These are some of the listening exercises we had in one of my online classes and I'd appreciate any enlightenment provided by experts in the language field.

Direction : Listen to the conversation and choose the answer that is true.

(Teacher will read this part aloud ): person A. How long have you had a backache? person B. For three days

(The student has to choose between these two choices ): a.) She doesn’t have a backache now. b.) She still has a backache.

I know that the correct answer is b because the conversation suggests that the subject still has a backache. But I need help with this one.

Teacher : person A. How long has Roger been interested in Egyptian history? person B. Since he lived in Cairo

Choices : a.) Roger lives in Cairo. b.) Roger has lived in Cairo.

I’m thinking that both are correct but I’m not sure. I’m really having trouble with the perfect tenses.-Meerkatakreem (talk) 04:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that B is the intended answer. "Since he lived in Cairo" would not normally be said of someone who was still living in Cairo; "Since he has been living in Cairo" (or "Since he moved to Cairo" or "Since he began living in Cairo") would be more idiomatic if one were speaking of a person currently living there. Deor (talk) 04:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deor's answer is correct. Although (a) might be correct and the speaker is just expressing himself ambiguously, the answer (b) cannot be wrong in any interpretation, so you you must choose it. μηδείς (talk) 04:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. To me, "Since he lived in Cairo" unambiguously implies that he no longer does so. I think there are two separate reasons for concluding this. One is that the simple past "lived" generally indicates a completed event. The other is that "since" (in its temporal sense) is almost always followed by a point in time, or something that is being regarded as a point in time, not by a continuing event. "Since he lived in Cairo" is therefore treating "he lived in Cairo" as a single event, which is necessarily complete. For the other meaning, it would have to be "Since he has lived in Cairo", or "Since he has been living in Cairo". --ColinFine (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An article on the actress May Yohé is currently featured in DYK? Can anyone identify the origin of the name?

In my search I found this od web page http://www.lycaeum.org/mv/ircbot/PARALINGUA2.php?VOLUME=37&ARTICLE=62&PAGE=57&REF=Nesi which seems to be some sort of mock Breton. My guess is its a aesthetic rather than meaningful conlang, I can't connect it to any language I am aware of and find the lack of repeated grammatical formants and odd "phonology "(oöpé") dubious.

Can anyone identify the writing on that page? μηδείς (talk) 04:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's apparently not a language. But something generated to catch nonsense searches and then adds a bit of mystery. Diabolical. See answers to people who asked the same question before. It also gives an obviously useless 'key'.

Try changing the search string and you end up in different pages incorporating that particular word. http://www.lycaeum.org/mv/anagrams/PARALINGUA.cgi?search=INSERTWORDHERE -- Obsidi♠n Soul 05:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the writing is from the Voynich manuscript.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 05:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not from Tlön? I am unaware of any authoritative Latin transcription of the Voynich manuscript.μηδείς (talk) 05:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the non-Latin writing. We may actually be seeing different pages of the site because it's random. :/ -- Obsidi♠n Soul 06:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is, still, the legitimate question of May Yohé's name. Several pages with that name return Spanish text. Perhaps it's Greek? μηδείς (talk) 05:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found a good possibility by searching for 'Yohe' instead. Seems to be the Americanized spelling of German Johe/Joh, which apparently is roughly equivalent to English 'Joe'. The é was probably an affectation, as aside from her and her parents, no one else seems to have that name. But there are plenty of Yohe's and Yoh's. The first possible origin is particularly interesting (the Huguenots one), as they settled in Pennsylvania. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 06:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the origin of the phrase "to give someone the shaft"? How did that come to mean "to cheat, deceive, or mistreat someone"? How does the "shaft" come into play, in the expression? Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

A shaft is any long thin object, so it basically means "fucked". See here.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might also consider that the long thin object is usually empty -- or equivalently, full of nothing. Thus you can see the humor in the phrase, when dividing up the mining property between oneself and one's soon-to-be-ex-spouse, "She got the gold mine, and I got the shaft".

--DaHorsesMouth (talk) 01:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the usage of "getting the shaft" refers unambiguously to the meaning of shaft as a pole or rod; essentially it's the penis shaft that is being refered to. Getting the shaft or getting shafted means to "get fucked". The usage in the Jerry Reed song you quote is merely a play on words using two different meanings of "shaft". --Jayron32 03:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The Online Etymology Dictionary says: "Vulgar slang meaning "penis" first recorded 1719. Verb meaning "treat cruelly and unfairly" is by 1958, probably with overtones of sodomy. Related: Shafted; shafting." Alansplodge (talk) 15:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a reference for this, but when I lived in a mining area (Grimethorpe, South Yorkshire) I was given an alternative meaning: that of being pushed down a mine shaft. I thought at the time that was the polite version! --TammyMoet (talk) 19:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a reference for this, either, but it is my understanding that the phrase "to get the shaft" came from the time skyscrapers came into being. Everyone wants a window office. Older skyscrapers have an air shaft for air circulation (pre-airconditioning) which was usually a square shaft in the center of the building. Those offices on the outside edge got a view of the city and these premier offices were given to those with high seniority. Those with lesser seniority "got the shaft" or the lesser offices windowing on the air shaft. It's probably the connotation of shaft as "penis" rather than as air circulation device that gains popularity in the minds of most due to its sexual innuendo.

Thanks to all for the input ... much appreciated! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

A shaft can also be slang for a knife so to give someone the shaft is like stabbing them in the stomach with a knife, or 'screwing' them; doing something very bad to the person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.216.244.49 (talk) 11:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Esperanto, can the suffix ig be a verb in itself like its close relative iĝ, and if so which parts take the direct object ending? For example, "It was we who caused them to become enemies" can of course be translated as "Estis ni ke malamikigis ilin". But is it also correct to say "Estis ni ke igis ili(n) malamikoj(n)"? And is it ili or malamikoj that takes the n? Interchangeable|talk to me 18:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes "igi" is used in this way. You would say "Estis ni kiuj igis ilin malamikoj." (Note use of "kiuj" not "ke".)--Cam (talk) 02:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To explain why "malamikoj" does not get -n here: this is one of those cases where there is an understood "esti" in the phrase. That is, you can read the phrase as "Estis ni kiuj igis ilin esti malamikoj." (At least you can think of it of it that way, there may be a more complicated explanation for why this is so.)--Cam (talk) 13:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So the pronoun or other object always receives the n, and not the attribute that the object was caused to become. Interchangeable|talk to me 15:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is an understood esti even needed? Is become not all that is necessary? Interchangeable|talk to me 00:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that in English we don't say "cause something to become to be"; become is all that is needed. Does Esperanto need both or see things in terms of both? Interchangeable|talk to me 22:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]