Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language: Difference between revisions

 

Line 184: Line 184:

:Could be most anything or anybody, maybe trying to inflate their status. It reminds me of Henny Youngman’s brother-in-law, who labeled himself a “diamond cutter”. His job was to mow the lawn at Yankee Stadium. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ^{”[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What’s up, Doc?]]”} [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 22:15, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

:Could be most anything or anybody, maybe trying to inflate their status. It reminds me of Henny Youngman’s brother-in-law, who labeled himself a “diamond cutter”. His job was to mow the lawn at Yankee Stadium. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ^{”[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What’s up, Doc?]]”} [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 22:15, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

:Here ”symphony” is short for ”[[symphony orchestra]]”, which is more specific than just ”orchestra”. Symphony orchestras commonly employ professional freelance musicians who are not salaried employees of the orchestra, both as soloists and as extras. A high-quality musician can make a living that way. For a soloist example, see the “prelude” section [https://thecreativeindependent.com/people/flutist-and-piccoloist-margaret-shin-fischer-on-the-specific-challenges-of-working-as-a-classically-trained-musician/ here]; note that it is rare for a symphonic composition to have a piccolo part, so most orchestras won’t have a piccolo player in their permanent line-up. Once a freelance musician is known to an orchestra and has proved to be a reliable high-quality player, they will tend to keep rehiring this musician when the need arises. While it is true that no one on the Internet can be sure you are not a dog, people can have legitimate reasons not to give so many clues that their identity can be guessed. So, in short, I don’t smell anything sus based on the information given here.  ​‑‑[[User talk:Lambiam#top|Lambiam]] 09:23, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

= February 10 =

= February 10 =

I recently sent mail to a Swedish hotel asking if they can prolong my reservation. They replied they cannot, but “jag kan göra en ny“. This is Swedish for “I can make a new one” but the word-for-word translation is “I can make a new”. Notice the lack of a word for “one”. In my native Finnish this would be “voin tehdä uuden“, literally “I-can make a-new”. In German this would probably be something like “ich kann einen Neuen machen“.

How would this be handled in other languages? Are there other languages than English that require a word such as “one”? JIP | Talk 02:31, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that “a/an” and “one” are often the same thing. An obvious example is in Spanish, where “a new one” is translated as uno nuevo. It appears that in Swedish, you get en ny whether you say “a new one”, “a new” or “one new”. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What’s up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:15, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In Dutch: “Ik kan een nieuwe maken.” Very similar to German. Apparently, Swedish, Finnish, German, Spanish and Dutch allow turning an adjective into a noun, which is a bit harder in English, requiring “one” as a dummy noun. PiusImpavidus (talk) 09:09, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In Dutch, would “a new” and “one new” both be phrased the same way, with the only difference being the pronunciation of “een”?

Interestingly, in Middle and in Early Modern English, this type of “nominalized adjective” construction was allowed. It seems to mostly have been used after an “and”, such as “she was a fair lady and a wise” or “he was a strong knight and a brave”. It is curious that that fell out of use in English and a dummy noun has to take its place while not in other languages. ~2026-59608-1 (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, “a new” and “one new” are in Dutch both “een nieuwe”, pronounced respectively as /ən ‘niu̯.ə/ and /’en ‘niu̯.ə/. If disambiguation is required in writing, the latter is spelled “één nieuwe”. PiusImpavidus (talk) 09:05, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the Asian languages might put a suffix or particle behind – e.g. Mandarin might put use a (difficult to translate) “de” in “xin-de”. They don’t have articles but might potentially put a number specifier in front (yi-ge xin-de), like “one-piece new-one”); in any case, difficult to compare. In Japanese, something like “atarashii-no” or “atarashii mono” might be used, with the number specifier in front being used more rarely than in Chinese. — ~2026-58727-8 (talk) 10:10, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In grammatical terms, “a new one” is a nominalized adjective. Our article calls the word “one” that is used to form nominalized adjectives in English a “prop-word”. But I think that at least among European languages, English is the odd one(!) out, as most other languages don’t require such a prop-word. —~2026-58992-8 (talk) 12:40, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is it related to that in English, adjectives cannot get a plural suffix, whereas they can in other languages? For example, in Finnish, it would be “voin tehdä uusia “, but in English, “I can make new ones”. —40bus (talk) 20:23, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The “a” or “an” means “one”. I would say the plural of “a/an” is either a specific number or the generalization “some”. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What’s up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:50, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note that what User:40bus is saying literally means “I-can make news”, where “news” is not the English language word “news” but a plural of the English language word “new”. JIP | Talk 00:59, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

