Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/L

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
Note:
- We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
- We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
- We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
- We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

April 2

Odd punctuation for the subtitle for the film Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)

This question is about the title of the film Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance). What's with the odd punctuation? Does it mean/signify anything? The parentheses seem misplaced. If it were grammatically correct, it should be Birdman (or The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance). No? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is kind of odd. But if you look at the size and placement of the words on the movie poster, it might make more sense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at the poster. I am not sure what you mean. The poster has the title on three lines. Line 1 = Birdman; Line 2 = or; and Line 3 = (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance). Line 3 could have easily been the same as it is, minus the parentheses. So, I don't understand what you mean by referring to the poster, size, placement, etc. Please clarify. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The word "Birdman" is in large type. The "or" and the parenthetic line under it are in much smaller type, almost like afterthoughts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. My issue is not with the layout, per se. My "issue" is with the parentheses. As I stated above, the last line (3rd line) could have been presented the same exact way, minus the parentheses. Why add them at all? Especially in such an odd manner? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The parentheses serve to set it apart from the shorter title, communicating that it is, like Bugs says, an afterthought. No one refers to the name by its full title; even critics at the time did so only at the beginning of their reviews. It's severable from the simpler Birdman. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:52, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It's a style choice, done here probably for graphical effect. There isn't really any universally agreed-upon method for punctuating "or" subtitles, though. There's Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (colon after "or"), Twelfth Night, or What You Will (comma before "or"), Irish Hospitality, or, Virtue Rewarded (comma both before and after), and Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus (semicolon and comma). And leave it to Vonnegut to give you a subtitle within a subtitle: Slaughterhouse-Five: or The Children's Crusade: A Duty-Dance with Death. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's Moby-Dick; or, The Whale. And using the same style, Hans Brinker; or, the Silver Skates: A Story of Life in Holland. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "[title] [semicolon] or [comma]" sequence seems to have predominated in the 19th century. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, what exactly is the author's reason (in general) for using a subtitle? They seem rather trivial and unimportant. They are largely forgotten. They are largely ignored. What is the author's general reason/rationale for including one? Not in this film, particularly, but just in general. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The subtitle provides additional information, which can be a fact or a hint about the plot which the main title may not reveal. It was a pretty common device at one time. Consider the Gilbert and Sullivan operettas, all or most of which have subtitles: HMS Pinafore, or The Lass That Loved a Sailor; The Pirates of Penzance, or The Slave of Duty; The Mikado, or The Town of Titipu. This device was also lampooned in the Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoons, in which every one of their episodes had two titles, one or both of which was usually an atrocious pun. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)There could be any number of reasons, though you're right that they tend to be forgotten in a lot of cases. "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb" is still remembered by many of those acquainted with the film, I suspect. In the case of "Virtue Rewarded" (which is subtitle to a lot of stuff) and "The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance," the subtitle serves to convey the moral of the story, either as the author/creators truly see it, or in such a way as to provide an ironic twist on the narrative's "meaning" for the reader (on that note, Tess of the d'Urbervilles has a wonderful subtitle). The subtitle of Frankenstein is related to thematic concerns that, ironically, are wholly separate from what Mary Shelley had to say about the novel's purpose ("the exhibition of the amiableness of domestic affection, and the excellence of universal virtue"). If I had to bet, I'd say that explicating the moral of the story was probably the origin of the subtitle, but that's a shot in the dark on my part; I'm not a literary historian. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good food for thought. Let me digest it a bit. I never realized that half of the titles presented above (in this discussion) even had subtitles! Much to the testament of my point above, I guess. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good sources of poetry commented

Either online or on print, provided it's not shmoop, or similar sites, which I dislike mainly for it's informal tone.

Either line by line or not.

Is there a collection where the author centers on the poetry as such, commented about what rhetorical figures, how the poet uses language and such? (and not on the historical context, biography of the poet and so on).--Llaanngg (talk) 13:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When annotated, author-specific collections tend to give primarily biographical and bibliographic context for the works. The Norton Critical Editions come to mind, though they typically include a number of essays in the back that might provide "close reading" analysis more along the lines of what you're looking for. Beyond that, collections like The Norton Introduction to Literature pay much more attention to the mechanics of language and poetry than they do to biographical details or even broad historical context. This might be a little basic for your needs, but it's the closest I know to recommend. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Norton also has an Introduction to Poetry which, while I've not read it, I imagine is similar to the Introduction to Literature in the way it analyzes things—"things" here meaning poetry, minus the prose and drama that the broader text includes. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What does the phrase "goodness and light" mean in this context? Update: the phrase was "sweetness and light".

What does the phrase "goodness and light" mean in this context? There was a TV interview and the topic came up about the antagonistic relationship of Donald Trump and Megyn Kelly. The discussion then went on about the general relationship between journalists/reporters who cover presidential candidates and their relationships to the candidates. The interviewer (I believe, Anderson Cooper) asked another journalist: "What is your relationship with Hillary Clinton like?" The journalist gave a smug look/grin and said "Well, you know, goodness and light." What does the phrase mean in this context? What was the journalist saying? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It means it was a good relationship. I believe the term may come from the Bible, where God was supposedly responsible for both, while Satan was associated with evil and darkness. (Ironic, since another once of his names, Lucifer, meant "bringer of light".) StuRat (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think he was being sarcastic. I got that from his facial expressions, tone, and mannerisms. I will see if I can find a clip of the TV interview somewhere. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He probably meant to say sweetness and light. -- BenRG (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A-ha! He probably did indeed say "sweetness and light", now that I think about it. I probably mis-remembered and misquoted him. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just read the Wikipedia article on "sweetness and light". That sounds exactly like what the journalist was getting at: insincere courtesy. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the phrase is in circulation due to this famous song: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_You_Hear_What_I_Hear%3F ...yes, sarcasm, read between the lines as far as people who actually see the real Hillary Clinton lol... 68.48.241.158 (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 3

