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.

October 22

Pandar

Rupert Brooke's poem "Mummy" (or "Mummia") starts with these words:

As those of old drank mummia

To fire their limbs of lead,

Making dead kings of Africa

Stand pandar to their bed; ...

I have no idea what the word pandar means, or what "Making dead kings of Africa stand pandar to their bed" means. Google has been zero help on this occasion. Can anyone shed light on this? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:45, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your best bet might be to write to the webmaster and see if they have a clue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

wikt:pandar has as a definition "A person who furthers the illicit love-affairs of others; a pimp or procurer, especially when male." as a definition which makes some sort of sense. It’s marked as obsolete, but Brooke was writing 100 years ago and making classical allusions, so of course he was using obsolete and archaic language.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A pandar is a person who furthers the illicit love-affairs of others; a pimp or procurer. Mummia is an aphrodisiac prepared with mummified human flesh (mummy), so I think that "they stand pandar" means that the Egyptian pharaohs are acting as procurers. —Stephen (talk) 05:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, John and Stephen. I did of course check wiktionary, but came up with nothing. Weird. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems (according to the OED) to be a variant of 'pander', which is still used today in the verbal sense, and in pandering to someone's whims or desires. The etymology is from Pandarus, 'a Trojan archer who is said to have procured for Troilus the love and good graces of Chryseis (or Cressida).' AndrewWTaylor (talk) 06:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The modern English word which is still sometimes used in that meaning (especially in legal terminology) is "panderer"... AnonMoos (talk) 13:36, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Murian

OK, here's another weird word from Rupert Brooke: murian.

He wrote to his ex-inamorata Noel Olivier in February 1913: You … can't in the dizziest heights of murian imagination, picture the life of glitter and gaiety I lead".

It is definitely not in Wiktionary. There's this: The murian shall infect all kine, And measles will destroy the swine. This tells me that murian is a leprosy of swine, but I can't see how that's relevant to Brooke's usage of the word. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think murian is an adjectival form of "mouse". You missed off the start of that sentence which begins "But you, poor brown mouse" which to me confirms it. The second quote also to me suggests the author is blaming mice.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 08:37, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it may be Brooke showing off his classical education. Muridae, the mouse family is named from the Latin for mouse, mus. But being Latin the adjectival form might well be "murian".--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 08:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Murrain is the disease. Murine is the adjective for mouse (like ovine and bovine), according to the OED. Murex, however, is the genus of snails that were used to make the dye for Tyrian purple, so could it relate to that? Mikenorton (talk) 09:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Murine is probably what I was thinking of. Pretty sure that’s what is meant by the Brooke quote, from context. Maybe an archaic or classical variant of it, but the same meaning of the adjective for mouse. I had not heard of Murrain, but that makes sense for the second quote which looks quite old so it could be an older spelling or a mis-spelling from when English spelling was less set in stone.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 09:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This all makes a lot of sense. Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

October 23

Questions about the Cyrillic alphabet

Why are there special letters for soft vowels that differ from those for hard vowels?? (Example: A looks like an A; Ya looks like a backwards R)
Why was the Cyrillic I derived from eta as opposed to iota??
How did the letter Zhe get its alphabetization??
Why is there a special letter for the super-affricate shch?? (For curiosity, do any languages using the Latin alphabet use a single letter for a super-affricate??) Georgia guy (talk) 01:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many articles we have on Cyrillic letters describe their history. For just one example, based on your first question, I found Ya (Cyrillic), which describes how the character evolved over time. If you go to the Wikipedia article titled Cyrillic script, and look around the middle of the article, there's a large table with clickable links for each Cyrillic letter. I would start there to help you research the answers to your questions, and if THAT is unsatisfactory, then I would use the sources and references for those articles as the next place to look. --Jayron 32 12:23, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia_guy -- remember that the Cyrillic alphabet was originally devised for Old Church Slavonic, not for Russian. In fact, letters derived from both Greek Eta and Greek Iota existed in spelling Russian until the Iota letter was abolished soon after the Bolsheviks took power (see Reforms of Russian orthography). Letters for y-preceded vowels were the way that was chosen to write the palatalized or "soft" consonants which were a basic part of the phonology of Slavic languages... AnonMoos (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Iotation#Orthography for coverage of the latter. No such user (talk) 10:56, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Щ, see Shcha, ru:Щ, Russian phonology and ru:Русская фонетика. In Russian, the pronunciation [ɕtɕ] (soft sh + soft ch) is dated, while [ɕː] (long soft sh) is now the standard. The same goes for a few letter combinations such as ЗЧ, СЧ, ШЧ, ЗЩ, СЩ, although some of them are still pronounced [ɕtɕ] in certain words. Turns out that contemporary mainstream Russian has [tɕ] (Ч), [ɕː] and [ɕtɕ], but no simple [ɕ].

