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 27

Damson Plums

What does it connote in this sentence: 'if you take away my land, you will see damson plums'? Omidinist (talk) 07:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you see that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Google finds an essay about arson in 18th century France. From my location I only get a snippet here (calling the language "enigmatic"). Maybe from elsewhere you can see more of the book. --Wrongfilter (talk) 09:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a translation from a French source. Someone familiar with French social history may help. Omidinist (talk) 09:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You probably know where it's from, but I'll just share the results of my Saturday morning research. The original French version of the article is here, the phrase is "Si on lui ôtait les terres ... l'on verrait des prunes de Damas", the source is the interrogation of one Surcy Levert, 12 January 1790. From the context, this appears to have been a threat made by the arsonist before committing the crime. There seems to be a legend (fr:Prunier de Damas, with "citation needed") that the Damson plum was brought back by the crusaders and was seen as a rather meagre result of the crusades. Whether this is the connotation looked for is of course not at all clear. --Wrongfilter (talk) 10:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What a great help indeed. Many thanks, Wrongfilter. Omidinist (talk) 10:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatically correct

(1) "Senior Workers Registration Arrangement" (2) "Senior Worker Registration Arrangement"

Of the above, which is grammatically correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciesse 203 (talk • contribs) 09:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both are perfectly grammatical. Depending on the exact situation, there might be a very small difference in meaning between them. Wymspen (talk) 10:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other possibilities:

(3) Senior Worker's Registration Arrangement

(4) Senior Workers' Registration Arrangement

Without context we can't be more specific, but if it's arrangement for registering senior workers no (4) is correct. 213.107.114.104 (talk) 11:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the plural forms (1) and (4), both can be correct with a slight difference in meaning. (1), "Senior Workers Registration Arrangement", means a registration arrangement with respect to, relevant to, or for senior workers; "workers" in this case is a noun adjunct and thus not in the possessive form. (4), "Senior Workers' Registration Arrangement", has more of an implication that the arrangement belongs to the workers (hence the possessive form). But since the two meanings are so extremely close, either one might be used without the user or reader even thinking about the subtle distinction. Loraof (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology of Katowice

I can't find the etymology of the name of the Polish city of Katowice anywhere. Do you have any idea? --151.41.187.110 (talk) 11:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Polish Wikipedia's article on the history of Katowice has a little bit of something, and from what I gathered, the origins are unclear. It might have been derived from a first settler named "Kat", or it might come from the Polish word kąty ("corners/angles"). As I don't speak Polish, but others here do, here is the excerpt in Polish: "Trudno jednoznacznie ustalić pochodzenie nazwy miasta. Prawdopodobnie wywodzi się ona od imienia (przezwiska) pierwszego osadnika: dzierżawcy Kata, bądź od słowa „kąty” - tak nazywano kiedyś chaty zagrodników, pracujących przy wyrębie i przewożeniu drewna do kuźnicy bogucickiej." Hopefully someone else can give you a better explanation. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consider the name of London, which seems to have had a pre-PIE origin, which would have been taken over by the Celts, then the Romans, then the Anglo-Saxons. The German article says that the first written reference to the town was "Katowicze" in the 1500's. That would imply it was peopled by Western Slavs at the time.

But it could date back to the early Balto-Slavic, the Corded Ware people or to other ante-Proto-Indo-European people. Consider the huge number of city names in the US that have native Indian origins. Look up Pennsauken, which is purported to mean either "tobacco pouch" or "[William] Penn's outlet."

μηδείς (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} on "seems to have had a pre-PIE origin", Medeis. Etymology of London correctly states that Coates derives it from Krahe's Old European, but a note in the latter article specifically warns: "'Old European' in this sense is not to be confused with the term as used by Marija Gimbutas who applies it to non-Indo-European or pre-Indo-European Neolithic Europe.". Not that this affects your argument significantly. --ColinFine (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, Colin? Just google "origin of the name of London". Neither did I bring up Gimbutas, nor does it even matter to my example. The name was kept by the Celts, the Romans, and the Anglo-Saxons. (I am not sure if the Normans changed any place names, but you can add them to my list.) I have no horse in the Royal Ascot, and if you have a reference for a PIE or Celtic etymology, I am not stopping you. μηδείς (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Normans preserved most Old English place-names as best they could. Some have c /s/ because the Normans couldn't handle /tʃ/. —Tamfang (talk) 06:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coates proposes IE but not Celtic *plowonida, Medeis. I assumed your reference to pre-PIE was assuming that 'Old European' meant Gimbutas' pre-PIE. --ColinFine (talk) 12:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I should have said "old (lower case) European" or better "a language spoken before the arrival of the IE." I realize that by capitalizing it, one could assume I was making a Gimbutean claim. I agree with her homeland theory, and that it is likely that the trope of princes going off to marry a princess to rule her land is probably a vestige of a transition from a sedentary matrolineal system to a patriarchical system. But I don't throw in with this peaches and cream matriarchical fantasy.

This *plowinda idea seems a bit far fetched. Is he talking about the Nordwestblock? Is there an online source I can read? Thanks.

μηδείς (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted posting from banned user Tevildo (talk) 00:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So that Ljuboslov's point makes sense, the removed comment suggested -wice mean the same thing as "-wick" in English. μηδείς (talk) 01:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's an atributive suffix (or more correctly two suffixes -ow- plus -ic-), which roughly means "pertaining to". It is a subling of another well-known Polish (and Common Slavic) suffix -owicz, only that -owice is the plural form with a different consonant output (Katowice may have come from the patronymic Katowic, the plural means "the settlement of (or where live or lived) the Katowices"). Both came from Proto-Slavic *-ov-itje, the difference between -c and -cz is an internal dialectal variation within Polish (the latter is thought to be from the Kresy dialects). Some details in Polish[1].--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could a Polish speaker translate the bit I quoted in bold? I couldn't quite understand the last part, and am not even sure I got the gist of the first part right. Kpalion? CiaPan? Piotrus? ---Sluzzelin talk 23:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a speaker and never truly learnt the language but just to show how close and understandable Slavic languages may be. The text goes: It is difficult to establish the origin of the town. Most probable is to derive it from the name of the first settler, tenant Kat, or from the word kąt "corner", such were named the houses of the tenants, who cut and transported lumber to the smithy of Bogucica. (Practically, I've used a Polish dictionary only to avoid false friends.) The latter version seems less convincing for me, due to its unexpected phonology (no reasons for the change ą > a).--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 00:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Vovin explained on a mailing list once (back in the days when there were such things) that a Russian speaker can understand without having ever studied it any other Slavic language except Czech. Contact Basemetal here 00:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that's referring to the comment found here, "and a linguist" is a rather significant qualification; I'm incidentally surprised that he can deal with Slovak but not Czech. Henry ^Flower 09:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could be this one but as I remember it was a much smaller (unarchived) list about Indo-European linguistics going out of UT Austin somewhere and maintained there (though not moderated) by a graduate student whose name escapes me. If so then Alexander Vladimirovich made that observation on at least two occasions. Many people who were on that much smaller list were also on Histling (e.g. Miguel Carrasquer-Vidal, the "Miguel" of your link, and Alexis Manaster-Ramer, the "Alexis" of your link; though Johanna Nichols wasn't so that if I'm correct and Alexander Vladimirovich did make that observation there also then it must have been in a different context). As to why Czech should give him trouble when Slovak didn't, it could be either that the distance between Czech and Slovak, though small, is in the wrong direction as seen from Russia and puts Czech just beyond the horizon from the point of view of a Russian speaker. Or it could be something about written Czech. I've been told that even Czech speakers have trouble with written Czech. As extreme case of diglossia in Czech maybe? (Extreme at least in the context of the modern West.) In any case it is important to note Alexander Vladimirovich was talking about his ability to read the written language. That may be an important caveat, I had completely forgotten about it and it is thanks to your link that I got reminded of it. Contact Basemetal here</sma"ll> 16:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My grandmother from Uzhgorod (formerly of Austro-Hungary, then Czechoslovakia, now annexed by Ukraine) spoke the Rusyn language which is geographically intermediate between Slovak, Polish, and Ukrainian. She had no problem with Russian, the biggest difference being Russian's free stress. Her stress was pretty much fixed on the penult, while Russian stress could be anywhere, and even move around depending on the word's declension, including moving to added suffixes. For example, in Russian, язык, (jazyk) "tongue" is approximately yuhZIHK when it is the subject of the sentence, but it can change to ihzihKYEH when it is the object of various prepositions.

I never asked her about Czech, which has some strong phonetic changes from proto-Slavic and "three", tri, which is pronounced pretty much like "tree" (or better, the way you would say "tri" in Spanish) sounds like "chih", (one to ten in Czech) and out of context I would never have guessed that. Also, the verb systems for the past have been greatly simplified, except in the south, where Bulgarian keeps a rather complex system. A Russian speaker might figure it out, like we can figure out Shakespeare, without being able to produce it without study. μηδείς (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Basemetal: much depends on the background, the experience, the text and the language. People like me who have seriously studied linguistics and Slavistics in particular know quite well how words in one Slavic language correspond to words in another Slavic language, hence they have no great problems in recognizing cognates. Also outside the East Slavic languages I have encountered Polish more often than other Slavic languages. Short texts with a lot of simple words are easier to decipher and to recognize cognates. And after the East Slavic languages Polish seems to be one of the easiest Slavic languages for Russians. Bulgarian has the biggest number of cognates, but the Bulgarian grammar is very unusual and causes much difficulty: even if one may recognize all the words, sometimes it is difficult to put them together and make a sense out of the entire sentence. Serb-Croatian is more distant and less intelligible, Macedonian is in between. Slovenian and Czech are indeed most distant and most unintelligible. The case with Slovak is it's a bridge between the East and West Slavic languages, so being obviously foreign it has much more shared and recognizable elements with Russian than Czech has.
But the majority of common Russians with an average education, who have had problems even with learning English or German in school, could hardly understand anything but Russian. Also the majority of Russians have never been outside of Russia or the FSU, not to mention West or South Slavic countries. Most Russians has virtually had no experience with and never encountered other non East Slavic languages. Simply put, even if a Russian encounter Polish or Czech, s/he might not even be able to read the text as s/he most probably does not know the reading rules.
So in conclusion of my speech, the true answer is: the Russian linguistically savvy people indeed easily understand other Slavic languages, but the ~~commoners~~ Russian common people don't. However, it is a common knowledge that if a Russian, linguistically-savvy or not, come to a Slavic country s/he picks up the local language much more easily than it might be with non-Slavic languages.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 19:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly note, @Любослов Езыкин: the word "commoners" as used here is incorrect, if understandable. The proper word is layman, (pl. laymen) which means someone who has not studied a subject. "commoner" means "without rank or title", not a nobleman, unmannered, perhaps a serf or a peasant, and it may be taken as offensive in the wrong context. Einstein was a commoner, Queen Elizabeth is a layman in so far as many sciences are concerned. μηδείς (talk) 19:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Medeis: I was hesitating what term to use. I thought that the word "layman" has religious connotations, but right now I've rechecked dictionaries where the second meaning is "non-professional". It wasn't exactly what I wanted to say. The point was not only that such people are not trained in linguistics (but, of course, it is a part of their characteristics), but simply "people from the street", your average "Joe Doe". Maybe, I must've used word combinations like "common people" (hence I thought that the shorter word "commoner" might have a similar meaning; I like shorter words, you know) or "average person". In Russian there is a very good word for that, obyvatel`, which hasn't an exact one-word equivalent in English (though one of its older Russian meanings is exactly "not noble", "commoner"). "Layman" is usually translated into Russian as miryanin that is not a clergyman. "Layman" as "non-professional" is chaynik or diletant (but again, I didn't mean only that). So, as usual, it is often difficult to correlate words and, most importantly, meanings between two languages.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 22:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Любослов Езыкин: Well, what you said is perfectly understandable, the problem is you wouldn't want to go to a conference and say to someone in English, "As a commoner, I wouldn't expect you to understand this," since at best it would be taken as a malapropism, and it might cause offense if the other person didn't know English wasn't your native tongue. Layman (etymology) does originally mean as opposed to the clergy, but it has long come to mean non-specialist, and it would never cause offence. (The Catholic Church refers to the non-clergy as the laity (LAY-ih-tee) "Average" would be acceptible, although not as accurate as what you meant. "Common" by itself just doesn't work at all. The "common man" has a lot of politically correct baggage that makes it best avoided nowadays. μηδείς (talk) 23:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a Polish speaker, I confirm Lüboslóv's translation. I'll only add that the literal meaning of Kat, the name of the supposed original tenant of the village, is "executioner". The smithy in the village of Bogucice eventually grew into a separate settlement, pl [Kuźnica Bogucka], later merged with the younger village of Katowice. The coat of arms of Katowice still bears an image of a water-wheel-powered trip hammer that was used in the forge of Kuźnica Bogucka. — Kpalion^(talk) 08:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Любослов Езыкин's translation above is correct. The pl wiki sentence is sadly unreferenced (I marked it as such). This topic seems to have been discussed by Polish scholars, sadly, their work is offline. I found some citations here: [2]. Google book is at [3] (snippet view, not in LibGen, so sigh. FUTON problem). Another related book would be [4], here I was able to piece together the entry from p.103 of the book: "KATOWICE, miasto wojewódzkie. Pierwszy zapis o nowej wsi Katowice pochodzi z 1598 r. (villa nova Kątowicze). Miasto zostało ustanowione dopiero w 1865 r. Zapis z -ą- z powyższej zapiski, jedyny dotąd znaleziony, i to w kopii, oryginał miał -a-, pozwolił prof. S[tanisławowi] Rospondowi wysunąć tezę, że nazwa brzmiała niegdyś Kątowice i określała pierwotnie miejsce w kącie, na uboczu położone. Więcej jednak przemawia za tym, że nazwa od początku brzmiała Katowice i że pochodzi od nazwy osobowej Kat. N[azwa] os[obowa] stanowiła zapewne przezwisko. Nazwy miejscowe typu Katowice, Kacice spotyka się w nazewnictwie słowiańskim." In summary, this entry states that the oldest mention of the village is Kątowice, which roughly translates as a "corner place" and that is the theory of Stanisław Rospond, but then the entry (presumably attributed and voiced by Kazimierz Rymut) states the more likely scenario is that it was named after somebody named or nicknamed Kat. According to this blog (https://za-staryj-piyrwy.blogspot.kr/2015/05/katowice-etymologia-nazwy.html]) the latter theory can be attributed to historian Witold Taszycki, but I don't have time to do more digging. Pretty much each source notes that there are no good answers, just speculations, based on next to no primary materials. The blog also notes that the assocition with executioner (Polish kat), while common, is almost certainly wrong, and indeed I didn't see any scholar discussing it seriously. The corner and person Kat theories were also mentioned as theories by a speech in parliament by Polish politician ([5]), who also noted the etymology is not conclusive. PS. I hope someone will use this to add some cites to the article, ping me if you need help/clarifications. PPS. Katowice is my hometown :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 28

Super ultra hyper

How did it come about that hyper- (from Greek) is stronger than super- (from Latin)? They both kind of mean the same thing in the original languages. Hyper- is usually stronger than ultra- right? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stack Exchange has an informative thread on this question. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Latin was simply more common among the general population in the West until recently, while most people didn't learn Greek unless they were specializing in a subject that required it at University. So super was good, but hyper was super. μηδείς (talk) 04:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Technical difference

Whats the difference in meaning between 'buggery' and 'sodomy' ?--86.187.165.85 (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See: buggery and sodomy, which should adequately answer your question. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:1821:CD59:E35A:CB68 (talk) 00:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And let's not forget the worst of the lot, "Gomorrahy". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such word as Gomorrahy. So what do you mean?--86.187.166.85 (talk) 16:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs was making a joke; hence the small type. See Sodom and Gomorrah. Deor (talk) 16:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So why does Wiktionnary give a definition for it? See [6] Contact Basemetal here 16:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently Bugs thought he was kidding. But he might have been wrong. ~~Btw is gomorrahy supposed to rhyme with gonorrhea?~~ Contact Basemetal here 16:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was merely subtly referencing a question George Carlin once asked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who is George Carlin may I ask?--86.187.166.181 (talk) 23:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

George Carlin. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. What's a good Aussie expression for Sic transit gloria mundi? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ask Goldie Hawn. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC) [reply]

An interesting illustration of cultural non-globalism. As a 60-y-o Brit I had read passing references to Carlin as being some sort of media figure, but have never seen him and did not know before now that he was a comedian. Evidently 86.187.166.181 was in a similar position. Perhaps his material was USA-centric and did not export well. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.219.83.36 (talk) 14:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of him either. Strange. Alansplodge (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Had never heard of him until the internet dawned for me, post-October 2001. Don Rickles, now there was a funny man known to NZ TV audiences. Akld guy (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Much of Carlin's work can be found on youtube. If you can find any of his early-to-mid 70's stuff (before the "angry old hippie" persona took over in the 1990s on) it is some of the best work he's done. Any of his first 4-5 HBO specials are required watching, and his routines on the "Seven dirty words", "Stuff" and "Football vs. Baseball" are considered classics of the genre. --Jayron 32 14:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

traditional Chinese greeting

(This is about body language, not verbal language, sorry if I'm posting this in the wrong forum.)

I note we have entries for greetings like fist bump, eskimo kissing, etc. but not one for one of the most common greetings in Chinese culture, 抱拳 (bàoquán). How would we translate this? Under Greeting I found an explanation: A Chinese greeting features the right fist placed in the palm of the left hand and both shaken back and forth two or three times; it may be accompanied by a head nod or bow. The gesture may be used on meeting and parting, and when offering thanks or apologies. I feel though that baoquan deserves a whole article given its prominence in Chinese culture. But what would we call it in English? I would like to start a stub, but I have never done it before. I'm a regular contributor and admin at Wiktionary, but very rarely edit at Wikipedia. Tooironic (talk) 08:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Method Chinese (by Jenwei Kuo, Judy Chen, Lihua Zhang) calls the same gesture (I think) Zuòyī 作揖. I couldn't find any westernised word for it. This online dictionary has "ZUÒYĪ 作揖 to bow with hands held in front". Alansplodge (talk) 09:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zuoyi is used in different situations and includes a bow, whereas baoquan doesn't. Tooironic (talk) 12:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that makes sense. Perhaps we could have a Traditional Chinese greetings article, that explains the differences. Alansplodge (talk) 11:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've never created a page on Wikipedia before. What's the best way to go about it? Tooironic (talk) 04:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can read through Wikipedia:Your first article, or do what I did - find a similar article and copy the format. Have a look at some of the articles in Category:Hand gestures for a start. To get started, just click on the redlink above, or type the name of the title you want into the search bar, and it will ask you if you want to create a page. If you get stuck, the people at Wikipedia:Help desk and Wikipedia:Teahouse are REALLY helpful. But be bold, as long as you can find references for what you want to say (Google is your friend for that). Alansplodge (talk) 10:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

questions quoting statements

I can’t decide how to write this sentence. My suggestions are:

1. Would you think, ‘I sure am glad that I got a shorter and easier version of this?’

2. Would you think, ‘I sure am glad that I got a shorter and easier version of this,’?

3. Would you think, ‘I sure am glad that I got a shorter and easier version of this.’

Which one is the best, if any? --Romanophile (talk) 10:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the question mark is supposed to refer to the "Would you think" part, then it's none of the above. It would be,

Would you think, ‘I sure am glad that I got a shorter and easier version of this’?

If the question mark is supposed to be attached to the part inside the quotes, it shouldn't be, because the part inside the quotes is not a question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would you think: ('etc')? --86.187.166.181 (talk) 23:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Individuals always have their personal preferences, but in terms of a referenced answer to the question, Romanophile might like to consult the appropriate style guide for your language and part of the world. For example, in my country, journalists following The Canadian Press style follow this rule: "Periods and commas always go inside closing quote marks; colons and semicolons outside. The question mark and exclamation go inside the quote marks when they apply to the quoted matter only; outside when the apply to the entire sentence." American and British usage differs. For Wikipedia, there is the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, which has its own section on this issue. 184.147.125.97 (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Side issue about consistency of approach

I've always been stumped by how Americans can be so logical about the above issue, but abandon logic when it comes to the inclusion inside quotes of commas that form part of the overall sentence but do not play any part in the quoted text itself. For example:

He said "I enjoyed reading the novel," but he made no comment about the movie.

The rest of the world would write:

He said "I enjoyed reading the novel", but he made no comment about the movie.

Can someone explain that to me? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would use the 2nd version, but, as you know, I follow my own rules when it comes to grammar, doing whatever makes sense to me. StuRat (talk) 00:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am keenly aware of that. Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Typographical elegance? Logic can drive you mad. In fact from a logical point of view you ought to write: He said "I enjoyed reading the novel.", but he made no comment about the movie. Or how about: He asked "Did you enjoy the novel?", but he never mentioned the movie. Do you write: "He said: "Hello, my name is George."."? This is what "logic" would require though. Contact Basemetal here 00:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Omitting punctuation at the end of a quote seems fine, since a quotation is an excerpt, after all. I suppose one could argue you need to add "..." to show something has been omitted, but that would be silly. I only feel it necessary to add the ellipsis if something was omitted from the middle of a quotation. Note that I wouldn't omit a question mark or exclamation mark in a quotation, since that's critical to understanding the meaning. As for adding punctuation to a quote, that just seems wrong, to me. StuRat (talk) 13:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which of my examples are you saying add punctuation to a quote? Contact Basemetal here 15:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of your examples, but rather Jack's example at the start of this subsection, where he claimed that Americans would add a comma within the quotation marks that did not occur in the original quote. StuRat (talk) 00:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why the novel," is more elegant than the novel", . They are both awkards. But de gustibus et coloribus non disputandum. --Lgriot (talk) 12:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JackofOz: I think it comes from a forgotten typographical tradition. My version that the quotation marks had to be followed or preceded by a thin space

He said, " I enjoyed reading the novel ", and then added, " but I don't like the movie ". (It is wider here with a standard space, but you got the idea.)

In such a case the comma after the quotes "hangs" in the open space, when it shouldn't. Whereas typed like this:

He said, " I enjoyed reading the novel," and then added, " but I don't like the movie."

The comma "ties" to the preceding word. See recommendations here (the first column at the bottom) or here.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 01:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Americans want the comma and full stop to be placed inside the quote marks for typographical elegance, but remember that this tradition came well before we had computers. Type looks different on the printed page as opposed to a computer screen, and American typeset text always used curly quotes (“x,” not "x"). In those days, kerning was accomplished by hand (or rather, hot lead slugs). You should compare [“novel,”] and [“novel”,] on a professionally set and printed page. When you do, [“novel,”] looks professional, while [“novel”,] looks amateurish.

Another factor: the British often used what we call "French spaces" (adding a word space before colons, semicolons, question marks, and exclamation marks, and around quotation marks, so : “ novel ”). French spaces were never used in American typography. Also, the British way of hyphenating words at the end of a line, being based on etymology (e.g., geo-graph-y, know-ledge) has a jolting effect on reading texts when there are a lot of end-of-line hyphens, so the British try to avoid hyphenation at end of line. American hyphenation, being based on spoken syllables (e.g., geog-ra-phy, knowl-edge}, allows for very smooth reading even when there are many hyphens. The effect of this was that British texts, to avoid hyphens, relied on a very wide range of word space width as well as widely variable letter spacing ( l i k e t h i s ). Since Americans could hyphenate freely, we rarely had to fiddle with letter spacing, and our word spaces were constrained to a narrow width. Therefore, the British eye was accustomed to lots of space appearing in your lines of text, while American eyes were sensitive to all that space and offended by it. —Stephen (talk) 14:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well don't presume to speak for me, User:Stephen G. Brown. I'm a Merickan and I use logical, not traditional inside/outism, even vough I were taught ve old tradition. Unless I get paid overwise. μηδείς (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven’t any idea what you are saying, μηδείς. The use of logical is new to me. I owned a typography company from 1970 to 2007, and what I said reflects my training and experience during those years and before. The internet and computer have brought about massive changes to the industry, especially from 1995 on, so it may well be different now. —Stephen (talk) 19:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Logical" in this case means using the quotation marks inside the period where the item being quoted is not the end of the sentence. For example: she said "tumetos". (The context being there was a long sentence, of which tumetos was just one malapropism.) A normal quote with an internal punctuation would be, "John told the minister, 'Shut the fuck up!'"

In the first case, the marks indicate [sic], in the second case, the phrase is a complete logical phrase. My usage follows WP usage in my normal correspondence, so I would refer you to WP policy.

My basical point is, I don't follow what I was taught in the 70's in a Mericka when it don't make sense, and I'm not bein' paid otherwise. I do a lot of paid editting, almost all of which me da azco. μηδείς (talk) 20:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:Stephen G. Brown: Thanks for your detailed reply. I take issue with only one statement: [“novel,”] looks professional, while [“novel”,] looks amateurish.. I have the diametrically opposite position, as [“novel,”] looks as if the writer has given little or no thought to the proper placement of the comma. I suspect where one is on the professional/amateurish spectrum is a function of what one is used to seeing. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that was the point of the following paragraph. —Stephen (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, what?! The comma is within the quotation because it substitutes for the sentence-final stop; this is usual in British as well as American printing. —Tamfang (talk) 09:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's true that this is usual in American printing, it is something new (since the internet became widely used). I was a typographer for years before I retired in 2007, and the American practice was that a period or comma was always to be placed inside the quotation marks (“novel,” “novel.”). The internet, computers, and personal printers that began pop up everywhere in the 1990s brought a lot of changes to the printing and typesetting industries, but if commas today can sometimes be left outside of the quote marks in formal American printing, it’s a new one on me. —Stephen (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 30

Nineteenth-century nautical(?) terminology

What does "act some trades" mean in the following sentence (published in "one of the London daily journals" in 1847)?

“

Incredible as it may appear, a person will attend at the Monument, and will, for the sum of £2,500, undertake to jump off the said Monument, and in coming down will drink some beer and eat a cake, act some trades, shorten and make sail, and bring ship safe to anchor.

”

— quoted in Charles Welch, History of the Monument (1921).

Needless to say, this feat was not accomplished, but I'd be interested to know what the person intended to do. Tevildo (talk) 17:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some definitions of "trade". Two possibilities that come to mind are 1b: " archaic : a track or trail left by a person or animal :" or 3b: "an occupation requiring manual or mechanical skill :" That is, either they are going to make a track or trail; or perform some craft or artisanship. Both would be equally as ridiculous as drinking a beer on the way down. I can't find any other definition which fits the context. Perhaps someone with full OED access may find a better fit. --Jayron 32 17:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't take "in coming down" to mean "while coming down", but rather "after coming down". It sounds like some type of a package deal for tourists, so the jump is presumably done safely, from a limited height into a net, for example. In the context of a package deal, pretending to perform tradesmans' crafts might fit in, like laying a brick or two and some mortar. StuRat (talk) 19:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't an invitation to tourists, but an advertisement for a burlesque show. [7]. That is, someone was offering to perform a stunt and charging admission to watch him do it. --Jayron 32 20:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I like how in the previous paragraph, it says that this monument to the Great London Fire was "illuminated with portable gas". Hoping to find a reason to build another monument, perhaps ? StuRat (talk) 21:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Something tells me it means doing impressions. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no expertise in sailing, but even I know what Trade winds are. See also Winds in the Age of Sail. The whole thing reads as a stunt done for a fee or bet of £2,500 by a person jumping off a monument while consuming beer and cake. It seems he uses a cape or parachute device. "[A]ct some trades" seems to be a humorous euphemism for setting the cape for maximum performance into the wind, "shorten and make sail" for gliding maximum distance, and "bring ship safe to anchor" for making a successful, safe landing. No doubt "act some trades" was perfectly understandable to readers of the 1847 journal. Akld guy (talk) 21:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a plausible answer, but "act" in this sense doesn't appear in this fairly comprehensive glossary of nautical terms (Smyth & Belcher, 1867) or any other on-line resource I can find immediately. Perhaps "do whatever is necessary to deploy the parachute" might be a possible reading? Tevildo (talk) 10:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That the stunt involved an early type of parachute is possible, since in July of the same year, a balloon ascent at Vauxhall Gardens (also in London), included dropping a "a parachute containing a live animal". [8] Alansplodge (talk) 13:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Over men and horses, hoops and garters, lastly through a hogshead of real fire. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Purely speculating here, but could "act some trades" mean "execute some transactions in stock or commodities"? The whole thing sounds like a list of plainly impossible feats, in the tall tales tradition, and so one of them is that the jumper will somehow contact his broker and arrange to buy or sell or perhaps perform more elaborate options or futures trading, before reaching the ground. --Trovatore (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Compare The Motorcycle Song (Significance of the Pickle) by the brilliant Arlo Guthrie. --Trovatore (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC) [reply]

"Act" could be an abbreviation for 'enact'. Akld guy (talk) 20:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Searches for "act some trades" found only this sentence, which has been quoted several times over the years. (It is said to be from the Times of August 22, 1827, although a cursory search of The Times on that date did not find the passage.) The sentence is understood to be joking in nature, and it is not supposed that these are things it would be possible to do while jumping off a monument. Since "act some trades" is a hapax legomenon, but all the other things listed are at least things meaningfully described, the phrase must be a mistake for something else. I incline to the view that Trovatore is correct, and "transact some trades" (in stocks, bonds, or bills of exchange) is what is intended. John M Baker (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 31

Hyphen

Is it "List of most visited museums in..." or "List of most-visited museums in..."?

Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most style guides (U.S. ones, at least) would favor the hyphen. When an adverb ending in -ly precedes an adjective or participle ("rarely visited museums"), no hyphen is used, but combinations with adverbs not ending in -ly are usually hyphenated to prevent misreading. See #3 in MOS:HYPHEN for Wikipedia guidance. Deor (talk) 04:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes (UK logic too), use of the hyphen avoids the possible ambiguity. The list presumably contains the museums that are most frequently visited, not most of the museums that are visited sometimes. Dbfirs 07:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I-posted at-Village-Pump here: Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Disambiguating hypens needed

Thanks all for the-input. I'm really getting-the-hang of hyphen-usage now. I think I've-nailed it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Double negatives

From the article Chronovisor:

the existence (much less the functionality) of the chronovisor has never been confirmed

I think there's a double negative here – if not grammatically, at least logically – because the verb negated with never applies for both subjects. If written out in full, the sentence would read:

the existence of the chronovisor has never been confirmed, much less has the functionality of the chronovisor never been confirmed

I think the bolded parts cancel each other logically. Even in my language, which allows double (and triple, quadruple, etc) grammatical negatives, such a statement would seem self-contradictory.

What do you think? --Theurgist (talk) 13:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When taken literally, it seems to be an example of exaggeration, not a double negative, by saying that confirmation of the functionality has occurred "less than never". But "much less" has come to mean "or"/"nor", in common use, so I would read it that way. I would rewrite it as "Neither the existence nor functionality has ever been confirmed". StuRat (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is an incorrect use of "much less" - but not a double negative. The essence of a double negative is that the two negatives effectively cancel each other out: it is perfectly legitimate to use two negatives when the second one serves to reinforce the first one. However, there is no point trying to indicate that the functionality of something is even more questionable than its existence if you cannot find any proof of existence. If it doesn't exist, then of course it doesn't function. Wymspen (talk) 15:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a perfectly ordinary use of the idiom "much less" to me. You might want to check out Wiktionary's entries on "much less" and similar phrases: much less, not to mention, to say nothing of, let alone. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 19:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like poor sentence construction to me. In fact it's so bad it's hard to understand. I think it means this (which would be a better construction): "the existence, let alone the functionality, of the chronovisor has never been confirmed." Akld guy (talk) 20:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Without trying to short-circuit this discussion, I've gone ahead and changed "much less" to "let alone" in the article, as a less awkward construction. Deor (talk) 20:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the OP's analysis showing that it's an illogical double negative. Akid guy's alternative is good, as is "the existence, or even the functionality, of the chronovisor has never been confirmed." Loraof (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think what someone was trying, and failing, to say is: "Not even the existence of the chronovisor has ever been confirmed, let alone its functionality". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The original sentence seemed perfectly clear to this native, but then there ain't nothing wrong with double negatives. DuncanHill (talk) 12:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No hay salvavidas trabajando

Anyone who has spent any time on the beaches of Southern California will be familiar with the little blue lifeguard boxes that dot the shoreline. There may be some variation, but the ones in Venice at least all seem to be stenciled with a warning, in English and Spanish, that there is no lifeguard on duty (now that I think about it, I'm not sure what they do with it when there is a lifeguard on duty).

Anyway, the Spanish version says NO HAY SALVAVIDAS TRABAJANDO.

Now, my Spanish is not very good, but I think that's just a flat grammatical error, isn't it? You can't use the gerund that way, at least not in Italian, which is usually pretty close to Spanish in these things.

Italian does have a just-barely-productive present participle, which Spanish does not, so I suppose in Italian you could just barely say non ci sono guardaspiaggia lavoranti, if you didn't mind people looking at you funny. But you absolutely can't say *non ci sono guardaspiaggia lavorando. That would mean something like "when you're working, there are no lifeguards", if it were grammatical at all, which it really isn't. Instead, you should say non ci sono guardaspiaggia al lavoro.

So I think the Spanish version should be NO HAY SALVAVIDAS AL TRABAJO. Or not? --Trovatore (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No idea about the grammar, but the sign seems to be on a wooden shutter that would be taken down (or hinged forward) when the hut is in use. Alansplodge (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that Spanish, particularly journalistic, legalistic, bureaucratic and administrative Spanish, does occasionally use the gerund as an adjective, although this use is incorrect, strictly speaking (except in rare cases where it has been lexicalized, such as "aqua hirviendo", "clave ardiendo", or "rubio tirando a amarillo"). See es:Gerundio#Gerundio_como_adjetivo for example, and Aproximación al estudio del gerundio en español e italiano: la expresión oral by Hugo E. Lombardini and Enriqueta Pérez Vázquez, who state that this (non-normative) form of adjectival gerund is used in spoken Spanish too, but not in spoken Italian. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No estan salvavidas de guardia. "There aren't (any) lifeguards on duty." ("Estar de guardia" means on duty; that the word for "duty" is guardia is just a coincidence here.)

The best you could do with trabajar would be "No trabajan salvavidas" which would mean there might be some present, but if so, they aren't going to rescue anyone. Or "Las salvavidas no trabajan" which Literally means "The lifeguards don't work", which is a quite odd thing to say as well. μηδείς (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I consider NO HAY SALVAVIDAS TRABAJANDO to be Spanglish. Some Spanish-speakers who are born and raised in the U.S. probably do say this, but it looks bad to me. Besides wikt:salvavidas, you can also use wikt:guardavidas or wikt:socorrista, but the usual way to write this phrase would be: no hay salvavidas de turno, or no hay ningún salvavidas. —Stephen (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I gave my informant the original which was on the beach sign and was met with laughter. I didn't give my example and was told Los salvavidas no estan de guardia was a better alternative. I would interpret no hay ningún salvavidas to mean this beach has no lifeguards at all, not that they are off duty (not working) at this hour. μηδείς (talk) 01:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no hay ningún salvavidas is singular, which you can tell from the word ningún. So a literal translation would be there is no lifeguard, which would be accurate. When a lifeguard comes on duty, he takes the sign down. —Stephen (talk) 06:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying that if the sign were plural ("there are no lifeguards") that somehow intimates to a would - be bather that they should not bother waiting around for one to show up because the beach is not serviced, and if singular it doesn't? 2A02:C7D:51A4:6D00:1A5:5029:129D:58 (talk) 09:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a certified interpreter. But as I myself apprehend it, while the gerund in English constitutes a homograph of the infinitive, the two remain completely distinct in the other Latin-based tongues (modern Greek and the various, Romance Languages).

Namely, in Spanish one would use the present participle when saying "Le vi corriendo por la calle `I saw him running down the street`."

But he would use the gerund when saying "¡Su correr por la casa me enoja! `His running in the house annoys me!`."

(Please note the use of the genitive pronoun.) Pine (talk) 09:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's completely incorrect. In English, the gerund has the same form as the present participle (the -ing form). "Living" used as a noun (e.g. "living is easy") is the gerund; in "the living God", you're using it as the present participle. For the present progressive tense, "I am living", it's sort of hard to tell; to me this seems more like a participial use, but I think it's more common to call it a gerund.

Your corriendo is in fact a gerund, not a present participle. The present participle, if it existed, would be corriente, I think, but the present participle is no longer productive in Spanish; it's limited to a few fixed forms. It is productive in Italian, but just barely (it's not used very much outside of fixed forms).

Your correr is not a gerund at all. It's a nominalized infinitive. --Trovatore (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all who responded! Alan, good find on the photo.

Sluzzelin, that's interesting; that's the only piece of evidence contrary to the narrative that whoever made the stencil just made a silly Anglophone error. It actually does seem possible that, if there's a disapproved style that's favored by bureaucrats, well, bureaucrats just might use it in translation as well :-).

Medeis, too much good stuff there to address briefly. I wish my intuitions in Italian were still trustworthy enough to figure out what you would really say. I think al lavoro works but I could be wrong. I toyed with in carica, but that sounds like they have sufficient electric charge, or all'incarico or d'incarico, but those sound like you elect lifeguards and they're currently in office.

Stephen, thanks for pointing out that salvavidas is (also) singular. I was thinking of it as necessarily plural, another Anglophone-inspired error. --Trovatore (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I were employed by the Coastguard, I would put up a sign on the lines of Esta praia não é vigiado por salva - vidas if that was indeed the case. 92.24.108.109 (talk) 10:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are the following two sentences grammatical?

I don't know whether he likes baseball, nor do I know whether he likes basketball (i.e. I don't know whether he likes baseball. I don't know whether he likes basketball either).
I know he doesn't like baseball, nor - I know - does he like basketball (i.e. I know he doesn't like baseball. I know he doesn't like basketball either).

I guess #1 is grammatical. If #2 is ungrammatical, then how can I rephrase it - using " nor " - and without giving up the second " I know " (just as #1 doesn't have to give up the second " I know ")?

141.226.218.104 (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can't use "nor" without introducing a double negative. The construction you want is "I know he doesn't like baseball or basketball". 78.145.17.85 (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As for your proposal " I know he doesn't like baseball or basketball ": It does not use " nor ", so it's not what I'm looking for.

I can't figure out your comment about the double negative. Please notice, that just as my first sentence tells something about two negative things - i.e. two things I don't know, so my second sentence tells something about two negative things - i.e. two things he doesn't like. 141.226.218.104 (talk) 18:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your problem is that nor is used when you have two negative things - so in the first sentence there are two things that you don't know. In the second sentence you are joining two positives - two things that you do know (even though what you know appears negative): the conjunction has to be "and".

I know he doesn't like baseball, and I know he doesn't like basketball either.
I know he doesn't like baseball, and I know he also doesn't like basketball.
I know he doesn't like either baseball or basketball. Wymspen (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposals do not contain " nor ", so they can't be what I'm looking for.

I can't figure out why my first sentence can use " nor ", while my second sentence cannot. Please notice, that just as my first sentence tells something about two negative things - i.e. two things I don't know, so my second sentence tells something about two negative things - i.e. two things he doesn't like, so the distinction you make between both sentences in terms of the two negative things - seems to be very artificial - because it refers to the incidental content of each sentence whereas my question is about grammar rather than about content. 141.226.218.104 (talk) 18:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about "I know he likes neither baseball nor basketball"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I don't want to give up the second " I know " in the second sentence, just as I don't have to give up the second " I know " in the first sentence. 141.226.218.104 (talk) 18:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Using any verb (e.g. "I know") - twice - with "nor", is only possible in sentences where that verb is negated twice. Therefore, you cannot use the verb "I know" twice - in the second sentence, because the "I know" is not negated in the second sentence. HOTmag (talk) 19:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that "nor" is rather formal, and discussing which sports somebody likes is rather informal, so the two really don't go together. StuRat (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfoirtunately, what you want is not grammatically possible. Your second sentence has two positives - "I know ...." and "I know ...." and you cannot put a "nor" between two positives. The fact that what you know is something negative makes no difference: knowing that someone doesn't like something remains a positive statement. The main verb is positive. Wymspen (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's it. "He doesn't like baseball, nor does he like basketball" would be fine, but the sentence isn't primarily - grammatically speaking - about what HE does or does not like, it's about what YOU DO know. If it were about what you do NOT know, then there'd be a case for using "nor". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Degree of Formality When Addressing an Organization

I got an email from a company that starts off with:

Congratulations, Pizza!

And ends with:

Best,
The Foobar Recruiting Team

Now I'm writing a reply back to them. Normally in professional communications I use "To whom it may concern" when I don't know the recipient's name and gender, but in this case it feels slightly too uptight and formal. Would it be acceptable to use the salutation "Dear Foobar Recruiting Team" in this case? Or would that be seen as unprofessional? Pizza Margherita (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that degree of formality ("To whom it may concern") is seen as stuffy and old-fashioned now, while "Dear" should only be used with loved ones. Something like "Valued customer" or just your name would be more common now. Or you can skip the salutation entirely, since the email address already makes it clear who it's addressed to. In a mass email, this might make sense, if no one greeting applies to everyone it was sent to. Better than "Customers, suppliers, and employees," in my opinion. StuRat (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick input! Much appreciated. Pizza Margherita (talk) 21:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised to read that "Dear" should only be used with loved ones. "Dear" is the default opening of a letter, and affection could be expressed by starting off "My dear ..." etc. (though not in this example, obviously). 78.145.17.85 (talk) 11:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At one point this was true, but I would find a stranger addressing me as "Dear" to be inappropriate, as would many. It's about like at a diner where the waitress calls everyone "Hon". StuRat (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. --Viennese Waltz 11:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, "Dear So-and-so . . . " is still standard in formal and business correspondence, unless and until the two co-respondents are sufficiently familiar with each other to substitute something more casual. Starting with "Mr So-and-so . . ." or "Sir . . ." would imply a degree of annoyance or coldness (which might be appropriate in some circumstances, such as a dispute). However, letters to newspapers or journals intended for publication do conventionally start "Sir . . ."{The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.202.211.191 (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the London insurance market, the general form when writing to a company was "Dear Sirs..." followed at the end by "yours faithfully". If you knew who you were writing to, the letter would be headed "For the attention of Mr Joseph Bloggs" but still commenced with "Dear Sirs". I don't know if this formality has fallen by the wayside in the decade or so since my departure, especially now that there are a lot more female "Sirs". Alansplodge (talk) 10:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The warmth of a letter used to be expressed by the subscription. If you started off "Dear Sir" you would end "Yours faithfully". In days gone by you might sign off with "I remain, Sir, your most humble and obedient servant". You could add kisses in personal correspondence but of course on the internet you have a whole toolkit of emojis. A solicitor will end a letter to his client "Yours sincerely". When writing to the other side he will finish "Yours faithfully" (the very thing which he is not). Continentals are more deferential. The French monsieur means "my lord". A Portuguese business letter would end

De V. Ex^ia(s) atentamente

and may still do so. The contraction is of Vossa Excelência, lit. "Your Excellency". In the form você it is in conversational use in Brazil. Government letters ended (and may still end) with the formula

A bem da nação (the good of the nation).

It is possible this dates back to the establishment of the Republic in 1917(?)

"Dear Sir or Madam" solves the problem when you do not know the sex of the person you are writing to, and "Dear Miss ..." if you don’t know the marital status. "Ms" strikes me as a sloppy construction, and "Mx" is even worse. 92.24.108.109 (talk) 10:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does "could" still mean "could"?

I ask this because in the media I'm seeing fewer and fewer uses of it by itself, and more and more instances of "could possibly", "could perhaps", "could potentially", "could theoretically" and similar.

Hasn't "could" always included the sense of these other words? Or is there occurring some fundamental change in its meaning? Or is this just journalistic over-dramatisation/padding? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The modifier "theoretically" seems to imply "not practically", as in "due to quantum fluctuations the Earth could theoretically wink out of existence". So it really means "couldn't". StuRat (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All three adverbs are intended to cast more doubt than could possibly be conveyed by "could"' alone. Loraof (talk) 22:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)All those variations seem to imply significantly less than 50/50 odds. If you say "could" by itself, to me it sounds more like 50/50. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ... you could win the lottery, but the odds are certainly not "more like 50/50". 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:F853:9A57:8459:1F05 (talk) 23:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How could you possibly win the lottery? ---Sluzzelin talk 23:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By purchasing the winning ticket? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask them to sell you a winning ticket, but they refuse to guarantee it, so I don't bother to buy them. StuRat (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Actually, lotteries being what they are the way to win (or at least not lose) is not to participate. Their advertising is fairly unimaginative - the pools companies say "you've got to be in it to win it" and the National Lottery's slogan is "Play makes it possible". 2A02:C7D:51A4:6D00:1A5:5029:129D:58 (talk) 09:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When an advertiser says you "could" win something, they are being extremely optimistic. If they tell you there's a zillion-to-one chance against winning, they won't sell many tickets. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Could possibly," "could perhaps," "could theoretically," "might probably," "might likely," and others all strike my as redundancies. Viz., while the writer clearly intends to emphasize the modal verb with an adverb, he actually ends up doing the exact opposite: he makes the reader's eyes glaze over. :)

In my personal writing style, I strictly avoid adverbs that share a similar meaning the modal verbs that they modify.

ee.gg., I'll say "As bad as it could ever get." "I cannot in any way agree with this," or "Could this somehow get any weirder?" Pine (talk) 10:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But if you say "this could probably be dealt with in another forum" you're saying that it is more likely that someone else could deal with it than if you had said "this could possibly be dealt with in another forum". 2A02:C7D:51A4:6D00:80C8:5D47:A323:DCDC (talk) 10:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike most languages, English still preserves the distinction between "can" and "may." Thus, I'd say "This might be better addressed in another forum" for the former intended meaning, and "this could be answered more properly in another forum" for the latter.

(I apologize for rewriting your examples, but I really don't like putting "with" at the end of a clause.)

:)

Pine (talk) 10:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This general subject reminds me of this observation from the story of Tweedledum and Tweedledee: "If it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another use of "might" and "could" occurs at about 12:15 of this clip:[9] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As IP 2A02 implies above, 'could' is a little ambiguous when the subject is thought more likely than not likely. "A solution could possibly be found on another forum" versus "A solution could probably be found on another forum". Therefore, I don't think the 'possibly' (or the 'probably') are redundant. They simply more accurately describe the likelihood of the 'could' and are adjuncts to it. Akld guy (talk) 21:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Different wording can give different assumptions both based on the reader and the context. I sometimes use the redundant "may or may not" when I have no idea of the likelihood. I guess readers are less likely to make assumptions about likelihood from that formulation. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 1

Future and Conditional tenses of "Must" when using an adverb of degree.

Greetings!

Few verbs in modern English cause as much consternation as to have to. Once upon a time, the (now obsolete) mote stood as the present tense and must as the past tense. Now, however, must serves as the present indicative, and one substitutes some sort of periphrase for all the other tenses.

The confusion of "must" with "need" also compounds the problem, particularly when using an adverb of degree. To wit, constructions such as "I must not enter that area" or "I must hardly adjust the settings, or the computer will crash." imply degrees of obligation; whereas sentences such as "I need not enter that area" or "I need hardly adjust the settings to get the effect that we want" actually indicate degrees of necessity.

When it comes to the future and conditional tenses of must, though, this utterly bewilders me. Which, in your humble opinions, sounds the most proper when suggesting degrees of obligation?

ee.gg.

"I shall have not to enter that area?" "I shall not have to enter that area?" something else?

Or, would someone simply rewrite the sentence entirely by using a copulative tense?

ee.gg.

"I shall be obligated not to enter that area?" "I shall be prohibited from entering that area?" something else, yet?

Thank you. Pine (talk) 10:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To my (British English, just in case it matters) reading, "I shall have not to" would mean "I shall be obligated not to" (i.e. "I am prohibited"), while "I shall not have to" would mean "I shall not be obligated to (but could if I wished, since I am neither obligated nor prohibited)". That said, "I shall have not to" sounds incredibly clunky to my ear, in a way that your last two examples don't, so I would go with one of those if that is the intended meaning. MChesterMC (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with this. "I shall not have to" is necessity rather than obligation, and "I shall be prohibited" is the best of the four. One could say "I shall have to not enter" to express (negative) obligation, but it's still an unnatural construction. Incidentally, if you insist on pluralizing "e.g.", it should be "ee.g." (exemplōrum gratiā instead of exemplī gratiā) - we have two examples, but still only two words and one benefit. Tevildo (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and "esteemed" would be better than "humble" in this context. Tevildo (talk) 17:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rodrigo de Freitas

Hello, dear foreign colleagues. There is a problem with correct pronunciation of a geographic name, Rodrigo de Freitas, which is a lagoon in Rio-de-Janeiro. As you know, the Brazilian pronunciation differs from European Portuguese one. Maybe, someone can write the transcription of the Brazilian pronunciation with the IPA?

I would request in the Portuguese Wikipedia, but there the language reference page is out.

Thank you in advance.

--В.Галушко (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

/ʁo.ˈdɾi.ɡu d͡ʒɪ ˈfɾej.tɐʃ/ —Stephen (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2

-ikon in place names around Zurich

What does this suffix mean? It seems abundant -- Oerlikon, Pfäffikon, Wiedikon, Zollikon, to name just a few. --212.203.65.210 (talk) 05:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It’s a variation on the German ending -inghofen, itself the dative case of -ing, added to a (sur)name and denoting affiliation with a group or tribe, and hof, a settlement. So Oerlikon is "the settlement of Orilo’s people". Rgds ✦ _hugarheimur 07:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

लिए किये गए, अगर साथ में आये तो किस प्रकार लिखना होगा?

कृपया, नीचे दिये हुए वाक्य की वर्तनी की जाँच कीजिए, जिसमें- ' लिए किये गए' - साथ में आये तो किस प्रकार लिखें?

रोमन कैथोलिक मिशनरी, मदर टेरेसा द्वारा गरीबों की मदद करने के लिए किये गए अत्यधिक कार्य के बारे में पता कीजिए। — Preceding unsigned comment added by किशोर खंडागले (talk • contribs) 06:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above appears to be a question about how to write a sentence concerning the work of Mother Theresa. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

नमस्कार, किशोर खंडागले,

सवाल के लिए आपका धन्यवाद। हालांकि, मुझे लगता है कि आप एक बेहतर जवाब यहाँ प्राप्त होगा: hi:विकिपीडिया:चौपाल —Stephen (talk) 13:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rules for adding -able to words ending with -ate

For most words ending with -ate, when the -able suffix is added to the word, the original -ate is dropped. Examples:

estimate → estimable

imitate → imitable

manipulate → manipulable

generate → generable

However, that's not always the case. With some words, only the letter e in the original -ate ending is dropped when -able is appended to the word. Examples:

relate → relatable

debate → debatable

rate → ratable

Is the difference based on the number of syllables? What's the exact rule? --100.34.204.4 (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language