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.

February 18

How to read white chocolate OED entry

I am reading the OED entry for white chocolate. It quite firmly says "OED's earliest evidence for white chocolate is from 1917, in Scientific American," and indeed the entry lists a quote from a 1917 edition of Scientific American including the phrase: The Swiss Army..has but one notable food product—the white chocolate. This is made entirely of cocoa butter and sugar, the brown residue of the bean after removal of the stearin being excluded. In the use tab, however, it also lists a 1916 use from International Confectioner: I have heard a weird story of a white chocolate, alleged to be made in Switzerland—doubtless ‘snow white’ as a compliment to the snow-capped Alps of that country. The date for this entry is bracketed with a square bracket, and the quote is grayed out. What am I to make of this? Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 04:51, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rollinginhisgrave, the OED website says Around an entire quotation [ ] indicates that a quotation is relevant to the development of a meaning but not directly illustrative of it. I presume that the greyed out text goes with the square brackets. TSventon (talk) 05:15, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou TSventon. Given this, would you say my treatment at White chocolate#History is fair? Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 05:19, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that looks fair. TSventon (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those two sentences are using "white chocolate" differently. In the first, "white chocolate" is a distinct, named thing. In the second, it is a simple description. "White chocolate" versus "chocolate that is white". Kind of like "bluebird" vs "blue bird". --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:01, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh excellent. I can rewrite around that. Thankyou Khajidha. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 13:02, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe more germane is that the 1917 quote definitely confirms the existence of white chocolate, while the 1916 account is just reported hearsay. Alansplodge (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fragmented quotes

When a journalistic source writes

"Roses are red," Smith said, "Violets are blue."

is there the implication that Smith said nothing in between the sentences? I.e. we can write

Smith said, "Roses are red. Violets are blue."

Or do we have to write

Smith said, "Roses are red ... Violets are blue."

when quoting it? Nardog (talk) 08:01, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are no intervening words, no "my love", no intrusive yellow daffodils, nada. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:59, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An interrupted quotation (also called "broken quotation" or "divided quotation") – a quotation that is interrupted by a speaker tag (here "Smith said") – is commonly only used for an interruption in the middle of a quoted sentence. Suppose Smith had said, in one sentence "Roses are red, violets are blue, but daffodils are yellow." Then the report should read:

"Roses are red," Smith said, "violets are blue, but daffodils are yellow."

But if Smith had said "Roses are red. Violets are blue. Daffodils are yellow." Then, in the first quoting version above, there should be a stop (period) after "Smith said":

"Roses are red," Smith said.

The report on Smith's enunciations could then continue in any of a number of ways, such as

"Violets are blue," he added. "Daffodils are yellow."

In any case, whatever the style, the reader will interpret the follow-up quotations as a continuation of the preceding quoted words. Glueing not strictly adjacent utterances together by adjacent quotations is misleading. ‑‑Lambiam 09:46, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. An adjacent and less important question is whether MOS:LQ means we can write

Smith said, "Roses are red."

or we have to write

Smith said, "Roses are red".

when citing a source that has

"Roses are red," Smith said. "Violets are blue."

Nardog (talk) 11:20, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we can safely assume the quote is accurate and the source uses common punctuation conventions, the former. However, I regularly see bites from the same speech quoted differently by different "reliable" sources, and correcting grammar or punctuation that is off does not seem a priority issue of correctors (if there are any), so it is IMO generally unsafe to assume that quotations of spoken texts as reported by news sources are literally accurate. The safe thing is to write something like, "According to FAB News, Smith said that roses are red." ‑‑Lambiam 18:49, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Journalistic quotes are more likely to come from someone speaking, say at a press conference. Whatever punctuation there may have been in the speaker's mind or in the text they may be reading from, the journo's job is to insert punctuation in his quotes so as to accurately render the sense of what the speaker said. And not to misspell anything, because that reflects poorly on the speaker, who is blameless, since one does not spell or punctuate one's spoken sentences (unless one is Victor Borge). Sadly, we see mangled, misspelt and mispunctuated quotes flashed up on TV screens all the time these days. Journalistic standards, hah! And the Great God AI does an even worse job. Nobody's safe any more. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:22, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 20

What's more frequent in fluent speech?

1. John: "She went". David: "What? She went?"

2. John: "She went". David: "What? Did she go?"

79.177.152.211 (talk) 19:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You left out the more obvious option: "She did?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:00, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And also Did she?

Replying as a speaker of British English.

Did she go? is unnatural as a reply; it's a request for information, and the speaker has just been told that she went. The other three are all fine. There's a slight difference of emphasis though: I'd say that She did? and She went? both express slightly more surprise than Did she?, at least in British usage. Musiconeologist (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In American English, the first implies that David is questioning her motives or reasoning, implying that he can't believe that she went somewhere. The second implies that David is questioning the validity of John's statement, clarifying that what David heard is what John meant. Other than the faint implication, which may very well be radically different in other forms of English, they mean the same thing. Further, neither is more frequent. David's response would be more terse as in "Really?" or Bugs' example of "She did?" 68.187.174.155 (talk) 20:06, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "Really?" works too. And the way it's said could vary depending on the two scenarios you're describing. I think the only reason for David to essentially restate John's comment is if he actually did not quite follow what John was saying. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:57, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia we might say "Fair dinkum?" HiLo48 (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 22

"Turkmen needlework" or "Turkmen embroidery"

Which one is correct?

