| Language desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < May 4 | << Apr | May | Jun >> | May 6 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
May 5 Information
To whom it may concern, my friend and I entered a dispute about the origins of the word "ahoy" (silly, I know). While he insists that it comes from Czech, I insist that it instead hails from Dutch. Having done research, most sources seem to suggest the Dutch origin, tohugh exactly one mentioned Czech as a possible source. Is there any particular reason as to why this is so? 65.34.153.100 01:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- My research suggests that "ahoy" originated in Middle English as a word used to hail at a distance. Per these sources, it arose from the combination of the English prefix a- with the interjection hoy, which is a variant of hey, which has either Anglo-Saxon or Old Norse roots. Ahoy later became international. For example, ahoi is used by German sailors. Especially since it is a nautical expression and the Czech lands are landlocked, it is much more likely that the Czech ahoj came from English than vice versa. Marco polo 01:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- As for Marco polo 01:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC) suggestion that the Czech ahoj came from English - first I should reveal that I am Czech myself. IMHO it came to Czech really from English but through (via) German as Germany is immediate neighbour of the Czech Rep. and there was for centuries busy river traffic of wooden log-rafts ( timber rafting) and other merchant ships on rivers Elbe and Vltava that flow from the Czech Republic ( Bohemia) to Germany via Dresden finally to Hamburg and North Sea - Greeting ahoj is at least for one hundered years common and standard in Czech as much as hi in English. And of course Ahoj used in Czech in the field of leisure and sport river canoeing and rafting which is very popular in the Czech R. on upper parts of rivers where is reasonable stream and people greet that way people on other boats. -- Bluewind 17:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I know origin of the salute "AHOJ"(with J not Y!) as short of latin "Ad HOnorem Jesu",it mean to honour Jesus.
Have a look: [ [1]] -- 91.37.221.127 ( talk) 10:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
What expression can be used to represent the opposite (or the reverse, or the mirror image) of "alter ego" as defined in alter ego: "The term is commonly used in literature analysis and comparison to describe characters who are psychologically identical."-- JLdesAlpins 02:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps antithesis, in the sense of a character who is in exact opposition, as opposed to exact accord. - Eron Talk 02:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Or a foil? - Elmer Clark 03:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I would say the opposite of the "alter ego" is the "main personality". StuRat 05:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- But the original poster is talking specifically about the way the term is used in literature analysis. A.Z. 23:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Do I understand correctly that you are looking for a term to describe characters who are not psychologically identical? You could say "X was not Y's alter ego", although I find it hard to think of a context in which one would feel a need to express this. Only rarely do words or expressions have a specific expression for the opposite notion; to express that something is not round, you use "not round", and so on. -- Lambiam Talk 08:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps you are thinking of proper ego, which is a term used occasionally in psychology to contrast with alter ego - e.g. Superman is Superman's proper ego, while Clark Kent is his alter ego. Bhumiya ( said/ done) 19:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi
I know this question will have been asked a billion times already, but I couldn't find them. When you start a sentence with hence or however, do you need a comma after it? Thanks for your help. Aaadddaaammm 04:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- About however - it depends. Compare:
- "However, I have a different opinion on the matter" with
- "However it happened, the fact remains that it happened and we have to deal with it".
- The first however is probably a conjunction (disassociated from the previous sentence), but the latter is an adverb. JackofOz 05:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- The second "however" is a conjunction (governing the subordinate clause "however it happened") and must not have a comma. The first one is an adverb ("conjunct" is a term I hadn't seen before, but I see that it includes adverbial constructions); this does require a comma, or at least one is strongly desirable, to distinguish it from the second usage, which would not be possible if the word was "hence" or "therefore". --Anonymous, May 5, 2007, 19:17 (UTC).
- I'm not at all sure I agree with you, Anon. The second however could be replaced by "no matter how". I can't see how that is a conjunction. JackofOz 02:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, here's what www.m-w.com has to say:
[however[1,conjunction]] Go Main Entry: 1how·ev·er [audio.gif] Pronunciation: hau-'e-v&r Function: conjunction 1 : in whatever manner or way that <will help however I can> 2 archaic : ALTHOUGH
- and:
[how[2,conjunction] Go Main Entry: 2how Function: conjunction 1 a : the way or manner in which <remember how they fought>; also : the state or condition in which b : THAT <told them how he had a situation -- Charles Dickens> 2 : HOWEVER, AS <a reader can shift his attention how he likes -- William Empson>
- --Anon, May 6, 2007, 11:40 (UTC).
