Language desk
< February 14	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 16 >

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.

February 15

Demonyms

Demonyms, the adjetives that point the country of origin or the noum (such as "Argentine", "British", "French", etc.) must be capitalized. But what about when the word denotes a languaje, such as "Spanish" or "Italian"? Do usages of the word that are mentioning the languaje rather than the demonym go capitalized as well? And what about ethnic groups, are the adjetives that point belonging to an ethnic group denomyns? Meaning, are those capitalized or not? MBelgrano (talk) 01:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, languages and ethnic groups are also considered proper nouns and are thus capitalized in correct writing (as might hopefully be found in our articles). There may be an exception, but I cannot at this moment think of one. Intelligentsium 01:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Balkanization" is sometimes not capitalized. Does that count? Adam Bishop (talk) 03:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Words of that type are not capitalised: anglicise/ation, russify/ication, frenchify/ication, romanise/ation ... -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 05:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Spanish, for example, use of capitalization is much more restrictive than in English. Country names are capitalized, their peoples and languages are not. Sentences start with caps as in English. En España, los españoles hablan español. (In Spain the Spaniards speak Spanish). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And French practice is halfway between that and English: "En France, les Français parlent français." Was the original question meant to only be about English, though? --Anonymous, 08:58 UTC, February 15, 2010.

That was kind of unclear, as he went ahead and capitalized the languages in English, which in fact is correct English. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

English orthography is different from the orthographies of many Continental European practices, in that derivatives of proper names (adjectives etc.) are generally capitalized. AnonMoos (talk) 04:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"A dank"

What is A dank.174.3.98.236 (talk) 03:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like some version of wiktionary:danke? In Yiddish and Dutch it is spelled wiktionary:dank. In Yiddish, actually, "thank you" is "a dank aych", so maybe it's a common abbreviation, like "thanks"? Indeterminate (talk) 04:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like Luxembourgish to me. 'A' is often used for 'an' (German 'und', Eng. 'and'), so this would make sense to me as 'And thank you'. --KageTora - (影虎) (A word...?) 12:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it's Yiddish in this context. "Thank you" in that language can be a dank aykh or a sheynem dank or simply a dank, and it seems to be a response to being given the Mensch's Barnstar, where the Yiddish word מענטש (mentsh) is written. +An gr 14:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, I didn't notice the 'a' in the answer above mine, and that was what I was primarily talking about. Yiddish it is, then. --KageTora - (影虎) (A word...?) 16:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dank is a euphemism for 420. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is in itself a euphemism. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

bangla-english translator

is there any website where you can translate bangla into english? I am trying to translate this statement into English: bangla gaan oila ba bahisab aroh bala oila na. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.43 (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For translation in the opposite direction, there is http://www.bengali-dictionary.com/. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Samsad Bengali-English Dictionary appears to be bidirectional. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can find a Wikipedian who speaks the Bengali language at Category:User bn. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spat response

Hi All, are there any website/documents ,where we can learn to respond to sarcasm/cynicism/double meaning queries or expressions from the people, which makes our lives miserable due to unavailability of similar response of bigger intensity?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.36.6 (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comebacks are effective for some people, but not for others; it's really a matter of personality. If you want to learn how to do it, then best thing to do is practice - whenever someone says something sarcastic to you, think about it for the rest of the day and make up a really good response (then enjoy it and forget about, because it will obviously be hours late). if you practice like that for a while, however, it will soon become second nature and snappy comebacks will roll right off your tongue.

however, it's not the only response. me, I use a backhanded approach: when someone says something sarcastic to me, I look at them with a wide-eyed, innocent, uncomprehending expression - kind of an "I don't understand what you mean but that doesn't make a lot of sense" look. Almost everyone will get flustered by that look, thinking that they said something dumb instead of something witty, and as soon as they look flustered enough I laugh at them. big yucks ll around.

--Ludwigs2 16:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. "Lucia had a deadlier weapon than sarcasm, which was the apparent unconsciousness of there having been any. For it is no use plunging a dagger into your enemy’s heart, if it produces no effect whatever on him." +An gr 18:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person" - Groucho Marx --TammyMoet (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To learn how to make snappy comments, study Groucho Marx and Don Rickles, for example. To learn how to make snappy comebacks, study those same two guys. Or if you don't want the argument to keep going, study how the wizard toward the end of Monty Python and the Holy Grail simply stared at the king when he asked for help. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

or you might take a cue from the above sig and watch a whole bunch of old Bugs Bunny cartoons.

--Ludwigs2 21:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now, cut dat out! :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

three strange foreign language requests

1- Can anyone translate the sentance 'colourless green ideas sleep furiously' into gramatically correct Latin for me?

2- What was the original, untranslated inscription on the gates of hell in Dante's Inferno?

3- I read somewhere that the Spanish sometimes criticise a messy place by saying 'This looks like a republic in here', but what would that have been in Spanish?

