Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

December 1

Whilst or while?

I am busy updating a website for a client. The text they gave me includes "...cool off in our swimming pool whilst your BBQ fire is getting started at your chalet". Is that a correct use of "whilst"? The Engvar, if it matters, is South African/Commonwealth. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not wrong, but it comes over as a bit pompous to me. "While" goes much better in this sentence. --Viennese Waltz 11:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I know of no context in which "whilst" is a better word than "while". Abolish it, I say. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

In British and Indian English whilst does not have the pretentious aura it has elsewhere. I don't know about South African English, but while is the safer choice, especially if the site should also appeal to foreign customers. Unless, of course, the point is to create a suggestion of luxurious elegance for snobs the culturally refined elite.  --Lambiam 11:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks everyone - the consensus seems to be that "whilst" is too high register for the website of a B&B in a small rural town. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:50, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Whilst My Guitar Gently Weeps? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• By the dictionary definition, the two words are basically perfect exact synonyms. However, as noted, they vary in register, and so depending on the social and cultural context one or the other may be more appropriate. YMMV, etc. --Jayron32 12:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Today i learned a new word: excrescent[1] (Epenthesis). fiveby(zero) 12:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Interesting link, covering amidst, amongst, and whilst. I have an unpleasant autonomic response to amongst and whilst, but it hadn't occurred to me to group amidst with them. I don't use it (or amid) very much, but it looks OK to me, whereas amid makes me think of the reaction product of an amine with a carboxylic acid, even though that's not how you spell it. --Trovatore (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I can't comment on "amid", because it is not apart of my personal use vocabulary at all, but I will strongly assert that among and amongst are not perfect synonyms, and in most cases of the time one of them is more appropriate than the other; the difference may not be easily defined in a dictionary-type fashion, however, which might be the strong reactions invoked in some, as you described...I will give a few usage examples; if anyone feels a strong need to verify, the only way I can think of is to find usage examples in the wild: both words have been in continual use in the exact same way they are now since at least the 15th century (Late Middle English period).

Examples:

• There are spies in our ranks: the enemy is among us.
• The seeds of discord were sown amongst the gods.

2600:1702:4960:1DE0:A19B:E835:C1A:979B (talk) 07:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

See, and I thought that "excrescent" was the odor of feces. --Jayron32 18:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

A full moon is an excrescent.  --Lambiam 23:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

See also SEMANTIC ENIGMAS - What is the difference between while and whilst?. Alansplodge (talk) 10:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

To me "whilst" comes across as very marked language, while "amidst" is normal usage, and "among" and "amongst" are both current. The difference being that "amongst" is generally used specifically about humans ("He stood out amongst the crowd") while "among" is more common with inanimate objects ("Among my souvenirs"). --Khajidha (talk) 02:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I've never understood the prejudice against whilst. If it's natural to you to use it then do so, and if it isn't, don't. You'll rarely, if ever, actually improve a piece of prose by its removal. DuncanHill (talk) 14:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Carthago delenda est. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Closer than Lambiam and others might think... MinorProphet (talk) 11:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

You Will Know When You Get There

By Allen Curnow

Nobody comes up from the sea as late as this
in the day and the season, and nobody else goes down

the last steep kilometre, wet-metalled where
a shower passed shredding the light which keeps

pouring out of its tank in the sky, through summits,
trees, vapours thickening and thinning. Too

credibly by half celestial, the dammed
reservoir up there keeps emptying while the light lasts

over the sea, where it "gathers the gold against
it". The light is bits of crushed rock randomly

glinting underfoot, wetted by the short
shower, and down you go and so in its way does

the sun which gets there first. Boys, two of them,
turn campfirelit faces, a hesitancy to speak

is a hesitancy of the earth rolling back and away
behind this man going down to the sea with a bag

to pick mussels, having an arrangement with the tide,
the ocean to be shallowed three point seven metres,

one hour's light to be left and there's the excrescent
moon sponging off the last of it. A door

slams, a heavy wave, a door, the sea-floor shudders,
Down you go alone, so late, into the surge-black fissure.

December 2

Why do so many mis-pronounce the newest variant?

