Language desk
< May 22	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 24 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 23[edit]

Translator Please![edit]

Where can i find a language translator i really want Spanish....please give me reference

Have a look here. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 04:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm bilingual in English and Spanish what may I help you with?, Soy bilingüe en Inglés asicomo Castellano ¿en que manera le puedo ayudar?^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 05:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dood thank u for the sending me that kink is cool!!!!!!!!! But what is another name for mexicans---spanish Answer: I thing the word you are looking for may be: "Charos"; it is not an insult word nor despective. In fact, Mexicans love it been refered to as Charros which is traditional word used to describe the extra-wide hats worn by Mexican farmers. Furthermore, it has become part the traditional Mariachi (Mexican-Gala) musicians wear during special events. It is also considered to be the equivalent of the United States traditional "Tuxedo". The origin of this word appears to come from the early Spaniard' standard dressing norm in the XVI-century. I hope that helps you! Jammie [email protected]

titles in a sentence[edit]

Do you underline or put quotation marks around a title of a book in a sentence?

I'd say use either "quotes" or italics, or "both" - but not underline. JackofOz 04:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say always italics for a book title. Quotes would be used when you are referring to something like a chapter heading. Same with music - I'd always put an album title in italics, but a song title in quotes. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 04:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:T, the title section of our Manual of Style covers this very thoroughly, with many possible examples.--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 05:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our MOS only applies to Wikipedia articles, not externally. JackofOz 05:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was always taught that underlining was for when italics weren't available (handwritten stuff, mostly), and basically symbolized italics. -Bbik 05:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, and I haven't got my Strunk and White to hand but I think our MOS does follow it pretty closely. Obviously there are many additions to allow for Wiki's added capabilities, but most conventions are followed when possible.--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 05:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In school, we're told to italisise books, song albums, poetry anthologies, short story anthologies, and magazine/newspaper titles, etc., but to put quotations around individual songs, poems, short stories, and articles. and that underlining takes the place of italisising in hand-writing as handwriting is generally slanted anyway. Storeye 09:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richardjr and I would agree. In the old days, when copy editors worked on page proofs with true-blue pencils, anything underlined with a single straight line told the typesetter to put the underlined text into italics. The convention in old-fashioned things like typewriters and handwriting was to use a single underline for anything a typesetter would italicize. Book titles were always italicized in typesetting, so they were always underlined in typewritten or handwritten material. A wavy underline meant bold face and a double straight underline indicated small caps. I found this [1] useful link. Bielle 10:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find that lawyers often prefer to underline the names of court cases, even when italics are available. *shudder* —Tamfang 10:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that lawyers pretty much live in their own little universe. After all, they still use Word Perfect by convention and choice; need I say any more? +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Nearly all the lawyers I worked for in the past several years had switched to Messy-Word because "it's the standard", never mind that the paragraph numbering function always does exactly what I tell it not to. I miss WP 5. —Tamfang 04:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latin translation help[edit]

I have this nice little phrase, in curia sine palatio residentie apud Semedram in sala mogna audientie, and I've been able to translate the major words with online dictionaries, but it doesn't make much sense without the connecting words and proper grammar. Can anyone help me with a real translation? Thanks! -Bbik 05:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the correct spelling would probably be in curia sive palatio residentiae apud Semedram in sala magna audientiae. Sive "or" instead of sine "without" makes it work better. But I sort of have the opposite problem, I'm better at the grammar than the vocab. --Cam 06:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here's my guess at it: "In the court or residential palace at Smederovo in the great audience hall". --Cam 06:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd guess (the Latin is ambiguous) that residentiae also encompasses curia. The author apparently does not know whether to call the building a curia or the more grandiose palatium. The following preserves the ambiguity in English: "In the court or palace of the residence at S." --Lambiam ^Talk 09:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that works better than what I was trying to smash together, especially given the sine/sive thing. Thanks to both of you! -Bbik 18:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Native modern Greek speaker needed: vocalisation of some consonants[edit]

I was told recently that the letter τ is always pronounced /d/ and not /t/ in modern Greek except when preceeded by a non-vocal consonant, like σ in "στο".

I always thought that you needed the combination ντ to generate the sound /d/ and that τ was /t/, and in my travels in Greece, that is what I though I was hearing. Could I have been wrong for so many years?

Same question for the combination μπ which is pronounced /b/, can π alone be pronounced /b/? I always thought it was always a clear /p/.

Many thanks in advance for your answers. Lgriot 07:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a native speaker, but I think "always" is too strong. At least, I think I'd have noticed if χαίρετε, for example, was normally realized with a /d/. To "English ears", unaspirated intervocalic realizations of /t/ may sometimes sound like realizations of /d/. According to our article on Modern Greek phonology, in the section Phonetic realisation (of consonants), /p/, /t/, and /k/ may be slightly voiced in some dialects, especially in Crete and Cyprus. The article also states that some people have the phonetic–phonemic analysis [b] = /mp/, [d] = /nt/, [g] = /nk/; in other words, the [d] you hear in αντίο is an allophone of the phoneme /t/, with the [n] being absorbed into it. I can't be sure, but to me it seems a reasonable assumption that native speakers as informants would tell the researchers this is all wrong if it is, and then that analysis would presumably not be around. --Lambiam ^Talk 09:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks very much Lambiam! You always do wonders on this desk... The guy who told me that is actually from Cyprus, which now explains everything. So I had heard it right in Athens! --Lgriot 13:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Not half" in British slang[edit]

I've seen various forms of "not half" used on British sitcoms to mean "fully", as in "you don't half fancy her, do you ?". My question is where this expression is used. Is it just England ? Also Scotland and Ireland ? Does it include Australia, New Zealand and Canada ? I'm pretty sure it's not used in the US. StuRat 14:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason I always imagine it in a Cockney (London) accent, not 'arf. And even then, in an old tv show or something, it doesn't seem to be in common modern usage. The south-east of England is one region I don't know well, but it is furthest from Wales and Scotland so I guess it's unlikely there. Cyta 16:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I associate that phrase with Fluff, who it turns out is Australian. Sʟυмgυм • т • c 17:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This expression is certainly in use in the United States, at least in the New York-Boston corridor that I have inhabited for most of my life, but, to my knowledge, only in the expression "not half bad". In the northeastern US, "not half bad" means "pretty good" or "better than you might think". It is generally used when the speaker and/or listener would expect the thing under discussion to have been done badly but were surprised to see that the thing was actually done fairly well. Usually, this expression is used for a person's or a company's work or performance. I could imagine the expression being extended to some other negative modifier, such as "not half stupid" (meaning "smarter than you might expect"), but I'm not sure that it is ever used with any complement other than "bad" in my part of the United States. Marco polo 19:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point, I've heard that usage in the US myself. StuRat 05:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think those are actually opposites. In the original example, "not half"="all" (you don't half fancy her = you totally fancy her) and in the US example "not half"="none" (not half bad = good, not bad at all) but what do I know.Gabenowicki 02:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See litotes. It is widely understood in England, and I believe in the rest of Britain as well. The OED doesn't mention any geographical restrictions for the idiom. --ColinFine 23:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of old photos[edit]

Someone (Quietmartialartist) asked me for help in translating some old photos from Korea: Historic Photo 1, Historic Photo 2. Unfortunately, they're in Chinese characters, which don't mean much to me! If someone knows Korean hanja well that would be perfect, but they should be the same as traditional Chinese. Thanks. --Reuben 16:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only speak Japanese, but I reckon the meaning is something along the lines of: "(A photo) commemorating the welcome back (back, as in "after have being abroad") party for the superintendent/director". Mackan 17:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what my teacher told me it basically meant. Thank you both. Quietmartialartist 23:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old Jokes[edit]

I've been reading The Enjoyment of Laughter by Max Eastman, and there are two jokes near the end that I don't get. The first is on page 316,

...about a man who came to London from Germany and called up a friend on the telephone; the friend was out and he tried to leave his German name, which was Siegmann, with the maid. He spelled it out: S as in sugar, I as in Indian, E as in elephant...."E as in what?" the maid asked, and he laughed so hard that he finally hung up the telephone and gave it up.

and the second is from a speech by Mark Twain for a party in honor of General Grant, on page 325:

I had been picturing the America of fifty years hence, with a population of two hundred million souls, and was saying that the future President, admiral, and so forth, of that great coming time were now lying in their various cradles, scattered abroad over the vast expanse of this country, and then said "and now in his cradle somewhere under the flag the future illustrious commander-in-chief of the American armies is so little burdened with his approaching grandeur and responsibilities as to be giving his whole strategic mind at this moment to trying to find some way to get his big toe into his mouth-something, meaning no disrespect to the illustrious guest of this evening, which he turned his entire attention to some fifty-six years ago-"

And here, as I had expected, the laughter ceased and a sort of shuddering silence took its place-for this was apparently carrying the matter too far.

I waited a moment or two to let this silence sink well home, then, turning toward the general, I added:

"And if the child is but the father of the man there are mighty few who will doubt that he succeeded."

Could someone explain them to me? Black Carrot 21:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the first one's simple. The point of saying"E as in elephant" is to make it clear that you're saying E and not some other letter. If the maid understands the E without the help of "as in elephant", then it doesn't matter whether she hears the "elephant" part or not. So it's illogical for her to ask "E as in what?"

As to the second one, I think the punchline is meant as a humorous way of suggesting that General Grant was in the habit of putting his foot in his mouth. No, this implication doesn't logically follow from what was said before, but there are things that put all the pieces in the listener's mind and one is supposed to mentally jump the gap.

--Anonymous, May 23, 2007, 22:41 (UTC).

Good call on the first one. I've been rereading the second one, and I think I get it now. A quote from the text helps: "In the unpleasant image playfully presented of the military hero and ex-president of the republic in an infantile contortion, you see what poetic humor is. In the concluding tribute to the hero, you see how the comic enjoyment of both these unpleasantnesses can be sanctioned and certified in the mind of an adult by inserting into the heart of them a serious satisfaction." In other words, the joke at first was imagining these (hypothetical) dignified old men as babies in their cribs. The part that offended people was applying this to the guest of honor. What made it okay, and even a little funnier, was a complement - saying that since the man was so successful, so strategically brilliant, who can doubt that the boy was as well? And succeeded in all his endeavors, then as now. Thanks for the help. Black Carrot 23:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's the point of the first one. There should be no reason for S nor I to be given a word. E as in elephant has to have some direct joke. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 17:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is the point of the joke. ([insert name of deity here] knows I'm on thin ice trying to explain a joke here.) It's funny because the person on the other end of the 'phone got the letter ("E"), which was the whole point of the exercise, but was quibbling over the mnemonic device ("elephant?") used to convey it. You could substitute "extraterrestrial" or "exhibitionist" or "eschatology" here and the joke would still work (though, perhaps, much more weirdly ...). +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A particularly recherché version of the joke could have a question of the form "E as in [Greek word beginning with epsilon], or E as in [Greek word beginning with eta]?". —Tamfang 04:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are over-thinking the first joke. It might help if you say it out loud. I'll wait. Still doesn't make sense? I think the "joke" is that the maid is confused by the idea of elephant starting with an "eee" when it obviously starts with an "ell", as in "L-ifant". Yeah, it's hilarious. Matt Deres 16:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a type of knowledge[edit]

Greetings,

I am looking for a word that describes a type of knowledge. Here's an example: I know that by placing the proper ignition key in the ignition key hole of a properly maintained and operation car that the car will most probably start. I know this fact but it doesn't meaan that I know every sequence of events that happens after I turn the key to the start position. What is this type of knowledge called? ^^^^

Here are some suggestions: empirical, phenomenological, operational, or heuristic knowledge. Maybe one of these is what you're looking for. --Reuben 23:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, if you were looking for common terms, how about street smarts versus book learning (no article or redirect ?)? StuRat 04:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the best description for this would be practical knowledge, as opposed to theoretical or technical knowledge. Marco polo 14:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These two answers seems to assume that knowledge of the "sequence of events" has no practical value. That's not really true: it can be very practical if something goes wrong. I like the answer "operational". Another possibility is "superficial", depending on exactly what the original poster was going for. --Anonymous, May 24, 2007, 23:38 (UTC).

I don't think this particular kind of knowledge is called anything. Empirical, yes, but knowing the sequence of events that happen after you turn the key would also be empirical knowledge. I fail to see what kind of substancial difference there could be between knowing one and knowing the other. They are just different subjects, which happen to be connected because both involve cars, just that.

Of course, one could say that they are connected in the sense that both are explanations of how the car starts. Learning that turning the key causes the car to start would be the first level of the study of the causes underlying the phenomenon that the car starts. A "deeper" level of empirical knowledge would be achieved after learning about the gas, the engine, the piston, the battery, etc. But you could do an even "deeper" study and learn how the fuel burns (and what causes it to burn, and what does it mean to burn), how electricity works, how the battery can store evergy, etc.

It's just that you are going one level deeper each time, and learning more about the sequence of underlying events each time. See also emergence and science. Science is just empirical knowledge, like the knowledge described above.

Knowing that the key causes the car to start can also be distinguished from knowing other underlying mechanisms that make the car start in that it can be considered practical knowledge, as Marco Polo said, but that distinction will also depend on the circunstances: there may be cases where it is practical to know more about how the car starts, as Anonymous said above, but there may be cases where knowing it would have no practical value. And there may be cases where knowing that turning the key causes the car to start will have no practical value at all. A.Z. 00:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds to me like what would be considered everyday, practical, or general knowledge. Although, it does occur that the phrase you might be looking for is "conventional wisdom (knowledge)." -- Azi Like a Fox 08:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This could be wrong, based on your description, but tacit knowledge is a possibility.--Estrellador* 15:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]