In Ukrainian and Rusyn, the Щ indeed represents [ʃtʃ] (sh + ch), while in Bulgarian it's [ʃt] (sh + t). All other languages currently using it are non-Slavic and use it in loanwords only.

And I think that no language uses a single Latin letter for a "super-affricate", unless some language in some weird special case does. --Theurgist (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Irregardless and the like

Whether or not irregardless is a solecism, it's interesting. I think that most native speakers of English would regard the prefix as superfluous, and yet the result sounds natural and is easy to understand for most of us. I've occasionally noticed similar affixation elsewhere, though offhand I can't come up with examples. Is there a term in lexical semantics for this kind of thing? ("This kind of thing" meaning, I suppose, something like: "affixation by analogy for semantic effect, (ir)regardless of the fact that the desired meaning is already there;" though this perhaps could be improved.) More.coffy (talk) 02:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Irregardless is used as a synonym for regardless, but it's actually an antonym. How deeply do you want to get into this? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(antonym) Do you mean as a synonym for "not without regard for"? I can't imagine anyone using it in this sense and expecting to be understood. Jmar67 (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying "irregardless" is used as a synonym for "regardless", but as a word it doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some times the same affix can mean both "intensifier" and "negation". Consider "in-". For "Inflammable" it means "very able to burn", where "in-" is an intensifier, but for "inanimate" it means "not animate". --Jayron 32 12:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology doesn't determine meaning, but for what etymology is worth, "in-" is not an intensifier. And as an L1 speaker of 20th/21st-century English, I have never thought that "in-" in "inflame", "inflammatory", "inflammable", etc was an intensifier. Rather, it's "en-". Oh, hello, RMW Dixon calls the latter (when attached to verbs, as in "enwrap", etc) an intensifier (Making New Words, p.188). Well well. -- Hoary (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tell that to the in-famous El Guapo. --Trovatore (talk) 00:32, 27 October 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Note the origins of "infamous".[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:37, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't seen the film, you're not going to get it. Probably not worth explaining here. But definitely worth seeing the movie. --Trovatore (talk) 00:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Jayron32 -- It's not the "same affix" but two prefixes which have fallen together in pronunciation in Latin -- see Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2007_September_9#Confusion_about_in-_and_un-... AnonMoos (talk) 13:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our page on pleonasm gives this as an example of morphemic pleonasm. Is that what you mean? Beware however: that section cites no sources and the phrase morphemic pleonasm isn't one I remember having heard before. --Antiquary (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the move, User:JackofOz. I'd like to respond there but unfortunately I'm not authorized to do so. I fear that responding here will just make more work for somebody, but I beg your patience. Could somebody please put this in the Language page, in the section on "irregardless"? Thanks?

User:Baseball Bugs, I suppose some may say that (among many other examples) "awful" is another word that doesn't "stand up to scrutiny": it "should" mean "filled with awe", "bringing about awe", or similar; although ignoramuses use it in a very different way. However, a word is defined by its uses, like them or not--and Tim Moore is no ignoramus, and was right to title an (amusing) book of his You are awful (but I like you) with "awful" meaning "crappy".

