Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/L

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
Note:
- We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
- We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
- We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
- We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

August 11

Antivaxer

Who decides on the spelling of new words? To me, the above spelling seems completely logical, but my spellchecker insists that I need a double x - antivaxxer. It must be the the only word in English with a double x. How has this happened with such a new word? HiLo48 (talk) 08:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With just one "x", it could be pronounced with a long "a", as in "brakes" or "lakes". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But there's no "x" in those words. HiLo48 (talk) 09:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody decides, but dictionaries usually simply report the spellings people are using, in this case presumably the newspapers. "Antivaxxer" follows the usual rules for doubled consonants. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except that X is never doubled when adding -er, e.g. boxer, fixer, mixer, sexer, taxer, waxer. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 09:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A double X seems to at least be neologistic. See with words like wikt:doxxing, wikt:looksmaxxer, wikt:hopemaxx, wikt:faxx, wikt:haxxor, and wikt:Jaxxon which have come about since the rise of the internet. 115.188.65.157 (talk) 10:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redd Foxx and Jamie Foxx are pre-internet examples. Both are stage names, hence made up, but no more made up than the above exxxamples. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Congresswoman Virginia Foxx is not in showbusiness. We have a disambiguation on the surname Foxx... AnonMoos (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

X is equivalent to ks. It's pronounced as a consonant cluster, so the checked pronunciation of the preceding vowel happens by default. The logical pronunciation of antivaxxer is like antivakskser. You won't find a lot of logic in English spelling. PiusImpavidus (talk) 16:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't that be "antivaccer", pedantically? The OED has a comment on the double x. --Wrongfilter (talk) 09:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"...probably has its origin in the language of advertising." That would explain the lack of logic. And yes, this pedant agrees with "antivaccer". HiLo48 (talk) 09:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HiLo48: See Exxon. 2A02:C7B:21D:5400:40DC:49E9:7557:F298 (talk) 10:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which name dates from a 1960s rebranding (according to our article), so not even as old as me. Alansplodge (talk) 12:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The corporation supposedly had research done which showed that no language commonly written at the time used "xx" in its spelling, other than Maltese. AnonMoos (talk) 13:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although the dounle-x in Maltese - as in Naxxar - is apparently pronounced "ssh" (not that that would bother a big corporation). Alansplodge (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As is the single x in Portuguese. 91.234.214.10 (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the late-1960s corporate execs and their naming consultants would have been a lot less concerned with how XX was pronounced in Maltese than with having a relatively clean cultural blank slate, to make sure that a double X had few distracting pre-existing associations in major world markets which might detract from the name "Exxon" when it was unveiled. I guess they assumed that the Double Cross symbol of Tomania in Charlie Chaplin's "Great Dictator" movie -- two X's, one mostly vertical over the other -- was safely in the past...

AnonMoos (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A bad-faith ultimatum?

Is there a word, term, or academic jargon in English or any language for the following "negotiation" tactic or scenario:

One side is offering terms, demands, and conditions that are so harsh on purpose fully expecting that the opposing side would reject them so that the former could have an excuse to engage in the use of force and violence against the latter?

Both the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum to Serbia in the July Crisis and the Rambouillet Agreement seem to be examples of this. Also, if there are any other historical examples, please share. StellarHalo (talk) 13:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hobson's choice came to my mind, though it doesn't necessarily imply the second part of what you wrote (using the rejection as an excuse for attack). ---Sluzzelin talk 19:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 1939 German ultimatum to Poland seems to fit, although they made sure that the Poles wouldn't accept the terms by not actually telling them what they were. Alansplodge (talk) 10:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicitous? Like Hobson's Choice it has wider applications but it perhaps captures the misleading/misdirection aspect.

As for why there might not be a good answer, it seems to me that it's a tactic that is rarely effective. I mean I recall Russia made something like that sort of an offer before invading Ukraine, but no-one took it seriously as they essentially asked for Ukraine's total surrender, and Russia still became a pariah after its unjustified invasion. --2A04:4A43:90FF:FB2D:5D8B:8092:F428:CD8A (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It might be "effective" in the case of native propaganda, though. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 22:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

THe 1939 German ultimatum to Lithuania worked well for the Germans. The unfortunate Lithuanians gave up a chunk of their country rather than face a German invasion. Alansplodge (talk) 17:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And then Hitler handed over the rest of the country to Stalin in the annex to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. AnonMoos (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and then re-invaded himself, only to be invaded by the Soviets again; but this is beyond the scope of the question. Alansplodge (talk) 10:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, but I know Margaret Thatcher during the Falklands War said she did the reverse–make what she felt were very fair offers of some form of negotiation with the Argentine dictatorship because she thought, correctly, it would just ignore them, leaving it looking unreasonable and discouraging the US from coming down on Argentina's side. (Discussed in Laver, Breaking the Deadlock.) Blythwood (talk) 04:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 13

Motion vs Movement

What's the diffrence between "motion" and "movement"? Robert Martin 515 (talk) 01:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where have you seen them used differently? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For example, "motion picture" and "moving picture" are the same thing. For some etymology, see [1] and [2]. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The word "movement" occurs many times in our Labanotation article, while the word "motion" only appears once (in an image caption). It also appears in the names of Benesh Movement Notation, International Movement Writing Alphabet, and Eshkol Wachman Movement Notation... AnonMoos (talk) 02:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Wiktionary entry for the noun motion lists 12 senses, giving movement as a synonym for only two of these (which can be argued to be the same sense). Conversely, at movement we find 11 senses, giving motion as a synonym for only one. For the overlapping sense, physical motion between points in space, there are some differences in idiomatic use. "Do not travel between cars while the train is in motion" is a common safety advice in North America, with trains that have large gaps between train cars. One will rarely hear, "while the train is in movement". Conversely, there are health regulations concerning "the movement of pets across state lines". This is about pets being transported. If one says, "the motion of pets", it will be understood as implying that the pets themselves are the agents of their moving. --Lambiam 08:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking of the typical Robert's Rules bit: "I move we adjourn." "I second that motion." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Motion" is often used to describe an interesting form of movement, such as Brownian motion, simple harmonic motion (the motion of the ocean), perpetual motion, James Watt's parallel motion linkage, slow motion and stop motion. It has an air of specificity. I see the Latin roots are moveo (a verb) and motio (a noun). Card Zero (talk) 14:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a second conjugation verb whose parts are moveo, movere, movi, motum. Nouns are frequently formed by adding -io to the stem of the gerund, thus motio. It does not have the endings I would expect of a second conjugation verb, but my Latin is very rusty. 91.234.214.10 (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but see feminist movement, Esperanto movement, hippie movement, and dozens of other examples here. The use is similar to what you suggest for motion, though in these cases, the movement is at least somewhat metaphorical in the sense that what is being moved is people's opinions or ideologies rather than physical things. Matt Deres (talk) 13:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 14

What is the best illustrative collage for writing systems?

