Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

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:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

October 18

TV commercial for drug Anoro featuring Fleetwood Mac's song "Go Your Own Way"

This question is about a TV commercial for the drug Anoro, featuring Fleetwood Mac's song "Go Your Own Way". The video is here: Anoro: Go Your Own Way. In this commercial, they sing the phrase "go your own way" three times. These occur once at the 0:07 time mark; once at the 0:14 time mark; and once at the 0:55 time mark. The first two occurrences sound similar; however, the last occurrence (at the 0:55 time mark) has a very different sound to it. I'd like to know what would be a good adjective to describe that third version of the phrase being sung. The only words I can think of are "guttural" or "earthy", but those seem insufficient and not quite right. If the director of the commercial were directing the singer, how would he tell them to sing that third occurrence? What words might he use? Thanks. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 14:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The phrase mimics the original song; the chorus actually does that; however you'll note the third line has a different melody and singer than the first two. In the original song, the chorus has Lindsay Buckingham singing the last line with that melody; where as I believe first few lines are sung by the band in parts, with Stevie Nicks carrying the melody for those two lines. So the effect is caused by a different vocalist (as in the original). The melody in the last part descends rather than climbs within the structure of the song, so I might call it counterpoint? I'm not sure there is any other specific effect other than the vocalist mimicing the peculiarities of Lindsay Buckingham's singing style. --Jayron32 15:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jayron32: Thanks. You are saying that -- in the drug commercial -- there are two different singers? One singer is performing the first two occurrences of "go your own way"; and a completely different singer is performing the third occurrence? 32.209.55.38 (talk) 03:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the first two occurrences are a female singer (it sounds heavily Auto-Tuned as well), with harmonies behind her, while the third occurrence is a male singer singing without harmonies. The arrangement is almost identical to the original, with the same basic vocal parts. The third singer even takes on the quirks of Lindsey Buckingham's voice. If you listen to the original, you can hear the similarities. --Jayron32 11:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I did not even recognize that the first singer was a female and the second, male. I guess that I just assumed it was all the same person, singing differently (as directed by the director). Hence, my original question. Yes, I did listen to the original song; many versions of it, in fact. Thanks. It's a great song. I am a little surprised that Fleetwood Mac -- I assume that they "own" the song? -- would allow one of their greatest songs to be used in such a base manner (in a drug commercial). Seems odd. I assume they are all millionaires. And I assume they are not getting all that much money from this TV commercial. But, maybe I am wrong? It just seems like a very popular (and very wealthy) artist would have a bit more "integrity" than to want to see their art work "debased" in this way. No? 32.209.55.38 (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

The song would be "owned" not by Fleetwood Mac (who would only own specific performances of the song). Instead, songs are owned by a publishing company or group of such companies. A publishing company has only one purpose: to own copyrights and collect revenue for using them. MOST songwriters have their own publishing companies, and many bands that write collaboratively have a publishing company that handles the music end. If you have a band that writes their own songs, you can think of them as two overlapping ompanies: the band as a performing company and a publisher as a publishing company. In the case of "Go Your Own Way", it was published by Gentoo Music Inc. and Now Sounds Music are the music publishing companies. Gentoo is the Publishing company for Fleetwood Mac, while Now Sounds Music was the publisher for Lindsey Buckingham. (see Here for Buckingham's publishing company]. The rights to record a new version of a song have to be granted by the publishing company. Since the writer themselves is often the decision maker for said publishing company, they still get final say. But it doesn't always work that way; bands and writers (often not knowing better) often signed away publishing royalties, and some people (like Allen Klein/ABKCO) make their money by buying up publishing companies and then acquiring copyright on songs to collect royalties. To make it simple, the rights to use the song would have to be granted by Gentoo Inc. and Now Sounds Music. The granting of rights to use songs is negotiated by entertainment lawyers under the advise of their clients, the songwriters and their publishing company. This is usually handled by large clearinghouses such as Broadcast Music, Inc. or American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, which handles all of the dirty work, though the owner of the copyright has the right of refusal. --Jayron32 18:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jayron32: Thanks. Did not realize how complicated it was. But, it does make sense. Thanks. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 15:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, are you sure that the second singer is male? I just listened to the song again. Seems like a female singer to me, at the 0:55 time mark. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 18:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

It's clearly a guy to me. Or a guy's voice, anyway. Maybe try again with headphones, if you hadn't. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:23, October 20, 2017 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: Thanks. That's odd. I really hear a female voice. Thanks. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 15:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Note that a vocal portamento is steadily changing the frequency of sung notes. That term doesn't indicate whether the frequency is increasing or decreasing, but the written music would show the notes, and the wavy line drawn between them indicates a steady blend rather than sharp change in frequency. StuRat (talk) 16:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The ad just popped up on my TV, and I think it's a cover - and that whoever they commissioned to do the song altered it to fit the ad. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Is there any doubt that it's a cover version? Certainly, that is not Fleetwood Mac singing in the drug commercial. Correct? 32.209.55.38 (talk) 03:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe try answering the question being asked? The OP never doubted it was a cover. --Viennese Waltz 06:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe try not to be what you normally are. I've heard the ad and there's nothing special about the final "go your own way" except that it ends a sentence instead of leading into the next bit of music. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I did not say that there was anything "special" about the third occurrence of "go your own way". But, clearly, it is sung "differently" than the first two occurrences. Do you agree or disagree with that? Thanks. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

