Language desk
< June 12	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 14 >

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.

June 13

A far

Which is the better placement of the article a? The plague is far worse a disease than the common cold. / The plague is a far worse disease than ... --Pxos (talk) 05:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer the second, because that's where I normally put the article when adjectives qualify an noun. But it's easy to think of examples (eg "It's not that good an idea") where the article stands between the adjectives and the noun, so this isn't definitive. Go with whichever flows best, and conveys the emphasis you're looking for. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, especially since the first is missing the "of" 165.212.189.187 (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that what you refer to as "the of" is an idiosyncrasy of American English. AlexTiefling (talk) 06:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have found the answer myself, what a great joy! According to Fowler, in his dictionary of Modern English Usage (my version reprinted in 1961), the first variation is to be avoided – or, as Mr. Fowler puts it, «the late position [of the article] should not be adopted with other words than as, how, so, too; e.g. / Have before them far more brilliant a future /, the normal order (a far more brilliant) is also the right one.» If I read Mr. Fowler correctly, the first version is not ungrammatical or decidedly wrong, it just isn't good English. --Pxos (talk) 05:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Use of possessive pronouns as (?) intensifiers

Consider these pairs of sentences:

He loves jazz vs. He loves his jazz.
She loves sport vs. She loves her sport.
I love vegetables vs. I love my vegetables.

Seems to me the second examples suggest a more active involvement in whatever it is, while the first convey a more passive love. But not necessarily. One would really need to know the context to be sure.

A person who "loves her sport" might be involved in various sporting activities, or they might just be a passionate but passive TV watcher of many sports. That latter activity would also apply to someone who "loves sport".

A person who "loves his jazz" might be a player of jazz, or a regular attendee at jazz concerts, or simply an avid collector of jazz recordings, or simply a listener to jazz radio, or simply someone who appreciates jazz whenever he happens to hear it. Very hard to tell without context.

So, I'm wondering what the purpose of the possessive pronoun is. Is it simply an intensifier? When would it NOT be used? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question is whether there is a differentiation between the object of the love in general or the narrower class of the object of the love that is applicable to the individual. As such differentiation is not indicated in the sentence, I see little reason to refer to the narrower class. But as you say there could be context in surrounding sentences that could justify the possessive pronoun and its reference to a narrower class of jazz, sport, or vegetables. Bus stop (talk) 06:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the same as the 'your' in "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy", or "Now, You Take Your Average Rock"? -- Q Chris (talk) 09:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think so. That is restricted to "your", while the examples I'm talking about can appear in any person or number.

Compare Americans love sport with Americans love their sport. What is the function of "their" there? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 09:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Americans love their sports. Come on, Jack, do the math. --Trovatore (talk) 09:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]

There's actually a semi-serious point here. If you say someone loves "his sport", in American usage, that probably doesn't mean sporting activity in general (which would be described as "sports"), but rather his particular sport; that is, the one he's best at or plays the most. I suppose in Rightpondian or Underpondian usage you'd probably say "his game" for this.

So that may be confounding your ghit results. If you look at the first hit on the "love their sport" search, for example, it's referring to American football, not sports in general, as the Americans' sport. --Trovatore (talk) 09:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather call it 'term of endearment' than an 'intensifier'. No such user (talk) 12:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is merely my impression, but I have a sense that the personal pronoun is often used as a mild form of distancing. If Mary loves jazz, a fellow jazz lover would normally just say that she loves jazz; but a person who finds a love of jazz inexplicable or prefers other types of music might say, "Mary sure loves her jazz." Deor (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. It can also be used in the opposite sense: such as when a mother or a wife is making her child or husband a special dinner because they've come through some sort of rough patch, and she'll say "I'm making Fred his favourite dinner tonight. He loves his roast lamb and baked potatoes". In my experience it's most often used in this endearing sense (per No such user), but also sometimes in the distancing sense you cite. Suffice to say it's always something other than neutral. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessarily endearing: "My Jack spends his time in that pub. Eeh! 'e loves 'is drink, does Jack" may be more a heads-up about Jack's potential alcoholism than a term of endearment. As in "Dylan Thomas liked his drink". As Papyrus says, "always something other than neutral". Thinking about it, it may simply mean "X is more fond of Y than I am fond of Y", with the degree of fondness and its potential results (in the speaker's opinion) only determinable from context. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My name is not Papyrus. :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 10:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Compare the use of "My" in the names of some entities.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feminine pronoun as gender neutral pronoun

From [1]:

This could be a feature deserving of the name, as long as the user is able to authorize the programs she wants to use, so she can run free software written and modified by herself or people she trusts.

