Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

August 15

"The only type of person I hold no remorse for is one given a miracle but who refuses to take advantage of it."

Can you help me make this sound like a decent sentence? I can't figure out what's wrong with it, but I don't think it sounds very good right now.

Maybe: "The only type of person I hold no remorse for is those who are given a miracle but refuse to take advantage of it." ??? 98.27.241.101 (talk) 07:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the problem is more with the words themselves rather than the grammar. "Hold remorse for" and "given a miracle", although comprehensible, aren't really idiomatic, and "take advantage of" implies some level of exploitation or abuse, which isn't really appropriate for miracles. Is "remorse" the right word? It implies that the speaker is only considering people he's harmed in some way. "Sympathy", perhaps? "Benefit from", "avail themselves of", or just "use", might be better than "take advantage of". Tevildo (talk) 07:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

"The only type of person I have no sympathy for is one who is given a miracle but refuses to take advantage of it." That's not wrong, but if you are concerned about people who don't like dangling prepositions, "The only type of person for whom I have no sympathy is one who is given a miracle but refuses to take advantage of it." I don't claim that either of these sentences is a stylistic gem, but they correct the misuse of remorse and the awkward structure of the original. Marco polo (talk) 13:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the reason it's awkward, in addition to the word choices mentioned by Tevildo (except 'take advantage' which fits with miracle as opportunity, and complements the 'give'), is that there are nested clauses and ambiguous subject-object relationships. You can simplify it and add a little punctuation, though perhaps lose the 'quotable' quality you might be after: "I have no sympathy for a person who, given a miracle, does not take advantage of it." Or if you're not a fan of commas like that: "I have no sympathy for a person who does not take advantage of a miracle." (The latter implies they were somehow presented with a miracle, but is also lacking in that implication..) El duderino ^(abides) 22:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

To me, "is given a miracle" is awkward. How about "experiences a miracle"?

And "take advantage of a miracle" does not seem right. Miracles warrant more respect than is suggested by "take advantage of". Is "take advantage of a miracle" meant to convey "turn the results of a miracle to one's personal benefit"? Or "appreciate (or admire or respect) the extraordinary quality of the miraculous event"?

Singling a person who does not seek to benefit (in one way or another) from a miracle as "the ONLY type of person I have no remorse for" (or "the only type of person I have no sympathy for") puts a strain on the credulity of the reader of the sentence. There are such a wide range of people toward whom one might not be sympathetic. CBHA (talk) 00:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The oddest thing about this sentence is remorse, suggesting (as that word is most commonly used) that the speaker could harm such a person without regret; was its meaning formerly closer to ‘sympathy’? Less odd: one given, rather than one who is given, is rare enough to make some readers stumble.

I see nothing wrong with take advantage of, which literally means only ‘(lift a finger to) benefit from’ (though zero-sum thinking leads to the secondary meaning ‘cheat’). —Tamfang (talk) 07:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

"have been" vs. "have"

Is it correct to use just "has" instead of "has been" in the same context? For example is it correct to say:
Queen Elizabeth II has reigned since 1952.
instead of saying:
Queen Elizabeth II has been reigning since 1952.
If yes, is there any difference in meanings of the two statements? Thanks. 14.139.82.7 (talk) 07:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)Vineet Chaitanya

Both are correct, but the latter highlights either the length or the temporary nature of the reign, depending on context -- see Continuous_and_progressive_aspects#English. The former is more likely, unless you have a particular reason for highlighting either of these. As an aside based on possibly unwarranted assumptions about your name, Indian English makes much greater use of the progressive than British English, so the latter may be more likely there. Unfortunately our article appears to ignore Indian English grammar entirely. Henry^Flower 11:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Outside of India, the correct sentence, if you want to state a fact and don't want to emphasize duration, is the first one. Even if I did want to emphasize duration, I think I would choose something like "QEII has reigned since 1952 — a total of 62 years." To my American ears, the second sentence sounds odd, though it is not incorrect. In spoken English, I think, the "has been reigning since" form sounds odd, because it is much more common to hear the homophonous "has been raining since". People are more likely to emphasize duration or progressivity when it comes to rain than to a reign. When a listener first hears "has been reigning" he or she may wonder for a second how a queen can shed rain. Marco polo (talk) 13:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

She's been reigning on Charlie's parade for years and years now. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's not like it's an "OK, Mummy, you've had a pretty good run, how about moving into that nice retirement unit at Windsor Shady Pines and letting a real man have a go" system. You get born, you become the heir apparent, and you wait. For most of your life, if necessary. It's still Elizabeth's parade, and if anyone down the line is champing at the bit, then it is they who are raining on her parade. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I also really doubt that Charles just can't wait to be king. It must be a very stressful, thankless job. If I were Prince Charles I'd want her to stay alive as long as possible so I could avoid it. (And now that he has two sons and a grandson, if I were him I'd quickly convert to RC to make sure it passed me by altogether.) —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The second one turns it into more of an adjective, and then the "be" part is redundant to the "has" (which is just a form of "is"). You could also either say the Queen is happy/sad/on fire or being happy/sad/on fire (or it is being rainy outside). One has an extra word, so isn't great for Wikipedia, but the meaning is essentially the same. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:13, August 15, 2014 (UTC)

It is being rainy outside? Really? Sure, it's formally grammatical, but not idiomatic in any ordinary context.

