Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language - Wikipedia

During the late 1990s, Delta Air Lines had airsickness bags with the phrase "Occupied" in eight languages, of which two of them are comprised entirely of Chinese characters: 留座 (Line 6) and 使用中 (Line 8). A sample image of this bag can be found here. On the bag, I can identify the other languages: Line 1 is English, Line 2 is French, Line 3 is German, Line 4 is Spanish, Line 5 is Italian, and Line 7 is Korean. However, due to the lack of native Japanese characters, I can't seem to identify which of the aforementioned lines (6 and 8) is Chinese and which is Japanese. Can someone help me out here? 98.116.73.98 (talk) 10:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

留座 doesn't make sense in Mandarin, whereas 使用中 does. I don't know Japanese, but by process of elimination, Line 6 appears to be Japanese, whereas Line 8 is Chinese. Marco polo (talk) 14:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Really? With over 3 million Ghits, it can hardly be nonsense. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 21:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

留座 is not Japanese. 使用中 is used in Japan. Oda Mari (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Even Google Translate understands 留座 as Chinese. It may not make sense here as Chinese (I'm not qualified to judge), but then neither does "occupied" make sense here as English. For that matter, the Japanese doesn't make sense here: 使用中 means "in use" (being vomited into); more appropriate would be 使用後, "after use" (although alternatives are also available). (But don't take my word for what is or isn't suitable in Japanese. Unlike me, Oda Mari knows what she's talking about.) ¶ Aren't all of these simply filched from explanations on toilet doors or similar? -- Hoary (talk) 23:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I believe the phrase "occupied" as used here is intended to mean "this seat is in use by someone" - a passenger would place this bag on his/her seat when he/she gets up to go elsewhere in the plane in order to prevent others from taking that seat. 98.116.73.98 (talk) 03:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that was my impression, as nobody is actually inside the bag. It's just a courtesy sign to say 'somebody already sits here'. If the bag were used for its main purpose (i.e. for vomiting), it would be taken away immediately by the cabin crew and replaced with a new one (health and safety purposes). Therefore, there would be no need to have a sign on the bag saying effectively 'this bag is full of vomit'. Based on the premise that 使用中 refers to the bag itself, as most people above seem to think, this would mean '[this bag] is being used', despite the fact that most of the time they aren't being used, but the words are permanently printed on the bags. I am pretty sure they are intended for placing on the seat for when the person who sits there is not actually there.

使用済 would be appropriate for used bags in Japanese. 使用中 is the word seen on toilet doors or room doors. Oda Mari (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but, Mari, there is no button on the bag to change its status to 'has already been used', is there, so really, it is as said before, for use as a sign to say the seat is occupied. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 12:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, folks. I guess I am seeing the limits of my Mandarin. 留座 doesn't appear in my (apparently inadequate) Mandarin dictionary app or print dictionary, whereas 使用中 definitely makes perfect sense in Mandarin. I guess 使用中 is bilingual and 留座 is a Mandarin term not covered in some dictionaries. Marco polo (talk) 16:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't really matter why the bag is "occupied". 留座 is supposed to be Japanese and 使用中 Chinese. Since you are arguing about the translations, just call them bad translations, but this has nothing to do with what languages are supposedly represented here. And the Google translate thing is not a valid argument to distinguish both languages since Kanji/Hanzi are always understood as Chinese unless Kana appear or the phrase looks exclusively Japanese. I have two strong arguments which don't refer to the meanings at all: Firstly, 留座 uses the East Asian gothic typeface, which is standard in Japanese, while 使用中 uses the Song typeface popular in China. It's not only the typeface, there are also differences between Chinese and Japanese standardized variants, which are often lost due to the Unicode Han unification. So although the gothic typeface also exists in Chinese, a Chinese 留 would never have these prolonged strokes (not talking about the normal serifs) which make people think the character has more strokes than it actually has since everything is more detached. Look at the Japanese section, upper left corner of 留. This and some other characteristics really define if a character is Chinese or Japanese. Secondly, the link you provided has a second image showing the other side (you have to scroll down). Now you have a longer phrase, which makes it clear that the one above Korean is not Chinese, not even traditional Chinese (if someone brings up this) because the double dots in 辶 aren't even used in Taiwan anymore. Morever the syntax wouldn't make sense in Chinese. --2.245.131.73 (talk) 01:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

You may wish to reconsider your judgment after seeing this link, which I just discovered. It has a more complete (albeit low-quality) image of the other side, and the contents of lines 6 and 8 on these images should speak for themselves. 98.116.73.98 (talk) 08:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Anyways, the slightly different variants do exist. Someone just messed uped everything. --2.245.197.68 (talk) 12:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Both 留座 and 使用中 are intelligible Chinese. The first means "[this] seat [is] reserved". (I would expect to see it only on some kind of card indicating a table or seat is reserved.) The second one means "in use". --71.185.179.35 (talk) 01:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

This. Both make perfect sense in Chinese. --Bowlhover (talk) 09:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

For example: "I saw huge birds each / some of which had a black beak". Should I say (in spoken English): "I saw huge birds that each / some of them had a black beak"?

How about "by which"? For example "the scientific tool by which we could discover what happened here three centuries ago"...

77.125.124.225 (talk)

"I saw several birds, each of which had a black beak" is perfectly grammatical. ""The birds, that each one of them had a black beak" is not grammatical. "Each one of the birds had a black beak" is also fine. "A microscope is a tool by which we can see small details" is a fine sentence. So is "He saw the fine details in the feather by means of a microscope".

