Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 December 15

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 15

krɪst naˈkoːra guˈsɔ

Resolved

I just heard a version of Silent Night, in which the last verse was sung in a foreign language, which sounded a bit like romance languages to me. It ended with the words [krɪst naˈkoːra guˈsɔ]. Any idea which language this could have been? — Sebastian 02:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and the article Silent Night itself has a language version that I don't recognize, either! — Sebastian 02:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It's Maltese I think.--72.87.132.142 (talk) 04:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you - that looks indeed like it! May I ask, did you find this by googling for it, or do you know some Maltese?

So, what about the phrase I heard - anybody here who recognizes that? — Sebastian 05:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

If you have the time you could check through the 130 languages in the link at the bottom of the article.[1]. You could at least rule out quite a few that it couldn't be. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 05:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me as though it might be Irish (the first verse). Deor (talk) 06:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It has to be Maltese because of the use of the unique letter ħ, and of course one can spot some Arabic words (lejl, għana).--K.C. Tang (talk) 07:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions, but 72.87.132.142 already found it. The only remaining question is the one about the phrase in the title: [krɪst naˈkoːra guˈsɔ]. Any ideas? — Sebastian 08:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The phrase is unlike any Romance language I know. I believe it's Tagalog.--90.201.241.8 (talk) 09:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

What about this version? Closer to your IPA than the Maltese version. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 10:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops, Deor already pointed that out. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 10:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The Irish would be pronounced [ˈcɾʲiːsˠt̪ˠ n̪ˠə ˈxɔl̪ˠə ɡə ˈsˠeːvʲ ˈʃeːvʲ]. Is that close enough, Sebastian? —Angr 11:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that's it! I'm wondering how much it was just my memory that fooled me by twisting it around to better fit languages I know, and how much it may have been the singer herself (as in the case of the [x], which is often replaced with [k] by native English speakers. Her English did not sound Irish to me.) — Sebastian 18:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Even many people in Ireland replace the /x/ with /k/. Everyone in Ireland learns Irish in school, but that doesn't mean they learn to pronounce it the way native speakers do. (I made a correction to the last word, which I had initially transcribed wrong.) —Angr 19:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm really confused. You're all seeing some Maltese, but the translation on Silent Night is from German to English. Where is the Maltese that you are all seeing? Cheers, --Joe^Talk_Work 03:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Use of "the" at the delicatessen

I may have mentioned this some time ago, but I've never heard an explanation that satisfied me. Scenario: you're at the supermarket, at the delicatessen/small goods (whatever you call it) section waiting to be served. There's a woman standing next to you, and she gets served. She'll say:

• May I have 8 slices of the double-smoked ham, half a kilo of the pecorino, and 6 of the continental sausages.

Then a man gets served, and he wants exactly the same thing as the woman did, but he says:

• May I have 8 slices of double-smoked ham, half a kilo of pecorino, and 6 continental sausages.

I'm not contending that men never include "the", or that women never drop "the". I'm talking what I typically or very commonly hear. What can possibly explain this curious difference between the way (some, apparently most) women and (some, apparently most) men ask for these sorts of things? Does this phenomenon occur in other countries, or just in this neck of the woods?

For myself, if I consciously asked for "half a kilo of the double-smoked ham", I'd feel a little odd, veering towards embarrassed. To me, it's such a ... well, girly way of talking (no offence), and I don't like sounding like a girl. I can imagine some women feeling that "half a kilo of pecorino" feels a little blunt or brusque, and they prefer to sound slightly more feminine that that. Is this on the right track? And if so, why does the inclusion/exclusion of such a triviality as the definite article - I say "triviality" because in this context it makes absolutely no difference to the meaning of the request either way - have anything to do with gender identification? -- JackofOz (talk) 06:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Using the definite article in those contexts doesn't sound remotely feminine or effeminate to me. It sounds like you're more familiar with the delicatessen's selections than someone who leaves the article out. If I say "8 slices of the double-smoked ham", it means I've had this shop's double-smoked ham before, and I know it's the only kind they have, and that's what I want. If I say "8 slices of double-smoked ham", it means I know there is such a thing as double-smoked ham, but for all I know this shop has three varieties of double-smoked ham, and I don't particularly care which variety of it I get. Maybe as a result using the definite article sounds more intimate than omitting it, and that's what sounds girly to you. —Angr 08:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I had the same thought. Note that this could lead to women being more likely to use "the", as they are more likely to be familiar with the deli's stock, if we assume that women still do most of the grocery shopping. StuRat (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Angr here, the definite article doesn't make any genderized difference to me. Just as a theory, if there is a special price on a certain type of salami, saying "half a (unit) of the salami" might indicate that the customer wants the one that is one special. Another theory; the request might be accompanied by pointing to what's in the case - if, perhaps, the salami, bologna, and pepperoni are lined up next to each other, the customer might point in the general direction of those items and ask for a (unit) of the bologna. For extra credit, discuss why people in Los Angeles refer to "The 405" when most other Americans would refer to a nearby local interstate highway as "405" or "I-405". --LarryMac | Talk 15:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Since you're asking about other languages: In Germany, it is common to use the article in the South, and to leave it out in the North. Interestingly, there are two isoglosses: One for the use with proper names, and the other one for common nouns. Standard German falls between the two; it uses the article only for common nouns. Having grown up in the south, I always felt it to be more "Prussian", or military, to leave it out, and more cordial to add it, especially to proper names. — Sebastian 08:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

