Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language - Wikipedia

I have always been confused about the meaning of this term. Wikipedia says it refers to an "informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent", but here are two dictionary definitions that say something completely different:

a weak or imaginary argument or opponent that is set up to be easily defeated [1]

An argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated. [2]

Which is correct? 109.153.244.85 (talk) 02:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

They are all correct, as they are all saying the same thing. A "Straw man" means that you invent an argument that you propose your opponent is making (or which an imagined opponent makes) and then refute that argument instead of refuting the substance of the opposition. --Jayron32 02:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Further info:[3] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Often, a formal political argument begins with a brief summary of the opponent's argument. The straw man fallacy often begins with a radical oversimplification of the opponent's argument, reducing it to a caricature or a bumper sticker slogan, strippping away all subtlety and nuance. It is easy to mock and deride an oversimplification.

I am reminded of the burden on us as Wikipedia editors to do our best to summarize what the full range of reliable sources say about a topic. Any neutral editor, upon reading an article which over-emphasizes their own personal point of view, should be prepared to add balancing material, even if contrary to their own off-Wikipedia opinions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

OK, I think I see what the problem is now. Suppose one person makes argument X, and other person makes argument Y against distorted argument X*, then the opening definition of the Wikipedia article makes it sounds as if "straw man" refers to Y, whereas actually (and according to the dictionary definitions) it refers to X*. 109.153.244.85 (talk) 12:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

This might be useful.[4] Myrvin (talk) 13:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC) That's already cited in the article. Myrvin (talk) 14:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Or you might even consider this example where "straw man" is used to apply to a person, in this case Charles Lyell's characterisation of Humphry Davy as a geologist. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes. And there seems to be a legal term too: [5]. That's in strawperson. I also thought that there was a saying that it is not worth suing a straw man - meaning someone with no money. Ah! here he is [6]. Myrvin (talk) 10:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think that one refutes a straw man argument by pointing out how that argument differs from one's own argument. Straw man arguments can also be inadvertent, in which case they might more properly be called misunderstandings, but once again, one must point out how that argument differs from one's own argument. But correct me if I am wrong about any of this. Bus stop (talk) 10:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I guess gender equality now requires us to always use "strawperson". Or is that just a dead heron? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC) sorry, but I really don't have "a dog in this fight." Reply

My straw dog is deeply offensive since he or she learned to articulate expletives. Bus stop (talk) 11:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

You need to get the bloody thing genderized. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC) Reply

Hey,

I don't understand what is the purpose of the subs in

σωφρονέστατοι δὲ οἳ ἂν τάχιστα μεταγιγνώσκωσι

— Andoc. 2 6

- it is not use for a purpose clauses, fear or conditions. Someone has any idea? --109.67.106.154 (talk) 10:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Here's a website that offers a translation of the same text into French. My French is much better than my Greek, I may be able to get to this soon if someone hasn't answered before me, but it may take until Wednesday, as I am busy. μηδείς (talk) 22:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Can someone please explain why the media are so conscientious and so careful to describe criminal defendants and criminal suspects as merely "alleged". (For example, the media will never say "He committed murder." They will say "He allegedly committed murder." or "The police authorities claim that he committed murder.") They (the media) are always couching their language in careful phrases. The media tries to be so careful, that they often go overboard with the use of the words "alleged" and "allegedly". I have a follow-up question, but I'd like to hear input on this question first. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Does it really need to be explained why the media doesn't assert that someone has committed a crime until they are convicted of it? What do you think libel laws are for? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

There was a time when the media did exactly that - for example, to announce the arrest of "the killer", with no qualification. And if they got it wrong, it was very harmful to all. Nowadays, they do like Wikipedia does - attribute it to whoever said it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

A couple of sources: Am I protected if I use the word "alleged" in crime stories? and Newswriting for radio: The Basics: Charges and Allegations. The last sentence of the second source might be helpful: "Not only is it unethical to describe [someone not yet convicted of a crime] as, say, a "murderer" or "embezzler" without the qualification of words like "accused" and "alleged," but such descriptions could turn you into a defendant yourself -- for libel." - Cucumber Mike (talk) 08:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

What they should really be saying is "the alleged killer of the allegedly murdered person" - or something like that. Murder too is alleged before being proved. But that gets rather wordy. The media does talk about "alleged victims" and "alleged murder". Myrvin (talk) 09:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

The language gets somewhat confusing with examples like "an East Bexar County woman allegedly was shot and killed by her husband." I assume there is little doubt that she was shot and killed, the allegedly refers to the husband's guilt. Myrvin (talk) 10:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think I occasionally see that someone has been charged with allegedly murdering someone. See the photo caption here [7]; and [8]. People are charged with murder, not alleged murder. Myrvin (talk) 10:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

You also get the papers saying that someone was allegedly charged with something.[9] [10]. That's the writers getting their alleged knickers in a twist. Myrvin (talk) 10:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Another approach is the use of what I think are called "scare quotes", for example "'Neighbour killed my dog', accuser alleges". 87.81.147.76 (talk) 11:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

If you're actually quoting someone, it's not scare quotes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Right. Scare quotes are the kind that mean "someone else calls it this, but I wouldn't normally use the word". For example: The "town" consisted of a few houses and one store. --70.49.171.136 (talk) 21:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Or "city". Yes, although a usage like that is more funny than scary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Still "scary", though. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:07, June 30, 2015 (UTC)

How so? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm fine with "alleged", when used correctly. What I don't like is when they say "he was proven guilty in a court of law". To me, that should be "found guilty", as what happens in a court in no way qualifies as "proof". StuRat (talk) 13:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I agree in general. But this is legal proof. I shall be more careful. Myrvin (talk) 13:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that term is a bad one, implying a level of certainty that just isn't possible in many cases. Maybe in a case where all parties agree on what happened, and they have film of it happening, and lots of other evidence, then it may approach actual proof, not just "legal proof". Otherwise, "legal finding" seems like a safer description. StuRat (talk) 20:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

"The state will prove..." But factually it's still best to say "found guilty" or "found not guilty". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I see that, when it's simple reportage, but also in Wikipedia discussions I see people quoting other editors and putting quotes round their actual words and then they get berated because the person quoted thinks it's done to belittle their comment and calls it "scare quotes". Also it sometimes seems to be done to indicate that the words are not to be taken in their normal sense. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 15:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

That would be a not uncommon usage on Wikipedia talk pages, yes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Follow up question

Thanks, all. As I indicated in my original question, I would be following up. So, we all pretty much agree that when the media is describing a criminal suspect or a criminal defendant, they (legally) have to use the word "alleged" (e.g., to prevent lawsuits of libel, slander, or defamation; and also as a matter of journalistic ethics). I assume we are all (generally) on the same page with that. So, here's my question. When those two guys in New York (allegedly?) escaped from prison, the media had no problem whatsoever saying that they escaped, calling them escapees, etc. They point blank said it, many times, with no concern for the word "alleged". They escaped (not allegedly escaped) from prison. They stole (not allegedly stole) items from those cottages. They burglarized (not allegedly burglarized) those cottages. Etc. Etc. Etc. So, why is that case any different? The men were accused of (not found guilty of) the crime of escaping from prison and the other crimes. They are "innocent until proven guilty" of those crimes, just as are all of the other (alleged) murderers, rapists, thieves, bank robbers, etc., of the world. No? I am quite curious about this. In particular, the crime of "escape from prison". Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Here is CNN's story about the escape and recapture.[11] Notice the fine line between reporting what are obvious facts (the escape and manhunt) vs. what is alleged and what is attributed to others. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

That's my point. Who is to say that the crime of escape is "obvious"? It's no more obvious than when a mass murderer is caught red-handed at the scene (like, for example, that James Eagan Holmes in the Aurora, Colorado, movie theater). It's not "obvious" that he committed mass murder? The media refers to him as "alleged". So, why are Matt and Sweat really any different? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Killing isn't always murder, and murder isn't always killing. There's self-defense, insanity, entrapment, hired guns, bunch of other stuff lawyers and juries need to consider before making it official. Prisons have well-defined borders and prisoners have well-defined sentences. Cross the line before the time expires, that's pretty much that.

