September 19

How do you pronounce "Hu Tieu My Tho" (the name of a noodle soup) in Vietnamese? --173.49.11.41 (talk) 00:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just like it sounds. 92.229.13.140 (talk) 10:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or just as it is spelled? I suspect that answer was a humorous one, but if you google "vietnamese pronunciation guide" you will find quite a few websites that may help. Textorus (talk) 01:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's pronounced [hu.tjɤ.mḭ.tʰo 313.55.35.33]. The first syllable is like "who" (with a dipping tone); the second syllable is like dee-UH (with a high tone), the third is the same as "me" (with a rising and creaky tone), and the fourth is like American English "taw" (or UK English "tore"). Written with faux-English spelling it's "hoo-deeuh-mee-taw". There isn't really a stressed syllable in Vietnamese. Steewi (talk) 02:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the Oldest Native Language in the world? I was just wondering since most language came about via conquests in the last few thousand years.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 05:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

English? Lexicografía (talk) 12:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

This List of languages by first written accounts should be useful! We have also: Proto-Human language, Origin of language and Mythical origins of language. But, if you want the real answer, no one can beat Adamic language (:-D) --151.51.48.46 (talk) 07:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit like the Ship of Theseus problem. Languages evolve over time. How long do you consider them to be the same? Is Italian just a modern synonym for Latin? If we allow for this, there very likely is only one oldest language, Proto-Human. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

QE2LS -- The question is actually not too linguistically meaningful in the form in which you asked it; all languages are constantly changing in small ways, which add up over time. Some languages may have strikingly archaic features (such as the Icelandic case system, Classical Arabic phonemic system etc.), but no living language is overall the same as a language spoken a thousand years ago etc., and the stories about Elizabethan English being spoken in Appalachia etc. are just myths... AnonMoos (talk) 11:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OP may find the disambiguation page Oldest language helpful. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is almost certainly untrue that "most language(s) came about via conquests in the last few thousand years". Most languages have probably not moved very far (geographically) in the last few thousand years, and rather few of them have spread by conquest. --ColinFine (talk) 20:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's backwards. Most languages disappeared through conquests. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to create a category on commons: for different types of tetrapylon. According to this grammatical rule and this dictionary entry I should name it “Tetrapyla”, but incorrect variant “tetrapylons” is using more widely in scientific literature. As my home wiki is Russian and my English is far from perfect, I kindly ask En-wiki community to give me advice.--Bandar Lego (talk) 08:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well Wiktionary gives pylons as the plural of pylon, presumably as it's a word that has been completely assimilated into English. My gut feeling is that either form would be acceptable. Rojomoke (talk) 09:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my take on the question, if I may.
* Short: plural of "pylon" is "pylons", so plural of "tetrapylon" is "tetrapylons". Were it to be anything different would be absurd.
* Long version: were "tetrapylon" a Latin or Greek loan-word, then there may be a minute, pedantic, and artificial^((POV)) rationale for not pluralising it by just adding an s. However, the word presumably didn't exist in Latin or Ancient Greek. It is not a loan-word, it's a native English neologism. It's made up of either (a) Greek (as it were) "loan-prefix" tetra plus Greek loan-word pylon, or (b) a Greek "loan-prefix" plus a former Greek loan-word, now thoroughly naturalised. Were I to hazard a guess, it would be that the modern Greek word for a tetrapylon is technically a loan-word, as it was probably used in English first. Or I may possibly be completely wrong about the whole thing. --Shirt58 (talk)Caveat: closest I came to Classics was reading Ulysses. And even then, I mostly only read the funny bits.

The word is not a native English neologism, it's attested in Ancient Greek. As it's a fairly arcane technical term in English, I would use the native Greek plural tetrapyla. —Angr (talk) 14:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I was completely wrong, wrong, wrong about the whole thing. I assumed it was some sort of modern Geodesic dome-y kind of Whatchamacallit. Nevertheless, is the commons: cat for stadiums, "stadia"...?--Shirt58 (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm translating a passage (for my own enjoyment) and seem to have gotten stuck with a few words. The sentence I'm stuck on is:

ちょっと　マイペース　だけど　がんばりやの　おんなのこ。

I'd like to know a good way to translate 'maipeesu' in this context, and what's meant by 'ganbariya'. Thanks in advance. Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 11:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Sticking to her own way and pace a little though, she's a hard worker"? But it is difficult to translate without context. 頑張り屋 could be translated into three different ways. See this. Oda Mari (talk) 14:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the word "マイペース" sometimes has a connotation of "slow". Oda Mari (talk) 06:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To put it a bit more idiomatically, I suggest "I may sometimes take my time, but I don't give up easily." Replace "I" with "she" if necessary. TomorrowTime (talk) 07:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

whats the difference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.216.70 (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with those words, but in Chinese the character 风 fēng means "wind", whereas 凤 fèng means "phoenix". rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those combinations are meaningful; they might be names. The first, if 玲 is changed to 铃 could mean wind chimes. Intelligentsium 17:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does 玲 mean? I know 凤玲 is the name of a Singaporean actress. 风铃 is a song by Cai Chunjia (eh, why is that link red?) --Kampong Longkang (talk) 05:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

玲 means beautiful, especially the beautiful sound or gem stones/beads bumping each other. Maybe like a sound of wind chime. Oda Mari (talk) 06:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! learning chinese through cpop, so i heard the song before. maybe someone can create an article on cai chunjia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.217.187 (talk) 15:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I understand, if you call someone with his/her first name, it means he/she is one of your friends or, say, underlings.

And if you call someone with his/her surname with title, it means he/she is not that close or is your superior.

If so, what would be your relation with him/her if you call that person with their last name without title?--Analphil (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may vary from one country to another, but in the UK you would only get this in a teacher to pupil relationship (if I understand your question correctly) See here for example.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Such rules of address vary greatly between cultures and societies, between different situations within cultures and societies, and over time - in much of my past experience, particularly the last 20 years (2/5ths) of it, what you say would simply not be true, but it might be in your own situation. For your question to be answered relevantly for you, you will have to specify your own cultural and social milieu, and someone with specific first-hand knowledge of it (likely an older adult) would have to reply. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last name without title is to me (in the US) a formality used only in newspapers, and a term of endearment among highschool-college age guys. I don't think it's really used anywhere else here. Lexicografía (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Practice has changed in the UK. In the Sherlock Holmes stories, set in the latter part of the 19th Century, the protagonist and his colleague address each other as "Holmes" and "Watson". In a similar circumstance today they would almost certainly address each other by their first names. --rossb (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As others hinted above, this varies greatly from one person/group to another, as it's mostly a matter of personal style. Like Lexicografia points out, it's common among guys (I went through high school and college being called by my last name, and my friends from back then still call me that). Another common usage is for talking about someone who is not present, particularly professors/superiors (for example, "I haven't taken Smith's class yet, but I hear it's good"), but again there are probably big variations from one person to another in how this is used. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Up to WWII, in Britain colleagues who were not close friends would address each other by surname: "What do you think, Johnson?" I'm not sure when that changed - during the 50's I suspect. On the other hand, when my father wrote to one of my teachers (in the 70's) as "Dear Stokes", this was a joke; because he and Mr Stokes had been at the same school at the same time (though they didn't in fact remember each other). Certainly there are very few circumstances in Britain today, apart from the armed forces, where you would address somebody by their surname alone. --ColinFine (talk) 20:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your first sentence also applied in Australia, Colin. It certainly did in formal contexts, because there's the famous anecdote about the then Prime Minister, Bob Menzies (1949-66), who wrote to the Chairman of the ABC, Sir James Darling, and started out "My dear Darling". The only time I was ever addressed by my surname alone was by school teachers. It virtually never happens now. School friends are far more likely to come up with some goofy name arising from a particular incident which you had to be at to fully appreciate, rather than ever calling each other by their surname. Time was when people who did not know you but knew your name, would address you as Mr, Mrs, Miss <surname>. The police in particular always did this; but now, they take a look at your licence and routinely assume the legal given name shown there is the name you prefer to go by. Which is not always the case. Which is partly why I'm currently in the process of changing my legal given name from whatever it is to Jack. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In US military and athletic millieus, it's totally common for men to call each other by their surnames, even if they're very close friends. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Close friends call me by my last name all the time, but that's probably because there were lots of other Adams in elementary/high school, and now it's just a habit. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

