September 28

Which one is correct:

• He drove his segway off a cliff.
• He drove his segway over a cliff.

(This is for the Jimi Heselden). Smallman12q (talk) 00:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my version of Australian English one tends to drive over cliffs but fall off them. No logic to it that I can see. HiLo48 (talk) 00:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But perhaps we both should have looked more closely at the Jimi Heselden article first. The wording doesn't have him driving. He was riding. In that case, drawing the parallel with riding a bike, I would lean towards "riding a Segway off a cliff." HiLo48 (talk) 00:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I ride my bike over kerbs all the time. I don't take your point. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say over, not off. Over the cliff, over the edge, over the precipice, over the railing. Lexicografía (talk) 00:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can see links to pages with definitions of cliff at http://www.onelook.com/?w=cliff&ls=a.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously nothing official, but I picture 'over' beginning with an upward motion and 'off' being a drop for the entire process. You go over a curb, but off a cliff. --Onorem♠Dil 01:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as statistical frequency, "over the cliff" is much more frequent than "off the cliff" at Google Books, but "off" takes precedence at Google Web. Lexicografía (talk) 01:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google result counts are a meaningless metric. —Bkell (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know that. Lexicografía (talk) 15:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

as Lexicografía pointed out, 'over a cliff' seems to be an abbreviated form of 'over the edge of a cliff'. one goes over demarkation lines (like edges), but one falls off elevated places (like cliffs). bit o' grammatical confusion. --Ludwigs2 01:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To me, both phrases given by the OP seem to imply it was done on purpose. I know that colloquially 'he drove his car off a cliff' can be used even for accidents, but in any case, we don't fully know the circumstances which led to Mr. Heselden being found at the bottom of the cliff with his Segway. It's more likely that he was riding/driving along the cliff when he fell off it (the cliff) as the BBC news article says. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right now the online version of my city's "better" newspaper (The Age) has a headline telling me that Heselden "drove machine over cliff", and their article text tells me that he was "found dead after falling off a cliff..." Take your pick. HiLo48 (talk) 02:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apostrophise 'better' in relation to The Age, HiLo. It is indisputably better than the alternative. I read it. What more proof do you need ?  :) -- (Jack of Oz =) 202.142.129.66 (talk) 03:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

"He drove it over..." implies to me some degree of intention to do it - of which there is absolutely no evidence in this case. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I propose we change it to "injuries apparently sustained falling from a cliff whilst riding a Segway". --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit] - I have changed it. If there is any disagreement, feel free to revert and we can continue the discussion. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a word used in Hindi, Punjabi, Urdu and many more Indian-origin languages. Even people who are not familiar with Indian languages are aware of it (It is so well-known). It means, of course, the female equivalent of Raja, - the Indian for a King. It is also an honorific for a brave/bold/beautiful or wealthy woman.

Recently someone has tried to convince me, to my surprise, ( I was interested in its origin for a long time ) that it has erotic origins - It comes from "Raan" ( ਰਾਣ ) or woman-thigh, contrary to the elementary knowledge we held in respect, that it sprang from "Ran" ( ਰਨ ) i.e. battlefield. This new thesis has it that historically only women with stout thighs were able to rise to such high ranks of royal prominence for their agility to procreate and provide sexual satisfaction (see: Nagar Vadhu)

One more, that can be called a proof, is a famous punjabi folk-metaphor:

(To the queen/beauty what is beloved is her thighs)

