Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Welcome to the language reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

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.

See also:

• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

March 14

Fierceful Narmer

Of translations of pharaoh Narmer's name I read: Other translations include ″angry, fighting, fierceful, painful, furious, bad, evil, biting, menacing″, or "stinging catfish". Ignoring the interesting word *fierceful, how should I format the list so that it makes sense? Currently it gives the incorrect impression that "angry", "fighting", etc., stand on their own as potential translations. What it's really supposed to say is: Other translations include "angry catfish", "fighting catfish", "fierce catfish" [...] but is there a way to express this without writing "catfish" ten times (and using 20 quote marks)?  Card Zero  (talk) 14:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, the sheer number of adjectives contributes to the potential misreading, so to me the solution that repeats "catfish" several times is the most accessible solution, unlikely to be misunderstood by any level of English comprehension. You could reduce the list by omitting the synonyms "furious" and "evil" which are already covered by "angry" and "bad" - and I suppose it's possible that "fierce" and "fighting" are also synonyms. Because you've said "include" you don't have to be exhaustive. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

"Evil"'s a word with stronger connotations than simply "bad", though... 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, although "raging" (a translation I didn't mention), "angry", and "furious" are pretty indistinguishable, so this is a fair point.  Card Zero  (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

How about Other translations of the name's second element mr include "angry", "fighting", "fierce", [...] Some scholars have taken entirely different approaches to the first element nꜥr that do not include "catfish" in the name at all,[18][19][20] but these approaches have not been generally accepted.? --Amble (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, good plan, will probably write something like this.  Card Zero  (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

What is his connection to a catfish (of whatever mood)? Clarityfiend (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

It was the electric catfish, so perhaps it meant that the pharaoh was stunning. (Or it might have been the Vundu, which can grow five feet long, making the pharaoh metaphorically the biggest fish.)  Card Zero  (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The previous sentence says This word is sometimes translated as "raging catfish", so I think the simplest solution would be to follow with Other translations of the adjective include ″angry, fighting, fierceful, painful, furious, bad, evil, biting, menacing, or stinging". Iapetus (talk) 10:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Right, that's sensible. I went for it and made this change (slightly adapted).  Card Zero  (talk) 12:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

One could write it more tersely: "raging (or fighting, painful, etc.) catfish" —Tamfang (talk) 01:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

March 15

Alphabetical list

Is there a site (or another free resource) where I could paste a list of a few hundred words and have them ordered alphabetically? It may be more difficult but I'd also like to find a similar way to list them by the number of their letters (such as: cat, dog, bear, bird, horse, giraffe, leopard...). Do you have any idea? Thank you! --79.35.50.40 (talk) 19:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Does installing Python count as a resource? This would be trivially easy to do in Python: here's how to sort a list alphabetically in Python. You can actually use that page as a resource (click "Try it Yourself"), if you can put your list in the right format. To sort by length instead, change the code by replacing sort() with sort(key=len). If you actually install Python it could open a text file and read it line by line, very easily, which saves you having to format it as a Python list ["I", "mean", "like", "this"].

I just tried that site with about 250 words, and it works:

