Language desk
< August 9	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 11 >

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.

August 10

Rodney Dangerfield

How is his surname pronounced? Is it as in "danger" or as in "dang"? 93.136.175.52 (talk) 05:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As in "danger". --174.89.49.204 (talk) 05:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a reference. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To what? --174.89.49.204 (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To the word "danger". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've always heard Dainjerfeeld but I'm from the South. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's pronounced exactly like the two common English words "danger" and "field". --Jayron 32 12:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If in doubt, enter his name on YouTube and you will see many clips, most of which introduce him by name.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing it up for me. 93.136.175.52 (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the variant spelling "Dangarfield", which I've never been 100% sure of, since ga never produces a soft g anywhere else in the English language, to my knowledge. Except maybe in cases where an e is dropped, such as "knowledg(e)able"-- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does margarine exist in Oz? —Tamfang (talk) 00:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the biggest flogger of that product in Oz avoids telling us what it really is in their advertising. They just use their pretty product name. HiLo48 (talk) 04:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or gaol. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Germanic term for non-Celtic, non-Roman foreigners?

Walhaz and derived terms (.e.g Welsh) are usually described as being the old Germanic term for "foreigner". However, according to some sources I've seen (including that article), it was actually more specific, and referred to Celts and/or Romans. If this is the case, then presumably there were other words used for other types of foreigners. Do we know what those words were? Iapetus (talk) 14:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'The Old English noun wealh, plural wealas, originally meaning "Celt", gradually extended its meanings to "slave" and "foreigner" in general. Its ultimate source may have been the name of the Celtic tribe, Volcae, but on the Continent, in view of the Romanized nature of Gaul, it was extended by its Germanic users to include all peoples of Romance or Latin stock. Although the German welsch eventually came to have pejorative connotations, it did not develop the other senses acquired by OE wealh, which was applied specifically to the Romano-Britons. When used of foreigners Wealh was virtually always qualified, as with the Galwalas of the OE Chronicle.'. Margaret Lindsay Faull, The Semantic Development of Old English wealh, Leeds Studies in English, n.s. 8, (1975), 20-44. Alansplodge (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See also Walhaz (your speech marks prevented the link). Alansplodge (talk) 14:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Link corrected Iapetus (talk) 08:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proto-Germanic *winidaz for Slavic people, *finnaz for Sámi (Lapps) come to mind. Cheers ⌘ _hugarheimur 16:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all Iapetus (talk) 09:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Affecting a local pronunciation of place names, personal names, etc

