Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 April 28

< Wikipedia:Reference desk‎ | Archives‎ | Language
Language desk
< April 27 << Mar | April | May >> April 29 >
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.


April 28 edit

Animal naming customs edit

I'm wondering about the way names are assigned to individual animals, as opposed to species. I am vaguely aware that there are cultural differences in the way animals are named. For instance, in one country (perhaps it is China), the names given to animals are not human names, because it is considered disrespectful to name an animal "for" a human being. In another culture, animals are not given names at all, or horses are given names but things like dogs and cats aren't. Livestock and show dogs are given names that follow a distinctive formula, and racing horses are known for having bizarre names that sometimes don't sound like names at all. I thought that Wikipedia had an article about this topic, but if so I can't find it. Can anyone point me to information, either on Wikipedia or elsewhere? 129.174.184.114 (talk) 01:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That covers a lot of ground. I looked in Horse racing and didn't see anything about the naming rules for thoroughbreds, but I know there are rules - they are limited to 16 characters or some such, hence the creativity associated with naming them. Beyond that, I dunno. Have you looked in Google at all? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Say, you cover a lot of ground yourself, BB. Deor (talk) 03:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh, I'd better beat it, I hear they're going to tear me down and put up an office building where I'm standing. Oops, sorry, channeling Margaret Dumont for a second there. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The American Kennel Club has a limit of something like 16 characters as well. As far as dairy cows go, many farmers in my area (Vermont, US) will give a cow a barn name that starts with the same letter as their mother's name. Some will give the calf a name starting with a certain letter depending on the year. So 2010 might be all A names, 2011 will be all B names, and so on. Dismas|(talk) 02:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had some friends who bought an AKC registered dog and they had to name it something starting with an "E" because it was from the fifth generation since the last champion, or some such. Woogee (talk) 06:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found a pretty good summary of the thoroughbred horse naming rules here. They remind me of the Wikipedia screen names rules - no disparaging, commercial or offensive names; no names of living people without permission; no names ending in "horse", "mare", "stallion" etc (but "bot" seems OK). At least we don't have to submit 6 possible screen names and abide by consensus as to which one we can have! Karenjc 15:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BEANS, Karen! +Angr 16:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When we've bought a Burmese kitten in the UK, they've had 3-part names so they could be registered as non-active (not to be bred from, so any kittens they produce cannot be regarded as pure-bred Burmese. This is to avoid irresponsible breeding). The first part was the breeder's prefix, paid for from the General Council of Cat Fancy. The second part was a name chosen by the breeder for that litter or line. The third part was chosen by us, and had to be unique among cats with the first two names: essentially, the cat's everyday name. There's a little bit about the restrictions on page 2, here. 26 characters. 86.178.225.111 (talk) 14:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Claude Levi-Strauss discussed some of the peculiarities of naming animals in chapter seven of La pensée sauvage [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Jockey Club used to tell the story of the horse name You Name It. It got its name when the club kept rejecting the owner's name submissions. Finally, in anger, the owner scrawled on the application "You name it!." The club replied with a letter stating the name "You Name It" had been approved. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This reminds me of the story of Robert Barbour (not either of the men by that name who're in Wikipedia) and his personalized license plate, which you can find at snopes.com. --Anonymous, 04:15 UTC, April 29, 2010.
Ah yes, Mr. "NOPLATE." A favorite story of mine. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

English language help. edit

Hi! I love to read about criminology and criminals and now I watched an interview on YouTube with Jeffrey Dahmer. I can understand the whole video except one thing Stone Phillips says, could you help me?. Not watch the whole video, just from 0:43 to 0:48. Stone Phillips says "contribute you?" or that's what I can understand, but not what he says before "contribute you"... well, can anybody help me? Never asked on this Desk hehe. Thank you! Oh, I know the vid has subtitles, but believe me, they are horrible. - the vid. 1 --SouthAmerican (talk) 03:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Did I in some way create or contribute to the terrible acts my son committed?" Deor (talk) 03:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Deor! I thought it was something like "they are in some way..." and stop there haha. Thanks! --SouthAmerican (talk) 03:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is very similar to my own experience when I listen to things in German. I'm following along and then I bump into something like this, and then if I figure it out or if someone points out to me what was said, it seems as if it should have been obvious. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is "virtually" proper encyclopedic language? edit

I found the word "virtually" used in a Wikipedia article in a way that seemed to me quite wrong (given my understanding of the word.)