On top of that, killing another person is some serious shit, relative to pretty much everything else. Always has been. The damage caused by painting someone as a murderer is severe, so a potential lawsuit will cost more, and the odds of getting it wrong are higher. Higer risk plus higher potential damages equals more precaution. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:23, June 30, 2015 (UTC)

This is purely academic, and I am playing the devil's advocate (for the most part). But, Sweat could say "I never wanted to escape. The other guy (Matt) held a gun to my head and forced me to help him with his plan under threat of death." (or whatever). Not likely, but also not impossible. Also, there are the other crimes I mentioned. They broke into the cabins. They stole supplies. Etc. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Also, the crime of "escape" is not as clear-cut as you may think. A defense could be duress, as I mentioned above ("I didn't want to escape, I was forced to.") Another defense could be "One of the guards told me that I could leave, so I left." Or whatever. My point is that the crime is still alleged. And it might not be as obvious as things seem on the surface. And, still, a crime being "obvious" still does not negate the fact that the person is innocent until proven guilty. As I said above: This is purely academic, and I am playing the devil's advocate (for the most part). But, I was still quite surprised that all of the media essentially dropped their typical "allegedly" business in this particular case. Seems odd to me. At least, odd enough that I posted this question. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

InedibleHulk, you stated: "On top of that, killing another person is some serious shit, relative to pretty much everything else. Always has been. The damage caused by painting someone as a murderer is severe, so a potential lawsuit will cost more, and the odds of getting it wrong are higher. Higer risk plus higher potential damages equals more precaution." Yes, of course. But, they (the media) also use "allegedly" for other lower offenses, also. Even if your crime is minor (i.e., petty burglary, petty larceny, shoplifting, etc.), the media will still report "allegedly". They don't reserve that for just murder or "big" offenses. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

It's no fun getting sued, for any amount. So yeah, you'll see some reporters playing it totally safe. But if you have a solid legal department and a hush budget, you may be willing to play a little looser. Throwing around "terrorist" seems fine, lately. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:10, June 30, 2015 (UTC)

They don't legally have to, it's just that not doing so leaves them vulnerable to legal action. The omission isn't a crime in itself, but something their editor may likely fire them for.

Something like escape is way more obvious than most crimes. Saying a prisoner who isn't in prison and wasn't released has escaped is virtually a sure bet, and it's only slander if it's untrue. Very low-risk. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:16, June 30, 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to re-type my comment above (about the crime being "obvious"). See my comment above, which is time-stamped 02:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

In this particular case, the survivor is already in prison for life without parole, so any charges they might decide to file against him would be just for show. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sort of. But there are ways to legally get out of prison without parole. If a governor or high court decides to overturn or commute the murder sentence, he'd still have to serve out the escape sentence. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:59, June 30, 2015 (UTC)

Plus, perhaps under prison administrative rules, his life "behind the walls" will be subjected to harsher penalties (i.e., less amenities) if he has several sentences (not just one) being served. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think there is an important point here. Prison escape is a crime. This legal def. [12] says: "In order for an individual who has been accused of escape to be convicted, all elements of the crime must be proved. Such elements are governed by the specific language of each state statute". So, the media should be saying someone allegedly escaped from prison. We shall have to wait for the court case where someone sues a paper, or sues for unlawful arrest or something. Myrvin (talk) 10:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

For the legal eagles, this seems good[13]. Myrvin (talk) 10:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

This is all pointless hair-splitting for the sake of debate. There is nothing unusual or inconsistent in not referring to Matt and Sweat as "alleged" escapees. See this example of a story on the escape from a British newspaper [14]. Note the phrases "Sweat and Matt used power tools to cut their way out of Clinton correctional facility" and "broke through steel walls, slipped through a steam pipe and emerged from a manhole outside the 170-year-old prison." The newspaper is reporting the facts of what they did. They were in prison, then they weren't. Ergo, they escaped. No amount of specious "a defense could be duress" can change those basic facts. --Viennese Waltz 13:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

You miss the entire point of this discussion, if that is your response. In fact, I personally knew a guy who escaped from prison. It "looked" just like you would expect it to look. In court, he claimed that he "ran for his life" out of fear of being raped (and the prison staff was indifferent to his predicament). It worked. His conviction was thrown out. Legally, he did not escape. (That is, he did escape, but with a defense / justification.) Therefore, he did not commit the "crime" of escape. (I could find the legal cite, when I have time to look.) So, I don't understand your comment: "No amount of specious "a defense could be duress" can change those basic facts." A defense does not change facts. It can – and does – offer reasons (i.e., defenses) to legally ascertain that the person maybe did the conduct, but did not commit the "crime". (That is, his conduct did not meet the elements of the crime and/or there was justification.) This is no different than self-defense. I'd say: "Yes, I killed that guy. But it was in self-defense. Therefore, I did the killing. But I am not legally guilty of the crime of murder." Same thing. As in the case I described. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

When a newspaper writes "He escaped from prison", they're not talking about the crime of escape. They're just reporting the fact that he escaped from prison, i.e. one minute he was there and the next minute he wasn't. Nothing to do with guilt or innocence of any crime. By the way, I'd love to know where these prisons are that you can just run out of without being stopped. --Viennese Waltz 13:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Viennese Waltz: You state: "When a newspaper writes "He escaped from prison", they're not talking about the crime of escape." So, you are saying that the newspaper is not using the legal definition of "escape", but rather the vernacular everyday layman's use of the word "escape". Correct? Then, how would that be different from the word "murder"? There is a strict legal definition; however, there is also the vernacular everyday layman's version of that word. So, your argument – if correct – by logic, should also apply to the media labeling a person a "murderer" before he is convicted of murder. We know that never happens. So, with murder, they always use "alleged". And I can't imagine the media defending their non-use of the word "alleged" by claiming: "Oh, when we wrote up that story, we were using the vernacular everyday layman's definition of "murder". We were not using the strict legal definition of "murder"." Clearly, that argument would never hold water. So why is "escape" different, according to your interpretation? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Viennese Waltz: You state: "By the way, I'd love to know where these prisons are that you can just run out of without being stopped." Good question. Many "escapes" are not of the dramatic Sweat and Matt version. An inmate can escape from a low/minimum security prison. Yes, he can essentially just walk away (as the minimum security prison will likely not have "fences" or other obstacles to contain him). In other words, it is not only a maximum security prison from which an inmate can escape. Also, many inmates go out into the community on a work detail, for example. (For example, in my state, they are the men you see on the highway, picking up the trash.) An inmate can easily escape (i.e., walk away) from an outside work detail. So, we shouldn't always associate the crime of "escape" with a maximum security prison and/or with the sensationalistic and dramatic Sweat/Matt version. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

