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.

November 18

Coining of 'vexillology'

Is it really true that the word 'vexillology' did not exist prior to 1958? Really? I'm struggling to accept this. What does the OED have to say about it? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:06, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Invoking British privilege....British privilege invoked.

The OED has 4 citations, and yes the first is October 1959; the journalist who uses it gives a gloss. The 1961 use refers to it as a word (" Editors Grahl and Smith use ‘vexillology’ and its cognates, vexillologist, vexillological."). The final example, 1970, shows how quickly a word can fill a gap: " In 1965 the first International Congress of Vexillology was held in the Netherlands." How did we describe the study of flags before we had that word? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 10:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that it was considered to be a branch of heraldry. The Flag Institute (no poncey Latin words required) was " formed out of the Flag Section of The Heraldry Society on St George's Day, 23 April 1971". Alansplodge (talk) 11:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Smith" is Whitney Smith, the person who seems to get the credit for the coinage, and who died only yesterday. I came across this piece of information in his article. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For visuals: ngrams of 'vexillology,Vexillology,vexillologist,...'. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No ngrams for vexillography or vexilloid. The latter article mentions Smith as coiner of "vexilloid" too. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, I'm a little surprised you didn't make some word play about this vexing you. You feeling alright? Matt Deres (talk) 15:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC) [reply]

I'm spiffing, but thanks for your concern, Matt. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Well, I'm as surprised by this outcome as I am about "I'll make him an offer he can't refuse" making its debut in The Godfather. Thanks, omnes. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:09, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

November 19

Polyglots

The article Polyglotism says

Individuals calling themselves "polyglot" generally speak, read, or otherwise use five or more languages, in some cases several dozen.

The article seems pretty uncritical to me, and the references in it seem kind of weak. Are there really people who have even a basic ability in a dozen, or dozens of, languages? Or is it just hype? Loraof (talk) 04:12, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's more of a matter how we define "to know a language" (CEFRL is a good start to evaluate). So it is possible that there may be people with the level A1 or A0+, who can know some hundred words and use and understand basic expressions in dozens of languages. It is not an impossible feat especially if a person has good memory. But hardly there are many people who know many foreign languages on the level of Nabokov. Though I never understood what is the use of knowing scores of languages but very badly, as I always favoured knowing only a couple of languages but well. Mostly because to learn a language you should spend many hours on it, but it is more reasonable to spend 1000 hours on one language and know it well, than to spend 100 or 50 hours on each of ten or twenty languages and know each of them badly. Moreover to spend hours on learning is not enough, you should constantly practise otherwise you'll forget the learnt language easily; so I can easily imagine how one may practise one, two or three languages, but I hardly have an idea how one is going to practise dozens of languages everyday. Also note that many people like to boast and tend to overestimate their or other's achievements (the latter is due to simple politeness, not many will say to one's face "your language skills are awful, your accent is terrible and you constantly make dozens of mistakes" - unless it is your examiner).--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 06:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made this edit to address what I think are valid concerns expressed here. Bus stop (talk) 14:22, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, many people claiming to be polyglot are more than suspect to me.

Someone claiming in YouTube to be a polyglot. Proof is a video of him speaking some sentences in said languages.
Someone claiming to be polyglot, and is trying to sell a language teaching method, that will teach you a language really fast.

However, it would be difficult to call these people liar. The point is that it's not very well defined what means to speak a language. And the prefix "poly" is as well defined as the words "much/many" or "a lot". They are actually letting people believe that they know an amazing number of language. Indeed, their knowledge of the n language is quite basic or even not existing anymore. Llaanngg (talk) 14:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre Bazaar

We have an article at bazaar. Where I live (SW Ontario) it seems to be used mostly in religious or quasi-religious contexts (church bazaars, Christmas bazaars, etc.) Anyway, what I'm curious about is how this word became adopted into English. I don't have anything against it, but we already have several terms that could be used in its place (market, rummage sale, yard sale, etc.) - and indeed the article suggests that market would be the NA/UK equivalent. Why would "we" adopt a word from Arabic/Persian, particularly one with a spelling that looks unusual in English and already sounds very similar to an existing word ('bizarre') when we had native options? Matt Deres (talk) 15:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC) I hope you can help; not knowing the answer would really stick in my craw.[reply]

