Language desk
< March 4	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 6 >

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.

March 5

Pronunciation of WWII

I'm watching 11.22.63 and noticed that two separate characters from the year 1960 pronounced "WWII" as "double-u double-u two".

If I'm not mistaken (please correct me if I am), nowadays most people pronounce "WWII" by sounding out its full name: "World War Two".

Was there a shift of the word's pronunciation over the past 50 years or so?Johnson&Johnson&Son (talk) 04:15, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How often have you heard it said out loud? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience as a native American English speaker born 6-1/2 years after the war ended, who grew up in Detroit surrounded by veterans of that war, and the relatives of those who perished, the abbreviations were for written discussion only. When speaking aloud about that catastrophe that killed two of my uncles and wounded and shattered several other uncles, "World War Two" was the spoken standard from my earliest childhood memories, to clearly differentiate it from "World War One", the conflict of 1914-1918. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or -- as Phoebe on Friends would say -- "the Great War". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:52, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't about pronunciation, but about understanding what the abbreviation means. I have heard it read as "double-you, double-you eleven" - which says nothing about changes to pronunciation and a lot about the speaker's understanding of what those letters stand for.109.150.174.93 (talk) 09:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone literate person in my childhood would have known what the abbreviation meant, but to pronounce the abbreviation aloud in normal conversation would have been considered eccentric and bizarre. Hippies would not have considered using the abbreviation verbally among themselves, or in the presence of Nixonites, or anyone else. Totally non standard. As for "eleven"? No. Never. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If my memory is not deceiving me, the eccentric character Archie Bunker in the 1970s American sitcom All in the Family used to refer to "double-u double-u two–the Big One. Loraof (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking this is a more recent thing - an echo to the popularity of saying double-u, double-u, double-u when speaking aloud web addresses. It's particularly curious in both instances because saying the double-u takes three times as long as the word it's a "short form" for. In other words, it's only a short form when written, but a much longer form when said aloud. Matt Deres (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "double-u double-u two" pronunciation predates the WWW: Gravity's Rainbow has it in 1978 (in what are maybe lyrics?), this newpaper has it in 1982: [1] "back in the 40's, during the Big One, Double-U Double-U Two. when this nation knew a good war when it came along, by God." Rmhermen (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no doubt it predates the web (I'm pretty sure I sure I heard John Wayne use it ("double-ya")); I'm speaking only of how common it is. Matt Deres (talk) 18:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard dubya dubya 2, although very rarely, and my father (born in the late thirties) has also heard it, but very rarely. My mother has no opinion, other than that she lost two uncles in that war, and had a third returned shell-shocked. μηδείς (talk) 21:23, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question. Why refer to it by an acronym at all. "World War Two" is unambiguous and has fewer syllables than any acronym. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And that brings us more or less back to the original question. I say that the pronunciation as "double-U double-U two" simply arises as a jocular affectation. In writing, of course, WW2 (or WWII, for underabbreviaters) is indeed a convenient short form. --69.159.61.172 (talk) 06:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But not an acronym, unless one tries to pronounce it as if it were a word. You could get away with it in the WWII case (except you'd risk confusing it with Wii). But WW2 fails. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I always say Second World War. Alansplodge (talk) 09:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Usually abbreviated to SWW. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Très drôle. Alansplodge (talk) 11:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I, and I suspect many British people of my generation (b.1953) and older, would just call it "the war", unless clarification was needed. (It's the one we mustn't mention.) AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that "Second Whatever" is the usual British form; thus we have Second Boer War, Third Battle of Ypres and Fourth Anglo-Mysore War. There was a Ninth Border War in South Africa, but Wikipedia has lumped it in with Xhosa Wars. Presumably the use of Roman numerals after the subject is an Americanism (slightly reminiscent of a film sequel). Alansplodge (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the USA, "Post-war America" still refers to a period starting in the late 40s, even though we've had lots of other wars since. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They also use "antebellum" to refer to the period before the Civil War. Not sure how a Latin phrase meaning "before the [unspecified] war" came to refer only to a very particular war in a country that has been involved in many wars and has never spoken Latin. But there you go. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the exact same reason that there have been 8+ Kings Edward of England/UK, but only one Edwardian Era. --Jayron 32 19:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But at least the Brits don't refer to "Hera Edwardiana" or whatever the Latin would be. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And we have The Good War...I've heard that being used from time to time...Lectonar (talk) 15:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Same here, the point being that though many wars have been fought since, there was no fighting on the home front. And since only a vanishingly small percentage of women fight in wars anyway, the 1939 - 45 conflict is the last they will have memory of. 94.192.182.71 (talk) 16:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having trouble figuring out what either of those points has to do with the "good war" moniker. The first is dubious in any case; Hawaii was not a state, and there was no "fighting" in any usual sense of the word in the 48 states.

