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.

December 8

Who came up first with U and J?

I had thought that Gian Giorgio Trissino was the one who came up first with these letters, but I now read at fr:Antonio de Nebrija that he was earlier. However, there is no reference given for that claim. Our article Antonio de Nebrija doesn't mention any of that. Given that this was the most successful innovation to the Latin alphabet{{cn}}, one would think it would be better known. — Sebastian 20:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article "J" says: "Gian Giorgio Trissino (1478–1550) was the first to explicitly distinguish I and J as representing separate sounds, in his Ɛpistola del Trissino de le lettere nuωvamente aggiunte ne la lingua italiana ("Trissino's epistle about the letters recently added in the Italian language") of 1524."

—Wavelength (talk) 20:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it has been in there since 2008 (and is probably where I got the idea from), but the reference is just his œuvre, not anything that supports the claim that he was the first. — Sebastian 22:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per SebastianHelm, are we sure he invented the practice? It sounds like he was merely documenting the practice which already existed. --Jayron 32 00:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the Latin script for a long time there were no U/u and J/j pairs but V/u and I/i/j. When and how exactly all these glyphs became not allographs but were rethought and resorted as different letters U/u, V/v, I/i, J/j, is difficult to say. But the breaking point had to be when the independent captal U and J appeared. I doubt that the work of Sr. Trissino was influental, but that that idea could come to mind of various people independently. That must have happened during the 16th century in various languages.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 9

Addressing a Formal French Envelope

Reading through save-the-date proofs from the calligrapher for our wedding. The calligrapher rightfully indicated that one-word house numbers should be spelled out when addressing formal envelopes-- Ten Main Street, Fifteen West 34th Street, etc. However, she didn't know what to do for the envelope we're sending to our friend in Paris (let's pretend it's "16 Rue Dauphine"), so she just left the numeral "16" instead of spelling it out in any language.

With that background, my question is, to follow with the formal format, should we spell it out as "Soixante Rue Dauphine?" Is that something that is done in formal French writing etiquette? (I realize that it'll get there regardless, but we have the opportunity to "do it right" so I'm really just curious what would be considered correct!) Please indicate your qualifications for answering when responding, or point me to a source if you could! Jared (t) 16:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, it's Seize Rue Dauphine. However, I think the calligrapher is wrong, house numbers should never be spelled out. Most mail is sorted automatically these days, and the address recognition systems expect numerals for house numbers and post codes. This is also confirmed by several web sites discussing the issue, e.g. [1], [2]. --Wrongfilter (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a native French speaker but please wait for some other French speaker advice here, as I'm not very knowledgeable on these things. All I can tell you is that it's very unlikely (and a bit risky as Wrongfilter pointed above) to see numbers in letters on a French enveloppe. Also, you must not use capital R for rue, no capital A for avenue, no capital B for boulevard, etc, and you must use a comma right after the number, like this: 16, rue Dauphine. Inside the enveloppe is another matter entirely. You can write the invitation in whichever style you like, numbers in letters, etc, no problem. See http://www.francaisenaffaires.com/capsules-linguistiques/lentreprise/adresses-de-correspondances.html Akseli9 (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Event though it's against the French typographic rules, French Mail recommends not to put a comma after the number and to write the name of the town in capital letters without diacritic marks. 16 rue Dauphine [On an another line] 75006 PARIS. See (in French) [3]. Inside the enveloppe the typographic rules should apply, if the text is in French… – AldoSyrt (talk) 09:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The truth is that the United States Postal Service doesn't really like you to write out numbers as words, either. (They also like all caps, and block letters, as far as it goes.) If you go to the USPS website and enter an address like that in the ZIP-code lookup app, it will return a numeral, make no mistake. I tried to find a formal rule on the website and failed. I did find many blog posts from people who got invitations back, or heard from their local post offices that such addressing led to a need for hand sorting and subsequent delivery delays.

What I learned as a kid was not to write out "one-word" house numbers, but rather to write out house numbers up to and including "ten". I have seen other versions of that rule go as high as "twenty", but not higher than that. Additionally, I have learned from experience—I live on a numbered street of value below ten–that using the word version of my street name rather than the numeral version leads to delays. Formal etiquette is very nice for a wedding, but the sorting computers do not care. And the most important thing is to get the invitation delivered, right? 'Nuff said. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 10

Lemony Snicket word

A decade ago, I came across a long word online that was said to come from one of the Lemony Snicket books. The word meant "the state of not having the slightest clue what someone is talking about". It had -llavia in the middle and ended in -temexity. After some searching, I couldn't find what the word was. The site that I found it on, the famous Langmaker, has been down for years. Khemehekis (talk) 07:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it "Pietrisycamollaviadelrechiotemexity"?

