Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2015 July 2

Language desk
< July 1	<< Jun | July | Aug >>	July 3 >

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.

July 2

Arabic question: What is "Schools in Detroit" in Arabic and Polish?

What is "Schools in Detroit" in Arabic? I would like to add that description to Commons:Category:Schools in Detroit along with English, Bengali, Spanish.

Thank you! WhisperToMe (talk) 03:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

مدارس في ديترويت Omidinist (talk) 03:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! WhisperToMe (talk) 04:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

For any editors who know Polish, is it okay if I know what "Schools in Detroit" is in Polish? WhisperToMe (talk) 04:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Szkoły w Detroit. HOOTmag (talk) 06:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! :) WhisperToMe (talk) 07:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Just curious, how do you pronounce the single "w" word in Polish ? StuRat (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

/v/. HOOTmag (talk) 14:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Together with the following syllable: [ˈʂkɔwɨ vdiˈtrɔit]. If the following word started with a voiceless consonant, the "w" would be devoiced: szkoły w Toronto [ˈʂkɔwɨ ftɔˈrɔntɔ]. — Kpalion^(talk) 14:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Not only in Polish, but also in other Slavic languages there exist prepositions consisting only of a single consonant. Indeed, they are pronounced together with the following syllable (word). (There always is a following word because in those languages, unlike in English, a preposition is not a good word to end a sentence with.) --Theurgist (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Where/what is your waist?

This question is equally about semantics and anatomy.

I read the article waist as well as waistline (clothing) and did some Google searches. and I'm finding some of the information contradictory, particularly for men.

The definition I see in some places is "the narrowest part of your torso". Let's take a man with a protruding belly, who wears his pants below his belly, which is normal for such people. Even if we were to say the part of his body where he wears his pants (basically his hips) is not really part of his torso and thus cannot be his waist, then certainly the area immediately below his chest is likely to be much smaller in circumference than his belly. But I've never heard anyone call that part of your body your waist.

And if you take the "anatomical" waist which is defined by some to be the circumference around the part of your torso containing your navel, then for this guy with a belly, that would likely be the *widest* part of your torso, not the narrowest.

So do men have several different waists depending on the definition?--Captain Breakfast (talk) 08:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The waist is, in fashion terms, where your trousers stop (hence how describing jeans as "high-waisted" is meaningful). It doesn't have much relationship with the anatomical waist, except that if you're slim enough that your body curves in at the waist, this is a comfortable (if currently unfashionable) place for wearing belts. The waist is not an identifiable structure in the way that a finger or a tooth is. It's ultimately just an arbitrary line on the body, so it's whatever you define it to be. Smurrayinchester 09:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Among Negroes in American jails the trousers stopped very low (about halfway down the underpants). This has become a fashion in Britain (and no doubt elsewhere) which many, not only women, find distasteful. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 09:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

"Among Negroes in American jails?" That's a hoot, and about 25 years after the fact. Not safe for work or children. μηδείς (talk) 00:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's vague. For example Empire waist dresses on women put the "waist" just below the bust. Perhaps some rather large men do consider their waits to be near the nipples at the narrowest point of the torso, and also wear their pants there - this guy is not fat but he wears his pants very high [1]SemanticMantis (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

LOL Captain Breakfast (talk) 03:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I would say that some obese people simply don't have a waist, in that there is no narrower spot between their chest and hips. Therefore, belts don't really work, and they need to go with suspenders. StuRat (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

What's the grammatical form: "You hate no-one, do you?", or "You hate no-one, don't you?"

The problem I find in #1, is that #1 is opposed to the general form: "You VERB OBJECT, don't you?" (or "You don't VERB OBJECT, do you?"), but it's never "You VERB OBJECT, do you?" (just as it's never "You don't VERB OBJECT, don't you?").

On the other hand: the problem I find in #2, is that the form "You VERB OBJECT, don't you?", is AFAIK an abbreviation of the original meaning: "I was quite sure you VERB OBJECT, don't you VERB OBJECT?" (just as the form "You don't VERB OBJECT do you?", is an abbreviation of the original meaning: "I was quite sure you don't VERB OBJECT, do you VERB OBJECT?"), so #2 - which states "You hate no-one don't you?" - must be an abbreviation of: "I was quite sure you hate no-one, don't you hate no-one?"; but I wonder whether "Don't you hate no-one?" is grammaical, because "You don't hate no-one" is not.