- A conjunction? Is which also a conjunction? —
Tamfang 07:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's a "relative pronoun", which behaves at the same time like a conjunction (again, it governs a subordinate clause) and a pronoun. --Anon, May 6, 2007, 11:40 (UTC).
- A conjunction? Is which also a conjunction? —
Tamfang 07:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Most of the time most writers use no comma following Hence. If, in pronouncing the sentence, you would naturally pause after the first word, use a comma. If there is no such pause, leave it out. Often either is fine. It is just like Therefore in this respect. -- Lambiam Talk 08:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- By the way, you are probably aware that some editors frown upon using "However", in the first sense, at the beginning of a sentence? This dubious rule may be the fault of Strunk's famous Elements of Style, which in its 1918 version outright forbid it:
However. In the meaning nevertheless, not to come first in its sentence or clause.
- -- mglg( talk) 06:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
What is the name of the type of porcelain that Westerners call China in China? Capitalistroadster 05:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- See
Chinese ceramics, where it mentions cí 瓷. --
Kjoon
lee 07:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks Kjoonlee. Capitalistroadster 07:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
This question has been bugging me for a while. Does one say "10mL of HCL solution were added" or "10mL of HCL solution was added. Also, in a related question, is it "One third of statistics are/is made up"? "40% of statistics is/are the result of incorrect measurements"? Is there some rule covering all this? Thanks in advance, Storeye 07:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Good places to start looking are Grammatical number and Measure word. I'd say that the plural form is preferred in both cases since milliliters and statistics are plural but somebody with more native feeling for english may well disagree. / Kriko 12:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- I am a native speaker and would use the plural in both cases. Marco polo 12:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- And I would correct you. The rule is: constructs like "10 unit of substance" are singular if you are thinking of the whole quantity of substance as a single thing, but plural if you are thinking of each unit as a separate thing. In this case it's the first meaning, hence singular. Money works the same way: "$2,000,000 (two million dollars) is a lot of money to most people." In the second example, the statistics are being thought of separately, so it's "40% of statistics are." --Anonymous, native English speaker, May 5, 19:27 (UTC).
- Google hit counts suggest that a majority of chemists use the singular for adding X mL of ABC solution. I suspect they would also pronounce this as ten milliliter; to them, the number 10 here is not the cardinal number 1+1+...+1, but 9.993 ± 0.008. For fractions and percentages, I think the plural is used if the noun phrase after of would take a plural verb form, and, moreover, the statement is not about the quantity itself (as it is in: One third of all students is a huge number.) I wouldn't say 45% of our electricity come from nuclear energy because electricity is a mass noun and does not take a plural. By the way, the number 40% is way too low; in actuality, close to 93.4% of statistics are made up, of which 68.93% are made up on the spot. -- Lambiam Talk 13:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- The pronunciation of "10 ml" as "ten milliliter" does occur, but I suspect it is a confusion caused by the fact that the abbreviation is not pluralized. Normal usage is to pluralize the unit if the number is zero or is greater than 1, even fractionally. --Anon, May 5, 19:30 (UTC).
- I personally think that 10 ml is pronounced as a plural about half the time. In my experience, in science people say "10 mill" and laymen would be more likely to say "10 mills". Also, IUPAC likes a space between the number and the unit (ie. 10 ml, not 10ml).
Aaadddaaammm 04:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- OK, looks like IUPAC has nothing to do with it, but have a look at SI#SI_writing_style. Aaadddaaammm 04:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thankyou so much!!! Storeye 02:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- I personally think that 10 ml is pronounced as a plural about half the time. In my experience, in science people say "10 mill" and laymen would be more likely to say "10 mills". Also, IUPAC likes a space between the number and the unit (ie. 10 ml, not 10ml).
