Language desk
< July 21	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 23 >

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.

July 22

How do languages change?

How and why do languages change over time? By this I mean what is the mechanism that causes the small changes to occur in a language that leads to its becoming a new language. For example when French split off from Latin, did one of the few people who were literate suddenly decide for instand "Maybe I'll spell sum as sus" and then later sus became suis (I'm just making this up, this isn't a real example). It's hard to understand because today's languages change differently than languages did back then since today while we constantly add vocabulary structure changes little because of regulation and communication (ie I don't think "I done be gone to the sto'" will replace "I went to the store" anytime soon!) And unrelated note what is it called when one uses "done <verb>" to express past tense rather than "have" or just inflecting the verb to the preiterate. 76.199.166.85 (talk) 00:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The basic way that languages change is that a pronunciation that isn't completely standard (but what is standard?) starts becoming widespread within a language group. After a while it becomes the normal way to pronounce that sound/word/phrase. The same thing happens with syntax. Some people start saying something with a slightly different order of words. It's not the normal way to say it, but it's still understandable. After a while, most people are using the new way to say it, and the old way sounds old fashioned, or even wrong. It's not about spelling, or even writing. The spelling only represents what people are saying (well, in the past it did - it's more complex now). Widespread literacy is a relatively new concept, and a standard, correct way of speaking and writing is even newer. Steewi (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But that begs the question: Why do "some people start saying something with a slightly different order of words", or slightly different words? Sometimes the new way sounds more euphonious or less fussy or more direct, and that's basically a good thing as long as it doesn't violate some sacrosanct precept. But sometimes it's simple ignorance. I don't mean that pejoratively, except insofar as the degree to which teaching of language is inadequate. For example, once upon a time, people used the subjunctive case far more widely than they do today. They'd say "If he go ..." rather than "If he goes ...", or "If I were to do that ..." rather than "If I was to do that ...", and similar examples. But it was also reinforced by being taught at school. Nowadays, who gets taught about mood? or voice? or tense? or case? or even nouns, verbs, prepositions and adjectives? There may be good reasons why these basic building blocks of the language are at best glossed over nowadays, but the outcome is still that users of the language make it up as they go along to a much greater degree than they once did. Again, that freedom of expression may be considered a good thing by some people. But some would see it as a needless abrogation of discipline and solid foundations that worked well for centuries. I am not arguing that we should go around talking and writing as if we lived in 1850. But language change can occur to its heart's content without the need for an abandonment of the teaching of the basic principles on which all language rests. Thus endeth today's lesson. Go in peace. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 05:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure this question was asked just a week or two ago. Anyway, there are lots of books and articles specifically on this topic; for something relatively fun, and accessible to a reader without a linguistic background, I would recommend John McWhorter's The Power of Babel. Most introductory linguistics textbooks also have a chapter about this (look for historical linguistics and language change). rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The evolution of language is a reasonable analogue to biological evolution, in that it becomes "localized", i.e. it changes to meet the environment, in this case to meet the needs of the people who use it. A simple example would be the growing trend to use "they" instead of "he or she", which purists hate, but "they" is just less awkward than "he or she". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question I like to ask is, when did "forecastle" get to be pronounced like "folks'll" instead of like "forecastle"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're neglecting the fact that having a single "official" language standard with dictionaries and grammar guides is a relatively modern concept, and prior to that time most people weren't literate. Traditionally, language standards were passed more-or-less informally from one generation to the next, like a long-term game of Chinese whispers. This, combined with the fact that most people didn't get more than 10-20 miles from their birthplace, lead to gradual drift of languages, to the point where the language spoken in one town could vary quite a bit from the language spoken a days journey down the road. It wasn't that any particular change was "better", or was deliberately made in reference to some official standard, it's just gradually different. -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it becomes localized. If the Roman Empire had had television, we would probably all speak Latin instead of English (which itself is kind of a stepchild of Latin). Yet that Latin also would have evolved over time. If you read or listen to English from a hundred years ago, it's somewhat different from today, despite the availability of mass media in the last century. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Historical linguistics and Category:Historical linguistics. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is "done been gone", not "done be gone" as Google will clearly show. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See, there's a wrong way of speaking the wrong way, and a right way of speaking the wrong way. :) -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 22:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google translate errors - reliable references etc required

Please excuse this link to another desk - topic spans two disciplines - please see Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing#Google_translate_errors as per this question title heading if you can be of use. Thank you. 77.86.76.47 (talk) 02:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Latin translation