However, maybe my assumption was wrong, and "Don't you hate no-one?" (which could mean "Haven't you claimed you hate no-one?") is grammatical (although "You don't hate no-one" is not). In that case, I guess the correct form - among the forms mentioned in my question - is "You hate no-one, don't you?" 87.68.26.3 (talk) 10:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Nobody is the problem in my eyes. "You hate no-one, don't you?" would be my shot at it. - X201 (talk) 10:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to your remark, I fixed my original question. Btw, what do you think about the last section of my previous response? 87.68.26.3 (talk) 10:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Simply rephrase the question as "You don't hate anyone, do you?" and the problem is solved. --Viennese Waltz 10:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I've always been quite aware of the legitimacy of "You don't hate anyone, do you?", however my question was about how to deal with sentences involving "no-one". 87.68.26.3 (talk) 10:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Why would you insist on having "no-one" in the sentence when it just causes problems and there is a problem-free alternative? --Viennese Waltz 10:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I've never "insisted" on having "on-one". On the contrary: I personally prefer "anyone" to "no-one". I've only wondered whether other people share my impression, that using "no-one" may really cause problems. If they do, then I want them to say that (like you); if they don't - then I want them to tell me the correct form when "no-one" is involved. 87.68.26.3 (talk) 10:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I think they are both valid - if a bit odd - but they mean slightly different things. When you say "You do X, don't you?", it suggests that I think you do X and am daring you to say you don't. When you say "You do X, do you?", it is probably avowing complete ignorance of whether you do it or not. For the question: "You hate no-one, don't you?" It is saying, I think you hate no-one - say you don't if you dare! The other is saying, is it true that you hate no-one? They could be revamped as: "Is it not the case that you hate no-one?" and "Is it the case that you hate no-one?" You hear the first on TV when the prosecutor is cross-examining the defence witness. The other is more friendly - perhaps posed by the defence lawyer. Myrvin (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by: "I think you hate no-one - say you don't if you dare!"? "don't" what? Do you mean "don't [hate no-one]"? But this was my initial problem: Can you claim you "don't hate no-one"? I suspect it's not a valid expression, is it? 87.68.26.3 (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Depends on how picky you want to be, and how formal the writing/speaking is. In many varieties of USA English, "I don't hate no-one" is perfectly grammatical, and resolves to the same semantics as "I don't hate anyone". See Double_negative#Two_or_more_negatives_resolving_to_a_negative, which gives the example "I didn't go nowhere today." See also "I can't get no satisfaction", which does not mean that the speaker is always satisfied. But that's a rock song, and the usage would be inappropriate for e.g. a Wikipedia article or school report. We deal with ambiguity related to the examples you just gave all the time. For example, "Don't you want a puppy?" can be answered both "Yes, I do want a puppy" as well as "No, I do want a puppy". Rephrasing: "Do you not want a puppy?" - the answer "Yes" could mean "Yes, it is the case that I do not want a puppy" (this is a negative answer). In other cases, "Yes" could mean "Yes I want a puppy". Fortunately we just use Context_(language_use) and Intonation_(linguistics) to make sense of things or just rephrase them for clarity, and seldom do we have problems in real-life spoken discussions like this, at least seldom between two native speakers. Hope that helps :) SemanticMantis (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I assume you agree to the following two rules: 1. The second part of the sentence "You VERB OBJECT - don't you?", is an abbreviation of "don't you VERB OBJECT?". 2. From what the speaker means - we can infer, that if the question mark had been removed from the second part of the sentence - so that this second part would have been "you don't VERB OBJECT", then this second part would have meant the opposite of what is meant by the first part of the sentence ("You VERB OBJECT"). In my opinion, this is what we can infer - from what the speaker means when they add the second part of the sentence, can't we?

However, your last claim seems to contradict - at least one of - the two rules mentioned above, because: you claim that the sentence "You hate no-one, don't you [hate no-one]?", eventually means "You hate no-one, don't you [hate anyone]?". consequently, if the question mark had been removed from the second part of the sentence - so that this second part would have been "you don't [hate no-one]" - meaning (in your opinion) "you don't [hate anyone]", then this second part would have meant exactly what - rather than the opposite of what - is meant by the first part of the sentence ("you hate no-one")... 87.68.26.3 (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid this is an idiomatic form - like many, many others. I'll expand: "I think you hate no-one - if you don't hate no-one (ie you hate someone) then say so". I don't think you will see "don't hate no-one" very often. AS VW says: "Don't hate anyone" is more likely. Myrvin (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

