Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:23, 24 August 2014

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.

August 18

Proper-hyphen-ation

Is it "early-eighteenth century statue" or "early-eighteenth-century" or possibly "early eighteenth-century"? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A cursory check indicates that of the three, early eighteenth-century is the only one in common use, but it is also commonly used without any hyphens (i.e.: early eighteenth century). —71.20.250.51 (talk) 06:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I take every opportunity to resist the with-enough-hyphens-any-phrase-can-be-an-adjective trend. —Tamfang (talk) 07:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See "compound modifier" and "English compound#Hyphenated compound modifiers". Gabbe (talk) 07:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am simultaneously an arch-anti-over-hyphenationist and an arch anti under hyphenationist. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Your third suggestion is the most correct. The first suggestion has one alternative interpretation from the intended - that there exists objects called century-statues, of which this particular one is the early-eighteenth. The usage rules of commas, means that there is only one interpretation of the third suggestion - since there is no comma following 'early', as an adjective, 'early' is automatically associated with 'eighteenth-century'. Meaning that while correct, the hyphen following 'early' in the second suggestion is superfluous. Plasmic Physics (talk) 07:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

zero/O

BE speakers giving telephone numbers and similar number strings in speech often pronounce 0 (zero) as the letter O. Does this occur in other varieties of English and is there an equivalent in other languages Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AmEng most definitely. Not sure about other languages. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And so we very properly had the letter O on the digit 0 on our telephone dials. It was only because foreigners put it in the wrong place that we had to give up using letters when international dialling happened. --ColinFine (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody in the history of the world has ever been heard to say, e.g. History 101 as "History one zero one". ^{[citation needed]} -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A challenge! —Tamfang (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In Illinois I had a neighbor whose house number was displayed as Six O One. I often thought, "And half a dozen O the other." —Tamfang (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody hell, you're me. Welcome to the madness. :) Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've never come across a variety of English that didn't pronounce zero as "Oh" within numbers. This is common with years such as "nineteen-oh-one", and I recall some speculation about whether we would read 2005 as "twenty-oh-five". In the event it was actually pronounced as "two thousand five".

You asked about other languages. In Korean, the digit five happens to be called 오, pronounced "oh". This leads to great confusion for expats from English-speaking countries switching between languages, since "oh" has to get mapped to 0 in one context and 5 in the other, and it invariably goes wrong some of the time. Although Korean does have a round-circle letter, it is not identified with zero either in typing or in pronunciation. Instead, the numeral zero is often called 공, gong, meaning a ball. Other languages I've come across seem to just call zero by the standard word for zero. --Amble (talk) 00:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Two-thousand..." was common for the first decade, but more and more the usage is becoming "Twenty-oh..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really?? In what geographical region do you hear "twenty-oh-something"? We do use "twenty-ten" and so on for the second decade, but I literally cannot recall ever hearing that pattern extrapolated back to the previous decade to give "twenty-oh-something". I only heard this back in 1999 when people were talking about what the coming years were going to be called. I'd be interested to hear if that pattern really did catch on somewhere. --Amble (talk) 00:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Osgood was saying "twenty-oh..." from the get-go. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting, thanks. It also occurs to me that we do say "oh-five", "oh-eight", etc. when giving years in two-digit form. --Amble (talk) 01:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And some people do refer to the police as "five-oh", even when they're not in Hawaii.

- Marchjuly (talk) 04:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confuse everybody, the original series was Hawaii Five-O (oh), but the new one is Hawaii Five-0 (zero). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is the name of the reboot still pronounced the same? I wonder if they changed McGarret's "Book 'em Danno (Dann-oh)!" to "Book 'em Dann-zero!" as well. It's interesting that in Japanese they are also written differently: the original is error: {{nihongo}}: Japanese or romaji text required (help) and the reboot is Hawaii Five-0. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In Japanese, there are two words which mean "zero":ゼロ (zero) (spelling is the same but pronunciation is slightly different) and 零 (rei). The word 丸 (maru, circle) is also sometimes used when reading numbers out loud because "○" looks a little like "0" and it's really easy to understand. So, a Japanese person might read "102" as "ichi zero ni", "ichi rei ni", or "ichi maru ni". Kind of depends on context and on the person. Since "maru" is more conversational and "zero" is a loanword taken from English, the Japanese "rei" is what is usually used on NHK. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While reading about Don Pardo's recent death, I got to wondering what he looked like (Note: Pardo is most known for his voice work). So I looked for a clip on YouTube and found an interview that he gave. In it, he uses the shorthand of "Two-Oh-Five" to refer to 2005. He does this repeatedly throughout the interview when discussing years in the first decade of this century. This is the first time I've heard someone drop one of the zeros from those years. Dismas|^(talk) 06:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sportscaster Brent Musburger is known to use "oh" even ehen referring to a single zero [as opposed to the more common "nothing" (U.S.) or "nil" / "naught" (U.K.)], as in "The Giants take the lead 3-0 (three-oh)." → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 04:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've often heard baseball broadcasters describe a 3-0 pitch as "three-and-oh" or just "three-oh". For an 0-2 pitch, they might say "oh-two" or "oh-and-two". Possibly "nothing and". But not "zero" in any case. Sometimes the term "zip" is used, as in, "the score is 3-zip". Certainly not "nil", as that's pretty much just a soccer term. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 19

Chinese request: MH370

From Commons:Search_for_Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370#Maps_and_graphics

Theoretical fuel range
Initial search area based on last radar contact
Corridors based on satellite data
Areas of possible debris spotting

What are these in Chinese?

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar Correction

Is this sentence correct? I would suggest you call for a meeting with the vendor as we are not going to be able to resolve all these outstanding issues through emails.

Please let me know if the above sentence is grammatically correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.101.5.128 (talk • contribs)

Yes, it is perfectly formed, although it may sound slightly odd if your dialect doesn't use the English subjunctive. Stylistically, I would probably say email (sing), treatng it as a medium, rather than a plural, but that's a style choice and the sentence is perfectly cromulent as is. μηδείς (talk) 16:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, are there dialects of English that don't use the subjunctive? Where are these "shouldless, wouldless, couldless" speakers? SemanticMantis (talk) 16:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would, should, could are not ordinarily considered subjunctive. Morphologically, they are the past tenses of will, shall, can respectively. In terms of meaning and comparative grammar, they're more similar to the "conditional mood" from Romance languages than to the subjunctive mood. --Trovatore (talk) 00:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, that's at odds with what I was taught. To my (non-linguist) reading, e.g. "could" squarely fills the role subjunctive mode, which is used "to expresss...possibility, judgment, opinion, necessity," To be specific "He could jump over that car" indicates my belief that it is possible for him to jump over that car. Likewise if I say "he should jump over that car", I'm offering my opinion on that matter. Linguistic_modality#Auxiliaries seems to make it clear that auxiliary verbs can serve to mark modality, but doesn't clearly classify which are which. I did read about conditional mood, but I don't think my examples depend clearly on some condition being met. This also gets us into difficulties assessing the nature of our modal semantics (e.g. deontic vs. epistemic modality), but I think I should stop digressing :) SemanticMantis (talk) 03:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, so generally, I don't find these vague descriptions of what moods (or for that matter, tenses or aspects) represent, to be all that helpful. They make sense after the fact, once you already know what constructions they're supposed to apply to, but not so much for distinguishing among them a priori.

First, you should be aware that there are some bomb-throwers who dispute that English has a "subjunctive mood" (or for that matter a "future tense") at all. If you look at English in isolation, they kind of have a point. But if you consider English in context as a Western European language, then it's fairly clear what the subjunctive is, and it doesn't include would, could, or should.

In the traditional view of English grammar, English has two subjunctives, a preterite subjunctive and a present subjunctive. The preterite subjunctive is used for counterfactuals ("if I were king"), and the present subjunctive is used for third-person imperatives ("God bless you") and mandative clauses ("it is important that you be prompt").

The aforementioned bomb-throwers don't think that a single word (were) is sufficient to establish a preterite subjunctive in English (all other preterite subjunctives are morphologically identical to the preterite indicative), and they claim that the be in "it is important that you be prompt" is an infinitive rather than a subjunctive. --Trovatore (talk) 08:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The habit of describing constructions in English in terms of the Latin or French grammar which they translate has a venerable history, but it is part of the unhelpful and misleading programme of pretending that English grammar is like Latin grammar. It is useless for an understanding of the actual grammar of English. --ColinFine (talk) 21:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of British and uneducated American dialects would feel more comfortable with "I suggest you should cal" as opposed to 'I would suggest you call". English dialectology is not an intersy of mine but I am sure others here can comment in detail. I agree with Mp below the comma is needed. μηδείς (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see what you mean now, thanks for clarifying. SemanticMantis (talk) 03:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's basically correct, but there really should be a comma between vendor and as marking off the dependent clause. Marco polo (talk) 18:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 20

Theravada Buddhists: Pali or Sanskrit?

From what I can tell, among Western Buddhists, Mahayanists prefer to use Sanskrit terms (karma, dharma, etc.), while Theravadins prefer to use Pali terms (kamma, dhamma). This made me curious about usage among Theravadins who speak an Indic language: from what I can find here, the Sinhalese words are කර්මය (karmaya) and ධර්මය (darmaya) – clearly not Pali-derived, because they have the Sanskrit r. So what's the reason for this seeming inconsistency? Is the preference for Pali over Sanskrit forms purely a phenomenon of Western Theravadins, and not actually the case among those in Sri Lanka or other Asian countries? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 00:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much a preference, rather that Theravadins draw their teachings from the Pali Canon whereas the Mahayana draws much more on the Mahāyāna sūtras. However Sri Lankan Theravada Buddhists will naturally use Sinhalaese terms just as the English Theravada Buddhists will use terms that have become naturalised in English (e.g. the Sanskrit derived "karma" and "bodhisattva"), so I don't see any contradiction.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lazar Taxon -- Buddhists originally chose Pali as a statement that they were preaching to the people in their ordinary spoken language, as opposed to Brahmins who used esoteric Sanskrit (which was already quite divergent from ordinary spoken language). This was the same reason why the Asoka inscriptions did not use Sanskrit. However, within a few centuries, ordinary spoken language in north India started diverging from Pali, and in later eras there came to be strong Sanskrit influence on many Buddhist texts or writings (see Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit etc.)... AnonMoos (talk) 09:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar enough with the situation in Sri Lanka to comment (Shantavira's answer seems on the money though). However I can answer the final part of your question. In the countries of Southeast Asia where Theravada is practiced (Cambodia, Thailand, Laos, Burma), Pali is the language of Buddhism. Words adopted from Sanskrit can be found in the areas of politics and literature, but, as the Theravada Canon came to the region in Pali, that language has a special significance. In fact, it's significance as a "sacred" language has spread beyond Buddhism in these countries and is used (often in abbreviated form or simply for the sounds of the words, not necessarily the meanings) by local animists for magical purposes/folk practices (e.g. Yantra tattooing, "love spells" and "black magic").--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 18:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviation "Ag" in German place names

This question is for a friend of mine whose research into her family's genealogy has taken her to a town called Gägelow Ag. Sternberg, in what's now Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. Does anyone have any idea what "ag." stands for/signifies? I came up empty on Google and speak no German myself. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

(Copied from the Tourism Reference Desk, aka Wikivoyage Tourist Office by: 50.100.184.117 (talk) 02:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC); I suggest answering there. Looking at Google Maps, it seems to show Gägelow as place either within or near Sternberg, so I suspect the word is a preposition.)[reply]

I think the answer is that this is not part of the place name at all. I believe it refers to the local court (Amtsgericht or Ag.) in the district of Gägelow in the town of Sternberg. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with Andrewssi2. Ag. is a abbreviation for Amtsgericht, a low level local court that tends to have a number of smaller towns and villages falling within its jurisdiction; it's more than likely trying to indicate that Gägelow is within the catchment area of the court in Sternberg. Sotakeit (talk) 08:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+ 1. It was used formerly in order to distinguish towns like Gägelow AG Sternberg from Gägelow AG Wismar, see Mecklenburg Gazetteer. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 12:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of Greek surname

