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.

August 9

David Collenette

I just noticed that in the David Collenette article, and I would assume others, he is referred to as "a Canadian retired politician." Wouldn't that be better worded as "a retired Canadian politician."? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see Adjective#Adjective order. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 13:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both Canadian and retired are adjectives, so, while "retired Canadian" is the preferred order, it is in no way a required order. See adjective order. μηδείς (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further, the list Dodger cited supports the original version. #6, origin, "Canadian". #8, qualifier, "retired". But, while "Canadian retired" is the preferred order, it is in no way required. --69.159.9.219 (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"retired" isn't a qualifier in the sense used in the list. A "retired politician" is not a distinct class of politician in the way that a "rocking chair" is a distinct class of chair. From a bit of messing about with what sounds idiomatic, I'd say it's roughly equivalent to "age" - "a beautiful retired politician", "a fat retired politician", but "a retired black politician", "a retired Canadian politician". Smurrayinchester 07:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Retired Canadian politician" is a tiny, tiny bit ambiguous. It leaves open the possibility that he hasn't retired from the (ig)noble profession in another country. Actually, now that I realize he's an interloper, "English-born Canadian retired politician" works better. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:56, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK this is making my brain hurt. In what variety of English is "Canadian retired politician" proper wording. It sounds very strange and somewhat discordant to me and the few others I showed it to. I changed it earlier but I did notice at the time that it could be confusing. So instead I changed it again. The first sentence could still be a bit ambiguous but it is clarified in the second. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Retired Canadian politician" implies that the gentleman could have retired from some other profession, such as teaching, and in his retirement became a politician. The alternative posed by the OP, "Canadian retired politician", describes him as firstly, Canadian, and secondly, as a retired politician. I'm assuming that the second meaning is appropriate for the individual, and it is therefore the correct version. Akld guy (talk) 05:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adjectives qualify their nouns. So "retired Canadian politician" indicates someone who has retired from politics and has Canadian nationality. Now, if there was a discussion about politicians from different countries who have retired from politics, "Canadian retired politician" might be the correct form. 92.23.52.160 (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought that "Canadian politician (retired)" might work. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by the original version. There is more of a difference between "retired politician" and "politician" than there is between "Canadian politician" and "politician". Therefore the adjective "retired" is the most essential one, the "qualifier" in the language of Adjective#Adjective order, and it belongs next to the noun. "Retired Canadian politician" just sounds weird, and "is a Canadian politician (retired)" is worse. --69.159.9.219 (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your original version, though slightly awkward-looking, makes more sense - because he's not a retired Canadian, he's a retired politician. He remains Canadian. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a straw man. Nobody "retires" from their nationality or citizenship. Your argument might make a tad more sense if we were discussing "a former Canadian politician". It is possible to be a former Canadian as well as a former politician, although nobody would ever take the "former" in "a former Canadian politician" to refer to anything but "politician" unless the context demanded a wider interpretation. And even then, saying that someone is "a former Canadian" does a terrible injustice to the reader, who will undoubtedly be wanting to know not just what his nationality was but also what it is now. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Cruz did. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Cruz is a former Canadian. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly. A former Canadian. Not a "retired" Canadian. Being a Canadian or any other nationality is not a profession or occupation from which one can retire. One can relinquish one's citizenship, but one does not retire from it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on how you interpret "retire". It actually means "to retreat".[1] And there's no question Ted Cruz has retreated from Canada. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered retirement from the reference desks? That might be a retreat for you, but a definite treat for us. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody has solved the problem by changing the article to "former Canadian politician". Or have they :)) Akld guy (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was the OP, me. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, how about "is an English-born Canadian and a former (or retired) politician"? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been making fun of "former Italian prime minister" for so long, I was delighted when it appeared that India might get one (Sonia Gandhi being a former Italian). —Tamfang (talk) 10:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 11

classic literature for advanced learners (brazilian)