What dialects of German fail to use the definite article with common nouns? —Angr 11:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

If there is already a defining term in the weight/ specification, "of the" is mostly considered redundant in the North. Usage is however not quite that straightforward:

• For non-compound nouns without adjective no article is required (the of = "von" is also omitted)

2 cucumbers = 2 Gurken, 2 pounds of potatoes = 2 Pfund Kartoffeln, 1 bucket of paint = 1 Eimer Farbe.

• When pointing at the item in question, "of the" is used, particularly when several varieties are on display):

2 of those apples = 2 von den Äpfeln, 1 lb. of that saussage = 1 Pfund von der Wurst,

This is why Southern German usage might cause a Northern German salesperson to do a double take, till the brain relates that this person isn't intently looking at a specific item or is just not telling you what specific item he/she has in mind. Responses like "Hä?" ("What?"), ..But we only have one kind of potatoes. or ...Will these do? are not uncommon in such situations.

Interesting! I wasn't aware of that. In the South, we distinguish the two by stress, with the stressed version being a less formal variant of the demonstrative pronoun "dieser". — Sebastian 19:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• For non-compound nouns with adjective "of the" is used if it distinguishes a known choice rather than just defines the item (note the ending of the adjective changes too)

2 long cucumbers (not the short ones) = 2 von den langen Gurken,

2 long cucumbers (merely describing the specific type of item I'm talking about) = 2 lange Gurken; similarly

1 bucket of light blue paint (not the dark blue one) = 1 Eimer von der hellblauen Farbe,

1 bucket of light blue paint (describing the color I'm talking about)= 1 Eimer hellblaue Farbe

• For compound nouns there is an added complication depending on whether one considers the first noun as defining the item or description thus four people might apply two different usages to the same item e.g. a rye roll:
  • the first noun is considered as describing the second = 1 Roggenbrötchen
  • the first noun is viewed as describing the specific variety of "second noun" items I'm talking about (I know that one/some other variety/-ies are available here and now) = 1 von den Roggenbrötchen
  • an adjective describes the specific type of item I'm talking about = 1 von den dunklen Roggenbrötchen (not the light ones)
  • the entire term merely describes an item I'm talking about. 1 dunkles Roggenbrötchen

Interestingly enough "Platdütsch" has the same usage as Angr described above. Articles "de, den or dat" sometimes embelished with "dore" (like English "that there") for items considered to be specific and no article with items where one's a) not sure they even have what you are asking for and b) any old variety of it will do. (I was told that Platdütsch (low German) is a separate language not a dialect. It's spoken in the North of Germany. It comes in many dialects itself.)

:-o It's gotten a bit long, hope you're not sorry you asked.

@ OP would 2 bottles of the double malt whiskey sound more girly than 2 bottles of malt whiskey? 76.97.245.5 (talk) 17:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, to the extent that I can imagine a female asking for them, yes, it does.

