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

June 23

English to Malay Translation Error

I am not sure if this is the right place to ask about this. But anyway, there is some issue with Wikipedia translating an item in the infobox.

The current translation for 'ratio' from English to Malay is 'Pelajar kepada nisbah guru'. However, the correct translation should be 'Nisbah pelajar kepada guru'. See, not much wrong there but an obvious grammatical error. It makes sense if you translate it back to English, as if it was translated by Google Translate.

Anyway I can fix this (or anyone else if this is something above my power), other than using free text? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeongQiJin (talk • contribs) 11:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you tell us on which article you've seen this error? I'm finding no instances of "Pelajar kepada nisbah guru" on the whole of the English Wikipedia. If the offending article is on the Malay Wikipedia, then you'll have to raise it there. Rojomoke (talk) 12:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, it is on the Malay Wikipedia. Any idea how to fix that? It is not an error in the article, but a site-wide translation error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeongQiJin (talk • contribs) 12:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Here is a link to the Help Desk on the Malay Wikipedia. Try asking there, though you will be expected to communicate in Malay. Marco polo (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The only instance I can find of that particular phrase is at ms:Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan Taman Desa. In that case, the text is an infobox field, so you would need to modify the template ms:Templat:Kotak info sekolah. Large-scale find-and-replace can be done by a bot, but the others are right; you should bring it up with the editors there, perhaps at the Kedai Kopi. Most small wikis will welcome the extra help. Lesgles (talk) 13:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Modification how if possible

Your answers and opinions as to the literature, principles, or explanations that describe about the principles of modifications in relation to relativizer, complementizer, conjunction, subordinate conjunction, and preposition? By giving first an answer as to whether such a modification is first of all possible and then giving an explanation in their ‘yes’ and ‘no’ cases, perhaps? HowardReview (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are asking. We have articles on relativizer and complementizer. Both of these are sort of newer categories, and previously would have just been called conjunctions. "That" can be used as a complementizer or relativizer, depending on the syntax. So four of the terms you link are all closely related to the notion of conjunction, but prepositions are a different thing altogether. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• Please ask your question again in your native language. μηδείς (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

June 24

Looking for a word similar to a Strawman fallacy

I wanted to post on IMDB, but they want to authenticate all accounts by sending a code to your cellphone. Anyway that aside, in the "Why Authenticate" section there's a mini FAQ, and one of the questions is,

Q: Why do I need to do this? A: You don't. Providing additional authentication for your account is completely voluntary, but doing so will allow you to post on the message boards, report abuse on the message boards system, send private messages to other users, contribute information on our IMDb FAQ pages, and other cool features on this site restricted to users with authentication status.

I have a problem with that answer, it's like asking why you need a driver's license and then answering with "you don't, but you need it in order to drive", or asking why you need a passport and then answering, "you don't, but you need it in order to travel", it doesn't actually answer the question, it's more of a facile answer that doesn't provide any elucidation. Is there a word for this kind of response? I'm thinking it's a strawman, but there might be a better word for it. Malamockq (talk) 00:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a fallacy-expert, but the word that came to mind (well, second, after dickism) was sophism, the way it's used in modern colloquial speech. It certainly sounds like a type of relevance fallacy. I agree that the good old straw man looks like its cousin. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Madsen Pirie calls it "extensional pruning" - this is the relevant entry from his book (a blatant copyvio, I'm afraid). See extensional definition. Tevildo (talk) 07:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe just "facile" - from Google's dictionary "(especially of a theory or argument) appearing neat and comprehensive only by ignoring the true complexities of an issue; superficial." Shorter wiktionary def here: [1]? The thing is, the argument/explanation as stated is not a formal fallacy. The logic has both soundness and logical validity. It does feign to be comprehensive, but it does not actually explain "why do I need to do this in order that I may do other things. So you might be able to consider it an informal fallacy, because it is essentially a Question_dodging. The answer given is correct, sound, and valid, but it ignores the spirit of the question, and focuses instead on an over-literal reading of "Why do I need to do this." So it's not a handy well-known one-word concept, but you'd be correct to say "IMDB's so-called explanation is really just facile question dodging". All of this is also in total agreement with Tevildo's suggestion of "extensional pruning", which is also a great concept, but not that well known. Upon reading the link above, I think it's fair to say that extension pruning can be used as facile way to dodge a question, but not all facile question dodging is extensional pruning. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

That argument can also be extended to "you can die instead", as in "Why won't my medical insurance cover a medically necessary procedure ?". They usually avoid saying it directly, though. StuRat (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

One justification I often hear thrown about is that X, say "driving", is a privilege, not a right, therefore they don't need to worry about denying you X for trivial reasons. The corollary to that is that many things should probably be rights that aren't, at least according to the US Constitution, like drinking water, food, air, shelter, education, etc. The drinking water one was recently a problem in Detroit, where they made the news by turning off the water for anyone who couldn't pay. There were protests by human rights organizations who feel that access to safe drinking water is, or should be, a basic human right. StuRat (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Empowerment. (We also have a weak article.) When people consider joining a community, they expect rules from their leaders, but rather make their own choices than volunteer to serve under authoritarian rule. This sort of answer "self-actualizes" them, and no that's not a "real thing". But it works, so it can't be a total fallacy. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:14, June 25, 2015 (UTC)

I believe you have a fallacy about fallacies there. That is, "it works", meaning it is widely accepted, doesn't mean it's valid logic. There have been many such widespread fallacies. StuRat (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

That's true, but I doubt IMDB intended a logical argument at all, just a rhetorical. It's a recruitment FAQ, not a debate, after all. The whole idea of "Frequently Asked Questions" has become a gimmick to frame rules as something more inclusive and interactive. Only one side to these "discussions", asking and answering. It's akin to the "some people say" trick. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:25, June 25, 2015 (UTC)

Chevrons to convey thoughts?

Hi, I've been trying to find any kind of source for the claim at Bracket#Angle_brackets that:

Chevrons are infrequently used to denote words that are thought instead of spoken, such as: ⟨ What an unusual flower! ⟩

Is there any basis or examples for this that anyone could find? (The whole section has been flagged for lacking references, so it's not just this part that lacks sources.) Any help is appreciated. Thanks. --CesarFelipe (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

A thought balloon is the usual method. I see Speech_balloon#Foreign_languages states: "In many comic books, words that would be foreign to the narration but are displayed in translation for the reader are surrounded by angle brackets or chevrons <like this>." StuRat (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, that is the traditional use in comic books. But I'm wondering the quote is referring to cases in literature, where thoughts would need to be conveyed, like telepathy perhaps? --CesarFelipe (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, the issue with comics/graphic novels is the need to convey a lot of info in a short space (one pane). In a novel, space is less constrained, so they could just say it outright as "X sent this message telepathically to Y". Of course, repeating that full explanation each time could get old, so some type of shortcut like brackets might then make sense. Not sure if there is a general standard for it, though. StuRat (talk) 18:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Angle brackets and double angle brackets are also used in French (and perhaps other languages, but I only know French and English) where English uses apostrophe and double apostrophe as quote marks. See Quotation_mark#French. --Jayron32 20:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I can't get a specific use "in the wild", but this page [2] supports the claim. IMO a not-great source is better than no source. This one isn't that bad or anything, I just think there must be better ones out there. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Haha, nice find either way! Thanks for the help everyone. --CesarFelipe (talk) 22:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

In A Song of Ice and Fire, every chapter is from a character's POV, and their full-phrase thoughts are in italics. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:31, June 25, 2015 (UTC)

June 25

"adopted"

I'm reading a short story (I think it takes place in the 1970s) where an Englishman comes home and excitedly tells his wife "I've been adopted!"

She asks him, "Whatever for?".

And he replies, "As liberal candidate in North Zero" which he then explains is near Cornwall (he will have to move).

