Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:43, 6 July 2019

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/L

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.

June 29

Do they say wicked storm everywhere in Red Sox territory or only some parts?

Wicked stahm coming! Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that be a-comin' ? SinisterLefty (talk) 14:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In New England English, "wicked" is purely adverbial. Using it as an adjective is usually done by non natives who don't understand how to use it properly when goofing on the dialect. An actual New Englander would say something like "There's a wicked bad storm coming" so the answer is, outside of Internet memes and comedians goofing on the dialect, no one would say "A wicked storms coming". The word wicked in this context is used as a synonym for "very", and you'd never say "a very storm is coming". --Jayron 32 16:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions on NE English is 'tall drink of water' for a tall (man) also just New England and is 'package store' (shortened to 'packy') for liquor store? A lifetime ago I learned those usages from a Portsmouth working class youngster (and wicked, too, although wicked I most associate in the use of a young woman of Braintree). Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the term "package store" itself is not used everywhere. It's often called a "liquor store". So, the question about how it is shortened doesn't apply. SinisterLefty (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm? I was not asking how it was shortened, I was parenthetically stating how it is shortened, (although I suppose 'packie' is the spelling). At any rate, are you saying both 'package store' and 'packie' are NEEisms, or that package store is not just a NEEism, but packie is, or are you saying something else? Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if "package store" is used anywhere outside NE. To me, it sounds like a place like Kinko's where you go to buy boxes and tape to wrap and mail your packages. SinisterLefty (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the Midwest, I used to see the term "package liquors" in reference to a liquor store. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Packie" meaning "liquor store" a pure New Englandism, not sure on the other one. --Jayron 32 17:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, "long drink of water" was common in the Midwest. Probably old-fashioned now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here in NC, "long (or tall) drink of water" would be old fashioned but understandable. A "package store" here sells mostly beer and tobacco (with snacks and soft drinks). Liquor sales are more regulated, meaning most places can't sell it.--Khajidha (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In Britain we have "long streak of piss" for a long thin person. DuncanHill (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You will be thrilled to know that Australia has "long streak of cocky's shit", apparently. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not only thrilled, but delighted. We have a lot to thank our Colonial Cousins for. DuncanHill (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC) [reply]

June 30

"I'll kill a brick"

What does this mean? It appears in the title of the 1971 song "I'll Kill a Brick (About My Man)" by Hot Sauce featuring Rhonda Washington on Volt: [2]. Presumably it's a US English phrase, as I have never seen or heard it in the UK. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC) (There are a couple of videos for the song on YouTube, both of which have UMG copyright statements, but I wont link to them as the status of these statements is currently under discussion). [reply]

Here's one theory.[3] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I had not seen that. It's hard to tell the geographical location of those contributors. And of course, it's all just personal opinion. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In all my years of living in the US Martinevans123 I've never heard the term. It might be regional to some part of the country that I haven't visited though. I find it an interesting coincidence that the song was released a few months before the album that does mention bricks :-) That works backstory is interesting as well. MarnetteD|Talk 18:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey you. You can't suddenly hijack my early 1970s Memphis soul with early 1970s one-legged British prog rock, you know! Martinevans123 (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC) [reply]

