Language desk
< March 11	<< Feb | March | Apr >>	March 13 >

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.

Okay, I just ate a bowl of something called "stamina ramen" at a place near my school. When I asked what it was, the lady at the ramen shop said that it had lamb in it instead of the usual pork. However, my Japanese is not advanced enough for me to have asked why the English word stamina applies in this case. Does anyone have any idea? Why are certain Japanese foods labeled stamina? — Brian (talk) 04:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ginkgo or Ginseng maybe? --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 04:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One site I found said it just contains garlic and leek. (addition) Further searching shows that it just has to have raw garlic. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 04:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's just Engrish? --Candy-Panda 06:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. It's just supposed to conjure images of strength and good health to the consumer. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 14:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they are advertising the beneficial effects of garlic, such as when you start to feel sick, eat stamina ramen, etc. However, I didn't know about any garlic claims that related to male stamina, which one site advertised about. Maybe that one used ginseng *shrug* --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Latin) stamina is the plural of stamen, so they could have called it stamen ramen. Amen.  --Lambiam^Talk 20:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Must be the garlic. Thanks, everyone. — Brian (talk) 22:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did Stephen Colbert come up with this phrase? More importantly, are all the people I've seen using this phrase, like the Christian Science Monitor and the Washington Post just looking at the first page of Google results, doing it because Colbert used it? Or am I just too young to remember this phrase being used before the Colbert Report? Thanks in advance for any answers, and apologies in advance for the Colbertcruft. 66.176.166.63 04:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, this term was not created by Colbert. Check out this Google search: "on notice" -colbert. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may be your youth. I don't know offhand when it was first used (since I don't have an OED), but I know it predates Colbert's show, and likely Colbert's birth. --Charlene 08:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OED says 1969 earliest use. meltBanana 14:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't know. The story has a certain truthiness about it... Clarityfiend 20:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in no position to dispute the OED, but I'm very, very surprised it can't find an earlier citation than 1969. I remember my parents often warning me in the mid 1950s that I was on notice to be better behaved, or else. Surely they didn't make this up. I always assumed it was something borrowed from army-speak. JackofOz 00:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am in position as google book search throws up examples from the 1940s. meltBanana 17:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There you go then. JackofOz 20:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What words? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know of a place (preferably a website, but books work if nothing else is available) where I can find an etymological or phonological explanation for French spelling? For example, how did the sound /o/ get written "eau"? Why is "beaux" spelled with an x and not an s (beaus)? These are the sorts of questions I have. The Jade Knight 06:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essayez fr:wiktionary, ou peut-être ici, ou même ici. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for rules that explain these things—I'm trying to get an overview of why French is spelled the way it is in general. The Jade Knight 07:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

