I don't know. When we ascend social ladders, we tend to "climb" or "rocket" them. "Lever" suggest getting an elbow or hand underneath, and prying oneself out of bed.

But words often work on multiple levels, especially in literature, so we can both be right. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:58, August 8, 2014 (UTC)

Japanese words for video, clip, motion picture, etc.

What kind of video do the Japanese words "蔵出し画像" actually refer to? (Or what do these words really mean?)

Thanks a million!

--58.11.249.146 (talk) 13:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The words mean "brewery", but I don't know what it has to do with videos. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (state the obvious) @ 20:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that 蔵出し (くらだし, kuradashi) literally means "straight from the warehouse, etc." It is often used for sake, etc., but can be used more euphemistically to describe other things sold/released directly by the source, e.g., manufacturer, creator, etc., from their "storage facility". Since the "thing" in this case is a 画像 (gazō, image, etc.), my guess is that it is some kind of image, picture, photo, etc. which has never been publically released before, but is now available for viewing, sale, etc. directly from the source. Maybe it's something which has been sitting in some storage facility, or maybe it's something that has been part of somebody's personal private collection which is now being made available simply because the timing is right. For example, a photographer may take lots of photos of a certain subject just to have them on file for possible use at some later date or just for their own personal use. It is also possible that "kuradashi" is just being used for advertising reasons, i.e., to create the perception of being something "fresh" and "new" as in "never been seen before". These are just guesses. I'm sure somebody will correct me if I am wrong. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm a native ja speaker. Marchjuly is right. Oda Mari (talk) 09:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Heh. When I read your first sentence, I thought you were pretending to be a German who knows only rudimentary English but is pretending to be a native English speaker. Ja? No?  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

??? What made you think that way, @JackofOz:? I am Japanese in Japan. Oda Mari (talk) 09:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

"Ja" is the German word for "yes". Ja? Nein? Sorry if this attempt at humour failed to amuse.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Ja, I noticed, but it was too late. Sorry, my brain doesn't work well as it's too hot in Japan. You don't have to tell me that my English is poor and clumsy. I know it too well. You stay warm (ugh), I try to stay cool. Oda Mari (talk) 10:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

We have a deal. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

If it is for a film, could it mean direct-to-video as opposed to theatrical release? (Just a guess.)    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 12:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

August 8

Air traffic controller lingo

I have been watching a lot of old episodes of Mayday. Oftentimes, when the pilot is communicating with air traffic control (and vice versa), they will say something like: "American Airlines Flight 123 heavy". I have seen this many times in many different episodes. What does the word "heavy" mean in this context? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

WHAAOE: See Heavy (aeronautics). Dismas|^(talk) 01:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. OK, so the word "heavy" makes sense. But why is it important for the pilot and the air traffic controller to constantly reiterate the weight/size of the plane? Don't all parties involved already know that the plane is a 747 or whatever? Why would they repeatedly need to communicate the "heavy" characteristic of the plane? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

From my memory (it's been a number of years since I used my pilot's license), they don't have to repeat it all the time. The example you gave above could, and would, be shortened down to something like "American 123" or "123 heavy" by both the tower and aircraft once initial contact had been made. Just like how many people probably call you Joe or Joseph instead of constantly calling you Joseph A. Spadaro. Dismas|^(talk) 01:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I would imagine the reason it gets mentioned is to do with wake turbulence - ATC has to know how big the plane is so that they know what separation they need from other planes. Kahastok talk 19:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe there's something wrong with the Earth's gravitational pull? Adam Bishop (talk) 10:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

under a sky of white

Another question about Martin Amis's "Lionel Asbo: State of England". I just can't figure out what the author intends to mean by using the phrase "under a sky of white" in the following context: "He lived his life in tunnels...And yet for the sensitive soul, in Diston Town, there was really only one place to look. Where did the eyes go? They went up, up. School--Squeers Free, uner a sky of white: the weakling headmaster, the demoralised chalkies in their rayon tracksuits,..." Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.221.157.192 (talk) 05:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Overcast? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The ceiling! DuncanHill (talk) 05:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Is that an understood phrase in Rightpondia? I guess it does make a certain amount of sense — kind of the reverse of the "big blue room". --Trovatore (talk) 05:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Um, no, just seemed obvious to me from the context - he's in school, daydreaming, escaping, he looks up... What's the big blue room when it's at home? DuncanHill (talk) 05:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand your small question — reminds me of the joke about "why is a mouse when it's spinning?". I guess the big blue room is not that often blue in the UK, though. --Trovatore (talk) 05:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

