Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:19, 10 July 2019

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/L

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
Note:
- We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
- We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
- We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
- We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

July 3

Fill your boots

What is the origin of this idiom, which I understand to mean "help yourselves from an abundant supply"? I think I had heard it was likely to have originated in the British Army, but I can't recall why. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious origin would be if they filled their pockets and had so much left over they started cramming it in their boots. For most items, this would either require loose-fitting boots or that they not be on their feet at the time, although flat items, like gold coins, could even be fit into snug boots. (The "fill your boots" expression I'm familiar with means "replace you", as in "he's not able to fill your boots".) SinisterLefty (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The OED has two senses of the idiom in their Third Edition draft additions of June 2013. The older one is to take over someone's job (and the derivation is obvious), but it doesn't give an origin for your more recent meaning. The earliest cite is from 1969: British colloquial. to fill one's boots: to take full advantage of an opportunity to benefit oneself; to take as much as one wants of something. The more usual expression is to fill one's pockets, so I don't know how it gets transferred to boots. Can anyone else help? Dbfirs 15:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm also familiar with that other "step into his shoes" meaning. But I was interested if any actual specific origin. Perhaps there wasn't one. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looting is commonplace in war. (Though of course only the other side does it. Our boys? Never.) Boots may be larger than pockets. Walking with coins and jewelry in one's boots is less comfortable than walking with the same in one's pockets. Talk of resorting to boot-storage makes looting sound more fanatical. And so the metaphor becomes a little more striking. -- Hoary (talk) 22:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Though of course only the other side does it. Our boys? Never." Only in recent times. Traditionally, looting was an accepted part of being a soldier, and a reason to join up. I once read the memoir of a soldier in the Napoleonic Wars which described how when an officer saw him searching the bodies of dead French soldiers for loot, advised him to check the inside the lining of their coats, as they often hid coins there. And it was normal in naval warfare for the value of captured ships to be divided among the officers and crew of the ships that captured them. Iapetus (talk) 09:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Although there is a difference between looting invading soldiers and looting civilians in a nation you invaded. In modern times, the first case seems far more acceptable, especially if there's no way to return his possessions to his family. But there's a risk that stopping to loot dead soldiers could get you killed, as you can't be at your most vigilant at the time and would make yourself a prime target for any snipers. And arguments between soldiers over the division of loot could also turn deadly. So there are many reasons to ban this practice. As far as "living off the land", the way to avoid this being called looting is to compensate the owners when you claim their food, etc., although cash might be turned around and used to buy more weapons for the enemy, so promissory notes, paid after the war ends, are safer. SinisterLefty (talk) 09:27, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We're drifting from the OP's question, but it's a fascinating part of warfare that is often neglected. Adrienne Mayor's wonderful Greek Fire, Poison Arrows & Scorpion Bombs has some interesting pieces regarding the deliberate tampering of loot so that the supposedly victorious army would end up drunk/stoned/poisoned and find the boot was on the other foot (to at least tie this back into boots!) when the apparently fleeing army came back. Matt Deres (talk) 13:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A snip at $170. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC) [reply]

We need to rework the old song: "These boots are made for lootin', wide at the top and brown, and one of these days these boots are gonna loot all over town." SinisterLefty (talk) 14:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Sincere thanks for making my comment look comparatively almost sensible. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Sensible boots ? Never ! SinisterLefty (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC) [reply]

I was only recently introduced to that expression and was told it was related to boot-legging, though I'm sure that was a folk etymology. Matt Deres (talk) 20:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A fuller version that I have encountered is "Fill your boots with soup", presumably hyperbolic advice to soldiers to gather as much food as possible when the opportunity arose in invaded territory. I remember hearing it in a British Army context several decades ago (long before its popularisation in Terry Pratchett's Monstrous Regiment) as a more figurative expression (living off enemy supplies no longer being a current necessity), and assumed that it dated back to (at least) the Napoleonic wars period. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.177.55 (talk) 23:40, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The British infantry wore "strong shoes" (1729 regulations) until 1823 when "half boots" were introduced, British Military Uniforms From Contemporary Pictures (pp. 70 & 122), so it seems that the roomy jack-boots suggested above were confined only to the heavy cavalry.