Watching and listening to the news recently, I noticed that many people mis-pronounce the latest COVID variant as Omnicron, as opposed to the correct Omicron. This includes such luminaries as many news anchors, the President of the U.S., and myself. (I really thought it was pronounced Omnicron until I looked it up.

A quick search found that "Omnicron" was used in a movie name, but I couldn't find any other uses.

Does anyone have any ideas of why this might happen? The only thing I could imagine is that some people might think it Greek for "All Crons". Uh, forget that. I have no idea what a cron is. Bunthorne (talk) 06:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you actually expect accuracy in news reporting? 2603:6081:1C00:1187:45A9:90E5:D977:B574 (talk) 06:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Omni- is a fairly standard prefix (omnipotent, omnivorous), so it's not all that surprising that people who don't know one Greek letter from another might think this is another case. Except, if they thought for a second, they'd realise that no letter could mean "all-something". Except, our global decline into cultural idiocy means they don't think, but just spout what they thought they heard/read (and in some cases, what they actually heard/read). If they understand that Greek has two letters called o, omicron and omega (little o and big o), they wouldn't make this mistake. But expecting the great unwashed to understand this is probably like expecting DJT to concede defeat in the 2020 presidential election. It ain't gonna happen. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Just mentioning that 'omni' is not even Greek, but Latin. --T*U (talk) 07:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

An omni-cron might come in handy. clpo13_(talk) 07:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

And this cron even better. No such user (talk) 14:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I believe omicron's name means "small O"; it was named to differentiate it from "omega", which means "big O". But, what was omicron called before omega was added to the end of the Greek alphabet?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

But unlike with the Big O, a variety of pronunciation, of the first vowel, seems possible: /ˈoʊmɪkrɒn, ˈɒmɪkrɒn, oʊˈmaɪkrɒn/; Martinevans123 (talk) 15:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Georgia guy:. The article Omega, in the history section, states "in Classical Greek, the letter [omega] was called ō (ὦ), whereas the omicron was called ou (οὖ).". --Jayron32 16:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Originally the vowels written by the two ancient Greek letters were pronounced differently, so each letter had its name the vowel sound which it wrote. But in the middle ages, the two vowel sounds fell together in pronunciation, so that "mega" and "micron" were then added to the disambiguate the names of the two letters. "Psilon" was added to the names of some Greek letters for similar reasons... AnonMoos (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

If I heard right, the new variant was initially named "mu" or "nu" — far more confusing. Doug butler (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

"Mu" was the previous new variant. The WHO rejected "nu" because it would be confusing. --184.144.99.241 (talk) 04:56, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Ha! That would have been hilarious! "The new nu variant.." Was there a xi variant? 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:A19B:E835:C1A:979B (talk) 07:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I feel highly honoured that I might catch Classical Greek COVID... Martinevans123 (talk) 20:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

If you go with the classical pronunciation shouldn't the the "i" in omicron be pronounced like the "e" in me? -- Q Chris (talk) 09:18, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Omigosh, yes.  --Lambiam 12:21, 4 December 2021 (UTC)}

It's not just that "omnicron" thing (probably said by those who say "nucular"), there's also the question of whether it's OH-micron or AH-micron. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Neither oh as in go nor ah as in arse, but o as in Bod. DuncanHill (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Because they didn't pay attention to Futurama or Star Trek. —Tamfang (talk) 05:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Orson Welles's last film role was the planet-sized robot Unicron: evidence of -cron as a sci-fi name component, similar to the excressences found on the outside of spaceships in Star Wars and elsewhere, that is, having no known meaning but seeming to belong there anyway. (Edit: I refer to greebles. Couldn't remember the name because I get them mixed up with nurdles and grawlixes.)  Card Zero  (talk) 23:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

We can't even agree on the first vowel in Covid, so asking us to agree on omicron is a bit of a stretch. DuncanHill (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't take away as much from this discussion as I might since I'm not au fait with the IPA and often the location of the stress is omitted. Writing in the Daily Telegraph of 30 November Jennifer Rigley says:

It is the linguistic equivalent of the epic siege of Troy: how to say "omicron", the new coronavirus variant.

Classicists say it should be "oh-MY-cron", the closest to how the ancient Greeks would have said it. But the BBC disagrees, as does the World Health Organisation - which is responsible for naming variants - and most of modern Greece.

