Language desk
< June 8	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 10 >

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.

June 9

Book Info

I need a MLA citation for the Book , Seeteufel erobert Amerika, by Felix von Luckner. I don't have the book, nor can I find anything online. Thank you.--Xtothe3rd (talk) 01:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's listed in the bibliography of our article on Luckner, with all the information you need for an MLA citation. -Elmer Clark (talk) 05:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me.

I need a Farsi-English or a Farsi-Spanish translator please. PLEASE. 190.49.115.183 (talk) 01:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can help in the first case, if it's not more than a few sentences. --Omidinist (talk) 04:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since Farsi is the rarer of the two and those editors may not frequent the Language reference desk, try directly contacting English-language Wikipedia Farsi speakers (who've indicated this language and proficiency level among their Babel boxes, Category:User fa) for Farsi>English ; also on the Spanish and Persian Wikipedias to seek those who would know the Farsi/Spanish combination. If you're seeking a translation professional, you're more likely to get results on the Web. -- Deborahjay (talk) 05:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese

I want to say "The night that the birds didn't cry" and "The night when the birds didn't cry", but I'm not sure how to say them. Would 鳥は鳴かなかった夜 work for the former and 鳥は鳴かなかった夜のとき work for the latter?--十八 06:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

鳥が鳴かなかった夜 for the former and maybe 夜、鳥が鳴かなかったとき for the latter. Oda Mari (talk) 08:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, both of the English sentences that 十八 wanted translating mean exactly the same thing. 'That' is very often used as a subsititute for 'when', especially in American English. 鳥が鳴かなかった夜 is correct. 夜、鳥が鳴かなかったとき means 'Night time, when the birds didn't cry...', implying there will be a clause following. --ChokinBako (talk) 10:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

German Prefix

Alles aussteigen bitte. Alle Leute steigen aus.

Why is the prefix not separated in the first sentence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.102.194.47 (talk) 09:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first phrase is an imperative (a special case of the imperative plural where the infinitive is used instead of the proper imperative form, because the speaker is not personally addressing a clearly defined group of people but rather the generic group of people who happen to be in the train at the time), the second phrase is a simple statement where the verb has to be conjugated. -- Ferkelparade π 09:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talking horse

A few questions:
1. Is it more correct to use 'stable' or 'stables'? Is there a difference or is the plural just a collection of stalls?
2. When riding a horse, is it correct to say 'John galloped...' or do you always have to refer to the horse galloping?
3. Are there any other horse emotions you can think of instead of 'whinny' or 'harrumph'?
4. Is it correct to say 'the horse nuzzled up against me'?
5. What kind of horse do you think a unicorn would be associated with? I am really interested in general perception rather than anyone looking this up and providing a dictionary definition which I could have done myself. Do you perceive a unicorn as a war-horse, a stallion or a tame mare prancing about in the woods, for example?
Thanks guys, this is for certain elements of a book I've been trying to write on and off for years now. Sandman30s (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. "Stable" should be correct, both would be a collection of stalls. IIRC, the buildings in Warcraft II were called Stables, which made it weird when you said "build a Stables".

4. I think this is correct.

5. My idea of a unicorn is more like a wild mare really. Not really violent but not very comfortable with humans. But this is an opinion... --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 16:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Nothing wrong with "stables", as a certain legendary stall mucker could attest to.

3. Skittishness; rolling eyes in fear of predators.

5. A white mare is traditional, though a biologist would no doubt insist on stallions too. Clarityfiend (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be pointed out that the traditional unicorn (the one of medieval bestiaries) is, as the second sentence of our article Unicorn sort of points out, more goatlike than horselike, both in size and in appearance. Deor (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1 - I've heard "the stable" and "the stables" both used for a building containing accommodation for more than one horse. "Stable block" is also used of a separate building set aside for horse accommodation.

