This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AnonMoos (talk | contribs) at 09:55, 8 October 2022 (→xx: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

• WP:RD/L

Main page: Help searching Misplaced Pages

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.

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Misplaced Pages: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.

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

October 2

Spelling: "wapenshaw" or "wappen-schaw" (or something else)?

Hi. I'll use the term "spelling-1" to indicate wapenshaw, and "spelling-2" for wappen-schaw.

In the Misplaced Pages article Old Mortality, spelling-1 occurs once, and spelling-2 twice, with spelling-1 being a link to the Misplaced Pages article Wapenshaw, i.e., also spelling-1. So I changed spelling-2 to spelling-1 in the article, for consistency. Another editor reverted the change, arguing that "Scott's spelling is as good as any of the alternatives". Normally, I'd agree, but Misplaced Pages has that "Wapenshaw" (spelling-1) article, and spelling-2 is not part of any quote in the Old Mortality article.

Now it gets more complicated. Scott, in this printing of Old Mortality, actually uses spelling-1 zero times, spelling-2 seven times, wappenschaw (i.e., spelling-2 but without the hyphen) twice (call it spelling-3), and wappinshaw (spelling-4) once. Also, the word occurs twice, hyphenated, on a line boundary, so it could be spelling-2 or spelling-3; ignore that.

Wiktionary prefers the spelling wapinschaw (spelling-5), as per Webster's Dictionary 1913, and gives spelling-1 (but not spelling-2) as alternate spellings. It also offers alternate forms: spelling-6, spelling-7, spelling-8 and spelling-9!

So what do you think: spelling-1 or spelling-2 in the Old Mortality WP article? -- Doktor Züm (talk) 04:31, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I would say use Scott's spelling in the novel, which based on the digitised Gutenberg text, seems to be mainly "wappen-schaw". When counting the usage in the novel, it would be useful to note which instances are in reported speech as they could reflect the dialect of the speaker rather than the narrator. Variant spellings are not surprising for an archaic English or Scots word. TSventon (talk) 07:46, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

The question is: when writing a modern article about an old text, which uses an old spelling for a particular concept, should be mention that concept in the spelling used in that old text or should be use the modern spelling? Most of the time, we would use the modern spelling. The regular, modern English spelling of this word is weaponshow (or weapon show), but Scottish people may have reasons to use a different spelling. I'm not fully aware of any sensitivities in that regard. On the other hand, for some archaic concepts, people appear to prefer old spellings anyway. PiusImpavidus (talk) 10:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, TSventon and PiusImpavidus, for that useful feedback. I've decided to leave the spelling as is, and add a footnote, with a brief definition of the word, and a link to this discussion. -- Doktor Züm (talk) 16:46, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

October 3

Lyman, Ukraine

What is the correct IPA? --Espoo (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

In case it's useful, here's the edit that introduced the IPA to the article: . --Amble (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiktionary wikt:лиман#Ukrainian gives for the common noun лиман. --Amble (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

In unstressed syllables, is an allophone of /ɪ/; see Ukrainian phonology § Vowels. The actual realization is somewhere between and What you hear may depend on the speaker.  --Lambiam 09:47, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and I expect the is also an allophone for hard л, but I don't know whether either of those should be used in our phonetic transcriptions. From what I've seen, Wiktionary seems to standardize both of them, as in for wikt:Володимир. --Amble (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Russian or Ukrainian question

I saw this text on a building wall in Espoo, Finland. It is probably in Russian or Ukrainian. Which language is it and what does it say? JIP | Talk 21:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Russian, see for example the word 'время' ('time'). --Soman (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Something about bicycles (velosipedi) for 30-40 minutes of time, it seems. I didn't get very far in my Russian studies... 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 11:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

--Theurgist (talk) 12:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! This is what I wanted to know. JIP | Talk 17:42, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

So were there a number of bicycles near the sign, with helmets hanging from the handlebars? Just for interest, can you find a Google Maps Street View image of the spot? --174.95.81.219 (talk) 22:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

October 4

Next Thursday

Today is Tuesday — this may be important to the discussion — and having a little dental difficulty, I checked in at the dentist's for an appointment. The secretary said "We can fit you in next Thursday". Well, I've been caught before, so naively enquired "what, in two days ?" and she replied (scornfully I felt) "no, Thursday next week, the 13th." Is this just an Australian useage, where "Next Thursday" means "Thursday, next week" ? Doug butler (talk) 06:01, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

No, not just Australian.

