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 18

Foot fetishism or podophilia in different languages

How to say foot fetishism or podophilia in Korean, Arabic, Persian, Dari, Pashto, Somali, Hindi, Urdu, Punjabi, Sindhi, Baloch, Gujarati, Tamil, Sinhala, Kannada, Telugu, and Malayalam? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.35.192 (talk) 00:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to introduce Google Translate. Have fun. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cell camera verb

First we had film and Super 8 cameras. Then came camcorders, which used videotape technology, and people were often corrected for whining, Stop filming me!! Finally we (or some of us) got used to saying "videotaping" instead. Now we have digital memory, but at least one Wikipedia article refers to an eyewitness videotaping an event with his cell phone.

What is the best encyclopedic language to refer to modern-day, memory-based digital video recording? "Recording" might be adequate where there is enough context, but it could be ambiguous in other cases because one can record audio-only. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've used to video, without mentioning a tape. To video means (OED) "to make a video recording", which refers to a video, which means "That which is displayed or to be displayed on a television screen or other cathode-ray tube; the signal corresponding to this." No mention of tape. Myrvin (talk) 09:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to Merriam and Webster, video is never a verb. Dictionary.com disagrees, but its definition is, "to record (a television programme, etc) on a video cassette recorder"; no mention of a camera of any type. The "programme" spelling implies a British influence.

To my American ears, it has a colloquial sound unsuitable for an encyclopedia. I don't think I could bring myself to type the word "videoing" in a mainspace Wikipedia edit window and then actually click Save page. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it is British. Here[1] is a discussion.Myrvin (talk) 10:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears a little in WP[2] from 2013, as does videoed[3] - not obviously only British. Myrvin (talk) 10:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So it could be used in BritEng articles, I guess. AmEng remains an issue in my opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:31, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both are appearing more and more in American English.[4] More in British Englis, and might be tailing off.[5] Myrvin (talk) 10:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd expect them to appear more and more as video recording became more common. But there's no way to compare that frequency with alternative ways of saying the same thing; that usage could be in a 1% minority for all that tells us. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but it's on the way! The US dictionaries haven't caught up yet. I see that to shoot is popular. I seem to remember that some US TV shows were "Videoed in front of a studio audience", but I can't find any. Myrvin (talk) 10:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not nessecelery [sic]! They could remain at 1% forever, and still increase over time. It's not the numbers but the relative numbers. You could be right about the studio audience, but I've never heard that. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It will make a change to hear an American cursing those damned Britishisms for corrupting the language. See mother-of-two above. Myrvin (talk) 11:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, here's a Google book search.[6] Myrvin (talk) 10:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The verb has in the past referred to the recording medium - filming, videotaping. That suggests "memorycarding" or "memorychipping". Stop memorychipping me!! Maybe not. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you Americans never video a TV program(me) like I did? Myrvin (talk) 11:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't presume to speak for all Americans, but I taped TV programmes. In any case, that's not using a camera and it's not what I'm looking for here. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I agree, I was trying to find an American precedent for the verb to video, and hence videoed and videoing. I used to videotape things too. but I was happy to say I was videoing something. Myrvin (talk) 12:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're in luck. We have an article on the American precedent. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC) [reply]

What context do you need a new word for? It seems that a new term was never really adopted for digital media. "Taping" and "filming" still carry the meaning even if it is inaccurate. After all, we still "dial" and "hang up" phones. Mingmingla (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Conversion (word formation), a valid linguistic concept. English is very open, as a language, to "noun --> verb" conversions, and many such conversions have migrated out of slang or colloquial speech to formal speech. For example, one can chair a meeting (where "to chair" is a verb formed from the noun "chair"). There is no problem with this process, it is a natural part of language evolution, and has been happening, is happening, and will continue to happen forever. --Jayron 32 20:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're suggesting, but I'll consider "video" acceptable for Wikipedia AmEng articles when I see it as a verb in Merriam-Webster. I'm sure you'll agree that Wikipedia should follow language evolution, not drive it. The noun-verb conversion would be "cell phone camera'ed", even worse (or "memorychipped"). Merriam-Webster says for "film": "to make a movie of (something) : to photograph (an event, scene, etc.) with a movie or video camera", so I guess I could force myself to use "film" despite not liking it much. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:19, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested a reference for people to read further about the subject under discussion. Because this is the reference desk. Where we give references. --Jayron 32 05:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to have only one reference as the criterion is too narrow. Arguably, any RS could give support for using video as a verb - certainly it could be quoted. As M says, it's not there yet in AmEng, but it could easily be used in British English articles. For Americans, I think M agrees that film would do. I'll also throw in again the verb shoot. M-W[7] has "12: to take a picture or series of pictures or television images of : PHOTOGRAPH, FILM". Myrvin (talk) 06:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with "filming"? Lots of words persist, even when technology change makes them technically inaccurate. We still refer to seamen as "sailors" even when their ships don't have sails, many armies still have "cavalry" regiments that use tanks or helicopters rather than horses, etc Iapetus (talk) 09:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So what's wrong with "to make a video recording"? "An eyewitness made a video recording of an event with his cell phone." Sounds formal enough to me. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's quite long, and people will probably shorten it. Out of interest, you will all have gizmos capable of doing this. Do your manuals (in various parts of the world) refer to make a video recording, or videoing, or something else? My Cannon Sureshot calls it "Shooting Movies". 13:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

My Hudl tablet (maybe not available in the US) says shoot video and capture video. An Olympus manual calls it "recording movies. Myrvin (talk) 13:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to own the gizmo to read its manual. Most of them are available online; you just need to Google them. — Kpalion^(talk) 14:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, That's where I got the Olympus from. Myrvin (talk) 14:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Sony camera manual shoots movies. Nokia Lumia online guide has record a video. Kodak has taking a video. Myrvin (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Transliterating Chinese sounds with the letter x

How did certain Chinese consonants that sound like the "sh" sound come to be transliterated with the Latin letter "X". I don't think the x normally makes that sound in any Roman alphabet languages that I'm aware of, so why settle on the "x" instead of "sh" or "c" or something. I do realize that there are several different systems of Chinese-to-Latin alphabet transliteration, but I am referring specifically to the one that uses the X for some "sh" sounds.--Captain Breakfast (talk) 11:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that they needed another letter for the sound that was a bit like sh (which exists as SH) but not quite. I think they might have used hs in the past - but that's a guess. Anyway Chiang Kai-shek was born in Xikou, so I'd blame him. Myrvin (talk) 11:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Winnie Hsin or Xīn Xiǎoqí. Myrvin (talk) 12:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to pinyin, the x is similar to its use in Portuguese, Galician, Catalan, Basque and Maltese. See Voiceless alveolo-palatal sibilant.Myrvin (talk) 11:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And formerly in Castilian, whence the use of ‹x› for /ʃ/ in Nahuatl, and the English word sherry for wine from the city whose name was written Xérez (now Jérez). —Tamfang (talk)

