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.

February 22

Mounting a running horse

What is the correct construction: "mount a horse at a run" or "mount a horse at the run" or something else? Ericoides (talk) 05:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with "mount a running horse"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing at all. Ericoides (talk) 08:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Besides Ericoides :

I want to mount my horse at a run but I don't still choose which one"
I'll go to the Kentucky Derby. I want to mount a horse at the run"
Mounting a running horse is dangerous

Anyway the correct locution for a horse competition is "horse racing" not "horse run"--Pierpao (talk) 08:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who said anything about a horse competition? --Viennese Waltz 09:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently no one. Run does not mean competition but "mount a horse at the run" sound similar. Just to help in case Ericoides had made such mistake.--Pierpao (talk) 09:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This,[1] for example, although it's more of a slow trot than a gallop. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Vault-on" seems to be the phrase. Alansplodge (talk) 11:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Part of the problem here is that, although it can certainly be used informally, horses generally are not said to "run" - they walk, canter, gallop, etc. See horse gait for details (though the word 'run' or 'running' is sometimes used to describe the more formal terms). The result is ambiguity - is the person running? The horse? Is 'the run' meant as a synonym for 'the race' (as above)? Matt Deres (talk) 13:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's helpful. You're right. "Run" is the issue. "Race" was a red herring. Ericoides (talk) 14:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has mentioned the more likely meaning of running up to a stationary horse and leaping onto it. After all, it's nearly impossible to mount a horse that is running past. Akld guy (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, also helpful. Thanks. Ericoides (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article, Equestrian vaulting, the video clip attached to the article shows a woman doing the "nearly impossible". The section headed Competition movements describes "Vault On": "The vault-on leads to the frontways seat on the horse. After jumping on both feet, the right leg swings up immediately, as high as possible, lifting the pelvis higher than the head, while the left leg remains stretched down. The shoulders and hips are parallel to the shoulder axis of the horse. When the pelvis is at the highest possible point, the vaulter lowers the stretched right leg and lands softly, erect and centred in the seat astride with the upper body vertical". Alansplodge (talk) 13:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He speaks no French/He doesn't speak French.

Are both sentences equivalent? Does one imply a higher degree or a different perspective?--Hofhof (talk) 13:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say they're basically equivalent. I might read the second one as allowing that he might be able to read or understand spoken French, but is not an adept enough speaker to manage oral communication himself. Matt Deres (talk) 13:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. In Spanish, there is Se habla español and Él habla español. I wonder if Él se habla español means anything or if it’s incorrect. Anyway, I get the impression that “he doesn’t speak French” may mean he may speak other languages, just not French, while “He speaks no French” may suggest that he may know French but doesn’t speak it at that moment or situation. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand se habla español as a passive, "Spanish is spoken" (in a place), rather than attributing the ability to a specific speaker; I'd take él se habla to mean "he talks to himself" whether or not a language is specified. Am I mistaken? —Tamfang (talk) 07:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's either "passive" or "impersonal", I think. In Italian, which has an essentially identical construct, there's a distinction between the si-passivante and the si-impersonale, though I'm a little foggy on exactly where the line is. This page claims that it's passivante when there's a direct object and impersonale otherwise, but then somewhat confusingly gives Qui si parla italiano as an example of impersonale. I would have thought italiano was a direct object in that sentence, but perhaps there is argument on that point. --Trovatore (talk) 08:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have to wonder if we're touching on a subtle regional difference (seeing as we've gotten responses from a Canadian and an Ohioan, and I'm from South Carolina).

Most people I know would say "he doesn't speak French" to describe someone who:

cannot speak or understand French.
can understand but not speak French.
may well be fluent in French but is currently refusing to speak it.

And these can be distinguished simply by tone ("he doesn't speak French," "he doesn't speak French," "he doesn't speak French"). Most native speakers I know wouldn't say "he speaks no French," but if they did, it would describe someone who:

cannot speak or understand French.
can understand but not speak French.

"He speaks no French" would be used to describe someone who might know French but refuses to speak it only with additional clarification ("when he's around his family, he speaks no French") or in a different tense ("he would speak no French," "he spoke no French"). However, I would expect non-native speakers to say "he speaks no French," especially if their first language is a one where where "(he) no speaks French" is correct syntax. "He speaks no French" is just the least amount of work to arrive at workable English.

They're both used to mean that one is incapable of conversing in this article. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is an English nursery rhyme. Jack Sprat could eat no fat, his wife could eat no lean, so betwixt the two of them, they licked the platter clean. Likewise, “he speaks no French” almost follows the same sentence structure. So, the rhyme probably means Jack Sprat doesn’t eat fatty things. But, to be honest, when I made the above post, I understood and explained it in Mandarin. 他不会说法语 = He can’t speak French / He doesn’t know how to speak French. / He is unable to speak French. 他跟他家人说中文，不说法语 = He speaks Chinese, not French, to his relatives. The sentence “He speaks no French” is a bit unusual, so I attempted to translate into Chinese and tried to see what I got. 他说的话不是法语, but that involves interpreting the original as “His speech is not French”, which may imply he may know French but doesn’t speak it at the moment.140.254.70.33 (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re the rhyme: true, but it reflects older forms of English, and poetry gets away with bending syntax to fit poetic forms. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm a bit surprised by others' responses. To me, He speaks no French is somewhat marked in English, and goes considerably farther in denying French competency than does He doesn't speak French.

