Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:11, 11 January 2021

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.

January 4

Not homework: confused by a crossword clue

I am working on a Crossword puzzle. The clue is "assibilate", which I did not understand. The answer is "lisp". I have looked at the Wikipedia articles Lisp and Assibilation, as well as the Wiktionary entry for assibilate, and I still don't fully make the connection. I understand that a list is a speach impediment involving mispronouncing sibilants, but I don't see how that directly relates to assibilate which I think creates sibilants. Obviously I am misunderstanding something. Can someone help explain how assibilate equals lisp? RudolfRed (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EO says "assibilate" means "to change to a hissing sound".[1] Whether a lisp qualifies could be a matter of opinion. <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 05:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Linguists use the noun form ("assibilation") more than the verb, and use it to refer to a sound change which makes something into a sibilant... AnonMoos (talk) 12:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Some kinds of lisps change an "s" sound to a "th" sound, which is the exact opposite of assibilation... AnonMoos (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Side note: assibilation is not always a speech impediment or a lisp. Some dialects assibilate as a normal thing. For example Quebec French and New England French assibilates the "t" sound between two vowels, such that words like "petit" become realized as /pəsi/ or even /psi/ instead of the Metropolitan French pronunciation of /pəti/. A related concept is frication, which is the "th" sound that AnonMoos notes above, frication is also a normal feature of some dialects, such as in some Spanish dialects, notably Castilian Spanish. See Phonological history of Spanish coronal fricatives. --Jayron 32 13:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, everyone, for the replies. Very helpful. RudolfRed (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't heard the word assibilate before, but I'd have guessed it meant the total opposite: removal of an S sound. They should have gone for essibilate, or ensibilate, or adsibilate, or something. Temerarius (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Temerarius -- the Greek negative prefix (or "alpha privative") does not double following consonants (as opposed to when the "d" of Latin "ad-" assimilates to the consonant of the stem to which it's attached). So "asymmetric" vs. "assimilate". AnonMoos (talk) 07:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, but why is it a negative prefix? Temerarius (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't. —Tamfang (talk) 03:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The word assimilation is itself a nice example of ad-similation. --Lambiam 09:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Borg with a cold: You will be assibilated. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC) [reply]

"For those interested..."

I've occasionally heard and even used the phrase: "For those interested..."; which, to my ears, sounds okay. It seems grammatically incorrect, however. Is it? Of course, it is shorthand for: "For those of you who are interested...", which is proper. --107.15.157.44 (talk) 13:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Those" is a demonstrative pronoun and can be a subject of a clause/sentence. It seems perfectly grammatical to me to say "those interested...". --Jayron 32 13:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

107.15.157.44 -- It's compressed/elliptical, but I don't see how it's ungrammatical: "Interested" is a verb passive participle, and such passive participles are often used as adjectives. In this case, the adjective is used in a noun slot, but does not take a noun plural inflection, as is usually the case ("The poor are always with us" etc). AnonMoos (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just an "adjective used in a noun spot", it's a honest-to-god pronoun all on its own. See the Wikipedia article demonstrative, which describes the concept of a "demonstrative pronoun", to wit, "A demonstrative pronoun stands on its own, replacing rather than modifying a noun" --Jayron 32 13:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have little idea what you're talking about -- I was referring to the word "interested", not the word "those", as seems quite clear from what I wrote above". "Those" is actually behaving very normally in 107.15.157.44's clause; it's "interested" which is in a slightly unusual role... AnonMoos (talk) 13:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course you're right and I'm wrong. I'm an asshole as usual. I'm quite sorry to have misinterpreted your response. I apologize profusely. --Jayron 32 13:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for explaining. The complexities of English. Sentence fragments. Often useful, rarely proper. Discuss later, perhaps? 107.15.157.44 (talk) 13:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please unlearn the concept that there is such a thing as "proper" English. There are only different registers. --174.95.161.129 (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ain't it the truth. <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 22:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proper - adjective: Called for by rules or conventions; correct.^[2] --2603:6081:1C00:1187:214B:A1BF:7A5C:E912 (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. There ain't no such thing. --174.95.161.129 (talk) 04:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore, there is no register of English that has rules or conventions. It is quite ironic that by your rules and conventions, it it improper for me to use a "register" of my choice. 2603:6081:1C00:1187:214B:A1BF:7A5C:E912 (talk) 04:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is a very generally used construction. From just one page on the website of The New York Times: "those in the president's orbit", "those in the president's circle", "those receiving the shots", "those at high risk from the coronavirus", "those sick with an unknown respiratory ailment".^[3] The construction is most commonly seen with the demonstrative pronoun those, referring to a group of entities, often people, with some common characteristic. The uses above stand for "the people in the president's orbit", and so on. For a single entity with a specific characteristic, the pronoun the one is used: "the one with the suspected case",^[4] "the one without air conditioning",^[5] "the one in the dry-cleaning wrap".^[6] A rare occurrence of the construction using the pronoun that: "that in the garden".^[7] The pronoun replaces "the tree" – "the tree in the garden"; in the context it is obvious the speaker is referring to a tree, so this does not have to be repeated. --Lambiam 09:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The title of every episode of the "Friends" TV series started with "The one..." -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Except the last one, "The Last One". —Tamfang (talk) 03:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

