Language desk
< February 27	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 29 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 28

Hardenstein

I've got a stub worked up in my sandbox about the castle described in this German Wikipedia article. What would be the proper English translation of the title? Hardenstein? Hardenstein castle? Hardenstein Castle? Hardenstein ruins? Hardenstein castle ruins? None of the above? Thanks for any help. — Dulcem (talk) 03:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Short followup: A check of Category:Castles in Germany shows that there is apparently no standardization in the naming of German castle articles. I guess I can take my pick, though suggestions are still welcome. — Dulcem (talk) 04:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I've decided to put it at Castle Hardenstein, as that name gets exactly one more Google hit than the reverse does (when removing text swiped from Wikipedias). — Dulcem (talk) 05:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no strong opinion, but I believe one criterion to be considered is the usage of the words Castle v Schloss in published references in English. Neuschwanstein Castle is very famous, and English uses the translated name more often than not. Schloss Leonberg is not very famous, and here the German name might be preferable for en.wikipedia's lemma. (Interestingly, the article on Schloß Pötzleinsdorf even uses orthography before the German spelling reform of 1996 - Schloß instead of Schloss). Here are all the lemmas starting with Schloss (redirects are in italics). There's a similar discussion going on right now at Talk:Lake of Gruyère. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also consider that the terms Caste and Schloss (or Schloß) are not synonyms.

A castle is a medieval structure, real or faux architecture (as Neuschwanstein).
A Schloss is, typically, a Baroque building. The translation proper would be palace or - when smallish - mansion.

In Vienna, for instance, you will find the Hofburg (13th century) and Schloss Schönbrunn (construction 1696).

There seems to be some inconsistency in the titles. Ambras in the Tyrols is called Ambras castle in the en.wikipedia and Schloss Ambras in the de.wikipedia, for instance. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 09:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Schloss Hardenstein actually gets a few more hits than the other alternatives, but not to any English sites. I guess I'll just take the German Wikipedia's lead, which calls it "Burg Hardenstein". — Dulcem (talk) 09:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The solution Sluzzelin suggested is more or less the one (I) proposed on List of castles and fortresses in Switzerland. As far as I'm concerned, please avoid "Hard rock castle". -- User:Docu

precum in spanish

how do you say it, preeyaculado? i had trouble explaining this term while in latinaméricaCholga^talK! 03:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Wikipedia calls it líquido preseminal, and precum even redirects to that article. I suppose fluido de Cowper might work too. I don't know a colloquial word, but wordreference.com's forum offers some suggestions. --Sluzzelin talk 07:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

江宜玲 in english, pinyin etc

is it joyce chang?Cholga^talK! 03:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A google search suggests "Joyce Chiang". Chiang is more likely than Chang in any case, because the pinyin of the Chinese name is Jiāng Yílíng. See also 江宜玲 (links to wiktionary). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar: before me, or before I did?

Which is right here:

"You knew the answer before I did" or

"You knew the answer before me"?

I have a feeling it's the first choice, because "before" is acting like a subordinate conjunction and not like a preposition here, correct? I'm sorry, I really wasn't sure when I started typing this, but now I'm almost positive. I only submit this question know to make sure. Thanks in advance.

There is no right or wrong here. Both are seen, and both are commonly accepted. More pedants will object to the second sentence than to the ~~second~~ first [*ahem*], for what that's worth. The first sentence is more likely to turn up in formal contexts, and the second sentence in less formal contexts.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 04:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of there there's right here -- both versions are right.

If there are pedants who object to #2, they are seriously misguided. They are presumably "reasoning" from analogy with these sentences:

3. You are smarter than I am.

3A. You are smarter than I.

4. You are smarter than me.

among which they think that #4 is wrong because it uses "than" as a preposition. But even though they may think (wrongly) that "than" cannot be a preposition, nobody thinks that "before" cannot be a preposition.

--Anonymous, 05:02 UTC, February 28, 2008.

Quite so, Anonymous. They would be mere pendantasters, would they not? Not worthy of the badge. Nevertheless, since almost no pedant would object to the first sentence and some recreant pretenders would censure the second, what I say holds good, no? (Allowing for the digital slip that I have just corrected, that is.)

