Language desk
< March 1	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 3 >

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.

March 2[edit]

A few things I want to know how to say in chinese.[edit]

How do you say "that's all right", "sports", "busy", "do not like", "sorry", and "not going". Also, how do you respond when someone says 对不起。? Also, how would you say things for the following situations: "you would like to invite a friend to go swimming", "you accept your friend's invitation to play tennis", "as you don't like playing cricket you decline your friend's invitation", "how do you say that you are in year seven at school?", "how do you say that you and Robert are in the same class?", "how do you say 'let's go!'". THANK YOU SO MUCH if you can answer these for me. This isn't homework...but I really just need to know how to say these things and phrases. Yakeyglee (talk) 02:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if they are homework, it would be a lot faster and more accurate to look them up in your dictionary or textbook. But I'll do the easy ones for you. "busy" is máng, "do not like" is bù xĭhuān, "sorry" is duìbuqĭ (which is what you've written in Hànzì up there), and "not going" is bù qù. "Sports" is apparently yùndònghuì, and "that's all right" (which is probably how you'd respond to duìbuqĭ) is méi(yŏu) guānxi. Ah... I'm still not very comfortable with Chinese, so that's all the translating I'm doing today. Indeterminate (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bathroom / Restroom[edit]

What, if anything, is the distinction between the terms bathroom, restroom, men's room, etc.? Are there any times when it would be incorrect (as opposed to just odd) to use one rather than another? 98.228.74.177 (talk) 04:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be incorrect to refer to a toilet in a private home as a restroom, men's room, or women's room. As far as I am aware, those terms refer only to public toilets. Even if a private toilet is used only by people of one sex, it would not be called a men's room or women's room. However, you might speak jocosely of using the little boys' room, even in reference to a private commode. The term washroom also strikes my ear as inappropriate for a private toilet, as does lavatory, to a slightly lesser extent. On the other hand, a public toilet can be called almost anything - bathroom, washroom, lavatory, men's room, water closet, john, can, head, etc. And there's nothing wrong with calling a toilet a bathroom even if it doesn't contain a bath, though some people might take issue with that. In the United States, it's considered crude to use the term toilet for the room, as opposed to the receptacle, but it's not wrong per se. Also, you would never use the term 'throne' for a public john. LANTZY ^TALK 04:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In North America, calling any sort of room a "toilet" is incorrect, not crude; here the word only refers to the device. "Bathroom" is commonly used to refer to the room whether it contains a bath or not. In real estate jargon it may be more specifically called a "half bath(room)" if it contains only a toilet and washbasin, a "3/4 bath(room)" if it contains a shower in addition, and a full bathroom if it contains a bathtub. I believe "restroom" is mostly a US term while "washroom" is more common here in Canada. I have a "1¾ bath" house, but how I refer to it myself is that it has two washrooms: the bathroom and the other one. "Lavatory" is not an everyday word here, although airlines sometimes use it; "water closet" is not used at all. "John", "can", and "throne", are vulgar terms and I take ~~them~~ "throne" as referring to the device, not the room. --Anonymous, 05:36 UTC, March 2, 2009, corrected later.

No indeed. While "throne" refers unambiguously to the receptacle, "john" and "can" may be used for the room. Consider the expressions "in the john" and "in the can", which certainly don't refer to splashing about in a toilet bowl. I agree that "lavatory" is less commonly used, but I heard it all the time in grade school. LANTZY ^TALK 06:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I was wrong about "john" and "can". --Anon, 06:33 UTC, March 4.

The answer depends crucially on where you are talking about. None of the terms the OP used, and few of those in subsequent replies, are generally used in the UK (though all are recognised, like much American vocabulary). I guess that the OP is asking about NAm, but I'll answer for the UK for completeness. The normal term both for the device and the room is 'loo'. This is often felt to be informal, and 'toilet' used in more formal situations - but when I was growing up, 'toilet' was non-U, and our family said 'lavatory' - still in use, but rather old-fashioned. When I first came across a reference in American writing to a 'bathroom' that didn't contain a bath, I thought this must be a mistake.

