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

October 21

Please translate the following German to English.

Hi, Man versetzte ihn dann als Chef des Stabes zum Marinebefehlshaber Westfrankreich

Can you please translate the above. scope_creep (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Google Translate says it means, "He was then appointed head of the staff of the naval commander in the province of Westphalia." Does that fit with the context where you're seeing this? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

"Chef des Stabes" would be Chief of Staff and "Westfrankreich" western France. So the whole sentence would be: He was then appointed chief of staff of the naval commander for western France. --Xuxl (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Yea, Google gave me Western France, not Westphalia. Not sure what happened when Bugs tried. StuRat (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Hard to figure. If I use the entire sentence, it comes back "Westphalia" but if I use Frankenreich by itself it comes back "France". I guess this kind of thing is why Google Translate is not considered terribly reliable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The best approach, I'm sure you would agree, would have been to wait for an editor who has the relevant language skills to come along, rather than provide what you yourself acknowledge was a "not terribly reliable" translation. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

There was no indication that the OP had or not tried Google Translate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

That's completely beside the point. If you yourself consider Google Translate to be "not terribly reliable", why would you rush in to share whatever it came up with? Particularly given that you could not check it, not having any German language skills. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree with that. Google Translate usually is better than that, and it was pretty close to correct when I used it ("They then transferred him as chief of staff for Navy Commander West France"). So, it's a good "first pass" at a translation, with German experts later being able to refine the nuances it missed. Now, if a German expert had already answered, then I might agree that adding a machine translation wouldn't help much, at that point. StuRat (talk) 02:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

(ec) Westphalia???? Where does Google Translate get that from? The translation is something like "He was then transferred as chief of staff to the navy command(er) for Western France." I'm not very familiar with military terminology in either language, so you may want to cross-check the terms. --Wrongfilter (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks scope_creep (talk) 22:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

"Marinebefehlshaber" is Naval Command (not Commander). —Stephen (talk) 07:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Literally, Befehlshaber is the person, the commander. It seems that, in military parlance, the personal form is used to refer to the command, though. --Wrongfilter (talk) 09:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

The reason I have came here is I've already used Bing and Google translate, and found them to be useless in this particular instance. I use them multiple times per day. I'm not looking for a google or bing translation when I come here. I'm hopefully looking to bump into a German, or German speaker who cam give me an excellent translation. scope_creep (talk) 11:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Folks, thanks for your prompt response, and the help. Bing and Google are helpful for the majority of the time, and each has a particular use case and particular strengths. Without them I wouldn't be able to do the work, but for complex military terms, they are pretty useless. scope_creep (talk) 15:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

When posting a translation Q, I suggest you include any translations you already have, and in what way you find them lacking. This will help us better tailor our responses. StuRat (talk) 23:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• Seekers of translations may have better luck at wikt:Wiktionary:Translation requests. —Tamfang (talk) 17:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Omission of the definite article

Suppose that a reporter talks about some specific negotiations, why is it correct to say, for instance, "we are just receiving reports that negotiations have been broken off" (instead of "... that the negotiations have been broken off)? After all, as stated before, he is referring to specific negotiations. So why don't we use the definite article here?--Cleph (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

You could, but it's pretty common to omit it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

"Negotiations" are somewhat like "data", in that it's difficult to have just one (a datum). That is, wherever there are negotiations, there are likely multiple items being discussed, and whether you considered the discussion of each item under consideration to be a negotiation on it's own, or merely part of the overall negotiation, is just semantics. StuRat (talk)

@StuRat: I guess I see your point. However, we are still assuming that the reporter is not talking about negotiations in general, but particular (known) negotiations (e. g. between a trade union and a company). So, from a logical perspective, there would still be an indication to actually use the definite article here to my mind. And I'm still wondering why it is rather omitted instead in cases like these (similar with sentences using expressions like proceedings, hearings, talks, but also with singular constructions like here!). Isn't there a rule to that?--Cleph (talk) 12:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I would interpret the structure as referring to "some" negotiations/hearings etc. The fuzziness of what exactly "a negotiation" is is relevant in that one can't clearly say whether the negotiations which have already happened are the same as the ones which are continuing, or other negotiations. So whether they are specific or not is indeterminate, and the article is optional. Henry^Flower 13:35, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@Henry Flower: Thank you, but why exactly are you referring to "a negotiation" (singular) here? I'd say we don't need to consider the singular form here to make it specific.--Cleph (talk) 14:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Because Sturat mentioned it. I think his point is relevant to the indeterminate nature of the negotiations. Henry^Flower 14:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

What I do get about Sturat's post is the first sentence. Yet, I'm not exactly sure about why he then comes up with speaking of "each item" etc. This is probably a bit too "hair-splitting" if you ask me since, as I recall, our reporter is dealing with specific negotiations between A and B – whatever their details may be! Hence, even if the subjects of these specific negotiations change, the latter will still remain clearly defined as negotiations between A and B taking place at a certain time, place etc., won't they? Besides, regarding his sentiment that each item is "merely part of the overall negotiation", this also argues for applying the article (though again he uses the singular here), right?--Cleph (talk) 15:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the singular/plural bit is a red herring. English uses the plurals "negotiations" and "talks" in the abstract in the same way as the singular "contact". We would say "contact has been broken off" without a definite article, and similarly "negotiations have been broken off" and "talks have been broken off" without needing "the", though it would also be correct to include the definite article to emphasise that specific negotiations are meant. Dbfirs 19:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

