Language desk
< October 23	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 25 >

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.

October 24

Ada pronunciation

From Ada or Ardor: A Family Chronicle: "Ada" is also pun, a homophone, for "Ardor". Marina, Ada's mother, pronounces her name with "long, deep" Russian "A"s, which is how a Russian would say the word "Ardor". Can someone IPA this for us, please? Thanks much. ÷seresin 02:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ada /ˈɑːdə/, Ardor /ˈɑːdə/. Works only for non-rhotics.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 05:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can a country be a cultural center?

Hello! There is in the lead of Kingdom of Hungary the formulation "Kingdom of Hungary (...) at various points was regarded as one of the cultural centers of Europe". The referred source is in Hungaruan language and now I am waiting for the translation of the targeted text from the book. But I have a feeling that this is not the best wording in English. Can a country be a center? A center is "the point from which an activity or process is directed, or on which it is focused:", so in my understanding a country is too vast to be center; only a city can be a cultural center (e.g. "Paris is a cultural center"). Please correct me if I am wrong 79.117.173.188 (talk) 07:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing wrong with a country as the cultural centre. A city is more common in that role, but your argument about the specificity of the original meaning of "centre" is not relevant: this is a transferred meaning, and it is not predictable how much of the original meaning will be transferred. --ColinFine (talk) 14:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese translation requested

how to translate the following sentence into Chinese?" With some of these winning copywriting tricks of the trade,you just may find yourself on the receiving end of a steady stream of customers." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.134.68.14 (talk) 09:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An English word

I heard a word in an interview Bono gave to Ed Bradley --former host of 60 Minutes-- and Bradley asked him if he [Bono] didn't have security around when he wasn't on tour, Bono replied that he didn't, and they joked with a word that I guess means pandilla or something in Spanish... the word starts with pos... but it's not posit, posy, it sounded very similar. Can anybody guess what was that word? They siad something like this:

Bradley: You don't have a _____ (word I cannot understand)

Bono: No, I don't have a _____. Am I missing that? Have you got one? (laugh) I bet you've got a _____

Bradley: No I don't have a ____ (more laugh). I have a crew I travel with.

Please... help me. Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 12:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't heard the interview, but I would guess that the word was posse. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 12:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Posse", no doubt, which in common usage nowadays means "a group of associates" or "a bunch of hangers-on", like many professional athletes and rap singers always have around them. Deor (talk) 12:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So that word works for security personal. Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 13:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A posse often includes security personnel, but it also usually includes other employees and friends who frequently accompany the famous person to be in the limelight, to get treated to food and drinks at night clubs, and such. I don't know whether you know the word entourage, but it's a near synonym. Deor (talk) 13:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know the song. Thanks some jerk on the internet and Deor for your answers. Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 13:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A posse is not a security detail, not if they are professional. Nowadays posse is used to refer to a group of sycophants, or camp followers. μηδείς (talk) 18:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

bürgerschaftlicher - meaning?

What does the word bürgerschaftlicher in German mean? --117.253.194.76 (talk) 14:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google translate comes back with "civic". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Separating the parts results in the phrase "citizen nomic", i.e. "citizen concerning", i.e. "civic". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't suppose it could have to do with the art of cooking bürgers? μηδείς (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "Bürgerschaft" is the property being a citizen, sometimes also the collective body of citizens, but historically in the sense of "bourgeois", i.e. excluding workers. In the hanseatic city states, like Hamburg, it also is the name of the state (and city ;-) parliament. If you encounter the adjective form today, it probably means "of or belonging to a city state parliament". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard it said that European bourgeois does not correspond exactly to American "middle class", but I've never gotten a firm handle on exactly what it does mean. When you say "excluding workers", do you also mean to exclude highly-skilled and -compensated workers, such as engineers, who work for someone else for wages or salary? Or did those just not really exist at the time of the Hanseatic League? --Trovatore (talk) 21:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Formally and originally, the "bourgeoisie" has been defines as people who can live off their own capital, without needing to work for a living. By later extension, qualified self-employed citizens would probably also be included - doctors, lawyers, architects, etc. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, even now, it doesn't include salaried engineers, no matter how highly educated or well compensated? --Trovatore (talk) 22:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The exact cognate ("borgerlig") is in use in Norwegian politics today, meaning the moderate parties (Christian Democratic Party (Norway) and Liberal Party (Norway)), the Conservative Party (Norway) and the right-wing extremists (Progress Party (Norway)), the latter of ABB fame. --NorwegianBlue^talk 20:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My Norwegian is slightly non-existent, but I belief the exact cognate of "borgerlig" in German is "bürgerlich", which is used in the same sense you describe (the moderate-right and somewhat conservative parties). There are some differences - "bürgerlich" is more referring to a class (defined by a property), "bürgerschaftlich" more to a collective (defined by implicit or explicit enumeration), with the collective today usually being one of the city state parliaments.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I stand corrected. I'm unsure if we're able to make as fine-grained a distinction as that in Norwegian. The only alternative that comes to mind is "småborgerlig", which is very close to "bourgeois". --NorwegianBlue^talk 21:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first part of the word means citizenship, I don't know what '-licher' means. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

