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

December 18

Comma or no comma?

Is there a comma (or no comma) after the word "December"?

• The meeting will be held on the 12th day of December, 2017.
• The meeting will be held on the 12th day of December 2017.

I am not interested in re-phrasing the statement (e.g., "The meeting will be held on December 12, 2017." or such.) I just want to know the proper punctuation for the sentence, as written. Thanks. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 05:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I think I've seen it both ways, reflecting pronunciation. "December, 2017" focuses on the date 12 December, giving the impression that it's an annual recurring event, and you're talking about the 2017 edition of the event. "December 2017" sounds more appropriate if it's a one-time event, as you're merely saying that it's the twelfth day in a specific month of history. Nyttend (talk) 05:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the comma is optional. I like to think of the comma as a replacement of “of”. 140.254.70.225 (talk) 14:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the comma is optional. But British English does not usually have any commas in dates, whereas they are obligatory in the American English format. So I suspect you would see a difference in the frequency of the commas between the two dialects. Matt's talk 15:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Great! Thanks, all! 32.209.55.38 (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I have certainly seen writing where a month/year combination is always treated as requiring a comma, as "December, 2017", but I think this is old-fashioned now. Wikipedia style calls for no comma: see WP:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Dates, months and years. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 00:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Really? Then that style guide is widely ignored throughout WP. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

What do you expect on a project where anyone is allowed to edit? That said, I haven't seen a great number of such commas myself. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 00:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

So, why mention it in the first place? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

In case the original poster was interested in a reference to a manual of style (you know, Reference Desk?) or specifically had a Wikipedia context in mind. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 10:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• I find the usage without the comma coarse and uneducated. Of course, I wasn't born after Clinton was impeached. μηδείς (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

When I was learning to read, Trump hadn't even gotten it up yet, and I agree. Boorish, even. I like it without when the day's not mentioned, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:05, December 20, 2017 (UTC)

I trust it isn't too windy up there on the moral high ground, Meds. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Seriously? [redacted]? Where does this escalate from here? I didn't insult anyone, so lets please just revert to civility now that we've proven we can play word games like Catholic-school girls. μηδείς (talk) 03:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry I offended you. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I prefer not to use the comma, and can remember when Clinton was a foreign leader; but I am neither coarse nor uneducated, and would be somewhat miffed if someone suggested otherwise. Bazza (talk) 17:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Note, I said I find the usage coarse and uneducated, and I am assuming an American context. They don't teach children cursive nowadays, and I find that uneducated, and I find texting during church or at a restaurant table as coarse as public masturbation. I'd expect to get the same short shrift overseas if I persisted in writing center, which I most certainly would. μηδείς (talk) 05:32, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

A word to the wise. The expression "I find" in the way you've been using it in this thread is just about the most judgmental thing one can say in English. It is exactly the language used by actual judges when deciding what is or is not the case. It appears to place the speaker in a rather morally superior position compared to those about whom they're doing the finding. I just thought you might like to be aware of this. But maybe you have your reasons. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Someone might say "I find that corks preserve the flavour of a wine much better than plastic stoppers". That's not in the least judgmental. 92.8.223.3 (talk) 15:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Well this is a bit off-topic, but perhaps that's an Australian connotation, and Australians don't use that expression out of legal proceedings? Americans say things like "I find it hard to digest cucumber rinds" or "I find honey works as well as sugar" all the time without passing sentence. In any case, yes, I am passing judgment on people who let their children use cellphones at the table in a restaurant. But I am doing so without calling them names or cursing. Even in Spanish one says lo encuentro interesante; "I find it interesting"; so I find it difficult to believe that the only possible interpretation of the usage is universally attackatory. μηδείς (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I find commas so troubling, don't you? But don't quote me on that. Martinevans123 (talk)

December 19

What is the antonym of "per se"?

