Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

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.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

January 10

Is there a difference between a "human" and a "person"?

• There are so many humans here!
• There are so many people here!
• There are so many persons here!
• There are so many animals here!

Although the second option seems to be most preferable, why aren't the first and third used as often? If a human has hair lice and body lice on himself, then can "animals" be used to refer to the human and his lice? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The first item is more like a "species". The second is normal usage. The third is more like legalese. The fourth is not typically used like the others. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd say that humans is the basic term, whereas people is a common and casual term. Persons is official or legal terminology and animals is the scientific classification and/or derogatory statement. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk)

Well, in a work of science fiction where there are multiple intelligent species, you could say things like "there are 80 people here—20 Klingons, 20 humans, 39 Ferengi, and a Vulcan". But outside of such a context, I would say that "people" is the basic word while "humans" is used as a variation or to emphasize what species we are. --69.159.60.210 (talk) 22:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The second feels normal, and is what I would say. If you were standing next to me and said the first, I might (if I was familiar with you) jokingly ask if you were an alien. It would feel more natural in a scientific context, e.g. "humans first settled in this place so many years ago". "Persons" is very much legalese. As for the fourth, humans are certainly animals scientifically, but it would not be the first time where the scientific definition of a term is slightly different from the common usage. Double sharp (talk) 09:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Apart from the legal complexity of corporate persons (by which organisations are, in some circumstances, considered to be persons), there is no real difference between a person and a human (unless you want to get very philosophical, and discuss the links between humanity and personality). The words tend to be used in different circumstances, with human referring to the species and to the members of the species as a group, while person is used when referring to an individual. So you might talk about the excessive number of humans on the planet - but about the people at your birthday party. The common plural of person is now people: the older form - persons - is not in common use except in legal and very formal speech. While humans are animals in a biological sense, in common speech animals would be understood to be other than humans. We all carry very large numbers of parasites and symbionts, and there are more bacteria in a human body than there are human body cells. That doesn't make us any less human, and most people would be offended at the suggestion that they are animals because of that. Wymspen (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Also note that you can have "a people" (plural "peoples"), which refers one or more groups of people (nations, tribes, etc). Iapetus (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Wikipedia has articles titled human and person of which you are allowed to read and come to your own conclusions. From those articles there are links to other articles which clarify various concepts or expand upon various ideas therein. --Jayron32 23:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Creature in Middle English

Why have most English words derived from Latin creāre, creātus had two syllables in the root which suggests the underlying Middle English pronunciation cr[eː.aː]te, while the modern pronunciation of creature with one syllable in the root suggests the underlying Middle English pronunciation cr[eː]ture or cr[ɛː]ture. Why did that happen?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Middle English appears to have borrowed it from Old French (as it bears no relationship to the Old English equivalent, gesceap). In that case, it came into English with longer pronunciation (which is indicated by the less common related words retaining that form), but this has been lost in the most common word at some point. Wymspen (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

But modern French has créat- in all such words, that is two syllables, and Anglo-Norman as well seems to have had two syllables, as its variant spelling criature confirms (but no *creture in Anglo-Norman).--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 23:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The archaic pronunciation was /kɹiˈeɪtjɚ/ (American), /kɹiˈeɪtjə(ɹ)/ (British). If the stress had remained on the second syllable, it would have remained three syllables, but the stress moved up to the first syllable /ˈkɹiətjɚ/. The two vowels /ˈi.ə/ were unstable in English and were quickly leveled off to /ˈkɹitjɚ/. —Stephen (talk) 00:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

By C18th words in -ture lapsed from /tjɚ/ to /tɚ/, hence creature came to be pronounced 'critter'. The restoration of the /tjɚ/ was probably due to schoolmasters. Djbcjk (talk) 04:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Djbcjk: Yes, I know about that. But didn't you mean like creter, with a long vowel?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@Stephen G. Brown: Could you, please, cite some sources? Why and when did that happen to this word?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Most of that is from wikt:creature on en.wiktionary. The statement concerning the archaic pronunciation was added by an anon here, so I can't contact him for more information. The only information I have on this anon is: User:140.180.250.35, nat-oitwireless-outside-vapornet3-k-23.Princeton.EDU, AS88 PRINCETON-AS - Princeton University, US, 140.180.0.0/16 —Stephen (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Having done some research in Google Books I've found out some contradictory statements. This dictionary claims the word has had only two syllables. However, this and this books claim that at least in two instances the word had three syllables. And this says during Chaucer it even had four syllables. As for the time, 18th-century dictionaries ultimately shows two syllables as in the modern pronunciation, so it must have happened before that century. Additionally, I could find an interesting rhyme creature/scrypture in Play 28 of N-Town Plays, and that was in the 15th century already.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Swedish translation advice: Stridsvagnen/Stridsvagn/Stridsvagnarna

