Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 March 8

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 8

ISO Code For The Manchu Alphabet

Is there a ISO code for the Manchu script / glyph set?174.3.110.108 (talk) 00:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You can use the Linguist List's search tool here to check, or you can search on Ethnologue. I snooped around a little and didn't find anything; I don't believe ISO codes are given for scripts (by way of example, Korean has an ISO code, but Hangul does not). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

List of ISO 15924 codes apparently does not mention Manchu alphabet. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:Scripts without ISO 15924 code includes the Old Uyghur alphabet, "the prototype for the Mongolian and Manchu alphabets."

-- Wavelength (talk) 01:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Clarification... now that I think about it, we're talking about different types of codes. The ones I was looking up were ISO 639, which are used for languages...the ISO 15924 that Wavelength found, however, is of more relevance here, since it's specifically for scripts. Nevertheless, it doesn't have Manchu. This may be because old Manchu, as far as I know, was based on the Jurchen script, and modern Manchu is pretty similar to the Mongolian script (at least, according to Ramsey, Robert (1987), The Languages of China, p. 229). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Copy vs. Over vs. Wilco

Back in my flying days, I always used "over" to mean that the conversation was over and "wilco" was meant as an acknowledgment that I heard everything that was said and would do as instructed. The word "copy" meant that I was about to copy back to you what I thought I heard you say to confirm that I heard it correctly.

I've noticed in movies that they've been using "copy" to mean "over" or "wilco". I know they've been doing it for some time but this usage seems to have increased over the years. And now, in today's crossword 1 Across is "CBer's acknowledgment" (four letters). The first thing I thought was "over" but the answer that they're looking for is "copy".

So, am I remembering things incorrectly? I realize that the clue asks about CBers and I was flying planes, so the lingo might be slightly different. Who's right and who's wrong and why? Dismas|^(talk) 01:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The only use of "over" in this context, that I am familiar with, is to explicitly mark the end of one's sentence or statement so that the person on the other end of the radio can respond. Wiktionary would agree with me. See [1]. "Over and out" means that both your sentence and the conversation are over. Paul Davidson (talk) 02:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Referring to somewhat parallel jargon in CB radio, "copy" or "no copy" refers to whether you understood the last transmission or not; "come on" in CB-ese equates to "over" which means you're done talking; "wilco" is short for "will comply", I don't know if there's a CB equivalent; "roger" equates to "10-4", which is pretty similar to "I copy" or I acknowledge and understand your last transmission. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) "Wilco" seems to be more obscure to the layman (this conclusion is based on the fact that I had only ever heard it in this context), so the more familiar "copy" would be used more in popular media for that reason. The voice procedure article doesn't seem to use the definition you gave for "copy" - maybe that is a usage unique to your school of flying. —Akrabbim^talk 02:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

"CBers acknowledgment" is more likely to be "10-4" during normal conversation. "No copy" is "10-9". Works either way, though. Actually, while pilots say "I copy", CBers often use the amusing variant "got a copy" (or not). "Copy" is more likely to be used at the start of a conversation, or when there appears to be interference on the radio channel - or when you're trying to see if a particular user is on the channel, as in "Rubber Duck, you got a copy?" "10-4, this is Rubber Duck, come on." That kind of thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Back when I got my pilot's license, in 1976 or so, "Roger" was the word that meant "I heard you", and it implied "Wilco" ("Will comply") if a controller were being acknowledged. Actually saying "Wilco" marked one as being old. In 1976. PhGustaf (talk) 03:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

A CB variant on "10-4" and "Roger" is "10-Roger". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes I have been known to use hand-held radios... and in our convention, if the conversation is closed the word used is not "over", but "out" (as in "over and out"). --TammyMoet (talk) 14:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

According to CAP 413 (the authoratitive guide on UK aircraft R/T procedure), "Copy" should not be used (para 1.12, page 13). "ROGER" is the approved term to acknowledge the receipt of a message, "OVER" signifies the end of a transmission when a reply is expected, and "WILCO" means "I understand your message and will comply with it." (para 1.6, Table 7, page 6). Tevildo (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah- kuk kuk kuk-kuk kuk-kuk.