Extended content

['At', 'Et', 'Itaque', 'Nam', 'Nemo', 'Quis', 'Sed', 'Temporibus', 'Ut', 'a', 'ab', 'accusamus', 'accusantium', 'ad', 'adipiscing', 'alias', 'aliquam', 'aliquid', 'amet', 'animi', 'aperiam', 'architecto', 'asperiores', 'aspernatur', 'assumenda', 'atque', 'aut', 'aut', 'aut', 'aut', 'aut', 'aut', 'autem', 'autem', 'beatae', 'blanditiis', 'commodi', 'consectetur', 'consequatur', 'consequatur', 'consequatur', 'consequuntur', 'corporis', 'corrupti', 'culpa', 'cum', 'cumque', 'cupiditate', 'debitis', 'delectus', 'deleniti', 'deserunt', 'dicta', 'dignissimos', 'distinctio', 'dolor', 'dolor', 'dolore', 'dolorem', 'dolorem', 'doloremque', 'dolores', 'dolores', 'doloribus', 'dolorum', 'ducimus', 'ea', 'ea', 'eaque', 'earum', 'eius', 'eligendi', 'enim', 'enim', 'eos', 'eos', 'error', 'esse', 'est', 'est', 'est', 'est', 'est', 'et', 'et', 'et', 'et', 'et', 'et', 'et', 'et', 'et', 'et', 'eum', 'eum', 'eveniet', 'ex', 'excepturi', 'exercitationem', 'expedita', 'explicabo', 'facere', 'facilis', 'fuga', 'fugiat', 'fugit', 'harum', 'hic', 'id', 'id', 'illo', 'illum', 'impedit', 'in', 'in', 'incidunt', 'inventore', 'ipsa', 'ipsam', 'ipsum', 'iste', 'iure', 'iusto', 'labore', 'laboriosam', 'laborum', 'laudantium', 'libero', 'magnam', 'magni', 'maiores', 'maxime', 'minima', 'minus', 'modi', 'molestiae', 'molestiae', 'molestias', 'mollitia', 'natus', 'necessitatibus', 'neque', 'nesciunt', 'nihil', 'nihil', 'nisi', 'nobis', 'non', 'non', 'non', 'nostrum', 'nulla', 'numquam', 'obcaecati', 'odio', 'odit', 'officia', 'officiis', 'omnis', 'omnis', 'omnis', 'optio', 'pariatur', 'perferendis', 'perspiciatis', 'placeat', 'porro', 'possimus', 'praesentium', 'provident', 'quae', 'quaerat', 'quam', 'quas', 'quasi', 'qui', 'qui', 'qui', 'qui', 'qui', 'qui', 'quia', 'quia', 'quia', 'quia', 'quibusdam', 'quidem', 'quis', 'quisquam', 'quo', 'quo', 'quod', 'quos', 'ratione', 'recusandae', 'reiciendis', 'rem', 'repellat', 'repellendus', 'reprehenderit', 'repudiandae', 'rerum', 'rerum', 'rerum', 'saepe', 'sapiente', 'sed', 'sed', 'sequi', 'similique', 'sint', 'sint', 'sit', 'sit', 'sit', 'soluta', 'sunt', 'sunt', 'suscipit', 'tempora', 'tempore', 'tenetur', 'totam', 'ullam', 'unde', 'ut', 'ut', 'ut', 'ut', 'ut', 'vel', 'vel', 'velit', 'velit', 'veniam', 'veritatis', 'vero', 'vitae', 'voluptas', 'voluptas', 'voluptas', 'voluptate', 'voluptatem', 'voluptatem', 'voluptatem', 'voluptatem', 'voluptates', 'voluptatibus', 'voluptatum'] ['a', 'ut', 'ab', 'et', 'ut', 'et', 'Ut', 'ad', 'ut', 'ex', 'ea', 'in', 'ea', 'At', 'et', 'et', 'et', 'in', 'id', 'et', 'Et', 'et', 'id', 'et', 'ut', 'et', 'et', 'ut', 'Sed', 'sit', 'rem', 'sit', 'aut', 'aut', 'sed', 'eos', 'qui', 'est', 'qui', 'sit', 'sed', 'non', 'vel', 'eum', 'qui', 'vel', 'qui', 'eum', 'quo', 'eos', 'qui', 'non', 'qui', 'est', 'est', 'Nam', 'cum', 'est', 'quo', 'est', 'aut', 'aut', 'non', 'hic', 'aut', 'aut', 'unde', 'iste', 'ipsa', 'quae', 'illo', 'sunt', 'Nemo', 'enim', 'quia', 'odit', 'quia', 'quia', 'amet', 'quia', 'eius', 'modi', 'enim', 'quis', 'nisi', 'Quis', 'iure', 'esse', 'quam', 'vero', 'odio', 'quos', 'quas', 'sint', 'sunt', 'fuga', 'quod', 'sint', 'omnis', 'natus', 'error', 'totam', 'eaque', 'quasi', 'vitae', 'dicta', 'ipsam', 'fugit', 'magni', 'sequi', 'neque', 'porro', 'ipsum', 'dolor', 'velit', 'ullam', 'autem', 'velit', 'nihil', 'illum', 'nulla', 'iusto', 'atque', 'culpa', 'animi', 'harum', 'rerum', 'nobis', 'optio', 'nihil', 'minus', 'omnis', 'omnis', 'dolor', 'autem', 'rerum', 'saepe', 'earum', 'rerum', 'alias', 'beatae', 'labore', 'dolore', 'magnam', 'minima', 'veniam', 'fugiat', 'quidem', 'libero', 'soluta', 'cumque', 'maxime', 'facere', 'Itaque', 'aperiam', 'dolores', 'ratione', 'dolorem', 'numquam', 'tempora', 'aliquam', 'quaerat', 'nostrum', 'aliquid', 'commodi', 'dolorem', 'ducimus', 'dolores', 'officia', 'laborum', 'dolorum', 'facilis', 'tempore', 'impedit', 'placeat', 'debitis', 'eveniet', 'tenetur', 'maiores', 'voluptas', 'nesciunt', 'quisquam', 'incidunt', 'corporis', 'suscipit', 'voluptas', 'pariatur', 'deleniti', 'corrupti', 'deserunt', 'mollitia', 'expedita', 'eligendi', 'possimus', 'voluptas', 'officiis', 'sapiente', 'delectus', 'repellat', 'inventore', 'veritatis', 'explicabo', 'voluptate', 'molestiae', 'accusamus', 'molestias', 'excepturi', 'obcaecati', 'provident', 'similique', 'assumenda', 'quibusdam', 'molestiae', 'doloribus', 'voluptatem', 'doloremque', 'laudantium', 'architecto', 'voluptatem', 'aspernatur', 'voluptatem', 'adipiscing', 'voluptatem', 'laboriosam', 'blanditiis', 'voluptatum', 'cupiditate', 'distinctio', 'Temporibus', 'voluptates', 'recusandae', 'reiciendis', 'asperiores', 'accusantium', 'consectetur', 'consequatur', 'consequatur', 'dignissimos', 'praesentium', 'repellendus', 'repudiandae', 'consequatur', 'perferendis', 'perspiciatis', 'consequuntur', 'voluptatibus', 'reprehenderit', 'exercitationem', 'necessitatibus']

