Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

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.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

February 6

Origin

This is going to be an interesting discussion. In the article salchipapas, a user is arguing that the sources I present do not attribute the origin of a plate to Peru. He argues that the sources should especifically use the word "origin". Yet, from my understanding of the English language, the word "origin" is not required to establish the origin of something. For example, when you call someone a Brazilian, you are refering to that person as having originated in Brazil. Similarly, when you state that someone is "from Brazil", you are stating that the person originated in Brazil. In both cases, the word "origin" is not used, but the concept is understood. Well, to be more direct, here are the specific references in discussion:

• Charles Frazier: "Whether in these nack bars or in one of the many steet stalls throughout Lima, try salchipapas, a Peruvian fast-food mixture of French fries, sliced sausages, and a variety of sauces ranging from mild to firey".
• Dan Perlman: "salchipapa - french fries with bits of sliced hot dogs mixed in, street food from Lima (Peru)".
• New York Magazine: "French fries adorned with sliced hot dogs that turns out to be a straight-from-Lima street food called salchipapa"

What are your opinions?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 05:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, the discussion is whether to use this version of the article or this one. The discussion can be fully read here for further information and additional sources. However I consider this a problem of neutrality more than language usage, I do believe that if an article will dedicate a section speaking about the origin and claim that this origin was exclusively and without any doubt from a specific place, the reference used should be about this topic and provide an explanation of this origin. Otherwise and adding the fact that there were other references listed that made the same comments about the consumption of this dish in other countries, I consider it’s an inappropriate usage of those sources, which I also should point out aren’t verifiable because the link doesn’t point to those phrases. That’s my opinion, hopefully someone can give us a hand. Best regards. 190.129.63.177 (talk) 06:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I happened to see this and started to read the discussions. You'll resolve this as you do more research--I'll bet you could find references buried in the archives of Peruvian newspapers and magazines that would help determine where and when salchipapas first became popular, or at least narrow it down. (Better than thin sources in English, especially if they were written by outsiders.) In the meantime, I would say avoid the words "origin" or "originate." (Both of you, by the way, seem to dislike accent marks! Pls. see the Spanish article.) SeoMac (talk) 06:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

To me, neither of the three sentences you quoted prove decisively that the dish has Peruvian origin (that is, that it was invented in Peru). All they say is that the dish is currently part of Peruvian cuisine, just like chorizo is part of Mexican cuisine despite originating in Spain, or kettlebells are strongly associated with Russia (even though their true origin is controversial, and Scots played curling with kettlebell-shaped rocks with handles about 50 years before the first mention of a kettlebell in Russian literature.)--Itinerant1 (talk) 07:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

No other source has been brought up that disputes that the plate is Peruvian. Also, The IP has his facts wrong. Up to now he has brought up no source which makes the same direct claims as the 3 sources I have provided. In other words, no source claims that this is "a Bolivian plate" or "from Bolivia". I'd alsolike to add that I found a source talking about the origins of recipes and have posted it in the article's talk page (Talk:Salchipapas). It just confirms what these three other sources were presenting. The third opinion reviewer also agreed that the sources define the plate as of Peruvian origin.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

When you say "plate", do you in fact mean "dish"? They're roughly synonyms in general, but not in the sense I think you mean. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello I’m the IP who previously participated in this discussion; I decided to make an account to ease the communications. Thank you very much for all the feedback I think all your opinions are helping me to think about a solution regarding this article. I’d like to bring a question to the board Marshal already dismissed them, his arguments can be read here and here I brought some sources to expand the article but I want to check two of them and see what others think [1] and [2] they say:

The most profitable and frequent activity for them was the cooking and commerce of “typical” foods of the regions of Bolivia from which they were native, such as faux rabbit, soup, broaster chicken, salchipapas, silverside, shad, pork rinds and empanadas salteñas, which…

The other one says:

The Kingdom of the Salchipapa: Bolivia is known among other things for the abundance of aliments and vegetables. Few months ago, within the framework of the national encounter of the tuber, the potato producers of Villazón exposed their variety in Tiwanaku, “which is the potato culture”, explained the archeologist Hugo Avalos, a tuber scholar and of the tiwanakota race roots. Thus the region adheres itself to the celebrations which are being carried out for the potato worldwide. In the celebration it was exposed from the legendary “ajawiri”, passing through the “imilla” potato, the “waycha”, the “revolution” and the “khati”, to the new variety “desirée”. From this tuber, like it couldn’t be otherwise, it’s born one of the specialties that fascinate children and adults: the salchipapa. Prepared with fried sausages, French fries and all the seasonings available, the passion for the salchipapa doesn’t have equivalent here.

It’s just a rough translation of what both references say about the Salchipapa, but correct me if I’m wrong but I consider at least these two sources go in the same line as the previously ones used to claim the origin in Lima, Peru. Of course I would never even consider to switch from a biased version to another biased version, I still consider these sources are as vague as the rest but I think they do contradict somehow what was stated before. So I think at least instead of fighting whether the plate is originated in which country it’d be more adequate to say "it’s an Andean dish" as it seems that most sources speak more about its predominance in the Andean countries even though apparently in Mexico is quite popular [3]. This is a question for the board as Marshal already answered me but I really don’t consider that the sources previously quoted are more reliable than these ones, what I think is that so far there isn’t any scientific study conducted about the origin, most sources talk briefly about them while describing the cities or tourism but nobody focused their research in trying to determinate where and how they were originated, so since there isn’t a study claiming that the wiser thing to do is to avoid taking this as an indisputable truth use a more neutral language and focus on the material we have. Waiting for your feedback, sincerely Teberald (talk) 02:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The language board doesn't deal with such a long drawn-out situation.

In any case, as I told you before, the "Kingdom of the Salchipapa" source is saying that salchipapas originate from "the tuber". I am sure that by "tuber" they mean potato and not Bolivia (though, arguably some countries do look like tubers).

