Is discussion about conlangs permitted here or is it solely for natural languages? If you reply here, please ping me. Thanks, TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 02:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably you're referring to Constructed language. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they are. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 12:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the past, there's occasionally been a little discussion of Esperanto, and I don't remember anybody complaining (see here for example). Workshopping or promoting your own personal stuff might be perceived differently (depending on how you approach it). AnonMoos (talk) 13:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was it here or on Wiktionary someone discussed a fable about a goat written, first in some conlang and second, in some Low German dialect between German and Dutch? 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you thinking of Schleicher's fable? I imagine that has been translated into many languages, constructed and otherwise. —Tamfang (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. It appeared as if some amateur conlanger had constructed something similar, first written in the conlang, and then, for some reason, in that particular German-Dutch dialect. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 00:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't or shouldn't it be? --Theurgist (talk) 15:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since Wikipedia is not a general discussion forum, the reference desks themselves are controversial. As long as this page is allowed to be active, conlangs per se are within its scope, but note any question that has little relevance to improving our articles will be frowned upon by at least some, especially if you post multiple such questions within a short period. Nardog (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Reference desk attempts to provide services similar to those of a library reference desk. It should be viewed as a supplement to the encyclopedia. Users who are seeking information on a topic post questions here, and the respondents try to find answers to these questions. If you have a question about conlangs for which you cannot find the answer in our articles on the topic, you are welcome to post the question here.

Next to being a service to our users, this can also help to signal lacunae in our coverage of encyclopedic topics.  --Lambiam 19:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. Are there any newspapers in Serbia written in Serbian Latin alphabet?
2. Are there any words in English with onsets /kn/, /ps/, /ks/, /tf/, /tv/, /kv/, /pw/, /fθ/ or /ts/?
3. Are there any words in English where letter combinations ⟨iw⟩ and ⟨uw⟩ are pronounced as diphthongs, similarly to ⟨aw⟩ and ⟨ow⟩?
4. Are there any words in Spanish where ⟨ll⟩ and ⟨ñ⟩ occur in consonant clusters, as in made-up words socllo, mopña, sollto and liñteda?
5. Are there any words in Spanish where consonant clusters /tθ/, /kθ/, /pθ/, /tx/, /kx/ and /px/ occur, as in made-up words lotza, poczo, sopce, totja, hecge and mapjota?
6. Are there any words in Korean with three consonants in a row? --40bus (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1 -- You can look at Romanization of Serbian. 2 -- Only in a few obviously incompletely-assimilated loanwords, such as "kvetch" or "tsetse fly". 3 -- "Uw" has never been an established English orthographic digraph, as far as I know (though it occurs in some incompletely-assimilated loanwords from Welsh). "Iw" may have been a marginal alternative to "Iu" centuries ago, but when the sounds written by "Iu" and "Eu" merged, there was no longer a real use for it. AnonMoos (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

5. I guess -tz- might be found in loanwords from Basque or Native South American languages, but it's possible it might rather be pronounced as /ts/... 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And historic names originating from other languages like Quetzalcoatl or Quetzaltenango. There are also words like lección but the pronounciation is represented as leɡˈθjon/ leɣ̞ˈθjõn rather than kθ. [1]. Ad 4. I don't think those exist either in regular Spanish words. -- 79.91.113.116 (talk) 11:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 1: Yes, even some of the highest-circulating ones: see the front pages for 20 January of Blic, Informer and Kurir (the latter also features a Cyrillic-script ad in-between). Although Serbian clearly favours Cyrillic for anything government-operated or Orthodoxy-related, in all other cases the two scripts are in free variation and it all depends on the author's or the publisher's preference.
• 6: Orthographically that's possible when a character has a complex final and the next one has a non-silent initial, as in 읽다 ilgda. But phonologically any such clusters are simplified, so the actual pronunciation in this case is /ikt͈a/. --Theurgist (talk) 00:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• 2: I tend to pronounce xi and psi as /ksaɪ/ and /psaɪ/ for disambiguation, though I might simplify them to /saɪ/ if only one of them is being used as a variable. Also I'd say kvetch with /kv/, phthalate with /fθ/, and tsetse with /ts/ (though maybe not everyone would). Further I'd use the German pronunciations for the chess borrowings zugzwang and zwischenzug (so the latter gives even initial /tsv/ for me). See also en:wikt:Category:English terms with initial /t͡s/. Double sharp (talk) 08:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Double_sharp -- the standard traditional method for distinguishing the letters Xi and Psi in English, without attempting to produce word-initial consonant clusters, is to pronounce Xi with a [z] consonant, as in "Xylophone"... AnonMoos (talk) 14:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AnonMoos: I'm aware that it's standard (like "xylophone", "xylem", and "xenon"). Unfortunately I've heard xi with /s/ enough times (it's mentioned in Collins) that I don't trust anything but the clusters to disambiguate them by now. :) Double sharp (talk) 14:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 4: There are some words with prefix + ll- such as wikt:conllevar or wikt:enllavar. --Amble (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think they are consonant clusters, though. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on which definition of consonant cluster you go with. OP has given us a list of examples, some of which have similar syllable structure to enllavar and conllevar, so I think they should qualify for purposes of this question. --Amble (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for "quechua" gives lliclla, aclla and chullpi. Searching for Aymara is left as an exercise for the reader. --Error (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quetzal in northern Spain. Acción, producción, and most of the cognates of *ction. Erupción, corrupción and most of the cognates of *ption. --Error (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