French orthography is similar to English orthography in that it reflects an archaic pronunciation and/or contains letters that were once pronounced but are no longer pronounced. The question is really not "how did /o/ get to be written 'eau'", but rather "how did "eau" get to be pronounced /o/?" The answer in that case is that in Old French "beau" was "bel" (from Vulgar Latin "bellum"). In Old French, an /l/ (actually probably a velarized /ɫ/) after some vowels was vocalized into a diphthong, usually spelled "au". Where the preceding vowel was spelled "e", the "e" was retained to form the cluster "eau". (I am not sure whether there was at one stage a triphthong in these cases.) Eventually the diphthong became monophthongized to /o/. Historically, plurals of words ending in "u" are formed with "x" rather than "s". The reason is that in many older scripts, "s" was written as a character resembling "ʃ". When this character followed "u", the final stoke of the cursive "u" was drawn across the "ʃ", producing a typographical ligature that was very similar to or identical to the cursive "x". This ligature was misinterpreted as "x" by typesetters and this mistake was then standardized. I am not aware of a work explaining French orthography, but a knowledge of the history of the French language helps a great deal. I can recommend The Story of Latin and the Romance Languages by Mario Pei both because it is fascinating in its own right and also because it will give you a good understanding of the history not only of French but of all the Romance languages. Marco polo 14:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your explanation is helpful—now if I could only find an explanation like this for all of French's ideosyncracies. The Jade Knight 03:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside expressions such as "you have a surprise in store for you", we regularly see ads telling us to check in store for further conditions etc. Sometimes it's spelled "in store", sometimes "in-store", and sometimes "instore". Is any of these variants any more "correct" than the others, and why? JackofOz 12:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instore is not a word, but that doesn't mean it's not becoming one. A quick and non-scientific google search shows that the hyphenate is used in such major web-based retail outlets as CD Baby, but the single word (instore) is used primarily as a proper noun for trademarked products or services. But I cannot answer truly, because I have never seen the phrase used in non-web advertising in the Northeastern US -- perhaps it is primarily a regionalism? Where are you? Jfarber 12:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I havn't seen " check in store" for a long time; its all "check online" nowadays. But "in store" seems the most natural. "Instore" means like: "I've got something instore for you" - like a murder prehaps? Think outside the box 12:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you document/cite that use, Think? I've only ever seen that meaning spelled out as two words -- in store -- and can't find any mention of it with the usual fast-run through Google. Jfarber 14:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's definitely 2 words in that case. To answer your previous question, I'm in Australia, and I often encounter these 3 variants in TV/newspaper advertisements and on posters in shop windows ("see our range of other great bargains instore/in-store/in store"). The "in-store" version seems to be the least common. It's usually an adverbial misuse of an adjective - CD Baby uses it correctly: CD Baby: In-Store Distribution for Your CD. I encounter "in store" and "instore" with roughly equal frequency. I rarely visit commercial sites on the web, so I don't know how often it happens there, but I'd be very surprised if all 3 variants weren't found. I can't imagine why this trichotomy would be restricted to non-web usages (web pages are notorious for their inconsistent spellings and outright atrocities; and they'd generally be written by the same people who write the store's ads for other media).

On reflection, I think I agree that "instore" is not a recognised word - not yet, anyway. Since "in-store" is an adjective, that leaves "in store" as the adverb. Thanks for your thoughts. JackofOz 00:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What word that is frequently used, was first recorded in print in 1826? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.162.5.11 (talk) 14:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hello, 138.162.5.11! This sounds like a riddle, a homework question, or a pub quiz trivia question, but I'll assume good faith. Jfarber 14:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll assume nothing, here are a few good-uns:

beady floatable fecifork fluoride squeakery unwassailing wallaby

You have to be careful with the first recorded use though as one dictionary suggested mammal and millionaire were from that year but the online OED pushed it back a few years. meltBanana 14:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could check out etymonline. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 14:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you missed it, my response includes the most likely answer, folks. (MeltBanana: how frequently do YOU use the word fecifork?) Jfarber 15:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you try to eat your feci with a fecispoon, won't it fall off ? :-) StuRat 16:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no; it's a painful act done to misbehaving small children. Imagine, if you will, Mr Billy Connolly saying, "If you don't behave yourself young man, I'll fecifork you!".

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by EABlair (talk • contribs) 02:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

What would be the correct word to use in a sentence about a group that is also a single entity?
When talking about a sports club is the correct form, "Wikipedia Wanderers are a Cricket team from..."' or is "is" correct, "Wikipedia Wanderers is a cricket team from..."? Personally I think it's the latter because the subject of the sentence is the club and the club is a single collective entity and not a plural of it's members. - X201 19:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first example (Wikipedia Wanderers are...) is the preferred British usage. The second example (Wikipedia Wanderers is...) is the preferred American usage. Each is correct in its respective environment. Marco polo 19:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure that this is a British/US thing. Wanderers is a plural noun that can expect a plural verb, are. Team is a singular noun that can expect a singular verb, is. The difficulty is that you are equating a plural with a singular. Now, you could argue that although Wikipedia Wanderers is a plural noun phrase, it represents a singular proper name: the name of the team. Taken this way, we would want a singular verb, and I think it sounds better to me. And, the British/US thing? Well, we Brits feel fine about saying The England cricket team are arriving tomorrow, whereas it makes US grammarians quite uncomfortable. — Gareth Hughes 19:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a constant source of conflict in articles about bands; it tends to settle into UK bands: are, US bands: is. See for example the elaborate comments in the source code of The Cure, following the infobox. Notinasnaid 19:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are several separate issues in the treatment of teams, bands, corporations, and such, and they are easily confused, as "Marco polo" has done above. It matters whether the name is expressed in the singular or plural; it matters whether what's agreeing with it is a verb or a pronoun; and it matters whether the context is everyday informal usage or a formal usage referring to the team as a legal entity.