For public facilities, in normal use 'loo' or 'public loos', usually 'toilets' on signage, and 'public conveniences' from officialdom. We also say 'the gents' and 'the ladies' rather than 'mens room' etc. The UK equivalent of 'john' I think is 'bog' (though that might be a little bit more vulgar - I'm not clear how vulgar 'john' is). --ColinFine (talk) 08:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think 'bog' is approximately as vulgar as 'can' or 'john'. I wish the word 'bog' were used in the United States, along with the terms 'bog roll' and 'bog breath' - they're so expressive and succinct. LANTZY ^TALK 09:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a couple more US options you can go to/ ask for/ use "the facilities" (private or public). Ladies may ask for "the powder room" (privat or hotel/restaurant/bar). This could also describe a half-bath or guest-bathroom (only sink and commode). Guys may say that they would like to "take a leak" when they need to "step out". In the South you may still encounter people who say they are "going to use the out-house". A "commode" describes the device just like "toilet" does. (This can result in misunderstandings if someone was referring to the furniture piece.) "John" is acceptable for a men's room, "can" is more for conversations among friends. For a public facility look for a "restroom" sign. Cat owners may jokingly refer to using "the litterbox". 76.97.245.5 (talk) 10:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think most English people would expect one of these if offered a commode. DuncanHill (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Usual offices" is sometimes used for the toilets in Britain. DuncanHill (talk) 14:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And guess what, we have a lengthy discussion of various terms in the relevant article, see Toilet#Etymology. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes euphemise "I'm just going outside, and may be some time" (but unlike the originator of that quote, I always come back). :) -- JackofOz (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alemannic Kraut[edit]

What is the Alemannic equivalent of the standard German Kraut? LANTZY ^TALK 04:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kohl, Salat/Kopfsalat, Sirup/Kuchensirup=Zuckerrübenkraut, Grünzeug (among others). 76.97.245.5 (talk) 10:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The Swiss / Schwytzerdütsch term seems to be "Chruut", if measly 3 Ghits can be trusted. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 10:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW. "Kraut" without any compound noun is only "standard" in the South. Northern Germany uses terms like Sauerkraut, Unkraut, Küchenkraut. Without compound it is only used in the idiom "Kraut und Rüben" (=chaos).76.97.245.5 (talk) 10:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On an amusing kraut-idiom related note, the German expression "Unkraut vergeht nicht" (idiomatically: "Bad weeds grow tall") was mistranslated into the Swedish expression "Ont krut förgås inte lätt" (literally: "Bad gunpowder doesn't pass away lightly") --Pykk (talk) 13:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which translates as "Chruut & Rübli" in the Alemannic version of chaos theory. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 10:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all! LANTZY ^TALK 12:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a tiny nitpick: the Alemannic version of "Rüben" is "Rüebli" (diphtong, just like we say "Müesli" for muesli while "Müsli" means "little mouse"). Pronouncing it "Rübli" is usually a giveaway that you're German.

Otherwise I agree with Cookatoo; Chruut is the Alemannic equivalent of Kraut, though it is usually specified as Suurchruut, Rotchruut, Uchruut etc. in Swiss German as well. More generally, it can mean any type of herb and weed (e.g. "Was rauchsch für es Chruut?" = "What kind of herb/weed are you smoking?"). Another idiomatic usage is "im Chruut usse" for a remote location. I guess you translate it as "out in the sticks". ---Sluzzelin talk 04:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Egg-ague merger[edit]

I can't find any mention of this in our category of Splits and mergers in English phonology. I've long noticed the tendency of some people to pronounce egg, leg, keg, beg, dreg, Greg, Meg, peg, etc. with the vowel /eɪ/ rather than /ɛ/. I've noticed it in speakers of various American dialects. Stephen Colbert does it. I'm interested in how widespread this phenomenon is. Has anyone outside the United States noticed it? LANTZY ^TALK 05:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't one I've heard people using here, but it is an easily expected change, given the following velar consonant. A degree of palatalisation can be expected on front vowels, especially in casual speech. I have a friend who consistently produces /æg/ sequences as [æ:jg]. Steewi (talk) 02:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extra - I'm Australian. Steewi (talk) 02:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

brain tweezer[edit]

Which among the following sentences is true? Why?

only 1 sentence is false
only 2 sentences are false
" 3 " " "

     4
     :
     :

all the 10 sentences are false —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriraga (talk • contribs) 14:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If n is the number of false sentences, then sentence n is true, and all the others are false. Thus there are 9 false sentences, hence sentence number 9 is true, and all others are false. — Emil J. 14:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a math question, not a language question. When you have a set of statements that refer to their own truth-values, it is not correct that they must be either true or false. (What if one of them read "This sentence is false"?) Emil's solution is valid but not necessarily the only solution.) --Anonymous, 05:32 UTC, March 3, 2009.