There's a trend that I've noticed among certain (invariably American) podcasters whereby they choose to affect a quasi-native pronunciation of certain place names and personal names, particularly those in non-rhotic-speaking Anglophone countries which Americans would ordinarily pronounce with a rhotic R. A prominent example is the city of Melbourne, which Americans would tend to pronounce like Mel-burn, but which I've heard podcasters pronounce with a very unnatural-sounding Mel-bun or Melb'n. These are people who ordinarily have a rhotic accent, but who affect a non-rhotic pronunciation just for this one word. It stands out like a sore thumb, and sounds (to my ear) incredibly affected and unnatural. But apparently this is in response to actual requests from Australian listeners who complain whenever they hear the name of their city pronounced rhotically, because that's "wrong". I've never heard the opposite, i.e. an Australian pronouncing "New York" or "California" with a rhotic R because that's how the locals do it. Has anyone else noticed this, and does the phenomenon have a name? I don't know exactly what to call it. Maybe "hyper-endonymy". It's the intra-linguistic version of using the endonym for other countries, like calling Germany "Deutschland" even when speaking English. LANTZY ^TALK 18:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have its own word for it, but it is a form of hypercorrection similar to, but not exactly the same as, hyperforeignism. The best word for it, TBH, is affectation, "speech or conduct not natural to oneself : an unnatural form of behavior meant especially to impress others". There is not, as far as I know, any special word for when the affectation is specifically geographic. --Jayron 32 19:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the traditional New York accent is non-rhotic. A common eye dialect version of the city's name is "Noo Yawk". It's the rest of us in North America who pronounce the R. --174.89.49.204 (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of. There are different ways to be non-rhotic and North American Accents which are non-rhotic are so in different ways than Australian ones are. The manifestation of the r-dropping is distinct. Australians don't sound like New Yorkers. --Jayron 32 11:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find a youtube link, or whatever, with a native Aussie saying "Melbourne"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a sound file right at the beginning of the Melbourne article. The second syllable (if it can still be called that) has no vowel sound at all. HiLo48 (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is called a syllabic consonant. Question (to Victorians): What rhymes with "Melbourne"? --Lambiam 00:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In Australian, "seldom". HiLo48 (talk) 00:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not using (an approximation) of the local pronunciation makes one run an enhanced risk of not being understood by the locals, like the tourist in Paris who didn't understand why no one could tell him how to go to the "Shamzy Lie Seas", even though he had read in his travel guide it was perhaps the most famous street of Paris. --Lambiam 00:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When I was much younger everyone I knew here in Australia pronounced the first word of Grand Prix to rhyme with sand, or band. (Except my French teachers.) Now, we have such events (both car and motorcycle) locally, and it's almost universally pronounced as if that first vowel is an "o". Some people even leave off the "n" when saying it! HiLo48 (talk) 00:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall a cartoon of the Donald McGill type, about the confusion caused by the mispronunciation of the second word of Grand Prix ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 13:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was a clip Denis Norden used to shew, ""Grahnd Preeh". But it says "Grand Prix!" DuncanHill (talk) 11:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Listening to that sound byte, and assuming it's a native Aussie saying it, and despite the disparagement of "Melb'n" by the OP, that's exactly what it sounds like to my American Midwest ears. However, as an American and being cognizant of how Aussies say it, I would say "Mel-burn" rather than what it looks like, which is "Mel-born". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's definitely an Australian saying that. And thanks for being the first American I've seen open to accepting that IS the way we say it. Others have told me in the past that we simply cannot say it without a vowel sound between the "b" and "n" in "Melb'n". I'm pleased we now have the sound file in the article. But now I have a question. How is Melbourne, Florida pronounce by the locals? HiLo48 (talk) 10:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, I have no idea. A good bet would be to find a local TV station's website and see if they have any videos in which they say it. In general, the example I like to use is "Paris". Americans tend to pronounce it "PAIR-iss", and that's how Paris, Illinois is pronounced. To us, the French call their city "pah-WEE", while we might say it that way (or "pah-REE") just to be cute. In Spanish, which is definitely a rhotic language, they say "pah-REES", which is actually what the French say except their standard pronunciation rules make it sound to us like "pah-WEE". So emphasizing the second syllable would be closer to being right, but for whatever reason we emphasize the first syllable. As to a vowel sound in "b'n", there is one, sort of, but it's really clipped, which is why "bun" doesn't really work. Think of the many British cities ending in "ham". The "h" is silent and the vowel is likewise clipped. Hence "Durham" is like "Dur'm". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know where you're getting the w from in the French pronunciation of Paris. It's a different r from the American one, but it's definitely not a w. --Trovatore (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's not actually a "w". It just sounds like it to this American Midwesterner. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's it! It's exactly the same vowel "sound". HiLo48 (talk) 11:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scathing early 20th century book about English language "misuse"

I'm trying to re-find a book I came across ages ago from the early 20th century (I want to say 1910s but I could be off-base there), published in the US iirc, that lamented the "decay" of the English language due to slang, fashions, and "misuses" of grammatical structures and lexical items. Unfortunately, I have no recollection of the title, nor the name of the author.

I can remember two examples of things it complained about:

The use of "obnoxious" to refer to people or actions; it should only be used of chemicals ("obnoxious gases").
The use of "anticipate" to mean "foresee"; it should only be used to mean "foresee and prevent".

