Revision as of 10:56, 4 July 2016

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

• WP:RD/L

Main page: Help searching Misplaced Pages

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.

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Misplaced Pages: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.

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

June 27

Expressions that don't mean what they say

Is there a formal term for expressions that don't correspond to the literal meaning of what they say, or even mean the opposite of what they say, but have come into common usage? I'm thinking of things like "I could care less" when someone means they couldn't care less, or "two-party check" for "third-party check." These are expressions that are formally wrong, but have become so common that objections are derided as pedantry. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Idiom--Jayron32 02:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Idiom is correct, but I'm thinking mostly of expressions used in the opposite sense of their literal meaning. This would include the "couldn't care less" example, or someone "doing an complete 360" when they have reversed their opinion (literally, this would mean they had returned to their previously-held opinion). Sort of a sub-class of idiom. Maybe I need to make up a new term! Unfortunately "idiotism" is already taken. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I can't help with the question, but I'd like to provide a better example (because it's a widely known idiom whose usage isn't disputed): "head over heels". --69.159.9.187 (talk) 05:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Sarcasm and irony apply to subsets of such expressions. But others are not either of those. "I could care less" is just dumb; no redeeming qualities whatsoever. -- Jack of Oz 06:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Similar to mondegreens or eggcorns, but not quite. A person who says "I could care less" could be committing a mumpsimus. --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:C915:F679:15DB:E494 (talk) 07:26, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

That's a delightful word. mumpsimus... mumpsimus... mumpsimus... Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Americanism Iapetus (talk) 09:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Fowler uses the term "sturdy indefensible" for an expression that is in general use despite being technically "incorrect" (by some criterion). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

See wikt:contranym and "Auto-antonym".—Wavelength (talk) 01:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@Shock Brigade Harvester Boris:—Wavelength (talk) 04:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The word for the seller and the store

Someone who sells pet animals, birds and aquarium must have a name for his profession. And there must be a name for his large shop. --Rainbow Archer (talk) 08:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there's a fancy word for "pet seller", or for "pet store/shop". Time to coin a new word? Petmonger. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Rats. Petmonger has already been published. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Rainbow Archer didn't specify what language he/she is interested in, so I'll just add that the Polish term is sklep zoologiczny (literally, "zoological shop"). — Kpalion 12:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

In French the store is called an "animalerie" (I remember seeing one that was selling chipmunks, labelled as "Korean squirrels"), but there does not seem to be a one-word term for the person who runs it. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Having worked with people in this field, I'd say the common American English terms are pet store owner or pet store employee. They are said to be in the pet business (or sometimes pet retail), though those terms all apply as well to those who sell only products for pets, not live animals. For aquarium specialists, the word pet can be replaced by aquarium, fish, or (for even more specialized businesses) reef. Similarly, pet can be replaced by bird or pet bird for aviculturists. If they sell animals they have raised themselves, they are a breeder (here to breed implies also selling the animals that are bred). But for all its huge vocabulary, English doesn't seem to have a commonly used (at least in American English), simple word for this profession. --Ginkgo100 22:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Pish tosh. Some guys who worked in a pet shop even created a band named after their noble profession - Pet Shop Boys. (You can safely ignore the obviously false made-up backstory given credence by the shamefully mendacious Misplaced Pages article.) -- Jack of Oz 22:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

There's a bestiary, aviary, and piscary, yet each... has its own connotations. Wnt (talk) 12:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, if you want sins, you go to a peccary. μηδείς (talk) 21:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

string

There is another word that is puzzling me in Aldo Leopold's "A Sand County Almanac". Does here "strings" more probably mean "threads" or "plant fibers"? The context is as follows. "The robin's insistent caroling awakens the oriole, who now tells the world of orioles that the pendant branch of the elm belongs to him, together with all fiber-bearing milkweed stalks near by, all loose strings in the garden, and all the exclusive right to flash like a burst of fire from one of these to another." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.211.254 (talk) 14:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Nest indicates string can be one ingredient. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Plenty of perfectly ordinary string in a garden - used to tie up plants, etc (though less so today as we tend to use more plastic ties). Plenty of birds will happily use it as nesting material - because as far as they are concerned it is just another bit of fibre. Wymspen (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

