Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

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.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

July 3

101

What does this American phrase mean? I see it quite often on the internet. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Assuming you mean, what does "101" mean, it refers to the first catalog (freshman) level of a course in most US universities. E.g., I hated math and never studied past Calculus 101. (Urban dictionary gives no other meanings). μηδείς (talk) 00:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Medeis, how do you know you hated math? Sounds like you never took any. --Trovatore (talk) 10:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I studied calculus up to series. The next step would have been linear algebra, which I did not take. I actually find the concepts fascinating (like whether series converge), but the work tedious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs) 22:13, 3 July 2013‎

That's exactly what I was getting at. Sadly, the American educational system (and I'm not sure it's any different anywhere else) doesn't teach any mathematics before linear algebra. It teaches algorithms, learned by rote. By that time, that's what almost all students are used to, and learning mathematics is virtually impossible for most of them. It's an absolute crime. Google "a mathematician's lament" for an excellent analysis. --Trovatore (talk) 22:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

So it essentially just means 'the basics', really? This is what I suspected. Cheers. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

See also 101 (term). ---Sluzzelin talk 00:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Often used to describe something that should be common knowledge or basic skill (e.g., "You shouldn't have talked on your first date about how you're not over your ex yet; that's dating 101!") rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Not to be confused, of course, with Room 101. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

That is exactly why I was confused, Tammy. Well spotted! KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Not to be confused with Room 101 (TV series) or Room 101 (radio series). Or Room 222, for that matter. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Jack. It was actually the TV series I meant. I hadn't clicked on Tammy's link before I posted my reply. I think I should review RefDesk Posting Protocol 101, then :) KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

[Any subject] 101 means beginner level. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Need ref showing term cholo used as an insult in English

Can anyone provide a source showing that the word cholo is used as an insult in English? In other words, an example where the word might be used along the lines "I told them n*ggers and cholos get outta my store", instead of parallel to "dude"? An example where the usage itself is a slur, not just a rude sentence in which the word is used sarcastically? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 00:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you accept usage in fiction? Brando Skyhorse has an African American person shout "Fucking cholos go hunt for black people! You wetbacks been trying to kill us up and down these streets." in The Madonnas of Echo Park. Stephen D. Gutierrez, in Live From Fresno y Los, has someone (couldn't see who, or whether it was meant to be in English or Spanish originally, since all I got was a snippet) saying "We started small, 'Hey what's this shit, man?' and then advanced on him, 'Fucking cholo, stupid ass' whistling through our teeth [...]" ---Sluzzelin talk 01:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It's been a while since I lived in San Diego, but I've never heard "cholo" used except as a slur, and a pretty strong one at that, whether in Spanish or in English. Savvy English speakers used it to refer to extremely low-class Mexicans, usually involved in crime. Not-so-savvy English speakers used it as a general slur for Mexicans in general. Certainly not a word I would call a Mexican friend, even joking around. I've never heard it used as a parallel to "dude". Check the last post on this forum for an example: [[1]]. Type in "cholo stole" into Google for plenty more. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll gladly accept that information. I have never heard it used as an insult in the East. Never heard wetback here either except from fiction or for effect. μηδείς (talk) 01:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

That's probably because the predominant Hispanic populations in the greater NYC and New England area are Caribbean Hispanic populations, especially as Puerto Ricans and Dominicans, whereas in other parts of the U.S. (save Florida), people of Mexican populations predominate. The slurs and insults and other similar terms differ for different groups, both in Spanish and English. --Jayron32 13:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The word is used by characters in two English-language novels: as an insult to a bullfighter in The Bridge of San Luis Rey, set in Peru, and as an insult to a Latino domestic in The Long Goodbye, set mostly in Los Angeles.--Hors-la-loi 18:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Given names (male from female)

This is a set of three closely related questions.

• In the name "Mario Monti", is the male given name "Mario" derived from the female given name "Maria"?
• In the name "Evo Morales", is the male given name "Evo" derived from the female given name "Eva"?
• Besides these two examples, what male given names are derived from female given names?

—Wavelength (talk) 03:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

According to Mario (given name), the name is derived from Latin Marius, which in turn is derived from a family name Maria (see Maria (gens)). Almost certainly unrelated to the woman's name Maria, which I think is derived from Hebrew Maryam. --Trovatore (talk) 03:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's certainly totally unrealted to Maria. And Evo is totally unrelated to Eve. It's the Spanish form of Yves. See Ivo of Kermartin. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I may have to backpedal a little bit. Maria (given name) claims that the feminine name (not "female name" please; what are the gametes of a name?) is also derived from the name of the gens, but that the name of Maryam (mother of Yeshua) was responsible for making it popular. (BTW Maryam is apparently Aramaic rather than Hebrew.) --Trovatore (talk) 08:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

If Maria came from gens Maria, it would be pronounced Mária, just as Mário is. Similarly, if Mario were the male form of Maria, it would be pronounced Marío. Djbcjk (talk) 13:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

See Miriam, the prototype. --Dweller (talk) 10:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Once again, here's a previous ref-desk thread. Deor (talk) 14:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

For cases in other languages, there's Greek Panayotis (Παναγιώτης), from Panagia (Παναγία), the title of the Virgin Mary (although Panagia itself is not commonly used as a female given name; the female equivalent would be Panayota). Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Grrr. Feminine name. Names have gender. People have sex. --Trovatore (talk) 19:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't this addressed recently? 'Gender' is perfectly valid as a qualifier of people. For example, the British Succession to the Crown Act 2013 says 'gender' rather than 'sex'. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

If the UK parliament wants to adopt this barbarism, I can't stop them. --Trovatore (talk) 20:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

If you wish to accuse the Mother of Parliaments of 'barbarism', arguing with their choice of words is a damn funny place to start. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Barbarism in the linguistic sense. A barbarism is by definition a question of choice of words. --Trovatore (talk) 07:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

" With no accepted technical meaning in modern linguistics, the term is little used by descriptive scientists." No argument here. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Because it's not a descriptive claim. It's a normative one. This is a bad usage and it needs to be stopped before it gets entrenched. --Trovatore (talk) 07:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

AlexTiefling, please see my article The mother of parliaments (expression). -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Trovatore, I considered using the adjectives "masculine" and "feminine" at the outset, but I decided, without consulting any dictionary, to use the adjectives "male" and "female". Some dictionaries support my use of "male" and "female" (http://www.onelook.com/?w=male&ls=a and http://www.onelook.com/?w=female&ls=a). Google has many search results for male name and female name. Google Ngram viewer has results for female name,feminine name,male name,masculine name. The Wikipedia article "Given name" (version of 21:42, 28 June 2013) refers to female names and to male names. However, I acknowledge that, in this context, "masculine" and "feminine" are more suitable than "male" and "female". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wavelength (talk • contribs) 20:50, 3 July 2013‎

Certainly the terms male name and female name are attested. To me, though, it just sounds like, when a male name and a female name love each other very much, why, that's where nicknames come from. --Trovatore (talk) 21:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

