Language desk
< February 27	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	March 1 >

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.

February 28

United States of America(n) Armed Forces

I've been finding instances of the phrase "United States of American" and correcting them where necessary. One that I ran across was "...of the United States of American Armed Forces". I changed it to "...the Armed Forces of the United States of America" because, though it's more wordy, it avoids the conflation, as I see it, of "United States of America" and "American Armed Forces".

My question though... Was it correct in the first place? Is it right and it just sounds really weird to just me? †dismas†|^(talk) 01:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"United States of American Armed Forces" is clearly incorrect. "Armed Forces of the United States of America" works. "American Armed Forces" also works, provided it's clear that "America" refers to the USA. Wikipedia calls it "United States Armed Forces". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is trying to avoid bias, and this is good. However in the U.S., "America" usually means "U.S", and "American" usually means "of the U.S.". For example, we distinguish "American english" from "Canadian english". But "United States of American" is never correct. -Arch dude (talk) 03:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It actually sounds like a joke. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the army, it is either the U.S. Army, or more formally, the United States Army. Never "United States of America(n) Army." It sounds reasonable to say "Army of the United States of America," but it's not called that. For armed forces, it can be either the U.S. Armed Forces or, formally, United States Armed Forces. —Stephen (talk) 04:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think they were trying to form an adjective from "United States of America" Asmrulz (talk) 04:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A good case could be made that "armed forces" should not be capitalized in any of these formulations, as they are not proper nouns. - Nunh-huh 04:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reference in the first sentence of United States Armed Forces says that it's capitalized - just like U.S. Navy, U.S. Army, etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Navy likes to capitalize all kinds of things that someone following the Chicago Manual of Style wouldn't. - Nunh-huh 08:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you would say US army, US navy, etc.? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But in this case, isn't "Army" part of the name of the army, and so appropriate to capitalize? As in, 'The name of the army of the United States is "United States Army"'. Just as a road might be called "Foo Road". Iapetus (talk) 13:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or to put it another way, "the name of the United States army is the 'United States Army'". In other words, if that is the correct name, either capitalization style is valid. --76.71.6.254 (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dismas -- an adjective suffix can't really be added onto a whole phrase like that. (If it could, then it would be a clitic, not a suffix.) So you were correct to change it. AnonMoos (talk) 08:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to point out that it's not only "in the US" that the word American has the usual meaning of "of or pertaining to the United States". It's true in English in general. There are a few exceptions, like the Organization of American States, but almost always, that's what it means.
In fact, British publications such as The Economist tend to be entirely unembarrassed about using America to mean the United States, even in quite formal writing. My impression is that this usage is more accepted in higher registers in the UK than it is in the US.
It's an entirely different matter, of course, if you're speaking Spanish. --Trovatore (talk) 09:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a little different if you're speaking Spanish, but not entirely different. In Spanish, they say norteamericano. The term norteamericano refers to the United States, not to Guatemala, Mexico, Canada, etc.
“Enrique Cirules nos ofrece el testimonio de un norteamericano en la Cuba de la primera mitad del siglo, que nos toma de la mano y nos conduce por los mismos caminos que atravesaron aquellos colonos norteamericanos a quienes se trajo con engaños a una ilusoria ciudad (La Gloria City) que ellos mismos tuvieron que construir.” —Stephen (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does norteamericano really exclude Canadians? (In Canadian English, as far as I can tell, "North American" means "Canadian or American", not "Mexican", probably not even "Miquelonnais".) I thought Latin American Spanish had estadounidense or some such for this purpose. --Trovatore (talk) 20:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Norteamaericanos, is generally used to refer to yanquis. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Trovatore:, very rarely norteamericano can be used in the sense of English North American, but usually (almost always) norteamericano is the proper translation of American when it means citizen or resident of the U.S. (noun), or of or pertaining to the U.S. (adjective). That is, norteamericano excludes all other countries of North America. It's just like American (noun or adjective), except that it excludes South America. Spanish does have estadounidense, but it is not used as often as norteamericano. —Stephen (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that makes us más-al-norteamericanos, and greatly relieved to be so for the next four years. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Was that written by native speakers? Because for me it looks like an error of someone who does not have a good grasp of English. It reads "United States of [American] Armed Forces", with a possibility of omitting the adjective it turns out as "United States of Armed Forces" which does not make sense. More appropriate may be the possessive case: "United States of America's Armed Forces".--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was wondering. It looks to me like it was written by someone more familiar with a language in which modifiers must agree with the nouns that they modify. If we ignore the lack of normal use, "United States of America Armed Forces" is fine (there's no reason we can't say "United Arab Emirates Army", for example, and this is linguistically identical), but if you're more familiar with a language where adjectives have to agree with their nouns, I can imagine you seeing "America" here as an error for "American". Nyttend (talk) 00:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diocese and its plural

