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.

August 14

"Ya ponyo"

I've heard Russian speakers mention something that sounds like "ya ponyo" a lot. I figure it means "I understand". Is this standard grammatical Russian or some sort of contraction? JIP | Talk 06:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contraction (or just slurring sylables) from Я понимаю (ya ponimayu), meaning "I understand". Note that the past (I understood) is "ya ponil" which is even closer to what you heard. --Xuxl (talk) 08:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's я понял, ya pónyal, meaning "I understood". The past tense here is perfective, so it means "I have understood", "understood", "got it", etc. If the speaker were female she would say "ya ponyalá", with the stress on the last syllable, so it would sound a bit different. --Amble (talk) 15:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles abbreviation

Does the abbreviation for Los Angeles have periods or not? Would LA referring to Louisiana, therefore requiring Los Angeles to be abbreviated as L.A.? Thank you! John Vitzileos (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any hard and fast rule. In most cases you can tell if a person refers to the state or city by the context. Where it's not clear from the context, the full name is probably best. StuRat (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This old one:

Q: What happens when the smog clears in Los Angeles?

A: UCLA!

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With the caveat that it's like to have lots of false positives in both directions, here is the Google ngrams analysis. L.A. (in all contexts, not necessarily meaning Los Angeles) predominated until the late 1960s, while LA took over after that. I'm sure some of the influence in those stats reflects the changing usage of the abbreviation of LA and L.A. for Los Angeles. Notably, however, both have remained fairly similar in usage, and neither existed much before the 20th century (i.e. before Los Angeles was a significant city) so, that indicates much of the usage is probably for the city. --Jayron 32 03:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one data point is that the 1980s–90s TV series was L.A. Law, but by 2010 we had Law & Order: LA. Deor (talk) 03:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Context is everything. Thus, Google Ngrams comparison of "L.A." vs. "LA" in Google-OCR'd books, etc. is meaningless in this context. What should I do here and now?.

Within a particular national/disciplinary context (e.g., en:Wikipedia, British newspapers, American trade books, various national scholarly standards in medicine, psychology, humanities, etc.) a recognized national/disciplinary guide to usage would be the best guidance.

From FAQ at Chicago Manual of Style:

Q. Based on CMOS 10.4 (“Use no periods with abbreviations that appear in full capitals, whether two letters or more and even if lowercase letters appear within the abbreviation: VP, CEO, MA, MD, PhD, UK, US, NY, IL”), Los Angeles should appear as LA, but this can create confusion between the city and the state of Louisiana. How then do you treat Los Angeles when you need to abbreviate it?

A. Los Angeles is also abbreviated LA. If you spell out Los Angeles at first mention, it’s not likely that readers will suddenly think you are talking about Louisiana when they encounter “LA,” but in any context where the abbreviation is potentially confusing, avoid using it.

http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Abbreviations/faq0045.html

-- Paulscrawl (talk) 09:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan A. Garner adds:

... the question often arises whether to place a period after each letter in an acronym or initialism. Searching for consistency on this point is futile. The trend nowadays is to omit the periods. Including them is the more conservative and traditional approach. Yet because an acronym is spoken as a single word (e.g., UNESCO), periods are meaningless. If an initialism is made up of lowercase letters, periods are often preferable: rpm looks odd as compared with r.p.m., and am (as opposed to a.m.) looks like the verb. But with initialisms made of uppercase letters, the unpunctuated forms are likely to prevail (as in ABC, ATM, HIV, IRA, SUV, URL, etc.).

-- Garner's Modern American Usage, ABBREVIATIONS, p.2 (Oxford UP, 2e, 2003) ISBN 0-19-516191-2