-lich is an adjective-forming suffix cognate with English -ly; -er is a grammatical ending indicating the nominative singular masculine form (or the genitive/dative singular feminine form or the genitive plural form). Basically bürgerschaftlich means "of or pertaining to citizenship" or, as Stephan says above, "of or pertaining to a city-state parliament". We'd need to know the whole context in which the OP encountered the form bürgerschaftlicher in order to give a complete translation. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting here in passing that bourgeoisie#History, especially the "from progress to reaction" section, appears to be written from a Marxist POV rather than neutrally. I have no objection to presenting the Marxist view but it should be labeled as such. Any thoughts on how best to approach this? --Trovatore (talk) 23:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By finding some decent sources rather than relying on an encyclopedia. Of course it would still have a Marxist viewpoint, because that is what the decent sources say. :-) Itsmejudith (talk) 12:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If they have a Marxist viewpoint, how decent can they be, really? --Trovatore (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not. --Trovatore (talk) 20:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The context is this: [1]§ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.253.194.76 (talk) 11:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So this is from the dance hall of the old town hall of Munich and refers to bürgerschaftliche und stadtherrliche Zusammenkunft, which means gatherings by the citizens (Bürger) and the leaders (Stadtherren) of the city. --Wrongfilter (talk) 12:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Using a word as a word itself

In an English sentence, when a word is used to refer to the word itself (and not to the object that the word defines), what is the correct punctuation or format? Is it correct to use quotation marks, italics, either, or something else? For example:

John ate an apple with his lunch. (This sentence is punctuated correctly since "apple" here refers to the fruit and not to the word "apple" itself.)

The word "apple" is misspelled in the store's advertisements. ... OR ... The word apple is misspelled in the store's advertisements. (Which format is correct, when the word "apple" is being used to refer to the word itself and not to the fruit?)

Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say either one would be fine, with a slight leaning towards the version using quotation marks. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would evince a strong preference for quotation marks, but italics do help make the use/mention distinction clear. DES ^(talk) 17:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The quote marks make it stand out more than italics do, but either way is commonly used. For foreign words, italics are more typical. Example: The Spanish word for "apple" is manzana. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Use–mention distinction says "Although the standard notation for mentioning a term in philosophy and logic is to put the term in quotation marks, issues arise when the mention is itself of a mention. Notating using italics might require a potentially infinite number of typefaces, while putting quotation marks within quotation marks may lead to ambiguity" My experince is that in philosophy and linguistics works, a mention is usually indicated by quotes, while in all contexts a word from a foreign language is indicated by italics. DES ^(talk) 18:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For articles in Wikipedia, the guideline is at WP:MOS#Italics: Words as words:

Use italics when mentioning a word or letter (see Use–mention distinction) or a string of words up to one full sentence (the term panning is derived from panorama, a word coined in 1787; the most commonly used letter in English is e). When a whole sentence is mentioned, quotation marks may be used instead, with consistency (The preposition in She sat on the chair is on; or The preposition in "She sat on the chair" is "on"). Mentioning (to discuss such features as grammar, wording, and punctuation) is different from quoting (in which something is usually expressed on behalf of a quoted source).

