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

June 11

Some new slang that the kids be using

I'm apprehensive about asking this here when I could just as easily go to Urbandictionary or some website for parents that claims to be informed about teen slang of the current times, but many of those sites tend to offer meanings that differ greatly from each other, and I stubbornly wanted to refrain from constantly relying on Urbandictionary, Know Your Meme, Stack Exchange, or some other cruddy place just to figure out where some recently born slang came from, or how it makes any lick of sense. Thanks to the very nature of slang (and magnified by social media usage), there is barely a consistency for lots of terms these days, to the point where I can no longer deduce the meanings of some of them by common sense alone (which is at least easy to do for most videogame slang). It took me months to figure out what "yeet", "on fleek", or "thot" meant, let alone where they originated. Probably doesn't help that I'm someone not hounded by social media out of a conscious choice. So to me its either Urbandictionary, with all its messy, volatile, and at times ambiguously nonsensical "advisement", or here, where its calmer and I'm more familiar with, but dealing with folks who are very likely 20-30 years my senior.

For now, I would like to confirm the origins and intended meanings of the terms "sus", "based", "periodt", and a certain sense of "cringe". For the former two, I've got some idea, if it really is true that "sus" originated as jargon from some multiplayer game that got popular very recently, and "based" being deduced as a sort of synonym for "unbiased" or "having a solid source or foundation", from how I've seen it used. For "periodt" however, I am completely clueless. Whether its an intentional misspelling of peridot or not, I don't know. The same with "cringe" as an interjection or exclamation. I understood its usage as a synonym for "embarrassing" or "cheesy", but I am unsure what meaning is intended when its just shouted out with little outside context. --72.234.12.37 (talk) 02:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Despite this being a "reference" desk I am going to venture an opinion here, which is that these kids are not getting this vocabulary from books or dictionaries, parents or teachers, but by using words that their mates are using so as to appear as cool as them. So far, so obvious, but I would also venture that they do not discuss the precise meaning of these terms with their peers, because that would not be cool. This is why they keep saying "You know what I mean?" or "You know what I'm saying?" Because they know full well that these terms do not have precise meanings and they are not really sure what they are communicating.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

That is a fair assessment and makes sense, considering the "groupie" social mindset that starts becoming prevalent at around the puberty age range. People seek acknowledgement and acceptance, illusion or not. That is a part of being an innately social creature. I can definitely say I've been on both giving and receiving ends of "You know/get what I mean/saying?" whenever sufficient detail of something could not be communicated properly for whatever reason.

In hindsight, I may be holding some frustration that I can no longer understand what my peers are saying, because they are more quick to adopt the current slang than I am, and I remain stuck in my era. I've always believed slang to be a generational phenomenon, a marker of sorts that unintentionally highlights when a speaker was born and raised, much like how a regional dialect would do the same for where someone was raised. Also, slang back in my childhood was for the most part, a lot more straightforward than most terms now. At least for me, the meanings of "aiight", "Psych!", "banger", "the shit/bomb/tits", "chillaxin'", or "homie" are more obvious and fluid than say, "bae", "flex", "hits different", "mansplaining", "mood", or "a Karen". Hell, I'm inclined to believe even "booyah" makes more sense than half the stuff coming from the mouths of teens nowadays. But of course, familiarity with one's own era is the main bias here. --72.234.12.37 (talk) 02:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Wiktionary gives the etymology of sus as being a clipping of suspicious. For based, the etymology given is that it is a reference to freebase cocaine, via basehead, coined by Lil B. The meanings given are (1) "Not caring what others think about one's personality, style, or behavior; focused on maintaining individuality"; (2) "Praiseworthy and admirable, often through exhibiting independence and security". The interjection periodt is explained as an altered spelling of period, used to underscore a statement or (much like the unaltered interjection in North-American English) to indicate that it is not open to dispute. No interjection cringe is listed there, but the meaning seems pretty transparent: "This makes me cringe" (mostly from vicarious embarassment).  --Lambiam 08:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

In England, we even had a Sus law. Alansplodge (talk) 10:40, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

• The game that "sus" grew up in the culture alongside of is Among Us, an online multiplayer version of the old social game Mafia (party game). --Jayron32 13:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Since Jayron32 doesn't explain what "culture" he is talking about, I can't directly challenge that statement. But having grown up in England, I have been familiar with "suss" and "suss out" as a normal if informal part of English at least since 1970, and I've never heard of the game Mafia before ten minutes ago. --ColinFine (talk) 17:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

You should have learned a long time ago that I'm always wrong. Please pay me no mind. I apologize for my bold incorrectness. I would say I will try better in the future, but we all know I'm not only incapable of being useful, but ifn stopping myself from being horrible. I am quite sorry. --Jayron32 01:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

See also suss out. Alansplodge (talk) 10:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Ah okay, so that helps to dispel my thought that "sus" is an esoteric term within Among Us ("His activity was pretty sus"), in much the same manner as "ganking" for League of Legends, "poggers" for Twitch streamers, or "simp" for fans of virtual Youtubers. I've also been told it is a clipping of "suspect".

For ColinFine, I'm sure Jayron meant to say "The video game community that "sus" grew up alongside is that of Among Us", as in Among Us players are the reason why "sus" gained widespread use thanks to the game's recent popularity surge.

