Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2014 January 13

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

January 13

difference between pool and pond

What is the difference between pool and pond? If there is one in the fields dug for watering the plants, which should be used? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.202.187.153 (talk) 05:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

A pool has more defined edges and shape, with something forming the outside of it. A pond is more like a small lake, with soil defining the sides and bottom. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The term "pond" is cognate with "pound" and implies an enclosed space (in this case, filled with water).[1] The term "pool" means "small body of water",[2] and while what Mike said is true for a swimming pool or other small bodies of water, the term "pool" can also designate an area within a larger body of water, often with a specifying adjective, such as the "plunge pool" of a waterfall, or a "whirlpool", or a calm pool such as the one just ahead of the brink of Victoria Falls, as shown by these knuckleheads.[3] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I would call the body of water dug in the fields for watering the plants a pond. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Pond is more specific - a pool can be anything from a puddle in the palm of your hand to a largish lake. Not sure about the "defined edges" argument, see Dozmary Pool. Alansplodge (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, that may have "Pool" as part of its proper name, but having seen it in Google Street View, if I encountered it without knowing its name I would refer to it as a pond. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

If it were in The Land of 10,000 Lakes, it would most definitely qualify as a "lake". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The word pool has connotations of depth and/or of being a place where water collects. In North American English, it refers to 1) a place where water has collected, in which case it is synonymous with puddle, 2) a purpose built basin for wading or swimming, or 3) a deep spot in a stream or river, for example at the base of a waterfall. The word pond refers in North American English to 1) a small artificial reservoir, or 2) a small lake. The word pool cannot refer to a lake in North American English. Marco polo (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I can't think of an argument for Marco Polo, so here's some soppy poetry instead:

"A GARDEN is a lovesome thing, God wot! / Rose plot, / Fringed pool, / Fern’d grot— / The veriest school / Of peace..." Alfred, Lord Tennyson.

Fact remains, pond is a better word, whichever side of the pool you're on ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Glad he did not ask for the difference between a Sea and a Pond (see Billington Sea.) Collect (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

A bit more Googling suggests that in England, a "pool" can be an artificial lake (Blue Pool), a coastal bay or cove (Chapmans Pool) or even a river (Rusland Pool). Alansplodge (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Generally, seasonal wetlands in the US are called vernal pools, [4] -- one supposes it maybe possible to artificially create one. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

My feeling is that it is a matter of size. A vernal pool is more like a puddle than a pond. It's a deep spot that water drains into, seasonally. Anything larger than about 80 meters in width would more likely be called an intermittent pond or lake than a vernal pool. Marco polo (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I would not think a puddle creates and sustains a unique ecology, like a vernal pool does. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Using the word however.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi,

I've got an English question that has to do with the transitional phrase however. More specifically, where it goes in a sentence. Another editor is changing every sentence which begins with however in a particular article I am watching and leaving almost never a good idea to start a sentence with 'However', [...] - Malleus in the edit summary. In some cases, it actually seems like an improvement, but in others, I'm not so sure. To be honest English wasn't my strongest subject at school so I tried looking online. It seems like there are lots of sentences that begin with however. I guess it could just be a matter of personal style, but not sure. Here are some examples of sentences that were edited.

• Original: However, there is no clear record of when drops were introduced.

  Edited: There is no clear record of when drops were introduced, however.

• Original: However, it is thought that these were only played to a very limited extent.

  Edited. It is thought that these were played to only a very limited extent, however.

• Original: However, this is not equivalent to the more traditional way of "gaining professional status," [...]

  Edited: This is not equivalent, however, to the more traditional way of "gaining professional status", [...]

I not sure why the first two edits were needed since moving however from the beginning of the sentence to the end IMO does not seem like an improvement at all. I can understand the third edit and it does seem better to me.

Is there a specific rule relating to the word however and where it should go in a sentence? Thanks in advance. Marchjuly (talk) 07:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

12 mre examples
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You forgot to add these, as well ... Original: However, if this occurs with one player giving perpetual check, then that player loses. Edited: If this occurs with one player giving perpetual check, however, then that player loses. Original: However, the game has been relatively slow to spread to countries where Chinese characters are not in common use. Edited: The spread of the game to countries where Chinese characters are not in common use, however, has been slower. Original: However, if a piece occupies a legal destination for an opposing piece, it may be captured by removing it from the board and replacing it with the opposing piece. Edited: If a piece occupies a legal destination for an opposing piece, it may be captured by removing it from the board and replacing it with the opposing piece. Original: However, in practice, a pawn is promoted whenever possible, for the most part. Edited: In practice, however, a pawn is usually promoted whenever possible. Original: However, if this occurs with one player giving perpetual check, then that player loses. Edited: If this occurs with one player giving perpetual check, however, then that player loses. Original: However, partially because the traditional pieces are already iconic by size, with more powerful pieces being larger, most Western players soon learn to recognize them, and Westernized pieces have never become popular. Edited: Most players soon learn to recognize the characters, however, partially because the traditional pieces are already iconic by size, with more powerful pieces being larger. As a result Westernized pieces have never become popular. Original: However, either capture or promotion may occur normally on subsequent moves by the piece. Edited: Capture and/or promotion may occur normally, however, on subsequent moves of the piece. Original: However, other pieces may be dropped to give immediate checkmate. Edited: (Although other pieces may be dropped to give immediate checkmate.) Original: However, like chess, the game can be divided into the opening, middle game and endgame, each requiring a different strategy. Edited: Like chess, however, the game can be divided into the opening, middle game and endgame, each requiring a different strategy. Original: However, since a knight cannot move backward or to the sides, it must promote when it lands on one of the two far ranks and would otherwise be unable to move further. Edited: A knight must promote, however, if it reaches either of the two furthest ranks (see Promotion). Original: However, since a lance cannot move backward or to the sides, it must promote if it arrives at the far rank. Edited: A lance must promote, however, if it arrives at the furthest rank (see Promotion). Original: However, this is an influence of international chess and is not required, even as a courtesy. Edited: This is an influence of international chess and is not required, however, even as a courtesy. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The idea that a sentence should never start with "However" is rather outdated. Most writers these days use it in that way, and Fowler's Modern English has no objection to it as long as it is immediately followed by a comma, and gives the following example from William Golding: "I should be so angry if the situation were not so farcial. However, I had a certain delight in some of the talk."--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that however should be used between two clauses. One suggestion is to join two sentences with a semicolon; however, the two sentences should be relatively short ones. Note however, that you also can refer indirectly to the previous sentence or idea. ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 09:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, however can also be used as an adverb (it's in the class that also includes who(m)ever, wherever, whatever, whenever), and it is certainly not followed by a comma in that case: However you do it, I want it finished by 8 o'clock. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for all of the replies. I think you're all right. This other editor is, of course, trying in good faith to improve the article; However , it does seem (at least to me) that they strongly feel that their way is the best way regardless. I'm not so sure if that's the Wikipedia way. But, life goes on and so do I. Thanks again. Marchjuly (talk) 10:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Your I'm not so sure if that's the Wikipedia way seems to be suggesting that I've been violating WP policy or best practice(s). (If not that, then what are you suggesting, and on what basis??) I am a serious good-faith editor on WP and do my best with every edit. You are a relatively new user, and on what basis are you seeming to suggest that my editing is inappropriate or counter-best WP practice(s)?? (I'd like an answer, please!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC) I can't figure out why you and Eric Corbett are being so darned snippy. The OP was clearly just asking whether there are any "rules" in English, and specifically on WP, regarding the placement of however in a sentence. Though the question was promped by your edits, he wasn't challenging them in particular and made it a point not to name you. He just wanted information, and this is the reference desk, not WP:ANI. What Eric's problem is, I can't imagine, except perhaps that when one is a malleus fatuorum for long enough, everyone else starts looking like a fatuus. I apologize to everyone for attracting his attention by linking his name. Deor (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC) Hey Deor, I've made my objections clear. They have nothing to do with the grammar issue, only their out-of-context nature along w/ innuendo comment. If anyone is treating this as an WP:ANI it is you. I have no reason to know you or debate you. Please go away. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC) p.s. The point about "never being named" is ludicrous; anyone w/ a modicum of edit history research skill could easily identify the user in question. (With making BS points like that ... are you a troll!? The fact you're taking this opportunity to take a tacky swipe at Malleus supports the contention, if I wanted to make it.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC) You seriously need to relax and take a break. See WP:LAME, and remember that this one would definitely be one of the lamest. --Bowlhover (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC) And your drive-by comment/insult isn't lame!? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC) p.s. Please don't answer. I have no reason to post here again unless there is more obvious antagonism. And who are you to give advice w/ a mere 2,569 edits since 2005 mostly in WP space?! [5] @Ihardlythinkso: Once again, I am truly sorry for any comments I made here that offended you. I have stuck them out as well as a sign of my sincerity. I wasn't my intent to call into question your integrity as an editor. I should have chosen my words more carefully. Marchjuly (talk) 14:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Strunk & White recommend placing "however" first when it means "in whatever way" or "to whatever extent", and not placing it first when it means "nevertheless" [6]. This is not a firm grammatical rule, but it does have some support even before The Elements of Style [7] and is now accepted by many as good style (largely on the authority of the book). Malleus The other editor is enforcing this rule, but in a slightly odd way: the examples in Strunk & White place "however" within a clause, not at the end. Their clear preference is for "however" in second position. I'm not at all sure they would approve of placing it at the end of a sentence, even if it is consistent with the rule as they stated it. The rule about "however" is one of the visible signs that distinguished people in different camps on questions of grammar and style. You don't have to follow it, but following it won't hurt anything -- and it will make some people happier. Personally, I follow the advice from The Elements of Style, but I wouldn't impose it on someone else's writing.

Although you didn't ask about it, there are a couple of things that should certainly be avoided:

• Using "however" as a fancy version of "but".
• Dropping in a "however" sentence to try to argue for or against something. This often leads to Wikipedia articles with whole paragraphs that run "However, A. However, B. However, C." They seem to be arguing with themselves.

These are bigger issues than whether or not you follow the however-first rule. --Amble (talk) 15:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Amble for all that great info. I actually felt putting however and the end of those sentences made them sound slightly worse. I thought about changing them back to the original sentence and then asking for a discussion, but this other person seemed so sure. I have no idea who Malleus is and I tried searching on the Internet, but had no luck. Plus, this other person makes so many edits in a short period of time, self-reverts many of them within a few minutes, and then goes back and re-edits them to something else. So, I thought it would be best to let the dust settle first and ask here. I kinda agree with you in that using too many howevers may spoil the broth. Thanks again --Marchjuly (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Malleus" presumably refers to the Wikipedia user Malleus Fatuorum, now User:Eric Corbett, who must have at some time expressed the opinion quoted in the edit summary. For a case in which the sentence-final positioning of however is absolutely perfect, I can't avoid mentioning the last sentence of Garrison Keillor's short story "End of the Trail". Deor (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC) The user formerly known as Malleus is indeed me, and I stick by my opinion that beginning a sentence with However is almost always a bad idea, almost as bad an idea as using with as a linking word. Eric Corbett 21:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC) Can you explain why it's so bad, Eric? If it's used as a synonym of "nevertheless", why doesn't your rule extend to that word as well? Putting "nevertheless" at the end of a phrase would be "almost always a bad idea", so why not "however"? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC) I have no idea what you're talking about. In what universe is "however" a synonym for "nevertheless"? Eric Corbett 23:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC) In any universe containing a thesaurus. --Amble (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Professor Irwin Corey, who is due to turn 100 in July and already looked old in the 1960s, would sometimes start his lectures with "However..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Baseball Bugs for the reply. People who have lived to be 100 probably are right more times than not. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Not directly related to your question, but we should be very cautious about using the word "however" in Wikipedia articles at all: see WP:EDITORIALIZING. --ColinFine (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks ColinFine. I'm learning new stuff about Wikipedia each and every day. I didn't know that, so thanks for the link. Marchjuly (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

See WP:MOS#Semicolon before "however".

—Wavelength (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Wavelength Marchjuly (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Let's get something straight User:Marchjuly; I'm not trying to improve the article, I am improving the article. Eric Corbett 21:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC) Have I wandered into the middle of somebody else's fight? I honestly have no idea who you are Eric. You are definitely not the other editor I was referring to above. If you are, then the name you're using here is different. Anyway, I'm truly sorry if I somehow confused you with somebody else. My bad. I'm still making lots of mistakes on Wikipedia, but have been making mistakes in English for even longer. So, sorry if either rubbed you the wrong way. I just posted here looking for different opinions, and not necessarily only ones that I like. Thanks for the input. Marchjuly (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC) So which editor are you referring to? Eric Corbett 23:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC) Well it isn't doesn't appear to be you Eric. Unless it was a long time ago. None of you show any real interaction. See Eric Corbett and Malleus Fatuorum and Marchjuly or Malleus Fatuorum and Marchjuly. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC) Seems to be not you, but someone else invoking your former username in an edit summary: [8] --Amble (talk) 00:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC) Thanks Amble. You are right. That's what I meant when I wrote Another editor is changing every sentence which begins with however in a particular article I am watching and leaving almost never a good idea to start a sentence with 'However', [...] - Malleus in the edit summary. in my original question. I didn't realize that it was confusing. I also didn't feel it was appropriate to use the other editor's name, since I was just interested in finding out what others thought and not publicly shaming anyone. Once again, Eric I am sorry if this bag of cr*p somehow landed on doorstep. That was never my intention. Marchjuly (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC) FYI, the edit sum quotation referred to by User:Marchjuly above, was in quotes: [9]. User:Marchjuly failed to reproduce the quotes when quoting the edit sum. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC) Ihardlythinkso is correct. I mistakenly left out the quotations marks for the name Malleus in that edit summary. It was completely unintentional and silly mistake on my part. I should have been more careful. I sincerely apologize to Ihardlythinkso, Eric Corbett and anyone else misled by my mistake.Marchjuly (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC) I mistakenly left out the quotations marks for the name Malleus. No, I never put name Malleus in quotes -- only what (I remembered/thought) he said. (And, I haven't always done that consistently either, when misquoting Malleus.) I understand your apology, and accept it, WP:AGF. You are new-ish editor, and I realize same, you need some slack. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC) Malleus, sorry for misquoting you (especially invoking the ungrammatical "with"!). I shouldn't quote without having the exact quote in front of me. (I've been trying to find it, but it's difficult. I believe it is somewhere.) I did find this: Do you have any guidance on the correct use (aka overuse) of the word "however"? [...] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC) I do; avoid it when there's no contradiction and when there is, never start a sentence with it. [...] Malleus Fatuorum 02:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC) I also found this by User:Noleander: [...] It is almost always a bad idea to start a sentence with "However", especially at the start of a paragraph. [...] --Noleander (talk) 20:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC) ... so it's possible I melded the two in my head over time. (But I don't think so; I think Noleander may have been paraphrasing you! [But I'm not sure.]) Thanks for not saying I shouldn't quote you (I feel quoting you is stronger than quoting MOS); if I quote you again I promise to try to do it correctly. Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC) TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: As you can see above in this thread, the article was a mess. I tried to improve it. (I did improve it.) It's a bit demoralizing to have an editor come here and display a selected fraction of my edits on the grammar issue, and then suggest my copyedit work might not be "the Wikipedia way". (The background is that I reverted this new-ish editor at the article early on, went to his user Talk to attempt a WP:BRD, and since then he has been consulting grammar reference boards over minor aspects of my overall editing, leaving innuendo remarks – such as reminding reference board participants how polite he is and of his "spreading good karma" in comparison to the "unpleasnat experience" he had with me on his user Talk. An editor here has gone to the user's Talk as a result of this thread to assure him he was "polite all around". Oh sure. That's a selective point of view. While I'm the editor receiving the negative innuendo comments by this user. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC) I've never interacted with you, Marchjuly, or the article before this point, but see WP:LAME. You don't like politeness? Fine, let me be rude to both of you. NO READER GIVES A DAMN WHETHER HOWEVER COMES AT THE BEGINNING OR END. NOT A DAMN. NOT A FLYING FUCK. The article was not a mess before, nor is it a mess now, nor was it ever a mess in between. All your complaints about Marchjuly are minor and inconsequential, as are Marchjuly's complaints about you. By the way, being an old or new editor doesn't grant you extra privileges. That really is not the Wikipedia way. --Bowlhover (talk) 16:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC) Malleus gives a flying fuck. And so do many other respected editors (like, SandyGeorgia). (Who the fuck are you?!? No boon to building the encyclopedia with your putrid edit count since 2005, I'll wager.) Go away, troll. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC) Then Malleus and the other editors should find something more important to work on. Also, see WP:NPA. Personal attacks are also not the Wikipedia way. --Bowlhover (talk) 18:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Many people advise (some quite strongly) against beginning a sentence with however, and the advice is certainly reinforced by its appearance in the popular and influential Elements of Style. However, that advice is questionable at best, as Geoff Pullum shows on page three of this article. Good writers begin sentences with however all the time, and there should be no blanket prohibition of the practice. It often comes down to personal preference and what "sounds right"; personally, I agree with Marchjuly is correct, I believe, in observing that several of the suggested "corrections" that the first two examples that began this thread ware no improvement were fine the way they were. —Steve Summit (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC), edited 00:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

closed continuing argumentation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
several of the suggested "corrections" that began this thread ware no improvement. User:Marchjuly listed only three of my "corrections", so by saying "several" were no improvement, I guess the only fair interpretation of that is that you think all of my edits (which I never termed "corrections", only copyedits intended to improve) were disimprovements. (Is that right? Or is that a "blanket statement" from you yourself!?) Please show here how *all three* are disimprovements, rather than your blanket statement -- give arguments/discussion, etc., rather than just posting "I disagree"/ambiguous criticism, please. (Anyone can do that, and sound important.) This venue is more like ANI with each and every post here. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC) Not trying to turn this into a battleground; I've edited my comment. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC) Here's another thought: There were 15 "However, [...]"s when I started copyedits to change them. You've stated 3 of my 15 were bad. (Or do you mean to suggest more are bad, or all are bad, or what?!) If 3 of the 15 were bad, ... isn't that a net improvement then? (So, what is it you're objecting to, exactly? That all 15 weren't perfect? That all were bad? That I had a "blanket mentality" while editing? [If the latter is the case, I didn't know as editor I'm subject to the "Thought Police". So if an editor feels 3 of 15 changes were bad, then let him revert. Isn't that how WP is supposed to operate? Make it better. Throw your hat in the ring. What are you criticizing exactly?] The fact that the Shogi article started with 15 "However, [...]" suggested to me that those interations of that phrase were rather lazily done and that it was just a consequnece of less-than-satisfactory writing. [So I must admit, that number of "However, [...]" constructs did prejudice me into suspecting that *none* of them was really thought out decided "However, [...]" was the best way to render. If I'm guilty of that prejudice, fine; but there was ample reason to have it. The article was littered with an abundance of them. So 3 of the 15 were not good. Please explain how not good, and what is better. Please understand, by making the changes I did, there was no way at any time that I imparted to anyone a message that I would defend those copyedits as though my life depended on it. It happens that I agree w/ Malleus, for my own reasons. And I never make a thoughtless edit. Therefore, you can deduce from that, that I can explain the reason I thought my changes were improvements. Not defend them, just explain them. And here's another thought as well: in some of the 15, I eliminated "However" entirely, since the meaning of that word was inappropriate to the context. Perhaps there are other remaining "However"s that I retained, that still do not belong and should be replaced with rewrite. [Did I say I was done editing those sentences? No. Could I have intended to go back and examine if "However"s I retained are even appropriate? Yes. Was I intending that. Yes. Am I obligated to do that? No. Why didn't I do it at the time? That wasn't my focus. The wellness of text in an article is evolutionary through copyediting. I wasn't done. I performed a first step that was reasonable and not thoughtless, and certainly not staunchly defended, but how would anyone know that since they weren't reverted or modified or challenged? Except here in *this* thread, which is not a content crucible, but more about editing philosophy. Which is an abstraction really, and doesn't get down to individual sentences, which I'm asking you to do, rather than object on editing standards philosophy, which I really do not understand except at the sentence-level, which apparently you don't have intention to discuss. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC) You're exactly right: this Language Desk page is about "editing philosophy"; it's not the place to get into a big argument abut the wording of individual sentences in an individual article. The question here is, as I see it, "Is the rule, 'never begin a sentence with the word however' valid, and doesn't applying it sometimes make a sentence sound worse?", to which my answers are, "no and yes". —Steve Summit (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC) Well then go ahead and have that discussion then (or has it already been completed?), and let me know the result. Because I'm not here to discuss philosophy, others might be, but that is not what I do. (Not to say, I *do* have my own feeling why "However, [...]" is inherently problematic, that I haven't shared w/ anyone, and I wouldn't be against *contributing* that thought and why to said discussion. But, that discussion is for heavier hitters than me, like the Malleus's, who know the language much better and are much better writers than me. It isn't appropriate to involved me in your philosophic discussoin ... I'm not qualified, and it is not what I do. I'm a copyeditor, I can explain my changes and why I made them, it doesn't mean I'm right, I never asserted that over another editor's opinion (did I?). I would be interested in result you have out of said discussion, that can help my endeavor to be a better copyeditor. [So far I have obviously "listened to" Malleus, and Norleander too. I'm certain I could do much worse than that.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC) Steve, here's another thought for you ... Of the 2 edits you don't like of mine, they both end the sentence with ",however". Apparently, you think that is *always* worse, compared to starting a sentence with "However,"? Or just in this case? Can you tell me when "however" can go satisfactorily at the end of a sentence, or give me an example? (Otherwise, I'm just left with the impression that you are blanketing -- that it is always worse, never better.) Oh and BTW, the fact that you have gone out on the limb and specified which 2 edits you don't like, and are saying they were better the way they were before I changed "however" from beginning of sentence to end of sentence, are you also saying (I don't know, clarify for me) that "however" belongs at the beginning of those sentences, and that is the *best* structure for them? (As opposed to a middle position, or replacing "however" with an alternative word such as "but" or "although", or eliminating the "howevers" entirely because they aren't appropriate to the context/meaning to begin with.) Have you thought this out and want to let me know? Or just want to poke that I made a disimprovement in 2 out of 15 cases, without explaining why? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC) And here's one more thought ... The edits I made, including the 2 you say were disimprovements, were made in a matter of minutes. If I had known (IF I HAD KNOWN!) that said edits would be the focus and topic of this thread as they have been, opening up ANI culture, philosophical disagreements, and implied prounouncements of deficient, mindless copyedit work on my part, ... then I certainly would have spent a whole huge hell-of-a-lot more time considering and making those edits ... and as a result of more time and thought invested on those two sentences, golly-gee, the result may have been different, you know. But it wasn't. And it didn't. And here we are. (Hey! Is that appropriate?? Think about it please.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

This page is about Language-related questions such as the one asked at the top of this thread and answers concerning the substance of such questions. For content disputes that might be read into the question's incidental examples, see [[:[the article talk page]]]. For escalating content disputes, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. For discussions about the implementation, interpretation, and modification of style guidelines, see Wikipedia talk:Manual of style. For assuming good faith, see Wikipedia:Assume good faith. For anything else, see anywhere else.

--— Rhododendrites ^talk |  01:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wipe you mouth.

When you want to ask somebody to remove the sauce or any bits of food left around his mouth after eating, is it okay to just say, "Wipe your mouth."? Thank you.203.228.255.210 (talk) 14:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

That seems a bit insistent and I would only use it with a close friend. With someone else I might say, "You have a bit of food..." and then point to the same place on my own face. Dismas|^(talk) 14:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't even use it with a close friend. If I had children, I would use it only with them. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

In most varieties of English, using a simple imperative form like that implies that the person speaking is a superior and the person receiving the command is an inferior. It is most often used by parents toward children, but it might also be used from a commanding officer in the military to a subordinate or from a prison guard to a prisoner. If an adult outside a military or penal institution uses the simple imperative toward another adult, particularly when it has to do with the recipient's body, the person receiving the command will feel disrespected and insulted. Even in the workplace, a boss would not normally say to a subordinate "Wipe your mouth" because it would be insulting. (Maybe an abusive boss would do this.) On the other hand, in some workplaces, it is okay for a boss to use the simple imperative to command a work task that does not refer to the employee's body (for example, "Make 20 copies of this report.") In my workplace, bosses would not use the simple imperative even to assign a work task. Instead, they might say "Could you make 20 copies of this report?", softening the command by putting it in question form. Because the command to wipe the mouth has to do with a person's body, even the question form would be insulting. You would not normally say "Could you wipe your mouth?" I can imagine a wife saying that to a husband, because they are intimate, but even then the husband would feel a bit disrespected or put down. Instead you would say something like, "You might want to give your mouth a wipe." Even this is something that you can only say to someone you know. If it is a stranger or someone you don't know well, the most you can do is say, "Um, excuse me..." and then maybe pantomime with a napkin, and smile in a friendly way. Marco polo (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, with a minor provision that tone is important when it comes to issuing commands like this. Between close friends, even something as blunt as "Wipe your mouth!" could still be acceptable, if the tone of voice and/or body language made it clear that the command was in fact just a suggestion. Matt Deres (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Just added "please" after would soften it enough for me. StuRat (talk) 21:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Yep, a tone of exasperation or touch of humor would do it. It's really defensiveness among English-speaking cultures about who has a right to give us direct commands. That said, the original formulation is still a bad idea and the better thing to do is just draw the person's attention to it (using a gesture with "you might..." or "you've, uh, got a little...") — LlywelynII 08:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Why do we care?

The question demonstrates the discomfort most people feel around others who aren't aware they have stuff around their mouths. It extends to speakers who frequently develop little patches of white spittle on their lips or the corners of their mouth, and some are notorious for it (John Howard, for example).

I wonder why it bothers us so much. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Because as they talk there's a significant chance that sauce or spittle may fly your way ? StuRat (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

That per se never bothered me, I must say. Just the look of it is enough. Often, when I saw Howard speaking on TV (where there was zero chance of being sprayed), I had the urge to reach out and wipe it off his mouth, or shout something unrepeatable at his minders who had failed in their duties. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe white stuff around the mouth can be an external sign of one of those evil, possibly highly contagious diseases "we" realised we needed to avoid thousands of years ago. HiLo48 (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

If a speaker is careless about his personal appearance, it can compromise his message. A good example would be if the guy has his fly open. Are you listening to the speech? Or are you focused on his open fly, and wondering if he's really that unobservant, and if so, whether what he has to say reflects that inattentiveness. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

It's an interesting thing. The John Howard I refer to has always been an impeccable dresser. In early-mid career he had some teeth work done to enhance his looks. He was noted for his daily vigorous morning walks to keep himself reasonably fit. Clearly he was very concerned about his visual appearance, as any half-decent politician should be. So it was always odd that such a person would be so prone to the spittle drop problem. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe nobody told him. Sometimes politeness can hurt instead of help. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I find that impossible to believe. He was Prime Minister of Australia for 11 years, and was a major public figure for over 20 years prior to that. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

He's deaf. Maybe he didn't hear them. I agree that his suits were always impeccable. Not so sure about the tracksuits. HiLo48 (talk) 02:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)