Aaadddaaammm 04:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
In the antithesis article, there is a most intriguing statement: "It [antithesis] is, however, a much more common feature in French than in English; while in German, with some striking exceptions, it is conspicuous by its absence." There are unfortunately no source indicated. Could anyone direct me where this statement is elaborated?-- JLdesAlpins 12:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- The source is the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition of 1911. [2] -- Lambiam Talk 13:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I am looking for the name of the English language rule that governs separating with a comma the noun that you are talking to. For example, "Happy birthday, Paul!" where Paul is the person you are talking to or talking at. Or, "Hello, everyone!" I see people not writing a comma very frequently, but I cannot cite to anyone why a comma is necessary. Thank you. -- Philip 17:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- I would want to call it a "vocative comma", but that doesn't seem to be a real grammatical term (although according to Google other people have also thought of it).
Adam Bishop 17:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks! Philip 18:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Can anybody translate the text in this image? Thanks! Bhumiya ( said/ done) 19:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like iʿlāmiyyat, murājiʿat, tanshīṭ...iʿlām can mean notification, advice, information, etc and here it has the form of an adjective. murājiʿat means repetition, study, examination, etc. tanshīṭ means encouragement, stimulation, animation, etc. Adam Bishop 20:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the context helps. It looks like writing on the side of a kindergarten or (private?) primary school (it's not graffiti), with the sort of figure one would normally see in such situations. So we have 'IT, revision, activities (generally means physical)' adverstising what is available at the school. Drmaik 06:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Minor note in case any other Americans are bewildered: when Drmaik says "revise", we would say "review". This has been brought to you by a once-confused American in London. Tesseran 07:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to know what is meant by "trans-fat-fre" althoug I understand the meaning of fat-free! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.86.31.3 ( talk) 20:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC).
- Free of trans fats. — An gr 20:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- And note that for both, they're using a special definition of "free", which means "not very much, if any", rather than "definitively absent". -- TotoBaggins 18:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
What is the history/purpose of the use of the word 'natural' to describe illegitimate children (of royalty and nobility)? Anchoress 22:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- To avoid having to say "bastard" :). The 1913 Webster has this:
- 6. Connected by the ties of consanguinity. Especially, related by birth rather than by adoption; as, one's natural mother.
- 7. Hence: Begotten without the sanction of law; born out of wedlock; illegitimate; bastard; as, a natural child.
- --
Lambiam
Talk 22:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info, but that's not really what I'm looking for. What specifically about the word 'natural' made it desirable to use instead of 'bastard'?
Anchoress 22:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think I did answer your question: "connected by the ties of consanguinity" and "related by birth" is the lexicographer's way of expressing what is termed "biological" in the posting below by AnonMoos. --
Lambiam
Talk 10:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Not really. I wasn't looking for a definition, I was wondering why they used the word natural. Your answer didn't supply that.
Anchoress 10:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- So why then did they use that word in the context of parenthood, rather than the earlier common bastard child, or biological child? —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Lambiam (
talk •
contribs) 11:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC).
- I don't know. Listen, I'm sorry if I've offended you, and maybe I did a poor job of asking the question, but your response, though interesting (and I believe I thanked you for providing it), didn't answer the question I was trying to ask. Maybe it's totally my fault and I expressed myself badly, and if so I'm sorry. I don't want to cause a conflict with you, or make you feel bad.
Anchoress 11:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's more that I'm nonplussed than upset. Below you wrote that AnonMoos's response answered your question. In reply to me you wrote that my question was not really what you were looking for; in particular it did not answer the why part. So, then – by what I believe to have been a natural assumption on my part – I assumed that you had found the answer to why in AnonMoos's response. Studying the latter, I did, however, not discern further explication or rationale beyond that offered in my response; hence my request for clarification. Lately people have tended to read a hostile tone in my requests for clarification; I wish I understood why. -- Lambiam Talk 12:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know. Listen, I'm sorry if I've offended you, and maybe I did a poor job of asking the question, but your response, though interesting (and I believe I thanked you for providing it), didn't answer the question I was trying to ask. Maybe it's totally my fault and I expressed myself badly, and if so I'm sorry. I don't want to cause a conflict with you, or make you feel bad.