For example, someone who doesn't speak French might still be able to say parley voo Fransay? or comment tapple twa?, but someone who speaks no French couldn't even do that. --Trovatore (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst agreeing with Trovatore's comments above, I might add that "speaks no French" or "eats no fat" would sound rather archaic in a spoken conversation in my opinion. It reminds me of Richard Carew (d. 1620) who when asking directions of Cornish people was answered "Meea navidna cawzasawzneck", meaning "I can speak no Saxonage", even though they spoke English perfectly well. [2] Alansplodge (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would go along with Trovatore's interpretation. I know a few French phrases (which most any educated English speaker could), so it would be incorrect to say I speak "no" French. But I can't carry on a conversation in French, so "I don't speak French" would be correct. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Technically correct, but we don't speak like that anymore (in London at any rate); it sounds a bit 18th century, as in "but me no buts". I've never heard a vegetarian say "I eat no meat", they usually go for "I don't eat meat". But maybe it's different in the US. Alansplodge (talk) 10:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, same in the US — that's why I said the "no" usage is marked. But if someone did use it, and I were trying to figure out why, I might come up with something like, maybe it's short for "he speaks no French at all". --Trovatore (talk) 10:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harmony is restored. Alansplodge (talk) 13:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Edward Lear:

"He reads, but he cannot speak, Spanish,

He cannot abide ginger beer:

Ere the days of his pilgrimage vanish,

How pleasant to know Mr. Lear!"

Ericoides (talk) 12:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In response to IP 140 above, Él se habla español is improper. It might be understood to mean "he speaks Spanish to himself", but that would be bad grammar, and would literally mean "he speaks himself Spanish." The proper formation for "He speaks Spanish to himself" would be Él habla español a si mismo. μηδείς (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the word qui in Italian means "here". I thought initially that it meant "who" and had difficulty parsing Trovatore's link for that reason. The link is consistent within itself since italiano is the subject, not the object in the sentence. It's all the difference between Aqui se fala português (subject) and Ele fala português (object) in this explanation:

That first sentence looks to be a reflexive construction, e.g. Aqui se fala português (Portuguese spoken here). The second sentence appears to mean "He speaks Spanish". You can't mix the two, giving two objects to the verb, which appears to be both transitive and intransitive (e.g. Ele fala português (intransitive). The third sentence is not possible. Perhaps someone can explain why the masculine (português) is used here, as it appears to be in the Spanish example. Is this not short for Ele fala a lingua portuguesa ("language" being feminine, as it appears to be also in Spanish)? - 92.19.172.194 16:27, 22 February 2018

I don't see any difference between this and Si vende villa in periferia, also in Travatore's link, which appears to mean "House for sale in the suburbs".2A00:23C0:7900:FE01:C5BB:685F:979F:9D1F (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 23

"I before e except after c"

There has been correspondence in the London Daily Telegraph over the past week about the application of this rule. It's been pointed out that it only applies when the diphthong is pronounced "ee" (although one woman commented "The rule has always made it difficult for me to remember how to spell my middle name.") The editor did, of course, print her middle name in full - Sheila.

On Tuesday a correspondent wrote:

There are, I believe, just six exceptions to the spelling rule ...

seize, surfeit, forfeit, counterfeit, protein and sheikh.

The fourth example I have only ever seen derived from a compound of the Portuguese verb fazer, "to make", "to do", whose past participle is feito (pronounced fay-too). However, my Chambers' dictionary (or Chambers's dictionary, as it describes itself), derives it from the Old French contrefet. This is the same verb - in modern French its past participle is fait, same as the third person singular, present tense. Chambers derives the second example from the same source - Old French surfait. Who is right here?

I would have added "skein" to the list, but apparently it rhymes with "vein", and also with the only pronunciation I have ever heard of the last word in the list, sheikh. That leads me to believe that the true number of exceptions to the rule is just two, "seize" and "protein". 86.2.21.152 (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's such a non-rule it's hardly worth troubling over, but for a list of exceptions see I before E except after C. - Nunh-huh 20:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can add weird to the list. The rule pretty much works as i before e except after c but with e before i when it sounds like neighbor or weigh, or like stein, and with i before e when the ci sounds like sh as in efficient. Loraof (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The exceptions I learnt as a child were summed up as "Sheila Protein seized the weird weir." Wymspen (talk) 00:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Sheikh" has often been pronounced "sheek", as in "Let me tell you 'bout Ahab the A-rab, the sheek of the burnin' sand..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See wikt:Category:English words not following the I before E except after C rule --Jayron 32 03:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As for the etymology of "counterfeit":-

Merriam-Webster online says: "Middle English countrefet, from Anglo-French cuntrefeit, from past participle of cuntrefere, contrefaire to imitate, from cuntre- + faire to make".
Oxford Dictionaries online says: "Middle English (as a verb): from Anglo-Norman French countrefeter, from Old French contrefait, past participle of contrefaire".
Etymology Online says: "late 13c., from Old French contrefait 'imitated' (Modern French contrefait), past participle of contrefaire 'imitate,' from contre- 'against' (see contra-) + faire 'to make, to do' (from Latin facere 'to make, do', from PIE root *dhe- 'to set, put'). Medieval Latin contrafactio meant 'setting in opposition or contrast'".