I searched the language archives for "virtually", and found a more than usually relevant discussion, titled "Virtual and Virtue", in this file: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2006_October_29

My conclusion after reading this discussion is that modern use of the term "virtually" is so hopelessly imprecise and confusing that the word ought not to be used in an encyclopedia. I would appreciate hearing other opinions on this issue. Thanks. Wanderer57 (talk) 04:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Based on previous experience I anticipate that I will be asked which Wikipedia article started this little quest for information and opinion. In my estimation that question is irrelevant; if the word is as ambiguous as it now seems to be it ought not to be used in any encyclopedia article. However if some editor thinks the question relevant, I will answer it. Wanderer57 (talk) 04:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not irrelevant because it depends on context. The discussion you refer to simply indicates how the meaning has shifted over time. Contemporary meaning is pretty concrete as long as it's used correctly. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 05:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean anticipate or expect? Kittybrewster ☎ 09:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Anticipate or expect? Both, I think. I thought it likely that I would be asked. I also tried to deal with the expected question by saying I did not think it was relevant.
The word 'virtually' is used in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the article entitled Fuck.
To elaborate a bit, if 'virtually' means what I think it means, I believe it is misused in that sentence. On the other hand, if its meaning is as ambiguous as indicated by the discussion in the reference desk archives, I think 'virtually' muddies the meaning of the sentence. (I also disagree with the use of 'logically' in the same sentence, and with a bunch of other things about the Fuck article. For some reason, 'virtually' stood out as especially objectionable.) Wanderer57 (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If virtually is an adverb that means "for the most part" (and nothing in the discussion you cite indicates otherwise), then you can't remove it from the phrase "Fuck can be used as virtually any word in a sentence" without changing the meaning. In this case, the example reenforces that the word in question is used as almost any word in the sentence but can only replace content words and not auxiliaries, determiners, etc. You can make a case for replacing "virtually" with "almost" but ambiguity or unencyclopedicity aren't valid justifications. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 22:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Not to argue but to encourage further discussion, I will say that to me "virtually" suggests near certainty. For example, "Virtually all English words contain one or more consonants" conveys that there are some exceptions but very few. Wanderer57 (talk) 03:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although I understand certainty to pertain to one's confidence in their beliefs/statements, when you say "near certainty" above it seems from your example that you actually mean "for the most part." — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 21:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

74.60.75.235 (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)== What does the word "Macaulish" mean? ==[reply]