What is the antonym of "per se" (by/in itself, excluding anything else)? I mean, "including anything else". --Yejianfei (talk) 11:43, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

in itself, of itself, by itself, as such, intrinsically. So, the antonym is likely extrinsically. 140.254.70.225 (talk) 14:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

including everything else, excluding itself. Maybe someone knowledgeable in Latin can make a translation, which can be used as an antonym for per se. 140.254.70.225 (talk) 15:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Extrensic is the antonym of intrinsic, but it's not a good antonym of per se.[1] I was thinking et alii, or perhaps something even more encompassing than that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:05, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

et omnia alia might work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• As the phrase means "by/in itself" I think "in the wider context" is the actual sense opposite to per se. What high-falutin Latinate term stands for that? inter alia makes sense. μηδείς (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

What's the antonym of camel ? I think Asia (If not a pie). I'm not sure if everything must have an antonym, but as far as "per se" is concerned, I think it does have an antonym, being "and likewise" (if not et cetera). HOTmag (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Is camel an adjective? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:05, December 21, 2017 (UTC)

Colors have antonyms? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Negative. That is to say, positively. See also the complementary colors. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:29, December 21, 2017 (UTC)

Those are "opposites" but I don't think they qualify as "antonyms". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The colours themselves don't, but their words do. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:48, December 21, 2017 (UTC)

If you invert Tugs, he turns into Hugs. The main camel in camel turns a majestic sky blue, while the sky turns an eerie shade of camel. But yeah, the opposite of the animal is closer to Asia. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:28, December 21, 2017 (UTC)

• The antonym of "per se" is not required to be a Latin phrase. A native English phrase is allowed if it is accurate enough. --Yejianfei (talk) 01:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• I wouldn't translate per se (at least as I sometimes use it) as by itself, more like as itself. —Tamfang (talk) 07:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

"In and of itself" might better fit the sense of per se as used in English. μηδείς (talk) 03:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

December 20

If English and Spanish are made official in the US, then would Spanish cease to be taught as a foreign language?

But then, there are countries like Singapore that have English as the official language while Chinese or Tamil as a second language only for people whose “mother tongue” is Tamil or Chinese. So, a Malay speaker will find both Chinese and Tamil as unfamilar languages, despite both existing in the same country as legal, official languages. I think the same occurs in Switzerland(?), in which different regions speak different languages. My main question is, if Spanish is the official language but English speakers are not forced to take it, then is it a native language of the speaker even though the speaker speaks no Spanish at all? 140.254.70.225 (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

In Switzerland, Romansch is an official language, but is spoken by few people. Therefore, it would be wrong for a Swiss german speaker to say she is a native romansch speaker. Same for French speakers and Italian speakers in Switzerland. So the answer to the question in the last sentence is ‘no’. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.221.49 (talk) 18:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

In neighbouring Canada, English and French are both official languages, and all parliamentary and government papers, signage etc have to be issued in both languages. However, there are many Canadians who know only one of the languages with any degree of fluency. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

As noted in Spanish language in the United States, the US has no official language, and different states have their own rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The question asks for speculation. The reference desk is not for speculation. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

English by itself can be foreign, even to native speakers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah, toujours un conseil utile. Alansplodge (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

True, the RefDesk should not speculate, but we can point the querent to resources such as List of official languages by country and territory, which shows how other places handle their linguistic situation. NB it includes some useful definitions of official language, etc. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not too sure what 140.254.70.225 is trying to ask, but Spanish is already semi-official in the state of New Mexico -- New_Mexican_Spanish#Legal_status -- AnonMoos (talk) 02:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it's a question of institutional organization? For example, a high school might have classes in Spanish, French, and German, all of which would be in the foreign-language department. The OP could be asking, if Spanish were to gain official status, would you move the Spanish classes out of that department, and into its own department parallel with the English department?

I guess I don't really know the answer to that, but the question does seem to presuppose that English is the official language of the US, which as Bugs points out, is not true. --Trovatore (talk) 04:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The OP seems to assume that "native language of the speaker" means "official language in the speaker's country". That is not what anyone would mean when saying "native language of the speaker". A native language is usually a language which you learned in early childhood. --Lgriot (talk) 17:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

