Language desk
< July 24	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 26 >

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 25

Plural of names

A line in Wikipedia was recently changed from "Albert I, II, and IV were rhesus monkeys while Albert III was a cynomolgus monkey." to "Alberts I, II, and IV..." (Note, I believe I wrote the original.) I notice both forms used in Google when I searched for Richard I, II, and III. Is there any grammar rule about this? Rmhermen (talk) 00:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is stylistic. There is nothing wrong with the new edit grammatically. The first option is leaving out the repeated word Albert while the second option is treating the Alberts as a class with indviduals identified by their numbers. Given that we're using Roman numerals then, the original singular form was probably better, unless there were a bunch of Betties, for example, in which case the edit was a big improvement. You should provide a link to the article. μηδείς (talk) 01:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between:

James I and VI was a good king, and
Georges II and V were the only sane monarchs of Slobovia.

The second sentence could not be written as "George II and V were the only sane monarchs of Slobovia" without losing sense. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 02:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The solution where there is an ambiguous grammar problem is to rewrite the text to remove the ambiguity. For example, if one were trying to write about two different king James (numbered I and VI respectively), one could say something like "Both James I and James VI" or alternately "Two men named King James, numbered I and VI" There's really many options to remove the ambiguity. Why not say "There were several monkeys named Albert. Those numbered I, II, and IV were rhesus..." Or "Albert I, Albert II, and Albert IV were all rhesus monkeys" or something like that. --Jayron32 04:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ambiguity will disappear if the original article is identified. Comments about monarchs are entirely irrelevant, the monkeys are not pretenders. Either we do or do not have a bunch of Alberts getting, say, amphetamine, versus a bunch of Betties getting benzedrine, or we don't. Let's let the source speak. μηδείς (talk) 04:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with the source material; the OP has a question on how to deal with roman numerals following a name; it is obvious from the context that we are dealing with multiple monkeys, however the grammar is ambiguous when you write "Albert I, II, and IV" as to whether you mean "One monkey named Albert I, II, and IV" or "Three monkeys named Albert I, Albert II, and Albert IV". Since the question (rather than the grammar) makes it clear that the second meaning is intended, the solution is to write it out like that. --Jayron32 04:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Monkeys in space Bielle (talk) 04:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

missed that μηδείς (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in so far as edits related to articles have nothing to do with their sources you are absolutely right. μηδείς (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how "were rhesus monkeys" can be ambiguous with respect to non-singular nature of the monkeys. "Albert I, Albert II, and Albert IV" seems needlessly redundant. I was just questioning the use of Albert or Alberts. Rmhermen (talk) 03:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently the article is Monkeys in space. Given the context, the Alberts plural formulation is better. μηδείς (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bratskellar

What does the word "Bratskellar" mean? Native speakers assured me that it is not English, not German and not Swedish. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 10:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds Scandinavian. Where are you seeing it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I refer to the restaurant in Westwood (LA). Spelled Bratskeller in this article. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 10:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The word "brat", as in "bratwurst", refers to ground meat. I wonder if it means "meat cellar"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's (most probably) a pun on "Bratwurst" and "Ratskeller", meaning "council cellar" and quite a common name for traditional restaurants in old German cities (traditionally the restaurant in the basement of the city hall would be called "Ratskeller"). Either that, or whoever named the restaurant didn't know that much German -- Ferkelparade π 11:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect they wanted to call it "Ratskeller", but realized that has an unfortunate implication, in English, that there are rats in the cellar, so they modified it in a clever way to make it sound more appetizing, yet still quite obviously German. StuRat (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article says the Bratskeller was popular with university students, so maybe the brat part is more a reference to the personalities of the clientele. Angr (talk) 06:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I normally think of a "brat" as an unruly, disrespectful child, not a university-age student. StuRat (talk) 18:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, the article Ratskeller, StuRat's expertise on rats, Baseball Bugs' on brats, Ferkelparade's on puns and Angr's on brats all helped in answering this question. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Short Korean translation