In everyday informal American usage, the answer to the specific original question is "are". "Is" would be possible only in formal legalistic usage. I won't try to enumerate all the other cases now. --Anonymous, March 12, 2007, 23:25 (UTC).

I don't see what I have confused. I think that in informal American usage, I might expect "are" if it were "The Wikipedia Wanderers...", that is, if it seemed that we were talking about the team members as plural individuals. But there is no article. It is just "Wikipedia Wanderers....". Imagine "Chicago Cubs is/are a baseball team...". Without "The" at the beginning, I think it calls for "is", informally or not. If it were "The Chicago Cubs...", then I would expect "are". Marco polo 00:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I often see examples where the speaker/writer sits on the fence. "The English cricket team is arriving tomorrow and they will have their first match next week", etc. JackofOz 00:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we can use music groups as an analogy: "The Beatles are my favorite 60s group, but Nine Inch Nails is my favorite 90s group. The presence of the article the seems to make the clause plural. I don't really know what the "American" verb would be on a sentence starting with "Wikipedia Wanderers," since Americans would never name a sports team without a "the." I guess you could translate the sentence into American English as: "The Wikipedia Wanderers are a cricket team." -- Mwalcoff 00:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know anything about sports, but i don't think that last part is right. Most American sports teams i've seen are officially named without the the — Americans just naturally add it to the front. e.g., the article here for the Boston Red Sox is found under Boston Red Sox (no the), because that's the official name of the team. There are some exceptions (where the word the is part of the official name). I would agree that adding the to a word that's already plural often makes the verb plural as well (whereas it might not be otherwise), though.

Specific sports teams seem to be an exception when it comes to pluralising verbs referring to 'group' words in American English. In general, singular words that refer to multiple entities (like team, family, company, &c.) are afforded singular verbs (like is), and the same goes for specific instances (like they'd say 'Microsoft is...' rather than 'Microsoft are...'). However, they often use plural pronouns to refer to those same words. (So you might get something like 'Microsoft is a big company. They have a lot of employees.')

Just re-iterating some things others have said. ~ lav-chan @ 02:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And just to re-re-iterate, this is a UK/US difference. To my UK ears, "Nine Inch Nails are your favourite 90s group" sounds fine, and with an 'is' sounds odd. Just a reminder, as that seemed to be being lost. There are undoubtably other factors too, but this seems to be the biggest, and the one to be watched for when 'correcting' things. Skittle 15:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am searching for a book that I read years ago, but have forgotten the title thereof. I have tried the standard search engines, have posted on a couple of 'readers' websites, and tried asking at my local library (I was told to check the shelves).

