Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Reference desk

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Asmrulz (talk | contribs) at 20:14, 16 April 2017 (→"broadly sympathize"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.
skip to bottom
Select a section:
Shortcut
Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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


Ready? Ask a new question!


How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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


Look up Wiktionary:Information desk in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Look up Wiktionary:Translation requests in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

April 10

Slang use of "hang"

The meaning "to associate with someone" seems very old, as in Ben Franklin's: "We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately" [1]. This also seems related to the term "hangout", but not really to suspending something/the form of execution. So, what's the origin of this usage ? StuRat (talk) 17:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EO gives 1811 and relates it to the phrase "hang out a shingle" [2]. shoy (reactions) 18:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But that's after Franklin used it that way. StuRat (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a special case of (2nd ed.) OED's sense 14 of intransitive hang, "to attach oneself for support; to cling, hold fast, adhere", for which the earliest citation dates from c. 1330. The earliest citation for hang together in the sense "to hold together; to be associated, united, or mutually dependent" (where it cites Franklin's quip) is from 1551. It's hang out in the sense "to reside, lodge, live (colloq. or slang)" that has an 1811 earliest citation, and the related noun hang-out seems to date from the middle 1890s. Deor (talk) 19:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I note that at its hang (v.) entry, EO says, "Teen slang sense of 'spend time' first recorded 1951; hang around 'idle, loiter' is from 1828, American English." Deor (talk) 08:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Bean

Why does Mr. Bean have a full stop in its title? It's not a mistake by us, since the title card clearly shows the punctuation. Nyttend (talk) 23:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But then, we don't follow the title card exactly, by replacing "MR" with "Mr". -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And by replacing "BEAN" with "Bean". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes Mr has been mistakenly appended with a full stop, as sometimes happens with St or Mrs. It's all wrong, but in Mr. Bean's case, we go with the verifiable sources. The Rambling Man (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Google Image "mr bean logo" and you'll see a number of variations, some as "Mr" some as "Mr." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Already covered that. In British English, the full stop is not required, full stop. The Rambling Man (talk) 03:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between "not required" and "all wrong". It could be that the show's producers don't care that much about it either way. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's not relevant. The point is that the grammatically correct answer in British English is Mr Bean. That other variations exist is just meh. The Rambling Man (talk) 03:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"not required" and "all wrong" are not the same thing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's right! The Rambling Man (talk) 04:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There ya go. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's right! The Rambling Man (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The British shift to not using periods after Mr and Mrs, is fairly recent. If you look at old newspapers [3], In the fifties, they used the full stop quite a lot. In the 70s it started to fade out, and by the mid eighties it was rare in British newspapers.
I mention this because the Mr. Bean character first appeared in 1990. So whoever made the title card might have assumed that using the full stop was proper formal British English. (As opposed to newspaper English.) We'll need some period English textbooks to nail down whether that was technically the right choice or not.
I wish I could find a comparison of style guides through the ages to pinpoint this more precisely.ApLundell (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly when I was at school, we were taught that if abbreviations had the first and last letter, e.g. Mister becomes Mr or Missus becomes Mrs, then they should not take a full stop. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was taught always to include the full stop regardless of the type of contraction, but I remember the "open punctuation" style being introduced for business letters in the 1970s. See here for example. Dbfirs 07:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Dbfirs experience (having left school in 1975), but the point most people are missing is that (in the UK) there's no "official" authority laying down such rules. Different publishers have different "House styles" and many people and organisations choose to follow one or the other (Oxford University Press's being popular as they publish theirs in a range of inexpensive books: other publishers supply house style manuals only to their own staff and authors – I possess examples of both), while others go their own way. Often a publisher will insist on a work following their usual house style rules, sometimes an author will insist on his/her own variations, perhaps for stylistic reasons. The nearest thing to being 'wrong' is to mix different house styles or otherwise be inconsistent within a single written piece or publication. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.249.244 (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with the users above, I was taught to use a full stop after Mr. at school in London in the 1960s and 70s, but wouldn't use one now. Alansplodge (talk) 10:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[Continued] At the supermarket earlier today (Asda, if anyone cares), I noticed (because of this discussion) a selection of Mr Bean [sic] cartoon DVDs: all of them omitted the stop after "Mr" on the front cover, so evidently the franchise isn't concerned one way or the other. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.249.244 (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 11

