Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/L

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

July 10

Facetious

In current use, "facetious" means "treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humour". However, I have some older dictionaries (one from 1977, one undated but I think 1950s) that define it more positively as "witty" or "always saying funny things"). Does anyone know when and why this change occured from "humorous, in a good way" to "humorous, in a bad way"? Iapetus (talk) 09:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OED gives "Of style, manners, etc.: polished, elegant, agreeable." From 1549. Obsolete sometime after 1738. Also, "Characterized by or given to pleasantry or joking, now esp. when inappropriate or flippant; witty, humorous, amusing." From 1594 and still going. Myrvin (talk) 16:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not every dictionary mentions a negative connotation—see http://www.onelook.com/?w=facetious&ls=a.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which one of those 27 doesn't? Myrvin (talk) 20:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't 27 actual dictionaries there, y'know. But American Heritage gives the only definition as "Playfully jocular; humorous", which incidentally is exactly what I would have said. I hadn't heard of this negative connotation before. --174.88.133.209 (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And I thought I'd have to go through all of them. I wonder why this one is different? Myrvin (talk) 00:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have found the cause of the questioner's problem. If s/he has come across the American Heritage definition at some stage - that would do it. I am surprised at what you say about your understanding of the word. I don't think I have ever heard or seen it as anything but a bad thing - and that's 60 odd years of UK English (with heavy doses of US from the screen). I always hear/see, "I'm fed up with your facetious remarks", and never, "Thank you so much for the facetious remarks you made about me." Myrvin (talk) 06:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at them all - and there were a lot. There were several that denoted only pleasant activity, but then many included: flippant, facetious, tongue-in-cheek, Treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humour, not serious about a serious subject. Perhaps more in UK than in US definitions? And maybe the more recent ones too? I got the idea of a facetious person as being someone who is fun to listen to, but doesn't know when to stop being humorous, and might also be sarcastic. The word seems to be in flux. It may remain as just witty, but it could also descend into something nasty. Myrvin (talk) 06:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In usage, this search[1] gives a lot of uses of "don't be facetious", which seems to denote something worse than just witty. Myrvin (talk) 06:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In his Slang book, Eric Partridge uses facetious and facetiously a lot. He seems to use it to mean funny/witty ("digital - A finger: facetiously", but often with a hint of sarcastic ("cherubims - Peevish children: ... Facetiously allusive to ‘To Thee cherubim and seraphim continually do cry’"). I don't know what to make of, "wench - a child, is facetious and university-witted." Myrvin (talk) 09:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In his Origins book, he traces facetious (pace the etymological fallacy) from words that mean, "Witty sayings, also humorous, esp if coarsely humorous, sayings". So, there may be some coarseness in the word. Myrvin (talk) 09:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I like this from Johnson's Dictionary: "FACE’TIOUS. adj. ... Gay; cheerful; lively; merry; witty. It is used both of persons and sentiments. 'Socrates, informed of some derogating speeches used of him behind his back, made this facetious reply, Let him beat me too when I am absent.'" Is there a hint of sarcasm in that? Maybe not. Myrvin (talk) 09:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The original Modern English Usage of H. W. Fowler has: "facetious (opp. glum) implies a desire to be amusing; formerly a laudatory word, but now suggesting ill-timed levity or intrusiveness or the wish to shine." A facetious remark, fellow, interruption. It's gone in later versions. Myrvin (talk) 09:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For a modernish US usage, the Pocket Oxford American Dictionary and Thesaurus has: "fa.cetious ,'fa'sesHas/ adj. trying to be funny or clever about something that should be treated seriously. SYNONYMS flippant, flip, glib, frivolous, tongue-in-cheek. joking, jokey, jocular, playful. ANTONYMS serious." Myrvin (talk) 09:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The OED's Third Edition has "Characterized by or given to pleasantry or joking, now esp. when inappropriate or flippant; witty, humorous, amusing." for the modern sense, with an obsolete sense of "Of style, manners, etc.: polished, elegant, agreeable" (last cited from 1738). Dbfirs 13:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting - it seems from the above answers that the negative meaning was already present when the dictionaries I'd used were published, but not included in their definitions. Iapetus (talk) 10:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pronounce ur ear ir

This is about ur, ear and ir in various words. As a non-native speaker of English I like to know if it is correct to pronounce burn, learn and girl the same way, or should there be a noticeable difference. --VanBuren (talk) 13:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See English-language vowel changes before historic /r/#Fern–fir–fur merger.—Wavelength (talk) 14:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To this American Midwesterner, the middle parts all sound the same. That might not be the case throughout the entire English-speaking world. Non-rhotics might pronounce "girl" more like "gull" than they do with the other two, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, the non-rhotic varieties of English have the same vowel in burn, learn and girl, just as the rhotic varieties do - maybe excluding Scottich English (mentioned by Medeis) I'm not familiar with. HOOTmag (talk) 20:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware, those sounds are all the same in American English dialects, but girl and learn are distinct in Scottish at least. μηδείς (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes native speakers play with the spelling for fun, and it might help show you that most varieties of English have the fir/fur merger - Riot grrrl just removes the vowel - if we try to say grrrl, it comes out just like girl. Recently, some people spell it gurl for fun, so much that someone here has made a redirect to girl. I think the vowel is a schwa in all of your examples. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually a syllabic r, there's no schwa or vowel in the American dialect, although people who are taught there "has to be a vowel" analyze butter, bottle, bottom, and button in American English as if they had schwa vowels in the second syllable, although they really only have syllabic consonants. μηδείς (talk) 01:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forvo has recordings indexed at http://forvo.com/search/burn/ and http://forvo.com/search/learn/ and http://forvo.com/search/girl/. See also http://www.fonetiks.org.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, that the very word ear is not pronounced like the "ear"-part of "learn" (or whenever the "ear"-part is followed by a consonant), but rather like the "ear"-part of "hear" (which is pronounced like "here").

As for "burn" "girl" and "learn" (you've asked about), I've always heard - their vowel (in non-rhotic accents) - or their syllabic r (in rhotic accents), pronounced the same way.

Btw, why did you only ask about "burn" "girl" and "learn", and not about "her" as well? (again, no difference between its "er"-part and "ur"). HOOTmag (talk) 20:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HOOTmag, my layperson's guess that it's because <er> is better behaved than the other ones mentioned here. Aside from oddities like "sergeant", stressed "...er(consonant)" syllables - linguists, how should that be written? What would be the correct notation? - generally is pronounced /ɜr/ or /ɜ/, depending on whether you rhote or not. And as far as I know unstressed <er> is /ər/ (or something like that) in the other Germanic languages, as well as in English. (Thus of course letting slip my assumption that non-native speaker with perfectly good English therefore = native speaker of one of the other Germanic languages.

