Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2011 February 17

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 17

Just out of interest...

...is there a word for something that is both apt and a cliche? HalfShadow 00:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes: cliche. (Sorry.) Looie496 (talk) 06:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Bon mot or mot juste? --TammyMoet (talk) 10:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Maxim? Most maxims can be described as cliche, and if one utters a maxim, the speaker usually believes it is apt. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

French "billion"

Why does the French word "billion" mean trillion, not billion? --75.15.161.185 (talk) 02:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Article Long and short scales. The "long scale" was common in the U.K. until recent decades... AnonMoos (talk) 02:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Long story short: First, everywhere was billion = 10¹². Then, the French changed their minds and went with billion = 10⁹. Then, the Americans adopted this usage from the French. Then, the French went back to billion = 10¹², while the Americans stayed the same. Then, for the most part, all English-speaking countries adopted the American way of billion = 10⁹. And now we're done. Note, though, that some English speakers outside the United States are not fond of what can be seen as an imposition by the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.111.130.159 (talk) 03:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

So the question should be more like: "Why does the English word "billion" mean milliard, not billion?". JIP | Talk 06:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I think that would be pourquoi est-ce que le mot anglais "billion" veux dire <<milliard>> et non <<billion>>?. Well, something like that. Calling my French rusty might be an insult to rust. --Trovatore (talk) 07:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as an Australian of age 60 something, I recall an Australian billion being 10¹², then drifting to be 10⁹ at a time when many things were drifting towards the American style. But my question is....What is a milliard? HiLo48 (talk) 07:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

There's a frequently overlooked feature on WP known as the "Search box", use it or simply click on "Milliard" and all will be revealed. Roger (talk) 07:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

There's more languages in the world than English and French. English is the only language I understand that calls 10⁹ a "billion", all the others call it a "milliard". JIP | Talk 07:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

... and some of us in England ignored Harold Wilson's preference for the American billion, and still use the word to mean a million million, in common with most of the rest of the world who do not speak English but have a similar word in their own language. Dbfirs 09:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a risky way of reasoning. The entire world, with the exception of North America, spells aluminum wrong — wrong logically, etymologically, and historically. All because of one silly letter-writer who reasoned badly. Pisses me off. --Trovatore (talk) 09:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Only in English. The word for "alumin{,i}um" in some non-English languages doesn't even end in "-um". I admit that the English word "aluminium" is etymologically incorrect, but that doesn't relate to the issue of the meaning of the word "billion". American English is not some universal basic language which every other language is defined through. JIP | Talk 10:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, guys; I don't agree to Trovatore's idea of a strong point pro aluminum in a logical and etymological sense. At least etymologically, aluminium beats the American form to the bone. The -ium Latin suffix is the natural affix to form a element's name derived from a Latin word, be it alumina or alum. Aluminum is to my eyes an etymological obscenity, a try to build a Latin neuter form for a term (alumina) which already has a neuter form (alumen).
For the sake of comparison, I quote the derivation of some other elements' names ending in -um: Greek derivations (formation of a Greek neuter form from a non-neuter word): (lanthanum, tantalum, molybdenum) and a Latin generated neuter form from a Spanish (de)formed word: platinum. The periodic table shows the general use of the latin suffix -ium as the general way of building the derived element name. Pallida  Mors 15:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

If you're deriving from alum it should be alumium, which was in fact Davy's original word. But then he changed to aluminum as derived from alumina. There's no good reason to stick in the extra i. --Trovatore (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Aluminium is a perfect Latin derivation from alumina, with the suffix -ium applied. (I have already explained why in my previous response).
Implicit in your response, is the fact that aluminum is etymologically a better derivation from alumina than aluminium. My previous response developed the contrary point. Building a neuter form from a form already derived from a neuter Latin word (alumen, alumina) is etymologically as bad as building *corpurum from corpora. I don't mean it's an illegal derivation, only a more turbid one than the one of aluminium, which on the other hand is a more uniform expression.
The fact that Davy used aluminum of course does not preclude us from analizing the most suitable etymological form, does it? Pallida  Mors 01:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