2 - Can't see a problem with "John galloped...". Cf Browning's poem How We Brought the Good News from Ghent to Aix

I sprang to the stirrup, and Joris, and he;

I gallop’d, Dirck gallop’d, we gallop’d all three

3 - Nicker; neigh; snort; squeal; bray

4 - Nuzzled up to or against me - have seen both used

5 - Whether or not it's a rhinoceros, as some suggest the medieval "monocerus" may be, most early sources seem to agree that a unicorn is "the fiercest of beasts" unless you wave a handy virgin at it. Pliny the Elder described it as having "the body of a horse, the head of a stag, the feet of an elephant, the tail of a boar, and a single black horn three feet long in the middle of its forehead. Its cry is a deep bellow." I've always gone for the more robust fantasy lit ones myself - noble snorting stallions with fiery eyes - probably for this reason. I don't tend to imagine them as timid milk-white mares.

--Ka renjc 18:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all, this is insightful and valuable information! Let me give you a little snippet from my book, when the unicorn was first encountered...

"At first nothing happened, as the portal shimmered and flickered from the powerful magic that was sustaining it. Then suddenly a most magnificent animal sprang forth into the room. It seemed as if it was made of white light itself, even outshining Albar’s all-white presence. The unicorn’s coat glistened and gleamed with brilliant energy. It tossed its head up proudly in greeting to the wizards, making a shrill sound not dissimilar to a neighing horse. Its horn was long and spiral shaped, and its body was shaped like a muscular war horse. Vee could sense a great intelligence coming from the animal, and spontaneously bowed to the unicorn in acknowledgement of this. To their surprise, the unicorn bowed back, then tossed its head again and trotted happily to the lake, taking a few sips of water."

As you can see, I have a lot of horse-talk to go through from then on :) Sandman30s (talk) 20:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a warhorse: a unicorn should be majestic and stately: the prince of horses. Pure white's good, since that's dazzling and magical and a step above the average run of the mill horse. Solid, glistening black would also be stunning, but I don't really see a unicorn being a homely, ordinary brown. Mares would be fiery and warhorse-type, also, I would think. If you're wanting medieval context, then check out Horses in the Middle Ages, which I'm (slowly) working on to take to FA. There you'll find bridles, bits, stirrups, paintings, breeding and so forth. Gwinva (talk) 05:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More:

A stable is a building, stables are several buildings, though "the stables" sometimes could mean either. You build "a stable" or "a barn" or, if plural, you build stables and barns. The individual horse lives in a stall inside a stable, you can also call it a barn.
Who galloped is a usage question. People can't gallop, (oh, and see horse gait for more info), so the creature must. However, we Do give our horses cues or commands to move, so, for example at a horse show, the announcer will ask us, "trot your horses, please" (or canter, or hand gallop or stop). As riders we colloquially say "we" galloped, referring to horse and rider together, or "I galloped my horse."
Horses don't bray (donkeys and mules bray), but they physiologically can only make a few sounds: the whinny or neigh (which can be used in greeting, to express loneliness or to call out to other animals), the nicker- mostly seen when mares (mama horses) are expressing affection for their foals, or when horses are greeting one another with affection in general; the snort (which can have several emotional meanings from excitement, startlement, or sort of a nostril-flapping sigh that sort of implies relaxation), and the squeal (when angry or in pain)
Nuzzling implies they are touching you with their muzzle, if that's what's going on, I'd say, "the horse nuzzled him" (not nuzzled up), but that's JMO.
In myth, there are all sorts of different images of unicorns from the powerful to the etherial. Obviously, unless they have babies via cell division, spontaneous magic or something, you would need both males and females! So pick what works for you, I gave you some ideas on your talk page.

Hope this helped! Montanabw^(talk) 00:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the American Heritage Dictionary

I am an English learner in China. I am wondering what are the differences among AHD of English Language, AH College Dictionary, AHD 21st Century Reference, and AH Desk Dictionary.

