Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/August 2005

Is "was a former" redundant?

There is a series of articles on past and present Canadian electoral districts. Where a district no longer exists because of redistribution, which is correct:

• "Don Valley North was a former electoral district", or
• "Don Valley North is a former electoral district"?

I believe that the past nature of the district is captured in "former", and that adding the past tense to the sentence is either redundant, or "undoes" the past nature. Another editor suggests that using the present tense makes it inconsistent with the following sentence that describes where the district "was located" (i.e., it uses the simple past tense). Assistance would be appreciated. Ground Zero 14:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• I'd lean towards "is a former district"; regardless of a following sentence changing to past tense, saying something "was a former district" sounds illogical and seems to imply that somehow it's now a district again. If tense inconsistencies cannot be worked around, why not just say "was a district" without any former at all? -- Ferkelparade π 14:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Yes, it should just be 'was a district'. No need for 'former'. Proto t c 15:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Seconded. "Former" is a negator masquerading as an adjective and clarity is instantanly improved by losing it. Now, any reason you're calling it an "electoral district" instead of "riding"? Sharkford 15:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm quite fond of riding as a distinctly Canadian usage of the word, but it is colloquial -- Canadian elections agencies do not generally use it. They use "electoral district" or similar bureaucratically bland terms. Also, I didn't create the articles in the first place. Other more industrious editors did so. Thanks for your comments. Ground Zero 18:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• You can either say it "was a district" or "is a former district". Saying it "was a former district" is a double negative in English and strictly means that it is no longer a former district, and is now an active district. --Fastfission 20:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • "is a former district" is also wrong by usage, though grammatically correct. should use "was a district" - anon
  • This "double negative" could imply either that it's no longer former *or* no longer a district, though the latter implies that it became former before it ceased to be a district. --Ihope127 16:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• All three options are gramatically correct, but not necessarily factually correct. Let's say we're talking about the late Walter Payton. If it's 1992, you can say, "Payton is a former Chicago Bear." Today, if you're talking about his career, you would say, "Payton was a Chicago Bear." But if it's today, and we're talking about 1992, you could say, "In 1992, I met a man who was a former Chicago Bear. His name was Walter Payton, and he later died." Mwalcoff 02:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• But a location can't die. Unless Don Valley was wiped from the face of the earth by some terrible cataclysm. Proto t c 15:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• I'm rather late on this, but perhaps "Don Valley North was the name of an electoral district" would work. I'd like to see what comes after the phrase, though. LarryMac 14:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Actually, locations can die. Or rather, common use of certain names for locations can fade. Thus, "Gaul was a Roman province." If people still referred to the area as "Gaul", I supposed we would say, "Gaul is a former Roman province." ... or does that seem to suggest that the idea of "Roman province" is still alive, too? In any case, I think the comments by Mwalcoff are terribly sensible. — Nowhither 19:50, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

is are

I have a question about subject verb agreement. Does the following sentence violate subject verb agreement, or is it proper as it is written.

My thoughts for the song being as it is are that a lineman works hard and is tired.

It's proper, but ugly. How about 'In my opinion the song is as it is because a lineman works hard, and is tired'. Proto t c 15:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

The meaning of the sentence is not clear to me, so I don't agree that it is proper. A proper sentence should be clear. I think that you might want to try re-writing the sentence altogether. Commas would help carve the sentence up into logical bits. If you insert coammas where you would pause in saying the sentence, it will be easier for the reader to understand what you are writing. For example:

My thoughts for the song, being as it is, are that a lineman works hard and is tired.

The "are" refers to your thoughts, not to the song, I think: "My thoughts are that a lineman works hard and is tired", rather than "The song is that a lineman works hard and is tired".

I'd like to suggest another way of syaing this that might be clearer:

I think that the song, as it is written, says that a lineman works hard and is tired. Or,

I think that the song, as I plan to write it, will say that a lineman works hard and is tired.

I hope this helps. Ground Zero 15:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Just wanted to mention that I puzzled and puzzled over the meaning of the original sentence. So I agree that it's just not a good sentence and the better question was how to rephrase it. Elf | Talk 00:13, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who offered help. The sentence made more sense in the context in which it was written (as a rebuttal). However,I agree that it is elliptical in its phrasing.

Thanks, Jason

• The sentence structure looks OK to me. The main reason why the meaning is difficult to understand is that the sentence doesn't have much punctuation. This may be intentional but probably isn't. Adding commas (or hyphens) makes it a lot clearer: "My thoughts for the song, being as it is, are that a lineman works hard and is tired.". The present plural form ("are") of the verb "to be" agrees with the subject in the first clause ("My thoughts").Idaho2000 27 August 2005

Third person singular pronoun?

Is there any documented Wikipedia policy on the use of "they" as a singular pronoun, or on the use of "he" versus "he or she"? In other words, of these three phrasings:

1. If a person wants to play the game, he must log on.
2. If a person wants to play the game, they must log on.
3. If a person wants to play the game, he or she must log on.