)--Shirt58 (talk) 08:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An unstressed vowel followed by an /r/, should not be discussed here. E.g. Heather, Arthur, Edgar, Eleanor, Trevor, and likewise. All of these vowels (followed by an /r/) are pronounced the same way: /ə/. The discussion is therefore about stressed vowels (followed by an /r/) only. HOOTmag (talk) 20:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be fair, Eleanor takes a secondary stress in some pronounciations. 20:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

That's why I also added a better example (of an unstressed "or" pronounced like an unstressed "er"). Btw, I think there is no unstressed "ir" pronounced like an unstressed "er". HOOTmag (talk) 12:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the discussion is restricted to stressed vowels, then learn, fur, and fir simply have no vowels in American English, because schwa is never stressed. Again, you are looking at syllambic consonants like rrrrrr and mmmmmm which need no vowel, given they are sonorants. μηδείς (talk) 03:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on what you define as "schwa". If "schwa" is a central vowel (IPA /ə/) then it can be stressed as any other vowel. If "schwa" is a "central unstressed vowel in English" then it can't be stressed as the definition already excludes the stress. In both the cases the stressed vowel and the unstressed one may be written with the same IPA symbol /ə/. So the vowel /ə/ in "fur" /ˈfər/ is stressed, but it's unstressed in "sulfur" /ˈsʌlfər/. --Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 19:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Medeis, because they explicitly referred to American English only, which really has no stressed /ə/ - at least not as a phoneme. For example: the words "curd" "herd" "lurk" - pronounced by Brits - with a stressed (long) /ə/ as a phoneme, are pronounced /krd/ /hrd/ /lrk/ - by Americans, and whoever pronounces them (in America) /kərd/ /hərd/ /lərk/ - cannot prove that this stressed /ər/ is not an allophone of a stressed /ʌr/ or of a syllabic /r/. For more details, see this thread. HOOTmag (talk) 12:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 11

date and record of a cross

"Except for some Madonna lilies it is impossible to name them, since the wooden flats stood casually here and there in the flower bed, all thickly planted with dark green lily seedling. The occasional paper tag fluttering from a seed pod with the date and record of a cross showed that she was an amateur hybridizer with some special fondness for lilies of a warm muskmelon shade or a pale lemon yellow." Does "date" here mean the day when a cross germinates and "record" the detailed account of its growth process? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.177.142 (talk) 14:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it. The usual procedure for such a tag is to record just the name of each "parent" variety and the date on which the cross-pollination took place. (See the example under "Postpollination steps" a bit more than halfway down this page.) A "detailed account of its growth process" would be a matter for the gardener's notebook rather than the tag, as described in the section I referred to. Deor (talk) 22:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Odd gemination (dagesh hazaq) in a verse occurring numerous times in the Hebrew text of the Pentateuch?

Does anyone have an explanation for the bizarre gemination of the initial L(amed) at the beginning of the last word of the following verse of the Hebrew Bible?

וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר יְהוָ֖ה אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹֽר׃

("The Lord spoke to Moses to say:")

This verse occurs repeated identically (identical "melody" included) in innumerable places in the Torah and always with this "anomaly". (If it is one).

This gemination doesn't seem to me to make any sense grammatically.

Besides, the form of this word seems to me to contravene a very basic rule of Biblical Hebrew phonology, namely that words cannot begin with a consonant cluster or a geminate, unless they are to be pronounced as one "accent word" with the preceding word, which the fact that in this instance the two words carry each its own trope (taam) and that there is no hyphen (maqaf) between them seems to me to go against.

Any help appreciated.

Thanks.

Contact Basemetal here 22:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be considered a known anomaly; one source I found considers it a variation of דחיק, the maqaf rule your refered to above. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 04:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Hasirpad. For those who like me can't directly access Hasirpad's first reference, here is an alternative (note 3). Hasirpad's second reference is accessible (to me at least). Contact Basemetal here 16:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another one: בְּתוּלֹתֶ֥יהָ נּוּגֹ֖ות ("Her [Zion's] virgins are grieving", Lamentations 1:4). This one's not even in Lerner. Contact Basemetal here 23:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

what is that nameless feeling of a scene

Hello, I've looked at saudade, but the thing I would like to find a name for is the sense you get when you remember a place, event or experience, and you get a further sense that places you right in the scene as you were washed with it then. If saudade is longing, that isn't it, nostalgia still isn't it. The sense is almost like taste, smell, but not so literally tactile. It's not a pang. There's no longing, no desire, no sense of being carried away. The thing I'm after is more like a note, a tone that completes the picture in a "time" way, something to do with the zeitgeist if you like, but more a feeling than that. I'm sure you clever reference-brarians have a word for it, so thanks in advance. Manytexts (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The technical term in psychology is involuntary memory, first used by Marcel Proust in À la Recherche du Temps Perdu. Tevildo (talk) 00:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like something I would call a "flashback". We have the article Flashback (psychology) which, at first glance, seems very similar (identical even?) to what is described in Tevildo's link. My background in this area is not sufficient to say for sure, so maybe there is a technical difference in use of the two terms. If not, maybe the two articles should be merged? And if so, then maybe the respective articles should be amended to indicate how one differs from the other.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 03:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Sodade"], performed by the late Cesaria Evora. Bus stop (talk) 03:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to all for the links—the first two for the ambit and the third for atmospherics which is also relevant in a lateral way. IM was helpful: saturation with "essence..." makes sense as does "flashback", because there's no emotional judgment. It is also possibly like a spatial memory—effected by or in, the hippocampus but in the far past perhaps—taking in everything seen and hidden in that event. Manytexts (talk) 10:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you are referring to déjà vu? — SMUconlaw (talk) 20:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deja vu is not quite the same thing as X reminding you of Y. It's X reminding you of X - the feeling that something you're experiencing exactly replicates something you experienced once before, as if it's a "replay". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion and good definition Bugs. An example of the "scene" is an old lady served tea in a cup and saucer with a particular rose, almost black-red. My mother had a set like that and she grew those roses. It wasn't that I just remembered, I was "there" with all the atmosphere of the event of my mother tending those roses, having that china when I was small. It's like a feeling in your skin at that time, but belongs to everything about it. Involuntary. Manytexts (talk) 09:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 12

What ethnic group is the name "Ali Ag Wadossene" from?

I asked this at the Humanities desk some time ago but got no help, so I'm moving it here on the assumption there may be more linguistic nous at the Language desk.

Can you tell what ethnic group the name "Ali Ag Wadossene" would belong to? A person of that name, presumably a Malian citizen, has just been killed by French special forces in Mali. The main local languages (according to WP article Mali) are Mande, Fula (or Peul), "Senufo", "Bwa", Tuareg, Songhai. From his looks I would put my money on Tuareg, but I'm not sure. Contact Basemetal here 16:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked for the name in French sources, expecting it might be transliterated Ouad- rather than Wad-, but they use the same spelling. The name Wadossene doesn't appear in Google Books. μηδείς (talk) 01:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Ag"? When I Google "Ag Tuareg" and "Ag Touareg" I do get many hits with Tuareg names which contain that "Ag" (e.g. Ibrahim ag Alhabib) but that is no garantee that that "Ag" is used only by Tuaregs and no one else in the region. Any idea what that "Ag" may mean? Contact Basemetal here 02:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After some research it turns out that "Ag" means "son (of)" in Tuareg and so "Ali Ag Wadossene" would mean in Tuareg "Ali son of Wadossene". Whether this "Ag" is only used by Tuaregs is still not clear to me, but it does appear to be a Tuareg word. While looking around for information I stumbled upon this amusing piece of trivia (third paragraph): apparently in one Tuareg tribe, using "Ag" in combination with the name "Abdallah" about someone is a way of saying, not that that person's father is named Abdallah, but that that person is an illegitimate child ("est un bâtard"). Therefore if someone's father is really called Abdallah, they only use their own (first) name, never the formula "Ag Abdallah", when introducing themselves to someone of that tribe, and all the other tribes seem to know that. Contact Basemetal here 03:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this. I bet the Tuareg are thinking "How could this lower form of life ever manage to build one of the mightiest countries ever?"

Contact Basemetal here 17:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did. Good question.Manytexts (talk) 09:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Myths about the invention of a skill

I am working on the bicycle kick article (and the Invention myths of the bicycle kick article), but I don't know if I am using the right language when referring to the stories about how the skill was invented. Is "myth" the right word, or should I use the word "legend" or "folktale"? Is there any significant difference between these terms? Also, is the word "invention" correct (in meaning), or should I use something more along the lines of "origin myths of the bicycle kick"? (Might there be other articles in Wikipedia that deal with invention legends?). Thanks in advance!--MarshalN20 ^Talk 01:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible origins? Why not refer to its "possible origins"? Bus stop (talk) 03:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Possible origins" seems a better choice, as myth implies that the story has some sacred value. Myths can apply to known history (for example, the signing of the Declaration of Independence is not only a historical event, but certain understandings of it serve as a foundation myth for many Americans), but there must be some sort of sacred value to the story. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, Bus and Ian! I appreciate the clarification on the word "myth." It is certainly being misused in the article; too far away from the original meaning. I like "possible origins"—it's a much better use of language.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 03:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could use discovery instead of invention.
Sleigh (talk) 07:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When not used in the technical sense of a sacred narrative which explains how the world and humanity evolved into their present form, "myth" tends to imply "not true". "Legend" on the other hand tends to imply a story that probably has basis in fact, but has been changed (or at least lost its verifiability) over time. "Legend" would probably be more appropriate than "myth" in this case, but the alternatives others have already given are probably most appropriate. Iapetus (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great information! Thank you, Iapetus (I also appreciate the suggestion, Sleigh)!

Now I have a good grasp on "myth" and "legend". I also use the terms "folktale" and "lore" in my works. How can these be explained relative to "myth" and "legend"?--MarshalN20 ^Talk 15:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of Latin Magna Carta book title

Happy 800th anniversary of Magna Carta! Could someone knowledgeable please provide an accurate translation of the book title Magna Charta cum statutis, tum antiquis, tum recentibus, maximopere, animo tenendis, nunc demum ad vnum, tipis ædita, per Richardum Tottill. Cum priuilegio ad imprimendum solum? This is for the file information page at the Wikimedia Commons. Thanks. — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The great charter with statutes both old and new most worthy to be remembered, now finally published in one volume by R. T. with exclusive privilege to print. (This is just an attempt. Not an authoritative translation.) Contact Basemetal here 17:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks very much. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried my best but the comma between maximopere ("greatly") and animo tenendis (from animo tenendus "to be kept in mind") bothers me. I ignored the comma but it could be the comma indicates that maximopere is to be construed with tipis aedita (more properly written typis edita; typus being an individual movable type character) instead to give something like "published exhaustively" (to convey the idea that the book presents a full and complete collection of the relevant statutes) or simply to mean "published with great care". I had hoped others here would weigh in and correct any mistakes. Since this has not been the case I suggest you double check my translation at the Vicipaedia Taberna which is their "Teahouse", except, since Romans knew nothing about tea, they drink virtual wine and beer

There's no problem posting your question in English. If you do get an answer please post it here too. That will make the Archives more useful. Contact Basemetal here 16:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think your translation is fine...I didn't say anything before because I had nothing to add :) The comma is a bit odd, but maximopere must go with animo tenendis, right? So I suppose it's just an odd 16th-century punctuation style. Maybe someone with more expertise in the history of printing can clarify, but "tipis aedita" (which is actually "typis edita") means it is a printed edition as opposed to a manuscript. In this case it means this is the first time all these documents have been printed together in one book. More literally it's "Magna Carta, now issued in print for the first time in one volume, with the statutes, both ancient and recent, that should especially be kept in mind..." But your version says the same thing in more idiomatic English. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Adam. You put my mind at ease. I was starting to imagine syntax more fit for Virgil. Thank goodness you stopped me.

Contact Basemetal here 00:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for weighing in. — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are there (healthy adult) people who speak no language at a native or near-native level?

I know one (healthy adult) person, who speaks no language at a native level, but still speaks a few languages at a near-native level: He is an orphan who had to migrate many times since he was a kid, so he never had any opportunity to acquire any mother tongue nor any language at a native level. Additionally, English Creole, French Creole and Swahili (being an Arabic Creole), were once considered to be a "near-native" variety of English/French/Arabic (though today they are considered to be a native language called "Creole"). Now, try to think about many editors in Wikipedia who can speak many languages at an "advanced level", or at an "intermediate level". My question is about whether they must speak at least one language at a native or near native level. HOOTmag (talk) 23:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Children who weren't exposed to any language by a certain age never seem to get very good at language. They could be physically healthy, but their mental health may be questionable. See feral child. StuRat (talk) 22:49, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but did that ever happen? HOOTmag (talk) 22:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Feral_child#Documented_or_alleged_cases. StuRat (talk) 22:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Anyways, I was asking about "healthy" people, and this includes mental health. HOOTmag (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a matter of semantics then, as it could be argued that a person who can't speak any language well must be mentally impaired (assuming there's no physical problem). StuRat (talk) 23:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As StuRat implies, that depends on how you define healthy people, including mental health. The only cases that I am aware of in which a physically healthy adult speaks no language at a native or near-native level are either feral children, as mentioned above, or persons who suffer from a profound degree of developmental disability. If HOOTmag is saying that the inherent nature of humans is that they will acquire language, typically in the first three years of life, and will acquire it at a native or near-native level, then I agree. Language is what makes humans human. We are taxonomically Homo sapiens, but an excellent case has been made that we are Homo loquens. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just think about many editors in Wikipedia who can speak many languages at an "advanced level", or at an "intermediate level". My question is about whether they must speak at least one language at a native or near native level. HOOTmag (talk) 23:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine someone having to change languages every 3 months from birth till they reach the age of 30 and imagine all those languages are very different from each other. This is just a thought experiment. I don't know of any actual case. It's obvious that such a person will never have the opportunity to master any of those languages to even close to near-native level. Yet such a person may be perfectly normal. Unless of course you're gonna argue that no one can be subjected to such a treatment and still come out normal. Contact Basemetal here 22:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, Swahili an Arabic creole? Where did you get that? Contact Basemetal here 23:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not only was it once an Arabic Creole, but the very word "Swahili" is in Arabic, and means "Coast [Language]". HOOTmag (talk) 23:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The very word "nihongo" (Japanese language in Japanese) is Chinese. The word "français" comes from a Germanic word meaning "Frankish", a Germanic tribe. So what? That doesn't make Japanese a Chinese creole or French a Germanic creole. Article Swahili language doesn't use the word "creole" even once. Swahili has borrowed lots of words from Arabic and is sometimes written using the Arabic script, but otherwise it is a typical Bantu language. Contact Basemetal here 23:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we do have an article Swahili language. It was originally the normal Bantu dialect spoken in the areas of Zanzibar and Dar es Salaam, areas of Arabic colonization. That dialect served as the basis of a widespread lingua franca that adopted a large number of Arabic (and other) loanwords and lost its tonality (almost if not universal in Bantu languages) and changed somewhat phonetically. One can compare the Chinook language to Chinook jargon which developed from it and became much more widespread. Swahili has a very large number of second language speakers, and at least a few decades ago there were traces of speakers who did not share the simplifications and loss of tone brought by creolization.

The point is, no one talks of creolization in the case of Swahili. Just because a language spreads as a lingua franca does not mean it becomes a creole. Creoles, btw, have native speakers, and that's what makes them creoles, as opposed to pidgins, etc. Check the article, not a single use of the word "creole". (Incidentally, you didn't provide the right link, but I did, so use that). Contact Basemetal here 23:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is talk of creolization. There are the original Bantu speakers, those who learned Swahili as a somewhat pidginized lingua franca, those who adapted this creole, which has become the "standard" Swahili that is taught to second language learners. Here are some google results. I am going on my memory of Comrie's World Languages. I'll have to reread the history essay when I have time in a few hours. Sorry and thanks about the link; I had meant to fix it, then got distracted. μηδείς (talk) 00:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. Some varieties of Swahili may result from processes of creolization. But look where we started: the OP asserting that Swahili, as a whole, was a creole, and an Arabic based creole at that. That surely can't be right. Contact Basemetal here 01:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I missed the "Arabic creole" point which would be flat out wrong. Also, according to the key work on Creole languages by Thomason and Kaufman, Swahili would certainly not be a creole, since it was never fully pidginized and reanalyzed like, say, Haitian Kreyol, but was always maintained by a group of native speakers, passed along genetically, and retaining a core Bantu vocabulary and grammar. I don't speak Swahili, but its relationship to isiZulu and its full membership in the Bantu languages is clear just from a reading of the Lord's Prayer as imaged in the language's article. μηδείς (talk) 02:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably specify that a language need not be spoken. A hearing child raised by the deaf may learn sign language, but otherwise be normal and healthy. StuRat (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are also cases of children left together, without a strong source of language to model on, who then develop their own languages. The language could be entirely their own invention, or it could have influences from other languages. However, I would argue that they do speak one language fluently, the one that they invented (although such languages are typically quite limited). StuRat (talk) 23:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as to a hearing child raised by the deaf, but it takes a village to raise a child, and so the child will probably also learn (although perhaps not to a native level) the language of the village. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Identical~~ twins would tend to do that (see Idioglossia) Maybe human language was invented by a set of ~~identical~~ twins sharing a mutation that provided them with the language ability. In any case the occurrence of the mutation that gave rise to the language ability would have to be pretty close to its being put to use (otherwise, if it doesn't provide any actual advantage, it risks being lost) and that can only happen if there are at least two individuals endowed with the same mutation born simultaneously to be in position to develop a language together since there's no incentive to develop a language on your own. Contact Basemetal here 23:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Language isn't a binary thing, there are many steps between animal communication and modern human communication. One interesting gene is the FOXP2, which in humans seems important in speech, but also has other functions in other animals. StuRat (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anecdotal, but I have a friend whose parents moved to America and insisted that they only speak English at home so he would grow up knowing English. However, his parents didn't know English, so now he speaks English as a second language and... That's it. It gets really annoying for him because people assume he must know Spanish since he only speaks broken English with such a strong accent. Nope, I'm fluent compared to him, and I only retained enough to order food and start bar fights. Despite this linguistic disability, he enjoys subtitled anime, has gone to college, and now works in IT. The worst you could describe his mental health is "noble savage," but I'd consider that an insult.

However, he doesn't treat conversation as a series of preprogrammed prompts and responses, but as a constantly fluctuating equation. (Refdesk regulars may have heard the following before, feel free to skip). While working at Walmart, I noticed that many customers usually did not respond to what was actually said, but the situation it was said in. (e.g. "I'm good, and you?" is not exactly a valid response to "Did you find what you were looking for today?" and yet that was usually the response I got, because the situation they were programmed to deal with said "how are you?"). Customers who did treat conversation as a dialogue prompt were the least capable of handling anomalous scenarios (and, judging from their purchases, the behavior of their kids, and how often the police showed up, any other facet of their lives). Ian.thomson (talk) 23:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They probably didn't hear the start of the sentence, and didn't want to say "What ?", so did the best they could to interpret "...today ?" StuRat (talk) 23:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC) [reply]

A few isolated incidents would be one thing, but when it happened every day despite me using teacher voice and a newscaster-like middle-American accent? Ian.thomson (talk) 23:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, consider that a greeting from a cashier/greeter at Walmart probably gets a low priority in their thought process. They may be focused on other more important things, like which coupons they can use, whether they will be charged full price for that item on sale, if they will hit the limit on their credit card, if they forgot to get anything they need, etc., and really don't want to spend any time or thought on a conversation at that time. Note that this isn't true of every customer, though. Some seem to love the "personal touch". I hit the self-checkout lane and avoid the greeter if I can. :-) StuRat (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC) [reply]

That's the case for some of the customers, but I'm talking about ones who would come up looking right at me, expecting "How are you today?" And hitting the limit on their credit, debit, or EBT card would be one of those "anomalous scenarios" I mentioned. I was there for over a year, and started intentionally experimenting with the prompt-response idea a couple of months in, in addition to conferring with similarly misanthropic cashiers who had comparable experiences. Maybe the Fort is just running the world's worst Stepford Wives program. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have met many people of Latino descent in NYC who speak neither proficient Spanish nor proper English. One person I know had been placed in English as a Second Language courses for his entire education, on the presumption that he was a native Spanish speaker, which he certainly wasn't. He knew some nouns, adjectives, and curses, but could not conjugate a verb or speak a spontaneous grammatical Spanish sentence to save his life.

He was also totally illiterate in English, which he spoke at a very uneducated level, but fluently enough that it was basically a native language which the school system was doing its best to deprive him of. The best way to describe his case would be that if you heard him speak English, you would be sure, counter to the facts, that Spanish was his native language.

μηδείς (talk) 23:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My late ex-father-in-law may fit into this category. He was born in 1912 of Russian parents, but in Kharkiv in Ukraine, so there was language intermingling right from the start. When he was a small boy (about 3 or 4) his family was wiped out and he was taken by the Red Cross to Serbia. While he certainly got by, he never learned to speak Serbian like a native, as there was always a strong Russian influence in his vocab, grammar etc, and his schooling was abysmal (that's when he wasn't running away from abuse and brutal treatment). Equally, he forgot much of what he knew of Russian, and whenever he professed to speak that language, it was always strongly conditioned by his Serbian surroundings. The closest he got was a kind of Serbo-Russian, or Russo-Serbian. He and his wife were displaced after the war, spending time in Germany, Belgium and Italy before migrating to Australia, where he actually spent the majority of his life, but his command of English was always rudimentary. So, apart from his first 4 years, he lived most of his 89 years in hostile linguistic environments. And if he ever had the chance to pick a country where he would have been taken as a native, the answer would have been "nowhere". His wife was born in Serbia of a Serbian father and a Polish Jewish mother, and she learned Russian, German, French, English and Serbian at a Russian Orthodox monastery in Slovenia, but studied in Sarajevo where there was a significant Turkish speaking Muslim community along with the Bosniaks. When they came to Australia, they figured the Russian community would be more useful to belong to, so they identified as Russian (albeit with Serbian connections), and spoke mainly Russian at home, although they had Serbian friends and spoke Serbian with them. Only later did it become clear that any of the "Yugoslav" languages would have been far more useful than Russian, but by then they were too cemented into the Russian community to switch over. Then there's the question of ex-father-in-law's health: he was a paranoid schizophrenic, but that may have been more experiential than innate. (No wonder my ex-wife is a crazy mixed up kid. That's part of her feminine mystique, I'm told.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 13

جنيفر (pronunciation of Arabic version of name Jennifer)

Here at Wikipedia, the given name Jennifer is said to be spelled as جنيفر in Arabic. How is this pronounced or spelled with Latin letters? 83.251.77.222 (talk) 17:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There may be several ways to make up an Arabic equivalent for Jennifer. If one sticks to what you wrote the most likely vocalizations would be جِنِيفِرْ or جَنِيفِرْ so Jinīfir or Janīfir. But the Arabic Wikipedia article for Jennifer Aniston (for example) gives جينيفر أنيستون so there the name would be vocalized جِينِيفِرْ so Jīnīfir. On the Arabic Wikipedia both forms seem to be equally common. Contact Basemetal here 17:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strengths and weaknesses

I hear some people say they have a "weakness for cookies" or "weakness for sweets". I initially thought they meant they did not like cookies or sweets, but then that didn't really fit the context. So, I figured that they really meant that they "could not resist the temptation to eat" a cookie. Somehow, the appetite of cookies had become their weakness, and they must succumb to the power of the cookie. Is there a known equivalent for "strength"? "I have a strength for cookies" just doesn't make sense to me, which may suggest that "weakness for" is really idiomatic. How old is this usage anyway? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the weakness part comes from the speaker's will being weak against those things, and it is idiomatic. A strength for cookies is non-sensical to my native ears, and I'm fairly certain it's not a matter of dialect either. The idiom dates back to at least 1700 according to this site. I'm fairly certain I've heard British and Australian speakers use the term, so it makes sense that it dates back to the pre-colonial era. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the 1700 date is supported by The American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms (p.202) and the idiom is certainly in common use in the UK. Alansplodge (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The OED gives two possibilities. "An unreasonable or self-indulgent liking or inclination for (a person or thing)" from 1712: 'I must own my Weakness for Glory'; and "Something for which one has an unreasonable liking" from 1813: 'Nor wine nor lust Were of his weaknesses'.Myrvin (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could say "My strength is my ability to resist sweets" which is the opposite of "My weakness is my inability to resist sweets". However, the short form doesn't really work for "strength". StuRat (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right - "strength for cookies" doesn't work. But- uses like "Strong vs. X" or "Strong against X" have plenty of usage as an opposite to weakness in various gaming communities (everything from Dungeons & Dragons to Skyrim to Pokemon, etc.). E.g. undead zombies may be weak vs. fire and strong vs. cold. See TV Tropes' Elemental paper rock scissors [2] for an overview in popular fiction. Using this type terminology and avoiding idiom, we could say that Alice is weak in regard to resisting the temptation of cookies, while Bob is strong in regard to the temptation of cookies. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but what about Carol and Ted? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC) [reply]

There's an old song on this subject, which may help explain. The vocal begins about 1 minute in:[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAfVQpzQB3g ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It strikes me that the 2nd OED definition is subtly different. This is exemplified by: "My weakness is cookies". You might have: "My strength is my modesty", but it seems unlikely. Myrvin (talk) 21:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yes, the phrase is from a time when "sins" were a thing, people understood the allure of evil, man was evil by default and succumbing to evil was weakness. Asmrulz (talk) 22:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some still consider an inability to resist any temptation, even food, to be a moral weakness. StuRat (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the Mae West syndrome. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

they are getting fewer. today these things tend to be explained away with having had a bad childhood, some medical condition, or society having failed the person. Also, being "authentic" etc Asmrulz (talk) 22:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As told to "Officer Krupke" in West Side Story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

is your point that the West Side Story is from the 50's and I said "today"? That's no contradiction. Social romanticism (man is good by default) is that old Asmrulz (talk) 23:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean that "explaining away" bad behavior is not that recent. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"In the past few decades, a peculiar and distinctive psychology has emerged in England. Gone are the civility, sturdy independence, and admirable stoicism that carried the English through the war years. It has been replaced by a constant whine of excuses, complaint, and special pleading. The collapse of the British character has been as swift and complete as the collapse of British power.
Listening as I do every day to the accounts people give of their lives, I am struck by the very small part in them which they ascribe to their own efforts, choices, and actions. (...)"Asmrulz (talk) 23:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC) [reply]

The man you quote, Theodore Dalrymple, was a prison doctor and psychiatrist - not a man used to seeing people at their best. Traditionally, prisoners particularly, ascribe their plight to other agencies. Dalrymple also seems to lean rather a lot to the right politically. Again traditionally, the British would always tend to downplay their personal involvement in anything good that happens. I would have thought that was going away rather than increasing. Myrvin (talk) 06:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HOWEVER, after defending my fellow Brits, I see this is straying much too far from the original question, and into dangerous political territory. I wonder if the questioner is satisfied. Myrvin (talk) 08:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Complacency and denial dominate public as well as private discourse, and when a little of the unpleasant side of contemporary English reality is allowed an airing, a damage-control exercise swiftly ensues.
A newspaper recently asked me to go to Blackpool, a northern English resort town on the Irish Sea, to describe the conduct of the people who go there for a weekend. Blackpool has never been a place of great refinement and has long attracted people who cannot afford to go to more desirable places for their holidays. (...) But Blackpool was, within living memory, a resort of innocent fun, with donkey rides and Punch-and-Judy shows on the beach (...)
This (...) innocence has departed.(...) Fun now means public drunkenness on a mass scale, screaming in the streets, and the frequent exposure of naked buttocks to passersby. Within moments of arriving on the street along the beach, which was ankle-deep in discarded fast-food wrappings (the smell of stale fat obliterates completely the salt smell of the sea), I saw a woman who had pulled down her slacks and tied a pair of plastic breasts to her bare buttocks, while a man crawled after her on the sidewalk, licking them.(...)
On the day after the publication of my article, I appeared briefly on the BBC's main breakfast-time radio program, which has an audience of several million. The interviewer was an intelligent and cultivated woman, and having briefly and accurately summarized for the readers my account of what I saw in Blackpool, she then asked me, "Aren't you being a toff?"—that is to say, a social and cultural snob.
The question was, of course, a loaded one, with many layers of deeply derogatory implication. I in turn asked her whether she would herself bare her buttocks to passing strangers, and if she wouldn't, why not? She declined to answer this question (...)
Not long after the interview about my experiences in Blackpool, the BBC broadcast letters from a few listeners, who charged that I had failed to understand the nature of working-class culture. They used the word "culture" here in the anthropological sense of the sum total of a way of life, but they were also taking cunning and dishonest advantage of the word's connotations of Bach and Shakespeare to insinuate that the wearing of plastic breasts on the Blackpool promenade is indistinguishable in value from the B-Minor Mass or the sonnets.
The liberal assumption, in this as in most things, is that to understand is to approve (or at least to pardon), and therefore my disapproval indicated a lack of understanding. But strangely enough, the letters that the BBC and the newspaper that published the original article forwarded to me—those they hadn't broadcast or published—wholly endorsed my comments. They were from Blackpool residents and from working-class people elsewhere who passionately denied that working-class culture had always consisted of nothing but mindless obscenity. Several writers spoke very movingly of enduring real poverty in childhood while maintaining self-respect and a striving for mental distinction. (...) http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_4_oh_to_be.html (italics mine)Asmrulz (talk) 10:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is all this nonsense, and what does it have to do with the question? This is not the place to vent your personal bitterness. Myrvin (talk) 10:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

People need to know. Also, your charge that he's right-wing. Ok, I'm shutting up. Asmrulz (talk) 10:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just as in the US, where there are also areas with that type of vacationers (mainly the "Spring Break" destinations), I'm sure that there are other locations for more wholesome family fun. Branson, Missouri seems to market itself that way, for example. StuRat (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC) [reply]

July 14

Is this a grammatical mistake?

I read a description in an English web page. I think the highlighted words have a grammatical mistake. Any English native can answer me?

After ended the Bretton Woods system in the early 1970s, the US dollar became a true fiat currency allowing to be freely traded and sold.

--Capim Dourado (talk) 10:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a native speaker, and I don't like it. All you need to do is move ended to after the word system. Myrvin (talk) 10:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The place I found it in [3] wasn't in idiomatic English. Myrvin (talk) 10:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you need it after allowing. So: "After the Bretton Woods system ended in the early 1970s, the US dollar became a true fiat currency allowing it to be freely traded and sold." Myrvin (talk) 10:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A comma is mandatory after currency: " ... true fiat currency, allowing it to be .....". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. I also wonder about "traded and sold". Myrvin (talk) 10:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Traded and sold' is problematic and tautological. Trading implies selling. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 11:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone. I totally agree with you! --Capim Dourado (talk) 13:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"After ended"??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, sleepy. That was dealt with in Myrvin's first response. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sleepy? No, in this case, more like Dopey. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Putting the preposition before the verb

Why does English have the tendency to put the preposition before the verb? Examples are "outspoken", "upscale", or "downsize". When a house is scaled up in extravagance, the house can be described as upscale house. When a company wishes to lay off workers to size down the company, the company can be described as downsize. When a person speaks out openly, that person can be described as outspoken.

Similarly, sentences also have a tendency to place the preposition before the verb. Examples are "the glass through which the photons pass" or "the fork and knife with which we use to eat" or, more humorously, "This is the kind of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put".

Is there a reason for this observed phenomenon? Why are the prepositions placed before the verb? Is there a formal term to describe it? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 13:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've always been confused by prepositions. However, I thought that the pre part refers to being placed before a noun or pronoun, but, maybe, a verb as well. Your 2nd sentence is not idiomatic, unless you meant "used to eat". The placement of the preposition in sentence 1 would pass muster, the idea is that the sentence should not END with a preposition - now a rule no longer observed as assiduously as it was. Your 3rd sentence is a humorous way of showing how a sentence can get into knots by following that rule too carefully. Eric Partridge has a few more, including: "That depends on with what they are cut". Myrvin (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit of a circular answer, but prepositions are placed before the verb because they are prepositions, i.e. "preposition" is the formal term. As Myrvin says, "pre" means "before. If they came after the verb they would be postpositions. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On reading about it, it seems they are pre because they go before nouns and pronouns - can't see verb mentioned. Myrvin (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Er, right...whatever :) They go before, anyway! Adam Bishop (talk) 15:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit clash: According to The New Fowler's Modern English Usage, the rule was invented by Dryden. Fowler spends a lot of time being rude about a too strict adherence to the rule that prepositions shouldn't go at the end of sentences, but it doesn't stop pedants getting hot under the collar about it even now.Myrvin (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Words like upscale and downsize are a different matter. Down is not a preposition, it is an adverb. Myrvin (talk) 14:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler says: "down-. Use of the adverb as a prefix to form new verbs has been a feature of the 20C, e.g. downface (first recorded 1909), downgrade (1930), download (computers, 1980), DOWNPLAY (1968), downpoint (1946), downscale (1945). downsize (1975), downturn (1909)." Myrvin (talk) 14:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the company is said to have been downsized.

"outspoken", "upscale", or "downsize[d]" - Aren't these all adjectives, not prepositions? Rmhermen (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

outspoken is an adjective, upscale is a verb (or an adjective in OED), downsize is a verb; downsized is an adjective. None of them are prepositions. Myrvin (talk) 16:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First question: the pattern is common in many Indo-European languages, so is presumably inherited. Second question: I think a better question is how English (unique among the languages with which I'm well acquainted) came to reanalyze a phrase like eat with forks to see the with as bound more strongly to the verb than to the noun, allowing relative phrases like that we eat with; and the answer must involve analogy with phrasal verbs like take over (whose object cannot be treated as part of a detachable phrase over X). —Tamfang (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose your point about with, is part of the reason why pedants prefer "forks with which we eat". I didn't understand your take over point. Myrvin (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can't say (unless facetiously, as in the crack attributed to Churchill) the project over which I took; nor can you say of forks we eat them with, by analogy with I took it over. Yet the form that we eat with seems to me to treat eat with as structurally equivalent to take over. —Tamfang (talk) 07:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see now. Does it help that, as you say, take over is a verbal phrase, while eat with isn't, so you need to keep the two parts together as much as possible otherwise you lose the phrase connection? The fact that you can sneak an it in between the two parts is interesting, but there must be other examples like that. Myrvin (talk) 08:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility is the increasing preference of that over which in a wide variety of settings. They're not exactly the same: that is a demonstrative, while which is a relative. In many cases, though, either is acceptable. In our case, I don't think that would have been considered correct traditionally: If one would put the preposition before its object, one is pretty well constrained to use which ("... with which we eat" in preference to "... with that we eat," the second of which is incorrect). But as the language has evolved to prefer that over which, the result has been to keep "eat with" together so as to avoid "with that". StevenJ81 (talk) 17:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm,, maybe. The New Fowlers says:Final verdict. In most circumstances, esp. in formal writing, it is desirable to avoid placing a preposition at the end of a clause or sentence, where it has the appearance of being stranded. But there are many circumstances in which a preposition may or even must be placed late ... and others where the degree of formality required governs the placing. When formality is desired, of which I had already heard, ... has the advantage over which I had already heard of."

The original question confuses two separate issues: 1) the practice of placing prepositional phrases of the form "[preposition] which" before the verb, and 2) the placement of prefixes before the verb (e.g., "downsize"). Those prefixes are not prepositions. They are in fact derived from adverbs, as are some prepositions, but they don't have the same function as prepositions. As for putting prepositions before the verb followed by "which", that is a feature of high-register or formal English that is not really native to the language. It was invented and promoted by grammarians in the early modern period following a French model because they found the English practice of ending phrases with "dangling particles" inelegant. Marco polo (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, New Fowler's says, "Apparently Dryden set the myth going. In his Defence of the Epilogue (1672) he cited a line from Ben Jonson's Catiline (1611), The bodies that those souls were frighted from, and commented, 'The Preposition in the end of the sentence; a common fault with him, and which I have but lately observ'd in my own writings.'". Robert Lowth in his Short Introduction to English Grammar (1775} ... concluded: 'This is an idiom, which our language is strongly inclined to: it prevails in common conversation, and suits very well with the familiar style in writing: but the placing of the preposition before the relative, is more graceful, as well as more perspicuous; and agrees much better with the solemn and elevated style." No mention of the French.

I now see there is a WP article (of course): Preposition stranding. It mentions Dryden too. Myrvin (talk) 20:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

mother of two

Is it mother of two or mother-of-two? Does it depend on whether it is used as a noun or an adjective (attribute)? Different sources seem to contradict each other to some extent, and not even the BBC appears to be consistent here. --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 14:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that mother of two is a noun-phrase, while mother-of-two is an adjectival-phrase. It's odd as an adjective. Is an example: "This is a mother-of-two law"? Yet "mother-in-law" is both a noun and an adjective. Myrvin (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However, I guess there is no widespread agreement on whether or not to use hyphens in such circumstances. It seems that if the phrase is used often enough as a noun, then it will attract the hyphens. Maybe mother-of-two hasn't quite got there yet. Myrvin (talk) 14:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a WP article: Compound modifier. Myrvin (talk) 14:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These too are interesting [4] [5]. Myrvin (talk) 14:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Google NGram thingy gives no examples of the hyphenated form [6], but it looks suspicious. Yet, "mother-in-law" seems to work OK. Myrvin (talk) 14:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems common among the less educated to hyphenate when in-doubt (see what I did there?); I shan't be surprised, if I live long enough, to find hyphenations mandatory where I supposed them forbidden. —Tamfang (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure that "mother-in-law" is an exception to the rule, because it comes from a specific legal concept: Your spouse's mother has the same legal status with respect to you as your own mother does (for certain purposes in certain legal systems). See parent-in-law. Similar type of legal usage: attorney-in-fact, who is not necessarily a licensed, trained attorney, but nevertheless serves that purpose in a given situation. (StevenJ81 (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC))[reply]

With hyphens, it goes back to at least 1500: "The man synned with his modur-in-lawe at the entisynge of the deuel" - more a church, rather than a legal context. Myrvin (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In a religious setting, the law is canon law (or alternatively halacha or sharia), but it is still law, and that is why the term is what it is. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. How about: "1688 S. Penton Guardian's Instr. 28 The everlasting Din of Mothers-in-law"? Myrvin (talk) 19:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A search on the OED for *-*-* nouns gives 133000 headwords. From aide-de-camp and blind-man's-buff, through daddy-long-legs and forget-me-not, to stick-in-the-mud and will-o'-the-wisp. Myrvin (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! And there's also mother-to-be Myrvin (talk) 18:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I personally wouldn't hyphenate mother of two unless it were adjectival, and then I'd probably rewrite the sentence. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be used in the sentence "all mother-of-two applicants get preferential treatment" meaning that all mothers with two children get special treatment. μηδείς (talk) 19:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like it Medeis. Myrvin (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a question whose answer differs on either side of the pond, but where would you stress "mother-of-two"? Using mother-in-law, which does exist. I fancy that mother in LAW is stressed at the end, while MOTHER-in-law is stressed at the beginning. I mentioned the pond because my understanding is that Robin Hood is stressed as ROBin Hood in the US, while definitely Robin HOOD' over here. :) It may depend on whether the hyphenated phrase is being used as a noun or an adjective. Perhaps we might say "That green is a ROBin-Hood colour." Myrvin (talk) 14:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Mother-of-two" would simply receive the normal initial word stress on mother and two and no abnormal stresss within the sentence unless it were being emphasized, such as: "Mother-of-three aplicants will be disqualified, whereas all mother-of-TWO applicants will get preferential treatment." This is just normal GA & RP English competency, not some special formula. μηδείς (talk) 21:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You would suggest therefore that mother-in-law is stressed on both mother and law, and mother-to-be is stressed on both parts too? The OED disagrees. It's MOTHER-in law and mother-to-BE. Myrvin (talk) 02:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you check out all-or-nothing, you will see that US speakers stress ALL and NOTHING, while Brits stress NOTHING. Similar are all-in-one, drag-and-drop, and face-to-face. There are other examples: e.g. head-to-head, heart-to-heart, and one-to-one. In language, I think there are rarely special formulae - what is, is just the way it is. I also doubt that it is often simple or normal. Myrvin (talk) 02:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for the website that lets you find a whole word when you give just few letters (at least 3) with their exact locations at the word.

HOOTmag (talk) 15:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's a webset? Contact Basemetal here 15:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a typo (of course I meant "website"). HOOTmag (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try wordsolver.net. - Lindert (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Thank you, but) this is not the website I'm looking for. HOOTmag (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you have access to the OED Online, you can use that as well. — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Smuconlaw, I've been using the OED website for years and didn't know that they allow ? and * wildcards. Dbfirs 16:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is the option I need free? HOOTmag (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, Dbfirs. No, HOOTmag, I'm afraid OED Online requires a subscription so if you don't belong to an institution such as a school or university that provides you access to it, you probably need to access it through a public library. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See my OED search in the previous answer. Myrvin (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been using this [7]. There are several crossword solving sites. This does anagrams as well. Myrvin (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another one is Chambers Word Wizard. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 18:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about, some known letters, followed by - or following - some unknown letters whose number is not known either? HOOTmag (talk) 18:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try * in [8]. It works in OED advanced search too (see above). Myrvin (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Free and better might be [9] - use * again. Myrvin (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Download a raw list of English words (like this) and try a search using regular expressions (I advise doing a search in Notepad++). For example: b??t??n gives such words as bastion, boatman, Britain, etc. (I do not give all the result).--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 19:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although not a website, AlgoSim (algosim.com) can do this. --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks LY. I used to have one of those, but lost it. Myrvin (talk) 09:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 15

boxy plan

What does "plan" mean in the following context? "The house she lived in lies two miles from mine--- a simple, two-story structure with the boxy plan, steeply-pitched roof and unadorned lines that are typical of houses built in the middle of the nineteenth century near the New Jersey shore." Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.220.167 (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Floor plan. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more confused about "boxy". To me that means lots of rectangles, but that's most floor plans. So what makes one floor plan more "boxy" than the rest ? StuRat (talk) 01:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lacking in originality or imagination, as with the song "Little Boxes".[10] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plan can mean design. So, 'the boxy design' = 'designed like a box'. Myrvin (talk) 06:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest it means that the shape of (each story of) the house is a simple rectangle ("box"), rather than something more elaborate. --174.88.133.35 (talk) 07:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question seems to be about the word plan not boxy = Resembling a box in shape; comparable to a box. Myrvin (talk) 08:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all the above. Plan = design. Boxy = box-shaped. Frank Lloyd Wright used to talk about "destroying the box" in his designs. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Thinking outside the box". :-) StuRat (talk) 01:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Objections: what do you do with them?

I used to have on my user page the following sentence: "He never opposed any objection to my usurping his username". Recently someone contacted me and told me they didn't think you could "oppose an objection" and suggested "posed" instead. I thought about it and I agreed that "opposed" didn't sound right. But their suggestion didn't sound right to me either. So I changed it to "he never made any objection to my usurping his username". What do you think? What verbs go with "objection"? Contact Basemetal here 01:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Raise. Though in your sentence "He never objected to ..." would be more concise. Deor (talk) 01:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Raise. That's what I was really looking for. Contact Basemetal here 01:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know it doesn't mean "he never objected to any objection"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know because I wrote the sentence. Contact Basemetal here 01:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then "posed" would be the simplest answer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So "he never posed any objection to my emptying his bank account" sounds right to you? Contact Basemetal here 01:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's the simplest answer in the context of the original sentence structure, and "raised" works too. But Deor's "He never objected to..." works better as a good English sentence: it's a little more direct or crisp sounding. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"He posed AN objection", suggests his very existence was an objection. As in "He poses a threat to me". So, "he NEVER posed AN objection", means he wasn't a problem to my carrying out my plan. However, the OED accepts posed as being the same as proposed. So, see my suggestion later. Also, the OED has "pose: To propound or raise (a question, puzzle, etc.); to present or constitute (a difficulty, problem, danger, or threat)." Myrvin (talk) 06:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you originally meant "never proposed any objection." I think an objection can be proposed. And your brain turned prop into opp. Myrvin (talk) 06:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I associate "propose" with suggestions, ideas and the like. Not with objections. Objections can be stated, raised or lodged. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's a bit odd. A Google book search gives a few examples[11] Myrvin (talk) 08:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of a few unusual cases where you could use it: "The group needed to find any legal grounds for halting the development. One member, an ex-Lawyer, proposed several objections which could be raised".