Anchoress 11:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- So why then did they use that word in the context of parenthood, rather than the earlier common bastard child, or biological child? —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Lambiam (
talk •
contribs) 11:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC).
- Not really. I wasn't looking for a definition, I was wondering why they used the word natural. Your answer didn't supply that.
Anchoress 10:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think I did answer your question: "connected by the ties of consanguinity" and "related by birth" is the lexicographer's way of expressing what is termed "biological" in the posting below by AnonMoos. --
Lambiam
Talk 10:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info, but that's not really what I'm looking for. What specifically about the word 'natural' made it desirable to use instead of 'bastard'?
Anchoress 22:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- In the context of parenthood, it was the seventeenth- and eighteenth-century way of saying "biological" (as in "biological father" etc.). According to English common law, your illegitimate biological child was in most cases not your legal child.
AnonMoos 23:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Aah, thanks for that info. (I already knew the second half, but the first part of your post answered my question). Anchoress 23:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- In the context of parenthood, it was the seventeenth- and eighteenth-century way of saying "biological" (as in "biological father" etc.). According to English common law, your illegitimate biological child was in most cases not your legal child.
AnonMoos 23:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- I once asked a Roman Catholic whether, in his or the Church's view, a marriage did not exist unless it was celebrated by the Roman Church. He said no, there are two kinds of marriage: sacramental (celebrated by the Church) and natural (otherwise; I guess a non-Catholic marriage is equivalent to
common-law marriage). The use of natural child for bastard may be an extension of this distinction: a child within wedlock has artificial status thereby, whereas the bastard has only natural status. —
Tamfang 07:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- In exceptional circumstances, a Roman Catholic marriage can be conferred without Church involvement and yet be sacramental; see canon 1116 §1. As to the use of natural, in both cases it is in opposition to legal (for different law systems), and there is no need to view the common-law meaning applied to children as being an extension of a Catholic usage for marriages. I must say, though, that I have never encountered this usage. In this address the pontiff proclaims Christian marriage to be "the most perfect realization of natural marriage", clearly not what your spokesperson meant. A non-sacramental marriage is more likely to be referred to as a de facto union. -- Lambiam Talk 11:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
| Language desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < May 4 | << Apr | May | Jun >> | May 6 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
May 5 Information
To whom it may concern, my friend and I entered a dispute about the origins of the word "ahoy" (silly, I know). While he insists that it comes from Czech, I insist that it instead hails from Dutch. Having done research, most sources seem to suggest the Dutch origin, tohugh exactly one mentioned Czech as a possible source. Is there any particular reason as to why this is so? 65.34.153.100 01:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- My research suggests that "ahoy" originated in Middle English as a word used to hail at a distance. Per these sources, it arose from the combination of the English prefix a- with the interjection hoy, which is a variant of hey, which has either Anglo-Saxon or Old Norse roots. Ahoy later became international. For example, ahoi is used by German sailors. Especially since it is a nautical expression and the Czech lands are landlocked, it is much more likely that the Czech ahoj came from English than vice versa. Marco polo 01:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- As for Marco polo 01:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC) suggestion that the Czech ahoj came from English - first I should reveal that I am Czech myself. IMHO it came to Czech really from English but through (via) German as Germany is immediate neighbour of the Czech Rep. and there was for centuries busy river traffic of wooden log-rafts ( timber rafting) and other merchant ships on rivers Elbe and Vltava that flow from the Czech Republic ( Bohemia) to Germany via Dresden finally to Hamburg and North Sea - Greeting ahoj is at least for one hundered years common and standard in Czech as much as hi in English. And of course Ahoj used in Czech in the field of leisure and sport river canoeing and rafting which is very popular in the Czech R. on upper parts of rivers where is reasonable stream and people greet that way people on other boats. -- Bluewind 17:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I know origin of the salute "AHOJ"(with J not Y!) as short of latin "Ad HOnorem Jesu",it mean to honour Jesus.
