Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 December 28

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 28

Avo=?

What does the prefix avo- mean such as [1]?96.53.149.117 (talk) 07:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Not certain but it might be "amplitude versus offset". 76.97.245.5 (talk) 11:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I find that very hard to believe; I think it's more likely that the name "avobenzone" is completely arbitrary, like many drug names. They just liked the sound of it and it wasn't too similar to another else. I'm guessing, which isn't helpful, but my reason for posting is to point out that there might not be an answer. --Anonymous, 23:33 UTC, December 28, 2008.

Update: The term is the "Chemical Name" used by the "Cosmetic and Toiletry and Fragance Association" and the FDA. There's a system, but I haven't been able to reach anyone yet to explain the details. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 06:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the answer is available from International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry.

-- Wavelength (talk) 06:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Terms of reference

Hello, language Refdeskers. Simple question: Is the phrase 'Terms of reference' (referring to a document made out i. e. for the needs of a tender or similar) singular or plural? In other words - should one write these Terms of Reference or this Terms of Reference? I've usually treated them as a term in the signular form, now I am confused a bit. Any input will be welcome. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 09:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Use "these terms of reference".

If you want to use the singular, use "this term of reference".96.53.149.117 (talk) 09:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

And if you're wondering the syntax, "terms of reference" is a compound word. "reference" is an adjective. "terms" is a noun, and in this case, the plural form. The reason this is so is because this is french description form (in french, the adjective comes after the noun).96.53.149.117 (talk) 09:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Then it's these Terms of reference, as this is a long document containing many conditions and requirements. Thanks! --Ouro (blah blah) 10:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

A simple way, used very oten in this kind of document, is to put it as '(hereafter known as 'Terms') when they are mentioned the first time, then just put 'the Terms' (no quotes) for every instance thereafter.--KageTora (talk) 10:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

See Terms of reference. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Kage. @Wavelength: I did, came here afterwards. --Ouro (blah blah) 17:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

@96: "Terms" is a noun, but "reference" is not an adjective, and French is not relevant. "of reference" is a qualifying phrase which, unlike adjectives, normally follows the head in English. --ColinFine (talk) 17:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I see "of reference" as a describing compound word. Really, qualifying phrase or adjective, they both describe. So if there was a higher taxon, I woulda used it, but adjective sufficed for the purpose in my context.96.53.149.117 (talk) 05:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Premodern English

Is this really undoctored english? English from this time should be significantly different spellingwise from the english we use now.96.53.149.117 (talk) 09:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks it to me. It was, after all, only 500 years ago which is chickenfeed compared to Chaucerian English (800 years), or Beowulf (1000 years). And if you've ever read any Shakespeare, that was only 400 years ago.--TammyMoet (talk) 09:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem, either. If you want to see for yourself, there's another such letter at the Vatican, online here. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Spelling wasn't too reliable in the 16th century (not that the internet has done spelling any favors). This page has an excerpt from the preface to the First Folio (1623). Conventions like U for V ("haue"), V for U ("vttered"), and I for J ("iniurious") make it appear stranger to our modern eyes. --- OtherDave (talk) 21:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

If you heard Henry read it, it might sound more outlandish than it looks. English spelling has changed little since the early 16th century, but pronunciation has changed a fair bit. Modern spelling is closer to the early 16th-century pronunciation than to modern pronunciation. Marco polo (talk) 03:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, Chaucer wasn't quite 800 years ago. More like 600. --ColinFine (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Latin question

On the top of a doorway to a lecture room in the University of Helsinki Department of Linguistics (previously the site of the Department of Anatomy), there is a Latin phrase:

Hic locus est ubi mors gaudet succurrere vitae

I can understand as far as "This is the place where death rejoices", but what does succurrere vitae mean? JIP | Talk 17:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

"… to come to the assistance of life." Appropriate for an anatomy department, where dissections train students to become preservers of life. (Succurrere takes a dative object.) Deor (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Japanese

I'm searching for the meaning and pronunciation of 浮汎. Actually, I'm not completely sure if it's a real modern japanese word. Could someone help me? $Insertformulahere$ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.51.43.69 (talk) 18:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It's fuhan/ふはん. The meaning is superficial or shallow. Oda Mari (talk)

"want" and "need"

British rock band Coldplay's single Fix You has the lyrics --

When you try your best, but you don't succeed
When you get what you want, but not what you need
When you feel so tired, but you can't sleep

Sometimes I feel I know the difference but the more I think about it the more I get confused...well I am not a native English speaker. So can somebody explain the difference between "want" and "need" to me in simple, lucid words. I guess an example or two will certainly help me to comprehend the difference. Regards, --Sanguine learner ^talk 18:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

This is more of a philosophical question than a linguistic one. What you want is what you feel would be nice to have. What you need is what you can't really be without. For example, you may want a shiny, new car and a snazzy MP3 player but what you really need every day is basic things like clothes and food. People generally want everything they need, and more, but it isn't always as simple as that. JIP | Talk 19:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

"'Your hair wants cutting,' said the Hatter", but I would have said, "Your hair needs cutting" (or "needs to be cut"). —Angr 19:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

'Want' means something that is desired. 'Need' means something that is required. Example: I want to be rich but I need food and water. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that a distinction is often drawn to emphasize that what one wants may be incompatible with, not just additional to, what one needs. For example, an alcoholic may want a bottle of hooch but may really need (or so those interested in his welfare would say) to enter a treatment program. In this way, people, who usually are very aware of their wants, may be blind to their needs; and I think something like this notion may lie behind the lyrics quoted by the OP, as it probably lies behind those of the Stones' "You Can't Always Get What You Want." Deor (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

