Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:30, 1 July 2024

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/L

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

June 17

Tirwedd Cenedlaethol (Welsh mutations)

The new branding for Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty in the UK is National Landscape, and per Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty in Wales, the Welsh translation is Tirwedd Cenedlaethol. This is found, for example, on the Welsh-language website for Natural Resources Wales, Landscapes Wales, and the logo of the Wye Valley National Landscape.

Now, tirwedd is a singular feminine noun, and according to both Literary Welsh morphology and Colloquial Welsh morphology, adjectives qualifying singular feminine nouns take the soft mutation, which would surely imply Tirwedd Genedlaethol? So my question is, what have I misunderstood? Is this a grammatical error on the part of the various official bodies? Or is there some reason why in this instance the soft mutation is not appropriate? Or is it optional?

I note that the Welsh Wikipedia page on AONBs doesn't seem to use the term at all, and I wasn't able to find the term (in either form) on websites of AONBs in more Welsh-speaking areas (like Llyn AONB). Kahastok talk 19:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My information on Welsh is limited, but I wonder if instead of Noun + Adjective, it isn't Noun + Noun (with implicit genitive), as in "pren gwybodaeth" for "tree of knowledge" etc. AnonMoos (talk) 02:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are official-looking documents that use both forms in close proximity, such as [1]. That suggests there's some intentional distinction. As a wild guess, maybe "Cenedlaethol" should be taken as modifying "Ardal" (area) instead of "Tirwedd" (landscape)? In the document I linked, it seems to mutate in the phrase with singular Ardal, but not in the phrase with plural Ardaloedd. I can't see how some of the other examples follow that rule, though. --Amble (talk) 16:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales has Tirwedd Genedlaethol. Alansplodge (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Latin alphabet

Why Russian and Arabic have not switched to Latin alphabet yet? If Russia joins EU in the future, then the switch would be good to make. Also, awkward un-Slavic romanisation for English is also avoided by switching. Wht Arabic did not switch to Latin alphabet when Turkish did? --40bus (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You asked that question three months ago, and a year before that. Nardog (talk) 21:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bulgarian language is already one of the Languages of the European Union. Euro banknotes already have Cyrillic on them. The Bulgarians (who are EU members) don't seem to feel the need to switch. Why would the Russians (who are not pursuing EU membership) want to do so? --Amble (talk) 22:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

40bus -- As has been explained before, both Russians and Arabs would feel it would be a denial or negation of their cultural heritage to switch, while some Arab Muslims would feel that it's tantamount to renouncing Islam. I really don't know why you discount these cultural factors, when they're important to many of the speakers of the languages in question. As for Turkish, the Arabic alphabet was a very poor fit for the vowel harmonies of the language, and the form of the language that was written using the Arabic alphabet was a kind of Turkish-Persian-Arabic hybrid which was a literary plaything of a narrow class of Ottoman elites. Adopting the Latin alphabet for Turkish was a kind of reset maneuver, which allowed for a phonetically adequate writing system useful for recording something much closer to the spoken language, and which would be easier to learn, and so suitable as a foundation for mass literacy. The Arabic alphabet was invented to write the Arabic language, so there's simply not a situation comparable to that of Turkish. AnonMoos (talk) 02:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At least I think that English should always romanize Russian using scientific transliteration of Cyrillic because it makes words look similar to Slavic languages using Latin alphabet. Why don't every language in the world romanize Russian as such? Finnish romanization looks very similar to Slavic Latin alphabets. Why English cannot write Juščenko every time instead of ugly Yushchenko? Czech names contain carons in English texts, so why Russian names cannot? --40bus (talk) 06:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This at least helps distinguish Russian from Czech names, doesn't it? --Theurgist (talk) 08:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because English readers, most of whom don't know anything about Slavic languages, would pronounce it as /dʒuˈʃɛŋ.koʊ/. With the ugly spelling, they get closer: /juʃˈtʃɛŋ.koʊ/. Not perfect, but better.