You might want the output to be formatted in a more useful way though. (This is fixable.) I also notice that it's sorting capital letters separately from lower case, which might not be the desired behavior: that would take another tweak to fix (change it to say sort(key=str.lower)).

For nicer output (a comma separated list): instead of print(thislist), put print(", ".join(thislist)).

 Card Zero  (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a spreadsheet program? With MS Excel and LibreOffice Calc you can paste a list into a column of cells then sort it, then copy it back out again.

Added: And they have formulae for counting letters, so you can sort by length as well.--Verbarson ^talk_edits 21:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

And LibreOffice is of course free. (I can't see anything in the Calc docs about counting letters, but I'm not used to spreadsheets.)  Card Zero  (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

LEN(text) --Verbarson ^talk_edits 23:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh yes. That works. So the only remaining question (assuming the OP is like me and knows nothing of spreadsheets) is how to populate column B with =LEN(A1), =LEN(A2), etc., automatically, so that it can be used as the sort key. (It's about time I learned this myself.)  Card Zero  (talk) 00:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

If cell B1 holds =LEN(A1), then copying it down the column will automatically create B2 =LEN(A2), B3 =LEN(A3). You can usually copy one cell (B1) into a range (eg B2 - B250) as a single action. --Verbarson ^talk_edits 10:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. In Calc the action is to click the tiny square handle in the bottom-right corner of the cell, and drag down the column. I learned a skill! Hope the OP got something out of this too.  Card Zero  (talk) 11:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

In the days of command-line operating systems, sort commands came standard with the operating system; see sort (Unix) for Unix (there was also a sort command that came with MS-DOS). AnonMoos (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I just tried the sort command in a Windows cmd prompt (run->cmd) and it worked. (I did sort<test.txt>test2.txt to turn the file test.txt into the alphabetized file test2.txt.) Doesn't offer an easy way to sort by length, though. Maybe Powershell can sort strings by length? ... yes, I tested and it can! "Get-Content -Path [path] | Sort-Object Length" is the command, where [path] should be replaced with the path to where the unsorted file (one word per line) resides, e.g. C:\Users\yourname\test.txt. This will print the words, sorted by length, to the screen, where they can be copied by selecting and right-clicking. (To open Powershell, it's right-click start menu, run, then type "Powershell".)  Card Zero  (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

March 16

Help understanding apparently ungrammatical passage

The article Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales has the following in its fourth paragraph:

As to a range of jurisdictions including England and Wales to which a further appeal can be sought (permission of either court is needed), is the senior figure of President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, in a court that determines cases from the relevant Court of Appeal using the relevant jurisdiction's laws and contributes to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and hears fewer cases than the Court of Appeal.

