Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Reference desk

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by הסרפד (talk | contribs) at 19:54, 26 May 2020 (→‎Awkward Hebrew dual: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.
skip to bottom
Select a section:
Shortcut
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:


Look up Wiktionary:Information desk in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Look up Wiktionary:Translation requests in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

May 19

Falomlás

The comic anthology "Breakthrough" (in German "Durchbruch", in French "Après le mur"), published in 1990 edited by Andreas C. Knigge and Pierre Christin, was called "Falomlás" in Hungarian. I have not been able to figure out what this Hungarian title means. Could anyone with knowledge in Hungarian explain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.20.147 (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I put it into Google translate and then tried every conceivable word break. If the title is actually "Fal omlás", that would be "Wall collapse". --Khajidha (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikitionary has an entry for wikt:fal 'wall'. It doesn't have one for "omlás", but it does have wikt:kőomlás 'rockslide', explained as "kő (“rock”) +‎ omlás (“fall”), so yes, that would point to fal + omlás = wall collapse. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The term for "fall of the Berlin wall" is "a berlini fal leomlása".[1] The verbal prefix le- denotes downward action and -a is a possessive suffix. As a compound noun, like German Mauerfall, it should grammatically be falomlása.[2]  --Lambiam 20:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about that. (Do you speak Hungarian?) This [3] article seems to imply regular noun+noun compounds in Hungarian are formed without such a possessive affix. Maybe the possessive affix in those two examples ("a berlini fal leomlasa" and "a tragikus oktobér falomlasa" is just triggered by the larger nominal syntagm the word is part of ("the downfall of the Berlin wall" and "the wall collapse of October")? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, if the suffix is retained, then standard Hungarian orthography requires the compound to be written as two separate words: fal omlása. But when the suffix is omitted, the compound should be written without spaces: falomlás (see Hungarian orthography § Subordination). As a simple GBS shows, this rule is quite often not followed in practice.  --Lambiam 10:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Shaw is famous for his advocacy for revised English spelling, but I had no idea he was an expert on Hungarian orthography too. :) -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC) [reply]

May 20

Older or elder

I have two brothers. If I refer to my elder brother am I necessarily implying that he is older than myself or is he merely older than my other brother? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS Did younger ever have a similar variant like elder v older, or perhaps in other Germanic languages? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[4] sheds some light on what are, in essence, the same word. Bazza (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think my elder brother and my older brother mean the same: you have one brother who is older than you, and the phrase refers to that brother. The traditional comparative and superlative of old – elder – eldest, once regular, were at some point in the development of modern English perceived as irregular and pushed out by a newfangled old – older – oldest. The traditional forms somehow managed to hang on to life in a very restricted context.  --Lambiam 16:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To the original question: I think that your elder brother necessarily is older than you. However, your eldest (or oldest) brother might conceivably be younger than you, by being the oldest of your more than one younger brothers. --T*U (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That could cause confusion, as how can you have a brother who's both older and younger than you? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Easy. Say I'm the first-born, then came 3 more brothers. The second-born of us 4 brothers is the oldest of my three younger brothers. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's how you avoid any confusion: "My oldest younger brother". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The main distinction between older/est and elder/est is that older is absolute, while elder is relative. If I had a brother who died at age 5, three years before I was born, he will always be my elder brother but I'm now a lot older than he ever was, and I've had that status ever since I turned 6. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 06:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's (annoyingly) less precise than that and I repeat my link from above. [5] Bazza (talk) 09:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bazza the link you recommend does not actually address this issue at all. I'm afraid it's also rather lacking in citations. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dodger67 I wasn't aware that the Cambridge University Press's dictionaries were sufficiently unreliable for this talk page to require them to have citations. The entry whose link I gave earlier addresses the initial presumption that there's a firm distinction between "elder" and "older". Reading above, I am not the only one to think that that's wrong. Bazza (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your older brother boards a starship exploring for other habitable planets, then returns younger due to time dilation. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Clarityfiend
There was a young man named Bright
Who traveled much faster than light
He set off one day
In a relative way
And returned on the previous night
Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Funny. But the fact of his having been born before you remains unchanged. He may have aged less than you did during the time of his star trek, but he's still older than you are. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. He would be both older (chronologically) and younger (Collins dictionary definition of older: "having lived or existed longer") than you. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming he gets back and you're both still existing, then he has existed longer than you have. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, not according to Albert, see twin paradox. It is not aging that has been affected by the twin's travel, it is time itself. --T*U (talk) 07:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whose clock takes precedence? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's rather the point: wikt:to each his own. --T*U (talk) 10:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So if the older one is 2 years older than you, he would have to travel near light speed for something over 2 years by your clock, in order for you to "catch up" to and pass him. But I question whether that dictionary is taking such far-out possibilities into account in their definition. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed! And far-out it is! But time dilation (which is the physical foundation for the twin paradox) has been observed in experiments, although only by milliseconds. It is, however, crucial to take the effect into account in satelite control. --T*U (talk) 11:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 21