Romanisation systems for non-scientific use are tuned for both the source and destination language. The same letter may be transcribed differently when coming from Russian, Ukrainian or Bulgarian and also when going to English, French or Dutch. The purpose is to make the audience intuitively use the best possible approximation of the original sounds. PiusImpavidus (talk) 10:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

40bus -- The Czech haceks are used in Americanist phonetic notation, but the broader English-speaking public is overall rather resistant to diacritics, unenthusiastically tolerating their optional presence in in a few semi-unassimilated loanwords, and that's about it. During the period when Wade-Giles was the standard English transliteration of Chinese, English-language newspapers (except for a few low-circulation specialist publications) generally ignored all the diacritics and apostrophes, making an already ambiguous situation much more ambiguous. Similarly, in the first wave of newspaper computerization in the 1970s and 1980s, there was often no ability to use diacritics (true of the Los Angeles Times, and probably many others). Anyway, when diacritics are borrowed into English, by far the most prominent source is the French written language, with German, Spanish, and Italian as secondary possibilities, while Finnish and Czech are basically off the radar. AnonMoos (talk) 18:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is so objectionable about using "sh" for ш, when Polish (another Slavic language using the Latin alphabet) has a digraph here too: "sz"? Or do you want the Poles to change their orthography as well? Double sharp (talk) 07:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

German has tetragraphs or quadrigraphs: "tsch" and "dsch" for the voiceless and voiced affricates written "ch" and "j" in English -- "Tscheche" Czech and "Dschungel" jungle. (That means that the single Cyrillic letter Щ might be rendered in German with seven letters.) But maybe using the letter J to write the "y" consonant sound (IPA [j]) scores so many points with 40bus that he'll forgive German and Polish all their other sins!

-- AnonMoos (talk) 22:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"because it makes words look similar to Slavic languages using Latin alphabet." I would think that making the words easier for English speakers to pronounce would be higher priority than "looking Slavic". And a native English speaker is much more likely to pronounce "sh" correctly than "š". --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Russia isn't preparing to join the EU. Quite the opposite: they're trying to destroy it. PiusImpavidus (talk) 10:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why has Finnish not switched to chosŏn'gŭl yet? If Finland becomes a North-Korean colony in the future, then the switch may be mandatory. --Lambiam 18:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why has Revised Romanization yet been applied for North Korean names too? The new romanization was invented due to ambiguity when apostrophe and breve was not available. But North Korean names still use it. Why? --40bus (talk) 14:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are used to it. Why do you think that other languages should do things the way you want them to?-- User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

North Korea has minimal neutral relationships with Western countries, anyway. Romanization is probably a very small concern, locally. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 18:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uriminzokkiri needed some system, but that's apparently recently been discontinued. AnonMoos (talk) 22:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm curious: is Cyrillisation any more of a concern for North Korea? Double sharp (talk) 07:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Latinisation of Turkish, there were also political reasons why a switch to Latin was chosen. According to Turkish alphabet, some other writers had previously proposed reforming the Arabic script to better fit Turkish, but Atatürk favoured a wholescale script change. I'd guess that a hypothetical reformed Arabic script for Turkish would have been similar to what Ahmet Baitursynuly did for Kazakh, as well as to the 1951–1954 script reform for Uyghur in preparation for a mass literacy campaign. Those reformed scripts write out all the vowels and remove redundant Arabic letters not needed for the Turkic languages they write. Double sharp (talk) 07:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 18

Île Verte (Grenoble)

The first line of article is L'Île Verte..., here the L is left un bolded. Is there a reason for it or it is a mistake. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 10:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's an article, not part of the actual name. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 10:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although it's arguable why to use a French article in the first place, I guess... 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 10:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It should either be "The Île Verte" or simply "Île Verte". Clarityfiend (talk) 01:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to boldly remove the "L'". Clarityfiend (talk) 02:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Klingon

In the Klingon language, does "MaSuv QaQ" mean "Against corruption"? (Question inspired by a level in "Lily's Garden".) 2601:646:8082:BA0:FDFD:D0C8:7BA1:6883 (talk) 11:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found maSuv in this Klingon fanzine as part of the Klingon Anthem, where it means "we fight", and QaQ in this Klingon epic poem by Marc Okrand, where it appears to mean "instinct". But here in the Klingon word wiki it's translated as "be good". I tentatively suggest a meaning similar to "Fight the Good Fight". "[To] be good we fight"? Card Zero (talk) 06:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary defines ma- as "verbal prefix', used with a first person plural subject and no object in the indicative mood", Suv as "to fight", and QaQ as, "(stative verb) to be good". While I'm not familiar with Klingon grammar, the meaning is more plausibly "It is good that we fight". This fits well with the prevailing Klingon cultural attitude before TNG ("Klingons are born to fight and conquer"). --Lambiam 18:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried asking Marc Okrand? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't get hold of him, the Wikipedians in Category:User tlh claim to be able to contribute in Klingon and may be able to help. @An guy with one grammatical error claims to know it to a professional level. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 08:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! So, "We fight the good fight" -- which could include fighting against corruption, but is much broader than that, right? (Because it might also mean fighting against terrorism, or drug trafficking, or a whole bunch of other evils!) 2601:646:8082:BA0:649B:7753:3C84:C70D (talk) 10:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are people who pay for Klingon korrections? Clarityfiend (talk) 02:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appear to have been rather late, but I believe it is in fact closer "We fight the good fight" or "We fight for the better (cause)", something around those lines! An guy with one grammatical error (talk) 18:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 19

What proportion of people in the world have less than 127 different persons within the 7 consanguinities?

