Language desk
< January 26	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 28 >

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.

January 27

repetition in English

Which one of these would be the most preferable, according to academic standards?:

I have an apple, I have a bannana, and I have an orange.
I have an apple, a bannana, and an orange.
I have an apple, bannana, and orange.
--96.40.43.34 (talk) 03:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The second option is the most elegant but I, being Australian, would omit the second comma. I would guess that you, being in the USA, are more likely to want to include it. HiLo48 (talk) 04:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we have no "bannanas", we have no "bannanas" today. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given we Merrickens were chartered colonists, not transported convicts, we were able to afford and keep our half stops.[1] I believe "I have an apple, a bannana, and an orange" is traditional in Britain as well. μηδείς (talk) 04:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree (2nd option). the 1st option has independent clauses which would be better if separated by semicolons. 2nd option: "I have" applies to all three items, whereas "I have an" does not apply to "bannanannana", thus the 3rd option is out. The comma preceding "and" is optional, but is preferably omitted (since the sentence ends with list of comma-separated items). ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 05:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All other things being equal, option 2 is, in my opinion, the best of the three. Repeating I have for each item in the series seems unnecessary, unless you really want to emphasize the have for some reason. For example, if someone asks you What do you have?, then maybe you could reply I have an apple; I have a banana; I have an orange. On the other hand, if they ask you What kind of fruit do you have?, then option 2 seems much better. (Please forgive me if my example is incorrect or obvious to all).

By the way, is b-a-n-n-a-n-a an acceptable alternate spelling for banana outside the USA or is that just a typo? Seems like there's an extra n in there, but I'm really not sure. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was meant to be humorous, something to do with pronunciation of banana, but it didn't work for me either. HiLo48 (talk) 06:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The OP's IP address geolocates to within the U.S. anyway. I think it's just a misspelling. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(My spelling of banana was an inside joke; as a tot, would pronounce banana with an extra "-na" or two; and with some words its hard to know when to stop, like Missississippi) ~:71.20.250.51 (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "processor" wants to come out as processessor, or worse, for me. And I don't stutter on any other words, just that one. I have to say it very carefully, as "pro cess or" to stop it from doing that. :-) StuRat (talk) 21:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]

It's all good 71.20.250.51. Mississippi was definitely a favorite at my school's spelling bees. It was the only chance you got to stand on stage in front of your teachers, classmates, and parents and say ippi without getting in any trouble at all. Always brought the house down.

- Marchjuly (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, I must have had a foreign spellcheck on when I wrote that message, I just assumed what I was typing was correct. Sorry about that. Still, I think that you lot know what I meant. --96.40.43.34 (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No blood no foul 96.40.43.34. I was just curious since others also seemed to be playing along. Don't mind me.

- Marchjuly (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Googling "bannana" turns up a surprising (or maybe not) number of hits. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some officials follow corrupt practices.

Is "Some officials follow corrupt practices." a correct sentence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.222.67 (talk) 06:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is correct in both its grammar and its content. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But the word "follow" is unusual here and somewhat ambiguous. It could mean that some officials are corrupt, i.e. they indulge in corrupt practices, but it could also mean they extirpate corrupt practices, in the sense of persuing and uprooting them.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would really not be the most natural interpretation of the sentence in the absence of some specific context supporting it. AnonMoos (talk) 09:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shantavira, since we're talking about correct words, the synonym for 'follow' you're wanting is 'pursue' (no such word as 'persue'; but it's 'persecute', not 'pursecute'). I like 'extirpate'. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "follow" is not the best choice of words there. I would say:

"Some officials engage in corrupt practices."

"Some officials pursue those who engage in corrupt practices."

"Some officials watch those who engage in corrupt practices."

"Some officials continue to engage in established corrupt practices."

...depending on what exactly you meant by "follow". StuRat (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

but like AnonMoos, if I encountered the original sentence, I would probably not even notice the ambiguity, and would take it as no 1. --ColinFine (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can't fool me. They don't need no practice. I mean, we're talking about practice, not corruption, not corruption, not corruption, but we're talking about practice. How silly is that? Clarityfiend (talk) 02:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some follow corrupt practices, some follow football. —Tamfang (talk) 07:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a word(!) for a perpetrator atheist who murders millions or religious people.

This article Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union states that "The total number of Christian victims of Soviet state atheist policies, has been estimated to range between 12-20 millions" People were killed and persecuted in other countries for the crime of having a religion, not just Russia. One could call this behavior "state religious persecution", but that would bring up an image of religious fanatics persecuting people with other religions. This kind of genocide seems big enough and global enough for the perpetrator and the phenomenon that I feel sure that it should have a specific name or even more names, but I can not think of any. DanielDemaret (talk) 14:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Fideicide" gets a few hits, but unfortunately generally not in the intended meaning. I think Albania is the only recognized country which proclaimed itself 100% religion-eradicated... AnonMoos (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To me "fideicide" sounds like you're trying to kill the faith itself — for killing the faithful I would suggest "fidelicide", for which I saw one relevant hit on the first page (some others seemed to be about radio stations disingratiating themselves to audiophiles). --Trovatore (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Religion in North Korea says it proclaims itself an atheist state. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

However, North Korea has some tame propaganda places of worship, maintained largely to make a good impression on foreign visitors, while Albania didn't even have that during its most severe period... AnonMoos (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Communist persecution" is a good term: almost everyone persecuted for having a religion was persecuted by a Communist regime, and the persecution included all non-socialist ideology (religion being a subset of that). --Bowlhover (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, adherents of religious communism and religious socialism would deny that, even if the Soviet authorities wouldn't have. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't seem to have a list or category for "-icide" terms; the closest I could find is {{homicide}} which includes several. ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There ought to be a -cide category given the sheer number of them. Homicide, regicide, patricide, infanticide, fratricide, etc....Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 27 Shevat 5774 00:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I deeply dislike categories based on the form of a word. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and we should not categorize things based on their names (possibly with a few exceptions for words-as-words articles). --Trovatore (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, a category:types of homicide or some such would be fine. But it should not include insecticide, for example; there is no plausible category I can think of that would group, say, insecticide with fratricide. --Trovatore (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See this handy list from The Phrontistery. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Utricide? The definition makes no sense to me. — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seacide. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

71.20.250.51 -- Wiktionary has Category:English words suffixed with -cide, but it's probably more suitable to Wiktionary than to Wikipedia... AnonMoos (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I always wondered how many many people lived in the SU...--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]