My little question could be re-phrased as "I am unacquainted with the "big blue room" to which you refer. Pray, kind soul, enlighten me"."...when it's at home?" is a stock phrase at the end of a question about what a previously unknown (the the questioner) thing is. DuncanHill (talk) 05:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh. The big blue room is the one with the really high ceiling and unpredictable air conditioning. It's always good to take an occasional break from your computer and visit the big blue room. --Trovatore (talk) 05:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Ahh! That's a new one on me. DuncanHill (talk) 05:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I mean, the big blue room is new, not the idea of occasionally going outside. I do do that! DuncanHill (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Looking after their environments

Read the following sentence, without any preconceptions, stop, form an opinion before reading on:

"Red-crowned cranes are really special, because although their environments are so dirty, they look after them and try to make them clean."

It's from a non-native speaker, and somehow my brain flagged it as wrong because of "environments". The student gave me a confused look, like she was quite sure (her level is quite high) and now I'm the one who's confused. What do you think? Note that it's not quite the exact sentence, because it's roughly from memory, so it may also sound slightly clumsy, but don't worry too much about that. IBE (talk) 07:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

It's fine by me. Refers to the particular places individual (or individual pairs of) cranes live, rather than their common ecosystem. If they'd all band together to make a concerted, long-term effort to improve air and water quality, that'd be really special, and your student would be really wrong. But they don't. Something like the difference between cleaning up the neighbourhood and cleaning your room. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:08, August 8, 2014 (UTC)

I saw the logic that was intended, but my brain flagged it anyway, somehow. I'm thinking it must be because the language is slightly wrong somewhere or other, or else because there's a better or more common way of expressing it. But I sometimes overthink when I'm teaching, and get into a muddle. Any help appreciated. IBE (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

This is an example in English between a mass noun and a true plural. Sometimes, you're thinking about a countable number of items (one environment, two environments, two environments,), but then the same word also has a sense which is an uncountable mass noun (the environment as in the ecosystem). A classic example is with hair. "She found two red hairs on my collar" vs. "The boy had red hair". --Jayron32 17:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Would you balk if 'environs' were substituted? I'm with Hulk here: it's not wrong, just a bit clunky. I suspect your hangup is with your personal connotations for 'environment'. See environment and [4]. It can mean a lot of different things, like when we talk about a "work environment", or a "home environment", etc. (I also assume that you are not interested in discussing the biology here on the language desks, but the statement probably has some biological problems too...)SemanticMantis (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. No, I wouldn't balk, but 'environs' is a different word. I think the point is, for me, 'environment' is best left as singular/ uncountable, unless you mean characteristically distinct environments, as in "Crabs and cranes live in very different environments." Still, I think 'environs' might be better, as might 'surroundings'. For formal writing, I might choose 'living environment', which is different again. I am interested in what anyone else might prefer - the discussion helps me to clear my thoughts. I am interested enough in the biology, if it is relevant to the question. The question came about because of an instinctive reaction, which upon reflection I couldn't justify, so anything that informs it is relevant. IBE (talk) 05:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Japanese Expression For.....

"Thank you for choosing XXX Company." I just did an interpreting job over the telephone between an American company and a Japanese customer, and at the end of it, the American lady said "Thank you for choosing XXX Company, have a nice day." and I just translated it as "Thank you. Have a nice day." The reason I did this is because in all my ten years in Japan, I don't think I really heard a Japanese version of this phrase. How should I have translated it? I would guess a literal translation to be 「XXX社をご選択いただいて、有難う御座いました」　or 「XXX社をご使用になって、有難う御座いました」. Also, would this normally be said? As I say, maybe I heard it once or twice, but not often enough for me to really remember. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 12:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

If there are similar companies and the customer chose XXX among others, the first one is OK. Just いただき would better. And do not use the past tense. ありがとうございます is fine. You can use 弊社 or 我が社, instead of XXX. You can also use 選んでくださり for choosing. The second one would be OK, if you use ご利用くださり. Never use ご使用. It's wrong. Oda Mari (talk) 17:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Mari. Yes, thinking about it now, the past tense would imply the customer no longer uses the company. I would prefer to use XXX, as this is what we do - it sort of reinforces the notion of which company the person is talking to. And yes, ご使用 was a mistake. I don't know why I wrote that. Sorry. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 20:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Of course, ご利用いただき is OK. Hmm, it would be better than くださり. Oda Mari (talk) 09:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

August 9

Arabic al/el

At Suez Canal Bridge it says:

The Suez Canal Bridge [...] is a road bridge crossing the Suez Canal at El Qantara. In Arabic, "al qantara" means "the bridge".