Turkmen needlework, also known as "black needlework", is a decorative and functional art form used in the clothing of people of all genders and ages in Iran and Turkmenistan."
Turkmen embroidery, also known as "black embroidery", is a decorative and functional form of needlework, specifically focused on intricate threadwork, used in the clothing of people of all genders and ages in Iran and Turkmenistan.

Arbabi second (talk) 10:57, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Needlework is an umbrella concept that includes decorative embroidery and other crafts such as quilting, knitting, crochet, needlepoint, macrame, needle lace, darning, tapestry and even basic sewing. With regards to the Turkmen craft, it seems that both words are used in reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 11:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328

Thank you for your attention and explanation. Arbabi second (talk) 09:58, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention injections. —Tamfang (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 23

Which spilling Taco or Toggo

Which one is correct

Taco it's a Mexican food
Toggo it's a German cartoon broadcast

2001:44C8:4245:EA3:E156:F27B:9DA5:6B8C (talk) 02:13, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem they are both correct. Why do you ask? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:47, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In both sentences I find it's to be distinctly odd, and guess that they were written by a non-English speaker. I would say is. But I don't see anything "incorrect". (I don't understand the point of the question. I'm guessing that in some accents the two words sound similar - they are utterly different in mine - but the question doesn't seem to make much sense). ColinFine (talk) 10:28, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since the question comes from Thailand, we then can know that Thai does not have a voiced "g"; rather, the distinction between Thai "g" (sometimes transliterated "kh") and "k" is one of aspiration, and it's subtle to the English ear. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 17:02, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in it

In a recent figure skating event, I noticed that British commentator Chris Howarth frequently used the expression "there's nothing in it" about the scores after the short program. It's evident that he meant the margins were very close. What I'm curious about is where this expression came from. It sounds like it could be short for a longer statement. And I've never heard an American commentator say that. So I wonder if it comes from an English sport, such as cricket? Does anyone know? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The nothing when we use the phrase in this way simply means "essentially no difference". It is just the situation where the comparison is being made. There's nothing in it means "There's no real difference between them".

The OED definition is:

(There is) no significant difference between specified things; spec. there is no significant advantage between competitors in a sport, etc.

Their first recorded use is a 1927 quote that reads as though it's about a boxing match, but I don't think that's particularly significant—it's simply the idea that the difference between two things is essentially nothing. "Is it shorter to follow route 1 or route 2?"—"There's nothing in it". There's nothing to choose between them.

I suppose it could have been shortened from a longer phrase, but I don't see any reason for it to have been—I think someone just felt that nothing was a good way to express the idea of "no difference" or "nothing that can decide it one way or the other".

(An alternative meaning is along the lines "There's no truth to it", when said about a rumour, suspicious circumstance, etc., but that's a different usage.) Musiconeologist (talk) 04:30, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for "There's nothing in it" in the GloWbE corpus turns up 23 US instances, none of which have this meaning, and 28 UK instances, of which I judge four have this sense. The four relate to Football, Rugby sevens, Formula 1, and one non-sport-related topic, comparing two cars. ColinFine (talk) 10:56, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that usage is totally unknown (and rather confusing) to this American. I'll have to keep it in mind when consuming British media. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:28, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really surprised (from your search results and the OED entry) that it's mainly associated with sports. The image that came to mind when I was thinking about how to explain it was actually of my father (an engineer) measuring two objects with a micrometer, finding only a few microns difference, then saying "There's nothing in it". Meaning, for example, that either piece of metal would be an equally suitable size for what he had in mind, or that the size difference couldn't be the cause of a problem he was trying to fix.

But I'm wondering whether the results are skewed towards sport because it's such a colloquial phrase? Most of the examples I can think of aren't ones where it would be written down, but sport can use more informal language in writing than, say, engineering can. Musiconeologist (talk) 13:31, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Musiconeologist: I agree with your theory. It's a frequently spoken construction, even if Google doesn't think so. Distance, time and cost are common subjects in everyday use:

"Should I drive or take the train? Time-wise, there's nothing in it."
"Should we go to the Red Lion or the Rose and Crown? Distance-wise there's nothing in it."
"I could get a two four-packs or an eight-pack — there's not a lot in it."

Bazza 7 (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone then reply, "You're mistaken – there's actually a lot in it!"? ‑‑Lambiam 18:11, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. If they did, it would be facetious or a play on words, not everyday usage. There's a lot in it usually refers to a theory or similar: "I thought that idea was nonsense, but actually there's a lot in it"—i.e. a lot of truth. Musiconeologist (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, those all seem really weird to me. If the distance requires driving or taking the train, then there most definitely would be something in it. This usage to mean "there's not a lot of difference between the two options" would never occur to me. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:58, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to refine it a bit more, I think I'd summarise it like this.

