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.

February 6

More than once did I meet him in New York.

Is "More than once did I meet him in New York." a correct sentence? Or do I have only to say it in the natural word order like "I met him more than once in New York"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.178.232 (talk) 02:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"More than once did I meet him in New York" uses a slightly old-fashioned way of indicating rhetorical emphasis. As a basic non-emphatic sentence it's not correct. As an emphatic sentence, it would depend on the context whether it's stylistically appropriate... AnonMoos (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good way of writing in a novel, for variety, because straightforward sentences get boring. In a joke you might hear it. It wouldn't work for more than the occasional sentence, and it's not for normal speech. μηδείς (talk) 02:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the answer to your question above. Yes, it can be inverted, and you have done it correctly. But if you use it in speech, people will think you are being funny. Yoda from Star Wars talks this way. μηδείς (talk) 02:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think Yoda would render it something more along the lines of "more than once meet him in New York I did". Now that I hear that in my head, it sounds Irish, so maybe that's not quite right either. --Trovatore (talk) 09:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we had a Yoda speech article--maybe it got deleted. His article does mention in passing that his work order is a very inconsistent OSV. μηδείς (talk) 17:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Yoda Speak" redirects to Anastrophe... -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A term for clothes worn by patients in hospital

Is there a term for clothes worn by patients in hospital? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.178.232 (talk) 02:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hospital gown. μηδείς (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, if what is meant is those one-piece garments that are usually knee-length and with back fastenings. If something else is meant, then it may be better to use the more specific terms mentioned by Andrew below, or use a generic term like "hospital attire". — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pyjamas, dressing gown? AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His mind kept wandering, sometimes to whether... and sometimes to whether...

"His mind kept wandering, sometimes to whether his wife had recovered from her disease,and sometimes to whether his son had got back home safe and sound." Is the above sentence correct in its structure? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.178.232 (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine. μηδείς (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

grudge his apples

When I want to express that he is unwilling to give me some of his apples,can I say that he grudges his apples? Is the verb "grudge" a good choice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.178.232 (talk) 02:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The verb in this case is begrudge. "We were best friends, but he has begrudged me my every success since I beat him for the sports scholarship." "He lost the bet, and handed over the money begrudgingly." "My wife loves to bake, but she begrudges every last dollop of cookie dough I steal from the mixing bowl." μηδείς (talk) 02:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Try 'he begrudgingly gave me apples'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, or, "He begrudged me the apples."

Though grudge is not a verb to me, grudging(ly) is normal to me. I wonder why. —Tamfang (talk) 03:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"He begrudged me the apples" just doesn't sound right, while "He begrudgingly gave me the apples" sounds good. StuRat (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't you need to say "He begrudged having to give me the apples" or perhaps "He begrudged the apples he gave me"? In other words, I don't think you "begrudge to someone". Rather, you "begrudge something", possibly to someone! Note that all of these formulations suggest that, however unwillingly, the apples are given over. The OP needs to find another way of describing things if the result should be that the apples remain with their original owner! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.36.38.240 (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be unusual for someone to begrudge the apples. Generally, someone would begrudge the person or other circumstances that deprived him of the apples. Unless he's actually bearing a grudge against the apples for something they did to him.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

mottled with peeling paint or mottled by the peelings of paint?

Which of the following two sentences is correct? Or both? "The ceiling is mottled with peeling paint." and "The ceiling is mottled by the peelings of paint." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.178.232 (talk) 02:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first. μηδείς (talk) 03:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sun shines on me heavily.

Can I say "The sun shines on me heavily."? If not, then how about "The sun shines on me with strength"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.211.28 (talk) 07:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's OK as a metaphor if the sun feels oppressive (very rare where I live). Otherwise, why not say "strongly", "intensely" or just "brightly"? Dbfirs 08:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The use of heavily in this context seems odd to me, and I have never heard it. I would say "the sun shines brightly", or "the sun beats down on me" for stronger, oppressive sunshine. μηδείς (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would use "heavily" like this: "The sun bears down on me heavily", rather than "shines". Still awkward, but not as bad. "Shine" and "heavy" don't make sense together, but other metaphores and terms do work. Mingmingla (talk) 03:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

bank up the grave mound with earth

Is "bank up the grave mound with earth" a proper collocation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.211.28 (talk) 07:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that sounds OK except that if there is already a grave mound then the grave has already been banked up with earth. (To "bank up" is usually used for a less symmetric collection of earth than a grave mound, but perhaps I am being over-fussy?) Why not just say "augment the grave mound with earth"? Dbfirs 08:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because augment is an odd word to use with earthworks. —Tamfang (talk) 03:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A much more usual expression would be "shore up the burial mound with earth". μηδείς (talk) 02:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

a neighbor patient?

Can I say "a neighbor patient" if a patient stays next to me in a hospital ward? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.211.28 (talk) 07:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"A neighbouring patient" would be the usual way of expressing it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... or "patient in the next bed". Dbfirs 09:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

a word in English for the classmate who shares a desk with me

Is there a word in English for the classmate who shares a desk with me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.181.58 (talk) 07:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deskmate. Deor (talk) 10:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

eat congee or drink congee?

Which verb can collocate with "congee", "eat" or "drink"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.181.58 (talk) 07:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If congee is a type of porridge, then you would eat it. --Viennese Waltz 09:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas, like soup, you would apparently "drink" it in Chinese (喝, hē). Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Use of enlist language word 'clicks' in American action movies

In several English language American (USA) movies, characters traveling towards or viewing a distant location or object refer to it as being < a nr of > clicks away' e.g. 'its 20 clicks away'. What does this mean? is it just a deliberate attempt by script writers to be obscure, or does it have precise meaning like 'degrees' (of the compass) or 'radians'? 10:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)86.133.237.208 (talk)

Usually spelled klicks, it's military slang for kilometers. See the second paragraph of Kilometre. Deor (talk) 10:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Much-used by some science-fiction writers... AnonMoos (talk) 10:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the first time I (as an adolescent) read it was in The Forever War, and I thought it might mean light-seconds! —Tamfang (talk) 03:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is sometimes used in normal conversation in Canada - no particular sci-fi or military association. I can only picture old farmers saying it though, so maybe it's a generational thing, or a rural thing...I certainly wouldn't normally say it myself. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also seems to be used a lot by Australian cricket commentators when referring to the speed of balls bowled. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's also become a feature of casual speech in non-cricketing contexts. We hardly hear people saying "kilometres an/per hour" except in formal-ish settings. It's usually just (sounds like) "120 kays" or "120 klicks". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes heard in the UK among hillwalkers and mountaineers. Although we're clinging to our Imperial miles as hard as we can, we've had metric maps for about 40 years now, and it's much easier to calculate walking times by Naismith's rule in kilometres. Alansplodge (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign monarchs' names translated