I gather that "el" and "al" are variant transliterations of the Arabic article, but is there any significance in "El" being used in the place name yet the explanation using "al"? It would be clearer for readers if "al qantara" in the explanation was changed to "el qantara". Is there any reason not to do this? 109.147.186.22 (talk) 02:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I gather that it's pronounced el in Egyptian dialects and mostly al elsewhere. —Tamfang (talk) 06:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

So is it correct to say that "El Qantara" means "the bridge"? Because this is (to me) so obviously a simpler and clearer thing to say, I just feel there ought to be some reason why it wasn't done. 86.167.125.78 (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you. I suggest you look at the article's talk page to see if there has been a previous discussion of the question, and if there hasn't, be BOLD and change it. If somebody disagrees with you, they will change it back and then you can have a discussion on the talk page. Perhaps you might say "In Egyptian Arabic" ..., but either way the statement should be referenced. --ColinFine (talk) 14:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

109.147.186.22 -- "Al-" is the form of the Classical Arabic definite article at the beginning of a sentence. However, the definite article can also have the forms "ul-" and "il-" in the middle of a sentence in Classical Arabic, when it follows words ending in a -u or -i vowel (e.g. the middle vowel of "Bismillah"). In many colloquial Arabic dialects, the basic form of the definite article is "el-" or "il-". I would assume that "El-Qantara" is the dialect Arabic pronunciation, while "al-qantara" is a standard Arabic form taken from a dictionary. Welcome to the world of diglossia... AnonMoos (talk) 12:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, Arabic has sun and moon letters, but qāf does not affect the consonant lām in the definite article.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

chalkies

The following is taken from Martin Amis's latest novel "Lionel Asbo": "School – Squeers Free, under a sky of white: the weakling headmaster, the demoralised chalkies in their rayon tracks uits, the ramshackle little gym with its tripwires and booby traps, the Lifestyle Cons ultants (Every Child Matters), and the Special Needs Coordinators (who dealt with all the ‘non-readers’). " I am not sure about the meaning of "chalkies" here. Could you explain it for me. Thank you! —added by Mandy 17:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xiewenyan (talk • contribs)

I understood "chalkies" as slang for teachers, related to the use of Blackboards otherwise chalk boards. MilborneOne (talk) 09:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, "Chalkie" is a traditional British nickname for a teacher. DuncanHill (talk) 09:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, "chalkie" is also a term for a bookie or bookmaker's clerk. Collect (talk) 11:55, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Now you can’t get enough of it

In the following context from the novel "Lionel Asbo", what does "Now you can’t get enough of it" refer to?Does it mean that the boy has not got enough fun.

• On the other hand, Squeers Free had in its staff room an exceptional Learning Mentor – a Mr Vincent Tigg.
• What’s going on with you, Desmond? You were always an idle little sod. Now you can’t get enough of it. Well, what next?
• I fancy modern languages, sir. And history. And sociology. And astronomy. And-

Your help would be much appreciated. --Elisa 17:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xiewenyan (talk • contribs)

From the small bit you quote it appears that the boy has turned from an "idle little sod" into somebody who is now working hard, cant get enough of it relates to more learning/knowledge. MilborneOne (talk) 09:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

In general, "you can't get enough of X" means you are insatiably greedy for more X.

I added bullets to make the dialog clearer, and left-aligned your signature for obscure technical reasons. I hope you don't mind. —Tamfang (talk) 05:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Skiprope and Hopscotch

I don't understand the meaning of "Skiprope and Hopscotch " from the novel "Lionel Asbo" . what does "Skiprope and Hopscotch" refer to?What does it mean in the following sentence? Are they just names?

He seldom bunked off, he never slept in class, he didn’t assault the teachers or shoot up in the toilets – and he preferred the compa ny of the gentler sex (the gentler sex, at Squeers Free, being quite rough enough). So in the normal course of things Des would have been savagely bullied, as all the other misfits (swats, wimps, four-eyes, sweating fatties) were savagely bullied – to the brink of suicide and beyond.

