Language desk
< July 18	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 20 >

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 19

Queſtion

Hey everyone! This time I have a queſtion about the uſage of the long s (ſee that article for more details.) From my readings ſo far, I've ſeen that the letter is uſually uſed at the beginning of a word (but only if the letter iſn't capitaliſed) or in the middle, but never at the end. So, my queſtion is: was the long s ever uſed at the end of words? Would ſomeone from back when the letter was commonplace underſtand what I meant if I wrote a word with it at the end? Thanks! --Yellow1996 (talk) 01:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The history section of the article you linked to says "towards the end of the eighth century, it developed a more vertical form. In this period it was occasionally used at the end of a word, a practice which quickly died out but was occasionally revived in Italian printing between about 1465 and 1480. Thus the general rule that the long 's' "never occurred at the end of a word" is not strictly correct, although the exceptions are rare and archaic". Does that answer your question or have I misunderstood it?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've anſwered my queſtion perfectly. Rare and archaic? Juſt the way I like thingſ! Thankſ! :) --Yellow1996 (talk) 16:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The medieval writers knew both forms and would have had no problem to read your text. I doubt, however, the statement quoted above on the quick dying of long s at the end of words. Many medieval manuscripts have s at the end (cf. last line here aduerſus ſeruos), others ſ or mixed use (cf. there second line, in the middle moriſ with ſ, last word eius with s, elsewhere, e.g. last line, first word leporiſ with ſ). --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So perhapſ not aſ rare as we initially ſuſpected? ;) Seems aſ though they were quite interchangeable. Thankſ for the extra information! :) --Yellow1996 (talk) 19:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, not so rare at all. As I recall it, the use of round s instead of long s in final position was an innovation of the Gothic script, but the takeover was gradual and was not completed until the thirteenth or fourteenth century. Iblardi (talk) 20:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the Greek letter sigma has two forms whose use depends on their positions within words.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reminded of Stan Freberg as Ben Franklin in one of Freberg's recordings, where Ben is reading the Declaration, "When in the courfe of human eventf??? How come all your esses look like effs?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The" before ordinal number

There are instances in English when "the" is sometimes dropped before an ordinal number, like "first" (e.g. first man in space, not the first man in space), although AFAIK every ordinal number must be preceded by an article. What is the caveat?--93.174.25.12 (talk) 21:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In an ordinary sentence, "the" is typically included. In titles, headlines, and such stuff as that, writers can cut corners a bit, for crispness. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To me "First man in space" is effectively a name, whereas "The first man in space" is a description. --ColinFine (talk) 22:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like Bugs says, this has nothing to do with the presence of an ordinal number, and everything to do with the fact that this text is written in headlinese. Compare: in a title or a headline you could say "Usain Bolt, fastest person alive", but in a sentence you would need the. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See All pages with titles beginning with first and All pages with titles beginning with second

and All pages with titles beginning with third and All pages with titles beginning with fourth.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tubes of posters, rolls of posters

What should a poster which is rolled into a tube like this be called? A "tube of poster", a "roll of poster" or else? Thank you so much. --Aristitleism (talk) 23:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A poster. In a poster tube. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I want to emphasise that the poster is rolled, I should just say the 'rolled poster' (e.g. "There are many rolled posters in my room"). Am I correct? --Aristitleism (talk) 23:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could say rolled, or rolled up. So, you have some on your walls, and others in poster tubes? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say something like 'there are many posters in my room and all these posters are rolled into tubes'. But now I know what I should correctly say, lol. Sorry for disturbing and thank you so much. --Aristitleism (talk) 23:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What good are they in tubes? Show them off! As regards the other thing, we're already pretty much disturbed, so you didn't add to it. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make clear that they are contained in tubes and not just rolled up into a tube shape and secured with rubber bands, you might say "There are many posters in cardboard tubes in my room" or "There are many posters in my room that have been rolled up and placed in cardboard tubes" or "There are many posters in my room that are rolled up and in cardboard tubes."--Wikimedes (talk) 23:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider it perfectly acceptable to say something like "my room is full of tubes of posters," as long as you were talking about multiple tubes, probably more than two or three, and especially some indeterminate amount. I would never refer to a single tube containing a single poster as a tube of poster, but if a single tube held more than one poster, tube of posters would sound fine to me. Stating it this way tends to imply that even if the tubes can be counted, the number of posters within them is not precisely known, so "I have 15 tubes of posters in my room" says, to me at least, that there are 15 tubes, and each tube most likely contains at least one poster, but any or all could contain more than one, so the total number of posters is probably close to 15, but could be more. Tube becomes a measure word and poster a mass noun in this case, I believe. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 13:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]