Alansplodge (talk) 11:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 24

Does "iT'D Really" have anything to do with a trill consonant?

I have never been able to do a proper Spanish rr trill consonant. Recently I noticed that saying "It'd really" seemed like it had something of a similar effect though, with t followed immediately by d, then backed up by r. Trying to make the same sound in Spanish words seems ... intermittently better than other attempts I've made, I think. Is this anything related or just a delusion? Wnt (talk) 12:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A lightly trilled "r" is formed pretty close to the way the "d" sound is formed. This fact is sometimes satirized when someone will say that some trait peculiar to Brits is "veddy English".[3] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, going from t to d makes it easier to trill the following r (for me at least). Dbfirs 14:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No trace of a trilled "r" at all for this Cockney speaker though. Alansplodge (talk) 15:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right. It's really more about the upper crust. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't normally trill the r either, but I can do, and might if I were speaking with great emphasis. Perhaps it's because I'm much nearer to the Scottish border. Shakespeare probably trilled his "r"s, but speakers of RP generally don't. Dbfirs 17:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In some Spanish textbooks for English speakers, the Scottish "r" is used as a model for the double-r (not the single-r) in Spanish. Also the "ch" of "loch" for the guttural "j" sound. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a little hint that works for me: If I forget how to do a trilled r, I start singing Santa Lucia. Specifically venite all'agile/barchetta mia. For some reason I can do it in barchetta. That revives the muscle memory and then I can do it. --Trovatore (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Amoo

Whereabouts in Africa would the surname Amoo come from? Rojomoke (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

53,000 people named Amoo in Nigeria, 11,000 in Ghana. —Stephen (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) According to It's all in a name - Ghana: "The GA tribe, which originates from the Accra region, speaks a language also known as Ga. These people do not normally use the day-of-the-week naming system. Children generally take their father's surname: commonly Ankrah, Dodoo, Lampitey or Oti. Males are often given the name Nii, while females are often given the name Naa. A second name is sometimes added to show the child's seniority in the family: Nii Aryee (second-born son), Nii Amoo (third-born son)".

Not sure if this is pertinent to surnames though. Alansplodge (talk) 16:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While some Africans have adopted the European concept of the family name, that is not traditional, It is not possible to assume that the second name of an African is a surname or family name in the sense that is used in Europe - not even if it happens to be the father's name as well. Wymspen (talk) 14:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vae! Puto, deus fio

Suetonius, Vespasian 23. "Dear me, I think I'm becoming a god," as it's most commonly translated. Often called Vespasian's last words, and presented out of context as if to make light of emperors' vanity. But this passage is all about Vespasian's sense of humor, it's quoted right next to the Emperor's dick jokes and outwitting of money-grubbers. He was making fun of the portents of his coming death and of emperors' godly ambitions. And Suetonius doesn't present these as his last words. He doesn't mention his last words.

My translation of Suetonius' Caesars says 'When he first felt the onset of his illness he exclaimed "Alas! I think I'm becoming a god."' This only differs in the interjection and punctuation.

A Latin lesson book by my side quotes it as "Vae puto me deum fieri!" Was this from a different historian of antiquity? How many variations of this quote do we have, and how to they differ?

A response to a grammatical question on this topic on Reddit mentions a possibly-more-accurate quote: "There is no answer to this. Personally I think the text is corrupted, and if you look at an apparatus criticus you will see that the manuscripts have variations, some with ut (but no subjunctive). I think it might have originally read at, puto, inquit, deus fio. This "ab, puto/credo" combo is rare but shows up in Ovid in such a configuration, often with incredulity." I don't know if this commentor is a scholar.

-Is the most common translation the "best" one?

-Is "Vae puto deus fio" grammatical?