It's sung differently in that it ends the song with a full-stop / period rather than doing a fade-out like the Mac version does.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, all. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 15:44, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

US Dollar Currency

Searching for a reliable record (starting from the beginning of time till to date) displaying 'ups' and 'downs' and 'stable' position of the currency please. 119.30.35.177 (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

This brief article has a nice graph and links to another article with more detailed information. It's not the highest quality source, so caveat lector, but it's a start for you. --Jayron32 15:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

That's a chart against inflation. Against gold, the price was fixed at 35 dollars an ounce for many years. Against sterling, for a long time the cent was worth a halfpenny. See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 March 27#What's worth a pound? 82.14.24.95 (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The earlier discussion actually mentions the cent used to be worth 1/200 £, that is 1.2d, which is much more than a halfpenny. --77.138.205.35 (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

There must be an error in there - before World War II the dollar was worth about five shillings, so four dollars to the pound, and 400 cents (making a cent slightly more than a half-penny). Until decimalisation, "dollar" was fairly common British slang for five shillings. Wymspen (talk) 10:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Also (sort of) in New Zealand. "Half a dollar" was a slang term for 2 shillings and sixpence. Akld guy (talk) 19:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

That article 77.138 links to explains that "a halfpenny ... was a unit of currency that equalled half of a penny or 1/480th of a pound sterling." As a decimal that's 0.0020833... of a pound. Post - decimalisation the halfpenny was indeed worth 1/200 of a pound, i.e. 1.2 old pence, which is 0.005 in decimal. You will note that the ratio 0.005/0.0020833... is 2.4 to one. This is because the penny (and therefore the halfpenny) increased in value by that amount although it could no longer be spent (unless it was part of the Maundy money) and nobody spends Maundy money because its silver content far outweighs its face value. Re ColinFine's comment, I still have my copy of the San Serriffe supplement from 1 April 1977. I will have to look at it, but from what he says it appears to be a mixture of Dutch, Portuguese and Spanish as well. This fits in with AnonMoose's Papiamento theory. 82.14.24.95 (talk) 11:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

77.138 wrote 1.2d - thereby clearly indicating that he meant pre-decimal - since decimalisation the abbreviation has always been "p" Wymspen (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

See also From $5 to $1.22: the 200-year journey of the pound against the dollar which says: "For most of the 1800s until the start of the First World War, every £1 was worth just under $5. The Napoleonic wars, which weakened the pound, was one exceptional period; as was the US Civil War, which saw the pound temporarily spiking up to $10... Governments however still viewed fixed exchange rates as desirable, and so in 1940 the pound was pegged to the dollar at a fixed rate of $4.03. This deal became part of the Bretton Woods agreement that was signed in 1944, which governed financial relations between 44 countries for much of the mid 20th century". Alansplodge (talk) 15:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Reply to Akld guy: In Britain the coin worth two shillings and sixpence (the "half crown") was also colloquially known as "half a dollar". The sixpence was a "tanner", the shilling was a "bob", and the two shilling piece (or "florin") was "two bob". Australia decimalised on 14 February 1966 (the day that I took up my first salaried position) and in 1971 Australians were still calling their twenty cent coins "two bob" (they were identical to the two shilling pieces they replaced). 2A00:23C0:7903:B901:542E:486E:9136:263F (talk) 11:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Tanner was never used in NZ, but "bob" was used in place of shilling and "quid" was used in place of pound. NZ changed to decimal currency on 10 July 1967. Akld guy (talk) 19:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

October 19

Not profanity

What would be the antonym of Profanity? RedPanda25 18:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Not every word has an antonym. The world is not neatly divided into perfect oppositional pairs. There is no such antonym. --Jayron32 18:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Profanity ... pleasantry ... a "close enough" antonym ... no? 32.209.55.38 (talk) 19:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

"Holy" is the opposite of "Profane".[2] Another good one would be "Pure".[3] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. "Pleasantry" would make the most sense, as a word that is used to please as opposed to offend. RedPanda25 19:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

"Profanity" covers a lot of ground. "Profane language" seems to be what you're generally talking about, and it's by no means always intended to offend. As with this little classic:[4] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