@ Angr, I know what you're getting at. The situation involves all the produce being displayed behind a glass counter, and everyone can see exactly what's on offer today and what's not. Sometimes people ask for something that's not on display, but there it would be more like "Do you have any of that lovely double-smoked ham I bought here last week?", or, if it was a place they'd never been to before, "Do you have any double-smoked ham?". I've been in situations where I've been in an unfamiliar place, accompanied by a woman, and we've gone scouting for something to buy for lunch/dinner. She knows nothing about what the shop normally sells, all she knows is what's in front of her right now. She'll still ask for "the" whatever, whereas I and other guys would just ask for whatever. Sometimes people ask for "three of those pies" or "a kilo of that bacon", indicating with their eyes the specific product they want rather than pointing indecorously (or maybe they point as well). But that's something both men and women do. "The" seems a different thing, much more of a female use in my experience. I've heard this so often that maybe I've become sensitised to it and I subconsciously expect to hear it from a woman and fail to register when a man says it. I don't go around deliberately eavesdropping, but some things just seem to impinge on my brain. I do make distinctions between women and men, but I don't think I discriminate to quite that extent. Fwiw, being the sort of person I am, my attention is normally more likely to be directed to a random man and whatever he's saying or doing, than to a random woman and whatever she's saying or doing, but this "the" thing seems to have pervaded that. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It strikes me that if I say "May I have 1/2 pound of egg salad?" A possible reply is "Sorry, we have no egg salad today." If someone asks "May I have 1/2 pound of the eggsalad?" It implies that they are a sophisticated purchaser who knows yery well that the merchant has egg salad for sale. ("I know you have some, so don't try and b.s.") The request is to vend from a known quantity definitely for sale, while the omitted "the" allows for the negation and is less pressuring. Edison (talk) 03:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't ring true with me, Edison. If I wanted some egg salad and, even though it wasn't on display, I knew or suspected there was some available, I'd still ask for whatever quantity of "egg salad", not of "the egg salad". -- JackofOz (talk) 05:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Polite types say May I or could I please have. I mostly hear "I'll have..." or "Half a kilo of..., 300 grams of and a handful of ..." from males and females. Gender geni[2] gives a higher male score to the request that includes "the" though both come out as male; and no female score to the command style of request. Fwiw, Julia Rossi (talk) 06:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The Gender Genie and its keywords intrigued me, so by constrained writing I produced these texts.

(Pregnant woman to midwife)

"The contractions are coming more frequently, as many as six times a day. The baby's feet are above my navel, but his head is below it. My husband, who is staying around the house, said these are exciting moments for him too. What is more, my family is coming to visit at noon tomorrow. Everyone is anxious to see the baby."

(Female Score: 0) (Male Score: 415)

(Man to man)

"Sam already has millions with his football career. If he buys your team--not if, but when--when he buys your team, he will be even richer. Where will he put all his money? He should buy another sports car for himself and one for his wife, so she can entertain her friends. He can even buy one for you and your friends, and another one for me and my friends."

(Female Score: 318) (Male Score: 0)

-- Wavelength (talk) 18:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

For the analysis, I selected the genre "nonfiction".

-- Wavelength (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

A related phenomenon I often hear from my customers is "Can I have (amount) of your (product)?" Almost as if they expect me to say, "No, but I can give you some from that other store over there!" I've never noticed if there's a gender component to this, or to the "the" but I'll certainly be listening for it from now on! Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Which reminds me of the time when I wandered into an Italian fruit shop in Sydney as a New Australian (ie immigrant) with little knowledge of colloquial subtleties and asked innocently:

"May I have a leek, please?" --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Which reminds me of the time when my dad walked into a sports shop in a former British colony (we had recently arrived for a two year stay). He used to play badminton with an American colleague, and explained innocently that he needed some birds. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 19:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Even if a trait is possessed by only a minority of members of one's gender, is it really so bad to be in the minority? If every person's perceptions of others' perceptions of him or her lead to mass homogenization and a loss of societal diversity, is that desirable? Uniformity of communication for practical reasons is one thing, but making gender-based judgements of people by their language is something else.

See quiz masculine feminine - Google Search, but please (anyone reading this) do not take anything too seriously.

-- Wavelength (talk) 06:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

See Language and Gender: A Reader - Google Book Search, pages 13 to 20 (Yanyuwa: 'Men speak one way, women speak another') and Yanyuwa language.

-- Wavelength (talk) 17:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Viva la Vida

What language is the phrase "Viva la Vida" on Coldplay's albums? The article states that it translates as "Long live life", but babelfish doesn't produce this result - or anything I was able to interpret as equivalent - in any language I tried. Spanish was closest with "The life lives". -- SGBailey (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary link - viva, from Italian, means "long live"; it's most likely idiomatic rather than literal. I can't say for sure if it is used the same way in Spanish, which would then allow the article's translation to stand. --LarryMac | Talk 15:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It's perfectly grammatical Spanish, but the translation "Long live life" is more idiomatic than literal. "Viva" is in the subjunctive mood, here expressing a wish, so a more literal translation would be "May life live". But the usual idiomatic way in English of expressing the wish that something or someone may live is to say "Long live X" - for example, the French Le roi est mort; vive le roi (incidentally also an album title) is usually translated into English as "The king is dead; long live the king" even though the French doesn't have a word corresponding to "long" any more than the Spanish does. —Angr 15:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