Have a look: [ [1]] -- 91.37.221.127 ( talk) 10:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
What expression can be used to represent the opposite (or the reverse, or the mirror image) of "alter ego" as defined in alter ego: "The term is commonly used in literature analysis and comparison to describe characters who are psychologically identical."-- JLdesAlpins 02:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps antithesis, in the sense of a character who is in exact opposition, as opposed to exact accord. - Eron Talk 02:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Or a foil? - Elmer Clark 03:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I would say the opposite of the "alter ego" is the "main personality". StuRat 05:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- But the original poster is talking specifically about the way the term is used in literature analysis. A.Z. 23:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Do I understand correctly that you are looking for a term to describe characters who are not psychologically identical? You could say "X was not Y's alter ego", although I find it hard to think of a context in which one would feel a need to express this. Only rarely do words or expressions have a specific expression for the opposite notion; to express that something is not round, you use "not round", and so on. -- Lambiam Talk 08:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps you are thinking of proper ego, which is a term used occasionally in psychology to contrast with alter ego - e.g. Superman is Superman's proper ego, while Clark Kent is his alter ego. Bhumiya ( said/ done) 19:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi
I know this question will have been asked a billion times already, but I couldn't find them. When you start a sentence with hence or however, do you need a comma after it? Thanks for your help. Aaadddaaammm 04:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- About however - it depends. Compare:
- "However, I have a different opinion on the matter" with
- "However it happened, the fact remains that it happened and we have to deal with it".
- The first however is probably a conjunction (disassociated from the previous sentence), but the latter is an adverb. JackofOz 05:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- The second "however" is a conjunction (governing the subordinate clause "however it happened") and must not have a comma. The first one is an adverb ("conjunct" is a term I hadn't seen before, but I see that it includes adverbial constructions); this does require a comma, or at least one is strongly desirable, to distinguish it from the second usage, which would not be possible if the word was "hence" or "therefore". --Anonymous, May 5, 2007, 19:17 (UTC).
- I'm not at all sure I agree with you, Anon. The second however could be replaced by "no matter how". I can't see how that is a conjunction. JackofOz 02:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, here's what www.m-w.com has to say:
[however[1,conjunction]] Go Main Entry: 1how·ev·er [audio.gif] Pronunciation: hau-'e-v&r Function: conjunction 1 : in whatever manner or way that <will help however I can> 2 archaic : ALTHOUGH
- and:
[how[2,conjunction] Go Main Entry: 2how Function: conjunction 1 a : the way or manner in which <remember how they fought>; also : the state or condition in which b : THAT <told them how he had a situation -- Charles Dickens> 2 : HOWEVER, AS <a reader can shift his attention how he likes -- William Empson>
- --Anon, May 6, 2007, 11:40 (UTC).
- A conjunction? Is which also a conjunction? —
Tamfang 07:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's a "relative pronoun", which behaves at the same time like a conjunction (again, it governs a subordinate clause) and a pronoun. --Anon, May 6, 2007, 11:40 (UTC).
- A conjunction? Is which also a conjunction? —
Tamfang 07:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Most of the time most writers use no comma following Hence. If, in pronouncing the sentence, you would naturally pause after the first word, use a comma. If there is no such pause, leave it out. Often either is fine. It is just like Therefore in this respect. -- Lambiam Talk 08:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- By the way, you are probably aware that some editors frown upon using "However", in the first sense, at the beginning of a sentence? This dubious rule may be the fault of Strunk's famous Elements of Style, which in its 1918 version outright forbid it:
However. In the meaning nevertheless, not to come first in its sentence or clause.
- -- mglg( talk) 06:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
What is the name of the type of porcelain that Westerners call China in China? Capitalistroadster 05:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- See
Chinese ceramics, where it mentions cí 瓷. --
Kjoon
lee 07:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks Kjoonlee. Capitalistroadster 07:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
This question has been bugging me for a while. Does one say "10mL of HCL solution were added" or "10mL of HCL solution was added. Also, in a related question, is it "One third of statistics are/is made up"? "40% of statistics is/are the result of incorrect measurements"? Is there some rule covering all this? Thanks in advance, Storeye 07:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Good places to start looking are Grammatical number and Measure word. I'd say that the plural form is preferred in both cases since milliliters and statistics are plural but somebody with more native feeling for english may well disagree. / Kriko 12:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- I am a native speaker and would use the plural in both cases. Marco polo 12:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- And I would correct you. The rule is: constructs like "10 unit of substance" are singular if you are thinking of the whole quantity of substance as a single thing, but plural if you are thinking of each unit as a separate thing. In this case it's the first meaning, hence singular. Money works the same way: "$2,000,000 (two million dollars) is a lot of money to most people." In the second example, the statistics are being thought of separately, so it's "40% of statistics are." --Anonymous, native English speaker, May 5, 19:27 (UTC).