147.235.223.10 (talk) 16:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't necessarily know what's the common phrasing. At least I don't always buy into your proposed ordering of the words. scnr -- 79.91.113.116 (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The common wording for the first and third is "I don't always buy ..." and "We don't necessarily know ...". For the second, the wording you've suggested is possible, but "He not only buys but also sells" would perhaps be more frequently encountered. Deor (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thx all. 147.235.223.10 (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JJP_Master (she/they) 00:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In large part because one usually doesn't speak of the effects of cigarette use as if it's socially peculiar or of note. I would say, for example, something like "I'm on nicotine patches" though, since that's a comparatively unusual regimen. Remsense ‥ 论 00:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You could, but the implication would be decidedly odd. Like you're using cigarettes as part of a medical regime, 'I'm on cigarettes to manage my anger' or similar. — kwami (talk) 04:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's kind of a subset of the general expression that someone is "on drugs", which implies "illegal" drugs. If you're on prescription drugs, you would probably say you're "on medication". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because cigarettes/tobacco don't have much effect on someone's behaviour. I've seen people described (or describing themselves) as being high "on caffeine", but only if they've drunk enough for it to noticeably affect them. Iapetus (talk) 17:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

because "meth" is a substance and "cigarette" is the carrier. Maungapohatu (talk) 06:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

but you wouldn't say 'I'm on tobacco' either. — kwami (talk) 07:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't what your question was - or at least not what you wrote. Maungapohatu (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's for the same reason that we don't say "beer users"? Smoking tobacco is seen as a (somewhat less than it was in recent years) socially acceptable activity and not really considered drug use. Iloveparrots (talk) 07:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't say who?  --Lambiam  --Lambiam 09:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth pointing out that you can say it, but it might make someone wonder what you are on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On leave (from being on meth)?  --Lambiam 09:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A meth head to his madness? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know. Why do you get on a train but in a taxi? Why is potato a masculine noun in Russian, while ships are considered female in English? Why do some people prefer Pepsi when Coke is clearly superior? Dronebogus (talk) 08:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lies! Lies! Pepsi is the ambrosia nectar of the gods, while Coke is the swill of the semi-demigods. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One reason not mentioned is we have a non-pejorative way to refer to someone who is "on" nicotine. We call them a smoker, and say they smoke. Tobacco is such an addictive substance that anyone who smokes regularly can be assumed to be addicted. Someone who isn't addicted might make pains to make this clear, saying they only smoke socially or occasionally. For illegal drugs similar terms are much more pejorative: crack-head e.g.. So saying someone is on xxxx is more neutral. Maybe this will change if (when?) tobacco becomes as unacceptable as other drugs, and "smoker" becomes a pejorative slur. --217.23.224.20 (talk) 11:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is the word for the figure of speech that the following quotes are examples of?