-Is it a slightly deeper kind of joke, with "Vae puto deus" as the setup, and "fio" as the punchline? My Latin dictionary secondarily defines "puto" as to 'recognize (gods)' so would "vae puto deus" be a pious-sounding 'Oh my, I see the gods' then you throw in "fio" and it's an impious joke? 2601:1C1:8100:900:8CA:15B1:ADFB:DF14 (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about the text, but "Vae puto me deum fieri" displays accusative and infinitive syntax, while "Vae puto deus fio" doesn't make too much sense as a single sentence (as far as I can see) without some conjunction inserted between the second and third words. AnonMoos (talk) 09:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Vae puto me deum fieri!" is "proper" Latin, like saying "I think that I am becoming a god" in English, but surely some modern scholar was horrified at the apparently poor grammar and corrected it. Proper grammar for written texts and the way people actually speak are quite different, in English and in Latin. He's just saying two things, "deus fio, puto", "I'm becoming a god, I think", not speaking with absolutely impeccable grammar. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With two finite verbs without any subordinating conjunction in Latin, you're thinking and you're becoming a god, but you're not thinking that you're becoming a god, according to ordinary rules of grammar interpretation. It's a case of asyndeton, but an ugly ungrammatical kind, not the elegant literary kind covered in our asyndeton article. The simple way to semi-save it is add ut: "Puto ut deus fio" isn't good Latin, but at least it's clear what you're trying to say... AnonMoos (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing with punctuation is "proper" first century Latin. You have to make a guess at the emphasis. Wymspen (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, when I said "my translation of The Caesars" I didn't mean that I had translated it, which I couldn't, I meant 'my copy of the English version.' 2601:1C1:8100:900:8CA:15B1:ADFB:DF14 (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So is puto reflexive, then? (By the way, y'all explanation of the accusative and infinitive leads me to a parallel with "I am become death, etc." Is that the same kind of thing?) 2601:1C1:8100:900:8CA:15B1:ADFB:DF14 (talk) 00:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Latin doesn't have "reflexive" verbs as such. Some of the deponent verbs are "subject-affected passives" which are remnants of the early Indo-European middle voice, and would be translated by reflexive verbs in other languages, but this is expressed by endings, not by accompanying pronouns. The me in "Puto me deum fieri" is present because it means "I think that I am becoming a god". If it was "I think that you are becoming a god", it would be "Puto te deum fieri". And the am in "I am become death" is just the boring old use of "to be" as perfect auxiliary with intransitive verbs in older English ("Christ is risen" etc.), and has nothing to do with infinitives or accusatives. AnonMoos (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tangent alert: Why is he is come so much more archaic-sounding than he is gone? They seem to be entirely parallel. Of course gone can be viewed as an adjective rather than a participle, but a participle is just an adjective that you make from a verb, so I don't know why you can't do the same thing with come. --Trovatore (talk) 06:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because gone is an adjective but come doesn't happen to be. cf Gone Girl. --ColinFine (talk) 11:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not all that convinced. Gone can be used colloquially as a pre-nominal adjective, but it's not exactly natural-sounding in most contexts. --Trovatore (talk) 18:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Word for not lesbian, or not gay man

Does English have a word for all who are not lesbian women? Or, for all who are not gay men? --Hofhof (talk) 23:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the first, perhaps, nonlesbian or non-lesbian.[4] Can't think of one for the second. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC) (e/c) non-gay is a word, apparently [5] but "gay" is sometimes used for men and women. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) The question implies that there is one single definition for lesbian, and one single one for gay, against which the other state of being can be opposed. In fact, those articles show that the terms are contested and contingent. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The word you're looking for is "straight". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only if he or she specifically wants only heterosexuals, but the question for whatever reason stressed "all" others. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's "straight or bi". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which is not an answer, since the OP wanted a single word not a phrase. --Viennese Waltz 08:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see you do better. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Androphile and gynophile seem somewhat useful here, though not for both sexes at once. Also reading [6] I get the feeling that they are now being used for "gay" rather than "gay or bi" or "straight or bi" per sex but I don't know. The language in this area seems harsh on word logic, I mean, properly speaking I'd think you should be able to say a Boy Scout troop is "homosexual" because its members are all the same sex, but that doesn't seem on the table. I was also thinking heterophile, which comes up but not aside homophile, instead isophile, in this source [7] "The defined effects and outcomes of first sexual experiences (whether autophilic, isophilic, or heterophilic) will shape individuals' conceptions of themselves as sexual beings. Autophilic, or masturbation, experiences may become the dominant focus of the individual's sexual behavior. Isophilic, or homosexual, experiences may predominate, and in this case the individual does not transfer his or her sexual appetite and self-conceptions to behaviors that will lead to intercourse with members of the opposite sex, as is the case for heterophilic actors..." [this quote is complete balderdash by the way; from childhood I remember it's all pheromone-driven long before any behavior is relevant] Wnt (talk) 14:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the first question, do you mean all people of all genders and all orientations who do not identify as lesbian? Like, a binary assignment where one side has lesbian women and the other side has gay males, bisexual females, FTM transgenders, and all the other teeming multitudes of human sexual variety? Other than "non-lesbian", no, English doesn't have a single word like that and I doubt any other language does either. Matt Deres (talk) 20:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The word is "people". You can't define "everyone" except "group A" without saying "people not in group A" or something similar. Legacypac (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really, per Trovatore, that's not so nice, and it's illogical. This is the language desk and natural languages have many words with overlapping denotations. E.g. Wnt's suggestion of androphile could mean everyone except for straight males and lesbians. So plenty of such words exist and it's perfectly reasonable to ask if there's one for some specific combination. It's just that the number of terms it would take to cover every possibility gets impractical, so there will necessarily be some cases for which there is not an existing word. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 22:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think people are working way too hard on this one. It's a perfectly valid question, and the answer, as Matt Deres says, is "no". Of course it's hard to give an actual reference, because we're unlikely to find any reliable source that has considered the exact question and given the answer "no". --Trovatore (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heterosexual woman/heterosexual man would seem to work but seems a little stilted to me. RJFJR (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removed an "archive" tag here because we don't box up questions for being answered and this would be a bad time to start. Wnt (talk) 15:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC) [Text of former tag: question either answered or it's a poorly worded question. Legacypac (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)][reply]

Responding to 173.228.123.121's now-deleted post, when the law was being updated in the mid-nineteenth century it was intended that lesbianism would be outlawed in the new Offences Against the Person Act. It never was, because Queen Victoria refused to believe that such a thing was possible.

February 25

Anna-Padna Karina?

