Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:12, 10 February 2023

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

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.

February 3

MOS on Title Case

MOS:5 insists that small prepositions embedded in (song, book, film) titles should be capitalized if, and only if, they are not functioning as prepositions.

The In Crowd and Carry On Constable are clear candidates. Swann in Love, Life on Mars and Venus in Furs are clearly noun-preposition-noun and written just so, but what about Come on Over and Paid in Full ?

Is there some straightforward test a simple User can apply ? Doug butler (talk) 21:53, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We just go by how the work is capitalized/publicized by the work's creator(s). Clarityfiend (talk) 00:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. I recall a dispute over the old song "Everybody Works but Father". The publishers used a capital B. The MOS hounds here insisted that it be lower case. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But 'but' is not capitalized in the scan used to illustrate the article; the article title's capitalization is in agreement with that of the published version. Shells-shells (talk) 05:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doug_butler -- "over" is capitalized in "Come on Over" because it's the last word in the title. AnonMoos (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He's asking about the "on", not the "Over". --Viennese Waltz 09:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In "The In Crowd ", in is not a preposition but part of the noun in crowd, also spelled in-crowd. In "Carry On Constable", we do not see a preposition + noun; the parsing is as in "Carry on, constable! ". The second part of a phrasal verb such as carry on is classified as a "particle"; see English phrasal verbs § Verb + particle (particle verbs). The same can be said for come on, currently sense 9 on Wiktionary, for which one of the usage examples is, "You told me to come on over whenever I get the chance, and here I am! ". --Lambiam 12:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was really asking about reverts performed by Dan arndt on some edits I made regarding the book title Come In Spinner, which to paraphrase Lambiam, is parsed "Come in, spinner !", an invitation or command (in the game of two-up) to the coin spinner to enter the ring and toss the pennies. Logic tells me it's a capital-I "in", and one of the most prestigious references to Australian literature (an OED publication) spells it just so, more than once, but Dan, a highly-regarded editor, has not self-reverted and I'm reluctant to get into a 3R, so letting it ferment a little. Doug butler (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

The simplest solution would be to just change the MOS to have all words in the yitles of works be capitalized.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 23:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're not serious. Doug butler (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm completely serious. Either capitalize every word or capitalize as you would an ordinary sentence. Everything else is just ridiculous and leads to arguments.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 00:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Many libraries index their contents in Sentence case. Not something I can handle, after 70 years of Title Case, but clearly it works for them.Doug butler (talk) 04:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Khajidha Nice idea, but, thanks to the WP:ENGVAR, some people's preferences are not the same as others; mine is what's in the MOS at the moment. Bazza (talk) 09:33, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even simpler, render all letters of all article titles in capital letters: even fewer arguments! YIPPEE! --Lambiam 09:50, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Khajidha -- the capitalization of "of", "a", "the" etc. in the middle of a title would be rather distracting, and you might not like it if you saw it. On the Web, headlines which capitalize minor words are a sign of software which is not sophisticated enough to do one of its assigned tasks very well... AnonMoos (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I find the NON-capitalization of such words distracting and don't like it. Thus why I made the suggestion. I really can't understand why this "capitalize all words except for this group of exceptions except when they fall into the exceptions to the exceptions" rule was ever developed or why anyone would continue to stick to it. Especially when there are multiple conflicting versions of it in use.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 22:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then we would have to spell the American space agency NAASA. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:05, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Khajidha I find the capitalisation of all words distracting and don't like it. Thus why I'm happy with the current guide. I really can't understand why this "capitalise all words" rule was ever developed or why anyone would continue to stick to it. ;-)

Each to their own variant of English. There's probably a reason why my cultural norm was adopted as opposed to yours, or anyone else's, but I'm not fussed about finding out why. Bazza (talk) 13:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The cover of the book in question has its title in ALL CAPS, otherwise there would be no controversy. I'm waiting on a bookseller friend to check the Title page just in case it resolves the question. Doug butler (talk) 23:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug butler So what's the book? It might even be amongst my collection (catalogue update in progress, but in the low 5 figures). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.221.194.253 (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think Doug is referring to Come in Spinner. I agree with him that in in the title should be capitalized as a "particle of a phrasal verb" per MOS:5. Deor (talk) 17:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, not something I have or can find a title page image of, but a partial extract from a later e-book edition (hope that works) includes an introduction by Florence James that uses capital "I" throughout. In any case, I agree with Deor above, and it seems a little less likely to be misread with a, shall we say, unfortunate meaning. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.221.194.253 (talk) 01:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is really very common for the title on the cover to be in all caps.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6]} --Lambiam 17:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your 5th example is a black swan: "Murder on the" are clearly Title case. Doug butler (talk) 23:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

? --Lambiam 08:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I should have said the cover, on close examination, had "in the". Forgive an old plodder. Doug butler (talk) 12:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There exist multiple scholarly articles about this book, and all of them use lowercase-in. --82.166.199.42 (talk) 09:37, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It does not change the argument on the basis of Wikipedia house style, but I should have placed less emphasis on the Oxford publication, which may very well have been dictated by their house style. I am particularly grateful for the Griffen-Foley article, which fleshes out the book's publication history wonderfully.