The source about "typical foods" is not conveying the message you think. In its list, it mentions that soup, pork rinds, and empanadas as typical of Bolivian cuisine. That certainly is true, but at no point is the source claiming that these items actually are Bolivian. Soups are also typical in Peru, and in Italy they are the bomb, but soup itself does not originate in either country. What that source does demonstrate is that "Salchipapas" is part of Latin American cuisine; however, the origin remains Lima, Peru. As I wrote before, that is an extremely accurate association (not just "Peru" in general, but "Lima" especifically as mentioned by two reliable sources). Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe I wrote clearly before that the question was directed to the rest of the board as you expressed already your opinion. Which I also linked to provide other editors all the information necessary. I'll leave you a comment though in the article talk page. Thanks Teberald (talk) 03:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, this is more complicated than I thought. After some digging, it appears to me that, by the mid-1980's, salchipapas were already common in Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, and possibly parts of Colombia. Of the first three, Peru has the largest population and it sees the largest number of tourists, and that would explain why it's most commonly associated with salchipapas - even if they weren't invented there. Their true place of origin remains unknown. --Itinerant1 (talk) 03:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your time and research, I guess for now there isn't enough information to expand further in the topic. But seems that we compiled what could be compiled about the subject for now. Thank you all again for your feedback, it seems quite a helpful community in here. Best regards. Teberald (talk) 01:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Itinerant, it would be great if you could please provide sources to your statements. Otherwise, you'll be providing ideas without foundation that in the long-run can cause problems for the article. I have found no source which claims that "their place of origin is unknown", but sources do exist which state that "Salchipapas are from Peru". From my understanding of the English language, the last statement defines the place of origin as Peru. I find it hard to believe that no native English speaker can provide their input on this subject. In any case, thank you for taking the time to research the situation. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Alvin as a Swedish given name

I asked this question here some time ago, and thought maybe some Swedes can shed light on this? There is a recent fashion of naming boys Alvin in Sweden. The question is, is this merely the American name Alvin imported via pop culture of some sort, or is there a historical Swedish name Alvin? Any known bearer of this name in Sweden alive before the 20th century, or indeed before 1970 or so? --dab (𒁳) 10:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is a link to a swedish site giving some bakground on this [[4]]. According to the site, the name dates back to the German name "Albion" and has been used in Sweden since the 16th century (at the time spelt as "Alffwin").DI (talk) 12:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It's been a Swedish name and an English name since berfore the ancestors of the Swedes and the the English split some 1600 years ago. It's probably just a resurgence of a historical name. Name poularity is often cyclical. Your English theory is unlikely, as the name is rather rare in English. Unless there has been a extrordinary interest in chimpmunks in Sweden recently. I saw you asked about the surname "Alvin" in Sweden and found few bearers. This is not surprising, since this is not how Swedish names are usually formed. Try Alvinsson/Albinsson, and you'll find a lot more. Here's some info on etymology: [[5]]. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

In the States, "Alvin" peaked in popularity in 1920s at #71 among all boy names, and by now it's quite rare (the chipmunk blip was insignificant). [6] This site: [7] says that "Alvin" is far more popular today in Sweden (but not in Norway) than it has ever been in the U.S. (8 boys per 1000, as of 2009). [8] also shows 8 Alvins and 11 Albins per 1000 newborns. "Albin" was more more popular than "Alvin" both in 2007 and 2008 and that must be the "original" spelling of whatever it was that influenced the resurgence of that name. Which could be something as simple as a pop star or a soccer player named Albin.

Per Albin Hansson was a famous Swedish politician in the first half of the 20th century (apparently as famous in Sweden as Franklin Delano Roosevelt is in the U.S.), he's been dead since 1946, but maybe his name got back into the baby name lists recently for some reason.--Itinerant1 (talk) 19:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a Wiki article on the first name Albin: Albin (given name). "Albin is a masculine Polish, Scandinavian, and Slovenian given name, from the Roman cognate Albinus." Here is the list of notable Swedish people named Albin. This name has been steadily popular in Sweden as far back as http://www.nordicnames.de/wiki/ has data: [9].--Itinerant1 (talk) 19:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. It is so poplular, in fact, that entirely new and highly original spellings have been devised for it! See Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 23:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I would not be at all surprised if "Alvin" plummeted in popularity in the US after Alvin and the Chipmunks came along in the late 1950s. Just like the name "Elmer" was once pretty common, but thanks to Elmer Fudd, it's almost unheard of now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The Tales of Alvin Maker come to mind. Dru of Id (talk) 15:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

February 7

Optim

I very much like the name Optim. I think this from the Latin root Optim which in English I think means “to be the best.” Is this accurate? Is Optim short for Optimization?

If not, does Optimization have a root word in English or any other language? 202.156.10.11 (talk) 15:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Optimization comes from Latin optimus 'best'. I've never heard of a name Optim, though. Angr (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

What does Optimē mean? Does that relate to Optimus or Optimization? 202.156.10.11 (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Optimē is the adverb corresponding to optimus. It means 'best' in the sense of "most well", while optimus means 'best' in the sense of "most good". Optimē can also mean "very well". Angr (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Optimum and optima are both valid words in English and could also make for strange first names if that's what you are going for. Of course Optimus is a very well known first name. There is also Optus. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

---

202.156.10.11 -- You already asked basically this question less than a month ago... AnonMoos (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I haven't been able to find the meaning of Optim and hence needed to put it in context. Thank you for your patience. I am using this as my company name, so of course want to be sure. Can you please advise what does Optus mean and if there would be any other words that would capture the essence of Optimization that I can use as a company's name?

202.156.10.11 (talk) 01:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Optus is already taken, at least down here. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 01:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"Optim" standing by itself doesn't mean anything on its own in any language, as far as I know (certainly not in Latin), but it's the STEM of various Latin words meaning "best" (or having closely related meanings), such as optimus masculine singular adjective, optimum neuter singular adjective, optime adverb, etc. If you want an etymology in pre-Latin terms, then "tim" is an altered form of an old Indo-European tam superlative suffix, while the "op" could be related to that in "opulent"... AnonMoos (talk) 01:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Grammatically correct

Can i say - Trusting that good sense prevails- at the end of a sentence 65.183.7.11 (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

or Trusting that good sense will prevails.

Yes. After a comma, and provided that the subject of the main clause is the person doing the trusting. Your second option, though, is wrong. There should be no "s" after "prevail". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess the OP meant "will prevail", but forgot to cancel the s after they had pasted the previous sentence (to which they had added the "will"). 77.127.89.120 (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

And I guess you meant "the IP" but you were a finger short. Interchangeable|talk to me 18:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

And maybe he did mean "OP", for "original poster". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you can say it, but you probably shouldn't: it will usually be seen as an insult. Looie496 (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting take on an ostensibly positive statement. Are you saying it would be interpreted as "Good sense hasn't always prevailed in the past, so we have to take it on trust it will prevail this time, but we would never be surprised if it didn't"? In other words, when they say "trusting", do they really mean "hoping but not really trusting"? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

February 8

Punctuation help

Can someone please tell me if this grouping of sentences is okay? I feel like there should be at least one common in there: "What makes the perfect prince? Is it his bravery in battle or the sagely laws he passes? His great compassion or the punishment he meters out to the wicked?"