They called him Skiprope and Hopscotch, but Des wasn’t bullied.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xiewenyan (talk • contribs) 09:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I am sure an expert will be along in a minute but I took it that Skiprope and Hopscotch are jumping games and was allusion that he managed to avoid the bullies by keeping out of the way. MilborneOne (talk) 10:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Skiprope & Hopscotch are not normal terms of abuse so the bullies are calling him names refering to him playing with the girls but not bullying him. JMiall₰ 10:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Hopscotch and skiprope are traditionally played more by girls than by boys. —Tamfang (talk) 05:38, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

true

What does "true" mean in the following sentence? Once a term, true, Lionel escorted him to Squeers Free, and escorted him back again the same day (restraining, with exaggerated difficulty, the two frothing pitbulls on their thick steel chains). Mandy 17:25, 9 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xiewenyan (talk • contribs)

It is a bit superfluous as written. If the previous sentence was something like 'Lionel never came to school' then 'true' would act like the word 'although' between the 2 sentences. JMiall₰ 10:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The "true" signals irony. "Once a term, true, Lionel escorted him to Squeers Free, and escorted him back again the same day (restraining, with exaggerated difficulty, the two frothing pitbulls on their thick steel chains." Lionel takes no interest at all in the child's education, with the insignificant exception of walking with him to school once a term. Even this is no more than an opportunity for Lionel to show off what a "hard man" he is with his dangerous dogs.

Amis is difficult. He's a satirist of the harshest (and thus most enjoyable) kind: no sentence he writes is unambiguous. Probably best to start with the short story collections: Einstein's Monsters, Heavy Water. And I think we are doing someone's homework for them. Pete "BA (hons) in Eng.Lit." AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 05:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Another question from Martin Amis's latest novel "Lionel Asbo": But it would be foolish to suppose that each and every gangbanger and posse-artist (and every Yardie and jihadi) in the entire manor had heard tell of the grea t asocial. And it was different at night, because different people, different shapes, levered themselves upward after dark … Des was fleet of foot, but he was otherwise unsuited to life in Diston Town. I am not sure about the meaning of "different shapes" here.Does it have the same meaning of different people?And how to understand "lever themselves upward after dark."I have no idea about it.Also I have looked up the dictionary about "fleet of foot".It turns out to be the meaning:"people act quickly".But I am wondering how to link it to the next part of the sentence "unsuited to life in Diston Town". Can you explain "And it was different at night, because different people, different shapes, levered themselves upward after dark … Des was fleet of foot, but he was otherwis e unsuited to life in Diston Town."these two sentence for me?Please reply me ASAP! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xiewenyan (talk • contribs) 09:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

It relates to different people appear at night that you dont see during the day, fleet of foot is more to do with the fact he can keep himself out of trouble but he didnt fit in with the life and culture. MilborneOne (talk) 10:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I have not read the book but I take it to mean that various odd looking things (presumably people if you looked at them closely) that in daytime are out of sight put in the effort to drag themselves up out of the gutter (either literally or figuratively) at night and roam around the streets. JMiall₰ 10:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

resemblances ceased and girls

The following is taken from Martin Amis's latest novel "Lionel Asbo": ＂Respectfully averting his eyes from the Times, the Independent , and the Guardian , Des reached for the Sun, which at least looked like a Lark , with its crimson logo and th e footballer’s fiancée on the cover staggering out of a nightclub with blood running down her neck. And, sure enough, on page three (News in Briefs) there was a hefty redhead wearing knickers and a sombrero. But then all resemblances ceased. You got scandal and gossip, and more girls, but also international news, parliamentary reports, comment, analysis …＂.I can not figure out what the sentence(But then all resemblances ceased.) means here.And I am wondering what "the girls" refer to.Your help would be much appreciated. Mandy 17:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xiewenyan (talk • contribs)

The girls is a refence to the fact that the tabloid newspaper The Sun as a liking for displaying semi-naked girls between the news stories. MilborneOne (talk) 10:25, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I take this to be resemblence to a lark. So Des wanted to read a newspaper, but a fun one (a lark) not a serious one. He counts the front cover and Page 3 as fun enough but then even The Sun's normal mixture of scantily-clad women and brief bits of news became too serious for what he wanted. JMiall₰ 10:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The Times, Independent, Guardian are "serious" non-tabloid newspapers which do not run "Page 3 girls" photographs, while the Sun is famous for them... AnonMoos (talk) 12:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

More context is needed to understand this properly. From the full text, it becomes clear that "a Lark" is a reference to a (fictional?) newspaper called the Morning Lark, and that "all resemblances ceased" is talking about resemblances between the Sun and the Morning Lark. 86.167.125.78 (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Haven't we already done this passage? —Tamfang (talk) 05:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Lifestyle Consutants(Every Child Matters)

Martin Amis describes Squeers Free School in his "Lionel Asbo" as follows: "School--Squeers Free, under a sky of white: the weakling headmaster, the demoralised chalkies in their rayon tracksuits, the ramshaclke little gym with its tripwires and booby traps, the Lifestyle Consultants(Every Child Matters), and the Special Needs Coordinators(who dealt with all the "non-readers")." I don't see the relationship between "the Lifestyle Consultants" and "Every Child Matters"(in the brackets). I am looking forward to your kind reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.176.247 (talk) 12:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

