May 29

When you say foreigner and when alien (refering to people)?217.168.0.4 (talk) 04:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foreigner would tend to imply a legit immigration status while alien would not. Of course these aren't hard and fast definitions as neither would be classified as a positive way to describe people and as such resist solid definitions. Leftus (talk) 04:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say "foreigner" is the generic term and "alien" is only used when legal status is an issue. After all, an Englishman in New York can still be a "legal alien". And resident aliens are certainly legal. —Angr 04:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have been naturalized you're not an alien, but if you're not assimilated I might still call you a foreigner; one is legalistic, the other more informal. —Tamfang (talk) 05:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, and answering the question: "are you from here"? No, I am alien/an alien/foreigner? Alien sound for me - not native speaker of English - like a film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.168.4.118 (talk) 16:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in ordinary usage "alien" means from another planet. —Tamfang (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Japan, every foreigner is required to carry an I.D. card, called 外国人登録証明書, which is translated on the card as 'Alien Registration Card'. Whether you have legal status or not in Japan, you are always called by the one word 「外国人」, or the shortened form 「外人」, which are both variously translated as 'foreigner' or 'alien'.--ChokinBako (talk) 21:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with Tamfang. But can't you be a foreigner without being an alien at all. In the neck of the wood I grew up in anyone who didn't have at least 2 generations of local ancestry and an unbroken record of presence was considered a "foreigner", i.e. "not from here". An alien would be from another country--71.236.23.111 (talk) 00:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, where I grew up, we considered anyone who was English and Protestant to be foreigners, even though WE were the actual immigrants (Irish Catholics in Liverpool, UK).--ChokinBako (talk) 18:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does "Weer een pezzo da novanta" mean?

(Context: I was watching The Godfather with Dutch subtitles, and in the scene towards the end, where Michael and his father talk, the son says something I can't understand--it's Italian--and this is what the subtitles translate it as. But I don't speak Dutch. The line comes right after the father says (don't read on if you haven't seen the movie and dislike spoilers...) "I didn't want this for you. I wanted you to be the one who pulls the strings. Senator Corleone. Governor Corleone.")

96.233.8.220 (talk)Wasurenaide —Preceding comment was added at 08:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only the first two words are Dutch. "Weer" means "again" and "een" is the indefinite article "a"/"an". "Pezzo da novanta" is Italian. It literally means a 90mm artillery gun ("piece of ninety"), but is used also for a powerful man (a "big shot"). "I wanted you to be the one who pulls the strings. Senator Corleone. Governor Corleone." "Another big shot." DAVID ŠENEK 10:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! ^_^ 96.233.8.220 (talk)Wasurenaide —Preceding comment was added at 16:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In The Godfather novel Mario Puzo does actually use the term pezzonovante to refer to characters who are powerful or would-be powerful movers and shakers, but it has a pejorative slant. Urban Dictionary's not always a good source, but there's a discussion here [1] that references your passage and gives further details. Michael is not so much saying "Another big shot" as "Just another big shot." -- Karenjc 11:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