I assume there is no difference in content between AHD of English Language and AH College Dictionary but the latter is a monocolor version, and AHD 21st Century Reference and AH Desk Dictionary shrink in both content and size compared with AHD of English Language. Is that true?--Whw (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Amazon.com,

The American Heritage College Dictionary, Fourth Edition (21st Century Reference) (Paperback) has 960 pages and a shipping weight of 2.2 pounds;[1]
The American Heritage College Dictionary, Fourth Edition (Hardcover) has 1664 pages and a shipping weight of 3.2 pounds;[2]
The American Heritage College Dictionary, Fourth Edition with CD-ROM (Hardcover) has 1664 pages and a shipping weight of 3.8 pounds;[3]
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition (Hardcover) has 2112 pages and a shipping weight of 7.8 pounds.[4]
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition with CD-ROM (Hardcover) has 2074 pages and a shipping weight of 7.8 pounds.[5]

I suppose that the differences in number of pages and even more shipping weight reflect a difference in content. The website of the publisher gives no information about the number of entries in each.

Of possible interest to learners of English is:

The American Heritage Dictionary for Learners of English (Hardcover), with 1024 pages and a shipping weight of 2 pounds.[6]

--Lambiam 13:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

insertion of unnecessary word (of)

In the past few years, I find a very common insertion of the word "of" in sentences like "It's not that good (of) a book", or It's not that big (of)a deal. To me it sounds awkward and unpleasant. Is it grammatically incorrect? It seems not limited to any section of the country. Openbooks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Openbooks (talk • contribs) 20:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which country is it not limited to any section of? (Any of them, presumably.) I've heard it too, though I can't say I've ever found it awkward or unpleasant. I probably say it myself from time to time. My guess is it spread from constructions like "He's not much of a friend", where *"He's not much a friend" would be ungrammatical. —An gr 20:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that bad of a habit to insert 'of' between an adjective and a noun, so long as the adjective is short.--ChokinBako (talk) 10:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a terrible habit. It's a slipshod extension of the use of 'of' as a partitive after adjectives of number or quantity ("Too much of a good thing") Rhinoracer (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People say things like "If you had have read it, you would have (or, would of) realised how good of a book it was", possibly because inserting "have" and "of" makes the speech flow slightly more easily, and spoken colloquial language tends to follow the line of least resistance. But many of the perpetrators actually think that's what these constructions are supposed to be, so there's little point in ever talking to them about it, as I've discovered to my chagrin. Now, I just wince, expunge their names from my Christmas list, and move on. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Written Standards

Modern Chinese has to2 Standards, Cantonese and Mandarin.

I believe that the reason this is so is because Hong Kong is an SAR. The Chinese government included in the political provisions for a separate written standard for the lingua franca that was and still is spoken in Hong Kong SAR. But most importantly, compared to some other places that are more rural than Hong Kong, the Cantonese written standard first started off in Cantonese opera; as playwrights wrote scripts for their actors and actresses, they wanted to incorporate the vernacular so they used characters not found in Classical Chinese. Are there any dialects that have these written traditions?68.148.164.166 (talk) 02:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)68.148.164.166 (talk) 02:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The background cited above contains significant mis-information. Although various spoken Chinese dialects can be very different, written Chinese remains rather homogenous across the whole China in the last two thousand years or so -- especially after Qin Shi Huangdi -- and remains so. Mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong (and Macau) and Singapore are the four main regions with significant different Chinese cultures. Having said that -- to answer your question -- "the" modern written Chinese language is essentially one, except [not so] trivial differences in choice of word, vocabulary, slang usage, etc; and other superficial variations, e.g. traditional vs simplified characters, vertical vs horizontal writing. --Chan Tai Man 14:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chantaiman (talk • contribs)

