Language desk
< March 25	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 27 >

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 26

Grammatical mood

Grammatical mood applies to verbs. Is there a category that applies to nouns? And any other (analagous) category that applies to other syntatic categories?68.148.164.166 (talk) 01:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In nouns? Only number, such as singular and plural, plus, perhaps, the case form genitive in English. Other languages have other cases, such as nominative, accusative, and dative, and others have still more. Grammatical number and grammatical case would be the terms to refer to these. Is this what you are looking for? --ChokinBako (talk) 01:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, but thanks anyways. Here is an example:

1. "I am real."
2. "I am real."
3. "I am real."

In these cases, I am saying the underlined louder. So in 2 and 3, we have a change in grammatical mood because 2 is in the energetic mode while 3 is in the declarative mode.

So that leaves us with case #1: my question. What do you call it when you use this same concept with nouns and what are the categories? Thanks.68.148.164.166 (talk) 05:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you are thinking of topic marking.--Diacritic (talk) 11:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any similar concept that can be applied systematically to nouns (though I am not an expert), but many nouns have a semantic meaning that implies something like future, indeterminate, imaginary, counter-factual, etc. Peter Grey (talk)

I'm not sure that your examples work, ~~ChokinBako~~ 68.148.164.166. English has three grammatical moods: indicative, subjunctive, and imperative. Energetic, declarative and all the other moods belong to languages other than English. But maybe you're not so much focussed on English as such, more on language in general, and used this method to better explain what you're after. I'm still not sure what it is you're after, though. One can say the same 7-word sentence 7 times, stressing a different word each time, and each version will mean something subtly different (or perhaps not so subtly). But not all of those 7 words will be nouns, so I'm not sure if I'm off the track here or perhaps slightly warm. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, your on the right track.68.148.164.166 (talk) 04:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The differences in the I am real sentences are not differences in mood but rather in focus. You can focus different words or phrases either with changes in intonation (as you seem to indicating with your underlining and your description as "louder") or with syntactic movement (usually accompanied with changes in intonational patterns). For example, one can say John met Halil (but he didnt meet another person, say, Mary) where you put Halil in contrastive focus by having a prominent intonational stress/accent on Halil (which I'm indicating with bold font). If you want to put Halil in contrastive focus via syntactic means, you can use a cleft sentence construction it was Halil that John met — Halil moves to the front of the sentence with it + be preceding. Note that the intonational stress also is associated with Halil. You could also put John in contrastive focus with either John met Halil (but Mary didnt meet Halil) or it was John that met Halil. (Incidentally, although these focused words may sound "louder", it is actually indicated mostly through the manipulation of pitch, that is, intonational changes.) – ishwar (speak) 12:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone mentioned noun classes yet? Measure word and Korean count word are worth chekcing out as well, IMHO. --Kjoonlee 13:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ask the question, JackofOz :) --ChokinBako (talk) 00:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, misattribution has become the hallmark of the age. My apologies. Fixed now. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatical mood applies to clauses. TONY (talk) 05:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what's the adverb for mediocre?

please? ta

Mediocrely (as in mediocre-ly). Julia Rossi (talk) 03:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When would that be used? "That was a mediocre performance" -> "They performed mediocrely"...? Spellcheck in Firefox doesn't recognize it (mind you, it doesn't recognize 'spellcheck' or 'Firefox' either!). --ChokinBako (talk) 04:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the Firefox spell checker does know how to spell Laphroaig, which might explain the reason for some of the omissions. - X201 (talk) 09:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The OED has 'An editorial project can be done well, poorly, or mediocrely', among other quotes. Algebraist 10:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cotton in shirts: 100, 140, 180

What does these numbers mean?Mr.K. (talk) 05:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a woven fabric? If so, possibly thread count. -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it may refer to the staple length. For example, Pima cotton is said to have an extra-long staple. --LarryMac | Talk 14:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pronounciation of Über- as in überkid, übergeek etc.

Über gives the German pronounciation, which is [ˈyːbɐ] (I'm a native speaker of German but I'm not sure if I got the notation right). The article doesn't say how it is actually pronounced by British or American speakers. Do they dry to simulate the German pronounciation? How does it sound? Usage examples are überdog, uberpooch, überkid or the loanword Übermensch. --Eintragung ins Nichts (talk) 14:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever I've heard it pronounced, and when I do so myself, it is completely Anglicized to rhyme with "goober". I think you could say that your "uber-" has attained the status of a borrowing, although Wiktionary seem to be the only ones who realize it. The OED is silent. --Milkbreath (talk) 14:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Wiktionary gives the same pronounciation: [ˈu.bɚ] (as in goober). --Eintragung ins Nichts (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The OED does have it, but keeps the German /yː/ vowel, which of course most English speakers can't pronounce. I've also always heard /uː/. — kwami (talk) 09:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling used in New Orleans

I was trying to check for the spelling of "banket", a word that used to be used in New Orleans for sidewalk. I couldn't find it on line in wikipedia, or a dictionary or thesaurus. Back when the steets were of mud, the gutters were seriously involved in drainage, the footpath was like the bank to a stream sometimes, so older people in New Orleans still use the term banket, but the spelling may be bankette or banquette.