In the movie Braveheart after William Wallace killed the local lord, the father of Amish starts shouting "Macaulish!" before everyone starts to yell "Wallace!". It is even in the subtitles. What does this mean? 74.60.75.235 (talk) 08:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Yahoo Answers, it's "Gallic" [sic] for Wallace more or less. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That explanation is all over the web. Yet the article on Scottish Gaelic Wikipedia spells it "Uallas". (No idea how it is pronounced). I wasn't able to find any mentioning of "Aulish" for "Wallace" outside the Braveheart context. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article on Clan Wallace lists many alternative spellings, but none of them resemble "Aulish". The only Scottish Gaelic form it mentions is "Uallas". ---Sluzzelin talk 11:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WAG here, but: if "Mac" prefix in Scots Gaelic means "son of", I would assume he is shouting "Sons of Wallace"? Sort of on the lines of "I am Spartacus"? --TammyMoet (talk) 09:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now don't take this as gospel as I have no idea what the script writers were smoking ;) Wallace is not a native Gaelic name but rather goes back to Norman French "Waleis", a term for a Brythonic speaker. Because Gaelic disallowes most word initial fricatives, this turned into the Gaelic form Uallas. "Macaulish" sounds to me like someone decided the surname needed gaelicising a bit more and stuck the patronymic Mac in front, which triggers genitive case marking. This would make "Uallas > MacUallais" /maˈkuəlˠ̪ɪʃ/ which to an English speaker would sound fairly close to Macaulish. Hope that helps but please remember this is an educated deduction! Akerbeltz (talk) 11:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Sons of Wallace" would be mic Uallais, or a mhic Uallais in the vocative. I've never seen the movie (thank G-d), but I'd be surprised if there was an Amish person's father in it. +Angr 11:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read Hamish for Amish I think ;). Akerbeltz (talk) 13:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You wouldn't perhaps, possibly, be pre-judging the movie, would you, Angr? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, just acting on the reviews I've read and responses I've heard from people who have seen it. I remember when Gladiator (which I did see) won the Oscar for Best Picture, somebody described it as "the worst movie to win Best Picture since Braveheart". That pretty much confirmed the opinion I had already formed 5 years earlier. +Angr 14:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Akerbeltz is spot on here. For another example the vocative of 'Seumas' (/ʃe:məs/) is 'A Sheumis' (/ə he:mɪʃ/ - 'Hamish' to you and me). --ColinFine (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, everyone's entitled to their opinion. But I should tell you that millions of people who did actually see that movie had a somewhat different opinion than you and your friend. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it was a friend of mine who said that, I think I read it in a review. And considering the interval between Braveheart and Gladiator contained such appalling Best Pictures as The English Patient, Titanic, and Shakespeare in Love, it was a very strong statement! +Angr 15:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The film isn't over-burdened with historical accuracy; the Battle of Stirling Bridge is re-fought without the benefit of a bridge or even a river, Wallace has an affair with Isabella of France, despite her being actually only 13 when he died and Edward I of England dies two years early. The WP Braveheart page quotes historian Sharon Krossa; "The events aren't accurate, the dates aren't accurate, the characters aren't accurate, the names aren't accurate, the clothes aren't accurate -- in short, just about nothing is accurate". Alansplodge (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I suspect the real William Wallace wasn't a pompous, annoying, overacting git, either. +Angr 18:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I suspect you've all fallen into the trap of judging historical films by their historical content. On that basis, no historical film ever made will pass your test. None. Because they all at the very least contain some invented dialogue; most contain invented scenes and people, or leave out important events and people, or confuse timelines, the list goes on. Such films are not made for the benefit of historians, but for housewives and truckdrivers and addle-brained teenagers and office workers and the general population. Even if they were made for historians, the historians would argue among themselves about whether it gets the big tick or not. Some sort of try to get the events in roughly the right order and not leave out too much important stuff and not make up too many characters, but at the end of the day it's what going to get bums on seats that matters. Period. If you want history, look elsewhere. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was a "Guy Code" movie, and I loved it-historically inacurate as it was. I have read it, "Macallish", means "A child's blood" As in the innocence is gone. But how dare anyone speak about how good or bad a book, or movie is until they have experienced it for one's self. We all need to keep an open mind so it has room for knowledge. And the term "Speak"-Speak, is a hidden word from the poet Geoff Tate meaning "There is a Revolution Calling" Gain knowledge before you preach it!

Now then, I won't stand idly by while someone badmouths Shakespeare in Love: that is a fine, good-humoured film that takes about the same approach to history as Blackadder. And, like The Art of Coarse Acting, is very true to the experience of being in a play. It should not be spoken of in the same breath as Braveheart, which makes a pretence of being history. 86.178.225.111 (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black Americans/African Americans edit