For polonophones, the Polish translation is "Pietrisykamolawiaderechtomeksja". Fantastic. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! That's it! Thank you! Khemehekis (talk) 07:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very vs much; MS Word grammar advice

In an MS Word document I have the text "...this technique requires very specialised skills and equipment...". MS Word is recommending I change the word "very" to "much". Should I comply? ----Seans Potato Business 13:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. Bazza (talk) 13:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. I never assume that MS Word grammar (green) underlines are valid. That's very different from the spelling (red) underlines. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation given for this suggestion reads as follows: "It is incorrect to use 'very' directly in front of certain verbs. Consider substituting 'much'. Instead of: The past should be very remembered. Consider: The past should be much remembered." So it's incorrectly assuming that "specialised" is being used here as the past participle of the verb "to specialise", rather than an adjective, which is how it's being used. --Viennese Waltz 14:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page has some guidance, as does this one. --Jayron 32 16:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Replace "very" with "highly". That sounds much better, to me. StuRat (talk) 16:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure it doesn't sound highly better? Or very better? --Jayron 32 17:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Highly" would be very much better. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about Highly Sellasee. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 18:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or his ne'er-do-well cousin, Lowly. (That's the second time in a week I've used that one. Go figure.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Microsoft Word Spelling and Grammar Check Demonstration.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maya glottal stop: Typography

I have a question about correct typography when using a Maya name in a document. Which would be the most appropriate character to use for the glottal stop? (The article on Maya language did not go into typographic conventions.)

the right single quote mark U+2019 ’
the typewriter apostrophe U+0027 ''
Unicode's "modifier letter apostrophe" U+02BC ʼ
any of these
some other character

Thanks! --Ginkgo100^talk 16:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The glottal stop is a distinct consonant in Polynesian languages as well, and in those languages there is a specific typographic convention: the ʻOkina. Of course, if someone else has a specific Mayan convention which is well referenced, use that of course. But in the absence of one, perhaps you could press the ʻOkina into service for that purpose. Another option is Glottal stop (letter) which is a different glyph for the same sound; it is noted to be used in other languages. So there's two choices. --Jayron 32 17:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response! I thought of the ʻokina but it is apparently only used for Hawaiʻian and related languages. The accepted modern orthography for Mayan languages uses an apostrophe for the glottal stop. But there is more than one variation on the apostrophe in Unicode, and I am almost compulsive (maybe too much so) about these minute details. If it turns out nobody is really sure, that would be a sign to me that it doesn't actually matter which apostrophe variant is used. --Ginkgo100^talk 20:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's Witnesses have published information in the Yucatec Maya language (http://www.jw.org/yua/ and http://wol.jw.org/yua/wol/h/r40/lp-may). Perhaps you can decide by examining the appearance of the character used.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article at http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/10/13/25-years-bible-translation-mayan-language-completed/ refers to a Bible translation into the Tzotzil language. (Jehovah's Witnesses have published the Greek Scriptures of the Bible in Tzotzil at http://wol.jw.org/tzo/wol/binav/r91/lp-tzo/bi7/TZO/2014.)

—Wavelength (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Standardized orthography is discussed at http://research.famsi.org/mdp/mdp_orthography.html.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See On the representation of the glottal stop in Maya writing (PDF Download Available).

—Wavelength (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See "Saltillo (linguistics)".—Wavelength (talk) 23:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

General principle: if you write in a technically restricted environment use 0027. In a typographically conscious environment use either 2019 or 02BC as they look identical. But in a Unicode conscious environment and when the distinction is required, use 02BC, as the main role of 2019 is for the right single quotation mark or apostrophe. The drawback of 02BC, though, is the lack of this glyph in most fonts (but some default MS Windows fonts (Cambria, Segoe, etc.) have 02BC anyway). --Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 16:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Animal equivalent to "personality" ?

If a stranger comes home with you, your pet may run and hide, cautiously approach, or jump right in his lap. So, clearly some pets have different "personalities" than others, but this word seems inappropriate, since they are not people. What word do scientists use, say when discussing the behavioral differences between dogs and wolves ? StuRat (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ethology. --Jayron 32 19:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, you can't say "those two dogs have different ethologies". StuRat (talk) 05:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the linked article will lead you to the correct words to use, either directly, or because you follow sources within that article. That's how the Reference Desk works. Not that you've ever learned that. --Jayron 32 11:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to think you're not allowed to give an answer here, only sources (although you recently gave an incorrect and unsourced reply and then covered it up, deleting my reference in the process: [4]). The answer, given below, is "temperment", and I thank those who actually bothered to answer. StuRat (talk) 06:59, 12 December 2015 (UTC) [reply]