At Netherland Line, the motto Semper Mare Navigandum is translated as "Always sail the seas". Is this strictly correct in terms of the tense/mood (or whatever the correct term is) of "Navigandum"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.87.236 (talk) 03:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"navigandum" is a gerundive. The phrase could more literally be translated as "the sea is always to be sailed" or "the sea should always be sailed". ---Sluzzelin talk 03:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would translate it as: "The seas are always for sailing." 92.229.13.132 (talk) 08:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will not change the article myself, but if it needs changing then perhaps someone else would do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.162.10 (talk) 13:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being a shipping line's motto, would "Always Sailing the Sea" be both correct and more apposite? [Disclaimer, my formal Latin lessons ended around 40 years ago.] 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be more like Semper mare navigans or Semper mare navigante. (But my last Latin lesson was 30 years ago, so I'm not much better.) Marco polo (talk) 19:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might it be translated "Forever to sail the sea"? Marco polo (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That could work too. There really isn't a snappy one-word equivalent to the Latin gerundive, so sometimes the English equivalent has to be creative. ("Mare navigante" wouldn't work though, that would mean "while the sea is sailing" or similar, and the sea can't sail itself!) By the way, another famous use of the gerundive is from Harry Potter, "draco dormiens nunquam titillandus", and that gerundive could be translated numerous ways as well. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Online Conversations for Language Learning

This fall I am traveling to South America and would like to brush up on my Spanish language skills. A friend told me he knew a woman who learned French in a few months through Skype, so I looked for this sort of thing on the Internet. I found several sites (listed below) that allow users to converse with other language learners, and I wondered if anyone here had any experience with these or other sites or had any suggestions about this sort of language learning. Thanks. --Think Fast (talk) 03:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I personally use SharedTalk quite often, but only for text chat - I'm not into voice chatting or 1 on 1 conversations so I use the group chatrooms usually. It's good because you are guaranteed to get almost exclusively people who are interested in learning the language (or your language) and not people who join just to play around trolling or looking for webcam sex like on ICQ and other chats. As far as I can remember, there is a chatroom for Spanish learners. You can also find speakers of Spanish and contact them (through the one on one chat facility). This one I can recommend. As for the others, I have no idea. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 05:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Word meanings

"Turn down a glass" appears to be an expression used by Americans (U.S.A.) What does it mean?---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.37.101.50 (talk) 08:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It means saying "No, thank you" to someone offering you a glass of wine. Turn down = say "no thank you." 92.229.13.132 (talk) 10:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"turn down" = "refuse", if you ask me; "politely turn down" would equate to saying "no, thank you", but not even that, because you can't say "I'm politely turning down this glass" instead of saying "no, thank you" - so the equivalency only goes one way Rimush (talk) 12:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has a physical meaning - turning the glass upside down tells whoever is pouring wine not to fill one's glass. Zoonoses (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do people do that in the states? Here (in the UK) you would put your hand over the glass when the person with the bottle came round if you wanted to physically indicate that you didn't want a top-up. --Tango (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In OZ beer drinking culture it has another meaning (perhaps only well-understood in certain pubs) - an empty upright glass means you'd like a re-fill, an empty sideways glass means you're done drinking, and an upside down glass is a challenge to the bartender to a fight. Zoonoses (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are some pockets of Oz culture where an upturned beer glass means you're offering to shout the entire bar. If you do not honour that offer, even though you had no idea of the meaning of this action, you're in big trouble. So I've heard. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Mistress Masham's Repose, by T.H. White, the main character "turned down an empty glass" in response to a toast to people she had every reason to dislike. White is thoroughly British (wrote "The Once and Future King"), and the setting is thoroughly British, so there's no US influence here. So I think the meaning of refusing to have the glass filled (for some reason) must not be limited to the United States.

rc (talk) 05:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The aspirate doesn't have an aspirate.

Is it only me? I have noticed that recently (last few years only) more and more people when spelling a word will pronounce the name of the letter 'H' as "haitch" rather than "aitch". The name of the letter has always, to my knowledge, been spelled 'Aitch' and, as such, has no aspirate. I hear this (mis?)pronouciation even from educated people these days.

Am I alone in noticing this - and does everyone agree that there is no aspirate when pronouncing the name of the letter 'H'?

