Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

July 31

etymology of Quidlivun

A feature on Pluto has been named "Quidlivun", after the Inuit land of the dead on the Moon. It's hard to tell how corrupted the form is. Does anyone know what this would be in the orthography of any variety of Inuit? — kwami (talk) 01:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Category:User iu and Category:User ik might be helpful.—Wavelength (talk) 02:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Good idea. Pinging those editors. @Guillermo2149: @Vellidragon: @Zanimum/Babel: @SKREAM: — kwami (talk) 04:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Reference Desk regular Cambridge Bay Weather (talk · contribs) would likely be more helpful. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Adlivun is the underworld. They later, if purified, went to Quidlivun. Too much Marvel stuff to be able to see any good Google results. Quidlivun does not appear in the Inuktitut Living Dictionary so I'm not sure how the syllabics would be. In the orthography used from here and west it would be as you have it. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), [[Special:Contributions/CInsert non-formatted text hereambridgeBayWeather|Sunasuttuq]] 00:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• "Qui-" is atypical in form for Eskimo languages. Suspecting that it should be either Qidlivun or Qudlivun I found this: Qudlivun at Google μηδείς (talk) 00:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Appears to be qut 'above' + li (?) + -vun LOC 'those above' or 'the place above'. It's Central Eskimo per Boaz, so Canada west of Hudson Bay. — kwami (talk) 02:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @CambridgeBayWeather:. Can you give the morphology of adlivun? Qudlivun would appear to be the same, with qut 'above' substituted for at 'below'. (Is it qut where you are?) — kwami (talk) 02:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami:. There seems to be a bit of difficulty. It seems that nobody around here, Cambridge Bay and one woman from Gjoa Haven, has ever heard of the word. Also nobody had any idea what the word was trying to say. It's a long weekend here so my daughter is off to her cabin and won't be back until Monday night. I'll ask here to check with her friend in Pangnirtung. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather: Thanks! According to Boaz, who I think worked on the east coast of Baffin Island, it's "those above us", vs. adlivun which is "those below us". AFAICT, it's qut/qule 'above' (or at 'below') + directional lirn + 1pl.possessive vun. Maybe the language is too different where you are to recognize. — kwami (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami:. That could well be. There are words used east of here that are very different. One of the better known, here anyway, is the word for cold, alappaa and the word for wet, ikkii. However, once you get east of here ikkii is cold and qausiqtuq means wet. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Quotation From Asterix

There was one of the Asterix books - I can't remember which one - where their speech became garbled, at least in the English translation. The only phrase I remember was 'Zigackly' for 'Exactly'. I can understand that translating puns into another language can be very difficult, but does this 'Zigackly' make any sense at all as a pun in the original French? KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 11:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

It's from Asterix and the Laurel Wreath, if that helps. Urban dictionary lists it. 64.235.97.146 (talk) 12:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Apparently the French has "farpaitement", a consonant permutation of "parfaitement" [1]. German has "latürnich" for "natürlich". Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Aha, so it's a spoonerism, basically. I sort of thought it was, but wasn't sure. Thanks. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 13:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Ferpectly true! 64.235.97.146 (talk) 18:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

Just would like to add that (Aber) latürnich! has crept into everyday German as a jocular way to say "(But) of course!", although I'm not sure if it was the German translation of Astérix that introduced (or at least helped to popularise) this (quasi-)spoonerism – it's very well possible, though. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Dynamics vs. tempo

This question is moved from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment 09:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

With both dynamics and tempo, -issimo means very.

However, moderately is represented by mezzo with dynamics (mezzo piano, not pianetto) but the -etto suffix with tempo (larghetto, not mezzo largo.) Why this inconsistency?? Georgia guy (talk) 01:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

This is really a question about the Italian language, rather than about music per se. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Georgia guy: Wiktionary says that -etto is diminutive, while "mezzo" actually means "moderately" or "medium". It's worth noting this but it still doesn't explain everything, I think. Eman235/talk 10:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Diminutive suffixes like -etto, -ino etc. (allegretto, andantino) are encountered when the preceding word is being used as a noun, describing the overall character of a piece. In these cases, the diminutive denotes not merely a moderate "degree", but a somewhat lighter, less intense quality than the base word. When tempo words are being used just as a quantitative indication of "faster" vs. "slower", you do get adjectival modifiers (meno largo, adagio assai, allegro ma non troppo, piu presto). Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding andantino: does the diminutive make it faster or slower? (I'm well aware that composers have used it to mean both, but I'm wondering which one it would literally mean in Italian.) And what to make of andante molto (e.g. Schubert D 568, second movement)?

(My favourite tempo-marking ambiguity: Allegro con fuoco ma non troppo at the beginning of the Wanderer Fantasy. Now is that supposed to mean "Allegro with not too much fire", or "not too Allegro, but with fire"?) Double sharp (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

"Allegro con fuoco, but try to avoid showing off merely for effect" Elphion (talk) 17:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

It's a warning not to take it too fast, because you'd soon get into hot water. Schubert was apparently unable to play the Wanderer himself, at least to the standard he prescribed for others. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I didn't know Schubert was a writer for Elvis Presley. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 02:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Was that the same Elvis Presley who encapsulated his art, life and career with the immortal: I don't know anything about music. In my line you don't have to. ? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

User:JackofOz, Just to make sure we are talking about the same Elvis, you can have a cigar if you complete the following sentence: "Elvis Presley died on...." <- Trivia question. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 16:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Old vs. young and new

This question is moved from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment 09:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Why is old the opposite of both young and new (in every language I know except Esperanto)? —Tamfang (talk) 08:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

That's just the way English has developed. Georgia guy (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• That answer might be satisfactory if I knew only two languages. —Tamfang (talk) 08:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Because "young" and "new" are synonyms (although "young" is more often used to describe living things, at least in English) ? StuRat (talk) 21:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

There are of course plenty of languages where "old" ('aged', of people) and "old" ('no longer new', of things) are distinguished similarly to the way "young" and "new" are distinguished in English. In Modern Greek, the one is megalos, the other is palios. In Mandarin Chinese, there's 老 lǎo vs. 旧 jiù, and so on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I suppose English also has words for "old" that mainly apply to people or at least living things. There's elderly, senior, senescent, etc. StuRat (talk) 16:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

In Modern Greek, the adjective "μεγάλος" means "big" (compare English "megalopolis" and "megalomania"), but the adjective "γέρος" means "old" in describing a person (compare English "gerontology" and "geriatric").

—Wavelength (talk) 20:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's actually a bit more complicated: γέρος means 'old' in the absolute sense, i.e. somebody having reached actual old age (implying declining health etc.), whereas μεγάλος (literally 'big', as you rightly say) is the more neutral and general way of referring to somebody's age, like when you say "X is older than Y" (something you could say about two kids just as well as about two adults.) – Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• New and now come from the same PIE root. This root has cognates in many Eurasiatic languages. Young comes from a root meaning vigorous, while old is cognate with Latin altus and means something like raised to maturity. See old at etymology online. μηδείς (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

August 1

Profundicate

I was looking for synonyms for the word "puzzle" and found a profundity...the word "profundicate". It's not in any dictionary I can find, and my spellchecker doesn't know it either, but thesaurus.com seems to think it means "to puzzle". Anyone seen this word before? (And if you have a citation, add it to Wiktionary!) Eman235/talk 10:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

IIRC, its implication is "to make deeper (in intellectual terms, not as making a hole deeper)" - much as a professor writing a text may seem inclined at times to "puzzle" the students when making a topic deeper than it needs to be (IMO - <g>). Collect (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Now here's another profundity: profundicate does not appear as a lemma in the OED. The closest word I found was profundify, but – lo and behold – a 1995 quotation under profundify stated: "Profundify or profundicate the speech. Use Roget's Thesaurus to make simple ideas seem profound." — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see. It's a neologism created by James Boren and (first?) mentioned in his book The Bureaucratic Zoo (1976). I've created a Wiktionary entry. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. Maybe the OED editors will notice and add it. Eman235/talk 14:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I've also created profundify. — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

An overly complex word for making words overly complex, I love it. Why use a short word when a polysyllabic word will work ? :-) StuRat (talk) 16:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Why use a three-character word (such as its) when you can add a 4th character (to make it's)? ... Sorry, couldn't resist (because we're reliably informed that resistance is futile).  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I doubt Boren created the word for sure - the word is found by 1974 at least (per Google). I suspect it goes back a ways - as it did not seem abstruse when I found it here. Collect (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I did find the apparent 1974 quotation using Quiet Quentin at Wiktionary, but because the full text of the journal is not available online and because the text quoted also appears word-for-word in a 1979 issue of the same journal, I suspect that the 1974 one might be a mistake (perhaps a typo by Google?). — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, scratch that – according to the 2012 quotation at profundicate, there is a 1972 book by Boren which uses the term. This must be When in Doubt, Mumble. It's not available online so I can't include a quotation to it, but I've mentioned it in the etymology. — SMUconlaw (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

That's my boy, sonny Jim, chip off the wiki-block. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

This place is hilarious. Eman235/talk 08:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

You don't know the half of it ... — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Linguistic skeuomorphism

Is there a better term for what one might call "linguistic skeuomorphism"? By that I mean terms for modern things which anachronistically refer to the way they used to be made or done. So we still talk about "typing", but that no longer uses actual type; a car (in the US at least) has a trunk which was, but isn't now, a trunk; and at least in Britain (e.g. in the BBC) a telegraph pole still describes something that surely carries no telegraph messages at all. This discussion shares my comparison to skeuomorphism, but is there an actual term in (academic?) use for this process? -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 18:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I would call this linguistic conservatism - the automated voice tells us we have "dialled an incorrect number" or to "hang up now". Trains still steam out of the station and we say "I don't want coppers" or "I only have silver" although copper coins have not been minted since 1860 and silver ones since 1946 (although the Maundy money is sterling silver). Actually the "coppers" are just steel discs with just enough copper plate to make them the traditional weight, and the "silver" is the same, although the plating is cupro - nickel. There must be many more examples - we go to the booking office to buy a train ticket because when the railways started the clerk entered the details of the journey in a book. I could go on. 86.134.217.6 (talk) 19:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

We "write" emails when we do not "write" any more, and definitely do not use the "mail" which originally apparently meant "wallet." We get food in "tin cans" which are no longer tin. Meanings change gradually - but vocabularies change even more slowly. We read "newspapers" online. It is how all languages have always worked - and why we still use words which are thousands of years old. Collect (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

See "Retronym" and "List of retronyms".—Wavelength (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

A few notes on specific terms mentioned above:

• "Typing" never involved type. (Okay, The OED Online does show "To reproduce by means of type" as one meaning, but it's a rare enough sense that I think we can ignore it.) The term arose in its modern sense in relation to a typewriter, which merely produces letters similar to those of actual type. Of course, this is still a similar extension of the original word "type".
• Ending a call using a wall-mounted phone, such as most pay phones, still typically involves an actual action of "hanging up". (Yes, there are still lots of pay phones.)
• As a railfan, I've read lots of material about trains, both British and North American writing, and I don't think I've ever seen modern trains described as "steaming out of the station". On the other hand, the designers of these signs have a lot to answer for.
• Tin cans were never made of tin; the term refers to tin-plated steel, which is still used.