• Stridsvagnarna means Tanks.
• Stridsvagn means Tank.
• Does Stridsvagnen mean A Tank?

Thank you. --Sergeant Stringent (talk) 21:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Stridsvagnen means "the tank." —Stephen (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Stephen is right. "A tank" would be "en stridsvagn". DuncanHill (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

And stridsvagnarna means the tanks. "Tanks" would be stridsvagnar. You can read more about declension of Swedish nouns at Swedish grammar#Nouns. Stridsvagn is a second declension noun (common gender, takes -ar in the plural). - Cucumber Mike (talk) 13:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

OT: That's funny, Streitwagen means chariot in German (Merkava, the Israeli line of tanks, also means chariot.) And tyderäkning from you previous Q is obviously cognate with Zeitrechnung Asmrulz (talk) 03:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

January 11

Register to [sth]

Having newly encountered the Reverso Context website, I see it accepts contributed content - which prompts a caveat regarding its reliability. However, right on its Home page my skepticism kicks in: A "Register" field has the text: "Register to Reverso and boost your memory with the search history and phrasebook." (Emphasis mine.) I, a native speaker of US English, would "register for, with, or at" something. Whence this "register to" collocation? Is this Commonwealth usage or something in ELF? -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

French? inscrire à qqc... Reverso-Softissimo looks like it possibly is based in France? 184.147.116.166 (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Sounds weird to me too, and after a brief search I see nothing indicating this is common in BrEng or any other variety. I will say, though, that we "register to vote". SemanticMantis (talk)

What I'm evaluating is the collocation with a preposition before a noun that's the object of the preposition. In "register to vote" the word after "register" is part of the infinitive "to vote." I wonder whether there's a forum in the Wiktionary project that could take up this query? Prepositions are notoriously unpredictable between languages; it's one of my bugaboos in translation to any other than my native tongue and a typical fix when I edit the writing of non-native speakers of mine. -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@Deborahjay: There exist printed dictionaries which list collocations for the most frequent words. Notably the dictionaries by Oxford and Macmillan. Learner's dictionaries also tend to provide such information. Unfortunately usual explanatory dictionaries rarely list prepositions (I've just checked several, neither of them do). Another way is to use a corpus and search for collocations there.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Strangely, when I go to the site and click the Register option, I just get an invitation to "sign up" - the phrase you complain of isn't there. Wymspen (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The site doesn't seem to have a single Home page; I too get different results when I re-enter it. Yet I'm quite sure of what I saw prior to posting this yesterday. Through experience writing text for multilingual websites, I sadly can attest to the fact that for various reasons (e.g. outsourcing), the correct text isn't always what appears on the live site. -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The home-page I see says "Get relevant translations in context with real-life examples for millions of words and expressions, using our natural language search engine applied on bilingual big data." Emphasis mine. And there's a loose Capital in another sentence. Caveat lector!Carbon Caryatid (talk) 13:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Cynophobia from culture

Wikipedia article Cynophobia says Cynophobia is also very common among the Malays in Singapore. Malays in Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei, Thailand, Indonesia and Philipines are Muslims. Islam teach some rules about dogs like if lick by dog must wash hand few times. Many hundred years Malay culture become very scared dogs more than the Islam teaches. Same for Muslims cultures in other countrys. Question is cynophobia correct word for this dog fear in Muslim cultures but not Islam teaches? If yes then the article need to say more about it. --Curious Cat On Her Last Life (talk) 13:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Don't forum shop. Since the article exists, bring it up on that article's talk page. μηδείς (talk) 04:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

What you mean? I Google forum shop and is at Las Vegas. What is the link to my question? --Curious Cat On Her Last Life (talk) 08:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

It was naughty of Medeis to use a rather obscure phrase in addressing one whose English is (pardon my saying so) obviously not fluent. It means: Don't go looking (shopping) for a forum that is hospitable to your opinion. The proper place to discuss possible changes in Cynophobia is Talk:Cynophobia. After a reasonable time, if there is no response, you might take it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs. —Tamfang (talk) 09:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Bad, bad, naughty Zoot! Last time I said more than that re a content issue at an article I got yelled at for not just telling the OP simply "no forum shopping".

