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.

December 5

the meaning of tortoise's strategy

Would you please let me know the meaning of 'tortoise's strategy' in the following passage.

A number of my new colleagues had built reputations for themselves before entering the Commons, and were widely expected to gain early promotion. Others chose the tortoise's strategy, and set out painstakingly to learn the way Parliament worked.---John Major, The Autobiography, p.67.

2400:4136:957E:8C00:24EE:9D10:9A25:357F (talk) 02:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)dengen[reply]

See The Tortoise and the Hare. --Trovatore (talk) 03:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Often quoted as "Slow and steady wins the race"... AnonMoos (talk) 06:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glottal stops in Aussie English (continued)

Continuing on from November 27#Glottal stops in Aussie English, it seems others share my surprise on this point.

See here (ABC News, 5 December 2017): My pet pronunciation peeve is the mispronunciation of the word "the" in front of a word beginning with a vowel. Many people, and just about all newsreaders, pronounce it as a neutral "thuh" instead of sounding it out as "thee", as in "tea". It's thee apple, not thuh apple. This is precisely the issue I raised on 27 November.

As I said before, this seems to be a relatively recent change, and I'd love to track down what's behind it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond linguistic drift and Phonological change? Language evolution is not mechanistic, really, and changes can not be linked to purpose. Purpose implies either intelligent directing or repeatable causation, and linguistic change is neither. Many linguistic changes just happen; they are often caused by Language contact; we know this in general because more isolated languages are more conservative (i.e. without contact between different bodies of speakers, languages tend to change less). --Jayron 32 13:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Smoking gun source for you, Jack: this paper states " There may be a recent change in progress towards repressing /r/ sandhi as part of a more generalised development affecting the liaison rules that have typically been used for hiatus-breaking of two separate adjacent vowels. Such repression of sandhi involves the substitution of a glottal stop for previously common liaison elements." (bold mine) It then gives IPA transcriptions of examples EXACTLY like the ones you question about. So yes, this IS a noted phenomenon in the literature. The same article notes that the use of the glottal stop is not accepted in Standard Australian English as yet, but it IS a real change that is in the process of happening. --Jayron 32 17:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I must write to my member of parliament to have this awful development arrested before it does incalculable damage to the fabric of our society. Thanks for the excellent confirmatory link, Jayron. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to the classic "Dates in the Month of May that Are of Interest to Linguists", on "May 7, 1966. r-less pronunciation is observed in eight kindergarten pupils in Secaucus, N.J. The governor of New Jersey stations national guardsmen along the banks of the Hudson."

-- AnonMoos (talk) 04:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The paper does not remark on this, but it appears that a glide is more likely if the second vowel is unstressed - it is very difficult to insert a glottal stop between "the" and "event", for example. 92.8.221.62 (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a excellent point. :) And that brings me to a related development: people who always use the "a" form of the indefinite article, never choosing "an" before a vowel-starting word. This preference for ugly sounds is bewildering. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's my recollection, though I'm not sure where to find a ref, that words in English that start with a stressed vowel actually start with a glottal stop, which is a consonant. We just don't write it down.

So while you might not use a glottal stop in Go to the oven and make me some ever-lovin', you probably do use it in Oven cleaning is the most enjoyable pastime known to man.

It seems to me that it's the removal of the glottal stop after "the" that is the phenomenon that needs explanation. --Trovatore (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand this, Trovatore. Not sure which of the "the"s you're referring to, but I see no case for a glottal stop after either of them. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the second sentence, I'm not talking about "the", but about "Oven" at the start of the sentence. --Trovatore (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm floundering here. How do we get any kind of stop, glottal or otherwise, at the very start of a sentence? The stop surely occurs after the last word of the preceding sentence. Which is not the same place. No? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, [t] is a stop, and I don't think you have any problem using that at the start of a sentence. --Trovatore (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But "Oven" doesn't include a [t]. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, but [t] is a stop, just like [ʔ] is a stop.