This sentence just leaves my head whirling, with no actual subject that I can find. Is it just me or is the sentence badly written? NS-Merni (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

It isn't you. It's badly written. I've not really any idea what it's trying to say. Bazza (talk) 17:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

It was added in this edit in July 2020, by User:Adam37. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

OK, that makes it clearer. (Adam37 says "My areas of expertise include grammar, syntax, modern hermeneutics", which is just as well.) I think the sentence goes with the one before, and is using "as to" to mean "A is to B as C is to D". He's saying that the President of the Supreme Court of the UK is the equivalent of the Lord Chief Justice, in a certain context, in the same way that the Lord President of the Court of Session is the equivalent in Scotland and Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland is the equivalent in Northern Ireland. The context is question is the jurisdiction directly overarching the [courts of] England and Wales, but he forgot to write those two words "courts of". Subsequent edits have made the context muddier and difficult to parse.  Card Zero  (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, if I understand correctly – correct me if I'm wrong – there should be a comma following "As": "As, to courts of a range of jurisdictions ..., is the senior figure ...". (My areas of expertise include punctuation.) The juxtaposition "As to" leads one down the garden path.  --Lambiam 21:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense: it's a sentence of the form as A is to B, but rearranged, producing as, to B, is A. (Or is it a sentence fragment?)  Card Zero  (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

If you (or others) understood what it's trying to say, could you edit it to make more sense? (To me, the pre-edited version in the diff linked looks very clear, but I assume there was some reason to change it to what feels like a more muddled version...) NS-Merni (talk) 05:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I (for one) understand the matter insufficiently to confidently rewrite this. In "either court", which are the two courts? The President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is a function assumed by a person; the function is not a court, and the Wikipedia article does not make clear what this function entails. And how to interpret "a court that determines cases from the relevant Court of Appeal". Does "the relevant Court of Appeal" not determine its own cases, but delegates them to some other court? Also, why not specify the full range of relevant jurisdictions, instead of "including England and Wales"?  --Lambiam 11:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Attempting to describe the UK's court system in articles on their presiding judgeships instead of articles on the courts themselves is perhaps not the best approach.  --Lambiam 12:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

A possible shower or two

I keep hearing TV weather presenters tell us things like "Sydney will have a possible shower or two today". In this case, "possible" is not describing the kind of shower Sydney will have, but it goes to the very existence of the precipitation, i.e. "Sydney will possibly have a shower or two today".

What's the term for this transference of the notion of possibility from an adverb with the verb "will have" to an adjective with the noun "shower"? Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

This is not directly responsive, but your question reminds me a lot of an issue in quantified modal logic, namely whether from $\Diamond \exists xP(x)$ you're allowed to conclude $\exists x\Diamond P(x)$ — that is, if it's possible that there's an x that has property P, does it follow that there is an x that possibly has property P? This inference is an axiom in some systems, and I vaguely got the idea at some point that it was one of the key points of contention in the discussion over Gödel's proof of the existence of God. --Trovatore (talk) 23:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

JackofOz -- the most relevant Wikipedia article is probably Scope (formal semantics), but I'm not sure how helpful you'll find it... AnonMoos (talk) 02:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Jack, as in these old threads, I think that what we have here is an instance of hypallage—probably unconscious in this case. Deor (talk) 02:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The first meaning Wiktionary gives for possible is "able but not certain to happen; neither inevitable nor impossible". This shower (or two) in the morning may happen, but this is not certain; it is neither inevitable nor impossible. So then it is possible. In the weather report sentence, "a possible shower or two" only becomes strange by being made the object of "will have", which exudes definitiveness. A sentence like "Sydney will have a dry day today, except for a possible shower or two" is unproblematic.  --Lambiam 11:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

A shower or two may be possible, but I query whether such showers are "possible showers". I take your point that "a possible shower or two" only becomes strange by being made the object of "will have", but it would be equally strange if it were the object of "may have", which is not definite. And in that case, there would be no need for the word "possible" at all. "Sydney may have a shower or two today" - perfect.

In the same vein, presenters and their writers get into a muddle with "So and so could possibly/potentially happen". The problem there being that "could", while excluding definiteness, exudes (to borrow your term) potentiality. So the word "possibly/potentially" adds no value. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

A pipeline burst, and a panel investigates its cause. Was it hydraulic shock? There is an arrestor device guarding against hydraulic shock. If the device worked, hydraulic shock can be excluded. But if the device failed, hydraulic shock is a possible cause. The device should be inspected twice a year, but the last inspection recorded in the inspection reports took place five years ago. So the device could have failed, and so hydraulic shock could be a possible cause.  --Lambiam 10:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

"A possible shower or two" means "a chance of showers" or more precisely "a chance of a shower or two". Hence, its intended meaning does not conflict with the verbs "will have" or "could". The adverb of possible and less cogent meanings of it are irrelevant. Modocc (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

