Language desk
< February 25	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 27 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 26

Scottish_Café

What is the etymology of Scottish?174.3.99.176 (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Scot/Scottish" comes from the Latin "Scoti", which was the Romans' term for the peoples who called themselves the Gaels. "Scotia" thus means "Scotland", and the Canadian province called "Nova Scotia" means "New Scotland". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs is right about that. The -ish in Scottish of course does not come from Gaelic or Latin but is an English (Germanic) ending meaning something like "belonging to". The root, Scot, is from the Latin Scoti. As you will see if you go to the article that BB linked, we really don't know the etymology of that Latin name. Marco polo (talk) 01:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. In effect, these words are mixed metaphors: "Scotland" and "Scottish" combine Latin prefixes with Germanic suffixes. To make it pure Latin, it should probably be "Scotia" and "Scotus". The English suffix "-ish" and presumably the German suffix "-isch" come from the Anglo-Saxon "-isc". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

German -isch is from Anglo-Saxon? Cognate, shurely. -- the Great Gavini 06:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But this is in Ukraine.174.3.99.176 (talk) 03:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and Harry's New York Bar is in Paris and the Russian Tea Room is in New York City. Deor (talk) 03:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So was this cafe founded by a Scot?174.3.99.176 (talk) 03:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I googled ["scottish cafe" poland] and got many sites basicially repeating the same info as the wikipedia article. Hard telling who stole from who. But nothing indicating the origins of the cafe itself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find anything about the origin of the café's name in online Polish sources either. I found one article devoted entirely to pre-war Leopolitan cafés, but all its author says about the name of Kawiarnia Szkocka is that he doesn't know where its came from, but it was only one of many joints in Lwów with "international" names like Roma, Palermo or Wiedeńska (Viennese Café). It's possible that it was founded by a Scottish immigrant, but even more likely that it was set up by a Polish enthusiast of Scotch whisky. — Kpalion^(talk) 08:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ossolineum

What is the etymology of "Ossolineum"?174.3.99.176 (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You were just editing that article! It's for some guy named Ossolinksi or some such. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're curious about the suffix, presumably this name is a variant on Mausoleum. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or Museum. Marco polo (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I was trying to locate the meaning of that "-eum" suffix, and I couldn't find anything, but I assume it means "place" or "repository" or something like that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What both mausoleum and museum have in common (with Ossolineum), is the -eum ending, a Latinized form of the Greek -είον suffix, a suffix indicating an institution. Marco polo (talk) 01:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly also Colosseum. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That Ossolinski guy had a diacritic. Far fetch to the nominal name.174.3.99.176 (talk) 03:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, there was a mark over one of the letters. I don't get the "far fetch" part of your comment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean it's a far jump from the nominal name.174.3.99.176 (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it either. It derives from Ossoliński plus the Latin suffix -eum, itself, as Marco wrote, of Greek origin. The resulting word is supposed to look Latin, so the diacritic got lost in the process (besides, in Polish you can't have an ń before a vowel; and the alternative, *Ossolinieum, probably just wouldn't sound right). The Ossoliński family got their name from the village of Ossolin plus the Polish adjectival suffix -ski. — Kpalion^(talk) 07:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Summary Abbreviation

Does the abbreviation in this edit summary mean "common error"?174.3.99.176 (talk) 02:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"ce" generally means copyediting. --71.111.229.19 (talk) 02:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:GLOSSARY. Deor (talk) 02:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tonal language with guttural sounds?

Does Mandarin have any sounds that could be described as 'guttural'? I overheard someone speaking a language that was obviously tonal, but didn't really sound like what I associated with Chinese (sorry if guttural isn't a correct / precise term). 149.169.106.34 (talk) 04:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mandarin has only one sound that could be described as "guttural" -- a very strong "h" sound. This sound is often as light as the h in English "helmet" or "heavy." In some speakers, however, the sound can be pronounced very strong, as in German/Scottish/Russian (i.e. "ch" in Bach or Loch, etc.) --71.111.229.19 (talk) 04:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some people consider Korean "guttural", and it has some dialects (such as the Kyongsang dialect) that are tonal. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A strong candidate would be the Vietnamese language, which has several velar and glottal consonants, as well as the creaky voice phenomenon as part of its tonal system. Marco polo (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting--perhaps creaky voice could contribute to that perception? Never thought of it but it may be possible. In any case, I guess we assume the OP was overhearing persons of Asian descent? Otherwise perhaps the language in question could be African. . .--Dpr (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many Chinese languages have the h sound (linguists consider them guttural) and all are tonal: Cantonese, Wu, Taiwanese etc. --Kvasir (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some Chinese dialects have growled vowels (selected tonally), notably Zhenhai (near Ningbo), though this is becoming less common. Steewi (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Sans"