What I'm saying is, when you think you're starting a sentence (out of the blue, not connected to a previous sentence) with a vowel, you're actually starting it with a [ʔ]. That is, you start with your glottis closed, and explode the vowel sound out of that. This is so automatic in English that it's hard to notice, because it's not easy to imagine doing it differently. But it is possible to do it differently, and I think (but am not sure) that some languages do. --Trovatore (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

German and Arabic do - in Arabic it's a separate letter and can appear anywhere. In German there should be a glottal stop before a vowel at the beginning of a word (so, "der Adler" for example has one before the A...as far as I remember from the pretty basic German I learned). Adam Bishop (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By "differently" I meant I think there are languages where you can pronounce a vowel as the first phoneme after silence, without using a glottal stop. But in English, you really can't. It feels really weird in your throat even to try. --Trovatore (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all that - I think. Anyway, this had diverged far from the topic. The common spoken currency has always been "theeyoven", "theeyapple", but some people are now choosing to say "thuh oven", "thuh apple". People don't just suddenly introduce discontinuities into the flow of their speech without a very good reason. The trend is very much in the smoothing, gliding direction. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 17:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JackofOz: phrase or sentence initial glottal stop in English is mandatory in the colloquial uh-oh ("oops" or "I see trouble") and in unh-unh ("nope"). Without the glottal stops you'd get a mush of vague vowels. μηδείς (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I don't see how this is relevant to my question. The glottal stop in "the apple" is clearly not sentence-initial. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the point I was making is, it's at least arguable that there's no such thing in English as a word that starts with a vowel. The ones we think start with vowels, actually start with glottal stops. Then the thing that needs to be explained is not why a glottal stop is sometimes interposed, but why it's sometimes dropped.

In any case, as I say, I don't think these glottal stops after "the" are anything new in American English; they've been around a long time. Whether they're a novelty in Oz, you'd know better than I. --Trovatore (talk) 19:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My mention of sentence/phrase initial glottal stops (which are contrastive, since without them uh-oh becomes the skeptical "...ooh" and unh-unh becomes the "enh" of disgust) was in direct response to your statement above: "Again, I'm floundering here. How do we get any kind of stop, glottal or otherwise, at the very start of a sentence?" [-JoO] μηδείς (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I am NOT saying that glottal stops are unknown in Australian English. Far from it. But in the specific instances of (a) the definite article "the" followed by a word that starts with a stressed vowel, and (b) the choice of the indefinite article form "a" rather than "an", where preceding a word that starts with a vowel, we are now getting glottal stops in those places where glottal stops were completely unknown until quite recently. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sauchiehall Street