You are wrong: see http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Standard_Cantonese#Written_Cantonese and http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Written_Cantonese.68.148.164.166 (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one 'standard' - Mandarin. Cantonese is not considered an official standard, though when HK was British it was used in official communications alongside English. It is not used so much now, as all official communications in HK are recommended to be in Mandarin, and government officials are working towards that (whether they want to or not). As for dialects that use specific characters not found in Mandarin or Classical Chinese, they all do, to varying degrees. Otherwise people would not be able to read or write vocabulary specific to their own dialect.--ChokinBako (talk) 18:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Mandarin orthography and Cantonese orthography are significantly different enough that they are not mutually intelligible. Here's an example, news reporters use 中文, while the lay people use 粵語. The lay people, Cantonese speakers, without formal training (in their case, Education in grade school) would not be able to understand it. Yes, their text books are written in 中文, but they speak 粵語. In fact they speak 中文 in Cantonese phonology. For the untrained speaker, 中文 phonologically spoken in Cantonese and 粵語 phonologically spoken in Cantonese is mutually unintelligible.68.148.164.166 (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say the WERE mutually intelligible. But, while we are on the topic, I, myself, can understand spoken Cantonese (even though I am a Mandarin speaker), but only because I have studied Ancient Chinese (the phonetics of it, as well as the grammar), Japanese, and Korean, so I can make a guess at what is being said, like an English/German/Danish speaker could guess at Norwegian, or so. In no way did I say that they were mutually intelligible, though.--ChokinBako (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um ... more mis-information. When one speaks Cantonese, one speaks Chinese -- more precisely a Chinese dialect. Cantonese doesn't parallel to Chinese. The former is an element in the later set. For an uneducated man, who lives in a Cantonese speaking environment who can't read or write, he will understand quite well when read to. Unfortunately, not much so if that Mandarin-style writing, although read in Cantonese dialect, is dotted with linguistic jargons and in a half-witted pseudo-academic style. --Chan Tai Man 10:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chantaiman (talk • contribs)

Just so you know, I know exactly what I'm talking about. Chinese is a very general term, in fact, it is so unspecific, that it is hard to exactly know what one is talking about when they say they speak Chinese. It is accurately established that many dialects of Chinese are not mutually intelligible. Cantonese and Mandarin are perfect examples. I used the word 中文, when the Written is established on MANDARIN. Many articles have a 粵語 version and a 中文 version. When read to an PURELY Cantonese speaker, a 粵語 version of an article will be intelligible, but the same 中文 version will not be intelligible.68.148.164.166 (talk) 20:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that your comment: "... is dotted with linguistic jargons and in a half-witted pseudo-academic style." is racist. It is a fundamental linguistic principle that any dialect is capable of expression equally well as any other dialect.68.148.164.166 (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, well, well. If I had been accused of hypercritical on one's writing style and logical agrument or the lack of them, there might be some grains of truth in it. Racist? I don't have a clue where does it come from. Take the second sentence of the above paragraph as an example. I challege if there exists such so called "fundamental linguistic principle". I hold that the expressiveness of different Chinese spoken dialects varies and depends very much on context. --Chan Tai Man 11:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That is not true. Whatever you want to call it, linguisist. But I know, my very first linguistic class even said, that any dialect, language, grammer etc. etc. is equally adept in expressing anything they want. Would you argue that Irish is for fairy tales and that it couldn't be used to express academic literature?68.148.164.166 (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does that "principle" has a name? It would be good if a reference can be cited. At the same time, here is a counter example, 係咩, 係囖, 係喇, 係o架, 係嘅, 係阿 cannot be transcripted into Mandarin style writing very accurately and certainly not with the same conciseness and mood. While one is quite liberally wandering away from Chinese dialects and making blanket statement on all languages, there are more counter examples. There are no direct English translation for 兄, 弟, 姊, 妹, 姑表, 姨表, 舅表, 'cos English culture doesn't have such fine grain differentiation. OTOH, it would be a challenge to find one-to-one Chinese translation for good, very good, excellent, brill, superb, wonderful, amazing, outstanding, wicked; or leopard, cheetah, jaguar, panther, puma. Again it is down to cultural and geographical differences. On that note the following is interesting, "The vodka is good, but the meat is rotten." Nature languages are quite nature in the sense that no single authority -- government or linguist -- can not easily dictate rules or "principles". They are mostly observational on actual usage. Of course, there are exceptions, for examples, by killing or other forceful means. It happened big twice in Chinese history, and more subtlely during Ming and Ching dynasties. --Chan Tai Man 11:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if the principle has a name. But I am sure it exists. You are talking about translative semantics, which has nothing to do with "...linguistic jargons and in a half-witted pseudo-academic style...", which is what I am talking about, which is the racist statement that you made. You are saying that Cantonese, compared with Mandarin, has "...linguistic jargons...", which is impossible, because the definition of "...jargons..." excludes the context of this use. Second, you are saying these jargons are used "...in a half-witted pseudo-academic style...", meaning that these jargons are incompentent. Or you are saying that Cantonese is "...a half-witted pseudo-academic style...", blatantly meaning that Cantonese is lower in calibre than Mandarin.68.148.164.166 (talk) 22:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the background given by the original poster in his question is very misleading. Besides the things other people mentioned, there are many more dialects/languages in current and common use besides Cantonese, among them Shanghainese and Taiwanese. —Lowellian (reply) 21:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. My question is, as leading from my reply with chinese characters, is maybe Shanghainese or Hakka has these written orthographies. Could you list them?68.148.164.166 (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certain that both Cantonese and Taiwanese have a history of finding ways to write down constructions specific to those dialects, even sometimes inventing new characters not used in written Mandarin. I strongly suspect this is also the case for all the other major Chinese dialects, including Shanghainese, Hunanese, etc., though perhaps their written forms are less well-known outside of China due to them not being spoken in areas like Hong Kong and Taiwan that have a history of being at least de facto politically separate from mainland China. —Lowellian (reply) 00:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suspect this is also the case for all the other major Chinese dialects, including Shanghainese, Hunanese, etc.....
— Lowellian (reply) 00:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC), http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:68.148.164.166#Your_question_on_the_Reference_Desk_about_Chinese

