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.

April 20

When did pants become more common than trousers in American English?

Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but there's no doubt that pants derives from the word pantaloons. Akld guy (talk) 06:30, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some of the relevant OED entry, with some of the examples - earliest is 1835. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 23:12, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

a. Originally (colloquial): pantaloons. Later: trousers of any kind (in early use applied to men's trousers, but in the 20th cent. extended to include those worn by both men and women).Chiefly North American, New Zealand, Australian, and South African.

1835 Southern Literary Messenger 1 358 In walked my friend—pumps and tight pants on—white gloves and perfumed handkerchief.

1846 O. W. Holmes Rhymed Lesson 515 The thing named ‘pants’ in certain documents, A word not made for gentlemen, but ‘gents’.

1854 ‘C. Bede’ Further Adventures Mr. Verdant Green (ed. 2) x. 89 Seated with wash-leather..like the eleventh hussars..with their cherry-coloured pants.

1902 G. H. Lorimer Lett. Merchant ix. 119 We boys..couldn't walk across the floor without feeling that our pants had hiked up till they showed our feet to the knee.

1964 Times 3 Aug. 11 The pants and pantskirt as shown by Marc Bohan at Dior are for the country and around the house.

1973 N. Moss What's the Difference? p. ix I heard an American student at Cambridge University telling some English friends how he climbed over a locked gate..and tore his pants, and one of them asked in confusion, ‘But how could you tear your pants without tearing your trousers?’

P.S. you can get a feel for the trends by looking at ngram, though it's hard to separate out the exact uses of the words. Try these searches for starters: his pants vs. his trousers and put on pants vs. put on trousers. In both cases, pants shows a steep rise in the 1930s. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 23:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese language

Hi Can you translate this Chinese sentence into English and Arabic language. The sentence is:

概要

於2004年4月至2006年10月在Comic Bom Bom連載。東京電視台以漢字表記《韋駄天翔》，在2005年10月1日至2006年9月30日每週的星期六早上9:30開始播放、全52話。.محمد ماجد السورميري (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 21

Why is the name Qyburn in Game of Thrones writen by Q?

Why is this name Qyburn writen by Q when it comes without a following U? Israeli Homo Sapiens (talk) 02:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To make it look foreign. --Khajidha (talk) 02:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Like Qantas? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:34, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not like Qantas, because that's actually an acronym.

To address the OP's point somewhat, 'q' is usually followed by 'u' in some languages including English, but is not in various others. Moreover, in other languages it may represent a different sound than 'qu' does in English: for example, in the romanised representation of (Modern Standard) Mandarin called Pinyin it represents the sound 'chy' ("Like punch yourself, with the lips spread wide as when one says ee. Curl the tip of the tongue downwards to stick it at the back of the teeth and strongly aspirate", to quote from our article).

Game of Thrones is set on a world completely unrelated to our own, with various different ethnicities and languages of its own (although the extingencies of casting etc. may tend to de-emphasise differences to our world). In such a world the rules of languages and spelling are determined by the writer, in this case George R. R. Martin on whose novels the TV series is based and who named the character, and he may have specified his reason for this particular name and spelling – you might try searching his website or blog, or even ask him directly on the latter. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.2.132 (talk) 06:44, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't watch the show. How is it pronounced? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the TV show they're usually just pronounced with our usual inventory of English sounds, so Qyburn is pronounced Kyburn. How about Jaqen H'ghar? Seems like it should be unpronounceable in English but they make it work. The characters speaking Dothraki and the other invented languages usually seem to put more of an effort into making non-English sounds. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reminiscent of Tyburn? Alansplodge (talk) 22:22, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See List of English words containing Q not followed by U. The text notes that only 3 of the 71 entries contained in the list are modern English words not borrowed from another language: qiana, qwerty and tranq. And then, the former two are 20th-century neologisms (qiana is "a computerized combination of random letters", and qwerty reflects the order of the keys in the keyboard layout), while tranq is an apocope of tranquilizer. There are also a few obsolete ones such as qhat ("what") and qheche ("which"), and it is noted that they're likely of Scots origin, because an old Scots spelling convention used "quh-" or "qh-" where English had "wh-". The vast majority are loanwords from languages where Q doesn't have to be followed by U. These are languages as diverse as Arabic, Chinese, Inuktitut, Fijian, Zulu, Albanian, and even French (coq, cinq). --Theurgist (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't even call most of those "loanwords". We really only use most of those words when discussing the culture the word originates from. For example, we don't talk about "taluqs" outside of India. On the other hand, we do speak of "pajamas" (also borrowed from Hindustani) outside an Indian context. Some of the others are more or less obsolete spellings as far as English is concerned. I have never seen "qabab" or "sheqel" in print, but I have seen "kebab" and "shekel".--Khajidha (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 22