To my mind, "possible" does indeed conflict with "could", in the sense of being tautologous. "Could" implies possibility. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Could be. But if the bypass project manager would just lay down on the ground quick enough there could be a possible shower, if I heard yesterday's news correctly and they hadn't changed their forecast since then, while we're having a few beers in the pub before it all ends.--Modocc (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@JackofOz:, if you were to find this suggestion a bit overwrought, I would understand — but check out the SEP entry on "trans-world identity". I think by some formulations of this, you could consider a "possible shower" to be an entity that is a shower in some possible world, but something else (maybe a sunny day?) in other possible worlds. In that case, it makes perfect sense to say there will be a possible shower today in Sidney. --Trovatore (talk) 04:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Transfer the construction to some other context. A man has lost his son in a shopping mall. He goes up to the admin office, explains his situation, and they offer to show him some live CCTV footage from various parts of the complex starting from where he last saw the son. He looks at some screens, sees a possible candidate, and says - what? Who would ever say "Hmm, that could be my possible son, but I'm not sure if he was wearing that colour shirt"? Hardly. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, thus given that the man has a son, "possibly my son" is better though "could be possibly" is redundant. "That is possibly my son" is even better. "That's my son!" Best. And I see I forgot that I am back to using an adverb, which is fine of course as you stated from the outset. "It is possible he is my son." isn't "possible son". "Possible son" is what someone might say if they are speaking broken English.Also, I hear the phrase "It could be possible." quite a bit. Perpetual motion? Certainly. I'm still working on it.. -Modocc (talk) 12:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

wp:deny
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Possible son" is perfectly good English, for example when discussing the fact that the Archbishop of Canterbury looked nothing like his mother's husband, until a DNA test proved he was no relation ([1] (section 9)). 2.26.47.229 (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

True, but I do agree with Jack of Oz that "could be my possible son" is not appropriate with his context on account of the ambiguity of "possible son" regarding its existential meaning. Simply "could be" doesn't mean the son doesn't exist. If the father missing his son has limited skill they might answer with "Possible son." I just wouldn't expect it to be said by most speakers. --Modocc (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

That discussion is about epistemic possibility — he either is or isn't my son; we just don't know. In the case of a future possible shower, it might be a different sort of possibility involved, where the answer as to whether it will be a shower doesn't exist yet, because of physical indeterminism. I think that would be called ontic possibility maybe? Not sure whether this affect the grammar. --Trovatore (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Write sentences one way if you want to avoid worrying about how to do it the other way

Let's apply this heading to singular nouns ending in s. Here are some statements written in the "one way" that this sentence refers to when dealing with singular nouns ending in s (the bold phrases show what I'm talking about):

Please measure the height of the glass.

I need to put away everything lying on top of a desk belonging to Charles.

Are there any sentences you know where trying to write this way can cause problems?? (Please note that the subject here is giving possession to singular nouns ending in s; the above sentences are written the "one way" that the heading of this section refers to.) Georgia guy (talk) 23:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the first sentence is all that eligible for a possessive construction anyway ("the glass's height" somehow seems awkward). But for the second example, "I need to put everything on Charles' desk away" is the most natural way to say it. I think "Charles's" is kind of a disfavored spelling now, so I'm not sure that there's a real decision which is being avoided by the use of paraphrases. AnonMoos (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

If you are a native speaker, you can follow this rule. If you'd say /ˈtʃɑːlz.dɛsk/, write "Charles' desk" (like "in Jesus' name"). But if you'd rather say /ˈtʃɑːlzɪz.dɛsk/, write "Charles's desk" (like in "Charles's law").  --Lambiam 10:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The first sentence is fine, as would be the alternative "Please measure the glass's height." The second sentence is weird, and I don't think any native English speaker would use it. The use of "a desk" rather than "the desk" suggests it might be more usually worded "I need to put everything on one of Charles's desks away." I'm not sure what there is to worry about in English possessives anyway: the rules are simple, without the large list of exceptions found in many English grammars.

@AnonMoos: "Disfavoured": Except for Wikipedia Bazza (talk) 09:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

"A desk belonging to Charles" might not be "Charles's desk". He may, for example, own two desks, one at which he works, and another at which his secretary works. They both belong to Charles, but only the first would be called "Charles's desk". DuncanHill (talk) 12:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: Unless I've misunderstood you, I think that's what I said. Bazza (talk) 13:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@Bazza 7: Yes, I think you did, but I thought an example might help OP. DuncanHill (talk) 13:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: Who disfavours "Charles's"? "Charles' desk" sounds like a person. DuncanHill (talk) 13:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

As above, I know of zero modern style guides that recommend the "Charles'" format over the "Charles's" format. There are some that note that older sources, with fixed forms, use formats such as "Jesus'" and "Moses'" and the like, but modern style guides almost universally recommend using "'s" for singular words (including proper names) that end in "s". See MOS:POSS, to wit "For the possessive of singular nouns, including proper names and words ending in s, add 's". --Jayron32 14:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

March 17

Sentence improvement at Nicke Lignell

The article Nicke Lignell contains this sentence (copy-pasted verbatim):

On 30 December 2006, the car Lignell and his mother were travelling in was hit in Ekenäs by a drunk driver who blew 2.41‰ on a breathalyzer test.

