Language desk
< February 9	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 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.

February 10

Symbol used to donate denote a paragraph that outlines the meaning of someone's name.

Does anybody know the symbol used when outlining the meaning of a given name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.166.40.124 (talk) 01:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected the title. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The closest thing I can think of is a cartouche (and the related serekh and shen ring). StuRat (talk) 05:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain what you mean a bit more clearly? --ColinFine (talk) 12:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What Colin said. It sounds like you have seen something used in some particular reference work: as far as I (and by inference StuRat and Colin, not to mention all the others who haven't answered) know, there is no symbol widely used for this particular purpose, but if we know where you saw this usage, we might be able to tell you more about the symbol. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.183 (talk) 00:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it was some sort of dingbat. Different reference works use these marks for different purposes. Usually they are unique to a particular reference. This Unicode chart gives the names for many of those marks. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 00:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am wanting to quote the meaning of my child's name on a printed document and wondered if there is a symbol that can be used to introduce it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.107.76 (talk) 04:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard of such a symbol. If it is important that the reader understand that this is the meaning, you'll have to say so in words, I think. --ColinFine (talk) 23:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of "r" as "w"

Is the inability to pronounce "r" that some people exhibit caused by a physical impairment, or is it more of a behavioural/learning thing? 86.183.2.20 (talk) 12:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For a start, see Speech sound disorder—in particular, the "Causes" section. Deor (talk) 13:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This often goes hand-in-hand with pronouncing "l" as "w". And it's just not Elmer Fudd that does that. There's a particular British accent, also audible in some US east coast areas, where a trailing "l" is routinely "rounded off", like a "w". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, can you be more specific, geographically, I mean? --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If Bugs had looked his terms up in Wikipedia, he could actually have found two excellent articles to answer the question asked. Either by looking up Estuary English, or by looking up Elmer Fudd, Bugs would have been presented with links to R-labialisation and rhotacism. He also would have seen that Estuary English features L-vocalisation, but typically doesn't feature the r-labialisation the OP asked about. I'm a bit sad that Bugs didn't do this, because it seems like a golden opportunity to use his knowledge of Looney Toons to answer a linguistics question, which warms my geeky heart. <Of course, Estuary English isn't the same accent as American accents that happen to feature l-vocalisation. 86.163.211.160 (talk) 23:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty to correct that redlink. No such user (talk) 11:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dessert

I've just noticed that the word "dessert" is pronounced with a [z], which seems very unusual. Are there any other examples in English of a double s being pronounced in this way? And can anyone explain this exception? I note that our article Dessert includes a mis-named "Etymology" section, but doesn't mention pronunciation. --rossb (talk) 14:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the name of that section to "Usage" because, as you say, it has nothing to do with etymology. 86.160.210.161 (talk) 14:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"possess", "scissors", "dissolve", "brassiere", "hussar", "Aussie", "Missouri". 86.160.210.161 (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Aussie" really pronounced with a [z]? The word is so seldom used in my environment that I'm not sure, but I thought I'd heard it pronounced with an [s]. Marco polo (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK at least, we like to refer to one part of our Antipodes as "Oz". That might give you a clue as how we pronounce the continent and its inhabitants.--TammyMoet (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard of "Oz", and not just in connection with Dorothy. Still, I think in the United States Aussie is usually pronounced with [s]. I'm curious how it's pronounced in Australia. Marco polo (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Australian. For us, the "ss" in "Aussie" has the same sound as the "ss" in ""possess", "scissors", "dissolve", "brassiere" and "Missouri". HiLo48 (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Australian too, believe it or not. It's an exact homophone of "Ozzie". I agree with all the example words except "brassiere" - I've always pronounced the "ss" as "ss", not "zz". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say "Aussie" with an "s" sound, unless in the phrase "Aussie Aussie Aussie oi oi oi", then it's a "z" :) (Where did I even get that from? Monty Python?) Adam Bishop (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've always heard "Aussie" as "Ozzie" both in Australia and in the UK. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably, "dessert" is so spelled to distinguish it from "desert" - but the two words differ in pronunciation by which syllable is stressed, so if this was in any way rational it would be the other way round - a syllable ending in a double consonent is usually stressed. But this is English. Besides, the verb "desert", as in abandon, is pronounced the same as "dessert". --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Dessert" comes from a word that indicates "clearing the table", or literally "to un-serve"; hence, it's the last part of a meal.[1] "Desert" comes from two different words; one of them means "wilderness" or "to abandon"; the other means "to deserve". [2] This of course leads to jokes about "getting our just desserts" at the end of a meal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ross_Burgess -- This is due to what some people call a "second Verner's law", i.e. a voicing of [s] to [z] intervocalically after an unstressed vowel which happened in early modern English in certain cases. It can also be seen in "exhibit" (where "x" is pronounced [gz] after an unstressed vowel) vs. "exhibition" (where "x" is pronounced [ks] after a stressed vowel). AnonMoos (talk) 01:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Former" and "then-"

In a photo caption, we had "Former President George W. Bush addresses CPAC in 2008". (italics mine). I removed the "Former" because W was president at the time. Was I correct? I think "Former" here is flat out wrong.

In the same article, we had "In 2006, then Senator George Allen addressed CPAC".(italics mine). But Allen was still a Senator when he addressed the convention, so, I removed "then". Was that right? I think "then" here is factually correct but unnecessary.

Can anyone provide a general rule of thumb about when (or whether) to use "former" or "then" in cases like these? --Kenatipo ^speak! 18:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I quite frequently remove those words from such contexts. They're almost always unnecessary. HiLo48 (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In both of these examples, "former" is wrong because the men in question were in office at the time of their respective addresses. I agree that "then" is factually correct but unnecessary in the case of Mr. Bush; but Mr. Allen might be a different story, since he is less notable and the reader might presume (incorrectly, it turns out) that he is still in office at the time of writing. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 20:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A caveat to what I wrote above - the "then" for Senator Allen might be necessary if it is similarly isolated as part of a photo caption. But if it's simply written in the body of the text, then the fact that it's "submerged" in the timeline (so to speak) should render "then" unnecessary. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 20:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Then" may be justified if the article discusses a certain present or past event X and makes a flashback to a different event Y further back, and mentions a person who held a certain position at the time Y but not at the time X. For example, an article about the Pacific theatre of World War II might be discussing bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, and it might mention in passing that the Manhattan Project was approved in 1941 by "then-president Franklin D. Roosevelt" (who died and left the office to Harry Truman four months before the bombing).

"Then" is superfluous in most other cases, particularly when discussing events that occurred 50+ years ago: otherwise we'd need a "then-" each time we mention a president, a senator, or a general by his title in every historical article, and it would be a big mess.

The example above is a bit of a gray area. It is tempting to use "then" to underscore the fact that George Allen was a senator in 2006 but he is not a senator today. The CPAC may be considered a current/ongoing event, in which case "X" is now and "Y" is 2006. --Itinerant1 (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I always remove "then"; it rarely adds any value, except in very limited contexts. (Same thing with "the late". "She married the late Mr. X in 1994" -- I hope she married the very alive Mr. X in 1994.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all you responders. All the answers are helpful. I pretty much take HiLo48's approach; and Itinerant1's discussion about two events in the past was especially insightful. --Kenatipo ^speak! 20:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]