--65.94.50.73 (talk) 03:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

In the United States, only 7% as many pay phones exist currently as compared to 1999, according to this article in Barron's. I assume the situation is similar in other countries. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

"Tin cans" had tin plating after 1818, and the tin plated can was patented in 1825 apparently - before that they appear to have been "tin" - the modern "tin can" is frequently aluminium entirely. Luckily the can opener dates to 1865. WRT "pay phones" - many of the remaining 7% do not take coins at all. IIRC, many nations do not use coins at all, and use tokens or cards only. Collect (talk) 12:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

In the UK we still use coins for payphones. The only problem is, they don't have signs anymore telling you how much it is. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 15:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

In this area they're very helpful. They tell you you can use either euro or sterling, picture the coins you can insert and list the charges. 86.134.217.6 (talk) 13:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I live in Scouseland. The pictures of the coins were probably stolen. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 03:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Horrible posh accent

I speak with a posh 'queens' english accent. I want rid of it or to soften it around the edges as much as possible. Are there any good free apps / sites or tutorials that can help me kill it off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.140.244 (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's a useful site trailer site. Try it for a year or two. Works a treat, ya gobshite scumbag. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Or, watch some classic Bugs Bunny cartoons and try to talk like him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Moving from Queens to ... is it Brooklyn or the Bronx he's supposed to be from? --Trovatore (talk) 02:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

According to Mel Blanc, he's got a touch of both, as noted at about 3:15 here.[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

It is wonderful to have an expert contributing, Baseball Bugs (munching on a carrot). Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

"No One Knows" what I mean BB, because I've got the wrong "queens" there. *sob* Martinevans123 (talk) 09:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

So, did the OP mean "the Queen's English" or "Queens English", after all? (Or even a kind of "queens' English"? By the way, this phenomenon appears to be what Danny Ryan's comment there alludes to.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I have met people who have been away from the UK for decades - and are still identifiable. Or from New England, the US Midwest, or other places with distinct accents. One learns vocal sounds as a young child - and it is very hard to obliterate them. One classic is the "l/r" sound for some Asian languages, or the "click" found in some African languages. Some actors use "fake accents" which are occasionally a tad more humorous than accurate. It is far easier to concentrate on the cadence, which is the other defining characteristic (in fact, the cadence distinguishes New Yorkese from other accents). (I, alas, in conversation tend to reflect the other person's accent as a result of hearing so many as a child. Really fun when a London PC thought I was a senior inspector <g>.) Collect (talk) 12:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I had a girlfriend from Yorkshire who spoke with an impeccable London accent, having not been "up north" for ten years. Occasionally she would lapse into dialect. When her sister, who still lived there, came for a visit she spoke the same pure Yorkshire which I found very hard to follow (I've never ventured further north than Liverpool). Maybe the OP should move to Birmingham. 86.134.217.6 (talk) 16:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

One thing that has puzzled me is when people who spend a long time away from the country of their birth complain that they have forgotten their native tongue. Can this be true, and if so, how can it happen? 86.134.217.6 (talk) 16:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that people usually completely forget languages that they used to speak fluently, purely from disuse. What is more likely to happen is that the neural connections and pathways become more tenuous or indirect, so the language simply does not come as easily as it used to. However, once you meet speakers of your native language again, or even visit the country where you were born and stay a while, it comes back. (My grandfather reported having that experience when he started hearing people talk in Czech for the first time after decades.) Picturesquely, I'd describe this as the language lying dormant or hibernating in the back of your head, to be reactivated when needed. Even if you believe adamantly you have forgotten it all and completely re-learn the language, you'll almost certainly find that the process is significantly faster than for other learners without any previous knowledge. Linguists (including especially dialectologists) have worked with informants who have not spoken a language or dialect for as much as sixty years (I remember examples like this from the Linguistic Atlas and Survey of Irish Dialects). Also compare Tuone Udaina, for whom Vegliot was not even a true first language, and he could still act as a main informant for Bartoli even though he had not spoken the language for almost twenty years. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• If you wish to become able to code switch as an adult, you either need (1) a natural aptitude, brought out by a basic study of linguistics (a class comparable to Cornell University's Linguistics 201 for majors) and familiarity with at least on language other than your own. Without that background, you will find it almost impossible to realize what is going on in your mouth, as the lay mind ignores subtle differences that cause a "noticeable accent" but which don't change the meaning.

Otherwise (2) you will need feedback from a trained voice coach or speech therapist, or, if you are lucky, to live with someone who speaks your target dialect and the mutual patience to correct and be corrected each time you pronounce a word in the undesired way.

Although born in NY, I grew up in South Jersey. The two dialects are very similar (if one compares educated Manhattanite, not Brooklynese) save for a few things, like the SJ use of the fronted RP "eh-oo" sound for "long o" (I want to gew hewm) the SJ or>ar as in Flarida, arange and farhead for the state, fruit, and part of the face. Those pronunciations marked me out as did the use of "wooter" for "water", and the standard "stand in line" and "forward" as opposed to the NYC "stand on line" and "foward". Strangely enough, three decades ago I would get asked if I was "from the South", but NY'ers couldn't point out what made them ask the question. I was able to correct this on my own after about 6 months of practice, so as to be accepted as an "accentless" native, and I know one other person with a heavy Deep South accent who did it given a natural talent for languages and music and relentless teasing from other college students. μηδείς (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Cornell comparable qualification, or a trained voice coach or speech therapist, yeah? You can't just live in two different places for an extended time? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I am speaking in generalities, and the introduction for majors course at Cornell (when I took it) covered enough phonology to let the student pick up why he had a certain accent in other's ears. Some people are tone deaf and others have perfect pitch. Most of us have to have formal training to become adept at music, or be immersed in it as a child. I can speak three dialects of English: South Jersey, Posh Manhattan, and Uptown "Urban" NYC, as well as Spanish at a native level and French and German well enough to hold a conversation, and enough Russian/Rusyn to survive. I have only had one semester of Russian, but was told at the time, "Please don't take this the wrong way, but you have the most beautiful vowels."

So it's certainly not impossible for someone like Madonna to acquire an accent by living somewhere as an adult. You can judge how well you think she speaks British English. I wouldn't discourage trying, but I think the best bet is either to take a course or to get a lover or roommate who is language-savvy and will be happy to correct you. As a final analogy, let me ask, do you think you could learn to ride a bike from reading a book, or watching a website? Feedback matters. μηδείς (talk) 01:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

To answer the OP, yes, there are free accent reduction tutorials or apps online. Example: [3]. You should refine your search, however, depending on the specific accent that you want to acquire (rather than, as you asked us, than searching by the one you want to lose). 184.147.133.47 (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

This might prove useful. Tevildo (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2

"Age" versus "aged"

Let's consider the following two variations of a sentence: (A) "John Smith, age 29, was identified as the gunman." and (B) "John Smith, aged 29, was identified as the gunman." Is the word "age" or "aged" correct? Or is it a stylistic preference? All of the Wikipedia articles use "aged" in the age-box templates. And I have never heard that phrasing in my life. I have only heard "age". I ask here, so that I can get some background information and solicit input and opinions. I also started a discussion here (Template talk:Death date and age#"age" versus "aged") to attempt to get that template changed. Any thoughts or ideas? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

According to EO, for this usage, "age" (noun) precedes "aged" (adjective) by more than a century.[4][5] I would say "age" is more common nowadays, although you see "aged" frequently on old tombstones. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Googling the subject turns up a number of entries. One of them is a serendipitous example of how civil (NOT) the users of "stack exchange" can be.[6] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Most modern languages that I am acquainted with use the verb "have" rather than "be" to express age, for example Portuguese Ele tem vinte anos (he is twenty years old). Is English the odd one out here, and if so, why? 86.134.217.6 (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The English "to be" covers a lot of ground. Consider Spanish, which has several verbs translate to "be" or "is" or "are" or whatever the situation in English. Age is rendered like tiene veinte años ("[he/she] has twenty years", as with Portugese. Then there's the two different verbs ser and estar, which I like to think of as "essence" vs. "status", since that's where they come from. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Not entirely - German and Dutch also use "be" and not "have." -Elmer Clark (talk) 21:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Same with Japanese, and in Chinese the 'be' verb can be dropped altogether. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 22:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Welsh typically uses "is" e.g. "'she is thirty years old": "Mae hi'n ddeg ar hugain oed". Martinevans123 (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I invariably amend "died age 90" to "died aged 90" or "died at the age of 90", where I see it in Brit Eng articles. I always used "aged" and I must admit I thought this was a UK/US usage varaint. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I understand that the phrasing can be changed altogether ("John Smith is age 29" or "John Smith was identified at the age of 29" or what-have-you). But, I am asking about the distinction in my above examples, "A" and "B", only. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

In American English, at least, you would probably say "age" if you were writing a newspaper article. The term "aged" is more likely to appear on a tombstone. British English may differ. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it certainly does differ. BBC News would always use "aged" in the example given by Joseph above, or more usually for deaths "at the age of". Note: the word in the UK charity Help the Aged is typically pronounced with a Biblical-type stress on the e (like the blessed in Brian Blessed). Not that this relates to tombstones, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Joseph A. Spadaro, option B is correct, but option A is incorrect in the same way that it would be incorrect to say "Barack Obama, wife Michelle, is the American president" or "Barack Obama, birthplace Honolulu, is the American president".

—Wavelength (talk) 00:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't follow your examples at all? Are you really saying that you find "John Smith, age 29, was identified as the gunman" analogous to "Barack Obama, wife Michelle, is the American president"? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

My answer to your second question is "Yes".—Wavelength (talk) 02:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

They are in no way analogous. "Age 29" is a phrase that describes the person. "Wife Michelle" and "Birthplace Hawaii" are not phrases that describe a person. You are mixing apples and oranges. Furthermore, are you in the USA or Britain? You are saying that all of the USA newspapers are wrong? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, I maintain privacy for many things about myself, including my birthplace, the country (or countries) of my formal education, and my present location. Anyway, I do not limit myself to one "national variety of English", but I use what I deem to be the most practical option in each situation, although I am willing to bend for instructors, employers, and customers. (I recommend that Wikipedia abandon MOS:ENGVAR in favor of something somewhat like User:Angr/Unified English Spelling, or, failing that, one of the "national varieties of English", even if the one chosen is not my preferred choice or the variety with which I am the most familiar.)

Here are some additional (incorrect) examples. John Smith, hair red, wrote this book. John Smith, job beekeeping, wrote this book. John Smith, ancestry Maltese, wrote this book. John Smith, memory encyclopedic, wrote this book.

I have not examined all the USA newspapers.

—Wavelength (talk) 05:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC) and 05:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

"I have not examined all the USA newspapers." Your response is not helpful. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Joseph A. Spadaro, here are some links.

• Definitions of aged - OneLook Dictionary Search
• "Researchers studied 40 people aged 18 to 50."—"Naps May Improve Our Frustration Tolerance"—The New York Times (July 10, 2015)
• "To accomplish that goal, the scientists recruited 85 men and 41 women aged between 55 and 79 who bicycle regularly."—"How Exercise Keeps Us Young"—The New York Times (January 7, 2015)
• "The New York Times editorial board opined in its Sunday July 27, 2014 edition that the Federal government should legalize marijuana for adults aged 21 years and older."—"White House Responds To New York Times Endorsing Marijuana Legalization"—The New York Times (July 28, 2015)
• "the number of Californians aged 50 to 64 who live in their parents' homes"—"Moving in with parents becomes more common for the middle-aged"—Los Angeles Times (April 20, 2014)

—Wavelength (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Not a one of those is relevant. We are comparing "John, age 29, did such and such" with "John, aged 29, did such and such". None of your examples is relevant at all, in the context we are debating. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your position, Wavelength. Joseph Spadaro, would you be happy with "Joe Brown, height 6', likes chocolate", or "Joe Brown, weight 120 kg, likes fruit", or "Joe Brown, left-handed, collects stamps", or "Joe Brown, myopia, edits WP"? I hope not. Those 4 things are all characteristics or attributes of Joe Brown, but he is not those things. Neither is he his age. "Joe Brown, who is aged 64 ..." or "Joe Brown, whose age is 64 ..." etc can be shortened to "Joe Brown, aged 64 ...", but not "... age 64". I accept that US and other Englishes can have differences, but "age 29" is not, as you claim, "a phrase that describes the person". Not in any variety of English. It is a phrase that specifies an age, it does not describe a person. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

If true, then all of the USA newspapers (and news articles) are doing this wrong. And have been doing so for years (at least, since I was born). Maybe someone should notify them? At the end of the day, this is a British versus American semantic variation. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

And, by the way, what's wrong with "Joe Brown, left-handed, collects stamps."? That's perfectly acceptable. No different – in sentence structure – than: "The student, dismayed and upset, presented his report card to his parents." (or some such). All the other examples are non-sensical. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

It certainly is different in sentence structure. Left-handed and dismayed and upset are both adjectival phrases, which are syntactically normal here. Age 64, like birthplace Honolulu, is a small clause used absolutely, and has only a pragmatic, not a syntactic, relationship with the noun phrase it follows. --ColinFine (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand your post, or you didn't understand mine. Jack of Oz said that this sentence is bad/improper: "Joe Brown, left-handed, collects stamps". I said that it was perfectly fine. I said that Jack of Oz's sentence (about left-handed Joe) is of the same sentence structure as this: "The student, dismayed and upset, presented his report card to his parents". That sentence (about the report cards) is perfectly fine. Your reply was "It certainly is different in sentence structure." How so? I see it as: Noun, adjectives, verb. Perfectly acceptable. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, the person here (What is the difference between “aged” and “age”?) agrees with me. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, these people here (age vs. aged) agree with me. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, the person here (ages vs aged?) agrees with me. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Ser and estar appear in Portuguese as well. O que sera sera corresponds to Italian "Que sera sera, whatever will be will be, the future's not ours to see, que sera sera", as the song goes. Estar denotes a more temporary state, as in esta na loja, "he is in the shop", which I guess corresponds to the "status" Bugs refers to.There is also another wide - ranging verb, ficar, which can mean to be, to become or to remain depending on context. 86.134.217.6 (talk) 13:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Joseph A. Spadaro and Wavelength: I happen to agree with you from the point of view of linguistic purity. However, we are not the language police here. The truth of the matter is that "age" rather than "aged" is commonly used in the United States by many reputable publications. Since that is true, if an editor here chooses to use that construction, I have to respect that.