Comprehensive book about language features

I am trying to remember the title of an encyclopedic work with loads of comparisons across languages. For example, it would list what languages have SOV or SVO order, or what color names could be found as well in Icelandic as in Papua New Guinea languages, and so on. --Llaanngg (talk) 01:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See "World Atlas of Language Structures".—Wavelength (talk) 01:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was it. Thanks. --Llaanngg (talk) 14:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accented forms of English...

I recently started looking at various "free" synthetic speech generators.

However, I was trying to make them do something unusal, which was to speak English, but with a distinctly accented form for dramatic purposes.

In particular, in the context of an audio-drama idea I was prototyping, I had 2 'maid' robots, that were speaking at a much higher (possibly soprano) pitched voice, but they were talking in a sterotype french accented english ("We will azzzizt you!") , and a German accented controller robot ("You are complying vith our Insturtions now!"). In E-Speak I have the option of French or German voices, but I find I'm having to recode a lot of English words phonetically, as the translation dictionaries (to phonemes) are obviously different. ( Some words I have had problems with include "now", "comply", amongst others.)

Does anyone here have a table which maps English phoneme sounds onto the ones a speaker of another language might use? (The Speech tool I am using at the moment is E-Speak which uses a modified version of Kirshenbaum's chart, but with some tweaks.)

Longer term, it would be nice to also map other English languge sounds, to produce other accented voices, to give a wider range of options. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Non-native pronunciations of English. Loraof (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, One item missing in that article, (although not of relevance to what I was looking for) is the absence of a Hindi/Urdu pronounciation of English. Presumably that needs a separate question. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Indian English#Phonology, and also Pakistani English#Phonology for references. Loraof (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 4

Use of 'junior', 'III' etc in US names

Guess this is as much a humanities question as a language one, but as that desk is locked, here we go. I've noticed that it seems pretty common in the US for sons to have the same name as their father, leading to the common forms John Doe, John Doe junior, John Doe III etc. Outside of royalty, this is rarely seen in the Europe (use as a second name is fairly common though). Any ideas where this difference came from? 131.251.254.154 (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page notes that the practice dates to Colonial America, where local records would use "Junior" and "Senior" to distinguish between two people with the same name (not necessarily father and son) in the same jurisdiction in official records. Over time, this practice got applied in families only to refer to father and son. The British at around the same time developed the use of "The Younger" and "The Elder" (i.e. William Pitt the Elder and William Pitt the Younger.) Since Junior and Senior at the time was only used in Colonial America, the practice continued in America, whereas it hadn't in Britain, because it never got established there. --Jayron 32 15:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking it up in a dictionary suggests that using junior to indicate the younger of two people with the same name goes back to Middle English - which is usually defined as before 1500 (though I can't find a date for first usage). That would certainly suggest that the custom is of English origin - but has continued to be fairly common in the USA while it has almost died out in England. 217.44.50.87 (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Etymonline says the use of a postnominal "junior" meaning the younger of two with the same name dates to 13th century: [1]. The practice apparently diverged during the colonial period, with America retaining the usage. One possibility is that the usage was common only among certain dialects of English; major settlement of the Americas was NOT uniform among English subpopulations. Modern American dialects descend from only a few local English dialects; perhaps that explains the difference. For example, the North was settled primarily by Puritans from East Anglia, accents associated with the American north descend from there (an example from the Wikipedia article titled American English). So, perhaps the regional variation in the use of "Junior" was present in England as well as the Americas, and its continued use in the Americas owes to the specific and peculiar mix of English dialects which crossed the pond. --Jayron 32 20:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I remember asking this a few years ago. :) here Henry ^Flower 20:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the 1951 film That's My Boy, Jerry Lewis played a character named "Junior Jackson", and I'm sure I've seen similar things in other oldish movies. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that Americans like to write names out in full, e.g. "Lyndon Baines Johnson", whereas others would simply say "Lyndon Johnson". Why is this? 31.52.139.188 (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on the individual, their preference, and how important others think they are. I go by Ian Thomson and if someone includes my middle name, I probably owe them some sort of paperwork. Most Americans refer to the current president as just Barack Obama, unless they think that his middle name Hussain somehow turns him into some sort of Kenyan Muslim Atheist commie lizard person.