According to this it entered English in the 1580s from the Italian "bazarra", and ultimately has its origins in the Pahlavi (Middle Persian, or Parthian) language. It is a false cousin of the word "bizarre", which as noted here entered English a half century later (the 1640s) through the French from a 13th century Italian word "bizza" meaning "fits of anger". --Jayron 32 16:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the word bazaar primarily implies impermanence in distinction from a "market" that exists year-round, at least in my limited experience in the eastern USA. Bus stop (talk) 16:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but there are plenty of synonyms that also imply that - rummage sale, for example. Though for that matter, I suppose I'd be more inclined to see those as only dealing with used goods, while a bazaar might include food or new-made crafts or clothes. TBH, I wasn't expecting Jayron to provide a ref that the word had been in English that long - I guess I assumed it was Victorian era at the earliest. What still strikes me as odd is the connection. Like, was there some dude throwing a sale back in the 1500s who decided "market" was a little too normal - and a Persian passing through provided a hipper name for it? There are tons of Arabic and Persian words in English but they're mostly loaners that came over with the thing they describe (algebra, alcohol, etc.). Matt Deres (talk) 01:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In UK usage the idea is more about the range of things on offer, rather than the impermanence of the set-up. We have long lasting chains of shops which use the word, simply because they sell a wide range of items. See Hawkin's Bazaar Wymspen (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And then there's Harper's Bazaar magazine, which strikes me as a bizarre name. Loraof (talk) 22:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also in the UK, a fund-raising event for a church, school or community group with various stalls indoors (bearing a plausible resemblance to a bazaar in the Middle East) is a bazaar, while a similar event held outdoors in the summer is a fête, bearing no similarity at all to a French festival. Alansplodge (talk) 15:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Harpers Bizarre. Some of these events are called "a fête worse than death". 90.196.176.27 (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WHAAOE: see A Fête Worse Than Death. Alansplodge (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a latecomer. The pun has been around since at least as far back as the 1970s; former Australian politician Bill Hayden was famous for using it whenever he was required to open a fête. But I suspect it was used by punning sub-editors long before then. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can beat that; it was the title of an episode of the BBC sitcom Hugh and I which was shown on 14 August 1962. But I expect somebody thought of it on the day that the first ever village fête opened its gates to the public. Alansplodge (talk) 23:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Harper's Bazaar magazine, which strikes me as a bizarre name." -- both "Bazaar" and "magazine" meant "place where various things are stored" before they meant "periodical covering a variety of topics". jnestorius^(talk) 13:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 20

Two questions

Two questions: 1) Why do we say merCHandise but merCantile? 2) Why do we say entERPrise but entREPreneur? 94.66.58.46 (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See what EO says about these four words:[1][2][3][4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talk • contribs) 01:47, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, concepts like Metathesis (linguistics) seem a bit relevant (especially on the second). --Jayron 32 04:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Latin ca- usually became cha- in French. There are other doublets where we have one word from Latin and another from French, eg castle vs chateau, cantor vs chant, capital vs chapter. For the second case, we're talking French for both words (the Latin form gave rise to interpret) but enterprise is from Old French before they settled down to entre-, while entrepreneur is a borrowing from Modern Frence. --ColinFine (talk) 14:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

“The French have no word for entrepreneur.” Alansplodge (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not since English mugged French for it. —Tamfang (talk) 08:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology

1. "When I was asked what I wanted to be when I grew up, and I told them 'a comedian', they laughed at me. Well, they're not laughing now!"

2. Printed sign in the window of a pharmacy: "We dispense with accuracy." Handwritten insertion: "do not" - which was then crossed out.

There is something that connects these two jokes, and I think it ought to have a linguistic term, but I can't put my finger on it. Any ideas? (Bonus points: who originally wrote each of them?) Carbon Caryatid (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In a broad sense, they're both examples of puns, in that they rely on certain words being interpreted in more than one way. (I believe 1. is usually attributed to Bob Monkhouse). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 21:32, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of logic, the technical term is performative contradiction. However, in the context of a joke, irony is perhaps a more obvious word to use. Tevildo (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first one sounds like a cousin to a Yogiism. The second one is a play on words somewhat akin to the old "time flies like an arrow... fruit flies like a banana." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:36, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the original sign is an example of amphiboly - the corrections make it ironic (not in the Morissette sense, of course). Tevildo (talk) 07:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. So I've learned a fancy word for syntactic ambiguity, for which I'm grateful, but it seems to me as if these two examples share something closer. I'm still not sure what, exactly. Perhaps it's to do with the negation? The first plays with what we might call situational negation ("You couldn't possibly choose comedy as a career; what a ridiculous idea"). Any more scholars of joke language care to have a parse? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 21

Definition of "larger than"

No dictionary I've seen mentions "larger than" as an idiom. However, this is an interesting phrase to talk about because although it has a meaning consistent with general uses of comparative adjectives:

The dog is larger than the cat.