What does "adopted" mean in this context? Does it mean nominated for some political candidacy? What do you think this character is running for?--Captain Breakfast (talk) 05:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

He is going to run for Parliament for the Liberal party (now part of the Lid Dems) in that constituency (fictional). So in a sense he has been adopted by the party like a parent would adopt a child. It is not standard usage though. 'Selected' would be normal here. Fgf10 (talk) 07:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Chambers 20th Century Dictionary, 1983 edition, has "to choose formally (e.g. a candidate)" among the meanings of adopt. I have to say, to my ear adopted sounds more normal than selected in this sense. DuncanHill (talk) 07:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I partially agree, but "selected" may imply that some sort of procedure, such as a vote, has been used to choose the candidate from a group; whereas "adopted" is less transparent and leaves it open as to the method used and the number of candidates to choose from. (For accuracy, the party referred to in the typo above is Lib Dems (Liberal Democrats).) Bazza (talk) 09:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

"Selected" does not imply any such thing. DuncanHill (talk) 12:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I think I understand Bazza's point. We sometimes say "drafted" in USA in this context. Maybe you use it in UK. But all synonyms have different connotations to different people. Selected, for some people, might have subtle connotations that some objective process such as counting votes, picking the person with a highest rating of some kind, or even randomly drawing a name out of a hat was employed. But drafted (although a loose synonym of select) does not connote such a process to the degree that "select" does, at least to me.--Captain Breakfast (talk) 13:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

You might also want to take a look at Liberal Party (UK) for more context. Marco polo (talk) 12:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

This is standard terminology. There is a "selection meeting" at which the constituency party members hear the candidates (and possibly their wives) and then vote. The candidate with the most votes is selected, and then is formally adopted as the prospective parliamentary candidate for the constituency by motion, which the Secretary will record in the minutes. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 15:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree that this is standard - see Gerald Vernon-Jackson adopted as Candidate, Sophy Gardner formally adopted as Labour's candidate and Maria Caulfield adopted as Conservative candidate selected randomly from hundreds of similar articles. Alansplodge (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. In Australia it's always "pre-selected". Never just "selected" and never "adopted". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

French translation

Pendant que j'étais à Taravai, après les funérailles de Joseph Gregorio II, la Reine mère s'avisa, de concert avec le Régent, de briser ce corps du vénéré Grégorio Ier si bien conservé pour le mettre dans une malle destinée à contenir des effets ! Ce fait est regrettable, et il prouve une fois de plus que les indigènes ne peuvent pas marcher seuls dans le maniement des affaires. A la mort du jeune Roi, le peuple, voyant la dynastie éteinte à cause qu'à Mangaréva le sceptre ne tombe jamais en quenouille, eut diverses pensées. Les uns voulaient qu'on se mit en Régence, en attendant un héritier de la part des deux filles survivantes, et ce fut le sentiment qui fut suivi ; mais d'autres songeaient à se mettre en république, à la façon des grandes nations.

Can someone please help translate this passage better than google translate?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

When I was in Taravai, after the funerals of Joseph Gregorio II, the queen mother told me, together with the regent, to break up the corpse of the hallowed Gregorio I that had been so well preserved, and to place it into a trunk designed to contain personal effects ! This fact is regrettable and proves once again that the natives cannot be left alone to handle matters. When the young king died, the people, seeing that the dynasty was extinguished because in Mangaréva, the scepter never falls to the distaff (meaning, because the throne can only pass to a male heir), had many thoughts. Some wanted a regency to be proclaimed while waiting for a male heir to be produced by one of the two surviving daughters, and that was the notion that prevailed. But others thought that they should become a republic, as other great nations had done." --Xuxl (talk) 11:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

That google translation was actually not bad - I only read it after producing my own. --Xuxl (talk) 11:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Not "la Reine mère m'avisa" but "la Reine mère s'avisa". You seem to have translated as if it was the former. So for that bit my translation would be "the queen mother decided/conceived/got into her mind, together/in cooperation with the regent, to break up the corpse etc." Contact Basemetal here 12:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Basemetal, You are correct; I was working too fast. "The Queen Mother decided, together with the regent, to break up the corpse..." would be a straightforward translation (the original text's style is somewhat stilted, which is nos surprising for formal writing from the 19th century". --Xuxl (talk) 13:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

You're so right. The French of this text is certainly "désuet". All the more surprising then that the Google translation was (at least relatively) so good. Are they getting closer to a really useful translation engine, at least for French? Or is this a one off? What's the general experience with French? How about Spanish? I think everyone agrees that for languages such as Japanese what comes out is still almost unusable gibberish. Contact Basemetal here 14:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. The distaff and male heir part portion was the most crucial in understanding the succession.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

What accent is this?

I am listening to an audiobook narrated by noted English actor Reece Shearsmith.

He's a great performer, but one quirk I find distracting is every time there an "s" in the middle of the word (never the beginning) immediately followed by any type of "u" sound, he very clearly turns the "s" into a "sh" or a "zh".

To give two examples, there's one major character in the book named Ursula. Every time he says her name, he very distinctly pronounces it "Ursh-a-la". Also, the verb "resume" is pronounced "ree-zhoom".

I'm American, and no English people I've seen on TV or met in person or spoken to on the phone use this pronunciation. Or maybe they do, and I have never noticed until now.

Is this a recognized accent in English, or some idiosyncrasy (or even speech impediment) of the actor? --Captain Breakfast (talk) 13:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm English and the only thing I can think of is Steve McClaren's notorious attempt to ingratiate himself to the Dutch public by speaking English with a comedy Dutch accent ("I am very exshited to manage thish football cloob"). To properly answer your question, not as far as I know. It may be an idiosyncrasy of the actor, perhaps a self-conscious attempt to avoid lisping. --87.224.68.42 (talk) 14:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

This is an example of the steady degradation of the language. In Elizabethan times we got the word "nation", for example, from Latin natione (or Old French, as some say). The pronunciation was NAY-SEE-ON - we know that from the metre of Elizabethan verse. Then the vowel disappeared and it became NAY-SHUN. "Alicia" became Alysha, "sure" became shore, "measure" became mezher and so on. People shouldn't pronounce "Ursula" and "resume" that way, but they do, and the language is the worse for it. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The language is different for it. There is no moral value in linguistic variation. --Jayron32 17:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you really think the language has been degraded by not saying NAY-SEE-ON? Presumably, the Latin would be NAT-ee-own-ay. So it's the French who started it. I bet you don't pronounce the e in words like rained. Or stress revenue on the second syllable. Myrvin (talk) 10:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Whenever I hear someone carefully say "sek-syu-əl" rather than "sek-shu-əl", I have the impression the speaker has a theoretical idea of what sex is, but has never done it. Or has, but found it icky and unpleasant. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

It is quite common to realise the sequence /sju/ (as in sue, issue, assume) as [ʃu] in British English, by a normal process of assimilation (and /zju/ similarly as [ʒu], in resume). I think that for some people this assimilation is found even in careful speech, but I may be wrong about this.

I don't hear that regularly in British English. Perhaps it's regional? Dbfirs 16:12, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

All but the most patrician American accents also use the "sh" sound in issue, but I haven't heard anyone use that sound in sue, assume, resume or Ursula. When you explain it those terms, it makes sense how and why the transformation occurs, but it still sounds very unfamiliar to my ears.--Captain Breakfast (talk) 04:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• I was puzzled for years by Tom Lehrer's crack about "Sessyu Hayakawa" until it hit me that he mispronounced Sessue by analogy with issue. —Tamfang (talk) 23:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• "Urshula" reminds me of Sean Connery, if that helps. μηδείς (talk) 16:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

See Phonological history of English consonant clusters#Yod-coalescence (version of 02:18, 9 May 2015).

—Wavelength (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

And [3] Myrvin (talk) 18:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

For issue, the OED gives Brit. /ˈɪʃ(j)uː/ , /ˈɪsjuː/ , U.S. /ˈɪʃ(j)u/ The first seems to be the sh sound. Myrvin (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Country names

Why do we anglicise the names of countries? For instance, Germany, in German, is Deutschland; in Portuguese Brazil is Brasil, yet in English it's Brazil. Surely it's more respectful to simply refer to countries as the inhabitants of those countries choose to do so. Thanks in advance --Andrew 14:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

How would it be respectful? Do Germans and Brazilians enjoy hearing their vowels mangled? Would Germans and Brazilians be expected to reciprocate? And what about countries with many languages? Do we impose our choice of which language to regard as correct when naming the country? DuncanHill (talk) 14:53,

• Well the overwhelming majority of countries have an official language, and even in those where there are two,the language with the largest number of speakers should be used; if we were taught in school what those names were and how to say them in the correct tongue, I don't see why pronounciation would be an issue? And of course they'd be expected to reciprocate, it would make learning the names of countries across the world much easier if there were no English, German, Portuguese etc. equivalents of what to call them--Andrew 14:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• It's the same principle for people too; why should, for example, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, be Isabel II do Reino Unido in Portuguese. That might be her name and title if she were Portuguese, but she isn't so why not call her by the name of her native language? There doesn't seem to be any obvious logic to it--Andrew 15:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• There isn't any logic to it. Language doesn't ask permission. --Jayron32 05:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

We have some coverage of this issue at Exonym_and_endonym#Controversies_and_complications. You might also be interested in reading about how some of the English exonyms came about at List_of_country-name_etymologies. Not all of them are simply "anglicised." You are certainly correct that many people prefer to be referred to by their own endonyms. For instance the Romani people seem to generally prefer that term to the pejorative gypsy, for perhaps obvious reasons. Going the other way, there are probably many Canadians and Mexicans (and Brazilians, Panamanians, etc) that get annoyed when people from the USA refer to themselves as "Americans", despite the fact that there are about 20 other sovereign countries in The Americas. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• I don't know about Mexicans, but I think most other Canadians would agree with me that it's annoying to be told we should have that attitude. We need a demonym and adjective for the US much more than we need one for the Americas, and we have one: "American". So please don't try to take it away from us. --70.49.171.136 (talk) 13:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Typical selfish Canadian attitude! μηδείς (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

While there's some tendency to do that (e.g. Côte d'Ivoire vs Ivory Coast, or the fact that Beijing has become more common than Peking, even though the English pronunciation of that name is hardly identical to its Chinese pronunciation) that can't be done systematically. Many of those names have in the original languages sounds that do not even exist in English. Would you want, for example, to force all English speakers to use tones when they pronounce the names of Chinese cities? Besides those names are part of the English language (or the French language or the German language, which do the same, like all other languages) just like any other word. And there's nothing disrespectful about them unless the name in English is somehow insulting, a situation of which I know no common example. So what you're proposing is both impractical and unnecessary. Contact Basemetal here 15:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

A note: there's a difference between really and imaginarily insulting. I've once met a Turk who insisted English-speakers used "Türkiye" instead of "Turkey" because he didn't like the association with the Thanksgiving bird. But the name of the country was not designed in English to suggest the bird. It's the other way around: the bird (originally actually the guinea fowl, not the common turkey) was named after the country. Contact Basemetal here 15:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Peking/Beijing is not really a name difference, just a matter of Romanization_of_Chinese method - in other words, the name is the same, we just have a few ways of writing it. More definite examples would be Persia/Iran, and Ceylon/Sri Lanka, both of which asked nicely that the world use their own endonyms, rather than exonyms. I'm pretty sure it's more respectful to obey a countries publicly stated preference, and even if I can't say "Sri Lanka" the way that Sri Lankan's do, it's better than saying "Ceylon". SemanticMantis (talk) 15:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

You're right. But the OP's examples (Brasil vs Brazil) are not of that order. However you're right there are other more legitimate cases than the examples adduced by the OP. Contact Basemetal here 15:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Other examples: Myanmar vs Burma, Thailand vs Siam, Benin vs Dahomey, Burkina Faso vs Haute Volta, Zaire (when it was Zaire) vs Congo (now it reverted back to Congo), etc. Again what the OP was talking about was a bit different. Contact Basemetal here 15:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

It is not realistic to expect people to master the pronunciation of multiple foreign languages just so that they can pronounce the name of each country as it is pronounced in the language with the most speakers in that country. As it is, most English speakers fail to pronounce even the most commonly used foreign words as they are pronounced in their language of origin. It is the standard practice, and universally accepted, that each country's name differs from one language to another. Hardly anyone takes offense at the different names for his or her country in foreign languages. In those few cases, such as Sri Lanka or Benin, where a country's government has adopted a different name as the country's official name, I agree that we should show respect by coming as close as we can to that name without attempting vowels or consonants that don't occur in English, but in the cases of Germany or Brazil, those governments have not made such a request, and I suspect most Germans would prefer that we don't use English phonemes to pronounce Doichland. Marco polo (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

In 1917 there was a spelling reform in Portugal, and a very similar one in Brazil. In the velha orthographia (old spelling) the word was "Brazil" - it appears on century - old postage stamps. In the nova ortografia (new spelling) it's "Brasil", but as pointed out above English doesn't change its spelling conventions easily. Some of these are quirky - auto da fe is a Portuguese term used by the English to denote the Spanish inquisition. "Mozambique" is the Spanish spelling adopted into English for what was a Portuguese colony - maybe they couldn't get their tongues round the cedilha. The word "Seychelles" is an attempt to transliterate the name of this Portuguese colony - seis ilhas (six islands). Monsoon, Cameroon and Ceylon are very good renditions of the originals - I suspect "typhoon" is a Portuguese word as well. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Your points are well made, but the OED says typhoon comes through the Portuguese from Urdu ṭūfān (a violent storm of wind and rain); and the Chinese tai fung (big wind). Myrvin (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I think speakers of a language always adapt foreign words to their own standards--even proper nouns. By the way, this is not one-sided: other languages do the same with English-language names: England is Angleterre in French, London is Londra in Italian, etc. There are plenty of official foreign websites that offer English versions, and they tend to use the "English" versions of their own names. For example, on the German government's English-language page, they will talk about "Germany," not "Deutschland," though they have the discretion to do that if they want. Herbivore (talk) 02:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that there are many examples of place names being adapted around the world. The tendency is to use a more local versin of the name where possible but not (yet?) where a name is very well entrenched, like Germany for Deutschland. Vietnamese, for example, had a whole set of words derived from Chinese for various countries. Many of those remain, like Anh for Britain and Phap for France, but for other places the native name or English name is used straight, even though it is quite different from Vietnamese spelling conventions, and to older generations may seem completely unpronounceable. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

An hypothesis

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am involved in a discussion in Talk:Scientific method about the use of 'an' in front of 'hypothesis'. Some early editor wrote 'an hypothesis' and recently it was turned into 'a hypothesis' with the edit comment: '"An" is used for words which are pronounced with an initial vowel, thus "a history" vs. "an honor", "A hypothesis" is correct, not "An...")". I reverted the edit because I found evidence that the stated rule was not always valid and there were words such as 'hypothesis' and 'hotel' that could be preceded by 'an'. Another editor has reverted my revert with the comment: "Correct based on a minority use, about 25% in British English, but both the rules of std North Am. Eng and 94% of users prefer "an"." and I have reverted again - partly because the comment was confusing. I would welcome comments on this usage. Myrvin (talk) 15:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I would be somewhat surprised to hear someone say "an hypothesis" with the h sounded. Native speaker of British English. DuncanHill (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I've never heard the "h" omitted from hypothesis here in careful speech in England. This might be a "pondian" issue like "herb" where Americans would correctly write "an herb" (pronounced "a nerb") but in British English it would be "a herb". If you pronounce it as "an i-pothesis", then you might use "an", but is this standard in the US? Wiktionary suggests not. Dbfirs 16:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this is about the pronunciation without the aitch sound. If you read my comments on the Talk page, you will see that 'hotel' and 'hypothesis' are often preceded by 'an', without dropping the 'h'. Myrvin (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe this. "An hotel" carefully pronouncing the "h" would be a German - type pronunciation which we don't do in England. It always comes out anotel. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 16:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The first edit comment is correct. And on "94% of users prefer "an"". Interestingly, prior to ~1920, "An hypothesis" was used more that "A hyptothesis" in Google's corpus of books [4], but of course today "a hypothesis" is much more commonly used. I don't know if people were pronouncing the 'h' back then, but we certainly mostly do now. It's not like this is analogous to "an herb" in AmEng compared to "a herb" in BrEng. I've checked OED [5], Miriam Webster [6], and Wiktionary [7], none of them even give an h-less pronunciation for 'hypothesis' as an option. Heck, as far as I can tell even the ancient Greeks would have pronounced an initial 'h' sound - ὑποτίθημι. Anyway, as a scientist who reads and writes this sort of thing quite often, "a hypothesis" is usually the more common phrase in the modern academic literature, though "an hypothesis" does still occur. English_articles#Distinction_between_a_and_an as well as these two English guides [8] [9] both support "a hypothesis" as the preferred form. There might be some mention of the article usage at WP:MOS but I didn't see it at a glance. The point is, while 'an hypothesis' might strictly be defensible, it sounds weird to most speakers, and adds unnecessary confusion over the pronunciation. Why bother? Just use the far more common form. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

In WP, 'an hypothesis' appears about 200 times, and 'an hotel' about 300. That Google thing is amazing! Should we be altering another editor's preference because we think it sounds weird, even though it is defensible? Myrvin (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, ngrams are cool, and so are general google searches. But WP usage isn't WP:RS, because WP:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source. See my additional evidence below. Anyway, if you do want to use WP usage as a guide, note that "a hypothesis" occurs in over 5,000 WP articles [10]. An no, you should ignore my preference, and ignore your preference, and use the standards of the academic publishing industry. I shouldn't have said "sounds weird", that is irrelevant. I would encourage you to fight for your right to prefer "an hypothesis" in school papers, work reports, or even if you submit to academic journals. In this case though, you are not the sole author, and so what you or I prefer doesn't matter. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Additional evidence that 'a hypothesis' should be the preferred form on WP: "an hypothesis" occurs in 45k academic papers published 2000-2015 (google scholar [11]), while "a hypothesis" occurs in 749k articles [12]. So this much is clear: In modern academic publishing, "a hypothesis" is preferred to "an hypothesis" by a factor of about 16 to 1. Why go against the standards that the academic publishing world uses? Just use "a hypothesis", it's the most correct thing to do. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a regional variation, but does follow the the "'an' before vowel" rule for both variations. In some dialects, many words starting with 'h' but strongly accented on the second syllable are sounded without the initial 'h' in connected speech; thus: "an hypothesis" vs "a hypothetical result"; or "an historical account" vs "a history", "a historicity argument". -- Elphion (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Good points. It is something to do with unstressed aitches. There's also 'an heretical'. I think the aitch is not so much unsounded as sounded less. My comments on WP were not supposed to be evidence for correctness, more an idea of what is going on and how much work there would be to alter it all. I don't think a mere 16:1 preference makes one correct and the other not. It's not much o a standard if so many do not follow it. It suggests that a minority (and we don't know who they are) would prefer a valid alternative. By the way, this is not about MY preference. I don't know which I prefer and I suspect I have used both. I checked my PhD thesis, which was all about theories and hypotheses. I never used 'an hypothesis', always 'a hypothesis'. The question is, should we ban 'an hypothesis'? Myrvin (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

No, we probably shouldn't "ban" using "an hypothesis", but even if we wanted to, this isn't the place to try. 16:1 is reflective of the style guides used in academic publishing. I don't think we need to embark on an entire mission to make WP go all one way or the other, but when an editor changed the article to make it more consistent with the rest of WP, as well as more consistent with the academic publishing world, you chose to revert that change. I have to wonder why, if not your preference? I've given tons of evidence that "a hypothesis" is preferred, while admitting that "an hypothesis" is tolerated. You have given no evidence that "an hypothesis" is preferred by any style guide or publishing body. So why fight for using a less common and possibly confusing form in this article? SemanticMantis (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

This doesn't have to become personal. I think it's something to do with fighting for their right to say it. If something is tolerated, that means we don't change it. I reverted the edits because I disagreed with the reasons given for them. We could also alter all split infinitives because some style guide says they shouldn't exist. Myrvin (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I like a challenge. Here are some style guides that use 'an hypothesis': [13]; [14]; [15]; [16]; [17]; [18]; [19]. Bored now!.Myrvin (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not making it personal, it seemed to me that it was personal to you, since you were involved in the initial dispute (and I of course was not.) I just got interested, wondering why on Earth anyone would revert an edit like that, making it seem as though you were preferring a rare and confusing form over a common and widely used form. Anyway, none of those style guides says that "an hypothesis" is to be preferred. Rather, they are just talking about hypotheses while they themselves are using what I think is an antiquated "rule." Not one of them discusses the issue in the light of "an historical" as-compared-to "a historical." See my OED quote below. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

So, a book that calls itself a guide to writing that actually uses 'an hypothesis' is to be disregarded just because it doesn't say "I prefer to use it"? Myrvin (talk) 19:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say that, but I do think it's less compelling than if it were explicitly addressed. It's sort of a Use–mention distinction issue. There's something different between saying "'an hypothesis' is the way to refer to hypotheses" and "An hypothesis can be supported but not proven", don't you think? Also many of them aren't really about style per se, but moreso guides on how to structure your paper, build paragraphs, etc. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

That's either "an" with the following aitch being silent, or "a" with the following aitch being pronounced. Any other option is absolutely ungrammatical, no matter whether it's "hotel" or "hypothesis", so whoever says "an hotel" (or "an hypothesis") - while pronouncing the aitch - is simply wrong. I wonder how such an issue can ever be controversial.

Personally, I say "a hypothesis" in a slow speech (while pronouncing the aitch of course), but (perhaps not sure) I may also say "an hypothesis" in a fluent speech (with a silent aitch of course). I assume everybody agrees that when writing proffesional articles, one should prefer the style of the slow speech. Really this does not mean the style of fluent speech should be ruled out in Wikipedia's articles, but still - the style of slow speech should be recommended (e.g. "I have" should be recommended and preferred to "I've" - in Wikipedia's articles, although "I've" shouldn't be ruled out in them). Anyways, I'm not going to tell anybody whether they should pronounce the aitch in a slow speech. HOOTmag (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

You might like to read Common English usage misconceptions and English usage controversies. Myrvin (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Which section(s)? I hope you didn't intend to send me to the whole article(s). Btw, I added another section to my previous response. HOOTmag (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Just the general bits about how usage myths abound, and the Prescription and description part. You seemed to have a strong prescriptive feeling about such things. Apparently, there are over 45,000 academic authors thatwho disagree with you. Linguistic prescription says "Linguistic prescription (or prescriptivism) is the practice of elevating one variety or manner of language use over another. It may imply some forms are incorrect, improper, illogical, lack communicative effect, or are of low aesthetic value". Myrvin (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I think you are wrong twice: first of all - when you claim there are 45,000 academic authors that disagree with me, second - when you consider me as a prescriptivist - although I'm absolutely not. As for the first mistake: can you give me one (not 45,000 but only one) academic article that uses "a hypothesis" with a silent aitch, or uses "an hypothesis" with a sounded aitch? As for the second mistake: If I had been a prescriptivist, I would have ruled out - in a slow speech (or in academic articles) - "an hypothesis" with a silent aitch, but I've never done that (as you can realize by reading the first section of my previous response) - because I'm not a prescriptivist. If I had been a prescriptivist, I would have ruled out academic articles written in a style of fluent speech, but I've never done that (as you can realize by reading the second section of my previous response) - because I'm not a prescriptivist. Anyways, you don't have to be a prescriptivist in order to think that there are some ungrammatical forms of style, e.g. "You is a person". Would you accept such a sentence in Wikipedia's articles?

HOOTmag (talk) 19:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

You did write " Any other option is absolutely ungrammatical, no matter whether it's "hotel" or "hypothesis", so whoever says "an hotel" (or "an hypothesis") - while pronouncing the aitch - is simply wrong.". That looks very prescriptive to me. What would an article with silent aitches look like? Another contributor found over 45,000 articles that had 'an hypothesis'. Myrvin (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

As I have already stated in my previous response, you don't have to be a prescriptivist in order to think that there are some absolutely ungrammatical forms of style, e.g. "You is a person" (or "a hypothesis" with a silent aitch or "an hypothesis" with a sounded aitch). Would you accept "You is a person" in Wikipedia's articles? As for the 45,000 articles: Again, I've never ruled out "an hypothesis" in academic articles (I've only ruled out "a hypothesis" with a silent aitch and "an hypothesis" with a sounded aitch). As for your question: "What would an article with silent aitches look like?" I don't think there are academic articles from which we can infer whether their authors pronounce the aitch - as long as they don't tell us whether they do. HOOTmag (talk) 19:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Let's not turn this in to a discussion of the relative merits of linguistic decriptivism vs. prescriptivism. We have WP:MOS, and when you come to the ref desk asking about language usage, you can pretty much assume you'll get answers from a more prescriptive vein. I did make it a point to also cover the descriptive side as well, indicating that one form is clearly preferred in academic publishing and on WP itself. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• From the OED

“ Is it ‘a historical document’ or ‘an historical document’? ‘A hotel’ or ‘an hotel’? There is still some divergence of opinion over which form of the indefinite article should be used before words that begin with h- and have an unstressed first syllable. In the 18th and 19th centuries, people often did not pronounce the initial h for these words, and so an was commonly used. Today the h is pronounced, and so it is logical to use a rather than an. However, the indefinite article an is still encountered before the h in both British and American English, particularly with historical: in the Oxford English Corpus around a quarter of examples of historical are preceded with an rather than a. ”

[20], emphasis mine. So we have predominance of academic usage and the OED itself weighing in favor of "a hypothesis" over "an hypothesis". I would additionally suggest that "an hypothesis" is confusing, because, by analogy to "an honor", it may indicate an incorrect pronunciation of "hypothesis". Look, I'm no one to blindly follow prescriptive rules for no reason. But writing "an hypothesis" is bordering on hypercorrection. Logic and consistency support "a hypothesis." OED says 'an [h-word]' was only used when words were pronounced h-less. So those are all my reasons for thinking "a hypothesis" is actually better. Do you have any reasons that "an hyptothesis" is better? If not, then I'd think this would be a simple and uncontroversial change. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, OED is just wrong in proclaiming that haitch-less hypotheses are history. I hear them all the time. I have no idea how prevalent they are in English world-wide, but they're not dead. -- Elphion (talk) 19:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

VOTE

We have kicked this around a lot, so I think it's time for a vote:

1. When reading an article, should we alter 'an hypothesis' to 'a hypothesis'?
2. If we spot an edit that changes 'an hypothesis' to 'a hypothesis', are we justified in reverting that edit?
3. Should there be a Wikipedia guideline that says 'a hypothesis' is preferred to 'an hypothesis'?
4. Should there be a WP guideline that allows 'an hypothesis'?
5. Should there be a WP guideline that suggests that it is not a good idea to alter one for the other?

Keep in mind Wikipedia is not a democracy. So we can "not vote ~ !vote" on your options, but they're not binding to anything. Are you planning on editing WP:MOS? If so, I'd think it would be appropriate to discuss on Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style as well. Anyway, my !votes are:

1. yes
2. no
3. probably, don't really care
4. No. Anything not disallowed is allowed, no need. Also WP:NORULES
5. maybe? I wonder how many times similar conversations have been had before. But I still think no.

This is in some ways parallel to some of the edit wars that happen over gendered pronouns, singular "they", etc etc. You might want to look around for some of that to see how it's been resolved in the past. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree 100% with S-M above. Dbfirs 20:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree on 2, and I'm not quite sure I agree on 1 either. When two versions are equal, the status quo ante should be preferred. It is justified to revert an edit that is not an improvement, even if that edit doesn't make anything worse. Edits should make things better, or they should be reverted. --Trovatore (talk) 18:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, wait, I misread. I thought the hypothesized edit was the other direction. In that case, yes, I agree on 2, but still not sure about 1. --Trovatore (talk) 05:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

5 Already exists. It's called WP:ENGVAR. It has been settled policy for a decade or more. This is not the forum to change it. --Jayron32 22:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

More comment

Except that ENGVAR refers to "national varieties of English" and the leading standard references for the British and USAmerican varieties of English agree that it is "a hypothesis". "An hypothesis" is a subnational variant in some regional varieties of British English. Isn't Wikipedia meant to be written in one national standard version of English or another? Of course, if "an hypothesis" turned out to be standard in New Zealand, which would be surprising, I guess we would have to let New Zealanders use that form. Marco polo (talk) 23:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The spirit of ENGVAR is "don't edit war over acceptable variations within the English language". If "an hypothesis" is an acceptable and recognized formation in English, one should not demand its change (and neither should one demand the change of "a hypothesis" if it also is an acceptable and recognized formation). English does not have an official authority on usage, and while we should stick to widely-held standard forms and dialects, and avoid forms which carry colloquial, slang, or non-standard connotations, where there exists an acceptable form, we need not change from it to another acceptable form. That's what ENGVAR is trying to do, not limit the "officially endorsed" lexicons of various varieties of English to a closed and immutable set of "acceptable" words and phrases and grammars, which of course don't exist. --Jayron32 05:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The relevant question now, is not whether there is any acceptable variety of English in which the expression "an hypothesis" is acceptable, but rather whether there is any acceptable variety of English in which the initial aitch of "hypothesis" is allowed to be silent in a careful slow speech (which is of course the model of academic style). If there is such an acceptable variety (just as there is an acceptable variety in which the initial aitch of "historic" is allowed to be silent in a careful slow speech), then editors - should be allowed to use in Wikipedia their acceptable variety which avoids sounding the aitch in a careful slow speech and - are consequently allowed to write "an hypothesis" in the academic articles of Wikipedia. However, if there's no acceptable variety in which the initial aitch of "hypothesis" is allowed to be silent in a careful slow speech (just as there is no acceptable variety in which the form "I don't have no idea" is acceptable in any careful slow speech), then articles in Wikipedia should avoid using expressions like "an hypothesis" - which prevents the readers from sounding the initial aitch. Anyways, I think it's quite easy to answer the relevant question mentioned above, by looking up on acceptable dictionaries which give the pronunciation of words in acceptable varieties of English. HOOTmag (talk) 07:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Repeating what I say and inserting a few inconsequential words is not disagreement. I have not said anything which could possibly be construed as needing for you to disagree with me over what you have chosen to represent as a disagreement. I'm not registering an opinion as to the validity of "an hypothesis" or "a hypothesis", just merely on whether or not reliable sources indicate a usage is acceptable. That's all. Adding words "careful" and "slow" doesn't actually change what written reliable sources say anyways. --Jayron32 07:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I wonder why one should invent disagreements that have not existed. Note that I've never intended to express any disagreement with your opinion that had dealt - with the meaning of "variety of English" - rather than with what I dealt with later about the "relevant question". I've just presented my own opinion about what the relevant question is, so if you share with me the same opinion about what is relevant and what is not - while I share with you the same opinion about how the concept of "variety of English" should be interpreted, then I can't see how any disagreement can evolve from that. HOOTmag (talk) 07:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I am, of course, with User:Jayron32 here. Wikipedia is a written work based on written sources. It doesn't matter how various sources choose to pronounce words, just how they write them. It has been shown that there are at least 45,000 modern, written, reliable sources that use the construct 'an hypothesis'. The fact that there may be a whole load of other sources that do not, would appear to be irrelevant. The 'an' construct is acceptable and should be left alone. Myrvin (talk) 13:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I am, of course, with User:HOOTmag (i.e. with myself) here... :-)

Look, if we want to write an academic article about the hair gel, and somebody finds - not 46,000 - but rather 346,000 modern written reliable sources containing the expression "an gel", as opposed to some millions modern written reliable sources containing the expression "a gel", then you will probably claim: "Those 346,000 sources are sufficient for using 'an' before 'gel' in our academic article about the hair gel", whereas I will add: "unless we prove those sources - have meant 'angel' - while mistakenly inserting a blank space between the 'an' and the 'gel'...".

Similarly, if somebody finds 46,000 modern written reliable sources containing the expression "an hypothesis", as opposed to to some millions modern written reliable sources containing the expression "a hypothesis", you will probably claim: "Those 46,000 sources are sufficient for using 'an' before 'hypothesis' in our academic article about the Scientific method", whereas I will add: "unless we prove the authors of those sources pronounce the initial aitch of hypothesis; Once we prove that, we can easily prove that those authors have mistakenly added an "n" after the 'a'...".

Really, I've never claimed that those authors really pronounce the initial aitch of 'hypothesis', however I do claim that - the examples mentioned above prove that - the relevant question here is whether there is any acceptable variety of English in which the initial aitch of "hypothesis" is allowed to be silent in a careful slow speech (which is of course the model of academic style), rather than whether there is any acceptable variety of English in which the expression "an hypothesis" is acceptable.

HOOTmag (talk) 14:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

You keep leaning on that, without mentioning the 16:1 preference for "a hyptohesis". If hits on google scholar are support for little-used forms, then shall we also not change "intensive purposes" [21], or "agressive" (58k hits [22]), or "accross" [23], "existance" [24], etc? Some of these have more hits than "an hyptothesis", but I don't think anyone would argue that "agressive" is an ENGVAR issue. If I see "agressive" in an article, I will change it to "aggressive." This matter is not so different. I certainly agree with Marco Polo that "an hypothesis" is not a part of any national variety of English. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I did say "loads". I was really buoyed up by those figures. I expected 'an' to be used by many fewer. Myrvin (talk) 15:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Whoever says "an historical" does not sound the aitch. HOOTmag (talk) 16:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

That is not really true. Americans almost always pronounce the h (at least, as you say, in careful speech), but nevertheless sometimes say "an historic event" when speaking in a sufficiently formal context. --Trovatore (talk) 05:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

From your "OED" quote: "However, the indefinite article an is still encountered before the h in both British and American English, particularly with historical: in the Oxford English Corpus around a quarter of examples of historical are preceded with an rather than a." This suggests that it is in use, and not some sort of mistake. By the way, the quote doesn't seem to be from the actual OED (I couldn't find it there}, but from the Oxford Dictionaries website - easy mistake. The OED does have 'an hypothesis' in a recent quote for 'hypothesis' (1951), and it has (in the def's for 'a'): "1947 M. E. Boylan This Tremendous Lover (new ed.) iv. 35 They could be understood in an heretical or in a pantheistic sense. 2006 Lancs. Life Feb. 75/2 An historic family estate in Little CrosbyMyrvin (talk) 16:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Just because there is a preference, doesn't make the opposite wrong. Minorities should also be heard.Myrvin (talk) 16:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I am now becoming very suspicious of the use of those Google stats. The idea is that, because 'a hypothesis' appears many times more often than 'an hypothesis', we should alter 'an hypothesis' to 'a hypothesis'. If you try those Google ngram stats with 'applesauce' and 'apple sauce'[25], you'll find that the former is preferred to the latter. Does this mean that we should alter all examples of 'apple sauce' to 'applesauce'? There must be tons of other examples. [26] [27] [28] What your stats did show is that 'an hypothesis' is definitely in use. For 'a historical' versus 'an historical', the Google scholar search [29] [30] shows them not that much different (about 1.6:1). What does this say about the 'a' before a sounded aitch theory?Myrvin (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I personally look at stats from Google Scholar in a totally different light than ngrams or regular google. In ngrams, we don't really know anything about the sources, other than that they were scanned or acquired by google at some point. I wouldn't use normal google hits to support or deny anything. I normally wouldn't even put much weight on google scholar, but in this case I felt that it would reflect usage in academic, peer-reviewed publications (as certainly most (but not all of GS hits are for peer-reviewed journal articles)). I also never said that we should alter on to the other, I said that we should prefer on form -- there's a difference. As you said, preferring one doesn't make the other "wrong". I totally agree that it's not worth edit-warring over. I'm still not convinced it comes under WP:ENGVAR, but perhaps in this case it's easier to just act like it does. I do still fear that "an hypothesis" leads to the false inference that "hypothesis" is commonly and correctly pronounced aitchlessly (there's a word I never through I'd write). Even if we acknowledge that the aitchless pronunciation exists, nobody has yet to show any dictionary that lists it as a viable alternate pronunciation. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The peculiar expression "an hypothesis", as with expressions like "an historic" only work if you treat the "h" as silent or nearly so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

What to do?

I think that this question is a real and important dispute within WP. I propose we ask for a resolution on WP:DRN. Myrvin (talk) 19:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's really even a dispute like that. It's mostly just you and I discussing, with a few other comments from others thrown in. It's not like we are actually edit warring over it (I still haven't touched the article, have you?). If this gets taken anywhere else, I'd think Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style would be the place, as I've said above. You could also post at WP:3O to get more eyes on it. It's not just one instance, it's a whole style issue, a could in principle affect many articles, so any consensus clarification or resolution would have to go to MOS to have any lasting impact. If the MOS discussion goes sour, then maybe DRN would be called for. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Sources on a/an before "hypothesis"

We should consult professionally compiled sources on this matter. I've noted 1) whether the source covered "hypothesis" specifically or just a/n before h and 2) the national variety of each source (if any) so we can see if there really is a British/American split on this matter. Anyone who wants to may add to any of these lists. If a source says that both are acceptable, I would put it in both lists. Since allowing both is among our options, I've added a category specifically for sources that do both. I like to put the most reliable sources on top. Both style guides (ACS says "do this") and actual publications (Nature does this) are relevant. Do not feel obliged to follow my exact format; it's a starting point, not a requirement. I'm acting under the assumption that, because the first syllable of "hypothesis" is unstressed, a source that uses "an" for "historian" or other unstressed examples would also use it for "hypothesis." Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC) Because people have said that the "an hypothesis" rule is antiquated, I've given the year of publication of guides that use it. My own opinion is that anything written before the rise of the internet might be outdated. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Sources that use "a" before "hypothesis"

1. Oxforddictionaries.com (not strictly the OED, general) US [31] and British [32]
2. American Heritage Dictionary [33] (American) (general)
3. Nature uses "a hypothesis" exclusively - no instances of "an hypothesis" in Nature are indexed by Google Scholar [34] (British)
4. Science uses "a hypothesis" exclusively - no instances of "an hypothesis" in Science are indexed by Google Scholar [35] (American)
5. PloS ONE uses "a hypothesis" exclusively - no instances of "an hypothesis" in PloS ONE are indexed by Google Scholar [36]
6. Purdue Online Writing Lab (general, specifically discusses "an honor") [37]

Sources that use "an" before "hypothesis"

1. Scientific Writing = Thinking in Words [38] (specific) (2010)
2. Student's Guide to Writing College Papers Fourth Edition [39] (specific) (2010)

Sources that allow or use both "a" and "an" with "hypothesis"

1. Proceedings of the Royal Society (British) has only used "an" once in Google Scholar's index [40] (British)
2. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences allows "an" (80 "a" to 3 "an) [41] (American)
3. NASA [42] [43] (American)
4. Grammarly [44] (specific)
5. LinguistLaura [45] (specific)

The heart of the matter

This is a simple question. As for myself, I speak traditional RP with silent Hs, as in "an otel", "an ereditary", "an ypothesis", &c. However, when I write, I write in the most common form today, which is "a hotel", &c. There are British dialects that hold onto the silent Hs, which were once much more common. However, modern orthography and most modern dialects of British English (along with other English varieties) have essentially standardised on the voiced H with "a". Therefore, per WP:COMMONALITY, the "a" form should be preferred. I do not think that people should go around mass changing "an" to "a", as is the case with most things on Wikipedia. We certainly do not need a guideline on this matter. For a note of amusement, I would like to present the fact that this very question has plagued even Her Majesty's Peers of the Realm. Despite being a bastion of traditional pronunciation, e.g. "an h", the Lords rejected an amendment to use "an hereditary" in legislation. If the "a h" spelling has found victory in the Lords, it is quite clear that "an h" has been defeated. RGloucester — ☎ 20:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for noting the COMMONALITY section of WP:MOS. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the aspirate is a red herring. Also, WP:COMMONALITY, seems to be about words rather than grammar. The Lords debate is quite interesting. I see that about a half of the peers voted for 'an'. I suppose they have to make a decision of whether to allow it or not. We can have both. Myrvin (talk) 09:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Note that Proc. Roy. Soc. and PNAS both have allowed "an hypothesis", but both seem to prefer "a hypothesis" judging frequency of use. That says this might not be a pondian split, as these are two of the leading general science journals in the world, UK/USA respectively. Conversely, the origin of the journal does not tell us the origin of the authors. I know that many British journals (e.g. any published by BES [46]) will demand British spellings, even if all authors are non-UK. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

A red herring too. If these publications/organizations did not allow 'an' there would be hardly any of them. The fact that there are lots suggests that they do not have a rule and are happy to allow either. So am I.Myrvin (talk) 10:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to see more sources presented here, but if there are indeed two legitimate and widespread options, then I'd use the principle of internal consistency and allow an article to use either "a" or "an" based on the first major contributor. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

A useful piece of work Darkfrog24. SM and I differ in the importance of preference when it comes to deciding acceptability. I say that just because more people use 'a' rather than 'an' is no reason to stop those who wish to from using 'an'. I think SM thought that it is. I am happy to leave 'a hypothesis' alone, but I want to leave 'an hypothesis' alone as well. I don't even mind if they are mixed in the same article. I see that Karl Popper - who knew a thing or two about hypotheses - used them interchangeably.[47] [48]Myrvin (talk) 09:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I am now even more suspicious of those Google stats. This search[49] suggests that 'an hypothesis' has been used many times in Nature; and this [50] that it has been used in Science; and this [51] that it is in PiosONE (whatever that is). Myrvin (talk) 09:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I would also add Cambridge journals allow 'an'[52]. Myrvin (talk) 09:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

And Oxford journals [53].Myrvin (talk) 09:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Elsevier allow it and use it in their Author Guide. [54][55][56] Myrvin (talk) 09:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Psychiatry [57] Psychology [58] Wiley [59]. BMJ [60] AMJ [61]; Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [62][63]; Jstor shows a lot [64] Myrvin (talk) 10:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

All this usage must mean that an hypothesis is in common use everywhere. The use is not a mistake, nor the result of hoards of people dropping their aitches. It is an acceptable form of English - albeit a minority form - and, as such, should be left alone in Wikipedia. Myrvin (talk) 10:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Regardless of what else is decided here, we should definitely not allow both in the same article. Internal consistency at the article level is a longstanding rule on Wikipedia. We do need some uniformity or else everything will look sloppy, and then the readers will not view the content with respect.
• Karl Popper's opinion is not of particular relevance here. This isn't a debate about the philosophy of science. It's a debate about correct English. The most authoritative sources on that are professionally compiled style guides. Consult Stephen Hawking for physics, but consult Chicago Manual of Style and AMA and MLA for how to write about physics for general audiences. Darkfrog24 (talk) 10:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I only threw Karl in as a humorous aside, and show that his publishers can allow both forms in the same work. I didn't mean to upset anyone. I think this is a debate about acceptable English and the way 'an hypothesis' is used in the English writing world. You seemed to be happy to allow both forms - so am I. Stephen Hawking seems to use it once [65] - maybe it slipped through. Myrvin (talk) 11:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Extending the question

I think that this discussion has extended from 'an hypothesis' alone to many more aitch words. We have also mentioned 'historic/al/ity', 'hotel', 'heredity', and doubtless there are many others. I think the 'an' usage of these words should be left alone too. Myrvin (talk) 09:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inscription

What's written in this Gerome's painting on the wall? Either Ottoman Turkish or Arabic, maybe some source has the translation. Brandmeister^talk 22:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

It is the inscription that gives the name of the architect (or the donor) and the date of the construction. Readable words are "in the year", "... hundred and two", "bath","finished". It is a muddle of Arabic and Persian words. Omidinist (talk) 03:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

This [66] seems to be a clearer version (or copy) of the same painting. The painting name seems to be wrong here. This [67] calls it "Moorish Bath". Myrvin (talk) 14:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

June 26

Metrophobia

Question moved from "Metrophobia" on the Science desk. -- Ariel. (talk) 23:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Metrophobia means the fear of poetry. I was searching for this word origin, but couldn't find it. The term itself seem to mean fear of city, hence metro- as in metropolis. I like to see how the term came to mean fear of poetry 'cause I'm curious. I know it is not Greek nor Latin unlike how most phobias were termed, otherwise the fear of poetry term would've begin with 'p'. I see there is no metr- in the list of foreign languages on poetry in Wiktionary. Usually the etymology of phobia is shown in common-phobias.com, but not in metrophobia page. Does anybody know how the term was originated so I can add that info to Phobia Wikia? PlanetStar 22:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

"Metro-" does not mean city, "polis" does. "Meter" in Greek "metropolis" means mother, but in this context "metro-" appears to be derived from Metre (poetry) - Lindert (talk) 22:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like some kind of elitist buzzword. The way "Metro" is used nowadays, rightly or wrongly, it sounds more like it should be a fear of public transportation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Two different roots: μητρ– mētr– ‘mother’ vs μετρ– mĕtr– ‘measure’. (Sometimes my blog archive comes in handy.) —Tamfang (talk) 23:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, metron, measure, as in metronome, metre, metrifier (a versifier). DuncanHill (talk) 00:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Etymologically, it seems it should be more the fear of measuring things (or perhaps of being measured?). But you know, it's my understanding that most of these whatchamacallitphobia words are invented for the sake of inventing a word, not to name an actual mental-health condition that's really worth describing separately from other specific phobias in the sense that having a special name for it would make it easier to understand or treat. In that sense they're kind of like those lists of collective nouns or terms of venery that rarely appear anywhere other than the lists themselves. You might want to contact Dr. van Pelt (given name Lucille) for further information. --Trovatore (talk) 05:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Presumably, the "metro" part refers to the patterns of conventional poetry. So, theoretically, one suffering (ha) from metrophobia would be fine reading E.E. Cummings, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Here is a definition [68]. Myrvin (talk) 12:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

True phobias are fears that interfere significantly with one's life. How severe would a fear of poetry have to be, before it would be a "true" phobia? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Actual medical science doesn't distinguish between the hundreds of pseudo-greek or pseudo-latin phobias you find on lists like this. Instead, they are classified and treated as anxiety disorders or specific phobias. --Jayron32 14:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

So the broader question is whether it's a "disabling" anxiety disorder? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, really anything could be a trigger for an anxiety disorder; I suppose there's a sort of "Rule 34" for phobias. The issue, from a medical point of view, is whether stress is caused by an actual threat, or not. If a lion is chasing you down, or if your boss, in an angry voice says "I need to see you in my office now", or something like that, it would be normal and healthy to be anxious. If poetry, or the color blue, or a french accent, or trees, or any other random specific stimulus elicits the "lion is chasing me" stress response, that's generally where the "anxiety disorder" or "specific phobia" diagnosis comes in. And of course, it's only a problem if it affects your life. "Clowns make me feel uncomfortable and anxious, but whatever" is one thing "When I see a clown I scream uncontrollably and start to self-harm" is entirely different. --Jayron32 04:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Can music, even instrumental music, be part of this "phobia"? It's pretty easy to avoid poetry, but avoiding music would be a challenge. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

People with real phobias just stay indoors all the time. They are scared to go out just in case they meet with their phobic object. It can be very debilitating, and not at all funny. Myrvin (talk) 10:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Unless they have claustrophobia. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 11:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

It's the "fight or flight" response. If your stock exchange investments tank there's nothing you can do about it. You just get stressed. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 11:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

June 27

John Money - pronounciation

Is there a new Zelander on board? How is the name of John Money pronounced? אילן שמעוני (talk) 10:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

According to this Horizon documentary (copyvio), it's prononced /ˈmʌn.i/ (as in cash money). Tevildo (talk) 11:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Cheers, mate. אילן שמעוני (talk) 12:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Ship's brig

I just learned that "brig", referring to the area on a ship where prisoners are kept, is considered an Americanism. What is it traditionally called in Britain? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

A British seaman's or marine's service record can be marked "CELLS" which means that the subject has been "Confined to ships' cells". [69] A plan of HMS Queen Elizabeth published in the Daily Mail shows "32: RN police office and cells". [70] Alansplodge (talk) 22:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

"The Naval Prisons Act of 1847, granted Commanding Officers the power of awarding a Summary Punishment by imprisonment, which could be "in any Place, Ship or Vessel, either afloat or on shore," appointed by the Admiralty for that purpose ; or in the absence of such facilities, in any public prison, which suggests that this may be the first official recognition of cells on board a ship." 19th Century Royal Navy. Alansplodge (talk) 22:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The disambiguation page for brig explains that the US Navy formerly used two-masted brigs as prison ships, and the term has come, in the US, to refer to any naval prison facility. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Whereas the Royal Navy used sailing brigs to train boy entrants in the basics of seamanship, until the first years of the 20th century. [71] Alansplodge (talk) 18:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

June 28

Straw man

I have always been confused about the meaning of this term. Wikipedia says it refers to an "informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent", but here are two dictionary definitions that say something completely different:

a weak or imaginary argument or opponent that is set up to be easily defeated [72]

An argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated. [73]

Which is correct? 109.153.244.85 (talk) 02:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

They are all correct, as they are all saying the same thing. A "Straw man" means that you invent an argument that you propose your opponent is making (or which an imagined opponent makes) and then refute that argument instead of refuting the substance of the opposition. --Jayron32 02:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Further info:[74] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Often, a formal political argument begins with a brief summary of the opponent's argument. The straw man fallacy often begins with a radical oversimplification of the opponent's argument, reducing it to a caricature or a bumper sticker slogan, strippping away all subtlety and nuance. It is easy to mock and deride an oversimplification.

I am reminded of the burden on us as Wikipedia editors to do our best to summarize what the full range of reliable sources say about a topic. Any neutral editor, upon reading an article which over-emphasizes their own personal point of view, should be prepared to add balancing material, even if contrary to their own off-Wikipedia opinions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, I think I see what the problem is now. Suppose one person makes argument X, and other person makes argument Y against distorted argument X*, then the opening definition of the Wikipedia article makes it sounds as if "straw man" refers to Y, whereas actually (and according to the dictionary definitions) it refers to X*. 109.153.244.85 (talk) 12:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

This might be useful.[75] Myrvin (talk) 13:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC) That's already cited in the article. Myrvin (talk) 14:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Or you might even consider this example where "straw man" is used to apply to a person, in this case Charles Lyell's characterisation of Humphry Davy as a geologist. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes. And there seems to be a legal term too: [76]. That's in strawperson. I also thought that there was a saying that it is not worth suing a straw man - meaning someone with no money. Ah! here he is [77]. Myrvin (talk) 10:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that one refutes a straw man argument by pointing out how that argument differs from one's own argument. Straw man arguments can also be inadvertent, in which case they might more properly be called misunderstandings, but once again, one must point out how that argument differs from one's own argument. But correct me if I am wrong about any of this. Bus stop (talk) 10:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I guess gender equality now requires us to always use "strawperson". Or is that just a dead heron? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC) sorry, but I really don't have "a dog in this fight."

My straw dog is deeply offensive since he or she learned to articulate expletives. Bus stop (talk) 11:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Subjunctive - ancient greek

Hey,

I don't understand what is the purpose of the subs in

σωφρονέστατοι δὲ οἳ ἂν τάχιστα μεταγιγνώσκωσι

— Andoc. 2 6

- it is not use for a purpose clauses, fear or conditions. Someone has any idea? --109.67.106.154 (talk) 10:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

June 29

Media use of the word "alleged" to describe suspected criminals

Can someone please explain why the media are so conscientious and so careful to describe criminal defendants and criminal suspects as merely "alleged". (For example, the media will never say "He committed murder." They will say "He allegedly committed murder." or "The police authorities claim that he committed murder.") They (the media) are always couching their language in careful phrases. The media tries to be so careful, that they often go overboard with the use of the words "alleged" and "allegedly". I have a follow-up question, but I'd like to hear input on this question first. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Does it really need to be explained why the media doesn't assert that someone has committed a crime until they are convicted of it? What do you think libel laws are for? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

There was a time when the media did exactly that - for example, to announce the arrest of "the killer", with no qualification. And if they got it wrong, it was very harmful to all. Nowadays, they do like Wikipedia does - attribute it to whoever said it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

A couple of sources: Am I protected if I use the word "alleged" in crime stories? and Newswriting for radio: The Basics: Charges and Allegations. The last sentence of the second source might be helpful: "Not only is it unethical to describe [someone not yet convicted of a crime] as, say, a "murderer" or "embezzler" without the qualification of words like "accused" and "alleged," but such descriptions could turn you into a defendant yourself -- for libel." - Cucumber Mike (talk) 08:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

