Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:55, 8 March 2015

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.

March 1

More than one Brazilian real

The Brazilian real (old) was pluralised as "reis" (article says "réis", but File:Brazil 500 Mil Reis Banknote of 1931.jpg depicts it as "reis"), while the Brazilian real (new) and File:Newreal.jpeg both say that the current currency is pluralised as "reais". What's the reason for the difference? Nyttend (talk) 19:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain about this, but the historic currency unit was the real, which translates into English as "royal". It had the irregular plural reis. The word real in Portuguese is a homonym. There is the name for a currency, and there is also the adjective that translates into English a s "real". This has the regular plural form reais. I believe that the name of the modern Brazilian currency, which was introduced as part of a campaign to stop rampant inflation, is a double entendre. One the one hand, it borrows the name of a historic currency. On the other hand, it is meant to have "real" value, unlike previous currencies whose value dwindled over time. It was an outgrowth of the unidade real de valor. Because of the emphasis on the reality of the new real, its plural followed the model of the adjective meaning "real" in English rather than that of the historic currency. Marco polo (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

German-English translation

How do I convert an article based in Germany (German) to English?

Ciwa Griffith is the subject. She was my mentor. I am an American who speaks English — Preceding unsigned comment added by Man from Bear River (talk • contribs) 23:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not speak any German, then one way to do it is to use several machine translators such as translate.google.com to roughly translate it. However, these translators do not usually give good enough English for use directly in Wikipedia. You should then manually create the article itself - checking the results of several of the translators for each paragraph to avoid including any errors from a single translation utility. Finally, you should mark the article with {{cleanup-translation}}, so that someone can later come round and clean up any mistranslations. Once you have created the article, I suggest coming back a day-or-so later, and trying to improve the flow of the English version (without referencing the original). Bluap (talk) 00:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find that by the time I do all that it would usually have been easier to just write an article in scratch from English sources that I do understand. But if the subject is obscure with few sources outside their native language, it may be the only way. You could also look around English Wikipedia for a German speaker who could help you. Rmhermen (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2

An error?

I'm the co-owner of a small business, that sells replacement parts for brass instruments. We are currently in the process of getting a new homepage for costumers from overseas. We hired translators on an internet marketplace and we can't really tell if they are useful. We were warned that there are scammers which will just put a text through Google Translate so we want to make sure that the people we hire actually speak both English and the language that they are supposed to translate our text to. One of them writes in their application: "I am a native German speaker. I have been working as a translator and writer since 2012. As a translator, I specialize in academic literature. As a writer, I have written product descriptions for webshops as well as contributions for magazines and papers." If this guy made an error on his application, we would get someone to check the text he translated but we have to pay him tomorrow. --EdthaysIII78 (talk) 02:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking whether there are any errors in the English text "I am a native German speaker ..."? If so, the answer is no. 86.152.161.28 (talk) 03:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see no errors in the quoted text from the applicant. Btw, did you mean "costumers", or "customers"? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

German comments on film editing

[1] This is the post-Oscar press availability for Citizenfour, a movie that was edited in Germany to avoid interference by the US Government. At 2:19 in the video, a German reporter asks about this and co-producer Dirk Wilutzky answers in German. Could someone summarize what he says? Thanks. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 06:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a quick summary of what he says.

"It was necessary to edit the film in Germany because of the favorable laws that better protect journalists and documentary filmmakers than it is the case in the USA for excample. For us in Germany, it is a beautiful thing to see this film awarded with an Oscar, of course. The film is in 70 movie theaters in Germany now and will open in even more soon, hopefully. Also, we have the film starting in 30-40 more countries very soon. So getting this recognition here is a big thing, and we are grateful for it."134.100.145.200 (talk) 08:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! 50.0.205.75 (talk) 18:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which is the preferred form of the abbreviation "with respect to"?

I have seen many forms used on the web:

I am writing wrt. your application...
I am writing wrt your application...
I am writing w.r.t. your application...
I am writing WRT your application...
I am writing WRT. your application...
I am writing W.R.T your application...

The first form is similar to the way I would use "etc." having being taught this at school some decades ago. On the other hand the fourth (WRT) is similar to the way I would use technical and organisational abbreviations (as in "The BBC provides content and my ISP delivers it"), which makes me think that this might be the modern way of punctuation. So my questions are: are any of the above incorrect? Of the correct options which are the preferred? Does the preference change between traditional, modern, formal, or informal contexts? -- Q Chris (talk) 09:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The second and third are both acceptable, although I have a preference for the third. The others are incorrect. But if (as it seems) this is in the context of an employer writing to a job applicant, the employer should not use the abbreviation at all, not even in an email. He/she should write the phrase out in full. By the way, it could also stand for "with regard to". --Viennese Waltz 10:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the third is fine provided you leave extra space between sentences. The old typewriter style was to leave two spaces after a period when it ends a sentence, but only one when it indicated an abbreviation. With proportional fonts greater subtlety is possible (you can leave a "wide space" or a regular space plus a "thin space"). TeX handles this well.

