Language desk
< February 10	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 12 >

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.

February 11

Cottonshopeburnfoot

"Cottonshopeburnfoot is a hamlet in Redesdale in Northumberland" (starts Cottonshopeburnfoot). "Just before Byrness are two settlements which overcompensate for their lack of size by having ridiculously long names. The first is Blakehopeburnhaugh which, as far as I could see is a farm, a shack, a car park and a toilet, and Cottonshopeburnfoot which is mainly a caravan and camp site" (source). Anyone here know (of) it? If so, in RP (standard English English), would its name be /ˈkɒtənʃəʊpˌbənfʊt/? -- Hoary (talk) 03:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any RP speaker not personally familiar with the place would pronounce it as they would the four words "cottons", "hope", "burn" and "foot", but strung together and probably with slight emphasis on the first and third elements. No doubt people local to the area will pronounce it differently, perhaps something like "Consup burf't", but only they will know.

Similarly with the other one (with the last element usually pronounced "haw" or "hoff") and a local pronunciation something like "Blakup burnuff". Cf Anstruther, pronounced locally "Eynster", in which I used to live (well, in Cellardyke to be precise).

Hopefully a Redesdaler will swing past to put us all straight. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.205.58.107 (talk) 06:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I find that very plausible, but had no reason to think it was the four words "cottons", "hope", "burn" and "foot" rather than the four words "cotton", ^?"shope", "burn" and "foot". (I've no reason to think that "shope" has ever meant anything or that it could be an ingredient in placenames, but also no good reason not to.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison with "Blake-hope Burn" strongly suggests the parsing "Cottons-hope Burn". --Lambiam 10:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think you're both right, O number formerly known as a different number and Lambiam. I've just noticed the existence of List of generic forms in place names in Ireland and the United Kingdom and I see that "hope" is in it with a very plausible meaning. ("Shope" is not.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fundraiser vs. Fund-raiser

In my fraternity magazine, all instances of Fundraiser as a single word are after 2006. Fund-raiser or Fund raiser are used prior to that. Does this reflect changes in one of the major style guides? -- 10:27, 11 February 2020 Naraht

There's a lot of hesitation in the spelling of such quasi-compounds in English (as opposed to German, where the tendency is to jam them together into one word). I'm not sure that general overall advice would be all that helpful without a lengthy listing of specific cases... AnonMoos (talk) 14:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EO dates "fundraiser" to 1957.[1] English tends to put things together, but it takes time. Hence "base ball" to "base-ball" to "baseball", with considerable overlap in usage. <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 14:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Naraht. The most dramatic changes in the ngram curve, on the other hand, take place in the early 1980s and late 1990s.

The major American style guides each put out several editions over this time period, and you can borrow many of them from archive.org if you'd like to check what they say. This may require some patience - the first few I tried are already out on loan.

The Chicago Manual of Style new editions in 1982, 1993, 2003, match your and the ngram observations in timing. Links to the books on archive.org are available on the wiki page.

Strunk & White put out new editions of The Elements of Style in 1972, 1988 and 1999 which match less well. Borrow them here: [2]

The AP Stylebook has been updated annually since 1985. Fewer historical versions available, but some are. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is more a question of dictionaries than style guides. Jmar67 (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although English-language dictionaries (British ones, at least) reflect usage rather than prescribe it. Bazza (talk) 10:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Good dictionaries follow usage. The usage of many careful writers follows style guides. --Lambiam 10:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Myself and probably also Jmar67 (though I can't speak for him) are trying to point out that style guides lay down general principles and deal with a few specific cases. Whether to space, hyphenate, or univerbate English quasi-compounds involves a whole mass of specific details which can't really be fully dealt with in the usual style-guide way without appending a lengthy word-list, or referring to a dictionary. AnonMoos (talk) 12:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I may have misinterpreted the original question. If I wanted to know how to write "fund raiser", I would not start with Chicago. But the OP may have meant that the one-word form was possibly the result of a (general) advocacy of that form by style guides. Jmar67 (talk) 13:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

French & Ukrainian question?

So, in editing Priashevshchina, I came across this reference in French: https://books.google.com/books?id=Jn3WBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT88 "L'hebdomadaire Prjaševščina fut le premier organe de presse à paraître (mars 1945-août 1951) sur le territoire libéré. Publié par le Conseil national ukrainien de Prjaševščina, il sortait seulement une semaine lors de sa première année et uniquement en russe à l'origine. En avril 1945, les premiers articles en ukrainien furent publiés."

