Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

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.

September 14

"Mental health" as a negative

It seems that the term "mental health" is very often used to mean its exact opposite, viz. mental illness. I know that sounds stupid, but I've had a few online discussions with people who've used it that way, and their position seems to be that that's what people are now saying, so what's the issue?

Here's an example from today's news: I had … an acute episode of mental health.

This is from a hospital's website: mental health symptoms.

A symptom is: A perceived change in some function, sensation or appearance of a person that indicates a disease or disorder. Since when was health a disease or disorder? Wouldn't the sign have been better worded "Mental illness symptoms"? Yes, I know there's a kind of stigma around the expression "mental illness", but this is surely what the signage is referring to, no? Would anyone ever say "symptoms of physical health" and expect it to be understood as "symptoms of physical illness"? We have "indicators" of health, but "symptoms" of illness or disease. Why are they needlessly confusing these things?-- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Euphemism? I can't reach the first link outside of Australia, or as a non-paying reader or something, the the second link states "Mental health is an essential aspect of overall well-being...", so it isn't really used the way you claim it is. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 10:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're always vigilant for auto-antonyms (because you're such a suspicious individual). This one reminds me of when you previously asked about "TLDR", along with the word "entitled". In all three cases we have a conversion from a mundane, ordinary, unexciting object - a tract that's long and intractable, a person who genuinely deserves respect, an unremarkable mind functioning without peril or distress - to the exciting thing people really want to discuss: a short and catchy summary, a snob to throw eggs at, a dangerously disturbed mind and the dramatic story about living with it and taming it. It seems that generally speaking, whenever there's a name for something trivial and usual, the name is liable to be converted into a name for the unusual, opposite thing.

Ideally I'd now test this theory by pulling out a few terms for dull routine situations, which ought to show signs of sometimes being used to mean the opposite. But I can't think of any more. I don't know, could "air quality" perhaps be a synonym for pollution? Card Zero (talk) 10:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"It seems that generally speaking, whenever there's a name for something trivial and usual, the name is liable to be converted into a name for the unusual, opposite thing." - that's pretty much just restating the subject of my question. If I went onto social media and jokingly posted "I'm having acute episodes of mental health lately", meaning that my mind is in great shape, I would get a lot of responses saying they're so sorry, asking if I'm ok, am I getting all the support I need yada yada. This "language change" b/s is so insidious: It stops now! d'ya hear? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For sure, by all the authority vested in you! It seems like some things only get mentioned in the negative when the positive side of it is "normal". Like when someone says we're going to have weather today. We have weather every day, but it's only a big deal when it's "bad" weather. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly a weather episode! 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overpowered is possibly another example: modern usage tends to be the gaming sense of "too powerful". Card Zero (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We see, likewise, uses of just "health symptoms": "10 Health Symptoms Women Shouldn't Ignore",^[1] "6 Health Symptoms That You Should Never Ignore",^[2] "Don't ignore health symptoms amid COVID-19 pandemic",^[3] "Dr.’s Tips: Health Symptoms and Warning Signs That Should Never Be Ignored",^[4] "Warning Health Symptoms: Discover the crucial health symptoms you should always take seriously",^[5] and so on and so forth. I don't think these are a symptom of "health" being used as a term meaning the lack thereof. Uses of "acute episode of mental health", while strange, are possibly instances of sloppy shortening of typical phrases such as "acute (episode of) mental health crisis",^[6][7][8] "acute episode of mental health distress",^[9][10][11] and "acute (episode of) mental health issues".^[12][13][14] --Lambiam 15:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have long thought that news and tips about "computer security" actually deal with insecurity. --Error (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of these cases can be explained by the fact that words like "health" have two very similar but different meanings. There is the more general, "health", that can be evaluated as either good or bad, depending on the circunstances. One has good health, one has bad health. However, we conversationally just use "health" to mean "good health". Same with the tentative example above. "Air quality" does not intrinsically mean good air quality: bad air quality is also air quality. We assume the non specified health or quality to be good, conventionally, but it could just as easily be the bad one. In the mental health case I think many times it has a humorous tone, as does in the case of weather. 195.37.181.241 (talk) 10:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, people only notice healths that are less than great. Remsense ‥ 论 20:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Née question