I'm vetting the historical content of English-language subtitles for a documentary film that makes brief reference to King William I of the Netherlands as "King William the First." Thinking the Dutch spelling "Willem" might be more correct, I checked through the interwiki links here and found that most languages translate the name. Why is this? I'm accustomed to exonyms and localized spellings for foreign place names, but why aren't historical figures referred to by their "given" name as it appears in their native language? -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason, I think, is that European monarchs often have cosmopolitan identities; there is a lot of mixing among royal families, and they usually speak several languages. They also usually have common Christian names that are easily translated into other languages. There are exceptions, though, William II of Germany is usually "Kaiser Wilhelm" (perhaps because of anti-German sentiment); the Ivans of Russia are usually that, and not John (because Russia is seen as exotic, and the name equivalence is not as obvious). Lesgles (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think the tendency to translate the names of foreign monarchs is much less for modern (say, 20th century and after) monarchs than for earlier ones. Nowadays we speak of Juan Carlos of Spain and Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands, but if they had lived 200 years ago we would probably call them John Charles and William Alexander. I think the only monarch whose name is consistently translated nowadays is the Pope. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Into English, maybe. But check through the interwikis for Elizabeth II and you'll find plenty of Elizabeths - but also Alžběta, Isabel, Eilís, and Erzsébet. Even Prince George of Cambridge - the one born last year - is rendered as Jorge, Džordžs, György and Jerzy in different parts of Europe. I don't know why, beyond the vagaries of local custom. Kahastok talk 20:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

However, Džordžs is a phonetic transcription of the English plus a nominative case ending ("-s"), as opposed to a Latvian equivalent of the name (Jurģis or Juris). Latvian likes to adapt the spellings of foreign names on a phonetic basis, so that any Anglophone George is Džordžs in Latvian. This applies, to a greater or a lesser extent, for a few other Latin-written languages as well. --Theurgist (talk) 10:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In English today we tend to take the view that a person's name has one true version, in that person's native language, and any other versions are just translations of the true name. That hasn't always been the case, though, especially in times when (if anything) the most official rendering would be the Latinized one. Even in English, I find that books more than 30-40 years old translate names even in cases where it now seems unnatural or jarring to do so. This is true not only for royalty. In some other languages it's still perfectly standard to translate names. If you look at the interwiki links on a Wikipedia article for Vladimir Putin or Yakov Borisovich Zel'dovich you'll see very different-looking renderings for Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian. --Amble (talk) 16:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are many exceptions to Deborahjay's assertion; take for example Wilhelm II, whom I have never heard called William, although "Kaiser Bill" is still heard occasionally. Also Archduke Franz Ferdinand - "Francis-Ferdinand" would be decidedly odd. Despite what our article says, I have never heard of King Humbert I. It's true that we do say Nicholas II rather than Nikolay. Alansplodge (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert K. Massie regularly calls the Kaiser "William". I'm not sure if this is just following his usual practice of translating names, or if it's also because he's trying to emphasize the close relationships between the royals in the UK, Germany, and Russia. --Amble (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Maybe it's an American thing. He's never called "William" here, as far as I know.~~ Alansplodge (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Damn! I've just proved myself wrong. The Last Kaiser: William the Impetuous by Giles MacDonogh. Alansplodge (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VPs

What's the difference between a vice-president and a vice president? The first sentence of vice president makes it sound like a WP:ENGVAR difference, but both spellings seem to appear in American and Commonwealth contexts. For example, the Oxford English Dictionary quotes one American source saying "He is charged with having been long intriguing for the vice presidency," and another American source saying "Suppose there should be three candidates for the presidency, and two for the vice-presidency." Is it perhaps something like ax/axe, which just doesn't have one correct spelling? 2001:18E8:2:28CA:F000:0:0:7A27 (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It varies from dictionary to dictionary. British dictionaries apparently prefer vice-president for all usages. Many American dictionaries prefer vice president. This is likely due to the United States Constitution, which spells the title of the U.S. government officer without a hyphen. One American dictionary, Webster's New World Dictionary, has an entry for Vice President (capitalized), referring to the U.S. government officer, and a second entry for vice-president (hyphenated and lower-case), referring to all other persons with that title. Marco polo (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that without the hyphen, at a stretch one could interpret "vice president" as president of Vices. Mingmingla (talk) 01:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The use of hyphens evolves. Baseball was originally "base ball" and then "base-ball" before it became a single word. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"I looked up vice in the dictionary, and I wouldn't wanna be president of no such goins on !" - Granny on the Beverly Hillbillies. StuRat (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Translation request - Chinese

Hi, I was hoping that someone familiar with the appropriate Chinese dialect could please help clear up some of the the content at The Adventures of Little Carp. There are some raw characters, and since it's a kids' article, someone should check that the names are all translated properly (and that we're not saying stuff like, "Little Carp was portrayed by the famous actor Giant Butt".) Thanks in advance! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine to me, at least based on the Chinese version of the article. I don't know what it means for a name to be translated properly--isn't one name as good as another? For example, I have no idea why 肥鲶鱼 (literally "fat catfish") is translated as Bogart, but it doesn't seem better or worse than Steven or George. --Bowlhover (talk) 02:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Text

Hi,
Somebody dumped a massive amount of text in Russian (or another Cyrillic based language, but from the context of the message I suspect Russian) on my user talk. Google translate gave me a nonsensical result, so (as a non-Rusophone) could somebody please translate for me? Thanks!
Sincerely,
Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be better for someone to do it as a Rusophone? —Tamfang (talk) 03:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Russognostic or Russolector is quite enough here.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 11:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the text. Раздувание ажиатажа вокруг национальности (наследственности, ДНК, религии,образе мышления) руководителя страны это неконструктивно. Грузины или Китайцы, евреи или чюкчи каждая нация имеет свои национальные особенности заложенные в наследственном аппарате (ДНК). Китайцы , предположительно, наследственно склонны к юмору , грузины к мужской гордости, а евреи к распознаванию чужих мыслей и желаний, впрочем , так же как и арабы, что позволяет удачно вести политические переговоры , торговлю , продавать и покупать выгодно, 1kg Ferei pour 225,- Euro. Для правильной оценки личьных качеств важнее воспитание. Политический лидер США , -прекрасный пример того .

Google Translate isn't as nonsensical to me. I get the impression that the other guy's saying that it's a bad idea to build your idea of cultural differences around nationality or the personality of the country's leaders. He then goes on to reject a few ideas, such as Jews being able to read other men's personalities or Chinese being inherently more funny. He concludes by using Barack Obama as an example of why личьных (privacy? The word's in the article ru:Музей личных коллекций, which Google renders "Museum of Private Collections") is as important as education. Nyttend (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My knowledge of the Russian language is limited, but I found these clues in Wiktionary. Please see under "Declension" or "Conjugation".

wikt:вокруг ("around"), wikt:национальность ("ethnicity"), wikt:ДНК ("DNA"), wikt:религия ("religion"), wikt:образе#Russian ("image"), wikt:мышление ("thinking"), wikt:руководитель ("leader"), wikt:страна#Russian ("country"), wikt:это ("this"), wikt:грузин ("Georgian"), wikt:или ("or"), wikt:китаец ("Chinese"), wikt:еврей ("Hebrew"), wikt:каждый ("each"), wikt:нация ("nation"), wikt:иметь ("to possess"), wikt:свой#Russian (reflexive possessive), wikt:национальный ("national"), wikt:особенность ("characteristic"), wikt:в ("in", etc.), wikt:аппарат ("device"), wikt:предположительно "supposedly"), wikt:склонный ("inclined, addicted"), wikt:к ("toward"), wikt:юмор "humour"), wikt:мужской ("masculine"), wikt:гордость ("pride"), wikt:а#Russian ("but, and"), wikt:чужой ("foreign"), wikt:мысль ("idea"), wikt:и ("and"), wikt:желание#Russian ("desire"), wikt:впрочем ("by the way, however"), wikt:так же "likewise"), wikt:как#Russian ("as"), wikt:араб ("Arab"), wikt:что ("that", conjunction), wikt:позволять ("allow"), wikt:удачно (search: "fortunately"), wikt:вести ("to conduct"), wikt:политический ("political"), wikt:переговоры ("negotiation"), wikt:торговля ("commerce"), wikt:продавать ("to sell"), wikt:покупать ("to buy"), wikt:выгодный ("profitable"), wikt:для#Russian ("for"), wikt:правильный ("correct", adjective), wikt:оценка ("valuation"), wikt:качество ("quality"), wikt:важный ("important"), wikt:воспитание ("education"), wikt:лидер#Russian ("leader"), wikt:США ("USA"), wikt:прекрасный ("splendid"), wikt:пример#Russian ("example"), wikt:тот#Russian ("that", pronoun)