1. "(Galaxia) But that's impossible! (Beerus) Now you're catching on. I AM the impossible!" (Source: Death Battle)

2. "(One of the female Samurai Rangers, talking about robots) They're not WEARING armor. They ARE armor!" (Source: Power Rangers: Clash of the Red Rangers)

3. "(Optimus Primal) Obsidian, this is treason! Megatron wants to destroy Cybertron! (Obsidian) Megatron IS Cybertron." (Source: Beast Machines: Transformers)

4. "(Luke Skywalker) You killed my father! (Darth Vader) No, Luke, I AM your father." (Source: something Star Wars)

5. "(Rafael, talking about Unicron) He's not IN the Earth's core, Jack. He IS the Earth's core." (Source: Transformers: Prime S1 E25)

6. "(Galactus) So quick to beg for oblivion's embrace. (Unicron) I AM oblivion!" (Source: Death Battle)

7. "(Lex Luthor, in his own body) Still hiding behind this hideous mask, tin man? Let's show your true face in the light of day! (Doctor Doom, now in Lex's body) Don't you see? That mask IS my true face." (Source: Death Battle)

8. "There used to be a POINT to the war. Now, war WAS the point." (Source: Death Battle - Frieza vs Megatron)

9. "(Ratchet) Have you taken control of the Deception vessel? (Nemesis) I AM the vessel." (Source: Transformers: Prime S2 E11)

10. "I don't THINK I'm a god. I AM a god!" (Source: Mega Man ZX Advent)

11. "(Trunks) Do you really believe your own hype that much?! (Vegeta, at the top of his lungs) I ***AM*** THE HYPE!!!" (Source: Dragon Ball Z Abridged Episode 44)

12. "(Perfect Cell) I thought you were just somebody's hype man. (Hercule Satan) I AM the hype!" (Source: Dragon Ball Z Abridged Episode 57) Ss0jse (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reminded of the famous statement about television, "The medium is the message".

Item 4 on your list (from The Empire Strikes Back) is not a figure of speech, as Vader actually is Luke's father. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Baseball Bugs, I understand what you're saying about Item 4, but would you happen to know which term is the answer to my question? Ss0jse (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That term does not exist, and probably has not even entered the premices practice leading to a fully consensual determination. One reason for that might be that its object's original field of occurence, the very minor subgenre of 1960-70's supervilains horror comics not only is low in valuation still even among its more fashionable descendants as have been listed, furthermore still is until now lacking the multilinguistic scope of interest that is usually needed for leading to parallel development of a semantic rationale. Abroad that metafictiously deflected fourth wall breaker will be just the expression of a very specific americananism (or otherwise a too much "private" anglosphere notion if you'll admit Judge Dredd into the club). Noone among contemporaneous serious linguists will be willing to risk their own profiles and reputations in such conditions... --Askedonty (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TVTropes has it as "I Am the Noun": [2]. --Amble (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It could be called the plot device of L'État, c'est moi. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me of I Am that I Am. --Error (talk) 00:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which, in turn reminds me of this. —136.56.165.118 (talk) 17:50, 26 January 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Popeye might be God. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:35, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See also: "(Crowd) Give us this bread! (Jesus) I AM the bread." --Amble (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do I determine whether I should use 'anybody' or 'anyone', and does it really matter? MyNameIsUnnamed (talk) 00:41, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I googled "distinction between anyone and anybody", and several opinions emerged. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:56, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They mostly seem parroting each other, in particular with the complementary claims that either

"anyone does not refer to any specific person, while anybody refers to a specific person in a group"

or

"anybody can suggest a random person from a group, while anyone might imply selecting a single person from a group".

Obviously, these cannot be both correct. I think that, inasmuch as they suggest a difference in contemporary usage, both are wrong.

I find this article (by a published linguist) helpful. To the only example of a difference in this article, shown with graphs, I can add another, more striking example: Questions, anybody? versus Questions, anyone?.  --Lambiam 12:51, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Anyone for tennis?" or "Tennis, anyone?" were kind of stereotypical 1920s phrases with that word-choice... AnonMoos (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In his great work, W.C. expresses quite negative opinions on these vessels. But this (appendix E of volume 3, you may find it at www.fadedpage.com) is of difficult understanding (may depend on the fact that I am italian)

"The manning problem is greatly increased by maintaining numerically large
  fleets in remote waters, owing to the greater number of men in transit.".