In England, we call it garden twine. Alansplodge (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

... but it's double the price when bought by that name, so some of us just use string instead. Dbfirs 11:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

In America, twine is different from string. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's a type of string here. Garden twine is made from jute which doesn't take long to decompose, so if you forget to remove it, your plants won't be strangled. Alansplodge (talk) 22:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, technically twine is a type of string. But if you want string here, you'll ask for string. If you want twine, you'll ask for twine. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Unlike the bowl of twigs, grasses and mud that describes a typical backyard bird's nest, new world orioles weave a nest that hangs like a sack from a high branch, . This requires more select materials and loose garden strings (from tying plants to stakes and other supporting structures) could be favoured, at least in the author/character's imagination. Reidgreg (talk) 22:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Difference between g and voiced k

The article voiceless velar stop mentions several variations on , one of which is the "voiced" version . What is the difference between this and the "regular" voiced velar stop ? --Ginkgo100 21:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd add a clarification tag, it seems like whoever set up the chart just used every combinations of bases and diacritics available. IsiZulu has an implosive k phone which, intervocalically, sounds quite like a g to an English speaker, so that the infinitive prefix written uku- is pronounced -, and to me very much like an intervocalic g /ɣ/ agua in Spanish. To make the "normal" aspirated /k/ of English, "kh" is written, so, "to speak", ukukhuluma sounds almost exactly like "ugukuluma" to an English speaker. μηδείς (talk) 04:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

A voiced voiceless velar stop would indeed be a /g/, the voiced velar stop. The difference isn't in the sound but in the implications of the transcription. I would only ever consider using "" in order to indicate the underlying phoneme (/k/) when describing (in narrow transcription) the phonology of a language that lacked a /g/ phoneme (i.e. no minimal pairs differentiating /k/ and /g/) but did have a voiced allophone of its /k/; but even then, I'd probably use with an explanatory note. Going the other way, there is also the symbol to indicate a voiced velar stop that has been devoiced, or pronounced as . A quick Google Scholar search for "" may show some other contexts in which such symbols have been used.--William Thweatt 06:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, agreed, there are circumstances where might be an allophone of /k/. But just dropping it in the article as a voiced voiceless sound without explanation is not up to snuff.

By analogy, triangles, 'by definition', have internal angles that sum to 180 degrees. But if you start at the equator, walk to the geographic north pole, turn right 90 degress, walk south to the equator, turn right 90 degrees, and return along the equator to your starting point, you will have traversed a triangle with straight sides whose internal angles sum to 270 degrees, not 180.

Can you add a note to the article, @WilliamThweatt:, explaining the point? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 15:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

We don't go for that non-Euclidean phonology round here, stranger. —Tamfang (talk) 07:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

June 28

Job (biblical figure)

Would I be right in claiming that Job (biblical figure) is the only English word (singular if a noun) whose spelling ends with an o followed by a consonant and the o is pronounced long?

For the purposes of this question, the w in -ow- or -ew- (low, mow, sew, sow ...) is considered a vowel.

All other words that end in a long o sound plus a consonant sound seem to fall into the following classes in relation to their spelling:

• final e: bode, bone, brose, choke, chose, chrome, clone, close (adj.), clove, code, coke, cole, cone, cope, cove, crone, dole, dome, dope, dose, dote, dove (v.), doze, drome, drone, drove, froze, globe, grope, grove, hole, home, hone, hope, hose, hove, joke, Jove, lobe, lone, lope, mauve, mole, mope, Nome, none (sing. of nones), nope, nose, note, ode, ope, phone, poke, pole, pone (?), pose, prone, quote, robe, rope, rose, rote, rove, slope, smoke, smote, snope, sole, spoke, stoke, stole, stone, stove, strode, stroke, strove, toke, tome, tone, tope, tote, trope, trove, vole, vote, woke, wove, yoke, zone

