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.
In particular, this looks like an example of the fallacy that all Latin-based nouns ending in -s end in -us. The -itis ending, which in modern medical English indicates an inflammation of the named organ (in this case, the liver) is especially prone to this. There is, to the best of my knowledge, no common dialect variation providing any exception.
AlexTiefling (
talk)
07:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Greek is originally Proto-Indo-European language, though, no? :p Inclusion into "English" is via (:p) Latin (by way of French [AKA bad Latin]). The direct influence Greek had on Latin is surely less significant (to modern "English") than the direct influence Latin had on English. OR: most Greek influence on English is via Latin, no? ¦
Reisio (
talk)
11:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)reply
I don't quite follow what you've written: if you're saying there is no real ultimate etymological origin (except possibly PIE) since languages are derived from others, then yes, I suppose you're right. But I meant that the sense is original to Greek, being derived from -ītis, feminine form of adjectival suffix -ītēs, then borrowed in Latin with that sense, thence to English
[1][2]. That Latin has had more influence on English than Greek is utterly irrelevant - it is original to Greek in its sense, I meant. --
the GreatGavini13:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)reply
It's not from Latin at all anyway, it's a modern medical term taken directly from Greek roots. Some Greek influence on English is through Latin, but not all of it. (Also, French is not "bad Latin")
Adam Bishop (
talk)
14:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)reply
I photographed this sign in a small village in
Guadeloupe today. I think it says something like "Take care. Children are playing." It is written in Guadeloupe Creole (I presume), a dialect of
Antillean Creole. I would like to add a more precise English translation to the File page though, so any help would be appreciated. Thanks in advance, --
Slaunger (
talk)
02:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)reply
It's certainly something like that: ti (=petit) moun must be "little people" or "children", ka joué la (=qui jouent ici/là) "who are playing", ni probably = il y a "there are". The first bit looks like "lift your feet" (levez, pieds) but "take care" sounds much more euphonic. Is your sign near a road or something? --
the GreatGavini07:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Thank you. Yes, the sign is placed by the side of a small road in a residential area, and there are families with kids in the houses nearby, and they usually play on the road, especially in the evening, where they, e.g., make word games using chalk-like stones found by the side of the road. So it seems like it is mostly the first line, which is not entirely translated yet. --
Slaunger (
talk)
10:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Ti Moune is standard creole for child. A standard translation of the sign is "Slow down. Children are playing here" --
Xuxl (
talk)
14:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)reply
I don't know what the term is in layman grammar, but in theoretical syntax I assume this is explained by saying that some proper names are treated as full
determiner phrases (e.g., "30 members of [NATO]") and some as
noun phrases which still need a determiner (article) added (e.g., "30 members of the [UN]"). In American English we don't say your first sentence above, which suggests to me that in American English "1st batallion" is treated as a noun phrase, whereas in British English maybe it's treated as a proper noun and full determiner phrase. (If you wrote out "1st", in your sentence would it be "First Batallion" or "first batallion"? That would also suggest that it's being treated as a proper noun.) rʨanaɢ (
talk)
04:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)reply
British English speaker with a family military background reporting for duty. I opine that either version could be more correct, depending on context: the ambiguity is increased by the (correct) use of "1st" rather than "First" or "first", and "battalion" having been written with a lower-case 'b'. Specialist (British Army) usage has here complicated the underlying grammar.
If the actions of several battalions was being described, and "first" referred to, say, a sequence of events or a previously specified physical array, then "Thirty members of the first battalion went up the hill" would be grammatically correct, and "Thirty members of first battalion went up the hill" would be wrong, as would (on stylistic grounds) " . . .the 1st battalion . . .".
But here Chzz is referring to a particular battalion, whose name is written in full "The 1st Battalion of the Welsh Guards", not "The First Battalion . . . ." (where the regiment of The Welsh Guards could, and formerly did, also have 2nd and 3rd Battalions). However, British Army parlance generally omits the 'the' and refers to "1st Battalion, the Welsh Guards" or sometimes "the 1st Battalion, Welsh Guards" in full, more shortly "the 1st Welsh Guards" or (in writing) "1 Welsh Guards" and just "1st Battalion" where the Regiment is already understood. In this case, "Thirty members of the 1st Battalion went up the hill" (note capital 'B') would be acceptable (particularly from a civilian), but "Thirty members of 1st Battalion went up the hill." would be more usual.
87.81.230.195 (
talk)
09:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)reply
That's a beautiful article (or perhaps just a beautiful goat). I see "the" is used inconsistently, but it seems to help with prose flow, being omitted in brisker phrases. Is it harmful for a goat to eat cigarettes?
