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.

September 22

Freshman, sophmore, junior, senior

Why does the US use these naming high school/college/university students for their years? The articles for each don't really explain why, just what they mean. Mingmingla (talk) 04:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "Straight Dope Science Advisory Board" has this to say on the subject: [1]. It starts out explaining just the origin of the term sophomore, but does go into the rest of the class names, their origins and how they came into use. --Jayron32 05:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Oxford English Dictionary similar terms were used as early as 1688 at Cambridge. The terms there were "Fresh Men", "Sophy Moores", "Junior Soph", and "Senior Soph" Sophomore. Freshman is the oldest of the terms to be used in the current sense. 'fresh-man' was used at Cambridge as early as 1550 Freshman. As for the the United States, "sophomores" was used in 1726 at Harvard, and 'junior' and 'senior' were used at least as early as 1766 to refer to students of lesser and greater seniority, though the terms were not yet attached to specific years. Of course, none of this can explain exactly why these terms are used, but it makes it clear that they have a long history! Mr. Kalish (talk) 16:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Studying English

Im an student from Iran and Im studying english language. I would like to continue my education on master degree at your university but Im not sure wether you have this major at your university or not? Do you have it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.133.149.94 (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We haven't got a university. We are Wikipedia, an international encyclopaedia. Many universities in Britain (and I suspect elsewhere in the English speaking world) have courses in English, but I think that at Master's level they will generally be courses in English Literature. There may be some departments that are more linguistics-oriented which will do a Master's. What are you hoping to study at that level?

You could try List of universities and colleges by country, and investigate some universities that seem attractive to you. --ColinFine (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the others said, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a university. Please see Wikipedia:Introduction, or in Persian, ویکی‌پدیا:آشنایی با ویرایش در ویکی‌پدیا. Once you find a university that you would like to attend, you can look at its website. Examples: University of Illinois, University College London, University of Tehran. Lesgles (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See English Schools Worldwide - Guide to English Language Schools & ESL Programs

and ESL Links - Learning English.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The questioner might be thinking of Wikiversity, which does have an English language division. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian Translation

I would not normally ask this, being a translator myself - because I understand the amount of work involved. But, can anyone translate this song for me? I'd like the original Hungarian and a translation into English, if possible. My Hun mate said he would do it, but he has been busy with work (primary school teacher, and needs to make his own materials). Cheers. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak Hungarian but this page seems to have the original Hungarian lyrics.--Cam (talk) 00:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, that gets me half way there. I could use Google Translate (which is being discontiuned in a couple of months), but I would prefer a proper translation. Cheers, though. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not being discontinued. Only the API was going to be discontinued, but they decided against that as well. See Google Translate. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, from what I heard the whole schmoogle was getting binned, as there were too many idiots offering 'alternative translations' for things and it was costing them too much sorting the chaff from the wheat, because the human propensity to do bollocks is right up there at the 100% mark, when you add interntet anonymity. Google! Thought you guys needed at least some sort of ability to think in common sense. Anyway, this is not relevant to my question. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 03:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google translate is most definitely not being discontinued, it's eaxctly as jpgordon says. --99.113.32.198 (talk) 04:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"carpet" vs. "carpets"

When I was growing up, we always used "carpet", the way fabrics are generally referred to (as non-countable substances); so it never had a plural "s" at the end. Eg. Wool, silk, and denim, which never have a plural "s", unless one is describing several different types (as in, "Various denims have different care requirements").

Sometime since my childhood (possibly due to internet access) I started noticing an increased use of "carpets". By my understanding, this is only technically correct if specifically referring to carpet segments that consist of different carpet types. However, this practice appears to be much more universally applied, with "carpets" replacing "carpet" whenever it's the object of a sentence (though not as a descriptor, as in "carpet cleaning"), since carpet can be said to be always plural.

Again, according to my understanding, if carpet is correctly referred to as a fabric (or substance, think linoleum or ceramic), then this is wrong, and more than 1 segment of the same type would still be referred to without the "s". Am I crazy or is this one of those grammar mistakes that caught on and is now widespread? References would be great (since I can't find them, and everyone grows up hearing stuff they assume is correct). Thanks in advance. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:37, 22 Sep 2011 (UTC)

It depends on whether the word "carpet" is being used as a count noun or a mass noun. If it would be possible to refer to a single floor covering as "a carpet" as in "I have a carpet in my living room and another carpet in my bedroom. Therefore I have two carpets.", would be a grammatically correct usage (replace "carpet" with "rug" and it works as well). I don't think carpet is a word like "fish" or "moose" which are count nouns that don't take modified plurals, instead I think it is a normally mass noun (referring to "carpet" as a fabric like "denim", as you say) which can also refer to discrete objects in a slightly different sense (i.e. a floor covering made of carpet is called a carpet). --Jayron32 23:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 23

Dash it all man, what's a Canuck to do?

In British English, is it "south west", "southwest" or "south-west"? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Googling might help. Whichever gets the most hits may well be the answer you need. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 03:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For me, 488,000,000, 239,000,000, and 1,140,000,000 hits, respectively. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 03:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't they teach English in Canada? μηδείς (talk) 03:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They have some strange dialect of our language, 'Murican. Also, Southwest is how we say it typically. :p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 03:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(EC x 3 ) Aye, an inexplicable and unsatiable desire to tell everyone how bear ate grandma, but no idea how to live in a foreign country which has no bears, no loghouses, no wild animals, etc. Lovely people. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 04:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KageTora, your search results are faulty for the hyphenated term. Maybe I should rescind that--Google is not apparently distinguishing between strict (quoted) search terms for me. In any case I get 104,000,000 hits for south-west. μηδείς (talk) 04:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My numbers were copypasted from Google. Have a problem, then shall it not be with me, but with Google. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 04:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't it depend on context? Here in the Kingdom of UK, the wind often blows from the southwest, but the Wurzels definitely come from South-West England. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The Wurzels certainly come from South West England (no hyphen). Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have we really reached the point where people at a language reference desk, when asked a question about spelling, refer the questioner to Google hit counts, which are a meaningless metric, rather than referring to, say, a dictionary? —Bkell (talk) 04:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and that dictionary would be..... pray tell.... :) KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 04:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't know, the Oxford English Dictionary, perhaps? Or any of the other various dictionaries published by Oxford? Or the Chambers Dictionary? —Bkell (talk) 04:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For example, both the OED and the Chambers Dictionary list "south-west" with a hyphen. The OED has many citations of its use with and without a hyphen, but lists only the version with a hyphen as an entry; Chambers does not mention any variant spellings. —Bkell (talk) 04:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems, if the OED's citations are representative, that since the 18th century the spelling "south-west" has been the most prevalent in the UK (by a pretty comfortable margin), while the spelling "southwest" is the most prevalent in the US. —Bkell (talk) 04:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well, by a pretty comfortable margin there have been more years since the 18th century than there have been years in, say, the last fifty years. Is the hyphen really still prevalent? I pick up The Economist from time to time and I would have thought I might have noticed that. --Trovatore (talk) 04:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't choose "since the 18th century" in an attempt to distort the facts. Here are the British uses since 1961 given by the OED:

