Language desk
< October 28	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 30 >

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.

October 29

"irreversible" word pairs

The question above about reversible verb/adjective combinations made me think of something only tangentially related: there are a number of suffixes and prefixes which usually invert the meaning of an adjective (the prefixes "un-" and "in-", the suffix pair "-full"/"-less", etc), but there are a couple words that for various reasons work differently. The first example that comes to mind is "valuable" and "invaluable" meaning basically the same, my native German has the wonderfully mysterious pair of "willkürlich" meaning "arbitrary" and "unwillkürlich" meaning "immediately". I am sure there are a number other word pairs like these, but I'm not sure what I would call such a pair so I find it a bit difficult to search for a list. Is there a list like that somewhere? Or, failing that, how many such pairs can you think of? I'm just asking out of idle curiosity, so examples from any language are welcome. -- Ferkelparade π 00:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most common is "flammable" and "inflammable." More fun are words which are their own antonyms - like "fast." Which can mean "not quite" or "entirely", "rapid" or "immobile" etc. Collect (talk) 00:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ferkelparade, the valuable/invaluable pair don't really have the same meaning, although they are related. Valuable usually means it has a high value; it could also mean it's capable of being valued but its value per se may be quite low, e.g. a newspaper. Invaluable means its value is so high it can't be measured, or its quality is such that it's beyond measure. Everything that's invaluable is by definition valuable (1st defn), but not everything that's valuable is invaluable. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 00:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your invaluable comment, Jack, but I'm well aware of that - that's why I said "basically" :) Something that's invaluable is so valuable it becomes in-valuable - I love the way of thinking behind that. Flammable/inflammable is a good example, although I guess the in-prefix in "inflammable" only looks like a negation (if my tiny bits of half-remembered Latin can be trusted, in-flammare almost literally means "set on fire", the in- in this case marks direction, not negation). The funny thing about English "fast" is that it works almost exactly the same as German "fix", although the words are not etymologically related -- Ferkelparade π 02:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Valuable" and "invaluable" would correspond to "pricey" and "priceless". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This source says that "inflammable" was the original word, but American industrial leaders switched to use of "flammable" in the 1950's, to avoid dangerous confusion by the public. I do remember seeing gasoline trucks marked "inflammable" as a kid, which was indeed confusing. Textorus (talk) 05:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That has been my impression for some time too, and I'm glad you've found some evidence that confirms it. (Of course, it would be rather strange to have signs telling people that something was not likely to go up in flames.) — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Yes, I was familiar with "inflammable" (= able to be inflamed or set on fire), and I remember being confused by the new word "flammable" -- did it mean able to be "flamed" without being set on fire? I am no longer confused, of course (at least, not about flammable). "Inflammable" has been used since 1605, and "flammable" since 1813, but the latter rarer usage was revived in the UK by the British Standards Institution in 1959, probably following the American lead. Dbfirs 07:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish has some of this kind of weird word pairs. The suffixes (suffices? suffigi?) "-kas" and "-llinen" usually mean "with", and the suffix "-ton" means "without". However, "onnekas" means "lucky" but "onnellinen" means "happy". "Onneton" means "unhappy", there is no single word for "unlucky". Also, both "lapsekas" and "lapsellinen" mean "childish", but "lapseton" means "childless". JIP | Talk 09:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only slightly related, but when I was in Germany this weekend, my friends kept misunderstanding my use of the phrase 'not bad'. While an American might say 'freaking awesome', a Britischer would say 'not bad'. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When people answer "Not too bad" to being asked how they are (a very common response down here), they're actually using a triply negative construction to get across that they're OK and have no particular complaints. Strange how language works sometimes. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(see our article on litotes, though the reponses "not too bad" and "not so bad" are not used in quite the same way as true litotes) Dbfirs 00:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

German translation help

I made a few recent edits in the article Boundaries between continents. One subject that caught my attention was the history of the boundary between Europe and Asia. The article contained an unsourced claim about the boundary proposed by Philip Johan von Strahlenberg in 1725 which appeared dubious to me. Internet search produced a few different accounts with varying degrees of credibility. I've updated the article to include the choice that seemed most credible, but I think that it would be best to verify against the primary source.

Here's the problem. The primary source is written in 18th century German. I've been unable to find any recent translations into languages that I know. I've been able to find the original text:

http://books.google.com/ebooks/reader?id=EPMOAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader

My German is very poor, the blackletter typeface throws me completely off balance, Google text recognition is not always reliable, and there seem to be quite a few 18th century words which aren't recognized by Google Translate. Nevertheless, I've been able to find and roughly translate the relevant section: Section VI, paragraph XVI, page 106.