How would the surname Petratos be pronounced? Hack (talk) 03:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IPA: [pɛ'tratɔs], pe-TRAH-tos. Fut.Perf. ☼ 04:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for the reply. Hack (talk) 06:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Resolved

But how's it pronounced in the Present? —Tamfang (talk) 07:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Beware of Greeks bearing Presents. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC) [reply]

I resemble that! μηδείς (talk) 01:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

My mistake: the question is clearly subjunctive. —Tamfang (talk) 03:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comma question on names

This question is not related to a Wikipedia article, but I thought I would ask here as being the best place to get a quick answer. When writing a list of names, with last name first (as in "Blow, Joseph T.")... do you put a comma before Jr., Sr., III, IV, etc.
in other words is it:

Blow, Joseph T. Sr.
Blow, Joseph T. Jr.
Blow, Joseph T. III

or is it:

Blow, Joseph T., Sr.
Blow, Joseph T., Jr.
Blow, Joseph T., III

Please don't start a debate... if different style guides say different things, just tell me which ones say what. Thanks. 74.64.17.9 (talk) 16:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to the The Chicago Manual of Style, your second set of three names is punctuated correctly.

http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Jr.Sr.III.html

—Wavelength (talk) 23:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of leporello in Italian

Can anyone confirm or give an etymology that shows that Leporello means "little rabbit" in Italian? A citable source for Don Giovanni would be helpful. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 21:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The closest I can think of is lepre, "hare". Lepre --> leporello is not any regular diminutive scheme I know, but it's pretty close. --Trovatore (talk) 21:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leveret is leprotto in standard Italian. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 22:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it lepus, leporis in Latin? So lepor- would be the stem; lepre is a plausible variation of that. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was what I was thinking, vulgar lepore- (either from leporē or leporem in Classical Latin could give this form dialectically in broad Italian. It also makes perfect sense that it's the name of the cowardly servant in D. Gio. μηδείς (talk) 01:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hares are not rabbits, and in English folk culture, at least, they have the attributes of speed and of hiding, and also ("March Hare") of madness. But not of cowardice. I don't know whether they have the same image in Italian folklore. --ColinFine (talk) 12:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Latin diminutive of lepus is lepusculus. Some claim that Mozart (his native tongue being Bavarian language) Romanized Lipperl, meaning Hanswurst, to pseudo-Italian. Others claim that there is a vulgar Latin *leporellus or a vulgar Italian *leporello. I do not know. I guess that an Italian speaker understands leporello as leveret, but the word does not seem to exist. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 09:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 21

Cryptic Pregnancy in Chinese

There is an article called Cryptic pregnancy which describes a condition where someone is unaware of their pregnancy until they go into labor. I have tried in vain to look for a Chinese term to describe this condition - not even Google search results for this topic in Chinese seem to be helpful. Can someone help me find an appropriate Chinese term for this condition? 69.120.134.125 (talk) 04:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What was that again?

Suppose a guy introduces himself as "Frank Geary". You aren't sure whether you heard "Frank" or "Hank". I always go "Frank?" and they go "Geary". I go "yeah, yeah, ...Frank??" and they just repeat "Geary". Then I just give up and assume I was right, but it's annoying somehow - what if they didn't hear my "Frank" very clearly? Now I'm in China, and non-native speakers do this to me all the time, and I need a quick way of clarifying what I've heard. So be Frank with me - how do I get the first part of that, without going into detail? Overclarifying is tedious, so I want the simple way. Why does everyone (native or foreign) assume I want the second part? Is there a tone of voice that gets the idea across? IBE (talk) 06:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about, "could you repeat that please?" Always works for me, in any language. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ask "Did you say your first name was Frank or Hank?". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I hear you, but the point is that I instinctively do this, then realise I'm not being understood. Is there a "right" way? It interests me in and of itself, as well as being simpler if I can just use the right abbreviated way (assuming such a thing exists). It just seems strange that it comes out wrong much more than 50% of the time. IBE (talk) 10:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about repeating the entire name instead of just the first name? Or "Say again, please?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those suggestions actually might work, although the first one only works with something short. I used the example of a name because, although it happened 10 years ago, it's still fresh in my mind. At the time I couldn't work out for the life of me why he kept repeating his surname, when I asked him about his first name. "Frank?" "Geary." "Frank?" "Geary." "Frank??!!" "Geary!". I gave up, and figured it out afterwards. It's now happening with sentences in China, so I say the first bit, and they repeat the rest of the sentence. It usually means I've heard right, but I'm instinctively doing the dumb thing of just repeating myself. Just curious as to what the "canonical" way is of doing it without the laborious (and strangely unintuitive) trick of actually explaining yourself. IBE (talk) 11:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "Frank?", you're inviting him to fill in the rest of his name. That might sound counterintuitive, but that's how it works. You've obviously got the first name correct, and as far as he's concerned you want clarity only about the surname. If you said "Hank?" and his name was actually Frank, he would correct you with "No, Frank". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes repeat the phrase with 'what' or 'who' filling in the part I don't understand. E.g. "[who] Geary?", or "The great [what] of China?" With some practice, you can even vocally imply the square brackets/variable nature of the 'who/what' :) This might be a little familiar for very professional contexts, but it's always worked well for me in friendly situations. Since you're repeating every part you heard, it's very easy for people from different cultures and linguistic backgrounds to understand which part you didn't understand. For long phrases, you only need to repeat the words adjacent to the word you didn't catch. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They say you only get one chance to make a first impression. I agree. If I don't hear a name, I just don't use it. In one-on-one dealings, they're not so important, anyway. If it's important to you and you catch the last name, you might try "Good to meet you, Mr. Geary" and hope for a "Call me Frank." Not surefire, of course. Plenty of people would still rather be called Mister.

If you questioned my first name, I'd repeat it for you, not my last. But I know it's common here to take it as a trailing "Frank...?", too. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:40, August 21, 2014 (UTC)

How did the Iago Sparrow get that name?

