Hello,

I'm trying to translate the Norwegian phrase heraldisk nøkkel (from a book title) into English. I know what it means, but haven't so far managed to come up with anything better than the literal translation "heraldic key". It refers to a directory of symbols used in heraldry, with information aimed at using them to identify the family a particular coat of arms belongs to.

Is there a standard name for this kind of book? Musiconeologist (talk) 01:25, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps armorial or roll of arms?--216.15.56.15 (talk) 04:05, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, 'armorial' and 'roll of arms' refer to collections of actual 'coats of arms' (technically 'heraldic achievements') either depicted or described (or both). From my shelf of Heraldry books [Disclosure: former member of the Heraldry Society], there is no particular term for such a key of symbols alone, and books about heraldry are often divided into chapters, each illustrating and explaining the appearance, meaning and use of a particular class of symbol (such as 'The Cross', for example). One book I have is arranged alphabetically as an illustrated encyclopedia, and is called A Glossary of Terms Used in Heraldry (by James Parker, 1894); other books may use other general English terms, like 'Dictionary'. 'Heraldic key' would be an appropriate name for such a list of symbols.

Many early armorials had no particular order, and were often compiled by touring a particular area and adding arms as they were encountered, or adding them as they were granted by the relevant authority. However, an Ordinary of arms is an armorial or roll of arms specifically arranged in some logical order, the earliest English example dating to about 1340. One such influential compilation is Papworth's Ordinary (1874) which re-arranged the contents of an 1847 edition of Burke's General Armory in a logical analytical order (devised by Papworth) according to the field, division and charges of a coat of arms, so that on seeing an unknown coat, one could (with practice) quickly look it up and identify the bearers of it.

From Musiconeologist's description, what he has corresponds to an Ordinary of arms, so "Heraldic ordinary" would probably be a good translation. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.8.123.129 (talk) 05:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Ordinary (heraldry) identifies this as a charge, so heraldic ordinary will be confusing. Perhaps one or more of the following terms are usable: list, index, register.

Books for identifying plants (floras) or animals are sometimes called "key guides"; see e.g. the book title Cronin's Key Guide to Australian Mammals. Occasionally just "key" is used, as seen in the book title Key to the Families of North American Insects. The sense of key is presumably "identification key"; perhaps that of nøkkel in the phrase heraldisk nøkkel is likewise that of bestemmelsesnøkkel.  ‑‑Lambiam 07:57, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a Swede with a Norwegian father, I agree that nøkkel in this case should be interpreted figuratively, similar to an answer key. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 12:53, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That does agree with the NAOB definition, which seems to me to confirm that the range of Norwegian meanings of nokkel is very similar to that of English meanings of key. There's a Norwegian Heraldisk nøkkel article, which is where I found out what it is, but I couldn't find a dictionary entry for the phrase. Search results mostly bring up either that article or the book in question (Heraldisk nøkkel by Herman L. Løvenskiold). So I think it's probably pretty specialised in Norwegian too. Musiconeologist (talk) 17:55, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I've just noticed that the Heraldisk nøkkel article mentions the Løvenskiold book as an example, saying that it lists the symbols alphabetically by their heraldic names. Musiconeologist (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

remarkable, for many years in the eye of my mind you have been an american otaku 130.74.58.166 (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appearances might deceive... 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 10:24, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As Lambiam noted in another comment, "key" is a standard English term for a guide like this, so I don't think it needs any further translation. I would suggest that "Key to Heraldry" or "Key to Heraldic Symbols" might be a better phrasing, to avoid confusion with the idea of the heraldic use of the image of a key. Iapetus (talk) 13:03, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Heraldisk nøkkel is the entire title, I'm reluctant to introduce too many explanatory words, so I think I'll go with either Key to heraldry or Heraldic key, but add a brief explanation of what it is. It seems there isn't a more standard term, and it is basically an identification key for symbols used in heraldry—so as you say, key seems entirely appropriate.

