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.

March 5

General (universal) surprise

As opposed to a "big" surprise - meaning something that is very surprising, by a "general" (or a "universal") surprise - I mean: a surprise that surprises many people (Check French: "à la surprise générale "), or that has many impacts - on many domains - or on many aspects of life, and the like.

However, I doubt if the word "general" ("universal") is the most useful one in that context, and mainly whether it's the best one to use in that context. Any other suggestions (except for "general" and "universal")? 185.27.105.173 (talk) 07:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Widespread surprise" has numerous Google Books results. E.g. "Catherine's readiness to provoke a conflict in defence of Orthodoxy occasioned widespread surprise". [1] After all, there are always going to be a few people who are not surprised by anything. Alansplodge (talk) 12:50, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have read several novel's that simply use "To everyone's surprise" when meaning what "à la surprise générale" means in French. --Lgriot (talk) 20:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite article for ʻokina

So the word ʻokina starts with a ʻokina, which represents a glottal stop, which is a consonant. From that I infer that it is correct to write a ʻokina rather than an ʻokina.

But I'm curious whether this is the standard scholarly usage, and whether it is thus codified in style guides (these are two separate questions). The ʻokina article seems to avoid the issue (by never using the word with an indefinite article), and I don't see any reference to it having been discussed on the talk page. --Trovatore (talk) 10:08, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, our article ʻOkina does contain the expression "an ʻokina". However, our article ʻotuhaka, uses the expression "a ʻotuhaka". 185.27.105.173 (talk) 10:23, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I bet whoever wrote "a ʻotuhaka" would in real life in fact use the stressed [eɪ] pronunciation for "a" which would prove that they don't "really" think of that ʻokina as a "real" consonant, for all that they pretend they do. In any case that pronunciation would be just a bit of pedantry and in my opinion "an ʻokina", "an ʻotuhaka", etc. should be the preferred usage in English. Basemetal 10:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you bet that, exactly? It seems to me the pronunciation should be /ʌ.ʔoʊˈkiːnə/. Note that "an ʻokina", /ən.ʔoʊˈkiːnə/, is very hard to say. It would flow much more naturally if you left out the glottal stop, but that would seem to kind of miss the point. --Trovatore (talk) 11:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saying /ən.ʔoʊˈkiːnə/, is not harder than saying "an historic day" - the aitch being pronounced185.27.105.173 (talk) 12:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is harder. The [h] is just a voiceless vowel; you can slip it in there without too much trouble. The [ʔ] is a consonant, which for me doesn't like to come after the n. I can do it, but it feels very weird indeed.

In any case I don't see how "an historic" with a sounded h is relevant; it's a completely different sound. --Trovatore (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What? Is the [h] just a voiceless vowel? To my ears, it's a voiceless consonant, and I can't notice any principal difference between, any (artificial) difficulty in pronouncing "an" before the voiceless consonant [h], and any (artificial) difficulty in pronouncing "an" before the voiced consonant [ʔ]. 185.46.77.11 (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The English [h] is usually realized as a voiceless vowel — that is, it has the same value as the vowel that follows it, except without the voicing. I don't think there's such a thing as a voiced glottal stop. At least, I can't figure out how to produce one. --Trovatore (talk) 20:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who has written the following?

As far as I know, the glottal stop is used in all English accents, whenever an utterance commences with a vowel. We just don't write it down. Or say the line from Dickens, [t]he law is a ass, a idiot, and you'll be putting glottal stops in the appropriate place. Typical readers are struck by the error in that line, but they don't have any problem saying it..

HOTmag (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a slightly odd question, given that the text appears below with my signature after it, and that's where you presumably found it. Why do you ask? --Trovatore (talk) 20:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I ask because: On one hand, you've claimed that "the glottal stop is used in all English accents, whenever an utterance commences with a vowel", so "an apple" - which is very easy to say - is (in your view) pronounced like "an ʔapple", hence "an ʔapple" is (in your view) very easy to say; On the other hand, you've claimed that "/ən.ʔoʊˈkiːnə/, is very hard to say"... HOTmag (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I said when an utterance commences with a vowel, not a word. I find it difficult to put a glottal stop between "an" and "apple". The word "apple" is not the start of the utterance. --Trovatore (talk) 21:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... but anyone who says ""an historic day" and pronounces the "h" needs "an history lesson" on the reason for for using "an". Dbfirs 12:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard an aspirated (pronounced) "h" in "an historic day", and almost never "an istoric day". The same is true for "an heroic achievement", "an hypnotic suggestion", "an heptagonal object", "an heraldic device", "an hospitable household", "an hereditary condition", "an historian", "an holistic approach", and so on for h-words that have their stress on the 2nd syllable and sound the 'h'. As soon as the stress moves to the 3rd syllable, the article becomes "a": "a horizontal alignment", "a hierarchical structure", etc. 185.27.105.173 (talk) 13:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've heard some of those erroneous usages of "an", all based on a historic misunderstanding. Dbfirs 18:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: In Arabic no word can start with a vowel so all the Arabic words that to us look like they start with a vowel in fact start with either a hamza (أ), a glottal stop, or an ayin (ع), a voiced pharyngeal (an ayin: case in point), and yet I have absolutely no memory of a single example, even in scholarly works, of hearing or reading "a ayin". Now the sequence "an ayin" doesn't occur in WP (neither does "a ayin" of course) but I've found "an Alawite State" here. Alawite (علوية) starts with an ayin since it is derived from the name Ali (علي). Maybe you'll argue that in this case the word has been Anglicized, so I'll let other people look for even better examples, but I can promise you I've never seen in writing (or heard) the definite article "a" [ə] in hiatus with an Arabic word starting with hamza or ayin. I can't swear I haven't heard a stressed "a" [eɪ], but if I've heard it, it's gotta be extremely rare. Basemetal 10:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the Arabic letter is called ayn, unlike its Hebrew cognate which is ayin.