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 07:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, there are some situations (the original question isn't one of them) when writing "before" followed by a personal pronoun where you do have to be very careful in order to avoid ambiguity. "He urinated before me" could mean that he urinated in front of the speaker, splashing their shoes and trousers, or it could mean he urinated first, and then the speaker did. Context usually helps, but even with context it's not always absolutely clear what the writer's trying to communicate. If the second interpretation was the right one, to avoid any possible misinterpretation the writer would be duty bound to write "He urinated before I did". -- JackofOz (talk) 07:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that this specific "in front of" meaning of "before" is obsolete in the US. We understand it with difficulty in some contexts (e.g., swine and thrones), but if he urinated before me in the US, my only concern would be that he got it all in the urinal so I wouldn't have to stand in it when I got there. Nobody would say it that way if he meant "right in front of". Is that "before" really the usual way of putting that Down Under?

It's certainly still a current meaning in the UK. "He stood before me..." and other such constructions. Although it can sound a little formal, and I don't think it is used in all places "in front of" can be used. Skittle (talk) 12:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-How dare you fart before the Queen!

-I'm sorry, I didn't know it was her turn. 80.254.147.52 (talk) 11:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I rest my case. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

urinal in spanish

how do you call it in spanish, i wan't to translate the article.Cholga^talK! 04:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mingitorio or urinario. The interwikilink to Spanish Wikipedia was missing in the English article on urinal. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subject-verb agreement

1. What is the proper verb (singular or plural) when you have a noun and a parenthetical noun that differ in number?

2. What is the proper verb (singular or plural) when you have a compound subject, each of which differs in number?

3. What is the adjective / relative pronoun (singular or plural) when you have a compound subject, each of which differs in number?

1. I think that even one hazing incident (not to mention, the fraternity's three incidents) _____ inexcusable. Do we use "is" or "are" in this sentence? And why?

2. The parents or the child _____ required to show identification at the door. ( that is, 2 parents OR 1 child must do so ) Do we use "is" or "are" in this sentence? And why?

3. The parents or the child must show _____ identification at the door. ( again, 2 parents OR 1 child must do so ) Do we use "their" or "his" in this sentence? And why?

It is clear that any of these sentences can be rewritten to avoid this problem. Nonetheless, what is the correct grammatical form for these sentences as currently presented? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

For 1, the parenthetical text can be ignored, as if it weren't there. Solution - use "is". For the others, I'm ambivalent. -- JackofOz (talk) 10:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For 2, I think the answer is that there is no right answer. Neither "is" nor "are" is correct, so rewriting the sentence is not only possible but essential.

For 3, you don't need to use either. "Show identification" is fine on its own. But if you must use something, refer to the answer I gave to 2 above. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 10:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For 2 (and possibly applicable to 3, though I agree with Richardrj that the sentence is best recast), the usual advice in style manuals and grammar guides is that the verb should agree with the nearer of the parts of the compound—thus, "The parents or the child is required …" but "The child or the parents are required …" Deor (talk) 13:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? Neither of those sound like good English to me, although I stand to be corrected. Do you have a source for a style guide that says this? --Richardrj ^talk ^email 13:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll answer you from what I have at hand; most of my style guides are at my office. Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage (first ed., s.v. or) says, "If alternative members differ in number &c., the nearest prevails." In the examples given, such as "either he or you were"/"either you or he was," the difference happens to be in person rather than number, but the principle has been stated clearly. Words into Type (page 352, under "Plural and singular substantives joined by "or" or "nor") has "When a subject is composed of both plural and singular substantives joined by or or nor, the verb should agree with the nearer." Examples given include "Neither money nor men were lacking" and "Others are trapped by the fear that their interests or their property is being threatened." Deor (talk) 14:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For 3, "their" is the simple solution. But then you may be swooped upon by people who insist that Shakespeare was PC gone mad... Skittle (talk) 13:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to stay out of this. English isn't like Boolean algebra or anything; we fly by the seat of our pants a lot of the time. I think that natural speech in my part of the USA has it 1. "is", 2. "are", 3. "their". For number 1, "is" is the only way to go; basic grammar, dude. As for 2 and 3, I think we usually hear a plural when it's a compound subject, but not always. This time, though, yes. The "or" is construed like an "and" for counting. We get caught in these conundrums in speech, and we do our best at the time; we paint ourselves into a corner and just have to walk on the fresh paint to get out. Nobody dies. In writing, though, we should avoid such constructions wherever possible. --Milkbreath (talk) 13:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Green eye-shaded

What does green eye-shaded mean? I suspect it means something like "shrewd" or "penny-pinching". Bonus points if you can explain how it came about.