I was looking for an audio pronunciation clip of the name "Anna Karenina" and File:Л.Н.Толстой. Анна Каренина. Радиоспектакль МХАТ, 1937.ogg looked promising. It seems to say the name about 4 seconds into the audio. But listening more carefully, it actually seems to say something like "Anna-Padna Karina". What's going on, i.e. what's it actually saying? Thanks. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 08:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's Анна Аркадьевна Каренина (Anna Arkadyevna Karenina), including her patronymic. --194.213.3.4 (talk) 09:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I played the audio again after reading that, and I still can't make out most of the syllables. I guess it's like "skidiz" in French, where all the phonemes from a longer phrase have gotten smushed together. Oh well ;) 173.228.123.121 (talk) 09:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, phonetically it's more like anna-rkadⁱna karenⁱna, illustrating the typical reduction of unstressed syllables. --194.213.3.4 (talk) 11:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

it's also common to slur the first name and the patronymic when addressing someone between peers (though that's not what they're doing in the clip.) Hence, San Sanych instead of Aleksandr Aleksandrovich, Ivan Palych instead of Ivan Pavlovich etc (not talking of diminutives, this is a different phenomenon.) 78.50.151.96 (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising copywriter needing some coaching?

An advertisement in Monday's Daily Telegraph contains the following sentence:

Today, we head along the coast to Caernarfon and join the narrow-gauge Welsh Highland Railway to Porthmadog, where we coach to Portmeirion for a guided tour.

"Coach" functions as a verb when it means "educate". Is the sense in which it is used here completely novel? 86.131.187.242 (talk) 12:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to EO, "coach" as in "to convey in a coach" has been around for 400 years, whereas "coach" as in "tutor" turned up in the mid 19th century.[8] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the OED (from where Etymonline often gets its information) gives the first use of coach as a verb meaning to convey in a coach in 1612, whereas the first recorded use of coach meaning to instruct is by Thackeray in 1848. The OED entry has not yet been updated for the Third Edition, so it's possible that an earlier usage has been found since the Second Edition. Dbfirs 16:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is a rather old-fashioned usage. What really upsets me about that sentence is the use of "where" instead of "from where" or "whence". DuncanHill (talk) 16:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would you prefer the even more archaic encoach? (Sorry, I actually agree with your analysis of the usage.) Dbfirs 16:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't "encoach" mean "to put into, or go onboard, a coach" in the way that "entrain" means "to put into, or go onboard, a train"? DuncanHill (talk) 13:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Winston Churchill, in The Second World War sometimes used the verb "to train" meaning "to convey by train". When he wrote about training troops, he sometimes meant that they were moved by train, rather than undergoing training. Alansplodge (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alansplodge:, could you provide a quotation showing such a usage? I have been unable to find one. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get back to you. Alansplodge (talk) 10:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of etc.

We all know about "etc." It means "and so forth". However, I would like to know if anyone notices whether the following use of etc. is appropriate:

If the paper you lend me is white, I'll give you $10; if it is red, green, etc. I'll give you $50.

Taken literally, "etc." is a misnomer here because "and", not "or", is part of its meaning. Any thoughts about whether etc. is proper here?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that it is proper. In Latin, "Et" can mean "and", "and so", "and then", "and indeed", "and in fact", "and moreover", "and besides", or "and also", while "cetera" can mean "the other", "the rest", "remainder", and "et cetera" itself "and so on" (Ref: Langensheidt Shorter Latin Dictionary 1966), but in any case foreign-language expressions taken into English often do not necessarily retain their exact meaning in their tongues of origin or crystallise into permanently set, narrow meanings, but can instead evolve a range of different accepted usages. In this case (I suggest) the unwritten "or" is understood to precede "green", so the "etc." is expanding a list which already contains the "or", which therefore is not inherent in the "etc." itself. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.220.212.253 (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still, I'm sure you'd agree that using it this way sounds funny in anything but a text message or informal email. It might sound fine in Latin, but I think what makes it odd in English is the fact that it's referring to what might be, since we use it to describe what *is.* Beside which, our use of it tends to mean closer to "et omnia," which would sound wrong in that sentence. 2601:1C1:8100:900:8CA:15B1:ADFB:DF14 (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C1:8100:900:8CA:15B1:ADFB:DF14 (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Reply delayed by Semi-protection] No, as a native BrE speaker in his 7th decade (and a former textbook editor FWIW) I agree it sounds slightly informal, but not markedly so: if I was editing a piece containing this sentence, I'd suggest changing it or not if the piece was otherwise highly formal or academic in style, but not otherwise. "Et omnia" would indeed be technically better, but it's simply not in common use in English: I'd personally be fine with it, having studied Latin, but many readers would not. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.220.212.253 (talk) 02:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that it's worse in Latin than it is in English. In English, you're just continuing a list with a phrase (et cetera) that few think of literally, but simply use to continue lists. But in Latin, you're using the objectively wrong conjunction (et, where it should be vel). --Trovatore (talk) 06:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So would it be vel sim.?[9] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 26

lie/lay

Can someone help me with this Lay/lie question? "Alongside the road there is a big pile of sand, just laying/lying(?) there." Thank you. RJFJR (talk) 00:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is the sand putting something down? That's the difference between laying and lying. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So lying is the one that goes with lie and, even though the sand is inanimate so it can't do much of anything, it's lying there. Thank you. It's a little clearer now, but they both seem a little odd. RJFJR (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Old story: Someone asks a farmer a grammar question, for some reason I can't recall. Question goes: Is the hen sitting or setting? The farmer answers, I don't know about that. What I want to know is, when she cackles, is she laying or lying? --Trovatore (talk) 05:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Maybe this will help make it clearer? Matt Deres (talk) 13:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always confused about when to say lying down, or laying down. Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 13:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's confusing enough to native English speakers. One of those oddities, like "affect" vs. "effect". And it doesn't help that they both come from the same original root.[10][11] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

