Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:58, 18 March 2022

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

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.

March 11

Obscure Spanish spelling question

In the archaic/poetic style of Spanish where pronouns are suffixed to indicative verbs (e.g. quiérote, quiéresme), is a hyphen used in quieren-os (= os quieren) to distinguish that form from quiérenos (= nos quiere)? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 05:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lazar Taxon: No reference, but I have never seen a hyphen used. Probably quiérenos would be used or the ambiguous and awkward expression would be avoided.

After a bit of searching I find Colección de poesias castellanas anteriores al siglo XV. It has in the Poema de Alexandro or Poema de Alexandro Magno

quierenvos guerrear.

If you are going to archaic, you can go fully archaic.

I think Asturian or Galician would use such forms currently, but I don't know enough about their spelling. Searching, I found quérenos for nos quiere. --Error (talk) 13:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[Q]uestion

I was reading our article about The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences. It contains a quote from Kant. My question is why the fist letter of that quote is in brackets? I mean the: [W]. Thank you!

Here is the quote: [W]ir auch, gleich als ob es ein glücklicher unsre Absicht begünstigender Zufall wäre, erfreuet (eigentlich eines Bedürfnisses entledigt) werden, wenn wir eine solche systematische Einheit unter bloß empirischen Gesetzen antreffen. [We rejoice (actually we are relieved of a need) when, just as if it were a lucky chance favoring our aim, we do find such systematic unity among merely empirical laws.] --195.62.160.60 (talk) 08:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It means that in the original text, "wir" did not have a capital letter because it was in the middle of a sentence. However, it's being used here as the first word of the quotation, so a capital W is appropriate. The brackets flag up the fact that, strictly speaking, it's not an exact quotation. --Viennese Waltz 09:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just note that in less formal writing people wouldn't worry about that issue. --184.144.97.125 (talk) 09:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is a strange clipping from the full text, because it does not stand on its own as a main clause in German but forms a kind of ungrammatical Yoda speak. German obeys V2 word order, which means the finite verb of a main clause is always in the second position. The finite verb of this fragment, werden, is separated from the first-position [W]ir, and not just by a little. --Lambiam 16:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. In the original it's introduced by a preceding daher, which in this case functions as a subordinating conjunction ('which is why…'), hence the verb-final word order. Without the introduction, I had a lot of difficulties parsing it; it's a kind of garden-path sentence. With the preceding conjunction it's far easier to parse, even though it's still not quite straightforward for a modern speaker. I was thinking of adding the introductory conjunction to the quote, although that of course will leave the reader with the question what the logical relation to the preceding context is. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Germans! Just their sub-clauses are the same length as an average novel in other languages... 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In future, we shall have flying cars

Is "in future", rather than "in the future", a UK-ism? Does it sound funny even in UK English? At least in my personal US idiolect, it looks like a typo, i.e. downright ungrammatical if written intentionally. Thanks. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:C115 (talk) 23:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And yet USians are fine with "Actress Gertrude Finkle died today", rather than "The actress ... ". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:01, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not this USian. Deor (talk) 04:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To this seppo it feels like headlinese. —Tamfang (talk) 04:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it has a different sense, and means something like next time, and after that. wikt:in future says it means "as of now" but also "in the future". I'm dubious about the latter. Card Zero (talk) 04:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Without the article, "in future" refers to a future stretch of time. If someone promises to do better "in future",^[1][2][3] that future starts now and extends from there. I think this use is Commonwealth English. To refer to a future event, "in the future" should be used; one can't say, *"In future the Sun will go nova". --Lambiam 06:18, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like a Britishism possibly akin to "in hospital" vs. "in the hospital". --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:17, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: [4] (Phrases) vs [5]. No: we never say "in the hospital" except when referring to something in a specific building. Bazza (talk) 10:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 12

Mistery and mystery

Did the English word "mistery" and "mystery" derive from completely different etymylogical roots? -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 07:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

wikt:mistery has some details on this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:11, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And some more info in EO.[6] Note that "mist" has no apparent connection,[7] though it would kind of make sense if it did. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:22, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Van Morrison would agree. 2603:6081:1C00:1187:B105:198:D408:6E7D (talk) 03:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to read / format a document

This question deals with both (A) typography and typesetting; and also with (B) the psychology of how the human mind and brain naturally work (and process language).