1966 H. Davies New London Spy (1967) 241 To the south-west lies Chelsea, the arty quarter of London.
1968 Ann. Reg. 1967 326 The South African Government remained completely unmoved by United Nations' efforts to plan the implementation of the 1966 General Assembly resolution that South West Africa be removed from South African control.
1968 L. Blanch Journey into Mind's Eye (2001) vi. xxv. 309 Hardly less furious is the Koultouk, or south-west wind, and the Bargouzine, which rages across the lake from east to west.
1969 Times 30 Jan. (Ethiopia Suppl.) p. iii/3 The south-west corner of Ethiopia is an area inhabited by Sudanese lowland fauna.
1972 Nature 8 Dec. 339/2 The discharge curve for Iceland was constructed‥by extrapolating seafloor spreading isochrons from the ocean floor immediately southwest of the aseismic ridge.
1972 B. Fuller West of Bight 133 Why, in the south-west, the term should be ‘falling’ and not ‘felling’ I cannot say, but so it is.
1976 ‘R. Macdonald’ Blue Hammer xv. 83 Mildred was the most beautiful woman in the South-west.
1980 Times 14 June 1/8 The Middle East, or south-west Asia as the Americans now call it.
1981 P. O'Brian Ionian Mission ix. 255 This is part of a poem about the Courageux, Captain Wilkinson, running plumb on to the Anholt reef by night, wind at south-west, double-reefed topsails and forecourse, making eight knots.
1993 Vintage Roadscene Sept.–Nov. 149/3 Goodall had now started to work out of Devon Concrete to all parts of the South West.
2002 D. A. Agius In Wake of Dhow ii. 26 The seamen embarked on their long journeys towards India before the monsoons blew south-west and made their homeward journey in winter with the northeast winds.
2006 K. Mitchell in B. Edwards Courtyard Housing iv. xvi. 178/2 The primary visitor's entry occurs on the south-west façade and leads to the public areas of the house.
2008 Nature 6 Mar. 24/1 On 3 January 2005, a fisherman working 25 kilometres off the southwest coast of Florida noticed that the baitfish in his seawater tank were spinning and dying.

When used as a short form of "South West Africa":

1976 J. McClure Rogue Eagle i. 22 Ma‥said she'd write to her family in South West, but he said that was just another Bantustan these days.
1978 S. Naipaul North of South ii. vi. 245 Abraham had been in Namibia (‘South-West’).‥ It was in South-West‥that he and Tessa had met.

—Bkell (talk) 05:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that, if you haven't noticed "south-west" in The Economist, it may be because their house style omits the hyphen. It seems from the above citations that Nature uses "southwest". —Bkell (talk) 05:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nature abhors a vacuum. That's their problem, though. "Southwest" makes as much sense to me as "vicepresident", "bluegreen algae", "referencedesk" or "alot". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 05:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See how the fates their gifts alot

For some are happy; Jack is not

American usage, obviously, but see Southwest Airlines and North by Northwest. And in Canada, History of the Northwest Territories. And in Australia, Southwest Australia. But in England, South West England. ←baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, I believe the tendency is not to use a hyphen. To describe places, two separate words would almost invariably be used (South West England, etc.), but to describe a wind direction, for example, they would often be combined as one word. For example, "winds today in South East England are expected to come mainly from the southeast" - or more likely, "...from a southeasterly direction." But I could be wrong, and alternative variants would probably not be considered odd. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

British English is a foreign language to me (though one of my stronger foreign languages). Given that, I wonder whether an attentive British editor would use the unhyphenated south west or South West when the term is used as a noun and the hyphenated south-west when the term is used as a modifier, in which case compounds are usually hyphenated. In my native language, American English, southwest is always one word, except in references to the historic South West Africa, where American editors would want to defer to the official spelling of that territory's name. Marco polo (talk) 14:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, note that written Canadian English often follows British standards, but not always. The authoritative reference for Canadian English is the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, and, if you are in doubt how to handle south-west/southwest, that would be the source to check. Online access requires a subscription. For what it's worth, googling within the ".ca" domain, southwest gets 17 million hits versus ~10 million for either south west or south-west. Marco polo (talk) 14:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not helping much but see also Sou'wester [2]. Alansplodge (talk) 20:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for the right format for directions in a British article. [Flip coin] I think I'll go with south-west and its ilk. Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that in many cases where it is spelled as one word in American the stress still appears on the second syllable. μηδείς (talk) 03:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Google thing is severely flawed; there are a vast number of English speakers in the world, only some of whom come from Great Britain (as the question asks). Therefore the Google results will post what has been written by everybody, whether or not they came from England, and whether or not they speak English well at all. Falconus^{p t c} 06:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grammer (sic)

Is this one of the most commonly misspelt words in Wikipedia? It's certainly one of the most annoying misspellings. I reckon I see it as at least part of the Edit summary for grammar corrections around once a week. Today's example is here. How can people so interested in getting the language right get this so wrong? (Yes, I know this is really just my pedantry on display, but isn't that what the edit is about anyway?) HiLo48 (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any statistics, but it's a commonly misspelled word; I'm not sure what more there is to say about it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Lists of common misspellings.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as commonness in WP goes, one I see very frequently in articles is lead for led. In discussions, "reign in" and "free reign" for "rein in" and "free rein" are very frequent, and those are ones I see a lot even in professionally published (though obviously not professionally edited) prose. Deor (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I write "lead" all the time. Had it corrected 28 times, I think. Have it wrong in my head, clearly. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Using "-er" not "-ar" when the sound is the same is perhaps understandable; even if you believe not, the problem is also repeated in "calendar" and perhaps more (possibly "alter" supposedly meaning the part of a church). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit that my post was a bit of a rant. I can accept minor misspellings much of the time, but when they occur in the context of correcting someone else's language use, they stand out a lot more. HiLo48 (talk) 21:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Those who correct others (and there is still a place for this, despite the politically correct times in which we live) must be triply sure to have their own houses in order, lest they be shown up as hypocrites or idiots or laughing stocks.