In the OED Online, this is sense 5b of next if you say it as "next Thursday", or sense 10c if you say it as "Thursday next". The same problem exists for both. For sense 5b, they define it as:

Applied (without preceding the) to days of the week, with either the current day or (in later use; originally Scottish) the current week as the implicit point of reference.

And add a usage note:

Thus (for example) next Friday may mean ‘the soonest Friday after today’ or ‘the Friday of the coming week’. The latter may be indicated contextually, e.g. by contrast with this, but it is not always clear which meaning is intended.

Note that they do not say anything about either version of the usage varying geographically. It's just one of those annoying ambiguities in English that everyone should get used to. (I suggest always saying "Friday the 14th" or similar.)

The same ambiguity exists when people say it as "Friday next"; in that case it's sense 10c in the dictionary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.95.81.219 (talk) 06:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

In America, your situation would be "this Thursday" vs. "next Thursday". The former implies "this coming Thursday" or "Thursday this week"; and the latter implies "Thursday next week". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Are you sure that everybody in America makes that distinction, BB? I tend to use them that way (in England) but I am aware that not everybody here does.Also, if I'm talking about five or six days away, I may get confused about where I am in the week, and so exactly where the cutoff comes, and so say "next Monday" when with more reflection I might have said "This Monday". ColinFine (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I'ne heard of similar confusion in England over the "next Thursday" construction, but I think most people would say "this Thursday" and "Thursday week" to avoid confusion (especially if their job was to make bookings by telephone). Alansplodge (talk) 12:40, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Don't be so sure about that. Two days ago I had an appointment to see a doctor I'd only ever seen once before, in my local area. I arrived on time, to find the place locked up. I called their number and I was told I was supposed to be at their XYZ office, not their ABC office. I had zero knowledge about any XYZ office. Anyway, I took down the address and hightailed it over there (a 40-minute trip in early peak hour traffic), only to be greeted by the receptionist with "Oh, you're finally here, Jack", as if it had all been my fault. I felt like smashing her in the face, but I managed to count to ten and bite my tongue. Later I checked my voice mail from when the appointment was made, and sure enough, there was mention of the date and time, but nothing about which office to be at. So much for making sure there's no confusion about important details. -- Jack of Oz 18:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

And a literary connotation ;) Thursday Next. Lectonar (talk) 09:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

It would be the same in Polish (e. g. w następny czwartek which would mean next Thursday as in the Thursday a week from now) and German (e. g. am naechsten Donnerstag, which would mean the same). In English I would have no doubt that the good secretary would let me only come in next week (I'm not a fan of having to go to the dentist). --Ouro (blah blah) 18:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Do you really say następny czwartek and not przyszły czwartek? The latter sounds more idiomatic to me. Or do you reckon there's some subtle difference between the two? — Kpalion 10:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

October 5

What are the differences between "Transcription" and "Homophonic translation"

I've read Transcription (linguistics) and Homophonic translation however I don't fully understand. If I turn Kata into Japanese カタ with the same pronunciation, is it better to call it "Transcription" rather than "Homophonic translation" because it's formal and follows the existing writing system?--迴廊彼端 (talk) 13:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

They're not really comparable, actually. Transcription is a method for transcribing a written script into another, in a faithful manner. Homophonic translation is a way of "translating" a sentence into something that roughly follows the sounds of the original, but with a new, reasonably coherent, meaning (mostly for comedic effect), such as turning Japanese カタ into (British) English cutter, and so on. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 14:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for answering!. --迴廊彼端 (talk) 05:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

