Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Reference desk

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 86.163.187.0 (talk) at 19:30, 11 January 2022 (→Name of the letter W). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.
skip to bottom
Select a section:
Shortcut
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:
Look up Wiktionary:Information desk in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Look up Wiktionary:Translation requests in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

January 4

General term for a baker or cheesemaker, or similar?

They do the job of Food processing, but they are definitely not Food processors. What can I call them?  Card Zero  (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tradesman? --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try, but that includes the candlestick-maker, the laptop-repairer, and various workers not dealing with food. I need something narrower. Foodmaker seems to be a word used in business-speak, but that's an ugly language (and anyway it applies to corporations, not individuals).  Card Zero  (talk) 04:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see no problem with "food maker" as a general term. --Khajidha (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Skilled craftworkers who make foodstuffs by hand using traditional methods can be referred to as food artisans.  --Lambiam 10:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Purveyors of comestibles? --Verbarson talkedits 12:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Purveyors are one step further down the supply chain. Artisan could work, but it's a bit over-nice. Not sure there's such a thing as an artisan renderer. What am I saying, this is the 21st century, of course there are artisan renderers. They're probably on TikTok right now, dancing around some lard.  Card Zero  (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly victualler is more to do with provision than production. Alansplodge (talk) 15:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You know what, this is for a historical context, so maybe I'll go with food processor after all. It's not really misleading, it just sounds funny, like computer (somebody whose job is to compute).  Card Zero  (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After listening to John McWhorter the other day, I recognize that (at least in American English) we would stress the two usages differently. The people who do the work are "food PROCESSORS" while the machines are "FOOD processors". --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 16:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An exponent of the culinary arts (which article suggests "culinary artist" and "culinarian")? --Verbarson talkedits 00:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Lunar" or "lunar"?

Hi there! I am working on articles relating to the Moon. The literature and related Wikipedia articles have been capitalizing the Moon, but it has been inconsistently been applied to "Lunar"/"lunar". Now I have been introducing writing "Lunar", but the argument has now been raised that things like "lunar regolith" should not be capitalized. Now it was suggested to ask here what you think.

Thank you. Nsae Comp (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've ever seen a capitalized usage of lunar.--Khajidha (talk) 20:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well as I said it has been an astronomy issue because so many moons throughout the Solar system have been found that it has made sense to capitalize the Moon, the same goes for Lunar, but if it referse to the Moon and not any moon. Nsae Comp (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To put the question differently: are collateral adjectives of places capitalized? Or even more so, can collateral adjectives be proper adjectives? And if so how is it with "lunar regolith"? For example would you write "terran soil" or "Terran soil"? Nsae Comp (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the word "Terran" is pretty much exclusive to science fiction. The usual word is "terrestrial", which I have never seen capitalized. --Trovatore (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Terran" is used when the Earth is viewed from an outside perspective, as an alien planet. "Terrestrial" is the preferred word when the perspective is from the Earth itself. JIP | Talk 20:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the editors who wrote that article used lunar without initial capital, and they ought to know. MOS:ARTCON says the subject's own style should be followed, which is not helpful as the Moon lacks an official website or embassy. Here's an example of NASA using a lower case l, it's probably a good idea to follow their lead. (Actually that page uses lower case for "the moon" as well. NASA scientists seem evenly divided on that one.)  Card Zero  (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lunar Excursion Module, for one. --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but that is a very specific object, so a proper adjective is applicable in that case. In the plural case, one would probably write 'lunar excursion modules'. Praemonitus (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The user said he'd never seen it capitalized. Now he has. --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Martian crater, but I've never ever seen Lunar crater. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The latter would apply if the standard English word for our satellite were Luna. But it's not. "Lunar" is derived from the Latin name, just as "solar" is derived from the Latin name for our Sun. The fact that we sometimes capitalise our Moon and Sun to differentiate them from other moons and suns has no bearing on this. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 07:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Luna is the name of one of my granddaughters, btw. I just thought you'd all like to know that. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 07:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am actually happy to know that! Thanks, Jack, and best wishes to your granddaughter! --Trovatore (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Very kind. I'll pass your regards on, and I'll do it to the tune of the "Anvil Chorus" in your honour. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC) [reply]
But you do write Solar, e.g. Solar system in caps, so I cant see your argument. In fact it is a good example for the use of Lunar in caps, since Sun is like Moon and Sol is like Luna, therefore also Solar is like Lunar. Nsae Comp (talk) 09:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nsae Comp: No you don't. Bazza (talk) 10:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From our article Solar System: "Capitalization of the name varies. The International Astronomical Union, the authoritative body regarding astronomical nomenclature, specifies capitalizing the names of all individual astronomical objects but uses mixed "Solar System" and "solar system" structures in their naming guidelines document. The name is commonly rendered in lower case ("solar system"), as, for example, in the Oxford English Dictionary and Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary." --Khajidha (talk) 10:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Usage appears to be inconsistent, but there is clearly a strong preference for lunar (lower case) in practice. Here's an attempt at analysis: Sun is not like Moon, and solar is not like lunar, although in a subtly different way. In standard English, a proper noun is capitalized, whereas a common noun, such as the generic name of a category, is not. There's only one "Sol" (and only one "Mars") but there are lots and lots of moons. Logically speaking, this should give additional weight to capitalized expressions like Solar system (or Solar System), and Martian atmosphere. In actual usage, solar system may be used to refer to any planetary system (google "how many solar systems in our galaxy?). When referring to some other star, in my opinion, solar system *must* be lower case; the problem occurs with usage when referring to our star, Sol. In actual use, there is a large preference for lower case 'solar system'. (I haven't checked to see how much of this usage applies to our planetary system, but I suspect most of it does).
In theory, one might think we should use Lunar when referring to our moon (i.e., the Moon), and lunar when referring to any other moon, but actual usage doesn't confirm that. Perhaps this is because expressions like lunar orbit, lunar landing, and lunar surface invariably refer to the Moon, and not to, say, Titan (see e.g. Huygens (spacecraft)). In the end, we should pick one style and stick to it, and given the pattern of usage in the wild, it should be lunar. Maybe in the future when there have been hundreds of missions to other moons, this will change. Ping me in 2092. Mathglot (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think "lunar" is just out of place when used about any moon other than the Moon. Cue the B-52's. I'm not sure what the adjectival form of "natural satellite" is, but it's not "lunar". --Trovatore (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathglot: Thank you for the refreshingly nuanced and considerate answer. I see you then in 2092, you can count on it, I am planing to be there 8D. Nsae Comp (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Trovatore:, not *yet*, you mean. WP:NODEADLINE. Mathglot (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 5

