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

March 25

Etymology of California

My uncle's wife told me that California was named after some place in France called Californie (see fr:Californie (homonymie)). Etymology of California doesn't seem to support this theory. Could there be any truth to this? JIP | Talk 21:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Here's what EO has to say about it:[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

No mention of any French origins of the name in List of state name etymologies of the United States either. --Theurgist (talk) 00:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify, received opinion is that the name of the American state is derived from the fifteenth-century romance Las sergas de Esplandián (and therefore ultimately from "caliph"). However, JIP's relative and the French dab page claim that there was a place in Brittany called "Californie" predating the book. I've not been able to find any references to this theory elsewhere, though. Tevildo (talk) 12:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

March 26

ALP spelling

The Australian Labor Party adopted its present spelling in 1912, changing from the more usual "Labour" spelling that had previously been used. As the influences responsible for the spelling change are no longer of equal significance in Australia, have there been any significant attempts to rerename the ALP to "Australian Labour Party"? Nyttend (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

No. It's well entrenched now. (I can't prove a negative, but I'm confident you won't find any record of such a proposal.) And if there were any move to change it, it would attract adverse criticism along the lines of "Why aren't you focussing on your members' and the country's interests rather than cosmetic changes to your own name?". Imo. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Botanical notation

What is the correct interpretation of (3–) 5–9 (–13) in the first paragraph of Rose#Botany (version of 20:58, 12 March 2016)?
—Wavelength (talk) 01:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Just a guess, but it looks like it means "usually 5 to 9 of them, but sometimes as few as 3 or as many as 13". You could look in the article's history and see if someone added the parentheticals with an edit summary. Loraof (talk) 01:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I have traced the history as far back as this revision at 03:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC).

—Wavelength (talk) 02:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The hyphenated (not dashed) version was introduced at 23:09, 12 November 2004 (UTC).

—Wavelength (talk) 02:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps an active participant in Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants (such as User:Phyzome or User:JoJan or User:Circeus or User:Stevey7788) or an active participant in Wikipedia:WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening (such as User:Sarr Cat or User:SMcCandlish or User:Johnscotaus or User:Typhoon2013) can provide an explanation or an external reference or both.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

What is the correct alphabetical order when a title contains a blank space between words?

What is the correct alphabetical order? The two items are (1) In Old Arizona and (2) Informer. Is the first film title (In Old Arizona) considered to start with the characters I-N-Space-O-L-D, etc.? Or is it considered I-N-O-L-D, etc.? In other words, what is the third character, a "blank space" or the letter "O"? This is for Wikipedia purposes. But I'd also like to know for other non-Wikipedia purposes. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia sorts word by word. That is, As the World Turns comes before Ask a Silly Question, because As comes before Ask. Externally, some places copy that method; but others ignore spaces, hence these titles are treated as "Astheworldturns" and "Askasillyquestion", and the latter is sorted first because Ask---- precedes Ast----. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

In ASCII, the space character has the value 32. Letters A-Z are 65-90 and a-z are 97-122. An electronic sorting system most easily sorts As before Ask, since the space after the As has a lower value (32) than the k (107). No special coding need be done to accomplish this sorting, since the code already asks, "Is the value of character1 less than that of character2 for each pair of characters." ie:

is A (65) less than A (65)? (no, so no decision yet)

is s (115) less than s (115)? (no, so no decision yet)

is 32 less than k (107)? (yes, so ignore Ask a Silly Question and prepare to compare As the World Turns with the next phrase).

Akld guy (talk) 14:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

What's easiest for a computer to do may not be what's easiest for the human user for several reasons:

• Humans are likely to want case-insensitive sorting, so This sorts after that even though T in ASCII is 84 while t is 116.
• For some purposes humans are likely to want alphabetization by letters (see next paragraph).
• As soon as you start considering languages other than English and character sets larger than ASCII, automatic sorting in this manner is generally not possible.

Alphabetization by letters, i.e. ignoring spaces, is normal in dictionaries, because it means that they won't need to have entries like "backseat, see back seat" when a word or phrase is used in two forms that vary only by spacing or hyphenation. Alphabetization by words (i.e. spaces count) is common in other forms of reference book because it's convenient to group entries that start with the same word (so you don't find Newton in between New Mexico and New York). In short, there is no "the correct alphabetical order". --69.159.61.172 (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

To add to that: We were all taught "correct" alphabetical order, starting with A, B, C ... X, Y, Z. And that is the general rule, which works fine in most cases. But in particular contexts, one needs to be a little more sophisticated. Ultimately, there is no "one size fits all". One must consider what the purpose of a particular list is, and what order one's readers would expect to find it in, and give them what they want. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

What does it refer to here?

I'm not sure what the pronoun "it" refers to in the context as follows: "There hasn't been a good effort to introduce Westerners to the spirit," said Derek Sandhaus, a spirits consultant who lived in China for almost a decade and wrote "Baijiu: The Essential Guide to Chinese Spirits," one of the few books on the liquor. But baijiu's reputation precedes it. Does "it" refers to the book Derek Sandhaus wrote or a good effort? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.223.247 (talk) 07:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

"It" refers back to "baijiu", the distilled sorghum wine which is the subject of Sandhaus' book. Tevildo (talk) 09:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

It can't refer back to "baijiu", because then the sentence would say "But baijiu's reputation precedes baijiu", which is unlikely to be the meaning. And the intended antecedent cannot be "a good effort", because the first sentence says that the good effort does not exist. So "it" must refer to the book. In situations like this, the writer should avoid creating this kind of confusion by avoiding using the pronoun. Loraof (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