The plural/singular difference matters here because we can either be talking about one specific item, where "the" would normally be appropriate, or a more general (plural) group of items, where it doesn't. For example, we would say we are "going to the meeting today", if there's only one, or "going to meetings today", if there are several and you aren't referring to any specific set. However, if you are referring to a specific set, then "going to the Standards Committee meetings" would be right, or you could omit "the", if only attending some of them. StuRat (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I see the point you are making, but "negotiation" has been used in the singular "without determiner" according to the OED since 1614. Dbfirs 23:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@StuRat: I may resume once more the Google Books example linked above: "Graduation will take place on..." Why no article here?--Cleph (talk) 14:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

"The graduation..." would mean a single, specific person's graduation ceremony. You could say "The graduation ceremony...", since that refers to them all collectively as a single, specific event. StuRat (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, but would't e. g. "Graduation takes place on October 26th" refer to a single, specific event, too?--Cleph (talk) 16:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

No, when you omit "ceremony" it seems to default to talking about an individual person's graduation. Not sure why, but it does. StuRat (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Humph. I guess I have to object once more, since the wording you chose before ("refers to them all collectively as a single, specific event") does not imply that it has to be an individual person's graduation! You seem to be heading towards the same line of argument as with the "negotiation" example, which I found similarly awkward to tell the truth...--Cleph (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Let me try to clarify. "The" is normally used when referring to a specific event or individual, not any one of a number of similar events or individuals. So, I would say "I'm going to a concert" not "the concert", unless we had previously discussed which concert I am going to, in which case I would be referring to that specific concert, not one in general. Now, this is closely related to the concepts of plural and singular. If there's only one such event, then I must be referring to that specific one, and "the" is appropriate. For example "I was at the Hindenburg disaster". But, if there are multiple such events, like concerts, then I might refer to a specific one or not. A complicating factor is that many plural items can be grouped together as one singular item. So, "I went to see the dog" would refer to a specific dog, while "I went to see a dog" means any dog, and "I went to see a pack of dogs" means any pack, while "I went to see the pack of dogs" again refers to a specific pack. And this is all about US English. UK English may differ. StuRat (talk) 20:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

German Africa Prize

I'm about to start creating a draft article about the "German Africa Prize". The article at de:WP uses three different spellings: "Deutscher Afrika-Preis", "Deutschen Afrika-Preis" and "Deutsche Afrika-Preis". It looks like that article needs to be fixed, but which spelling is correct? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

They are all correct, they're just in different grammatical cases. For use in an English article use the form "Deutscher Afrika-Preis". --Wrongfilter (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually you're right, the German article needs fixing... --Wrongfilter (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Wrongfilter, I might be back later to get the translation checked, but not today, it's bedtime for me. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi again Wrongfilter (or anyone else fluent in German) please check my draft for translation errors: Draft:German Africa Prize, German WP source article. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

October 22

Are native Arabic speakers required to also know Quranic Arabic?

As far as I know, Arabic-speaking people may either speak in their regional dialect to communicate with locals or Modern Standard Arabic to communicate by writing and formal speeches, even though Quranic Arabic is regarded as the superior form of Arabic. So, does this mean that all native-Arabic-speaking people must also learn Quranic Arabic through study of the Quran? Do Arabic speakers use Quranic Arabic in otherwise conversational dialogue like how Japanese and Chinese may use four-character idioms in normal, everyday speech so some understanding of Quranic Arabic and the history are necessary to get the meaning? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 03:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what "required" is supposed to mean in this context, but Muslims certainly need to know Qur'anic Arabic to read and fully understand the Qur'an, while those who want to develop Arabic-language literacy need to know some Modern Standard Arabic (which is similar to the language of the Qur'an, but not really the same). AnonMoos (talk) 03:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

P.S. using colloquial vernacular Arabic together with MSA is what some linguists would call "level-mixing". It probably should be included in the Stylistics article, but that seems to be almost purely about literary criticism. It's briefly alluded to in the Code-mixing article... AnonMoos (talk) 03:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

By "required", I mean certain phrases from bygone times are inserted into colloquial dialogue. In the Chinese language, most educated Chinese speakers use four-character idiomatic expressions that may be extracted from Classical Chinese texts. I think English speakers do the same thing with Shakespeare and the King James Bible. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 03:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Some points:

1) While a high percentage of Arabs are Muslims, not all are.

2) Most Muslims are not Arabs, living in nations like Iran, India, Pakistan, and Indonesia, so may not speak Arabic at all.