October 6

Lithuanian naming customs for foreigners

Somehow I ended up on Lithuanian Misplaced Pages and saw they adapt foreign names to Lithuanian language: Harry Kane becomes Haris Keinas and our local talisman Ivan Perišić is Ivanas Perišičius. I respect it but also find it amusing, if not hilarious. My questions: who decides what the Lithuanian version will look like and is there something of a defined protocol in renaming of foreigners? Splićanin (talk) 22:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Latvian is even more notorious than Lithuanian for modifying foreign names; you can read about it in the book "Lingo" by Gaston Dorren, or several old Language Ref. Desk discussions... AnonMoos (talk) 00:40, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Other examples are Serbian when written in the Latin alphabet (which is one of the things that differentiate Serbian and Croatian), languages such as Azerbaijani and Turkmen, and traditionally also Albanian (although the customs are changing). You transcribe the name phonetically, and where necessary you add a case ending (in Lithuanian and Latvian even for the nominative case). Yes, there are regulations and traditions as to how particular sounds from particular languages are or should be adapted. In fact, this is not unlike languages using non-Latin alphabets, which have to transcribe all foreign names anyways. --Theurgist (talk) 10:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

What does Serbian do, actually? I think some languages tend to change the names, since they're difficult to implement with the cases and general grammar, and for Czech (I think), all female personal surnames/ famiy names had an -ova added (which feminists argued against, since it implied a woman was owned by her husband). But for Serbian, I thought that the name only was orthographically changed, in order to preserve a 1-to-1 mapping between Latin and Cyrillic, such as writing 'Michael' as 'Majkel' and so on. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 12:04, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. Lithuanian doesn't change the names either, it just changes the orthography and adds endings even for the nominative. --Theurgist (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Polish language is also notorious in that it adapts regnal names to native form, such as Charles III - Karol III or George II - Jerzy II, but when it comes to ordinary people's equivalents, the names remain in original form (Charles, George, etc). Brandmeister 17:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I think Swedish does that for historical regents, but not current. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 17:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

English too; John of Denmark was actually called Hans or Johannes, while Charles I of Austria was really Karl. Alansplodge (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Many languages still do this with papal names: Ioannes XXIII becomes Giovanni XXIII, John XXIII, Jean XXIII, Juan XXIII, ...  --Lambiam 20:23, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Alansplodge -- You can see the different practices over time from the article titles Philip V of Spain vs. Felipe VI... -- AnonMoos (talk) 00:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

October 7

Some one writes a phrase not before

I see the word not before after i read gta lcs mission the portland chainsaw masquarade on gta wiki on fandom.

Why someone writes phrase not before?

So there exist a phrase but accompanied by word time see here https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/not-before-time

So what happen if you remove word time after word before. So i think the meaning is different. Correct me if i am wrong. Ps. The phrase ussualy accompanied with time. But many writers write phrase not before but without word time.114.124.182.159 (talk) 01:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

"Not before" is not an idiomatic phrase; it's just the combination of "not" and "before". So it means "after, or at the same time". For example, "not before April 4" would include any of April 4, April 5, April 6, etc.

People might use it because in a particular sentence they think it's clearer than using "after". --174.95.81.219 (talk) 02:06, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

In pretty common usage, a literal translation of "not before" to "on or after" would sort of miss the point. In this usage, it is not a time but some other event. So as we describe a sequence of events, we tell you that something happened and then mention that something else happened first, i.e. not before that something else happened. This suggests something anti-climactic (i.e. more significant than the event we were expecting to happen).

For example: "I hit the brakes and the car stopped, but not before crashing through the garage door." Fabrickator (talk) 04:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

"Not before" can also imply something not permitted to happen or be done until (or after) the specified time or date. For example, a mother might tell her child "You can eat a chocolate bar tonight, but not before eight o'clock."