"by which" and "each of which" are both fine phrases in spoken English. Here is a youtube video that instructs on the English use of some similar phrases [1]. Here's another short piece on "which" [2]. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

You claim "...'by which' and 'each of which' are both fine phrases in spoken English". Are you sure? So, would a boy (e.g. 12 years old), say "Did you see the huge birds each / some of which had a black beak?" ??? 77.125.124.225 (talk)

Most 12-year-old persons I know would probably say Did you see the huge birds with the black beaks?. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

How about "some of which"? would a boy (e.g. 12 years old), say "Did you see the huge birds some of which had a black beak?" ??? 77.125.124.225 (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

No native speaker, of any age, would ever say that, imo. It sounds very contrived and unnatural. It also betrays confused thinking. The main point of the question seems to be whether the other person saw the huge birds. That some of those birds had black beaks seems to be secondary material that really belongs somewhere outside that question. This is mainly because, if the other did not see the huge birds at all, they would not know whether any of them had black beaks or not, so they could not truthfully answer the question as posed. How about this: Did you see those huge birds? Did you notice that some of them had black beaks? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm sure that I've used those phrases, and I'm sure that I've heard them spoken. I'm sure that they can be used in speech in a grammatically correct way. I'm a native speaker, and I've heard many varieties of English. Not everyone speaks the same. The speech that people use depends on context. We use different registers for different occasions. I might be biased in terms of what I think is "normal" because I spend a lot of time speaking and listening in scientific and academic contexts. I suppose I would be a little surprised to hear "each of which" used correctly by a 12 year old at the play ground, but it wouldn't be that strange. I thought the question was more about correct grammar, so I replied as such. I see you've clarified your title now, so others can help you come up with alternative phrasings that might be more common among young speakers. For a similar example to what I was getting at: some people use "heretofore [3]" and "henceforth [4]" in spoken English, while many people do not. They are more commonly used in writing than in speaking. I'm sure those words might cause some confusion in some listeners, but they are still valid English words that are used (by some) in speech. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

"I suppose I would be a little surprised to hear 'each of which' used correctly by a 12 year old at the play ground". Yes, that's why I asked about alternative phrasings.

"Others can help you come up with alternative phrasings that might be more common among young speakers". I still wonder how such a phrasing might look like... 77.125.124.225 (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

What is it that you need them to say? Wouldn't "the black-beaked huge birds" sound more natural in a 12 year old's speech, or "the huge birds with a black beak"? Akseli9 (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

See Marco Polo's response (I agree with him). 77.125.124.225 (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Do you mean "the black-beaked birds" or "only the black-beaked birds" or "just the black-beaked birds"? Would that be considered regular English, spoken English, or simply strange wording? Thanks. Akseli9 (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

"Huge birds with black beaks" is what I'd expect to come out of the mouth of a child. "Black-beaked birds" is a higher-register construction that would be slightly less likely for a child, but still perfectly acceptable. Marco polo (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but how about "some of which"? How would that be expressed by a child (in one sentence)? for example, "I see many birds, some of which have black beaks". 77.125.124.225 (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Maybe "I see a lot of birds. Some of 'em have black beaks." or with the sentences connected by "and".

Also, many people say and even write things like "I see a lot of birds, which some of them have black beaks." Here's an example from COCA, brackets mine. " But the problem when you talk to economists is that in 2001, it didn't do anything. What really mattered was the long-term -- once the long-term tax cuts kicked in, which some of them were also passed in 2001, more in 2003 -- once those kicked in, and cuts an[d] capital gains an[d] dividend cut and personal income cuts, that helped turn around the economy by 2003." —JerryFriedman (Talk) 22:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I saw huge birds and some of them had got black beaks. I saw (or I seen) a load of black birds and they'd got black beaks (implies they all had). There were great big birds (or there was great big birds) and their beaks were black. There was these loads of enormous birds that all had got these really black beaks. All British English. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

How about:

• "Have you seen the chair some of whose legs are broken"?
• "Have you seen the red hammer by which I fixed the chair you had broken"?

77.125.124.225 (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.125.84.233 (talk) Reply

What is the plural of:

• ángelos -
• angelus – is it angeluses?
• Jinn -  

(Russell.mo (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC))Reply

The plural of "angelus" is "angelus" (in French, [5], I don't think that's an English word, we'd just say "angel" or "angels"). Jinn is the plural, the singular is jinni or djinni. The more common spelling in American English is Genie (note the redirect), with the plural "genies" or (rarely) "genii" [6]. Wiktionary is your friend for this type of question. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I didn't know, thank you -- (Russell.mo (talk) 09:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC))Reply

You need to specify in what language at least. The word ángelos is already the plural of ángel in Spanish. And if angelus is Larin, the plural would be angeli, assuming you want the nominative case. μηδείς (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

In that case, wouldn't the plural be mas ángelos? --Jayron32 00:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

The plural of ángel is ángeles. I totally agree that Russell.mo has to say what language he's talking about. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Angelus is an English word. I don't think the plural is used much, though. I'd be more likely to say "Angelus services" or something—not that I'm a Roman Catholic or High Church Anglican, so you probably shouldn't listen to me. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 23:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Issue is, how do I differentiate a 'human messenger' and a 'supernatural being'? The article Angel#Etymology say's it (somehow), but without any plurals... Any suggestions? -- (Russell.mo (talk) 09:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC))Reply

Peeps I'm using the singular from angelus#Declension page that is related to the Angel#Etymology article's information ... If this is wrong then let me know. Thank you all. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 14:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC))Reply

I'm making my own ones guys, like angeloses and angeluses. I'm can't really put my finger on what to use... Help me if you guys can think of something -- (Russell.mo (talk) 15:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC))Reply

Maybe if you give an example of a sentence you want to use "angeloses" or "angeluses" in. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

"Guardian angels (angeloses) like Jesus, Mohammad, Moses were thought to have angeluses in them"??? -- (Russell.mo (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC))Reply

Trouble is, you're using Latin words from the Septuagint to explain concepts in an otherwise English sentence. Angelos is not an English word at all; and, while angelus is recognised, its primary meaning is a reference to a devotional text that happens to start with that word in its Latin version. Why not just use words like "messenger" and "divine being" rather than messing around with abstruse words that, rather than clarifying what you're trying to get across, will probably serve to have the opposite effect. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Peter Angelos and his family would be Angeloses. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I've actually been to the Angeloses's on a few occasions. μηδείς (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

All of the 'angel-' words are derived from the Greek, ἄγγελος, angelos, which means 'messenger' and has the nominative plural ἄγγελοι, angeloi. GoldenRing (talk) 01:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello, sorry for delaying in replying, my dongle/modem troubled me a bit, ran out of 'kbs'... Apologies.

