Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:52, 10 January 2017

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.

January 4

the meaning of "play a straight hand"

Would you please teach me the meaning of "play a straight hand" in the following passage. He was the nearest thing to an independent in Italian politics; in negotiation he always played a straight hand; he could be relied upon to keep his word as he did over the stationing of Cruise missiles in Italy. ---Margaret Thatcher, The Downing Street Years, p.83153.178.118.63 (talk)dengen —Preceding undated comment added 03:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think "to play a straight hand" = "to keep his word". Loraof (talk) 03:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an expression I've ever heard before. The writer may have meant the second meaning of "play it straight". Clarityfiend (talk) 07:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think so. I googled the exact phrase; to my surprise, most of the top hits were at Google Books, and they all seem to have that meaning. Two of the hits were particularly informative. In the 2012 romance novel His Valentine Triplets by Tina Leonard, on page 128 one of the characters says: "He's been a crook and a cheat for so many years, he's forgotten how to play a straight hand." And in the 2012 novel A Tangled Web by Emil Miller (shown in Google Books without page numbers), at one point the author writes: "The moment he had seen them, he had been acutely aware that he must play a straight hand in the poker game that was to follow." I suggest that that the expression comes from some community of poker players and is meant to contrast with bluffing. --69.159.60.210 (talk) 08:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reasonably well known phrase in the UK and I take it to mean dealing honestly with others, rather than attempting deception. I know nothing about poker, and am surprised to to learn that a straight hand is "a poker hand containing five cards of sequential rank, not all of the same suit" and has nothing to do with deception or otherwise. Perhaps as User:Clarityfiend suggests above, it has mistakenly evolved from "play it straight", or another possible culprit is from cricket, to "play a straight bat". It seems unlikely that Mrs T was much interested in either poker or cricket. Alansplodge (talk) 11:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the card game in question more likely to be Bridge than Poker? AlexTiefling (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. As a former bridge player, I can't think of any connection to that game. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd definitely go with the cricket derivation. There are many expressions in BrEng that derive from cricket, often (but not restricted to) relating to fair play (one of many exceptions being "stumped", used popularly to mean perplexed). --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The poker hand that ranks immediately below a flush is a straight; I've never heard it called a straight hand. —Tamfang (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to expect any connection to that hand. Alan's remarks seem more relevant to me. --69.159.60.210 (talk) 06:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Related to the word straightforward. As it relates to poker, it means honest, no bluffing. StuRat (talk) 07:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that you don't refer to other poker hands, like a flush, as a flush hand. That sounds like it has something to do with how you flush the toilet. :-) StuRat (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My undertsanding of this idiom comes from not playing an "ace up the sleeve" in poker. Literally an extra ace card of the same type of deck hidden in one's jacket, although I have a hard time finding any source with the literal meaning. Basically, one got shot in the wild west for using one if caught. μηδείς (talk) 05:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, an ace up the sleeve sounds a lot less messy than "an ace in the hole". StuRat (talk) 04:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

written Spanish

Is es:La buena guarda written in good Spanish? When I read it in Google Translate, it's even worse than a normal Google Translate. I didn't know if Google just did a worse job than normal or if it was GIGO. 208.95.51.72 (talk) 13:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read every word of it, but about a quarter of the page. It is very good Spanish. —Stephen (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So it's just a bunch of errors by Google. No surprise. Thanks! 208.95.51.72 (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you know enough Spanish (or whatever the source language) the best way to use Google translate is to break sentences down to phrases:

Spanish source, not broken down:

"El frenillo del pene o frenillo prepucial es un pliegue cutáneo que una cara inferior del glande con la superficie interior del prepucio, y una ayuda contra el prepucio sobre el glande.""

giving this garbled Google translation:

The frenum of the penis or preputial frenulum is a skin fold that a lower face of the glans with the inner surface of the foreskin, and an aid against the foreskin on the glans.

Spanish source, entered at GT with breaks for each phrase:

El frenillo del pene o frenillo prepucial

es un pliegue cutáneo

que une la cara inferior del glande

con la superficie interior del prepucio,

y ayuda a contraer el prepucio sobre el glande.

And the much better result:

The frenulum of the penis or preputial frenulum

Is a skin fold

Which connects the lower face of the glans

With the inner surface of the foreskin,

And helps to contract the foreskin on the glans.

μηδείς (talk) 02:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand Spanish (having studied Portuguese) but I don't see any mention of penises in the article :)195.147.104.148 (talk) 11:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the term "little brake" came to mind when thinking of freno and puns, so I copied that sentence from the lead of the Spanish article. I find humour is a good pedagogical aid. μηδείς (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It actually means "bridle" which is something used to restrain a horse. It turns out that the word "refrain" is related.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Baseball Bugs: What, exactly, is the "it" that means "bridle"? Freno? Frenulum? Frenillo? (please link source, cause I actually did some not very etymologically helpful research before posting. μηδείς (talk) 04:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Derivatives of frenare. See if this works. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Were I to grieve, afflict or torment you with the fact that "pene" means something in Spanish that it doesn't mean in Portugese, would you believe me? Dbfirs 15:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it a type of pasta? :-) Alansplodge (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Yes, one that's better al dente than limp. μηδείς (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch! Alansplodge (talk) 09:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Translate mistakes in ads

http://www.inc.com/geoffrey-james/the-20-worst-brand-translations-of-all-time.html says many ads with translate mistakes. Examples KFC from English "finger licking good" to "eat your fingers off" in Chinese and Ikea from Swedish to "getting to third base" in Thai. Can I know the mistake words they use? Cause some is fake like Chevy Nova from English to "won't go" in Spanish. --Curious Cat On Her Last Life (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While no va (two words) could mean "no go" or "not going" in Spanish, the alleged issue with that car's name may have been apocryphal, though I'm not sure "fake" is quite the term. According to the Real Academia website, the Spanish for what we call a "nova" (meaning a "new [star]") is estrella nova. And of course transliterations and translations can cause trouble the other direction too.[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, "No va" in Spanish is a full and grammatical sentence, literally "It (or he or she) doesn't go."

