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.

June 1

Popularity of verbates

Per my knowledge, "orientate" and "administrate" are the most popular verbates. Does Wikipedia have any article talking about the popularity of verbates by some people?? (No, this doesn't mean simply any verb that ends in -ate; I want you to figure out yourself what it means.) Georgia guy (talk) 23:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. μηδείς (talk) 01:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Despite your wish for us to figure out ourselves what it means, you also might wish to clarify: are the verbs listed in wikt:Category:English words suffixed with -ate the ones you mean? (Note that it does not simply list "any verb that ends in -ate": "hate" and "mate" are not on in that category, for example. Unfortunately it lists adjectives and nouns too, though. See also wikt:-ate#Suffix, number 7). ---Sluzzelin talk 01:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, "verbate" means "to reproduce word for word" - presumably, then, a back-formation from "verbatim". If that's not what the OP means, then he's got some 'splainin' to do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this means adding an unnecessary -ate ending (to orient and to administer being perfectly good verbs with exactly the same meanings as their extended forms). However, that does not seem to be a grammatically correct use of the word "verbate" which does mean to repeat something word for word (verbatim), and does not seem to be recorded anywhere with this new meaning. I can't immediately think of other examples. 86.191.126.192 (talk) 08:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty sure that, for those neologists, the thinking is not take administer, and add -ate, but instead, it is take administration, and try to make a verb out of it. And they follow the pattern that they are familiar with of ordination-ordinate, nomination-nominate, acceleration-accelerate etc. etc. --Lgriot (talk) 12:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now, for clarification, what 86.191.126.192 assumes it means is on the right track; it means put "-ate" verbs into existence from -ation nouns that originally came from verbs without -ate. But the key when it comes to my use of "verbate" is that I find it surprising that there's no widely used special name for this kind of verb. Georgia guy (talk) 13:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the related verb form to "ordination" is "ordain". The back - formation is not present in a word like "commentate" which implies a string of "comments" (which can be used as either a noun or a verb) for which the related noun is "commentary". 151.224.162.114 (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Wiktionary entry for 'ordinate' is clearly indicating that ordain is not the only verb for describing the act of ordination.

Verb

ordinate ‎(third-person singular simple present ordinates, present participle ordinating, simple past and past participle ordinated)

1.(transitive) to ordain a priest, or consecrate a bishop

--Lgriot (talk) 12:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I remain appalled that "coronate" is considered an acceptable variant of "crown" (v.). Some people just can't seem to pronunciate their words good. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that this is yet another case where English has two words for the same thing, one derived from French and one from Latin. See fr:Constitutions religieuses. 151.224.163.159 (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

French itself is derived from Latin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2

What they would show at daybreak is the question here at issue.

The context is as follows: "One hundred and twenty acres, according to the County Clerk, is the extent of my worldly domain. But the County Clerk is a sleepy fellow, who never looks at his record books before nine o'clock. What they would show at daybreak is the question here at issue. Books or no books, it is a fact, patent both to my dog and myself, that at daybreak I am the sole owner of all the acres I can walk over. It is not only boundaries that disappear, but also the thought of being bounded. Expanses unkown to deed or map are known to every dawn, and solitude, supposed no longer to exist in my county, extends on every hand as far as the dew can reach." (excerpt from "A Sand County Almanac" by Aldo Leopold) I 'm not so clear about what the sentence---"What they would show at daybreak is the question here at issue"---means.Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.213.41 (talk) 13:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is that the 'legal' extent of the author's land is 120 acres, but as a practical matter, he has free range over as much territory as he pleases, and that the land is so expansive and (by the sounds of it) untouched, that legal definitions of boundaries and ownership are unimportant. So, "what they would show at daybreak" (when the authority to define legal boundaries is not present) is the practical, in the author's opinion more meaningful, reality than what would be shown by lines on a map. some jerk on the Internet (talk) 14:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would read this as meaning that at that hour he can do whatever he wants on other people's land because nobody is around to stop him. He does mention that the normal boundary markers (fences, gates etc.) are present to delineate other people's property. 151.224.162.114 (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Literally, the sentence means there is an open question about what property limits the county record books would show if they were opened at dawn. In fact, there is no real open question. Of course they would show the same limits as they would show at nine o'clock. Figuratively, the sentence has the meanings others have suggested, namely that there is a question whether there are any effective limits to the author's freedom of movement and action exist at daybreak. Marco polo (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute — you're telling me daybreak happens before nine o'clock? --Trovatore (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC) [reply]

