Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2015 December 10

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 10

Lemony Snicket word

A decade ago, I came across a long word online that was said to come from one of the Lemony Snicket books. The word meant "the state of not having the slightest clue what someone is talking about". It had -llavia in the middle and ended in -temexity. After some searching, I couldn't find what the word was. The site that I found it on, the famous Langmaker, has been down for years. Khemehekis (talk) 07:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Is it "Pietrisycamollaviadelrechiotemexity"?

For polonophones, the Polish translation is "Pietrisykamolawiaderechtomeksja". Fantastic. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes! That's it! Thank you! Khemehekis (talk) 07:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Very vs much; MS Word grammar advice

In an MS Word document I have the text "...this technique requires very specialised skills and equipment...". MS Word is recommending I change the word "very" to "much". Should I comply? ----Seans Potato Business 13:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

No. Bazza (talk) 13:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

No. I never assume that MS Word grammar (green) underlines are valid. That's very different from the spelling (red) underlines. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The explanation given for this suggestion reads as follows: "It is incorrect to use 'very' directly in front of certain verbs. Consider substituting 'much'. Instead of: The past should be very remembered. Consider: The past should be much remembered." So it's incorrectly assuming that "specialised" is being used here as the past participle of the verb "to specialise", rather than an adjective, which is how it's being used. --Viennese Waltz 14:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

This page has some guidance, as does this one. --Jayron32 16:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion: Replace "very" with "highly". That sounds much better, to me. StuRat (talk) 16:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure it doesn't sound highly better? Or very better? --Jayron32 17:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

"Highly" would be very much better. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

What about Highly Sellasee. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 18:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Or his ne'er-do-well cousin, Lowly. (That's the second time in a week I've used that one. Go figure.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

See Microsoft Word Spelling and Grammar Check Demonstration.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Maya glottal stop: Typography

I have a question about correct typography when using a Maya name in a document. Which would be the most appropriate character to use for the glottal stop? (The article on Maya language did not go into typographic conventions.)

• the right single quote mark U+2019 ’
• the typewriter apostrophe U+0027 ''
• Unicode's "modifier letter apostrophe" U+02BC ʼ
• any of these
• some other character

Thanks! --Ginkgo100^talk 16:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The glottal stop is a distinct consonant in Polynesian languages as well, and in those languages there is a specific typographic convention: the ʻOkina. Of course, if someone else has a specific Mayan convention which is well referenced, use that of course. But in the absence of one, perhaps you could press the ʻOkina into service for that purpose. Another option is Glottal stop (letter) which is a different glyph for the same sound; it is noted to be used in other languages. So there's two choices. --Jayron32 17:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! I thought of the ʻokina but it is apparently only used for Hawaiʻian and related languages. The accepted modern orthography for Mayan languages uses an apostrophe for the glottal stop. But there is more than one variation on the apostrophe in Unicode, and I am almost compulsive (maybe too much so) about these minute details. If it turns out nobody is really sure, that would be a sign to me that it doesn't actually matter which apostrophe variant is used. --Ginkgo100^talk 20:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses have published information in the Yucatec Maya language (http://www.jw.org/yua/ and http://wol.jw.org/yua/wol/h/r40/lp-may). Perhaps you can decide by examining the appearance of the character used.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The article at http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/10/13/25-years-bible-translation-mayan-language-completed/ refers to a Bible translation into the Tzotzil language. (Jehovah's Witnesses have published the Greek Scriptures of the Bible in Tzotzil at http://wol.jw.org/tzo/wol/binav/r91/lp-tzo/bi7/TZO/2014.)

—Wavelength (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Standardized orthography is discussed at http://research.famsi.org/mdp/mdp_orthography.html.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

See On the representation of the glottal stop in Maya writing (PDF Download Available).

—Wavelength (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

See "Saltillo (linguistics)".—Wavelength (talk) 23:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

General principle: if you write in a technically restricted environment use 0027. In a typographically conscious environment use either 2019 or 02BC as they look identical. But in a Unicode conscious environment and when the distinction is required, use 02BC, as the main role of 2019 is for the right single quotation mark or apostrophe. The drawback of 02BC, though, is the lack of this glyph in most fonts (but some default MS Windows fonts (Cambria, Segoe, etc.) have 02BC anyway). --Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 16:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Animal equivalent to "personality" ?

