Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

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)

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".[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

Amoo

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

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

(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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

For the first, perhaps, nonlesbian or non-lesbian.[2] Can't think of one for the second. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC) (e/c) non-gay is a word, apparently [3] but "gay" is sometimes used for men and women. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

(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)

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

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)

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

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

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

Androphile and gynophile seem somewhat useful here, though not for both sexes at once. Also reading [4] 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 [5] "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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)]

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.[6] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

So would it be vel sim.?[7] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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

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.[8][9] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• ”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)

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)

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)

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. --Jayron32 03:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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

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

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)

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

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Or write an angry letter to the editor. --Jayron32 19:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

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)

Does the article Mary Sue help you answer your question? --Jayron32 19:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

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)

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! --Jayron32 00:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Touché. --Jayron32 14:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

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

I take it you didn't really mean Holy ship! but something else. WP really does have an article on everything. Akld guy (talk) 03:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)

• Htf, you conclude from my question that I do not believe in the ambiguity and dependence on context of language? I was just asking how to expand the context to make it less ambiguous. Hofhof (talk) 01:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

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

• 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)

Foot

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

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)

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)

Yes, it's the same in British English for roof. The OED puts the long u (/ruːf/) first followed by the short vowel (/rʊf/). In some British dialects the words "cook", "hook", "look", and "book" still have the long boot vowel (/uː/), but this old pronunciation is becoming less common, even in the north. Dbfirs 08:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I remember once watching a TV quiz show (Twenty Questions?) where the contestants had to guess a word. The word appeared on the screen and the guest announcer (a European lady) said it out loud for the viewers' benefit ("a bush") - only she rhymed it with "rush".

Dbfirs - by "the north" do you mean the area you are familiar with (Cumbria)? I think you will find that this pronunciation is the norm in Scotland. 92.19.174.150 (talk) 14:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I meant the north of England, rather than Scotland. Apologies to speakers of Scots and Scottish English further north in the UK. Am I correct in thinking that you use a short /u/ or /ʉ/ rather than the long /uː/ or /ʊ/, or is vowel length variable? Dbfirs 15:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The OP is not a native English speaker, and I have heard her confuse the sounds. There's really no way to address this other than youtube, which is prohibitively expensive whence hails the OP. μηδείς (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I did link to Wiktionary's audio files in my first reply, but I agree that the discussion has become too complex for someone who is not a native speaker of English. For anyone who wonders about the strange IPA symbols, Help:IPA/English and IPA vowel chart with audio might help. Dbfirs 21:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2

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)

I remember, around 28 years ago, attending a talk by a then-newly prominent fantasy writer, in which he said that for anyone writing High fantasy, Tolkien was like a huge boulder in the road, and you could detour around him, climb over him or tunnel under him, but you couldn't ignore him. Similarly, the Literature section in Works inspired by J. R. R. Tolkien makes his pervasive influence on the genre clear, so Flanagan is almost inevitably working under both conscious and unconscious Tolkien influences, and in a revived genre largely shaped by him.

Languages and their sounds were a major theme and tool of Tolkien, who was after all a professional Philologist as well as a prose and poetry writer, so it is unsurprising that some of the linguistic tropes that he deployed or created have become pervasive in the genre and beyond; that words or names containing and combining syllables like 'mor' (with its related implication of 'death') and 'oth', and gutterals like 'g', imply dark and sinister associations has become a given in the language.

Observations similar to the one you make of Flanagan could also be made of many other writers in the field (or so I think as a lifelong reader of High fantasy fiction*), but a definite answer would require that Flanagan himself state that he consciously chose 'Morgoroth' with 'Morgoth' in mind, or that he was unconsciously influenced to do so by Tolkien directly or by the linguistic conventions of the genre that Tolkien established.

[* I'm currently reading a 2017 fantasy novel, The Tethered Mage by Melissa Caruso, which differs markedly in style, themes and milieu to Tolkien's works, namely first-person female narration featuring Renaissance-style international politics centred on a fantasy counterpart to Venice, but even so I'm noticing minor echoes of Tolkien here and there in the geographical names and topography.]