As for the Mafia game, I've heard of the concept before, but under many different names and variations; the most common name I've come across being "Werewolf", and the most hilarious I've known being Secret Hitler.--72.234.12.37 (talk) 02:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

To me, based has a connotation of reckless courageousness, with a side of being correct. Temerarius (talk) 21:51, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

That makes sense with the usage I've seen, so less of an "unbiased" option or opinion and more of "bold" or "audacious". Still trying to wrap my head around "periodt", and failing. Like Lambiam mentions, "period" already exists, equivalent to "full stop", "no contest", "we're done here", and many more, so I don't really see what's different from adding a T at the end. I honestly thought someone was too lazy to type an exclamation mark or something. --72.234.12.37 (talk) 02:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Ironically misspelling things on the Internet is fun, that's pretty much the only reason. Another recent one was "stonks" instead of "stocks". Why? Because it's hilarious, that's why. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Primarch

So I found myself replaying Mass Effect again, courtesy of the legendary edition, and the word "primarch" caught my attention. In-universe, the word refers to the highest rank possible a member of the Turian race can obtain through a meritocratic hierarchy of 27 distinct "citizenship tiers". Taking into consideration that the Turian civilisation was directly inspired by the Romans, the closest Latin word I know of that it could possibly be derived from is primārius, while its intended meaning of "leader of the world's government or colony group" may be modelled after Prīnceps. I am also aware of the word's presence in Warhammer 40000, so perhaps it started or originated from there, then spread over time to several other works, including Mass Effect (though I'm not exactly aware of many other works of fiction that extensively used the word "primarch").

So I guess what I'm asking is: Was "primarch" ever a legitimate word, or was it just an invention by some science fiction creators to use in whatever civilisations/factions that are utilising the trope of "space Romans"? Latin dictionaries I've looked online suggest that the word does not exist. --72.234.12.37 (talk) 02:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it's not in (my edition of) the Oxford English Dictionary, which suggests it hasn't been used historically. The nearest is "primar", an obsolete Scots term (from primarius) for the head of a university.

That said, its intended meaning (literally "first ruler") seems to me to be fairly obvious to anyone acquainted with Latin, even at one remove via Latin elements used in English. I'm genuinely surprised that it's actually (as far as I can tell) a modern neologism.

From the ISFDB, it has only been used in a title in SF/Fantasy for The Primarchs, an anthology edited by Christian Dunn and published by Black Library/BL Publishing on 29 May 2012 in the US. This is part of a series called The Horus Heresy set in the Warhammer 40,000 universe, and a Wikipedia search shows the term has previously been used in other Warhammer works, so it seems this might be its origin, but it's so obvious a coinage that the Warhammer writers may have picked it up from a previous use elsewhere.

"Primarch" appears in Rottweiler as part of the name of a dog photographed in 2008, but since the Warhammer franchise has, I gather, been translated into German, this doesn't prove an independent origin. The same criterion applies to the 2019 rock-opera album The Clockwork Prologue by Gandalf's Fist which features a character called "The Primarch."

All other appearances of "Primarch(s)" in Wikipedia are related to Warhammer 40,000 or to the Japanese franchise Final Fantasy which seems to have cross-pollinated with it – I can't tell which of these two might have primacy of usage. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.0.58 (talk) 04:02, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Prim- is a Latin root, while the suffix -arch comes from Greek and is rarely found attached to Latin roots. There are very few exceptions. The only one in common use is matriarch, modelled after patriarch (which is of true Greek provenance). Another one, really rare, is the hybrid neologism omniarch^[1] (chosen by the author for unknown reasons instead of more regular *panarch, from a fully Greek but unattested *πανάρχης). Primarch appears to be, likewise, a neologism.  --Lambiam 07:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

The OED has the fully-Greek protarch, from proto- + arch, described as "rare" and defined as "a chief ruler; (in extended use) any leader." AndrewWTaylor (talk) 08:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

By "cross-pollinated", did you mean to say that one work may have directly or indirectly influenced the other? --72.234.12.37 (talk) 02:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes. For example, the final paragraph of the Final Fantasy article's Legacy section includes the sentence: "Mass Effect art director Derek Watts cited Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within as a major influence on the visual design and art direction of the series." Since they are both long-running franchises in similar niches, and have been running concurrently for over 13 years, it seems not unlikely that other less obvious influences in both directions have occurred: some of the Wikipedia sub-articles I found by searching on "Primarch" also seemed to suggest mutual influence.

Perhaps we should also consider whether Primark, a commercial name invented in 1973, may have prompted the later coining of "Primarch." {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.0.58 (talk) 03:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

What does "same set" refer to?

Sentence: These programs ran until March 30, 1985, using the same set that would later be used by Jim Crockett when he purchased the WWF time slot from McMahon (see below). Source: Black Saturday (professional wrestling)

What does "same set" refer to? Rizosome (talk) 13:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Set (film and TV scenery). --Jayron32 13:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I've added Jayron's link to the article. (Who says the Ref Desk doesn't help improve Wikipedia?) In the old days, movie sets would be used over and over again, for different things. Thanks to home video releases, eagle-eyed observers have found many recurring sets, one famous one being a New York City street with brownstones and stoops, used in many films over the years. Building those sets was a cost-savings by studios. There are also naturally-occurring "sets", such as Monument Valley, which was used as a backdrop in many a John Ford western. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

A famous British example is Carry on Cleo, a low budget comedy, that used the same set and costumes as Cleopatra, an epic blockbuster which "was the most expensive film ever made up to that point and almost bankrupted 20th Century Fox". Alansplodge (talk) 10:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

See also Backlot, where semi-permanent sets were built and reused. Alansplodge (talk) 12:51, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

A famous U.S. example is the set of The Andy Griffith Show (a/k/a Mayberry RFD), which was used for part of the legendary original Star Trek episode "City on the Edge of Forever". --Orange Mike | Talk 18:45, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

That same backlot was used for the first 26 episodes of Adventures of Superman. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Why do American rules say "this." and never "this". should be used??