Johnson reportedly had a bit of an ego, though, and it was not unusual for some people then to use the middle name just to make sure you know they weren't just talking about Lyndon Johnson over the hardware store (you know, Ethel's boy?), but the Lyndon Baines Johnson! Ian.thomson (talk) 00:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Use of middle names is also famously common in reporting on assassins and other criminals, purportedly to decrease the chance of being sued for libel by the others named Lee Oswald, John Gacy, John Booth and Mark Chapman. The middle name is also used for emphasis by parents who are about to ream out their child. "Johnny Clark Smith" is in more trouble than "Johnny Smith". - Nunh-huh 01:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"John Booth" is a bad example; his stage name was "J. Wilkes Booth". --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't noticed that the explicit use of three names is any more common in America than in Britain (Arthur Conan Doyle). According to Geoffrey Sampson the distinctively American thing is to use a forename and an initial. (I read on Sampson's website, I guess, that being English he's either Geoffrey Sampson or G. R. Sampson but not Geoffrey R. Sampson.) —Tamfang (talk) 08:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In some American regions and families (I think of it as an upper-class thing where they like to track how prominent families marry into each other but maybe I'm wrong), there's a custom of using the mother's maiden name as the kids' middle name. For example, Lyndon Baines Johnson's mother was née Rebekah Baines. While Joe Schmoe's parents wouldn't bother with such a custom, and instead they'd give him a normal middle name like Bob. 173.228.123.194 (talk) 01:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My family tree doesn't contain anyone above middle class, but even the poorest of the poor often named their sons and/or daughters to include the mother's maiden name as the kid's middle name. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Octember"

Dr. Suess's book "The 1st of Octember" is, I believe, an effect of the fact that three of the four months formed by the number prefixes are "-ember" but the "em" is an "o" for October. What is it that caused that in Latin? The fact that Octo- is the prefix and ends in a vowel as opposed to Sept, Nov and Dec or something like that?Naraht (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Latin#Numbers - the suffix is just -ber. --Wrongfilter (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So why Sextilis rather than Sexber?Naraht (talk) 20:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You will note from that reference that the numbering gives away the fact that the months were originally counted from March. Maybe by the time they got to July (Quintilis) they had run out of gods and goddesses to name the months after. Quintilis was renamed Julius in honour of Caesar's reform of the calendar and Sextilis was renamed Augustus in honour of his reform of the reform. The discrepancy is not unique - in the French Revolutionary Calendar the first three months all ended in -ose, the next three in -al, the next three in -dor and the last three in -aire. The five days at the end were named sansculottides, literally "no trousers". 31.52.139.188 (talk) 00:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And why were they named that ? StuRat (talk) 00:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By "they" you mean the sansculottides? Obviously in commemoration of the Revolution. See sans-culottes. --69.159.61.172 (talk) 00:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To commemorate the sans-culottes, the working class who wore trousers rather than the knee-breeches worn by nobles. ("Without trousers" is a bit misleading as a translation.) - Nunh-huh 00:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As schoolboys, we preferred "without-underpants" as a translation - see the first definition of Wikt:culotte#French . Alansplodge (talk) 12:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semper ubi sub ubi. -Nunh-huh 16:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen London, I've seen France ... —Tamfang (talk) 08:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 5

German sources for Panama Papers article

If there are any German speakers interested in the Panama Papers current event, a fair amount of the reporting is in German and help with it would be welcome. There are some links on the talk page. Also, the reporters who worked with the source have written a book (in German) that will be available soon, and that will itself probably be an important source. It would be nice if someone who can read it got a copy. This has been a public service announcement ;-). Thanks! 173.228.123.194 (talk) 01:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What does unjoined Arabic "feel" like?

I'm aware that Arabic script is always written joined up, with letter-forms varying based on their surroundings. But suppose that somebody "prints" Arabic one character at a time, unjoined, like this: ك ت ا ب. Imagine a whole book written like that. For a native speaker, would it be very difficult to read, or just slightly strange-looking? How would it "feel" to read such text? Equinox (talk) 10:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would the words in this book have spaces between them?

Otherwise I don't believe it can be much more difficult. Notice that this is how words look like, when a text processing program fails. --Llaanngg (talk) 11:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a native speaker, but to me it looks bizarre and it is difficult enough even reading a few words like that. A whole book would be extremely irritating to say the least. It would be just as annoying a s r e a d i n g E n g l i s h t e x t w i t h a s p a c e b e t w e e n e v e r y l e t t e r. Incidentally I used to have this problem typing Arabic when using Microsoft Word on a Macbook, although they seem to have fixed it now. But sometimes it goes unnoticed and you see it on signs out in public...here is an example of unconnected Arabic text that made it onto the Monument to the abolition of slavery in Nantes in France. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-native.) The above example of English with spaces makes quite a close approximation, but not that close. It is annoying, yes, but at least it is readable, as readable as a text without spaces at all as it was usual in the distant past. And as well you might have seen somewhere that in East Asia texts in the Latin aplhabet are often ｗｒｉｔｔｅｎｉｎｓｕｃｈａｍａｎｎｅｒ.

But Arabic is much different. The Arabic script in general and the Arabic orthography in particular are quasi-hieroglyphic. Each word not only has its distinctive spelling, but its distinctive graphical look. Writing in the unconnected forms makes any text in the Arabic script more than annoying, but nearly unreadable. Yes, it would remain decipherable, one could still read slowly letter by letter. In some text editors there are problems with proper rendering of Arabic, so not only the letters are unconnected but words are written from left to right. I have had such an experience, and I can hardly explain it, but the closest word is "weird".