US here as well. It's not uncommon for men to address other men as "Mr. <surname>" when they are coworkers or friends with no sense of superiority involved. For instance, the maintenance guys that I work with. Neither one of us is above the other as far as work goes. We're of similar age, salary, etc. But it wouldn't be unusual for us to say "Mr. <surname>" especially when one of us enters a room. Dismas|^(talk) 02:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's common here in Australia for schoolboys to call each other by their surname. You might also hear it from your boss if he's in a bad mood. Steewi (talk) 02:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apropos the "hometown" discussion and the consensus among non-Americans that the term sounded "folksy", I was wondering how speakers of American and Un-American English feel about the word "home" itself. My impression is that speakers in the United States use the term far more often, and in far more contexts, than speakers elsewhere. Americans say things like "Welcome to our home", "We bought a new home", even (shudder) "We live in a ranch home", apparently out of the sentiment, fostered by real estate agents, that there's something warm and welcoming about the word "home". It's for just this reason that I avoid it like the plague, preferring to use specific terms like "house" or "condo" or "apartment" or "mansion" or "brownstone" or "yurt". What is the situation in the UK, Australia, Ireland, et cetera? Has this mawkish overuse of "home" reached your shores? And on an unrelated note: In the sentence "I walked home," what is the part of speech of "home"? Is it merely a noun without a preposition, or is it actually an adverb, a contraction of "homeward"? LANTZY^TALK 17:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From a UK perspective, the word "home" does tend to be used by agents in trying to sell buildings for living in, and when one wants to give the impression of somewhere warm, cosy, snug, to which people belong. But I think that Brits probably use the term less in that way than many Americans do. Your average Brit is much more likely to say "we're thinking of moving house" than "we're thinking of getting a new home", for example. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A house is not always a home nor a home a house. As for "walking home", it can mean more than walking towards home, it can also imply reaching it, as "he walked home alone." Cf. "he's just rounded third base and now he's headed home." [i.e. towards Home Plate in baseball], where the sense of direction as opposed to completion is implied in "headed". —— Shakescene (talk) 18:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding overuse of "home" by USians: I haven't really noticed that. I'm from the US and I could never picture anyone saying "we bought a new home", although the other examples you cite sound marginally better; as you point out, when you say "welcome to our home" you're not just welcoming someone into a physical building, but into a safe, cozy place. ("Welcome to our home" still sounds awkward to me pragmatically, if I were throwing a dinner party I'd say "welcome to my house!" or "you're welcome to come to my house anytime" or something; for a more illustrative example, imagine some dramatic movie stuff like "I welcomed you into my home and then you betrayed me!", where "I welcomed you into my house" just doesn't pack that punch). And, to further drive this point "home" (snicker snicker) and piggyback off of Shakescene's observation, "house" and "home" don't always overlap; take, for example, "and this house just ain't no home // anytime she goes away".

As for "I walked home", I tend to think of it as an adverbial. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm American, born and raised in the Midwest. ‘Home’ to me means either a) one's current residence, even if on a trip and staying at a hotel or a friend's place or b) one's hometown or the place where one identifies as one's ‘neck of the woods’, so to speak. It usually brings a mental picture of somewhere comfortable and safe. A ‘house’ is just a specific type of structure, that may or may not be a ‘home’. I would only find it awkward to say “we bought a new home” if the ‘home’ was not inhabited yet. Lexicografía (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But what about "I live in a ranch home" or "town home"? I swear there are people who treat the word as a mere synonym of "house". Blissfully, I've never heard anyone speak of "climbing on top of the home", but if I did it wouldn't faze me. LANTZY^TALK 20:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When referring to the structure itself and not the concept of what it functions as, I'd find it wrong to use "home". "Ranch home" and "town home" would both be incorrect. Lexicografía (talk) 20:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia, "home ownership" is highly valued. People will scrimp and save in order to put down a deposit on their own "home" (which admittedly isn't always a house as such, it can be an apartment or a unit); then, they'll invite their family and friends around for a "home house warming" party (which term is always used even if it's not a house as such). 'Home' is often used for the physical object, not just the usage of it. (Driving down an unfamiliar street, I saw some very expensive homes - although 'house' would fit there as well.) One doesn't jump to one's death from the top story of one's home, nor is there such a thing as a 'town home' or a 'semi-detached home' - only 'house' does there. When my kids complained of having to keep their bedrooms reasonably clean, I told them "This is and will always be your home, but it is not your house. The house belongs to your mother and me, and we make the rules. ...." (my parental rant would usually continue for some minutes; I'm just bringing you the relevant bits). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Lantzy has gotten the section header wrong, although I suspect he did that intentionally to highlight the use or (in his eyes) misuse of the word home. We have a nice article on the famous song, which should make it obvious why it refers to a "house," not a "home." Grin.