Phonetic lowering of u to o

Can anyone give a historical example of u becoming o in a language? Idielive (talk) 01:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Germanic a-mutation has some examples. Cheers ✦ hugarheimur 01:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not too clear from that article, but in early Germanic, proto-Indo-European short "o" had merged to "a", leaving kind of a gap in the system, so that in early Northwest Germanic the short "u" phoneme developed two allophones, [u] and [o]. Later these became separate phonemes in different ways in the various languages... Another example is early Romance, where Latin short "u" and long "o" merged as a higher [o] sound (while short "o" became a lower [ɔ] sound). AnonMoos (talk) 09:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Chuvash has two dialects, Lower Chuvash (which is the principle dialect), and Upper Chuvash (made up of Hill Maris who were absorbed by the Chuvash people). Lower Chuvash includes the vowel u, and does not use the vowel o in native words. In Upper Chuvash, the u in many words has become an o. Examples in Lower Chuvash: тутӑ (full, taste), укҫа (money), урпа (barley); Upper Chuvash: тотӑ (full), тутӑ (taste), окҫа (money), орпа (barley). —Stephen (talk) 08:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Welsh also has examples of a-affection lowering /u/ to /o/, e.g. bod 'to be' from *butā; alternations are seen in some adjectives where the masculine form (which originally ended in -os) has /u/ (spelled w) while the feminine form (which originally ended in -ā) has /o/, e.g. trwm 'heavy (masc.)' ~ trom 'heavy (fem.)'. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty widespread in Vulgar Latin, and hence in Italian and Spanish. --ColinFine (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sanskrit requires it in ablaut: in certain verb forms, a root's /u/ regularly becomes /o/ or /au/ – both of which were originally diphthongs (/ău, āu/). Similarly /i/ to /e, ai/. —Tamfang (talk) 01:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a little different from the other examples given here, in that there's a synchronic morphological alternation between short [u] and long [oː], and this was not actually the result of a "Phonetic lowering of u to o" process (but arrived at by a much more convoluted historical path)... AnonMoos (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternation

A community centre in the City of London offers yoga sessions on "alternative Thursdays". I think they mean "alternate Thursdays". Is this a common mistake? 81.129.14.0 (talk) 10:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quiet commune. Wymspen (talk) 10:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Alternate" is taking on some of the work formerly done by "alternative", especially in American English; perhaps this reverse is a hypercorrection. jnestorius(talk) 11:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The OED gives both meanings for both words. It gives examples for "alternative" in the sense of "alternating" from 1540 ("[A] and [B], patronis alternative of the said personage") to 2000 (" Cars with odd and even registration number plates are allowed into the city on alternative days"). --ColinFine (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
British prescriptivists (Victoria Wood excepted in the 1987 cite) are more fussy about which word to use in which context. See here. Dbfirs 07:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But and however

In traditional grammar, "but" can neither start nor end a sentence. There are many literary counterexamples for starting with "but". Ending with "but" is still considered pretty low-grade, but.

However, "however" serves much the same purpose as "but", yet it can both start and end a sentence (not the same sentence, mind you) without World War III being created.