In American English writing, is the word "sans" italicized? I looked in my AP style-book, but I couldn't find anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.16.91.212 (talk) 04:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's listed as a regular word in my 1960 Webster's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And has been since at least the 14th century. 114.162.51.169 (talk) 06:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've always known the word to be French, and convention is to italicized non-English words in written English. Capisce? DOR (HK) (talk) 08:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. Words that were borrowed a long time ago and have become relatively Anglicized are not always italicization, and in fact some people find italicization of such words annoying and some writing courses recommend against it. For instance, I get miffed when people italicize "i.e." and "e.g.", not to mention more everyday words like "rendez-vous". rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I usually follow a simpe rule of thumb to italicize those words which are still not Anglicized enough to pronounce them like English words and whose pronunciation is typically an attempt to imitate that in the original language. Therefore, I would not italicize "e.g.", "i.e." or "sans", but I would "rendez-vous" (still pronounced "randey voo" in English). — Kpalion^(talk) 17:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not used so much in the USA anymore, but usually pronounced "RON-day-voo", as in Reagan, 1/7th of a week, and "voo". Except for Bugs Bunny, who pronounces it as it's spelled: "REN-deez-vooz". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The italicization of i.e. and e.g. is often done to comply with specific requirements of legal style, at least in the US--see Bluebook.--Dpr (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pronouncing them like English words: do you rhyme sans with "banns" or "dons", then? Marnanel (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you rhyme it with "dons" (pronouncing it [sɑns]), that's still quite a ways from the French pronunciation [sɑ̃]. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The French pronunciation is irrelevant, it's not a French word (it just happens to be spelt the same as its French translation). It entered English from Old French (at least according to wikt:sans). You should compare the English pronunciation to the Old French one, if you can find out what it was. --Tango (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably close to half the words in this section are from Latin via French, and we English speakers butcher all of them. No different with "sans". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But who goes around regularly using the word "sans" when they mean "without"? You hear it very occasionally, but it's far from what I'd call a standard element of the English language: Words sans vowels? No, I didn't think so. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's peculiarity adds emphasis that would not exist if you simply used "without". Just because it is less common doesn't mean it isn't standard english. —Akrabbim^talk 20:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really dispute that. If I started using 'sans' instead of 'without' around here, I have full confidence that it would be commented on, probably in quite negative terms. Outside of here, hardly anyone would even know what the *** I was talking about. My dictionary describes it as "Archaic or French". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While it does happen to appear in French, "archaic" is the more relevant description. Just because it is archaic doesn't mean it isn't part of English - your dictionary would probably either not include it or describe it as "obsolete" if it had ceased to be part of the language. --Tango (talk) 00:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Experience shows that we can have archaic and edit too. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Jaques says in his "All the world's a stage" speech: "Last scene of all, / That ends this strange eventful history, / Is second childishness and mere oblivion, / Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything." Deor (talk) 22:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verily. But the use of a word by that English writer does not ipso facto make it an English word. He used all manner of foreign words in his writings, as have very many other English writers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful what doors you open: "Jamison, take a letter... To my lawyer, Hon. Charles H. Hungadunga, in care of Hungadunga, Hungadunga, Hungadunga, Hungadunga and MacCormick;, Gentleman-?-(harumph) In re yours of the fifth inst., yours to hand and beg to rep, [ that we have gone over the ground carefully and we seem to believe, i.e., to wit, e.g., in lieu, that despite all our precautionary measures which have been involved, we seem to believe that it is hardly necessary for us to proceed unless we receive an ipso facto that is not negligible at this moment - quotes, unquotes, in quotes ... That's three quotes? Add another quote and make it a gallon ... Hoping this finds you, I beg to remain, as of June 9th, cordially yours, regards." -- Groucho in Animal Crackers.start about 1:30 ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