• extra preceding vowel (or vowels): bloat, blown, boat, Boaz, bowed, cloak, coal, coat, coax, croak, Croat, foal, gloat, goad, goal, goat, groat, grown, grows, hoax, hoed, Joan, load, loaf, loam, loan, lowed, lows, moan, moat, mowed, mows, Noel, oaf, oak, oat, own, road, roam, rowed, rows, sews, soak, shoal, shews (regards to Ed Sullivan), showed, shows, Sloan(e), sloat, slowed, slows, snows, soap, soul, sowed, sows, stoat, stowed, stows, toad, towed, tows

• extra consonant: comb, folk, gross, loll, moll, Ohm, poll, quoll, roll, toll, troll

• other: mauve, rogue, vogue (borrowed from French)

I don't claim the above lists are exhaustive.

Any counter-examples to my thesis? If it's true, how did its spelling arise, given that Noah, Boaz and similar biblical names all got -oa-? -- Jack of Oz 00:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The answer is know (bow, tow, low, mow ...). Clarityfiend (talk) 01:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Job is a proper noun. There are all sorts of oddities in the pronunciation of proper nouns; take for example Menzies or even Ralph (traditional English pronunciation). Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

"For the purposes of this question, the w in -ow- or -ew- (low, mow, sew, sow ...) is considered a vowel." -- Jack of Oz 05:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Ow. Me no read so goodly. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:56, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

It's a semi-vowel, and if it's a semi-vowel, why can't we call it a semi-consonant. It's half one, half the other, either way. KägeTorä - (_虎) (もしもし！) 15:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Because it's my question and I get to decree the parameters. I prefer to think of w and y not as semi-vowels or semi-consonants, but having dual roles: sometimes they operate as vowels, sometimes they operate as consonants. In the examples I gave, they're vowels, and therefore not relevant to my question. I was just making that clear, because some users might have taken the simplistic view that the only vowels we're taught in primary school are a, e, i, o and u, and all other letters must be consonants. Well, it's not as simple as that. I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition.  :) -- Jack of Oz 22:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Nob ody does. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

May vary by regional pronunciation, but control and possibly vitriol depending on exactly what the rules are. Warofdreams talk 02:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

In the CMU Pronouncing Dictionary I found control, extol, Interpol, patrol, petrol, sol, cosmos, kudos, Laos, Phobos, Michelob. Of course the boundary between English and foreign words is always fuzzy. E.g. I rejected Kronos, but included Phobos because it's a satellite of Mars. And I only included sol because I happened to know a non-Spanish meaning; I may have wrongly rejected other words for looking Spanish.

I think Boaz and Noah are red herrings since according to the articles the Hebrew pronunciations are ʾIyyôḇ, Bṓʿaz, Nōăḥ. -- BenRG (talk) 02:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I pronounce them /'boʊ.æz/ and /'noʊ.ə/, respectively, neither of which ends in a "long o followed by a consonant". Are there other pronunciations in English? --Trovatore (talk) 07:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Isn't Deimos also derived from an ordinary Greek noun? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

It isn't in CMUdict for some reason, and it didn't occur to me for some reason even when I wrote the thing about Phobos. -- BenRG (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I would reject Interpol, petrol, cosmos, kudos, Laos and Phobos because I don't think they're generally pronounced with a long final o. But I like control, extol, patrol, sol and Michelob. Thanks. -- Jack of Oz 05:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Really? I can sort of see petrol, which isn't in my active vocabulary, but if you said it with a reduced vowel in the second syllable I suppose I'd know what you're talking about, and Laos could be just /laʊs/, I guess. But I really don't know how to say "Interpol", "cosmos", or "Phobos" without an /oʊ/ in the final syllable. --Trovatore (talk) 07:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

