Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:10, 11 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.

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]

OffTopic. Lovely: The term endonym was devised (...) as an antonym for the term exonym. --CiaPan (talk) 18:27, 7 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]

(US English) I use it as a modifier, like "very", so a movie could be "quite good" or "quite bad". It does differ from "very" in that you would never say "It was very a good movie." SinisterLefty (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I use it like that too; my question is, how 'strong' is it? As I said, for me, it's between 'good' and 'great' TotallyNotSarcasm [lɨi̯v ə me̞sɪ̈dʒ] [kɔnt͡ɹ̠̝̊ɹ̠ɪ̈bjɨʉ̯ʃn̩z] 14:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, TNS. IMHO, "quite good" is better than just "good" but not yet "great".--Thomprod (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(British English) It's used, in the example you've given, to indicate that the specified person or thing is perceived as particularly notable, remarkable, or impressive. See [1]. So more than just "good", equivalent to "not bad", less than "very good". Bazza (talk) 14:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think you are reading the definition wrong. "Quite a good movie" would mean "the Movie was alright" or "it was OK". When used with "quite a good" it takes the definition here [2], ‘a little, moderately but not very’. The "Quite a XXX" is more akin to the usage described with nouns, such as "she was quite an artist", where it does mean "to a large extent".

So to summarise, in British English "that was quite a good movie" would mean it was mediocre, whereas "that was quite a movie" would mean it was impressive. -- Q Chris (talk) 10:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So the British use is the same as mine. I've heard that in American English, it's 'stronger', for lack of a better word. TotallyNotSarcasm [lɨi̯v ə me̞sɪ̈dʒ] [kɔnt͡ɹ̠̝̊ɹ̠ɪ̈bjɨʉ̯ʃn̩z] 15:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's this. I'm not sure what you mean by "between 'good' and 'great'" (it would be more accurate to think in terms of 'moderately' or 'completely'). In your example sentence, as "good" is a gradable adjective, it means "moderately good". Henry ^Flower 17:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the particular subset of American English I use, "quite good" is much more than "moderately good". The progression would go "moderately good" < "good" < "quite good" < "great". Not sure where "quite good" falls in relation to "very good", whether better or worse.--Khajidha (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"In British English quite good only means pretty good or fairly good, but in American English it's much more positive. Quite good means very good... one last piece of advice for any American guys who are planning a first date with an English girl. Don’t be like one of my American friends and tell her you think she is quite pretty. He was lucky to get a second date". See The trickiest word in American. Alansplodge (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) In colloquial British English, "quite good" is a synonym for "moderately good" or "fairly good", so "quite" reduces "good". This usage can be confusing to Americans, and even to those on this side of the pond who were taught the original meaning of "quite". The OED says "As a moderating adverb: to a certain or significant extent or degree; moderately, somewhat, rather; relatively, reasonably. [...] The shift in meaning being from ‘certainly having the specified character in (at least) some degree’ to ‘having the specified character in some degree (though not completely)’.". The tone distinguishes this usage of "quite" from the older meaning. Dbfirs 18:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've also heard "Quite." used as a sentence in old British movies:

"I fear he's lost his mind."

"Quite."

What is the meaning there ? I took it as "I agree", but is it somehow saying he's less than totally lost his mind ? SinisterLefty (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's a different usage, a shortening of "quite so" with the American (and older British) meaning. The OED says: "colloquial (chiefly British). As an emphatic affirmation: ‘just so’; ‘absolutely’" Dbfirs 19:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the example of "rather" as a moderating adverb is ALSO confusing to Americans. "Rather good" to me would probably seem better than "good" but not as good as "quite good". --Khajidha (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was a bad example. It's another case where the meaning is distinguished by context and tone. The OED says for rather: " in a certain degree or measure; to some extent; somewhat, slightly; (also) considerably, very much." and comments that it is often difficult to distinguish which meaning is intended. Dbfirs 11:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, in my example I use it to mean 'particularly good', but if I say something is 'quite good', I mean that it's 'kind of good' (not that good but not bad). TotallyNotSarcasm [lɨi̯v ə me̞sɪ̈dʒ] [kɔnt͡ɹ̠̝̊ɹ̠ɪ̈bjɨʉ̯ʃn̩z] 09:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The progression, from better to worse, is 'great' > 'really good' > 'very good' > 'quite a good ' > 'good ' > 'quite good' > 'okay' in my speech. TotallyNotSarcasm [lɨi̯v ə me̞sɪ̈dʒ] [kɔnt͡ɹ̠̝̊ɹ̠ɪ̈bjɨʉ̯ʃn̩z] 09:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In mine it would be 'great', 'quite a', 'very good', 'good', ('OK', 'quite good', 'quite a good'), 'mediocre', with the three bracketed being roughly the same level -- Q Chris (talk) 10:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In mine it goes: great > quite good > very good > really good > quite a good > good > fairly good > fine > okay > fair > mediocre. And the modified forms of "fine" would follow the same order as the modified forms of "good". --Khajidha (talk) 14:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Capitals or not

