Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

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 10

Phrase construction with alone adjectives

Hello. From Size-asymmetric competition#Definition of size asymmetry. This kind of construction is frequent in Latin languages but it is correct and a good choice in English? "Resource competition can vary from completely symmetric... to perfectly size symmetric"?Pierpao (talk) 13:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what an "alone adjective" is, but the sentence itself is perfectly fine and well-constructed (if a bit long). Clarityfiend (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. Pierpao (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have written "size-symmetric", with a hyphen. The spelling in the article is inconsistent; there are 16 occurrences of hyphenated noun–adjective compounds (12 × "size-asymmetric" including that in the title of the article; 3 × "size-symmetric"; 1 × "undersize-asymmetric") against 3 of unhyphenated compounds (1 × "size asymmetric"; 2 × "size symmetric" including the use in the sentence quoted above). --Lambiam 09:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've regularized the usage in Size-asymmetric competition, retaining the hyphen in prepositive compound adjectives and dropping it in postpositive ones (where it was present). Deor (talk) 00:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 11

Spark out

What is the origin of this phrase? I was looking at wikt:spark out and I see it means "Completely asleep or unconscious." But it says nothing about where it's from. Is it a Cockney thing? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 09:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon iconography or related? As in old comic strips and cartoons with boxers knocked out while stars orbit around their heads... 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 12:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly a bit of hyperbole for the spark of life being out. 41.23.55.195 (talk) 14:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd always assumed it was when you have to reach for a box of matches because the pilot light has gone out. Or maybe something to do with these. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the verb form, the meaning is similar to "punch your lights out." The construction is traced back to the 1960s [1].2A02:C7B:11B:9000:2C30:AE00:938B:1276 (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That source does not so much trace as simply assert. My suspicion (from its being used in my family) is that it is somewhat older – the OED suggests its usage from 1879. I conjecture (no more than that) that it alludes to an absence of spark in an engine's spark plugs, leaving the engine unresponsive. (Note: the Spark plug was invented in 1860.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.104.88 (talk) 10:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I always assumed that it was a synonym for "seeing stars" when hit on the head. Our article is phosphene:

Another common phosphene is "seeing stars" from a sneeze, laughter, a heavy and deep cough, blowing of the nose, a blow on the head....

Alansplodge (talk) 11:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, although I have experienced phosphene, myself, occasionally, I hadn't thought about it being related to orbiting cartoon stars. It does make some sort of sense, when I think about it, though. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 13:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But they're stars, not sparks? OED says here: "The earliest known use of the adjective spark out is in the 1870s. OED's earliest evidence for spark out is from 1879, in the writing of John Hartley, dialect poet and writer." It looks like the Etymology is now behind a paywall, but you can log in with a library card. The example given seems to be just a normal domestic fire. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Green's Dictionary of Slang (accessed through the Wikipedia Library) says "electrical imagery". Alansplodge (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For those who don't have access to that OED page, the earliest instance they provide, from dialect poet John Hartley in 1879, is this:

"Th' fire wor spark aght." - J. Hartley, Orig. Clock Almanack 1880 17. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"a hornet's nest" v. "a hornets' nest"

Why does the idiom go "to stir up a hornet's nest" with the singular possessive as well? This doesn't really seem to make sense considering that a nest always consists of multiple specimens. Hildeoc (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might argue that it's really the Queen Hornet's nest? There's only one of her! Martinevans123 (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In book uses both are found, with hornet's nest being a clear winner, taking up about 70% of the uses.^[2] --Lambiam 08:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lambiam: Yes, but still, this is awkward language, isn't it? Hildeoc (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's an idiom. As long as the meaning is understood, the individual words used matter not. Bazza (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bazza 7: I know, but don't even idioms usually follow a certain sense of grammatical logic? Hildeoc (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hildeoc it's the nest of "the hornet", the Platonic ideal object, rather than any individual hornet. Compare with, say, "the dwellings of Man", meaning human habitation in general.