I'd like to ask a native German speaker to review the page and nearby pages and confirm or deny these statements:

The section discusses a boundary between Europe and Asia that follows Ural mountains, Samara river, Volga river, jumps from Volga to Don (Tanais) around 49 degrees of latitude, and then goes down the Don River to the Black Sea.

This boundary is presented as an author's proposal rather than a discussion of someone else's work.

Many thanks. --Itinerant1 (talk) 01:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation is almost correct, he follows the Ural from North to South, then he says that the mountain range forks at about the Samara river and continues westward as a series of smaller mountains (he counts the hilly west bank of the Volga as a continuation of the mountain range), then becomes a series of higher mountains around 49 degrees latitude (he then says that that mountain range reaches up to the Don, but that's rather incidental to his argument - he follows the mountains, not the rivers). For context, in section 15 he talks about other geographers wanting to move the boundary between Europe and Asia eastward to the Ob river, then rejects this idea because the mountains are in his opinion a much better natural boundary (and quips that the other geographers apparently didn't know about this convenient mountain range). In section 16, he proposes a boundary following the mountain ranges and says that his proposal has the added benefit of matching the Europe/Asia border as defined in antiquity (without quoting any specific authors, he just mentions "die Alten" - the old authors, a standard phrase for everyone from classical antiquity) -- Ferkelparade π 02:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks a lot. --Itinerant1 (talk) 03:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Translation into Latin

What is the general practice for making up new Latin words, to be used in narration (as opposed to taxonomy)? For example, Winnie ille Pu is a Latin translation of a Winnie the Pooh book. Winnie and Pu are both obviously not Classical Latin words, and both look like they'd be third declension nouns (I can't check). Since writing something in Latin about modern things would necessarily require some creation of new words, as well as fitting proper names into a declension system, are there generally accepted practices about going about this? Would you just use the English word as a third declension nominative and then devise a genitive for the stem? Or do you try to make it fit first or second declension if it sounds good? Or are there no practices, and it's just a free for all? Any information on this will be appreciated! 68.54.4.162 (talk) 06:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak to the general question, but in the book, Winnie and (surprisingly) even ille are undeclinable, while Pu takes second-declension endings outside nominative and vocative, thus: nominative/vocative Pu, genitive Pui, accusative Pum, dative/ablative Puo. Angr (talk) 09:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's weird, since ille is fully declinable otherwise. Anyway, the best person to contact here might be Iustinus (talk · contribs), who knows a lot about composition and conversation in modern Latin. We also have a contemporary Latin article which might help. The Vatican has a "Lexicon Recentis Latinitatis", and there is also a popular online "Vocabula Computatralia". For the creation of new words, there is some disagreement about what to do...for example, Mountford's Bradley's Arnold Latin Prose Composition (a complicated title, but a good textbook) claims that any modern English sentence can be translated into Latin using purely classical words. As proof, it translates a sentence about bullets using the Latin "sagitta", which normally means a dart or arrow. Personally I think that's a bit preposterous, and making up Latin words is perfectly legitimate, as long as it's still clear what you're referring to. There are hundreds of medieval and Renaissance Latin words that didn't exist in classical Latin, so we should still be able to invent new words if necessary. As for what declension to use, well that depends on the word. In late classical Latin, and also in medieval and Renaissance Latin, they often used the fourth declension to create new words. But if a word fits into a first or second declension pattern, there's no reason you couldn't use those. I imagine the third declension would actually be the hardest and least useful for new words. But to get the best answer, definitely contact Iustinus, he can help, and put you in touch with other neo-Latinists. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think third would be the most difficult? I figured the flexibility of the nominative would make it the most attractive. Do you know why they, as you say, used the fourth declension to make new medieval and Renaissance words? 68.54.4.162 (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I have no idea, now that I think about it. The third is a rather weird declension, since things can be masculine, feminine, or neuter, and there are more variations in the endings than in the other cases. But then, the fourth is a little strange too, since it borrows some forms from the third declension, and it can also be all three genders. Newly-created fourth declensions were always masculine though (apparatus, pontificatus, etc). I don't know why they would choose that over the second declension. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In ancient Latin/Greek translations of the Bible, some names were treated as indeclinable (e.g. Moab), while some were given case endings and declined (e.g. Jesus). I'm sure there are discussions of what to do with new words on Latin Wikipedia... AnonMoos (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So was Iesvs treated as a regular 2nd-declension noun, then? Textorus (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting example. Iesus (as a loanword from Greek) is declined in Latin using a conversion of its Greek declension. Nominative Iesūs, genitive Iesū. This happened, I'd say, only because Greek was a language widely familiar to Romans. Words from other languages didn't get to retain their original declensions in that way. Andrew Dalby 19:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, it's Iesu in all cases except nominative (Iesus) and accusative (Iesum). Angr (talk) 19:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that must explain uses like "Jesu [sic], Joy of Man's Desiring"; they're using the vocative case ending of the Latin/Greek word even they're actually writing in English. Weird. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think in that case they're just copying it from the German: Jesu, meiner Seelen Wonne. ElMa-sa (talk) 22:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. But whatever the reason, why would they choose to render "Jesus" in a foreign language, when creating a title in the English language? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they're necessarily just copying it from German. There's a long tradition of using "Jesu" in English, especially in the vocative. Charles Wesley wrote a hymn, "Jesu, lover of my soul" and his brother John wrote a hymn, "Jesu". Angr (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Angr. That means we're back to either (a) an English noun in a case that's otherwise completely unknown in English nouns or (b) a foreign word used in an English setting. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't come back here earlier. Seems from the OED that in English the use of "Jesus" for nominative and "Jesu" for vocative goes back to Tindale's Bible translation, 1525/35. Why did Tindale do it? The OED seems to suggest two reasons: (a) as JackofOz says, because it's a foreign word: Tindale in fact uses "Jesu" not just for the vocative but wherever the Greek text uses that form (see Angr above for details). He might have wanted to be as literal as possible in dealing with this important name. But he would have been helped to this decision by reason (b): a common Middle English form of the name used to be "Jesu" without the final s, based on the Old French accusative which was also "Jesu". Tindale would have been familiar with older English writings that used this form. Andrew Dalby 12:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks Andrew. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Textorus -- It was effectively treated as an irregular 4th-declension noun... AnonMoos (talk) 23:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, because I've never seen the form Jesum as you might expect if it were 2nd-declension. Not that I've looked for it. Thanks. Textorus (talk) 13:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be "Jesum" in both 2nd and 4th declension accusative, but as AnonMoos says, it's rather irregular, and inconsistent. You will see both "Jesu Christum" and "Jesum Christum" in the accusative. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asked to comment. In short there is no one way to do this. Some possibilities include:

Just use classical terms. There is a long tradition of attempting to compose this way, and it has mixed results. The Vatican dictionary for instance, is notorious for using long circumlocutions like valida potio Slavica or tabula dilucida descriptoria. But often a suitable classical term can be found, for instance infurnibulum "a device for inhaling the smoke of burned herbs" can easily be used for pipe. Sagitta for "bullet" is of course absurd, but given the history of the term, it is perhaps unsurprising that glans "sling bullet" is the most common translation. Likewise raeda for "car," both of which originally meant "carriage."
Latin didn't fall out of common use until about the 19th(±1) century, which covers an awful lot of things Cicero had no inkling of: stapes "stirrup," sclopetum "gun," scacci "chess."
Borrow from Greek, e.g. autocinetum "automobile," tromocrata "terrorist," both terms used in Modern Greek.
Coin something new, preferably something plausible, e.g. motorium "motor." (Most neo-Latinists seem to prefer the totally obscure suffix -trum, but I eschew it except in the word computatrum "computer")
Don't Latinize the word at all. This is a last resort, but occasionally trying to come up with a Latin word at all is absurd or a waste of effort, e.g. "cosplay," "quark," "uruk-hai" (which is not to say no one's tried to Latinize those ;) ). These are normally left indeclinable, and in my opinion should be written in Italics.

There are different schools of thought as to how often one should use each of the above methods, and there is no one authority for Neo-Latin (but for a good list of reference books, see la:Lexica Neolatina.) On the Latin wikipedia we'll generally accept any term found in a reasonably reputable source, and wherever possible we list alternate terms too.