I may have expressed myself obscurely; apologies if I did. But User:Antiquary understood what I meant. Thank you, Antiquary; though I agree with you on the quality of the article you point me to.

Here's another example. If we ignore capitalization, the great majority of recent uses of out-trump mean something like "more Trumplike than." But a large minority have nothing whatever to do with POTUS. Instead, it's a verb that's seemingly a synonym of the verb trump (in figurative use, away from the card table), created by analogy with outbid, etc. I haven't looked up out-trump and trump in the OED, but in today's English the prefix out here seems utterly redundant. Etymology aside, irregardless and [lowercase]] out-trump seem to belong together. More.coffy (talk) 08:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The word "awesome" has come to be a replacement for the original meaning of "awful". For "irregardless", I figure the ones who say that also say "overexaggerate" and "I could care less." They probably also caused the need to invent "flammable" because they thought "inflammable" meant "non-flammable". As for proper names, they lend themselves to all sorts of plays-on-words: Nix on Nixon. Good news / Bad news / Agnews. Dump the Hump. Ronald Ray-Gun. "Lick Bush". And so on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:10, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd look in Google Scholar for irregardless. My findings: (i) Whatever "language experts" and the like may care to believe, it's widely used. (ii) There's a fair amount of piffle written about it by "language experts". Example (from the Illinois Bar Journal, no less): "Regard/regards: Regard is a word. Regards just isn't. Regardless/irregardless: Regardless is a word. Irregardless isn't (and I find it particularly annoying)." -- Hoary (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I refer people to the book Word by Word: The Secret Life of Dictionaries by Kory Stamper, where you will find an entire chapter of 16 pages on the word irregardless (and the related issue of condemning other people's usage as wrong). One thing I was surprised to learn there is that there are people who use the word irregardless, not just to mean "regardless", but as an intensive (emphatic) variation of "regardless". --76.69.46.228 (talk) 09:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "Regardless" means "without regard" and "irregardless" means "not without regard". It's safe to say that most everyone who uses it means "regardless" rather than "not without regard". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:56, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, can you cite a single dictionary that defines "irregardless" as meaning "not without regard"? You can't just invent a meaning for a word based on what you personally think it _should_ mean based on its morphology. A word's meaning is defined by how it is used, and "irregardless" is simply a synonym for "regardless", according to The Cambridge Dictionary [2], Mirriam-Webster [3], Oxford Dictionaries [4], and dictionary.com [5] CodeTalker (talk) 17:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to complement the above post, see also etymological fallacy. Words don't mean what their parts or history indicate they should. Words mean what they are used to mean. --Jayron 32 17:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EO calls it an "erroneous word".[6] If someone said "irregardless" to my face, I'd be inclined to ask them which elementary school they dropped out of. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the case where a word contains two negative elements one of which has to be ignored, as with irregardless, the name is apparently redundant, expletive, or pleonastic negation [7], though Dr Johnson preferred the expression “barbarous ungrammatical conjunction of two negatives” [8]. For the general case I'm still going with pleonasm, which is usually applied to phrases but can apply to single words. One of the OED's definitions of pleonastic is "Of a syllable, word, or phrase: superfluous or redundant" (my emphasis). --Antiquary (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, 76.69.46.228, for pointing me toward the book by Kory Stamper. (I hadn't heard of it or her.)

Baseball Bugs, "ASCII" (for example) is a technical term. If I say that this or that IBM 8-bit code page is "extended ASCII", then I'm using "ASCII" as many people used to do, yet I'm using it erroneously, and you'd be right to say so. By contrast, irregardless is not a technical term. We have plenty of evidence that it's widely used, with the meaning "regardless". When I think of this, I find it mildly amusing. I exercise my freedom not to use the longer word. Yet I don't see how a well-established word can be erroneous, and certainly I don't insult those who use it.