It does mean that, I'm afraid. "Precedes" in this sentence means "arrives before", not "is more important than". We can re-write it as "The drink's reputation has arrived [in the West] before the drink itself". "X's reputation precedes it/him/her" is a common idiomatic English expression, and the pronoun always refers to X in this case. Tevildo (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I'll buy that. Loraof (talk) 17:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Another question about alphabetical order: when the title of a film or book is a person's first name and last name

Let's say that we have a person's name of John Smith. If we were to place that in alphabetical order, it would fall under the letter "S" for "Smith" (and not under the letter "J" for "John"). My question is: if we have a book or a film with the title "John Smith", what letter is that alphabetized under, the "J" or the "S"? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

If I was sorting by title then I would alphabetise under "J", because the whole thing is the name of the book or film. The fact that it is also the name of a person is secondary, and not everything on the list is going to be a name of a person. Imagine, for example, that you have copies of both Johnny English and Johnny English Reborn and want to put them in alphabetical order. It would be odd for them not to be next to each other, but the second is not a name.

If I was sorting by name, e.g. listing biographies based on who the subject is, then I would alphabetise by the "S". If Mike Smith is subject of a biography called Cheese, John Smith is the subject of a biography called John Smith (subtitle "Life of a Cheesemonger") and Kevin Smithson is subject of a biography called Edam made easy, then sorted by subject name they would go John Smith (Smith J), Cheese (Smith M), Edam made easy (Smithson K). Kahastok talk 10:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

In short, for the third time, there is no single correct answer. --69.159.61.172 (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

And for what it's worth, the UK company I work for alphabetises its lists of employees (for email addresses, for telephone numbers, etc.) by first name. As is well known, this is also normal practice in Iceland. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 5.66.243.108 (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The company I work for has recently started doing the same. Not though that previously, the name would have been recorded as "Smith, John". You wouldn't have seen a list that was sorted by surnam but gave the given name first. Iapetus (talk) 01:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Wardog: (aka User Iapetus) - Why would it be a growing trend for businesses to sort by first name? That seems quite odd to me. One's last name is usually cut-and-dry: Smith is Smith and it's always spelled S-m-i-t-h. A first name might be Joseph or Joe or Joey or whatever. Seems like there'd be a lot of inconsistency and variation. And, interestingly, I don't even know the first names of many people I work with, just their last names. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm guessing because first names are increasingly becoming the primary lookup value. Whereas in years gone by you'd be referring to (and thinking of) your colleagues as Mr Smith and Mr Jones, in many "modern" workplaces people are increasingly going by their first names, so you're thinking of them a "Joseph" and "Albert". (Obviously, not all workplaces have taken to the practice). This certainly causes issues if "William" is normally known as "Bill", but that's easily solved by alphabetising people by the name they commonly go by, rather than by the one on their passport. I'll also note that last names are not often cut-and-dry as to spelling. "Smith" might be simple (though the Smithes may disagree), but other names might not be. For example, Jenna Fischer and Isla Fisher don't share a last name, and the Cantors will be on a different directory page than the Kantors. -- 160.129.138.186 (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Just to comment on your opening rationale: Even on Wikipedia you'll find longish lists of notable people sorted by given name rather than by surname: Albert Hargrave, Brenda Arkwright, Charles Brown, Diane Smith, Edgar Black, Frances Anderson ..... I can't bring to mind a specific example right now, but I've spent time re-ordering some, while others were a bit daunting. I don't know who ever does this, or how it can possibly be useful outside of a special context, but some people certainly do it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

See Template:Sortname.—Wavelength (talk) 23:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

On the quiz site Sporcle, quizzes where you pick from a list of names are usually sorted by first name, although some of them do sort by surname (or as I would say, correctly). Apparently the choice is up to the author of the individual quiz. I find it annoying. --69.159.61.172 (talk) 01:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

You're gonna find "Mildred Pierce" among the "M"s in the card catalog. Just sayin'. - Nunh-huh 13:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

dateline should show place?

Please see the document in the below link: http://www.universityofcalicut.info/Orders/U.O.No.8612%20dtd%2005.08.2015_on04march2016.pdf The document is dated in an unusual manner. Dated, Calicut University.P.O, 05.08.2015. What sort of a dating is that? Does it have currency in any other parts? Thanks for information, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.185.2 (talk) 09:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

See Calendar date ~ Date format and Date format by country. Note that Calicut University is in India, which uses the Day-Month-Year format, rather than the Month-Day-Year used by Americans but not by anybody else, so 05.08.2015 is 5th August 2015. Alansplodge (talk) 13:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not true that only Americans use Month-Day-Year; it's also common in here in Canada. So is Day-Month-Year. Year-Month-Day is seen as well. It's a nuisance if you have a pile of things like receipts from different stores and you want to sort them by date. --69.159.61.172 (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I believe the OP's question is why "Dated" is followed not by a date, but by a location and then a date. I've never seen that in the US. Loraof (talk) 15:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes. Quite right, my apologies. Alansplodge (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, does India use European-style dating? That is, is it May 8th or August 5th? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

By European format, do you mean global format, apart from a few countries? 213.105.166.119 (talk) 18:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Global format would be ISO 8601, that is, YYYY-MM-DD. clpo13_(talk) 18:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