"Who blew" means that the drunk driver literally blew into the breathalyzer and the device then showed the driver had a blood alcohol concentration of 2.41‰, which is well above the limit for drunk driving in Finland. "To blow" (Finnish: puhaltaa) is a common expression for this in Finnish, but is it in English? If not, what could be a better one? And is it better to write "2.41‰" or "0.241%" in English? JIP | Talk 01:34, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

To answer the third question directly, as experience may have shown you here, definitely write 0.241% rather than 2.41‰. As our per mil article notes, [t]he term occurs so rarely in English that major dictionaries do not agree on the spelling and some major dictionaries such as Macmillan do not even contain an entry. --Trovatore (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

"Blew" is a common colloquialism for that test in American English, at least. But there might be a more formal way of saying it. As to 2.41 vs. .241, that's a major difference. Which one is right? --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:22, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Both are right. 2.41‰ and 0.241% are the same thing. Note that the first one has a per mille sign and the second has a per cent sign. It's a question of style. JIP | Talk 08:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I didn't see the extra 0. That's not something they used in my schools. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

You can tell it's not 2.41% by the fact that the article didn't mention the driver being dead. --Trovatore (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

JIP -- I think "blew" would be understood in English, but if you don't want to focus on the physical action of taking a breathalyzer test, then "he recorded a blood-alcohol level of 0.0241%" would be more neutral. (I assume you don't mean 2.41%, which would apparently be extreme.) AnonMoos (talk) 02:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

2.41‰ is 0.241%, not 0.0241%, which is below the legal limit in Finland. I suggest "registered" instead of "recorded" as being more common.  --Lambiam 10:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

'Blew' is fine in English and will be widely understood. The other responses here confirm my suspicion that most people are not familiar with the '‰' symbol meaning 'per thousand' and so you should use '%' or 'percent' instead.-gadfium 03:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

If they failed the test, they blew it.  --Lambiam 10:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

"Blew" is rather slangy IMO; "registered" is better. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:22, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Both "registered" and "recorded" seem to be coming at it the wrong way 'round. The device registered a reading which may have been recorded by the device or by the administering officer, but Lignell didn't do either of those things. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Making the driver the grammatical subject arguably requires using an unaccusative verb here. While the driver did perform an action, he was not the true agent — the test was performed on him, presumably under duress. "Recorded" and "registered" both seem a little wrong. Clean passive voice might be best; something like "was determined to have a BAC of".-Trovatore (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Nor should he have, as he was not t he one who was driving drunk. Lignell was the victim of the car crash, not the perpetrator. JIP | Talk 15:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

"Blew" seems to be in common use in British news sources - Police say a driver blew an alcohol reading so high that the breathalyser couldn't measure it for example, but I agree it's colloquial. In the UK, the result would be expressed in "Micrograms per 100 millilitres of breath" (BTW, 2.4 would be legal in England and Wales, but not Scotland). [2] Alansplodge (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

According to this [3] (UK-based drinkdriving.org), someone can "provide an evidential specimen of breath" which is then analysed by a device of an approved type, which will provide a result in microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath. Probably the correct legal wording, but scarcely colloquial. --Verbarson ^talk_edits 12:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

March 18

Pinky to the moon

What does it mean to put your pinky finger to the moon? And does this have anything to do with kissing the Pope's ring? Thank you. 86.181.187.117 (talk) -- Preceding undated comment added 14:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Explained at [4] with a video at [5].2.30.130.69 (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh I see thank you. Bruno Mars version slightly differs it as "put your pinky rings up to the moon." Is origin of this? But no kissing or Popes looks like. Looks like doing shots, must be only at night time. 86.181.187.117 (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The only thing I could think of was the practice of extending one's "little finger when drinking from a teacup", which was kind of considered effeminate for a man in the mid-20th century U.S., and isn't even good etiquette according to Little finger#Gestures... AnonMoos (talk) 00:56, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. It's a veritable minefield. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Etymology of the Russian word "Квашеная"