When referring to south, north, west and east, does English use capital letters for the first ones? I'm kinda confused with this. I sometimes see this with Western/western as well as with different seasons like Spring/spring. Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When used as simple directions, compass points are not capitalized (eg: "the bridge is located north of here"). They are capitalized as part of proper names (West Virginia) or as descriptive phrases (the Old West, the Far East). Seasons are only to be capitalized when treated as personifications ("Old Man Winter") or in proper names. This is all spelled out in the Wikipedia Manual of Style MOS:CAPS. --Khajidha (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS - SOME uses of directions to describe regions are capitalized, but most are not. This is one of those times that you should just follow sources. And leave it as lowercase if you can't find any sources.--Khajidha (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 22:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Khajidha sets out the capitalization style used by Wikipedia, but Tintor2 asked about usage "in English". Remember that there are no official rules of English usage, so sources like dictionaries and style guides only describe what their editors have seen people using or what they think is the best usage. If you look at older writing in English you will see a number of words like North (the direction), Spring (the season), and Queen (the playing card) treated as proper names and capitalized in all uses. In still older writing, such as the US Constitution, you will see even more capitalization. I think most people today capitalize in the way Wikipedia does, though. --76.69.117.113 (talk) 04:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on Kajidha's PS, one always capitalizes directions in "the East" (roughly Asia, or the eastern US depending on context–note I did not capitalize "eastern"), "the West" (western Europe and the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, or the western part of the US), etc. Loraof (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, because in those examples they are being used as place names. But come on, everyone knows that "the East" and "the West" are parts of Canada. --76.69.117.113 (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As examples: Western Carolina University and East Carolina University are located in the western and eastern portions of North Carolina, respectively. In turn, North Carolina is one of the Southern states, and is found in the southeastern region of the United States.--Khajidha (talk) 19:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In some cases, the capitalization changes the meaning. For example, South Africa refers to the nation, while "south Africa" refers to the broader region. SinisterLefty (talk) 20:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the non-ambiguous term, "southern" Africa. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:13, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, but that doesn't always work, as Southern Rhodesia was the name of a colony at one point, which then became just Rhodesia, and is now Zimbabwe. While it was Rhodesia, you would need to refer to "south Rhodesia" to indicate that region and avoid confusion with the former colony. SinisterLefty (talk) 20:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's "the South". Everyone knows what Americans are referring to when they say that. But when others want to indicate the same place, they have to resort to "the southern states/part of the United States", unless it's otherwise clear from the context. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, they have to refer to the southeastern part. The South stopped being the southern part of the US as the country grew to the west. --76.69.117.113 (talk) 06:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "the South" only extends as far west as Louisiana, or maybe Texas, but not New Mexico and Arizona, and certainly not California. SinisterLefty (talk) 08:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Well, when you guys start referring to "the South-East", I'll amend my reference accordingly. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:10, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of like how this American was surprised to find out that "Northern town" had such a specific meaning in British English. --Khajidha (talk) 11:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 7

Synonym for "benefits"