This also recalls my ongoing conundrum with whether to prefer farmer's market or farmers' market (and I hope no one will defend the barbarism *farmers market). I think I really prefer the singular possessive on the grounds that it's the market of the Platonic farmer, but on the other hand there are so many people who don't know the plural possessive punctuation and it's such a good opportunity to teach it. --Trovatore (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Trovatore: More concerning is the tendancy for some of those establishments to not feature farmers, regardless of their apostrophic position or absence. Bazza (talk) 09:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they never feature Platonic farmers either, not even Aristotelian ones, only potato's, tomato's and mango's. Am obviously going to the wrong one's. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Trovatore, these conundra are enough to send one into tantra. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [reply]

@Hildeoc: The grammar is fine. Using the singular to cover a group is neither unusual nor wrong. Stating that "the platypus is an odd-looking creature" is not picking on a specific individual of the species. Bazza (talk) 09:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bazza 7: Yeah, but in this case you're applying the definite article. But I certainly see Trovatore's point about the Platonic ideal. Hildeoc (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hildeoc: Regardless of the explanations above, and your analysis of why the idiom may be "wrong", it is what it is: "a hornet's nest", as shown in these reliable records of English usage:

Cambridge, sometimes "hornets' nest"
Collins, from 1730–1740
dictionary.com, from 1730–1740
Merriam-Webster, from 1740
OED, only as "hornets' nest", from 1590

It's worth remembering that unlike, say, French or German, English is not a controlled language: it has evolved, and dictionaries such as those above record usage, not prescribe it. Bazza (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, though I never denied that ... Hildeoc (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! Bring on the potato's. Plenty of written examples. But thanks Hildeoc for the Ancient Greek spelling bee. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 12

What is the correct way to say this?

When asking for the meaning of a foreign word or phrase, am I supposed to say “What does [phrase] mean in [target language]” or “What does [phrase] mean in [original language]”? Primal Groudon (talk) 18:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can always go with "How do you say [phrase] in [target language]?" --Amble (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about asking in Google? I've found it to be pretty flexible. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence "What does artificial intelligence mean in Turkish?", although unambiguous since Turkish is obviously not the source language, comes across to me as a strange way of formulating the question. I'd interpret either of the questions "What does yapay zekâ mean in English?" and "What does yapay zekâ mean in Turkish?" as asking for a translation to English. The first version is unnecessarily long; one may as well simply ask, "What does yapay zekâ mean?" The second version has the advantage that it identifies the source language to the speaker. A problem arises when a term occurs in both languages, as in, "What does define mean in Turkish?" Google is not particularly helpful in answering this question.^[3] An unambiguous way to phrase the question is, "What is the meaning of the Turkish term define?" The answer should reveal that this depends on the context; is it used as a noun or as an adjective? --Lambiam 10:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yapay zekâ means nothing in English, of course. —Tamfang (talk) 02:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a type of question that is apparently regularly asked:

What does "señor" mean in English?^[4]
What does the Hebrew word אַל־מָוֶת‎ mean in English?^[5]
The Jewish scholarly community wrote a document called Dabru Emet to encourage discussion – what does this title mean in English?^[6]

Phrases expressed in natural language are often ambiguous. This does not matter as long as the listener, using context and common sense, understands the speaker's intention. --Lambiam 09:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The second version provides more info, since the responder to the first might have to ask, "What language is that?" However, neither would raise any eyebrows and mark you out as a dang furriner. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The second version may be ambiguous, though. --Lambiam 00:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 15

Spelling of non-English names--who decides?