”Lie” is intransitive, as in “to lie down”. “Lay” in the present tense is transitive, as in “lay it on the floor”. But note that “lay” in another usage is the past tense of “lie”, as in “Yesterday I lay down on the bed”. Loraof (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The parts are:

Lie (go down): present: lie; preterite: lay; past participle: lain
Lay (put down): present: lay; preterite: laid; past participle: laid
Lie (dissemble): present: lie; preterite: lied; past participle: lied

The first is a strong verb. The other two are weak. 86.168.124.76 (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

However, "lay" as an intransitive verb ("He was laying on the road", "The criminal has been laying low") is now so widespread that I fear it's becoming the norm, and the prescriptivists are going to have to suck it up, sooner or later. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing to fear, that's just how language works. We have a word for languages whose usage is fixed and does not evolve over time, they're called dead languages. --Jayron 32 03:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But I'm a metathesiophobe. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fear of big words? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The OED says that prescriptivists of the 17th and 18th centuries had nothing against lay as an intransitive verb, and they also cite usages by educated writers (Lord Byron, James Raine) of the early 19th century. That sense of the word has a continuous history of over 700 years (back to The Harrowing of Hell, c. 1300) so, yes, maybe it's time to accept it now. --Antiquary (talk) 10:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The actual quote from the OED is "In the earliest examples the verb appears to be intransitive for reflexive or passive. Now (exc. in Nautical lang., see 43b) it is only dialectal or an illiterate substitute for lie, its identity of form with the past tense of the latter no doubt accounting largely for the confusion. In the 17th and 18th centuries, it was not apparently regarded as a solecism.". Dbfirs 20:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Topic-comment structure in otherwise SVO languages

I just want to confirm my understanding. So, there are different kinds of word orders. The two most common ones are SVO and SOV. Among those languages, some are topic-prominent and form topic-comment structure. Basically, the topic gains prominence by being placed at the beginning of the sentence, followed by a comment. The whole thing is recognized as topic-comment, not SVO or SOV or whatever word order. Or is it okay to analyze the topic and comment separately as distinct clauses? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For example, Standard American, British, Canadian, and Australian are not topic-prominent languages. So, a sentence like “Basketball plays very well,” with topic-prominence and subject-dropping makes no sense in the said languages. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Basketball plays very well" sounds a little odd, but there are some similar sentences in English, such as "The book is selling very well", which are perfectly fine. However, "the book" is actually the subject in this case. I really don't know what English construction you're thinking about in which "the book" would be the object -- at a minimum, a pronoun seems to be missing. AnonMoos (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me find a better example. “He play basketball play very well.” 140.254.70.33 (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does that have a meaning? Dbfirs 20:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it may be how a non-native speaker may think and write. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see, you mean “He play basketball: play very well.” Dbfirs 09:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By "Standard American, British, Canadian, and Australian" I guess you mean standard English, in any of four flavours. As far as topic-prominence (not!) or the SVO order is concerned, they don't differ among themselves.

In English, "He plays basketball very well" is the standard order. You can prepose the object for a marked but still grammatical result: "Basketball, he plays very well." For me, "Basketball, he plays it very well" sounds distinctly odd, but still acceptable. Arguably, "basketball" in that last sentence has the syntactic (and not just semantic) status of "topic". Now let's fiddle with the first sentence: "He plays major basketball games for which he's trained enough very well". This is grammatical but ungainly. Let's prepose the object: "Major basketball games for which he's trained enough(,) he plays well." Sounds good to me. Now topicalize (?): "Major basketball games for which he's trained enough, he plays them well." Sounds OK to me.

Now let's turn to Japanese. This has nominative and accusative (and other) case marking. The suffixes ga and (w)o are nominative and accusative respectively. The order is SOV. However, sentences of the form "[subject]-ga [object]-(w)o [verb]" aren't so very common. (They're not rare, and they're fully grammatical.) The language also has two topic-related cases. For simplicity's sake, let's ignore mo, and just think of (the much commoner) wa. Sentences of the form "[topic (subject)]-wa [object]-(w)o [verb]" and "[topic (object)]-wa [subject]-ga [verb]". So there's a grammatical means to identify the topic, and a tendency to do this. It's a topic-prominent language.