Gurumaister (talk) 12:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In British English, "haitch" is a long-standing pronunciation which I have always considered dialect, uneducated or idiosyncractic. It's not that uncommon, but I can't say I've particularly noticed an increase in its use in recent years. 86.174.162.10 (talk) 13:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

This is canvassed at H:Name in English. Some people do indeed aspire when they say the name of H. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Northern Ireland it's a shibboleth - Protestants pronounce it aitch and Catholics pronounce it haitch. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 21:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A common cliché (stemming from a degree of actuality) in 19th- and early 20th-century writing portrayed lower-class characters who were attempting to sound more genteel as continuing to drop initial 'h' as they normally would (and as I do in casual register), but adding superfluous initial 'h' to words beginning with vowels. As the letter H is pronounced in Standard English roughly "aitch", the latter produced "haitch." 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never hear this in the United States. Marco polo (talk) 19:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Negative words for male whores

There are many, many words for a woman who has multiple sexual partners, all of them having negative connotations (whore, slut, harlot, hooker, bint, slag, etc) but there are no negative words for a man who has multiple sexual partners (stud, player, bro, playboy, ladies man, etc). So list me some negative words for a man who has multiple sexual partners. TheFlamingFlager (talk) 13:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't necessary say that "player" is a neutral word -- I'd certainly say it depends upon cultural emphasis and social mores. And perhaps it's related to ancient Judeo-Christian religious sentiments that banned multiple partners for women but not for men. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More like cultural double standards -- Christianity in itself is opposed to adultery by both men and women. AnonMoos (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adultery would refer to prohibited relationships -- my point was that early Judeo-Christianity permitted polygamy while prohibiting polyandry. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First off, the word you're looking for is "polygyny". Second, I really fail to see what polygamy has in common with promiscuity and man-whoring. Third, Christianity has far more often than not forbidden polygyny. While Judaism has historically allowed polygyny, for at least the past 800 years or so it has been quite uncommon except in a few rather remote and isolated communities. In fact, I'm rather unsure what the purpose of your original comment was. AnonMoos (talk) 19:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TheFlamingFlager -- "Gigolo" can certainly have negative connotations in some contexts... AnonMoos (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You sometimes hear a word like "tart" being aimed at men, although its use here is kind of ironical. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 14:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dog is a recent one (1950s) and more recently (etymonline says 1997!) we have horndog. The connotations totally depend on usage, of course. After all, a tart is a lovely thing, and it was originally a term of endearment, and bint just meant "girlfriend". Slut isn't exactly respectful, but it's merely literal in origin. Dog and horndog might well sound somewhat like compliments, but then so might the words for women, as culture changes; whereas if we get a lot of male prostitutes living in desperate conditions... oh that reminds me: rentboy. 213.122.25.52 (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For an older one, there's rake (originally positive, then turned negative). ---Sluzzelin talk 14:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promiscuity mentions womanizer. (As does your link in the first sentence, sorry.) 213.122.25.52 (talk) 15:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

manwhore does not have very positive connotations. --Soman (talk) 15:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me of a song from Finian's Rainbow called "When the Idle Poor Become the Idle Rich"[1] which includes this: "When a rich man chases after dames, he's 'a man about town'; but when a poor man chases after dames he's a bounder, he's a rounder, he's a rotter, and a lot of dirty names." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Slut" is increasingly used to describe males. Example: This Dan Savage column. I have no evidence whether the connotations are identical in any particular culture. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the paucity of negative terms for a male who 'puts it about' excessively says (sadly) a lot about the social perception of that behaviour. Richard Avery (talk) 07:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone has mentioned the names used in Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo. It has been a long time since I've seen the movie, so the only names that come to mind are "He-Bitches" and "Manginas". Mangina is used interchangeably to refer to both the man and his plumbing. There are plenty of other gems to be had throughout the movie. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Me, I see the perjorative view of female putting-it-about as the sad thing.93.97.21.17 (talk) 01:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Equivalent word for illegible with respect to images

Hi! I'm writing a letter the full background of which is not relevant. I am trying to say something like "...pages 7-8, submitted by NAME, are illegibly reproduced photograph copies. I am enclosing legible copies to replace these, so that the your material more closely resembles the original." However, legible/illegible to me denotes the ability or inability to decipher text, and does not quite work for photographs. I can't think of the right equivalent word for a photograph/image. Can you help?--173.68.39.173 (talk) 14:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Indistinct" is probably your best bet, with "clear" for the second bit. Could also go with unclear/clear. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 14:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your response but I don't think "indistinct" conveys the right meaning. It implies that I'm referring to a different photograph/image, that I'm giving them a different one, not a clearer version. I'll go with illegible over that, even if it is a bit of a malaprop in application.--173.68.39.173 (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could also have indiscernibly or fuzzily, but I don't understand your objection to indistinctly. 213.122.51.122 (talk) 01:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, take out the "the" in "so that the your material". Rimush (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blurry? If the images is distorted and it is not obvious or in correct focus, this could be similar to illegible in practice. Aaronite (talk) 18:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I work in publishing, and I think the most usual word for this kind of image is unreadable. I know it usually means the same thing as illegible, but illegible applies pretty specifically to writing. Marco polo (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Usually with images they use more specific words depending on the actual effect: e.g. 'smudged', 'blurred', 'whited out', 'grainy'... I don't know of an over-arching word that covers all possible ways of obscuring the details of a picture. --Ludwigs2 20:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The word "illegible" is used in relation to reading. The word sought here is related to understanding images. After the eyes perceive an image, the brain interprets it. Something beyond seeing is involved, because one can see an image without discerning what it portrays. Perhaps the field of ophthalmology has a word, or even a set of words, for referring to the activity of the brain when it realizes what the eyes are seeing. Perhaps that same field also has a word, or even a set of words, for describing images which can not be clearly recognized by the brain. Therefore, I suggest that you read about ophthalmology and related topics, and also photography and related topics. If that does not answer your question, then at least you might have learned some things of interest to you. Also, someone in Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography (shortcut: WP:PH) might be able to help.—Wavelength (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Photography, with a link to this discussion.—Wavelength (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The direct equivalent would be "unrecognizable", I think. Looie496 (talk) 23:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That certainly sounds more everyday-speak to me. Without further context, I'd interpret "your photograph is unreadable" as "my soft- or hardware cannot process the data in any meaningful way" and I mean computer soft- or hardware, not the human brain. But I'll take Marco polo's word that it is also used in the OP's sense. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Legibility is distinguished from readability at Typography#Readability and legibility (permanent link here). Also, it is possible to recognize an image ("This is the picture which I bought last week.") without recognizing the people and things in the image ("Who is this and what is that?").—Wavelength (talk) 01:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other possibilities: indistinct, unintelligible --Traveler100 (talk) 06:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some links which might be helpful.

—Wavelength (talk) 14:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[On a tangent, you can see ambiguous images at Planet Perplex - Optical Illusions, ambiguous images, hidden pictures, upside downs. —Wavelength (talk) 15:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)][reply]

I have left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neuroscience, with a link to this discussion.—Wavelength (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Limes

Example: "Strawberry Limes" etc. What does the word "lime(s)" refer to? Derived from "Lime" like in "Key Lime Pie"? (although there is no lime in Strawberry limes" or "Limes" like "Smoothies" - i.e; description of consistencies? 62.241.105.149 (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably refers to the Lime fruit, which resembles a green lemon and tastes subtly different. Perhaps recipes such as the one you linked substitute lemon for lime because the latter juice is hard to obtain in some places, although it's well known in the UK and it's a staple in any competently stocked public bar. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for indications - but I'm not satisfied yet (I'm not a native speaker). It is "I'll have a Strawberry Limes!" , right? Is that plural or is "Limes" (how do you pronounce that - do you hear the "e"?) singular? Anybody knows, where the term (for non-lime-containing drinks) originated?? 62.241.105.149 (talk) 08:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that 87 is essentially correct. This recipe (see "Variation" at the bottom of the Kiwi Limes recipe) does use lime juice rather than lemon juice, and I'd take it as being more "authoritative" than the one you cite, if such a word could be used of such a thing. And I do construe limes as the plural of lime, though if I wanted the cocktail—which I don't, as it sounds rather unappealing—I would, in fact, say "I'll have a Strawberry Limes." Deor (talk) 11:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! And the waiter would NOT hear an "e" (in Limes) from you, right? Pronounciation like plural of "lime"? 62.241.105.149 (talk) 16:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, /laɪmz/. Deor (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Case closed. 62.241.105.149 (talk) 11:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of mercy is not strain'd

From Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice, 1596. PORTIA: The quality of mercy is not strain'd.