3) From the crazy portrayals of the writings in the Quran by ISIS and others, I get the impression that those followers must not actually read the Quran themselves, but just rely on the (mis)interpretations of others. I am reminded of the medieval period where the Catholic Church "interpreted" the Bible to say whatever was in their interest, such as supporting the Crusades and the selling of indulgences, and rigorously opposed it being written in common languages. Hopefully most Muslim leaders don't oppose this, but I suspect that ISIS does. StuRat (talk) 04:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Off topic.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
We have a Bible translations in the Middle Ages article, which is not perfect, but better than "StuRat's Impressions Desk". Adam Bishop (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2017 (UTC) You shouldn't attack other editors in front of the OP. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC) Yes, and the link supports my contention that common language versions of the Bible were rare then. Meanwhile, we are drifting farther from the OP with such discussions, so I will box it up. Adam, if you really want to discuss all the aspects of the availability of Bibles in common language in the Middle Ages, then open a new Q. StuRat (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC) It does not support your contention at all; no one cares about your contentions; your contentions are irrelevant. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC) As are your personal attacks. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

In the UK, where many British Muslims have a South Asian heritage; "Muslim children who attend community or church schools typically also attend mosque schools or other supplementary schools outside normal school hours in order to receive education in Islamic beliefs and practices... Many Muslim parents would appreciate the option for their children to study Arabic in school, and also for them to receive a form of Religious Education that gave them more opportunities to enrich their understanding of their own faith as well as studying others" (British Muslims and Education p. 105). Anecdotally, at least some of my Scouts who are Muslims attend after-school classes which include studying Arabic, but it seems to be at a most rudimentary level. Alansplodge (talk) 09:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

In some traditions of Madrasa study, the largest part of elementary education is taken up by mechanical recitation of Qur'an verses, sometimes without much concern with whether or not the boys understand very well what they're reciting. But 50.4.236.254 made it clear that he was asking about native Arabic-speakers. AnonMoos (talk) 23:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• Everyone here seems to be making the same mistake: The OP never mentioned practitioners of Islam, and yet every answer seems to be discussing why Muslims may learn Quranic Arabic. The OP merely asked about Arabic speakers; most Muslims are not native speakers of modern Arabic. --Jayron32 16:14, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, this was my point 2 above. StuRat (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Non Muslim Arabs, (e.g. Chaldeans, Copts, Maronites and Syrian Orthodox Christians etc., would probably object to learning the Qu'ran. 92.8.218.38 (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

meaning of "great straits"?

I am translating the article Paionia from en:wp to da:wp, but in the article Audoleon it says: In a war with the Illyrian tribe Autariatae he was reduced to great straits, but was succoured by Cassander. What is the meaning of "great straits"? IvarT (talk) 12:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Impoverished situation "straightened circumstances". 82.14.24.95 (talk) 12:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

That is "straitened circumstances" - beware of muddling straight and strait. Wymspen (talk) 14:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Often the phrase is "dire straits" but either way, it means a bad situation, almost hopeless. See, [1]. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, this was very helpfull.IvarT (talk) 14:19, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@IvarT: Just be aware, since both forms appear above, that "strait" comes through French for strict, while "straight" is from the Old English past participle stretched -- the two are not closely related or interchangeable. μηδείς (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify, a "strait" is a narrow place, where as "straight" is an adjective that means "linear". Thus, one is in "great straits" when one is being pinched in a "tight situation". "Straight" as a noun is usually marked in specialized usages, and very rare in common speech, thus "great straights" is odd. If it is being used as a noun, it's probably "strait". --Jayron32 13:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

An archaic form of "strait" is "straight" or (in Spenser and Milton) "streight". Matthew 7¹⁴ may have something to do with it. The verse reads:

Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Hence the expression "straight and narrow". 92.8.218.38 (talk) 19:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

That's simply wrong. The two words are distinct, neither strait nor straight is a version, archaic or otherwise, of the other word. μηδείς (talk) 21:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Chambers Dictionary (12th edition, ed. Mary O'Neill), London 2011 ISBN 978-0550-10237-9 says on page 1537:

strait, also (old or non-standard) straight or (Spenser and Milton) streight ...

Use of "that"

In a recent post here, I wrote "I'd say we don't need to consider the singular form here to make it specific". Question: Could I add "... since it will also stay that with the plural" here (with "that" referring to "specific")?--Cleph (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

It's not wrong, but I'd find it confusing to read. I'd prefer to repeat the word "specific". --69.159.60.147 (talk) 18:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

It is wrong. The proper word would be an adverb, either so or thus. "That" is a pronoun or a conjunction, and entirely incorrect (not to be too harsh on @Cleph:). μηδείς (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

that way may be a viable alternative, too. --31.154.101.236 (talk) 06:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, or "like that". I was trying to avoided periphrasis and give the OP the acceptable single-word alternatives rather than phrases. The periphrastic forms "that way / like that" are definitely more common than thus or so in colloquial speech. μηδείς (talk) 14:35, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

German inversion = English inversion?