I'd therefore rather try to determine why this might be deemed a reasonable construction. Here's my take on it. I see this construction as being one of apposition, not much different from "Joe Smith, beekeeper." In this case. the apposition is "Joe Smith, [man of] age 68," with words "man of" further deleted as being obvious.

From the point of view of linguistic purity, I prefer "aged". But I don't think "age" is so bad. I see it as justifiable, and not as a linguistic disaster. So my advice to you is: Get over it, and worry about really bad grammar, not about this. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with the great majority of your post. And appreciate your input. That being said, I must ask: how do you deem your advice as being "helpful"? (Namely, your advice being: "So my advice to you is: Get over it, and worry about really bad grammar, not about this.") We are trying to determine the correct wording for an age template in Wikipedia. My understanding is that this will affect hundreds of thousands of articles. So, how is that advice helpful to the goal at hand? Thanks. 16:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I had lost track of the original purpose of the discussion. I apologize for that. Still, in regard to that specific point: I don't think one can rely on either a definitive point of grammar/usage or a definitive preference in reliable sources to make a decision here one way or the other. Instead, I think that one must either (a) choose to abide by the numbers in a straight !vote on this subject, or (b) decide that unless that !vote goes 65% (or whatever) against current practice that there is no consensus for change. I don't think there is an objective preferable answer here.

In American usage, by the way, I think "aged" tends to be used more in "causative" settings, if you will. Cheese is "aged x months", because it is specifically and actively put aside to age for x months. Because people are not actively put aside by someone to age, there is a tendency not to say that they are "aged y years", but rather are "age y years". Just my two cents. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. There are actually two very good "solutions" or "compromises" being proposed at that link above. (1) One is to have two templates: an American and a British. So, if the date is in British format (e.g., 2 September 2012), the template would yield "aged". And if the date is in American format (e.g., September 2, 2012), the template would yield "age". (2) Another proposed solution offered is to scrap the wording "age 26" or "aged 26" with simply "26 years old". I like that solution. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Normal UK usage includes the phrase "Joe has aged a lot since I saw him last" etc, which is sort of similar to the "cheese and wine" usage. But, as I suggested, I think there is a very strong tendency to say "aged y years" rather than "age y years". The later ins't "wrong" and no-one would think it odd if they heard it in conversation, it;s just far less common in UK. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Even in the US, "Joe has aged [greatly] since I saw him last" would be the only way to go in that construction. One can used "aged" (often pronounced agèd) somewhat synonymously with "elderly," too. (I say somewhat, because they are not quite perfect synonyms. But you get my point, I trust.) I was referring strictly to this appositive construction of "age[d] x [months/years]" in this case.

I like "26 years old" myself. Alternatively, I put up a slightly alternative idea to that over on that talk page: put it on a separate line: Age at death - - - - 26 years (no hyphens, just trying to make the spacing work here). StevenJ81 (talk) 17:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, as I said in UK we have "Help the Agèd". I would not object outright to your other suggestion, although Age at death maybe sounds a little cumbersome. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm not a native speaker, but "John Smith, age 29, was identified as the gunman" reads rather telegraphese or headlinese to me. Certainly not particularly pretty stylistically. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

It is extremely common in English. The other ("John Smith, aged 29, was identified as the gunman") is absolutely unheard of in English (USA). I have never once heard it or seen it in my entire life – not even once – (prior to Wikipedia's incorrect usage). The other ("John Smith, age 29, was identified as the gunman"), I have seen a million times. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

You probably just have a hearing impediment, James. "Aged 29" is perfectly cromulent and unremarkable in American English. In fact, "age 29" is short for "at/of the age of 29". μηδείς (talk) 18:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Medeis: I don't understand your post. Please clarify? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Special treat for you Joseph. One edition of BBC News at Ten would easily cure you. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: Huh? I don't understand your post at all? Your source is the British Daily Mail, correct? That is saying exactly what I have been saying: that "aged" is used in British English and "age" in American English. You simply supported my position, not refuted it, correct? I don't understand what your post is saying? Please explain. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, it's probably your hearing impediment again. I just felt sorry that you'd not seen something in your entire life. We all get a little rusty, don't we. But I'm loving your Craquelure. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

What do I call her?

My sister died at the age of three months, but this was years before I was born. Do I call her my 'big sister' or my 'little sister'? KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 14:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Try "older" sister. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Cheers, Bugs, but I have been using "elder" sister for most of my life. I'm wondering whether this would be correct. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 15:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Sounds correct to me. Not sure if you take advice from Wiktionary, but it supports my Sprachgefühl. (In fact, that's what I intended to suggest all along, had the hare not been faster to reply.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

(ec)AIUI elder is only used if you have more than one sister, to distinguish between them. Your elder sister could be younger than yourself, but your older sister is always the one born before you. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:01, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

That would be, more unambiguously, "the elder of my sisters". --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Straight up? How can my elder sister be younger than me? 86.134.217.6 (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I have two brothers, one of which I refer to as my "eldest" brother, and the other as my "elder" brother. Would this be correct? KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 16:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

To answer that question I think we would need to know your age and the age of each of your brothers. 86.134.217.6 (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Both of them are older than me. I would have thought that would be obvious. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 16:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Do / did you only have the one older sister? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, she was the only one. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 21:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

One can uniquely specify up to four siblings using only the elder/eldest and younger/youngest adjectives. In birth order they are: Eldest, elder, yourself, younger, youngest. If you have only two siblings they are elder and younger (excluding twins) regardless of your own position in the birth order. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you can actually get an eldest twin (or is that the elder??) Martinevans123 (talk) 18:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

One of our editors patted himself on the back because he had to prepare birth certificates for two twins, the first of whom was born just before the switch to winter time and the second who was born just after. He annotated the certificates to make it clear which was the elder. 86.134.217.6 (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

If the first twin is born before the change in time, and the second twin is born a few minutes later (after the change in time), who is considered the older and who the younger? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

It would only matter in the case of inheritances etc. Whichever was actually born first in real time, regardless of what the clock or the calendar said. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course. Here's the example (using US Eastern, though of course this could be happening anywhere there is summer time:

• Twin #1, born at 01:59 EDT on 1 November 2015 ( = 05:59 UTC on 1 November 2015)
• Twin #2, born at 01:10 EST on 1 November 2015 ( = 06:10 UTC on 1 November 2015), 11 minutes later.

Of course, it's good that the editor above was careful. Just because the above situation is the reality does not mean it would have been interpreted correctly, had the paperwork not been prepared carefully. StevenJ81 (talk) 00:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• KageTora, since my youngest sister died at 20, when I was 26, I made the considered decision simply to refer to her as my sister without qualifiers unless mentioning she was my late sister was appropriate. In my ears "little" sounds morbid and "big" sounds surreal. Even elder sounds odd. "My late first-born sister" might be a good compromise, even though first-born is still ambiguous. But I don't think you can plan ahead or should torture yourself over such things. My parents' first daughter also works, without ambiguity, and it kind of gently paves the road for the notion she is deceased, since referring to her that way lets the listener know there is some important reason you are not just saying sister without qualifying the word. μηδείς (talk) 01:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• It is unlikely that you'll be introducing her to new people any time soon. The English language is not so confusing or problematic that merely stating plain facts when it comes up is likely to lead to confusion. "I had a sister who was born before me; she died at 3 months old" does not lead to any ambiguity. You don't need one word to capture that meaning, and the 5 seconds it takes to state that entire sentence is not like to cause people to lose track of your meaning either. --Jayron32 03:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• ... deja vu. Abecedare (talk) 03:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Some editors make heavy weather of "what the calendar said". Jack highlighted this in the context of articles concerning Russia. You would think that the actual date on a calendar on the wall or in a newspaper would be used, but they have other ideas. Every date prior to 14 February 1918 they insist on converting to Gregorian, so you get howlers like "They left Russia on 2 January, just before Christmas." These days they do celebrate Christmas on 7 January but they didn't then (in fact the Christmas festivities now last a whole two weeks).

The same problem is met with in articles covering colonial America - here it's dates before 14 September 1752 which are targeted. They have articles which take references from military archives of the period which they keep "as is", so the result is that these articles are a mess. 86.134.217.6 (talk) 13:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

That's why people are supposed to use Old Style and New Style dates in cases like that. The purpose is to avoid ambiguity. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

This is what people claim and they are wrong. King Charles I was executed on 30 January, 1648 according to contemporary reckoning and 1649 according to us (the year used to begin on Lady Day). The date is never given as 9 February. All that article says is that ambiguity can be avoided by writing the date "30 January 1648/9" which was commonplace at that time. 86.134.217.6 (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

...I would hesitate to call O.S./N.S. wrong (though I'm not entirely sure what you think is wrong: possibly I'm just confused). It's just a convention, that may well differ between countries. O.S. and N.S. is apparently more standard for Russian stuff, for example – ru:Октябрьская революция uses it, spelling it out the first time "25—26 октября (7 — 8 ноября по новому стилю)", and then later in brackets (e.g. "2 (15) марта 1917"). In English sometimes I see wholesale conversion (probably after clarifying it the first time a date is mentioned), and sometimes O.S./N.S. (the latter more usually when there's not so many dates to talk about, so it doesn't clutter the text). Double sharp (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

August 3

odd usage of the phrase 'as well'

Hi. In an article about Alexander the Great's horse, I stumbled on these 2 sentences:

He spoke soothingly to the horse and turned it towards the sun so that it could no longer see its own shadow, which had been the cause of its distress. Dropping his fluttering cloak as well, Alexander successfully tamed the horse.

The usage of 'as well' in this context feels odd to me, as it seems to imply that dropping the coat was an important additional step in the taming process. Or am I over-interpreting this, and is 'as well' a perfectly fine way to establish a narrative timeline here? Personally, I wouldn't use 'as well' here but instead a 'then' or 'after that':

'Then, dropping his fluttering cloak, he jumped on the horse's back and successfully tamed him without violence.'

How's that? I feel this way there's less odd emphasis on the rather irrelevant cape-dropping and the timeline becomes clearer. Rh73 (talk) 06:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that whoever wrote the sentence viewed the dropping of the cape as "rather irrelevant". The way I read it is that Alexander calmed the horse by turning it to prevent it from seeing its shadow and, in addition, by taking off his own cape (the fluttering of which was likely to spook the horse). So the idea is that "that dropping the coat was an important [or at least a prudent] additional step in the taming process". Deor (talk) 11:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree, thank you. I have to admit: while I wrote this question, for some reason I didn't realize the connection between a fluttering cape and spooking the horse - in this context dropping the cape becomes relevant and the phrase 'as well' makes much more sense.

