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 4

Could tantrum be related to tantra, or do they only happen to be similar?

Whenever I see the word tantra, it always reminds me of the word tantrum, as in having a temper tantrum. According to Wiktionary, the Sanskrit word is descended from the Proto-Indo-European root *ten-, which means to stretch or extend, while the English word used to be spelt tantrem or tanterum. Latin has a similar word; tantum, which means "so much, to such a degree", "as much of this as that", or "merely".

Fiddling with the search bar also led me to become aware of the word tantara, which is a shortened version of a word that represents the sound of a trumpet or horn. Taking that into consideration, it could be that the act of making a loud, rambunctious display of oneself may have once been referred to as "blowing a tarantara" (sounding a trumpet) and that—down the line—the voiced bilabial plosive (/b/) may have been erroneously picked up as a voiceless dental fricative (/θ/) and tantara may have occasionally been mixed up with trump, which could explain the -um at the end of tant(e)rum. In a nutshell:

blow a tarantara → blow a tantara → throw a tanterum → throw a tantrum

Alternatively, it also seems possible that tantrem could've been the result of tantara being mixed up with a word like tremble or tremolo, both of which are descended from the Latin word tremulāre, meaning to shake, quiver, or tremble. This would make sense to me, as temper tantrums often involve someone being loud and rambunctious (and making repetitive movements) in a manner that may cause some of the people around them to quiver out of concern for that person's sanity.

trump

tantara

trem

tanterum

tantrem

tantrum

With all of this unsubstantiated personal speculation in mind, I assume that tantrum may not be related to tantra after all, though both words may refer to different types of activities. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 14:12, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EO says "tantrum" is of unknown origin.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might wish to read Folk etymology. In short, tracing the true origins of words requires a detailed study of multi-language evolution based on written records and sophisticated philological deductions, rather than superficial similarities. The forms of words are extremely mutable over centuries, as are, independently, the meanings of those words, which can change drastically and even reverse. Your conjectures could be true, but without evidence so could many contradictory others. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.211.211 (talk) 21:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And you might wish to read argument from authority. This is cry of someone unfamiliar enough with knowledge methods they think discovery is mountaintop magic, inaccessable to anyone below the peak. Who are these philologists with an understanding that encompasses all languages, putting scholars who claim "multidisciplinary" to shame? Where are the philologists? That's a dusty word. You should read the works of those experts, you'll find them blindered, siloed, overreaching. It's better to lose faith in every thinker, and evaluate each paper and hypothesis as if anonymous. Most papers have two mistakes and an insight. And if there is an insight, you'll be lucky if anyone notices: look at this pdf. http://www.tufs.ac.jp/ts/personal/ratcliffe/comp%20&%20method-Ratcliffe.pdf Ratcliffe uses a messy method and equivocates because he can't tell that other book lacks Chris Ehret's central insights. It's a clear example of a good book and a not good book. And they can't tell.

Temerarius (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The pluralisations of certain foreign nouns adopted by English have proven to be conundra, and their misuse often drives linguists to tantra." (Jack of Oz, 19 December 2007) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:17, 4 August 2024 (UTC) [reply]

These aberrant pluralisations mark their users as ignorami. --Lambiam 11:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet irony. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Early uses appear to be in the plural, as the tantrums or the tanterums.^[2][3][4][5] As a state of high agitation, it is an antonym of the doldrums, a state of apathy. --Lambiam 00:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 5

Latin inscription

Could I have a translation for this inscription please:

QUISQUIS ADES QUI MORTE CADES, STA, PERLEGE, PLORA. SUM QUOD ERIS, FUERAM QUOD ES. PRO ME PREDOR, ORA.

Machine translations are a bit garbled. It's from a 14th century coffin lid in St Mary's Church, Sturminster Marshall in Dorset. Alansplodge (talk) 13:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The second sentence at least is a rather well known epitaph from some tombs of roman military, followed by a plea to pray for the deceased :"I once was what you are, you will be what I am." As for the first sentence: I don't what know to make of Cades, but the last 3 words would be: pause (here), (and) by law, lament (my passing). But it#s not really easy to translate. Lectonar (talk) 14:22, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't "perlege" be "read", and "cades" the future tense of cado 'fall'? I'd go for:

Bystander, whoever you are, who will fall to death: pause, read, and weep. I am what you will be; I used to be what you are now; please pray for me. (I'm assuming that predor is a typo for precor, right?) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Literally, "Anyone, you who are present, who will fall to death, stand, read through, weep. I am what you will be, I had been what you are. Pray for me, I pray." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.234.214.10 (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should indeed be precor; moreover, fueram should be fueramque – "I am what you will be and had been what you are".^[6] The inscription has no phrasal punctuation. If a comma is inserted after the interjection precor, there should also be one before it: Pro me, precor, ora. --Lambiam 00:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all most kindly. Alansplodge (talk) 08:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

BOTs in singular

Is it correct to say that the Falkland Islands are a "British Overseas Territory", in singular? Or should I always say "British Overseas Territories", in plural? Cambalachero (talk) 19:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are a British Overseas Territory. DuncanHill (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd even accept "The Falkland Islands is a British Overseas Territory". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So do the Beeb^[7] and His Majesty's Government.^[8] --Lambiam 23:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 6

What is a cat??

When we first learn the meaning of the word cat, we learn a small, domestic animal that purrs, drinks milk, and chases mice. But as we get older, we learn that cat means large, wild animal like a lion or tiger. It's a surprise that these 2 definitions of the word co-exist without confusion. Georgia guy (talk) 00:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People who saw a tiger prowling around and warned "there is a cat" failed to alarm others and got eaten by the cat. As the result of an evolutionary process, people now avoid uses that can cause such confusion. --Lambiam 00:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All languages offer the possibility of ambiguity:

“It's unpleasantly like being drunk."

"What's so unpleasant about being drunk?"

"You ask a glass of water.”

Douglas Adams The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy

Successful communication generally involves recognising the potential for misunderstanding, and avoiding it when it matters. If a large and dangerous stripy felid is lurking around, call it a tiger... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, "cat" in its less-specific meaning can refer to any of the Felidae, large or small. It's "big cat" which means "large, wild animal like a lion or tiger". AnonMoos (talk) 02:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Our Kitty Fisher and Pussy Simpkins were big cats, from Bristol. They used to beat up the little Cornish cats when we moved there. DuncanHill (talk) 11:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it really only has that meaning in certain specific contexts (e.g. in scientific or ecological discussions). In ordinary conversation, without qualification, it'd invariably be interpreted as referring to the domestic cat. If I told someone "I saw a cat yesterday" and it turned out that I'd seen a tiger in a zoo, they'd think I was being deliberately obtuse. Proteus (Talk) 11:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this accepted grammar?

I just heard an American on radio tell me that "The first Star Wars films were based off of early science fiction stories". I've heard similar usage from other Americans. I'm Australian. My English teachers would have put big red marks through that, and told me to write "based on". I can accept that language varies around the world, but wondered if this really is standard usage in the US. (And Canada?) HiLo48 (talk) 03:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a Canadian, I can say it sounds fine to me. Merriam Webster says "since this form is newer, it may seem less formal and less correct to some readers." Clarityfiend (talk) 03:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At one point, somebody did a mass edit changing occurrences of "based off" to "based on" ... but they didn't take into account the idiom "based off of", so following the edit, there were a bunch of occurrences of "based on of". As a North American, I will concur that "based off" and "based off of" both sound quite normal ... but Google Books Ngram Viewer seems to deny the existence of "based off" or "based off of". Other sources, such as "archive.org", "scholar.google.com", and "Chronicling America" admit at most to "based off" (or "based off of") representing a small fraction of the number of occurrences of "based on". Wiktionary admits to this as "U.S." phrasing, but flags it (at least in some cases) as "informal". Fabrickator (talk) 05:08, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds slangy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's English as She Is Spoke, eh. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A well known British phrase is "That bloke off the telly". Alansplodge (talk) 08:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which reminds me of "[character] from [fiction]" which I would use only if the character is imported to some other project. —Tamfang (talk) 00:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly in common usage on this project. I know I've heard this in NA English, but I don't think I've seen it in writing with much frequency. I wouldn't mark it incorrect on a paper I was grading. Folly Mox (talk) 09:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I work in an Australian high school. Must ask an English teacher their views. HiLo48 (talk) 10:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This song debuted in 1967. The title was later changed, but the lyrics continued as before. [9] 91.234.214.10 (talk) 10:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds American, and probably informal American, to my British ears. DuncanHill (talk) 11:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is one thing to use off of and another to use it specifically as the complement of a phrasal verb based on base, which Wiktionary labels as American English. The strange thing is that this ignores the metaphor of using something as a base, a foundation you can build on. At least to me, this is still a live metaphor, and so is something is said to be "based off of" something, its sounds to me as if it is off base. Would you want to live in a house that was built off of its foundation? --Lambiam 12:15, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's part of my concern with the term. It not logical to say based off of. I know we can't demand that language be logical, but based on is more sensible, and more efficient. How did "off of" ever become part of American English anyway? HiLo48 (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That last is a different meaning of based. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"To base X on Y" means "to use Y as a base for X". One use of the phrasal verb is literal and the other is metaphorical, so indeed one expects these uses to have different meanings: a literal one and a figurative one. --Lambiam 22:15, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) In this song (which mentions the Union Jack) once again the title betrays the lyrics [10]. 91.234.214.10 (talk) 12:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Based off of X" is pretty standard in Canada now. "Based off X" is not common and would sound odd to me. "Based on X" is still common, particularly in commercial use, such as "Based on the book by..." Matt Deres (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of the "of" in "Based off of X". A bit like "Um"? HiLo48 (talk) 23:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based off of... is a bit redundant, but I wouldn't say grammatically incorrect, just less common than based on. Personally if I ever use it, I just say "based on X", but they appear to be somewhat interchangeable. I've seen some theories that "based on" and "based off [of]" suggest different degrees of rigidity to the source of whatever was used; "based on" is more true to the original, while "based off [of]" implies a story or work was sort of a starting point for further research into a subject, but this is mostly just conjecture. Can't find anything supporting it etymologically. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 02:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday, after having participated in this thread, I heard an NA English speaker on the internet say the phrase "learn off of" in place of the more common "learn from". So it seems the "... off of" construction may have additional flexibility, at least in the Southeastern US topolect the speaker was using. Folly Mox (talk) 08:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm American, and those who say "based off of" are invited to get off my lawn. I have equal distaste for "We're based out of Miami." (Why, so am I, about as far out of Miami as you can get!) —Tamfang (talk) 00:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. While I can accept idiomatic language, it becomes problematic when it says pretty much the opposite of what is meant. HiLo48 (talk) 01:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you "entitled" to make such a remark? :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

well, I am old enough for hypothetical grandchildren, if that's what you mean. —Tamfang (talk) 02:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the new meaning of the word "entitled". It now refers to someone who acts as if they are entitled without actually being entitled. It used to simply mean someone who was actually entitled. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 8

Two forms of Arabic location

As of my current spot in the Duolingo Arabic course, there are two ways of noting that an indefinite object exists at a certain location. The first one I encountered was “hunak [thing] [location]”. For example, “There is a book in the building” would be “hunak kitab fil binayah/هناك كتاب في البنية”. The other, that I encountered more recently, is just “[location] [thing]”, rendering the same phrase as “fil binayah kitab/في البنية كتاب”. Is there any significant semantic difference between these two, or situations that would favor using one over the other? Primal Groudon (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to interpret the words literally from Wiktionary, it seems that “hunak kitab fil binayah/هناك كتاب في البنية” means "over there, a book is in the building" and “fil binayah kitab/في البنية كتاب” means just "a book is in the building", although my Arabic is so poor I might have misunderstood something. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Primal_Groudon -- In those contexts, kitab fi 'l-binayah is a noun phrase with a modifying prepositional phrase inside it: [_NP kitab [_PP fi 'l-binayah]], while Fi 'l-binayah kitab is a nominal sentence (i.e. without an explicit copular verb), with kitab as the subject and Fi 'l-binayah as the predicate... AnonMoos (talk) 17:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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 [11] and [12]. ←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]

August 16