Here is the context:

They had two reactions," Stiglitz says wearily. "One was Bush saying, 'We don't go to war on the calculations of green eye-shaded accountants or economists.

from The Guardian [1] Dforest (talk) 08:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's explained in the article on green eyeshade. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating. How did I miss this? Dforest (talk) 09:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Japanese) イラク日本人青年殺害事件 in english

what does this say?Cholga^talK! 09:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Iraq Japanese Youth Killing Incident" --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Japanese young man killed in Iraq. 事件 is an incident or a case as User PalaceGuard008 translated, but I think it can be omitted. Oda Mari (talk) 14:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, in fiction, "事件" is often appended to the title of a case, and is often moved the front of the title when translated. So, if that was a fictional title, it would be something like "The Case of the Irag Japanese Youth Killing". ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's about this murder. Oda Mari (talk) 14:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Oh, I see. ja:イラク日本人青年殺害事件 is the article name of the en WP article above. Oda Mari (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

¡Ou!

Why is D'oh! translated into Spanish that way? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because that is the term used in the Spanish episodes of the Simpsons and is a relative equivalent of the vocalization in Spanish. D;oh was made up in English. But in Spanish it didn't make sense to borrow D'oh but the existing Ou to express annoyance or discomfort was close enough sounding and voilà!Cholga^talK! 09:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English to Vietnamese translations

How would you say, "He works exclusively for Falcon Studios and is famously one of the only men to have topped Matthew Rush." This is regarding this article.vi:Erik Rhodes (diễn viên khiêu dâm).Cholga^talK! 09:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have better luck asking in that article's talk page. I'm not sure about Vietnamese gay sex terms, I guess I can ask someone how to translate "top". For now, I'll leave that blank.

“

Anh chỉ hoạt động cho hãng Falcon Studios và nổi tiếng là một trong những người đàn ông duy nhất đã _________ Matthew Rush.

”

DHN (talk) 17:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simplest Sinoxenic Character

Which is the simplest sinoxenic character? In other words, which Sinoxenic character has the fewest strokes? Thanks.68.148.164.166 (talk) 11:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of the word "sinolexic", but by deconstruction assuming it to mean "Chinese word" -- then "一", pronounced "yi" in pinyin and meaning "one". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant sinoxenic and Sinoxenic. Does that change your response?68.148.164.166 (talk) 09:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

乙 also consists of only a single stroke. -- Visviva (talk) 12:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Sorry, I meant sinoxenic and Sinoxenic. Does that change your response?68.148.164.166 (talk) 08:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

That's one of the most enigmatic threads I've ever seen. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Sorry, I meant sinoxenic and Sinoxenic. Does that change your response?68.148.164.166 (talk) 08:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

That might be because 68.148 originally used the word "sinolexic" both in the subheading and in the question. Both occurrences were changed to "sinoxenic" after PalaceGuard had replied to the original question. See sinoxenic languages for which languages the querent is asking about (Bai, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, and Zhuang according to the article}. This is why it is better to strike out your error and add the correction when someone has already responded. Now people might think PalaceGuard is ~~dysxenic~~ dyslexic.---Sluzzelin talk 11:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Sorry, I meant sinoxenic and Sinoxenic. Does that change your response?68.148.164.166 (talk) 08:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Woe is me. =( --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Sorry, I meant sinoxenic and Sinoxenic. Does that change your response?68.148.164.166 (talk) 08:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

"Sinoxenic" excludes Chinese, but the one-stroke character "一" is also used in Japanese kanji, and I don't think you can get simpler than that. --Lambiam 14:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Sorry, I meant sinoxenic and Sinoxenic. Does that change your response?68.148.164.166 (talk) 08:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

I added my response after you changed "sinolexic" to "sinoxenic", and the response itself uses the term "sinoxenic" and refers to its meaning ("sinolexic" would definitely not exclude written Chinese), so no, that does not chnage my response. --Lambiam 09:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, but maybe it depends on exactly how the term is defined. 乙 and 一 both occur in Korean (and Japanese), although 一 is certainly much more common. Both can occasionally occur in isolation, 一 as "1," and 乙 as "B" in contracts etc. -- Visviva (talk) 08:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Sorry, I meant sinoxenic and Sinoxenic. Does that change your response?68.148.164.166 (talk) 08:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

I don't know old Zhuang (sawndip), but can we also approach the question from another direction? Given that we've identified "一" as our upper limit in terms of complexity, how would we describe a character that is "simpler" than that? My view is that the only thing that can be simpler than "一" would be a dot, something like "•". Is that a meaningful character in any of these languageS? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was getting really annoying. I lined out the ad nauseum repetition.

