Language desk
< June 5	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	Current desk >

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 6

An unpoked pig

I responded to a request for a WP:3O involving a dispute between two editors over the use of a comma after the word newspaper in the first sentence of the lede of William Hickey (columnist):

"'William Hickey' is the pseudonymous byline of a gossip column published in the British newspaper the Daily Express."

I opined that it shouldn't be there and it has now been removed by the editor who objected to its presence, but the other editor has — quite reasonably, in my opinion — expressed incredulity over whether that awkward construction could possibly be correct. I've suggested some changes to make it slightly less awkward, but they seem rather like putting lipstick on a pig. The original comma-objector is probably only interested in commas and the original comma-keeper says he's giving up. Should we keep the pig, paint 'er up, or just leave her as she is in all her glory? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the reference desk is really all that useful in dispute resolution issues. If you seek a wider audience than WP:3R perhaps WP:DRN would be useful to you? --Jayron32 17:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read the discussion, but why not "... in the British newspaper Daily Express"? Deor (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...or "...the Daily Express, a British newspaper", which neatly avoids the problem (and it's hard to contest the comma clause in this case). Andrew Gray (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Uh, I'm the most active volunteer at DRN. I was really looking for some expert opinion on English grammar in the belief that the dispute at that page had gone away and, perhaps, left the page in a less than desirable state about which I was less than certain. (And one can, I fear, derive some indication of my grammatical skills from that last sentence.) One of the disputants has now weighed back in on the talk page; if the other one does as well, then perhaps I'm wrong about the dispute having gone away, but whatever happens some expert advice would be useful. Still, if this is too DRish, I'll see if some of my DR colleagues have opinions on this matter. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this page is not best suited for the discussion to take place, this is not pertinent here, but I should make a clarification nonetheless that I think is of utmost importance: when the second editor "expressed incredulity over whether that awkward construction could possibly be correct", this was with regards to the totally incorrect wording (ie, lack of a comma) in "...a gossip column published in the Daily Express a British newspaper.", not the original edit, "...a gossip column published in the British newspaper the Daily Express". (Though he may also feel incredulous over that edit.) Deor, I did suggest that wording, but on further consideration I see no reason to drop the "the" over some very slight clunkiness when you would otherwise always use it (eg. "I bought the Daily Express", not "I bought Daily Express"). Please see Talk:William Hickey (columnist) for the full discussion. Alexetc (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. As the "other editor", I certainly did not express incredulity over the fact that Alexetc's wording "could possibly be correct". I objected to it initially (and still dislike it), but what I did express incredulity over was TransporterMan's claim that the same principle of omitting the comma should be applied to a further ("C") wording that I had proposed (and, at that point, implemented), which was precisely the wording suggested above by User:Andrew Gray. Anyone still interested in further discussion had better go back to the article talk page ! Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've been wrong about just about everything here. This does, indeed, need to go back to the article talk page and, if no resolution can be had there (in which I will not participate further), should go on to DRN, where I will also not participate. Sheepishly, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TransporterMan, please see me most recent post on Talk:William Hickey (columnist) (as at 22:11, 6 June 2013); unfortunately Ghmyrtle has been significantly inconsistent on two counts and I think that this has poisoned the well and sabotaged your adjudication. I was confident that when you said "now I've done some research on the matter", you had reached the same conclusion as me and your decsision was correct; if you do feel however you've "been wrong about just about everything here", that is up to you to say (I was certainly concerned by some of the suggested alternatives - yours and others - beyond Wording C, but I think, that aside, you did in essence get the argument!). It really does boil down to one of the most basic English rules - you don't put a comma between an adjective and a noun - and my latest post explains this with specific regard to a united common and proper name. I've begun to explain why Wording C is unnecessary with regard to "clunkiness" and is not the WP consensus with regard to the normal phrasing used in such sentences; I've already gone on enough but I would be more than happy to expand on this if requested to. Wording B really is the only option. I would welcome your response. Alexetc (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear me. I made one mistake in confusing wordings A and B - a mistake now duplicated by Alexetc in his own latest post ("..me most recent post...") on that talk page. These things happen - I'm very sorry. But it's not very important, and to suggest that in some way I have "sabotaged" an "adjudication" (which wasn't an adjudication anyway, it was an opinion) is as completely preposterous as the suggestion that the sentence can only be worded in one way. Anyway, not a matter for this page, I think. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your clarification and correction of your confusion over Wording A and B. It seems I have done the same in my last post, so I in turn also apologise and have corrected it. I also apologise for the use of the word adjudication, it is indeed an opinion. If that opinion wasn't subsequently put into doubt, though, I think we would now be on Wording B, since TransporterMan's initial opinion ended, "thus no comma [as in Wording B]" and made no mention of a Wording C. Until TransporterMan or someone else provides an opinion, that I guess is moot at the current time. So, we both made a mistake in confusing wordings A and B, have apologised and corrected it; I'm fine with that. Attacking a spelling mistake ("me") that has no material impact on the discussion, though, is not going to get you very far (though it marks one of the very few actual arguments you've made); accidents happen (see your "Oh dear me. I made one mistake..."). My point about your change to Wording C still stands, as I have now discussed back over on Talk:William_Hickey_(columnist). Please check my posts, however; I have never made "the suggestion", nor for that matter explicitly said, "that the sentence can only be worded in one way". It clearly can be, but as I have argued, should not be: I said, "Wording C has no WP:CONSENSUS on how such sentences are normally phrased on the majority of pages and should not be used". Again, I've now discussed this back over on Talk:William_Hickey_(columnist). Alexetc (talk) 11:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Wording B really is the only option." (your words). That is, "..the sentence can only be worded in one way." (my words) Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's further nit-picking without contributing your own argument, as I would have said "only correct wording" if that's what I meant, but I should have been more clear: Wording B really is the only option that should be considered. That is very different to your "..the sentence can only be worded in one way.", which I never said and certainly haven't argued. In addressing this exact point, I just said, "I have never made "the suggestion", nor for that matter explicitly said, "that the sentence can only be worded in one way". It clearly can be, but as I have argued, should not be", before going on to explain myself fully and rigorously. Alexetc (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the etymology of the "dukes" part of "ma dukes" or "mama dukes"