There's a "did you know" today about the Iago Sparrow, but the article, unless I missed it, doesn't explain how the poor bird happened to get named after one of the most despised characters in Western literature, a man whose evil is so unmotivated that it represents a flaw in an otherwise masterful play. Only Nurse Ratched comes close. (Is there a bird named after her?) --Trovatore (talk) 07:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to Iago_Sparrow#Taxonomy it was "first collected by Charles Darwin ... at the island of Santiago". Iago is a form of Jacob or James; presumably Darwin (or whoever named it) wasn't thinking of the Shakespearean baddie . AndrewWTaylor (talk) 07:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks much. I don't think I would ever have made that connection. --Trovatore (talk) 08:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Santiago Island is rather surprisingly named after King James I of Great Britain according to Galapagos Conservancy - my guess would have been Saint James the Great but you can't be right all of the time! Alansplodge (talk) 18:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One might take exception to that description of Iago's character. See Iago#Motives, and, from a non-expert perspective, he hates his boss and wants to ruin his marriage. Is this so unimaginable a situation to be in? See Going postal. One might also recommend a viewing of Anthony Hopkins' portrayal of Iago in which this element of the character is brought out very positively. Tevildo (talk) 20:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of Shakespeare's date of death

I read this in a footnote (note 36) in the Shakespeare's life article: His age and the date are inscribed in Latin on his funerary monument: AETATIS 53 DIE 23 APR. Can someone please translate exactly what this means? And, also, what exactly would a "funerary monument" refer to? I assume it is something different than his gravestone (since his gravestone has that famous poem inscribed on it)? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Shakespeare's funerary monument: it means that he died at age 53 on April 23 (1616). AETATIS is short for "anno aetatis suae", meaning literally "in the year of his age", best translated "at the age of", DIE is ablative of "dies", meaning "day" and APR just means April, so AETATIS 53 DIE 23 APR means "at the age of 53 on the day of 23 April". However, that's part of a longer inscription (see linked article). - Lindert (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I did not know that we had an article for Shakespeare's funerary monument. I will read that. So, in the meanwhile, a follow up question. Why would it say age 53 instead of 52? Or even 51, for that matter? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are 52 during the 53rd "year of your age", as you only have that birthday at the end of the year. Rojomoke (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to Google Translate, anno aetatis suae 53 means "at the age of 53". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google Translate is (as usual) wrong. It definitely means 'in the 53rd year of his age'; anno = in the year, aetatis = of age, suae = his (and agrees with aetatis, not anno). AlexTiefling (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. But, I am totally confused. Does this mean (according to the customs and language/"wording" of his times), that he died at what we today would consider age 52? or age 53? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He died at what we would today consider age 52. Despite Google Translate, anno aetatis suae 53 does not mean "at the age of 53" but rather "in the 53rd year of his life", i.e. during the period between his 52nd birthday and his 53rd birthday. (Think about it: the first year of your life is the year between your birth and your 1st birthday, not the year in which you are called "1 year old".) This method of counting a person's age got started before Europeans had a firm grasp on the concept of zero, and is still common in German, where you see things like "Sale of spirits is prohibited to anyone who has not completed the 18th year of his life", which means anyone who not reached his 18th birthday. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He was born in the summer of his twenty-seventh year/goin' home to a place he'd never been before. So he was actually 26, I guess? I wonder what Denver had in mind. --Trovatore (talk) 21:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was born at a very young age, too, but being born at the age of 26 ....? Poor Mrs Deutschendorf. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Especially with that wide mouth. Anyway, the time frame of his move to Colorado appears to coincide with having turned 26 and not having turned 27 yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the facts in William Shakespeare are correct, he actually died 3 days short of his baptism day, so he was either just about to turn 52 or had just barely turned 52. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's more complicated than that. In 1582, when WS was 18, the Gregorian calendar came into existence. England did not adopt it until 1752, but it's nevertheless useful to consider it when working out his actual lifespan. Had Shakespeare been Italian, Spanish, Polish or Portuguese, we'd say he died on 3 May 1616 (NS), which was 7 days after his baptism day, not 3 days before it. So, did he complete his 52nd year and was already a week or so into his 53rd; or had he not quite completed his 52nd? It seems we have a great deal more to learn about "year", particularly around that time. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@JackofOz: I don't follow what you are saying. If England adopted the new calendar in 1752, how does that affect Shakespeare's death date in 1616? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, think of it like this: Consider a person who was baptised in France on the same day as Shakespeare, and who died in France on the same day as Shakespeare. Regardless of anything else, we'd say their life spans were identical, right? Yet, the French guy would be recorded as having died on 3 May 1616, seven days into his 53rd year, while Willy boy was still three days short of completing his 52nd year. How can this be? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that. But, in the case of France, the individual's age is being calculated according to a calendar that has changed midway through his life span. That is not the case with Shakespeare (as I understand your post). The calendar in use when he was born (1564) is the same calendar in use when he died (1616). So, if the "new" calendar did not take effect until 100+ years later (1752), how is this relevant to the computation of Shakespeare's age? Not the French guy's age, but Shakespeare's? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I said "regardless of anything else", which meant "regardless of any changes to calendars, and whether such changes applied to them equally or not". Their actual lifespans were identical, so how can their ages at death be different? I guess this is where the meaning of the word "year" takes on some importance. It isn't always the same thing, and we already accept that because we're quite happy living in a system where it's sometimes 365 days and sometimes 366 days. But in 1582, in certain countries, it was only 355 days because of the switch to the Gregorian calendar, which required 10 days to be dropped. Then other countries gradually came on board by dropping as many days as appropriate for when they changed. When Britain changed in 1752, they had to drop 11 days. And Russia had to drop 13 days in 1918. Same for Greece in 1923. What's all this got to do with Shakespeare, I hear you cry. Well, I guess we're implicitly saying that we can justify saying his age at death and that of his French double were not the same, even though their lifespans were identical, because the set of "years" in Shakespeare's life wasn't the same set of "years" in the French guy's life. Hence the difference. I just felt the need to think this through aloud, so to speak. Please carry on. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Before 1752, England's new year was March 25 (iirc) – which is irrelevant to an event in April. HTH. —Tamfang (talk) 07:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetical order

I have a question about the alphabet and alphabetical ordering. I read both of those articles, and they did not seem to answer my question. I clearly understand the concept of "alphabetical ordering" (e.g., the word "apple" comes before "boy", which comes before "cat", etc.). My question is: Is there any particular reason or rationale or philosophy as to the order of the letters of the alphabet? In other words, for example: Why is "D" the fourth letter, when it could just as easily be the 18th letter? Why does the letter "K" come before the letter "Q", when it could just as easily come after it? Things of that nature. Where and why does the present order come from? Was it just some random ordering? Or is there some rhyme and reason behind it? I am referring to the English language alphabet. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The order, for the most part, inherited from its predecessor alphabets. Perhaps Latin alphabet#Origins, Latin script, English alphabet and/or History of the Latin alphabet will have the exact answers you're looking for.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 18:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image summarizes things nicely. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 19:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a nice picture, but what exactly is it saying? What do the columns mean? What do the colors signify? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The middle column is the Phoenician alphabet, from which the Greek (2nd from left) and Latin (left) alphabets are derived. The history of alphabetical order is shown by the background colors: Phoenician and Hebrew retain the original Semitic order (or rather, one of two original orders—see Ugaritic alphabet#Abecedaries). הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 22:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, new letters get added to the end of the alphabet. Some letters can be split (I and J) retain their earlier places. This of course doesn't explain the base that we began with. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, we don't really know the origins of alphabetical order in the Phoenician and earlier Semitic abjads from which our alphabet is derived, but this article discusses some of the theories. Marco polo (talk) 19:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It might also be worth pointing out that "alphabetical order", in the sense of ordering words like in a dictionary, is historically a function of only secondary importance, and much more recent than the first and foremost function of the order of the letters in the alphabet: that of serving as a handy mnemonic for learning the set by heart. Alphabets could have been invented simply as unordered sets of characters, as far as their actual function in writing was concerned, but in fact, from the earliest times, they seem to have been always handled as sequences with a fixed order, and with letter names to go with it, simply so that learners could have something like our modern alphabet songs to recite by rote when learning it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sub question : do we have any good articles on WP that talk about the i/j split? The article i doesn't mention it, and j only gives a cursory mention, and gives a 1524 for use in Italian. I've heard from other sources that these letters and ampersand have been the most recent changes to the Latin alphabet, as used in English. For instance, Thomas Jefferson is said to have signed his name with an I, and the i/j split is sometimes given as a reason for why J is skipped in street names. So is there any info on when this settled down in AmEng? SemanticMantis (talk) 21:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but I think the U/V/W split is almost as recent. At least in German uppercase I/J were not distinguished until the 19th or early 20th centuries, depending on the style of type (see J). הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 22:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph A. Spadaro -- The Latin alphabet ordering is an imperfect continuation of what scholars call the North Semitic or Levantine alphabet ordering. The earliest attestation of this North Semitic ordering is in the first 27 letters of the 30-letter Ugaritic alphabet. There's no evident rationale for the ordering of these 27 Ugaritic letters. Here's a table taken from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2012 March 8#Alphabetical order, showing which modern Latin letters correspond to which letters in the Ugaritic ordering (note that the Latin alphabet does not actually directly descend from the cuneiform Ugaritic alphabet, but rather from a mostly-unattested non-cuneiform alphabet of similar date):

ʔ

b

g

ḫ

d

h

w

z

ḥ

ṭ

y

k

š

l

m

ḏ

n

ẓ

s

ʕ

p

ṣ

q

r

ṯ

ġ

t

A

B

C G

D

E

F U V W Y

Z

H

I J

K

L

M

N

X

O

P

Q

R

S

T

Some things are a little more complex than can be shown in this format (particularly "s"-"X", which has a kind of structural relationship, but no actual shape correspondence with the North Semitic letter). AnonMoos (talk) 23:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Semitic–Latin correspondence is better when one considers that Latin descends from the Phoenician alphabet, which (like Hebrew and Syriac) lacks characters for ḫ, ḏ, ẓ, ġ, and not from the Ugaritic alphabet. Thus:

ʔ

b

g

d

h

w

z

ḥ

ṭ

y

k

l

m

n

s

ʕ

p

ṣ

q

r

š

t

A

B

C G

D

E

F U V W Y

Z

H

I J

K

L

M

N

X

O

P

Q

R

S

T

(AnonMoos: I am a little confused regarding š/ṯ. Isn't S derived from š, not ṯ?) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 23:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the Ugaritic alphabet (not the Phoenician alphabet) provides the earliest attestation of the North Semitic alphabetic ordering, and available indications are that the 27-letter alphabet probably preceded the 22-letter alphabet. The correspondence in order between Ugaritic ṯ/θ and Phoenician š is one such indication -- there was a historical "Canaanite" sound change of θ > š (also ð > z etc.), which meant that there would then be two letters writing [š], and when the 27-letter alphabet was reduced to 22-letters as a result of such mergers, it happened that the letter originally used to write θ was kept, while the letter originally used to write š was discarded. If one were to adopt the reverse hypothesis, that the 27-letter alphabet which underlies the 30-letter Ugaritic alphabet was expanded from 22 letters, then the correspondence in order between Phoenician š and Ugaritic θ wouldn't make much sense (William Foxwell Albright realized this over 60 years ago, almost as soon as Ugaritic "abecedarium" tablets were found). AnonMoos (talk) 00:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AnonMoos: Thank you. I was aware of the Canaanite sound shift, but was under the (apparently wrong) impression that the alphabetical order follows that of the original characters. The shin, and consequently S (your favorites, no?), are derived from the glyph for š, not ṯ—is that correct? הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never really saw much point in trying to compare Ugaritic cuneiform letter shapes to non-cuneiform letter shapes, so I'm not the one to ask about that... AnonMoos (talk) 01:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A billion here, a billion there - pretty soon, you're talking real money