Second, Lantzy, don't work yourself up too much, buddy, over the delightful elasticity of the English language, which is in fact one of its glories. The word home is a perfectly good one and has been in constant daily use for more than a thousand years now, which is longer than any of us can remember. So lighten up a bit, will ya? Grin. Just a few short decades ago, many Britons were much exercised over "vulgar" (= American, natch) words such as weekend and okay too - but by all accounts, the horror has long since dissipated.

Third, as others have already alluded, the difference between house and home, no matter what country you live in, is one of denotation versus connotation. House means the physical structure; home suggests not only the place but also the feelings associated with it. Indeed, the immensely popular song Home, Sweet Home when played at public gatherings in the 19th century often brought grizzled miners, cowboys, soldiers, and other macho types to unabashed tears.

Although of course, one can have a home but not a house, as is the case with apartment dwellers and others. All the many possible meanings of home in its work as a noun, a verb, an adverb, or an adjective make a list as long as your arm; go look. Another example of the great versatility of our language.

Yes, for the past hundred years or more, real estate agents and builders in the U.S. have routinely advertised homes for sale instead of mere houses; see this example from the 1916 Sears kit house catalog. Which, though it may be a venial linguistic sin, is actually quite clever on their part when you stop and think about it: who but my friend Lantzy wouldn't prefer to acquire a new home instead of a mere house? Grin.

However, regional differences are at work here, as always. Speakers from one part of the U.S. may not be familiar with longstanding idiomatic usages in other parts of this big country. To give but one example: here in Texas, as across the Deep South generally, a common rural idiom from way back for "let's go home" is "let's go to the house." (Pronunciation is terribly hard to convey in writing, but it's something like "let's goat (th')house," approx. 3.5 syllables in quick succession.) Not something sophisticated, I'm-too-sexy-for-my-clothes city folks would ever say, but a common old-time way of speaking still heard today in the countryside. Which here shows the reverse of what Lantzy was asking about: the substitution of house when home (in the adverbial sense) is meant. (Compare the locative case of Latin domī; see also the French chez nous.)

A lot more could be said on this subject but I'll stop here by saying I agree with Robert Frost's famous observation: Home is the place where, when you have to go there / They have to take you in. Textorus (talk) 21:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you're right that this isn't wrong, Textorus. It's nothing more than a shifting usage that happens to be a peeve of mine, and all peeves are silly from the linguist's standpoint. I suppose I could try to justify my peeve with a specious argument; I could argue, based on that Frost quote, that "home" is an abstraction and that to use it in a concrete way, to talk of "buying a home" or "selling a home", causes us to forget that abstract sense. But of course that's nonsense. A word may have many senses, some abstract and some concrete, and that's just fine. Actually, the only real reason I personally dislike "home" is because it has come to have a cuddly, cozy connotation, and a cold-hearted bastard like me prefers not to use cuddly, cozy vocabulary. (By the same token, I hate the word "folks", although it's perfectly valid, because it reminds me of speeches given at diners by politicians with rolled-up sleeves.) The purpose of my original post wasn't to solicit affirmation of my good taste in word use, but to determine whether this usage is peculiar to the United States. LANTZY^TALK 21:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate ya, buddy. Stop by the house sometime, make yourself at home, we'll have us some homebrew and a big house party. I 'spec underneath that cold, hard exterior you're just homefolks like the rest of us, after all. Grin. Textorus (talk) 22:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a house in New Orleans, that they call the Rising Sun, but the sun shines bright in the old Kentucky home. (Weep no more my lady/Oh! weep no more today!/We will sing one song for the old Kentucky home,/For the Old Kentucky Home far away. Cf. the imputed homesickness, not housesickness, of I wish I was in de land ob cotton,/ Old times dar am not forgotten;/ Look away! Look away! Look away! Dixie Land.) —— Shakescene (talk) 00:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To me, as a born and bred American, "ranch home" sounds like an architecural style,, whereas "ranch house" sounds like a building on a ranch where the ranch owner lives. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I regard "condo", "apartment" and "mansion" as corruptions of the language when used by real estate agents.