What are the other major Chinese dialects? Is there any way to get all those characters?68.148.164.166 (talk) 01:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can look at the articles Spoken Chinese and list of Chinese dialects for information and lists about the major Chinese dialects. As for getting those characters, I can't really help you there. For the dialects less well-known outside of China, you would probably only be able to find them on Chinese-language websites. Even for the dialects like Cantonese and Taiwanese more well-known outside China, it would be difficult to find them, because almost everything on the Internet written in Chinese is written as it would be in Mandarin. —Lowellian (reply) 01:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know probably the greatest standardized source of Cantonese characters are in the scripts of Cantonese operatists. Are there any other corpora for for any dialects? Thanks.68.148.164.166 (talk) 01:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, but I don't know where you would find them. —Lowellian (reply) 01:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is good that 68.148.164.166 has now clarified that s/he is considering written characters not spoken dialects. Versions of the Bible in Cantonese (in Chinese characters), Shanghaiese (in Chinese characters) and Hakka (in romanisation) dialects have been around for quite a while. However, their circulations are tiny compare to that of the Mandarin Union version. In Hong Kong there might be a [not so] significant sub-culture of written Cantonese in youth magazines. Nevertheless, pupils are taught Mandarin-ish written Chinese in schools. The Hong Kong government has a Big-5 Hong Kong Supplementary Character Set (HKSCS) as part of the ISO 10646 standard [7]. Nevertheless, there are just hundreds of characters among a collection of tens of thousands. So, to answer his/her question: Cantonese, yes; Hakka, no (or very few and became unknown) based on second handed information from native Hakka speakers; Shanghaiese, I'll leave it to someone more knowledgeable. --Chan Tai Man 09:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chantaiman (talk • contribs)

Has this question been moved forward to today?--ChokinBako (talk) 01:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not much at all. Part of my confusion was the OP keeps switching the discussion from written Chinese language to spoken Chinese dialects rather liberally, and to a point even claiming "Chinese" is not a well defined term. At the risk a total misinterpretion of the OP, I attempt to paraphrase the orginal question. Q: Modern written Chinese is largely based on the Mandarin dialect, are there any dialect-specific written Chinese characters? A: Yes, Cantonese has a few hundreds of such characters which has been codified quite explicitly. It is possibly much fewer in other dialects, and it is hard to find a definitive list. --Chan Tai Man 11:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You have no right to blame other people for you just slightly imperfect english.68.148.164.166 (talk) 20:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It must have been mis-read. Nobody has said anything remotely along that line. On the contrary the discussion seems going very well. However, putting forward personal opinions as they were indisputable facts is a bit irritating. --Chan Tai Man 08:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chantaiman (talk • contribs)

Well that's hypocritical.68.148.164.166 (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good, now we have an answer that expands a little on the answer I gave to what I understood to be the original question.--ChokinBako (talk) 12:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cantonese is a language; the difference is that a native user of a core language should be able to well understand someone speaking a dialect of that language (e.g., Standard American English and Southern American English). "Mandarin" is an out-dated term for what is now called ''Putonghua'' ("Common language") in the People's Republic of China (and many other places, and ''Guoyou'' ("national language") in Taiwan and Taiwan-related communities. One who is fluent in Putonghua or Guoyou cannot understand more than a few words of Cantonese. In addition, there are significant differences in diction. For example, "road" or "street" are two words for the same (general) thing, and the choice of which is more commonly used is diction.DOR (HK) (talk) 03:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Meaning of "aleek betho"

Hello,

I have seen this saying before in a book some years ago and I tried to find the meaning then but was unsuccessful. Today I received an email from my boss and she had written "aleek betho" in her message.

I have been trying for two hours to find the meaning on the internet, as an old english saying or a French phrase, but I come up with nothing. I need to email her back and I'm hoping my answer to her question does not involve this phrase.

Does anyone know what "aleek betho" means?

Respectfully, --67.36.24.60 (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Arabic to me. 'Aleek' would mean 'to you' or 'upon you'. 'Betho', I'm not sure about. My Arabic vocabulary is quite limited, and I can't guess it from the romanisation. I imagine it would be something nice, like harmony, blessing or somthing. Steewi (talk) 01:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not Arabic. 'aleekum' means 'with you' or 'to you', not 'aleek' (unless it was very informal). Where is this boss from? It seems more like Urdu to me. Do they have many Urdu speakers in/near Wyandotte? --ChokinBako (talk) 01:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an arbitrary combination of Arabic and Persian, it means "Hello to you." --Omidinist (talk) 10:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, literally translated, it would mean 'with you to you'? How bizarre.--ChokinBako (talk) 11:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answers. My boss is Irish. To make this more clear, she asked for someone's email address as follows:

Would you please forward to me "aleek betho" (person's name) email address?

I was wondering what she was saying about the person; hopefully something polite. The person in question is a female and her first name is Alexis. I thought aleek might mean Alexis in another language. I hope the additional information helps. Respectfully, 67.36.24.60 (talk) 12:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)--67.36.24.60 (talk) 12:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so we were all totally off track! Amazing what you can do with a little context! I can only guess that this person is from Ulster, but without the correct spelling I can't say what it means. Why not aske her, and then tell us afterwards? I think there are a few people here now who would like to know!--ChokinBako (talk) 13:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ask her tomorrow what "aleek betho" means, because it's driving me crazy not knowing! I will post what she says. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.36.24.60 (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possessive with proper nouns such as businesses