You're right. The escape is a verifiable fact. There's also the matter of "clear and present danger", which trumps any need for weasel words. Note that Spadaro was making similar hare-splitting arguments earlier this month about whether these guys would be owed the reward if they turned themselves in. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Baseball Bugs: What does a former Help Desk question about reward money have to do with this discussion? Why are you bringing that up here and now? And, by the way, that question was indeed a valid question. And, by the way, many legal issues do, in fact, depend on hair-splitting and parsing of words. Were you really not aware of that? In fact, that massive case that would either affirm or repeal Obamacare entirely hinged upon the Supreme Court's interpretation of four words (namely, "established by the State"). That is, four words from legislation that numbered in the thousands of pages. (In the end, the Supreme Court affirmed Obamacare by mincing words and claiming that it was simply a "tax", which Congress was indeed allowed to pass.) So, hair-splitting, parsing of words, and linguistic gymnastics are part of the legal landscape. And part of any legal discussion. So, what's your point exactly (above)? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)

Unfair, Bugs- assume good faith. The media would be in deep trouble if they reported that Joe Smith, the murderer was at large - if he hadn't been convicted. He might even get off if there are too many reports to say he did it before he was convicted. Nevertheless, he is surely a "clear and present danger". Viennese Waltz: I think that's what the papers would argue. I'll await the court case. Myrvin (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I have found an example of "alleged escape"[15]. I'm not sure it helps my case tough. Myrvin (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Meanwhile, in Vietnam [16].Myrvin (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

This [17] says that they even have "escape in the second degree". Here, a man claims he did not escape, even though "one minute he was there and the next minute he wasn't." His argument was that he didn't escape because he "was not [in] custody “imposed as a result” of his felony convictions." (p. 886) They overturned it and made it a "conviction for third degree escape".Myrvin (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

This [18] is about someone who might or might not be "guilty of the crime of escape". He was not in prison at all at the time. Myrvin (talk) 16:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think if I were a newspaper being sued for not saying "alleged escape", I would argue that I was using the word "escape" in its simple non-legal sense. I would also cite "1769 W. Blackstone Comm. Laws Eng. III. 415 When a defendant is once in custody upon this process [ca. sa.]..if he be afterwards seen at large, it is an escape.", and "1641 Rastell's Termes de la Ley (new ed.) f. 142, Escape is where one that is arrested commeth to his liberty before that he be delivered by award of any Justice, or by order of Law." Having now argued both sides of the case, it's time to stop. Myrvin (talk) 16:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Myrvin: You stated: "I think if I were a newspaper being sued for not saying "alleged escape", I would argue that I was using the word "escape" in its simple non-legal sense." Would that argument fly if the word/crime was "murder"? Highly doubtful. For my more detailed response to such a claim, see my above post (which is time-stamped at 05:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)). Basically, you can't have it both ways. The newspaper cannot "pick and choose" which crimes it wants to report in the legal sense and which crimes it wants to report in the non-legal sense. If that were the case, anything would fly, and the media would have no restrictions whatsoever. Which would nullify the whole concept of slander, libel, and defamation. So, again, the media can't have it both ways. And they can't pick and choose different definitions of words for whatever scenario suits their needs and benefits them. They'd essentially have carte blanche to say pretty much anything. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Joseph A. Spadaro: I've already made that argument because I was playing advocate for both sides. For 'escape', the media is having it both ways, and has for a while. It seems nobody has stopped them yet. They have been stopped from calling someone a murderer or a thief, before conviction, because the courts have stopped them. But not yet for 'escape'. As I said, I await the court case. Myrvin (talk) 06:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Myrvin: Yes, you are correct. They (the media) are trying to have it both ways; they want to eat their cake and have it, too. But, you don't have to wait for any court cases. If there is a precedential court case for murder or theft (as you claim), then that very same court case would be applicable to escape. In other words, you don't need to wait for a specific court case on any permutation of any crime (murder, bank robbery, kidnapping, rape, embezzlement, escape, etc., etc., etc.). If there is a precedential case, it applies to all crimes. You don't need a specific court case for every specific crime. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

OK. But I don't know that it has ever happened. Myrvin (talk) 16:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

For the UK I found thia[19].Myrvin (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Have we thrashed this to death? Myrvin (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

When I select the from language as French and the target language as English, it correctly translates "Trois hommes et un couffin" to "Three men and a cradle". But, when I just try to translate "couffin" it fails to translate. (And, annoyingly, Google Translate returns the same word as the translation, making it unclear whether the translation failed or whether the word is the same in the other language.) So, why is it unable to translate the word without the sentence ?

StuRat (talk) 12:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Oh, that's because French doesn't have "couffin". It does have "un couffin", or "le couffin", "couffins", and the like. HOOTmag (talk) 13:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm confused. How can it have "a cradle" and "the cradle" without having "cradle" ? StuRat (talk) 13:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Just as English does not have "facto", although it does have "de facto". Btw, although Google translates well "Bahamas", "Gambia", Wikipedia does not have them, but rather has "The Bahamas", "The Gambia". HOOTmag (talk) 14:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Google Translate does not translate word by word, if that's what you're asking. Doing so yields gibberish. Looie496 (talk) 13:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

In that case I would expect an error saying "Single words can not be translated". While I agree that using context can improve the translation by selecting the correct meaning when multiple meanings are possible, in cases where there is a single meaning it's not an issue. StuRat (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I typed ten Portuguese words at random into Google and it correctly translated all of them. That's not ten words all together but ten separate translations. My only quibble would be that for the ones where Spanish has an identical word it reports "Spanish detected". There seems to be some discrimination going on here. Also, if you don't include the diacritics it's stumped. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 14:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I tried some inflexions and tenses and still got good results. However, sou, which is Portuguese for "I am", produced sou - Haitian creole detected. Directing it to Portuguese brought up the right translation. Why wouldn't it come up with sou which I believe is a French halfpenny? There must be some ranking involved, like their page ranking system. I'd be interested to know how it works 87.81.147.76 (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

At https://translate.google.com/#fr/en/couffin you can click "couffin" in the right box to "see alternate translations". For "un couffin" and "une couffin" (une is female) it guesses a translation from the start – not the same guess and you can still click it to see alternatives. But for "couffin" it only says "couffin". Maybe it doesn't want to venture a guess without any context. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

This [20] gives "basket, straw basket" and ""bassinet". Myrvin (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

In Google it gives the sentence "Grand cabas souple à anses". When you put that in it translates as "Grand flexible bag with handles". Sounds like the sort of handbag in "The Importance of Being Earnest". Myrvin (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Couffin is masculine. See: https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/couffin. So it can't be "une couffin". HOOTmag (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