Word for a 'neologism created solely for its humoristic effect'

Is there a word for a 'neologism created solely for its humoristic effect', for example: 'noise-machine' (radio), pill-popper (pharmacist), etc.? (It doesn't necessarily need to be a new word for a new thing, but can also be a new word for something that already exists.) Servien (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The term Boob tube comes to mind, as a term for television, and the link calls it "slang". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) :See: Neologism (however, article needs work). Per your examples, hyphenated words generally would not be considered neologisms. AFAIK, a humorous neologism is just that. 107.15.157.44 (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For a word only intended to be used once, see: Nonce word. 107.15.157.44 (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sniglet comes close; it's an "often humorous" made-up word. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See also The Meaning of Liff, daffynition, and The Devil's Dictionary. --Khajidha (talk) 01:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And the more accidental forms eggcorn, malapropism, and mondegreen. --Khajidha (talk) 01:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Transparent Wall Technician is a window washer. 86.186.232.80 (talk) 09:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the replies, but it does not exactly match my description. If it does not exist, it might be time for a neologism to define this phenomenon. Servien (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An oldie: "clip joint" for a barber shop. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With apologies to Lewis Carroll, "jabberwonky"? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 22

Can someone translate this into Chinese

Awkwafina trying to fix her article but need Awkwafina in Chinese it already has her Chinese name but its for her legal name and not her stage name

stage name Awkwafina legal name Nora Lum (Already has a translation on the article} Google translate was of no help with this as it did not translate this 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 17:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Chinese transliteration is 奥卡菲娜, although I don't think this is very useful for the English Wikipedia. The stage name is English, and Chinese sources only use the Chinese because they have to transliterate it. IMO It would be like putting the Chinese transliteration for Jackie Chan when it's never used in Chinese like that. bibliomaniac15 18:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And why not also then add the Korean transliteration 아콰피나? And the Korean transliteration 노라 럼 of her birthname? And why stop there? What about Arabic, Armenian, Hebrew, Japanese, Persian, Russian, Vietnamese?  --Lambiam 20:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@1.Ayana: Since she "needs" her stage name in Chinese I'm guessing it doesn't have a Chinese equivalent save for what Bibliomaniac suggested. If she officially doesn't have it in Chinese there's no reason to add it on the English Wikipedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Translation: What does the German Herdgeschehen mean?

Context: Covid-19 ist durch ein lokales Herdgeschehen (Cluster) mit nicht vorhersehbarem Muster des Auftretens gekennzeichnet. -- Communpedia Tribal (talk) 21:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Literally "focus-seat action" and here intended as a translation of "cluster". I would translate as "Covid-19 is characterized by a local cluster behavior with an unpredictable pattern of occurrence." Jmar67 (talk) 23:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 23

Who or whom?

