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.

September 28

Problems with the 's

Hi everybody! (yeah I love the Backstreet Boys but that's other thing), well, now serious, I'm having issues with the following; I saw a Columbine documentary (Zero Hour) and I didn't understand this: In a part it says "Eric Harris's house"... why another "S" If the surname already has an S?. Thank you all!. Hope to have been clear. --CoryGlee (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most of us would say "Eric Harrises House", and "Harris's" is the way to write it so it doesn't look like a plural. SinisterLefty (talk) 20:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) See Apostrophe#Singular nouns ending with an "s" or "z" sound. Including the "extra" s is a common practice, recommended by many style manuals—including ours. After all, most people say [ˈhærɪsɪz haʊs], not [ˈhærɪs haʊs]. Deor (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)We were always taught to spell it Harris' hence omitting the second s, though pronounced like Harrises. But you often see it Harris's as well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:33, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That seems as silly as spelling a word Worcester and saying it "Wooster". SinisterLefty (talk) 21:35, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or spelling a word forecastle and saying it "folks'll". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:14, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some folks'll say it that way, some won't. SinisterLefty (talk) 22:33, 28 September 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Thank you all for your quick(est) responses!, you've been rather than clear! --CoryGlee (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But note "Socrates' plays", "Achilles' heel" etc. This is possibly the only instance of a rule in English that allows you to spell it as you would say it.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's "Achilles heel" according to the main references at WP's own article, although that itself gives both versions and is titled with an apostrophe. Bazza (talk) 12:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

St James's Park in London is a well known example of the "s's" construction. Alansplodge (talk)

Our article also uses "Achilles's" at several points. --Khajidha (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article that Deor linked to above, Achilles is an exception to the general rule because "Classical, biblical, and similar names ending in a sibilant, especially if they are polysyllabic, do not take an added s in the possessive". CodeTalker (talk) 19:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dropping the apostrophe is also sometimes done with words not ending in "s". Two examples that come to mind are Pikes Peak and Popeyes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the style guides I used to consult as a professional editor, the default advice was to use –s's if the –s of the word was pronounced "s" (thus giving "–esez"), but –s' if it was pronounced "z", (to avoid "–ezez").

However, more subtle consideration may also come into play. For example, Hart's Rules (OUP 39th Ed 1983, pp 31–2) devotes two full pages to the question, and advises –s's for all mono- and di-syllables, and longer words with the stress on their penultimate syllable, unless they're classical (i.e. Latin (Mars' ) or Greek (Herodutus' )) or Biblical names (James' ) which traditionally take –s' . French names however (it says) should always (in English text) take –'s because, however spelled, their last letters are not pronounced (so Rabelais's). With institutions and place names, all bets are off as they do or do not use apostrophes on a case-by-case basis, so you just have to check them individually in/on an authoritative publication or map. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.121.161.82 (talk) 20:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See also Apostrophe#Nouns_ending with silent s, x, or z and English possessive#Nouns and noun phrases. It seems that "s's" is less acceptable in American English than in the British and Commonwealth forms. Alansplodge (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, this American always puts 's on possessives. All these complicated exceptions are just silly. And you don't have to pronounce it if you don't want.--Khajidha (talk) 22:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I (American) think the "s's" form is ugly. I use it only on WP. There is no need to reproduce the pronunciation in the written form. Jmar67 (talk) 07:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I adopt the natural approach, where the pronunciation dictates the spelling. If you would naturally say "Brahms's symphonies", then write that. If you would naturally say "Brahms' Lullaby", then write that. But never write "Brahm's Lullaby". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:23, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 29

Homophones or homonyms

Technically, words with the same sound but different spellings are called homophones. But children's media, such as Reader Rabbit 2, more commonly calls them homonyms. Why?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See the lead of Homonym, especially the second paragraph. Deor (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When I was a child in school, decades ago, we were taught "homonym" as the word for homophones. I still use it that way. I don't believe we ever talked about in school about there being such a thing as homographs. Perhaps this is still standard pedagogy in some places although linguists' preference for the more precise term, and Reader Rabbit 2 goes along. --76.69.116.4 (talk) 08:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When I was at school we used to joke that a homophone was what a homo would use to call his 'friend'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by

And you haven't matured enough since then to figure out that repeating bigoted jokes isn't a smart thing to do? Temerarius (talk) 01:54, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