"couffin de bebe" comes out as "bassinet for baby". Yet bebe on its own comes out as bebe, and baby in English translates to bebe in French. I think it's a glitch. 15:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's a glitch at all. The word is bebe with an acute accent over both vowels. Have you ever come across the acronym GIGO in programming, which means "garbage in, garbage out?" 87.81.147.76 (talk) 15:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Quite right. See this.[21]. Myrvin (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

If you tell it you are translating from French, and there is no "bebe" without diacritical marks in French, I would hope it would provide the translation with them, instead, labelled "Did you mean ... ?". This is similar to how a Google search can fix spelling errors. It sounds like they aren't quite there yet with the translator. Perhaps they can just plug in the logic from a Google search as the front-end, to figure out what words were meant, before attempting the translation. StuRat (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, "couffin de bebe" no accents - gives "bassinet for baby" [22] Myrvin (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I hope there's an enlightening analysis somewhere (sorry for not providing one) but I just had some fun with varieties (note the punctuation marks and capitalization) such as "couffin." >> "basket." / "couffin," >> "basket," / "Couffin" >> "bassinet" / "Couffin." >> "Basket." / "Couffin," >> "basket," / "couffin couffin" >> "bassinet bassinet" / "Couffin Couffin" >> "Moses Basket Moses Basket" / ...

I certainly can't agree with HOOTmag that 'French doesn't have "couffin"'. Not only does it exist as a lemma, it can be read in ads selling baby cradles too, for just one example. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Here are some pictures. [23] Not just a cradle. Myrvin (talk) 20:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

One surprising meaning that isn't found is a coffin. Apparently that meaning somehow developed in English from the Old French word, without it ever developing in Modern French. StuRat (talk) 20:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

What's even more surprising is that Morticia Addams didn't have a coffin-shaped bassinet for her future babies. Well, with all that driving of Gomez wild with her French, I'm sure certain things happened behind closed doors, out of view of the cameras. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I wondered about coffin. The OED has "Middle English cofin, coffyn, etc., < Old French cofin, coffin, little basket, case, etc., < Latin cophinus (later cofinus), < Greek κόϕινος basket". So, couffin may have had little effect in English. Does a French dictionary say couffin came from OF cofin? This [24] suggests so. Myrvin (talk) 06:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

The "did you mean" is switched on but you have to direct to the language to access it. Those Portuguese words I typed in without diacritics translated nicely when I directed to Portuguese. Estacao (no cedilha or tilde) came up estacao (with diacritics) and translated correctly as "season". It also means "railway station" - do they only give one meaning? I remember I was at a Spanish frontier railway station and by the tracks for some reason (they don't have raised platforms - Australia has but I believe the United States don't). An official came up to me and spoke to me in Spanish, which I could just about understand, but he kindly used the Portuguese word comboio to alert me to the danger. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

http://www.wlcsd.org/files/1115424/student%20code%20of%20conduct%20-%20arabic_1.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6ZeNtbfFQ

What is the Arabic in the title of this document?

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

It's: كراسة مجموعة قوانين سلوك وتصرفات الطالب, 2010-2011

i.e.: Handbook of a set of regulations for the student's behaviour and actions, 2010-2011. HOOTmag (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! WhisperToMe (talk) 00:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

When I was at university in Leeds, I was often called a 'Scouse git' by southerners. This was all in jest of course, but 'get' is a proper insult in Liverpool. Are there any other dialects with this distinction? KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 15:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

A get is a Hebrew divorce decree. "Get" is a perfectly respectable English word meaning "obtain". "Git" is an obnoxious English word whether heard in Liverpool or anywhere else. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

The OED gives the first use of git from 1949. For get it says "orig. Sc. and north. In contemptuous use = brat. Also spec. a bastard; hence as a general term of abuse: a fool, idiot." Goes back to 1567. Myrvin (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

(ec) 'Git' may be obnoxious, but in the context described 'get' means the same thing. See [25]: 'git' is a variant of 'get', meaning an illegitimate child. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

In American English, "git" is a colloquialism for "get", in the context of being short for "get out of here" or "get lost". So in the Monty Python "Argument Sketch", when Graham Chapman mutters "stupid git" after Michael Palin leaves, the meaning is lost on Americans. EO says "get" in the sense of "bastard" derives from "beget".[26] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

The pronunciation [gɪt] for get, mentioned by Bugs, is specific to certain regions of the United States. See Phonological history of English high front vowels#Pin–pen merger. The pronunciation [gɪt] for comic effect may be somewhat more widespread than the pin-pen merger, but in the Northeast it is not common and would invoke regional stereotypes (e.g. of hillbillies and rednecks). Marco polo (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

As in "Git Along Little Dogies".[27] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

In the context of Liverpool, the New Shorter Oxford Dictionary derives "get" from the middle English word meaning offspring; descendants; child (cf beget). Then it degenerated to brat or bastard (Scotland and north) and a contemptible person, a fool, an idiot, (dialect and slang). 87.81.147.76 (talk) 16:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

The term "Scouse git!" was a catchphrase of one Alf Garnett, who in Til Death Us Do Part, had a motivationally challenged Liverpudlian son-in-law. Alansplodge (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think the only time I've heard "get" used as an insult, it was in reference to Sir Walter Raleigh. "Git" (as an insult) is heard a little more often in North America, but the source is usually from the UK in some manner. Matt Deres (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• We have an article about the Monkee's song Randy Scouse Git that discusses the phrase -- a great song, by the way; see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejw_LOi-nhk. Looie496 (talk) 13:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• iTunes randomly chose to play me another Monkees song (Nine Times Blue) as I read this section. —Tamfang (talk) 03:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

The lyrics of Dr. Alban's 1992 song Groove Machine 5 consists to 3/4 of the Māori hill's name Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateapokaiwhenuakitanatahu. But what is the last quarter probably supposed to be, in a comment cited as "Matekua tenenoro kauome kitore". I don't know whether that's Māori, Igbo (the singer's native language), gibberish, or anything else - anyone have an idea? --KnightMove (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I know a lot of Ibo people and it's not that. It's Maori.