I will simply point out that a phobia in a technical sense is an irrational fear that interferes with normal functioning. But that is not necessarily relevant to cleanliness laws (see cleanliness in Islam) or the fact that rabies is a notoriously fatal disease whose largest vector in SE is dogbite. One wouldn't argue that modern observation of Kosher rules are caused by Jewish food phobias or that a fear of dogs as disease vectors is irrational, although obviously in individual cases there may be overlap.

The bottom line is that the OP's question in so far as what should appear in the article should be discussed at that article's talk page. μηδείς (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC) I did not say this, I was not here; I did not light the grail-shaped beacon.)

January 12

Teaching your son Klingon

In follow up to @Jayron32:'s speculation that a child had been brought up in Klingon, here is a link http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1229808/Linguist-reveals-I-spoke-Klingon-son-years.html. The child began refusing to use it when he found out others his age did not. μηδείς (talk) 04:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Klingon language#Speakers already mentions this case, and has included it since Feb 2012. --217.140.96.140 (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Why is there an apartment brand called "Doosan We've the Zenith"?

Is this a pun in Korean or something? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

May have to do with Zenith Electronics, which was a US company, now owned by LG in South Korea. Does LG by any chance own the apartment complex ? StuRat (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Maybe not. The article says it's launched by Doosan Engineering & Construction (a subsidiary of Doosan Group). LG is not a subsidiary of Doosan Group. I don't know if LG has a contract to include the word Zenith in the name in return for a sum of money, though. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Or it might have to do with the word Zenith, and possibly a less than idiomatic translation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, a pun is a double meaning, and these are the two ("We have the best" and "We have the electronics company"). StuRat (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't see anything in Doosan Group that suggests a connection to the former Zenith brand or its current owner. The Doosan Group seems to be mostly in the construction business. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

South Korean companies tend to be highly diversified. Look at everything Daewoo was into, before they were broken up. StuRat (talk) 04:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Or maybe "we've" here is not the contraction of "we have", as we are all assuming, maybe it's just a made up brand name ("wee-vee") with a funky apostrophe for no reason. --165.225.80.115 (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

If you do a bit of digging on their website, you will encounter a sort of story about this, @ [1]:

• Brand Meaning
• We've got everything.
• Doosan We've is a residential space that has everything, and it is a residential space that modern people want and want to live.
• The Weave is a space where we grow love for life (We live), designed to show the dignity of life (We save), and a comfortable and convenient space where we solve all our needs.

I'm confused already.

• Our Brands
• Weave
• Doosan E & C's Weave is a residential space with all the things that Doosan E & C, born in 2001, is a place where modern people want to have a place to live and love for life.
• Weave means a convenient space where all the needs of life are solved, designed to be able to fully utilize all parts of the house.
• Weave's Brand Identity is based on the Doosan logo, which is based on a blue rectangle. It has a place of joy (Live), a place of love and happiness (Love), a place of want (Have) It is a symbol of Doosan E & C's promise of solving all the problems of life.

The logo, however, says We've, not Weave.

Elsewhere on their website, I read:

• Doosan Weave is leading the world-class residential culture from design to construction to after-sales service based on a unique sense and the best technology.
• Through this, Doosan We've created a community culture that enables customers to live a comfortable and happy life and grow into a respected society.

More confusion.

At the bottom of most pages is:

• Doosan Is 've We Doosan Engineering & Construction 'S Family Brand for residential Buildings.

I think this should read:

• Doosan We've is Doosan Engineering & Construction's Family Brand for residential Buildings.