I was creating a document … after I finished and took a look at my document, this question of mine came about as an after-thought.

Please take a look at the following document. (The original document that I was preparing was very similar.)

When reading this document … it seems that a person has two choices.

Alternative One: to read the document “vertically” … that is, to read the first nine lines on the left-half side of the page … and then to proceed to read the next nine lines on the right-half side of the page. So, vertically read the left side of the page … and then vertically read the right side of the page.

Alternatively … Alternative Two: to read the document “horizontally” … that is, to read the first line, left to right, all the way from the beginning to the end … and then to proceed to the second line … and so forth. So, horizontally, read the first “long line” … and then horizontally read the following eight “long lines”.

Now, I understand that this is probably an “ambiguous” and “gray-area” scenario … and that the “problem” can be “fixed” in various ways.

But, my question is this. Two-fold:

One: From a physical/psychological perspective … how would the human mind and brain naturally work to process language given in this (“ambiguous”) format? … Would the human mind/brain “naturally” lean to Alternative One or to Alternative Two?

Two: From a typography/typesetting perspective … what would be the appropriate way to format this document? … To assume that people would naturally process it via Alternative One or via Alternative Two?

Obviously, my two questions are inter-related.

Thanks.

Also, any other thoughts, insights, factors, considerations, etc., that I may not have raised here?

Side Note: In this exemplar “lorem ipsum” document … I deliberately removed various “triggers” or “clues” … such as capitalization, punctuation, commas, periods, etc. … that might lead to “bias” in the responses. Also, I deliberately removed the “real” text of the document, for the same reason … and thus employed the “lorem ipsum” text to replace the “real” text … to avoid any triggers or clues or bias.

Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I don't really know how to upload files to Wikipedia ... but it seems that I managed. This document (a PDF file) looks a lot nicer, cleaner, crisper on my home computer ... than it looks here below ... for whatever reason ... (resolution?) ... here, it looks more fuzzy and blurry ... :(

Using ellipses to take the place of commas is highly unorthodox, and, to my eyes, somewhat off-putting. But hey, unorthodoxy worked for e e cummings, so ... -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:14, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

People will read it in whichever way you least wanted them to. See Don't Dead Open Inside. Card Zero (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think the use of ragged left indentation for the left-hand column and ragged right for the right-hand column, would lead me (initially, at least) to read it "vertically". But maybe that's just me. If you wanted to be sure of a vertical reading, two flush-left, ragged-right columns (with the consequent varying spaces between them) would be the best way. Deor (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Poetry is often printed with centred lines, so having the left column ranged right and the right column ranged left makes the overall document look to me like a single column of split lines (the width of the inter-columnular space is obviously important). This would be a valid way to display, for example, the styles of Anglo-Saxon, Greek and Latin poetry that were deliberately written in metrical half-lines (two hemistichs separated by a caesura). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.209.122.108 (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Before reading the lengthy question I looked at the thumbnail and realized there was an ambiguity. I tried to resolve it by guessing the intention of its maker. My first idea wa that this was a roundabout way to obtain centred text by dividing each line roughly in two and then setting the left halves right-adjusted and the right halves left-adjusted. Phrasing the question as "how would the human mind and brain naturally work" in such a case presumes there is a "natural" approach, something that is not obviously so. A first issue is whether the ambiguity is immediately noticed at all. That will depend on previous exposure to formats, as may be the initial interpretation attempt if ambiguity is noticed. Someone who works in a printshop specializing in fancy high-class wedding announcements and menu cards whose layout tends to be a single centred column is more likely to think the gutter is an unseemly artifact. As to the blurriness of the text, PDF images get converted to JPEG for display. PDF is not an image type generally supported by browsers.^[8] --Lambiam 07:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It makes me think of Old English poetry which often divides each line in two, marked with a wide space. —Tamfang (talk) 05:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tamfang -- the technical term for a mid-line break in poetry is Caesura... -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 13

Please translate the music video "Fått Deg På Hjernen" from Norsk to English.

