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 16

Not-quite-dualism -- is there a word for it?

OK, so dualism is when there are two different things which are polar opposites in every way and are mutually antagonistic (e.g. good and evil, life and death, love and hate, heat and cold, fire and water, etc.) -- but is there a word for when two different things are radically different (to the extent of being opposites in some ways, but not in every way), but coexist in a mutually complementary relationship? 69.181.91.208 (talk) 10:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbiosis? Commonly used as a metaphor in realms beyond biology. Card Zero (talk) 10:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give some examples of pairs that stand in that relationship? Husband & wife? Lock & key? Crime & punishment? --Lambiam 14:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage often qualifies, for sure. --<-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 21:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, husband and wife is very much along the lines of what I was thinking of -- as a matter of fact, I was thinking of such mutually complementary relationships in the context of romantic love (which, besides involving a man and a woman, also always has both a physical and an emotional component, an active and a passive component, a dominant and a submissive component, a giving and a taking, etc. -- so at least five pairs of such "partial opposites" required to make it complete (and required to be in good balance to make it work long-term), and these are just the ones I could remember off the top of my head!) 69.181.91.208 (talk) 11:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Complementarity, duality, symmetry, dialectic, synthesis, compatibilism, syncretism, perennialism, pluralism, Anekantavada? Supervenience? --Amble (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yin_and_yang? Iapetus (talk) 08:44, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The classic "square of opposition" distinguishes between "contradictions" and "contraries" (and sometimes subcontrary, subalternation, and superalternation). AnonMoos (talk) 10:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How about "orthogonal", as in x- and y-axes: totally independent, but necessarily linked. -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 09:06, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the input, everyone -- these are good answers, but the problem is, all of them are either only tangentially related to what I was trying to describe, or they're too narrowly specific. What I was asking about is a general philosophical term for the situation I described -- so I think out of the answers listed above, "dialectic" is the closest to the target (or perhaps "monism" is a better fit?) 2601:646:8A81:6070:F5AD:972D:6C45:ADB3 (talk) 22:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 17

PhD or Ph.D.

The biography on John Archibald Wheeler is a Good Article. However, it uses PhD and Ph.D. interchangeably in equal amounts. Should it only use one style? Viriditas (talk) 22:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --Amble (talk) 22:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Very helpful! Viriditas (talk) 23:09, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 18

Latin letter broken L

Apparently, there exists a letter "broken L". It is in Unicode as "Latin capital letter broken L" and "Latin small letter broken L". What is this letter used for, and how is it pronounced? 32.219.123.165 (talk) 09:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

L#Forms_and_variants states Ꝇ and ꝇ were used in some medieval Nordic manuscripts. The article's reference, [1], states that broken L is used to represent /l:/ (long "l"), and includes examples. Bazza (talk) 09:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russian translation question

There are two pictures of a mobile sauna in Espoo, Finland at the Russian Wikipedia in this article. Their captions read:

Унутрашњост мобилне сауне уграђене у приколицу.
Покретна сауна уграђена у приколицу.

Google Translate translates these as "Untrashost mobile sauna is dangerous for a friend." and "The private sauna is protected from the joke." This doesn't make much sense. Obviously Google Translate is not capable of making a perfect translations. Could anyone who understands Russian translate these captions better? JIP | Talk 16:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Try Serbian, not Russian:

Interior of a mobile sauna built into the trailer.
Moving sauna built into the trailer.

I put it to you that you weren't looking at the page you linked to at all (because it doesn't exist) but in fact sr:Финска сауна. Card Zero (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good call, thanks. I must have mistaken the language as I don't understand either Russian or Serbian. JIP | Talk 17:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Sausages and beer are traditional refreshments after the sauna." It's a hard life. Card Zero (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The letters њ and ђ do not exist in Russian. ColinFine (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 19

Pohjien otto

There is a Finnish expression called "pohjien otto" ("taking the bottoms") meaning that when you're planning to go out to the city to drink, you start drinking already at home so you're already intoxicated when you arrive at the first bar. What is the equivalent of this expression in English? JIP | Talk 21:52, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Preloading is an (unimaginative) term for that. But can you explain "taking the bottoms"? Does it mean the bottoms of bottles? I don't really understand the implication. Card Zero (talk) 22:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know about the term "bottoms up", which I suppose implies that the glass or bottle is turned upside-down for drinking. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 00:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it is more like "intake of the fundaments", so as to be ready for the intake of the rest of the building, similar to the expression "laying a bottom" (with a few drinks before going out). In German you can use vorglühen or sich eintrinken. --Lambiam 09:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I have always thought too, that the "bottoms" refer to filling oneself from the bottom up. JIP | Talk 10:00, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Pre-drinks" is what I've always called it. MinorProphet (talk) 22:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 20

Himself >> themself(ves)

In "the good old days" we'd have written or spoken:

"This order came from Headquarters, probably from the CEO himself".

Later we learned to allow at least the possibility of there being female CEOs, so it was:

"... probably from the CEO him- or herself".

Now that plural pronouns are regularly being applied to single humans, where has this construction gone? Is it:

"... probably from the CEO themself"? Or themselves?

Are "themself" and "themselves" recognised words? If not, what do we say now? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to Singular_they#Inflected_forms_and_derivative_pronouns both forms are acceptable (assuming that you know nothing about the CEO's gender). --Wrongfilter (talk) 03:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JackofOz -- "Themselves" is of course a "recognized word" (it's the traditionally correct form), but it may not be fully suitable for singular use. "Themself" is a newer form, and some prescriptivists may disdain it, but it's fairly common in spoken language (in at least some English dialects), and is somewhat acceptable in many contexts. It's not purely a matter of gender, since "Ourself" also exists (and also "Yourself" in reference to plural "You", as in "So you guys did it yourself?", though that's harder to track)... AnonMoos (talk) 04:00, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are recognised words. I'm not keen on seeing the -selves versions treated as singular: it causes my parsing process to hesitate uncomfortably. Bazza (talk) 08:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Even "themself" is problematical, being composed of a plural part and a singular part. If ever there was a case for a separate genderless pronoun, this one should clinch it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 14:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, so "themself" would be the reflexive form of singular they, then? 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 14:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wakuran -- Sometimes it is, while other times it's the third person equivalent to informal colloquial 1st person "ourself" and 2nd. plural "yourself", as I already explained above. AnonMoos (talk) 23:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason for "themself" or "ourself". The so-called "singular they" is still construed as plural if a verb has to agree with it: "Someone committed this crime and now they're hiding behind legal technicalities." Using "themselves" is consistent with this. --174.95.83.56 (talk) 20:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

174.95.83.56 -- Whether or not you personally see any "need" for "ourself", "themself", and plural "yourself", it's a simple fact that they're fairly commonly used in informal speech in a number of English dialects, and increasingly in writing. AnonMoos (talk) 23:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And they have been used since the days of Middle English.^[2][3][4] --Lambiam 14:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

174.95.83.56, do you see a reason for "yourself"? The so-called "singular you" is still construed as plural if a verb has to agree with it: "You alone committed this crime and now you're hiding behind legal technicalities." — Kpalion^(talk) 09:17, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

what does "borrowed under the logic" means?

Would you please tell me what does it mean?

"That which you call "self" serves as nothing more than a mask to cover your own being. In this era of ready made 'truths', "self" is just something used to preserve those positive emotions that you occasionally feel. Another possibility is that self is a concept you conveniently borrowed under the logic that it would endow you with some sense of strength..."

-- 5.117.121.153 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:47, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The citation is parsed strangely, If you divide the sentence by sub-clauses, it would rather be something like "Another possibility is that - self is a concept you borrowed - under the logic that - it would endow you with a sense of strength." 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The structure is the same as in this sentence: "Your gun is a penis substitute that you bought under the pretext it would protect your family." --Lambiam 20:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 21

Help identifying a vowel

What vowel is this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAVL61yeCYs&t=1s 2601:18A:C500:C00:9DEC:7A55:4A1:B65E (talk) 01:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a vowel that Odobeni can make, but humans can't, because Odobeni and human vocal tract anatomies are different, so there is no name in any human language for it.

Slightly more seriously, which of the several different vocalisations featured is the one you mean? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.73.64 (talk) 05:13, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the first vocalization in the video. The reason it is of interest to me is because, when I am asked "How are you today?", that vowel (at least I think it's a vowel) usually expresses how I feel better than any words I can think of. I am aware that a raspberry can be described as a voiceless linguolabial trill, and I was wondering if there was any similar way to describe the vowel which the Odobenus is shown producing. 71.235.101.14 (talk) 07:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It does sound something like a mid-back rounded vowel to me, although more guttural. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 11:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While we're at it, what vowel does this Loxodont produce? (See also Joseph Pujol.) --Lambiam 09:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that's a vowel? It sounds more like a consonant to me. Probably some kind of fricative. 2601:18A:C500:C00:38BE:DF84:5421:F1D5 (talk) 09:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 22

Voiceless vowels

Are voiceless vowels possible? Some sources say that they can exist, but I don't know any language where they appear. They could theoretically be marked in IPA with voiclessness ring ◌̥, such as in form ḁ. Thus, are they possible? 40bus (talk) 11:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have a section on that: Voicelessness#Voiceless_vowels_and_other_sonorants. —Amble (talk) 13:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whispering is voiceless, but it is still possible to clearly distinguish different whispered vowels. So there has to be something that makes a sound a vowel other than being voiced. --Lambiam 15:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vowels (in normal speech or singing) are formed entirely by mouth cavity shape, as modified by jaw and tongue positions. Voicing (by the vocal cords) contributes a pitch to a vowel (if it has one) but has nothing to do with the nature of the vowel. As you say, voiceless whispering still has perfectly recognizable vowels, as does speech or singing (some would dispute the latter term) using only the Vestibular folds aka "false vocal cords", which are not, or hardly, able to control pitch. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.73.76 (talk) 22:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The /h/ phoneme is often realized in English as the voiceless equivalent of the vowel that follows it. Our article is at voiceless glottal fricative, but it indicates that some consider it not really a fricative. To me "voiceless glottal fricative" does suggest a much more "phlegmy" sound than I think of /h/ as being. --Trovatore (talk) 22:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18th century German script

Can anyone help decipher an old map for a query at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Need_help_reading/transcribing/translating_a_plan-of-battle_diagram_caption? Please answer on that page. Alansplodge (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia article seems to be Kurrent... AnonMoos (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 23

Jeanine Áñez

File:Jeanine Áñez.ogg from corresponding article pronounces her name as "Yanine", yet other Spanish media (La Nacion, Telesur) pronounce it in French manner, like Jane. Is this a Bolivian Spanish feature or something else? Brandmeister^talk 18:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All 3 sources sound like "gee-a-NEEN-a" to me. 108.52.196.8 (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the first two sources have a y- [j-], and the second a j- [dʒ-] -sound. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 22:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how you're contrasting "the first two" with "the second", but to me, the first has a [j], the second has a [ʒ], and the third has a [dʒ], so all three are different. --Trovatore (talk) 06:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Though admittedly, as a set theorist and a C++ programmer, I probably should accept "the second" as coming after "the first two". --Trovatore (talk) 06:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Did you mean, "the zeroth two"? --Lambiam 12:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I might have mixed up "second" and "other" in haste... 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 11:05, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 24

Etymology of "bee"?

What is the etymology of the English language word "bee"? I find it strange that the English word is so short when the Finnish word is mehiläinen, roughly meaning "one associated with nectar". JIP | Talk 00:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's from antiquity.[5] --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As Bugs' reference indicates, the English word has decended with only minor modification from the original Proto-Indo-European name, perhaps 6,000+ years old. Finnish is of course not a PIE language, but I suspect also that the current Finnish word is an example of cultural Euphemism (I'm sure there's a specific term used for this, not Antonomasia although it's a form of that), where the "real" name of something is considered to have magical properties, and uttering it may, for example, summon the thing named, so that an indirect description, a type of kenning, is substituted.

Another example of this is bear, whose original PIE name – something like arkto – is frequently substituted by expressions referring to its brown colour ("bear", "bruin") or fondness for honey ("beowulf", i.e. "bee-wolf" – and now we're back to bees). As you will know, JIP, Finnish also has several such circumlocutions to refer to the bear without using the original "sacred" Uralic name, which I don't know – is it Karhu (now used for a beer I rather like)?

I suspect that, as for the bear, the bee must have been culturally significant to early Uralic speakers, and the original word was probably a shorter one, substituted by mehiläinen as a euphemism. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.73.76 (talk) 09:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "proper term" for what you're describing, might be noa-name. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 11:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also compare the other germanic languages: bi, bij, Biene, bý, Bei, bie. PiusImpavidus (talk) 09:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See also wikt:bee#Etymology_1 for the English, and wikt:mehiläinen#Etymology for the Finnish. Seems like the underlying proto-form was shorter -- consider Hungarian méh. :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 10:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So if that's right, the Proto-Uralic ancestors had a good short word for bee, mekše, which the Finns adapted to make a word for nectar, mehi, implying that nectar is bee-stuff. Then, needing a word for bee, they invented tarhamehiläinen, which parses as tarha mehi läinen, garden nectar inhabitant ... or "member of the garden nectar tribe". Card Zero (talk) 11:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So then somewhere on their trek from the Ural to the west, the speakers of Proto-Finnic lost the word for "bee" and had to make up a new one. Did they encounter no Apis mellifera on the way? However, the Estonian cognate mesilane is formed analogously, and so I presume that Estonian mesi is cognate with Finnish mehi-, which Wiktionary states is from earlier *meši. But, according again to Wiktionary, mesi is from Proto-Finno-Ugric *mete (honey), probably borrowed from Proto-Indo-European *médʰu (honey, mead). The role of Proto-Uralic *mekše, if any, is not clear-cut. --Lambiam 12:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mauritshuis pronunciation in English

Can anyone help me figure out the IPA transcription for this word in English? ÷seresin 14:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]