What does "distinction" refer to?

Sentence from here: Many of them, obviously, held the title for several years, Bannout won it once, a distinction shared with Chris Dickerson (1982), Dexter Jackson (2008), Shawn Rhoden (2018), and Brandon Curry (2019). 

Dexter Jackson held more than once. What does "distinction" refer to? Rizosome (talk) 03:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It means that whoever wrote it got their facts wrong, or that it's out of date. Or not. When did he win it besides 2008? --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "distinction" is to have won this thing once and only once. Bannout and those other people are the five listed under item 7 in Mr._Olympia#Number_of_overall_wins. --Wrongfilter (talk) 06:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dexter Jackson had twenty Mr. Olympia appearances, but only won the title in 2008. He came out second in 2015. So the text is correct. In general, the word "distinction" can refer to any recognition of an exceptional achievement. Example (from the article Camilo Villegas): "His success in Colombian golf throughout the 1990s earned him the distinction of "Player of the Decade" issued by the Colombian Golf Federation."  --Lambiam 09:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Distinction" usually means a special achievement. If others have won it multiple times, winning it just once doesn't seem like much of a "distinction". --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary:distinction (definition 4): Specifically, a feature that causes someone or something to stand out as being better; a mark of honour, rank, eminence or excellence; being distinguished. [example] She had the distinction of meeting the Queen. Alansplodge (talk) 11:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given that, the wording in the article should be different than it is. --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except that here the word is obviously being used ironically.--Shantavira|feed me 14:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That whole sentence seems out of place. The article is about him, not the title. Recommend removing. --Khajidha (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That phraseology was added in 2007,[1] by an editor who hasn't been here since 2011. Probably safe to change it now. --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I got the answer after seeing this edit. Rizosome (talk) 03:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Lump