- Google hit counts suggest that a majority of chemists use the singular for adding X mL of ABC solution. I suspect they would also pronounce this as ten milliliter; to them, the number 10 here is not the cardinal number 1+1+...+1, but 9.993 ± 0.008. For fractions and percentages, I think the plural is used if the noun phrase after of would take a plural verb form, and, moreover, the statement is not about the quantity itself (as it is in: One third of all students is a huge number.) I wouldn't say 45% of our electricity come from nuclear energy because electricity is a mass noun and does not take a plural. By the way, the number 40% is way too low; in actuality, close to 93.4% of statistics are made up, of which 68.93% are made up on the spot. -- Lambiam Talk 13:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- The pronunciation of "10 ml" as "ten milliliter" does occur, but I suspect it is a confusion caused by the fact that the abbreviation is not pluralized. Normal usage is to pluralize the unit if the number is zero or is greater than 1, even fractionally. --Anon, May 5, 19:30 (UTC).
- I personally think that 10 ml is pronounced as a plural about half the time. In my experience, in science people say "10 mill" and laymen would be more likely to say "10 mills". Also, IUPAC likes a space between the number and the unit (ie. 10 ml, not 10ml).
Aaadddaaammm 04:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- OK, looks like IUPAC has nothing to do with it, but have a look at SI#SI_writing_style. Aaadddaaammm 04:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thankyou so much!!! Storeye 02:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- I personally think that 10 ml is pronounced as a plural about half the time. In my experience, in science people say "10 mill" and laymen would be more likely to say "10 mills". Also, IUPAC likes a space between the number and the unit (ie. 10 ml, not 10ml).
Aaadddaaammm 04:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
In the antithesis article, there is a most intriguing statement: "It [antithesis] is, however, a much more common feature in French than in English; while in German, with some striking exceptions, it is conspicuous by its absence." There are unfortunately no source indicated. Could anyone direct me where this statement is elaborated?-- JLdesAlpins 12:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- The source is the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition of 1911. [2] -- Lambiam Talk 13:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I am looking for the name of the English language rule that governs separating with a comma the noun that you are talking to. For example, "Happy birthday, Paul!" where Paul is the person you are talking to or talking at. Or, "Hello, everyone!" I see people not writing a comma very frequently, but I cannot cite to anyone why a comma is necessary. Thank you. -- Philip 17:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- I would want to call it a "vocative comma", but that doesn't seem to be a real grammatical term (although according to Google other people have also thought of it).
Adam Bishop 17:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks! Philip 18:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Can anybody translate the text in this image? Thanks! Bhumiya ( said/ done) 19:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like iʿlāmiyyat, murājiʿat, tanshīṭ...iʿlām can mean notification, advice, information, etc and here it has the form of an adjective. murājiʿat means repetition, study, examination, etc. tanshīṭ means encouragement, stimulation, animation, etc. Adam Bishop 20:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the context helps. It looks like writing on the side of a kindergarten or (private?) primary school (it's not graffiti), with the sort of figure one would normally see in such situations. So we have 'IT, revision, activities (generally means physical)' adverstising what is available at the school. Drmaik 06:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Minor note in case any other Americans are bewildered: when Drmaik says "revise", we would say "review". This has been brought to you by a once-confused American in London. Tesseran 07:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to know what is meant by "trans-fat-fre" althoug I understand the meaning of fat-free! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.86.31.3 ( talk) 20:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC).
- Free of trans fats. — An gr 20:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- And note that for both, they're using a special definition of "free", which means "not very much, if any", rather than "definitively absent". -- TotoBaggins 18:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
What is the history/purpose of the use of the word 'natural' to describe illegitimate children (of royalty and nobility)? Anchoress 22:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- To avoid having to say "bastard" :). The 1913 Webster has this:
- 6. Connected by the ties of consanguinity. Especially, related by birth rather than by adoption; as, one's natural mother.