What is the meaning of "in transit"? My italian books translate as "imbarcati", i.e. "the crew is large" (literal back-translation). Webster did not help me.

"Greater" is used for "very great"? Otherwise, greater than what?

My understanding is "if these ships are in home waters, their crews may be moved easily on destroyers, frigates ... when are needed here and returned to the battleships if a big raider appears or coastal gunnery is required, but this is impossible if are in the Indian Ocean". Do you see any other meaning that is not a Lapalisse's one?

Thanks 176.206.33.66 (talk) 09:22, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"In transit" is just a standard term, not just military, for traveling or being in the middle of traveling. If there are more ships in remote places, then more crewmen will have to go back and forth. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:38, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "greater" means there are more men in transit than if there were fewer such ships. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:41, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Just to be sure beyond my poor english, you mean that the transit is due to the need of alternating the crews on the vessels in the far seas? @Clarityfiend: 176.206.33.66 (talk) 11:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree. It simply means there are more men out there on the ships, not that those men are going back and forth. Being on a ship is being "in transit". However! More men means more logistics required to feed them, arm them, and so forth. More logistics means adding more ships to transport food, ammunition, and other supplies, and those ships will have their own crews, so the logistics ships need to be covered by logistics as well to some extent. Those logistics ships do go back and forth, of course, as part of their jobs. Fieari (talk) 06:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be the intended meaning; however in reality I believe that there was not much crew rotation; my grandfather spent four years of the war based in Alexandria without home leave, despite having a wife and children in England. Perhaps he was referring to the logistic chain required? Alansplodge (talk)

Sorta lost here. What's an "R battleship"? We seem to have R-class battleship; is that what's being referred to? What "great work" of Churchill, and Appendix E of Vol 3 of what? --Trovatore (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trovatore - yes the R-Class battleships had never been properly modernised, since they were due to be replaced; although still powerful ships, they were considered something of a liability anywhere where they were likely to meet a more modern rival or hostile aircraft in any numbers. We gave one away to the Soviets. For your second question, see The Second World War (book series). Alansplodge (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Work of WC is "The Second World War", that gave him the Nobel Prize for literature. The passage is in the Appendix E of volume 3 of this work. The battleships are indeed the R-class ones. Excuse my poor english: what "Sorta lost here" means? Thanks

@Alansplodge:The crew rotation seemed also to me the literal meaning, but is not coherent with the general context in the book - not to say the risk of losses during the transfer. Your suggestion to the logistic chain sounds good. 176.206.33.66 (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voleva dire che avevo perso un po' la fila. Letteralmente mi ero leggermente perso. --Trovatore (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Sorta lost here" is a colloquial phrase for "Sorry, I didn't understand what you wrote." Fieari (talk) 06:55, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Trovatore just tried to explain it in Italian. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 13:05, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all. I see that this passage poses problems also to native-english.

I have read the article R-class battleships that contains

In late 1943, Revenge and Resolution were recalled to Britain, owing to their poor condition; the former carried Prime Minister Winston Churchill part of the way to the Tehran Conference in November and December while the latter underwent a refit.