Unfortunately the recent trend is to leave no extra space at all between sentences. This is obviously a sign of grave moral decay, and you kids get off my lawn. But here we see one of the real problems with it, which is that it makes the reader do extra work to decide whether a sentence has finished, especially if abbreviations with periods are used. --Trovatore (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear! —Tamfang (talk) 08:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Wiktionary gives WRT as primary, with w.r.t., w/r/t, and wrt as alternatives. The Chicago Manual of Style website has this page (PDF format) showing only wrt for use in "informal notation". So, like many things regarding usage, there does not appear to be a large degree of consensus. I personally would never capitalize this outside of an Internet shorthand context, like FWIW and BTW and LOL. Your examples appear to be part of a formal letter, which would suggest spelling it out. (BTW, it's not similar to etc., since etc. is not an initialism but rather a combined abbreviation of two Latin words. Thus, examples 1 and 5 would never be correct.) ―Mandruss ☎ 10:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Wouldn't re be appropriate? The meaning is the same. Mingmingla (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In an informal context "re" is okay (though you'll confuse a lot of people who wrongly think that even in the middle of a sentence it needs to be followed by a colon, the way it would be in the heading of a memo or email). But as soon as you say "I am writing", you're establishing a more formal style. Which means that neither "re" nor any version of "wrt" is appropriate. It needs to be written out in full. In an informal style you might just say "Re your application" without other words. --70.49.169.244 (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding or in re (which is the actual Latin phrase, and not an abbreviation) are short formal correct alternatives. μηδείς (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OED has an entry for "w.r.t.", and personally I have often seen it in that, and in the "wrt" form, and never in any of the other forms you listed (am tempted to add a ^{[citation needed]} tag for the wikitionary entry). Incidentally, as the OED examples attest, the abbreviation is very commonly used in mathematical/technical writing and is often not regarded as informal in those contexts. Abecedare (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar of "Do you think me handsome?"

The sentence sounds wrong. A reply would be I do not think you [are] handsome. However, what dialect in England would allow such sentence construction and omit the are? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If anything is elided in the question, it's an infinitive -- "Do you think me to be handsome?" See Accusative and infinitive and Small clause... AnonMoos (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Austen and Anthony Trollope used the "I think him <adjective>" construction, so I assume it was common parlance back then. But it sounds very dated now. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very old-fashioned sounding. Yet "Do you find me handsome" would still work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm from the North of England, and it has never been a question that I have had to ask to a lady, as it was perfectly obvious that I am handsome without ever having to ask, but I would agree that it is archaic. The reply given by User:66 would appear erroneous without the 'are'. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 21:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

M'yes, many people in the States would probably consider that something (notice I left out to be) something from Shakespearean Early Modern English. So it would sound weird in serious discussion, but be perfectly acceptable in humourous use. Though I still dispute Kage-senpai's first point as even though he claims not to be a Scouser (except when scousing is required), and the accent would work on just about anyone outside of Britain, I do not know about women in London as they would be terrified meeting someone from the icey North (where temperature have been known to reach an incredible 0° C!) and this may be the reason for not posing the question. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 11 Adar 5775 21:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, a scouse accent gets any girl's juices flowing. Werks evry taaime, lar! :) Anyway, I don't claim not to be a scouser. I am one. I just don't speak like one. I left the city at age 18. Do you know why? It's because I found the train station. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 01:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I remember this train station well. For a mere 25 GBP a body could go all the way to Euston riding first class on the Virgin train provided they took the 05:00 one (coach was 75 for some reason). Also, this post made me laugh so hard. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 12 Adar 5775 17:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit dated, but I wouldn't bat an eye if it were to be used. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 22:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty impossible anyway. Eye lids are battable, eyes themselves not so much. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not when I'm around, mate :) KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 11:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Brit. I use this construction myself (though not often) and certainly wouldn't bat an eyelid were someone else to use it. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic. Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

AnonMoos answered this in the first response, the rest is dross. μηδείς (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind not speaking ill of people's good faith contributions, please? We all have logs in our eyes. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any failure to assume good faith. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't what I said. The contributions were made in good faith, but the description of them as "dross" was what was unwelcome. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see. So "off-topic" would have been acceptable? Just trying to clarify. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jack's right in that I could have left off the qualifier, or said "mere ornament" instead. μηδείς (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Passing judgment at all is not required. The OP will decide which responses are most useful or relevant. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AnonMoos did not answer the question, though - the so-called dross answerers did reply to "what dialect in England would allow such sentence construction". Rmhermen (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2015 (UT

The objection seems to be to my use of the word dross, and I do not objec. But either the hatting should be removed, or better, new comments when absolutely necessary, should go within the hat. Please hat this. μηδείς (talk) 21:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I'm fairly certain I'm not a fan of this whole conversation. So to calm all the silliness down I'm randomly going to put this picture of a curious kitten as per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 13 Adar 5775 23:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 3

Pronunciation of "Thornhagh"