Yes, <丶> is a character, with its own pronunciation. I think that counts as simpler than <一>. However, I think it is only used to refer to itself, the way single hangul are used in Korean. kwami (talk) 09:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yoon

Before yoon were diminished in size, did yoon follow only after [i] morae/graphemes/sylables/kana?68.148.164.166 (talk) 10:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand the question, so I don't know to what extent the following is an answer. In actual use, a yōon always follows a kana ending in the sound i and forms one mora with it. The kana used as yōon are diminished versions of standard kana; used in normal size, they are a mora by themselves, also when following a kana ending in i. For example, キヤ "Kiya" is the 2-mora name of a brand of lingerie. --Lambiam 14:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking whether the change from キヤ to キャ historically preceded the introduction of combinations like ティ? I think it did, but I'm not certain. -- BenRG (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are mixing phonetics with orthography, which makes answering your question a little difficult. Yōon are phonetic sounds and were never "diminished in size"; only the orthography used to express them later diminished them by size. So I will attempt to mix to the two together in an attempt to answer your question.

While the English language article Yōon only lists the the palatal -j, historically and also dialectically there was also a labial -w. For example, kwazi "fire" which once contrasted with kazi "house chores". The palatal -j only followed the orthographic -i. However, the labial -w followed the orthographic -u. Bendono (talk) 09:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Followed? I'm confused.Asrghasrhiojadrhr (talk) 06:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

/Cj/ and /Cw/ were, I believe, first found in Chinese loans, and only later spread to native words, rather like /ʒ/ in English. Regardless, they've been around for a millennium. ティ and the like come from English (and perhaps other European languages) and are very recent; there are many people who cannot pronounce them 'correctly'. Orthographically, I don't know if they were ever used other than as yōon, but my guess would be no. However, くわ certainly was. kwami (talk) 09:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic versus Muslim

Can anyone advise me on the proper usage of these two terms? I have, at different points in my career, heard different opinions on their appropriateness. Several years ago, a colleague of mine who is an Islamist told me that Muslim should be used (as an adjective or noun) only when referring to people who are adherents of Islam, whereas Islamic should be used in all other contexts (e.g., Muslim worshipers, but Islamic civilization). More recently, I have been told that Muslim advocacy groups prefer that the term Islamic be restricted to features of the religion itself and that all worldly things produced by Muslims come under the term Muslim (e.g. Muslim civilization). Can anyone offer arguments for one or the other of these views, or for yet another view? Should it be Muslim civilization or Islamic civilization? Thanks. Marco polo (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first way, I would say, especially because Muslim literally means someone who adheres to Islam. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a noun, Muslim means: a person who adheres to Islam. Therefore, when used as a modifier, it should mean: "pertaining to adherents of Islam". So it is quite reasonable to use the Muslim community as an English phrase for the Ummah. I'd prefer Muslim doctors over Islamic doctors; the former refers to doctors who happen to be adherents of Islam, while the latter has the connotation of doctors practising some Islamic form of medicine, which is presumably not intended. Conversely, I'd prefer Islamic court over Muslim court if the idea is that the court bases itself on Islamic law. This is not a matter of political correctness, but of the normal rules of assigning meanings to English phrases. I'd say that you can legitimately use either the Muslim world or the Islamic world, where the choice should depend on what you want to convey. If you want to convey the fact that this is the world formed by Muslim people, go with the former; if you mean the world of Islam, go with the latter. If you can call America a Christian country, then Turkey is a Muslim country but not an Islamic country.

For civilization, assuming you are referring to the civilization that came forth from the Islamic Renaissance, I have a mild preference for Islamic civilization. You can also say: the Golden Age of Islam, while the Golden Age of Muslims sounds weird to me. It is true that this civilization was produced by people, the vast majority of whom were Muslims. Nevertheless, the meaning to me is not "the civilization formed by Muslims". Rather, it is the civilization that came forth from the Islamic Empire, which was a caliphate, based in Islamic theology. But if enough people prefer Muslim Empire, I'll eventually follow; the meaning of words is grounded in how people use them and not in linguistic considerations.