195.59.100.28 (talk) 09:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This 45 year old was taught the difference in elementary school. Homonym = same spelling, homophone = same sound. Khajidha (talk) 11:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite right: Homograph = same spelling, homophone= same sound, homonym = same spelling and sound. -- Q Chris (talk) 13:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just saying what I was taught. I don't remember "homograph" at all. --Khajidha (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence of the article says homonyms, broadly speaking, "are words which sound alike or are spelled alike, but have different meanings." To, too and two are homonyms by this general definition. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a "homonym" is just the same word applied to different things. Originally spelling had nothing to do with it, because spelling was fluid and homonyms could usually be spelled the same by someone. So, "robin" in the UK and "robin" in the US are homonyms because they refer to different birds. Robert Sr and Robert Jr are homonyms, as both men are named "Robert". "Grammar" meaning a grammar book and "grammar" meaning the grammar of a language are homonyms, same word applied to different things. The issue that came in later was whether the "same" word meant that they had to be cognate. — kwami (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kwamikagami appears to consider that if a word has multiple senses then they are homonyms. I don't think that's correct. Dictionaries list "robin" as one word with two or more senses. Similarly "Robert" is one name. Homonyms have to be different words. --76.69.116.4 (talk) 07:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's just one sense. The word "homonym" is used in different ways in different contexts. See wikt:homonym. The first definition in the OED is "The same name or word used to denote different things." Thus "homonym" is a homonym. Dbfirs 08:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Linguists will never be able to rigorously define any concept if it first requires them to formalise a definition of what a "word" is, much less what constitutes a "different thing". – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When describing Chinese in English, words are typically considered homonyms if they're written with different characters, despite being merely different uses of the same thing. Usage can be inconsistent. I avoid the word altogether and just say homophone if that's what I mean. — kwami (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More broadly speaking, see Lie-to-children. It's a standard line of pedagogy to simplify things, especially at younger ages, so that some degree of understanding will be imparted, hopefully to be refined/corrected as the student progresses. Is it more important for the child to understand the different terms or is it more important to understand the basic concept of looking/sounding alike, but being distinct in some way? Keep in mind that there a multitude of such decisions to be made, even just restricting ourselves to English class. Matt Deres (talk) 13:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of, but it isn't really a pedagogical situation in the sense of a "lie-to-children", which is a valid method of teaching a simpler, less-detailed version of something as a means of instructional scaffolding so that the person is better able to learn the more precise details later. The "lie to children" method of teaching is best exemplified in the way we teach Newtonian mechanics before we teach more advanced, and more accurate, physics theories like quantum mechanics or general relativity. While QM or GR are more accurate (and thus for a given meaning of the word "correct", more "correct" than Newtonian physics), a student may not be yet intellectually prepared with enough background information to learn the more advanced theories, so the simpler (and less accurate) theories are taught first. In this case, the main issue is the ambiguity of language itself, not of a pedagogical method of simplifying complex concepts. In the case of the word "homonym", there are multiple valid uses of the term, some of which may be contradictory depending on the context they are used in. This is not unique to this word, most words have multiple shades of meaning where the context of usage (not just grammatical context, but also social context, i.e. when and where and by whom the word is used) is necessary to determine the exact sense meant. Specifically to the word "homonym" at the most basic level, the word means "two words with some kind of sameness". For example, Oxford defines homonym as Each of two or more words having the same spelling or pronunciation but different meanings and origins. If a more precise meaning is needed, for example distinguishing between two words that are spelled the same, but pronounced differently ("wind" as in blown air or "wind" as in to twist) OR distinguishing between two words that are spelled differently, but pronounced the same ("meat" as in flesh or "meet" as in to rendez-vous) OR distinguishing between two words that share common spellings and pronunciations but mean different things ("fair" as in a festival or "fair" as in just) then we can come up with additional words like homograph or homophone, and we can even restrict or modify the prior meaning of "homonym" to only mean some of these, while creating a new term to refer to the others. All of these possibilities happen all the time with language, which is why it can be messy to try to decode these things, ESPECIALLY when presented out of context. To know what a word means, you'd need to see how it is used, both its grammatical context (what words are used around it) AND its social context (who is doing the speaking and who is the audience) to understand which shade of meaning is meant. --Jayron 32 16:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll grant the sort of. I guess my POV is that teachers could well be aware of the distinction betwen homographs and homophones and are instead deliberately choosing to lump those together as homonyms to get across the more basic point that words that seem similar may in fact not have the same meaning. I'd propose that a similar situation occurs when metaphor is taught. Subtypes like metonymy or synecdoche are just lumped in there. I do understand that there is a distinction between ignoring more complex concepts (your physics example) and failing to distinguish subtypes (my POV of the homonym and metaphor examples), but I'd still consider them similar enough strategies to both qualify as lie-to-children. In both cases, the simplified version is "good enough" to promote understanding and illustrate basic concepts while remaining vague about the specifics. But YMMV. Matt Deres (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2

translate map of Vindobona

Hi friends, thanks to a question on the Humanities Desk, I've been reading Vindobona and noticed that the map is labelled in German. Could anyone here provide translations so we can request an English-language version of the map? 70.67.193.176 (talk) 14:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to get you started, the Danau River is the Danube. SinisterLefty (talk) 03:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Legend at bottom: Kaserne (Barracks) Stabsgebäude (Staff building) Kommandeursgebäude (Commandant's building) Tribunenhäuser (Tribunes' quarters) Lagerbad (Baths) Vorratsspeicher (Storehouse) Lazarett (Hospital) Gräberfelder (Cemeteries) wichtige Fundpunkte (Major discovery locations) aktuelle Straßenführung (Current street routing) aktuelle Bauwerke (Current buildings) Höhe ab Donauspiegel (10. jh) (Elevation above Danube in 10th century)

Jmar67 (talk) 06:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other text: ~ 250 n. Chr. (ca. 250 A.D.) Universität (University) Rathaus (City Hall) Parlament (Parliament) Jmar67 (talk) 06:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

City hall = rat house, how appropriate. :-) SinisterLefty (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Thank you very much @Jmar67! This is terrific. Really appreciate your work. I think the smaller rivers and the streets can retain their German names, but am wondering about the other red square (Stephansdom - would it be something like Stephan's Cathedral?) and the purple dots (Freyung/Herrengasse, Fleischmarkt, Michaelerplatz, Neuer Markt) and gray blobs (Stallburggasse, Albertina, Karntnerstrasse/Oper) - would any of these be more meaningful translated, or are they names of modern places in Vienna? 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stephansdom is St. Stephen's Cathedral. As for the other words, I think they can be left untranslated. In fact, I don't think it would sound suitable to transform Herrengasse into 'Sirs alley' or 'Herren alley', or Fleischmarkt into 'meat mart' (the more so as the translation would lead to think that there's an actual mart, while in fact it's only the name of the street, based on the fact that there was said mart). Albertina is the name of a museum. Galtzaile (talk) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good, thank you also! Request has been made at [1] 70.67.193.176 (talk) 20:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 3

Easiest European language to learn

Between Spanish, French and German, which language is easiest to learn for English speaking person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuart34534 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC) Easy according to pronunciation and grammar also.[reply]

There's probably the most words in common with French, due to the Hundred Year's War and Norman Conquest, relatively recent (is linguistic terms) events where each was on the other's soil for many years. Of course, having slightly different meanings in the two languages can cause some problems: "Would that gross man mind if I molested him for a few minutes ?" (Would the large man mind if I bothered him ?). :-) SinisterLefty (talk) 01:51, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish syntax is relatively easy and straightforward, compared with French, Portugese, and even Italian. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to the FSI, Spanish and French are Category I languages (easiest for native English speakers) and German is Category II. Their timeline indicates 24 weeks of study for Spanish to achieve "professional working proficiency", 30 weeks for French and 36 weeks for German.[2]--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 05:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea for a way to quantify answers! ~~But the question was about the easiest language other than those three.~~ Well, on that page 8 languages are all listed as "24 weeks", which is the fastest to learn. Besides Spanish, the other 7 are: Danish, Dutch, Italian, Norwegian, Portuguese, Romanian, Swedish. --76.69.116.4 (talk) 06:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misread the Q. Had it said "Besides..." it would have meant that, but it said "Between...". SinisterLefty (talk) 06:27, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So it did! Sorry about that. --76.69.116.4 (talk) 17:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Northcestrain Grammar School:

This is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Cestrian_Grammar_School

The school motto reads: as above link: Motto: "Delapsus Resurgam" (When I fall I shall die)

This is wrong! other than a bunch of kids walking around with an emblem associated with death, which by all accounts is wrong.

"Delapsus resurgam" does not, I repeat does not translate to this!

It wasn't this originally on Wikipedia, and now it's changed...

Please correct it, it's offensive to the Great Students that have, are and will continue to become Great Human Beings.

This is what it translates to:

"Delapsus Resurgam" (When I fall, I shall rise again)

Northcestrain formed just after the end of the second world war. Its Latin emblem is meant to inspire students to keep on trying. We all fall in life, but we keep on regardless because we are fearless and we never stop trying. We never give up.

Please change this. as soon as possible.

Regards,

Nick Carroll. (Former Student of Northcestrain Grammer School)

Thanks. This was a piece of recent vandalism that unfortunately slipped through. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:03, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a good motto for Phoenix, Arizona. SinisterLefty (talk) 20:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

St Paul's Cathedral in London has above its south door, an image of a phoenix and the motto "Resurgam", having been rebuilt after the Great Fire of London as every schoolboy knows. Alansplodge (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 4

Correct alphabetization of Spanish names

Oftentimes, Spanish people have two "last names". For example: Alejandro González Iñárritu. When you alphabetize his name, does it go under "G" for González? Or does it go under "I" for Iñárritu? And where are the "rules" for this? Is there a "standard" / accepted practice? Or is it merely discretionary, such that either way is acceptable? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article you need to read is Spanish naming customs. --Xuxl (talk) 16:54, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For Wikipedia, rule is in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Spain_&_Spanish-related_articles#3_Naming_conventions. Per that, the maternal surname is not used in alphabetization so González would go under G. Spanish_naming_customs#Indexing suggests that this convention is followed for English-language publications generally. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, for alphabetical purposes, he goes under "G" and not "I" ... correct? Now, if he is referred to in the article, should he be referred to as González ... or as Iñárritu?

Example A: Alejandro González Iñárritu is an Academy Award winner. González was born in 1963. or

Example B: Alejandro González Iñárritu is an Academy Award winner. Iñárritu was born in 1963.

Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See the lede of the article Xuxl linked. There are different rules for how to alphabetize and for which name to use. Alphabetization always uses the paternal surname but per the article, it's not so consistent for which name is used to refer to people. This can mean someone is referred to by one name but alphabetized under the other. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I read it. Does Wikipedia have any "rule" ... as to whether we should be doing Example "A" above or Example "B" above? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The example of Roberto Clemente Walker is useful. He's in the Hall of Fame category under "C", not "W". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since the name to use when referring to him is a matter of finding out what individuals use, I think the appropriate rule is probably Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(people)#Multiple_and_changed_surnames_–_patronymics_and_matronymics. In the specific case of Alejandro González Iñárritu, he's using Iñárritu, as in sources like [3][4][5]. He still gets alphabetized under G, per the rule. :) 70.67.193.176 (talk) 20:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rhymes that don't rhyme any more

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but I'd be glad if somebody could adduce an example of historical English rhymes which don't rhyme any more when read with modern pronunciation, idealiter if it's verses of actual poets (not necessarily one of the most famous ones, but maybe somebody who has a Wikipedia article). I'm not sure if examples even exist, but considering the development English has made from OE, ME to the contemporary language, I'm optimistic that something can be found. The original writing doesn't have to correspond to modern orthography, of course. Galtzaile (talk) 16:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many examples from Shakespeare's day. In Sonnet 166: "If this be error and upon me proved/ I never writ, nor no man ever loved." [6] Rmhermen (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a paper by David Crystal discussing the fact that a full 96 of Shakespeare's 154 sonnets contains rhymes that don't work in Modern English. [7] CodeTalker (talk) 18:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The Tyger": "What immortal hand or eye/Could frame thy fearful symmetry?" --Viennese Waltz 19:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unless old Will was just being funny. "Every boy and every gal / That's born into this world alive / Is either a little Liberal / Or else a little Conservative." -- Gilbert & Sullivan ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did G&S really use a capital L on Liberal? That's confusing for us folks in Australia where the Liberal Party is the major conservative party, and we use the expression "small l liberal" to describe what a lot of Americans think of as the rabid lefties. HiLo48 (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This[8] says yes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At the time, the Liberal Party (United Kingdom) was the main opposition to the Conservative Party, so I think the uppercase L makes perfect sense. The Labour Party was almost nonexistent (or perhaps actually nonexistent; I'm a little foggy on that). Of course it the Liberal Party, that is, not Labour was a classical liberal party, free markets and free trade and so on, not "liberal" in the sense of "center-left". --Trovatore (talk) 22:36, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chaucer also provides examples. In the prologue to the Canterbury Tales I see breath/heath, war/far, maid/said, pilgrimage/voyage, mead/red, dagger/spear, piteous/mouse, was/glass... 70.67.193.176 (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't pilgrimage and voyage rhyme? Both end in /ɪdʒ/ for me.

October 5