The site is written in Korean, and does not offer its own in-house English version. Google translate does that job as well as it usually does; not well at all. So, somewhere between the Koreans' sense of word play and Google's bumbling efforts the truth lies. From the above, I deduce that the physical place is the WEAVE, and the brand name for it is WE'VE, a play on "We've got everything". But don't quote me. Welcome to "anything goes" English. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

This spells the building complex "We've" and it's photo is captioned "We've the Zenith Towers in Marine City, Haeundae District." Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Somehow Korean company names don't translate well into English. LG originally meant "Lucky Goldstar", which sounds like something you might give your toddler for tinkling in the toilet. They shortened it to just LG now (just as Kentucky Fried Chicken shortened their name to KFC in hopes that we will forget how unhealthy it is if we don't see "Fried" in the name). StuRat (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to spoil all the Korean pun fun, but Doosan We've the Zenith isn't the most robust article on a company (or isn't it just a company brand styling?) that I've ever seen. I'm a little surprised it hasn't been hastily deleted. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Birket, in English or French

What is a birket? It is mentioned in an article on Ijzim, a depopulated Palestinian village, and, my curiosity piqued, I followed a few lines of enquiry. The original comes from the description of an 1870 overnight stop by the French explorer Victor Guérin, who wrote:

Près de là [le puit] est un birket actuellement hors d'usage et à moitié comblé.[2]

This was translated by the Survey of Western Palestine (1873) as:

Near the well a birket, no longer used, and partly filled up. [3]

There is no entry for "birket" in the OED. In an advanced search, there are 16 results for quotations and 15 for full-text, but, unless I'm missing something, these all appear to be references to surnames of authors cited. Any ideas? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

It's an Arabic word for a cistern. See, for instance, this glossary in Doughty's Travels in Arabia Deserta and our article Birket Israel. Deor (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Prompt, plausible, and well-referenced (though I can't see inside the book mentioned). The best of the RefDesks: thank you. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 18:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The glossary that you can't see contains the simple entry "Birket, cistern", as well as a few entries for specific, named birkets that are referred to in the book. Deor (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the word in question is wikt:بركة#Etymology 2 (in the construct state), translated in Wiktionary as "pond". --31.55.51.84 (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

"translated in Wiktionary as "pond". And in the context of a nearby well for drinking water, perhaps reservoir would be appropriate. Akld guy (talk) 21:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Word not found in common French dictionaries. "Une birket" seems to name a kind of artificial reservoir (a pool) used in the Middle East. Examples of use here, here or here — AldoSyrt (talk) 13:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

In "French" the plural of "birket" is "birak"!!!! Definitely a word loan from Arabic. See here — AldoSyrt (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Equivalent to German "einordnen"

Wie würden Sie die jüngsten politischen Geschehnissse einordnen? – How would a native English speaker express that properly?--Hubon (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

What translation to use for einordnen largely depends on the context of the question, but "How would you classify the most recent political events?" is a possibility. Deor (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! The context would be a presenter asking a foreign correspondent about his view on current events in the respective country. Could "classify" then still be used?--Hubon (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe "summarize"? It really depends on what sort of response the questioner is looking for. Deor (talk) 23:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, let's say he wants to know what long-term meaning can be attached to recent political events in the foreign country...--Hubon (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I think you'd probably say something like "How would you assess the most recent political events?". "einordnen" does have the literal meaning of "putting something at its right place within a system" (shelving, filing, classifying), but I'm not sure that literal meaning can be translated to English without making the question sound unusual (while "Wie würden Sie die jüngsten politischen Geschehnissse einordnen?" does indeed sound like something a news anchor might ask a reporter or expert, and I've probably heard it, verbatim). ---Sluzzelin talk 06:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

"einordnen" invokes this idea of categorizing or pigeonholing something onto an implied ideological (or some other) continuum. I've never come across an English expression that conveyed that notion idiomatically. I've come to think it's a metaphor (or rahter a metaphor-turned-cliche) that exists only in German. Asmrulz (talk) 11:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

"Can you put the recent political events into context"? would be my translation in this context. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The verb “einordnen” is closely related to priorities and to mutual relative importance. Maybe “…how would you rank recent political developments…” would be the most concise equivalent as it does address the idea of ordering (einordnen) these events. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 12:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

January 13

American English to British English differences

What are cookies in the USA are biscuits in Britain. What are biscuits in the USA are scones in Britain. What are scones in the USA are... probably scones in Britain too but they are different enough. Fries become chips; chips become crisps. The British drive on the left side of the road and Americans drive on the right side. Are all of these language differences a deliberate and arbitrary attempt to differentiate, or did they just occur coincidentally and progressively occur overtime?--WaltCip (talk) 15:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