Anyways,

Thanks {U|GoldenRing}}. I must say the plural does not sound nice, the singular does...

@JackofOz: I don’t know, the word(s) seems to provide the meanings of an angel messenger, spiritual angelic one (alive one)...figuratively when I use it. And sounds better (I think). If you suggest not using it then it is confusing... The words you stated, I have to capatalise the first letter if I state God... I still need to come to conclusion with the plurals. I guess I have to choose the nominative word(s) but none of them sound nice... -- (Russell.mo (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC))Reply

"Angelus" is Angel when he's happy. You wouldn't like him when he's happy. --Trovatore (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC) Reply

The thread for the original question, how is "Carmen" pronounced (as in the name of the French opera about the Spanish character) in English has been archived.

As a side question, the issue of final nasals in Spanish was raised.

According to "Spanish" by John N. Green in Bernard Comrie's The World's Major Languages (1990, p 243); the letters eme, ene, and eñe all contrast intervocalically, while only [m] and [n] initially descend from Latin. In final position, only /-n/ occurrs, but the allophone eng, previously common in Anadalucia and (parts of) Latin America, is rapidly spreading through Spain, although it "remains sociolinguistically marked". It is believed by some this preludes nasalization as found in French and Portuguese, but still absent in Castilian. Green's article in Harris & Vincent's The Romance Languages (Oxford, p 83) says the same.

I was embarassed once when I went out to a fancy Spanish restaurant, and told my anglophone companions that if they wanted more bread, they should ask for [mah paŋ] (por favor). One of them then asked the waiter "How does one say "more bread" in Spanish, and, of course, he responded, in citation form: "[mas pan]." μηδείς (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't know why in they decided to make IPA is so narrow and complex in Spanish phonology. They included many tildes and I myself do think that Spanish has slight nasalization even in proper Castilian. Of course, the waiter wanted to teach clear pronunciation, but it's always different when natives talk to each other like replacing or completely dropping the "s" although I think this is a rather southern Spain and Latin America thing. --2.245.197.68 (talk) 03:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I recall during 2002 or so when Barry Bonds was intentionally walked to load the bases, and Benito Santiago proceeded to hit a grand slam. His post-game comment included, "I've been hitting behind this mang all year..." I don't know why Hispanics turn a trailing "n" into an "ng", but they do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I am looking for an adjective, which I think exists in English (I may be wrong, though), which means "refusing to try to understand". E.g. sentence "I talked to him for 12 minutes about this very simple concept, but he still didn't get it. I am now suspecting that he was just being _______", meaning "He was simply not trying to understand, in order to be annoying". --147.85.186.6 (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

"Contrary" works, and googling 'contrary synonym' gets: perverse, difficult, uncooperative, unhelpful, obstructive, recalcitrant, willful, stubborn, obstinate, pigheaded, intractable. There's also closed-minded. If any of those sounds close but not exact, google it for synonyms and you'll probably find what you want. μηδείς (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Not a single adjective, but I would complete that sentence with "willfully ignorant". StuRat (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Or "deliberately obtuse", perhaps. Deor (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Contrarian? Mingmingla (talk) 21:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Obtuse is the word I could not remember! Thanks a lot. Interesting to read that it can also mean difficult to understand. Also interesting to see that obtuse is not necessarily deliberate, I thought it was. --147.85.186.6 (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

But "willfully obtuse" or "deliberately obtuse" would work if you want to use that word. --65.94.50.4 (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

When you have an acute need to approach your writing from a new angle, "obtuse" is often the right choice, perhaps with a congruent supplementary word like "deliberately", thus assuring that your reviews will all be complimentary. StuRat (talk) 04:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC) Reply

Let us insure ourselves against the possibility of people confusing the words "ensure", "insure" and "assure". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC) Reply

"playing dumb!" is how that sentence would end! (Based on your description). "I talked to him for 12 minutes about this very simple concept, but he still didn't get it. I am now suspecting that he was just playing dumb", though it doesn't make much sense to me. (i.e. I don't think that would ever be an accurate description.) Why would anyone talk to someone for 12 minutes if they didn't seem to understand something? It sounds far more likely that it's a really complicated subject like advanced physics or whatever, and there is just some kind of mental missing step or hurdle, something the listener genuinely didn't get. In my experience people rarely actually play dumb and it's far more likely that someone really is missing something. Nobody plays dumb to be annoying. That would get awkward really fast. In these cases simplification helps. Use simple sentences. Break things down. It might seem like you're being patronizing, but 90% you'll actually solve the communications impasse and end the frustration, or identify the communications gap between speaker and listener, at least if you're eliciting some feedback. "Well, look, do you know what a kumquat is?" and they will blush and admit they don't, even though you took it for granted that they did and you have been trying to explain your kumquat refrigerator pie recipe for 12 minutes. (they thought it's some fruit that is inside like apple pie, didn't have a mental picture of a kumquat, which is like a little baby orange around the size of a grape, or what you would do with it.) problem solved. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 00:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think in denial is language that in some situations might be applicable. Bus stop (talk) 01:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Contrarian doesn't mean the same thing as contrary, it more implies acting the devil's advocate. Playing dumb means he actually got what was being said. Willfully ignorant and deliberately obtuse are perfect two-word terms. There's also the "I don't hear you" move of the Vancome Lady. μηδείς (talk) 04:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I say "obstinate" and that's final. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:23, February 5, 2015 (UTC)

"Deliberately obtuse" is good; in some contexts, "disingenuous" would also work. AnonMoos (talk) 10:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I believe "Dumb Insolence" used to be a chargeable offense under Queen's Regulations (possibly back when they were King's Regulations). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I heard someone use the term 'hydroponics' on a TV show, and then I googled it. Part of our article there mentioned hydroculture, another word I didn't know, so I googled that. Okay, well when I googled "define hydroculture" I got presented:

- "hydroculture"
- noun
- - another term for hydroponics.

