Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The Wikipedia Reference Desk covering the topic of language.

Welcome to the language reference desk.
Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

  • Provide a short header that gives the general topic of the question.
  • Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
  • Post your question to only one desk.
  • Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. All answers will be provided here.
  • Specific questions, that are likely to produce reliable sources, will tend to get clearer answers.
  • 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.

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.
Choose a topic:
See also:
Help desk
Village pump
Help manual

December 4[edit]

Presumably russian gravestone engraving[edit]

We're trying to tell what the engraving on this gravestone in a cementary in Dombóvár, Hungary means: File:Мл. с-т. Пашанов И.В., Кладбище, 2018 Домбовар.jpg. The engraving starts with “Мл. с-т. Пашанов И.В. / родилоя”, but I can't read the letters after that. The gravestone has a red star, and the second year number may be 1937 or 1957. 1957 seems more likely because of the red star, but we're not sure. Is this the grave of a soldier, and what does “с-т” stand for? What does the bottom row say and mean? Is it in Russian language? We believe it is, but with such a short label, some of which is unreadable, we just can't be completely sure. Question comes from w:hu:Wikipédia:Tudakozó/Archívum/2018-12-03. – b_jonas 21:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Мл. с-т. = Младший сержант = Junior sergeant
родился в 1935 г. = born in 1935
умер 6 v 1957 г. = died 6 May 1957
--My another account (talk) 05:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. – b_jonas 09:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

December 5[edit]

Etymology of the word 'Karcist'[edit]

It's a title I found in the Grand Grimoire. déhanchements (talk) 07:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

It is probably a nonce word created for whoever penned the book. AFAIK, the word does not appear in the OED, and it is not in any of the online etymology resources like etymonline either. --Jayron32 15:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Courtesy link: Grand Grimoire. Alansplodge (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
The only thing I found was this thread on the Wordorigins Discussion Forum with the only real suggestion being: "I thought, maybe from "kara" meaning black in Turkish, it might be a black sorcerer". Alansplodge (talk) 21:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
déhanchements, on digging even deeper, I eventually found William Kiesel - Magic Circles in the Grimoire Tradition (p. 53) which says: "A possible speculative etymology of the word Karcist; 'kar' [in German] = cirque, or in the Latin; circ-us: circus = circle. Thus karcist would be one who employs circles." Alansplodge (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
A German manuscript supposedly from 1775 (which would make it the oldest known manuscript for the Grand Grimoire/Dragon Rouge, henceforth GG/DR) features the word "karsist."[1] Most of it is focused on forming a pact with Lucifer as given to Solomon by Lucifuge Rofocale (here luzifusch floreall), using the same altar and Italian invocation as in the GG/DR -- but sans the forked blasting rod found in all Romance versions of GG/DR. A list with (variations of) the names Satanachia, Agalariept, Fleurety, Sargatanas, and Nebiros (from the Romance Secrets of Solomon line of grimoires)[2] is tacked on the end (as in the Romance versions of GG and LDR) but does not feature the first 18 spirits (in order) from the Lesser Key of Solomon (unlike the Romance versions). It also does not feature any other material from the Secrets of Solomon, and the names are way more corrupted than they are in the Grimoirium Verum (Satanachia is "stanaschia" and Agalariept is "agaliariarel").
It would appear to be a German innovation that was introduced via the Grand Grimoire but to have spread no further than the derivative (nigh identical) Dragon Rouge. However, there's the problem that the Grimoire of Pope Honorius is also related to the GG/DR (and the Grimoirium Verum), and has German manuscripts but does not feature any form of the word Karcist either (but the German manuscripts are younger as far as I've seen). Despite GG/DR being extremely Faustian in nature, I've not found any form of karcist used in self-proclaimed Faustian works that were common in Germany, even ones that were obsessed with circles. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2018 (UTC)


  1. ^ Bent Scharfenberg. Grimoire - Manuskript um 1775. Books on Demand GmBH. p. 15.
  2. ^ Joseph H. Peterson (2018). The Secrets of Solomon: A Witch's Handbook from the trial records of the Venetian Inquisition. Twilit Grotto Press. pp. 4–28.

December 7[edit]

Sport(s) in the UK[edit]

Category:Sports organisations of the United Kingdom and many of its immediate subcategories use "sports". I was under the impression that "sports" was standard en:gb only when used as the plural form of a word that refers to a specific kind of event, i.e. you can say "football and cricket are separate sports", but you'd only ever say "sport organisations" or "sporting organisations". Does this category tree need to be renamed per WP:TIES, or have I misunderstood? Nyttend (talk) 00:27, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

In the UK I've definitely only heard sports (or sporting) in that context. "Sport organisations" never.--Shantavira|feed me 09:49, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
And for an example: The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea - Sports organisations. Alansplodge (talk) 14:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Nyttend you're right that "sports" is usually treated as the plural of "sport" in the UK; and that a noun used attributely in a noun phrase does not usually take a plural ending. But the latter rule is not universal: consider "pants pocket" (10 times as many hits in the iWeb corpus as "pant pocket"), and "glasses case". --ColinFine (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Although we Britons don't have pockets in our pants, but we do have them in our trousers. Alansplodge (talk) 11:48, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
I know, Alan, but unfortunately "trouser pocket" would not have helped my argument. --ColinFine (talk) 00:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I am sure I heard my mother and grandmother in the dim and distant past talk about keeping a hanky in their knicker pocket! (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
ColinFine -- as I said in a recent answer on this board (now transferred to archives), the first noun in a noun-noun compound in English is not usually plural unless the plural has an irregular form, or the meaning of the plural is significantly different from the meaning of the singular. "Women friend" is an example of the first, "pants pocket" an example of the second (since "pants", also "glasses" etc, are pluralia tantum). If in some dialects "sports" has a significantly different meaning than "sport", that would allow "sports organization"... AnonMoos (talk) 15:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • In the US we never say “sport organization”–it’s always “sports organization”. Here “sports” is a collective noun. For example, “I like sports” means what I think the British would say as “I like sport”. Loraof (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Not so. “I like sports” is perfect British English. Alansplodge (talk) 11:48, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Interesting. Is there any shade of nuance that makes "I like sport" mean something (even subtly) different from "I like sports"? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
They seem to be interchangeable, but perhaps one of our resident grammarians may correct me on that. For instance, National School Sport Week in the UK has been erroneously rendered as National School Sports Week by a number of schools without any apparent change in the meaning, and The Association for Physical Education uses both versions in the same article. I would say "sports week" given the choice, but perhaps I have unwittingly adopted an Americanism - there's a lot of it about. Alansplodge (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
From what I can determine about British usage, 'sporting in general' is sport (as is 'one particular sport'), while 'two or more more specific sports' is sports, but the usage is in flux, just leaning (less so over time) toward sport the more generalized the reference (and interpretation) is. This probably explains the National School Sport[s] Week thing mentioned above; it was named with 'sporting in general' in mind, but to some school administrators it would imply 'those sports, and only those sports, we engage in at our schools', a plural but specific thing, so they would naturally add the -s to it. A construction like "the two related sport of pool and snooker" is non-idiomatic in British English, as in American.

The dialectal split has to do with the origin of the word, which originally referred to hunting especially for the thrill of the chase rather than for sustenance (from Middle English disport, desport, 'to amuse or entertain [especially oneself]'), then later to contests of physical skill like wrestling and boxing, on which people would gamble ("He gives good sport", etc.). Our modern notion didn't exist yet; competitive games of the common people were suppressed for centuries in the West, especially rough team ones, which sometimes resulted in the sending of troops to put an end to them as "riots". This was primarily for peasant productivity reasons (i.e., "they're not doing their work"), often with hand-having about such activities being ungodly, though the earliest recorded versions many of our modern sports were actually developed by the clergy as pastimes within their own cloister walls, and others by the nobility). They were not called "sport[s]" until much later, and words for the new concept were sometimes just invented (e.g. French and many other language borrowed sport directly from English, while the Real Academia Española settled on deporte pl. deportes by going back to the Latin root.) Sport had taken on a broader meaning of 'competitive pastime' (and was used as a count noun for this) before the American and British English fork solidified in the early 19th c. (sport pl. sports was used in this sense at least as early as James I of England's Declaration of Sports, 1617–1618, while Webster's first dictionary of American English came out in 1828). Americans were more prone to say hunting for hunting. The hunting-related meaning survived with more currency in British English, to the present day (e.g. hunters are fairly often, though decreasingly, called sportsmen there, but it rarely conveys that meaning in US English, mostly just surviving in a few magazine titles).

This likely accounts for sport as a mass noun in BrEng; sport is (also decreasingly) and always had been a class of activity there, like chemistry and exploration and war, while a sport (like a war) is now and after ca. 1600, maybe earlier, a more discrete thing. Americans mostly lost the first sense, then later back-formed sports as mass noun for the general class, too, not just a plural of the singular case, and this then spread back into British, etc., dialects. You can see it happen in this N-gram: after a century of stability, with "sports" comparatively rarely used in BrEng (surely for plurals of the singular sense) it shot up in usage from around 1930 onward, while usage of sport declined simultaneously (losing a sense). In modern sport[s]-heavy writing from 1960 onward, the two words have been almost neck-and-neck, indicating a decrease in usage of sport as other than a specific singular in British publishing. If you compare the American N-gram, you see sports completely overtake sport, indicating that the usage of the latter as as a general-class mass noun died out in American English entirely before 1940.

At a not-quite-blind guess, I would suggest that the proximal cause of the shift was the world's rapt attention to the 1936 Olympics (in an era when radios had finally become ubiquitous among the non-destitute, and there was live, in-depth coverage of the Olympics for the first time, and it was the most politicized Olympic Games ever, held in Hitler's Germany). At a multi-sport event like this, the dividing line between sport as a class and sports as a plural for particular sporting disciplines would have been especially thin.
 — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  23:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

about sole proprietorship company[edit]

how to search proprietorship companies which are donot have a websites? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Websites such as should give a list of directors for companies in India, but please don't use this as a Wikipedia reference. If a company does not have a website then it is probably not notable in the Wikipedia sense, though there might be exceptions if the company has been written about in independent WP:Reliable sources. Dbfirs 07:39, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

December 10[edit]

What language is this[edit]

While exploring the web, I found this newspaper. It turns out to be Kamchatskaya Pravda, a newspaper published in Kamchatka Oblast. In the header of the newspaper, there are the motto "Workers of the world, unite!" in four languages.

ПРОЛЕТАРИИ ВСЕХ СТРАН, СОЕДИНЯЙТЕСЬ! Ahas taman huzunis, (??????)!
Russian ?
ДЕГРИЛ ГЕЛАДУК НУНМИНДУК ИВАЛДАЛЛА! Proletarьjte gemoge-nutek, qumeketjitьk!
? ? (probably Koryak)

I only know the first upper one language. The rest is ambiguous. Please help.
Possible languages is listed in here.--Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 11:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Google Translate guesses Kyrgyz for the bottom left, and Swahili for the top right, just pasting in the words transcribed by Jeromi. For the fourth one if I paste in the whole thing it guesses Dutch, which is obviously wrong, but if I paste just the last word then it guesses Kurdish (Kurmanji). -- (talk) 11:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Swahili is surely wrong. It's a central-african language, probably was never heard in Kamchatka. Just try to translate 'Workers of the world, unite!' from English to Swahili and you'll see it is completely different from what's in the paper header.
The Kamchatkan languages article suggests some relation to Chukotkan languages, which in turn lists Chukchi, Koryak, Alyutor, and Kerek language... --CiaPan (talk) 12:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

borgesian map[edit]

I came across a sentence:"Pragmatics might become like a Borgesian map." What does it imply? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:12, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

See On Exactitude in Science -- (talk) 14:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)