Many online sites say that Americans are supposed to write "this." and never "this". regardless of which is more logical. But they're not helpful with the reason we have to write "this." even if "this". is more natural. Does it derive from the rules of Latin?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:02, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Can you provide a full sentence with that usage? Or are you merely talking about the placement of punctuation with quotation marks? <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 14:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Georgia guy, is this something like MOS:LQ? Elizium23 (talk) 14:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes; it's about how to place punctuation adjacent to quotation marks. Georgia guy (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not all rules (or even most rules) have reasons why, beyond "consistency". Which is to say, someone sets a rule arbitrarily, solely for the purpose of having a consistent system, and there is no reason why that rule was chosen over a different, but equal, rule. It just is. And by "someone" I don't mean "someone" so much as "indeterminable people". This blog post hosted by the Chicago Manual of Style states "This traditional style has persisted even though it's no longer universally followed outside of the United States and isn't entirely logical." and goes into some detail on this quirk of American English style. The rule first appeared in the 1906 Chicago Manual of Style (2 years after the first edition) and it appears that the influence of the CMOS was great enough that it propagated through all of the major AmEng style guides in the early 20th century. MLA recommends the same style, and that page also cites Strunk and White was recommending it in 1959. The MLA citation does cite typographic conventions as the main reason for it (the same situation that mandated the "two spaces after a period at the end of a sentence" rule), and that modern digital typography has obviated the original need for the rule. I will also note that the rule is slowly changing, the Purdue Online Writing lab (OWL), a very commonly used online style guide, is no longer as stringent in its application of the rule as most other US style guides are. --Jayron32 14:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Some things are indeed arbitrary, but others are plain illogical and deserve condemnation. Such as including a trailing comma inside closing quotation marks, when the comma was never part of the quote. "You are not my father," he said. Triple yuck!!! -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

One also wonders what proponents of quote mark switching propose for a sentence like, "Am I my brother's keeper?", he asked.  --Lambiam 09:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article is Quotation marks in English#Order of punctuation. British or "logical" quoting is based on including within quote marks only that which is actually quoted. American quoting seems to be based at least partly on an old printing practice of printing quote marks directly above commas and periods (stops) to save space. When this was no longer done, putting the punctuation after the quote mark seemed to some to be visually uglier than putting the punctuation before the quote mark. The Wikipedia "Manual of Style" recommends British conventions be used for the positioning of quote marks with respect to other punctuation (many American computer geeks have preferred logical punctuation for decades), but recommends American conventions for outermost quote marks being double... AnonMoos (talk) 21:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Any reason?? Georgia guy (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

The reason is because

When I was in school, my teachers said one should never use the phrasing "the reason is because." Yet I have heard this expression used by educated people and seen it used in reliable sources. How accepted is this usage? TFD (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

It rather depends on how formally (or in what register) one is writing or speaking. It's an easy wording to fall into when speaking spontaneously, and doubtless I've done so myself, but in careful and formal speech or writing most would avoid it, because its tautology ("the reason is" and "because" mean the same and can stand alone) irritates some auditors or readers. This is something that careful speakers and writers generally try to avoid, even when the particular irritant usage is not actually incorrect, so as not to break their audience's attention. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.0.58 (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

There are more than two levels of formality involved here. "The reason [for] ... is [that] ..." and "[Something is the case] because ..." are certainly considered by everyone to be unobjectionable in formal prose. As Former 87.81.230.195 says, "The reason ... is because ..." is considered by many to be pleonastic. Still fewer folk approve of the construction "The reason why ... is because ..." Deor (talk) 16:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Like many, many, many of the grammatical proscriptions that people used to insist on in the past, but which have always been bullshit, this is right there with "splitting infinitives" and "ending sentences with prepositions". This proscription has a singular source, basically one grammarian in 1926 got a bug up his ass about it, and then it was decided it was gospel. As seen here, that grammarian was Henry Watson Fowler, and there is no evidence that the rule existed before he wrote it down; it seems to have been an annoyance peculiar to himself, but his status as an authority on the English language meant that prescriptive linguists have latched on to it since then; descriptive linguists have noted, however, that aside from Fowler and those that followed, it has never been a marked construction in English usage. The blog post I cite there notes several prominent uses of the construction from both before and after Fowler invented the proscription against it, by several prominent and learned writers from all over the Anglosphere. Which is not to say that you should start using it. Both "The reason is... because..." and "The reason is... that..." are perfectly acceptable, and if one does not fit into your idiolect, feel free to not use it. But there is no "rule" in normal English against it. --Jayron32 16:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

