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

February 12

Does word evolution bias in favor of homonyms?

Is it known whether words tend to evolve into homonyms more often than coincidence alone would explain -- i.e. are "drawn" toward the pronunciation and spelling of existing words? If so, does the effect increase when the meanings happen to be similar enough that the real etymology of one might be a folk etymology of the other, e.g. mean (mediocre) vs. mean (statistical average)? NeonMerlin 05:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, sound merger and the weakening and loss of unstressed vowels, lenis consonants, and unstressed syllables tends to make many words "fall together". This is a mechanical process, not analogical. That is, it is attributed to the ease of weakened pronunciation, not an affinity between meanings. Consider "Le ver vert vers le verre vert" which has five identically pronounced words with silent endings which means "The worm turns towards the green glass." This tendency is counteracted by lengthening words Lat. cor > Spa. corazón, Lat. fons > French fontaine; or by replacing forms canis > perro, gallus > coq, equus > caballo/cheval where the original Latin terms had become so attenuated as to become single vowels or easily confused with other forms (cat and rooster, gattus/gallus, had become homonyms in most dialects of the Provençal languages). μηδείς (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

"salted caramel"?

What does the "salted" mean in "salted caramel"? There's no salt in it, so, why not call it "molten caramel" instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.159.164.102 (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually there is salt in salted caramel, either through the use of salted butter, or through added salt. If you look up recipes, you'll see this (see here or here for example). The salt helps to offset the overwhelming sweetness of the sugar which forms the basis of the caramel. --Xuxl (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Double the poison, double the fun.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

The is no salt in caramel, but there is salt in salted caramel: the taste is quite distinct. Wymspen (talk) 01:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

February 13

Reading Old English

Are the majority of native English speakers able to read (and largely understand) the Middle English and Early Modern English literature, eg. Chaucer? Assuming an average, but more or less knowledgeable layman. 212.180.235.46 (talk) 08:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

As a native English English speaker, I'd say no for Middle. On the whole, yes for Early Modern, although the later the better. The articles you linked to , plus Wikipedia's Middle English site, give some good examples of what both are really like. Bazza (talk) 10:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

You linked to the Old English (i.e. Anglo-Saxon) Wikipedia there, Bazza; we don't have a Middle English one. As for the comprehensibility of Middle English bear in mind that it comes in different regional dialects, some of which are much harder for the Modern English-speaker than others. Chaucer's dialect was a more-or-less direct ancestor of modern Standard English, and though students reading Chaucer have to use texts in which half the words are glossed it doesn't take long for them to get some familiarity with the language and read it more easily. On the other hand Chaucer's contemporary the Pearl Poet wrote in a north-west Midland dialect which is a good deal tougher. Also, Middle English was spoken for about 400 years and the earlier versions are more difficult than the later ones. Layamon (c. 1200) is even harder than the Pearl Poet (late 14th century). --Antiquary (talk) 11:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry about that. I've removed the relevant text from my comment. Bazza (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I've just carefully subtracted 1150 from 1450 on my fingers and it turns out Middle English was spoken for 300 years. I'm getting old. --Antiquary (talk) 12:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I took AP (college credit) English as a senior in high school, had had four years of French and German, and got into an Ivy League school on a full-paid scholarship. I found that I could get the gist of the introduction to the Canterbury tales, but only actually comprehend it with glosses provided for words and usages that have become obsolete or radically changed meaning or spelling. So, if the question is about the average speaker, the answer is a round no.

Even writing as recent as Oscar Wilde will be too much for an average HS graduate without a good background in literature. Proficiency in modern spoken colloquial American English alone will get only you back as far as the talkies, if that far. Now in the second half of my first century, I find that I have to ask for a lot of current slang to be explained, even though I was fluent in the jive spoken in 2001. μηδείς (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