A pronunciation question. I have read that the singular 'diocese' is pronounced with a schwa for the final syllable (-səs), and the plural 'dioceses' is pronounced -seez. No additional syllable, just an internal change of vowel. If there were such a word as 'diocis', I can imagine the plural being 'dioces'. But that isn't the way diocese/s is spelt, so why should that pronunciation paradigm apply?

Is there any other word where the letter group -ceses is pronounced -seez?

Is dio-see-zəz really such a mouthful? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] --81.96.84.137 (talk) 08:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That blog certainly matches what I hear, and say, in England. Unfortunately, with English it is usually impossible to explain why something is pronounced in a certain way - there is often no particular logic to it, and historic pronunciations are often not recorded. The fact that the clergy all used to learn Latin, giving a familiarity with "diocesis" or "dioecesis" may have played a part. Wymspen (talk) 09:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not being involved with ecclesiastical matters, I have never heard /ˈdaɪəsiːz/ for the plural, though I am familiar with /ˈdaɪəsɪs, daɪˈɒsɪzn/ for the others (though I don't think I would voice the 's' in 'diocesan'). If I had heard it, I would have taken it as a mistake, by just such an analogy as Wells suggests. --ColinFine (talk) 14:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary gives the singular https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/diocese (UK) IPA(key): /ˈdaɪ.ə.siːz/ ,(US) IPA(key): /ˈdaɪ.ə.sɪs/, though I thought I'd always heard /si:z/ in the US. Wiktionary gives the https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/dioceses#English plural as dioceses, with 5 different pronunciations, allowing for an extra syllable or not.. Loraof (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've just changed the Wikitionary singular because the OED has the "s" pronunciation, though there are probably wide variations in the pronunciations of such a strange word. Dbfirs 20:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I conclude that the /seez/ pronunciation for -ceses in 'dioceses' is unique. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

the blue yonder

How can the phrase "the blue yonder" be understood? The context is as follows:"Yet not everyone is happy about the rise in telecommuting. Sending their staff out into the blue yonder can strike panic in the hearts of controlling managers." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.221.159.48 (talk) 10:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The far distance". See [2]. Bazza (talk) 11:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The "wide blue yonder" is a cliched phrse that evokes the skies or the far seas. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's "wild blue yonder" as introduced in the song "The U.S. Air Force". Wikipedia has an article titled Wild blue yonder that covers other uses, but near as I can tell, the origin is the U.S. Air Force song. Yonder itself dates from 1300 or so and entered English from Dutch; it is cognate with the "-yond" part of the more common word "beyond". Interestingly, "yonder" was originally an adverb, the noun usage in "the wild blue yonder" appears to be a newer use. The adverb use is common in Southern English and Appalachian English, where the phrase "way down yonder" is idiomatic for "over there". See, for example, the song "Chattahoochee": "Way down yonder on the Chatahoochee/where it gets hotter than a hootchie-cootchie". As far as "blue yonder", the phrase was almost unheard of prior to 1938, which makes sense because that's when the Air Force song was written. See Google ngrams analysis.--Jayron 32 13:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In Yonder Valley Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In Appalachian English, I think "yonder" usually means "middle distance", not "far distance." It is often used to direct attention to something currently visible, not far away. The phrase "...coming over yonder stile" Occurs in the folk song "Hangman". -Arch dude (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and in other Englishes, too, since about 1300, and Chaucer used it. The OED says "at some distance but within sight". Dbfirs 16:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I rather think that the nominal use in "the wild blue yonder" results from a reanalysis, and that "blue" was originally the nominal head. --ColinFine (talk) 14:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OED says the sense of "yonder" as "The far and trackless distance; usu. with preceding adj." is from the song. DuncanHill (talk) 14:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not only in the Appalachian mountains.[3]86.128.236.125 (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does "far" mean "falling"?

