I've always parsed the above expression as "For all it is worth" (i.e. "it's" is an abbreviation of "it is", and needs an apostrophe). But something I read has caused me to rethink <its> as a possessive pronoun. "The dog was barking for all its worth" could be analogous to "He was running for all his worth".

Is it possible that <its> could be either an abbreviation (with "worth" being an adverb) or a possessive pronoun (with "worth" being a noun), depending on the precise grammatical context, or is the idiom set in stone? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Just to test it, I searched things like "for all he's worth" and "for all his worth" as well as "for all they're worth" and "for all their worth" in books, and both versions seem to get about the equal magnitude of hits. --- Sluzzelin talk 12:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

I believe that the idiom is "set in stone", which is to say that "it is" is the correct usage. I'm not saying "worth" as an adverb is generally incorrect, but that association with the idiom is. Plasmic Physics ( talk) 12:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

I concur with Plasmic Physics, having often seen the expression used in different tenses, e.g. "for all it was worth." Have you tried searching on such variations? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.218.13.204 ( talk) 15:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Just use logic. If it was an expensive dog that was not supposed to be barking, then the sentence is "The dog was barking, for all it's worth" If the dog was barking at an intruder, the "The dog was barking for all its worth." The first uses worth to mean price, the second uses worth to mean virtue. μηδείς ( talk) 18:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• In other words, both expressions are right, but they mean different things. -- 174.88.134.161 ( talk) 22:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Yes, they are both possible, but the "for all its worth" expression is the more common, metaphoric/idiomatic one that means "with all its effort". There's also probably a little confusing contamination by for what it's worth meaning "this probably won't help, but I am going to tell you anyway..." μηδείς ( talk) 01:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Thanks, all. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Resolved

For all he's worth, she's worth, it's worth. Not his or hers or its. [1] ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Per above, it could feasibly be either, but thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

The context for each set would be somewhat different. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Yep. That's why I mentioned "depending on the precise grammatical context" in my question. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply

I'm going to be uploading and using this image in an article. Can anyone provide a translation of the text shown in the work? Is the artwork from c. 1380 or 1821 or something else? Is Hilmar Johannes Backer the artist? The printer? Something else? (it's not nl:Hilmar Johannes Backer, who was born in 1882).-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 11:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

The text at the top of the image says: "Willem Beuckel / year of death 1397" (note: this date is thought to be incorrect). The text at the bottom means "copy of a painting located in the church windows in Biervliet, the original being somewhat defective already when this copy was made in 1821, due to the breaking of the glass." Below the lower right corner it states "steendr. van H.J. Backer", which probably means "stone print by H.J. Backer". The drawing therefore was made in 1821, and I think the website is wrong in implying that "H.J. Backer" is Hilmar Johannes Backer, or else the names happen to be the same, in which case they're possibly related ("Hilmar" is a very unusual name in the Netherlands). The description on the website states "Willem Beukelszoon, inventor of gibbing, ca. 1380" (i.e. he invented it around 1380). If you want, I can also translate the longer descriptions (under "More Details"), although they don't provide much more information. Nothing on the page indicates when the original glass painting was made (or by whom). - Lindert ( talk) 12:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks kindly Lindert. I'll of course provide attribution to you for the translation when I upload to the Commons. This is going to be used in the currently threadbare William Buckels. I didn't even notice the more details section. If I had I could have throw its renderable text into Google Translate (though its translation never comes close to a human's).-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 15:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Not of relevance to the OP, but Hilmar is not very unusual. It's just a regional (Frisian) name. Fgf10 ( talk) 17:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks for pointing that out. - Lindert ( talk) 17:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Would lithograph be a better translation than "stone print"? Alansplodge ( talk) 00:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Yes, I was hasty and didn't bother to look up the correct English equivalent, but that's exactly what it means. - Lindert ( talk) 11:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply

The lithographer was Hilmar Johannes Backer (1804-1845). The glass painting (unknown artist) dated from 1661 and was renewed in 1876. -- Stuhlsasse ( talk) 12:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply

 Done Hi! What is the Arabic in these two pictures? http://www.lyceevoltaire.org/sites/default/files/imagecache/photo_header/20131203_105811_1.jpg and http://www.lyceevoltaire.org/sites/all/themes/ld/images/logo_header.png

I ask because I would like to have the Arabic name of the Lycée Franco-Qatarien Voltaire. Thanks! WhisperToMe ( talk) 14:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Found it was المدرسة القطرية - الفرنسية فولتير from - http://lyceevoltaire.org/sites/default/files/list_of_documents_required_0.pdf which is then found in the header of http://www.lyceevoltaire.org/ar - Thanks for all of your help! WhisperToMe ( talk) 14:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm writing a new article, and while I have many minor details to work out, one I cannot handle on my own: The article is about a Mexican movie from the 70s, that I believe will survive AfD by virtue of having a reference to literary journal criticism that most movie articles on English Wikipedia lack (I think both WP:NOTFILM and WP:GNG have been satisfied).

I'm depressingly Spanish illiterate.

The sandbox article I am developing is at User:Aladdin Sane/sandbox/Roots of Blood.

Three Mexican Spanish areas I'm lacking:

1. The first sentence needs an IPA pronunciation for "raíces de sangre".
2. The Title CaSe in Mexican Spanish is unclear: Raíces de sangre, Raíces De Sangre, or Raíces de Sangre? The literary article uses Raíces de Sangre, and the Mexican Academy uses Raíces de sangre. Non-compelling sources use Raíces De Sangre.
3. Should the article's title be Raíces de (S)angre, or Roots of Blood? (I !vote for the English, as this is English Wikipedia.)

Of course I welcome other criticisms to improve the article. Not that I will accept them in sandbox; I'm sure other editors will improve the article once it is in article main space. I thank you in advance.   — Aladdin Sane ( talk) 16:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• If the movie was widely released and known in English by its English name, then the English title is fine. For example, most of Almodóvar's movies have English titles here ( Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown). (This is not a question I can answer with any authority, since it is cinematographic, not linguistic.)

The IPA is [raʼises de ʼsaŋɡɾe] with a broad Latin-American accent. In Spain the c would be [θ], not [s]

Spanish does not use English title capitalization; only the first word and proper nouns are capitalized, so Raíces de sangre would be correct.

μηδείς ( talk) 18:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Y Thank you. This is really what I needed.   — Aladdin Sane ( talk) 22:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks to your help, my the article has just gone live on English Wikipedia at Roots of Blood.   — Aladdin Sane ( talk) 20:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply

I'll go tear it to shreds check it out for you. μηδείς ( talk) 01:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

There are two sets of gender terms in Korean, one set based on Chinese - namja and (n)yeoja - and another based on native Korean terms - sanae and gyejip. However, Wiktionary notes that gyejip is now considered "disrespectful or archaic," which might explain why this term could be heard in dramas set in historical times but not in dramas set in the modern day. Yet, the male equivalent, sanae, does not have this same label attached to it by Wiktionary. As such, is it really true that gyejip is now considered "disrespectful or archaic" while sanae is not considered as such? 155.229.41.46 ( talk) 17:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Yes, that's right. The native Korean terms are connected with a traditional and very sexist view of the roles of men and women. The term "gyejip" literally means "stay at home". Another similar term is "jipsaram" (home person): wikt:집사람. -- Amble ( talk) 20:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply