Language desk
< May 5	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 7 >

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 6[edit]

Numbers[edit]

Hello. I've studied French for quite a few years and I can speak passably except I always hesitate at numbers greater than about 30, whether hearing them or needing to produce them. I think this is because it takes a different kind of processing to process a word than a number, i.e., I remember the individual meanings of words but numbers are generated on the spot. How can I fix this (without going to France or anything similarly expensive, of course). Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 00:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a suggestion, with no real claim to its likely efficacy, practice mental arithmetic in french until you're sufficiently familiar? --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is always a stumbling block for me too. I am afraid to say, I have never been able to master quickly large numbers in any foreign language, no matter how hard I tried, unless I started living there and actually had to shop or work in the language every day! --Lgriot (talk) 07:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think practice makes perfect. Try reading out loud (or quietly to yourself), in French, every number you see in everyday life. Prices at the store, sports results, casualties as read out by news anchors, literally every number you come across. If it's longer (such as a telephone number) try reading it in groups ("thirty-three, sixty-four, ...") rather than as individual numbers ("three, three, six, four, ..."). If you kept this up for a week, or maybe even a month, then French numbers would probably feel a lot less alien. Gabbe (talk) 07:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact that is the usual way the French say telephone numbers ... so 07781233 becomes "Zero-sept, soixante-dix-huit, douze, trente-trois". Astronaut (talk) 12:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In French, my issues stem a lot from the numbers between 60-99, as the expression of "quatre-vingt-douze" always throws me for a loop. Fortunately I'll be in Switzerland, where septante, huitante, and nonante are the norm (so I am told). Falconus^{p t c} 16:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might wish to watch, and emulate, a French game show whose title I cannot remember. The format is that the host shows a prize (e.g. a car) and the contestant guesses the price. The host responds either "higher" or "lower" and the contestant must guess again. This is of course done at high speed, with a time limit of perhaps a minute. If the contestant narrows it down to the correct price, he or she gets to walk away with the prize. The episode I watched featured a woman for whom French was a second and imperfect language, and the host, for reasons of charity or expedience, allowed someone with her (a son? boyfriend?) to replace her on the stage. BrainyBabe (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saddam Hussein, Goldilocks and Mother[edit]

I thought that'd get your attention.

Mother's Day this weekend caused me to think about expressions like Saddam Hussein's "The mother of all battles". "The mother of all ..." is a well-known formula, meaning bigger than anything you care or dare to imagine, but I'm sure Saddam did not coin it.

Now, mothers are typically depicted as not as tall or heavy as fathers, and in general, they're not. Think about Goldilocks and the Three Bears, where Father Bear is the biggest, Mother Bear is a little smaller, and Baby Bear is a lot smaller.

So, why isn't the expression "The father of all ... "? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 12:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WHAAOE. According to that, it comes from an Arabic expression. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a Russian speaker, I am surprised you haven't heard of the Father Of All Bombs, Jack, four times more powerful than the US Military's Mother Of All Bombs. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right back at you, Kage. I'd be very surprised if you, or most other English speakers, have ever heard of haptodysphoria, supernaculum, enatation, tardigrade, osculant or mesothetic. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough, I was only talking about tardigrades a few days ago, for a fictional story I was sort of planning... :) KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's enough backchat from you, smartypants. Don't you know the unwritten rule, which I am now about to write: It's rude to show up your superiors when they're making a point. Let them have their moment in the sun - God knows, they get few enough of them. :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 02:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]

But that encapsulates my point, actually. I might describe something as "the mother of all" whatevers, then someone could come along and say "That's nothing, look at this. This is the father of all" whatevers. Why wouldn't we naturally choose to use the "father" analogy in the first place, if we're saying it's the biggest? Why would we be a society of underachieving hyperbolitians? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article The mother of all has some history, indicating that it's a very old expression. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The expression is apparently very common in Arabic in particular, but was not so common in English. When Saddam said it in 1991, the quirky-sounding expression (to us English speakers) was picked up on quickly. I recall Johnny Carson very soon after, starting one of his shows with the comment, "This will be the mother of all monologues!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've sometimes wondered why some people have fatherlands, and others motherlands. Russians tend to have a motherland. Germans have a fatherland. I wonder if it's a related idea. HiLo48 (talk) 21:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, strictly speaking, Russians only have "fatherland" (отечество). When "motherland" is used in English in the context of Russia, it's a translation of родина, which is etymologically more like "birthplace" or "homeland". 128.135.222.164 (talk) 22:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The French have a fatherland (la patrie), but it's a feminine noun. Does this mean France is the lady boy of Europe? :)