If a stranger comes home with you, your pet may run and hide, cautiously approach, or jump right in his lap. So, clearly some pets have different "personalities" than others, but this word seems inappropriate, since they are not people. What word do scientists use, say when discussing the behavioral differences between dogs and wolves ? StuRat (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Ethology. --Jayron32 19:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

No, you can't say "those two dogs have different ethologies". StuRat (talk) 05:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Reading the linked article will lead you to the correct words to use, either directly, or because you follow sources within that article. That's how the Reference Desk works. Not that you've ever learned that. --Jayron32 11:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

You seem to think you're not allowed to give an answer here, only sources (although you recently gave an incorrect and unsourced reply and then covered it up, deleting my reference in the process: [1]). The answer, given below, is "temperment", and I thank those who actually bothered to answer. StuRat (talk) 06:59, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

You're allowed to give referenced answers. You're not allowed to make up shit you think you heard one time, nor are you allowed to give answers that you think "just make common sense" with no references. Also, what I did there is called "admitting to and fixing your mistake". Since you have never done that ever once here at Wikipedia, you probably didn't recognize it. --Jayron32 21:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

You mean you covered up your mistake, as opposed to leaving it there and admitting your mistake. And I have admitted when I've actually made a mistake, so you are wrong once again: [2]. Will you admit it this time, or just remove this thread, too ? StuRat (talk) 06:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the term personality is used. [3] Marco polo (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a preferred term among animal behaviorists, but you could use "temperament" instead of "personality." The meaning is nearly equivalent. --Ginkgo100^talk 20:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I think "personality" is fine. They may not be people, but they're arguably persons. --Trovatore (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

From the journal Bioscience, a nice descriptive quote on usage from a peer-reviewed source:

“ Animal personality studies have crept into the field of biological sciences under various monikers, including behavioral syndromes, coping styles, animal temperament, and interindividual variation. ”

See full article here [4]. There's nothing wrong with saying a dog has a personality, but if you want to sound more sciency you might say that two dogs have different behavioral syndromes. Note the word "syndrome" modified by a specifying adjective. "Syndrome" is used in a lot of ways in science that often surprise people who associate the word only with disease. Actually I should point out that our article on syndrome is terrible, because it only covers the medical sense (ETA- I have now added a short bit to that article mentioning other uses). We also speak of seed dispersal syndromes and pollination syndromes, etc.

"Temperament" is the word commonly used by breeders, trainers, and other people who interact professionally with animals. For example, most of our articles on dog breeds have a section on the behaviors commonly associated with the breed, e.g. Collie#Temperament. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

What does ETA mean here ? StuRat (talk) 05:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Estimated Temperament of Animals. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

ETA=Edited To Add - thought it was somewhat common here, sorry for the confusion. (ETA- I have added this usage to ETA_(disambiguation) :)SemanticMantis (talk) 14:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I've often heard "personality" used for dogs and cats. It works fine. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• Behaviourists use temperament, actual folks use personality. μηδείς (talk) 02:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
  • People use both. Two dogs with broadly similar personalities could have differences in temperament. And vice-versa. There's no need to issue a ukase (or even an ukaz) that one and only word is to be used. (That might indicate an authoritarian temperament, and little or no personality at all.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The sentence was merely an excuse to gibe behaviourists. Paying strict attention, you will notice those were third person indicative, not second person imperative verbs. But, while we're at it, can you translate and explain, if necessary this poster: http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02518/boris-poster_2518270b.jpg, @JackofOz:? Thanks.

"Walking Together" Congratulates Comrade Zyuganov and His Comrades-in-Arms on the 10th Anniversary of the CPRF. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I had missed the я in congratulates, and never learnt the participles. That тов. was comrade, and that Zyuganov was not z yuganov also didn't help. μηδείς (talk) 04:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)