Now, ghits for "an ayn" vs. "a ayn" vs. "a 3ayn" vs. "an 3ayn" are distributed as 400 : 200 : 10 : 1; this is to show that, most people who write ayn down as a 3, treat it as a consonant, while most people who write it down as a funny punctuation mark, or omit it altogether, -- don't treat it as a consonant. --194.213.3.4 (talk) 13:07, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Excellent point and yes I was being influenced by Hebrew. Note (y'all) how the Arabic and Hebrew cognates are accented on the same syllable. Words ending in 2 consonants like ayn which cannot exist in Biblical Hebrew (except for one or two late examples such "nard" or "nerd", I forget, a kind of perfume; I'm not talking of modern Hebrew here of course, which has thousands of words ending in two consonants, borrowings from European languages in general) had acquired in Biblical Hebrew a vowel that separates the two final consonants but have not shifted the accent so that they become accented on the penultimate. Such words are called "milim segoliyot" (because there's often a "segol") even though there might be no actual "segol" in the word, as in ayin, for example. Besides designating the letter, the two words are the usual word for "eye" and "spring (of water)" in both languages. Basemetal 13:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WHAAOE: Segolate --194.213.3.4 (talk) 13:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trovatore -- the glottal stop is present as a kind of sub-phonemic or semi-phonemic sound in many English dialects (present in many forms of American English in words like "button", and in some forms of British English in words like "bottle", to start with), so it wouldn't be completely outlandish to use "a ʻokina" on that basis -- but "an ʻokina" would still be the form which applies English rules to English sounds, and so would always be acceptable for that reason.

Basemetal -- The voiced pharyngeal sound [ʕ] is simply not present in any form of quasi-standard English, so it's really not reasonable to expect English speakers to adjust "a"/"an" forms based on a sound which doesn't appear in the English language. Also, for the letter-name "ʕayn" / "ʕayin" it's unsurprising that Arabic and Hebrew have the same stress position, since the word in each language has a normal vowel and a weak vowel (i'rab in Arabic, epenthetic segolate in Hebrew), so of course the stress will be on the normal vowel. But in general stress in Hebrew and Arabic are not particularly coordinated, and I don't think there was any proto-language stress rule which has come down to both Hebrew and Arabic. AnonMoos (talk) 14:24, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the glottal stop is used in all English accents, whenever an utterance commences with a vowel. We just don't write it down. Or say the line from Dickens, [t]he law is a ass, a idiot, and you'll be putting glottal stops in the appropriate place. Typical readers are struck by the error in that line, but they don't have any problem saying it. --Trovatore (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Biblical Hebrew has loads of words ending in two consecutive consonants: Not only nerd as you've mentioned (Song of Songs 4 14), but also: qosht (Proverbs 22 21), yaft (Genesis 9 26), wattashq (Genesis 21 19), wayyashq (Genesis 29 10; Exodus: 2 17, 2 19, 32 20; Psalms 78 15), wattevk (Genesis 21 16; Judges: 11 38, 14 16, 14 17; Samuel 2: 12 21; Ester 8 3; Chronicles 2: 34 27), wayyevk (Genesis: 27 38, 29 11, 37 35, 42 24, 43 30, 45 14, 46 29, 50 1, 50 17; Samuel 1: 24 16; Samuel 2: 3 32, 19 1; Kings 2: 8 11, 13 14, 20 3; Isaiah 38 3), wayyesht (Genesis: 9 21, 25 34, 27 25; Judges 15 19; Samuel 2: 11 13, Kings 1: 13 18, 13 19, 19 6; Kings 2: 9 34; Ruth 3 7), waʻesht (Genesis 24 46), wattesht (Numbers 20 11, Kings 1: 13 22), wayyishb (Numbers 21 1), tosp (Proverbs 30 6), and also every standard verb (i.e. a verb of the Whole Verb category), in Second Person, Feminine Singular, whether in the Past tense, e.g. ʻamart (Judges 17 2), and rarely also in the Present tense, e.g. "yoladt" (Genesis 16 11; Judges: 13 5, 13 7). 185.27.105.173 (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

185.27.105.173 -- Most of those are verb forms from a "lamed he" root (i.e. a triliteral consonantal root with a semi-vowel in the third position), which are subject to a very special process of deletion of a word-final unstressed vowel which applies only to those types of forms... AnonMoos (talk) 14:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In Hebrew, whether Biblical or Modern, most of the verbs ending in two consecutive consonants belong to the Whole Verb category, as I've already pointed out in my previous post. Actually, every standard verb (i.e. a verb belonging to that category), in the Past tense, Second Person, Feminine Singular, ends in a cluster of two consonants.

BTW, it seems like your Hebrew is excellent. Have you ever talked with Hebrew speakers in Modern Hebrew? 185.46.77.11 (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

185.27.105.173/185.46.77.11 -- Your remark of "14:29 5 March" as it now stands is a little bit different from how it was when I first replied to it. Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (28th edition as revised by Kautzsch and translated by Cowley) has something on this in section §10i on page 54 (see https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesenius%27_Hebrew_Grammar/10 , though I can't guarantee the accuracy of the on-line electronic text version). The usual English terms to refer to a verb with three consonants that do not undergo assimilation or create irregularities is "strong" or "regular" verbs. AnonMoos (talk) 02:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reference to Gesenius.

As for "strong" or "regular" verb category, yes: that's what I meant by "whole verb category" (being the Hebrew name of that category).