Ko te mea hoki kua mate, kua mawheto ia i te hara

is Romans 6 v. 7 in the Maori bible. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 18:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I found the term "trakcie bitym" in a Polish dictionary from the end of the 19th century (Mieczyn wieś w powiecie włoszczowskim, gminie i parafii Krasocin, leży przy trakcie bitym z Włoszczowy do Kielc.). Translation yields "beaten road". How should it be translated? Is it "pavement-covered road" ? Thx for any help. GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 12:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

OK found it. Case closed. GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 14:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

There's a word (and we have a good Wikipedia article about it, I just don't remember the word) for when you imply something by stating the opposite. E.g. saying "My opponent has never been convicted of murder" insinuates that the opponent was at least suspected of murder. Anyone know the word? I think it goes back to classical rhetoric but I'm not sure of that. Thanks. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Irony. But it's a bit more complicated than that. Read the article. Myrvin (talk) 15:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

The example you give isn't the same as the Q in the title, for which an example would be "He's a real genius, isn't he ?", said satirically. Innuendo is a better match for implying something without actually saying it, as in your example. StuRat (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Saying one thing but implying the opposite comes under irony. But you probably wouldn't think of that as a term from classical rhetoric. There's lots of other devices that can achieve similar goals, and use related concepts. Apophasis is also relevant to saying something by not saying it. Depending on the context, litotes could also be involved. Then there's the general notion of the Unsaid. We also have a nice Glossary_of_rhetorical_terms - for almost any real-world statement, it can be categorized as deploying many different rhetorical devices, and classification of such is always a bit ambiguous and subjective. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I agree with both of the above posts. I was answering the "imply something by stating the opposite" question. Myrvin (talk) 18:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sarcasm. According to B. Bousfield (in Marina Lambrou and Peter Stockwell, Contemporary Stylistics, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010, p. 213), sarcasm is:

The use of strategies which, on the surface appear to be appropriate to the situation, but are meant to be taken as meaning the opposite in terms of face management. That is, the utterance which appears, on the surface, to maintain or enhance the face of the recipient actually attacks and damages the face of the recipient. ... sarcasm is an insincere form of politeness which is used to offend one's interlocutor.

HOOTmag (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

That's saying a nice or neutral thing while actually being nasty. It's not necessarily meaning the opposite thing. There are hours of argument about this in Talk for irony and sarcasm. A bit later, your quote says, "For Leech this effect is caused by the phenomenon of irony, as it is irony which enables a speaker to be impolite while seeming to be polite." Like I said, it's not simple. Myrvin (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Incredible !! How can you claim - the utterance the quote discusses - is "not necessarily meaning the opposite thing", while the quote does explicitly discuss utterances which: "are meant to be taken as meaning the opposite..."? HOOTmag (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Somewhat related, the old Leon Trotsky joke.[28] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

A gem, BB. Yes... "meanings that change with inflection." Martinevans123 (talk) 18:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks all. Apophasis is the article whose title I couldn't remember. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 21:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Well, I would certainly never say that this whole thread was a complete waste of time. Nor that you are very probably a mischievous sockpuppet of a very well-known encyclopedia founder. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Great! My high school Latin teacher (who taught me the concept) would be proud of me. He made it seem as though the technique was very common in the debates and accusations surrounding the First_Catilinarian_conspiracy. I'll mark this as resolved. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

WRT "irony": It's ironic that "it's ironic" is so widely misused these days. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I guess that brings this discusison to a full stop. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC) Reply

Try changing water into good wine. Those almost 13464 not superfluous occurrences of "ironically" just waiting getting translated into their much heavier equivalent "paradoxically".--Askedonty (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Wow, quite a few. Can we get an irony-bot for that job? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Here is one. Got a license ? --Askedonty (talk) 12:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

• It is an error of table can't be displayed.
• It is an error of table couldn't be displayed. (could)

Because I think "of" is a preposition which should be followed by a noun rather than a clause ("table can't be displayed")

I wonder if changing it from "can" to "could" resolves the grammar issue.

Other examples of participial adjective I found:

• Boring teachers make bored students. (boring, bored)
• A book written in English. (written)

But I could't find participial adjective examples for auxiliary verbs (can, will, shall, may, etc.). Do such examples exist?

-- Justin545 (talk) 20:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Are you trying to say that "It is an error THAT the table can't be displayed"? Myrvin (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm ... what would you do if you have to add "of" into the sentence? -- Justin545 (talk) 21:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

"It is an error of the programmer that the table ...."?? Maybe, even "It is an error of the table that it can't be displayed." But that doesn't seem idiomatic. "The table is in error because it can't ..." would be better. Myrvin (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

"It is an error of the table that it can't be displayed." - I like the answer, as least it looks correct. -- Justin545 (talk) 21:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

That's grammatically correct but nonsensical ontologically. It's not a table's error that it can't be displayed, it's an error on the part of someone or something else. There can be an error in a table but I don't think a table can make errors. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sigh, it looks like you are correct too. The meaning is kind of different indeed. -- Justin545 (talk) 21:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

At a stretch there could be an "error of a table" if it some sort of reference. "We were expecting a train to arrive at 1:00pm, but that was only because of an error of the timetable".

Participle adjectives are possible (like in your last sentences), but auxiliary verbs (except for: "is", "do", "have", "dare") - don't have the participle form. Additionally, your first sentences about the "table" are wrong (I couldn't understand them either). HOOTmag (talk) 21:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I thought that "could" is the past participle form of "can" ... am I wrong? -- Justin545 (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

"Could" is not a Participle form, it's a Past form. "Can", and "cant", have no Participle form. However, "can" = "is able to", and "can't" = "is unable to", while "is unable" has an adjective "unable", so you can say: "it is an error of [a] table unable to be displayed". HOOTmag (talk) 22:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Oops, I should have searched more harder for a reliable source. Now I realize "could" is just a past form, thanks! As for the "unable" version, I think the equivalence makes sense to get out of the "could". It turns out aux. verbs have some bizarre properties. -- Justin545 (talk) 01:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

What is the intended meaning? Is it (1) to say that the inability to display constitutes an error? Or is it (2) that the nature of the acknowledged error is inability to display? --catslash (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Excuse me. I don't understand the question well ... -- Justin545 (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Myrvin's first answer ("It is an error THAT the table can't be displayed"), means: "You already know that the table can't be displayed, but I need to tell you that this is a problem". I don't think that is what you want to say. More likely you want to say "You already know that there is a problem, but I need to tell you that the problem is that the table can't be displayed". Is that right? --catslash (talk) 00:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes! This sentence was due to some programming bug got fixed and posted on a bugtracker web page to inform everybody that it has been fixed. -- Justin545 (talk) 01:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

For 'of' with participles, the OED has "There was one child of the marriage". "it was an affair of generations", "The old bluesmen, their black faces engraved with the sorrows of ages." 'Of' is a very complicated word. Myrvin (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sometimes errors have specific names and error codes. Maybe you're looking for something like

• It is the error of "table can't be displayed"

As far as I can tell my example is grammatical, but it might be more clear if the "of" was just removed. Putting the name of the error in quotes turns it into a grammatical mention rather than a grammatical use, see use-mention distinction. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

It's the exact meaning ... it would be better if the punctuation marks could be vocally represented. -- Justin545 (talk) 22:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

You can vocally represent quotation marks. Perhaps not unambiguously, but people do it. Try a little pause before the quoted part, and change tone a bit. Almost like you're speaking in italics :) SemanticMantis (talk) 22:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I like that SM. It is the same as "'Table can't be displayed' is the error message." But I think the questioner wants an "of" somewhere. Myrvin (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

The "of" is needlessly wordy. "It is the 'table can't be displayed' error" works best (if you're avoiding contractions). Can't accidentally imply it's the table's fault. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:33, July 1, 2015 (UTC)

It seems like the OP's question has been resolved. I turns out, the OP was not looking for a "participle adjective" - but rather for an "adjective" only (like in their example "boring teachers"). Anyways, they have indicated (in their response to me above), that my suggestion - of using the " equivalence ['can't' = 'is unable to'], makes sense - to get out of the 'could' " [i.e. to get rid of the 'can't'] - hence to get the correct adjective suggested by me: 'unable', so it seems they accept the final consequence: 'it is an error of [a] table unable to be displayed'. HOOTmag (talk) 04:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

We used to live in the automobile world, now we live in the new computer world, where the ones who create and rule and help and fix, don't need to master language as a means for thinking or for common sense... Akseli9 (talk) 09:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Of course, and I wonder who here has ever tried to "master language as a means for thinking". The OP was simply looking for an "adjective of can't", so I tried to do my best to help them find what they were looking for, and I hope I succeeded, that's all. Anyways, I wonder how your comment is related to the whole topic discussed in my response you've referred to. HOOTmag (talk) 10:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

What is "Schools in Detroit" in Arabic? I would like to add that description to Commons:Category:Schools in Detroit along with English, Bengali, Spanish.