I've been working on the trio

, and the existing collage used in the former article (top) dissatisfied me. Since I can't help but cause problems for myself, I decided to try and replace it with an ideal instance of the concept. My present attempt (bottom) doubled the number of examples, but I feel does a pretty good job if it's not overcrowded. In particular, I really wouldn't want to lose Maya, but it's the example I'm least sure of—I don't think it displays well here, plus I have no idea what to use as a representative "inscription". Thoughts?

Remsense诉 00:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the wiktionary links for phrases 3, 5 and 7 are broken. Also I guessed wrongly that the Tifinagh was Inuktitut syllabics. And we don't answer requests for opinions apparently so maybe you could rephrase the main question to make it more objective. And it probably shouldn't be a tour of all the most obscure and unusual writing systems, but if it was, I'd like to see Ogham, and Georgian scripts and Old Hungarian script or Old Turkic script or ... Klingon scripts? Can't illustrate them all. Card Zero (talk) 08:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry about the opinion phrasing, I figured I was in the clear here since my question was more directly related to onsite work than much of the activity here. Remsense诉 10:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just In terms of graphics quality, I find the Egyptian Hieroglyphs part difficult to discern as the lines are much lighter than those of the other scripts. For Chinese, for esthetic and historical reasons, I might have expected something in a Regular script font rather than the Heiti font used now. You might also want to experiment with getting rid of the grid lines around each box, or even making the visual distribution of the items a bit less rigid? I agree that the Maya glyphs are also quite difficult to discern, but I don't know enough about Maya to judge how that could be improved. Out of curiosity, does the Chinese string 天地玄黄 mean something? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those are both points I have yet to address and should've make as such explicit here. It would make sense to have all glyphs be roughly equal stroke thickness, of course accounting for meaningful graphetic differences.

天地玄黄 are the first four characters of the Thousand Character Classic, which is a nice pick imo because it sorta knits distant periods of Chinese history together—the phrase itself is describing the mythological creation of the universe in Chinese cosmology ("Heaven and earth were black and yellow"), the work was written during the 1st millennium, and then served as a literacy guide for centuries afterward, even into the 20th century. Diaspora communities all over would actually gamble on a bingo game except people selected one of the 1000 characters instead of a number.

I would've considered the first four Heavenly Stems as those are more firmly lexicographically ordered and are often used similar to the letters of the alphabet in that regard, but 甲乙丙丁 is simply not graphically representative of what most Chinese characters—i.e. compounds, not simplex forms like these—actually look like. Remsense诉 10:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the earlier hieroglyphic writing with the bird looks a lot more "hieroglyph-like", for someone only briefly acquainted with the script. My impression is that it's one of the most iconic characters. Korean Hangeul might also be interesting to include, due to its systematic approach to shapes, and syllabic blocks; both being unique features, as far as I know. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 10:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I had two more slots, hangul + a proper syllabary would be the next ones up. I think my eight present selections of the four consensus independent inventions of writing in human history—though of course presented following additional centuries of evolution in each case—plus the #1 alphabet, the #1 abugida, braille, and finally an abjad that rounds out representation of Africa as a bit of a wildcard pick is pretty set. Remsense诉 10:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure on why Tifinagh was included, as we already have Latin as another pure alphabet. (Although apparently it was very old.) It might be a better alternative to include a syllabary, there, I believe, such as Linear B. But the Arabic abjad is also a good choice. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 11:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I may swap out Tifinagh with Arabic, yes. Remsense诉 11:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is the goal to show a bunch of iconic cliches, or to show scripts that are potentially mysterious and intriguing to the viewer (so maybe choose Demotic, for instance, because it's less recognizable)? Is it supposed to be a sampling of scripts of the world by land area (Antarctica poses a problem), a top ten by modern day popularity, by prettiness, by influence (which means including certain ancient scripts) or by originality, or somehow all of the above? I imagine you might want a sampling of scripts chosen first for distinctiveness in the way they function, and secondly for being well known, but it would be good to decide about these parameters before looking for candidates. Maya scores highly for prettiness and originality, but low for popular use and influence, and in terms of exposing the viewer to new things, I don't know, fairly low (and thus fairly high for recognizability, if that's desirable). Maybe they should just be "notable", which is to say I should stop making it difficult by asking these things. Card Zero (talk) 16:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The aim is to juxtapose examples that display important variations in both the history, as well as the graphical, functional, and typological properties of writing systems, in a sense that's as representative as possible of the sum total of ways people have written. Remsense 诉 18:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I kinda interpreted the query as showing a scope of geographical spread, featural qualities and distinctive visual appearances. But it might be opinion, I'm not sure on the regular Wikipedia procedure to handle these matters. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 18:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, Maya script is about the only native American (as in, from the two American continents) script that's about fully deciphered, and therefore warrants its place just for representation. And it's visually interesting, as well. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Our opinions are invaluable in our primary task of original tertiary analysis, as distinguished from original research. Remsense 诉 18:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Remsense: That's verging on WP:OR. It's reliable sources which should be providing illustrations showing variations through history, not you. I've no problem with a pretty diagram for the articles' infoboxes, but it should be no more than that. I agree the original you posted is a bit unsatisfactory. Four examples are enough, though; if you want to be different, junk the clichéd Latin, Chinese, Egyptian, "Indian", Greek, Russian, etc, and pick from Ogham, Cree, Aztec, Geʽez or similar outlying ones to go alongside your interesting Braille. Bazza 7 (talk) 18:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I've just happened to point out above, it is not, as no new claims are being made. The analysis that happens to be behind editorial decisions is distinct from those claims made by the resulting text—this is why OR is explicitly allowed on talk pages; we're allowed to think for ourselves when making editorial decisions as long as the results contain no OR. Here, existing information is being presented in a new manner, but one in line with what sources say. I understand the impulse to view every possible vector of meaning as a claim that should be WP:V, but obviously this is untenable unless we want to problematize the very idea of tertiary synthesis. If there's not a clear WP:NPOV reason to use one mode of illustration over another, we're very much allowed to make editorial decisions for ourselves. Remsense 诉 19:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Remsense: Sorry, I wasn't very clear: I was referring specifically to your aim being to juxtapose examples that display important variations in both the history... I think it's for sources to determine what the importance of any variations is, not us. Bazza 7 (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right—my understanding of what's important here has been informed by the repeated emphases made within the sources. Remsense 诉 19:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic calligraphy, Oracle bone script (or the Shang bronzeware script because it's so blatantly pictures), shorthand, emoji ("picture characters"), Tengwar, Sinhala script because it looks nice, Kurrent, Anatolian hieroglyphs, GHS hazard pictograms, Indus script. Not sure which of those various variations are the important variations, but maybe one of them grabs you. Card Zero (talk) 10:43, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've definitely thought I should have a particularly calligraphic representation for one—if I swap Tifinagh to Arabic I might select that.