This is how my remark of "14:29 5 March" looked like, when you first replied to it. So, what do you want to note about that old version (which is a little bit different from how it now stands)? 185.27.105.171 (talk) 08:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ok, you're right. I was thinking mostly nouns. Most of your examples are, as AnonMoos noted, verbal forms of a special type. Any nouns in your examples except "nerd"? What is that "tosp" in Proverbs? And then of course there is "att" (you, fem.) with a final geminate, probably a unique example in Hebrew of a word ending in a geminate (nouns ending in a geminate are not uncommon in Arabic), unless 185.27.105.173 proves me wrong again, possibly with a verbal form. Basemetal 15:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As for what AnonMoos noted, please see my response to them above. As for other nouns except "nerd": Yes, there are some nouns, not only in Modern Hebrew, but also in Early post-Biblical Hebrew that have influenced Modern Hebrew, e.g. "neft" (meaning petroleum and deriving from Aramaic: "nefta"). As for "tosp" (in Proverbs 30 6), the full expression ibid. is "al tosp" meaning don't add, of which the regular form is "al tosif" the stress being on the last syllable , but in poetry such words may have penultimate accent, so "tosif" (with ultima accent) may become "tosef", which sometimes may become "tosp" because of the penultimate accent of "tosef". As for words ending with a geminate, I think "att" is really unique: The final dagesh in the word "wayyiħad" (Exodus 18 9) and in the word "yiħad" (Job 3 6) is a soft one. 185.46.77.11 (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A soft dagesh? In that position? Who has decided that? Ben Asher? Any other example of a soft dagesh which is neither in the beginning of a word nor following a shva (nakh in principle)? Basemetal 18:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not Bar asher, but rather linguistic considerations, as follows: The verb "wayyiħad" (Exodus 18 9) is analogous to the verb "wayyishb" (Numbers 21 1): Both of them are actually abbreviations of forms originally ending in the vowel /e/, so that the verb "wayyishb" is actually an abbreviation of "wayyishbe" (the root being sh.b.y., meaning to capture), whereas the verb "wayyiħad" is actually an abbreviation of "wayyiħde" (the root being ħ.d.y., meaning to rejoice, as it is in Aramaic as well). That said, just as the abbreviation of "wayyishbe" is "wayyishb" with a final soft dagesh (Numbers 21 1), so the abbreviation of "wayyiħde" should have been "wayyiħd" with a final soft dagesh, as it really was there in Ancient Hebrew (whether pre-Biblical or maybe even Biblical). As expected, the vowel /a/ was inserted (Exodus 18 9) after the /ħ/ of "wayyiħd" - because of the gutturality of the /ħ/, but the final soft dagesh of the /d/ unexpectedly remained (even though it shouldn't have remained). Please notice that this linguistic consideration is more probable than the assumption that the final dagesh in the verb "wayyiħad" is a geminate, because one cannot justify any geminate there, whereas a final soft dagesh in the verb "wayyiħad" is somehow justifiable, once one notices the final soft dagesh in the analogous verb "wayyishb" (Numbers 21 1). 185.46.77.11 (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When is it estimated the insertion of that patakh inside the "hd" cluster "vayyihd" (to give "vayyihad") happened historically? As to the lenition of bgdkpt after a vowel, that, as far as I know, happened in the first centuries AD under the influence of Aramaic. Is that what you know too? Basemetal 20:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, words like "paħd" (=fright) became "paħad", before words like "paħad" became "paħað". However, as far as the word "wayyiħad" is concerned, probably the insertion of pataħ after the /ħ/, only happened after words like "paħad" became "paħað". Please notice that the Hebrew Bible contains many words containing /ħ/ that is followed by a consonant rather than by a vowel.