That Chinese restaurant doesn't look like an accident, more like marketing genius! I mean, people would remember where it is. Looks like an old sign, which is to say, a successful one. But it's probably shooped anyway. ;) Wnt (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This alleges to be the offending ad for KFC. I couldn't say whether the characters are correct or if it's just gibberish. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Chinese characters just say "Kentucky". The "eating your finger off" bit looks pretty photoshopped. The Chinese version of the slogan "finger licking good" is "吮指回味乐无穷", literally "lick your fingers to remember the taste, the joy is infinite". Not quite the same as the original but definitely no finger chomping involved. --165.225.80.115 (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Brand blunder for our article. Tevildo (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A jingle rather than a brand, but: sometime in 2003–09, I saw a Toyota billboard saying el único que se ve bien con todo y frenos – "the only one that looks good with everything and brakes [noun]." It could be a mistranslation of "goes with everything, and brakes [verb]," a weak pun. —Tamfang (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Lame in English and (unintentionally) funnier in Spanish. I think frene, the verb form, would be what they were looking for there. [Actually frena, not frene. The infinitive is frenar.] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Rolls Royce Silver Shadow was going to be called the Silver Mist - until someone realised what "mist" means in German. Wymspen (talk) 09:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's also possible to fall into such blunders just because of variety of English differences - for example there is a brand of freezer meals called "Young's Gastro", whereas in some English-speaking countries "gastro" normally means "gastroenteritis". --165.225.80.115 (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the "brand blunder" article. Starbucks example is not about translate and not a mistake cause is before the 9/11 attacks. Same for Piotrus example. So Coca-Cola Chinese and Electrolux English examples also fake. Good that "brand blunder" article mention the mistake words in the other languages. Bad that never mention many other examples from http://www.inc.com/geoffrey-james/the-20-worst-brand-translations-of-all-time.html like KFC Chinese, Ikea Thai, Paxam Farsi, Clairol German, Ford Portugese and Braniff Spanish. The Gerber example is brand blunder but not translate mistake. --Curious Cat On Her Last Life (talk) 07:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Making a spelling mistake in the translation input can produce some hilarious results. This sign appeared in front of the roadworks at Barons Court roundabout between Penarth and Cardiff:

CYCLISTS DISMOUNT

LLID Y BLEDREN DYMCHWELYD

The first three words mean "inflammation of the bladder", the fourth means "return".

An Aberystwyth supermarket offered

CODIAD AM DDIM

FREE CASH WITHDRAWALS

(Lit. "free erection").

In a Beijing restaurant, Wikipedia is on the menu:[3].

More gems here:[4]. 80.5.88.48 (talk) 11:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In a French estate agent window I saw an advert for "Sluice gate, truss", with a photos of a run-down rural building with potential. Someone had looked up "fermette" in the dictionary. ("Farmhouse" is the correct translation in that context.) Itsmejudith (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 5

qdm?

Any idea what "qdm" is supposed to mean in Homer#Etymological theories? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The east", apparently. That's what it says. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's the triliteral root for words meaning "east" (among other things) in various Semitic languages. It's a bit weird out of context...maybe it should be in italics, at least: q-d-m would be a more usual representation. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did early modern Europeans speak Latin?

I know they loved to use Latin personal names. And people like Isaac Newton wrote in Latin. So, does that mean that Latin was a living language up to the early modern era? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They did not speak it natively. According to language death, language death ... occurs when a language loses its last native speaker. So it was not a "living language". Loraof (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also relevant is History of Latin, which discusses the evolution of Latin. The last language that could properly be called Latin which was a living, native language is probably Vulgar Latin which eventually evolved into the various Romance languages. There is not a specific day when Latin "died" per se. The transition between "classical Latin" to various dialects of "vulgar Latin" to individual and non-mutually intelligible "Romance languages" would have been gradual and would not have occurred at the same rate in all places. --Jayron 32 17:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