There's nothing in it: there's no significant difference.
There's not a lot in it: the difference probably does matter, but is hard to judge. "I think that one's slightly bigger, but there's not a lot in it."

Musiconeologist (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An earlier phrase with a similar meeting is "there's very little in it", meaning there's not much difference between two things. I found these 1915 minutes from the Legislative Council of Victoria (Australia);

"There would be very little in it between that rate and the rates we were getting".

Alansplodge (talk) 21:33, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, this one feels more explanatory to me: "The choice would make very little difference". Since the difference is an inherent consequence of choosing, in it has a clear and logical meaning. The consequence is inherent in the choice. Musiconeologist (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While to me, all of these are just as odd. "In it" seems to be referring to a single thing, not to the difference between two things. As I said, I'll just have to keep this in mind when consuming British media. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 04:19, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about There's nothing to choose [between them] and There's not a lot to choose [between them]? (The bracketed words are optional). Are those similarly odd/unfamiliar? (I'm guessing they probably are.) Musiconeologist (talk) 04:53, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The forms without the bracketed words would be slightly odd, but understandable. "There's nothing in it" comes across more as the opposite of your example "I thought that idea was nonsense, but actually there's a lot in it". I would tend to interpret it as saying that something was just total bullshit with no value. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:27, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Khajidha: Context (as is usually the case) is everything. My examples above all require some preceding words to indicate that I'm making a judgment about a comparison; without that I might indeed be politely indicating I didn't think much of an idea.

Your and your compatriots' bemusement about these constructs reminded me of one in the opposite direction. I had to ask for a translation when I first came across "I could care less". Bazza 7 (talk) 13:36, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same feeling about that phrase. Looking at your examples, I don't get the context there. The "there's nothing in it" comes across to me as a non-sequitor. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Khajidha: "Should I drive or take the train? Time-wise, there's nothing in it."

I'm asking which of two transport modes to take. In terms of the time taken for each, there is such a small difference between them they can be considered identical, and I'm likely to discard time as a factor for consideration. Bazza 7 (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that that is your meaning, but I just can't see the connection between that meaning and that wording. But let's just end the conversation here. I now know what the phrase means. Whether I understand how it means that is pretty irrelevant. Especially as I have gone 50 years without encountering it and will probably never encounter it again. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:02, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative sometimes used by older Britons is: "There's only a sheet of Bronco between them!" An example is in this squash match report.

Bronco being a former brand of cheap but unpleasant toilet paper. Alansplodge (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One variant the commentator gave to close scores is "there's only a whisker in it". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:04, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's obviously a horseracing or greyhound racing analogy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23A8:4458:1901:78BA:C932:A6BE:9DCA (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The phrase "there's nothing between them" of course has more than one meaning.2A00:23A8:4458:1901:78BA:C932:A6BE:9DCA (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 24

How do I ask for ordinal position?

How do I ask for the ordinal position of something within a set? For example, if someone wanted to get an answer “The eleventh,” what question would they ask about President James Knox Polk to solicit such information? Primal Groudon (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about, "George Washington was the first president. Which number was Polk?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:49, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most people would answer "11", which misses the point. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:53, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the problem. If he is number 11, then he is obviously the 11th. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the "obvious" is obvious, but the question was specific: how do I solicit the ordinal; what do I ask to make the answer "eleventh" rather than "eleven"? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:03, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go for What position [in the sequence of . . . ], I think. To me eleventh is then a more natural answer than eleven. Musiconeologist (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By that, I meant the ordinal position in the set, not the number form itself. Primal Groudon (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about replying to both of these. I didn’t check the signatures so I didn’t realize they were written by the same person. Primal Groudon (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked again and they weren’t. Primal Groudon (talk) 20:12, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask, the how manyth?, or, while not found in dictionaries nevertheless in actual use and my preference, the howmanieth.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]} While many of these uses are used to explain the meaning of an interrogative ordinal in some foreign language, others are uses in a purely English text. ‑‑Lambiam 18:06, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As Musiconeologist implies, following a question containing "the first" with "eleven" would be bad grammar, and not colloquial in any variety of English I'm familiar with; however, one might strengthen the ordinal priming by instancing, say, "the fourth" instead. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.8.123.129 (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or even just ask which was he (which one? The eleventh one) rather than which number was he (which number? The number 11). I was making it too complicated. Musiconeologist (talk) 20:21, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would work in most situations. An exception might arise if the other party had some other attribute in their mind. E.g., if you wanted to know where Richard Nixon came in the sequence of presidents and asked "Which was he?" or "Which one was he?", you might get "The one who couldn't tell the truth to save his life". Then you'd have to state your question less ambiguously, but also less succinctly, and perhaps even suggest the form of the answer you wanted: "No, I mean, was he the 35th president or some other number?". Then you'd be told "He was the 37th president". This gets you the information you wanted, but, unless you're lucky, not in the exact form you require: "The 37th".