They instead think it should be "OH-me-cron", with the emphasis on the first syllable.

Dr Armand D'Angour, an Oxford professor of classical languages, clears things up: "In ancient Greece, they would have said oh-mee-kron. In English, that became a long i, so that's why we see microscope and micron, and 'oh-my-kron'. But in modern Greek they have dropped that central i or ee, and so it makes sense to me to say oh-me-cron, as the modern Greeks do."

Others agreed, including Aris Katzourakis, an Oxford professor who is not only a leading voice on the evolution of Sars-coV-2 but a London born Greek speaker, thanks to his Greek parents.

References

-- 12:45, 7 December 2021 87.75.36.211

87.75.36.211 -- Ancient Greek did not have stress; it had a kind of pitch-accent system which mostly does not influence the choice of syllable to stress in modern English pronounciations of Greek words. How to pronounce the "i" vowel in English depends on whether you view "omicron" as a kind of compound of o + micron, or whether you view it a consolidated three-syllable word (the latter is more traditional). AnonMoos (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Is the word kidnap a portmanteau kid and napping?

kid means a small child napping means take a sleep in the noon.2404:8000:1005:DE4A:4D80:9BB7:4D3F:79A3 (talk) 08:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC) please somebody answer my question immediately.

The second element appears to be a variant of nab, "to snatch away". Cheers <x> _hugarheimur 08:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

If only there were a free online dictionary where one could look up such things! --ColinFine (talk) 12:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Why is OED available only by subscription?

Why are many pages in the Oxford English Dictionary available only by subscription? Why aren't all OED's pages available for everyone? --40bus (talk) 09:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

It is a subsidiary of Oxford University Press and unlike Wikipedia, actually employs people to write their articles and has physical offices, all of which need to be paid for. They use the surplus for a wide range of educational endeavours, including recently publishing technical data relating to the COVID-19 pandemic and a free e-book for African school children on mental wellbeing. Their annual report is here. Alansplodge (talk) 10:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Anyone resident in the UK can get full access with the number from their local authority library card, which is issued free. Anyone else can ask at WP:RX. DuncanHill (talk) 14:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Alas, not anyone. It is only available if your local council library has paid for their subscription. In these days of austerity, many do not, including both libraries I belong to.--Verbarson (talk) 10:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@Verbarson: I am so sorry to hear that. Have you written to the local paper, your MP, and the Oxford University Press? I will gladly sign a petition to restore your reading rights. I get quite upset by that sort of thing. DuncanHill (talk) 23:46, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

When addressing OUP, consider also advocating for similarly deprived non-UK residents, of which there are a whole lot more.  --Lambiam 09:22, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Alas, I have not made any attempt to stir up OED-mindedness in the libraries. In fact, given the parlous state of UK local government finances, I am very grateful that both local authorities have continued to provide a library service, one of them without closing any libraries. I would rather that remained the case, than have them decide that libraries - and their subscriptions - are just too expensive to maintain.--Verbarson (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

My local library has also discontinued its subscription, which I made use of for many years. How much is it anyway? Hopefully you don't live in Nottingham, where the Broadmarsh Shopping Centre is part demolished, the central library is up for sale and the books are in storage awaiting transfer to the new library which is part built, the council having run out of money. 87.75.36.211 (talk) 12:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Just noting that public domain versions of OED are pretty good and available online for free on the internet archive, just more difficult to search and less updated (I may be biased in this regard, because I find words that are less than a century old boring, OED3 looks like a quite ambitious project). That said, if you have some money to spend, the subscription seems to be far from the worst destination for it. In case your question wasn't meant in a rhetoric sense, it looks like the online version of the OED started already as a subscription based thing, guess some causes/reasons could be found in a more capitalistic approach to knowledge/culture, but that’s a pretty loaded opinion and I couldn't find much to substantiate it (also older versions simply weren't available online, so a direct comparison is difficult in this case, modern free online dictionaries for other languages would be a better fit, assuming a comparable scope and/or limiting to languages that are as widely used). In this case I feel particularly compelled to apologise for my poor English, in case it’s noticeable; also, wherever you are, do your best to keep local libraries running and as accessible as possible, that's the good stuff. 176.247.149.96 (talk) 05:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

December 5

Word "choosing" confusing me here.

