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 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). [1] Alansplodge (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

According to this [2] (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 [3] with a video at [4].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)

@Lambiam BTW I asked this because the Hebrew word for "he pickeld" is "Kavash" (כבש), and was wondering if there was a relation. Gil_mo (talk) 08:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The Hebrew word wikt:כבש in sense 3 doesn't give an etymology. It would be useful to know whether this meaning exists in ancient Hebrew or is a modern usage. If Google Translate has not led me astray, this article from Hebrew Wikipedia he:כבוש כמבושל describes aspects of pickling in Jewish dietary law, based on text in the Babylonian Talmud that uses the same Hebrew root word: see the passage at Wikisource. In that case, the Hebrew word comes from antiquity. The Russian word is also from an old root and has close relatives in many other Slavic languages. Taken together, that would make it unlikely that there's any etymological connection between the Hebrew and Slavic words. --Amble (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Gil_mo (talk) 10:52, 24 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)

[5] 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)

If the transcription is valid, I say 'Go for it!' (If someone would disagree, I guess that could be brought up on the article's Talk page.) 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 18:49, 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 [6] 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)

Commons has a photo of the inscription mentioned in the forum thread: File:Jagsthausen-roemerbad-11.jpg. It's apparently from around 200 CE and it sometimes joins A to various following letters including E, V, L, and B. There's more description in de:Kastell Jagsthausen. --Amble (talk) 19:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Amble: Thank you. I wasn't aware of this. (Although I was thinking more of texts written on papyrus or parchment, not stone inscriptions.) This should be explained in the article. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:06, 23 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 of Adeste Fidelis sheet music) below, to the right ... 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)

Thanks, all! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Resolved

March 22

A Swedish surname

The articles Swedish phonology and Swedish orthography don't help me much to work out how to pronounce Oscar Reutersvärd's surname. Perhaps this just means that I'm rather thick. (Being rather thick might also explain why I can't quite grasp "there are much older examples, e.g. Hogarth's Satire on False Perspective, in addition to more recent well known example of the Penrose triangle and some others".) But anyway, how does one pronounce "Reutersvärd"?

(Anyone who actually knows and is fluent in IPA might beneficially add the pronunciation of the whole name, "Oscar" included, to the article. Which I recommend not only for its impossible figures but also for the somewhat disturbing photo "Oscar Reutersvärd with two of his friends".) -- Hoary (talk) 03:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

It's pronounced as though it were spelt röjtersvärd, which I can't write in IPA. DuncanHill (talk) 04:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, DuncanHill. Then perhaps it's something like røːjtersvɛːrd ? (One thing I do learn from the phonology article is that Swedish /r/ seems to vary at least as much as English /r/.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Aha, wikt:värd says /vɛːɖ/. -- Hoary (talk) 08:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Is there a source for how the ⟨eu⟩ should be pronounced? It is not a recognized monophthong or diphthong in Swedish orthography. In the loanword neutral, the combination corresponds to /eːɵ/. According to the online Svensk ordbok the pronunciation of ⟨eu⟩ in greuelpropaganda is /ɔj/.  --Lambiam 09:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The -värd (or -svärd?) bit should rather be [væːɖ] as the /r/ phoneme triggers both lowering of the preceding /ɛː/ and retroflexion of the following /d/. The Reuter- part is more puzzling as ⟨eu⟩ is indeed not normally found in Swedish words. It might originally come from German (just like greuelpropaganda). I think there are many examples for Swedish noble families having German surnames. --147.142.218.189 (talk) 09:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

P.S. sv:Suzanne Reuter gives the pronunciation as [ˈrœjtər]. --147.142.218.189 (talk) 09:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, all. [rœjtərsvæːɖ], perhaps? -- Hoary (talk) 13:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, Reuter alone also exists as a surname, probably from some German variant, although 'eu' would rather be pronounced like [ɔʏ̯] in Standard German. As I could make out, the German surname might originally have meant cavalryman/ rider or land-clearer. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I would expect the s to be more like ʂ, because of the r before it. DuncanHill (talk) 14:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I guess that might depend on it being pronounced with a stop between r and s or not. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I.e. in compound words such as burspråk (bay window) and mursten (tile brick), I think it might be pronounced more like [r's], although that depends on how carefully the speaker enunciates. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Reuter+svärd instead of reuters+värd? Listen to burspråk and mursten on the SO. DuncanHill (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The source mentioned earlier by DuncanHill ("uttal: röjtersvärd") points indeed to [œj]; compare möjlig /²mœjlɪ(ɡ)/ and slöjd /slœjd/.  --Lambiam 14:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