This seemed me quite strange, because a ship going TO Britain cannot carry WC FROM Britain. Indeed, WC wrote that he reached The Cairo on the Renown (volume 5B, start of chapter 1), run Cairo-Teheran-Cairo-Marrakesh-Gibraltar in aircraft and from here reached Britain on the King George V (volume 5B, end of chapter 8). I have an italian translation where the 12 books are labeled 1A, 1B ... 6B - possibly in your edition the volume 5B is numbered 10 176.206.33.66 (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Churchill was not in Britain when he boarded Revenge on the way to Tehran? Hey, was Churchill really DPR? I think that has potential as a fan theory. --Trovatore (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eden and Churchill arrived in Tehran by plane. This means that the battleship even though not in outstanding condition was still considered was safer and perhaps more comfortable than plane for the first part of the travel (in fact in december Churchill was declared "seriously ill" costing him some time). Though I think in fact the R-class article must have been suffering a confusion between the ship's class and names. --Askedonty (talk) 00:38, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WC wrote that started from Plymouth on the Renown (5B chapter 1) 176.206.33.66 (talk) 06:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Renown class to which belonged the Renown was an offspring of the Revenge class which included the Revenge. For having things made easier the Revenge class was also known as the Royal Sovereign class and that denomination was often used once in accounts related to Churchill's travels, sometimes perhaps intended more or less part of his extended iconography ). No doubt, the "class" qualifier slipped away in between two sentences in one occasion. WC started from Plymouth on the Renown. --Askedonty (talk) 13:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Editors watching the related article talk page have now been notified). See also this occurence comparison --Askedonty (talk) 17:26, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would Tyger Drew-Honey's name in Russian be Tigr Semyonovich Drew-Honey, except in Cyrillic letters? Tigr is the Russian language translation of Tiger (Tyger is an alternate spelling of Tiger). His father's name is Simon Honey, which is Semyon Honey in Russian. (Semyon is Simon in Russian. Ben Dover is his stage name, not his real name.) 172.56.182.234 (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would just be a phonetic transcription, something like "Taiger Semyonovich Dryu-Khani". (Kh pronounced like a voiceless velar fricative.) 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But Tyger is literally translated as Tigr, similar to how Shitavious Cook (the name of a real convicted criminal) is translated as Govnyuk Povor! 172.56.182.234 (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger Woods is Tayger Vuds, Not Tigr Lesá... 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 01:03, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tigr Lesa sounds much cooler, honestly! 172.56.182.234 (talk) 06:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What's your source for Shitavious Cook being translated as Govnyuk Povor? Apparently it's the name of a 15 year old black guy being convicted of murder, and even if some Russian guy told you that, it just sounds like a stupid racist joke with no basis in reality. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I personally speak Russian lol. 172.56.182.234 (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the list of Honeys on English Wikipedia and searching for Russian Interwikis, I find Honey Irani as ru:Ирани, Хани in Russian. So here the Honey part translates/transliterates into Хани which I guess would become "Khani" on its way back into English? -- 79.91.113.116 (talk) 09:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't think Russian adds patronymic surnames to foreign names, anyway. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? 172.56.182.234 (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessarily complicated for names growing out of other cultures. I mean, you can propose this question as a creative thought experiment, but in practice, Russian doesn't operate like that. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 01:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The patronymic is an integral part of a Russian's full name. It is not a part of anyone else's name unless they also have patronymics as part of their culture.

Adding a patronymic to a foreigner's name is sometimes done as a kind of joke, but afaik the only serious exceptions are foreign nobles who married into Russian royalty, and even then the patronymic they were given was often not based on their father's name anyway. For example, Empress Alexandra, the German-born wife of Tsar Nicholas II, was born "Alix Viktoria Helene Luise Beatrix of Hesse and by Rhine". Her father was Louis IV, Grand Duke of Hesse. Yet the patronymic she was given was Fyodorovna, lit. daughter of Fyodor (Theodore).

I'm not even sure that non-royal foreigners who emigrate to Russia and become Russian citizens are given patronymics, unless they legally change their name to a more Russian-sounding one. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not usual to translate people's names literally, as hilarity may result; see A long list of English translations of non-English footballers' and managers' full names. Alansplodge (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, everybody :) non-native here.
The Watergate (disambiguation) page in the 30 November 2024 version contains this line:

• Watergate, a former area of Oxford known for its College of the Franciscans; See [[Haymo of Faversham]]

in the 'United Kingdom' section.