Also, I do have to vent like an ingrate for a moment that much of my recent work has been straightening out that writing should generally be reserved on Wikipedia to refer to glottographic writing per the modern academic consensus, i.e. not systems of visual/tactile signs in the broadest sense.

. Remsense ‥ 诉 10:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the explosive substance warning symbol is pronounced "arrgh!". No, you make a fair point. Card Zero (talk) 11:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just like using Comic Sans instead of Caslon does not amount to a different writing system, it may be questioned whether braille is really a different writing system, instead of a tactile version of (Latin) alphabetic writing. --Lambiam 12:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we use the fairly common bipartite definition of "writing system" as both the script and an accompanying orthography, then it's indisputable in my view. It makes a fair amount of sense to me that two writing systems would not be considered "the same" if no reader can be expected to understand one simply by their having a working understanding of the other. (Not nearly enough attention has historically been paid to how etic shapes characterize writing systems, but it's an area that has started attracting more interest recently.) Remsense ‥ 诉 12:49, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another iteration, care to comment @Card Zero @Lambiam @Wakuran @Future Perfect at Sunrise? Egyptian is still thin, but that's the fault of the SVG → raster rendering; I'm trying to fix it. Remsense ‥ 论 21:08, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still think the former hieroglyphic version looks more iconic. What does the text say? 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 21:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The older version says 'brain'; I picked a word that meant 'inscription'. I have nothing but arbitrary choices to make here, but I suppose 'brain' seemed particularly puerile. Remsense ‥ 论 21:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a request: could the writing system article have a section dedicated to clearly distinguishing pictographic, ideographic, morphographic, logographic, and any other jargon term that means a subtle variation of "picture writing"? Because one use for the article would be to help me decide which term to use in which context, and it isn't currently much help there. Also the Wiktionary entry for "morphograph" says it means a fragment such as a suffix or prefix used in teaching spelling, so that adds to the confusion.

I could probably fix the hieroglyphs, looks like individual detailed elements should increase in size independently before increasing stroke width. Card Zero (talk) 07:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's definitely an area I want to make more clear, though my ability to do so is limited since these terms are not used defined uniformly between sources, so we'd be leaning on etymology. I don't really see the separate pedagogical sense of "morphograph" as an issue, though. Remsense ‥ 论 07:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, an issue for Wiktionary, perhaps (since it gives no other sense). I was looking just now at Ideogram, which is pretty good at clearing things up, but what I'd really like is for all the confusable terms - including obsolete or less useful ones - to be laid out in parallel, in a table or a list, and discussed tersely. Though I daresay WP:NOTDICTIONARY, but dictionaries wouldn't offer a side-by-side comparison. Card Zero (talk) 08:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this could be good too—if not a table, then maybe a definition list—the question for me is where best to put it. Remsense ‥ 论 08:29, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the top! "Articles should begin with a good definition or description," and you mention a lot of these things in the first two paragraphs already. Just wrap it up with a summary, mention "pictogram", and tell me what makes ideograms lack the ability to express a broad range of ideas, and you know, all the rest of it, pithily. Pithy please. Card Zero (talk) 08:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I only hesitate because I think extended discussion of what something isn't doesn't usually belong in the lead, plus the coverage of writing systems has overfixated on this primary typology to the almost total exclusion of other aspects—though obviously it's the primary typology for a reason. Remsense ‥ 论 10:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 16

Rod, line and sinker

At the conclusion of Operation Mincemeat, Churchill sent a message that said, "Mincemeat swallowed rod, line and sinker by the right people and from the best information they look like acting on it." Why didn't he say "hook, line, and sinker" instead? Viriditas (talk) 21:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know for sure (and I doubt anyone does), but it seems not unlikely that, being 68, he occasionally misremembered words in stock phrases. I sometimes do the same, and I'm a year younger than he was then. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.109.53 (talk) 21:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was an unstated implication in the recent film version that Churchill hated fish/fishing and may have used the word incorrectly because he wasn't familiar with the sport, but I could just be imagining that. Viriditas (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"A widely-read man never quotes accurately, for the rather obvious reason that he has read too widely." (Hesketh Pearson, Common Misquotations, 1934). (Naturally, I disagree. I'm widely read, and I make it a point of honour to quote accurately. Maybe I'm special. Yeees, that must be it.)-- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he was anticipating that ROD Taylor would portray him decades later, maybe he was trying to save expenses on the telegraph (three lettered "rod" v four-lettered "hook") ... rod, line and sinker does say it's an "alternative form" of hook, line and sinker), but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ---Sluzzelin talk 02:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like it's not a common expression but not unheard of either. In Newspapers.com I found 7 occurrences of "swallowed rod line and sinker". The first was in Brooklyn in 1911. The second was in London in 1930. The third was in Brisbane in 1938. The other 4 were from 1996 and after, quoting Churchill. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was doing the same exercise as Bugs, using my subscription to the British Newspaper Archive. About 9,000 instances of "hook line and sinker" are found, compared to six for "rod, line and sinker". Excluding literal uses of the phrase in fishing contexts, the phrase is seen in 1930 (two separate instances), 1936, 1938, 1950 and 1953 – all but one used in political contexts (the other was in a football report). Interestingly, in a 1923 newspaper a "two-part Snub Pollard fishing comedy Rod, Line and Sinker" is advertised at a Scottish cinema. It's not mentioned in the "Selected filmography" at Snub Pollard's article. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 12:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 19:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 17

German genitive of personal names

I was searching for something unrelated, and came across a German book titled Friedrichs von Logau Sinngedichte. At first "Friedrichs" seemed a typo, but then I saw the pic of the actual book cover, and that's what it says.