If I heard someone say "it is being rainy outside", I would look for some unusual interpretation to justify the unusual wording. For example, a speaker might be personifying the "it" that is (formally) the subject of the sentence, and ascribing to "it" some sort of willful peskiness. --Trovatore (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd suspect, too. It's a sketchy phrase. I am feeling the same way about almost any which has been written like that is being. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:04, August 16, 2014 (UTC)

The issue here isn't has vs has been. Instead, it's progressive aspect or not. For example, does he live there vs is he living there. The answer is that it's generally the choice of the speaker to decide whether to explicitly present the situation as one that started in the past and is expected to end (progressive) or simply one that holds at the moment. In your question, has reigned is present perfect and has been reigning is present perfect progressive.--Brett (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

August 16

Subject-verb agreement in en-gb

Please see my changes in edits one and two. Are these correct for en-gb? I can't imagine how it could be correct to say "...the club has played at their current home ground...Aston Villa were founder members...", but as a native speaker of en-us, I could be wrong, and I would expect basic grammar issues in the intro to be caught on an FA, especially as it was prepared for becoming today's featured article. If I made a mistake, please revert me, or if you're not an admin, call one quickly please. Nyttend (talk) 03:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

In British English, wouldn't it be "the club have played at their grounds"? In America, of course, it would be "the club has played at its/their grounds" or "the Yankees have played at their stadium". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

British English has a choice: "the club" (as a single entity) "has" ... but "the club" (the members of the team) "have" ... I can see the argument for making the edits, but I think I prefer the original version with its implied differences in interpretation, though it must look very odd to American readers. Dbfirs 07:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

But football clubs almost always take plural verbs, don't they? I'm American myself, but I've heard enough spoken British English to know that if someone says "Liverpool is..." they're talking about the city and if they say "Liverpool are..." they're talking about the football club. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Seems to me we heard that British plural during the World Cup, and definitely during the Tour de France. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

It still depends on whether you are talking about the players or the organisation. See Liverpool F.C., Manchester United F.C., Crystal Palace F.C. and Burnley F.C. for example. I think there was an agreement on Wikipedia that British pop groups should always be plural, and BB's and Angr's argument follows this practice. I'm not a football expert, so perhaps someone else from the UK might like to comment. We ought to decide on a policy then stick to it for consistency between articles. Currently, most of our articles use the singular in the formal opening sentence. (Perhaps they were all written by Americans or by British pedants?) Dbfirs 15:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

What I'm afraid I cannot tolerate is a combination like "the club has played at their current home ground". 109.147.186.225 (talk) 03:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that sentence needed changing (I'd have made the change the other way), but "The club were floated" also grates to my ear. ( ... and it's the team that plays, not the club!) Dbfirs 09:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

English English speaker here: whilst other compatriots may disagree, I would use singular for "club" as it's usually treated as a (sometimes legal) singular entity; plural for "team", as that's a group noun; and singular and plural respectively for (e.g.) "Liverpool F.C." and "Liverpool". So "the club was floated", "the team were playing", etc. Bazza (talk) 11:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

August 17

Become overrun

How do languages handle passive constructions with helping verbs other than be/get, such as "to become overrun"? 24.130.24.40 (talk) 05:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

A clarification. I want to know how languages that aren't English deal with passives like "These flowers look trampled" or "This food smells fried". I know some languages like the Romance languages can make a participal adjective out of almost any action verb, but what about the languages that can't? 24.130.24.40 (talk) 07:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I can't directly translate smells fried or even smells yummy into French; I'd use unpack the English idiom to something like "smells as if it were fried". —Tamfang (talk) 07:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Many languages don't use helping verbs in passives. For instance, Japanese marks the voice with an inflectional ending. Consider "step on", which is 踏む (fumu), while "be stepped on" is 踏まれる (fumareru).--Brett (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

24.130.24.40 -- I don't think that the examples in your second comment would usually be considered passives. Rather, they contain participles used as predicate adjectives. It's similar to a small clause construction, but with an intransitive main-clause verb... AnonMoos (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

particular type of question

Is there a word for the situation when someone asks a question, but the questioner knows the answer to the question he has just asked? I am interested in this in an educational setting (for example, when the teacher asks "what is three times seven?", knowing full well what the answer is) but I guess the same thing happens when a police officer asks questions of a suspect. Anyway, any hints as to the proper linguistic terms for such a situation (or even further examples) would be very welcome. Best wishes, Robinh (talk) 09:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

If there isn't a more specific term, I suppose it could be called a loaded question though without the presumption of guilt or negative connotations that are normally associated with them. Dismas|^(talk) 09:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

thanks Dismas. I never thought of loaded question, It put me on to leading question and suggestive question which are closer, but still not quite right. Best wishes, Robinh (talk) 10:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

And neither Rhetorical question nor Hypothetical question is quite right either, though they may well be used in educational settings. I don't think English has a special term for a question to which the questioner already knows the answer. I suppose one could call them "educator's questions" (and "interrogator's questions" for the police). Dbfirs 11:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

It's also similar to a Socratic question. --Amble (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Ref desk at its best. Socratic method is exactly what I was looking for. Thanks!