To ensure that outcome, I think I'd use a variation of User:Musiconeologist's answer: "What was Nixon's ordinal position in the sequence of presidents?". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:48, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about something like: "which president, in sequence, was Polk?" or "which president, sequentially, was Polk?" Would that work? — Kpalion^(talk) 09:30, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You could still get the answer "number 11" instead of the exact word "eleventh". --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:30, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't think the OP is asking about "eleven" vs. "eleventh". Maybe the OP could come back here someday and clarify. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:02, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since the OP said explicitly "ordinal position", I'd venture they were looking for an "ordinal". --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:37, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If someone already knew that Polk was president number 11, "eleventh" would be obvious. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:13, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was just about the position in the set. I’m fine if the number form itself in the answer is cardinal. Primal Groudon (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind then. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 25

Word website thing

For a project I'm involved in, I seek some website/app that enables me to input a valid word, and it returns all the cases where the addition of one extra letter results in a new valid word, even if the letters have to be rearranged to get that result.

Example: I input the, and I get heat (a), beth (b), echt (c), meth (m), then (n), Theo (o), Seth (s), thew (w), they (y), and probably some others.

Obviously I can do this myself by trial and error, but life's too short. Ideally, I would like to start with a seed word, such as "the", and each of the 4-letter results would become the seeds for a new search, and so on, producing a set of word strings from an original seed. E.g. the > heat > heart > hearts > ..., and the > meth > theme > themes ...

Does such a thing exist? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:13, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JackofOz I use this site. If for example you enter "the" and specify you want a fixed length of four-letter words, it lists twelve results. The second part of your request is more tricky. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:20, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that, like crossword aids, there is a website or app featuring this, because it's part of a type of puzzle that features in UK newspapers (such as my own local Hampshire Chronicle), called 'Brickwork' – here's an online version.

I've never looked for a solving aid (I'll leave that to you) because for me the puzzle's point is the mental exercise, rather than obsessively completing it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.8.123.129 (talk) 12:05, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another option is this site, which allows you to look for anagrams with one or more wildcards. You could enter “the?” and it will find the four-letter words that consist of T, H, E, and another letter. Enter “the??” and it will find the five-letter words that consist of T, H, E, and two other letters. And so forth. John M Baker (talk) 04:35, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. These are very helpful. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:07, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 26

How to better Use British English?

Keeping WP:COMMONALITY in mind always, there are of course comparatively minor grammatical differences between American and British English. I am American, and I feel slightly self-conscious with how often I edit {{Use British English}} articles given I didn't know that gotten is a bit of an Americanism until recently—one that is still uncomfortable for some Britons (though much less over time). For those that may have keener instincts or deeper analytical understanding than I, what if anything should I be avoiding grammar- and diction-wise when I'm to Use British English? I know, say, that bands and other groups of people are often treated grammatically as plural. Remsense ‥ 论 00:25, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This one is more relevant in speech than in writing, but our use of perfect tense and simple past is slightly different from yours: when announcing that something is now done, the form has to be I've done it (or I have), not I did it. I did it is simply a piece of information about a past event more or less unconnected with the present, whereas I've done it is about the current situation having changed (from one where you haven't done it to one where you have). I did it disconnects the event from the present.

Mentioning that one because the article doesn't, though I'm not sure it's likely to come up in editing an article.

Separately: don't apply American rules about which and that to make "corrections" to British English—the American rule baffles us, and you'll simply be changing one correct version to another correct version, to the annoyance of the person who's being "corrected". Musiconeologist (talk) 01:51, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This may be in part because I grew up on the internet, but I totally don't recognize a real distinction between the determiners which and that. A lot of traditionally non-American patterns are somewhat natural or non-perturbing to me. That's definitely a lot of what I'm asking for here, yeah—what shouldn't I even think about tweaking or reverting based on? Remsense ‥ 论 01:57, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference: The dog, which was walking across the road, definitely needs to be which. But the dog that was walking across the road can equally well be the dog which was walking across the road and the choice is a matter of which one flows more comfortably, not grammar. Musiconeologist (talk) 02:16, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I suppose I attempted to ask for both grammar and diction tips as such for a reason, though I'm actually skeptical of this qualitative distinction—luckily, there's an uncited paragraph titled Well-formedness § Gradient well-formedness that's telling me I have a point there. Remsense ‥ 论 02:21, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good paragraph. I think ultimately, grammatical "rules" are a feature of how each individual uses or hears the constructions, i.e. they exist in the speaker's or hearer's brain, but we try to identity the most widely shared ones in the hope that we can get them to match and thereby communicate what we mean to.

Anyway I'll sleep on this. The question is one that's easiest to answer by noticing instances when they come up, really. Musiconeologist (talk) 02:53, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Might be worth keeping a scratch-pad to collect them, might be a good essay esp. if there are equivalent tips for other varieties. Remsense ‥ 论 10:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That does seem a good idea. Usually the focus is just on spellings and vocabulary differences, not the more subtle things. Musiconeologist (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, another potential difference I have picked up on is—it seems Britons are more likely not to use a comma after introductory prepositional phrases like During his reign; In 27 BC; According to her etc. Is this the case, or merely selection bias enabled by the editors I observe and the articles they tend to work on?