What I'm doing is adding English translations of titles to a bibliography that lists Norwegian sources. Several of them are followed by a comment about how they're relevant—so I can just include the explanation in the same way, without affecting the format at all. Musiconeologist (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

how to give an official shape to a newly born WORD ? 103.240.206.170 (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Word which is new born,how to varyfy the construction of it within grammatical correctness? 103.240.206.170 (talk) 16:36, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New words generally get adapted plain naturally by the speakers that coin and use them. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

you have to write out each and every letter,

in the word, which you are using (or coining), and i know that it's quite uncommon in our day and age to do this

each and every letter which you would that the word should comprise, or compose, or which should as parts of a whole (separate but whole) constitute the word in question

and then specify your meaning 130.74.58.24 (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes new words arise for no discernible reason, and even with no discernible meaning (skibidi, anyone?), but the most common process is that there is an existing and important notion that can only be described with a lengthy phrase, such as "not having a fixed gender but a gender that ondergoes changes in the course of time", which is very awkward when discussing it. Coining a term such as "genderfluid" saves a lot of verbiage. There are no rules for how neologisms are formed, but in most cases they are obtained by gluing or blending components that have meanings related to the notion, like pizzagate from pizza parlor + Watergate. For more information, see the article Neologism.  ‑‑Lambiam 21:46, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not for something you made up one day. If a new word is coined and actively put into use, notice will be taken by reliable sources and the word, as put into actual use, will become part of the language into which it is adopted. Only then, if it attracts sufficient notice, would an article be appropriate for Wikipedia. We are not arbiters of taste or grammar and will issue no rulings on grammatical correctness; we are an encyclopedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:46, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "official" authority for new words in English, so there is no "official shape".Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:05, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you want to revive the Sniglet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:07, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why does T become voiced to a more D-like sound in some words like “utter” (which sounds just like “udder”) and “beating” (which sounds like “beading”)? To my knowledge, the other voiceless plosives don’t do this (for example, “rocket” does not become “rogget” and “happen” is not pronounced as “habben”). Primal Groudon (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is rarely heard in British English (except in Cardiff and Ulster), but mainly in the North-American pronunciation and also in Australia and New Zealand. Not only is the intervocalic /t/ realized as voiced, but its manner of articulation also changes from a plosive to the flap consonant [ɾ] in a process known as flapping. Also in American English, utter and udder are not fully homophonic – the [d] of udder remains unflappable. I'm not aware of a theory explaining why this process is specific to the unvoiced alveolar stop, but note that the velar plosive /k/ of rocket is not a lateral consonant, while the only voiced velar flap that I know of, [ʟ], is actually a tapped voiced velar lateral approximant.  ‑‑Lambiam 21:01, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AmE /d/ lenites to [ɾ] in the same environments as flapped /t/ all the time. The contrast between utter and udder, or writer and rider, is maintained by the presence or absence of pre-fortis clipping (and possibly by Canadian raising for the latter pair). It's Commonwealth English where /d/ doesn't get flapped even if /t/ gets flapped. Nardog (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it must have something to do with where flapping occurs on the tongue. The [t] and [d] sounds of "utter" and "udder" are formed near the tip of the tongue, where flapping can occur naturally and thus can often sound the same in American speech. The [k] and [g] sounds of "rocket" and "rogget" come more from the back where flapping seems impossible. --DB1729^talk 17:35, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does English ever use all-numeric dates by abbreviating month to numbers in running text? Do English speakers ever write as follows?:

• Today is 15.2.2025.
• Today is 15/2/2025.
• Today is 2.15.2025.
• Today is 2/15/2025.
• Today is 15.2.
• Today is 15/2.
• Today is 2.15.
• Today is 2/15.

