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.

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.^[1]. 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]

If you were seasick, I would say, "Heave away from me." Clarityfiend (talk) 04:10, 6 July 2021 (UTC) [reply]

@Alansplodge: This song was one of the inspirations for my question. Who/what is the "rolling king" here, and what does it mean for him to "heave away"? --KnightMove (talk) 08:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Rolling king" was originally "rollicking" (i.e. merry or drunk). [2]

Wiktionary:away#Adverb says:

"10. On; in continuance; without intermission or delay. She's been in her room all day, working away at her computer.

"11. Without restraint. You've got questions? Ask away!

So the whole phrase means "pull on the rope without delay or restraint, you drunkards". Alansplodge (talk) 10:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary gives the sense of the adjective rollicking as "carefree, merry and boisterous". A colloquial meaning of the adjective rolling is "drunk (intoxicated from alcohol), staggering". --Lambiam 10:31, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Last follow-up question is the following stanza of a version of Santy Anno:

When Zachary Taylor gained the day,

Heave away, Santy Anno,

He made poor Santy run away,

All on the plains of Mexico.

the "Heave away, Santy Anno" is to be interpreted as "Get lost, Santa Anna!" Right? --KnightMove (talk) 10:48, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think it still means "pull on the rope". Sea shanties were work songs - the "heave away" part was a repeated refrain sung by everyone. Our Santianna article gives an alternative as "Heave and weigh Santiana" as in weigh anchor. Alansplodge (talk) 10:51, 6 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]

Yes, that is it, thank you. In my background the standard meaning of intelligence is the ability or skill to solve problems, understand situations and foresee consequences. The meaning of collecting informations as in CIA (no implications) was not familiar to me and I had the impression it could be something special to AE. But I found also the reference to the mid-15c, so this usage definitely did not originate in the USA. 2003:F5:6F18:900:8DCF:B80D:B1E9:AFAF (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2021 (UTC) Marco PB[reply]

"The aungel Gabryel apperyd hym to, That hese wyff xulde conseyve he ȝaff hym intelligence"[3](7. meaning). Not quite the context I was expecting. Personuser (talk) 01:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Godefroy lists a meaning for Old French intelligence of "Communication entre personnes qui s’entendent" ("Communication between people who communicate").^[4] (Does the aungel Gabryel qualify as people?) --Lambiam 10:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In this sense Italian has "intelligenza col nemico", that is "having agreements with the enemy", a form of trahison.

Thanks to everybody 2003:F5:6F18:900:8DCF:B80D:B1E9:AFAF (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2021 (UTC) Marco PB[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]

This is more a math than a language question. Since

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

is just another way of writing a^1/n, I would suggest pronunciations such as "a to the power minus one-third", "a to the power minus one-half", and so on. --174.94.31.124 (talk) 04:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is still a language question, since I doubt there isn't a way to say out loud in English that

{\sqrt[{-3}]{a}}

is equal to a^1/-3 or whatever is the right conversion. Nevertheless, if you don't get a good answer here soon, the math reference desk seems a good place for finding one. Personuser (talk) 04:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I knew this is not a math thing. But I will ask the same question in the math section. It really is weird. -- Toytoy (talk) 05:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this can get weird in other languages too, especially when ordinal numerals are involved (getting rid of them with some locution seems a common approach). For higher math possibly they rely a lot more on written symbols, but this seems something that is spoken in schools quite a lot. Personuser (talk) 05:48, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When vocalized in English (see Language of mathematics § The grammar of mathematics), the expression

{\sqrt[{n}]{x}}

is conventionally pronounced as "the

n

th root of

x

", or, if you wish, "the enth root of eks". So, while many will pronounce

{\sqrt[{3}]{x}}

as "the cube root of

x

", you will also find "the third root of

x

".^[5][6][7] Similarly, people ask about "the

i

th root of

i

" (see Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Mathematics/2007 March 28#ith root of i). Analogously,

{\sqrt[{\pi }]{\pi }}

becomes "the pith root of pi" (see also pith#Adjective on Wiktionary). Generalizing this even further, you'd get "the minus third root of a", ..., "the two-and-a-halfth root of a". For "minus third", compare "four times ten to the minus third" (for