And, in case you want a better authority than the Motivated Grammar blog, try Merriam Webster on for size "In sum, "the reason is because" has been attested in literary use for centuries. If you aren't comfortable using the phrase, or feel that it's awkward, don't use it. But maybe lay off the criticism of others—there's really no argument against it." The Merriam Webster entry cites a usage of "the reason is... because..." to E. B. White of Strunk and White fame. If that's not an endorsement that the usage is cromulent, I don't know what is. --Jayron32 16:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but given Strunk & White's endorsement of ludicrous punctuation as noted in the thread above, I hardly think their opinion is to be relied upon. DuncanHill (talk) 10:21, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Different is not a synonym for wrong. --Jayron32 01:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

This could be a difference between modern Commonwealth and American usage, like "this". and "this." TFD (talk) 14:07, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Those look identical, unless I need my glasses checked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I think it's about the full stop inside or outside the inverted commas, but they are indeed identical. Alansplodge (talk) 19:04, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I corrected it. In American English, “By convention, commas and periods that directly follow quotations go inside the closing quotation marks” (MLA).[2] But in Commonwealth English, they are placed before the closing quotation marks. It's useful to know if one is writing or editing articles for publication in different countries. TFD (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Uh.... I think you've gotten confused again. I think you meant to say that "in Commonwealth English, they are placed after the closing quotation marks." --Khajidha (talk) 22:07, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

That doyen of British grammar, Henry Watson Fowler, has this to say on the subject:

The reason why so few marriages are happy. is because young ladies spend their time in making nets, not in making cages.

The reason Adam was walking along the lanes at this time was because his work for the rest of the day lay at a country-house about three miles off.

Jonathan Swift and George Eliot could be called for the defence of the modern journalist who writes The reason was because they had joined societies which becane bankrupt, or The only reason for making a change in the law is because the prostitute has an annoyance value. But there is obviously a tautological overlap between reason and because: the young ladies' so spending their time, the work's lying in that direction, their joining those societies and the prostitute's having an annoyance value are the reasons, and they can be paraphrased into the noun clauses that the young ladies spend etc., but not into the adverbial clauses because the young ladies spend etc. And so, although the reason is because often occurs in print and oftener in speech, the reason is that is more correct and no more trouble.

A Dictionary of Modern English Usage, Second Edition 1965, pp. 504-505. Alansplodge (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

June 12

What does "signed for one day" mean?

Patrick asks Dana about money:

Dana: It had been signed for one day by the staff at Grande Liquor, and they missed it. It was in the trolley, so...

Patrick: You stole it?

Dana: Yeah, I f*cking stole it.

What does "signed for one day" mean? Rizosome (talk) 16:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

You have not given the source, Rizosome, so I can only guess; but my guess is it means "on one particular day, somebody signed for it", i.e. signed a docket that it had been received. --ColinFine (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Rizosome, I think you are not properly separating the words in your mind. There are two phrases running together here: "signed for" and "one day". --Khajidha (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

It is dialogue from the film Wrath of Man, H interrogating Dana about her cash stash.  --Lambiam 22:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

June 13

Bilateral talks

When a national leader sits down and has a talk or series of talks with another national leader, why is it necessary to refer to this as "bilateral talks"? That just tells us there were two people involved ... which we already knew. Same query for "multilateral talks" when there are many people involved. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I think the emphasis is on two (or more) "sides" (involving teams of supporting staff behind the scenes) rather than two (or more) individuals, and I understand the implication to be that such talks involve formulating, presenting and mutually agreeing official policies of international significance, rather than just exchanging views ("frankly" or otherwise). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.2390.195} 2.122.0.58 (talk) 04:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

You may be misunderstanding the meaning of "bilateral" in a political context. In your example, the word is not there to tell us that "there were two people involved". It is there to describe the kind of talks the parties are involved in: talks in furtherance of bilateralism.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 05:15, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

When two world leaders meet, it's rarely to just shoot the breeze, so since bilateralism is such a broad term, one could by default assume it's the case. But politicians and journalists have to puff up such events with empty, but important sounding, words. That's their attempt at lateral thinking. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah that is nonsense and William Thweatt is correct. The word "bilateral" does not mean that there were two people involved, it means that they are talks about relations between the two countries. As opposed to multilateral talks, which are carried out under the auspices of a multilateral organization such as the EU or the UN. --Viennese Waltz 09:49, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

So, then, there must be occasions where the leaders of two countries talk to each other but they're not "bilateral talks". True?