It's also important to remember that much of language is social context; unless one is familiar with the millieu where a word or phrase comes from, it is hard to internalize its meaning, even if one can intellectually understand its origin. A Chaucer-era farmer may well understand words related to the use of farm implements, but may find concepts such as vlogs or electric automobiles to be utterly perplexing, and the same is true in reverse. The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there. --Jayron32 17:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, listening to my weed-dealer neighbor talk to his girlfriend about music, drug slang, smart phones, social media, apps, games, TV shows and so forth is totally alien to me. I had someone ask to borrow $5 for a "sub" which I took to mean they were going to buy a sandwich when they meant an opioid suboxone pill! From the Age of Aquarius to the Age of the Opiate Crisis. And I thought methadone was so 70's! μηδείς (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah now over here in the UK, a "sub" is an advance or a loan on your paycheck, so if you ran out of money halfway through the month you used to be able to ask your employer for a "sub" to be taken from your salary on payday. Not just an example of modern vs modern English, but also US vs drug dealers slang vs UK English! --TammyMoet (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Another personal UK perspective is that Chaucer's General Prologue and Wife of Bath's Tale were on our A Level English syllabus, which at first sight (aged 16) seemed unintelligible, but after learning to sound the words out phonetically and with the aid of a glossary for completely obsolete words, had the hang of it by the end of the first lesson. I later read Thomas Malory (about a century later than Chaucer) unassisted. Alansplodge (talk) 11:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Forming the perfect aspect in English without using "to have."

Hello, again!

As of late, I've been copiously reading the style guides of usage commentator Edward Good, and particularly his curious doctrine of "swatting bes." Sc., he argues—quite convincingly—that one can produce a cleaner, more fluent writing style by substituting different copulative verbs, for to be, either with a predicate adjective, or when using either the progressive aspect or the passive voice.

e.g.

predicate adjective

She is beautiful.

She looks beautiful.

passive voice

It is done very easily.

It gets done very easily.

progressive aspect

They were attacking the city, yesterday.

They ended up attacking the city, yesterday.

This has now got me wondering: Is there a verb (besides "to have") that one can use when expressing the perfect aspect? In my humble opinion, using too many instances of the same verb at once—especially when writing a periphrastic form of "must"—produces a somewhat drudgerous writing style.

e.g. "I had had to have chocolate."

Unlike, for instance, Spanish and Portuguese, English has only one verb (as far as I know) to express possession, completion, and (except in the present indicative) obligation. I'm curious, however: Do I err? Just as there are other verbs that somebody can substitute for "to be" in creating compound tenses, is there any verb that he can use in place of "to have"?

e.g.

perfect aspect

I have run ten miles.

I ??? run ten miles.

Thank you. Pine (talk) 11:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Until early modern English, the perfect with "to be" was used for intransitives, and still is in archaic and set phrases, like "the time is come" and "Christ is risen". We don't cover this well, apparently, but see Perfect_(grammar)#Construction_with_auxiliaries μηδείς (talk) 02:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• The OP might be interested in the article on the conlang E-Prime. It's a rather simple idea: E-Prime is a constructed language which resembles English in every way execept one: there is no verb "to be" or any of its forms. There are linguistic, artistic, and philosophical reasons for using such a construct. Reading it may lead the OP to interesting places. Regarding the perfect in English and the use of "have", see Perfect (grammar)#English which would seem to imply "no" regarding the main question. --Jayron32 16:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Jayron32 -- I'm sure that some people find E-Prime to be an interesting exercise in self-discipline, but it's also one of those ideas which non-linguists come up with that has very little interest or usefulness in the eyes of linguists (some others are Basic English, the ban on ending sentences with prepositions etc. etc.). You could predict that would be the case from its General Semantics background (the vast majority of scholars in the academic fields that General Semantics impinges on see very little point to it)... AnonMoos (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Like I said, it has artistic and philosophical applications as well; the notion of a ban on expressions of existance raises some interesting epistemological concepts regarding how language can be tied to knowledge; we say things are, but when our only interaction with the world is perception, (i.e. we cannot say "the apple is red", we can only say the "the apple looks red", because my experience is what I am expressing, not actual existence) then should we not also have language that represents that lack of real knowledge of actual existence? I'm not saying that's how we should think of the world, but it is a valid and well trodden philosophical school of thought, and the language is an interesting way to explore that limitation on human experience. As with any conlang, it's useless and dead; to live is to evolve, and living languages are always evolving languages. --Jayron32 19:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