A person, his/her parents, his/her grandparents, his/her great-grandparents, his/her great-great-grandparents, his/her great-great-great-grandparents, and his/her great-great-great-great-grandparents, with 7 consanguinities, adding up to 2^7-1 = 127 different individuals, a person usually has 127 different persons within the 7 consanguinities, but some person has less than 127 different persons within the 7 consanguinities (this is because consanguine marriage), what proportion of people in the world have less than 127 persons within the 7 consanguinities? Also, what is the minimum number of persons within the 7 consanguinities such that there is a known person (may be in history) to have? 218.187.65.229 (talk) 02:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're in the wrong place; this is the language desk. That being said, see Pedigree collapse for help with your last question. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, wrong place, please remove. 218.187.65.229 (talk) 02:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-asked in the correct place. 218.187.65.229 (talk) 02:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that article, but the graph does not show all persons in 7 consanguinities and only show all persons in 5 consanguinities, thus I cannot find the answer. 218.187.65.229 (talk) 02:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Different words for metro (public transport system)

How did English end up with so many words for metro, as in, the public transport system (rapid transit)? I thnk the generic term metro or underground is used in the UK, Australia and while the USA uses subway^[1]. However, when talking about the system locally, it gets different. In the UK, we have three metro systems, but only one of them is known as the 'Metro'. That is the Tyne and Wear Metro, in Newcastle upon Tyne. Meanwhile, the one in London is the 'Underground', hence the name London Underground alongside (colloquially) the 'Tube'. But guess what its called in Glasgow. You may think of Metro, Underground or even the Tube, but you would be surprised its none of them. Its... the Glasgow Subway^[1]. So in summary:

London - Underground
Glasgow - Subway
Newcastle - Metro

But for the US, its mostly subway except in the case of the Washington Metro (like the Glasgow Subway, but the other way round), and the Chicago "L". But its even crazier. You have the Hong Kong MTR (Mass Transit Railway), Singapores MRT. In Europe, mostly Metro.

In short, the general terms are: metro, subway, underground and maybe rapid transit? while locally, it can have its own, like the Tube and the MTR in London and HK respectively.

JuniperChill (talk) 19:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the question is . . . [?]

Assuming its something like "What are some unique names for various metropolitan areas' public transportation systems?"

See: List of United States rapid transit systems --136.54.106.120 (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An underground railway (Underground), Untergrundbahn (U-Bahn) or subterranean railway (Subway) are of course the same thing. The Chicago L is elevated, so it can't be called a subway. Although parts of the NY Subway and London Underground are elevated too, but at least those systems began underground. Metro comes from metropolitan railway, calqued into French as chemin de fer métropolitain, shortened to métro and borrowed back to English (and many other languages). That's a city railway without making any claims about its vertical alignment. Similar for the German Schnellbahn/Stadtschnellbahn/Stadtbahn (S-Bahn, not to be confused with Straßenbahn, which is a tramway/streetcar, not to be confused with an aerial tramway ... I'm diverging). Berlin even has both systems (U-Bahn and S-Bahn) side-by-side, and for the user there's no real difference. In any case, all of these systems are fully grade separated from road traffic, which isn't necessarily the case for the term "rapid transit". There are hybrids though, running part of their line as a tram or ordinary train (with level crossings), then switching to metro-like operation.

There are no exact definitions for these terms. It's mostly a matter of what term was best from a PR point of view for their proponents to get approval from the city counsel.

In railway related terminology, the differences between British and American are remarkably large.

BTW, the London Tube originally referred strictly to the small-bore tunnels of the deep-level lines. Those with trains with a roof so low that you can barely stand, but at the same time so overcrowded that you can rarely sit. PiusImpavidus (talk) 11:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ever-entertaining (WP:OR) Jago Hazzard discusses this issue in the video Underground, Tube, Subway or Metro?. On the whole, he blames London. -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 22:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ^a ^b Note that subway in the UK normally refers to a grade separated footpath under a road or railway.

