Language desk
< July 29	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 31 >

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 30

What is it called when books or movies are written like this: "Movie, The"

What is it called when books or movies are written like this: "Movie, The" or "Book, A"? —User 0 0 0 name 09:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have a particular name, but it usually happens when you have an alphabetical list or index of titles. If a film is called "The Movie" it appears in an alphabetical list under Movie, not The. --Viennese Waltz 11:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Usually (as with the rearrangement of personal names for the purposes of alphabetization), this is called inversion. See, for example, the first paragraph under "Titles of Works" here. Deor (talk) 11:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bocardo Prison

What is the origin of Bocardo in the name of the Bocardo Prison? DuncanHill (talk) 21:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to this book ("Imprisonment in Medieval England", CUP, 1968 - not sure about the author), it's either from the syllogism (unlikely) or from "bog" (in both the literal and - er - metaphorical senses). Tevildo (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That book isby Ralph Pugh. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a corollary, why is the syllogism called a bocardo? DuncanHill (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Syllogism#Bocardo (OAO-3). The important element is the vowels - O = "Some ... are not", A = "All ... are". Incidentally, it's called "Bocardo" (a regular proper noun, like "Kevin"), not "a bocardo". Tevildo (talk) 00:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is actually not precise. Consonants are precisely chosen to match any syllogism to the corresponding syllogism of the first figure and mnemotechnically show the "reduction" method. See here for instance. Pallida Mors 16:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thus, Bocardo has an initial B and a c because it can be shown to be true by a reductio ad absurdum using a first-figure Barbara.Pallida Mors 17:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our coverage of the consonants in the traditional names of the syllogisms has always been a bit patchy - see Talk:Term logic and Talk:Syllogism. Improvements to our articles are always welcome. Tevildo (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is welcome, Tevildo. I'd love to invest some time in it if I can, and find a good bibliography for it. Pallida Mors 21:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Second Annual Report of the Proceedings of the Oxford University Genealogical and Heraldic Society: Volume 1, 1835 (p. 37) suggests that the name of the gateway (later a prison) was "derived from the Anglo-Saxon, bochord, a library or archive". It also says that it is "probable" that "the academic prison lent its name to logic". Alansplodge (talk) 22:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I like bochord - bookhoard, where I hoard my horde of books. DuncanHill (talk) 22:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"ee" and "oo"

These two digraphs are pretty common in English, but they occur word-initially only in very few, mostly obscure words. Why? I'm aware that "English is weird" is often a valid enough explanation for such issues, but I was wondering if there was anything beyond that. --Theurgist (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These two digraphs were used in Middle English for long high-mid /eː/ and /oː/ in closed (checked) syllables. What words do you expect to begin with these sounds in English? I just wonder.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 22:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is eerie, isn't it? --Jayron 32 22:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sound represented by the diagraph "ee" in Modern English (/iː/) does occur word-initially but is usually just spelled differently in that position: "eat", "ear", "east", "Easter", "either" "ether", etc. As for why that is, I imagine it has to do with what were historically different sounds converging to Modern (American, anyway) English /iː/.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 22:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eephus pitch, and also the ever-popular "Eek!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are oodles of them. — kwami (talk) 01:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The language is oozing with them even. --Jayron 32 02:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~One of those "facts" which commonly come up in this sort of discussion is that "eel" is the only word in English of the form XXY. Is there a counterexample? Tevildo (talk) 08:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Yes there is, Bugs has provided it above. Oops... Tevildo (talk) 08:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aah, yes.

KägeTorä - (影 虎) (もしもし！)

11:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OOK! The Librarian (ook) 08:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Oom - a respectful form of address to an older man. DuncanHill (talk) 09:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By 'oom is this used, prey tell?