News from newes, an adjective with plural suffix. Now I’m thinking how ridiculous the phrase “a news item” is. These plural-suffixed adjectives are very ad hoc. News is now a mass noun, acoustics refers to multiple properties of being acoustic whereas yummies refers to multiple objects with a property, the uglies has a suffix to make it sound like a disease, shorts refers to a specific pairing of short things, and the suffix on awkwards is probably there to diminish seriousness.  Card Zero  (talk) 02:56, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In Turkish you have to add a counter word: “yeni bir tane“, very literally, word-by-word, “new a grain” – the Turkish indefinite singular article “bir”, identical to the numeral for “one”, is usually placed immediately before the noun and thus after the adjective. I think Irish also requires explicit nominalization: “ceann nua”, very literally word-by-word “head new” – Irish adjectives follow the noun.  ​‑‑Lambiam 12:58, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

“One” is being used here like a pronoun to fill in for ‘reservation’, i.e., the already-mentioned noun. Other languages don’t do that because the new thing is already obvious from context. Whether you include “one” or not, what you’re saying is “I can make a new [reservation]”

It’s much the same as how we say “It’s raining.” What is “it?” Well, the circumstance, the situation. It’s obvious from context, but nevertheless English likes to use these filler words. Athanelar (talk) 14:49, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is conditional a mood in Germanic languages? I have considered conditional in English as a mood, as it is a mood in Finnish. In main clauses, Finnish and English conditionals are used much same way, but in if-clauses, Finnish uses conditional but English uses the past tense, which is actually a subjunctive. But Finnish conditional is a single word (with ending -isi) whereas English uses two words, would + infinitive. Other Germanic languages also use two words, like Swedish skulle and German würde. Are there also called “conditional mood”? In Romance languages it is generally considered a tense. But is it also in Germanic languages? —40bus (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You asked that same question before, on October 21. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:47, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But I want to know if conditional is ever classified as a mood in English. —40bus (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the complete discussion: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2025 October 21 ←Baseball Bugs ^{What’s up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:17, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Germanic languages have (typically) 3 moods: indicative (used most), imperative (for commands) and “something else”, which has the function of irrealis, conditional, conjunctive, subjunctive etc. and is often somewhat archaic. It exists though; for example English “He be the fastest,” indicating a wish, compared to “He is the fastest,” indicating a reality. And the whole tense/aspect/mood/voice system of the Germanic languages is a Gordian knot, so you can have something that looks like a tense, in particular the future-in-the-past (in English would or should, past tenses of will and shall), that has the semantics of a mood, like “something else”. But as an actual “something else”-mood exists, some may prefer to refer to it as a tense, because that’s how its syntax works. The Germans invented the terms conjunctive-1 and conjunctive-2.

In short: it’s a mess. PiusImpavidus (talk) 09:25, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So can we then say, “this verb is in a messy mood”?  ​‑‑Lambiam 16:51, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A poet would have no objections. If one can speak in the first person present vindictive, anything’s fair game. — Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:04, 31 January 2026 (UTC) [reply]

One am pleased to hear you say that. —Trovatore (talk) 07:57, 4 February 2026 (UTC) [reply]