Which word, who or whom, is correct in this sentence? Those whom Katzmann finds satisfactory will advance to the following episode. Or: Those who Katzmann finds satisfactory will advance to the following episode. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both are fine. Life is short, the planet may be doomed, your English is good; don't spend your time worrying about the "correctness" of your English. Though you might use "whom" more if you want to get laid. -- Hoary (talk) 05:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoary: I wouldn't say that I am "worried" about such matters. I came to this page, since the "language experts" are here ... and would likely know the best answer. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph A. Spadaro, the real-world use of whom is a (minor) encyclopedic matter, one that you can find written up within The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. It's a (necessarily) large and expensive book, but you seem to have a lot of questions about English, so it wouldn't be an unreasonable purchase. Questions about the "correctness" of who versus whom in the speech or writing of adult users of English as a first language appeal to fictional "rules" propounded by that odd kind of "pedant" who refuses to educate himself. (Male pronoun deliberate, as the vast majority are male.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoary: I don't follow what you are saying. Are you saying that there are no "rules" to correctly be applied, to distinguish who versus whom? It's just a "free-for-all" and anyone can select either word, willy-nilly? With no regard to "rules", that are -- in your words -- fictional and don't exist? Is that your contention? Please clarify. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph A. Spadaro, English is indeed subject to many rules. The great majority, you hardly if ever think about, if you are a normal user of English as a first language (as you seem to be), and are neither trying to assist a second language learner nor observing a first language learner. English also has a number of "rules" (some involving who/whom) that are of great concern to "language experts". Some are rooted in actual rules; some are based on no more than whim.
Luckily, this is related to phenomena of natural language and not of mere whim. Well, here you go: "whom Katzmann finds satisfactory" is an integrated relative clause: "Katzmann finds ____ satisfactory" is a complex transitive clause, and the blank within that is for the object of "finds".
Where English clearly distinguishes between nominative and accusative forms (as it does for him versus he), you use the accusative form: "Katzmann finds him/*he satisfactory." Now, since whom is accusative, one might expect that whom would be the appropriate form of who/whom/whose. And indeed one finds examples. Here's one:
Those whom depression struck hardest as well as much of the general public and major Protestant churches, shored up their civic consciousness about currency and banking reform, regulation of business in the public interest, and labor relations. (source)
Where many "language experts" (by which I do not mean linguists) go wrong is to look for single "correct" options and to assume that who must be nominative. But the use of whom in accusative contexts has been declining for decades; the form who has been taking over (and the sky has not fallen).
If you'd just drop the matter of "correctness", your question would be interesting. And here's why. It's a commonplace that the use of whom hasn't been declining uniformly: there are some kinds of context where it seems fairly secure. One I can think of offhand is the complement of fronted prepositions: "To whom did she complain?" is still, I think, likelier than "To who did she complain?" This seems to be another. Indeed, I struggle to find an example with who in the wild, but here's one:
In a world where we are constantly connected, its [sic] those with the best people skills who win the day. Those who build the right relationships. Those who truly understand and connect with their colleagues, their customers, their partners. Those who others like, respect and trust. (source: yearbook.managers.org.uk/book/the-art-of-people/, now deleted, and not at Wayback)
That quote is in somewhat bullshitty management-speak, and the rules of orthography prescribe an apostrophe; but neither objection affects its (to me) idiomaticity. I conclude that either whom or who would be acceptable in your context. -- Hoary (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whom is correct in traditional usage. You'd say "Katzman finds me (objective case) satisfactory," not "Katzman finds I satisfactory." Deor (talk) 05:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Deor: Thanks. That's what I thought. Wasn't sure, though. In (quickly) trying to "parse" the sentence, I was somehow coming up with he will advance to the following episode, and not him will advance to the following episode. Which contradicted Katzmann finds he / him satisfactory. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One needs to recognize that the sentence contains two clauses. The relative clause "whom Katzman finds necessary" is what one has to parse to determine the case of who/whom. The independent clause "Those will advance to the following episode" is a completely separate matter. (In your sentence, it's also acceptable to omit the relative pronoun and go with "Those Katzman finds necessary will advance to the following episode".) Deor (talk) 20:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. Thanks. I had parsed it both quickly ... and incorrectly. Thank you! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WHAAOE: see Who (pronoun). Bazza (talk) 08:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bazza 7: Yes, we have an article on the pronoun "who". But, that wasn't my question. My question was -- in essence -- which form of the pronoun "who" is correct for that specific sentence. I wasn't sure if it was the objective case or the "other" case ... which, I believe, is called either subjective case or nominative case, but I am not sure. Interesting article, though ... it does have a ton of information. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The two cases you're referring to are the accusative and the nominative. (They're appropriate for languages as different as English and Japanese. They're not appropriate for ergative languages.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that, in the English language, they are referred to as "subjective" and "objective". I know that, in Latin, there are accusative and nominative cases. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they also have these names. But these names are unnecessarily confusing. For example, in "I asked him to leave", "him" is the subject of "to leave" but yet in the "objective" case. -- Hoary (talk) 21:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought that whom was a vestigial dative rather than an accusative, but I'm just an internet idiot so whatever. 2601:648:8202:96B0:3567:50D5:8BFF:4588 (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Run-on sentence in Jasper Rine article

There is a long and unwieldy sentence in the Jasper Rine article. It states:

In 2005, Rine earned the name "professorpwnage" after a video (not original) was posted online depicting Rine speaking before a class, explaining that his laptop had been stolen and warning the thief, supposedly among the group of students, that there was extremely sensitive data on the laptop from various sources, which since it was stored on the laptop when it was stolen, could result in the thief serving time in federal prison.

I was wondering if some language expert, here, could go in and improve that? It's an article with no traffic, so I assumed that posting my request on its Talk Page would be futile. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not horrible. But assuming you're a native English speaker, you could give it a shot yourself. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is horrible. Probably one of the worst sentences I have ever read in my life ... even if it is (possibly) grammatically correct. To read/understand it involves mental gymnastics ... which defeats the point of communicating the events. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had no problem understanding it. Maybe you need to take your brain to the mental gym for a refresher. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talk • contribs) 20:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then how did it score a Flesch–Kincaid readability tests score of (literally) "zero" for "Reading Ease"? Perhaps the experts in linguistics (or whatever) -- such as Flesch and Kincaid -- have no idea what they are talking about ... but some random Wikipedia editors know better?  :) That tends to be the case on the Internet.  :) Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't vouch for the state of their mental gyms. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let us know when you come up with a mathematical formula that supersedes or improves upon the current "ubiquitous" one, by Flesch and Kincaid. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's no substitute for comprehension. You're welcome. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrote pending arrival of expert. Jmar67 (talk) 22:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's long and unwieldy, but it's not a run-on sentence. That is two or more sentences that are just abutted up against each other without any linking conjunctions or pronouns. Such as "I have a Siamese cat his name is Figaro". That is actually two sentences: "I have a Siamese cat." and "His name is Figaro". To join them into a single grammatical sentence, you'd need an "and" after cat, or change "his" to "whose". A sentence that is grammatically correct can still be almost impossibly long and pretty much useless for standard purposes. That doesn't make it a run-on sentence. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not everyone agrees with that definition. See sense 2 here. --76.71.5.208 (talk) 03:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. I was referring to definition #2 -- not definition #1 -- at that link. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence may be long, but IMO not overly so. Also, it does not suffer from lack of order or coherence.  --Lambiam 11:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When I posted my original request, I was not "overly concerned" with a correct adjectival description of the sentence (e.g., long, unwieldy, run-on, lacking order, lacking coherence, etc.). I was basically saying that "it's a terrible sentence and could be written much better". The original sentence was trying to "pack in" too many facts, into a single sentence. It left it up to the reader to perform mental gymnastics, to try to follow the story and sequence, and to see "what exactly happened". That burden defeats the purpose of effective communication. Also, see my comments below about the "readability" of the sentence. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Someone should update our article, then. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 08:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just did so. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence can of course be cut up: "In 2005, a video was posted online. It depicted Rine speaking before a class. In the video, Rine explained that his laptop had been stolen. ..." This cut-up style gives the impression the author has run out of breath.  --Lambiam 11:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It may -- or may not -- give the "impression" of being out of breath. But, it would also be more "readable". See my analysis/comments below. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sentences could be made less choppy than Lambiam's example, but still more readable than the original: "In 2005, a video of Rine speaking before a class was posted online. In the video, Rine explained that a laptop containing extremely sensitive data had been stolen from him and that possession of the data could lead to the thief serving time in federal prison.” --Khajidha (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)|[reply]
See also Longest English sentence which highlights the prize-winning 2016 Irish novel Solar Bones; the whole book consists of a single sentence of about 78,300 words. Alansplodge (talk) 12:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Though, looking at that novel, it seems to me more like a novel of zero sentences; certainly it has nothing in the way of usual sentence delineating punctuation, but it also does not present as a single sentence, with subordinate clauses and things like that. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 04:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Readability of the sentence

Out of curiosity -- as to whether or not this was a horrible or a bad sentence -- I did a Microsoft Word Readability Statistics check. So, essentially, I was originally complaining that the sentence was "unreadable", I guess. Here is the Microsoft Word analysis below (with my comments added in, parenthetically).

Readability Statistics

  • Counts
    • Words: 72
    • Characters: 363
    • Paragraphs: 1
    • Sentences: 1
  • Averages
    • Sentences per Paragraph: 1.0
    • Words per Sentence: 72.0
    • Characters per Word: 4.8
  • Readability

To me, this is the very definition of an "unreadable sentence". And -- at 72 words -- a "long sentence". Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of curiosity, and by way of comparison, could you please run the same analysis on the infamous opening sentence of Paul Clifford? --76.71.5.208 (talk) 17:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes ... here goes:

It was a dark and stormy night; the rain fell in torrents—except at occasional intervals, when it was checked by a violent gust of wind which swept up the streets (for it is in London that our scene lies), rattling along the housetops, and fiercely agitating the scanty flame of the lamps that struggled against the darkness.