Not having ever studied German in a formal way, I was surprised by this grammar. His name was Friedrich von Logau, and my assumption was that a genitive -s would go at the end of his surname (à la Joe Biden's presidency, and not Joe's Biden presidency). I suppose it may depend on whether the "von Logau" was an actual surname, or an indication of nobility, whether inherited or personally awarded. That seems quite an abstruse bit of knowledge to have to know in advance, but what do I know?

Can a teutonophone please clarify this for me. Danke, in advance. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "Friedrichs von Logau" syntax is archaic now. In present-day German, you may still sometimes find genitive -s marked on the first name where a following von is not a proper name, as in medieval personalities (e.g. Walther(s) von der Vogelweide), but a case like "Friedrich von Logau" wouldn't fall into that category now. Also, in those cases you would generally avoid the surrounding syntax where the possessed object comes after the genitive, so you still wouldn't say Walthers von der Vogelweide Gedichte, but die Gedichte Walthers von der Vogelweide (or, more colloquially, die Gedichte von Walther von der Vogelweide). Modern-era names with the nobility marker von would generally be treated just like normal first name / family name combinations, with genitive -s at the end. In general, in these cases, where we treat the whole name as a unit and put the genitive -s at its end, we prefer the possessor–possessed ordering (Angela Merkels Programm), while syntactically complex names with genitive markers on the initial name (including those medieval von cases, rulers with ordinal numbers, names with appositions such as the elder, the great) prefer the possessed-possessor ordering (die Werke Friedrichs des Großen etc.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:44, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How very interesting. Those subtle nuances put to shame monstrosities like "Her and I's mother spoke to she and I's father about our crazy mixed-up family dynamic". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those constructions put themselves to shame. —Tamfang (talk) 16:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aaargh! This seems to be surprisingly messy and fuzzy. This article https://grammis.ids-mannheim.de/fragen/18 (in German) has some useful but conflicting information.

user:FutPerf seems to be correct in stating that the entire proper name, eg "Jack of Oz" is subject to declension, ergo "Jack of Oz´s". However, if the final part of the proper name relates to a location, as in "...of Oz" or "...von der Vogelweide" this may not be valid.

It gets confusing in more tricky proper names, eg "Karl der Große". We have an article Vita Karoli Magni, Just latinise and ignore the ignoramusi. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A long time ago, I looked up a ca. 1930 scholarly paper in a German academic journal "Orientalistische Literaturzeitung", and I noticed that the name of the printer of the journal had a very strange inflection: "J.C. Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung". Not sure if there's a genitive in there or what... AnonMoos (talk) 00:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Conrad Hinrichs has an article in the de.WP. The suffix is a - largely obsolete / archaic - indicator of possession. It s a bit similar to the English Kafkaesque or Shakespearean. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 07:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

isn't it cognate/ similar to English -ish? Then, even "J. C Hinrichish Bookstore" would look fairly odd in English... 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is, but the (more distant, from Greek, but still cognate) suffix -ic is more productive in English. ColinFine (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 18

How insulting is "weird"?

I'm Australian. I observe that the insult de jour from Democrats about Republicans is "weird". But how insulting is that really in US English? It would be a pretty soft insult here. HiLo48 (talk) 03:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise here in the USA. But since Trump has both repeated and scorned it, it must be bothersome to him in some weird way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:38, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no general answer to this question, but I imagine in that sense it's like any other Anglophone context. In this particular campaign, it's a bit more insulting through osmosis from the surrounding political context. Remsense ‥ 🥥 04:49, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo48 -- In Keep Austin Weird it's kind of a positive. The recent political usage derives from a throwaway line in the Kamala Harris campaign's reaction to a Trump appearance at Turning Point USA. There were 4 or 5 bullet points, and Trump being old and quite weird was one of them. It was only after there was strong reaction to that (from both Trump supporters and Trump opponents) that it became a thing. But of course, debating whether you want to be electrocuted or eaten by a shark, and paying tribute to the "late great Hannibal Lecter" are not at all weird! AnonMoos (talk) 05:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The shark thing deserves some discussion but alas, we don’t have a psychology noticeboard. Viriditas (talk) 21:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s a super interesting question. If you want to go down the rabbit hole of possible meanings, search Reddit, as it’s been discussed to death there. I’m not exactly sure what the answer is, but my reading of it is that it’s a sly insult in the Midwestern vernacular, and for whatever reason, Trump took great offense to it. Listening to Walz talk about it in some length has me feeling that he touched a nerve with the conservative mind in a very personal manner that most of us cannot begin to understand. Walz’s main point is that the GOP is really out of touch with average Americans, and he drives this home with the term. Viriditas (talk) 07:30, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it really has anything to do with regional variance—remember, Walz wasn't the first to get on it. I think it's just that it's so plain (compared to typical technocratic rhetoric), dismissive, and smug—and at least for some people, seems to hit a nerve as a comprehensive personality critique. Remsense ‥ 诉 07:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was a similarly dismissive comment that Harris made, possibly in her first public statement after Biden withdrew from the race: That, as a former prosecutor, "I know his type." Consigning Trump to "a type" probably stung as well. But it didn't become a catchphrase, so far. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the confusion. Your explanation is partly correct, however, the theory is that for a word like "weird" to take off as a meme, it needed the cultural language of the Midwest, which is known for using simple terms in a genuine way. George Washington University Professor David Karpf: "Two weeks ago, delivering that line about Donald Trump and J.D. Vance just being plain weird wouldn’t resonate, but because the 'Midwestern dad governor' said that, he can deliver that line and have it land really well."[3] I argue that this is directly related to elements of Minnesota nice, whether you accept that idea as real or imagined, where such language has a "polite friendliness, an aversion to open confrontation, [and] a tendency toward understatement". This kind of open attack using polite words resonates very strongly with most Americans, as we often wish we could take things down a notch and return to some semblance of civil society. Walz does just this with the word "weird", and I argue that it was only possible as a Midwestern thang. Californians can't do it, Texans can't do it, and people from New York don't even have it in them. Viriditas (talk) 23:09, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that scans a bit more—I'm not sure I would need to involve anything regionalist to my theory, but there's certainly arguments to be made. Hard to keep the discussion to merely language and not punditry here, but suffice it to say I don't necessary agree with Karpf's thesis, as I think there are plenty of personalities that could sell it. Remsense ‥ 诉 23:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with you if I had not seen Walz's video where he talks about it. It was one of the most compelling videos by a politician that I have ever seen. If he was selling a used car, I would have bought it right then and there, with the undercoat. There's a powerful sense of persuasive speech going on here, and I think you could miss it if you weren't looking for it. Viriditas (talk) 23:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most Americans would find it just as mild as you. HOWEVER, the hardcore MAGA contingent is so tied up in their self-image as the true "normal" that it seems to hurt them quite a bit. -- User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 08:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So to summarize, it's dependent on context, and also, weirdness lies largely in the eye of the beholder... 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 19

Date and time writing question

(This is not a homework.) Can following date formats be used in English?