I believe that in the US "African Americans" (or African-Americans) is the preferred term, however is "black Americans" still perfectly acceptable? If yes, would black be Black? Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 13:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a single answer to that question. Some people strongly dislike "black" (whether capitalized or not), some people have no preference between "black" and "African American", and some people strongly prefer "black". The same is true of other comparatively recent politically correct terms like "Native American": depending on who you ask, you'll get widely different answers regarding whether or not that term is preferable to "(American) Indian". +Angr 13:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone says "African-Americans" unless it is a formal situation that specifically calls for a politically correct term. I certainly can't imagine black people on The Wire or some other TV show calling each other African-Americans in colloquial English, regardless of register. Paul Davidson (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hear African Americans in situations that are not formal. It is often used in professional settings that I would not call "formal". For example, "I wish we had more African Americans in our department." That sort of thing. The term is seldom hyphenated when written. The expression black Americans is perfectly acceptable and could be a nice compromise that would offend the minimum number of people. The term black is usually not capitalized even though it is the name of a racial group, and other such names are always capitalized. I guess an exception is made when the name is homphonous with a color. (To me, this is nonsensical, since black people aren't really the color black, nor are white people the color white.) Marco polo (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A side note. I always thought that the terms Black and African-American were synonymous. Then, I read somewhere (I believe in a Wikipedia talk page) that in fact they are not. In other words, a person can be Black, yet not African-American (i.e., not of African lineage). And a person can be African-American, yet not Black (e.g., Charlize Theron). Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 14:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
This is the Wikipedia talk page to which my above post referred: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Black Academy Award winners and nominees. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I would use 'African-American' in an everyday conversation. I have never watched The Wire, though. Notably, initially 'Afro-American' was introduced as a more politically correct word than 'Black' or (far worse, but common in in first hafl of 20th century) 'Negro', but was later dropped in favour of 'African-American'. --Soman (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should have mentioned where I am using the term. The sentence is, " The work was extremely difficult and the pay was low, but it was one of the only jobs available for southern black men at that time, and railroad men were highly regarded in their communities." It is an entry here at the article "Gandy dancer". Thanks for all the answers so far! Gandydancer (talk) 15:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Soman, you say "far worse" about the use of "Negro". It doesn't do to take today's standards and apply them to the usages of yesteryear and come up with that sort of judgment. When I was growing up, "nigger" was offensive, but "Negro" was the polite way of referring to these people. It was widely used both by African Americans and others, in all registers including the most formal. Then, at some time and for some reason, it came to be regarded with disfavour. People who were previously not offended in the slightest by it learned to be offended by it; and their children never knew any different than that it was an offensive word. The same sort of thing has happened to other words: female thespians were always called "actresses", and the Academy to this day hands out an award for Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress, which female thespians are more than happy to be nominated for, and to accept if they win, and to be seen being extraordinarily grateful for, thanking everyone they've ever known. But outside of that circumstance, many of them consider being called an "actress" - rather than an "actor" - highly, highly offensive. Go figure. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think "Negro" fell out of favor when US Southerners would both literally and figuratively slur it into something like "Niggra", which was entirely too close to "nigger". StuRat (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That colloquial pronunciation, "Niggra", was around long before "Negro" fell out of favor, although it might have influenced it. I recall hearing an audio clip of the young Jackie Robinson being asked by a southern-sounding reporter for his thoughts on becoming "the first Niggra to play major league baseball", and Jackie went on to answer without missing a beat. Meanwhile, in the 60s, Jackie's book Baseball Has Done It used the term Negro countless times. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The late Detroit mayor Coleman Young took issue with the House Un-American Activities Committee over this: "His appearance turned into a showdown with the committee's legal counsel, who referred to Young's group as the National 'Niggra' Labor Council. Young corrected the lawyer's pronunciation and accused him of deliberately slurring the word to insult blacks." [2]. StuRat (talk) 14:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm old enough to remember hearing that word on TV when I was young. Living in Minnesota, I knew next to nothing about race relations in the South and had never even seen more than a half dozen black people. But I very well remember how southern politicians, in their slow southern drawl would say, "neee-grah". It seemed obvious to me it was a way to say "nigger" (nigga) and get away with it. Gandydancer (talk) 14:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jack, I'm not doubting you, but I am curious: How many African Americans did you know, growing up in Australia? +Angr 22:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In this part of the world 1/2 way around the word from Australia, but just north of the border from the US. "Black" is more often used than the hyper PC noun "African-Canadian". Usages like "Black History", "Black loyalists" or "Black Canadians" are common [3]. "Black" is not preceived as offensive here in Canada as in the US. --Kvasir (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm naive, but hasn't Canada typically been more "black-friendly" historically? As I recall, Canada was the destination of the "Underground Railroad" that shuttled slaves northward, where they could be out of reach of the US law and consequences of abominations like the Dred Scott decision. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, maybe that's why the Blacks here aren't so hung up on the terminologies. Sure there used to be discrimination and segregation but it wasn't as systemic as the American South, and there wasn't a civil right movement like that of the 60s. Also, Blacks from the Caribbean or recent immigrants from Africa probably outnumber the Blacks that have been here since the Loyalist days. --Kvasir (talk) 04:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Angr, I did not need to personally know any such people while growing up in Australia, because I have access to references and knowledge such as these:
"African-American" is a 1970s or later invention, kind of spun off from "Afro-American" which started turning up in the 70s. At the time of the MLK assassination, in 1968, "Negro" was the dominant term in US media. I've seen a youtube clip of Walter Cronkite reporting the assassination, and he referred to King as a "Negro leader" and reported on the protest activities of "Negroes" following the killing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This may be self-evident, but you can tell that the two words are not synonyms because a large majority of the population of Africa is black but not African-American. --198.103.172.9 (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "correct" answer, of course, but I generally see "black" and "African American" as referring to two different things. "African American" refers to a culture, just like "Italian American" or "Greek American." I would use the term "African American" when referring to a dialect or type of music, for example. "Black" refers to a so-called race, that is, one of the three or four appearance-based divisions into which people have historically been grouped. If a child was missing, I might say the police are looking for a 4-foot-tall black girl. I wouldn't use the term "African American" in that case because what we're talking about here is what she looks like, not what her cultural background is. Anyway, she might be Canadian or British or whatever. Nonetheless, I know there are a lot of people who use "African American" in all cases when referring to black people in America, thinking anything else would be politically incorrect. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And they sometimes even extend "African American" to people such as Nelson Mandela. Then they realise what they've just said, and go "oops". -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the use of the word "Negro": This word appears on this year's census forms in the US. I've been doing a bit of work for the census and from memory of the form, it asks for a person's race and one possible answer is listed as "Black, African-American, or Negro". While recently going over forms received back from a local college, one respondent checked this box but also crossed out the word Negro. Another checked the box, crossed out Negro, and wrote in "Ignorance is not a bliss". So, using the term may offend or it may not... Dismas|(talk) 04:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's right. There's no word that's inherently offensive. Some people get offended by a certain use of a certain word, others don't, that's all. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 05:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There were reports in March that older-generation blacks preferred "Negro" to either of the other two terms, a fact which that one editorialist was ironically ignorant of. Presumably the developers of the census form were trying to cover all the bases. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Canadian book The Book of Negroes, about an ex-slave who fights for the British in the American Revolutionary War, had to be retitled for sale in the U.S. out of fear people there would freak out at the word "Negro" in the title. The name of the book comes from a real Book of Negroes, an 18th-century document about blacks in the war. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All the black people I have personally known referred to themselves as black. I never heard any of them use the term African-American. I think the latter is too limited as it only singles out blacks from the United States, whereas black includes people from all over the world.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Translation edit