What does the "Sauchiehall" in Sauchiehall Street mean? DuncanHill (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there something wrong with the explanation in Sauchiehall Street#Name, Duncan? --ColinFine (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) From the article you linked Sauchiehall Street#Name: from Scots sauchie hauch; sauchie meaning "abounding in willows" and hauchmeaning "a low-lying meadow by the side of a river". This likewise says "willow meadow".--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 22:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly Colin, there is something wrong with the explanation, as if there wasn't I would have seen it! Thank you both, DuncanHill (talk) 23:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that willows belong to the genus Salix See wikt:salix#Latin: "From Proto-Indo-European *saləḱ-, *salək- ‎(“willow”‎); Cognate with Middle Irish sail, Welsh helygen, Breton halegen ‎(“willow”‎), Cornish helyk, Old English sealh, English sallow." μηδείς (talk) 02:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see sallow which redirects to willow, although in the UK it is the common name for Salix caprea or other broad-leaved willows. [1] Alansplodge (talk) 08:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In American English sallow is usually only used in higher registers to refer to a yellowish skin color, due to illness in caucasians or a not very complimentary term for people with a different complexion from whites based on ethnicity. Of course deciduous willows have pretty yellow leaves in the fall, not a sickly color or a human skin color at all. μηδείς (talk) 16:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know the word only in that sense in the UK, Medeis. I don't doubt that the meaninmg Alansplodge mentions is found, but I've never heard it (and I have a particular interest in trees). --ColinFine (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, as an Ugly American, can I take it that that means either @ColinFine: or @Alansplodge: roots for Manchester United, but not the both o' yiz? I find it quite interesting that Scots English retains this term, and it shows how utterly vital the Anglic languages are to the reconstruction of proto-Germanic and PIE. Given that *saləḱ- does not fit the canonical C(R)e(R)C- root form of PIE, It is curious whether this is not an Old European word like dog and carrock. μηδείς (talk) 02:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erm no, Leyton Orient actually. Although salix caprea is quite a common hedgerow tree here in the southeast of England, the everyday term here is "pussy willow" as the catkins at springtime resemble the tip of a cat's tail. However, when teaching tree identification to Scouts, the term "pussy" has less salubrious connotations and is best avoided when talking to teenaged boys, so "sallow" it is. The term "goat willow" is also in the books but I've never heard anybody use it, it may be a regional thing. My Field Guide to the Trees of Britain and Northern Europe by Alan Mitchell does not make the "great sallow" and "common sallow" (salix cinerea) distinction quoted in the link I originally posted, but I'd be hard pushed to distinguish the two anyway. Alansplodge (talk) 09:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had to read Medeis' comment three times before I even understood what she was trying to say (misled by "roots" in a discussion about trees), and even now that I've parsed it, I've no idea what she's trying to say. I'm not interested in football. --ColinFine (talk) 14:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly somewhat confused, but as far as I can tell, the use of "sallow" to describe a tree species is not any more common in Scotland than in England - which seems to be not very much. Alansplodge (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, The Ugly American is a classic of English literature, and I have witnessed it myself. Americans are loud and provincial and think foreign languages are to be spoken slowly, loudly, with a lot of gesturing, and vowels appended to the end of English words, as in "POR FAVOR, EL TEEVEEO NO WORKO". (Basil Fawlty was American on both sides.) I was kidding that Colin and Alan must live in two different cities, not both being intimate with the term Sallow. Since the only options are London and Manchester, the soccer alignment follows naturally in an American's mind. And we call it pussy willow without shame, although the term is a bit salicious. μηδείς (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Surely "pussy" is now well accepted, having an unimpeachable presidential imprimatur. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One does not use the term unimpeachable P in polite company. μηδείς (talk) 01:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 7

as respects instead of as regards?

Does "as respects" for "as regards" or "with regard to" fall in the area of educated usage or is it just corruption based on the similarity of meaning of both words? --2405:204:D30E:1582:C91D:BF50:A940:60F4 (talk) 10:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are many ways of getting the idea across. "Considering" would do just as well. 92.27.49.50 (talk) 10:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A reasonable guide to educated usage is a google books search. Henry ^Flower 11:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"As regards, a much maligned phrase, is sometimes inferior to regarding or concerning, but is not a solecism". Garner's Dictionary of Legal Usage (p. 84), Bryan A. Garner. Alansplodge (talk) 11:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note the dictum of Fuller C J in that explanation. Lawyers and business people would probably use the one word "Re..." 92.27.49.50 (talk) 11:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where have you seen "as respects"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here: http://niyamasabha.org/bills/13kla/published/370-pub-eng.pdf --2405:204:D302:7045:30D3:EDA2:6460:7388 (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google search also throws up:

So it seems to have a distinguished pedigree, if now somewhat frowned upon. Alansplodge (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What it seems to be is obsolete. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but this book dates from 2010, one of many more recent examples, although mostly in legal, academic or scientific contexts. Alansplodge (talk) 10:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"As regards" and "as respects" simply seem to be headlinese versions of the impersonal "as it regards/respects" phrase, which itself uses a dummy "it" due to the preference of English for nominal subject phrases. Not really a serious issue. μηδείς (talk) 02:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you add a dummy "it" also to "as follows"? Not sure. When a dummy "it" is needed, it's actually added, e.g. in "as it stands", "as it happens", and so forth. HOTmag (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The word re as lawyers use it comes from the ablative case of the Latin noun res, "re" (as in in re) meaning "thing". The French word rien comes from this, as well as res publica; Republic" -- "Thing of the People". So there has been a folk etymoligization of re where it is interpreted itself to mean "regarding" or "respecting" whereas in the Latin phrase in re literally means "in (the) matter (of)". -- 01:47, 8 December 2017 Medeis

I was told in my first job that "re" was short for "reference", i.e "with reference to", but a quick Google shows that you are absolutely correct. Alansplodge (talk) 10:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 8

Items in a list

In a list of items, such as a bulleted list of beliefs, or a list of expected behaviour of individuals (the actual content doesn't matter), what is the optimal list size for ensuring maximum impact? I'm particularly interested in lists that are displayed on posters. I vaguely remember reading years ago that it's six, as it has no middle entry to concentrate on visually, and is short enough to recall; but some definitive references from some experts would be appreciated. I've tried to Google this, but without great success. Bazza (talk) 11:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two. 82.13.208.70 (talk) 11:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Answer Is Four.