Do those wacky British use "billion" in reference to money as meaning 1,000,000,000, or do they write "thousand million"? Do they sneer at Bill Gates for being a mere thousand millionaire? Do they differentiate between a "billion dollars" and a "billion pounds"? Also, is "bn" the British abbreviation for billion? Clarityfiend (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is in the context of a business/financial document. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) There's such a word as wikt:milliard, there's never any need to use a "thousand million", whether you're using the long or short scale. Anyway, see numberphile's video on this. The short system is increasingly dominant in the UK, so they would use "billion" in the same way as Americans, but if some really conservative Brits wanted to say £ 1,000,000,000 they would say a milliard pounds, not a thousand million. And though I'm not aware of any English usage of the word 'milliardaire', meaning billionaire in the normal sense, other languages, including French do use precisely that to describe Bill Gates. - Lindert (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Can you please provide some cites where British (or any anglophone people) use "milliard" and expect general readers/listeners to know what they're referring to? The word may exist, but relatively few people know of it, and relatively few of them know what it means. It is not in general usage. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was my impression too. A few traditionalists in the UK (and maybe some other Commonwealth countries?) say "thousand million"; virtually no one says "milliard". But I don't have much to go on; I'd be interested in hearing from anyone who's genuinely sighted "milliard" in the wild, in English, used by a native English speaker. --Trovatore (talk) 23:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I use "English Billion" for a million million, and "American Billion" for a thousand million. I would like to use "milliard" but refrain from doing so because few would understand what I meant. It was Harold Wilson who decided that Britain would use the American Billion for government purposes. (I've never forgiven him! ) Since the English (and European) Billion was rarely used before Harold Wilson's time, it has now fallen almost completely out of use except by those of my generation who remember pre-Wilson times. Dbfirs 12:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Jack. The OED has a couple of citations from the 1990's, but in the sense of "a very large number". The latest citation it has that is unequivocally the specific meaning is from 1977. --ColinFine (talk) 13:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, nowadays British people mean 10^9 when they say a "billion". This is especially true when people are talking about money. Bluap (talk) 13:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The BBC always use the Americanesque billion in their financial news. [1] [2] They have a feedback programme called Points of View, which sometimes featured letters from disgruntled older viewers complaining about the use of the American-style billion, but the BBC news editors always replied that it was widely understood and would only cause confusion if they reverted to the old method. I was taught at school that the European billion was obsolete, back in the 1970s. And yes, £12bn equals GBP 12,000,000,000.00. Alansplodge (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly, Alan. "£12billion.00" would equal GBP 12,000,000,000.00, but plain "£12billion" or "£12bn" equals GBP 12,000,000,000. I sometimes see house prices as, e.g. "$875,000.00" (or "$875000.00") and I wonder if it would ever be anything other than zero cents, and if so, would the vendor refuse to sell if the final few cents weren't paid. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, Jack. I started off without the decimal point but decided it looked a bit underdressed without one so I went back and put the pence in. Twenty five years' work in the City has its effects on one. Alansplodge (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have relevant articles on Names of large numbers and Long and short scales. They give a pretty good idea of who is using what terminology (although not much mention of Asian countries/languages). According to the article, modern Brits use "billion" in the same way Americans do: 10^9, and this corroborates the two preceding responses. As for the business or general culture of the language, I imagine most people who have any idea what's up just deal with it. Sure, a young smoker in the USA might chuckle if a Brit asks her for a fag, and some Brits will blush if an American mentions her fanny pack (which means something rather different to each of them), but mostly, educated adults learn to get over these kinds of usage differences. Unlike the silly American refusal to metricate (Mars_Climate_Orbiter#Cause_of_failure), these differences in large number terminology don't seem to cause many problems. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A billion thanks, give or take. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 22

Capitalization for officeholders

I'm familiar with the basic rule for capitalization of an officeholder's title. I.e., we capitalize the title only when it immediately precedes the name. We write Senator Chuck Grassley from Iowa and Chuck Grassley, senator from Iowa. But what if it's written as Republican Senator Chuck Grassley from Iowa? Or even, Iowa Republican Senator Chuck Grassley? Yes, the word "Senator" immediately precedes the name, but that word is immediately preceded by the word "Republican". "Republican Senator" is a description, not a title. So which is correct, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley or Republican senator Chuck Grassley?‑‑Mandruss (talk) 14:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would go with the latter. --Viennese Waltz 14:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but it seems likely there's a hard rule on this, I just can't find it.‑‑Mandruss (talk) 14:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I may be mistaken, but I don't think Wikipedia has an explicit style on this (it's not mentioned at MOS:JOBTITLES, anyway). The U.S style guides with which I'm most familiar (Chicago, Words into Type) recommend the "Republican senator Chuck Grassley" style, considering that when the name of an office is modified like that, it is a common noun to which the person's name is in apposition rather than a title preceding the name. Deor (talk) 15:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. How about U.S. President Barack Obama? Or Missouri Governor Jay Nixon? Same animal? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's just my opinion, but I would say that, yes, those would be treated the same. (I'm an old-fashioned sort, who likes to use the in expressions like "the British general Bernard Montgomery" or "the Republican senator Chuck Grassley"—rather than treating such "titles" as a strung-together bunch of attributives—so I would say that, wouldn't I?) In some cases, of course, the name would constitute a nonrestrictive appositive and would therefore be set off with commas—"In 1972, the U.S. president, Richard Nixon, ..." Deor (talk) 21:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody who says things like "attributives" and "nonrestrictive appositive"—with a straight face—is good enough for me! I'll try editing to U.S. president Barack Obama in the lead of this article, and see if it flies.‑‑Mandruss (talk) 21:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I demur. We use capital letters where we are referring to a person in the nature of a "proper noun" context. We can refer to a "president" on many types but in US usage "the President" is the president of the US. [3] Grammarist.com: "President is capitalized when it comes immediately before the name of a president of a country. It is not capitalized when it refers to a president but does not immediately precede the name." CMOS says we do not capitalize "pope" unless used with the name. Thus we have "Pope Francis" but he is "the pope." We do not use "pope Francis." "Queen Elizabeth II" is "a queen of England" but the toast is "To the Queen." We do not use "queen Elizabeth II." The NYT Manual of Style also agrees on this.[4]. The CMOS is in a bit of a minority on some examples, but the general usage in the US and English-speaking areas is to capitalize when the intent is to denote a specific individual. Collect (talk) 22:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Are you demurring to Republican senator Chuck Grassley, or just U.S. president Barack Obama?‑‑Mandruss (talk) 22:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And wouldn't the more apt comparison be "British queen Elizabeth II"?‑‑Mandruss (talk) 22:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another usage difference is that in Britain we'd tend not to use positions as replacements for honorifics, so "Prime Minister Cameron" sounds strange, it should be "The Prime Minister, Mr Cameron" or "Mr Cameron, the Prime Minister", etc. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be consistent with the proposal, it would be "Conservative prime minister David Cameron" or "UK prime minister David Cameron" which, I trust, would be an unusual usage. I further note in UK usage "the Prime Minister" when referring to a person is invariably capitalized. [5] [6] etc. appear discordant for the CMOS, but in accordance with all other manuals and usual US and UK practice in newspapers. Collect (talk) 11:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The rule I would infer is, if you're using it as a title or referring to a specific office, capitalise it. If not, don't. So David Cameron is the Prime Minister of the UK, and (say) attended a meeting of European prime ministers. I'd capitalise "president" as in "U.S. President Barack Obama", because that's a specific office, but if you were referring to him in the context of presidents of other countries - for example "Barack Obama is the first president of any modern republic to do x" - I wouldn't, because that's using "president" as a generic term. Not sure how to treat "senator" - I understand there is a national Senate but also state senates, so "senator" could be a generic term in some contexts and a reference to a specific office in others. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if I could pull us back from US-UK comparisons for just a moment. As to my questions, Collect and Deor are two apparently knowledgeable people who disagree. Since Collect is the one more sure of his opinion, I'll go with his (not always a good idea, but it will do in this case). I just need some clarification on your position, Collect. Is it that all officeholder titles should be capitalized when they immediately precede the name, regardless of anything that precedes the title? Thanks. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 12:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where the title is used to indicate a specific person as a proper noun, the rule is to capitalize the proper noun. This is not only applied to honorifics, but also to adjectives in general -- the "White House" is,indeed, "white" but the proper noun has the W capitalized anyway. Grassley is a "Republican senator" but he is "Republican Senator Grassley" - the first is not used as a proper noun, while the second is. "Queen Elizabeth II" but "Elizabeth II is the queen of England" where "queen of England" is not used as a proper noun. But (interestingly) "The Queen of England spoke" is capitalized as it is used as a proper noun (i.e. a specific person). We can have "... said President Barack Obama" "Barack Obama is the US president", "Barack Obama, president of the US", but "The President spoke at a conference" where it is used to denote a specific person. I know it may seem confusing <g>, but the concept is that a specific person, place or thing gets the majuscule letter, while a non-specific person, place or thing gets the minuscule letter. (OK - I did not really need the Latin) Collect (talk) 13:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Grassley, senator from Iowa is a specific person, Collect, and I can't recall ever seeing that capitalized in any academic or journalism setting. Is my memory that bad? Never mind. The problem is with my reading comprehension, not my memory. I think I have it now. So the answer to my last question would be yes, since "precede the name" necessarily implies a specific person. I never had a problem knowing what to do with titles that don't precede the name, or titles not associated with a specific person. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 13:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Period placement for quotation at end of sentence