We also have the expression "the grand-daddy of all ...", which would be even bigger than the mother. The mother and her father (or father-in-law) get all the credit. The poor old father and his mother (or mother-in-law) don't really seem to rate. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 23:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In English. the words "motherland" and "fatherland" are to some degree residual foreignisms, or have a slight flavor of "translationese" -- they're not words which very many native English-speakers would commonly spontaneously use to refer to their own home country... AnonMoos (talk) 23:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Besides Prisoners Of Mother England, of course. I've heard the term 'Mother England' a few times - usually by ex-pats. Incidentally, the Japanese word for "one's native country" is 母国, which literally means 'motherland'. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As early as ca. 1462, Jan Długosz described the Kraków Territory as mater et metropolis et caput omnium terrarum et regionum Regni Polonie, or "the mother and metropolis, and head of all territories and regions of the Kingdom of Poland. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the opposite of Ambivalence ?[edit]

I've been asking some well educated friends and it's a tricky one ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.33.230.217 (talk) 12:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary defines ambivalence as "a state of uncertainty or indecisiveness", so its opposite would be certainty or decisiveness. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A cop-out answer is nonambivalence. —Angr (talk) 12:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a word that was coined relatively recently.[1] In theory, a word like "univalence" could be coined as a synonym, but as Gandalf notes, "certainty" or "decisiveness" are already in common use. "Ambivalence" would be a synonym for "uncertainty" or "indecisiveness". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OED defines ambivalence as "The coexistence in one person of contradictory emotions or attitudes (as love and hatred) towards a person or thing," which is a little different than straightforward uncertainty or indecisiveness. Wholeheartedness or singlemindedness as possible antonyms, perhaps? --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 13:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why it took an entire day for this flash, but it seems to me devotion would serve, no? --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 17:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or on the other side of the coin, disgust/revulsion/hatred --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 17:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you will accept an expression, there's "seeing things as black and white", which implies not only a single way of viewing things, but that this is inappropriate for the circumstances. For example, a judge might sentence anyone found guilty to the maximum, without considering the nuances, extenuating circumstances, etc. Thus, someone who assists in a suicide of a terminal patient might be given life in prison, as if they had committed a regular murder. StuRat (talk) 23:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's also "making a snap decision", which implies it was decided before waiting for all the facts to come in. StuRat (talk) 23:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic or atlantic[edit]