I was searching for a more interesting synonym for "benefits" for an article title (e.g., "The benefits of yoga" or "The benefits of regular exercise"). I really didn't like the sound of "advantages" in this context. I thought about something like "The power of yoga" or "The wonders of yoga," but I wasn't sure.98.18.156.109 (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given those sales-hype alternatives, "benefits" is the thing to go with. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point.98.18.156.109 (talk) 17:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions: "The rewards of regular exercise" or "The gains you can expect from regular exercise". You might also include "health" in the title, as "health benefits", "health rewards", or "health gains", which all include mental health, unless there is some other non-health benefit you discuss (I suppose appearance is one). SinisterLefty (talk) 19:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rewards" is also sales hype. As is calling the reader "you". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about an article for Wikipedia or for something else? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "benefits of..." works best, but two slightly wordier aternatives might be "the positive effects of..." and "the favorable effects of..." Loraof (talk) 12:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 8

Thai transliteration

Does anyone at Wikipedia speak Thai and would be willing to transliterate a few words for me? I have created a transliteration via autotools but they are notoriously unreliable when represented in non-Roman characters. I have tried at WP:TRLA with little success. Any other ideas? Is this even the best desk to ask at? -Thibbs (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can do that for you. Do you really want a transliteration (a mapping of the graphemes)? Or a transcription (linguistics) (a romanized representation of the sounds)? Just leave the "few words" here and I'll get to it as soon as I can.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 01:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WilliamThweatt, Thank you so much for your assistance! The phrase is "วิกิพีเดีย:โครงการวิกิวิดีโอเกม". Some background: I help with one of the WikiProject newsletters and I have always used transliterations when possible when referring to newsletters from other languages so I guess I'd prefer the transliterated version for consistency. -Thibbs (talk) 14:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Thibbs: The RTGS transcription is most commonly used for Thai and should serve well as a "transliteration" for your purpose. A true transliteration of the Thai would be unreadable in English because, in Thai, some vowel sounds are written before the consonants they follow and many consonants have completely different sounds when used at the end of a syllable. The RTGS of your phrase is "wikiphidia: khrongkan wiki widio kem". "โครงการ (khrongkan)" means project and the rest should be obvious. Note: the RTGS uses "h" to show aspiration so "ph" is /pʰ/ not /f/; likewise "kh" is /kʰ/. The RTGS also does not show tone or vowel length, which seems irrelevant for your purposes anyway.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 17:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah that's perfect! Thank you so much! -Thibbs (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 9

pucker

What is being said at 40:35 in this video? It sounds like "if his credentials weren't pucker I can't imagine they would do that willingly". The word "pucker" seems out of place unless it has a meaning I'm not aware of. Bus stop (talk) 04:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't view the video, but it's probably pukka, meaning "genuine" in this context. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 06:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In ZAE I've always understood it to mean "genuine". In AE you might say "if his credentials weren't the real deal I can't imagine they would do that willingly". (edit) It's "pukka". 41.165.67.114 (talk) 06:10, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the OED has: " sure, certain, reliable; genuine, bona fide, correct. Hence more generally: real, not sham; (of information) factually correct; (of persons) authentic, not pretended; proper or correct in behaviour, socially acceptable" (with cites from 1776 to 2006, one spelled pucker), and British slang: "Excellent, superb; ‘cool’." Dbfirs 06:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That must be it: In UK slang, it can mean "genuine" or simply "very good". Thanks everybody. Bus stop (talk) 09:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It comes from a Hindi word, 'pakka', meaning 'strong', 'permanent' or 'resolute'.TotallyNotSarcasm [lɨi̯v ə me̞sɪ̈dʒ] [kɔnt͡ɹ̠̝̊ɹ̠ɪ̈bjɨʉ̯ʃn̩z] 09:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See List of English words of Hindi or Urdu origin - one of the legacies of empire. Alansplodge (talk) 12:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How common was insurgents and cut and run in WW2?