--40bus (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first two are acceptable and usual in British English, but not the others. The second two might be recognised to be American notation, unless the number of the month made it ambiguous (i.e. 2/12/2025 would be understood as 2nd December in Britain).However, "2.15" would be understood to be the time (i.e. a quarter past two). Alansplodge (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I, a native English speaker, personally use the month-initial slash forms, so yes to those two. I don’t remember seeing periods in dates a lot except for the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar. Primal Groudon (talk) 21:51, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which native English? The dot (full stop [UK], or period [US]) form is common in Britain, but a little less so than the slash format. Alansplodge (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only Americans ever put the month before the rest of the date. It makes no sense, but since usage makes things correct in language, I guess it can be correct for that 5% of the world's population. HiLo48 (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That “It makes no sense” line is false. Primal Groudon (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing you're part of the 5% I mentioned. HiLo48 (talk) 02:47, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have always found the Month-Day-Year format as inherently confusing. And it might not necessarily be the Americans' fault, but I have seen many errors occurring in international contexts where different participants have used different standards. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Canadian and when I look at things like store receipts I see all sorts of date formats. The claim that "only Americans" use month-day-year is wrong. The claim that it makes no sense is also wrong, since it corresponds to the form "February 16, 2025" that's usual on this continent. --142.112.222.162 (talk) 08:31, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Putting the month-before-day (when written in full) was fairly standard in Britain before the end of the 19th-century, and then both forms were used interchangeably; but I believe the day-before-month format was mandated by banks when writing cheques. The idea of putting day, then month, then year, has a certain logic, since the unit of time increases from left to right. Alansplodge (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

M/D/Y is returning to the UK under the cover of incompletely naturalised Windows installations. Has any US president recently banned non-US formats on US products? Just asking... -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 19:52, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think such a ban would be necessary. Most of my fellow Americans are vehemently opposed to DMY dates (and 24 hour time... and metric units...) to a level that I find flabbergasting. Any company that tried to foist DMY dates on the American populace would soon know what Dr Frankenstein felt staring out at the crowd carrying torches and pitchforks.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:47, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Americans will fully adopt metrics when or if they see a reason to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:20, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are American political decisions on what to adopt and what to dismantle governed by reason now? When did that start?  ‑‑Lambiam 11:06, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't jump to conclusions! I'm talking about the general public. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:52, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am also American and I agree with the rest of the world that there is no sense in MDY dating. It isn't "largest unit to smallest unit" (YMD) or "smallest unit to largest unit" (DMY), so what is the rationale? I mean, today isn't the February of the 18th day, is is the 18th day of February.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:50, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But it is February 18, 2025, an ordering that is far more acceptable in the UK when the month is in words. I assume that this is what MDY derives from. But is there any evidence? -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 17:59, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But that ordering still makes no sense. The units are still all mixed up. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 01:39, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fourth and eighth are standard American usage. The others would not be understood by many Americans.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 22:02, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add that only using the last two digits of the year is also acceptable in the UK (i.e. 15/2/25) and was almost universal before the Millennium. Alansplodge (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please could a French speaker suggest a translation or two for French: Comment on raconte l'histoire aux enfants: à travers le monde entier? Google gives "How Children Are Told Stories: Around the World", but I suspect there is a deliberate ambiguity as "l'histoire" can either mean "history" or "the story". This is the French title of The Use and Abuse of History: Or How the Past Is Taught, recently expanded by Piotrus. TSventon (talk) 10:50, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trying for a relatively close to the original translation: How history is told to (the) children: Around the whole world. (also possible: How they tell history ... / how we tell/teach history ... / how one tells children about history). -- 79.91.113.116 (talk) 11:09, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would opt for the "we" alternative here; the on used in the French title stands exactly for that. So I would opt for something like this: "How we teach history to our children: a voyage around the world". Tbh, I find the English title used catches the gist and the ambiguities of the original title quite well. So why do we need a new translation? Lectonar (talk) 11:24, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article already has a translation, but based on my rusty French, I am not sure it is accurate. Also it is nominated for "Did You Know", so hopefully thousands of people will read the article and it will be helpful to translate the title for the benefit of those who don't understand French. TSventon (talk) 11:39, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tried adding a more literal translation. In context, "histoire aux enfants" is often interpreted as a fixed phrase meaning "children's story", so it might be read both as "How to tell children's stories" and "How to tell (teach) history to children". 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 11:43, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article makes it clear that - in view of the book's content - "history" is the primary meaning here, with the "children's stories" at best an intended double meaning - or perhaps not. I do not find a lot of proof that "histoire aux enfants" would be a standard term for a children's story. It usually shows in a context where it means telling a story to children (or history to children), and a children's story might be an histoire pour enfants. -- 79.91.113.116 (talk) 12:15, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I spoke too soon. I'd still interpret the title ambiguously, though. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) "We" would be nous in this case. On can indeed be used for "we" at times, but this case it seems impersonal, like "one". The use of the passive voice seems entirely appropriate and idiomatic. The use of the colon strikes me as very French, and one could think of replacing it with a dash or leaving it out altogether: "How history is told to children around the world". Or "How (hi)stories are told to children around the world"? But the content section of the article suggests that the book is really about history, and a pun was really not intended. Reading the actual book might be helpful...--Wrongfilter (talk) 11:52, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; my French is too poor to ensure correct translation. On that note, if any French speaker could read the (open access) review of the book in question in the cited French journal and summarize it in a few sentences, it would be much appreciated. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My French is probably more rusty than yours, but I'm wondering whether there's any play on words after the colon: e.g. relating "all around the world" to "beating about the bush", or a journey all around how the world works—maybe done to partially represent the abuse of history part of the original English title? I think this needs a native French speaker or maybe a good monolingual dictionary. (NB my thoughts are based on the kind of things languages seem to do and the kind of mistakes Google Translate makes, not on any advanced knowledge of French.) Musiconeologist (talk) 13:46, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary gives "à travers le monde ― throughout the world" as a usage example of the French preposition à travers.  ‑‑Lambiam 10:48, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In French the title does not contain any colon. See here [https://www.amazon.fr/Comment-raconte-lhistoire-aux-enfants/dp/2228800309]. The first part (Comment on raconte l'histoire aux enfants) is in larger font size than the second one (à travers le monde entier) AldoSyrt (talk) 14:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty standard for book covers—in general they're not a reliable guide for the official title of the book, which usually needs to be taken from the title page or sometimes the back of the title page. In this case, the font change on the cover does the same job that a colon would (separating the title from the subtitle), so the cover designer most likely decided to omit it. (I'm replying as someone who used to do some work in a library and frequently had to go hunting inside a book for the correct form of the title.) Musiconeologist (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