December 21

Spanish b’s and p’s

Yesterday, I was listening to SpanishDict’s saber’s present subjunctive tense, and I notice that the p’s in sepamos and sepáis actually sound like b’s, but everything else in that tense sounds like p’s. So, a Spanish p will be pronounced like a b when it’s placed as a conjugated form of nosotros and maybe vosotros? 140.254.70.224 (talk) 14:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not just from listening. According to this,[2] some forms of the verb (such as present subjunctive) are actually spelled with a "p". And according to the Real Academia site, it's really the other way around: the "p" in the Latin sapĕre slid into a "b" in some but not all of its forms. Note the genus and species Homo sapiens, where the second part comes from sapere.[3] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I just listened to the recordings myself and they are unmistakably [p]. What you are hearing is not a /b/ but an unaspirated /p/. The "p" in English is aspirated (except in words like "spin") but in Spanish it is not aspirated which is why you may not hear it as a "p" at first. The difference between /p/ and /b/ is one of voicing while the difference between Spanish /p/ and English /p/ is one of aspiration. A Spanish "b" in that position would not sound like an English "b" but would be an approximate or fricative, [β]. What you hear in those recordings is the proper way to pronounce "p" (i.e. voiceless and unaspirated) in Spanish. See Spanish phonology#Consonants.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 07:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, the [previously] unsigned comment above [by WT] is correct. Because the Spanish /p/ is unaspirated, it often sounds like a b to monolingual native English speakers. The waitresses at a restaurant I frequented often offered to buy the busboys "bipsa" (pizza) because they misunderstood the initial consonant as the Mexican kitchen staff pronounced it, while the Mexicans had a hard time with "ts", and substituted "ps". μηδείς (talk) 03:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Follow-up grammar question

I'm sorry for referring to this matter: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language&oldid=815079757#%22This_is_not_something_[what_/_which_/_that]_I_would_say_[about]_I_am_proud_of%22_(once_more...) Does anybody know how to link that properly? yet again, but I'd like to finally clarify whether the following wording would be grammatical: "This is not something about which I would say [that] I'm proud of it". Akld guy has previously pointed out that the use of "about" implies indirect speech here. Thus, "that" can left out here, right?--Herfrid (talk) 19:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• As to how to link that, because wikitext uses square brackets [ and ] to delimit links (either wikilinks or URLs), you need to escape those characters where they would appear in the links. To do this, you replace them with the hexadecimal escapes %5b and %5d respectively. If you want to give a direct URL to an old version of the page, you also need to replace " with %22, as you did above. So https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language&oldid=815079757#%22This_is_not_something_%5bwhat_/_which_/_that%5d_I_would_say_%5babout%5d_I_am_proud_of%22_(once_more...) is the URL.
• But usually, rather than linking to a URL for the old version, you would wikilink to the archived version for the specific date. In this case you can just write WP:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2017 December 9#"This is not something %5bwhat / which / that%5d I would say %5babout%5d I am proud of" (once more...) and that will work. (Just to confuse things, when the link using escapes is displayed it will actually show with the square brackets; I used to use a pipe symbol to get it to display with the escapes.) --69.159.60.147 (talk) 05:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about indirect speech, but there may well be an indirect speech problem here. As a native speaker of English, I pointed out that the sentence is not grammatical. There are really only two ways to write it: "This is not something about which I would say that I'm proud." The that can be, and usually is, left out in informal spoken English. In written English, and in Wikipedia articles it should be present. The other acceptable version is: "This is not something about which I would say, "I'm proud of it"." That version turns it into a quote. Akld guy (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

"This" and "it" are presumably the same thing. Therefore, "it" is not needed. The clunky nature of the sentence is the action verb "say". Replacing that with what would be said would make it better, such as replacing "say" with "claim". The use of "about" and "that" are both spurious. Neither are necessary. With those changes, the sentence becomes: This is not something which I would claim I'm proud of. You are ending with "of", which can drive some pedantic people crazy, but your sentence is correct for normal speech. To completely correct the sentence, you simply reverse the two parts of the sentence to: I would not claim I'm proud of this. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 20:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Alkd guy's point is fully correct and definitive. It was I who said you were combining direct and indirect speech in one pleonastic sentence by repeating the object twice, "this" and "it", as Alkd points out. (You were also conflating "to say" and "to say about" by implication. This is getting to the point where repeating the same question is disruptive. If you still can't grok the underlying problem you should probably just accept it from us on authority at this point. μηδείς (talk) 03:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Allons, enfants de la Patrie

La Marseillaise translates "Patrie" as "fatherland". My questions:

1. Is that a good translation, either by modern standards or at the time the song was written?

1. If it's "fatherland" why does it take a feminine definite article?

Thanks.

