Language desk
< June 21	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 23 >

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

June 22

UK or US English

I wanted to verify that our Antikythera mechanism article uses UK English, US English, or is mixed. Usually this can be easily verified by searching for strings like ise vs ize or by simply eyeballing it looking for things like color or colour. Is this case I wasn't able to figure it out. What would be ideal is some sort of automated tool that would look at some text and tell you what English variant it is written in. Maybe a spellchecker with two different dictionaries? Note: ignore the "analog computer". In this context "analog" is a separate word that is spelled the same in the US and UK, not the US version of the UK analogue. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fourth paragraph under "Origin" contains "Rhodes was a busy trading port in antiquity and a centre of astronomy ...", indicating that that bit, at least, was written in British English. Deor (talk) 07:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just tried one of my tests for EngVar. The word "outside" is used twice, once with the word "of" immediately following it, in the American style, and once without, in the UK style. It looks like this article may have so far escaped the efforts of the Language Variety Police. HiLo48 (talk) 08:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that the first sentence under "Gearing" has "miniaturisation", another indication of BrE. Deor (talk) 08:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So only one bit of US English? If so the above is most likely enough to call it as UK English. (I don't really care which, but I want to be consistent). In the past it had more of a mixture; see [1] and search on center/centre. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I go along with your assertion that "analog" is a separate word in this case. wikt:analog gives no indication that it is anything other than an alternative spelling of "analogue". --Viennese Waltz 11:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"We are using the dog or rat or mold as an analogue computer, just like those used by engineers when for reasons of cost or accessibility they cannot directly study the system that interests them." (Source; and iWeb points to plenty more.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite follow. Is that quotation in support of my post, or against it? --Viennese Waltz 12:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neither. I wasn't (and ain't) in a partisan mood. -- Hoary (talk) 13:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That quote is from 1959. Today, British authors are equally likely to use the spelling "analog computer" as "analogue computer".^[2] --Lambiam 12:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The MOS:RETAIN guideline suggests that editors maintain the first established variety of English (unless the topic itself suggests otherwise). The word "centre" was introduced on 9 June 2006. At the time, the article used the spelling "miniaturization" (introduced on 7 April 2006), which could also be Oxford spelling; it was "corrected" to its current spelling on 14 August 2012. Until 13 June 2006 measurements of the mechanism were given exclusively in cm, which (although by itself not a matter of language variety) is indicative of continental usage. The first insertion of "outside" is much later, on 21 May 2014, in the form "Outside of". The history appears to be (mildly) in favour of British English. --Lambiam 12:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the construction "outside of" might once have been a reliable marker of American English, but a search like this for instance shows its current use by such British institutions as the BBC and the Daily Telegraph. Even the British Government has: "risk of picking up COVID-19 outside of work". [3] Alansplodge (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This Australian still sees no point in ever adding the redundant word "of" to the perfectly clear and simpler "outside". Can't stop what other people do though. HiLo48 (talk) 23:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This American wonders why quotation marks have to be mated to italics. —Tamfang (talk) 01:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "the history appears to be (mildly) in favour of British English", and any Americanisms should be changed to make the page consistent.

I don't agree that British English favors "Analogue computer" over "Analog computer". You do find the use of analogue in newspapers and popular books, but engineering books and engineering journals favor Analog, even in the UK. The difference isn't huge, but Analog is more common, especially in the most recent engineering publications. Analogue computer/analog computer is really rare now that all computers are digital, so I listed other common engineering terms.

On the other hand, for terms used a lot in non-engineering contexts, Analogue is still more common.

