Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

The Wikipedia Reference Desk covering the topic of language.
Language #eee #f5f5f5 #eee #aaa #aaa #aaa #00f #36b #000 #00f language Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language Language WP:RD/L

Welcome to the language reference desk. Want a faster answer? Main page: Help searching Wikipedia How can I get my question answered? Provide a short header that gives the general topic of the question. Type ~~~~ (four tildes) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when. Post your question to only one desk. Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. We'll answer here within a few days. 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. 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.

skip to bottom Choose a topic: Computing desk Entertainment desk Humanities desk Language desk Mathematics desk Science desk Miscellaneous desk Archives   See also: Help desk Village pump Help manual

May 26

On the grammar and style of long sentences.

Does this prose read well?

There is no best form of government. No system of government or form of constitution can rid our country of corruption and nepotism. There will always be loopholes and grey areas from which corruption will emerge. A rigid and strict governmental system with laws imposing severe penalties against corruption doesn’t necessarily result in political reform. Likewise, no system of government can promise an instant success without the public officials conscientiously deliberating on the country’s fiscal and economic policies. Hence, changing our system of government, which ultimately requires a substantial revision of our constitution, is abrupt and impractical, to say the least. We don’t need a new government. We need honest and sincere leaders.Rja2015 (talk) 13:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 13:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, cause it's nonsense. And btw this is a "request for opinion". Which means that (give it a few hours) some self-appointed RD "enforcer" is bound to hat it. Contact Basemetal here 14:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Good idea. Go ahead. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions:

1) Omit "the" in front of "public officials".

2) Change "country's" to "nation's".

3) "Constitution" should be capitalized, when referring to a specific document.

4) Note that, under the parliamentary system, "a new government" means "the same form of government, but with new leaders", not what it does in the US ("a new form of government"). So, as written, this paragraph wouldn't make sense under the parliamentary system.

(Incidentally, I disagree with the logic, too, but you didn't ask us to comment on that.) StuRat (talk) 15:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. You can comment on the logic of this paragraph too. Overall, how's the style of this paragraph?Rja2015 (talk) 15:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

There is illogic in the transition from the first sentence to the last sentence because the first sentence refers to a "form of government" and the last sentence says that "[w]e need honest and sincere leaders." This is sleight of hand. "[H]onest and sincere leaders" are irrespective of a "form of government". Bus stop (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

In short, it's propaganda disguised as a question, and should be zapped as per Basemetal's recommendation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Looks more like a homework assignment to me. And while we can't do their homework for them, we can review their homework for any errors. StuRat (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• If Bus Stop can read the passage as sneakily conflating two concepts, when its whole point is to contrast them, there must be some room for improvement in clarity. —Tamfang (talk) 07:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Like Stu I'd change the last "we don't need a new government" into "we don't need a new form of government". I'd also change "no system of government can promise an instant success" into "no system of government can promise instant success". As to the logic, frankly I wouldn't know where to start. It's been known for about 250 years that what you propound here is a fallacy, as nobody has yet come up with a sure way of finding those "honest and sincere leaders", not to mention a way of keeping leaders "honest and sincere". It's been known for that long a time that the best chance to achieve some sort of a reasonable form of government (or at least a form of government that slowly and clumsily moves towards reason) is not by relying on or hoping for moral virtues on the part of either the leaders or the governed but by balancing the selfish self-interest of the several actors. How you do that is an ongoing process of trial and error which does involve in fact tweaking the form of government, and, unfortunately, is not a process that is invariably moving forward. Contact Basemetal here 17:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• For what little it's worth, I disagree with half of StuRat's suggestions: I see no advantage in nation over country (not all sovereign states are nation-states), and I'm content to read constitution as meaning the structure rather than the Document that describes it. Even if comment were invited on the substance of the argument, I hope I'd resist the temptation. —Tamfang (talk) 07:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

There will always be corrupt leaders, but in some forms of government, with no checks and balances, they can do whatever they want, including genocide and stealing all of the nation's wealth (see kleptocracy). In a democracy, especially one with term limits, they can only do limited damage before they are removed from office. StuRat (talk) 19:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

You seem to have missed when Barry Goldwater's democratic election led to the destruction of mankind. μηδείς (talk) 17:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