You have done a more thorough etymological analysis than I knew about, I'll grant you. But aluminium is still hideous, and I still think the letter-writer was out of line and should not have been copied. --Trovatore (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what's risky about expecting some consistency across languages that have common roots. The Americans chose to change (or misunderstand?) the traditional structure of billion, trillion etc. and I really don't see why they should expect everyone else to follow their practice, nor do I understand why Harold Wilson abandoned the milliard, except perhaps that it sounds too similar to the myriad Dbfirs 13:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the Americans expected anyone to follow them. It's not like they threatened to levy sanctions against anyone if they didn't use the same number system. "Everyone else" changed because it was expedient to do so, and nothing more or less. It's important to remember that language does not depend completely on history for the meanings of its words. There are myriad words with meanings that have dramatically changed over time. And in this case, economics indicated the change. It happens. You have issues with "billion," but do you also have issues with "actual," which in most Romance languages means "as of now," or with "gift" which in most Germanic langauges means "poison"?

There's more languages in the world than English and French. English is the only language I understand that calls 10⁹ a "billion", all the others call it a "milliard". --> Portuguese is the same way, to an extent. In Brazil, a billion is 10⁹, while in Portuagal it's 10¹². Although, that may be a language you don't understand. Also, I think ambiguity is avoided because the spellings differ as well between Brazil and Portugal.

I understand only very basic Portuguese, and the differences between Portuguese Portuguese and Brazilian Portuguese are difficult for me to remember, so I didn't know Brazilians mean 10⁹ when they say "billion". Anyway, seeing as Brazil is in America and Portugal is in Europe, this seems to mirror the difference between American English and British (non-Wilsonian) English. JIP | Talk 08:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Please remember not to forget

Why is it that people who would never say:

• I won't have anything that isn't a pie or a coffee,
• Goodbye, Johnny. Don't murder your teacher today
• Don't fall down the stairs and break your spine, neck, spleen and 13 teeth, or
• I see something other than what you don't mean,

preferring, respectively:

• I'll have a pie and a coffee, please
• Goodbye, Johnny. Be good at school
• Be careful going down the stairs, and
• I see what you mean,

will nevertheless usually say:

• Don’t forget <to, that ...>, rather than
• Please remember <to, that ...>?

Why would someone introduce the concept of the very thing they don't want you to do (forget), only to have to then tell you not to do it. Why don't they just tell you what it is they want you to do (remember)? Is this just an English-language aberration or does it appear elsewhere? (I hasten to add that in my moments of madness I am probably just as guilty of this utter stupidity as anyone else, but in calmer and more reflective moments I can see it for what it is.)-- Jack of Oz [your turn] 03:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing particularly wrong with this construction, at least from the point of view of English usage. It strikes me as more emphatic that remember to..., carrying the connotation "there strikes me as a real danger that you'll forget this, so please be careful about it". That connotation could come across as overly pushy, or then again it might be the case that the listener would also be concerned that he might forget, and put the matter more firmly in his mind. --Trovatore (talk) 03:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

That's not unlike some other sentences, such as this one. For your first example, I can easily see using it. If I order a pie and a coffee, and the baker insists on giving me flatbread and a beer and screwing up the order, would it be out of place to say "I won't have anything that's not a pie or a coffee, dangit!" Granted, I wouldn't say that because it would be rude, but it would make sense. Your next two examples don't seem to fit for me - they are rather specific. You wouldn't tell Johnny not to murder his teacher, unless that was a perceived problem, and you wouldn't tell somebody not to knock out thirteen teeth. "Don't forget to do do your math homework." is not being abnormally specific, at least in context. That's my 2¢ worth. Falconus^{p t c} 05:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

But why not simply "Now remember, you have math homework to do" or something similar? The example about the pie and coffee would only apply where the baker does insist on giving you flatbread and a beer and screwing up the order - so that's just as specific as the other ones. None of them would be something anyone would ever say unless there was some particular reason so to do. The default approach is to ask for what you want, not to deny what you don't want. The instructions at the top of this page start out "Is there any way I can get a faster answer? Yes, you can search first. Please do this", not "Please don't fail to do this".

I'm not saying the "don't forget" thing is never appropriate. A context can easily be contrived to suit virtually any random combination of words: "Oh, you'll pay. Don't think you won't pay" is not just telling them there's a price for what they've done, but also that if they think that's not the case, they'll discover they're wrong. In the classroom situation, if the subject of forgetting had been introduced, then it might be appropriate to say "Don't forget to do your math homework". But in the absence of any such context, to use the "don't forget" formula to remind students about their homework seems to be very circuitous, at the very least, and certainly heightens the possibility of failure. I hear the "don't forget" formula all the time in TV adverts, which are all about "Do this, buy this, be there, spend this", and then they go and spoil it all by "Don't forget to do X". -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Insamuch as "forget" arguably contains a negative concept, "Don't forget . . ." could be seen as a form of double negative, which is common in English usage, and to be related to idioms, which are even more common in English and have no overt logical rationale. Ultimately it's all just fashion. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 10:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with what Falconus said about specificity, and I think it also has to do with what's actually being desired. In the case of "I'll have a pie and a coffee" it's not that you don't want anything else, it's that you really want a pie and coffee. In the case of "don't forget", it's not that remembering is desirable, it's more that forgetting is undesirable. If you're in a situation where having something besides pie and coffee is highly undesired (e.g. the beer and flatbread case), you flip the phrasing to reflect that. Likewise, if you're in a situation where remembering would be desired, but forgetting is not highly disfavored, "Please remember ..." would be the phrasing. (e.g. "Please remember to take out the garbage (but if you forget, I can do it myself)"). Another factor is what's the "default" expectation - what is the person expected to do in the case of no reminder? In the pie & beer case, without saying anything, you'd expect the server to give you nothing, so it's the giving rather than the not-giving that's the departure from expectations. In the case of "Don't forget ...", (as well as "be good" and "be careful") that's often used in situations where the person being reminded should do it even without the reminder. "Please remember ..." tends to be used more in cases where the person is otherwise not under any compunction to remember, and the remembering is the departure from what they would/should do. (All that said, "Don't forget..." has probably risen to the status of an idiom, so would be used formulaicly when it otherwise might be out-of-place). -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Don't fall down the stairs and break your spine, neck, spleen and 13 teeth". I am so using that in a conversation. HalfShadow 23:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer it if you reconsidered (which is my way of saying "Please don't"). That example was a deliberate exaggeration, but in principle it's what people often say unthinkingly. When someone is in a situation where they could potentially fall, saying anything to them that suggests(*) falling, tripping etc is actually going to increase the likelihood of that undesirable event happening. not decrease it. And putting a "don't" in front of it has no effect. It's a bit like when you've done something that you're wanting to cover up, e.g. if you want nobody to know that you've stolen from the petty cash, and nobody but you even knows anything's been stolen, you would certainly not answer "What have you been doing today?" with "Oh, nothing special, but I definitely have not been stealing from the petty cash". Would you, now. (* Here I'm using "suggest" not in the sense of "recommend" but simply of "introduce the concept") -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 02:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

On the last point, there is a traditional Chinese idiom for doing kind of thing, which translates literally as something like "300 taels of silver are not buried here" - this blog post explains the story behind it. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Bahasa Indonesia help

How do you translate this into Bahasa Indonesia:

• "This user is opposed to the use of images of Muhammad on the English Wikipedia."

This is because I want to import User:WhisperToMe/Userboxes/NoMo to the Bahasa Indonesia Wikipedia WhisperToMe (talk) 06:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there anything wrong with this sentence?

Is there anything amiss in the following sentence, when it's used to refer to a minister who resigned from his church?

As a conservative Christian, condemnation of homosexuality had been a major theme of his preaching.

Another Wikipedia editor says "As a conservative Christian" is an adverbial phrase that applies to the noun "condemnation". Now I'm not sure I'd recognize an adverbial phrase if one came up to me, said I was cute, and offered to buy me a drink. But as I told the other editor in this context (permalink), I have some difficulty with his construal. As I wrote in the context I linked to, "...among the several meanings that the Oxford English Dictionary offers for 'as', I find 'after the manner of', 'like', and 'in the role of'. I believe this is the sense in which the word occurs here. I'm not convinced that 'As a conservative Christian' applies to 'condemnation', in other words. It rather appears to me to apply to the implicit 3rd person masculine singular ('he') from which our 'his' derives as its possessive form (used as an attributive)." I'd be almost as happy to learn I was wrong as to learn I was right: I'm just really curious. Can anyone parse this for me into terms a simple mind can comprehend? Thanks!  – OhioStandard (talk) 10:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Not only does it seem fine to me, I can't think of any better way of rephrasing it for clarity. It seems clear to me that "conservative Christian" refers to the preacher himself. I say leave it as it is. --Viennese Waltz 10:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much, VW. I was thinking about this a bit more, and "As a conservative Christian" seems more like a predicate to me ( in the formal logic sense, at least ) than anything else. Does anyone know if it really is an adverbial phrase in this usage, or is there some more apt way to describe it in grammar? I realize I really need to break out the old textbooks; I couldn't diagram a sentence to save my life. Thanks again,  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

If it helps at all, in trying to analyze this, the OED says, at (11) in the entry for "as (adv.)", "With subordinate clause reduced to its subject or object: a. After the manner of, in the likeness of, the same as, like.". It gives, as one of it's example quotations, "Spain rose as one man against the stranger." If this is equivalent to, "As one man, Spain rose against the stranger", then that seems fairly close to the sentence I first asked about, and I could see the the applicability of the OED's "reduced to its subject or object". Does that make sense, and if so, what part of grammar would we properly call "As one man" or "As a conservative Christian"? Thanks once more, for any suggestions.  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with the OP's original critic that in the sentence's structure as written, "As a conservative Christian . . ." is, strictly speaking, referring grammatically to the next-encountered noun (that could also have been a pronoun like "his"), which is "condemnation", and that some readers would notice this and a few be irritated by it: whether "as", "like" or other near synonyms be used is irrelevant. However, I also agree that the intended meaning is obvious to most readers, and this form of erroneous construction is very common in spoken and non-formal written English. However, if I were still a professional editor and was working on this text, I would advise recasting the sentence to eliminate the problem. One of several possibilities would be

"As a conservative Christian, he had made condemnation of homosexuality a major theme of his preaching."

I hope this addresses your concerns. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 11:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with 87.81.230.195. The original sentence suggests that condemnation of homosexuality is a conservative Christian, which obviously makes no sense. — Kpalion^(talk) 12:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, nothing so emphatic as "concerns", really, IP. I just love language, and I was curious about this. I'm not sure I'm persuaded that "As a conservative Christian" must necessarily apply, even in the most rigorous interpretation, to the next-encountered noun, but your explanation does help me understand the other user's objection, which I hadn't done. And Kpalion, your post points out the "data type" issue very clearly, so thank you, both. I think we probably will go with IPs suggested revision; we don't want anyone thinking condemnation might be a conservative Christian. ( I know for a fact that he prefers to be properly identifed as a Roman Catholic ;-) Also, IP: I'd never seen "critic" employed in that sense before, "critique" or just "criticism" being more usual in modern use, but the OED does list it as a valid usage, God bless it, although an obscure one. Always happy to learn of an older usage for a familiar friend, so I appreciate that, as well. Again, many thanks to all responders.  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)#

By "critic" I meant the "another Wikipedia editor" who had critiqued the sentence, not the criticism of that sentence :-) . 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, of course; sorry. I should get more sleep. Thanks, again.  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is an adverbial phrase in any way and I believe the grammar is fine. I think the problem comes with elision, and enjambment of ideas, which in an uncontroversial sentence would go unnoticed. The comma is a weak punctuation to separate "conservative Christian" and "condemnation of homosexuality" and it therefore links them too tightly, although they are so often linked like that these days. Remove the comma and it would be wrong but that is how it is being read. As the OED says "as" is used to mean "since", "like" "in the manner of" and a simpler sentence:

Condemnation of homosexuality had been a major theme of his preaching as [he is] a conservative Christian.

has been turned inside out to give prominence to "conservative Christian". The elision of [he is] or other words of specification make a shorter, neater sentence but allows ambiguity and allows the general application of "conservative Christian" on to "condemnation of homosexuality". As I said I think the sentence is fine grammatically but there are 10001 way in which it could be rewritten to make it more or less controversial. meltBanana 14:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this, meltBanana. You taught me a new word, too: Enjambment. Very nice. I'm happy and more or less content with the answers I've received so far, but the topic is an interesting one, and if others wish to address the question, or any of the replies, more thoroughly, then please feel free: I'd marked this "resolved", previously, but there seems to be ongoing interest, so I've undone that. It may be of interest if I say that this sentence was written as an attempt to contribute to an article, based on the following source (news report) sentence: Those men and others have accused Bloggs of hypocrisy in light of his longstanding condemnations of homosexuality, a major theme in his conservative Christian preaching. Thanks to all for your interest and assistance (so far?) Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Is it really possible that we've had all this discussion without anybody pointing out that the sentence contains a dangling participle? Don't they teach that in English classes anymore? Looie496 (talk) 19:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The final word, "preaching" seemed out of place to me, and I would omit it. The reason is that it sounds like only his preaching condemns homosexuality, while he personally can't get enough (this actually seems to be quite common among evangelists, such as George Alan Rekers). StuRat (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

That actually does appear to have been the case with the poor chap under discussion, Stu. It seems to have been a major theme of his preaching, but not so much of living, in other words, so I think "of his preaching" does have to stay in.  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Looie, if you're going to insist on talking sense, well, we're all just going to have leave the room. ;-) Thanks for this. I'll answer your apparently rhetorical question, too. ( Is there a word that describes the election to do so, I wonder ... no, I mean besides "obtuse"? ) My American education included a single three-month course in grammar, when I was 12 years of age. I thought it woefully inadequate even then, I remember. After that, it was all "literature". I also recall that in my ( also American ) college, my French instructor, a native speaker, of course, who was teaching her first course in the U.S., was dismayed and exasperated when, upon trying to explain a point of French grammar in terms of the constructs of English grammar, she discovered that none of us knew it... So Looie ( or anyone else who will take pity ), help us out, here. It has occurred to me that the "As" in the sentence I initially inquired about performs the same function as "Being", i.e. that our sentence could be (more or less) equivalently rendered,

• Being a conservative Christian, condemnation of homosexuality had been a major theme of his preaching.

Do you agree that this is sufficiently close to assist us in analyzing the structure here? If so, do you see what I meant when I said, above, that "As a conservative Christian" sees to me to have the character of a predicate? And doesn't rendering the sentence using "being" make it easier to classify what kind of dangling modifier we're talking about here? As to grammatical voice, grammatical aspect, and suchlike? Does anyone feel like enlightening us re those and related descriptors as they apply to our subject sentence? I'm all to seek, here, but our adverbial clause article seemed helpful, especially the rows of table it includes for "reason clauses" and "clauses of manner". It would feel satisfying to me to have the structure of this deceptively slippery sentence fully specified, fully parsed into its grammatical/linguistic constituents, with each constituent properly named. Are there any takers? Is there any intrepid soul who'd like to offer an attempt at that (to me) heavy lifting up for communal ridicule? ;-) I'm sure all attempts would be welcome and much appreciated, if perhaps only as grounds for amusement and that the community would give milk and cookies, and a great stupendous group hug to anyone who'd give it a try. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC) ( Late edit: I've revised the above. Please see my comment on "chilling effect", following. OhioStandard 10:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC))

My issue was not with anything that was said, but simply to the fact that nobody had identified the problem as a dangling participle and pointed to our article about it. When I went to high school in the 1970s, the ability to recognize a dangling participle was drilled into us. Looie496 (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't get the impression that you were inappropriately critical at all, Looie, and didn't intend to imply otherwise. On the contrary, I appreciated your comment.  – OhioStandard (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Umm, there's no participle in OhioStandard's original sentence, dangling or otherwise. Deor (talk) 23:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

No, but there is a dangling modifier, which I'm sure is what Looie was getting at. The important point is the "dangling", not the "participle". rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, everyone. I'm concerned that the jocular tone I allowed myself, above, might have introduced a chilling effect on this discussion, and I'd like to correct that. No one here is going to disparage anyone else for trying to sort this, and I shouldn't have implied otherwise: I suppose I was responding to my own sense of embarrassment that I'm so evidently uninformed with respect to grammatical analysis. Quite seriously now, I think I can speak for all when I say that we sincerely appreciate every contribution to this thread, and that we'd be grateful to anyone who wants to try diagramming the sentence, even in a broad-brush sort of way, and explaining their analysis in terms of the constituent parts they identify.

We'll also all be respectful if anyone happens to make an error in that process. Errors, and their subsequent discussion and eventual correction are a normal and productive part of the process of intellectual discovery. Any contrary view is simply an impediment to learning and progress, and anyone who holds such a view is unlikely to ever master any difficult subject or, indeed, to ever learn much at all. Besides, understanding the structure of language, and being able to distinguish valid forms from invalid ones, is as difficult a challenge as understanding the structure of thought: Grammar and semantics are no easier than logic and epistemology. So please, anyone who feels he can pin this down more exactly, do have a go. We'd all be grateful, even if the results presented turn out to need revision or correction subsequently. So then, what about this dangling modifier thingummy? Is anyone able to expand on that, or take the analysis of the sentence I first presented incrementally further?  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to Looie and Rjanag for getting us to dangling modifier, btw. That's very helpful. Perhaps if we end up sorting this properly, we can add the sentence I initially asked about as an example to the appropriate section of that article, e.g. to Dangling modifier#Modifiers reflecting the mood or attitude of the speaker. That would be a pleasnt and productive outcome and side-benefit of this discussion, I believe.  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Grammar tool to supplement spell checker?

Hallo helpdesk,

How can i use a grammar tool for my text on Wikipedia? When I right a word how can I now that the spelling is correct!

GrPeters01 (talk) 10:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is a way of doing that. You could always create the text in Word, which does have those features, and then copy-paste it into the edit box here. But if you're talking about posting on these ref desks, I wouldn't worry too much about it. With one or two notorious exceptions, we are pretty relaxed about spelling and grammar here. As long as your question is understandable that's the main thing, and if it's not then someone will politely ask you to clarify. If you're talking about articles, though, then there's a higher level of grammar and spelling required and the Word solution I mention above may be the way to go. If you're not a native English speaker, you could also consider improving articles on the Wikipedia for your language. PS. You came to the wrong desk really, this is the ref desk for general knowledge questions and answers. If you want help on using Wikipedia, the correct place to go is the help desk. --Viennese Waltz 11:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