BTW, did you mean to say brain teaser ? Or is something jammed into your gray matter, which you are trying to extract ? :-) StuRat (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that was a language question! :-) --Anon, 05:32 UTC, March 3.

This may be too nitpicky and local usage at that, but I'd say a statement could be false, a sentence can be wrong. So one might interpret that to say that only one sentence is false, because they are all wrong. (..and I need an Aspirin!) 76.97.245.5 (talk) 17:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Origins of the last name Boxerbaum[edit]

I have been trying to find out more about the origins of our family name. Boxerbaum is jewish in origin. My great grand parents came over from somewhere in eastern Europe or what was then the USSR, possibly Chech. They spoke Hebrew and Yiddish. I know 'baum' means tree in german, and is incorporated into many jewish last names. Boxer may just mean boxwood, meaning my last name means boxwood tree. However, I ran into someone randomly who told me that my name meant 'cherub' tree in yiddish. I learned that the cherub tree has a lot of symbolism in the jewish faith, literally meaning a tree full of angels. It might represent the tree of life in the garden of eden. However, the yiddish translators online do not reference any similarity between the word 'boxer' and 'cherub. Any ideas?173.88.157.242 (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the Weinreich dictionary, bokser is listed as meaning "Carob pod, St. John's bread" (whatever that means). AnonMoos (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well if 'bokser' means a pod from a Carob tree then, it would seem to stand to reason that 'bokserbaum/boxerbaum' would mean the tree. The article states it's named "חרוב" -charuv in Hebrew. Which I gather is cognate with "כרוב" - kerubh (cherub). As for the etymology of 'bokser' Google books gave a hit from Goodman's "Teaching Jewish Holidays", that states its "a corruption of boihshorn meaning "ram's horn" — the long, curved shape of the carob being reminiscent of the shofar" --Pykk (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be very surprised if "חרוב" and "כרוב" were cognate. In modern, Europeanised, Hebrew the initial consonants may be pronounced alike, but historically they are utterly different. See heth and kaph. --ColinFine (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See carob tree. —An gr 21:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty clear that Boxerbaum means carob tree in Yiddish. There is quite a lot of symbolism to the carob tree: they symbolize longevity (since they take 70 years to bear fruit) and endurance - their dried pods last for years. There's a famous story about Honi HaM'agel and a carob tree that you can look up. Googling 'Jewish symbolism carob tree' will get you lots, I'm sure.

About the etymology, I can understand why someone would draw a comparison to cherubs - as Pykk pointed out, the words look very similar. However, ColinFine is correct - cherub (kərubh) and carob (h̬arubh) are technically spelt and pronounced differently, and have different etymologies. The etymology of cherub is uncertain; BDB and Klein suggest a relationship to the Assyrian kirabu (the winged bull-guardians), from the verb karabu (to bless). The etymology of carob appears to be a loanword from the Aramaic, related to the Arabic harruba. So, no relationship, as far as I know. But there is a lot of symbolism to the carob tree, so you've got a lead there. Etymology is fun! СПУТНИК^{CCC P} 03:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might also be that the family was renamed when immigrating into the US. There is a name "Buchsbaum" which would translate to "boxwood". The family name might have been derived from that. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note from Jeremy Boxerbaum (10/22/18): Our last name does mean "carob tree." I don't know what branch of the family you're from but my grandparents came from the city of Letichev in Ukraine. I've previously traced the family name as far back as the mid-1700s to a man who was living in Warsaw. I don't know if he's a direct ancestor or just a distant relative. The spelling of Boxerbaum might have changed when the family came here but the name itself did not, although some of the Boxerbaums later changed their name to Boxer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:e8cb:ca00:6142:2130:9307:1de1 (talk) 08:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Joe the Plumber"-type names[edit]