I asked this question because Scott Morrison was expecting to have "bilateral talks" with Joe Biden at the G7 meeting in Cornwall, but then Boris Johnson turned up and so there were three in the room. According to the media, the "bilateral talks" immediately became "trilateral talks". Yet, Morrison was apparently surprised by this turn of events, and it seems he wouldn't have been prepared/briefed to talk about the sort of stuff that would have been discussed at a properly arranged "trilateral talks". In this sense, what made the difference was just the one extra party, and it was not because they were discussing matters relating to their relationships. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:16, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, certainly. It's not about the number of people in the room, it's about the subject of their discussions. if Johnson sits down with Macron to discuss UK-French relations, they're bilateral talks. If he sits down with Macron to discuss UK-EU relations, they're multilateral talks. --Viennese Waltz 11:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Correcting you on that last bit: if Johnson and Macron talk about the EU, without anyone from the EU present, they're still bilateral talks, the EU simply being the bilateral issue being discussed. Note that these talks are usually prepared in advance, with briefing notes, key points to raise, and expected outcomes provided to participants. If the two just run into one another at an event and exchange words, it's an "informal discussion". It could result in some outcome useful to bilateral relations, or could simply be an exchange of pleasantries with no further impact (except that it's always useful to have a pre-existing personal relationship with another leader, in case an issue does come up at some future time that needs to be resolved). Xuxl (talk) 11:56, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Right. So the media was totally talking out of their collective asses when they said that the bilateral talks between Biden and ScoMo became trilateral as soon as BoJo entered the room. How surprising. Not. Thanks, all. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• It's not the number of people in the room, it is the number of political positions represented. Insofar as two different political entities, such as the United States and say Britain, may have different political goals, when leadership from those countries meet, it is considered a "bilateral meeting", with each side negotiating for compromises from the other. If the two people in the room are, say, Biden and Kamala Harris, it isn't a bilateral talk; they both represent the same political entity, and have the same goals. The term "bilateral support" is used often in the context of bills in the U.S. congress that garner significant support from both major political parties. There are hundreds of "people in the room" there. --Jayron32 14:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Laneway

I ran across this article, which uses laneways to denote certain features of Melbourne's urban landscape; the usage was unfamiliar to me, so I entered "laneway" in the search box and found that it redirected to Lane, an article that seems to bear no relation to the usage in question. The Wiktionary definition—"(Canada, Scotland, Ireland, Australia) A narrow roadway; a lane"—and some Googling helped me understand that the Melbourne laneways are basically what I would call alleys or alleyways. I've never heard laneway used to denote what the "Lane" article deals with, so I guess my question is, Would it be useful to change the redirect target of Laneway to Alley, or is my desire to do so just a reflection of my linguistic parochialism? Deor (talk) 17:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Canadian here. We know it from the rise of laneway houses, which would indicate that it should redirect to Back lane ("A back lane, laneway, or alley is also a service, or access road behind houses")? which face back lanes. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:23, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm, it appears, on further examination, the Aussies (and maybe the Scots) call a laneway something that pedestrians use, so maybe laneway deserves its own article to enumerate the different usages. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Our article lane is misleadingly titled. Country lane is nearer to what a lane is, but you get lanes in towns and cities as well, not all of them back lanes, and you get those in the country too. An alley is a sort of lane, as are twittens, opes, etc. Laneways are mentioned repeatedly at alley. DuncanHill (talk) 20:45, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Better throw Wynd into the mix as well. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.0.58 (talk) 04:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

So maybe not an article of its own, but perhaps a disambiguation page listing Alley, Back lane, Country lane (if the latter are ever called laneways), etc.? Deor (talk) 21:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

We've got Lane (disambiguation) already. DuncanHill (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but that has lane as the primary use and doesn't cover these other uses. It should certainly include Back lane and Country lane, but I think we probably need a Laneway dab page as well, as that term is little known in the U.S. Deor (talk) 22:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking this was related to the Hoddle Grid in Melbourne, where the city was laid-out with alternating wide thoroughfares and narrow service roads, but it seems the latter are just called "little streets". Alansplodge (talk) 22:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

See Lanes and arcades of Melbourne (we also have Lanes and arcades of Perth). Deor (talk) 22:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Which uses the term "laneways" and links to St Jerome's Laneway Festival. Alansplodge (talk) 23:08, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

About 50 years ago I lived in this neighborhood in Edmonton. You will see a similar layout there, but the term we used was not "little street", "back lane", "laneway", or "alley", it was specifically "back alley", and I'm adding that to the list of alternatives in back lane. They were used for access to garages and by garbage collectors. Similar things in some cities would have street names or numbers, but not in Edmonton; if you switch to Street View you can see that they have no street signs. --184.145.50.201 (talk) 05:54, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps even more importantly than access to garages and by garbage collectors, laneways were used by collectors of nightsoil. HiLo48 (talk) 09:47, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

English person here. I had a great holiday (remember those?) in Australia in 2017, including visits to (and walking tours around) Melbourne and Sydney. Our local guide in the latter referred to what I would call alleys (narrow, pedestrian-only paved rights-of-way, usually linking one or more larger parallel(ish) streets) as "laneways". Bazza (talk) 08:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Don't forget snicket and ginnel. And, for that matter, the other 25 or so words in wikt:Thesaurus:alley. In Brighton there is "The Lanes". "Laneway" is one I've never encountered. --ColinFine (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

From Outhouse#Australia we learn that C20 housing developments built without sewerage depended on the "dunny lanes" that ran along the bottom of the gardens to provide access for the nightsoil collectors. "These access lanes can now be worth considerable sums, see Ransom strip".--Carbon Caryatid (talk) 23:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Spanish Verbs The indicative has five simple tenses - but only 4 are listed

After the heading 2.1 The indicative we only get (4) Four.... The indicative has five simple tenses The simple tenses are the forms of the verb without the use of a modal or helping verb. The following are the simple tenses and their uses: 2.1.1.1 Present (presente) 2.1.1.2 Imperfect (pretérito imperfecto) 2.1.1.3 Preterite (pretérito indefinido) 2.1.1.4 Future (futuro simple or futuro imperfecto

Getting confused. This is my first entry at the reference desk and not sure if it's the place to ask the question if it requires a modification to the page, but I am no expert on Spanish.