μηδείς (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but who is Number Two? Akld guy (talk) 02:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicle registration plates of Tunisia

What is the sign over "sin"? Is it "sukun"? Why is it there?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 13:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you seeing "sin" in that article? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, you do realize that he's talking about the Arabic letter? It's like asking why is there an acute over the iota in my signature, even though my screen name is not iota. μηδείς (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I forget sometimes that I'm on the English Wikipedia. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine what else it would be other than a sukun, even though it is surely unnecessary there. If you click through the "World License Plates" site on that article, there is one example with no squiggle over the sin. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I just wanted to be sure. Can it be a shorthand for "-iyyah"? If it is the "sukun" (I'm sure it is), then they must have written it to avoid confusion, like on the plates of Oman they write "dammah" to avoid confusion with Amman. But I see no word with which it can be confused (except for the verb "to make Tunisian", but unlikely people may think about this verb when they see a vehicle plate).--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 11:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While it does indeed look like a sukun, it may be something else entirely; cf. a similar diacritic over the sin in an older Tunisian banknote, in the word tūnisī, where a sukun wouldn't at all be appropriate. Even earlier banknotes had (among many other redundant diacritics) a diacritic over the sin of tūnisī which was identical in shape to the one used in the license plates, but couldn't possibly be sukun (as a totally different-looking sukun is used both in bank and in markazī). --194.213.3.4 (talk) 07:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of further research suggests that this diacritic is most likely an ‘alāmatu-l-ihmāl, indicating that the sin is indeed a sin, and not a shin whose writer forgot to dot it. See [2], and a Google Book linked there, for further info. One more reference for these ‘alāmāt is p. 57 here. Please feel encouraged to extend Arabic diacritics#I‘jām (phonetic distinctions of consonants) with a description of ‘alāmātu-l-ihmāl, citing these references. --194.213.3.4 (talk) 08:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, you've been a great help, I'll add this to the article later.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 12:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone really be confused between "Tunis" and "Tunish"? Is it meant to be strictly ornamental, rather than a proper diacritical mark? Adam Bishop (talk) 13:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's as ornamental as the diaeresis in België is; no one would confuse it with *Belgie, but it's the official spelling of the country's name. --132.67.169.222 (talk) 14:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Любослов Езыкин: What's the verb for "to make Tunisian"? Is it a Form II-style verb from a root t-n-s? In that case neither its citation form تنس "he Tunisianized" nor any of its conjugated forms would be homographous with تونس, the country's name. --Theurgist (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The verb is tawnasa, so the root must be t-w-n-s (see Wehr's dictionary).--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 9

"This is not something [what / which / that] I would say [about] I am proud of" (once more...)

I'm very sorry for bothering but I still can't stop thinking about that one: The version without the bracketed elements is, of course, totally clear to me, but the other one, unfortunately, still is not... As both prepositions, "about" and "of", refer to different (!) antecedents ("say about what", "proud of something"), I don't see how, in grammatical (!) terms, you could possibly leave out "of" in this case when using "about", as "of" belongs to "proud" ("proud of sth") and "about" to "say" ("to say sth about sth") – even though this has been advocated by several users before. I didn't manage to link the section as such because of the square brackets in the heading... If anybody knows a trick to link more properly, please feel free to do so! Now, I know my sentence is only idiomatic without the bracketed words, but I wanted to settle this issue only with regard to grammar. Best regards--Herfrid (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To "say" and "say about" are two different verbs!

Q1 What did he say? A1 (He said,) "I hated dinner."

Q2 What did he say about dinner? A2 (He said) that he hated it.