Why is the feminine pronoun "she" and it's forms "her", "herself" used here to refer to the computer user, whose gender is unknown? Normally you would use "he", "they", "it" but never "she". Czech is Cyrillized (talk) 09:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"He" would sound just as odd as "she", and "it" would practically never be used. "They" is by far the most common solution. As for your question, the answer is that the writer is simply being cute to make a point. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"They" might be common in your world, but not where I come from. The main place I see it is here, and when I see it it looks like incredibly awkward PCness. Just making the point that language usage is not uniform around the world. Agree about the "cuteness" of the use of "she". HiLo48 (talk) 10:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Political correctness', or as most of us call it, traditional common courtesy. Try not reinforcing sexism some time. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, political correctness, enforced by browbeating outrage. There's nothing sexist about using he for the animate singular. This has bee discussed ad nauseam here, suggest the OP search the archives. μηδείς (talk) 16:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At present, the 'browbeating outrage' seems to emanate mostly from people bewailing 'political correctness (gone mad)' when someone tries doing something different. I agree with you that there's nothing meaningfully sexist about generic 'he'; I just don't think there's anything wrong with generic 'she' or singular 'they' either. And it's very tedious to be hectored for this imaginary crime of 'political correctness' for expressing this view. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because modern speakers tend not to think of "he" as a gender-neutral pronoun, and we don't use "it" to refer to a person. Sometimes we use "he/she", "his/her", or something similar (I like "s/he" but that doesn't work for "his/her"). If it doesn't matter what gender the user is, why not use the feminine? Why default to what are now considered masculine pronouns? A woman could very well be the user and the writer. If you think that "he" is gender-neutral and includes women, why can't "she" be gender-neutral and include men? I don't think it's "cute" but it is a bit confrontational, in a good way, I would say. If it makes you stop and think about why we use pronouns like that, and about why you might be opposed to a feminine pronoun there, or offended by it, then maybe someday it will seem normal to everyone. (As DominusVobisdu says, I would personally use "they", but that might be even more controversial...) Adam Bishop (talk) 10:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So either "he" or "she" is OK, but I would like to ask whether the use of either pronoun convey the attitude of the writer/speaker? Czech is Cyrillized (talk) 10:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Depends where the speaker is from. (As I said above.) HiLo48 (talk) 10:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She is cute and a bit pointy, but with my girl hat on I don't care which the speaker chooses as long as they (it's OK to use it where I come from) don't start using abominations like xe. Ugh! - Ka renjc 16:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, most people around the world seem to use "they" at least informally. Is Australia an exception, or was HiLo48 insisting on formal grammar? Dbfirs 07:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"They" as a singular is not at all common in Australia. It just looks and sounds weird to me. Why it makes sense to replace possibly sexist language with appalling grammar is also beyond me. Surely there's a better way. HiLo48 (talk) 07:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to disagree about singular they not being common in Oz, HiLo. It's all too common for my liking. We must move in different circles. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I see here that I don't see or hear in the day to day language I encounter is something like "HiLo is ill informed on this matter. They are clearly wrong." It avoids a gender oriented pronoun but, to me at least, it's gruesome grammar. HiLo48 (talk) 13:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think singular they is normally used when talking about a "named" person, even if we happen not to know that person's sex. We had this problem on some discussion page (WT:MOS, I think) when discussing what pronoun to use with antecedents such as "Black" or "North" when describing chess or bridge respectively. It doesn't sound right (probably to most people) to say things like "Black moves their king" or "North leads their last trump", even if we're discussing a purely theoretical game position. Victor Yus (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example of what I'm talking about. This post uses "they" to refer to an editor whose name is known but whose gender may not be. Avoids any gender confusion or offence, but refers to a single, known person in the plural, thereby replacing one linguistic sin with another. There has to be a better way. HiLo48 (talk) 23:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you know a better way, then we'd all no doubt love to hear it. Experience suggests, though, that all possible solutions have their downsides. If the use of singular they is coming to be extended even to named persons, that may be a welcome trend - once we hear it enough times, it will stop grating, and it will become a potentially useful tool for use in a whole new set of gender-ambiguous situations. Victor Yus (talk) 10:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It will always grate for me, because it will remove the certainty I once had that when I heard the word "they" I knew it involved more than one person or thing. Those who use "they" that way are degrading the value of the word. HiLo48 (talk) 23:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Degrading" is an awfully judgmental and inflammatory way to describe this, as is your notion that some words have more "value" than others. Language changes. And one of the most basic concepts taught in any introductory linguistics class is that all idiolects are valid (just because someone's way of speaking differs from the standard form of language prescribed by textbooks does not mean that way of speaking is less grammatical or less "valuable"). Language was not designed to convey the maximum amount of information in the most economical way possible; if it were, all human languages would look like predicate logic. It's ridiculous to think that pronouns should convey every possible aspect of their referent (which is what you're suggesting when you say that removing the plural-ness of "they" is 'degrading' it). Our pronouns also do not convey social status, as do 2nd person pronouns in French and Spanish (see T-V distinction), Japanese, and some dialects of Mandarin. Pronouns in spoken Mandarin do not convey gender like ours do. In written Mandarin, the 2nd-person pronoun (="you") conveys gender, which our 2nd-person pronoun doesn't. Pronouns in French don't convey animacy, whereas those in English do ("he/she" vs. "it"), as do those in written Mandarin. The pronoun vous in French is ambiguous between being a singular formal pronoun, or a plural pronoun. As you can see from this very limited sampling of languages, there are many pieces of information that are conveyed by pronouns in one language and not another. But I would never dare to suggest that any of these languages has more "value" than another. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not incidental evolution of language. Some speakers don't like one word in a particular context, so are choosing, and encouraging others, to misuse another word, thereby reducing the usefulness of the second word. Using "they" to mean a single person is simply incorrect. It damages our language. Since it's a deliberate choice by those users of the language, and it's about how we use English here in Wikipedia, I have every right to point out that it's wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 01:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Singular 'they', 'them', 'their' and 'themselves' have been around since the 14th century. They've been used by great writers of the likes of Lewis Carroll, Jane Austen, the King James Bible, Shakespeare, William Thackeray, George Eliot and Walt Whitman – and, I'm sure, a multitude of others. Clearly, greater minds than ours have considered it an acceptable solution to a tricky linguistic and grammatical issue. On what authority does your objection rest? (PS. "It's just wrong" is not an acceptable answer.) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(editconflict) Firstly, I don't see how this discussion was ever about how we use English on Wikipedia in particular.