The idiomatic phrase "not before time", as the OP has presumably learned from Collins, is an observation about something that has happened or been done that, preferably, should have happened or been done earlier: for example: Child, late in the evening, "Mother, I've done the washing up!" Mother, "Not before time." {The poster formerly known as 87.81.203.195} 90.193.128.129 (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Declension of "I" in unrelated languages

Is it merely an unusual coincidence that the declensions of the I pronoun in unrelated languages all start with the letter "m"? E.g. English me, French moi, Russian меня, Finnish minä, Mongolian миний, Azerbaijani məni, Swahili mimi et.? 212.180.235.46 (talk) 16:41, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and no. The first three are all related languages in the Indo-European phylum; Mongolian and Turkic (including Azeri) are generally regareded as Altaic, and some scholars (but not all) count this with a larger phylum Uralic which includes Finnish. Some linguists go further and posit a macrofamily Nostratic - and, revealingly, one name proposed for this has been Mitian (currently a redirect to Nostratic) based on the prevalence of "mi" and "ti" for the first and second person pronouns. I'm not aware of any theories linking Niger Congo (which Swahili is ultimately part of) to Nostratic, except at the level of Ruhlen's Proto world. ColinFine (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

My thought was also about Nostratic languages, especially since the declension spelling is very similar in some unrelated languages (e.g. Russian, Finnish, Mongolian and Azeri). 212.180.235.46 (talk) 21:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I believe the general consensus on Nostratic is that the hypothesis is unlikely, but that it cannot be disproven. There's also the concept of Wanderwörter, although it seems a bit strange that a pronoun would become a wanderwort. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

212.180.235.46 -- Something which happens to be diagnostic of linguistic relatedness is 1st. person singular pronouns beginning with "m-" in the non-subject cases, but NOT beginning with "m-" in the subject case (nominative). The Indo-European languages on your list do this (English I/me, French je/moi, Russian ya/m-), and many other IE langs as well, but I doubt whether many non-Indo-European languages do (if any do, it's very probably coincidence)... AnonMoos (talk) 00:15, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

October 8

Allegory vs allege

Yes they are both the same. Allegory originates from greek While allege originates from latin I see the both dictionary definition on google and it says that allegory is not related to allege at all. I dont think so if allegory has connection with allege due to the prefix is same which is alle in the first 4 letters. 2404:8000:1027:85F6:416C:55FE:AD38:C83A (talk) 05:57, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a question? This is a reference desk so we can only refer you to what the dictionary says. Alley, Allen key and Allegro also have the same four letters; they are not etymologically related. Shantavira| 08:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Anonymous IP -- I don't want to be rude, but why do you feel qualified to teach linguists their own business, when you apparently know little about the subject? "Allege" comes from a Latin verb adlegare, which combines a preposition ad- "to" and a verb legare (with long "e" vowel), which means "to appoint a delegate, leave a legacy" etc. "Allegory" comes from a Greek word which combines the stem of allos "other" with the stem of the verb agoreuo "to speak", and so originally literally means "other-speaking", i.e. to mean something other than what you're directly saying... AnonMoos (talk) 09:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

"To go from strength to strength"

I'm trying to wrap my head around this idiom. It appears in Psalm 84:7, and I've heard it used in conversation before. I understand it means to grow ever stronger, but its usage and the reasoning behind the idiom meaning what it means continues to elude me. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 07:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

An idiom, by definition, is not to be taken literally, so you cannot apply reasoning to it. Many idioms make no sense at all if taken literally. Shantavira| 08:22, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

The OED says "After Hebrew mēḥayil ’el-ḥāyil (Psalm 84:7, compare quot. 1535); compare the corresponding passages in Hellenistic Greek ἐκ δυνάμεως εἰς δύναμιν (Septuagint) and post-classical Latin de fortitudine in fortitudinem (Hebraic Psalter; also de virtute in virtutem (Roman Psalter, Gallican Psalter))". The 1535 quotation referred to is Psalms lxxxiv. 7 in the Coverdale Bible, "They go from strength to strength". DuncanHill (talk) 08:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

xx

69.174.144.79 -- Biblical Hebrew loves the cognate accusative construction, and this may be indirectly related. AnonMoos (talk) 09:55, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages resources for researchers
• Misplaced Pages help forums
• Misplaced Pages reference desk