There's the Sacred–profane dichotomy. But not everything that is non-sacred is a profanity, and not everything that is not a profanity is sacred. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Here's a commentary on the Bayeux Tapestry,[5] which originally hung in the local cathedral. The author says, "To the objection that a sacred building would not have been a suitable place for profane subject matter, one can answer that the subject of the hanging was not exactly a profane one: it is a type of tract about an oath." Specifically, the loyalty oath that Harold swore and then reneged on (as told in the tapestry). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Anodyne might be a useful word to indicate the opposite of profanity, as in "noncontentious, blandly agreeable, unlikely to cause offence or debate; bland, inoffensive". Bus stop (talk) 19:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

October 20

Ph

In American English, the ph sound is taught that it is actually pronounced like an f. So, philosophy, philanthropy, and pho are pronounced like an f. Phillip begins with a ph and sounds like f, but Stephen contains a ph but sounds like a v. So, Stephen sounds like Steven. Some languages actually have Stefani or Stefan. Spanish speakers probably hear a v, so their version becomes Esteban, with the b pronounced like an English v. So, that means ph really has two different pronunciations v and f? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 02:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

In that one word, at least. This is one of those exceptions in English. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

50.4.236.254 -- "Stephen" for what would be more naturally be spelled in English as "Steven" is a classicizing spelling (like the "b" in "debt" and "doubt" etc etc). The letter "f" also has a [v] pronunciation, if you count "of"... AnonMoos (talk) 03:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Then there's "aphelion"... Rojomoke (talk) 04:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Since it's "perigee" and "apogee" then it should be "perihelion" and "apohelion". But it ain't. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Since it's "face" and "Paul", then it should be "bacebaul". But it ain't. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

As usual, Baseball Bugs is wrong: in Greek, ἥλιος begins with a vowel, so the final omicron in ἀπό is omitted in forming the compound word even in Greek. The rough breathing at the start of ἥλιος serves to aspirate the pi in ἀπό, making it a phi: so the Greek word is really αφήλιον. This is disguised by the later sound change of phi from [pʰ] to [f], but to preserve the morphemes in English the p and the h are often still pronounced in separated syllables, although you will hear the pronunciation with [f] sometimes. Double sharp (talk) 04:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

"As usual"? Citation needed. As for the words, we're talking English, where it's pronounced "ap-helion" not "a-felion". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

The pronunciation [æphiːliən] is certainly the most common in English as far as I've heard, but [əfiːliən] would actually be more classically correct, and is listed in dictionaries (see https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aphelion -- it's the only pronunciation listed in the American Heritage Dictionary 4th edition...) -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

The OED has both pronunciations, with /apˈhiːlɪən/ second. Dbfirs 23:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Shazam! I guess my physics teacher had it wrong. Oddly enough, my Webster's Collegiate says "a-felion" yet says it comes from New Latin "apo-" plus Greek "helion". Go figure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:35, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

"When a-felion's not engaged in his employment ..." -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

While [ph] may be a valid pronunciation in English, d:Q1699691 confirms that most other languages spell this term with an f or ф, and pronounce it accordingly. --31.154.101.236 (talk) 06:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Is there a term to describe the change in perspective between languages?

One language may view item A as default while item B is special. Another language may view the exact same object but take item B as default! One language may have an ancient idiom that is ONLY understood within the context of the geographical homeland; when this idiom is translated to a different language in a different geographical location, the meaning is lost, but the metaphorical meaning is retained. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 04:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a specific example? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

In French, "gross" retains it's original meaning of "large", with the modern meaning of "disgusting" being a more recent definition borrowed from English, while in English the disgusting def is now the default (except for financial matters). So, if you said "that man is gross" in the two languages, it would likely be interpreted differently. StuRat (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I see. Well, I'm sure there a lot of those. Entrée, for example.[6] Here's what EO has to say about "gross".[7] At some point in one of the sub-articles it says that the usage "forked" in English, and it could be that's a term the OP is looking for. Like the way the Old French word "hostel" forked into "hotel" and "hostel", which are not the same thing, though they serve a similar purpose. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is a word which describes your specific situation. The nearest concept I can think of would be some sort of linguistic paradigm shift. --Jayron32 11:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

You might be interested in linguistic relativity, and untranslatability137.110.73.234 (talk) 00:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Idiom is the non-literal meaning of a word or phrase in a language. A translation that retains the idiom, but loses the literal meaning would be an idiomatic vs. literal translation. See for example Translation#Fidelity_and_transparency and Yojijukugo. As Baseball Bugs says, a specific example would be useful; it might be described by a specific term within the broader concepts given so far, or possibly something else entirely.--Wikimedes (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Commons Category:Paintings by name

"Paintings by name" is ambiguous thus I want to make it a disambiguation page. *Category:Paintings by title (title of painting), *Category:Paintings by by author's name (redirect to Category:Paintings by artist]]) and "*Category: Paintings by subject name" (name of depicted person name). "Paintings by subject name" is a correct and not strange expression? Thanks. Regards--Pierpao (talk) 08:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

It's strange. If you really want to restrict it to depicted persons, I offer you Paintings by name of subject. However, some of the paintings have subjects which are not persons, so perhaps just Paintings by subject would be better? Henry^Flower 10:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Being able to find paintings of particular people might be useful - so how about "Portraits by name of subject" Wymspen (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Or "Painted portraits by name of subject" to keep the word "paint" in there, excluding for instance photographic portraits. Bus stop (talk) 19:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• These are all Commons categories, which need to be discussed on Commons, not here. Otherwise I agree with Bus stop. "Subject" is much better than "title", but if poortraits are meant, this should be used. Johnbod (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

October 21

Please translate the following German to English.