Secondly, this is exactly "incidental evolution of language". Many things we say or write now were "wrong" in the past--that's where our language came from. A few hundred years ago it would have been wrong to use the word "dog" to refer to any dogs other than a particular breed. French (which over half of our vocabulary comes from) is basically the result of people speaking Latin wrong for a few hundred years.

Thirdly, I was not talking about wrong vs. right in my previous message, nor were you. You explicitly made a statement about the value of one dialect vs. another, and I explained (I thought pretty clearly, but apparently not) that there is no such thing as more or less "valuable" forms of language. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting blog post there Jack. I'm comfortable with their as a singular, but didn't know that they as a singular used to be more common. I'm still concerned that's it's a deliberate misuse of one word because people don't like another one. I'd rather they invented a totally new one. (And that's a plural use of they!) HiLo48 (talk) 01:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to try. Many have failed before you, but you may just be the one to succeed. It seems the anglosphere has always enjoyed having certain problems that resist any and all attempts at resolution. Certain words do get created because there's a vacuum to be filled ("blog" is one such; only pedants would insist on "web log", which is where it came from). But when it comes to pronouns, there's a very exclusive club of them cemented into all our brains, and strangers are just not welcome in those parts. But, as I say, why not have a go at proving it can be done, rather than making it the responsibility of the nameless "they"? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said earlier in the thread, i don't personally see the need. I'm sure you're familiar with "he or she" in Australian English when we're not sure of the gender of the individual we're discussing. It's works for me. As far as I know I've never offended anybody using that expression. And it breaks no grammatical rules. My concern is with those who find a current word unacceptable, for reasons I disagree with, so they deliberately misuse another word instead. On your other point, I have no objection to new words for new things. "Blog" is fine. (Even though my spellchecker has just objected to it. And to spellchecker!) HiLo48 (talk) 07:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your position. "He or she" is the standard default expression, but there are some circumstances where it becomes incredibly cumbersome and clunky, particularly where it has to be repeated a number of times in a short block of text, so some other solution must be found. Singular they has a long history, so it's available. It might suffer from overuse, but it's acceptable in principle. I'd rather hear that than people talking about themselves in the second person (using "you" where they mean "I" or "me"). -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 12:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's clumsy too. I try to avoid it. I find that one can if one tries. (Does that work for you?) HiLo48 (talk) 12:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that works for one. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Generally I find that writers or speakers that use 'she' are actually women themselves. Take, for example, "when you find your baby is [something or other] then she is [something or other]." We have male babies, too, though, ladies :) I work as a translator from Japanese, and I just put '(s)he' or 'he/she', because Japanese hardly uses pronouns and it's difficult to know who the bloody hell they are talking about. Even the Japanese complain about it. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's extremely common for linguists in the field of language acquisition to refer to children generically as she. The problem is that using she generically excludes males, while using he generically does not exclude females. That may seem unfair, but that's the way the language works, and you can't change language use by fiat. Angr (talk) 08:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well... sometimes he does exclude females, or may be perceived as doing so, at least subconsciously. Mixing it up with uses of generic she to redress the balance seems a positive move (though not the only option). If enough people follow this lead, then language use can be changed, not exactly by fiat, but by a body of feeling. Victor Yus (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where you people get the idea that using she as a generic pronoun is being "cute". Most people who do this are doing it on purpose and for good reason: as others have pointed above, it's not necessarily fair that male is the 'default', and people are making a conscious decision to try to counter that trend. As Angr pointed out, language can't be changed by fiat, but it can be changed by its users gradually using language in a different way (some might argue that's the only way language changes). Case in point: I am a man, and in much of my writing I use she as a generic pronoun (sorry, Kage)--the reason I do this is because in middle school I was taught that using he generically was grammatically correct, and so that's what I did, but many years later I decided I owe it to the world to make up for my years of writing androcentrically. (I use forms like "he or she" in very formal writing--the pseudo-legalese that I sometimes have to use in my line of work--; "she" in somewhat formal writing, like journal articles; and mostly "they" in speech.) But my point is, people who use generic she aren't not just being "cutesy", and suggesting that they are is belittling a legitimate (albeit not universally accepted) point of view.

Czech is Cyrillized, as for your questions: 1) you suggest that "she" can never be used as a gender-neutral pronoun. Why do you say that? "'He' is the gender-neutral pronoun" is something we learn in school, just like "don't end sentences with prepositions" and "don't split infinitives"--it's made-up prescriptivism. 2) You ask whether pronoun usage can convey something about the writer's/speaker's attitude; of course the answer is obviously yes. As you can see from my message and from the interaction between AlexTiefling and Medeis above, a person's use of "she" as a singular pronoun might suggest that the person is feminist (although that is not always the case). As you can see by other users' messages above, a person's avoidance of singular "they" might suggest that the person has more of a conservative grammar (although this is not always the case--they might just be writing in a context--like a very formal context--where they have no choice but to follow prescriptive rules for now). rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"'"He" is the gender-neutral pronoun' is something we learn in school, just like 'don't end sentences with prepositions' and 'don't split infinitives'--it's made-up prescriptivism." No, it isn't. We don't learn that he is the gender-neutral pronoun in school, we learn it the same way we learn that he and she take singular agreement with the verb—by the normal process of first-language acquisition. And since English speakers don't use she generically (unless they're trying to prove a point), we don't acquire that. Angr (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I guess we have had different educations. I was specifically taught in school to use "he" as the gender-neutral pronoun. (In my natural language acquisition, I learned to use singular "they" as the generic pronoun, because that's what was being used around me--in school I was taught that that was wrong and I should use "he".) rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In modern times, one occasionally sees the female gender used as the male gender was once exclusively used; it is fine. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what Rjanag said. In my writing, I consciously rephrase sentences so that they use the plural they and them, or by using he or she and him or her (although the latter can sometimes be clumsy if repeated numerous times in the same sentence). Particularly when discussing a particular scenario, I'll mentally assign genders to particular persons (e.g., the plaintiff will be a woman, the defendant a man, and the judge a woman), and then use the appropriate pronouns to refer to them. Some people might say this is being too politically correct, but I see it as just trying to be inclusive and not assuming, for example, that judges are always men. — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I work in law/legal translations (amongst others), and in this case I would use the titles of the persons involved, such as "If the plaintiff decides to retract the allegations, then the presiding judge can offer said plaintiff the option to...." etc, or "The employee shall receive a bonus of upto £XXXX every year depending on performance, and shall be paid into an account specified by said employee, on [date]." KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Complex sentence