I have my own preference for which I believe is correct, so I'm not looking for opinions on that - I just want to know, what can I point to which authoritatively says which of these is preferred in Wikipedia articles? - Brian Kendig 17:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

There are two very long discussions here (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style archive (gender-neutral pronouns)) and in the section immediately following it. The decision was basically that no decision could be reached. But don't be surprised if people rephrase things to avoid "he/she", "he or she", "one person/they". :-) Elf | Talk 00:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Elf on this. I think it is a matter of personal preference, especially in Wikipedia. Personally, I use #3, or find a way around it, e.g., People who want to play the game must log on. Ground Zero 00:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

It is usually best to change the sentence so no gender pronoun is required. #3 to me is cumbersome, and "people who want to play the game must log on" takes up less space and is gender-neutral, so that phrase is preferable. Graham 08:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Or even 'Those who wish to play the game must log on'. Proto t c 14:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with Graham, Ground Zero and Proto on this. I consider 'he or she' a rather unnatural turn of language, and the singular 'they' as rather illogical. I think that the sentence flows more easily if there is no situation where a singular 'they' or 'he or she' is necessary. IINAG, 20:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Could one not also use the following? "If one wants to play the game, one must log on." It remains gender-neutral, compact and comprehensible, does it not? Grumpy Troll ^(talk) 23:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Forgot signature, please excuse me.

Yes, one could indeed, anon. Unfortunately, 'one' is dogged down with false applications; also, many people consider think that it is stuffy and purposeless, even though it is the closest thing to a natural gender-neutral pronoun. I think that the English language is the less fortunate for that. IINAG, 22:59, 24 August 2004.

This is an area where there is some difference between varieties of English. In the UK, singular "they" is fine even in formal contexts, and so your sentence 2 would be fine, though I think "someone" would be better than "a person". However, in the US singular "they" is still frowned on in formal writing. Since Wikipedia is writing for an international audience, we must respect the more conservative varieties of English. In this case, none of your three phrasings will do; the sentence must be rephrased along the lines suggested above. Gdr 12:46:58, 2005-08-26 (UTC)

Each ... it, or Each ... them?

(Moved from Wikipedia:Reference desk.)

I'm in the middle of writing a formal paper. Which is correct?

• The exploratory scope of each tribe is small, which allows it to find potential solutions...
• The exploratory scope of each tribe is small, which allows them to find potential solutions...

Thanks!

• Assuming the it/them in the second refers to the tribe and not the exploratory scope. I'd say the first is technically correct, but I'd use a noun instead to avoid confusion as described below (or something similar).

The exploratory scope of each tribe is small, which allows the tribe's members to find potential solutions... - Mgm|^(talk) 12:52, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Although not strictly relevant to the precise question, it might be worth noting that there can be a difference with this sort of thing depending on which version of English you're using. For example, in Australian English one would say that "England has won the cricket match" (relating "England" to the English team, of which there's only one) whereas in British English one would say that "England have won the cricket match" (relating "England" to the English team members, of whom there are a number). Loganberry (Talk) 13:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• On another note, I'd personally drop the "which" and change it to "allowing" in either case. In which case I'd use "them" -- you're referring to more than one tribe, yes? --Fastfission 14:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks all! My final sentence reads:

• The exploratory scope of each tribe is small, allowing the tribes to find potential solutions...

Is this clearer, or is the second "tribes" repetative?

• Sounds fine to me. It may be repetetive to some, but ambiguity is a lot worse. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:06, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Each is singular and takes singular verb and pronoun, so it would be: The exploratory scope of each tribe is small, which allows it to find potential solutions... --Think Fast 23:15, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

• I have to laugh at the image, sorry: What does "it" refer to? Since "exploratory scope" is the subject in the first half of the sentence ("of each tribe" simply modifies the subject), the pronoun reference "it" grammatically most likely refers to that. So if one wants to make the tribes the subject of the next part of the sentence, it has to be stated explicitly, as was done in the rewrite. I would try to wrestle this into a discussion on antecedents, but that just makes my brain hurt-- Elf | Talk 23:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Allowing is not necessarily the best word to use. And a semicolon wouldn't go amiss. Try: 'The exploratory scope of each tribe is small; this enables them to find potential solutions'. Alternately, try it with an 'as' in front, and reorder to read more fluently: 'As each tribe has a small exploratory scope, they are able to identify potential solutions.' Proto t c 14:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• This sentence rather confused me. From the two options that you proffer, I would prefer 'them' rather than 'it', but this is due to regionalism, as Loganberry suggested. I can abide with 'it' being used, but, to my mind, it makes less sense than them. Hopefully I can explain my justifications for it. I doubt so, though. Regard:

If I said that 'the exploratory scope of senators is small, which allows it to find potential solutions,' it would make little sense, because where 'it' is should refer to the object. The workload of senators is not what is allowed to find solutions! It is the senators, the object of the sentence, who are allowed to find solutions because of their weak exploratory scope. The object, the group of senators, is plural.