See also the section Islamic Golden Age#Criticism of Ascribing the Golden Age to Islam, but note that the objection expressed there to the term Islamic civilization equally applies to Christian civilization; in fact, the argumentation can be turned into a stronger objection to Muslim civilization, as the latter would even more strongly tend to exclude the contributions of non-Muslims to the Islamic Renaissance. --Lambiam 15:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of their use as adjectives - is there any difference between 'ismlamic' and 'muslim'? I can't detect any, except on the level of how it feels to say either. Does one seem more respectful than an other for instance. (I must say that 'islamic' sounds more historical, more cultured, and more general than 'muslim' which seems for personal, modern, and human.) So is there any reason why I shouldn't use either (as an adjective) with no fear of making a mistake?87.102.84.112 (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also would not some of the answers given above be likely to change quite quickly eg cf 'black' and 'negro'; both of which mean exactly the same thing except one will offend the other delight?87.102.84.112 (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not likely. With negro, the word changes because people start using it pejoratively. The same thing happens with whatever word refers to the mentally challenged. Idiot, then and retarded used to not have negative connotations. In addition to people not using Muslim pejoratively (Islamifascist seems to be the epithet of choice), I'd imagine that there are enough pedantists to ensure that changing the meanings of muslim and islamic would take a while. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 16:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would use either, there are good points made in favor of Muslim, however precedent would pressure you to use Islamic as would be the "correct" term, especially with regards to a paper.Cholga^talK! 22:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to describing individuals, you have to be careful. A person may be called Ahmed Abdul Mohammed, and have been born in Saudi Arabia, but for all anyone knows could be a Christian, Buddhist, Jew or atheist. Describing him, without knowledge of his personal beliefs, as "a Muslim doctor" or "an Islamic chef", just because of his name, origin and appearance, may be way off the mark. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I would never presume to ascribe a religion to someone without first consulting reliable sources! Marco polo (talk) 01:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that "Islamist" almost always denotes something much different to "an adherent of Islam". It generally denotes someone who is an ideologue of Islam as a political system, and often implies extremism and/or militancy. --Sean 15:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Massachusetts

I support Obama, so I'm not trying to beat up on him: but is it just me, or does he pronounce my home state's name as [ˌmæsəˈtʰusəts], "Massatoosetts"? Many people have commented on this, but it's hard for me to tell definitively whether he's really using a plosive, or just a strange, weak sort of affricate there. What do you think? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard him say it, but I do know there are lots of people who pronounce it that way, so maybe he's one of them. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

spelling of h'or dourve/h'ors dourves

How do you spell these correctly, and where is the article for this item?Cholga^talK! 22:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hors d'oeuvre--Eriastrum (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except that's a redirect to Hors d'œuvre, which then uses "d'oeuvre" throughout the article. A rather emotive naming debate too! So what do our linguists here think? Hors d'oeuvre or hors d'œuvre? -Gwinva (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC) p.s. I knew that was a redirect since I recently learnt a nifty trick to make redirects green instead of blue. Gwinva (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In English, we don't use œ generally, like æ. In fact, it's rather non-standard to use letters outside the usual 26. That's not to say that using æ and œ is wrong, but rather it comes across as quirky, and perhaps a little arrogant, like showing off. For this reason I say keep it as 'oe' rather than 'œ', but I'm not a hardliner. Plus, most people use English based keyboards without a simple shortcut to write æ, œ, etc. without resorting to Alt+X combinations, so it will be the more common search. Steewi (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seldom seen the OED so out of step with the AHD. We Americans know what an or durve is, and the French are free to spell and pronounce and indeed pluralize it any way they want back home. The ligature is passe [sic]. (I am not a linguist.) --Milkbreath (talk) 00:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was not there a time when the English language was enriched with terms like "Freedom Fries" ? Correct me if I am wrong, but this is about French letters, nést-ce pas? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 00:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what it's about. I just want to be able to type in English without a having to have a toolkit for it. Maybe Steewi isn't a hardliner, but I am. --Milkbreath (talk) 00:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you, Milkbreath. The d'œuvre version would never be used by an English-language newspaper, my benchmark for such things (note, I didn't say standard). Whether the letters o and e are tied or not, they're still counted as 2 letters, so why confuse people with antiquated typography that just makes the outcome of debates such as the one Gwinva referred to make Wikipedia seem silly and pompous. Ban all ligatures, I say - that's everywhere, for all time, in all circumstances. What other languages do is their own affair, and if we borrow words from them, we're free to re-spell them in our own English-language way. We drop the acutes, graves, circumflexes, and cedillas from French-source words - because they're not part of the English language - so I just can't understand the resistance to removing the ligature in this case (the argument was that we borrowed hors d'œuvre from French, so we have to spell it precisely as they do - to which I opine "Bollocks"). If some cookbooks want to spell it with the ligature (and most don't), that's their choice - but the rest of the anglophone world is not required to comply. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hear hear! Gwinva (talk) 01:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On an OED note, while the biggie has "d'œuvre" the Concise has only "d'oeuvre". Gwinva (talk) 01:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since horse is a regular English word it should be noted that for the plural you can use the regular horses d'oeuvre.

Why not spell it appetizers? — Kpalion^(talk) 12:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]