What does "Ah- kuk kuk kuk-kuk kuk-kuk." mean? Is it onomatopoeia? Is so, of what? Is this norwegian?174.3.110.108 (talk) 04:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It's an attempt at phonetically representing Popeye's characteristic laugh. I don't understand what you're referring to in the "Norwegian" question. Deor (talk) 04:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Kuk is cock in norwegian.174.3.110.108 (talk) 04:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Pirates Who Smoke?

Is there an etymology for pirate smoker?174.3.110.108 (talk) 04:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this reference is likely to be the best (most accurate) you're going to find. Dismas|^(talk) 07:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably a development of butt pirate. Apparently smoke has meant "to have sex" since the 17th century but only recorded as relating to felatio in the C20th. Pipe smoker has meant a gay man since the 1990s, pirate has meant a man looking for sex in austrailan slang since the 1920s. And if I haven't insulted enough people already, "a pirate's dream" apparently means a flat chested woman (she has a sunken chest) meltBanana 00:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Schutzstaffel

The page on SS glosses the name in German as meaning "protective squadron." In the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, it's "protection squad." Is only one correct, or one more so than the other? I suspect there may be a BE/AE aspect to the "squadron" vs. "squad" but don't know German well enough (understatement) to evaluate the discrepancy of "protective" vs. "protection."-- Deborahjay (talk) 14:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not a matter of knowing German, just a matter of what sounds better in English. Schutz is a noun meaning "protection", but when it's the first part of a compound noun, sometimes the adjective "protective" sounds better in English. For example, I would translate Schutzbrille as "protective goggles", not "protection goggles", but (to my ear at least) "protection squad(ron)" sounds more idiomatic in English than "protective squad(ron)". +Angr 14:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

According to my German-English dictionary, Schutz means "protection" or "defense". And I agree with Angr that "protection" sounds better. So I wonder what the source is in the article for "protective"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

And on the strength of the dictionary plus the fact that the translation given in the article is uncited, I have changed it from "protective" to "protection". As for the "Staffel" part, my dictionary indicates it means "team"; or "squadron" when used in a military sense. I'm guessing it's from the same root usage as "staff" in English. I don't know what English word, if any, would correspond to the "Schutz" part (other than the coincidental darkly-humorous near-homophone, "shoots"). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I searched four terms on google books (to eliminate wikipedia mirrors, among other). The result is a bit inconclusive:

"Schutzstaffel" + ...

... "protection squadron": 42 hits

... "protective squadron": 107 hits

... "protection squad": 375 hits

... "protective squad": 70 hits

So protective is favoured in combination with squadron, while protection is favoured with squad. Regardless of this problematic sample, I agree with Angr's preference and Bugs's change to the article. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

In a military context, the word "squad" means a team of about a dozen soldiers. "Squadron" is a larger sized formation, so is probably a better translation. Alansplodge (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

My German/English dictionary translates "squad" as "Gruppe", and translates squadron as the cognate "Schwadron", and also as "Staffel". "Staffel" does not seem to be directly connected with "staff", as that seems to be from Old High German "stab", which is also a modern German word for "staff". So much for my assumptions. Meanwhile, the English "squadron" is from Latin, so "Schwadron" is probably either also from Latin or borrowed from English. Getting a bit off the track here. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

In reply to Baseball Bugs (14:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)), the rational for making it an adjective is that when nouns are concatenated in German, the first noun qualifies the second (much as in protection squadron: a squadron for protection): in English this is often done by means of adjectives (though other means are used, too, as in protection squadron and philosophy of life).—msh210℠ 19:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. I just wonder if the German word "Schutz" has an English cognate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't think of one, unless the Latin "scutum" (shield) is cognate with "schutzen", in which case "escutcheon" will be! --ColinFine (talk) 00:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a possibility. There's also a word Schützenfest which at first glance would seem to be related, except for the double-dot over the "u", so maybe not. In fact, my German/English dictionary indicates that "shoot" does not translate to "Schutz" as such. English word origins are typically given in English dictionaries. I wonder if word origins are easily available somewhere, for languages such as German, French, etc.? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

As a total shot in the dark, I went to etymonline and checked out the [so-obvious-it-must-be-wrong] first candidate, 'shut', which gave me OE scytten and M.Dutch 'schutten' (I also got MHG schuzen from somewhere, not sure where). The meaning of 'shut' in OE was given as 'to close by folding or bringing together', which made me think of 'protect' (- the M.Dutch meaning is 'to shut up, obstruct'). A case of false etymology, possibly, but as good as I can think of. :) --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Differences between I like singing AND I like to sing ?