Hi, Man versetzte ihn dann als Chef des Stabes zum Marinebefehlshaber Westfrankreich

Can you please translate the above. scope_creep (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Google Translate says it means, "He was then appointed head of the staff of the naval commander in the province of Westphalia." Does that fit with the context where you're seeing this? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

"Chef des Stabes" would be Chief of Staff and "Westfrankreich" western France. So the whole sentence would be: He was then appointed chief of staff of the naval commander for western France. --Xuxl (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Yea, Google gave me Western France, not Westphalia. Not sure what happened when Bugs tried. StuRat (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Hard to figure. If I use the entire sentence, it comes back "Westphalia" but if I use Frankenreich by itself it comes back "France". I guess this kind of thing is why Google Translate is not considered terribly reliable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The best approach, I'm sure you would agree, would have been to wait for an editor who has the relevant language skills to come along, rather than provide what you yourself acknowledge was a "not terribly reliable" translation. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

There was no indication that the OP had or not tried Google Translate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

That's completely beside the point. If you yourself consider Google Translate to be "not terribly reliable", why would you rush in to share whatever it came up with? Particularly given that you could not check it, not having any German language skills. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree with that. Google Translate usually is better than that, and it was pretty close to correct when I used it ("They then transferred him as chief of staff for Navy Commander West France"). So, it's a good "first pass" at a translation, with German experts later being able to refine the nuances it missed. Now, if a German expert had already answered, then I might agree that adding a machine translation wouldn't help much, at that point. StuRat (talk) 02:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

(ec) Westphalia???? Where does Google Translate get that from? The translation is something like "He was then transferred as chief of staff to the navy command(er) for Western France." I'm not very familiar with military terminology in either language, so you may want to cross-check the terms. --Wrongfilter (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks scope_creep (talk) 22:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

"Marinebefehlshaber" is Naval Command (not Commander). —Stephen (talk) 07:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Literally, Befehlshaber is the person, the commander. It seems that, in military parlance, the personal form is used to refer to the command, though. --Wrongfilter (talk) 09:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

The reason I have came here is I've already used Bing and Google translate, and found them to be useless in this particular instance. I use them multiple times per day. I'm not looking for a google or bing translation when I come here. I'm hopefully looking to bump into a German, or German speaker who cam give me an excellent translation. scope_creep (talk) 11:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Folks, thanks for your prompt response, and the help. Bing and Google are helpful for the majority of the time, and each has a particular use case and particular strengths. Without them I wouldn't be able to do the work, but for complex military terms, they are pretty useless. scope_creep (talk) 15:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

When posting a translation Q, I suggest you include any translations you already have, and in what way you find them lacking. This will help us better tailor our responses. StuRat (talk) 23:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• Seekers of translations may have better luck at wikt:Wiktionary:Translation requests. —Tamfang (talk) 17:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Omission of the definite article

Suppose that a reporter talks about some specific negotiations, why is it correct to say, for instance, "we are just receiving reports that negotiations have been broken off" (instead of "... that the negotiations have been broken off)? After all, as stated before, he is referring to specific negotiations. So why don't we use the definite article here?--Cleph (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

You could, but it's pretty common to omit it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

"Negotiations" are somewhat like "data", in that it's difficult to have just one (a datum). That is, wherever there are negotiations, there are likely multiple items being discussed, and whether you considered the discussion of each item under consideration to be a negotiation on it's own, or merely part of the overall negotiation, is just semantics. StuRat (talk)

@StuRat: I guess I see your point. However, we are still assuming that the reporter is not talking about negotiations in general, but particular (known) negotiations (e. g. between a trade union and a company). So, from a logical perspective, there would still be an indication to actually use the definite article here to my mind. And I'm still wondering why it is rather omitted instead in cases like these (similar with sentences using expressions like proceedings, hearings, talks, but also with singular constructions like here!). Isn't there a rule to that?--Cleph (talk) 12:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I would interpret the structure as referring to "some" negotiations/hearings etc. The fuzziness of what exactly "a negotiation" is is relevant in that one can't clearly say whether the negotiations which have already happened are the same as the ones which are continuing, or other negotiations. So whether they are specific or not is indeterminate, and the article is optional. Henry^Flower 13:35, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@Henry Flower: Thank you, but why exactly are you referring to "a negotiation" (singular) here? I'd say we don't need to consider the singular form here to make it specific.--Cleph (talk) 14:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Because Sturat mentioned it. I think his point is relevant to the indeterminate nature of the negotiations. Henry^Flower 14:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