19.8.2024
8.19.2024
19.8.
8.19.
19.-22.8.2024
8.19.-22.2024
19. August 2024
August 19., 2024

How common is to use full stops in dates? And is the following ever used in English: The shop is open from 7 to 21. Is the 24-hour clock ever used in opening hours? --40bus (talk) 20:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States, 8/19/2024 or 8/19 would be abbreviations (August 19, 2024 the full form). And 24-hour time is strongly associated with military usage, as has been explained before. AnonMoos (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. See ISO 8601 if you want to see a theoretical international standard. AnonMoos (talk) 21:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any English-speaking country where 24-hour clock is used in everyday conversation, and phrases like "it is sixteen" are common? --40bus (talk) 05:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just the raw number? Not that I've ever encountered anywhere on the globe. If you are using the 24-hour clock, you say "16:00" or "1600", not "16"; you say "from 0700 to 2100", not "from 7 to 21". --Orange Mike | Talk 14:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Finnish, it is common to say: Kauppa on auki seitsemästä kahteenkymmeenyhteen. And for example: Kello on kuusitoista. Also, opening hours are typically written like 7-21 or 12-18. Does English ever refer to time periods around whole hours by their 24-hour clock numbers, such as "nineteen" around 19:00? --40bus (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, in English that would be so odd as not to be understood at all, whether as numeric or verbal. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In military usage nineteen hundred can be used for 19:00. --Lambiam 21:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Finnish way appears to be the standard in much of continental Europe, but the English speakers are different. Now I wonder what English speakers think when they see shop opening hours during a visit to the continent... Any difference between US English and UK English? PiusImpavidus (talk) 08:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General US English (as opposed to the specific subset US military English) basically never uses 24 hour time. For anything. Ever. -- User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We Britons use the 24 hr clock quite widely for administration and official purposes, such as shop opening, doctor's appointments, train and bus times etc. However, in conversation, times are usually translated into 12 hr notation, or (less commonly) given as "eighteen forty-five" or "twenty-three hundred". When writing, colons are usually used as time separators (e.g. 14:30), but full stops can be used too. Alansplodge (talk) 17:00, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen it for store hours, class schedules, or broadcast times and I've just checked bus, train, and plane schedules from various parts of the US with no sign of usage. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:21, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But how do you say 16:00 or 1600? I can think of many ways. We have lots of "Date and time notation in Foobarland" articles that discuss spoken times, but they all take it for granted that the reader knows how these things are said. Card Zero (talk) 13:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I (in the UK) would invariably say both as "sixteen hundred". Minutes between 10 and 59 would be said as that number ("sixteen ten", "sixteen twenty-five", "sixteen fifty-nine"). Minutes between 01 and 09 would be the number preceded by "oh" ("sixteen oh five"). This is what train announcers (both human and automated) say anywhere in the UK I've been ("the train at platform eleven is the sixteen thirteen service to Bristol Temple Meads...") so I'd be surprised if there were much variation. Military, police, etc usage will sometimes add the word "hours" after any of these ("sixteen hundred hours"). Proteus (Talk) 14:17, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've ever seen periods used to separate dates like that in any material produced by a native English speaker. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 08:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Using full stops as date separators is not unknown here in the UK, see Date and time notation in the United Kingdom#All-numeric dates. Alansplodge (talk) 11:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. and 2. are easily interpretable as dates, 3. and 4. less so. For 5. and 6. it would make more sense to me if there were no full stop before the dash, e.g. 19-22.8.2024, or 8.19-22.2024. For 7. and 8. the full stop after the date is a little odd, just having 19 August 2024 and August 19, 2024 would make the most sense. GalacticShoe (talk) 15:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot recall dots being used in dates at all. They may well be, but it's not common here in Australia. And to most people outside the US, 9/11 would mean the 9th of November if it hadn't other wise become famous. HiLo48 (talk) 00:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of periods after the item numbers here disturbs me more than I can describe. -- User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

a. I b. aim c. to d. confuse :) GalacticShoe (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 20

Orthography question

Has there ever been an orthography that's used cz for /tʃ/ or /tɕ/ alongside v for /v/? 71.126.56.175 (talk) 04:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably English, although cz for /tʃ/ is almost only used in Czech. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 10:08, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I misread that as saying that cz was used in the Czech language, and was about to reply that it wasn't.

English formerly used cz for /ts/ (or /s/) in Czar, so it's a stretch to say that it uses if for /tʃ/. ColinFine (talk) 10:15, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think "Czar" is normally pronounced /zɑːr/. At least on this side of the Pond. --Trovatore (talk) 22:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But cz was used in Czech, until the 15th century, when it was replaced by č. Czech also used v at that time, but there was no clear distinction between u and v yet. PiusImpavidus (talk) 12:03, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Hungarian alphabet has "v" for /v/ and has sometimes used "cz" for /tʃ/. You can still see this in some names such as Joseph Boczov. --Amble (talk) 04:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 21

Distinguishing lowercase omicron from o

Is there any standard way to distinguish lowercase omicron from lowercase o in writing?

In some of my scratch-paper notes I recall solving this by writing Latin o normally, and writing Greek omicron like 𝓞. I have no idea where I got this from (or if I made it up), or if there is any actual standard I ought to adopt instead.

(Prompted by looking up Table of stars with Bayer designations, and noticing that a few constellations have both.) Double sharp (talk) 04:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In specialist printed material (such as astronomy texts and charts), the designers usually take care to choose latin and greek typefaces that are are reasonably distinguishable. In handwritten material, or a more general publication such as Wikipedia, it can obviously be more difficult, often depending on context. I too would be interested to learn of any standard method. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.209.45 (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now I remember that old phishing technique where people registered webpages with occasional Latin letters switched out to Cyrillic (mostly) or Greek letters that basically looked identical. New browsers implement functions that should render the technique void. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only system I have seen is to spell out the first three letters of each Greek letter (and often the first three letters of the constellation as well): for example, "omi Leo" for Omicron Leonis. The SIMBAD database does something like this: [4]. --Amble (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that precisely this o/omicron confusion has happened before, noting Omicron Velorum and Omicron Puppis. (Lacaille assigned letters across all of Argo Navis, so one of these is probably really o and not omicron, but it's not clear which.) Double sharp (talk) 09:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's worse than that (Jim)! Lacaille (revising Beyer) applied a lower-case Greek sequence across the whole of Argo Navis, then both lower- and upper-case Latin sequences separately in each of Vela, Puppis and Carina. Thus other letters than ο[micron]/o/O are of course also subject to possible confusions. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.209.45 (talk) 14:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had not realised! Thanks for explaining the mess. :) Double sharp (talk) 14:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being a Northern hemisphere astronomer, I hadn't either until you prompted me to delve into this, so thank you. One reason I answer on the Ref desks is because I learn so much while doing it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.209.45 (talk) 18:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamikagami: Summoning you for your knowledge. :D Double sharp (talk) 10:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 22

Why do some people say "called as" instead of "called"?

