Language desk
< August 4	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 6 >

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.

August 5

Using a lower case letter for all caps names containing "Mc" or "Mac"

What's the rule for using a lower case letter when spelling names in all caps? Would you spell a name like "MCQUEEN" or "McQUEEN"? --70.167.58.6 (talk) 00:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking from the personal viewpoint of an affected individual, the second version is preferable; the first is almost offensive, like a misspelling. Unfortunately, it is also uncomfortably common. Also note, if you are putting the names alphabetically, M', Mc and Mac are sorted together and come before Mad. Gwinva (talk) 00:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To back up the above with a citation, the Oxford Guide to Style (p. 103) "However spelt, any name so prefixed is treated as Mac in alphabetical arrangement. Forms of Mc - [eg] McCarthy, McNaughton - are sometimes formed using a turned comma (opening quotes): M'Carthy, M'Naughton: this is an extension of an earlier abbreviation using a superscript c: M^cCarthy. [...] while some newspapers employ this convention in all-capital headlines, it produces a better effect if the c or ac are put in lowercase or small capitals: McCARTHY MACNAUGHTON." Gwinva (talk) 00:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Usage in the UK and the US may differ, especially on matter of sorting. Will Beback talk 00:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My last name is M^cClanahan. I was taught to underline the small c. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 00:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's theNew York Times Manual of Style and Usage:

Mac, Mc. When a name with either prefix occurs in all upper-case context of any kind, including a headline, lowercase the c or ac; if lowercase type is unavailable use small capitals: MACARTHUR, MCCLELLAN. Alphabetize such names as if all the letters were lowercase: Mabley, MacAdam, Maynard, McNeil.

So that addresses both issues as far as American usage. Will Beback talk 00:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

translation from estonian wikipedia

would someone please help me by translating the wikipedia entry on Paul Menesius (1637-1694), which only appears in the Estonian Wikipedia, into either English, German, Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, French or Italian 92.29.78.88 (talk) 09:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Paul Menesius I'm not sure if properly this page should be titled "Paul Menzies"

Also is he the related to List_of_Provosts_and_Lord_Provosts_of_Aberdeen 1635

I've left out the section on the meeting with the pope, though it is probably the most important bit - since I'm not sure that it's not covered elsewhere.

Please check , improve , and complete.HappyUR (talk) 15:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you apparently speak Estonian, could you also answer at #The meaning of "Kohad" in different languages above? No such user (talk) 07:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Logical connective

We have "and", "or", "iff", and so on as logical connectives; these serve to make multiple sentences one compound sentence. My question is what we might call a sentence that is absolute and unconditional in its meaning – for example, the unfettered "You are wrong", as opposed to "You are wrong, or I am wrong", "You are wrong, and it cannot be ignored", or "If it rains, you are wrong". I might be seeking a term where none exists, but if we are going to have all these logical connectives, should we not have a "non-connective"? Be aware that I have limited experience in this area. Thanks. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to David Crystal's Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language, 2nd edition, page 216: "Sentences which consist of just one clause (pattern of elements) are said to be simple sentences." Mitch Ames (talk) 12:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pleiades in Old English and Celtic languages

Hi friends. Can anyone help me find the name of the Pleiades in a few other languages - I'm looking for the word in Old English, Irish, Scottish Gaelic, and/or Welsh, and especially an interested in the etymologies. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 11:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1]

"To many of the northern peoples of ancient Europe, the Pleiades were known as the "Sieve", (an Criathar to the Irish)"

also The Pleiades : Griglean, Grioglachan, Meanmnach (in Irish)

From [2]

The Hen and Chicks. (Old English, Old German, Russian, Czech and Hungarian)

and Freya's hens. (Viking)

(I can't guarantee the accuracy of the celtic/irish info since it's all double-dutch to me.)83.100.250.79 (talk) 13:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how useful this would be, but we also have Pleiades in folklore and literature. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to this page, the Pleiades have a variety of names in Modern Irish, all of them singular: an Phléadach (same etymology as the English), an tÉillín (the little brood or clutch of eggs), an Streoillín (the straggly little line), an Tréidín (the little herd or flock). +An gr 05:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone for the references and the help, I appreciate it. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 00:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the meaning?

I can not understand the meaning of the bold texts. Could you explain it in another words? Thank you.

So long as man is interested in his long past history, in the vicissitudes which our early forerunners passed through, and the varying fare which overtook them.