The only printed reference I can find is here which suggests that a leather drinking vessel called a "jack" or "boot" was the origin of the phrase. There is an entry in the Oxford Dictionary of English Idioms but I can't see a preview of it. Alansplodge (talk) 22:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Alan. What a very interesting book Allah does not have an Exit Visa looks. I can see the Oxford entry it just says "fill your boots: see FILL". But under fill your boots: "take full advantage of an opportunity to benefit yourself. British informal 2001 Sunday Herald By April 7 the Pitman factor will have reduced his price to about 12/1 so go on, fill your boots". So no clues as to origin. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Purely by chance, I recently came across these other sources: Discussed at [1], [2] (traces the phrase back to 1818) and [3]. Also see rum-running. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anecdotally, I don't recall the phrase (in London) before the late 1990s, in fact I remember the first person that said it to me (Oxford says 2001 in print and Martin's second link says 1990). I wouldn't attach too much credence to the guides at HMS Victory (Martin's first link), who can ingeniously link just about every known English idiom to Nelson's navy. Alansplodge (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, dash it all! I searched for hours for those links, too. I thought they were really solid, **sob** Martinevans123 (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2019 (UTC) [reply]

At least your first ref supports mine, so there may be something in it... Alansplodge (talk) 08:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tempted by the Antiques Roadshow explanation which uses the name of the "boot flask". Martinevans123 (talk) 09:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's the most persuasive, but why has the expression only been on record for the last 30 years? Alansplodge (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 4

English long a; why do people classify it as a monophthong??

Technically, the sound of English long a is a diphthong, pronounced eh+ee. But the majority of sources before 1990 classify it as a monophthong. Any reason?? (Perhaps it was a monophthong in many areas until the mid-1960's.) Georgia guy (talk) 11:39, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was probably a diphthong in most quasi-standard English accents from roughly the 17th century on, when the originally separate sounds spelled as long "a" (a monophthong) and "ai" (a diphthong) merged. It's certainly shown as a diphthong in the 1937 edition of Daniel Jones' pronouncing dictionary, which is pretty much the definition of "classic" RP. The [eɪ] pronunciation was the basis for further developments such as [ʌɪ] in working-class urban accents, Australian etc (the Australian English phonology article says "[ɐ̟ɪ]"). In many forms of Scottish English it's a monophthong, and even in quasi-standard accents, it can tend towards a monophthong in special cases (when unstressed, or before a vowel, or before "r")... AnonMoos (talk) 12:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the vowel chart in English phonology#Vowels lists the long "a" as a "potential diphthong", in between the "full diphthongs" and the "full monopthongs". My understanding is that the difference between the potential and full diphthongs is that the potential ones require less tongue movement from the initial to the second component (and maybe can be either a monophthong or a diphthong depending on the dialect?). Loraof (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 5

Name of device

In English we call Germany Germany but Germans refer to their country as Deutschland. Many languages call England Anglia. What is the name of this device where a name is applied to a place or a people different from what they call themselves. Do we have an article on this? Thanks Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

exonym. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.40.58 (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OffTopic. Lovely: The term endonym was devised (...) as an antonym for the term exonym. --CiaPan (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 6

Quite

In the sentence 'That was quite a good movie', what exactly is the difference in meaning between British and American English? In my speech, 'quite' means better than 'good', but not as good as 'great'. TotallyNotSarcasm [lɪi̯v ə me̞sɪ̈d͡ʒ] [kɔnt͡ʂɻɪ̈bjɨʉ̯ʃn̩z] 13:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(US English) I use it as a modifier, like "very", so a movie could be "quite good" or "quite bad". It does differ from "very" in that you would never say "It was very a good movie." SinisterLefty (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I use it like that too; my question is, how 'strong' is it? As I said, for me, it's between 'good' and 'great' TotallyNotSarcasm [lɨi̯v ə me̞sɪ̈dʒ] [kɔnt͡ɹ̠̝̊ɹ̠ɪ̈bjɨʉ̯ʃn̩z] 14:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, TNS. IMHO, "quite good" is better than just "good" but not yet "great".--Thomprod (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(British English) It's used, in the example you've given, to indicate that the specified person or thing is perceived as particularly notable, remarkable, or impressive. See [4]. So more than just "good", equivalent to "not bad", less than "very good". Bazza (talk) 14:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think you are reading the definition wrong. "Quite a good movie" would mean "the Movie was alright" or "it was OK". When used with "quite a good" it takes the definition here [5], ‘a little, moderately but not very’. The "Quite a XXX" is more akin to the usage described with nouns, such as "she was quite an artist", where it does mean "to a large extent".