It's a school which he doesn't like because he thinks it's trying way too hard to be trendily up-to-date in a rather feeble way. "Squeers" is a reference to Nicholas Nickleby... -- AnonMoos (talk) 12:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

"Every Child Matters" is probably the slogan of the Lifestyle Consultants. 86.167.125.78 (talk) 13:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Possibly, but Every Child Matters was also the name of a far-reaching government initiative, partly in response to the Victoria Climbié incident, that affected a lot of stuff in schools to do with child safety and what could be termed lifestyle education. Skittle (talk) 14:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Does that mean someone thinks that the importance of child safety is nothing more than "trendy"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Amis is implying that his characters have that attitude, yes. Whether this is a realistic representation of actual consultants in this field is another matter. Tevildo (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Use of capitalization in the United States Constitution

I was reading up on some of the text of the US Constitution. I noticed that the document has an odd, irregular, and inconsistent practice – at least by today's standards – of employing capitalization of words. Was this the normal practice of that period? Or was this specific to the Constitution and other governmental documents? Was there any significance to when, how, and why a specific word was capitalized? As I read some text, it seems that some relatively minor and unimportant words were in fact capitalized. I just selected a very random sample of some text from the Constitution, as an example to highlight the odd practice of capitalization: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. Any thoughts on this matter? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Capitalization of this type was quite common in the 18th century. There's a strong tendency to capitalize most nouns, which is basically what German still does today, although it's not totally consistent in that (see the second "person"). Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, the word "time" is another noun that is not capitalized. Is there any reason why most nouns are capitalized, yet some are not? Do the non-capitalized nouns have any reasons for being formatted so? Or is this just an oversight? Or just a typo? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

It strikes me that the capitalized nouns seem to be those that have a specific (legalese) meaning in the document. Person, Citizen, Adoption, Office, President, Resident - the specific intended meaning of all these nouns are either defined in the document itself or in other associated documents. This is similar to the "fine print" in many modern contracts that contain specific definitions of certain words used in the contract - these definitions are usually narrower than the normal everyday of the words. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Not really; "person", "age" and "years" are hardly specialized terms (and "person" is capitalized once but not the second time although it's being used in the exact same meaning in each.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

"Years" can need some definition in law to deal with the edge cases. For example, would a person born on February 29th qualify on the 28th February, or the 1st of March? "Age" might also have clarifications to allow for those who do not know their exact birth date. "Person" has a legal definition which is generally broader than the normal English definition (see Corporate personhood) MChesterMC (talk) 08:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Capitalization and Sentence case have some Information that may be Helpful to you in Understanding how the practice of Capitalization varies across Languages and Time. My Understanding is that that in the Constitution, certain Words are capitalized semi-Randomly to help emphasize certain words as Key Concepts. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I just checked our Copy of the Document on Wikisource, and am now pretty certain that the very large Majority of the Capitalization Decisions in this Text were really made just according to the grammatical Criterion of Noun versus Non-Noun, rather than by that of Emphasis. I couldn't find a single Instance of Capitalization that wasn't a Noun in those Parts I read. Verbs or Adjectives, no matter how important, seem never to be capitalized (just think of "self-evident", "equal", "alter", "abolish" in those famous intro Sentences, which surely would be among the most important Key Words!), and conversely there are only some few Nouns here and there that are not capitalized. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Although, interestingly, it changes style just where it comes to the most elevated, solemn bits: "We, therefore, [...] do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly Publish and Declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent States...". These seem to be the only capitalized verbs, at least as far as I've seen so far. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I found the top-rated reply here to be enlightening. Gabbe (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

August 10

at every point

The following is taken from "Tales from Ovid":

"Each thing hostile

To every other thing: at every point

Hot fought cold, moist dry, soft hard, and the weightless

Resisted weight."

I am not sure whether "point" means moment or place. I need your help. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.223.234 (talk) 02:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd take it to mean "place", but since the word doesn't really correspond to anything in Ovid's Latin, I suppose you're free to read it either way. Hughes is translating "obstabatque aliis aliud, quia corpore in uno / frigida pugnabat calidis, umentia siccis / mollia cum duris, sine pondera habentia pondus", and his "at every point" takes the place of "corpore in uno"—literally "in one body"—so Ovid himself was probably thinking spatially rather than temporally. Deor (talk) 09:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

British English in the '40s

I've been watching Foyle's War which is set in Hastings, England during WWII. In the episode I just watched they used a few terms I'd appreciate some info on, please.

