Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/L

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
Note:
- We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
- We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
- We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
- We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

June 29

Please confirm Mandarin is correct

I used Google Translate and looked up some Chinese images for this sign. Seems like they use "Germ Warfare". So, is the Mandarin in this image reasonably correct? I worry about Brand_blunder.Thank you.

File:No Bioweapons.jpg

No Bioweapons

Charles Juvon (talk) 01:32, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Google translate translates 沒有細菌戰 as "No germ warfare", which, translated back, yields 没有细菌战. The final character 战 in the latter is a simplified version of the character 戰 in the former. Google translate translates "No bioweapons" as 没有生物武器, which, translated back, yields "No biological weapons". There is a substantive difference between "weapon" and "warfare". The article on the Chinese Wikipedia on biological weapons has the title 生物武器, so the Google translation seems more on the nose than the slogan in the poster. But the first two characters, 没有, mean "no" in the sense of "absent", as in "we found no bioweapons there". For "no" in the sense of a prohibition, the usual term is 禁止; for example, "no smoking" is 禁止吸煙. If you mean to say "Ban Bioweapons", you should use 禁止生物武器. The Biological Weapons Convention is known in Chinese as 禁止生物武器公約, literally "Prohibition of Biological Weapons Convention". (Disclaimer: zh-0.) --Lambiam 07:00, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"would" for past tense

Is there a name for the usage of, for example, "Albania would face three opponents in 1992" as opposed to "Albania faced three opponents in 1992"? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's kind of a future in the past.... AnonMoos (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to tell without some more context, but this seems to best fit the meaning 1.4 at wiktionary:would#Verb. The most recent example there is also(?) from a sport context, which may be a coincidence. I wouldn't trust to much the given name "anterior future", not only because of the red link, but also because the similarly sounding futur antérieur redirects to and means future perfect, which is a completely different thing (preceding event in the future, not following event in the past). Personuser (talk) 14:52, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for messing up the timeline with possible autoreferential implications, anyway User:AnonMoos found the correct term. Personuser (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The context is Sports in Albania, changes in the last couple of weeks. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpgordon: Be aware that the construct may be considered pretentious unless it really brings clarity about the order of events. See WP:INTOTHEWOULDS for EEng's take on the matter (and the rest of the page is certainly amusing as well). No such user (talk) 11:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh excellent. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 13:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replace "would" with "went on to." Jim Percy (talk) 20:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about modal verbs

Is it possible use "can" instead of "may" in sentences who indicate a possibity? (example: You ~~may~~ can be involved)
Is it possible use "may" instead of "can" for indicating an ability? (example: I ~~can~~ may speak Italian)
Is "will" used only for future tense?
Do "should" and "shall" have same functions?
How is it possible ask a question about an ability in the past if "could" is used for formal questions?

Dr Salvus 14:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's variation between "may" and "can" in different English dialects. As for point 5, the all-purpose solution for the limitations of "can" is "to be able to" -- "Were you able to lift the weight 5 years ago?" AnonMoos (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4) No. "Should" implies a suggestion or recommendation, whereas "shall" implies a requirement. For example: "you should do this for better results" vs. "you shall comply with the new regulations". 2603:6081:1C00:1187:4E1:F20B:8F45:88B8 (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can only offer advice from the perspective of my dialect of English, which is Southern British English. Firstly, "can" versus "may": They overlap, but have different flavours. "Can" emphasises whether something is possible (hence the example: can you lift the weight?) but the possibility might be limited by law, by what's allowed, in which case it overlaps with "may". For example, "Can I park outside your house?" might be answered by, "You can, but you'll probably get a parking ticket!" (emphasising that you can, physically, but you are not permitted; the person replying is making a pedantic joke: "you should have asked 'may I park...'"). "Can I sit down?" is asking not whether I'm physically able to, but whether the person I'm talking to would mind me sitting down. Here the overlap with "may" is very strong; "may" often expresses whether something is allowed, by law, by custom, by social politeness: e.g. "May I sit down?". But "may", depending on context, also expresses one of several possibilities: "you may find yourself frustrated when choosing which word to use". Here, "may" overlaps with "might". Unfortunately, the situation is this: whether you can use "can" instead of "may" depends on context.

Agreed on "shall" and "should", but unfortunately you will also encounter "shall" in the sense of a future, overlapping with "will", but without any sense of obligation: "if it doesn't rain, I shall visit him this afternoon." (to my mind, this carries a flavour of resolution: "I have decided that I really will visit him!") "Could" is a matter of context. "Could he be allowed to go now?" is obviously a polite present-tense question, while "Could he have done it?" is obviously a question about the past. A similar situation arises with "were": "Were they to go home immediately..." expresses a hypothetical situation, probably in the immediate future. "They were already home..." expresses a situation in the past. Context makes it clear. What's really annoying is that although it's usually quite easy to read these things correctly, it's hard to write them correctly. The rules are full of exceptions, there are loads of situations where either will do, but equally loads of situations where if you use the wrong word, it's very wrong! Elemimele (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the future sense of "shall" in contemporary use applies solely when used in the first person ("I shall" or "we shall" - as in, "we shall overcome"). It feels somewhat old-fashioned and formal, but when used by a speaker can then be contrasted with the use of "I will" or "we will", expressing intention. In older use, the future sense can equally apply to other persons ("you shall be hung by the neck till you are dead"^[1]). --Lambiam 22:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In typical American English, both "shall" and also "may" in the particular sense of seeking permission are approaching semi-obsolescence, except in literary language or certain indirect constructions. Anyway, in the case of those English modals which have two forms (can/could, shall/should, will/would, may/might), the opposition between the two is usually not present vs. past in any ordinary sense. (In some situations it can be, but more commonly it's not.) More often the so-called past-tense form has a meaning which Lambiam would call "irrealis"... AnonMoos (talk) 01:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Can I ask how old you are?" sounds OK. But replacing "may" by "can" in "If I may ask, how old are you?" results in a question that sounds strange to me. Because of such uses (which include "May I approach the bench?" and "You may now kiss the bride"), permissive "may" is not likely to go quietly into that good night any time soon. --Lambiam 08:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S., these are basically fixed phrases. It's not a construction that most people would use productively in casual speech. Sometimes a linguistic feature can hang on for a long time in fixed phrases, literary allusions, conventional ultra-polite expressions, quotations etc., even when it's no longer really part of the living languages... AnonMoos (talk) 09:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An often-used response to "Can I ask..." is "You can ask!" implying they won't likely get the answer they're looking for. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The" and "a"

Do instances like "This color is mentioned in the 1930 A Dictionary of Color require the definite article "the", when the title itself uses indefinite "a"? Sounds odd to me. Is this a known situation? 212.180.235.46 (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On first glance, it would, as it's differentiating a version of A Dictionary of Color from presumably other titles of the same name. It definitely sounds odd, so I'd add a descriptive noun like book after 1930. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:17, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would say ""This color is mentioned in the 1930 Dictionary of Color". The indefinite article might be there in the full title, but... is it really there? I mean, kinda? I think good writers would ignore it in that sentence. Temerarius (talk) 20:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Temerarius; dropping the initial article in a title is common procedure when retaining it would be awkward (e.g., "Dickens's Christmas Carol"). Of course, one could obviate the problem by revising to "This color is mentioned in A Dictionary of Color (1930)". Deor (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, just leaving "the" out (*"This color is mentioned in 1930 A Dictionary of Color") is just wrong, whereas "This color is mentioned in the 1930 A Dictionary of Color" is a bit awkward but not wrong. --Lambiam 22:24, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not wrong, but I'd be tempted to change it to "This color is mentioned in A Dictionary of Color (1930)". Turner Street (talk) 14:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...as I've just noticed Deor suggested above... oh, well, at least we agree. Turner Street (talk) 14:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 30

Verbs ending in silent t

The English verbs article promotes silent t as a special ending of a verb with a stressed final syllable ending with a single vowel followed by a single consonant. If my understanding of it is right, it means:

Look at the word sit. Its -ing for is sitting. The purpose of the tt is to keep the i short; if the t were not doubled it would be siting (which has a long i sound.)

But per what the article says about silent t's, if we had a verb spelled sit that is pronounced see, its -ing form would be siting.

Does English have lots of verbs that meet this criterion?? Georgia guy (talk) 01:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have a lot of them; those that we do have are likely to be French loanword nouns converted to verbs. The adjective "balletic" is an instance of such a spelling... AnonMoos (talk) 01:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some (most?) people pronounce the verb ricochet with a silent t. I expect its -ing form then to be ricocheting. Indeed, one can find it spelled that way,^[2] and after about 1930 this has become the dominant form.^[3] I couldn't think of any other verb ending on a silent t. --Lambiam 07:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And of course "ricochet" is from French.[4] As emphasized by the name of the comic strip character Rick O'Shay. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crochet is another, also French. Alansplodge (talk) 11:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And for this verb the final t is always silent (unlike in the archaic variant crotchet). --Lambiam 20:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should ask Priti Patel to explain all of her verbs ending in silent g?Martinevans123 (talk) 21:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Trying to fit in with the huntin', shootin', and fishin' gang? DuncanHill (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Some (most?) people pronounce the verb 'ricochet' with a silent 't'"? I've never heard anyone pronounce the "t" in "ricochet". --Khajidha (talk) 11:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"/ ˌrɪk əˈʃeɪ, ˈrɪk əˌʃeɪ or, especially British, ˈrɪk əˌʃɛt /".^[5] --Lambiam 16:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It might be "especially British", but nonetheless rare. Seconding Khajidha, I'm an ageing Brit, have lived in Scotland, the Isle of Wight, and several other places in between (as well as abroad), and have never heard anyone sound the final 't'. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.15} 2.122.0.163 (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

During the first World War, the spelling "ricochetted" was about five times as popular as the spelling "ricocheted" in British English,^[6] implying that the final [t] was commonly pronounced then. --Lambiam 23:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Debut comes to mind, though like ricochet it is also a French loanword. The final t in the otherwise similar "rebut" is not silent. 2601:648:8200:970:0:0:0:23D0 (talk) 11:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 1

Question about braille text for Tennessee School for the Blind

Tennessee School for the Blind has some braille at the banner of the top https://www.tsbtigers.org/

I'm trying to see if it's supposed to be the school's full name in braille

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by what I could get with the help of English Braille seems pretty much it (Tennessee school for the blind), there are still some detailes that I couldn't fully figure out (The start/end, the way tennessee is spelled, what follows bl). Personuser (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the first three dots may be a caps or all-caps sign. Here's my attempt at the rest: "t","en", letter sign ("en" doesn't stand for "enough"),"s","e","e",space,"s","ch","o","o","l",space,"for",space,"the",space,"b","l" ("bl" is a shorthand for "blind"),termination sign. Personuser (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Represented in the Latin alphabet it says "TENNESSEE SCHOOL FOR THE BLIND", in all-caps. The triple capital letter sign ⠠ with which it begins means the whole thing is all-caps (see English Braille § Unified English Braille, point 3). The combination ⟨⠰⠎⟩ is the "ness" of "Tennessee" (see English Braille § Final abbreviations). Although not explained in our article, ⟨bl⟩ is a common English Braille abbreviation for "blind". The last two cells ⟨⠠⠄⟩ are the termination sign (see English Braille § Punctuation marks). --Lambiam 16:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Personuser: @Lambiam: Thank you! I'm trying to get the Unicode text for it but the generators arent giving me all of the right characters. What is the unicode? WhisperToMe (talk) 16:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

⠠⠠⠠⠞⠢⠰⠎⠑⠑⠀⠎⠡⠕⠕⠇⠀⠿⠀⠮⠀⠃⠇⠠⠄ should do, probably someone more familiar with Braille should check this and how useful it can be on flat screens is debatable. Personuser (talk) 17:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I added it to the article WhisperToMe (talk) 18:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2

Highborn English

So me and my friends has been playing a lot of JRPGs (FF12, FF Tactics and Octopath Traveler) and we noticed that a lot of highborn people speak English in interesting ways. They used interesting phrases like mayhap, perchance and pray tell. We call this speaking style highborn English, is there an actual term of this? Is there more example phrases of this English style. Me and my friend want to try to speak like that 121.211.242.59 (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those kinds of words these days are probably best known from Shakespeare (“To sleep – perchance to dream" etc). They're just outdated terms, which makes them stand out. Fgf10 (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, it's called Early Modern English. Generally, nobody speaks like that anymore (outside of video games that is), however English people occasionally use outdated words and phrases for comic effect; this article, What Is an Archaism? tries to explain. Alansplodge (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forsooth, it hath gone the way of the dodo (at least that is what methinks). Clarityfiend (talk) 20:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is an association between high linguistic register and archaism. Partly because fancy people are taught with the classics, partly because they're taught prescriptivist grammar that holds on to older rules on what's correct. I imagine that this might be showing up in these games because of the fantasy elements that have an old flavor, and perhaps to emulate some register differences in the Japanese. If you want to play with this kind of speech, first get a hold on the very simple grammar. Do not emulate games like Chrono Trigger, where the translators made an embarrassing mess of their fake early modern English. Check the inflection: I have, thou (singular) hast, you (plural) have, she hath, they have. You can't go wrong reading a little Shakespeare. Another good source would be people like your American "founding fathers" types, whose writings can be (to us) circuitous, florid, redundant, and precise in a way that feels nicely aged. Or check out some of the characters in the TV show Deadwood. Some of them do a beautiful version of old talk, in a way that feels more high fantasy than old West. Temerarius (talk) 21:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Give me perchance, mayhaps, gadzooks and forsooth any day, over "So me and my friends has been playing ...". Sorry. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't all Aussies speak like the OP, Jack?--Phil Holmes (talk) 08:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If only one counter-example is required, I'm it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the Society for Creative Anachronism it is (or was) called "speaking forsoothly". —Tamfang (talk) 06:32, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And in written material it can be called Wardour Street English. Deor (talk) 14:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 3

American English Pronounciation

Hi, I am looking for a site\ book\ videos where I can find for each English letter picture of how it looks in the inside of the mouth, like this, but for every letter in the American English pronounciation, and if the letter consists of a few "steps" (for example, in the word "new" the lips "shrinks" along the articulation), then a series of pictures\ a short video will be shown.

After searching the web a lot, I couldn't find what I want. Do you know of any such a site\ book\ Youtube channel, etc.? David (talk) 06:40, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no direct correspondence between the letters used in writing (English orthography) and the phonemes used in speaking (English phonology). So you are looking for a source that shows the situation inside the oral cavity as each phoneme is articulated. The following two YouTube videos show some more phonemes: Introduction to Articulatory Phonetics (Vowels), Introduction to Articulatory Phonetics (Consonants), but they are not organized by phoneme and far from complete. For further searching, I suggest to use the search terms [articulation tongue lips phoneme]. --Lambiam 11:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 4

professional side interest

Is there a name for an interest that someone might have, that is only peripherally related to their work but somewhat relevant to it? It's not avocation which is more like an unrelated hobby.

Example: an automotive engineer at General Motors might maintain a side interest in aerospace engineering, because that is interesting in its own right (avocational), but also because the high tech materials used in aerospace can become relevant to cars, so the automotive engineer benefits from knowing about them. The same automotive engineer might also pay attention to what skateboard hobbyists are doing, since they come up with many clever design tricks that can also be transplanted.

It's not exactly right to say that the car engineer has a professional interest in skateboards, but it's not exactly a hobby interest either. Thanks for any suggestions. 2601:648:8200:970:0:0:0:23D0 (talk) 18:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't it right to say the engineer has a professional interest in skateboards? It works well: "I don't skateboard, but I have a professional interest in their construction." --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 00:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's right as far as it goes, but that sentence could also imply that the engineer makes money in some way from skateboard construction (he owns the patent for something used in their design, or holds shares in a skateboard manufacturer, etc). Like the OP I feel that there could be some word or term more specific to the concept they describe. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.0.163 (talk) 08:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't skateboard, but I am interested in their construction as it may inform my own work." --Khajidha (talk) 12:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a unique term that means "something I'm interested in in some way other than financially". --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 5

Is the word "exchange names" fits here?

Sentence: Robert and Sandy met together at a coffee shop, and they exchange names.

When I Google "exchange names", it gives me "telephone exchange" results. Rizosome (talk) 02:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's sorta fine (should be "exchanged"), but "together" is superfluous. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you see this? And it should either be "meet" + "exchange" or "met" + "exchanged" in order to keep the tense consistent. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you're asking about the meaning of "exchange names" (which is two words), it presumably means they told each other their names.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, Rizosome was reading "exchange" as a noun, but in that sentence it was a verb. Such Syntactic ambiguity is a common problem for ESL readers because English does not mark distinctions between nouns and verbs, or the grammatical specificity of either (as subject or object, for example) as clearly as do many other languages, so they can easily be confused or misread. This is one of the major contributors to the phenomenon of "crash blossom" newspaper headlines that additionally drop words to achieve more concision.

"Met together" is probably an attempt to overcome the ambiguousness of plain "met", which could mean either a deliberate or a chance encounter. "Met together", like the term "met up", implies that the meeting was deliberate and pre-arranged. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.0.163 (talk) 08:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, "get together" for a planned encounter sounds better (to me) than the pleonastic "meet together" – which IMO is still ambiguous, since it can also be used for a chance encounter.^[7]. Or use "agree to meet". --Lambiam 10:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably use met up in this case, but yeah, there's a bit of tense confusion going on. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 11:44, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Met together" sounds like a bad translation to me, I find it hard to imagine a native saying it. DuncanHill (talk) 12:35, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the sentence (despite its problems) suggests that this was a chance meeting, as they exchanged names after they met. In most planned meetings, I would expect to know the name of the person I am meeting even if I am meeting them for the first time. --Khajidha (talk) 12:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence reads like a line from a film synopsis (A Patch of Fog?). --Lambiam 10:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, the synopsis in that article read rather awkwardly. I have given it a once over, but it could probably still use a little polishing. --Khajidha (talk) 12:37, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This line solved my problem: If you're asking about the meaning of "exchange names" (which is two words), it presumably means they told each other their names. Rizosome (talk) 01:31, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

"Heave away!"

What's the scope of meanings of "Heave away!"? It seems to me that in most contexts it's a rather archaic and unfriendly way to say "Go away!". But in "So, heave her up and away we'll go - Heave away, Santy Anno." it seems to be a happy 'command' to the ship to drive forth and gather pace. Is that correct, and what else can it mean? --KnightMove (talk) 11:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heave has many meanings, in the instances you quote see this from the OED - Heave: "Nautical. To haul up or raise by means of a rope; and, more generally, to haul, pull, draw with a rope or cable; to haul a cable; to weigh (anchor); to unfurl (a flag or sail; also, to heave out); to cause (a ship) to move in some direction, as by hauling at a rope (e.g. at the anchor-cable when she is aground, or at the sail-ropes so as to set the sails to the wind)" and "To pull or haul (at a rope, etc.); to push (at the capstan so as to urge it round and haul in the cable); to move the ship in some direction by such means; of the ship, to move or turn in some direction" DuncanHill (talk) 11:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of giving a command to commence an action, the phrase "X away" can simply mean "Start x-ing and continue to x until told otherwise or the task is completed." As DuncanHill's extract implies, heaving on ropes, etc. would have been a frequent task in the age of sail, and as "Heave!" was/is a good word to co-ordinate and encourage a team of people performing such tasks, it features frequently in sea shanties. "Heave to", on the other hand, means something different though still nautical. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.0.163 (talk) 18:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sea shanties were work songs, getting everyone in a rhythm for pulling together on a rope or capstan, so you might be singing "Heave away! Heave away!" while hoisting sails for example. Alansplodge (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence = information, news

I'm looking for the origin of this meaning. Is Intelligence meaning News / information as in Intelligence Agency originally AE? Or it comes from BE ? Thank you. 2003:F5:6F18:900:9DA8:8E83:EEE8:1C06 (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC) Marco PB[reply]

Where did you see it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:37, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Etymonline.com gives it as attested in mid-15c., not sure what's the source for this bit. French seems to have some meanings involving "secrets", but probably nothing as clear as English (that may be diferent for older times, or if you ask someone who actually speaks French). Personuser (talk) 20:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: OP is probably referring to meaning 3 (and 4) as opposed to 1 (and 2) as numbered at wiktionary. The loosly related modern French use I was referring to is être d'intelligence. Personuser (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The aungel Gabryel apperyd hym to, That hese wiff xulde conseyve he ?aff hym intelligence"[8](7. meaning). Not quite the context I was expecting. Personuser (talk) 01:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 6

How do I say the Nth root of a number?

How do I say:

${\sqrt[{n}]{a}}$

when n equals to -3, -2, -1, 1.5, or 2.5? - Toytoy (talk) 03:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]