Where did the phrase "like it or lump it" originate? Thanks. 86.189.224.119 (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to this source the first recorded use of this phrase was by John Neal, the US writer, in his 1833 novel, The Down-Easters, while this source explores the particular meaning of "lump" used in the expression. Mikenorton (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The latter article quotes an earlier "first recorded" from The Monthly Mirror in London, 1807; Well, ma'am, if you don't like it, you may lump it, which can be found here. It's part of a script for a comedy sketch about puns and is addressed to a woman complaining about the lack of sugar (lumps) in her tea. Humour has obviously moved on since then. It must have been a reasonably well known expression at that time for the readers to understand the joke. Alansplodge (talk) 18:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Moved on? Au contraire! I found "Every Man His Own Punster" a veritable rich seam of humour. Nothing to do with the famous Marx Brothers, then? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly reminiscent of a very substandard Two Ronnies sketch. Alansplodge (talk) 19:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One lump or two, vicar? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So the word was around for a while before it was used that way. Are there examples of it being used transitively before the 1807 tea pun? After all one could say "like it or lament it" but not "like it or sulk it." Temerarius (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 7

What is the name of this font?

Please see this website page ---> Framed Print of Shakespearean Quote souvenir, To Be or Not to Be by William Shakespeare. In the center of the page, there is a framed portrait containing the "To be, or not to be" quote from Shakespeare's Hamlet. Does anyone know the name of that font? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph A. Spadaro: Vivaldi italic Bazza (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! That was a quick reply. Very helpful! Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved

Caroselli

Can I get some feedback on whether I accurately translated the following Italian quote from Caroselli:

It comes from page 272 from this accessible source. Don't worry about translating the term "garesa" as that was already discussed here. Heesxiisolehh (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't checked the whole thing, but [a]i primi di Aprile means "in early April". --Trovatore (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I'd probably go a little more literal. How about this for the first two sentences:

In early April there came, by way of dervish couriers of Beledweyne, a letter sent by the Mullah "To The Italians" in which, in substance, he justified his rapid defeat by attributing it to the defection of his Dulbohanta followers and asked for our mediation with the English. The English, who knew this, descended on us with all their men and with six birds (airplanes)."

--Trovatore (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to extract most of that text from here: https://books.google.it/books?id=hGVoAAAAMAAJ&q=inauthor:%22Domenico+Quirico%22&dq=inauthor:%22Domenico+Quirico%22&hl=it&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&redir_esc=y It looks like your text is a little corrupted with missing letters. Here is what I was able to find: "Mentre gli aerei mitragliavano a bassa quota, tutti cominciarono a fuggire. Il Mullah non è più quell'intrepido cavallerizzo incontrato vent'anni prima dal bravo Pestalozza. È un uomo malato, obeso, che cammina a fatica, logorato da mille battaglie e delusioni. Ad aprile, quando già a Londra festeggiano la scomparsa di quel tignoso nemico, arriva a Belet Uen, estremo avamposto della nostra frontiera verso l'Ogaden e l'Abissinia, una lettera con il timbro del Mullah: Gli inglesi ci sono piombati addosso con tutta le gente con sei volatili. Per tal fatto ci siamo sbandati e non c'è stato più accordo tra di noi: nella maggior parte si sono arresi agli inglesi e hanno consegnato ventisette case ricolme di fucili, munizioni e denaro. ... E ora diciamo siamo arrivati a questo confine e desideriamo tu faccia qualcosa per noi nel senso di intervenire tra noi e gli inglesi per restituirci le nostre famiglie, figli, beni, territori. E così ci impegniamo sopra la nostra anima di stare in pace, tranquilli e di non disturbare mai più le altre genti e prenderemo da te la bandiera. Questo abbiamo scritto. Saluti." --79.49.59.202 (talk) 11:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the letter W