What does the "not strained" part mean, in 21st. century english? Thanks 92.29.124.244 (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

basically it means 'offered freely'. One cannot insist that another to be merciful (or engage in any other form of altruism), because that wouldn't be mercy at all, it would be something else. It's just like offering someone a gift, and then insisting that they 'owe' you - that's not a gift, but an obligation. --Ludwigs2 19:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it an analogy with physical strain, as in pulling on a rope, rather than straining something through a collander? Could it be paraphrased as "Mercy is not forced"? Thanks 92.29.117.211 (talk) 20:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consider "constrained", a different form of the word, which means "prevented" in a sample sentence, "I would like to run a mile, but I'm constrained by the fact that I lost a leg in an accident". Here "strained" — with an apostrophe to indicate that Portia should pronounce it as a single syllable, rather than "strain-ed" — means "forced", just as 92.29.117.211 says; in other words, "the quality of mercy is entirely voluntary". Nyttend (talk) 17:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was Audrey Hepburn a lesbian necrophiliac?

Ha! I thought that'd get your attention.

Now that I've had my fun, on to my real question. Is it necessary for a sentence to make sense in its own terms, or is it sufficient for it to make sense in its context? Let me give you an example of what I’m on about. Read the following sentence taken out of its context:

After she died in 1979, Wolders became the companion of Audrey Hepburn until her death in 1993.

Does that confuse you for a second? Did you at first think Wolders was some sort of necrophiliac, until you realised Audrey wasn't dead yet, so the "she" must be referring to some other woman? Or did you assume this "Wolders" was the "she", and Audrey Hepburn was the necrophiliac? And a lesbian necrophiliac at that?

Now put it in its context. From Robert Wolders:

He is most famous for his marriage to famed actress Merle Oberon in 1975. After she died in 1979, Wolders became the companion of Audrey Hepburn until her death in 1993.

Now it all makes perfect sense: the "she" was Merle Oberon.

Is it really necessary to rewrite the second sentence to make it totally unambiguous if read in isolation, or, realising it has no purpose or function in isolation, do we just let the context do the work and leave it in peace? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When the context is there I don't believe there is any need for a sentence to be disambiguated in anticipation of it being read in isolation. If we spoke/wrote every sentence that way language would become very clumsy. (For example, that last sentence would have to be rewritten to identify what "that way" refers to.) Obviously, if one were to quote the sentence without the preceding text, it would be necessary to provide the lost information:

After [Merle Oberon] died in 1979, Wolders became the companion of Audrey Hepburn until her death in 1993.

Even that example assumes that the identity of Wolders is understood in the sentence's new context. If not, it may be that one would write [Robert] Wolders instead. AJ Cham 21:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree in principle with AJCham (pronouns routinely are unambiguously used in sentences other than the ones in which their antecedents appear), in this particular case I think "After Oberon died in 1979 ..." would be clearer and would read better. Deor (talk) 00:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Deor that anywhere the antecedent of a pronoun is the least bit ambiguous, the pronoun should be replaced with a noun. In this case, even though careful attention to the context makes the meaning clear, a reader not paying careful attention might forget for a moment that Wolders is a man and have a momentary shock that Hepburn was a lesbian necrophiliac, or the reader might think that Wolders was the necrophiliac and puzzle for a moment over how Hepburn could have died twice. This kind of thing will cause some readers to pause for a moment in shock and search back through the context to figure out what is really going on. Better to make it easy for the reader by avoiding any ambiguity. Marco polo (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

semicolon before "after" is what I was taught to do..83.100.252.126 (talk) 00:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not in all cases, but it would fit in this case. Yes, I think I'll mention Oberon's name and also use a semi-colon. Thanks for all the suggestions, dear colleagues. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Name numbers" for monarchs?

Is there a technical term for the numbers that monarchs get at the end of their names, like Queen Elizabeth II, or Henry V? EditorInTheRye (talk) 22:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I know they are called roman numerals, but is there a specific name for the practise of putting them at the end of names? EditorInTheRye (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They used to be called "regnal numbers", but lately that's morphed into "monarchical ordinal". -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Regnal number" will do nicely. I suspect "monarchical ordinal" is a phrase invented by a Wikipedian to title our article (is there a term for such a wiki-coinage?). --Cam (talk) 04:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does get some ghits that are not WP mirrors. And it does appear in dictionaries. But I'm with you: "regnal number" was used for centuries, so why do we suddenly need to start using a less plain English term, for the sake of ... god knows what? -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 05:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't go quite far enough. Maybe "monarchical hierarchical ordinal". If they really want to get technical and maniacal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But since when was "ordinal" ever used as a noun, in the sense of a type of number? It's only ever an adjective in this sense, AFAIK. But that doesn't mean I would for a moment accept "monarchical hierarchical ordinal number" over "regnal number". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Ordinal number and http://www.onelook.com/?w=ordinal&ls=a, "ordinal" is used as an adjective and a noun.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]