BTW, besides nerd, there is another Biblical noun: qosht (Proverbs 22 21). 185.46.77.11 (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to ask: modern linguistic considerations aside, did any Masorete say anything about that dalet dgousha at the end of "yihad" and "vayyihad"? Basemetal 21:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Massorah indicates that the /d/ has a dagesh with a shwa naħ. No Massoretic info. about what kind of dagesh it is. 185.46.78.131 (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS: In article Alawites there's a bunch of "īyy" in Arabic names. It's gotta be one or the other: either "īy" or "iyy" but not both. I've quickly corrected some I've noticed but there's a whole bunch of them, so if anyone has got nothing better to do they might enjoy going over that article and correct all of them. Basemetal 10:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Basemetal -- that's the Semitic adjective suffix which is called the "gentilic" in traditional Christian Biblical scholarship and the nisba by Arabic grammarians. If there's a quote from a scholarly source, then the transcription conventions used in that source should be preserved; otherwise the conventions in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Arabic should be used... AnonMoos (talk) 14:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with nisba, but īyy can only be an error. Watch: ī is already iy so that īyy would be iyyy (three y's). It doesn't seem most of those cases are transcribed from a source so they should be corrected. The WP manual of style seems to favor īy over iyy (on a cursory reading) but there certainly are places in WP, for example that nisba article, where the other convention is used. If the source itself has the erroneous combination īyy then what do you do? I guess you put the form in quotes with a note or at least a sic. Basemetal 16:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If Google Scholar is a measure of standard scholarly usage then the answer is definitely an ʻokina. [2] [3] --Antiquary (talk) 11:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to apply English rules to a non-English word is a bit strange. There is no ʻ in the English alphabet, and you'll probably find most native English speakers will say /ɒkiːnə/, inviting any preceding indefinite article to be "an". Bazza (talk) 14:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, except that the alphabet is entirely irrelevant. The rule about 'a' vs 'an' is not and never has been about spelling (apart from the annoying glitch of "an historic" for some people): it's about sounds. /ʔ/ is not a phoneme in English; it does occur as an allophone of various phonemes in different dialects, but it has no status at the beginning of a word; so most English speakers, even if they know Hawaiian, will pronounce "ʻokina" with an initial vowel, and naturally select "an". --ColinFine (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Has no status at the beginning of the word" — you just mean it's not phonemic, right? It is definitely pronounced. All English utterances that we think start with a vowel actually start with a glottal stop. --Trovatore (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the rule for the use of "an" and "a" is more about sound than spelling, which is why people who pronounce "historic" without the initial "h" sound will tend to us "an"; also is the classic case of words like "use", as in "I have a use for this", which ~~never~~ rarely takes "an" in English. The deal with the ʻokina in English is that many English dialects already use an (unspelled) glottal stop between neighboring vowels to deal with diaresis, so English speakers tend to treat the glottal stop as a phonological variation of the vowel itself rather than as a distinct consonant on its own. Given that it is a loanword anyways, and likely to be modified by standard English phonology, there's likely no standard way to deal with it as either "a ʻokina" or "an ʻokina". Each is as likely to be acceptable as the other, so just be consistent in the same work. --Jayron 32 17:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32 "What are the objects of an useful American education? Classical knowledge, modern languages, chiefly French, Spanish, and Italian: Mathematics, Natural philosophy, Natural history, Civil history, and Ethics." - Thomas Jefferson to J. Bannister Jr. 1785Naraht (talk) 20:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and 1785 is not today. --Jayron 32 20:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious though how Jefferson pronounced "useful": was it like "ooze-ful" or "yews-ful"? Basemetal 20:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sound in English before modern "yoo" (IPA [juː]) was "ü" as in German (IPA [yː]). Thomas Jefferson lived too late to have [yː] in his pronunciation, but any oddity in his use of "a"/"an" is more likely to go back to that time than to reflect an [uː] pronunciation, as far as I can tell... AnonMoos (talk) 02:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The alphabet is quite relevant to the question, as it was about whether to write a ʻokina rather than an ʻokina. My point is that the word itself is not written using the English alphabet, and it's there is therefore going to be no rule about how to handle this (or any other words using non-English-alphabet characters). Bazza (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but the point is that the a/an rule in English is not about the alphabet in terms of which written character starts a word, it's about the phonemes (spoken sounds) that start a word. That's why you get usages like "an historic event" and "a useless thing"; the use of a/an is determined by the anticipated sound that starts the next word. English has glottal stops, it just doesn't assign them phonemic value, so that's why it has no way to decide what to do with them. The alphabet (orthography) has nothing to do with it really. Hawaiʻian has a glottal stop that carries phonemic value; the written character doesn't mean much to the discussion. It doesn't matter what you represent it with on paper; the a/an rule is based on spoken language. --Jayron 32 20:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accents

Can anyone here answer what are the particular traits of an accent from Tipperary in Ireland? Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 13:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article titled Hiberno-English has sections on various regional dialects. --Jayron 32 13:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Was looking for something more specific, but thanks loads. Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 20:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What British accent is the closest to Australian accent?

What regional British accent is the closest to Australian accent, if any at all? Has the UK exported enough people from some specific region to make a difference? --Hofhof (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The basis of our accent is Southern British. Americans, in particular, often confuse us. They think the Cockney accent is the Australian accent." Professor John Hajeck, University of Melbourne

"Since no observer has yet been able to produce more than a few resemblances between the Australian and the Cockney accents, the allegation that Australians talk like Cockneys must be regarded as one of the popular myths to which we, as a young nation, are susceptible. Probably the best words ever spoken on behalf of the anti-Cockney theory were by Thomas Wood in "Cobbers" (1934) : 'Australians don't [talk Cockney]. People who say they do know nothing of accents and nothing of voices. They judge by vowels and inexpertly then. They disregard intonation, inflexion and quality. Are the Cockney and the Australian voices alike in these ? They are not.'" The Australian language: an examination of the English language and English speech as used in Australia, from convict days to the present (p. 453) Sidney John Baker (1966).

Alansplodge (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To American ears, all British accents and dialects sound alike and may even remind the listener of fairy-tale language. You know the type of fancy accents used in fairy-tale movies? They all sound British. It may be royalty British or pirate British, but they all sound British. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 20:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} I think you meant to say "To my ears..." You really shouldn't start a statement applying to 300,000,000 people and then follow it up with a purely personal experience. --Jayron 32 20:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the obvious fact that the distinct Scottish accent is well-known, even if people can't discern between different Scottish accents, and consider the Edinburgh accent to be the most typical. Hofhof (talk) 20:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Australian English article seems to indicate that the accent is a mix of (predominantly) accents from South-East England and Ireland. Wymspen (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ever since I visited the UK, Australian accents have always sounded like working-class London accents to me (though I would NOT use the term "Cockney", which is a highly-loaded and nowadays almost semi-obsolete word). AnonMoos (talk) 02:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What leads you to describe the term as "highly loaded", @AnonMoos:? As the son of a Cockney (except by the most narrow definition, but nevertheless born in Leytonstone to parents from Leyton and Bow) and a UK citizen and resident, I'm not aware of such, nor would I have described it as ""almost semi-obsolete", whatever that means. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.211.131.202 (talk) 08:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's highly-loaded because it brings to mind a large amount of clichéd stereotypes and inaccurate popular-culture depictions from decades past. It's almost semi-obsolete because classic Cockney dialect is in many cases giving way to "Estuary English" etc., and because the area around St. Mary-le-Bow church, Cheapside, which was the traditional heart of Cockneydom, is now mainly a business offices district, with few working-class residents. I'm sure there are still some who proudly maintain Cockney traditions, but for reasons such as the above I would avoid using the word to describe Australian English... AnonMoos (talk) 13:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Americans you speak on behalf of, 140.254.70.33 have clearly never met a Geordie, a Scouser, someone from Yorkshire, a Brummie, someone from the West Country or someone who speaks Estuary English. And I've not mentioned any examples of British accents outside of England. This video is a fairly decent (personally I thought her Brummie was weak but hey-ho) guide to many of our regional accents that even the most isolationist American wouldn't perceive to be "alike".