It is sometimes used when "as large as" is proper, as in:

The dog is 4 times larger than the cat.

In this sentence, "as large as" is the proper phrase to use, but some people use "larger than". Can anyone check Wiktionary to see if its definition of "larger than" is consistent with the latter of these 2 sentences?? Georgia guy (talk) 02:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary has larger than life, and this is the page reached in Wiktionary for "larger than". Bus stop (talk) 02:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, "four times larger than" means "five times as large as", just as "one time larger than" would mean "twice as large as" and not the same size as. Unfortunately, people seem to use it to mean "four times as large as" as often as not. Loraof (talk) 03:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I had ever in my life heard someone say "one time larger than", I'd take that as evidence that "n times larger than" means {n+1}-fold rather than n-fold; but I haven't. On another hand, the worry that "900% increase" may mean ninefold rather than tenfold is one reason for my hostility to percentages. — Do people still say "as large again"? —Tamfang (talk) 03:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An idiom is a phrase or expression where the meaning is somehow different from that implied by the individual words - which means that "larger than" is not an idiom, and is not going to appear as such in dictionaries. It is just the perfectly normal grammatical use of "than" when making comparisons. "Larger than life" is a good example of an idiom - it doesn't make literal sense (life can't really have a size) but does have a meaning as a well known expression. Wymspen (talk) 09:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've always understood the word "life" in "larger than life" to be used in the same sense as in "life sized". That is, it is referring to a representation, such as a painting or sculpture, as being the same size as (or larger than) the actual living thing being represented. Of course both phrases are also used metaphorically as well. CodeTalker (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is hyphenated.[5][6] Something can be "larger than life-size". But I think it would be incorrect to say that something is "larger than life size" (without the hyphen). We also have articles about a novel and a television film that use the hyphenated form. Bus stop (talk) 01:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an interesting thing on hyphenation. Bus stop (talk) 16:41, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing specific to "large" or "larger"; the general construction would be "n times more foo than" or "n times as foo as", for any gradable adjective foo. Both constructions are grammatical. As to whether "n times as foo as" corresponds to "n times more foo than" or "(n-1) times more foo than"; I sympathise with the latter view, but I suspect less mathematically-minded speakers make no such distinction. Somewhat relatedly, Language Log has discussed the problem of interpretation where foo is the binary opposite of a scaled adjective, as in "twice as small as". jnestorius^(talk) 13:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I want to know is ...

What I'm gonna do is ....
What he said was ...
What it is is ...
What she wants is ...
What you are is ...

What's this construction called? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A particular type of predicate nominative? Not sure if there's a very specific term. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:07, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a cleft sentence (specifically, a pseudo-cleft). Henry ^Flower 07:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Pseudo-cleft. Excellent. Thanks, Henry. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Putin Quote

"I told him that we would be happy to see him (Obama) in Russia anytime if he wants, can and has desire"[7]

Is this sentence grammatical English? I'm having a hard time parsing it. ECS LIVA Z (talk) 05:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not at the end of the sentence. (It's also quite redundant.) The writer probably meant, "I told him ... anytime he wants to visit us." Clarityfiend (talk) 07:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be a comma after "meant"? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC) [reply]