My Scottish (Dumfriesshire) great-aunt (born early 20th century, pre-WW1) used to offer guests a drink with "You don't want a sherry do you?" Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Great :-) 87.68.26.3 (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Somewhere, I read an account about a puritan asked to dinner by non-puritan folk. The lady said to him, "You will have some meat, won't you?" He replied, "Madam, first thou said an untruth, and then thou asked a question."Myrvin (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

All of this reminds me another case, about a fellow who lived alone in a huge forest, and sometimes had to cope with intrusive guests. He used to welcome them by saying: "If I had had sugar, I would have suggested you coffee with sugar - if I had had coffee..." 87.68.26.3 (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by "I don't think you will see 'don't hate no-one' very often"? Is it ever possible to hear - something like "you don't hate no-one" - from a native speaker who means "you hate someone"? If it's possible, then in what occasions? 87.68.26.3 (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

It would be easy to say that 'don't hate no-one' is ungrammatical. Perhaps you should assume that, but here [2][3] are searches with lots of them in common speech. But all these are probably double negatives (cf SemanticMantis above) that mean "I don't hate anyone". Also, I wrote a book once entitled "Nobody Don't Know Nothing", so what do I know? Myrvin (talk) 16:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

No, I've never said anything (or nothing if you like) about whether "don't hate no-one" is grammatical. I've always been quite aware of the double negation used by some (native) speakers. I only wondered whether any expression like "you don't hate no-one" - can be heard from a native speaker who means "you hate someone". If you insist that it is possible, then I wonder - in what occasions it is. Regarding the book you've written: does it deal with expressions like "you don't hate no-one" - meaning "you hate someone"? 87.68.26.3 (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I can find no instances of "you don't hate no-one" - meaning "you hate someone", so I don't insist upon it. No, my book was about the impossibility of knowing anything. I think we have moved beyond your original question. Myrvin (talk) 18:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd slightly disagree with the you're interpretation (or at lease, talking about "daring" them makes it seem more hostile than it should be). To my mind, the form "You do X, don't you?" is asking for confirmation that your assumption is correct. "You do X, do you?" seems slightly more questioning, as if you are either not sure that they do X, or are surprised that they do. Iapetus (talk) 10:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• Almost any random sequence of English words can come up as a response to an unusually framed question. Husband: I don't hate anyone at all. Wife: Oh dear, you know you hate someone. Husband: No, honey, there is no one I hate. Wife: Come, on John, you know you don't hate no-one; there's Bob next door, for a start. μηδείς (talk) 23:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Beat me to it. I was working on "I don't hate no-one, I hate everyone". Myrvin (talk) 06:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Al right guys, so the correct form I've been looking for is: "you hate no-one - don't you?", meaning "I've been quite sure you hate no-one - don't you hate no-one?", which means: "I've been quite sure you hate no-one - do you hate anyone?" (according to Medeis's version), or which means: "I've been quite sure you hate no-one - do you hate everyone?" (according to Myrvin's version). Personally I prefer Medeis's interpretation of my original sentence discussed in this thread (I think also Myrvin does), although Myrvin's version can be used as another interpretation of "you don't hate no-one" - irrespective to (and regardless of) my original question. Anyways, all of those alternative interpretations can be added to our article double negative (and to other articles mentioning it) in order to emphasize that the double negation can't be regarded as ungrammatical - when interpreted in some ways. 87.68.26.3 (talk) 07:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

It seems this thread can be closed. HOOTmag (talk) 07:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Could be my BrEng ears, but both constructions sound horrible to me. Why not go with "You don't hate anyone, do you?" --Dweller (talk) 10:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Didn't you read my post upthread? I already suggested that. --Viennese Waltz 12:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Nope. To be honest, I was put off reading the whole thread by the OP's SHOUTING and other people's excessive use of bold. --Dweller (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

OP's shouting? I don't remember I've ever shouted. Regarding "other people's excessive use of bold": Note that bold letters are intended to emphasize (rather than to shout). 87.68.26.3 (talk) 13:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The link I provided covers both of your points. --Dweller (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

As for the big letters: I've never used them to shout - but rather to quote. As for the bold letters: I've never used them to shout - but rather to emphasize, and the link I've provided (in my previous response) - covers that as well. 87.68.26.3 (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

It could be that the link you've provided (in your previous response) leads to the same than this last link you're providing. --Askedonty (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Of course. 87.68.26.3 (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Prior to your post, I count 16 bolded words, out of about 1900 in the thread. My post was the only one other than OP that used bolding, at 2/200 words. If you want to call rates of bolding 1/100 or less excessive, that's fine. Me, I figure using typographic emphasis sparingly is doing a favor to the community, otherwise we just have huge walls of text and it's hard to see key points. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)