What I do get about Sturat's post is the first sentence. Yet, I'm not exactly sure about why he then comes up with speaking of "each item" etc. This is probably a bit too "hair-splitting" if you ask me since, as I recall, our reporter is dealing with specific negotiations between A and B – whatever their details may be! Hence, even if the subjects of these specific negotiations change, the latter will still remain clearly defined as negotiations between A and B taking place at a certain time, place etc., won't they? Besides, regarding his sentiment that each item is "merely part of the overall negotiation", this also argues for applying the article (though again he uses the singular here), right?--Cleph (talk) 15:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the singular/plural bit is a red herring. English uses the plurals "negotiations" and "talks" in the abstract in the same way as the singular "contact". We would say "contact has been broken off" without a definite article, and similarly "negotiations have been broken off" and "talks have been broken off" without needing "the", though it would also be correct to include the definite article to emphasise that specific negotiations are meant. Dbfirs 19:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

The plural/singular difference matters here because we can either be talking about one specific item, where "the" would normally be appropriate, or a more general (plural) group of items, where it doesn't. For example, we would say we are "going to the meeting today", if there's only one, or "going to meetings today", if there are several and you aren't referring to any specific set. However, if you are referring to a specific set, then "going to the Standards Committee meetings" would be right, or you could omit "the", if only attending some of them. StuRat (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I see the point you are making, but "negotiation" has been used in the singular "without determiner" according to the OED since 1614. Dbfirs 23:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

German Africa Prize

I'm about to start creating a draft article about the "German Africa Prize". The article at de:WP uses three different spellings: "Deutscher Afrika-Preis", "Deutschen Afrika-Preis" and "Deutsche Afrika-Preis". It looks like that article needs to be fixed, but which spelling is correct? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

They are all correct, they're just in different grammatical cases. For use in an English article use the form "Deutscher Afrika-Preis". --Wrongfilter (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually you're right, the German article needs fixing... --Wrongfilter (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Wrongfilter, I might be back later to get the translation checked, but not today, it's bedtime for me. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi again Wrongfilter (or anyone else fluent in German) please check my draft for translation errors: Draft:German Africa Prize, German WP source article. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

October 22

Are native Arabic speakers required to also know Quranic Arabic?

As far as I know, Arabic-speaking people may either speak in their regional dialect to communicate with locals or Modern Standard Arabic to communicate by writing and formal speeches, even though Quranic Arabic is regarded as the superior form of Arabic. So, does this mean that all native-Arabic-speaking people must also learn Quranic Arabic through study of the Quran? Do Arabic speakers use Quranic Arabic in otherwise conversational dialogue like how Japanese and Chinese may use four-character idioms in normal, everyday speech so some understanding of Quranic Arabic and the history are necessary to get the meaning? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 03:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what "required" is supposed to mean in this context, but Muslims certainly need to know Qur'anic Arabic to read and fully understand the Qur'an, while those who want to develop Arabic-language literacy need to know some Modern Standard Arabic (which is similar to the language of the Qur'an, but not really the same). AnonMoos (talk) 03:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

P.S. using colloquial vernacular Arabic together with MSA is what some linguists would call "level-mixing". It probably should be included in the Stylistics article, but that seems to be almost purely about literary criticism. It's briefly alluded to in the Code-mixing article... AnonMoos (talk) 03:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

By "required", I mean certain phrases from bygone times are inserted into colloquial dialogue. In the Chinese language, most educated Chinese speakers use four-character idiomatic expressions that may be extracted from Classical Chinese texts. I think English speakers do the same thing with Shakespeare and the King James Bible. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 03:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Off topic.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Some points: 1) While a high percentage of Arabs are Muslims, not all are. 2) Most Muslims are not Arabs, living in nations like Iran, India, Pakistan, and Indonesia, so may not speak Arabic at all. 3) From the crazy portrayals of the writings in the Quran by ISIS and others, I get the impression that those followers must not actually read the Quran themselves, but just rely on the (mis)interpretations of others. I am reminded of the medieval period where the Catholic Church "interpreted" the Bible to say whatever was in their interest, such as supporting the Crusades and the selling of indulgences, and rigorously opposed it being written in common languages. Hopefully most Muslim leaders don't oppose this, but I suspect that ISIS does. StuRat (talk) 04:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC) We have a Bible translations in the Middle Ages article, which is not perfect, but better than "StuRat's Impressions Desk". Adam Bishop (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2017 (UTC) You shouldn't attack other editors in front of the OP. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC) Yes, and the link supports my contention that common language versions of the Bible were rare then. Meanwhile, we are drifting farther from the OP with such discussions, so I will box it up. Adam, if you really want to discuss all the aspects of the availability of Bibles in common language in the Middle Ages, then open a new Q. StuRat (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC) It does not support your contention at all; no one cares about your contentions; your contentions are irrelevant. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC) As are your personal attacks. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