No doubt the novel Gadsby also has some minor interest to literary critics, while from the point of view of the scientific study of language it's pretty much just an isolated flamboyant stunt... AnonMoos (talk)

It's a different sort of thing entirely, though. The arbitrary decision to write a novel without the use of a letter (which itself carries no inherent meaning) is quite different from the philosophical implications of a language which does not have ways to represent states of existence. Since language, in many ways, shapes perception, the philosophy here is far more interesting than the literary or linguistic concerns. --Jayron32 19:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I think each of your three examples, the meaning is significantly changed by replacing the auxiliary verb with a full verb. As a mechanical exercise in punching up an essay, it seems as inadvisable as the C-student's technique of replacing every third word with a synonym from a thesaurus. The past tense of "must" is "must", but this is rather literary. If you insist on avoiding "have" with a past participle, you could say "That's ten miles run by me today." It sounds rather Yorkshire English to me. Or the Hiberno-English "I'm after running ten miles". jnestorius^(talk) 00:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you can avoid "have", but you'll have to use some auxiliary words instead. For example:

Instead of "I have done it", use "I already did it", or: "I did it already" (but "I have already done it" is more usual than "I already did it", mainly in British English).

Instead of "I hadn't known", use "I didn't know yet" (but "I hadn't known yet" is more recommended than "I didn't know yet", mainly if you want to use British English).

Additionally, American English speakers tend to use the word "never" as something that includes also the perfect aspect, so they may tend to avoid "have" when using "never", e.g. "I never was", meaning "I have never been" (In British English, however, use "I have never been").

HOTmag (talk) 09:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

OED for phrases

Is there a resource, academic or amateur, that attempts to trace the first use and developing meaning of (English language) phrases? The OED does it for words, of course, and it's long been a game to try to find antecedents for their etymologies. Yesterday I heard the cynical phrase "Deputy heads will roll", with the implication that one BBC functionary originated it recently. A minute with Dr Google suggests otherwise. Some phrases are ancient ("when my ship comes in"), some are catchphrases ("Where's the beef?"), but they enter our language and linger. Wikipedia is, no surprise, stronger on the pop-latter than the folk-former. Where might I find some approximation of the truth? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 15:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

There's The Phrase Finder. DuncanHill (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Most such things should be in either The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, The Oxford Dictionary of Phrase and Fable, or The Oxford Dictionary of Phrase, Saying and Quotation. Wymspen (talk) 16:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

There's also Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Some other books to look out for: Eric Partridge A Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English, Nigel Rees A Word in Your Shell-Like, The Oxford Dictionary of English Proverbs, and for that matter the OED itself which does deal with the commonest phrases as well as individual words. --Antiquary (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The OED itself does contain a fair sprinkling of phrases; e.g. from my Word-of-the-day archives: "much ado about nothing" is sv "ado"; "to scream (also cry, yell, etc.) blue murder" sv "blue murder"; "King of the Ribalds" sv "ribald"; "a Roland for an Oliver" sv "Roland"; "to put the tin hat on something" sv "tin hat". jnestorius^(talk) 00:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

And finally (perhaps), all of these resources added together won't give you anything like the same coverage of phrases as the OED gives you of words. Sometimes if you want to trace their history you just have to go over to Google Books and do it yourself. --Antiquary (talk) 10:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

February 14

Pronouncing a famous proverb in Judaeo-Arabic

So, one of my favourite proverbs is roughly translated as ‘Hear the Truth from whomever speaks it’ written by the famous Rabbi Maimonides. He originally wrote it in Judaeo-Arabic, and so it would have been written like so according to the Jewish Museum in Berlin: ‘אסמע אלחק ממן קאלה’ While I am a pretty good Hebrew speaker, and I can read Arabic fairly well, the lack of short vowels when I’ve seen this written means I’m not 100% sure on pronunciation. This is especially so for the last word. I think I have a rough idea of how this expression should be said, but my lack of knowledge of Classical Arabic and the Judaeo-Arabic dialect prevents this. Assistance please? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Shevat 5778 16:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