University lectures were normally given in Latin both as a cant, to exclude the uneducated, and as a lingua franca among travelling scholars (almost always churchmen) who had no other tongue in common. That Latin was still in use for oral communication in England during the early modern period (between Chaucer and Shakespeare) is demonstrated by the fact that English pronunciation of Latin underwent the Great Vowel Shift, alienating Latin in England from Continental Latin. μηδείς (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All of that is true, but none of that makes any of those people native Latin speakers. That it is used in certain contexts doesn't make it a native language. --Jayron 32 21:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see the word "native" in the OP's question, just living. One might ask, is Esperanto a dead language? Are pidgins dead languages? The answer is obviously no, they are indeed living tongues, if rarely mother tongues. μηδείς (talk) 04:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how common it is to grow up speaking Latin as one's first language, but it does happen. My business partner, born in Spain in 1931, spoke Latin as his first language, and learned Spanish only later. I've known of a few others who were raised speaking Latin. —Stephen (talk) 02:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure somebody has once raised their child to speak the Klingon language as their first language to. Such sui generis cases do not mean anything in this situation. There is not a native Latin-speaking community or culture around the world. --Jayron 32 03:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a nice report all about Latin in the early modern period of Europe (link only contains preface and TOC). Here [5] [6] are two scholarly books that discuss the use of Latin in early modern Europe. I will not quibble over what "living" means for a language, but plenty of people spoke Latin then, especially academics and church types that medeis describes. The books I link include some discussion of how the language was changed and adapted by speakers in that period. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Latin was still commonly spoken (as a second language) by the nobility in the eastern parts of Catholic Europe (i.e., Hungary and Poland) well into the 18th century. Daniel Defoe wrote in 1728 that "who only knows Latin can go across the whole Poland from one side to the other one just like he was at his own home, just like he was born there. So great happiness! I wish a traveler in England could travel without knowing any other language than Latin!" — Kpalion^(talk) 10:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking Pronunciation Respelling Converter

Dear Wikipedia,

I am seeking an online Pronunciation Respelling Converter for (American) English and (Mexican) Spanish terms. For example, Wikipedia respells the name of the actor Jake Gyllenhaal as "Jill-in-hall" in a non-phonemic system. I am seeking a site that will produce such a conversion for me. Or, alternatively, Wikipedia respells it as "jil-ən-hawl" in a phonemic system. That would be acceptable as well. The important thing is to avoid diacritical marks or any special symbols, except perhaps the schwa (ə) which is used (for example) for the a in about.

I have spent hours searching for such a conversion website, without success.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cumberbunce (talk • contribs)

Three bits of advice. First, please type ~~~~ at the end of talk or other non-article edits, so we know whom to address. Adding the tildes will automatically produce your name and time you posted.

Second, consider learning the International Phonetic Alphabet, which is a universal standard, rather than relying on re-spellings, which are myriad, and unique to each publisher/work/website. This is not as daunting as it sounds, since most IPA symbols are familiar p,t,f,k,m,n,s or not too hard to get. E.g., "with" = /wɪθ/ and "jueves" = /'xweβes/.

Third, the Harper Collins English/Spanish dictionary is the best in my opinion, and they have a website here that gives recordings of words pronounced in the Latin American standard (z, c before i/e = s; ll = y) but you won't hear distinctive Mexican phenomena like the aspiration of final -s or the typical hablar jalado with a drawn out lilting rhythm. The dictionary itself is very up-to-date, and includes slang and vulgarities. My edition has a three-star system, one star indicating "informal" (i.e, not for formal speech or writing). two stars for vulgar, such as crap or tits that should be used with caution, and three stars meaning outright obscene. Read the review by Doug Rice at Amazon to get an idea of why the book is superior. μηδείς (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

English Wiktionary uses templates for some languages, such as Russian and Greek, to generate IPA pronunciations automatically. For example, wikt:Template:ru-IPA and wikt:Template:grc-IPA. There is also one for Spanish, named wikt:Template:es-IPA (see wikt:dueño to see how it works). The Spanish IPA template uses wikt:Module:es-pronunc as its guide. —Stephen (talk) 02:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should also have mentioned that Spanish spelling is almost perfectly phonemic. Hence, there are no "irregular" spellings to speak of, as abound in English. So the spelling itself really doesn't need a respelling, as long as you are familiar with the local conventions. μηδείς (talk) 04:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've often been amazed at how many highly literate & curious people, living in California their whole lives, avoid learning how to pronounce Spanish words. —Tamfang (talk) 08:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cumberbunce: May I ask you do you need this for yourself or for somebody else? If the former I rather suggest you to learn the standard IPA for English used in dictionaries, it is not in any way difficult, at least it is not a bit more difficult than, say, to learn the standard mathematical/physical notation where you often have not only to learn particular signs, but an entirely new alphabet, that is the Greek alphabet. If it is the latter then I suggest you to use any site which would convert a text to the IPA transcription, then use your own convertor of a text in the IPA into the respelling of your choice (note that unlike the more or less uniform IPA, there are a lot of, often contradicting themselves, respelling systems). This is very easy to write either with programming languages like Python or scripting languages JavaScript or even with Linux bash. As for proper names, even if the pronunciation of the most common ones are shown in dictionaries, do not expect you'll find a dictionary or a site which automagically transcribes the rare ones.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 6

"To prevail sth"?

In this NYT article, we find the statement But when the vote was called, Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader who was initially reluctant to force the issue, prevailed 52 to 48. Yet, I always thought, "prevail" cannot be used transitively. Can someone explain this issue to a non-native speaker? Best regards--Hubon (talk) 03:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a transitive use. "52 to 48" is not the object of the verb "prevailed" here. It is a clarifying clause; formally this means "he prevailed (by a vote of) 52 to 48". That's a fine use, the "by a vote of" phrase is understood and unspoken, but perfectly natural English uses here. Just as one can say "The team won by a score of 5 to 4" or just "The team won 5 to 4" this is the same thing here. --Jayron 32 03:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see – thanks a lot for explaining! (JFTR: I'm not a native speaker...) Best--Hubon (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please make a transcript of the video for 2017 Chicago torture incident