List of current United States Senators

We have this Wikipedia article: List of current United States Senators. My question: for the article title, is the "S" of the word "Senators" supposed to be capitalized? Or should it be lower-case "s"? And what if there were an article titled "List of current United States Representatives"? What about the "R" in "Representatives"? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping United States Senate would spell it out, but it doesn't seem to. It capitalizes the words Senate and Senator pretty uniformly and I would just assume it's done so because they are titles (meaning the answer to your question would be "Yes"), but the article I linked also chooses to not capitalize president and vice-president, so now I am not so sure. :) Sorry! Matt Deres (talk) 23:05, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See MOS:JOBTITLES. Short answer: no, it should not be capitalized. — Kpalion^(talk) 12:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so it depends on how it is used: "Like most senators, Senator Cheatem is an incumbent." SinisterLefty (talk) 13:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I am referring to an article title (as opposed to a complete sentence, which contains context). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to move the article from List of current United States Senators (upper-case "S") to List of current United States senators (lower-case "s"). Wikipedia would not allow the change to go through. Does anyone know why? And how to correct that? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia likely has a bug and doesn't see that as a change. You will either need to change it to an intermediate name ("List of current US senators" ?), then change it to the name you want (which might run afoul of some limit on changing an article name too many times) or you could first create an article with the correct name, copy over the content, and change the article under the old name to a redirect. Unfortunately, this would leave the history with the old article, but at least it's not lost forever. SinisterLefty (talk) 16:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or ask an admin to do it for you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph A. Spadaro: Use requested moves to get the page moved if you cannot do it yourself. DO NOT COPY AND PASTE INTO A NEW TITLE. DuncanHill (talk) 21:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that the cap form reflects the members of the proper noun/name "United States Senate" and should not be changed. Any supporters? Jmar67 (talk) 01:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The long form would be "United States Senate senators", but that sounds rather redundant. "United States Senate members" would work, but is longer than needed. So, we omit the "Senate" from the long form to get "United States senators". SinisterLefty (talk) 03:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For that matter, "United States Senator" can be regarded as a proper noun, and who's to say it isn't? I don't think it's worth worrying about. Jmar67 (talk) 09:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth "worrying about", because there are several other related articles. And I am trying to make them all consistent. Articles about "federal" senators; "federal" representatives; state senators; state representatives; etc. So, it's really more than just this one article of concern. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would only be a proper noun when used as the title of an individual senator, such as "United States Senator Dewey Cheatem". SinisterLefty (talk) 11:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. In this case, it should be lower-case "s". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One problem with lowercase is the implication that the list includes the senators of the individual state legislatures. You really ought to leave it the way it is. Jmar67 (talk) 01:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmar67: As I stated above: It is worth "worrying about", because there are several other related articles. And I am trying to make them all consistent. Articles about "federal" senators; "federal" representatives; state senators; state representatives; etc. So, it's really more than just this one article of concern. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmar67: Also ... according to your rationale (for "federal" senators) ... the state senators article would also include an upper-case "S". No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This nitpicky stuff reminds me of a few years ago when someone was arguing that the Declaration of Independence article should be titled "united States" etc. Why? Because of the wording in the document, in which the old style of capitalizing all nouns was still being employed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 1

German for Anne?

Perhaps a bit confusingly, the writers of Six (musical) named their queen (4) Anna of ~~Cleaves~~ [Cleves], instead of Anne of Cleves. Common in parts of Britain? German? or . . .? Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC) (Strike particularly unfortunate typo distraction thanks for noting -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Our article starts "Anne of Cleves (German: Anna von Kleve)". Rmhermen (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

However "Cleaves" seems to be just plain wrong; the English surname Cleaves comes from the Old English for "cliff". [4]. Alansplodge (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's the OP's typo; the musical uses Cleves. [5] Henry ^Flower 20:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But, to be fair, in Anne's day the idea that a particular spelling could be "just plain wrong" had not exactly been established. No two of the surviving signatures of William Shakespeare are spelled the same way. --76.69.117.113 (talk) 21:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling, schpelling.^[1] Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, oddly enough only after I posted did I see that parenthetical Anna in our article, I guess I wonder why they made that choice to do partial German of her name if that's why they did it (or perhaps scholarship shows she almost always went by Anna during her life and the authors decided to go with that, instead of with those who anglicized) Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ [1]