Is the uppercase 'See' correctly used, or rather should it be lowercase 'see'? --CiaPan (talk) 11:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In a typical English sentence, in prose, the word after a semi-colon does not start a new sentence, and would not be capitalized. A disambiguation page, however, is not typically written in prose, but rather uses a list form, using short sentence fragments in a terse explanatory way which may follow different, somewhat more casual rules. That said... in this case, I do believe a lowercase "see" would be closer to correct. Other alternatives would be to make it parenthetical instead (like this, putting it inside parenthesis) or splitting it into a new sentence... but as I said, lists like this don't often use complete sentences. Fieari (talk) 11:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The uppercase "See" was incorrect and I've changed it. I've also changed the semicolon to an en dash. --Viennese Waltz 12:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fieari and Viennese Waltz: Thank you for the explanation and the fix. --CiaPan (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A small one, but from this film excerpt of then-United States president Richard Nixon visiting China in 1972 and viewing a selection of museum artefacts, I would like to know exactly what their interpreter says to the Chinese crowd (I presume they are either delegates or reporters) after he remarks "Give me a pair of those..." upon being told of an emperor's "earstoppers" (which I assume were a form of earplugs? Simply saying "China's golden age" is not enough information for me to go on considering that Chinese history is full of its ups and downs). 72.234.12.37 (talk) 08:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think she's just translating his sentence "give me a pair of those" as "ta shuo, na gei wo yi xie a" (他说那给我一些啊, 'he says: then give me some'). Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:12, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do anyone among English speakers ever commonly write "from 16 to 21" etc. on running text? Is it common in any country to say "from sixteen to twenty-one"? Where in the English-speaking world are time ranges presented as "16—21"? South Africa seems to use 24-hour clock as the norm, so do people there write and say just as I mentioned? And why most English speakers use 12-hour clocks even though there are 24 hours in a day, not 12? --40bus (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This native born English speaker in Australia has absolutely no idea what "from 16 to 21" would even mean, so I'm not going to ever write it. HiLo48 (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit like a pack of 52 playing cards. We know there are 52, but we prefer to conceptualise them as 4 groups of 13, and refer to an individual card not as "the 38th card" or whatever, but as the Queen of Hearts, or whatever. The 24-hour day is divided into 2 groups of 12 hours, AM and PM, and it suits us to deal with a smaller group of 12 in the morning, then a different smaller group of 12 in the afternoon, than only one big group of 24 that has to work all the time. I suspect it's related to the way we can much more easily deal with a mobile phone number when it's divided 4-3-3 (such as 0428 936 822) than as a single block of 10 digits (0428936822). (I'm still amazed that many signwriters still haven't realised this.) See also The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish uses 12-hour clock only orally. But why English does not do same? In Finnish, 12-hour clock does not have a written numeric form. Expressions like "kello on kuusitoista" are common. I associate "kello 4" only to morning, not afternoon. --40bus (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So where the interior monologue of a character in a Finnish novel is like "Nyt kello oli neljä",^[3] the reader will interpret this as "four o'clock in the morning"?  --Lambiam 06:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(1) It's never written thus in British English. (2) I've never (in over 60 years) heard this said in any other variety of English (though I can't absolutely rule it out). (3) I've never seen a range presented thus (though "16:00–21:00", pronounced "sixteen hundred to twenty-one hundred" would be normal). (4) I can't speak to South Africa. (5) clocks have had a 12-hour design for many centuries, digital clocks that show 24-hour format are relatively modern, so have not yet influenced 'everyday' speech except when using some timetables, in specialised scientific and military contexts, and sometimes when diarising meetings when a particular time might be ambigious as to morning or afternoon. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.7.205.116 (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

'though "16:00–21:00", pronounced "sixteen hundred to twenty-one hundred" would be normal'. You hear things like that on the BBC World Service, when they give the time(s) of a future broadcast. Though normally they are much shorter so you might hear e.g. 'eighteen hundred to eighteen thirty' for 18:00 – 18:30. --2A04:4A43:909F:F990:D0:B7A6:F407:709A (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This answer is going to depend on the variety of English. For example, American English does not use 24 hour time at all, except for members of the military (hence American English calling 24 hour time "Military Time") and possibly for other specialized organizations, but even then it's never "16 to 21" but rather "1600 to 2100". We can and do say things like "from 4 to 9" meaning hours on the clock, and if context doesn't already make it obvious, we might add "A.M." or "P.M.", or "in the morning"/"at night" to that sentence (but context usually makes it clear). Other countries may or may not use 24 hour time, but I suspect even those that do won't say "16-21" but, again, "1600-2100" (spoken as "sixteen hundred to twenty-one hundred"). As to why we use 12 hour time pretty much exclusively when there are 24 hours in a day? It's because there are only 12 hours on an analog clock face. Fieari (talk) 06:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The style "16-21" (without explicit minutes and without "h" for hours) is common in the Nordic countries but not normal anywhere else I've been (See e.g. pages 36 and 44 here, showing how hours for weekdays, Saturdays, and Sundays are given there without words). --142.112.149.206 (talk) 08:30, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]