Here is the original: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nKyRT4bV02Q&feature=youtu.be

Here is the karaoke version with the lyrics seen instead of heard: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-IXP_JaMSKk

Can someone fluent in Norwegian please translate the title and lyrics? Tusen takk! --2600:1700:D740:1720:9900:4C5B:95D3:22BB (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Musixmatch has some translation here, which might help? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A quick note is that this is dialectal Norwegian, so it might not work as well with web translation services. It seems as Musixmatch has got a few things wrong, for instance. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 21:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quite agree, just thought it might help initially. One hopes that a fluent Norwegian speaker might be able to point out the inaccuracies there. A request at no.wiki might be more productive. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My father is Norwegian, so I have a decent gist of 'most' of it, it still takes some time to check, though... 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 01:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 14

Fierceful Narmer

Of translations of pharaoh Narmer's name I read: Other translations include ″angry, fighting, fierceful, painful, furious, bad, evil, biting, menacing″, or "stinging catfish". Ignoring the interesting word *fierceful, how should I format the list so that it makes sense? Currently it gives the incorrect impression that "angry", "fighting", etc., stand on their own as potential translations. What it's really supposed to say is: Other translations include "angry catfish", "fighting catfish", "fierce catfish" [...] but is there a way to express this without writing "catfish" ten times (and using 20 quote marks)? Card Zero (talk) 14:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the sheer number of adjectives contributes to the potential misreading, so to me the solution that repeats "catfish" several times is the most accessible solution, unlikely to be misunderstood by any level of English comprehension. You could reduce the list by omitting the synonyms "furious" and "evil" which are already covered by "angry" and "bad" - and I suppose it's possible that "fierce" and "fighting" are also synonyms. Because you've said "include" you don't have to be exhaustive. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Evil"'s a word with stronger connotations than simply "bad", though... 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, although "raging" (a translation I didn't mention), "angry", and "furious" are pretty indistinguishable, so this is a fair point. Card Zero (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How about Other translations of the name's second element mr include "angry", "fighting", "fierce", [...] Some scholars have taken entirely different approaches to the first element nꜥr that do not include "catfish" in the name at all,[18][19][20] but these approaches have not been generally accepted.? --Amble (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good plan, will probably write something like this. Card Zero (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is his connection to a catfish (of whatever mood)? Clarityfiend (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was the electric catfish, so perhaps it meant that the pharaoh was stunning. (Or it might have been the Vundu, which can grow five feet long, making the pharaoh metaphorically the biggest fish.) Card Zero (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The previous sentence says This word is sometimes translated as "raging catfish", so I think the simplest solution would be to follow with Other translations of the adjective include ″angry, fighting, fierceful, painful, furious, bad, evil, biting, menacing, or stinging". Iapetus (talk) 10:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that's sensible. I went for it and made this change (slightly adapted). Card Zero (talk) 12:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 15

Alphabetical list

Is there a site (or another free resource) where I could paste a list of a few hundred words and have them ordered alphabetically? It may be more difficult but I'd also like to find a similar way to list them by the number of their letters (such as: cat, dog, bear, bird, horse, giraffe, leopard...). Do you have any idea? Thank you! --79.35.50.40 (talk) 19:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does installing Python count as a resource? This would be trivially easy to do in Python: here's how to sort a list alphabetically in Python. You can actually use that page as a resource (click "Try it Yourself"), if you can put your list in the right format. To sort by length instead, change the code by replacing sort() with sort(key=len). If you actually install Python it could open a text file and read it line by line, very easily, which saves you having to format it as a Python list ["I", "mean", "like", "this"].

