Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:18, 2 January 2024

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.

December 27

Separable verbs

Separable verb notes that they appear in German, Dutch, Afrikaans, and (bizarrely) Hungarian. Are they present in any other languages, Germanic or otherwise? The article discusses the cognates for "undergo" versus "go under" in Dutch, which made me think of Rapaport's Our ship will not go under, which ends with untergeyn, or אונטערגיין in the original Yiddish. However, I don't have any idea how Yiddish would handle "undergo", i.e. "to be subjected to". Nyttend (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As German doesn't have the word "untergehen" functioning similarly to "undergo", I don't think Yiddish would, either. (Dutch has "ondergaan", though.) 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 01:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was just an example; does Yiddish have separable verbs, or do any other languages? Nyttend (talk) 01:59, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure: Yiddish grammar#Separable verbs Crash48 (talk) 08:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Germanic languages plus Hungarian suggests something of a sprachbund. The Wiktionary entry for mitgeyn indicates separability. AnonMoos (talk) 03:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One may wonder (and I do) to what extent the "separability" is not a grammar issue but an artifact of the orthographic choice to write some common combinations as one word. Compare:

Die Sonne geht auf – die Sonne wird aufgehen.

Die Sonne geht nach oben – die Sonne wird nach oben gehen.

I can't think of a compelling reason for the choice not to write:

Die Sonne geht auf – *die Sonne wird auf gehen.

A better term might be joinable verb. --Lambiam 10:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference in the possible word orders. I'm no native speaker of German, so I'll use Dutch examples. See V2 word order for the meaning of central field and right bracket. If you treat the prefix-like particle as an adverb, it would have to be put at the end of the central field. If you treat it as part of the verb, it must be in the right bracket, and not necessarily at the start of it. So, with both (op)komen and zien in the right bracket:

Ik wil de zon op zien komen. — I want the sun up(particle) see come. — I want to see the sun rise.

Ik wil de zon zien opkomen. — I want the sun see up.come.

Ik wil de zon omhoog zien komen. — I want the sun up(adverb) see come.

*Ik wil de zon zien omhoog komen. — I want the sun see up(adverb) come.

The last form is not grammatical (except, maybe, in some Brabantian dialects, where it's common that some non-verbs penetrate the right bracket). Something similar happens for some common combinations of verb + direct object, that have merged into one word (koffiezetten, stofzuigen): because the object has merged with the verb, it may penetrate the right bracket. PiusImpavidus (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's written as one word when prefixed to the verb probably partially because --

1) No other word can come between the preverb and verb (only "ge" can go in the middle, and it's not a word).

2) A sequence of a preposition followed by a verb, as two separate words, would give a different meaning (if it made sense at all).

3) German likes writing words together... AnonMoos (talk) 21:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are there examples of separable verbs where reason 2 applies (separation gives a different meaning)? They should result in an ambiguity when separation is obligatory. Reason 1 does not apply to Dutch. And while (the committee setting the rules for the orthography of) Dutch also likes writing words together, the Dutch don't, if the way they actually tend to spell compound words is allowed as evidence. --Lambiam 07:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a Dutch example:

Ik vraag nu een vergunning aan, omdat de regeling van 16 oktober afloopt.

I request a permit now, because the arrangement of 16 October expires.

Ik vraag nu een vergunning aan, omdat de regeling van 16 oktober af loopt.

I request a permit now, because the arrangement applies from 16 October onward.

In speech, afloopt is stressed on af, af loopt is stressed on loopt.

People insert a lot of incorrect spaces in Dutch texts. I know, and it annoys me. Part of the reason is some big foreign software companies made spelling checkers for English, then prepared some word lists in other languages and distributed the software over Europe. That doesn't work. Autocorrect makes it worse. A few weeks ago I ran a spelling check on a 150,000 word Dutch text. The far majority of the signalled errors (hundreds) were false positives; the proposed corrections were mostly incorrect. I had to pay attention to find the few real errors. In professionally published material such spaced compounds are normally not found, so people reading a lot still have a feeling for the official way – and spelling corrections are still mostly a human's job. PiusImpavidus (talk) 15:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The person of whose son I'm afraid, VS. The person whose son I'm afraid of.

What's more considered as spoken (colloquial) English? The first description above, or the second one?