You may not have noticed that although the title of the Abstract to Marilla North's thesis has a lower-case "i", the Abstract is upper-case "I", as is every mention of the book in the thesis itself. Several others of those "scholarly articles" were not about the book, their "spinners" being mathematical models, roulette wheels and political "spinners". Doug butler (talk) 12:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm less concerned by this issue than by the absence of a comma between "in" and "Spinner" (see Terminology table @ Two-up). As it was published, the title "Come in Spinner" makes little sense. (Such is the view of a latter-day literary critic who has missed the boat by over 70 years.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:03, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As Doug and Lambiam pointed out above, the absence of the comma is also characteristic of the films in the Carry On ... series (although there are a few that don't need one). Punctuation or the lack of it in titles, with consequent effects on capitalization, is certainly a vexed question—Star Trek Into Darkness, for instance. Deor (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or WB cartoons with the signature "That's All Folks!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Compare also the title "Hit the Road Jack". "Dizzy, Miss Lizzy" got it right. --Lambiam 23:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, although the Beatles version omitted the comma. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 7

A3OB

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

What is A30B? What the 3 refers to which three? Why no A4OB or A2OB ever exist? Hvguijft567 (talk) 06:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may mean АЗОВ, not A3OB. There are many things so named, of which the most well-known now is probably the Azov Regiment. The letter resembling a 3 is not a 3. Shells-shells (talk) 06:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--Lambiam 10:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Continuous spelling" in Russian phrases (ex: "Krymnash", "Jarusskij")

I've been working on the Krymnash page, and in the sources I've been looking at, there are multiple quotes referring to how the spelling of phrases like "Krym nash" (lit: "Crimea's ours") as one word without spaces seems to change the semantics. A quote on the Russian version of the page notes the change of use of the phrase due to "слитного написания" ("continuous spelling") in passing, but when I search that phrase online, I don't get any results. I've seen this with other phrases related to Russian nationalism, like "Ja Russkij", which I've seen spelled as one word ("Jarusskij") in a super-Slavic font on shirts worn by Russian ultranationalists. Does anyone know if there's an actual name for this? I want to be able to explain to the reader of the article why exactly "Krymnash" is spelled without spaces, which is hard when I don't even know what this phenomena is called or what it signifies in Russia. HappyWith (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Try searching for слитное написание, and you'll find e.g. this. --Lambiam 23:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it has any specific affinity to Russian nationalism, or even to Russian language: continuous spelling turns a phrase into a slogan, or in modern parlance, a hashtag, much like Metoo came to be spelled without a space. --213.137.72.62 (talk) 07:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article on the Russian Wikipedia explains this adequately. --Lambiam 13:40, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which article? The one about Krymnash or the one about the Continuous spelling usage? 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 13:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I meant ru:Крымнаш. --Lambiam 20:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article on the Russian Wikipedia neither asserts nor denies the specific affinity to Russian nationalism, or to Russian language, which is the topic of HappyWith's question. 213.137.72.62 (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The poster wrote, 'I want to be able to explain to the reader of the article why exactly "Krymnash" is spelled without spaces'. This is what is explained on the Russian Wikipedia. It is essentially the explanation given by 213, specifically the use of "continuous spelling" for hashtags, and my response to 213's posting was intended to serve as a confirmation. --Lambiam 20:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That's basically the info I was looking for. That makes sense, I think it should be easier to find sources now. HappyWith (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 8

International Phonetic Alphabet chart for English dialects

Are devoiced voiced stops so common in English? Even not in contact with a voiceless one, at the beginning of a word or between two vovels? It seems very weird to me, never heard of that. 176.128.237.169 (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why does English...

...not use V2 word order, like In school learned I about animals is nor correct?
...not use any diacritics?
...have separate reflexive pronoun for every person, most other Germanic languages have separate only from 3rd person?

--40bus (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why does 40bus not understand that language development doesn't follow predictable patterns? Why does 40bus expect all languages to be the same?--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 23:52, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit Conflict] As you may possibly have been told before, "why" questions about language are rarely possible to answer, we can usually only observe what was or is, and Why often boils down to "because its easier to say." That said:

It's not entirely incorrect, but it would sound/look extremely odd in any normal speech or writing. It is occasionally found in poetry, either to give a somewhat archaic feel, or to fit the poetry's metre, or both. I would not raise my eyebrows if I found it in a poem by William Morris, for example.
English spelling evolved using the basic letters of the Latin alphabet, and "expected" people to know already the "correct" pronunciation of words – it was only meant to give prompts and clues, not exactly prescribe. Diacretics are sometimes used for words more recently borrowed from foreign languages, either because they are present in those languages, or because otherwise their correct pronunciation would be unobvious. For example, the originally French "naïve" is often spelt thus so people don't pronounce it "nayve", and "blessed" is usually pronounced "blest" but sometimes (in, for example, Christian scriptures) as "bless-ed" so in those instances is spelled "blessèd" to show the emphasised second syllable.
Because all languages evolve, and those ones evolved differently from their and English's common roots. Also, English absorbed elements of several different Germanic languages (because various different peoples migrated to the British Isles) which sometimes differed in these words, and English, after regional mergings, ended up with some from one and some from others.