KägeTorä - (影 虎) (もしもし！)

15:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Principally South African - Oom Paul is most memorable. It's in Chambers 20th Century Dictionary, and the OED. DuncanHill (talk) 15:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

⟨ea⟩ was pronounced as open low-mid /ɛː/, so it is not the case. ⟨Ei⟩ in "either" is in open syllable. They could write it ⟨ether⟩ in Middle English, but it rather had some other sound than /eː/. "Oodles" is a 19C slang word of unknown origin. So we are only left with "eel", "eerie" (which is a dialectism) and "ooze".

The answer to the question this: it just simply happened. There were not many Proto-Indo-European words that could become (through Proto-Gemanic through Old English) /eːC(C)/ and /oːC(C)/ in Middle English (and then in Modern English /iːC(C)/ and /uːC(C)/. In such cases linguistics usually cannot answer "why" but only can explain "how".--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 09:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eesome - "Attractive or gratifying to the eye". And I doubt eerie/eery could be regarded as a dialectism. OED does say " It has recently been often used in general literature, but is still regarded as properly Scotch." but that seems to have been hanging around since 1891. DuncanHill (talk) 09:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Scotch"? Is that the OED's standard usage? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In 1891 no-one would have raised an eyebrow at it. The OED says in its entry for Scotch

The contraction of Scottish to Scotch is first recorded in late Middle English in the compound Scotchman n. (see quot. 1407 at sense A. 1a), but then not until the second half of the 16th cent. (see quot. 1563 at sense A. 1a). From that time until the mid 19th cent. Scotch supersedes Scottish as the prevailing form (in all registers) in England (with the latter remaining available as a less common and markedly formal synonym). Scotch first appears in Scotland in the late 16th cent. (earliest in the form Skotsh), becoming more common in the following cent. Until the mid 18th cent. Scots and Scottish were preferred in literary use in Scotland, but by the end of the 18th cent. (partly reflecting the vogue for anglicization) Scotch had also become accepted in literary use, and is frequently used e.g. by Burns and Scott. In the 19th cent. Scotch even occurs in official language in Scotland (reflecting usage in London), e.g. in the name of the ‘Scotch Education Department’ (1872, renamed the ‘Scottish Education Department’ in 1918).

Uncertainty among the educated classes in Scotland concerning the relative ‘correctness’ of the three competing terms may be noted as early as the late 18th cent., and by the mid 19th cent. there is a growing tendency among educated speakers to favour the more formal Scottish or (less frequently) the more traditional Scots over what was perceived as the more vulgar Scotch . By the beginning of the 20th cent. disapproval of Scotch by educated Scots was so great that its use had become something of a shibboleth (much to the bafflement of speakers outside Scotland for whom this was the usual word). During the 20th cent. educated usage in England gradually began to adapt in deference to the perceived Scottish preferences. Paradoxically, for working-class Scots (as indeed for all speakers of Scots, as opposed to Scottish standard English) Scotch has remained in common use.