Hi, just wondering how Thornhagh Gurdon's first name is pronounced: THOR-nə(r)? If someone can provide the IPA for his first and last name, I'll add it to the article. — SMUconlaw (talk) 05:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Etymologically it is from haugh. How the bearer actually pronounced nobody knows.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 14:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why would there be a final "r", Smuconlaw? Perhaps you meant /θɔ(ɹ~ː)nə(ː)/ ? My local dialect is non-rhotic (though I often speak rhotically) and the linking r is only used between words (to link them). Whilst "idea" may be hypercorrected to "idear", and the like by hypercorrective speakers, no one would consciously add in a final /ɹ/ when they no that there isn't one. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 02:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not really familiar with this. But is THOR-nə even correct? Or could it be something like THOR-naw? — SMUconlaw (talk) 08:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see from Greenhalgh -hagh potentially might have 4-5 variants. Better to leave the article without the IPA transcription until we find a source.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 02:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

preposition+verb

Latin has a long list of verbs like produce, induce, seduce, deduce, adduce; they're similarly abundant in Sanskrit and Russian; scarce in the native English lexicon (driven out by the Normans?) but we have a similar phenom in the phrasal verbs: take on, take over, take out, take up. I don't think I've found anything at all similar in my limited studies of non-IE languages; it makes me wonder a bit what other ways there are to build up the repertoire of verbs from a limited stock of roots.

Do you know a non-IE language that has clusters of verbs related in some analogous way? —Tamfang (talk) 08:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese does. 'kakigaeru' comes from 'kaku' ('to write') and 'kaeru' ('to change'), and means 'to overwrite'. 'Tachiagaru' ('to stand up') comes from 'tatsu' ('to stand') and 'agaru' ('to rise up'). The list is endless. These however do not include a preposition, but are rather just combinations of verbs. The Japanese version of a preposition would not actually be added to the verb itself, unlike in your English examples. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 11:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semitic verbs, especially the Arabic verb has a very productive set of prefixes and infixes that change the sense of a root such that words like book, secretary, library, correspond, etc., all come from the basic verb "write". I don't speak the language, but others can comment and the article should cover this. isiZulu has a limited native vocabulary of verbs from the point of view of an English speaker. The sense of words like ukufunda "To read, study, learn" are clear from the nouns in context. Zulu, especially Urban Zulu is changing very fast, with words borrowed from English and Afrikaans to fill perceived gaps, just like English did with borrowings from Norse, French, Dutch, Latin and Greek. μηδείς (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of the non-Indo-European languages that I know much about have a similar system consisting of a limited number of what I would call adverbial particles (often but not always identical to prepositions) combined with verbs to form compounds, together with a relative lack of other kinds of compound verbs. There may well be such languages, but I don't happen to know them. However, Mandarin Chinese definitely has verbs that combine a stand-alone one-syllable verb with a word that can be used as a preposition or adverb. (However, Mandarin words that function as prepositions and adverbs can generally also function as verbs.) This kind of compound, though, makes up only a minority of the Mandarin compound verbs. Most Mandarin compound verbs are like the Japanese example cited by KageTora, consisting of two stand-alone verbs. In fact, I suspect that many of the Japanese compounds are borrowed from Chinese. Chinese has also borrowed compound verbs from Japanese. Marco polo (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Someone will hopefully correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that the Japanese compound verbs are almost all of native Japanese origin (albeit often written using kanji). Verbs from Chinese roots are "noun + する" ("do noun") and these generally do not concatenate like the native verbs. 109.152.149.255 (talk) 01:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Hungarian has something similar: Hungarian verb#Verb particles /prefixes (igekötők) --Amble (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Georgian has a very similar pattern to IE languages. Further, it shares with the Slavonic languages that some prefixes convey aspect (usually perfective) as well as or instead of decomposable meaning. I think this is one of the arguments that Gamkrelidze etc. advance for Nostratic. --ColinFine (talk) 12:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pronouns and lexical terms are usually used to connect the Kartvelian languages to the Nostratic hypothesis. Not the actual Georgian verb conjugations, which are hugely complex. Indo-European shows connections to the Uralic/Uralo-Siberian verb. PIE phonology makes it look like a Uralo-Siberian dialect that was reinterpreted by a Northwest Caucasian language speaking population that was dominated by a wave of horse-riding pastoralists who conquered the valley of the Volga River from the east. The same westward invasion pattern was repeated by the Huns, the Turks, and the Mongols. All of the latter had simple, agglutinating verb morphologies. μηδείς (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also mention there are serial verbs, where a series of unmarked basic verbs in a row are used to create a more complex idea. This happens rarely in English but is very common in some areas, like New Guinea. 21:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Name of a film for teaching English

Hi, everyone. I'm looking for the name of an old (late 1980s or early 1990s) film used to teach English as a foreign language. The plot of the film was an alien girl called Io (not sure if it's written like this) crash-landing on Earth and enlisting the help of an English boy and girl to find three keys (bronze, silver, gold), a sword and a lamp so she can return to her planet. In the process, a gang of three aliens clad in black known as the Neutrons (once again, not sure whether it's written like this in the film) try to foil her plans. Animated segments with bits of English grammar and vocabulary are shown interspersed with the action.

