Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language: Difference between revisions

 

Line 133: Line 133:

:The question why the ending is written the way it is, is asked regularly by Russians; I can find no other reason stated than tradition ([https://rus.stackexchange.com/questions/420533/Почему-ЕГО-произносится-как-ЕВО], [https://otvet.mail.ru/question/184052326], [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Nhr2LLEeHk], [https://school.infourok.ru/vopros-otvet/220e64fb-839a-4fbf-9861-16df4b1e59b4]). The [[Reforms of Russian orthography#Post-revolution reform|post-revolution spelling reform]] was mostly about doing away with redundant letters and about changing spelling rules that were confusing, particularly those that required writing “а” or “я” for a vowel pronounced like “е” or “о”. So, perhaps, insufficient urgency was felt for another dramatic change. Many other discrepancies between orthography and pronunciation where also not addressed.  ​‑‑[[User talk:Lambiam#top|Lambiam]] 10:30, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

:The question why the ending is written the way it is, is asked regularly by Russians; I can find no other reason stated than tradition ([https://rus.stackexchange.com/questions/420533/Почему-ЕГО-произносится-как-ЕВО], [https://otvet.mail.ru/question/184052326], [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Nhr2LLEeHk], [https://school.infourok.ru/vopros-otvet/220e64fb-839a-4fbf-9861-16df4b1e59b4]). The [[Reforms of Russian orthography#Post-revolution reform|post-revolution spelling reform]] was mostly about doing away with redundant letters and about changing spelling rules that were confusing, particularly those that required writing “а” or “я” for a vowel pronounced like “е” or “о”. So, perhaps, insufficient urgency was felt for another dramatic change. Many other discrepancies between orthography and pronunciation where also not addressed.  ​‑‑[[User talk:Lambiam#top|Lambiam]] 10:30, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

= November 7 =

= November =

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Aubrey Plaza § RfC: Do brackets interfere with readability of a direct quotation?. Sundayclose (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is “next night” a phrase in English meaning a night between today and tomorrow, like Finnish “ensi yö”? —40bus (talk) 13:47, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. We use

• “last night” – between yesterday and today
• “tonight” – between today and tomorrow
• “tomorrow night” – between tomorrow and the day after

But “the next night” would be the night after any particular night that you were already referring to. — Verbarson  ^talk_edits 14:21, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do English speakers ever say “Next night will be cold”, “Hope I sleep well in the next night”? —40bus (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@40bus: Not in my version of English. We have a single word for that: “tonight“. Bazza 7 (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does English use words “last evening” and “next evening”? In Finnish, we don’t usually use words “viime ilta” and “ensi ilta”, instead we use words “eilisilta” and “huomisilta”. And does English ever say “the day changes” when the clock turns from 23:59 to 0:00, like how Finnish says “vuorokausi vaihtuu” then? —40bus (talk) 18:21, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@40bus: No, for your first question.

• The sequence when using “today” as the reference point is:
  • yesterday (yesterday morning, yesterday afternoon, yesterday evening)
  • last night
  • today (this morning, this afternoon, this evening, tonight)
  • tomorrow (tomorrow morning, tomorrow afternoon, tomorrow evening, tomorrow night)

Technically yes for your second question, but I can’t think of when that phrase would be used. Another more common phrase might be “the start of a new day”. Bazza 7 (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“Last evening” would be understood, but “yesterday evening” would be more common. If the exact time wasn’t important, it would be rendered as “last night” (the distinction between evening and night is not always kept). “Next evening” is not common and it would be considered ambiguous between whether that day’s evening or the next day’s evening is meant. For example, I would understand “next evening” to refer to tomorrow evening. Canadian English. Matt Deres (talk) 14:16, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading a german high school textbook for english from 2004 and in a lesson about phone calls they don’t simply answer the phone with “hello” or by saying a name but rather by mentioning a city name (presumably where the person answering the phone lives) followed by an area code and the phone number: Cork 0212 574 301. After that the call goes on normally. Is (was?) that actually a thing? I don’t remember anyone ever answering my calls like that. The only thing I found is that operators of the phone company did that before dial service was a thing. 188.23.201.207 (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was certainly a thing in the UK. It’s what my parents did when I was young and how I remember everyone I rang answering. Seemed to die out about the end of the 1980s. Nthep (talk) 20:32, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How you answer the phone could depend on whether it’s at a business or on your home phone. If it’s a business, identify yourself. If it’s a home phone, give them as little information as you feel like giving. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What’s up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:30, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m old. Back in the 1950s I was taught to say “Moe 238” with Moe being the name of our local exchange, because the human operator might have stuck a plug in the wrong hole. (They rarely did.) It meant a wrong number could be identified before any further conversation occured. HiLo48 (talk) 22:57, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that’s how we were taught to answer the phone in 1970’s Britain. “Exchange name, number”. So I would answer “Camelot 223” (lightly fictionalised to protect the current inhabitants). Before STD you could also ask the Operator for a number in the same way, eg “Whitehall 1212 please”. When answering the phone at a business you would say “Universal Exports, extension please?” or suchlike. DuncanHill (talk) 23:11, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In East London, we changed to a fully numeric 7-digit code in the mid-1960s, so instead of saying “Leytonstone” (“LEY” being the exchange name which you dialled using those letters), we said “539” instead. The prefix “01” was used when dialling from outside London, but we rarely quoted that. Alansplodge (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia, at home in the 1970s we answered with the 7 digit phone number, ignoring the state code as most calls were local. I think this died out, when phones were able to remember phone numbers and names, as now I can answer “Hi John”. At work, I was taught so say the name of the business but not to identify myself. This always seemed impolite. MLWoolley (talk) 10:55, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the Eighties or Nineties I made some calls to a place in rural England, which were answered “One six five six,” no locality mentioned. —Tamfang (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a resource somewhere explaining the etymology of Japanese railway stations? Some of them seem pretty obscure and only a minority has its origin included in our articles (for example the Warabitai Station comes from the Ainu word Warunpifuru, “hill of ferns”). Thanks! 87.1.58.145 (talk) 12:26, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aren’t they named for place names, mostly? 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 13:27, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some. Some I believe could be from historical names, from microtoponyms or from poetical references. Obviously I’m not asking about the transparent ones. —87.1.58.145 (talk) 13:47, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the fast majority is derived from a toponym, line Zen Station is located in Kasukawa-cho Zen. Can you give some examples of opaque railway station names?  ​‑‑Lambiam 09:21, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some examples are: Abekawa Station, Aimi Station, Aizuma Station, Akagi Station (Gunma), Akagi Station (Nagano), Akasaka Station (Gunma), Akogi Station, Etchū-Daimon Station, Fujiyamashita Station, Gokuraku Station, Ikuji Station, Kitahara Station, Kosugi Station (Imizu), Kurikara Station, Maruyamashita Station, Tennōjuku Station, Tomari Station (Toyama), Yamasaki Station …87.1.58.145 (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Picking one at random, Fujiyamashita Station is actually located at the foot of a “Mount” Fuji, as can be seen on google maps. —Wrongfilter (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gokuraku (paradise): It was named after the former Gokurakuji Temple. When you get off at the station, there is a fun gimmick related to paradise.  Card Zero  (talk) 15:44, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Picking the first three:

1. Abekawa Station is close to the Abe River, in Japanese 安倍川 (Abe-kawa).
2. Aimi Station is located in the Aimi neighbourhood of Koda Town, Nukata District, Aichi Prefecture. The Aimi River runs along the neighbourhood.
3. Aizuma Station is close to the Aizuma River.

 ​‑‑Lambiam 18:18, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was a person named after a Japanese railway station Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 02:34, 2 November 2025 (UTC) [reply]

I was wondering where I can find the info for a captain of a ship in the United States Navy being called Captain, even if they are below the rank of Captain. (I apologize if this question makes zero sense, I’m writing this quickly at this moment of writing, so I can explain further when responded to) TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 18:04, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it’s pretty much universal, the commander of a ship is called Captain, even if not formally a Captain. See Captain_(naval)#Etiquette. Our article Captain (United States O-6) says “the term captain is used as a military title by officers of more junior rank who command a commissioned vessel of the Navy, Coast Guard, or National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of patrol boat size or greater.” DuncanHill (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia, and I think more broadly, James Cook is almost always called “Captain Cook” (the alliteration helps a lot). He did ultimately rise to the official rank of captain, but at the time of his major explorations and discoveries (eg. the east coast of Australia), he was plain Lieutenant Cook. OTOH, Arthur Phillip is mostly called “Governor Phillip” or just plain “Arthur Phillip”, even though he did hold the rank of captain when he commanded the First Fleet and established the Colony of New South Wales in 1788. He was later promoted successively to Vice-Admiral, Rear-Admiral, and Admiral of the Blue, but nobody ever remembers that. Go figure. — Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:16, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lieutenant Commander Obvious is vastly relieved. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was just reading Syndicate and trying to work out exactly what a syndicate is. The etymology section says The word syndicate comes from the French word syndicat which means “administrator” or “representative” (syndic meaning “administrator”). Is that really the meaning of syndicat? I’m inclined to change it to say just The word syndicate comes from the French word syndic meaning “administrator”, because so far as I can tell syndicat means “syndicate”. Wiktionary has syndicat d’initiative as a dated term for “tourist office”, so it seems to have funny shades of meaning, but is “representative” really one meaning?  Card Zero  (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The original meaning of French syndicat is: the office or jurisdiction of a syndic; or a body or council of syndics, in which a “syndic” is a person who has a mandate to manage the interests of a community. In the current, non-historical common sense, Wiktionary defines the term as: “A group of individuals or companies formed to transact some specific business, or to promote a common interest; a self-coordinating group.”  ​‑‑Lambiam 11:29, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I made an edit on this one.  Card Zero  (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concern (business) has this enigmatic line: Outside of professionals, the term Group, also mistakenly within the meaning of large companies – regardless of its corporate structure – is understood. This presumably originates from the German article, maybe from Der Begriff Konzern ist deutschen Ursprungs und auch in anderen deutschsprachigen Ländern gebräuchlich. Grundsätzlich aber ist er nicht immer begriffsidentisch übersetzbar. In der englischsprachigen Welt ist concern ＝ „Firma, Unternehmen“ zwar geläufig, gilt jedoch als deutscher Import und wird nur selektiv verwendet. Gebräuchlich ist dort eher die „corporate group“ oder einfach „group“. I’d like to rewrite the English version. But what is it even trying to say?  Card Zero  (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Going off of machine translation, but I agree the English article text should be rewritten, as it makes no sense as is. The German text doesn’t mention anything being “mistakenly”. It only says that the English word for “konzern”, “concern”, with this specific meaning, is known in the English speaking world but is somewhat uncommon, and is seen as being an import from German, and that “group” or “corporate group” are more common in English. 76.20.114.184 (talk) 23:16, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article is tagged with “multiple issues”, including “poorly-translated text, needs attention from an expert in business.” That tag is from 2009. Maybe in another 16 years such an expert will appear and fix it, but in the meantime I think it would be good for non-business-experts to make some guesses and knock some comprehensibility into it.  Card Zero  (talk) 23:36, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The oldest version of the English article is a translation of the German article as it was on 27 May 2008. The mysterious reference to “the Banking Act” concerns the German Kreditwesengesetz, so this does not offer a global view. The enigmatic line, in the oldest version, was:

Outside of professionals, the termGroupalso mistakenlywithin the meaning of large companies– regardless of its corporate structure – understood.

This was the attempted translation of:

Außerhalb der Fachkreise wird der Begriff Konzern fälschlicherweise auch im Sinne von Großunternehmen – unabhängig von seiner Gesellschaftsstruktur – verstanden.

Translated, somewhat freely:

Outside of professional circles, the term Konzern is often mistakenly understood to mean any large company, regardless of its corporate structure.

(Compare the definition on Wiktionary of the English term concern: “A business, firm or enterprise; a company.”)  ​‑‑Lambiam 00:01, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. One should perhaps restructure the article so that it opens with the (nebulous) English concepts of “business concern” and “a going concern”, and then has a section devoted to the (well-specified) Konzern concept.  Card Zero  (talk) 01:01, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or merge Concern (business) into Corporate group. The German article Unternehmensverbindung, the counterpart of the suggested merge target, contains a section § Formen von Unternehmensverbindungen (“Forms of corporate groups” – not a good section heading for us, we should use just “§ Forms”), with subsections for various forms, one of which is § Konzern.

I am not certain how firmly established the narrow sense is of German Konzern that is given in the German article. The German Wiktionary only gives a more general definition, “Merger of several independent companies under unified economic management with the purpose of cost savings”. In fact, this may even exclude the narrow, legal sense, in which the divisions are not independent legal persons. The definition of the notion of Konzern in German law is as follows:^[1]

Sind ein herrschendes und ein oder mehrere abhängige Unternehmen unter der einheitlichen Leitung des herrschenden Unternehmens zusammengefasst, so bilden sie einen Konzern; die einzelnen Unternehmen sind Konzernunternehmen.

(When a parent company and one or more dependent companies are grouped together under the unified management of the parent company, they form a Konzern; the individual companies are Konzern companies.)

Since – as far as I can tell – this specific narrow definition only plays a role in German law, and a rather limited role at that, a short paragraph should suffice.  ​‑‑Lambiam 11:01, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a word for someone who loves researching obscure cities and has an intense enthusiasm for local history? —TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 03:46, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Topophilia is said to mean “a special love for peculiar places”. If we extend this meaning to include “a peculiar love for special places”, it may cover your affliction, which means you are a topophiliac.  ​‑‑Lambiam 10:22, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not a topophile? Nardog (talk) 13:44, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or a topoholic? — Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:16, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In Italian, topo means “mouse”, so those all sound a little odd. There’s a concept in inner model theory called a mouse; it’s sometimes occurred to me that those who study them could be considered topologists. —Trovatore (talk) 19:53, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you, today I learned that Topo Gigio means “Louie Mouse”. Grazie! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What’s up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Ed Sullivan, where are you now? — Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:51, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gone to that “really big shoo” in the sky. 😁 ←Baseball Bugs ^{What’s up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:27, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Urban history buff, if you want a term that’s readily understood.  Card Zero  (talk) 18:27, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why were Russian genitives in -го not changed to -во in the post-1918 spelling reforms? ~2025-31275-58 (talk) 18:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The question why the ending is written the way it is, is asked regularly by Russians; I can find no other reason stated than tradition ([2], [3], [4], [5]). The post-revolution spelling reform was mostly about doing away with redundant letters and about changing spelling rules that were confusing, particularly those that required writing “а” or “я” for a vowel pronounced like “е” or “о”. So, perhaps, insufficient urgency was felt for another dramatic change. Many other discrepancies between orthography and pronunciation where also not addressed.  ​‑‑Lambiam 10:30, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]