—Wavelength (talk) 18:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC) and 18:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The standard in linguistics is to use italics for mention, and quotes around a gloss. E.g., the archaic English world oast, "kiln", is cognate with the Latin word aestas, "summer", and the modern English word estivate. The use of quotes is common in causal settings and when setting italics is difficult. But textbooks and scholarly and formal works use italics. I use italics here when I am being careful, and quotes or nothing if I am hurried and don't think there will be any confusion. μηδείς (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is a gloss? That caused confusion for me, so I could not interpret/understand the rest of your reply. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, a gloss as used here is a one-word (or at worst, very brief) translation. (See etymology two, sense five.) μηδείς (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of interest, how would this work with non-Latin scripts? I work as a translator and generally use "" when quoting a Japanese word, phrase, or sentence in the original script, but what about for Egyptian Hieroglyphs (I have only ever seen a space left in this case), or other non-Latin scripts? KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's Lang-x templates for non-Latin-script languages do not italicize the inserted text ("{{lang-ru|Россия}}" yields "Russian: Россия"), while those for Latin-script languages do ("{{lang-es|México}}" yields "Spanish: México"). Some Cyrillic letters look substantially different when italicized: the italicized versions of г, д, т are, respectively, г, д, т, cf. the Russian word тогда (regular font) or тогда (italics). --Theurgist (talk) 20:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, Russian standardly is italicized in this circumstance in published material. μηδείς (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Cyrillic is really the only script besides Latin that makes the roman/italic distinction. For other scripts, italics should not be used, even though they are technically possible. In an English-language text, though, the simple presence of a non-Latin script is probably sufficient indication that a word is being mentioned rather than used, since English doesn't use any other script. If I say that 日本 is the Japanese word for "Japan", no one is going to think I'm using 日本 for its meaning rather than merely mentioning it, because it couldn't possibly be an English word. So there's no particular need to italicize it or put it in quotation marks or anything. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean italics for Cyrillic should not be used in wikipedia. In actually reputable publishing they will be. μηδείς (talk) 20:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a practical matter, italicizing Cyrillic makes it harder to read for some people, for reasons discussed above... AnonMoos (talk) 01:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I first learned of this the difference a while ago when I thought I would italicise Арктика and it came out as Арктика, so I decided I'd leave it alone. But, when you say "makes it harder to read for some people", do you mean there are some people who can otherwise read (e.g.) Russian pretty well, but have trouble with italics? Don't people inevitably learn the italic versions of the characters along with everything else? 86.160.82.98 (talk) 02:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I took Russian 101, we were expected to have mastered printed cyrillic by the end of the first week (the second 75 minute long class), and cursive Cyrillic and the reading of italic Cyrillic by the end of the second week. Italic Cyrillic is extremely close to cursive cyrillic. This is different from italic Greek and Latin script, which are basically just slanted. μηδείς (talk) 02:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think traditionally there have been one or two differences in form with Latin script too -- for example, italic "a" should traditionally be single-story even when the plain character is two-storey. 86.160.82.98 (talk) 02:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, and the one-testicled, versus the two-testicled letter gee. μηδείς (talk) 02:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are people who are somewhat familiar the basic Cyrillic alphabet (partially as an extension of the Greek alphabet), but who would be thrown for a loop by various features of Cyrillic italics... AnonMoos (talk) 02:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My question above was prompted by my encountering this Wikipedia article: Controversies about the word "niggardly". I was wondering ... should not that article use italics in the title, as opposed to quote marks? I did not want to go ahead and change it, without being sure first. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, according to general and wikipedia style, that should definitely be changed to niggardly in italics (or better yet, be merged somewhere), but I don't see how to do it. μηδείς (talk) 22:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean when you say that you don't see how to do it? Wouldn't that be accomplished by that "Display Title" command? Such as the one used in the title of, for example, this article: List of Cheers episodes. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I meant I couldn't figure out how to do it. You have just shown how. μηδείς (talk) 01:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree that that one should be changed. Remeber that displaytitle affects only how the title appears on the page itself, not on watchlists etc. Right now, the quote marks, even if less elegant than the italics, at least show up consistently everywhere. Italics would not, and the title would appear ungrammatical. --Trovatore (talk) 01:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having only just learnt of {{displaytitle|title}}, I think it's highly unreasonable for you to expect me to have remembered anything about it. μηδείς (talk) 02:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to use apostrophes, as in: the word 'apple' is misspelled in the store's advertisements; 'apple' is a noun. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't (or shouldn't be) apostrophes. 