Tweezy29 (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found "banquette" in a dictionary with this meaning: [1]. Friday (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also with that spelling on the NO Convention and Visitors Bureau page. --LarryMac | Talk 15:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the word!!

I'm trying to think of a word that starts with "in-" like inopportune except it means not in good faith or not what you're supposed to be doing. I can't put my finger on a precise definition unless I know the word, but I think it might mean like under-the-table or shady, like "the cop made an insomething deal with the perp for a cut of the drug money" or "insomething deletions are rampant across the reference desks". Aah this is so annoying can anyone help me out? :D\=< (talk) 16:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No idea if it's the word you're thinking of, but I'd just say "inappropriate". Friday (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might be il- or im-.. Illegitimate? no.. Improper? nah :D\=< (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Impropriety ? - X201 (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Insidious" is the best word I can think of. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 16:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Illicit"?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milkbreath nailed it on WT:RD- unwarranted. Thanks everyone. Don't know where I was going with the cop thing; I guess I was thinking of illicit? :D\=< (talk) 18:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translation help

What does this Hindi phrase mean in English? "Paagal aur bewakoof American chokri" 68.254.187.62 (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)68.254.187.62 (talk) 18:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Insane and idiotic American girl" with a one-to-one correspondence between the five words (though chokri is somewhat of a colloquialism). Abecedare (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moderately-sized Chinese translation.

There is a lineage chart here. It isn't that big and it would be a useful example of a lineage chart for the article on Zen. Could someone possibly translate it?

You don't have to create a graphic (unless you want to). Instead, if you could just translate it one row at a time, from left-to-right.

So, the first seven are

Bodhidharma
Huike
Sengcan
Daoxin
Hongren
Whatever that name is, to the left of Hongren\Huineng, probably Shenxiu?)
Huineng

Not included the sub-titles which I'd also like translated.

☯ Zenwhat (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 神秀 is Shenxiu. Do you want other translations as well?--Fitzwilliam (talk) 11:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you use Firefox, I'm sure there's a plug-in for Ruby annotation or something that will display the transliteration of any Chinese text you select, but you couldn't use it for graphics like this one. — kwami (talk) 09:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

order of compounds in ethnicity

Why is British Brazilian the term for Brazilian people in Britain, but Japanese Brazilian means people of Japanese descent in Brazil? There are other examples of this anomaly....BrainyBabe (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the preferred term is Brazilian British, although the reverse is sometimes found. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In actual fact, we in Britain don't call British Brazilians as such. If they are Brazilian and living in Britain we call them Brazilians. If they have British citizenship, we call them British, or jokingly call them Brazilians. I've never heard any such compound as 'British Brazilian'. Generally, though, I would agree with JackofOZ that when it needs to be pointed out, the background comes first, then the country of abode, but as I say I've never heard of a Brit living in Japan referred to as a British Japanese or Japanese British, and I lived there for ten years. We just don't say it. I would also assume that JackofOZ has never heard of an Indonesian Australian.--ChokinBako (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. But if I were needing to distinguish an Australian of Indonesian heritage from one of Mongolian heritage, I'd use "Indonesian-Australian" (à la "Italian-American"), not "Australian Indonesian". -- JackofOz (talk) 23:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that's because you've been corrupted by American culture (only somewhat joking). I've never heard any terms like this used in Britain of British people. Algebraist 23:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corrupted? Never. I choose to allow the good and positive elements of foreign cultures to be absorbed into my multi-cultural world. How's that for reframing? :) -- JackofOz (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The American usage is a little rigid (X-ian-American), but everywhere else in the world both directions are used, and which direction refers to which often comes down to which country uses it more. Thus, you are more likely to talk about Japanese people in Brazil than Brazillian people in Japan. (Maybe 'cause Brazil is close to the United States, is part of the "Western World", or speaks English more). Which is why we have an article on the former (Japanese Brazilian but not the latter (Brazilian Japanese).

Likewise, Chinese Australian and Australian Chinese both mean Chinese people living in Australia (both links point to the same article). There just aren't enough Australians living in China for them to be discussed with any frequency (in the sense that they do not form a distinct "community" or ethnicity that needs a name). Plus, any socio-political discussion on Australians living in China would most likely occur in Chinese.