There is a Reuterswärd family society, perhaps contact could be made with them. DuncanHill (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Good morning (my time), all! Thank you for your continuing efforts. A couple of things that I do learn from the relevant articles (Swedish phonology, etc) are that, unsurprisingly, pronunciation varies quite a bit with area (as well as with age and perhaps social class, etc), and that there is no single, unambiguous Standard Swedish. Thus a narrow transcription (even if comprehensible) may well be misleading, but identifying the phonemes to which the phones are best abstracted for a broad transcription sounds like a job for a Swedish-proficient phonologist. -- Hoary (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm amused to read that Swedish wasn't even the official language of Sweden until 2009. Keeping their options open, I see.  Card Zero  (talk) 02:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

This YouTube video has Oscar's sons discussing his work. If anyone has the time to listen to it (24 minutes), they might mention their surname. Alansplodge (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Also here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAa4dpUEt4A&ab_channel=Tehnolo%C5%A1ko-metalur%C5%A1kifakultetUB --79.36.50.78 (talk) 11:53, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

March 24

Different than/from

I'm a great disliker of "different than". Mainly because "than" goes with comparative adjectives, such as better, worse, bigger etc., and different is not a comparative. I also dislike "different to". My strong preference is "different from".

However, here's a heading from an article I read (all boldings are mine):

• "Political leaders feel very differently about the ABC than the public does".

Simply replacing "than" with "from" doesn't work: it needs something like "Political leaders feel very differently about the ABC from the way (or from how) the public does". Maybe better pedantically, but it wouldn't satisfy the imperatives of short, pithy journalese.

Is there a solution that would satisfy everyone? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Shorter: "Political leaders and the public feel very differently about the ABC." I'm sure, though, that this formulation will not please everyone.  --Lambiam 01:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

It does not please me, and Jack wanted to please everybody. I say the "differently than" version should be accepted as the best one. I argue that "than the public does" is a subordinate clause, that using the clause is the natural way to express the difference, and that therefore a conjunction, than rather than from, is necessary. In a case like "Jack's opinion is different than mine", substituting "from" is fine because here no clause is needed. (And incidentally, "different" does introduce a comparison; it's just not a comparison of degree.) --184.144.97.125 (talk) 04:10, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I would be inclined to write (and even say) "Political leaders feel very differently about the ABC than does the public", but my default style is somewhat old-fashioned (or pedantic, if you will). {The poster foremrly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.209.233.48 (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC).

I was about to say the "does" is unnecessary, but it would deambigufy a lot of mushy newspaper sentences. Temerarius (talk) 15:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I can't remember the word for leaving out implied parts of a sentence (which shows what a great authority on language I am), but if the way can be implicit then so can does, and leaving out both makes it less awkward:

• Political leaders feel very differently from the public about the ABC.

(Rearranged to avoid saying the ABC from the public, which suggests that the ABC comes from the public.) Oh and I remembered the word: elision. Reading the article, though, that doesn't apply to entire words, only syllables. There must be some other word for the phenomenon.  Card Zero  (talk) 11:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

See Ellipsis (linguistics), Gapping and Stripping (linguistics). Another common form of ellipsis found in many languages is known as "pro-drop".  --Lambiam 17:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• This seems to be a discussion about prescriptivist vs. descriptivisim in grammar. The question is whether proper language involves following immutable rules which shall never be violated, or whether it involves using a common set of (often evolving) rules in a way that the shared language community all uses them. The "never use than except in comparatives" is a prescriptivist rule, largely because it ignores the fact that many people do use it in other situations, and so commonly that it often isn't marked as non-standard for most people, even in formal writing and speaking. Is it a "rule"; I have no doubt that it is, or was. It may have even been common, but it is less so today. This is not necessarily wrong or undesirable; languages change over time; if they didn't we'd all be writing like the author of Beowulf did. --Jayron32 15:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  The thing is, in order for rules to evolve, we can't just all passively describe them. It entails making bold and futile attempts to win other people's compliance, like Noah Webster did. (Actually, reading that article, it says he didn't invent his prefered spellings, he just selected them from the zeitgeist. Even so, he was definitely applying some pressure with his thumb on the scales.)  Card Zero  (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  There are certainly pressures applied; various things, like popular music, emulating preferred social classes or specific societal groups, etc. that all influence how language may change. Language change is unpredictable, but not unmotivated. --Jayron32 17:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

If you want it in the most compressed headlinese, I think it would be "Pols, public differ on ABC". And if you want to go for clicks: "What political leaders really think about the ABC -- and why the public knows they're wrong". --Amble (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)