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 27

Janowska

How is Janowska pronounced in Polish? {{IPAc-en}} isn't used there, and it would help. 149.160.175.36 (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested in the Polish (as opposed to the English) pronunciation, {{IPAc-pl}} would do better. The Polish IPA for Janowska is [jaˈnɔfska]; for Obóz Janowski, [ˈɔbus jaˈnɔfskʲi]. I'm not sure why the article is indicating Janowską [jaˈnɔfskɔ̃], which is the accusative case or instrumental case form for Janowska. --Theurgist (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely a mistake by someone who didn't know about Polish cases. Corrected. — Kpalion^(talk) 05:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphens in compound adjectives composed solely of numbers

There has been disagreement about hyphen use in a TFL blurb that is scheduled to go up on the main page in a few hours. Any help you are able to provide here would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Square brackets with quill

I just added Unicode characters "U+2045 ⁅ LEFT SQUARE BRACKET WITH QUILL" and "U+2046 ⁆ RIGHT SQUARE BRACKET WITH QUILL" to Bracket, but I have no idea what they are used for. Does anyone know? Maybe non-English or non-European languages? -- Beland (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The context of the character block where they're included suggests archaic or creative punctuation. AnonMoos (talk) 05:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like they are used in Sweden at least (see here under "Piggparenteser").--Cam (talk) 05:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks! -- Beland (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In case somebody can't read it, it says they're used in dictionaries like the one mention and give the construction in which a word is used. --Kazu89 ^ノート 19:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 28

She's a different person to me

Can one use the phrase "different to/from" by adding a noun in between? Example: "The idea of reviewers and accountants being different persons to the man who handles the money is great." Or is the word "different" suitable at all? --Pxos (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a noun can go in between. However, in the example given, it would probably be better to say separate people rather than different persons. Also, the example in the heading could be interpreted as your perception of changes that she has made to herself after some period of time. Different from is generally better than different to, though both are very common. Different than is also sometimes used, and is very very poor grammar.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"She is a different person to me" would mean, to me, "As far as I am concerned, she is a different person" (e.g. from before, or she treats me differently from the way she treats others). Here I would use 'from'. As for the sentence in the OP's question, I don't understand it. The man who handles the money thinks that reviewers and accountants are different people? Reviewers and accountants are different from the man who handles the money? KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The example doesn't suggest anything at all about what the money handler thinks. The statement asserts that it is a great idea that the reviewers and accountants don't handle the money.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In American English, you can't say "X is different to Y". That construction occurs only in British and perhaps some other Commonwealth varieties of English. In American English, it is always "X is different from Y". Apparently, this second construction also works in British English. Marco polo (talk) 02:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually KageTora gives the example above where you can say "she is different to me". But his example leaves out the British variant that you mention. μηδείς (talk) 02:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Always, Marco polo? The American variant I've heard a great deal of is "X is different than Y". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Awful. Just awful. Are you hearing this from educated Americans?--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot vouch for their education, but the creators of Different Than You and Nice Is Different Than Good seem to qualify. "Different than" is sufficiently well attested to have excited over 13 million hits. Admittedly, some of them are querying whether it's correct terminology or not (kudos to them), but I'm sure most are just using it because they've been taught it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Different than" is acceptable in colloquial American speech, but considered inferior in writing. There is a usage of "different [...] than" that is on the path to acceptance even in more formal contexts, when what follows "than" is a clause with a predicate. Example: "I did it a different way than he did". You obviously can't replace than in that sentence by either from or to; you'd have to reword it completely. --Trovatore (talk) 05:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, you just need to add "what" Different from what he did. μηδείς (talk) 16:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"*I did it a different way from what he did." Yuck. --Trovatore (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis knows that jokes should be clearly marked as such. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But I wasn't joking. (Next IP 54 will start an anonymous ANI on this subject, dialog at 11.) There will obviously be different cases. Language is like that. Trovatore seems to want to say "I did it differently from the way he did it". There would also be "what I did was different from what he did" (i.e., not, "What I did was different than he did." (Yuck!) Or even, "I did it differently from how he did it", where how is simply the instrumental case of what. I am not sure how the barbarism "different than" means people don't need to know what they are saying any more. μηδείς (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I say, you can reword. But if you want to structure the sentence to use a conjunction rather than a preposition, then it has to be than. I think "I did it differently than he did it" is acceptable in all varieties and registers. It's only when you change differently to different that an issue arises, and as I say, the sentence I gave is not fully accepted, but things are moving that direction. --Trovatore (talk) 21:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a case of an question which has several anecdotal answers, many of which are linguistically incorrect. Perhaps this is a scenario where editors should refrain from giving "advice" lest it may be misconstrued as being "accurate"; it's abundantly obvious that much of the "advice" isn't helpful, editors need to bite the bullet and admit there's no right answer. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was wrong when I said American English always has "different from". I meant it never has "different to". Of course "different than" is common in colloquial American English, though "different than" is not considered "correct" in writing or formal contexts by those who pay attention to and care about such things. Marco polo (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, Trovatore, you said you have to "reword it completely". That's false. A simple replacement usually works. You obviously do not have to "reword it completely" unless you pick and chose convenient examples. In most cases you can say "different from what" (That's different from what I said) or "different from how" (That's different from how I did it) rather than different than. But I will gladly wait for IP54's judgment on this. μηδείς (talk) 22:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Completely" is a judgment call, I guess. If you change a dependent clause to a noun phrase, that's rewording "completely" in the sense I meant. --Trovatore (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See above. No right answer. Just a bunch of people claiming to believe what they say is correct. Time to hat this and move on. Shouldn't be too long. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Time for you to go find a different hobby than complaining about such matters. --Trovatore (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Time for you to realise when an RD becomes a chat board. Do something about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man has altered the natural flow of this discussion. Let me clarify, because the examples might have been bad. Another example: "Apples, oranges and kiwis are different fruits from bananas. Dogs and cats are different kind of mammals to bears." Stylistic issues aside, is this acceptable or not? --Pxos (talk) 23:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not high-quality standard written English, anywhere. I believe it is colloquially acceptable in Commonwealth countries (perhaps, other than Canada). --Trovatore (talk) 23:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So the answer to the original question is: No, you cannot put a noun after the word "different". I gather the sentence "apples and oranges are different from bananas" is standard English. Dogs and cats are different and they are different from birds, but they cannot be different animals from birds? --Pxos (talk) 23:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no, sorry, not what I meant. The first sentence with "different fruits" is fine. (Well, at least grammatically fine — I'm not saying it's ideally worded.) It's the "different to" that's not standard written English. --Trovatore (talk) 23:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So if I were to write a book where the main character resembles my humble person, could I then say to in an interview that although the protagonist and I share many things, he is a different person from me. --Pxos (talk) 23:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --Trovatore (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pxos, it might be helpful to look at the fact that the original construction is X differs from Z. That's why it's correct to say What happened differs from (is different from) what I expected. The different than and different to constructions are clumsy modern innovations. No sane person would say, "What happened differs than/to what I expected." The different than innovation results from people being unable to deal with the "from what" construction due to the influence of "what from".

There's an implied comparison. So people want to say "this is what that is different than" in the way they say "this is what that is bigger than." But comparisons require comparatives, and bigger is a comparative, but different is an absolute. μηδείς (talk) 04:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the nub of it. Of course, bigger and different both connote some sort of difference (the former a specific type, the latter non-specific), and that's doubtless why people say "different than". To me, it's the same kind of "logical" misuse as "If you had have come earlier, we wouldn't be in this mess". We say "should have" and "could have" and "would have", so why not "had have"? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100% with your wider point, but the proper construction is, Had you come earlier (or, If you had come earlier .... μηδείς (talk) 05:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, duh! Gimme some credit, pls. My "why not" question was me putting words into the minds of those who make this dreadful mistake, not any kind of justification for it. I did label it a misuse. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understood, and wasn't correcting you, just making sure the proper form was out there for the readers. μηδείς (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Your use of the word "but" was injudicious, then. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the reason Judy and I finally had to break up. μηδείς (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 1

Chinese/English help: File:TNA332toShanghai.ogg

The audio in File:TNA332toShanghai.ogg goes so quickly that I cannot tell when the person switches from Chinese to English. What is she saying? Would someone mind posting the text in here? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She never speaks Chinese in that audio. What she said is described in the caption: "Transasia 332? Transasia 332, contact Shanghai 133.35, over", except that the file cuts off after "one three three decimal". --Bowlhover (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. So the audio stops after "Shanghai 133." right? WhisperToMe (talk) 01:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do elders & children usually have different phonologies?

--96.40.43.34 (talk) 04:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It depends what you mean, but children don't language acquisition acquire all the phonemes and clusters of their native languge at once. My niece who just turned three leaves out /r/s in clusters, so she says "Iss boken" for "It's broken". This is typical for all languages, and I have heard, but cannot remember where, that it's typical for children to take until the age of 12 to master the clusters and phonemes of the particularly complex Georgian language.

Even the language of the children once they reach adulthood tends to vary from that of the parents. My family is from Philly. My father says "yuge" and "atteetude" instead of my "huge" and "attitude" (Freudian slip?) My uncle called the football team the Iggles, while his children say the Eagles. I say "sawsage" for meat casings while he says "sahsage". If there were no variation like this there would be no language change (although the examples I give are not unconditioned sound changes). Look also at all the changes involved in a child who says "Nigga be frontin" where his parent might say "The fellow is putting on airs." μηδείς (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistic Stereotypes

Why, in fantasy novels/films or even in sci-fi, do warrior culture races have languages that sound like Mongolian (and even have similar looking writing systems)? And elves and such have languages that sound like Latin with a British English RP accent? Is there something about the sounds of the languages that is intended to portray the nature of the people? In which case, is this true in real life? I doubt it, but I would like to ask our learned colleagues here. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's very subjective, but Tolkien has said Sindarin was modelled after Welsh and Finnish. His Adûnaic, what little is attested, e.g., "Ar Pharazon", seems Turkic and Semitic, while his Dwarvish supposedly has triconsonantal roots and the black speech strikes me as a Turkic/Persian/Northwest Caucasian mixture. There are apparently two competing trends, the attempt to seem prestigious (or coarse), and the attempt to sound exotic. μηδείς (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously this will be coarse or exotic from the standpoint of the language of the reader of the main text. The Lord of the Rings in Mandarin or Arabic translation would have a very different feel. Tolkien addresses this in his Letters as well, giving advice on how not to translate some of the names into other European languages, and relating the funny experience of having the hosts at a Tolkien conference in the Netherlands offer him "Maggot Soup". μηδείς (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis -- as I understand it, Sindarin was modelled on Welsh, while Quenya was modelled on Finnish and Latin, as far as phonology and phonotactics go... AnonMoos (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I won't argue that, since the consonant mutations (like those in Welsh) are obvious in Sindarin. (The Sindarin plural ablaut has nothing to do with either Welsh or Finnish.) But I thought he worked backwards from Sindarin to Quenya, which he said stood in relation to it like Latin did to Welsh (i.e., indirectly, a là Italo-Celtic). -- User:Medeis

It's actually umlaut: assimilation to a lost final /i/. —Tamfang (talk) 09:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

in Sindarin, that is. —Tamfang (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to an old book I have here ("Learn Welsh for English Speakers"), Welsh does have singular-plural pairs such as corn-cyrn, esgob-esgyb, caseg-cesyg, bardd-beirdd, sant-saint etc... -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if that might be the case, AM, but our article on Welsh just says there are various endings. μηδείς (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taking endings in the plural is presumably the more common noun pattern, but according to "Learn Welsh for English Speakers", there are not only the type of nouns listed above, but also vowel changes observable in feminine adjective forms (masculine tlws feminine tlos; masculine gwyn feminine gwen), and also in certain verbal forms (verbal noun torri third singular tyr; verbal noun datod third singular detyd) etc. AnonMoos (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Welsh has a variety of vowel alternations, both productive and unproductive. The ones forming plurals, feminine adjectives, and second- and third-person singular verb forms are unproductive, but Welsh does have productive alternations between /ʊ/ or /ɨ/ in final syllables and /ə/ in nonfinal syllables, e.g. cwm /kʊm/ 'valley', plural cymoedd /ˈkəmoɨð/; dyn /dɨn/ 'person', plural dynion /ˈdənjon/. (The /ɨ ~ ə/ alternation is so productive and predictable it's not even reflected in the spelling.) Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KageTora -- Not 100% sure what you're asking, but there are vague popular stereotypes of harsh "guttural languages" (lots of closed syllables and consonant clusters and back-of-the-mouth consonants), supposedly spoken by grim people in cold climates vs. melodic "liquid languages" (with open syllables, no consonant clusters, and few back of mouth consonants), supposedly spoken by people with languid lifestyles on idyllic south sea islands. AnonMoos (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And there is a bitter irony in this stereotype as Wales and Finland are in the north, and winters in the latter are very harsh, plus all Finno-Ugric languages sound quite soft and smooth. While Arabs or Georgians with their "guttural" languages live in the sunny south.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"is this true in real life?" Yes, real elves absolutely talk like that. —Tamfang (talk) 09:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably also worth noting that there are two main historical cultures seen (by westerners) as warrior races, the Vikings, and the Mongols under Gengis Khan (plus the samurai of Japan, but that tends to lean more towards heavy honour codes, and less towards invading others in popular culture). Frankly, would you be able to take a klingon seriously if he sounded like the Swedish Chef? MChesterMC (talk) 10:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think Tolkien and others are exploiting the old West European (or British to be precise) popular idea about "good" North-West ("Us") and "bad" South-East, North-East or simply East ("Them"). As "the old enemies of the Western civilisation" like Huns, Mongols, Arabs, Turks, and even Germans and Russians (if we count from the British POV) have come from these latter directions. --Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're asking about stereotypes in fiction, check TVtropes. Here's some relevant pages I found: "Evil Sounds Deep" [1], "Everything sounds sexier in French" [2], and "Harsh Vocals" [3]. Other related content here [4]. Not the most academic resource, but tons of examples, and might be food for thought. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

French help: finding French language articles on the International School of Paris

I would like to have help finding French language articles on the International School of Paris. Is it called "International School of Paris" or "Ecole internationale de Paris" in French? I know the New York Times posted an article talking about the school. Surely the French newspapers have done this too? WhisperToMe (talk) 13:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The French Wikipedia article about the school uses the name "International School of Paris", untranslated. If that helps any. --Jayron32 19:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out. I started that article. It is under the French version of AFD, so while I pointed out the New York Times article that is a source, I would like to see if there are more articles that talk about it. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not much luck, but I did find an interview with the former headteacher. Alansplodge (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And Visite à l’International School of Paris and a brief mention at - L'école et le retour en France. C'est tout. Alansplodge (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! That interview will be very helpful! I archived it at http://www.webcitation.org/6NlaVtkPk WhisperToMe (talk) 06:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on fr:Wikipédia:Notoriété#Présentation des critères:

"« Couverture significative et durable »
Une « couverture significative » signifie que des sources traitent le sujet directement en détail, de telle façon qu'on puisse en extraire le contenu de l'article sans qu'aucun travail inédit ne soit nécessaire. Une couverture significative, durable va au delà de simples mentions ; elle doit comprendre au minimum deux sources secondaires considérées comme fiables, dont l'objet principal est le sujet de l'article, et qui doivent être espacées d'au moins deux ans (sauf exceptions précisées dans le chapitre « La notoriété doit être pérenne »). "

Does this mean that the article sources have to be about the subject? (In the English Wikipedia a source proving notability does not have to be centrally about the subject - it only has to have significant information about the subject) WhisperToMe (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The French text means "must treat the subject directly and in details". It doesn't say the article must be solely about the subject. So, for example, an article about the American community in Paris that contains in-depth information about the school would be acceptable. If it mentions that there are some American schools, and talks in general about those schools, it would not be acceptable. That's my personal reading, though. --Xuxl (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But it goes on to say that the sources must be centrally about the subject. "'Significant coverage' means that sources describe the topic directly and in detail, in such a way that the content of the article may be drawn from them without special effort. Lasting significant coverage goes beyond simple mentions; it must include at least two secondary sources that are considered reliable, whose main subject is the topic of the article, and which must be at least two years apart (except for the cases laid out in the section 'permanent notability'). Itsmejudith (talk) 06:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2

St. George's, Grenada apostrophe

Why is there an apostrophe in the name of St. George's, the capital of Grenada? I had guessed that it might have originally been named St. Georges by the French, and that the English added the apostrophe in a process akin to back-formation, but I've not yet found any evidence to support that idea. -- ToE 00:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could very well be a noun with possessive suffix, but without any explicit accompanying possessed (a phenomenon discussed not too long ago on this board). AnonMoos (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the French called the place Ville de Fort Royal, but when the island was ceded to Great Britain in 1763, it was renamed St George's Town, Saint George being the patron saint of England. See Grenada: Carriacou - Petite Martinique by Paul Crask (p. 92). Alansplodge (talk) 02:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added this detail to our article. Still needs some work though. Alansplodge (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Alansplodge! -- ToE 23:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russian help

Is this really Russian, and if so, is it grammatical? For the curious, this relates to the lost cosmonauts conspiracy theory. --Bowlhover (talk) 03:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the intonation matches what is expected from the text, although the translation is not literal, and I cannot at all vouch for the provenance of the recording. Basically, I would say, "this sounds like a woman transmitting in Russian". I expect User:JackofOz and User:Любослов Езыкин will agree, maybe they will comment. But it's no more clear than "I buried Paul/Cranberry Sauce". μηδείς (talk) 04:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's so unclear to my hearing-loss-affected ears that I could not say what language it's in. Only because I'm told it's Russian, do I think I perceive some brief glimpses of Russianish intonation. But it could be Polish or Ukrainian or Bulgarian or Czech for all I know. If I'd been given no information, the best I could say is that it was not English. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a fluent Russian speaker? If you can easily understand spoken Russian, but you can't understand this video, I'll have to assume the woman is not a native Russian speaker. --Bowlhover (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have never claimed to be a fluent Russian speaker, because I never have been. I can usually understand the general gist of what a Russian speaker is saying, but as I say, this recording is so unclear, I can't say what language it is, let alone understand what she's saying. I tried to match the translation with the sounds I was hearing, but I couldn't even do that. So, while I'm not prepared to confirm it's Russian, I'm not in a position to deny it either. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That conclusion doesn't follow at all, Bowlhover. I can identify an orchid without being able to draw an orchid. I can tell the Beatles, Stones, or Hendrix are singing English without knowing what they are saying in English. Russian has very clear diagnostic features; a certain set of phonemes, free stress, with vowel reduction of unstressed vowels: akane and икaньe and a certain set of numbers which seem to occur in the recording. The woman seems to say один in a way that is very diagnostic of Russian, not Ukrainian, Byelorussian, Rusyn, or any other Eastern Slavic or even Slavic language. If you are going to ask for expert assistance, you might abstain from pretending to give your own. μηδείς (talk) 05:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? I don't disagree with any of the statements you just made. My point was that if someone is supposedly speaking English, and I can't even identify the language as English despite being a fluent English speaker, I would suspect that person is either not speaking English or not a native speaker. Do you disagree with that? --Bowlhover (talk) 05:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I absolutely disagree with that. See Mondegreen. See fetuses recognizing their own language at birth It's perfectly possible to identify something as belonging to language X without being able to identify what exactly is being said in language X. Even fetuses do this. μηδείς (talk) 06:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also (or maybe the same), the fluency of the listener's command of the spoken language has no bearing on whether they can identify the language when spoken by others. I know no Dutch and very little German but I can distinguish them from each other. I know maybe 2 words of Portuguese but I can distinguish it from Spanish. I know no Czech, Polish, Ukrainian, Bulgarian, Serbian or Rusyn, but I can distinguish them all from Russian and (apart from Rusyn) from each other. I can distinguish Chinese from Japanese from Vietnamese from Cambodian ... -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this is a recording by the Judica-Cordiglia brothers, and almost certainly a hoax, probably with Russian-ish dialogue recorded by their (Italian) sister. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Adam, I saw your comment after having written mine. I'd also say that it looks like some woman was sitting in her dacha's veranda in a hot summer day and testing her newly bought tape recorder, that's why she was saying 1, 2, 3.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I wasn't aware it's in Russian I wouldn't comprehend anything. Only after having known it's Russian I could hear «1, 2, 3, 4, 5». And only after having read the translation and listening hard one more time I could recognize also «Слышите! Мне жарко!». My authoritative conclusion: it is incomprehensible gibberish. The description to the audio is an obvious anti-Soviet conspiracy rubbish about some good western guys (here they're Italians, hello Marconi!) revealing the Truth™ which had been hidden by the evil chthonic KGB. In fact this can be absolutely anything.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 15:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up on simulating and gibberish

Spun off from Adam Bishop's reply to the "Russian" question above: This kind of simulated (often improvised) rendering of a language has come up in questions before. I mean things like "Wenn ist das Nunstück git und Slotermeyer?" or "Prisencolinensinainciusol" (or Simlish). Is there a term (or even a list of notable examples) for this spoken version, beyond gibberish? ---Sluzzelin talk 07:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's "double talk". See this brief video in four languages by perhaps the best practitioner of double talk ever. μηδείς (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple good double talk scenes in His Girl Friday which is on youtube and out of copyright. This is a contemporary artist in English. μηδείς (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! ---Sluzzelin talk 03:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A famous British talker of total gibberish was comedian Stanley Unwin. See, for example, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=323kQis2zbM 86.160.217.154 (talk) 15:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Books about Wikipedia or encyclopedias in languages other than English or French

There are a few books about Wikipedia and there are a few books about encyclopedias, but sources in languages other than English and French are difficult [for me] to find. Specifically I'm looking for books in languages other than English about encyclopedias outside of the best known Enlightenment and American examples (and on Wikipedia if about something other than the en.wikipedia). Is this better suited for Refdesk/Humanities? --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Books about Wikipedia has a link to Arabic Wikipedia and a link to Portuguese Wikipedia.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 3

Word choice

Is it considered OK to repeat the word "that" in an English sentence? Or is it something that is not preferable, such that alternate wording should be found? An example is this sentence: I just realized that that is the name of my dentist, also. I know that it is grammatically correct; but is it considered "bad form"? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're asking for answers in the vein of linguistic prescriptivism, right? If so, it all depends on the style guide for whatever you're writing, and where (or if) it's published. My WP:OR is that it's publishable in some academic journals (I've done it), but I also try to re-word and avoid the form when possible. If you want to consider the linguistic descriptivism approach, this evidence [5], seems to indicate that the construction is tolerated, but on the decline. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I looked at that link (the one for "evidence" about the use being in decline). What exactly is that Google Books NGram Viewer? I have never seen that before. What exactly is it counting? What exactly is it keeping track of? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Joseph A. Spadaro, Ngram means it can search for exact combinations of N-many words (up to N=5 at present). It searches a corpus of English language material (marked by time of publication), going back to 1800 in some cases (there is a separate corpus for BritEng, AmEng, French, etc.) Any book included in Google books is searched, and they are adding more material all the time. The vertical axis show how often the phrase appears in the corpus, compared to all other phrases of that length. Here is google's general info page on the Ngram viewer [6]. I don't know much more about it than that, but it's a really cool way to get an idea of how often certain phrases are used in print. There is also a way to download their database for academic research, but I mostly use it as a quick way to check on usage over history (knowing there are some caveats, and I'm not trying to make any rigorous conclusions based on the results). It's primarily designed for language issues, but you can also see some history at play, e.g. compare incidence of "car" to "carriage", we can see that "car" surpasses "carriage" right around the introduction of the Model T Ford. [7] Try it out, see what kinds of cool patterns you can find! SemanticMantis (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting, thanks! Yes, now that I am aware of this tool, I will definitely use it. Thanks again. I had never heard of that before. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it really is the best and most appropriate and most concise construction. The two 'that's have different functions. Just as the two 'had's have different purposes in She had had to change her plans due to her mother's sudden illness; and then she'd met Tarquin, and that had changed everything. Absolutely nothing wrong with it, imo.

One very common overuse of 'that' is in sentences where the word is separated from its object by a longish parenthetical phrase and the writer/speaker sort of forgets they've already said 'that' and feels the need to say it again: I know in my heart that, even though most would violently disagree and most others would have trouble accepting my thesis without some moral gymnastics, that JackofOz is a fine fellow. Only one of those 'that's is required. Clumsy sentence and all, but just to make the point. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC) Here's a RL one that just arrived on my iphone: .. I still have expectations that when opening times are posted that the places will be open at those times (in reference to lax Central American shop opening practices). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bold text

I know that this is rather nit-picky. But, I am curious about it nonetheless, from a style-guide point of view. If you look at the nominees of the 86th Academy Awards, they list the names of the winners in bold print. For example, the winner of Best Picture is: 12 Years a Slave – Brad Pitt, Dede Gardner, Jeremy Kleiner, Steve McQueen, and Anthony Katagas. The winner of Best Actor is: Matthew McConaughey – Dallas Buyers Club as Ron Woodroof. My question is: if we are going to be precise and stylistically correct, are the words such as "and" and "as" actually supposed to be in bold print? Or should just the names themselves be in bold, but not the words such as "and" and "as"? In other words, is it correct, as is? Or should it be that the bold "starts" and then "stops" and then "starts again", etc.? Is the bolding of the words "and" and "as" just a lazy and incorrect way of typing this? Or is it the correct way of presenting bold text material? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Related to your question above, the only "correct" format is in terms of the house style guide. In the absence of such a style guide, people often turn to language mavens like Strunk & White, but I don't recall if they say much about usage font weight. Things like plays and movie scripts have strict rules about bolding and italics, that wouldn't matter at all for e.g. a novel. One thing that has bugged me in the past: some places allow me to use italics for emphasis, while others disallow it. Then, because italics are not allowed for emphasis, I have to give emphasis through repetition, which is tedious, and repetitive ;) (Nb it looks like you changed some of your wording after I typed this, so this might not be that helpful for your revised question.) SemanticMantis (talk) 16:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. (I only revised some minor formatting of my original question, when I made the edit; there were no substantive edits to the wording of the question.) So, I guess what I am asking is: what is the Wikipedia style of doing this? And, outside of Wikipedia, what is the correct style (I have to imagine that this has come up before)? I guess the question is: is the word "and" a part of the winner's name; is the word "as" a part of the winner's name? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, looks like I was misreading a bit then. Anyway, our WP style guide is at WP:MOS. There's instructions on italics, and a few mentions of bolding within quotes, but I can't easily see anything directly applicable to your question. Since this is Wikipedia, you could even be WP:BOLD, and add some info to our MOS on bolding! On the other hand, we have a few users here who know the ins-and-outs of the main English style guides, so maybe they will chime in. For what it's worth, I agree that un-bolding "and" and "as" seems better. Compare to title case, where we have e.g. "The Lord of the Rings", not "The Lord Of The Rings". Since you're specifically talking about movies here, you may enjoy this NYT piece on formatting for movie posters [8]. There too, "and" and "with" are typographically demoted, compared to actor names. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Wow! Who would have imagined that creating a movie poster was that complicated?!?!?!?!??! Made my head spin. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Semantic Mantis about the unbolding of 'and' and 'as'. This is a confusion with the rules about what words not to capitalise in the name of a movie, book, play, musical or opera. There, one does not capitalise articles or conjunctions unless they're the first word. So it's 12 Years a Slave, not 12 Years A Slave. But bolding of a name or title applies to the whole thing or none of it: 12 Years a Slave, not 12 Years a Slave. The title of an article always appears in the lede, bolded. The entire title is bolded. In our Oscar lists, we bold winners to distinguish them from other nominees. Film titles are bolded. That's the entire title. This may have been agreed explicitly somewhere long ago, or it may have just developed that way and now everyone copies what others have done. But we most certainly have a very strong implicit consensus. We can't go around making up a different practice just because one person thinks it "seems better" their way. There's a process for changing things like this. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, I believe you're misreading what Semantic Mantis said. They're not talking about little words within a title, they're talking about words between titles in the bolded list. FWIW I agree with them. --ColinFine (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, woddaya know, I misunderread (not the only one). I too agree that "and" and "as" in those cases are not part of anyone's name or any film's title, and should not be bolded. Previous response strucken. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the reference to title case was a red herring :) SemanticMantis (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetical order

In "normal life", we would normally alphabetize a person's name according to their last name (surname). However, on Wikipedia, an article title such as, say, George Washington would appear (alphabetically) under the "G" and not the "W" (simply because "G" is the first letter that appears in the article title, without regard to the fact that it represents the person's given name and not his surname). So, here is my question: When we are creating a list in alphabetical order on Wikipedia, should an article title such as "George Washington" be listed alphabetically under "G" or under "W"? Is there some Wikipedia policy on this? I am not necessarily referring to the name/title being presented in a list of other names. But, more so, when the name/title is being listed alongside other Wikipedia article titles that are not necessarily names. For example, let’s say that we have a "See also" list in an article; and we want to list the "See also" items in alphabetical order. Which of these "See also" lists would be correct (if the goal is alphabetical order)?

== See also ==

Or

== See also ==

In the first case, it is alphabetized as: G, L, S. In the second case, it is alphabetized as L, S, W. I would imagine that the "correct" alphabetization (in the "real world") would be the L, S, W approach (the second one listed above). But, in terms of a Wikipedia list, that almost seems to defeat the purpose (when the article titles are G, L, S; as in the first example above). So, do we have any policy or style guide – or any preference – in this regard? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia uses the "common names" axiom, which is why George Washington is the article and Washington, George redirects to that article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but you have confused me. What does that mean, in terms of my above question? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George is listed under the W's in categories and lists of people. If we're talking about say bridges, then I'd put the George Washington Bridge under the G's. As for a mixed list of people and non-people, you'd need to provide an example. I can't recall seeing such an animal. For the See also section, there's usually too few entries to make it necessary to alphabetize it. I generally order it by relevance to the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that is exactly the point of my question. If it was a list of solely people's names, then it would make sense to list them by surname. If it was a list of solely other entities (i.e., not people's names, like the George Washington Bridge or George Washington High School), then we would list them by "first letter" of title. My question is when both are mixed. I gave the example above (Latvia, Special Olympics, etc.). I didn't specifically look for a "real" example in Wikipedia; I am sure they abound. I have seen them many times, which is why I finally decided to ask today. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found two "real" examples. The first is Single-bullet theory. I myself actually added in the name of James Tague (just yesterday, I believe). And I was not sure where to place it, alphabetically. I also wanted to find an independent example, one which I took no part in. The very first page I decided to look at was Richard Nixon. And that article has the same type of example I am referring to (a "See also" section, with a mix of people and non-people). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, in a mixed See all listing, it doesn't make sense to list them alphabetically at all; that's just for entries of the same type. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarityfiend has given you excellent guidance. As an example: List of people from New York will show you first an exception, the presidents in chronological order, and then the sorting by last name as the general rule. WP:MOS and the The Help Desk should be of use to you as well. Oh, and don't mind Baseball Bugs, he just likes to chime in as much as he can.54.80.71.128 (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And don't mind 54, who is a harassment-only sockmaster. And since Joseph didn't get what I meant, in normal writing and speaking you're more likely to say "George Washington" than "Washington, George". Hence, George Washington is the "common name". In a printed encyclopedia, typically it would be last-name-first. But not in Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Baseball Bugs, I certainly "got" all that. I just wasn't sure how that information (which I already knew) addressed my specific question above about "See also" list alphabetizing. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In "see also" sections, there appears to be no hard-and-fast rule. And your example is a serious apples-oranges-and-bananas situation, as there is no obvious commonality. But if you look at the disambiguation page Leonardo, for example, you'll see they tend to be listed alphabetically by last name, even though the "last, first" construction is not used. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With Latvia, Special Olympics, and George Washington ... I just made up an example, off the top of my head. The thrust of the question dealt with the letters (in that case, the L, S, and G or W distinction). The words themselves were not important. So, I just made up a list with letters that illustrated the point I was making. (I was not at all concerned with the actual words, in order to make my point.) Yes, clearly, the Latvia / Special Olympics / George Washington titles are a mixed bag of apples and oranges and such. If we are "stuck" on this (very minor) point, I gave two "real life" examples above (Single-bullet theory and Richard Nixon). I am quite sure that there are many hundreds of other examples on Wikipedia. I see it all the time because, in fact, one of my pet peeves is to alphabetize "See also" lists. Richard Nixon happened to be the very first article that I decided to look at. And, lo and behold, it had exactly the type of example I am asking about above. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If your seemingly random lists of words or topics were part of the index to a book, for example, George would definitely be under W. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In a printed book, yes, clearly. But, I am trying to get some clarification for Wikipedia purposes. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may find Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of some use. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just found out that the Wikipedia MOS states that "See also" lists should preferably be alphabetized. Here: Wikipedia:Guide to layout#See also section. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, in my routine editing of many articles, I came across an article where a list of personal names was alphabetized by last name, although they were presented with the first names first. I did not spend time to find out how that was accomplished, and I do not know whether a template was used.

—Wavelength (talk) 03:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are talking about the "sort name" template? It appears, for example, in this article: List of actors who have appeared in multiple Best Picture Academy Award winners. There, all of the actor names are listed as First Name, Last Name. However, when the Name column is sorted, it will sort by Last Name, First Name. The first actor on the list, (Ben Affleck). gets sorted as an "A" for Affleck, not as a "B" for Ben. Yet, his name is listed as "Ben Affleck". This is done with the "sort name" template (documented here: Template:Sortname). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That template was probably used in the article that I mentioned.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it bad to ask God to damn things?

Why are idiomatic phrases "God damn it!" and "that goddamn son of a bitch" considered curse words? I mean, if you dissect them and interpret them literally, then you'll just asking God to damn things. 140.254.227.87 (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See curse. ("A curse ... is any expressed wish that some form of adversity or misfortune will befall or attach to some other entity.") Looie496 (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, why is it bad to curse in that sense of the term? 140.254.227.87 (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In case you mean "curse words" less literally, more in the general sense of profanity, see also "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain". ---Sluzzelin talk 17:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is that related to blaspheming the Holy Spirit, which is bad, because it's basically seeing good as evil and evil as good and deliberately accusing someone or something of wickedness and condemning it? Would a Roman Catholic priest forgive blaspheming the Holy Spirit if it had been done unintentionally? 140.254.227.87 (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In one sense, an analogy would be: thou shall not call the CEO at corporate headquarters with every petty dispute. — Preceding analogy added by 71.20.250.51 (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not really. God is all-knowing, all-seeing, and all-powerful. The notion of God being "too busy" is a bogus notion created by some sects to justify their hierarchies. I think of it more like the boomerang factor - you ask God to curse someone, He might check your own record first. And it's arrogant. But mostly, it's just uncouth. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are basically using your own power to command the Allpowerful to curse one of his own creations. It's about as rude as saying "Fuck your broken lightbulb, Dad, it keeps flickering." μηδείς (talk) 19:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I added "in one sense" -- mainly relating to "in vein" meaning "not unless you really, really mean it". — Preceding clarification added by 71.20.250.51 (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's more of it. The idea is that you're profaning the concept of God's judgement by flippantly calling on him to judge something/someone when you don't mean it. If you believe in the concept of an unending hell, you're not going to make such a statement seriously (i.e. as a prayer to God to send someone there) without an extremely good reason, and of course you won't make such a statement in this sense if you don't believe in such a concept. For that reason, it's generally considered profanity. Of course, if you really do mean that, it is a curse, but not in the sense of "cussing." 149.160.174.45 (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why are contractions pronounced from two syllables to one syllable?

I don't get why contractions are pronounced from two syllables to one syllable. No matter how fast I say the two words, they just don't add up to right sound in the contraction. When I say "shall not" very quickly, it sounds like "shit" and "aht", not "shan't." Perhaps, the contractions were originally derived from archaic speech, or perhaps they were originally derived from writing and then pronouncing those written contractions? Examples include:

"I can not" becomes "I can't" (Preterite: I couldn't)
"I shall not" becomes "I shan't" (Preterite: I shouldn't)
"I will not" becomes "I won't" (This becomes trickier when you consider the fact that you pronounce the long o sound. Where does the long o come from anyway? Preterite: I wouldn't)
"I may not" becomes "I mayn't" (Uncommon, but nevertheless a valid phrase. Preterite: I mightn't)
"I am not" becomes "I ain't" (Preterite: I wasn't) 140.254.227.87 (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EO has a brief discussion of "won't".[9] Unfortunately, our Contraction (grammar) article seems to be more of a list than a history. But English-speakers tend to shorten things, a process which presumably happens over the course of time, no in one fell swoop. Such as "folks'll" as the pronunciation of "forecastle". And there's the handling of the abbreviation "St." for "Saint". In America we still say "Saint" when we see "St." (or "Street", but that's another thing). Brits tend to say "St." as "Sint" or "Snt". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contractions exist in the language because that's what people say (or said). The process of contraction happens at different times and places, and may not be obvious according to the phonetics of a different time or place. Shakespeare wrote many contractions that are not normal today (such as "i'th" for "in the", or "upon's" for "upon us"); some of these may have been for metrical reasons, but it seems likely that they were drawn from the everyday spoken language. Those two have not lasted, unlike the ones you list. On the other hand, there are far more contractions in current English than these: it is just that most of the rest are hardly ever acknowledged in writing. Examples are "gimme", "gissa"*, "wanna", "havta" and "gonna". I have noticed myself saying /ˌkʲævəkʌpə'ti/ ("Kyavvercuppertea", or "Kyavvuhcuppuhtea" for non-rhotics) meaning "Can I have a cup of tea". Some contractions reduce the number of syllables; others do not.

*For those unfamiliar with "gissa", it is a British (especially but not exclusively Scottish) contraction of "give us a", and often means "give me a".

The "why" is because speech is a trade off between the effort of pronouncing words and the effort of understanding them. There are various processes that happen in language change, such as assimilation, metathesis, syncope and epenthesis which can all be described with some justice as the product of laziness. Whenever these have occurred, they probably started off as a feature of rapid speech of some group (often of young people) and gradually became established in the language. The contractions you are talking about have been around, we know, for several hundred years, and they are normal in everyday speech; but they have not so far driven out the older forms, and fashion does not accept them for certain registers. --ColinFine (talk) 19:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

140.254.227.87 -- Won't is ultimately due to l vocalization, which occurs in a number of languages (and several dialects of English), by no means always in morphologically complex "contractions". Anyway, "n't" is actually a clitic form (some linguists have even argued that it's actually a negative inflectional suffix), so it's not surprising that the sound changes it induces in the preceding word are not the same as generalized fast speech changes... AnonMoos (talk) 03:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See the photo I've just added to the top of this section, from Arkansas, USA. The caption says "Southern drawl", but it's definitely here in the Great Lakes region as well. Definition 6 at the Urban Dictionary provides a fuller example. Nyttend (talk) 13:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think "Jeet Yet?" is a fairly generalized American English fast speech form (not sure why we don't have an article on "fast speech"), with the further reduction "Jeechet?" [dʒiːtʃɛt]... -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, joo? μηδείς (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Odd. I had a coworker from Indiana once that said she had a hard time at first understanding Californians when she moved there, and gave "j'eet yet?" as an example. So I don't know how widespread it is. — kwami (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "Jeechet?" [dʒiːtʃɛt], as AM gives is what you hear. People don't weaken "Did you eat" to "Jeet" without also weakening the second -t yet sequence to -chet. (IN other words, "Jeet yet" is half attempted phonetics and half orthography as taught, not spoken.) As far as I am aware, Jeechet is common to General American, including the eastern Midland dialects. In fact, Jeechet? No, joo? is a running joke in my immediate family. See also Mairzy dotes. μηδείς (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

British colonial insertion of "r"s where they don't belong.

I have recently come across a few words like Burma which have an /r/ and which I have always thought were supposed to do so because of the "r" being in the native form. But it isn't. Burma should be /bəma/. Burmese language syllables don't have final /r/s, only -/ʔ/ and -/ɴ/ occur, and the "r" is only found in loans from English and Sanskrit and Pali. So it turns out the Burma spelling is most likely the approximation of a non-rhotic colonial, and the "r" should actually be silent if one wants to approximate the original language.

I have also come across this in a few other terms, probably in geographical names, in areas with largely vowel-final words colonised by the British. Can anybody mention other examples, or give any comment? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite the same, but until quite recently, I always assumed "Ahmed" started out like the German "Ach". Then I learnt that the Ah- simply denotes a long a, and it was spelt that way because "Amed" would have resulted in people saying "Ay-məd". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fraid not, Jack. Our article Ahmad transliterates the Arabic as "ʾaḥmad", with a stronger aspirate than English /h/. No doubt some English-speaking Ahmeds drop the /h/, because that phoneme does not occur preconsonantly in English; but it's certainly there in Arabic. --ColinFine (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Colin. Time to reassume my assumption, sort of. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "h" in Ahmad is technically a voiceless pharyngeal consonant. The same consonants ħ-m-d ح - م- د appear in both "Ahmad" and "Muhammad" due to Semitic root morphology... AnonMoos (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, a coda /ħ/ is likely to be misheard as a long vowel by someone who doesn't realize it's there; see, for example, [10] and [11]. Which probably explains why so many English speakers pronounce things like coda /ħ/ in Arabic and coda /h/ in Turkish with spitty uvular sounds. Lsfreak (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only other example I can immediately think of, coincidentally, is "Myanmar". I believe there are others, but I can't think of any at present. --ColinFine (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the Korean name Park, which is a variant of Pak or Bak. -- 87.151.45.156 (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Park is one of the two other instances I couldn't remember. I was very surprised by that one. μηδείς (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That may just be a case of the word being Anglicized to match an English word. (If the original name had an extra r, as in "Prark", they probably would have taken it out.) StuRat (talk) 20:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a case of intrusive R becoming standardized. It could be that the first English speakers to establish the English name for these places had an accent with intrusive R, and as such, became standardized. --Jayron32 23:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's anything to do with the intrusive R, which is to do with generalising the restoration of a final /r/ before a vowel-initial word to other words which never had a final /r/ but are historically vowel-final. Two of the three cases that have been mentioned involve an <r> before a consonant, which is an entirely different context. It's simply that the most common way of writing the sound /ɑ/ in non-rhotic British English is <ar>, and all the plausible ways of writing a stressed /ə/ in non-rhotic British English include an <r>: <er>, <ur> or <ir>. --ColinFine (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on Rhotic and non-rhotic accents, subsection "Effect on spelling" has some more examples, including schoolmarm and parcheesi/pachisi. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of non-written examples are the pronunciation in rhotic Northern Ireland of "lager" as "lar-ger", and sometimes "Peugeot" as "per-zho". --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Peugot" may just be trying to approximate the French front-rounded vowel with the most soundalike English vowel; some rhotic dialects in the U.S. pronounce "hors d'oeuvres" as [ɔrdɜrvz]. Anyway, "worsh" (with pronounced r) in place of "wash" used to be a shibboleth in some parts of the U.S. Midwest (don't know to what degree it still is). AnonMoos (talk) 13:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am still a little confused by User:Alansplodge's statement above that father and farther are homophones for him. Does that mean there are semi-literate spellings like farther for the male parent, or darnce for dance? Am I just going on context when I assume that father and farther in arrhotic RP are not identically pronounced? I would swear if you asked me that the two words would be quite distinct, even in the example, "I must go a little bit, father" and "I must go a little bit farther". Is there no compensatory lengthening? μηδείς (talk) 19:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I can confirm that they are homophones for me too and for most of my fellow English natives round here. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I, on the other hand, can confirm that for me, my family, and the people we know, father and farther are definitely not homophones. I have no obvious "regional" accent, and am frequently teased for speaking with very pure RP. RomanSpa (talk) 00:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, User:RomanSpa. Can you say what the difference is to you between these two words, either in IPA if you know it, or by what they rhyme with or in a subjective description? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 20:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know IPA, I'm afraid, so I can only really give a rather useless subjective description, which is that you say each word exactly as you read it. That is, "farther" is "far" + "ther", while "father" is "fa" + "ther". This rather begs the question, of course! For what it's worth, the 'R' sound is less obvious in "far" than it is in "farther", though it's still there. In this and similar cases, the "ar" combination seems to sound slightly lower in tone than the vowel on its own. Sorry not to be more help. RomanSpa (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that the ga-il in Lark Rise to Candleford (TV series) is always going on about her Par and her Mar, back home in the hamlet, with the littl'uns. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Juggernaut. If I hadn't looked it up, I would have never guessed it derives from Jagannath. I would have rather thought it comes from German. — Kpalion^(talk) 20:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the OED transcribes father and farther the same. μηδείς, as Jack of Oz suggested above, this is just like Americans inserting aitches where they don't belong. "Oh" doesn't have an "h" sound in it, and neither does "ah!". At the time the h-convention was established, much more of England was rhotic, but words that have crept in since then often have "r" instead. (Not just "Myanmar", but "Burma"! – cf. Bamar.) This only seems "colonial" because it only works for non-rhotic accents, and so we don't see it in the States, but we get it in Australia too. The US convention can be seen in spellings like Ohno for Japanese Ōno, despite there being no [h] in that name. The Korean name "Park" is even spelled "Pahk" in the US, for example with Induk Pahk. "Pak" would be mispronounced "Pack", so some remedy is needed. — kwami (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure this exactly what you're looking for, but reading some of the linguistic descriptions by traders, trappers or missionaries from the early days of American colonization is downright painful. Unless you already know the language, it's impossible to tell which r's are real. Lsfreak (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My favourite uberhypercorrective colonial spelling is the Queensland town of Caboolture. I am certain no word in any local indigenous language has the sound of a -ture ending (tjuə). Everyone ends it like -cha or -chə, but that spelling would never have done for our forefathers. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thought of another: Bristol has no etymological /l/. I'd heard similar things about some places in France or Spain that are with a double-el, despite only ever being /j/, but a few quick searches of the cities I was thinking didn't reveal anything. Lsfreak (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, some really excellent answers. Although Kwami seems to have missed that his answer Burma was the example with which the entire thread began. (I sometimes read these threads bassupackwards myself.) Isn't Bristol Welsh for titties? How is the Welsh spelt? μηδείς (talk) 05:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh? No. If in doubt, suspect rhyming slang. Bristol City. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnamese phrase

I'm seeing the phrase "TIEU-LENH CUU HOA" in an early 1970s picture of a sign on a huge building in Saigon. What could it mean, and what are the correct diacritics? The sign's in the background, so I can't see the diacritics clearly, but I think there's something on top of the "E" in the first word, on top of and below the "E" in the second, on top of the first "U" in the third, and on top of the "O" in the fourth. Below the phrase are lots of words in smaller type, and i can't read them. Google Translator thinks it means "Sub-command fire," which makes no sense. 149.160.174.45 (talk) 21:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Tiêu lệnh cứu hỏa"? I think it means "fire-fighting equipment"—like fire extinguishers, fire blankets, ladders, hoses, etc. --Canley (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 4

Cuneiform in Wikipedia

In the entry to Inanna, the cuneiform symbol for deity has been changed into two boxes. The first character in her name looks like an 8-pointed asterisk.

I believe further town the same box character has replaced other cuneiform translations from the original Wikipedia entry.

My guess is that somebody updated the server or some other computer maintenance was performed and it could not decipher the characters in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IloveAgentScott (talk • contribs) 19:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This probably isn't the result of a change to the Inanna article itself or Wikipedia's servers. I suspect the problem is on your end, that those unicode characters are no longer displayed. Were there any recent changes to your PC ? StuRat (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious how to see those cuneiforms. I looked up cuneiform articles here on Wikipedia after I read this above, installed some cuneiform fonts on my Windows 8.1 after and tried to fiddle with the fonts on "internet options", but to no avail. Still only boxes. Grateful for definite articles on how to make it work on Windows 8. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 07:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IloveAgentScott -- the first character in writing "Inanna" is a determinative, not really part of the name as such. It only has the shape of an eight-pointed asterisk in early cuneiform (File:Cuneiform sumer dingir.svg). In later conventionalized cuneiform, it looks like File:B010ellst.png. For the main character, see File:B153ellst.png (or in earlier form, File:Inannasumerianblack.png)... AnonMoos (talk) 10:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 5

Need help with summary of Nepali references / establishment of notability

Hello friends! There is a new-ish article on Kumud Pant and it's coming off as an autobiography/vanity piece to me. There are three references, one to a modeling gallery which does nothing to establish notability here, a second reference to an interview here, which also seems a little sketchy, and this article which is written in another language, that I am assuming is Nepali. (Please forgive me if I am wrong, I'm always happy to learn. ) If anyone familiar with the language can take a look and see whether or not the source, and the subject is notable, I'd appreciate it. I'm also curious if there might be another article out there on him that does a better job of establishing notability. Currently though, all the roles listed in his article look like background and incidental roles. "Man at bar" and such. If we can't get better RSes, I will probably take the article to AfD. Dhan'yavāda! (I copy/pasted that...) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: This may be a non-issue. I've nominated the article Kumud Pant for speedy deletion. The user has taken ownership of the article and is deleting talk page comments, removing constructive edits from the article, etc. You are still invited to comment, but please note there is a speedy nom. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Japanese sources: How much do they talk about the Liceo Mexicano Japones? Are they independent of the school?

I found this source on a Japanese university website:

月本　成児 (前日本メキシコ学院日本コース:大阪府枚方市牧野小学校). "日本メキシコ学院の教育力向上に向けて." (Archive) 在外教育施設における指導実践記録. 在外教育施設における指導実践記録 32, 21-24, 2009-10-12. Tokyo Gakugei University. - See NII entry in Japanese

It mentions the Liceo Mexicano Japones (日本メキシコ学院). Is this source significantly about the school or does it have significant content about the school? Is it independent of the school in every way? What is the name of the author? What is his/her background? What is the name of the academic journal?

I also found this from a Nikkei newspaper in Brazil:

"再浮上する日伯学園構想――第四部　日本と国際学校－（３）－日墨学院①－〝独系のような学校を〟－駐在員と共に周到に準備." (Archive) Nikkey Shimbun (ニッケイ新聞 Nikkei Shinbun, Jornal do Nikkey). ３月２７日（水）.

Would this be a reliable source to use in the article Liceo Mexicano Japones?

What about this one?

Soejima, K (副島健治). "メキシコの日本語教育" (Archive). Polyglossia 11, 185-197, 2006-03. 立命館アジア太平洋大学言語研究センター. (See CiNII)

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 04:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The author is Seiji/成児 Tsukimoto/月本. He was the assistant principal of LMJ and is the princpal of Makino elementary school in Hirakata. I found this version. #5 and #6 are the reports on LMJ, #5 is written by Tsukimoto and #6 by Nakakita. The title of the yearly report is 在外教育施設における指導実践記録集 and your source is #32/第３２集. Tsukimoto's report is about what they did to improve the students' math at LMJ. There is one more page on LMJ at the Nikkei site. Soejima's "メキシコの日本語教育 is about ja education in Mexico in general. I think they are all reliable. Oda Mari (talk) 10:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I added the Jornal do Nikkei (ニッケイ新聞) articles! While Tsukimoto once worked for the school, did Nakakita ever work for the school? There may be an issue with Tsukimoto having been a former employee, but if Nakakita never was then it's another independent reliable source. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Nakakita was a teacher at LMJ from April 2006 to March 2009. 在外教育施設における指導実践記録集 are the reports by teachers who worked in Japanese schools abroad. Oda Mari (talk) 16:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thank you so much for your help, Mari! I know the Jornal do Nikkey are independent sources, so that should help. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Transcription and translation of Korean markings

Do You Want to Know a Secret / Do You Promise Not to Tell

Could anyone who speaks the language please transcribe (and, if possible, translate) the red stamps on the map Daedongyeojido, to be included on the image description page? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology of Yiddish איידים (pron. aye-dim) - "son-in-law"

Does anyone know of an etymology for this word? (And while i'm at it, for the word שווער pron. shver, meaning father-in-law)

The joke goes that the son-in-law take his father-in-law to court for not giving him the promised dowry. The F.I.L. denies that he ever promised any and says bring witnesses (in Hebrew: aye-dim). The S.I.L. having no witnesses says at least take an oath (in Yiddish: shver like 'swear') denying it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.125.212.112 (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely from the same roots as the obsolete German words "Eidam" and "Schwäher" (See also Proto-Germanic "aiþumaz" and "swehuraz" at Wiktionary as well as this etymology of "Eidam"). ---Sluzzelin talk 19:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely like Sluzzelin says. Older Yiddish books that use German-style spellings use Template:Hebrew and Template:Hebrew‎, which correspond exactly to the German forms. The joke is just a joke. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume "Schwäher" and "Schwieger" have a related etymology... AnonMoos (talk) 09:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 6

What is fucken going on?

Odd question, but I daresay an important one for our troubled times.

If I had to transcribe the speech of someone who was swearing, it might include things like I hate that fuckin' asshole. Yet, when people write the word online, as often as not it's spelt as fucken, and that spelling seems to have become entrenched in the pop culture world up to a point - see [12].

Do people genuinely not know that it's an abbreviation for fucking, or is it something else now? I can understand (if never forgive) that certain strata of people don't use apostrophes much anymore, but I'd still expect to see them writing fuckin, not fucken. Do they think it's a verb, like strengthen, liken, etc. (that's assuming they have the faintest idea of what a verb is ...)?

What is fucken going on here? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of all the abuses of the written word wrought upon humanity through online communication, this little bugbear is the first on your list? --Jayron32 02:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, we don't know whom else has been asked to answer for the mistakes of humanity...

(Also, he's not a n00b) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron, the questions I happen to ask here do not represent the matters of monumental moment with which I wrestle during my frequent dark nights of the soul. Well, not necessarily. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JackofOz My guess is laziness or idiocy is likely to blame. When I was a kid, the less linguistically adept children would say "fuckin' egg" instead of "fuckin' A". The youths today are more apt to write "I'm homeeeeeee", (which makes absolutely zero sense to me, as the E is silent) instead of "I'm hooooooome!" My guess is that they didn't grow up reading comics, or that the former is some kind of deliberate joke that's become a meme. I doubt even the Wikipedia Reference Desk have the proper tools to account for what the kids are doing today. (And yet I eagerly await proof to the contrary!) My hypothesis is that kids are spending less time ensconced in the written word, or at least the grammatically correct written word, so they're not picking up on the nuances of language, and/or not making the intellectual connection between the verbal language and the written language and/or maybe they don't (yet) have the tools to articulate properly. Not much of an answer, I suppose, but fucken 'ell wot you want, innit?! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Analogy with strengthen, liken is less likely than with driven, taken. —Tamfang (talk) 04:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Fucken" looks less like "fucking" than "fuckin'", so perhaps appeals more to those who don't want to be really seen to be swearing in public? HiLo48 (talk) 06:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, Jack. The world will only collapse when they start hypercorrecting and writing things like "Kentucky Fried Chicking". KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Freberg was way ahead of you there, KageTora: From the PC version of ~~Old~~ Elderly Man River: " He doesn't plant potatoes, He doesn't plant cotting, And those that plant them, Are soon forgotting ...". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y tink it'z un olbaneezzum en Inglesh. Tha Gramer partizanz yousiolley vrite lak dhet.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 14:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that as long as they're rebelling against conventional taste, which they may see as prissy, they might as well also rebel against conventional spelling, which they may see as pedantic.

Next: bitchen or bitchin'? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 14:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that fucking, when used descriptively, can be a participle (it's listed http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fucking as an adjective and adverb though), so fucken is its past participle if used correctly, thus the fucken written writing of it isn't completely useless. That's to my ear, and I've been told I've got pixie ears too... --Modocc (talk) 15:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Father Ted introduced "feck" to the rest of the British Isles, which falls into the same category I believe. Americans have "freakin'" too. Alansplodge (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

future of media & media's future

Hi! When I read an article about Internet news stories, I came across a sentence which quite confused me: "If social is the future of media, then optimistic stories might be media's future." I can't figure out the difference between "the future of media" and "media's future". Would any friend enlighten me on the point? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.239.155 (talk) 03:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think they mean the same thing here (wordsmithing requires that you avoid repeated words or phrases). However, I prefer "The future of media" as it doesn't personify the media in the way that "media's future" does. I would have written "If social is the future of media, then expect more optimistic stories." StuRat (talk) 03:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suprematism

'The term suprematism refers to an abstract art based upon “the supremacy of pure artistic feeling”' ..here. What is the Russian word or root from which this term is derived? Thanks. Omidinist (talk) 06:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From ru:Супрематизм: Супремати́зм (от лат. supremus — наивысший).

From http://synonym-dictionary.info/Словарь_синонимов/167756/Супрематия: супрематия: верховенство, главенство, господство, первенство, превосходство. No such user (talk) 08:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Omidinist (talk) 08:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]