According to Date format by country#Map, India uses date.month.year. Loraof (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, 5th August (I had already provided you with the link above Bugs, do try to keep up). Alansplodge (talk) 15:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd say it's not normal UK usage to include the place with the date, though it is in various European languages - I've seen it in French and German. On the other hand, my work recently involved me processing bank direct debit mandates from the Republic of Ireland, and the new-style SEPA mandates do include a box for the place immediately before the box for the date (I suspect the design is influenced by the non-English-speaking Euro-using countries) -- Arwel Parry (talk) 17:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The title used the word "dateline", and to me that refers specifically to the start of a newspaper article. These days newspaper articles are always worded as if they were written on the day that the paper is dated, so if you see "yesterday" in an article it means the day before that (very often the day when the article was written). But decades ago you would commonly see things like "NEW YORK, March 24" at the start of an article, and then you knew that "yesterday" in the article meant March 23. Nowadays they would only write "NEW YORK", meaning that the article was written there, but I believe the term "dateline" is still used. See dateline. --69.159.61.172 (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Back in the 1920s correspondents had great difficulty getting their stories out of Russia. It got so bad that on one occasion nobody could work out whether the dateline was old or new style. 78.149.118.97 (talk) 18:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't appear to make any sense. Russia adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1918. There must have been a transitional period before the whole country fell into line, but the Soviets had special ways of enforcing rules, and by the 1920s, all their published dates were New Style. Maybe some obscure people in the back woods of Siberia were still hanging on to Old Style, but they'd hardly be the source of international news stories. Or maybe the source was a non-lay organisation, like the Russian Orthodox Church, which was excluded from the conversion.-- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

But the Russian Civil War came after that. Perhaps the counter-revolutionary Whites, or some of them, did not go along with the Reds' calendar change? I don't know, but if so, it would reconcile what 78.149 and Jack are saying. --69.159.61.172 (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Why did the ancient Romans abbreviate everything?

The question is basically what it says in the title. From what I have seen from images of ancient Roman coins, tablets and signs, pretty much every word was abbreviated when written. Why is this? JIP | Talk 23:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• To save space and effort. My source is college Latin, so no link. But on coins you have limited space and difficulty creating dies for very small letters, while large marble monuments had to be visible at a distance, and chiseling stone is not easy. Compare this to modern-day texting. μηδείς (talk) 00:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

LOL. In fact they were just too busy on Facebook. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

We still have F.D. and D.G. REG (By the Grace of God, Queen), on British coins. Alansplodge (talk) 12:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I, for one, love Latin numerals. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Adding to the etymologies in Martinevans123's link, the flushing toilet was invented by one Thomas Crapper. In Oxford some decades ago there was a luxury car hire company called "Crappers". I don't know if they ever got round to changing their name.

Looking at the coins in my purse, I see a great deal of abbreviation. I don't think Americans experience this. The origin of this is that every document had to be painstakingly written out by hand. To reduce the tedium

• There were no spaces between words
• Everything was written in capital letters
• Everything that could reasonably be shortened (i.e. oft - recurring words and endings) was shortened, as the liberal use of the tilde (~) demonstrates. 80.5.88.48 (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I can just see Crappers' hire car slogan - "Crappers goes like the clappers". Akld guy (talk) 07:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Your first two points are causally backwards, IP 80. What we call capitals came first, miniscules were invented when ink and parchment with a flowing, rather than a carved script became more common. Likewise, the boustrophedonic style of writing came first. The adoption of left-to-right writing and the use of spaces were latter developments. μηδείς (talk) 01:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Minuscule or miniscule? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Another reason is that Latin has longer words than English. Compare the Q a couple below here, where "spinal cord" is 10 characters and "medulla spinalis" is 15. The longer the words are, the more incentive and ability there is to abbreviate. Nobody is going to abbreviate a 2 letter word. StuRat (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

What time is it in your world? Now Götterdämmerung, that's a mouthful. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:44, March 31, 2016 (UTC)

But they didn't have to argue over definite and indefinite articles, did they? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

BTW, we have an article on Thomas Crapper but he only patented some improvements to the flushing mechanism, the myth seems to arise from a linguistic coincidence. See Thomas Crapper: Myth & Reality. Alansplodge (talk) 01:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Whoah!! I refuse to let this thread get hijacked by some random discussion about crap! Martinevans123 (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to TARQVINIVS, ancient sewer reptiles not only crapped out of their cloacae, but into one. A vicious cycle. Where the water returned to after that has been thankfully lost to history. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:08, March 31, 2016 (UTC)

Also a real pioneer with fat clowns, it seems. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Where do you think the "doo doo" in "doo doo doo-doo, doo-doo doo doo doo-doo" came from? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:27, March 31, 2016 (UTC)

"omfg-wow". They had those funny clown cars too?? ....Apparently "Ancient Rome's clown was a stock fool called the stupidus"..... (but not the VW beetle, of course). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Buffoons in warped mirrors never get old. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:42, March 31, 2016 (UTC)

Speak for yourself dearie. But I see from your "warped mirror" source that "Genesius is considered the patron saint of actors, lawyers, barristers, clowns, comedians, converts, dancers, people with epilepsy, musicians, printers, stenographers, and victims of torture." Quite a portfolio there, you must admit. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think Vitus would be amused by this. With the blessing of St. Anthony, someone should dig them up and match them at the Coliseum. We'll see who's laughing then! Or were skeleton battles only a Greek thing? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:22, March 31, 2016 (UTC)

Remember that a fair amount of the Latin you may be seeing is from monuments. When you're carving in stone, you don't want any more letters than are necessary -Nunh-huh 13:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Were Roman abbreviation rules "carved in stone" in some way?? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