I do not see why it should change back to single when a simple plural word is used. To me, since the tribe is not composed of one thing, but of many people, with some degree of free will, it is wrong to refer to them as it. This exploratory scope benefits every person in the tribe. (Nota bene: I do not suggest that this is the only right answer. These are just my deliberations, from a British standpoint.) IINAG 20:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Meanings of words and ceremonies

Hi ; I live in alberta. A native elder has told me that I will be having a ceromony were I will recieve two eagle feathers that are to be placed on the right side of my head.. Could you explain the importance and the meaning of this ceromny please. the other question I have : is she used the word " hecetu" I have tried searching the internet for the word but have come up unsuccessful so far.. if you could help I would greatly appreacite it ..

many thank yous to you and your tribe.

Greetings! I do not know the importance and meaning of the ceremony you will be participating in, however the word hecetu apparently means in Dakota language bona fide, in good faith, genuine[1]. Enjoy yourself! Grumpy Troll ^(talk) 19:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC).

• Hello, anon. Unfortunately, I do not know about this ceremony's significance. Perhaps it is a coming of age; a way to mark your transitition into adulthood. I think that you will have more success in discovering what it means by checking out Wikipedia's Ask A Question, since the grammar desk is for questions about grammar and writing style. We do deal with the significance and application of words, but I think that questions about translation of single words into English are beyond our remit, unless when two or more possible translations are available, or when nothing in English seems to translate a foreign phrase. Anyhow, I am glad that Grumpy Troll was able to help you with the word 'hecetu.' I wish you good luck with your ceremony. IINAG 21:21, 24 August 2005

Some things are not meant to be looked up. I don't know much about your situation, but this looks to me like a good time to ask a real, live person. The obvious person to ask would seem to be the elder. But if you cannot, of if you do not want to appear ignorant, maybe you could find someone who has gone through the ceremony already? (When you find out, make sure you get the name of the ceremony, and then write a Wikipedia article on it.) — Nowhither 11:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

The connotations of ethnocentric

can saying that dodger(the baseball team) fans are only white trash and mexicans as ethnocentric make sense grammatically? If so please explain why and if not please do the same. I believe that you are talking about a group of people so it is ok to use that word. My buddy, tells me it is out of context. PLEASE HELP ME RESOLVE THIS ISSUE! I can be emailed at [email protected]. Please let me know what the answer is Thankyou very much.

See ethnocentric. Also, the definition of ethnocentric more succinctly is "evaluating other cultures according to the preconceptions of one’s own" (Oxford Dictionary) or "characterized by or based on the attitude that one's own group is superior" (Merriam-Webster). So I guess technically saying "Dodger fans are white trash and mexicans" is ethnocentric in some ways--by using the "white trash" slur to imply that the speaker is not a member of a group or culture that she or he considers to be inferior--although the phrasing is blatantly pejorative rather than merely evaluative, and the lumping of "mexicans" with "white trash" somehow implies that mexicans are in the same class as white trash, which might more correctly be labeled bigotry and/or racism IMHO. Elf | Talk 23:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

What is this grammatical structure called?

This topic has been nagging me for months. I want to write a Wikipedia article about it, but I don't know what it is called, so I can't even begin researching.

Consider the sentence:

Mike drives a car, and Steve drives a motorcycle.

This can be (and usually is) shortened to:

Mike drives a car, and Steve a motorcycle.

What is this shortening process called? I know that it also exists in German, and probably many other languages. This can relate nominative to accusitive as above. But also nominitive to dative (a bit confusing):

Becky gave Susan a card and Mike Susan a flower.

But not accusitive to dative, as no verb is removed. Prepositions may be removed as well:

The book sits on the table, and the pencil the desk.

In the opposite case, nouns may be related to prepositions by removing verbs and other nouns:

Chris went over the fence, and Mike under.

The combinations become limitless. Thanks ⇝Casito⇝Talk 05:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• I would recommend not using the last two as it's quite confusing for people less familiar with English grammar. This will no doubt contribute to faulty contractions like "I am an American and (am) going on holiday." (here there word am means different things and thus it cannot be removed.) - 131.211.210.14 09:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I know this wasn't the question--but I don't think I'd ever use the "Becky" or "the book" examples even in common speech as they don't make sense to me--maybe they're just bad examples--but I had no problem with the Chris example,l which Anon didn't like. But Rmhermen seems to have actually answered your question. :-) Elf | Talk 16:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Ellipsis, see the Rhetorics section. Rmhermen 15:02, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. ⇝Casito⇝Talk 17:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

This kind of thing can create technically correct but quite complex sentances, use with care. An extreme example (from Flanders & Swan's Have some Maderia, m'Dear) is "She lowered her standards by raising her glass, her courage, her eyes, and his hopes". DES ^(talk) 23:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Usage of "circa"

The circa page says it means "about" and is used for dates. Can we use it for other things? Example:

Podunk is a town in the Middle of Nowhere. Population: c. 500.