A Google search of "keys", "sword" and "lamp" only seems to yield sites about RPGs. I hope someone here's seen or used the film and can tell me what its name was. Thanks! --Leptictidium (mt) 09:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greenhalgh

I used to work in a place called Rochdale, and there was a road called Greenhalgh Road that I used to have to go down by taxi on my way to work. I asked the taxi driver how it was pronounced, and he said something like 'Green-luh', which I thought was wrong because of its spelling. Now, in my village, there is a little shop called "Greenhalgh's", so this got me thinking. How IS it pronounced? I don't want to go into the shop just to ask this question and not buy anything. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 12:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our dab page for the surname includes, in the first line, five pronunciation variants. I guess the pronunciation of the shop's name depends on how the name is pronounced by the owner (or was pronounced by the founder). Deor (talk) 12:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remember last year? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarrely, I actually don't. Maybe I was sick or something. Thanks for that link, anyway. It seems that there are lots of variations on this word's pronunciation. Looks like I have to go and ask the staff in the shop, buying a pint of bread in the process. Cheers. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 12:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Loaf of milk, surely? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One or the other... :) KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 13:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did actually go to the shop and asked the lady behind the counter. She said it was pronounced 'Green-hal-shish', which was even more unexpected. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 16:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Was that Mrs Patel (you know, that nice lady who has the unfortunate lisp)? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, she was blonde. Probably didn't pay attention at the interview. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 18:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Term for describing a specific annoying behavior?

Is there a word for playing tricks on people that some people may find disruptive or annoying? On the Internet, it's called "trolling". In the 1990s, there was "prank calling". Is there a term to describe a person who annoys others, intentionally or unintentionally? 140.254.136.157 (talk) 15:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK I think it's "politician". Martinevans123 (talk) 15:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What time period is this? Is this pre-Internet? 140.254.136.157 (talk) 15:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Time immemorial? Please forgive my sarcasm. (At least four months in advance of a General Election but often extends way beyond that!) Martinevans123 (talk) 15:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Trickster"? If unintentional, "douchebag"? InedibleHulk (talk) 15:24, March 3, 2015 (UTC)

Could be prankster, but as with trickster, this implies deliberate action. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This picture of Coyote captures his inadvertent douchebag side well, I find. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:38, March 3, 2015 (UTC)

So, there really isn't a single term for face-to-face "trolling" in pre-Internet days? 140.254.136.157 (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Screwing with" people. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:35, March 3, 2015 (UTC)

"Practical joker", or its synonyms may come close, although a bit more coy than "troll". Roget offers - sickener, bore, botherer, potherer, scorpion, tormentor. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scorpion might mean the weapon rather than the animal, tormenting from afar. Though this scorpion was very up close and personal. So was this one. This scorpion is annoying everywhere. One second, it's "Get over here!", and the next he teleport punches you in the back of the head. I hate that guy! InedibleHulk (talk) 16:24, March 3, 2015 (UTC)

Proof of dickery. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:29, March 3, 2015 (UTC)

One particular type of practical joke is called gaslighting, where you try to make the person think they have lost their mind, say by constantly moving their car keys to a different position. StuRat (talk) 07:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first line says "gaslighting is a form of mental abuse" - this term is often used to describe abusive romantic partners; I've never heard it used as a term for a type of "prank" or "practical joke." SemanticMantis (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first line of Prank says it's a "mischievous trick played on someone, generally causing the victim to experience embarrassment, perplexity, confusion, or discomfort." That sounds like mental abuse to me. There's no set rule, but causing physical harm is generally the point where people will say a prank "went too far". Likewise, confusing your wife by concussing her is where the cops typically step in. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:46, March 4, 2015 (UTC)

March 4

English term for the Japanese "walk rally"?

ウォークラリー (uōkurari, "walk rally") is a wasei-eigo term for a type of recreational outdoor activity similar to orienteering where participants (usually children) are given clues directing them to checkpoints, where they might have to perform certain tasks (e.g. looking for clues or playing games) in order to identify the next checkpoint, and so on. The term "walk rally" has also found common usage in Thailand. What would one call such an activity in English? --Paul_012 (talk) 07:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd call that a Treasure hunt - Cucumber Mike (talk) 08:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scavenger hunt. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 08:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The_Amazing_Race 196.213.35.146 (talk) 09:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I also had The Amazing Race in mind when I asked. Is there a general term that easily describes the format of the race? --Paul_012 (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Either orienteering or scavenger hunt works. A scavenger hunt usually involves "running around and finding clues". --Jayron 32 17:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between "scavenger hunt" and "treasure hunt" is explained here. The OP's description sounds more like a treasure hunt to me. 109.151.63.210 (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting how they say they create "treasure hunts (not scavenger hunts). Semantics do matter!" - right under a banner proclaiming they've been "Solving the Puzzles of Teamwork with Corporate Team Building Scavenger Hunts Since 1995" - Cucumber Mike (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use of that in non-restrictive relative clauses with human antecedents