Thanks. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 05:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Your third question is not a complete sentence, you'd need to start it with "Is it..." again to make it so. There is a verb (meters? I assume you mean "metes"), but the verb is part of a dependent clause, "the punishment (that) he metes out to the wicked" (the "that" being implied). You still need a proper subject and verb, which is why you'd have to start the third sentence with "Is it..." to be gramatically correct. But colloquially, especially in conversational English, your sentences don't seem unnatural or odd. You could also fix it by putting a comma in place of the second question mark, so it read "Is it his bravery in battle or the sagely laws he passes, his great compassion or the punishment he metes out to the wicked? --Jayron32 06:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"Sagely" is an adverb, but we need the adjective "sage" before "laws". Also, were you asking about at least one comma (rather than one "common")? The third sentence is not a complete sentence if read in isolation, but in the context of the overall utterance, it's fine. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 07:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"Sagely" here would be an adjective; it's modifying "laws". I've never heard "sage" used except as a noun, so the "-ly" is a marker that it's a modification of the original noun form. Nyttend (talk) 07:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

You're wrong, that's all. Neener neener. —Tamfang (talk) 07:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I think Jack and I misread sagely as derived from the adjective sage, but it's better read as derived from the noun sage — like kingly. —Tamfang (talk) 07:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I would put commas after "battle" and "compassion", they help the rhythm of the sentences. --Viennese Waltz 09:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't put any commas in these sentences. They're fine the way they are. Each or separates only two terms, so there's no need for a comma before it. Angr (talk) 09:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Very few princes pass laws, sage or otherwise.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Or go into battle, or mete out punishment. It seems to be from an antique context. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Prince Harry and Prince Andrew both went into battle. Angr (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

My immediate presumption was that it's from The Prince, of which perhaps Ghostexorcist is making a new translation, although I haven't spotted the passage in question in a brief skim of my 1961 version translated by George Bull. Assuming I'm correct, Machiavelli uses the term "prince" to mean any chief ruler of an independent state, whether they attained that position by heredity, conquest, election or other means. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.165 (talk) 23:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't take the word "Prince" too literally: for example, in her day, Elizabeth I regarded both herself and The Pope as 'Princes'. --Dweller (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Revolting, disgusting behaviour

What conclusions can I draw about a person who uses these two words about another. They seem to be very tummy orientated but taste is not involved. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by "tummy orientated"? Roger (talk) 12:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I think a preoccupation with isolation is indicated. The absence of reference to taste suggests a blind spot to the possibility of social activity. Bus stop (talk) 12:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting that you changed what you had written rather than added to it. Both answers were helpful to me but I think the first was closer to the mark. If it helps, the person is histrionic, narcissistic, addicted to dope and very fat. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

One way or another, you've just told us a lot more with this post, than the original question. I would say, for the original question, no conclusions. You mean to say that he is using a visceral description, which means his vocabulary may be lacking, but modern English seems to prefer the use of simple, immediate language ("soft as", "they crucify the English language", "human rights groups slammed the suggestion", and so on). Human consciousness is returning to the limbic system, but I digress, IBE (talk) 14:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I was just thinking that self-examination of a psychological nature could correlate to a degree of progress of food through the body, in the language references we use. Those psychologically troubled may avoid the self-examination that the more robust population may be capable of addressing. Thus when lavishing displeasure on another we who are psychologically damaged may prefer the more objectifying language associated with the more distant travel of the food through the body. I think you were suggesting that in your question, and I think it is a good observation. Bus stop (talk) 11:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Mongolian (cyrillic) help

Hi! I want to type in the addresses at http://www.mongolianairlines.com/contacts There are three street addresses. What do they look like typed? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you want. 109.97.141.213 (talk) 15:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean transliterated? (1) 14257 Narny zam 15, Sүhbaatar dүүrjeg, Ulaanbaatar hot, Mongol uls. (2) Ulaanbaatar 15160, Chingjeltjei dүүrjeg, Zhigzhidzhavyn gudamzh 3, Bod' camhag, 1 davhar. (3) Mөrөn sum, Tөv 4 zam, 50-100 zochid buudal 1 davhar. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

BTW, thanks for your help too! Because the third address was not translated into English, I included the latin transliteration with the cyrillic in the photo request for the Moron ticket office WhisperToMe (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Cyrillic:

14257 Нарны зам 15, Сүхбаатар дүүрэг, Улаанбаатар хот, Монгол улс

Улаанбаатар 15160, Чингэлтэй дүүрэг, Жигжиджавын гудамж 3, Бодь цамхаг, 1 давхар

Мөрөн сум, Төв 4 зам, 50-100 зочид буудал, 1 давхар

Elaborating on Pp.paul.4's comment: Mongolian Cyrillic <ө> (<өө>) and <ү> (<үү>) are usually transliterated "ö" ("öö") and "ü" ("üü"). An <э> represents a plain "e" in Mongolian, whereas the iotated "e" is written <е> - so it is <е>, not <э>, that is normally transliterated "ye" (or "je", in the fashion of German and some other languages). Also, <ж> and <з> are not quite like they're in Russian; <ж> /tʃ/ and <ч> /tʃʰ/ on one part, and <з> /ts/ and <ц> /tsʰ/ on another, are pairs of a non-aspirated and an aspirated consonant, similarly to the pairs that are there for example in Chinese. That's why <ж> is standardly rendered "j" (President of Mongolia Tsakhiagiin Elbegdorj). The <х> (IPA: /x/) is often "kh" (cf. the name of the President again), like the Russian <х> is, or scientifically it could also be "x". And also, <й> is usually rendered "i" rather than "y" (the President again), because, unlike in Russian, it's not a consonant, but rather it's a part of the orthographical representation of a long vowel (ий) or of a diphthong (эй, үй, etc). So I'd go for:

14257 Narny zam 15, Sükhbaatar düüreg, Ulaanbaatar khot, Mongol uls

Ulaanbaatar 15160, Chingeltei düüreg, Jigjidjavyn gudamj 3, Bod' tsamkhag, 1 davkhar

Mörön sum, Töv 4 zam, 50-100 zochid buudal, 1 davkhar

See also Mongolian Cyrillic script. --Theurgist (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, theurgist! For the third entry, what is the description before the address? The third entry is not listed in the page's English version. Also what are the cyrillic for the descriptions of the first and second entries? (So I can use the cyrillic on the Wikimedia Commons photo request page) - Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"TӨВ ОФФИС" (main/central office), "БИЛЕТИЙН ТӨВ КАСС" (central ticket office), "МӨРӨН" (this seems to mean the office in the city of Mörön.) Theurgist missed the first line in the third address, which is "Khövsgöl aimag" (lat) / " Хөвсгөл аймаг" (cyr).--Itinerant1 (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I am now adding a photo request for that one too WhisperToMe (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The third descrption is "Mörön, central intersection, '50-100' hotel, first floor". Which is a bit curious because if i remember correctly, the eznis office is in the same building.