interested is here a kind of reduced relative clause, specifically one resulting from Whiz deletion (which to my surprise we have no article about or that even mentions). --ColinFine (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 5

Yay high?

I'm South African. My niece (early twenties old) returned home from university in Scotland for the holidays. We were chatting about the dogs my parents (her grandparents) had when she said "...it was about yay high" while indicating the height by hand. I've never heard "yay high" before, is it a Scottish expression? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's common enough in my experience that it never occurred to me it might be regional. No Scottish connections that I know of. OED says it's probably from "yea". --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 15:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise with EO.[8] It's certainly not unique to Scotland. It's common in the American Midwest, or at least used to be. Possibly a little old-fashioned. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cromulent among the Canadians known to me. I had never seen with the "yay" spelling but per ngram, that spelling, although more recent, is used pretty much as often as "yea": [9]. Also, here's Wiktionary link: yea. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I live in London rather than Scotland, but I believe it's a recent introduction to British English from across the Atlantic. I don't recall it before about 20 years ago. For a reference I found:

"The OED records it as ‘U.S. slang’ and suggests it is probably from yea, yea being ‘a word used to express affirmation or assent'. The OED’s first recorded use is this from Wentworth and Flexner’s 1960 Dictionary of American Slang". [10]

Alansplodge (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very common here in NC. I don't know that I've ever seen it actually spelled out, but "yay" is how I would expect it to be spelled. --Khajidha (talk) 12:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The words yea and yay are homonyms, and the word yeah can be pronounced either yay or yeh. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Written, I've only seen it as yea. —Tamfang (talk) 03:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Yea, Lord, we greet thee, Born this happy morning..." Alansplodge (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite common in Australia. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...and has been for as long as this mature aged person can remember. HiLo48 (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've always wondered if it was somehow related to the German "je". --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary:yea says: "From Middle English ye, ȝea, ya, ȝa, from Old English ġēa, iā (“yea, yes”), from Proto-Germanic *ja (“yes, thus, so”), from Proto-Indo-European *yē (“already”)". Alansplodge (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

German je, on the other hand, is cognate to the archaic English adverb aye, meaning "always". There is no consensus whether the latter is related to the later affirmative interjection aye, although this is considered likely. --Lambiam 22:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that US Representatives and Senators vote "yea" or "nay", [11] whereas British and Commonwealth Members of Parliament vote "aye" or "no". [12] Alansplodge (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Constance van Eeden

Hi, should I use the DEFAULTSORT on "van Eeden, Constance" or "Eeden, Constance van" ? I thought it was the former rather than the latter, feel free to point me at the right guideline...GrahamHardy (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Tussenvoegsel. She's Dutch, so index under Eeden. Were she Belgian you would index her under van. DuncanHill (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What about Afrikaans names? GrahamHardy (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But I will leave Americans as Van GrahamHardy (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Afrikaners go under V - see van (Dutch). DuncanHill (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also how the name is collated at Centrum Wiskunde & Informatica#Notable people. --Lambiam 06:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 8

What is a dark-of-night statement?