I saw the raw video of this incident at static.encyclopediadramatica.se/mirrors/BLMKidnapping/BLMKidnapping1.webm (yes, that site is a parody/troll site, and on Wikipedia's blacklist, but the video itself is what it is, look at it). It seems packed with potentially useful data, but I find the accent and jargon daunting. For example (I do not know any of this is true as I can scarcely understand), I think there is a mention of the Black P. Stone gang, a request for 'more weed', comments about "Blood watching" the livestream (which might refer to Bloods?), there's a mention of Gang Shit Only but I think that's the album maybe? (Chevy Woods comes up in a search), and most intriguingly, there was a comment about having to keep this up for half an hour (the length of the video). Given the "bored party mode" of the later 2/3 of the video I am thinking the event might have been a gang initiation, in other words. There is of course no trace of any of this in the news - I wonder if a single journalist in the world actually watched the video, as doing so would compromise their objectivity. I am hoping somebody here is familiar with African American Vernacular English, or even the argot of this particular subculture, and can make a quality transcript to post either to Wikisource or somewhere else appropriate on the web in a referenceable way? Or at least, can we get some comments by someone who can hear four words in a row and not be unsure about half of them? Wnt (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 7

Nambara, or Nanbara

I'm looking for a Japanese name. Is it spelled Nambara, or Nanbara? Benjamin (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese syllables can only end in a vowel, /N/ or, intervocalicly, with /Q/. The /N/ phoneme is normally "n", but may be spelt "m" when followed by a labial consonant. Hence the underlying na-n-ba-ra is pronuonced nambara and may be spelt that way, dependening on which system of Japanese transliteration is used. The /Q/ phoneme is not really relevant to the question, but it results in the doubling of a following consonant. It has no independent sound of its own. μηδείς (talk) 02:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, if two people have different spellings, they could still have the same name? Benjamin (talk) 03:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the name is spelt in the Roman alphabet, then there is no difference so far as the Japanese language is concerned, between the Roman transliterations nanbara and nambara. It's like the affectation "niggaz" for "niggers" in BAE. Even in standard English the final -s is pronounced as -z because it follows the voiced consonant r. So yes, two people named Nanbara and Nambara in two different documents could possibly be related. I do not speak Japanese myself, so someone may have more to add, but I am familiar with it enough to be confident in my remarks. μηδείς (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be reasonable to assume that the change happened upon coming to America, so if my great grandparents are Nanbara, then I might be related to someone named Nambara, but only distantly, ie, back in Japan? Benjamin (talk) 05:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's likely, yes: the legal spelling wouldn't have changed after naturalization. —Tamfang (talk) 08:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the Kunrei-shiki transliteration of Japanese, which is pretty much an exact replacement of kana, and used to be officially promulgated by the government, the closing nasal is always written 'n', but may be realised as /n/, /m/ or /ŋ/ depending on the following sound. The Hepburn system, which has always been more common in everyday use, relaxes the correspondence with kana, and renders sounds more transparently to English readers, so the nasal appears as 'n' or 'm' depending on the following sound. So Hepburn 'Nambara' would be written 'Nanbara' in Kunrei-shiki. --ColinFine (talk) 06:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin, Nambara and Nanbara are exactly the same name. In Japanese, it is written 南原 in kanji, or なんばら in hiragana. The hiragana ん is an N, but it is pronounced more like an M when it comes before a labial consonant such as B. That is, it's easier to say NAMB than NANB, so some people like to write NAMBARA in English letters. But in Japanese, it is 南原 (or なんばら) —Stephen (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"A barracks" (?)

"The film was shot in a single barracks of the US Marines." – Is it correct to use the indefinite singular article for the plural word "barracks" here?--Hubon (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like the Oxford Dictionary states, while it is a plural noun, it is often treated as singular. I believe that to most Americans "barrack" would sound odd. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarityfiend, thanks. Then, so far, the sentence would be correct?--Hubon (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Descriptive grammarians would say "yes" (or maybe "yeah"). I'm not sure about the prescriptive bunch. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now, assuming the "prescriptive bunch" disagreed, what would then be the closest standard-language alternative to my sentence?--Hubon (talk) 02:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It may mean that the film was shot in a barracks reserved for single men (or women), rather than a married or mixed barracks. The following construction would avoid that ambiguity: "The film was shot in a barracks of the US Marines reserved for single men." Akld guy (talk) 03:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One of the main roads in Perth, Western Australia, is Barrack Street. I'm not aware of any complaints. 86.147.225.252 (talk) 07:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps somebody will correct me if I'm talking bollocks, but that is perhaps an adjectival noun (?), so you can have a "barrack block", [7] a "barrack sergeant-major", [8] a "barrack-square", [9] a "barrack wall" [10] and a "barrack-room lawyer" [11], but the building itself is generally "a barracks". This forum thread has some discussion, Alansplodge (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EO says "barracks" is the "plural but usual" form, and can refer to a single building.[12][13] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The soldiers left the barracks, went and played an innings of cricket, then relaxed in a nearby zoological gardens. All proper British English forms. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 8

When did "gay" gain a meaning of "lame" or "stupid"?

Did this happen in other languages? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SMW, do you ever ask any serious, non-offensive, non-bullshit questions? If so, Can you link to them? μηδείς (talk) 04:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[14]. [15].