So it's like, oh, okay. It must be a redirect on our article too. But it's not!!! We have a separate hydroponics and a separate hydroculture article. Why? I'm more confused than ever. What is the relationship between these things? Why doesn't 'hydroculture' just redirect, why is it a separate article? I don't quite follow the distinction. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hydroponics uses pumps. Hydroculture just sucks. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:38, February 5, 2015 (UTC)

Our Passive hydroponics article disagrees with that definition. Rmhermen (talk) 14:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

With all of its fancy sources. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:33, February 5, 2015 (UTC)

Well, thanks for clearing that up guys :) Seriously how does Wikipedia end up with two articles on the same subject without being merged or something. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 18:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

@212.96.61.236: See my response below. It might be possible to merge/redirect, but I suspect there is a distinction to be made. Even if it were a wrong/bad distinction, the reason we got here is because Wikipedia is created by volunteers. WP:BOLD, WP:SOFIXIT, etc. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Read the first sentence of hydroponics carefully --"Hydroponics is a subset of hydroculture and is a method of growing plants using mineral nutrient solutions, in water, without soil." Now read the first sentence of hydroculture carefully "Hydroculture is the growing of plants in a soilless medium" (emphasis mine in both cases)- Now, I'm not going to say that's the only definition, or the best distinction, but the way our articles are written, all hydroponic growing methods are also hydrocultural methods, but (according to hydroponics) there are some hydrocultural methods that are not considered hydroponic. Some people might say growing in perlite and water is hydroculture but not hydroponic. Note also this sentence "Gericke originally defined hydroponics as crop growth in mineral nutrient solutions. Hydroponics is a subset of soilless culture. Many types of soilless culture do not use the mineral nutrient solutions required for hydroponics." So perhaps Gericke would say that my prayer plant growing in water only is hydroculture but not hydroponics, because I didn't add any additional minerals/nutrients.

In most situations, these terms are near synonyms. Some people like to make distinctions. Unless you are attending a hydroculture convention or writing a paper on the topic, you can probably just use whichever term you prefer. I'm not going to weigh in on this issue, because you'll find a zillion different definitions in a zillion different books. The Gericke guy seems to be an originator of the term, so you could look up and use his specific definition too. Perhaps the hydroculture should be a redirect, but I don't think it's a real problem at present. The distinctions are clarified if you read carefully. You could raise the issue at the talk page but I suspect someone's put a little thought into this, and several someones will be willing to push to keep them separate. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

From our article Ronald Ryan, linked from the main page yesterday:

[...] was an attempt by then Victorian Premier Henry Bolte, to push his law and order agenda.

So, who Bolte ordered an agenda from? The question is rhetorical, of course: I know that "law and order" was supposed to be a compound adjective, but the end result was a garden path sentence, quite easily misinterpreted. Now, the question: how would this be best fixed? Is it better to insert hyphens into the longish phrase: to push his law-and-order agenda, or to put it in quotes: to push his "law and order" agenda, or rephrase completely: to push his agenda of/for law and order? (And, in the same vein, should it read "then-Victorian"?) No such user (talk) 08:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

The correct solution is to hyphenate "law-and-order" but not to insert a hyphen between "then" and "Victorian". "Law-and-order" is a compound modifier, which according to most style rules should be hyphenated. "Then" and "Victorian" do not form a compound. If they were a compound they would jointly modify "Premier". In fact, it is conceivable that you could refer to the "then-Victorian Premier ...", but that would imply that the same premier was later not Victorian when, say, he became the premier of New South Wales. This is probably not the meaning of "then Victorian". Instead, both modifiers independently modify "Premier". The best test for whether modifiers form a compound is whether the phrase would still make sense and each modifier would still have the same meaning if you dropped one of them. You can say "an attempt by Victorian Premier..." or "an attempt by then Premier..." and still make sense, so there is no compound. On the other hand, you would not make sense if you said "to push his and order agenda", and if you said "to push his law and agenda", "law" would no longer be a modifier, significantly changing its meaning. Marco polo (talk) 14:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

That sort of construction is so common that I was delighted when it briefly appeared that India might get a former Italian prime minister. —Tamfang (talk) 09:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

The term "law and order" is common enough to be read as a single entity, so I had no trouble with that part. I do, though, have an issue with the single comma, and suspect there should be another after Premier. Bazza (talk) 15:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I wasn't paying attention to the comma. The comma is out of place and should be deleted. "Henry Bolte" does not need to be set off by commas, nor are infinitive phrases set off by commas in English. Marco polo (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

It is true, as Bazza says, that "law and order" is a common fixed phrase and probably won't usually cause problems here, but it should still be hyphenated. What happens if someone's screen size is such that "law" winds up at the end of a line? In that case, it is likely to cause a problem for the reader. Maybe just for half a second, but given that the fix is to use better punctuation, we should do it.

I also agree with Marco Polo that "then-Victorian" would be bad (at what point did he stop being Victorian?) but that part of the sentence is so problematic that I think it should be reworded entirely. I would go with something like [...] was an attempt by Henry Bolte, then Premier of Victoria, to push his law-and-order agenda. --Trovatore (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Trovatore's word order is an improvement, and his punctuation is impeccable, but the original word order was not incorrect. Marco polo (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

True. Still another solution would be to simply delete "then", as it's obvious we're talking about the time when he was premier. You wouldn't say that the abolition of slavery in the US was an achievement of "then president Lincoln". This sort of "then" is really only needed if there might be confusion with a time when Bolte was not premier. --65.94.50.4 (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

The difficulty with that analogy is that ex-presidents are still called "President <name>". Australian ex-heads of government are not called "Prime Minister Smith" or "Premier Brown". We don't even officially use that "title surname" form for incumbents, although it has a presence in less formal writing. If we're talking about what the various premiers think of a certain federal government proposal, we might say "Premier Andrews agreed but Premier Baird was strongly critical". If we're introducing a premier into a discussion, we'd probably make clear whether the person is the incumbent or not. For the OP's example, I think I'd write:

[...] was an attempt by the then Premier of Victoria, Henry Bolte, to push his law-and-order agenda.