What is the etymology of "Квашеная"? Gil_mo (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Does it mean "pickled"? --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikt:квашеный says "fermented, sour". ru:Квашеная капуста is Sauerkraut. No luck with an etymology. Alansplodge (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The word is very similar to квашенный, which is the past passive participle of the verb квасить, "to make sour". According to Wiktionary the verb is inherited from Proto-Slavic, but allows a surface analysis as квас +‎ -ить, where квас is the drink known in English as kvass, and -ить is a suffix forming verbs from nouns, meaning as much as "to make". According to our article Kvass, the word kvass is ultimately from the Proto-Indo-European base *kwat- ("sour"). Like the English Wiktionary, the Russian Wiktionary treats квашеный and квашенный as separate words, but in any case the relationship to квас is obvious.  --Lambiam 22:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a great answer! Gil_mo (talk) 23:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

None was

Is insisting on "none was" as in (here) "The Colony of South Australia was also asked to accept Parkhurst Boys, but resisted, and none was sent there." being excessively pedantic? Doug butler (talk) 20:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Would you say "none of the Parkhurst boys were sent there", or "none of the Parkhurst boys was sent there"? --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure I would say "were sent there", because it's so close to a plural, but in my inner ear Miss Charlton, who was always right, would be saying "none means 'not one' so it's singular".Doug butler (talk) 00:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

As is often the case, the prescriptionists deployed a specious argument - in this case, the etymological fallacy - to claim that their preference was necessarily "correct". --ColinFine (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

According to the usage notes at Wiktionary, either is acceptable. I suppose the preference may be speaker-dependent. In the Parkhurst Boys sentence, I prefer "none were", but others may have a different preference. I don't think there is a valid argument why it should be "none was".  --Lambiam 23:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I feel chastened. Doug butler (talk) 00:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Resolved

Maybe resolved - however the notion that none were is not the correct usage is intriguing... JarrahTree 11:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

[6] supports the take-your-pick approach. Bazza (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Google Books Ngram Viewer suggests that the use of a singular verb for none-of-a-plurality came in vogue only after 1860.  --Lambiam 18:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Open it up a bit with a less restrictive search and things look a bit different. Bazza (talk) 21:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

That is not a good comparison. It includes cases where none is applied to an uncountable noun, such as milk. One cannot say, *"None of the milk were spilt". One then has no choice but to use a singular verb form. This is another search that forces none to refer to a plurality.  --Lambiam 06:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

And this morning I (unintentionally) created a counter-example in Wikipedia:Teahouse#Invisible Ink where "none were" would have grated. Doug butler (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

March 19

pejorative Intention Vs owning up of the 'words'

Greetings,

1) Many times Pejorative (insulting) connotation / insinuation of a 'word' depends on Intention of the user.

2) Many times individuals, groups and movements attempt to own up some 'words' to contest Pejorative or taboo usage and accompanied discrimination by changing context may be putting them up positively or by highlighting discrimination.

I am looking for help in finding good examples and reliable sources / citation for above.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 09:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Reappropriation --Viennese Waltz 09:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

By the way, Bookku, own up has a specific meaning that is not what you intended here. You want claim or claim ownership of. ColinFine (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @ Viennese Waltz. I was looking for the same.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 10:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

March 20

Shebna inscription

Can someone transcribe this into Paleo-Hebrew script? Ideally this could be added to the article, especially if it can be sourced (or if it involves minimal OR based on the artifact and the block Hebrew we already list). 70.172.194.25 (talk) 06:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The inscription is already in Paleo-Hebrew script and very readable, so it is not quite clear (to me) what "transcribing" it means here. Do you wish to see the characters recast using the specific diagrammatic shapes of File:Paleo-Hebrew abjad.svg? I do not see the point of such an exercise, but if you (or anyone) feels like it, this image gives a neat correspondence between the characters as seen in the inscription and the later Hebrew alphabet. The order in both is the same.  --Lambiam 16:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I was looking for the text encoded into Unicode's representation of the script. I might attempt to do so myself later. 70.172.194.25 (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Seems to be a practice in patience, mostly. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 18:10, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

There's an online tool that converts regular Hebrew unicode to Paleo-Hebrew: https://alittlehebrew.com/paleo/, just copying the Hebrew from the article in the tool produces this:

𐤆𐤀𐤕 [𐤒𐤁𐤅𐤓𐤕 ...]𐤉𐤄𐤅 𐤀𐤔𐤓 𐤏𐤋 𐤄𐤁𐤉𐤕. 𐤀𐤉[𐤍 𐤐𐤄] 𐤊𐤎𐤐 𐤅[𐤆]𐤄𐤁

𐤀𐤌 [𐤏𐤑𐤌𐤅𐤕𐤉𐤅 𐤅𐤏𐤑𐤌𐤅𐤕] 𐤀𐤌𐤕𐤄 𐤀𐤕𐤄. 𐤀𐤓𐤅𐤓 𐤄𐤀[𐤃𐤌] 𐤀𐤔𐤓

𐤉𐤐[𐤕𐤇] 𐤀𐤕 𐤆𐤀𐤕

which seems to be correct. - Lindert (talk) 20:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

(ec) Here is an attempt, but I'm not certain of the interpretation of all signs:

𐤆𐤀𐤕 ........ 𐤉𐤄𐤅 𐤀𐤔𐤓 𐤏𐤋𐤄 𐤁𐤉𐤕.𐤀𐤉𐤍 .... 𐤊𐤎𐤐 𐤅𐤆𐤄𐤁

𐤀𐤌 ........... 𐤅𐤏𐤑𐤌𐤕 𐤀𐤌𐤕𐤄 𐤀𐤕𐤄.𐤀𐤓𐤅𐤓 𐤄𐤀 ? 𐤀𐤔𐤓

𐤉𐤐 𐤇 𐤀𐤕 𐤆𐤀𐤕

--Lambiam 20:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you both! I notice that, factoring in the parts in brackets, the two transcriptions are very similar, with one difference in spacing but that's about it. Do you think this could be added to the article? 70.172.194.25 (talk) 17:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

First attestations of Æ in Latin

When does the character Æ first appear in Latin texts? Our article Æ is vague on this point and ascribes the character broadly to "medieval [...] writings". However, both Æ and E caudata imply that the appearance of Æ well precedes that of the E caudata, which according to E caudata is first found in the sixth century. Accordingly, a fortiori the first instances of Æ should be found already in late antiquity (if not earlier), not in the medieval period, and in fact Æ appears to have already been common in the sixth century if not earlier. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

This forum thread [7] discusses a similar question. It is pointed out that ancient Latin inscriptions could write AE as Æ, along with many other somewhat arbitrary joins or ligatures. It may be difficult to say exactly when Æ was first used as a distinct character as opposed to just one of many optional ligatures. For E caudata, on the other hand, presumably it wouldn’t appear at all until someone deliberately wanted to write it as a distinct character. —Amble (talk) 04:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

March 21

How do right-to-left languages print their sheet music?

Some languages are written in Right-to-left script. I am curious … in those countries and languages, what does their sheet music look like? Is it simply the “normal” / standard convention ... that looks like the examples on this page --> sheet music ... ? Or is their sheet music also written in "reverse", Right-to-left script? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I would doubt that, I think sheet music would be standardized as an internationalized left-to-right variant everywhere. (I think it would rather be the lyrics that would be reversed in these cases, though that's just a hunch.) 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 01:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but music (notes, etc.) and lyrics go hand-in-hand ... no? As in this example (picture) below ... Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Hymn-style arrangement of "Adeste Fideles" in standard two-staff format (bass staff and treble staff) for mixed voices

I found a couple of music forum discussions; Score mirroring in right-to-left languages and Hebrew language, the latter has a post (way down a long conversation about "mirroring" with music software):

I have recently seen a book which shows music written from right to left (The notes themselves, as in some examples above, not just the lyrics). The book is from the period after the state of Israel was founded, about 60 years ago. Some people thought that this might be a good practice. But this idea was abandoned and apart from this book I have never seen any music written like this (including Hebrew and Arabic music). There are many musicians in Israel, writing and performing music in many styles (western and oriental), and all the music is written from left to right.

Presumably with the Hebrew text being shown seperately from the musical notation. Alansplodge (talk) 09:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

On this music sheet of Hava Nagilah, the separate syllables of the lyrics in the Hebrew script, each by themselves written right-to-left, are given in left-to-right order with the corresponding notes. It must be a bit to a Hebrew singer as it would be to an American if the convention had been to write musical scores right-to-left, and the lyrics to "Adeste Fideles" looked like "tes  -  phan  -  trium   ti  -  Læ   les  -  de  -  fi   te  -  des  -  A".  --Lambiam 11:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Pretty much how I imagined it, it seems my hunch was right this time. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 12:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

On a related note, lyrical notation on sheet music generally seems to be quite simple, compared to all tricks a skilled singer could do with his/ her voice. It's mostly just "Sing these lyrics in connection to the music notated", I'm not sure if there'd be more complex notations out there, specialized for singers. (Or are the notes then meant as the way to sing? I just thought the singing and the music could be different parts playing off each other.) 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 13:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)