173.228.123.121 (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Judging by the Italian cognate patria (which is also feminine), I think it's a fine translation.

As to why it's feminine, I'm not sure, but why shouldn't it be? The fatherland is a land, not a father. There's no reason "land" shouldn't be feminine. (Terra is feminine in Italian, Land is masculine (I think) in German; there's no consistent assignment.) --Trovatore (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Patria is also the equivalent word in Spanish. The -ia suffix seems to denote a country or "land". In Latin, France is Francia, Italy is Italia and so on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Small note, "Land is masculine (I think) in German" is not correct. It is a... neuter noun(would it be called that in english? Never thought about the name for it in english, haha) or "Neutrum" in german, so "das Land". Also is like that for "das Vaterland", the fatherland or "das Mutterland", the motherland. 91.49.95.245 (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. I wasn't sure on that. I knew the plural was Länder and I thought that was a pluralization paradigm used for masculine nouns.

Yes, the correct term in English is "neuter". --Trovatore (talk) 01:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

English doesn't have gender the way many European languages do. Fatherland is just fatherland. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Obviously, i just thought it looked weird without the "the", haha. But yeah, i guess i could have skipped it. Just bothered me visualy and did not see the harm in including it for consistency. 91.49.95.245 (talk) 00:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Now you've lost me. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

And yes, we would term that "a neuter noun" in English. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC) (von Milwaukee, Deutsche-Athen)

The only non-neuter nouns I'm aware of in English are those which refer to people and specify their sex. Actor vs. actress, for example (traditionally). Objects don't have any formal neuter that I can think of. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I added the "the" infront of "the fatherland", for example, to keep it consistent to the german "das Vaterland" because it looked more visually pleasing to me that way. Even if i could have just said "fatherland". But whatever, it really is not important and does not change anything relating to the original point of "Land" not being masculine but a neuter noun in german. Sorry if i was, or even still am, being unclear. It is a bit late, haha. 91.49.95.245 (talk) 00:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I see. I almost did say, "The fatherland is just the fatherland" - but didn't. Sorry. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• Patria is feminine in Latin and la campagne is also feminine in French. The fact that father is naturally masculine has nothing to do with grammatical gender; and we are talking about the land of the father, where "the land" la terre is also feminine. μηδείς (talk) 03:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Is there any reason that it shouldn't be translated as "motherland"? I would think that the dominant cultural perception of (in this case the French) people might be as important as the linguistic root of the word, and as far as I know (being a mere Englishman) France habitually personifies its national spirit as female. Compare Great Britain, which is most often personified as the female Britannia (see first photo)*, where "Motherland" is greatly preferred over "Fatherland", though this might be a reaction to the habitual German preference for "Fatherland".

(* The alternative personification Albion is portrayed as male, but is less commonly evoked.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.220.212.173 (talk) 10:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Do Brits really say "motherland"? I had always associated that term with Russians. To me as an American, "fatherland" sounds more natural, even though Columbia is also female.

I think maybe "fatherland" is not so much "land that is a father" as "land of my fathers". We don't say "my mothers" so much, or at all, really, except as a riff on "my fathers". --Trovatore (talk) 10:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

There is a specific term in French for motherland, which is "mère-patrie". Patrie comes from "pater" which means father in Latin. And as Medeis stated very well, one should not confuse grammatical gender and biological gender. --Xuxl (talk) 14:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, British people have been saying motherland since 1595, and Carlyle used it in 1828 to refer to Scotland. People in the former colonies used to refer to Britain as the motherland, but I think this usage probably died with the Empire. I would have been happy to translate la Patrie as the motherland, but accept that La Marseillaise would probably have used "la mère patrie" if they had intended a female interpretation. Our own national anthem uses native land in a similar context. Dbfirs 15:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

In a British Empire/Commonwealth context, I believe I've heard Britain called the "mother country" more often than the "motherland". Still feminine, though. On other other hand, "home country" is another such expression and that's not feminine in form. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 23:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

December 22

past partecipe of verb of XVIII (1795)

is fent a past partecipe in old form of english? if yes what is its contemporary form?--93.61.55.121 (talk) 11:22, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