213.122.49.139 (
talk)
23:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Many thanks! It is hopefully approaching
good article status. I don't know if it is harmful; I believe
goats will eat just about anything, given the opportunity. As to the harm, opinions vary; several sites say that it is a bad idea.[5][6] YouTube has several videos of them eating 'em.
But that's not what the questioner asked. I would call B "1-2", in keeping with the general order of reading English (across then down). But I would avoid relying on this assumption if possible. --
ColinFine (
talk)
18:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)reply
I don't know of any standard. If you can't relabel as 198 suggests to remove the ambiguity, I would either refer to "row 1, column 2" or declare your own standard (if it will be used many times in a document, say).
198.161.238.18 (
talk)
21:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)reply
That makes sense. I can't change the numbers because they have meaning, and I will report which number is which, but I didn't want it to look backwards. I'll go with the math standard. Thank you. --
198.103.172.9 (
talk)
14:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Fissioning / Fissionable linguistically correct?
I've been reading up on various topics related to nuclear fission, and keep coming across "fissioning" to describe the process as it happens, and "fissionable" to describe something capable of undergoing fission. I'm no linguist by any stretch, but this seems wrong when I compare to other words of similar structure. E.g. "compression" describes the process, but the object is "compressing" not "compressioning", and so on. Comments? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
64.191.211.43 (
talk)
18:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)reply
There are no rules about the form of verbs (back-)formed from other parts of speech in English: there are common patterns, but no more than that.
"Compressing" is not formed from "compression" but from the extant verb "compress". There is no English verb '*fiss' (at least the
OED doesn't record that one has ever been used), so "*fissing" was not available ready-made. While I can't think of any other verbs ending in "-ssion", there are plenty that are pronounced as they would be if they had that ending (eg "ration", "fashion", "cushion"), so "fission" was perhaps more obvious or attractive than "*fiss". --
ColinFine (
talk)
19:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)reply
According to my Webster's, the root noun is fissus, from which the word "fissure" comes; or fissio, from which "fission" comes. The verb is findere, which doesn't appear to have an English cognate. Hence the inventiveness from "fission". ←
Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→
19:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)reply
"Fissile" appears to be a synonym for "fissionable" in this context... It's slightly more elegant, and has an parallel to "mission/missile". (Although I'm not familiar with "missile" ever being used as an adjective.) caknuck°needs to be running more often22:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)reply
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.
In particular, this looks like an example of the fallacy that all Latin-based nouns ending in -s end in -us. The -itis ending, which in modern medical English indicates an inflammation of the named organ (in this case, the liver) is especially prone to this. There is, to the best of my knowledge, no common dialect variation providing any exception.
AlexTiefling (
talk)
07:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Greek is originally Proto-Indo-European language, though, no? :p Inclusion into "English" is via (:p) Latin (by way of French [AKA bad Latin]). The direct influence Greek had on Latin is surely less significant (to modern "English") than the direct influence Latin had on English. OR: most Greek influence on English is via Latin, no? ¦
Reisio (
talk)
11:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)reply
I don't quite follow what you've written: if you're saying there is no real ultimate etymological origin (except possibly PIE) since languages are derived from others, then yes, I suppose you're right. But I meant that the sense is original to Greek, being derived from -ītis, feminine form of adjectival suffix -ītēs, then borrowed in Latin with that sense, thence to English
[1][2]. That Latin has had more influence on English than Greek is utterly irrelevant - it is original to Greek in its sense, I meant. --
the GreatGavini13:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)reply
It's not from Latin at all anyway, it's a modern medical term taken directly from Greek roots. Some Greek influence on English is through Latin, but not all of it. (Also, French is not "bad Latin")
Adam Bishop (
talk)
14:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)reply
I photographed this sign in a small village in
Guadeloupe today. I think it says something like "Take care. Children are playing." It is written in Guadeloupe Creole (I presume), a dialect of
Antillean Creole. I would like to add a more precise English translation to the File page though, so any help would be appreciated. Thanks in advance, --
Slaunger (
talk)
02:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)reply
It's certainly something like that: ti (=petit) moun must be "little people" or "children", ka joué la (=qui jouent ici/là) "who are playing", ni probably = il y a "there are". The first bit looks like "lift your feet" (levez, pieds) but "take care" sounds much more euphonic. Is your sign near a road or something? --
the GreatGavini07:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Thank you. Yes, the sign is placed by the side of a small road in a residential area, and there are families with kids in the houses nearby, and they usually play on the road, especially in the evening, where they, e.g., make word games using chalk-like stones found by the side of the road. So it seems like it is mostly the first line, which is not entirely translated yet. --
Slaunger (
talk)
10:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Ti Moune is standard creole for child. A standard translation of the sign is "Slow down. Children are playing here" --
Xuxl (
talk)
14:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)reply
I don't know what the term is in layman grammar, but in theoretical syntax I assume this is explained by saying that some proper names are treated as full
determiner phrases (e.g., "30 members of [NATO]") and some as
noun phrases which still need a determiner (article) added (e.g., "30 members of the [UN]"). In American English we don't say your first sentence above, which suggests to me that in American English "1st batallion" is treated as a noun phrase, whereas in British English maybe it's treated as a proper noun and full determiner phrase. (If you wrote out "1st", in your sentence would it be "First Batallion" or "first batallion"? That would also suggest that it's being treated as a proper noun.) rʨanaɢ (
talk)
04:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)reply
British English speaker with a family military background reporting for duty. I opine that either version could be more correct, depending on context: the ambiguity is increased by the (correct) use of "1st" rather than "First" or "first", and "battalion" having been written with a lower-case 'b'. Specialist (British Army) usage has here complicated the underlying grammar.