I hope that helps. --Iustinus (talk) 05:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to a couple of points above:

Re indeclinable "Winnie ille" - there's a long tradition of latinising and declining only a surname, leaving the given name(s) unchanged.
Re taking words into the fourth declension; while the common past participle ending "-tus" was originally "-tos", and so would be declined as second declension, the "-tus-" that formed abstract nouns had a different origin that really was "-tu-" and so was declined as a U-stem, i.e. fourth declension. I suspect a considerable proportion of late Latin coinages were deverbal abstract nouns. --ColinFine (talk) 01:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if anything, it is given names that are likely to be Latinized, whereas for the last century or two the default has been to not Latinize surnames. Although I morn the loss of Latinized surnames, which were once so common, there is a good deal of logic to this, in that the number of traditional given names in European languages is much more limited than the number of surnames, and they are frequently traceable to a common source (e.g. Roman names like Julius/Jules/Julio/Giulio [Iulius], Biblical names like John/Jean/Juan/Giovanni/Johann/Ivan/Sean [Io(h)annes], names of saints like Xavier/Javier/Ksawery)
I don't dispute these facts, but I don't get your point. Certainly the deverbative -tus is an indisputably productive suffix, whereas -trum is clearly not.

--Iustinus (talk) 02:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not only Latin, but every language has to cope with the development of science, technology, business, pop-culture, etc, by extending its vocabulary. Languages can (1) allocate already existing words to refer to new things; (2) coin new terms using their existing resources; and (3) borrow loanwords. Those languages that have a developed case system may face problems with loanwords - at least in contemporary Slavic-language dictionaries increasing amounts of terms are labelled as "indeclinable". So I guess the problem is not unique to Latin, and although the situation with Latin is clearly a more complicated one for obvious reasons, it's not something really unheard of; and I remember reading somewhere that some Latin scholars admit the quality content of the Latin Wikipedia is really good. A language is alive as long as there is someone to keep it as such.

By the way, there is the Finnish national broadcaster, which broadcasts (I think once a week) world news in Latin. --Theurgist (talk) 13:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When the name is evident from the description

I'm looking for a word or phrase that is used in etymology when the name is evident from the description. For example you could say the big-headed turtle is so named because it has a big head. There is some word or phrase to cover this (I've read it in some articles but can't remember where). Thanks for any help. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 12:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by a Google search, a term that seems to have some currency is "self-descriptive name", as used here with regard to warblers, for instance. The only significant use of it I can find in Wikipedia, however, is at Street or road name#Self-descriptive names. This may be more informal than what you're looking for. Deor (talk) 13:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not it. When you find the word(s) it will occur on wikipedia articles about animals to explain the etymology of it's name. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something like 'allegorical' or 'figurative etymology' Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Onomatopoeia is a meaning based on a sound. I'm looking for a similiar word or phrase that is a meaning based on the visual features. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Ostensive", maybe? --Itinerant1 (talk) 21:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty good effort, but not quite it. Thanks for your effort. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linguists often refer to a phrase as being originally a "transparent collocation," then taking on a more specialized meaning. Is this what you have in mind? John M Baker (talk) 21:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Antonym of Populous?

Is there an antonym for populous that means thinly populated rather than uninhabited? --CGPGrey (talk) 13:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"One-horse" works for small towns. "Underpeopled" seems to be dead on, however. Collect (talk) 13:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Sparsely populated" or just "sparse" seem like often used terms as well. --Jayron32 14:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nitpicking here ... "sparsely populated" is an antonyom of "populous", but "sparse" alone is not, because it describes the people not the place. (Ie "populous city", "sparse people") Mitch Ames (talk) 22:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At first I thought this is about some Presocratic philosopher, like Thales of Miletus or Pythagoras of Samos. Antonym of Populous - sounds about right, doesn't it? 80.122.178.68 (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, none of his works survived, so our knowledge of him is very sparse. Textorus (talk) 19:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'd advise against using "one-horse" if the context is formal writing, as it might be considered a cliche.--WaltCip (talk) 14:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on context, "few" can work. "Few people live in this vast region." I think "sparsely populated" is commonly used and quite clear. I'm not sure whether there is a single word that can serve as an antonym for "populous". Words like "few" and "sparse" need to be clarified as referring to population, in any example I can think of offhand. Pfly (talk) 08:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flummery

There is a group of vaguely similar words related to foodstuffs and nonsense: the Irish "plámas", the French "blancmange" and "flan", the Welsh "llymru", and the English "flummery". Which of these are etymologically related, and in what way are they related? I'm particularly curious about "plámas", which is absent from the OED. LANTZY ^TALK 15:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Flummery" is an old borrowing from the Welsh word (which is pronounced something like [ɬəmɾi] i.e. "hlum-ree"). "Flan" is ultimately cognate with the word "flat" (it's an old borrowing from French, and Romance langs got it from Germanic langs). "Blancmange" just means "white food" or "white eating." So there's three unconnected things there. I don't know about "plamas" though... --Miskwito (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary.com is often a good resource for etymology stuff, because it shows you the RHD info, the Merriam-Webster info, and the etymonline info for each word. Frankly I don't trust the OED as much as some of those other sources! --Miskwito (talk) 20:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... even though it is the source of much of the information in etymonline? I agree that comparing opinions on lost etymologies is useful. "plámás" means flattery in Gaelic. Dbfirs 23:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possesive proper nouns in the genitive