In British English the two vowels in "cosmos" have the same (short) value (and the second vowels of "Interpol" and "Phobos" also have this value). We (well, some of us) find the American "Kahz-moce" very strange. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 07:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

As with the way Carl Sagan said it in his TV series Cosmos. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

As long as we're doing proper nouns, don't forget Lompoc, California. -Trovatore (talk) 07:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

And Tone Loc, though I guess it's properly written Lōc. -- BenRG (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Given that Job's name in Hebrew is ʾIyyôḇ, how comes the transliteration is Job, rather than Ijob or Ejob? I get how the final v sound became b, as it parallels with Jacob (ends in a v sound in Hebrew) but the initial J in Jacob is more accurate than that of Job, as the latter's name has somehow lost a syllable before the J. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 19:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

If we ignore contemorary revised translations of the Bible into English, virtually all the Biblical names have come into English from Latin, from the Vulgata translation, which in turn was a translation of the Greek Septuagint Bible. So the route is Heb. אִיּוֹב > Gr. Ἰώβ > Lat. Iōb > Eng. Job (expectedly it has ended up with the long vowel). And according to our article on Biblical Hebrew and Ancient Greek, during the time when the Bible was being translated from Hebrew into Greek, both the beth and beta letters had the value of . So it was quite natural for the Greeks to render beth into beta (not to mention the letters came from the common ancestor). As for the initial letters, the Greek writing had no means to render the Hebrew pronunciation, double iotas were impossible in Greek.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 09:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. I don't read Greek, but I take it from what you say that the Greek transliteration had to be something along the lines of Yov, with Eyov/Iyov not being possible in that language? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

No, the Ancient Greek form reads exactly as in Latin, that is short or semivowel (English "y"), long , then . "Yov" is read such a way only in Modern Greek. "Iyo-" was not possible (it must be written as Ἰιώ-, which is not allowed in the Greek orthography), "Eyo-" was possible (in theory Εἰώ-) but the Hebrew speakers did not say it that way.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Ljuboslov is correct in his explanation, Greek lost both the original PIE /w/ and /y/ sounds, and there was no use of double iota.

But if we are allowing words of foreign origin like Job which are attested in English, then the mantra Om is a counterexample to Jack's supposition. μηδείς (talk) 01:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• OK, that's all good. There are a few examples, but not many. Thanks for all contributions. -- Jack of Oz 01:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Syllabification of "Citra" (Indonesian word) using spaces

Anyone knows the syllabification of "Citra" (Indonesian word)? Use spaces to separate the syllables of "Citra". 111.95.114.227 (talk) 12:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Ci tra. —Stephen (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Conditional mood and subjective

Our article conditional mood says This is exemplified by the English sentence "If you loved me you would support me" – here the conditional would support appears in the apodosis, while the protasis (the condition clause) uses instead the simple past form loved. But isn't "loved" actually a subjunctive?

For example, "If I was rich you would love me" is rather common but still generally regarded as improper, whereas were would be used there to flag subjunctive.

This reminds me of a bonus question: in Gilligan's Island there is a well known line "Without the courage of the fearless crew, the Minnow would be lost." The joke here is that this ought to be a sentence in conditional mood, about a ship that returned successfully, but instead, it actually is some sort of narration in which the ship did become "lost" (that too a pun, naturally). But what do you call that tense? Wnt (talk) 14:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

"If not for the courage of the fearless crew, the Minnow would be lost", by the way. Rmhermen (talk) 16:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

And since the Minnow's wreck is narrated in the past tense, it should, of course, be "If not for the courage of the fearless crew, the Minnow would have been lost". But that wouldn't scan. Deor (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes loved is a subjunctive, whose form is, as your quote says, in the simple past form. One distinguishes the use (subjunctive) from the form (simple past form). From English subjunctive#Use of the past subjunctive:

As already mentioned, the only distinct past subjunctive form in English (i.e. form that differs from the corresponding past indicative) is were, which differs when used with a first or third person singular subject (where the indicative form is was). As with the present subjunctive, the name past subjunctive refers to the form of the verb rather than its meaning; it need not (and in fact usually does not) refer to past time.

Loraof (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

In the sentence "if you loved me, you would support me", the word "loved" is indeed in the (past) subjunctive, but "would support" is in the conditional. At least if you buy that these terms are applicable to English, which not everyone does.

In a language where the moods are morphologically distinct, like Italian, the sequence is clear: Se mi volessi bene, prenderesti la mia parte. Here volessi is unambiguously in the imperfect subjunctive, and prenderesti in the present conditional. --Trovatore (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

It's common to see the conditional used in both parts of the sentence:

• If he would have shown his face at the wedding, I would have killed him.
• The correct form is: If he had shown his face ..., I would have killed him. -- Jack of Oz 21:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

There's a vaguely similar phenomenon in Italian, where the imperfect indicative is (many would say substandardly) used in both halves: Se mi volevi bene, prendevi la mia parte. I think it's usually meant as a counterfactual in the past, and in that role, to be honest, I think there's an argument to be made for it. It's relatively unambiguous (I suppose you could interpret it as a material conditional in past time, but that seems to have limited applicability), and it's certainly less verbose than the "correct" construction se mi avessi voluto bene, avresti preso la mia parte. --Trovatore (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• I have to object that "If not for the courage of the fearless crew, the Minnow would be lost" is indeed perfectly cromulent, if a bit old fashioned. First of all, "be lost" is simply the archaic use of 'to be' with the past participle of an intransitive verb. "Christ is risen", "the war is lost" and "the day is come" aren't heard much in spoken speech, "has risen" and "has come" reflect the fact that the present perfect is formed with to have in modern usage. But anyone who has studied early modern English or French or German will understand that "would be lost" is analogous in form to "would have hit the rocks." This is simply a perfect conditional.

The missing subjunctive is "If it were not for the courage..." The "it were is simply left out as implied. μηδείς (talk) 02:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't really buy that this use of "lost" is parallel to I am to Padua come. The use of "to be" as the auxiliary for (at least some) intransitive verbs is common in European languages and has a few small remnants in English, but "lose" is not intransitive. I think "lost" here is just the passive, not the perfect. Some not better described party (maybe humanity as a whole?) would have lost the Minnow, so it would have been lost by that party. --Trovatore (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Not only do on-line dictionaries define lose as both transitive and intransitive, they also give synonyms of lost such as disappeared, vanished, and gone which are all intransitive. It's overreaching to say that the meaning in the song was lost as in the Minnow "not knowing where it was", or lost as in the Minnow "having been defeated in a race". A headline could very well say "The Minnow's crew is lost to the sea in Hurricane Rita" and there would be no agent that lost them in any transitive sense. μηδείς (talk) 01:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

So then what would be the present-tense version? "*The Minnow's crew loses to sea"? --Trovatore (talk) 01:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

In modern English "is lost" has become a set phrase, but etymologically, the term meant perish, break up and a form with the prefix for- was the transitive form. Modern speakers have reanalyzed the term, just as we say has risen, instead of is risen. See EO. We are arguing at cross purposes. My point from the beginning was that the song makes perfect sense when analyzed from a diachronic perspective--it is archaicizing--while you are looking at it from the viewpoint of just the present time, and saying it has to be a passive because nowadays we use have + past participle to form the perfect even with intransitives. μηδείς (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

So I take your point, but no, I'm not saying it has to be passive because we use "have" nowadays. I was saying it has to be passive because I don't know of an active intransitive use of "lose" that means "founder". The EO link does look like maybe such a verb existed at one time, and that would make the rest of your point make sense. --Trovatore (talk) 23:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

It is getting ridiculous how often my favorite part of a song or movie is something that I'm now told never existed. Wnt (talk) 12:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

You can say that again, Sam. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

How much English, Chinese and Japanese languages have changed compared to past centuries?