The only tricky situation I can see would be things like British American vs American British - but only Americans would use such terms in this way anyway (I notice American British redirects to Americans in Britain) so it is reasonable that we defer to American idiosyncracies on this point. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting: so which is more used, Chinese Australian or A-C? As for "I've never heard any such compound as 'British Brazilian'" -- what about British Asian? Then there are hyphenated forms like Afro-Caribbean and Anglo-Indian; not sure hoe to think of their order. BrainyBabe (talk) 01:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Chinese Australian" is virtually universal. It's of the same form as "old Australian", "indigenous Australian", "stupid Australian", etc. I've never heard an Australian of Chinese origin referred to as an "Australian Chinese". If I heard that expression, I would assume it was referring to an Australian (of any ethnic origin; Paraguayan, Basque, indigenous, Anglo-Celtic, whatever) who'd migrated to China. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I hear the "Australian Chinese" community quite often, in reference to Australians of Chinese descent. The rigid usage of X-ian Australian is, I think, something of recent and American origin. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British Asian refers to an ethnic group, not people of a definite national heritage, and the same goes for Afro-Caribbean. Anglo-Indian usually also does not refer to Indians living in the UK, but would be an adjective used in such contexts as "Anglo-Indian Negotiations", etc.., and "British Asian" would probably suffice when talking about an Indian person living in the UK. --ChokinBako (talk) 02:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's also New Zealand European, which is the (slightly controversial) official descriptive for any white New Zealander who doesn't define themself more specifically. Gwinva (talk) 08:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. It's interesting to collect these examples from many countries, language varieties, governments, societies, etc within the Anglosphere. I haven't come to any conclusions yet but there's got to be an underlying logic. "Anglo-Indian" at one point meant British people living in India during the Raj -- sometimes for generations; then its meaning shifted to the mixed race children of (I would imagine almost exclusively this way round) British men and Indian women. "British Asian" is supposed to be an umbrella term but in the aftermath of 7/7 it became so associated with (or code for) British Muslim that those of other backgrounds began to self-identify more specifically as British Hindus or British Sikhs. (Of course ethnicity and religion are not the same thing, but the word order in which we treat these two may be similar.) I hear Pakistani British more than British Pakistani to mean those people who are in Britain, often for generations. Hypothesis: in the US the formula is "X-American" because "American" is both adjective and noun: both "I am X-American" and "I am an X-American". But "British" is not a noun, and I have never come across "X-Briton". Any more examples or ideas, or better yet, published research? BrainyBabe (talk) 07:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doing blood work

When doctors/pathologists conduct (or "run") tests on blood, they are said to "do blood work". Where did this strange expression come from, and why does it apply only to blood? They don't "do urine work" or "do semen work", or "do faeces work" or "do lymphatic fluid work". Do they? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They don't. On most of the fluids you mention, there are only a few possible tests to be done, and they are specifically ordered. On blood, however, there are a myriad of tests that are done, and not only done, but done routinely. "Routine blood work" (which tests would vary slightly depending mostly on locale and clinical setting) would ordinarily include a CBC and chem profile SMAC, and perhaps a PT/PTT. That would be some 40 individual tests; it's easy to see why a shorthand was needed. Urine comes in a distant second: in general practice one might do urinalysis or urine culture, but not much else (in rare circumstances, tests for urine electrolytes or hormones are done on 24 hour urine collections). Most doctors will never order any tests on semen (fertility doctors might do sperm counts, but other tests would be very rare), and most doctors will never see any lymph, much less know how to get some. Fecal tests would mainly be stool cultures, or microscopic examination for ova and parasites; 24 hour fecal specimens are also tested for fat content, though this test for malabsorption is mostly useful for the punishment of laboratory personnel... So I'd say the answer to your question is that the term is used only for blood because so many tests are done on blood, while only a few tests are done on other specimens, and these are so few that they are easily specified without use of any such expression. - Nunh-huh 00:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick and comprehensive reply, Nunh-huh. I understand that blood can be and is routinely subjected to far more more tests than other stuff can be or is. But hasn't that been the case for a long time, to some degree? I'm still struggling with why they don't just say "I need to run/do/conduct some blood tests before I can be sure of the diagnosis", as they always did, rather than this relatively new-fangled "I need to do some blood work before I can be sure of the diagnosis". Is it just a fashion thing; everyone else is saying it, so others fall into line? Or is it just confined to movies and TV, not in the real world? I recently had some tests done on my blood (I'm now an official diabetic, if anyone really cares; naturally, I blame Wikipedia for forcing me, against my will, to spend long hours of inactivity), and my doctor never talked of "doing blood work" but of "doing some blood tests". Is it confined to USA-speak? -- JackofOz (talk) 00:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confined to the U.S. :) so I can't really speak to doctor slang in other places. But at least here, and at least back to the 1970s, it's been either "blood work" or "blood tests", pretty much interchangably. I wouldn't think twice about hearing either. As for T.V. - don't get me started. The opening of Scrubs (in which a "doctor" puts up a chest x-ray with a superimposed "SCRUBS" on it on a light box backwards) drives me stark raving mad. I scream at the T.V. each time I see it, in the vain hope they'll hear me, hire a competent medical advisor, and fix it :). P.S. be sure to get a glucose meter that allows you to use an "alternative blood sampling site" (i.e., stick your arm and not your finger). It hurts so much less! - Nunh-huh 01:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll bear that in mind. Thanks, Nunh-huh. -- JackofOz (talk) 10:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 March 26

Contents