In the UK, where many British Muslims have a South Asian heritage; "Muslim children who attend community or church schools typically also attend mosque schools or other supplementary schools outside normal school hours in order to receive education in Islamic beliefs and practices... Many Muslim parents would appreciate the option for their children to study Arabic in school, and also for them to receive a form of Religious Education that gave them more opportunities to enrich their understanding of their own faith as well as studying others" (British Muslims and Education p. 105). Anecdotally, at least some of my Scouts who are Muslims attend after-school classes which include studying Arabic, but it seems to be at a most rudimentary level. Alansplodge (talk) 09:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

In some traditions of Madrasa study, the largest part of elementary education is taken up by mechanical recitation of Qur'an verses, sometimes without much concern with whether or not the boys understand very well what they're reciting. But 50.4.236.254 made it clear that he was asking about native Arabic-speakers. AnonMoos (talk) 23:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• Everyone here seems to be making the same mistake: The OP never mentioned practitioners of Islam, and yet every answer seems to be discussing why Muslims may learn Quranic Arabic. The OP merely asked about Arabic speakers; most Muslims are not native speakers of modern Arabic. --Jayron32 16:14, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Non Muslim Arabs, (e.g. Chaldeans, Copts, Maronites and Syrian Orthodox Christians etc., would probably object to learning the Qu'ran. 92.8.218.38 (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

meaning of "great straits"?

I am translating the article Paionia from en:wp to da:wp, but in the article Audoleon it says: In a war with the Illyrian tribe Autariatae he was reduced to great straits, but was succoured by Cassander. What is the meaning of "great straits"? IvarT (talk) 12:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Impoverished situation "straightened circumstances". 82.14.24.95 (talk) 12:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

That is "straitened circumstances" - beware of muddling straight and strait. Wymspen (talk) 14:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Often the phrase is "dire straits" but either way, it means a bad situation, almost hopeless. See, [8]. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, this was very helpfull.IvarT (talk) 14:19, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@IvarT: Just be aware, since both forms appear above, that "strait" comes through French for strict, while "straight" is from the Old English past participle stretched -- the two are not closely related or interchangeable. μηδείς (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Use of "that"

In a recent post here, I wrote "I'd say we don't need to consider the singular form here to make it specific". Question: Could I add "... since it will also stay that with the plural" here (with "that" referring to "specific")?--Cleph (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

It's not wrong, but I'd find it confusing to read. I'd prefer to repeat the word "specific". --69.159.60.147 (talk) 18:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

It is wrong. The proper word would be an adverb, either so or thus. "That" is a pronoun or a conjunction, and entirely incorrect (not to be too harsh on @Cleph:). μηδείς (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

that way may be a viable alternative, too. --31.154.101.236 (talk) 06:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, or "like that". I was trying to avoided periphrasis and give the OP the acceptable single-word alternatives rather than phrases. The periphrastic forms "that way / like that" are definitely more common than thus or so in colloquial speech. μηδείς (talk) 14:35, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

German inversion = English inversion?

Lately, on German television, I heard the phrase "Mit diesem Mann musste ich unbedingt reden" and wondered whether the inversion could be copied in an English translation (e. g. "this man I had to talk to"). However, Google didn't show any corresponding results. Is there a way to give a most faithful possible translation [← is that a correct expression of superlative?] reproducing the inversion?--Cleph (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there are contexts in which "this man I had to talk to" would be appropriate usage in English, though some pedants might consider it marginally informal. We would say "the most faithful possible translation". Dbfirs 15:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• See verb-second which applied historically as much in English as German given their common roots. "Mit diesem Mann" counts as a single element, hence the verb comes as the second element. μηδείς (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

It is a pretty standard word order in the original German, so using a non-standard construction in English would convey the wrong impression. I would simply translate it as: "I absolutely had to talk to this man". --Xuxl (talk) 21:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

That won't work in a sentence like this: "this man I had to talk to crossed the road and walked around the corner". Akld guy (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

That's not the same case, Akld. In the German, the inversion is one of emphasis, and "I/ich" is still the subject. In your case, the man you had to talk to is the subject. So the example given is OVS while your example is still a type of SVO. μηδείς (talk)