In American English. Star Trek Enterprise seemed to try too hard to connect with current events, I was wondering how idiosyncratic those usages would've been. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Ukrainian Insurgent Army. This shows the concept "cut and run" existed at the time: [3]. Rmhermen (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This book has "cut-and-run" in its WWII slang section: [4]. Rmhermen (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Cut and run" originated in 1794 as a naval term: "to cut the cable and make sail instantly, without waiting to weigh anchor". 2606:A000:1126:28D:48F3:EC22:BDAE:8519 (talk) 18:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm just too young to have heard it before the Bush era, I always assumed it originated in the cowboy side of my country (far away, hence the use by Bush who's from the ranch part of Texas) and referred to cattle cutting (changing direction) to turn around to flee. The real origin sounds cooler actually. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did they commonly call the French/Polish etc. (not Spanish) Resistance/insurgents guerrillas too? I know it was common by the time of the Vietcong. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Our article says it was used in English since 1809. I don't know whether is was applied to the French or Poles in WW2. The terms I've heard them use for themselves are resistance fighters and partisans (although the later was used more for SE Europe). SinisterLefty (talk) 01:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of insurgents, "hit and run" attacks are common, where the insurgents attack, then flee the area before reinforcements arrive. ISIL was an odd exception, which tried to hold ground. It worked for them only for a few years, because of all the failed states around the area. Against a strong and unified enemy, it wouldn't have lasted more than a few days. SinisterLefty (talk) 01:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which British variety is this audio?

Umzu (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to the opening credits, it's an American, Larry Storch, trying to do a British accent. Perhaps not his strongest suit. Henry ^Flower 21:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd describe as a terrible American variety. HiLo48 (talk) 23:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As with Mrs. Doubtfire's accent, maybe "a little muddled." The other annoying thing about that clip is the laugh track. If you need a laugh track on a cartoon, something's out of whack. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 10

How do you translate the name Shitavious to Russian?

How do you translate the name Shitavious to Russian? Futurist110 (talk) 08:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean "How do you render it in Cyrillic script ?" ? SinisterLefty (talk) 12:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. Rather, I mean translating it. I mean, Matthew could be rendered in Cyrillic script in a way that preserves its English pronunciation, or it could be translated as Matvei/Matvey. In turn, I was wondering if Shitavious could be translated as something such as Shitavei/Shitavey in Russian. Futurist110 (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically Шитавей in the Cyrillic script. Futurist110 (talk) 22:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop deleting my posts. Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Шитавиоус is the correct translation. Willbb234 (talk) 13:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that it was Шитавиус? Also, in any case, I am looking for a translation rather than a transcription--and No, the two aren't the same thing--as my Matthew example above shows. Futurist110 (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Willbb234: It's a transcription, not translation – it represents (or rather approximates) pronunciation of the word instead of its meaning... --CiaPan (talk) 13:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I was hoping for a translation rather than a transcription here. Futurist110 (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Was that error sufficient reason for you to delete the IP's answer? --Viennese Waltz 13:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Viennese Waltz: Nope. --CiaPan (talk) 14:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please use {{Reply to}} to notify users to whom you reply (unless you want to show you don't care if they see your replies).

My response was Шитавиоус, as has now been accepted above. Three times I had to add this. I believe this to be one of the few problems with Wikipedia, zealots feeling it within their power to delete another's work and finding small print justification for doing so despite the overarching justification for the work. Rant over. Thanks Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 15:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The key question will be whether the OP accepts it as a useful answer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for a translation rather than a transcription, though. Futurist110 (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo. So the next question is, what on God's green earth does that word mean? And I would argue that names like Ivan and Pavel are "Russianizations" of John and Paul rather than "translations". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beats me! Ask Shitavious's parents: https://herald-review.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/shitavious-cook-gets-years-in-shooting-pleas/article_280e78cd-3b32-510b-a980-6ea4f33b9a49.html Futurist110 (talk) 06:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semicolon

I posted this question on the talk page of Semicolon but got no responses:

I frequently see usages of the semicolon such this one from Dumbing down:

Dumbing-down varies according to subject matter, and usually involves the diminishment of critical thought, by undermining intellectual standards within language and learning; thus trivializing meaningful information, culture, and academic standards, as in the case of popular culture.

Here the semicolon comes before a non-clause (or at least a non-independent clause, depending on whether "clause" is meant to include non-finite expressions). I see this a lot in Wikipedia, and I see it sometimes in the respected British magazine The Economist.