No, but it's possible that in a text from 1795, you're seeing a "long s", and it actually says "sent", which is the past participle of "send". Adam Bishop (talk) 11:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

ok, thank you.--2001:B07:6463:31EE:4937:5270:AAE7:7A37 (talk) 12:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

There is a verb to fend but it is no longer in regular use except in fend off, and the past tense was always fended (as early as 1393) never fent unless some creative writer chose to use a non-standard past participle. The modern equivalent would be defended. Adam's suggestion seems much more likely. Dbfirs 14:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

To fend for oneself is common enough in the US. But "fent" is not used, and the long ess is obviously the case here as Adam has pointed out. μηδείς (talk) 19:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Medeis, I'd forgotten that other remaining usage of fend on both sides of the Pond. It was originally Scottish. Dbfirs 19:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, "to fend" is a back-formation from Fender B. Gumby, inventor of a device used to protect the ends of automobiles involved in demolition derbies, and a type of guitar used to set on fire and attack hardwood concert stages with. μηδείς (talk) 16:55, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

ſent. —Stephen (talk) 08:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

"he acts as if he don't Care"

Is the sentence OK in standard English (at least in America)? Would that be a subjunctive?--82.159.164.102 (talk) 13:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Subjunctive usage really does not get abbreviated like this. It technically does fit the form, since "do" is correct for subjunctive in this kind of tentative formation, but the same person will generally use "he don't care" even in an indicative sentence, so no it's an error. Nyttend (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

In British English, it wouldn't normally be written that way, and many people don't say it that way either. More likely to be "He acts as if he doesn't care." Bazza (talk) 15:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

That's short for "He do not care" and would probably get a stern warning from your English teacher. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

"He acts as if he do not care" is correct subjunctive usage, but the subjunctive is not contracted — it's generally used only in formal situations and set phrases nowadays, neither of which will be contracted (imagine contractions in a legal document!), and even if the English teacher be familiar with proper subjunctive usage, he will know that someone talking this way isn't attempting to use the proper mood. Nyttend (talk) 15:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Jayron32 (talk · contribs) is a teacher, possibly of English, so maybe he can tell us when "he do not care" would be acceptable usage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you're only half right. Also, I do not care...Jayron32 05:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I hear “as if he doesn’t” more than “as if he don’t”. The thing is, archaic grammar rules don’t really make that much sense anymore in a regular conversation, so in a normal conversation, I’d use “doesn’t”, not “don’t”. If you are writing to a nit-picky grammarian, then you should adhere to these rules strictly, like “up with which put”. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• This is definitely not the subjunctive; there's no doubt or wish--it's a statement of fact. The use of don't in the third person is simply nonstandard and dialectal. My parents, who grew up in Philly, say "he don't" all the time, especially in complex sentences with another properly conjugated verb. They also use the English subjunctive properly when called for, and the cases of nonstandard don't do not overlap with their use of it. μηδείς (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I thought your dual native languages were Ruthenian and American English. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

"He acts as if he do not care" is similar to "He acted as if he were gone at the time". If this be the wrong form for subjunctive, what would be the right form of "do"? Nyttend (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

My Grandparents were Austro-Hungarian, my parents were born in Philadelphia. I speak English natively, Spanish fluently, and Ruthenian conversationally. I was exposed to all three extensively until age four, when I moved to what was then a rural area of South Jersey, and ceased regular usage of anything but English until I was 14 when I took up German and French. I reacquired Spanish fluently within a few months at 18 when I started working in restaurants with Mexicans and Filipinos who used it as a lingua franca. I lived in a Mexican household for a period, dream in Spanish, and have lived largely in hispanohablante areas for the last 25+ years. My parents did not learn Ruthenian well enough to inflect nouns or verbs, which was used as a secret code by the older generation, and speak only curses, food and household words, prayers, and other set or broken phrases. I learnt Ruthenian by studying Russian, attending Mass in the Ruthenian recension of the Byzantine Catholic Church and speaking it almost daily with my grandmother for the last five years of her life.

None of this has to do with the English subjunctive. Nyttend's "as if he were gone at the time" is in the past tense, and implies that he actually wasn't gone at the time--it expresses disbelief. But "he acts as if he don't care" means he really acts as if he really doesn't care, and it is in the present, not the past. (Doubt has to be expressed by adding something like "but he really does" after "as if he don't.") The present subjunctive is rare, and is not contracted, and it really applies to the future, as in "I suggest he not care about their insults." That means, a suggestion for his action going forth, not a statement about whether he has cared or does care at this moment (which is implied). μηδείς (talk) 02:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• It should be pointed out that this nonstandard usage of "don't" for "doesn't" has become common in song lyrics. Does Wikipedia have an article that addresses this? I would not know where to look. I suspect that songwriters like it because it's easier to fit to the melody, and I also suspect that its usage in songs is why the original poster thought it might be acceptable in general usage. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 23:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• That's called poetic license. It's hick English. Like this oldie: "Roses are red / Violets are blue / Some poems rhyme / But this one don't." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• A lot of that comes from the influence of R&B sung by black artists on the Stones, Zeppelin, and other artists of the English Invasion who affected the black dialect. Even white boys from LA sang It Don't Matter to Me. μηδείς (talk) 02:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• The Beatles use it in Ticket to Ride, but she don't care. I always thought it was an american "hillbilly" usage. -Arch dude (talk) 02:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• It's not just Americans. I recall Hitchcock once talking about the "MacGuffin", the "thing" that the plot centers on, but what that specific thing happens to be, "The audience don't care." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

That's treating "audience" as a plural. Not the same thing. Akld guy (talk) 04:23, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

It's more than that, it's the only grammatically correct way to construct that sentence. Groups are plural in English. Fgf10 (talk) 08:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

In British English, then. Like saying "England have won the World Cup." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I said English. If I meant American, I'd have said American. Fgf10 (talk) 14:23, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

You're funny. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

It's unfair to comment on Fgf10's looks, Bugs. And in any case, Hitchcock was an American. μηδείς (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

"Hitchcock was an American." {{citation neeeded}} Rmhermen (talk) 00:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

You have already linked to the article, read it. μηδείς (talk) 16:48, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• It's a class thing, not regional. A South Philly accent is about as far away from Hillbilly as you can get regionally, like Yorkshire versus Cockney. Classwise, not so different, except that while my family was working class they were very ambitious. My mother corrected our speech and she raised us kids above her station, as did my parents' parents. μηδείς (talk) 05:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

It certainly didn't use to be just Americans, I've often come across it in educated 18th century British English. The OED gives a few usages:

1660 J. Bellamy tr. Origen Against Celsus i. xiii. 70 He don't simply say, that Wisdom is Foolishness with God.

1675 Woman turn'd Bully ii. ii. 30 Pick this Pipe; it don't come worth a Rush.

1706 G. Farquhar Recruiting Officer iv. ii. 50 Don't the Moon see all the World?

1713 R. Nelson Life Bp. Bull 81 Why, said the Preacher, Solomon don't say so.

1740 S. Richardson Pamela I. xxiv. 65 He don't know you.

1762 Gentleman's Mag. Jan. 38/1 It don't regard the present war.

It also quotes H. L. Mencken, in The American Language (1919), as saying "Don't has also completely displaced doesn't, which is very seldom heard. ‘He don't’ and ‘they don't’ are practically universal." More context here. Clearly doesn't has made a comeback since. --Antiquary (talk) 11:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Late 19th century: W S Gilbert often put "he don't" and "it don't" in the mouths of upper class characters. For example, in Iolanthe (1824) The Lord Chancellor amends the statute to say "anybody who don't marry a mortal". --ColinFine (talk) 12:09, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Frankly, my dear, I doesn't give a damn. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The actual phrase is "Up with this I will not put." 92.8.223.3 (talk) 15:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

December 23

背徳漢

Coming from Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing#kanjis.

What does 背徳漢 mean? Google translate suggests "Honorable man" which is surprising since the first part, 背徳, explicitly means immoral. Mũeller (talk) 06:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Appalling answers, Google translate is not reliable when it comes to Asian languages; some of the translation results have been manipulated on purpose. To answer the first part of your question from WP:RD/C: 德 is a Traditional Chinese character, while 徳 is a Japanese kanji (which originated from Chinese characters). They are the same characters with the same meanings, just different system. As for the second part of your question, "immoral" is correct, as 漢 refers to "man": this is a Japanese term (which is why Google translate Chinese doesn't work here; although the term is almost never used), but like all Japanese terms, has its origin in Chinese. Alex Shih (talk) 06:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Except those of exclusive Japanese origin and written in hiragana. ;) SSS (talk) 14:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

That's a different story that would need to be elaborated to avoid misconception. In short, the story of kun'yomi and on'yomi. Alex Shih (talk) 15:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Why is he "Goethe" and not "Göthe"? It's not the fault of anglophones mangling an ö original; his German article is also "Goethe". Nyttend (talk) 17:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

If you don't have an umlaut on your keyboard you may follow the vowel with "e". 92.8.223.3 (talk) 17:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Apparently, the grandfather, de:Friedrich Georg Göthe changed the spelling of the name when he became a citizen of Frankfurt in 1687. Others ascribe the change to the father, de:Johann Caspar Goethe, as mentioned in a footnote of :de:Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. The "why" may be hard to answer; possibly the spelling "oe" held greater prestige or something. However, at the time German orthography was still somewhat fluid, and even during Goethe's lifetime works of his were published under "Göthe". It is also worth noting that the umlaut was printed as a small "e" on top of the main vowel in the 17th century. --Wrongfilter (talk) 17:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

In Frankfurt dialect, so it seems, Gothe means "godfather". It has been suggested that the surname got changed "in order to get rid of the ludicrous associations excited by the signification of the name". I don't know, maybe my sense of the ludicrous is faulty. --Antiquary (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Not directly related, but maybe embedding: Spelling variations of German names are abundant in history. Karl Benz changed the first letter of his name to C, probably just because it was en vogue at the time. Franziska Donner amalgamated her name and the Italian Francesca to Franzeska. Alois Hitler used a completely new spelling for his family name. --KnightMove (talk) 08:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

This is not peculiar to German: [4], [5]. 86.169.56.46 (talk) 16:19, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Goethe's paternal grandfather, before he became a citizen of Frankfurt in 1687, had resided in France for four and a half years (and apparently changed the spelling to an international spelling) [6]. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 20:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

For a parallel (but in a sense opposite) change, see the second paragraph of Brontë_family#Origin of the name. --ColinFine (talk) 12:16, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

There are many written variations for some similar sounding letters or letter combinations in the german language. Allot of typical old names forked out into many forms because of that. Some people seem to adapt their name in that sense. Like the well known writer Gunter Grass (1999 Nobel Prize in Literature) who was actually born as Gunter Graß with "ss" being exactly such a variation or alternative writing of "ß" - both like "ö" and "oe" spoken out identical. --Kharon (talk) 13:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

N.b. since we're doing orthography: that's Günter, not Gunter (different pronunciation too). Henry^Flower 18:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Welsh "I am" question

What's the difference between rwy'n dysgu cymraeg and dw i'n dysgu cymraeg insofar as the "i am" component goes? I.e between rwy'n and dw i'n? According to google translate, both mean "I am learning Welsh". Thanks in advance. Peter Greenwell (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Just a matter of formality really, I think. See e.g. this. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Great, thanks for that. Peter Greenwell (talk) 04:16, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

December 24

Pantchova

What the proper name for a city, that a German Luftwaffe soldier would call Pantchova I can't find it!. Thanks. scope_creep (talk) 15:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Pančevo 75.176.88.6 (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks scope_creep (talk) 15:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

December 25

Listing in Esperanto

I hope to eventually contribute to the Esperanto Wikipedia and I was wondering how you do lists. Do you list like kafo, lakto, kaj supo? Or some other way. YuriGagrin12 (talk) 18:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

It depends on the kind of list. Take a look at how lists are formatted here in the English-language version, and try to follow the model (allowing for things like alphabetizing c kaj ĉ properly). Bonvenu en la Vikipediojn! --Orange Mike | Talk 19:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

@Orangemike: Thanks! Dankon!

Change to the article Christmas

No translation is offered for "VIII kal. ian. natus Christus in Betleem Iudeæ" and I don't want to just add it without someone's approval.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:01, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee: If you have a source, you can be bold and edit the article yourself. Otherwise, the article's talk page is the place to discuss your proposed improvement.