1. At one point a character uses the acronym TTFN which I believe even back then stood for "Ta Ta For Now". Is this anachronistic or did they use that term back then?
2. A child calls one of the cops a "tack". Where did this come from?
3. One of the characters is in debt for 30 "bob". Am I right in thinking this is a shilling?

Thanks! Dismas|^(talk) 02:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

We have an article on TTFN. No idea about 'tack'. 'Bob' was definitely a shilling (and had been for a long time - 1789 is cited here [5]), though there doesn't seem to be any agreement as to its origins. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Thirty bob was a lot of money - a WWII British Army soldier was paid 2 shillings (10 new pence) a day or 14 shillings (70p) per week. Many received much less than this, as part of a married man's pay could be deducted at source and sent to his family. [6] Alansplodge (talk) 12:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Two shillings a day? What were they complaining about - a shilling a day was blooming good pay, lucky to touch it, a shilling a day! DuncanHill (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Thinking about it, are you sure it was 'tack' rather than 'tec'? 'Tec' is of course short for 'detective'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Should've figured we'd have an article on TTFN. (edit: I thought it had started with Winnie the Pooh. Guess I was wrong.) And as far as 'tack' goes, that's what the subtitles said. I wasn't sure I heard it right, so I rewound the episode and turned on the subtitles to check. Dismas|^(talk) 03:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

TTFN is about as 40's as it gets! (along with NORWICH, SWALK, and the like - a productive period for initialisms and acronyms in slang) Bob is a shilling, so 30 bob would be £1.50 in modern money (which was a lot of money in those days), but tack has me stumped. Subtitles are not entirely reliable, especially on vowels. Tec, for detective, would be appropriate for the era. DuncanHill (talk) 03:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Subtitles are frequently wrong/misheard, especially when applied retrospectively. I can only assume the subtitler doesn't have a copy of the script.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Subtitles are not always trustworthy, as they often depend on what the transcriber thinks they heard. See [7]. This is particularly a problem in live TV, but it sometimes affects pre-recorded programs with generally higher production values. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:38, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it may be a question of the transcriber being confused by the character's accent. On my copy of Se7en, "piss into a cup" is transcribed "piss into a cap", and on my copy of The Right Stuff, "pud-knocker" is transcribed as "pod-knocker". "Tack" for "Tec" may be a similar case. Tevildo (talk) 11:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes I watch "Dancing with the Stars" with the closed captioning on, in case the transcriber catches quick quips or people talking over each other better than I do. Once Katherine Jenkins said she was "chuffed" (a word not very commonly used in the United States) and there was a very long pause in the closed captioning, after which the word "TRUFFED" slowly appeared... -- AnonMoos (talk) 06:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Yep, it's "tec" in the script [8]. That is, if you're talking about s05e02 (and if that external site is accurate) since that's where both TTFN and 'bob' appear. El duderino ^(abides) 20:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

That is the episode in question, thanks. That is one very yellow site! Thank you, everyone, for the answers. I think we can chalk the Tack/Tec bit up to a bad transcription. Thanks again, Dismas|^(talk) 02:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Latin translation

Does this call the women a Empress dowager or a grand empress dowager? She was the main consort of the Yongli Emperor's father, so she wouldn't have been given the title Grand empress dowager, which is reserve for the grandmother or step grandmother of the emperor or a women in that generation.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Letter from the Grand Empress Dowager Helena Wang to the Pope, asking for help against the Manchu invaders. It is also written in the name of the Yongli Emperor's mother (Empress Dowager Maria Ma) and wife (Empress Consort Anna Wang), as well as his infant son, Crown Prince Constantine Zhu.

Interpretatio Literarum Sinicarum, ab Imperii Sinicum Imperatrice D. Helena, nomine suo, & Reginæ Matris D. Annæ, & Reginæ uxoris D.Mariæ, nec nom filii Imperatoris Principis & Hæredis D.Constantini missarum, AS SANCTISSIMUM D.N. Per Patres Andream Xavier, & Michaëlem Boym Societatis Jesu, n Aula Imperatoris Sinensis pro tempore Assistentes, facta.