This project operates on consensus, yet how often do we see editors waxing lyrical and spelling it as "con" tacked onto census. It's nothing to do with counting heads - or votes - despite appearances. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That example îsn't quite ironic, because it is a spelling and not a grammatical error. (The spelling of that edit summary you mentioned is really in the toilet.) What I find hilarious is when people say pronunciation as [pɹʷˤəˈnɑʊnt͡siˌeɪʃən] instead of [pɹʷˤəˈnʌnt͡siˌeɪʃən](that's how we Canadians say it, anyway). Everyone whom I have corrected on this topic has appreciated the irony and laughed. Inter change able|talk to me 22:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If someone complains about my pedantry, I apologise for being such a "pi-dent" or "pay-dent" and wait for the correction. If none comes, I at least assume they took the apology. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC) [reply]

And not just the edit summary, Interchangeable. The edit itself changed:

Diseases, including cholera which affects some 3 million people each year can be largely prevented when …

to:

Diseases, including cholera affect some 3 million people each year can be largely prevented when …

Still hopelessly wrong (worse, in fact, than the original). It ought to be something like:

Diseases, including cholera, which affects some 3 million people each year, can be largely prevented when …

The 2 parenthetical commas are essential to the meaning. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I have seen grammer here so often I assumed it was one of those silly affectations like gaol, not an unwitting error.

You are spot on with the commas, Jack. But I would also change "can be largely prevented" to "can largely be prevented." The former sounds somewhat like saying the pregnancy was largely prevented.μηδείς (talk) 02:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Medeis. I'd agree with your other idea, too. But I don't see "grammer" as an affectation - nobody ever writes "grammetical" (not even New Zealanders :). Many write "grammer" because they've seen so many others doing so that they actually think it's correct. Maybe one day it will become the accepted way of spelling the word. Not in my lifetime, hopefully, and not if I can help it - but one lone voice has so little influence over these things. That's how a great deal of language change starts out - a ripple of error and ignorance, which soon becomes a tsunami of correctness, and what was once indisputably true and right becomes relegated to "old hat" or "pedantry". Some people jump on the language-change bandwagon very early, usually with indecent haste; others, like me, do so only when a loaded gun is pointed at their head. I still see value in commanding the tsunami to stop and go back whence it came. Some losing battles are worth losing. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 02:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I see misspelt Edit summaries as part of that tsunami. I wish we could correct such errors. HiLo48 (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spelt is pretty much archaic by now; in my opinion spell has become a regular verb. Inter change able|talk to me 22:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's bad news. I always created the past tense normally, as "spelled", until people here convinced me that "spelt" is the standard way now. You're telling me I have to reverse that decision? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If "spelt" is archaic, maybe I am too. HiLo48 (talk) 22:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spelt is not exactly archaic; it's still grown as a legitimate crop, and you can buy bread made from it. It's a niche item though. --Trovatore (talk) 23:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a trend we should avoid getting sweeped up in. μηδείς (talk) 01:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus swept. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 02:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of English irregular verbs supports both spelled and spelt as past-tense forms of the verb spell.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pure speculation, but could some of this spelling be related to Kelsey Grammer? Much like beatle for the insect, or Haley's Comet (after Bill Haley and his Comets? --Trovatore (talk) 07:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anecdotal here, but when I lived in South Yorkshire, the spelling of "grammer" was quite common: as was the word "grammer", which was a contraction of "grandmother", an alternative spelling of "grandma". I thought the two were related. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The teacher comes to little Johnny's house for a visit. When she knocks at the door, Johnny himself answers.

"Hello, Johnny, may I speak to your mother, please?"

"She ain't here."

"Johnny! Where's your grammar?"

"In the kitchen, bakin' cookies."

(Yes I know, that one's got whiskers on it.) Angr (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deeply popular

There are 712,000 ghits for "deeply unpopular" but only 35,000 for "deeply popular". Why would that be? Is it that popularity is a shallow, ephemeral sort of thing, but people only get really serious when discussing how unpopular somebody is? What is the corresponding adverb to go with "popular", and who makes these decisions anyway? Why wasn't I consulted? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of deeply, highly, and heavily, we can simply say very.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As semi-fixed phrases, I would think that the commonly-used opposite of "deeply unpopular" would be "highly popular"... AnonMoos (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. 'Good' is above 'bad' in most (perhaps all?) cosmologies. - 'heaven' is above, while 'hell' is beneath our feet. As for why, Claude Lévi-Strauss may give us a clue, and I'm sure that evolutionary psychology has an opinion on it, but it just seems to be the way we visualise things... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. But "deeply" does not imply "lower". One who studies a subject deeply gets into complexities; this doesn't lower their thinking, it broadens it. In the unpopular case, it just means dislike/hatred of the person is widespread. The like/love of another person could be just as widespread, just as "deep". But I guess people generally have a mental scale that's vertically oriented, with good/positive attributes on top and bad/negative ones at the bottom, hence the highly vs. deeply allusions. Pianists tend to see things in a left-right horizontal paradigm, where neither hand is either good or bad. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 03:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the deep notes are on the left.... HiLo48 (talk) 04:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC) [reply]

"Deep notes"? I know not such terminology. I know about high and low notes or pitches. People with deep voices can still sing high and low notes, within the limits of their ranges. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 05:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC) [reply]

You're not blessed with soaps for two hours every night, with omnibus editions at the weekend, and when the soaps aren't on we have interviews with the actors and telly people giving themselves a pat on the back by showing us compliations of excerpts from past episodes. People love to kick off. It's not surprising that 'deeply unpopular' gets more hits. People love having a go at other people, even if they are fictional. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 04:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, Jack, that you both pose the question as if you are ignorant, and dismiss the answers given as if you were an expert. Which is it? I find it hard to credit that you fail to undestand deep means profound only when the surface is the superficial. Nor do I think you fail to comprehend the contrast of high versus low. You play the sophomore par excellence. μηδείς (talk) 05:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, one more thing I do well, to add to the 3 other things in my micro-panoply. But wait, I don't even know what "play the sophomore" even means; that's how much of an "expert" I am. I haven't dismissed anything. Or anyone, but I might be tempted. We're having an interchange of ideas and opinions here. You got a problem with that? If you can contribute something meaningful, please be my guest. Otherwise, less armchair analysis of my modus operandi would be appreciated. None at all would be excellent. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 06:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sophomore, that's one of those American words never used anywhere else that I've never bothered to work out the exact meaning of. Something to do with college (whatever that really is in America) or university, I gather.

I'm well aware what sophomore means; and for those who don't know, we have links here. But "play the sophomore" is a phrase I am unfamiliar with. I'm sort of getting it was meant as a put-down in the guise of a compliment; but I remain welded to AGF until that's confirmed. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See #Freshman, sophmore, junior, senior (anticipated archive at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2011 September 22#Freshman, sophmore, junior, senior).

—Wavelength (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really responsive to Jack's question.

I think the stereotype is that sophomores (college sophomores, not high school) have acquired a certain level of intellectual self-confidence perhaps a bit in advance of their actual intellectual accomplishments, and are prone to engaging in facile paradoxes. There's a word, sophomoric, that I think is related to this stereotype. --Trovatore (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 24

India in Himachali

how do we write the word "india" in himachali language? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.64.197.8 (talk) 11:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Himachal Pradesh#Demographics lists some two dozen languages spoken in that state, but none called "Himachali". Which language do you mean? (Not that I'll be able to answer your question when I know, but maybe someone else will.) It's also unclear whether you're asking what the "Himachali" word for India is or whether you're asking how to transliterate the English word India into the writing system used for "Himachali". Angr (talk) 11:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

passive to be?

Am I able to write in a passive tense with the verb to be?Exx8 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Yes. ("I want my question to be answered.") rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be is used to form the passives of other verbs, as in Rjanag's example above, but it doesn't form a passive itself. So while The question is answered is grammatical, *The question is been is not. Angr (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further, "to be" does not take a direct object (in traditional grammar, that is, although we sometimes find it useful to pretend otherwise). You can't "be" something, in the sense of doing something to that something, like eat or hit or fold or destroy it. Hence, a something cannot be "beed". Any verb that doesn't take a direct object has no passive form: "go" is another example. ("The bus is gone" is not an example of passive, despite appearances.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not "beed" - but rather: "been":)

Note that, just as:

"I have done my homework" - means that: "my homework was done by me" (and that's why we use the same word - "done" - in both sentences),

and:

"I have shown the picture to you" - means that" "the picture was shown to you by me" (and that's why we use the same word - "shown" - in both sentences),

so:

"I have been Hamlet in the show" - means that: "Hamlet was been by me in the show" (and that's why we should use the same word - "been" - in both sentences).

Yes, the last sentence - is not grammatical, but it's according to the rules, much more than saying: "Hamlet was beed by me in the show".

HOOTmag (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be is the most irregular verb in English, and also the most important. It is the only verb with more than two forms in the present (I am, you are, he is, we are, they are) and the only verb with more than one form in the past tense (I was, you were, he was, we were, they were). Inter change able|talk to me 23:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, HOOTmag, it is precisely not according to the rules. It is according to an analogy you have chosen to apply, which happens to be counter to the rules (the real, innate ones) of English. The question of what the relevant rule is, and why, is the subject of this question.--ColinFine (talk) 10:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I meant by "according to the rules", i.e. according the rules one can extract (or "invent" by analogy) from passive forms like "done", "shown", and likewise. HOOTmag (talk) 10:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know some children who use be as a regular transitive verb meaning "to play the part of." I have heard "He bees Luke" as in Skywalker. I'll have to see if I can elicit "Darth Vader was beed by him." μηδείς (talk) 01:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The matter is of philosophical interest. Although the orthodoxy is that be is not transitive (cannot take an object, has no passive form or use), the folk talk and think as if it did, as the children of Μηδείς do. Consider Arnold Schoenberg's response in this exchange (as it is reported in our article):

A superior officer demanded to know if he was "this notorious Schoenberg, then"; Schoenberg replied: "Beg to report, sir, yes. Nobody wanted to be, someone had to be, so I let it be me."

As if "being" someone could be an act, consequent upon some deliberate choice. The children might dispute as follows, before play begins in earnest: "I don't want to be Roger Ramjet. I want to be Astroboy. You be Roger Ramjet." It would be fair to ask who, if anyone, Roger Ramjet gets to be been by, yes?

Luminaries are, by and large, persuaded that this is all a big mistake. But some have been led far up the populist path of Volksdenken, notably with thought experiments of the type What is it like to be a bat? A fine survey of the issues is to be found in Dennett and Hofstadter's The mind's I. Hofstadter's analysis of Thomas Nagel's piece bearing that question as its title is thorough, but leaves to the end the observation that there may, after all, be no "beable things" (BATs, Hofstadter ingeniously calls them: things it is like something to be). That should have come first. It is not like anything for anything to be anything, ever. Things are: and as a consequence of that elementary fact, they are what they are and how they are. Only by a thing's being something it is not (per impossibile) could there be any notional prospect of that thing acquiring a quality sheerly by being that other thing. None of that makes any sense for the ordinary run of things. (What would it be like for my umbrella to be my iPad?) Only when we entertain such nonsense for ourselves – a rather special class of things, from our point of view at least – is there the illusion of sense here. What would it be like for me to be Roger Ramjet (or for Roger Ramjet to be been by me ☺)? Nothing at all, say I. What is it like for me to be me (sc. I)? Nothing at all! (What is it like for Μηδείς to be Μηδείς? Especially nothing at all, in that case.)

Nothing "is" anything in any active sense, pace children and folk. It follows that nothing is "been" by anything, except trivially and therefore dismissably by itself. (The attempted passive construction counterintuitively suggests action – on something's or someone's part, usually someone or something other than the referent of the grammatical subject.) So even if the folk are mistaken, the folk's language has somehow had it right all along.