I think there may be another approximation. It is as if writing with Chinese characters, but splitting each complex character that is composed of two or more simple elements (>95% of Chinese characters are such) into those elements. E.g. 口丨人乚丿一丨 instead of 中华. It may be still decipherable, and I believe there are input methods which employ such a decomposition, but I doubt it is readable.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 13:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that disconnected writing is quite common in Arabic calligraphy [2] --My another account (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about that image in particular, but typically even in calligraphy the letter forms are properly connected - otherwise you'd never be able to read it! Adam Bishop (talk) 22:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a matter of familiar/unfamiliar. If you wanted to, you could raise someone to read KOI-8 with no effort. The fact is, however, that competent readers don't scan individual letters but rather ingest written text one word at a time or even one set phrase/collocation at a time, and this is true even of the Latin script. By a certain age you have a mental image of all such elements in your language, in every typeface, too. So I think unjoined Arabic is just as illegible as English would be if written in that N*zi German typeface, and Polish or Italian regardless which typeface (assuming one speaks neither), only more so. Asmrulz (talk) 05:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, that phrase in the calligraphic example is written with little joining (the very first words here).--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 11:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add that there has been an attempt to create a special typeface of the practically unconnected letters. Though it did not become widespread.[3][4]--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 11:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irregular comparative and superlative

Besides good, well, much, more, bad, little, far, does any further adjective have an irregular form of superlative or comparative?--Llaanngg (talk) 00:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tada. Henry ^Flower 05:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Besides good, well, much, more, bad, little, far, and old (as people in a family, elder, the eldest), is there any other irregular adjective?--Llaanngg (talk) 11:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are just the six - good (better, best), bad (worse, worst), little (less, least), many (more, most), much (also more, most) and far (but bear in mind that there are two meaning of far, with different comparatives and superlatives: farther and farthest for distance, further and furthest for extent). 217.44.50.87 (talk) 14:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Old - elder - the eldest is irregular, isn't it? --Llaanngg (talk) 14:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elder and eldest are marked as a tad archaic. Old-older-oldest is becoming more acceptable. So yes, the irregular form exists, but is not the ONLY such form. --Jayron 32 14:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The way elder and eldest are used today makes them simple adjectives rather than comparatives. When I refer to my "elder daughter" I am not actually saying that she is "elder than the other one" - and in any case, the word is derived from an obsolete noun, eld, meaning old age. 217.44.50.87 (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Llaanngg: You may have meant to list many instead of more. More is the comparative and most is the superlative of both many and much. There are also badly and fore. Note that some of these actually are, or could be, adverbs rather than adjectives. --Theurgist (talk) 14:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not as closed a set as that. "More" and "most" can be comparative and superlative for many words: many, much, some, etc. --Jayron 32 15:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some is defined as an indefinitie amount: more than some is still some; less than some is still some (unless it is none). If I had some money last week, and have more money this week, the actual comparative is with how much I had last week, not strictly speaking with some. 217.44.50.87 (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is "many" and "much" different than that? Many is still indefinite. If my chicken laid many eggs last week, and I say he laid more this week, I'm still comparing to whatever "many" was last week. Same with much. --Jayron 32 19:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He laid? You have one odd chicken there. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make fun of his gender identity. Please give him the dignity of choosing his own pronouns. --Jayron 32 01:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's then: good, well, much, many, bad, little, far, old, badly, fore?Llaanngg (talk) 14:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is "badly" used as adjective at all? --Llaanngg (talk) 14:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not in formal English, but in Scotland and northern England badly is an adjective meaning unwell, ill. D H Lawrence and Samuel Coleridge used badly as an adjective. Dbfirs 16:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The technical term for this kind of thing is suppletion. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

suppletion is a particular kind of irregularity; "farther", "further", and "eldest" are irregular but not suppletive. There are also foomost superlatives like "southernmost", "uppermost" which have no corresponding comparative; and there are comparatives "other" and "rather" with neither absolute nor superlative. jnestorius^(talk) 17:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The very fact that the word "other" may be followed by "than", does not prove it's a comparative, just as the word "different" is surely not a comparative - although it may followed by "than" in American English. As for "rather": Etymologically speaking - you may be right, but I suspect the word "rather" is unnecessarily a comparative - from a syntactical point of view, e.g. in expressions like "rather near" - i.e. "quite near". HOTmag (talk) 01:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You could add some of the ordinal numbers. The Wiktionary page for English irregular adjectives redirects to a page on collateral adjectives, which says:

"Collateral adjectives are sometimes called suppletive adjectives or irregular adjectives because there are so few truly suppletive or irregular adjectives in English.(Examples of truly suppletive adjectives are the comparative forms good–better, bad–worse, many/much–more, few–less, and the ordinal numbers one–first and two–second. Examples of truly irregular adjectives are the comparative/superlative forms better–best, worse–worst, more–most, less–least, far–farther/further–farthest/furthest, and the ordinals three–third, five–fifth.)" Taknaran (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drama- Vocal styles for audio-plays.

I will examine the article we have on various languages phonology, but I was wondering if any of the language specialists here had any immediate thoughts on what vocal style a 'maid' character in an amateur produced audio play should sound like.

In an earlier question I had asked about accented forms of English, but my initial thoughts about suggesting a French-accented maid didn't sound quite right when I ran it through the Synthetic Speech Generator I was using.

What accents or dialects would a maid character likely to have in either drama or comedy?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maids and other domestics in England would have been from the working classes. See List of dialects of the English language and perhaps choose one from England associated with working classes. --Jayron 32 12:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is ShakespeareFan referring to Shakespearian times? There are audio resources on what Shakespearian English sounded like. Linguist David Crystal and his son did some YouTube videos on this, at The Globe, here. Also, a character described as a "maid" may be a young girl, a maiden, not necessarily a domestic servant. Even if it does refer to a job, it's not just dusting the china ornaments: cf dairy maid or bar maid. French maids became more common after the French Revolution and the resulting social dislocations, say from the beginning of the nineteenth century. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to something more modern than Shakespeare, but thanks for the link.