Words get worse

Language changes, and words (it seems to me) more often go from having a positive or neutral meaning to a more specific and negative one, Cf etymologies of words like egregious and rape. I'm sure there are countless other examples. Is there a name for this process? Temerarius (talk) 05:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In at least the second edition (edited by Gowers) of Fowler's A Dictionary of Modern English Usage, the term "worsened word" is used for this concept. But as you see, Wikipedia does not have an article under that name, and I've just searched it in various online dictionaries (including the OED Online) and not found it, so I don't think it can have been widely adopted. I couldn't even find a usable online cite for it, except this passage from a book by William Safire, which names collaborator, imperialism, colonialism, and academic as examples of the concept and quotes a few words from Fowler/Gowers. --76.69.46.228 (talk) 05:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semantic change describes the way words change their meaning over time in one way or another, but the article doesn't seem to have a specific name for the phenomenon of "worsened words". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 06:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because it's too subjective a concept. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It’s called “pejoration” but that just redirects to Semantic change, so I’m not sure Wikipedia has anything useful about it. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:47, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary has it, however. For some examples, see this. Deor (talk) 14:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is known as the euphemism treadmill. That is, a word is used to describe a thing. People attach their shitty attitudes towards the thing to the word, and the word changes from a neutral to a pejorative meaning. So a new euphemism is created which lacks the pejorative meaning. And then, because people still have a shitty attitude, the new word takes on a new pejorative meaning, so yet ANOTHER new word has to be created, ad infinitum. Consider words like "moron", "retarded", "slow", "learning disability", etc. At one time, each of those was considered the "proper" word for the concept, and over time, because people have shitty attitudes towards people with learning disabilities, each successive word became pejorative with the next generation. --Jayron 32 12:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But "euphemism treadmill" specifically applies to euphemisms. Note the examples in the original posting and the ones I quoted from Safire. These are non-euphemisms whose implications have shifted. --76.69.46.228 (talk) 21:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this isn't euphemism treadmill. It's different. Temerarius (talk) 03:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball executive Bill Veeck, in his early-1960s autobiography, stated that he wouldn't use the then-politically correct term "handicapped" to describe himself and his missing leg. He said, "I'm not handicapped, I'm crippled." Since then, of course, "handicapped" has evolved to likewise being politically incorrect. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can recall when "elite" had exclusively positive connotations. HiLo48 (talk) 08:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And yet elitist has always had a pejorative sense. --Jayron 32 17:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note the awesome etymology of awful: [1] —2606:A000:1126:28D:D459:AC24:F056:5CBC (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The opposite occurred with "nice": https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nice --Khajidha (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Final stress in Russian

I've been studying Russian a while, and I get the sense that native speakers always go down in pitch on the last syllable of a word - even when it's stressed, unlike in English, where a stressed syllable goes up in pitch. For example in this pronunciation of молоко, the stressed final 'o' seems to go sharply down. Is my impression generally accurate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:7B3E:7800:E46B:CF3C:77B5:5756 (talk) 09:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding English, the feature of pitch rising on a stressed syllable has an exception: pitch falls if the stressed word is sentence-final. Intonation (linguistics)#English gives this example:

We ˌlooked at the ↗sky | and ˈsaw the ↘clouds

An example with a multisyllabic word with final stressed syllable with pitch starting high and going down in sentence-final position is

My desire is to create.

Unfortunately, the intonation article does not have a section on Russian. Loraof (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's good paper on Russian intonation. Search "Russian intonation" on Google Scholar for many more accessible academic works on the topic.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 17:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil: National Thowheeth Jama'ath external links

Resolved

Are these links to the Sri Lankan National Thowheeth Jama'ath implicated in the 2019 Sri Lanka Easter bombings?