I see no reason why there shouldn't be a topic-prominent SVO language; but sorry, I can't think of one offhand. -- Hoary (talk) 02:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

140.254.70.33 -- you can consult our topicalization article. See also the first two bullet points at Quebec French syntax... AnonMoos (talk) 05:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Topicalization is common in Yiddish and Irish English and Yoda speak. Native speakers find it perfectly comprehensible when it is complimented with a change in intonation: "PORK, I won't touch," rather than the unmarked, "I won't TOUCH pork." A continuing discussion of non-existent languages with vague and poorly constructed examples I don't understand. μηδείς (talk) 06:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually thinking of Singlish, which is influenced by Chinese and other Singaporean languages. The grammar can be written word for word in Chinese. I’m not a Singlish speaker, and I’m not Singaporean. I merely found out about Singlish on Wikipedia and notice that the grammar is very similar to Chinese. Chinese is predominantly a SVO language, but topic-prominence is used frequently and naturally, so how a native Chinese speaker thinks can definitely influence how he chooses and structures words in English. In Singlish topic-prominence statements, I just want to know whether they are still recognized as having a specific word order, or whether you’ll describe them as “topic prominence”. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 15:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be making a dichotomy where none exists. While the OSV order does in English, it does so in order to signify topicalization. (There may be other examples in declarative sentences, but this is the main use, and I can't think of another use off the top of my head.) They are not two separate phenomena, unless you take Yoda as a native speaker of a standard ME dialect, which he obviously is not, being an alien from long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away. There are also verb-second and verb-final languages and constructions in OE, German and Latin which indicate that SVO was almost certainly not the normal word order of PIE, but that goes beyond the scope of your original question. μηδείς (talk) 16:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, someone answered my question. So, SVO word order and topic prominence can apply to the same sentence at the same time.

他(he)什么(anything, something, what)都不知道。(don’t know)

So, this sentence would be described as topic-prominence and SVO, but the object is placed before the verb for emphasis, if that makes sense. Right? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are asking for an absolute definition. Such things are very rare. Definitions are contextual, and any good writer says, the first time he uses an ambiguous term or one in an unusal context, either, "By SVO I shall mean any sentence with that underlying form in an unmarked state, even when the actual elicited form is OSV." Or he will say, "By SVO, I will only mean sentences which strictly exhibit that order, regardless of how they would normally be formed in a less unusual circumstance.

Ayn Rand discusses the fact that there are no perfect sentences or arguments or essays in her The Art of Nonfiction (The companion, The Art of Fiction: A Guide for Writers and Readers has an article) because they all exist in a context the writer and reader may not share, and perfect exact unambiguity would require a text of infinite length. One has to do the reader the courtesy of defining one's terms and sticking to those definitions and has to expect the reader to read the text with curiosity and generosity, not looking for misunderstandings or ambiguities for the sheer sport of it.

For example, I know the sort of audience that reads here. I am a volunteer. I notice mispelings or possible nitpicks all the time. But I am not going to write a two-hundred page proof to show that one plus one equals two, or go back and re-edit a long post for teh. μηδείς (talk) 03:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure how to interpret this. The latter two paragraphs don’t seem to be connected with the first paragraph. And the latter part of the first paragraph is not really connected with topic prominence. As for the first paragraph’s first line, my take-home message is that it’s all subjective, and do whatever you want. So, in the above example, 他什么都不知道, would be classified as SVO, because Chinese is described as an SVO language, while the statement often occurs in that order. If I switch the word order, 他都不知道什么, it sounds highly unnatural and weird. The former pattern is actually more natural and commonly used. This discussion is hurting my brain, so I’m just going to conclude that the natural form is topic-prominent unrelated to word order. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are repeatedly asking for the one true way to interpret ("absolute definition") topicalization and whether it affects "real" SVO/SOV systems or just their surface forms and my second two paragraphs are a bit of a rant, but they address a terribly common fallacy that comes up in these debates, whether our concepts are intrinsic ("Platonic realism") or subjective ("nominalism").

As long as you accept that dichotomy, you are not going to find an answer since the fact that topicalization by vioalation of unmarked word order exists means there are two absolute things, topicalization and word order, and they contradict. But topicalization and word order are concepts we use to classify certain phenomena, and how we choose to classify that has wiggle room based on out context which allows us to formulate the idea differently.

Your hidden premise is that most languages inherently belong to one of six possible word-order types, and that topicalization by changing word order breaks this absolute classification, so you see a huge problem. The problem is that language is a tool, an invention, not a divine creation and not a Chomskyan "organ" and that just as screwdrivers are classified as different from pencils and corkscrews for very good reason, we have minds and we can violate their "essence" and use any of those objects in an unusual manner, like stabbing someone or scraping wax from your ear canal.

As long as you insist on false premises: "Every animal that can fly is either a bird, a bat, or an insect" then questions like "So what are et pilots?" are going to remain inscrutable. μηδείς (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So... how do you describe the specific example then? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 20:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But I don't describe the specific example. You don't express yourself very clearly, other than to mention the general topics, which we can point you toward. But your "Basketball plays very well" is ambiguous, as it could mean "Basketball (subject) draws a large audience" which is perfectly grammatical, and also SP. Or it might be a garbled foreign broken English rendering of "Basketball, he plays very well" which is OSV and topicalized, but not grammatical as you wrote it.

So you have to go back and consider your starting point. If I said "All animals that fly are either birds, bats, or insects" and you said "but humans also have powered flight", I would have to accept that, and modify my claim to either "all animals that are evolved to execute powered flight by the flapping of their limbs are either..." or I could say, "Humans, which are themselves animals also have machines that are capable of powered flight, and humans have even created machines that can do this using trained leg muscles, although their legs are not wings. But only animals can fly without external mechanical devices."