Le donjon de Guise fut construit aux alentours de 950 par Gautier Ier, comte d'Amiens, de Vexin et de Valois.
Seigneurs non héréditaires

Les comtes de Valois confièrent la terre de Guise à des châtelains non héréditaires. Parmi ceux-ci, on trouve :

  • en 1010 : René
  • en 1048 : Bouchard
  • en 1058 : Gautier Ier de Guise. Ce Gautier bénéficie d'un statut particulier : d'une part, il est le premier seigneur de Guise à transmettre la terre à ses descendants, d'autre part il y a également un Gautier de Vexin, fils de Raoul III de Vexin, comte de Valois, qui recevra Guise de son frère Raoul IV de Crépy. On peut supposer que ces deux Gautier soient une même personne qui reçut Guise à titre viager comme ses prédécesseurs, et qui profita des querelles pour la succession de Simon de Vexin (1077) pour conserver Guise et la transmettre à son fils.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk • contribs) 19:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you compared it with the English article? These passages were taken from http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_seigneurs_de_la_terre_de_Guise . Of course the English and French versions are not organised the same way. I also reformated the OP's text so it resembles our wiki format. --Kvasir (talk) 20:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also reformatted the OP's text so the linked words link to the correspondent French Wikipedia articles rather than to nonexistent English Wikipedia pages. --Магьосник (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The keep of Guise was constructed around 950 by Gautier I, count of Amiens, Vexin and Valois.