I learned at school (English as a secondary language) that that must not be used as the relative pronoun in any non-restrictive relative clauses. English relative clauses#Overview, bullet 4, supports this rule. However, Relative_clause#English, bullet 2, restricts this rule to non-human antecedents. According to the latter, a sentence such as My brother, that is 30 years old, married is correct. Is this true? --BlackEyedLion (talk) 14:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're misreading "Relative_clause#English, bullet 2" as restricting the rule to "non-human antecedents". The problem may be that the first bulleted point (which discusses clauses with human antecedents) uses only restrictive clauses as examples. Basically, a restrictive clause referring to a person may begin with who, whom, or that, but a nonrestrictive one begins only with who or whom. "My brother, that is 30 years old, . . ." is not something that an educated native speaker would say or write. Deor (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, "My brother, that is 30 years old, . . ." is ungrammatical. The grammatical version of that would be "My brother, who is 30 years old, . . .". Marco polo (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, no educated native speaker would say a sentence like "My house, that is 30 years old..." In this context, which would be the preferred term. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 17:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside: in your specific example, it's often more usual to say My brother, who is 30 years old, got married. Omitting got suggests to the listener that the next word will be the name of the person he married (as in …married X.). Bazza (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"My brother, that is 30 years old" is wrong because the clause is non-restrictive, not because the antecedent is human. "The priest that married my brother lives in London" (restrictive clause with human antecedent) would be correct. "My brother, which is 30 years old" is an example of an incorrect non-restrictive clause with a human antecedent. Tevildo (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would never be happy with "The priest that married my brother ...". I would always say "The priest who married my brother ...". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that Fowler described it as "apt to sound archaic" in 1905, but it's not (yet) actively incorrect: "This is the priest all shaven and shorn, that married the man all tattered and torn, that kissed the maiden all folorn..." I agree that "who" is generally better in this sort of sentence. Tevildo (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

THere are two issues. If I had two houses, each almost thirty yers old, I could very naturally say "My house that is 29 years old was destroyed by Sandy, but my haouse that is 30 years old survived it." The other question in American Enlish is, that once you set the description off by a comma, you cannot use "that". "My house, that is 30 years old, was seized by the Obama regime" is simply unacceptable. It would have to be, "My house, which is 30 years old, was seized by the Obama regime." On its own, that's all that's acceptable. In a broader concept or in less couth lands the rules may differ. μηδείς (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is wholly acceptable that the Obama regime seizes your house? No such user (talk) 12:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, only if there were a federal warrant or court order might it be wholly acceptable that the Obama administration seize your house. It is never acceptable that a regime act unilaterally, or without a valid subjunction. μηδείς (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stylistic rule of avoiding same word twice in a paragraph

English has a stylistic rule that one should avoid using the same lexical term (a noun, verb, adjective or adverb) twice in the same paragraph if possible. (Ayn Rand mentions this rule in her Art of Nonfiction and advises one to break it if necessary, in case there are those who doubt the policy's existence.)

Two Questions: (1) What is this rule called; do we have and article on it?

And (2), is this rule applied in other languages, what are some examples or articles or sources if so?

Thanks, μηδείς (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there is a name for it, but in Japanese it is perfectly OK to mention the same noun twice or more in a single sentence, for example when writing out a patent or some other highly detailed descriptive document. When translating, I would usually write 'The [object] is used [as such], and said [object] can perform certain functions, one of which functions is [whatever]'. Of course, patents need to be highly detailed, so as not to be legally challenged. In fictional literature, it doesn't really matter, because if someone buys the book, you get your money anyway. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 21:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See "Elegant variation".—Wavelength (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler, while I have his book open, says: "But there are some writers who, from the fact that all good repetition is intentional, rashly infer that all intentional repetition is good; and others who may be suspected of making repetitions from negligence, and retaining them from a misty idea that to be aware of a thing is to have intended it." His term for the phenomenon is "rhetorical repetition" - we have an article Repetition (rhetorical device), although it's not much more than a list of specific Greek terms for types of repetition. Tevildo (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The rule is certainly applied in Norwegian, see (original), (google translation). Some of the tedious repetitions have been ~~lost~~ rather clumsily modified in the google translation. --NorwegianBlue^talk 21:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We see it used to the max in consolidated sports results: A beat B; C was too good for D; E thrashed F; G overpowered H; J was victorious over K; L had a narrow win over M; N scraped home over P; and Q came out the winners over R. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Terminological variation can be a hindrance in STEM fields.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I read once that schoolchildren in [some country] are drilled in lists of epithets for [their country]'s eminent historic figures so that they can follow that rule to the hilt. —Tamfang (talk) 21:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is to avoid the phenomenon of semantic satiation. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, everyone. Elegant Variation is indeed the phrase I was looking for. It was mentioned to us as a suggestion in 10th grade that we not use the same word over and over when avoidable or unnecessary. (That year we focused on creative writing.) Now, Norwegian Blue, if only I knew how to read Norwegish! Thanks IP 50, I have noticed that phenomenon too. Not what I was looking for, but it does happen. I especially find if you say adverbs repeatedly, e.g., "very" that after the fifth time or so you start wondering why it doesn't mean something else, like "a good place to fish in the mountains." And yes, Tevildo, and Wavelength. I recognize that sometimes repetition has its specific purpose and its own aesthetic value. Assonance and alliteration are my two favorite compositional devices. Thanks, everyone. μηδείς (talk) 02:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What are some standard textbooks used in linguistics degrees at college?