hi, i'm looking for texts of classic literature, not too difficult, short texts. for advanced learners in english, with integrated dictionary on every page for the unknown vocabulary. for example: i had the book ghost of canterville, transformed in little easier language. at the top of each page: the text. on the bottom of each page: vocabulary translated to german. like this. now i'm looking for a book like this, but for brazilian students, can be abbreviated. thanks for help --152.249.152.243 (talk) 00:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Major ELT publishers have series of what they call "easy readers" or "graded readers". Some of these are adaptations (simplifications) of classic works of literature, which are usefully out of copyright; some are adaptations of recent best-sellers, often within the same publishing house; others are original works of fiction, in some cases written by "names". I note that the example you linked to stated a lower intermediate level, not advanced; different providers may use different ways of grading. Here is one example. None of the ones I've found have integrated translations on the page. I would suggest contacting a specialist bookseller near you - if you are in Brazil, presumably there are bookshops, or sections of bookshops, that cater to Brazilian people learning English, and they may be able to find what you are looking for. I would have hesitated to offer such a suggestion a few days ago, but as no other volunteer on this reference desk has been able to help you, I thought it's best to cover the basics. Good luck - and if you do find something that meets your needs, please come back and add the information below, so that someone searching in future might benefit. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 09:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The OP shouldn't go away thinking this is the only response. The following was posted earlier:

I have a copy of Inocência by Visconde de Taunay. It's intended for English students learning Portuguese, so the annotations compare English and Portuguese versions of difficult words, which might be of some assistance. 81.151.100.208 (talk) 14:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - that contribution was previously invisible to me. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 11:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

baaaad

When you refer to someone as a 'baaaad man' or a 'baaaad boy', what does it imply? --Omidinist (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That he is baaaad. Perhaps you'd like to share some context? —Tamfang (talk) 10:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are numerous: here; here; here; here; here. Omidinist (talk) 11:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the first, third, fourth and fifth refs "baaaad" is a pun on "bad", in a more-or-less literal sense (see wikt:bad), and "baa", the traditional onomatopoeic representation of the sound made by a sheep. I did not watch the video in the second link, so cannot comment on that. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But how about this:'baaaad nigger'? Omidinist (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When I followed that link, I got no content. Then I tried removing some fields. This shorter version works: [2] —Tamfang (talk) 09:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tamfang, most of what you put in your shortened URL was redundant. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id= followed by a 12 - character string is the unique identifier of an e - book. Adding &pg=PA** takes you straight to the page. The remaining 102 characters are superfluous. 81.151.100.208 (talk) 09:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised. The original has 12 fields, so I tried 12 versions, each with one field removed. Then I copied the address bar of each successful tab, and preserved those fields that appeared in all of them. Google put some of them back, but I didn't try to compensate for that. • So the minimum is [3] but if you click that you'll be redirected, for lack of a better term, to the slightly longer [4]. —Tamfang (talk) 00:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This post from Oxford Dictionaries blog has a good synoposis of "inverted meanings", such as saying "bad" when you mean "good". It may very well be relevant. Knowing if a speaker intends that use requires subtle clues and cultural contexts which may or may not be apparent in typed writing or in soundbites of only a few seconds. You really need to know who is speaking, who they are speaking with, and what they are speaking about to get the context. See also wikt:phat. --Jayron 32 17:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good lead. Many thanks. Omidinist (talk) 18:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm a baaad boy" was a catchphrase used by Lou Costello of the team Abbott and Costello. But they didn't necessarily invent it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Surely we should have some discussion of this phenomenon on one of our many linguistics articles? I looked in vain at Opposites and its "see also"s. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 09:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First names starting with "De"

I've noticed quite a few people in the media who have first names starting with "De" followed by (what I would call) a more conventional first name, often written as one word but with the "D" capitalised as well as the first letter of the "conventional" name - like "DeFirstname". I know where "de Surname" comes from, but what is the significance of "DeFirstname"? Does the "De" mean anything? Does it derive from a particular language's naming conventions, or does it result from someone being named after someone else's surname that has a "de" in it - like if your parents were a big fan of Thomas De Quincey you might be named DeQuincey Smith? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I once met a DeVera who said (iirc) that Vera was her mother. —Tamfang (talk) 10:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's some information at African-American names#Afrocentric and inventive names. Within African-American culture it has become common naming practice for some time to use certain word beginnings and word endings. I'm not sure that anything beyond prosody (that is, the sounds of the syllables themselves) holds any deeper meaning. Here is an article at Salon.com that discusses African-American naming practices as well. --Jayron 32 11:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The person that came immediately to mind when I saw the question was DeForest Kelley, who apparently "was named after the pioneering electronics engineer Lee de Forest" (though the article doesn't explain why, or give a citation for this). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is also DaMarcus Beasley. --Theurgist (talk) 16:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"De" is French for "of" or "from". Please see Nobiliary particle.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 06:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's true in French, but not in all languages (as the link sort of states). It has no special meaning in Dutch, for instance. Fgf10 (talk) 08:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DeWitt Clinton, named for his mother's maiden name, a practice that was not so unusual in olden days. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brief linguistic overview of major world languages (Book)