You are equivocating by not distinguishing between these senses of direct speech and indirect speech and trying to cram both into one sentence, when the two senses govern different responses. The confusion arises because in many cases words that are understood by natives in context like those in parentheses above are left out. But He said, "that he hated it." is simply impossible in English grammar.

Forget the "about". It makes no sense in any of the combos, either in colloquial or formal English. "This is not something [what / which / that] I would say about I am proud of" is completely wrong, so drop it. "what" is also wrong. "which" is somewhat archaic, but is often found only among British English speakers, not elsewhere. So we're left with "This is not something that I would say I am proud of". That's a colloquial construction, and would be found in typical informal speech anywhere in the English speaking world, and you wouldn't get pulled up by the grammar police for saying it. It is not a proper formal construction. That would be "This is not something of which I would say that I'm proud.", but it sounds clunky in spoken English. Your choice of the two, depending on the context. Akld guy (talk) 02:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, to my (British) ears "which" does not sound the least bit archaic; and some British varieties would use "what" there. Conversely, I would regard "something of which I would say that I'm proud" as very formal and stilted, and would not be at all surprised to hear "something [that] I am proud of" in a moderately formal speech. But I agree that the "about" cannot accompany the "of": it's one or the other. --ColinFine (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To follow up on Akld guy's comment, if you insist on having both prepositions in the sentence, you could write "This is not something about which I would say: I am proud of it." But that involves introducing explicit direct speech (and is arguably two sentences rather than one). Tevildo (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tevildo, that sentence as written is improper. To avoid ambiguity I will use italics rather than imbedded single and double quotes. It should read: This is not something about which I would say, "I am proud of it." μηδείς (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Colon (punctuation)#Segmental. I agree that quotation marks are generally preferable, but it is a legitimate usage. Tevildo (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You do, of course, need quotation marks to embed the direct speech. "This is not something I would say 'I am proud of it' about." Tevildo (talk) 22:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the constructions of μηδείς and Tevildo, although both go beyond the question as posed. Akld guy (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tevildo's first punctuation is not analogous with the example given at the segmental link: "Benjamin Franklin proclaimed the virtue of frugality: A penny saved is a penny earned."

It is analogous with "Benjamin Franklin proclaimed: A penny saved is a penny earned."

The quote marks are displaced in his example given that the aphorism is in apposition to the virtue of frugality in the first version, and the object of a verb, proclaimed (i.e., said) in the second.

The proper usage after a declaratory verb is "Benjamin Franklin proclaimed, "A penny saved is a penny earned." Perhaps the usage of the colon after a verb is acceptable, I might use it, but the example at the link is the invention of the author of The King's English. μηδείς (talk) 02:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis, we solve all these problems by observing the rule of nesting single quotes in double quotes (or vice versa). Thus

"Benjamin Franklin proclaimed, 'A penny saved is a penny earned.'"

(if those were his actual words). The Wiki mark-up handles it without difficulty. 82.13.208.70 (talk) 11:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 10

types of literacy

I vaguely recall there were terms for different types of literacy depending on its prevalence in society - 1-2%, <10%, <100%, something like "priesthood literacy", "artisan literacy" etc but can't find anything. Does someone by chance know what I mean 78.53.108.232 (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The work you want is Ancient Literacy by William V. Harris. He talks about “mass literacy,” “scribal literacy,” and “craftsman's literacy.” Wymspen (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

that's it, thanks! 78.53.108.232 (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Part of it is viewable on Google Books here (scroll down to "Contents"). Alansplodge (talk) 11:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 11

What is it called when a character has multiple readings depending on context?

Take this sign. + It can be read as “plus” and “and”. & can be read as “ampersand” and “and”. / can be read as “slash” and “divide by” and “or”. What is this called? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Homograph. You may also find Number sign useful. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I previously thought it was “polyphone”. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 16:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Polyphony seems to be a music term. It's not at all unusual for entities to have multiple names. If you look at a green-yellow-red thing at a roadway intersection, is that a traffic signal or a stop light? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, that’s different. You’re using two entirely different terms with different spellings. The concept of homograph is the exact same word/character with different pronunciation based on context. Sow is a homograph. Minute is another. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 18:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All I see above is the use-mention distinction. The name of the symbol & is "ampersand" in English and in German it can be pronounced as if it were spelt you-enn-dee. μηδείς (talk)

How does one translate these sentences into Spanish?