See Language change. Linguists would basically all agree that such changes "coincidentally and progressively occur over time." --Jayron32 15:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Your first two examples are wrong already. I stopped reading your post by that point. 131.251.254.154 (talk) 15:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

And yet you commented anyway (but without providing any corrections or other useful information). Iapetus (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

There was a similar question a month or two ago. And while not all British biscuits are cookies, what we call biscuits in America are definitely called scones in Britain, so the IP is off base. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Asked by whom? This question comes up monthly, not just came up last month. I think it should be placed on the French Academies list of banned questions, along with the origins of human language. μηδείς (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know, and the search function is pretty much useless, so I can't tell you which archive it's in. And this has probably been asked too - but what about a "Frequently Asked Questions" page where we could keep track of questions like this and point the user to one or more archives? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Left vs. right-side driving has nothing to do with language differences. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Darn right it doesn't. It's all a pinko Commie plot of them thar lefties. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

OP didn't mention (or didn't know) that what Americans call candy is called lollies in Britain and other Commonwealth countries. Akld guy (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

According to Lolly, that's more of an Aussie term, while candy in Britain is called "sweets". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the general term in Australia is lolly/ies; sometimes sweets. The only exception is that the place you buy your mandatory choc-top/popcorn/whatever when you go to the movies is now generally labelled "Candy Bar". Given that none of us call the edible stuff "candy", one may well wonder why this is so. I often have. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

What are called lollies or lollipops in British are I think called popsicles in Youessian. -- Hoary (talk) 05:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

No, popsicles are frozen fruit juice on a stick. Lollipops are hard candy on a stick. The article claims popsicles in general ("ice pops") are a type of lollipop, but where I come from in the US those are two different things. In fact, Popsicle (brand) is a brand name, though we often called any kind of frozen juice on a stick a "popsicle". Tootsie Pop and Dum Dums (lollipop) are two brands of lollipops. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

In the UK the frozen variety are "ice(d) lollies" (sometimes reversed to "lolly ice"), and plain lollies (or lollipops) are "sweets" on a stick as mentioned above by BB. An alternative to the term "sweets" in Yorkshire is "spice" (singular and plural the same), retained from early usage for spiced or candied fruit. According to the OED, the British term "sweet" is a shortening of the originally Scottish term "sweetie" (though the longer form is now often considered a children's diminutive). The term goes back at least to 1721 and was used by Thackeray in his 1860 Christmas Tree. Dbfirs 07:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I believe that should be: "...Thackeray in his 1861 Round about a Christmas Tree.[4], [5] 107.15.152.93 (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

There's a song called "Coulter's Candy" which the Irish Rovers sang on a "live" album. Before they started singing, they talked about going to the shop and getting "a big bag o' sweeties", i.e. hard candy.[6] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The only thing which has been deliberate is spelling, where Americans, namely Noah Webster, tried to reform spelling and distance themselves from the former metropole. On the opposite side the British condemn Americanisms in contemporary British English, so they are deliberately trying to be different and preserve their "Britishness", though it's mostly about usage rather than spelling (apart from -ize where many Britons (erroneously) believe it an Americanism as well, hence they write only -ise).--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Referring to volcanos

Would saying something like "Licancabur volcano" at the beginning of a sentence without "the" be correct when referring to volcanos? Philroc^{My contribs} 20:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Our article on the Soufrière Hills volcano starts "The Soufrière Hills volcano", but on searching on Google Scholar and Google Books I find a small subset of scientific papers which don't use the leading article e.g. [7]. So I would say that on that evidence, the definite article is the normal way of starting such a sentence but there's nothing actually wrong with leaving it out either. Mikenorton (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

(US English) If the actual name of the volcano is "Licancabur Volcano", then you would skip the leading "The", but should capitalize "volcano". On the other hand, if you merely refer to a volcano on/in/at Licanbur, then I would include the leading "The", which indicates that there is only one, and use lowercase for "volcano", as it's not part of the name. For a similar example:

"Mount Vesuvius is..."

"The Pompeii volcano is..." StuRat (talk) 01:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

And if the name of the volcano is just Licanbur without another word, then "the volcano Licanbur" is appropriate. --69.159.60.210 (talk) 05:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

You may drop the definite article in headlinese: Licancabur Volcano Erupts Again! If you leave out the word "volcano," you won't need the definite article: Licancabur attracts large crowds. Otherwise, the definite article is needed: The Licancabur volcano is of great importance. —Stephen (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• What's the difference between King's and Bronx Counties? You can be shot in the ass, and you can be shot in the Bronx, but you can't be shot in the Brooklyn. This is a matter of historical accident in many cases. μηδείς (talk) 02:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

January 14

Learner's dictionary

Hey--

When I was at college, the college bookstore sold a dictionary for learners of English (similar to Cobuild. Tjis was apparently aimed at speakers learners of American English, and had some illustrations. This was apparently based on up-to-date materials, as the word "angst" had something about "the world" in the definition, and "grunge" was included and defined as a style that young people often wore in the early 1990s. "Unacceptable" was defined as something so bad that it should not "be allowed to continue", with the example sentence reading "Karen's behavior at . . . was unacceptable". There was an illustration at sleep that showed an (apparently) African-American man named Mike sleeping during work, and "cross-legged" showed a boy in a dress shirt sitting Indian style and was captioned "Tony is sitting cross-legged". Given what I remember about this dictionary, I have tried to google bits and pieces hoping it will come up, but it hasn't. Does anybody know what dictionary this is? Linguogeek (talk) 06:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't consider "cross-legged" to be a synonym for Indian-style sitting, as the first means one thigh on top of the other, or at least one leg on the knee of the other, as opposed to the Indian-style, where only the feet are on top of the opposite knees. StuRat (talk) 01:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

No, you're thinking of the Lotus position. What we were taught as Indian-style (presumably meaning American Indian) has the feet on the bottom. I think now the kids are taught to call it "criss-cross applesauce". --Trovatore (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Is the book you are looking for listed at Advanced learner's dictionary, a subset of Monolingual learner's dictionary? Those are aimed at foreign students (those for whom English is a second language). What you describe, dictionaries "aimed at speakers of American English", would presumably have as their target buyers American teenagers headed to university. That group of publications is colloquially known as "college dictionaries", and many publishers produce one: it is a lucrative market. See for example a list of major English dictionaries. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

None of these look like it. And yes, I did mean a learner's dictionary. "Aimed at speakers of American English" should be "aimed at learners of American English". Linguogeek (talk) 03:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Gothika

Why is it Gothika and not Gothica? --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Because that's what the authors decided to call it.

Why is your username "Pp.paul" and not "Pp. Paul"? Or, indeed, "Bob". 86.20.193.222 (talk) 21:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Probably because "Bob" is already taken. Linguogeek (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Poor Bob.

It also occurred to me that this is a bit like a Heavy Metal Umlaut - and when I checked that article, I noticed it does specifically mention that "Its use has also been attributed to a desire for a "gothic horror" feel".86.20.193.222 (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Is it a form of foreign branding intended to give it a Teutonic quality? --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, see also: Amerika. --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:C03A:9D20:31EF:82F7 (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Which one? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Related as well, more generally: sensational spelling (mentioned in the Heavy Metal Umlaut's "See also" section). ---Sluzzelin talk 13:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Whose mom was it?

Cops gun down man who attacked his mom with screwdriver in Queens. How can the sentence be changed to be less convoluted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.4.136.147 (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Police fatally shoot man after he threatens mother with screwdriver - still written in shorthand headline-speak English, but at least it's a bit clearer.86.20.193.222 (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

This does not look better than the 1st sentence, which was OK in my opinion. "Shoot down" does not imply "Shoot dead", and "attacked" is not "threatened."

It has to be the mother of the man who was shot down. If the sentence were "Cop guns down man who attacked his mother", then yes, it would not be clear whose mon is that. But "his" is singular, and "cops is plural", so the former can't refer to the latter. --Hofhof (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