The article Suoma af Hällström starts as:

Suoma Helena Loimaranta-Airila, (first married surname af Hällström), (née Loimaranta, before 1906 née Lindstedt) (10 March 1881 – 3 November 1954) was a Finnish doctor and an active member of the Lotta Svärd women's auxiliary paramilitary organisation.

Now "née" literally means "born". The way the article reads is that she was first born as Lindstedt, but in 1906 this was somehow retroactively changed so that she was actually born as Loimaranta.

Now I think the intended meaning is that she was born as Lindstedt but the family later changed their name to Loimaranta. How should this be properly written? JIP | Talk 12:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to "née Lindstedt; surname Finnicized to Loimaranta before marriage". Double sharp (talk) 12:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of questions (primarily about phonology)

Question 1

1. Is it known roughly when the Arabic feature of the L-sound in the article al assimilating into following coronal or sun letters arose? Primal Groudon (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question 2

2. In Sino-Xenic languages, can a word’s syllable structure (which phoneme slots it has) as well as the specific phonemes that occupy those slots be used to aid in determining whether the word is native or derived from Chinese (loanwords from other sources are ignored for the purpose of this query)? Primal Groudon (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably in Japanese and Korean, anyway. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are some of the phonetic signs therein of native or Chinese origin? Primal Groudon (talk) 19:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For Korean, here's a pretty comprehensive paper: [15]. The phonetics of Sino-Korean words tends to be more restricted than native Korean words. Sino-Korean words never or almost never use the tense ("double") consonants, compound final consonants, or aspirated "k", and they have fewer and more limited diphthongs. There are also some particular combinations of initial consonants plus vowels that are either rare or do not occur in Sino-Korean. There are characteristic ways that Sino-Korean words fit into a Korean sentence, such as using the helping verb "hada" (to make or do) instead of directly participating in Korean inflectional patterns. The paper also points out that Sino-Korean vocabulary includes words that do not exist in Chinese, but were derived in Korean by combining Chinese characters, and behave in Korean as Sino-Korean words. --Amble (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question 3

3. Was the labial W-glide in Middle Chinese (and in early forms of Japanese that had it) only allowed with velar initials? Primal Groudon (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question 4

4. Given the Tibetan script’s overall stability in the face of 1200 years of sound changes, can the presence of certain letters or letter combinations be used to aid in determining when a word entered the Tibetan language? Primal Groudon (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question 5

5: Has greater global interconnectedness in recent times led to an increase in the prevalence of unadapted borrowings? Primal Groudon (talk) 20:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will take recent to mean postwar or even later. I think this has to be the case in both directions relative to English, the global lingua franca: for loanwords being borrowed from English, it's obvious this has to do with the massive increase in global literacy during the 20th century, meaning that orthography became a far more common concrete realization of the vocabulary that was being borrowed into languages across the globe. This is also a factor for loanwords being borrowed into English, but I think there is also a critical impulse in institutions and certain classes of writers that orthography remain "unanglicized" to various degrees as a matter of cosmopolitan respect or self-awareness in addition to recognizability among bilingual readers. Remsense ‥ 论 22:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By "unadapted", do you mean phonetically/phonotactically, and to what extent? So like, in English, would words like deja vu and double entendre be considered unadapted French loanwords for your definition in this q? Or in French, place names like "Boston" that's been phonotactically altered so the stress is on the final syllable, while articulation remains largely the same? The most "raw" borrowings can probably be seen in urban youth dialects, so see the diversity in borrowings in Multicultural Toronto English or similar, or else immigrant ethnolects like you see in a possibly-diminishing Italian-American slang (the nonstandard pronunciation of which apparently comes from the unique mix of regions the 20th-century immigrants primarily came from -- see end of link), some of which would seem a permanent fixture now of greater American slang.