I consider the use of "as" in sentences like "People who steal are called as thieves." to be unnecessary as well as improper; such a sentence should say "People who steal are called thieves." instead. My best guess is that some people see sentences like "People who steal are referred to as thieves." and run with the erroneous assumption that "as" should always go after a verb before a noun in cases where they really shouldn't.

Examples of correct uses of as:

John doe was called as a witness.
"John Doe was called a witness." would have a different meaning.
The battle was regarded as having been won.
The phrase "regarded having been won" wouldn't sound right.
The backup plan was considered as an option.
The phrases "The backup plan was considered an option." and "The backup plan was considered to be an option." mean the same thing, whereas the use of "as" would imply that the backup plan was indeed taken into consideration.
The CEO was derided as a menace to society.
The phrase "was derided a menace to society" would sound weird.
The Army veterans were praised as heroes.
"Praised heroes" would refer to heroes who are praised, so it could work in theory, though it would sound weird.
The chosen one was championed as a role model.
The phrase "was championed a role model" may not sound right.
The king was referred to as mighty.
The phrase "was referred to mighty." wouldn't sound right.

Examples of questionable uses of as:

The actor was called as a movie star.
"The actor was called a movie star." (people simply called the actor a movie star)

"The actor was cast as a movie star." (as though to portray a character; the meaning implied by the presence of the word as)

"The actor was called to be a movie star." (this would imply that the actor's destiny was to be a real-life movie star)
The campaign was considered as a success.
"The campaign was considered a success." (more correct)

"The campaign was considered to be a success." (same meaning)
The captain was deemed as worthy of honor.
"The captain was deemed worthy of honor."

"The captain was deemed to be worthy of honor."

Examples of incorrect uses of as:

The man in the yellow hat is named as Ted.
This phrase implies that some people are attempting to single out someone named Ted from amongst a crowd of people, and a man in a yellow hat has been singled out as possibly being the Ted that they're looking for.

– MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I consider that you are being unnecessarily over-prescriptive, and give the appearance of being unfamiliar with the whole gamut of (at least British) English usage. Some usages of, e.g., "called as thieves" have become somewhat archaic, but are still understood by the fully literate; ". . . named as Ted" is acceptable current BrE; and all your "questionable usages" are, to my elderly BrE ear, also acceptable English, the beauty of which language is that the same thing can be said "correctly" in many different variations, often with subtly differing implications. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.209.45 (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no lexical reason that this is incorrect other than it not being conventional to some ears: the lexical value of called and the syntactic function of as agree well enough. Remsense ‥ 论 21:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My personal opinions regarding the use of "as" could also stem from me being an American. In hindsight, my critiques would be no more valid than us being ridiculed for saying things like

This here /du:məhɪki:/ I done showed y'all way out yonder ain't doin' nothin' no more, so I'm fixin' to holler to the fellas that I reckon it done wonders for.

instead of

The device that I have shown you guys over there is no longer doing anything, so I'm about to talk to the fellows for whom I believe it has done wonders.

Flatland, Gulliver's Travels and Jesus's teaching about the speck in the eye came to mind as I was composing this. The beam in my case is a Grammar PD badge. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 21:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is also entirely a function of our being brainwashed into the cult of the written word: speech is a flowing thing, so the ideology that "y'all" is somehow a deficient word and not what it obviously is—a more parsimonious way of saying "you all"—wouldn't as easily take hold because it's not spelled out as a different-looking sequence of discrete symbols. To a lesser degree, this holds to the use of linking words, which seem to flow more freely and are less prescriptively scrutinized when a written dimension is not considered: there's a lot of evidence that the concept of the "word" itself as a discrete unit of language requires the adoption of writing for a society to really introduce to their language.Remsense ‥ 论 21:37, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Language isn't logical. If it was, Americans would never say "off of" Instead of Just "Off", or "could care less". HiLo48 (talk) 23:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's logical sometimes, just not strictly the logic we think to impose on it. Remsense ‥ 论 23:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We do expect formal prescriptive English in professional writing, it's just that some of the supposed rules are imaginary (like the proscription against using passives by a style guide that doesn't know what a passive is). Check with the OED as to whether 'called as' means the same thing as 'called'. (In my variety it doesn't.)

I don't have access to the full OED right now; maybe someone else can look it up. In the Compact, New and Shorter OED, I see no indication that 'called as' is considered standard for 'named'. None of the examples they give of this meaning use 'as', and this goes back centuries ('God called the light, Day'; 'the woman I was taught to call mother'). Generally IMO it's best not to use words that add no meaning, especially when the meaning they normally add is a mismatch for what the writer is trying to say. — kwami (talk) 13:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Economic and Management Sciences

We shan't accidentally troll ourselves with literally unanswerable questions Remsense ‥ 论 10:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

what the Distribution of profits

What the Legal requirements

What the Capital Contribution

What the Responsibility of business debts

What the Continuity of the business

What the Set up and Start up of this form of ownership.

Do you think a sole proprietor will be a more suitable form of ownership for this business? Briefly motivate your answer.

@ 41.113.123.42 (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Do your own homework. You will not learn properly if we feed you answers. Try using the Wikipedia search box at the top of every page (you may have to click a magnifying glass symbol to open it) to find articles on the terms in the questions, and read them. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.209.45 (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As cursing, phrases like "What the Capital Contribution!?..." and "What the Distribution of Profits!?..." have a nice ring to them, though. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The question makes no sense. What is Briefly motivate your answer supposed to mean? Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:39, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Re: Amphitryon

Can someone help me cleanup Amphitryon (disambiguation)? I'm not sure how to best add this info. I went looking for it, couldn't find it on the dab page, and only saw it buried in Amphitryon#Dramatic treatments and wanted to give it more visibility on the dab. I think it should also be copied to Wiktionary. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 21:30, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it looks like I fixed the Wiktionary entry. Somebody had added the wrong word to the dab page so the definition didn't show up. It's now there. However, I don't know how to best add the definition to the dab page like I did for visibility. Viriditas (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the changes that I made:[5] Let me know if that's okay. Viriditas (talk) 21:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 23

Why does arabic ba have a dot? What is it a variant of?