So to summarise, in British English "that was quite a good movie" would mean it was mediocre, whereas "that was quite a movie" would mean it was impressive. -- Q Chris (talk) 10:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So the British use is the same as mine. I've heard that in American English, it's 'stronger', for lack of a better word. TotallyNotSarcasm [lɨi̯v ə me̞sɪ̈dʒ] [kɔnt͡ɹ̠̝̊ɹ̠ɪ̈bjɨʉ̯ʃn̩z] 15:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's this. I'm not sure what you mean by "between 'good' and 'great'" (it would be more accurate to think in terms of 'moderately' or 'completely'). In your example sentence, as "good" is a gradable adjective, it means "moderately good". Henry ^Flower 17:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the particular subset of American English I use, "quite good" is much more than "moderately good". The progression would go "moderately good" < "good" < "quite good" < "great". Not sure where "quite good" falls in relation to "very good", whether better or worse.--Khajidha (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"In British English quite good only means pretty good or fairly good, but in American English it's much more positive. Quite good means very good... one last piece of advice for any American guys who are planning a first date with an English girl. Don’t be like one of my American friends and tell her you think she is quite pretty. He was lucky to get a second date". See The trickiest word in American. Alansplodge (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) In colloquial British English, "quite good" is a synonym for "moderately good" or "fairly good", so "quite" reduces "good". This usage can be confusing to Americans, and even to those on this side of the pond who were taught the original meaning of "quite". The OED says "As a moderating adverb: to a certain or significant extent or degree; moderately, somewhat, rather; relatively, reasonably. [...] The shift in meaning being from ‘certainly having the specified character in (at least) some degree’ to ‘having the specified character in some degree (though not completely)’.". The tone distinguishes this usage of "quite" from the older meaning. Dbfirs 18:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've also heard "Quite." used as a sentence in old British movies:

"I fear he's lost his mind."

"Quite."

What is the meaning there ? I took it as "I agree", but is it somehow saying he's less than totally lost his mind ? SinisterLefty (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's a different usage, a shortening of "quite so" with the American (and older British) meaning. The OED says: "colloquial (chiefly British). As an emphatic affirmation: ‘just so’; ‘absolutely’" Dbfirs 19:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the example of "rather" as a moderating adverb is ALSO confusing to Americans. "Rather good" to me would probably seem better than "good" but not as good as "quite good". --Khajidha (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was a bad example. It's another case where the meaning is distinguished by context and tone. The OED says for rather: " in a certain degree or measure; to some extent; somewhat, slightly; (also) considerably, very much." and comments that it is often difficult to distinguish which meaning is intended. Dbfirs 11:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, in my example I use it to mean 'particularly good', but if I say something is 'quite good', I mean that it's 'kind of good' (not that good but not bad). TotallyNotSarcasm [lɨi̯v ə me̞sɪ̈dʒ] [kɔnt͡ɹ̠̝̊ɹ̠ɪ̈bjɨʉ̯ʃn̩z] 09:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The progression, from better to worse, is 'great' > 'really good' > 'very good' > 'quite a good ' > 'good ' > 'quite good' > 'okay' in my speech. TotallyNotSarcasm [lɨi̯v ə me̞sɪ̈dʒ] [kɔnt͡ɹ̠̝̊ɹ̠ɪ̈bjɨʉ̯ʃn̩z] 09:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In mine it would be 'great', 'quite a', 'very good', 'good', ('OK', 'quite good', 'quite a good'), 'mediocre', with the three bracketed being roughly the same level -- Q Chris (talk) 10:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Capitals or not