--61.213.94.52 (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(This is quoted in Piltdown Man.) I wonder if "fare" is a typo for "fate", or more idiomatically "fates", giving the meaning of "various things that happened to them". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, (at least that is the meaning), though it may not be a typo, but slightly archaic use - thinking of "How did the day fare with you?", not sure.83.100.250.79 (talk) 16:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but that's a verb, and in the sentence it's a noun. It must be a typo; otherwise it sounds like it's referring to food. +An gr 16:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our ancestors got tired of running and caught a bus, only to have to get off when the rate went up after they crossed into a different transit zone. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Just what I was thinking. The word that threw me was "vicissitudes", which is not in my day-by-day vocabulary. It means changes for better or worse over time. A colloquial way of saying it would be "ups and downs". "Varying fare" wouldn't refer to fate, as it would be redundant. "Fare" is often used for the list of foods available at a restaurant (menu, or "bill of fare"), so "varying fare" could be expressed colloquially as "feast or famine". Basically using fancy schmancy words to say that life has ups and downs, feasts and famines. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That interpretation doesn't work for me, because a collocation of fare = food and overtake is stretching plausibility to breaking point. With the varying fare which confronted them, I might just about wear it, but I'm confident it is a mistake for fate.

O.E.D:?--Radh (talk) 09:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Varying fate" as a statement doesn't really make sense, because it's a built in redundancy. But I have the answer, thanks to Webster (I don't have an OED). "Fare" as a word originally came from Anglo-Saxon and has to do with a "journey". Its use evolved into "the state of things" or "how things go", as in the expression, "How did you fare?" So "varying fare" means "varying state of things". By contrast, I would say "fate" is not a "journey", it's a destination. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense, that was acctually my first thought. The word is still used in other Germanic languages, in German it is "fahren" (verb) and "Fahrt" (noun), in Swedish it is "fara" (verb) and "färd" (noun). E.G. (talk) 23:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other forms in English include "farer" (one who travels) and "wayfarer"/"wayfaring", meaning traveling on foot, a transient. The "way" variant is probably better known due to the song that goes "I am a poor wayfaring stranger, traveling through this world of woe..." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statements versus promises

J. L. Austin is said to have pointed out that saying "I paint" is not the same thing as saying "I promise": When you say you paint, it's just a statement, but when you say you promise, it is a promise. So, when you say you paint, and you aren't, it is a lie. But what is it when you say you promise, but you don't have the sincere intention to actually follow up on it? — Sebastian — continues after insertion below

I guess to keep in line with Austin's speach-act theory you would have to insist on the fundamental difference between I lie (about a fact) and the different spaech-act I am in breach of a promise.--Radh (talk) 13:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's also a lie. Anything you say that you know is not the truth, is a lie. Therefore, if you're purporting to assure a person that you will do something ("I promise to eat 200 apples every day for the rest of my life"), or that something is the case ("I promise you that Henry VIII died in the 20th century"), but you know your statement is not true, then you're lying. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that it is not a statement. When you say "I promise to eat an apple" you are not making the statement that you are promising to eat an apple (which would be true, and thus not a lie), and you aren't making the statement that you are going to eat an apple (which you have no way of knowing the truth value of, and so can't be a lie: you might make the promise falsely, but be forced to eat an apple nonetheless) you are making a promise to eat an apple. A promise is a different kind of utterance from a statement, and only statements can be lies. As ColinFine notes below, Austin classifies this kind of utterance as being felicitous or infelicitous, rather than true or false. Algebraist 21:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meus arbitratus est, lingua quod iuret mea (Rudens, by Plautus)--pma (talk) 23:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mmh, my Latin is a bit rusty, and I don't have a Plautus translation at hand. All I understand is "My preference is my tongue which swears". That can't be right! Please help me with this. — Sebastian 21:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My reading: "[It] is my decision, the tongue that swears [is] mine." —Tamfang (talk) 16:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(afterthought) But iuret is subjunctive, so maybe: "...let my tongue swear it." —Tamfang (talk) 02:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This leads me to a real world question: The other day, I got a spam call from someone who wanted my opinion about their product. He said "We'd appreciate your opinion." So, I asked, "How so?" When he didn't know what I meant, I clarified that I grew up in a time when companies showed their appreciation with little incentives, such as sweepstakes. He just laughed and said: "No, we just appreciate your opinion." So, my question is: Is saying "I appreciate" the same as appreciating? — Sebastian 19:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From [3]: the company may value your comments. Your comment arises from the third definition (which is an either or) "To be thankful or show gratitude for". Appreciating does not necessarily imply showing tangible gratitude. -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to felicity conditions, it's an 'infelicitous performative utterance' (as it violates the sincerity condition). --ColinFine (talk) 20:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to believe Colin, but I am afraid that Alexandr may be right; if "I appreciate this" just means "Thinking about this gives me a warm fuzzy feeling" then the utterance probably counts as sincere. I appreciate your replies, and also the link to felicity conditions. Reading that gave me another question: According to Austin, the current usage as in "Country X warned country Y [that they will attack them if they do Z]" is still felicitous? I would have considered the usage of the word "warn" insincere; I would call that a threat, because the utterer cares more for their own wellbeing than for the other side's. — Sebastian 21:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the old expression, "That's not a threat, it's a promise!" Going through the other bits... If someone says, "I appreciate that", that's just a different way of saying, "Thank you." No promise of anything tangible other than the warm fuzzy. Although there might be something in it for them, if they can get you added to their spam list. It occurs to me that instead of saying, "How so?", which is a little vague, you could be blunt and to the point by saying, "What's in it for me?" That will either stop them in their tracks, or, more likely lead to a lengthy explanation of how wonderful their products are, and thus make you sorry you brought it up. Saying, "I paint" is not a promise to paint, it's merely a statement of their profession. It's also vague. They might be trying to leave you with the impression that they're an artist, whereas their job might just be painting stripes on the highways. So that's not a lie, but it's not the whole truth. Now, if they don't actually paint at all, then it's a lie - but it's a lie that doesn't necessarily matter, unless you've paid them to paint something for you. I'm reminded of this comment from Henny Youngman, whose brother-in-law claimed to be a "diamond cutter", when in fact his actual job was mowing the lawn at Yankee Stadium. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What a nice little diamond of a conversation! Actually, I did say "What's in it for me?" at some point, which was the clue that helped him understand my point. However, that wasn't quite true: That question isn't how I decide what to do with my time, or else I wouldn't spend so much time here at Wikipedia. — Sebastian 21:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be too sure about that. If you didn't get something out of being here, you wouldn't be here. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better word for "interrupted"