Non-hereditary lords

The counts of Valois entrusted the land of Guise to non-hereditary lords. Among them, one can find:

  • in 1010: Rene
  • in 1048: Bouchard
  • in 1058: Gautier. This Gautier benefitted from a particular status: on the one hand, he was the first master of Guise to pass the land down to his descendants, and on the other hand he was still a Gautier of Vexin, son of Raoul 3rd of Vexin, count of Valois, who had received Guise from his brother Raoul 4th of Crepy. One can suppose that these two Gautiers were the same person who received Guise à titre viager (?) from their predecessors, and who benefitted from the quarrels over the succession of Simon of Vexin, [which he used] to keep hold of Guise and pass it down to his son.
rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


"à titre viager" means "for life" (that is, for his life, not to be passed down to his own heirs). By the way, is this Queen Elizabeth's Little Spy again? As we keep saying, most of this stuff is pretty basic, and it would help if you studied a bit of French. Just a little bit! It would save you tons of time, having to wait around here for an answer. (Maybe it's just me but it would also be nice if you signed your posts, and perhaps even thanked us for our efforts once in awhile...) Adam Bishop (talk) 04:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hindi Language edit

Hi I am using often this wikipedia for many references realted to my work, education and social

I have seen you have materials available in many languages but HINDI(Indian National Language) which is spoken by same number of people as Chinese and many more times than other small populated countries. So, is there a perticular reason you don't have Hindi language available?

If you please add a HINDI language may use many Indian people who don't know English.


Thank you Haresh Chotaliya [Email address removed to prevent spam] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.81.166.225 (talk) 21:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try Hindi Wikipedia. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That particular link will take you to Hindi Wikipedia's article about the Hindi language. For the Main Page, just go to hi:. +Angr 22:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Makes me wonder why an important language like Hindi is not listed among the interwiki links on our main page.—Emil J. 10:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the email address. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the criterion for appearing in the list on the main page (rather than in the "complete list" linked at the bottom of that list) is the number of articles in that language's Wikipedia. Hindi has just over 54,000 articles, fewer than Basque or Estonian. Marco polo (talk) 14:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a not to OP, Hindi is spoken by far less number of people than Chinese is. - DSachan (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently Greek has even fewer articles than Hindi, but it appears in the main list. I've placed a request on the Main Page talk page to add Hindi to the main list. Marco polo (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons Hindi Wikipedia isn't listed on the main page, despite having more articles than Greek Wikipedia, have been discussed at Template talk:Wikipedialang#Hindi Wikipedia and Template talk:Wikipedialang#Hindi Wikipedia Redux. Haresh, you can help improve Hindi Wikipedia by going to hi:, signing up for an account, and working to expand Hindi Wikipedia's articles so they're not just stubs and placeholders, and translating the English content there into Hindi. +Angr 15:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject India and Wikipedia:Noticeboard for India-related topics and Category:Indian Wikipedians and Category:User hi (Wikipedians who speak Hindi). -- Wavelength (talk) 17:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

French dog names edit

What are some common French dog names? I Googled "French dog names", but all of the pages I found listed several hundred, with no indication of which ones are more common. --75.33.219.230 (talk) 22:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See http://www.noms-de-chiens.com/ and choose "Top 100". -- Wavelength (talk) 23:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those don't look French. For example, the top name is Snoopy, and many of the others are American names as well. --75.33.219.230 (talk) 23:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you need to be more specific. Which do you mean:
1) Names of dogs within France. Many of those names might well be borrowed from other languages, like the list you got.
2) French names which are applied to dogs. "Fifi" comes to mind.
3) Names given to historically French breeds of dogs. StuRat (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Fido" and "Mirza" used to be the cliché names for dogs in French fiction, particularly in the 1950s and 1960s. I doubt they're much used anymore, though. --Xuxl (talk) 15:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In many cases people tend to give petsnames that they wouldn´t give to humans. It might very well be that many French parents would give their child a brazenly American/English name, but they are still living in an increasingly Anglophone world and when naming a pet there is more freedom to experiment beyond traditional cultural boundaries. Just a guess, though. --Soman (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2010_April_28&oldid=1146475167"