To my ears, none of these sound anything like any stripe of Strine that I've ever encountered, and as a cricket fan, I've heard a lot of Australians talking over the years. Annoyingly, they've often been rather too happy for my liking.

Anecdotal note to finish. During WWII, my father was in the RAF. One person in his unit was from Aberdeen. That can be a very strong accent. Apparently, hardly anyone in the (all-British) unit could understand him, so the commanding officer thought hard about what he could do that didn't require verbal communication. They made him camp postman (mailman). --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hofhof, there's a book called The Origins of the Southern Hemisphere Accents of English by Charles Fritz Juengling which would clearly bear some studying, but unluckily Google Books only gives a snippet view. I did find this in it: "Actually it is from the rustic folk of Oxfordshire and Berkshire, and from tradesmen and college scouts in Oxford itself; that I have heard the English speech which bears the closest resemblance to that of Australians." --Antiquary (talk) 10:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 6

"undermined with"?

Hello, I've been "arguing" with Peacemaker67 about the said expression reincluded by him here, and to be honest, I still don't get what exactly it is supposed to mean, as for me only "undermined by" really seems to make sense in this context. So, can somebody please enlighten me? Thanks a lot in advance.--Boczi (talk) 16:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The correct usage is definitely "undermined by" and not "undermined with". But I think confusion has arisen in this caption because, according to the body of the article, Bader's standing in Berlin had been undermined by Meyszner in Meyszner's reports to Himmler. I have amended the text of the caption to make this clearer. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much indeed, Gandalf61! Best--Boczi (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty to fix the section title, (but not the same typo in Boczi's post above). See Muphry's law. No such user (talk) 12:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, No such user!--Boczi (talk) 10:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing W with T in the question words...

My son recently pointed out that for three of the question words in english, What, When and Where that an answer could be made from replacing the W with a T, respectively That, Then and There. Does this represent a common change (in Anglo-Saxon???) I can't come up with what Who and Why would change to and I'm not sure on How at all, but I'm wondering if there is something to this...Naraht (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a change in Anglo-Saxon, but ultimately reflecting a very old alternation in Proto-Indo-European. Simplifying somewhat, IE tended to have question elements beginning in *kʷ- (which later ended up developing into w in Germanic), and demonstrative/pronominal elements in *t- (which later developed into th- in Germanic). Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

kʷ– became hw– in Germanic, and most Germanic languages later lost the contrast between hw and w — but not all; besides those English dialects that preserve it, hv apparently is still a thing (as the young people say) in Scandinavian. —Tamfang (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not only What When and Where, but also: Wherefore, Whence and Whither. Additionally, not only by replacing the W by T, but also by removing the W: Where, Wherefore, Whence and Whither. HOTmag (talk) 16:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The triplets are "here, where, there", "hither, whither, thither", "hence, whence, thence" "herefore, wherefore, therefore", etc. DuncanHill (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Compare Latvian 'kur', Russian куда (kuda) "whither" vs Latvian 'tur', Russian туда (tuda) "thither". Exactly the same alternation: kʷ has become /k/ in Baltic and Slavic. --ColinFine (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and each one of those four words either expresses a question about locality or begins with the semi-word "where" expressing a question about locality. HOTmag (talk) 07:55, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wherefore/therefore/herefore are not to do with locality. DuncanHill (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have I claimed they are? Please read again what I wrote ("or begins..." etc.). HOTmag (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"each one of those four words either expresses a question about locality or begins with the semi-word "where" expressing a question about locality" Unfortunately as you didn't say which four words you were talking about nobody can know what you meant. The indent of you post made it look like you were replying to my post. Having carefully re-read in the light of your latest comment, I now have no idea what you are talking about. DuncanHill (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was replying to your post. Yes, each one of those four words either expresses a question about locality or begins with the semi-word "where" that expresses a question about locality. By "either...or" I mean that each one of those four words has either the first property or the other one. Check: "Your username begins with D whereas my username begins with H, so each name either begins with D or begins with H". What's wrong with that? HOTmag (talk) 08:17, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naraht, I'm intrigued by your use of "Wikinger" and "Theoderich" to refer to the letters W and T. Google has not enlightened me about this. Can you explain? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, that was a piece of vandalism that slipped through [4]. Will fix in a moment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it could be part of a new phonetic alphabet :-) Nyttend (talk) 04:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's have fun, we need to extend this mechanism and start using "- Who did that? - Well, tho did it, not sure who" (meaning someone) and "- Why did they do it? - Thy!". We already have "- How? - Thus!", just need to start pronouncing "How" like "Whow" and "thus" like "thow". --Lgriot (talk) 15:04, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lgriot -- in some forms of Middle English, "tho" was the plural form of the definite article. "Why" originated as the instrumental case form of the interrogative. The instrumental case form of the Old English definite article and/or demonstrative survives in Modern English as correlative "the" (i.e. "The more the merrier"). AnonMoos (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It might be helpful to summarise:

From demonstrative stem *kⁱ-:

hence = from this place

here = in this place

hither = towards this place

From demonstrative stem *th^a-:

that = demonstrative pronoun

then = at that time

thence = from that place

there = in that place

thither = towards that place

From interrogative stem *kʷ^a-:

what = interrogative pronoun

when = at what time?

whence = from what place?

where = in what place?

whither = towards what place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.146.232 (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot: herefore, therefore, wherefore. HOTmag (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those are prepositional compounds, a little different... AnonMoos (talk) 23:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why do some scientific publications require submissions to be in the country’s dialect?