The arabic form for the letter ba has a dot underneath as part of its form. According to Arabic diacritics#I‘jām this is called an i'jam, and it's used to indicate that a letter is a variant form, or rasm. For example jim with a single dot below is a variant of the undotted ha. Looking at the rest of the Arabic alphabet we see that ta, tha, and pe are also variants of the same form as ba, with different numbers of dots above or below the form. But what would the original un-dotted form be? It is not present in the alphabet.

Comparing with the Hebrew bet, we see that it is a dotted form of vet. One might venture a guess that arabic or one of its precursors once had an original form va, now deprecated, that ba was the dotted rasm of. Would that be a correct guess? -lethe ^{talk + contribs} 13:10, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to look up the history of the Arabic alphabet, it seems as it was derived from the Nabatean alphabet, itself from the Aramaic script. The Nabatean script was used by both Aramaic and Arabian speakers, but it was only the Aramaic who had a phonetic b/v-distinction, which makes it rather odd that a dotted variant was the only glyph surviving in Arabic. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When several letters have the same rasm, that sometimes means they originated from the same Nabataean letter, but in other cases, they are originally different letters that just came to be written in the same way in the undotted script. The i'jam were added to distinguish them, but not in a very systematic way. In the case of ba, it was already a distinct letter in the Nabataean script. Adding a dot below did not create a new letter, it just clarified that the letter is ba and not something else. There’s not some other letter that ba was historically derived from and then lost. This is similar to the dot on the letter i in the Latin alphabet. The dot was not added to create a new letter, but just to further distinguish it from others in cases where they could easily be confused. —Amble (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lethe -- Amble is correct. 21 Nabatean letters were borrowed to write Arabic, and in some cases dots were added to expand this 21 to the 28 that were needed for early medieval Arabic, while in other cases dots were added to distinguish some of the original 21 letters that came to have a similar or identical shape in cursive writing. The dot under the "b" letter isn't any different from the dot over the "n" letter, or the two dots under the "y" letter -- there's no related letter to be distinguished, but the medial form of each of these letters is the same (a simple upwards squiggle), so that the dots distinguish the letters from each other (and from the "t" letter with two dots above, and the "th" letter with three dots above). The Hebrew diacritic dot in the middle of letters (only ever one dot) is known as "dagesh", and distinguishes allophones of the same phoneme. It has no connection whatsoever with the Arabic dots (one or two or three) above and below, which disguish basic letters from each other... AnonMoos (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As AnonMoos says. The closest analogue to the Arabic dots is the dot one or other side of Hebrew sin/shin: again, there is no "basic" letter without a dot, and the dots distinguish two different letters. ColinFine (talk) 21:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 24

Plural of walrus?

Can anyone explain, given that hippopotami, rhinoceri and platypi are correct, that "walri" isn't the correct plural for "walrus". 146.200.107.107 (talk) 03:31, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

because it's not a Greek or Latin word, it's Germanic. Rhinoceri isn't correct either; the plural of -ceros isn't -ceri. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 03:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The -rus is from ros, from hors, meaning "horse", like hippo in hippopotamus. The inexplicable thing is why we think any Greek or Latin plurals are "correct" in English. It makes some amount of sense while the words are new additions and clearly foreign, but by the time these animal names start appearing on wall charts that teach the alphabet, it's bizarre that they should be haunted by scraps of foreign (and ancient) grammar. But then again I guess we're accustomed to a lot of irregular verbs from Sanskrit (swam, sang) and irregular vowels (ei) and silent letters (h) from French, so whatever, make the best of it. Card Zero (talk) 04:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zooming out, I suppose the Greco-Roman morphological loans have been part of English in some proportion ever since it started taking itself seriously as a literary language—so I don't see why we shouldn't treat them as part of English. It's fun to use them, it's fun to use them "wrong", and it's fun to say "really, they should be called octopodes." Fun for the whole family. That's the attitude most in vogue when we're talking the composite nature of other languages, so why not our own as well? Many misapplications from Latin or Greek that simply don't fit into English (e.g. the old proscription on splitting infinitives stemming from Latin not having multi-word infinitives to split) have basically been discarded, so all's well that ends well. Also, we should adopt the Anglo-Saxon / Norse / northern Middle English -en as a productive suffix for plural verbs again... Remsense ‥ 论 05:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wish there was a good plural for axis. I don't like that axes looks like the plural of axe, and nobody likes it when I use axises. Oh, Wiktionary is now offering axiis (edited in last year by user Binarystep, thanks for that). Maybe I can stomach that one. Card Zero (talk) 06:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See, this is perfect—plural of ax(e) can be axen, leaving axes for axis. Remsense ‥ 论 06:16, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Axen is appealing, but it suggests "made out of axe", like flaxen. (However, see boxen for relatively recent plural production). Card Zero (talk) 06:18, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But I don't see the problem! It's true! Remsense ‥ 论 06:23, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look at all the different jobs English -en does. Taken, wooden, vixen, quicken, chicken, thinken ... Maybe this one suffix is all the grammar we really need. Card Zero (talk) 06:31, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