What do you think? (BTW, I know this isn't exactly a grammar question, but this page seemed the best place to ask.) — Nowhither 11:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• It certainly wouldn't be wrong to do that, but 'approx. 500' might be a clearer abbreviation. Proto t c 12:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merriam-Webster's definition says, in whole, "at, in, or of approximately—used esp. with dates", which is the only way I've ever seen it used. I think it would be confusing to use it with something other than dates. Elf | Talk 16:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• I have seen in used with other numerical approximations, particularly in quite academic contexts. But it is not very common except in connection with dates. (Note that the wikipedia style is to abbreviate "circa" as "c." while some other publications use "ca." or always spell out "circa".)

• Perhaps it's technically correct, but I would frown on it. Use a word or phrase such as "about", "approximately", "roughly", "estimated at", or similar. —Bkell 02:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• I concur with Bkell. "Circa" is a pretentious word anyway. Neutrality^talk 02:52, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

need to know 1,000,000=1 million pounds of sterling

Yes, 1 million is written 1,000,000 in the conventional numbering system. so 1,000,000 pounds = 1 million pounds. Was that your question? --Robert Merkel 04:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

If you are asking about British/American English differences with regards to numbers, I think they are only around the word billion, not million. --Fastfission 14:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

You may want to take a look at Names of large numbers. hydnjo talk 20:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

The idea that long-scale is used in the UK is a complete fallacy. I doubt most people know what "milliard", "billiard" means. The UK billion is the same as the US billion. --Oldak Quill 11:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

While few people in the UK use "milliard" etc, the switch in meaning of "billion" is fairly recent, so that it can actually be kind of ambiguous. When I was young (I'm only in my twenties) I always used "thousand million". Sorry, this is off-topic, but the distinction is not a fallacy. - IMSoP 13:12, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah. You can be fairly sure that when someone says billion they mean 10^9, but it's a lot trickier to be confident with something written - so it's worth being aware. Shimgray 14:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

But one should not be too sure then either since there are non-native English speakers that use milliard in their own language (which I think is quite common in Europe) and may not know or think of the common usage in the English speaking world. I know that I could make this misstake. Jeltz talk 12:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Common journalistic usage seems to be to write numbers greater than or equal to 1,000,000 with a combination of words and figures. Thus:

    1,000,000 --> 1 million
   25,300,000 --> 25.3 million
1,000,000,000 --> 1 billion

I know I should not be a prescriptivist, but for me, this strikes close to home. I believe that to write out large numbers in figures would both be clearer and would encourage numeracy (that is, it would encourage people to become more skilled at handling numbers). When I played pinball regularly, I became accustomed to seeing large numbers written out in figures and rarely if ever made order-of-magnitude errors in dealing with them.

Translation from english to lithuanian

Hi i need to know how to spell/write "From Heaven" (as in I'm from heaven) from english to lithuanian. If you could please e-mail me back on [email protected] that would be great. Thank you for your time. --Kelly.

The most common phrase in Lithuanian is "Iš dangaus", Another phrase "Iš Rojaus" also may be used, when one speaks about the Heaven, meaning the Paradise. These phrases are pronounced this way: approximately using English writing, it will sound "Ish dun 'goes", "Ish 'row yoes", the Lithuanian pronouncing (In the simplified Lithuanian transcription , which is based mostly on Latin prononuncing of letters) is [iʃ dangaus], [iʃ rōjaus]. - And, sorry, may I know, why do You need it? Linas Lituanus 08:01, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Specificity

I feel that there is an error in "Specificity" term: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specificity

You write that: "For a test to determine who has a certain disease, a specificity of 100% means that all people labeled as sick are actually sick."

But I feel that "For a test to determine who has a certain disease, a specificity of 100% means that all people labeled as NOT sick are actually NOT sick."

• Then go to Talk:Specificity and explain your reasoning to the editors who are involved in the article. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:49, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Spanish translation

Can someone translate this for me; I have my own translation but I want to compare it to someone else's (it is a bit tricky):

"Se dio cuenta de que acabada de morirse cuando vio que su propio cuerpo, como si no fuera el suyo sino el de un doble, see desplomada sobre la silla y lo arrastraba en la caída. Cadáver y silla quedaron tendidos sobre la alfombra, en medio de la habitación."

--Neutrality^talk 00:28, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

How about, "He realized that he had just died when he saw that his own body, as if it wasn't his own but that of a double, was collasped on the chair and dragged it as it fell. The body and chair remained lying on the carpet, in the middle of the home." That was good practice. I had to refer to the translator for a few words, but translated it manually. What's "see"? Also, what'd you get overall? (previous unsigned comment by me, Superm401 --Superm401 | Talk 01:44, August 29, 2005 (UTC))

See http://babelfish.altavista.com/ for a quick and easy DIY translation service. Shantavira 14:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Ahh... I was about to edit this at miscellaneous, but suddenly, it slipped from my grip. It had been moved here with no notice on the miscellaneous page. Anyway, Babelfish is a very poor translation. Only use it when you're desperate. I assume that's why Neutrality posted somewhere that humans read questions. Superm401 | Talk 00:10, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with Superm401; Babelfish is terrible for nuance. 'See' seems to be a regional transcription of 'sea', the present subjunctive of the verb 'ser,' to be. I have heard it spoken after a trigger of the subjunctive a few times. Alternatively, it could be a verb that I do not know (and is not listed in my hernia-enducing dictionary either,) but I am positive that it is just a flattening of the a sound in sea.