First off, you're not Flinders Petrie, so I don't understand what the purpose of pretending to be him is. I don't know medieval Judeo-Arabic (I believe that Joshua Blau has written something on that topic), but the Modern Standard Arabic pronunciation would be something like [ʔismaʕ alħaqqa min man qaːlahu]. I assume that "min man" assimilates to something like "mimman" in that dialect (in Modern Standard Arabic, such assimilation occurs in the word for "what", but not the word for "who", as far as I can tell)... AnonMoos (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I only just now that discovered that we don't have an article on Joshua Blau, which seems rather strange. There are only articles on the French, Romanian, and Hebrew Wikipedias (French and Romanian under "Yehoshua", though he generally went by "Joshua" in his publications in the Latin alphabet). AnonMoos (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Interesting, thank you! There’s pronunciations following the ending ק and ה that don’t come through in my modern reading of the Hebrew (I may also go over the Classical Arabic version with a Saudi archaeologist friend). I suppose it’s like how ח can often have an -ah sound that comes after the fricative. And there’s a new project for you then! I’m wondering now, as well, if the medieval Egyptian Hebrew cursive displayed in this image is taken from one of his works or at least similar to how Maimonides would have written out the expression: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CursiveWritingHebrew.png Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 2 Adar 5778 10:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

FP -- I'm not sure I fully understand what you mean by "Hebrew" in this context, since this is an Arabic sentence written with the Hebrew alphabet. The final "a" in [ħaqqa] is an I'rab vowel. The final "u" of the -hu ending has a similar status to an I'rab vowel, and might not always be pronounced in sentence-final or "pausal" position. AnonMoos (talk) 04:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

You don't have to guess what Maimonides' handwriting was like, because many samples of it were preserved. Two are shown in the wikiarticle itself, and more are available under commons:Category:Maimonides and its subcats. --194.213.3.4 (talk) 13:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Hebrew (and more content) requested here, please. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 02:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Shirt_58 -- thanks for starting the Joshua Blau article. I added categories, some basic facts from French Wikipedia, and a sentence to clarify that he doesn't work on Arabic only... AnonMoos (talk) 04:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

February 16

Latin rap motto check

Are these close to accurate? I've tried to put a couple of stock phrases from the world of hip-hop into Latin, maybe you'd be so kind as to check my work for me.

Plus pecuniae, plures aerumnae
Futuote lupam, quaerite pecuniam. "Canis" ("Cana?") would have been more literal, but probably less literate.

Also if anyone has some good spoken Latin resources to recommend to a brand-new learner, I'd appreciate it. Thanks folks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C1:8100:900:8CA:15B1:ADFB:DF14 (talk) 02:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

The first one is probably adequate, but it might be better to cast the first two words into the form of an ablative absolute. I have no idea what the original of the second one is, so I can't judge the adequacy of the translation, but "futuote" is not an inflected form belonging to the conjugation of the verb "futuere" ("fututote" would be, though a slightly obscure so-called "future imperative")... AnonMoos (talk) 07:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

The second one is "fuck bitches, get money"...if that helps. I don't have any idea how to translate that into Latin although there were surely lots of Romans who would have appreciated the sentiment. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

As far as I remember from my Latin classes in school, the verb would be "cucumbere". And "canis" I wouldn't use, the Romans had certainly their own comparisons... and yes, there are some Latin radios, e.g. www.radiobremen.de: nuntii latini] and I believe I've heard once of a Finnish radio station in Latin. Besides this there are forums and IRC channels. Forgive me my various grammar mistakes in English:) --2003:86:A714:E901:ECAF:B2AB:3150:BF69 (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the Finnish one is Nuntii Latini. --Antiquary (talk) 11:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Análisis Textual

I am trying to figure out what is the English expression for the Spanish "análisis textual", and if anyone could explain what it is about. I found some articles in Spanish but cannot find any reference in English. Thanks. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 15:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

The translation in English redirects to Content analysis. Dbfirs 16:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 16:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Depending on what is being studied, and when it was done, you could happily translate that as "textual analysis" or "textual criticism." Content analysis is a comparatively recent concept (the earliest reference in the article is 1952) reflecting that with modern media it is necessary to look beyond the words (text) to include images and sound as well. Textual criticism / analysis has been done for centuries. Wymspen (talk) 16:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, is there any article or external source I could go to? Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 16:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