In some African American dialects, you can refer to your mom as "ma dukes". What does the dukes part mean?--Jerk of Thrones (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology on Line almost always has the answer. I suspected Cockney rhyming slang, and EO says either that or Romany. See this. μηδείς (talk)

Oops, I read your headline, but not the comment. Can you give a source for that phrase? I have never heard it. It may come from the name, as in Marmaduke. Urban dictionary says. μηδείς (talk) 19:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Cockney rhyming slang "dukes" is now entirely obsolete, but in my 1960s childhood, people still used to say "put up your dukes" (ie, "raise your fists") if they were jokingly challenging someone to a fight. I haven't heard it said in years. Alansplodge (talk) 09:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Biggie Smalls uses the phrase in some of his raps when referring to his mother. I have heard other people from Brooklyn say it as well. There also use to be a soul food restaurant called Mama Dukes in my neighborhood. And where does urban dictionary (hardly a reliable source, but that's beside the point) say it comes from Marmaduke?--Jerk of Thrones (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, you tell me. Where does Urban Dictionary say that? μηδείς (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, where does any reliable source make such a claim? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, Jack. Whoever is suggesting there is one should post it. μηδείς (talk) 00:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We're only discussing Marmaduke because someone - their name escapes me for the moment - speculated that it might be the source of "dukes". If that person cannot come up with a source, they should withdraw their speculation and promise never to speculate again, in accordance with their frequent enjoinder to others. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A young African American man called me today to my place of business and said I'm coming with my dukes. I din't misunderstand his reference. When I asked him what it meant he said, "mom". 50.249.186.206 (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't. That would be more of that speculation we welcome with open arms around here. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Open arms and closed fists ... Clarityfiend (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]