The name of the hotel is a reference to 50 degrees north, 100 degrees east, which is a position not so far away from Mörön. Yaan (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

etymology of "john" meaning toilet

I would like to know the origin of this usage. All the OED says is:

d. slang (chiefly U.S.). With lower-case initial. A lavatory, water-closet.[1735 Harvard Laws in W. Bentinck-Smith Harvard Bk. (1953) 146 No freshman shall mingo against the College wall or go into the fellows' cuzjohn.] 1932 Amer. Speech 7 333 John, johnny, a lavatory. 1946 ‘J. Evans’ Halo in Blood xvi. 181, I‥made a brief visit to the john. 1959 C. MacInnes Absolute Beginners 54 ‘You poor old bastard,’ I said to the Hoplite, as he sat there on my john. 1972 Last Whole Earth Catalog (Portola Inst.) 247/3 Every time you take a dump or a leak in a standard john, you flush five gallons of water out with your piddle. 1973 Black World June 19 They gave me my Status Symbol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.210.113.48 (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

(EC) From http://www.etymonline.com/:

john: "toilet," 1932, probably from jakes, used for "toilet" since 15c.

'Jakes' gives us

jakes: "a privy," mid-15c., genitive singular of jack (n.).

And 'Jack' gives

jack (n.): late 14c., jakke "a mechanical device," from the masc. name Jack. The proper name was used in M.E. for "any common fellow" (mid-14c.), and thereafter extended to various appliances replacing servants (1570s).

So the origin is C15th 'a mechanical device'. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"any common fellow" - well, really! -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

(Not to worry, mon -- it's the opposite in your hemisphere ... )--184.100.88.44 (talk) 03:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

One wonders whether the parents of the US author John Jakes were oblivious or defiant. As I encountered his books before I became very aware of both terms (one being foreign, the other antique) his name's unfortunate aspect never occurred to me until now. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.165 (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Then again, if your name is Thomas Crapper, what other career is open to you besides plumbing ? StuRat (talk) 05:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Gambling? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.161 (talk) 07:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Use of the word 'that'

Can someone else with more experience chime in here? I do not doubt my OCD with regard to use of the word 'that' ever since my English prof beat it into me. Removing conversational/subordinate clause 'that' is a more professional presentation which seems appropriate for an encyclopedia. Does anyone have a strong feeling or hurt feelings if one were to remove extra unnecessary 'that's? I did that on a few topics today as I noticed them (nails on chalk board) and they were reversed by Reichsfurst. I am not falling on my sword over it but do not see harm in making the entries more professional like fixing spelling and punctuation changes.Justify265 (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. But grammar is not a strong point for many. Collect (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that wikipedia common use seems to be in favour of keeping the word 'that' if only to reduce ambiguity. I would point to the page Wikipedia:Basic_copyediting, where the second sentence says the 'encyclopedia that anyone can edit'. It would seem silly to have one policy on these two articles and a different one elsewhere, even on the very page that deals with copyediting. Reichsfurst (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I had a look at only one one your changes, which removed a couple of instances of 'that', and neither worked for me. So your "more professional" value judgement is for me "distinctly less pleasant to read". I tend to doubt that there's any grammatical law (or lore) on your side. Perhaps you had a duff and idiosynchratic professor? --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

So without a hard and fast rule for or against 'that' use, it does seem rather unproductive to undo every edit made by another editor removing 'that'. Perhaps since this is the defining reference for such matters is there a professorial or other higher power than can make a definitive stance on whether to remove 'that' if an editor takes the time to do so or for editors to ignore the added 'that's going forward?Justify265 (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by consensus rather than command from 'higher power' - I think we'd be best to leave as is without a much wider debate. Reichsfurst (talk) 16:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I also have a suspicion this is one of those shared language things ... USians, in my estimation, are more likely to drop thats (and various similar words) than are Brits; along the lines of "He said Friday that..." versus "He said on Friday that...". USian newspaper headlines ahve always appealed to me for exactly this reason. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Higher power meaning someone with more definitive knowledge on the subject to help gain consensus. We do not seem to have consensus so far. I agree on the USians versus Brits although perhaps not as strikingly different as gray vs grey. A for American and E for England right?Justify265 (talk) 17:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

(od) Agree with Tagishsimon - for me the changes show, as Fowler puts it, "the unpleasantness of ill-advised omission." Fowler says that where substantival clauses are concerned, certain verbs "prefer that expressed," while some "prefer that omitted", and others "vary according to the tone of the context." Seems agreeable?

In F's opinion, verbs that prefer that include announce and state (i.e. "words that stand on their dignity and will not dispense with the attendance of that."). He says it is unusual with e.g. believe, say, suppose and think. It can be used or omitted, according to tone of context, with e.g. consider, declare, hear, know, propose, say, see, understand.

Fowler suggests adding to his lists for one's own use (so we're all going to do this, right?), and says the question (to that or not to that) may arise with many more verbs than he cites. He notes (in my ragged 1965 second edition of MEU) that "the tendency is to omit that, and some of the words in the first list [verbs that like to hook up with thats] may be thought to have become eligible for transfer to the third [verbs that swing either way]." And he adds, ominously: "Perhaps this is due to U.S. influence, where that is omitted much more freely than it is here . . . [and] this is having an effect on British journalism."

My Guardian stylebook only has this to say: "do not use [that] automatically after the word 'said', but it can be useful: you tend to read a sentence such as 'he said nothing by way of an explanation would be forthcoming' as 'he said nothing by way of an explanation' and then realise that it does not say that at all; 'he said that nothing by way of an explanation would be forthcoming' is much clearer."

Klarity is King. Writegeist (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

May we please have links to, or examples of, the offending "that" ? StuRat (talk) 00:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[10], [11] --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. StuRat (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You may be interested in the entry on "contact clauses" in Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage. They discuss the history of the so-called "omission of that", which many prescriptive grammarians condemned (Samuel Johnson called it a "colloquial barbarism"). In this light, it seems strange that your professor would consider it the that-less version to be less conversational and more professional.