I understand that this was discovered by Ben Franklin, as reported in his satirical essay that is sometimes cited as seriously proposing Daylight Saving Time. —Tamfang (talk) 08:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Interesting you mentioned that. At the Land Registry all incoming postal applications are entered in the "Day Book" as having been received at 9 a.m. They have to do it that way because if you were to walk in and claim a title at (say) 09:59 and someone else walks in to claim the title at 10:00 you get it and she doesn't. The time they go by is Greenwich Mean Time (or its summer replacement British Summer Time), so if you're going by radio time signals (UTC) you may be pipped at the post. Were you to file your claim electronically at, say, 01:55 BST and someone else files ten minutes later at 01:05 GMT I wonder who would get the land? 151.224.163.159 (talk) 14:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 3

Japanese "tei!"

What does "ていっ" mean, in the context of a battle? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.94.21.194 (talk) 15:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interjection that you use when attacking. As far as I know it's just a cry, not derived from any particular word or phrase, but I'm not sure. I searched several online Japanese dictionaries but none of them have it. Google is basically useless since most hits are for phrases that happen to have ていっ in the middle. Bing gives much better results, but I still didn't find any useful discussion. -- BenRG (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if Kiai is relevant here. Alansplodge (talk) 23:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It probably is. I don't know anything about martial arts. -- BenRG (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Chotjewitz in need of German help

Help! David Chotjewitz is a German novelist, who has written at least one book that has done quite well in English translation but our article on him says he became a "publisher", after dropping out of high school, I think, (perhaps we mean printer?)if you know German can you take a look at the sources, and fix up whatever you can. Thanks!

No, the German article says he was a Verlagsbuchhändler, which means publisher not printer. --Viennese Waltz 19:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What does that mean? So, English speakers might understand it? Is there a more natural way to say whatever he was in English? (Like what did he do as a high-school drop out publisher (editor?) Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ver- "for-" or "out" lag- "lay" bookhandler. That is someone whose business with books is to put them forth, i.e., a "publisher". (I'll mention that German publishing companies, like Springer Verlag, just use the shorter term, Verlag. :::There's an episode of Keeping up Appearances where Onslow is reading Springer Verlag's Chaos and Frctals in bed, which shocked me, as I had been given the same book as a birthday present when it was first printed.) μηδείς (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't doubting that. So, can someone explain what he did, actually? Like, in English. He obviously was not Springer or Der Spiegel. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC) Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know exactly what he did. According to the Friedrich-Bödecker-Kreis's website, he had trained as a Verlagsbuchhändler in order to later become independent/self-employed as a writer and translator. Part of his apprenticeship/training was done at Rowohlt, and their jobs website lists it among a variety of jobs, and explains that, in 2010, the training program for Verlagsbuchhändler had been replaced by the one for Medienkaufmann/-kauffrau Digital und Print. The current program looks like it gives trainees a comprehensive and non-specialized run through all the sectors and departments that compose the publishing trade. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Federal Institute for Vocational Education and Training (BIBB) has an occupational profile in English for "Medienkaufmann/-kauffrau Digital und Print" which it translates as "Media agent for digital and print media (m/f)". ---Sluzzelin talk 12:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, so it's a formal training program run by the publishing house. That's a helpful English summary. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wording of the opening sentence of a question

Being spring it is time for teacher interviews again. One of the questions we have starts "School team have a variety of roles within in the school." This seems to me to be strangely worded. The school principal disagrees. Is it fine as is or should it be reworded? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"team" should be plural and the "in" is extraneous. Other than that, it's OK, although I might say "serve roles" versus "have roles". (But maybe they are interchangeable, since, if I "serve rolls", then we will "have rolls" with dinner.) StuRat (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The bigger problem is the language skills of the principal (or perhaps language skill within of the principal). Clarityfiend (talk) 21:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. Should have said that there is only the one school team. Anyway, should the sentence not start with "The"? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 01:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. "The school team has a variety ...". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