Is it correct to say "I am going to Kroger's grocery store" or only correct to say "I am going to Kroger grocery store." Is the "Kroger's" being possessive there or can it not be used in a possessive form in such a case? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.48.49.98 (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the store is owned by one Kroger, then it's correct to say Kroger's. But it may be owned by a family of Krogers, and/or known as "Krogers Grocery Store", or even "Krogers' Grocery Store", in which case use whichever spelling applies. You'd never say "I am going to Kroger grocery store"; but you might say "I'm going to the Kroger grocery store". For example, if the formal name of the business was just "Kroger" (cf. Aldi, K-Mart, etc.) you might normally say "I'm going to Kroger", but if talking to someone who didn't know what Kroger was, then you'd add the explanation " ... to the Kroger grocery store". Or even "... to Kroger, the grocery store". -- JackofOz (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the correct form appears to be "Kroger", without the possessive. Marco polo (talk) 01:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's more complicated than this, and I'm sure there's been studies of it, but I can't think what to look it up under. At least in British usage, it's common to refer to businesses, especially shops, with "'s" even if there's no personal name - but not always. The supermarket chain headquartered here in Bradford is formally "Wm Morrison Supermarkets" but always referred to as Morrisons. Similarly Sainsbury's, with the apostrophe. On the other hand, Tesco - which is not anybody's name - is always written thus, not "Tescos" or "Tesco's" - but I would normally say "I went to Tesco's". On the third hand, I don't think I'd ever say I was going to Asda's.

Similarly there used to be a club in Bradford called 'The Maestro', but I never heard anybody refer to it as anything but "Maestro's". --ColinFine (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, when I was a kid, I lived about two blocks from a Kroger supermarket; and I'd always say to my mother as I walked out the door, "I'm going to Kroger's. Is there anything you need?" Deor (talk) 22:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Typing Korean

How is it possible to type Hangŭl on a foreign (Japanese computer) keyboard using MS-IME2002 without all the letters appearing separately, and in fact, not having anything to do with the QWERTY? I mean, if I type 'sŏnsaeng' (teacher), it comes out as 내ㅜㄴㅁ둫, which is totally incorrect. How could 'nai-u-n-m-tuh' be the same as 'sŏnsaeng'?--ChokinBako (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The core rules of English