Many editors rather aggressively add such commas as if they are explicitly required—they are in some style guides, but not ours—and in many cases it seems their addition can create more awkwardness than it solves if one isn't careful. Remsense ‥ 论 19:41, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure! I've actually been assuming it was American editors who were doing that, so maybe it's not regional (or maybe I've just not picked up that it is). But I'm definitely at the end of the scale where I prefer fewer commas—I think the ideal approach is to try to word a sentence in such a way that it can be understood with no commas at all, then add one anywhere that it will help the reader. If a comma feels awkward, to me that's a sign that it shouldn't be there. The commas clarify the sentence structure by grouping the right elements together, but using too many obscures it again. Whether an introductory phrase needs one depends on the sentence, I'd say.

Edit: I misread. What you said is consistent with my impression—that Americans are more likely to insist on a comma after an introductory phrase. Musiconeologist (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do similarly, i.e. first attempt to minimize the number of nonrestrictive clauses and parentheticals—though after an hour of messing with a paragraph I will suddenly find my prose to be elliptical to a borderline-poetic degree so I'll carefully add some redundancy back for readers to anchor easier onto. Remsense ‥ 论 20:09, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing I find useful is to try to keep track of the uncompleted structures the reader has to hold in their head as they progress through the sentence—sometimes a long sentence can be made much easier to read just by reordering its content. Moving a clause so it's no longer nested inside another one and they can be read in turn, for example. Musiconeologist (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! Sometimes I get a bit mechanistic with it, dragging clauses back and forth in my text editor like I'm trying to make puzzle pieces fit. If that doesn't work, it's time to take a break. Remsense ‥ 论 20:21, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that it is not true that Americans are more likely to insist on a comma after [any] introductory phrase, but rather mostly in those cases serving a particular function, namely, in restrictive clauses where comma plus that is required, whereas in BE usage is more flexible and which is used like that even in restrictive clauses. AE examples:

"The book that I borrowed was interesting." (restrictive—specifies which book)
"The book, which I borrowed, was interesting." (non-restrictive—assumes there is only one book, and the borrowing is incidental)

The AE rule of thumb is that a non-restrictive clause may be removed from the sentence without significantly impacting the meaning. BE is more flexible about this and may use:

"The book which I borrowed was interesting." (BE-restrictive: specifies which book)

Here's an example from the Guardian:

"The decision which the Prime Minister made yesterday could have lasting consequences."

An AE newspaper would have to use that in that sentence. Here's an example from the NY Times:

"The company that pioneered the technology is now facing competition." (restrictive, no comma, that is required.)

The more flexible BE could allow which there.

That said, stating what "Americans are more likely to use" is an exaggeration; imho, the AE users who follow this distinction consistently are mostly those who write for a living, and I doubt most casual users of AE could explain the difference or are even aware of it,^{[citation needed]} so casual or informal AE usage probably approaches BE usage.

Coming back to commas, their presence or absence can change the meaning of a sentence and this sometimes has real-world consequences like millions of dollars of lost or gained revenue, which islands are ceded by treaty, or the heterodox meaning of the Trinity. I won't go into individual cases, but they are numerous and fascinating, and we really ought to have List of comma-related controversies in the encyclopedia, as they have real significance. Any takers? Mathglot (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brownie points

I just told someone they were trying to earn brownie points when my brain started to do backflips and it occurred to me that I have no idea how that term originated. I looked at our article on the subject (linked above) only to find that I wasn't alone, and that in fact, nobody knows how it originated. That seems so strange to me. Surely someone must know? Viriditas (talk) 03:27, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One theory is that it refers to points that "Brownies" (the youngest group of girl guides) could earn for accomplishing certain tasks or feats. ‑‑Lambiam 04:28, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is almost certainly from the Brownies, although other origins have also been discussed, see the discussion here. John M Baker (talk) 04:43, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A real life example:

To encourage our Brownies to attend every meeting and to remember to bring everything they need, we run a best Six league table. The Six with the most points at the end of the term will receive a lovely certificate. (1st Waddington Brownies)

A "six" is a sub-unit in a Brownie or Cub Pack (theoretically having six members), led by an older child called a "Sixer". Alansplodge (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I always assumed that it derived from brown noser, and represent the hoped-for rewards you get for your flattery, or at least capital ("points") that can be exchanged for rewards later. Viriditas, can you expand on the context of your opening example, i.e., in what way were they trying to earn brownie points in your view? Is it possible that flattery, or going along with another's desires, possibly insincerely, was involved? Mathglot (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

니다 in Korean

I understand no word in Korean. However, I do enjoy listening to Korean speech, probably due to the Korean accent.