If neither of them, then what's the best way to describe that person in spoken (colloquial) English? 2A06:C701:7469:5D00:79A0:4F6B:4303:B768 (talk) 11:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The second – this is normal colloquial British English. The first would never be spoken, unless for deliberate comedic effect (something I might do, as I'm notoriously "bookish" in my speech), and might seem over-formal even when written, although grammatically it's entirely correct. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.205.111.170 (talk) 12:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. What about the (pseudo-grammatical) description: The mother that I'm afraid of her son? Is it common in spoken language? I'm not asking about its (bad) syntax, but rather about its normal? usage (among adults/children). 2A06:C701:7469:5D00:79A0:4F6B:4303:B768 (talk) 12:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a native speaker, but it sounds off to me, and the parsing makes it difficult to understand. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 13:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The mother that I'm afraid of her son" is not a construction used by native speakers of English. Colloquially I'd expect that kid I'm afraid of's mother. Folly Mox (talk) 14:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you changed the subject "mother" into "that kid". The fact is that I'm afraid of the kid. So why wouldn't you expect (colloquially): The mother (that/who) I'm afraid of her kid? Again I'm only afraid of her kid, rather than of her... 2A06:C701:7469:5D00:79A0:4F6B:4303:B768 (talk) 15:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The subject isn't changed. The subject is still "mother", modified by "that kid I'm afraid of's", which is obviously ungrammatical, but is colloquial, at least in several North American topolects. Folly Mox (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If "the son" is meant to be the subject and "the mother that I'm afraid of" the determiner phrase with "her" used as some kind of his genitive, then it would be "The mother that I'm afraid of's son". As native English grammar and syntax functions differently, the sentence is a bit diffucult to parse, though. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't understood you at the first time, because I'd misinterpreted the of's as an unfamiliar abbreviation of of his. But I got it now: So of's should be interpretred as the genetive form of of. Wow! I wasn't aware of this style of colloquial speech in North American topolects, so you've taught me something about them. Thank you ever so much.

Now I wonder if this kind of speech is considered to be native in other varieties of English. 2A06:C701:7469:5D00:79A0:4F6B:4303:B768 (talk) 18:25, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't studied grammar too extensively, but generally you can't "genitivize" of. It is ("descriptively") allowed here, since "that I'm afraid of" already is a determiner phrase of "The mother", I believe. (Please correct me if I have gotten some details or terminology wrong.) 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 18:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that generally we can't "genitivize" of. However, we are discussing the colloquial (North American) English right now, aren't we? So we don't have to care about what we generally can do or can't do, but rather we should only care about what is meant (at least unconciously) by the colloquial (North American) English speaker: In my opinion, what really exists in their mind is the unconcious desire to genetivize "that kid (I'm afraid of)". By genetivizing of I actually mean: adding an 's (i.e. an apostrophe followed by an s) after the expression "that kid (I'm afraid of)", as we generally do when we genetivize regular nouns (including "that kid") by adding an 's after them. In our case, the 's is added after of, so it looks like we genetivize the of, and that's what I actually meant - by genetivizing of - i.e. by genetivizing "that kid (I'm afraid of)". 2A06:C701:7469:5D00:79A0:4F6B:4303:B768 (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that kid I'm afraid of's mother follows a construction routinely used in casual, colloquial, spoken British English, regardless of its dubious grammatical correctness. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.205.111.170 (talk) 23:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Thanks. What about "The mother (who/that) I'm afraid of her son", in colloquial spoken British English? 2A06:C701:7469:5D00:79A0:4F6B:4303:B768 (talk) 07:49, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you still seem to be using the his genitive, no, it's not colloquial native English. I guess that genitivizing of determiner phrases (I hope I got the terminology correct) could be used in several situations, such as creating a distinction between "the kid that's right behind you's mother" (focus on the mother) and "the kid that's right behind your mother" (focus on the kid). 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 14:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your likely conjecture. However, let me now quote two of your comments in this thread: "I'm not a native speaker, but...no, it's not colloquial native English". So, I'm waiting now for a native British English speaker (like the one I've responded to) to approve your likely hypothesis. 2A06:C701:7469:5D00:79A0:4F6B:4303:B768 (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

am an American speaker, but yes, nobody would say that. Andre🚐 15:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But, yes, I'm still waiting for a native British English speaker (like the one I've responded to) to approve your probable remark. 2A06:C701:7469:5D00:79A0:4F6B:4303:B768 (talk) 15:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I find The mother (who/that) I'm afraid of her son to be utterly alien to my (British) English - if I encountered it I would assume that the speaker was a non-English speaker translating from another language.