Here it says: The next night on Raw, Randy Orton was scheduled to face Daniel Bryan once again at Hell in a Cell in a Hell in a Cell match with the audience choosing Booker T, Bob Backlund or Shawn Michaels as the special guest referee, with Michaels winning the vote. Orton won the match after Michaels superkicked Bryan for attacking Triple H.

Why "choosing" used here if it is confusing? I thought "choosing" mean, audience choose all three : Booker T, Bob Backlund and Shawn Michaels as the special guest referee. Rizosome (talk) 03:18, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

No. The "or" means only one could be the referee. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:06, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

It is confusing, A better wording would have been: "with the audience choosing between Booker T, Bob Backlund and Shawn Michaels".  --Lambiam 09:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Not really. The singular "referee" makes it unambiguous. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Not really. Just considering the part "with the audience choosing T, B or M as the referee", it might be the case that the audience had a free choice between many candidates, and that the reporter does not know whom they chose, but has enough information to eliminate everyone except for the three candidates mentioned. Compare this dialogue: "Who do you think the audience will choose as the referee? — I don't know, but I'm fairly sure they will choose T, B or M; the other candidates made a bad impression." It is only by the final clause, "with M winning the vote", that this possible interpretation is ruled out.  --Lambiam 08:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I understand from this line: A better wording would have been: "with the audience choosing between Booker T, Bob Backlund and Shawn Michaels". Rizosome (talk) 01:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Resolved

Occurring writing style

Wrong place.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Can someone please tell @Occurring: that his writing style, as shown in this revision of Illmatic, is strange and poorly formed? Another example is this revision of Bitches Ain't Shit. Piotr Jr. (talk) 11:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC) Can someone who can read at a learned, adult level tell @Piotr Jr: that my only transgression was writing at too advanced a level for some users, and that the fix is fairly simple, not getting on my talkpage cursing, misquoting, lying about me, and then falsely crying edit war when I make the exact fixes that this person asked for, simpler syntax? Occurring (talk) 12:46, 5 December 2021 (UTC) Take it to your user pages, or to the talk page for the article. The language reference desk is not the proper place to discuss such a dispute. --Viennese Waltz 12:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC) Or Wikipedia:Third opinion if you can't sort it out between you. See also Wikipedia:Civility. Alansplodge (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2021 (UTC) Maybe humanity has yet to advance to the linguistic level of Yoda, @Occurring: Piotr Jr. (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

December 6

Parsing of comparative sentences (English)

I was thinking about an oddity in comparative sentences. Take "My brother is taller than me" - I think this has the following form:

"My Brother" - Subject
"is" - verb
"taller than" - adjective clause
"me" - object.

First of all is that correct? Assuming that it is, a variation of this sentence is "My brother is taller than I am" ... whoa! what has happened here: My Brother" - Subject

"is" - verb
"taller than" - adjective clause
"I" - Well I is the subject form, not sure?"
"am" - another verb, in intransient form!"

My first thought is could "I am" be a noun phrase? It doesn't look like one! What's going on here? Do other languages have similar forms? -- Q Chris (talk) 09:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Of course the first version is correct. Yes, the second version is correct. By "intransient", do you perhaps mean "intransitive"? The verb BE is never transitive (though it very often takes a predicative complement). "I am" is never a noun phrase; it's a clause. (Here, it's a comparative clause.) In your example, the clause is a complement of the preposition THAN. What's going on here? Well, you're effectively asking for an edumacation in English grammar. Just yesterday I received my copy of Huddleston, Pullum and Reynolds' brand new second edition of A Student's Introduction to English Grammar, which I warmly recommend to you. -- Hoary (talk) 09:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh, more. There's no such thing as an "adjective clause"; and "taller than" isn't even a constituent. -- Hoary (talk) 09:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Q_Chris -- Think of "me" as a kind of Disjunctive pronoun here. For example in French, there's "je" as the 1st person pronoun subject of verbs, and "me" as the 1st person pronoun object of verbs, but both those words are commonly unstressed clitics (they have schwa vowels), so there's yet a third form "moi" when the pronoun is emphatic (pronounced as a separate word). A classic English example of a disjunctive pronoun is in "It's me", which should be "It's I" according to Latin grammar rules which were often applied to English before the 20th century, but people don't say "It's I". (They very occasionally say "It is I" when being self-consciously archaic.) AnonMoos (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Alternatively, think of me as a pronoun in the accusative case, and as such the noun phrase complement of the preposition than. (In English, if a preposition takes an NP complement, and if this is a pronoun with distinctive case forms, then it's in the accusative: "about/behind/beyond/despite him" (not "he" or "his"). "Disjunctive pronoun" doesn't appear in David Crystal's A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics, 6th ed; in R. L. Trask's A Dictionary of Grammatical Terms in Linguistics; or in Bas Aarts et al's Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar; and while "disjunction" does appear in each of the three, it doesn't do so with any meaning of "full-blown word and not a mere clitic". "Disjunctive pronoun" is used to describe French; on p.249 of his Foundations of French Syntax (1996), Michael Allan Jones describes how these pronouns differ from clitic pronouns (which of course are very important in French); but it's the clitic pronouns that require special treatment in this hefty book, and English doesn't have clitic pronouns. -- Hoary (talk) 00:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Hoary -- the term "disjunctive pronoun" describes phenomena which are part of the basic core grammar of French, while when it applies to the English language it describes some semi-marginal cases which were disapproved of in the 19th century (when Latin grammar rules were commonly applied to English). However, it can still be quite useful when used to describe those particular cases. I'm not sure I care too much about dictionaries (which do not really constrain terminology used by linguists), but "disjunctive pronoun" does occur in The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics (ISBN 0-19-280008-6), so there! -- AnonMoos (talk) 04:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

[Edit clash] Or again (now that I'm wider awake): than is a preposition. Prepositions differ in what kinds of complement they take; than is one of many that take either a noun phrase or a subordinate clause. Above, the noun phrase is exemplified by "me". As for the subordinate clause, than (together with comparative as and informal comparative like) takes what's called a comparative clause (which would be incomplete if it were used as a main clause). The comparative clause is exemplified above by "I am". Now, a comparative clause such as this can be further reduced, resulting in "My brother is taller than I." This is grammatical (even if formal/stilted). So "My brother is taller than ____" can be completed with either accusative me or nominative I. The choice may seem to some speakers to parallel choices elsewhere ("Dave and ____ had a great time", etc); and if so, then perhaps it's hypercorrection that makes some of these speakers fret about the (perfectly good) use of me. Silly books about "correct English", "good grammar" and the like profit off these groundless fears. -- Hoary (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Children's syntax, for expresing: "whose".

Hi, I'm a non native English speaker.

I wonder, what syntax children use, to express what adults express using the syntactic word "whose".

a) For example, instead of saying "the animal whose nose is long is the elephant", the children would probably say "the animal with the long nose is the elephant", but is it the only option for them? What about "the animal who has got a long nose is the elephant"? What about "the animal having a long nose is the elephant"? To my (non native) ears, these options don't sound like children's speech, but I may be wrong.

b) Here is a more complex sentence: "The animal, whose long nose I'm touching now, is called an elephant". As a non native English speaker, I wonder what option a kid would have, to express that sentence, as long as it begins with "the animal" and ends with "is an elephant" (i.e. without changing the subject, so I disregard structures with the same meaning but with another subject, like: "Now I'm touching a long nose, of an animal called an elephant"). -- 185.24.76.184 11:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it's "the animal that's got a long nose is an elephant". (The elephant, if it refers to elephants in the abstract, sounds like something a 19th-century biologist with a long beard would say.) For part (b) this becomes "The animal that's got a long nose that ..."  Card Zero  (talk) 13:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. 14:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC) -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.24.76.184 (talk)

I think British children would be far more likely to say "who has a long nose" than "that's got a long nose". "that's got" sounds very American to me. DuncanHill (talk) 14:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Don't you think they would prefer "that" (has) to "who" (has)? 16:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

No, and nor would British adults. "Which" would work, but "that" sounds rather American, especially for a living thing. DuncanHill (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh, an interesting difference between both varieties! Thnx... 19:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC) -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.24.76.173 (talk)