In all, I got the same as Shantavira, although it sounds slightly clunky. Also, I would translate habitación as 'room', not 'home.' Whence comes this passage, by the way? IINAG 11:42, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the translation above("He realized that he had just died when he saw that his own...") was mine. For proof that I posted it, see this diff. The confusion is understandable, given that I forgot to sign(which is unlike me). Superm401 | Talk 01:42, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

As for it sounding clunky, I agree. To be fair, though, I've only taken 5 years of the language(mostly high school). I'm not a professional translator. I still think it's better than a machine translation. Superm401 | Talk 01:46, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

What is the source of your text, just out of curiosity? --Dpr 07:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

It's the opening line of the short story 'El fantasma' by Enrique Anderson Imbert. --Ngb ^?!? 08:25, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Longest Word in Alphebetical Order

What is the longest word in English such that all its letters are in alphabetical order? --Anthonymorris 10:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz (song), if proper nouns count.--Pharos 10:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Aegilops, which is a form of grass, and also an alternate spelling for 'egilops', an ulcer in a part of the eye. [2]. Proto t c 12:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Further question: What is the shortest phrase or sentence in the English language that includes all the 26 letters in alphabetical order, with possible other letters between them? — JIP | Talk 07:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Not quite what you're after, but [3] has "some exceptional panalphabetic word lists with letters in alphabetical order". Gdr 12:24:29, 2005-08-25 (UTC)

See also pangram. Shantavira 17:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

use of word Chairman

I wish to check advice given to me re the use of the word "Chairman". I'm advised the "man" comes from the Latin "man" (pronounced marn) meaning "to lead or direct". This thereby debunks the use of Chairperson or Chairwoman. If not then to be politically correct we should also say "persondate" for mandate; "personager" for manager etc. Would appreciate your thoughts on this.

Yes, and followers of Hare Khrisna should chant persontras. But no, I don't think the "man" in "chairman" comes from the Latin word, I think it really means man. — JIP | Talk 06:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Latin doesn't have a word 'man' and none of the words beginning with 'man' means anything like lead or direct. Mandate comes from latin mandare which means something like confide. -EnSamulili 07:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

A chairman, like a spokesman, can be female or male. If you're really concerned (and I see no reason to be), use "convenor" as they do in Scotland, jguk 07:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Even if your statement about the origins of the word where true, it doesn't automatically "debunk" the use of the word just the etymology of "chairwoman". It might be wrong, but people still use it as a politically (in)correct version of the word chairman to refer to a woman. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:55, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Man, as we see here, is used representing "mankind". We don't have womankind, do we? JA

• If you want to use a gender-neutral term, the simple chair, as in "Chair of the commission" or "I request that the Chair..." is both traditional and politically correct, and succint to boot!--Pharos 10:29, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• • Chairs are for sitting on, jguk 18:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

    Well, when I chair a meeting, please don't sit on me. — Nowhither 19:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

  • There's a large UK science fiction fan who, when she's chairing a SF convention, describes herself as "the sofa". Of course, Chairman and Chairwoman are not only sexist, they're speciesist -- we should be referring to the Chairbeing! -- Arwel 12:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
    • How about Chairentity? — JIP | Talk 12:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The original poster is making two mistakes. First, the etymological fallacy, the belief that the historical origins of a word tells you what it means now. And second, the belief that back-formation is somehow an illegitimate means of making new words (no-one eschews the word "cherry" on the grounds that it results from the mis-analysis of French cherise as a plural). Gdr 12:44:48, 2005-08-25 (UTC)

Another implicit falacy here is the assumption that reasonable, logical argument is going to convince the purveyors of language fads (like that of political correctness) to see the error of their ways. It hasn't, it doesn't, and it won't. If you just want to find something to giggle about, well, then you're doing fine. But if your goal is serious social change, I suggest you give up. — Nowhither 15:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I have summed up political correctness in a simple definition: "If people actually understand and use a term, it's politically incorrect". — JIP | Talk 14:50, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm OUTRAGED by your INSENSITIVE use of the term "people". Not to mention the term "term". (Joke, okay, it's a joke. Joke, joke, joke.) — Nowhither 19:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Spelling errors !!!!

Sir/Madam:

On your "JSS Gallery Frontpage", above the photo of the library, below it (Jpg: memory.loc.gov), and, of course, on the running heads, "Windener" should be "Widener" (only one "n" in Widener).

Also, on the page with the drawing of the three sections of the library, footnote 1, penultimate line: 'Quoate' should read 'Quote', unless 'quoate' is a new word I have yet to come across. I have not read the entire article but perhaps someone should, just to check for such embarrassing typos.

In addition, I have read that the father of Harry Elkins Widener died on the Titanic along with his son. So how could his "parents" build the new library in his memory? Was there a stepfather?! If so, that fact should have been noted.