Lately, on German television, I heard the phrase "Mit diesem Mann musste ich unbedingt reden" and wondered whether the inversion could be copied in an English translation (e. g. "this man I had to talk to"). However, Google didn't show any corresponding results. Is there a way to give a most faithful possible [← is that a correct expression of superlative?] translation reproducing the inversion?--Cleph (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there are contexts in which "this man I had to talk to" would be appropriate usage in English, though some pedants might consider it marginally informal. We would say "the most faithful possible translation". Dbfirs 15:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• See verb-second which applied historically as much in English as German given their common roots. "Mit diesem Mann" counts as a single element, hence the verb comes as the second element. μηδείς (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

It is a pretty standard word order in the original German, so using a non-standard construction in English would convey the wrong impression. I would simply translate it as: "I absolutely had to talk to this man". --Xuxl (talk) 21:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

That won't work in a sentence like this: "this man I had to talk to crossed the road and walked around the corner". Akld guy (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

That's not the same case, Akld. In the German, the inversion is one of emphasis, and "I/ich" is still the subject. In your case, the man you had to talk to is the subject. So the example given is OVS while your example is still a type of SVO. μηδείς (talk)

As far as conveying impressions, as always, translation would depend on context (i.e. who is speaking these lines and in what situation). This construction is a form of topic-comment, see examples at topicalization. It is common in some situations and is prevalent in a few English subcultures; notably, it is a feature of stereotypical Ashkenazi "Jewish English" and yeshivish. (WP:OR): I heard this construction a lot in the tri-state area. So a "faithful" translation will depend on context on a case-by-case basis.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 22:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Above, Dbfirs: there are contexts in which "this man I had to talk to" would be appropriate usage in English, though some pedants might consider it marginally informal. Hello, (part-time) pedant speaking. Yes, it sounds informal to me. A question arises: Is the relative clause integral ("defining") or supplementary ("non-defining")? If integral, then why also "this"? If supplementary, then we'd instead expect ", who(m) I had to talk to," or similar. I'd say it's unlikely to be supplementary and is instead integral -- and then the "this" doesn't sound at all superfluous. That's because "this" here doesn't have its core use (definite + proximal). Instead, it sounds likely to have its use (seen in anecdotes) of specific (and not necessarily definite) + proximal. ("So I'm sitting in the train, reading Bulwer-Lytton and minding my own business, when suddenly this bloke I've never seen before comes up" etc etc.). And this use of "this" is informal. -- Hoary (talk) 01:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, the usage you quote is very informal and not the usage I had in mind. One might imagine Zacchaeus, on hearing about Jesus, exclaiming "This man I have to see!". This inversion I would use. (My mention of pedantry was in relation to the rule from Latin "Never use a preposition to end a sentence with" which I follow only in (rare) extreme pedantry mode.) Dbfirs 06:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you all very much so far! @WilliamThweatt: Assuming we want to find a more or less universally applicable standard English equivalent, i. e. not too "subcultural" as within your examples, would there be an alternative to reproduce the emphasis?--Cleph (talk) 12:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

With this man, I've absolutely had to reason with. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

... with double "with"? This repetition I've no time for! Dbfirs 11:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

My apologies, it was a hasty oversight. Plasmic Physics (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

That's OK. Sorry for picking up the error -- I realised what had happened. I have the same problem, not knowing where to put the preposition. Dbfirs 21:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@Plasmic Physics: But that would just be another example and still not standard usage, right?--Cleph (talk) 15:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Ordinairily, people wouldn't use such a strange sounding inversion in English. However, it may be apt in the case where one desires to emphasise this man, instead of another, and when the description of the action as reasoning is less important, which would depend on the context that the statement was made in. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Al-Tabari

Following our article, I corrected the writer's full name in Muawiyah I to Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī. Another editor has changed "Jarir" to "Jabir". The name is also given in Arabic, but I don't speak Arabic. Who is correct? 84.9.194.88 (talk) 18:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Jarir is correct. Omidinist (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Special term for opposite vertexes of a cube

We know about the terms "cater corner", "catty corner", and "kitty corner". Each of these is an acceptable way of saying "diagonally opposite". ("Caddy corner" is incorrect unless you have someone holding golf clubs in the corner.)

But the term implies the number 4. Suppose we were to think of 3 dimensions; we need a similar term that derives from the number 8 attached to the word corner. What would this be?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I've never heard any of those terms used here in the UK, but apparently they used to be common in certain British dialects. Why can the same term not be used for a cube? The corner would be the opposite corner of the square formed by diagonals of faces of the cube. I would also question any necessary connection with French quatre. The origin of cater is more probably the verb to catre going back at least to 1577 and meaning "To place or set rhomboidally; to cut, move, go, etc., diagonally" according to the OED, so it could equally mean the opposite corner of a cuboid or even a parallelepiped. Dbfirs 19:16, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Not a cube, but for a hexagon, we have the terms "ortho", "meta", and "para", used in chemistry, since hexagons come up quite often there. In this case, "para" is the opposite vertex. StuRat (talk) 22:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

See also Space diagonal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

(ec) When studying symmetry for chemistry or crystallography, we would describe these as vertices on the Body diagonal. Opposite corners of a face of a cube would be vertices on the Face diagonal.--Wikimedes (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