I wasn't claming that my use of 'ipso facto' ipso facto makes either of those words English, either. I guess that's the point here. In some cases, the words we use have been borrowed from other languages and have become fully English words. But in other cases, they remain foreign words. What makes the difference? Prevalence of usage would have a lot to do with it, I'd say. 'Cafe' is now a fully English word; but 'sans' - uh huh. I seem to be out of kilter with lexicographers here, but I've always marched to a different drum. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 06:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On only a slightly more serious note, I've usually seen "sans" used in a way to be cute, as with Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide, discussing Paradise: "Silly Blue Lagoon ripoff, with Willie Aames and Phoebe Cates discovering sex while stranded in the desert. Both, however, do look good sans clothes." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The pairing "sans clothes" in particular is unusually common, more so than most other "sans X" phrases. It even has an entry on Urban Dictionary (although given the level to which UD has sunk in the past several years, that's saying much). I would imagine that, as you suggest, this is to take a comment that otherwise smacks of dirty old man ("without clothes!"), and reappropriate it into something witty and innocent. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that seems to be the case. Another example of the use of "sans" is the typeface called "sans-serif", although I'm not sure a word like that is necessarily assumed to be pure English. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

archived

archiving troll magnet question

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

how do you call the inhabitants of the country Niger and the inhabitants of the country Nigeria? What is the difference between negro and nigger? Why are some of these words offensive and the others are not? --95.89.49.79 (talk) 06:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Nigger has plenty of information on this word. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) Nigerien (IPA /niːˈʒɛərɪən/ approx. "nee-ZHER-ee-an") for Niger, and Nigerian (IPA: /naɪˈdʒɪərɪən/ approx. "nye-JEER-ee-an") for Nigeria. For Q2-3 see respective articles, as Rjanag said. -- the Great Gavini 06:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) People from Niger = Nigeriens (or Nigerois); the g is as in French, like z in azure. People from Nigeria = Nigerians. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 06:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does that list tell you what you should call women from the island of Lesbos? Googlemeister (talk) 19:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Whatever happened to Wikipedia:Assume good faith? --Nricardo (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does this mean?

Mr. Manmohan Singh occupies a most grudged post in the world. He is the Prime Minister of India. India is a democracy.

Can somebody please explain the meaning of the first sentence of an editorial I quoted here?--Stylishwit (talk) 08:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not correct English. You wouldn't ever use "grudged" in that context and the construction "a most x post in the world" doesn't make sense either. I think what the writer is saying is that it's a very difficult post in which the PM can be the subject of many grudges, i.e. can be widely disliked and blamed for everything, since India is the world's largest democracy. But if that is indeed the meaning, the sentence needs rewriting. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 10:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could he have meant that it is an enviable post? Something that you grudge or begrudge is that which you prefer to keep for yourself, isn't it? --Stylishwit (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Freedictionary/The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, gives "grudged" as meaning the same as "begrudged", i.e. "resented for having" [1], example "grudged him his good ways with the children". --Normansmithy (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, the editorial in question appeared here.--Stylishwit (talk) 16:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wondered if it might be Indian English. I don't know whether it is normal in Indian English or not, but I think Richardrj is being incautious in his absolute statements, unless he is familiar with Indian English. --ColinFine (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, not in Indian English of which I am a user. --Stylishwit (talk) 05:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, journalistic language in almost any variety of English is sure to be more free-wheeling than daily parlance.--Dpr (talk) 13:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question finally boils down to whether the author conveys any sense that is unmistakable. Does he? I still cannot so much as say if he is speaking good or bad of the 'post'. Attributing journalistic language to this author is moot. His language is violently vituperative. Just look at the paragraph starting with "I am sorry, Prime Minister, I must call you a liar"here. --Stylishwit (talk) 18:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