86.160.82.98 (talk) 02:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We Americans tend to call what you Brits think of as 'single quotes' "apostrophes". That goes back to The War, and rationing, and you Brits (unable to afford four entire ticks) trying to save face, treating what you call "double quotes" as if they were special, while we call what you call 'single quotes' "apostrophes", because we know something has been left out. This discussion was had here before, (although a quick check of the archives was unhelpful). It is simple stubbornness that you have continued with this even though you can afoord "real quotes" nowadays. Don't get me started on <<French quotes>>. μηδείς (talk) 02:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now they can afford four quotes, or a gallon. (Or five, if imperial). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're kidding, right? (I mean, kidding that Americans (properly) call single quotes "apostrophes", not the rest of it.) 86.160.82.98 (talk) 02:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have three choices: Accept American Exceptionalism. Surrender to our dominance in war, commerce, and publishing. Or be retrained on moral relativism. Whichever you choose, resistance is futile. μηδείς (talk) 02:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I posted my remark, I tossed up between calling them 'apostrophes' and 'single quotation marks'. Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Americans do, actually, call them apostrophes--they are looked on as half of a quote mark. μηδείς (talk) 03:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those of us in computers do tend to call them "single quotes", i.e in defining a value of a character literal. Technically an apostrophe only stands for an omitted letter, but it's the same character on the keyboard. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And before you learned to call them single quotes, what did you call them, Bugs? I thought so. μηδείς (talk) 04:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first time I recall seeing them named was in the computer context, and they were always called "single quotes". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about an opening single quote. Would you call that an apostrophe too? 86.148.153.179 (talk) 11:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the wrong British renegade apostrophe.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 13:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When in doubt, I usually defer to Unicode's names. Bazza (talk) 15:32, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In this case there is no doubt. While apostrophes and single quotes may look similar or identical, they have completely different functions, and confusing the names is simply wrong, whatever country you are from. (There may be very limited exceptions for convenience or brevity in decriptions of computer keys, font code points or whatever, but definitely not in any case of a character used in context.) 86.179.4.66 (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, interesting. This seems to be the only clear case of the same keyboard symbol being called one thing in one context and another thing in a different context. The only other half-case is the dash/hyphen, but I'm told purists would never use it for a real dash, and use it exclusively as a hyphen. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, even purists pretty much have to use it as a minus sign, there being no alternative. --Trovatore (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I mean on a typewriter, of course, not a computer. We were talking about typewriters, right? --Trovatore (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for gently unhoisting me from my own petard, but no, I don't think anyone uses or talks about typewriters these days (are they even manufactured anymore?). Except for John Hurt's character in Love and Death on Long Island. I still laugh at his indignant remark when his assistant/agent suggested he forego his trusty typewriter and invest in a word processor: I am a writer. I do not process words. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Typewriter#Revival.—Wavelength (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to sell a typewriter now my mother bought in 1997. The way one types a dash is to type two hyphens and then use the back space, and then the half-space key to type a third hyphen between the first two. (Mom was a professional typist.) μηδείς (talk) 21:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But not a minus sign, I think. --Trovatore (talk) 21:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I see the difficulty, since it's called a minus sign when used with equations, and a hyphen when indicating a range or a compound word. The difference may be in the spacing, but not in the symbol. μηδείς (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Government Booklet

This question concerns USA copyright law. I found a 45 page booklet. Date of Publication: 1948. No copyright notice. No reservation of rights notice. Printed by United States Printing Office Publisher: Smithsonian Institution. Two authors listed. Provided that I give proper attribution and indicate which paragraphs were taken from the booklet, what restrictions is there on the use of the material in the booklet? Thanks. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 22:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it was work-for-hire for the U.S. federal government, then it would automatically be in the public domain. There are some other possibilities; a better place to discuss this would be commons:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright... -- AnonMoos (talk) 02:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is the legal status of the Smithsonian Institution. Is it regarded as part of the federal government for the purposes of the federal copyright exemption? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it was published in 1948 in the U.S. with no copyright notice, it's public domain no matter whether it's considered a work of the Federal Government or not. All works published in the U.S. between 1923 and 1977 without a copyright notice are public domain, see {{PD-US}} and [2]. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]