A Chinese man who name is more or less pronounced "Shee" and an Arab whose name is pronounced "Cutter" immigrate to the US. Who decides how their names will be spelled on official documents? 24.72.82.173 (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be asking about names written in writing systems other than the Latin alphabet. In many cases, the individuals themselves will decide, based on how they fill out the necessary forms. For people coming from the PRC in recent years, many of them would just use the standard Pinyin transcription of their names. For Arabic, there are a number of sounds which do not occur in European languages, an indefinite number of local Arabic colloquial dialects, even some national variations in the pronunciation of Modern Standard Arabic, and also the issue of French-influenced conventions for transcribing Arabic into the Latin alphabet vs. English-influenced conventions, so the possibilities are almost endless... AnonMoos (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not directly related, but I have a last name in Polish that can be declinated or not (Polish grammar is heavily inflected) when used in various grammatical cases. I choose not to be inflected. It's basically always the person who has the final say in how their name is written or pronounced. --Ouro (blah blah) 13:07, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ouro -- In the Russian language, a name not inflecting for case is often a sign of a foreign name, and apparently in Soviet times, people sometimes wrote the names of their enemies, which theoretically should inflect, without such case endings as a subtle (or maybe sometimes not-so-subtle) way of implying that they were Jews! AnonMoos (talk) 14:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well Polish is Slavic and has certain relations to the language you mentioned, and my last name technically isn't Polish - it's Ukrainian (grandparents from the Kresy on my father's side). However, this is my choice, I feel when my last name is inflected it just sounds weird. --Ouro (blah blah) 16:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conversely, when Anna Karenina is rendered as "Anna Karenin", on the basis that that's probably how she'd have been known had she been born to Russian immigrant parents in the West, that looks super-weird. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Varvara Komarova-Stasova chose the masculine pen name Vladimir Karenin. She wrote a four-volume biography of George Sand, so she may have been gender fluid, like her biographical topic. --Lambiam 10:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even at the time she started writing (late 19th century), I could see the advantage of taking a male pen name to increase the likelihood of being accepted by a publisher.Naraht (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Greg Bear's "Eon", there's a character named "Joseph Rimskaya" who emigrated from the Soviet Union with his grandmother when he was a young boy, and got her surname because U.S. immigration officials weren't able to understand the two having slightly different name variants. Also, Czech-language Wikipedia adds fake feminine suffixes to women's surnames: Michelle Obamová etc. Katie Ledecky, who has a masculine version of a Czech name (analogous to hypothetical Anna Karenin) gets the feminine form of it: Ledecká... AnonMoos (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not only will people from the PRC today choose to use Pinyin they will likely have little choice. Their passport, an official document of the PRC, will have their name in Chinese and Pinyin. So when filling in visa/immigration forms, buying airline tickets etc. they will likely feel obliged to use Pinyin. Doing anything else will likely result in confusion, delays and possibly being unable to travel/enter.

Once in the US, or another country other than China, they can call themselves whatever they want and many do adopt English names perhaps related to their Chinese one. But they might still feel it necessary to use their proper name, and use Pinyin, on official documents. --2A04:4A43:907F:FE10:7C89:51C9:85B7:E016 (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the real answer is US immigration but this is a language question, right? Elinruby (talk) 12:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 16

Swapping V and W

What is the term that mean "swapping two sounds when speaking"? I've heard the term used for the Asian practice of swapping R and L. I just finished listening to a BMW presentation on wearable technology in which he said things like "This vearable chip communicates vith the car using a wariable code." It didn't take long to hear he was clearly swapping V and W, which made me start Googling the term that describes the practice, but I can't find it. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's rare with speakers who regularly and consistently would actually swap two sounds, so that they systematically would be used incorrectly. What I guess is fairly common is a tendency to over-analyze a difference between one's native language and the target language (in this case English), leading to common hypercorrections, such as Italians adding initial h- to words such as eggs and apples, or Northern European people pronouncing video as wideo. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or, I still think that actual swapping sounds improbable, since that would mean that a foreign language learner would have learnt the difference between the two sounds, but would still systematically use them incorrectly. What would be more probable is that the speaker might regularly use a "middle ground" phoneme, such as /ʋ/, which a native speaker might interpret as systematic swapping. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some lower-class urban Dickens characters, such as Sam Weller, were written as swapping V and W, while in the late 1990s or early 2000s there was a UK teacher of South Asian origin whose pronunciation of "vertical" as "wortical" became controversial. See discussion by a linguist here... -- AnonMoos (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds a bit like a German accent – not surprising for BMW. Using [ʋ] for w (in onset) is pretty common in German. This sound isn't used in English, so native English speakers may, depending on random fluctuations, interpret it as either v or w. German only really makes a two-fold distinction between f, v and w (or is anybody aware of a minimal triplet?). To emphasise the difference between f and v, the v may overshoot past [v] and turn into a [ʋ] too, a case of hypercorrection. PiusImpavidus (talk) 09:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, an initial V in a native German word is pronounced in German like /f/; the component Venn in Hohes Venn is pronounced the same as Fenn. This makes the existence of a minimal triplet less likely. --Lambiam 10:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here, for what its worth, is an old ref-desk thread on the topic. Deor (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 17

succession vs accession

Are both "succeeded to the throne" and "acceded to the throne" correct? Is there a difference between them?

I see the first used at https://www.royal.uk/accession. Kk.urban (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wikt:succession implies coming after an earlier holder. You cannot succeed to a newly created throne. wikt:accession does not imply an earlier holder. --Error (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They only seem to mean the same because there is generally only one occupant of a given throne and a new occupant is rarely the first. --Lambiam 06:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With a bit of tongue-in-cheek, "acceding to the throne" is the act of sitting down on the chair, and "succeeding to the throne" means doing that after the previous occupant has left it. Charles III succeeded his mother at the instant she died, and acceded at the same time; the latter was formalised in the UK during this ceremony. Bazza (talk) 10:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch phrase "ga je gang"

The Dutch phrase "ga je gang" (literally "go your going") is usually translated as "go ahead". Is it only used if there is motion implied: "Going to the store to get me a six-pack -- Go ahead", or may it be used even if there's no motion implied (just like the English phrase may): "Going to drink me a six-pack -- Go right ahead"? Thanks. 178.51.15.36 (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all very interesting, but where's the question? 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd forgot the question mark. Sorry about that. Just fixed that. The question is right before the question mark. Thanks. 178.51.15.36 (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean that the phrase could also be used figuratively, it does indeed seem like that. I found one example on Dutch Wikipedia where it was used as an encouragement for users to dare contributing with their own edits; Wikipedia:Voel je vrij en ga je gang (Wikipedia: Feel free and go ahead). 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary confirms this. GalacticShoe (talk) 03:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Native Dutch speaker here. "Ga je gang" is a colloquial permission or encouragement to perform some action. Whether this action involves some movement is irrelevant. Usually it doesn't. Wiktionary mentions 5 senses for the word "gang" and senses 2 and 3 are often used figuratively. PiusImpavidus (talk) 10:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 18

Past participle of "to burn"

In my mind it is "burned", but I keep seeing it on Wikipedia as "burnt", which I consider an adjective. As a North American who spent years in London I find it *possible* that I merely hadn't noticed a small ENGVAR, and have been skipping the word in copyedits, but due to my current editing patterns I tend to see it in constructions like "the Nazis burnt all the synagogues" or "all the synagogues had been burnt by the Nazis", from which it would be a shame to detract with improper English.

Can someone reassure me that this usage is correct in standard British English? Thanks Elinruby (talk) 11:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that both forms can also be used as adjectives and I think "burnt" is generally preferred in Brit Eng? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As long as people here tell me it is correct in some form of standard English I would be delighted to stop worrying about this. I'll check back in a few days, thanks. Elinruby (talk) 12:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elinruby: When in doubt, check some reliable sources:

Cambridge reports burnt and burned are both valid verb forms for the past tense and past participle (in British English), with the order reversed for American English.
Collins notes that the "past tense and past participle is burned in American English, and burned or burnt in British English".
dictionary.com lists verb forms as burned or burnt in American English, and burnt or burned for the British English version.
Meriam-Webster is, I assume, American-focused, and lists burned or burnt as verb forms of burn, in that order.

All the above show burnt as an adjective in both English variants, and burned as a verb only. So your example of "the Nazis burnt all the synagogues" seems correct in both versions of English, although an American might prefer "burned" in that context. (Other English variants are available.) Bazza (talk) 12:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meriam-Webster here says: "Both burned and burnt are acceptable forms of burn. Both words can be used as adjectives, such as "burnt toast" or "burned toast," and both are acceptable as the past tense, although "burned" is more common in American English."? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinevans123: Perhaps M-W is not such a WP:RS after all: that contradicts its own definition of burned. Bazza (talk) 13:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Perhaps we should both strike out. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try rephrasing. If the sentence is "The Nazis had burnt down the synagogue", is there anything there that strikes anyone as wrong, or so distracting from the meaning of the sentence, that I should change it? It bothers me a bit, but I have already wrapped my mind around the fact that multiple cultures and educational systems have left me with a rather idiosyncratic ENGVAR, and if that is what this is, the topic area has actual issues with which I could more fruitfully and would rather concern myself. I see you are realizing why I wasn't sure, but that is the context for the question. Or is there agreement on what is the most reliable dictionary would be? Elinruby (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Burnt is a verb per the OED [7]. You cannot probably find a better RS than that! Modocc (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]