If the author is a non-native English speaker in America and decides to submit to a British journal, does the author have to pay a translator to translate from US English to UK English? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 17:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the first question, see: Nationalism. There will probably be some arguments about the publication desiring "clarity" (as if the two dialects are mutually incomprehensible) or uniformity (as if that's somehow different from nationalism), but it's pretty much nationalism.

For the second question, that could be an option. That's not necessarily the only option, but it could be one. They might be able to get a friend to do it, or research how to translate it themselves. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

US English and UK English are not different enough to require a translator; normal proofreading can catch the differences. Most are small differences in orthography (i.e. honor vs. honour) and a few minor terminology differences (petrol vs. gasoline), and most importantly for journal submissions, date formatting (that is June The Third Two Thousand and Eighteen would be written 6/3/2018 in AmEng and 3/6/2018 in BrEng) It should not be difficult for a native speaker of one dialect to find such things themselves, or have a professional proofreader catch them. Translators are necessary only for non-mutually-intelligible languages. Standard American English and Standard British English (especially their written forms) are not different enough to be so considered. --Jayron 32 17:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience (neuroscience), most journals don't specify. Amusingly, I did submit one paper to a journal that required submissions to be in American. I of course refused to do this, and they published it anyway. I don't think it's generally a bit deal. Fgf10 (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been paid to translate from UK to US English, and even from US to Canadian English. It's a field of translation called localization. People could certainly do it themselves for free, but if they're willing to pay a professional translator a few bucks, who am I to say no? Adam Bishop (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian to American: We traveled to Vancover with the instrument.. American to Canadian: The proupeller landed at Site Zed-A eh.. American to British: Analysis of male trouser preferences at funerals, 1869-2016 British to American: a substance responsible for male pattern baldness, β-LOKE (*bloke is British for guy)..Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Broader question: is there any organized resistance to this notion of "national dialects"? Traditionally the U.S. had many dialects of English, with terms like y'all famously associated with one and not another. Conversely, to my ears, dialects from other countries don't seem like they should be off-limits to Americans; I feel there is one language, English, and that people should be free to mix and match as desired, though at the same time being wary about colloquial terms ("public school") that are prone to misinterpretation globally. I can't understand that mind-set that any new word like "meme" that comes along becomes OK to use in your writing, but some prat can object that words in centuries-long usage are off-limits to people from your country. Wnt (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wnt -- the style guides of most scientific journals rigorously exclude the 2nd person, so the question of "y'all" would not even arise. However, even if that were not the case, constructions and forms which are not allowed in the expository prose of nationally-distributed "newspapers of record" are unlikely to be allowed in the expository prose of academic journal articles... AnonMoos (talk) 23:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do I access this study?

I found an interesting study (https://www.researchgate.net/project/Heritage-Speakers-Approaches-to-Raising-Bilingual-Children). Is there a way to read it? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried WP:REX? People who help out there may be able to help you. --Jayron 32 18:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything there to indicate that they have actually published their results - this is a described as a project, and I note that they did a presentation about their project at an anthropological conference last November in a session which lists about 20 presentations in two hours. You may have to keep an eye on it until they announce that they have published. Wymspen (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 8

Latin alphabet

I am sure people had asked this before, but I have not find much about this subject:

If /kʷ/ is a phoneme in the Classical Latin, why did they decide to write QU and not just Q?
Why did they repeat the same mistake of Ancient Greek, and invent the letter X?
Why the diphthong /ai/ was written AE and not AI?
Why /k g/ were written C and were not distinguished in writing already from the beginning? יהודה שמחה ולדמן (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Answer #1: it was probably influenced by Greek, which used koppa (briefly, including the period the Latin alphabet was borrowed from Greek) exclusively before back vowels; otherwise it used kappa. In Phoenician, kaph and koph had 2 slightly different sounds Greek didn't distinguish; the Greeks thus limited (and later, but after the Romans borrowed the Greek alphabet, removed) the use of koppa.

Answer #2. The history of chi is unknown.

Answer #3. I have no idea here.