I'd say there's nothing wrong with using three verbs in such a parallel construction; but it is jarringly unidiomatic, because can is not an ordinary verb (see modal verb) and, more importantly, because a native speaker is unlikely to say if he has desire (which is synonymous with wants anyway). —Tamfang (talk) 08:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bad translation. Putin avoids speaking in English in public. The original (at 10:40, attention! annoying beep at the start): Я поблагодарил его за эти годы совместной работы и сказал, что в любое время, если он сочтет возможным и будет необходимость и желание, мы будем рады видеть его в России. The right literal translation: "I thanked him for the years of joint work, and said that at any time, if he considers it possible and will have the need and desire, we will be happy to see him in Russia." The middle part, though, will be more literal with "there be a need and desire".--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 10:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say "and has the need and desire". "Will" isn't usually used for hypotheticals like that. Equinox ◑ 05:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"there be a need and desire" is actually better English in this situation, but given the decline in use of the English subjunctive, many native users aren't going to be familiar with it. Nyttend (talk) 12:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: Also it must be "he consider", must it not?.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 20:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Equinox: Initially I tried to translate it myself and right after I had finished, I suddenly found that there were already a highly circulated translation which were quite identical to mine. So I've just copy-pasted it here from some British newspaper. But my last comment is from my initial version. Frankly, I'm not quite sure why the journalists, supposedly native English speakers, used "will" after "if" in that context.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 20:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

double bar

Why can't i find the double bar of "ð̳" in the IPA chart (Voiced_alveolar_affricate#Voiced_alveolar_non-sibilant_affricate)?68.150.86.232 (talk) 09:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a part of the standard IPA. See here.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 11:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Choice of contractions

There's a relatively small group of sentence constructions where more than one contraction is possible. Consider the following sentence and its possible contractions:

1) I have not been to the store.

a) I haven't been to the store.

b) I've not been to the store.

There are subtle shadings to the meanings, but they're largely equivalent sentences. Here's another:

2) You are not kidding!

a) You aren't kidding!

b) You're not kidding!

Again, basically equivalent; any shadings to the meaning could easily be overcome with word stress spoken aloud. My question is: what drives those choices? In the first one, the (a) line feels more North American and the (b) one sounds more British, but I'm hardly the expert. Contractions are often frowned upon in formal writing, but are there nevertheless different schools of thought being represented here? For example, are kids in X told to contract the negative word ("not") more often than the noun (or pronoun as here)? Matt Deres (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about when "would you not have" contracts down to something that sounds like "woodenchuv" (wouldn't you've). Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 23:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is regional in the UK: b) forms are typical of Scotland and the north of England. [8] Henry ^Flower 05:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 22

Solder / Sodder

Watching an episode of “How It’s Made” on the Discovery Channel the other day, they were describing the process of soldering two metal parts. However, the American voice-over seemed to pronounce the word as “soddering” (to my British ear, this should be pronounced as spelled – “Sold-er-ing”). Was this a mishearing on my part, or is this another example of US/UK English difference? If I didn’t mishear, is this a recent divergence between US/UK English, or has it always been so? CoeurDeHamster (talk) 08:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is a divergence between US and UK English. In this case, I'm pretty sure the American usage is the older one and the British is a spelling pronunciation. In the 18th century, lexicographers liked to insert letters into spellings to indicate their etymology - "dette" became "debt" because it derived from Latin debitum, "saumon" became "salmon" because it derived from Latin salmo, and "souder" became "solder" because it derived from Latin solidare. Over time, Brits saw the "l" written in "solder" and started pronouncing it, while Americans stuck to the older pronunciation. --Nicknack009 (talk) 08:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Etymological Dictionary supports that - http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=solder Wymspen (talk) 12:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your quick response - very helpful. CoeurDeHamster (talk) 08:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish loanwords

Would appreciate any online source of Swedish words from other languages. Print sources are appreciated as well.68.150.86.232 (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a pretty good start for you. --Jayron 32 19:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Braille

Hello I want the page for louis braille in urdu too. I hope it is translated as soon as possible Thank You The URL is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Braille — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.177.174.17 (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this request belongs here, but I can't suggest where it does belong. If it was a request for a translation into English, the right place for it would be Wikipedia:Translation requests. But I don't know whether the Urdu Wikipedia has a corresponding page for requests the other way, or uses a different system. --76.71.5.45 (talk) 05:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can see this article in Urdu here. Muhammad Shuaib (talk) 14:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 23

What is this French velocipede invention in English?