The term catty-corner exists because it's a convenience for describing things. Like if I'm on the southwest corner of an intersection, I might describe a building on the northeast corner as catty-corner to where I am. Can the OP think of a common situation where a term would be needed to describe something that's across the diagonal and at a 45 degree angle upward? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

2014 National Security Agency illegal seizure

Request: Can someone please do a search of the Korean Internet to see if there are any references or awareness of this even? Trying to make the article more complete. Muzzleflash (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:REX may be helpful for you too. --Jayron32 11:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

October 23

Operatic soprano

For the Wikidata item d:Q5681011 label, which is the correct order of the adjectives: "lyric dramatic soprano" or "dramatic lyric soprano"? -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there can be a definitive answer to this, beyond some rough and ready frequency data. Google searches for me produce about 26,000 hits for the former, and just over 1000 for the latter. Henry^Flower 10:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

When typing the provisional Wikidata item label in English, I thought along the lines of [ADJ +] lyric soprano (227K ghits) vs. [ADJ +] dramatic soprano (166K ghits). Also, the Google search field for "dramatic" also suggested it modifying "mezzo soprano", "coloratura soprano", and the "lyric soprano" of my query. Other than consulting a academic music library for a lookup in a Groves-type lexicon, I'll leave this stet for now. -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Jumble

collapse "pointless unclear question" to save space
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I hope all understand what I mean by this interesting word game. Can someone be kind enough to tell me where one can find them on the net. 125.62.118.108 (talk) 09:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC) Here. --Jayron'h32 11:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC) Thanks Jayron. Of course I already have been thru all such Google-findable sites before putting it on the RF. Alas they have nothing much to offer a fan! What I was expecting was some unique discovery by some relentless surfer like you. If possible please ask someone else who may by chance know of some good site by accidentally come across it while surfing. You know, as in other fields, sometimes excellent sites etc. remain undiscovered by bots etc of Google. What are you looking for ? Very long words ? Obscure words ? Something else ? StuRat (talk) 23:29, 23 October 2017 (UTC) I recall a puzzle which used to appear in newspapers, called "Jumble: That scrambled word game" or something like that. I assume that's what the OP is talking about, but I'm not aware of a source for those games or if they are still produced. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC) Jumble still appears in the Denver Post daily. Here is the link to their online version. MarnetteD|Talk 02:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC) Right, but the OP is apparently looking for some specific variation on that word scramble game which they can't find. We need more info to know which version they want. StuRat (talk) 03:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC) Maybe, but since that's the OP's only edit in the last 13 months, we may have to wait a while to find out. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:14, 24 October 2017 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. If this is to be closed, it should be collapsed. μηδείς (talk) 21:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

October 24

Cuneiform

(Re-posting question from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2017 March 11, hoping for one last chance to get it answered before the RD closes for good.)

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.

According to the image description page, the sculpture is from the 1870s, and the success in decyphering cuneiform was in recent news at that time: Sir Henry Rawlinson was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in February 1850 on account of being "The Discoverer of the key to the Ancient Persian, Babylonian, and Assyrian Inscriptions in the Cuneiform character." The sculptor, Thomas Nicholls, and the architect, William Burges, probably couldn't read cuneiform (or other ancient languages) themselves; I presume the sculptor had copied a sample of cuneiform from some reference, same as he copied the Aramaic alphabet. (The sculpture in question is part of a group of five.) --132.67.171.83 (talk) 09:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Our list may not be that useful; you'd probably have to consult a publication from around that time, such as Carl Faulmann's Buch der Schrift. His list starts on page 69. There, "it, id eine" (about the 18th character on page 70, left row) seems a much better fit for the fourth character in the left column, which was presumably what you identified as "BI" (third character in your question). — Sebastian 12:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

132.67.171.83 -- Cuneiform in the Unicode standard is based on the early Babylonian forms of the signs. This has some advantages, but it isn't the form of the signs that was first deciphered, or which has traditionally been used in modern scholarly grammars. In July, I finished uploading the glyphs of a neo-Assyrian cuneiform font (which may be more relevant to your problem) as SVG files, but I'm only about 30% done with post-upload tasks of doing cross-checking and making minor corrections. You can see the SVG files at commons:User:AnonMoos/Gallery (Assyrian cuneiform)... -- AnonMoos (talk) 05:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Turris Babel ædificationis adhortatio linguis sex

Athanasius Kircher adorns an illustration of the Tower of Babel with six banderoles containing the exhortation Gen 11:4. On each of these, there is small writing that might refer to the language, but unfortunately, is undecipherable due to the low resolution. What are the six languages? Obviously, there's Latin and Greek, and one of the two square scripts must be Hebrew. One appears to be Arabic, but then there's another script of Aramaic descendance that looks similar to Syriac, maybe Serṭā, but contains some distinctive letters that have no correspondence there, above all the Z turned right 45°, which I can't construct as a ligature, either. Is that used for Aramaic, or is the other square script used for that language?

Bonus question: If anyone here can write Akkadian cuneiform, it would be really cool to add that to the list. There's room to the lower left; I'm sure the venerable Master of a Hundred Arts would appreciate it. — Sebastian 10:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

You can view a high resolution scan at the Internet Archive here. In fact, maybe we should replace the commons image with a higher res version. - Lindert (talk) 11:11, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Wonderful! Now I can read the small writing with ease. It says in order:

1. T. Latinus
2. T. Græcus
3. T. Syriacus
4. Text. Hebræg [sic!]
5. T. Arabicus
6. T. Chaldai[cus]

That answers my main question. As for the cuneiform, the lack of replies to the previous question suggests that I may have to give up that hope. — Sebastian 11:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The second Hebrew script, incidentally, is the Targum (specifically Targum Onkelos). הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 14:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. So, I understand, then, that the language is Aramaic. That was what I thought, since Chaldaic redirects to Biblical Aramaic, and I'm assuming that the phrase in that article "It should not be confused with the [...] targumim" might be a more recent distinction. — Sebastian 22:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, "the Z turned right 45°" in the Serṭā fragment is the word ܠܢ lan --46.19.86.100 (talk) 04:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I see how that makes sense from the Contextual forms of letters given for ʾEsṭrangēlā and Maḏnḥāyā. — Sebastian 07:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

By the way, there's a book about Athanasius Kircher titled "A Man of Misconceptions". His diagrams, and maps of Atlantis (with north on the bottom and south on top) etc. can be fun to look at, but I don't know that I'd place great confidence in things that he originated (his attempted decipherment of Egyptian hieroglyphs was a fiasco)... AnonMoos (talk) 05:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Verb forms for people using singular "they" pronoun

Over at Candace Gingrich there's a disagreement over whether people who chose the singular "they" pronouns for themselves and what verb forms are to be used in sentences where the pronoun is not present' it it "Pat is a lawyer" or "Pat are a lawyer"? --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

"Everyone loves his or her mother" is obviously the correct form, but it's commonplace to reduce the construction to "their". There is no such excuse with the OP's example: "Pat are a lawyer" is wrong. 92.27.49.50 (talk) 14:08, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The article now reads "Candace Gingrich were born..." and "Although Gingrich's sexual orientation were ..." Whatever gender she claims to be there is only one of her. Someone please change it back. 92.27.49.50 (talk) 14:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I see what the problem is. There is a sentence which now reads: "They served as the Human Rights Campaign's National Coming Out Project Spokesperson for 1995 and were named one of Esquire's "Women We Love" and "Women of the Year" for Ms. magazine." If you accept that a woman can be described as "they" that construction is correct, because the plural pronoun requires a plural verb. As explained above, that does not imply that there are two of her. 92.27.49.50 (talk) 14:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I've been trying to change it back; there's only been one other editor, the one pushing the "Candace are" usage, so I've come here to get the input needed to end the edit war. I have no problem with that last sentence you cited; it's those previous two. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, and to justify themselves they claimed the construction was subjunctive - which is nonsense. 92.27.49.50 (talk) 14:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

There are always people in the world who will be offended by anything. So, instead of trying to please the world, just do what makes sense to you. In this case, the singular construct is a well known linguistic controversy. Some people insist that the form is legitimate. If you feel uncomfortable or believe that it is incorrect, then do what works for you. If other people criticize you for this trivial gender rule, then the problem is on them, not you. Keep in mind that there are languages in the world that do not put so much weight on linguistic gender and subject-verb agreement. Mandarin is one of them. In my own English writing style, if the gender is unknown and the subject is singular and personal, then I will either use "it" for an animal or object or "he" for a person. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 03:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Nat_Gertler -- In the speech and writing of some people, the "singular they" pronoun can have its own special reflexive/emphatic form themself (which some other people will object to), but the verb agreement manipulation does not sound like anything that happens in ordinary English... AnonMoos (talk) 05:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I can't see why Wikipedia should be bound by anybody's personal preferences. If we know for a fact that the person in question is a woman, then we should refer to her as "she" rather than reinvent English grammar for her sake. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

We should use the gender the person self-identifies with, including the choice of pronouns they expect for themselves. If the person wishes us to use the pronound "they", then we use it. To do otherwise is to illegitimize their own identity. On the grammitical issue, we simply directly use the proper agreement for the immediate usage. Thus "Candace is" but "They are". "Are" is neither plural nor singular, and anyone insisting otherwise is ignoring the use of "are" in agreement with the singular "you". --Jayron32 13:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

It usually makes sense to use a person's self-proclaimed gender identity, rather than trying to do "original research" (and the necessary information for such research would not be publicly available in most cases, anyway). However, Wikipedia can't really use grammar innovations or attempted reforms of the English language in writing about people with non-standard gender identities. "Singular they" was created by ordinary English-speakers even before the 20th century, and has been slowly gaining in acceptability for many years, so there's little problem with using it more or less in the way that many people are already using it. However attempted innovative top-down "reforms" such as Sie and Ze and whatever, which would not even be understood by the great majority of English speakers, cannot be used in ordinary Wikipedia article text (only when actually explicitly discussing issues of pronoun reform). AnonMoos (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