In English and the Romance languages, W has a special name, indicating it is a "double letter". But in German its name is simply VAY. Why did German remove the "double"?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's named after the original archaic sixth letter of the Greek alphabet (dropped from the familiar "Classical" 24-letter Ionian form of the alphabet)... AnonMoos (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:AnonMoos, that can't be right. That is digamma; the German pronunciation "VAY" sounds nothing like that. Georgia guy (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever -- "digamma" is a retrospective name, invented after the [w] sound had disappeared from most ancient Greek dialects (not the name used when the letter was actually being used to write a [w] sound). Note how our digamma article begins "Digamma, waw, or wau"? I didn't include the old name in my previous comment, because it has many, many alternate transcriptions, and I didn't want to deal with the whole variant transliteration issue... AnonMoos (talk) 01:55, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The German pronunciation is [veː], not [veɪ], although it is a distinction English speakers seem to have difficulties with. Since there isn't any other letter making the same sound in German, it just has the same [e:] ending as a bunch of other letters in the alphabet. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 03:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AnonMoos, the letter in German whose name would seem to represent a continuation of the ancient Greek digamma would be V, not W, because it's called "Vau" in German, reflecting ancient "waw"/"wau"/"vau" (but now of course pronounced /fau/). See V#Names in other languages, describing how that was also used as the name of consonantal V by Latin grammarians. /ve:/ for W is just an analogical new formation in German. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the confusion on my part, but Georgia_Guy's "WAY"[sic] conveyed very little meaning to my mind, and it seemed like it could stand for either or both of the letter names German Vau and German Weh. I had to guess which one was meant, and I guessed wrong... AnonMoos (talk) 20:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can only remove something from a name if it is part of the name. Is there an indication that at any time the German name for the letter contained something suggesting that it was double? One can say doppeltes Vau in German, but this means VV, not W.[2] Lambiam (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Georgia guy: From where did you read that the Germans used to have "double" in their name of the letter and then dropped it? --Jayron32 02:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Jayron32, I'm sure the letter W was always intended to be called "double V" except in English where it became "double U". Most of today's languages still do so, but German doesn't. When did German first use the letter W and what was its historical name?? Was German the first language to give W a name not to have the word "double" in it?? Georgia guy (talk) 02:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a better question; never assume anything as true for which there is not already clear evidence in acceptance. One can ask "what is the history of the German name of the letter "W""? That carries no assumptions. To ask "Why did German stop using "double" in the name" presumes that it actually used to. Maybe it did. Maybe it didn't. Don't ask questions that contain assumption you don't already have clear evidence as likely true. That's a plurium interrogationum and it introduces all kinds of logical problems. --Jayron32 02:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in French W is dubleve and about thirty words begin with the letter. In Spanish it's doblebe (there's not much difference between B and V in Spanish) and about a dozen words begin with the letter. K was thrown out of Portuguese in the spelling reform a century ago - a search in pt:wp reveals no native words containing the letter W, which is referred to as duplo u or v duplo. A possible reason for the lack of consensus is that Portuguese is the closest Romance language to Latin bar Sard and U and V were the same letter (the Romans found it easier to chisel a V in stone than a U). 86.163.187.13 (talk) 12:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The statement that "Portuguese is the closest Romance language to Latin bar Sard" would probably need a source. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 13:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds implausible to me. It's semi-notorious that Portuguese speakers find it easier to understand Spanish than Spanish speakers do Portuguese, and the main reason is that the Portuguese language is more "derived" in phonology (nasal vowels, reduced vowels, palatalizations, etc)... AnonMoos (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ AnonMoos: Do you have a source for that? For example, the Latin word morte means "death". The Romance equivalents are formed from the accusative singular (the final "m" drops). Thus Spanish muerte but the Portuguese is unchanged. For adjectives, Latin novo means "new". The French is nouveau or neuf, the Italian nuovo and the Spanish nuevo. There is no change in Portuguese. 86.139.97.12 (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the examples are only for one vowel sound. It sounds like cherry-picking. A counter-example is Spanish caliente vis-a-vis Portuguese quente. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We (Cyrillic) gives no pronunciation. Is it called "we"? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's apparently a very rare letter, Kurdish basically seems to have scrapped Cyrillic in favor of Latin, and Yukaghir is moribund. That only leaves Yaghnobi, where it seems to be in actual use, although Yaghnobi is primarily a spoken language. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. the name of the letter in Welsh is 'u' (see The Welsh alphabet). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ Wakuran: An example of where Portuguese is true to Latin is the use of the tilde (see discussion "A form of Latin" below). It appears over an "a" or "o" to mark the omission of a following "m" or "n". In Spanish it appears over the "n" and may indicate a following "yod". So Latin non "no" becomes no in Spanish but não in Portuguese, retaining the "n" sound. The Latin for "many thanks" is multas gratias. In Spanish it's muchas gracias (probably with an accent over the first "a"). In Portuguese it's muitas graças, almost the same as the Latin. The placing of accents in Portuguese follows the rule general in Romance languages that a vowel is usually accented if the stress is not on the antepenultimate syllable. Thus Portuguese Maria, but the illogical Spanish equivalent is María. On Wakuran's point, it's true that an intervocalic "l" often falls in Portuguese - thus from Latin dolor "pain" the Portuguese plural is dores. The Spanish equivalent is probably "Dolores". Other examples, Portuguese saída "exit", Spanish equivalent probably salida and from Latin accusative salutem "health" (nouns are formed from the accusative and the final "m" drops) Portuguese saúde.
The bowdlerisation seen in adjectives and nouns extends equally to verb endings. Thus the Latin teneo "I hold" is tenho in Portuguese, almost the same. In Spanish I believe it's tengo. 86.163.187.0 (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 8

Pet: a word from the Beaker people?