On second thought, it's not so illogical. But it is too wordy. I will attempt a rewrite: "Various forms of government each have their own weak spots vis-a-vis exploitation by the unsavory slime-buckets that arise from time to time." The phrase "unsavory slime-buckets" can be replaced by "corrupt politicians" for greater palatability. Bus stop (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Are there any savoury slime-buckets? (Apart from tripe, liver and oysters, that is.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

"Various forms of government each have their own weak spots vis-a-vis exploitation by the unsavory slime-buckets that vie for power with the savory slime-buckets known to exist only by the shadows they cast and their barely perceptible gravitational fields." Bus stop (talk) 23:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

A pride of lions

A group of wombats is called a "wisdom." A "pride" of lions consists of related females and offspring and a small number of adult males. Why those terminologies? Are there other examples of animals of a species having a specific name when they occur in groups? Bus stop (talk) 16:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Check out List of English terms of venery, by animal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks, that's exactly what I was looking for. Bus stop (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

There was a list I saw in a computer book, long ago, which had several satirical collective nouns. I can't find the reference just now, but it included a "bleat" of users, an "absence" of hardware engineers, and the like. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

lol Bus stop (talk) 23:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Old joke: "Four scholars at Oxford were making their way down the street and happened to see a group of ladies of the evening. 'What’s this?' said the first. 'A jam of tarts?' 'Nay,' said the second, 'an essay of Trollope’s.' 'Rather, a flourish of strumpets,' advanced the third. 'No, gentlemen,' concluded the last. 'Here we have an anthology of pros.'" Deor (talk) 00:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The play is on the word "prose". Bus stop (talk) 05:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I've heard that a group of wombats is also known as a wet mess. Bus stop (talk) 08:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

"Terms of venery" is the terminology related to hunting of animals, but these are more generally just collective nouns. Here's a list on wiktionary: [1]. As for "why" - most of these don't have good "reasons" other than they sounded nice or evocative to someone and got used in print. Many are more-or-less made up for fun. Many will have very rare usage outside of such lists, and have several equally "correct" alternates. But that's ok, all words are made up ;) SemanticMantis (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

"Glint of goldfish" seems very appropriate. Bus stop (talk) 16:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Similarly, I've always been fond of "a kaleidoscope of butterflies". ---Sluzzelin talk 17:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

May 27

Untruism?

Has anyone ever encountered "untruism" used with the meaning "untrue truism" (i.e. something that people commonly believe but is in fact untrue, an untruth that is commonly believed to be true) as opposed to just "untruth" as defined by the Wiktionary article? It seems (to me at least) that the Anthony Trollope 1878 quotation is more compatible with that meaning rather than with that of "untruth". Contact Basemetal here 14:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

There is a word for such a concept. It is called a misconception. --Jayron32 14:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I found a 1972 article, "Untruisms", published in Metaphilosophy, where the authors Barnes and Robinson define it as "an ambiguous sentence which taken in one sense states a dull truism—an analytical or a platitudinous truth—and taken in another sense makes a statement that is interesting but either certainly or probably false or at least of uncertain truth-value. Sincere utterers of untruisms suppose themselves to be making a true and interesting statement: in fact they are hovering between a true and trifling statement and a false and informative statement." The authors, too, quote Trollope, in the sense of "hackneyed untruth". ---Sluzzelin talk 15:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I enjoy Jenny Holzer's "truisms". Such as this, or this, or this. I'm not 100% sure that each of those are from her "truism" series. Bus stop (talk) 22:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Girl: "We were just playing Jenny Holzer."

Cat: "I hate art."

Back from when the webcomic Cat and Girl was still witty and funny.

Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Soul/Spirit

1. A physical and spiritual form – I can define this to a demon/Angel/ghost…
2. A physical and ‘soul’ (‘soulotuol’) form. – I am wishing to define a human being. What can I put their when I’m talking about a human, instead of the embolden words? I know the word ‘soulotuol’ doesn’t make sense and it is not in the Dictionary, it’s just an example for a better understanding. I want the sentence to sound as good as the 'first number'. e.g., physical and spiritual, physical and soulotual...