All of the above is extremely simplified (and may be wrong in part). Large learnèd books can and have been written about these and similar topics. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.141.181 (talk) 23:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

40bus -- The long-term trend in English has been to move to a more strictly SVO word order (with some limited exceptions remaining) than was the case in early Germanic. And as I already said under November 25, "For good or bad, English spelling has never been big on diacritics. In Old English, there was the `apex', an acute accent type mark placed over letters representing long vowels, but it was very sporadically used. When someone attempted a thorough spelling reform of Early Middle English (see the Ormulum), he used lots of doubled consonants, not diacritics. Since then, diacritics have been more of a mark of sophistication than part of the basic functionality of the writing of English. However, they occasionally can be used in words not now considered foreign" (see Nov. 25 entry for examples). And in the Old English of 1200 years ago, the old reflexive pronouns beginning in "s-" were already gone from the language, except for the possessive "sin" (with long vowel), which was mainly used in poetry. AnonMoos (talk) 00:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One place where English still uses V2 is after "only" phrases, as in "Only after much work have we begun to understand the scope of the problem." This is something I often have to correct when proofreading something written in English by a German, because Germans are so accustomed to "correcting" their natural inclination to V2 when they write or speak English that they overcompensate in the few places where V2 is correct. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

V2 word order § Vestiges in Modern English lists several more cases in which V2 order in English is normal. --Lambiam 20:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Countering disinformation

Is there a single word to describe countering/fight against disinformation, fake news and/or dismantling conspiracy theories, possibly similar to counterintelligence? 212.180.235.46 (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Truthtelling? Honesty?--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 23:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Debunking. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also deMAGAfying or unGOPing. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Mythbusting? Pedantry is now a term of abuse. Doug butler (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With the understanding that it's pedantry only when others correct me. When I correct others, I'm performing a vital social function. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fact-checking, especially if combating fake news and disinformation. I think debunking is a term more commonly associated with the skeptical movement, but there is overlap here. Shells-shells (talk) 05:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fact-checking it is, thanks, forgot. I was more into a term on which we have an article. 212.180.235.46 (talk) 08:49, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 10

Overlines in Add MS 89149

In British Library Additional MS 89149 there appear throughout the text overlines whose purpose I don't immediately understand. These can be seen on the very first page of the work proper, above encheꝛiꝺion which, ceꝛten, both and so forth. I know that sometimes the overline is used to abbreviate a word, but that does not appear to be its function here, because the words it is placed over are not incomplete. Brian Cumming does not seem to take notice of the overlines when quoting from the manuscript in this article. What do these marks mean? Shells-shells (talk) 04:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing you have a browser issue and it is not rendering the font correctly because I don't see any overlines. (I'm using Firefox.) 41.23.55.195 (talk) 09:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Latin -it > Spanish -o

Does anyone know how the Latin perfect ending -it (3rd person singular) as in "clamavit" and "dixit" became Spanish -o, as in "llamó" and "dijo"? It's a bizarre vowel shift as it appears to cross the entire chart diagonally. I wondered if it was something to do with the -au- in the Latin perfect stems on -are verbs but that wouldn't explain why it also appears in Spanish reflexes of the other verbs. Not finding any answers in Spanish conjugation or History of the Spanish language; would welcome any sources. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 128: / Line 128: @@
 In [https://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=add_ms_89149 British Library Additional MS 89149] there appear throughout the text [[overline]]s whose purpose I don't immediately understand. These can be seen on the very first page of the work proper, above {{tq|encheꝛiꝺi{{overline|on}} wh{{overline|ich}}}}, {{tq|ceꝛt{{overline|en}}}}, {{tq|bo{{overline|th}}}} and so forth. I know that sometimes the overline is used [[scribal abbreviation|to abbreviate]] a word, but that does not appear to be its function here, because the words it is placed over are not incomplete. Brian Cumming does not seem to take notice of the overlines when quoting from the manuscript in [https://doi.org/10.1080/13574175.2018.1468605 this article]. What do these marks mean? [[User:Shells-shells|Shells-shells]] ([[User talk:Shells-shells|talk]]) 04:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
+: I'm guessing you have a browser issue and it is not rendering the font correctly because I don't see any overlines. (I'm using Firefox.) [[Special:Contributions/41.23.55.195|41.23.55.195]] ([[User talk:41.23.55.195|talk]]) 09:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 == Latin -it > Spanish -o  ==