Language desk
< December 2	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 4 >

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

December 3

How would you call this kind of building?

Hello, I'm CQui,

How would you call the kind of building illustrated in this image, not neccessarilly tall but long and with several ground level entrances in the same chunk of building. Regardless to the type of use, residential, commercial or both.

I imagine there might be different answer depending on the continent you live in... All answers are interresting me.

Thanks in advance, Cqui (talk) 09:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm American and I don't have a specific term for a multi-story building with many entrances on the ground floor. If it had offices, I'd call it an office building. If apartments, an apartment building. My terms are more related to its function rather than its construction. Dismas|^(talk) 09:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you could call it a "mid-rise [X] block" in American English: for example, "mid-rise office block" or "mid-rise apartment block". The word block gets at its shape, but you have to be careful to use words like "mid-rise" and a word for its function to make clear that you are talking about a building, since the word block can also refer to an area bordered by surrounding streets, which might contain more than one building. Dismas is correct that buildings are more often identified by their function than by their shape. Marco polo (talk) 14:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In British English we would only ever call that a "block of flats". --Viennese Waltz 14:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For similar buildings we might also call it an apartment complex (if it had appartments). That doesn't directly get at the size/shape but usually a building with only a few units wouldn't be called a complex. This is the most common term I know of based off of many college towns in the USA. As noted above, the function of the building is important in determining what we call it. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It reminds me of certain university campus buildings of the NE US that have classes and office space on the lower levels (and in the basement) but dorm rooms in the upper levels. μηδείς (talk) 17:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

a Corbusian horror? —Tamfang (talk) 07:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Plattenbau --Hans Haase (talk) 09:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the answers, I like Corbusian horror but I don't think it would be quite welcome in a technical context, I understand that Plattenbau refer to the construction method, I think I'll use multi-entrances buildng then. Cqui (talk) 09:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indissoluble vs. insoluble

The verb for each is to dissolve. And both adjectives mean something that can't, won't, or don't dissolve. Why marriage can be dissoluble but not insoluble? Why are some chemical compounds insoluble but not indissoluble? What's the difference between the two prefixes? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you think of any examples? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dissoluble is something that can be dissolved but insoluble is something that can't be dissolved. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 00:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

140.254.70.33 -- In Indo-European there were two separate prefixes, prepositional en- (meaning "in") and negative n- (syllabic nasal, meaning "not"). Unfortunately, these two prefixes fell together in sound in early Latin, or an immediate ancestor to Latin, and there's been a certain amount of confusion ever since (i.e. "inflammable" is not the opposite of "flammable" etc. etc.)... AnonMoos (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those 2 words are virtually interchangeable, while insoluble and indissoluble are not. The first one usually refers to chemical substances or mathematical equations while the other refers to unions of various kinds involving people (marriage, federations, crowns ...). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Content versus contents

Content versus contents: is there any difference in these two words? Or do they both mean the exact same thing? Do they both take a singular noun? Or does contents take a plural noun? Thanks.

A: The content of the article was controversial.
B: The contents of the article was controversial.
C: The contents of the article were controversial.

What is correct? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Contents" is plural, so C) "The contents ...were controversial." is correct, and B) is incorrect. A) is correct. The singular form is more commonly used for the amount or quality of a constituent, "milk with high fat content" or "this film contains adult content". The plural is more common when we are just talking about the things contained, "The contents of the box", "table of contents", etc. You are probably confused because it can function as both a countable noun and an uncountable noun, depending on usage. They mean basically the same thing in singular and plural but have differences in countability. The main differences for usage seem to be by custom. See also wiktionary entry here [1]. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph A. Spadaro -- In "B" above, the verb is not agreeing with the actual subject head ("contents"), but with a noun embedded inside a prepositional phrase ("article"). That can happen in a few highly specialized cases (e.g. "A number of people do this") but not in general. AnonMoos (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The quote of Mr. Spadaro was from a blocked user at the time you posted, AM, and quite unclear. Perhaps S. can rephrase himself when he's unblocked. μηδείς (talk) 03:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To: μηδείς, what are you asking me? I did not understand your post. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry. I meant to say AnonMoos (AM) had quoted you, but you were blocked, and maybe you could clarify yourelf when you returned. Don't pay me no nevermind here if you find my comments unhelpful, I was not challenging anyone, but trying to understand. μηδείς (talk) 23:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sorry, but I am still confused. What are you asking me to clarify? My initial question? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I am so confused I'll just agree that B is wrong, which seems to be bot SM and AM's answer. My fault, sorry. μηδείς (talk) 03:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you content with our explanation ? :-) StuRat (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC) [reply]