But it's the children I'm worried about.

Noetica^Tea? 06:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit off-topic for the language desk, but personally I think Dennett and his ilk must surely know they're wrong. They essentially attempt to deny the existence of subjective experience, even though they (presumably, assuming they're not p-zombies) do in fact experience things subjectively. They are very very clever in trying to explain this away, but in the end it can't be explained away. --Trovatore (talk) 06:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The children clearly use the word in the sense of to play, portray or enact, each of which (Macbeth was played by McKellan) uncontroversially takes the passive. Left to their own devices, a la Lord of the Flies, their vocabulary would be stunted and words would have to take on new roles, such as the transitive be, in order to express concepts for which we have different specialized words. I am minded of the term ens which was coined in Mediaeval Latin to provide a form of the word esse need in philosophical discourse which did not exist in the classical language. μηδείς (talk) 17:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noetica, your comments are sound and your wordplay enjoyable. Trovatore, you are correct, Dennett is too clever by half, but a stimulating read. Much of Dennett's problem lies in his using words as if they were just there, and as if concepts didn't have any developmental history. Concepts such as doubt, proof, and objectivity are all learned when we come painfully to realize that our ideas may contradict each other or reality. Weren't our awareness of reality and our awareness that we are aware prior, there would be no background from which to differentiate the ideas of falseness, fallacy, unconsciousness, and so forth. If the difference between dreaming and wakefulness weren't already known we could not even formulate the sophomoric question as to whether this is all a dream. One cannot know what doubt means without already knowing even more certainly what certainty is. μηδείς (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know some children who use be as a regular transitive verb meaning "to play the part of." I have heard "He bees Luke" as in Skywalker. Does this mean, then, that these children are fully capable of explaining:

Yes, I know he is not Luke Skywalker. He merely bees him.? JIP | Talk 18:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noted quite acutely over the summer that they used is in the normal sense and bees as the third person singular present meaning "to play the part of". (They also say such things as doed and goed. The younger one, advising the rest of the family that Mom had said in the car that they would dine at the burger chain Fuddruckers ran in the front door and announced "We're going to Bloodsuckers!") I am afraid that if I were to question them directly I would get a self-conscious answer. Given that school has begun I may not get a chance to observe them in the proper conditions soon, and the development in their speech skills is rapid and noticeably different over a period of a month or so. μηδείς (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong and right on languages

How do Linguist know which speaking or writing is right, and which isn't? I mean, languages are born usually by some groups which split from their main group and begin to speak differently. Exx8 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Linguists know what is right and wrong in language by observing how native speakers use the language. Some constructions are correct (or, to use the term preferred by linguists, grammatical) in some dialects but not in other ones. For example, some dialects in Western Pennsylvania and neighboring parts of Ohio allow the construction My car needs washed. And some dialects in England allow the construction I was sat at the table. Neither of those constructions is grammatical in my dialect of English, but they are grammatical in other people's dialects. Angr (talk) 16:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like Angr says, linguists' business is not "knowing which speaking is right". You may be interested in reading about prescription vs. description (this is summarized in the 2nd paragraph of the 2nd link). rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know from observation that "You want smacked?" is good Scottish. What is the implied meaning of "I was sat at the table"? Can you provide a paraphrase? It seems fine to me. μηδείς (talk) 00:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... similar to "I was stood at the bar", and "I was laid in bed" (yes, one does really hear that in the UK when the meaning is "I was lying in bed". Correctness is in the eye of the grammarian! Dbfirs 07:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well, bed is one of the most comfortable places for that to happen, if not exactly the most adventurous. --Trovatore (talk) 07:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see what is supposedly problematic here, mostly because I am not sure what is meant. I was sat at the table could mean either I had sat at the table myself or that I had been seated by the host. The second is unproblematic and the first would come out more naturally as I was seated rather than sat, but still no real difficulty. μηδείς (talk) 17:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was problematic, I merely said it's ungrammatical in my dialect. AFAICT "I was sat at the table" means "I was sitting at the table". Angr (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the sentence simply mean "I was seated at the table" which can be either perfect or imperfect in sense? How is this different from Ich war gesessen? μηδείς (talk) 02:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Angr was just pointing out the common "error" of using ""I was sat at the table" to mean "I was sitting at the table" rather than "I was seated (by the host) at the table". Evidently some dialects consider it "correct". Dbfirs 09:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per Angr, "I was sat..." means "I was sitting". By contrast, "Ich war gesessen..." means "I had sat...". Marco polo (talk) 14:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hasten to reiterate that I do not consider "I was sat at the table" to be an error. It's a syntactic construction that's grammatical in some but not all dialects of English. The same is true, coincidentally, of German Ich war gesessen, which is grammatical in Southern German dialects but not in Northern German ones (nor in the written standard), which use Ich hatte gesessen instead. And yes, "I was sat at the table" is a simple past, while "Ich war am Tisch gesessen" is a pluperfect. There's no significant semantic difference between "I was sat at the table" and "I was seated at the table", but because seat is a transitive verb while sit is an intransitive one, "I was seated" is probably grammatical for everyone. The only transitive use of sit I can think of is something like "I sat her down and gave her a stern talking-to", and I suppose that can be passivized to "She was sat down and given a stern talking-to", but in that sentence, "She was sat down" is not semantically identical to "She was sitting down", as it is in "She was sat down on the sofa, watching telly" (which is ungrammatical for me but not for friends of mine from England). Angr (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... also considered an error by many in England, of course, as I was said. Dbfirs 22:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about written language though? Would you consider "I would of sat down at the table", rather than "would have", to be correct because it's a mistake lots of native speakers make? (and even in spoken language too in UK) - filelake shoe 23:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Writing "I would of..." instead of "I would have..." is a mistake - spelling has clear rules and is independent of grammar, so it's no violation of the "descriptive principle" to label a misspelling as wrong. (One of my pet peeves is people confusing matters of orthography - spelling and punctuation - with matters of grammar.) But speaking it that way is not a mistake, because [əv] is the weak form of both of and have, so it's not a mistake to say [aɪ wʊd əv...]. Angr (talk) 15:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This, with the alternate paraphrasings:There's no significant semantic difference between "I was sat at the table" and "I was seated at the table", but because seat is a transitive verb while sit is an intransitive one, "I was seated" is probably grammatical for everyone. The only transitive use of sit I can think of is something like "I sat her down and gave her a stern talking-to", and I suppose that can be passivized to "She was sat down and given a stern talking-to", but in that sentence, "She was sat down" is not semantically identical to "She was sitting down", as it is in "She was sat down on the sofa, watching telly" (which is ungrammatical for me but not for friends of mine from England). -AngrFinally clarifies the issue for me. I would not, in my east midland American dialect, bat an eye at ""She was sat (down) on the sofa, watching [TV]". (This is probably because my dialect is closest to Shakespearian English.) But were I writing formal non-fiction I would be indoctrinated enough to know to say "seated" and not "sat". μηδείς (talk) 19:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 25

Medical term: Appropriate morpheme for "interstitial fluid"?