But this article only mentions the usage in serial lists of things that themselves contain commas, and the usage before a second independent clause. Is the usage before a non-clause or non-independent clause valid in all British styles, for example in The Economist's style guide? And, should we add that usage to this article? Loraof (talk) 15:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that looks wrong to me. I would only use the semi-colon where the clause following it contains a verb. --Viennese Waltz 15:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Also, it tends to be used when forcing what should be two sentences together into one run-on sentence; hot weather we're having here today, BTW. SinisterLefty (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is that supposed to be an example? Because, while it's grammatical enough, it makes me think of 'Colorless green ideas sleep furiously', and in general feels off.

It looks perfectly fine to me. While I cannot speak for "all British styles", I do note that BNC shows 248 instances of "; THUS" (semicolon space "thus" [uppercase, lowercase, or any mixture thereof]). There are only so many hours in the day, and my interest in punctuation is limited; thus my lack of enthusiasm for investigating further. However, I'll uneducatedly guess that these 248 will provide relevant examples from a variety of sources. -- Hoary (talk) 23:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine when the semicolon is followed by a clause of the form 'thus, a does b'; this is not one of those. TotallyNotSarcasm [lɨi̯v ə me̞sɪ̈dʒ] [kɔnt͡ɹ̠̝̊ɹ̠ɪ̈bjɨʉ̯ʃn̩z] 11:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yet I see it sometimes in The Economist. Does anyone have the Economist's style guide? Loraof (talk) 13:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

“Though”

This question is about the usage of "though" as an adverb, not as a conjunction, in standard registers. Wiktionary defines adverbial "though" as "however". All of the following are generally considered correct (although some would proscribe the third one):

(1)I did think so, however.

(2)However, I did think so.

(3)However I did think so.

But now replace "however" with "though":

(4)I did think so, though.

(5)Though, I did think so.

(6)Though I did think so.

The first one is fine. I suspect that the second one is considered non-standard. The third one also strikes me as unacceptable (partly because it's a garden path sentence where the reader might initially expect a conjunctive usage).

(a) Is there a name for this usage standard whereby an adverb can be used only in more restricted ways than its synonym?

(b) Are there other examples? Loraof (talk) 15:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just try to avoid using "Though" as the first word, using "However" there, or putting "though" later in the sentence. Not sure what rule this is, but it sounds a lot better that way. SinisterLefty (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I avoid "though" altogether, use "although" or "however" instead. —DextralRighty,aka:2606:A000:1126:28D:84CB:D08E:899F:D254 (talk) 16:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Although" has the problem that it doesn't work at the end of sentence, though. So, they each have their place. SinisterLefty (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I won't refute what I learned from my mother regarding proper application of English words -- including what words to avoid.

—

I'm sure that The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language has relevant material. (The book is excellent value for its non-trivial price.) ¶ (b) Yes. Just one off the top of my head: with the meaning of excess: "The dessert was excessively/too sweet"; however, "They sweeten their desserts excessively/*too." -- Hoary (talk) 00:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 11

The Netherlands

I suspect I made an error when creating a category 'Warehouses in Netherlands'. Please comment/advise here or at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Please check the name of category: the Netherlands? --CiaPan (talk) 07:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quarter daisies

(Post by banned user removed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC))[reply]

wut ——SerialNumber54129 10:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Named for saints, not necessarily their days, the index of Geoffrey Grigson's The Englishman's Flora has St Anthony's Nut, St Anthony's Turnip, St Barbara's Herb, St David's Rose, St James's Wort, St John's Nut, two plants called "St John's Wort" - Chelidonium majus and Hypericum perforatum, St Leonard's Lilies, St Mawes Clover (though this is named after the place), St Patrick's Cabbage and St Patrick's Cabbage (with hybrids of the two) - both also known as Leaf of St Patrick, St Peter's Bell, St Peter's Herb & St Peter's Keys, St Peter's Wort for both Hypericum dubium and Hypericum tetrapterum, and St Peterworte. DuncanHill (talk) 10:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Although

In school, we were taught to use the word 'although' as follows:

Although he is tall, but he cannot reach the box.