origin of term "mickey" when referring to one of Roman Catholic faith —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.198.72 (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it usually means an Irish person, rather than Roman Catholic ... from St Michael, the patron saint of Ireland.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've only heard us referred to as "Micks", not Mickeys. St. Michael is, amongst other things, patron saint of England, but not Ireland. It simply was a very common name here. Same as "Paddys". And in Scotland "Tims". Fribbler (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have always heard the Mick name comes from the abundance of Irish McSomething surnames. See also Mick and Mickey Finn#Other possible origins Rmhermen (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard the Mac- etymology as a possibility, but I would be a bit surprised since Mac- names are more common in Scotland. Though, I suppose ethnic slurs know no demographics :-) Fribbler (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say Mac-, I said Mc- which is sometimes perceived as a Scottish/Irish distinction. Rmhermen (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably worth pointing out at this point that England's patron saint is in fact St George, regardless of what Fribbler might think. St Michael is, inter alia, the patron saint of Marks and Spencer. Malcolm XIV (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Patron Saints Index, England is also under the patronage of Michael.[2][3]  --Lambiam 06:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Patron Saints Index is far from a reliable source. The link you have posted seems to reckon that Our Lady of Mount Carmel at Aylesford is another patron saint of England. Clearly this is untrue. St George - and only St George - is England's patron saint; the others on the list (including St Michael) are associated with areas within England (in St Michael's case, Cornwall). Malcolm XIV (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although the internet is famous for bad language, I think that at least in one point it has developed something of value: smilies like :( :). Normally, plain texts are prone to hide any emotions of the writer. If we use smilies we have a way to communicate that. Are there other phenomena like this in internet language? Will it become mainstream some day?217.168.4.118 (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use of typographic symbols to indicate emotions had been proposed long and often before the internet as you can see in Emoticon. There are lots of trends that are currently being promoted by online communications. (Not capitalizing I (pronoun)immediately comes to mind.) As with all fads, some will stick, some will fade, some will be deemed "out" by the next generation and some will be revived. --71.236.23.111 (talk) 21:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen people use them in handwriting for many years, (presumably where the :) came from in the first place). I have recently come across printed letters (i.e. on paper) using them as well. I doubt it will become accepted punctuation for a very long time, though, but it might. I can't imagine the T.V. Licensing people sending you a letter saying "We see that this address has not registered for a T.V. License :( If you have already paid, then disregard this letter, LOL" or something.--ChokinBako (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alot of folks don't seem to realize it, but one necessarily envokes the other minds problem when using emoticons: you're belief that you are conveying a specific emotion is contingent upon the receiver of the message reading the emoticon the way you intended it. We normally assume that other people think and understand the world the same way we do, but there's alot of different ways to both understand and see the world. My point is emoticons are actually pretty ambiguous. Ending a comment with " :p " for instance could signify disgust, sarcasm, a joke, a lighthearted insult.... Accurately reading emoticons is a skill that only arises from frequent interaction with their author. It's one of the fundamental problems of language, and I'm sure there's a special word for this phenomenon in linguistics but I can't think of it now. --Shaggorama (talk) 06:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's already creepy when corporations, lawyers or accountants send mail or advertising that looks like they're being friendly, hip and casual, without using emoticons in their emails or on their stationery as if they are your best friend. Ug-leh! Julia Rossi (talk) 08:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should a definite article be used in front of "Iowa Lottery"? The official name does not include an article, and google search results are inconclusive. The Iowa Lottery article starts with a definite article, but is such usage correct from the grammatical point of view? If so (or if not), which grammatical rule is applied here? Thanks much!--204.193.71.9 (talk) 17:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omitting the article seems appropriate for the entity that operates the lottery, but not for the lottery itself. —Tamfang (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but what grammatical rule would regulate this usage, do you know? That is, why is the definite article appropriate for the lottery, but not for the entity?--204.193.68.21 (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of grammar so much as of English idiom. We say and write "the Grateful Dead" and "the Empire State Building" and "the Central Intelligence Agency" even though the definite article is not part of those entities' capitalized proper names, and "the Iowa Lottery" seems to be in the same class. Deor (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I appriciate your help, folks!--204.193.68.21 (talk) 19:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking by analogy with things like "Smallville Parks" which is is a common way of abbreviating "the Parks & Recreation Department of the City of Smallville". English Heritage is a bureau that looks after part of the English heritage. And so on. —Tamfang (talk) 01:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You remarked:

A year after his birth, Izzard's family moved to Britain, where his mother died of cancer in March 1968.