French native speaker here. You are right, I try to get access to the title page but I have not found any. But I do not understand the syntactic use of a colon here (it is not a subtitle). Otherwise, for me "histoire" is "History". In French one can write "Histoire" with a capital h to avoid ambiguity but it is not mandatory. "raconter l'histoire" with the meaning of "telling the story" would refer to a specific story. AldoSyrt (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see! I was taking it to be the subtitle (and wondering if it involved any wordplay). Pinging TSventon in case they're not aware there's been more discussion. Musiconeologist (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AldoSyrt the tile uses "raconter l'histoire" rather than "enseigner l'histoire". I agree that history is the primary translation, but does it also make you think of story telling? (It seems to make Google translate think of story telling, but Google translate isn't human.) TSventon (talk) 18:37, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is on purpose. The book relates how national history, all across the world, is "taught" by telling invented myths.  ‑‑Lambiam 21:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree. AldoSyrt (talk) 09:24, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This lengthy review of the book does not use a colon in the book title, and, even more tellingly, neither does the cover of a later paperback edition of the book. The review furthermore capitalizes Histoire while the paperback title uses minuscule.  ‑‑Lambiam 21:28, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. Why Revised Romanization and McCune-Reischauer romanize final consonants according to pronunciation, but Yale romanization romanized them instead according to Hangul spelling, so that every jamo is always romanized as same? Why can't Revised Romanization work like Yale?
2. If in McCune-Reischauer, n + g is romanized with apostrophe, as in 한글 Han'gŭl, but in Revised Romanization instead without it?, How can it be distinguished from 항을?
3. Why syllable 의 is romanized as ŭi in McCune-Reischauer, but as ui and not as eui in revised Romanization?
4. Does Hangul know italic type?