Is the translation in the file description correct? Can someone do better?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

My rudimentary Latin tells me the Latin text of the introduction literally says "...Empress Dowager Helena (Elena) of the Empire of China...Dowager Queen Mother(?) Anna...Princess-Wife Dowager Maria...Emperor Prince Heir ("Crown Prince" or "Heir to the Empire") Constantine..." I don't know if these styles have standard translations but I don't see anything in the introduction or the snippet of text below that could be translated as "Grand".--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 06:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Your titles are correct but Helena is just "empress" - the "D" means "domina", just "lady". Adam Bishop (talk) 12:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Is there any version of the Chinese original?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The Latin text means "Translation of the Letter in Chinese, sent by the Empress of the Chinese Empire Lady Helena in her name and also in the name of the Queen mother Lady Anne, and the Queen consort Lady Mary, and the son of the Emperor, Prince and Heir Lord Constantine, to our most holy Lord (i.e. the unnamed pope), made by fathers Andreas Xavier and Michael Boym of the Society of Jesus, presently serving at the Imperial Chinese court." Note that the names Anne and Mary in the header are interchanged, for the letter itself names the Queen mother Lady Mary and the Queen consort Lady Anne. And so does the English description. Interestingly the answer by pope Alexander VII dated Rome, 18 December 1655 (Kircher p. 102f.) is addressed to the "Chinese Queen Helena Taminga". --Stuhlsasse (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

What was the real Chinese name of Helena? WhisperToMe (talk) 04:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Her surname was Wang but we don't know her personal name. Her formal title was Empress Dowager Xiaozheng (孝正太后).--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! WhisperToMe (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

August 11

French o'clock

Marshal Foch's message announcing the end of hostilities in WWI included this verbatim quote: Hostilities will cease upon the whole front from the eleventh November eleven o'clock (French o'clock).

The expression "French o'clock" intrigues me. I can't find any evidence it is or was then a recognised expression. Clearly it means "according to the time zone in France" or "French time" (which was GMT at the time). Was this just a mistranslation by someone not entirely familiar with English idiom, or did the expression perhaps have a military use? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

There was French Revolutionary Time, but that was in a more revolting time. Could be an allusion to that. Even if it wasn't intentional, it worked. Though that didn't go to 11. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:34, August 11, 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify a bit, I meant the French Revolution was "more revolting" (a bigger deal) to France. Ending WWI from France revolutionized the world to a greater degree. Part of me is now thinking the "eleventh hour" deal may have been a misinterpretation of 1.01 (1:01 AM) (not sure). The eleventh hour of the eleventh day in decimal time would be 2:24 AM on the twelfth day in our world, if I'm doing the math right. Fortunately, I haven't a source for any of that, and "French time" does sound more likely. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:59, August 11, 2014 (UTC)

First Armistice at Compiègne says: The Armistice was agreed at 5am on 11 November, to come into effect at 11am Paris time (12 noon German time),[11] for which reason the occasion is sometimes referred to as "the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I just learned Britain's war started at 11 pm (12 midnight German o' clock). I find it weird how I've gone through so many Remembrance Days without hearing that. Seems like it should be part of the general story. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:12, August 12, 2014 (UTC)

This Telegram from Foch says French Time. DuncanHill (talk) 01:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. The link I gave in my question claims to be a verbatim copy of the words in the signal displayed at the RAF College Cranwell Library. Maybe there were different versions, each with a slightly different degree of officialdom.

The reason I asked the question is that I was browsing a book of quotations I acquired recently, and that's where I first saw this quote. But the wording is not identical. My version goes: Hostilities will cease upon along the whole front from the eleventh November eleven o'clock (French o'clock) at the 11th hour, French o'clock, on Nov. 11 . Now your link gives a third version of the wording. Curious. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• French has two words for time, le temps and l'heure. Temps refers ONLY to time as a quantity, that is "how much time has passed", and never for clock time. If you were to say "French time" (refering to the local time zone in France) you would say "heure française". If you were to say "11 O'Clock" in French, you would say "Onze heure". The word "heure" can mean both "hour" and "time" depending on the context. If you were to say "11 O'Clock, (French time)" in the actual French language, you'd say "Onze heure, (l'heure française)" I suspect the translation has screwed up somewhere; either it's a bad machine translation, or a sloppy human translator. --Jayron32 03:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Did they have machine translators back in 1918? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

They had their own equivalent of translating without understanding. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

You can drop the article, we wouldn't use it in this case. It would be "Onze heures, heure française." Cfmarenostrum (talk) 12:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Or alternatively "onze heures à l'heure française". Cfmarenostrum (talk) 12:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Reminds me of Ravel's opera L'heure espagnole, which for the longest time I assumed meant "The Spanish Hour" but never got to know it well enough, or at all really, to discover it's all about Spanish time-keeping practices, not any particular period of time lasting an hour. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe "o'clock" is an old-fashioned way of referring to the time zone. It would be highly unusual (perhaps plain wrong) in 21st century English. Peter Grey (talk) 03:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Really? I've never heard it used in ANY century's English... Could you elaborate or provide some sources to say as much? --Jayron32 04:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Voiceless lateral fricative [ ɬ ] vs approximant [ l̥ ]