Thank you! WhisperToMe (talk) 03:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

مدارس في ديترويت Omidinist (talk) 03:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! WhisperToMe (talk) 04:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

For any editors who know Polish, is it okay if I know what "Schools in Detroit" is in Polish? WhisperToMe (talk) 04:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Szkoły w Detroit. HOOTmag (talk) 06:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! :) WhisperToMe (talk) 07:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Just curious, how do you pronounce the single "w" word in Polish ? StuRat (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

/v/. HOOTmag (talk) 14:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Together with the following syllable: [ˈʂkɔwɨ vdiˈtrɔit]. If the following word started with a voiceless consonant, the "w" would be devoiced: szkoły w Toronto [ˈʂkɔwɨ ftɔˈrɔntɔ]. — Kpalion^(talk) 14:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Not only in Polish, but also in other Slavic languages there exist prepositions consisting only of a single consonant. Indeed, they are pronounced together with the following syllable (word). (There always is a following word because in those languages, unlike in English, a preposition is not a good word to end a sentence with.) --Theurgist (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

This question is equally about semantics and anatomy.

I read the article waist as well as waistline (clothing) and did some Google searches. and I'm finding some of the information contradictory, particularly for men.

The definition I see in some places is "the narrowest part of your torso". Let's take a man with a protruding belly, who wears his pants below his belly, which is normal for such people. Even if we were to say the part of his body where he wears his pants (basically his hips) is not really part of his torso and thus cannot be his waist, then certainly the area immediately below his chest is likely to be much smaller in circumference than his belly. But I've never heard anyone call that part of your body your waist.

And if you take the "anatomical" waist which is defined by some to be the circumference around the part of your torso containing your navel, then for this guy with a belly, that would likely be the *widest* part of your torso, not the narrowest.

So do men have several different waists depending on the definition?--Captain Breakfast (talk) 08:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

The waist is, in fashion terms, where your trousers stop (hence how describing jeans as "high-waisted" is meaningful). It doesn't have much relationship with the anatomical waist, except that if you're slim enough that your body curves in at the waist, this is a comfortable (if currently unfashionable) place for wearing belts. The waist is not an identifiable structure in the way that a finger or a tooth is. It's ultimately just an arbitrary line on the body, so it's whatever you define it to be. Smurrayinchester 09:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Among Negroes in American jails the trousers stopped very low (about halfway down the underpants). This has become a fashion in Britain (and no doubt elsewhere) which many, not only women, find distasteful. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 09:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

"Among Negroes in American jails?" That's a hoot, and about 25 years after the fact. Not safe for work or children. μηδείς (talk) 00:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it's vague. For example Empire waist dresses on women put the "waist" just below the bust. Perhaps some rather large men do consider their waits to be near the nipples at the narrowest point of the torso, and also wear their pants there - this guy is not fat but he wears his pants very high [29]SemanticMantis (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

LOL Captain Breakfast (talk) 03:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I would say that some obese people simply don't have a waist, in that there is no narrower spot between their chest and hips. Therefore, belts don't really work, and they need to go with suspenders. StuRat (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

The problem I find in #1, is that #1 is opposed to the general form: "You VERB OBJECT, don't you?" (or "You don't VERB OBJECT, do you?"), but it's never "You VERB OBJECT, do you?" (just as it's never "You don't VERB OBJECT, don't you?").

On the other hand: the problem I find in #2, is that the form "You VERB OBJECT, don't you?", is AFAIK an abbreviation of the original meaning: "I was quite sure you VERB OBJECT, don't you VERB OBJECT?" (just as the form "You don't VERB OBJECT do you?", is an abbreviation of the original meaning: "I was quite sure you don't VERB OBJECT, do you VERB OBJECT?"), so #2 - which states "You hate no-one don't you?" - must be an abbreviation of: "I was quite sure you hate no-one, don't you hate no-one?"; but I wonder whether "Don't you hate no-one?" is grammaical, because "You don't hate no-one" is not.

However, maybe my assumption was wrong, and "Don't you hate no-one?" (which could mean "Haven't you claimed you hate no-one?") is grammatical (although "You don't hate no-one" is not). In that case, I guess the correct form - among the forms mentioned in my question - is "You hate no-one, don't you?" 87.68.26.3 (talk) 10:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Nobody is the problem in my eyes. "You hate no-one, don't you?" would be my shot at it. - X201 (talk) 10:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks to your remark, I fixed my original question. Btw, what do you think about the last section of my previous response? 87.68.26.3 (talk) 10:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Simply rephrase the question as "You don't hate anyone, do you?" and the problem is solved. --Viennese Waltz 10:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I've always been quite aware of the legitimacy of "You don't hate anyone, do you?", however my question was about how to deal with sentences involving "no-one". 87.68.26.3 (talk) 10:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Why would you insist on having "no-one" in the sentence when it just causes problems and there is a problem-free alternative? --Viennese Waltz 10:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I've never "insisted" on having "on-one". On the contrary: I personally prefer "anyone" to "no-one". I've only wondered whether other people share my impression, that using "no-one" may really cause problems. If they do, then I want them to say that (like you); if they don't - then I want them to tell me the correct form when "no-one" is involved. 87.68.26.3 (talk) 10:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think they are both valid - if a bit odd - but they mean slightly different things. When you say "You do X, don't you?", it suggests that I think you do X and am daring you to say you don't. When you say "You do X, do you?", it is probably avowing complete ignorance of whether you do it or not. For the question: "You hate no-one, don't you?" It is saying, I think you hate no-one - say you don't if you dare! The other is saying, is it true that you hate no-one? They could be revamped as: "Is it not the case that you hate no-one?" and "Is it the case that you hate no-one?" You hear the first on TV when the prosecutor is cross-examining the defence witness. The other is more friendly - perhaps posed by the defence lawyer. Myrvin (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