Is would + infinitive ever included in the paradigm of English verbs? I think that would + infinitive is a mood, will + infinitive a tense, and shall + infinitive , should + infinitive, could + infinitive, may + infinitive, might + infinitive, must + infinitive and ought to + infinitive are periphrases. —40bus (talk) 00:24, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What are loanwords borrowed from Singaporean English? ~2026-63994-4 (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Borrowed from Singapore English into what? Into Standard English, or into other Singapore languages? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:49, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In case this helps – from Singlish: In 2016, the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) announced that it has added 19 new “Singapore English” items such as ang moh, shiok and sabo in both its online and printed versions. Several Singlish words had previously made it into the OED’s online version, which launched in March 2000. Words such as lah and sinseh were already included in OED’s debut, while kiasu made it into the online list in March 2007.[20] — ~2026-65592-7 (talk) 09:38, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It would be stretching it to say that those words have been “borrowed into English”, though. Despite (apparently) appearing in enough English texts to pass the threshold for OED inclusion, they are very obscure and most English speakers have never come across them. ~2026-59608-1 (talk) 05:33, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That’s a strange criteria. There are plenty of regionalisms in British English that the majority of the rest of the world’s English speakers have probably never come across, does that mean they aren’t English? Athanelar (talk) 13:30, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Was TV coined in 19th century? ~2026-64012-0 (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] The OED cites two usages of the word television from the year 1900: “Through television and telephone we shall see and hear one another as perfectly as though we were face to face.” The Century Magazine, June 1900; and “At the afternoon sitting on Friday, M. C. Perskyi read a communication on ‘Television’, describing a number of apparatus based on the magnetic properties of selenium.” The Electrician, 31 September 1900. And Wikipedia very properly considers 1900 to have been in the 19th century – see WP:CENTURY. —Antiquary (talk) 20:48, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] I’m old enough to remember when “the 1800s” meant 1800 to 1809. DuncanHill (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] reported as a ChronicleBooks885 sock. Meters (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] @Meters: You want to be a LOT more careful how you present remarks like that, chummy. Just who are you accusing of being a sockpuppet? DuncanHill (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] The TA, as can be seen from the report. Meters (talk) 01:13, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] @Meters: You put your comment immediately after mine, and with the same number of indents. It could be taken as referring to me (as immediately after), or to Antiquary (as one more indent than him). Just be more careful in future. People shouldn’t have to go off to another page to work out who you are talking about. You should have said something like “OP reported…”. DuncanHill (talk) 01:19, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] By the indent level it certainly would not have been meaning you. I was simply trying to cut off the thread while making it obvious I was not replying to you, and I did not notice that it had two levels of responses already. My apologies to Antiquary. Meters (talk) 01:38, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Any child knows that dinosaur means “terrible lizard”. Much less known are the specific genera Gorgosaurus and Tarbosaurus, and that their names mean essentially the same. While the names are somewhat discussed in the respective articles, this does not give me enough of a feeling: Please can some ancient Greek geeks tell me to what degree the meaning of those names and their connotations overlap resp. are different? —KnightMove (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A native speaker of Ancient Greek might be able to outline the differences more precisely. What is easy is that τάρβος (tárbos) is a noun, while δεινός (deinós) and γοργός (gorgós) are adjectives. The senses of the adjectives have a large overlap, as do those of the English adjectives terrible, fearful, frightful, dreadful, horrible, horrific, … A difference may be that the use of δεινός is more likely for a creature inspiring fear mainly because of its physical power (like, it can kill you with a single blow), and γοργός for a creature inspiring fear mainly because of its fierce spirit (like, it keeps coming at you).  ​‑‑Lambiam 22:18, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

… this last distinction coming from the fact that Gorgosaurus fossils indeed kept coming at the researchers who were trying to study them. 🙂

In other words, keep in mind that while many species names refer to real characteristics of that species, many other names are just fanciful creations, or only loosely based on some less-important aspect of people’s observations. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:21, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are sentences like “I require that she washes hands”, “They insist that Jack leaves soon” and “It is recommended that the clothes are washed before use”, with an indicative instead of subjunctive, grammatical? I have never seen such forms in English texts. —40bus (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In American English I would say yes. The subjunctive in such forms is quite rare in spoken speech especially of the young. Textbooks still frown on it, but I think it is a losing battle. I’d probably use the subjunctive myself in such sentences, but don’t consider the indicative obviously wrong or out of place. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:37, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think that’s exactly backwards. British speakers are more likely to use what you’re calling the indicative (technically the covert subjunctive). I personally (American) find the covert subjunctive extremely jarring. But you may be right about the trend, unfortunately. —Trovatore (talk) 07:47, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I remember coming across this in The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, where the two philosophers, Magikthise and Vroomfondel, are objecting to the computer Deep Thought, on the fear of losing their status. They start explaining their demands. At some point Vroomfondel says “And I demand that I am Vroomfondel”. At the time I thought this was more of Adams’s wordplay, along the lines of “the ships hung in the air in much the way a brick doesn’t”, because you can’t demand a descriptive, and you’d need a subjunctive for the alternative. But it occurred to me later that, Adams being British, he might not have felt it in quite the same way. Although maybe he did, given that the next line is Majikthise turned on Vroomfondel. “It’s alright,” he explained angrily, “you don’t need to demand that.” —Trovatore (talk) 07:54, 4 February 2026 (UTC) [reply]