146.200.107.107 -- It's rather odd that two out of three forms you gave, "rhinoceri" and "platypi", are arguably not correct. AnonMoos (talk) 06:54, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Platypi is definitely not correct, although dictionaries have no choice but recognise it gets used regardless. From Wiktionary: The plural form platypodes is formed by application of the Greek (the language from which platypus derives) rules of forming plurals, precedented by the similarly formed plurals podes and octopodes (plurals of pous and octopus, respectively). However, being a fairly novel plural form, it is seldom used; the plurals platypuses, platypus, or, more rarely, platypi are more common. The plural form platypi is used sometimes under the impression that platypus is a masculine Latin second declension noun. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Card_Zero -- Germanic strong verbs do not come from Sanskrit, but continue early Indo-European ablaut (originally e/o/zero alternations -- Indo-European "e" and "o" merged in Sanskrit). AnonMoos (talk) 06:54, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I picked up from somewhere that they come from Vedic chant. I'm afraid that I'm liable to go on repeating that until I investigate it in a way that sticks. You're saying Sanskrit had a smaller range of conjugations, corresponding to only swim and swum without swam? Card Zero (talk) 08:05, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's the title swami, which supposedly could have confused someone, but it's not related to "swam". 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 10:21, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's this hypothesis, mostly among Indian nationalists, that Sanskrit is - for all important details - identical to the Proto-Indo-European mother language, but it's generally discarded outside of these circles. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 10:27, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article does mention Sanskrit grammarians at the start of the first section, "history of the concept", so it's probably one of those popularizing-versus-inventing things. Card Zero (talk) 10:35, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanskrit had complex verb conjugations, more so than any attested Germanic language, but it did not preserve Indo-European e/o ablaut, due to the well-known sound change of "e" and "o" merging with "a". Just look at Schleicher's fable, where Schleicher's original 1868 version, heavily influenced by Sanskrit, doesn't have "e" or "o", but these exist in all versions produced by later scholars, after linguists realized that Sanskrit wasn't as close to Proto-Indo-European as Schleicher thought it was. AnonMoos (talk) 17:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, another Classical word which causes problems is "Ignoramus". This is a verb in Latin, and the 1st person plural "-mus" ending here has nothing to do with the 2nd-declension masculine nominative singular "-us" ending. And it's not too clear what the plural of "virus" even would have been in ancient Latin. Whenever the classical plural form is in doubt or would sound odd, the remedy is to apply ordinary English "-(e)s"... AnonMoos (talk) 06:54, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remsense -- The modern English system actually gets a lot of use out of its relatively minimal inflection. The third-person singular present "-s" ending distinguishes finite indicative verbs from infinitives in the most common person-number combination, and also distinguishes singular from plural in the third person. In a few cases, it can even distinguish indicative from non-indicative ("I insist that he leave the room"), though not always applied by all speakers. You can look at modern German verb and noun inflections if you're nostalgic about "-en" endings, but I find them rather cumbersome. Dutch has "-en" endings in the written language, but the "n" is usually not pronounced in the spoken language (which is similar to middle English before deletion of word-final schwas). AnonMoos (talk) 06:54, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly! One of the big things that initially attracted me to Chinese was its almost total lack of inflectional morphology—I like the little ways in which Chinese is closer to English than to other European languages.Remsense ‥ 论 04:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

pronunciation of element 107 in Polish

According to English Wiktionary, bohr (bohrium) and bor (boron) are homophones in Polish. But can it really be so, for two words in the same field? This link seems to suggest that they are not supposed to be homophones after all, assuming my Polish hasn't gone totally rusty through disuse. :) Double sharp (talk) 11:56, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Polish Wiktionary seems to indicate bohr has an ach-laut for the h. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that accords with what I thought the page I linked to said. I've updated the English Wiktionary entry. Double sharp (talk) 15:39, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might have missed the [r̥], which I guess differs from [r]. I didn't understand how to edit it. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a possible allophone of /r/ after voiceless consonants, per Polish phonology#Allophones (which gives wiatr as an example). Double sharp (talk) 04:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 25

history of the Polish element names

What's the history behind why the Polish element names consistently don't have any suffix (e.g. lit for lithium, iryd for iridium)?
Are there other languages like that?

Double sharp (talk) 14:00, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese, see Chemical elements in East Asian languages#Chinese, uses single characters which phonetically are just single syllables, so no suffixes. This is not as limiting as it might first seem as Chinese, whether you consider just Standard Chinese or all varieties, is tonal. But as with other languages often the precise meaning will depend on context. --2A04:4A43:907F:F6B6:9100:DBAB:4B06:88E3 (talk) 14:38, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now I feel very silly for not realising that Chinese was an example of (2), when it is one of my native languages. :) Probably I overlooked it because it does not exactly use the same Latin stems, but cuts them down to one syllable and makes them fit Chinese phonology as needed.

But (1) still intrigues me. Double sharp (talk) 14:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hooked by a bad review

There's a word that refers to the inclination to buy a book based only on a negative review.

A case in point: Tim O'Brien's novel Tomcat in Love probably would not have interested me, were it not for a bad review. The reviewer referred to O'Brien as "... an insufferably smug and fantastically verbose windbag". That clinched it for me. And I'm glad I bought it, as it was highly enjoyable.

The Streisand effect is sort of related, but that's an active attempt to censor or downplay something, which backfires badly. A book review is not designed to persuade potential readers not to buy it. What's the word I'm looking for? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 14:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's criticism of the character, though, not of the novel. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, you're right. I was relying on my 15++ year old memory. I had collected that quote, and misremembered that it referred to the author. But either way, it's a winning endorsement for me. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might call yourself a contrarian, or more precisely someone who often has a contrarian response to bad reviews. --2A04:4A43:907F:F6B6:9100:DBAB:4B06:88E3 (talk) 14:48, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's similar to irrestably touching something that has a sign: "Do Not Touch!" or putting beans up your nose because somebody said not to -- which is called reactance. --136.54.237.174 (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So bad it's good perhaps. That's usually applied to films but I don't see why it shouldn't apply to books or other media. Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can't think of a word, but perhaps that's a demonstration of, 'any publicity is good publicity'. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Why Spanish does not spell hard C as ⟨k⟩?
Why English word consonant is not spelled with letter K?
Why English words yellow and day do not have /g/ sound, unlike in most other Germanic languages?
Has Italian ever used ⟨ja, jo, ju⟩ for ⟨gia, gio, giu⟩? Why does Italian not use letter J in that case?
Can possessive pronouns be used with indefinite articles, like my a car?
Can Dutch article een be pronounced as stressed /eːn/ in emphasis?
Is there any language that uses both letters Ç and Ñ?
Are there any closed compounds in English with more than two parts?
Can a native English speaker ever pronounce word England as /iŋglænd/, with a full A?
Are there any hiatuses in English where second vowel is a checked vowel?

--40bus (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Because Latin didn't.

2. Because Latin didn't.

4. Surprised this isn't actually on Italian orthography, but apparently ⟨gi⟩ was first adopted in Italy in the 12th century, if I'm reading this correctly. [6]

5. The point of indefinite pronouns is that they are indefinite, so we definitionally are not specifying a specific car.

If we need to combine the concept of that being an otherwise undescribed car, with the concept of it being my property, we say a car of mine (not a car of me, btw). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:47, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

7. Spanish, until recently.

9. Sure.

10. Many, including numerous derivations from Greek (archaeology) and Latin (algebraic) Remsense ‥ 论 20:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]