Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Reference Desk

See also Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language/FAQs for answers to frequently asked language and usage questions.

In the film "Donnie Darko" there's a scene where Drew Barrymore's character says that a famous linguist once claimed that the most beautiful pairing of words in any language was "Cellar Door". Is there any truth in that, and if so, who was the linguist?

Do you doubt that the wonderful Wikipedia has written an article all about it, just for you: cellar door? --Gareth Hughes 14:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

what is the common term for conditions such as narcolepsy?

Sleep disorder? Dyssomnia? --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 13:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I read an article that had the word kando in it. The article said the word derived in Japan and means "to create a feeling of happiness". I would like a proper definiton and the proper way to pronounce the word. (Kando)

Thank you,

Chris

Have a look at Japanese phonology for the complete picture. Most of the sounds in kando are straightforward. The vowels are the trickiest to get right. The a is about halfway between the vowel in hand and that in hundred. The o vowel is fairly tense: like the one in dog. Try that, and you'll amaze yourself by your quality Japanese pronunciation. I'm also available for parties... --Gareth Hughes 15:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you are referring to 感動 (かんどう kandou), meaning being deeply moved emotionally. I do alas not know IPA, though I shall nevertheless attempt to produce a satisfactory reply to your request of the word's pronunciation: kandoor, with the first syllable's a pronounced nasally. Grumpy Troll ^(talk) 15:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Like dog in which accent of English? Like door in which accent of English? Not a rhotic one, certainly. This is why the IPA is so useful! --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 17:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference b/w talk and speak?

when to use talk & when speak?

In English, the word talk is used to describe the act of vocal communication, while speak is used to describe the vocal communication itself. Therefore, "I would like to speak to you" suggests desire to communicate, whereas "I would like to talk to you" suggests that one-way communication is desired. If someone is described as a talker, then they can't shut up. However, if they are described as a speaker, then they are either good at speaking, or expected to be. Have a read of Cours de linguistique générale. --Gareth Hughes 14:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

well... the difference betwenn "communication" and "act of communication" is not really the issue here. Both "to talk" and "to speak" describe acts of communication. "to talk" rather refers to a coherent whole. it is derived from tell, just like hark is from hear [1]. speak otoh means "to make an utterance" more generally [2]. If anything, this word describes the "act". The difference between "talker" and "speaker" is idiomatic and unenlightening. A speaker may deliver either a talk or a speech. It is possible to have a talk with somebody, but it is not possible to have a speech with somebody. So, at the core, I think talking refers to coherent utterances (both weighty and idle), and speaking more generally refers to any articulate utterance at all, but most of the usage of the verbs is prescribed by idioms. Or, more to the point, talk being a "frequentative", "to speak" may refer to a single syllable, "to talk" refers to a lengthy string of syllables. Therefore, in imperatives, "talk" is reserved to wh-questions, I think: "what are his plans? talk!", but "is it true that he killed her? speak!" 81.63.121.28 15:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To me, "talk" is more likely to imnply a dialog or conversation "We had a talk" suggests that more than one person spoke, while "speech" implies a single person deliverign an address or lecture. "speak" or "speech" can also refer to the act of saying words, whether anyone else hears and responds or not. So again, "speak" tends to focus on a single speaker, and "talk" may not. I say "may not" because "talk" can be used almost everywhere that "speak" is proper -- it is a word of broader implication. I would never say "we had a speech" to mean a conversation, although i might say "we spoke" with that meaning. DES ^(talk) 16:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between talk and speak not in the action that they describe, but in the way you use them, i.e. in the objects that follow them. The Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary gives a very good explanation under speak, just look it up there.