The usage exists. It doesn't have to make sense or be nice. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soon both these links will be functional: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2017 January 5#Could an extant jet engine start on Mars without modification?; Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 January 1#What's the oldest patriotic song in the world? —Tamfang (talk) 09:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One equivalent expression in the old days would have been, "That's so queer." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amongst the many different meanings of the word "gay" over the centuries, the OED includes "Foolish, stupid, socially inappropriate or disapproved of; derogatory (frequently considered offensive)" claiming that it was introduced as American slang with a first rather questionable cite from 1978 and the first convincing cite from 1987. Perhaps someone can find earlier cites that clearly show this sense of the word? From memory (possibly unreliable?), I think the sense quickly spread to the UK around the 1990s (or maybe later -- see Stephen's comment below). Dbfirs 09:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I first began to see "gay" used to mean "lame" or "stupid", it was around the year 2000 or soon thereafter, when the internet was beginning to take off. —Stephen (talk) 09:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't antecede anything above, but this 2008 essay from "Inside the Guardian" is apposite.Carbon Caryatid (talk) 12:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

to allow sb sth

Can I say: "he allowed her an ice cream"? If not, what would be the correct expression?--Hubon (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. μηδείς (talk) 04:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard or read that a few times. It sounds a bit Britishy. In my experience, North Americans are more likely to say "an ice cream cone" or "some ice cream". Clarityfiend (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In really formal BrE, "He allowed her to have an ice cream" would be more usual; in less formal BrE, "He let her have an ice cream".

Both of those might weakly imply that this occurred outside, where ice creams are often discrete products (with named varieties) sold from mobile vans or seaside stalls for outdoor consumption, while "some ice cream" might weakly imply a serving of the substance within the home or a restaurant. (Was the ice cream an essential element or just an example? The foregoing might not apply where both "an x" and "some x" are both valid constructions.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.62.241 (talk)

Thanks to both of you! 2.122.62.241, the ice cream was just an example. My actual question is about wether "to allow" can be used with a direct object! But intuitively, you've already answered that question, too... ;-) So, if I got it right, then Americans do use it that way? Best--Hubon (talk) 02:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you do a search for something like "You're allowed three" you'll see a fair number of hits, and I made the search because I thought it sounded like something typically said. I think you are allowed three X is the same usage in passive voice. Wnt (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the construction is fairly common in British English, but also occurs in American, for example "After their wedding vows, he allowed her a room to call her own and she dressed it as a den with brilliantly colorful furniture." from The Trophy Wives: A Novel - Page 49 by Charmaine R. Parker in 2003.

The verb "to allow" with both direct and indirect object has been so used since the 1400s according to the OED, and was used by Shakespeare in "As you like it": "Allow me such exercises as may become a gentleman." Dbfirs 09:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

quoted matter vs word-as-word

See MOS:WORDSASWORDS. Words that stand for themselves (and titles of books or plays or movies or TV series) should be italicized, not put between quotation marks. Words quoted from some other speaker or writer (and titles of short stories or TV episodes) should be between quotation marks, not italicized. Even if you prefer to draw the line differently, why do both? —Tamfang (talk) 09:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cymorth cyfieithu / Aide à traduction / Translation assistance.

Cob Cymreig

Helo,
Dydw i ddim yn siarad Cymraeg. Ar gyfer y radd , beth yw'r cyfieithiad i'r Ffrangeg o Achau'r Ebol ?
diolch i chi. --Cordialement. 6PO (discuter) 7 janvier 2017 à 03:04 (CET)
PS Ymateb posibl yma.

Welsh cob

Bonjour,
je ne parle pas gallois.Pour avoir le label AdQ , quelle est la traduction vers le francais de Achau'r Ebol ?
Merci. --Cordialement. 6PO (discuter) 7 janvier 2017 à 03:04 (CET)
PS Réponse possible ici.

Welsh Pony and Cob

Hi,
I don’t speak Welsh. To get , what is the translation into French Achau'r Ebol ?
Thanks. --Cordialement. 6PO (discuter) 7 janvier 2017 à 03:04 (CET)
PS Possible answer here.

Cymraeg.

Mab i’r Du ym mhob erw deg
O Brydyn, o bai redeg;
Merch ei fam i’r march o Fôn
Aeth i ddwyn wyth o ddynion;
Mae wyrion i Ddu’r Moroedd,
Gwn mai un onaddun oedd.
Mae yngo nai Myngwyn Iâl
Ym Mhowys, nis rhwym hual.
Mae câr i farch Ffwg Gwarin,
A’i gâr a fâl gwair â’i fin.
Ucha’ march ei iachau ’m Môn,
O baladr Talebolion.
Dewis lwdn, nid oes ledach,
A’i draed yw ei bedair iach.

.Ffrangeg

That's really cool! There is a translation into English of this cywydd here. '''Defnyddiwr:John Jones''' (sgwrs) 07:35, 7 Ionawr 2017 (UTC)

Hi '''Defnyddiwr:John Jones''' and thank you very much for this URL that I know. The problem is that on a "quality article" I might include a translation of a translation ... I wish a translation from the original version. Sincerely. --6PO (sgwrs) 10:47, 7 Ionawr 2017 (UTC)

Hello, here is the discussion already on Cymraeg Wikipedia. --6PO (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"to happen with sth"