Anyone know the book I'm talking about? I'm fairly certain it was available on the Internet Archive, but I might be thinking of a different, similar site...--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 19:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Words; their use and abuse by Mathews, William? Alansplodge (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not it, but it looks fascinating nonetheless, thanks!--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 23:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have History of linguistic prescription in English. The most famous English prescriptivist of the first half of the 20th century was Henry Watson Fowler, whose 1926 "Dictionary of Modern English Usage" is for some reason highly-praised on Wikipedia, even though he was rather idiosyncratic, and notorious for inventing usage distinctions which simply didn't exist in the English language previously... AnonMoos (talk) 22:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear to be that either, sadly. The work I'm thinking of was less lexicographical/comprehensive, it just rants sardonically about what the author saw as "wrong" usages.--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 23:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newbiepedian, may I recommend something from around that time that's an antidote to moaning about the alleged debasing of English: Thomas Lounsbury's The Standard of Usage in English. You'll find it here at the Internet Archive. The book's very much more readable than its deadly dull title suggests. I learned of it via American Tongue and Cheek, a much newer (and rather livelier) book by somebody called Jim Quinn (offhand, I don't know which person of this name). -- Hoary (talk) 23:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apart fom the books he has written (also Word of Mouth, But never eat out on a Saturday night and Shoot Me Like an Irish Soldier), Quinn is a Philadelphia-based published poet and husband of the poet Daisy Fried, former journalist (he has worked for the Washington Post and the Philadelphia Inquirer) and a food columnist for several magazines. It appears there is no article on him here. "Jim" is a nickname; his given name is "James". --Lambiam 00:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Lambiam! Perhaps he merits an article, in part to protect him from confusion with (yet another!) right-wing American radio talk show person of the same name. -- Hoary (talk) 01:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but I'm currently not in a position to do the grunt work of digging up the sources (if they exist) required to satisfy the exacting demands of WP:AUTHOR. --Lambiam 01:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've been incubating a draft on my hard drive for two months and counting. It's been quite some time since I launched anything worthwhile. -- Hoary (talk) 02:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also looks interesting, thanks!--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 23:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This prescriptivist's prescription for anticipate is narrower than mine: I would define anticipate as "(foresee and) act upon in advance". For example, I'd be happy with "As you see, Mr Bond, I anticipated your attempt to scale my walls"; the attempt was not prevented, but it was provided for. —Tamfang (talk) 01:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Direct translation for "eggy" in any European language

I was trying to find a translation for "eggy" (i.e. reminiscent of eggs, as in flavor or odor) in Spanish and came to the provisional conclusion that there isn't a word-to-word equivalent adjective. You would have to use an expression like "de huevo" or "a huevo". Then I looked for a French, Italian, or German equivalent, and couldn't find one. It seems like a fairly obvious coinage, but I can't find any direct equivalent outside English. Does such an adjective exist in any European language? Thanks. LANTZY ^TALK 20:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In Croatian there's "jajast", "jajolik" etc., but none of them sound good with specifically flavor or odor. You'd probably say something like "smells like eggs". "Jajast" would be probably the closest to "reminiscent of eggs". While you could describe a flavor or odor with this word, it would sound kind of slangy. 93.136.175.52 (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. -y is cognate to -ig in German, but there's no ei-ig form I know of; and most of the forms that ei might create are quite taken up by other words with quite different meanings -- a fun rabbit hole to explore, thanks! --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 23:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's zweieiig, maybe better translated in spirit as "(two-)egged" instead of "eggy", as in twins from two different egg cells (and the opposite "eineiig"). Not the kind of meaning OP was looking for either, but interesting for sure. 93.136.175.52 (talk) 23:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for "ziemlich eiig" finds a few examples in German meaning "looking somehow like an egg" and "tastes resp. smells of eggs". Italian has "ovaiola" meaning a "laying hen" (ovo/uovo = egg), but well this is not "eggy". 2003:F5:6F0C:E600:2DB6:994C:6322:3DD2 (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC) Marco PB[reply]