It is stated on cnn.com that

"Earlier Thursday, Trump issued a dark-of-night statement vowing an "orderly transition," which came about in part to stanch a wave of resignations from within the West Wing and the broader administration, according to a person familiar with the matter."[13]

What does 'dark-of-night statement' mean? Bandy långe (talk) 01:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement released at a time or in a manner such that the person issuing it did not seem to want to give it wide publicity. AnonMoos (talk) 04:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it doesn't even need to be metaphorical as you are interpreting it. It is literally a statement made while it is dark, during the night time. There is no need to invoke idiom or metaphor here as the literal meaning is the only necessary meaning to read. --Jayron 32 16:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What time was it issued? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3:49 am on Dan Scavino's twitter as Trump's was locked. [14] Rmhermen (talk) 07:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese vs. Traditional Chinese

I'm the creator of the SCP Foundation article, which contains a list in the footnotes of non-English language branches of the writing community. They've had a Chinese branch for awhile, but they recently added a Traditional Chinese branch as well (website for reference, scroll down to see language list). Linguistically speaking, should these be counted as two languages or one? Also, does "Chinese" have a longer name that can be used to Distinguish it from "Traditional Chinese." Basically, I'm looking for advice on how to count the newest wiki branch and how to describe the two Chinese branches. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If "traditional Chinese" contrasts with Chinese written with PRC simplified characters, then they are not separate languages. There is only one Wikipedia for both... AnonMoos (talk) 04:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I thought there would be a bigger difference between the two; I don't have any clue why there are two Chinese SCP Foundation websites. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit of Eagle, it should really be Traditional Chinese and Simplified Chinese. Traditional is still used in places like Hong Kong, while the mainland typically uses Simplified. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Wiktionary calls the two Traditional Chinese and Simplified Chinese, which sounds as if it is about the language but actually refers only to the characters. For example, the character for Mandarin guó (meaning "country") is traditionally 國, but has been simplified to 国. In Mainland China, the simplified characters are used, but Taiwan uses the traditional ones. Someone who can read one style may be unable to understand a text in the other style. See further our articles Traditional Chinese characters and Simplified Chinese characters. --Lambiam 09:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation Lambiam. I suspected this had something to do with Taiwan and the PRC, and this pretty much confirms it. For the article, I plan on simply listing the two and counting the two as distinct languages. Thanks a lot for this information. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Earliest known uses of "by suicide" as opposed to "committed suicide"

What are the earliest known examples of the use of this phrase? Was it commonly used prior to the 2010s? 49.149.134.114 (talk) 09:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The two phrases usage in the English corpus can be see Here in Google ngrams, and as can be seen, before about 1810 "by suicide" was actually more common. The phrase "committed suicide" has seen a downturn since 2012, but has not been overtaken by "by suicide" yet. --Jayron 32 13:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably because of a growing - and very much mistaken - belief that "committed" must refer to a crime or a sin. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that Jayron's comparison is what the OP literally asked about, but an arguably more relevant comparison would be with "died by suicide", the occurrence of which is pretty negligible before the year 2000. --Trovatore (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good match. No idea why, this led me to a comparison of "by suicide" with "from suicide". Although the last sounds irreal to my ears they were following a similar trend durint the raring thirties (this term). I wonder which were the sentences. "At suicide" vs "attempt at suicide" plus "attempts at suicide" remains a bit low compared to it. --Askedonty (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The OED lists a large number of meanings for "commit". Group I is headed "to entrust, consign", group II is "to do something wrong, perpetrate", group III is "to join" (obsolete), group IV is "to involve, embroil" (obsolete), group V is "to pledge, dedicate, devote". I don't see any possible meaning of "commit suicide" other than one of those in group II, which contains the four meanings "9a. to carry out (a reprehensible act); to perpetrate a crime, sin, offence, etc", "9b. to make (an error, mistake, etc); to do (something foolish or careless), "10. to behave in a reprehensible manner (obsolete)", and "11. to do (something likened by the speaker to a crime or offence)". Does your very much mistaken comment mean you have seen a dictionary that lists a meaning of "commit" meaning to "perform an act", without negative connotations? CodeTalker (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The OED also lists usages such as "commit marriage", "commit battle", neither of which have a negative connotation. DuncanHill (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is an argument, silly I think, that "commit suicide" is "stigmatizing" language. Bus stop (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Commit battle" is noted as "archaic", and "commit marriage" has the note "in later use frequently with humorous allusion to sense 9a". In any case, these are isolated phrases or idioms. They do actually list "commit suicide" as a separate phrase with the note "Historically, suicide was regarded as a crime in many societies". I'm not seeing strong evidence that "commit an act" does not generally have a negative connotation. CodeTalker (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there the implication of a bad outcome in the cessation of one's existence on this mortal coil? Bus stop (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Surely, the word "commit" in this context refers to the committing of a crime, which suicide was, in England and Wales, until the Suicide Act 1961? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The word "commit" is not a reference to the crime in those jurisdictions in which suicide is a crime. The word "commit" connotes the irreversibility of death. It is a commitment. Suicide is a commitment. One does not have the option of saying "Oops, on second thought..." Bus stop (talk) 19:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see an WP:RS etymology for that. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If someone doesn't want to use the phrase "commit suicide" because they think it has a negative connotation then fine, they should use another. What I object to are 1) the false claim that "commit suicide" is necessarily stigmatising, and 2) the frankly horrible phrase "died by suicide". Say "killed himself", "slit his wrists", "threw himself under a bus" or whatever, just don't murder the English language in your campaign to make suicide acceptable. DuncanHill (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Murdering the English language is not bad. Bus stop (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a cr1me. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC) [reply]