A talk page editor on the main article said they were, but another editor of the NTJ article disagreed. While the two links are clearly for the same organization (with the same logo), they use a different abbreviation and spelling than the most common spelling of the terror-linked NTJ. But I am skeptical because the Facebook posts include a plea for caution, patience, and balanced reporting on the Easter bombings. I can't imagine they would do that if they weren't the organization implicated in the intelligence report.

If they are correct, please add them back to the end of the NTJ article. Thank you kindly. EllenCT (talk) 10:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 23

G-dropping

I notice that a lot of American politicians drop their g's in speeches and interviews. For example, they will say "thinkin'" instead of "thinking." I find this surprising considering that they mostly have middle class backgrounds and college educations. Is this the way they normally speak or is it an affectation? Do educated Americans speak that way in colloquial conversation? TFD (talk) 04:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very common in America, often depending on the circumstance. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Educated Americans come in all shapes and sizes and have a wide variety of ways of speaking in conversation - colloquially or otherwise. Accents tend to depend on where one was raised - and yes there are exceptions to that generalization. MarnetteD|Talk 05:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Phonological history of English consonant clusters has a section called G-dropping which indicates that this phenomenon is found historically in the UK as well as in the US. Some sources say that it is associated with the working class, the American South and with African Americans. Maybe so, but I hear Americans from various regions and various ethnic and socioeconomic groups say nothin' in casual conversation quite frequently. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may recall a cereal called "Nut & Honey Crunch", whose commercials would typically use the joke that the name sounded like "Nuttin', Honey". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Stan Freberg song from the 1950s, "Nuttin' for Christmas".[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And of course "Elderly Man River", in which he was enjoined to stop saying "He don't say nothin'" in favour of "He doesn't say anything". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Classics! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be really PC, that should be "Senior Citizen River". Clarityfiend (talk) 22:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nowadays, yes. Elderly once had more positive connotations. And if the late Mr. Freberg were to have redone the song, not only would he likely have changed it to "Senior Citizen River", but also would have changed all the "hes" to "theys". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It used to be a feature of some English upper-class speech, as in the stereotypically upper-class pursuits of "huntin', shootin' and fishin'" - see here for example, which claims that children picked it up from lower-class stable workers. There's an episode of Absolutely Fabulous (series 5) titled "Huntin', Shootin' & Fishin'". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 05:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article claims that G-dropping is finding its way into modern forms of received pronunciation, former British prime minister Tony Blair being cited as a culprit. Alansplodge (talk) 21:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A little of both? Dropping terminal Gs is extremely common in American English, but American politicians are also generally trying to appeal to the common man and have said common man identify with them. While in other countries politicians might be advised to train themselves out of such speech, here there is no such pressure and there may even be pressure on some to "loosen up" their speech. --Khajidha (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that in recent centuries, nothing really "drops" phonologically. Rather, an [ŋ] sound is replaced by an [n] sound... AnonMoos (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's quite a difference in sound between "nothing" and "nothin'". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But it's still just one sound being substituted for another. The only dropping going on is in the written form. --Khajidha (talk) 18:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's splitting hares. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not uncommon to drop the "i" phonetically in "-ting", since the tongue is already in position for the "n" after the "t". My father was from Alabama and often complained about TV Westerns that were "just a lotta shoot'n' and killin'". Jmar67 (talk) 21:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or shoot'n' 'n' kill'n'. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jmar67 -- what "i-dropping" means is replacing a sequence of unstressed vowel + [n] with a syllabic nasal... AnonMoos (talk) 05:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Polish el

Polish orthography has two versions of the letter l: l (L), and ł (Ł). I'm sure people confuse them from time to time (indeed, I've heard polophones speaking English in which every l-sound was spoken as an ł). But how widespread is this confusion among the general polophone populace? And among Polish writers? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since they're pronounced quite differently in the Polish language, I doubt that there's all that much confusion. (If they were pronounced the same, then there would be more scope for error.) English-speakers sometimes have the idea that diacritics are quite mysterious and exotic, but they're not usually perceived that way by speakers of most European languages... AnonMoos (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When your language doesn't use them, it is hard to understand how an L is not an L when you put this little squiggle on it. On the other hand, if your language does use them you tend to see "letters with diacritics" as individual things. To put it in terms more accessible to Anglophones, L and Ł are no more confusing for Poles than C and G are for us. --Khajidha (talk) 17:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I grew up in the states living together with Polish grandparents in a town that was predominatly Polish American, speak Polish myself and lived twelve years in Poland (2002-2014), and I never once heard any Pole confuse the two sounds, whether they were speaking Polish or English. Like never ever. In spite of hearing Polish people speaking Polish and English every day for the bulk of my life.