If he were the incumbent at the time of writing, I'd just drop the word "then". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm wondering what is the strongest term for evil in the English tongue. In this case it would be an adjective one could apply to Daeysh's use of mentally disabled children as suicide bombers and prostitution, torture, crucifixion, and burying alive of others. I realise this might be an opinion based question given the example. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 16 Shevat 5775 19:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

"Misguided" is a bit weak. "Repugnant" is pretty nasty. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:36, February 5, 2015 (UTC)

You might take a look at the "Adj." section here. Malignant, malevolent, inhuman, and diabolical seem pretty strong to me, but there are others. Deor (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

"Vile"? SaundersW (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure you can get any more profound than evil. Marco polo (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Alas, it seems that just like with the word, "love", there's no adequate word in English when you really want to go deep. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 16 Shevat 5775 20:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

If a large number of people agreed on the strength of the same word then it would probably be overused and quickly lose its strength. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Iniquitous, unholy, pernicious, perdition, are all terms often used for ultimate evil. --Jayron32 20:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

They all seem to lack the appropriate sort of hatred, disgust, and negative emotion appropriate though. Sorry, all, don't mean to poo-poo your efforts, though repugnant has some feeling to it. A friend gave me a Classic Arabic word, khawarej, "Muslims who seem incredibly devout, but who actually cherry-pick from the various rules of the faith, consider themselves the only true Muslims (with rest destined for hell), and for whom killing is as easy as drinking water." So I guess monstrous, vile, morally repugnant khawarej (don't know if that's the plural form and Arabic plurals are incredibly difficult), but there's no one English word to use. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 16 Shevat 5775 21:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Too many of the examples offered here are multi-syllabic and don't carry a lot of force with the general public. "Monstrous" is good. "Diabolical" would likely get a blank look. "Evil", everyone understands. Although the ultimate insult to these so-called Islamists could be "Godless". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I was thinking along those lines actually. A lot of times words with a Latin origin can be a bit weakIt's similar to how Churchill used only words of Germanic origin (which tend to be shorter) in his we shall fight them on the beaches speech (or was it just the final part?) save for the last word, surrender. Maybe godless khawarej then. Cheers! Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 16 Shevat 5775 22:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't think there's a single strongest word in all contexts, but "wicked" is pretty strong. --Trovatore (talk) 22:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Too much of a cliché. "You wicked old witch!" and so on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Also flipped around and neutered by teenagers in '90s cereal commercials. Taste that wicked crunch, dude! These marshmallows are sick! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:34, February 5, 2015 (UTC)

Certainly, but when used non-ironically, I think it is one of the most powerful words in the language. It has a Biblical severity. --Trovatore (talk) 00:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

That's also been hijacked, by Wicked Pictures. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:17, February 6, 2015 (UTC)

I said, when used non-ironically. I don't think Wicked Pictures is literally claiming to be evil. Even if they were, I don't think most people have even heard of them.

It is, of course, an older usage. In my estimation, that's part of what gives it its force. --Trovatore (talk) 03:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

It had force in olden times, but it has become trivialized. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

They're claiming to be sort of evil, but the aim is on simple debauchery, not malice. Doesn't turn it around like the cereal ads did, just waters it down. Like "awesome". Still basically means the same thing, but our awe bar has been lowered. But yeah, it still works in some contexts. Good for sermons because a preacher can tell a wide congregation to mend their wicked ways without greatly insulting anyone in particular. For focused and targeted vilification, it's a little weak. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:38, February 6, 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think you're wrong. It's extraordinarily strong. You just have to drop some signifiers that make it clear the sense you're using it in. Some Old Testament smiting or New Testament damnation, or even a surah from the Quran, will probably do it. But I'm not sure they're necessary in this case — just the context of the comment should make it clear. --Trovatore (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

That's the thing with words. One can seem strong to you, and not to me, depending how we've gotten used to hearing it. We're both right. I think we're both also damned righteous dudes, but I mean those three words weakly. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:08, February 6, 2015 (UTC)

As evidenced by Ron Weasley. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 17 Shevat 5775 18:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps "foul"? Good solid Saxon, with no colloquial usage in the opposite sense (that I know of). There's also "depraved", although that might have inappropriate sexual connotations. Tevildo (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

When you're trying to paint someone as evil, connotations are always appropriate. If there's one thing people love/hate more than murder, it's perverted murder. Perverted religious murder's even better/worse. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:13, February 6, 2015 (UTC)

Slime bucket? Bus stop (talk) 00:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

That reminds me of something I once heard a comedian/activist say about a certain element of thugs: "sick, slimy degenerates". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, scum's nasty. "Scrum" even more so, but that doesn't mean what I think it does. According to Wayne's World, nothing's worse than mung. Hasn't caught on like I thought it would. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:15, February 6, 2015 (UTC)

"Scrum" and "scrimmage" both derive from "skirmish".[7][8] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Scum is a very good term in this case, but something also evoking the idea of animals as it's quite offensive in Arab culture (one of the reasons the cage aspect of the murder of the pilot caused so much rage (that and the prohibition on burning of people in any way)). Mung sounds too much like ming and along with the Ming dynasty, that makes me thinking of minging like when some society at LSE were talking about minging trollopy crumpets on treadmills on some pamphlets of theirs in what can only be called a wanton display of British slang. I think the feminist society got them shut down. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 17 Shevat 5775 18:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

There was a clam named Ming, once. True bottom-feeding scumsucking hermaphrodite, that guy. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:51, February 6, 2015 (UTC)