Answer #4. This is pure speculation (regardless of how many people believe it.) The Greek alphabet used kappa and gamma for those sounds. In the Western form of the Greek alphabet, gamma looked like <. This form of the Greek alphabet was brought into Italy, including the Latins as one group of people from Italy. When the Italians borrowed the Greek alphabet, not only did they keep the < form of gamma; they changed zeta from an I with long horizontal lines into a symbol resembling [. The letters of gamma or <, kappa or K, and zeta or [ got confused because of their similar appearances. Combine this with the fact that the dz or ts affricate (zeta had dz in Greek and ts in other Italic languages of the time the alphabet was brought into Italy) was absent from Latin and you'll notice something. After a period of confusion, K was used so rarely because it was the hardest of the 3 letters to draw and its use became so sparse. Gamma (<) was curved into a C and became the usual sign for kappa's sound in Latin. Zeta ([) was altered into a G-like figure that became the letter G and got the sound of Greek gamma. Georgia guy (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how that answers my question.
I am talking about Latin X, not the Greek Chi. But now mentioning it, why did greek have letters for [zd st ks ps]? יהודה שמחה ולדמן (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But Latin X came from Greek chi, so the origin of chi is also the origin of Latin X. As for your #1, it explains why QU was used in Latin but Q in general was not. The Latin letter V (called U; the V is simply its shape) was used for the consonant sound of w as well as the vowel sound of u, so it makes sense that they would use QU, not just Q. Georgia guy (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also see a reference desk archive that dates to August 28, 2017 for more about the answer to question #2. Georgia guy (talk) 00:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The answer for 3 is: it wasn't. Since question 1 refers to Classical Latin, I assume question 3 does as well. Classical Latin didn't have the diphthong /ai/. Written <ae> was pronounced [ae̯]. Old Latin, on the other hand, had <ai> which was probably pronounced like [ai̯]. This sound morphed into [ae̯] in Classical Latin, hence the change in spelling to <ae>. In Vulgar Latin, this sound continued its evolution, turning into a monophthong, /e/ (or /ɛː/? I forget). See Latin spelling and pronunciation#Diphthongs and Latin#Diphthongs for more details.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 01:09, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@WilliamThweatt: I'm finding this [e̯] sound very difficult to search for. What does it mean? --Trovatore (talk) 11:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Trovatore: The mark underneath is an IPA symbol marking a diphthong (International Phonetic Alphabet#Diphthongs).--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 22:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks very much. That explains why I wasn't having much luck searching for e̯ by itself. --Trovatore (talk) 22:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question 3 (and WilliamThweatt's answer) apply equally to the diphthong OE, which didn't get the same attention from the OP. Note that (at least in monumental inscriptions, don't know about manuscripts, graffiti, etc.) it wasn't just "AE" and "OE" but the ligatures Æ and Œ, which seem to indicate speakers did not feel Æ and Œ were just A + E and O + E (i.e. the sound of the 2nd element of the diphthongs was not exactly the same as the sound of the standalone letter E) It would be difficult to argue, I think, those two ligatures arose as scribal shorthand as more common letter combinations did not receive ligatures, plus they don't seem to save any time to draw or carve compared to the digraphs. Incidentally, did ligatures for A + I and O + I exist in Old Latin when the diphthongs AI and OI were still used? Basemetal 11:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to original question no. 4 is that the Etruscan language did not have an opposition between voiced and voiceless stops, so some letters of the borrowed Cumae western Greek alphabet were redundant for writing Etruscan. In early Latin, this somehow led to a strange situation where "C" was used both for [g] and for [k] before [e], [i], while "K" was used mainly for [k] before [a], and "Q" was used for [k] before [o], [u]. The rational thing to do would have been to use "C" for [g] and "K" for most [k], but that was not the path that was followed...
The early "C" ambiguity survived into Classical Latin in the use of "C" as an abbreviation for the name "Gaius", and has given rise to the non-existent form "Caius"[sic]. "Caius" should only exist in Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge, where it's a fancy-shmancy way of spelling the English name "Keyes"... -- AnonMoos (talk) 03:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC) AnonMoos (talk) 03:05, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But is G derived from C (as the WP article on the letter G claims) or is it derived from Z (as Georgia guy argues). I can see a good argument on Georgia guy's side: if Z had disappeared from the alphabet sometime in the 4th c. BC, it would be odd that the new letter G would have been added in the 3rd c. BC (about 100 years later) in its place as if a "hole" had been kept in the alphabet open and ready to receive a new letter. If the Z had disappeared the new letter G, supposedly a variant of C, would have been more likely to be added either right after C, or at the end of the alphabet where most new letters are usually added. Basemetal 10:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Basemetal -- the memory that there had been a letter between F and H was kept alive by "model alphabets" (the practice of writing down a theoretical full alphabet which includes inherited letters which are not actually used in writing the language that you speak). We have some model alphabet inscriptions (mentioned briefly in the Etruscan language article), and in fact several Greek letters would likely not have survived through Etruscan to make it into the Latin alphabet without this practice... AnonMoos (talk) 14:27, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 9

"where shall we lead our Association " - please help me revise this direct translation for it to become more grammatically correct yet retain the original idea?

I've also thought about writing "To what direction shall we take the Society? - but that sounds forced as well. Any ideas out there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgoldstand (talk • contribs) 12:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Where Are We Going and Why?; there are numerous similar ones on Google, which is more the kind of thing people would actually say in a conversation. I also liked I don't know where I'm going but I'm heading in that direction. Alansplodge (talk) 12:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your original question "Where shall we lead our Association?" is perfectly acceptable, perfectly grammatical, simple and easy to understand. I wouldn't change it a bit. Unless it isn't what you actually mean. But there is nothing wrong with it. Your second attempt sounds a bit awkward. "To what direction..." is excessively wordy, and the word "Where" is probably sufficient. --Jayron 32 12:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"To what direction ..." would be more idiomatic as "In what direction ..." Deor (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But neither is as concise as "Where" --Jayron 32 14:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But where can be taken as referring to a goal, whereas in what direction implies a course or route without, perhaps, any clear notion of an ultimate objective. Deor (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Fair enough. Which is why context matters It is hard to provide the OP with a proper translation for a bare sentence when a) we don't know the source text in its original language and b) we don't know the greater context of what they are trying to say. Absent that, I was trying to go by the general principles of good writing: proper grammar, conciseness and efficiency. In what direction may be appropriate, but it may not. We just don't know, and absent that, it is better to default to general principles of good writing. --Jayron 32 15:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to put in a !vote for "whither". DuncanHill (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford defines whither as "archaic": [5]. Otherwise it means the same thing as "where". --Jayron 32 15:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it means (according to your link), "To what place or state" which seems to me to suit the original question well. The OED says archaic or literary. DuncanHill (talk) 15:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford defines "where" in the same manner, mentioning position (place) and situation (state). They are defined the same way by Oxford. --Jayron 32 16:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While the definitions you linked to have similarities, they are not the same. The OED goes into rather more depth. DuncanHill (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It usually does. --Jayron 32 16:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Put simply, "whither" means "to where", rather than simply "where". 86.155.145.152 (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I like Alan's answer: "Where are we going?" But other editors here have raised questions that the OP needs to answer, if he ever comes back here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:03, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 10