What are some standard textbooks used in linguistics degrees at colleges? I have interest in universities of any country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llaanngg (talk • contribs) 21:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean in "Introduction to Linguistics 101" classes, or by students actually pursuing a degree in linguistics? AnonMoos (talk) 03:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of both would be nice. But i am afraid the latter would be too long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llaanngg (talk • contribs) 03:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis, this is your forte. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 14 Adar 5775 03:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some post-2000 introductory books that I happen to have on my shelves are "Language Files 9" by OSU Ling. Dept. (ISBN 0-8142-5128-5), "An Introduction to Language" by Fromkin, Rodman, and Hyams (ISBN 1-4130-2951-5), and "Contemporary Linguistics" O'Grady, Archibald, Aronoff, and Rees-Miller (ISBN 0-312-41396-8)... AnonMoos (talk) 05:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could ask here. This is the university I went to. There are email addresses on this page to contact the faculty members. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 10:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As AnonMoos has mentioned, Fromkin and Rodman is the standard introductory text for majors If there's som other specific interest, like Indo-European languages or a survey of world languages there are other basic texts, but the subject is hugely diverse.. μηδείς (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 5

"Please check which trader this voucher is to be used."

This sentence from an online payment service is incorrect and requires a preposition - right? "at which trader"? "for which trader? --KnightMove (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With --Viennese Waltz 16:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It could be at for or with, depending on the sense. Which preposition one chooses (and there probably should be one) will change the sense of the sentence. Prepositions are not interchangeable. --Jayron 32 16:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's still an awkward sentence even with an added word. I suggest a rewrite:

"Please examine your voucher to verify the name of the designated trader."

StuRat (talk) 16:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with VW. However, I would put the preposition 'with' at the end. It could go before the 'which', but I would prefer it at the end. There is nothing in our Germanic linguistic heritage that actually dictates we should speak like the French. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 16:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The deal is, if one wants to say "Go actually ask the trader in question directly by communicating with them as a person" you'd say "Check with". If one wants to say "Go and look at the trader's store/website/whatever and visually inspect to see if they have a notice that say accept the voucher" you'd say "check at". "With" implies an interaction, "at" implies a location. Two completely different senses. So, before we know which preposition to use, we need to know if we're supposed to interact with someone, or just go somewhere. --Jayron 32 16:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A trader is a person, a "someone", not a location. There are no senses in which "check at which trader" would be correct, it can only be "check with which trader". --Viennese Waltz 09:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've never met Trader Joe or Trader Vic. Words like this are very commonly used as a form of metonymy to mean both the business AND the person who runs it. The use of a word like "trader" as a place of business rather than a person who works there is perfectly cromulent and understood by all native speakers without discomfort or any sense of misunderstanding. --Jayron 32 15:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a novel semantic change. I would definitely think it strange if someone referred specifically to Trader Joe's establishment as Trader Joe, but if someone said, "check at which trader" I would only not be uncomfortable because I'd be understanding them to mean trader as a type of business, not because I'd understand it as a use of metonymous language. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 17:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. You can say, for example, I need to go to the florist to get some flowers, and not mean "The person who sells flowers to me" but "the store where I buy flowers" and everyone would understand that. --Jayron 32 17:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could say that, but I believe "florist's" would be more correct, like "baker's". Alansplodge (talk) 18:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably a dialect thing then, because I would find the possessive forms to be marked for me. --Jayron 32 18:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I expect you're right. I think I'd probably say "florist" too, if only to avoid the "sts"! Alansplodge (talk) 18:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it's one of those things where two slightly different meanings have the same semantic referent. Some people would say "trader" metonymously and some would use it with the tweaked definition of trader. The same thing with florist. It could even be the case that the former use has led to the latter. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 18:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the context: As said, it's about an online payment service. The online trader from which the customer wants to purchase an item, and the voucher PIN he tries to pay with, are incompatible, due to different currencies, legislations, trader-internal rules... So the customer (1) needs to use a different voucher PIN if he still wants to buy the item there, and (2) he should find one of MANY other traders for which his specific voucher PIN might be used. The error message addresses only problem (2), which might not be the wisest choice (but this is not my decision). --KnightMove (talk) 12:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 6

Bad audio file

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:En-uk-father.ogg

I hate to ask this here, but I'm not sure if it will ever be corrected otherwise.