Mr. Prophet (talk) 18:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

spiritual can also refer to the soul, so you might wish to choose a different word there, if you want an unambiguous distinction between beings within the biological world (no matter what else we attribute to these beings, such as a soul, they still exist in the scientific world) and beings that only exist in fantasy/mythology/religion/fiction. Some suggestions, not the greatest ones, but just to get things started : psychical/psychic, conscious, animate, breathing ... all ambiguous too ... ---Sluzzelin talk 19:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll give you an example in short i.e., I understand the words you defined because I read the articles. -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 07:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Demons, angels, and ghosts have a "spiritual" dimension in common with human beings. Granted that human beings' spiritual dimension is considered different from those other constructs' in some religious traditions, though in some religious traditions, ghosts may also have souls. What human beings have and those other constructs lack is biological, or natural life. So you might contrast beings with supernatural and spiritual form (your demons, angels, and ghosts) and beings with natural and spiritual form (human beings, and perhaps other living things if you think that they have a spiritual dimension). We don't have an attributive adjective related to the word soul, but you can use this distinction instead. Or, you could contrast "beings with souls" and "beings without souls". Marco polo (talk) 20:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I have to say I'm not happy with the word 'natural' and I hope it is not the only way to explain it in short, like you stated... -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 07:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Marco polo: I forgot to say 'thank you'. -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 18:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• The simple answer to Russell.mo's question is that consciousness is a relationship between sentient beings and their environment, and that the soul or "spritual" is that part of consciousness which values, as exemplified in such things as affection, art, and romance. Galt's speech in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged covers this in depth. μηδείς (talk) 21:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm looking for a simple word Medeis. If I insert what you stated than I have to explain why... Any way this is for you <-@ -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 07:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

What is the question here? Why can't the question be asked in sentence form, with a question mark at the end? Bus stop (talk) 22:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The question is there, in sentence form and ending with a question mark, and goes (redacted): "What can I put there when I’m talking about a human, instead of the bolded words?" In other words User:Russell.mo (aka Mr. Prophet) is asking for an adjective pertaining to the human soul in a way that would fit his framework of contrasting the two types of beings he outlined. And I think Marco answered it really well, also by suggesting different sets of attributes. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand. The word "spiritual" is found to be deficient. Why? What would be the problem with a relatively simple statement such as: "Man has a physical component and man has a spiritual component"? Bus stop (talk) 23:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Nothing is wrong with that statement (that was my point) but then the word "spiritual" wouldn't be contrasting with "spiritual" in the supernatural sense ("demon/Angel/ghost") which is what the question was based on. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Lol. Clever girl. This is for you <-@ -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 07:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Historically, the distinction between spirit and soul, or pneuma and psyche, was that the spirit was the person's lifeforce while the soul was the consciousness (or identity). Many theologians and occultists generally held that angels and demons do not have proper souls, angels being more defined by their purpose, and demons by their wickedness. A few might have argued that (at least for angels) it was the other way around -- angels only have an identity as God's messengers, but no existence beyond God's will. Some authors held that ghosts were not the person's soul, but their spirit retaining some of the soul's shape before disappating (perhaps to be reused in whole or in part, in the latter case helping or hurting the next person to use that lifeforce). Ian.thomson (talk) 23:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I know, I read the articles. just thinking of it as generally, cause not every one has the time (or will be bothered) to read an article to understand a thing, you know what I mean.

I wasn't aware of "spirit retaining some of the soul's shape before disappating"; I would've thought this for both... -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 07:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

My spirit is about to bust. Why not just search the English language to find the word combination to express the elusive thought? Bus stop (talk) 08:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The closest I've got to this is "etheric" or "ketheric". I offer these so the OP can investigate further. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I read and , I can't find the word ketheric. Beside, I won't understand if you don't explain. I'm not 'very' smart. It took me a whole month (or two) to understand the two articles soul & spirit. -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 18:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Incorporeal? That article also mentions the word "uncarnate". At ghost we find spectre/specter, phantom, apparition and spook. Bus stop (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I've thought of them also used some in other areas. Thank you. I appreciate it.