If the actions of several battalions was being described, and "first" referred to, say, a sequence of events or a previously specified physical array, then "Thirty members of the first battalion went up the hill" would be grammatically correct, and "Thirty members of first battalion went up the hill" would be wrong, as would (on stylistic grounds) " . . .the 1st battalion . . .".
But here Chzz is referring to a particular battalion, whose name is written in full "The 1st Battalion of the Welsh Guards", not "The First Battalion . . . ." (where the regiment of The Welsh Guards could, and formerly did, also have 2nd and 3rd Battalions). However, British Army parlance generally omits the 'the' and refers to "1st Battalion, the Welsh Guards" or sometimes "the 1st Battalion, Welsh Guards" in full, more shortly "the 1st Welsh Guards" or (in writing) "1 Welsh Guards" and just "1st Battalion" where the Regiment is already understood. In this case, "Thirty members of the 1st Battalion went up the hill" (note capital 'B') would be acceptable (particularly from a civilian), but "Thirty members of 1st Battalion went up the hill." would be more usual.
87.81.230.195 (
talk)
09:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)reply
That's a beautiful article (or perhaps just a beautiful goat). I see "the" is used inconsistently, but it seems to help with prose flow, being omitted in brisker phrases. Is it harmful for a goat to eat cigarettes?
213.122.49.139 (
talk)
23:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Many thanks! It is hopefully approaching
good article status. I don't know if it is harmful; I believe
goats will eat just about anything, given the opportunity. As to the harm, opinions vary; several sites say that it is a bad idea.[5][6] YouTube has several videos of them eating 'em.
But that's not what the questioner asked. I would call B "1-2", in keeping with the general order of reading English (across then down). But I would avoid relying on this assumption if possible. --
ColinFine (
talk)
18:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)reply
I don't know of any standard. If you can't relabel as 198 suggests to remove the ambiguity, I would either refer to "row 1, column 2" or declare your own standard (if it will be used many times in a document, say).
198.161.238.18 (
talk)
21:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)reply
That makes sense. I can't change the numbers because they have meaning, and I will report which number is which, but I didn't want it to look backwards. I'll go with the math standard. Thank you. --
198.103.172.9 (
talk)
14:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Fissioning / Fissionable linguistically correct?
I've been reading up on various topics related to nuclear fission, and keep coming across "fissioning" to describe the process as it happens, and "fissionable" to describe something capable of undergoing fission. I'm no linguist by any stretch, but this seems wrong when I compare to other words of similar structure. E.g. "compression" describes the process, but the object is "compressing" not "compressioning", and so on. Comments? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
64.191.211.43 (
talk)
18:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)reply
There are no rules about the form of verbs (back-)formed from other parts of speech in English: there are common patterns, but no more than that.
"Compressing" is not formed from "compression" but from the extant verb "compress". There is no English verb '*fiss' (at least the
OED doesn't record that one has ever been used), so "*fissing" was not available ready-made. While I can't think of any other verbs ending in "-ssion", there are plenty that are pronounced as they would be if they had that ending (eg "ration", "fashion", "cushion"), so "fission" was perhaps more obvious or attractive than "*fiss". --
ColinFine (
talk)
19:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)reply
According to my Webster's, the root noun is fissus, from which the word "fissure" comes; or fissio, from which "fission" comes. The verb is findere, which doesn't appear to have an English cognate. Hence the inventiveness from "fission". ←
Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→
19:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)reply
"Fissile" appears to be a synonym for "fissionable" in this context... It's slightly more elegant, and has an parallel to "mission/missile". (Although I'm not familiar with "missile" ever being used as an adjective.) caknuck°needs to be running more often22:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)reply