-- Paulscrawl (talk) 09:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From a British point of view, I'd always take LA to mean Los Angeles. The inclusion or not of full-stops is a matter of style or personal preference; the BBC's guide instructs none. LA's use as a state abbreviation is virtually unknown; these are not used here and the same applies to all the rest with the possible exceptions of NY and DC. Bazza (talk) 11:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All our articles on American states allow for abbreviations to be in all capitals or not - e.g. either GA or Ga for Georgia. However, only LA is given for Louisiana. Is this a mistake, i.e. is La a perfectly acceptable abbreviation? 5.150.92.20 (talk) 13:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would say they should all be uppercase only, as they are US postal abbreviations, and I believe they specify all uppercase only. There were other abbreviations in use before the postal service standardized them, though, and those were mixed case and often longer than 2 characters, typically the first syllable or two, like, like "Mich.", "Mass.", "Miss.", or "Calif.". "La." is listed there as an old abbreviation. To me, though, in general, 2 letter abbreviations really only seem natural for 2 word state names (like NC, SC, ND, SD, WV, NY, NJ, NM), and those would have been abbreviated as all uppercase even before the standard was set, although with periods. StuRat (talk) 14:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia usage is one thing (I, too, favor capitalized 2-letter US postal abbreviations when context clear or after first mention with parenthetical abbreviation). But some US newspapers use older abbreviations: e.g., La., Colo., etc. LA Times on La. and Colo. shootings -- Paulscrawl ([[User talk:Paulscrawl|talk]) 19:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article on postcodes. It says some of them are counterintuitive - some of ours are like that as well. IG, which I thought was Ingatestone, is actually Ilford and Barking. The codes are generally memorable - OX for Oxford for example, but since the London ones are based on the postal districts you might find a letter addressed to W1G 1AN winging its way to Wigan. The granularity is, I believe, the best in the world - each code maps to a block of fifty addresses. This is useful for security marking of valuables and production of statistics. It also means that a letter carrying only the house number and postcode will arrive. As a result of this, we have a "postcode lottery" where people who live close to each other can receive very different treatment from a service provider.

The Canadian postcodes seem structured very similarly to ours but I am unable to see how they work. Does anyone know, and what the granularity is? 5.150.92.20 (talk) 09:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first letter is a province/territory, or, for Ontario and Quebec, a particular region of the province or a large city in the province. The letters are essentially meaningless, they just go roughly in alphabetical order from east to west. The first number refers to a rural area if it's 0, and a city if it's another number. The other letters and numbers refer to successively smaller areas of the province/territory/city, down to the neighbourhood level, but they don't mean anything either. For example, my area of Ontario uses postal codes starting with N, and my city uses codes from N5V to N6P, with the final three letters/numbers referring to neighbourhoods or portions of neighbourhoods. Each code refers to maybe 15-20 houses, I guess, and typically one side of the street. So basically, it works just as you described for the UK - each code maps to a block of addresses, a package with only the house number and postal code would arrive properly, and we also suffer from "postal code lottery", it's just that the individual letters and numbers don't mean anything. See Postal codes in Canada for a fuller explanation. In fact there is one postal code that has a meaning - H0H 0H0, which is Santa Claus' postal code at the North Pole (although H is otherwise the code for Montreal and you'd expect the North Pole to use a code starting with X). He'll even write back if you send a letter using that postal code. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The US has a 5+4 ZIP code system, where, if the additional 4 digits are included, the full 9 digit code describes one specific address or post office box. For this to work, it means each 5 digit ZIP must specify no more than 10,000 addresses/PO boxes. So, that makes the 5 digit ZIP code far less granular, and the 5+4 ZIP far more. StuRat (talk) 04:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I may add a couple of things:

L.A. with two periods is always Los Angeles, never Louisiana. La., upper-and-lower-case with one period, is always Louisiana (old-style abbreviation, in the day pretty nearly always written with a period). La (upper and lower case, no period), isn't really quite right at all, but because of the small a can't be considered an abbreviation for Los Angeles. If you see that, it's probably Louisiana. (Yes, one sees "Ucla" in mixed letters sometimes. That's an exception.) Where the ambiguity exists is in LA, all caps, no periods, which can be both Los Angeles (in the more modern, abbreviation-with-no-periods style) or Louisiana (in the all-states-and-provinces-have-abbreviations-of-two-capital-letters-for-improved-automated-handling style).
A ZIP+4 can actually refer to more than one physical postal address. The ZIP+4 of my home actually applies to all the houses on my side of the street on my block. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On your 2nd point, I wonder why. 9 digits is enough to specify a billion addresses/PO boxes, which would seem to be enough for the US. I suspect they just need to allocate them a bit differently, specifically by breaking your 5 digit ZIP code up into 2 or more. StuRat (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The ideal was to "sort to carrier" - but (amazingly enough) the population of the density of the US is not very uniform. New bar codes are "sort to nearest sorting center" as the first consideration - instead of having the first two digits indicate the state alone. Collect (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The traditional postal abbreviation for "Louisiana" was, indeed, "La" - The reason for going to all caps was the use of OCR equipment to read addresses - ZIP+4 ~~"zone improvement plan"~~ started in the early 1980s (tests were done earlier on the equipment used - much from Pitney-Bowes). The modern use of all caps was at the same time, although the equipment did not actually read the state at first. In principle,, the zip code was all that needed to be read. Later on, extended bar codes were placed on most mail in the US, and are still being changed [1]. Collect (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The acronym ZIP="zone improvement plan" dates to the beginning of the ZIP code system in 1963. See ZIP code. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa - I was around when it was first suggested, and saw the early letter-eating P-B machinery <g>. "ZIP" is no longer a registered trademark, thus needs no capitals <+g>. The "+4" was the part from the early 1980s" Collect (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was alive when it was first suggested, but I'm not sure I could describe myself as having been around then. <g back atcha> StevenJ81 (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 15

What is the correct wording? Me or I?

What is the correct wording? And why? Sentence "A": I would like you (and me) to draft a new contract for the client. Sentence "B": I would like you (and I) to draft a new contract for the client. I can't determine which is correct, because they both sound good and they both sound bad. It seems like "me" could be correct, because "me" is a direct object of the verb "like". (I think?) But, it also seems like "I" could be correct, because the sentence is basically saying "I would like for it to be the case that you and I draft a new contract" (in which case, the "you and I" phrase seems like the subject of the clause ("we will draft a new contract"). (I think?) Help! Two additional comments: (1) I understand that these sentence can be re-phrased to avoid this issue. But, I am not interested in re-phrasing. I am curious about the correct wording in this particular situation. And: (2) If the parentheses are causing some type of problem here – which I do not think they are – then erase the parentheses and use the same exact sentences without the parentheses. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replace "you and me" with us, and "you and I" with "we", and see how it sounds.

In this case:

(A) I would like ~~you (and me)~~ us to draft a new contract for the client.

(B) I would like ~~you (and I)~~ we to draft a new contract for the client.

As you can see, (A) is grammatically correct. The reason for this is that it the clearest and most natural way to say it.

That is, of course, if your definition of "grammatically correct" is "the clearest and most natural way to say it". If your definition of "grammatically correct" is "what it says is correct in grammar textbooks", YMMV, etc.

--Shirt58 (talk) 05:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A is correct because "me" is an object pronoun while "I" is a subject pronoun. In this sentence, the first "I" is the subject, the verb phrase "would like" is the predicate, "you and me" is the object, while everything following is an infinitive clause, a type of modifiying phrase. Complex infinitive clauses may confuse the sentence, if you use a grammatical analogue which does not have such length, such as "I would like you and I to go" or "I would like you and me to go" it is clear that the second of those is the better sentence, because the core of the thought is "I would like (something). Since the (something) is an object of the sentence, you need to use the object form of the pronouns (in this case, me). Unfortunately, English is horribly deficient in its second person pronouns, which is probably the source of some of the confusion. Modern English is limited to using "You" for all sorts of second person pronouns (plural and singular, subject and object). Older varieties of English had a more robust set of pronouns (You, ye, thee, thou, etc.) which would have made the grammar clearer. Alas, that's English for you. --Jayron 32 06:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. OK. It's starting to make sense. I went back and re-read my original question above. It made me think of a second question. Let's examine this sentence: "I would like for it to be the case that you and I draft a new contract." In that sentence, the phrase "you and I" is correct, yes? It would not be "you and me" in that example. Correct? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because the phrase "You and I draft a new contract" works as a standalone sentence. The verb "draft" is not in infinitive form, but rather conjugated as an active verb, and as such, "you and I" is the subject of the sentence. Compare to "It would be best for you and me to draft a new contract". In that case, the verb form "to draft" is infinitive, so "you and [I/me] is not the subject, but rather the object of "It would be best for...", and so "me" works there. The clue that usually helps me remember is to look for the verb following the pronouns. If it's an infinitive verb (to [whatever]), then use the object pronoun "me". If it's an active verb (no "to..." bit) then use the subject pronoun "I". --Jayron 32 07:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just say "I would like us to draft a new contract"? It's doubleplus-grammatically correct*, because not only is it the clearest and most natural way to say it, it is also the simplest way to say it. (* According to my lunatic-left of descriptivism definition, that is. I'm heading towards 1 000 articles now, written free of unnecessary fetters like prescriptive style and grammar.) --Shirt58 (talk) 09:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question. And Jayron32's answer below is good, also. The actual reason is this. I was telling the other person that I wanted him to draft a new contract. After I had typed that, I realized that maybe he was not aware that I also wanted to be a part of that effort. In other words, the effort (of drafting a new contract) was to be a collaborative effort with both of us (him and me). If I just stated "I want you to draft the new contract", I was afraid that he would get the wrong perception/impression that he was doing the job alone and that I myself was not going to be involved in the project, alongside him. All of this came as a quick after-thought, as I was typing. So, I quickly threw in the "and me" in parentheses, assuming that it cleared things up. In other words, the project was a two-person job (him and me), and not a one-person job (just him). After I typed it and later re-read it, the wording seemed odd and prompted me to post my question here. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with us/we in English is that (as another one of English's deficiencies) the pronoun has different meanings. It can mean "only yourself and myself", or it can me "Myself and someone else" or it can mean "Myself and yourself and other people". Other languages have multiple words for each of those senses, a linguistic concept known as Clusivity; in English we need to use the convoluted terms "Inclusive we" and "Exclusive we" to highlight those concept. English has only the one word meaning all of these senses; if you want to specific that only I and you are doing an action, and intentionally do not want to include any third parties in your expression, we/us is inadequate, so you have to say "You and I" or "You and me". --Jayron 32 16:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of technical-speak in the responses to both questions. Here's the quick and dirty solution. Leave out the 'you', and the correct form, 'I' or 'me' will immediately become apparent. For example, "I would like you (and I) to draft a new contract for the client." So, leaving out the 'you' results in "I would like I to draft a new contract..." Now, does that sound right? Akld guy (talk) 12:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of "technical" speak in the replies. But, that is because I asked "why". I did not just want the correct answer, but also the reason for the correct answer. Hence, the technical speak. Which I found helpful. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32, that may be a deficiency of English, but that particular "deficiency" is shared by a great many languages. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True, but it does explain why we need to use the phrasing "You and I" or "you and me" sometimes. --Jayron 32 21:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Joseph A. Spadaro. Above, you are told: As you can see, (A) is grammatically correct. The reason for this is that it the clearest and most natural way to say it.

Uh, no. Let's keep things simple for a moment by avoiding coordination (or "conjunction" as old-fashioned sources term it). In "I would like us/*we to draft a new contract for the client", "we" is not incorrect because it's unclear or unnatural; it's unnatural because it's ungrammatical. "Us" is grammatical, and it's therefore natural.

Right, now for coordination (simply, linking via "and", "or" or "but"). Coordination is well known for doing odd things to case assignment. Few native speakers, if any, doubt that "Let's keep this between us" is grammatical. Few, if any, say *"Let's keep this between we". But we do hear ^%"Let's keep this between you and I" from a lot of native speakers. What's going on here? The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (recommended!) devotes most of p.463 to this. It does not purport to give a simple answer, saying that hypercorrection is very likely to be a factor but does not explain everything. It does point out that the first person singular is anomalous: tweaking your example for person, "I would like you and her/^???she to draft a new contract for the client" would present a simpler choice.

And so, back to your example. "I would like you and me to draft a new contract for the client": unquestionably grammatical. (Idiomaticity is a different matter. In most situations one could say something that might well sound more natural, e.g. "Let's draft a new contract for the client".) ^%"I would like you and I to draft a new contract for the client": grammatical for a significant percentage of native speakers of English, ungrammatical for a significant percentage of ditto. (I'm among the latter, as it happens.)

Hungry for more? There's this (PDF), this (PDF; yes, only an honors thesis, but one that Arnold Zwicky believes is worth net publication); and also, to show that this kind of oddity is not specific to English, this (PDF) on Spanish. -- Hoary (talk) 23:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very thorough reply. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad if I've been of help. Meanwhile, I notice sloppiness in what I wrote: "'Us' is grammatical, and it's therefore natural." No! Being grammatical is a necessary condition for sounding natural (other perhaps than in some freak constructions), but it's not a sufficient condition. ("You and I and she would like you and me and her to draft a new contract and a new memorandum of understanding and a new lunch menu and a new dinner menu for this hamster" is grammatical but nevertheless bizarre.) Incidentally, while The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language may give you good value, it is large (over 1800 pages) and expensive. I highly recommend the compact and affordable introductory version, Huddleston and Pullum's A Student’s Introduction to English Grammar. -- Hoary (talk) 00:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As Akld guy hinted above, the trick to all I/me confusion is to eliminate everyone but yourself from the sentence.

They asked Bob and I to buy tickets.
They asked Bob and me to buy tickets.
They asked ~~Bob and~~ I to buy tickets.
They asked ~~Bob and~~ me to buy tickets.

The second choice clearly sounds correct, so you would use "me" in this sentence.

It works every time, and you don't need to understand any fancy grammatical concepts or jargon. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By default

There is the phrase: "By default, appointment will be temporary, lasting any time up to a year." What does by default mean? Does it really mean anything? Is there another way to put it more clearly? Does the phrase allow any permanent appointments to be made? --Pxos (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"By default" means "unless otherwise agreed". 5.150.92.20 (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

5.150.92.20 (talk) is one of several London area IP sockpuppets of banned User:Vote (X) for Change

Or, more generally, it means "unless something else is done". This term is often used in computer science, meaning the value a variable will have unless otherwise specified. For example, a US web site might ask customers which country they are from, and default to the US, meaning they don't have to select the US, it's already pre-selected. — StuRat — continues after insertion below

Yes, that's exactly how it would be used in software. But strangely, this doesn't work here, since the default here is not a specific predecided value, as in "By default, appointment will be two months." You can't really agree on an assignment to be limited unless you agree on the limit. By leaving the duration vague, there is no value to default to. Therefore, I think it's just a misuse of the term "default". Likewise, 5.150.92.20's and User:StuRats good translations "unless otherwise agreed / something else is done" become as meaningless as the German proverb "When the rooster crows on the dung heap, the weather will change, or it will stay the way it is". — Sebastian 15:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also note the seemingly unrelated use of the word in economics, where "default" means you fail to pay your bills at the agreed upon time. I suspect there was a relationship, though, in that the "default behavior", if nothing was done (that is, if the bills were not paid), was once seizure of assets. (Bankruptcy law somewhat complicated matters, though.)

In your example, they might mean that it can be renewed after a year, in which case saying that explicitly would be clearer. StuRat (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See definition 5 here. --Jayron 32 16:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

5a: "a selection made usually automatically or without active consideration due to lack of a viable alternative". Is there anyone who thinks the phrase in the example is sloppy writing? Is "permanent appointment" a viable alternative? StuRat writes "they might mean that...". So everyone is left guessing because the phrase "by default" creates only confusion and no clarity to the sentence. It could be replaced with "normally", "thus far", or even "without exception", if the latter is true. --Pxos (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was clear to me, but I agree that 5.150.92.20's suggestion of "unless otherwise agreed" would have avoided any confusion. Dbfirs 12:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What the phrase "by default" adds is an aspect of mechanics or process, even though it is often a passive process. That is to say, not only does the default kick in unless otherwise agreed, but also the default actually does kick in unless othewise agreed. Something (the default) actually does happen/change/come into play. Since the OP talks about an "appointment" being made, perhaps this process aspect of "by default" is formally unnecessary here. But if one wants to emphasize the existence of the process, then it is reasonable to include that language here. StevenJ81 (talk) 12:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 16

Genitive apostrophe

Why is there no genitive apostrophe in "King James Bible" (James')? Rex Sueciæ ✎ 07:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC) [reply]

It was named after him; it didn't belong to him. cf. Queen Elizabeth Hospital etc.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was not his Bible, just a translation of it. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 09:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK! Thanks. I do realise all that of course. The question was more semantic. The Bible translations in Swedish are also named after kings but have a geniteve -s, e.g. sv:Gustav Vasas bibel and sv:Karl XII:s bibel. So the languages treat the construction differently. Rex Sueciæ ✎ 10:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC) [reply]

See King James Version#Name for the details. As with most Bible translations of the era, it doesn't have an "official" name (apart from "The Holy Bible"). It was first referred to as "King James's Bible" (with possessive) in 1797, "the authorized version" in 1801, and "the King James Bible" (no possessive) in 1856. Tevildo (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tevildo! Very interesting. I must have missed that paragraph in the article. So historically there has been a possessive form also in English in these cases. Thank you all! Rex Sueciæ ✎ 06:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC) [reply]

August 18

Steve Jobs and Apple

Pretty sure this is the right place...what does history say about referring to past events? For example, Steve Jobs was CEO of Apple from 1997-2011. Many articles about Apple products released during that time period now say "then-CEO" or "former CEO". Is that right? It just seems wrong to me. He was CEO then, period, and i think the reader can understand that too, that if it's an article about the iPhone 4, a 2010 product, he was CEO and there's no need to annotate "former" or "then-CEO" whenever you refer to him.

Of course, if I'm off my rocker wit this one, I'll draw down on this. hbdragon88 (talk) 08:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a way to avoid a possible ambiguity. Whether it's actually ambiguous or not depends on many things, including the world-knowledge and cultural identity of the reader, and how much time has passed. Qualifying it as "then-CEO" eliminates the ambiguity for all time. ("Former CEO" doesn't, because it introduces another possible ambiguity). I have noticed a similar issue in Bradford Playhouse, where the article currently says that the building was called the Priestley when it first opened in 1937. I'm almost certain that this is incorrect, and arises from misunderstanding an account written during the period when it was called the Priestley in the late 90's. --ColinFine (talk) 09:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What ColinFine said. If "then-" isn't present, the reader is left with the impression that Steve Jobs may still be CEO to this day. We mustn't assume that everyone knows that he passed away in 2011. We should take care to spell it out, even if the result is a little more wordy than it otherwise would be. Akld guy (talk) 09:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contrariwise, including the verbiage only helps by convention, not by semantics. E.g. "Cheng went to Los Angeles with his wife at the time, Sue." - readers may well infer that they are no longer married, but the sentence is still true and accurate even if they are still married. See also Mitch Hedburg's classic joke in the same vein "I used to do drugs. I still do, but I used to, too." [2]. SemanticMantis (talk) 13:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SemanticMantis: You've reversed the implementation in order to be contrary. If Cheng and his wife are still married, there's no need to specify "at the time" and in fact an ambiguity is created by doing so, even though it's semantically true. If Steve Jobs were still alive and CEO today, there would be no sense in saying "then-CEO" when referring to 2010. When I recommended spelling it out, I meant only in the case where the situation is no longer true, as I'm sure you realise. Akld guy (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On his radio programme, Terry Wogan refers to "my first wife". The joke is that she is, and remains, his only wife. Widneymanor (talk) 10:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 19

Korean: "노닐던"

What does "노닐던" mean in Korean? It's used in context in ko:노들역. I'm assuming the citation form is 노닐다, but I can't find it in a dictionary. --Amble (talk) 01:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Need help deciphering banking jargon

I'm trying to decipher this banking message regarding a failed wire transfer(apologies in advance for the all caps):

UNABLE TO APPLY FUNDS DUE TO UTA INSUFF INFO FULL BNF ADDR 12 DIGIT AC NBR NEED FULL BBK[3]

My best guess is this:

Unable to apply funds due to insufficient information available. The full "BNF" address is needed, as well as the 12 digit account number.

But I'm still not sure about the following phrases: UTA, BNF ADDR, AC NBR, BBK. Any and all help is greatly appreciated. My other car is a cadr (talk) 12:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To fill in one of the gaps, I'm fairly sure that BNF = Beneficiary (i.e. the intended recipient of the transfer), and AC NBR = Account Number as you already suggested. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]