I just tried that site with about 250 words, and it works:

Extended content

['At', 'Et', 'Itaque', 'Nam', 'Nemo', 'Quis', 'Sed', 'Temporibus', 'Ut', 'a', 'ab', 'accusamus', 'accusantium', 'ad', 'adipiscing', 'alias', 'aliquam', 'aliquid', 'amet', 'animi', 'aperiam', 'architecto', 'asperiores', 'aspernatur', 'assumenda', 'atque', 'aut', 'aut', 'aut', 'aut', 'aut', 'aut', 'autem', 'autem', 'beatae', 'blanditiis', 'commodi', 'consectetur', 'consequatur', 'consequatur', 'consequatur', 'consequuntur', 'corporis', 'corrupti', 'culpa', 'cum', 'cumque', 'cupiditate', 'debitis', 'delectus', 'deleniti', 'deserunt', 'dicta', 'dignissimos', 'distinctio', 'dolor', 'dolor', 'dolore', 'dolorem', 'dolorem', 'doloremque', 'dolores', 'dolores', 'doloribus', 'dolorum', 'ducimus', 'ea', 'ea', 'eaque', 'earum', 'eius', 'eligendi', 'enim', 'enim', 'eos', 'eos', 'error', 'esse', 'est', 'est', 'est', 'est', 'est', 'et', 'et', 'et', 'et', 'et', 'et', 'et', 'et', 'et', 'et', 'eum', 'eum', 'eveniet', 'ex', 'excepturi', 'exercitationem', 'expedita', 'explicabo', 'facere', 'facilis', 'fuga', 'fugiat', 'fugit', 'harum', 'hic', 'id', 'id', 'illo', 'illum', 'impedit', 'in', 'in', 'incidunt', 'inventore', 'ipsa', 'ipsam', 'ipsum', 'iste', 'iure', 'iusto', 'labore', 'laboriosam', 'laborum', 'laudantium', 'libero', 'magnam', 'magni', 'maiores', 'maxime', 'minima', 'minus', 'modi', 'molestiae', 'molestiae', 'molestias', 'mollitia', 'natus', 'necessitatibus', 'neque', 'nesciunt', 'nihil', 'nihil', 'nisi', 'nobis', 'non', 'non', 'non', 'nostrum', 'nulla', 'numquam', 'obcaecati', 'odio', 'odit', 'officia', 'officiis', 'omnis', 'omnis', 'omnis', 'optio', 'pariatur', 'perferendis', 'perspiciatis', 'placeat', 'porro', 'possimus', 'praesentium', 'provident', 'quae', 'quaerat', 'quam', 'quas', 'quasi', 'qui', 'qui', 'qui', 'qui', 'qui', 'qui', 'quia', 'quia', 'quia', 'quia', 'quibusdam', 'quidem', 'quis', 'quisquam', 'quo', 'quo', 'quod', 'quos', 'ratione', 'recusandae', 'reiciendis', 'rem', 'repellat', 'repellendus', 'reprehenderit', 'repudiandae', 'rerum', 'rerum', 'rerum', 'saepe', 'sapiente', 'sed', 'sed', 'sequi', 'similique', 'sint', 'sint', 'sit', 'sit', 'sit', 'soluta', 'sunt', 'sunt', 'suscipit', 'tempora', 'tempore', 'tenetur', 'totam', 'ullam', 'unde', 'ut', 'ut', 'ut', 'ut', 'ut', 'vel', 'vel', 'velit', 'velit', 'veniam', 'veritatis', 'vero', 'vitae', 'voluptas', 'voluptas', 'voluptas', 'voluptate', 'voluptatem', 'voluptatem', 'voluptatem', 'voluptatem', 'voluptates', 'voluptatibus', 'voluptatum']