You could just throw in "...his own mom...." too.86.20.193.222 (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Yes, I know that it gives different (more) info, but check the link/google, such as [8] - it's a real story which happened a few hours ago. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The second version looks like the mother had the screwdriver and the son was threatening her. I don't think there's any succinct way to sum it up and newspapers don't care anyway. The more ambiguous and eye-catching the better. Reminds me of the best headline of all time: "Stadium air-conditioning fails; fans vent anger". Akld guy (talk) 00:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing "convoluted" about the original version: it introduces the various elements in a sensible and natural order, and doesn't do anything like jumping around from one to another (unless the shooting was in Queens but not the screwdriver attack, and I don't think that's the intent). So it can't really be made "less convoluted". If you wanted to use a simpler sentence structure you could rewrite to not use a subordinate clause, but it then it would become unnecessarily wordy. --69.159.60.210 (talk) 00:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• Phillips-wielding would-be Queens matricide dies in gendarme hollow-point fusillade. μηδείς (talk) 02:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Hmm. So Prince Charles tried to kill Queen Elizabeth using his father? And this was done overseas. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Exactly, except that the omission of the apostrophe was intentional. μηδείς (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Can't spell his father's name either - Prince Philip. Wymspen (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
        • Actually the doubling of the l was also intentional. 81.129.13.239 (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
          • I suppose you Brits are confused, as you call them spanners. μηδείς (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Mark Phillips. 80.4.70.229 (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Melee in Queens results in misuse of screwdriver and death of son. Bus stop (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

January 15

Try and help me here

I believe the use of "try and" in place of "try to" is an abomination against the English language and is never correct. Am I correct? Its usage is quite prevalent and I am considering a manual editing campaign on Wikipedia to fix all instances. There are instances where the noun "try" is properly followed by "and", so an automated approach is not feasible. -Arch dude (talk) 01:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Normal usage is different in American English versus British English. "Try and" is used much more in British English and in fact is said to convey a different meaning there than "try to" does. See the analysis by a linguist here: [9], and the sometimes vociferous discussion that follows. CodeTalker (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! That is quite helpful. It's a lot more complicated than I thought. I still feel that "try to" is almost always preferred the written form of American English, but I will not arbitrarily change this in an article that uses British English. -Arch dude (talk) 02:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

"Try to" and "try and" ("try 'n'") are used in free variation in casual American speech, although I'd say "try and loosen up while you dance" is more of an encouragement while "try to loosen up the fanbelt" is instructive. μηδείς (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Note that while "try and" is demonstrably acceptable in BrE, it is by no means universal. I myself am an aged native BrE speaker and, while I might sometimes say "try and" in informal register, I'd never write it unless portraying the direct speech of someone who actually used it (if factual) or would do so (if a fictional character). Others' mileage undoubtably differs. (The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.62.241 (talk) 11:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

My mileage is the same, but "try and" has occasionally appeared in formal writings for centuries, including in the memoir of the Reverend John Keble by Sir John Taylor Coleridge (nephew of the poet). Dbfirs 12:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Not only that, but just about everyone on As Time Goes By tells Li to "try and" do something every episode. I noticed it just last week. Having seen the series about 10 times, I watch it now at the syntacto-phonetic, rather than the dramatic scale. μηδείς (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Although I'm very fond of As Time Goes By, I was utterly stumped by Medeis's "Li", because I read it as a Chinese name pronounced "Lee". Only when I looked over the list of characters did I realize that this was actually Lionel's name shortened in the same way Alistair does—to what's pronounced "Lie". --69.159.60.210 (talk) 07:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

"Wie geht dieses Spiel?"

How would you say that in English, e. g. in the context of a child asking another one about how to play a certain game?--Hubon (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

"How do you play this game?" is how I would say it. †dismas†|^(talk) 01:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, or "How is this game played?" although children are less likely to use a passive construction. μηδείς (talk) 02:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, and what about: "How does this game go/work?"--Hubon (talk) 02:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

They are both cromulent in your context, although "how does this work" is more often applied to toys/devices or even strategies and bets than rules themselves. I bought my mother a can opener with a gear system that allows her to get more torque, so opening cans is easier on her joints. But she complains she can't figure out how it works, not how it goes. μηδείς (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Are you travailing to embiggen your lexical éclat with cromulent? --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:C03A:9D20:31EF:82F7 (talk) 03:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Cromulent is a perfectly cromulent word! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I prefer crapulent.

Some listeners may correctly assume it to be a metabolistic dysfunction but are briefly puzzled. Crapulent is a perfectly Krabappleate word. QED. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

It seems you've really opened this discussion out, Medeis. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

You say evasion, I say avoision. μηδείς (talk) 23:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)