In Pinyin, 'sh' and 'c' are already used for other sounds. I think the idea was to use a letter which would otherwise be redundant, i.e. 'x', as there is no /ks/ in Chinese. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 15:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Who made the decision? Myrvin (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Russians. I think Latinxua Sin Wenz is the ancestor of pinyin. Contact Basemetal here 15:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Soviets weren't all Russians. Stalin wasn't, for ex. And that's an odd choice for a Russian to make, since X in Cyrillic has the same pronunciation as X in Spanish etc, the -h- or -kh- sound. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hence its double-usage, User:JackofOz. It was not only used for 'sh' but also for 'kh', another very common sound in Mandarin. You can read the article if you want to. 82.35.216.24 (talk) 14:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about 'q'? At least (as mentioned already) there is a precedent for 'x' being used for a similar sound in other languages, whereas, as far as I know, the way pinyin uses 'q' is without analog. Contact Basemetal here 15:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The pinyin article says, "the pinyin q is akin to its value in Albanian; both pinyin and Albanian pronunciations may sound similar to the ch to the untrained ear." Myrvin (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be the Voiceless alveolo-palatal affricate. Myrvin (talk) 16:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, 'q' - a redundant letter, as Chinese has no other need for it - is used because 'ch' is already used for an entirely different sound. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 16:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What does the attributive modify here?

"She favored the roses of other ages---the York and Lancaster rose, the cabbage rose, the damask and the rugosa rose in several varieties." Does the prepositional phrase "in several varieties" modify only "the rugosa rose"? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.176.62 (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I don't see how it could be interpreted in any other way without changing the punctuation or the word arrangement.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Well, its a matter of interpretation rather than grammar, but normally I think one would read it as modifying rugosa rose. The wording is a bit odd, however; the omission of "rose" after damask can lead one to conclude that it modifies damask and rugosa rose, though one might say "the damask and rugosa roses in several varieties" if one wanted to make that more clear. And one could also, quite unexceptionably from a grammatical standpoint, take the prepositional phrase as referring to all the kinds of roses. (I'm not gardener enough to know whether that would be logical—are there multiple varieties of York and Lancaster and cabbage roses?) Deor (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sentence is ambiguous too. It could mean "She favored all the varieties of the Y rose, the L rose, the C rose, the D rose, and the R rose" (to use the Oxford comma}; or it could mean "She favored the several varieties of the R rose, and she favored the Y rose, and the .....". I agree that I would prefer to see "damask and R roses", as well as "the Y and L roses", otherwise it looks as if there is a rose called 'York and Lancaster' rose - maybe there is, but I doubt it. You shouldn't be expected to know if one or other rose had varieties to make sense of it. Myrvin (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In Tudor times, I've read, someone did go to the trouble of breeding a red-and-white rose. —Tamfang (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They carved and painted the Tudor rose, but I don't think they grew them. I'd like to see one though. Myrvin (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well well - willya lookit that [8]. And it's a damask too. Oh me of little faith. Myrvin (talk) 21:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So there is a Y and L rose, but it is a damask.Myrvin (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is a gallon jug

What is a gallon jug? Does it mean a jug that can contain one gallon of water? The context is as follows: "She propagated her roses herself from cuttings stuck directly in the ground and protected by upended gallon jugs." Lots of thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.176.62 (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a flower theme here. You should sign your entries with 4 ~s.

I would say a gallon jug is what you guess. Of course, the volume of a gallon differs in the USA and Britain. Myrvin (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! I've found the site where this is.[9] Myrvin (talk) 15:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See, for example, the section "Recycled Plastic Jug Cloche" on this page. Deor (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S., the phrase "gallon jug" invariably refers to the 1-gallon sized plastic jugs with the handle seen here: [10]. Of course, one can make a "jug" of a capacity of "one gallon" in any shape one wishes, but the actual phrase "gallon jug" usually means that specific design. --Jayron 32 20:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's meant buy a gallon jug are the squat, translucent plastic milk jugs you'll see here at google which are clear enough to allow light to pass. μηδείς (talk) 00:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC) (Apologies to Jayron, his image is correct, it just doesn't show they plastic is translucent. Industrial gallon jugs are often opaque.)[reply]

"Buy a gallon jug", you say? I will not! --174.88.133.35 (talk) 02:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that a gallon is a unit of liquid capacity, not weight, so a jug that will hold a gallon of water will also hold a gallon of any other liquid, regardless of density (although mercury might be heavy enough to rip the container apart when you try to lift it by the handle). StuRat (talk) 03:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whether vs. If

Are there any languages, other than English, that allow to replace every "whether" by "if" (e.g. in "I don't know whether he's here"), yet not every "if" by "whether" (e.g. in "you'll be punished if you're late")?

HOOTmag (talk) 21:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question has a false premise. People often say "if" when they really mean "whether". I don't know whether you knew that or not. Notice I didn't say "I don't know if you knew that or not". "If" should be confined to "if <condition X> then <circumstance Y>" constructions. If it's just a case of not knowing whether A or B is the case, and there's not necessarily any consequence of having that information (maybe you're just idly curious), then it's "whether", not "if". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply has a false premise. If 'people often say "if"' in that context (which they do), then that is one of the meanings of if. Your beliefs about what they "should" say are irrelevant. --ColinFine (talk) 09:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me a resource for students of English that confirms that "whether" may be replaced by "if" in every case, as per the OP's question. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Colin is objecting to your "'If' should be confined..." sentence. You seem to be claiming that "if" can only be used for a material conditional - however a brief survey of usage indicates that is not the case. I don't know if you care about that, but there it is :) SemanticMantis (talk) 22:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well, of course I care about how people actually speak and write. I think in practice we're all descriptivists to a greater or lesser degree, if not in theory. I guess I was focussing on the OP's use of the word "allow". Maybe I have a lower tolerance of, shall we say, unorthodox uses of the language, and an awareness that descriptivism can take far more forms than the relatively narrow range of variations "allowed" by prescriptivism. I mean, for example, I know people for whom it is completely natural and normal to say "I seen it", "He done it", "You should of went earlier" and the like. In their particular ~~idiologue~~ idiolect, those are unexceptionable. But without such a context, can we say that such things are "allowed"? Certainly not in any standard version of English known to me. I take a similar view to the misuse of "if". Others may be more willing to concede that it has become the norm to use "if" where "whether" would be prescriptively mandated, and they may well be right, but I don't know how this is measured in any objective way. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further, when a certain usage changes, enough to become widely and generally accepted without the raising of eyebrows, how long do the prescriptivists take to record the change in their Book of Rules? They must eventually cave in, because language does change, whether they like or not, but I imagine they could withhold their acquiescence for decades or even longer in some cases. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For example, the split infinitive. A reasonable analysis tells us it was never wrong to do this in English, but somehow its proscription ended up in the Book of Rules and that became holy writ for a number of centuries. Now that it's widely known that the initial ban was wrong-headed, people are generally more relaxed about it. But many writers remain uneasy, and I'm sure some authorities still actively discourage it, if not explicitly banning it. I fear, though, that I'm drifting inexorably towards irrelevancy vis à vis the OP's question.. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide an example of a rulebook that contains the "whether/if" rule you describe? The rulebooks I'm familiar with don't mention it, or don't call it an error. Brians for example opines that "'If' can’t really be called an error, but when you are discussing two alternative possibilities, 'whether' sounds more polished." This use of "if" is not at all a new phenomenon, as you can find plenty of very old examples in print [11]. Also, I think you mean "idiolect", not "idiologue". --Amble (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler (2nd ed, 1978, "if", p. 264) says: To avoid possible ambiguity it may be prudent to confine if to its proper duty of introducing the protasis of a conditional sentence, and not to use it as a substitute for whether or (with not) to introduce a possible alternative.

The 2nd example he gives is germane to my argument: Please inform the secretary if you intend to be present (to which the reader may wonder Whether you intend, or only if you do intend?). I interpret this as a recognition that if has indeed been used to mean whether, but that is not its "proper duty". That's good enough for me. Thanks for the sp corr. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the reference. This is a reasonable recommendation but far short of indicating that the use of "if" would be unorthodox or ungrammatical. Another edition notes that both are used, noting that "whether" is "somewhat more formal". --Amble (talk) 23:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You admit that "People often say 'if' when they really mean whether", and that's exactly what I meant (sorry if I was not clear enough). My question is about whether, there are other languages whose speakers tend - to replace "whether" by "if" - yet not vice versa. HOOTmag (talk) 22:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is still not particularly clear. What exactly do you mean by "replace whether by if? I am not aware that any language other than English has the words "whether" and "if". Finding verbatim translations of such "little words", prepositions and conjunctions and so on, is often problematic.

In Italian, for example, I can't think of a direct translation for "whether". Most English sentences using whether I would either translate with se ("if"), or reword to use the subjunctive (che tu sia in tempo o meno non importa tantissimo, "whether you are on time or not doesn't matter very much"). --Trovatore (talk) 22:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the OP means: "whether" = conjunction which introduces indirect yes/no questions and "if" = conjunction which introduces conditional clauses. I wonder if what he is trying to ask is not: How many languages (1) have separate conjunctions for introducing yes/no indirect questions and conditional clauses (2) can use the conjunction that introduces conditional clauses to introduce yes/no indirect questions but (3) not vice versa. Contact Basemetal here 23:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. However, not "how many languages" but rather "are there any languages - other than English - which..". HOOTmag (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Latin. However the use of 'si' to introduce yes/no indirect questions belongs to a more popular register as far as I can recall. Also there is no word that specifically introduces indirect yes/no questions like 'whether' does. The words that introduces direct yes/no questions are the same as the ones that introduce indirect yes/no questions. So nothing really equivalent to 'whether'. Contact Basemetal here 00:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Latin has many words that introduce questions, some of which ask a question where the speaker expects an affirmative answer ("nonne"), some where the speaker expects a negative answer ("num"), and some where the speaker has no expectations (adding "-ne" to a word in the sentence). There is also "numquid", another fancy question particle. More relevant to this question is the "utrum...an" construction, which asks two different things ("did you do this, or did you do that"). That construction can be used for "whether" (and "utrum" and "whether" are actually two evolutions of the same Indo-European word, etymologically), but only if the question is asking whether/or - the example from the Oxford Latin Course is "senex Quintum rogavit utrum Venusiae mansurus esset an parentes quaesiturus" ("The old man asked Quintus whether he was going to stay in Venusia or look for his parents"). However, if there aren't two parts to the question, Latin always uses "si", the usual word for "if". To modify the previous sentence, you would have to say "senex Quintum rogavit si Venusiae mansurus esset". So...this was a long way around to answer HOOTmag's question, but, using the examples given in the original question, no, Latin only uses "si" in both those instances. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what is not clear in my question: I have given very clear examples: "I don't know whether he's here", as opposed to "You'll be punished if you're late". English uses here two different words: "whether" (as in the first sentence), and "if" (in the second one), and yet most speakers afford to use (in the first sentence) "if" instead of "whether", but never afford to use (in the second sentence) "whether" instead of "if". So my question is as following: Is there another language, which - like English - has two different words: the first one, used in sentences like the first sentence mentioned above (when translated into that language), can be translated into English as "whether", whereas the second word - used in sentences like the second sentence mentioned above (when translated into that language), can be translated into English as "if". Additionally, like English speakers, most speakers of that language afford to use (in the first sentence) the second word instead of the first one, but never afford to use (in the second sentence) the first word instead of the second one.

As for Italian: Although the word "che" is not a direct translation of "whether" (because the main meaning of "che" is quite another one), your idea (being consistent with my initial definition) is interesting ... HOOTmag (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is complicated. The presumption that languages should behave somewhat like English is in part based upon a generalization of Standard Average European, which really does not necessarily apply to the rest of the world. English and German have either/or, entweder/oder. German also uses wenn and ob, cognates of when and if.

But the Romance languages pretty much just use si or the equivalent; while isiZulu has both uma ("if, when") and ukuba, literally "to be (i.e., being); and Russian has li, esli, and ili which can mean if, when, whether and or. (Spanish can also use cuando venga, literally "when he come" (i.e, "should he come") to express the if idea using "when" and the subjunctive mood of the verb.)

I have no idea how Semitic languages or Chinese or Japanese treat this issue. Since the concept is not one that refers to a rather well defined physical object, like bird, sun, or tree, there's no particular reason any specific language should have a word that translates exactly for "if" or "whether". That is, when is the last time you saw an "if"? μηδείς (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A note on very long section titles: I've noticed the OP likes to have very long section titles. He seems to like to put the entirety of his question into the title. I don't think that's a great idea. For example that makes every edit summary extremely long for no good reason. I think it is much better that the title just give a general idea what your question is about. Contact Basemetal here 00:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to edit section titles to match our guidelines, Basemetal. They should express the essence of the question as concisely as possible. But if you edit the title, you have to add the template {{anchor|original title}} immediately above the question and below the new title. That way it tracks in poeple's watch pages. μηδείς (talk) 00:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why Basemetal and not you or me? Anyways, I have just done that. HOOTmag (talk) 00:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't blame me, I just answer questions, I don't assign guilt. See Saint Peter. μηδείς (talk) 01:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It strikes me that the "whether" in the first sentence has a silent "or not", whereas the "if" in the second sentence would mean something totally different if one tries to add an "or not", nor would it make much sense. Separately, I suppose one could say, 'I don't know if he is here' but you could also say, 'I don't know that he is here' (so is 'if' "replacing" 'that', not 'whether [or not]'?)Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "or not" is implied after "whether" in English. But you can also say, "I don't know if he's coming (or not)." Syntax is not my area of focus, maybe Любослов Езыкин can say more. μηδείς (talk) 01:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OTOH, it's always possible to rewrite the sentence using "whether or not", if "whether" is the correct word. But it's never possible to write "if or not"; not without violating native idiom or inserting words in between. Cf. "I don't know whether or not he's arriving today", vs. "I don't know if or not he's arriving today". One might be tempted to say "I don't know if he's arriving today or not". but the fact that it's possible to say "whether or not" instead, means that "whether" is the correct choice and "if" is wrong. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis, I rather specialize on phonetics/phonology and alphabetic writing systems (not to mention dozens of other things) than on syntax. In fact, theoretical syntax is my weak side in both English and Russian.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 06:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether this helps or not, but both whether and if came into English from old English and Germanic languages. A guess would be that modern Germanic languages have equivalents, or at least different words for if and whether. Any Germanic speakers out there? The most relevant entry in the OED has "By suppression of the second alternative, whether comes to introduce a simple indirect question, and becomes the ordinary sign of indirect interrogation = IF conj. 9.". It gives examples of "Uncertainty..whether her letter had been ever forwarded." and "Thither the Londoners flocked..to hear whether there was any news." So I think that's saying whether can be used in place of if in certain circumstances. The relevant part if of the if entry says, " Introducing a noun-clause depending on the verb see, ask, learn, doubt, know, or the like: Whether." Anyway, I'm having a punt on some Germanic tongue. Myrvin (talk) 07:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can only find ob in German for whether - the same as if. Myrvin (talk) 07:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My German isn't great, but I have the notion that ob means "if" in the sense of "whether", whereas for "if" in the sense of "if", wenn is more usual. --Trovatore (talk) 00:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch has hetzij[12] as well as words for if, like of. Myrvin (talk) 07:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Danish has hvorvidt[13]. But I am blind blind here. Myrvin (talk) 08:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian.[14] Myrvin (talk) 08:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish has huruvida.[15] Myrvin (talk) 08:11, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps KageTora or others can comment on how the if/whether issue is handled in Eastern languages? μηδείς (talk) 23:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to User:Medeis, in Japanese, they say 'kare wa kuru ka konai ka wakaranai' (lit. he is coming not coming [I] don't know), to mean 'I do not know if/whether he is coming or not.' There is no word for whether. 'If' however in other places is pronounced as 'moshi' - 'Moshi ore no niku wo tabetara....' (If you eat my meat....), for example. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 00:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So konai is the negation of kuru? Why the vowel shift, if you know, KageTora? I suspect that verb-not verb construction is pretty common. μηδείς (talk) 00:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Just an irregular verb. See [16]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.19.115 (talk) 08:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. It's just an irregular verb, Medeis. Off the top of my head, I can only think of two of them, one of which is 'kuru/konai/kita' and 'suru/shinai/shita', the latter meaning 'to do'. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 11:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One other mild irregularity: iku "goes" gives itta "went" instead of expected *iita (cf. kaku "write" which gives the regular kaita "wrote"). The negative ikanai "doesn't go" is regular. The following is not an irregularity since it results from a sound law but iu sequences in Japanese tend to become yuu (at least in the standard language), so the verb (written) iu "says" is mostly pronounced yuu. Maybe worth pointing out even though, again, this is not a grammatical irregularity, but the consequence of a sound law standard Japanese spelling has not caught up with yet. Contact Basemetal here 15:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware it's an irregular form, which is why I asked. Telling me it is irregular is like telling a patient who asks why he has a fever that his body temperature is elevated. It's entirely possible that the reason is obscure, given the poor documentation. But even though laymen often don't know why a certain word is irregular (goose/geese) the answer historically is not just, "Why not?" Or, "That's the was it is." The reason in the goose case is i-mutation. μηδείς (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The verbs kuru and suru were already irregular in Old Japanese. Which is not an answer to your question. There might still be an explanation. Or there might not be. Or there might be several competing explanations. One of the best people to ask is Alexander Vovin. This is his page at the U. of Hawaiii. Tell us if you do get an answer. "That's just the way it is" is often just a way of saying "I don't know". Contact Basemetal here 17:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a solution, perhaps, but it does give an explanation as to why the cause remains unknown: lack of documentation of the pre-Old Japanese period when the irregularity might have arisen. The only other hope would be internal reconstruction, or the quite unlikely case that a comparison with Korean or Altaic would give clues. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also possibly comparison with Ryukyuan. Contact Basemetal here 18:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 19

a warm muskmelon shade

What color is a warm muskmelon shade? Is it a kind of green or yellow? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.220.237 (talk) 03:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to say. It would depend on context, specifically the culture of the person speaking; muskmelons come in a wide variety of shapes, sizes, and colors. In some places, the actual word "muskmelon" would be unfamiliar, and in other places, it would likely refer to only a specific cultivar of muskmelon: I would say that it seems likely to be referring to the color of the flesh of the muskmelon, but that can vary widely: in the U.S. for example, the two most common varieties are honeydew, which are a pale green, and cantaloupe, which is a pale orange. So, we can't say for certain without knowing which variety of muskmelon the speaker was talking about. --Jayron 32 03:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The context is: "She has some special fondness for lilies of a warm muskmelon shade or a pale lemon yellow." Based on the sentence, can it be judged that "muskmelon" refers to a light yellow? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.220.237 (talk) 04:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can also think about warm and cool colors. This article goes into that a bit. Bus stop (talk) 04:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This[[17]] site again. Myrvin (talk) 08:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My local language (1950s NYC; Los Angeles 1960-84)) distinguishes the two most prevalent types by name: the cantaloupe (light orange) and honeydew (light green). Note that the lead paragraph of the Cantaloupe page gives "muskmelon" as an alternative moniker, though in my experience this would be regional for areas with which I'm not personally familiar (to be noted on Talk:Cantaloupe). The "day lily" was (is) profusely grown, at least in the U.S. subtropical belt, and popular in public and private landscaping. It has light yellow and "tawny orange" variants. I suggest this is what the author and character intend. And, please note: when RefDesk editors ask for clarification of context regarding a book and character, it would pertain to the author's and character's regional origins. -- Deborahjay (talk) 05:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

flutter

I am not sure whether "flutter" in the following context means "to MOVE lightly and quickly" or "to FALL with a light trembling motion"? The context is: "The occasional paper tag fluttering from a seed pod with the date and record of a cross showed that she was an amateur hybridizer." I want your opinion. THANK YOU! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.210.225 (talk) 08:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More like the first one.[18] It's like "float". In fact, remember Muhammed Ali's famous line: "Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We are thrashing this[19] piece a bit. Anyway, the tag would be attached to the seed pod, so it isn't falling. It is fluttering in the breeze. Chambers has "3.(of a flag, etc) to flap in the air". Perhaps the questioner needs a better dictionary giving more options. Chambers has 8 meanings for the verb and 8 for the noun. Myrvin (talk) 08:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery character

Can someone tell me what the second character in this phrase is? The phrase as a whole refers to the sage of Emei periodically changing name. Thanks, Henry ^Flower 11:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I used this[20] site to draw this character 時, but the site says there are no usages for it. Who is this sage? Myrvin (talk) 13:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Google translate[21] says time. Myrvin (talk) 13:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

随時 means 'at any time' or 'at will'. 82.35.216.24 (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, both of you. For context, here's the original in an awful scan. If it really is just 時, then my next question is whether this in an old, or just plain weird way of writing the left part of the character, or is that normal? I've never seen it printed like that before (though my experience has mostly been with simplified characters). Henry ^Flower 15:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's definitely above my pay grade. Myrvin (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was puzzled by that too. There are of course many radicals where it's conventional to replace a "heng" stroke at the bottom with a "ti" stroke, but I was under the impression the 日 radical wasn't one of them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian & Middle East Sprachbund

Has any proposal been raised that Persian/Farsi and other Iranian languages are part of a Middle Eastern sprachbund and share traits with Semitic languages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.30.139 (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've not encountered the actual term "sprachbund" in this context, but there certainly has been some research on language contact and language conversion in the area, both between Iranic/Semitic and between Iranic/Turkic. You might start by consulting Eva Ágnes Csató, Bo Isaaksson & Carina Jahani (eds.), Linguistic Convergence and Areal Diffusion: Case Studies from Iranian, Semitic and Turkic, London 2005. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a url[22] for that. Myrvin (talk) 17:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More pointers: [23] (on the specific pairing of Aramaic and Kurdish), [24] (a proposal of an Araxes sprachbund involving some Semitic and Iranic languages) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is well known, that Modern Persian has been heavily influenced by Arabic, because of the same Islamic tradition of the speakers of these languages. HOOTmag (talk) 00:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to all. However, in response to HOOTmag, I should have been clearer, but I was speaking more about long-term phonological and morphological features, which are separate from issues like lexical borrowing from Arabic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.30.139 (talk) 07:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 20

Questions on Enciant Egyptian language and the alleged protonostric language theory

Where could I find information about the questions of the pronunciation reconstruction of ancient Egyptian ( based e.g ) of still alive and spoken afroasiatic languages ??

And what to you about the alleged existence of a theory about a so-called protonostric language ??

Sincerely yours ,

István Csiszár ; Hungary 87.97.80.79 (talk) 14:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's an article on Nostratic languages. To summarize: while there are a few proponents out there, most historical linguists are skeptical. 128.146.172.106 (talk) 15:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've probably read this [25], and there's Coptic of course.Coptic language; see this[26] Myrvin (talk) 16:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proto-nostratic in this book.[27] Myrvin (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In case you haven't found it yet, the Hungarian Wikipedia has articles on both topics: Nosztratikus nyelvcsalád and Egyiptomi nyelv. Though apparently shorter than their English counterparts, you may find other helpful links in those articles as well.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 17:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are several competing (partial) reconstructions of Proto-Afro-Asiatic, none of which is anywhere near the stage of what we have for PIE. But PAA has a time depth of probably more than 10,000 years or so, much older than PIE. Egyptian is just one lone survivor of one branch of the PAA family. Knowing its vowels in the context of Nostratic theory is about as relevant as the plumage patterns of sparrows in the reconstruction of early dinosaur evolution--it's looking at a recent side branch to reconstruct ancient relationships.

Nostraticists also pretty much concede that PAA is a sister group, and focus more on Joseph Greenberg's Eurasiatic language hypothesis and Fortescue's Uralo-Siberian which are more coherent highly supported by the evidence. There are also problems with Nostratic in that it was based on the data available (the existence of reconstructions of families like the Dravidian languages and the Kartvelian languages) and ignored at-the-time not yet reconstructed groups of NE Asia. And there are quite different proposals for Nostratic consonant correspondences between the original theory and the reconstruction by Bomhard which make the whole construct suspect.

It is true that Many English speaking linguists toe Lyle Campbell's line that long range comparisons should be "shouted down" but the skeptics do not address the data or offer their own alternatives, they make unhelpful a priori arguments based on models of what possibly can be reconstructed (e.g., "nothing older than 6,000 years") and refuse to listen to anything that contradicts those models. Such skepticism is not as broad outside Americanists and the anglosphere. μηδείς (talk) 22:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

off-topic

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Why do some editors introduce their contributions with a blob?
Do you need a special blob licence? Myrvin (talk) 10:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can take this to talk, but your comments have nothing to do with the OP's question. μηδείς (talk) 16:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 21

Etymology of Midwestern United States

Why is the Midwestern United States called the Midwest? It seems to be mostly to the East of the centre of the USA. That article talks about the definition, but there's no explanation of the actual name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.19.115 (talk) 05:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Historically, in the United States, the west began at the foot of the Appalachian Mountains (beyond that was French or Indian territory). The west coast and the Rocky Mountains were the Far West and everything in between was the Midwest. Part of this nomenclature has stuck, even though no one would call the Appalachian mountains the west anymore. --Xuxl (talk) 10:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also Northwest Territory, which at one time was the northwest portion of the USA. It survives in Northwestern Mutual insurance and was the basis for Norwest bank prior to its merger with Wells Fargo. There are other examples of the "old northwest" in Northwestern. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also good reads to understand the history of such a term may be Territorial evolution of the United States, American frontier and perhaps even Manifest Destiny, explaining why what was the "west" of the past is not the "west" of today. --Jayron 32 22:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the state now known as Tennessee was once known as the Southwest Territory, from the same nomenclature as Northwest Territory. --Jayron 32 22:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Northwestern University (Evanston, IL) ... Northwest Airlines (headquartered in Minnesota before it was absorbed by Delta) ... The Victors —football song of the University of Michigan, "Champions of the West" ... I could go on and on ... StevenJ81 (talk) 22:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That having been said, I should modify what User:Xuxl said just a bit. The "Midwest" or "Middle West" didn't become that until the United States was well established in the Rocky Mountains and Pacific. As mentioned above, before then, it was just "the West". StevenJ81 (talk) 22:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The perception that The West started at the Appalachians actually persisted for quite some time. Well into the early 20th century, that perception continued. As noted about the University of Michigan fight song, the "Champions of The West" dates from the late 19th century. The athletic conference Michigan is a member of, the Big Ten Conference, based in the Midwest, was known as the "Western Conference", during a time period when all of it's schools were in states considered to be "The Midwest" (Ohio in the east to Minnesota & Iowa in the west). --Jayron 32 00:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Words ending in -cund

I know of fecund, jocund and rubicund. Are there any others? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, just a few. I assume you want *und words without a preceding vowel. Rotund, Dachsund, bismerpund, bund, cogitabund, contund, cummerdund, cund, defund, Dortmund, effund, errabund, etc. Crossword solver sites are your friends. Richard Avery (talk) 06:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I assume you want *cund words like you said. From Chamber's: infecund; iracund; secund; verecund. Not fecund; Inclined to become angry, easily angered; (of eg leaves) all turned to or positioned on the same side; Modest. There are 18 in the OED. Do you want them all? Myrvin (talk) 06:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See below. There are actually only 17 distinct words because facund has two entries as both noun and adjective. Dbfirs 07:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this is exactly what I was looking for, in this thread (see my last response ibid.) ! Thank you so much, Richard Avery ! HOOTmag (talk) 07:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Other words fitting Jack's request exactly are facund, infecund, godcund, injucund, inverecund, iracund, jucund, namecund, secund, subrubicund, subsecund, verecund and viricund (thanks to the OED for these). Many are obsolete or too rare to deserve a Wiktionary entry. Dbfirs 06:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But he might be interested in those as well. I like cund: to conduct. For some definitions: subrubicund: seems to mean 'reddish'; subsecund:OED is a bit vague on this. Used, like secund, about the position of leaves and flowers. I've sent the OED an email. Perhaps some botanist out there knows. Myrvin (talk) 09:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An old botanical dictionary gives sub- as "somewhat". So, I guess it means a little bit secund.Myrvin (talk) 09:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently dead and gone are: godcund, spiritual; and namecund famous. I think that's the lot. Myrvin (talk) 09:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you need the definitions of the other OED words? Myrvin (talk) 09:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really "need" them, but I definitely want them .... no, on reflection, I need them. Thank you. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. facund is eloquence (n), eloquent (adj); injucund, Unpleasant, disagreeable; inverecund, unabashed; iracund, Inclined to wrath; choleric, passionate, irascible; jucund, A by-form of jocund...; secund, Arranged on or directed towards one side only; esp. Bot. of the flowers, leaves, or other organs of a plant....; viricund, In a green state..... Did I miss any? Myrvin (talk) 10:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fabulous. You are a guru (or, if you prefer, a namecund godcund master). Thanks greatly. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)][reply]

Is "cummerdund" a mispelling of "cummerbund"?

In an IQ test one of the questions was "Fill in the blank spaces in the following word: UND-----UND (the answer's obvious but people just couldn't get it). Are there many words which display this pattern?

Why are you asking me those questions? The first one is best directed to Richard Avery, who's back there at indent level 1. The second question is a new thread and deserves its own header. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Many WP:RD threads that start off as jocund and facund do tend to end up as injucund and irecund. <Sighs>--Shirt58 (talk) 10:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Were those your anonymous misplaced questions above, User:Shirt58? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

/usr/share/dict/words also has sithcund and gesithcund. —Tamfang (talk) 07:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See [28] and [29]. Also 'sithcundman'. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The voiced alveolar raised non-sonorant trill (Czech ř)

Currently the lede of Czech language (third paragraph) has this sentence:

"Words may contain uncommon (or complicated) consonant clusters or lack vowels altogether, including one consonant represented by the grapheme ř which is only shared by Irish Gaelic (slender r as in Eire)"

I'm not familiar with Czech at all, but I do dabble in Gaelic and that doesn't sound right. The description of Czech "ř" doesn't sound the same as /ɾʲ/ (Irish "slender r") but I didn't want to change the sentence without clarification from somebody who is at least familiar with both Czech and Irish. Since this is the language desk, just leave aside the fact that the sentence as written is ambiguous as to whether it is the consonant or the grapheme that is shared (I know there's no "ř" used in Irish).--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 20:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It also doesn't fit my (limited) experience with Czech and Gaelic. Here is the relevant edit; you may want to ask Pan Brerus, who made it. Alveolar trill#Raised alveolar non-sonorant trill lists several dialectal occurrences of the phoneme [r̝] (ř), with references, but none of them is Irish. Lesgles (talk) 23:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note further that Pan Brerus modified an earlier statement that said that the phoneme was unique to czech; frankly both are dubious in the extreme and, as written, smack rather obviously of original research. If a reliable source isn't forthcoming, the statement ought to be removed altogether. Good catch by WilliamThweatt. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 22

Looking for a word or phrase

A friend and I are trying to think of a word or phrase, can you help us out? It's for when someone comes along who completely revolutionizes a field and it is no longer the same afterwards. 'Phenom' might be the best we can get but it just doesn't feel quite right to me. Thanks for any help you can provide. Dismas|^(talk) 19:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should look at paradigm shift. μηδείς (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From the article: A paradigm shift (or revolutionary science) is, according to Thomas Kuhn, in his influential book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), a change in the basic assumptions, or paradigms, within the ruling theory of science. It is in contrast to his idea of normal science. According to Kuhn, "A paradigm is what members of a scientific community, and they alone, share" (The Essential Tension, 1977). Unlike a normal scientist, Kuhn held, "a student in the humanities has constantly before him a number of competing and incommensurable solutions to these problems, solutions that he must ultimately examine for himself" (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions).

μηδείς (talk) 01:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the 'someone' - the agent noun - I doubt if paradigm shifter will work. The term revolutionary seems the simplest, but maybe that sounds too Marxist nowadays. We should keep thinking. Myrvin (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate blather

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Given you are directly responding to me, you should indent under me. There was a recent discussion started about this by someone on the talk page. And please speak for yourself about whether or not to continue to think. μηδείς (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't directly responding to you, I was referring to your misunderstanding of the question, and then answering the question.

I could have indented under you with the words "For the 'someone' - the agent noun - I doubt if paradigm shifter will work." and then started with a blob and added the words: "The term revolutionary seems the simplest, but maybe that sounds too Marxist nowadays. etc." But that seemed rather fussy.

You can stop thinking if you like.

Your comment is off-topic, having nothing to do with the question.

I could point out that, since you were directly responding to me, you should have indented with two colons, not three. But that would be petty.

Myrvin (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not at all misunderstand the question. You created the stupid strawman "paradigm shifter" and criticized it. I figured the OP wanted a relevant source, and could figure out something like "he shifted the paradigm" on his own. This seems very relevant:

A paradigm shift (or revolutionary science) is, according to Thomas Kuhn, in his influential book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), a change in the basic assumptions, or paradigms, within the ruling theory of science. It is in contrast to his idea of normal science. According to Kuhn, "A paradigm is what members of a scientific community, and they alone, share" (The Essential Tension, 1977). Unlike a normal scientist, Kuhn held, "a student in the humanities has constantly before him a number of competing and incommensurable solutions to these problems, solutions that he must ultimately examine for himself" (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions).

A double indentation is standard when you are posting above but after another poster, yet another bit of ignorance on which you decide to make a snide remark. Given you didn't answer the question at all, but criticized what I said, I suggest you get over these perceived slights and flaws and concentrate on the issue. μηδείς (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Game changer? StevenJ81 (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's good. It can be hyphenated too. Myrvin (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A game-changer is an event, not a person. μηδείς (talk) 20:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hard luck Steven. It seems only to be recognised as an agent noun in sport in the OED. Myrvin (talk)

That's in the OED. However, the Oxford Learner's Dictionary [30] is on your side. Myrvin (talk) 20:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, "revolutionized" is a term often applied to what Babe Ruth did for baseball, transforming it from the inside game to the power game. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But revolutionary - assuming we need an agent noun, of which there is some debate - seems only to be political. Myrvin (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure about that. But what abut "pioneer"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right to be suspicious. There are many other uses of revolutionary. Myrvin (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to prefer Merriam-Webster to OED, but then I'm a Yank, and tend to look to American usage first. Merriam-Webster simply gives, "A newly introduced element or factor that changes an existing situation or activity in a significant way." How do "elements" or "factors" relate to "events" or "persons"?

I would add, BTW, that Oxford's Advanced American Dictionary (click-through from your link above) gives the same definition as the Learner's Dictionary.

Finally, BB, wouldn't you agree that the baseball, as much as the Babe, was the game changer back then? StevenJ81 (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The game changer (literally) was Ruth leading the charge away from small ball to power ball. Ruth was the most prominent agent of that change. Others, such as Rogers Hornsby, quickly followed his lead, and guys like Ty Cobb were reduced to relics. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I fully agree. But I wonder if even Ruth could have managed that with the (physical) baseball that was used in 1916. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Several factors combined to revolutionize the game. Following World War I, the quality of the baseballs improved significantly, and thus they became "livelier" for the 1919 season. For 1920 and 1921, various restrictions were put on pitchers who threw the spitball. Following the death of Ray Chapman in 1920, new baseballs became substituted more often (a departure from the tradition that cricket still follows), thus making them easier for the batters to see. And ballparks with smaller outfields, which were not much of an issue in the dead-ball era, became fertile ground for sluggers. These developments helped lay the groundwork for the shift from small ball to power ball. Ruth was the key element in this equation. He was a free-swinger from the get-go, going back to his days at the workhouse/orphanage in Baltimore, as he followed the style of his mentor, Brother Mathias. Ruth hit 11 home runs in the dead-ball season of 1918, which was good enough to tie for the major league lead, despite being only a part-time player. In 1919, with the ball livened, his total jumped to 29, a new major league season record. And in 1920, having been sold to the Yankees and thus playing in the Polo Grounds, he hit the then-astonishing total of 54. In 1921 he hit 59. So Ruth's batting style was the literal game-changer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking a little more about revolutionary. As an adjective, it is used in a wide variety of ways. As an agent noun, though ... It's used in other ways than political, but rarely in a naked statement (if you will). If it is used as an agent noun in a different sense, it is almost always done in a surrounding context. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Disruptive" is a bit of a buzzword these days, in the context of disruptive innovation. "Disrupter" [31] is cromulent word for a person (or thing), as is the alternate spelling "disruptor". This would mean someone who has radically changed a field in the manner you describe. This usage is supported in the press (at least in concept, let's not talk about Musk's importance) when they call Elon Musk a top disrupter here [32]. SemanticMantis (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused as to what extent Dis is looking to solve a tip-of-the-tongue situation in which he and his friend are trying to recall a specific word or rather are simply looking for an ideal word to the context, but (if the former especially), may I suggest "visionary"? Snow ^{let's rap} 08:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SemanticMantis that "disruptive" is the word that describes this. Bus stop (talk) 13:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Transfixation elsewhere than in Afro-Asiatic?