There is simply no way to avoid this when dealing with complex topics where there are different exceptions and subtypes. In Latin, "Basketball plays very well" would have explicit markings of the subject/object, an implied subject and voice on the verb. You just have to deal with the fact that this can't be reduced to E=mc^2; it needs a paragraph or three to discuss. Speaking of which, I am signing off of this topic, I don't have the time to go into any more depth. You can read my proof in the margin. μηδείς (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence was not supposed to be grammatically correct. I was just trying to illustrate that English is usually not a topic-prominent language like Japanese or Chinese is. If someone were to translate literally word-for-word from Chinese to English, then it’ll make no sense. There are some sentence structures that just don’t work in English, and topic-prominence is one of them. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But topicalization most certainly does work, if you give the sentence a different marked intonation that I have already noted is found commonly in Irish and Yiddish-influenced English. We just don't have a case particle to mark it. There's als "as for", as in As for this discussion, I find I have no more time to add to it.

(I am literally off to class). μηδείς (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least I learned a new word from this discussion topicalization. I just searched the keyword on Google, and the results showed a list of questions and answers compiled from various websites in bite-sized pieces. One source used topicalization and OSV word order in the same line, mentioning that OSV is the familiar term. Though, I’ve yet to understand the relationship between topicalization and topic-prominent language. I’ve noticed that some people describe American Sign Language as topicalization and topic-comment at the same time, hinting that the two terms are in fact synonyms. But topicalization mostly talks about English, while topic-prominent language mentions Chinese and Japanese. With that said, in the Chinese example, I think I’d use “topic-comment” to describe it and also describe it as an unique case of SOV word order within a predominantly SVO language. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 15:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 28

Lack of leadership

I was leafing through the 16 February edition of the London Daily Telegraph on Saturday afternoon and almost fell off my chair in astonishment. It had no "leaders" (the unsigned articles which represent the paper's view) and no "Letters to the Editor", which usually sit alongside them. Page 2 trailed an article on page 16 by Nigel Farage (these articles appear on a page headed "Comments" which is the left-hand side of the spread which includes the Letters page). However, page 16 consisted of international news - the Comments page was actually page 18, with the edition code *** at the top but no Farage article. The Times has published leaders and letters every day since 3 January 1785 and other papers are no different. Is the omission unique?

Another edition of that Friday's paper had presumably been printed later because the edition code at the top of the Comments page was ***A. That was page 16, and it did have an article by Nigel Farage, although the other articles were different. Pages 1 - 14 and 19 - 32 were identical in both editions. The later edition had an advertisement on page 15, letters on page 17 and puzzles on page 18. The earlier edition had news on page 15 and an advertisement on page 17. 92.31.136.24 (talk) 18:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you call them and ask? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or write an angry letter to the editor. --Jayron 32 19:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Sue

Where does the term Mary Sue (female character in a work of fiction who is made too perfect, so that with all their amazing talents and no flaws, their victory is utterly assured) come from? Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 19:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does the article Mary Sue help you answer your question? --Jayron 32 19:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Holy ship! Wikipedia has an article for everything lol! Thanks Jayron32, I should really look for stuff before asking. Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 19:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to get crazy, Wikipedia even has an article for "Wikipedia has an article on everything". See Wikipedia:Wikipedia has an article on everything! --Jayron 32 00:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a mere essay, the article you want is Everything ;) -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Touché. --Jayron 32 14:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 20:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 1

How can the ambiguity of 'hook up' be solved?

'Hook up': a. To meet or associate: We agreed to hook up after class. He hooked up with the wrong crowd. b. To become sexually involved with someone, especially casually.

When a man asks a girl to hook up, what does that mean? He probably means 'a' but, due to 'b' he could always plausibly deny it.

Does any regional variation exist (that is, only 'a' or 'b' is a common meaning) making things even murkier? --Hofhof (talk) 01:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most native speaker I know of "hang out" or "meet up" instead for A, because of this ambiguity. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It can't, because you are making the same exact same mistake as IP 140 above in the topicalization discussion. Words do not have absolute intrinsic physical meanings and sentences do not behave like molecules. JFCh! I am considering a boilerplate essay for this. Language is ambiguous and context dependent ALWAYS!. ALWAYS!. If what you say is unclear, clarify in further speech or in writing with footnotes and codicils. Are you and 140 the same person? μηδείς (talk) 02:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to note: The second definition is much more recent,[12] and it sounds like a euphemism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of boxing up comments you don't like, how about answering the questions? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Foot

What's the difference between foot and boot in their pronounciation? Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 20:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many years ago, the two words used to rhyme, but that was long ago. See wikt:foot and wikt:boot for modern pronunciations. Dbfirs 20:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-native English speakers sometimes have trouble with "oo" words which look like they should rhyme with "boot", for example, but which actually rhyme with "cook", "hook", "look", etc. Those words have kind of a "short" double-o sound, somewhere between a long-u (or "long" double-o) and a short-u, a sound which doesn't exist in Spanish, for example. It doesn't help that they're all spelled with that same double-o, so you can't tell by sight, you have to memorize them all. It gets even more complicated in regional dialects in America, where with the word "roof", for example, some pronounce the double-o as in "foot" while others pronounce the double-o as in "boot". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Author John Flanagan influenced by Tolkien?

In John Flanagan's The Ranger's Apprentice series, the enemy is named Morgoroth, which is very similar to the Valar Morgoth in Tolkien's Silmarillion. Is this merely a coincidence, or was Flanagan influenced by Tolkien in his naming? --Nerd1a4i (talk) 00:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]