... but it's probably the members of the team that have the roles, and so the sentence should say this: "The members of the school team have a variety of roles within the school." Alternatively, if the team itself as a group has these roles then the above advice to keep the singular "has" will be correct. Dbfirs 11:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

However, if different members of the team have different roles, then it is also true to say that the team has a variety of roles. It's also a question of how finely the roles are specified. If it's not untrue to say that the job of a team leader is to "lead the team", that doesn't mean that the job can't be broken down into any number of particular tasks, or sub-roles, or roles. Sorry for the quadruple negative. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:44, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not only possible, but certain, that the members of a team have different roles, such as student, outside the team, or offence and defence, within the team. That does not mean the team has different roles. They may do nothing more than compete in their sport, which would be a single role, or they might also perform other roles, like holding charity events. StuRat (talk) 16:12, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. I think the extra "in" was a typo on my part. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this related the Br/Am split over how to talk about e.g. companies? In American Eng we say "Microsoft is a doing X" but in Br Eng they say "Microsoft are doing X." See Comparison_of_American_and_British_English#Formal_and_notional_agreement. I don't know which is more common in Canada but that might be part of the confusion over whether a "the" or "members of" is required. I'd say no "the" is required if the name of the group is "school team". Otherwise "the school team" or "school team members" or similar would be a vast improvement IMO. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Context has a lot to do with it. A Briton would say "Microsoft is quoted on the NASDAQ market", but "Microsoft is bringing out a new browser" and "Microsoft are bringing out a new browser" are equally valid constructions. 151.224.133.26 (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maori(?) addendum of The Lone Ranger intro

The intro text of Quantum Jump's 70s hit The Lone Ranger is basically the Maori mountain Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateaturipukakapikimaungahoronukupokaiwhenuakitanatahu - but only 3/4 of it, then there is another line:

Taumata-whaka-tangi-hanga-kuayuwo

tamate-aturi-pukaku-piki-maunga

horonuku-pokaiawhen-uaka-tana-tahu

mataku-atanganu-akawa-miki-tora

What does this mean? Does it mean anything, or is it merely gibberish? --KnightMove (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User mi includes User:Tarzipan and User:Funauckland and User:Victoriaclark86.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, thank you. --KnightMove (talk) 05:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now I have asked User:Axciom, the others have been inactive for a long time. --KnightMove (talk) 05:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, it is about 75% gibberish. The two words that are not would be "mataku", a verb to fear, and "tora", an adjective meaning to be ablaze. The rest of the words could be proper nouns that have not been capatilised because the whole word is a proper noun and thus requires no extra capitalisation, and appear in the-form-you-see-them to agree with the hyphenated form of the rest of the word. I'm sorry I can't tell you what the other words mean, I'd assume they're names. Perhaps feedback from other speakers? Axciom (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Axciom: Can't help, but it seems to me that line 3 should be:

horonuku-pokaia-whenua-katana-tahu - Akld guy (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Odds

Which is correct, "70% is good odds" or "70% are good odds"? ScienceApe (talk)

It might depend. "With your CV, you've got a 70% chance of getting that job, and 70% is good odds in this market". That's the usual way.

But "At the races today, 30% of the horses I wanted to bet on were unbackable odds-on favourites, but 70% were good odds". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's straightforward: "70% is good odds"...."70% and 80% are good odds."68.48.241.158 (talk) 01:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, if you want to talk about "odds" you should be saying "7 to 3 in favor", not "70%". If you express it as a percentage or a pure number ("70%" or "0.7") then it's correctly called a probability or, in non-technical speech, a "chance" or a "likelihood". But in practice many people do not make this distinction. --69.159.60.83 (talk) 04:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction is this:

70% is twice 35%

70% of the cake is inedible

70% of the cakes are inedible

In bookmaking parlance, "in favour" is odds - on, as noted above. There's a misconception about backing odds on favourites - the lower the price the less money the bookie makes - that's why they make a killing when a rank outsider comes in and lose millions when there's a run of favourites. At some point the percentage turns in favour of the backer, but you need nerves of steel to put down twenty thousand pounds to win a grand. The odds against Brexit are about 5/2 I believe, so you could get maybe 1/4 on Remain - I wouldn't bet the house on it.