I think the "good war" idea is that it was the last war for which the moral basis for US involvement was essentially unchallenged at home. --Trovatore (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I just saw that 94 geolocates to the UK. I wasn't aware the term was used there. I thought it was an American thing. --Trovatore (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In line with other comments above, most every fellow American I've known who actually participated in WWII simply calls/called it "The War". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Solitary work

Some professions are largely viewed as being solitary, such as truck driver; others largely involve group work, such as teaching. What is the correct terminology for solitary work and group work respectively, and is there a wikipedia article on them? Hawaan12 (talk) 06:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.K. it is usually referred to as "lone working" - particularly when health and safety is being considered. Employers are expected to do a risk assessment to make sure that employees working on their own are not put at greater risk. There is a Wikipedia article titled Lone Worker. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_worker 109.150.174.93 (talk) 09:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All you need to do is enclose the title in double square brackets: Lone worker. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:20, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about group work? Hawaan12 (talk) 07:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Too much of a too-muchness

Is it possible to be excessively hyperbolic? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the meanings of hyperbolic do you mean? Or does your question relate to hyperbole? Akld guy (talk) 12:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hoped the header would give the game away. It's about hyperbole, not hyperbola. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is absolutely impossible to be excessively hyperbolic. In the entire history of the world, no one has ever been excessively hyperbolic. In fact, in the history of the universe, not one being, of any sentient species, has ever, even for a microsecond, been more hyperbolic than was warranted by the occasion. I hope this response, which is, if I do say so myself, probably the most eloquent paragraph ever written, adequately answers your question. Mnudelman (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I have told you once, I have told you a million times - avoid hyperbole! However, hyperbole has been properly used in rhetoric, and in poetry, as a legitimate way of making a point by overstating it. Clearly in a piece of oratory the use of a limited amount of hyperbole might be considered good practice and effective, while too much of it would be considered excessive and counter-productive.109.150.174.93 (talk) 13:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not possible to be excessively hyperbolic in a single statement, since an exaggeration of an exaggeration is still an exaggeration. However, when multiple instances of exaggeration follow successively in a person's written work or speech, readers or listeners will likely form the impression that the person is prone to extravagant claims and cannot be trusted, unless the work is obviously intended as light-hearted or humorous. So yes, too many instances of hyperbolism in the one work could be classed as excessive. Akld guy (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^^That's the correct but not-as-fun answer. It's a scale issue -- words, sentences, paragraphs, works, corpora, etc. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is excessively hyperbolic like being repetitively redundant? --Jayron 32 02:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. In some contexts, there's an appropriate amount of exaggeration. If you exceed that amount, then you're excessively hyperbolic. Perfectly natural; not even particularly subtle. --Trovatore (talk) 11:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all who responded. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Latin "omnia"

Just to check I'm not hallucinating. Even though I verified that in ablative case the word "omnia" ("everything") becomes "omnibus", I'd like to recheck whether "pro omnibus" meaning "for everything" is indeed correct and thus coincides with "for everybody", as in Unus pro omnibus, omnes pro uno. 93.174.25.12 (talk) 13:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Latin omnis means "all" or "every", and can refer to things, people, or quantities, so it can correspond to "everyone" or "everything", depending on the context. Omnia is plural. Omnibus is dative or ablative plural, and pro takes the ablative case, so pro omnibus does indeed mean "for all", "for everybody", or "for everything". --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flanders and Swann had a lovely song about London council buses, called "A Transport of Delight". In At the Drop of a Hat, Flanders helpfully explains that 'bus' is "from the Latin omnibus, meaning to or for, by, with or from everybody, which is a very good description". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:29, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to that song I can never hear the first line of Wordsworth's sonnet Westminster Bridge without mentally adding "Mind the stair! Mind the stair!" AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Our article on bus agrees that it derives from "omnibus" meaning "for all" (although it spends an inordinate amount of space recounting the legend that it derives from a hatter's shop named "Omnès" near an early bus stop, which seems dubious and is not mentioned by the Oxford English Dictionary). I can't help mentioning the delightful English/Latin macaronic poem The Motor Bus, even though the word omnibus does not appear in it. Mnudelman (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will point out that gender determines whether an omn- form means "everyone" or "everything". Omnia is the neuter plural, so it means "everything" rather than "everyone", which would be omnes (masculine and feminine plural). However, omnibus is the ablative plural form for all genders, so it can have either meaning. Marco polo (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And the neuter singular nominative/accusative is omne, while we're up. —Tamfang (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]