Is it reasonable to conjecture that the word pet might come from Middle Irish peta, making it potentially older than PIE?  Card Zero  (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The origin is unknown.[3] --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pre-PIE is logically a possibility (which Wictionary mentions), but as your linked articles explain, we don't know whether the Indo-European Goidelic Celtic languages in the British Isles displaced those of the Bell-Beaker culture directly, or an earlier wave of Celtic (hence also Indo-European) languages whose speakers themselves displaced (or absorbed) the Bell-Beaker folk, nor do we know whether the latter's language(s) were themselves Goidelic, a different Celtic, or a pre-Indo-European language such as Vasconic. In isolation, therefore, the conjecture has little basis, unless you want to use it for a historically speculative piece of fiction, for example.
For what it's worth, the OED traces the word (only) as far back as 16th-century Scots (a Germanic sister language to English), and (in my edition) suggests it was transferred to, e.g. Irish, rather than coming from Goidelic Celtic Scots Gaelic which of course originated in Ireland. However, it does not suggests the word's ultimate origin; as you may know, a connection via 'petty' with French petit has been suggested.
[Edited to add] Don't know whether my post has appeared before Lambiam's and DuncanHill's below despite being timed later. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.208.89.176 (talk) 11:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Potentially older? Middle Irish is a Celtic language, one of the major branches of the Indo-European family. All branches are likely to have borrowed terms from now extinct substrates; there is nothing special in this respect to Gaelic. And, of course, all PIE roots are potentially older than PIE.  --Lambiam 11:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I should have answered the actual question as, (1) it is reasonable to conjecture that English pet came from Scottish peata, which may have borrowed it from Middle Irish, descending from Old Irish petta, of unknown origin. And (2), it is "not unreasonable" to conjecture that that origin was a non-IE substrate (which does not mean "older than PIE"), but the evidence is lacking (or purely circumstantial), no plausible cognates being known.  --Lambiam 12:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OED says "Origin: A borrowing from Scottish Gaelic. Etymon: Scottish Gaelic peata.
Etymology: < Scottish Gaelic peata tame animal, now also ‘spoilt child’ (Early Irish petta, Irish peata tame animal, occasionally referring to spoilt humans), probably ultimately < an extended form (-t- extension) of the Indo-European base of classical Latin suēscere to become used to (see mansuete adj.).
The Scottish Gaelic and Irish noun is also used preceding a noun in the genitive to specify the kind of pet, e.g. Early Irish petta eoin a pet bird, literally ‘a pet of a bird’. This may underlie the uses as adjective in English." (The symbol < means from). DuncanHill (talk) 11:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"He was in handcuffs"