I believe that "that's got a long nose" shows acquisition and use of the construction have got. I'm amazed to see this, which I'd thought was something of a Briticism, described as sounding rather American. Perhaps an American would care to comment. -- Hoary (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

In American English, "I've got" and "I have" are more or less in free variation when used in the sense of possession (or whatever you'd call it in the case of "I've got/I have a cold"; I guess you don't really "possess" a cold). The difference you may be thinking of is that American English uses "I've gotten" to mean "I have obtained", and rejects "I've got" for this purpose. --Trovatore (talk) 01:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

When does the far more gruesome "I have gotten..." come into play? HiLo48 (talk) 01:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

HiLo48 -- In American English, "got" is the past participle in cases of static possession or obligation, while "gotten" is the past participle in cases of obtaining or becoming. AnonMoos (talk) 04:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

That's well put, except that I'd say the "got" instances are not felt as a participle at all; they're just part of a fixed form, and somewhat distant from any of the 3285 (at a rough estimate :-) ) meanings of the verb "get". --Trovatore (talk) 05:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Previous ref-desk thread on have vs. have got. Deor (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Then there's the matter of those who've gotten used to spelling "whose" as "who's". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Then theirs the second stuff, of those who replace - it's content - by theirs. Ewe no, its like speaking without saying anything. But the only (original) matter I do care about, is the way children describe the animal who's nose I'm touching now is quite long, i.e. about the way they speak about my lovely pet whose got this amazing trunk I always enjoy to look at, so whoever wants to talk about another matter, whether about replacing it's by theirs or about replacing bits by hairs or about substituting kits for pairs, should always remember mainly the original matter. . 23:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Henrik Kyhls "kileindgribningssystem"

Can someone help me with another puzzling translation please? Clockmaker Henrik Kyhl apparently invented a "kileindgribningssystem" as part of his work on clock towers, google seems to think this means a "wedge engagement system" but I'm unable to determine how this relates to clocks or clock towers. Any thoughts?--Jac16888 ^Talk 18:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

According to Wiktionary, “kile” can also be translated as “gusset” (often part of a clock). After conducting a search through various dictionary sources, I think “gribning” might be more accurately translated as “gripping” or some similar word. I think it’s a conjugation of the verb “gribe”, also present on Wiktionary, with several meanings given there. I don’t really know how clocks work very well, but hopefully that helps? Cheers, postleft ✍ (Arugula) ☞ say hello! 18:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I immediately though it sounded like some kind of escapement; but the equivalent German article, de:Hemmung contains Keil a couple of times, but not the rest of that word, so maybe not. --ColinFine (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The Danish verb indgribe is cognate with German eingreifen; both mean "to intervene", so indgribning can usually be translated as intervention. Here the sense must be more literal – something grabbing hold of something else. I suppose even native Danish speakers who are familiar with clockwork mechanisms will not be able to make much of the scant information supplied by this term.  --Lambiam 23:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

It's possible that the second paragraph on this page about a clock built by Kyhl is actually describing the wedge-engagement system, which might be the connection of the gear to the stokkedrevene (cage gear) shown in the picture. The "wedge" would be the tooth of the drive gear. The system, then, is this particular design of cage gear which can be taken apart easily to replace worn sticks. (Or I'm wrong, and this picture and accompanying text just happens to be placed after the passing mention of the kile-indgribningssystem.)  Card Zero  (talk) 03:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

It is indeed unclear whether the Særlig in the sentence following the mention of the kile-indgribningssystem introduces a further elaboration on this wedge-engagement system, or a next, unconnected example of Kyhl's general engineering ingenuity. Page Kile on the Danish Wikipedia specifically mentions the tooth of a gear as an example of the "wedge effect": converting a small force on a large area to a large force on a small area. The what and how is not made more specific, whether there or in the article on gear to which the example links. The image of the cage gear serving as the sprocket of a roller chain does not show anything I'd call a wedge.  --Lambiam 09:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Slightly confused, not sure where you're looking to see the roller chain. It isn't part of the clock, nor on da:kile or da:gear.  Card Zero  (talk) 10:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I mean the vertical structure behind the cage gear, which clearly engages with it. Perhaps it is not a flexible chain but a rigid rack.  --Lambiam 10:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

It's an ordinary gearwheel, which can be seen on the left-side of the rightmost picture. It's much bigger than the cage gear, so the bit of the wheel you can see in the close-up looks linear.  Card Zero  (talk) 11:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

December 7

Meaning of "subsequent acquisition".