And I've never seen a Pole make an orthographical error with L and Ł. There are letterpairs that Poles sometimes mix up, like Ż and RZ, CH and H, Ó and U, but never have I seen a mix up between L and Ł (except when writing L for Ł when a keyboard does not support the latter, which is not a real orthographical mistake).

Also, Anon Moos and Khajidha's comments about diacritics is spot on. What appears to you to be an L with a squiggly line through it is, in the mind of Poles, a completely different letter altogether, representing a completely different sound.

While Poles do often have trouble pronouncing English L, especially at the end of words, this has nothing to do with the difference between L and Ł in their own language, but with a difficulty in reproducing the various shades of L in English.

Dollars to doughnuts, your original post was prompted by the the fact that a lot of Poles pronounce "ball" like what sounds to English speakers to be "bowl", or even "bow". Quite frankly, though, to my American ears, it sounds like a lot of native English speaking UK citizens do the same, and the Poles seem to be imitating that pronunciation. 2601:181:400:D262:954D:E4B8:A106:7D1E (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ŵęłł, thãt šëţţłes iţ. Ťĥaňķś, äłł. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I shudder to think what that would actually sound like ... --Khajidha (talk) 13:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In fact even the letter G originated as a variant of C, but no one views it as such any longer. --Theurgist (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The one relic of that is that sometimes the ancient Roman name "Gaius" is interpreted incorrectly as "Caius"[sic], due to a misunderstanding of Roman abbreviation practices... AnonMoos (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 24

Meaning of "Lilii Borea"

This was phrase was recently accepted as the official name of a star, and I was wondering what it means, and where the long vowels are so I know the stress pattern. It first appeared here.[3] I assume it's Līliī Boreā "of the Lily from the North", vs ''Līliī Austrīnā "of the Lily from the South" (a nearby star). I'm wondering why līliī is in the genitive, though, and I have now idea how the cases in Latin might interact. If that's the right form, then I'd expect the traditional English pronunciation to be /ˈlɪliaɪ ˈbɔərieɪ/, though I don't know why the OED should have a short stressed vowel in words similar to lilii, but a long stressed vowel in boreal and boreas. — kwami (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is 39 Arietis, which is now considered to be in Aries, but when Nicolas-Louis de Lacaille named those stars in 1757, it was considered to be in Lilium, which is no longer a recognized constellation. In the page you linked to, La Caille is giving the locations of the stars in the ablative case in Latin, usually with "in" ("in pectore Ceti", "in baltheo Orionis", etc.), so "Boreā" is also the ablative case, "in the north part [of Lilium]". (I'm not sure why he doesn't use "in" there...I guess because it's already a directional word.) Adam Bishop (talk) 11:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Adam. Definitely a link that belongs in the article. — kwami (talk) 01:51, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 25

Poorly worded sentence can lead to confusion, and contradicting statements between pages

I'm not absolutely certain this is where my concern is to go, but I felt strongly enough about the following issues that I had to contact someone.

In the article on soldering the sentence "In brazing, the filler metal melts at a higher temperature, but the work piece metal does not melt." in the first paragraph is confusing to me. It may be useful to instead simply change this to something like: This is similar to brazing. My reasoning for this is that the description requires more depth. The explanation at that level is counter intuitive and left, at the very least, me confused.

A separate issue that is less likely to go here is that the page on Brazing starts with: "Brazing is a metal-joining process in which two or more metal items are joined together by melting and flowing a filler metal into the joint, the filler metal having a lower melting point than the adjoining metal." which is according to the soldering page an incorrect statement. "In brazing, the filler metal melts at a higher temperature"