I'm not a native speaker of these languages, so I have to ask, because nowadays I'm interested in ancient literature. To put it in simple way, can a modern Chinese speaker understand Li Bai or Du Fu poems? Are modern native English speakers able to understand Beowulf or King James Version of Bible? And how much Ki no Tsurayuki, Ono no Takamura or Ono no Komachi (or possibly older poets) are understandable to modern Japanese speakers? Thanks. Kouhi (talk) 20:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea on the first and third questions, but I think most educated modern native English speakers can at least get the gist of the King James Bible, though they'll certainly miss some fine points. Beowulf they won't get much from, unless they've specifically studied Old English at some point, though it doesn't take very much study to learn enough systematic differences to be able to make sense of a few things here and there. --Trovatore (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Most literate English people would be able to read Geoffrey Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales (1386) and Thomas Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur (1485) with the aid of a glossary and a bit of perseverance. I actually found Malory harder work than Chaucer, but it's great stuff and well worth the effort. William Langland's Piers Plowman (c. 1370–90) is also fairly readable if a bit weird, as you can see for yourself. Modern translations are available, but something is lost in the process. Beowulf is entirely unintelligible to me I'm afraid. although J R R Tolkein claimed to be able to read it before learning any Old English (he's obviously a lot cleverer than me). Alansplodge (talk) 22:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the Tolkien OE claim, User:Alansplodge? I have read his Letters, and don't recall it. Had he studied Norse or Gothic first, maybe. BTW, I agree Chaucer is indeed an easy read if you have an annotated version or a glossary--mainly because, as with Chinese, the orthography is largely frozen. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 02:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

My apologies User:Medeis, it came from a BBC2 documentary that I saw some years ago. A thorough Google search has only revealed that Tolkein first read Beowulf at school "using language primers", see J.R.R. Tolkien edited by Peter Hunt (p. 38), so it seems that either I or the BBC were mistaken. Alansplodge (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

The King James Bible (and Shakespeare) were written in what is technically called "Modern English". Compared to contemporary English, it looks old-fashioned, and has a number of words that are either no longer used, or have different meanings. But its essentially just a different dialect of the same language, and should be readable and (mostly) understandable to a contemporary English speaker. Beowulf was written in Old English, from which Modern English is descended, but has changed so much it is effectively a different language (and in early versions, was written with a different alphabet too). If a contemporary English speaker read (or listened to) Old English, they would probably recognize some words (just as they probably would with German or Norwegian), but overall are unlikely to understand it. Iapetus (talk) 09:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

An additional point relating to Middle English – much depends on which regional dialect is involved. At school I studied (small portions of) both The Canterbury Tales and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Though near contemporaries, the first is in the East Midlands dialect (also used in London and the South East) from which Modern English largely descends, while the second is in the North West Midlands dialect. While, per Alansplodge above, Tales is intelligible with glossary aid, Gawain is significantly more difficult. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 14:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

The situation with Chinese is very different - because although the spoken tongue may well have evolved over time (and is, in any case, not a single mutually intelligible language anyway) the logograms used to write the language have been standardised for over 15 centuries. That means that although a modern Chinese person might be completely unable to understand what a writer 1000 years ago would have said, they can still read it because the writing system has not changed. The same symbols can be used to write different languages - because each indicates a meaning, rather than a sound. Wymspen (talk) 14:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

In Japan, it is compulsory in Junior High and High Schools to learn both Classical Japanese and Classical Chinese, so it's not difficult for them to read. As far as how the languages have both changed over the years, they have, immensely. Chinese is now a bisyllabic language, largely, and Japanese has changed grammatically. KägeTorä - (_虎) (もしもし！) 21:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

The grammatical endings of Classical Japanese are completely different, but the vocabulary is remarkably similar. Looking at e.g. #85 of the Man'yōshū ( )—which may not have been written in AD 347 as our article claims but probably predates Beowulf—every word except ke is still in common use in modern Japanese aside from the inflectional endings. I don't even see any evidence of pronunciation changes except mukahe→mukae. -- BenRG (talk) 23:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

June 29

Would you refer to a number of years as "more" or "greater"?