Depending on context I have the following very rough 'maid' voice types, (and I should probably write some acting notes on Wikiversity depending on what comes out of the disscussion.)

For obviously comedic purposes, there is the archetype Parisian(?) maid, "'ou 'as ze accent!, but can try tres harder for Madame!". Most likely to appear in a farce perhaps?

British regional. - ( I'll see if I can get some back copies of Downton Abbey and see what was used in that.)

"I'm fully aware it still needs doin, Sir... But make no excuses shall I."

A stage 'London'. - Which is not Cockney, and differs considerably from a modern London dialect in any event.

"I'm sorry Mr 'olmes', but the Master was most insistent about the matter..'

Scots or Irish English. -

"You'll be requiring a jug, sir. The water does not reach 'bove the third floor." (Scots) "I'll be getting you a jug sir, The water does not flow to the third" (Irish)

If you want to provide further advice.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you are considering many different variants, and your "maid" is indeed a domestic servant. So far so good. Before we can advise "on what vocal style a 'maid' character" would use, it would help to know: 1) when is the play set? 2) where is it set? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of the writing ideas currently under development.

i) A Ghost story set in the late 1940's, location to be determined but possibly an off-season hotel possibly somewhere in England. (M.R James used East Anglia extensively, but my thoughts were to suggest somewhere further north. This is set in the late 40's because the intention seems to have been to write in a similar style to radio-drama of the period, most of the online examples I could suggest for research tend to be US ones though. ( and thus are either New York (inc upstate), or California. )

ii) A farce (set sometime between 1960 and 1980), set in a tourist villa which has become inadvertently double booked. Matters are not helped by the first couple (Sam and Tammi), attempting to use the villa for an impromptu romance. The first couple is liberally minded, and thus a confusion arises when the second (conservatively minded) couple (Gerald and Rose) arrives to find the first couple in a passionate embrace, with Tammi in a costume! The second couple, mistake Tammi for 'staff' and Gerald begins to 'have strong words' with younger Sam about his "..life choices" Embarrassed Tammi, attempts to give a convoluted explanation to protect Sam, but which is interrupted when Arlette, who is actual resort staff arrives, complicating matters further...

Vocally, in "maid" terms there are 2 types, Arlette the genuine maid, and Tammi's 'staged' maid,

iii) The Vampire's maid. (Nominally a contemporary setting, but some of the tropes drawn on are from the Hammer/Amicus stable of the 1960's onward) This is essentially a pastiche/parody on the tropes in certain genres, so it's not necessary to get the voicing exactly correct. The 'maid' character here is in fact a male-crossdresser, but he is approached at a costume party he attended in drag, by a mature Central European lady, who 'understands..', and offers him the opportunity to be a "maid" for her. He accepts, but is puzzled as to why she is so liberal about it, or why she forbids her 'maids' from the East Wing...

(BTW: Is there another forum that this might be better suited to going into this in more depth (Wikiversity's Drama Faculty perhaps?) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For your scenario i) late 1940s northern England - how about a rural Yorkshire accent in the style of James Herriot's All Creatures Great and Small (film) or All Creatures Great and Small (TV series). -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... Was thinking the same lines, given Whitby's literay heratige. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 6

Cases in Esperanto

Are there any natural languages with a case system resembling cases in Esperanto? Esperanto uses an unmarked case for 1) nominative, and 2) object of preposition, and a single marked case for 1) accusative, 2) direction of motion, and 3) representing a kind of indeterminate preposition or relationship. Peter Grey (talk) 01:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

American English Language

When did American English differentiate itself from British English in distinctive pronunciation? The notable difference would seem to make the impressment of American seamen into the British Navy on the pretext that the Americans were actually British nationals a palpable fraud (up to and during the War of 1812).— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Larry Melvin (talk • contribs)

Pronunciation doesn't change overnight, but the War of 1812 (and the Revolution before that) would be good marking points for when each form of English radically diverged. Even before those wars, America had combined and continued to combine aspects of different Native, European, and African cultures together (instead of being just an offshoot of British cultures), in addition to preserving what used to be perfectly normal in Britain. So after 1812, if someone traveled between Britain and America, there was a sense that he didn't belong. As a result, there just wasn't enough exchange between the two to keep the two Englishes similar, and already a lot of outside influences on American English. There might as well have been a large wall (granted, with holes) in the Atlantic.

Australia, on the other hand, was colonized later and remained a colony on comparatively good terms. There was some native influence on vocabulary, but most of the "outside" influence was just different British subcultures getting blended together and preserved after British English continued to change. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as rhoticity is concerned, our article Rhoticity in English indicates: "By the 1790s, postvocalic /r/-less pronunciation was becoming common in London and was quickly increasing in use...Americans returning to England after the end of the American Revolutionary War in 1783 reported surprise at the significant changes in fashionable pronunciation. By the early 19th century, the southern British standard was fully transformed into a non-rhotic variety". HOTmag (talk) 06:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the discussion from when you asked this question in January. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

North Korean name for Vietnam

Historically, the North Korean name for Vietnam has been 윁남 (wetnam), but it seems that news reports from North Korea in the past five years or so have used 웬남 (wennam) instead. Thus, is it really true that 웬남 has displaced 윁남 as the North Korean name for Vietnam? 96.246.144.195 (talk) 07:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It may have something to do with assimilation in Korean. [5] Did you see it written such a way (that is <-nn->)?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 13:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search of results from the domain kcna.co.jp (the official North Korean news agency) suggests that 윁남 was used in articles written in 2011 or earlier, but articles written in 2012 or later use 웬남. 96.246.144.195 (talk) 07:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does Pachelbel have anything to do with Easter?