I do not like the cold.
The cold does not please me.
I hate the cold.
I avoid the cold.
The cold disagrees with me.
The cold avoids me.
I am afraid of the cold.
I protect myself from the cold.

140.254.70.33 (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No se enseña el español en Ohio State? μηδείς (talk) 19:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The main point is to see whether unusual sentence formations still mean something in Spanish. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You'll know of course that the first two sentences will normally come across with gustar as identical, although one could use amar and placer, especially if one wanted to get across to a Spanish speaker how we express those senses in English. I am not sure what you mean in English (I am a native English speaker) by "the cold avoids me." So I will not offer a translation. All the rest have pretty basic idiomatic translations.

The only one that seems at all problematic is "The cold disgrees with me" which one might translate as Para mí, el frío es desagradable. But I would go with "No me encanta el frío," which sounds more natural, and which is obvious enough in its meaning, even though it is very much a matter of translator's license. μηδείς (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime I plugged those sentences into Google Translate and they all come up fine except for the two I pointed out:

El frío no está de acuerdo conmigo literally means "The cold is not in agreement with me" -- so wrong idiomatically; and

El frío me evita. is perfectly grammatical, but makes no more sense than it would in English.

The rest is all Greek 101. μηδείς (talk) 02:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and what you have called unusual sentence formations are formally called idiomatic expressions. They sometimes do translate across language boundaries, but in most cases cannot be translated literally unless the languages are closely related or in heavy contact. μηδείς (talk) 02:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How? By using your brain and a dictionary or an automatic translator.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 21:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it isn't Google Translate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Google Translate is one of the best automatic translators around. mg SH 22:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tell that to the complainants on the ref desk talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "complainants on the ref desk talk page" never said Google Translate wasn't one of the best automatic translators around, they merely said that blindly punching something into it, when you don't understand the source or target language is not sufficient for a reference desk. Pointing out that Google Translate exists is fine too, but, for pure translations of text, it should only be applied here at the language desk if the respondent actually understands both languages and is able to correct the errors Google Translate might make without recognizing them. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Bishop, who initiated the complaint, called Google Translate "useless". Do you disagree with that assessment? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you gave me text in Swahili and asked me, a non-Swahili speaker, to translate it into English and I plugged it into Google Translate and I gave you whatever it churned out, then yes, that would be useless. Machine translations have to be tempered by the judgment of someone who knows a sufficient amount of both source and target languages. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Wrong. Adam Bishop said that "someone used [Google Translate] for the question about the Catalan poem, with equally useless results". I do agree with that assessment. Moreover, the complaint is not new. I myself initiated the exact same complaint/suggestion over six years ago. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop's opening comment was "Can we formally establish a rule that says Google Translate should not be used as a source for translations on the Language Desk?" By implication, questioners here should not be directed to Google Translate, nor any other automated translations, given the assertion that Google Translate is "one of the best". If the "best" is useless, then it's all useless. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've used Google Translate for translations between English, Spanish, French, and Italian, and the translations are always good enough to be useful. It's certainly not on the same level as a human translator proficient in the languages, but I wouldn't call it useless at least for the Romance languages (and English). That said, I would not feel comfortable using it to translate between totally or largely unrelated language families.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 01:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carson Wentz's Knee, fer Gosh Sakes! Now youse guys have made me curse. Listen, you all know my reputation, and I even challenged 140 on his geolocation; but the truth is, if we assume good faith, as clarified, the question does very much make sense in the context of basic/intermediate Spanish. It's a good, if a bit demanding question; the way he posed the question does show that he is at least aware of a real issue. So I answered the "stuck point" part, and IP 140 can ask for clarification or do the rest on his own with assurances that there aren't any other pitfalls he might not suspect. Almost all of those sentences could be solved using google translate, but not all, and it is clear to me that the IP actually figured that out on his own by the specific nature of the examples he chose. So---not in front of the children! μηδείς (talk) 02:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 12