4 \times 10 -3

).^[8] --Lambiam 09:11, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That last comparison would be "four times ten to the minus three" in some parts of the world (at least).Page 5 Bazza (talk) 11:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would express that as "four times ten to the power of negative three". --Khajidha (talk) 12:14, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Khajidha: Thanks. That seems to be a US–British (and maybe others) difference, but we seem to agree that for "powers" cardinal numerals are spoken, whereas "roots" use ordinals. Bazza (talk) 12:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The use of ordinals for powers is pretty common, though. I'm not sure if the "ten to the third" or "ten to the power of three" is more common where I'm from. And it may vary a bit between more or less popular and more or less technical usage. Ordinals for roots is pretty much standard 'round here, though. --Khajidha (talk) 12:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, the notation

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

is actually not very commonly used except for a few low-integer values of n. When n is a fraction or a negative number, most people will switch to the notation

a^{1/n}

, which is much more convenient for most purposes. --Wrongfilter (talk) 12:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We say 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and assume all ordinal numbers are integers. However, if you are asked to use it mathematically, it's now demanded to have non-integer ordinal numbers. What is the ordinal form for numbers 1.5 and 2.5? Do we say 1.5st or 1.5nd? Or we just say 1.5th? I think it's seriously funny question. -- Toytoy (talk) 05:06, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, if I had to read

{\sqrt[{1.5}]{a}}

and

{\sqrt[{2.5}]{a}}

aloud, I would say "one point fifth root of a" and "two point fifth root of a" respectively. But (in agreement with previous answers) I wouldn't be likely to put it that way in my own words, either written or spoken. And I don't know that others would read them in the same way. --Amble (talk) 15:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few older books that do use the form "1.5th root": [9], [10], [11]. But it seems more natural to call it a "two-thirds power", and for example in the study of human motion there's a "two-thirds power law" [12], not a "one point fifth root law". --Amble (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. One way or another, you'll encounter a situation that you're asked to say

{\sqrt[{-1.2675675}]{x}}

or something like that. I probably won't be petrified when someone asked me to do so. Ha! Thank you all! -- Toytoy (talk) 04:43, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Latin for "honey-eating"

Is there an existing Latin word, or can anyone propose a Latin neologism, for "honey-eating"? Ideally a cognate of "medved". Thanks! Lantzy : Lantzy 14:20, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"mellivorous" (or "mellivorus/mellivora/mellivorum" in Latin)? The honey badger's binomial is actually Mellivora capensis, and that of the white-necked jacobin is Florisuga mellivora. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:11, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(though neither part appears to be a cognate of medved. See médʰu and mélit, as well as h₁édti and gʷerh₃-). ---Sluzzelin talk 15:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The lemma form of the Latin adjective is the masculine singular nominative, mellivorus. It will decline just like omnivorus. The Latin word for "badger", meles, is feminine, which is probably why Storr proposed a feminine form for the genus name of the honey badger. If you apply the adjective in Latin to a noun, it should agree in gender, number and case. --Lambiam 18:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, it's called meles? Is that a coincidence or something? Temerarius (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lexical bloody integrity?

Does tmesis in English violate the "Lexical Integrity Hypothesis"? The example mentioned at the very bottom of the latter article looks like substantially the same thing - but if so, it seems a bit strange to look as far afield as an Australian Aboriginal language when English would have served as well. Maybe it's about formal versus informal usages, or some such?

- 2A02:560:4259:7600:1472:5365:194D:3DFD (talk) 21:47, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the Lexical Integrity Hypothesis (LIH) is about productive transformations. One doesn't hear people say, ^✽That's im-fucking-possible!. And, I assume, it is also not about transformations that are generally considered irregular – otherwise, stuttering and (unintentional) spoonerisms violate the LIH. Intentional spoonerisms, tmeses à la Ned Flanders, or other humorous word games, are also outside the scope of the LIH. --Lambiam 23:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that tmesis is, and is considered, a somewhat productive technique, notwithstanding the fact that a handful of well-worn coinages account for a large majority of occurrences. This paper, for example, refers to it as an "active [...] derivational process" and to its output as an "open set of lexemes" in the abstract. But the rest of your reply stands, and thinking of it is as a form of, or at least in the vicinity of, a "word game", makes a lot of sense. And one of the google hits for "im-fucking-possible" is a textbook titled "Extra-grammatical Morphology in English", which does too. Thanks!

- (OP) 2A02:560:4259:7600:3DC2:1024:A2:6071 (talk) 07:58, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One doesn't hear people say, ^✽That's im-fucking-possible!. Not sure about that: see here; also wikt:unfuckingbelievable. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 08:13, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Syntax: A Linguistic Introduction to Sentence Structure (p. 175) also has im-BLOODY-possible, which also has a number of Google results in less exalted media, including #Imbloodypossible on Twitter. Alansplodge (talk) 11:35, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Premodifiers in English: Their Structure and Significance (p. 209) has "un-bloody-believable", a phrase which seems to be particularly popular with Australian sports writers [13]. Alansplodge (talk) 11:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 7

Examples of synonymous paronyms

Paronym states, "Some paronyms are truly synonymous, but only under the rarest of conditions. They often lead to confusion."