I also recall what to me at the time was a strange usage of home from my youth in 1950s Australia. My grandparents, proud fourth generation Australians themselves, were planing the grand holiday to Britain. (It was a six week sea journey.) Grandfather announced that they would be visiting home. We were all very British then. HiLo48 (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo, I've occasionally read the same thing in other reminiscences by Australians. When did that identification with being British cease, and why, exactly? Apparently the same shift occurred in my own country very quickly, between 1763 and 1775, but the reasons are well documented in that case. Probably I should ask this question on the Humanities desk. Textorus (talk) 23:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to answer that objectively because I was there and part of it all, but it probably began in WWII when the dumb British generals got a whole lot of Aussies captured and made POWs by the Japanese in Singapore, then we said "no" to Britain wanting more of our troops in Europe while we were a bit busy fighting the Japanese in these parts. Later it just seemed a natural thing to question the point of a connection with a country 12,000 miles away which didn't seem to care much about us. They were our mortal enemies in cricket too. HiLo48 (talk) 02:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another milestone was the creation of Australian citizenship on 26 January 1949 (an achievement of Ben Chifley's government). Prior to that date, Australians were legally British subjects. Chifley's successor Menzies (1949-66) would not have taken that step, as he proudly proclaimed himself "British to the bootstraps", and at a reception for the Queen in Canberra in 1963, he quoted "I did but see her passing by, and yet I love her till I die" at her, which made her blush with embarrassment. Many Aussies blushed with the embarrassment of their Prime Minister so blatantly fawning to monarchy. It was around that time that Menzies became the first and only Australian to be made a Knight of the Thistle (hmm, funny that ...). Nevertheless, on the Queen's visits here from 1954 through to the late '60s, the people waving British Union Jacks far outweighed those waving Australian Flags. After a while, the numbers of flag wavers dwindled significantly in any case. No disrespect intended to the Queen there; the whole monarchy thing just became an irrelevance to most Australians. We voted to retain the monarchy at the 1999 referendum, but only because we were asked the wrong question. -- (Jack of Oz=) 202.142.129.66 (talk) 03:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strewth, and I thought I was going to be the non-objective one! LOL. As for that wrong question, opinion polls seem to indicate that we will end up abandoning the monarchy, but only after Elizabeth II departs the throne. That could be a while though, since her mum lived to 101. HiLo48 (talk) 03:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strewth = God's truth, obviously. Has this medieval expression survived all the way down to current usage in Australia, really? Gadzooks! Textorus (talk) 06:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they were banged up in the Tower of London for hundreds of years before we could ship them off these islands, hence the archaic speech. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 06:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crikey, I thought you blokes and shielas all knew about fair dinkum Aussie lingo. HiLo48 (talk) 07:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We learned to sing "Waltzing Matilda" in elementary school, and I loved it. But all I remember now is something about a sheepherder sitting under a tree playing with his, um, billabong. Textorus (talk) 08:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course it was the wrong question. We weren't asked if we wanted to replace the monarchy with a republic. We were asked if we were happy to have one very specific way of running a republic, among many possible ways of running a republic, as an alternative to the monarchy. We did not as a nation fancy that very specific way of running a republic, so we said no thanks. The main question has still never been asked of us. Had a more transparent process applied in 1999, we would have become a republic in 2001 because the mood of the country was for change, the Queen's continuing to be alive notwithstanding. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 04:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, but that's exactly why you need a specific question on a referendum. It's all very well asking 'Do you want change?', and then if the country's in the mood for change everyone says 'yes', but then what do you do with that? The choice isn't between 'Queen' and 'not-Queen', it's between one specific system of government that involves the Queen and...what? That's what needs to be decided and put on a referendum. You don't want to be handing legislators a blank slate to create a system of government, any system of government, just as long as it doesn't involve the Queen: you want them to create a specific system that you've chosen. If the system proposed in the referendum was the main alternative being considered and proposed, then it was exactly the right question. If there was a single different system being agitated for by most republican campaigners, then it was probably the wrong question and this other system should have been on the referendum. But you can't just ask 'Should we get rid of the Queen?' or 'Should things change?' or 'Do you want more nice things, and fewer bad things?', because you can't actually do anything honest and productive with the answer. 109.155.33.219 (talk) 12:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All true. However, what I was getting at was this: only one specific republican model was presented as an alternative; that was rejected; that rejection was touted as the Australian people not wanting any change at all. It was like: you have an orange, but would you prefer this rotten apple instead? No thanks. Oh, that must mean that you dislike all apples, so I won't offer you one again. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 00:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I see: frustrating. Similar to the Manchester public transport referendum, where people were asked "Do you want a congestion charge in Manchester _{but we don't have to stick to the plan we originally publicised, as you can see by the many creeping changes that we already made and didn't publicise} or not _{in which case we'll cut all funding for improvements to the public transport system and cancel everything we already promised we'd do}?" The people of Manchester, being stubborn and disliking being blackmailed by a London-based government (as it was perceived), voted 'no'. This was declared to be the people voting against any improvement to the transport system. Still, surely there are Australian parties and politicians who will continue to press for additional referendums? It didn't strike me as the sort of thing that would just go away. 109.155.33.219 (talk) 23:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I moved from New England to attend college (university) in California, I was struck by the common use of the phrase "back East". If anything, it was used more commonly by native Californians, even those born to West Coast natives, than by those who came from an Eastern home. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I started visiting New England I was struck with the common use of the phrase "Down East". I grew up in Buffalo, New York, not that far from Maine. But hearing "down east", my first thought is "Florida". To address the original question, phrases like "we bought a new home" or "we live in a ranch home" sound wrong to me, and I can't recall hearing people say such things, unless they are playing with words. And I'm American (in fact, I just spent some time trying to find info about any of my (paternal) ancestors' migration from Europe and failed with all but one line--every other line has been American longer than there are existent records). Pfly (talk) 09:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How odd - I've had a totally different experience. Literally every single California native I have ever known would use "out" rather than "back" to refer to the East Coast. As in, "Boy, I didn't think I'd like it out here in Boston [Washington, New York, Philly, etc.], but..." or "Yeah, I like coming out to the East Coast now and then..." I haven't heard the (to my ears) truly weird phrase back west but the day is young, figuratively speaking. Back home in Cali sounds perfectly natural, of course. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 15:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a native Californian, I would never say "out", nor do I recall having ever heard anybody say that. And to me, "Cali" is offensive, unless you're a rap singer. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 18:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No offense intended - I haven't actually heard the "Cali" bit spoken aloud, it just sounded natural to my doubtless uncouth Eastern ears. But I have heard "out," describing the East Coast, from folks hailing from both the Bay Area and the Inland Empire. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 18:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ignorant but curious, Everard. Where does the offence arise with the use of "Cali"? -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 22:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Veering back to condo homes (which as you'll see might be condo houses): in my part of the U.S., at least, many if not most people think of "condo(minium)" as meaning "apartment building converted to individually owned units," though people who haven't considered buying them don't always understand the angle of shares in indivisible common property. Legally, a condominium is a form of ownership and has nothing to do with the type of building; a collection of apartments, townhouses, or even detached houses could be a condo. (For 7 years I was on the board of the first development built as a condominium in Virginia.)