Harvard--Shame on you!!!

Betty Goldman Cambridge chbettygoldman at yahoo.com

P.S. Sorry if this is not the correct page to place a correction but I could not find anywhere else to type it. I hope that you will see that it gets to the right source. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.21.185.2 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 25 August 2005

• Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs changing, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit any article by simply following the Edit this page link. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or try out the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I've looked for these articles, and cannot find the errors mentioned. I have a feeling that Ms. Goldman is perhaps looking at the Harvard website, as Wikipedia does not seem to have a photo or drawings of the Widener library. Ground Zero | t 20:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Can't figure this one out. Widener Library is as close as I could get but I don't get it either. hydnjo talk 20:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• She think's we're the place to contact somehow. See the "Harvard--Shame on you!!!". She must have been looking at some Harvard website, but reported the spelling error here. - Taxman ^Talk 21:38, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Indeed. Shame on Cambridge. Ground Zero | t 21:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• I'll bet it's a mirror site with a ref to WP but with a lot of other stuff there. hydnjo talk 01:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • This page [4] appears to be the one referred to, although quite how this relates to Wikipedia I don't know - the site doesn't link here, and our article doesn't link there(!). Thryduulf 10:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Some librarians like to blame WP for lots of stuff. ;-) hydnjo talk 20:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• I explored that site a little further and found a comments form, so I copied the orginal query there with a short note of explanation. A few hours later I got a very nice thankyou note saying the errors were fixed. Wiki-by-proxy! Thryduulf 01:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• Well thank you Thryduulf, you have the patience of a saint (so to speak). As I see, you were the only one to follow this to the very end and defend Wikipedia's integrity. Thanks from me at the very least and I'm pretty sure that I speak for many other Wikipedians without your talent. hydnjo talk 00:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Well some errors may have been fixed(I got into this late), but the title of the page referred to is still wrong. Perhaps the person who found the comment form would like to complain again. :) Superm401 | Talk 00:46, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

He took his sandwich, sat at the piano, and ate it

What is this kind of grammatical construction called where, by accident or for humorous effect, the normal reading of a phrase (perhaps due to abuse of pronouns) attaches the verb to the wrong object? I thought maybe it was a zeugma, but that doesn't seem to quite fit. Notinasnaid 09:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

It's not the verb "ate" that may become attached to the wrong object, but the pronoun "it". You might call this effect an "ambiguous pronoun reference" were it not for the fact that from a purely grammatical point of view all pronoun references are ambiguous. That is, there is no grammatical rule that can tell you what a pronoun refers to: you have to use your knowledge to figure out what makes most sense. Gdr 12:36:27, 2005-08-26 (UTC)

It's also called an "unclear pronoun reference." Same difference. I'd disagree somewhat that all pronoun references are unclear unless you mean by "knowledge" one's understanding of the language. For example, in "He sat at the piano because it was the only empty space in the room," "it" refers to a noun that precedes it. There are 2 nouns: he and the piano, but "it" in english never refers to a person, so it must refer to the piano. But you're right that a nonnative speaker might have trouble with that same construct. Elf | Talk 15:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

It's funny you should use that example, because when I read it, I take "it" to refer not to the piano, but to the empty space! A pronoun may refer forward, as in my interpretation of your example. Or it may refer to something not mentioned in the discourse at all, for example in "It's raining" where "it" refers to the weather. The linguistic terms for these uses of pronouns are anaphora (linguistics) (backwards reference), cataphora (forward reference) and exophora (reference to something outside the discourse). Gdr 16:19:58, 2005-08-26 (UTC)

Huh, I'm not sure that' I'd ever first mentally look forward for an "it" reference when there are nouns that precede it, but I guess we're still making the point--watch out for pronouns. (Which of course wasn't the original question, but what the heck.) Elf | Talk 16:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• I've been taught this is called a "pincer". sat at the piano is a clause which is encased by the rest of the sentence He took his sandwich, and ate it. But because of the placement of the clause, the word "it" appears to refer to the piano instead of the sandwich it's supposed to indicate (the "ambiguous pronoun reference" mentioned above). If you ever get something ambiguous like this when it's not intended, rewrite the sentence. - 82.172.23.66 20:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Is it a "dangling pronoun"? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Klingon language question

How do you say "it could be" in Klingon? For example "you could be an officer"? "You are an officer" is yaS SoH, and "you can be an officer" is, I think, yaS SoHlaH, but how would I write it in the conditional? DuH is apparently a verb meaning "to be possible", but how is it used with a sentence as the subject? For example, is "it is possible that you are an officer" yaS SoH 'e' DuH? — JIP | Talk 11:48, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I think you'd have a better chance of getting an answer if you asked somewhere like Talk:Klingon language. — Nowhither 19:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Slavic languages

Which slavic languages use the letter Č? --HappyCamper 03:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• Hey, happy camper. Croatian, Czech, Slovenian, and Serbian use the letter č. Latvian and Lithuanian, though they are not Slavic, also use it. IINAG 10:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• Ah, thanks! :-) --HappyCamper 12:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• You are very welcome :D. IINAG 10:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Upper and Lower Sorbian use it as well. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 17:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Which type of logical fallacy?

I was watching a commercial for a pay-per-view type channel, and I was wondering which type of logical fallacy would this be:

"You could drive to the video store in bad weather, stand in line for hours, just to find out that the movie you want is currently out of stock... or you could tune to channel..."

I think the commercial implies that because this COULD happen (though I imagine the chances aren't as high as they seem, the weather, the lines, and the movie being out of stock) it WILL happen. Anyone know which type this would fall under? --Scapegoat pariah 05:36, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Murphy's law? Murphy's Law- JA

A good question. I looked through the list at logical fallacy, and the ones that seem to fit best, IMHO, are appeal to probability and false dilemma. — Nowhither 11:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not even sure it's a logical fallacy. You could indeed have an unsuccessful journey to a store to find a movie; but pay-per-view is always available. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• It's a false dilemma — making it sound like there are only two options, one of which is completely unacceptable. --Fastfission 23:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Talah, (question originally from 212.118.17.128)

TALAH : Is a named used among people, in arabic it is spilled تالا but I wonder what does it mean please if any one can give a clue I'll be greatfull thank you.

According to baby-names-meanings.net, Tala is a female islamic name that means "Palm tree". It could be also a female Native american name that means "wolf". CG 17:14, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Silts

Near my home in England there is a an enclosed field, commonly used as pasture by sheep and cattle. It is crossed by a public right of way via a gate which carries the warning. Beware of deep silts. Can anyone enlighten me as to what this means. There is no evidence of sandy deposits anywhere. --anon

Silt is finer than sand, more like mud, and can therefore hold more water. Presumably this is marshland or the bottom of a valley? I hadn't come across this expression before either, but Googling "deep silts" brings quite a few results which might throw a bit more light. Shantavira 17:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Word for a Catch 22 question

I'm not sure if Catch 22 is the correct term to use here but I was wondering if there is an actual word or term that describes a question that makes itself redundant, for example "Can I start with a question?"... Because it IS a question the speaker has already started with a question making the question ironic or redundant. A redundant, ironic, catch 22 or rhetorical question is the closest words I can come to describe it but is there a word that sums it all up. I Appreciate any feedback, thanks - Dean

Some people would call that begging the question, but many would call that an inaccurate use of the expression. You may also want to consult Catch-22. Cheers, Bovlb 04:59:19, 2005-08-30 (UTC)

An apparently self-contradictory statement is an oxymoron, so you might want to look at that article. Shantavira 13:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I would not use "Catch-22" here. That has a completely different meaning. I think that it is best described as a redundant question. Ground Zero | t 13:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

It does somewhat resemble a Performative contradiction... David Sneek 16:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

A self-referential statement come to mind. hydnjo talk 22:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Philippines in Latin

I am trying to find literature about the Philippines in Latin. I am not sure how to translate place names like Luzon(Luconia), Visaya, Mindanao, etc. I've searched through gutenberg.org and I've seen the maps about the Philippines. If there are any links that can be found, please let me know.--Jondel 06:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Maybe someone at the Vicipaedia can help you. David Sneek 16:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Em-dash in Canadian electoral district names

I just came across the page on Regina—Wascana (a Canadian electoral district). I thought, "That's a silly place to put an em-dash." So I moved the page to Regina-Wascana, using a hyphen, which I figured was the proper punctuation. But as I was working on changing the pages that linked there, I came across a list of Canadian electoral districts. It turns out that there are lots and lots of them on pages named using em-dashes: Regina—Lumsden, Prince Albert—Churchill River, Selkirk—Red River, Portage—Interlake, Lisgar—Marquette, Windsor—St. Clair, Wellington—Grey, and the list goes on and on and on ... at least 50 of them, and probably more. So I'm wondering if I did the right thing. I did some Google searching, and I could not find any usages of the em-dash in this context, which of course is highly suggestive. So, am I wrong? Or, if I'm right, does anyone want to help me fix all these (and the links pointing to them)? — Nowhither 09:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I did the same thing once, and was immediately told off. Apparently there is a good reason, but I can no longer remember what it was. Don't worry, someone seems to be keeping their eye on these and will put it right. Shantavira 10:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

You might try asking at Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/discussion, which describes itself as [The page] for discussion about Canadian-related topics and articles. Thryduulf 12:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The reason is that emdash is what Elections Canada uses, and they have a good reason for it. In French, the various parts of a multiple-word geographic name are hyphenated with an endash. When Elections Canada joins two or more multiple-word geographic names, they are then joined with emdashes. So you might have a neighbourhood in Montreatl called St-Laurent (the saint is "St. Laurent", the neighbourhood is "St-Laurent") that is joined in an electoral district with a town called Westmount. The result is an electoral district called Saint-Henri—Westmount. Here are some more examples: Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Temiscouata—Les-Basques, Lachine—Lac-Saint-Louis. Ground Zero | t 13:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Origin of the word byte ?