As far as conveying impressions, as always, translation would depend on context (i.e. who is speaking these lines and in what situation). This construction is a form of topic-comment, see examples at topicalization. It is common in some situations and is prevalent in a few English subcultures; notably, it is a feature of stereotypical Ashkenazi "Jewish English" and yeshivish. (WP:OR): I heard this construction a lot in the tri-state area. So a "faithful" translation will depend on context on a case-by-case basis.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 22:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Above, Dbfirs: there are contexts in which "this man I had to talk to" would be appropriate usage in English, though some pedants might consider it marginally informal. Hello, (part-time) pedant speaking. Yes, it sounds informal to me. A question arises: Is the relative clause integral ("defining") or supplementary ("non-defining")? If integral, then why also "this"? If supplementary, then we'd instead expect ", who(m) I had to talk to," or similar. I'd say it's unlikely to be supplementary and is instead integral -- and then the "this" doesn't sound at all superfluous. That's because "this" here doesn't have its core use (definite + proximal). Instead, it sounds likely to have its use (seen in anecdotes) of specific (and not necessarily definite) + proximal. ("So I'm sitting in the train, reading Bulwer-Lytton and minding my own business, when suddenly this bloke I've never seen before comes up" etc etc.). And this use of "this" is informal. -- Hoary (talk) 01:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, the usage you quote is very informal and not the usage I had in mind. One might imagine Zacchaeus, on hearing about Jesus, exclaiming "This man I have to see!". This inversion I would use. (My mention of pedantry was in relation to the rule from Latin "Never use a preposition to end a sentence with" which I follow only in (rare) extreme pedantry mode.) Dbfirs 06:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you all very much so far! @WilliamThweatt: Assuming we want to find a more or less universally applicable standard English equivalent, i. e. not too "subcultural" as within your examples, would there be an alternative to reproduce the emphasis?--Cleph (talk) 12:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

With this man, I've absolutely had to reason with. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

... with double "with"? This repetition I've no time for! Dbfirs 11:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

My apologies, it was a hasty oversight. Plasmic Physics (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Al-Tabari

Following our article, I corrected the writer's full name in Muawiyah I to Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī. Another editor has changed "Jarir" to "Jabir". The name is also given in Arabic, but I don't speak Arabic. Who is correct? 84.9.194.88 (talk) 18:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Jarir is correct. Omidinist (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Special term for opposite vertexes of a cube

We know about the terms "cater corner", "catty corner", and "kitty corner". Each of these is an acceptable way of saying "diagonally opposite". ("Caddy corner" is incorrect unless you have someone holding golf clubs in the corner.)

But the term implies the number 4. Suppose we were to think of 3 dimensions; we need a similar term that derives from the number 8 attached to the word corner. What would this be?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I've never heard any of those terms used here in the UK, but apparently they used to be common in certain British dialects. Why can the same term not be used for a cube? The corner would be the opposite corner of the square formed by diagonals of faces of the cube. I would also question any necessary connection with French quatre. The origin of cater is more probably the verb to catre going back at least to 1577 and meaning "To place or set rhomboidally; to cut, move, go, etc., diagonally" according to the OED, so it could equally mean the opposite corner of a cuboid or even a parallelepiped. Dbfirs 19:16, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Not a cube, but for a hexagon, we have the terms "ortho", "meta", and "para", used in chemistry, since hexagons come up quite often there. In this case, "para" is the opposite vertex. StuRat (talk) 22:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

See also Space diagonal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

(ec) When studying symmetry for chemistry or crystallography, we would describe these as vertices on the Body diagonal. Opposite corners of a face of a cube would be vertices on the Face diagonal.--Wikimedes (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

The term catty-corner exists because it's a convenience for describing things. Like if I'm on the southwest corner of an intersection, I might describe a building on the northeast corner as catty-corner to where I am. Can the OP think of a common situation where a term would be needed to describe something that's across the diagonal and at a 45 degree angle upward? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

2014 National Security Agency illegal seizure

Request: Can someone please do a search of the Korean Internet to see if there are any references or awareness of this even? Trying to make the article more complete. Muzzleflash (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:REX may be helpful for you too. --Jayron32 11:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

October 23

Operatic soprano

For the Wikidata item d:Q5681011 label, which is the correct order of the adjectives: "lyric dramatic soprano" or "dramatic lyric soprano"? -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there can be a definitive answer to this, beyond some rough and ready frequency data. Google searches for me produce about 26,000 hits for the former, and just over 1000 for the latter. Henry^Flower 10:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

When typing the provisional Wikidata item label in English, I thought along the lines of [ADJ +] lyric soprano (227K ghits) vs. [ADJ +] dramatic soprano (166K ghits). Also, the Google search field for "dramatic" also suggested it modifying "mezzo soprano", "coloratura soprano", and the "lyric soprano" of my query. Other than consulting a academic music library for a lookup in a Groves-type lexicon, I'll leave this stet for now. -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Jumble

I hope all understand what I mean by this interesting word game. Can someone be kind enough to tell me where one can find them on the net. 125.62.118.108 (talk) 09:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Here. --Jayron'h32 11:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Jayron. Of course I already have been thru all such Google-findable sites before putting it on the RF. Alas they have nothing much to offer a fan! What I was expecting was some unique discovery by some relentless surfer like you. If possible please ask someone else who may by chance know of some good site by accidentally come across it while surfing. You know, as in other fields, sometimes excellent sites etc. remain undiscovered by bots etc of Google.