What is the meaning of "il sortait seulement une semaine lors de sa première année"? That the newspaper was published once a week after its first year? Isn't that the very meaning of being a 'hebdo'?
This reference talks about articles in Ukrainian appearing in April 1945. Other references of the article have talked about texts in the newspaper in 'Presov dialect'. Would it be correct to assume this refers to the same phenomenon? --Soman (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(il sortait ...): During the first month (March 1945) it appeared only one week, in Russian. In April, the first articles appeared in Ukrainian [and publication apparently continued weekly]. Jmar67 (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So is your hypothesis that "sa première année" is a mistake for "son premier mois"? --Lambiam 08:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am in no position to criticize the French here. It is undoubtedly correct, but I did wonder about the phrasing. Jmar67 (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If am a native French speaker and I don't understand what the author is trying to say. A word or two must be missing. It literally means it came out one week only in the first year, but that would be contradicting the rest of the text, so it it must be that the author meant to write that it came out weekly only, in the first year. ~~Possibly the author didn't know the word "hebdomadaire" and tried their best to say that using the word "semaine" but given the advanced vocabulary used in other paragraphs, that seems very unlikely~~. Strike that, the word "bi-hebdomadaire" appears in the next paragraph, so that can't be that she didn't know the word. I blame the editor who didn't pick up on some words missing. --Lgriot (talk) 19:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that "avril 1945" should be "avril 1946". That is, it came out for one week in Russian in March 1945 and not again until March or April 1946 (start of second year), with the first Ukrainian articles in April. Jmar67 (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are several references to the newspaper being published in May, June, etc 1945, so that can't be it. Anyhow, I think it settles that we can't use it as a reference, since it is not clear what the author is trying to say. Many thanks to all. --Soman (talk) 02:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand the situation correctly, the Prešov dialect is a dialect of Rusyn, which some consider a dialect of Ukrainian while others classify it as a language on its own. The late Stefan M. Pugh, in The Rusyn Language: A Grammar of the Literary Standard of Slovakia with Reference to Lemko and Subcarpathian Rusyn (Lincom, 2009), presented the thesis that Prešov Rusyn is "a literary, standard variant" of Rusyn. Not everyone agrees. Whatever it is, it would be a minority language in Prešov. --Lambiam 08:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

... is ... and ...

We've all seen this type of sentence:

Psoriasis is a troublesome skin condition and affects 2% of people worldwide.

At face value it doesn't seem to break any rules, yet it offends something deep inside me, something I can't quite pinpont. I'd naturally use "that" (or perhaps "which") instead of "and". That may just be a personal style preference, or maybe I'm on to something significant.

It's not that psoriasis doesn't affect 2% of people, but in the context of this construction, what affects those people is not psoriasis but the troublesome skin condition. And yes, I know, they're logically equivalent. But maybe not grammatically so.

I guess I parse the whole thing as:

Psoriasis is (a troublesome skin condition that affects 2% of people worldwide),

whereas the writer sees it as:

Psoriasis (is a troublesome skin condition) and (affects 2% of people worldwide).

Can anyone elucidate? Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a personal preference to my eye. --69.159.8.46 (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I think your analysis is correct. It is just a question of whether to treat the latter phrase as defining "skin condition" or as an additional characteristic of psoriasis. Both are OK. Some may prefer one way, some the other. Jmar67 (talk) 23:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In this specific case the coordination does not bother me as much as in some others. An egregious example:

"The next patient was the captain and suffered from a skin condition."

(It's even worse if you swap the conjoined phrases.) This, on the other hand, is fine (as far as I am concerned), also when the conjoins are swapped:

"This remedy is not costly and will solve the problem."

Our article on coordination considers such mismatch in syntactic category a unique behaviour in English, but I've heard it in other languages too. I can't put my finger on what it is that bothers me in some but not in other mismatches, but it looks like there is a semantic component to it. In the first example you can easily split the sentence:

"The next patient was the captain. He suffered from a skin condition."

If you try that with the other one, the result is not ungrammatical, yet it sounds awkward:

"This remedy is not costly. It will solve the problem."

This begs for an "and" to be inserted. --Lambiam 10:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can always find a context for these constructions. For example:

The crew presented with a variety of ailments. The first mate had symptoms of seasickness. The next patient was the captain and suffered from a skin condition.

Yeah, it's not wrong-wrong, but it's a little wrong. I'd assume the person who wrote it is about 12 or non-native English speaker. Anyway, what's wrong with "which?" Temerarius (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you asked. My preference is to use which with non-restrictive relative clauses involving non-humans, that with restrictive relative clauses involving non-humans, and who/whom with all relative clauses involving humans (except I sometimes use that instead of whom, but never instead of who). Others have different preferences. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as an over-60 native BrE speaker (and ex-professional editor), I would find that passage or a similar one perfectly acceptable in most contexts, and probably slightly preferable over the others suggested in, say, a work of fiction in which the narrating character was not a scholastic pedant. In the context of a scholarly work which did not generally use the same writing style I might want to amend it. In the context of Wikipedia I myself wouldn't bother. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.205.58.107 (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some examples above almost attain the character of a zeugma. --ColinFine (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of which I stumbled into an egregious example today: "The first installment of the titular film series was the directorial debut of Joe Johnston and produced by Walt Disney Pictures" in Honey, I Shrunk the Kids 2003:F5:6F07:1E00:D0A6:42DE:9A9A:956A (talk) 12:08, 1 March 2020 (UTC) Marco_PB[reply]