Funny sidenote: In the meantime I compared a couple different translations of this story and found that none of them (including the one referenced in this section of the article) actually describe the cape as "fluttering" or as having any other (threatening) qualities. Neither does the Greek source material: "ἀπορρίψας ἡσυχῆ τὴν χλαμύδα" which unadornedly translates to "he gently/quietly put away 'the cloak'". So, on one hand an editor took the liberty to add a little bit to the source. On the other hand it's a single word, it aids understanding, and most probably only few people would obsess over such details or even notice them anyways... I'll drop some ramblings on the talk page and see what happens. Again, thanks for your reply. Rh73 (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Given that some creative editing/translation seems to have been going on, is it possible that Alexander had actually used the (non-fluttering) cloak to cover the horse's eyes before mounting, in order to calm it? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

"In all those fields, supportive evidence were to be found/ were found/ have been found".

Hello,

which one of the above three forms is the most adequate in the context of a scientific paper? specifically, when would one use "were to be found"?

Thanks. 212.179.21.194 (talk) 06:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

"Evidence" is uncountable, so it's never parsed as plural. You could say "Pieces of evidence have been found in all those fields". But then the verb is governed by the word "pieces", not by "evidence". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

thanks, so let me change my question to which of the three is the most adequate in a scientific paper: "In all those fields, supportive evidence was to be found/ was found/ has been found". 212.179.21.194 (talk) 06:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

It depends on context. Is the evidence still to be found? Was it found in the investigation under discussion, or has it been found sometime in the past? Dbfirs 08:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• Let me invent a context where this wording might be used, to show what the grammar should be: The theory of evolution has been studied in biology, paleontology, and biochemistry. In all those fields, supportive evidence has been found. That's not exactly stellar writing, but at least it is valid. Looie496 (talk) 13:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

"your first parlay"

What does "...this is your first parlay." mean in this context[7]?

Parlay (gambling) doesn't seem to make sense in this context. Judging by the context, I was expecting a word that's synonymous with battle/skirmish/war/fight/engagement. My other car is a cadr (talk) 06:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Parley makes sense: "a discussion or conference, especially one between enemies over terms of a truce or other matters". However, parlay as well as parley are stressed on the first syllable, not the second (and pronounced a bit differently). The French word "parlez" is stressed on the second syllable. Rh73 (talk) 07:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@My other car is a cadr: Unfortunately the reference you quoted [8] is now dead, but 'parlay' (not parley) has the sense of 'opening gambit'. On the face of it, your sentence means "...this is your first venture". Akld guy (talk) 11:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Akld guy: This reference here works: [9] Rh73 (talk) 13:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Rh73: I think in that reference, the soldier's use of the word is a pun on all three meanings listed above: parley, as in a negotiation before declaring the start of fighting, French 'parlez' as in talking or discussing, and 'parlay' as in '[first] venture into [battle]'. It is after all, a comedy skit. Akld guy (talk) 07:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I would think "foray" would be the more usual term.[10] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

MS Word changed short hyphen to long hyphen

I was typing in MS Word and it autocorrected a hyphen from the short type to the long type. I want to confirm whether this is correct? Wording was as follows "...separated one culture of each sample into GFP-positive and –negative fractions". MS Word changed the second hyphen (i.e. "-negative") into a long hypen (I think it's called an "em dash"). Is it correct to do that? Thanks. --192.41.131.251 (talk) 14:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not correct. Both hyphens should be the same. --Viennese Waltz 14:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

"Word" can be dumb. I had occasion to mention the name of a Welsh lady, whose Christian name was "Claer". No matter how many times I typed it, it always came out "Clear". I eventually managed to solve the problem - I'll leave you to puzzle out how I got round it. 86.134.217.6 (talk) 14:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Two ways to deal with that would be add the name to the spell dictionary or to change the settings in Word. It is possible to change the settings in Word so that if a spell checker change is reverted, it will stick as is. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Obviously it was an autocorrect entry which you simply had to delete. Shouldn't have taken you more than a couple of minutes to figure that "problem" out. --Viennese Waltz 14:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

It's an en dash. An em dash is slightly longer. Hack (talk) 14:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Generally, you can hit ctrl+z immediately after an autocorrect occurs, and it will undo the autocorrect without undoing what you typed (though getting into the habit of doing this can backfire when you start using a program which doesn't have autocorrection!). MChesterMC (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

In my version, if you type X-X it will keep it as a hyphen, but if you type X - X it will convert it to a dash. As to the spell check, I think you can add things to the local dictionary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a technological whizzkid. In every other case when I've been autocorrected I've retyped the spelling I wanted and Word didn't argue, but in this case it was firm. No harm done - I see there's a manual override which I didn't know about. Compare that with the case of the motorist who entered his car which had central locking and a flat battery. It was a hot day, he couldn't open the doors or windows and perished with his dog. That system also had a manual override but unfortunately he didn't know about it. 86.134.217.6 (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

See Microsoft Word Spelling and Grammar Check Demonstration.—Wavelength (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Locked into a car

(I've moved this subthread down into a separate section. It's not really on-topic here, of course, but I doubt there's a lot more to say...) --65.94.50.73 (talk) 04:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

If the battery was dead, how did he get the door open in the first place? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, my car has a battery-powered key which will open (or lock) the doors from a distance – one press for the driver's door, a second for the other 4 (it being a hatchback) – but the driver's door will also open if I simply put the key in its lock and twist. Does the latter require the car battery's power?

However, while I imagine that different models of car from different eras may have variously differing modes of operation, I've never seen a model whose doors' manual operation from the inside was anything but obvious to an adult. I'd like to see a citation for 86's anecdote. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Really! (Unless the driver is so young that s/he couldn't imagine that the locks actually work manually, too.) I'd be absolutely amazed if safety regulations didn't require that at least one door lock (if not all door locks) didn't have an unpowered mode of operation. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's a news story on that incident: [11] --Amble (talk) 19:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Fascinating. I'd still be pretty surprised if there hadn't really been a way out of the car, but I am in no position to dispute the findings of the Port Arthur police, either. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

RTFM! KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 21:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

OBPersonal, but my car is specifically designed to do that. If the doors are locked, they can only be unlocked (a) with the remote control, or (b) by using the key from the outside. There's a warning box on _five_ successive pages of the manual - "WARNING! Do not leave anyone in the car if it is locked! The doors and windows cannot then be opened from the inside. Locked doors could delay assistance in an emergency." European safety regulations, at least, apparently do not require an emergency manual release. Tevildo (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

As to how he got in, the news story from Port Arthur says the police think the battery cable came loose when he got in. That's possible: if it wasn't possibly tightened, the jolt from closing the door could have done it. I've heard of other cases like this, including one where (as 86.134.217.6 said) the car definitely had a manual override but the trapped person didn't know about it; but I don't have a cite for one like that.

Here is an even worse trap: not only could the car not be opened when the doors were locked, but there was a time limit on how long they could be left unlocked. A 22-year-old man fell asleep in an unlocked car and died of dehydration. Here is the original news report in French. Here is a summary in English. --65.94.50.73 (talk) 04:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Memo to self: keep house-brick in glove compartment. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Car windows are pretty tough; that actually might not work. Special tools are available for the purpose. See this Mythbusters episode (and in connection with the particular hazard they were concerned with there, also this followup.) --65.94.50.73 (talk) 17:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

It's advisable, when entering a car, to ensure you have a working mobile phone with you. Leaning on the horn to attract attention if you are trapped does not work according to one commenter. That said, people are aware of the international distress signal (SOS) and if they become aware that you are using it they will either come to your aid or notify the authorities. So instead of indiscriminate honking you should give three short blasts (pause) three long blasts (pause) three short blasts (long pause) then start the cycle again.

The Russian submariners who were trapped in the Kursk at the bottom of the Barents Sea tapped this signal on the hull. British and American specialist naval rescue ships embarked for the area but unfortunately the Russian authorities did not give permission for the operation until it was too late.

A boy got a job as an assistant at an industrial laundry at Heathrow airport. Each washer had a key which was inserted in the appropriate switch in a bank of switches in a control area to enable it to function. The boy entered one of the washers to free a jam which had caused it to stop working. As he freed the washing the door closed and the washer started a cycle - twenty minutes, six spins a second, one thousand degrees. The supervisor hadn't seen the boy for some time and went to look for him. There was a strange banging coming from one of the machines but no sign of the boy. The banging stopped and she went back into her office. She noticed water pooling onto the floor and opened the machine it was coming from. There she found the boy, who had the control key in his pocket.

In addition to cars, lifts, public lavatories and refrigerators are a problem. I worked for a firm which left a freehold office building in Clerkenwell to rent the basement and second floor of an office building in Holborn. The Clerkenwell premises were left empty. One day while collecting some items from Clerkenwell the managing director was in the lift, which stopped between floors. Luckily he had his mobile phone with him. The Holborn building also had a nasty feature - the gate to the service lift on the second floor was kept locked outside working hours. Anyone could enter the lift at the basement level from the street, but once inside it would only travel to the second floor, and once there it would not move again until the gate had been opened. Early one Saturday morning there was a courier inside frantically banging on the gate while a temporary office manager hunted round for the key.

At the fishmonger's shop where I worked the cold store had a handle which enabled it to be opened from the inside. This appears to be an unusual feature. Before entering his shop in the morning a butcher used to buy a newspaper from the girl in the shop across the road and chat with her. One morning he didn't appear. The girl thought he must be ill and went to look for him. She found him locked in his cold store. When released he said "I knew someone would find me".

Another butcher was getting some meat from his cold store when a thief, who had followed him into the back, slammed the door, raided the till and made his escape. The shopkeeper was there for twenty minutes until a customer, tired of waiting to be served, went behind the counter and found him.

The manager of a lunch parlour was not so lucky. After the shop had closed and all the staff had gone home he entered a tiny refrigerator to pack away stock. The door closed behind him. 80.43.198.251 (talk) 09:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Word for married woman's male sex partner outside of marriage?

Is there a word for this? "Keeping a master" doesn't work. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

"Gigolo" is in the neighborhood. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

[ec] Gigolo? Paramour? "Bit on the side" [coll.]? Tevildo (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, if colloquial expressions are acceptable, "fancy man" is probably the best term in BrE. Tevildo (talk) 21:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Boyfriend is pretty normal. Japanese has 'sefure', which is short for the English words 'Sex Friend' - rather like 'friend with benefits', as we say in Br.Eng. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 21:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

"Friend with benefits" works in America too. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I wondered where she'd gone.... She must be busier than I thought. :) KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 21:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't include all the details but lover may be sufficient from context. RJFJR (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

If you're looking for a close parallel to "keeping a mistress" (or "kept woman"), gigolo is probably the closest one of the choices above, not counting "fancy man" (which, as a Yank, I'd never heard before today). In the US, unless you're really trying to get at this "kept" bit, lover is probably the best general-use term. Boyfriend still usually implies "a romantic relationship". When I was younger, if you were using "boyfriend" or "girlfriend" beyond a certain age, it also had an implication of "we're at least exploring whether this is headed to marriage". But I don't think that's really the case any more. Friend-with-benefits definitely implies the opposite of that, though: we're friends, we're not taking this anywhere serious, but we like to play in bed. I don't know if that's exactly parallel to the Japanese term, or even to its use in the UK, but that's the usage here in the US. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

In certain subcultures, he's "her bull". Among the Inuit, the husband refers to him as "the other me".--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 22:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

In English, 'paramour' is probably appropriate where adultery is implied or is known to have taken place, but it has become somewhat archaic. 'Lover' can be used in general. 'Gigolo' is a term for a man who is being kept financially by a married or single woman. The 'being kept' may include residing in the same living quarters, the eating of meals provided, and the permitted use of goods and services eg. vehicles, chauffeur. Akld guy (talk) 00:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

There is also 'toyboy' and 'sugar daddy', depending on the age of the lover (older or younger). What are the female equivalents of these terms?. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 05:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I thought a "gigolo" was simply a call girl or courtesan in reverse. 86.134.217.6 (talk) 12:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The "toyboy" is younger and the "sugar daddy" is older. Some men might run into a "bimbo" (younger) or "cougar" (older). 86.134.217.6 (talk) 12:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

A toyboy and sugar daddy don't just differ in age. A toyboy is an older woman's "kept man", whereas a sugar daddy is an older man who provides financially for a woman younger than him. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

"Bimbo" is a weird one; it starts as an Italian word for "boy". I'm not sure how it evolved to its current English meaning. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Italian bimbo or bambino is more often translated "baby", though it's true that it is applicable to lads a good bit older than would usually be called "babies" in English. My sense is the cutoff might be somewhere around six years old; that's just a very vague intuition and I'm not a native speaker.