Don't go out,without leave. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.37.228.6 (talk) 10:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your wish is our command. Is there anything else we can help you with? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, may I please have permission to go out? — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The OP may be struggling to make sense of the sentence, since one meaning of leave is the phrasal verb "go out". However, as Smuconlaw has neatly illustrated for us, in this case leave is being used in its noun form and means "permission". The sentence is an imperative instruction not to go out unless permission has been given. - Ka renjc 16:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the comma is not required. - Ka renjc 16:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As with AWOL. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But where a comma is appropriate, it's followed by a space. Except in numbers like 1,047,639. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese name of Tigger

I note from zh:小熊維尼 that the Chinese name for Tigger is 跳跳虎, and some further searching shows the last character 虎 means "tiger". What does that repeated first character 跳 mean? I'm guessing Tigger in China is "bounce bounce tiger" or "boing boing tiger" or the like? -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 11:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

跳 (tiào) means "to jump, to leap". I guess the connotation is of a tiger who is always jumping around. — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the general connotation is indeed something like "boing boing tiger". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When coming up with a Chinese name for Tigger, the translator may also have been conscious about reproducing the "T" sound of the name. — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone, that was very instructive. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 08:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go along to get along

I'm trying to determine the earliest usage of the phrase 'go along to get along' in any English-speaking region. Any leads would be appreciated. jameslucas (" " / +) 13:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little tricky to pin down. Google Ngram Viewer suggests 1950, but viewing the actual results shows that the books in question were actually printed in the early 70s. However, the quote appears to be attributed to Speaker of the US House of Representatives, Sam Rayburn, who died in 1961, so it's reasonable to suppose that, if he said it, he did so before then. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking more closely, I can't find a definite date when Rayburn may have first used this. It appears to be something that is often attributed to him, but without a particular context. The story seems to be that he would say it as part of his advice to young first-time senators. If so, and if he was giving the advice in his role as Speaker, I guess we can say it was first used between his first appointment in 1940 and his death in '61. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 16:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cucumber Mike! —jameslucas (" " / +) 17:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Similarities between eastern Wisconsin and New England

I was looking at Joshua Katz's maps of Bert Vaux's US dialect surveys, and I've noticed that the eastern half of Wisconsin seems to stand out from the rest of the Midwest on several questions, and with an odd affinity for New England. For example, on question #103, the term "bubbler" (for "water fountain") predominates only in Rhode Island, nearby parts of Connecticut and Massachusetts, and eastern Wisconsin. On question #86, the use of the term "cruller" predominates only in New England, the New York metropolitan area, and eastern Wisconsin. And on the infamous question #105, eastern Wisconsin forms an island of intense "soda" preference (shared with the Northeast) in a heavily "pop"-favoring Midwest.