As a stab in the dark, I'll refer first to Bromhan et al 2014 (free pdf link), from which I suggest you read the introduction section to get an overview of the complexity of the problem as currently studied. (The intro at a glance suggests that English might best fit "large, widespread languages that are often learned by adults" which "may become simplified" per citation (14), and if that's truly the general systems case then you'd expect borrowing, or the robustness thereof, to decrease in the long term.)

Anyway, I'd need you to specify your question more. Then I can ask Google Scholar :). SamuelRiv (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a classification of "unadapted borrowing" on Wiktionary, but I think it's more about spelling and orthography than phonetics. Most borrowings would be adapted in some way to the language in which it is borrowed, is my impression. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question 6

6: Do phenomena such as contraction of certain vowel combinations, elision of some word-final short vowels, and crasis still occur in modern Greek? Primal Groudon (talk) 22:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We see, also in Modern Greek, αγαπώ next to αγαπάω, and Νικόλας < Νικόλαος.

Crasis and other forms of final-vowel ellipsis are fairly common, as e.g. in πάρ το < πάρε το, τ’ όνειρο < το όνειρο, and ουτ’ αυτό < ούτε αυτό. Note that crasis is marked orthographically by an apostrophe, unlike other forms of ellipsis. It is also fairly common to omit the space: τ’όνειρο, ουτ’αυτό. --Lambiam 03:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 16

Why is "some" not an article?

"The" can be singular or plural:

I see the crow
I see the crows

But "a"/"an" can only be singular:

I see a crow
*I see a crows

Instead, in the last case, we'd use "some":

I see some crows

So, if "the" and "a" are articles, why is "some" not an article? Marnanel (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The plural equivalent of "I see a crow" is simply "I see crows". Some specifies indefiniteness but also quantity, just like four—which makes it a determinative, but not an article. Remsense ‥ 论 15:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Article (grammar)#Partitive article. 2A02:C7B:223:9900:6CC3:8F33:6056:E8EA (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The word “some” can also be used in the singular, like in “Some guy dropped this package off at the front desk earlier.” I would still consider it a demonstrative, however. Primal Groudon (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question, Marnanel. An article expresses ±DEFINITE, no more. You could say that a (of course with its allomorph an) also expresses −PLURAL; or you could say that if it's simply −DEFINITE but is unspoken if the head is plural. Saying "expresses ±DEFINITE, no more" might also be complicated slightly by an unusual use of the (one that, come to think of it, I haven't heard for quite some time), as in "'Never Surrender High-Top' is the sneaker this season" (requiring a heavy emphasis on the). Other determinatives express ±DEFINITE but also more besides: examples include both (definite) and either (indefinite). Some too is more complex than just −DEFINITE. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (CamGEL, on pp 380–381) describes five interpretations of some. Three are exemplified by "We discussed the problem at some length", "Some day I will win the lottery", and "Some hotel that was! An utter disgrace!" Each of these three rather obviously expresses something other than indefiniteness; let's put the three kinds aside. More of a challenge are the other two, which don't so obviously come with extra semantic baggage. One is exemplified by "There are some letters for you". CamGEL says "[this example is] not concerned with a subset of letters belonging to a certain larger set. There is accordingly no 'not all' implicature, but often there will be a 'not multal' implicature – that the number of letters or amount of sugar is not particularly large." The fifth interpretation is exemplified by "Some people left early" and "Some cheese is made from goat's milk" (note that the latter has a singular head). "Here [...] we are concerned with quantity relative to some larger set, so that there is a clear 'not all' (and indeed 'not most') implicature". I think we can say that some is insufficiently bland to be classed as an article. Yes, it's a determinative (functioning as a determiner). No it's not a demonstrative. -- Hoary (talk) 08:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC) Wording tinkered with; 00:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Linguists would often say that the most accurate classification of "some" is as a quantifier word (not a traditional part of speech). Wikipedia doesn't seem to have an article on this, but only on Generalized quantifier and Quantifier (logic), which are not about word categories, but more abstract and purely semantic concepts. AnonMoos (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Many" is not an article either. It's an adjective. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that anyone has suggested that many is an article. It's not an adjective; it's a determinative. Consider for example its use (and adjectives' non-use) in partitive constructions: All/both/most/some/none/many/*universal/*large/*major/*cheap of them remained unsold. For more on the distinction between adjective and determinative, see CamGEL, pp. 538–540. -- Hoary (talk) 23:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 17

Spanish diphthongs

In Spanish, a high vowel (i or u) is normally pronounced as a semivowel (/j/ or /w/) when before another vowel. For example, seria is pronounced /ˈse.rja/. If there is an acute accent, then the vowels form a hiatus and first vowel is stressed, like in sería /se.ˈri.a/. But are there any words where second vowel of hiatus is stressed or both vowels of hiatus are unstressed, like /se.ri.ˈa/ or /ˈse.ri.a/? Is there a way to indicate them in spelling? --40bus (talk) 13:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak Spanish and I don't really understand their use of acute accents to indicate the stress. But in Portuguese you can have a word like aula (class) and saúde (health), in which there is a hiatus between the vowels and the second is stressed. And of course, in a word like glória (glory) neither of the final vowels is stressed. 2A02:C7B:223:9900:A88D:8EE5:E75B:3C1A (talk) 16:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One way to indicate a hiatus might be a silent h between the vowels. —Tamfang (talk) 03:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently (per English Wiktionary) there is no hiatus in nihonio (nihonium), which thus ends up with two identical syllables. Double sharp (talk) 04:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Spanish Wikipedia article es:Diptongo says that an "h" between vowels, although it does not produce a sound, does not impede the formation of a diphthong. --Amble (talk) 05:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikt pronunciation is automated, so it could be irregular and no-one's noticed to correct it. For niobio, the translit says it's ['njobjo], but the recording has [ni'obio]. Don't know if the speaker being natively bilingual (Spanish-Catalan) has anything to do with anything. — kwami (talk) 06:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure about your technical terms but palabras con diptongo says:

Ahora bien, como ya se ha explicado (v. § 3.2j), el sistema de acentuación gráfica del español no tiene como función indicar si una secuencia vocálica se articula en una sola sílaba o en sílabas distintas (prueba de ello es que no distingue gráficamente va.ria.do de res.fri.a.do ni cui.da de hu.i.da, por ejemplo), de forma que la duplicidad gráfica en estos casos carece de justificación y constituye un elemento disgregador de la unidad de representación gráfica del español, cuyo mantenimiento es función esencial de la ortografía. Por ello, a partir de este momento, la convención que establece qué secuencias vocálicas se consideran diptongos, triptongos o hiatos a efectos ortográficos debe aplicarse sin excepciones y, en consecuencia, las palabras antes mencionadas se escribirán obligatoriamente sin tilde, sin que resulten admisibles, como establecía la Ortografía de 1999, las grafías con tilde.

So I understand that the latest version of Spanish orthography is not in the business of distinguishing diphthongs and hiatuses in pronunciation, even if both are present among speakers.

The 1999 version allowed both "guion" and "guión" according to the pronunciation of the speaker. Not anymore. "Guion" for everybody. I think Arturo Pérez-Reverte, although, an academic proclaimed to rebel against this decision.

--Error (talk) 12:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Identification of Subject based on Chinese text

Hi. I'm writing an article on the painter Gao Qifeng, and I was looking through older copies of The Young Companion for free images. Unfortunately, the transliteration system they used does not reflect the modern system (they render his name Kao instead of Gao), and I can't read the original Chinese. I've found two that seem to be his brother, Jianfu (top left, bottom right), based on the glasses. This one may be Qifeng. Would someone who reads Chinese be able to confirm? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This website has a very similar photo and gives the name in Chinese characters as 高奇峰. The characters in your link are rather hard to make out and they may be traditional rather than simplified. No, characters 4 and 5 in the caption are qi gao, with feng missing. --Wrongfilter (talk) 19:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, between the scan quality and the magazine being 90 years old, it is hard to read. I do have 高奇峰 in my notes as well, based on ZH-Wiki, so it's good to confirm that. Qi Gao seems to be a confirmation, which is good. (Wish I'd realized they'd written right-to-left... could have caught that). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "feng" character in the magazine caption is written wikt:峯, which seems to be one of the traditional equivalents of simplified wikt:峰 (same visual components, only with the radical on top). The whole caption reads, transposed from right-to-left into left-to-right order: "畫家高奇峯氏近影" (simplified: "画家高奇峰氏近影"), which does seem to translate to what the English above says, "Recent photo of painter Gao Qifeng". Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I've incorporated the image into the draft. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 19

English word to refer to an entity under another one

Is there an English word to refer to an entity that is under another one where both of them are not part of each other? Neutralhappy (talk) 19:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lower, inferior, underlying, bottom? I may be missing some important aspect of your question, because this seems too easy. Do you want an adjective? Should it exclude the possibility that the two entities are part of the same whole? Should it be limited to two entities?

Notes: lower only specifies having a position with less height, not necessarily underneath the other thing. Inferior is either scientific (as used in anatomy) or has a more common meaning of "less good". Underlying implies the thing is hidden and perhaps supports the thing above. Your best option might be bottom. Card Zero (talk) 19:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. What does a "subsidiary" have to do with an organisation as given in this page for the template of an infobox? Does the term "subsidiary" in the page Template:Infobox organization mean a company, or an entity affiliated to the main organisation? Neutralhappy (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, you meant "entity" as in an organisation, and "under" as in "managed by". Context is everything.

Well, in the infobox, subsidiary is listed immediately after "parent organization", and means the opposite. It's wikilinked to subsidiary, which gives the alternate term daughter company. So yes, as you say, a company, or an entity affiliated to the main organisation (and controlled by it). Card Zero (talk) 22:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could not see the term subsidiary being used to refer to a non-company affiliated organisation, in dictionaries. But the wikilinked article subsidiary only speaks of a company. So can we use the term subsidiary to refer to a non-company affiliated organisation that is under another one? Neutralhappy (talk) 16:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That statement is difficult to respond to because it's entirely unclear what you mean by a non-company affiliated organization. "Non-company" could mean nonprofit or unincorporated. In general, if a legal entity is formed in some way that it can be owned, then it can be a subsidiary. And if it can't be owned because it's too amorphous and informal, like a unincorporated association, then it can't be a subsidiary and in that situation is merely called an affiliate of another organization. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you reply. Is there a need to add a parameter for "affiliate" in the Template:infobox organization? Or can "subsidiaries" in the infobox be used to show affiliates too? Neutralhappy (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Put the other organizations under "subsidiaries" if they are subsidiaries, but not under "affiliations". See Nation of Islam for an example. (However, if they are not subsidiaries, put them under "affiliations". See International Union of Painters and Allied Trades. Don't put the same organization under both. Unless that makes good sense somehow.) Card Zero (talk) 19:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 20

Thüringern

According to Wiktionary, the names of some German regions derives from the dative plural form of the name of the inhabitants or eponymous tribe. A few examples are:
Angel (Angle, Anglian person): Angeln (the region of Anglia)
Bayer (Bavarian person): Bayern (the region of Bavaria)
Franke (Franconian person): Franken (the region of Franconia)
Hesse (Hessian person): Hessen (the region of Hesse)
Sachse (Saxonian person): Sachsen (the region of Saxony)
Schwabe (Swabian person): Schwaben (the region of Swabia)
Apparently this is not the case for Thuringia:
Thüringer (Thuringian person): Thüringern; actual name: Thüringen (Thuringia).
Is there a reason for it? Are there other examples? Thank you! 195.62.160.60 (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It could just have been phonetically simplified, due to -Vn being easier to pronounce than -Vrn, I presume. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Various sources mention an Old German etymon Duringa. An n can have been added in analogy with other region names. BTW, the unstressed ending -ern in Modern German is pronounded almost the same as -en: /-ɐn/ versus /-ən/. --Lambiam 22:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almost, but for speakers of German varieties that have a vocalic reflex of syllable-final + pre-consonantal r, the difference between /ɐ/ versus /ə/ is like day and night, or rather, like blue and green.–Austronesier (talk) 09:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The difference with the other ethnonmys ("tribonyms"?) is that Thüringer uses the derivative suffix -er that makes it a demonym paired with the toponym Thüringen. And there are hundred such pairs -inger ~ -ingen. The use of the suffix -er is a late analogous formation. In Middle High German, the ethnonym is Düringe (plural form), as mentioned in Hugo von Trimberg's Der Renner (next to die Franken, die Sahsen; but note: die Beier, die Oesterrîche also without without n in MHG). Note also the initial d- as the "correct" reflex of early continental West Germanic /θ/ (rendered as th- in medieval Latin documents). The Th- spelling is a learned Latin-based modification of Düringen which was the common spelling before the disintegration of Thuringia in the 16/17th century. –Austronesier (talk) 09:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add: The MHG singular was Düring. Based on that form, Düringen perfectly fits the dative plural pattern. It was broken by the late back-formation Thüringer from learned Thüringen. –Austronesier (talk) 10:02, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I suppose it's pronounced with a regular t-sound, nowadays. (Thailand has an aspirated t-sound, but that is probably irrelevant.) 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 11:02, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 21

Translation request: Works and artists from Commons File

Hi. Would it be possible to translate the titles of the works and artists from the page attached here? I haven't had any luck with machine tools. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco 1492, if you have managed to OCR what's there but the subsequent machine translation makes no sense, NB the horizontal script goes not left to right but right to left. (Apologies if this would-be tip insults your intelligence.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - My inquiry about Lingyou above clued me into the orientation of the text. I will try OCR next... Perhaps Foxit will work better than those online translation tools. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That managed to get two. It appears that these artists were not the particularly prominent members of the staff, based on the two names produced. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 22

Attention theft, Mise-en-scène, and Narrowcasting

I see a user added Attention theft, Mise-en-scène, and Narrowcasting to the "see also" section of False dilemma. In what way might these make sense? Are they perhaps all commonly used as metaphors in ways I don't know? On the face of it, attention theft is something adverts do, mise-en-scène is a term from stagecraft and means "environment", and narrowcasting is targeted broadcasting. I suspect some excessive lateral thinking inspired all this - or are some of these terms used in ways that are indeed related to false dilemmas? Card Zero (talk) 14:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was added in February, by a user who has since been indef'd.[16] You should be safe in expunging those items. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you kindly. Card Zero (talk) 15:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Convergent use

There was a mass shooting in Alabama this morning, apparently done using a machine gun. The mayor of Birmingham was quoted saying:[17]

This is not the first occasion, unfortunately, in 2024 where we’ve seen the style of weapons, the number of bullets on the scene, possibly convergent use, etcetera, for automatic weapons being used in our streets,

What does "convergent use" mean here? Web search and wiktionary don't help. 2601:644:8581:75B0:0:0:0:C078 (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could maybe try asking him? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The mayor of Birmingham? Yes I'm sure he'd love to take a call from a rando like me, asking something like that. 2601:644:8581:75B0:0:0:0:C078 (talk) 21:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This source has the mayor saying "possibly converted automatic weapons". I suppose that he may have misspoken, but that this is what he meant to say. --Lambiam 21:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would make sense: semi-automatics converted (illegally) into automatics. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the audio here, at 3:07, the mayor does say "convergence use", a term he repeats later. A plausible scenario is that the editors of AL.com called the bureau of the mayor for clarification and received this correction in reply. Alternatively, a (corrected) transcript may have been sent to news outlets. --Lambiam 22:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In contrast to semiautomatic weapons unethically represented as automatic by sensationalist news broadcasts. —Tamfang (talk) 03:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, yeah, some kind of garbled machine transcription maybe. That does make sense. I was thrown because I did find a few hits for "convergent use" by web search, but none made sense in this context. Thanks. 2601:644:8581:75B0:0:0:0:C078 (talk) 00:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In tonight's evening news, the report used the term "converted", which makes sense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a garbled machine transcription. On the audio of the video I linked to above, the mayor can clearly be heard saying "convergent use". --Lambiam 12:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 23

Charcuterie

According to a Wikipedia article, charcuterie is a branch of French cuisine devoted to prepared meat products, such as bacon, ham, sausage, etc. According to another Wikipedia article, lunch meats are precooked or cured meats that are sliced and served cold or hot.

Question: is there a term in English for precooked or cured meats, such as bacon, ham, sausage, etc., in general, regardless of whether they are sliced or made in France? — Kpalion^(talk) 13:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kpalion: In a fine example of how the English language is unafraid of adopting words from others, it's charcuterie. Bazza 7 (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does it mean that the Charcuterie article is wrong in restricting the term to French cuisine only? — Kpalion^(talk) 14:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't restrict it; it just doesn't mention it has been incorporated into omnivorous English, whose appetite for foreign words is insatiable. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting — I didn't realize anyone restricted it to just meats. What I tend to think of as a "charcuterie board", often served at outdoor events, has mostly cheeses (a selection of fresh, semi-soft, and sometimes a few aged), dried and fresh fruit, nuts, jams, honeys, and crackers, with maybe just a few little sausagey meaty things. Often taken with little flutes of sparkling wine. Is there a more specific name for this sort? --Trovatore (talk) 23:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Well, etymologically, char cuit is just Old French for cooked meat. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 01:30, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds closer to a cheeseboard to me. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me put the question differently: would you use the word "charcuterie" (in English) to describe what you see in this picture? — Kpalion^(talk) 08:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I might worry briefly about it being a misnomer on my part, but I would. Remsense ‥ 论 08:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kpalion: It's a good word for that picture, although I can't recall it being used in conversation (in English English). Bazza 7 (talk) 08:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any alternatives then? — Kpalion^(talk) 09:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charcuterie is used in conversational English, but can appear affected. OED gives citations back to 1858. The native terms would be cold cuts or cold meats. DuncanHill (talk) 10:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect "charcuterie" to be used to describe those meats after they had been cut into small portions, and only in the term "charcuterie board" describing a bunch of them along with cheeses and crackers. As is, I would just call them precooked or cured meats. Or DuncanHill's suggestion of cold meats, "cold cuts" would describe them after they had been cut into slices. I definitely find "charcuterie" to be an affected usage for what trays of what appears to be nothing more than a fancy version of Lunchables. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like "cured meats" best, as it doesn't imply slicing, serving temperature or country of origin. But is it widespread enough to be commonly understood by native speakers of any variety of English? Lunch meat lists several alternative names, but "cured meats" is not one of them. — Kpalion^(talk) 13:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kpalion: I think you will struggle to get something which covers all varieties of English. "Lunch meat" is not used in my own English English and may be confused (especially by people of a certain age) with "luncheon meat" (which is not the generic item the luncheon meat article suggests]]).