Why this different treatment? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"However" is an adverb, modifying the whole sentence and not linking anything. "But" is a coordinating conjunction, coordinating what precedes it with what follows it. In traditional grammar, what precedes or follows it must do so closely—i.e., in the same sentence. The usage with "but" at the beginning of a sentence breaks the symmetry, which is probably why some people don't like it. However. Loraof (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By "traditional grammar", I assume you mean prescriptive grammar, which in most cases can safely be ignored. But the choice is yours. CodeTalker (talk) 22:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It can safely be ignored if you're fine with people thinking you don't know how to construct sentences properly. 86.28.195.109 (talk) 06:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If by "properly" you mean "following the arbitrary Latin-based rules invented by prescriptive grammarians" rather than "the way that intelligent, well educated people actually write", then yeah, I'm fine with that. CodeTalker (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prescriptive grammar is used by anyone who writes in a particular high register, such as we use on Wikipedia (e.g., we don't use "ain't" on Wikipedia). One needs to distinguish between two different kinds of prescription: things like the imagined prohibition against starting a sentence with "But" or "And", which has never been followed in high-register literature and so is not really part of the language; and things that really have been routinely followed in the high register, such as the prohibition against "they was". Loraof (talk) 14:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See my edit summary here: MOS:HOWEVERPUNC—Radio announcers, please pause. Radio listeners, please wait. Please do not confuse the adverb "however" with the conjunction "but".
—Wavelength (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page here notes adverbial and prepositional uses of "but" where it is used properly similar to "however" and also has a nice description of where "but" and "however" are not perfect synonyms and where the differences in meaning can lead to difference in usage. --Jayron32 14:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's an old "rule" that however (=nevertheless) should not be used at the beginning of a sentence, to avoid confusion with conjunctive however (despite the difference in punctuation). I think this may be traceable to Strunk & White, who wrote: "Avoid starting a sentence with however when the meaning is nevertheless. The word usually seves better when not in the first position. ... When however comes first, it means in whatever way or to whatever extent." They recommend changing "The roads were almost impassable. However, we at last succeeded in reaching camp" to "The roads were almost impassable. At last, however, we succeeded in reaching camp". Of course, most folk, before and since, have blithely disregarded this advice, but for some folk it has become a shibboleth; we used to have an editor (now blocked) on Wikipedia who would obsessively rewrite every sentence beginning with however that he found. (For an abolutely perfect rhetorical positioning of however at the end of a sentence, however, see the final sentence of Garrison Keillor's short story "End of the Trail".) Deor (talk) 15:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Most varieties of English don't allow for a sentence to end with "but". Jack, do you know of one that does? Itsmejudith (talk) 22:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sentences in English can end with almost any word but but. Akld guy (talk) 07:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Scotland, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand, at least. I can't begin to imagine what "most varieties of English" even means, so I can't comment on Judith's assumption. HenryFlower 09:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That link is a discussion forum that basically shows ", but" can be used anywhere with an ellipsis (", but....") to show that the clause following has been omitted. But that's in informal usage only. I seriously doubt that ",but" can end a sentence anywhere in formal usage. Loraof (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If "most varieties of English" means anything, I'd be surprised if "most varieties" were formal. Why would we be particularly interested in formal varieties? Also, it does not just show that. Take the very first example given: That was a lovely cat, but. That's an example of intensive meaning, with no omitted clause. Or if you're only interested in contrastive meanings, the third: I like your cafe', I said truthfully, for something to say. 'I am not staying but'. she said. Again, no omitted clause. HenryFlower 19:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In spoken Liverpudlian English (aka Scouse), a sentence contradicting a preceding statement is/was often concluded with the construction ". . . though, but." {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.249.244 (talk) 19:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 13

"On aggregate"

Is this correct English? "The benefit system does not affect marginal tax rates very much on aggregate and is therefore ignored." Or should I write "in the aggregate" or "in aggregate"? 130.238.165.147 (talk) 11:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Checking the correct meanings in the dictionary, I don't think you should actually use "aggregate" - I would suggest "overall" Wymspen (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly in British English, "on aggregate" is just fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"in the aggregate" sounds better to this American. —Tamfang (talk) 01:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To this American too. Loraof (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is that because Americans don't play soccer? See this post for explanation:
Luca Brasi sleeps with the fishes in the aggregate. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problem here. On the sports pages you regularly encounter constructions like