Etymonline sez: [...] first attested in Italian-accented theater dialogue. Originally especially "stupid, inconsequential man, contemptible person;" by 1920 the sense of "floozie" had developed (popularized by "Variety" staffer Jack Conway, d.1928). --Trovatore (talk) 18:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

See and hear Jim Reeves - Bimbo 1954 (Novelty Country Music Songs) - YouTube (duration 2:51). (Warning: There is some profanity in the visitor comment section.)

—Wavelength (talk) 19:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

August 4

corrective discipline

The following is a quote by W.H.Auden in his prose "Reading": "All the judgements, aesthetic or moral, that we pass, however objective we try to make them, are in part a rationalization and in part a corrective discipline of our subjective wishes." I wonder how the phrase "corrective discipline" as the author uses can be understood. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.217.19 (talk) 03:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

He's saying that we use our judgements as a way of bringing our wishes under control, making them in effect less desirable. Perhaps he's implying that, if we have wishes that are unrealistic or unattainable, it's painful for us to continue to nurture them. So we make judgements to make our wishes seem less important. --Viennese Waltz 07:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

He's saying that all the judgements we pass, no matter how objective we try to make them, are partly based on rational (objective) thought process and partly based on the mind's subjective desire to effect a change, which it perceives as a justifiable correction. Here, 'corrective discipline' means the subjective mind's system of rules or school of thought (discipline) that cannot tolerate the situation as it stands, and demands that a correction be made. Akld guy (talk) 08:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

"Escalation" in management

Some text I have to revise suggests that the term "escalation" is used in English also for shifting any problem requiring resolution to a higher authority (as it is, respectively, in German). But neither the disambiguation Escalation, nor the respective Wiktionary entry mention such a use. So as an example: Would it be correct to answer an urgent customer complaint with "Your request has been escalated", when it has been transferred from a low-level to to a senior customer account manager? --KnightMove (talk) 09:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

That's much the same example as is used in the Cambridge Business Dictionary entry. I can't, offhand at least, think of other things that are escalated (in business contexts or otherwise) except problems (bugs, complaints). One wouldn't, for example, "escalate" approval for this year's budget, even though that approval comes from higher in the org tree. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 09:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Quoting Wiktionary is kind of self-referent, I guess. But wikt:escalate is kind of interesting:

1. It's a back-formation from escalator, which was a coined word (with good antecedents, don't get me wrong)
2. Escalate also has transitive and intransitive meanings of intensification ("The shooting escalated the problems"). It doesn't say so at Wiktionary, but you're right. To escalate (as a verb) always implies that something bad is being intensified, not something good.
3. An "escalator clause" in a contract doesn't necessarily imply something bad happening, but you don't tend to hear the verb form of "escalate" used in this context. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

To escalate (as a verb) always implies that something bad is being intensified, not something good. Not sure that I agree entirely with that, Steven. In management settings, escalation is usually a response to a situation that has not been satisfactorily resolved at the first level interaction. The badness of the situation has intensified because of its non-resolution, but the escalation is a recognition that something different needs to be done, and by a more senior person. It would normally be a positive step in itself. The escalation can be initiated by the staff ("I'm sorry, sir, but I don't have the authority to approve the refund you're seeking, so I'm referring the request to my manager, with my recommendation that it be approved"), or by the customer ("I'm not happy with how you've dealt with this. Can I please speak to your manager".) That's in the management sense. In some other contexts, like civil strife, I agree that escalation would be the intensification of the trouble itself. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Kruti Dev Font Licensing

Hi, I want to know if the font Kruti Dev is a paid licensed font or is it free for usage or re-distribution for commercial use as well. One of the Wiki links( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kruti_Dev ) says it is free however wanted to be double sure before I start re-distribution of the same- 4-Aug-15. 59.163.27.14 (talk) 10:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Do not rely on Wikipedia for such statements. We cannot give legal advice (which answering your question would clearly involve), and we can make no guarantee about the accuracy of articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Subjunctive

1. If I won the lottery ...
2. If I was rich ...
3. If I were rich ...

Which of these are subjunctives? If #2 is a subjunctive, then why is "If I were" so often singled out as an example of a subjunctive? If, on the other hand #1 is a subjunctive but #2 is not, then why the difference? 86.157.175.138 (talk) 11:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Higher up there is a discussion of how more frequently used words have a greater variety of forms. "If I were" is certainly a subjunctive, but less commonly used verbs may not have a separate form. 86.134.217.6 (talk) 12:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

86.134.217.6 (talk) is one of several London area IP sockpuppets of banned User:Vote (X) for Change

As our article Subjunctive mood states, the subjunctive expresses various states of unreality. Therefore, #1 might or might not be considered subjunctive, depending on whether in fact you did win the lottery. (If you didn't win it, then won is subjunctive, because it is a counterfactual conditional.) Your #2 is not the "correct" form for a subjunctive. According to prescriptive grammar, the only correct past-tense subjunctive form for the verb to be is were. As for "why the difference", in English, the verb to be is the only verb with a distinct past subjunctive form, and it is distinct only in the first- and third-person singular, where was would otherwise be expected. According to prescriptive rules, #2 should be used only for statements of reality. For example, "I was rich between the ages of 30 and 40. If I was rich at the time that we met, then I was living in Beverly Hills." For counterfactual conditionals, the "correct" form would be "were", as in your #3. For example, "If I were rich, I would buy you a nice house, but since I am not, we will have to keep living together with my roommates." That said, linguistic description is more interested in people's actual practice than the "correct" forms put forth by prescriptivists. And in practice, many native English speakers do not use subjunctive forms and would use forms such as your #2 even for counterfactual conditionals. Marco polo (talk) 13:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I would add: At least in the US, even good language arts programs often do not teach subjunctive as subjunctive. Speaking from personal experience (ok, it's OR): I was correctly saying "If I were rich" as a child. But I didn't know that what I was doing was using the subjunctive until I started learning French in middle school. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll agree with that observation. I had heard the word subjunctive, but it wasn't until I took French in high school that I actually started understanding what things like that and pluperfect meant.

To get a better grip on the subjunctive, consider these alternatives:

Indicative, dealing with facts in the past:

• I won the lottery. John asked if I won the lottery on Monday, or Tuesday.
• I am rich. John wanted to know if I was rich due to my investments or an inheritance.

Subjunctive, dealing with non-facts in the present/future:

• I haven't won the lottery. If I won the lottery some day, I would buy a boat. But I don't buy tickets.
• I am not rich. If I were rich, I would lend you the money you need. But I am not.

μηδείς (talk) 17:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the subjunctive is not a topic addressed in school grammar lessons in the United States. Medeis is right that, although were is a past-tense form, it deals with "non-facts" in the present. However, there is also a present-tense subjunctive form in English, which is identical with the infinitive, used after verbal phrases stating requirement or certainty, e.g., "I insist that he wear his uniform" or "It is imperative that it be finished by the end of the day." There is also a way to express non-facts in the past, using pluperfect forms: e.g., "If I hadn't won the lottery, I would not buy this boat." Marco polo (talk) 17:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The version of that last example that seems to be gaining ground is "If I wouldn't have won the lottery, I would not buy this boat". I despise it, but there you are. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I sense that except in the case of "to be", the subjunctive mood is disappearing. Even where it is correct, people work to navigate around it. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian pronounciation

Could a linguist or an egyptologist please give me some advice , which are those still living and spoken languages , which might help to try to reconstruct ancient Egyptian pronounciation ??

I have already one-one basic audio CD about Hebrew ( Ivrit ) , Amharic , Tuareg and Hausa.

There is in process a purchase of a CD of the Oromo language too.

Are there any languages , which may help ??

Maybe Somalic ??

Or Kisuaheli , which is though not an afroasiatic language but as far as I know has some afroasiatic loan-words.Istvancsiszar1969 (talk) 13:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

You want to stick to the languages that are closest to ancient Egyptian. The starting point for any reconstruction of the ancient Egyptian language has to be the Coptic language, whose pronunciation is better known than that of earlier forms of Egyptian because its script includes vowels. Most Afroasiatic linguists consider the closest relatives of Egyptian to be the Chadic or Berber languages, though any common ancestor of these would have been spoken at least 7,000 years ago. You won't be able to make any valid, direct deductions about the pronunciation of ancient Egyptian from the pronunciation of modern Afroasiatic languages, since their pronunciation has certainly diverged far, probably in different directions, from any tongue ancestral to Egyptian (as has Coptic pronunciation). The methods accepted by linguists are the comparative method and internal reconstruction. The comparative method would require you to consider the phonology of as many known languages in each Afroasiatic subfamily as possible in order to reconstruct the proto-language of each of those families (for example, proto-Berber and proto-Chadic). You would also need to study the work of Egyptologists, who have used data such as transcriptions of Egyptian words and names in other ancient languages at various dates, as well as internal reconstruction, to reconstruct varieties of Egyptian earlier than Coptic. Then, by applying the comparative method to the earliest variety of Egyptian supported by these data and to the reconstructed proto-languages of kindred Afroasiatic subfamilies, it might be possible to reconstruct the phonology of a parent language shared by these Afroasiatic subfamilies. This reconstruction might assist in the reconstruction of earlier varieties of Egyptian than are supported by the documentary evidence. Much of this work has already been done, and there is no point in your starting from scratch. Instead, you want to study historical linguistic methods, then study the existing historical linguistic literature on the Afroasiatic languages, which will have applied the comparative method in many of the ways I've suggested. Then you might consider how to take these methods a step further. Marco polo (talk) 15:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

A considerable complication is that the Egyptian language (even disregarding Coptic and focussing on pre-Christian times) was spoken over a span of more than 2000 years, during which the pronunciation and other aspects of the language (such as the grammar) changed pretty radically. For comparison, 2000 years ago, much of Europe and Northern Africa was ruled by the Romans under the emperor Tiberius, and modern Romance languages such as French or Spanish did not exist yet, only regional dialects of spoken Latin. English did not exist yet, either, only some early form of Germanic ancestral to it, similar to what is found in early runic inscriptions. You should keep in mind that Old Egyptian, Middle Egyptian, Late Egyptian and Demotic are quite different in pronunciation. Egyptian language#Phonology has some general information, but if you are interested in the pronunciation of specific words, you'd better consult an Egyptologist. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Iustinus (talk · contribs) is not very active on en.wiki, but he would certainly be able to help you out here. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

This is, indeed, a pet topic of mine, but I'm not really clear on what you're asking. Feel free to contact me directly. --Iustinus (talk) 00:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Traps in action

Bombs go off and you can set off a bomb. What does a trap do? --Pxos (talk) 17:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Same. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 17:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

One can spring a trap (or a surprise), as well. Tevildo (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Irrelevant conversation about Slinkies
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
And the oddities of English being what they are, you can seal a Slinky into a box, which is trapping a spring. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC) Sufferin' succotash, Bugs! StevenJ81 (talk) 21:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC) User:Baseball Bugs, Not much fun sealing a Slinky into a box, because they don't behave the same when you kick them down the stairs. Wives are more fun because they bounce, and you can pick them up and keep doing it until the football comes on TV. Then when she wakes up from her unconsciousness, you can get her to make you a sandwich. Always worked with my ex-wife. Lovely sandwiches, shame about the wife. KägeTorä - (影虎) (もしもし！) 00:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Where I come from, we don't consider wife-beating jokes to be funny. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Where I come from, User:Baseball Bugs, we don't consider a Slinky to be a productive form of entertainment. KägeTorä - (影虎) (もしもし！) 06:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Do you really have Slinkies over there? I remember them from about fifty years ago as a coiled spring which you could position at the top of a staircase and it would walk down to the bottom. They were a short - lived fad like hula hoops and pogo sticks. 80.43.198.251 (talk) 10:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC) I'm in the UK, mate, same as you. You can still buy Slinkies (and hula-hoops and pogo sticks). I just never had any of them. KägeTorä - (影虎) (もしもし！) 16:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Can one say "trap some crap"? If yes, could someone create a little collapsible box, put in some of the banter above and throw away the key? Thanks. --Pxos (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

You could also trigger a trap. StuRat (talk) 16:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

You can trigger a bomb, as well. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 16:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

You can also set up us the bomb.--Shirt58 (talk) 01:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

August 5

"The Assyrian", "The Hun", etc

"The Assyrian came down like the wolf on the fold", as Byron put it. I'm not quite sure in this case if "The Assyrian" means the Assyrians collectively, or the commander of this army, but I've definitely seen other cases where the singular form of a demonym has been used to refer to the people collectively. The most common example I can think of is "The Hun" (used both for the actual Huns, and WWI-era Germans), and in older works I've occasionally seen "The Turk" as well. I have three questions related to this:

1) Is there a term for this particular way of refering to a people?