I once took a book from a library that had a chapter on each of the major language families with the top languages highlighted, with maybe 20-30 pages per language, discussing phonology and grammar (and maybe writing systems) of each, in a very concise and yet thorough way. Lots of tables. Does this ring a bell for anyone? I'd like to find it again. --2620:0:1000:1610:59DC:D05A:66EF:1E20 (talk) 18:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like Bernard Comrie's The World's Major Languages. There are as well similar books like Concise Encyclopedia of Languages of the World or George L. Campbell's Concise Compendium of the World's Languages.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's it, exactly. --2620:0:1000:1610:59DC:D05A:66EF:1E20 (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's also An Introduction to the Languages of the World by Anatole Y. Lyovin. —Tamfang (talk) 09:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is a much better book if you want a taste of actual world diversity, rather than only of languages mostly important to Westerners. I do refer to Comrie all the time, but the first half of the book is on European languages, then some languages from Persia and the subcontinent, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Arabic, Hebrew, Swahili, and Yoruba. Not a single language from the Americas. Lyovin has sketches including Finnish, Russian, Arabic, Tibetan, Yup'ik Eskimo, Dyirbal (Australia), Hawaiian and Quechua from the Andes.

You can see table of contents at Amazon. Comrie's chapters are very thorough, although they lack a constant format (he's the editor) and it's basically a great reference book for Europeans who want to know what was important for the pre-Cold War professional. Lyovin gives a broader, if not as deep sample. μηδείς (talk) 02:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chernozemic vs chernozemic

In this book, both capitalizations are used, even in the same sentence. Searching in other books and journals turns up what seems like equal instances of both capitalizations. Can anyone tell me in what context this word should or should not be capitalized? At least for the linked book it must not be arbitrary. DTLHS (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On a quick search (here's the WP article, BTW — chernozem) I can't imagine why it should be capitalized. It looks like a completely normal common noun/common adjective. It's not even named after a place or person; just "dark dirt" in Russian.

If you're going to write about it in some other venue, you might consult the style guide for that, but I can predict pretty confidently that the attitude at Wikipedia will be that it should be lowercase. --Trovatore (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you go back to the front of the book, in the preface and the start of Chapter 3, you will see that in its taxonomy of soil types, Chernozemic is the name of an "order" and in that context is capitalized. Compare the practice in the taxonomy of living things, where levels from genus upwards are always capitalized (e.g. Homo in Homo sapiens) when referred to by their official names. Now go back to the page cited by the original poster and you'll see that it refers consistently to "Chernozemic" when it's talking about the order (as a name) or to soil of that order, but "chernozemic" when it's using the word in other ways. I have no idea of whether other scientists who do soil classification follow the same conventions, but that's what's going on in this book. --69.159.9.219 (talk) 06:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I wouldn't have guessed that. I was guessing that the book just had sloppy proofreading. --Trovatore (talk) 06:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 13

Canonical number of chapters?

Were writers of previous eras constrained by the expectation about the number of chapters that a book should have? Alice in Wonderland and Alice through the looking glass had each 12 chapters, for example. Did a canonical number of chapters (3,7,12 or whatever) for literary works existed in the past? Llaanngg (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it was, Charles Dickens certainly didn't adhere to it. A Christmas Carol runs about half a dozen, while Great Expectations has around 30. It wouldn't be surprising if there were a mathematical reason for Lewis Carroll to do his books in 12 chapters. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:51, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I remember forming the impression in the mid-1960s, based on novels I'd read then, that a "normal" novel would be 12 chapters long. I was a boy then and most of the novels I read were science fiction, which then was often directed at young people, and they were typically about the same length, too. But I have no idea of whether publishers, even within that limited field, actually had guidelines recommending a particular chapter length or number of chapters. And for that matter I have no idea of how common the exact length of 12 chapters really was -- maybe it really varied from 12 to 15 or something like that. This is just one anecdotal data point that the query suggested to me. --69.159.9.219 (talk) 05:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moby-Dick has well over 100 chapters. Had it been kept to 12, it might have been tolerable. (Unless he'd made each chapter 10 times longer.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is not and does not appear to have ever been any standard for how many chapters a work should have. Ideally, a chapter should have somewhat clear beginning and end and (beyond references to prior chapters and possible foreshadowing of later chapters) approach being as close to self-contained as it can be (though writer talent or lack thereof can alter or even buck that). Ian.thomson (talk) 15:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 14

Japanese alphabets

Japanese has three alpherbets (hiragana, katakana, and kanji) suposidly because every word is a homophone with two or more different meanings, so without distingusihing them by using the different alpherbets nobody would know what was ment by the use of each word in a sentance and nobody would be able to understand each other.

So explain to me, how does radio work in Japan? How do Japanese people talk to each other in the street? How do Japanese people understand each other in any situation where the three alpherbets can't be used? 11:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicalMaddocker (talk • contribs)

I think that like Chinese, Japanese is a tonal language (i.e. the pitch determines the meaning of the word). Foreigners speaking the language can make unfortunate mistakes because of this, but for the natives radio and ordinary conversation work just fine.

Tone (linguistics) tells us that Japanese is tonal in a rather more limited way, compared to Chinese. Less than half of Japanese words use tonality. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're mistaken about why Japanese uses three different sets of characters. Kanji is an adaptation of the Chinise writing system, and the other two are used for words that have no direct Chinese equivalent. See Japanese writing system for how the system developed. Rojomoke (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A frequently asked question about Japanese writing is "if they can write everything with just kana, why do they still use kanji?" A frequently given answer is "homophones are usually written with different kanji characters; writing these words with kana would lead to ambiguity." --51.9.188.8 (talk) 12:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology remark: none of the Japanese character sets is an "alphabet". Kana are syllabaries, and kanji is logography.

That aside, English is as rich in homophones as any other language; see [5] for an example. In speech, this doesn't create any intelligibility problem, because the context for each word disambiguates its meaning. Same applies to Japanese. --51.9.188.8 (talk) 12:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first point is that a writing system is utterly extraneous to a language. Many languages have never been written; some have been written with several different scripts; any language can be written in any script (even the claim sometimes made that some scripts suit some languages better than others is pretty specious: many customary scripts are rather bad at representing their customary languages, eg English, Tibetan). When Japanese (or English, or Navajo) people talk to each other in the street, writing systems are not usually involved in any way.

Secondly, the three systems which make up the conventional Japanese writing system are not alphabets (as somebody said above) and are used writing distinct parts of the language.

Thirdly, though Japanese is a tonal language (in the same sense that Ancient Greek and Modern Serbian are tonal languages, but a very different sense from how Chinese and Thai are tonal languages), this has no necessary connection with its writing system. It happens that Thai orthography does represent its tones, but rather few languages consistently mark tones (in any sense) in their conventional orthography (though they may be marked in some way for scholarly or teaching purposes). Neither Chinese nor Japanese writing has any conventional way to represent tones. --ColinFine (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And as for why the Japanese continue to use three systems: it almost entirely because of tradition. Arguments about homophones are no doubt sincerely offered, but they have little weight. The spoken language copes very well with all its homophones, so there is no reason to think that writing could not do so. A thousand years ago, Lady Murakami wrote Genji Monogatari entirely in kana. Roy Andrew Miller argues somewhere that the complexity which strikes us as a disadvantage would have been seen as an advantage by the bored Japanese aristocracy a few centuries ago. --ColinFine (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Minor correction: I think you meant Murasaki, not "Murakami". {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.123.26.60 (talk) 12:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese does have a lot of homophones, due to borrowing so many Chinese words. Japanese phonology does not do justice to Chinese words, so words that sound different in Chinese may wind up being homophones in Japanese. However, Chinese words were borrowed along with the kanji to write them, so they have different kanji even if they sound the same. This makes the kanji system easier to understand than the spoken word.

There are basic rules on when to use the three script systems of Japanese writing: (1) use kanji for lexical elements (nouns, verb stems, adjective stems, etc.); (2) use hiragana for the grammatical elements, such as particles, conjugations, auxiliary verbs, and noun suffixes, and also for words that you don’t know a kanji for, and words that you want to soften (since kanji has a more formal feel, technical, and can be cold); (3) use katakana as though it were italics, for foreign words and for emphasis.

Because kanji solves the problems of homophones, especially in technical writing, when such subjects are spoken out loud, the Japanese speaker often relies on the tactic of "drawing" the kanji character in the palm of his hand with a finger of the other hand. Sometimes for emphasis, the speaker may hold up the hand where he "drew" the character for everyone to see (even though he did not really draw anything, so the hand is blank). On the radio, you have to speak in ways that clarify the homophones by context. —Stephen (talk) 09:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody with access to The Times

Can anybody with access to The Times please check if Shamash, Jack (March 6, 2004). "Yiddish once again speaks for itself". is the source for this paragraph in the Yiddish article? Debresser (talk) 21:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Try WP:REX for requests of this type. It is a board specifically designed for exactly this kind of request, and I find the people who frequent there to be fast and friendly in their responses. --Jayron 32 23:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The two are not the same. The ID of the Wikipedia citation is 1038349. The ID of the article Debresser links to is 2097943. There are 14,000 Jewish families in Stamford Hill, so I am surprised that Jack Shamash would write that the language is under threat there. Here's a gem from The Times of 25 June 2016:

A scene of modern Britain played out on a rail replacement bus service in Newport yesterday. A woman wearing a niqab was chatting to her son in another language. After five minutes, a man suddenly snapped: 'If you're in the UK, you should speak English.' At this, another passenger turned round and explained: 'We're in Wales. And she's speaking Welsh.'

@Jayron32 Done. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Anonymous editor A population of 14,000 is definitely a threat of extinction for a language. Nice quote. Debresser (talk) 21:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

14,000 families does not equate to a population of 14,000, especially when it's a Chasidic community (average number of children seven per family). The number of Jewish children in registered secondary education is 800 girls and 400 boys, suggesting a lot of the boys are enrolled in illegal unregistered yeshivas. Assuming a total of 1 600 children this suggests a population of 20,000 minimum. Estimates are way above that - see Stamford Hill. In the whole of London (Stamford Hill is by far the largest community) there are about 1/4 million Jews. 86.150.12.166 (talk) 11:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 15

Which is correct, or preferable, and why?

"One thing I constantly learn is that a lot of people are a lot smarter than me."

or

"One thing I constantly learn is that a lot of people are a lot smarter than I am."

Which is correct, or preferable, and why? Bus stop (talk) 14:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both correct. It's a matter of preference, rather than anything else. 86.150.12.166 (talk) 14:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Smarter than me is a colloquialism. Smarter than I (am) would be the correct way to say it, but the other is so common that smarter than I tends to sound pretentious. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a disjunctive pronoun. Perfectly good grammar. 86.150.12.166 (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you everybody. Bus stop (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?

I'm trying to figure out whether "than" in Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader? is a preposition or a conjunction, to be able to determine whether it should be capitalized or not per MOS:CT. Currently, Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader? and Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader? (U.S. game show) use two different forms of capitalization in their title. nyuszika7h (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's properly a conjunction; the copula is elided. The Underlying question is: "Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader is?" or "Are You Smarter Than is a 5th Grader?" The current informal and long=standing usage makes it preposition-like. μηδείς (talk) 18:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a preposition. The question is given in the show's title; there is no reason to invent an "underlying" rewording to suit your grammatical prejudices. --69.159.9.219 (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you say it's a preposition while linking to a site that only says it's a conjunction. Loraof (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't read far enough down the linked page. It can be either. Since "than a 5th grader" is a prepositional phrase, it's a preposition here. --69.159.9.219 (talk) 02:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as far as capitalization goes, look for how it is capitalized in reliable sources, preferably in plain text writing (rather than as a logo or trademark). In Wikipedia we follow the sources, so look for several examples of the title written out in major, well respected sources, and follow what they do. --Jayron 32 18:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In this case the ~~base~~ best reference is a primary one, i.e. do what the show's own producers do, if you can find a place where they don't write it in block capitals. --69.159.9.219 (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC), confusing typo fixed later.[reply]

Using the word post box to mean p.o. box?

Is it common in Indian English to use "post box" for "p.o. box" (i.e. "post-office box")? Is "p.o. box" also understood/used in India concurrently with "post box"? Can "post box" also mean "letter box" in Indian English (as it does in Britain)? Thanks. Contact Basemetal here 18:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no mention of it at Indian_English#Vocabulary. I'm not sure what standard dictionaries to refer to. Is there an Indian OED? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 11:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 16