I agree with your comment about "cured meats". I don't know how widespread the technical term "cured" is; my own experience it that in everyday speech the curing method is more likely to be referred to (e.g. smoked, salted, pickled, etc.). Bazza 7 (talk) 13:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page (in Emgland) seems to use "chacuterie" and "cured meats" as synonyms. I believe both terms would be widely understood here. Alansplodge (talk) 14:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the AMerican term "cold cuts" fit in here? HiLo48 (talk) 00:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned "cold cuts" above. The OED defines charcuterie as "Cold cuts of meat, esp. pork, ham, sausages, etc. Also, a shop that sells goods of this kind". DuncanHill (talk) 01:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm looking for something more generic, yet still recognizable. A term that would cover both cold cuts and a whole grilled sausage (uncut and served hot). So far, "cured meats" seems like the best fit, but would it be understood in America? — Kpalion^(talk) 09:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it's served hot is it even charcuterie? DuncanHill (talk) 11:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, is it? And if it's not, then what is it? Say, you can buy a link of smoked sausage and then you can either slice it up and serve cold or grill it and serve hot and uncut. Does it only become charcuterie in the first case, at the moment of serving, but not in the other case? Does the term "charcuterie" not apply before serving? — Kpalion^(talk) 11:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kpalion: As I hinted above, your quest may be difficult to fulfil. The assumption that there must be a single word is mistaken. It would help if you gave an indication about when or where such a word is needed.

@Alansplodge gave a link above to a specialist retailer which sells "charcuterie". A large supermarket chain, on the other hand, refers to those products as cooked and continental meats; another, more upmarket, uses the same ans adds deli for good measure.

At a personal level, on the other hand, if I buy some smoked sausage from my supermarket's deli counter, slice it and serve it cold, I'd call it "smoked sausage". If I have it whole and hot, then I'd call it "smoked sausage". If I needed to differentiate between the two, I might add "cold" or "hot". The same might apply to bacon, or pork loin, or pastrami, etc. Bazza 7 (talk) 12:21, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You said you'd buy your (whole) sausage at a deli counter. So perhaps "deli" is the word I'm looking for? Is it an exact synonym of "charcuterie" or "cured meats", or is there some difference in its scope? — Kpalion^(talk) 12:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See delicatessen. 2A02:C7B:120:C500:65D0:46B7:4AB7:C9BB (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That seems fairly close, but you'd need to specify deli meats, since typical deli counters and delicatessens also contain other sorts of foods (cheeses, prepared side dishes such as potato salad and slaw, etc.). Deor (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 24

Capricious

Wiktionary says this is from a meaning of curly-haired. But a fitting conception of goatishness could have led to a direct borrowing from Latin capra / caprinus at any time. Surely cultural conceptions of goats have more influence on the language than some narrow hair stereotype? Temerarius (talk) 02:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's one theory. Here's EO's take on it:[18][19] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One's hair curling from fear, an etymological theory mentioned in Pianigiani's Vocabolario Etimologico della Lingua Italiana,^[20] is not a stereotype. Yet another theory mentioned there relates the term to the Latin verb caperāre, "to wrinkle". --Lambiam 12:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 25

Is this an error of style?

This is an excerpt from my version of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (I have the audiobook read by Stephen Fry): "... as though this was the signal Harry had been waiting for, he jumped to his feet, at the same time pulling from the waist-band of his jeans a thin wooden wand as if he were unsheathing a sword."

Is there a reason why 'was' is used in the first bolded bit and 'were' in the second bolded bit? Would this be considered an error of style? 150.203.2.213 (talk) 06:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an extensive discussion on was vs. were.[21] However, from reading it, I'm not sure what the answer to your question is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that the signal could be considered actual, and the sword fictional, if I am to hazard a guess. For what it's worth. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 11:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh okay, I can see how that might motivate the difference. Thank you! 150.203.2.213 (talk) 12:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some stylists recommend not repeating a formula in close proximity, except when done to achieve a rhetorical effect. --Lambiam 13:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 26