2) Are there any other peoples that are commonly refered to this way?

3) All the examples I've seen have been (from the perspective of the writer) references to aggressive, marauding foreigners. Is this form ever used positively, or is it only ever used to describe threatening Others?

Iapetus (talk) 10:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a name for it, but the most common example I can think of is "the Jew". Adam Bishop (talk) 10:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, of course. I forgot that one. And it continues the pattern of being perjorative. Iapetus (talk) 11:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There is a certain ambivalence in the use of the definite article. Portugal got it's name from the Latin portus (port) plus cale (whatever that means). It's second city is Porto, "port" in Portuguese, but it is linked to the definite article, thus ha vinhos no Porto, "there are wines in Oporto". Again, mora no Brasil, "he lives in Brazil". Some countries take the article, some don't. The same is seen in English. Some Ukrainians get upset when we talk about "the Ukraine" rather than "Ukraine" as they think it condescending. We can choose between constructions such as "the Argentine" as opposed to "Argentina". 80.43.198.251 (talk) 11:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Here is the origin of "Portugal".[12] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}

carrots→ 12:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything disrespectful in this. One can easily say "the Arab", "the Frank", "the Goth", "the Moor" etc. It's just a grammatical construction. 80.43.198.251 (talk) 11:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Bugs,that's very interesting. There is a place in Portugal called Vila Nova de Gaia, vila being the Portuguese word for "town" and nova meaning "new". It's where the wine lodges are, on the banks of the Douro ("river of gold") so it will be a suburb of Oporto. 80.43.198.251 (talk) 13:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Actuallly, 80.43...., I think this is just about always pejorative and disrespectful—when the demonym is used, capitalized, as a noun, after "The". (When the same demonym is used as an attributive adjective, and it's a reasonable adjective form, that's not necessarily true.) One is personifying a whole people as one vague, non-specific individual, and people just don't do that when they're being respectful. You will sometimes see such a construction in sociological, historical, anthropological settings. Even here, if it's not quite outright disrespectful, there's still an air of "looking down at" the object. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

As with Mel Brooks' song in one of his films: "The Inquisition / Let's begin / The Inquisition / Look out, sin / We're on a mission / To convert The Jew..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

A more recent example is that the Argentinian forces in the 1982 Falklands War were collectively known to the British as "the Arge" (definitely not respectful). News of their surrender was transmitted by the phrase "The Arge have folded!" (still looking for a ref). Alansplodge (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• This is simply the collective nominalized adjective: e.g., "the rich and the poor". There's certainly no offense grievance mongering necessary. Many languages allow the singular (Spanish El gordo "the fat one") but English usually requires a dummy one in the singular, without the one the term is usually understood as plural. μηδείς (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

This is an example of synecdoche, and specifically singularis pro plurali (i.e., the singular stands for the plural); see Mey, Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics. Mey notes that ""Particularizing synecdoches like the 'foreigner,' the 'Jew,' and the 'American' serve stereotypical generalization and essentialization, which refer in a leveling manner to a whole group of persons." It can in principle be used to refer to any people, and it is not necessarily pejorative; Mey gives the example "The Swiss is industrious." John M Baker (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

"The Swiss is industrious" would be a compliment to a Swiss national. I don't see why a phrase like "The Eskimo are a resourceful people" should be regarded as demeaning. 80.43.198.251 (talk) 20:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

This question is about "The Eskimo is... " not about "The Eskimo are ... ". Both are grammatical, but in modern usage there's a huge difference in connotation. --ColinFine (talk)

Here's a newspaper article from 1934, referring a handful of times to "the aborigine", in the sense of "aborigines generally". That paternalistic-sounding usage has very much gone out of favour in Australia. I've seen it used in relation to other indigenous peoples, and non-whites were generally fair game. It always sounds as if what is true for one particular individual is seen to be true for their entire race. But nobody would say that of white people, so it has an inherently racist tinge. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Who am I to argue with Mey? Want me to concede the point in principle? Fine. In practice, such usage is out of favor in the US, just as Jack described for Australia. I would add the following:

• In current US usage (but not necessarily in UK usage) we would normally say "The Swiss are industrious." The verb pluralizes the subject, which takes it out of generalization we are discussing. And 80's second example (which probably needs to be "Eskimos" anyway) has (a) a plural verb and (b) explicitly describes the Eskimos as a people, again, taking it out of the generalization.

But want me to yield to Mey? Fine. StevenJ81 (talk) 23:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Nobody? Seriously? You can easily find phrasings such as "the white (man)". It's no more or less racist to make generalisations using "The white/aborigine ..." rather than "Whites/aborigines ...". --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

"The Englishman is a rabid nationalist." (Ralph Miliband) Oh noes, Miliband must've been racist against himself! Seriously, these sound like counter-examples to Jack's assertion to me. The racist tinge is in the generalisation, not in the metonymic phrasing (which is merely old-fashioned). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

There is one interesting case, that of the Maori (native people of New Zealand). In the Maori language, plurals are expressed in the singular form, eg. waka can be either 'canoe' or 'canoes', marae is either one ceremonial meeting ground or multiple meeting grounds. This distinction is retained when writing Maori words in formal New Zealand English documents, ie. one doesn't (or shouldn't) write 'wakas' or 'maraes'. And so it also is with 'Maori' itself, which can mean either one individual, or two, or twenty, or a whole tribe (iwi) or even the entire Maori population of the country. If one sees or hears 'the Maori' when the context means multiple individuals, it's implicit that the entire population is being referred to, and unlike the other examples on this page, there can be no connotation attached such as there might be in those cases, since the correct form is being used. Akld guy (talk) 05:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Ralph Miliband of course was not a native Englishman and was speaking from experience I believe. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Not relevant
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Interesting. I once wrote an article on Edward Iwi, but he was not a Maori. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 06:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC) @JackofOz: I fail to see the connection. Is that meant to be funny? Akld guy (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC) @Akld guy: No, I never joke about my important work for the submerged log company. It's just that "iwi" is such a curious word that it caught my eye. I even once checked out - on this very desk - the ethnic origin of my friend Edward Iwi before writing the article, because it certainly isn't English but I couldn't pin it down. Maori was one of the possibilities that crossed my mind at the time (see the ref desk question here). I'm sorry for having created a diversion, but I didn't anticipate much or any response to my marginalium about Edward Iwi. I'll draw a discrete veil over this interlude. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

August 6

"Canadian-based" or "Canada-based"?

Would one describe a company based in Canada as "Canada-based" or "Canadian-based"? I believe it should be "Canadian based" but User:Largoplazo disagrees. Can someone please tell us which is correct and provide a reliable source? I've found a source here which says "some people get it wrong with nations and use the noun form when they should be using the adjectival form, so say things – incorrectly – like "Britain-based company". It should be British-based company, Swiss-based company, French-based company (not Britain-based, Switzerland-based, France-based etc)" but Largo rejects the source and the argument.Horatio Bumblebee (talk) 04:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

You two have a content dispute. Keep it on the article talk page where it belongs. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm looking for some grammar advice and hopefully reliable sources. This is the place to go with grammar and language questions, isn't it? Horatio Bumblebee (talk) 05:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

What have you found on the internet otherwise? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

That's not a very helpful response. He's come here for an authoritative answer, he's under no obligation to go looking for himself first. To the OP: you are right, this is the place for such questions. --Viennese Waltz 12:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Since when is Wikipedia "authoritative" an anything? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

All this assumes there is a definitive, correct answer to this. I'm not so sure there is. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, I'm not sure there is a definitive answer. But in my opinion (a professional opinion, as a writer), I would use either "a Canada-based company" or "a Canadian company".    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 13:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

It's similar to the issue of whether "English footballer" or "England footballer" is correct. In my day, the former was used, but it's now nearly always the latter.--Phil Holmes (talk) 13:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

In that case, Phil, wouldn't it depend in part on whether you were referring to the nationality of the footballer or the fact that he plays for England's national side? StevenJ81 (talk) 13:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

And, by the way, I'd agree with Michael J. But I'm not sure I could go so far as to say that "Canadian-based" is wrong. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Please see my reasoning against it at User talk:Largoplazo#Canadian-based. If it's been established through usage and that fact has been recognized in style guides and the like, it's one thing, but otherwise there's no rationale for it. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The word based refers to the location of the firm, not its ownership. The firm is based in Canada, so it is Canada-based. It is not based in Canadian. Incidentally, I think English footballer vs. England footballer is an unrelated issue. An English footballer is any footballer with an English nationality, whether he plays for Manchester United or Real Madrid. Probably because of the internationalization of the sport, the term England footballer has come to refer to a footballer playing on England's national team, not just any English footballer. However, a firm based in England would be an English firm, not an England firm. Likewise, a firm based in Canada is a Canadian firm. Still, that firm is Canada-based. Marco polo (talk) 14:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I think Canada-based is wrong as per this explanation because "Canada" is not an adjective. "Canadian company" is perfectly correct but "Canadian-based" is also perfectly correct and is in fact used by both the government and quality newspapers such as the Globe and Mail e.g. "New faces, new hopes for Canadian-based NHL clubs" [13] Globe and Mail and "CANADIAN-BASED MULTINATIONALS: AN ANALYSIS OF ACTIVITIES AND PERFORMANCE"[14] Industry Canada (Government of Canada), and I also see it's used in the New York Times and by Associated Press e.g. "Of the five Canadian-based teams in the postseason, Montreal was the last to be eliminated. The Canadiens, in 1993, were the last team from Canada to win the Cup." in "Revival by Steven Stamkos Puts Lightning in East Finals"[15]. Horatio Bumblebee (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

"It's similar to the issue of whether "English footballer" or "England footballer"" - wouldn't the difference there be that "England" is also the name of the national football team so saying "England footballer"? It would be the same as saying "Manchester United footballer" but I don't think you'd ever say British Leyland is an "England company" or that it's a "Britain-based" company as opposed to "British based". Horatio Bumblebee (talk) 14:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC) I don't see the value of again citing the same source by an author who arrives at his conclusion, not by reference to any observations of accepted usage, but through his own reasoning, after I've shot that reasoning full of holes and demonstrated that logically it leads to the opposite of the conclusion that he arrived at. I also don't see why the reasoning of that other arbitrary person is compelling to you and why you feel it's fine for it to be included in this discussion, while reasoning from me is to be dismissed as "original research". —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