Readability Statistics

Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph A. Spadaro, these "readability" indices are a waste of time. The sentence you quoted at the very start burbles on rather soporifically. It's not one that I'd ever write, but I find it easy to understand. If it bothered me as much as it seems to bother you, I'd fix it. -- Hoary (talk) 23:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoary: (1.) I will let Bill Gates and the Microsoft people -- and the linguistic experts Flesch and Kincaid -- know that some random editor on Wikipedia thinks that their readability statistics are a "waste of time". I am quite sure they will value that constructive input. (2.) As I said in a comment above ... If it's "so easy" to understand ... Then how did it score a Flesch–Kincaid readability tests score of (literally) "zero" for "Reading Ease"? Perhaps the experts in linguistics (or whatever) -- such as Flesch and Kincaid -- have no idea what they are talking about ... but some random Wikipedia editors know better?  :) That tends to be the case on the Internet.  :) (3.) Who said that it "bothered me"? I suspected it was wrong and asked people at -- oh, dear! -- the Language Reference Desk to take a look. Call the FBI on me. LOL. (4.) It doesn't "bother me". But, it seems to "bother you" that I made a grammatical/linguistic request. What's that all about?  :) You do know that this is Wikipedia ... and you do know that this is a Reference Desk for Language ... yes?  :) Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the proof is in the pudding. One editor did go and change it. And yet another offered an alternative change. Both, I presume, based on the premise that it needed changing. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am indeed no more than a random editor on Wikipedia. Well spotted. Now, were Flesch and Kincaid experts in linguistics? (If they were experts in something else, how would this expertise be a factor?) ¶ You're concerned about the "correct" versus the not-correct; the "right" versus the "wrong": for you, in a context such as this (unlike, say, arithmetic), what do these terms mean? (If you're asking for people's preferences, I don't see how this is an encyclopedic matter.) -- Hoary (talk) 04:29, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is a correct and an incorrect way to use "who" versus "whom" (and other words, also). I am pretty sure of that. Otherwise, as I posted in a different section above, there are no rules and anyone can state anything, willy-nilly. So, yes, it's an encyclopedic matter. Whether or not it is "important" to you (or to me) is irrelevant. If a Wiipedia article stated: Him is the President of the USA. ... I am pretty sure that it would be edited to He is the President of the USA. (Just as an example.) So, yes, there are correct and incorrect words to be used in an encyclopedia. And this is the exact place to inquire about it (this Wikipedia Reference Desk for Language). As for Flesch and Kincaid, I am sure you know how to reach their links and read their biographies. I assume they have some expertise in "linguistics" and "readability indices", yes ... particularly given that an "ubiquitous" index is named for them. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And Joseph A. Spadaro, I recommend "More Flesch-Kincaid grade-level nonsense", by Mark Liberman (who is an expert in linguistics), and other debunking squibs linked therefrom. -- Hoary (talk) 05:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One guy writes a 3-paragraph opinion piece. That should "override" the relevant article that has 16 or so references? Are you suggesting that we delete that article? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The "one guy" is a linguist who knows his stuff. Because he's writing in Language Log, he's particularly irreverent. But really, no reverence is warranted. No, I'm not suggesting that we delete articles about Flesch, Kincaid, or their metrics. Wikipedia covers the wrong-headed (when the wrong-headed meets notability criteria, there are reliable sources available, etc etc): it has articles on "neurolinguistic programming", EST, psychoanalysis, The Elements of Style, birtherism, and (although I haven't looked) I suppose that it has material about crackpot notions of Covid-19. Rightly so. -- Hoary (talk) 23:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a sentence that gets comparable F–K numbers:
I like it when my grandmother makes macaroni and cheese, because it is yummy, so I eat one serving and I eat another serving and another serving, and I go on and on eating until I get a really really big tummy and a terrible belly ache, and then I am sorry that I ate so much, but it is too late, and I promise to myself that I will never eat so much again, but the next time my grandmother makes macaroni and cheese, I will have forgotten all about the promise I made to myself.
Clearly, one needs college-graduate level reading skills to decipher this.  --Lambiam 09:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What's your point? That the index is "imperfect"? Not sure that anyone claimed it was "100% absolutely perfect under any and all circumstances". Of course, you can always find "extreme" cases at either end of a spectrum. When you come up with a better formula, that gains ubiquity, let us know ... so that we can write a Wikipedia article about it. And we can also delete the Flesch–Kincaid article on Wikipedia. And we can persuade Microsoft / Bill Gates to use this new, improved index. Everyone on the Internet is an "expert" in everything. What a coincidence. Statistically improbable, I am guessing. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And, by the way, that is a lousy sentence ... the one about the macaroni and cheese. Not hard to understand, no ... but still a lousy sentence. It's not gonna displace Shakespeare any time soon. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a well-written sentence. Definitely a run-on. But it's funny and interesting, because it reflects the way kids talk. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would be great to have a lousiness test for prose, but the Flesch–Kincaid tests were not designed for that purpose. They are supposed to indicate readability of text passages. My point is that you cannot use them to prove that a sentence is unreadable, like you appear to believe can be done for the sentence about professorpwnage, apparently with the aim of establishing that there is something wrong with the judgement of those who stated they did not find that sentence unreadable.  --Lambiam 20:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's called "stream of consciousness". And it's not difficult to understand, even though I don't have a post-graduate degree. But I have studied the wit and wisdom of Casey Stengel and that probably helps. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 25