If you have King's College, shortened to merely "King's", and King's has some students, are you to say "King's' students", "King's students" or something else (if you don't want to say "students of King's")? I've read about this before, but it's very hard to search for. I'm sure there's a discussion out there. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just King's. The extra apostrophe would be ghastly overkill. Personally, if I were writing a very formal paper, I would either use "students of King's" or "King's College students." By the same token, you would not want to write something like "My Levi's' zipper got stuck." Enuf is enuf. Textorus (talk) 18:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not overkill, it is just wrong. In the second case the name of the school is being used as a noun adjunct, not a possesive. You don't say "Cambridge's Students" or "Harvard's Students", you say "cambridge Students" or "Harvard Students". μηδείς (talk) 19:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Modern custom in speech and writing prefers the phrase "Harvard students," but you might very well at some time want to say "Harvard's president," Harvard's faculty," "Harvard's reputation," etc. Textorus (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See:

--Theurgist (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a King's College alumnus, I have wondered this many times myself. (It not only applies to the college, but to businesses such as McDonald's.) μηδείς's explanation for formal usage makes sense, but not all writing is formal. For example, one may speak of Harvard's football team. But what of the equivalent team at King's? Is it necessary to use the full appellation, as in King's College's football team? One usually doesn't go so far as to say Harvard University's football team. (By the way, Go Monarchs!) — Michael J 09:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See my answer above. For all except the most formal kind of writing, like a legal document, in which you might want to use a more eliptical phrasing - or might not, depending on your conscience in these matters - just say King's students or King's football team, treating the name as if it were just an ordinary singular noun. As we do all the time with McDonald's hamburgers and Levi's jeans. And let it go at that. Life is too damn short to worry about these itsy-bitsy minor things, ya know? And I say that as someone who has spent his professional life caring very deeply about good writing. Curiously enough, having done nearly an hour's worth of Googling here, I find a number of books and experts who, when they get to this point, throw up their hands and say "I don't know" how to form the possessive case with corporate names like McDonald's. The old grammar books I have at hand do not address the question. The AP Stylebook might give a clue, but it's available only to subscribers. However, I did find this source, which alleges to quote the style manual of The Economist, to wit:

The Economist style guide says "Try to avoid using Lloyd's (the insurance market) as a possessive; it poses an insoluble problem". There is no way in English to make a possessive of a word that already contains an apostrophe. The same problem is posed by several other organisations' names, and if the problem can't be avoided, you must grit your teeth and treat them as if they are called Lloyd, Sainsbury, or McDonald:
McDonald's employment practices

Sainsbury's recruitment drive

Lloyd's current difficulties

Although British usage often differs widely from American, in this case I concur, and heartily, with our friends across the pond. Textorus (talk) 13:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very sensible. It occurs to me that the rules for these things were developed at a time when usages such as "King's" as a noun were not only unknown but undreamt of. So it's not surprising that traditional grammars are bereft of answers. But it is surprising that more modern sources of expert advice have not done the same decent thing for the general reader that The Economist has done for its employees. Still, our job is to locate obscure sources of good information and make them better known. Kudos to Textorus. Coals to Newcastle. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll drink to that. But no more whores to Paris. :) Textorus (talk) 03:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All hail Textorus! Thank you for your research. I have an AP Stylebook and it is not addressed there. I imagine it would be in corporate manual of style for McDonald's, if anyone has access to that. But I am amazed there is style situation that has the experts stumped. — Michael J 04:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, Michael. McDonald's apparently does just as The Economist advises, as witness this paragraph from their corporate website:

Our rich history began with our founder, Ray Kroc. The strong foundation that he built continues today with McDonald's vision and the commitment of our talented executives to keep the shine on McDonald's Arches for years to come. To read more about McDonald's history, vision and executives, click on their links in the left menu.

Textorus (talk) 04:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian pronunciation

How is János Bolyai pronounced? --70.141.193.98 (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article actually has the IPA pronunciation, which is [ˈjaː.noʃ ˈboː.jɒ.i]. A very rough equivalent, if you're not familiar with the IPA, would be something like "YAH-noesh BOE-yaw-ee".