It may seem trivial, but I was struck by how clearly eastern Wisconsin sticks out on some of these maps. Does anybody know of reasons for its "New Englandy" preferences on some of these questions? Did the area attract an unusually great number of New England migrants? Or seeing as how the usages in question all relate to manufactured items, is there a history of close commercial ties between the two areas? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I can answer directly, but will note that the Greater Milwaukee area's connection to New England in terms of language extends mainly to vocabulary and not accent. Eastern Wisconsin is firmly within the area that speaks Inland Northern American English, and has experienced the Northern cities vowel shift, whereas the core of Eastern New England (the stereotypical Boston accent) has a very different vowel structure. As a total aside, if you like this sort of stuff, This set of maps is also an excellent resource. The most interesting bit of that map is that it correctly identifies the "Brooklyn accent" found in eastern New Orleans (note the dialect described as 4. GNYC for Greater New York City found there), which is another one of those linguistic-geographic oddities. --Jayron32 17:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And to the question of connections between Milwaukee and New England; again a lot of this is speculation on my part, but some connections I can find are the large numbers of French Canadians involved in the settlement of the areas (see History of Milwaukee and New England French which describes that connection). I have no idea how that may affect the dialects, but it's something. --Jayron32 17:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. Smoking gun can be found at Wisconsin#Demographics (should've looked there first) which notes that, following the initial settlement by French Canadians, the next wave of settlers came from New England and Upstate New York. --Jayron32 18:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But that was centuries ago, long before words like "bubbler", "cruller", and "soda" had come into common parlance. Angr (talk) 08:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was not that many years ago, give the conservatism of language. You seem to have a bizarre idea of how recently crullers came into the human diet. Well into the mid-19th century, most Wisconsin settlers were coming via Great Lakes boats from western New England/New York, even if they had come into the U.S. from Ireland, Germany, etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of this phenomena may play into the distinguishing choice of vocabulary. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32 is right that the first large group of English-speaking settlers in Wisconsin (especially eastern Wisconsin), and the entire upper Great Lakes region, was from western New York and New England. Western New York, likewise, especially the area near Lake Ontario, was mainly settled by New Englanders. The New England dialect that formed the basis for the Inland North dialect that underwent the Northern cities shift, however, was not the eastern New England dialect. It was the western New England dialect, since most of the Great Lakes settlers came from western and not eastern New England. Eastern New England's dialect evolved from the 17th century East Anglian dialect of most of its settlers. This dialect was probably already non-rhotic in the 17th century. By contrast, western New England's speech was modified by later arrivals during the 18th century who originated in (rhotic) western England, Scotland, and Ulster and who, upon arriving in the New England colonies, traveled inland through the already settled coastal areas to the then less densely settled land in western New England. It was the descendants of these settlers who later migrated west to the Great Lakes region. Marco polo (talk) 15:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of which explains why Wisconsin has different words then Chicago, Detroit, etc. which had the same settlement patterns. Rmhermen (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to remember about those dialect survey maps is the relatively small sample size. According to [2] there were only 948 respondents from Wisconsin. I find the maps interesting, but one should perhaps be careful about drawing too much from them. Pfly (talk) 03:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing to remember is that there are sometimes reasons for such similarities in vocabulary other than migration patterns. The Dictionary of American Regional English, for example, characterizes bubbler (in the relevant sense) as "Nth, N Midl; esp. freq. in WI", so it's possible that this term was formerly more widespread and that it survives mainly in Wisconsin, where it was always popular, and parts of New England (for unknown reasons). Perhaps the two regions share a linguistic conservatism that has led to their being resistant to certain changes in other parts of the Northern region. I myself originally hail from the other anomalous "soda" pocket in the Midwest (St. Louis), and I'm fairly sure that migration patterns don't account for that preference. Deor (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Korean place names

Are Chungcheongbuk-do and Chungbuk two names for the same place? If so, what's the distinction? Are "cheong" and "-do" just designations, i.e. "Gangnam-Gu" appears to mean "Gangnam District." Asked by: 150.148.14.96 18:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.148.14.96 (talk) [reply]

북 'buk' means 'northern' and 도 'do' means 'city'. 청 'cheong' means 'administrative'. So the whole name would mean 'Northern Central Adminstrative City'. I don't know if they are the same place, but I would imagine they are, because the short name just means 'Northern Central'. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As with other many other Asian languages, the same sound can mean lots of different things in Korean. Our North Chungcheong Province article has the following Hanja for Chungcheongbuk-do: 忠清北道. "Chungcheong" is just a place name, the characters individually literally means "loyal" and "clear". "buk" means North, and "do" is province, not city. It is the province which descends from the northern part of the old Chungcheong province. (The Chungcheong article explains that "chung" and "cheong" come from the names of the two principal cities in the former province - Chungju and Cheongju respectively (something like "the loyal prefecture" and "the clear prefecture" if you want to take things literally.)

We have other articles that suggest that chungbuk is indeed used as an abbreviation of Chungcheongbuk-do, by taking the first character of the place name, plus the "buk" or "north" to differentiate it from the "south" province, which is correspondingly abbreviated to "chungnam". Thus, for example, Chungbuk National University says its name comes from an abbreviation of the name of the province. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]