I'm talking about the actual name, not the musical composer with the name or the composition with the name. But the name itself as it once belonged to a guy with the family name. What kind of family name is it? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 11:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It has been already asked and answered in 2008. (Funny, it was quite exactly 8 years ago.)--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 13:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does the word "niggard" have to die?

Should we avoid using the word "niggard" in all contexts? (Not just avoid it when referring to stingy black people). --Scicurious (talk) 14:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It means "stingy", but it has nothing to do with black people.[6] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to avoid using it at all. DuncanHill (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you know that something may offend, even if the offense is caused by a misunderstanding of the true origin of the word, it is just common politeness to avoid using it in situations where that muisunderstanding, and offense, is a possibility. It is not as if there were no suitable alternatives. 217.44.50.87 (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't people more likely to be offended by the assumption that they will not only not know the word, but will also be too lazy or stupid to ask what it means or look it up in a dictionary?DuncanHill (talk) 15:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, since, if you used a word like "stingy", they would never know what you're first choice was, so could not be offended. StuRat (talk) 16:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So it's ok to patronize people if you think you can get away with it? DuncanHill (talk) 01:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's only patronizing if you actually say something patronizing, just like it's only an insult of you actually say something insulting. Merely thinking something patronizing or insulting is NOT patronizing or an insult. StuRat (talk) 01:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Hill's peculiar scenario, a guy would be addressing an audience and use the word "stingy", and someone would stand up and say, "Hey! You were really thinking 'niggardly', weren't you!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to the source, Christopher Hitchens decided it was time to retire that word from his vocabulary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever it's early origin, Baseball Bugs source does say it has to do with black people for perhaps several centuries now in AmEng- so probably as with practically all words, it depends on when and where they are used. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you confusing it with the "nig", which is at the bottom of BB's source as meaning both "niggardly person" (c. 1300) and an abbreviation for nigger (c. 1832)? -- ToE 16:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. He needs to re-read that section. And, No, "niggardly" never meant a black person. But it sounds like it does, which is why speakers who care about their audience will avoid it. "Stingy" or "miserly" works better. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see no move to change the word "country" to something else. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Should we avoid" may be interpreted as a question of morality, which the RefDesk is ill-equipped to decide, or of etiquette. A useful reference point is our article Controversies about the word "niggardly". Carbon Caryatid (talk) 19:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Temperatures get higher or lower, not warmer or cooler

There are many words that people talk about as errors in English. Here is one I would like to know if there are any opinions on; feel free to include references to appropriate Wikipedia articles if possible.

Temperatures get higher or lower, not warmer or cooler.

Why is this statement so popular with usage guides?? Does Wikipedia have any information related to this statement?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point is that it's the object that gets warmer or cooler. Temperature is a quantity (that is, a number plus a unit). Numbers can't really be warm or cool, at least in any way I know about.

Still, it is a very pedantic point even by my standards. I have no problem speaking of a warm or cool temperature. --Trovatore (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem is that warm and cool are subjective, and not susceptible to scientific definition. If the temperature has gone down from 1000 degrees by a couple of degrees it seems a bit odd to say that it has got cooler - because it is certainly not cool by any human understanding of the word. 217.44.50.87 (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trovatore 100% right...it's technically a language error but its use is so common that the fact it's technically a mistake is so irrelevant it's hardly a mistake..but warmth/coolness is a kind of feeling and "Temperature" isn't itself capable, of course, of experiencing such....68.48.241.158 (talk) 20:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Such errors come at a very cheap price. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the average weathercaster talking about a "higher temperature front" rather than a "warm front". NOT! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm? I don't follow you. No one has challenged describing a weather front as "warm". The weather front is a physical object; it can be warm. The question is whether a temperature, which is an abstract object rather than a physical one, should be described as warm. --Trovatore (talk) 01:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Temperature may not be able to be warm, but it can be warmer. Saying "the temperature is warm" is ambiguous only because there is no agreed upon standard for what value or range of values we assign to "warm". My oven has a "warm" setting, which is far higher in temperature than any ever felt outdoors on Earth. However, "warmer" is precise and unambiguous, as it describes a clear direction the temperature is moving or lies relative to another temperature. If I say "the temperature is warmer than yesterday", there is no confusion or ambiguity about the directing the temperature moved relative to yesterday's temperature, whatever it was. --Jayron 32 02:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it hadn't been for this question, it would not have occurred to me to flag this usage as incorrect. However, strictly speaking, today's temperature and yesterday's temperature are both abstract objects, and I do not know what it means for one abstract object to be warmer than another one.