The above section made me Google "far skies" to see if the phrase existed, and was surprised that most of the results were Autosuggested to "falling skies". It's a TV show, they say.

Is there some sort of etymological relationship, do the words sound close enough in some dialect or is the TV show just a much more frequent search? InedibleHulk (talk) 11:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who can fathom the mysteries of Google's search algorithms? My guess would be that just the first two letters were parsed. "R" and "L" are sometimes confused, and "ing" is probably ignored. Dbfirs 12:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot about Japan. If I'd said "farring skies" aloud, I'd have probably heard it myself. Thanks! InedibleHulk (talk) 12:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See stemming. In its early years, Google didn't do any stemming, which meant that you had to build up elaborate searches (or do multiple searches) to catch possible alternate inflected forms. Nowadays, it often seems impossible to completely turn off Google stemming, which can be even more annoying than no stemming at all... AnonMoos (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Early text adventure games could be miserable like that. As a kid, I'd scream obscenities at them if they didn't understand what I typed. They didn't listen then. But like Google, they're listening now. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to cover the etymology, in case anyone's curious: Wiktionary isn't a good source but it gives "Old English feor, from Proto-Germanic *ferro, from Proto-Indo-European *per-" for "far" and "From Middle English fallen, from Old English feallan ‎(“to fall, fail, decay, die, attack”), from Proto-Germanic *fallaną ‎(“to fall”), from Proto-Indo-European *(s)pōl-" for "fall". -165.234.252.11 (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm glad we live in an age where the fallen failed decaying dead don't attack routinely enough for a synonym to develop. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrase

Would you please rephrase following sentences?

"Nevertheless, electric vehicles connection to grid (V2G) needs grid considerations, these vehicles require a large amount of electrical energy for charging their batteries and this demand of electrical energy should be modeled in distribution network planning and operation studies."
"Finally, the explained procedure is carried out for Monte Carlo iteration number (IN) times."

Thanks in advance--Freshman404^Talk 19:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Nevertheless, when electric vehicles are connected, the grid (V2G) needs special consideration. These vehicles require a large amount of electrical energy for charging their batteries and this electrical energy demand should be modeled in distribution network planning and operation studies."

Is there some problem with the second phrase that depends on context? I see nothing wrong with it. Akld guy (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the second one, I suspect that IN is the counter in the Monte Carlo program (IN=1, ..., N). If so, I would say "Finally, the explained procedure is carried out for N Monte Carlo iterations." Loraof (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Akld guy: Both phrases are true, I wanna rephrase them to avoid copyright violation. In the first one, I need to rephrase the second part (these vehicles require a large amount of ...). First part is OK right now.

@Loraof: About Monte Carlo, you're right, but I need to change this part "the explained procedure is carried out". --Freshman404^Talk 04:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, avoiding copyright violation makes sense. How about this:

"Nevertheless, when electric vehicles are connected, the grid (V2G) needs special consideration. Electrical energy demand when charging their batteries is high and should be modeled in distribution network planning and operation studies."
"Finally, the procedure described is performed for N Monte Carlo iterations." Akld guy (talk) 06:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Akld guy: what about these:

A large amount of electrical energy is required for charging these vehicles' batteries and this electrical demand should be considered in distribution network operation and planning studies.
Finally, the procedure explained above is repeated for Monte Carlo iteration number times.

Are they correct? -Freshman404^Talk 12:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, maybe with "of" after "iteration number". Maybe drop the "for" before "Monte". Akld guy (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]