As Deor points out, the Stones explained it best: "You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes you can get what you need" 87.194.213.98 (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

On a side note, it might help the good people on this board to know what your native tongue is - maybe the distinction between the two is blurred in it, leading to your confusion. For instance, in my native Slovene, the verb for "to teach" and "to learn" is almost the same (učiti [se] - "to teach" is učiti, and "to learn" is the reflective učiti se - basically "to teach oneself", even when a teacher is involved), and you often hear native Slovene speakers confuse the two when speaking English. It's not that they don't know what they want to say, it's just that the distinction that is present in English but not in Slovene is sometimes hard to fully grasp for them. TomorrowTime (talk) 09:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

So, does that mean "I want money as I need to buy medicine" is incorrect..."I need money as I want to buy medicine" is the correct version. Here both "money" and "medicine" can be basic to survival?! --Sanguine learner ^talk 17:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the correct version would be "I need money as I need to buy medicine" or more simply "I need money to buy medicine". It should be pointed out that at least in the US, the distinction between want and need is sometimes ignored and the terms are used interchangeably. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

When he was very young, my younger brother used to say he "needed" the new video games. I would correct him, and say, "No, you *want* that new video game, I *need* food to live." It's a slippery slope, though - I don't *need* to live, I *want* to, so I don't *need* food - I only need food to live (although, as above, the distinction is often ignored and the second even more so - continuing to live is sort of viewed as a given, so I do *need* food; in which case, as above, the use of need becomes transitive - if you need medicine, you need the money to buy the medicine, although you would also sound right (if odd) saying, "I want money to buy the medicine I need." - more naturally, "Hey, buddy, I've got the sniffles and I need to buy some cold medicine, can you help me out?" thus dodging the entire mess of transitive need/want altogether - crafty beggars). 98.169.163.20 (talk) 14:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Pronounce Holguín, a Cuban city

How is this name pronounced? There is nothing helpful in the article that I could see. Thanks ៛ Bielle (talk) 21:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Unless it violates the usual spelling-to-pronunciation rules of Spanish, it should be [olˈɣin] (non-IPA approximation ol-GEEN). —Angr 22:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Angr, and especially for the non-IPA approximation. The "g" is hard, then; "gift", not "generous"? ៛ Bielle (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, our soft 'g' is unknown in Spanish. Nothing helpful? The phonemic spelling is right there! :P —Tamfang (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

By "nothing helpful in the article", I meant in Holguín. I didn't know then about the one on Spanish orthography. I would have to admit, however, that I am grateful that there are those on the Ref Desks, like you, Tamfung, and Angr, who just know the right answer, and are willling to tell me. I could have spent all afternoon trying to work the matter out, and would still have been unsure. Thank you both. ៛ Bielle (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, didn't get my joke, you're not the first. —Tamfang (talk) 07:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Why did you thank him for a wrong translation? [olˈɣin] is oelghene in English. -lysdexia 03:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

In English, I can pronounce "ol-GEEN"; I wouldn't be certain what to do with "oelghene". For example, "gh" in English is silent ("nigh", "flight" and "eight") or pronounced in the same way as a hard "g" (ghost). And is "oel" the same as the word "oil" or as in the word "Noël"? My thanks go, as always, to anyone who tries to be helpful. I remain grateful. ៛ Bielle (talk) 06:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

[ɣ] is an allophone of /g/, so that's near enough to be understood unambiguously by a Spanish-speaker, and as near as we can get with English phonemes since we don't use a voiced velar fricative. —Tamfang (talk) 07:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I said "non-IPA approximation". "ol-GEEN" isn't as accurate as [olˈɣin], but it's "good enough for government work", as Stephen King characters always say. —Angr 11:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Many Commonwealts can't read English, nor can they speak something when spelt for them; spelling aloud is a crock. One can't say the e in English or the i in iPod. So, no, it's not in English as English has been dead for 1000 years. The -gh- words are not English but Norman-English muttish. The gh- words, however, and their sounds, are in English, but were first written by yogh. "oel" is the same as neither: l is a vowel, so one is to put the modifier -e after the modified vowel, rather than after the consonand. And one isn't to shift vowels when they're in a row, unless the modifier is there. Another way to write the guide is Olghene. Note the last part is not gheen as that would be a long i, or iː -lysdexia 12:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

'Commonwealts'? A bit insulting I think. 'Consonand'? a bit dyslexic I think. '-lysdexia'? A bit unreliable I think. 86.4.182.202 (talk) 14:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The world must be insulted for its own sake; it is rotten, blind, and deaf. No, -and makes a noun, whereas -ant adjectiv—your -ant is a Francish corruption of Latin. -lysdexia 03:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Lysdexia (talk · contribs) is an old troll. Pay no attention. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Libel is against Wikipedia's NPA laws. lysdexia was/is not a troll, and I advise you to read the dictionary, which you are sheerly infamiliar with. Also see User talk:68.127.228.70. -lysdexia 03:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

"Sheerly infamiliar" would seem to be if not a corruption, at least a distinct variation of standard English. If we keep beating this dead horse, do we raise common welts? --- OtherDave (talk) 13:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

"Sheerly infamiliar" might just become the "suitly emphazi" of 2009.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)