This has no doubt been asked here a few dozen times. It may even be somewhere in MOS. But I'm old and tired.

What is the rule for placement of the period when a sentence ends with a quotation? In or out? Does it depend on the length of the quotation? Does it depend on whether the quotation is a sentence fragment or a complete sentence? Thanks. Time for a Geritol break!‑‑Mandruss (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of those cases where American and British English differ. American style is to place the period before the closing quotation mark whereas British style is to place it after. See [7]. --Viennese Waltz 15:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The MOS guideline for handling this in Wikipedia is at MOS:LQ. Basically, if the quoted matter is a complete sentence, put the period inside the closing quotation mark; if it isn't a complete sentence, put the period outside. Deor (talk) 15:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding, just what I needed. Thanks for supporting AARP.‑‑Mandruss (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm not a member of that organization, but I've been qualified for membership for more than 15 years. Deor (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

neutral or beneficial

Hello, Reference Deskers. I would like to describe some behaviors as either neutral (in that they are neither harmful or helpful) OR beneficial. I began with 'innocuous', but I don't think it really captures the "OR" that I want -- innocuous doesn't seem to include those that are beneficial. I could use the word non-harmful, but it doesn't have the right flair. Is there a word that does what I want? Thanks. Llamabr (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

why does it have to be a word? "benificial or at least harmless" if it's more likely to be beneficial, or "harmless if not beneficial" if at least harmless, and maybe even beneficial? (or as I just said, "harmless, and maybe even beneficial".) 212.96.61.236 (talk) 23:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In the end, if I can't think of a word, I'll probably just stick with "Non-Harmful". I'm trying to give a certain concept a name, which makes the concept easier to refer to, and so for simplicity, I'd like it if the name is a single word. Llamabr (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about 'benign' which has two meanings (not harmful, kindly) depending on context. Personally, i think it has a neutral/positive shade -- especially in the medical sense, given the usual alternative/expectation of 'malignant' ... ie, 'benign' can seem relatively positive. If you give us a bit more detail in how you're using it as label/name, we might come up with a more suitable term. El duderino ^(abides) 04:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. "Benign" means harmless and possibly beneficial. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Harmless" might sound more natural than "non-harmful". Rojomoke (talk) 04:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I also like 'benign' though it doesn't have the flash I want. I'll decide between "harmless" and "benign" (probably the latter). Thanks. Llamabr (talk) 23:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

what did disco mean in the 19th century?

as per here - https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=disco&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cdisco%3B%2Cc0

what on earth could that have been? 212.96.61.236 (talk) 23:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the hits are just word breaks - disco ver etc. Other hits refer to the word disco in latin - I learn or get to know, also used in botanical description. Mikenorton (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thanks so much! super clear. Though I wonder why line breaks no longer showed up? Did they stop breaking these words as frequently?212.96.61.236 (talk)

I think they used to use more fixed width spacing, which would make it harder to make all the lines work out evenly, unless you break the words. Variable width spacing takes more time and equipment when done by a printmaker, but now this is done by computer, so it's not a problem. It does sometimes lead to text that looks like this, though:

Bob and Julia
inadvertently
m   e   t   .