You could watch this video from Manchester Uni, or see this pdf]. Dbfirs 19:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

February 17

Scud running

Scud running is commonly understood as low-level VFR flying under a low cloud ceiling (so as to avoid the hassle of flying IFR) -- however, has this term ever been used to denote something completely different, namely, a particular form of weapons trafficking? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:0:0:0:64DA (talk) 03:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

More likely within the scud-running industry itself, which doesn't exactly have press releases, ads and trade journals lying around the Googleable web. From what I can Google, scud smuggling on the whole is a niche market, rarely reported in this millenium. Usually practiced in non-English countries, often with unpunny variants like "Qiam", "Shahab" and "Rodong". As a general rule, any English person blanking any sort of blank for long enough will naturally recognize himself as a blank-blanker, even if he doesn't introduce or promote himself as such. It's just too easy. But no, no denotions that I see. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:39, February 17, 2018 (UTC)

If so, it is unknown to Google as far as I can tell. Alansplodge (talk) 09:52, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I had always believed that "scud" referred to the foamy froth that you get on surf, but apparently only when it's blowing in the wind. There used to be a disreputable pub in the East End of London called "The Flying Scud", apparently named after a mid-19th century racehorse, but the pub sign depicted a sailing ship. [1] In the 1991 Gulf War, it was also adorned by a couple of large plywood ballistic missiles. Alansplodge (talk) 13:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I guess "The Flying Spume" didn't fit on the sign... Matt Deres (talk) 14:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

There you go, I knew there was a word for it :-) Alansplodge (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I always thought that fuzzy scum was called "suds". I still might. Oxford seems to believe it's only about beer and detergent, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:10, February 17, 2018 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionaries site usually gives you a very simplified picture. The OED has "foam, froth" as one of the senses of suds, and also "dregs, leavings; hence, filth, muck" and "flood-water; the water of the fens; water mixed with drift-sand and mud; drift-sand left by a flood" as obsolete senses. --Antiquary (talk) 09:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

"Suds" is only about beer to Americans, it's called "head" over here. Alansplodge (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

In the USA it can be about any foamy drink. See Dog n Suds. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I stand corrected (root beer has never really caught on here). Alansplodge (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

February 18

What are engineers' helmets called?

There's no article on Wikipedia titled engineering helmet or yellow helmet, so what are the ones they wear on top of their heads called? --stranger195 (talk • contribs • guestbook) 10:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Hard hats. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you --stranger195 (talk • contribs • guestbook) 10:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Redirects made. Matt Deres (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, you beat me to it. Actually finding a specific type of helmet isn't easy, as you have to wade through the text of our Helmet article and even then you might have to negotiate yet another article to find what you want. We could do with a List of helmets. Alansplodge (talk) 16:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

That's what Category:Helmets is for; and indeed, the hard hat is there. --194.213.3.4 (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes that's very true, the old categories versus lists argument. I have added a link directly to the category page at Helmet (disambiguation). Thanks, Alansplodge (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not really "versus", and it certainly doesn't hurt to have both a cat and a list. My point was that when you don't have one, you can successfully use the other instead. --194.213.3.4 (talk) 08:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

the thumb, the nose

howdy. A couple of years ago I wrote the article de:Lange Nase (Cocking a snook) and explained the name(s) of selfsame gesture in German, English, French & Italian. Now there's a Spanish article on the es:Pito catalán, but apparently this name is current only in Argentina and Uruguay. Question: what is the gesture called in Spain? es:Palmo de narices? (es:Wikipedia:Consultas is blocked/protected for some reason, so I cannot ask there). Or anywhere? --Judith Wahr (talk) 23:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

It's been protected for five years. You could ask them to remove the protection (I would do it myself but I don't speak Spanish). You could also try ca:Viquipèdia:Taulell de consultes. 2A02:C7D:503F:6300:12B:9432:CA92:6CCA (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

According to this ca:Pam i pipa the gesture doesn't have a proper name in castelhano. 2A02:C7D:503F:6300:12B:9432:CA92:6CCA (talk) 00:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)