But as I say, making that point in real life, as opposed to in response to a refdesk question, would exceed even my rather expansive bounds of pedantry. --Trovatore (talk) 03:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

technically, you don't say "temp is warmer than yesterday" you say, "temp is higher than yesterday."...but you can technically say "today is warmer than yesterday" etc... "warmth" is a feeling...Temperature itself can't have feelings, just like it can't be happier or sadder than the previous day....(I might be nuts here but I think this is right)...68.48.241.158 (talk) 03:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, I don't think that's the important point. Warmth could be a perception, but it could also just be the state of having a relatively high temperature. The point is that physical objects can be warm or cool (whether or not anyone so perceives them), but it's not clear what it means for a quantity to be warm or cool. --Trovatore (talk) 03:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

have to admit I'm getting knotted up here...this suddenly seems more difficult than I first thought...is it that "warmth" can be a synonym for temperature but also mean a subjective feeling?? and this double meaning is causing a problem??68.48.241.158 (talk) 04:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, temperature is a measure of how hot/cold something is. An inch is a measure of distance, but is an inch small or large? It's neither. It's small compared to a mile, but huge compared to the width of an atom. An inch is an absolute figure. 67 degrees Fahrenheit is an absolute measure, a point on a scale of possible temperatures. It is neither hot nor cold. It can increase or decrease, that's all. Only a physical object (and that includes air and "the climate") can have attributes such as hot or cold or warm or cool. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is any of this relevant? You can say that one is warmer than another, and can you can say that one is larger than another, without asserting that anything is warm by itself or large by itself. --51.9.190.246 (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there's something very convincing and authoritative about what Jack writes above...but something seems off about it...I think now that perhaps temperature can actually be validly said to get warmer and cooler, as this simply means higher or lower relative to some previous temperature...?????68.48.241.158 (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's like saying "the speed of the car is getting faster" as it accelerates. No, the car itself is getting faster, but the speed is simply increasing. Speed is a measure of how fast something is going. Likewise, temperature is measure of how hot something is. As the thing itself gets warmer, its temperature rises or increases. It isn't the temperature that gets hotter, because temperature doesn't have .. er, a temperature. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Edmund Fitzgerald was carrying a weight of iron ore equal to her weight plus 26,000 tons, and the chimes rang 841 times. --Trovatore (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC) [reply]

I see the distinction you're making and I originally was thinking along those lines too...but started to think it's an overly technical distinction that is superfluous...and that if someone said "the temperature is getting warmer" there's no essential technical error...as "warmer" means the exact same thing as "increasing" or "rising"....and that it's just overcomplicataion to analyze this differently...but I see the distinction that one might argue: when the temperature increases then i get warmer...and demand upon this distinction...but idk???????68.48.241.158 (talk) 00:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, "such errors come at a very cheap price [sic]". You can speak inaccurately if you choose, and chances are, most people would understand you. Is that approach to communication good enough? "You might very well believe that, Mattie. I couldn't possibly comment". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

there's not much via google about this (as far as I can tell)....found this though: http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2010/06/is-the-temp-hot-or-high.html 68.48.241.158 (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 7

Unexpected hanging paradox

Why is this called a paradox when it is just wordplay? The judge, by saying that the date of the hanging would be "a surprise", meant simply that it would not have been announced beforehand, not that it could not be deduced. He could very well be hanged on Friday, too, because the reason behind its being unannounced was to make him (or, at least, the average prisoner) wait anxiously and nothing more than that. This prisoner, however, takes the judge's words literally, arguing that, using pure logic, it cannot be unexpected and concludes that it will not happen at all. And, of course, he is hanged on Wednesday and it was a surprise. And it was not a surprise because the judge knew beforehand that he would go through all this train of thought: it was a surprise because the judge meant that the day would be unannounced. (Of course, in this prisoner's case, it was a double surprise because he was certain that he would escape the hanging)--The Traditionalist (talk) 03:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.

Also, I am not sure if I understand how he eliminated Monday. Certainly, using his reasoning, it cannot be on Friday because it is the last day of the week. And it cannot be on Thursday because, if he is alive on Wednesday night then Thursday will not be a surprise. And it cannot be on Wednesday because if he is alive on Tuesday night it cannot be a surprise. And it cannot be Tuesday because if he is alive on Monday night it cannot be a surprise. But how does he know that it cannot be Monday, since he must first reach Monday night for the other days not to be surprises?--The Traditionalist (talk) 03:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

if you carefully look at the logic for why he eliminates each day, you'll see it is sound...but then..!!!!..so you get a paradoxical situation where the prisoner is right and the judge is right...so it's a true paradox and, therefore, interesting....68.48.241.158 (talk) 03:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly interesting but not a paradox: they were both right because they used the word "surprise" differently.--The Traditionalist (talk) 03:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

are you sure the answer is so simple? I'd bet you wouldn't find it so interesting if you did!!! :) 68.48.241.158 (talk) 03:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in the same way Tuesday is eliminated because of Wednesday, Monday is eliminated because of Tuesday...68.48.241.158 (talk) 03:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is largely a definitional game, but so are most paradoxes. It's (potentially) interesting because it highlights the trickiness of defining certain words.

Generally the judge explicitly asserts something about the prisoner's belief, saying he won't know/expect the hanging on the day it happens. Maybe a real judge wouldn't say that, but the problem isn't interesting otherwise.

The paradox is just as strong with just two days, and I think it's easier to think about that way. Here are a couple of scenarios to consider:

The judge says "you'll be hanged on Monday or Tuesday but won't know (=believe) in advance which day." The prisoner thinks "obviously it can't be Tuesday. It's gotta be Monday. I know it's Monday. But then the judge was lying. But if he was lying then I don't know anything. I might even be hanged on Tuesday. But if I might then how did I know in the first place I wouldn't? But then the judge might have been telling the truth. But..." etc. There's an interesting interplay between the truth value of the judge's statement and the prisoner's thought processes, kind of like a more subtle version of the flip-flopping truth value of the liar's paradox. Can you formalize that?
The judge says "you'll be hanged on Monday or Tuesday but won't know in advance which day." The judge is omniscient and speaks the truth. The prisoner thinks "obviously it can't be Tuesday," but the rest of the argument doesn't occur to him, so he believes he'll be hanged on Monday. He isn't hanged on Monday. Now what? Does he now believe he'll be hanged on Tuesday? That hardly seems fair. Obviously if he believes he'll be hanged on every day then the judge never had a chance. To make the problem nontrivial, he oughtn't to be allowed to believe he'll be hanged on more than one day. But then he can be hanged on Tuesday without violating the judge's statement. So even the beginning of the prisoner's reasoning, the part that seems most obviously right, is wrong when you consider it carefully.