There are online sites that'll let you paste text in a box and then report if it is grammatical, but they don't work very well. Spell Check can spot that "you is fat" is wrong but doesn't see anything wrong with "When I right a word how can I now that the spelling is correct!" Paper Rater spots "right" but not "now". Or you can download Language Tool for Open Office, but I've no idea how good it is. Grammar checking is hard. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

See Grammar checker for more info. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, there isn't anything wrong with the sentence. Peter kept large inflatable letters in his garden over Christmas, spelling HAPPY NEW YREA (sic). Because it gets quite windy in December, he would often have to stop work and come out to right one of them. This wasn't hard, because the kerning of the letters made it easy to lean them properly up against one another. However, when Mary visited him, she informed him of the spelling error. Unfortunately, soon the word YEAR began to topple in the wind again. Mary said, "Why don't you go out and right the words?" Peter disappeared into the garden for a few minutes, but soon returned in frustration, having discovered that the correct spelling was much more difficult to manoeuvre. "Beforehand, it was easy," he said, "but when I right a word, how can I, now that the spelling is correct?" (Of course, we have an understanding of the context here, so we can see the error, but the grammar checker doesn't.) Marnanel (talk) 13:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Peter! I looked around a little, and I was surprised to find that there is an easy way to check spelling ( but not grammar ), especially if you use the Firefox browser. See Wikipedia:Spellchecking#Using_a_web_browser for details. The Firefox method works well for me. Once you check the box mentioned in the link, words that are misspelled will be underlined. Move the cursor to one of those underlined words, and right click to get a list of suggested alternatives. The ability to select languages or add dictionaries is not listed, by the way, until you mark the "check spelling" box. Good luck!  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

For some time, I thought the Wikipedia had a built-in spellchecker, then I realised that my browser (Opera) was doing the checking by default. It even has its own user dictionary and can download dictionaries for other languages, but it doesn't check grammar or incorrect use of words. Dbfirs 22:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Also consider that a spellchecker will accept the sentence When I right a word how can I now that the spelling is correct. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 11:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

"Debaser" (Pixies song) title sound file request for Wikipédia

Hi all,
Raphaël asked at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous):

Hi !
I'm a contributor on the french Wiki, and I'm working on tow articles called Debaser (one for the Pixies's song, one for a comic book).
But, in France, we speak mostly french (thank's captain) so, nobody really knows how to pronounce the word "Debaser".
Can anybody here with a good mic say "Debaser", upload the file on Wikimedia Commons, and give me the link ?
It would be really nice ! - Raphaël.

I added quick and dirty IPA /dɨˈbeːsɚ/, and please correct me if I'm wrong. I really don't know where to go from here about fulfiling the sound file request. (I'd pronounce it /dəˈbæisə/, so I'm not much use here). Your thoughts about this?
--Shirt58 (talk) 11:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The word "Debaser" is pronounced in the Pixies song. Just listen to the song. Astronaut (talk) 12:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I still think someone with a good mic ( I don't have one ) should honor Raphaël's request. Think of it as your chance for audio immortality on fr.wikipedia.org. Besides, "hands across the water", and all that. But good lord, Raphaël! Do you really mean to say there are people, right now, speaking mostly French!? The things you tell us!  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

First language in the history of human civilization

which was the first language that was used by human civilisation? where was it used? when was it used ? what is the available reference for the answer

1. it wasn't any language alive today so the question of which is pointless. Possibly it was the ancestor of one, some or all of the language families alive today. Some linguists believe that there was a single proto-World language that is the ancestor of all languages alive today.