Is there a special term for a kind of nickname consisting of a single name plus a job title, like "Joe the Plumber" or Bob the Builder? 69.224.37.48 (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they're a kind of appositive; I don't know if there's a more specific term for nicknames including a job title, though. —An gr 18:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stereotypically Welsh: "Jones the Post" "Evans the Pub" Rhinoracer (talk) 11:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder name is the Wiki article on it. - X201 (talk) 11:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be different. Joe the Plumber is a plumber whose name is Joe; Bob the Builder is a builder whose name is Bob. These aren't like "Joe Blow"/"Jane Doe". —An gr 11:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about, Generic Name? Emblematic Name? - X201 (talk) 11:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're a specific example of an epithet or byname[1][2], but these aren't restricted to "the X". --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 12:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of surnames originally were created that way. See Family name#By language.76.97.245.5 (talk) 17:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistics Careers[edit]

Hi there. I live in the UK, and am currently learning French, Spanish, Psychology, and Biology to A Level standard, and Italian to GCSE standard. I have a keen interest in Linguistics - particularly Psycho-, Euro-, and Socio- linguistics (and if it helps, I'm also interested in EU affairs). However, I am really not sure of the jobs available in "linguistics" at all, let alone these specific areas. Yes, there is Speech therapy, Translation, Interpreting, and teaching a language - but is that all?

Translation/Interpreting is firstly only a good thing to do if you can speak three, four, or more languages fluently - as competition from more competant areas of the world is fierce otherwise.

Speech therapy is more medicinally than linguistically centred, and I don't much fancy that.

I've tried looking on the internet, but still there isn't that much out there. I just don't know what to do, and I'm feeling time ticking on. Please help me. Thank you! 78.146.219.221 (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can become a professor, to do research and teach linguistics. And if you become a phoneticist/phonetican, you can go into speech synthesis or speech recognition. Speech therapy might be related to medicine, yes, but it requires knowledge of articulatory phonetics as well.

I'm not sure about other paths, but here are a few guesses: I think natural language processing and artificial intelligence needs semanticists, syntacticians, and morphologists too. If you go into historical linguistics I think you can have ties with archaeology. If you're a general linguist you can have ties with cultural anthropology. If you're interested in the brain or if you're interested in language acquisition, you can have ties with psychology.

BTW, if you're interested in sociolinguistics, have you looked at Sociolinguistic Patterns by William Labov? I think that book has a chapter titled "The Social Stratification of English in New York City", which is definitely worth checking out. (I know it's a bit old, and I know I'm not very knowledgeable about sociolinguistics. But that doesn't stop the paper from being remarkable, IMHO.) --Kjoonlee 18:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bit out of the field, but maybe more up you alley: Some consulting companies offer services under a variety of flowery names like "culture coaching", "integration management", "globalization training", "international merger preparation training" and the like. It basically tells business people what to expect when dealing with someone from another country. With a nice degree to hang on the wall you should be able to find something there. It would improve your employment opportunity for this kind of thing if you had a bit of BA or Law in your coursework. "Real world" job experience would be a plus. ( - as a temp or management trainee will do.)76.97.245.5 (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual library[edit]

There is a library, in Europe, I think, that is housed in the home of its former owner, who is now dead. It is run as a public service IIRC. The books are arranged into four sections, not by the dewey system, but by an obscure schema that the owner came up with ...

This is not a language question. I've moved the thread over to the Humanities Desk, where perhaps someone will be familiar with the place. --Anonymous, 06:27 UTC, March 3, 2009.

Spanish: Difference between hambre & hambruna.[edit]

--190.49.100.214 (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To judge from hambre and hambruna, hambre is hunger (i.e. at the level of an individual person), while hambruna is famine (i.e. widespread across a community). —An gr 23:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quotations and punctuation[edit]

Are there any "hard and fast" rules about whether and when to include (or exclude) the final punctuation mark in a sentence that ends with a direct quotation? It is understood that a sentence can always be reworded to avoid punctuation problems or issues. Nonetheless, I am not concerned with rewriting the sentences as much as I am concerned with what the correct punctuation would be in these circumstances. In examples such as these below, what is the correct way to end the sentence ... that is, what is the correct punctuation? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

John said, "I am going to Hawaii.".
John said, "I am going to Hawaii!".
John asked, "Did you go to the supermarket?".
Did John say "Today is Friday."?
Did John ask "What time is it?"?
Did John yell "Fire!"?