As in so many other language-related politically-correct balderdash the ultimate aim is to control how other people speak. It would not be enough to say "killed himself", "slit his wrists", "threw himself under a bus". That will not suffice because that sidesteps the issue and fails to exercise control over other people. The aim here is to get you to say "died by suicide". These people should take up puppetry and ventriloquism. Bus stop (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, ventriloquism. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard of people in prison having homosexuality committed upon them. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 9

English accent in Hollywood movies.

I am watching English movies and TV shows for few years. Nowadays, I have seen that I can understand everything without subtitles for 1950s Hollywood movies, old TV series as Get Smart 1965. But when I watch movies as Bad Boys, Lethal Weapon, then without subtitles, I don't catch what the actors say. I know those words, but without subtitle I can't recognize.

Star wars movies had easy accent, but movies based on high school students have difficult accent, and they use words and phrases not used in school books and newspapers.

Actors as Vin Diesel, Sylvester Stallone, Robin Williams, Chris Rock has difficult accent. Arnold has easy accent.

Street Hawk 1985 have easy accent, the news anchors speak with clean accent, while actors of crime movies and comedy movies don't speak clearly like news anchors.

Why old movies had easy to understand accent compared to current films? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:3A80:1112:6A05:90CC:B9E1:A95E:558A (talk) 09:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Basically because newsreaders and announcers are expected to speak clearly, and actors in fiction used to be expected to do so. But TV and film have become more naturalistic in recent decades, and in real life many of us do not speak particularly clearly. --ColinFine (talk) 14:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In old 1950s-era Finnish movies, all actors spoke loudly and clearly all the time. It feels theatrical when viewed now. Current Finnish films have the actors speaking more naturally. JIP | Talk 16:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stallone can be hard enough for a native English speaker to understand. Comedians have often made fun of his tendency to mumble. Robin Williams had no discernible accent, but often he talked fast. Arnold Schwarzenegger speaks in his natural Austrian accent, and that is often made fun of as well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also Mid-Atlantic accent, the accent that American actors were trained to use in the first half of the 20th century. British actors were similarly trained to speak Received Pronunciation. Alansplodge (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In so-called real life, people sometimes mumble (whether passive-aggressively or unthinkingly), or have their backs turned when they speak, or call out from another room, or in some other way communicate ineffectively. We have the choice to ask them to repeat what they said, or just ignore it, assuming it's unimportant in the overall scheme of things. The filmmakers of today sometimes choose to reflect this reality, and I am completely in agreement with you about the frustration it often produces. Either the target audience is assumed to have the aural skills to be able to deal with these things (typically being younger people who have experience of being able to hold conversations in brain-meltingly loud clubs, bars, music venues etc **), and they don't give a damn about anyone who can't; or we're just not supposed to understand what the person said, because in RL that's often the way it is. Sometimes sub-titles actually reflect this - e.g. "(speaks indistinctly)" - but sometimes they give the words that were inaudible without the sub-titles, which is a bit aesthetically fraudulent, imo.