"What is supposed to happen with that old car?" (meaning: "What do you want to do with it?") – Is that a correct question? (I'm asking because in all dictionaries I've consulted only the collocation "happen to" is mentioned.) Best regards--Hubon (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The construction happen with is much less common, but is occasionally used with a slight variant in meaning. The Independent used something similar in 1998 (July 29th): "The key phrase at the moment is ‘defensive investing’—basically, being as careful as possible because nobody can be sure what will happen with the markets", and the expression occurs in some recent blogs: "What will happen with house prices in 2017?" and "What will happen with the items I purchased ...". Dbfirs 21:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"to happen with X" doesn't necessarily involve action on the part of the hearer. For example, "Dad's taking it to the junkyard tomorrow" would be a reasonable answer to your original question, and if Dad's about to junk it, "I'd like to restore it" would be the wrong answer, even though it would be appropriate to say that if you were asked "What to you want to do with it?". Also, "happen with" is broader than "happen to"; "What do you want to happen with the election?" would normally be answered with something like "I want Candidate A to beat Candidate B", while if something happens to the election, it's something like the vote getting cancelled. "what is supposed to happen with X" is basically "what events are supposed to occur in connection with X", even if they don't directly affect X, while "what is supposed to happen to X" has X as the object of an action. Nyttend (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 9

Wall calendars

Our article on the wall calendar has exactly one babel link, he:לוח שנה (כלי). Do all the other Wikipedias really have no articles on this basic subject? Not knowing what these things are called in any other language (i.e. to the exclusion of date schemes, the things covered in our calendar article), I don't know what to look under. Therefore, I don't need any input here — I'd just ask you to go to the Wikipedia for the language of your fluency and see whether it has an article on this subject. Nyttend (talk) 00:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Germanic language Wikipedias have the article on calendars at "Kalendarium" (see da:Kalendarium, de:Kalendarium, no:Kalendarium, sv:Kalendarium) - this wouldn't be an appropriate link from wall calendar, since it includes other types of printed calendars such as desk calendars and diaries as well as electronic ones. (Actually, I think Wall calendar is an unnecessarily specific title. It should be at Calendar (stationery) or similar, and cover all forms of printed calendar). As far as I can tell, the French Wikipedia doesn't dedicate an article to printed calendars. It just mentions on the disambiguation page fr:Calendrier (homonymie) "le calendrier désigne sous forme de tableau, d’almanach ou d’agenda la liste des jours, des semaines, des mois d'une année avec mention de quelques informations accessoires telles que : jours fériés, saisons, fêtes des saints, périodes de vacances, etc" - "A calendar notes, in the form of a table, almanac or diary, a list of days, weeks and months of a year with additional information such as holidays, seasons, holy days, vacations, etc.". Smurrayinchester 09:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Hebrew article, similarly, is about Calendar (stationery), not just about wall calendars; so I've now edited wikidata to include it with the Kalendarium family. --217.140.96.140 (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I rather agree with Smurrayinchester, it is not that something lacks in Wikipedias in other languages, but rather the English article is inappropriate, unfinished and of a bad quality at least since 2009. I know the editors of Wikipedia like to boast that there is/must be an article for everything, but sometimes we may to stop and consider if we really need to write about everything especially when there is hardly anything to write about.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't advise anyone to write an article on this subject. When someone did it on pt:wp this is what happened:

13h29min de 21 de março de 2012 Eric Duff (discussão | contribs) apagou a página Calendário de parede (Título errado, malformatado ou absurdo: o conteúdo era: "{{er|a1|--FSogumo (discussão) 12h09min de 21 de março de 2012 (UTC)|Você quis dizer: Calendário}} Características do calendário...)

which, being translated, reads

Attention. You are re-creating a page previously eliminated or renamed. You must consider if it is or is not appropriate to consider editing it. Know what can be done when a page created by you is eliminated. The register of eliminations and of movement of this page is presented, for convenience, below:

13:29, 21 March 2012 Eric Duff deleted the page Wall calendar (Title incorrect, malformed or absurd: the content was: "{{er|a1|--FSogumo (talk) 12:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)|You wanted to say: Calendar}} Characteristics of the calendar...)

Swedish translation advice:Tideräkning/Kronologi

What is the difference between Tideräkning and Kronologi? Are they used in the same way? Same meaning? Thanks! --Sergeant Stringent (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure somebody can give a more extensive answer. The short one is "No". Kronologi is a listing of events, e.g. [16] Tideräkning corresponds to calendar or era. The Swedish term corresponding to BCE is f.v.t. före vår tideräkning. You can also use tideräkning when referring to the muslim or jewish calendar, or when discussing how the Roman empire kept track of the years in their history. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 16:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. Thank YOU! --Sergeant Stringent (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can loanwords have accents?

Talk:Loanword notes that one linguistic standard for a loanword is the omission of accents. Are there others that would allow the retention of accents? With words like café, résumé, naïve, and façade, my knee-jerk reaction is that with the accents they are foreign words, while if the accents are omitted this indicates they've been assimilated into English as loanwords. Thoughts? - Reidgreg (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that it can be simplified to quite that extent. One issue has been the difficulty of inserting accents using an English keyboard: possible (though not simple) with a computer, but impossible in the days of typewriters. Another has been the tendency of those who do speak a foreign language to show off that knowledge by adding the accents: there are communities today in which cafe is monosyllabic (a "caff"). Dictionaries tend to give versions with and without accents, especially for the more recent imports where the original spelling has been retained, even though the pronunciation may have changed. Wymspen (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can't dispense with the cedilha because it tells you the "c" is pronounced as in "city" rather than as in "can". 195.147.104.148 (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the joke pronunciation "gar-kon". And now I must resume working on my resume. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because every word in English is spelled the way it's pronounced?