Can someone who speaks British English and lacks th-fronting (which, I daresay, is fewer people these days than it had ought to be) correct this audio file?

This audio file, whatever it is meant to represent phonetically, is poorly recorded and subject to stark misanalysis.

It sounds like the speaker is mixing /ð/ with /v/, leaning more towards the latter.

It doesn't match its purpose, whatever the case, and had ought to be replaced by a better audio file.

I, however, am from New England, and am not qualified to correct it. If I were to try, I would end up sounding like someone from the late 18th century (a sort of proto-RP, in a way), and I know for sure that that is not what is desired for the audio file. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing actually wrong with the way he says "father" in British English. He says "th" not "v", but the audio quality is not great, which may be why you think you hear "v". 31.51.2.19 (talk) 02:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mm. Which is why I ask for a better recording to replace it. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 14:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can go to Forvo, download the file from there and replace the one on Commons. Use the same licence (CC 3.0) and the same type of description as in this file. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 18:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is Forvo? Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 20:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[2] — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 20:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How long should the upload delay be from when it actually replaces the previous file? It usually doesn't take so long. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's always been instantaneous for me. Either way, it's done. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 20:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

French translation

What is the French-to-English translation for the phrase "Monsieur le Curé"? Google Translate states: "the parish priest". But, when I translate the individual words "Monsieur" and "Curé" from French to English, they do not translate as "parish" or "priest". Likewise, when I translate the individual words "parish" and "priest" from English to French, the do not translate as "Monsieur" or "Curé". (However, the "le" does translate as "the", and vice-versa.) In fact, the word ""Monsieur" translates as "Mister". Can someone explain this translation? If it is at all relevant, this question is prompted by the reference in the Wikipedia article for Lourdes apparitions under The 15th appearance (4 March) section (footnote 16). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase does actually mean a priest overseeing a parish (compare the English word 'curator'). KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 14:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Curé' means 'parish priest'; it's equivalent to the English word 'curate', which in some Anglophone circles has undergone misleading semantic drift to mean 'assistant curate'. It's common in formal forms of French to use 'Monsieur le...' and 'Madame la...' to refer to office-holders. So 'Monsieur le Curé' literally means 'Mr Parish Priest', but it's just a formal way of saying 'the parish priest'. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a redirect of the word Curé which redirects to curate which confirms that Curé just means "parish priest". The other English word that comes closest to the role and meaning is Pastor. It comes from the latin word "care (for)..." and has the same root as the English word "to cure" meaning to cure a disease. Broadly, the word may be best directly translated as "carer" or "caretaker" and has a similar sense to the English word "Pastor" as in "One who takes care of a flock of sheep" (c.f. pastor and pastoralism). The idea is that a Curé has direct care of a group of believers, which is distinct from an Abbé or Abbot, which were priests who headed an Abbey, or monastery. --Jayron 32 15:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our Pastor article says; "In the United States, the term pastor is used by Catholics for what in other English-speaking countries is called a parish priest." So it rather depends whether you're translating French into American English or some other variety. In the UK, the title "pastor" is generally only used by Lutherans and some evangelical churches as far as I know; it would certainly suggest a Protestant minister to me. Alansplodge (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parish priest works in American English too. Marco polo (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, the chief priest of an American parish is called monsignor, which is a formal title one can use (in lieu of simply father) in speech, and which should be used in writing. There might be three priests serving a large parish, but if someone asks, "Who's the monsignor?" there's only one answer.

Parish priest is fine and understood, but not specifically Catholic, and not a proper form of direct address. E.g., "I told cousin Mary that our Monsignor Jones is very strict, but she said her parish priest even allows Cat Stevens music."

To be more absolute, Monsignor would translate the whole Monsieur le Curé since there is no ambiguity as to what Monsignor means to English speaking Catholics in a church setting. μηδείς (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that is incorrect. The chief priest of an American parish is most commonly called a Rector. Monsignor isn't a job, it's an honorific title. Many Rectors may also be Monsignors, but those are not connected ideas. Monsignor is roughly equivalent to being "Knighted" for Catholic clergy. But it has nothing to do with a role. Rectors are parish priests who are the chief priest of a congregation, especially when there are several priests serving the same congregation. One could also be a parish priest and not a Rector, those priests are properly titled Vicars. --Jayron 32 04:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See here for some explanation of the historical differences between rectors, vicars, and others in the C of E. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How odd, I have been a heretic all these years. Obviously the usage exists, since the article monsignor even says technically one cannot be the "monsignor of a parish". As for rector, that's not the exact equivalent. The article says one can be the rector of a parish, but also of other things like shrines and seminaries. Here's the Catholic Encyclopedi on [The faithful are called parishioners, the priest parochus, curate, parish priest, pastor. parish], one can look up "monsignor" as well, which it compares in use to the word "officer" in the military--a higher rank than private, but of unspecified position. As for the French translation, monsignor in English links to Monseigneur at fr.wikipedia. μηδείς (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This all reminds me of my first exposure to the word 'curé', when I was about 12. One day I had reason to be at my church, and on the way out I was idly browsing through the pamphlets in the rack in the vestibule, as one does. I came across one that I soon discovered was about St John Vianney, but it was the title that stopped my then non-francophone eyes in their tracks: The Curé of Ars, which I thought said The Cure of Arse. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of Byron name