Ram has many completely different meaning. As an acronym in informatics it means random access memory.Circeus 15:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A substance which causes the body to pass more water is called a diuretic. What is a substance which causes it to retain water called? PedanticallySpeaking 16:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Simply "anti-diuretic". Keep in mind that diuresis isn't the production of extra urine, it's just the production of urine. — File:Ontario trillium sig.pngmendel ☎ 20:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know that when referring to a pope by name, Pope would be capitalized. What I am unsure about is if you are saying--the pope--for example, I had an audience with the Pope/pope? Thank you for your help.Clong 23:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You'd still use capitals in talking about having had an audience with "the Pope", because it could only be a specific pope (even if he were not named). And certainly if you're naming one particular pope, it would be "I had an audience with Pope Frederick XX" (u.c.). But if you've had audiences with more than one pope, you'd say "I've had audiences with <number> popes" (l.c.). Pope or popes would go in lower case where no particular pope was referred to, or popes in general were referred to, or a number of different unnamed popes were referred to. Eg. "The pope (l.c.) is the head of the Catholic Church." All popes have that role, no one pope has this role exclusively. In this sense, despite referring to "the pope", we're actually talking about popes in general. Also, "Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI were three very controversial popes" (l.c.). Even though they're named, when it gets to the word "pope", the general sense is being employed. JackofOz 00:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in Associated Press style, you only capitalize titles before someone's name: "The president met the pope today at the Vatican." -- Mwalcoff 00:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There you go, then. Just goes to show that in many cases there is no single "right" way. Reference texts have their uses, but lots of corporations, newspapers etc have their own unique style guides. Assuming such a guide does not cause the writer to violate any generally-accepted rules, consistency of style is one of the hallmarks of good writing. My answer above reflected the style that I prefer. Cheers JackofOz 02:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. There is no "correct" style of English, just whatever one's company, school, publication, etc. chooses to use. This drives foreign people crazy. :) -- Mwalcoff 01:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I wouldn't go quite that far. Your company's Style Guide may tell you it's OK to say "Me and him went somewhere", but that would still be incorrect English. As I said above, style guides are OK, assuming such a guide does not cause the writer to violate any generally-accepted [grammatical, spelling and punctuation] rules. In this context, "style" is not about literary style (eg. the way Grahame Greene writes as compared with Charles Dickens or Patrick White), but about correct grammar, spelling, punctuation etc. Agreed, there is some flexibility with these (eg. Americans write "color", Australians and Brits write "colour"; the word "billion" means different things on either side of the Atlantic; lots of other examples), but there are some things that are hard and fast rules (eg. Subject-verb agreement - it is never correct to say "There is ten houses in this street"). JackofOz 02:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe it is an artificial word, with a "Romance" ring to it. carta is Spanish/Italian for Latin charta [3], English chart. The en-prefix could conceivably be added productively in Spanish, although what the resulting meaning would be, I don't know. Something "encharted" maybe? In any case, they end up with a Spanish sounding word that begins with Enc-, like encycolpedia. But then hey, we are mixing Greek with Hawaiian, so who are we to snicker, here... :) I don't think the word was used before 1993. 130.60.142.65 06:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I come from Germany and I have been learning English at school for seven years. I would like to speak English as normal well as native speakers. That's why I have some questions:

1. German punctuation is very strict. In most cases you cannot decide are not free to choose whether to write a comma or not. Is it the same in English?

2. I was thought taught that shortened (contracted) formes forms like "I've" are informal. Where shouldn't I use them?

3. Normally, "I was" is the correct form. But in conditional sentences you should better are supposed to use "I were". Are there any other irregular forms like this one?

4. Is it a bad serious mistake when if I say "I have happily been going to school for twelve years." instead of "I have been happily going to school for twelve years."

5. Would anybody notice that if I used the wrong tenses in conditional clauses? (If the weather is (was) nice I would go out)

6. Germans don't speak politely. "I want - Ich will" is a normal expression. Am I being impolite when I say "I want" instead of "I would like" in English?

Please correct every mistake I've made in this text.

1. Yes and no. The rules of English are a tad vague. Usually, you are best off placing a comma in places where you have to pause in English.

Not always. Commas are also used in English to indicate the start of a parenthetical clause. If the comma is omitted, the words that follow qualify the preceding words, and if that was not what was intended, the reader can be badly misled. "The child whom I love entered the room" could be reasonably interpreted as "I have more than one child but I love only one of them, and it was this child who entered". On the other hand, "The child, whom I love, entered the room" means "The child entered the room, and I love that child". No statement about any other children is made, or can reasonably be inferred. Some other languages insist on the commas in both cases, and the meaning has to be ascertained from the context. JackofOz 05:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2. Contractions are increasingly acceptable in written language. If you are writing informally enough to use the first person, it's probably okay to use contractions.