("Interstitial fluid" is the fluid between the cells in our body, but outside the bloodstream.)

The medical term for "too low blood glucose" is the word: "hypoglycemia" (uk: "hypoglycaemia") which consists of the three ~~latin~~ greek morphemes:
1.Hypo (=Having a lower than normal ammount of ...)
2.Glyc (=Having to do with glucose)
3.Emia/Aemia (=Having to do with properties of the blood).

I need a similar word for: "Too low glucose level in the interstitial fluid".
Well, I guess it will be: "Hypoglyc<something>" but I need help with the <something>-part. :-)
Do you know? or could you please help me with an educated guess?
Esocul (talk) 01:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may be more likely to get an answer to this at the Science reference desk. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose this isn't really the point, but "hypoglycemia" is all Greek, not Latin. "Interstitial" is Latin, however. The modern Greek for interstitial fluid is "Μεσοκυττάριο υγρό", "intercellular liquid", so I guess you could use the "liquid" part ("υγρό") and say "hypoglycugria". Adam Bishop (talk) 07:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But Adam, that element is aspirated (it occurs in words with "hygr-" in English: "hygrometer", "hygric", "hygrophanous", etc.). And of course the υ would go to a "y", as in the "glyc-" element. It would therefore be "hypoglycohygria" or "hypoglycygria" (compare "[hypo]glycaemia" of course; but contrast "hyphaemia", in which the rough breathing of the "haem-" is respected). Noetica^Tea? 08:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But Noetica, consider "hypoglycaemia", which is not "hypoglychaemia" or "hypoglycohaemia" (though I think it should be the former). In answer to the question, how about "lymph"? Our article says "Lymph is considered a part of the interstitial fluid", though it is actually the part which is no longer interstitial but concentrated into vessels. "Lymph" looks Greek, (though it is actually Latin), so "hypoglycolymphia" does not look too awful. --ColinFine (talk) 11:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More generally and less analogously, there is glycopenia for shortage of glucose (see for example neuroglycopenia). I suppose you could call it "interstitial glycopenia", though google yielded no hits for this term. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does the word you are looking for mean something other than dehydration, exsanguination, or low blood pressure? μηδείς (talk) 02:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

English Term...requires citations?

The name "Malvinas Islands" is used in English as an alternate name to the Spanish term "Islas Malvinas". The most common English name for the islands is "Falkland Islands". A user in the article's talk page is demanding that I provide a source which "verifies" that "Malvinas Islands" is an English language term. My understanding is that common knowledge does not require citation. "Malvinas Islands" is obviously an English term (less common than the other term, but English nonetheless). I would like to hear the opinion of the language experts here. ~~Does the English term require citations to "demonstrate" that it is an English term, or is this simply an unreasonable demand?~~--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not the place to ask, but any statement like to be challenged should be referenced. In the case of some incredibly controversial islands, their name is going to be one of them. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps my question was indeed worded incorrectly (RSN deals with the citation). What I meant to ask here is whether "Malvinas Islands" is an English term or not?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what you mean by a term. Malvinas Islands is, of course, a perfectly good English translation of Islas Malvinas. However, I think the editor's concern is that Malvinas Islands is not commonly used in English publications at all (presumably Falkland Islands is used instead), and therefore would like to see some evidence since you assert the contrary. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have provided the editor in question with a GoogleBooks search in which the term "Malvinas Islands" is used (in various forms). To quote him directly: "not one single source has been put forward to verify the presumption that Malvinas Islands is an English language term". In other words, he is questioning whether "Malvinas Islands" is an English term or not. Hence my question. An English language term does not require citation to demonstrate it is an English language term...it's simply a matter of common sense. Hence why I came here and not the RSN board.

To the question of whether "Malvinas Islands" is an English term or not, should I take your response as a yes or no? Thanks again for answering. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, to me Malvinas Islands does not seem a natural English translation of Islas Malvinas. I think Malvinas is in the role of a plural adjective in Spanish. According to the article it's a translation from the French adjectival form Malouine, derived from the place name Saint-Malo.