Of course, we shouldn't pay much heed to eighteenth-century grammarians, and there are many cases where it is perfectly normal not to use that. But I agree with Writegeist that clarity should be foremost, and whenever doubt arises I would veer on the side of using that (and I'm from the US). I find some of your changed sentences to sound especially unnatural, e.g.: "During the interview, Gingrich explained to Van Susteren Gregory's question was 'a hypothetical baloney question'." If you are looking for a general rule, consider what the MWDEU says at the end of their entry: "[absence of that] is probably relatively more common in casual and general prose and relatively less common in prose that aims to fly high; it is probably more common after some verbs (as believe, hope, say, think) than others (as assert, calculate, hold, intend)". Lesgles (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Ironically, the thing that stands out as extremely unnatural to me is your statement "I find some of your changed sentences to sound especially unnatural". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Lesgles, that is what I thought instinctively. In England I really do not think that you would find the 'that' omitted from sentences. I would refer anyone to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography which uses the word 'that' liberally. Reichsfurst (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh there it is 'Liberally', I must be too conservative.  :) I left any extra 'that's on Obama's page. I am still reeling from finding I am no longer a descendant of King Phillip of France. Curse you Ancestry.com for getting my hopes up to be dashed by Wikipedia!Justify265 (talk) 15:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

@Jack: you're right, my sentence does sound weird, perhaps because it is missing a that! Lesgles (talk) 02:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, not sure where you'd fit a "that" in. Where were you thinking of putting it in?

My main objection is the "I find <something> to sound <whatever>" construction. It may be "correct" English, but it's very far removed from plain speaking. It's redolent of a judge sitting very high up on a bench, peering down at the person in the dock, and saying "I find the prisoner <whatever>". That sort of language is exquisitely inappropriate for describing how a sentence sounds. You really do risk painting yourself as a toffee-nosed stuffshirt of the first water, which I hope is far from the truth. A more natural way of commenting would be something like "Some of your changed sentences sound especially unnatural to me". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 10:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

A way to use a that would be "I find that some of your sentences sound unnatural." We may have different ideas of appropriate style, though. For instance, I myself find the expression "toffee-nosed stuffshirt of the first water" to sound quite unnatural. ;) Lesgles (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Undubitably. I was going to extremes to make a point. I guess I'm just totally allergic to almost any uses of "I find ...", particularly when used to describe subjective feelings or sensations. The expression comes from contexts where a judge or coroner or inquirer has examined evidence impartially and in accordance with procedural rules, and has come to a certain view, which they announce as their formal findings. Their own personal feelings about any of the players don't enter into it. That is the main reason why this language is inappropriate when talking about your personal feelings/emotions or describing sensations. Another very good reason is that it removes the speaker from their own personal experience - which is a crazy thing to do. It would be like saying to someone you've fallen in love with "I find that I experience feelings of love in relation to you". Rubbish. It's got nothing to do with finding anything and everything to do with loving her/him. The third reason is that it makes you sound judgmental; you're not one of us normal folks anymore. You've removed yourself, and we want you back - but that's totally your call. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we are operating under different definitions of the word find, and I hope you will forgive me if I don't bow to your judgement in my usage. The OP asked for our advice, and, while not claiming to be a judge, I said that I personally found (perceived, considered) his sentences to sound unnatural. It was certainly only my opinion, but I thought that most people would agree with me, so I did not hesitate to offer it. Lesgles (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong. I'm not for a moment quibbling with your experience that some of the sentences sounded unnatural to you. They did to me too. All I'm saying is that if something strikes you as odd, or weird, or unnatural, why not just express that as simply as possible, without getting into considerations or findings. If it's an opinion, don't couch it as a finding, because that's a rather different thing. A coroner's opinion might be that the husband murdered the wife, but his finding might be that there's no evidence of any foul play. Take the reverse case, where you are mightily impressed by the quality of someone's writing. Would you say anything like "I find some of your sentences to be evocative and brilliant", or "I consider this story to have had a surprisingly strong effect on me"? I hope not. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

February 9

Exact definition of "tenfold"

Resolved

If a company is giving out a 6-cent dividend and then announces a "tenfold" increase, is the new dividend 60 cents (an increase to ten times as much as before) or 66 cents (an increase of ten times the previous value)? I believe it is the former, and Wiktionary's entry for -fold backs me up, but said entry is unsourced, and others on a message board I'm active on are claiming it should be the latter. Can someone clarify which one it is and provide sources to back it up? jcgoble3 (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Mathforum - "what does a twofold increase mean?", with sources. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 23:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. jcgoble3 (talk) 23:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Britney Gallivan has shown the true meaning of tenfold (and twelvefold). Clarityfiend (talk) 03:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't even think about that, even though I've watched the Mythbusters episode about it several times. jcgoble3 (talk) 04:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Male and Female Words

Are some words deemed to be more male than female? Are some phonemes/sounds aligned more closely to one gender or another? (This is not a query about the patriarchal pattern of power in language, or a tangent into her-story, but more an aesthetic question.) Are there theories from academia or the arts regarding this issue? How does English (if at all) reflect the gender allocation of many other languages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.131.253 (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Many languages have grammatical gender, however English doesn't have a very robust system of grammatical gender. There is some (see Gender in English for a synopsis), especially for things like some occupations (e.g. actor/actress) or familial relations (brother/sister) which are intimately tied to biological gender. However, there isn't generally any grammatical gender distinctions for inanimate objects. --Jayron32 23:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you asking if the "br" sound in "brother" might be more masculine than the "st" sound in sister, just as an example? Falconus^{p t c} 23:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, there is the thing that a LOT of English voabulary comes from French, which does have obvious gender markers, so there can be certain word endings or letter clusters which we associate with one gender or the other, but this is a secondary effect of the French borrowing. For example, words with -ess or -enne have a feminine association because they derive from French words which have a feminine grammatical gender. --Jayron32 00:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Some English speakers refer to countries as female. For example, they say: "US is in North America, and her neighbors are Canada and Mexico"; and likewise 77.125.248.100 (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think the OP isn't asking about grammatical gender so much as whether there is gender-based equivalent to the Bouba/kiki effect. If so, I'm not aware of any such thing, but maybe someone has done research on it. Angr (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Can 58.175.131.253 perhaps provide an example of a "word" or "phoneme" or "sound" that might be "aligned more closely to one gender or another" in English? Bus stop (talk) 01:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I can give one from personal experience, assuming I've got the gist of this. Personal names ending in -a sound female (including mine, which is unfamiliar to most, and I'm male). And this probably goes back to Latin, where (nearly?) all singular nouns ending in -a are feminine. Personal names ending in -us or -o on the other hand will probably be assumed male. - filelakeshoe 01:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

You were correct to say nearly. The nouns you are describing are called first declension, and most first-declension nouns are feminine. The exception first-year Latin students usually learn is agricola, "farmer".