3. "I were" is a subjunctive mood, something like "ich wäre" in German, but it is used more restrictedly in English, almost always in a sub-clause.

4. No, but it implies something different. The first implies that something in the next clause or sentence will be in opposition to your school attendance. For example: "I have happily been going to school for 12 years, and now you tell me I never needed to attend at all?"

5. Sometimes, but often not. The subjunctive is less and less used in colloquial English.

6. Yes, but less so than in some languages. It's better to use "I would like".

--Diderot 11:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(After edit conflict:)

1: Yes, even some native speakers have difficulty with the comma…

2: Some shortened forms are more informal than others. For example, your sentence Where shouldn't I use them? sounds fine to a native speaker, but Where should not I find them? sounds very odd. For your sanity, I suggest you ignore their formality, and just use them whenever you wish.

3: By irregular forms, do you mean just in the conditional tense? I can't think of any.

4: "I have happily been going…" emphasizes the "happily," whereas "I have been happily going…" emphasizes the "have been" (and therefore the "twelve years"). As far as I know, both sentences are correct, but with slightly difference nuance.

5: Yes, people would find "If the weather is nice…" odd, as that implies that you are talking about the future ("If the weather is nice tomorrow, I will go out") instead of the present. And since "I would go out" implies the present, it feels like you're cramming two tenses in one sentence. The correct usage would be "If the weather were nice, I would go out." However, some people use the simple past tense for the conditional, so "If the weather was nice, I would go out" would be understood, but it makes you sound like a hick.

6: "I would like" is more polite, yes. "I want" may be considered impolite in certain circumstances. If you're not sure which to use, just say "I would like" and you'll be safe. Garrett Albright 11:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. Everyone gets the rules wrong (there was an entire book on it called Eats, Shoots and Leaves). Just make sure your sentences are comprehensibly divided up; putting a comma wherever you'd have to pause when speaking usually does this.

2. The formality of contractions is a big grey area. In my experience it's okay to use -n't in all but the most formal writing. It's a step more informal to use the -'ve, -'s, and -'d contractions as they expand so easily without awkwardness. In most arenas you won't have to worry about it.

6. You're usually better off using the more polite form (and definitely do in places you would use ich möchte), but there are situations where I would like would change meaning quite a bit; for instance, saying I would like to go to university makes it sound as if you anticipate that you plans may fail. Mostly though you can't fail using the more polite form. — Laura Scudder | Talk 19:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two of your questions concern the subjunctive mood, so you might want to read more on its use in English, particularly as an indicator of "conditions contrary to fact" and hypothetical conditions. (In your example, "If the weather is (was) nice I would go out", would ordinarily be "If the weather were nice I would go out," with the "were" indicating that it is indeed not nice weather, or that the nice weather is merely a possibility. The subjunctive in English confuses a lot of people learning the language, and many native speakers as well<g>. - Nunh-huh 03:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I've got some answers which I couldn't find before. Especially the tip with the subjunctive was very useful. Luckily the English one isn't as difficult as the German one, which has three different tenses.

Greetings.

I would like to know whether or not there are languages in which speaking formally does not have one labelled a pedant. In French, formal language is deemed somewhat pretentious, and, for example, substituting Puis-je t'emprunter ceci ? for Est-ce que je peux t'emprunter ça ? is generally perceived as snobbish (alas &#133;).

I have read that in the Arabic language, speaking classic, formal Arabic poses no problem, and that only the language as it is used in the Qur'an can be considered antiquated, rather than uppity.

I thank in advance those able to answer my question.

Grumpy Troll ^(talk) 12:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, but that's because formality is a feature of a language's users rather than a language. For example, Hawaiian Pidgin doesn't have a formal register because the social function of a formal register is taken up by standard English. Likewise, English had very little that could be seen as a formal register during the Angevin period.

Second, some societies do not have a social function which requires a formal register. There are relatively small and unhierarchial societies in the world, although they are today restricted to some fairly small corners of the planet. I'm not an expert on New Guinean society, but I doubt most of its tribal languages have or need a formal register. I recently came across a reference to a paper discussing how St Lucian French creole did not have a formal register and has developed one recently by borrowing it from English.