March 27

by volume

I am not sure about the meaning of "volume" in the sentence: "By volume, baijiu, a clear liquor made primarily from sorghum and rice and aged in terra-cotta barrels, is the most widely consumed spirit in the world." Does here volume mean amount? If so, then I think the phrase "by volume" should be omitted as it makes little sense in "Baijiu,...,is the most widely consumed spirit in the world." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.234.150 (talk) 01:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like it means what it says: by gallons, or liters, or whatever unit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

there's a difference between weight and volume....it's possible it's not the most consumed by weight..so the clause is specifying that it's referring to volume instead of weight...I'd bet an once of what's described weighs less than an once of whiskey, for example...68.48.241.158 (talk) 01:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) It's necessary to distinguish it from area. Baijiu is mostly in Asia (and if consumed outside of Asia, is consumed as "an Asian drink" instead of just "a drink"), while Scotch whisky is found throughout Asia, Europe, and North America (and I'm certain you could find it in South America and Africa easier than you could baijiu). Ian.thomson (talk) 01:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

You might get different rankings if you compared different kinds of tipple by total price or by total alcohol content. —Tamfang (talk) 09:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The answer is because it's distinguishing it from weight...Google weight vs volume in liquids or in alcoholic spirits...68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

There is indeed a difference between weight and volume - but when it comes to consumption of spirits the difference is likely to be insignificant. In this case, it is more likely to be intended to distinguish between consumption by volume and consumption by value. Baijiu is a comparatively low value product - so although more of it is drunk than any other spirits, more expensive ones are likely to have much higher values of sales. 109.150.174.93 (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it's a serious stretch to suggest the consumption in this sentence doesn't refer to actual ingestion (though I suppose it's slightly possible).....and the difference between weight and volume can be very significant if you're talking about tens of millions of units....ie one ounce of X might weigh 5% more than 1 ounce of Y...so if sell the same units they're tied for volume but one lags by weight...for taxation purposes in the USA alcohol by weight is what's looked at generally, instead of alcohol by volume....68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

It's probable that the most popular by volume consumed is also the most popular by weight since the densities of spirits won't vary hugely. More likely the intention is to distinguish popularity by quantity consumed from popularity by number of drinkers - there could be a small number of very thirsty Baijiu lovers. --catslash (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

if someone claims that a particular drink is the most consumed in the world...the only reasonable question someone might ask, is, "do you mean by weight or by volume?" no one would ask, "do you mean the total number of people who have taken at least one sip of said beverage in the previous year?" or, "do you mean the most money spent on said beverage?"68.48.241.158 (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

"Most widely consumed" could also mean "consumed by the most people" (or possibly "consumed by the widest demographic"). They probably wouldn't use that wording to refer to value consumed, but that none the less is something that some people would likely be interested in (ditto for number of sales). As such, adding "By volume, " makes it clear what they are saying, and only costs 11 characters. Iapetus (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

What is the spinal cord called in medical Greek term?

93.126.95.68 (talk) 03:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The Tingler ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.111.96.35 (talk) 03:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The spinal cord is called medulla spinalis in Latin, if that's what you meant. Gabbe (talk) 08:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

If you are asking what is the Greek for spinal cord, σπονδυλική στήλη. 109.150.174.93 (talk) 10:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

World youngest natural language?

There seems to be plenty of interest in the oldest language (Sanskrit, Hebrew, Aramaic, Basque, take your pick). But what natural language is the youngest?--Llaanngg (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Afrikaans appears to be fairly young, having developed in the 18th century from Dutch. It was actually considered a Dutch dialect until the early 20th century. There are quite a few GHits claiming it's the youngest, but I haven't found any reliable sources confirming that. clpo13_(talk) 20:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Some links on it (probably not at all reliable): [2], [3], [4], [5]. Wikipedia also has List of languages by first written accounts but that only discusses the first written instance of a language (which in Afrikaans' case is 1844). clpo13_(talk) 21:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

We could consider Afrikaans a kind of Dutch spoken in SA. At least they are mutually intelligible. --Llaanngg (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

According to this article, Afrikaans is the third-youngest language (1923), behind Light Warlpiri (mid-1980s) and the Guniyandi language (1982). Tevildo (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing in our Guniyandi article about it coming into being as recently as 1982. In fact it's described as an endangered langage. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, the information linked is obviously wrong. Llaanngg (talk) 22:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Do they mean youngest, or more recently discovered? I am afraid this article is mixing both definitions. --Llaanngg (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

(ec) For most naturally-evolving languages, the question is arguably meaningless. Most languages (except possibly Creoles and some very few other exceptional cases) aren't "born" – each language has essentially the same depth of historical background of transmission from generation to generation, forming an unbroken chain down the millennia. The fact that some variety, like Afrikaans, may at some point cease to be regarded as merely a dialect and start being perceived as a language separate from some other related variety, is linguistically pretty much meaningless. Having said this, we can turn to the genuine exceptions, and here I'd guess that Nicaraguan Sign Language is a pretty strong candidate, having been around only since the 1970s. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Very interesting! Now I'm lost in a never-ending chain of sign language articles, thanks. clpo13_(talk) 21:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd expect that it's a creole or sign language. In these cases we could at least pinpoint when they started to form.Llaanngg (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