"Singular they" has existed for a very long time in English, but not where the referent is a specific, known individual. It's used to refer to generic persons ("someone", "anyone"), or occasionally to an unknown person. Referring it to a specific named person is maybe not as much of an innovation as "sie" or "xe", but it's still a quite recent grammatical innovation that has arguably not entirely caught on. --Trovatore (talk) 02:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

There's certainly some truth in what you say, but slightly expanding the semantics of an existing construction is less of a leap than introducing a brand-new innovation which would feel unfamiliar and alien to English-speakers. One of the reasons why "Ms." caught on (when many analogous proposals didn't) is that many people (especially in the South) already pronounced "Mrs." as "miz", and often loosely applied it to unmarried women who were not youngish... AnonMoos (talk) 09:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Less of a leap, I agree. But still a pretty big one. Personally I still find the construction quite jarring, borderline ungrammatical. --Trovatore (talk) 05:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but the main question facing the OP here is whether "Candace are" or "They is" are ever appropriate constructions. They would not be. We would use the proper grammatical constructs. If Candace wishes referents to include an ungendered pronoun, then "They are..." is the only approrpiate construction here if we are to use a pronoun at all. The source of the controversy, forcing "Candace are" into the narrative, is just plain wrong. --Jayron32 15:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

To put it another way: English lacks a gender-free singular 3rd person pronoun (the choice we have is "he", "she" or "it"), and if we don't want to be gender-specific, we have no choice but to improvise, so we sometimes use the plural pronoun "they" in reference to single people. Once we've chosen to use "they", the verb must agree, hence it's "they are" and not "they is". But that's as far as it goes. Just because we've used a plural pronoun and associated plural verb to refer to a single person, that does not mean that we now use plural verbs when referring to that person by name. So, you could have: Candace is a lovely person. They are kind and generous. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

(ec) Phone operator to boss: "There's a caller who wants to speak to you." Boss: "Ask them to wait, I'm busy." In English, 'them' is the only option. Akld guy (talk) 01:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Your ec took over 4 hours to manifest. Must be slow ether in your neck of the woods.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@JackofOz: The edit conflict was with Matt Deres' post below mine. It's quite strange. My post actually went through with no edit conflict, and then I noticed that his post was already there, below mine. I then added the (ec) to indicate that my post was made after his, since his appeared to disagreed with mine. In fact, his was made while I was typing out mine. The sequence begins here. Akld guy (talk) 19:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I missed it, but I don't think anyone has yet linked to singular they, which is pretty detailed and well-referenced. Regarding Jack's assertion above that our choices are "he", "she", and "it" when it comes to third-person pronouns, I submit third-person pronoun, in particular, the table here which suggests there are others (with varying degrees of general acceptance). Matt Deres (talk) 01:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

THanks folks. Just to be clear: I was well aware that "Candice are" was wrong; it's just one of those things that was so obvious that most sources would not even talk about it. I just needed someplace I could point the other editor to to show it was wrong, and this has been accomplished. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Matt, I was waiting for this article to be linked here. I had great hope for such gender-neutral pronouns, which is why I created {{genderneutral}} in 2006. But since then, acceptance rather dwindled. Some three years ago, I spoke with a linguist about it, who said "we've lost that battle long ago". — Sebastian 10:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The word battle is telling, don't you think? μηδείς (talk) 20:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

"You" is not singular. The singular form is "thou". Other languages don't have a hangup about the use of the second person singular pronoun. Different languages address the problem of inappropriate familiarity in different ways - French (like English) uses the plural (vous), German uses the third person plural (Sie) and Portuguese adopts a noun form a Sra. (the lady). 92.8.218.38 (talk) 15:23, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

October 25

puit (fr)

Wikidata item d:Q42301898 has the French label "Pierre-Feuille-Ciseaux-Puit", for a game that's a variation of d:rock-paper-scissors. In this context, what's the English-language equivalent of the last French word? -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

It should be "puits", which is a well - the idea is that the rock and the scissors fall down the well, but the paper can cover the opening of the well (it's explained at fr:Pierre-papier-ciseaux, but in French of course). "Puit" is surely a typo; just guessing, but it's probably the common mistake that "puits" looks plural so the singular must be "puit". Entering "puit" into the French-English dictionary on WordReference.com takes you to "pur" for some reason, which must be the origin of the "pure" translation on Wikidata. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The wikidata item linked to by the OP does have "puits" - it appears to have been mis-copied here. Wymspen (talk) 14:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Beard to the washing

Whilst reading a book about the mayors of Exeter,England,I found this sentence-'...[this mayor] never did any ill to any man, nor did he put his beard to the washing'. I have no idea what this refers to, Google hasn't come up with anything useful, so any ideas what this phrase means? Lemon martini (talk) 21:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Probably a variant of "to give one's head for the washing", an obsolete slang term meaning to comply, or to submit to a reprimand, in a meek manner. See the OED entry for "head" where there's a 1601 quote "Such a one as would not give his Head for the polling, nor his Beard for the washing"... AnonMoos (talk) 22:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Ta-Nehisi Coates and Nubia

