Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:45, 4 December 2016

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.

November 28

Is there a generic reciprocal of "client" in English?

Like the pairs "father - son", "left - right", "good - evil", "doctor - patient", is there a word that is the reciprocal of "client". If I am your client, you are my <something>, that is not a designation of any specific occupation such as "lawyer", "accountant", "plumber", etc. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In computer science, the word "server" is used as a reciprocal of "client". In the case of human relationships, however, I'm not sure there is a single word. Maybe fiduciary, but that's not a common word and has a narrow legal definition. --Jayron 32 12:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A term like "service provider" can be understood in general terms. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think "service provider" is as close as we're going to get. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In some contexts, it may be a patron. In others, the patron is the client. — Kpalion^(talk) 15:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A bartender may find fewer patrons patronize his bar if he serves Patrón with a patronizing attitude ("Sure you can handle that, li'l fella ?".) StuRat (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Vendor can also be used as a generic antonym of client in some contexts. 130.188.198.39 (talk) 13:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the origin, "patron" works.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contractor often would be appropriate. Blythwood (talk) 17:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for online linguistics courses, with videos

What are some good linguistics courses which have lecture videos available online? I just could find a few open MIT (without videos) and even fewer through Coursera. Most courses I find online are teaching a language, or related to linguistics, but not a part of it (for example, NLP, statistics, programming). --Llaanngg (talk) 17:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your question! Wikipedia celebrates curiosity. We are sorry that you haven't received a reply, but these reference desks are staffed by volunteers. Apparently, none of our current staff feel they have the expertise or knowledge to answer your question.

You may find answers elsewhere. One excellent resource is a real-life reference desk, staffed by professional librarians. There may be one in your area, often at a central branch of a public library system. In addition, your national library (e.g. the British Library) may allow online reference requests. An alternative is the New York Public Library's ASK service, which operates by text-chat and telephone. Here's a news article explaining how they work, which describes them as a "human Google".

Please feel free to ask us another question in the future, or indeed to re-post your original question (perhaps re-wording it) after a week or so, as there may be a different set of volunteer editors reading the page then. We apologize for not being able to help you at this time. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 30

Occurance [sic]

This misspelling of 'occurrence' is becoming very widespread, and it leads me to wonder how people who write 'occurance' think it's pronounced.

Do they actually say 'ə-kyoo-rəns'? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's any kind of tortured phonetic reading. In fact, I assume that people who make the misspelling are simply not aware of the phonetic meaning of doubled consonants. For them, it's just the logical "occur" + "-ance". To put it another way - there are lots of people who misspell "starring" as "staring", but that doesn't mean they pronounce it that way. Smurrayinchester 09:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the issue with the vowel reduction and schwa in English; when phonetically spelling a word that has a schwa, (as occurs in the last syllable of occurrence), there's not a lot of rhyme or reason to which vowel is chosen; indeed the spelling comes from a type in historical English before the vowel reduction occurred, so wheras the spelling used to make more sense, today it has become somewhat divorced from the phonetic pronunciation of the word. This is especially problematic in words like Wednesday and colonel and Mrs. and gunwale, but also shows up in many words with schwa vowels. For occurrence, consider interference from other /əns/ ending words like "avoidance" or "acceptance" or "fragrance" etc. Following regular patterns of both pronunciation and word formation, "occurance" fits a logical pattern. That it's not spelled that way is a quirk of history, and one of the many many many ways that written English is just weird. --Jayron 32 12:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant the third syllable. --76.71.5.45 (talk) 12:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So corrected. --Jayron 32 13:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That leads to my next question. Has anyone ever compiled a truly complete catalogue of (a) the rules of English spelling and (b) all of the multitude of exceptions to said rules? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JackofOz, it's called a dictionary. --ColinFine (talk) 13:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article titled English orthography which gives an overview and a place to start your research. --Jayron 32 14:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JackofOz: There have been a lot of comprehensive and thorough researches. From the bibliography provided I would recommend you to pay much attention to the works of Bell (she has a blog), Carney, Cummings, Hanna, Venezky, as well as of David Crystal, Christopher Upward, and Greg Brooks (Dictionary of the British English Spelling System). Those are very good works, especially the latter, which can be read free (under CC BY) on Google Books.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tovarisch Lüboslóv. I've had a look at Brooks' book, which seems very comprehensive, but I'd have to acquire a hard copy version. It's not quite what I was after, but it's the closest thing so far. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JackofOz: Probably, then, you may look at Carney's and Cummings's. The former is even more comprehensive and more scientific with statistics and many peculiar detailed rules, though he does not provide full lists of words and exceptions. But that's rather a thorough theoretical framework than a desk reference. Cummings's is more easy to read with many useful and interesting thoughts and evaluations, but may miss some details or peculiar cases. Brooks's seems still to be the most handy reference on the topic, if not the only one of such a kind.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

English nouns ending in -ance and -ence are related to Latin present participles of verbs of the first conjugation and of other conjugations respectively. (A relatively small number of words are derived from French, where all present participles end in -ant[e][s], and the corresponding nouns end in -ance[s]. Examples include assurance and poignance. Another relatively small number of words are formed directly from English verbs. Examples include clearance and utterance.) Likewise, English adjectives ending in -able and -ible are related to Latin verbs of the first conjugation and of other conjugations respectively. (A relatively small number of words are formed directly from English verbs, and have the ending -able. Examples include doable and movable.) For additional information, see wikt:-ance#Etymology and wikt:-ence#Etymology and wikt:-able#Etymology and wikt:-ible#Etymology.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a related ref-desk thread that Jack started some years ago. Deor (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the noted irregular formation dependant from the Latin verb dependere the same is seen with "ascendant" from ascendere and "descendant" from descendere. I suspect that the French present participle, which apparently always ends in -ant, may have something to do with this. 81.134.89.140 (talk) 01:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's British spelling, of course, and therefore peculiar. In American spelling dependent is the usual form. Google it at site:irs.gov for easy evidence. --76.71.5.45 (talk) 03:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That may not be correct. My Oxford Dictionary gives dependent, or U.S. (sometimes) dependant, so it seems your claim may be back to front. Akld guy (talk) 06:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford? What would they know about English? :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What the OED actually says is " French dépendant adjective and noun, properly present participle of dépendre to depend v.1 From the 18th cent. often (like the adjective) spelt dependent, after Latin (both forms being entered by Johnson); but the spelling -ant still predominates in the noun: compare defendant, assistant." British English uses spelling to distinguish between adjective (with an E) and noun (one who depends)(with an A). Dbfirs 09:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese comets

Can someone give me the Chinese characters for po-hsing and hui-hsing, which are ancient Chinese names for comets? SpinningSpark 15:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, is this Mandarin, or something else? SpinningSpark 15:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If they're "ancient" Chinese, they're likely to be Classical Chinese: the modern topolect called Mandarin on which Standard Chinese is based is a more recent development. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 176.248.159.54 (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hui-hsing would be wikt:彗星 (Mandarin, huìxīng, "broomstick star"). There is another word for comet that I know, wikt:掃把星 (Mandarin, sàobǎ xīng, "broom star"). I'm not sure about po-hsing. Maybe 破星 (Mandarin, pò-xīng, "broken star")? —Stephen (talk) 20:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephen G. Brown: The translations I have for the two terms are "bushy star" and "broom star" respectively. The source is this article from New Scientist. SpinningSpark 20:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think "bushy star" refers to 星孛 (xīng bó, "fuzzy star", literally, "star become fuzzied"). Other terms are: 長星 (zhǎng xīng, "long star"), 客星 (kè xīng, "guest star"), and 掃帚星 (sàozhǒu xīng, "broom star"). —Stephen (talk) 21:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Fuzzy star" or "bushy star" can't be 孛星? That fits the pattern of the others with the "star" element at the end. SpinningSpark 22:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it can be either wikt:星孛 or wikt:孛星. —Stephen (talk) 04:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 1

Former 86-year-old

Reading the BBC News site about Buzz Aldrin being evacuated from Antarctica, they say...

"The former 86-year-old astronaut was visiting Antarctica..."

Is this correct English? Doesn't this mean that Buzz Aldrin WAS 86 years old in the past but now is somewhat older and that he is an astronaut? Wouldn't it have been more correct to say "The 86-year-old former astronaut was visiting Antarctica..."

Sorry if I'm being picky. CoeurDeHamster (talk) 14:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. --Thomprod (talk) 14:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC agrees with you as well - their site has now changed it to read "The 86-year-old former astronaut was visiting Antarctica" - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38172205 Wymspen (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although, technically, if he were 87 years old or older, the first would be correct too... --Jayron 32 16:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One could pick a nit with that. First, I maintain that "The former 12-year old astronaut was visiting..." is strictly false. He never was a 12 year old astronaut. If the "86 year" version will ever become true depends on the understanding of the status as "astronaut" - is it "once an astronaut, always an astronaut", or does one lose that status when one stops being active in the role of an astronaut? The BBC seems to imply the later, hence "former astronaut". Of course, I wouldn't tell Buzz ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How's the BBC doing on "former Italian prime minister" lately? —Tamfang (talk) 00:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Former" is an adjective, and cannot modify "86-year-old", which is an adjectival phrase. One would need to say "the formerly 86-year-old...", with "formerly as an adverb modifying the AP. In any case, the original word order is sloppy, and the corrected word order is to be preferred. μηδείς (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

86-year-old is a perfectly functional noun phrase as well. Consider Q: "Do you have any kids?" A: "Yes, I have two: a three-year-old and a seven-year-old. The seven-year-old is just learning to ride his bicycle". --Jayron 32 18:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It could be, in a different context. In this case astronaut is undoubtedly the subject noun, so 86-year-old can only be interpreted as an adjectival phrase. μηδείς (talk) 22:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But "former" can modify "86-year old astronaut", which is a noun phrase. It has different semantics, of course. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know he is old, but has he been an astronaut for 86 years? Dbfirs 19:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would be an "86-year astronaut" not an "86-year-old astronaut". Do keep up... --Jayron 32 19:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, you keep up, and look at the hyphen(s)! ... but I apologise to Stephan Schulz for my nit-picking comment. I knew perfectly well what he intended. Dbfirs 19:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's time to 86 this discussion. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. That time was 16:41, 1 December 2016. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Splunge! μηδείς (talk) 04:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 3

December 4

the meaning of 'surrogate'

Would you please teach me the meaning of 'surrogate'in the following sentence? Two presidents saw the Soviet Union and its surrogates expand their power and influence in Afghanistan, southern Africa and Central America by subversion and outright military invasion.---Margaret Thatcher, The Downing Street Years, p.9.153.178.118.63 (talk) 00:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)dengen[reply]

@@ Line 116: / Line 116: @@
 = December 4 =
+== the meaning of 'surrogate' ==
+Would you please teach me the meaning of 'surrogate'in the following sentence?
+Two presidents saw the Soviet Union and its surrogates expand their power and influence in Afghanistan, southern Africa and Central America by subversion and outright military invasion.---Margaret Thatcher, The Downing Street Years, p.9.[[Special:Contributions/153.178.118.63|153.178.118.63]] ([[User talk:153.178.118.63|talk]]) 00:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)dengen