Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2013 June 5

Language desk
< June 4	<< May | June | Jul >>	June 6 >

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.

June 5

What's the difference between cohabitation and domestic partnership?

What's the difference between cohabitation and domestic partnership? Where would renting out parts of the house be classified? How about having a roommate who is also a person's parent/guardian, relative or friend who shares the same household duties? Or are both cohabitation and domestic partnership formalized? Sneazy (talk) 02:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

{ec} Have you read the entries? As for "how about", we don't do speculation. μηδείς (talk) 03:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

All of these questions have very different answers based on where you live. --Jayron32 03:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

off topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Medeis, how is this "speculative" under any accepted definition of "to speculate"? Bielle (talk) 03:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC) How about your uncle's monkey, if he's in one of those countries that gives human rights to apes? Can they be domestic partners? Or how about a heterosexual illegal alien couple who aren't married, with whom you live in what would be considered half of a common-law marriage, having fathered a child on the woman? Would you, as a man, be the de facto domestic partner of the man your baby's mother? Sneazy didn't link to the articles, I added those links in the header so he doesn't have to search. If he has serious questions once he reads them, he can ask a defined follow-up question limited to a specific jurisdiction as Jayron has suggested s necessary. That we can answer. μηδείς (talk) 03:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC) But none of that goes to speculation. There was no speculation in the question. The "how about" part of the question was the OP wondering whether those circumstances would qualify as either cohabitation or a domestic partnership. The reason - the only reason - we can't answer it is that it's far too broad. Please don't introduce red herrings and furphys. And please accept the advice tendered by many of your colleagues that your judgment in these matters has generally been shown to be poor. If tempted to play the unelected and self-appointed sherriff, you might in future think twice. Or more. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 08:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC) You seem to have a fixation on the definition of speculation. I don't really care what word you want to use, we can't answer such general questions, as Jayron pointed out. It's moot, and I'll be pleasantly surprised if there's a relevant follow-up question. Thank you, Alice in Wonderland Humpty Dumpty. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 20:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Jack, you are simultaneously trying to provoke me under the "clean and jerk" thread, calling me names here, and giving sinister hints that something has to be done on the talk page. What gives? μηδείς (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC) What gives? I can only answer that if I accept your apparent premise that I am prosecuting some anti-Medeis campaign. But I don’t, because there is no such campaign. I call each circumstance as I see it. The personality or identity of the participant(s) is irrelevant to me. I have a long track record of commenting on behaviour and not on editors personally, and encouraging others to do likewise. Not to be big-headed about it, but I should point you to this essay. This case here was one where you accused the OP of speculating, but two editors have opined they weren’t, and none has supported your claim. Your tangent about my being fixated on the definition or meaning of a word was not worth a serious reply. It reminded me of Alice’s conversation with Humpty Dumpty, but I misattributed the quote. "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." So, thank you, Humpty Dumpty. The clean and jerk case was one where you were speculating. I called that for what it was and explained why. I added a link to remind you that you were acting contrary to the proscription you decree to others. The talk page: There is nothing sinister, and I gave no hints. So far from hinting, I came right out and said, plainly and unambiguously, that the thread should not have just drifted off into nothingness but should have a clear outcome, for which there are a number of possibilities. I was not involved in discussing the primary issue raised by Ferkelparade; I took no position either way. I made a couple of incidental comments, while remaining otherwise uninvolved. I only came in latterly, five days after the last comment, because the question was unresolved, just left hanging, and that always pains me. Now it’s gone off onto another fruitless tangent about fannies. This is why, as I said, I generally refrain from getting involved in those sorts of discussions, and I now regret having done so on this occasion. Finally, I assure you that provoking you would be the very last thing on my mind. My joy would know no bounds if I and/or others could finally succeed in causing you to desist from making inappropriate utterances. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 23:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC) I answered the question by linking to the relevant articles and agreed with Jayron during an edit conflict we couldn't answer the rest diff. That's utterly reasonable and if the rest has any relevance it belongs on the talk page. μηδείς (talk) 00:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I think domestic partnership has legal recognition in some jurisdictions, while I don't think cohabitation ever does. Heterosexual domestic partnership may have some overlap with common-law marriage (I've never heard of a common-law gay or lesbian marriage anywhere). At a more intuitive level, domestic partnership to me implies a level of longevity that cohabitation doesn't. Angr (talk) 14:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage#Canada "In 1999, after the court case M. v. H., the Supreme Court of Canada decided that same-sex partners would also be included in common law relationships." 64.201.173.145 (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Sanskrit asana terminology

In regards to asanas, when are they "-asana" versus "-asan"? Compare virasana and "virasan".Curb Chain (talk) 03:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd say they're āsana when pronouncing things the Sanskrit way and āsan when pronouncing things the Hindi way. Hindi apocopates the final a, which is also the reason for the variation between Bhārata (Sanskrit) and Bhārat (Hindi) as the name for India, or why modern Indian men named after Ashoka tend to be called Ashok. Angr (talk) 08:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Reynier Casembroot

Do we have a Knowing Dutchman around to pronounce this name for me, please? --Omidinist (talk) 04:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The first name 'Reynier' (also spelled Reinier) is fairly common, and can be heard e.g. in this video, around 33 seconds from the start. The second name I was not familiar with, but it can be heard in this video at around 0:10 seconds. - Lindert (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --Omidinist (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Question about Arabic title of television program

I found a program that had English subtitles saying "An Interview with: The Former Swedish Ambassador, Knut Burnstrom."

Is the original Arabic of the title Arabic: مقابلة مع سعادة السفير السويدى كنوت بيرنستروم)? (I wasn't sure if the ending part of the first word was a "ة"

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The first word is لقاء , not مقابلة. The other words are correct. --Omidinist (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 18:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)