When I listen to Korean speech, I notice I hear the Korean expression "needah" (in English transcription) loads of times. Somehow, I discovered it should be spelled 니다, but I'm quite confused about its true meaning:

GoogleTranslate, gives me "it is" for the whole expression 니다. But when I break it into its parts, 니 and 다, GoogleTranslate gives me: "you" for the first part 니 when it's written alone, and "all" for the second part 다 when it's written alone. So, I'm confused: semantically speaking, what does 니다 exactly mean, whether as a whole expression, or as a combination of two different words, or when they are taken apart? More important: how can "you all" (when taken apart if we believe GoogleTranslate), also mean "it is" (as a whole expression if we believe GoogleTranslate)? Is it a coincidence only, analogous to coincidences in English - like "cargo" - accidentally spelled just like the combination of the words "car"-"go", or is it a more sophisticated phenomenon, analogous to compounds in English like: be-come, pre-tend? HOTmag (talk) 09:50, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See wikt:-습니다, perhaps? I know precious little about Korean also, but this seems to be a common component of Korean speech so it may represent what you're hearing. Remsense ‥ 论 09:54, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The combination -습니다 you've indicated is longer. The shorter combination 니다 I asked about is a suffix in many expressions, e.g. 감사합니다, translated as "thank you" on GoogleTranslate. HOTmag (talk) 10:54, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, @HOTmag. I've only been doing Korean (on Duolingo) for a few months, but except in a few common formulas such as "goodbye", every single verb I've met so far, when used in a sentence, ends -ㅂ니다 "-mnida" in the affirmative, or -ㅂ니까 "-mnikka" in the interrogative. Wiktionary refers to this form as "non-past formal polite". ColinFine (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation! Remsense ‥ 论 18:06, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does the affirmative always end with Mneedah, and never with needah only (without the M)? Check: 감사합니다, translated as "thank you" on GoogleTranslate, and ending with needah rather than with mneedah (again per GoogleTranslate)... HOTmag (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It ends (as they all do) with orthographic -bnida, which is pronounced -mnida (though to me it often sounds more like -mida). ColinFine (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The two endings -ㅂ니다 (-mnida) and -습니다 (-seumnida) are forms of the same sentence ending; the former follows a vowel, and the latter follows a consonant. Besides that, there are other common words or sentence endings in "-니다", especially in a plain level of speech. For example, 아니다 (anida) "no". There are also sentences of the form "X이다" (X ida) "it is X", where X can be anything and can easily end in ㄴ (n) or 니 (ni). These would not be the same sentence ending or level of speech as "-mnida", but they are also common and could sound similar without the "m". --Amble (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hero of Alexandria

Hero of Alexandria starts out explaining that he's known by two names: Hero and Heron. No further explanation is given regarding this.

1. His name in Greek is given as "Ἥρων". Google translate tells me that this is Heron. So what's the Greek equivalent for Hero?

2. Was he known by 1 name in Greek or two?

3. Could the Hero/Heron thing be a translation or transliteration issue?

I know nothing about Greek, but I know that some asian historical figures have multiple English transliterations of their names, due to the different transliteration methods over the years. Epideurus (talk) 22:10, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is purely a transliteration issue. He was known by one name in Greek, Ἥρων, but it could take various forms depending on how it was used in a sentence (as with most Greek words). The spelling Hero without the final 'n' is based on Latin. Latin names of this type (ending in 'o' or 'on') didn't have a final 'n' in the nominative case, and so Greek names were usually spelled without in Latin, and historically English has followed Latin's example. Plato is another name with this pattern. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:48, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Tables with the Greek and Latin endings can be found at the following Wikitionary links: [11] [12]. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:00, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to add Ἥρω would be the equivalent of Hero is terms of spelling since the Greek letter 'ν' is the equivalent of English n but that wasn't a form of Hero's name. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:04, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Thank you very much.
  
  This whole "we know it's a Greek word but we use the Latin form of it" quirk, is it unique to English?
  
  I glanced at the wiki article for Hero/Heron and seems like most other languages all stick to Heron. Epideurus (talk) 08:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Of the interwiki links for Plato that use Latin script, about two thirds have an ⟨n⟩. The use of Latin forms for Ancient Greek names in English texts is very common, though, like Absyrtus for Apsurtos, Achilles for Achilleus, and Actium for Aktion. ‑‑Lambiam 18:09, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 28

"Wrath" pronunciation

Why is "wrath" said like "wroth" in British English? Did the pronunciation change after the spelling was established (as in, the word always being spelled "wrath" but the pronunciation changing to "wroth" over time), or the other way around? Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 01:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why is "wrath" said like "rath" in American English? This Australian has only ever head it pronounced like "wroth". HiLo48 (talk) 02:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was going off the Wiktionary entry for "wrath", which says that it's "wroth" in specifically British English :P Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 02:16, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. It says it's /ɹɒθ/ or /ɹɔːθ/ in British English. The entry for "wroth" says it's /ɹəʊθ/ or /ɹɒθ/ in British English. The latter pronunciation of "wroth" is the same as the first pronunciation of "wrath", but this is not exactly the same thing.

Look, if you don't like IPA or just haven't bothered to learn it, that's fine. But you do need to explain yourself better than just saying "pronounced wroth". How do you know how the person reading your comments pronounces "wroth"? --Trovatore (talk) 02:30, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I did mis-read the IPA on that page. But as a British person, I've only ever heard "wroth" (for the noun, not the adjective that's spelled "wroth"), and it's how I say it. That's where this is coming from. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 02:34, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up reply to say that I'm going to come back to this in the morning when I'm better with my words. My question still stands, though, since no one's explained why a word spelled with an A is pronounced with an O sound. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 02:36, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you haven't really clarified how you pronounce "wroth", or what you mean by "an O sound". --Trovatore (talk) 02:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not great with my words even after sleeping, so we'll see how this goes, but I'll give extra context and clarify my question:

I have grown up and almost exclusively lived in south Wales, around many people with strong Welsh accents (but from wildly different parts of Wales). I say this in case this is a regional pronunciation.