Arsenal won the second leg 2-1 but Benfica win 4-2 on aggregate. 2A02:C7F:BE2D:9E00:918D:B637:2B4C:48 (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would think they'd rather play on grass than on aggregate--Jayron32 13:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PIE gender

what 31 said
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I have read that normally, ergativity affects intimates first, and then animates. This would be a problem for the ergative hypothesis of pre-PIE, which states the exact opposite. But I think a safe way to erase the problem would to be this; lets just assume for a moment that Pre-PIE had two genders, masculine and feminine, like Afro Asiatic. This is Stage I. In Stage II, ergativity affects many of the nouns, adjectives, the pronouns, and suffixes. However, one cannot just assume everything would be affected. Those nouns, adjectives, ect. which were not affected by ergativity developed no true nominative case. Instead, their so called nominative case, which in reality didn't exist, looked just like the accusative and vocative. In Pre-PIE, all these were the uninflected absolutive case, and in Stage II they remained unchanged, just revalued.

In Stage III, these conservative nouns are reinterpreted as neither masculine nor feminine, since they have not developed any nominative case. They then began to viewed as generally unable to act as agents of intransitive verbs.

This model solves the problem, since now there was no inanimate to begin with. It is a good explanation for why the neuter nouns first three cases are identical.

Is this model fringe or not. I truly do not know what the mainstream views on this subject are. Idielive (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate. --31.168.171.66 (talk) 19:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... I think the OP is a badly worded request. Had the OP been more concerned with finding out the mainstream views of ergativity than proposing his/her own theory, this topic wouldn't have been closed. But, I second the closing, because this is a badly worded request. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 19:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 14

"broadly sympathize"

does this mean "sympathize a lot" ("broadly" as in "extensively") or "sympathize somewhat" ("broadly" as in "by and large")? Asmrulz (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In British usage I would take it to mean "somewhat", and expect it to be followed by some kind of caveat. "I broadly sympathise, but in this case regret that I cannot help you". DuncanHill (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would understand it to mean that I sympathise with most of it (whatever it may be), but not quite with everything. More than "somewhat" - but not "totally" Wymspen (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Largely" or "mostly" seem more likely than "somewhat" although these things are vague. Plato did not invent speech. μηδείς (talk) 22:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
makes sense. thanks, all Asmrulz (talk) 01:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"But answer came there none--And this was scarcely odd, because/They'd eaten every one." LOL. that's "broad" sympathy alright Asmrulz (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 15

Is there a word that means...this...?

I'm wondering if there's a word to describe a particular emotion/situation that I keep wanting to describe. Imagine that someone is annoyed because another person is engaged in a behaviour or activity that the first person isn't allowed to do, or has been specifically told that they're not allowed to do. So the reason the first person is annoyed is SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE they are abstaining from the taboo activity and the second person has chosen to disregard the ruling, rather than being annoyed because the activity is inherently immoral or wrong. Example: Whilst I might regularly break the speed limit in my car, believing that it doesn't really matter that much all of the time, there may be a time when I've decided to strictly obey the speed limit, then whilst out driving, I see another driver openly breaking the speed limit and this annoys me because I think people should obey the speed limit...when in reality my anger is BECUASE I've taken the moral high ground of being the obedient driver. Is there a word that reflects this form of anger? When there is an injustice felt specifically due to a rule being obeyed, as opposed to the act in question being undeniably wrong? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.185.221.37 (talk) 12:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a word, but a phrase. The term for your exact emotion is "righteous indignation". The Wikipedia article focuses too much on the Christian aspect, but you'll see many uses which match your need.--Jayron32 13:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit like "reaction formation". - Nunh-huh 23:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Righteous indignation is not quite correct, because it is not self-referential. It means that the person is fully justified in his indignation, with his own standard of behavior not a factor. A better expression would be "self-righteous indignation". Also "sanctimonious [indignation]", "holier than thou [indignation]". Akld guy (talk) 00:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"No hay salida" and "No exit"