All I can remember are a vague plot line and, I think, the front cover design, although I'm not certain about that. The book started with a fat girl on her parents' yacht. She was being criticised by her mother for eating too much, but was eating largely to 'punish' her mother. The yacht's spanish-speaking crew made some mistake in switch fuel tanks and the yacht was destroyed in an explosion. The girl was going to allow herself to drown until she realised that there was someone in the water with her, and decided to survive to save them. She rescued two of the crew members, and they ended up on a small island. There was a large bird colony on the island, and hunters who came to the island to kill the birds. One of the two crew members was badly injured, and she left him out for the hunters to find, in the hope that they would take him to receive medical care. I can't remember why she didn't want them to see her. She had to learn how to find food, including eating the birds' eggs, and build a rudimentary shelter. I also remember something about a walrus or similar animal living in a cave on the shore. Eventually she did get back to the US, and by that point was thin. I think the front cover had a picture of a hand sticking out of a blue ocean covered in debris, but as I said, that may be wrong. Thanks for any help anyone can provide, either any suggestions as to the title of the book, or advice on what else I could try in tracking it down. User:Hezza 19:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I frequent a Usenet Newsgroup about Television and that regularly has people popping up in it asking if people remember so-and-so program. Usually they have much less information that you have provided. So I'd make one of those my first port of call. You can access Usenet in two ways, either follow the information in the Wikipedia Usenet article and download a Newsreader client (List of news clients) or access Usenet by using Google Groups. Either way a good Newsgroup to ask your question in would be rec.arts.books. -X201 22:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities would be a better bet than this desk. jnestorius^(talk) 22:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question for any Japanese speakers/readers. My grandfather recently had me try to send a letter to an old friend of his in Japan. Unfortunately, the letter bounced back - no big surprise there, since the address we had was old. That having been said, I was wondering if someone would mind translating the stamp they placed on the envelope for me, so I might figure out what exactly was wrong with the address, for future reference.

Have included two images of the envelope below. The first is a close-up on the stamp itself; the second shows the stamp in context of the rest of the envelope.

Thank you very much for your time. --Brasswatchman 20:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Close-up on stamp.
  Close-up on stamp.
• Stamp and address.
  Stamp and address.

Okay, figured out how to thumbnail the images. Sorry for the trouble, everyone. --Brasswatchman 21:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'atesaki ni (~~illegible to me)ne atarimasen' - means pretty much: 'address undeliverable' 192.175.182.26 21:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh, figures. I was hoping there was some useful information in there. In any case, thank you very much for your help, both of you. I appreciate it. --Brasswatchman 03:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the illegible character 尋, tazu(ne) - "enquire" ? 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 23:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why, it sure is! enquire, tho? isn't that pretty archaic?192.175.182.25 17:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I figured it was the best translation... 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 21:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In some dialects (regions?) where that word is written "inquire", I can imagine that "enquire" might seem British or archaic. Tesseran 08:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. I wrote "inquire" first, but I corrected it, because I assumed it was a typo... =S 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 12:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does someone speak Japanese? I'd like to know how to say (and write) "Would you like a cup of tea?" in Japanese. Thanks in advance -- Sarazyn • TALK • DE 22:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'ocha iru?' to be on the colloquial side. 'ocha demo iru?' is also colloquial, but is more like 'do you want some tea or something?' if you want to be formal, i would say, 'ocha ga irimasu ka?' ok bye192.175.173.154 18:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oh, but i can't write it on this computer cuz i'm at work. i'll try to get around to it when i get home. :D 192.175.173.154 18:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a (near close to literally) a thousand ways you could ask someone if they would like a cup of tea in Japanese. This is because of [things interrelated, this is not a hierarchical list!], simple choices of synonymous words to use in the situation, politness levels, formality and informaility within those levels, and possibly dialect variations.
Anyway, here's the Japanese of what 192.175.173.154 wrote: 'ocha demo iru?' お茶でもいる?; 'ocha irimasu ka?' お茶がいりますか. "Iru/Iremasu" as a verb 'to drink" looks wrong to me. Perhaps it might be slang or dialect?--Shirt58 13:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops. Sarazyn. Just realised where I got it all wrong, yet again. That verb iru/いる (that in -masu/-ます form いります) roughly corresponds to English "to want/to need.to lack". My Japanese is very rusty, but both 'ocha demo iru?' お茶でもいる and 'ocha ga irimasu ka?' お茶がいりますか sounds to me like someone is asking me "do you have/want/need tea?", implicitly suggesting that I have no tea (green, Oolong, Ceylon, or otherwise) in my possession. --Shirt58 12:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]