Sure, but the object of the question is not to justify the use of the word "proposed". It's to discover the best verb to go with the sentence the OP has given us, the current version of which is "he never made any objection to my usurping his username". "Made" is all right, and "stated" or "raised" would also fit. I'd put "proposed" way down the list, and "opposed" off the list entirely. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question was "What verbs go with 'objection'"?" - not necessarily the best (whatever that means). We are also (as an interesting aside) discussing why the questioner might have hit on opposed, and if it is a possible verb to use here. Myrvin (talk) 10:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the original sentence is merely archaic; at least, I seem to have read in old works oppose in the sense ‘put up in opposition’, thus: "To any intruder we oppose a barricade." Sometime when I ought not already to be in bed, I'll check the OED. —Tamfang (talk) 08:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Definition II 3 a might be something like it. "trans. To set (something) against or in opposition to; to place or position as an obstacle. Also: to put forward (a person) as an antagonist. Chiefly with to; also (now rare) with against." Examples include "The enemy opposed to us a tremendous fire from a numerous artillery", and "Nor could the Modern have avoided present Death, if he had not luckily opposed the Shield that had been given Him by Venus". Myrvin (talk) 09:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For an objection, instead of "pose", "interpose" would probably be better. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most definitions of interpose are about putting things between other things, so don't seem useful. However, there is one that says: "To put forth or introduce (action, authority, etc.) in the way of interference or intervention." Last cited from 1882 by Lamb: "Expecting every moment when he [the owner] shall interpose his interdict." Seems rather contrived to me. Myrvin (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

? If you interpose an objection, surely it would be putting the objection between a proposal or an act, and the continuation or fulfillment of the proposal or act. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that's what the above definition is saying by interference and intervention. Myrvin (talk) 02:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The simplest suggestion is surely "he never objected". --174.88.133.35 (talk) 17:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Agreed. But it's still interesting to know what verb can go with "objection". If someone asked for the best way to go from city A to city B by car, you could suggest that it'd be better if they flew instead, or you could answer their question. Contact Basemetal here 21:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Original Russian for Bakunin's phrase: When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called "the People's Stick." ?

I just made the stub The People's Stick, since this is an interesting anarchist political metaphor by Bakunin. Can someone help provide the original Russian for the quote? And if it's worth it and you have a moment, since it's just a short stub maybe help make the equivalent article at ru.wikipedia? Thanks! MatthewVanitas (talk) 10:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is "Но народу отнюдь не будет легче, если палка, которою его будут бить, будет называться палкою народной." I found that by searching for палка (stick) in http://az.lib.ru/b/bakunin_m_a/text_0050.shtml --ColinFine (talk) 13:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Footballer names

Can somebody determine how the articles Syarhey Herasimets and Serhiy Herasymets should be spelt ? They are father and son so as a minimum I suspect they should have the same surname. The father is named as Syarhyey Hyerasimets in his article, a third spelling of the surname, and an alternative given name... Any definitive answer ? Thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They both spell their names in the Cyrillic alphabet, and there is no exact one-to-one relationship between letters in the Cyrillic and Roman alphabets, so there will be more than one possible way to transliterate the same name. It's made even more complicated because there are three languages involved - Russian, Belorusian and Ukranian, all of which use the Cyrillic alphabet but in slightly different ways, and different standard systems of transliteration are used for each language - see Romanization of Russian, Romanization of Belarusian, and Romanization of Ukrainian. --Nicknack009 (talk) 14:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, the father is cited as being Belarusian and the son Ukranian, which may account for the difference in the spelling of their surnames... GrahamHardy (talk) 15:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now the fathers Belarusian name as given in the article is Сяргей Герасімец, and using BGN/PCGN romanization of Belarusian this gives Syarhyey Hyerasimyets. GrahamHardy (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And the sons Ukrainian name as given in the article is Сергій Герасимець and using BGN/PCGN romanization of Ukrainian this gives Sergii Herasymets - though can someone check as I was uncertain column to use in which table !GrahamHardy (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Romanization of Ukrainian and Wikipedia:Romanization of Ukrainian/BGN/PCGN transliteration table, "Сергій Герасимець" should by transcribed as Serhiy Herasymets' or Serhy Herasymets. — Kpalion^(talk) 11:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The two men have the same first name and the same last name. (They have different "middle names" or patronymics, based on their respective fathers' names.) It's common for names to be "translated" between Russian, Belarusian, and Ukrainian, both when written in Cyrillic and when transliterating to the Roman alphabet. We have the father's name as rendered in Belarusian (both in Cyrillic and transliterated), and we have the son's name as rendered in Ukrainian (both in Cyrillic and transliterated). If we had articles for both of them in Belarusian Wikipedia, the names would be identical; and if we had articles for both of them in Ukrainian Wikipedia, the names would also be identical. In English Wikipedia we have to somehow choose which variant of each person's name to use. The current solution of Belarusian for the father and Ukrainian for the son is a reasonable choice given their sporting affiliations. --Amble (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the Czech and Slovak languages, how common are and have been the terms "Česko" and "Slovensko" as opposed to "Česká republika" and "Slovenská republika"?

Could someone who is acquainted with those languages explain briefly the present-day and historical situation with the usage of each name in each language? --Theurgist (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried Google Ngram Viewer? --Jayron 32 04:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't, but Google Ngram Viewer doesn't support Czech or Slovak anyways. I do already have a rough idea about the matter, and it is more or less covered in Czech Republic#Etymology and Name of the Czech Republic. I know that until recently, a "short" Czech name for the Czech Republic was nonexistent or very rare, but "Česko" has since gained much currency, and now the Czech Wikipedia page on the country is at cs:Česko (there have been tons of discussions on whether or not this should be so). The English equivalent "Czechia", though recommended and lobbied for by some, is still uncommon. I was hoping to get some firsthand, more accurate and more thorough information about each name's usage in various contexts. --Theurgist (talk) 08:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Juxtaposed homographs

I am seeking some fine examples of the above. For starters:

The dove dove swiftly
The rose rose through the weeds to its full height
Don't let that pervert pervert this reference desk.

They must be exact homographs, and with no words in between. I await breathlessly. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the third example (pervert/pervert) is the same as the first two as those homographs are etymologically related words. I hope you do not mind this fairly kind kind of criticism. Contact Basemetal here 23:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC) PS: Any idea why "kind" is not in the List of English homographs? It's not even in any of the list of homographs on the net. I'm getting worried. Contact Basemetal here 00:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean I can't see a bread roll roll under the table? Myrvin (talk) 06:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Kind" is listed in List of true homonyms. There's an overlap between homonyms and homographs, and "kind" sits squarely in the intersection, imo. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The lab set up a periodic periodic acid delivery from the chemical supply company. --Amble (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo. 109.152.147.133 (talk) 01:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep your wooden heirlooms gleaming, with eastern Europe's famous furniture treatment: Polish Polish. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I always forget how to tell the difference between seals and their close relatives. If they have ears they're sea lions; seal ions are the ones with an electrical charge. --Amble (talk) 02:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this was going to be something like "I watched the seal seal its own death warrant." - could be SEAL. Myrvin (talk) 02:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or this. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are five examples.

The compound compound was sodium chloride.
The aquarium employed a grouper grouper.
The policy policy allows for pet insurance.
Did a flicker flicker between the branches?
The shoemaker made his last last last last.

—Wavelength (talk) 03:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the lazy potter potter about.

There are a few ow words: Spying on Robin Hood and Maid Marian, I saw the man with the bow bow to the lady; Beatrix Potter never wrote of her pig family, "You will never see another sow sow those seeds so well." Come to think of it, if one of her animals was a potter, I could have seen that Beatrix Potter potter potter about; If there were a line or row of gondolas, and the boatmen had an argument or row, then I might see the gondolier in the row row row away angrily. Myrvin (talk) 06:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could a watery tear tear quickly down someone's face?

Can a strong bear bear any weight? Myrvin (talk) 06:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John whereas Jim had had had had had had had had had had had the teacher's preference. Widneymanor (talk) 07:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or James while John had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher, and That that is is that that is not is not is that it it is.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I saw a pretty, blonde worker in the market, would she be "a fair fair fair person"? Myrvin (talk) 10:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And if she didn't cheat me, would she be a "fair fair fair fair person"? Myrvin (talk) 10:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is no one gonna answer my question about "kind"? Contact Basemetal here 11:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What am I - chopped liver!? :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Sorry Jack

Thank you for answering. Contact Basemetal here 11:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, if you're really devoted to chopped liver, you're a chopped liver liver. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 12:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 16