"No exit" is the English form to express that something is not an exit. The message informs the reader that the reader cannot use that way to exit the place. In Spanish, it is "No hay salida". But in Spanish, there is "hay", which translates to "there is". "Hay muchas cosas" translates to "There are many things." So, "No hay salida" should translate to "There is no exit", which means exactly as "No exit". But my question is, why doesn't Spanish allow the removal of "hay" while English does? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps English is a bit sloppier than Spanish? Though come to think of it, both versions are iffy. It should really says "this is not an exit" or esto no es una salida. "No exit" and no hay salida could sound like there is no exit anywhere in the building. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'no' can be an adjective in English. I suppose people use 'no' as adjective only when talking in Mock Spanish like no problemo. Hofhof (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why in English no is an adjective but in Spanish no is not an adjective? Does it have to do with the construction of Latin and Germanic languages? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When I hear "no salida", to me it sounds like a bad literal translation of the English. It sounds barbaric, like "no go out!" I think it would be more appropriate to ask why English does not use "there is no" as the Spanish does. Literal translations are sometimes (rarely) used to compare a text in two languages, but normally literal translations are not professional and not acceptable. Taking another example, if you translate "help wanted" into Spanish, you must not say "ayuda querida" ... that sounds like "help, dear". Also not "necesito ayuda", which means "I need help". You have to say "se busca ayudante" (searching for assistant). We do not translate words, we translate meanings. —Stephen (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The word "no" in English is more from Germanic roots.[4] The adjective form in Spanish appears to be ninguno/a which is from Latin nec unus, per the Real Academia website. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Spanish for "do not exit" would be no salga, an imperative form of salir, "to exit". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problemo is a corruption of... wait for it... No hay problema. Notice a trend. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe there is no exact equivalent of haber or conjugate forms of haber in English. As a result, the meaning is more important than a literal translation. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


50.4.236.254 -- English and Spanish "no" are spelled the same and pronounced similarly (in some dialects), and are both negative words, but they actually have different origins and functions. Spanish "no" comes from an early Indo-European phrase something like ne oinom and is mainly used to negate verbs (or sentences, depending on how you look at it). English "no" comes from an early Indo-European phrase something like ne aiwom and is mainly used to negate nouns. There's no particular expectation that "no" would have the same detailed patterns of usage between the two languages... AnonMoos (talk) 23:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I think the same can be said of all of life. Cultural evolution . . . is fascinating. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 00:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are these expressions right and common?

Open 12 hours Open from 11 to 23 hours — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.177.99.127 (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is clear, and I've never seen either of them here in the UK. It is much clearer and much more common to state the opening and closing times, for example: "Open 12 hours per day, from 11 a.m. to 11 p.m." Dbfirs 19:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether the ' per day' bit in always necessary. If I see it on the entry of a shop, I'd assume it's per day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.177.96.242 (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Most places I go to have a sign that shows a table of opening and closing times on all days of the week. That way, I know when the business opens. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(US English):
1) 24 hour clocks are not used for hour of operation of a business.
2) "Open 12 hours" could mean per day or total in a week. Just listing the opening and closing hours is best.
3) I wouldn't assume the hours are the same for all 7 days. M-Th often have the same hours, perhaps open a bit later on F. As for Saturday and Sunday, those hours are normally quite different. StuRat (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of the OP's examples are useful to the consumer. The only one of that type that does would be "Open 24 hours". Although that leads to Steven Wright's joke about going to a store with such a sign, and they were locking up. He said, "Aren't you open 24 hours?" and the shopowneer said, "Not in a row, man!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 16

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language&oldid=775739760"