--40bus (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the Korean Wikipedia's editing guidelines (manual of style) on text formatting you can see a section on italics that uses italics:

이탤릭체 (이 같은 텍스트)는 기울임꼴로 표시할 내용 주위에 이중 어포스트로피로 생성됩니다: ''...''. 이탤릭체는 의미론적인 강조 (보통 이탤릭체로 표시됨)와 함께 아래에 설명된 위키백과의 다양한 특정 목적에 사용됩니다.

However, this is basically a translation of the first paragraph of our MOS:ITALICS and does not give information about actual use in Korean texts, while the typeface is merely a slanted variant.

Some actual uses of italic hangul: in YouTube thumbnails: [1], [2], and in commercial packaging: [3], [4]. (In the latter cases, one could say the font stayed vertical while the baseline was slanted, also seen with Latin-alphabet fonts: [5], [6].) I did not readily spot uses in books or newspapers.  ‑‑Lambiam 10:36, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Why can't Revised Romanization work like Yale?" Because it's a different system, ceated by different people, for different purposes. Many of your questions seem to be based on your not understanding that different things are different.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:52, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 1 and 3: The Yale romanization is a "pure" scientific system, so it is just a one-to-one mapping of the Hangul letters with Roman ones. On the other hand, the Revised Romanization and McCune–Reischauer also care about user-friendliness, so they will simplify things when they can. The Revised Romanization also represents the diphthong ㅝ (w + eo) as just wo, which it can afford since a diphthong w + o doesn't exist in the language. --Theurgist (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am reading the OED entry for white chocolate. It quite firmly says "OED's earliest evidence for white chocolate is from 1917, in Scientific American," and indeed the entry lists a quote from a 1917 edition of Scientific American including the phrase: The Swiss Army..has but one notable food product—the white chocolate. This is made entirely of cocoa butter and sugar, the brown residue of the bean after removal of the stearin being excluded. In the use tab, however, it also lists a 1916 use from International Confectioner: I have heard a weird story of a white chocolate, alleged to be made in Switzerland—doubtless ‘snow white’ as a compliment to the snow-capped Alps of that country. The date for this entry is bracketed with a square bracket, and the quote is grayed out. What am I to make of this? Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 04:51, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rollinginhisgrave, the OED website says Around an entire quotation [ ] indicates that a quotation is relevant to the development of a meaning but not directly illustrative of it. I presume that the greyed out text goes with the square brackets. TSventon (talk) 05:15, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou TSventon. Given this, would you say my treatment at White chocolate#History is fair? Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 05:19, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that looks fair. TSventon (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those two sentences are using "white chocolate" differently. In the first, "white chocolate" is a distinct, named thing. In the second, it is a simple description. "White chocolate" versus "chocolate that is white". Kind of like "bluebird" vs "blue bird". --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:01, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh excellent. I can rewrite around that. Thankyou Khajidha. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 13:02, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe more germane is that the 1917 quote definitely confirms the existence of white chocolate, while the 1916 account is just reported hearsay. Alansplodge (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When a journalistic source writes

"Roses are red," Smith said, "Violets are blue."

is there the implication that Smith said nothing in between the sentences? I.e. we can write

Smith said, "Roses are red. Violets are blue."

Or do we have to write

Smith said, "Roses are red ... Violets are blue."

when quoting it? Nardog (talk) 08:01, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are no intervening words, no "my love", no intrusive yellow daffodils, nada. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:59, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An interrupted quotation (also called "broken quotation" or "divided quotation") – a quotation that is interrupted by a speaker tag (here "Smith said") – is commonly only used for an interruption in the middle of a quoted sentence. Suppose Smith had said, in one sentence "Roses are red, violets are blue, but daffodils are yellow." Then the report should read:

"Roses are red," Smith said, "violets are blue, but daffodils are yellow."

But if Smith had said "Roses are red. Violets are blue. Daffodils are yellow." Then, in the first quoting version above, there should be a stop (period) after "Smith said":

"Roses are red," Smith said.

The report on Smith's enunciations could then continue in any of a number of ways, such as

"Violets are blue," he added. "Daffodils are yellow."

In any case, whatever the style, the reader will interpret the follow-up quotations as a continuation of the preceding quoted words. Glueing not strictly adjacent utterances together by adjacent quotations is misleading.  ‑‑Lambiam 09:46, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. An adjacent and less important question is whether MOS:LQ means we can write

Smith said, "Roses are red."

or we have to write

Smith said, "Roses are red".

when citing a source that has

"Roses are red," Smith said. "Violets are blue."

Nardog (talk) 11:20, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we can safely assume the quote is accurate and the source uses common punctuation conventions, the former. However, I regularly see bites from the same speech quoted differently by different "reliable" sources, and correcting grammar or punctuation that is off does not seem a priority issue of correctors (if there are any), so it is IMO generally unsafe to assume that quotations of spoken texts as reported by news sources are literally accurate. The safe thing is to write something like, "According to FAB News, Smith said that roses are red."  ‑‑Lambiam 18:49, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Journalistic quotes are more likely to come from someone speaking, say at a press conference. Whatever punctuation there may have been in the speaker's mind or in the text they may be reading from, the journo's job is to insert punctuation in his quotes so as to accurately render the sense of what the speaker said. And not to misspell anything, because that reflects poorly on the speaker, who is blameless, since one does not spell or punctuate one's spoken sentences (unless one is Victor Borge). Sadly, we see mangled, misspelt and mispunctuated quotes flashed up on TV screens all the time these days. Journalistic standards, hah! And the Great God AI does an even worse job. Nobody's safe any more. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:22, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. John: "She went". David: "What? She went?"

2. John: "She went". David: "What? Did she go?"

79.177.152.211 (talk) 19:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You left out the more obvious option: "She did?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:00, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And also Did she?

Replying as a speaker of British English.

Did she go? is unnatural as a reply; it's a request for information, and the speaker has just been told that she went. The other three are all fine. There's a slight difference of emphasis though: I'd say that She did? and She went? both express slightly more surprise than Did she?, at least in British usage. Musiconeologist (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In American English, the first implies that David is questioning her motives or reasoning, implying that he can't believe that she went somewhere. The second implies that David is questioning the validity of John's statement, clarifying that what David heard is what John meant. Other than the faint implication, which may very well be radically different in other forms of English, they mean the same thing. Further, neither is more frequent. David's response would be more terse as in "Really?" or Bugs' example of "She did?" 68.187.174.155 (talk) 20:06, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "Really?" works too. And the way it's said could vary depending on the two scenarios you're describing. I think the only reason for David to essentially restate John's comment is if he actually did not quite follow what John was saying. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:57, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia we might say "Fair dinkum?" HiLo48 (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which one is correct?

• Turkmen needlework, also known as "black needlework", is a decorative and functional art form used in the clothing of people of all genders and ages in Iran and Turkmenistan."
• Turkmen embroidery, also known as "black embroidery", is a decorative and functional form of needlework, specifically focused on intricate threadwork, used in the clothing of people of all genders and ages in Iran and Turkmenistan.

Arbabi second (talk) 10:57, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Needlework is an umbrella concept that includes decorative embroidery and other crafts such as quilting, knitting, crochet, needlepoint, macrame, needle lace, darning, tapestry and even basic sewing. With regards to the Turkmen craft, it seems that both words are used in reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 11:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328

Thank you for your attention and explanation. Arbabi second (talk) 09:58, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which one is correct

• Taco it's a Mexican food
• Toggo it's a German cartoon broadcast

2001:44C8:4245:EA3:E156:F27B:9DA5:6B8C (talk) 02:13, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem they are both correct. Why do you ask? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:47, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In both sentences I find it's to be distinctly odd, and guess that they were written by a non-English speaker. I would say is. But I don't see anything "incorrect". (I don't understand the point of the question. I'm guessing that in some accents the two words sound similar - they are utterly different in mine - but the question doesn't seem to make much sense). ColinFine (talk) 10:28, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since the question comes from Thailand, we then can know that Thai does not have a voiced "g"; rather, the distinction between Thai "g" (sometimes transliterated "kh") and "k" is one of aspiration, and it's subtle to the English ear. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 17:02, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In a recent figure skating event, I noticed that British commentator Chris Howarth frequently used the expression "there's nothing in it" about the scores after the short program. It's evident that he meant the margins were very close. What I'm curious about is where this expression came from. It sounds like it could be short for a longer statement. And I've never heard an American commentator say that. So I wonder if it comes from an English sport, such as cricket? Does anyone know? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The nothing when we use the phrase in this way simply means "essentially no difference". It is just the situation where the comparison is being made. There's nothing in it means "There's no real difference between them".

The OED definition is:

(There is) no significant difference between specified things; spec. there is no significant advantage between competitors in a sport, etc.

Their first recorded use is a 1927 quote that reads as though it's about a boxing match, but I don't think that's particularly significant—it's simply the idea that the difference between two things is essentially nothing. "Is it shorter to follow route 1 or route 2?"—"There's nothing in it". There's nothing to choose between them.

I suppose it could have been shortened from a longer phrase, but I don't see any reason for it to have been—I think someone just felt that nothing was a good way to express the idea of "no difference" or "nothing that can decide it one way or the other".

(An alternative meaning is along the lines "There's no truth to it", when said about a rumour, suspicious circumstance, etc., but that's a different usage.) Musiconeologist (talk) 04:30, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for "There's nothing in it" in the GloWbE corpus turns up 23 US instances, none of which have this meaning, and 28 UK instances, of which I judge four have this sense. The four relate to Football, Rugby sevens, Formula 1, and one non-sport-related topic, comparing two cars. ColinFine (talk) 10:56, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that usage is totally unknown (and rather confusing) to this American. I'll have to keep it in mind when consuming British media. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:28, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really surprised (from your search results and the OED entry) that it's mainly associated with sports. The image that came to mind when I was thinking about how to explain it was actually of my father (an engineer) measuring two objects with a micrometer, finding only a few microns difference, then saying "There's nothing in it". Meaning, for example, that either piece of metal would be an equally suitable size for what he had in mind, or that the size difference couldn't be the cause of a problem he was trying to fix.

But I'm wondering whether the results are skewed towards sport because it's such a colloquial phrase? Most of the examples I can think of aren't ones where it would be written down, but sport can use more informal language in writing than, say, engineering can. Musiconeologist (talk) 13:31, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Musiconeologist: I agree with your theory. It's a frequently spoken construction, even if Google doesn't think so. Distance, time and cost are common subjects in everyday use:

• "Should I drive or take the train? Time-wise, there's nothing in it."
• "Should we go to the Red Lion or the Rose and Crown? Distance-wise there's nothing in it."
• "I could get a two four-packs or an eight-pack — there's not a lot in it."

Bazza 7 (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone then reply, "You're mistaken – there's actually a lot in it!"?  ​‑‑Lambiam 18:11, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. If they did, it would be facetious or a play on words, not everyday usage. There's a lot in it usually refers to a theory or similar: "I thought that idea was nonsense, but actually there's a lot in it"—i.e. a lot of truth. Musiconeologist (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, those all seem really weird to me. If the distance requires driving or taking the train, then there most definitely would be something in it. This usage to mean "there's not a lot of difference between the two options" would never occur to me. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:58, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to refine it a bit more, I think I'd summarise it like this.

• There's nothing in it: there's no significant difference.
• There's not a lot in it: the difference probably does matter, but is hard to judge. "I think that one's slightly bigger, but there's not a lot in it."