Problem is, we go to a movie or the theatre to hear the dialogue, not to NOT hear it. The filmmakers of yesteryear understood this, and the directors took pains to ensure that every utterance was crisp, clear and audible. To the extent that that didn't always reflect the way things are in real life, those movies were fantasies. But given a choice between an audible fantasy and an inaudible reality, I'll take the fantasy every time.

(** The irony is that younger people's naturally better hearing is made more acute by the need to hold conversations in such noisy environments, but that very noise/music over time has the effect of making their hearing worse than it otherwise might have become, as many studies have shown.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps pedantic, but none of the people you mention actually have an English accent (which is a silly term anyway, given that there's hundreds of 'English' accents). Fgf10 (talk) 14:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify that last comment, the term "English accent" normally refers to the accent of someone from England (of which there are many). It might have been better to use "American accent" in this context. Alansplodge (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 10

Herrariad'r Siedligsfäscht

When I was in Hohenems in July 2019, I saw some kind of private party at a restaurant. There was a sign saying "Herrariad'r Siedligsfäscht" at the party. What does that mean? JIP | Talk 16:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The standard German version of it would be Herrenrieder Siedlungsfest 'Herrenried town fest'. Herrenried is a neighborhood of Hohenems, it's mentioned in Hohenems#Geography. "Herrariad'r Siedligsfäscht" has all hallmarks of Alemannic German: [iɐ̯] where Standard German has [iː], [-ʃt] (Standard German [-st]) and -ig (Standard German -ung). –Austronesier (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Must be where the Houyhnhnms come from. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Son" as a form of address

As a form of address of an elder person towards an unfamiliar younger man, is "son" an Americanism or used outside the United States as well (UK, Australia may be)? For me, this usually brings to mind films when a somewhat angry old American asks or warns a young person ("Son, you better watch yourself", etc). 212.180.235.46 (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's common in the UK, and not just towards younger people. It's often used man-to-man in a supervisory context; for example a railway station assistant might well call me "son" if I ask him for directions, and I'm 72.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A similar usage exists in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A well-known (in Australia) song by The Cruel Sea (band) has the lines "Better get a lawyer son/ You better get a good one" Doug butler (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, "go on my son!" is a general term of encouragement from one male to another, particularly in football (soccer), immortalised in the song "Nice one Cyril, nice one son". No kinship or age differential is implied. Alansplodge (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the implication is concern for another's wellbeing. Freddie Roach (boxing), between rounds, speaking to Manny Pacquiao, calls him "son". Bus stop (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a well-known quote from Paul Keating in 1984, seven years before he became Prime Minister of Australia:

"Oh, I know who you are, I know all about you, son. I've had a swab done on you".

He was speaking to Greg Sheridan. who had just introduced himself to Keating at an ALP conference. [15] -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"had a swab done on you"

And what does that mean in this context? --174.95.161.129 (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 11

@@ Line 198: / Line 198: @@
 :* "Oh, I know who you are, I know all about you, son. I've had a swab done on you".
 : He was speaking to [[Greg Sheridan]]. who had just introduced himself to Keating at an ALP conference. [https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/books/when-we-were-young-and-foolish-review-a-memoir-with-a-star-cast-of-participants-20150815-giz01z.html] --  [[User:JackofOz|<span style="font-family: Papyrus;">Jack of Oz</span>]] [[User talk:JackofOz#top|<span style="font-size:85%; font-family: Verdana;"><sup>[pleasantries]</sup></span>]] 22:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
+==="had a swab done on you"===
+::And what does ''that'' mean in this context? --[[Special:Contributions/174.95.161.129|174.95.161.129]] ([[User talk:174.95.161.129|talk]]) 05:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 = January 11 =