Language desk
< April 29	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	May 1 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 30

ENGVAR and two-wheeled human-propelled vehicles

Does the term "bicycle helmet" sound natural in en:gb, or is it an Americanism that would be rendered "cycle helmet" or "cycling helmet" by Britons? Thanks to the Master Singers, I know that I should not loiter in the roadway or walk along cycle tracks, and in general "cycling" seems more friendly to en:gb than "bicycling" does, but I'm not at all sure. Nyttend (talk) 00:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've only ever heard "cycle helmet" or occasionally "bike helmet" in the UK, though the latter can also mean a motorcycle helmet. (I suppose strictly speaking "cycling helmet" is more correct as it is not part of the machine, but that is uncommon in daily speech.)--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bicycle helmet is certainly used in the UK: [1] [2] [3]. Bike and to a lesser extent cycle would be more likely in informal contexts. Henry ^Flower 11:22, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Nope"

Is the word "nope" ENGVAR-related? It is not in my (active) American vocabulary. I sometimes see it used where I might say "no way!" I am always reminded of this at WP:ERRORS2, where "Nope" indicates an unresolved problem. Here, I would simply say "No". Jmar67 (talk) 02:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very common in America, though maybe regional. Both "nope" and "yep" have the p-sound at the end to add emphasis.[4] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The "p" is kind of a way of expressing the closing of the mouth at the end of an utterance (to emphasize finality) within ordinary English phonemes. Similarly, French "oui" is often prolonged with a voiceless vowel at the end, and when the mouth closes slightly on this voiceless [i] vowel, it results in a [ç] palatal fricative sound. When [wiç] is brought back within French phonemes, it becomes "ouiche" [wiʃ]...

-- AnonMoos (talk) 03:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting about "oui". I am aware of the variation "ouais", which according to Wiktionary seems to apply here. At any rate, I would never say "nope" and might catch myself saying "yep" on rare occasions. Jmar67 (talk) 03:55, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or even more colloquially, "Yup!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that either. Think you're right about regional. Jmar67 (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe generational. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's been around for longer than any Wikipedia editor. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think Bugs may have been suggesting that kids these days don't use it. --Trovatore (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's Jmar67 who's suggesting that. I don't know how true it is. I would also point out that "No way!" has also been around a long time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:38, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In "ouais", the mouth is open at the end...

AnonMoos (talk) 05:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Nope" is used in Australian English, though this mature aged speaker of that variant thinks it's probably less common now that 50 years ago. HiLo48 (talk) 02:26, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto for the UK. The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English: J-Z by Eric Partridge (p. 1383) says: "no, emphatically no, US, 1888". Alansplodge (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another ENGVAR question: "from 1990"

I often look at articles translated from German by non-native speakers of English. Expressions like "from 1990", meaning "starting in 1990", are common in these articles because that is a direct translation of the German "ab 1990". I do not consider "from 1990" used this way to be idiomatic in AmE, but I wonder how the BrE people feel about it. Jmar67 (talk) 12:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Broadly agree, but it would depend on context. "From 1990 to 2019, the number of Wikipedia articles increased by a lot" is cromulent. "From 1990, the number of Wikipedia articles increased by a lot" is definitely awkward and not idiomatic to me (CanEng). Matt Deres (talk) 13:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would "From 1990 onward...?" be idiomatic? Just curious here. Lectonar (talk) 13:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For me, yes. That is an alternative to "starting in". Jmar67 (talk) 13:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. Without the addendum of a year or some other qualifier, I would usually replace the "From" with "Since". Matt Deres (talk) 13:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Since" could imply after 1990. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Since" would imply continuation to the present. My example was intended for actions concluded: "From 1990 she sang in Munich and from 1995 in Berlin. She retired in 2002." Jmar67 (talk) 14:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You also see this on pricing. Example: "Bedding from $99." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'd say that either, but anyway it's different from the usage with dates. The simplest extended form would be "from $99 up" in the one case, "from 1990 on" in the other. --76.69.46.228 (talk) 04:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. English speakers tend to shorten things. American Midwestern example: "Going to the store." "Can I come with?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, in that case, neither "from" nor "since" really works; they both imply continuous activity (and, as discussed, the "from" structure in your example would not be correct). Matt Deres (talk) 20:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I used to work for a Jewish man. He was from Poland (he fought in the free Polish army having escaped to England before the Nazi occupation). I believe that German uses the "come with" construction - does Yiddish also, and what about Hebrew? He used it when speaking English, but apart from that I've never encountered it. 2A00:23A8:830:A600:F95E:A4FC:C51D:9EA2 (talk) 15:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Standard German would say "Kann ich mitkommen?", very literally "Can I with come?" and idiomatically translated as "Can I come/go along?" or "Can I come/go with you?". Also "Ich komme mit" (literal "I come with", idiomatic "I'll come/go with you"). Jmar67 (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But the second one brooks no contradiction. I will come with you (..if you want it or not..), whereas the question is the polite way of doing it. Lectonar (talk) 11:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you have a "But" in there. "I'll go with you" is also definitive. Or would "I am going with you" be closer? My German is not great. Matt Deres (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]