(edit conflict) I have a sense that this is more unusual in American English than in British English. An indicative example from “official” British English: “Therefore we recommend that the Government disallows this type of transition within any legislation for CDC.”^[1]

Another subjunctive-related difference is in the verb–adverb word order:

• British English:      “We insist that he be not permitted to enter.”
• American English: “We insist that he not be permitted to enter.”

 ​‑‑Lambiam 07:45, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think I dispute that. The form you ascribe to British speakers is very jarring on my ears, which became attuned to Brit-speak long before accepting that anything American had any validity. — Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:53, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My version:

In many places or contexts, using the subjunctive has come to be treated less like bell-bottom jeans and more like spats – as if it’s a self-conscious affectation to even utter such a thing. But people still remember sentences that begin this way, and once they get that subjunctive-y ball rolling, it’s too late to escape. A few words later, they’re stymied.

The result: darn it all to heck, you have to use a minced subjunctive because you won’t be caught using the real thing. 🙂 TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:44, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is the /ʒ/ sound in English, arising from yod-coalescence of /zj/, ever spelled with ⟨z⟩ instead of ⟨s⟩, as if word vision were spelled vizion? I don’t know any such words. —40bus (talk) 00:41, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

azure, seizure. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 01:12, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it’s not always spelt with “s” or “z” as well. Example: Beige. thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk 04:23, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Liege. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What’s up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:30, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

appanage, badinage, barrage, camouflage, collage, corsage, espionage, garage (American), massage, menage, mirage, mucilage, persiflage, sabotage. (Some of these, like ménage, may still be thought of as French words; on the other hand, some may be more fully naturalized, with /dʒ/.) —Antonissimo (talk) 08:13, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

“Mucilage” doesn’t work for me (I have /ˈmjuːsəˌlɨdʒ/) but the others seem right. —Trovatore (talk) 08:29, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nor does my AmE appanage, barrage, collage…in fact many of the words here don’t have that sound in American English at least. thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk 15:46, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think those words do have that sound in at least some varieties of American English, by which I mean some pretty widespread and standard ones. But obviously not everywhere, and I didn’t know that.

Do “college” and “collage” sound exactly the same when you say them? Or does your “collage” almost rhyme with “lodge”? Or what? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:05, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I come from the American midwest, and I would say “garage” and “barrage” to rhyme with “lodge”, but “collage” is more like that trailing “zh”. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What’s up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:45, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I had a work colleague who always referred to Doctor Zivago. I asked him once why he didn’t say it with the Zh sound. His answer was that there’s no such sound in English. I almost had a seizure, but the measure of the man was that I enjoyed the pleasure of his company. — Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:47, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No such sound in English? Maybe just not in the way he says it. I recall a college teacher who pronounced “issue” like “iss-you” instead of the more typical “ish-you”. And even farther off the track, British commentator Ginny Buckley pronounces “peninsula” as if it was spelled “peninshula”. Go figure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What’s up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:45, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For the “sh” sound in “peninsula”, see yod coalescence. Alansplodge (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The odd thing is that she’s the only presenter on Escape to the Country who says it that way. Must be a regional thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What’s up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:53, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it’s a London thing (and Australian I believe). Alansplodge (talk) 14:15, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Ginny was born in England and spent some of her formative years in Australia. The other presenters on the show are from elsewhere in England. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What’s up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:33, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, ‘Zh-‘ should probably represent the Ж-sound, which indeed doesn’t have a sound in English. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 13:07, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Or the French “j”. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What’s up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:38, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Zhivago is presumably a Russian family name. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 21:52, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ah but he is of the upper class, and what language did the Russian élite speak in imperial times? —Antonissimo (talk) 12:16, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Now I had to look it up, and it apparently is not French at all, but Old Church Slavonic, and seemingly comes from the adjective жива́го (zhivágo, the living, in one declined case). Then, in proper Old Church Slavonic, it seems as if the letter might still be pronounced with a “French” ʒ. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A chinese restaurant menu offers “stir-fried wikipedia”. Can someone explain to someone who doesn’t speak any chinese how a mistranslation like this can happen? I assume wikipedia is a proper noun in chinese as well, so it is a puzzle to me how this can be mixed up with food. —~2026-75940-7 (talk) 02:38, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