Thanks friends. I'll conclude it with Mark's information. Regards. -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 20:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Mr Prophet, I am assuming you have access to Google. A Google search led me to those two terms and I note there are plenty of articles on them, as I read a few to try and determine whether they were relevant. If you don't have access to Google, I'm very sorry. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I have internet usage problem, it takes time to display a page 'heavy' page. I can just about download somethings blindly. Beside, I have to look at it some other time, hopefully in the first week of next month. -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 20:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I forgot to state, referencing other website also becomes an issue sometimes. -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

References

May 28

Pronunciation of <ye> letter in Korean

I have noticed that in Korean, the <ye> letter is sometimes pronounced like /e/ (losing the /y/ sound). Are there any general rules as to when this may occur? 98.116.73.98 (talk) 04:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The syllable 혜 in a feminine name is pronounced as 해. Also, the y in ye is pronounced strongly at the start of a word, but it can become weaker or disappear if it comes after a consonant or in the middle of a word. This depends a lot on the speaker's dialect [2]. --Amble (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

alike and similar

Do we have an article on Norman-and-Saxon legal twin phrases like devise and bequeath? —Tamfang (talk) 08:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Legal doublet covers many of them. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

In fact, Tamfang's example is listed as part of a legal triplet there: "give, devise and bequeath" ---Sluzzelin talk 11:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

apheresis

I'm reading Kipling's Just So Stories at the moment and can't place a conspicuous mannerism that crops up in just about every story, technically speaking an apheresis: there is a a small 'Stute Fish, the Camel is most 'scruciating idle, and the Hartebeest were 'sclusively sandy-yellow-brownish all over, etc. I'm not a native speaker, so I may be missing an obvious point, but what's the story here? Is he parodying anyone in particular? Or mocking American English? --Edith Wahr (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The Oxford Companion to the English Language under "aphesis" says "Younger children often speak aphetically, a style that Rudyard Kipling imitates in Just So Stories [...]" -- BenRG (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Not mentioned in our rather thin article, is that the stories are written in the style that he would have used in telling them to his daughter Josephine, who had died three years before publication, aged seven. Josephine is the "best beloved" repeatedly referred to in the text. So it is an imitation of his lost daughter's style of speech. See Rudyard Kipling’s ‘Just So Stories’, Biographical Sketch of Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936) and Josephine Kipling for further details. Kipling's wife was American by the way. Alansplodge (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• I thought that one of Ben and Edith had made a spelling error, but it turns out that "aphesis" and "apheresis" are both recognised, and mean the same thing. What's going on there? It almost looks like "aphesis" is an example of apheresis. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• The third edition of Fowler's Modern English Usage says of aphesis "J. A. H. Murray's term for 'the gradual and unintentional loss of a short unaccented vowel at the beginning of a word; as in squire for esquire, down for adown... It is a special form of the phonetic process called Aphæresis for which, from its frequency in the history of the English language, a distinctive term is useful. Now also used in the sense of aphæresis'" DuncanHill (talk) 21:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Duncan. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

May 29

Are the verbs "to ascertain" and "to determine" complete synonyms?

Are the verbs "to ascertain" and "to determine" complete synonyms (used in the sense of seeking and discovering something - I know that "to determine" can also mean to cause something to happen in a particular way)? Often things which are almost synonyms have some subtle shade of meaning, is that the case here? -- Q Chris (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

"To determine" can also mean "to bring to an end", from Latin de of, from and terminare to finish. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

IMHO there is a subtle semantic difference: "acertain" is to discover external/objective information, while "determine" could mean to declare/define something. "The court, having acertained that the accused was not at the bank at the time of the robbery, determined that all charges were to be dropped." Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the OP is asking about the difference between ascertain and sense 4 (only) of determine. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Haček in an American spelling bee?

I saw an article [3] which claimed that the Scripps National Spelling Bee used a sentence to provide context, "The priest, philosopher and reformer Jan Hus introduced the haček into Czech orthography." By their bolding I presume that haček was the word to be spelled.

What confuses me is that I don't recognize "haček" as an English word, because I don't see č as an English letter, because it has, well, a haček over it. I have no idea how you would say that letter in a spelling bee. I see Wiktionary lists wikt:hacek as an 'alternate spelling', though.

Anyway, I was kind of curious whether such strange letters have become valid in English spelling, or spelling competitions; or alternatively, whether they accept the stripping of any and all special marks and simply the recitation of the closest-looking English letter. Or did they use the alternate spelling as a loophole, and avoid such questions where one isn't present?

