Language desk
< June 9	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 11 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 10

Usage of i.e. and e.g.

I am editing a dissertation. What is the proper usage of i.e. and e.g. in American usage? Should each be underlined and followed by a comma?67.150.126.143 (talk) 01:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Followed by a comma—yes. Underscored (or italicized)—no. These are the guidelines of both the MLA Style Manual and the Chicago Manual of Style, which I believe are the guidelines applicable to most dissertations in the United States (though I'm not sure of usage in the sciences). Deor (talk) 01:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I wouldn't use those abbreviations in an academic dissertation in the first place. They are for informal writing. For "i.e." use "in other words" or "that is to say". For "e.g." use "for example" or "for instance". --Richardrj ^talk ^email 07:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would never consider "i.e." and "e.g." "for informal writing", and my dissertation is full of them. An early stage of WP:MOS proscribed their usage at Wikipedia because they were considered too academic for use in a general encyclopedia. +An gr 09:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford Dictionary of American Usage (2000)[1] says of e.g. "it is preferably followed by a comma (or, depending on the construction, a colon) and unitalicized". So no underlining. (And I'd be very interested to see any references claiming they are too informal for academic writing; that seems very unlikely to me.) --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, the only difference between the usage of "i.e." and "e.g." in formal versus informal writing is that, in informal writing, the two often seem to be used interchangeably. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Word for Candle

What's the word for a candle or torch mounted on a wall?
There was a word for it, or for its holder.
Example (to clarify what I'm trying to describe): The Gothic heroine removed a candle from its holder on the wall and carried it down the ancient stone passageway, determined to explore the castle's forbidden wing. 71.174.23.126 (talk) 04:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)MissMorland[reply]

Sconce? ÷seresin 04:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's it! Thank you. 71.174.23.126 (talk) 05:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)MissMorland[reply]

Girandole is another possibility. Deor (talk) 11:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plural of media

If you have many sorts of media (like photography, graphics, etc), how do you express the plural? Medias?--80.58.205.37 (talk) 11:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say "types of media". Etymologically, of course, media is the plural of medium, but even when it's reinterpreted as a singular, I'd say it's still a mass noun, not a count noun. +An gr 11:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I can't think of a single example where media would be considered singular. After all, we do talk of "the medium of television" as opposed to "the media of television", which would be a clumsy way to say "the various news programs on telly". It is plural, simple as that. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 12:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you never heard anyone say "the media is..."? Adam Bishop (talk) 13:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard things you educated people wouldn't believe... ;-) pma (talk) 13:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Only in the context of "the media" as a collective term for journalists, reporters, etc. (or in the context of the person speaking just being wrong - that happens too!). --Tango (talk) 19:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For media and for cats, I recommend rearranging the nouns: media of many sorts/kinds/types and cats of many sorts/kinds/types.

-- Wavelength (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that better than "many sorts/kinds/types of media" and "many sorts/kinds/types of cats"? +An gr 15:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The expressions which I recommended are better because they parallel the expression media of this sort/kind/type and the expression cats of this sort/kind/type, which correspond to awkward expressions in the other sort/kind/type of arrangement.

-- Wavelength (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess because it is definitely different, as "particular" is different from "general". In my garden cats of many varieties are leaving odor signals everywhere; this habit is present in many varieties of cats. I agree with Wavelenght: using indiscriminately the species instead of the individual, makes the speech heavier, if not wrong; if one does it, he should be conscious that he is doing a synecdoche, and hopefully, have a reason to do it. --pma (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the particular case of kind, I was taught to eschew ~~sentences~~ phrases like kinds of cats and use the formal kinds of cat instead. Pallida Mors 16:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"many media" or "many different media" would be alternative phrasings making it clear that the word is being used in its plural sense.--Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The word medium has several meanings; with some, the plural is media, and, with others, the plural is mediums. In each case, there can be types and subtypes and sub-subtypes. If you are going to say "many types of medium", then you need to be sure that the meaning of medium is clear, and that the level of categorization is clear. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And then there is Eric Nicol's book whose title caused every editor in the publishing firm at the time to do a doubletake and then to concede the use: One Man's Media and How to Write for Them (Holt, Rinehart and Winston) ISBN 0-03-929991-0. // BL \\ (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, "one" in that title modifies "man", not "media", which is being used as a plural. --Anonymous, 05:05 UTC, June 12, 2009.

See wikt:en:manifold#Adjective. -- Wavelength (talk) 02:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plural2singular

Is there a process of formation of words (in Latin and in Greek) from a (concrete) neutral plural, (especially a substantivized adjective) to an (abstract) feminine singular noun? I think there are some examples, but I wonder if it is recognized as a general linguistic fact. --pma (talk) 14:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Latin, the neuter plural of participles often becomes a singular feminine noun; anything ending in -antia or -entia, basically. The one that immediately sprang to mind was "concordantia"; this search of Lewis and Short has tons more. This can also be done with gerunds, at least in English borrowings; "agenda" or "memoranda" are singular, from Latin plurals. One possible Latin example is "legenda", as in "legenda aurea", the Golden Legend, but I'm not sure if that was intended to be a plural. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 March 30#What modifiers modify for some English derivatives.