The WP article about transfixation states, without a source, that the process of transfixation is (actually: seems to be) restricted to languages from the Afro-Asiatic family. Is there an autoritative source making that statement explicitly? Contact Basemetal here 20:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It does indeed seem as if someone has engaged in some lite WP:SYNTHESIS (and seems to have been aware of the lack of verification, given the wording). I'm unaware of a source which would settle the matter one way or another, but I do recommend the statement be removed if no one provides as much in the next couple of days. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of removing the whole sentence (thus losing a piece of information which may turn out in the future to be correct), I recommend that the two words "restricted to" be replaced by a weaker expression (e.g. "characterizes") - which may still preserve the main original idea - yet without any commitment to what occurs in other groups of languages. HOOTmag (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd say that still qualifies as original research, as it isn't assessment supported by sourcing, but I personally wouldn't bicker over its presence. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This book seems to be saying (I can't see much in the particular preview given me) that Old English used transfixation in its strong verbs and claims that the patterns "go back to morphophonemic ablaut alterations in Proto-Indo-European". Unfortunately the preview won't show me the pages where the author makes his argument or gives examples.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 06:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 23

Shirt58's starter for 10

In an IQ test one of the questions was "Fill in the blank spaces in the following word: UND-----UND (the answer's obvious but people just couldn't get it). Are there many words which display this pattern? -- 86.141.140.147 (talk · contribs) 11:08, 23 July 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

My word finder only gives UNDERGROUND (which was the "obvious" one I first thought of) and UNDERFUND. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to be just "UND" - are there any other three - letter (and longer) groups with this property? -- 86.141.140.147 (talk · contribs) 11:25, 23 July 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

ANT gives ANTIOXIDANT, ANTIPERSPIRANT and a few others; more obscurely, CAL gives CALENDRICAL, CALLIGRAPHICAL and CALVINISTICAL; there's also HOTSHOT, and, if you allow proper names, EINSTEIN. For four letters I only found TARANTARA, and nothing for five and above. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the intervening string can be empty, there's also MURMUR, TARTAR, TESTES, BERIBERI and COUSCOUS. And we should also include WIKI-WIKI. 13:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

With the exceptions of testes, those last are all just "exact" reduplications of a whole morpheme and easy enough to recall, so I doubt they are what the test question was geared towards. Though to be fair, IQ tests are by and large a gimmick notion not taken too terribly seriously by actual cognitive science and nor even modern approaches to psychometrics in particular in any event. (Not really what the OP inquired about, but worth bearing in mind all the same). Snow ^{let's rap} 14:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew mentioned "hotshot". The plural "hotshots" actually begins and ends with the same four letters without being a reduplication. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever the OP is, can you explain what the header means, and how it relates to the question posed? These things are meant to be meaningful, not cryptic. And please sign your posts. Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added the user info. The title sounds like a Jeopardy! entry, except it's unclear what Shirt58 (talk · contribs) has to do with this. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}

I don't have a clue what the section title means. Apart from me not knowing the answer, that is.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

carrots→ 20:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, "Starter for 10" is (or was?) the catchphrase for University Challenge. I'm not sure if there's an equally-precise US equivalent. Tevildo (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not an equivalent that I know of, but it makes sense from reading the article. That just leaves unexplained what Shirt58 has to do with it. Maybe he'll come here and take a stab at it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quiz bowl and related games have similar phrases, the last clue in a question typically begins with "For ten points...". Probably comes from College Bowl, of which University Challenge is one version. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, "[Your] starter for 10" does originate, as Tevildo suggests, from University Challenge, where it's still used as the introduction to the question to be answered solo before the following three team bonus questions. In everyday use, it might be used to prefix a particularly difficult or obscure question you might ask a friend during an otherwise unproductive but entertaining conversation in a pub. Bazza (talk) 10:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The answer could have been undersound. It's a rare word, but Bronte and Ruskin both used it. Dbfirs 20:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For that matter, "undermound" would be a perfectly cromulent adjective for, say, a Barrow-wight. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 12:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amiga

As I understand it, the name of the Amiga range of personal computers (not PCs) means "female friend" in Spanish, meaning just a normal friend that just happens to be female. What would be Spanish for "girlfriend"? JIP | Talk 20:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it's novia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. See wikt:novia#Spanish. In Spanish, that can also have the sense of a fiancée or bride, too.

The French cognate of amiga, amie, is also used as "female friend"; in French, a girlfriend is described by an idiomatic build from there, petite amie (lit., "little friend"). And as for a fiancée ... well, that's obvious.

And while both amiga and amie come eventually from a Latin word for "love" (wikt:amo#Latin), that root usually includes the sense of "liking" or "fondness" in Romance languages. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, they do. But via Latin amica the feminine of amicus which means 'friend' rather than 'loved'. ==ColinFine (talk) 23:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In that same vein, amiguita is also used (possibly less so than novia) to mean "girlfriend". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on the variety of Spanish, in addition to novia, I've also heard compañera and especially pareja. Pareja technically means "couple" or "pair" but is used to girlfriend/boyfriend similar to "my other half". It is also gender-neutral, if you care about that sort of thing.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 06:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 24

Einherjar

Can you help on Talk:Einherjar#Pronunciation? Thank you –ebraminio^talk 00:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone help me edit the following paragraphs to improve readability, grammar, and flow

In membrane chromatography, fluids pass through a filter-like membrane and transport cross chromatography ligands through convection. Membranes can be loaded and eluted much more quickly because the mechanism of binding and eluting are based on convective transport, a much faster mechanism than diffusion. This operation desires membrane chromatography because the product should be processed as quickly as possible. There’s not a lot of product so you can use small membranes for this step. Load the product on a membrane and the product is adsorbed onto the membrane. Wash solution is introduced and removes loosely-bound species and rinse out residual impurity components. After the wash, an elution buffer is introduced that allows the product proteins to detach and are collected. The really important parameter for binding and eluting the product using the anion exchange membrane is conductivity. When the conductivity is low the product binds, and at high conductivity the product let’s go.

Soiled equipment is placed in a sterilizer, using the validated sterilization cycle. Pull the equipment out of the sterilizer after sterilization and cooling and it is moved to an area with an air supply. The equipment is connected to a source of compressed air and made ready for pressurization. The pressurized equipment is held at the specified pressure for a specified period of time. Release the pressure, open the drain valve and ring tubing, while maintaining air flow through the system. Then after the specified period of time, cover all openings with autoclave paper and dead end tubing or blanks and prepare for storage. The clean time is the period of time for which the equipment can be held post cleaning but prior to sterilization without the need for cleaning again.172.56.22.171 (talk) 03:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An initial question - are you writing a description of the process, or instructions for a technician on how to carry out the process? It's not clear from the text as it stands. Tevildo (talk) 08:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope to God vs. Ojalá que

I was taught that Ojalá que can be used to express hopes and requests in the same manner as Espero que. Though, I don't remember a "to God" at the end. Which one is the more accurate translation of Ojalá que? "I hope" or "I hope to God" or "Oh, Allah!" 71.79.234.132 (talk) 03:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I should have just googled it. http://www.spanishdict.com/topics/show/74 71.79.234.132 (talk) 03:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]