Has any one knowledge about it ? 124.253.135.137 (talk) 01:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Sanskrit, the stem of raja is rajan-, so the accusative case is rajanam, the dative is rajñe etc. Therefore the Sanskrit feminine rajñi is a regular feminine derivative of raja. If there's an apparent morphological disconnect between masculine and feminine forms, that would appear to apply to more modern Indic languages, not Sanskrit... AnonMoos (talk) 03:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The term Rani seems to have a totally separate etymological evolution. It has nothing to do with the masculine raja. It's becauase India had a very deep set matriarchal dominance at social, politicol level before outsiders (aryans etc.) came and set up the foubdations of what is today Hindu religion. And woman's strength was above par then. What you say is not wrong, I know connection of raja is rajan-, so the accusative case is rajanam. Please don't try to confuse two things 124.253.135.137 (talk) 03:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, do you have any specific evidence that dative masculine rajñe and nominative feminine rajñi are linguistically unconnected (despite only differing in a vowel), or that rani doesn't come from rajñi? Those would certainly seem to be the most strongly probable linguistic hypotheses... AnonMoos (talk) 03:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's exactly the same as "rex" and "regina" in Latin. (Is there a Greek equivalent?) Adam Bishop (talk) 03:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being not much familiar with this encyclopedia's rules etc. - it forbids original research I think, but what our thesis is here is that the term Rani came into usage much before Raja was heard of. That seems strange but no other society had such pure female-dominance system as ancient India had. Of course what you are saying is true about western cultures - "rex" and "regina" in Latin, but here the context different 124.253.135.137 (talk) 04:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If your thesis is that pre-Indo-European cultures of India were matriarchal, then I don't know why you're delving into Indo-European etymologies... AnonMoos (talk) 04:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, there's not a Greek equivalent, but there's an Old Irish equivalent: rí is "king" and rígan is "queen". I don't think any serious linguist believes in any etymology of rani other than < Sanskrit rājñī < PIE *rēĝ-nih2 (or something similar). The OP's suggestion sounds like a combination of folk etymology with wishful thinking. Pais (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask this on the talk page of the article, but I fear it may be one of those touchy subjects that end up in pages of rants. I'm just curious. The name of the group of territories is the British Overseas Territories, and they are so designated in the lede. Why does the article's title use lower case for "overseas" and "territories"? Bielle (talk) 02:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article has a weird history. I looked back at its earliest incarnation, and all it talked about was Crown Colonies. No mention of BOTs at all, even though that was the title. So the article content has changed completely, but the title looks wrong. I'm tempted to be bold and fix it. HiLo48 (talk) 02:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The name was changed from Crown Colony at some after the Falklands War. I'll try to find some details later, unless anyone knows? Alansplodge (talk) 07:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the title looks wrong - British Overseas Territory is an official designation. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Page should be moved, but there is a redirect in the way. I have requested speedy deletion of the redirect to allow the move (db-move). The relevant legislation is the British Overseas Territories Act 2002. DuncanHill (talk) 12:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page now moved, thanks for spotting it Bielle. DuncanHill (talk) 14:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing it; that part is way beyond my wiki skill. Bielle (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, once the redirect at the target had been deleted it was just a simple pagemove. As to why it was at the wrong title in the first place, the MOS tends to discourage capitals in page titles (presumably because capitals make it easier for many readers), and as a result some editors forget to use them even when the MOS (and accuracy) require them. DuncanHill (talk) 09:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone translate "Problemy Peredachi Informatsii" and also write it in Cyrillic in a form suitable for use in a citation? Thanks. 67.122.209.115 (talk) 02:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Problems of Information Transmission", Проблемы передачи информации. 128.135.222.164 (talk) 03:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a natural language with no verb or adjective conjugations, no gender (for inanimate objects), no explicit tenses, no articles, and no explicit adverbs (so the corresponding adjective is used if one exists), a minimalist vocabulary, and very systematic grammar rules? I know that Chinese, especially ancient Chinese, fulfilled almost all of these criteria; is there any language that meets all of them? --140.180.1.6 (talk) 02:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If by "no explicit tenses" you mean "no inflectional tenses", then your best bet may be a creole language... AnonMoos (talk) 03:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In unnatural languages Toki Pona is close, but I would be surprised to learn of a natural language. Classical Chinese used aspect rather than tense. I'm not sure that it could be called minimalist - its syntax is nightmarish to account for. Steewi (talk) 04:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Haitian Creole, a more/the most radical French-based creole, fulfills all your criteria expect that it has articles and maybe explicit adverbs as well (an adverbial suffix <-man> from French <-ment>, but I'm not sure how productive it is, and I think an adjective can serve as an adverb in some cases). It doesn't have a "minimalist vocabulary," either (don't let the lexicon section of the article fool you into thinking it's comprehensive), but I feel like a language with fewer lexical items would have to compensate will more grammatical complexity, which would violate your other criteria. There are no stupid natural languages.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 04:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re Steewi: I'd say the same thing, and besides I don't think there's any objective way to define what constitutes "very systematic grammar rules". Someone with an English background and used to thinking about grammar in a generativist way might have one idea what constitutes "systematic grammar" (SVO word order, anyone? :P) but there's no reason to think that is nature's default. Heck, languages with strict case-marking systems but relatively free word orders could be "grammatically" simpler, depending on how you decide to argue it. And a language like Chinese might seem to have a crazy grammar to an English speaker who is used to sentences being arranged around subject-verb-object relations, but if you take topic to be the main factor then it doesn't seem so crazy anymore. Our views about what constitutes a "simple" grammar are always going to be biased by our experience and our way of thinking about what grammar means.