For other terminology, I'm siding with those who've heard both "ranch home" and "ranch house." I'd say the former has a connotation of a type of building, while the latter has the connotation of a specific building: we were looking at ranch homes, and we found this great ranch house near the high school. If you're inclined to get the vapors over this, you must hide under the bed at the transformation of "out of pocket" (from "somebody owes me money" to "I'm unavailable") and the nearly unusable "begs the question" (from "avoids answering" to "brings up"). --- OtherDave (talk) 16:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If in Latin jazz and rumba music a clave is a rhythm, what do they call the music's key? I mean, in Spanish or Brazilian Portuguese, not English, obviously. 81.131.66.146 (talk) 21:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The symbol (clef) is also called clave in Spanish, and clave in Portuguese. The key as in tonality is called tonalidad / tonalidade. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For example, in Spanish, "minor key" is "tono menor" and "treble clef" is "clave de sol". As for what we call "clave" in the context of Afro-Cuban music, in Spanish they call it "clave" as well. LANTZY^TALK 21:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the phrase "three man team the barricades", is the word "man" a singular noun being used as a plural being used as an adjective to form a compound noun being used as a verb? Less ridiculously, what part of speech is the second word in the phrases "two egg omelette", "three dog night" and "four piece band"? Noun adjunct, sure, but is it a plural? 81.131.66.146 (talk) 23:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Hyphens, sub-subsection 3, point 8 (permanent link here).