Hawkinkler (talk) 18:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Spanish_verbs#The_indicative. This may have to do with the following sentence about the conditional mood ("In older classifications, the conditional tenses were considered part of an independent conditional mood"). If this is the case it's still a bit confusing and could be handled better. Personuser (talk) 19:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

There are three kinds of people: those who can count and those who can't. The article here used to say, "The indicative mood has four simple tenses." Then, in 2007, someone added the "condicional simple or pospretérito" without upping the count. Years later, in 2009, another editor adjusted "four" to "five". The next year, yet another editor reorganized the treatment, moving the condicional simple to a new section "The Conditional Mood", again without adjusting the count. No one until now seems to have observed the resulting mismatch. Curiously enough, something rather similar perspired at the Spanish Wikipedia. Up until 7:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC), the Spanish Wikipedia listed no fewer than ten indicative tenses, one of which was the Pospretérito or Condicional simple. Then an editor split the list into five simple and six composite tenses, with an empty(!) section for the Condicional simple in the list of simple tenses, and a copy of the old Pospretérito section in the list of composite tenses. The latter section presents Condicional simple as an alias of pospretérito, as before. It appears that the orphaned section heading Condicional simple under the rubric Tiempos simples is an edit leftover resulting from an editing mistake, and that the list of ten tenses should have been split four + six.  --Lambiam 22:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

One of my first Wikipedia edits (over 15 years ago) was pointing out an inconsistency in article Anglosphere over whether it contained 5 or 6 nations... AnonMoos (talk) 01:45, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

  Fixed (also on the Spanish Wikipedia).  --Lambiam 07:54, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

June 14

Fake identity

Woman changes Patrick's identity for his safety:

• Woman: All your criminal checks are clean. You've got 25 years' worth of employment, with references working in Europe and the same for the previous addresses, too.

Does it mean Patrick got two fake identities with present and previous address? Rizosome (talk) 12:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Rizosome, is this another out-of-context film script quote? Elizium23 (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Also from Wrath of Man, same Patrick (H) as before. I assume it simply means the fake Patrick Hill did not always live at the same address.  --Lambiam 16:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

June 15

Is "Hindic" a real word?

I noticed that the English Wikipedia uses it (few dozen times), but I had not seen it before and no reliable sources immediately jumped out in a quick google search; most results are of it being a surname in an unrelated culture. No results in the online Merriam-Webster, Oxford Adv. Learners and Cambridge dictionaries. Some results in google books but not enough to convince me. Most look like they are just searching for the right word. I looked up "Hinduic" and it has even fewer hits. Are "hindic" and "hinduic" mistakes made when people meant "Hindu" or "indic" or "sanskritic"? Are they included in more comprehensive dictionaries, or used frequently in some academic fields? Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

When enough people use a term, it becomes a "real" word, and lexicographers will add it to their dictionaries. The term Hindic is definitely attestable.^[3][4][5] Authors may prefer Hindic to Indic because the latter is increasingly understood as referring to the current state of India, not to the culture that emerged from the Indus Valley. (The English word Indic comes from the Latin adjective indicus, which is a straight borrowing from Ancient Greek. In Neo-Latin texts one also finds the spelling Hindicus,^[6][7][8] although only rarely.) Wikipedia articles should IMO stick to words that are found in major dictionaries.  --Lambiam 09:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

As for "real word" you might be interested in Linguistic prescription vs Linguistic description.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, -ic is a productive morpheme, meaning that new, perfectly acceptable words can be created "on the fly" by using it; such words are acceptable and "real" as any other word, because the grammatical processes used to create them is well established in English. Prior approval is not required. --Jayron32 14:06, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

"Hinduic" is in the OED, "Forms: 1800s Hindooic (now rare), 1800s Hinduic.

Origin: Formed within English, by derivation. Etymons: Hindu n., -ic suffix.

Etymology: < Hindu n. + -ic suffix.

Compare earlier Hinduish adj.

Now rare.

Of, relating to, or characteristic of Hindu peoples or Hinduism.

1834 E. Moor Oriental Fragments 401 The Druids had also Ceridwen, the goddess of Death; who in their metempsychological system, was likewise the goddess of the renovation of life. This is strictly and strangely Hinduic.

1889 R. B. Anderson tr. V. Rydberg Teutonic Mythol. 6 The Hindooic Aryans were possessors only of Kabulistan and Pendschab.

1947 Indian Year Bk. 33 12/2 The iconography of the Hinduic pantheon is developed during this period." DuncanHill (talk) 16:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

June 16

What does "taking it staring at our laces" mean?

Jackson commands his former military team to steal cash trucks:

• Jackson: Gentlemen, we have found our opportunity to stand tall again after years taking it staring at our laces.

What does "taking it staring at our laces" mean? Rizosome (talk) 06:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Something like: 'For years we have been subdued and have put up with (figuratively) standing with our gaze down (towards the shoe laces). Now we have the possibility to become proud enough to straighten our back and lift our head.' --T*U (talk) 07:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Still Wrath of Man.  --Lambiam 08:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Google suggests that the phrase is a quote from a song lyric by a popular beat combo called The Static Jacks from a 2011 album, If You're Young:

We've been wasting time / Staring at our laces, leaving both untied / We've been stuck inside / Either something changes, or my parents lied.

Make of it what you will. Alansplodge (talk) 10:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The song lyrics lack the part expressed in 'stand tall again' vs. 'taking it'. If you just stare at your laces without tying them, it sounds like apathy, but if you are 'taking it', it sounds like subjection is involved. --T*U (talk) 12:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

But it was the first lace-staring analogy I could find, the point being that it's not an established idiom, unless someone else knows better. Alansplodge (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Why Gambia in french language called gambie?

I dont know if senegal in french uses e acute like the above of car hood opening conventionally. BUT, why gambia in french just change the letter a with letter e? please explain! 180.243.24.169 (talk) 12:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

In French, the Latin "ia" ending became "ie", thus Maria>Marie, Gambia>Gambie. 2A00:23A8:4015:F500:95E0:A17:1653:A40A (talk) 14:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Confirm that in French Senegal is written Sénégal. I like your "car hood [bonnet] opening conventionally" analogy. 2A00:23A8:4015:F500:95E0:A17:1653:A40A (talk) 14:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Compare fr:Algérie, fr:Éthiopie, fr:Mauritanie, fr:Namibie, fr:Somalie, fr:Tanzanie, fr:Tunisie, fr:Zambie. On the other hand, fr:Liberia and fr:Nigeria do not follow this pattern (and do not have "é"). Evidently, they were borrowed directly rather than being gallicized like the rest. --ColinFine (talk) 22:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Greek oi

Why does Greek oi (which had the same sound as English oi in oil in ancient Greek) get Latinized as an E?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't, or at least shouldn't. If not using the traditional 'oi' romanization, it will normally be romanized as 'i', because that is the pronunciation in modern Greek. Can you link to an example where 'e' is used? --T*U (talk) 15:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Ekistics. Georgia guy (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

οι was usually latinized as oecode: lat promoted to code: la , which was in early Latin written and probably pronunced as [oi̯] and later monophthongized to /eː/ (Ancient_Greek_phonology#Diphthongs, Latin_phonology_and_orthography#Diphthongs). οι also went through some changes and a complete explanation should take some dates into account, but it is safe to assume that at one point that was simply what made most sense and common enough to establish a model. This came to English and other modern languages through different routes (often just as "e"). Personuser (talk) 15:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The construction appears in words like Οἰκουμενικὸν. That is transliterated into English as "oecumenical" or "ecumenical". Greek does not appear to have any words beginning οε. The word "idiom" for example displays both a short and a long "I". This long "i" appears indistinguishable from a long "e". The word "idea" is ιδέα in Greek - I don't know if the ι is long or short. The Greek word Οιδίπους appears as "Oedipus" in English. 2A02:C7F:A5D:6E00:A5BC:F9AD:162:BAFA (talk) 15:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I think the question refers to words like "oecumenical" and "oeconomics", where the "o" is dropped in most or all English texts, probably for simplicity. (Imagine a newspaper writing about the U.S. foederal government; everyone would think it a typo.) It's roughly analogous to "ae" being rendered "e" in 21st-century English, although many such words (e.g. haemoglobin) retain the "ae" in Commonwealth spellings while losing it in American spellings. I can't immediately think of any Greek-derived "oi" words that 21st-century English universally or generally spells with "oe", although probably there are some that aren't coming to my mind right now. Nyttend backup (talk) 16:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Phoenix comes to mind. Deor (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I might be old fashioned (as well as British), but I would always write fœtus and type foetus rather than fetus. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.0.58 (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Here's a nice list (some examples like wiktionary:œuvre#English don't fit, but it's still quite impressive). Personuser (talk) 16:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

In British English, "oe" (as opposed to œ) is still used in preference to simplified US English spelling. wikt:oedema, for example. Bazza (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Some of the "oe" spellings seem pretentious to me, but "Oenology" would look strange without its first "o"... -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:53, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

And economics would look strange with one. Deor (talk) 00:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

but is readily found (as œconomics) in older texts.^[9][10][11]

Israeli English

What English spelling variety prevails in Israel? Languages of Israel says Despite the country's history of British mandatory rule, written English in Israel today uses primarily American spelling and grammar but has no source. Using Google, I found a sociolinguistic study of English use in Israel, https://www.jstor.org/stable/30027459, but it's 42 years old and thus unuseful for English usage in 2021. Everything else I found with Google was false positives or totally unreliable. Nyttend backup (talk) 22:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I couldn't find a refrence for you, except that the Israeli Government has a Ministry of Defense. Alansplodge (talk) 23:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Here is a useful article about the changing role of English in Israeli society over the last 73 years. I think that the acceptance of American spelling over British spelling is due to the historic anti-colonial resentment of the UK and the very friendly relationships with the US for many decades. I've visited Israel twice, in 1981 and 2005, and I noticed some grammatical or syntactical differences. The one I remember most clearly is that Israeli English speakers use the word "already" much more frequently than Americans, and much earlier in a sentence. So, when engaging in a conversation with an Israeli, they might say, "Already, I figured out that you are from California based on a few things that you said." It is perfectly understandable but sounds a bit strange to a Californian at first. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I remember hearing some French speakers translate "depuis" into English as "already" in speech. Translating "Je suis ici depuis trois mois" literally into English as "I am here since three months" sounds quite odd to English speakers, and correcting to "I've been here for three months" might be difficult on the fly while speaking, so they just said "I am here already three months"... AnonMoos (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