When you are referring to a "number of years", would you use the words "more/less" or "greater/lesser"? Or is either one appropriate? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't normally use either of those with the phrase "number of years". But it seems that's not exactly what you meant... --69.159.9.187 (talk) 02:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I was reading this article: List of high school football rivalries more than 100 years old. And I was wondering if the correct wording should be "more than 100 years old" or "greater than 100 years old"? Is there any difference? Or are they both the same? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd say that with "more than" or "over" is standard, and "greater than" sounds wrong. But I can't cite a reference to prove that that's what I think, as you asked for. --69.159.9.187 (talk) 02:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

A quantity can be greater than 100 units, but a rivalry is not a quantity. That's my intuitive hot take and I'm stickin' to it. —Tamfang (talk) 07:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Likewise. And if you substitute "larger" for "greater", it should be clear why it sounds kind of odd. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

My question is as follows. There is an article entitled List of high school football rivalries more than 100 years old. From a language/grammar point of view, is it more appropriate to entitle this article as List of high school football rivalries more than 100 years old ... or ... List of high school football rivalries greater than 100 years old ... or ... does it make no difference? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Keep it as "more". Substitute "larger" for "greater" and you can see why "greater" is not quite right. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Old Italian song

Does anyone recognize this old Italian song? Can anyone provide any info or details? An internet video or such? The main chorus or phrase is something along the lines of Quando il vento cambia vivremo tutti in un convento. The English meaning is something like "when we go through a lot of life's changes, we will end up at the convent or the monastery". Wish I had more. That's the only real info that I have. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

For what little it's worth, I read it as "When the wind changes, we'll all live in a convent." —Tamfang (talk) 04:57, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, "when the wind changes" is literal. The metaphorical is something like "as we go through life's changes". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Syllables of "Bagaimana" (Indonesian word) using spaces

Syllabification of "Bagaimana" (Indonesian word), using spaces to separate the syllables? 115.178.197.57 (talk) 07:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Ba ga i ma na. KägeTorä - (_虎) (もしもし！) 19:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Phrase “autocomplete”, or rather: Automatic phrase continuation suggestions, application for Windows 7 ?

July 2

Root word of "Pengolahan" (Indonesian word)

Anyone knows the root word of "Pengolahan" (Indonesian word)? 139.255.65.211 (talk) 04:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Its root is "olah". —Stephen (talk) 07:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Hard and soft C

According to Hard and soft C, All modern Romance languages make the hard/soft distinction with ⟨c⟩, except a few that have undergone spelling reforms. But are there any languages other than English that make this distinction across different words with the same root, like English romantic, romanticism and plastic, plasticity? Loraof (talk) 20:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

In Italian, the plural of greco /'greko/ ("Greek") is greci /'gretʃi/. --Trovatore (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

(But the plural of turco /'turko/ ("Turk, Turkish") is turchi /'turki/. So there's no completely reliable rule. The general rule you're taught, IIRC, is that two-syllable adjectives like turco add the h and keep the /k/ sound, whereas if there are three or more (e.g. fantastico, fantastici) you keep the bare c and change the sound. But greco is an exception to that rule.) --Trovatore (talk) 20:19, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Amici, greci, porci — friends, Greeks, pigs, lend me your ears! —Tamfang (talk) 04:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh please let me help you. You can put them all in this lovely green silk purse. Have a nice day. -- Jack of Oz 09:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