148.197.114.158 (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can answer 2:
Per me si va ne la città dolente,
per me si va ne l'etterno dolore,
per me si va tra la perduta gente.
Giustizia mosse il mio alto fattore:
fecemi la divina podestate,
la somma sapienza e 'l primo amore.
Dinanzi a me non fuor cose create
se non etterne, e io etterno duro.
Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'entrate

See http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Inferno_%28Dante%29#Canto_III:_The_Gate_of_Hell Woogee (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3 is probably Esto parece una república: http://srnl.wordpress.com/2007/03/10/esto-parece-una-republica/ Woogee (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for your Latin request, I am stuck because I don't think that there is a single word that means "colorless" in the sense of being without color. You would have to use a circumlocution such as non coloratae ("not colored" or "uncolored"), or, if you are looking for a contradiction, you could use something like rubrae ("red"). Assuming that you want to preserve the meaning, you could try Notiones virides non coloratae vehementer dormiunt. Marco polo (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Lewis and Short, "Gloss. Philox." (whatever that is, a gloss of Philoxenus I suppose) has "incolor" as a translation of the Greek "achroos", which means "colourless". L&S also has "incolorate", which means "without specifying a cause" in Justinian's Digest, which is etymologically from "incoloratus" although there is no entry for that. But that just means it wasn't a classical word. What do they know anyway? Fortunately "incoloratus" is a much-used scientific/neo-Latin word, as Google shows us. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the Glossarium Philoxeni, see the first paragraph here. Deor (talk) 15:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever vs. whomever

I did check out Fowler, but find I'm no clearer. That man's writing gets less plain English by the day.

A. "Whoever keeps doing this deserves to be shot".

B. "I am going to shoot <...> keeps doing this".

In B, my head says that "whomever" is the right word, but my gut says "whoever", and I've learned to trust my gut. It seems that the object of "shoot" is not just "whoever", but "whoever keeps doing this", so the 'whoever' is not declined.

In what circumstance would "whomever" be the mot juste? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I am going to shoot whomever you choose could be an example of what you're looking for. Whomever is the object of choose and the whole subordinate clause whomever you choose is the object to shoot. Pallida Mors 20:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The case of "who(m)ever" gets decided by the "downstairs" clause, i.e. the narrower clause within the sentence. So Jack's gut is right that it's "I am going to shoot whoever keeps doing this" and Pallida is right that it's "I am going to shoot whomever you choose". It's also "Whomever you want to marry will always be welcome here", because it's the object of "marry" in the narrower clause, while the ~~object~~ subject of "will" is the whole "whomever you want to marry". +An gr 21:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Angr, isn't the close "whomever you want to marry" the subject of will [be], rather than the object? Or maybe I just missed something in your post... Pallida Mors 22:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, that was a typo on my part, now corrected. +An gr 22:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Angr. All clear now. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who/whom isn't easy to judge by intuition, but he/him is easier, usually. You can try substituting he/him for whoever/whomever and juggling the words to make it sound right. If "he" fits better, use "whoever". If "him" fits better, use "whomever". --Kjoonlee 23:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to shoot "he who" keeps doing this. -> whoever
I am going to shoot him. -> whomever --Kjoonlee 23:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first example doesn't work for me, because "he who" there would be "him who", and thus "whomever" - which is the wrong result. The second example doesn't work because it doesn't seem to involve an -ever word at all. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

just figure out whether the who(m)ever is the focus in the minor phrase. for instance, in the phrase "Whoever keeps doing this" whoever is the is the focus of 'keeps doing this'; in the phrase "whomever you choose," 'you' is the focus (you choose whomever).

/me shrugs. Well, "him who" sounds really odd to me, and avoiding an -ever word is the whole point. --Kjoonlee 17:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then I can't see the relevance of that example. How does it help me decide whether 'whoever' or 'whomever' is the appropriate word to use? Sorry, Kjoonlee, but your advice, while well intentioned, just doesn't help. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The rule is: if you would use 'who', use 'whoever'. If you would use 'whom', use 'whomever'. If you don't know whether to use 'who' or 'whom', you can read about it in our article on whom. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Whom' has passed out of usage, so you might as well worry about the grammar of Elizabethan english. I read somewhere that not even the pedants use Fowler anymore. 89.242.101.230 (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To whom it may concern: I must respectfully disagree. 'Whom' is used less and less, that's for sure, but it ain't dead yet. If you don't believe me, may I remind you that it's you for whom the bell tolls. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 04:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And Fowler is still very much respected. It has always been a curate's egg, but the parts that are good are very good indeed. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

at this point, I just feel the urge to throw up my hands and say 'Whatever'. --Ludwigs2 07:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact we are using it strongly indicates that it has not passed out of usage. Who may be regarded as an acceptable, or even preferable, substitute in many dialects, but that isn't the same thing as it having passed out of usage completely. 86.182.38.255 (talk) 13:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

66.127.55.192 (talk) 05:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Word meaning "line in a play"

Is there a word that means specifically a line of dialogue from a play? I guess something like 'stanza' for a poem, but referring to the line spoken by a single character. That line could span multiple sentences.

Obviously within the context of talking about plays 'line' will do just fine since every line within a play is dialogue (unless it's a stage direction, which I guess would be referred to as such). However sometimes you might want to refer to the play meaning from outside that context, and it seems cumbersome to say 'line in a play', and too nonspecific to say 'dialogue line'.

Cheers. Amoe (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Speech" is commonly used for a gobbet of uninterrupted dialogue spoken by a single character. Is that what you're referring to? Deor (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Deor, I want the word to refer to smaller dialogue too like interjections and between-character banter... Also it needs to be technical enough to recall the context of a play from outside that context, in the way that 'stanza' does with poetry - 'speech' is in too common general use to immediately bring to mind plays. Amoe (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it quite literally is called a "line", as in the director saying "start with the first line after ________ in scene II" or actors asking for a line prompt during rehearsal. Perhaps "dialogue", or something similar is more what you are looking for? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 00:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, among literary scholars who publish books (at any rate), the word IS "speech," even if it refers to only one word. So "He." (the fifth line of Hamlet) is a "speech." There's no other common word for what you describe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.17.55.100 (talk) 03:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to a dictionary right now, but it would be worth looking up 'stich' and 'hemistich'. And while you're at it, just for fun, look up stichomythia. Maid Marion (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Hemistich. -- Wavelength (talk) 23:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]