I’ve been mentally diverted by ColinFine’s phrase in Referring to words above – "The rules of the English language, insofar as they exist ...". Style guides and grammar texts pronounce on all manner of things, and each one gives a different set of rules, albeit with various overlaps. That's understandable, since the only value in publishing a book that's consistent with an existing book would be to give more/less detail, or pitch it at a different audience, etc. I also understand that some issues are ones of style rather than syntax, although exactly where the dividing line is is sometimes a fraught question. So, I’ve been wondering if anyone has ever sat down and recorded the core “rules” that everyone agrees on, or is it such a moveable feast that this would be an endless and impossible task? But then, I muse that if the French can do this for their language, surely the English are up to the task (assuming they could be bothered). To partially answer my own question, we also have to consider that the "English" as used in one part of the world can be close to unintelligible to "English"-speakers from elsewhere. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just stick with the habits I've become accustomed to, based on the 'rules' I learned at school in the UK and the 'rules' I teach as an English language teacher. Actually, my native dialect (scouse) shuns many of these rules that I have learned and teach from the textbooks I use, but that just goes to show that there is not just one form of English, there are many. Plus, as English is used as a first language in so many 'jurisdictions', so to speak, we will never get the co-ordinated effort to make a standard that the French have managed to achieve (The French just did that because they were annoyed that the Lingua Franca of the modern world had become English and not French, as if it ever was). I'd just accept differences, but still put forward one's own opinion as to how one has experienced it in the past - they become the rules you have learned, and if someone is asking about them, then they deserve an answer.--ChokinBako (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, Jack, with more and more 'average people' getting onto the media scene (with blogs, and websites, and reality TV, and all sorts), the language is changing, I would say, far faster than it was 100, 200, 300 years ago. The rules we learned at school are breaking down, and new ones are forming. We just have to get used to it, so that one day we can accept 'LOLZ' and 'I can haz cheezburger' and all that bollocks. Cheer up, Jack. It's not the end of the world, just the language as we know it. :) --ChokinBako (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I understand the changing nature of language, much as I might resist some of the changes until they've become faits accomplis. It's just that we often see, on this desk and elsewhere, robust discussion about what's "right" and what's "wrong", and I was wondering if there was a published collection of all the rules that absolutely nobody whose opinion is worth anything disagrees with. Thanks for your thoughts so far, CB. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you said yourself, there have been books written about the basics, and the only reason for other books to be written would be to add to or detract from what has already been written. No point in writing a book with exactly the same rules in it. So, there are no actual rules, at least, not recognised by the British government. Anyway, who are these so called learned individuals who dictate how our beautiful and powerful language should be? We can decide for it ourselves. After all, we speak the language at least as well as (and probably far better than) those people who just write books so they can afford the mortgage for their stately homes and a couple of bottles of sherry each day. WE decide how the language is formed and how it works, and so does everyone else. This is part of the fun of the language desk here on wikipedia. No worries, mate!--ChokinBako (talk) 02:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's true that some people may be die-hard 'THIS is how it is!' (or 'robust' as you call it) argumentative types, but that is all part of it. These people will not listen because this is what they believe, because this is the language as they have experienced it, however 'right' or 'wrong' it may be. You are right in searching for a 'core set of rules', but there are none, really, not now that English has become a global language. The Yanks would never agree to a total spelling reform and grammar amalgamation, because they just don't want to be part of Britain or have anything to do with Britain (as a whole, even though their people as individuals say 70% would love to marry a Brit!!!). Point is, the language is disintergrating. Look at it in 30 years, and you'll see the kids in High School looking back on our English and using dictionaries, as if we were writing Romeo & Juliet.--ChokinBako (talk) 03:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to the inital question, I'd have thought that the 1860-page Cambridge Grammar of the English Language [8] would be pretty damn comprehensive. However, that seems to purely cover descriptive points of English. As for the prescriptive ones, well, there isn't going to be a list of every single one, because they depend on an individual's taste. As a side note, I doubt that English will change as much as you claim in 30 years, ChokinBako. Semantic drift and sound changes just don't seem to happen that fast. Plus, Standard written English is fairly slow to change - as has already been said, we're not about to have a spelling reform, sadly, and slight differences of vocabulary shouldn't impede communication to the extent you suggest. --Estrellador* (talk) 08:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was conscious in using the phrase that it might provoke comment. Of course I believe that there are rules of English. But nobody ever argues about them, or even writes them down except for foreigners (or in academic grammars like the one referred to above). That's because nobody needs to - we all (native speakers) know them anyway. The rule that says that 'the' precedes the noun phrase it determines; the rule that says that adjectives of colour generally follow adjectives of size; the rule in some dialects but not others that you don't use the simple past with a specific time reference that includes the present ("*I didn't see him today"). As a descriptivist, I regard these as the only rules of English - but there are quite a lot of them, and some are very complicated and subtle. And of course they do change over time, but mostly quite slowly.

Questions of usage that arise here and in similar places are not usually of this kind. (Sometimes they are, when English is not the questioner's language). IMNSHO they are often appeals to authority from people who have been taught to distrust their native judgment. A lot of them are about punctuation (which is in a sense very little to do with language - like the rest of writing it is an entirely learnt activity, but even more arbitrary), and I almost never engage with these, because I simply don't care whether you put the full stop before or after the inverted commas.

Oops. I seem to be ranting. I'll stop. --ColinFine (talk) 22:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just piling on to what Estrellador said, people have compiled comprehensive descriptions of Standard English (the form of the language used for most printed works and formal speeches), the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language by Huddleston and Pullum being the most recent. You will find that in describing the language from the ground up, the vast majority of the rules are firm and undisputed—for example, the always precedes the noun it modifies, just as it has since before recorded history. Other, non-standard forms of English (Hiberno-English, AAVE, etc.) have also been the subjects of comprehensive description, though perhaps not to the same extent as Standard English. If you are looking for a gentler bottom-up description of Standard English than the Cambridge Grammar, I suggest A Student's Introduction to English Grammar, also by Huddleston and Pullum. Strad (talk) 23:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of meaty responses. Thanks, everyone. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]