See wikt:mèdic#Catalan, wikt:médical#French, wikt:medico#Italian, wikt:médico#Portuguese, and wikt:médico#Spanish;

and http://forvo.com/search/medicina/ca/, wikt:médecine#French, wikt:medicina#Italian, wikt:medicina#Portuguese, and wikt:medicina#Spanish.—Wavelength (talk) 13:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Song lyrics transcription

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiUPR4ckbSw

"I killed the devil I took his soul I took his skin to my ??? throne"

157.157.90.195 (talk) 21:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

According to various non-reliable sites, it's "I took his kingdom, I took his throne." Tevildo (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

That's what it sounds like to me, pretty distinctly considering. —Tamfang (talk) 05:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! 157.157.90.195 (talk) 07:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

July 3

Sourcing for a neologism

Texit, gratifyingly, redirects to Texas secession movements. Who coined the word? I think this information would be a useful addition to the article. Tevildo (talk) 09:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

This article claims it was coined by some guy named Miller, in the wake of the Brexit vote. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The guy named Miller is apparently Daniel Miller, also mentioned in the article Tevildo linked to. And note: NHexit, Hexit, Calexit, Vexit, vexing ... ---Sluzzelin talk 11:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The Guardian also associates it with Miller, but Knowyourmeme cites Alex Jones on 16 May 2016, and the Guardian article doesn't explicitly say that Miller invented it. Does the Houston Chronicle article make a more positive attribution? (It's paywalled from here). Tevildo (talk) 17:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Texit is such an obvious analogy to Brexit that it surely must have been independently coined hundreds of times by hundreds of different people—basically, by anyone familiar with and interested in the Texas independence movement. To me, there doesn't seem much point in specifying who got it into print first. Loraof (talk) 14:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Ebrahim Rahbari, according to our article on Greek withdrawal from the eurozone. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

in the cloud? on the cloud?

What's the correct preposition re: cloud storage of data? My search via Google was inconclusive. Does the usage perhaps differ between US and UK variants of English? -- Deborahjay (talk) 19:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

US here. Only ever heard "in". StuRat (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

If the cloud is the data repository, it only makes sense to say your data is "in" the cloud. "On" the cloud would imply that your data is perched atop the cloud, i.e. outside of it. Logic doesn't always enter into it, though. And we don't say we're "in" the internet, we say we're "on" it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Data goes on the computer? In the UK it's always "in" the cloud. -- zzuuzz 21:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

There's bad things happening here

It's very common to see people saying/writing things like "There's many people who agree with me". Some prefer to say "There are many people ...". My inner pedant generally prefers the latter, but I'm sure I've used the former in unthinking moments.

Has the "there's + plural" construction become acceptable in all contexts, and if so, why? -- Jack of Oz 23:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Certainly not in all contexts, but see wikt:there's, which gives a third meaning of this contraction: "(proscribed) contraction of there are See there're." (and see also Angr's phonological explanation when you asked a similar question over seven years ago :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 23:54, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Such a long memory you have, Sluz. Thanks for that. -- Jack of Oz 01:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Cuneiform

(Re-posting question from Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2016 March 31 which wasn't answered at the time)

Can somebody help me identify the characters on this tablet?

The left column looks like A AB BI A2 ALEPH U I, and the top of the middle column like AL MA GAR; but the rest of the characters are too difficult for me to match against the list of cuneiform signs. --51.9.70.251 (talk) 06:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Possessives

I received some great help on possessives a few weeks ago, and have a couple follow-up questions:
"Columbia Records's new artist" - I've been seeing Records's so often that doubt has crept in and I'd like to check that this should be Records'.
Then there are names that appear to stylistically substitute z for s like music artists Outlawz, DJs Headhunterz and SwizZz, and children's information provider Medikidz. Any opinions on possessives? Plural agreement seems to apply but I feel I might be making an assumption about the intention behind the z. - Reidgreg (talk) 10:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• Pages automatically checked for accidental language links
• Misplaced Pages resources for researchers
• Misplaced Pages help forums
• Misplaced Pages reference desk