A few responses from an American expat living in Israel since 9/1984. English language is a mandatory subject in government primary and secondary schools operated by the Israeli Ministry of Education for both Jewish and Arabic students, teaching American spelling and grammar. (I'll confirm this at a more suitable hour and correct if necessary.) Two national mainstream newspapers produce print and online English-language editions: Haaretz (Haaretz.com) uses US English, and The Jerusalem Post (originally The Palestine Post from the British Mandate era) switched from British to American English at some point in the last quarter of the 20th C. (if I recall correctly). The other grammatical errors found among Israeli non-native speakers of English are characteristic of the many differences stemming from Hebrew being a Semitic language: lacking an indefinite article, article following noun, non-correspondence between prepositions, etc. Consider, though, the mess native Anglophones are likely to make of their acquired Hebrew. (E.g. more rigid syntax, biblical idioms, let alone inflections for sex: there's no neuter gender for third person singular!) Hope this helps! -- Deborahjay (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Possibly the process has been aided by migration; total immigration to Israel from the USA is more than three times that from the UK - see Aliyah#Historic data. Alansplodge (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

June 17

What's the meaning of "recon" in this robbery context?

• Five months earlier, H is out with his son Dougie when he reluctantly agrees to a call asking him to help with the recon of an armored truck for a robbery.

What's the meaning of "recon" in this context? Rizosome (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Reconnaissance. --Wrongfilter (talk) 13:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

See recon on Wiktionary.  --Lambiam 14:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

There appears to be little about the activity of surveiling in preparation for committing a crime on English Wikipedia or Wiktionary, as far as I can tell. Wikipedia has one small paragraph at Crime preparation#Stalking. The classic mid-20th-century phrase was "casing the joint", which appears in many movies etc. AnonMoos (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Her looks were "free"

One of my favourite passages from The Rime of the Ancient Mariner concerns Death (and his companion described below) appearing to the beleaguered crew. The final version Coleridge published runs like this:

Her lips were red, her looks were free,
Her locks were yellow as gold:
Her skin was as white as leprosy,
The Night-Mair Life-in-death was she,
Who thicks man's blood with cold.

I've always loved the juxtaposition of the attractive features and the horrifying ones. Earlier versions (Coleridge loved to edit his work) are different, but the part I'm interested is basically the same: how should "free" be interpreted here? I'm not sure it really matches anything on Wiktionary. Her looks were... unconstrained? Coleridge specifically used obsolete or dated terms in Rime, so it's very possibly an out of date usage. What would be a more modern synonym here? Matt Deres (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I interpret looks as referring to her way of looking (and not her visual appearance), and free as not subdued or reserved (as behooves a proper and prim maiden), but bold.  --Lambiam 19:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

So, in the middle of describing her physical attributes, he described her method of gazing around? I'm skeptical, but that interpretation hadn't occurred to me at all and I appreciate the perspective. Matt Deres (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I take it as a perhaps somewhat extended sense of Wiktionary's sense 1.2, bordering on "licentious". Deor (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Link Wiktionary:free: "2. Unconstrained by timidity or distrust - Synonyms: unreserved, frank, communicative". Alansplodge (talk) 22:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

From Domesticity and Uncanny Kitsch in "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner" and Frankenstein by Sarah Webster Goodwin:

"Her looks were free" is one of those conventional phrases we understand without trying: he is talking about sexual freedom, but with a price tag. I do not mean to suggest that LIFE-IN-DEATH comes right off the streets of London; she has been turned into something more seemingly archetypal than that. But like Blake's harlot, she carries an apocalyptic burden that also possesses its share of contemporaneity. Here, however, the social commentary is more deeply buried.

I'm not sure that "we understand without trying" is terribly helpful here, but she seems to be agreeing with Deor's comment above. Alansplodge (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I think that "uninhibited" would be the modern equivalent, but less poetic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

At a time when females were expected to show a good deal of inhibition. Alansplodge (talk) 14:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I'll buy that. So, she appeared bold and uninhibited, with an undertone of sexuality? Maybe fresh (8th sense) would be a good synonym? Matt Deres (talk) 14:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Sense 8 lacks the hint of sexual boldness that I think (perhaps wrongly) Coleridge intended (and Wictionary's sense 8 was not what I was expecting, the entry seems to omit the colloquial usage I understand from mid-20th-century North American prose, but which is not widely used in Britain). In the context of the late British 18th-century mores of the educated (because poetry-reading) audience whom Coleridge was addressing, I think wanton (no sense specified, because poetry) would be closer to his (perhaps deliberately intentionally ambiguous) intention. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.0.58 (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

June 18

Belle and Sebastian lyric

In the Belle and Sebastian song ‘Piazza, New York Catcher’, they sing the line... “I know it wouldn't come to love, my heroine pretend”. I’m sure I’ve heard this phrase before “heroine pretend”, but I can’t find out what it means because whenever I search it, I just get results showing these lyrics. What does “heroine pretend” mean and how would you use a similar phrase?95.150.37.161 (talk) 06:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

After reading whole song a few times I imagine a nice-guy neck-beardy incel professing his unrequited love for his "queen" (pretend heroine.) In the sense that she is not really a heroine (or an actual queen) and he knows this, but to him she is. 41.165.67.114 (talk) 07:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The phrase you might recall is "World Leader Pretend", a song from R.E.M.'s album Green from a few years earlier. Xuxl (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)