I have left the question in the page discussion.--Carnby (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So that people don't have to switch between pages, the question is about the correct IPA for the name, and for the adjective "Byronic". I'm afraid I don't know IPA well enough to answer myself. Tevildo (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phonemically in Standard American English, /'bajrən/ and /baj'ranək/. Phonetically, ['bɑɪɹn̩] and [bɑɪ'ɹɒ:nɨk]. The SAE phonemic transcription is broad, and assumes the speaker doesn't have the Boston-style caught-cot merger. I suspect some Brits may use ɔ for the stressed vowel in the adjectival form, but they should speak for themselves. μηδείς (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know any "Brits" who lengthen and slightly close the o vowel, but there could be the odd one. The OED says /baɪˈrɒnɪk/. Dbfirs 12:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or in simple English, homophone to BUY-run. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BUY-run doesn't work for Received Pronunciation, which contrasts /ʌ/ and /ə/. Also, /r/ ends the first syllable, rather than starting the second one. See Longman Pronunciation Dictionary and Cambridge English Pronouncing Dictionary. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 09:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 7

not using them anymore

Have we a category or lists of obsolete place-names like Mercia and Neustria? I particularly want regions (whether or not they were ever political entities) that have no close equivalent on modern maps. —Tamfang (talk) 10:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might try List of pre-modern states, List of former sovereign states, and others in Category:Lists of former countries. Deor (talk) 10:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mercia is an obsolete placename? That depends on how you define such terms. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 16:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the The Mercian Regiment or the West Mercia Police might also disagree. Alansplodge (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. This is what happens when someone thinks they are the great poobah, who lives in the land of Allthatmatters. In reality, they are just one individual amongst others in the thick of things, and their personal experiences are not any more important than their neighbours'. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I happily accept the correction. —Tamfang (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In truth, I think a category of obsolete placenames has the simple issue of being "mobile" if you will. In other words, some influential individual could just decide one day to name buildings after every single thing that would be included in that list just out of irony or the like. Or, someone could fondly remember a name from bygone days and name a new town after it.

Any number of things could occur to make said placenames no longer obsolete. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 00:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I enjoy this. There is Austrasia, which you may know of, having mentioned Neustria. Also Burgundy, Lotharingia, and Prussia. There are the Kalmar Union and the Hanseatic League. There are empires like the Polish–Lithuanian union and Austro-Hungarian Empire which no longer exist, but which have rump successors. There is Carpathian Ruthenia which was sovereign for a day after the Nazis seized the rest of what was then (greater) Czechoslovakia as well as the West Ukrainian People's Republic. Prior to that, the Kingdom of Ruthenia existed in the middle ages, with Lemberg (now Lviv in Ukraine) as its capital. There were Castile and Aragon in different forms, and Aquitaine and Normandy. There are even Florin and Guilder, but they may be apocryphal. μηδείς (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, those only became obsolete in 2002. --Jayron 32 00:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The names Burgundy, Lotharingia (=Lorraine, German Lothringen), Kalmar, Poland, Lithuania, Austria, Hungary, Ukraine, Castile, Aragon, Normandy are still in use. —Tamfang (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that might have been a bit of snark on Medeis' part, but correct me if I am wrong. ;) Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 00:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We used to refer to quite a bit of the unmappable world as pictures of dragons. That'll get you hissed out of cartography school these days, I'd bet. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:30, March 8, 2015 (UTC)

Ever play Where's Waldo?, but with the Cimarchia Inferior? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:43, March 8, 2015 (UTC)

Apostrophes on references to family names

I've seen in writing and on signs on people's mailboxes and front door the family name followed by an apostrophe followed by an s. For instance, "The Johnson's" or "The Peters's." Why is this done? Seems like a plural would fit more to refer to a group of people with the same last name, like "The Johnsons" or "The Peterses" than what looks like a possessive. 75.75.42.89 (talk) 01:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 343: / Line 343: @@
 :Ever play ''[[Where's Waldo?]]'', but with the [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/FraMauroDetailedMap.jpg Cimarchia Inferior?] [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] [[User_Talk:InedibleHulk|(talk)]] 00:43, [[March 8]], [[2015]] (UTC)
+== Apostrophes on references to family names ==
+I've seen in writing and on signs on people's mailboxes and front door the family name followed by an apostrophe followed by an s. For instance, "The Johnson's" or "The Peters's." Why is this done? Seems like a plural would fit more to refer to a group of people with the same last name, like "The Johnsons" or "The Peterses" than what looks like a possessive. [[Special:Contributions/75.75.42.89|75.75.42.89]] ([[User talk:75.75.42.89|talk]]) 01:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)