—Wavelength (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

личьных качеств seems to mean "of personal qualities". I think the last two sentences are "For a proper evaluation of personal qualities it's an important lesson. The political leader of the USA is a perfect example." By the way, it is not clear to me that the author of this is rejecting the idea that personality traits are connected to genetics. It all hinges on the meaning of предположительно, which according to my dictionary means "hypothetically" or "presumably". I'm not sure that we can trust Google Translate's "supposedly" to imply the author's skepticism. Really we need someone with a good grasp of Russian to say for sure. What time is it in Australia? Jack of Oz may be able to help. Marco polo (talk) 02:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, we have fluent Russian speakers on this desk. You don't need to use Google Translate or post 100 links to dictionary definitions. A fluent speaker can give you a much more accurate translation with 1% the effort. --Bowlhover (talk) 02:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. User:Ymblanter notified. Nyttend (talk) 04:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My (non-professionsl) translation: Getting too much hype about ethnicity (heritage, DNA, religion, or the way to think) of a head of a state is not really constructive. Georgians or Chinese, Jews or Chukchi, every nation has its own national features programmed in the DNA code. Presumably Chinese tend to be humorous, Georgians tend to be machist,<--! No such word used, but the context is apparent--> and Jews are good in guessing of thought and desires of others, similarly to Arabs, which let them be successfull in political negociations, in trade, to buy and to sell with profit, 1kg Ferei pour 225,- Euro. To evaluate personal qualities properly one needs education.<--! Not sure what is exactly meant there.--> The US political leader is a good example of this.

Just to add that there are a lot of spelling errors in the text. The meaning is not entirely clear to me (they are obviosly trying to prove some point), but I hope there was some context to it which makes it more clear.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is 225 € too expensive or too cheap for 1 kg of Ferei? I didn't know that lamps are sold by weight.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 11:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 7

wall or walls of the room when I mean the four sides?

Should I say wall or walls of the room when I mean the four sides? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.210.58 (talk) 03:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Walls. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you have a circular room, in which case it would be 'wall'. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the OP specifically referred to four sides. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a room with four walls, and a troll in the room, how many trolls do you have? KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The bed is propped up by bricks.

In "The bed is propped up by bricks.", is the verbal phrase "prop up" appropriate here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.178.134 (talk) 04:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence is fine. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

lift one foot onto the other knee

Does "lift one foot onto the other knee" make sense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.178.134 (talk) 04:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds a bit odd, but the meaning is clear. (Who do you know who can put their foot on their "non-other" knee?) Clarityfiend (talk) 05:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You could simply say he crossed his leg (singular). That's considered the masculine way of doing it. Strange I can't find any good links for this. μηδείς (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"crossed his leg" sounds weird and unidiomatic to me. Google Ngram supports that "crossed his legs" is far more common in English [1]. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that while "crossed his legs" is the more usual phrase, it's also very often taken to mean sitting with ankles crossed as is considered the feminine way to do this. I suppose I should have said in full, "he crossed his right leg over his left." Or you could say he lifted his ankle to his knee. I also don't find anything wrong at all with the original "lift one foot onto the other knee". I think the problem is that while we have unambiguous terms, like arms folded, ankles crossed, half-lotus, arms akimbo, etc., "legs crossed" is ambiguous. μηδείς (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer "opposite knee" rather than "other knee". "Other knee" sounds as if you were just talking about one knee. --50.100.193.107 (talk) 00:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...where by just you mean 'recently', yes? —Tamfang (talk) 03:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would use a different verb: "Place the [R/L] foot on the [L/R] knee, with the sole of the foot perpendicular to the floor." The "lift" is a tacit part of the action.-- Deborahjay (talk) 12:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some indication (I can't find any very reliable-looking websites, but see this) that this is called a "figure-four leg lock", at least among people who study body language. — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

difference between rather than and instead of

What is the difference between rather than and instead of? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.178.134 (talk) 04:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than implies a definite preference. Instead of does not (there might be a preference, but it is not saying so). So I used A rather than B means that I might have used either, but made a choice to use A. I used A instead of B means that I might have used B, but actually used A, without specifying why: perhaps by choice, or perhaps because B was inconvenient, or not available, or didn't fit. --ColinFine (talk) 09:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He is sleeping with the wings of his nose quivering.

Is the sentence "He is sleeping with the wings of his nose quivering" acceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.178.134 (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only in (bad) poetry. "Nostrils" is the more expected word. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, not even in bad poetry, lol. It would only work in absurdist literature. μηδείς (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

recurrent crow(or crows) of roosters

In the phrase "recurrent crow of roosters",should "crow" be plural? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.178.134 (talk) 05:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say "crowing". Clarityfiend (talk) 05:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is one more apple in his basket than in mine.

Can I say "There is one more apple in his basket than in mine." or "There is one apple more in his basket than in mine"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.178.134 (talk) 05:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence sounds better, though the second is acceptable. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

a cluster of houses

Can I say "a cluster of houses"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.178.134 (talk) 05:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Dbfirs 09:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but it is a rather uncommon usage, in my experience. "A group of houses" would be more common, or if the group has an identity of its own, "hamlet" or "village" might be used, depending on context. DES ^(talk) 17:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A cluster of houses would make sense if you were emphasizing that in a large area without houses there were a small group of homes clustered together. It is a matter of contrast. μηδείς (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

fish for a sweet potato in the crack of the ridge

Is there anything wrong with the phrase "fish for a sweet potato in a crack of the ridge"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.178.134 (talk) 06:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea what it might mean. What is the context? Dbfirs 09:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like "grammatically correct nonsense" to me. It might be instructions to someone in fantasy land on how to get food. The only comment I would make is that "in a crack of the ridge" implies the crack belonging to the ridge - perhaps "a crack in the ridge" would be more appropriate, or "a crack off the ridge" if the crack is located near or comes from the ridge. -- Q Chris (talk) 09:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does no one else get the impression that 222 is just trolling us? It's very amusing, but still... Adam Bishop (talk) 11:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did wonder about that, but the IP address geolocates to Beijing in China (as does 114.249.211.28), so I assumed that the questioner was someone who was learning English (to a high level of competence) and was checking idioms. Dbfirs 12:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Dbfirs. These two IP's might do better to post there questions together in one thread, once a day. But they seem like a reasonable attempt to understand idiom, and were not getting any other behavior that would raise flags. μηδείς (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add F and I'm groping for a yam in a corner of the icebox. Jim.henderson (talk) 18:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems this person might be removing dingleberries. μηδείς (talk) 03:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does this make sense? and should I add some stuff more?

"German is used in some official documents, which are accompanied by the Dutch versions." Should I also put this as "Dutch versions of official documents" or is it fine already as it is? Alevero987 (talk) 09:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK as it stands but it sounds a bit awkward to me. I would go with something like "German is used in some official documents, accompanied by their Dutch versions." --Viennese Waltz 13:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is meant here? If the two languages appear in parallel in the same document, I'd delete "which are" and "versions". If for every official document in German there has to be a Dutch version, is the German version really 'official'? —Tamfang (talk) 04:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about this? "German is used in official documents, accompanying their Dutch version" Is this one okay? Alevero987 (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about "accompanying the Dutch text"? I'd prefer "Some official documents are bilingual in Dutch and German," if that happens to be accurate. —Tamfang (talk) 08:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But they must know that the German language is "used" in official documents, I wonder if this would be good enough already? "German is used in official documents, accompanying their Dutch version" Alevero987 (talk) 08:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leila Fadel

When Leila Fadel does her outro after her stories on NPR, she pronounces her last name as something like "Faldzen", even though all the other hosts clearly use the last name "Fadel". Is this a quirk in Arabic names, or is something else going on here? 12.217.87.18 (talk) 13:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fadel is "فاضل" in Arabic, so the D is not a D but a Ḍād. See that article for various ways to pronounce it - but it can sound more like a Z in English. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for hearing /n/ for the final consonant, /l/ is unstable for many speakers in certain varieties of Arabic when it appears in an environment with emphatic consonants (in this case, Ḍād as Adam points out), sometimes sounding like ɫ or assimilating to something approximating n. Arabic sounds are hard to hear for people not familiar with the language.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 01:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 8

Any difference between "Don't you know it?" & "Do you not know it?"?

Is there any difference between "Don't you know it?" & "Do you not know it?"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.221.150.157 (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no difference of literal of meaning. "Do you not know it?" has a contrastive emphasis. "Don't you know it?" is a straight-out simple question. But if you asked someone "Do you know her opinion?" And they hesitated, "Well..." you might then say, "Well, do you not know it?" Otherwise the uncontracted form is very formal and old fashioned and would not be found in normal speech or even most writing. μηδείς (talk) 03:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why "Somebody said" and the quotation in separate lines?

In novels, I often find "Somebody said" and his or her quotation in separate lines,but I don't know why.For example, Linton cried out:

   "You can't do it!"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.221.150.157 (talk) 03:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is the formatting above what you intended? Can you refer to a common edition of a common book available in English speaking countries that gives an example of this? Diaog is often given on alternating lines without the speaker identified after the first line:

John said, "Are you coming?"

"Of course," Mary replied.

"Then hurry up."

"Why, are you afraid your wife is about to walk in on us?"

But I cannot think of a common format where "somebody" and what they say are on separate lines. μηδείς (talk) 03:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can "cannot but do sth." & "cannot help doing sth." be used interchangeably?

Can "cannot but do sth." & "cannot help doing sth." be used interchangeably? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.221.150.157 (talk) 03:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are almost identical in meaning, but they don't have the same connotation. You might say "I cannot but tell the truth, I don't love you any more." to say something you wished you didn't have to say. "I cannot help my midnight-snacking habit" means it is truly involuntary, out of one's control entirely. You wouldn't say, "I cannot help telling you I don't ove you anymore" unless it was untrue, and you did still love the person, but you had some psychological disorder that forced you to say such things. μηδείς (talk) 03:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Cannot but" has a sense of "only" that "cannot help doing" does not have. "I cannot but eat at midnight" would mean to me that at midnight I can only eat, and "I cannot eat but at midnight" would mean that I could eat only at midnight. I think this ties into a broader construction with a verb+but - "I have but three" ("I only have three") or "I didn't make it but eight miles" ("I only made it eight miles"). It's a tricky little construction, now that I think about it - the placement of "but" is very important. I have not done a formal study, but I think that sometimes this form might sound a little archaic, formal, or dialectical - I don't think everybody uses it.Falconus^{p t c} 04:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

in the hot sun or under the hot sun

Which is correct:in the hot sun or under the hot sun? Or both? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.221.150.157 (talk) 03:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both. There's the famous quote, "Only mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday son." I don't know its origin. μηδείς (talk) 03:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Give credit to Noël Coward for "Mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun". I don't know about "Only mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday son." :) Bielle (talk) 04:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The mipselling's all part of my campaign to ruin the ref desks and drive away users. :) μηδείς (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really? What does a mip sell for these days?--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Good one. μηδείς (talk) 03:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You left off the intro and a comma: "Only mad dogs... I say, only mad dogs and Englishman go out in the midday, son." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is "go into the night on her way back home" good English?

Is "go into the night on her way back home" good English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.221.150.157 (talk) 03:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. And "she goes into the night on her way back home" is no better. The verb doesn't work. "She walked/drove off..." or "she walked/drove away into the night" is good. μηδείς (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are assuming past tense... It could be that she is going into the night on her way back home, or that she routinely goes into the night on her way back home. These sentences sound a little odd to me (I don't like the verb "to go" - it strikes me as imprecise), but there is no inherent reason that the sentences have to be in the past tense. Falconus^{p t c} 03:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, tense is irrelevant, I made no such assumption or implication, and the answer is the same in the present. The verb is the problem, and that's exactly what I said. μηδείς (talk) 05:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you read this as part of a longer phrase or sentence it makes sense. As in "She chose to go into the night on her way back home". So yes it is good English but needs something else to make it clear. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a point that needs to be made clear. Most short, not-entirely-malformed phrases can be made into something that makes sense, if put into the right context. I wonder if we have an article on that. μηδείς (talk) 23:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I think this is part of a line from a rock ballad? —Tamfang (talk) 04:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A combination of large album collection and a misspent youth? μηδείς (talk) 01:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And yet I wouldn't expect to find such a line in my collection. —Tamfang (talk) 08:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She clapped her hands: "That's great!"

Can I use a colon after "She clapped her hands" to introduce what she said? For example,"She clapped her hands: "That's great!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.221.150.157 (talk) 03:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. Use either a semicolon or a full stop (i.e., period). A colon introduces a list or an example, such as "There are three answers: a, b, and c" or "Read the following:" μηδείς (talk) 03:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He greeted me, "Good morning."

In the following sentence, He greeted me, "Good morning." is the comma used correctly to introduce the quotation? Or should a colon be used instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.221.150.157 (talk) 04:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct. Please stop asking the same question. μηδείς (talk) 05:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The apples sold away turned into money.

Is there anything wrong with the sentence "The apples sold away turned into money."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.221.150.157 (talk) 04:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a normal phrase. 'The apples were sold for money' or 'the apples were sold in exchange for money', or 'we made a profit on the apples sold' would work. μηδείς (talk) 04:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):I think it would be better to say "The sale of the apples turned a profit". If you mean that literally (the apple turns into gold or something), consider "The apples that were sold turned into money." Falconus^{p t c} 04:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's horrible. The apples that were sold did not "turn into money". Unless you mean the buyer found the fruit he was holding turned into coins. μηδείς (talk) 05:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I meant. I said, "If you mean that literally (the apple turns into gold or something)". I offered two suggestions. One was for what I thought the OP probably meant and the other was a literal interpretation of what the OP said in case I was wrong. Falconus^{p t c} 12:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of a period after profit made me think "if you mean that literally" went with the words preceding that phrase, not the words following. μηδείς (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I fixed it. Falconus^{p t c} 00:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of items and punctuation

"except for the consents, approvals, authorizations or other actions by, and filings with and notifications to, the Office of the Comptroller"

This is from a corporate law document so I assume the punctuation is correct but I'm confused by what rules of grammar govern the punctuation. Like "and filings with and notifications to" doesn't seem intuitive. Isn't this a list of 3 groups? Gullabile (talk) 08:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a case of a serial comma being omitted. That's usual e.g. in German (you always append the last element with just the "und" or "oder"), but optional in English. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on which comma you're talking about. I think "filings with and notifications to" is one unit, and "consents, approvals, authorizations or other actions by" is another, and both have "the Office of the Comptroller" as the object of the preoposition. I typically use the serial comma, so I would put one after "authorizations", but not after "filings with". If I've understood the intended structure.

Of course, when it gets that convoluted, it's ordinarily better to reword. --Trovatore (talk) 09:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see it as two units but now that makes sense and is clear. But about rewording. How could a sentence like this be reworded and still have the style used by the corporate bar? Gullabile (talk) 09:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't ask me. I feel your pain. But to me, that's like saying, "how can I get rid of this headache, but keep hitting myself on the head?" --Trovatore (talk) 10:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It might be more technically correct to omit the commata after by and to, but the first one helps alert the reader that the noun governed by by comes later – after the next comma. —Tamfang (talk) 04:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

on the river beach

Is "on the river beach" acceptable in English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.210.200 (talk) 08:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but needs context. So you might ask "Where is the archaeological dig that found the ancient footprints?" to which the answer "On the river beach." would be short but acceptable.--TammyMoet (talk) 13:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In English, "beach" is usually reserved for fairly wide expanses of sand/gravel/rock with limited vegetation; if you're describing a situation where people are frolicking at the grassy edge of a river, you'd probably say something like "on the river bank" instead. Matt Deres (talk) 13:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In British English, "foreshore" would be more commonly used for the margin of a river. Alansplodge (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a reference for my statement above - Metal Detecting and Digging on the Thames Foreshore. Alansplodge (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"River beach" is not an idiomatic phrase in English. It would be understood, but sound odd. As Matt mentions, the normal term is riverbank. One might say the riverbank formed a beach, or on the beach on the riverbank. μηδείς (talk) 18:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To me, a bank is steep and a beach is not, so they don't go together well. —Tamfang (talk) 04:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is another word that has two linguistic senses. Google gives

the land alongside or sloping down to a river or lake.
"willows lined the bank"
synonyms: edge, side, shore, coast, embankment, bankside, levee, border, verge, boundary, margin, rim, fringe

so one could say either, "there was an airplane runway along the riverbank", or "he fell off the riverbank to his death" with equal success and two different images of a flat or a steep edge. μηδείς (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, "River Beach" sounds very poetic, and if you do a search on it, you will find it is used as the proper name of pubs, marinas, housing developments, and a school in the UK. It would be a great name for an actress. μηδείς (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my youth, we would go swimming off beachlike sandbars in the Mississippi River (see the last image in the Sandbar article). I suppose one could call them (river) beaches, but no one ever did—they were just called sandbars. Deor (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are also the artificial Paris-Plages, but I agree that "river beach" is unidiomatic (though understandable). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What a taste

Can "What a taste!" be used to express the idea of "How delicious!"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.210.200 (talk) 09:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. It sounds very odd. "How tasty!" would work. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think "What a taste!" is an OK English sentence, but it could have either a positive or a negative meaning, depending on how it's spoken. Seeing the written sentence in isolation (without surrounding context) might incline towards a negative interpretation... AnonMoos (talk) 12:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like something you might hear in a restaurant kitchen where a chef cooks five different versions of a sauce and the manager tries them and one is so good he exclaims, "What a taste!" I agree w/AnonMoos it makes sense, and with Clarity that it would be an odd thing to say in a normal circumstance like eating at a friend's house. μηδείς (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's structurally OK, and, as AnonMoos says, could conceivably mean either good or bad, but I agree with Clarityfiend. A chef whose first language was not English might use it to mean "good"; a chef whose first language was English would more likely just say "Wow" (or "Fantastic", or "Mmmm"), followed by a more analytic description for a good taste, and either spitting noises or just "No" for a bad sauce. For some reason I'm now thinking of a comedy Italian chef saying "Aaai, what a taaeste" in an exaggerated Italian accent. Chefs aside, "what a taste" wouldn't really be used in normal English to mean either good or bad unless for something very extreme, say a raw chilli. Tonywalton ^Talk 01:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with "Wow" or "Fantastic" or "Mmmm". I was going to give the example "Mmmm, this is great. You have to give me the recipe". μηδείς (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, an English-speaker might approvingly say "What flavor!" (no article). —Tamfang (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"What a flavour" sounds more appealing than "what a taste", in the same way that "what an aroma" sounds more appealing than "what a smell".--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A very long time ago I lived in Germany for a while (long enough ago that I could visit the Berlin Wall). German people I met there, who spoke better English than I, said that one of the most difficult aspects of the English language was that English often has several words for a single thing that look to be functionally identical in terms of dictionary definitions but are subtly different in terms of the way they're actually used. "Aroma/smell" (and odo(u)r) are a good example of that. Oh, and "fragrance". And "perfume", and "scent". I have six words in English there where, German, for instance has two (Duft or Geruch). Tonywalton ^Talk 23:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a point I bring up when mentioning that English is the world's best language. μηδείς (talk) 01:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A German-English dictionary also gives Aroma, Parfüm, Gestank, Wohlgeruch.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 19:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By Granthar's Spatula, what a taste! MChesterMC (talk) 10:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 9

He bent over the desk sleeping.

How to describe precisely the idea of "He bent over the desk sleeping"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.171.98 (talk) 03:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He slept with his head on the desk. He laid his head on the desk and slept. He bent over the desk, dreaming of other ways to say it. —Tamfang (talk) 04:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would go with "slumped over the desk" which gets plenty of Google results. Alansplodge (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In how many cases is that not the end of a sentence that begins "The victim was found"? —Tamfang (talk) 08:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"He bent over the desk sleeping" means he was asleep, then he bent over the desk. You may have meant to say "he was sleeping bent over the desk" which describes the position without commenting on how he got in that position. μηδείς (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You could just say, "He was asleep at his desk." This usually means the person is sitting on a chair next to the desk with his head and arms on the desk. If you wish to refer to some other posture, then you would need to describe it more fully. — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

as thin as a rake, reduced to a shadow

To describe how thin a patient is, can "as thin as a rake" or "reduced to a shadow" be used? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.171.98 (talk) 03:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking whether a doctor would say it? No, they'd say "emaciated". (Are you writing a novel?) "Thin as a rake" is somewhat stale: you wouldn't say it if you intend any originality. "Reduced to a shadow" could describe weight loss but it could also describe a loss of energy resulting from mental trauma. —Tamfang (talk) 04:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thin as a rail is more likely. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BB's "thin as a rail" is not common in the UK, where "thin as a rake" is still used. Dbfirs 09:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Just a bag of bones' is another phrase we would use. Bear in mind, as Tamfang correctly points out, 'emaciated' would be the word used by a doctor, and none of these idioms. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thin as a rake doesn't necessarily suggest the contrast that would probably be intended in reference to a patient losing weight due to an illness. In that context, reduced to a shadow of his former self or wasting away [to nothing] might be used colloquially (but would not be used by a doctor as clinical terms).--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"She looked like broken glass wrapped in celophane" is a great phrase. μηδείς (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

relatives

Does one's wife belong to one's relatives? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.235.46 (talk) 10:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what you mean. If you mean in the normal sense of English possessives (e.g. my sister-in-law), then yes. If you mean as an actual possession, then not in most modern societies.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) She doesn't actually belong to them, in the sense that they would own her, but she becomes a relative to them. So, my wife is my brother's sister-in-law, my mother's daughter-in-law, and for my wife they are her 'brother-in-law' and 'mother-in-law' respectively. She is obviously not a biological relative (unless you are into that, and your jurisdiction permits it), but she would become a relative. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase belong to doesn't only mean "be the property of", it also means "be a member of the set of". I interpret the question to mean "Does one's wife count as being one's relative?" to which the answer is yes. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a word that has more than one linguistic sense, either only biological relatives, or family in general. If you said "the relatives gathered to celebrate the wedding", it would be clear from context you were not only including biological relations. If you need to distinguish, the normal way is to contrast "blood relatives" to "relatives by marriage" or kin versus in-laws. μηδείς (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My father's brother is my uncle, whose wife is my aunt (not "aunt-in-law") even though she's not a blood relatives. Anything beyond that, though, is pretty much unambiguously labeled an in-law. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Old English had four kin terms to describe to describe aunts and uncles, depending on whether the parent's brother or sister was the blood relation; eam, modrige, faedera, fathu. See this chart. People do say "my uncle and his wife" which implies to me a second or late marriage, after the niece or nephew is grown. μηδείς (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis -- that's an example of a "Sudanese" type of kinship terminology (at least in the first ascending generation), as pointed out on that link. It actually has more to do with distinguishing father's side vs. mother's side, rather than aunt and uncle by blood vs. aunt and uncle by marriage. Among modern European languages, Swedish has a similar system which distinguishes between farbror and morbror (father's brother vs. mother's brother)... AnonMoos (talk) 21:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have a habit of calling my nephew my sisterson after Tolkien, which he likes. μηδείς (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, people even say "my father and his wife" and "my father and his son" when they see their father's new family so rarely that they don't think of those people as their own stepmother and half-brother. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My father's wife (they married when I was about 30) got a funny look when I once used the word stepmother. Perhaps you have to live under the same roof to be a step-parent. —Tamfang (talk) 08:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He was lost to cancer.

Is "He was lost to cancer." acceptable as an alternative way of saying "He died of cancer."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.235.46 (talk) 10:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's an acceptable euphemism, a bit like saying he passed away instead of he died.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You frequently hear "lost the fight (or battle) against cancer". This article says that the phrase can suggest that the victim didn't fight hard enough and that "Many oncologists and cancer patients have been pushing in recent years for a change in the well-meant, but often misguided words and phrases that have become ingrained in the cancer lexicon". Alansplodge (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly related, we hear things like "We lost Dad 7 years ago". Which sort of summons up the spirit of Lady Bracknell ("To lose one parent may be regarded as a misfortune. To lose both looks like carelessness"). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna write a will that cuts out anyone who reports that I died "after a courageous battle with" anything other than an armed gang. —Tamfang (talk) 08:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most people die during such battles, not after they have finished. The battles continue, even if your life doesn't. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

difference between a wheat field and wheat fields

"Field" often takes the plural form. Should I say "He has a large wheat field." or "He has large wheat fields."? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.235.46 (talk) 10:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. Does he own more than one field?--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you get a girlfriend and go out more often, you would be able to ask her. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, snap. — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Cat" also often takes the plural form, as do "house", "violin" and "nematode". Jeffro77 has explained why. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The OP's question is perfectly valid. One says, the woods surrounded the farm to the north and west, or the waters between Cuba and Florida are treacherous, without implying there is more than one wood or water. The fields stretch off into the distance is the same, an indefinite statement. The field stretches off into the distance makes the definite claim there is one single humongous field defined by some single fact. That's possible, but uncommon. μηδείς (talk) 19:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Dictionary

Hi. Is there an equivalent to the Urban Dictionary in Mandarin? Thanks Duomillia (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't quite what you asked for, but Chinasmack's glossary is an equivalent to the Urban Dictionary for Mandarin. Does that help? Matt's talk 21:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you read Mandarin? If so, googling "中文urbandictionary" gives a lot of promising results. For example, this page points to 玩转新词（http://xinci.so/）. The author of the page says he also uses Baidu and Baidu Baike to find out about slang, which is what I typically do. --140.180.246.0 (talk) 02:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you call the person who...

This question is a little vague, but any suggestions here might help the person who sends it to me: What do you call the person who commentates on public events, such as Independence Day, Republic Day or any ceremony? Thanks if you have a suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.106.118.196 (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about the Master of ceremonies? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean people (from the news/media) actually at the event, holding microphones and dressed for the weather, like they do for the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade in NY? "Commentator" would be fine. I don't know if there's a more specific or an industry word for them. μηδείς (talk) 19:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reporter would do, too. —Tamfang (talk) 08:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think "parade announcer" could mean either the local loudspeaker announcer or the TV commentator. Can't think of an unambiguous phrase. AnonMoos (talk) 01:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 10

doggy speculation

The origin of the English word dog is unknown (though a speculative etymology is given there). It was first used for English mastiffs.

From reading etymologies of English place-names, many of which contain an abbreviated Old English personal name, a hypothesis occurs to me (as it must have occurred to others) that maybe the breed was named for a breeder called Docga; though I haven't come across such a name, it fits the style – as far as I can tell.

So: Who knows enough Old English to say whether Docga could indeed be the short form of an OE personal name? —Tamfang (talk) 08:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I beleive, with that spelling, it would have been pronounced like modern English 'dodger', so I doubt it is related to 'dog'. 'Dogga' was the word I have seen often used as its etymology, and it was quite simply a type of dog and not all of them. This would be like calling all dogs a 'Dachshund' or something. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KT, read the etymology in the article the OP links (which the OED will corroborate – this is something I've previoously taken an interest in): the derivation of 'dog' from OE 'docga' is not in doubt. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 14:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting theory, but it seems unlikely. According to the OED, dog "belongs to a set of words of uncertain or phonologically problematic etymology with a stem-final geminated g in Old English which is not due to West Germanic consonant gemination and therefore does not undergo assibilation. These words form both a morphological and a semantic group, as they are usually Old English weak masculine nouns and denote animals; compare frog n.1, hog n.1, pig n.1, stag n.1, Old English sugga (see haysugge n.) [i.e., a hedge-sparrow], Old English wicga (see earwig n.), and perhaps teg n. [i.e., a yearling sheep.]" So a derivation of just dog from a breeder's name would be problematic, as it would not account for the other animal terms. John M Baker (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed here three years ago. The Georgian word for dog is dzaghli and the Basque word is Txakurra whence Spanish chacorro > cachorro. Sardinian has giágaru (Campidanese) 'hunting dog', Corsican ghjacaru, and Albanian has zagar 'hunting dog'. This may hint at some substrate language and or wanderwort source for the word dog. μηδείς (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russian has the word дог (dog), but it refers specifically to the Great Dane. Their general word for a dog is собака (sobaka), which sounds like a non-rhotic sa-barker (how appropriate). Back when the British tennis player Sue Barker was a competitor, whenever my then father-in-law (whose English was rudimentary) heard her name mentioned, he thought they were calling her a bitch. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the association with hunting dogs seems widespread. μηδείς (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of word

This question refers to the following article: Capital punishment in Texas#Capital offenses. In this sub-section of the article, the fifth bullet point lists one of the definitions for capital offenses in Texas. It states: While incarcerated for capital murder, the victim is an employee of the institution or the murder must be done "with the intent to establish, maintain, or participate in a combination or in the profits of a combination". The first part of that statement essentially refers to an incident in which a death row prisoner kills a prison guard. What does the second part of that statement refer to? What could the word "combination" possibly mean in this context? My hunch tells me that (perhaps) the word "combination" is some sort of odd substitute for the word "prison gang" (or just "gang"), but even that doesn't quite make sense. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The mention of profit suggests that they are referring to (criminal) money-making enterprises involving more than one prisoner. Marco polo (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a "conspiracy to commit murder" would be the normal term. Note that the conspirators don't need to be in a gang together or have any other association than to plan the murder together, and, in this case, plan to profit from it in some way. StuRat (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Yes, that all makes sense. But, the statutes (state laws) of Texas are, clearly, legal in nature. Why wouldn't they use a more "legalistic" word, such as "conspiracy" or "conspirators"? Why would they specifically use such an odd and "non-legal" word as "combination"? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a very old law ? We'd have to research it's origins to figure out the strange word choice. Maybe a non-lawyer wrote it, and the lawyers who reviewed it thought it was good enough, and didn't want to insult the author, so let it stand ? StuRat (talk) 18:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. But, it has to be post-1976 ... so, it's not that old. Seems a very odd choice of words. Also, I believe that only lawyers draft laws, no? The legislature of Texas must have lawyers on staff who review all bills, laws, etc. I am sure they must even draft them, as well. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See combination. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that link. So, it is a synonym for "conspiracy". I never heard of the word "combination" in this context. And I am quite surprised that the drafter of the law didn't simply use the word "conspiracy". Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may be synonymous in general speech - the OED has examples of this usage dating back to the 16th Century - but there may be a subtle legal distinction. According to our conspiracy (criminal) article "under most U.S. laws, for a person to be convicted of conspiracy not only must he or she agree to commit a crime, but at least one of the conspirators must commit an overt act (the actus reus) in furtherance of the crime." In other words, for there to be a conspiracy it's not enough for two conspirators to make a plan, they have to take some step towards carrying out that plan. It may therefore be the case that the word "combination" was chosen to make it clear that in this instance there is no need to demonstrate there was an overt act in order to determine that there is a combination. By the way, unless I am misreading the law, the phrase does not in fact mean "conspiracy to murder", it means murder in order to establish, maintain, or participate in a "combination", which I would understand here as "joint criminal enterprise". So I'd suggest your intial understanding that this relates to murders that are carried out as part of the activities of a criminal gang is spot on. The wording "the intent to establish, maintain, or participate in a combination or in the profits of a combination" is identical to that in Section 71.02 of the Texas Penal Code [2] which is, as the reference I've posted shows, is concerned with organized crime and "street gang" activity. Valiantis (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A-ha, thanks. I figured there must be some logical reason that the drafters would specifically use such an odd choice of words. So, just let me get this straight. You are saying that a "conspiracy" requires two components: the planning plus some overt act in furtherance of that plan. In contrast, a "combination" requires only one component: namely, the planning (without necessarily requiring the overt act). As such, the "combination" sets a lower bar. Obtaining a conviction on a "combination" charge requires less proof/evidence (fewer elements) than obtaining a conviction on the "conspiracy" charge. So, if the death row prisoners make a plan (in concert), that is enough for a conviction. It doesn't matter whether or not they actually put in motion any acts toward the furtherance of that plan. Is my understanding correct? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. It seems the prosecutor has to show that a "combination" exists or is being furthered. In some cases (known gang members) that may be easier. FWIW, I also found Combination Act which is an old usage -- in short it's an illegal organization, like in RICO laws. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 11

He can eat a big pizza at one go.

I wonder if "at one go" is proper in a sentence like "He can eat a big pizza at one go." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.173.98 (talk) 03:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in American English. Or "in one sitting". μηδείς (talk) 03:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "at one go" sounds British English, to me. StuRat (talk) 03:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've only heard it as "in one go". Mingmingla (talk) 03:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both sound cromulent to me. Being from the relatively barbarous NW Territories, Stu may be at a disadvantage. Or in a disadvantage. μηδείς (talk) 03:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm from Detroit. That link is to the Canadian territories. Perhaps you meant the Northwest Territory ? StuRat (talk) 04:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering why that link was giving me such crap. You frontiersmen are just so much more handy. μηδείς (talk) 05:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a Brit, it sounds American. I've certainly only ever heard it as "in one go". MChesterMC (talk) 10:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have an image of a person stuffing an entire large pizza into his mouth. I've tried, God knows I've tried .... -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, my father usually eats an entire 18" pizza if we let him. I could too if I weren't watching my blood sugar, and so will my sister. μηδείς (talk) 05:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cædmon's Hymn

I wonder what system of writing was it first written in by Caedmon himself? I mean the alphabet system. Was it in runes or was it in vernacular Old English with Latin alphabet? I couldn't find it in the article. I just want a brief answer that explicitly answers my question. If possible, you should add the information into the article also. Thanks.67.4.198.185 (talk) 05:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't mention runic at all, and the earliest known manuscript is in the Latin alphabet. μηδείς (talk) 06:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Caedmon himself didn't write anything down, since he was illiterate, as the story goes. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Asking "Do you speak [insert language here]" in French

Based on my research, it seems that there are two major ways to ask "Do you speak [insert language here]?" in French:

Parlez-vous [insert language here]?
Est-ce que vous parlez [insert language here]?