West Midlands Metro and Manchester Metrolink are both named "Metro". --TrogWoolley (talk) 09:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Metro#United_States and MTA. Parts of the Chicago Transit Authority's "L" system are underground or at grade level. Other cities have entities such as Bay Area Rapid Transit or BART; Washington Metro; Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority or MARTA; Metro (Minnesota) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

However, they are not a proper metro system. These two systems are a tram. I think those from Manchester call it the Tram or Metrolink, not metro, which is what Newcastle uses. On another note, the Dublin trams are known as the Luas, which is the English word for speed (yes Irish is a real language but its not commonly spoken, especially for Dublin)

Looks like while metro, underground and subway are the general terms, locally, it can be very different. JuniperChill (talk) 22:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are conflating two different concepts. 'Metro' – short for Metropolitan – has come to refer to a transport system within a metropolis, which can include one or several different (hopefully integrated) means of travel depending on the area's geography and historical development. 'Underground' and 'subway' refer to elements of urban transportation or routing that are specifically below ground (though outside of London's central area, much of the London Underground actually runs on the surface).

As PiusImpavidus has already discussed, different local names for urban transport systems will reflect what different elements each system uses, which may or may not include pedestrian traffic, motorised road vehicles, rail (on segregated tracks), tramways (tracks running on roads shared with other traffic), overhead mono- and conventional rail lines, funicular railways, cable cars, ferries and others. The names may also be chosen to compare or contrast them to other systems, for cultural and political reasons.

You are trying to impose a logical analysis on pan-national naming practises that were not pre-planned or intended to be consistent. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 151.227.226.178 (talk) 09:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, each transit system has its own name and nickname. In Washington, DC, for example, the system is the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, commonly known as the Metro. In Boston, it’s the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, which locals call the T. The local name may or may not also be the name of a type of railway that happens to be the dominant or most familiar form of transit. Examples that do reflect the type of railway are Transport for London, known as the Underground or the Tube, and the Chicago Transit Authority, known as the L. It would be neither expected nor useful for all the systems to have the same nickname. John M Baker (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@John M Baker: Transport for London (usually referred to as TfL, not always politely) is not known as the Underground or Tube: it encompasses bus, tram, cycles, light and standard railway (Overground and Elizabeth line) as well as the two types of underground railway. Bazza 7 (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, but I'm under the impression that "Underground" or "Tube" might be used to refer to a train that travels underground, even though it also has above-ground stretches. However, I may not have that exactly right. In any case, the main point is that "Underground" and "Tube" refer specifically to the London system (even though there could in principle, and perhaps in reality, be one or more other local systems that use the same nickname). John M Baker (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The London Underground may be a misnomer because just under half of the network is underground. That is why the London Underground is a metro system, but is known as the Underground or Tube. This may be why the term 'metro' may be the preferred word for new metro systems. The Elizabeth line could argugable be considered a metro, especially the new Abbey Wood to Paddington sections due to the fact that it has platform screen doors and has a frequency as much as every 5 mins.

Also note that TfL actually do manage some roads, especially the the red routes (where stopping is generally forbidden), unlike double yellows, where parking is not allowed, but (un)loading maybe. It also oversees the congestion charge and the LEZ/ULEZ schemes. JuniperChill (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 22

poem about radical chic (?)

hello, I dimly remember there existing a %title% and it also had the word "intellectu-all" (sic) in it. Google was no help. Does someone know which poem I mean. Thank you in advance Aecho6Ee (talk) 03:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 24

Lee Sung Jin’s name in the Korean alphabet

I’m only barely cognizant of the Korean alphabet, so this might be an obvious thing, but I noticed that the Korean spelling of Lee Sung Jin is 이성진, but my understanding is that ᄋ in an initial position is an indication of no initial consonant (since a Hangul syllable cannot begin with a vowel). So I’m wondering why 이 is rendered “Lee.” Is that how his name would be pronounced in Korean or is the added initial L a sop to Western expectations who would find a family name of I or Ee to be too short? D A Hosek (talk) 02:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a bit more info at Lee (Korean surname). There's still in principle a consonant "ㄹ" at the beginning of the syllable, but Korean phonetics don't pronounce this sound in initial position. The practice in South Korea is that this type of phonetic rule should be reflected in spelling, so it's written "이" instead of "리". In North Korea the spelling is "리" and the name is also transliterated as "Ri", as in Ri Sol-ju. So it's not entirely made up for Western expectations. Other names are also affected by related phonetic rules: for example, Roh Moo-hyun's family name is written "노" in Korean. The same root Chinese character does have an "ㄹ" when it's not at the start of a word. --Amble (talk) 03:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 26

Verb for an enlisted man leaving the US Merchant Marines

Part of me thinks I'm wrong here. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Part of you is right. You can only be demobilized from the armed forces. Delisted doesn't sound right either (unless you fell off a tilting ship). I'd go with "resigned", "quit", "left the service" or simply "left". Clarityfiend (talk) 06:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Demobilization" usually refers to a whole unit being disbanded, at the end of a war or such, not a voluntary individual resignation. AnonMoos (talk) 07:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Several dictionaries disagree with you and say that it can be used for either a unit or a person.[2][3] Clarityfiend (talk)