On reading the question, without seeing the answers, my immediate guess was also a creole or a sign language. (If I had a million dollars, I'd create [the conditions for] an entirely new sign language.) But another angle on the question is to consider new dialects and sociolects. One that has been studied is Multicultural London English; apparently our category is City colloquials. Or - unconnected to deaf people - there is the rise of Baby Sign. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 23:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Tok Pisin is also fairly young. Not younger than the others so mentioned. The problem with identifying a single "language" as distinct from others and when it becomes a distinct language on its own is analogous to the Species problem. Just as biologists can have difficulty defining what makes two different populations of living creatures to be different species, linguists can have difficulty defining what makes two different populations of speakers having distinct languages. See also A language is a dialect with an army and navy. --Jayron32 01:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey @Future Perfect at Sunrise:, I get what you're saying, as the same objection could be given to the question "what is the youngest species". It is true that every living being (and language) has a history that is just as long, and Jayron notes the species problem above. However, biologists still talk about speciation, even though it can be difficult to clearly express what we mean and our methods are continually improving. And we can say things like "X is a very old species", meaning that it has remained largely unchanged for a long time, while "Y is a young species" means that it has a shallower split on a phylogenetic tree. We use a sort of short hand to fit a more complicated scientific notion into a more convenient expression in natural language. So my question to you is: Since linguists do make and use phylogenetic trees (e.g. [6] [7]), isn't this a good basis for talking about the "age" of a language? SemanticMantis (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Another point of view is that this is a political question. When Yugoslavia still existed, there used to be a language there called Serbo-Croatian. Now they speak Serbian in Serbia and Croatian in Croatia. (I am undubtedly oversimplifying the situation in those countries, but you see my point.) So was this the most recent instance of such a change of designation, or is there a newer one? --69.159.61.172 (talk) 09:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hindi and Urdu split along political and religious lines, they use different writing systems, Urdu uses Arabic script, Hindi is written in Devanagari script. As spoken languages the mutual intelligibility is still very high, they're basically indistinguishable. Another example is the gradual divergence between North and South Korean. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, as one language they were (or are) known as Hindustani. DuncanHill (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

There is the well recorded phenomenon of Cryptophasia, when twins develop their own private languages as they learn to speak. Somewhere a pair of twins is developing a completely new, natural language right now. 109.150.174.93 (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Has any instance of cryptophasia ever developed into the native language of a multigenerational community? If that has not happened then it's not a "language" for the purposes of this discussion. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

It could have - given that no-one knows how 99.9% of the world's languages actually got started. 217.44.50.87 (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

March 28

For alphabetical order, are abbreviated words considered to be completely spelled out or not?

When you alphabetize a phrase like "Dr. Jones" or "Mr. Jones" or "St. Joseph" or "Main St.", is that alphabetized as if the word were abbreviated (which it is) or as if the word were completely spelled out (Doctor, Mister, Saint, Street, etc.)? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

second part of first question with answer...http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Alphabetizing.html 68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

No ref for you, but in my experience in America Mr. Jones or Dr. Jones would be alphabetized under Jones, whereas St. Joseph would be alphabetized the same as Saint Joseph, under S then a. Loraof (talk) 23:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If it's the title of a book, movie, or similar work, you treat the phrase as if it's spelled out. Doctor Who would go in the D's.

If it's a person, you ignore titles such as doctor, mister, or saint; and generally ignore the title. Dr. Hu would go in the H's. Titles are open to change and are not as inherent as names. You'd also do the same for street because there's alternate forms such as avenue, road, etc.

The University of Dartmouth's Library filing rules may help with future questions.

The ref provided by the IP says to drop the title, not to "do it letter by letter, to not confuse people who do not know what the abbreviation stands for.." He seems to have confused this unrelated answer which is about a different problem altogether. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

on closer look it's answered in the first question on that link, says depends if you chose to go word by word or letter by letter....68.48.241.158 (talk) 00:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

For books yes, for people no. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

? the question there asks how author (person) St. George should be alphabetized..68.48.241.158 (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Once again, there is no single correct answer. It depends on your purposes. --69.159.61.172 (talk) 04:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

My purposes: putting a list in correct order for Wikipedia articles. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

What about sorting within Wikipedia categories (using DEFAULTSORT keyword in article) ? GrahamHardy (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Article titles appear in category listings, and are sorted by first word, then second word etc. Defaultsort simply replaces the article title with some other text string. For example, The Dr Blake Mysteries would sort under T for The. Adding a Defaultsort set to "Dr Blake Mysteries, The" makes it sort under D for Dr, and that would come after "Doctor Kildare" (or Doctor anybody else) but before "Duty Calls". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

March 29

"She insists me to mow the lawn" vs "She insists on me mowing the lawn" or "She insists on my mowing the lawn"

Which one is correct? 140.254.70.165 (talk) 11:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The first is categorically incorrect. The last option uses "mowing" as a Gerund (a verb acting as a noun) and so the use of the possessive "my" is correct. To my British Emglish ears, this sounds the best. The second option uses "mowing" as a participle, and is still correct.--Phil Holmes (talk) 11:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Why not "she insists I mow the lawn (every week)." or

"she insists I should mow the lawn."?Llaanngg (talk) 11:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Most natural to my ears would be "She insists that I mow the lawn". But the last two seem natural as well, as do suggestions offered above. The first is not correct, because insist can only be an intransitive verb and thus one can not insist an object. --Jayron32 12:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The 1st example is wrong, but not for this reason. "Insist" has a transitive use as well. "We insist that you stay for dinner." is perfectly fine. But structures like "me to mow" or "me to do ... " is are not. That's different from "She told me to ... ". If a clause is a direct object, its pronoun is nominative because the whole clause is the object. --Llaanngg (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Since the grammar police are already here, "structures...is not" should be "are not". :-) StuRat (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Yep, me got that wrong.--Llaanngg (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the first option is completely incorrect. The other two suggest slightly different things. "She insists on me mowing the lawn" puts the emphasis on who has to do it (Me! Not someone else). "She insists on my mowing the lawn" puts greater emphasis on what has to be done: I would rather pressure wash the drive, but have to mow the lawn instead. 217.44.50.87 (talk) 15:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