- 7. Hence: Begotten without the sanction of law; born out of wedlock; illegitimate; bastard; as, a natural child.
- --
Lambiam
Talk 22:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info, but that's not really what I'm looking for. What specifically about the word 'natural' made it desirable to use instead of 'bastard'?
Anchoress 22:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think I did answer your question: "connected by the ties of consanguinity" and "related by birth" is the lexicographer's way of expressing what is termed "biological" in the posting below by AnonMoos. --
Lambiam
Talk 10:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Not really. I wasn't looking for a definition, I was wondering why they used the word natural. Your answer didn't supply that.
Anchoress 10:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- So why then did they use that word in the context of parenthood, rather than the earlier common bastard child, or biological child? —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Lambiam (
talk •
contribs) 11:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC).
- I don't know. Listen, I'm sorry if I've offended you, and maybe I did a poor job of asking the question, but your response, though interesting (and I believe I thanked you for providing it), didn't answer the question I was trying to ask. Maybe it's totally my fault and I expressed myself badly, and if so I'm sorry. I don't want to cause a conflict with you, or make you feel bad.
Anchoress 11:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's more that I'm nonplussed than upset. Below you wrote that AnonMoos's response answered your question. In reply to me you wrote that my question was not really what you were looking for; in particular it did not answer the why part. So, then – by what I believe to have been a natural assumption on my part – I assumed that you had found the answer to why in AnonMoos's response. Studying the latter, I did, however, not discern further explication or rationale beyond that offered in my response; hence my request for clarification. Lately people have tended to read a hostile tone in my requests for clarification; I wish I understood why. -- Lambiam Talk 12:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know. Listen, I'm sorry if I've offended you, and maybe I did a poor job of asking the question, but your response, though interesting (and I believe I thanked you for providing it), didn't answer the question I was trying to ask. Maybe it's totally my fault and I expressed myself badly, and if so I'm sorry. I don't want to cause a conflict with you, or make you feel bad.
Anchoress 11:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- So why then did they use that word in the context of parenthood, rather than the earlier common bastard child, or biological child? —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Lambiam (
talk •
contribs) 11:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC).
- Not really. I wasn't looking for a definition, I was wondering why they used the word natural. Your answer didn't supply that.
Anchoress 10:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think I did answer your question: "connected by the ties of consanguinity" and "related by birth" is the lexicographer's way of expressing what is termed "biological" in the posting below by AnonMoos. --
Lambiam
Talk 10:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info, but that's not really what I'm looking for. What specifically about the word 'natural' made it desirable to use instead of 'bastard'?
Anchoress 22:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- In the context of parenthood, it was the seventeenth- and eighteenth-century way of saying "biological" (as in "biological father" etc.). According to English common law, your illegitimate biological child was in most cases not your legal child.
AnonMoos 23:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Aah, thanks for that info. (I already knew the second half, but the first part of your post answered my question). Anchoress 23:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- In the context of parenthood, it was the seventeenth- and eighteenth-century way of saying "biological" (as in "biological father" etc.). According to English common law, your illegitimate biological child was in most cases not your legal child.
AnonMoos 23:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- I once asked a Roman Catholic whether, in his or the Church's view, a marriage did not exist unless it was celebrated by the Roman Church. He said no, there are two kinds of marriage: sacramental (celebrated by the Church) and natural (otherwise; I guess a non-Catholic marriage is equivalent to
common-law marriage). The use of natural child for bastard may be an extension of this distinction: a child within wedlock has artificial status thereby, whereas the bastard has only natural status. —
Tamfang 07:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- In exceptional circumstances, a Roman Catholic marriage can be conferred without Church involvement and yet be sacramental; see canon 1116 §1. As to the use of natural, in both cases it is in opposition to legal (for different law systems), and there is no need to view the common-law meaning applied to children as being an extension of a Catholic usage for marriages. I must say, though, that I have never encountered this usage. In this address the pontiff proclaims Christian marriage to be "the most perfect realization of natural marriage", clearly not what your spokesperson meant. A non-sacramental marriage is more likely to be referred to as a de facto union. -- Lambiam Talk 11:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)