When referring to south, north, west and east, does English use capital letters for the first ones? I'm kinda confused with this. I sometimes see this with Western/western as well as with different seasons like Spring/spring. Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When used as simple directions, compass points are not capitalized (eg: "the bridge is located north of here"). They are capitalized as part of proper names (West Virginia) or as descriptive phrases (the Old West, the Far East). Seasons are only to be capitalized when treated as personifications ("Old Man Winter") or in proper names. This is all spelled out in the Wikipedia Manual of Style MOS:CAPS. --Khajidha (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS - SOME uses of directions to describe regions are capitalized, but most are not. This is one of those times that you should just follow sources. And leave it as lowercase if you can't find any sources.--Khajidha (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 22:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Khajidha sets out the capitalization style used by Wikipedia, but Tintor2 asked about usage "in English". Remember that there are no official rules of English usage, so sources like dictionaries and style guides only describe what their editors have seen people using or what they think is the best usage. If you look at older writing in English you will see a number of words like North (the direction), Spring (the season), and Queen (the playing card) treated as proper names and capitalized in all uses. In still older writing, such as the US Constitution, you will see even more capitalization. I think most people today capitalize in the way Wikipedia does, though. --76.69.117.113 (talk) 04:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on Kajidha's PS, one always capitalizes directions in "the East" (roughly Asia, or the eastern US depending on context–note I did not capitalize "eastern"), "the West" (western Europe and the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, or the western part of the US), etc. Loraof (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, because in those examples they are being used as place names. But come on, everyone knows that "the East" and "the West" are parts of Canada. --76.69.117.113 (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As examples: Western Carolina University and East Carolina University are located in the western and eastern portions of North Carolina, respectively. In turn, North Carolina is one of the Southern states, and is found in the southeastern region of the United States.--Khajidha (talk) 19:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In some cases, the capitalization changes the meaning. For example, South Africa refers to the nation, while "south Africa" refers to the broader region. SinisterLefty (talk) 20:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the non-ambiguous term, "southern" Africa. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:13, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, but that doesn't always work, as Southern Rhodesia was the name of a colony at one point, which then became just Rhodesia, and is now Zimbabwe. While it was Rhodesia, you would need to refer to "south Rhodesia" to indicate that region and avoid confusion with the former colony. SinisterLefty (talk) 20:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's "the South". Everyone knows what Americans are referring to when they say that. But when others want to indicate the same place, they have to resort to "the southern states/part of the United States", unless it's otherwise clear from the context. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, they have to refer to the southeastern part. The South stopped being the southern part of the US as the country grew to the west. --76.69.117.113 (talk) 06:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "the South" only extends as far west as Louisiana, or maybe Texas, but not New Mexico and Arizona, and certainly not California. SinisterLefty (talk) 08:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Well, when you guys start referring to "the South-East", I'll amend my reference accordingly. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:10, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of like how this American was surprised to find out that "Northern town" had such a specific meaning in British English. --Khajidha (talk) 11:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 7

Synonym for "benefits"

I was searching for a more interesting synonym for "benefits" for an article title (e.g., "The benefits of yoga" or "The benefits of regular exercise"). I really didn't like the sound of "advantages" in this context. I thought about something like "The power of yoga" or "The wonders of yoga," but I wasn't sure.98.18.156.109 (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given those sales-hype alternatives, "benefits" is the thing to go with. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point.98.18.156.109 (talk) 17:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions: "The rewards of regular exercise" or "The gains you can expect from regular exercise". You might also include "health" in the title, as "health benefits", "health rewards", or "health gains", which all include mental health, unless there is some other non-health benefit you discuss (I suppose appearance is one). SinisterLefty (talk) 19:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rewards" is also sales hype. As is calling the reader "you". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about an article for Wikipedia or for something else? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 8