“Wikipedia” is likely not a proper noun in Chinese, as Chinese is (famously) known to not borrow words, if at all (i.e. no loanwords). As such, I’d say there’s a 99.9% chance this is a very poor translation. thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk 04:25, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The term used in Chinese for “Wikipedia” is 维基百科, Wéijī bǎikē, in which the first part is a neologism, a phonosemantic matching of wiki loosely meaning “holding the base together”, and the second part is an existing term meaning “all subjects” but also colloquially used as a shortening of bǎikēquánshū, Chinese for “encyclopedia”, literally “all-subjects complete book”. These characters bear no resemblance to those in the term 鸡枞, jīzōng, seen in the menu, which means “termite mushroom“.  ​‑‑Lambiam 07:35, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The most common cause of such errors in my experience is a machine translation mistaking a culinary term for an abbreviation of the inappropriate word. But given that Lambian has shown that the normal characters for wikipedia don’t overlap with the term on the menu, I don’t have a guess in this particular case. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:41, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A guess (and no more than that): Someone attempting to translate these menu items, not knowing how to translate 鸡枞, wrote “wikipedia” as a reminder or suggestion of a way to find the translation there. (Perhaps this was short for “wikipedia reference desk”.) Someone else, typesetting the unfinished translation and not understanding that “wikipedia” was merely a stand-in, blindly copied this. BTW, on the Chinese mushroom Wikipedia, the term 鸡枞 redirects to a different species, Macrolepiota albuminosa, which (AFAICT) has no culinary uses. Spelled in traditional characters, 雞㙡 has an entry in the Chinese Wiktionary, but the meaning is left empty. A Russian translation is given as говорушка, which is glossed on the Chinese Wiktionary as Collybia albuminosa, another genus of mushrooms, but, according to the Russian Wikipedia, means Clitocybe, bringing in yet a third genus.  ​‑‑Lambiam 08:26, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

“Trichdoma”, at the top of the picture, should be Tricholoma, so some words in the menu were copied down visually from a slightly illegible reference. That’s a clew, but perhaps not a useful one.  Card Zero  (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There’s also the possibility someone mis-heard it as “Wok-ipedia”. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What’s up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:36, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What I don’t get is why the “fried special wikipedia” is less expensive than the “stir-fried wikipedia”. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Stir frying is more labour-intensive.  ​‑‑Lambiam 21:15, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a misunderstanding similar to this: [[2]] catslash (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Or for a fictional example: Princess Esmerelda Margaret Note Spelling. Iapetus (talk) 10:07, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m editing a transcript that has “A Sōtō Zen Buddhist will probably get his greatest spiritual nourishment from the writings of Dogen and from the records of the ?Dalobs – the exchanges between masters and disciples of his particular tradition.” I can’t find a similiar word with that meaning. Any ideas? Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:22, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You don’t have access to the spoken original? 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 13:01, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Wakuran Unfortunately not. Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:21, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is a long shot, but could it be a mis-hearing of (perhaps poorly pronounced) “dialogues”?

I am led to believe that such Master/disciple discussions are usually called Dokusan or Sanzen, neither of which are very close to the term heard: does the transcript use mostly pre-translated terms? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 01:11, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I bet it is indeed “dialogues”. “Dalobs” cannot possibly be a Japanese term: it does not fit Japanese phonology; the closest possible Japanese term would be darobusu. It think this refers to mondō (問答, literally “question–answer”), which are recorded collections of dialogues between a pupil and a rōshi.  ​‑‑Lambiam 04:31, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think you are right. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:17, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to burden anyone but despite my best efforts I did not manage to decipher these two bolded sentences by Fredrik deBoer. Emphasis mine.

It’s not healthy or rational, but I confess that I only really appreciate achievement when achievement is effortless. I only really respect success when the successful appear to barely be trying. What can I say? I’m not against achievement, only the effort that achievement requires. I admire the egalitarianism inherent to the detention hall. I’m ultimately a creature of the late 20th century, and all my heroes are slackers. Source 1.