From here, Popular opinion was that the Screwjob and WCW's subsequent acquisition of Hart were death blows for the WWF. 

What does "subsequent acquisition" mean? I Google this term, this page says that this term belongs to law. Rizosome (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it's straightforwardly compositional. It's an acquisition that was subsequent. Years ago, I acquired a copy of a blue-covered grammar textbook. Later, I acquired a copy of its greyish-covered second edition. That subsequent acquisition occurred the day before yesterday. -- Hoary (talk) 00:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Rather than Googling words you don't understand, I would suggest you consult a dictionary, such as Wiktionary.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, idiomatic phrases can be a problem. Though Wiktionary does try to list those to some extent.  Card Zero  (talk) 10:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

As used here, no legal meaning is intended. Each of the two words should simply be understood on its own. A "good decision" is a decision that is good. A "large mountain" is a mountain that is large. A "subsequent acquisition" is an acquisition that is subsequent – in the context, subsequent to the Montreal Screwjob.  --Lambiam 09:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I got the meaning from this lines: It's an acquisition that was subsequent. – in the context, subsequent to the Montreal Screwjob. Rizosome (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Resolved

December 8

Why "quintuple" is not "quinqueple"

The suffix "-ple" means fold. The words duple, triple, and quadruple mean 2-fold, 3-fold, and 4-fold. But when we use the word with Latin elements, we say "fifth fold" rather than "five fold". Any reason?? Was it historically common to confuse cardinal prefixes with ordinal prefixes?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Quadruple and quintuple both come from Latin via French.[2][3] <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 15:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I went to the link and included in the etymology is from Latin quintus "fifth". Note the difference between fifth and five. Georgia guy (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

So get in your time machine and go back to the 1500s, and ask that question. <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 15:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Don't be silly. There was no Wikipedia in the 1500s. --Trovatore (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

There was, sort of, but it was kept on parchment. You had to scroll through it. <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 21:42, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

But before you do that, check out the etymologies for single, double and triple.[4][5][6] <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 15:49, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Georgia_guy -- Latin "Multiplicative numerals" (see Gildersleeve and Lodge, page 54), go like this: simplex, duplex, triplex, quadruplex, quincuplex. The "Proportional numerals" (adjectives), go like this (in masculine singular nominative form): simplus, duplus, triplus, quadruplus, but no form for 5 is attested. So if you want to form a non-ordinal alternative for "quintuple", it seems that "quincuple" would be most correct according to Latin analogies... AnonMoos (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The OED actually has an entry on quincuple, classified as very rare (mainly restricted to a Quincuple Psalter from around 1509). The etymology of that form is traced back to Boethius (as quincuplus, which seems to contradict your reference?), whereas quintuplex seems to be attested earlier, in the 4th century. --Wrongfilter (talk) 20:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Wrongfilter, I saw a Wiktionary entry for quincuple, but it is short and has no entries linking to it. Georgia guy (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Wrongfilter -- in the grammar I was using (Gildersleeve and Lodge), "only the following forms occur" means in Classical Latin. Boethius is considered medieval... AnonMoos (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Interesting, I would put him in Late Antiquity, but his times are in-between more than anything else... Where do they draw the line in that grammar? I think the OED spoke about "post-classical". --Wrongfilter (talk) 23:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

There's no specific explanation of this in the grammar ("medieval" is my term), but Boethius is not listed in the "Syntax of individual authors" index, and the lengthy syntax sections are dominated by quotes from Julius Caesar, Cicero, Livy, Tacitus, etc. The official Wikipedia term for this is Late Latin, not considered the same as Classical Latin... AnonMoos (talk) 05:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