I'd like to move this image from "IMG 9600.JPG" to a descriptive title, but its only caption is in Korean: 키르기스스탄 혁명 기념 추모행사, which Google renders as "Memorial events commemorating the revolution in Kyrgyzstan". Is this an accurate translation? Please note the existence of Koryo-saram — there are plenty of Koreans in Kyrgyzstan. Nyttend (talk) 12:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SP: "X by Y"

I would like to give Spanish translations of the English category names on Commons: " Churches in the United States by state (54 C) [+] Churches in the United States by century (8 C) [+] Churches in the United States by city (39 C, 6 F) [+] Churches in the United States by material (4 C) [+] Churches in the United States by religion (7 C) [+] Churches in the United States by type (1 C) [+] Churches in the United States by year of completion (198 C, 1 P)"

So what is Spanish for "by"?

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Por; cf. es:Categoría:Religión por continente. Angr (talk) 15:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) WhisperToMe (talk) 16:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Mike North's Accent

I'm in Vancouver, and my local sports radio station carries a radio feed of Fox Sports Radio, and one of the shows Mike North. He has what, to my ears, is a really annoying accent. I say annoying, but that's mostly because it is unfamiliar. Canada doesn't have the same range of accents of the US.

As a result, to me, I never hear him pronounce the letter 'O'. For example, I hear "dot com" as "dat cam". I thought this was a Boston thing, but his wikipedia page says he's from Chicago. What is this phenomenon called? Is it the same as Americans hearing me say "aboot" instead of "about"? Mingmingla (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a general "urban eastern accent" whereby you find some common things (especially in vowel sounds) between major eastern U.S. cities which one would not otherwise expect. For example, there is an accent in New Orleans which basically sounds like a perfect mesh of Brooklyn New York and Standard Southern, the accent native to Charleston, S.C. shares some commonalities with the Boston Brahmin accent. Chicago's accent kinda fits this mold as well; there are some parts of the Chicago accent which are very unlike what you would expect from the "standard midwestern" accent. Look for some videos of the (parodic) Bill Swerski's Superfans for some examples of an exagerated Chicago accent, and see if it matches the accent you are looking for. --Jayron32 17:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Northern Cities Vowel Shift. Having a very front LOT vowel is characteristic of accents from around the U.S. side of the Great Lakes, and is part of the stereotype of the Chicago accent. Angr (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A variant of that accent is also traditional in Milwaukee's working classes, where it starts to mingle with the sort of "High Minnesotan" heard in the film Fargo (and which Sarah Palin inherited from Wassila's Minnesota forebears). --

Friends with

We say that Judy is "friends with" Isabel. We never use that plural construction with lovers, partners, spouses, acquaintances, colleagues, co-workers, relatives, associates or any other desirable mutual connection between people. Why is it confined to friends, and is there a substantial difference between:

I'm friends with Isabel
I'm a friend of Isabel's
I'm Isabel's friend
Isabel and I are friends?

Yours in BFF-ship. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A counterexample to your negative examples: Judy is rivals with Isabel is perfectly standard usage. Also, as with most languages, the use of prepositions is highly idiosyncratic and doesn't often follow strict, simple, easy to follow rules. Thus one is Judy is a friend with Isabel, but Judy is an opponent to Isabel, and Judy is a lover of Isabel all seem standard constructions, without any real consistancy between using "with" "of" or "to". Prepositions often cause problems in this situation. Or is that problem with this situation? --Jayron32 21:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've ever heard "Judy is rivals with Isabel", and I'm sure I would never say it myself. I have, however, heard and used "Judy is roommates with Isabel". I've wondered about this construction too; one hypothesis I've tried out is that friends in "Judy and Isabel are friends" has been reinterpreted as an adjective, so that "Judy is friends with Isabel" has the same structure as "Judy is friendly with Isabel". Counterevidence is that a comparative isn't possible here (*"I'm more friends with Isabel than you are"), though that might be semantics rather than syntax if the property of being friends with someone is considered binary rather than gradable. On the other hand, "I'm better friends with Isabel than you are" doesn't actually sound ungrammatical to me. Hmm... Angr (talk) 21:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does to me. Also, I've never heard Jayron's "... a friend with Isabel". In my experience it's either a friend of Isabel or friends with Isabel. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of this touches on "friending" as a verb, thank goodness, but you may be interested to reconsider "is lovers with" and "are lovers with": each gets thousands of Ghits. BrainyBabe (talk) 06:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, really. That's a new development. "James is lovers with Mary" sounds god-awful to my ears, but what do I know. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, what's James doing butting in here? Pfff. Judy is lovers with Isabel, who used to be lovers with Mary. Of course. BrainyBabe (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC) [reply]