'Abhorrent' as an adjective. 'Enormity' as a noun also once filled this role, but is quickly becoming a synonym for 'large', bizarrely enough. GoldenRing (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

That makes sense for enormity as another word for horrible in Italian is tremendo which is the same as tremendous, but with a different meaning. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 17 Shevat 5775 18:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

• First, English has a strong distinction in its basic (non-polysyllabic, borrowed) vocabulary between evil and bad (See MP, above.). A lot of languages don't, such as French mal/mauvais and Spanish mal/malo. Second, the proper way to research this is with an on-line search. It is extremely easy to google "evil synonym" and then, if another word seems better, to search for synonyms for it as well. Third, as BBB mentions, the issue is subject to cliche. I'd suggest "unspeakable evil", but it's been used before, and it's a contradiction in terms, given one is speaking it. I think the King of Jordan said it well when he apparently quoted Eastwood to the House Armed Services Committee: "Any man I see out there, I’m gonna kill him. Any son of a bitch takes a shot at me, I’m not only going to kill him, I’m going to kill his wife and all his friends and burn his damn house down." μηδείς (talk) 01:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

• • No offence, but I'm not seeing the relevance of your first point to the discussion as only English words have been mentioned, I'm a native English-speaker, and the only non-English word mentioned is not from a Romance language and has very specific meaning. Another point which no one here would have any way of knowing is that I'm pretty familiar with French, Italian, and German, and concepts that exist only in their language groups. Again, though, that would have to be a for future reference kind of thing. The second point I disagree with as it's better to have the opinions of people from diverse backgrounds rather than just go on your own as they'll look at a problem from different angles, some of which the head researcher maybe never would have thought about. It's bit like cross-disciplinary research. Plus everyone seems to be having fun and that's always a good thing. Third point is unfortunately true as many strong words become buzzwords and have their teeth removed as a result. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 17 Shevat 5775 18:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'd go with "satanic" "Kardashian-like" is going too far though. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

They've called us "the great satan", so calling them "satanic" smacks of "I know you are but what am I?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Satanic also brings to mind the church of satan or whatever it's called. Kardashian I'd rather not hear at any point of the day (going avoid WP:BLP violations. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 17 Shevat 5775 18:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Double plus ungood ? StuRat (talk) 06:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC) Reply

Literary references are always good provided that they don't make the target laugh in this case (though most IS people tend to be rather ignorant in general)! Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 17 Shevat 5775 18:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'd have thought "vile". --TammyMoet (talk) 10:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Abhorrent? Abominable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.108.24 (talk) 13:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Abhorrent is too academic, and abominable is associated with mythical man-apes of the Himalayas. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

They were pretty damn scary till that one showed up. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:43, February 6, 2015 (UTC)

Vile works, and I'm surprised Bugs didn't link that unless I've misunderstood his name all these years. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 17 Shevat 5775 18:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Link what? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hugging him and squeezing him and calling him George.

Looniness knows no bounds. Neither does copying South Park. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:20, February 6, 2015 (UTC)

You lost me at the bakery. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

See here. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:26, February 6, 2015 (UTC)

That looks vaguely familiar. I wonder if "George" is a racial reference? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

The behavior of the A. Snowman is an allusion to the character Lennie in Of Mice and Men (whose buddy is named George), BB. Just to show that WHAAOE, see Of Mice and Men in popular culture#In cartoons and animation. Deor (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Maybe they're intentionally (and presciently) beating around the Bush? Also, see here if you've also missed that cartoon. Not sure what language it's in. Universal, maybe. But not in a Woody Woodpecker sense. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:33, February 6, 2015 (UTC)

Peripheral evidence suggests that Cartman is dubbed in French, though if so it's too ‘street’ for me. —Tamfang (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

There's an English version on YouTube, but it was cellphoned off a TV screen. Deplorable conditions. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:08, February 7, 2015 (UTC)

While we're somewhat on the topic, here's Donald Duck sticking it to Hitler. One of the times, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:37, February 6, 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps "heinous". -Modocc (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

• What's really necessary here is a consideration of a language's core vocabulary. Language learning (concept acquisition) is hierarchical. In English, good and bad are part of the core vocabulary and evil is the next abstraction for negative morality levels of learnt after bad (leaving naughty and softer words out for now.). It's a word illiterates use. It's a native Germanic word like fuck and shit, and unlike vile and heinous. The dyads good and bad versus good and evil are a bit of a confusion, since we don't normally say, "This is an evil hammer" or "He is a bad murderer." In any case, English has no basic word for badness worse than evil. μηδείς (talk) 21:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Lesser evils such as the antics of TinyToon's Elmyra Duff like here requires a more nuanced perspective regarding what is labeled evil or sinful (like adultery). In this case, with Daesh, heinous fits well because it usually means very evil [9]. -Modocc (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Assuming you are indenting under me, you seem to be missing my point. A child first learns good versus bad. They then learn good versus evil, which is a more abstract distinction. Then they learn words like heinous and atrocious which are even more abstract than evil. Bad and evil are basic English vocabulary words, learned first, native Germanic, and known even by the illiterate. Things like heinous (which I have heard people rhyme with minus) depend on higher education. No baby is going to understand heinous unless he first understands "bad" and then "evil". The OP seems to have rejected learned, multi-syllabic, literary, Latinate borrowings like vicious and atrocious. He is left with bad and evil. μηδείς (talk) 00:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

All this talk of cartoons has me thinking the strongest word to describe evil against evil might be "haha". If you're trying to inspire a flock of sheep to trample something, it might be best to paint the target as a weak, pathetic fool rather than Shao Kahn. Otherwise, they might reasonably get scared.

In the world of theatrical combat, the "monster heel" is generally the one the "cowardly heel" brings as a the hired goon to absolutely wreck the babyface. These are scary, near-invincible bastards, who typically only lose because of their cowardly employers' buffoonery, then turn toward the light. The only way the hero can stop the wave of merciless goon attacks is by cutting off the cowardly head of the snake. Which is way easier than dealing with monsters. The hard part is getting that slippery snake in the ring.