However, to me (basically a native speaker), the 'but' seems to make it rather redundant. Am I mistaken? TotallyNotSarcasm [lɨi̯v ə me̞sɪ̈dʒ] [kɔnt͡ɹ̠̝̊ɹ̠ɪ̈bjɨʉ̯ʃn̩z] 11:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The "but" has no place in that sentence. "Although he is tall he cannot reach the box" is fine, the comma seems superfluous to me. BrEng native. DuncanHill (talk) 12:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't use the comma either — this is the exact example we were given. (The comma was a smaller part of my confusion, but it's acceptable, whereas the 'but' seems completely wrong.) TotallyNotSarcasm [lɨi̯v ə me̞sɪ̈dʒ] [kɔnt͡ɹ̠̝̊ɹ̠ɪ̈bjɨʉ̯ʃn̩z] 12:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Either "Although he is tall, he cannot reach the box" or "he is tall, but he cannot reach the box". --Khajidha (talk) 12:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds as if either your school or your memory is faulty. "Although ..... but ..." is not a valid construction in standard English. Dbfirs 13:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have it written down, so it's the school at fault. I didn't expect better from a teacher who doubted that 'hurries' is a word. TotallyNotSarcasm [lɨi̯v ə me̞sɪ̈dʒ] [kɔnt͡ɹ̠̝̊ɹ̠ɪ̈bjɨʉ̯ʃn̩z] 13:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My reason for asking is that while I have native-level proficiency in English, years of hearing that construction have me doubting myself. TotallyNotSarcasm [lɨi̯v ə me̞sɪ̈dʒ] [kɔnt͡ɹ̠̝̊ɹ̠ɪ̈bjɨʉ̯ʃn̩z] 13:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CanEng native speaker. I would always use a comma in that construction. I accept that it's not technically required, but I find "Although he is tall he cannot reach the box" difficult to parse, despite being a short sentence. Matt Deres (talk) 13:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. Maybe it's a BrEng+IndEng thing. I would also never actually use 'cannot'; it would be can't. Is there a pause in your speech when you say it? There isn't for me. TotallyNotSarcasm [lɨi̯v ə me̞sɪ̈dʒ] [kɔnt͡ɹ̠̝̊ɹ̠ɪ̈bjɨʉ̯ʃn̩z] 13:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the person you asked, but this American would always use a comma there and does pause at that point in the sentence. --Khajidha (talk) 13:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TotallyNotSarcasm, apologies for doubting your memory. Teachers do sometimes get things wrong. I prefer the version with the comma, too, and have a slight pause there. Dbfirs 13:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine. Heck, it's what I'd've done. Also, now that I think about it, sometimes I'd use a comma, sometimes not. It's one of those things which you just know, and can't explain to a non-native. Edit: I think I've got it — I'd definitely use a comma with 'cannot, but it varies with 'can't'. If it was 'Though he is ... the box', I'd use it. TotallyNotSarcasm [lɨi̯v ə me̞sɪ̈dʒ] [kɔnt͡ɹ̠̝̊ɹ̠ɪ̈bjɨʉ̯ʃn̩z] 14:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) I would typically use can't as well, but cannot is fine too, especially if I need to emphasize it for some reason. Come to think of it, I would probably use couldn't/could not unless the action was happening in front of me and I was commentating on it; cannot/can't is strictly present-tense for me and so inappropriate for later reports. And, yes, there would be a pause for me between "tall" and "he". Matt Deres (talk) 14:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Same here; I was just sticking as closely to the original as I could. I would use 'can't' if he (for whatever reason) had to regularly remove the box, though. TotallyNotSarcasm [lɨi̯v ə me̞sɪ̈dʒ] [kɔnt͡ɹ̠̝̊ɹ̠ɪ̈bjɨʉ̯ʃn̩z] 14:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt

In Indian English, the word 'doubt' is used as follows:

The students were encouraged to ask their doubts about the subject.

It is similar to a 'query', but is generally about an explanation (as opposed to a statement or rule) and conveys a sense of semi-formality, while 'query' feels more formal. For example, you would ask a doubt to your physics teacher about, say, Ohm's Law, but a question to the principal about the timings of the school would be a query.

The other use ('there was some doubt in their minds') exists, but is rare.