You're allowed to give referenced answers. You're not allowed to make up shit you think you heard one time, nor are you allowed to give answers that you think "just make common sense" with no references. Also, what I did there is called "admitting to and fixing your mistake". Since you have never done that ever once here at Wikipedia, you probably didn't recognize it. --Jayron 32 21:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mean you covered up your mistake, as opposed to leaving it there and admitting your mistake. And I have admitted when I've actually made a mistake, so you are wrong once again: [5]. Will you admit it this time, or just remove this thread, too ? StuRat (talk) 06:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Actually, the term personality is used. [6] Marco polo (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there is a preferred term among animal behaviorists, but you could use "temperament" instead of "personality." The meaning is nearly equivalent. --Ginkgo100^talk 20:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think "personality" is fine. They may not be people, but they're arguably persons. --Trovatore (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From the journal Bioscience, a nice descriptive quote on usage from a peer-reviewed source:

“

Animal personality studies have crept into the field of biological sciences under various monikers, including behavioral syndromes, coping styles, animal temperament, and interindividual variation.

”

See full article here [7]. There's nothing wrong with saying a dog has a personality, but if you want to sound more sciency you might say that two dogs have different behavioral syndromes. Note the word "syndrome" modified by a specifying adjective. "Syndrome" is used in a lot of ways in science that often surprise people who associate the word only with disease. Actually I should point out that our article on syndrome is terrible, because it only covers the medical sense (ETA- I have now added a short bit to that article mentioning other uses). We also speak of seed dispersal syndromes and pollination syndromes, etc.

"Temperament" is the word commonly used by breeders, trainers, and other people who interact professionally with animals. For example, most of our articles on dog breeds have a section on the behaviors commonly associated with the breed, e.g. Collie#Temperament. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What does ETA mean here ? StuRat (talk) 05:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Estimated Temperament of Animals. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ETA=Edited To Add - thought it was somewhat common here, sorry for the confusion. (ETA- I have added this usage to ETA_(disambiguation) :)SemanticMantis (talk) 14:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've often heard "personality" used for dogs and cats. It works fine. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Behaviourists use temperament, actual folks use personality. μηδείς (talk) 02:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- People use both. Two dogs with broadly similar personalities could have differences in temperament. And vice-versa. There's no need to issue a ukase (or even an ukaz) that one and only word is to be used. (That might indicate an authoritarian temperament, and little or no personality at all.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence was merely an excuse to gibe behaviourists. Paying strict attention, you will notice those were third person indicative, not second person imperative verbs. But, while we're at it, can you translate and explain, if necessary this poster: http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02518/boris-poster_2518270b.jpg, @JackofOz:? Thanks.

"Walking Together" Congratulates Comrade Zyuganov and His Comrades-in-Arms on the 10th Anniversary of the CPRF. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I had missed the я in congratulates, and never learnt the participles. That тов. was comrade, and that Zyuganov was not z yuganov also didn't help. μηδείς (talk) 04:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 11

Link Grammar

Is there a theoretical motivation for link grammar? Every description I've been able to find seems to imply it's a purely ad hoc algorithm, but it would seem reasonable for a theory to reflect linkages across words within sentence constituents and also reflect boundaries between constituents, and link grammar and syntactic merge both seem to do this. Peter Grey (talk) 23:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 12

I don't give a damn

Consider:

I don't give a hoot
I don't give a tinker's cuss
I don't give a fuck

These are always said with the stress on the thing that's not being given (the hoot, the cuss, the fuck). That makes sense. Yet when the thing that's not being given is a damn, the stress tends to be on the verb "give". That might make sense when a damn was already under discussion, and a different verb is now being introduced. To contrive an example:

What's your opinion of damns?
I'm indifferent to them.
Why's that? I like them. In fact, I cherish them.
Well, you're free to cherish a damn, but I don't give a damn.

(I did say it was contrived).

I've always wondered why people say it this way when there's no pre-existing context. Was it just because that's the way Clark Gable spoke and people copied him? I mean, it would sound odd if people started saying "I don't give a tinker's cuss" rather than "I don't give a tinker's cuss", wouldn't it? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I stress your first three differently, so I'm not sure that you're premise is universally correct enough to lead to the dilemma you note. --Jayron 32 21:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Jayron32. It sounds normal the way the Butler did it. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm many things, Jayron, but I am not yet "premise" -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Yes, the rumors of his premise were greatly exaggerated. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC) [reply]