Applied to ISIS, that's doubly hard because their snake is more like The Black Scorpion. But no scorpion is no match for no sheep! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:32, February 7, 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to ask for a translation of this image, which is a list of facial expressions in Russian. Thanks in advance... --CesarFelipe (talk) 02:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

The first four in the first column are joy, happiness, surprise and doubt. The first three in the second column are fear, shock, and mistrust. But this is going by a translation of the words, and I find the drawings connected with an English gloss of the Russian word of very dubious value. You can ask regulars @Любослов Езыкин: and @JackofOz: for translations of the words. Most of the final line is illegible, but they might be able to work backwards from the expression to figure the word. Personally, I'd swap the first two captions. Joy is strong and immediate, happiness is a long term mood, not temporary laughter. There are also similar English charts. It might help if we knew your purpose. μηδείς (talk) 9:50 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Well, I'm looking for words to describe in prose some of the less obvious expressions in the chart, such as 5 in row 1 (I guess you mean row when you say column), all in row 2 except the last one, and practically all in the last 2 rows. I was looking for charts in English but this one had several expressions I would like to know how to describe. So perhaps what I should ask for is not simply a translation, but words that actually work best to describe each expression? --CesarFelipe (talk) 03:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I said neither row nor column, I said line, which means row in tis case. Dime si hablas espanyol, porque lo hablo mejor que hablo ruso. Hablo un un poco de un dialecto de ruso por senso lado, el rutenio, que es el dialecto de mis padres. (Por ejemplo, los rusos dicen algo como schasch para decir allegria, cuando you digo shischia. The big problem is not translating the words, but whetehr the words that result actually math the words you'd use in English to described the faces being made. The more you can tell us why theis interests you, the more relevant an answer we can give. μηδείς (talk) 03:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

This got messed up by an edit conflict. The last word of the first line (row), угрюмость, is "glum- sullen-" or "surliness", none of which seems like a good word for the face in English. The fourth word of the second row is задумчивость, dreaminess or thoughtfullness acording to translation, which I would not use for that face at all, while the fifth word, озарение, is translated as "inspiration" or "enlightenment", but I would call the face "lust". μηδείς (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Okay, let me put it this way. I want to describe each of those facial expressions in a sentence, for example "He frowned" or "He smiled wryly". What I'm looking for is for words that allow me to do this for each expression, in particular those I listed. I thought the Russian words would help me do that but from what you tell me they're generally not the best of choices for this... --CesarFelipe (talk) 03:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

No, the words are abstract nouns for the emotions, not verbs for facial motions or states like smile, frown or grimmace. Googling (in quotes) "verbs for facial expressions" gets among its hits this long list you may find helpful. μηδείς (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I am fairly certain your chart above was first produced in an English version. If you google "twenty facial expressions" you'll get both articles and similar images. Tracking down the original English image should be possible.

The question is, do you just want to use the words themselves, or are you accurately trying to describe the pictures in sentences using the captions? I personally think the latter could be problematic, because the cartoon pictures don't always closely match what one might think the authors believe they indicate. For example, if I were teaching a class in English, I'd swap the "joy" and "happiness" captions. And if any of my students managed to guess "enlightenment" for the last face of the second row I would confiscate his wifi device and fail him for cheating. μηδείς (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

The first one. --CesarFelipe (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

The last row is обида (resentment), сосредоточенность (concentration), неуверенность (uncertainty), мечтательность (daydreaming), утомленность (weariness). --catslash (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

OK, this is the sort of thing that gets me banned from the living room while the TV is on. What is the point of saying "cash money"? If you want cash then surely you want money and not "cash elephants" or "cash ?". Is there some place where the word cash does not imply money? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Are you really afflicted by people who say "cash money"? Or are you banned for making up preposterous theoretical cases which tax patience more knowledge? Still. Perhaps they're trying to disambiguate a homophone such as cache? Can't think of another good reason for the phrase ... except ... is there not a tradition of using two words where one will do? Spick and span. Cease and desist. See Pleonasm. --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

"Cash money" is kind of an old southernism. Maybe more than just southern, too. Googling "cash money expression" suggests that it's "cash" money as opposed to "credit card" money or "check" money, etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I always assumed that it stemmed from the attempt to disambiguate different types of money. Another southernism is "ink pen." Though that stems from the greater need in that region to clarify the distinction between pin and pen. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 06:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

These answers make sense in that I heard the phrase earlier in a "reality" show set in Texas or somewhere similar. Something involving car restoration. As for banishment from the living room that usually occurs when my bullshit detector kicks in during a TV show or film and I find the banal stupidity is too much to keep quiet about. I was asked to look at a McDonald's advert and explain how an Egg McMuffin had only 190 calories (far too easy). But asked to leave after I started a rant over the "cash money". CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Colloquialisms and idioms often lack a point or make sense, hence their charm. "Raining like cats and dogs" makes no sense at all. I used to tease my British aunt about "Bob's your uncle" - huh?? ―Mandruss ☎ 09:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Bob's your uncle refers to nepotism as practised by the British Government. The site ecenglish.com has this: "In 1887, British Prime Minister Robert Gascoyne-Cecil appointed his nephew Arthur James Balfour as Minister for Ireland. The phrase 'Bob's your uncle' was coined when Arthur referred to the Prime Minister as 'Uncle Bob'. Apparently, it's very simple to become a minister when Bob's your uncle!" Simples. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Could be, but how many Brits know that background? My aunt certainly never mentioned Robert Gascoyne-Cecil! There's probably a similar origin for "raining cats and dogs", if one digs deep enough. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Michael Quinion here casts some doubt on that origin story of "Bob's your uncle". If the expression is in fact based on events in the 1880s, it's rather suspicious that it's first recorded only in 1937. Deor (talk) 12:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

... well it must have been around for a while before Eric Partridge recorded it in his dictionary of 1937. Dbfirs 14:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

