Language desk
< February 16	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 18 >

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 17

Writing numerals in english

Some people tend to write numerals like this: "He bought 10 (ten) apples." Does anyone know how this style is called and why / when it is used? Obviously, there are cases where ambiguity needs to be avoided (i.e. on checks, in legal texts and medical prescriptions) but this doesn't explain why this style is sometimes found in general ~~speech~~ writing (apparently mostly in the US). --188.23.237.203 (talk) 11:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some info here and here. Not reliable sources, but they seem on the ball. Matt Deres (talk) 14:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They don't really address its use in "general speech" (presumably meaning "general writing"). I'd require some convincing that that's actually a thing, even in the US. Henry ^Flower 15:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How would you use it in general speech? Like "ten (Tee-Ee-En)"? I can see the reverse usage in speech for disambiguation or emphasis - e.g. "fifteen (one-five)" (as opposed to 50). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Our train company had to change its name on this account. The problem was that when the automated announcer called "the twelve thirty one train for Norwich will depart from platform 2" no-one could work out if this was the 12:30 One train or the 12:31 train. It changed its name to National Express (East Anglia) before losing the franchise altogether.

In the OP's example, if there is any discrepancy the words take priority over the figures. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a date is identified by both day of the week and day of the month and there is a mismatch the day of the week has priority. 2A00:23C4:7939:B000:CC82:B53:7331:A530 (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Yes I meant general writing. I do occasionally see it in closed captioning though, which does not make much sense either. --188.23.237.203 (talk) 05:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't know of a specific name for the practice, but I tend to see it on documents that people want to look official, almost a kind of pseudo-legalese. For example, HR professionals seem to enjoy it: "Applicants must have five (5) years related experience", "Workers are expected to lift fifty (50) kg throughout their shift" - that kind of thing. It's not entirely unrelated to the concept of the legal doublet. Matt Deres (talk) 14:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do we determine correct capitalization for a person's last name?

How do we determine correct capitalization for a person's last name? Re: Jocelyne LaGarde. Is her last name LaGarde or Lagarde (with an upper-case or a lower-case letter "G" / "g")? I see it everywhere (on the Internet) with the upper-case "G". But her signature is, very clearly, with a lower-case "g". See here: [1]. (The writing is small, so you have to use the "magnifying glass" icon on that website page to "zoom" in on the signature.) What should we be using here on Wikipedia? I also viewed her one and only film, Hawaii (1966 film). The credits -- both at the beginning and at the end of the film -- list all the actors with "all caps" format (i.e., she is credited as "JOCELYNE LAGARDE"). So, that was not helpful. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph A. Spadaro, Wikipedia uses the capitalization used by the preponderance of reliable sources. I searched Google Books for "jocelyne lagarde" and about 90% of the seemingly reliable sources I found say "LaGarde". Trying to analyze an autographed photo you found online is original research, which is contrary to policy. We have no way of knowing whether that autograph is genuine, as faked autographs of celebrities are commonplace. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you read Forged autographs. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course, the autograph could be a fake. Highly unlikely, but it could. It's not like this lady is Brad Pitt or Elvis, with a high demand for her autograph. She is some minor actor from 50-60 years ago, whom -- let's face it -- no one has ever heard of. So, I assume that her autograph is legit. I believe that Americans "Americanized" her name. And placed the capital "G", even though that's probably not how it's done in her homeland. And, once a mistake is made on the Internet, it simply repeats itself over and over. So, people "think" it's correct. There are some sources that state "Lagrande". Specifically, the Academy Awards website. And that's how this came up ... because she was nominated for an Oscar back in 1966. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are continuing your original research, which is contrary to our core content policy, by attempting to evaluate the likelihood that this autographed photo you found online is genuine. Unless you are a professional with credentials for evaluating autographs, this is a really bad idea. Of course people have heard of her. I saw that film back in 1966, remember her well, and she was nominated for an Oscar. It is interesting that you now mention the Academy Awards website but do not provide a link, neither here nor at Talk: Jocelyne LaGarde, where you also discuss this autograph. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A few points. (1) The Oscars website is public information. What did you think ... that I was trying to "get over on you"? What is so "interesting" about me not providing a link? Just go to search the Oscars database and type in her name. It will show up as "Lagarde" (which, at first, I took to be a typo or an error). I can't just give a "link" ... because one has to enter the website and formulate a specific search and then conduct that search. So, there is no "link". So, if you want to confirm this, go to the Oscars database and do a search by her name. Again, I am not sure why you think I would make this up or lie about it? Or why you think it's so "interesting" that I did not provide the link. (It is my belief and experience that the word "interesting", in this context, is simply a "polite" and "PC" accusation of dishonesty.) (2) You may remember a film from 1966, but I can assure you that the great majority of readers here have never heard of the film and/or the actress. The younger generation of people have never heard of her and have no clue who she is. (3) Let's forget about Wikipedia. Because I see you like to wiki-lawyer. Citing chapters and verses, etc. Yet, missing the big picture and the point. I am interested to know what her real name is, independent of any Wikipedia purposes. There. Does that frame the question differently for you? Is her name "LaGarde" or "Lagarde"? My modified question has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Or its rules, etc. I just want to know for myself. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Read the contemporaneous New York Times review of the movie by Vincent Canby which is a reference in the article about the movie. That newspaper has an excellent reputation for fact checking and accuracy and renders her name as "La Grande".

I have neither accused you of dishonesty nor implied that in any way. I was just curious why you mentioned the Academy Awards database later rather than sooner. Obviously, that online database did not exist in 1966 and is a later creation. Actors names nominated for major awards are often rendered in all caps there, and in the section for best actress nominees, it is in all caps. As for asking me to "forget about Wikipedia" right here on Wikipedia? Well, ain't gonna happen. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, if I asked what her name is -- independent of Wikipedia's "requirements" -- because I simply want to know for my own personal satisfaction (which is exactly what I asked, above) ... you would still quote Wikipedia rules and policies? Or would you "forget about" Wikipedia policies for purposes of answering the question? Geez. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it LaGarde, not LaGrande? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. It is LaGarde (or Lagarde?). A typo snuck into the discussion. I edited my postings above to fix the typo. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The only obits I could find in Newspapers.com are from Honolulu newspapers, and they spelled it "Lagarde". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you Google the name, both versions turn up, with capital G being the more often occurring. It would be interesting to see how they spelled it in the movie's own credits. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Baseball Bugs: I stated above: I also viewed her one and only film, Hawaii (1966 film). The credits -- both at the beginning and at the end of the film -- list all of the actors with "all caps" format (i.e., she is credited as "JOCELYNE LAGARDE"). So, that was not helpful. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to a video of the film: (link = Hawaii (1966) Julie Andrews, Max von Sydow, Richard Harris. Drama). In the beginning credits, her name appears at about the 3:01 time-mark. In the ending credits, her name appears at about the 2:40:52 time-mark. In both instances, listed in "ALL CAPS". Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry, I missed that. And since it's all caps, it's hard to know for sure... however, it would not be surprising if the first "a" was lower case if the name was supposed to be LaGarde rather than Lagarde. If anyone could find an obituary in a Tahiti newspaper, that could be an indicator, or better yet, a picture of her headstone, if any. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quite apart from any arguments about the authenticity of the autograph or anyone's OR reading of it, I'm not sure a signature is necessarily the best way to determine how a name is capitalized, given that a signature is often styalized. Speaking personally, my surname begins with an L, and would normally (per normal English rules of orthography) be capitalized. But when I sign my name, I usually write it more like lower-case, as it flows better that way. Iapetus (talk) 10:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]