Incidentally, our article on č doesn't say how it is spelled out aloud. Wnt (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually it's an English word. At least so think Oxford, Collins and MW. By the way, Hus did not invent háček but a dot above for Czech (nevertheless a dot as a diacritic had long existed before him).--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• The haček itself is the little hat, caron, over the Latin letter. It also appears over other letters like s and z. The symbol 'č' is called 'cee haček' when said aloud. The letter is actually part of my family name. I've always considered it an English word in the way that salsa, haggis, and sigma are English words. I've also seen the word spelt haczek (the Polish spelling) when the č symbol itself was not available. μηδείς (talk) 18:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• If it's an English word, when will the makers of Scrabble be introducing the tile marked Č? Or, for that matter, the tiles marked Á, À, Â, Ä, Ǎ, Ă, Ā, Ã, Å, Ą, Æ, Ǣ, ........ Ź, Ż and Ž? And, more importantly, what will their letter values be, given that they're used rather less often than the diacritic-free versions? Or, to put it another way, how can an English word contain characters that are not recognised - anywhere - as part of the English alphabet and English language? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Garcon! μηδείς (talk) 22:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

... noun, plural garçons [gar-sawn] (Show IPA). French -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I expected this response (hence my parenthetical comment), but, jalapeño, façade, naïve, and dejà vu are all perfectly english expressions, as are coöperate, and fiancée. We simply do without the symbols when practicality demands, yet the symbols still have English names. I am also sure the children are provided with the rules, whatever they are, and are coached in the contest; not swept off the streets and plopped in the beehive. The fact that some keyboards don't have certain symbols doesn't mean the symbols are in themselves problematic. The custom when you and I were young was for typists to add such symbols by hand when necessary. If English is limited to what 4th graders are expected to be able to parse, then Shakespeare isn't English either. μηδείς (talk) 05:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I am all in favor of expanding the confines of the English language to include commonly used words written with non-English diacritical marks, including the six words mentioned above. That should be based on common understanding and widespread usage by literate English language writers. But those six words mentioned above are widely accepted and commonly rendered and understood in English with or without the diacritical marks. I do not believe that the "hacek" word has yet achieved that status. I would certainly have no idea at all what was meant if I encountered it in an English sentence lacking strong context, though I would have no problem whatsoever with the other six words mentioned, with or without the diacritics. So, language evolves and opinions may vary, but I do not at this time recognize "hacek" or "haček" as standard English at this time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Interestingly, the very names of the country and language whence the word originates, Czechoslovakia (as it was then) and Czech, are rendered in English using Polish (!) orthography, because Čechoslovakia would have had little or no chance of being understood or pronounced correctly. The haček would have been dropped, and the Cecho part would have been pronounced like "Setcho". So much for acceptance of hačeks in English. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I think Chekoslovakia would have been the likely outcome, Jack. But no such thing as Czechoslovakia existed before WWI, nor very long after the end of the Cold War. The haček was around quite a bit before that. μηδείς (talk) 20:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I suppose an interesting case is "habañero", which is certainly not a word in any language other than English. Still, my feeling is that User:Medeis' test cases can be gone through and addressed in different ways. To begin with, coöperate and naïve are genuinely English spelling, though I would say archaic spelling; the article Diaeresis (diacritic) says that this notation is the only case of English terms with diacritical marks. Because of how diaresis is defined, there is never a doubt that it sits atop an English letter like o or i. As for "facade", "fiancee", and "deja vu", I would say that these words are or would be English when they lack diacritics and are not italicized, but foreign when those two things are done. (Though it's not very clear to me that deja vu is accepted as English the way facade is) Which leaves us with the pesky ñ - except in very old borrowings like "canyon" people don't really feel comfortable, for reasons I don't understand, with the idea of replacing it with "ny" or "ni", yet rarely can reproduce the letter in print or are minded to. And yet... I feel like these words aren't always italicized either. So that's the most interesting case of the six. Wnt (talk) 10:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

You also see role spelled with a circumflex, as in rôle. See here for example. --Jayron32 16:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

That, and début, première and various others bespeak confusion and/or snobbishness. Rôle, début, première et various al have all been absorbed into English to produce the very fine English words role, debut and premiere, which are written without diacritics. They are all available free of charge, and there is simply no case to use any French words or French orthography in an otherwise English-language text, unless the text is actually about how certain French words are the origin/source of English words (in which case the French words must be italicised). Or unless English simply has no word or expression of its own to call upon. For example, déja vu is clearly a French expression. It has been borrowed by English speakers because we have been too lazy or too unimaginative to develop one of our own. Just because it's widely used in English-language contexts does not mean it is an English expression. It remains French, and should be italicised in writing. Maybe one day it will be reborn as the English expression "deja vu" (without the acute é), but that hasn't happened yet. To consider it an English expression would be like considering перестройка an English word. Well, hardly. Not even its usual romanization, perestroika, is an English word. Acutes, graves, circumflexes and cedillas are just as foreign to English as Cyrillic, Greek, Hebrew, Armenian, Arabic, Chinese or Japanese script. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Jack, Czech is actually the original Old Czech spelling. It's just Poles who retained the old digraph. I cannot confirm when the name entered English.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

To address Cullen and Jack above, yes, haček is a relatively rare word, used mainly by linguists in English, as well as ethnically and liturgically, typically by Slavs who use the Latin alphabet. I'd expect it to be marked as such in an English dictionary, given fewer than 1% of native English speakers are likely familiar with it (or with the term. Ultimately, what matters with the spelling bee is their rules and the words they defined as canonical. Learning the names of various accent marks is indeed a part of standard grade school education for native speakers. Reading poetry and Shakespeare requires understanding a markèd accent. Luckfully, never having been ruled by Napoleon, we don't feel the need to codify our speech before we just get on with it. μηδείς (talk) 20:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you supposed to type one space or two, after a period?

Are you supposed to type one space or two, after a period? Does Wikipedia have an article on this topic? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

It has a rather terrible article on it, called sentence spacing, in my opinion written with an agenda. --Trovatore (talk) 15:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

That's not the correct article, is it? Isn't that an article about the distinction between, say, single-spacing and double-spacing and triple-spacing, etc., lines of text? That refers to how much space there is vertically from one line to the next. I am asking about typing a single space (blank) character or two space (blank) characters after I type a period at the end of a sentence. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

That is the correct article. I'd have to read the whole of it to understand why it jumps from spacing the lines of text to the number of spaces between sentences, but for your purpose you can jump straight to the applicable sections #Digital age and #Controversy.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 29, 2015; 16:44 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll check it out. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

For Wikipedia articles, see WP:MOS#Periods (full stops) and spaces and WP:MOS#Spaces following terminal punctuation.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd like to read a "main space" article on the topic. Not a Wikipedia MOS (Manual of Style) guidebook. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Wars have been fought over this exact subject. You'd do best to back out the way you came in, and pretend like you didn't ask. Otherwise, you're liable to get caught in the crossfire. --Jayron32 16:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• My mother was a professional typist, and was taught two spaces after a full stop at the end of a sentence. This is what I was taught in the Eighties, and what I do myself. Certain modern word processing program-programmers have decided we are too stupid to make this decision on our own, and they override or "correct" what the user does. μηδείς (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

When I first was taught to touch type in 1973, I was taught two spaces after a full stop and also after a colon. Then in 1983 I went to secretarial school, and we were still taught two spaces after a full stop. However, in 1993 I was teaching word processing in an FE college, and in the meantime the RSA had changed its standards to only one space after a full stop and a colon. (UK) --TammyMoet (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Where I come from, the standard was 2. I never saw 1 until I started looking at Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

And I don't think I've ever heard about using two spaces before I read this thread. - Lindert (talk) 11:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

An actually answer is that it depends on which style guide you are using. Both MLA style and Chicago Style Manual prefer single. Mingmingla (talk) 16:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, all. I later realized that my question wasn't particularly clear. I was not asking: "Are you supposed to type one space or two, after a period?" What I was asking was: "Does Wikipedia have an article on the topic of whether you are supposed to type one space or two after a period?" Sorry for the poorly phrased question. Thanks. Since this is such a "big deal", I thought that Wikipedia would have an article on it. That is, a specific article, dedicated to this exact topic / "controversy". Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The two spaces might have been more of a thing when all we had was typewriter fonts. With better computer fonts, the two-space approach looks somewhat overkill. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

That does seem to be the story that you hear, but it makes no sense to me. The function of a period is to help you find breaks between sentences. As far as I can tell, a period and a single space works better for that in monospace fonts (the typewriter-style ones) than it does in proportional fonts (the more modern ones). In proportional fonts, the periods have a habit of cuddling up against the last letter of the sentence and kind of getting lost, so a wide space seems even more important.

There's a very nice solution for this in the typesetting package LaTeX (actually I think it's the same in plain TeX). In LaTeX, it will put a wide space after a terminal punctuation mark (period or question mark or exclamation mark). Exactly how wide that is depends on other exigencies (like what's necessary to keep the text right-justified) but in general it's wider than a full space, but not as wide as two spaces.

The best thing of all is that if you don't want the wide space in a particular spot (say, if the period ends an abbreviation rather than a sentence), you can easily suppress the wide space in that location. --Trovatore (talk) 22:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

If a woman is involved, I find it best to give her as much space as possible, following a period. StuRat (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

"Cogenidad"?

A friend got a report after an ultrasound that included the comment "baja cogenidad". So far as I can tell, "cogenidad" doesn't exist anywhere on the internet. Can anyone think of a word for which it might be a misspelling (in Spanish)? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs) 18:33, 29 May 2015

• We figured out it meant "low echogenicity" (ecogenidad) which makes sense given the procedure. μηδείς (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

May 30

The Rain In Spain

Does it actually fall mainly on the plain, or is this just an elocution lesson for people who have trouble pronouncing 'ai'? A bit like 'How now, brown cow', which has no verb and one would not expect an answer from a cow, whatever colour it was. 82.35.216.24 (talk) 10:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The song doesn't say it falls on the plain but that it stays ("mainly") in the plain. Now seriously. Contact Basemetal here 11:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Since what is meant by plain us undefined, the answer is uncertain. Most of Spain except the coasts is a high plateau, rain clouds tend to rain out as they are forced to ascend, hence much of Spain is dry. The Northwest coast (especially Spanish Galicia) is rather lush. Much of the potential rain from the Atlantic falls there and in Portugal rather than inland. See climate of Spain. μηδείς (talk) 19:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the answer is clear — it's the second thing you said. Or more precisely, it's what the librettist thought would sound like an elocution lesson. The elocution teachers couldn't much care whether the statement reflected reality, and the librettist wasn't much more interested in whether real elocution teachers use such a phrase.

Compare Moses supposes his toeses are roses/but Moses supposes erroneously/for Moses, he knowses his toeses aren't roses/as Moses supposes his toeses to be. --Trovatore (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Prof. Enry Iggins was packing as many "ays" in there as he could. Eliza would say it, "The rine in Spine sties minely in the pline." Until she "got it", by George. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The other one they used was "In Hartford, Hereford and Hampshire, hurricanes hardly ever happen". Now, "hardly ever" says they have happened, if only rarely. I'm no meaty horologist, but I'd be surprised if hurricanes have ever happened in those parts. Conclusion: it wasn't meant to reflect the truth. Neither was the Spanish one. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

It sounded like Hertford, not Hartford, to me. DuncanHill (talk) 00:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Hartford. Start at about 1:15 in.[4] Or this, from :00.[5] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

That would depend on whether you use "hurricane" in the strict sense where it is limited to a sufficiently powerful tropical cyclone in certain parts of the world, or whether you mean the word to include any windstorm of hurricane strength. Specifically, see Great Storm of 1987. --174.88.135.200 (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

"Tropical cyclone" and "typhoon" don't start with the letter "h". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Pronuciation of Dupleix

What is the proper pronunciation of the French surname Dupleix? -- 79.237.64.216 (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know the final 'x' is pronounced in both French and English and the 'ei' is pronounced as a short 'e' in English and as an open 'e' in French. Contact Basemetal here 21:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Marquee project

In our article Gambit (2012 film), it says "Sutherland knew of a fledgling production company, Crime Scene Pictures, with equity financing from Southeast Asia, who were looking for a marquee project for their new company and felt that Gambit would fit the bill". What is a "marquee project"? DuncanHill (talk) 20:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

See definition 2 here [6]. The adjectival one. "very popular and well known, having or associated with the name recognition and attraction of one whose name appears on a marquee." A marquee is the giant sign that appears over the doors of theaters, where you put the names of the best known stars in a show to attract patrons. In the middle 20th century, the word got expanded to mean "well-known" or "well recognized". A "marquee project" is one that a company is hoping will be a huge hit that will attract the company itself customers and name recognition, in the same way that a star's name on a theater marquee would attract customers. --Jayron32 21:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I was previously only aware of the tent. DuncanHill (talk) 21:11, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Synonyms might be "signature project" or "flagship project" (if it's the main one). StuRat (talk) 23:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)