So is it Italian or Spanish or ...? (I repeated the question since the above two answers seem to disagree on this) -- SGBailey (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It's Spanish. Italian would be "Viva la Vita", Portuguese would be "Viva a Vida", and French would be "Vive la Vie". —Angr 17:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks -- SGBailey (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

As a footnote, it could also mean "Live (your) life" if the subjunctive is interpreted as a formal (usted) command, but that still makes it Spanish.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 18:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that Viva/Vive is better translated as "Live well" in this context. As it does not have a direct translation to English, we need to translate the phrase idiomatically. We could take "Viva la Vida" seems to, given the context, mean "Live your life well" or "Live life to its fullest" or something more like that. There is not a one-to-one correspondance between "Viva" and a single English word or phrase... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, the Viva context of "Living well" or "Living a full life" does enter english as the adjective "vivacious" --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Referring to a group of people from Turkey.

What would be the best term to use to refer to a small group of people from Turkey? Is "Turks" acceptable? For example, "I'm giving a presentation to the Turks tomorrow." It sounds slightly derogatory to my white American ears (white guilt??) Is there a more PC term? --70.167.58.6 (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Turkish people? 65.0.252.5 (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Bah! PC lily-liveredness. Call them Turks; and call Jews Jews, as Jews themselves do. Usually, a delicate refusal to use the standard word betrays an unresolved ambivalence about the group in question. Both Turk and Jew have in less enlightened times been used pejoratively; we show that we have left all that behind by restoring these to natural, non-valuative use. Compare the complex situation with woman and lady.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

(After EC) With "Turkish people" you have to watch out how you use it. Particularly if you use "the". I'd say: "I'm giving a presentation to some people from Turkey." or "I'm giving a presentation to our Turkish visitors." or to a colleague: "I'm giving a presentation to those guys from Turkey tomorrow." or some such. As you can see on the disambiguation page for Turk under "people / groups" the term may not necessarily be taken as you mean it. Although a large part of the population of Turkey are Turks, you might have heard e.g. of their Kurdish and Greek minorities in the news. In my experience "European" inhabitants of Turkey aren't too happy to be thrown in one pot with their countrymen from Anatolia. Non native speakers occasionally also run into trouble with the countable vs. "mass" meanings of people. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 01:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

When in the U.S., why not do as Turkey's embassy does? Its web site uses both "the Turkish people" and "Turks." --- 01:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, Anon₂: there will be differences to mark between ethnicity and nationality. But for neither of this is Turk to be avoided on squeamish PC grounds. It's just a question of accuracy and best-established conventions. As with Jew.

And sure, Anon₂ or is it Anon₃: one would speak of the Turkish people where people is a singular, just would one would do in the Serbian people (but three Serbs came to see me), or the the Jewish people (but three Jews came to see me). By the way, that Turkish Embassy site's search engine gives 10 hits for "Turkish people", and 105 for "Turk".

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 02:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Call me squeamish, but I think this really depends very much on the context. If there were representatives of different faiths at a conference, and each faith-group was being given a presentation separate from the other groups, one person would be presenting to "the Muslims", another to "the Jews", another to "the Buddhists", etc. That's perfectly OK in that context. If the groups were country-based rather than religion-based, then they'd be "the Turks", "the Israelis", "the Nepalis", etc. But if it were an answer to a general question such as "What are you doing tomorrow night after work?", you wouldn't say "I'm giving a presentation to (the) Turks", any more than you'd refer to "(the) Jews" or "(the) Arabs". It would be more likely to be "I'm giving a presentation to a group of:

• Jewish people (not Jews)
• Turkish people (not Turks; and I don't care what the Turkish Embassy's website says)
• French people/British people/English people/Welsh people/Dutch people (no other options available)
• Scots (Scottish/Scots people is possible, but unnecessary)
• Saudi Arabians/Australians/Canadians/New Zealanders/Americans/Germans/Indonesians/Japanese/Russians etc -- JackofOz (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for avoiding the alternatives of "Brits" for British People, which I rate as worse than "Limey". -- Q Chris (talk) 10:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I've always had a fondness for the term "Britons". I think it's pleasantly archaic. Indeterminate (talk) 22:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I think context does matter. In general, the term "Turks" is usually taken to refer to ethnic Turks, while "Turkish people" or "people from Turkey" refers to all citizens of the nation of Turkey without regard for ethnicity. As usual, there is no such thing as true synonyms, there are always shades of meaning... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