There are several Italian masculine personal names that end in -a, though: Andrea, Nicola, Luca. At least the first two tend to be women's names in English. --Trovatore (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Now that's interesting.. Nikola and Andrea are common male names in a lot of Slavic languages too, and our articles seem to suggest they came to be used erroneously as female names in English because the -a ending sounds feminine, not because of any separate etymological root. I guess the Italian names were a result of an -s being dropped? - filelakeshoe 19:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

There's also Nikita, traditionally solely a male name (e.g. Nikita Khrushchev). But in the West, it's been misappropriated for use almost exclusively for girls. And presumably simply because it ends with an -a. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The OP may be interested to read about the Bouba/kiki effect. The jump to gender is not far. BrainyBabe (talk) 02:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Not to be confused with the Bourbaki effect, where people avoid transfinite induction for no good reason. --Trovatore (talk) 03:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

There is good reason to think that the association of "-a" with feminines is entirely cultural, and ultimately arbitrary. Indo-European "-a" stem nouns are usually feminine not only in Latin, but also in other languages, including Greek and the Slavonic languages, so names in "-a" are usually feminine in these languages as well (though in Russian hypocoristic names usually end in "-a" for both males and females) . However, in Indic languages the IE vowels 'e', 'o' and 'a' all fell together as 'a', so an ending in '-a' ceased to be distinctive of the declension class that was usually feminine, and a name ending in "-a" is just as likely to be masculine as feminine - perhaps more so: insofar as there is a distinctive ending for female names in Indian languages, it is '-i'. --ColinFine (talk) 12:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It is probably arbitrary; in fact, it only takes a vowel shift to create almost the opposite system. In Gothic, long â became ô and short o became a; consequently, many feminine nouns have nominatives in -ô where Greek and Latin forms have -a/ê (tuggô: Lat. lingua, qinô: Gr. gynê, aíkklêsjô: Gr. ekklêsia), while nouns in -a are often masculine (manna etc.). Iblardi (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

In Hebrew most of the words which are considered feminine are ending, when in singular, with sound "-a", and when in plural, with sound "-ot" --77.127.61.143 (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The "t" is the real feminine marker in Hebrew, and shows up in the construct state and suffixed forms even in the singular (while certain feminine words have the "t" in all forms). AnonMoos (talk) 01:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

February 10

Symbol used to donate denote a paragraph that outlines the meaning of someone's name.

Does anybody know the symbol used when outlining the meaning of a given name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.166.40.124 (talk) 01:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Corrected the title. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The closest thing I can think of is a cartouche (and the related serekh and shen ring). StuRat (talk) 05:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean a bit more clearly? --ColinFine (talk) 12:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

What Colin said. It sounds like you have seen something used in some particular reference work: as far as I (and by inference StuRat and Colin, not to mention all the others who haven't answered) know, there is no symbol widely used for this particular purpose, but if we know where you saw this usage, we might be able to tell you more about the symbol. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.183 (talk) 00:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I suspect it was some sort of dingbat. Different reference works use these marks for different purposes. Usually they are unique to a particular reference. This Unicode chart gives the names for many of those marks.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 00:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "r" as "w"

Is the inability to pronounce "r" that some people exhibit caused by a physical impairment, or is it more of a behavioural/learning thing? 86.183.2.20 (talk) 12:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

For a start, see Speech sound disorder—in particular, the "Causes" section. Deor (talk) 13:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

This often goes hand-in-hand with pronouncing "l" as "w". And it's just not Elmer Fudd that does that. There's a particular British accent, also audible in some US east coast areas, where a trailing "l" is routinely "rounded off", like a "w". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Bugs, can you be more specific, geographically, I mean? --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

If Bugs had looked his terms up in Wikipedia, he could actually have found two excellent articles to answer the question asked. Either by looking up Estuary English, or by looking up Elmer Fudd, Bugs would have been presented with links to R-labialisation and rhotacism. He also would have seen that Estuary English features L-vocalisation, but typically doesn't feature the r-labialisation the OP asked about. I'm a bit sad that Bugs didn't do this, because it seems like a golden opportunity to use his knowledge of Looney Toons to answer a linguistics question, which warms my geeky heart. <Of course, Estuary English isn't the same accent as American accents that happen to feature l-vocalisation. 86.163.211.160 (talk) 23:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I took the liberty to correct that redlink. No such user (talk) 11:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Dessert

I've just noticed that the word "dessert" is pronounced with a [z], which seems very unusual. Are there any other examples in English of a double s being pronounced in this way? And can anyone explain this exception? I note that our article Dessert includes a mis-named "Etymology" section, but doesn't mention pronunciation. --rossb (talk) 14:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I changed the name of that section to "Usage" because, as you say, it has nothing to do with etymology. 86.160.210.161 (talk) 14:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

"possess", "scissors", "dissolve", "brassiere", "hussar", "Aussie", "Missouri". 86.160.210.161 (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Is "Aussie" really pronounced with a [z]? The word is so seldom used in my environment that I'm not sure, but I thought I'd heard it pronounced with an [s]. Marco polo (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

In the UK at least, we like to refer to one part of our Antipodes as "Oz". That might give you a clue as how we pronounce the continent and its inhabitants.--TammyMoet (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I've heard of "Oz", and not just in connection with Dorothy. Still, I think in the United States Aussie is usually pronounced with [s]. I'm curious how it's pronounced in Australia. Marco polo (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm Australian. For us, the "ss" in "Aussie" has the same sound as the "ss" in ""possess", "scissors", "dissolve", "brassiere" and "Missouri". HiLo48 (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm Australian too, believe it or not. It's an exact homophone of "Ozzie". I agree with all the example words except "brassiere" - I've always pronounced the "ss" as "ss", not "zz". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I would say "Aussie" with an "s" sound, unless in the phrase "Aussie Aussie Aussie oi oi oi", then it's a "z" :) (Where did I even get that from? Monty Python?) Adam Bishop (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Presumably, "dessert" is so spelled to distinguish it from "desert" - but the two words differ in pronunciation by which syllable is stressed, so if this was in any way rational it would be the other way round - a syllable ending in a double consonent is usually stressed. But this is English. Besides, the verb "desert", as in abandon, is pronounced the same as "dessert". --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

"Dessert" comes from a word that indicates "clearing the table", or literally "to un-serve"; hence, it's the last part of a meal.[12] "Desert" comes from two different words; one of them means "wilderness" or "to abandon"; the other means "to deserve". [13] This of course leads to jokes about "getting our just desserts" at the end of a meal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Ross_Burgess -- This is due to what some people call a "second Verner's law", i.e. a voicing of [s] to [z] intervocalically after an unstressed vowel which happened in early modern English in certain cases. It can also be seen in "exhibit" (where "x" is pronounced [gz] after an unstressed vowel) vs. "exhibition" (where "x" is pronounced [ks] after a stressed vowel). AnonMoos (talk) 01:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

"Former" and "then-"

In a photo caption, we had "Former President George W. Bush addresses CPAC in 2008". (italics mine). I removed the "Former" because W was president at the time. Was I correct? I think "Former" here is flat out wrong.