What are you looking for ? Very long words ? Obscure words ? Something else ? StuRat (talk) 23:29, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I recall a puzzle which used to appear in newspapers, called "Jumble: That scrambled word game" or something like that. I assume that's what the OP is talking about, but I'm not aware of a source for those games or if they are still produced. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Jumble still appears in the Denver Post daily. Here is the link to their online version. MarnetteD|Talk 02:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Right, but the OP is apparently looking for some specific variation on that word scramble game which they can't find. We need more info to know which version they want. StuRat (talk) 03:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe, but since that's the OP's only edit in the last 13 months, we may have to wait a while to find out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:14, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

October 24

Cuneiform

(Re-posting question from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2017 March 11, hoping for one last chance to get it answered before the RD closes for good.)

Can somebody help me identify the characters on this tablet?

The left column looks like A AB BI A2 ALEPH U I, and the top of the middle column like AL MA GAR; but the rest of the characters are too difficult for me to match against the list of cuneiform signs.

According to the image description page, the sculpture is from the 1870s, and the success in decyphering cuneiform was in recent news at that time: Sir Henry Rawlinson was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in February 1850 on account of being "The Discoverer of the key to the Ancient Persian, Babylonian, and Assyrian Inscriptions in the Cuneiform character." The sculptor, Thomas Nicholls, and the architect, William Burges, probably couldn't read cuneiform (or other ancient languages) themselves; I presume the sculptor had copied a sample of cuneiform from some reference, same as he copied the Aramaic alphabet. (The sculpture in question is part of a group of five.) --132.67.171.83 (talk) 09:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Our list may not be that useful; you'd probably have to consult a publication from around that time, such as Carl Faulmann's Buch der Schrift. His list starts on page 69. There, "it, id eine" (about the 18th character on page 70, left row) seems a much better fit for the fourth character in the left column, which was presumably what you identified as "BI" (third character in your question). — Sebastian 12:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Turris Babel ædificationis adhortatio linguis sex

Athanasius Kircher adorns an illustration of the Tower of Babel with six banderoles containing the exhortation Gen 11:4. On each of these, there is small writing that might refer to the language, but unfortunately, is undecipherable due to the low resolution. What are the six languages? Obviously, there's Latin and Greek, and one of the two square scripts must be Hebrew. One appears to be Arabic, but then there's another script of Aramaic descendance that looks similar to Syriac, maybe Serṭā, but contains some distinctive letters that have no correspondence there, above all the Z turned right 45°, which I can't construct as a ligature, either. Is that used for Aramaic, or is the other square script used for that language?

Bonus question: If anyone here can write Akkadian cuneiform, it would be really cool to add that to the list. There's room to the lower left; I'm sure the venerable Master of a Hundred Arts would appreciate it. — Sebastian 10:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

You can view a high resolution scan at the Internet Archive here. In fact, maybe we should replace the commons image with a higher res version. - Lindert (talk) 11:11, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Wonderful! Now I can read the small writing with ease. It says in order:

1. T. Latinus
2. T. Græcus
3. T. Syriacus
4. Text. Hebræg [sic!]
5. T. Arabicus
6. T. Chaldai[cus]

That answers my main question. As for the cuneiform, the lack of replies to the previous question suggests that I may have to give up that hope. — Sebastian 11:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The second Hebrew script, incidentally, is the Targum (specifically Targum Onkelos). הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 14:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Verb forms for people using singular "they" pronoun

Over at Candace Gingrich there's a disagreement over whether people who chose the singular "they" pronouns for themselves and what verb forms are to be used in sentences where the pronoun is not present' it it "Pat is a lawyer" or "Pat are a lawyer"? --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

"Everyone loves his or her mother" is obviously the correct form, but it's commonplace to reduce the construction to "their". There is no such excuse with the OP's example: "Pat are a lawyer" is wrong. 92.27.49.50 (talk) 14:08, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The article now reads "Candace Gingrich were born..." and "Although Gingrich's sexual orientation were ..." Whatever gender she claims to be there is only one of her. Someone please change it back. 92.27.49.50 (talk) 14:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I see what the problem is. There is a sentence which now reads: "They served as the Human Rights Campaign's National Coming Out Project Spokesperson for 1995 and were named one of Esquire's "Women We Love" and "Women of the Year" for Ms. magazine." If you accept that a woman can be described as "they" that construction is correct, because the plural pronoun requires a plural verb. As explained above, that does not imply that there are two of her. 92.27.49.50 (talk) 14:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I've been trying to change it back; there's only been one other editor, the one pushing the "Candace are" usage, so I've come here to get the input needed to end the edit war. I have no problem with that last sentence you cited; it's those previous two. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, and to justify themselves they claimed the construction was subjunctive - which is nonsense. 92.27.49.50 (talk) 14:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)