The 's ending in modern English is not a suffix but a clitic, which is appended to a phrase, not to a word. In English (as opposed to the language made up by influencers a couple of centuries ago) phrases can perfectly well end with a preposition, so the clitic can be appended to a preposition. ColinFine (talk) 16:49, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The interesting construction: "that kid I'm afraid of's mother" in spoken English, is unique in that it's surprisingly quite similar to the Turkish standard construction: "Oğlundan korktuğum anne": In both languages, the mother ("anne" in Turkish) is the subject being the final word which actually follows a whole sub-clause. The more interesting point is that this construction is typical of agglutinative languages, but English - contrary to Turkish - is not an agglutinative language...

Besides agglutinative languages (like the Turkic ones), and colloquial English, are there other languages having that interesting property? HOTmag (talk) 09:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the similarity may partly be illusory. The English possessive is a definite determiner; "A's B" means "the B of A". The relative clauses formed in Turkish with -dik or -ecek + possessive suffix are not definite, just like adjectives are not definite. For example, the full sentence "oğlundan korktuğum bir anne yokmuş" means, "there is no mother whose son I fear". Even in a variety or register of English in which "the kid I'm afraid of's mother" is fine, you cannot say, *"there is no a kid I'm afraid of's mother". What is similar is that the suffix applies to a multiword phrase:

[that kid I'm afraid of] + 's

[oğlundan korktuk] + -im

The nature of these suffixes is completely different different though; "[that kid] + 's [mother]", when expressed in Turkish, becomes "[bu çocuk] + -in [anne] + i" = "bu çocuğun annesi", in which "bu çocuğun" is a definite determiner. --Lambiam 10:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But the similarity I've pointed at, which is still a true fact, is the ability to build a sentence whose subject is the final word, which can actually follow a whole sub-clause. Besides agglutinative languages, and colloquial English, do you know of any other language having that property? HOTmag (talk) 10:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In German you can say something like "nur mit großer Schwierigkeit gegen den Sturmwind aufkreuzende Segelboote" ("sailing boats only tacking against the storm wind with great difficulty"). I suspect you can do something similar in most Germanic languages. --Lambiam 20:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the sub-clause? Is it "nur mit großer Schwierigkeit gegen den Sturmwind aufkreuzende"? Note that every sub-clause can function as a separate sentence. In English, the expression "the kid I fear's mother", contains both the sub-clause "I fear" and the subject "mother" at the end. The same is true for Turkish: the expression "Oğlundan korktuğum anne" contains both the sub-clause "korktuğum" and the subject "anne" at the end. But where do you find any sub-clause in "nur mit großer Schwierigkeit gegen den Sturmwind aufkreuzende Segelboote"? HOTmag (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are right; in traditional grammar analysis this predicate cannot be categorized as a clause with a null anaphoric predicand. Relative clauses precede the noun phrase they qualify in languages with strong head-finality, which includes Japanese. For example, in 私が恐れている息子を持つ母親 (watashi ga osorete iru musuko o motsu hahaoya) the clause watashi ga osorete iru musuko o motsu ("having a son that I am afraid of") precedes the head hahaoya ("mother"). Now Japanese is agglutinative, but there are many inflected head-final languages, e.g. Hindustani, so I am fairly sure there are some non-agglutinative languages in which a modifying clause can precede the head. --Lambiam 10:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In Hidustani, it's वह माँ जिसके बेटे से मैं डरता हूँ, the mother being the second word, rather than the final one. HOTmag (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This might need some clarification for the minority on Wikipedia unable to read Hindustani... 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 22:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've only translated "That kid I'm afraid of's mother" into Hindustani. In Colloquial English, the mother is the last word. In Hindustani, the mother (/ma:n/) is the second word. The whole Hindustani sentence should be interpreted as "The mother whose son I fear". HOTmag (talk) 08:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I always was taught to NESWAP in English. Never end a sentence with a preposition. In formal writing, to follow that, you would say, "The person's son of whom I am afraid." However, in spoken language, others are correct that "the person's son I am afraid of" is much more common, to the extent that the formalized construction sounds a bit odd to the ear. Andre🚐 10:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of those with a less formal education (like what I had): NESWAP = "Never end a sentence with a preposition". Alansplodge (talk) 10:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer: "Never end sentences with a preposition", because the indefinte article is counted (e.g. in "a preposition"). HOTmag (talk) 12:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I have understood, the NESWAP rule is mostly based on flawed prescriptivist reasoning from people who wanted to apply Latin grammar to English. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 14:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard that too, and Winston Churchill said "up with this rule, I will not put!" John Dryden is supposedly where it came from. Andre🚐 14:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, we could also say "The mother of the child I fear". Nyttend (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does have an article on preposition stranding. --142.112.220.136 (talk) 17:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History of linguistic prescription in English may be informative here. Folly Mox (talk) 12:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 28

Decadência

banned user

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

In an advertisement for its new ship Queen Anne in the i on 18 November the Cunard Line says that two years and one day later she will be visiting

"Lisbon, Portugal

"Among its rooftops, Gothic towers and decadent domes burst from a sea of red-tiled buildings, while at ground level you'll see elegant shops, graceful palacios and ancient ruins."

Why are the domes described as "decadent"? 78.146.96.174 (talk) 17:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In this context, I guess it's supposed to be read as lavish and ostentatious... 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 17:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the WP editor Hoary pointed out here some time ago, the notion of decadence is often invoked "with little or no meaning"; see Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2018 May 11#Definition of decadent. Deor (talk) 17:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat like some who say "infamous" to mean "very well known" in a good way, as opposed to in a bad way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite, I think. There is a logical thread you can follow to get to this use of "decadent". I think the idea is that a well-structured society is supposed to involve asceticism and personal moral rigor and self-restraint. When these societies decay, you see the rise of indulgence and opulence. Then those who approve of indulgence and opulence, at least in a particular context, re-appropriate the term to praise them.

You don't have to buy the underlying theory that ascetic societies are the best ones, but given that that theory exists, you can't really say that the usage is illogical. --Trovatore (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That term "decadent" is often used in reference to very rich foods, especially desserts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary gives two senses for decadent:

Characterized by moral or cultural decline.
Luxuriously self-indulgent.

For the second sense, the colloquial synonym sinful is given. --Lambiam 20:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Luxury" seems like an apt word to compare; it's cognate with Italian lussuria, one of the seven deadly sins. Wiktionary doesn't seem to take note of this sense surviving in English, but I bet it does. Someone who knows Wiktionary procedures better should probably update this. --Trovatore (talk) 20:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So done. --Lambiam 18:34, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For luxuria in the context of the seven deadly sins, the usual English word is lust. Not an entirely satisfactory equivalent, perhaps, but the Latin word does have a connotation of specifically sexual excess. I don't think luxury is used in this sense these days. Deor (talk) 21:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Decadent might be a description of Rococo architecture in Portugal (though many of the Rococo buildings in the Lisbon area were destroyed in the 1755 earthquake)... AnonMoos (talk) 05:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 30

Kurdish speaking editor needed

I need someone who can provide context for the video in this deletion request. Basically just join the DR and explain what the video is about and whether or not you think it realistically have any kind educational use. --Trade (talk) 02:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it "houses" and not "hice"?

Why is it "spouses" and not "spice"? Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 10:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems as if *hūsą was neuter gender with the singular and plural form identical in Proto-Germanic, and the forms English houses and German Häuser would be later development, whereas *mūs was feminine gender, declined strongly. "Spouse" is a later Anglo-Norman borrowing, so it'd be unlikely to have a strong declension. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 11:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Spouse" ultimately comes from Latin.[1] And I wonder if you're referring to the old joke about having more than one wife being "spice". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine that most "Anglo-Norman" words ultimately come from Latin. 2A00:23C7:9CD1:3901:814B:BC3C:8CC4:37EF (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but generally across the history of the English language Anglo-Norman and general French vocabulary was borrowed at different times and has different properties compared to vocabulary borrowed directly from Latin, so the distinction is made. Remsense留 16:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The historical answer is that only nouns with historical -i inflections underwent umlaut. There's oddly nothing about this that I can see on the Old_English_grammar article, but you can go to https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fot#Old_English and click on the box in the "declension" subsection to see the inflection of an Old English umlauting noun... AnonMoos (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the umlaut belonged to phonology more so than to grammar, it's covered in Germanic umlaut#I-mutation in Old English Crash48 (talk) 09:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link for us amateurs: Umlaut (linguistics). Bazza (talk) 09:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wiktionary, almost all words ending with ouse in the singular form, end with an additional s in the plural form - without any change in the other letters. Here are all one syllable words, alphabetically: blouse, bouse, douse, grouse, house, rouse, scouse, souse, spouse, touse, trouse; along with many words having more than one syllable (like carouse and so forth).