July 3

Fill your boots

What is the origin of this idiom, which I understand to mean "help yourselves from an abundant supply"? I think I had heard it was likely to have originated in the British Army, but I can't recall why. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious origin would be if they filled their pockets and had so much left over they started cramming it in their boots. For most items, this would either require loose-fitting boots or that they not be on their feet at the time, although flat items, like gold coins, could even be fit into snug boots. (The "fill your boots" expression I'm familiar with means "replace you", as in "he's not able to fill your boots".) SinisterLefty (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The OED has two senses of the idiom in their Third Edition draft additions of June 2013. The older one is to take over someone's job (and the derivation is obvious), but it doesn't give an origin for your more recent meaning. The earliest cite is from 1969: British colloquial. to fill one's boots: to take full advantage of an opportunity to benefit oneself; to take as much as one wants of something. The more usual expression is to fill one's pockets, so I don't know how it gets transferred to boots. Can anyone else help? Dbfirs 15:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm also familiar with that other "step into his shoes" meaning. But I was interested if any actual specific origin. Perhaps there wasn't one. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looting is commonplace in war. (Though of course only the other side does it. Our boys? Never.) Boots may be larger than pockets. Walking with coins and jewelry in one's boots is less comfortable than walking with the same in one's pockets. Talk of resorting to boot-storage makes looting sound more fanatical. And so the metaphor becomes a little more striking. -- Hoary (talk) 22:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Though of course only the other side does it. Our boys? Never." Only in recent times. Traditionally, looting was an accepted part of being a soldier, and a reason to join up. I once read the memoir of a soldier in the Napoleonic Wars which described how when an officer saw him searching the bodies of dead French soldiers for loot, advised him to check the inside the lining of their coats, as they often hid coins there. And it was normal in naval warfare for the value of captured ships to be divided among the officers and crew of the ships that captured them. Iapetus (talk) 09:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Although there is a difference between looting invading soldiers and looting civilians in a nation you invaded. In modern times, the first case seems far more acceptable, especially if there's no way to return his possessions to his family. But there's a risk that stopping to loot dead soldiers could get you killed, as you can't be at your most vigilant at the time and would make yourself a prime target for any snipers. And arguments between soldiers over the division of loot could also turn deadly. So there are many reasons to ban this practice. As far as "living off the land", the way to avoid this being called looting is to compensate the owners when you claim their food, etc., although cash might be turned around and used to buy more weapons for the enemy, so promissory notes, paid after the war ends, are safer. SinisterLefty (talk) 09:27, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We're drifting from the OP's question, but it's a fascinating part of warfare that is often neglected. Adrienne Mayor's wonderful Greek Fire, Poison Arrows & Scorpion Bombs has some interesting pieces regarding the deliberate tampering of loot so that the supposedly victorious army would end up drunk/stoned/poisoned and find the boot was on the other foot (to at least tie this back into boots!) when the apparently fleeing army came back. Matt Deres (talk) 13:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A snip at $170. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC) [reply]

We need to rework the old song: "These boots are made for lootin', wide at the top and brown, and one of these days these boots are gonna loot all over town." SinisterLefty (talk) 14:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Sincere thanks for making my comment look comparatively almost sensible. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Sensible boots ? Never ! SinisterLefty (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC) [reply]

I was only recently introduced to that expression and was told it was related to boot-legging, though I'm sure that was a folk etymology. Matt Deres (talk) 20:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A fuller version that I have encountered is "Fill your boots with soup", presumably hyperbolic advice to soldiers to gather as much food as possible when the opportunity arose in invaded territory. I remember hearing it in a British Army context several decades ago (long before its popularisation in Terry Pratchett's Monstrous Regiment) as a more figurative expression (living off enemy supplies no longer being a current necessity), and assumed that it dated back to (at least) the Napoleonic wars period. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.177.55 (talk) 23:40, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The British infantry wore "strong shoes" (1729 regulations) until 1823 when "half boots" were introduced, British Military Uniforms From Contemporary Pictures (pp. 70 & 122), so it seems that the roomy jack-boots suggested above were confined only to the heavy cavalry.