In English we don't pluralize adjectives, so I think if there's an English-language form that translates Islas Malvinas directly, it's probably Malouine Islands or some such. --Trovatore (talk) 20:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To help provide a better picture to the situation. It would be like him claiming that I need a source to claim that "Republic of Peru" is an English term. This is not a matter of citations (hence no need for the RSN), but rather a matter of language. "Republic of Peru" is the English term, while "Republica del Peru" is the Spanish term. Similarly "Malvinas Islands" is one of the English terms for the Spanish "Islas Malvinas" (the most common English term being "Falkland Islands"). I hope this example helps.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a form I have ever encountered in English, so I would say it is not an common English term, and requires citation. The common English name for Las Islas Malvinas is The Falkland Islands, not The Malvinas Islands. Peru is irrelevant, because it hasn't a distinct name in English. The common English name for (die Stadt) München is (the City of) Munich, not "The City of München". --ColinFine (talk) 23:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Trovatore, the term used in English is "Malvinas Islands" (not "Malouine Islands", though I agree that it sounds better and is historically much more accurate). A simple GoogleBooks search demonstrates this. I can present it here if you would like?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Malouine Islands" does have usage, but not as much as "Malvinas Islands" or "Falkland Islands". It's interesting, nonetheles, so thank you for bringing it up Trovatore. Here is the GB search on the term [3] ("Malouine Islands"). I'd bring it up in the article, but then it would probably get deleted.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mistranslations can achieve common usage, although the prevalent name for Islas Malvinas in English is the Falkland Islands or the Falklands, not the Malvine Islands or Malvines (or whatever). A more famous mistranslation would be Islas Canarias, which comes from the Latin for "Dog Islands" but is called "Canary Islands" in English. ←baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None have really answered the question so far, however. GoogleBooks has 10,100 results ([4]) of the term "Malvinas Islands". Is it or is it not an English term? Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is perfectly cromulent as far as I can see. If an English speaker, for some reason, didn't want to call that archipelago by the name used in the UK, then why would they not use "Malvinas Islands", on the same basis as Bugs quoted above for the Canary Islands? And if there are 10,000 results on Google Books for it, then why would it not be considered "an English term"? I've just done a Google search using that term, and 224,000 results are returned, including some international news sources. I'm with you on this one. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the result is skewed by uses such as "Falkland/Malvinas Islands" and "Falkland (Malvinas) Islands". I otherwise pass no comment. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So if I search for a term using inverted commas to enclose the term, would the search result include items such as you have quoted above? Because that's what I did. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question you should be asking is not "Is 'Malvinas Islands' an English term?" but "Is 'Malvinas Islands' an alternative name for the Falklands in English?" The former is irrelevant, the latter requires proof. By comparison, "United Arab Emirates", "donkey", and "International Commonwealth of People who Hate Sport on TV" are valid English terms, but none of them are names for any islands in the South Atlantic. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The insistence that the phrase Malvinas Islands needs a source to show it is an English term is tendentious. The question is rather whether Malvinas Islands is (one of) their English name(s). The answer to that is no. A search of google books finds the usage Malvinas Islands fraught with political implication. A typical neutral description is:

James Patrick Byrne, Philip Coleman, Jason Francis King - 2008 - 967 pages FALKLAND /M ALVINAS ISLANDS The Falkland (the British name) or Malvinas Islands (the Argentinean name) are an archipelago in the south Atlantic, about 300 miles off the continental coast of South America. The islands were first occupied ... books.google.com

The proper lead sentence would be something like: The Falkland Islands' are a British territory of the South Atlanitic disputed by Argenitina which refers to them as the Islas Malivinas. The explanation (or Malvinas Islands) could be placed after Islas Malvinas but it doesn't seem necessary and does seem to be pushing a very obvious POV. μηδείς (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly confused about what all this is coming down to. Some of you seem to agree that the term "Malvinas Islands" is indeed an English term, and other seems to disagree? What is the decision? Also, mentions of "POV" and other whatnot should be left for other places (Such as the NPOV noticeboard). Please just focus on the question at hand. This is the Language Desk. Proof exists that the term is used as an alternative name for the islands (even if political, the term has English usage). The question remains the same: Is the term "Malvinas Islands" an English term? I need concrete answers so that we can finish the discussion in the talk page. Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly an English term in a broad sense, seems to me. And yes, it is sometimes used in English sources, if rare relative to other terms for the islands. If the question is just whether it is an English term, then the answer is yes, I would say. I'm not sure I would use it myself. "Islas Malvinas" seems more common in my experience. I've seen the islands referred to simply as "the Malvinas" (eg, [5]), similar to "the Galapagos", and even "Las Malvinas" ([6]). For what it's worth, GEOnet Names Server lists Falkland Islands and Islas Malvinas as "approved", and lists "variant" names Falklands and Iles Malouines. Also, personally, "Malvinas Islands" sounds a bit odd to me in the same way Negro River, instead of Rio Negro, sounds odd. Another example: I don't understand why the English Wikipedia uses the name San Juan River for the Mexican Rio San Juan, a tributary of the Grande River. On the other hand, no one seems to have any problem with "Galapagos Islands". In short, my answer (or opinion at least) is "yes, but..." Pfly (talk) 04:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One further comment. This topic is dominated by the modern conflict over the islands, which quickly turns discussions political and pro- or anti-Britain/Argentina. Most of my encounters with the name Malvinas come from history books, especially those about Spanish exploration. Historians might use one term or another for modern political reasons, but often it seems to me the use of "Malvinas" is appropriate when describing, say, the Malaspina Expedition of 1789-1794. It is like using La Florida or The Californias. It is from history books about Spanish Empire related topics that I've more often seen "Islas Malvinas" or just "the Malvinas". But "Malvinas Islands" is sometimes seen too, for example, [7]. Pfly (talk) 04:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Pfly. "Malvinas Islands" is not the most used name for the islands, but that is not the purpose of this query. It does seem to be mainly a historical name, used for political reasons as well, but it's undeniable that the term is one of the English version for "Islas Malvinas". The most common name is, obviously, "Falkland Islands," and this is undisputed.

The purpose of the question is simply to confirm whether this term is an English term or not. In Talk:Fakland Islands, a user is demanding that I provide sources to "confirm" that "Malvinas Islands is an English term". However, this is impossible because no source exists which actually states "Malvinas Islands is an English term" because common knowledge does not require citation. By establishing here in the language desk that "Malvinas Islands" is an English term (with minority usage, but still English), there exists no need for me to provide any such source for his strange demand. Thanks again for the response, and hopefully my explanation helps to better explain the situation.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 05:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you are ever going to confirm this, because it can always be claimed that "Malvinas Islands" is just the English translation of a Spanish term, but if you can find citations from reputable newspapers and published books that use "Malvinas Islands" without quotation marks, then you would be on firmer ground. Dbfirs 07:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter whether it's an English translation or a natural English term. The point here is simply to establish that it is an English term. Published books, as demonstrated by the link provided by Pfly, do indeed use the term without quotation marks. I think for the most part the Reference desk is in favor of "Malvinas Islands" being an English term, or am I getting it wrong?