"after I've shot that reasoning full of holes" i.e. original research. The problem is you can't cite a source to support your reasoning other than yourself. Horatio Bumblebee (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Basic logic and the ability to discern nonsense isn't "research". I wonder where you got the idea that you can cite any source you like and not have whether it qualifies as a reliable one subject to scrutiny other than by playing dueling sources. See my earlier analogy, on my talk page, with plurals of nouns. If you found a web page out there that claimed that the plural of "spoon" is anything other than "spoons", no, there would be no burden on me to find a source that anticipated that foolish claim and said, explicitly, "By the way, if you ever see someone claim that the plural of "spoon" is anything other than "spoons", it's incorrect." —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Then cite a source that supports your position. Horatio Bumblebee (talk) 06:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

In case anyone was wondering, the article in question is EasyDNS. I see that another editor has recently attempted to neutralize the dispute by changing the wording to "Canadian" and omitting the "-based". Personally I don't like either "Canada-based" or "Canadian-based", not because one or the other of them is wrong but for stylistic reasons. It's trying to pack too much into the sentence. It would be better to write "...an internet service provider based in Canada, which supplies..." I repeat, I prefer this option not because it avoids the dispute, but because it reads better. --Viennese Waltz 14:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

We have Canadian bacon and Canada geese. I'm not sure there's truly a "right" answer, but convention would suggest "a Canadian company" as you say. The "based" part seems superfluous. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The reason I wrote "Canadian-based" rather than "Canadian" is the company is based in Canada but operates internationally. "Canadian company" may imply that they only operate in Canada.Horatio Bumblebee (talk) 17:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Then follow the example of other articles about international companies, and call it a Canadian international company or an international company based in Canada, the latter being VW's good suggestion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

For example BP is called a "British multinational company". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that people who go looking for rules are on a fool's errand. Before 1982 the word "Argentinian" denoted "pertaining to Argentina". Then the word "Argentine" served for both the country and its inhabitants. People don't talk according to rule, they talk according to convenience. 80.43.218.51 (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

present perfect tense

What does the author intend to convey by using the present perfect tense in the following context? "A bad reader is like a bad translator. In learning to read well, scholarship, valuable as it is, is less important than instinct; some great scholars have been poor translators." Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.210.17 (talk) 08:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

It conveys the fact that he may be talking about both past and present scholars. If he had written "some great scholars were poor translators", that restricts it to past scholars. If, on the other hand, he had written "some great scholars are poor translators", that restricts it to present scholars. This way, both past and present scholars are included in the statement. --Viennese Waltz 09:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Very well put. μηδείς (talk) 17:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Apostrophe s

Are St James' Park and St. James's Park pronounced in the same way or differently? Thanks, --Komischn (talk) 11:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I would pronounce James' as "JAYMS", but James's as "JAYM-zes". — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable (I would've intuitively done the same). But can anyone explain the double genitive to me? I recently wondered about St. James's Park on my own talk page (go to the very bottom of the section). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

There is some material of relevance at John Wells's phonetic blog. --Theurgist (talk) 17:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

How can you have a double genitive? There is a St James's Church in Paddington and a St James' Church in Chipping Campden. The difference is in the pronunciation, not the duality of the possessive. 80.43.218.51 (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

See double genitive: that's how. But that is not what's happening with James's. The head word "James" is neither genitive nor plural, it just happens to end with an -s. There's a convention that singular nouns ending in -s are possessivised by adding an apostrophe only, not -'s, but there are many exceptions. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

There's also a convention that singular nouns ending in -s are possessivized by adding -'s just the same as other nouns. This is recommended by Strunk and White with a few exceptions. --Amble (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but please pay attention. I'm talking about possessivisation, and you've gone off onto a completely unrelated tangent, possessivization.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not a tangent, it's just that you now can go back to the OP's question and work out whether St(.) James has been possessivised or possessivized in each case. --Amble (talk) 01:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• To directly answer Florian Blaschke' question above, James is the nominative singular, like Jacobus, it just happens to end in ess in English. James's is a normal, not a double genitive. μηδείς (talk) 01:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

When I was a mere youth, lo! these many years ago, singulars ending in s might still be possessivized here in the States with just an apostrophe, per Jack's comment above. But I have come to understand that in the States, the convention has now swung strongly in the direction suggested by Strunk, White and Amble—namely, s's. StevenJ81 (talk) 01:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

What do they say about Moses's, Jesus's, Croesus's, rhesus's, Isis's, Perseus's, Tarsus's, faeces's, grocers's, juices's, nooses's, et al? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Have you seen English possessive#Nouns and noun phrases and Apostrophe#Singular nouns ending with an “s” or “z” sound? Classical names such as Jesus, Moses, Augustus, Pappus, Pythagoras, Thales, Socrates, Xerxes etc. are exceptions, but whether James is included is unclear – it's probably not, because James comes via Old French, not (Anglo-)Latin (and ultimately via Ancient Greek from Hebrew), unlike Jacobus. James is not a nominative singular because a nominative case does not exist in English (unlike in Old French). (Plurals are treated the same as classical names, hence faeces', grocers', etc.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 09:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Since when does a nominative case not exist in English? Have the experts yet again decided among themselves to restructure our language and not tell us users about it? Are you referring only to nouns, or to pronouns as well? If I, you, he, she, it, we and they are not nominative, what are they? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

My understanding is that even the monosyllabic Zeus is included in these exceptions, hence Zeus', not Zeus's. Is this correct? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I refer you, without comment about agreement or correctness, to Possessive: St. James's/James'/James Park? | WordReference Forums.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

From that blog, Spira's comment (eighth from above) "Although we continue to pronounce it as though the second S was present" one might conclude that both variants are pronounced the same way, i. e. "JAYM-zes", whereas Smuconlaw's first answer names two different pronunciations. Native speakers here? --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 11:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

There is some information about the pronunciation of St James' Park in our article, at St James' Park#Name. DuncanHill (talk) 11:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I can see how people construe a double genitive, claiming that St James's Park is the park of the church of St James, but if we consider the churchyard, is there any evidence that people think "Oh my, this is the yard of the church of St James, so I must call it "St James's churchyard", rather than (St James' church) yard? This argument seems to me to be of the "I know that he knows that I know" variety. The internet seems to not like even single genitives - if you type http://www.sainsbury's.co.uk into your browser you will not get Sainsbury's website, but if you type http://www.sainsburys.co.uk in you will. 78.149.204.165 (talk) 13:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

To pronounce "St James'" as anything other than "St James's" sounds rather affected to me. DuncanHill (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Then your version of St. James Infirmary Blues would sound really funny! - Nunh-huh 13:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

St James is not the same as St James'! St James Infirmary is not the same as St James' Infirmary. Punctuation matters. DuncanHill (talk) 14:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

By one of those coincidences which have to be seen to be believed, someone left a business card on the table which I picked up, and inscribed thereon was:

.... Cleaning Services Ltd

.... House, 278-280 St James's Road, London, SE1 5JX

Can we just accept that there is no rule and leave it at that? 78.149.204.165 (talk) 17:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Curse words against the Virgin Mary in English?

Does English have any curse words against the Virgin Mary? Is "Marry!" in Romeo and Juliet a Marian oath? Is it as bad as curse words against God? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you tell us ignorami where that appears in R & J? As to cursing Mother Mary, I can't say I've ever heard any, but maybe it's a different situation in England. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

In Romeo and Juliet opening scene, one guy was saying "Marry!" A quick Google search suggests that the usage is a corruption of "By Mary" to avoid the statute of profanity. I am wondering whether there are more marian oaths. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I have heard "mother of God", "Mary mother of God" and "Jesus Mary and Joseph" used as profanity in English. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:OR I hear those too, all over the USA. I profanity is an odd concept. Usage in "a way that shows you do not respect God or holy things" is of course very subjective. A preacher may say "Jesus! Thank you for blessing me with this beautiful view", and be fine, but if I say "Jesus! That hurt!" it's a little murkier. Maybe I'm praying, or maybe I'm taking the lord's name in vain. My point is, "Jesus, Mary and Joseph" can be used in away to make an exclamation seem less blasphemous. I don't know if the God of Christians agrees or not, but the idea is that one is then invoking a holy family, not just blurting out a name as an expletive/curse/oath. "Mother of God!" as an expletive comes out more like a good old-fashioned blasphemous curse. Recently, there's a whole "Mother of God" rage comic image that gets used fairly frequently, see [16]. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Our Bloody article says: 'One theory is that it derives from the phrase by Our Lady, a sacrilegious invocation of the Virgin Mary. The abbreviated form By'r Lady is common in Shakespeare's plays around the turn of the 17th century, and interestingly Jonathan Swift about 100 years later writes both "it grows by'r Lady cold" and "it was bloody hot walking to-day" suggesting that a transition from one to the other could have been under way. In the middle of the 19th century Anne Brontë writes in The Tenant of Wildfell Hall: "I went to see him once or twice – nay, twice or thrice – or, by'r lady, some four times"' Alansplodge (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

In answer to the second part of your question, the Reformation in England effectively ended the veneration of the Virgin Mary until the 19th century Catholic revival, so using her name in profanity would have appeared less grave to a 17th ot 18th century English Protestant than to a Catholic. The examples quoted by Adam Bishop above have an Irish ring about them (to my ears anyway). Alansplodge (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(multiple) Yes, the OED regards the oath "marry" as obsolete, but gives the definition "expressing surprise, astonishment, outrage, etc., or used to give emphasis to one's words" with cites from 1375 to 1960. It's an oath rather than a curse, and there is a suggestion that it was originally "by St Mary of Egypt" (see Mary of Egypt) rather than the wife of Joseph. Adam's and Alan's examples above are common and would be "Marian oaths". The usage is indeed a euphemistic form, but predates the Profane Swearing Acts of 1623 and 1694. Dbfirs 21:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Madre de Deus is an exclamation in Portuguese which means literally "mother of God". Whether it offends the proscription "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain" is a moot point. If it doesn't it's no more objectionable than the Italian Mama mia or the English "Gordon Bennett!". 80.43.232.241 (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

August 7

Chinese exonym for the American continent

What was the oldest historical Chinese exonym for the Americas? Before Gold Mountain (金山). During the time of the Spanish China trade in the Philippines or the Portuguese trade with the Ming Dynasty. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

[Wikipedia has an article "Gold Mountain (Chinese name for part of North America)".—Wavelength (talk) 15:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)]

I knew of its existence already.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Luau in British English

I looked this word up in my Oxford English Dictionary, and didn't find it: [17] !

So, is this just an oversight, or is this word genuinely unknown in British English ? If so, what do they call a Hawaiian or Polynesian-themed party ? Or, do they just never have those, ever ? StuRat (talk) 21:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

See http://www.onelook.com/?w=luau for definitions in many dictionaries, including British ones.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Oxford says "This word or phrase is not in this dictionary, but is in the Oxford Advanced American Dictionary". That seems to support it not being considered part of Br.E. StuRat (talk) 22:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Collins English Dictionary has http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/luau,

and Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary has http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/luau.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

You didn't look it up in the full Oxford English Dictionary: this entry (which you may need a subscription to access, or a visit to a library to read). There are two definitions, added in 1976: one for the party or feast and one for the cooked dish. You are correct that the word is rare in British English, appearing almost exclusively in books about Hawaii and Hawaiian cooking. Dbfirs 07:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The second definition (a type of meal) is unknown to me, and, I suspect, most Americans. Only the Hawaiian-themed party meaning seems to have made it into US English in a big way. StuRat (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I've never heard of it, and I suspect that if anybody over here ever had a "Hawaiian or Polynesian-themed party" they would probably call it just that. As for the dish, I've never heard of it either, but then I doubt that you'd find stargazy pie in many American dictionaries. Alansplodge (talk) 17:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Partially supporting and partially contradicting my hypothesis, I found this UK website which describes itself as a "specialist Hawaiian Theme Party online shop" and although it does mention the word "laua". I'd be astonished if many of its readers knew what it meant or how to pronounce it. Alansplodge (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

You don't get Hawaii Five-O or Hawaii Five-0 over there? Criminal! Book'em Danno. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Surely you've seen Blue Hawaii on one of its thousands of repeat screenings? Even I have done so. Admittedly, they've now given way to the thousands of repeat screenings of Adam Sandler movies, and movies with the word "Wedding" in the title - strangely, often the same movies. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I've never seen Blue Hawaii and Hawaii Five-O had a certain popularity in the 1970s, but you'll have to trust me that Hawaii does not figure highly in British culture; except maybe Hawaiian pizza or those lurid shirts worn by middle-aged-men-who-should-know-better. Perhaps another British editor might be able to contradict me, but we used to have enough exotic colonies of our own. Alansplodge (talk) 10:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Hawaii was never a British colony, but James Cook is generally accepted as its first European discoverer (hence the Union Jack in their flag). Cook named Hawaii the "Sandwich Islands", which was weirdly prophetic, because the Hawaiians made mincemeat of him. Literally. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 13:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Literally? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I always choose my words carefully. See this film, from about 1.34:00 to 1.37:00. It seems he was surrounded by about 2 dozen Hawaiians with spears, and was subjected to the full force of their rage for close to 3 minutes. Maybe not his entire body, but his back was certainly converted into mincemeat. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

British editor here, happy to agree with Alansplodge rather than contradict him. Bazza (talk) 15:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

August 8

Honesty demands that...

How to understand "Honesty demands that he describe it to his readers."? Does it mean that he should describe it to his readers honestly? The context is: "So long as a man writes poetry or fiction, his dream of Eden is his own business, but the moment he starts writing literary criticism, honesty demands that he decribe it to his readers, so that they may be in the position to judge his judgements." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.237.6 (talk) 04:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

"Does it mean that he should describe it to his readers honestly?" No, it means that the honest thing to do is to explain or justify his criticism. That is, he should expand on it by giving a point by point analysis to his readers so they can understand why he is condemning or praising. That is the honest thing to do. It would be dishonest and a disservice to the writer of the work he's reviewing to simply pass judgement without explanation. Akld guy (talk) 08:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

As I read it, the antecedent of "it" is not "literary criticism" but "dream of Eden". In other words, the writer of criticism needs to explicitly describe his idea of what makes for good fiction or poetry. Deor (talk) 11:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The nearest antecedent to "it" is "literary criticism", if we discount "honesty" which is plainly not intended. Akld guy (talk) 12:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

"Nearest antecedent" doesn't apply here because that implies that "it" has multiple antecedents in this sentence. It doesn't. It has one. The question here is which one thing in the sentence is the antecedent of "it". It's "dream of Eden", the thing that the opposition in the sentence is about: Under one set of circumstances, the "dream of Eden" is "his own business"; under another, he is obliged to "describe it to his readers". —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The trouble is that describing one's "dream of Eden" could well require a book of its own (or an entire library of books). And what good would that do anyway, unless it's related to the text in question? No, I agree with User:Akld guy here. The critic cannot just come out with "This book is rubbish", or "This novel is a waste of time", without explaining why. Criticism is more an educative process than one of belittlement. So, the critic is duty bound to mention the boxes he felt unable to tick and how they fell short. That would be an act of describing his criticism, not merely being pejorative. I say this not because it's the nearest antecedent, but because it makes the most sense to me on sober reflection.

Ironically, the facts that this sentence even required sober reflection, and that we band of siblings here at the ref desk are debating its meaning, mean it is not as clearly written as it could be. It can do with some literary criticism of its own. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

But it doesn't make sense. "... the moment he starts writing literary criticism, honesty demands that he decribe it to his readers". Point #1 to make here is that the sentence doesn't say "explain", as you worded it, it says "describe". As for describing: I start writing an article on literary criticism—and honesty demands that I describe my literary criticism? I'm giving you my critique; how do I also "describe" it, apart from what's already in it? I also don't see why it would take a whole book for a literary critic to summarize where he's coming from. And your interpretation leaves the whole "dream of Eden" mention just hanging there unresolved, when it's pretty clear, to me at least, that it was supposed to be the focus of the whole sentence. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I gave two examples of a literary criticism that does not describe, it just asserts. As I see it, the first part of the sentence is about someone writing poetry or fiction (So long as a man writes poetry or fiction, his dream of Eden is his own business). He remains within his own private universe, he makes his own rules, and he does not need to state what those rules are. That's why his dream of Eden is his own business.

The next part (... but the moment he starts writing literary criticism, honesty demands that he decribe [sic] it to his readers, so that they may be in the position to judge his judgements). That is, he is now engaged in discussing, nay judging, another author's work. He has to write his own words in order to do this, but the focus is now external. Nobody can ever say that a poem is "wrong" or that a piece of fiction does not truly represent what was in the author's mind. But when it comes to criticism of another's writing, there has to be a basis beyond just the Ebertian "I hated this book. Hated, hated, hated ... it". And that basis has to be stated in some way, so that readers of the criticism can understand where the critic is coming from, and can either agree or disagree with the criticism. Nobody can ever disagree with "I hated this book". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with Deor: otherwise why mention "dream of Eden" at all? But I see less dichotomy here than some do. —Tamfang (talk) 05:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• I too agree with Deor, and see nothing unclear in the sentence. DuncanHill (talk) 10:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The quotation is from "The Dyer's Hand" by W H Auden, incidentally, following directly from the "corrective discipline" passage in the OP's previous question. Reading up on the passage, it would appear that Auden intended "it" to refer to the "dream of Eden", in agreement with Deor's interpretation. Tevildo (talk) 23:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

It would appear that "it would appear" really means "I think". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 13:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

If you prefer, "other published authors who have commented on Auden's work have interpreted "it" as referring to "dream of Eden"." I also consider that "dream of Eden" is the only realistic referent, but this only goes to support Auden's thesis that all criticism is subjective. Tevildo (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The phrasing "Honesty demands..." always seemed to me to be a personification of honesty. Long ago, human attributes were often personified as various gods, goddesses, muses, etc. So, in this case, "Honesty" is pictured as a deity of some type, which is requiring that humans be honest. Of course, this isn't to be taken literally today, but rather symbolically. StuRat (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

English transcription

What is he saying at around 05:17?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlDeIZ0On_k

"?*! at university" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.157.90.195 (talk) 09:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it's "timeouts", but I wouldn't put money on it. Tevildo (talk) 09:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it fits. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.157.90.195 (talk) 10:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

"Thammasat University" In context: "When I first came to Bangkok, I would hear this music being played every morning. And, I heard it was like the advert for Ovaltine, because it sounded just like the way that it used to be advertised in England. But like in, say Thammasat University or in the streets, people would just stop in the tracks when they play it over the loudspeakers. [Laughs] Everyday, it's twice a day." Robert T. Edison (the speaker) is discussing เพลงชาติไทย (Phleng Chat Thai), the Thai National Anthem. -- ToE 23:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Demonym - Englishman, Frenchman, Spaniard, Scotsman, etc.

Why are some demonyms so gender-specific and others not? There are Englishman, Scotsman, Welshman, Frenchman, and Chinaman. Then, there are German man, Russian man, Korean man, and American man. Note the latter list has spaces between the ethnic demonyms and gender. Why? What accounts for the difference? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 01:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

You have used the wrong demonyms: English, French, Scottish, Welsh and Chinese.
Sleigh (talk) 12:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Why are they wrong? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 13:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Damn. @Sleigh, all these years, I have getting famous joke formula wrong. So it should be "An English, an Irish, and a Scottish walk into a bar...."? KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 14:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

FWIW "Scot" is correct. Collect (talk) 15:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

How is "Atlas V" pronounced predominantly in the Space Community?

Do most professionals at NASA, SpaceX, JPL, etc. say "Atlas five" or "Atlas vee"? 75.75.42.89 (talk) 01:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The former. Here is a video of last month's Atlas V launch where you can hear the ULA launch announcer pronounce it "Atlas Five" a few seconds in. -- ToE 01:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

That would be consistent with the Saturn V ("Saturn Five") rockets which launched the Apollo Moon missions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I heard people talking about the "George and Ivy" pub and thought it was something like George and Mildred, which must be the funniest TV comedy show which ever aired. Walking one day I noticed the pub, and when I saw the picture on the inn sign I realised it was the "George IV". That reminds me that the only thing I remember of my parents' conversations when I was very, very young was them mentioning "The Spring - Green Lady". I wondered a lot about who she might be, then we moved away from the village and many years later, while consulting a hotel directory, I saw the village mentioned and right there was the name "The Spring - Green Lady". It turned out that this was the name of an inn or pub. 80.44.166.96 (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Case Assignment in Fused Relatives Cross-Linguistically

In languages that have fused relatives where the relative words inflect for case, how does case assignment generally work? For example, I found a source that says in German, if the matrix and relative clauses assign the same case (or two different cases where there is syncretism), then use that inflection, otherwise look at the two cases assigned according to this order: Nominative - Accusitive - Dative - Genitive. If the relative clause assigns the case farther to the right, that case wins, but if the matrix clause assigns the case farther to the right, the construction is syntactically blocked. In English, there seem to be two camps: those who say the relative clause always governs, and those who say that conflict blocks the construction entirely in formal style (though informal style can always use "whoever", of course). So my question is a little open ended: is what I said above correct for German? What is the data for for English? (I understand there probably isn't a clear answer for English due to the moribund status of "whomever", but a survey of variation in actual usage should still be possible.) What was the rule in Latin? In Old English? In other languages where this issue arises? 2601:645:8101:54AA:B4AF:9577:4284:3EC7 (talk) 01:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I imagine the lack of responses means everyone else is having as much trouble as I am figuring out what this means...could you give us some example sentences to help us understand? Adam Bishop (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for being unclear. By "fused relative" I mean a construction like "what you want" in "what you want is impossible to get". These are sometimes also called "free relatives" or "nominal relatives". The word "what" doesn't inflect for case, but if it did the matrix clause (with verb "is") would indicate nominative while the relative clause (with verb "want") would indicate accusative. I'm asking how different languages resolve this conflict. In English it only comes up with "who(m)ever" - as in "I will tell who(m)ever asks", where "who(m)ever" is subject of ask but also head of a construction that is object of "tell". I'm more curious what the rule is in languages other than English (since English speakers don't really have a native intuition here). For example the source I found for German says *"Ich folge (wem/wen) ich bewundere" ("I follow whomever I adore") is ungrammatical with both dative "wem" and accusative "wen" because the matrix verb "folge" wants the dative while the relative verb "bewundere" wants the accusative, and the construction is syntactically blocked because the relative "loses" to the matrix. But "Wen Maria mag wird eingeladen" ("Who(m)ever Maria likes is invited") is grammatical because the relative clause selects accusative and the matrix clause selects nominative and accusative "beats" nominative when selected by the relative clause. I'm asking whether that's an accurate account of German and also how it works in other languages where this is an issue. (I did some research and it looks like - if I understand - Old English uses a special indeclinable word for fused relatives so maybe Old English isn't relevant here). 2601:645:8101:54AA:99C1:99FB:B2C8:162C (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I found http://www-01.sil.org/linguistics/glossaryoflinguisticterms/WhatIsAMatrixSentence.htm and "English relative clause#Fused relative constructions". I am guessing that most languages do not have fused relatives. If I remember correctly, Japanese does not even have relative pronouns. (See http://www.sf.airnet.ne.jp/~ts/japanese/relativeclause.html.)

—Wavelength (talk) 22:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

My understanding is that Japanese uses interrogative words as relative pronouns, like many languages, [edited to add: or I may be confusing myself thinking of "何も"-type constructions, which aren't really relative pronounce but more of an exhaustive conditional thing] but Japanese doesn't feature wh-movement (is there a better cross-linguistic term for this? "Wh-movement" is awfully anglocentric) so I would expect that a dummy noun like こと or something is always required and there is nothing like fused relatives (though my knowledge of Japanese grammar is limited). But I was under the impression that fused relatives are a common feature at least among Indo-European languages, and I would have expected them to be common (though not necessarily universal) more generally among all languages that have wh-movement. I know Spanish has them, but Spanish isn't relevant here because the relative/interrogative words don't inflect for case in Spanish. I don't know much about Latin but I thought it did have fused relatives, and my understanding is that Latin relative words do inflect for case, so I figured Latin would provide an example of a language where this question is meaningful. 24.7.88.102 (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)