Now, if all you mean by "systematic grammar" rules is that the rules can be complicated but don't have a lot of exceptions, then that is more easily quantifiable. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. Exceptions make grammar vastly more complicated. --140.180.16.115 (talk) 18:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a big fan of topic-comment constructions - I think they're marvellous, and syntactically they're not difficult to account for. What I was thinking of in terms of complexity was accomodating the zero-derivation word-class hopping and the ambiguity of sentences like (in Modern Chinese) "鸡吃了". Classical Chinese is probably the closest natural language to what 140.180 is after, but I don't think it fulfils it completely. Pidgins and Creoles have already been mentioned; I'd like to add Chinook Creole to the mix. Steewi (talk) 04:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The explosion caused the ______ of nine people.

Would it be proper to say "death" or "deaths?" DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say "deaths". rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd say 'death'. I think the singular form is correct for collectives but not for lists: we'd say "the typhoon caused the death of thousands", but "the storm caused the deaths of Jack and Amy". But I don't think the other is strictly wrong. --Ludwigs2 05:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly off the exact point: I think it might also differ depending on the exact circumstances. If Jack and Amy died together (in a car crash, say, or a house fire, or a suicide pact), we’d talk about “the tragic death of Jack and Amy”. But if they died at different times and from not necessarily the same cause but still very unexpectedly, we’d be more likely to be referring to “the tragic deaths of Jack and Amy”. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 06:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The explosion caused nine fatalities maybe ? Gandalf61 (talk) 09:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say deaths, but death doesn't seem wrong either. Lexicografía (talk) 12:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The explosion killed nine people, or The explosion caused nine deaths. DuncanHill (talk) 12:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Death'. I agree with 202.142... above. 92.28.249.130 (talk) 13:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The explosion resulted in nine deaths. (Basically the same as suggested above by DuncanHill.) Bus stop (talk) 13:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The explosion caused the death of nine people." It is singular because people only die once. "The explosion caused the killings of nine people" or "The explosion caused the suffocations of nine people" are wrong. In "The explosion resulted in nine deaths" the plural relates to the number of people. I am not a linguist, but my guess is that "the death of" is a verb phrase and "nine deaths" is a noun phrase, if that makes any difference. 92.24.188.89 (talk) 18:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest your guess is wrong. How can a collection of words that contains zero verbs be a verb phrase? I looked up Verb phrase to be sure; can someone please fix the horrible wording of the second sentence in that article. I think I know what it's trying to say, but I'm not a language expert. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Death can be a verb - see http://www.definitions.net/definition/death 92.15.9.254 (talk) 11:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a null point. It cannot possibly be a verb in "the death of". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? 92.24.190.229 (talk) 22:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Death is a noun with arguments (i.e., in non-linguistic terms, it can have a "die-er" as in his death, where "he" is the die-er, just like in he died). It is not, however, a verb. You can't death something or death a lonely horrible death. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even understand what that website is on about. Not a single one of those examples of 'death' supposedly functioning as a verb is correct; they are all nouns. Anyone who thinks it's a verb in "the death of" needs to go back to school. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 06:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it definitely does appear to be some kind of screw-up. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that all versions mentioned in this thread are correct and it's purely a matter of style. --Anonymous, 18:50 UTC, September 28, 2010.