So by deprecating Scotch we are colluding in the destruction of working-class culture. DuncanHill (talk) 11:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...except in the matter of whisky (not whiskey, in this case), where Scotch is still the way to go. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure I have seen the word oolitic, maybe "oolitic limestone", a geological formation. 86.134.217.6 (talk) 13:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now I understand why they talk of "Scotch" whisky (whiskey?) There is also Scotch tape, a kind of Sellotape, which I seem to recall has tartans and dogs on the packaging. I used to believe that back in the thirties, or whenever it was invented, it was pronounced "Sealotape", but when I asked someone of that vintage she denied it. Another old lady I worked with, who was either German or Austrian, had a habit of saying to people who had not spotted an obvious object "What's that - Scotch mist?" I don't know if others are familiar with the expression. 86.134.217.6 (talk) 13:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of tape, Scotch(R) is a registered trademark; at least at present, that mark and brand are owned by 3M Corporation. I'm confident there is a whole story to the source of that trademark. I'm also confident that there is a separate discussion to be had as to how much "Scotch tape" has jumped the boundaries of the trademark to become common usage and how much not. But I won't elaborate on either of those at this point. I presume "Sellotape" is a trademark derived from cellophane tape. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, oolitic limestone. We have a disambiguation page at Oolitic. DuncanHill (talk) 13:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Though oolitic doesn't apply to the OP's question, since it's pronounced with a diaeresis (/oʊəˈlɪtɪk/), not with oo as in "oops". It's from Greek for egg. Deor (talk) 21:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oolitic is rarely pronounced with a diæresis in my experience. Mind you, I only read geology at Durham. DuncanHill (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting about the egg words. Look at oocyte, where the article lead suggests that it is pronounced with a diaresis in US, but not UK. Other words along the same line don't show the same distinction (e.g., oophorectomy). But since this "oo" comes from two separate Greek letters ("ώο-") and can at least plausibly be pronounced with a diaresis, I don't think it really counts here. (If it does, there are many words that come through this source.) StevenJ81 (talk) 23:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then there are the zoo- words (zoology, ...); I've never seen them written with a diaeresis, but they're certainly in the zöne. One day maybe we'll be pronouncing zoo as /zoh-oh/. Maybe not. I wonder: Is a museum of eggs called an 'oo'? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Girls gave the O's, and guys, oh for sure. Where they arose, well nobody knows". Martinevans123 (talk) 23:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the phrase "we have scotched the snake, not killed it." I don't know if there is a connection there. 86.134.217.6 (talk) 13:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

86.134.217.6 (talk) is one of several London area IP sockpuppets of banned User:Vote (X) for Change

That's a different scotch.[1] It's connected with "scratch". So a 3M computer tape that's ready to be used would be Scotch scratch tape or a scratch Scotch tape. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's "scotch'd".. as in Act III, Scene II of the Scottish Dr Who? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[2] lists a hoord of "oo" words <g>. (oof, ooh, oom, oon, oop, oor and oot, and for "ee" only eek, eel and een) Collect (talk) 15:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Willy Wonka's Oompa Loompas.

KägeTorä - (影 虎) (もしもし！)

21:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How does one get an official translation of official documents?

Let's say that I need to provide someone with an official copy of a vital record (e.g., birth certificate, death certificate, marriage certificate, etc.). The original official document is in a foreign language. So, two questions. (1): Do you have to also provide a translation, along with the original document? Or just the original document itself? And, (2): If a translation is needed, where does one go for that? For an "official" translated certified copy, that is. A court? An embassy? A consulate? A private party transcription service? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Apostille Convention.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I never saw that article, nor even heard of that concept. But ... that whole process (Apostille) seems to result in a document that says "this is a valid signature on this document" (similar to a notary public). But, that does not in any way translate the document, correct? So, how does the person on the receiving end know what it says? Yes, they will know that it is a valid and official document from the foreign country. But, how will they know what the document says? I am totally confused. Help! Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Every country has its own procedures, but practically there are certified services and translator agencies, who will do the translation and write some sort of a letter, confirming the correctness of the translation. For example, some person has a document in Russian and want to use it abroad, he goes to a professional translator who translates the document, writes the confirmation letter ("I, Ivan Ivanov, did this translation...") and then goes to a notary who confirms the signature of the translator ("I, Ivan Smirnov, confirm Ivan Ivanov's identity and his/her signature"). See also an explanation. P.S. Seems I and MChesterMC were writing our answers simultaneously. --Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 09:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, it will depend on who you are providing the document to, and what they want. But in general, if a certified translation is necessary, this is a matter of sending it to a translator, who will then add text to the effect of "this is a true and accurate translation of document", with their signature and contact details (which may need to be notarised, depending on the jurisdiction). For the UK, see [3], and [4] is a blog with some details on the US case. For a signed document, you may need both a certified translation (to tell them what the document says), and an apostille or notarised copy (to tell them that the signature is valid). We have the article Translating for legal equivalence, but it's in a hell of a state, and doesn't seem to be that useful for most countries. MChesterMC (talk) 08:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Wow, this is far more confusing than I thought it would be! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]