L&S list the adjective quincuplex, meaning five-fold. Gaffiot also gives this word, and, moreover, the corresponding adverb quincupliciter (and the Boethian terms quincuplico "I multiply by five" and quincuplus). Wiktionary states at the entry quadruplus that this adjective is "rare in Latin" – to which I might add that it is rare in other languages as well – so presumably the old Romans had no urgent need for a further extension to higher multiplicities. But should they have felt the urge, like Boethius did, quinque + -plus = quincuplus would have served them as the more regular formation, not the odd quintus + -plus = ^✽quintuplus, literally "fifth-fold". However, the equally odd formation quintuplex is attested, and, at least according to le Trésor, this is the etymon of our term quintuple.  --Lambiam 12:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Flying House vs Tondera House

The article The Flying House (TV series) gives the Japanese-language title as "Tondera Hausu no Daibōken (トンデラハウスの大冒険, Adventures of the Flying House)". A web search shows various pages that say the Japanese title translates to "Flying House" or "Amazing House". However, it's not clear to me that "tondera" in Japanese means "flying" or anything else. It doesn't show up in Wiktionary, and it's written in katakana, which suggests a non-Japanese word or name. My guess is that "Tondera House" is simply the name of the house in the Japanese-language version of the show, without any literal meaning. Is that correct? Is it likely to be taken from the place name of Tondela, Portugal (with the same spelling in katakana)? --Amble (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Unless a Japanese speaker here knows better, I found this forum thread which says:-

I don't think the word トンデラ came from any kind of western language. I guess that word was coined by the creator of that anime from a Japanese colloquial トンデル (tonderu), which originally means flying but also means active, fashionable, cool and so on. Alansplodge (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Katakana isn't necessarily only used for foreign words, but it could also be used for certain animals where the kanji is rarely used, or for general emphasis. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Right, katakana suggests it might be a foreign word or name, or just a made-up name, but not necessarily. One other point that could be relevant is that the Korean-language title just transliterates "Tondera", which is also consistent with it being a name instead of an ordinary word.--Amble (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Still, an actually flying house seems to me a more probable origin, than the show being named after an obscure small municipality in Portugal. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 22:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, if "tondera" means flying. It seems based on the forum post Alansplodge found that it's similar to a word that can mean "flying" (among other things), but perhaps changed a bit to make a name. I don't find exactly these words on Wiktionary, but I don't know Japanese, so a Japanese speaker can probably help clarify. --Amble (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I found a Japanese dictionary listing 翔んでる, described as a colloquialism for "flipped out, groovy", where the first character is a kanji for "to soar or fly", and putting the whole phrase through a translation tool gives ton deru, "it's flying". (What then are the other characters? I don't know enough about Japanese to say if they're katakana or some third thing. The first two characters together seem to make "ton" according to the translation tool, so how does that work if a kanji character isn't phonetic? But anyway, the forum post seems to be plausible.) (Edit after reading relevant articles: I guess they're hiragana and this is an example of okurigana.)  Card Zero  (talk) 01:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

And the tiny と over the kanji character 翔 that can be seen in that dictionary is furigana. The kanji character itself is a jinmeiyō kanji (approved only for writing Japanese proper names), appended to the jōyō kanji (the official standardized list of common kanji) in 1981.  --Lambiam 10:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

December 9

I need a native translation of a sentence, into the following ten languages:

Chinese (Mandarin)

Arabic

French

Italian

Dutch

Greek (Cypriot variety recommended)

Korean (South Korean variety recommended)

Ukrainian (Or, less recommended, Russian)

Lithuanian

Amharic

1. The sentence is: "Welcome to the first stage, of the fourth international program of GAN's method, the internatinal training course of GAN, 2021"
2. By "program" I mean, like in: "governmental program", or "educational program", and the like.
3. By "stage" I mean: phase/part/step (Actually the "program" consists of a few stages).
4. I know to use GoogleTranslate, but I need a native translation (or at least near-native, but not less than that. Please indicate if you are only near native).
5. Additionally, I would like to know how to pronounce the whole translated sentence (including "2021"), so please add also the transcription in IPA (or in Latin letters, as close to the original pronunciation as possible, if you are not familiar with IPA. As For Arabic, you can use conventional digits like 3, 7, and the like). As for Ukranina (or Russian), you can add a small y or small w, where needed. As for Chinese, please add also the tones.

185.24.76.187 (talk) 12:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Translators may be useful to you. --Jayron32 12:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)