I think the difference is whether or not the phrase is being stressed as a unit or if the verb and noun are stressed independently. All of them could be stressed on the noun or the verb; I think the difference is that "give a damn" is more strongly established as a set phrase. Peter Grey (talk) 03:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it always stressed on "give"? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, not always, especially in not give a damn about something. Peter Grey (talk) 04:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What Clarityfiend is alluding to is the influence of the line "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn", delivered by Clark Gable as Rhett Butler in the film Gone with the Wind, with the emphasis on the "give" rather than the "damn". This was probably done to soften the blow of the word "damn", which was considered shocking in a film at that time. The word "frankly" was probably added for the same reason - in the book, he says "My dear, I don't give a damn". --Nicknack009 (talk) 10:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OR, but I would lay money on the term being shortened from something like "I don't give a [damn] care/thought," along the lines of this exchange. μηδείς (talk) 04:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The song "Games People Play" by Joe South clearly puts the emphasis on the word "damn", not "give" . . . or at least on the part where the word "damn" would be. Khemehekis (talk) 05:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I refer people to the scene at the end of "Gone with the Wind" where the male protagonist tells the female "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn". I once read (apologies for no reference here but it was in a UK newspaper a long time ago) that Clark Gable was told to alter the emphasis from that which was normal to lessen the shock to cinemagoers at the bad language used! --TammyMoet (talk) 10:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct; 'Such profanity was forbidden under the Production Code and Selznick had to pay $5,000 to the Motion Picture Producers and Distributers of America for permission to use that line, the shock effect being slightly diluted by Gabel's delivery, where he shrewdly places emphasis on "give" rather than "damn"'. From The Routledge Encyclopedia of Films (2015), edited by Sabine Haenni, Sarah Barrow, John White. Alansplodge (talk) 12:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, that really gets to the nub of my question. Had the above issue not been an issue, Rhett Butler would have naturally said "Frankly, Scarlett, I don't give a damn", and the world would not have blown up. But he said "... give a damn", and millions of people have followed suit. Such is the legacy of Clark Gable. Thanks, particularly to my two intrepid British compadres. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

You can accept that if you like, User:JackofOz, but the problem is that "damn" is a verb, and Rhett Butler uses it as a shortened form of damned as in "damned thought" or "damned consideration". As for the emphasis, I have no opinion, given we're listening to direction, not actual usage. μηδείς (talk) 02:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't accept that "damn" is a verb here. Wiktionary:damn recognises damn as a verb, adjective, adverb, interjection or noun, depending on the context. As a noun, the 3rd usage is:

(profane) The smallest amount of concern or consideration.

and the example given is, lo and behold:

I don’t give a damn. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 14

Your man

Christopher Hitchens quoth that Sir Kingsley Amis was ′what the Irish call “your man” when it came to the subject of drink′ here. Nothing strikes me as particularly Irish about the phrase your man, but I might be wrong. Any thoughts from the rest of the Anglosphere? --Edith Wahr (talk) 00:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase sounds particularly Irish if it's being used in the sense of "that guy". They would say "your man" or "your woman" (or "yer", actually) to refer to someone who is causing trouble and they don't want to refer to them by name/be associated with them. This is in contrast to "our man/woman", or "our [name]", when referring more positively to someone. However, my only source for this is my wife's Northern Irish relatives, so it's possible that I've misunderstood them... Adam Bishop (talk) 02:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like "The dude" à la "The Big Lebowski", given the different meanings in Spanish and the same difference in "My Man's Gone Now" as best performed here by] the greatest, Nina Simone. See also Sinead O'Connor. μηδείς (talk) 02:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Englishman living in Dublin here. The Irish refer to any specific adult male as "yer man", meaning "that fellow over there" or "the chap we were just referring to". Women can be "yer woman" or "yer wan" (your one). For example, "Come her till I tell ya. Sure, I was only in town yesterday, and didn't I see yer man O'Malley with some woman. He's only after breaking up with yer wan too. Sure, it's a terrible thing, you know yerself" (Listen, I've got some great gossip. I was in town yesterday and I saw Mr O'Malley with a woman. And he's only just broken up with his ex. Isn't it terrible?)

The quote above is written by an Englishman about an Englishman, so it doesn't really fit the Irish usage exactly, but I think Hitchens is suggesting that Amis is 'that guy'. Other Anglophones might use 'your man' differently - something like "If you want to know about how to skin a cat, Charlie's your man", and I think Hithens is getting the two usages confused. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 11:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"...And your man / Mick McCann / From the banks of the Bann / Was the skipper of the Irish Rover." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase seems to have a peculiarly Irish meaning, as Adam Bishop says above. I've met a similar usage in the phrase "A pint of plain is your only man" which is the title of a poem by Flann O'Brien. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Irish English as Represented in Film by Shane Walshe (pp. 144-145); "One of the most common colloquial expressions in Irish English is the use of your together with man. woman or one to make reference to a specific individual, often someone who has already been thematised in the exchange". There is also a reference to this in A Dictionary of Hiberno-English: The Irish Use of English by Terence Patrick Dolan (p. 258) but Google Books won't show it to me. Alansplodge (talk) 11:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]