Thank you again, Antiquary. As I think more about this, I come up with more examples. There's lesser (which of course occupies a quite different niche from those of less, which can't substitute for it). And close to it (though different) are farthermost, lowermost, and the like. More.coffy (talk) 09:01, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't overexaggerate your case. "They're", "their" and "there" are also widely used interchangeably, but that doesn't mean it should be encouraged in school. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've said previously that language change almost always proceeds from error and continues in ignorance, until such time as it achieves unimpeachable lexicographical authority, at which point we embrace it. Some words and usages once considered dead wrong are now fully accepted (and vice-versa); others have yet to gain acceptance.

For example, it's rare these days to see the intransitive verb "lie" used in the sense of a person resting flat on a bed; most people say "lay" in the present tense (he was laying down, rather than he was lying down; etc.). "Lay" traditionally meant to place something down flat (it's also the past tense of "lie", which does confuse matters, but anglophones are normally more than a match for tricks like that). Some of us old timers still object to this misuse of a transitive verb used in an intransitive construction, but the weight of numbers is making us increasingly marginalised, and there will no doubt come a time when we will have to capitulate (probably through gritted teeth). However, "irregardless" is not yet at that stage, and may never get there; a lot of people say it but it is still widely regarded as an error, and we can happily object to our hearts' content. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How long will it be before "there" and "their" are the same thing? For that matter, how long before "our" and "are" are the same; and "have" and "of" are the same? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Never, I hope. They're [sic] still stuck at error and ignorance. Not all widespread errors lead to language change. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. At our office some years ago, someone had posted a sign saying "Help Keep Are Break Room Clean." When I ridiculed that, I was told I was being "picky". All I could do was weep for the younger generation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's become sort of un-OK to note, correct, comment on the spelling/grammar mistakes of others, in social contexts. The rule there now seems to be: "If the meaning is clear, it is completely immaterial and unimportant how the message is spelt, and unhelpful and pedantic to draw attention to so-called errors". God knows how we ever got to such a point culturally, but there it is. On the other hand, if you were a book reviewer, or if you received an official letter from the government, or if someone erected a huge sign on a building or public structure, and the author made such an error, you'd be well within your rights to draw attention to it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:29, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One I forgot to mention is the proper possessive "its" vs. the pseudo-possessive "it's". That's an easy mistake to make when typing. The scary part is the segment of the population that doesn't seem to care. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The new rule for apostrophes seems to be: If traditional spelling says leave it out, then put it in. And vice-versa. Hence, "I own two house's, but neither is as big as my mothers house". "Its amazing how many people cant get there apostrophe's right". And other such ugh!-ness. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:59, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the blame can probably be laid on newcomers to the English language, such as Asian students. In this edit, I'm heading towards 3RR edit war with someone, presumably Asian, who insists on "speeded", probably because the "ed" suffix is the tense version that's almost always the rule for other verbs. Irregular forms may not survive this onslaught by new learners. Already, the word "sank" seems to have disappeared, as in "the boat sunk at its mooring". When you see these things in the MSM, it's too late. Akld guy (talk) 19:48, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't account for the countless native-English speakers who use these erroneous words. "Speeded" at least makes sense. "There" instead of "their" (and vice versa) do not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:27, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 24

Can "decide" mean "determine"?

When the word is to mean "find out" or "calculate".

So, if there is a party and everyone would need exactly one cookie, could the procedure be:

"First, decide how many people will attend the party" or would it be (much) better to say: "First, determine how many people will attend the party"

Joepnl (talk) 00:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can "decide" mean "determine"? Yes, "decide" can mean "determine" but there is an implication in "decide" that may be objectionable in that "deciding" implies controlling as in acting as a gatekeeper—letting some in and keeping some out. If you are for instance simply musing over what the need will be for paper plates and napkins you would want to "determine" the expected arrival of party-goers. If everybody should have one cookie and there should not be any cookies left over then indeed "decide" may be the right term. Bus stop (talk) 00:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you know that 500 people would be keen to attend the party, but there is room for only 50, then you could "decide" how many will attend, i.e. putting on a limit on numbers. Otherwise, it's more likely to be "determine". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are pretty much the same thing.[9] [10] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology of "chinois"