What do you mean by: "I think you hate no-one - say you don't if you dare!"? "don't" what? Do you mean "don't [hate no-one]"? But this was my initial problem: Can you claim you "don't hate no-one"? I suspect it's not a valid expression, is it? 87.68.26.3 (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Depends on how picky you want to be, and how formal the writing/speaking is. In many varieties of USA English, "I don't hate no-one" is perfectly grammatical, and resolves to the same semantics as "I don't hate anyone". See Double_negative#Two_or_more_negatives_resolving_to_a_negative, which gives the example "I didn't go nowhere today." See also "I can't get no satisfaction", which does not mean that the speaker is always satisfied. But that's a rock song, and the usage would be inappropriate for e.g. a Wikipedia article or school report. We deal with ambiguity related to the examples you just gave all the time. For example, "Don't you want a puppy?" can be answered both "Yes, I do want a puppy" as well as "No, I do want a puppy". Rephrasing: "Do you not want a puppy?" - the answer "Yes" could mean "Yes, it is the case that I do not want a puppy" (this is a negative answer). In other cases, "Yes" could mean "Yes I want a puppy". Fortunately we just use Context_(language_use) and Intonation_(linguistics) to make sense of things or just rephrase them for clarity, and seldom do we have problems in real-life spoken discussions like this, at least seldom between two native speakers. Hope that helps :) SemanticMantis (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I assume you agree to the following two rules: 1. The second part of the sentence "You VERB OBJECT - don't you?", is an abbreviation of "don't you VERB OBJECT?". 2. From what the speaker means - we can infer, that if the question mark had been removed from the second part of the sentence - so that this second part would have been "you don't VERB OBJECT", then this second part would have meant the opposite of what is meant by the first part of the sentence ("You VERB OBJECT"). In my opinion, this is what we can infer - from what the speaker means when they add the second part of the sentence, can't we?

However, your last claim seems to contradict - at least one of - the two rules mentioned above, because: you claim that the sentence "You hate no-one, don't you [hate no-one]?", eventually means "You hate no-one, don't you [hate anyone]?". consequently, if the question mark had been removed from the second part of the sentence - so that this second part would have been "you don't [hate no-one]" - meaning (in your opinion) "you don't [hate anyone]", then this second part would have meant exactly what - rather than the opposite of what - is meant by the first part of the sentence ("you hate no-one")... 87.68.26.3 (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I'm afraid this is an idiomatic form - like many, many others. I'll expand: "I think you hate no-one - if you don't hate no-one (ie you hate someone) then say so". I don't think you will see "don't hate no-one" very often. AS VW says: "Don't hate anyone" is more likely. Myrvin (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

My Scottish (Dumfriesshire) great-aunt (born early 20th century, pre-WW1) used to offer guests a drink with "You don't want a sherry do you?" Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Great :-) 87.68.26.3 (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Somewhere, I read an account about a puritan asked to dinner by non-puritan folk. The lady said to him, "You will have some meat, won't you?" He replied, "Madam, first thou said an untruth, and then thou asked a question."Myrvin (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

All of this reminds me another case, about a fellow who lived alone in a huge forest, and sometimes had to cope with intrusive guests. He used to welcome them by saying: "If I had had sugar, I would have suggested you coffee with sugar - if I had had coffee..." 87.68.26.3 (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

What do you mean by "I don't think you will see 'don't hate no-one' very often"? Is it ever possible to hear - something like "you don't hate no-one" - from a native speaker who means "you hate someone"? If it's possible, then in what occasions? 87.68.26.3 (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

It would be easy to say that 'don't hate no-one' is ungrammatical. Perhaps you should assume that, but here [30][31] are searches with lots of them in common speech. But all these are probably double negatives (cf SemanticMantis above) that mean "I don't hate anyone". Also, I wrote a book once entitled "Nobody Don't Know Nothing", so what do I know? Myrvin (talk) 16:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

No, I've never said anything (or nothing if you like) about whether "don't hate no-one" is grammatical. I've always been quite aware of the double negation used by some (native) speakers. I only wondered whether any expression like "you don't hate no-one" - can be heard from a native speaker who means "you hate someone". If you insist that it is possible, then I wonder - in what occasions it is. Regarding the book you've written: does it deal with expressions like "you don't hate no-one" - meaning "you hate someone"? 87.68.26.3 (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I can find no instances of "you don't hate no-one" - meaning "you hate someone", so I don't insist upon it. No, my book was about the impossibility of knowing anything. I think we have moved beyond your original question. Myrvin (talk) 18:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'd slightly disagree with the you're interpretation (or at lease, talking about "daring" them makes it seem more hostile than it should be). To my mind, the form "You do X, don't you?" is asking for confirmation that your assumption is correct. "You do X, do you?" seems slightly more questioning, as if you are either not sure that they do X, or are surprised that they do. Iapetus (talk) 10:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Almost any random sequence of English words can come up as a response to an unusually framed question. Husband: I don't hate anyone at all. Wife: Oh dear, you know you hate someone. Husband: No, honey, there is no one I hate. Wife: Come, on John, you know you don't hate no-one; there's Bob next door, for a start. μηδείς (talk) 23:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Beat me to it. I was working on "I don't hate no-one, I hate everyone". Myrvin (talk) 06:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Al right guys, so the correct form I've been looking for is: "you hate no-one - don't you?", meaning "I've been quite sure you hate no-one - don't you hate no-one?", which means: "I've been quite sure you hate no-one - do you hate anyone?" (according to Medeis's version), or which means: "I've been quite sure you hate no-one - do you hate everyone?" (according to Myrvin's version). Personally I prefer Medeis's interpretation of my original sentence discussed in this thread (I think also Myrvin does), although Myrvin's version can be used as another interpretation of "don't hate no-one" - irrespective to (and regardless of) my original question. Anyways, all of those alternative interpretations can be added to our article double negation (and to other articles mentioning it) in order to emphasize that the double negation can't be regarded as ungrammatical - when interpreted in some ways. 87.68.26.3 (talk) 07:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

It seems this thread can be closed. HOOTmag (talk) 07:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Could be my BrEng ears, but both constructions sound horrible to me. Why not go with "You don't hate anyone, do you?" --Dweller (talk) 10:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Didn't you read my post upthread? I already suggested that. --Viennese Waltz 12:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Nope. To be honest, I was put off reading the whole thread by the OP's SHOUTING and other people's excessive use of bold. --Dweller (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

OP's shouting? I don't remember I've ever shouted. Regarding "other people's excessive use of bold": Note that bold letters are intended to emphasize (rather than to shout). 87.68.26.3 (talk) 13:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

The link I provided covers both of your points. --Dweller (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

As for the big letters: I've never used them to shout - but rather to quote. As for the bold letters: I've never used them to shout - but rather to emphasize, and the link I've provided (in my previous response) - covers that as well. 87.68.26.3 (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

It could be that the link you've provided (in your previous response) leads to the same than this last link you're providing. --Askedonty (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Of course. 87.68.26.3 (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Prior to your post, I count 16 bolded words, out of about 1900 in the thread. My post was the only one other than OP that used bolding, at 2/200 words. If you want to call rates of bolding 1/100 or less excessive, that's fine. Me, I figure using typographic emphasis sparingly is doing a favor to the community, otherwise we just have huge walls of text and it's hard to see key points. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Is there in current English usage a gender-neutral equivalent to "man up" (meaning "be brave or tough enough to deal with an unpleasant situation" or (MacMillan) "to start being brave and dealing with a difficult situation")? Do any of the major style guides say anything anent this? I wish to avoid affronting anyone, but could not find such after an assiduous search :(. Collect (talk) 22:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

toughen up, pluck up, brave up? ---Sluzzelin talk 22:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