['a', 'ut', 'ab', 'et', 'ut', 'et', 'Ut', 'ad', 'ut', 'ex', 'ea', 'in', 'ea', 'At', 'et', 'et', 'et', 'in', 'id', 'et', 'Et', 'et', 'id', 'et', 'ut', 'et', 'et', 'ut', 'Sed', 'sit', 'rem', 'sit', 'aut', 'aut', 'sed', 'eos', 'qui', 'est', 'qui', 'sit', 'sed', 'non', 'vel', 'eum', 'qui', 'vel', 'qui', 'eum', 'quo', 'eos', 'qui', 'non', 'qui', 'est', 'est', 'Nam', 'cum', 'est', 'quo', 'est', 'aut', 'aut', 'non', 'hic', 'aut', 'aut', 'unde', 'iste', 'ipsa', 'quae', 'illo', 'sunt', 'Nemo', 'enim', 'quia', 'odit', 'quia', 'quia', 'amet', 'quia', 'eius', 'modi', 'enim', 'quis', 'nisi', 'Quis', 'iure', 'esse', 'quam', 'vero', 'odio', 'quos', 'quas', 'sint', 'sunt', 'fuga', 'quod', 'sint', 'omnis', 'natus', 'error', 'totam', 'eaque', 'quasi', 'vitae', 'dicta', 'ipsam', 'fugit', 'magni', 'sequi', 'neque', 'porro', 'ipsum', 'dolor', 'velit', 'ullam', 'autem', 'velit', 'nihil', 'illum', 'nulla', 'iusto', 'atque', 'culpa', 'animi', 'harum', 'rerum', 'nobis', 'optio', 'nihil', 'minus', 'omnis', 'omnis', 'dolor', 'autem', 'rerum', 'saepe', 'earum', 'rerum', 'alias', 'beatae', 'labore', 'dolore', 'magnam', 'minima', 'veniam', 'fugiat', 'quidem', 'libero', 'soluta', 'cumque', 'maxime', 'facere', 'Itaque', 'aperiam', 'dolores', 'ratione', 'dolorem', 'numquam', 'tempora', 'aliquam', 'quaerat', 'nostrum', 'aliquid', 'commodi', 'dolorem', 'ducimus', 'dolores', 'officia', 'laborum', 'dolorum', 'facilis', 'tempore', 'impedit', 'placeat', 'debitis', 'eveniet', 'tenetur', 'maiores', 'voluptas', 'nesciunt', 'quisquam', 'incidunt', 'corporis', 'suscipit', 'voluptas', 'pariatur', 'deleniti', 'corrupti', 'deserunt', 'mollitia', 'expedita', 'eligendi', 'possimus', 'voluptas', 'officiis', 'sapiente', 'delectus', 'repellat', 'inventore', 'veritatis', 'explicabo', 'voluptate', 'molestiae', 'accusamus', 'molestias', 'excepturi', 'obcaecati', 'provident', 'similique', 'assumenda', 'quibusdam', 'molestiae', 'doloribus', 'voluptatem', 'doloremque', 'laudantium', 'architecto', 'voluptatem', 'aspernatur', 'voluptatem', 'adipiscing', 'voluptatem', 'laboriosam', 'blanditiis', 'voluptatum', 'cupiditate', 'distinctio', 'Temporibus', 'voluptates', 'recusandae', 'reiciendis', 'asperiores', 'accusantium', 'consectetur', 'consequatur', 'consequatur', 'dignissimos', 'praesentium', 'repellendus', 'repudiandae', 'consequatur', 'perferendis', 'perspiciatis', 'consequuntur', 'voluptatibus', 'reprehenderit', 'exercitationem', 'necessitatibus']

You might want the output to be formatted in a more useful way though. (This is fixable.) I also notice that it's sorting capital letters separately from lower case, which might not be the desired behavior: that would take another tweak to fix (change it to say sort(key=str.lower)).

For nicer output (a comma separated list): instead of print(thislist), put print(", ".join(thislist)).

Card Zero (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a spreadsheet program? With MS Excel and LibreOffice Calc you can paste a list into a column of cells then sort it, then copy it back out again.

Added: And they have formulae for counting letters, so you can sort by length as well.--Verbarson ^talk_edits 21:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And LibreOffice is of course free. (I can't see anything in the Calc docs about counting letters, but I'm not used to spreadsheets.) Card Zero (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LEN(text) --Verbarson ^talk_edits 23:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes. That works. So the only remaining question (assuming the OP is like me and knows nothing of spreadsheets) is how to populate column B with =LEN(A1), =LEN(A2), etc., automatically, so that it can be used as the sort key. (It's about time I learned this myself.) Card Zero (talk) 00:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If cell B1 holds =LEN(A1), then copying it down the column will automatically create B2 =LEN(A2), B3 =LEN(A3). You can usually copy one cell (B1) into a range (eg B2 - B250) as a single action. --Verbarson ^talk_edits 10:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In Calc the action is to click the tiny square handle in the bottom-right corner of the cell, and drag down the column. I learned a skill! Hope the OP got something out of this too. Card Zero (talk) 11:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the days of command-line operating systems, sort commands came standard with the operating system; see sort (Unix) for Unix (there was also a sort command that came with MS-DOS). AnonMoos (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just tried the sort command in a Windows cmd prompt (run->cmd) and it worked. (I did sort<test.txt>test2.txt to turn the file test.txt into the alphabetized file test2.txt.) Doesn't offer an easy way to sort by length, though. Maybe Powershell can sort strings by length? ... yes, I tested and it can! "Get-Content -Path [path] | Sort-Object Length" is the command, where [path] should be replaced with the path to where the unsorted file (one word per line) resides, e.g. C:\Users\yourname\test.txt. This will print the words, sorted by length, to the screen, where they can be copied by selecting and right-clicking. (To open Powershell, it's right-click start menu, run, then type "Powershell".) Card Zero (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 16

Help understanding apparently ungrammatical passage

The article Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales has the following in its fourth paragraph:

As to a range of jurisdictions including England and Wales to which a further appeal can be sought (permission of either court is needed), is the senior figure of President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, in a court that determines cases from the relevant Court of Appeal using the relevant jurisdiction's laws and contributes to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and hears fewer cases than the Court of Appeal.

This sentence just leaves my head whirling, with no actual subject that I can find. Is it just me or is the sentence badly written? NS-Merni (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't you. It's badly written. I've not really any idea what it's trying to say. Bazza (talk) 17:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was added in this edit in July 2020, by User:Adam37. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that makes it clearer. (Adam37 says "My areas of expertise include grammar, syntax, modern hermeneutics", which is just as well.) I think the sentence goes with the one before, and is using "as to" to mean "A is to B as C is to D". He's saying that the President of the Supreme Court of the UK is the equivalent of the Lord Chief Justice, in a certain context, in the same way that the Lord President of the Court of Session is the equivalent in Scotland and Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland is the equivalent in Northern Ireland. The context is question is the jurisdiction directly overarching the [courts of] England and Wales, but he forgot to write those two words "courts of". Subsequent edits have made the context muddier and difficult to parse. Card Zero (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if I understand correctly – correct me if I'm wrong – there should be a comma following "As": "As, to courts of a range of jurisdictions ..., is the senior figure ...". (My areas of expertise include punctuation.) The juxtaposition "As to" leads one down the garden path. --Lambiam 21:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that makes sense: it's a sentence of the form as A is to B, but rearranged, producing as, to B, is A. (Or is it a sentence fragment?) Card Zero (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you (or others) understood what it's trying to say, could you edit it to make more sense? (To me, the pre-edited version in the diff linked looks very clear, but I assume there was some reason to change it to what feels like a more muddled version...) NS-Merni (talk) 05:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I (for one) understand the matter insufficiently to confidently rewrite this. In "either court", which are the two courts? The President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is a function assumed by a person; the function is not a court, and the Wikipedia article does not make clear what this function entails. And how to interpret "a court that determines cases from the relevant Court of Appeal". Does "the relevant Court of Appeal" not determine its own cases, but delegates them to some other court? Also, why not specify the full range of relevant jurisdictions, instead of "including England and Wales"? --Lambiam 11:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting to describe the UK's court system in articles on their presiding judgeships instead of articles on the courts themselves is perhaps not the best approach. --Lambiam 12:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A possible shower or two

I keep hearing TV weather presenters tell us things like "Sydney will have a possible shower or two today". In this case, "possible" is not describing the kind of shower Sydney will have, but it goes to the very existence of the precipitation, i.e. "Sydney will possibly have a shower or two today".