Hello, what is the exact etymology of "chinois" (cf. equally in French) in the sense of "sieve"?--Neufund (talk) 13:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given that similar shaped strainer, though not so fine, is called a Chinese cap, it seems that the name is simply derived from the similarity in shape to the traditional conical Chinese hat. Wymspen (talk) 14:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

this agrees with your analysis. --Jayron 32 15:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"ch" = "sh"

We had an amusing incident last weekend over the name "Charlotte". My sister-in-law was perplexed by the pronunciation of the initial phoneme - she assumed it was the "ch" sound, as in "church". (Apparently she'd read Charlotte's Web, but hadn't heard it). She's a long-time, but not native, English speaker, so the goof was no big deal, but it did get us talking about how irritating the "ch" grouping is in English if you're trying to pronounce things. Anyway, is it reasonably correct to say that "sh" pronunciations are largely from the French? Most of the examples we came up with at the time (chalet, chic, Chardonnay, Cheryl, etc.) would seem to confirm this, but we were hardly exhaustive. The question above is completely coincidental, but conforms to the theory. Matt Deres (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Charlotte" indeed comes from the French.[11] "Church" is more complicated.[12] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article titled Ch (digraph) which has some useful information. It's sadly unreferenced, but it does explain the origin of various words that use "ch" in English. The general trend is "ch as [tʃ]" are "native" English words like "church", "ch as [k]" as in "mechanic" are Greek in origin, while "ch as [ʃ]" are Romance Language (mostly French, some Italian and Spanish) in origin, like "charade". --Jayron 32 15:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

<ch> is pronounced [k] in Italian. That's how you get a [k] sound before <e> or <i> (which would otherwise cause the <c> to be pronounced [tʃ]). --Trovatore (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've looked at the article, I see that it mentions "pistachio", which is an interesting case -- the word comes from Italian, but the usual English pronunciation does not (I'd guess it's following the pattern of French-origin words). "Pistachio" is a naturalized word, so I can't really say that pronunciation is "wrong". I have no such compunctions about bruschetta, which absolutely must be pronounced with a [k]. --Trovatore (talk) 22:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then they shoulda spelled it with a "k". :) I always pronounce it as such, but the "sh" pronunciation is so common as to probably be the majority usage in non-Italian speakers. Matt Deres (talk) 14:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And then there's chorus (sounds like k) and choir (sounds like qu). --Khajidha (talk) 21:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And if you think "ch" is annoying, I would advise you to stay away from words with "ough" in them. --Khajidha (talk) 22:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ch (digraph) (thanks User:Jayron32; I should have known we'd have an article) implies that "choir" is also simply the 'k' sound (with the 'oi" creating the rest of the rest, I suppose). Matt Deres (talk) 14:06, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that article is analyzing it as ch giving the k sound, o giving the w sound, and the ir sounding like the word "ire". I could see it either way. The point is, a reader is unlikely to come up with the actual pronunciation of the word from looking at it. Even if they knew that CH could sound like K, the most likely rendition would me more like "core" than "quire". --Khajidha (talk) 14:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no separate "qu" sound. It's just /kw/. Arabic has a [q] phoneme, I think (it's like [k] but further back in the throat), but English does not. --Trovatore (talk) 18:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know that. My original analysis was that the ch in choir was being used to represent ths kw sounds usually written as qu in English. The Ch (digraph) page analyzes the word differently, in the manner I dedcribed in my later post.--Khajidha (talk) 19:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Like "kwire" or "quire". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:22, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 26

Edit check

Hello. I made this edit [13] because what you see in the movie is only that Maleficient opens her wings, not that breaks away and Stefan who falls with his arms opened. I would say in my edit that Stefan looses the grip and, then, falls to his death. "Falling" is the correct construction? Thanks Regards--Pierpao (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected the wording. Jmar67 (talk) 18:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks--Pierpao (talk) 15:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 28