I don't know how to solve these issues because I lack sufficient knowledge of the subject to correct the pages. I'm sorry this isn't totally applicable with Language but I figure at least the first concern was close enough. 46.5.0.174 (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think what the two pages are trying to say is that in the soldiering article, it is saying "the filler metal melts at a higher temperature (than the metal used in soldering does)" while in the brazing article is saying "the filler metal having a lower melting point than the adjoining metal". At least, that's the only way I can read it which doesn't introduce a contradiction. I agree, however, that it is ambiguous, and since the last time I soldered anything was an electronics class I took 22 years ago, I'm not sure if my interpretation is correct. I will leave it up to someone knowledgeable to fix that issue; however something does need to be done with the text of the soldering article, which is confusing and ambiguous. --Jayron 32 16:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The filler metal used in brazing melts at a higher temperature than the filler metal used in soldering. The brazing article goes on to say "Brazing differs from welding in that it does not involve melting the work pieces and from soldering in using higher temperatures for a similar process, while also requiring much more closely fitted parts than when soldering." Possible new wording for the sentence in question: "In brazing, the work piece metal also does not melt, but the filler metal is one that melts at a higher temperature than in soldering." I have reworded the sentence in the article. Jmar67 (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In general with this sort of problem, you can edit the page to insert the appropriate template. For example if you think the wording is unclear, there is Template:clarify, which you use by inserting {{clarify}} and it produces this:^{[clarification needed]}. If you think two pages contradict each othere, there is Template:contradict-other, although this is a bit more complicated to use. There are a bunch of other templates for other similar problems. --76.69.46.228 (talk) 20:46, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iirc, the fill material is at a lower temperature than the work material in both soldering and brazing. If the work material is supposed to partly melt, then it is called welding. The difference between soldering and brazing is that in brazing, the joint is supposed to have significant mechanical strength, so you'd use stronger and higher-temperature fill material than for soldering, and you'd do it with a flame torch, while you'd normally solder with a soldering iron. User:Andy Dingley would probably know best about this though. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

author as a verb

Hello, just noticed in the article on Stanko Fabris, a Croatian architect, the expression He authored dozens of notable public, residential and industrial buildings, is the verb authored correct here? I would expect to see designed, but thought I'd check here before changing it in case authored was OK... I have found The Verb 'Author' Means More Than "to Write" | Merriam-Webster but it doesn't really help, thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 17:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The text was lifted from a poor translation, likely using Google's translator. It would properly be "designed" instead of "authored". 68.115.219.139 (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] Your dictionary link shows that this usage of “authored” is correct. But my perception is that this is such an uncommon usage that it leads readers to stop and try to figure out whether the sentence makes sense, which is contrary to the dictates of clear writing. So I would use “designed” to make the sentence flow smoothly. Loraof (talk) 17:45, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Author as a verb dates to the 1590s, though it had gone into disuse in that form until revived in the 1950s in American English; probably as part of the overall trend of verbing that has been happening this way with many words since about that time. I do concur, however, that when used in this context "designed" works better. Author as a verb usually refers to written text, and is marked in other uses. --Jayron 32 17:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I remember there is a usage note in the American Heritage dictionary about this, where some commenters hate it and others think it is fine. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"curated" seems to have become the one-size-fits-all verb of the decade. Film festivals, book launches, restaurant menus, anything you can think of are routinely described as "curated" these days. Why not designing buildings? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article amended GrahamHardy (talk) 06:11, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because "curate" means "to select from among a larger group, and then put that selection on display in a coherent and thoughtful manner." Film festivals are curated in the sense that someone had to choose which films to show and organize a festival around when and how to show them. Restaurant menus are curated because someone had to decide which dishes to offer, and then how to arrange those dishes on the menu. Curate has a very specific sort of "making" of something which is distinct from say, just writing something. Architects and engineers don't curate buildings. They design them. Someone could curate a collection of models or drawings, for example, that might make a display in a museum. But you don't curate an individual building. That's not cromulent. --Jayron 32 16:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few thousand sites about the overuse of "curated". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Describing an individual