Hello you all over the Earth. Please excuse my uneasy English, I'm a froggy. My wife is an English teacher and she recently faced a phrase (in a school book) that looks strange to her and her colleagues. This phrase is: "I like to sing".

When we were pupils then students we were explained that this construction is UNCORRECT though it is similar to a French constuction. We were taught that the correct phrase is "I like singing". So we have some questions for you native English speakers from many countries.

Q1) Is "I like to sing" correct in Great Britain, in the USA, in Australia or somewhere in an English speaking country?

Q2) If this "I like to sing" is correct, it must have some differences of meaning with "I like singing". What are they?--82.216.68.31 (talk) 16:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say they are both correct and have the same meaning in UK English. I'm not an expert though. Alansplodge (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say the same, as an American. —Akrabbim^talk

16:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I'm the asker. Reading these 2 answers, I have an other question:

Q3) Is the structure "I like to sing" more recent than the other one?--82.216.68.31 (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm a Bulgarian, and here's what I was taught. "Like doing something" means "enjoy something", e.g. She likes going to the cinema. "Like to do something" means "consider doing something is correct or appropriate", e.g. She likes to wash her hair every other day. What would you say about it? --62.204.152.181 (talk) 16:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That is one way to understand it, but it isn't necessarily the case for all uses of "likes to do". The example you gave is much more dependent on the "every other day", where "likes washing her hair every other day" makes sense, and means the same thing, but comes across as being awkward. —Akrabbim^talk 19:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't really think that's right, or it's at least not how most people use "like to." "Like to" could mean that in the proper context, but my mind would definitely first go to the "enjoy something" meaning. I would echo everyone else and say that there really is no difference at all between these two constructions (with the exception of the small possibility of ambiguity in certain situations mentioned below). -Elmer Clark (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a potential difference of meaning. "I like singing" is ambiguous because it could mean that I like listening to other people's singing or I like to be singing myself or I like singing no matter who does it, whereas "I like to sing" means I like to be singing myself. In other words "singing" can be a verbal noun meaning "the thing that people do when they sing" or "the sound of people who are singing", whereas "I like to X" specifies that I like to do an activity X. --Normansmithy (talk) 17:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, "I like singing happy songs" is not ambiguous in the same way. --Normansmithy (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You're quite right, Normansmithy. I suddenly realised the double meaning but you got there first. Alansplodge (talk) 17:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I am a native speaker of American English, and I think that there are subtle differences in tone between singing and to sing. As Normansmithy pointed out, I like singing by itself is ambiguous, whereas I like to sing is not. It is not ambiguous when there is an object (I like singing folk songs). However, I think that a person would tend to say "I like singing folk songs" in certain situations and "I like to sing folk songs" in others. To me, "I like to sing folk songs" seems like the more common, natural way to say it. This form can carry the implication of properness or correctness that 62.204 describes, depending on the context, but it does not necessarily carry that implication. To my ears, the form singing subtly de-emphasizes the verb sing. A speaker might be more likely to use singing in order to emphasize I, like, or folk songs. You can also stress those words in a sentence containing to sing, but I think the gerund singing tends to have a lower profile in a sentence or phase than the infinitive form in this case. Marco polo (talk) 19:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Diazecloxmelofluroclizfpidizvralcoxibivir-CR and other pharmaco-nominative monstrosities

Are there rules governing how GENERIC drug names are assigned? They all give the impression of being unpronounceable compared to their brand names (would you like a Vioxx or a rofecoxib?). Why on earth do they do that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.135.122 (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Drug naming is a surprisingly complex topic. There's a difference between a drug's International Nonproprietary Name (aka generic name) (like "ibuprofen") and its IUPAC name (for ibuprofen, "(RS)-2-(4-(2-methylpropyl)phenyl)propanoic acid"), both of which are distinct from the brand or trade name (Nurofen, Advil and Motrin being brands of ibuprofen). Additionally there are other names, such as the British Approved Name and United States Adopted Name which usually are the same as the INNs, and Chemical Abstracts Service names are similar to IUPAC names but designed to be unique.