What they should really be saying is "the alleged killer of the allegedly murdered person" - or something like that. Murder too is alleged before being proved. But that gets rather wordy. The media does talk about "alleged victims" and "alleged murder". Myrvin (talk) 09:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The language gets somewhat confusing with examples like "an East Bexar County woman allegedly was shot and killed by her husband." I assume there is little doubt that she was shot and killed, the allegedly refers to the husband's guilt. Myrvin (talk) 10:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I think I occasionally see that someone has been charged with allegedly murdering someone. See the photo caption here [78]; and [79]. People are charged with murder, not alleged murder. Myrvin (talk) 10:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

You also get the papers saying that someone was allegedly charged with something.[80] [81]. That's the writers getting their alleged knickers in a twist. Myrvin (talk) 10:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Another approach is the use of what I think are called "scare quotes", for example "'Neighbour killed my dog', accuser alleges". 87.81.147.76 (talk) 11:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

If you're actually quoting someone, it's not scare quotes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Right. Scare quotes are the kind that mean "someone else calls it this, but I wouldn't normally use the word". For example: The "town" consisted of a few houses and one store. --70.49.171.136 (talk) 21:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with "alleged", when used correctly. What I don't like is when they say "he was proven guilty in a court of law". To me, that should be "found guilty", as what happens in a court in no way qualifies as "proof". StuRat (talk) 13:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree in general. But this is legal proof. I shall be more careful. Myrvin (talk) 13:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that term is a bad one, implying a level of certainty that just isn't possible in many cases. Maybe in a case where all parties agree on what happened, and they have film of it happening, and lots of other evidence, then it may approach actual proof, not just "legal proof". Otherwise, "legal finding" seems like a safer description. StuRat (talk) 20:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

"The state will prove..." But factually it's still best to say "found guilty" or "found not guilty". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I see that, when it's simple reportage, but also in Wikipedia discussions I see people quoting other editors and putting quotes round their actual words and then they get berated because the person quoted thinks it's done to belittle their comment and calls it "scare quotes". Also it sometimes seems to be done to indicate that the words are not to be taken in their normal sense. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 15:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

That would be a not uncommon usage on Wikipedia talk pages, yes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Does Google Translate rely on context ?

When I select the from language as French and the target language as English, it correctly translates "Trois hommes et un couffin" to "Three men and a cradle". But, when I just try to translate "couffin" it fails to translate. (And, annoyingly, Google Translate returns the same word as the translation, making it unclear whether the translation failed or whether the word is the same in the other language.) So, why is it unable to translate the word without the sentence ?

StuRat (talk) 12:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, that's because French doesn't have "couffin". It does have "un couffin", or "le couffin", "couffins", and the like. HOOTmag (talk) 13:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused. How can it have "a cradle" and "the cradle" without having "cradle" ? StuRat (talk) 13:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Just as English does not have "facto", although it does have "de facto". Btw, although Google translates well "Bahamas", "Gambia", Wikipedia does not have them, but rather has "The Bahamas", "The Gambia". HOOTmag (talk) 14:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Google Translate does not translate word by word, if that's what you're asking. Doing so yields gibberish. Looie496 (talk) 13:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

In that case I would expect an error saying "Single words can not be translated". While I agree that using context can improve the translation by selecting the correct meaning when multiple meanings are possible, in cases where there is a single meaning it's not an issue. StuRat (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I typed ten Portuguese words at random into Google and it correctly translated all of them. That's not ten words all together but ten separate translations. My only quibble would be that for the ones where Spanish has an identical word it reports "Spanish detected". There seems to be some discrimination going on here. Also, if you don't include the diacritics it's stumped. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 14:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I tried some inflexions and tenses and still got good results. However, sou, which is Portuguese for "I am", produced sou - Haitian creole detected. Directing it to Portuguese brought up the right translation. Why wouldn't it come up with sou which I believe is a French halfpenny? There must be some ranking involved, like their page ranking system. I'd be interested to know how it works 87.81.147.76 (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

At https://translate.google.com/#fr/en/couffin you can click "couffin" in the right box to "see alternate translations". For "un couffin" and "une couffin" (une is female) it guesses a translation from the start – not the same guess and you can still click it to see alternatives. But for "couffin" it only says "couffin". Maybe it doesn't want to venture a guess without any context. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

This [82] gives "basket, straw basket" and ""bassinet". Myrvin (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

In Google it gives the sentence "Grand cabas souple à anses". When you put that in it translates as "Grand flexible bag with handles". Sounds like the sort of handbag in "The Importance of Being Earnest". Myrvin (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Couffin is masculine. See: https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/couffin. So it can't be "une couffin". HOOTmag (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

"couffin de bebe" comes out as "bassinet for baby". Yet bebe on its own comes out as bebe, and baby in English translates to bebe in French. I think it's a glitch. 15:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's a glitch at all. The word is bebe with an acute accent over both vowels. Have you ever come across the acronym GIGO in programming, which means "garbage in, garbage out?" 87.81.147.76 (talk) 15:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Quite right. See this.[83]. Myrvin (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

If you tell it you are translating from French, and there is no "bebe" without diacritical marks in French, I would hope it would provide the translation with them, instead, labelled "Did you mean ... ?". This is similar to how a Google search can fix spelling errors. It sounds like they aren't quite there yet with the translator. Perhaps they can just plug in the logic from a Google search as the front-end, to figure out what words were meant, before attempting the translation. StuRat (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, "couffin de bebe" no accents - gives "bassinet for baby" [84] Myrvin (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I hope there's an enlightening analysis somewhere (sorry for not providing one) but I just had some fun with varieties (note the punctuation marks and capitalization) such as "couffin." >> "basket." / "couffin," >> "basket," / "Couffin" >> "bassinet" / "Couffin." >> "Basket." / "Couffin," >> "basket," / "couffin couffin" >> "bassinet bassinet" / "Couffin Couffin" >> "Moses Basket Moses Basket" / ...

I certainly can't agree with HOOTmag that 'French doesn't have "couffin"'. Not only does it exist as a lemma, it can be read in ads selling baby cradles too, for just one example. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Here are some pictures. [85] Not just a cradle. Myrvin (talk) 20:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

One surprising meaning that isn't found is a coffin. Apparently that meaning somehow developed in English from the Old French word, without it ever developing in Modern French. StuRat (talk) 20:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

What is the Arabic in the title of the document?

http://www.wlcsd.org/files/1115424/student%20code%20of%20conduct%20-%20arabic_1.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6ZeNtbfFQ

What is the Arabic in the title of this document?

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

It's: كراسة مجموعة قوانين سلوك وتصرفات الطالب, 2010-2011

i.e.: Handbook of a set of regulations for the student's behaviour and actions, 2010-2011. HOOTmag (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Difference between 'git' and 'get'

When I was at university in Leeds, I was often called a 'Scouse git' by southerners. This was all in jest of course, but 'get' is a proper insult in Liverpool. Are there any other dialects with this distinction? KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 15:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

A get is a Hebrew divorce decree. "Get" is a perfectly respectable English word meaning "obtain". "Git" is an obnoxious English word whether heard in Liverpool or anywhere else. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The OED gives the first use of git from 1949. For get it says "orig. Sc. and north. In contemptuous use = brat. Also spec. a bastard; hence as a general term of abuse: a fool, idiot." Goes back to 1567. Myrvin (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

(ec) 'Git' may be obnoxious, but in the context described 'get' means the same thing. See [86]: 'git' is a variant of 'get', meaning an illegitimate child. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

In American English, "git" is a colloquialism for "get", in the context of being short for "get out of here" or "get lost". So in the Monty Python "Argument Sketch", when Graham Chapman mutters "stupid git" after Michael Palin leaves, the meaning is lost on Americans. EO says "get" in the sense of "bastard" derives from "beget".[87] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The pronunciation [gɪt] for get, mentioned by Bugs, is specific to certain regions of the United States. See Phonological history of English high front vowels#Pin–pen merger. The pronunciation [gɪt] for comic effect may be somewhat more widespread than the pin-pen merger, but in the Northeast it is not common and would invoke regional stereotypes (e.g. of hillbillies and rednecks). Marco polo (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

As in "Git Along Little Dogies".[88] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

In the context of Liverpool, the New Shorter Oxford Dictionary derives "get" from the middle English word meaning offspring; descendants; child (cf beget). Then it degenerated to brat or bastard (Scotland and north) and a contemptible person, a fool, an idiot, (dialect and slang). 87.81.147.76 (talk) 16:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The term "Scouse git!" was a catchphrase of one Alf Garnett, who in Til Death Us Do Part, had a motivationally challenged Liverpudlian son-in-law. Alansplodge (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the only time I've heard "get" used as an insult, it was in reference to Sir Walter Raleigh. "Git" (as an insult) is heard a little more often in North America, but the source is usually from the UK in some manner. Matt Deres (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)