For Spanish you could try huevoso; i don't think it is a commonly used term (in the sense of eggy), but you'd probably be understood when used in context. (Warning: it is also a slang term for having huevos, sense 3.) German has eiartig, which I'd translate back into English as "egg-like", not quite the same as "eggy" (which can also be a slang term). Moreover, another meaning of German eiartig is "ovoid`". --Lambiam 23:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt I've heard the word "eggy" before, except in "Eggy-Peggy", the name of a language game comparable to Pig Latin... AnonMoos (talk) 20:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Smells a bit eggy in here, is there a gas leak?", "God, that's an eggy fart", "The custard was good, but a little on the eggy side for my liking". There's also Eggy bread, but that's eggy as in containing eggs rather than being reminiscent of them. DuncanHill (talk) 20:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it exists, but I don't think I've heard it before (though I have heard of "figgy pudding"). And the gas smell is hydrogen sulfide, usually described as having the odor of rotten eggs. AnonMoos (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In my job I have to treat waste chemicals with sodium sulfide, producing hydrogen sulfide as a by product. The smell always makes me crave egg salad, although I've been told that I over cook my eggs when I make egg salad if it smells like that. --Khajidha (talk) 13:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In French you'd have to say "d'oeuf", instead of, I dunno, *oeufeux or something. Goût d'oeuf, odeur d'oeuf, etc. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Linguee is an interesting source for questions like this because it shows you real-life examples of how people have translated particular words or phrases. For French, it returns

there's an eggy smell off it --> il y a une odeur d'oeuf.
the taste is complimented by the strong "eggy" flavour --> le goût est ensuite complété par la riche saveur d'œuf

And for German :

small, open sandwiches topped with various concoctions - primarily eggy but also fishy, gherkiny, tomatoey --> kleinen, schmalen Brötchen mit den unterschiedlichsten bunten Belegen in zahlreichen Variationen - von Ei mit Ei über "Wilden Paprika" und Champignons bis zu den verschiedensten Fischsorten, Gurken, Tomaten…

(As you can see many translations are not exact, but it gives you a flavour for how people tackle such questions. The database includes a range of other (primarily European) languages.) 70.67.193.176 (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In Finnish you would say "munainen" (as in "having egg") or "munamainen" (as in "being like egg"). JIP | Talk 21:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing the age of things and persons

Is there a somewhat natural way to express in English that a specific thing or concept has been in existence for a lesser period of time than a specific person? For example, does it work to say "Bruce Willis is older than the M16 rifle"? And is there a way to emphasize it from the oppposite perspective? The M16 rifle is... well, what compared to Bruce Willis? --KnightMove (talk) 20:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question. However, we think of people as being born on an exact and specific date. For example, Bruce Willis was born on January 1, 1950 (or whatever the correct date). A "thing" -- such as a gun -- does not really have a "birth date", per se. So, it's akin to comparing apples and oranges. Which is why we never hear people say "Bruce Willis is younger than the M16 rifle." I think using the words "younger" and "older" implies that you are comparing similar items. As to what the best wording would be, good question. But, it would probably need to be more "wordy" than just stating "older/younger". If it were me, I'd say something like: Bruce Willis was born in 1950, a full 20 years after the invention of the M16 rifle. (or some such). Or, similarly, Bruce Willis was born in 1950, some 15 years before the start of the Vietnam War. Wording to that effect. In other words, "before and after" seem more natural than "older and younger". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As compared with the old cliché that some particular thing is "older than dirt"? <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 21:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A rather common way in which people may express the idea, is in the form "When I was born, there were no <newfangled things>".^[2] This locution has a respectible pedigree: "When I was born, / there were no oceans / or springs of water. / My birth was before / mountains were formed / or hills were put in place.^[3]" Or one might say, "When I was born, <newfangled things> had not been invented."^[4] Benjamin Franklin Gardner, (1818-1915), an Illinois physician, ia reported to have been fond of saying that he was just as old as the State of Illinois.^[5] I'd find it quite natural to read something like "The man was older than the majestic tree in front of his house, which his father had planted there one week after his birth." But then, it is natural to ask, "How old is that tree?". The question "How old is the M16?" is a bit weird. You might say that the M16 "came later than" Bruce.^[6] --Lambiam 22:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I recall a line from Miracle on 34th Street, where Kris Kringle was asked about his age, and his answer was, "As old as my tongue, and a little older than my teeth!" <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 01:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phrases such as "Joe is older than the M16 rifle" or "Phyllis is younger than the M16 rifle" seem perfectly normal to me. For an example, Google "Betty White is older than sliced bread". --Khajidha (talk) 13:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Older than dirt" and "older than sliced bread" are very common sayings. Used tongue-in-cheek. "Older than the M16 rifle" is not the same as those examples. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any difference. My dad used to always say that he was "the same age as Monopoly and Social Security". "Older than the M16 rifle" sounds perfectly normal and understandable to me. --Khajidha (talk) 15:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The usage seems perfectly normal to me. The chair on which I am sitting is older than me, and my phone is older than my computer (I am older than both). I am very much younger than some of my books. Perhaps an EngVar issue? I am British. DuncanHill (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then ... if that sounds "perfectly normal" ... what would be the answer to the OP's question? The M16 rifle is younger that Bruce Willis. Is that your suggestion? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing grammatically wrong with reversing the order, but it sounds odd because nobody does it that way. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, the word younger can legally be used with things? I thought they were newer in English. --KnightMove (talk) 08:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Legally"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for teaching me that I used this word beyond its scope of meaning. --KnightMove (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've always come across it as "[person] is older/younger than [thing]". The order might be a set form that cannot be reversed. Kind of like how "span and spic" just sounds wrong. --Khajidha (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC) PS - I mean in reference to a "thing" as a concept (sliced bread, the M16), not specific things like Duncan Hill's examples about "the chair on which [he is] sitting".[reply]