People have both gender and sex, and they're not always the same. Names are applied to people of certain genders and, in languages other than English, can also have grammatical gender, and again, the two don't necessarily match. (For example, the German nicknames Hänschen and Lottchen are both grammatically neuter but are applied to male- and female-gendered people respectively.) If you're talking about which human gender the name is applied to, it's better to say "male" and "female" to prevent confusion with grammatical gender. Back to the original question, although Mario is not etymologically derived from Maria, it is often treated as if it were, e.g. Mario Montessori who was named after his mother Maria Montessori. I can't think of any male given names derived from female given names, unless they came by way of surnames. For example, McBride is (rarely) a male given name; it comes from the surname McBride which comes from an Irish surname meaning "son of Brigid". Angr (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Only biological organisms can be male or female. Names are not, so they can't. --Trovatore (talk) 22:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Names can refer to biological organisms. It is perfectly reasonable and correct to call names that typically refer to male people (and animals, for that matter) "male names" and those that typically refer to female people and animals "female names", just as we call names for dogs "dog names". That doesn't mean the name is a dog, it means the name is for a dog. Angr (talk) 22:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, using "female" as a noun, and then applying it appositively? A little strained, but possible, I suppose. For me, I'll continue to just say "man's name" or "woman's name" (or "boy's name" or "girl's name" as the case may be). --Trovatore (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Why should the words "male" and "female" be uniquely immune from the appositive? I've never seen that those specific words, among all English nouns, are disallowed from that construction. Indeed, I'd say it is rather common to do so. I've never heard the claim that the appositive doesn't apply to those specific words, and it seems very natural and common to do so. --Jayron32 22:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

As I said, it's possible, I suppose. But it means you're using "male" and "female" as nouns, which (in addition to having a bit of a harsh sound in most contexts) is not what I would have thought of when hearing "male name" or "female name". It sounds as though you should be able to put it in the predicate-adjective position, *The name John is male. --Trovatore (talk) 22:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Mario Lanza derived his stage name from his mother's maiden name, Maria Lanza. Also, the name Catharinus is not unknown. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

preposition problem

"They often appear in newborns to 6 years of age" - Is the use of "to" correct here or is "through" more proper?121.247.79.53 (talk) 05:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

"They often appear in children up to 6 years of age" Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. 'Through' in contexts like this, although common in American English, is confusing in an international environment. (As a British English speaker, I find myself expecting that 'A through B' should be followed with '...and on to C'.) By the way - why 'of age' rather than 'old'? AlexTiefling (talk) 07:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, to me, "through" is American, and not common elsewhere. As an Australian I am quite comfortable with the initial form. It seems you have encountered one of those expressions that varies depending on whose form of English you're using. HiLo48 (talk) 07:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

In principle, through could be used here in American English, but it's not common. The more normal phrasing would be up to, as DV says. --Trovatore (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

"Up to 6", to my ears, sounds like whatever it is they're talking about stops at the end of the child's 5th year. Is that the intention? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I read it as an inclusive thing, like "Massive sale, today only, discounts up to 75% off marked price". That means that, while some items might attract a discount of less than 75%, others will indeed be marked down by the full 75% (at least until the early birds snap them up). A person who is a day short of their 7th birthday is still considered a "six-year old" for most purposes, unless otherwise indicated. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

That's how it's often used, yes. If I say I have a meeting from 2 to 3 in the afternoon, it doesn't run through the entire hour after 3 o'clock, but stops at 3. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

You're mixing apples and oranges. The statement says "up to six years of age", not "up to the sixth birthday". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Once you've reached six, the next day you're a day older than six, and so on. If you go up to a door, does that automatically mean you also go through the doorway? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Anyone born between 5 July 2006 and 4 July 2007, both dates inclusive, are considered to be six years old as at today. Any statement that includes "up to six years of age" will apply to all of these people, not just to the ones who are turning 6 today. It's only in special contexts that extraneous days figure in the issue at all, and I'm sure you know that. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I find a statement reading "up to age 6" to be ambiguous. Probably something to do with schooling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

You may find the etymologies of "to" and "through" interesting.[2][3] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Verein für Deutsche Kulturbeziehungen im Ausland

The page Verein für Deutsche Kulturbeziehungen im Ausland describes the organization but doesn't translate the name to English. What would be a close (literal) translation? -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

"Association for German cultural relations abroad". Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Ȑȑ

Double grave accent notes that the characters Ȑ and ȑ are used in certain western Slavic languages, along with Ȁȁ, Ȅȅ, Ȉȉ, Ȍȍ, and Ȕȕ. Why would a consonant like R be given this accent? 2001:18E8:2:1020:8C30:A6BE:F890:A67 (talk) 13:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, Croatian linguists use these accents to denote some type of tonal accent. Since /r/ can be a syllable nucleus in Croatian, it is plausible that a syllable formed with /r/ could also be the carrier of such a distinctive intonation curve, so there might well be occasions for marking an accent on them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

BTW, the Slavic languages mentioned in the article are all South Slavic languages, not West Slavic languages. Angr (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I browsed through a limited set of samples on Forvo, and I sort of found a minimal pair for rising and falling accents on /r/:

• Word vrba 'willow' is pronounced by a Slovene speaker, but in Croatian terms, it would be a short falling accent, and accented as vȑba. Note the quite audible [ə] preceding the [r], which often overtakes the phonological role of syllable nucleus. (In Serbo-Croatian, the same word will actually have the short rising accent). The 'short falling' is actually near-identical to a normal pitch accent.
• Word Brna (village Brna) is pronounced with short rising accent (Br̀na). The [ə] is audible here as well; the difference from vrba is that the pitch remains high on the second syllable. This type of accent is, I guess, more alien to non-native speakers. No such user (talk) 06:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

July 4

What does the Chinese character 萱 mean?

Often see it in names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.6.178.201 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 4 July 2013‎

Hi! According to the English Wiktionary, it means daylily (Hemerocallis), a type of flowering plant: see "wikt:萱". — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Dragonfly watcher

I thought a dragonfly watcher was called an Oder but I can't find a reference for that. Was I wrong? Dismas|^(talk) 15:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Since dragonflies and their relatives are sometimes known colloquially as "odes" (short for odonata), I can imagine that some watchers might call themselves that, but I'm unable to spot any online occurrences. Looie496 (talk) 15:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• user:Dismas, using Looie's confirmation and reasoning, I've found a ref! This South African page [4] is all about how to "Become an ODER and go ODING". Definitely a slang/colloquial/informal term, but then again, so is "birder" for "bird-watching enthusiast". (I found the web page with this google string /"oder" -river -frankfurt dragonfly/) SemanticMantis (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Languages - written

I was reading your article on mirror writing because I have a 16 year old daughter who mirror writes perfectly legibly, without training. She also writes backwards as easily as forwards. We are Americans. She has taught herself fluent German. She is studying Arabic and Russian on her own (knows all of the characters, etc.) and she takes Spanish and French in school and Chinese in virtual school. She can write all those languages mirror, too. She also knows the International Phonetic alphabet, which I never heard of?

I just learned the mirror writing part by happenstance, going through her school papers from last year. She does not do that well in school, and she is painfully shy. She tests very high though - 99th percentile in the PSATs, 1800+ on Lexile.

My questions are: isn't this highly unusual and if so, is anyone besides me interested?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.58.33.194 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 4 July 2013

I don't know what to make of the mirror writing, but if your description is accurate (I'm always a bit leery of trusting what parents say about their children), then she will pretty shortly exhaust the resources of her high school, if she hasn't already. You might consider inquiring whether it would be possible for her to take language-related classes at a local university. USF-Sarasota probably doesn't have anything very strong, but the St. Pete or Tampa campuses might, if she could get there. People in academia are always enthusiastic about providing opportunities for especially gifted high school students. Looie496 (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Just an anecdote - I badly broke my right arm many years ago, and had to have it in a special plastic casing for several months. During this time, I had to use my left hand for everything, including writing. Once I was absent-mindedly writing a note on a piece of paper, when half-way through my second word, I realised I was doing mirror writing. I put it in the mirror and it was a bit odd, but far, far easier than trying to write normally with my left hand. It only took a little practise to perfect it, even for Chinese and Japanese, which were my majors in university. I don't want to put your daughter down, but it's not that difficult, really. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Spontaneous mirror writing is fairly common, especially in left-handers. It takes no more than a couple of days to learn a script such as the Arabic, Russian, or IPA ones, so none of those are much indication that there's anything strange in your daughter's brain. I wouldn't worry. Henry^Flower 00:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Though it's noticeably more impressive if it's not just the scripts but the language she's teaching herself. It's pretty easy to teach yourself Cyrillic or Arabic writing and be able to pronounce things, but putting actual meaning to the words is what would be more impressive (given she's apparently taught herself German and is taking Spanish, French, and Chinese, it does sound like the OP may be referring to the languages, and not just the writing systems). Lsfreak (talk) 20:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Translation of "Мёртвая зыбь" ?

Hello Learned Ones ! How'd you translate that title of a novel inspired by Operation Trust , written in 1965 by Lev Nikulin (a russian writer who has an article in WP ru [5] , & some lines in WP fr [6]). "Swell" seems to me not to give back the hint to death...What about "Deadly tide" ? Thanks a lot beforehand for your suggestions. Arapaima (talk) 16:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

It's very hard to make such recommendations unless you know the gist of the novel. μηδείς (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The Deadly Swell and Deadly Swell have been used in a couple of previous book citations: [7]. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if those are over-translations. According to my Oxford Russian-English Dictionary, "зыбь" means a ripple, while "мёртвая зыбь" means a swell. I have no idea why the Russians add the word "мёртвая" - which by itself means "dead" (see Dead Souls, Мёртвые души), or "deadly" - to their word for ripple, to get an expression for "swell". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it's the expression of a cultural thanatophily ? Anyway, thanks a lot to all of you, t.y. Arapaima (talk) 06:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Мертвая in this context is supposed to mean "very quiet and calm". In English there are similar expressions: deadly "very", dead calm, dead silence (in Russian мёртвая тишина).--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 00:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, so I think I'm right in saying that "мёртвая зыбь" should not be translated as "dead" or "deadly" anything, but just as "swell". Согласно? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• No, in general context it shouldn't. Though I am not an expert in marine terminology at all. Frankly speaking I've never known about this phenomenon and never seen these terms in both Russian and English before. I suppose ripples are the small waves caused by the wind or something. Then ripple≈зыбь (notice it has no plural in Russian). If it's not caused by the wind then it's мёртвая зыбь (i. e. зыбь во время штиля "ripples or waves during a dead calm"). If swell means this and nothing else (I was not sure, but I now did some research and cleared the issue for myself - it really does) then let it be translated properly as swell. BTW, I've just googled out this.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 07:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
• Bbbbut! We are not sure what Nikulin originally implied, he could intentionally play on words. As I understand he meant that "the storm" of the Revolution and the Civil War and its "destructive waves" were all over, but some counterrevolutionary forces were still hidden somewhere and ready to act. They were like a swell that echoes the waves from the wind from far away. They were "remainders" (зыбь) of the past "storm". And they were still "deadly" as well.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 07:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Just as Medeis said first up. Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for Korean translation

Some background: I just bought an LG Optimus phone and was interested that a good deal of its UI was not using the normal Roboto font. So I found the font files and opened them on my computer. The font is called LG SmartGothic, and the font's metadata gives its license URL as [8], but not the license itself. The "Copyright" link on that page leads me here, but I can't use a translation service because all the text is in images. Can someone provide a translation for the information on that page, or a link to the license for these fonts if that page does not in fact have the license? Pokajanje|Talk 17:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

July 5

Singular or plural verb

In the following article, Yarnell Hill Fire, there was a description of a wildfire that killed 19 firefighters. The sentence (which does not appear in the article at present) read something along the lines of the following.

• "The nineteen deaths are the single worst disaster in state history." (or words to this effect).

So, my question is: should this sentence employ a singular verb or a plural verb? Should it correctly read as: (a) The nineteen deaths are ... ? Or (b) The nineteen deaths is ... ? Both verbs seem like "bad choices" (i.e., each one sounds "wrong"), given the sentence construction. That is, the noun before the verb is plural and the noun after the verb is singular. (I believe that this sentence contains a subject complement.) My question also assumes that I am not interested in changing the wording or sentence construction at all (which I realize can solve the problem in an indirect way). I am interested in knowing which verb is the correct verb for the way in which the sentence is worded above. Also, in this case, why exactly is the correct verb considered to be the correct verb? In other words, why exactly is singular (or plural) the correct verb to be used for this sentence? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, Huddleston & Pullum's Cambridge Grammar of the English Language treats this somewhere, confirming the fairly simple rule that it's basically always the subject that wins out, so in this case it would be are. Of course, there's also another, minor pattern where a formally plural subject can be used with a singular verb, but that's only when the subject is construed as a measurement phrase describing a single quantity (as in "ten years is an awfully long time"). You might occasionally get such a reading with "deaths" (as in "A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic"), but the sentence you quoted seems to be treating the nineteen as distinct individual cases, so that would probably not apply here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Hmmmm, I am not sure that I am convinced. So, according to the rule that you cite, what would happen if we took the same exact sentence above and simply reversed the order? "The single worst disaster in state history is the nineteen deaths of the firefighters." Is that correct? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes that would be correct. "The single worst disaster is..." and "The nineteen deaths are..." would almost always be correct, and certainly correct for both of your examples. With the exception of plurals used as mass nouns, English verbs look to the subject of the sentence for their proper conjugation. Since the word "deaths" is not being used as a mass noun, but as a simple plural, it takes "are", and since the word disaster is unambiguously singular, it takes the word "is". --Jayron32 19:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for the input and for the explanations. Much appreciated! Thank you. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Ending sentence on an exclamation mark

Say I was referring to man writing for a magazine called Hello! in a Brit Eng sentence, which of the following is correct?

• He wrote for Hello!.
• He wrote for Hello!

Thanks, Ericoides (talk)

The first is correct, with a period (full stop) placed after the magazine title. But – as an option – you may also want to consider rewriting the sentence to avoid the odd punctuation situation (i.e., by not having the title as the final word of the sentence). As an example: He worked for the magazine Hello! as a writer from 2000 until 2007 (or some such). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I can't rewrite the sentence, but I appreciate the option. (From your use of the term "period" I take it you are not British?) Ericoides (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. I am not British ... correct! Hence, I added the "full stop" notation to my "period" reference, assuming that you were British. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

In your 2nd sentence, Joseph, you've (possibly inadvertently) just demonstrated the difference between using an exclamation mark as an independent personal flourish (which is sufficient to end the sentence), and having as the last word of the sentence the name of a publication that happens to include the exclamation mark as part of its own spelling (which is not sufficient). Thus, it would be possible to construct a scenario where someone says "No, you idiot, he didn't write for Goodbye!, he wrote for Hello! !". (I've separated the italicised exclamation mark and the Roman one with a space for ease of readability, but it would not be mandatory.) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Interesting point, Jack. Thanks! Just so I understand, then, let me ask this. In the rule that is cited by User Deor below, does that only hold if the terminal punctuation is a period? And it does not hold if the terminal punctuation is something else, such as a question mark or an exclamation point? If that's the case, shouldn't the MOS clarify that distinction (at MOS:CONSECUTIVE)? Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I take terminal punctuation to be a full-stop, exclamation mark and question mark. I wonder whether Deor might point me in the direction of all (or one) style guide(s) that support the second version. Ericoides (talk) 16:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I also take terminal punctuation to be a full-stop, an exclamation mark, and a question mark. But, as Jack of Oz points out above, the MOS:CONSECUTIVE rule will not make sense when the terminal punctuation of the sentence is either an exclamation point or a question mark. It only "works" when the terminal punctuation is a period. No? Example Number 1: Wow! I just got a job working for Hello! ! (similar to Jack's example above). Example Number 2: Which magazine does he work for? Is it Hello! ? (my own example). In both examples, it does not make sense to eliminate the terminal punctuation, since doing so will erroneously change an exclamation (example 1) and a question (example 2) into a simple declarative sentence. I wonder if User:Deor can address this oddity. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

In which case should the MOS rule not be: "Where a proper noun that includes terminal punctuation ends a sentence, do not add a full-stop after it"? Then we could have, "I'm amazed. Do you really work for Hello!?" I'd be happy with that, whereas "I'm amazed. Do you really work for Hello!?." would make me queasy. Ericoides (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

To Ericoides ... is there a typo in your post above? You offer two examples: one of which you would be happy with; the other makes you queasy. I don't see any difference in your two examples. Am I missing the distinction? Or is there a typo? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The latter one ends with a period, the former does not. Ericoides seems to be using that variety of punctuation where the quote marks include things that were never part of the quote. I don't know whether Ericoides is a North American, but most Americans I've talked to about this agree that it's illogical, but they have no plans to discontinue the practice. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Jack, how does "I'm amazed. Do you really work for Hello!?" "include things that were never part of the quote"? Or do you mean that "I'm amazed. Do you really work for Hello!?." should be "I'm amazed. Do you really work for Hello!?".? I'm British and I follow one version of the British rules regarding punctuation (i.e. I include material within quote marks – including full-stops – if it could stand alone as a sentence with a main verb, but not if it's a fragment (unless it's in dialogue))! Ericoides (talk) 06:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me have a mental re-think about this. I'll be back. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Yes, I see the difference now. Geez, you have an eagle eye! Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I take that as an especially fine compliment. Thank you, Joseph. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. I stared at that sentence for a full 5 minutes, and I could not see any distinctions. Thus, I concluded that there must be a typo in there! Thanks again! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The sorts of examples you're coming up with might occur in dialogue but are unlikely in normal expository prose. For what it's worth, my suggestions (if I were still working as a professional copyeditor) would be the following: In example 1, as well as in Jack's example, I'd just omit the second exclamation point ("Wow! I just got a job working for Hello!"). In example 2, there's no real way around the double-punctuation problem without recasting the sentence, so "Do you really work for Hello!?" would be OK. Deor (talk) 20:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Therefore, should the MOS:CONSECUTIVE be edited to address this issue? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so, since, as I said, the situation basically never comes up in the sort of expository prose in which WP articles are written. Deor (talk) 23:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you, Deor. Ericoides (talk) 06:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the second version (without the period) is correct according to every style guide with which I'm familiar. The Wikipedia manual of style, for instance, treats this at MOS:CONSECUTIVE. Deor (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I actually ran across this issue before (in Wikipedia) and recall the resolution comporting with my answer above. I might try to look for that issue and see the specifics. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I think this might be an Engvar issue, hence the phrasing of my query and my question to you. Americans tend to use more punctuation marks than we do, which I've always found odd as in the stereotype you're the gung-ho lot and we're the fussy types... I've looked at the BBC website and searched for sentences ending with the word Westward Ho! and found that some do and some do not use the full-stop. On purely aesthetic grounds I find that !. looks ugly. Then again, just ! feels a bit like an unresolved chord. But on balance I'm hoping that no. 2 is correct. Ericoides (talk) 20:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with what you say above. Essentially, neither alternative is particularly appealing. As you state ... "On purely aesthetic grounds, I find that !. looks ugly. Then again, just ! feels a bit like an unresolved chord". I agree with those sentiments. That being the case, I am curious as to why you can't simply rewrite the sentence? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

We're off the topic now but let's just say it's not my sentence to rewrite. Ericoides (talk) 21:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, gotcha. I was just curious. Best, Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

How to say this in English and German

What is the clearest way to express the following: Somebody is leasing a car from a bank. That person is not paying the fees. The bank "takes" (looking for this word) the car from the person because the fees were not payed. So I'd like to say something like: "This is a car that was xxx from leasing". bamse (talk) 20:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

In English, "repossessed". --Viennese Waltz 20:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

To clarify VW's response, you'd say merely "This car was repossessed". The word doesn't usually take any further clauses. --Jayron32 20:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I worked for a company that sold cars that had been seized by lenders following non-payment. We would say they were 'repossessed'. So something like 'This is a car that was repossessed by the lease company' maybe? - Cucumber Mike (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. How about German? Would something like "Abnahme/Ruecknahmeaus Leasing" or "aus Leasingruecknahme" be ok? bamse (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Google translate is good especially for one-word translations, and Ruecknahme and Repossession are two of the options it offers. μηδείς (talk) 06:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Google translate is quite bad for single words, because it lacks the context that make its statistical methods so strong. For single words, try Leo. "Rücknahme" suggests the user voluntarily returns the car - it's what the guy at rental returns would do. "Pfänden" or "beschlagnahmen" might work, depending on context, as might "wegnehmen". There may also be a difference in reader/listener expectations. I don't think the classical Repo Man exists in German language countries. Typically you have to go through a court and use a court-appointed bailiff ("Gerichtsvollzieher") to take back the collateral. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

We have an article - Repossession#Germany - which gives Vollstreckungsbescheid meaning 'a court order authorising repossession'. Vollstreckung apparently means 'enforcement', so the term probably has a broader use than the English 'repossession order'. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 09:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

In translations of English texts containing the English word 'repossession' you could use the translation 'Wiederinbesitznahme'. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 13:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

"Wiederinbesitznahme" seems to be the correct term; for something like that I like to use www.linguee.de, as they often provide (con-)text examples. Lectonar (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Middle English

Was middle English a creole language? Thanks199.33.32.40 (talk) 21:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Thomason and Kaufman's Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics treats this definitively and at length. μηδείς (talk) 21:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

See some more pointers at Middle English creole hypothesis. In my perception, too, the hypothesis has been largely abandoned – in effect, it can only be upheld at the cost of redefining the concept of "creole" to such a point as to make it mostly meaningless. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. We also have an article language contact which cites T&K, but it's not our best. μηδείς (talk) 21:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

July 6

Terdoslavich

Watching the Phillies versus Atlanta, I saw Joseph Terdoslavich brought up from the minors for the first time to play for the Atlanta Braves. I laughed when the name was first pronounced TERDoslavich, and though I bet it's terDOslavich. Within 30 seconds the announcers corrected themselves, saying that according to the press office, it was actually terDOslavich. Can anyone confirm the name is Russian as I suspect, or Identify another origin? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 06:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

No, it does not look like Russian at all. Serbo-Croatian Tvrdoslav / Tvrdislav is the most probable.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 06:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Where's the -ich coming from then? μηδείς (talk) 17:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

From our article on Serbian names: "The -ić suffix is a Slavic diminutive, originally functioning to create patronymics", so Terdoslavich is the "little son of Tvrdoslav" 92.81.68.23 (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Are we entitled to assume the name is really Tvrdoslav- instead of the way he spells it? μηδείς (talk) 23:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

If you mean how was it originally spelt - yes, probably. But however he spells his own name now is what it really is now. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

BTW, he's known as Joey Terdoslavich. --Xuxl (talk) 12:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

July 7

Japanese names, Chinese names and Korean names

Just a quick question: could someone explain or link to a Wikipedia article that explains why normally, Japanese names, when written the West, have their order reversed (First name/Last name instead of Last name/First name), but Chinese and Korean names retain their order? (They stay Last name/First name when written in English). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Links to Wikipedia article sections:

• Japanese name#Japanese names in English and Western languages
• Chinese name#Chinese names in English
• Korean name#Korean names in English

--Theurgist (talk) 01:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

So called (as in the Kennett curse)

In Australian football there's something called the Kennett curse. It came to fruition again last night. But you don't have to understand what it is to get my point. Several times when I've heard it mentioned in the media this morning it's been described as the "so called Kennett curse". Why? It IS the Kennett curse. It has no other name. I keep trying to pin down the usage, but it's hard.

Is "so called" common around the rest of the English speaking world. Is it used in the same way? HiLo48 (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Certainly recognized in the States (though of course it should be "so-called" with the hyphen). The Kennett curse may have no other name, but the commentators may wish to avoid implying (or being taken as implying) that they believe in curses. --Trovatore (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I suggest it's because the terminology has no official status. It's just something that some bright spark dreamt up and others followed suit. It's only been around for less than 5 years and has not yet entered the Inner Sanctum of Holy AFL Lore. The so-called curse will inevitably be broken, and then everyone will probably forget about it. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

"So-called" is typically kind of an editorial comment by the speaker or writer. Although given its very short history, as Jack suggests, the one saying it might also be making light of it, even as curses go. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

"So-called" may be because any streak of bad luck that's only 5-years long is hardly a curse. Other sporting "curses" such as the (now exorcised) Curse of the Bambino and the still-active Curse of the Billy Goat are an order of magnitude more curseful. --Jayron32 04:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I can accept all that about the particular curse I mentioned, but what about the expression's more general use? Dictionary definitions seem to vary between falsely, or commonly, or allegedly, or supposedly, or self-proclaimed, or unsuitable, and the name of a Canadian rapper. A very flexible term apparently. HiLo48 (talk) 04:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Saying "so-called" is the verbal way of indicating scare quotes, for the purpose Travatore mentions, to imply doubt or reserve on part of the speaker. μηδείς (talk) 05:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The use of the phrase "so-called" undermines the validity of that to which it is applied. Bus stop (talk) 05:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Like "my so-called life".  :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

My so-called life consists of matter and energy. On a cellular level there is a degree of self-replication. Bus stop (talk) 23:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Medeis, your arrogance, and ignorance, astounds me at times. I know you're a well educated person, with diverse interests, and I'm glad that the Kennett curse is now one of them, but why do you have to keep renaming this thread? I merely used the curse as a usage example of the real topic here. (Jack has now given us another example above.) It would also be nice if you could get the name correct. It's NOT "Kennett's curse". It's the Kennett curse. Given your obvious obsession with it, I'll leave it there now, but I will say again that the curse was never intended to be even part of the subject here. HiLo48 (talk) 06:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the spelling error. μηδείς (talk) 17:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Digression — Robert A. Heinlein is in my top-10 list of favorite authors from all genres and eras combined, but he had a few annoying little tics. One of them was that he would always write soi-disant instead of "so-called". Made very little sense to me, given that the French language was otherwise hardly mentioned in his enormous body of work (there is a passing reference in The Number of the Beast). --Trovatore (talk) 08:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe "so-called" is not just equivalent to scare quotes but to quotes tous courts. If someone says "I just had an encounter with so-called British justice", they obviously have no confidence that there is such a thing as British justice. But if they say "Playground games included the so-called British Bulldog", that just means they weren't sure that this was the universal name of that game. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The funniest use of "so called" I ever heard was a music journalist referring to "Bob Dylan's so-called motorcycle accident". I thought, maybe it's a matter of perspective. Maybe the motorcycle thinks it had a Bob Dylan accident. Yeah, I know, rotfl and all that. On the topic, which I think has been answered, it's pretty normal for words and expressions to move around when there's an existing expression, and something that needs to be expressed. The biggest general one in recent times is the use of the word "irony" to refer to situations that involve e.g. some kind of poetic justice. In the case of the OP's question, it is merely an amusing fact that the Kennett curse cannot exist under some other name, so it's either the Kennett curse, or nothing at all. It merely shows the imperfections of language. It is probably similar to the way we say "it" as an artificial subject, as in "it's raining today." There is no "it" to be raining, but we imagine such a thing. Likewise, we are probably just pretending we could call the Kennett curse by some other name, when the real problem is that there is no such thing as the curse itself. Language just meets an obstruction when we talk about stuff that isn't there. Good grief I waffle sometimes. But I think the question was answered, so I added some reasonably constructive waffle. IBE (talk) 06:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

patron vs. matron

The feminine word for patron is patroness. So, what's the masculine equivalent for matron? Patron? Sneazy (talk) 04:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

In some contexts, a male matron is still a matron. See Matron: The nursing branches of the British Armed Forces have never abandoned the term "Matron", and it is used for male as well as female officers, usually holding the rank of Major (or equivalent) or above. It was formerly used as an actual rank in the nursing services. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Origin of the Phrase: "to have reservations about"

• What does it mean "to have reservations about"?
• Can you say "to have reservations for", or is it clearly "to have reservations about"?
• What does this phrase come from? Is this originally an English phrase or a non-English phrase transliterated into English?
• How do you use this properly in a sentence? "We know that you have reservations for us." or "We know that you have reservations about us."
• How old is this phrase?
• When did this phrase first appear in the English language?
• How common is this phrase?

Sneazy (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

You can see the Google Ngram viewer results at this page. That shows the history but not the origin.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I removed "to have" from the search, in order to allow for different inflections of "have" ("has", "had", "having") and for modifiers of "reservations" ("any", "no", "some", "our", "their", "your", "troubling", "vexing").

—Wavelength (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

You might use the phrase "We know that you have reservations for us" when talking to a hotel or restaurant where you have previously booked a room or table. "We know that you have reservations about us" would be used when talking to a person who doesn't really like you and has doubts about what you want to achieve. So context is everything here. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The fourth definition of "reservation" at wikt:reservation is "A limiting qualification (often used in the plural)." The usage example given is "I have reservations about your intentions."

—Wavelength (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes it's shortened to just "I have reservations", and "about this/it" is understood. This is good fodder for puns, such as the King of Id and the Duke going to a restaurant, to be greeted by a haughty maitre d', who asks "Do you have reservations?", and the King replies "Yes, obviously, but when you're as hungry as we are, you throw caution to the winds". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Probably a very old joke idea. Like a bumper sticker I recall from a 1970s election, with an American Indian figure and the slogan, "We have no vote, but many reservations." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

To reserve something is to hold it back or keep it.[9] So it makes sense to say something like, "I am holding back from endorsing that candidate" or whatever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

This might be off-topic but it occurs to me that "having reservations" is judgmental in that it involves a negative evaluation, but that the phrase "reserving judgement" involves no present evaluation at all. I find for instance "reserve judgement: delay the process of judging or giving one’s opinion: she said she would reserve judgement until next week." Bus stop (talk) 03:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

That's another variant on keeping or holding back on something. And as a practical matter, both reserving judgment about something and having reservations about something are both examples of something being held back: judgment vs. approval. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Oaths and minced oaths, not oats and minced oats

• Are oaths supposed to be a good thing or a bad thing?
• 1.(a.) A solemn, formal declaration or promise to fulfill a pledge, often calling on God, a god, or a sacred object as witness.
• (b.) The words or formula of such a declaration or promise.
• (c.) Something declared or promised.
• 2. An irreverent or blasphemous use of the name of God or something held sacred.
• 3. An imprecation; a curse.

The first definition tells me that it's supposed to be a good thing; the second and third definitions tell me that it's a bad thing. How did this come to be? I was looking up the idiom "By Jove" here. I believe that the best fit for the definition of oath under "by Jove" would be the first definition. I am not aware of anyone who will perceive that the usage of the name "Jupiter" so liberally would be considered blasphemy. Sneazy (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

How precisely it came to be is probably unknowable. The Oxford English Dictionary shows citations for both positive and negative uses right back to the beginnings of English (i.e. the 1200s): "A solemn or formal declaration invoking God (or a god, or other object of reverence) as witness to the truth of a statement" vs. "A casual or careless appeal invoking God (or something sacred) in asseveration or imprecation, without intent of reverence ... a profane or blasphemous utterance; a curse.". Presumably they both originally had the same form - an appeal to God - and the separate meanings split off from that definition (sincere appeals vs. blasphemous non-sincere ones). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 22:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

In my head, I imagine a scene in which a person cries out, "I swear to God that I am not guilty of the crime. Let God be my judge!" and then another person replies, "Silence! You lie! You think that you really are invoking God to defend you? Ha! I'd say that's a blasphemous use of God's name! So, even if you are not guilty of this crime, you will be guilty of blasphemy!" Sneazy (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Yup - that is at the root of it. King James Bible. James 5:12 "But above all, my brothers, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath, but let your “yes” be yes and your “no” be no, so that you may not fall under condemnation." AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I should point out that's actually the ESV translation - the AV text is "But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.". Not a significant difference in this case. Tevildo (talk) 23:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oops. I think I had two tabs open, and copied the wrong one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

There are some times when I wonder if native English speakers practically have memorized all the verses from the King James Bible, so they know all the verses by heart and return to them for reference in whatever context that one can think of. Sneazy (talk) 00:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

It has been argued that the King James Bible, along with Shakespeare, has played a large part in the creation of modern English. I had the dubious privilege of attending a Church of England primary school, which probably added a little to my biblical knowledge, even as it turned me into an avowed atheist. As a result, while I don't believe in God, I'm inclined to think that if He does exist, he probably speaks in broad Scots - to get the best out of the King James, it needs to be read aloud, in the accent of the sponsor. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

God does not approve of the Scottish culture. In fact, one of His famous Ten Commandments is "Thou shalt not kilt." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Although the kilt hadn't been invented when King James sponsored the AV translation.Itsmejudith (talk) 07:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

He was being proactive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The latest cite in the OED for "kilt" as the past participle of "kill" is from 1824, but the form is occasionally still seen in UK dialect. Dbfirs 15:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

July 8

Is Ian McShane rhotic?

The actor Ian McShane is a native of Blackburn, Lancashire. In all the roles I have seen him in, his speech has been rhotic. Is that his native accent? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 01:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

It wouldn't be characteristic of Blackburn. There are some interviews on YouTube, and his current accent sounds RP English with mild elements of Northern English and trans-Atlantic (he's spent time in America). I'm not hearing rhotic: in this video he definitely pronounces "doctor", "character" and "Gimbert" non-rhotically. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 04:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Gosh, that's really nothing like a Blackburn accent. You can read about the Lancashire dialect and accent in our article. I had hoped to be able to find a more typical Blackburn accent on YouTube but I'm struggling. However, try this. The man in the overalls and flat cap is Fred Dibnah, who has a particularly strong Bolton accent. Some of the other men in the video also have typical Lancashire accents. Note, however, that there is quite a large amount of variation in accent in quite small areas of Lancashire - a Blackburn accent will sound quite different to a Bolton one - but the Bolton accent is closer to a Blackburn accent than Ian McShane's, who has obviously had a long course of elocution lessons. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 07:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

What is the Japanese in the sentence?

What is the full Japanese sentence in this page in this book? I captured "それらには?え(ば or ぱ)南ア国内におケろ「日本人会」（The Nippon Club of South Africa）や「日本人学校」（Japanese School of Johannesburg）や日[...]" but I can't get all of the characters, and they are hard to read.

I'm quoting a sentence for the article Japanese School of Johannesburg.

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 04:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

"それらには例えば南ア国内における「日本人会」(The Nippon Club of South Africa)や「日本人学校」(Japanese School of Johannesburg)や日[...]". --Kusunose 16:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much :) WhisperToMe (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Books entirely in IPA

Are there books in English or other languages printed entirely in the International Phonetic Alphabet? I've seen some time ago some children's English books in the IPA (as I can hardly remember these were Winnie the Pooh or Alice in Wonderland or something) but now I can't find them.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 04:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you certain that those children's books were not in the Initial Teaching Alphabet (ITA)?

—Wavelength (talk) 04:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Definitely not. These were freshly printed, a sort of typographic experiment, with the standard English IPA transcription (maybe slightly simplified, I'm not sure), there were even used capital letters as well as standard punctuation.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 05:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The closest thing I can think of is the journal Le Maître phonétique, which I learned about on this blog post. Lesgles (talk) 13:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe Evertype (talk · contribs) is working on an IPA edition of Alice in Wonderland, but I can't find it listed at his company's homepage, so I guess it hasn't been released yet. You could ask him for more details. Winnie-the-Pooh is still under copyright, so you would need permission from Walt Disney to publish that in IPA. Angr (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Walt Disney??86.156.86.12 (talk) 00:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Disney owns the copyright - see this article. Milne sold it to Stephen Slesinger in 1930, and his widow sold it to Disney in 1961. Tevildo (talk) 01:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

What in the world would be the point of making readers suffer through the author's choice of vowel allophones? God forbid the Author is from Buffalo NY, or Bayonne NJ. Imagine reading an entire book in a strict notation of Bill Clinton. Ah feel yoah pain. μηδείς (talk) 02:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Bingo! Yes, I've just found with Google the post about this book at John Wells's blog. Exactly this I've seen. I'm not sure whether it wasn't at Everson's site and I've seen it at Wells's or Everson later deleted the presentation of the book from his site. Though it seems it is the only book in the English IPA transcription at all.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 02:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

By the way, there was a curious book entirely written in an IPA predecessor: The essentials of phonetics by Alexander John Ellis. Exactly this was the reason for opening the topic.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 02:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

You can read text in the Shavian alphabet at http://shavian.weebly.com/index.html.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. I knew about this system, but I've never seen any texts in it. Looks like some alien alphabet from space-fiction. I hope it will be used for English in the future. :) --Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 03:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I have read the Wells blog post, and anyone who expected me to read that RP version of Alice in phonetic IPA would have to pay me more than they would if they wanted me to read it in Spanish. μηδείς (talk) 03:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm preparing an edition of Alice in IPA. Also one in Unifon, in Shavian, in Ewellic, and in Deseret. :-) Shavian and Ewellic are nearly ready for publication; the others are still being edited. -- Evertype·✆ 08:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't you want to simplify and rhoticise your transcription? I believe length marks are redundant here. And well, leaving all /r/s will be more convenient for rhotic speakers. Non-rhotickers can simply give up postvocalic /r/s and lengthen previous vowels in their mind while reading.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 09:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

He probably wants to imitate Lewis Carroll's accent as closely as possible. If he wants to do a book in rhotic IPA, it should be something by an North American or Scottish or Irish author. Also, RP in IPA is well documented and highly standardized so it's comparatively easy to decide what's "right" in RP. Angr (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a phonetic, rather than a phonemic transcription, which would be far less annoying. With practice it would become much easier, but at this point, my reading the phonetic transcription comes out sounding like someone mocking an Englishman who's had a stroke. μηδείς (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

July 9

apparition vs. appearance

Is the word "apparition" just a fancy term for "appearance"? How does this word come to be? And why are there two nouns for the infinitive verb "to appear"? Below, I use the terms in sentences.

• The newspaper claims that there have been UFO apparitions in the neighborhood.
• The newspaper claims that there have been UFO appearances in the neighborhood.

Sneazy (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

"apparition" is usually used for things that are ghostly, supernatural, etc. 86.146.104.35 (talk) 00:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Such as claimed apparitions of the Virgin Mary, Jesus, etc, which are said to just materialise out of nowhere, and later dematerialise just as mysteriously. Whereas, an entertainer who makes an "appearance" at a shopping mall can be seen quite plainly walking onto the stage. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

An apparition is an appearance out of nowhere, an appearance can mean that, or how one looks at the moment. Does the OP lack a dictionary? μηδείς (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I am just going to assume that the two terms can be used interchangeably. So far, no one has complained about my usage of the two terms in the two above sentences. Sneazy (talk) 02:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, they can't really be used interchangeably, but "UFO apparitions" will probably fly heh heh heh because UFOs are thought of as being in the same rough category as the supernatural, in spite of the fact that there's nothing inherently supernatural about the notion of an extraterrestrial spacecraft. --Trovatore (talk) 02:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

No, they can't be used interchangeably in all contexts. See [10] and [11]. I don't think I've heard of a UFO apparition; probably a "sighting". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

By all means, I do not see how any of us should prevent the OP from using the terms interchangeably, as he threatens to. μηδείς (talk) 02:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

They are not interchangeable,[12] although they come from the same Latin root. Basically "apparition" is a subset of "appearance", as in "unexpected or startling appearance". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't recall hearing the term "apparition" used for UFO's. The term "sighting" is what I would expect to hear. Although a UFO could be spooky too. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

These two nouns (wikt:apparition and wikt:appearance) can be compared with two other nouns (wikt:specter and wikt:spectacle).

—Wavelength (talk) 19:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

IPA questions

1. I am from southern England, and I pronounce "fast" as fɑːst, judging by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPA_for_English. How is the characteristic US pronuncation rendered in IPA?

2. In that table at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPA_for_English, the vowel (+"r") of "north", "born" and "war" is presented as different from that in "force", "boar" and "more". In which version(s) of English is there any difference between those? 86.146.104.35 (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Fast is almost universally /fæst/ in the US, but see Northern cities vowel shift and listen to John Goodman's pronunciation of the /æ/ vowel when he does his local as in The Big Lebowski.