Say that a chart contains a person's general information: name, date of birth, age, location, etc. And in one column is listed whether the person is Black, White, Hispanic, etc. That last column should be labelled as "Race" or "Ethnicity"? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 11:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the 2010 US census separated Hispanic from Race, as Hispanic is not a race.[4] If you want a single column, Ethnicity should cover it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If race and ethnicity are fused into a single column, the column should be (and commonly is) called “Race or Ethnicity”. If they are given separate columns, “Black or African American” goes under “Race” while “Hispanic” or “Hispanic of any race” goes under “Ethnicity”. The census form that Bugs has linked to separates them into two groups, one giving subsets of “Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin” where “Origin” could be interpreted as close to “Ethnicity”; the other is called Race”, and then completely screws it up by including many ethnicities or origins as races (e.g., Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, etc.) Loraof (talk) 18:43, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK census, "Ethnicity and National Identity" is used. [5] Alansplodge (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to this chart, here: List of offenders executed in the United States in 2019. What is the best way to title column #9 (currently, "Ethnicity")? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The most logical column title would be "Skin color". But how is this column meaningful? And where are the references that state the color? I think the column should be deleted. True ethnicity would be very difficult to determine. Jmar67 (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmar67: "Hispanic" is not a skin color, at last check. Thanks for your "helpful" comment. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:15, 28 April 2019 (UTC) 00:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If Joseph is wanting to make a point about correlation between race and executions, it would be better to find a source that talks directly about that. Trying to just add the column could be seen as Original Synthesis. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:01, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inmate prison profiles always list the race of the inmate. So, let's stop with the OR and synthesis, etc., mumbo-jumbo. It is a very basic feature of prisoner profiles. Ya know, so when the prisoner escapes, they know who / what they are looking for. They can describe the escapee. Race is pretty basic to a prisoner profile. Let's use common sense. My question is: should that column be titled "race", which it had always been listed as? Or "ethnicity", which someone had recently changed it to? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And, by the way, every list of death penalty cases, capital punishment, executions, inmates, death row, etc., always details the race of the inmates. Come on. Take off your "Wikipedia" hat (i.e., looking for rules and policies that you can smugly claim are being violated) and use common sense. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do your sources literally say just plain "white" or "black"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:57, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You might consider "Racial/ethnic group" as a less specific, compromise term. Jmar67 (talk) 01:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 27

Latin a manuscript from 1343 (?)

In the museum of Hollókő there is an old manuscript on the wall, and there is no translation yet! The museum guide provided this information. The first guess was this is an Ottoman writing, but the typical dots are missing. Rather the wide arches over the characters are significant. Can you help to identify, looking a translation, or pass it to a scientist?

Here are photos of the one sheet script: http://tanarnocafe.hu/tudomany/tortenelem/segits-a-hollokoi-neninek-megfejteni-ezt-az-osi-torok-irast/

The website of the small village museum where it is hanging on the wall: http://www.holloko.hu/hu/info/latnivalok-szolgaltatasok/muzeumok/falumuzeum.html

The Website of responsible Hungarian museologists (They not contacted yet about this exact issue): http://palocmuzeum.hu/szolgaltatasaink/fotoszolgaltatas-digitalizalas-fenymasolat/?lang=en

If more clarification needed, write to me, thanks.

--Rodrigo (talk) 03:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty certain the script of the manuscript in [6] is Latin, and I think the language is Latin too, although I can only make out isolated words here and there, not enough to get an idea of the content. The arches over the words that you noticed would be abbreviation marks. It looks a lot older than 1895 though, late medieval rather than modern. Someone more knowledgeable than I am would probably be able to identify the approximate time of writing from the style (my guess is 15th/16th century?). @Adam Bishop: could you help perhaps? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:21, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree^^^ Mid-15th-century Latin, probably a charter—note the relative frequency of apud? ——SerialNumber54129 10:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is a Latin charter and its date (1343) is indicated in the last line and confirmed by the writing style and by a M°CCC° ... that can be seen in the gap between help and the exclamation mark. It starts with the name and titles of the issuer, the then Archbishop of Esztergom: Csanád dei et apostolice gratia archiepiscopus Strigoniensis locique [...] comes[?] perpetuus. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 11:33, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, definitely a medieval Latin charter, and it's helpfully dated 1343 as mentioned. I bet it's probably been transcribed somewhere before...I'll see if I can pick out any phrases. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:00, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic numerals for a date—a later hand, surely? ——SerialNumber54129 12:06, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that was probably added later. It has been transcribed, by the way. I found it in Codex diplomaticus hungaricus andegavensis, pg. 370, n. 221 (although some bits weren't transcribed, which I've added in square brackets - I didn't compare the entire thing to the manuscript image so I'm not sure if the rest of it is 100% accurate either):