As I remember it from Robert Graves' Good-bye to All That (where he had a rather strange post-WW1 demobilization experience), an individual soldier can "be demobilized" (in the passive voice) to end his wartime service (even if his unit didn't disband), but it wasn't used in the active voice to indicate an individual soldier resigning for reasons that were unrelated to an overall decrease in the size of the military. Usage could have changed since that time, of course... AnonMoos (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So the Hulk was right about being wrong twice. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than search for a more appropriate single word (that might not exist), why not substitute a phrase, such as (but not necessarily) "left the service"?

Incidentally, my understanding is that the organisation is properly called the US Merchant Marine (sing.) and that its personnel are mariners, not marines, although not all sources stick rigidly to these forms. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 151.227.226.178 (talk) 18:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Demobilized" suggests that the person was "mobilized" or conscripted in the first place, which seems not to have been the case here (I'm not sure that anybody could be conscripted into the merchant service). Also agree that a merchant seaman or mariner is a better description than marine which usually means a naval infantryman. Alansplodge (talk) 11:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, everyone. It turns out "left" was the right word all along. For a dockworker, a mariner or anything. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be thinking of the act of paying off a sailor at the end of a voyage (possibly more used in a UK/Commonwealth/naval context: see also Ship commissioning#Decommissioning), which did not necessarily indicate a change of career. -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 18:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 27

Pronounciation of "Archangel"

Courtesy link:Archangel

In the article, someone changed ɑr|k|ˈ|eɪ|n|dʒ|əl|s to ɑr|tʃ|ˈ|eɪ|n|dʒ|əl|s. Is this a valid pronounciation or a mixup due to words like archbishop? Should it be changed back? --Echosmoke (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts sorted by particularity (increasing), and therefore by pragmatism (decreasing):

I don't really think a pronunciation guide is required for that article.
Both pronunciations scan as valid in modern English.
The oldest use of the digraph ⟨ch⟩ in Latin-script alphabets like English is actually to transcribe the Greek ⟨χ⟩, whence archangel ← ἀρχάγγελος. So, the most etymological pronunciation in English is with /k/, not conflated with the later but now more ubiquitous use of ⟨ch⟩ used to write /tʃ/.

Remsense诉 19:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neither OED nor my trusty Collins 20th Century have the |tʃ| pronunciation. DuncanHill (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aye. I just mean that I wouldn't necessarily notice if someone used /tʃ/ in the flow of conversation, but I've neglected to directly answer that /k/ is much more common in any case. Remsense诉 20:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People or persons?

Before a recent edit, SS London (1864) had "Nineteen people escaped on the life boat ... The London took with her two hundred and forty-four persons." (my bold) Both now read as "people". I preferred the previous wording, perhaps because those who survived did so together, while the victims presumably died separately. However I can't revert just on my sense of nuance. Any ideas? Doug butler (talk) 22:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think today it's a stylistic toss-up. Merriam-Webster has a discussion on this.

First paragraph:

People should always be used when a collective noun referring to the entirety of a group or nation (i.e., "the French People") is called for. For references to groups of a specific or general number, either people or persons may be used. However, modern style guides tend to prefer people where earlier guides preferred persons, especially for countable groups.OtherDave (talk) 23:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To me, "persons" means fewer persons/people than "people". In particular, I've never run across so many (244) referred to as persons. Also, having both "persons" and "people" so close together in the same paragraph strikes me as rather odd. So, for both reasons, I'm a "people" person. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, much appreciated. Doug butler (talk) 23:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 1

"Pearl-clutching"

Where does the expression "pearl-clutching" come from? Lizardcreator (talk) 00:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Before looking it up: when one wears a pearl necklace. it rests in a prime position to be clutched if one brings their hand to their neck or clavicle area, which is a common gesture when flummoxed or offended.

After looking it up: yup. Remsense诉 01:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks for the quick reply! Consider me impressed. Lizardcreator (talk) 01:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[subway_def-1] Note that subway in the UK normally refers to a grade separated footpath under a road or railway.

[1]

@@ Line 191: / Line 191: @@
 :Before looking it up: when one wears a pearl necklace. it rests in a prime position to be clutched if one brings their hand to their neck or clavicle area, which is a common gesture when flummoxed or offended.
 :After looking it up: yup. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 01:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
+::Wow, thanks for the quick reply! Consider me impressed. [[User:Lizardcreator|Lizardcreator]] ([[User talk:Lizardcreator|talk]]) 01:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)