"She insists on me mowing the lawn" means she is insisting that nobody but the speaker mow the lawn, and carries no sense of urgency that the lawn be mowed soon. "She insists on my mowing the lawn" means she is urging that the lawn be mowed promptly, and in this case, it is implicit that the lawn should be mowed by the speaker, but that is of less importance than that the lawn needs to be mowed promptly. Context should determine which version is appropriate, but in informal speech, the 'me' version is used far more frequently. Akld guy (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I disagree that the unbolded printed sentences make those distinctions. prosodic stress is the way such distinctions are drawn, which is a feature of spoken language, not of written (excepting typography like bold or italics, etc.) I can also say "She insists on my mowing the lawn" and when I say that aloud, it has the same sense as the "me" sentence. The difference between the use of "me" and "my" is probably more dialectical, where some dialects prefer the use of the object pronoun and others the possessive in those cases. --Jayron32 11:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I did not bold the 'me' to indicate voice stress, but to differentiate between 'me' and 'my'. That was probably the wrong thing to do. But I still think I'm correct. Akld guy (talk) 13:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The use of "on me/my" doesn't flow smoothly into my South African English ears, "She insists that I mow the lawn" is much more natural to me. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Ein kühles Helles

In a 1976 German language Donald Duck pocket book, Donald eats a sandwich and finishes it off with a glass of beer, saying "Und noch ein kühles Helles hinterher!" I was thinking about why Helles is capitalised but kühles is not, even though both hell and kühl are adjectives. Is this because in German, adjectives can be nouned simply by capitalising them, and Donald is saying "a cool (light one)", but German lacks the nominal noun "one" and simply uses the adjective itself as the noun? JIP | Talk 20:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

It's a beer...(it should actually be "ein kühles helles Bier", but as one omits the word beer, "Helles" becomes the noun. Lectonar (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Strike that...it is actually a noun: Helles. Live and learn. Lectonar (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

In german one can simply use an adjective as a noun (but note that it keeps the grammatical gender of the left-out noun). It just gets a capital. In case of ein Helles this is done so commonly with the meaning of "a pale beer" that the word got its own entry as a noun in the dictionaries. Using adjectives as nouns is common in many languages, like german, dutch, french and latin. English is the only language I know of where it is common to use a short word as a placeholder for the noun ("one"). So yes, you're right. Both of you. PiusImpavidus (talk) 08:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

It happens in English too - "I'd like a draft/light please" - that I'm asking for a particular variety of beer is understood from the context. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

March 30

Help understanding a Scottish joke

Tommy Sheridan [Scottish politician imprisoned for perjury a few years back] represented himself at his trial. On getting home one day, he realised he had left his bag in the courtroom.

"You go back and get your bag and I'll get the tea on", says Gail.

Tommy gets to the courtroom which is empty apart from a woman carrying out the cleaning.

"I'm here for my holdall", explains Tommy.

"Ach, Tommy son. Don't ye think yer in enough trouble already?"

Would anyone mind ruining the joke by explaining to me? It's left me completely stumped. Does "my holdall" sound like something else in a Scottish accent? --87.224.68.42 (talk) 10:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I think there is nothing Scottish here. Maybe it is too subtly humorous but nothing more. I was puzzled half a minute but then got it without having checked any Scottish slang dictionary (you do not need it here, in fact, all the words are of Standard English). The cleaner said "You are already in a trouble, so why are you making more troubles for yourself, isn't it enough?". I'm not sure if I have explained, but the joke indeed is too subtle and difficult to explain in words.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 10:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

As a native BrEnglish speaker, that explanation makes no sense to me, because collecting an item one owns is not in itself inviting any more trouble. Having said that, I lived in Scotland for eight years, and the joke eludes me too. The only thing I can think of is a very strained pun on holdall = "hole doll", a possible reference to an 'inflatable woman' sex doll, though not an expression I've ever come across. Hopefully someone in on the joke will come along soon and put us all out of our misery. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 13:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Is it because the perjury case was about him being a swinger, allegedly, so him wanting to "hold all" is a not very funny and not too obvious reference to an orgy? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I can only think that the joke is that the cleaner thinks that Sheridan has taken a bung and is expecting a holdall full of cash as part of the deal that got him freed. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

This is an alternative version, which casts some light on this: Tommy Sheridan left his bag in the court on Thursday and didn't realise his loss until he was back at Chateau Sheridan. While his chef prepared dinner and the maid set the table, Comrade Tommy got the chauffeur to drive him back to court. It was closed but after a never give up battering of the door, the cleaning lady appears and opens the door. Comrade Tommy says to her; 'I've come fur ma holdall.' 'Och Tommy' she says bashfully. 'Huz yer cock no got ye intae enough trouble awready?' 217.44.50.87 (talk) 14:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I've come for my hole, doll" means "I've come for sexual intercourse, dear"86.155.116.104 (talk) 17:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this is it. See e.g. here. Henry^Flower 19:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

But that's hardly just Scottish, is it? Am more disappointed there's no doll in that list. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

If I (English) say "holdall" and "hole doll" they will sound quite distinct - but in a strong Glaswegian accent I suspect there is little or no distinction. 217.44.50.87 (talk) 10:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Q: "What's the difference between Walt Disney and Tommy Sheridan"?

A: "Tommy has courtroom sex with luggage, but Walt disnay."

Martinevans123 (talk) 17:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC) ... did I get that right??

Polite/formal term for people who are considerably older than you

I'm talking about people with colorless hair and wrinkles. What's the best way to label this population?