German Streik and Streit

Are these two German words, meaning "strike" (in the industrial sense) and "dispute" respectively, etymologically related? It seems interesting that in English a strike is often referred to as an industrial dispute. Are the two German words similarly interchangeable? --Richardrj ^talk ^email 10:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Streik is just a loanword from English strike. Streit is etymologically unrelated to it. The English word strife is also unrelated despite its dispute-related meaning. +An gr 10:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

context is an indespensible deternimant of meaning in a text, justify this against cognitive and referential interpretation

context is an indespensible deternimant of meaning in a text, justify this against cognitive and referential interpretation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.29.217.2 (talk) 16:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the Reference Desk will not do your homework for you. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did a Google search for the heading of this section. Google corrected the spelling to "context is an indispensable determinant of meaning in a text, justify this against cognitive and referential interpretation", and it found 154,000 search results, but not with that exact string of words. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A "Carnac" idea:

--Deternimant.

--What does de NCAA call de "March Madness"?

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Empty Set

What does ∅ mean in Continuous casting?174.3.99.176 (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That symbol doesn't seems to appear in that linked article. Where did you see it used? You might be better off on the Science desk. --Tango (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears in the image caption. It means diameter. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diameter#Diameter symbol says "The symbol or variable for diameter is similar in size and design to ø, the Latin small letter o with stroke." -- Wavelength (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone was wondering about this question's title: ∅ redirects to empty set. The section Wavelength quoted has now been linked to the top of that article. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know the two symbcls were typographically distinct. Ø (disambiguation) has yet more similar looking ones. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Death Comes as The End

Who are the characters in death comes as the end?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Esetak (talk • contribs) 20:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(changed title to something meaningful). Please refer to our cleverly named article Death Comes as the End and come back if you have additional questions. --LarryMac | Talk 20:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Main diff

Whas main diff tween frogs and toads? It said on tv there was no diff? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.231.32 (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our toad article talks about this right at the top of the article. (Curiously, its information seems to differ a bit from the information at the top of the frog article.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

frogs taste better, but are harder to catch. --Ludwigs2 00:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well the main difference is their appearance. I think I saw the tv documentary you are referring to. What was meant is that there is no formal distinction; the words frog and toad are not scientific terms. As those articles note, the difference is, for the most part, a somewhat subjective one.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 06:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[The following was written a couple of days ago, before this question was temporarily deleted.]

You might also like to know that a number of species, genera, or families within the Order Anura whose common names include 'toad' might more properly be considered frogs. (There may be instances of the opposite case, though I can't cite one).

If you inspect the List of Anuran families, and further click and inspect the suborders and families listed in it, you will see how names including 'frog' or 'toad' are mixed without strict regard to taxonomy, all 3 sub-orders including both 'frogs' and 'toads': of the Order's 29(?) families, only Family Bufonidae or "True toads" consists entirely of "toad" species.

Of course, Anuran taxonomy is not yet settled: there is probably no obvious single physical or behavioural characteristic that infallibly distinguishes all 'frogs' from all 'toads', further research will doubtless cause further rearrangements, and new species are being discovered all the time. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Demonyms

This may be a stupid question, but I was wondering whether there are any rules for forming city demonyms in English. The article on demonyms simply describes and lists common adjectives derived from city names and the ways in which they were formed, but it doesn't say anything about ways of forming new ones. For instance, I was wondering whether Zagrebian could be used for a native of Zagreb, and even though it sounds clumsy wiktionary says it's ok (though I doubt I'll every use it). But what about cities such Split, Rijeka or Osijek or Dubrovnik? (In the cases of Zagreb and Osijek German demonyms Agramer and Esseker are sometimes used in Croatia, but they are considered somewhat archaic). Are people from Dubrovnik Dubrovnikians or Dubrovnikers (or perhaps Ragusans as it used to be called Ragusa)? So are there any rules that one could use when one would want to use demonyms for places without an existing historical demonym in English? Or is the whole idea irrelevant as demonyms themselves seem to be getting less and less popular, as it seems (at least to my non-native ears) that in English they carry a connotation which is more than merely being from a certain place, but rather identifying with it? Which then brings us back to the beginning because if this is true, then demonyms are necessary to convey the idea and are not merely just another way of saying that a certain person is from a certain place? Which then could mean that they in fact are irrelevant because if there is no cultural experience to draw from in the English language world, than any reference to it is itself irrelevant (for example New Yorker carries a certain connotation which is probably somewhat different than merely person from New York City, while on the other hand a Washingtonian (assuming that is an existing word) doesn't mean much more other than designating somebody's origin, which makes the word unnecessary)? I don't know if this makes any sense, I need someone to clarify this. Any thoughts? Timbouctou (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As should be clear from that article, there is absolutely no consistency about how demonyms are formed. If you don't know the appropriate demonym for a particular place, it is probably best to avoid using one. --Tango (talk) 00:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a timely reminder that my question @ Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 September 23#Melbourne > Melburnian remains unanswered. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that discussion, you mentioned your interest in knowing when Melburnian was first used and by whom, for which I recommend