Korean expression/word: "gross-mid-ah" (my attempt at transliterating what it sounds like to me phonetically)

I watch a huge amount of 3-cushion billiards and so I end up watching a lot of matches on Youtube that are from S. Korean TV. I constantly hear an expression or word that sounds like "gross-mid-ah" to my English-speaking, untrained ear. I got curious what it might be. I can give you a use: It's said multiple times in this match, and to hear one, go to 14:05--185.230.124.51 (talk) 01:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like ‘그렇습니다’, means (abstractly) “Yeah” or “That’s right”, etc. wikt:그렇다. In your video... “(Person A says something)” “그렇습니다(That’s right)— (and continue his word)”. — regards, Revi 15:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks very much Revi. I figured it had to be something like that, given how often I hear it. Can't wait to trot that one out the next time I'm playing a Korean (but hope I don't butcher it too badly so that they have no idea what I said).--185.230.124.53 (talk) 02:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Superstars, superheroes, supermodels, ...

We hardly ever hear of plain stars, heroes or models anymore. People seem to go straight from nonentities to superstars or whatever, without ever seeming to have to pass through common-or-garden stardom.

A case in point: at the recent Winter Olympics, an Australian snowboarder named Scotty James won a Bronze Medal. All very good, well worth some accolades and at least temporary fame given that our track record at the Winter Games is hardly world-beating. But within a day, he was already being referred to, at least in the Aussie media, as a "superstar". He had never even been a star; he was utterly unknown to 99.999% of the public. And he came 3rd in his event, not 1st. He had also been chosen as the flag bearer for the Opening Ceremony, but on what basis I have no idea. Had he not won a medal, I doubt he'd be called any kind of star.

Same with models: There must be many thousands of them who have not yet ascended to the heights of fame. But the moment one of them gets any kind of media attention, they get called "supermodel". (Here's me thinking modelling was all about the clothes, not the wearer. But what do I know?)

Is all this clap-trap explained by media hyerbole, personality cult, or what? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:25, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The media using hyperbole? Did you really think that the media has never used hyperbole in the past? The media (especially in New York) has always referred to everything as "biggest", "best", "most important", "world's tallest", "world's most expensive" everything. And this is not new. To quote Captain Renault. "I am shocked!" Collect (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dickens's timely comment on it, just the other day: It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way – in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only. --Trovatore (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Collect -- The 1779 play "The Critic" has a whole long explanation of different kinds of 18th-century newspaper "puffing"... AnonMoos (talk) 02:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EO says the term "superstar" first appeared in the 1920s, in reference to Babe Ruth, and it was certainly deserved.[6] EO also dates the term "supermodel" to 1978.[7] The term "superman", which presumably inspired the more general term "superhero", originated 500 years ago.[8] The term "superhero" dates from over a century ago, getting wide use in the 1960s.[9] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chess is a field that hyperbolizes schizophrenically. It jumped straight from classical to hypermodern in like 1920 to 23 and classical chess wasn't invented till 385+ years after the rules were. Also classical style wasn't invented till decades after the end of neoclassicism (i.e. classical music) and chess's classical history continued after fighter pilots, 131 mph electric trains (1903), liquid helium (1908) and superconductors (1911). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently come across the word "super-ager" [10], [11]. Is this novel? 86.155.146.232 (talk) 12:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see it used before 2003, or at any rate not in that sense. Someone in 1995 used it to mean "things that really, really age you". --Antiquary (talk) 15:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've heard of "superager", but the word Supercentenarian has been around for a while... AnonMoos (talk) 23:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, that's a perfect counterexample to my thesis. First you have to reach 100, and that makes you a centenarian. You become a supercentenarian if and only if you reach 110. You cannot go straight from old person to supercentenarian. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 11

Tiananmen Square Protests (1989)

I am doing a little bit of research into the Tiananmen Square massacre and the state media's reaction to the internal crisis. I watched a Xinwen Lianbo broadcast made on the night of the massacre, and I would like a screenshot translating.

I think it says something about counter-revolutionary actions, but my Chinese is not so great.

Thank you so much! --Mart Waterizz (talk) 00:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joke explanation

A picture of a white and a black boy, the latter if angry.

"White boy: every time I come over your dad is never home Tyrone Tyrone: l said he at the store "

Where's the joke? Is it a reference to some stereotype? --Hofhof (talk) 13:39, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this. Supposedly a joke, but I don't get it either. I think it has something to do with memes, but I don't understand what a meme is. I have a theory that it's not funny at all, but that most people laugh and insist that they understand the humor even though they don't. So it's funny in a way because millions of people pretend to understand and laugh, when there is truly nothing to understand. —Stephen (talk) 00:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to appropriate article. 93.136.57.218 (talk) 01:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 12

Help with a Russian name.

What is the correct English transliteration of Евдокия Николаевна Завалий ? For context this is the woman in this article, this article and this article. If at all possible, the correct transliteration of the male pseudonym she used, mentioned in the uk.wiki and ru.wiki articles, would be appreciated. Prince of Thieves (talk) 00:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no single transliteration standard for Russian, but the transliterations in the article are both OK. If you want the second one to conform to the first, use Zavaliy Yevdokim Nikolayevich (with maybe a note that this comes from "Завалий Евдок. Ник." in her formal documents, so Zavaliy is still the surname) 93.136.57.218 (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So Yevdokim and Evdokim are equivalent? Prince of Thieves (talk) 01:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]