The pretension of using the accent (or in other cases foreign pronunciation) to show-off seems consistent with applying the foreign language rather than the common loanword. I understand there's a spectrum to it, that loanwords don't get assimilated all at once. I was just hoping accents might be an easy indicator that they haven't yet met that threshold. - Reidgreg (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Armour, in his mock history of the United States, said that John C. Frémont would get upset at people who omitted the accent mark. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One standard that could be very usefully adopted is that when a truly foreign word (whether with or without accents) is used in an English text, it should be in italics. But when a foreign word has been incorporated into the English lexicon, it should be in Roman and the accents dropped. To my mind, words like debut and premiere and cafe are so thoroughly anglified now, that to still pretend they're foreign words by using the accents is just that, pretentious. But if one must pretend that to be the case, then one must also italicise them. To include the accents but not italicise them is to pretend that the English alphabet has all manner of accents that it simply does not have. Nobody is ever taught that graves, circumflexes, haceks, cedillas etc etc are features of the English alphabet. That's because they're not. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See English terms with diacritical marks, which starts out with

Some English language terms have letters with diacritical marks.[1] Most of the words are loanwords from French, with others coming from Spanish, German, or other languages.[2] Some are however originally English, or at least their diacritics are.

Loraof (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a properly sourced statement, just an editorial, but ... I feel like that article is wrong. Words with most of those things are foreign, not any kind of English word. The diaresis is genuine English. The accent and macron and breve seem like they have been borrowed for teaching purposes, or as the article says for poetry markup, but they are not the normal system. A tip-off is that if you write one breve or accent in that system, you have to write a hundred of them over many different words of native English origin normally spelled without them. Still, you can argue that they are "native", just another kind of native. Whereas the loanword "canyon" is not the foreign word cañon. A letter which a speaker of English cannot pronounce or write down without learning some of another language is not an English letter! Wnt (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In 20th century American English, diacritics were almost always omitted, since our typewriters and typography equipment usually did not have the capability. In 21st century American English, it's okay to have them or omit them. It is common to see café, résumé, naïve, façade, jalapeño, and açai, but it is also very common to find cafe, resume, naive, facade, jalapeno, and acai. There are personal preferences, as well as institutional preferences, but I don't think there is anything like a standard. —Stephen (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So I'll go to a café and résumé writing my resume? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Try going to a café and resume writing your résumé- more likely to get a job :) O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 13:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links and editorials! I was thinking along the lines of JackofOz (astoundingly, I have WP:JACK linked on my userpage), in terms of whether or not to apply italics under MOS (specifically MOS:FOREIGNITALIC). I think I have a better understanding of why that guideline is written the way it is, and also why there have been perennial name-change discussions at Talk:Facade. - Reidgreg (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Labelling amounts in currencies - feedback wanted

I ask for feedback and improvements of the following sentence:

The deposit is usually in the range from 10 to 100, likewise in Euro, Pound sterling, United States dollar, and Australian dollar, and alike respective sums in other currencies.

I'd like to express (unmistakeably) that in any of the four currencies mentioned the smallest deposit available is usually 10, and the largest 100; and that in other currencies, available deposits are worth roughly the same (e.g. for the Norwegian krone the range is not 10-100, but 100-1000). Does the wording above meet this expectation? --KnightMove (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say "The deposit is usually in the range from ten to one hundred Euros, Pounds sterling, United States dollars, or Australian dollars, and equivalent sums in other currencies." Dbfirs 20:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with "range of from". Clarityfiend (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a peculiar thing to want to say, and I'd be inclined to look for a different wording—maybe something like "from 10 to 100 euros, pounds sterling, or US or Australian dollars; or in other currencies, amounts of similar value". (Note: "euros", not "Euro" or "Euros"; "pounds sterling" also in lower case, at least in Wikipedia.) It might be good to include an instance where the range is not 10 to 100, e.g. yen. Also, the original sentence talks about what the amount "is usually", while Knight's explanation refers to "available" deposits, so at least one of these is not talking about what it intends to, and it's also important make that clear. --69.159.60.210 (talk) 07:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation: Usually, no other deposits outside of that range are available, but there are exceptions. For example: There are euro countries where also 5 € deposits are available, but in most of those countries this is not the case. There are distributors in the UK where you can also buy 175 £ deposits, but at most you can't. Should I word this differently? --KnightMove (talk) 11:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this makes sense to someone, but I have no idea what kind of "deposits" it's talking about. --69.159.60.210 (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What the deuce? (origin of phrase)

I write to request the origin of the phrase "What the deuce" (in the book Stranger in a Strange Land by Robert A. Heinlein). 2601:544:4201:C2BE:2CC0:8434:B20C:E037 (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This Oxford etymologist [17] suggests that 'deuce' is related to a word for devil, and that "what the deuce" is analogous to "what the dickens". ( I put your question in a new section, that will happen automatically if you use the button at the top of the page.) SemanticMantis (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EO's theory is that it's connected with the deuce, the lowest card value, and by implication "bad luck, the devil, etc."[18] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth noting, even if I don't know the specifics, that "v" and "u" were originally the same letter. I am thinking that people who say "darn" and "heck" might make a similar close substitution??? Wnt (talk) 00:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The vowel vs. consonant form of "v" doesn't figure into the origin of "devil".[19] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you will indulge me in a relative non-sequitur, I feel like quoting my late great aunt, who to the mystification of her nephews, would always greet us with, "The dickens, the deuce, / The devil got loose. / He ate up his mother, / and spit out the juice." She was a fairly eccentric woman. - Nunh-huh 02:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Baseball Bugs: I think this source may be misleading. Compare this reference to the 1611 King James Bible: “Then the deuill leaueth him, and behold, Angels came and ministred vnto him.” This isn't the first time I've seen some variant of "devil" spelled with a u, though I forget where else. Wnt (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That peculiar-looking style is discussed in the V article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That article says that "v" and "u" were not particularly distinguished before the mid-16th century; earlier on, "v" was used at the beginning of the word and "u" at other positions. The article also mentions that "f" was another waw derivative, so I also wonder how distinct the Old English deofel would have been from either. Wnt (talk) 14:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Baseball Bugs: Apart from a possible euphemism for the devil, the OED suggests that the deuce may have come from dice games where two ones or aces, that is the deuce, is the lowest value hence losing and unlucky which might further strenghen the semantic allusion with the devil.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What does this mean in Chinese?