I'm trying to find an example graphic of an old-fashioned analog switch but can't figure out the proper term to search it up. The type switch I'm trying to find has a series of textual settings that are in a radial pattern on a disc hidden behind the console. There is a handle/dial/knob in the center of the disc that extends through the panel and to the left (usually) of the knob is a viewport/slow in the panel that shows you only the current setting. Turning the knob *thunks* the switch to the next setting and seeing the text rotate up and away (and out of view behind the panel) is the major visual component of the experience of using this switch. Unfortunately, these sorts of things are before my time so I haven't the slightest idea what they're called. Googling for variants of dial/analog/rotary etc hasn't found what I wanted. Can anyone help? The Masked Booby (talk) 06:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's a rotary switch. I know what you mean about the text showing through a window, but I don't think there's a more specific term for this since all rotary switches would in practice have their various settings labeled somehow.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may be thinking of a circular rheostat or potentiometer. It could also be a cooker knob. I'd call it a "rotary knob", and that phrase brings up many images on Google. Having a rotary dial visible through a window is a further refinemwent that probably does not have a name. 92.15.9.254 (talk) 11:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what is the French word for "machines" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.194.21.134 (talk) 11:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on context, but the word is exactly the same in French ("machine" in Wiktionnaire) for most meanings, in fact the English word came from the French. Alternatives might be "bécanes", "mécaniques" or "mécanismes" in some contexts, but these are not direct equivalents. Dbfirs 11:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently noticed a lot of occurrences of the prepositional phrase "downstream the X" (e.g. "The pressure downstream the filters is..."). The lack of "of" seems very jarring to me (a British English speaker). Is this correct in American English, or is it more likely an error due to the reports being written by non-native speakers? AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 12:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not familiar American usage to me, and "downstream" is not listed as a preposition in any of the real dictionaries under onelook.com, or in Wiktionary. So I'd say either it's an error or it's a new usage. --Anon, 18:56 UTC, September 28, 2010.

I can only think of 'vodka' and 'pogrom'. Are there any more? Thanks 92.28.249.130 (talk) 13:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Politburo? DuncanHill (talk) 13:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a few, really. See List of English words of Russian origin. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but nearly all of those are Russian words that are understood by some English-speakers, in the same way that some French words are understood (eg avant garde). Sorry I should have been more specific. What I mean was words more like 'cul-de-sac' that are not considered foriegn in every-day use. 92.28.249.130 (talk) 13:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Russian words that have become standard English words (even if they generally refer to Russian things) would include, apart from vodka, pogrom and politburo:

• gulag, intelligentsia, mammoth, rouble, sable, troika, pavlova, apparatchik, bolshevik, commissar, soviet, tsar. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you consider "not foreign", since most English words come from other languages, but here's a few (I'm linking them all to Wiktionary, dunno which ones actually have entries): agitprop, apparat, babushka, balalaika, beluga, blintze, cadet, cheka, chistka, commissar, cosmonaut, cossack, czar/tsar, glasnost, gulag, intelligentsia, knish, kremlin, latke, mammoth, parka, pavlova, perestroika, pogrom, purga, rouble, samizdat, samovar, sevruga, shaman, sobornost, Soviet, sputnik, steppe, taiga, tokamak, troika, tundra, vigorish, vodka, yurt... Lexicografía (talk) 14:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And wikt:Category:Russian derivations. Lexicografía (talk) 13:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Cadet" is from French. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those wikt links seem to show the etymologies of those words, and some of them appear to not have originally been from Russian. Can't be sure if 'shaman' counts, as it is listed as being from German<Russian<Evenki<Chinese<Pali<Sanskrit. 'Yurt' is listed as from Russian<Turkic. 'Tundra' is from Kildin Sami. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was only going based on what my M-W unabridged program brought up as search results of etymology:Russian. Lexicografía (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the distinction I mean is words of Russian origin that refer to non-Russian things. For example cul-de-sac can refer to cul-de-sacs that are not in France and which are not French. The flaw with the list above is that most of the words have equivalents in English that people would use in preferance when speaking about non-Russian items. From the lists above, mammoth, parka/er, sable, shaman, tokamak, and vigorish would be what I mean. 92.24.188.89 (talk) 18:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bistro. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hamster (according to Max Vasmer). --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Parker is not in any of the above lists, and it is not afaik a Russian word in any sense. Parka is different. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must have used the schoolboy spelling of parka, since that is when I wore one. 92.15.29.254 (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Parka and its close cousin anorak are among the few words in English to come unobtrusively from the Arctic, as opposed to words such as igloo, which are only used in English with an obvious nod to the Arctic. BrainyBabe (talk) 10:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford English Dictionary lists ~1,000 words of Russian origin, some more exotic than others. If you have access to OED, their search features make finding these words very easy.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 28, 2010; 20:54 (UTC)

while chatting informally say via internet i used in reply of a sentence

'i intended never' wheteher the sentence is grammaticaly correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nihitdalmia (talk • contribs) 14:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question seems to be, whether "I intended never" is a grammatically correct reply. Online, I wouldn't worry about it too much, but you might want to rephrase it as "I never intended to" ? Lexicografía (talk) 14:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you ended your statement with a question mark, Lexicografia. Are you unsure of what you're saying? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Indeed. I neither fully understood the OP's question, nor was I completely sure of the answer I was giving. Lexicografía (talk) 00:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

When I was very young, I was taught that when c is followed by e, i, or y, it is pronounced as s. All other times, it is k. Is that an accurate rule? Is there a similar rule for g? -- kainaw™ 14:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In what language? — Kpalion^(talk) 14:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would anyone go to English Wikipedia and ask a question in English using Latin-based letters and not be asking about English? Using pedantic arguments to hide that you don't know the answer is very childish and transparent. -- kainaw™ 14:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kpalion was being polite. You could have been asking about French, or Spanish, or Italian, or Portuguese, all of which have different spelling-to-pronunciation relationships. Insulting people for asking simple questions is very childish. Lexicografía (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was a silly quibble, but to be fair, responding to difficult questions with quibbles is an involuntary reflex. None of us would ever do or say anything childish, so nerrr. 81.131.48.162 (talk) 13:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming English. It's not quite as simple as that, Kainaw. In -cial words (social, facial, trucial ...), the ci is pronounced "sh". I'm sure I know a word where -ca- is pronounced "sa", but I can't bring it to mind. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 14:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Façade, if you drop the cedilla (and many people do). Lexicografía (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

It's not a question of dropping it. The word has been absorbed into English, in which process the diacritic was kissed goodbye, so it's no longer there to be either used or dropped. Those who spell it with the cedilla are in fact using a French word, not an English word, and should italicise it. But why use a French word in an English text when a perfectly good English word (spelt almost identically except for the foreign diacritic) is available? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

English doesn't really have hard-and-fast rules for this sort of thing - it all depends on the etymology of a particular word. Lexicografía (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I figured such. I've been reading a lot of natural language processing papers and the "rules" they use for demarking syllables and converting words to phonics seem more like "very general rules" instead of "rather accurate rules." -- kainaw™ 14:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The rule for C is pretty accurate, in the sense that words that violate it usually seem a little strange (to me, anyway). Exceptions include Celtic, soccer, arced, disced, zinced, arcing, discing, and zincing. (As has been pointed out previously, there are also words from French like facade, garcon, and soupcon, which are in French and often in English written with a cedilla to indicate that they violate the rule.) As evidence for the existence of the rule, I'll point out that many verbs ending with a hard C add a K when the -ed or -ing suffix is added (for example, picnicked, picnicking, frolicked, frolicking, magicked, magicking), in order to preserve the sound of the C. There doesn't appear to be a similar rule for G. If I had to invent one, I would say that G is usually hard before A, O, or U, but before E and I it's a toss-up—there are plenty of words on both sides (get vs. gentle, girl vs. giant). Exceptions to the "hard before A" rule include margarine, algae, and gaol. —Bkell (talk) 15:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Margarine and gaol are real excpetions, but algae is one of the examples that shows the "soft" pronunciations of c and g are found also before the "ae"/"oe" (æ/œ) that come from Greek/Latin diphthongs. Other examples are Pangaea, coelocanth, and coenocyte. Pais (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Margarine can be pronounced with a hard g. DuncanHill (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Celtic" actually goes both ways -- see Names of the Celts#Pronunciation. Two other examples that go both ways are the first C in flaccid and the first G in gigawatt (see cites at Watt#Gigawatt). --Anonymous, 19:07 UTC, September 28, 2010.

You can only pronounce gigawatt that way if there 1.21 of them. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Coccyx' is usually /koksiks/, but some say /kokiks/. I'm surprised, come to think of it, that I've never heard anyone say /kosiks/, a la 'flaccid' as /flasid/. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 03:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bkell, there is a similar rule for g: it is doubled for monosyllabic root words. Thus, we have wag, wagged, and wagging, but wage, waged, and waging. However, we also have sing, sang, and singing, but singe, singed, and singeing.