INNs are regulated by the WHO, and IUPAC names by IUPAC. This page describes the procedure for INNs, which are chosen by the drug company and approved by the World Health Organization. The IUPAC name page has more information on its procedure, which is based on accurately describing chemical structure.

A page by Merck[2] describes how it sees the naming process: "Many generic names are a shorthand version of the drug's chemical name, structure, or formula. In contrast, trade names are usually catchy, often related to the drug's intended use, and relatively easy to remember, so that doctors will prescribe the drug and consumers will look for it by name. Trade names often suggest a characteristic of the drug." --Normansmithy (talk) 17:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sussex, Essex, Wessex, etc

What is the linguistic origin and meaning of the suffix -sex in the english counties? alteripse (talk) 19:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

See Essex#Toponomy, for instance. Deor (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Saxons. From the OED, e.g.: "[OE. West Seaxe West Saxons.] " BrainyBabe (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Perfect. I had spent more time searching toponymic articles without finding the answer than it took to get one here. Thanks. alteripse (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

In order

Resolved

Resolved

What is the reason for the term in order in the sentence below:

"You must receive a passing grade on the Millberg and Jasonowicz assignments in order to pass the course."

I ask, because the term seems to ambiguously suggest that one must perform these assignments in the order specified. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If that were really the meaning intended, it would be something like "You must receive a passing grade on the Millberg and Jasonowicz assignments, in that order, to pass the course". But that suggests the assignments would be given out in that order to begin with, each presumably with its own deadline, so I can't see how one could pass the second before passing the first, hence the instruction is somewhat pointless. It's a bit like saying "You must breathe air while completing these assignments". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It means "to be able to". Vimescarrot (talk) 21:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The actual phrase is 'in order to'. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

See Definitions of in order to - OneLook Dictionary Search. -- Wavelength (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you speak these, but "in order to" is roughly the same as French pour and Spanish para. (The other Romance languages probably have these too, I just don't know them.) Not sure if that helps. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

That was all great -- thanx! DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It's marked "resolved" and all, but one more thing needs to be said, and that is that "to" can have the meaning "in order to". So the question "why say 'in order'" also has to be asked from that perspective: if the two words were deleted, the meaning of the sentence would not change.

The answer to this is that the longer version is easier to understand, because "in order to" has a single meaning while "to" has many possible meanings. For example, an "assignment to pass the course" might (theoretically) mean an assignment existing outside of the course, which you would complete by passing the course. By saying "in order to", we avoid distracting the reader who might momentarily think that "to" was meant in that way. --Anonymous, 05:33 UTC, March 9, 2010.

This is, of course, the reason the OP was confused. Knowing that 'to' can be used here with the meaning of 'to be able to', he thought that 'in order' was separate from it and meaning 'in [a particular] order'. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't confused -- I was actually wondering why such a phrase would be used if it could take on such an ambiguous meaning. Certainly, I didn't think that the assignments had to be done in order...but as Anonymous has given me an even greater appreciation for the answer, I've resolved it again :) DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Decorative Typographical Symbol

Hi all,

Is the symbol depicted here: [3], which looks like a stylised leaf on a branch, or possibly a heart or spade (as in cards), a standardised one? For some reason I have a feeling it's used quite often. If it is, what's it called?

Thanks,

Daniel (‽) 21:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen it used (mostly in works of literature) as a decorative symbol as well, but I have no idea what it would be called either... Xenon54 / talk / 21:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

See "Floral heart" at List of Unicode characters#Miscellaneous Symbols. -- Wavelength (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Typographers seem to call it an Aldus leaf or a fleuron. See here, scrolling down to "What does the Aldus leaf in the company logo signify?" See also File:Aldus leaf.svg, which is used in the article Fleuron (typography). Deor (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

At http://unicode.org/charts/PDF/U2700.pdf, under "Punctuation ornaments", 2766 is the code for "❦ FLORAL HEART = Aldus leaf".

-- Wavelength (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Also known as a hedera (Latin for ivy)—see, for example, here, on page 20. Deor (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL, the Romanian word for ivy is "iederă" Rimush (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is that funny? —Tamfang (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

At http://unicode.org/charts/PDF/U2700.pdf, under "Punctuation ornaments", 2767 is the code for "❧ ROTATED FLORAL HEART BULLET = hedera, ivy leaf". -- Wavelength (talk) 23:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You awesome people, thank you. Daniel (‽) 22:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)