Resolved

Robinh (talk) 19:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I think of 'Socratic question' as a very particular type of educational discussion, as used in law school for example. From the way it's described in the original query above, I would've thought you were looking for a more general term like "didactic question" -- "convergent, factual, and often begin[ning] with 'what,' 'where,"' 'when,' and 'how.' They can be effectively used to diagnose recall and comprehension skills, to draw on prior learning experiences, to determine the extent to which lesson objectives were achieved, to provide practice, and to aid retention of information or processes."[1] We have a related wiki article on the Didactic method which mentions a contrast with the Socratic method. El duderino ^(abides) 07:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I actually agree with El duderino. A Socratic dialogue is a technique that involves this type of question; but most questions you already know the answer to aren't Socratic questions. So it's not a perfect answer to Robinh's original question. --Amble (talk) 13:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Democolacs

What is that word in this sentence from a Schopenhauer's paper : 'Go to the Democolacs and get praised'? Thanks. Omidinist (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be from Greek δημοκόλαξ (dēmokolax), defined by Liddell & Scott as "a mob-flatterer". Deor (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

That's it. Thank you, Deor. --Omidinist (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Old English Adjectives as substantives

I'm looking for an expert opinion on the following: It's claimed that in OE all adjectives were completely free to occur as substantives. Is this overstating things? For example, would an adjective like fæġen (fain) occur as a substantive? Thanks for you help!--Brett (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't have a handy reference for your right now, but judging from how this is easily possible in modern German, and how Old English and German are generally highly similar in the nominal systems, I'd guess yes, this would generally be possible. See e.g. Beowulf "Gesette sige‐hrēþig sunnan and mōnan" ('the triumphant one placed the Sun and the Moon'). Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Isn't sige a noun here though?--Brett (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but it's only a compound modifier of "hreþig", which is the actual head of the compound word, so the entire thing counts as an adjective. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Is there a word in English for this?

Frequently done in movie titles and posters, when one uses symbols or modified symbols from another language as symbols in one's own language to express a feel for that foreign language. For example, if an American movie about Russia had a title with 'R' and 'N' in it, so they use the Russian ya and ee letters. 24.125.223.117 (talk) 14:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

See our article Faux Cyrillic. There are also faux Greek fonts used to give that Classical feel, and other sorts of faux fonts. Deor (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Which direction does the R face in the Moscow branch of Toys "Я" Us ? :-) StuRat (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Since Google Street View imagery is available for Moscow, I was hoping to be able to answer that question, but, sadly, it turns out that the company has no locations in Russia or other countries using Cyrillic. (P.S. my CAPTCHA to post that link was "kookducts". How fitting!) --50.100.184.117 (talk) 00:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

3rd-person singulars of "to degas" and "to diminuendo"?

Greetings!

I've been studying semi-regular, English conjugations, and have now gotten bewildered. The Oxford American Dictionary (Third Edition) gives the 3rd-person singular for the verb to degas as degass (Wiktionary gives degases). At first, I dismissed it as a typo, but the OED website also gives degass.

Similarly, it gives the 3rd-person singular of "to diminuendo" as diminuendos. This strikes me as odd since the OED prescribes the -es suffix for all other <consonant+o> verbs (e.g. "goes," "does") and also, for that matter, nearly all <vowel+o> verbs (e.g. "radioes," "videoes"). Only in the case of stems ending in "-oo," does it use "-s" (e.g. "coos," "tatoos").

Is somebody at Oxford snoozing on the job?Pine (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I can't find the results you report. I don't have a subscription to either OED or OAD; don't know if that matters. But the OED does give me a hit for degas aside — really ought to use the hyphen in this one, so people don't think you're talking about a French painter and no variant degass occurs in it.

As for dimenuendo(e)s, I'm sorry, yuck. Turning an Italian gerund into an English verb, that's just wrong. --Trovatore (talk) 21:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Twinpinesmall -- I'm not sure why one would convert the surname of Edgar Degas into a verb, but if one did so, the pronunciation would remain vowel final (i.e. [deɪɡɑː] with silent letter "s"). The spelling degases would strongly indicate a pronounced (non-silent) letter "s", and also the meaning "to remove the gas from". The spelling degass looks strange, but would be suitable for the third person singular present of a verb derived from Edgar Degas and pronounced [deɪɡɑːz] (e.g. "It out-Degass Degas")... AnonMoos (talk) 02:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The full OED online has no verb "to diminuendo", only the noun. It does have an entry for the verb "to degas" (earlier cites have a hyphen), but gives no indication of the form of the third person singular (from which one normally deduces that it is regular). I found your version on-line and I assume that it is a typo by a clerk entering data onto a website which was then mirrored to the other website. I would trust Wiktionary here. Collins Millennium Dictionary allows either "degases" or "degasses". Perhaps that's what the Oxford website intended to convey? Dbfirs 07:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@ AnonMoos: Isn't Edgar Degas's surname pronounced [dəɡɑː]? The e is not acute. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The correct French pronunciation is [dəɡɑ] or [dəɡa], but its traditional English (mis)pronunciation is [deɪɡɑː]... AnonMoos (talk) 00:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

We have bussing and busses from both "to bus" and "to buss", so why wouldn't it be degassing and degasses (or at least degases). Never just degass for 3rd person singular. He degass? Nope, he de man! 3rd person plural is OK, though: They degass. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

My off-line version of the OED gives only degas "to remove gas" hence degas(s)es, degassed, degassing.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 10:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Subtitles for people speaking in English

I am watching a National Geographic documentary about the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A Japanese woman is telling her story in English, yet subtitles are provided. I recall seeing subtitles on another channel (CNN, I think) during an interview with a South African man, also speaking in English. I am a South Slav and not a native speaker of English, yet I was perfectly able to understand both, so the subtitles struck me as bizarre. Is it possible that a native speaker cannot understand English spoken with strong accent while a non-native speaker can? Or is there another reason for the subtitles? Surtsicna (talk) 23:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

If the person is not speaking in a "standard accent" - it is common for subtitles to be used. I understand that some in London do not speak with a Scots or Yorkshire accent, and subtitles are thus essential. Collect (talk) 23:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Your listening ability in English must be quite good! Although most native speakers would presumably also be able to understand both of these, I can suggest a couple of reasons for the subtitles:

• The National Geographic documentary is not intended only for native speakers of English. Quite a lot of the viewers may have a different native language, and have trouble understanding these accents.
• It becomes much more difficult to understand an unfamiliar dialect when there's some other impediment such as poor sound quality, ambient noise, a "busy" sound environment within the show, or divided attention. Even as a native speaker I sometimes turn on subtitles in English, especially when the program is in a different national variety of English and I'm watching on a laptop. For similar reasons, I sometimes see subtitles appear when someone is speaking in a noisy environment like a factory or a crowd. --Amble (talk) 23:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've just been watching the BBC's "Countryfile" programme where subtitles were provided for a speaker with a strong Irish accent (the inspiration for one of Seamus Heaney's poems). At first I thought "why are they doing that?", then, as I listened, I realised that some words were difficult to make out for those not familiar with the accent. As I get older, I find it increasingly difficult to decipher strange accents, so perhaps the subtitles are just a courtesy for those whose hearing and brain cells are deteriorating. Dbfirs 23:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have seen American TV shows where my dialect, Australian English, was subtitled. Obviously I could understand it, but I guess some Americans couldn't. It all depends on what one is used to. I have trouble with a small set of American accents, although American TV shows have educated us in most of the mainstream American accents. And English from Yorkshire and further north in Scotland can be quite incomprehensible to me (even though that's where my ancestors are from!). HiLo48 (talk) 23:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Language acquisition is not a genetic thing. Identical twins separated at birth and brought up in mutually hostile linguistic environments will have just as much difficulty understanding each other when reunited, as unrelated people would. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Scottish accent is a bit strange. It's my favourite and I understand it much better than others (except for GenAm, which also quite good) but at the same time I often cannot comprehend a word from a usual conversation. Looks like there are two types of Scottish speakers: ones speak normal articulate Scottish English or at least Anglified Scots, others speak alien gibberish (I cannot call it either Scots or English). And it does not directly depend on age, education level and so on, what is even more strange.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 12:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The accent that you find difficult to understand is probably Glaswegian. I struggle to follow it, and I live less than a hundred miles from there. Dbfirs 19:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

ah, if only they did subtitles for the phone. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Aye, klazweejn, Ah cã'e ã'stõ' a 'er' frae i'. Hey spee' a peer alyã lãgij. But other Scots from other areas also can speak like aliens.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 10:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The Harder They Come was subtitled in U.S. theatrical release. In recent decades, the broad U.S. moviegoing public seems to have become rather intolerant of more-than-minimal use of subtitling in wide-release commercial movies... AnonMoos (talk) 00:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

That was a good movie, but without the subtitles I would have had a heck of a time understanding much of the dialog. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Riff-Raff too, iirc. —Tamfang (talk) 07:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

That was a good movie too, but I only got Japanese subtitles for that one. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

As pointed out above by Dbfirs there is a good chance that these subtitles were provided for hearing-impaired individuals. For what it's worth, Japanese TV programs/documentaries do occasionally provide Japanese subtitles even for dialog spoken in Japanese. This is not only because a particular dialect is being used, but also for people with hearing problems. Turns out to be good listening practice for me. Sometimes, however, the actual spoken dialog is a little crude sounding, so the subtitled version is "translated" into a more polite, standard form of Japanese. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but Japanese TV has a quite frankly annoying habit during so-called comedy/variety shows, of printing the celebrity's 'funny' comment in big colourful letters, then repeating it up to four or five times, just to make sure you get the joke, which wasn't particularly funny in the first place. Only the audience - which is inevitably made up of university-age females - is laughing, and the people watching at home aren't. Bizarrely, the audience only gets to see it once, and without subtitles. The only good thing is when a celebrity sticks some food in his/her mouth and a millisecond later - way before the brain has time to even process the fact that food is in the mouth, never mind the taste - he/she will open his/her mouth and say 'UMAI!', and the unnecessary subtitle distracts you from the fact that the person is breaking all rules of etiquette by speaking with food in the mouth. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 18:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be getting more and more common to provide subtitles in any occasion when the speaker has a really thick accent or there is background noise. It might be for the hearing impaired, but I'm not such, and I find it useful. I wish they had provided subtitles for the Yorkshire farmers during the TV series All Creatures Great and Small, as their English was sometimes unintelligible. That might have been the point, though, as author "James Herriot" had kind of a sly sense of humor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• I've seen plenty of Shakespeare films in English that offer subtitling on the DVD. That is a great help for things that when spoken in a freer order come out as mondegreens. As to Surtcina's exact examples, I have sometimes almost thought it parody or racism. They have perfectly clear and grammatical speakers, but because they are not British or North American they get subtitling. When it happens in newscasts I figure the subtitler's got to get paid, so he subtitles every chance he gets. μηδείς (talk) 17:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

A majority of the DVDs I watch offer subtitling, whatever the dialect. —Tamfang (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Obvious reason: subtitling for people that are deaf or hard-of-hearing. --VanBuren (talk) 17:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Except that they would typically have subtitles turned on for all programs. What we're talking about here is where subtitles are provided as part of the default mode, and all viewers get to see them whether they wanted to or not. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Here, we have an American voice, a Canadian voice and an English voice. One apparently isn't English enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:12, August 19, 2014 (UTC)

The subtitled guy sounds like a cross between French Canadian and stereotypical Mafiosi. And is basically unintelligible. I'm not so sure the subtitles even match what he's saying. It's actually "cleaned up" to read like normal English as opposed to the way he's saying the words. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

That's Dynamite Kid (the unsubbed "Amazing" French Canadian is Jacques Rougeau; coincidentally, the story in that video also involves Dino Bravo, who was "allegedly" in with the Québec Mafia). He's obviously not a kid anymore, but even before the drugs and concussions caught up with him, he was hard to understand. Just one of those Englishmen. They like to cram their syllables together, but can apparently understand each other fine. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:27, August 20, 2014 (UTC)

It's general knowledge that common Englishmen speak English worst of all.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 07:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Fortunately for American viewers, when he and his only slightly more intelligible (and slightly more juiced) cousin reached the big stage, they were paired with an extremely articulate Italian (who, of course, previously wrestled as a stereotypical Sicilian). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:48, August 20, 2014 (UTC)

Excellent! I wish this type of people were obliged to wear an automatic personal subtitler on their neck. They speak simply like retards. Even East Asians can speak Ingrishu better.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 11:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Kind of like the subtitles of so-called "Jive" in Airplane!... -- AnonMoos (talk) 09:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

August 18

Proper-hyphen-ation

Is it "early-eighteenth century statue" or "early-eighteenth-century" or possibly "early eighteenth-century"? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

A cursory check indicates that of the three, early eighteenth-century is the only one in common use, but it is also commonly used without any hyphens (i.e.: early eighteenth century). —71.20.250.51 (talk) 06:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Personally I take every opportunity to resist the with-enough-hyphens-any-phrase-can-be-an-adjective trend. —Tamfang (talk) 07:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

See "compound modifier" and "English compound#Hyphenated compound modifiers". Gabbe (talk) 07:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I am simultaneously an arch-anti-over-hyphenationist and an arch anti under hyphenationist. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Your third suggestion is the most correct. The first suggestion has one alternative interpretation from the intended - that there exists objects called century-statues, of which this particular one is the early-eighteenth. The usage rules of commas, means that there is only one interpretation of the third suggestion - since there is no comma following 'early', as an adjective, 'early' is automatically associated with 'eighteenth-century'. Meaning that while correct, the hyphen following 'early' in the second suggestion is superfluous. Plasmic Physics (talk) 07:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

zero/O

BE speakers giving telephone numbers and similar number strings in speech often pronounce 0 (zero) as the letter O. Does this occur in other varieties of English and is there an equivalent in other languages Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

AmEng most definitely. Not sure about other languages. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

And so we very properly had the letter O on the digit 0 on our telephone dials. It was only because foreigners put it in the wrong place that we had to give up using letters when international dialling happened. --ColinFine (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Nobody in the history of the world has ever been heard to say, e.g. History 101 as "History one zero one". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

A challenge! —Tamfang (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

In Illinois I had a neighbor whose house number was displayed as Six O One. I often thought, "And half a dozen O the other." —Tamfang (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Bloody hell, you're me. Welcome to the madness. :) Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I've never come across a variety of English that didn't pronounce zero as "Oh" within numbers. This is common with years such as "nineteen-oh-one", and I recall some speculation about whether we would read 2005 as "twenty-oh-five". In the event it was actually pronounced as "two thousand five".

You asked about other languages. In Korean, the digit five happens to be called 오, pronounced "oh". This leads to great confusion for expats from English-speaking countries switching between languages, since "oh" has to get mapped to 0 in one context and 5 in the other, and it invariably goes wrong some of the time. Although Korean does have a round-circle letter, it is not identified with zero either in typing or in pronunciation. Instead, the numeral zero is often called 공, gong, meaning a ball. Other languages I've come across seem to just call zero by the standard word for zero. --Amble (talk) 00:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

"Two-thousand..." was common for the first decade, but more and more the usage is becoming "Twenty-oh..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Really?? In what geographical region do you hear "twenty-oh-something"? We do use "twenty-ten" and so on for the second decade, but I literally cannot recall ever hearing that pattern extrapolated back to the previous decade to give "twenty-oh-something". I only heard this back in 1999 when people were talking about what the coming years were going to be called. I'd be interested to hear if that pattern really did catch on somewhere. --Amble (talk) 00:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Charles Osgood was saying "twenty-oh..." from the get-go. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Very interesting, thanks. It also occurs to me that we do say "oh-five", "oh-eight", etc. when giving years in two-digit form. --Amble (talk) 01:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

And some people do refer to the police as "five-oh", even when they're not in Hawaii. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to confuse everybody, the original series was Hawaii Five-O (oh), but the new one is Hawaii Five-0 (zero). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Is the name of the reboot still pronounced the same? I wonder if they changed McGarret's "Book 'em Danno (Dann-oh)!" to "Book 'em Dann-zero!" as well. It's interesting that in Japanese they are also written differently: the original is and the reboot is Hawaii Five-0. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

In Japanese, there are two words which mean "zero":ゼロ (zero) (spelling is the same but pronunciation is slightly different) and 零 (rei). The word 丸 (maru, circle) is also sometimes used when reading numbers out loud because "○" looks a little like "0" and it's really easy to understand. So, a Japanese person might read "102" as "ichi zero ni", "ichi rei ni", or "ichi maru ni". Kind of depends on context and on the person. Since "maru" is more conversational and "zero" is a loanword taken from English, the Japanese "rei" is what is usually used on NHK. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

While reading about Don Pardo's recent death, I got to wondering what he looked like (Note: Pardo is most known for his voice work). So I looked for a clip on YouTube and found an interview that he gave. In it, he uses the shorthand of "Two-Oh-Five" to refer to 2005. He does this repeatedly throughout the interview when discussing years in the first decade of this century. This is the first time I've heard someone drop one of the zeros from those years. Dismas|^(talk) 06:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Sportscaster Brent Musburger is known to use "oh" even ehen referring to a single zero [as opposed to the more common "nothing" (U.S.) or "nil" / "naught" (U.K.)], as in "The Giants take the lead 3-0 (three-oh)."    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 04:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I've often heard baseball broadcasters describe a 3-0 pitch as "three-and-oh" or just "three-oh". For an 0-2 pitch, they might say "oh-two" or "oh-and-two". Possibly "nothing and". But not "zero" in any case. Sometimes the term "zip" is used, as in, "the score is 3-zip". Certainly not "nil", as that's pretty much just a soccer term. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

August 19

Chinese request: MH370

From Commons:Search_for_Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370#Maps_and_graphics

• Theoretical fuel range
• Initial search area based on last radar contact
• Corridors based on satellite data
• Areas of possible debris spotting

What are these in Chinese?

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Grammar Correction

Is this sentence correct? I would suggest you call for a meeting with the vendor as we are not going to be able to resolve all these outstanding issues through emails.

Please let me know if the above sentence is grammatically correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.101.5.128 (talk • contribs)

Yes, it is perfectly formed, although it may sound slightly odd if your dialect doesn't use the English subjunctive. Stylistically, I would probably say email (sing), treatng it as a medium, rather than a plural, but that's a style choice and the sentence is perfectly cromulent as is. μηδείς (talk) 16:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Wait, are there dialects of English that don't use the subjunctive? Where are these "shouldless, wouldless, couldless" speakers? SemanticMantis (talk) 16:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Would, should, could are not ordinarily considered subjunctive. Morphologically, they are the past tenses of will, shall, can respectively. In terms of meaning and comparative grammar, they're more similar to the "conditional mood" from Romance languages than to the subjunctive mood. --Trovatore (talk) 00:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, that's at odds with what I was taught. To my (non-linguist) reading, e.g. "could" squarely fills the role subjunctive mode, which is used "to expresss...possibility, judgment, opinion, necessity," To be specific "He could jump over that car" indicates my belief that it is possible for him to jump over that car. Likewise if I say "he should jump over that car", I'm offering my opinion on that matter. Linguistic_modality#Auxiliaries seems to make it clear that auxiliary verbs can serve to mark modality, but doesn't clearly classify which are which. I did read about conditional mood, but I don't think my examples depend clearly on some condition being met. This also gets us into difficulties assessing the nature of our modal semantics (e.g. deontic vs. epistemic modality), but I think I should stop digressing :) SemanticMantis (talk) 03:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, so generally, I don't find these vague descriptions of what moods (or for that matter, tenses or aspects) represent, to be all that helpful. They make sense after the fact, once you already know what constructions they're supposed to apply to, but not so much for distinguishing among them a priori.

First, you should be aware that there are some bomb-throwers who dispute that English has a "subjunctive mood" (or for that matter a "future tense") at all. If you look at English in isolation, they kind of have a point. But if you consider English in context as a Western European language, then it's fairly clear what the subjunctive is, and it doesn't include would, could, or should.

In the traditional view of English grammar, English has two subjunctives, a preterite subjunctive and a present subjunctive. The preterite subjunctive is used for counterfactuals ("if I were king"), and the present subjunctive is used for third-person imperatives ("God bless you") and mandative clauses ("it is important that you be prompt").

The aforementioned bomb-throwers don't think that a single word (were) is sufficient to establish a preterite subjunctive in English (all other preterite subjunctives are morphologically identical to the preterite indicative), and they claim that the be in "it is important that you be prompt" is an infinitive rather than a subjunctive. --Trovatore (talk) 08:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The habit of describing constructions in English in terms of the Latin or French grammar which they translate has a venerable history, but it is part of the unhelpful and misleading programme of pretending that English grammar is like Latin grammar. It is useless for an understanding of the actual grammar of English. --ColinFine (talk) 21:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

A lot of British and uneducated American dialects would feel more comfortable with "I suggest you should cal" as opposed to 'I would suggest you call". English dialectology is not an intersy of mine but I am sure others here can comment in detail. I agree with Mp below the comma is needed. μηδείς (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh I see what you mean now, thanks for clarifying. SemanticMantis (talk) 03:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It's basically correct, but there really should be a comma between vendor and as marking off the dependent clause. Marco polo (talk) 18:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

August 20

Theravada Buddhists: Pali or Sanskrit?

From what I can tell, among Western Buddhists, Mahayanists prefer to use Sanskrit terms (karma, dharma, etc.), while Theravadins prefer to use Pali terms (kamma, dhamma). This made me curious about usage among Theravadins who speak an Indic language: from what I can find here, the Sinhalese words are කර්මය (karmaya) and ධර්මය (darmaya) – clearly not Pali-derived, because they have the Sanskrit r. So what's the reason for this seeming inconsistency? Is the preference for Pali over Sanskrit forms purely a phenomenon of Western Theravadins, and not actually the case among those in Sri Lanka or other Asian countries? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 00:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not so much a preference, rather that Theravadins draw their teachings from the Pali Canon whereas the Mahayana draws much more on the Mahāyāna sūtras. However Sri Lankan Theravada Buddhists will naturally use Sinhalaese terms just as the English Theravada Buddhists will use terms that have become naturalised in English (e.g. the Sanskrit derived "karma" and "bodhisattva"), so I don't see any contradiction.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Lazar Taxon -- Buddhists originally chose Pali as a statement that they were preaching to the people in their ordinary spoken language, as opposed to Brahmins who used esoteric Sanskrit (which was already quite divergent from ordinary spoken language). This was the same reason why the Asoka inscriptions did not use Sanskrit. However, within a few centuries, ordinary spoken language in north India started diverging from Pali, and in later eras there came to be strong Sanskrit influence on many Buddhist texts or writings (see Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit etc.)... AnonMoos (talk) 09:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not familiar enough with the situation in Sri Lanka to comment (Shantavira's answer seems on the money though). However I can answer the final part of your question. In the countries of Southeast Asia where Theravada is practiced (Cambodia, Thailand, Laos, Burma), Pali is the language of Buddhism. Words adopted from Sanskrit can be found in the areas of politics and literature, but, as the Theravada Canon came to the region in Pali, that language has a special significance. In fact, it's significance as a "sacred" language has spread beyond Buddhism in these countries and is used (often in abbreviated form or simply for the sounds of the words, not necessarily the meanings) by local animists for magical purposes/folk practices (e.g. Yantra tattooing, "love spells" and "black magic").--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 18:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Abbreviation "Ag" in German place names

This question is for a friend of mine whose research into her family's genealogy has taken her to a town called Gägelow Ag. Sternberg, in what's now Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. Does anyone have any idea what "ag." stands for/signifies? I came up empty on Google and speak no German myself. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

(Copied from the Tourism Reference Desk, aka Wikivoyage Tourist Office by: 50.100.184.117 (talk) 02:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC); I suggest answering there. Looking at Google Maps, it seems to show Gägelow as place either within or near Sternberg, so I suspect the word is a preposition.)

I think the answer is that this is not part of the place name at all. I believe it refers to the local court (Amtsgericht or Ag.) in the district of Gägelow in the town of Sternberg. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree with Andrewssi2. Ag. is a abbreviation for Amtsgericht, a low level local court that tends to have a number of smaller towns and villages falling within its jurisdiction; it's more than likely trying to indicate that Gägelow is within the catchment area of the court in Sternberg. Sotakeit (talk) 08:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

+ 1. It was used formerly in order to distinguish towns like Gägelow AG Sternberg from Gägelow AG Wismar, see Mecklenburg Gazetteer. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 12:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Greek surname

How would the surname Petratos be pronounced? Hack (talk) 03:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

IPA: [pɛ'tratɔs], pe-TRAH-tos. Fut.Perf. ☼ 04:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the reply. Hack (talk) 06:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

But how's it pronounced in the Present? —Tamfang (talk) 07:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Beware of Greeks bearing Presents. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I resemble that! μηδείς (talk) 01:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC).

My mistake: the question is clearly subjunctive. —Tamfang (talk) 03:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

comma question on names

This question is not related to a Wikipedia article, but I thought I would ask here as being the best place to get a quick answer. When writing a list of names, with last name first (as in "Blow, Joseph T.")... do you put a comma before Jr., Sr., III, IV, etc.
in other words is it:

• Blow, Joseph T. Sr.
• Blow, Joseph T. Jr.
• Blow, Joseph T. III

or is it:

• Blow, Joseph T., Sr.
• Blow, Joseph T., Jr.
• Blow, Joseph T., III

Please don't start a debate... if different style guides say different things, just tell me which ones say what. Thanks. 74.64.17.9 (talk) 16:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

According to the The Chicago Manual of Style, your second set of three names is punctuated correctly.

• http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Jr.Sr.III.html

—Wavelength (talk) 23:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Meaning of leporello in Italian

Can anyone confirm or give an etymology that shows that Leporello means "little rabbit" in Italian? A citable source for Don Giovanni would be helpful. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 21:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The closest I can think of is lepre, "hare". Lepre --> leporello is not any regular diminutive scheme I know, but it's pretty close. --Trovatore (talk) 21:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Leveret is leprotto in standard Italian. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 22:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it lepus, leporis in Latin? So lepor- would be the stem; lepre is a plausible variation of that. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that was what I was thinking, vulgar lepore- (either from leporē or leporem in Classical Latin could give this form dialectically in broad Italian. It also makes perfect sense that it's the name of the cowardly servant in D. Gio. μηδείς (talk) 01:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Hares are not rabbits, and in English folk culture, at least, they have the attributes of speed and of hiding, and also ("March Hare") of madness. But not of cowardice. I don't know whether they have the same image in Italian folklore. --ColinFine (talk) 12:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

August 21

Cryptic Pregnancy in Chinese

There is an article called Cryptic pregnancy which describes a condition where someone is unaware of their pregnancy until they go into labor. I have tried in vain to look for a Chinese term to describe this condition - not even Google search results for this topic in Chinese seem to be helpful. Can someone help me find an appropriate Chinese term for this condition? 69.120.134.125 (talk) 04:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

What was that again?