Musiconeologist (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An earlier phrase with a similar meeting is "there's very little in it", meaning there's not much difference between two things. I found these 1915 minutes from the Legislative Council of Victoria (Australia);

"There would be very little in it between that rate and the rates we were getting".

Alansplodge (talk) 21:33, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, this one feels more explanatory to me: "The choice would make very little difference". Since the difference is an inherent consequence of choosing, in it has a clear and logical meaning. The consequence is inherent in the choice. Musiconeologist (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While to me, all of these are just as odd. "In it" seems to be referring to a single thing, not to the difference between two things. As I said, I'll just have to keep this in mind when consuming British media. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 04:19, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about There's nothing to choose [between them] and There's not a lot to choose [between them]? (The bracketed words are optional). Are those similarly odd/unfamiliar? (I'm guessing they probably are.) Musiconeologist (talk) 04:53, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative sometimes used by older Britons is: "There's only a sheet of Bronco between them!" An example is in this squash match report.

Bronco being a former brand of cheap but unpleasant toilet paper. Alansplodge (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do I ask for the ordinal position of something within a set? For example, if someone wanted to get an answer “The eleventh,” what question would they ask about President James Knox Polk to solicit such information? Primal Groudon (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about, "George Washington was the first president. Which number was Polk?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:49, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most people would answer "11", which misses the point. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:53, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the problem. If he is number 11, then he is obviously the 11th. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the "obvious" is obvious, but the question was specific: how do I solicit the ordinal; what do I ask to make the answer "eleventh" rather than "eleven"? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:03, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go for What position [in the sequence of . . . ], I think. To me eleventh is then a more natural answer than eleven. Musiconeologist (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask, the how manyth?, or, while not found in dictionaries nevertheless in actual use and my preference, the howmanieth.^{[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]} While many of these uses are used to explain the meaning of an interrogative ordinal in some foreign language, others are uses in a purely English text.  ​‑‑Lambiam 18:06, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As Musiconeologist implies, following a question containing "the first" with "eleven" would be bad grammar, and not colloquial in any variety of English I'm familiar with; however, one might strengthen the ordinal priming by instancing, say, "the fourth" instead. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.8.123.129 (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or even just ask which was he (which one? The eleventh one) rather than which number was he (which number? The number 11). I was making it too complicated. Musiconeologist (talk) 20:21, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would work in most situations. An exception might arise if the other party had some other attribute in their mind. E.g., if you wanted to know where Richard Nixon came in the sequence of presidents and asked "Which was he?" or "Which one was he?", you might get "The one who couldn't tell the truth to save his life". Then you'd have to state your question less ambiguously, but also less succinctly, and perhaps even suggest the form of the answer you wanted: "No, I mean, was he the 35th president or some other number?". Then you'd be told "He was the 37th president". This gets you the information you wanted, but, unless you're lucky, not in the exact form you require: "The 37th".

To ensure that outcome, I think I'd use a variation of User:Musiconeologist's answer: "What was Nixon's ordinal position in the sequence of presidents?". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:48, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about something like: "which president, in sequence, was Polk?" or "which president, sequentially, was Polk?" Would that work? — Kpalion^(talk) 09:30, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For a project I'm involved in, I seek some website/app that enables me to input a valid word, and it returns all the cases where the addition of one extra letter results in a new valid word, even if the letters have to be rearranged to get that result.

Example: I input the, and I get heat (a), beth (b), echt (c), meth (m), then (n), Theo (o), Seth (s), thew (w), they (y), and probably some others.

Obviously I can do this myself by trial and error, but life's too short. Ideally, I would like to start with a seed word, such as "the", and each of the 4-letter results would become the seeds for a new search, and so on, producing a set of word strings from an original seed. E.g. the > heat > heart > hearts > ..., and the > meth > theme > themes ...

Does such a thing exist? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:13, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JackofOz I use this site. If for example you enter "the" and specify you want a fixed length of four-letter words, it lists twelve results. The second part of your request is more tricky. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:20, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]