In British english, is it normal or proper to use the lower case in a sentance like "In 1934 his yacht capsized somewhere in the atlantic"? Atlantic is not the name of anyone - Mrs. Atlantic - should it still have a capital letter? I'm wondering if english is picking up the capitalisation habits of german, and of wikipedia article links. Thanks 92.28.243.102 (talk) 13:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't comment on British English, but the Chicago Manual of Style states: "Continents, countries, cities, oceans, and such. Entities that appear on maps are always capitalized, as are adjectives and nouns derived from them." Atlantic Ocean is specifically given as an example. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 13:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In your example, "atlantic" is the name of a specific ocean, so is a Proper noun; these normally take capitals in English (as do the words "English", "German" and "Wikipedia", by the way..) AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalise it. - X201 (talk) 13:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this rule applies on both sides of the Atlantic. Marco polo (talk) 14:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be assuming that only names of people can be proper nouns and require capitals. Not so: places and organisations can also be. And in English we also capitalise national adjectives like "English" and "German". --ColinFine (talk) 17:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the English capitalization rules are a "hybrid" of the rules in the Romance Languages and the rules in German. In German, all nouns are capitalized, as I understand it... and it used to be that way in English, too, but that practice faded during the last couple of centuries. In Spanish, by contrast, capitalization is more sparingly used. Typically the names of countries and landmarks and people are capitalized. But the names of entities such as languages, days of the week, and months of the year are not capitalized. The exceptions occur in things like book titles, and the beginnings of sentences, as with English. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Capitalization for the differences between practices in various languages. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The English capitalization rules have a simple basis (though there may be certain complexities in the details) -- all proper names are capitalized, including adjectives directly derived from proper names. AnonMoos (talk) 23:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the definition of "proper name". It isn't obvious why the names of months are proper names, but the names of seasons aren't. And proper names (but not adjectives derived from them) are capitalized in French too, but there months and languages don't count as proper names, while in English they do. So does the definition of "proper name" depend on what language you're writing in? Does "proper name" have a meaningful definition in a language like German, where all nouns are capitalized regardless of propriety, or in languages like Hebrew and Chinese, where there is no capitalization? —Angr (talk) 07:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed that the definition given had the slightest relevance to Chinese, Hebrew, German, French, or the Upper Slobovian dialect of Old Klingon -- if you'll notice, I happened to include the word "English" in my sentence. As for names of months vs. names of seasons, the names of seasons are not directly used in specifying dates the way the names of months are ("January 5th", but never "summer 5th") and the names of months do not take articles in the same way that names of seasons do ("during January" but "during the summer") etc., so in fact names of months are much more proper-name-like in English than are names of seasons... AnonMoos (talk) 09:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So lat me just rephrase your rule for clarification, AnonMoos: all proper names are capitalized, including adjectives directly derived from proper names, where proper names are defined as the ones that are capitalized. — Kpalion^(talk) 10:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it's proper nouns, words derived directly from proper nouns, and some borderline cases which behave in a proper-noun-like manner (according to various criteria). I already gave an explanation (which you seem to have missed, despite directly replying to it) why names of months are more proper-noun-like than names of seasons... AnonMoos (talk) 18:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so what about names of species or breeds? Of course, "dog" is a common noun, so we don't capitalize that, and if I name my pet dog "Toby", then it's a proper name (the name of an invividual dog), so we do. But "Standard Schnauzer"? It's not a name of an individual dog – there's hundreds of them! So why does it seem to be in the same category as "Toby" and not in the same as "dog"? — Kpalion^(talk) 00:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not all that sure what you're talking about -- basic breed names tend to be uncapitalized (poodle, beagle, dachshund, etc.), while some have a capitalized national adjective (Irish setter, Portuguese water dog, etc.). If the dog-breeding world has different capitalization conventions than ordinary English usage, then I have no knowledge of it and little interest in it. AnonMoos (talk) 07:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, the dogs were just an example. I mean all animal and plant species. Take Whooper Swan, Grey Junglefowl, Masked Lapwing, Brown Pelican, Black Vulture (OK, all birds, but again, these are just examples). Why are they capitalized? Neither "black", nor "vulture" is a proper name, and "Black Vulture" is not a proper name either as it refers not a single specimen, but a whole class of objects. So why is it capitalized? — Kpalion^(talk) 19:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As with horse breeds called Thoroughbred and American Quarter Horse, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a wiki-consensus to do it that way here for animal and plant species. But out there, they're not necessarily capitalised at all. A noun's propriety is a fluid and arbitrary thing, depending on the context. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"General sea doesn't require capitalization, but you do need to capitalize if it's Pacific." :-) StuRat (talk) 18:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

German:Hauptveranst[edit]

What does this German word mean? It appears everywhere in on-line Course System, but I just cannot find its meaning by Google.--刻意(Kèyì) 15:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like an abbreviation of Hauptveranstaltung, which would mean "main event", "main meeting", "main session" or the like. —Angr (talk) 15:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Angr is right. If you see it in a course system, it may also mean "core curriculum course" or, possible, "graduate course" (as a contraction of Hauptstudiumsveranstaltung). If you can post a link, we may be able to be more precise. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense, for an example, https://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/extern.php?module=Lecturedetails&config_id=d1a8affc1128f345ba2a3a84b511e861&range_id=db66fd7fdd6564055fadd6873d86b790&seminar_id=095430dcf388d55dc3294a32ef2352e6 --刻意(Kèyì) 20:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Castilian Spanish[edit]

Hello all. I have studied Spanish since primary school and some Spanish friends (parents' coworkers' children) have said that I speak pretty close to natively. However, my school has mandated that only Castilian Spanish be taught, so while I can speak fluently I speak with the distinctive accent, expressions, and pronunciation of the Madrid region, but I live in the US. When I apply for a job, I am still wary of putting myself down as a Spanish-speaker because I know they're expecting Latin American Spanish, which I can understand but not produce (it feels unnatural to me to pronounce, for example, parecer [paɾeseɾ], without the [θ]). My question is, what would a Latin American speaker think upon hearing Castilian Spanish? Would there be any barrier to comprehension? Is it comparable to an American hearing British English? Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 23:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the answer to your question (other than my memory of some brief passages I read in the Milagro Beanfield War novel long ago), but I really wonder what reason a school in the U.S. would have for insisting on teaching Iberian Spanish other than a somewhat misplaced snobbery... AnonMoos (talk) 23:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article es:Idioma español from our sister project states about the differences between the dialects: "Estas diferencias no suelen ocasionar problemas de inteligibilidad entre sus hablantes." Not being a native speaker, I have the impression that the difference between the Latin American standard and the Castilian standard is in fact similar to that between Received Pronunciation and General American in terms of mutual comprehension. Of course, many Latin American immigrants in the United States speak something that departs from the standard and, if they have not been exposed to much Castilian Spanish, may find it hard to understand. On the other hand, since Spanish actors regularly appear in Latin American telenovelas, it's hard to imagine that many Latin Americans have not been exposed to Castilian. Marco polo (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The OP said that they live in the U.S. NOW. If they had, say, lived in Europe prior to moving here, and learned Spanish in Europe, it is likely they learned Castilian Spanish in school. That being said, while I don't speak much Spanish, my understanding is that you would be understood fine in the U.S.; most U.S. Spanish speakers come from Puerto Rico, Cuba, and Mexico, and all three of those have very distinctive dialects. I had a Columbian roomate once who tried to explain to me how each Spanish dialect is perceived by other Spanish speakers, however near as I could tell they were all as mutually intelligible as any of the major English dialects. You may come off as, say, a speaker who speaks Received Pronounciation, but you'd be perfectly understandable to anyone in the Americas who speaks Spanish natively. Spanish dialects and varieties may give you an idea of some of the distinctions; just perusing the article myself it doesn't look like the differences are any greater than those between British and American varieties English. --Jayron32 02:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From time to time I've seen comments (in English) saying that Spanish-speakers around the world can understand each other. I wouldn't think the OP would have any significant difficulties. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just be careful using the verb coger when speaking to South Americans. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 07:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I learned Spanish in the US, albeit only so-and-so, and I have trouble understanding the European version. All I hear is "θθθθθθ". 80.123.210.172 (talk) 11:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say just be careful with the word coger. Other than that, barring a few features in pronunciation and if you're not using jargon or swearing, Iberian Spanish and Latin American Spanish are almost exactly the same. As you suspected, the differences are similar to those found between American and British English, or between Brazilian and European Portuguese. --Belchman (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I studied Spanish for three years in US high schools, and had no problems making myself understood in Spain. 216.93.212.245 (talk) 07:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from certain, um, saltier expressions (such as coger), you won't have too many problems since Spanish pronunciation is remarkably simple and rather difficult with which to form creole languages.

The only likely problem I foresee concerns ll. In nearly every Spanish speaking community today, one pronounces it like a "y" in English—in fact, almost everywhere you go, you will not hear any difference between halla and haya. In some places, however, such as Bolivia, parts of Peru, and certain small towns in Spain's Castille region, the distinction between "ll" and "y" remains preserved (sort of like the lli in the English word million). Also, in the River Plate area of Argentina and Uruguay, locals tend to pronounce "ll" similar to the s in the English word measure—though trending in recent years more towards the sh in the English word shop.

I hope that this helps! Pine (talk) 21:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]