Don't you move to England? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.83.40.36 (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Britain is synonymous (at least in American usage) with the United Kingdom. According to this source, Izzard's family actually moved to Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom, or Britain. It isn't particularly important to Izzard's biography that his family moved from Yemen first to Northern Ireland then to Wales (not England), where his mother died of cancer. I think it's fine that the article says they moved to Britain, where his mother died of cancer, without going into excessive detail about the family's various moves. Marco polo (talk) 18:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually, Northern Ireland is the one part of the UK that can't be called "Britain". It should really say that Izzard's family moved to the UK, which will cover both NI and Wales. —Angr 19:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. Britain is a perfectly valid synonym for the UK, as you will see by looking at the articles Britain, United Kingdom and Terminology of the British Isles. Northern Ireland is not a part of Great Britain, but it is a part of Britain. Malcolm XIV (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning! Warning! Warning! :-) Controversial issue here. Irish people refer to to the island of britain as britain. Whereas northern ireland is in the "UK", the definition of which extends beyond the island of britain. Fribbler (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Britain tells us that the word can mean up to 13 different places, some of which overlap, and one of which is in Virginia, USA. Terminology of the British Isles gives us a very helpful Venn diagram in which the term “Britain” does not appear at all, except as part of “Great Britain”. It also tells us that Britain is widely used as a synonym for the UK. Despite this, there’s more than sufficient ambiguity to make the use of term in an encyclopedic context unwise. A casual reader could interpret it to mean anywhere in the British Isles, which include the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands and the Republic of Ireland. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And there's room for dispute even here: I (and others, if our article is to be believed) would deny the claim that the Channel Islands are in the British Isles. Algebraist 22:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) The trouble is politics. Irish people don't want to a part of britain; Ulster unionists insist it's britain; all others don't care. We could be all day debating it. Sigh, and we have been, for many years. See: Israel, Palestine for a similar situtation.  :-( (as for the channel islands, las islas malvinas, ....aghhh hornets nest) Fribbler (talk) 22:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A hornet's nest indeed, particularly if you think that the Islas Malvinas is another name for the Channel Islands. Malcolm XIV (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha, just noticed my error there Malcolm. Falklands of course. I was "editing under the influence" after a football match yesterday. We won any way ;-) Fribbler (talk) 22:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a child, I was taught that the origin of the name 'Great Britain' is that the 'Great' is simply a geographical term, so 'Great Britain' means 'the largest of the islands of Britain', viz., of the British Isles. Perhaps I was taught by blimps and unionists (indeed, I rather think I was) but I'm inclined to agree that 'Britain' means more than 'Great Britain'. Whether it once included and (if it ever did) still includes Ireland are vexed questions, but we'll never get a consensus on them here, so I'm for the easy option of calling Northern Ireland part of the UK and from a geographical point of view part of Ireland, neither of which can be doubted. This side-steps the question of whether it's part of Britain. Xn4 23:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Great' is indeed a geographical term, but means 'Large' in the sense of 'larger than Brittany', which also had the same (or similar) name in earlier times. It has nothing to do with the mainland (i.e. England, Scotland, and Wales) being bigger than the other islands in the British Isles. Speaking of the Channel Islands, in a recent article on the BBC website about children's remains having been found in a former orphanage in Jersey, it speaks of the remains being taken back to the UK for further analysis, thus prompting the reader to think the Channel Islands are not part of the UK. It is true that most of us here in England don't know what actually constitutes Britain and how that differs from the UK, and many Scots say they are from neither (preferring Scotland overall), but I was always under the impression that the Channel Islands were in the UK, as I was always told at school that it was the only part of the UK that the Nazis managed to invade. Anyway, with so many different 'countries' and so many different names for different combinations of them, I doubt it will ever get cleared up with everyone, so I just suggest we stick with 'Britain'.--ChokinBako (talk) 03:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the UK is actually an unambiguous term, and your teachers were wrong. The Channel Islands and Man are Crown Dependencies, not part of the UK. Algebraist 10:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This persists in the French language to this day: 'La Bretagne' means Brittany, and 'La Grande Bretagne' means Great Britain. Lonegroover (talk) 15:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting back to the original question, an easy way to clear this up would be to look at my passport. Under the 'European Union' bit it says United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The fact that Northern Ireland is even mentioned (while the other countries aren't) proves that Northern Ireland is not part of Great Britain.ChokinBako (talk) 18:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edited your capitalization to make the link work. Are "Of" and "And" actually capitalized in the passport? --Anon, 23:40 UTC, May 30, 2008.

I've heard the Buddy Hackett version of the song Shipoopi from The Music Man a few times recently and was wondering where the word "shipoopi" came from. I can't find it listed as a word on onelook.com , but the song makes it sound like it's actual word. Is it really a word or slang, and if so what does it mean and what is its etymology? Thanks! 63.95.36.13 (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any evidence one way or the other, but I'm pretty sure Meredith Willson made it up as a kind of nonsense word with the right sort of rhythmic and onomatopoeic qualities for the song. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Music Man came out in 1957, but The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English has a quote from Bernard Wolfe's novel The Late Risers published in 1954, three years earlier. "'Remember the halcyon days, when you could get a cheesecake shot of any shipoopi into any paper by announcing she had just been chosen Girl I'd Most Like To Be Snowed In With?". So it looks like the word already existed when Wilson wrote the lyrics, but I found nothing more on origins or etymology. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]