—Wavelength (talk) 23:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what "three man team the barricades" means, nor how it would ever be grammatical. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 05:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As in "We three-man-teamed the barricades". Not elegant, but it might be spoken in some contexts. Here "three-man team" is a compound of a compound converted into a verb. Plural forms are used in non-final elements of noun-noun compounds only in certain specific cases... AnonMoos (talk) 13:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that last point ought to be in noun incorporation, but doesn't seem to be. --ColinFine (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How would a 'friend' be defined in 2010, to differentiate from an aquaintence or a collegue? When I was a child I had the usual circle of childhood friends. But none of my adult friendships have been as close as those friendships, perhaps inevitably due to the lack of time and many distractions. What differentiates a friend from an acquaintance? 92.15.12.54 (talk) 23:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For some people, nothing at all. That is to say, many people today use the word "friend" to mean "acquaintance", or perhaps "acquaintance not actively disliked". Obviously, others are more selective. The fact that there exists no consensus is, in my experience, a frequent source of confusion and comic tension. If you are one of the more selective types, how are you supposed to feel when someone you've just met starts explicitly referring to you as a friend? If you're the sort of person who assumes the best of others, you presumably find it agreeable, even flattering. If you're like me, you feel like you're being sold a car. But even I could never muster the pissiness required to set the person straight. There's no nice way to say, "I'm not your friend, palooka." So, in the end, the promiscuous prevail. LANTZY^TALK 00:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say a friend is (1) somebody you enjoy being with, and (2) somebody you are prepared to do favors for and who is prepared to do favors for you. Looie496 (talk) 00:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, actually the world existed before the year 2010, and the meanings of the words you mention have not changed in ages. When I am curious about the difference in meaning between related words, I always find it very helpful to consult a dictionary:

Synonyms 1. Acquaintance, associate, companion, friend refer to a person with whom one is in contact. An acquaintance is someone recognized by sight or someone known, though not intimately: a casual acquaintance. An associate is a person who is often in one's company, usually because of some work, enterprise, or pursuit in common: a business associate. A companion is a person who shares one's activities, fate, or condition: a traveling companion; companion in despair. A friend is a person with whom one is on intimate terms and for whom one feels a warm affection: a trusted friend. 3. familiarity, awareness.

Having said that, let me also say that you are discovering one of the secrets of adulthood, which we don't usually tell children about. Probably for all but the most gregarious, extroverted people, the older you get, the fewer close friends you make; that's just the normal way of things, nothing to be particularly alarmed about. And as you suggest, the pressure of careers, lack of time for socializing, and perhaps family committments are contributory reasons. But the friendships you do make in adult life tend to be deeper than school or college ones, in my experience.

But some people are in the careless habit of using friend to mean anybody I happen to know, even if I met them just once. I remember back during the AIDS crisis, I sometimes heard people say things like "Over 200 of my friends have died." Which always came as a startling thought to me; obviously, they did not mean they had 200 close, intimate friends, or they would have been psychologically devastated, probably beyond repair. I lost one close friend and two acquaintances, which was very difficult. So don't be hung up on other people's use or misuse of the word friend: look into your own heart, and you will see your real friends' faces there. If you don't think you have as many as you want, join a group, club, or team of some kind and circulate a little more. Textorus (talk) 00:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we're talking about current times, on the web, the discussion is clearly incomplete without mention of Facebook friends. (I have 102 of them! But I doubt if many of you care.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which opens up a whole new line of thought on virtual friends and virtual, um, intimacy. But probably we'd better not go there. Grin. Textorus (talk) 01:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely somewhere in all this we must recognise that Facebook has hijacked the word 'friend' for its own feel-good purposes and the younger generation has embraced it as if it had some meaning. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 07:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]