From the humanities desk

Resolved
 – 01:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

German translation requested here: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Idiomatic_translation
2606:A000:1126:28D:95AA:34CE:C3B:D9EB (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indian names

Resolved
 – Sources provided. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how Indian names work. I'm working on an article Ayyathan Gopalan and I don't know which name to refer to him by. I took a gander over at Indian name#Kerala to see if my answer was there. My question is how should I refer to the subject? Ayyathan? Gopalan? Ayyathan appears to be the family name but I'm not 100% sure. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here the subject is referred to by the single name "Gopalan", and a few lines earlier named "A. Gopalan". This suggests that, when using a single name, "Gopalan" is appropriate.  --Lambiam 06:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lambiam, thanks for the links. I'll start changing mentions back to Gopalan then. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

West Maryland’s dialect

What is the most common dialect in Hagerstown, Maryland? Or, failing that, what is the most common English dialect in West Maryland generally? (I could not find a Wikipedia article that answers this.) —(((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 08:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here I read: "North Midland (northern West Virginia, western Maryland, and most of Pennsylvania)".  --Lambiam 11:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Our Midland American English says; "The dialect region of the Mid-Atlantic States — centered on Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Baltimore, Maryland; and Wilmington, Delaware — aligns to the Midland phonological definition except that it strongly resists the cot–caught merger and traditionally has a short-a split that is similar to New York City's, though still unique" and has a link to Mid-Atlantic American English. Alansplodge (talk) 12:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The region lies at the boundary/overlap area of several linguistic regions of the U.S., besides the aforementioned Midland accent, there's also Appalachian English and Western Pennsylvania English and the Baltimore accent which all likely have some influence over the local dialect. --Jayron32 17:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 26

Awkward Hebrew dual

When I saw "Tannaim", I figured it was the dual form of "Tann", but now I see that it's the plural form of "Tanna". I then saw that it was Aramaic, and Aramaic#Grammar says that the language lost its dual in regular circumstances (you'd use dual for ears, shoes, etc., but not merely two fingers or two palm trees). This led me to wonder about Hebrew. If "Tanna" occurred in Hebrew, what forms would its dual and plural take? "Tanna'aim" and "Tannaim"? "Tannaim" and "Tannim"? Wouldn't occur at all? Something else? Bear in mind that I only know a little about Hebrew and don't know Hebrew at all. Nyttend backup (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Hebrew dual is always -ayim, though, not -a'im. Tanna'im is the Hebrew plural of tanna, which is a borrowing from Aramaic. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 19:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chalchiuhtecolotl, Huixtocihuatl, Macuilctochtli, Ometochtli, Opochtli, Yohualticetl

These articles are asking for a pronunciation needed. Are these correct?

  • tʃaːɬtʃiwiteˈkoloːtɬ
  • wiːʃˈtoːkiwat͡ɬ
  • maː.kʷiːɬ.ktoːt͡ʃt͡ɬi
  • ometoːt͡ʃt͡ɬi
  • opoːt͡ʃt͡ɬi
  • jowaːɬ.tiket͡ɬ
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language&oldid=959022504"