Google News Archive Search for help in approaching the answers. -- Wavelength (talk) 02:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a stupid question at all. It's just that it doesn't have a straight-forward answer. Consider "Liverpudlian" - that just plain makes no goddamn linguistic sense at all. I would in your place, when speaking English, avoid demonyms stemming from history if English history books have not recorded them extensively - hence, Agramer or Ragusan doesn't sound acceptable to me in English even if I personally know where they come from (no less than Laibacher sounds acceptable to me in English for my own birthplace in my own similarly Austrian influenced country, or Oberburger for my own village I grew up in.) Rather than looking for historical demonyms, you should look for what sounds most natural in English, IMO. In most cases that's "-ian", "-an" or "-er", as far as I can tell. TomorrowTime (talk) 04:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the answer is that there is no straightforward answer. What are the inhabitants of Birmingham called? Well it's not "Birminghamians" or "Birminghamers" - it's "Brummies"! The inhabitants of Newcastle upon Tyne are called "Geordies". There is no real name for the inhabitants of Leeds, unless it's "Loiners": "Leodensians" refers to alumni of the grammar school. And who decided that the inhabitants of Glasgow should be "Glaswegians"? --TammyMoet (talk) 09:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Glasgow" apparently means "green field", implying the best growing land on an estate. Citizens of Galway are Galwegians. Citizens of Norway are Norwegians. (The "weg" suffix is the Anglo-Saxon root for the English "way", which remains "Weg" in German.) So one would think Glasgow should have been "Glasway", but no. However, "Glasgow" comes from some typically unpronounceable Celtic word, so all bets are off. The Newcastle article explains theories about "Geordies", which has nothing to do with the word "Newcastle". Sorta like calling Americans "Yanks". The original name of Leeds was "Loidis", not too far removed from "Loiners", which is probably a better choice than "Loiderers". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, I concur with TomorrowTime—it's not a stupid question. The simple answer, though, is there is no reliable rule. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Capitalization"

Is it:

He complimented Van Heflin for "Stealing every scene he ~~was~~ is in". or

He complimented Van Heflin for "stealing every scene he ~~was~~ is in".

when the quote is from the beginning of a sentence? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, it would be the latter, because the quote is not a full quote and is incorporated into the sentence. It should be capitalized if you refer to the words of the quote itself rather than to the meaning of the quote. Intelligentsium 22:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the second, but when in doubt you can always do "[s]tealing every scene he was in" to remove ambiguity. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The latter, almost certainly. It wouldn't have been capitalised in the original unless it was a rather strange sentence structure. --Tango (talk) 00:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? The sentence began "Stealing every scene he is [sic] in, Heflin won the Supporting Actor Oscar ... " Clarityfiend (talk) 02:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so it was a strange sentence structure. A more conventional structure would be either "By stealing..., Helfin..." or "Helfin... by stealing...". --Tango (talk) 04:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that strange...it's a nominative absolute, or at least it's trying to be. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

((edit conflict)) On Wikipedia, it loses the capital, as stated explicitly in WP:MOSQUOTE. Elsewhere the style rules could be different. I would not use a capital myself. --ColinFine (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retaining the capital is definitely wrong. Putting the lowercased "s" in square brackets is somewhat formal and I'd mostly expect to see it in academic writing. --Anonymous, 05:58 UTC, February 27, 2010.

Okay, Das Kapital ist kaput. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]