2. Human language evolved along with Humans in Africa.

3. Probably around 50,000 years ago when the humans first reached the current evolutionary stage.

4. Crystal, David (1997). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-55967-7.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

(EC) First you need to define 'civilisation'. The earliest written language may be your best bet, but then, that would also depend, as some languages were 'written' (in the sense that cave paintings were meant to convey information), and yet we have no idea how the actual languages sounded or what grammar they used, etc. You may want to check out the Sumerian language for information on one of the languages with the earliest known phonetic writing system, and Chinese characters for one of the earliest known non-phonetic (mostly) writing systems, as well as Egyptian hieroglyphs. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

For lots more information see our article on the origin of language.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

We also have a List of languages by first written accounts. The cave paintings may have conveyed information but they by no stretch of the imagination represented human language. Pais (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The question is very confused, and it is not clear whether the questioner is asking about spoken language or written language. As Manus says, the origins of spoken language are probably around 50,000 years ago, whereas the first evidence of civilisation (with semi-permanent settlements instead of roving tribes of hunter-gatherers) only appears around 10,000 years ago. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Right. Spoken language, as opposed to writing, came well before cities, which is the usual meaning of "civilization". Spoken languages may even predate modern humans, including Neanderthals and others. If your definition is flexible enough (specifically, not requiring grammar), then many animals may also be said to have a language, such as whales. (Even if grammar is required, we might still find a few candidates.) StuRat (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

So, if we take your question literally, since all early civilizations had languages, the question is which civilization came first. The candidates are listed in Cradle of civilization. It's not clear which civilization is oldest, as when a population initially qualifies as "civilized" is open to debate. StuRat (talk) 20:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The first civilization to practice intensive year-round agriculture was Sumer, and the Sumerian language is the earliest known written language. Sumerian is a language isolate, with no demonstrable genealogical relationship to other languages. Written Sumerian dates back to about the 31st to 30th century B.C.; the spoken language must be older. There were cities, and therefore arguably civilization, prior to Sumer. Çatalhöyük, for example, is thought to date back to 7500 B.C. Nobody knows what language was spoken there. John M Baker (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Promentorium tremendum = ?

The nature program I saw translated this as "the horrible headlands", but this sounds very wrong to me. I'm thinking more like "large headland". So, what is the correct translation ? StuRat (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Whitaker's suggests "terrible, awe inspiring" which makes much more sense. "Horrible" sounds like a synonym for the other meaning of "terrible", although I suppose you might infer the same meaning of "horrible". - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 20:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

"Tremendum" literally means "something to tremble at" (or "something that causes you to tremble" or some other circuitous phrase). Now we use "tremendous" as a synonym for "big", but "horrible headland" is appropriate, and nicely alliterative. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like something by Lemony Snicket. Anyway horror is not the same as fear, exactly. --Trovatore (talk) 03:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a minor nitpick, since this is the language desk, there are Promunturium and Promontorium, but not "Promentorium". In this case it appears to be Promontorium Tremendum (with 1,640 g-hits, many of which translate it as "Horrible Headland" as well). (By the way, this is an example where I should outdent my post, since I'm responding to StuRat. I don't want this aside to stick out prominently, however, so I'm tucking it into this cascade). ---Sluzzelin talk 11:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I heard it, rather than saw it in writing, so this is the best I could do at reproducing it. It was apparently close enough to get an answer. I do wish that English would use one letter for all the short vowel sounds, though, like the "ə" I've seen used for that under one system, so I wouldn't have to guess. StuRat (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see the upside down e is called the schwa. So, then, would this be a schwastika ? :-) StuRat (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

                                ə ə ə   ə
                                    ə   ə   
                                ə ə ə ə ə
                                ə   ə
                                ə   ə ə ə

In other words, Sluzzelin, you want it to have the appearance of responding to Trovatore, while actually responding to StuRat, and you're prepared to use an extra 35 words to achieve that particular outcome. That would be like being in a group of people, facing Mary and looking her square in the eye, while conducting a conversation with Bill and addressing him by name. That would be rather odd behaviour there, and it's equally odd behaviour here. But it's OK, we're very used to doing "odd" round here. Welcome to the club.  :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 16:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I might add that, despite your desire to be invisible - or maybe because of that desire - you've achieved the opposite result. That which we resist persists. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 16:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

lol. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

There, see, I knew you could do it.  :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)