In the byte article, the line that comes closest to answering this questions is : "The word was coined by mutating the word bite so it would not be accidentally misspelled as bit." Now whats the relation between the word "bite" and the concept of the byte ? How did 'bite' come up in the first place ? And why would someone mis-pronounce 'bite' as 'bit' ? Jay 18:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

A "bit" is the fundamental unit of digital information and can take on one of two values, commonly either zero or one. It takes a group of "bits" to define say a character, typically an eight bit group. This group of eight bits is called a "byte". There are exceptions to the eight bit grouping so this is a generalization. Now, imagine a long string of bits (zeros and ones) from which you take a "bite" exactly eight bits long and that each "bite" represents a number or letter. That is the concept (I think) that you were asking about. There was opportunity for confusion between the words "bit" and "bite" and so the word "byte" was coined to replace "bite" in an attempt to reduce the confusion. hydnjo talk 19:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks you've precisely answered my question. So bite refers to the physical action of "biting". But is the name origin just an assumption ? Is there some link which says that byte comes from bite meaning "take a bite from a long string" ? This link gives an alternate meaning (retronym ?) "Binary Yoked Transfer Element" Jay 17:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I imagine the similarity with "bit" also led to the introduction of "byte". Then someone thought they were too similar, and changed the "i" to a "y". — Nowhither 01:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Would this person be Werner Buchholz ? Byte article mentions only this one name. This link says that he published a memo in 1956 July where he mentioned the word "byte", meaning the transition from bite to byte wouldn't have taken much time. Jay 17:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, the word "bit" comes from "binary digit" Superm401 | Talk 02:16, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Angelina Jolie's tattoo

Do you know what the Tattoo on Angelina Jolie's left shoulder blade says?

Open other end? - Nunh-huh 01:24, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I struggle with the cardboard, I wrestle with the foil.
I pluck at tiny tabs until my blood begins to boil.
And when I'm all for giving up, on this I can depend:
I see those nasty, spiteful words: "Open other end". — JIP | Talk 09:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

According to this site her tattoos include "the words 'Know Your Rights' just below her neck." Maybe that's the one. David Sneek 10:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Grammar when referring to musical groups

Inspired by todays FA, Iron Maiden, I'm interested in the different UK & US grammar usage. I've found before that the US tends to treat bands as singular items: "Iron Maiden is a band..." whereas in the UK I would usually say "Iron Maiden are a band...". Firstly I was wondering which of these is 'more grammatically correct' (I seem to recall reading somewhere that "Iron Maiden is..." is better) and secondly, does the US style extend to 'plural' band names? Going on wikipedia articles, I find "The Scissor Sisters is..." but "The White Stripes are...", "The Beatles were..." and "The Hives are" (although the last two may be because they're non-US bands). --Tdrawler 07:58, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

• For non-plural bands, "Iron Maiden is..." is grammatically more correct because the verb is attached to "the band" and not the different individuals that make up the band. You also say "The group is/was" even though a group can contain numerous people. - 131.211.210.12 08:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Actually, that is not correct. 'Iron Maiden are a band' is more correct, as you are discussing a group comprised of more than one person. Use of the incorrect 'is' seemed to spread from sports commentary in the U.S.A. ("The San Antonio Spurs is"). It's truly terrible grammar. And it should be "the group are/were", not "the group is/was". This has bothered me for a long time, I always change it on articles when I happen to edit them (although I don't go out of my way to do it). Proto t c 11:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I don;t know where you're getting your sports coverage, but the Spurs are, as are all other teams in America. Nelson Ricardo 02:53, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

There is a difference between British and American usage on this point. It des make the most sense to use a verb that agrees with the grammatical number of the noun phrase: Scissor Sisters are..., Iron Maiden is.... However, American-English style often insists that a group (not just of musicians) is a singular noun phrase and should be treated as such. On the other hand, British-English style often goes the other way and treats a group as a plural because of its constituent parts (The British Army have a strong morale). As a Brit, the American way makes more sense to me, but I just can't stop using the British style! Gareth Hughes 12:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Most popular word list

Where can I find a list of the 200 or 300 or so most popular nouns, adjectives and verbs in English? — JIP | Talk 09:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[5][6] David Sneek 10:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

clip clop

You know when people ask you to an impression of a horse walking, and you make a "clip clop" sound with the tongue. Well, how do u write that sound in IPA? It's for a weird short novel that I'm writing - and this in needed in a scene, without it the scene would be a lot less funny. --Wonderfool t(c) 00:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The sounds in question are click consonants. I believe the sound used for "clip clop" is the postalveolar click, whose symbol is the exclamation point (!). By convention, the symbol for a plain voiceless click is accompanied by [k] when the closure is velar (which it is in this case), so the symbol for the "clip" is [k!]. The lower-pitched click for "clop" has lip rounding, so its symbol is [k!ʷ]. "Clip-clop, clip-clop" is thus rendered [k! k!ʷ k! k!ʷ] in IPA. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 22:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)