None of which remotely come near the idiomatic meaning as noted by Zimmer (and as the Guardian article notes) . And saying "Pluck Up!" might well arouse ire. Collect (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

More like to arouse ridicule. "Fight Fiercely, Harvard!" and all that sort of thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Be a mensch. Maybe it's half a century out of date, but who cares; its recipient might appreciatively recognize the reference to The Apartment, a wonderful film. Possibly ineffective in Britain, where people might mistake it for a reference to this person. -- Hoary (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Not at all equivalent. A mensch is, among other things, a particularly decent human being. "Man up" is a different stereotype; basically, "man up" means "grow some balls", and there really isn't a gender neutral way to express "act more like a stereotypical male". --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I guess there is overlap somewhere in the field of courage and doing the right thing without regard to personal consequences (WP has an article on moral courage which I found via de:Zivilcourage, an everyday-word in German). Regarding perfect synonymy, see also "Why do synonyms exist?", e.g.) ---Sluzzelin talk 23:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

What do you know? I always thought mensch referred to a man (and was not used for a woman) but apparently it has a complicated history in the German to English transfer. [32] Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I suggest "grow up". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

That's something children say to each other. Not the same thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

The expression "take courage" is used in some translations of John 16:33.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Last week the assistant chief of police in Detroit said "man up or woman up, whatever, and tell us what's going on" after a shooting. "Woman up" gets a lot of Google results. It's far removed from what "man up" is supposed to mean, but maybe that's a good thing. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Not exactly gender neutral, but around here people say "time to put your big boy/girl pant(ie)s on" or "you better cowboy/cowgirl up!", using either "boy" or "girl" as appropriate.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 01:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

How about the oldy but goody, "gird up your loins" (since the type of loins aren't specified) ? StuRat (talk) 02:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Pull yourself together [[wo]man]! --catslash (talk) 21:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Is "be brave" no good? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:42, July 4, 2015 (UTC)

May I suggest simply "grow up"? --174.88.133.209 (talk) 02:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

The Friendly Giant politely suggests looking up. Not way up, but seven steps. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:49, July 5, 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps "Satisfy your needs!" could work. I doubt it. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:54, July 5, 2015 (UTC)

Something like "ztep up" or "stand up" can work, but the question would be whether women say "man up" to each other. If they do, then it's already de facto gender neutral. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Here and here, a woman is described as "an SJSU alumni". ALUMN* isn't really in my own idiolect (I'd say she was a graduate): however inflected, it strikes me as a somewhat quaint Americanism. And I know that as foreign words are anglicized, strange things happen to them (opera is rarely a plural). So I'm not shocked, but I am mildly intrigued: In current Californian English, is "alumni" commonplace in feminine singular contexts? -- Hoary (talk) 22:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

"Alumni" is plural.[33] The singular would be "alumnus" (male) or "alumna" (female). A term often used is simply "alum". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I am commenting as a native speaker of American English, resident in California for 43 years. Although I understand that, technically, the word is plural, common 21st century usage here treats it as singular, and it is applied to both men and women without distinction. It would be unusual to hear "alumnus" in casual speech and I do not believe that I have ever heard anyone utter the word "alumna". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I see - like the way "media" and "criteria" are treated as singulars. Ugh. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Or "phenomena", or "vertebrae", more ugh. "Alumna" appears very many times on Wikipedia. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I am not approving but simply reporting what I hear in spoken usage. That being said, I hear "phenomenon" and "vertebra" frequently. Entirely coincidentally, my brother was in a car crash yesterday, and fractured three neck vertebrae. No paralysis, fortunately. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hearing "phenomenon" is fine. Just don't try watching it. Maybe Phenomena would be better? Matt Deres (talk) 13:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I bet that the word "alumna" is known in some traditional women's colleges which remain single-sex... AnonMoos (talk) 23:44, 4 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it is. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 08:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I know very little about Cambridge, having visited the place only a handful of times. Are those places linked to part of the University? I thought all Oxford and Cambridge women's colleges had become co - educational, the last being St Hilda's a few years ago. St Benet's Hall, run by monks, was the last to admit women when they provided a special annexe for them recently. My mother, who never set foot in Cambridge, studied at Somerville at the same time as Margaret Roberts. When the family was living at Oxford my sister would often speak of female undergraduates as undergraduettes, emphasising the last syllable. Is this a commonplace terminology? 87.81.147.76 (talk) 11:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

The category Category:School districts in the United States is ar:تصنيف:مناطق تعليمية في الولايات المتحدة on the Arabic Wikipedia.

I would like to start a similar category at the Arabic Wikipedia equivalent to Category:School districts in Michigan using the same translation for "school district". What would it be in Arabic?

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 04:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

@WhisperToMe:

• School districts in Michigan=مناطق تعليمية في ميشيغان
• School districts=مناطق تعليمية
• in=في
• Michigan=ميشيغان

--Meno25 (talk) 11:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, Meno :D WhisperToMe (talk) 11:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi friends, what is the correct pronunciation of Teklehaimanot (name of pro cyclist Daniel Teklehaimanot) and what is the correct pronunciation of Qhubeka (name of his team MTN-Qhubeka)? Thank you. 184.147.138.101 (talk) 13:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

The Eritrean name is apparently the same as Tekle Haymanot (ተክለ ሃይማኖት täklä haymanot). Skimming through the Tigrinya language article, I think the Tigrinya pronunciation should be straightforward, except for the ‹ä›'s standing for [ɐ]'s.

Regarding the South African name, the ‹qh› apparently represents a click consonant, and more specifically an aspirated alveolar or postalveolar click. There might be other peculiarities as well (e.g. the ‹k› would be pronounced as [ɠ] in Zulu), and tones are likely involved too, but that all depends on which particular language the name belongs to. --Theurgist (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Qhubeka is isiZulu (and isiXhosa) for "advance, move forward, progress". The IPA is [ǃʰuˈɓɛːɠa], where the /!/ represents the sound usually described as clucking one's tongue, although that's ambiguous. (Here is the ! sound in a video that calls it "clicking" which is technically too broad a term, as there are other types of phonetic clicks.) None of these consonants has any equivalent in European languages. The pronunciation at Forvo (offered by a Latvian) is not very good to my ear, so I won't link to it.

μηδείς (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you both. Theurgist, is täklä haymanot IPA? If not what would it be in IPA? 184.147.138.101 (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

No, it's not IPA; it's the romanization system that is used in the Tigrinya language article. Per that article, the IPA would probably be /tɐklɐ hajmanot/. --Theurgist (talk) 22:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Terrific, thank you again. All syllables equally stressed? I'm not clear what the article means by 'contrastive'. 184.147.138.101 (talk) 22:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

It means words rarely if not at all change their meaning when the stress is shifted. Theoreticly you can put the stress on any syllable.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 08:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

In a movie set in Italy – Don Camillo (1952) – we see placards saying “VV Peppone – ΛΛ la reazione”. The letters VV are crossed, forming a common abbreviation for Viva; by ΛΛ I mean the same sign inverted. I had never seen that before. Has it a pronunciation? —Tamfang (talk) 08:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Probably not answering the question, there is this. --Askedonty (talk) 08:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)Reply