Chanadimus [dei et apostolica gratia] archiepiscopus Strigoniensis locique eiusdem comes perpetuus [missing bit] Paulo de Scechem, Nicolao de Rymolch, Petro de Loch et Gregorio de Waralia ecclesiarum sacerdotibus [salutem in domino benedictionem eam ?? ]. dicit nobis religiosus vir frater Ambrosius prepositus de Garab ordinis premonstratensium conquerendo, quod feria quinta próxima post festum Nativitatis virginis gloriose proxime iam preteritum quidam rustici de villa Sun et de Aralia ac de Bache, dei timore postposito tamquam immemores eorum salutis, ad domum ipsius in villam Garab accessessisent, et ipsum ibidem sine culpis suis exigentibus interficere voluissent, ipseque prepositus timens mortis amaritudinem, ad monasterium fugisset et in sacristiam ipsius monasterii intravisset, ipsique populi tamquam canes rapidi ad monasterium accedentes et ostium eius et sacristie ad predictum prepositum confringentes, dictusque prepositus in sui defensionem unum parvum scrinium in quo corpus Christi reservabatur, ad manus eius recepisset. Predictique populi ad terram ipsum scrinium confregissent, et insuper quelibet bona tam ipsius monasterii quam eiusdem prepositi omnino exportassent: unde cum nobis de premissis non constaret aliqua rei certitudo, devocioni vestre in virtute sancte obediencie mandamus, quatenus receptis presentibus, accedatis ad premissa inquirenda et videnda, si veritas de premissis sic se habet nec ne; et post hec scita veritate tocius ipsius inquisicionis seriem in vestris literis ad vestre consciencie puritatem nobis rescribatis; ipsosque populos salubriter ammoneatis verbo nostro, ut de premissis factis eorum usque quindenas congruam rependant satisfaccionem, qui si fecerint bene quidem alioquin ipsis quimdenis diebus transactis, auctoritate conservatoria papali contra eosdem procedemus. Datum Strigonii, feria tercia proxima ante festum beatorum Cosme et Damiani martirum, anno domini M^mo CCC^mo XL^mo tercio." (i.e. Sept. 23, 1343)

I'll try to translate this but it will be later today or tomorrow, unless someone wants to take a stab at it first! Adam Bishop (talk) 12:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129:: There is a date in the bottom: 1343. In the Latin Wikipedia I cannot find Info Desk. I am checking also in the Hungarian language help topic. I will update here if any finding.--Rodrigo (talk) 11:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

General info about the historical background:

Csanád Telegdi acted as royal governor (viceroy) in the Kingdom of Hungary in year 1343 when Queen Elizabeth did supporting visit at his son in South-Italy Andrew, Duke of Calabria.
Also that year the tax collectors from the Chatolic pope were in the country.
In 1343 (from 1427) the ruler of the Castle of Hollókő was Thomas Szécsényi Master of the treasury .
That year the village of Hollókő got a newly built church.

@Adam Bishop:: The abbreviations point that it is kind of governing ordinance about a local issue.

--Rodrigo (talk) 12:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the raw script: Village of Garáb is 5 kilometres from Hollókő. Garáb as older settlement had Monastery of Saint Hubertus till 1436. --Rodrigo (talk) 13:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is "finite" the only English word (not being a compound) that is pronounced /CaɪCaɪC/, C denoting any consonat (unnecessarily a constant one)?

185.46.76.74 (talk) 07:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Highlight", for one.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 07:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Byline", "pyrite" (in some pronunciations), "tieline", "tryline". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrite (pronounced /paɪraɪt/ in Wiktionary), is the example I liked the most, because it's the only one (besides "finite") not being a compound. Anyway, thanks to all of the other examples (added by you and by William), I've just added the condition: "not being a compound" to the title of this thread. 185.46.76.74 (talk) 08:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably "quinine". Jmar67 (talk) 10:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is "unnecessarily" the only English word whose stress is on the fifth last syllable?

185.46.76.74 (talk) 07:09, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it more often pronounced with stress on the fourth syllable (third from the end) on both sides of the Pond? Dbfirs 07:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the more frequent stress depends on the variety of English used, but maybe I'm wrong. 185.46.76.74 (talk) 07:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the stress on the second syllable is an alternative in British English, though I don't recall hearing it. Perhaps it is regional within the UK. Dbfirs 10:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Second [7] or fifth [8] in British English. Bazza (talk) 11:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]