In the example cited, a seven pound bet would win three pounds, total return ten pounds. The corresponding tote dividend would be one pound 43 pence to a one pound stake. A bookmaker would not offer odds of 3/7, however. The nearest price would be 4/9, which means that if you bet seven pounds you would win three pounds 11 pence, for a total return of ten pounds 11 pence (before tax). 151.224.167.104 (talk) 11:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed your confusing change of indentation. --69.159.60.83 (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Yet, it was reported that bookmakers suffered large financial losses due to Leicester's totally unpredicted Premier League title this year. --Theurgist (talk) 10:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to this [1] the bookies seem to have had things very much under control. I'd be interested to see the report which said they miscalculated. 151.224.132.45 (talk) 11:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All this says is that the odds were being updated as the events unfolded. Nowhere does it say if the bookies made money or lost money from the eventual outcome. On the other hand, a quick Google search produces plenty of articles explaining how Leicester's title cost the bookies tens of millions of pounds – although, indeed, they seem to avoid mentioning if and how bets cast throughout the season on non-winning teams compensated that payout. --Theurgist (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 6

dignity of a July morning

Another question about Aldo Leopold's "A Sand County Almanac": I can't figure out why the author uses the phrase "dignity of a July morning" when he says that "Like other great landowners, I have tenants. They are negligent about rents, but very punctilious about tenures. Indeed at every daybreak from April to July they proclaim their boundaries to each other, and so acknowledge, at least by inference, their fiefdom to me. This daily ceremony, contrary to what you might suppose, begins with the utmost decorum. Who originally laid down its protocols I do not know. At 3:30 a.m., with such dignity as I can muster of a July morning, I step from my cabin door, bearing in either hand my emblems of sovereignty, a coffee pot and notebook..." The dignity should be mine, but why dignity of a July morning? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.221.166.249 (talk) 13:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the quote you provide, he doesn't. He says "with such dignity as I can muster of a July morning" which means "with all the dignity he can create on a July morning".--Phil Holmes (talk) 13:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which isn't going to be much at 3:30 a.m. I presume the OP understands that the "tenants" proclaiming their boundaries are the birds, so the writer is getting up very early to listen to the dawn chorus, but in July this is so early that he is still half asleep and therefore cannot exhibit much dignity. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To put this in context, I see that Aldo Leopold was a member of the United States Forest Service. 151.224.133.26 (talk) 16:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The OP is questioning the word "of" in the phrase "as I can muster of a July morning". This is an uncommon usage in current English but was previously more common. The Oxford English Dictionary gives the 52nd definition of "of" as "At some time during, in the course of, on", with citations such as "The father made his last Will and Testament of a Monday" (1839) and "All the Intellect of the place assembled of an evening" (1831). CodeTalker (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my parents' and grandparents' generations, the expression "of a morning" was common. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aldo Leopold was born in 1887, died in 1948. I have no idea when your grandparents lived but I suspect they were younger than Aldo. I agree the language of an eminent professor and naturalist born in the 19th century may be a little confusing to some modern readers. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Of a .." hasn't completely died out. I still sometimes hear it from people older than myself ... wait, they're all dead. But here's a Q&A about the expression. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The construction seems to have the merit of brevity. It is easier to say "of an evening" than "during an evening". 86.143.178.42 (talk) 13:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 7

Renaissance Capitals

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherubino (talk • contribs) 10:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an alphabet called something like "Renaissance Capitals" or "early humanistic capitals" with a reversed N (looking like cyrillic И) in english? [2] -- Cherubino (talk) 06:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an alphabet, that's a typeface -- apparently with two different glyphs for N. --51.9.70.242 (talk) 07:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The image is taken from here. It's a set of handwritten decorative letterforms found on a late 15th century German altarpiece, and the article does indeed describe it as "early humanistic capitals" ("Frühhumanistische Kapitalis"). If you can read German, you'll find a good explanation of the stylistic background there. Reversed "N"s seem to have occurred occasionally in this style, at least there are a few other examples in other illustrations in that article too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]