Resolved

A long time ago, I created the template {{tl|[[}}, but I'm now unhappy with the choice of word. There are many instances when it is not disturbing at all when someone else writes their opinion in between two paragraphs, as can be seen in the previous section. Do the language buffs on this page have a better word for it? — Sebastian 21:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not 100% what you mean Sebastian having looked at the template. In the paragraph above you could say that JackofOz "interjected" - is that closer to what you mean? -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's what I meant. I like your word, and I'll change the phrase to "..., which was interjected by the following". I don't think I've ever seen "to interject" used in the passive voice, but it seems correct to me. — Sebastian 23:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see what may be the source of your confusion: I can't change the text to active voice, as in "JackofOz interjected", because the template doesn't know who interjected the text, and I don't want to force people to add yet another parameter to say who did the interjecting. (Besides, it would not be reliable. E.g., it would become wrong if someone else squeezes in another reply.) — Sebastian 23:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've always liked the word "interstitial". Make a verb of it and call it a day. 82.234.207.120 (talk) 01:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I'm not usually known for interjecting, because I hate it when others interrupt me in mid-pontification (and I can't see that I have in fact been guilty of this shocking lapse of judgment in the thread above. Two questions were asked, and I replied to only the first one. Putting my reply at the end of the OP's post could have been confusing because it would have appeared to be a reply to the latter question, which it wasn't).

I sometimes ejaculate, though, as often as not ante-jentacularly. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 08:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TMI, Jack. +An gr 12:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Ejaculation (grammar). -- JackofOz (talk) 20:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank Wikipedia for disambiguation! — Sebastian 21:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Ejaculations are very natural in informal seminars. --pma (talk) 13:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Usually they're just spontaneous oral emissions, and because they're uttered without much thought, they are sometimes premature. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, there seems to be no better word, and Alexandr proposed in a private communication to reword the text as follows: "-- OriginalPoster - (continues after intermediary post(s) below)". Since this template is not only used when there are messages in between - there could e.g. be a headline - I think I'll use these words: "(continues after intermediary text below". That concludes the discussion here; any further discussion please on Template talk:interrupted. Thanks everyone! — Sebastian 21:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Silent G in Ecclesia Gnostica?

Is the G in Ecclesia Gnostica silent? Neon Merlin 23:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In English, the g is usually silent in the word gnostic. I suspect that the Ecclesia Gnostica would use that pronunciation, but have no contact with them. Steewi (talk) 00:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an English word with gn where the g is not silent? Gnome, wikt:gnaw, gnu - all silent gs. -- 128.104.112.100 (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rare, if the g and the n are next to each other but form parts of different syllables: agnostic -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

English syllable structure doesn't seem to tolerate many word-initial exotic clusters, e.g. Ptolemy, knight, psychic, Khmer and knish (I think these are usually pronounced with an epenthetic schwa by English speakers), Tlingit (often pronounced as "Klingit"), etc. Mo-Al (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, Ecclesiastical Latin uses Italian phonology, so gn should pronounced as /ɲ/. The gn sound is quite similar to the n in onion. --151.51.34.166 (talk) 11:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe more like the "gn" in "lasagna"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some gnostic celebrities have magnetic personalities. Others are more painful than a hangnail and you just want to through igneous rocks at them. An ignoble diagnosis, perhaps. (To be fair, my hunch is that 128.104.112.100 was thinking of words that begin with gn.) --- OtherDave (talk)