Other societies have stratified social structures that cannot be adequately expressed by a single formal register. My understanding is that Javanese is especially troubling in this respect. Not only is the formal register not pedantic, normal use of the language entails a complex system of usages depending on a sophisticated calculus of status, making the informal register inappropriate for use with practically anyone that you are not having sex with.

Lastly, it's complicated even in English. Just in today's Washington Post, I note the following:

She often refers to herself in the third person. She enunciates "math" as mathematics; "again" as agayn.

They are speaking of an African American career civil servant from Louisiana who is old enough to have grown up under Jim Crow, and like many older but educated black Americans, she overcorrects her English and uses a formal tone in most of her non-intimate interactions. But I doubt that when she was younger anyone would have seen that as pedantic.

--Diderot 13:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings (once again &#151; on the first day of my supposed Wikibreak; I guess Wikipedia is overly addictive).

I currently live in France and am in Première S, S standing for science, the main subject of study of the class. This summer, I discovered &#151; oh, how "cheesy" the following must sound &#151; a love for languages, undertook a personal study of the Japanese language, and took Latin as an option at school. I am bilingual, speaking fluent English and French, and, without wanting to sound pretentious, must admit to a certain aptitude in language, that more so than in scientific subjects, it seems.

I would be interested in knowing which jobs exist in the field of linguistics and languages, what the said jobs consist in, and (since one cannot live without it) how much money can be made in the exercice of these occupations.

I hope some will be able to answer my question and thank them in advance.

Grumpy Troll ^(talk) 14:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Ah jeez, you hadda ask just before my Chinese class. Take a gander at Jobs on Linguist List.

Your realistic options are:

1. Translation - This really has little to do with linguistics per se, but it is a good career for someone interested in language. It will not, however, get you rich quick.
2. Lexicography and terminology - My preferred line of work, but one which has few openings, no strict or particular educational requirements, and uncertain pay.
3. Teaching second languages - Lots of people have to learn languages, and the pay isn't bad. But you won't make millions at it either.
4. Working for the CIA or one of its private contractors - You're French - you may not be French but you're French enough to disqualify you - so you're S.O.L. on that one.
5. Teaching linguistics in academia - This pays fairly well in Europe, and pays crap in America. But, it's not a bad deal if you can do it. But it means spending years in university, then spending years as a butt-monkey for some prof, and then a hard search for a tenure-track position. This is my current career path.
6. Computer programming - Ironically, there is a significant but at present fairly small market for linguists and language experts who can also code. This is what I actually do, or did until I was laid off and started my PhD.

However, as a dropout from a Master's in high energy physics, I will let you in on one thing I discovered as a young man making an academic career change: There are a lot more women in linguistics and language classes, and your language skills will serve you much better there when it comes to getting lai... er, I mean, meeting people socially. --Diderot 14:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To what Diderot said, I just want to add that while teaching linguistics in academia may pay fairly well in Europe, your chances of actually getting a job teaching linguistics in academia in Europe are virtually nil. And in Germany, at any rate (I don't know about other European countries), there is no such thing as tenure track. You're either hired on a limited contract (usually 2 or 3 years), or you're hired as a full profesor with tenure, but you can't work your way toward tenure. And for every available professorship in linguistics there are about 40 qualified candidates, unlike in America where for every available professorship there are only about 10 qualified candidates. (Not because there are fewer linguists in America but because there are more openings.) And to Diderot's last comment I'll add that if your taste doesn't happen to run toward women, you're still in luck because in most areas of linguistics (except computational linguistics) a disproportionately high number of the men are gay. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 17:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Diderot: What do you mean by saying that translation has little to do with linguistics? Garrett Albright 18:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

probably, you don't need to know what you are doing (in terms of fancy jargon) as long as you get it right :) 130.60.142.65 19:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that you don't have to take any kind of formal study of language as a whole to do a good job of it. Actually, I would argue that actual linguistics classes are more likely to harm you as a translator than help you, but most of the time they are of no use whatsoever to translators. I occasionally question whether they are worth much to linguistics. You do need an in-depth knowledge of the languages you work in, and some of that probably should be formally acquired, but nothing of the sort is offered in most linguistics departments unless, like the one I trained in, they happen to be grafted into a translation studies program.

As for the lack of tenure-track positions in Europe - I know. I'm not terribly optimistic, but I very strongly do not want to go back to the States, and there aren't many openings in Canada. But I'll be able to apply for EU citizenship in a few years and speak several of the continent's larger languages, and I can learn more if I have to. So, I think I have a shot. --Diderot 22:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you and I are in the same boat. I have no intention whatsoever of going back to the States, and I could apply for EU citizenship tomorrow if I wanted to, but I'd have to renounce my U.S. citizenship if I did. (I may still do so, but it takes some psyching up to first.) So, having almost given up on an academic career, I'm persuing work in translation (where indeed my training in linguistics is of no help) and/or copyediting/proofreading of texts written in or translated into English (ditto). --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 22:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kinda surprised to think there are still countries in Europe that require you to renounce US citizenship to become naturalised. The US certainly requires no such thing. There is a treaty that prevents you from having more than one citizenship within Europe, but the US isn't a party to such accords.

As for the employment situation in Europe... well, we suffer for our art. :^) I'm working in computational linguistics - and perhaps not so coincidentally am heterosexual :^) - so it's a bit less artistic, but I have some hope of finding some venture capital if Trichet will free up the money supply a wee bit and getting a career that way. I'm getting too old, and the labour market is too loose, for me to want to work as a code whore again. --Diderot 10:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In Germany, naturalized citizens over the age 23 have to pick either Germany or the country of their parents' citizenship. Since I'm 37, I have to pick either Germany or the U.S., but can't have both. As for work, I got a call today, maybe I'll be teaching English to one teenager and Latin to another. Woo-hoo. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 10:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How barbaric! Canada's full of German dual citizens with a Beibehaltungsgenehmigung. A whole truckload have just moved into my Mom's rural hometown in Manitoba from somewhere in Baden-Wurtemburg. Tell German Immigration that the heaps of crap you have to put up with going through customs at JFK when you aren't American is degrading and you still have meaningful ties in America, therefore you should therefore be given one of these generous exceptions provided for in the new nationality law. --Diderot 15:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you all for your answers. "There are a lot more women in linguistics and language classes, and your language skills will serve you much better there when it comes to getting lai... er, I mean, meeting people socially"? I think I have made my mind up.

More seriously though, please may you tell me what lexicography and terminology consist in? Can one make a living studying ancient languages, or helping translate unknown existing ones? Grumpy Troll ^(talk) 16:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Lexicography is writing dictionary entries. It's not so much a matter of training as having a knack for it. Terminology means doing the same kinds of things, but usually in a specialised domain as a way to support translators. Terminology as a profession is closely linked to translation and you almost never see it discussed in other contexts. There have been a number of big changes in lexicography and terminology in recent years, and as a business it's really begun to pick up with growing demand for bilingual and learners' dictionaries.

And as for dead languages... it's not impossible, but it's really, really hard. There is no demand for classical languages outside of academia and education, and deciphering unknown dead languages is the domain of a semi-closed community of classicists, archeologists and related academics. However, if you can decipher Rongorongo you will never need to fear being unemployed. --Diderot 18:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, this article resides at the singular "bleacher", with the plural as a redirect. While that is consistent with our naming guidelines, it strikes me as flatly wrong. "Bleachers" in the sense of "stands in a stadium" is, AFAIK, always plural; while a "bleacher" (singular) is a machine for bleaching. Isn't this a case where the article, which is about the stands, should indeed reside at the plural? Lupo 07:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To call one part of bleachers a "bleacher" doesn't seem that odd to me, especially for the kind that you can drag around as necessary in about 10' wedges. They're bleachers when you push them all together, but when you're moving one, you're just moving a bleacher. I don't know if that's a back-formation or not. (The citations in OED2 make me think it is.) — File:Ontario trillium sig.pngmendel ☎ 18:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Before I even saw your remark about the OED, I was thinking "back-formation". After all, one doesn't call one seat in the upper balcony of a theater "a god". -- Jmabel | Talk 04:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that the present perfect progressive of the verb "be" is shortened very often.

Another construction which seems to be too long for English speakers is the passive of the present perfect progressive: "It has been being built since yesterday." - "It was built since yesterday." Is this shortened construction always a possible solution or are there some situations in which the complete form is more suitable? In German we are not afraid of this form: "Ich werde gesehen worden sein werden." Only the last word could be left out - in informal texts.

I would suggest that "It has been being built since yesterday.", while possibly technically correct, would be universally considered a very clumsy use of the English language. "It was built since yesterday" is not an equivalent expression, as it means the construction started - and finished - today. A better alternative might be "It has been under construction since yesterday". Yes, this avoids the use of the verb "build" entirely, but frankly I can't think of a way of saying the same thing using both the verb "build" and the passive tense, that works in practice. JackofOz 09:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, "It was built since" will be wrong in any case, because the preterite expresses perfective aspect, and "since" expresses imperfective aspect, they don't go together. If you want to express that the construction started yesterday and finished today, I think you'd need to say "construction was carried out over the past 24h" or something; "It has been built since yesterday" will rather mean that construction was complete yesterday. As "they have been building it since yesterday" is correct, "It has been being built since yesterday" should be accepted as grammatically correct but unusual, and as you say, it will almost invariably be avoided by a circumlocution like "has been under construction". dab (ᛏ) 12:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And in spoken informal English, "it has been" will be shortened to something sort of like "it'sbin" which fixes the ugly cadence: IT'S bin BEIN' built since... — File:Ontario trillium sig.pngmendel ☎ 18:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Ich werde gesehen worden sein werden" is hardly a German equivalent of the perfect progressive. (German does not have any progressive forms). How would you translate this into English? I can get "Ich werde gesehen worden sein" (i.e. I will have been seen - passive future perfect) but the final "werden" is foxing me. Valiantis 21:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will have been being seen? Makes no sense whatsoever. Maybe the last "werden" was retained from an older form of German, where it actually meant something.  ? Don Diego 22:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

it's grammatical, but not acceptable as an actual utterance. Its theoretical meaning is "I will be entering the state of having been seen". It's a sort of future-in-the-future construction not actually in use (i.e. talking about events that will be in the future at some point in the future). The statement that 'the last word can be left out in informal contexts' is wrong. "ich werde gesehen worden sein" is perfectly correct and acceptable for "I will have been seen". "I will have been being seen" would have to be rendered as "Ich werde gesehen werdend gewesen sein", grammatical but unacceptable. 130.60.142.65 08:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So, there's that excellent movie called Les Triplettes de Belleville, and the theme song is called Belleville Rendez-Vous. The refrain goes as follows:

Swinging Belleville rendez-vous
Marathon dancing doop dee doop
Vaudou Cancan balais taboo          ????
Au Belleville swinging rendez-vous

What does the french words in the 3rd line translate to english? I know what Cancan and taboo mean, but I can't figure it out with the rest. ☢ Ҡieff | Talk 07:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Much of the song is in gibberish, so don't expect to understand everything. I thought that it was "voudou", meaning voodoo. "Balais" can mean "broom" (what you sweep a floor with). Ground Zero | t 17:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a name or concept attributed to the quirk some people have of appending the same words to each thought when they speak casually, like 'I was saying' or 'pretty much'? Often they will prefix or suffix sentences with this, seemingly as a subconscious conditioned response. I am just curious, since I find myself doing it on occasion and I have noticed that some people around me do it very often.

Don't know the answer, but another common one is "yeah, no". And of course, the ubiquitous "like", "you know", and "um". Even I (shock, horror!) have been known to utter such atrocities. JackofOz 16:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, um, its because, you know, it, like, helps you think of, um, words to fill those, er, gaps when you so can't remember the, whatsitcalled, word. As you can see, its also very infuriating to read or hear. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 16:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

     Arnold = Arlene
            |
       |¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯|
     Boris     Brenda
       |         |
     Clare     Craig
       |         |
     Dexter    Dinah
       |
     Edith