-- BenRG (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1b. The one-day version: the judge tells you "you'll be hanged on Monday, but you won't expect it." Come Monday, what do you expect to happen? Clearly the judge is a crazy person. But if you allow yourself to believe that, it's just what he needs to actually be crazy like a fox. But he may really just be crazy; there's no way to know. That uncertainty is enough for him to be right. This version doesn't admit the "unannounced" interpretation. -- BenRG (talk) 04:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What the paradox really gets at is the imprecision of time-based concepts in language. For example, If I say "You can expect to die soon", then I have only defined the time as "any time after now, out to an undefined point in the near future, however you choose to define that". Even if I say "You can expect to die Monday..." I mean "the interval of time we call Monday" and so on down to smaller and smaller times. The paradox comes in applying the concept of an instantaneous event to an interval of time. Really, it's a calculus problem at it's most abstract: all of our expressions of time exist as intervals where we define the start and end points of the interval. All intervals of time contain an infinite number of instants, so if I tell you "This instantaneous event will happen at some time during this other interval of time" You literally can't predict at which instant within that interval it would happen, because there are an infinite number of instants. Even if I say "You'll die within the next second, but you can never know when", that's strictly true. You know you'll be dead by t = 1 second from now, but you don't know if that will happen at 0.1 second, 0.2 seconds, 0.21 seconds, etc. This paradox plays around with that sort of uncertainty. --Jayron 32 13:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

see what you're getting at in general...don't think it's relevant to this particular paradox, however...as the days (times) of potential execution are strictly and simply defined...idk..perhaps someone else can chime in...68.48.241.158 (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the moment of execution is an instant. That's the source of the paradox; there are always an infinite number of instants (the possible moment they are executed) contained within any arbitrary interval of time. After all, this is just a variation of the good old Zeno's paradox, which is based on the same principle. --Jayron 32 17:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

there's a lot of paradoxes related to Zeno's/variations on Zeno's...don't think this one is though (ie different category of paradox)...as the particular instant of execution is of no relevance...pretty sure....????68.48.241.158 (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think people normally treat this paradox as discrete. Sometimes it's explicitly made discrete, for example by having the judge say that the executioners will arrive precisely at noon. Most discussions I've seen could just as well be about, e.g., five cards face down, exactly one of which has a red face, which you turn over in a prescribed order, and the person who set them up claims that you won't know in advance which card is red. -- BenRG (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's all Greek Dutch to me

I'm trying to figure out where redirects Nederlands and Nederlandse should go. They pointed to Dutch, a dab page, but that doesn't seem right. For the moment, I've set Nederlands to Dutch language, but I'm not sure that that's right, and I have no clue what (if anything) should be done with Nederlandse. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Have you read this RFD discussion? <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have now. Don't know that I agree with it, but the people have spoken. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 8

Reading and writing from left-to-right versus from right-to-left

So, some languages read and write from left-to-right. English and many other languages. Some languages (I think Arabic?) do things in the opposite manner, from right-to-left. So I have two questions. (1) For the languages that do it from right-to-left, do they also start their books at the end of the book (what we would normally consider the last page) and move "backward"? In other words, let's say an American book were numbered from Page 1 to Page 100. Would the right-to-left language progress just as an English book normally would, from Page 1 to Page 100? Or would it "start" at the "end" on Page 100 and work "backward" to Page 1? (2) Second question: Is there any ergonomic reason -- if that's the right word -- for which books are written one way or the other? Or psychological reason? Or cognitive reason? Etc.? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic and Hebrew are two languages whose written sentences proceed from right to left across the page. One of my interests is learning to read Hebrew so that I can translate and better understand "difficult" passages in the Hebrew Bible. To that end, several years ago I bought a hard copy of the Stone Edition Tanach (online version), which presents the Hebrew Bible text on each right hand page and an English translation of it on each left hand page. The book is "back to front" from a Western perspective. When laid on a table, the title cover is what we would regard as the back cover; that is, with the name of the book face up, the spine of the book is to the right and it's easiest to flip the cover and the pages to the right with the right hand to proceed through the book from the foreword to the chapters. Each Hebrew page starts at the top, (not the bottom), the same as in Western style books, except that it proceeds from the right hand margin. To this Westerner, it was a little disconcerting on first purchasing the book, to open it and find that one was looking at the "Z" entries in the index. Akld guy (talk) 06:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Hebrew and Arabic books go "right to left": e.g. [7] [8] shows two books' front covers. Not only that; as our article on Israeli passports says, these "are opened from their right end and their pages are arranged from right to left" -- often confusing European border controllers, in my experience as a holder of one.

But this isn't limited to RTL languages like Arabic and Hebrew. Manga books are flipped right-to-left, too; and the panels on a page are aligned right-to-left, even if the text inside each panel goes left-to-right. --51.9.188.46 (talk) 07:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]