What is this: 爆术艇监。 --Singerium-Islandi (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More context might help Siuenti (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If Google Translate can be believed, it means "Explosive Ship Supervision". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean to ask what it means in English ? StuRat (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Supervisor of boat of the explosive art"? "爆术" ("explosive art") is not idiomatic, it sounds like a term out of of a fantasy novel, like a type of magic perhaps. --165.225.80.115 (talk) 15:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could it mean the captain of a boat (or barge) that launches fireworks ? That is a common way to launch fireworks, as the risk of fire is reduced from fireworks that go astray, since most will land in water. StuRat (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 10

Is there a difference between a "human" and a "person"?

There are so many humans here!
There are so many people here!
There are so many persons here!
There are so many animals here!

Although the second option seems to be most preferable, why aren't the first and third used as often? If a human has hair lice and body lice on himself, then can "animals" be used to refer to the human and his lice? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first item is more like a "species". The second is normal usage. The third is more like legalese. The fourth is not typically used like the others. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that humans is the basic term, whereas people is a common and casual term. Persons is official or legal terminology and animals is the scientific classification and/or derogatory statement. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk)

Well, in a work of science fiction where there are multiple intelligent species, you could say things like "there are 80 people here—20 Klingons, 20 humans, 39 Ferengi, and a Vulcan". But outside of such a context, I would say that "people" is the basic word while "humans" is used as a variation or to emphasize what species we are. --69.159.60.210 (talk) 22:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the legal complexity of corporate persons (by which organisations are, in some circumstances, considered to be persons), there is no real difference between a person and a human (unless you want to get very philosophical, and discuss the links between humanity and personality). The words tend to be used in different circumstances, with human referring to the species and to the members of the species as a group, while person is used when referring to an individual. So you might talk about the excessive number of humans on the planet - but about the people at your birthday party. The common plural of person is now people: the older form - persons - is not in common use except in legal and very formal speech. While humans are animals in a biological sense, in common speech animals would be understood to be other than humans. We all carry very large numbers of parasites and symbionts, and there are more bacteria in a human body than there are human body cells. That doesn't make us any less human, and most people would be offended at the suggestion that they are animals because of that. Wymspen (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Creature in Middle English

Why have most English words derived from Latin creāre, creātus had two syllables in the root which suggests the underlying Middle English pronunciation cr[eː.aː]te, while the modern pronunciation of creature with one syllable in the root suggests the underlying Middle English pronunciation cr[eː]ture or cr[ɛː]ture. Why did that happen?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Middle English appears to have borrowed it from Old French (as it bears no relationship to the Old English equivalent, gesceap). In that case, it came into English with longer pronunciation (which is indicated by the less common related words retaining that form), but this has been lost in the most common word at some point. Wymspen (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish translation advice: Stridsvagnen/Stridsvagn/Stridsvagnarna

Stridsvagnarna means Tanks.
Stridsvagn means Tank.
Does Stridsvagnen mean A Tank?

Thank you. --Sergeant Stringent (talk) 21:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 443: / Line 443: @@
 :The first item is more like a "species". The second is normal usage. The third is more like legalese. The fourth is not typically used like the others. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 19:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 :I'd say that humans is the basic term, whereas people is a common and casual term. Persons is official or legal terminology and animals is the scientific classification and/or derogatory statement. [[User:UNSC Luke 1021|UNSC Luke 1021]] ([[User talk:UNSC Luke 1021|talk]])
+::Well, in a work of science fiction where there are multiple intelligent species, you could say things like "there are 80 people here&mdash;20 Klingons, 20 humans, 39 Ferengi, and a Vulcan".  But outside of such a context, I would say that "people" is the basic word while "humans" is used as a variation or to emphasize what species we are. --[[Special:Contributions/69.159.60.210|69.159.60.210]] ([[User talk:69.159.60.210|talk]]) 22:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 :Apart from the legal complexity of corporate persons (by which organisations are, in some circumstances, considered to be persons), there is no real difference between a person and a human (unless you want to get very philosophical, and discuss the links between humanity and personality). The words tend to be used in different circumstances, with human referring to the species and to the members of the species as a group, while person is used when referring to an individual. So you might talk about the excessive number of humans on the planet - but about the people at your birthday party. The common plural of person is now people: the older form - persons - is not in common use except in legal and very formal speech. While humans are animals in a biological sense, in common speech animals would be understood to be other than humans. We all carry very large numbers of parasites and symbionts, and there are more bacteria in a human body than there are human body cells. That doesn't make us any less human, and most people would be offended at the suggestion that they are animals because of that. [[User:Wymspen|Wymspen]] ([[User talk:Wymspen|talk]]) 21:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)