• senior citizen
• old people
• older people
• mature adult (though, I'm not sure if this exclusively refers to people with graying hair and wrinkles or anybody that looks like an adult or anybody that looks and acts like responsible adults)
• elder
• geriatric population

These terms seem to be about people who are older than you in years, unless you are part of the population. Are there terms that are based on perception of agedness? If a 20-year-old starts to have receding hairline (which actually can happen, as I've seen it on an acquaintance who always wears a baseball cap to hide or disguise the loss of hair), and as a result appears much older than his peers, is there a term for people who just look older than other people his age? I'm just wondering, because some cultures would use the perception of agedness to use different terms to indicate respect. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 11:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

In everyday BrE, "the elderly" is the usual term for actually old people (and "OAPs", for Old Age Pensioners, is falling out of fashion), but other expressions might be used by specialist professions or disciplines depending on context. Someone who looks significantly older than might be expected might be called "prematurely aged". I'm not aware of a term applicable to all "old-looking" people regardless of their actual ages, and the linked article does not seem to include one, but might anyway be of general help. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with an AmE term for "old looking" people either. And I agree that what term is used would depend on context. A news show here in the States may use "elderly" or "senior citizens" but in casual conversation a person might just refer to an old person as an "old lady/man". In medical contexts, the word geriatric is often used as in "I work with geriatric patients". Dismas|^(talk) 13:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

"Geriatric" suggests that the person is suffering from a medical condition associated with age. "Senior citizen" suggests that the person is above a specific age where they qualify for some discounts or government benefits (typically 65 in North America, but may be different elsewhere). Otherwise I think the best choice depends on context. --69.159.61.172 (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

This BrEng speaker was taught never to refer to "the elderly", or "the disabled", as the use of "the" dehumanises. Political correctness gone mad? Maybe, but it's not that difficult to say "elderly people". --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@Dweller - The explanation I'm familiar with (from a disability rights POV) for that "rule" is that using an adjective "disabled/elderly" as a noun is frowned upon. The idea is that the adjective should not be used in place of the actual noun - "person/people/man/woman/child". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

This seems to be a common argument now. (For example, I assume it's why what was once the "Royal National Institute for the Blind" is now the Royal National Institute of Blind People.) Is there a logical defence of this position out there? At first glance it strikes me as rather silly - "the [adjective]" is a common way of describing a group of people who could all be described as [adjective] (the rich, the poor, the British, the French, the quick and the dead, etc.), and I can't see any negative or "dehumanising" connotation to it. Proteus (Talk) 11:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

"Mature adult" is definitely wrong; it's too vague. Arguably, you're "mature" not that long after puberty. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

It's usually not considered polite to refer to an older person's age at all. Of course, it's sometimes necessary, such as for identification purposes. In some cases, an estimate of their actual age would be used, such as by police. StuRat (talk) 17:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The OP's question referred to seeking a term for a defined population, rather than to refer to an individual. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195) 185.74.232.130 (talk) 13:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

You can ask the Elder Wisdom Circle at http://www.elderwisdomcircle.org. See also http://sandiegobees.com/goaskgrandpa/.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

"Senior citizen" is good. Or just "senior". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

infusions

"The bar features a dozen cocktails and infusions." I have no idea what infusions are. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.213.117 (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

An infusion is a type of flavored spirit, similar to a cordial or a liqueur. See here. The difference between a cocktail and an infusion:

• with an infusion, you add something (typically fruit and/or herbs) to a spirit (commonly vodka, but any spirit would work) and allow the alcohol to extract flavors from the added ingredient. You then strain the added ingredients out, resulting in a liquid spirit that just has the essence or flavor of the added ingredients, but not the ingredients themselves. This is similar to the way tinctures and extract is made.
• a cocktail is a mixture of one or more spirits with one or more other ingredients, often also called a "mixed drink".

Thus an infusion, when consumed "straight", is not itself considered a cocktail, which is a mixed drink. The spirits in a cocktail may also themselves infusions. For example:

• Galliano (liqueur) is an infusion of several bitter herbs in neutral spirits.
• A Harvey Wallbanger is a cocktail that include Galliano as an ingredient, mixed with Vodka and Orange Juice.

Cocktails are thus mixed by the bar tender for the consumer. Infusions are prepared ahead of time and may be consumed straight, or mixed into a cocktail. Hope that helps. --Jayron32 16:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

By contrast, a muddled drink still contains bits of the fruit, herbs, and spices. StuRat (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

To clarify this, an infusion is not just an alcoholic drink. Anything made by allowing chemicals of some kind to pass from some solid into a liquid in which that solid is immersed is an infusion. That could be in alcohol, or in water, or even in other liquids (though not for drinking). The aim could be to obtain flavour, or colour, or something of medicinal value. A cup of tea is an infusion! 217.44.50.87 (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The medical use of the term seems a bit different, since in an intravenous infusion, the solution isn't normally made by steeping or soaking a solid in the liquid to form the solution. StuRat (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Is the word I'm looking for "obfuscate"?

I maintain my town's web site and with that they have email addresses for town officials. When someone leaves a post, the emails have to be kept as part of the official record but the person shouldn't have access to the account anymore. So, I can reset the password to something random and if we ever need those emails again, can reset it again to something I'll actually remember. Is there a word for this sort of obfuscation of the password? Is "obfuscate" actually the right word in this case? Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 23:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

No, I think "resetting the password" is the right word in both cases (to something random in the first case, and to something memorable in the second case). --51.9.188.81 (talk) 23:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

You might say "randomize the password", since "resetting" it might just be to something simple like "12345", so the user can log in and change it again. StuRat (talk) 00:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

it would be an odd word to use if you're considering using it in an office memo describing the process..68.48.241.158 (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I had considered the phrases "reset the password" or "randomize the password" but was thinking that a word like obfuscate would apply as well. Ah well. And no, it's not in an office memo. The town is only about 1400 residents, so it's all pretty relaxed and un-officelike. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 02:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

If you really want to freak out your coworkers, you could say you "changed to an occult password", here using the original meaning of wikt:occult, which is secret or hidden. StuRat (talk)

'Obfuscate' usually means to use less-well known terms to hide the meaning of something. "Eschew obfuscation" is an ironic example. Randomizing the password goes a bit beyond that. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

wikt:obliviate ("to cause smth. to be forgotten") may be of interest to Dismas; but using this term in his text may in itself be obfuscation. --51.9.188.81 (talk) 05:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

You could say you've "secured" the email account. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

In data erasure, burying something in (pseudo)random gibberish to make it unreadable is called "overwriting". I'd go with that, but then again, I call shutting down my laptop "disabling the mainframe". A true geek might disapprove. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:39, March 31, 2016 (UTC)

March 31

be down for something new

What does the phrase "be down for" mean as in the sentence: The drink is definitely for people who are adventurous, people who are down for something new. Lots of thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.216.39 (talk) 06:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

To be down for something is to be willing to try something or to do something. For example:

Are you down for a game of blackjack? - "Would you like to play blackjack?"

I've never played, but if it's not for money, I'm down [for it]. - "I've never played, but as long as we do not gamble, I am willing to learn."

Ian.thomson (talk) 06:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

"Down for" seems to be an exact synonym of "up for". Is that so? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

If invited to try something different I would (if willing) always say that I am "up for it." "Down for it" is not an expression I have ever heard - except in the phrase "put me down for it," when adding your name to a list is implied. It may be regional (I am British). 217.44.50.87 (talk) 09:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Heard more in America. I gather that "I'm down for it" and "I'm down with it" are African-American expressions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

For general reference, this exact question ("up for" versus "down for") has recently been discussed at length on the academic linguistics blog Language Log. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 13:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, here's the direct link to the post [8]. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Here is what Urban Dictionary has to say on the matter: [9], [10], [11], [12]. Some of these are of the form "down with..." rather than "down for...", but you see both usages. The sense is always of "general agreement". --Jayron32 14:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• (Detroit here) I've most often heard it in terms of a purchase: "The tickets are $20 each ? Put me down for 2 then." StuRat (talk) 14:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • That's not really the same usage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

"If you're down with P., well then you're down with me." [13]. "You down with OPP? Yeah you know me!" [14] SemanticMantis (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

This guy from back in the day gets it. He's not down with ToC, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:43, March 31, 2016 (UTC)

Table of contents, that is. He might be down with ToC. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:48, March 31, 2016 (UTC)

The Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang has the definition "Black E. ready and eager for action; (also) formidable in a fight; tough." The first citation is from 1944 in Dan Burley's Original Handbook of Harlem Jive, so by that date it was already well known enough to appear in such a work. The citation is "Down with It ... to be ready for action". A citation from 1952 uses "down for it". CodeTalker (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Apparently, we're not supposed to be "down to clown" anymore, but "D.T.C." As of last November. Remembrance Day, if that helps it stick. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:34, March 31, 2016 (UTC)

If your Down to Clown then you're up for some general highjinks - that's hard to parse, unless "your" and "you're" are allowed to be used interchangeably these days. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

In that dictionary, "ur" lucky to get a Y at all. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:37, March 31, 2016 (UTC)

I suggest that being "up for" something is a metaphor for standing up to volunteer for it, and being "down for" it is a metaphor for having written down your name on the list of volunteers. Hey, it's no worse than "burn up" vs. "burn down". --69.159.61.172 (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Cuneiform

Can somebody help me identify the characters on this tablet?

The left column looks like A AB BI A2 ALEPH U I, and the top of the middle column like AL MA GAR; but the rest of the characters are too difficult for me to match against the list of cuneiform signs. --217.140.96.140 (talk) 06:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Good source of poetry analyzed line by line

Either online or on print, provided it's not shmoop, which I dislike mainly for it's informal tone. Llaanngg (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Proper wording in a sentence

Here is a sentence. At the 61st Academy Awards, Rain Man and Who Framed Roger Rabbit each received 4 awards. Would it be correct or incorrect to use the word "both" in the sentence? At the 61st Academy Awards, both Rain Man and Who Framed Roger Rabbit each received 4 awards. I can't quite tell if you can use the words "both" and "each" together. Are they redundant? Or do they negate each other? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Just redundant, I'd say. Either is fine. But not both, haha. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Worse than redundant, because "each" is grammatically singular while "both" is plural, so they can never be used of the same referent. Here are some simple tips for the use of each vs. both. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

So which is (the more) correct? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

In this sentence it's marginal. "They both received 4 awards" could mean that they were the joint recipients of 4 different awards; although, without anything else to suggest joint candidature, that's an unlikely interpretation - but possible. "They each received 4 awards" has no such ambiguity. I'd go with the latter. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. (But not an issue with referents?) Martinevans123 (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what your query means. Each is a kind of shorthand way of saying "This one and that one and the other one etc. were the objects or subjects of the same verb, but individually, not collectively". That's why it's singular, and why we say "each is ..." , not "each are ...". It can apply to an unlimited number of referents greater than 1. "The 16 children were each given an apple" can only mean that 16 apples were distributed to 16 children and no child got more than one apple and no child missed out. Same for 2 children. But "Both children were [note plural verb] given an apple" means there were exactly 2 children, no more and no less. It probably defaultly means the same as "Each child was given an apple", but in some context it could mean they were jointly given a single apple to share between them. To avoid any possibly misunderstanding, use "each", unless you want the other meaning to be conveyed. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

New Oxford dictionary

Is it true that the word 'gullible' has been removed from the latest edition?--178.101.224.162 (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)