Ta-Nehisi Coates is an author whose first name is pronounced "Tah-nuh-hah-see" rather than the apparent "Ta-nuh-hee-si." The article says he was given an old name for Nubia, but the article on the country does not give such a name as having once been applied to it. When was Ta-Nehisi the name used for Nubia, and in what language?( Reliable source, please.) [http://languagehat.com/ta-nehisi/ a language blog suggests Egyptian. Is there some established transliteration system from that language which says it would be spelled Ta-Nehisi rather than Ta-Nehasi, where the third vowel is rendered the same way as the first vowel? The blog suggests it is somehow a phonetic transcription of southern Black American dialect, where a long "I" would be pronounced "AH." But that would mean a parent read it Nahisi, then someone wrote down the way it was pronounced, with a drawled long I as the penultimate vowel, rather than the way it was spelled. But the father was quite well educated, so this seems doubtful. Edison (talk) 21:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Reading through lots of offtopic chitchat at that blog, who would pop in but supposedly the father who gave him the name, Paul Coates, who said "... the pronunciation of his name was not of my doing. his name was given to me along with its pronunciation by Yosef ben Jochannan, who members of the Black community lovingly called Dr. Ben. he was one of our most knowledgeable elders. by birth he was Ethiopian, and was born into the Jewish faith. he was largely self taught as a historian and Egyptologist." So my question then addresses the correctness of Jochannan's transcription and pronunciation. Edison (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

It's in our article at Nubia#Nubia and Ancient Egypt -- "Nehset / Nehsyu / Nehsi — Nḥst / Nḥsyw / Nḥsj — Nubia / Nubians". If you want info on the exact details of ancient Egyptian vowel pronunciations, then you're probably out of luck -- ancient Egyptian orthography didn't provide any information about vowels directly, and modern conventional Egyptological transcriptions are often derived by changing Egyptian guttural consonants to "a", semivowel consonants to "i" or "u", and then semi-randomly inserting enough "e" vowels to result in a pronounceable-looking word... -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I certainly don't expect to learn exactly what vowel sounds were used in ancient Egyptian. Bu has the puzzling Coates spelling and pronunciation been seen in any scholarly article about Nubia, or is it original with him? "i" as "ah" in the next to last vowel, then :i: as :ee: in the last vowel. I do not dispute his right to pronounce his name however he chooses. Edison (talk) 12:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

If you search Google Books for the name, but limiting to the 20th century, you'll get some ghits [2].--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 22:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

October 26

How did men become exclusively male?

Nowadays, people will feel offended when men is used inclusively. My question is, why do people think that "men" doesn't include them to the point that they insist on having a separate word just to indicate femininity? I mean, in Mandarin Chinese, no one feels offended when Tā is used. In fact, it is normal for a speaker to ask, "So, is this person you're talking about male or female?" because in spoken Chinese and historical written Chinese, the pronouns are all identical. And no one feels offended when they use the exact same pronoun Tā for men and women. Instead, the common way to express gender in Chinese is to add 男 or 女 characters or use relational terms (大哥 for oldest brother). To circumvent the traditional pecking order, sometimes English nicknames will be used like "Maria" or something strange like "Tomato" or "Young Boy". Somehow, for English speakers, the given name is most important, because that signifies the person's identity, and gender is part of that. For Chinese, it seems the reverse is true. That relationship (including gender) is priority, while given names are different and changeable depending on the situation. So, anyway, how did "men" become exclusively male? How come gender for English speakers is so intertwined with personal identity than one's relationship to other people? 64.134.39.74 (talk) 14:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

"Men" certainly referred to both sexes in the Book of Common Prayer composed during the 16th and 17th centuries; an example is in the Nicene Creed: “Who for us men, and for our salvation came down from heaven...”. A Prayer Book Glossary says: "Man/Men- an inclusive term for all human beings". Alansplodge (talk) 16:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

[Edit Conflict] Gender in English and Grammatical gender may contain information of interest. See also Man (word)#Etymology. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.202.208.54 (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

By 1776, it seemed to not include women, as "All men are created equal" didn't intend to grant women equal rights with men, such as the right to vote. "Mankind", however, still has the broader meaning, as in "One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind". StuRat (talk) 16:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The Declaration of Independence wasn't intended to grant anyone rights, but rather to dissolve a governmental relationship; it didn't grant anyone a right to vote (and in the early US, many men were not granted the right to vote, as many states limited it to white male property owners.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:59, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

One reason for the DoE was so that all men could have equal rights, but not women. StuRat (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

One thing I'm finding interesting is this Google Ngram result for the phrase "men and women" (the usage of which suggests a separation), which seems to drop off hard in the late 17th century, then regrow. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

64.134.39.74 -- if you want to go back to the origins, then Old English had three separate words: wer with exclusively male reference, wīf with exclusively female reference, and mann, which basically meant "human, person" (a meaning reinforced by its similarity to the impersonal or indefinite pronoun man, which meant "one" or unspecified "they" as verb subject). AnonMoos (talk) 00:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

See Gender neutrality in English#Generic words for humans. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 07:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)