The only exception is mouse, maybe along with louse whose plural form can be both lice and louses. HOTmag (talk) 11:20, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

wp:deny
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Oxford English Dictionary gives only "lice". I've never encountered any other form. 2A00:23D0:C82:9A01:844E:39:F208:D382 (talk) 16:33, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Wiktionary for more details. HOTmag (talk) 20:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 31

New year in Chinese

“New year” in Chinese is 新年. My question is about the composition of the character for year, 年. In Japanese, it is classified under the radical radical 4^[1], in Chinese under radical 51. Wiktionary explains it as a compound of 禾+人. The modern input methods compose the character as 人+手, 𠂉+㐄 , 一+丨 or 午+丄. The Japanese classification makes sense, given that characters that aren't clearly in one class often just take the first stroke (such as 我, which is also under radical 4). But is there any rhyme or reason to the classification under 干 other than that one can see those strokes in that character, too? There is one nice concidence, though: The other part of “新年”, 新, is treated by Wieger^[2] in the lesson for 干 (L. 102H). ◅ Sebastian Helm 🗨 17:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese character description languages are largely extensions of the radical concept, in that they are a practical invention simply not as concerned with etymology, instead trying to maximize convenience for the writer. "Radicals" as such are, first and foremost, a largely visual concept: they were first used as a means of ordering the Shuowen Jiezi dictionary in the 2nd century, and they are intended to aid with identifying characters so their entries within the dictionary may be easily found. While there are radicals that are more or less visually identical in certain forms, and as such differ only semantically (e.g. ⼠ 'SCHOLAR' and ⼟ 'EARTH')—this shouldn't be taken to mean that characters are organized based on how they were originally constructed. Remsense留 18:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Hadamitzky, Langenscheidts Lehrbuch und Lexikon der japanischen Schrift
^ Wieger, Chinese Characters

January 1

That or Which?

I'm confused when to use "that" vs. "which". For example in Special:Diff/1161159656/1192856881 ("=== Aviation ===" section) someone changed "that" to "which". In Special:Diff/1192744109/1193039380 someone changed a couple "which" to "that". -- GreenC 20:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been clear on the difference. My usual rule of thumb is "that" for specifics, "which"for generalities. doktorb _words^deeds 21:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See, among other ref-desk threads, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2013 December 13#"Which" and "that". Basically, in American usage, which is used in nonrestrictive relative clauses, and that tends to be used in restrictive relative clauses. In British usage, which tends to be used in both nonrestrictive and restrictive clauses. In your second diff, the user was changing nonrestrictive clauses to restrictive ones; I think the nonrestrictive ones were better. Deor (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Deor: Thank you. We might benefit from a MOS entry because it happens enough, I eventually ended up here confused. Something like MOS:THATWHICH and MOS:WHICHTHAT. I wouldn't know how to compose an entry though. Do you want to try write a quick paragraph here? I can try to add it to the MOS afterwards and see if it stays. At the very least it could point to the 2013 discussion with a summary. -- GreenC 22:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think there's too much flexibility in usage to prescribe anything in the MOS. No one uses that in nonrestrictive clauses, and either word is usually OK in restrictive clauses. Deor (talk) 22:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt if no one uses "that" in nonrestrictive clauses. What about nonrestrictive expressions like: "that is by the way", "that is actually", "that is unfortunately", and so forth? AFAIK, such expressions are pretty common. I guess you've only referred to "that" not following any nonrestrictive expressions (like "by the way", "actually", "luckily", etc.). HOTmag (talk) 00:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, there's a 1711 short piece by Richard Steele, familiar to some linguists, the "Humble Petition of Who and Which", a pseudo-legal document complaining that the word "That" is muscling in on the territory of "Who" and "Which", though historically the trend was actually the reverse... AnonMoos (talk) 01:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2

Term for opening synthetic raffia string

The string in the picture is made a ribbon of polypropylene somewhat folded into a strand. The strand can be carefully opened to show the ribbon as shown.

Can someone please suggest an appropriate verb to describe this opening process?

I've thought of "unravel", "open" and "flatten" but they don't exactly convey the meaning.

Thanks,
cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 12:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

untwine "to separate the individual strands" Crash48 (talk) 13:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Hadamitzky, Langenscheidts Lehrbuch und Lexikon der japanischen Schrift

[2] Wieger, Chinese Characters

[1]

[2]

Revision as of 12:43, 2 January 2024 edit Cmglee (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 11,262 edits →‎January 2: Add == Term for opening synthetic raffia string == ← Previous edit		Revision as of 13:18, 2 January 2024 edit undo Crash48 (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 880 edits →‎Term for opening synthetic raffia string: Reply Tag: Reply Next edit →
Line 178:		Line 178:

	Thanks,<br />'''[[User:cmglee\|cmɢʟee]]'''⎆[[User_Talk:cmglee\|τaʟκ]] 12:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)		Thanks,<br />'''[[User:cmglee\|cmɢʟee]]'''⎆[[User_Talk:cmglee\|τaʟκ]] 12:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

			:[https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/untwine untwine] "to separate the individual strands" [[User:Crash48\|Crash48]] ([[User talk:Crash48\|talk]]) 13:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)