Personally, I don't think text needs to be both right and left justified. In fact, variable width lines make it easier for me to find my place again, when I look away and back. StuRat (talk) 23:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 23

German Phrase

I am an avid wargamer, and love watching war films. I speak German, but there is one phrase I hear very often, which I cannot understand. In WW2 games and films, there is quite often a phrase shouted by the Germans. It sounds like 'Sammy Tater' (as if it was a name spoken in a British accent). Can anyone guess what this might be? KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 04:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this should be "Sanitäter!", a shout to attract a medical support person. --188.22.100.23 (talk) 05:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC) Oops, --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 05:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. The English equivalent is "Medic!" —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. I had guessed it was a cry for help, due to the context. I just couldn't work out the actual word. Thanks. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 07:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Either that or a plea for a clean potato. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Tscherman doesn't haff phrases. It only has Klauses. μηδείς (talk) 19:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Community driven development" vs "Community-driven development"

A Wikipedia article uses both community driven development and community-driven development. What is the correct term? --Mortense (talk) 09:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They're probably both considered acceptable, with the proviso that only one version should appear in any given text. Our article, which has the hyphenated form in the title but the unhyphenated form as the opening word of the lede, is a beautiful example of a crap way to do things. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is "correct" depends on the style guide adopted by the publisher. In our case, it's Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Hyphens, point three. In your example, our MOS says the form "Community-driven development" is preferred. See also Compound_modifier. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree that this is a style choice. I think that it is incorrect without the hyphen. 86.130.67.100 (talk) 01:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. Without the hyphen it seems to mean "driven development of/for a community". —Tamfang (talk) 21:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 24

Económcia (Spanish spelling)

Is Económcia a typo for Económica? Context is "Fondo de Cultura Económcia", supposedly a Mexican organization. There are many search hits for this spelling but it still looks suspicious. Thanks. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 00:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a typo. (btw, WP:WHAAOE: Fondo de Cultura Económica)--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 01:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I fixed my article draft and linked the WHAAOE to it. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 05:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adjectives based on English names?

How many adjectives are there based on names? Is there a linguistic rule to follow when converting a name (proper noun) into an adjective? One example is the name John. The adjective is Johannine. Another example is the name Elizabeth. The adjective is Elizabethan. James becomes Jacobian. What about Peter, Thomas, Daniel, Adam, Paul, Martha, and et cetera? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 20:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See "List of eponymous adjectives in English". There might be others.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That list, if anyone's interested, contains 164 –ian, 86 –an, 37 –ic, 22 –esque, 13 –ine, 12 –ean, 10 –ist, 7 –ite, 6 –id, 5 –ist-ic, 5 –al, 2 –y, 2 –it–ic, 2 –ish, 2 –ing-ian. (I counted –ian as –an if the root had i.) —Tamfang (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have there two or three adjectives derived from the Latin form of a name, using one of several Latin suffixes (which are largely interchangeable), and then anglicized. Does that pattern amount to a rule? In Church or royal contexts the Latin root was used because of, y'know, the formal use of Latin. —Tamfang (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Reaganomical" a word? I kind of hope so... Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if you like, but it's derived from a portmanteau of economics rather than directly from Reagan. —Tamfang (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Voiced consonants and devoicing

The section "English" in the article Final-obstruent devoicing clarified something I have always wondered. English and French generally state that final consonants don't devoice. Now the section says there is still devoicing to some extent in English. I wonder if this is true for all languages. In other words, are initial consonants always more tense than final ones? In French where there are no aspirated consonants, do voiceless finals even get a little bit aspirated? I myself grew up with German which has final devoicing and when speaking other languages it takes a lot of effort to pronounce a voiced final stop without an additional schwa [ə]. Somehow this doesn't apply to fricatives. Is there a reason for this? Another point is Mandarin is said to have no voiced consonants except [ʐ]. So for example, pinyin b, d, g are transcribed as [p], [t], [k], but as a native speaker I find it a bit misleading. Maybe it's just me because I read that German voiced consonants are not fully voiced either and consonant pairs are rather described as fortis and lenis so that I don't have enough exposure to real voiced consonants. I still find pinyin b, d, g to be more tense than French p, t, k, but both are transcribed as [p], [t], [k]. So are pinyin b, d, g a bit voiced or French p, t, k a bit aspirated? I know IPA are just symbols and that voiced-voiceless-aspirated has no boundaries. Therefore it's always a bit different in every language. However, are there any studies comparing voiced-voiceless-aspirated of different languages like vowel charts? --2.245.192.127 (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 398: / Line 398: @@
 :: Is "[[Reaganomics|Reaganomical]]" a word? I kind of hope so... [[User:Evanh2008|Evan]]&nbsp;<sup>([[User talk:Evanh2008|talk]]&#124;[[Special:Contributions/Evanh2008|contribs]])</sup> 22:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 ::: Sure, if you like, but it's derived from a portmanteau of ''economics'' rather than directly from ''Reagan''. —[[User:Tamfang|Tamfang]] ([[User talk:Tamfang|talk]]) 22:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
+== Voiced consonants and devoicing ==
+The section "English" in the article [[Final-obstruent devoicing]] clarified something I have always wondered. English and French generally state that final consonants don't devoice. Now the section says there is still devoicing to some extent in English. I wonder if this is true for all languages. In other words, are initial consonants always more tense than final ones? In French where there are no aspirated consonants, do voiceless finals even get a little bit aspirated? I myself grew up with German which has final devoicing and when speaking other languages it takes a lot of effort to pronounce a voiced final stop without an additional schwa [ə]. Somehow this doesn't apply to fricatives. Is there a reason for this? Another point is Mandarin is said to have no voiced consonants except [ʐ]. So for example, pinyin b, d, g are transcribed as [p], [t], [k], but as a native speaker I find it a bit misleading. Maybe it's just me because I read that German voiced consonants are not fully voiced either and consonant pairs are rather described as [[fortis and lenis]] so that I don't have enough exposure to real voiced consonants. I still find pinyin b, d, g to be more tense than French p, t, k, but both are transcribed as [p], [t], [k]. So are pinyin b, d, g a bit voiced or French p, t, k a bit aspirated? I know IPA are just symbols and that voiced-voiceless-aspirated has no boundaries. Therefore it's always a bit different in every language. However, are there any studies comparing voiced-voiceless-aspirated of different languages like vowel charts? --[[Special:Contributions/2.245.192.127|2.245.192.127]] ([[User talk:2.245.192.127|talk]]) 22:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language: Difference between revisions