The English translation ici is icky: "hubs wheel suspended (wheel radius)" for "la roue à moyeux suspendus (la roue à rayons)". Could someone provide a better one? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is that not simply a "spoked wheel" Wymspen (talk) 10:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

French adventurer, explorer of West Africa and inventor of the wheel with suspended hub (spoked wheel). The title of viscount was created and granted by King Luís I of Portugal. —Stephen (talk) 10:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, both of you. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

However, note that our wire wheel article gives the credit to Sir George Cayley in 1808. Alansplodge (talk) 18:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selective acronyms

How is it called when an abbreviated name intentionally resembles some notable thing or person, e.g. Hipparcos (High precision parallax collecting satellite) or CERES (Capacité de REnseignement Electromagnétique Spatial)? My impression is that it's a relatively recent phenomenon, possibly coming from the 1980s or so. Brandmeister^talk 14:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This would seem to be covered in the "Contrived acronyms" section of our article on acronyms. (There's a blog on the topic if you're interested.) I don't know when they became popular, but acronyms themselves are a fairly recent phenomenon. Deor (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly "recent" - SPQR, ΙΧΘΥΣ and INRI have been around for a couple of millenia now. Wymspen (talk) 16:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't acronyms, they're initialisms. See Acronym#Nomenclature. --Viennese Waltz 16:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Er, that section explicitly disagrees with you: The rest of this article uses acronym for both types of abbreviation.. Henry ^Flower 16:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I know what that section says. Deor and I are using the word "acronym" in its correct sense, as stated in the article: "many dictionaries and usage commentators define acronym to mean an abbreviation that is pronounced as a word, in contrast to an initialism (or alphabetism)‍ —‌ an abbreviation formed from a string of initials (and possibly pronounced as individual letters)." --Viennese Waltz 16:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. The way you cited the article, it looked like you thought it supported your position. :) Henry ^Flower 13:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Neighborhoods too, like Dumbo.) Bus stop (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ΙΧΘΥΣ would seem to be the kind of thing the OP is talking about - SPQR and INRI would not (not because they're not pronounceable, but because they aren't a "notable thing or person") MChesterMC (talk) 09:20, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the past, acronyms (as well as other forms of playing around with letters) may have been more common in the Hebrew script, especially in Kabbalah. Perhaps this is where the concept originated and then spread to other alphabetic scripts, like Greek, Latin and Cyrillic? — Kpalion^(talk) 10:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are referring to Backronym. -Arch dude (talk) 01:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, if you go to the Bible and pick letters from the text at predetermined intervals you get some astonishingly accurate predictions. Nostradamus predicted Hitler although he got the name slightly wrong - he foretold the coming of Hisler in the twentieth century. 86.134.217.94 (talk) 11:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's true for any sufficiently long text. After the popularity of the "Bible Code" books, when the claim was that the Bible was in some way special in this regard, similar "codes" were demonstrated in the Hebrew translation of War and Peace and the English text Moby Dick. Humans, given sufficient spare time and sufficient interest, can discover illusory "codes" in any text. - Nunh-huh 11:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's also easier to pull off in Hebrew, particularly in biblical-era Hebrew (or a more recent text written in the same style) rather than modern Hebrew since in the former: (i) vowels are not indicated, so several different words may be constructable from a given group of consonants and (ii) some of the letters double as numerals, so dates and other numerical items are easier to 'find'.

Contrary to the suggestion or 86.134.217.94, however, Nostradamus didn't make his predictions by the use of "Bible Codes" or anything similar: he experienced visions in a trance state, and described them in a deliberately ambiguous style; many have never been identified with any actual event, none were understood until after the events they purportedly and disputedly referred to, and a few "random hits" such as the "Histler" reference are mathematically inevitable in such a large corpus. {The poster formerly known as 87.81,230.195} 2.122.2.189 (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are British people really referring to the same food products as Americans?

British crisps look like American chips.
British chips look like American French fries.
British pudding looks like an American cake or solid pastry. American pudding has the consistency of highly viscous yogurt or glue.
British biscuit looks like an American cookie or cracker.

But are British people and American people really referring to the same food product? What about brand names? Will that be used instead of the generic names of food? Are Oreo cookies called Oreo biscuits in Britain? What about fruits and vegetables? Are British people and American people talking about the same fruits and vegetables when they say the names? Is an American's visualization of a cucumber the same as a British person's idea of a cucumber? Is an American cherry the same as a British cherry? Is an American watermelon the same as a British watermelon? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are. And you forgot "British scones look like American biscuits". The terms have evolved in American English. For example, Nabisco was founded in the 19th century. Notice that their product line includes cookies and crackers - but not biscuits as we Yanks currently use the term. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We (now) have cookies in the UK, different to biscuits. Cookies are usually larger (and more expensive), seemingly hand made, often available recently baked on the premises in stores or from stalls, often with a chewy centre and a rough crumbly texture. "Biscuits" in the UK are typically smaller, more regular in consistency, and factory-packed. Oreos would be classed as biscuits, but as we Brits know they are American they may well be branded as "cookies", I'm not sure. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And British chips generally do not look like American french fries, as I understand them. British chips are generally larger and made from cuboids of real potato - French fries are small and thin, and available in KFC, McDonalds and the like (but certainly not from your local chippie). Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Colloquially, in the UK, the word "pudding" can refer to any form of dessert, with or without any pastry. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And of course, some of our puddings would be very surprising desserts indeed. DuncanHill (talk) 23:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the food section of a rather nice blog written by an American linguist who lives in Britain. Thincat (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So in answer to the original question, no the British products are not the same as the American products - with the exception of "pudding" in some cases: we get rice pudding, semolina pudding and sago pudding which are. "Pudding" is another name for the course that follows the main course in a two-course meal. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True, but British crisps and American potato chips seem to be much the same. Some British manufacturers actually call their crisps "chips" to give them an air of exclusivity, but we all know that they are just expensive crisps really. Tortilla chips are tortilla chips however. The use of "pudding" can confusingly also refer to meat products, steak and kidney pudding is a sort of meat pie with a suet exterior, black pudding is a type of sausage and haggis is poetically referred as "Great chieftain o' the pudding-race!". Alansplodge (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

... and cucumbers aren't quite the same (probably!).[9] Thincat (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Published from 1706 through this year"

In 1711 in poetry, the above expression is used. But what exactly is meant by that? If that's too trivial, please excuse my ignorance, but I'm not a native speaker, and prepositions can sometimes be difficult in English... Hoping for your understanding [and an explanation],--Hubon (talk) 19:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Until I checked, I was thinking it meant it has been published regularly ever since 1711, right up till the present time, i.e. for ~~205~~ 305 years. But then I checked the source and I see it was published between 1706 and 1711. Hence "this year" in this context means the year the page is about, 1711. I've changed the text to make this unambiguous. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! In addition, I took the liberty of making a "to" out of the hyphen – hope that's fine with you. Regarding that, was the "through" a mistake now and actually supposed to be a "to" or can, in fact, "through" also be used in this context?--Hubon (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jack: Is it still 1916 where you are?

Living in the past is fun. You get to endlessly reinvent everything. I recommend it. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:49, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading The First Fifteen Lives of Harry August by "Claire North"; you might enjoy it too. —Tamfang (talk) 03:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hubon:

through X = up to and including X
Y through X = from Y to X, both inclusive

One can often see "through" shortened to "thru", e.g. on road signs or credit cards ("VALID THRU SO-AND-SO").

--Theurgist (talk) 01:23, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It may be added that this use of "through" to mean "up to and including" is mostly American English. --76.71.5.45 (talk) 03:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I really didn't know that before! Best,--Hubon (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 24

Oaths

In older literature (e.g. 19th century) it is common to read that somebody said something "with an oath", presumably because it would have been profane, or offended readers' sensibilities, to include the actual words. But would the implied oath usually have been something like "by God!", or an actual four-letter swear word? Equinox ◑ 05:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"...by God" is a swear word, FYI, and among the four-letter words you're probably thinking of, many or most aren't. Nyttend (talk) 12:02, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"...by God" and "Oh my God" and such are Oaths, which often defy the Commandment about taking God's name "in vain". Obscenities are treated like "oaths" but they aren't - they're just vulgarisms, some of which are still considered too offensive for regular television. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

**unattested term*

Here's a silly example that I've just now made up:

Modern frindle derives from OE kenning friþ dol (i.e. a boring object so trivial that it could not produce conflict), with ME *friddul seemingly representing an intermediate stage before the presumedly intentional introduction of the n by proponents desirous of breaking the peaceful object's "dull" associations.

What's the origin of the use of the asterisk before unattested terms? Nyttend (talk) 12:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be discussed here. It's in Italian, but there's a short abstract in English. — Kpalion^(talk) 13:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative words/phrases for 'amenities' and 'facilities'

I have searched several thesauri for synonyms for 'amenities' and 'facilities' that do not sound so utilitarian or functional. I usually need to use 'amenities' or 'facilities' when describing the attributes of a hotel or village resort which is usually some combination of a swimming pool, spa, gym, restaurant, café and bar. I am writing in the UK for a British audience.

I realise it might be tricky to offer specific references, but are there better/nicer/prettier nouns any editors have encountered that I could use when referring to the leisure provisions of a hotel or resort?

Thank you. 217.33.150.21 (talk) 15:20, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why call them anything - "The hotel has a pool. spa, etc." Wymspen (talk) 16:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

feature, element, luxury, convenience, comfort, service, asset, benefit, resource, extra, appurtenance jnestorius^(talk) 17:50, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or Hotel "Advanced search" for various websites with checkboxes for pool, spa, gym, etc; do they have an overall label? The few I checked either have "amenities" or no overall label. jnestorius^(talk) 17:57, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

appointment; as in 'Fully appointed'. This is rather common in New Zealand motel usage. Akld guy (talk) 05:57, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific research about foreign language teaching and learning

What are some serious sources for Scientific research about foreign language teaching and learning? I'd like to find research about time that adults need to learn a language, how to reduce a foreign accent, common pitfalls, and so on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.43.133.38 (talk) 15:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Second-language acquisition may help. Loraof (talk) 16:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also Language education. Loraof (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are useful as a roadmap. But I would like to know too what textbooks and handbooks after stances standard or comprehensive. Also what peer reviewed magazine would be worth taking a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.7.33.34 (talk) 18:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both of them (especially the first) have very extensive bibliographies at the bottom. Loraof (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tsadi or Tsadik in Yiddish

So, here in Israel, most Israeli's can't tell you whether the 18th letter of the Hebrew Alphabet is called Tsadi or "Tsadik". The Hebrew Alphabet page claims that :

  The letter is known as "tsadik" in Yiddish, and Hebrew speakers often give it that name as well.

But the Yiddish Wikipedia page [[10]] is unclear. In the chart at the top, it's called "צדי" (Tsadi), and later on, it's called "צדיק" (Tsadik).

Is it true that it's always called "Tsadik" in Yiddish?

Tewner (talk) 16:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of "gestation", as in pregnancy

I looked it up in the OED and found fascinating archaic senses (e.g. to be rowed in a boat, to wear a ring) but, as I expected, only one pronunciation, /dʒɛˈsteɪʃən/. I recently heard a very well educated Englishwoman repeatedly pronounce it with a hard G. (I jest not.) Is this pronunciation attested in any dialect, or only her own idiolect? (I ask not for guesses - I seek evidence.) Carbon Caryatid (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not in any dialect I've ever heard here in the north of England. ( I hope she doesn't pronounce "digest" with a hard G, especially when she has guests.) I won't make any guesses, since you don't want them, but I observe from the same dictionary that the only such words pronounced with a hard G are those from German. Dbfirs 21:35, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I went to http://www.onelook.com and looked in Merriam-Webster, Oxford (not the full OED, but whatever version that OED accesses), American Heritage, Collins, and Macmillan. All agreed that the G is soft. ~~However, Collins does show a hard G for the related words "gestational" and "gestatory".~~ I wonder if this might be an error: American Heritage shows both with a short G, and none of the others lists "gestatory" at all. --76.71.5.45 (talk) 23:02, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which Collins are you looking at? Their on-line dictionary shows only a soft G for both "gestational" and "gestatory". The modern sense of gestatory (/dʒɛˈsteɪtərɪ/) was added to the full OED in 1993, but the obsolete senses also had a soft G. Dbfirs 23:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I linked to the same Collins page you did! But I was misled by their confusing notation. Since the pronunciations "(dʒɛˈsteɪʃən)" and "(ˈdʒɛstətɪv)" are enclosed in parentheses, and since "(gesˈtational)" shows pronunciation information (the accent mark) and is in parentheses, I misread the "g" in "(gesˈtational)" as an IPA "ɡ" indicating a hard G, without noticing that the rest of the word is not given in IPA. At least I was right that there was an error, only it was mine. Sorry. --76.71.5.45 (talk) 06:27, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK. I thought you perhaps had a paper copy of Collins. I was sure that only words from German have a hard G. Dbfirs 07:02, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both the full OED and Chambers 20th Century Dictionary have the g as soft. That said, while I doubt I've ever heard it said with a hard g, it wouldn't surprise me if I did. DuncanHill (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the Longman Pronunciation Dictionary 2nd edition, which often shows uncommon or disparaged pronunciations. It only has soft G for all gestat- words. jnestorius^(talk) 23:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of time this happens when one has only ever read a word (such as the bizarre gunwale, forecastle, victuals and Beauchamp and not heard it pronounced. That happens to me on the rare occasion. Interestingly enough, Pat and Vanna were discussing giblets at the end of Wheel tonight, and Pat said he said jiblets while Vanna admitted she said ghiblets. They agreed it was a dialectal difference. I have never heard her hard-gee pronunciation before. μηδείς (talk) 02:42, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard the name Beauchamp pronounced, so I would have used the French pronunciation if you hadn't warned me. (Thank you!)
A hard G in "giblet" would probably be considered non-standard in the UK, but Merriam-Webster.com gives it as an alternative in America. I wonder which regions use the hard G. Dbfirs 07:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 25