What's the term for this transference of the notion of possibility from an adverb with the verb "will have" to an adjective with the noun "shower"? Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not directly responsive, but your question reminds me a lot of an issue in quantified modal logic, namely whether from

\Diamond \exists xP(x)

you're allowed to conclude

\exists x\Diamond P(x)

— that is, if it's possible that there's an x that has property P, does it follow that there is an x that possibly has property P? This inference is an axiom in some systems, and I vaguely got the idea at some point that it was one of the key points of contention in the discussion over Gödel's proof of the existence of God. --Trovatore (talk) 23:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC) [reply]

JackofOz -- the most relevant Wikipedia article is probably Scope (formal semantics), but I'm not sure how helpful you'll find it... AnonMoos (talk) 02:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, as in these old threads, I think that what we have here is an instance of hypallage—probably unconscious in this case. Deor (talk) 02:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first meaning Wiktionary gives for possible is "able but not certain to happen; neither inevitable nor impossible". This shower (or two) in the morning may happen, but this is not certain; it is neither inevitable nor impossible. So then it is possible. In the weather report sentence, "a possible shower or two" only becomes strange by being made the object of "will have", which exudes definitiveness. A sentence like "Sydney will have a dry day today, except for a possible shower or two" is unproblematic. --Lambiam 11:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A shower or two may be possible, but I query whether such showers are "possible showers". I take your point that "a possible shower or two" only becomes strange by being made the object of "will have", but it would be equally strange if it were the object of "may have", which is not definite. And in that case, there would be no need for the word "possible" at all. "Sydney may have a shower or two today" - perfect.

In the same vein, presenters and their writers get into a muddle with "So and so could possibly/potentially happen". The problem there being that "could", while excluding definiteness, exudes (to borrow your term) potentiality. So the word "possibly/potentially" adds no value. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A pipeline burst, and a panel investigates its cause. Was it hydraulic shock? There is an arrestor device guarding against hydraulic shock. If the device worked, hydraulic shock can be excluded. But if the device failed, hydraulic shock is a possible cause. The device should be inspected twice a year, but the last inspection recorded in the inspection reports took place five years ago. So the device could have failed, and so hydraulic shock could be a possible cause. --Lambiam 10:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Write sentences one way if you want to avoid worrying about how to do it the other way

Let's apply this heading to singular nouns ending in s. Here are some statements written in the "one way" that this sentence refers to when dealing with singular nouns ending in s (the bold phrases show what I'm talking about):

Please measure the height of the glass.

I need to put away everything lying on top of a desk belonging to Charles.

Are there any sentences you know where trying to write this way can cause problems?? (Please note that the subject here is giving possession to singular nouns ending in s; the above sentences are written the "one way" that the heading of this section refers to.) Georgia guy (talk) 23:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the first sentence is all that eligible for a possessive construction anyway ("the glass's height" somehow seems awkward). But for the second example, "I need to put everything on Charles' desk away" is the most natural way to say it. I think "Charles's" is kind of a disfavored spelling now, so I'm not sure that there's a real decision which is being avoided by the use of paraphrases. AnonMoos (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you are a native speaker, you can follow this rule. If you'd say /ˈtʃɑːlz.dɛsk/, write "Charles' desk" (like "in Jesus' name"). But if you'd rather say /ˈtʃɑːlzɪz.dɛsk/, write "Charles's desk" (like in "Charles's law"). --Lambiam 10:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence is fine, as would be the alternative "Please measure the glass's height." The second sentence is weird, and I don't think any native English speaker would use it. The use of "a desk" rather than "the desk" suggests it might be more usually worded "I need to put everything on one of Charles's desks away." I'm not sure what there is to worry about in English possessives anyway: the rules are simple, without the large list of exceptions found in many English grammars. @AnonMoos: "Disfavoured": Except for Wikipedia Bazza (talk) 09:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What there is to worry about is ambiguity, since English has lost virtually all of the inflection which clarifies who or what is being discussed. Clarify whether you want to put away everything belonging to Charles on a desk or everything on a desk belonging to Charles. It gets more complicated if Charles has more than one desk, both of which have things on top, and if what is on top of any given desk belongs to different people. 2A00:23A8:4015:F500:750D:4875:1AC5:31B7 (talk) 11:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 17

Sentence improvement at Nicke Lignell

The article Nicke Lignell contains this sentence (copy-pasted verbatim):

On 30 December 2006, the car Lignell and his mother were travelling in was hit in Ekenäs by a drunk driver who blew 2.41‰ on a breathalyzer test.