One thing I realized very early on is that when you become even a very minor internet celebrity, as I surely am, there is essentially another you that lives in the collective minds of others and which has very little to do with you yourself. It’s… strange to experience, although honestly sometimes it helps because you can more easily distance yourself from the nastier criticism. But you always have to remember that there’s some little imago of you stalking around the internet, buzzing into people’s brains, that you can’t control and yet which deeply influences people’s perception of you. I don’t know, it’s Chinatown. The human brain was not meant for online life. Source 2.

Aloysius Jr (talk) 11:39, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What Does “Forget it Jake. It’s Chinatown.” Mean?. — ~2026-86186-1 (talk) 12:42, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That’s it. Thanks! Aloysius Jr (talk) 00:12, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know what the first one specifically references, but it would seem to mean that in punishment everyone is equal (or should be). Reminds me of Boris the executioner in Blazing Saddles telling a condemned black man, “Everyone is equal in my eyes!” ←Baseball Bugs ^{What’s up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:26, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could it have some implication about how the educational system isn’t as egalitarian as it’s supposed to be, since the affluent population from families accustomed to its system tends to be at an advantage? 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In the context, I read it as suggesting that in ‘the detention hall’, no-one can achieve a better ‘situation’ regardless of whether they try hard, somewhat or not at all. (I agree neither with this proposition, or the broader sentiment that DeBoer seems to be expressing.)

As for “I don’t know, it’s Chinatown”, it evokes for me a vague suggestion of someone being in an environment in which they do not understand the underlying rules, will be refused ‘tuition’ in them, and cannot therefore control outcomes affecting themself.

Collectively, the passages suggest to me that the writer (of whom I had no prior knowledge) expresses himself in language sufficiently vague and detached from reality that its meaning is hard to pin down: I suppose one can make a living and reputation from such writing, akin to being the unclothed Emperor’s fashion critic. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the answer. However, I’m saddened that this turned into commentary about Fredrik deBoer. Aloysius Jr (talk) 00:12, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Might there be any salaried musicians here? On the internet, of all places, I came across a person who apparently has only a first name and tells the readers that they are a professional musician who – among other accolades – has “performed with professional symphonies”. I was wondering, would any card-carrying (or flute-carrying) musician of good standing say something as vague as that? First of all, you can be a soloist, perhaps a violinist, playing the solo part in front of the orchestra, or you can be a member of the band playing the viola or the bass, and the most humorous people can even cough at the right time during a live recording and tell their grandchilden that they, too, have performed with Herbert von Karajan in their youth. Secondly, would musical people leave the word “orchestra” out of the phrase “symphony orchestra”? Isn’t symphony merely the music on the score sheet, and every good symphony needs an orchestra to be heard. Not to mention that no one knows what instrument the “professional performer” is supposed to have played as they claim to be “an instrumentalist”. This question might be in the wrong section of the reference desk altogether, but if someone makes a claim of “decades of performing with symphonies”, is one allowed to smell at least a small rat? —Pxos (talk) 21:05, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

“Performed with professional symphonies” seems to be widespread on the internet, and not confined to mononominate persons. DuncanHill (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could be most anything or anybody, maybe trying to inflate their status. It reminds me of Henny Youngman’s brother-in-law, who labeled himself a “diamond cutter”. His job was to mow the lawn at Yankee Stadium. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What’s up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:15, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here symphony is short for symphony orchestra, which is more specific than just orchestra. Symphony orchestras commonly employ professional freelance musicians who are not salaried employees of the orchestra, both as soloists and as extras. A high-quality musician can make a living that way. For a soloist example, see the “prelude” section here; note that it is rare for a symphonic composition to have a piccolo part, so most orchestras won’t have a piccolo player in their permanent line-up. Once a freelance musician is known to an orchestra and has proved to be a reliable high-quality player, they will tend to keep rehiring this musician when the need arises. While it is true that no one on the Internet can be sure you are not a dog, people can have legitimate reasons not to give so many clues that their identity can be guessed. So, in short, I don’t smell anything sus based on the information given here.  ​‑‑Lambiam 09:23, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]