Suppose a guy introduces himself as "Frank Geary". You aren't sure whether you heard "Frank" or "Hank". I always go "Frank?" and they go "Geary". I go "yeah, yeah, ...Frank??" and they just repeat "Geary". Then I just give up and assume I was right, but it's annoying somehow - what if they didn't hear my "Frank" very clearly? Now I'm in China, and non-native speakers do this to me all the time, and I need a quick way of clarifying what I've heard. So be Frank with me - how do I get the first part of that, without going into detail? Overclarifying is tedious, so I want the simple way. Why does everyone (native or foreign) assume I want the second part? Is there a tone of voice that gets the idea across? IBE (talk) 06:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

How about, "could you repeat that please?" Always works for me, in any language. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Ask "Did you say your first name was Frank or Hank?". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, I hear you, but the point is that I instinctively do this, then realise I'm not being understood. Is there a "right" way? It interests me in and of itself, as well as being simpler if I can just use the right abbreviated way (assuming such a thing exists). It just seems strange that it comes out wrong much more than 50% of the time. IBE (talk) 10:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

How about repeating the entire name instead of just the first name? Or "Say again, please?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Those suggestions actually might work, although the first one only works with something short. I used the example of a name because, although it happened 10 years ago, it's still fresh in my mind. At the time I couldn't work out for the life of me why he kept repeating his surname, when I asked him about his first name. "Frank?" "Geary." "Frank?" "Geary." "Frank??!!" "Geary!". I gave up, and figured it out afterwards. It's now happening with sentences in China, so I say the first bit, and they repeat the rest of the sentence. It usually means I've heard right, but I'm instinctively doing the dumb thing of just repeating myself. Just curious as to what the "canonical" way is of doing it without the laborious (and strangely unintuitive) trick of actually explaining yourself. IBE (talk) 11:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

When you say "Frank?", you're inviting him to fill in the rest of his name. That might sound counterintuitive, but that's how it works. You've obviously got the first name correct, and as far as he's concerned you want clarity only about the surname. If you said "Hank?" and his name was actually Frank, he would correct you with "No, Frank". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I sometimes repeat the phrase with 'what' or 'who' filling in the part I don't understand. E.g. "[who] Geary?", or "The great [what] of China?" With some practice, you can even vocally imply the square brackets/variable nature of the 'who/what' :) This might be a little familiar for very professional contexts, but it's always worked well for me in friendly situations. Since you're repeating every part you heard, it's very easy for people from different cultures and linguistic backgrounds to understand which part you didn't understand. For long phrases, you only need to repeat the words adjacent to the word you didn't catch. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

They say you only get one chance to make a first impression. I agree. If I don't hear a name, I just don't use it. In one-on-one dealings, they're not so important, anyway. If it's important to you and you catch the last name, you might try "Good to meet you, Mr. Geary" and hope for a "Call me Frank." Not surefire, of course. Plenty of people would still rather be called Mister.

If you questioned my first name, I'd repeat it for you, not my last. But I know it's common here to take it as a trailing "Frank...?", too. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:40, August 21, 2014 (UTC)

How did the Iago Sparrow get that name?

There's a "did you know" today about the Iago Sparrow, but the article, unless I missed it, doesn't explain how the poor bird happened to get named after one of the most despised characters in Western literature, a man whose evil is so unmotivated that it represents a flaw in an otherwise masterful play. Only Nurse Ratched comes close. (Is there a bird named after her?) --Trovatore (talk) 07:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

According to Iago_Sparrow#Taxonomy it was "first collected by Charles Darwin ... at the island of Santiago". Iago is a form of Jacob or James; presumably Darwin (or whoever named it) wasn't thinking of the Shakespearean baddie . AndrewWTaylor (talk) 07:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, thanks much. I don't think I would ever have made that connection. --Trovatore (talk) 08:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Santiago Island is rather surprisingly named after King James I of Great Britain according to Galapagos Conservancy - my guess would have been Saint James the Great but you can't be right all of the time! Alansplodge (talk) 18:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Translation of Shakespeare's date of death

I read this in a footnote (note 36) in the Shakespeare's life article: His age and the date are inscribed in Latin on his funerary monument: AETATIS 53 DIE 23 APR. Can someone please translate exactly what this means? And, also, what exactly would a "funerary monument" refer to? I assume it is something different than his gravestone (since his gravestone has that famous poem inscribed on it)? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

See Shakespeare's funerary monument: it means that he died at age 53 on April 23 (1616). AETATIS is short for "anno aetatis suae", meaning literally "in the year of his age", best translated "at the age of", DIE is ablative of "dies", meaning "day" and APR just means April, so AETATIS 53 DIE 23 APR means "at the age of 53 on the day of 23 April". However, that's part of a longer inscription (see linked article). - Lindert (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I did not know that we had an article for Shakespeare's funerary monument. I will read that. So, in the meanwhile, a follow up question. Why would it say age 53 instead of 52? Or even 51, for that matter? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

You are 52 during the 53rd "year of your age", as you only have that birthday at the end of the year. Rojomoke (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

According to Google Translate, anno aetatis suae 53 means "at the age of 53". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Alphabetical order

I have a question about the alphabet and alphabetical ordering. I read both of those articles, and they did not seem to answer my question. I clearly understand the concept of "alphabetical ordering" (e.g., the word "apple" comes before "boy", which comes before "cat", etc.). My question is: Is there any particular reason or rationale or philosophy as to the order of the letters of the alphabet? In other words, for example: Why is "D" the fourth letter, when it could just as easily be the 18th letter? Why does the letter "K" come before the letter "Q", when it could just as easily come after it? Things of that nature. Where and why does the present order come from? Was it just some random ordering? Or is there some rhyme and reason behind it? I am referring to the English language alphabet. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The order, for the most part, inherited from its predecessor alphabets. Perhaps Latin alphabet#Origins, Latin script, English alphabet and/or History of the Latin alphabet will have the exact answers you're looking for.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 18:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

This image summarizes things nicely. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 19:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Generally, new letters get added to the end of the alphabet. Some letters can be split (I and J) retain their earlier places. This of course doesn't explain the base that we began with. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)