American newspaper style is not to use any punctuation after the second quotation mark. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So, doesn't that leave the "original sentence" (not the imbedded quotation sentence) without an end punctuation? If so, how does the reader know if the "original sentence" is a statement versus a question versus an exclamation? Merely a reliance on context? Also ... by the way ... what does "newspaper style" mean?

Example 1: I want to assert that John yelled out the word "fire" ... John yelled "Fire!".

Example 2: I want to ask incredulously whether John yelled the word "fire" ... John yelled "Fire!"?

According to your stated rule, they would both be reduced to ... John yelled "Fire!"

Is that correct? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I don't think any of the first three examples is correct. As per Mwalcoff's statement, it should be John said, "I am going to Hawaii." Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some styles make a logical distinction between "I said, 'I'm getting stuff.'" and "I said 'stuff'."

I don't think the !"? formation is widely considered acceptable. In the case of "John yelled 'Fire!'", that is clear. If you want to ask whether John yelled 'fire', simply ask: "Did John just yell 'fire'?"

Ah, and there I hesitated about whether I should put a full stop at the end of that sentence. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yes, but ... as my original post stated ... It is understood that a sentence can always be reworded to avoid punctuation problems or issues. Nonetheless, I am not concerned with rewriting the sentences as much as I am concerned with what the correct punctuation would be in these circumstances. Thus: What is the difference in punctuation between the question (John yelled "Fire!"?) ... and the declaration (John yelled "Fire!".) ...? Or is there none at all? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

This always bothered me, but I was taught in school to always place the final punctuation mark inside the quotes, and that (Did John yell "Fire!") was the correct punctuation style. Indeterminate (talk) 04:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd put it this way. First, you never use two closing marks if one of them would be a period. If both are periods, put one inside the quotes and omit the other. If one is a period and the other is ! or ?, then use only the other mark. Second, ! and ? marks go inside the quotes if they belong to the quoted text and outside if they belong to the outer sentence. This much, pretty much all publishers agree on, even if some schools teach a simplified rule. In cases where there both the quoted sentence and the outside sentence would require ! or ?, there is disagreement. I believe the only sensible thing is to use both marks, but other styles exist.

If the quoted text does not end with any punctuation but comes at the end of a sentence whose normal end punctuation would be a period, there is disagreement. The traditional usage still usual in North America is to move the period inside the quotes, as in: he said it was "good." "Logical" usage, which is now common in Britain, preferred by some people, and correct Wikipedia style, leaves the period outside since it belongs to the outer sentence.

The other punctuation mark where similar disagreement exists is a comma, which won't occur at the end of a sentence, but does commonly occur where words like "he said" follow a quotation. Again, the traditional usage still usual in North America moves the comma inside the quotes: "Good," he said. In "logical" usage, it goes outside. Note that if the quoted passage would have ended with a period, it is omitted and only the comma is used. If the quoted passage ends with a ! or ? mark, then that mark stays in place and there is no comma.

--Anonymous, 05:57 UTC, March 3, 2009.

Thanks, Anonymous. So, you are saying ...

The declaration is: John yelled "Fire!" --- with only one end punctuation (namely, the exclamation point)

The question is: John yelled "Fire!"? --- with two end punctuations (namely, the exclamation point and the question mark)

Is that what you are saying? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

That's what I'd write, but people do disagree on the second one. --Anon, 06:28, March 3.

I have major issues with the "last punctuation inside quote" "rule". (For example, are you supposed to write "rule." in this instance?) Only a sentence should have a sentence-ending punctuation, and unless what is inside the quote is intended to be a sentence ("Fire!", "I'm getting stuff." "What are you doing?" as opposed to "rule", "are", or "example"), the punctuation does not belong with the quote and should stay outside. Perhaps I'm being too logical for my own grammatical good. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you and Anonymous are correct, of course. I wrote that in haste; it isn't right. If the part in quotes doesn't have punctuation, the sentence punctuation goes outside the quotes. Indeterminate (talk) 08:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know what "newspaper style" (from the very first reply above) means? ... Or is it just the obvious (i.e., the manner in which a newspaper editor would write for his paper) ...? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Most newspapers make their writers and editors use a consistent, documented writing and punctuation style. See AP Stylebook. Indeterminate (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]