-- Wavelength (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

memoranda is singular?? —Tamfang (talk) 04:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, like "media" :) Adam Bishop (talk) 07:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I almost came to physical blows with a former work colleague who insisted on changing all my uses of "criterion" (singular) to "criteria" (also, in her little world, singular). We argued for weeks about it. Her position was that people regularly use criteria to refer to a single condition (and, sadly, they do), so the organisation shouldn't be appearing to use toffee-nosed language if it wanted to relate to people. When I asked her "OK, what if there are more than one we're talking about? What's the plural of criteria?" She said "It's criterias, obviously". No amount of argument from me could budge her, but thankfully our legal people finally sided with me when they saw "criterias", and resolved the matter satisfactorily. She had to cop it sweet but she was still convinced she was right. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To celebrate my victory, I should have gone to see two operas. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 23:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can sympathize. Although no one where I work would be so gauche as to use criteria as a singular, I have been asked to stop using plural agreement with data (e.g. "these data are..."). But I either ignore that request or use a different word, such as information, if possible. I'd probably break out in hives if I had to use a construction like "this data is...". +An gr 23:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my idiolect 'data' takes singular concord, but it isn't singular: it's a mass noun. This is a quite different case from 'criterion', which is singular and has a plural 'criteria' (again, in my idiolect. I try never to impose such choices on others). --ColinFine (talk) 23:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A coworker once reported overhearing, "I love Beethoven, especially his opuses." —Tamfang (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need an English word

Looking for a word that means it was made from a couple of other words. Just wrote an article on Jayco and the name comes from the founder's middle name, Jay. It therefore is from "Jay" and "compnay" to equal Jayco. What more sophisticated word would have this meaning of combining two words together to get another word? Thanks. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 17:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Portmanteau? --LarryMac | Talk 17:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blend.—msh210℠ 18:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...unless you mean concatenation?—msh210℠ 18:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Compound. Mikenorton (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for ideas.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 23:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Word For 'Volcano'

According to Pompeii: The Last Day, on Discovery Channel, there is no word for volcano in Latin. I thought the Latin word for volcano was, well, volcano. Can anyone verify this? --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 23:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, "volcano" is the Italian descendant of "Vulcanus", the god Vulcan, who I suppose may have been used as the name for any volcano. Volcanoes had names of course - Vesuviua, Aetna - but "mons ignis" or "mons igneus" might work too. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the Latin Wikipedia uses mons ignifer. (Of course, a contemporary effort I guess). Pallida Mors 04:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only native Latin words which end in "-o" in the nominative singular are actually N-stems, so I can tell without even looking at the dictionary that if "volcano" were a Latin word, then the genitive singular would be volcaninis or volcanonis (which doesn't seem all that plausible).... AnonMoos (talk) 01:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the Penguin translation of Pliny the Younger's account of the eruption of Vesuvius. His uncle Pliny the Elder was killed by it (he was such an awesome scientist that he walked right up to it while it was erupting). I'll have to find the Latin, but the translation doesn't ever use the word "volcano". How many volcanoes would they have ever seen, anyway? Were there any other active ones, besides Vesuvius and Etna, in Europe at the time? They probably just didn't have a word for something that was otherwise a normal mountain. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 19th-century Smith & Hall Copious and Critical English-Latin Dictionary suggests first mons vulcanius but conceded there is no classical authority for that term. Otherwise you have to make do with explanations like mons eructans flammas/vaporem/fumum, mons arenas flammarum globo eructans, or mons evomens ignes. It seems to the Romans, some mountains erupted in fire and others didn't, but there was no special word for the ones that did. +An gr 05:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stromboli was very active too, and well known - some say Homer alluded to it in the Odyssey. I guess that what Romans did know about volcans, as usual, was a legacy of the more advanced Hellenistic science; and we do not exactly know what they knew. --pma (talk) 21:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah...so then, what is "volcano" in ancient Greek? Adam Bishop (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, maybe they didn't have one either. The only word I can find in Liddell & Scott that has the word "volcano" in its definition is φῦσα, which however means "crater of a volcano" rather than the volcano as a whole. +An gr 23:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The English article en:Volcano has an interlanguage link to the modern Greek article el:Ηφαίστειο

and the English article en:Hephaestus has an interlanguage link to the modern Greek article el:Ήφαιστος.

Those could be clues to the ancient Greek word for volcano. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could be, but aren't. In Ancient Greek, Ἡφαίστειος is an adjective meaning "of or belonging to Hephaestus"; the neuter Ἡφαίστειον (which corresponds to Modern Greek ηφαίστειο) can be used as a noun to mean "temple of Hephaestus", but there's no indication it's ever used to mean "volcano". I suspect that usage is comparatively modern, and may well have started out as a sort of calque of Italian vulcano. +An gr 12:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by language has a link to Category:User grc. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on volcanology also quotes "αἴτνη" (etna), I don't know from which period, and also recalls the volcanic islands of Thera. As to the Hellenistic knowledge on the topic, for instance a big shot like Poseidonios did write on earthquakes and volcanoes; as usual the problem is that what has come to us is a very poor fraction of the whole scientific production :-( --pma (talk) 08:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]