We all know what that means, and some would say it's ridiculous to object "No he wasn't; only his wrists were." But I can easily imagine that speakers of some other language would object to a rather literal translation into that language of "he was in handcuffs", on the grounds that most of him wasn't and thus that it was untrue (and a physical impossibility to boot). Yet English permits such an ... umm ... synecdoche? Somehow I suspect that there's a better term; anyone here know of one? -- Hoary (talk) 07:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Slang or abbreviated speech. --<-Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots-> 08:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not "slang". That's "A type of language consisting of words and phrases that are regarded as very informal, are more common in speech than writing, and are typically restricted to a particular context or group of people".Iapetus (talk) 10:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hoary -- In English, the word "in" allows many loose or metaphorical meanings ("in trouble", "in tears" etc) which need to be expressed in some way in languages. (Esperanto has an all-purpose vague preposition without concrete literal meaning, "je", but that's Esperanto.) There's a longer word "inside" to indicate more strongly a physical location relationship (though "inside" can also be used loosely or metaphorically in some cases). AnonMoos (talk) 09:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised Americans haven't turned it into "He was inside of handcuffs." HiLo48 (talk) 10:04, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can be in brogues, you can be in gloves, you can even be in your birthday suit. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can be "on Facebook", "on Twitter", etc. That doesn't mean you're physically sitting on top of them. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can report that Turkish uses the locative case rather loosely also figuratively. The expression for saying someone is in trouble is başı belada, in which belada is the locative of bela, "trouble". Literally, though, the expression says: "their head is in trouble", leaving out the wrists. But instead of "in handcuffs", the Turkish idiom is kelepçeli, literally "with handcuffs".  --Lambiam 10:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, I think Ronnie and Reggie might have called them "bracelets"? But does anyone know the origin of the slang term "darbies"? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OED has under Darby 1) "Darby's bands n. (also Father Darby's bands) apparently some rigid form of bond by which a debtor was bound and put within the power of a moneylender. (It has been suggested that the term was derived from the name of some noted usurer of the 16th cent.)" and 2) plural. Handcuffs: sometimes also, fetters. slang." (earliest quotation 1672) DuncanHill (talk) 11:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abstract usage of prepositions (or similar grammatical markers) seem very common in languages on a general basis. They mostly come naturally for native speakers, but are an endless source of frustration for foreign learners... For instance, with the meaning of designated time, the Swedish phrase for ten-to-two is "ten in two", which is difficult to explain logically. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 15:09, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. it's the same in Welsh: "Roedd mewn gefynnau" - He was in handcuffs; "Roedd mewn siwt tri darn" - He was in a three-piece suit"; "Roedden nhw mewn dagrau" - They were in tears., etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It reminds me of Hollywood red carpets, where they'll ask someone, "Who are you wearing?" and they'll say "Versace" or whatever. They're obviously not literally wearing the designer, they're wearing one of the designer's designs. --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, get you. dahrling! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably what the cops in Beverly Hills use. --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot the link. --184.144.97.125 (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Damn. That's completely unhinged! 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 23:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the oddest construction like this is to "go in bare feet", as though you could take them off somehow. Grammarians here point out that "go barefoot" makes more sense. Alansplodge (talk) 10:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Really?? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"He left in a huff in a taxi." AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Before you judge a man, walk a mile in his shoes. After that who cares? He's a mile away and you've got his shoes!"-- Martinevans123 (talk) 11:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With no comma (or prosodic break), AndyTheGrump, that sounds off to me. But either "He left in a huff, in a taxi" or "He left in a taxi, in a huff" would be fine. It's "He left in a huff and a taxi" (or "He left in a taxi and a huff") that'd be syllepsis. -- Hoary (talk) 12:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently this is a "zeugma, from the Greek, 'to yoke', a figure of speech in which a word applies to two others in different senses." We have a whole article here Martinevans123 (talk) 12:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comments, all. (I've been enjoying "RL" for a day, and have just now returned to the computer.) AnonMoos's comments are particularly pertinent: if one thinks about it, even what many people might call the "literal" meaning of "in" has quite some polysemy. I think -- without actually bothering to do any research, sorry -- that if I'm wearing my pyjamas, few people would say that I'm only metaphorically in my pyjamas; yet my relationship (spatial, not volitional) to my pyjamas is quite different from that of wine to the uncorked bottle it's in. As for the notion of a person being in handcuffs, Richard A. Lanham (A Handbook of Rhetorical Terms, 2nd ed) writes that synecdoche is "Substitution of part for whole, genus for species, or vice versa: 'All hands on deck'"; and I can't find a more precise term in rhetoric. (And I don't much want one, as I'm sure that this is far less a matter of [conscious] rhetoric than one of [unconscious] lexical semantics.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think all the previous posters missed what seems to me to be the most important point: handcuffs are designed to only contain the wrists. Just as I can be "in my trousers" even though they do not cover anything above the waist or below the ankles, I can be "in handcuffs" if they are applied properly even though they only enclose a very small portion of my body. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 05:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There comes a point when the analogy breaks down. One can be "in curlers" which encompass only a small portion of the hair but nobody would say that someone with a ring on their finger was "in a ring". 86.139.97.12 (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
True, but handcuffs are even larger than curlers. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't count on it. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can be "in earrings", but you can't be "in an earring" even if you're only wearing one. --Amble (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 9

Deuce of a job

Where did the deuce come from in "a deuce of a job", etc. meaning "extremely difficult"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly "devil".[4] --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or possibly "... by similarity to Latin deus and related words meaning "god.": "According to OED, 16c. Low German had der daus! in the same sense, which perhaps influenced the English form." Martinevans123 (talk) 14:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that theory, but the average citizen is far more likely to say "what the devil" than "what the god". --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
True, but etymology from Latin often doesn't pay much attention to what today's "average citizen" says? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you asking whether that's the case? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of Gneisenau

I posed a question at WP:MILHIST as to the pronunciation of Gneisenau and came to the conclusion it would be appropriate to add a pronunciation footnote for August Neidhardt von Gneisenau and German battleship Gneisenau. Here is my attempt at an IPA rendering from a YouTube video of a German speaker saying it:

German pronunciation: [ˈgnaɪzɛnaʊ]

Would a German speaker or other expert be able to confirm or correct this? Thanks! 93 (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The ɪ and ʊ are actually semi-vowels, which can be notated in narrow transcription as [ɪ̯] and [ʊ̯]. The ɛ should definitely be a schwa, ə, which is more obvious at t=119s. Together, this gives
German pronunciation: [ˈɡnaɪ̯zənaʊ̯].
Disclaimer: I'm neither a native German speaker nor particularly an expert on German phonology.  --Lambiam 00:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that the initial "G" is largely silent (same as in gnädige Frau), but I'm not a native German speaker either. Maybe one can confirm. Xuxl (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not silent. It isn't in gnädige Frau either. --Wrongfilter (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Audio of gnädige:  --Lambiam 23:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 10

Order of cases in Slavic languages

It appears that there are two ways to list the grammatical cases in Slavic languages when it comes to declension tables in grammars and learning materials. The first four (nominative, genitive, dative, accusative) seem to be inherited from the Latin tradition and their order stays the same throughout all Slavic languages. Then things start to diverge. While Polish, Russian, Belarusian, Ukrainian prefer the order instrumental–locative/prepositional–vocative, Czech, Slovak, Serbo-Croatian, Slovene opted for vocative–locative–instrumental. (Of course, not every language still uses the vocative case.) Can these two arrangements of cases be traced back to specific early works and authors? Which languages set the examples followed by others? --147.142.61.119 (talk) 08:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vocative being fifth may also be influenced by Latin. In the 1533 Náměsťská mluvnice [cs], the first substantial Czech grammar, the locative and instrumental aren't mentioned at all - it just goes through all the Latin cases and describes how to translate them into Czech. Vocative is fifth and "ablative" (which is translated as od + genitive) sixth. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some Church Slavonic grammars had litterally Greek and Slavic forms side by side, including Omegas for Slavic plural genitives. Locative/prepositional and instrumental have a rough corrispondence in the Latin ablative, but no clear one in Greek, guess moving vocative to the end may have to do with the fact that it's not always recognizable (or that it is/was? listed last/fifth in Greek). If the list you provided is reliable, it corresponds to some cultural/linguistic distinction between Slavic languages (Czech and Slovak are considered nord/western Slavic, but share some common traits with southern Slavic languages, more recent cultural ties are probably more relevant in this case). It's a tough question and the difference may have a newer and relatively arbitrary origin. Not sure when Latin vocative was (for the first time?) listed after the accusative. 176.247.151.184 (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found this linguistic blog post about the arbitrariness of the conventional order of cases in Polish. The excerpt from an article published in 1967 (about halfway through the post) is of particular interest, showing how different grammarians of Polish used different ways of ordering cases. The table uses abbreviations of Polish case names:
  • mian. – mianownik – nominative
  • biern.– biernik – accusative
  • dop. – dopełniacz – genitive
  • cel. – celownik – dative
  • woł. – wołacz – vocative
  • narz. – narzędnik – instrumental
  • miejsc. – miejscownik – locative
— Kpalion(talk) 11:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 11

Moni as given name

Moni is a somewhat common Hebrew given name. Judging by some poor research, my understanding is that it's a shorter/affectionate form of Shlomo (שְׁלֹמֹה‎, related to Solomon). I found some more questionable/possibly unrelated connection with Simon/Simeon (also of Hebrew/biblical origin, wiktionary gives a connection to the supercifially phonetically and semantically close shamá', שָׁמַע, "to hear, listen") and Monica (wiktionary says of Latin origin, but likely Punic, also a Semitic language). There is a disambiguation page for Moni (disambiguation) and one for Shlomo, for the purposes of the encyclopedia the main question is if the connection Moni-Shlomo is solid and if "Moni" is common enough to warrant a link to Shlomo in the disambiguation page. Clarifications about the other names are mostly a bonus (also sorry for eventual gross mistakes). 176.247.133.109 (talk) 03:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is the nickname of Shlomo Moshonov and Shlomo Nitzani, but it is not exclusive to Shlomo. It is also the nickname of Shimon Fanan and Shimon Naor.[5]  --Lambiam 12:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A form of Latin?

Please see File:Tino di camaino, lunetta centrale del duomo di napoli, con santi e cardinale di antonio baboccio, 01.JPG.

According to Wikipedia the sculpture is by Antonio Bamboccio, so I presume the inscription at the bottom is from the early 15th century. Several words or word endings make me think it's in a form of Latin, but it contains a variety of letterforms not used in classical Latin or in modern usage.

For example, just look at the second line in the left-hand column. In that line alone:

  • There are two different shapes that look like an A, one (just after the second S) with an angled crossbar and what looks like a double serif on the top; and one (in QUODAM) that looks more normal, but has a single top serif.
  • There are two different shapes that might be a T (one between the two Ses, and one in the word that looks like MUNUTULU).
  • Also in MUNUTULU, there is what looks like a UL ligature, but in the next word U and L appear as separate letters.
  • And what's that thing after MUNUTULU that looks like a dotless ? mark?

Also in the text there are marks that look like macrons with serifs on them, but some of them aren't placed over vowels or even over single letters, and in the word below MUNUTULU there's one with an extra kink in it: maybe some sort of diacritical. And (in the first line) some symbols that resemble snakes more than any classical or modern letters.

Is there an article where this sort of writing is explained? --184.144.97.125 (talk) 05:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At commons there are two other images (lower quality, but with the 4th/last line of text). I am not that familiar with Latin and I'm not that sure that the carver was either. The two different "A"'s may be purely graphical, a sign for a long vowel comes to mind, but I have no idea if it was used with a similar meaning at that time, a "T" between "mæius" and "sacræ" doesn't make any sense (not sure if "æ" is a correct translitteration here, but I am quite sure that in that position there isn't a simple "t"), ligature use can be inconsistent, expecially when space matters (e.g. carving in stone). For the dotless ? mark I would bet on some kind of abbreviation sign, it's used also in the first line before some surprisingly greek-like letters. Some parts can actually get clearer only once you get the general meaning, but I hope you will find some better answer. --176.247.176.107 (talk) 08:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found the following complete transcription and translation by Nicolas Block from his "Neapolitan bishops as patrons of art from Anjou to Aragon" - The inscription reads: "NULLIU(s) I(n) LO(n)GU(m) (et) SIN(e) SCEMAT(e) TE(m) PU(s) HONORIS / PO(r)TA FUI RUTILA(n)S SUM IANUA PLENA DECORIS / ME MEUS (et) SACRE QUO(n)DAM MUNUTULU(s) AULE / EXCOLUIT P(r)OP(r)I(i)S HENRICUS SUMPTIBUS HUIUS / PRESUL APOSTOLICE NU(n)C CO(n)STA(n)S CA(r)DO COLUMNE / CUI P(re)COR I(n)COLUMEM VITA(m) POST FATA PERHE(n)NEM / HOC OPUS EXACTUM MILLE CURRENTIB(us) ANNIS / QUO QUATER (et) CE[n]TU(m) SEPTE(m) VERBU(m) CARO FACTU(m).
For a long time I have been only a small door without any sign of dignity, now I am a portal full of ornaments and shining in splendour. Henricus Minutulus, who had once been the bishop of this holy church and now a trustworthy hinge of the apostolic pillar, decorated me at his own expense. For him I pray for a safe and sound eternal life after his death. This work has been executed when 1407 years have passed by since the word has become flesh." Mikenorton (talk) 09:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reading quater & centum can also be found elsewhere,[6], but does not make sense. Without a word between quater and centum we have mille ... quater centum septem = "thousand four times hundred seven", presumably meaning 1000 + 4×100 + 7 = 1407. Some sources even spell this as one word, quatercentum,[7][8] although this is not standard Latin for "four hundred". The insertion of et  gives an incomprehensible "thousand four times and hundred seven".  --Lambiam 12:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just some quick notes: the text is to be read line by line (no separate columns), the question mark-like sign is indeed for shortening desinences, some signs in the first line still look out of place and my earlier use of "æ" for "e" was indeed inappropriate, similar final vertical lines are practical and used for "c" and possibly other letters too. Also thanks to Mikenorton. --176.247.176.107 (talk) 10:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The overbars (which here stand for the letter ⟨N⟩) and other additions are sigla. These were commonly used in older epigraphs and manuscripts written in Latin to economize on space.  --Lambiam 11:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is an article where the significant signs are explained: Scribal abbreviation. The “thing [...] that looks like a dotless ? mark” and the character you identify as one of the “shapes that might be a T” are shown there in the image labelled “Examples of independent marks”. ◅ Sebastian 11:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language&oldid=1065088468"