The only printed reference I can find is here which suggests that a leather drinking vessel called a "jack" or "boot" was the origin of the phrase. There is an entry in the Oxford Dictionary of English Idioms but I can't see a preview of it. Alansplodge (talk) 22:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Alan. What a very interesting book Allah does not have an Exit Visa looks. I can see the Oxford entry it just says "fill your boots: see FILL". But under fill your boots: "take full advantage of an opportunity to benefit yourself. British informal 2001 Sunday Herald By April 7 the Pitman factor will have reduced his price to about 12/1 so go on, fill your boots". So no clues as to origin. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 4

English long a; why do people classify it as a monophthong??

Technically, the sound of English long a is a diphthong, pronounced eh+ee. But the majority of sources before 1990 classify it as a monophthong. Any reason?? (Perhaps it was a monophthong in many areas until the mid-1960's.) Georgia guy (talk) 11:39, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was probably a diphthong in most quasi-standard English accents from roughly the 17th century on, when the originally separate sounds spelled as long "a" (a monophthong) and "ai" (a diphthong) merged. It's certainly shown as a diphthong in the 1937 edition of Daniel Jones' pronouncing dictionary, which is pretty much the definition of "classic" RP. The [eɪ] pronunciation was the basis for further developments such as [ʌɪ] in working-class urban accents, Australian etc (the Australian English phonology article says "[ɐ̟ɪ]"). In many forms of Scottish English it's a monophthong, and even in quasi-standard accents, it can tend towards a monophthong in special cases (when unstressed, or before a vowel, or before "r")... AnonMoos (talk) 12:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the vowel chart in English phonology#Vowels lists the long "a" as a "potential diphthong", in between the "full diphthongs" and the "full monopthongs". My understanding is that the difference between the potential and full diphthongs is that the potential ones require less tongue movement from the initial to the second component (and maybe can be either a monophthong or a diphthong depending on the dialect?). Loraof (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 5

Name of device

In English we call Germany Germany but Germans refer to their country as Deutschland. Many languages call England Anglia. What is the name of this device where a name is applied to a place or a people different from what they call themselves. Do we have an article on this? Thanks Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

exonym. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.40.58 (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 6

Quite

In the sentence 'That was quite a good movie', what exactly is the difference in meaning between British and American English? In my speech, 'quite' means better than 'good', but not as good as 'great'. TotallyNotSarcasm [lɪi̯v ə me̞sɪ̈d͡ʒ] [kɔnt͡ʂɻɪ̈bjɨʉ̯ʃn̩z] 13:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] [1]

[1]

Revision as of 13:43, 6 July 2019 edit SineBot (talk \| contribs) Bots 2,550,589 edits m Signing comment by TotallyNotSarcasm - "→‎July 6: " ← Previous edit		Revision as of 13:43, 6 July 2019 edit undo TotallyNotSarcasm (talk \| contribs) 79 edits →‎Quite Next edit →
Line 158:		Line 158:
	== Quite ==		== Quite ==

	In the sentence 'That was quite a good movie', what exactly is the difference in meaning between British and American English? In my speech, 'quite' means better than 'good', but not as good as 'great'. ~~<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by~~ [[User:TotallyNotSarcasm\|TotallyNotSarcasm]] ([[User talk:TotallyNotSarcasm~~#top~~\|~~talk~~]] • [[Special:Contributions/TotallyNotSarcasm\|~~contribs~~]]) 13:42, 6 July 2019 (UTC)~~</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->~~		In the sentence 'That was quite a good movie', what exactly is the difference in meaning between British and American English? In my speech, 'quite' means better than 'good', but not as good as 'great'. [[User:TotallyNotSarcasm\|TotallyNotSarcasm]] [[User talk:TotallyNotSarcasm\|[lɪi̯v ə me̞sɪ̈d͡ʒ]]] [[Special:Contributions/TotallyNotSarcasm\|[kɔnt͡ʂɻɪ̈bjɨʉ̯ʃn̩z]]] 13:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)