{The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.220.212.253 (talk) 01:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

It sounds even closer to Tolkien's "Gorgoroth" - which is actually a place name, rather than a character. It is certainly right that Tolkien is so ubiquitous in the fantasy sector that it has become almost impossible to write anything that does not reflect his work in some way. However, it is also true that Tolkien was notably influenced by earlier writers of fantasy (though they tend to be less well known today), and there are plenty of things in Tolkien which show where he was influenced by others. Wymspen (talk) 12:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Of course Tolkien was influenced by others, and I am long familiar with writers like William Morris, Lord Dunsany and E. R. Eddison to name the most obvious – that's why I referred to a revived genre of High fantasy; it had fallen out of popular fashion (in Britain, at any rate) before the success of The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings in the 1950s and '60s revived it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.220.212.253 (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I won't say nuffin. But *mor/mur has to do with death in old english and PIE. And -oth with its negative connotations is pretty obvious to any ME speaker. What was the question here? μηδείς (talk)

The The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant by Stephen R. Donaldson has a character called Berek Halfhand, which reminded me somewhat of Tolkien's Beren the One-handed. It was the last high fantasy novel that I read. Alansplodge (talk) 10:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Nerd1a4i -- In the King James Bible "-oth" is the way that the Hebrew feminine plural ending is transcribed, in "Behemoth" and "Ashtaroth", but also in "Rehoboth"... AnonMoos (talk) 14:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Aren't these names, either consciously or unconsciously, influenced by the word "goth"? I doubt that there is any influence from Hebrew. It's true that -oth is the feminine plural ending in Hebrew, e.g. the word succah ("booth") gives the name to the "festival of booths" Succoth, which is sometimes lampooned by insensitive English-speaking Gentiles. 92.19.174.150 (talk) 11:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Is there a relation between the word "Christians" and the word "cross"?

Based on wikipedia "Christian" derives from the Koine Greek word Christós (Χριστός), a translation of the Biblical Hebrew term mashiach (Biblical Hebrew: מָשִׁיחַ).". So far I always assumed that the word from the word "cross" and it makes sense to me much more than saying that it is the translation of the word "mashiach" of the biblical Hebrew". Maybe the one who translated "mashiach" into "Christós" did it based on the fact the Jesus who was crucified was also the mashiach. I think that there are such cases of translations. I'm not sure if it's my own opinion or it's not new idea about the origin of the word "Christians". I'd like to know about that. 93.126.116.89 (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The Greek Χριστός is the noun/adjective form of the verb Χριστειν meaning "to rub" (as in, to rub with oil, or "annoint".)[11] It is a literal translation of the hebrew word, and the similarity to words meaning "cross" is a false friend relationship, cross being derived from the latin word "crux" which originally meant a pole or gibbet; I think the original latin meaning had little to do with the cross shape, though it later came to mean just that (the original crux was a simple pole driven in the ground, which evolved into the familiar crucifix shape.[12]) --Jayron32 16:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Christos is Greek, and as already said it means "anointed" and is a direct translation of the Hebrew Mashiach (which was also transliterated into Greek as Messias, which gives us Messiah). The Greek for cross is stauros (the origin of the modern Greek name Stavros), and is totally unrelated to Christos. Wymspen (talk) 16:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The idea that "Christ" is derived from "cross" is of course impossible, since "cross" is English and English did not exist at the time that "Christ" was first used. The slightly more plausible, but still incorrect, idea that they are cognates is a typical example of folk etymology. Determining word origins can't be done solely by looking at the modern form of the words; it's necessary to study the history of the word usages to determine their actual origins, and in this case, as discussed above, the evidence is clear that the words are unrelated. This reminds me of the similarly incorrect idea that "Christ" is cognate with "Krishna" as seen here. [13] CodeTalker (talk) 16:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

My language is not English, and I cannot understand how one could imagine English "Christ" and English "cross" could be in any way etymologically related: They are written differently and when I listen I cannot recognize any similarity. But maybe I'm blinded by the prejudice that I and O cannot have a common ancestor. Are there any examples of cognates differing by I and O? (let's forget the Ch/C conflict) 194.174.76.21 (talk) 17:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin

Fish (English) and Poisson (French), both derive from PIE *pisk. [14]. --Jayron32 20:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Code Talker and Wymspen are correct. Xristos is Greek for "anointed" and crux is Latin for "cross", with no relation betwixt. μηδείς (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

See Ichthys. 92.19.174.150 (talk) 10:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Meaning of "fit you for slippers"

B is in a psychiatric institution. He was deemed crazy for seeing a monster. A starts to believe in the monster in question, and she's telling B about it.

From Before I Wake (2016 film).

A: I watched it take my husband. B:I wouldn't say that around here. They fit you for slippers.