I was just being even-handed, in an attempt to placate the dark side. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC) [reply]

American grandfather

How do Americans normally address their grandfathers? Grandpa? Grandad? Something else?

Thanks.

81.159.79.133 (talk) 21:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a regional thing, but I use/hear "grandpa" much more often than "grandad". "Grandfather" is used but is much more formal. Sometimes "gramps" is used in a joking way, often to someone who isn't an actual grandfather, as in "Nice driving, gramps", but most don't refer to their grandfathers this way, at least in my experience. So for me, I usually use "grandpa". AlexiusHoratius 21:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I always addressed and referred to my grandfathers as "Grampa", disambiguated by last name if necessary. Angr (talk) 21:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It will often vary from family to family. In our extended family, we have "Pops", "Poppa", "Grampa", "Grumpy" and "Buppa". There will also be variations if the family has a cradle tongue that is not English, even if the current generation(s) only speak English. Bielle (talk) 21:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A former friend of mine, whose grandparents had come from Serbia, called them Bubba and Jed, for Serbian Babushka and Dyedye. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My children, whose maternal grandparents were Serbianish/Russianish (it's a long story), called them Babi (a version of Babushka) and Dyeda. My parents, they called Nanna and Grandad. But my kids' cousins called my parents Nanny and Poppy. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually, baba (pronounced 'bubba') and djed ('ded' or 'jed') are the "canonical" Serbian forms. "Babushka" is Russian, and "Dyedye" is just about wrong. No such user (talk) 10:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mommom & Poppop, Grammom & Grampop. μηδείς (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is almost no national consistency besides perhaps "Grandma" and "Grandpa" (or equivalent "Gramma" and "Grampa"). There are huge regional variations (for example, in the Northeast I herd "Nana" for grandmother where I hadn't heard it in other regions, in the South East I hear "Paw-Paw" for grandfather where I hadn't heard it elsewhere). There is no national standard. --Jayron32 01:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're writing something, "Grandpa" would be nationally recognized and understood. Dismas|^(talk) 01:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We always called my father's mother "Nana", because her youngest sister, who was the same age as Nana's oldest child, didn't like the idea of her sister being called "Grandma", so she pushed "Nana". It stuck. :) My father's father was Granddad and my mother's father and mother Grandpa and Grandma. I think it's probably a family thing. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think many grandparents have to accept being called different things by different sets of grandkids. A young person can't call both of their grandmothers "Nana", for example, because that would confuse them. So one gets "Nanny" or "Granny" or whatever. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say most families are this way. For my wife's family, one grandmother was "Grandma" and the other is "Nanny". My parents also had a way of referring to their own mothers so that my parents would know which they were talking about without using "my mother" or "your mother". One of my grandmothers was "Mom" and the other was "Mother" or some such thing. (It's been some time since they died, so my memory of the exact words is foggy). Dismas|^(talk) 10:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My maternal grandparents were Granddad and Grandmom, my paternal grandfather was Papa, and my paternal grandmother and her husband was Grandma and Grandpa. My cousins had a similar system with different variants - I think they called my Grandmom 'Rosemom' (her name was Rosalie). —Akrabbim^talk 13:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It can sometimes be a little confusing for young children when they're talking to a cousin of theirs, who refers to their common grandmother as, say, "Nana", and the first kid thinks "But that's my other grandmother, who you don't even know". They soon work it out, though. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]