Please let me know the meaning of the word, 'figario' in the following passage. I presume it is an Irish word. "Aw, shut up with that workers of the world crap, will you?We all know there isn't a reason in the word for you to be going out to work. Only because you took some figario. If you'd stayed at home and minded your business we wouldn't have all this trouble now.---Maeve Binchy, Circle of Friends, p.188."123.227.223.236 (talk)dengen —Preceding undated comment added 01:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't that be: "... reason in the world ..."? 93.95.251.162 (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC) Martin.[reply]

Pure OR on my part, but it appears to mean "whim" or "wild notion", with "to take a figario" meaning roughly "to act on a whim" or "to get a crazy idea into one's head". A Google search turns up a couple of other uses in Binchy novels, including "Ah, be tolerant of her, will you, she has a mad figario in her head about men, that's all" and "You have qualifications already: a career, a job. This is just some kind of a figario you are taking". The word appears to be treated on page 161 of this book, but there's no Google preview or snippet of that. (There's also a possible hint that the word may be related to the English word vagary, but don't hold me to that.) Deor (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that everything the first few pages of Google turns up is names, I was at first going to say I wouldn't be surprised if it's a regional eponym. However, I found this book that has it on page 306, seeming to be a kind of hat, which doesn't make sense in the OP's context. It should be glossed on page 344, but it isn't in the preview. Lsfreak (talk) 22:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are there languages that do not have a grammatic second‐person? --66.190.69.246 (talk) 02:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any, and I doubt that there are. Every language I'm aware of expresses person in some way (either with pronouns or with inflection--or both). For example, English doesn't have any verb suffix that uniquely indicates second person, but it has a pronoun ("you") that does. I can't imagine a language that would have pronouns and/or inflections for first and third persons and not for second-person, and thus it seems to me that a language without second-person would be a language that has no pronouns or personal inflections at all. And I'm not aware of any languages like that (although someone else might be). rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are languages where pronouns exist, but are either not necessary or even rarely used, even in languages which have little or no verb suffixes, English included ("Not going to the park?", for example). In Japanese, this can cause a lot of amiguity (and the Japanese complain about this). For example, "Akachan, tabeta?" could mean (talking to the baby) "Baby, have you eaten?", or (talking to someone else) "Has the baby eaten?", or (again, talking to someone else) "Have you (or a third party) eaten the baby?" KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It all depends what you mean by "grammatic(al)". Many languages have no personal inflections at all (Japanese, Swedish, Chinese for example - English has vestigial inflection). While you can distinguish the person in these languages by the choice of pronoun (much less used in Japanese than in European examples like English and Swedish), I would say that this is a lexical, not a grammatical, distinction. --ColinFine (talk) 11:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are varieties of Brazilian Portuguese in which all second-person pronouns (você, o senhor, a senhora in the singular; vocês, os senhores, as senhoras in the plural) take third-person verb agreement, so you could say these dialects have no grammatical (in the sense of morphological) second person, even though they clearly have a semantic second person. When I took Portuguese in university, we only had to memorize the 1st and 3rd persons of the verb forms for that reason. Angr (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I was working at a primary school in Korea, and a primary school in Hungary, I found that most of the kids referred to me as 'he', rather than 'you' (in English). This is a sign of politeness, which, interestingly, they had carried over into English from their native languages. "You" in these languages is hardly ever used, only between very close friends. Hungarian has case endings, so pronouns are not necessary, but Korean does not (but still doesn't bother with pronouns), but unlike the Japanese, which would use my name (or 'sensei) in place of a pronoun, the Koreans (when speaking English) would use 'he'. In Hungarian, the polite way to talk to someone is to use the third person, rather like "Would sir like another drink?" in posh restaurants in the UK. So, yes, I would say there are languages where the 2nd person pronoun is hardly used, but I wouldn't say they are non-existent in any language. Japanese has multiple 2nd person pronouns (many of them derogatory), but they are hardly used. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In German, as is well known, the polite form for "you", Sie, etymologically means "they". But several hundred years ago (say 17th/18th centuries), you could also address another person as "he" (or "she", as the case might be), but it wasn't especially polite. It was the pronoun for a superior to address an inferior whom he didn't know well enough to address as du. Angr (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese is a little strange, in that there are multiple alternative first and second person pronoun words with various different social connotations, pronouns are used relatively infrequently in speech compared to many other languages (even though Japanese verbs are not inflected for person or number), and the pronoun words are historically somewhat unstable (in particular, second-person pronoun words that have been in use for several centuries tend to acquire derogatory connotations and fall out of use, so that there's something of a "pronoun treadmill"). In all these respects, Japanese contrasts strikingly with the tendencies in Indo-European or Semitic languages... AnonMoos (talk) 23:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnamese is very similar to Japanese in this respect. There is an unambiguous pair of 1st/2nd person pronouns but they are highly familiar/contemptuous in use, and replaced in nearly all contexts by alternatives, such as kinship terms. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. When talking to my Japanese ex-wife about myself, I would use 'ore', but when talking to my boss I would use 'boku'. When talking to an official, I would use 'watashi' (or even 'watakushi'). When talking to the wife about her, I would use her name in place of a pronoun (as she did with me). Occasionally, I would use 'anata', or 'anta', when I was angry about her spending my money on a handbag instead of saving my hard-earned cash for our kid, for example. Normally, though, most people would refer to you with your name or job title, or a nickname. 2nd person pronouns are very rarely used in Japanese. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If a language's verbs are not inflected for person (as in Esperanto and, I would guess, the isolating languages), what would it mean to say a grammatical second person exists or doesn't? —Tamfang (talk) 02:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In many of the Polynesian languages, verbs are not inflected for person, and only somewhat erratically inflected for plural (which in those languages is actually more like a verb aspect modification than an ordinary subject agreement marker), yet there's a whole complicated system of pronouns classified along the categories 1st exclusive vs. 1st inclusive vs. 2nd. vs. 3rd, and also singular vs. dual vs. plural. Japanese is semi-problematic for some traditional ideas of what a pronoun is, but Polynesian isn't... AnonMoos (talk) 04:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed when doing some copy editing of Causal reasoning that the article uses forms of the pronoun "we" quite a bit when referring to humans. Is this considered kosher according to Wikipedia's guidelines for "encyclopedic style"? I couldn't find a guideline or policy that specifically addressed the question, though I haven't noticed that usage in other scientific articles on WP, Typically I've seen editors word facts about our species as "Humans and chimpanzees have similar DNA",' rather than saying "we have similar DNA to chimpanzees". One of the potential problems with "we" is that it isn't clear who "we" is - the species as a whole, citizens of one country, etc. Any thoughts on this? RainbowCrane | Talk 09:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the resident pedants around here, I cannot but agree. Such articles should always be written in the third person. HiLo48 (talk) 09:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the resident anti-pedants around here, I also agree: Wikipedia is a domain which has, and is entitled to have, its own rules. In particular, WP:TONE says this is not acceptable. --ColinFine (talk) 11:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It says "follow the style used by reliable sources" and "use common sense", not "this is not acceptable".  Card Zero  (talk) 20:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The use of such terminology could mean poor writing on the part of the editor, OR it could mean it was lifted verbatim from somewhere else. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both of which breach policy. HiLo48 (talk) 21:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In differing degrees. Using first or second person is merely poor writing, while plagiarism is potentially big trouble. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of interest would the use of "we" be acceptable or even encouraged in the Simple English Wikipedia? I can't find any style guides for that, but my impression is that some people use the first and second person because it seems .... easier! -- Q Chris (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From a reliable source which uses the same style, perhaps?  Card Zero  (talk) 20:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See MOS:FIRSTPERSON.—Wavelength (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"But these forms are acceptable in certain figurative uses". Is this particular use acceptable? As just some guy passing through, I prefer the use of the term "we", which it should be clear from context refers to all humans, over repeating "humans" over and over again. It is snappier.  Card Zero  (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and might argue that to call humanity "they" is to disguise our human-centric bias; where a bias cannot be avoided, it ought to be acknowledged. —Tamfang (talk) 02:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So far the consensus seems to be to avoid using "we" where possible, with Card Zero's noted disagreement. Thanks for the pointer to MOS:FIRSTPERSON. That policy does mention that it is ok to use first person in scientific articles, but goes on to say that it can be preferable to use the passive voice to avoid first-person pronouns. I'll copyedit with an eye towards avoiding "we" unless doing so requires uncomfortable verbal gymnastics, in which case "we" is probably a lesser evil. RainbowCrane | Talk 22:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In this book one can read "The journey took one month each way". I'd like to know whether that's grammatically correct and whether "The journey took one month for each way." could be another possibility. --Immerhin (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure "one month each way" is correct, and it definitely sounds better than "one month for each way". I doubt using "for" would be incorrect, but it's definitely cumbersome and unnecessary. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. --Immerhin (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would go further and say that "for each way" is ungrammatical. "Each way" is an adverbial phrase, not a noun phrase so cannot be governed by a preposition. ("Each way" can syntactically be a NP, since "way" can be a noun, as in "on the way"; but it is hard to make the semantics come out right with a noun "way"). --ColinFine (talk) 23:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say for is unidiomatic but allowable. If you can say "We have enough water for part of the way," why not speak of how much time is needed for the way? —Tamfang (talk) 03:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spells? No, so why isn't it a spelling checker? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.60.250.93 (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, as you add more to each term, it gets too long, so we start to drop out parts of it. English isn't the only language to do this. For example, the German unterseeboot became just the U-Boot (U-boat, in English). StuRat (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would it correct "eye of Gingrich" to "eye of newt" ? :-) StuRat (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]

• This is a thread that needs to live in perpetuam. Check out Carlin and Seinfeld. μηδείς (talk) 19:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See the spelling at http://www.onelook.com/?w=in+perpetuum&ls=a.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See "Japanese abbreviated and contracted words".—Wavelength (talk) 20:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A glance at the linked article in the question would show a poem which refers to a spelling checker; which, given the choice, is the term I prefer in British English. Bazza (talk) 20:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, from now on we'll all be referring to "Wiki Encyclopedia". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And we should say "electronic mail" and "specifications" all the time, along with probably countless other examples. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for sarcasm. I'm not dictating usage, just saying that (some) people who speak British English prefer "spelling checker", as borne out by Wikipedia's redirection, or "redirect", I referred to. It's a similar thing to sending "invites", rather than invitations. Bazza (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I would prefer that Brits would say "forecastle" instead of "folks'll", but it is what it is. "Spellcheck" takes only 2 syllables instead of 4, and everyone knows what it means. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Clipping (morphology).—Wavelength (talk) 23:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may possibly have nothing to do with abbreviation as such - it could be as simple as the need for a short filename for a program. It seems that the first spell(ing) checker was simply called 'SPELL' - see Spell checker#History. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. A little investigation suggests that the PDP-10 - the computer that 'SPELL' ran on - used 6-character filenames (plus a 3-character extension): see DEC Radix-50. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can read French, Portuguese and Spanish fairly well (I think), more often than not, I can write well in French & Spanish, but listening to these languages is difficult for me. Some people suggested that I watch Spanish television, but I’m understanding few of the words that they use; the overall messages are lost to me. Is my vocabulary still poor? Should the foreign subtitles be on? Do I (just) need to have more patience and dedication? I feel like I’m doing something wrong. --66.190.69.246 (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can always read at your own pace, but when they throw it at you, it can be hard to keep up with them. I recommend some kind of interactive foreign language class where you can get to practice talking and listening, and most importantly "thinking in" that language. That's called "immersion". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reading/writing and speaking/listening are two very different things, and you need to practice both if you want both. Just reading will only help to a point if your goal also includes listening. Your vocabulary is probably fine, it's just that you're not used to hearing what the words sound like, and more importantly, the stress and intonation of entire phrases (and, with French, there may be a big disconnect if you learned how to read but not how the orthography maps to to the speech). I'd agree that listening to television is a good start, with Spanish/French subtitles if you need it. Better might be something designed for learners, where the speech is likely slowed down to a pace more suitable to a beginning listener; for example, the extremely corny (as I remember it) Destinos series for Spanish. The grammar/vocab will be far below you, but it'd get you used to listening to the words, at a pace where you can still understand them. Lsfreak (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Watching movies could help too, perhaps first time with the subtitles on, next time with them off. And there's so much great cinema in French, and in Spanish. Itsmejudith (talk) 05:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another option, if you enjoy watching old films or TV serials, is to find one you know that has been dubbed into French, Portuguese or Spanish. There are some on www.youtube.com and on http://veehd.com/ --Hors-la-loi 10:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hors-la-loi (talk • contribs)

In his book Le Ton beau de Marot, Hofstadter notes that "in every language I have tackled, I have found that understanding natives well is far more difficult than expressing myself well". Gabbe (talk) 09:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]