From Merriam-Webster:[4]

"The word analogue entered English from French in the 19th century and ultimately traces back to the Greek word logos, meaning "ratio." (The word analogy, which has been a part of English since the 15th century, also descends from logos.) The noun analogue is sometimes spelled analog, particularly when it refers to a chemical compound that is structurally similar to another but slightly different in composition. Adding to the confusion, there is also an adjective spelled analog, which came into use in the 20th century. The adjective can refer to something that is analogous (as in an analog organ), but it is most often used to distinguish analog electronics from digital electronics (as in an analog computer or an analog clock)." (emphasis added)

--Guy Macon (talk) 16:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that in the UK, the American spelling is used in computing contexts; e.g. "program" instead of "programme" but for other uses we revert to the traditional British spelling. So in this case, "analog computer" but in another context, "the human hand is the analogue of a cat's paw". Our English in computing article is silent on the issue however. Alansplodge (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen "programme" used in computing, though maybe not uniformly, and come to think of it maybe mostly in older publications. I do see a "writing tip"[5] saying computers are an exception in UK spelling. Regarding the general program/programme of uniformatizing the spelling in the Antikythera article: I just wouldn't worry about it too much. The article talk page might be a better place to discuss what style it uses, but my preferred approach (regardless of what MOS says) is to just accept that Wikipedia uses a mix of styles, and feel ok about it. So I'd observe the existing prevailing style in an article when adding to the article, but wouldn't get too wrapped up in changing what is already there, even if it is inconsistent. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:ARTCON, however, states quite explicitly: "Within a given article the conventions of one particular variety of English should be followed consistently." You may not care, but others do. --Lambiam 10:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicts over the MOS are a big enough source of misery in Wikipedia that we would be better off if people took it less seriously. So if I come across a minor style issue that bothered me, I might make a quick or simple fix, but I wouldn't turn it into a big research project. In any case, if I had a question about the existing style of an article I'd ask on the article's talk page. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 20:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If all editors took some effort to follow the guidelines where they are clear (in the absence of some compelling reason to do otherwise), there would be fewer conflicts. --Lambiam 10:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

British English has changed a lot due to influence from US English. Count Iblis (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article does use the {{Use British English}} template. Jmar67 (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is questioning whether the article should use British English. The problem is multiple editors who insist on retaining a phrase that is used less often in British English and rejecting a phrase that is used more often in British English. You can't just say, for example, that you have decided that "color" is British English while ignoring proof that in UK sources "colour" is used more often. British English is whatever English the majority in the UK uses, not the personal preferences of a handful of Wikipedia editors. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

US English should be made the standard and there should be a separate Wikipedia for British English just like there is one for Old English. Count Iblis (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It might be interesting to propose that. Would you also want separate Wikipedias for Australian English and South African English? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Australian English requires a separate Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Too right. HiLo48 (talk) 23:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: Seems like the pronunciation should be "an-tee-KITH-er-ah". Or is this part of the US/UK issue? Jmar67 (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese wet noodle

Archivists at the Butte-Silver Bow Public Archives in Butte, Montana, refer to a Chinese restaurant that specializes in “yateamein", a kind of Chinese wet noodle, but I can’t find the common name or spelling that this actually refers to here. Can anyone help? Viriditas (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are these references written or spoken? Is it possible that what is meant is yakamein? --Khajidha (talk) 01:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what I’ve read, it’s both. They were originally spoken by members of the Chinese community and written down by the archivists as “yateamein”, which I can’t find anywhere. Viriditas (talk) 01:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: you were right. It’s a typo. Another source spells it yatcamein, with a c instead of a k. So it must be yakamein. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 01:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update2: Yaka mein leads to more mysteries. Oh well. Viriditas (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know that mein (pronounced more like "mien") means "noodle", chow mein being the best known example. No idea about yaka mein. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 02:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article linked to offers theories about the etymology of the term and the origins of the dish. Are the "more mysteries" the uncertainty of these theories? --Lambiam 07:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You could say that: "The dish is spelled in innumerable ways... The origins of yaka mein are uncertain...other noodles dishes served in disparate fashions may also be collectively known as yet-ca mein." More questions than answers. Viriditas (talk) 08:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article about ~~everything~~ the Pekin Noodle Parlor mentioned in the Congressional Record. --Lambiam 07:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't seem to have one about the "Happy Buddha" (Phát Phúc) noodle bar[6] in London though. (Juvenile snigger). 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 09:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]