Everyone I know whose speech hasn't been largely influenced by American English, when using the noun "wrath" (as in The Grapes of Wrath, the sin, or the word meaning "anger"), haven't used any sound that would usually be used for the letter A in any other word, but instead something like /ɒ/ (I'm not an expert in IPA, I'm mostly going off ipachart.com, so it might not be exact), like the O in "cot" (without the cot/caught merger). This is what I meant by "pronounced like 'wroth'", since that vowel sounds closest to an O to me. However, when hearing American people say the same word, I've exclusively heard them say it with an /a/, hence why I said British English in the original question. But the pronunciation I'm used to is the crux of the question: why is this word irregular? What part of its history led to a word being spelled with an A but said with an O sound?

Sorry if I've been communicating badly throughout this thread. My IRL circumstances mean that a lot of days I struggle to be understood by others, even when it feels to me that I'm being completely clear. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 10:19, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do Aussies pronounce the last day of October as HAL-o-ween, or HOLLOW-een? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:17, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This Australian tries to ignore it. But those who do say it say HAL-o-ween. HiLo48 (talk) 03:41, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that "wrath" and "wroth" are related.[13][14] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:11, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't explain why the noun "wrath" (spelled with an A, not the obsolete adjective spelled "wroth") is said two different ways. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 02:20, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of English words whose pronunciations don't quite match their spellings. Such as Halloween being pronounced Hollowee, as I often hear it in America. As to "wrath" being pronounced "wroth", am I correct in assuming that the "ro" (or "wro") part would be like "jaw" or "law" or "paw" or "raw" or "saw"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of those. More like the first two letters of "rock". Think of Rothmans cigarettes without the men. HiLo48 (talk) 03:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That makes more sense. It fits with how Brits often pronounce words with a short "a" in them. Like how they would say "half", or any number of other things. An "ah" sound. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Baseball Bugs: You've fallen foul of your cot–caught merger (or something similar) in that assumption. I don't believe that American English has the sound which the "a" in "wrath" represents; it's the one which occurs in "cot", not "caught", nor "half"; all of which have different vowel sounds where I come from. Bazza 7 (talk) 09:40, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct - the vowel in my pronunciation of "wrath" is the vowel in "cot", not "caught" or "half" in my accent. I've written a much longer reply above that goes into more detail. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 10:20, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "cot/caught" merger where I come from. To my American Midwest ears, the way a typical Brit says "half", with an "ah" sound, is like the way we say "cot", also with an "ah" sound. The "au" in "caught" rhymes with the "aw" in "law", "paw", etc. Maybe the difference with "ah" in the British "half" is too subtle for me to distinguish. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:54, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Baseball Bugs: Thanks, and apologies for mis-dialecting you, although I had included an escape route in my reply above after realising I may not have known what I was talking about! Bazza 7 (talk) 17:19, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anecdote, but with relevance to this: in my undergraduate Microeconomics textbook by Katz and Rosen (a late-1990s "European edition"), the writers slipped in a pun on Roth/wrath. I wonder if it was kept in the American edition, assuming there was one? (To illustrate some concept, an example was given about somebody called Roth and some grapes. One sentence started "The grapes of Roth...") Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 12:04, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't Philip Wrath write that? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He can withdraw them tax-free at age 59 1/2, no matter how much they've appreciated.

On the other hand, the only "raths" I know are the mome ones. Nasty raths, always gribing out. --Trovatore (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant to this thread, but I can't forbear quoting one of my favorite Groucho lines, from Horse Feathers:

Secretary: "The dean is furious! He's waxing wroth!"

Groucho: "Is Roth out there too? Tell Roth to wax the dean for a while."

—Deor (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. That bit of dialogue is actually in the EO link about "wroth". That dialogue is a multiple pun. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:23, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I remember a line from a poem, "There's one more boat from Cape Wrath", but I cannot find it. Possibly the most desolate, treeless and windswept place I have ever visited. (Pronounced "wrawth", I believe.) MinorProphet (talk) 13:58, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Our article actually claims it's pronounced /ræθ/. (Well, to be completely literal, it claims it's pronounced /ˈræθ/, but I'm not sure what the stress mark is supposed to signify on a single syllable.) --Trovatore (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But see Pointon, G. E., ed. (1983). BBC Pronouncing Dictionary of British Names (Second ed.). Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. p. 44. ISBN 0-19-212976-7. which gives four pronunciations. DuncanHill (talk) 21:25, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 2

What is the grammatical role of "fuck" in "Fuck you"?