In the same article, we had "In 2006, then Senator George Allen addressed CPAC".(italics mine). But Allen was still a Senator when he addressed the convention, so, I removed "then". Was that right? I think "then" here is factually correct but unnecessary.

Can anyone provide a general rule of thumb about when (or whether) to use "former" or "then" in cases like these? --Kenatipo ^speak! 18:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I quite frequently remove those words from such contexts. They're almost always unnecessary. HiLo48 (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

In both of these examples, "former" is wrong because the men in question were in office at the time of their respective addresses. I agree that "then" is factually correct but unnecessary in the case of Mr. Bush; but Mr. Allen might be a different story, since he is less notable and the reader might presume (incorrectly, it turns out) that he is still in office at the time of writing. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 20:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

A caveat to what I wrote above - the "then" for Senator Allen might be necessary if it is similarly isolated as part of a photo caption. But if it's simply written in the body of the text, then the fact that it's "submerged" in the timeline (so to speak) should render "then" unnecessary. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 20:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

"Then" may be justified if the article discusses a certain present or past event X and makes a flashback to a different event Y further back, and mentions a person who held a certain position at the time Y but not at the time X. For example, an article about the Pacific theatre of World War II might be discussing bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, and it might mention in passing that the Manhattan Project was approved in 1941 by "then-president Franklin D. Roosevelt" (who died and left the office to Harry Truman four months before the bombing).

"Then" is superfluous in most other cases, particularly when discussing events that occurred 50+ years ago: otherwise we'd need a "then-" each time we mention a president, a senator, or a general by his title in every historical article, and it would be a big mess.

The example above is a bit of a gray area. It is tempting to use "then" to underscore the fact that George Allen was a senator in 2006 but he is not a senator today. The CPAC may be considered a current/ongoing event, in which case "X" is now and "Y" is 2006. --Itinerant1 (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I always remove "then"; it rarely adds any value, except in very limited contexts. (Same thing with "the late". "She married the late Mr. X in 1994" -- I hope she married the very alive Mr. X in 1994.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to all you responders. All the answers are helpful. I pretty much take HiLo48's approach; and Itinerant1's discussion about two events in the past was especially insightful. --Kenatipo ^speak! 20:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

February 11

Cleverness

I have often wondered about the meaning of the term 'clever' (As in 'You are a clever person/student/boy/dog/woman'). Does it mean intelligent or knowledgeable, or a combination of both attributes?--92.28.81.231 (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It would vary depending on the context, but I'd generally suggest a combination of both, plus skilful, if the achievement was also a physical one. HiLo48 (talk) 01:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The wictionary definitions 2, 3, and 4 match what I tend to think of: quick-witted. This wouldn't necessarily mean exceptionally smart, but quick to come up with good or unexpected solutions, comments, etc. when required. I don't think you need to be knowledgeable to be clever, so I wouldn't quite say it's a combination. In fact, coming up with a solution without knowing how in advance is clever. Mingmingla (talk) 01:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't equate it at all with knowledgeable. There's also a whiff of superficiality associated with it, as opposed to "profound". Few people would describe Albert Einstein as clever. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

[ð] → [v]

Hello. How would the consonant shift of [ð] → [v] be classified? I don't really remember the patterns of lenition and fortition and all that from all those years ago when I studied diachronics but having had a look at your articles it seems that this shift falls under neither lenition nor fortition, as both [ð] and [v] are voiced fricatives and seem to be on the same "level." Is there another category? Or can it really be classified under one of the two? Thank you. 24.92.85.35 (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't think it's either one, but it's a transition from a typologically more marked or less common sound to a typologically less marked or more common sound... AnonMoos (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a fundamental shift in the place of articulation. It's a VERY BIG shift at the very highest level of consonant classification. Way beyond lenition or fortition. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Not entirely. They both involve dental articulation, and bear in mind, too, that children lose their front teeth between about 5 and 7 years of age. During that time, it's far easier to pronounce /v/ than /ð/, which essentially sound very similar anyway. It's very common in UK English. I don't know about Icelandic, Greek, Albanian, Spanish, etc. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 03:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It's very uncommon in the United States, except maybe among teething children. To my American ears the UK pronunciation sounds, well, infantile. Marco polo (talk) 18:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The technical term is Th-fronting. Infantile or not, it isn't "the UK pronunciation". As KageTora says, it's common in the UK (more in some accents than others) but certainly not universal. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It also happens with the voiceless versions ([θ] -> [f], in chorus of The Streets' song "Blinded by the Lights" he keeps going "An' I'm finkin'..."). As KageTora and AnonMoos hinted, those linguodental fricatives (ð and θ) are rare crosslinguistically and are more difficult to pronounce, and acoustically the difference between those and hte labodentals (v and b) is very small--not only is it hard to hear the difference between them, it's also hard to find physical differences in a spectrogram). rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

(conflict) Thank you for the link - it is exactly what I was looking for! 24.92.85.35 (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

@Marco polo: I beg to differ, it is actually quite common in urban areas of the United States for word-final [ð] to be shifted to [v], and is a salient feature of the AAVE (this effect in the United State is in fact where I got the idea to ask). Thanks again. 24.92.85.35 (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Our article doesn't mention it, but th-fronting has happened in other languages besides English. For example, Greek words with [θ] are historically borrowed into Russian with [f], e.g. the names Фома Foma "Thomas" and Афанасий Afanasi "Athanasius". It also happened in the prehistory of the Italic languages, where Proto-Indo-European *dh first became *θ and then f, as in Latin faciō "do, make" from ealier *θak- from PIE *dheh₁-. Angr (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the most familiar Russian example is "Фёдор" "Fyodor", from "Theodore". Until 1918 such words were written with the Cyrillic letter 'ѳ' (Fita) which was the Greek "theta" renamed, but this letter was abolished in the reforms and replaced everywhere by 'Ф'. --ColinFine (talk) 01:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I've lived in urban areas of the United States most of my life, including areas with large African American populations, and seldom heard that pronunciation. I won't claim that no African American adults show this shift. Probably some in certain cities do. But it is nowhere near as widespread as in the urban UK. Marco polo (talk) 04:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You need to come to London and its environs to learn how to do it properly: "Forty fousand frushes wiv forty fousand fevvers ‘round their froats. / Didn't they look fine? Didn't they sound sweet? / Lifting up their beaks and singing “Tweet, tweet, tweet.” / Some folks see blue elephants, pink tigers or green goats, / But I saw forty fousand frushes wiv forty fousand fevvers ‘round their froats." You can listen to a 1929 recording here, by one Fred Douglas[14], but it was also performed by Florrie Forde[15]. Strangely, Wikipedea doesn't have an article about this particular musical gem, but we do have Fings Ain't Wot They Used T'Be. Alansplodge (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Unknown language