Is one of these preferred over the other? 24.47.140.246 (talk) 05:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've usually heard the first one. But if you're in France, you're better off asking "Do you speak English?" Then you'll either get a blank look or they'll tell you, in English, how confident they are with the language. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anecdotally, you are better off asking (in french) "Do you speak (insert other language here, prefeably not German)?" followed by "Do you speak English?" when they inevitably say no. My grandparents are Polish, and would inevitably have French shopkeepers be perfectly happy to speak to them in a common second language, but feighn ignorance when a British person walked in, since the British person was expecting them to know English when they didn't know French. Of course, if you don't actually know the first language you ask, and they do, you're a bit stuffed... MChesterMC (talk) 10:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC) [reply]

I can confirm this observation. I'm Swiss (from the German-speaking parts), and like most of us, speak a little bt of French. I used to go to Tunesia for vacation a lot before the Arab spring broke out, and you'll get *a lot* more help, friendly smiles and overall good attitute towards you if you at least try to speak to them in French. Even if you fail miserably, you'll often already have gained their sympathy. Hope that helps. :) ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 12:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would go one step further. Try to speak french first and pretend that you are not from any anglo-saxon country. French people have been very friendly and helpful and tried to speak english with me when I tell them I am from Sweden. My friends from England and from Sweden who have started off by speaking English have been ignored or scoffed by the offended party. I have seen similar things in Belgium with French and in Holland with German. DanielDemaret (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I've been in France I do try to speak French first, but the moment they hear my accent they switch to English. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of that works IF you are reasonably conversant in French. If your knowledge of French is limited to oui, non, merci and Parlez-vous anglais?, you're better off asking in English. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It also helps if you're not American, I found. They can at least differentiate between a British and an American accent. They could never figure out what I was though - everyone always guessed Irish, but that was acceptable. (Except in Paris, of course.) Adam Bishop (talk) 00:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first is more common. You can also say "vous parlez (language)" with rising intonation. For example, my neighbour in France said hello to me in English one say, so I said "vous parlez anglais?" because it seems less formal, we already knew each other, and I was surprised. Another time, I was attempting to communicate with the owner of a Chinese restaurant, but we couldn't understand each other's accents, so I asked "parlez-vous anglais?" We didn't know each other, and it sounds a bit more formal. "Est-ce que vous parlez (language)" sounds even more formal to me, so formal that no one would ever say that in normal conversation. Also, if you used "tu" instead, "tu parles (language)?" would be way more common than the other possibilities. But that is simply my impression as a non-native speaker, so hopefully a native speaker can either confirm or point out why I'm totally wrong :) Adam Bishop (talk) 07:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The two sentences are equivalent. Parlez-vous [xxxx] ? is a little bit more formal than Est-ce que vous parlez [xxxx] ? and Vous parlez [xxx] ? is very usual and even used by educated people in relax situations. In general using the inversion of the subject and the verb is more formal and sometimes used only in elevated style or in old-fashioned phrases. Chanté-je ? is old-fashioned; in current speech/writing we say Est-ce que je chante ? Whereas Chantes-tu ? is simply more formal than Est-ce que tu chantes ? Beware! one cannot use inversion in all cases. For example we can't say Perds-je la tête ?, we must say Est-ce que je perds la tête ? Note. Using tu, il, nous, vous, ils is correct in these two last sentences. — AldoSyrt (talk) 09:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Agree with Adam, except that we should add that the very commonly spoken phrase structure "Vous parlez (language)?" would be considered incorrect in a newspaper or in a written essay by a French teacher in France. (spoken French and written French have diverged significantly). --Lgriot (talk) 09:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the sociolinguistic point, I think that you are better off in French-speaking countries at least asking the question in French. In general, you will get a much friendlier response if you ask "Parlez-vous anglais?" (or "Vous parlez anglais?") than if you start by asking "Do you speak English?". I think the latter is perceived as arrogant. Also, asking in French allows those who don't speak English to respond comfortably with non (or non, désolé) rather than fret about how to correctly pronounce a polite response in English. Anecdotally, I have found Paris to be unusually friendly for a big city if (as a white, middle-class foreigner) one can speak a bit of French. Marco polo (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I live in Bulgaria. As far as I remember, foreigners in the street have always used English when they've asked me if I speak it. But I agree with what's been said above in favour of trying to ask the question in French when you're in France. That's what I would do and have done in similar situations. --Theurgist (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Icelandic such a stable language?

I have seen many claims to the effect that Icelandic has hardly changed over a very long period, that texts over a thousand years old are completely intelligible to present Icelandic speakers. Other languages have changed so much over similar timescales that many are not even recognizable as the "same" language at all. What has caused Icelandic to stop evolving at a pace comparable to other languages. BTW are there other similarly stable languages? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dodger67 -- Iceland has had a small relatively literate population which traditionally valued being able to read the old sagas. This has achieved a certain degree of stabilization, in that modern Icelanders can basically still read the old sagas, but it is not true that Icelandic has remained completely unaltered. In particular, the pronunciation of Icelandic has changed quite a bit since the days when the sagas were written. AnonMoos (talk) 13:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the only language to do this. I am told that Italians can read Latin as easily as English speakers can read Chaucer, and that Greeks and Tamils can also read ancient texts. -- Q Chris (talk) 13:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly doubt the Italian-Latin claim, since Italian has no noun cases while Latin has five or six, among other reasons (though it is possible to contrive a rather artificial text which makes sense in both Latin and Italian). Modern Greek speakers with some Katharevusa experience can often make some headway with New Testament koine Greek, but someone knowing Dhimotiki only would likely find that Classical Attic Greek strains comprehensibility (if it were pronounced in its original ancient pronunciation, it would completely destroy intercomprehensibility)... AnonMoos (talk) 14:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a discussion of this question. To that discussion, where I think the key point is the isolation of Icelandic from external influences during most of its history, I would add that, for most of its history, Iceland had a small, socially and culturally homogenous population. Language change often occurs when subgroups in a language community adopt a different way of speaking as a way of expressing the identity and solidarity of the subgroup. This happens today among cultural minorities in the English-speaking world and even among generational peer groups. This may lead to the fracturing of the language community into varying dialects or, if the group initiating the linguistic change enjoys prestige, the change they initiated may spread across the language community. Because of its strong cultural and social homogeneity, this source of language change was absent in Iceland during most of its history. Marco polo (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So the short answer is: Iceland had/has a small, homogenous, isolated, literate, socially egalitarian population. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With a lot of pride in its literature. DanielDemaret (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Icelandic has never had a significant number of second-language speakers, which would seem to be a guaranteed way to introduce change. It has never served as a lingua franca in the last couple of centuries, unlike Danish, which is notoriously quickly evolving. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Genitive apostrophe

As per Possessive apostrophe, shouldn't Wilms' tumor be titled Wilms's tumor? Cases like this always make me uncertain. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it were up to me, it would be Wilms's, but English usage is mixed in such situations. The WP style manual (at MOS:POSS, second bullet point) covers the three main schools of thought, and WP allows any of those styles, as long as it's used consistently in an article. Medical terms, however, tend to be fairly standardized; I'd go with whatever the preponderance of sources say. (The medicos have been dropping possessives entirely in lots of cases—it used to be "Down's syndrome", for instance, but now it's "Down syndrome".) Deor (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reckless Conduct Endangering Serious Injury

We hear and read strange things in the media, and in many cases I put it down to shoddy journalistic writing. That's what I did the first couple of times I heard that someone had been charged with "Reckless Conduct Endangering Serious Injury". I mean, it's possible to endanger someone's safety or even their life, but how is it possible to endanger an injury? But I kept hearing it, so I checked it out.

The relevant Victorian law is S.23 of the Crimes Act 1958:

Conduct endangering persons: A person who, without lawful excuse, recklessly engages in conduct that places or may place another person in danger of serious injury is guilty of an indictable offence. [3]

That's fine. No mention of "endangering serious injury" there.

But digging further, I find that the actual police charge is indeed called "Reckless Conduct Endangering Serious Injury".

Does this weird wording have a counterpart in other jurisdictions? Anyone know why they'd choose to come up with such an apparently nonsensical form of words? Does "endanger" have a legal meaning that's different from its standard meaning? I checked out Endangerment but it sheds no light here. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 12