JackLee

Bugs

TammyMoet

Pfly

Trovatore

ColinFine

μηδείς

This is the list of users that have directly answered the question without heading off into other topics. If "Malvinas Islands" is an appropiate English translation, therefore one of the terms used to refer to the islands (less common, but still used in English), then it is an English term. The 4 v 3 ruling seems way too close. I would like to give it until the end of the week to see what ends up being the "decision" from the Language Desk. Either one has to agree that it is an English term ("valid" translation counts as well), or disagree ("not a valid translation" claim also counts here). Sorry for the complicated subject, but surely it must be somewhat entertaining to think about it. Hehehe. I'll abide by what is decided here, so please do express your opinions.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 11:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to put some background to this discussion. Malvinas Islands is not an equivalent English language name for the Falkland Islands as such. You will see it in Argentine documents translated into English as they refuse to use the term Falkland Islands, sometimes as a result when the UN publishes Argentine documents you will see it there. It became a cause celebre amongst certain left-wing fringe groups, eg the Socialist Workers Party to refer to the Falklands as the Malvinas Islands but this is WP:FRINGE use and per WP:DUE not something we'd typically include. You also sometimes see it in documents as a translation of the Spanish term eg The Falkland Islands known in Argentina as the Malvinas Islands. You also see the ISO Designation Falkland (Malvinas) Islands or variations thereof which produces a false positive in a Google books search. All of which we'd be happy to include in an etymology section. All of this can be cited, however, Marshall wishes to state it is an English name without attribution, when clearly it is not. He has provided no source whatsoever to back up his claim that it is an English name for the islands even in minority usage. Effectively he is demanding we include the Argentine name and its translation into English ie giving undue prominence to the Argentine name by giving it twice.

The crux of the matter is somewhat different and revolves around Islas Falkland as a name for the islands with minority usage in the Spanish language, although at one point was almost as common a term as Islas Malvinas[8]. The use of Islas Falkland produces a violent reaction among Argentines, for reasons I do not entirely fathom, example [9]. It was a term that was even used in Argentina as late as 1941 [10]. In addition, Argentina has lobbied successfully to have the term banned in Mercosur and Unasur countries. Note that in each case the use of the term Islas Falkland can be supported by cites per WP:V and WP:RS

Marhsall has suggested a quid pro quo ie don't mention Islas Falkland and we won't have to mention Malvinas Islands See [11] and [12] for example. Despite acknowledging it is a term used in the Spanish language eg [13], I find the rationale for excluding it from wikipedia at odds with the policy of WP:NOTCENSORED.

I also note that Marshall did not have the courtesy to note this discussion at Talk:Falkland Islands as he would normally be expected to do. He is lobbying hard for you to support his position, without giving full information as to what has provoked the discussion. He makes an extraordinary claim, which does rather require extraordinary proof; something he is unable to provide. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Gods must be crazy. In your first paragraph you clearly state that the term "Malvinas Islands" has usage in the English language. It doesn't matter whether it is used by fringe groups or my grandmother's knitting association. If "Malvinas Islands" is used in the English language as a valid alternative name for the Falkland Islands, it is therefore an English term and that requires no citation (Common knowledge is not something to be cited).

Also, the Language Reference Desk only deals with, you guessed it (well, probably not), language. If you have any other issues to handle, please take it to the appropiate noticeboards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't what you were arguing though. You argued that Malvinas Islands (as opposed to constructions such as Falklands/Malvinas Islands or Falklands (Malvinas) Islands) was used as a standard English-language term in a modern context by a significant minority of English-language sources (you claimed one of Malvinas Islands for every ten of Falkland Islands) "simply as an alternate name to the territory, with no political intent". We can verify that as your position as of three days ago here. The only source provided for this claim being the Google Books search above, which doesn't verify any of those points. Since then you have outright refused to provide any cite that would suggest that the name belongs in the article.

Now, I always figured the reference desk was for questions not about article changes, but for more general questions about stuff, but this point is as much a language issue as your original question, and I believe that it has been answered quite clearly in the negative: Malvinas Islands does not enjoy such status. Pfainuk talk 18:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone with a British library card can access references to the use of the term as follows:

...sovereignty over the Malvinas islands, reflects the spirit of the Argentinian ^[1]

..."To the Fallen in the Malvinas Islands and South Atlantic", ^[2]

...Centre of Ex-combatants of the Malvinas Islands, said his group was a stooge of ^[3]

...to the mine situation in the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands. May I reaffirm ^[4]

...he supported Argentina's claim to the Malvinas islands during the Falklands war,

...his right arm, and a silhouette of the Malvinas Islands signal he is one of the

...statement that British aircraft "based on the Malvinas islands flew over various

...normally lives off the Falklands/Malvinas Islands in 5,000 metres of sea. Mr

... The sense of threat surrounding the Malvinas islands, regained from the

...our claims on the Malvinas islands are along fully peaceful paths.' Mr Blair

...Argentina to solve the 'Malvinas Islands' dispute peacefully. Amid increasing

...would want to hang on to the God-forsaken Malvinas islands? Well, Margaret

...big screen. Sovereignty of the Malvinas islands, as they are known in Argentina,

...said that our claims over the Malvinas Islands are being pursued along a fully

...British occupation of the Malvinas Islands, a territory of Patagonia".

...government return the Malvinas islands to the Argentinian people." Later,

...his forces to seize the Malvinas Islands. Then head of Argentina's military

...opinion poll conducted in the Malvinas Islands (reports, November 3 and 4) calls

...in the waters around the disputed Falkland/Malvinas Islands. Credit: --(AFP)

...invaded what it considers its Malvinas islands in 82 and got a bloody nose from

...election? Football? The Malvinas islands? No: crime. As passengers are

...and the Falklands/ Malvinas Islands, and society and development in Latin

...Kingdom is illegally promoting in the Malvinas Islands. "The Argentine

..."We have said that our claims over the Malvinas Islands are being pursued along

...which refers to the islands as the Malvinas Islands, calls for exploring "all

...called the Malvinas Islands. Mr Keogh is anti-Irish and a daft Englishman

...once again our sovereign right over the Malvinas Islands". For Argentinians,

...Falkland/Malvinas Islands, just weeks after my posting to Argentina for the

...the Falkland (or Malvinas) Islands, which has been reignited by the arrival of

...over the Malvinas Islands." Desire said drilling was expected to take about

...British military base in the Malvinas islands, whose operating capacity extends

...have said our claims for the Malvinas Islands are along fully peaceful paths,"

...stand against the "usurpers" of the Malvinas islands is itself a reminder of

..."we will see the Argentine flag flying in the (Malvinas) islands". Our own

...forums over the Falkland (Malvinas) islands issue. "The rights of Argentina over

...prolonged occupation of the Malvinas Islands (the Argentine name for the

...post-Falklands. 'Our Malvinas Islands are doing well,' came the frosty reply.