Is this use not found in any other varieties of English? Edit: Removed something rather insensitive from an American perspective. It was not very relevant anyway. TotallyNotSarcasm [lɨi̯v ə me̞sɪ̈dʒ] [kɔnt͡ɹ̠̝̊ɹ̠ɪ̈bjɨʉ̯ʃn̩z] 13:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In British English, one might have a doubt, and would ask about it. The sentence from Indian English would be understood in the UK, but would not be regarded as standard. One would normally ask a question when one has a doubt or a query about a subject. Dbfirs 13:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In British English, might one really "have a doubt"? In my North American English, "doubt" in the singular is strictly a mass noun. One can "have doubt" or "have some doubt", but not "have a doubt". (Curiously, the plural "have doubts" does exist.) I used to work with people from India and I remember tham saying "I have a doubt", and it always sounded wrong/foreign to me. --69.159.11.113 (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not found in American English and I'm not even sure if it would be understood. --Khajidha (talk) 13:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I would "ask a question" in all of the given situations. "Query" as a noun is fairly rare in the dialect I am familiar with. You might query a person, but you would not speak of having a query or asking a query. --Khajidha (talk) 13:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The use of 'query' is rarer here, but definitely existent. On the other hand, here we never query anyone, we only ask queries. TotallyNotSarcasm [lɨi̯v ə me̞sɪ̈dʒ] [kɔnt͡ɹ̠̝̊ɹ̠ɪ̈bjɨʉ̯ʃn̩z] 14:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In American English the closest we have is "express their doubts", but that means announcing that they are skeptical about something. SinisterLefty (talk) 13:43, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The same in British English. Google ngrams finds zero examples of "ask a doubt" in British or American English, and zero for "ask a query" in British English. It finds only a very few examples of "ask a query" in American English, and these are all recent in the context of querying a database. It finds a single example from Indian English. Dbfirs 14:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's used very commonly in speech, but in writing it's always the British version. TotallyNotSarcasm [lɨi̯v ə me̞sɪ̈dʒ] [kɔnt͡ɹ̠̝̊ɹ̠ɪ̈bjɨʉ̯ʃn̩z] 14:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not very familiar with how ngrams works, but I'm wondering if "ask a query" is uncommon because there's an element of code switching? A "query" is more formal, so it gets submitted to the database or directed at a person. "Ask" is for more everyday usage. Matt Deres (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ngrams finds only the exact phrase in the corpus it searches. "Submit a query" is eight times more common than "ask a query" Dbfirs 14:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 307: / Line 307: @@
 :In British English, one might ''have'' a doubt, and would ask ''about'' it.  The sentence from Indian English would be understood in the UK, but would not be regarded as standard.  One would normally ask a question when one has a doubt or a query about a subject. [[User:Dbfirs|<span style="font-family: verdana;"><i style="color: blue;">D</i><i style="color: #0cf;">b</i><i style="color: #4fc;">f</i><i style="color: #6f6;">i</i><i style="color: #4e4;">r</i><i style="color: #4a4">s</i></span>]] 13:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
-*::In British English, might one really "have a doubt"?  In my North American English, "doubt" in the singular is strictly a mass noun.  One can "have doubt" or "have some doubt", but not "have a doubt".  (Curiously, the plural "have doubts" does exist.)  I used to work with people from India and I remember tham saying "I have a doubt", and it always sounded wrong/foreign to me. --[[Special:Contributions/69.159.11.113|69.159.11.113]] ([[User talk:69.159.11.113|talk]]) 21:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
+::*In British English, might one really "have a doubt"?  In my North American English, "doubt" in the singular is strictly a mass noun.  One can "have doubt" or "have some doubt", but not "have a doubt".  (Curiously, the plural "have doubts" does exist.)  I used to work with people from India and I remember tham saying "I have a doubt", and it always sounded wrong/foreign to me. --[[Special:Contributions/69.159.11.113|69.159.11.113]] ([[User talk:69.159.11.113|talk]]) 21:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 :Not found in American English and I'm not even sure if it would be understood. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) 13:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 ::PS - I would "ask a question" in all of the given situations. "Query" as a noun is fairly rare in the dialect I am familiar with. You might query a person, but you would not speak of having a query or asking a query. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) 13:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)