Is there any "technical" difference between the two: listing years with a slash or a hyphen

When you are referring to years ... is there any "technical" difference between the two ... if you say "1981/1982" versus saying "1981-1982" ... (slash versus hyphen)? Do they mean the same exact thing ... or is there a nuance that denotes something different? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any examples providing context? Also, as I recall, the "Old Style" years before the adoption of the Gregorian Calendar were often listed as "year / year+1" for dates in the January to March range. <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 21:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The question is in general. But, I was also thinking of the early Academy Awards. The first Academy Awards may be referred to as 1927/1928 ... or as 1927-1928. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The early Academy Awards weren't arranged so that each ceremony covered the films of exactly one calendar year, so 1927/1928 is better, since 1927-1928 might suggest a two-year period. AnonMoos (talk) 22:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's style guideline for year ranges is at WP:MOSNUM#Ranges: the slash notation "may be used to signify a fiscal year or other special period, if that convention is used in reliable sources". Personally I see no reason to ever use it that way. The case that Bugs mentions is different: it refers to a date that may be interpreted as being in one or another year, and there I think the slash is strongly preferable. --174.89.49.204 (talk) 04:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in general, a slash means "or" and a dash means "to".--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, for the Academy Awards ... both are correct? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google suggests that the usual method is to simply quote the year of the ceremony, such as THE 81ST ACADEMY AWARDS | 2009 or The 79th Annual Academy Awards (2007). Alansplodge (talk) 17:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, neither of those examples "simply quotes the year of the ceremony"; they also include the sequence number. Second, I suggest that it's very confusing, and not really usual, to mention any year other than the year (or range) of the movies eligible for awards. --174.89.49.204 (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. And that's my question. Would it be "1981/1982" ... or ... "1981-1982" ... slash or hyphen ... ? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say, neither. I am not sure what you are trying to convey here with the dual year. If I see "Academy Awards 1981", I'd assume this is meant to refer to the 53rd Academy Awards, presented in 1981. I might interpret "Academy Awards 1981/1982" as expressing uncertainty: someone got an Oscar, but when again? — was that in 1981 or 1982? And I might interpret "Academy Awards 1981–1982" as referring to two successive ceremonies, those held in 1981 and 1982. --Lambiam 07:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Just try Googling (other search engines are available) "Academy Awards 1981/1982" and see how many results use that format. I got to page five without finding any. Alansplodge (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I saw "Academy Awards 1981", I'd ask "Do you mean the awards for 1980 (presented in 1981) or for 1981?". The important thing is what year they're for.

But for the first few years, the awards were not for a calendar year. For example, the 5th Academy Awards covered the period August 1931 to July 1932. This is the situation where you'll see two years mentioned, "1931/1932" or "1931-32" or whatever. --174.89.49.204 (talk) 19:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And that is what I am referring to. The early Academy Awards. I guess I will ask yet again ... is it (properly) "1931/1932" or "1931-1932" ... slash or hyphen ...? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it is two consecutive years, they are equivalent. Either works equally well. --Jayron 32 18:19, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved