Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/L

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
Note:
- We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
- We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
- We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
- We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

November 9

Russian sectors?

I'm struggling a bit of how to differentiate 2 Russian words in English. In 1865 St Petersburg was divided into 12 часть (alt. полицейский часть), which were then further divided into 56 участок. What would be a good translation here for these two terms? Google gives quite similar meanings. I want to avoid the translation 'District', since it will create a confusion with the later raion term. I was thinking of 'police precinct', but google has that for 'полицейский участок'. Sector, division, section? -- Soman (talk) 11:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For example, see here https://books.google.at/books?id=LW9GAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PT73 --Soman (talk) 11:37, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible terms are borough and ward. See also List of terms for administrative divisions. --Lambiam 19:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 10

the χ from nowhere

Manichaeism is named for Mani. Where did the ch come from? —Tamfang (talk) 21:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The German and Greek Wikipedia articles on Mani report that there was an ancient Greek alternate name Μανιχαῖος, which they both claim (unfortunately without sourcing) came from Syrian "Mānī ḥayyā", 'the living Mani'. Our English article instead hints at two different possible derivations, but those don't sound very confidence-inspiring. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Syriac (Aramaic) theory, which appears to be well received by scholars, was first suggested in: H. H. Schaeder, "Urform und Fortbildungen des manichäischen Systems", Vorträge der Bibliothek Warburg, Vorträge 1924–5. (Teubner, Leipzig, 1927), p. 88, n. 1.^[1][2] --Lambiam 11:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The OED speaks of the name Mani being "Hellenized to Μάνης, a common name for slaves, and to Μανιχαῖος, allegedly (as recorded by St Augustine) to avoid the resemblance between Mani and μανία mania n.". --Antiquary (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 15

Is this OVS

In some books, I saw that quotations were formatted as [insert quote here], followed by the word “said” and then the name of the speaking character. Is this a form of OVS word order, as the ultimate subject is positioned last, preceded by the verb, and the quote (which takes the function of an object) is the first element written in the sentence? Primal Groudon (talk) 05:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Effectively, yes, but it results from V2 word order. This is the normal word order in Germanic languages and used to be the standard in English too, before it switched to mostly SVO. PiusImpavidus (talk) 10:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PiusImpavidus -- V2 constructions occurred frequently in early Germanic, but the basic word order of a simple sentence was SOV, and definjitely not OVS (see Proto-Germanic_grammar#Syntax). AnonMoos (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as I wrote. Basic order in Germanic is SOV and in main clauses the topic is moved to first and the finite verb to second position. If subject, finite verb and object are the only things present (as in the question) and the object is the topic, the resulting order is OVS, but the rule is V2. PiusImpavidus (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Placing the speaker first, then the word “said” and then the quote, would still be V2. Primal Groudon (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and “speaker said ‘quote’” is allowed both in SVO English and V2 German. “‘quote’ said speaker” is typically not allowed in SVO, but is allowed in V2. It's normal in Germanic and allowed as an exception in English because of its history as V2 language. “‘quote’ speaker said” isn't allowed in V2 and indeed doesn't normally occur in Germanic, but is allowed in English by moving the object to first position, whilst keeping SV order, as English is no longer V2. PiusImpavidus (talk) 15:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Primal Groudon: See Quotation § Quotative inversion. Bazza 7 (talk) 10:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right Said Fred -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 20:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's this Australian word: a "muster"?

Obviously she means "a great deal". But what actual word is this Australian woman uttering here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgUv_lQgOXI&t=104s (104 seconds into the video) 178.51.16.158 (talk) 09:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikt:motza. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found two pun-based proposed origins; matzo ("bread", meaning possibly from Yiddish) or mozzarella ("big cheese"). 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 12:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's "motza". Here is an excellent in-depth explanation of it. HiLo48 (talk) 13:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Aren't the "alternative slang terms" pretty universal, though? With the possible exception of "stack". 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 14:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That website sounds AI-generated to me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a problem? HiLo48 (talk) 23:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the AI considers general English words as Australian slang, its assumptions aren't fully valid. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 23:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it just seemed to me that the texts on that website (on several of its pages) showed the typical predominance of fluff, redundancy and clichéd trivialities and very low level of concrete information that's characteristic of AI-generated text. If you look closely, you'll see that it offers very very little in terms of actual facts. I'd say it's the very opposite of an "in-depth explanation". Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

↑+1 DuncanHill (talk) 12:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed there to be from Yiddish motsa meaning "bundle" or "heap". I can't find an attestation (not as a mention but as a use) of such a Yiddish etymon (מוצאַ?). --Lambiam 11:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When a word should sound like another word, and people start saying it that way

What's this called? I just saw somebody saying *brumination for wikt:brumation, which apparently needs the extra syllable because hibernation has one. Card Zero (talk) 21:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a form of analogical change. --Amble (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes. Flammable octopi, for example. Thank you. Card Zero (talk) 22:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect rumination might have played a bigger part here than hibernation, though. (Or at least a similar part.) 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 23:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The most specific linguistic term for this is "contamination", as on the linked page. A classic example of this is that the word for "nine" in the Slavic languages changed from beginning with an "n-" consonant to beginning with a "d-" consonant, since the following number word (meaning "ten") also began with "d-". AnonMoos (talk) 10:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wikt:Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/devętь. It calls this "dissimilation" (?) and mentions a similar effect in Proto-Germanic, leading to four and five starting with the same sound. Otherwise I suppose we'd say ~~pour~~ wour and five. But this regularization is a terrible instinct! Number-words that sound similar are really unhelpful! For instance, none, one, and nine. This is a subject area where mistakes get expensive. Card Zero (talk) 11:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And many Romance speakers have to watch their sixties and seventies. (A plot twist in a teenager romantic dramedy I watched in my Spanish classes, where the foreigner - I think a British expat - wrote down the wrong phone number.) 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 12:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Indo-European words for 4 and 5 were roughly kʷetwor and penkʷe, which allowed a fair amount of scope for contamination between the two. In Germanic, there's a rather complex path between reconstructed PIE and the attested forms; Slavic 9 is simpler... AnonMoos (talk) 20:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The non-analogical result of word-initial PIE kʷ- in English is wh-. AnonMoos (talk) 20:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Card Zero As for what it is called, are you referring to a Malapropism? Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well no, to be pacific, those are correctly-formed words used in a context where they don't quite fit, such as "I hear footprints! Someone is encroaching!", or "I experienced their pleasure bi-curiously." I'm happy with analogical change, all I really wanted was a few other examples. Back-formation is related, but again slightly different since it coins new words from imagined grammar, rather than bending existing words into a more comfortable shape (while keeping the meaning the same). Card Zero (talk) 23:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, if it's correctly-formed words you want, it's a mondegreen. ColinFine (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant that malapropisms are correctly-formed words, wrongly used. What I'm after is when the right word is distorted. And a mondegreen is a mishearing! I'm talking about when an uncommon word mutates to follow the pattern of a more familiar one. Card Zero (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would mischievious be an example? This erroneous variant of mischievous formed under the influence of adjectives ending in -ious such as devious and nefarious, pronounced pronouncedly differently, has become so common that it is no longer considered a grievious :) error; people even tend to think mischievous is a typo. --Lambiam 05:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! That's a good one because it's pronounced differently too. I suppose it's hard to prove influence, and maybe every misspelling has a claim to fit the category. Extacy seems to fit better than others, though, being a clear example of regularization through the influence of all the ex- words. Unsure about gubberment. Card Zero (talk) 05:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I (a Brit) have always assumed this was a deliberate US distortion intended to show distain/contempt for the institution. Do any US speakers/writers actually think it's correct? {The poster fornerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.211.243 (talk) 09:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is "distain" (for disdain) one of those distortions? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's Eye dialect, and might be parody or self parody, or perhaps happen naturally. I suppose this one doesn't count, because a dialect is like a reshaping pattern applied to all the words. Card Zero (talk) 11:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A classic example from British football commentary is the hideous newly coined word laxadaisical [sic]. For example, say a goal has been scored because a defender's positioning was lax: he wasn't tight to his opponent and let him get away and score. Somehow, somebody presumably thought this didn't sound right, was vaguely aware of the word lackadaisical (i.e. lethargic, unenthusiastic), thought that "lax" was somehow an abbreviation of it, wanted to use the "correct" full word, and came up with the new word "laxadaisical". I have a feeling it was somebody like Andy Townsend or Tony Cascarino who started it, but it starting to spread to other commentators now. I listen to a lot of radio football commentary, and hear it regularly. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 12:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me started on sportspeak. My pet peeve is describing a victory that has only just occurred, or even before the final siren has sounded, as "famous". Fame is something that builds up over a period of time after the event in question. It comes from people reminiscing about what happened (past tense). Otoh, something that was famous a few years ago has become virtually forgotten today, sometimes even beyond the reach of google, so where's your fame now? Witness the plethora of things that "go viral" or "take the world by storm": most of them have a shelf life of barely 15 seconds, let alone Warhol's 15 minutes. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And on the same theme, when did it become the norm in sports commentary to talk about, for example, "the Hungary goalkeeper" rather than "the Hungarian goalkeeper". 'Twas not thus in my distant youth. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.211.243 (talk) 07:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he hadn't had lunch yet.

Is that a British thing? I don't recall hearing it on American TV. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It involves only spelling and not pronunciation, but there's a curious case of analogy working at cross purposes in the common misspelling of accordion as accordian—presumably by analogy with the common -ian adjectival ending—whereas dalmatian (the dog), which does have that ending, is commonly misspelled dalmation, presumably by analogy with the common -tion noun ending. Deor (talk) 12:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Espresso becoming "expresso" is presumably another example. Although according to our article that "incorrect" use of the x is common not just in English but in French and Spanish, and is consistent with the original Latin etymology of the Italian term, so I think one could argue that this is actually a reasonable adaptation of the spelling for other languages rather than an error. Iapetus (talk) 13:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or we can view it as a loanblend, from the recipient's express + the donor's -o. --Lambiam 10:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think "expresso" is more of an Anglicisation than a grammatical error. It was the accepted term in the Beatnik coffee bar youth culture in 1950s London, see Expresso Bongo. Alansplodge (talk) 11:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 21

How common are long vowels in super-closed syllables?

In languages other than English, how common is it for long vowels or diphthongs to be allowed in super-closed syllables ending in two or more consonant sounds? Example words are “minds,” “pounce,” and “paint.” Primal Groudon (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's rare. It might be allowed in the Germanic languages in general [excluding creoles] if you allow for the fact that long vowels are often at least somewhat diphthongized. E.g. the name 'Heintz', or glaubst 'believe' in German. It's also been reconstructed for proto-Indo-European, but reconstructions are always iffy. I don't know of it elsewhere, but I doubt Germanic is unique. — kwami (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Latin, vowels are basically always shortened before word-final -nt and always lengthened before word-final -ns. AnonMoos (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure Latvian has this. Latvian phonology#Pitch accent lists three words glossed [luɔ̯ks] ColinFine (talk) 14:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 22

language-correct description of size classes in statistical tables

Hi everyone, I am looking for the correct or best description of size classes in statistical tables, e.g. age groups. I have found those in use:

0 up to below 5
…
30 up to below 35
35 and more

and another version with "to under" instead of "up to below".

I'm not looking for a simplified version as in

30 to 34
35 and more

or even with a dash (–) instead of "to".

Since I'm not a native speaker of English (but instead of German) I am asking the native speakers here for correct English :-) Specifically for the correct translation of the widely used bis unter in German tables into English, such as in

0 bis unter 5

Greetings,--Ratzer (talk) 15:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you use the 30 to under 35 style, you'll be following the example of the 1820 United States census, so I suppose that way of writing the table is idiomatic for 1820, at least. You have excluded the more modern idiom of 30 to 34. I wonder why. Are you doing a search-and-replace job on a large table? Card Zero (talk) 20:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]