According to my mapping of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPA_for_English, /fæst/ is the way it is pronounced in northern England, but to me that sounds quite distinct from the US pronunciation, so I had discounted that. To me, the US version sounds more like fɛjəst -- but really, as I say. I don't know how to write it. 86.146.104.35 (talk) 02:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

In most of northern England (and Wales), the vowel is just /a/ not /æ/. Dbfirs 07:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

How can I best understand the the difference between /a/ and /æ/? 86.128.6.65 (talk) 11:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The vowels of trap and cat are phonemically /æ/ in General American and Received Pronunciation. The situation is more complex with /a/. In General American it is the phoneme found in father for those who don't have the cot-caught merger. (For those Americans who don't merge the vowels of hotdog, the first is /a/ and the second is /ɔ/. But those who merge them may say /hatdag/ (Midwestern) or /hɔtdɔg/ (Boston).) The British treat these vowels differently. In strict phonetic transcriptions, most English 'a' vowels are off center from the /a/ found in continental languages. But broadly speaking, in American and British you can think of /æ/ as the vowel of cat, and /a/ as a vowel close to that of father. We have plenty of British here versed in linguistics, they may be better at commenting here than I am. μηδείς (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I have to say, I can't visualise any difference between the vowel in my (southern English) pronunciation of trap or cat and the northern English pronunciation of fast, both of which are quite distinct from my pronunciation of father. 86.128.6.65 (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the /fɛjəst/ you mention is exactly the vowel found in the NCVS I mentioned John Goodman having (more at /fɛəst/ and even higher in some dialects). You will especially notice it since it stands out. Even in my native dialect it is tensed; see especiallyTrap-bath_split#Trap.E2.80.93bath_split re Philadelphia. But the underlying and unmarked American pronunciation is /fæst/; a three-way distinction between /fæst/, /faðər/, /fɔt/ ("fast", "father", "fought"). How those vowels split, shift, and merge will tell you where an American originates. μηδείς (talk) 03:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

For the 2nd see the map.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 02:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

As Medeis indicates, there isn't really a single American pronunciation of the vowel in fast. News announcers and educated people speaking carefully will produce something like [æ], but in practice most people pronounce a diphthong or even a triphthong, which varies considerably by region. Marco polo (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

verb conjugation?

Which of the following is correct, or are both correct, or is it a difference in American and British English?

There have not been any reports..."

There has not been any reports...”
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtamad (talk • contribs) 06:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Verbs must agree in number with their subjects, so it can only be "There have not ...". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Admittedly, the waters have been very muddied by people appending "there's" to singular and plural subjects alike. It's not that hard to say "there are" when it's plural, really. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

With present-tense "be", "there's" is now almost universally the predominant form in spoken colloquial English – and not surprisingly so, because it's just the final logical consequence of the long-term syntactic reanalysis according to which the word "there", and not the following NP, is really the syntactic subject of the existential construction. But with perfect constructions such as "have been", that trend is nowhere near as strong, and the presence of negation, like in the OP's example, would further reduce the likelihood of a singular form, because it blocks contraction to "there's been". Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

"There's not been any reports" sounds perfectly natural to me... Though I'd probably use "There haven't been any reports" if contracting, or "There have not been any reports" if not. MChesterMC (talk) 08:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you asking "What do native speakers do?" or "What do educated native speakers consider correct?"? If you are asking the first question, then you can get away with your second sentence on either side of the Atlantic if you want to sound uneducated, but your first sentence sounds more natural. If you are asking the second question, only your first sentence is considered correct. Marco polo (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I find myself saying things like "There's apples in the fridge" not because I'm uneducated (I'm not) but just because as a rhotic speaker I seem to have a constraint against geminate [ɹ]: *[ðɛɹɹ] is ill-formed, and *[ðɛɹəɹ] is insufficiently contracted as it's more than one syllable, so the optimal output for there're is [ðɛɹz]. But I wouldn't do it before not, because there aren't is available as an option. Angr (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

However, so as not to confuse the questioner, educated English speakers (other than linguists) would consider "There has not been any reports" to be grammatically "incorrect". Don't you agree, Angr? I don't think it is fair to questioners who are probably learning English and who ask for a prescriptive judgment of grammar to respond that a usage is correct because some native speakers produce it, when we know full well that an English-language learner adopting that usage will be found amiss by educated native speakers who aren't linguists. Marco polo (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree: "There has not been any reports" is not standard English and I would not recommend a learner to use it in either speech or writing. But don't be surprised if you hear native speakers say something similar anyway. (I do think it's important for learners to learn the standard language, but it's also important for them to be aware of things they may hear from native speakers that they probably shouldn't imitate, at least at first.) Angr (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

/ʌ/ for the English Northerners

I know that in the north of England there is no /ʌ/, but if Northerners want to speak or imitate RP, what vowel will they produce? Does this difficult for them? Does they substitute it for a vowel known and accustomed to them?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 09:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm a Southerner, so I can and do say strut, mud, dull and gun, but when Northerners try to imitate my speech they generally substitute /æ/. To them I apparently pronounce buck (as in a male deer) and back as the same, whereas I hear them pronounce buck and book as the same (except for some Northerners (or possibly north-midlanders) from around Stoke, who pronounce book and cookie with a long 'oo', as in 'hoot'). - Cucumber Mike (talk) 09:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

As I know their /æ/ is more central-lowered [a~ä]. Then their RP-imitated buck should resemble many continental European accents with buck [bäk], though back is usually [bɛk] there in the Continent and back-buck merger doesn't appear but rather beck-back. Am I right?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 10:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Many Northern accents do use the /ʌ/ for words with the "ar", car, part, mart, etc. -- Q Chris (talk) 10:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I've met Northerners who can produce /ʌ/ quite correctly for the purpose of affecting an RP or other Southern-England accent and don't merge it with any of their existing phonemes. Just because a sound isn't part of one's native phoneme inventory doesn't mean one is incapable of learning it. Angr (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't Northern speakers still have /ɘ/ in reduced syllables? How do they say unstressed "a" and "the"? μηδείς (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, some of us northerners, after fifty years of practice, can reproduce /ʌ/ quite correctly when speaking to southerners (to make our speech more easily understood), though I certainly don't use it for "ar" words. I'm not sure whether I use /ɘ/ or a normal schwa (/ə/) for unstressed "a" and "the". Is there anywhere that I can hear the difference? Dbfirs 20:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I meant to use the normal schwa there. I find some of the IPA characters hard to distinguish unless I magnify the screen. μηδείς (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Help with a French translation

Over at Wiktionary's entry on the French word bernard l'ermite ("hermit crab") I've added the following quote: Il y a un exemple qui me poursuit, sur lequel je reviens le plus volontiers, car je l’estime de nature à prêter grandement à réfléchir : c’est l’exemple du bernard-l’ermite. I translated it "There is an example that pursues me, to which I return all the more willingly because I esteem it for the thoughts it leads me to: this is the example of the hermit crab", but I'm not at all sure that's right. In particular, I'm not at all sure I've understood car je l’estime de nature à prêter grandement à réfléchir correctly. Can anyone help me figure out what it means, please? Angr (talk) 20:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm: something like "There is an example that haunts me (I would choose "haunt" here because the whole text just emits a certain urgency, a reverence to the crab in particular and nature in general), and to which I return most willingly, because I esteem it lends itself to be contemplated upon: this is the example of the hermit crab." I admit my English sounds a bit awkward, but it is an older text I presume. Lectonar (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Lectonar! Yes, the text is from 1932. Angr (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the last part could be translated a bit better, but texts like this do not lend themselves to literal translation....writing style has changed. And: it was nice talking to you here, directly, after such a long time since the meeting in Berlin..... Lectonar (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I would go with the slightly different: There is an example that haunts me, and to which I return most willingly, for I esteem it lends itself to great contemplation: it is the example of the hermit crab. Contemplation could also be reflection. Or you could rework the phrase a bit to use the word pondering, it lends itself greatly to pondering but that sounds a bit awry to me. 64.201.173.145 (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)