In general, I go with Noetica and I don't have a problem with calling Turks Turks... unless those concerned are Turkish citizens but I know (as sometimes you do) that they prefer not to be called Turks. For instance, the Turkish government is still very negative about the use of the Kurdish language in Turkey, even though millions of people there speak it as their first language. We can almost say that officially there are no Kurds in Turkey. That is one of the reasons why not all Turkish citizens want to be Turks. Xn4 (talk) 02:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Jayron and Xn4: do not confuse adjustment for register, context of utterance, and such matters with adjustment for precision of meaning. See what I write above: "Sure, Anon₂: there will be differences to mark between ethnicity and nationality. But for neither of this is Turk to be avoided on squeamish PC grounds."

JackofOz: have you read our long article Jew? You may be in thrall to a misconception. Nothing in that article betrays the slightest difficulty with calling Jews Jews; and the matter is not wrangled over on the talkpage – nor even mentioned.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 02:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I reproduce something from a footnote at Jew, quoted from AHD of the English Language (that's the biggest American Heritage dictionary):

It is widely recognized that the attributive use of the noun Jew, in phrases such as Jew lawyer or Jew ethics, is both vulgar and highly offensive. In such contexts Jewish is the only acceptable possibility. Some people, however, have become so wary of this construction that they have extended the stigma to any use of Jew as a noun, a practice that carries risks of its own. In a sentence such as There are now several Jews on the council, which is unobjectionable, the substitution of a circumlocution like Jewish people or persons of Jewish background may in itself cause offense for seeming to imply that Jew has a negative connotation when used as a noun. (Emphasis added with bold.)

Jewish person occurs just once at Jew, in precision treatment of etymology and use in various languages.

Jewish people occurs there only as referring to the people as a whole, not as a plural of Jewish person. Even plural usages like the Jewish people are would normally be deployed in reference to the people as a whole. Similarly in The American people have a right to know, where The American people has a right to know would be infelicitous; in both cases, though, it is the American people as a whole that is meant.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 03:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't ever avoid Turk "on squeamish PC grounds", definitely not, but I do to avoid offending particular individuals. I can still agree with Noetica on the general answer to this. Xn4 (talk) 04:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice research, Noetica, but I stand by what I said above. I would feel most uncomfortable about answering "What are you doing tomorrow night?" with "I'm giving a presentation to a group of Jews", precisely because it could so easily be misinterpreted. Same with "a group of Turks". And if I were asking the question and I got that as the answer, I too would wonder just where they were coming from. Any alternative construction would be better, preferably "some Jewish people", which is what I would usually say unless it were more appropriate to say "some people from the Israeli Embassy" or "some people from the Australian Jewish Council" or whatever. Others are, of course, free to speak as they see fit and take their chances, but we were asked for our opinions/advice. As for the Wikipedia article - bah! What would Wikipedia know about anything!  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 05:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course that's a different layer on the whole thing, JoO: the way you manage these things, and the way I might feel I have to manage things in everyday encounters. Particular circumstances call for particular choices of words and action; and many hearers will not understand that Jew is issued in some way that is approved by some Jewish Board of Deputies. Similarly, while a strong moderate feminist majority wants any woman called simply a woman (and I strenuously support that), I might hesitate, and carefully appraise the age and likely attitude of the woman waiting alongside me, before saying "Serve this woman [or lady, or for that matter girl] first, please. She was before me."

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 10:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

When I read this I really wonder why God needed the Babylonian multiplication of languages. The variety of languages is fun. Couldn't ThEy have simply made everyone speak English and impose political correctness - that sounds like a real punishment to me! — Sebastian 18:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

[Unindent] Sure, Sebastian. The sociolinguistics of political correctness is fascinating and complex, and we can't escape it. We all make choices such as the one I illustrated in everyday life, even if this is only for practical reasons. Like it or not. I have used a soft example: use of woman versus lady or girl. But discussion of the use of Black American versus nigger, or Chinese versus Chink, would have to be managed with great care. The question of nigger came up again recently in Australia: a public facility of some sort had long been named after a man nicknamed Nigger-[Someone] (Jack might recall the details), and there was a successful campaign to have it renamed. We are all "punished" by an oversensitivity even in analysing these things.

In fact I am most interested in these woman–lady–girl–[other terms] distinctions, and consider them sociolinguistically under-researched for deep political reasons.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 21:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, the E. S. "Nigger" Brown Stand in Toowoomba. It's been demolished and the "Nigger" part of his appellation has been consigned to history. Next cab off the rank is Coon Cheese, apparently.[3], [4], [5]. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)