I get the meaning is more or less: "they'll believe you are crazy too." However, what is the expression here? I couldn't find it in the dictionary consulted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.159.165.102 (talk) 17:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's a standard expression, but the idea is that in a hospital, including a mental institution, patients remove their street shoes and wear slippers instead. So "they're fitting you for slippers" is short for "they are measuring the size of your feet to give you slippers that fit properly" and the implied meaning is "they (the hospital staff) will take you in as a patient (because they will think you are out of your mind as well)". --Xuxl (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I understand it in the direction of "If the Slipper Fits". They'll check you for possible mental problems.Hofhof (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The basic meaning is put you in footware that (1) won't harm you (hanging yourself by your shoelaces) and (2) won't allow escape by foot. Watch One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (film). I was once set for discharge on March 17th, and the hospital didn't want to release me! My last name loks Irish, but it is a respelling for people unable to deal with Austro-Hungarian names. I said, "WTF, do you expect me to go piss standing up on Fifth Ave?" They realized the objection to my discharge was ridiculous, and I didn't piss on 125th street until the 19th. μηδείς (talk) 01:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• And why is it relevant that your "last name loks Irish, but it is a respelling for people unable to deal with Austro-Hungarian names. "?--Hofhof (talk) 12:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd guess (absent a response from μηδείς) that it was because March 17th is St Patrick's Day, when American-Irish people are stereotypically expected to get drunk. Perhaps a (New York) hospital might be reluctant to discharge an apparently Irish patient on the day in case they drank to excess while still in a fragile state of health? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.220.212.253 (talk) 13:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd had major abdomial surgery (with a 60% survival rate) and been on a morphine drip, and although I had gone from morbidly obese to overweight, they also wouldn't discharge me until I put on ten pounds, when I was happy to keep losing weight. Oh, and I was discharged with a prescription for morphine. But I do so hate me nothing more than a parade. μηδείς (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

In mental hospital wards you will find the doors are locked (although you are allowed in and out if you are not sectioned), matches and lighters are not allowed (so you have to go to the staff to light your cigarette if you are allowed to smoke on the veranda), the windows do not open more than a fraction of an inch, the doors of the patients' rooms do not have keyholes on the inside (although they can be locked from the inside) and the cutlery at mealtimes consists of plastic knives, spoons and forks with the food being eaten off cardboard plates. Plastic bags must be surrendered to staff after an excursion. Sometimes "mystery shoppers" are placed on wards. The staff are unable to see that there is nothing wrong with them but the other patients do. 92.19.174.150 (talk) 10:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

The only instance of infiltrated non-patients in a psychiatric hospital that I know is in the context of the Rosenhan experiment. Do you have any source for mystery shoppers" being placed on wards? --Hofhof (talk) 12:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

17 March is St Patrick's Day, patron saint of Ireland. The Irish are renowned for their drinking. For example, the Cheltenham Festival (of National Hunt racing) includes this day (unless it falls on Sunday or Monday) and one year the Irish (who love this sport) drank the bars dry. Things may be a little different this year, as the Festival is only ten days away and all racing (even on all-weather tracks) has already been off for a week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.174.150 (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

March 3

Amending the language

A building society circular includes this sentence:

Plus, you'll find a summary of the changes at the front, so you can see the main amends at a glance.

I would have thought that this was a simple confusion of "amendments" and "amends" (as in "reparations"), but having read "Advertising copywriter needing some coaching?" above I'm not so sure. Is this an error? 92.19.174.150 (talk) 10:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Did they mean "compensation given for something", did they mean "altering a document", or did they mean something else, like "make repairs to a building?"--Hofhof (talk) 12:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

The preceding sentence reads:

Your new T&Cs will automatically apply from 1 May 2018, and we've enclosed them with this letter.

The following sentence reads:

If you have any questions after you've read through your new T&Cs, please give us a call on 0800 XXX XXXX and we'll be happy to help.

The twain hath met

If you Google "the twain hath met" you find at least three examples of people using this phrase, plus at least one example of a published article with this phrase in the title. But is "the twain hath met" grammatical to begin with? To me "twain" (which is nothing but a synonym of "two") takes a plural verb and "hath" can only be a singular form. It's gotta be "the twain have met". Is there something I'm missing? Basemetal 12:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

No puns ("the twins have meth") please. This is a serious question. Basemetal 12:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

You mean like in Paul Flowers (banker)#Drugs scandal? 92.19.174.150 (talk) 13:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2016 July 28#Hath or have? 92.19.174.150 (talk) 13:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you 92.19.174.150 but that doesn't really answer the question, to wit: "Can hath a plural be?" The examples in that previous thread had multiple singular subjects and, as far as I can tell, some people tried to argue that the verb could at the time agree with the proximate subject. No such argument can be made here. Basemetal 14:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Twain is an old word for "two",[15] and it does sound like someone getting a little cute, in a twist on Never the Twain Shall Meet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:55, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

No kidding! Basemetal 14:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

And as EO notes, "hath" is third person singular.[16] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:41, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

You are correct, it should be "the twain have met". However, at the risk of stating the obvious, it's a humorous rebuttal of the phrase Never the Twain Shall Meet (Kipling, 1889) and I imagine that a bit of faux archaic language helps the joke along a bit. Alansplodge (talk) 17:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)