—Wavelength (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The C in CH is not pronounced K. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chiropracter. Chrysalis. Chimera. Bazza (talk) 13:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chaotic, this pronunciation thing. --- OtherDave (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. Despite these, it's not safe to assume that C is pronounced as a K whenever it's followed by a letter other than E, I or Y, because of words like chime, chess, China, inch, and so on. Then there are words like loch, Mach number, etc, where the sound is different again, or ought to be. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See http://www.phonicsontheweb.com/c-g-spelling.php. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's very misleading and simplistic in view of the exceptions provided above. Here's another one: ocean, where the C is pronounced /sh/ despite being followed by an E and an A. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 00:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, /s/ and /sh/ should be considered here as one sound. The rule goes this way: c is pronounced /s/ or /sh/ whenever followed by i or e, and is pronounced /k/ in all other cases (unless it's followed by h). Eliko (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CH is /k/ in Greek words (chaos, character, mechanic), /sh/ in French words (chauffeur, chef, chivalry; "machine" was derived from Greek through French) and a regular /ch/ elsewhere except in some words of exotic origins (loch, Chicago, Michigan). The G, like C, is in general soft before E/I/Y, but this only applies for words of non-Germanic origin (Latin, Greek). Many of the most commonly used English words are Germanic words, and in those G is /g/ everywhere: get, give, girl. --Theurgist (talk) 01:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the word Ćevapčići a plural? If so, what is the singular? Ćevapčić? Ćevapčik? Pais (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What language do you think it's in? It looks Romanian to me, but Google Translate doesn't recognise it as anything. Rojomoke (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ECx2) Romanian does not have either č or ć in its official orthography. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian doesn't have č or ć in any sort of orthography. We have a sound similar to the one represented by č, but it is never written that way. Rimush (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was covering my back, to be honest, in case anyone started going on about loanwords. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good thinking, but we even convert those into our own orthography. We write "Ana Ivanovici", for example. I personally think it's retarded, but oh well. Rimush (talk) 08:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Bosnian/Serbian (take your pick) word of Turkish origin, and it's a plural noun, so it doesn't have a singular form, but in a pinch you could call one single one of them a "ćevap" - although this is not strictly speaking correct. TomorrowTime (talk) 16:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) We have an article Ćevapčići, but it doesn't give a singular form of the word. --Viennese Waltz 16:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Viennese ECed me out of a subtle and stealthy retraction of my own bullshit - I take back the thing about the plural noun. It's overwhelmingly often used in the plural form, but I suppose a singular form would exist. In Slovene it is "čevapčič", but I'm not sure about Bosnian or Serbian. In any case, the singular would definitely not be with "k", South Slavic languages don't work that way. Also, the "ćevap" thing still stands, that's an acceptable singular form, AFAIK. TomorrowTime (talk) 16:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I did know it's Serbo-Bosno-Montenegro-Croatian. I was just wondering because I was eating ćevapčići with a friend and when there was only one left I wanted to say, "That last ___ is yours" but wasn't sure what to say. What I did say was "ćevapčić" but I had no idea if it was right. (FWIW I'm the kind of person who refers to a single grain of rice as "a rouse", too.) Pais (talk) 11:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a "ćevapčić". Though, as a native, I can tell you that simple "ćevap" (/tɕɛvaːp/) is much more often used across former Yugoslavia than the diminutive "ćevapčić". I find the "ćevapčić" spelling a bit, um, fancy, or maybe used for a bit humorous effect exaggerating the language's use of Ćs and Čs. Browsing a bit, I see that allegedly "ćevapčić" means only this type, while there are several other types of "ćevap", like this one; they are far less known though. No such user (talk) 12:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just finished reading a translation of a book whose original title is "How Town" (by Michael Nava). It's a story about a town with lots of narrow-minded people. Even as I know that, I do not quite understand what "How Town" means. Maybe it's an abbreviation of a longer sentence? Can anybody explain it? -- Irene1949 (talk) 21:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the book, but its title is probably a reference to the E.E. Cummings poem, "Anyone lived in a pretty how town." John M Baker (talk) 23:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would make sense. Thank you for your answer. -- Irene1949 (talk) 20:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]