Thai transliteration

Does anyone at Wikipedia speak Thai and would be willing to transliterate a few words for me? I have created a transliteration via autotools but they are notoriously unreliable when represented in non-Roman characters. I have tried at WP:TRLA with little success. Any other ideas? Is this even the best desk to ask at? -Thibbs (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can do that for you. Do you really want a transliteration (a mapping of the graphemes)? Or a transcription (linguistics) (a romanized representation of the sounds)? Just leave the "few words" here and I'll get to it as soon as I can.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 01:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 9

pucker

What is being said at 40:35 in this video? It sounds like "if his credentials weren't pucker I can't imagine they would do that willingly". The word "pucker" seems out of place unless it has a meaning I'm not aware of. Bus stop (talk) 04:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't view the video, but it's probably pukka, meaning "genuine" in this context. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 06:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In ZAE I've always understood it to mean "genuine". In AE you might say "if his credentials weren't the real deal I can't imagine they would do that willingly". (edit) It's "pukka". 41.165.67.114 (talk) 06:10, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the OED has: " sure, certain, reliable; genuine, bona fide, correct. Hence more generally: real, not sham; (of information) factually correct; (of persons) authentic, not pretended; proper or correct in behaviour, socially acceptable" (with cites from 1776 to 2006, one spelled pucker), and British slang: "Excellent, superb; ‘cool’." Dbfirs 06:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That must be it: In UK slang, it can mean "genuine" or simply "very good". Thanks everybody. Bus stop (talk) 09:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It comes from a Hindi word, 'pakka', meaning 'strong', 'permanent' or 'resolute'.TotallyNotSarcasm [lɨi̯v ə me̞sɪ̈dʒ] [kɔnt͡ɹ̠̝̊ɹ̠ɪ̈bjɨʉ̯ʃn̩z] 09:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See List of English words of Hindi or Urdu origin - one of the legacies of empire. Alansplodge (talk) 12:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How common was insurgents and cut and run in WW2?

In American English. Star Trek Enterprise seemed to try too hard to connect with current events, I was wondering how idiosyncratic those usages would've been. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Ukrainian Insurgent Army. This shows the concept "cut and run" existed at the time: [6]. Rmhermen (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This book has "cut-and-run" in its WWII slang section: [7]. Rmhermen (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Cut and run" originated in 1794 as a naval term: "to cut the cable and make sail instantly, without waiting to weigh anchor". 2606:A000:1126:28D:48F3:EC22:BDAE:8519 (talk) 18:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm just too young to have heard it before the Bush era, I always assumed it originated in the cowboy side of my country (far away, hence the use by Bush who's from the ranch part of Texas) and referred to cattle cutting (changing direction) to turn around to flee. The real origin sounds cooler actually. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Related terms are guerrilla warfare and asymmetrical warfare. SinisterLefty (talk) 22:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did they commonly call the French/Polish etc. (not Spanish) Resistance/insurgents guerrillas too? I know it was common by the time of the Vietcong. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Our article says it was used in English since 1809. I don't know whether is was applied to the French or Poles in WW2. The terms I've heard them use for themselves are resistance fighters and partisans (although the later was used more for SE Europe). SinisterLefty (talk) 01:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of insurgents, "hit and run" attacks are common, where the insurgents attack, then flee the area before reinforcements arrive. ISIL was an odd exception, which tried to hold ground. It worked for them only for a few years, because of all the failed states around the area. Against a strong and unified enemy, it wouldn't have lasted more than a few days. SinisterLefty (talk) 01:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which British variety is this audio?

Umzu (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to the opening credits, it's an American, Larry Storch, trying to do a British accent. Perhaps not his strongest suit. Henry ^Flower 21:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd describe as a terrible American variety. HiLo48 (talk) 23:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As with Mrs. Doubtfire's accent, maybe "a little muddled." The other annoying thing about that clip is the laugh track. If you need a laugh track on a cartoon, something's out of whack. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 10

How do you translate the name Shitavious to Russian?

How do you translate the name Shitavious to Russian? Futurist110 (talk) 08:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 206: / Line 206: @@
 ==How do you translate the name Shitavious to Russian?==
 How do you translate the name Shitavious to Russian? [[User:Futurist110|Futurist110]] ([[User talk:Futurist110|talk]]) 08:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
-Шитавиоус Anton [[Special:Contributions/81.131.40.58|81.131.40.58]] ([[User talk:81.131.40.58|talk]]) 10:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)