"Who blew" means that the drunk driver literally blew into the breathalyzer and the device then showed the driver had a blood alcohol concentration of 2.41‰, which is well above the limit for drunk driving in Finland. "To blow" (Finnish: puhaltaa) is a common expression for this in Finnish, but is it in English? If not, what could be a better one? And is it better to write "2.41‰" or "0.241%" in English? JIP | Talk 01:34, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the third question directly, as experience may have shown you here, definitely write 0.241% rather than 2.41‰. As our per mil article notes, [t]he term occurs so rarely in English that major dictionaries do not agree on the spelling and some major dictionaries such as Macmillan do not even contain an entry. --Trovatore (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Blew" is a common colloquialism for that test in American English, at least. But there might be a more formal way of saying it. As to 2.41 vs. .241, that's a major difference. Which one is right? --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:22, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both are right. 2.41‰ and 0.241% are the same thing. Note that the first one has a per mille sign and the second has a per cent sign. It's a question of style. JIP | Talk 08:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see the extra 0. That's not something they used in my schools. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can tell it's not 2.41% by the fact that the article didn't mention the driver being dead. --Trovatore (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JIP -- I think "blew" would be understood in English, but if you don't want to focus on the physical action of taking a breathalyzer test, then "he recorded a blood-alcohol level of 0.0241%" would be more neutral. (I assume you don't mean 2.41%, which would apparently be extreme.) AnonMoos (talk) 02:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2.41‰ is 0.241%, not 0.0241%, which is below the legal limit in Finland. I suggest "registered" instead of "recorded" as being more common. --Lambiam 10:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Blew' is fine in English and will be widely understood. The other responses here confirm my suspicion that most people are not familiar with the '‰' symbol meaning 'per thousand' and so you should use '%' or 'percent' instead.-gadfium 03:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If they failed the test, they blew it. --Lambiam 10:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Blew" is rather slangy IMO; "registered" is better. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:22, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both "registered" and "recorded" seem to be coming at it the wrong way 'round. The device registered a reading which may have been recorded by the device or by the administering officer, but Lignell didn't do either of those things. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Making the driver the grammatical subject arguably requires using an unaccusative verb here. While the driver did perform an action, he was not the true agent — the test was performed on him, presumably under duress. "Recorded" and "registered" both seem a little wrong. Clean passive voice might be best; something like "was determined to have a BAC of".-Trovatore (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nor should he have, as he was not t he one who was driving drunk. Lignell was the victim of the car crash, not the perpetrator. JIP | Talk 15:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Blew" seems to be in common use in British news sources - Police say a driver blew an alcohol reading so high that the breathalyser couldn't measure it for example, but I agree it's colloquial. In the UK, the result would be expressed in "Micrograms per 100 millilitres of breath" (BTW, 2.4 would be legal in England and Wales, but not Scotland). [9] Alansplodge (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to this [10] (UK-based drinkdriving.org), someone can "provide an evidential specimen of breath" which is then analysed by a device of an approved type, which will provide a result in microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath. Probably the correct legal wording, but scarcely colloquial. --Verbarson ^talk_edits 12:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 18

Pinky to the moon

What does it mean to put your pinky finger to the moon? And does this have anything to do with kissing the Pope's ring? Thank you. 86.181.187.117 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Explained at [11] with a video at [12].2.30.130.69 (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology of the Russian word "Квашеная"

What is the etymology of "Квашеная"? Gil_mo (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 242: / Line 242: @@
 What does it mean to put your pinky finger to the moon? And does this have anything to do with kissing the Pope's ring? Thank you. [[Special:Contributions/86.181.187.117|86.181.187.117]] ([[User talk:86.181.187.117|talk]])  <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 14:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
 :Explained at [http://www.hinative.com/en-US/questions/2056396] with a video at [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqyT8IEBkvY].[[Special:Contributions/2.30.130.69|2.30.130.69]] ([[User talk:2.30.130.69|talk]]) 16:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
+== Etymology of the Russian word "Квашеная" ==
+What is the etymology of "Квашеная"? [[User:Gil mo|Gil_mo]] ([[User talk:Gil mo|talk]]) 16:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)