Can someone please give some examples to make it clearer to the reader? Thanks, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 11:34, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Edcolins: wrote that statement, early in the article's history, and is still active. Perhaps he can clarify. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be tempted to restart that article from scratch. For starters I see the Wiktionary definition does not agree with the Wikipedia definition. According to the Wiktionary definition, which is much clearer, flammable and inflammable would be examples.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would be an example where one word ("inflammable") can mean the same thing ('capable of burning') or something else (in this case the opposite, 'incapable of burning') than the other word ("flammable"), while "flammable" can never mean 'incapable of burning'.

Another type of example might be a set of words that have evolved to become synonymous in certain contexts or in combination with certain words, but have distinct meanings in other contexts. "Empirical Approaches to German Paronyms" attempts to illustrate this with the paronyms "effektiv"/"effizient" ("effective" and "efficient"). Sometimes I even think the distinction has died away, except among the prescriptivist and pedantic. One other famous German paronymous pair is "anscheinend" and "scheinbar": Nowadays a lot of people, including journalists and writers, use them synonymously.

I can't think of corresponding examples in English, but they must exist. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It stands to reason that no such thing as "true synonyms" in the sense that different words mean the same thing across all contexts, facets, varieties, et cetera exists: Making distinctions is arguably what language is all about, so if one can be made, it will be, however small in scale and scope. So it makes more sense to me to think of synonyms as words whose respective ranges of meanings overlap, and conceivably of one pair of synonyms as more "true" than another when there's more overlap.

To look at it another way, it doesn't really happen that a person uses two words entirely interchangeably. Whenever the person chooses one word over the other on a given occasion, that choice will have some basis - though the basis need not be a conscious one, so the person may well not be able to explain it. In the case of non-paronymous synonyms, it can have more to do with how the alternatives sound, or with how they "taste" or "feel" in a less literal sense, than with shades of meaning. But in the case of paronymous synoyms, those distinctions go away as well - which makes it a bit of a curious concept, to my mind.

- 2A02:560:4259:7600:3DC2:1024:A2:6071 (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree (and agreed with you here). It appears that paronyms are often discussed in cases resembling Mrs. Malaprop's use of words, but I'm not sure that's what paronyms are all about. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The OED defines "paronym" as:

1) A word which is derived from another word, or from a word with the same root, and having a related or similar meaning (e.g. childhood and childish); a derivative or cognate word
2) A word from one language which translates into another with only minor changes in form, or with no change at all; a word formed by adaptation of a foreign word. Opposed to heteronym
3a) A word similar in sound or appearance to another; esp. a near homonym.
3b) A play on words that are similar in appearance or sound; = paronomasia
4) Philosophy. Esp. in Aristotelian philosophy (with reference to Aristotle Categories 1. 1a12–15): something predicated on accidental qualities of a substance rather than on the substance itself; a derivative quality.

Our article seems to be about 3a, but if any of these definitions deserved an encyclopaedia article it would be 4. DuncanHill (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What does "Non-official" refer to?

Allen wants to put security near coffee resources:

Allen: Our economic interests are being compromised, to say nothing of the dangers of a Soviet presence so close to home. For security, Edward, we must establish our own presence there. I want you two to put your heads together on this. Michael will be going down there as an agricultural specialist with the Mayan Coffee Company. Non-official.

What does "Non-official" refer to? Rizosome (talk) 14:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably it means it will be an informal visit, not an official one.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the context is tradecraft, broadly speaking, it could refer specifically no a "non-official cover" - whence the acronym "NOC list", familiar from spy stories like Mission Impossible and Burn Notice.

- 2A02:560:4259:7600:3DC2:1024:A2:6071 (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The context is indeed espionage; see The Good Shepherd (film). In reality (the reality of the narrative) Michael is a covert CIA agent. --Lambiam 19:07, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What does "specifically no a" mean? Rizosome (talk) 00:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to the comment above, it's very likely just a typo for "specifically to a". Personuser (talk) 00:38, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any site where I can find a list of natural languages that dont or have have certain phonemes.

Is there any site where I can find a list of natural languages that dont or have certain phonemes?179.181.238.30 (talk) 22:26, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 8