It was, but I'm doubtful of the Balfour origin and so is Wordorigins.org. Partridge thought it might originate in the phrase all is bob, meaning "all is safe". These questions are rarely as simples as they look. --Antiquary (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC) Ah! Only just noticed Deor's post. Mine was rather needless. --Antiquary (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I agree that popular etymologies are often wrong, but I can't see how you get from all is bob to Bob's your uncle. Stephen Spender described the phrase as Cockney in 1940, but I can't work out the rhyme. Dbfirs 15:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Equally malevolent is "cash on the barrelhead". Clarityfiend (talk) 10:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

That one is used to distinguish cash produced at the time of sale, versus the promise of cash at some future date ("I would gladly pay you Tuesday, for a hamburger today."). Of course, calling the later "credit" would be the obvious solution, but the problem is that the person seeking credit wouldn't want to call it that, so would insist they will be paying in cash (just at some future date). So, that would force those who really were paying in cash (now) to say something like "cash on the barrelhead", to make that clear. StuRat (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

In both British and American English, the usual expression is on the barrel. Dbfirs 16:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

News to me. —Tamfang (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I forgot to exclude other uses of "on the barrel". You are correct that Americans more often use "barrelhead"[10] in this context. In the UK, "on the nail" is much more common, with "barrel" about the same as "barrelhead"[11]. Dbfirs 23:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Malevolent? —Tamfang (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

• BBB has this correct. Spanish has the term dinero en efectivo which means cash money, instead of credit, money in an account, or a check. The only confusion is that cash is both a noun and an adjective, while money is ambiguous between coins and paper in hand or in an account. Everyone knows a bank doesn't actually have all the money deposited in it sitting in a safe. μηδείς (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks everybody. Lots of interesting stuff. Surprised there is no link to Bob's your uncle or raining cats and dogs. My favourite origin for the cats and dogs, which may be no more authentic than anything else, is found here (search for "The much more probable source of"). CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Two questions in one night is bad but needs must. In the linked video at the 3:25 mark Scott Bradlee is speaking in English and Robyn Adele Anderson translates into Spanish. However, after his last remark it is obvious that she is saying more than that. What is Anderson saying when she mentions Justin Beiber? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

She adds on the fact that if you subscribe to his channel, you can also see her band's other videos, such as (she lists various songs) including one with Justin Bieber. It's a cute little shtick allowing her to plug her videos, without Scott having to admit he didn't mind Bieber's being mentioned. μηδείς (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ah. Quanaqpiaqqutit. Not sure about the Beiber one but the others by Bradlee are entertaining. They even manage to make this sound pretty good. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Proszim, nicz nebilo. μηδείς (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

The above question (which I cannot answer) got me thinking. In fact, I have been thinking about it for a while, as a few friends of mine use this phrase 'needs must' (plus, I do, occasionally). Why do we say that? How to parse it? It's, for me, a plural of the noun 'need' + a modal verb 'must' with no main verb. What exactly must these 'needs' do? Is it short for something? I understand the meaning and how it is used, but don't understand why. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 15:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

"Must needs" also occurs, along with "needs must" - see some coverage here [12] [13] [14]. Wiktionary just calls it an adverb(ial phrase) [15]. This forum quotes the OED [16], saying:

"need"

- II. With the modal auxiliaries [...] must, emphasizing the sense of the verb.

"Now literary and poet. except in sense 3b.

3. a. Immediately preceding the modal auxiliary (needs must).

b. needs must: it is necessary or unavoidable.

4. Immediately following the modal auxiliary (must needs).

Plenty to chew on. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I believe that the full (and older) form is "Needs must, when the devil drives". More fun to deconstruct SaundersW (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) Several online sources connect it to the Middle English proverb: "Needs must when the devil drives". Apparently, "the phrase became pared down to needs must during the 20th century and, even in that short form, it is rather archaic-sounding and is fading from popular use." [17]. A very similar contraction in current use is "Talk of the devil" (and he will appear). Alansplodge (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Confirmation from a reputable source "Needs must... This is a shortened form of the proverb needs must when the Devil drives, which is first found in a work by the medieval author John Lydgate". The Oxford Dictionary of Idioms edited by Judith Siefring. Alansplodge (talk) 19:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Shakespeare used the expression 5 times: once each in All's Well That Ends Well, Coriolanus and Cymbeline, and twice in Antony and Cleopatra (click on "see all the instances at once" and search for "needs must"). I always assumed he coined it, but probably not. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

An earlier (now obsolete) and even more obscure expression was "needs must that needs shall" (= ‘he must whom fate compels’) from the fourteenth century. Dbfirs 08:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm still having trouble parsing "needs must". Is "needs" a plural noun or a verb? For comparison, "If need be". Here I would assume that "need" is a noun and "be" is a verb in the subjunctive mood. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 10:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

The OED says: "Apparently originally the impersonal use of must [...] with anaphoric ellipsis of the main verb [...] Now frequently taken to be a plural noun and verb." Dbfirs 15:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, but still not totally clear. So the main verb has been elided? Would a reasonable full version be: Whatever needs to be done, must be done, when the devil is driving (= is in command)? --NorwegianBlue ^talk 20:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I wasn't totally clear either so I just cited the OED hoping that someone else would explain it! Dbfirs 23:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Objective, subjective, projective, injective, probably others: These are all stressed on JECT. But AD-jective is stressed on the prefix. Why isn't it ad-JECT-ive, and are there any other exceptions? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

When using the ephemeral statement "as of", what tense should follow?

Example:

In my head what makes sense is "As of X date, the movie had grossed $Y because the accuracy of this information exists in the past. Where this is somewhat problematic above, is that this movie was just released and is constantly being updated. So I can understand why someone would write it in the present tense because today is February 7 (depending on where you live). But it seems we should be writing the statement in anticipation of the content becoming out of date. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

How does one write the name, Jessica, in Egyptian hieroglyphics? This needs to be accurate, folks, and I'm getting different transliterations from different sources I find through Google. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 19 Shevat 5775 01:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Reply