Idiom

Where did the idiom "cold turkey" come from? As in "to quit cold turkey". 107.77.207.96 (talk) 04:41, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EO has a theory:[11] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As Snopes.com says here, that explanation doesn't make a lot of sense; a better idea is that it comes from "talk turkey" combined with "cold". Merriam-Webster's page here also supports that explanation. --76.71.5.45 (talk) 06:40, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Turkey" itself has meanings as applied to humans. A turkey is "a person or thing of little appeal; dud; loser" or "a naive, stupid, or inept person."[12] Due to the withdrawal symptoms a person is likely to feel the compound implications of being a "loser" and being "cold". Our article notes these "pleasant" effects: "Withdrawal symptoms from opiate abuse (such as heroin/morphine) include anxiety, sweating, vomiting, and diarrhea." Bus stop (talk) 06:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say if Snopes has it right or not, but it's older than they're saying. I subscribe to a pay site called newspapers.com. I looked for the expression "quit cold turkey". The first item that turned up with that exact phrase was in the Cincinnati Enquirer for April 20, 1898. There's a story about a boxing match in which one of the contestants gave up after four rounds. The headline says the boxer, La Manche, "Caught a Tartar and Quit Cold Turkey." The term "catch a Tartar" means to "get hold of what cannot be controlled."[13] The article says La Manche "could not do what he pleased" with his opponent, and quit after the fourth round of a scheduled 15. It's clear enough that the expression "quit cold turkey" was already well-known by 1898. Another example is in the Pittsburgh Press for May 29, 1900. The Pirates defeated the N.Y. Giants 14-0, and the report said the Giants were so discouraged that "they quit cold turkey before half the innings had been played." Most or all of the early references appear in reports of boxing matches and ball games. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation I read several decades ago is that during withdrawal from heroin a sufferer exhibits horripilation (mentioned as "goose bumps" in Opioid use disorder) which resembles a plucked turkey's skin – presumably when the term arose geese were no longer a common food item. I don't assert that this is correct, but mention it as nobody else has so far. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.30.195} 176.248.159.54 (talk) 11:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

increase of "about who"

I'm interested in recent changes in Standard English.

Google Ngram Viewer shows that the use of "about who" has increased rapidly (about 20 fold) since 1960. This increase is not paralleled by a similar increase for any other prepositions I looked at (for example, "for who"). As I looked at some of the new examples of "about who" that Ngram Viewer shows me, I don't notice anything especially "new" about them.

Does anyone have any idea of how English may have changed? Thank you. More brownies plz (talk) 07:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give a sentence containing that expression? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I look in Ngram Viewer, I see for example "Now we want to spend some time using those same methods to see what we can discover about who Jesus is." There's nothing obviously (to me) unusual here. We could change "discover" to "search" and "about" to "for", and the result would still be OK. For other examples, such a change (one preposition to another) is not so easy. But what I can't even start to guess at is, why/how the twentyfold increase? (By the way, I really appreciate your fast response, but I have to rush off to work now. Back in a few hours!) More brownies plz (talk) 07:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not offering a real answer so far, just saying that your example sentence is not really a canonical example of "about" governing "who"; this is the preposition "about" governing the entire clause "who Jesus is", in which "who" just happens to be the subject/question pronoun. I take it that what you're really interested in would be sentences with "about" governing "who" directly, as in "About who did they think that she is pregnant?" – Oh, and you seem not to have specified what other phrase you were actually comparing it with on Ngrams; was it "about whom"? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]