What language is being used on this website? 71.223.2.17 (talk) 02:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

My guess would be Mizo. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Yup, Mizo. They give a map of Zoram, suggesting it's a Zomi language, of which Mizo would be a reasonable guess. If you look up words from that site in the search engine of a Mizo paper, such as vanglaini.org, they all get hits. The tabs along the top are for other Kukish languages. — kwami (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Pronouncing 同盟

How would you pronounce 同盟 (Japanese for alliance)? And how would it be romanized into English? Thanks! 64.229.180.189 (talk) 02:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

'Dōmei'. Its romanization is how it is pronounced. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Or just look it up at Wiktionary. — kwami (talk) 03:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

So wait, [doh-may]? 64.229.180.189 (talk) 03:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

More or less. — kwami (talk) 03:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The "long" mark over the ō means that you should pronounce the syllable for twice as long as a short syllable. Likewise ei is a double vowel that is pronounced twice as long as a single short vowel. So the two syllables are long, but equally long. Just pronounce the whole word slowly. Marco polo (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Looking for a site that adds Persian short vowels when transliterating

Hi, whenever I google for Farsi (Persian) transliteration, I find sites that just translate letter for letter, without adding the short vowels. So shoma (you) comes out as "shma", which is not very helpful, because I can already read the script, I just don't know the actual words. Is there a site that adds the vowels in? I know there are multiple words that can sometimes have the same orthography, and only context can do the trick, but it's fine if, in those cases, the website just puts all the alternatives in, like a/b/c. Thanks, IBE (talk) 06:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

German pronunciation question

Having just watched an episode of Der Alte, which ended in Chief Inspector Rolf Herzog asking Hier? ("Here?"), I came to wonder: why is that word pronounced with a separate /i/ and /e/ sound, when usually "ie" in German is pronounced as a long /i/, such as in dieser miese Riese ("this wretched giant")? The word vier ("four") is also pronounced with a separate /i/ and /e/ sound. Is this true for all words where "ie" is followed by the consonant "r"? JIP | Talk 19:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

In most varieties of German, except southwestern Germany and Switzerland, /r/ becomes a vowel [ɐ] in the syllable coda. So what you're hearing is probably something like [hiːɐ], long /i/, followed by a vocalized /r/. That the /r/ follows an /i/ is irrelevant, it happens to any /r/ that isn't in front of a vowel. The word dieser in your sentence above is pronounced [diːzɐ] for example, except of course when you're from Baden-Württemberg like me and don't vocalize /r/ at all:)--Terfili (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much every syllable-final "r" in standard German undergoes this vocalisation: Meer, Tor, Kultur, Regisseur, führ (< führen) (IPA: [meːɐ, toːɐ, kʊlˈtuːɐ, ʀeʒɪˈsøːɐ, fyːɐ]). If it's in an "-er" ending, the whole "-er" becomes an [ɐ] (dieser, as mentioned above). --Theurgist (talk) 12:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

zahiere means what in spanish?

what is the imperative of this conjugated form of a spanish word? It was in a definition at rae.es but I can't figure it out. It's not zahir or zahierer, and I can't figure out the imperative, whaaaaat is it?LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

zahiere, see infinitive zaherir for imperative forms. 71.223.2.17 (talk) 00:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

February 12

Medieval Latin help - "cows" or "cattle"

I have a Medieval Latin primary source which states that someone revcieved twenty animals as compensation for services rendered. I've only been able to come up with two really simple English 'translations'. One (1946 - American) says 'twenty cows', and another (1875 - British) says 'twenty head of cattle'. Normally I'd go with the more recent translation, but I wonder if the person considered that all cattle were 'cows' (regardless whether they were male or female). You know? How should I describe this record? Does it refer to female cows or just cattle in general? The Latin appears on this page, see halfway down, or 15th line down, where it starts at the end of the line: "Item Ker-mac macmaghan ..." If it's just cattle in general, I'd prefer to go with 'twenty head of cattle'. Would that be OK?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 11:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It says pro viginti vaccis. Vacca = "cow", unambiguously. The 1946 translation (or summary?) is correct. Iblardi (talk) 11:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

General American accent: Is the "t" in "beat me", "at me", and likewise, pronounced as a glottal stop?

Additionally, does the General American accent have the consonant cluster /tm/? 77.124.250.150 (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Phonemically, and in very careful pronunciation, the cluster /tm/ occurs in contexts such as the ones you have cited. However, in unselfconscious speech, the cluster is pronounced [ʔm] (with a glottal stop) in most if not all varieties of American English. Marco polo (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

"At me" can't actually occur unless you have a possessive me. Anyway, I pronounce <bit me> as [bɪt̚ˀ‿mi], not exactly a glottal stop. Interchangeable|talk to me 01:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Throw the ball at me? 75.41.110.200 (talk) 01:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Hochunk Native American

How do I write happy birthday in Hochunk?--Brendawilber (talk) 21:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You have better chances asking at wiktionary. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Being democratic or being pro Democratic Party

Can both meanings get confused in English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.9.110.42 (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Unlikely. A party supporter is usually labeled a Democrat, not democratic. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Like Clarityfiend said, we usually use "Democrat" to refer to someone who supports the Democratic party; I think we do use "Democratic", though, to refer to a politician who is a member of the party (e.g., "The Democratic junior senator from Somewhere..."). But we would always capitalize it in that case. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

But, in spoken language capitalization won't solve this ambiguity. And what if you ask someone: "are you a D/democrat?" Would this sentence be both correct grammatically and ambiguous? 88.8.72.184 (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

February 13

Contracting In French

What is the longest French word that contracts its final vowel to an apostrophe before a word that begins with a vowel? No word I know that does this has more than seven letters, for example lorsque, puisque, and quelque. I'm asking because I want to know if this word could precede the word aujourd'hui, which is already a contracted word, thus creating a very long triple contraction. Interchangeable|talk to me 01:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)