I have read our article Approximant consonant as well as cited Ladefoged&Maddieson's book, but I am still in doubt. Can it be that many in fact voiceless aproximants are defined as fricatives by some unknown reasons and what is listed here must be here?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 11:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't remember ever having heard of a lateral approximant before, and I doubt whether I could pronounce one based what's in the Voiceless alveolar lateral approximant article, but that article says that a lateral approximant does not have a "turbulent airstream", and I can tell you that a Voiceless alveolar lateral fricative definitely does have turbulence... AnonMoos (talk) 12:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The voiceless alveolar lateral approximant occurs in a few Mon-Khmer languages of Southeast Asia, two of which with which I've had experience are Khmu and Tampuan. Premsirat describes Khmu as [ l̥ ] (I've personally made recordings of Khmu speakers; it's definitely not a fricative), and Crowley described Tampuan.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 20:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Also it looks [ɬ] didn't exist till 1979, and before that l̥ was used for both.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 05:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Original Greek for "hope...is a waking dream"

A friend has asked me to pass along this question. The quote "hope... is a waking dream" is attributed to Aristotle by Diogenes Laertius as quoted in many sources. See https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Aristotle

But even trying to search the bilingual Loeb Library edition of Laertius at google books I am having no luck getting the original Greek. Can anyone get me the original quote of Aristotle in the Greek text? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I find the quote is also attributed to Pindar and Plato, which seems more likely, but I don't care about the attribution, I am just looking for the original Greek in a reliable source.

In the edition of D.L. at the Perseus Project, it's at 5.1.18: ἐρωτηθεὶς τί ἐστιν ἐλπίς, "ἐγρηγορότος," εἶπεν, "ἐνύπνιον." Deor (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

(ec, adding anyway) It appears to be ' ἐρωτηθεὶς τί ἐστιν ἐλπίς, "ἐγρηγορότος," εἶπεν, "ἐνύπνιον". ' ([9], [10]). (He was asked to define hope, and he replied, "It is a waking dream." in Wikisource's translation by Robert Drew Hicks). ---Sluzzelin talk 18:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks both! I was looking at a translation of the phrase from some language into Spanish into English, and it was apparently not very literal. μηδείς (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

Serial comma - why no semi-colons?

In the article Serial comma no mention is made of semi-colons - why?

One of the uses of semi-colons is to provide clarity where commas won't do.

Consider the sentence given in the above article: They went to Oregon with Betty, a maid, and a cook.

If Betty is a maid, then punctuate it "They went to Oregon with Betty, a maid; and a cook"

If she is both maid and cook, then write "They went to Oregon with Betty, a maid and a cook."

If she is neither maid nor cook, then write "They went to Oregon with Betty, a maid, and a cook."

Yes, I am for use of the serial comma, but also advocate use of the semi-colon where called for.Bh12 (talk) 19:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The use of the semicolon in series is treated in Semicolon#Usage. By the way, I disagree with your use of the semicolon in your example above, since no comma would be used in the compound object if "a maid" were omitted ("They went to Oregon with Betty and a cook"); therefore, there's no serial comma that needs to be replaced with a semicolon. I'd write "They went to Oregon with Betty (a maid) and a cook" in that case. Deor (talk) 19:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

So write "They went to Oregon with Betty and a cook.", there being no need for either comma or semi-colon - I don't follow your line of reasoning. As for your reference to the use of semi-colons in series, this does not preclude mentioning their use in the Serial comma article to avoid ambiguity. My original question still stands: In the article Serial comma no mention is made of semi-colons - why?Bh12 (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Because no one has added it yet. Be Bold and fix it. RudolfRed (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The use of semicolons in series has nothing specifically to do with the serial comma—that last one that many people use before the conjunction. When semicolons are used in a series, they're used between all the elements of the series. Deor (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

August 12

"Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word"

Wandering around Librarything I came across a book called "Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word" by Walter J. Ong. Apparently it is a real book, but is the title serious or an intentional piss-take? It sounds like something produced by the Postmodernist Generator. DuncanHill (talk) 00:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a perfectly understandable, reasonable title to me. Things like writing, printing (and, today, online communication) are "technologies" in dealing with the word, and the idea seems to be that through the introduction of such technologies, the way people thought and dealt with language in general changed. What's wrong with that? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Well it assumes that there is a verb "to technologize". Is there? --85.119.25.27 (talk) 09:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)