JJP_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 02:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the phrase "Fuck you", "fuck" functions as an imperative verb, and "you" is the direct object.Lova Falk (talk) 09:04, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't quite work; since the addressee and the referent of "you" are the same person, it would ordinarily have to be "yourself". Possibly it's a third-person imperative, with the third person being understood. But understood to be whom? There is a genuine puzzle here. --Trovatore (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I note that bless you is similarly a third-person imperative, with the understood subject being God. That might apply here, or it might be the Devil? --Trovatore (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A greater puzzle, for me, is your use of "whom" above. I'm assuming you're regarding it as the object of "understood". Or "understood to be". But that's a double verb, only one of which takes the objective case. I'd be surprised if the latter verb wasn't the one that governed the case of the object, but what the hell do I know? How do we work our way through these conundra? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:41, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I was going over that very point in my head on my postprandial walk. I think you can say "who" there if you also say "that was he". But most people don't, these days. --Trovatore (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One wouldn't say, "This wish takes the form of a third-person imperative, with the understood subject being He, the Lord Almighty", would one? Or, "I wouldn't want to be she when her boss finds out." ‑‑Lambiam 18:03, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I get you both. This is one of these cases best exemplified by "In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is". The irony is that "whom" is fast becoming a dinosaur, yet you've revived it only to use it in a way that strict pedants would frown on. Isn't language fun! -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:27, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think "whom" is probably more current than the use of the subjective case in the predicate nominative position, with the exception of certain fixed phrases like this is he on the telephone, and maybe in sentences like it was she who killed Colonel Mustard in the Conservatory with the Candlestick.

(My sister, who teaches English, reports that she sometimes has to instruct her students that "whom" is "not just the fancy version of 'who' ". :-) ) --Trovatore (talk) 08:15, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction is import to whom it may concern. Whom are careless could care less. ‑‑Lambiam 09:17, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asking the speaker to clarify their precise grammatical intent might not be productive. But at least you'll know for future reference. If in Glasgow, don't forget to append "Jimmy" to form an informal friendly greeting. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:30, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the obvious (if jocular) paper to point to is English Sentences Without Overt Grammatical Subject by "Quang Phuc Dong" (actually James McCawley using a pseudonym). Double sharp (talk) 16:00, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After taking into account some of the points that McCawley raises, I'm going to withdraw the suggestion that the implied subject is specifically God or the Devil.

I'm going to go with the answer to the question being impersonal third-person jussive.

In other words, it expands to something like may it fuck you, where the "it" is not anything in particular; it's the "it" of it's raining.

Obviously that doesn't quite make sense; how can that "it" do anything? But it makes sense if you reword it as the second-person passive jussive (may you be fucked).

This also seems to work for bless you, with fewer theological presuppositions. --Trovatore (talk) 07:53, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

omg thanks so much for Mr. Dong's papers! --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 05:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 3

there was cement in her soul

It's a sentence in this novel, Americanah. It's been quoted everywhere without explaining what it means exactly. I have searched a lot with no avail. What is your guess? Thanks in advance. Omidinist (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My reading is that it is a type of psychosocial crisis in the immigrant experience. Seems like Adichie describes it pretty well herself:

...and yet there was cement in her soul. It had been there for a while, an early morning disease of fatigue, a bleakness and borderlessness. It brought with it amorphous longings, shapeless desires, brief imaginary glints of other lives she could be living. that over the months melded into a piercing homesickness..

Many more interpretations can be found by searching / meaning of there was cement in her soul / online. Mathglot (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding onto the above, I imagine that the particular imagery being evoked is of cement being heavy and sluggishly thick, as if weighing her soul down. GalacticShoe (talk) 04:08, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

'Cement being heavy and sluggishly thick, as if weighing her soul down' Good point. Thank you. Omidinist (talk) 04:33, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 4

Slang

What are other generation's ways of saying "locked in", which means you're fully focused on something? TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 07:21, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being "in the flow" or "in the zone". ‑‑Lambiam 09:09, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes NBA announcers used to (perhaps still do?) say things like "he was unconscious out there!". I personally do not play basketball very well when I'm unconscious. But maybe I need more practice. --Trovatore (talk) 09:13, 4 March 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Bearing down. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:41, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Need help constructing an analogy using a Japanese word

I'm trying to demonstrate that something is a meaninglessly bad idea. I want to demonstrate it using an analogy along these lines:

Trying to do <this wrong thing> doesn't make sense. It's like asking how many Latin letters there are in a Japanese word. But Japanese words don't have Latin letters! There are ways — "Romanization systems" — to come up with Latin-script renditions of Japanese words, but (a) these systems yield approximations, and (b) there are multiple such systems. For example, consider the Japanese word for "cat". In Japanese, it's 猫. Under the Hepburn romanization system it's "neko", but under the Kunrei system, it's "nekko". So how many letters does 猫 have, 4 or 5?

The only problem with this analogy as I've constructed it is that, as far as I know, 猫 comes out as "neko" under both Hepburn and Kunrei. So what I'm looking for is a common Japanese word that has romanizations under Hepburn versus Kunrei that are not only significantly different, but have a different number of letters. Thanks for any assistance. —scs (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. If you're curious, the misguided question I'm trying to demonstrate the meaninglessness of is, "How many digits does a floating-point number have?", when the f.p. number is, as is the usual case, binary.

Hi, @Scs. Try 新聞: Hepburn "shinbun", Kunrei-siki "sinbun". ColinFine (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]