Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

The Wikipedia Reference Desk covering the topic of language.

Welcome to the language reference desk.
Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

  • Provide a short header that gives the general topic of the question.
  • Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
  • Post your question to only one desk.
  • Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. All answers will be provided here.
  • Specific questions, that are likely to produce reliable sources, will tend to get clearer answers.
  • Note:
    • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
    • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
    • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
    • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.



How do I answer a question?

Main page: 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.
 
Select a topic:
 
See also:
Help desk
Village pump
Help manual

March 1Edit

Guajillo chiliEdit

"Guajillo chilies are used in marinades, salsas, pastes, butters or adobos (spice rubs) to flavor meats and fat or oil with other ingredients." Or - and - or. I am lost - is this just a bad sentence in the article or I am too tired to untangle its meaning? Rmhermen (talk) 03:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

You might look at the way the article read a couple of years ago and see if that makes it clearer than it currently is. It looks like someone took two or more sentences and ran them together. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
It's a bad sentence, and shows ignorance of the meanings of "and" and "or". If the chillies are used for all those things then it should be "and" all the way through. A replacement might be Guajillo chilies are used in marinades, salsas, pastes, butters and adobos (spice rubs) to flavor meats, fat and oil with other ingredients., but as I have no idea what "adobos" means I'll leave it to others to decide. Bazza (talk) 09:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
It's a bad sentance. Looking through the history, it appears someone mangled it (back in Nov 2018) while adding links to some of the terms. The original wording was: Guajillo chilies are used in marinades, salsas, pastes, butters and/or adobos (rubs) to flavor all kinds of meats. It is often used to flavor the fat or oil where other ingredients will be cooked in. Iapetus (talk) 10:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
(ec) Adobo is a term used in Latin America both for a marinade (a culinary method of preparation applied before cooking) and for the sauce or seasoning mix used in the marinade. In Mexico, it refers to a condiment or cooking sauce with a base containing chillies. Puerto Rican-style adobo is seasoned salt used for meat rubs. In view of the variety of region-dependent senses, it may be better to replace "adobos (spice rubs)" by just "spice rubs". The very earliest version of the sentence (Guajillo chillies are great in pastes, butters or rubs to flavour all kinds of meats - especially chicken.) already used the conjunction "or". In subsequent edits it acquired and lost an Oxford comma, being replaced by "and/or" before being brought back to just "or". In between, there was a bad "simplification", signalled by Bugs, in which the two sentences
Guajillo chilies are used in marinades, salsas, pastes, butters and/or adobos (rubs) to flavor all kinds of meats. It is often used to flavor the fat or oil where other ingredients will be cooked in.
were run together into
Guajillo chilies are used in marinades, salsas, pastes, butters and/or adobos (spice rubs) to flavor meats and fat or oil with other ingredients.
I suggest, after untangling, to combine this with the following sentence (The guajillo chili, with its leaner flavor profile, is used with fish and chicken, or added to salsa as a side dish.) while changing the order, into:
Guajillo chilies, with their leaner flavor profile, are used with fish and chicken, or added to salsa as a side dish. They are used in marinades, pastes and spice rubs to flavor meats, and to flavor butter and oil used for cooking.
I left out "salsa" in the last enumeration because it has already been mentioned twice at that point in the text of the article.  --Lambiam 11:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
@Lambiam: Thanks for the explanation of "adobo", and recommendation it's replaced with "spice rub" which is comprehendible here. Is there a more understandable term for "leaner flavor"? This British English speaker has no idea what it's meant to convey. Bazza (talk) 12:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Milder, less dominant, unobtrusive. In the context of chilies, "mild" may easily be misunderstood as "mildly pungent", that is, packing low Scoville heat. Although guajillo chilies have a mild heat, this use of "leaner flavor" is meant to be (I think) not about pungency, but purely about the flavour, chicken and most fish meats not having a pronounced taste, so it is better not to use the term "mild". Perhaps with their more delicate flavor? (Disclaimer: my understanding of guajillo chilies is not based on familiarity, but purely on my interpretation of some relevant Wikipedia articles.)  --Lambiam 12:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
@Lambiam: Thanks for the lesson. I had guessed that is might be subtler than the usual crude heat ratings we get here (mild, medium, hot, very hot). Your suggestion of "more delicate flavor" would fit well, I think. Bazza (talk) 13:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
I've been bold. Bazza (talk) 13:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

German bike and German phraseEdit

When referring to a fictional motorcycle or bike, such as Tron's lightcycles, Kaneda's bike, or the motorcycles of Extreme G Racing, do German people use "Motorrad" or "Fahrrad" as if they would refer to a real-life motorcycle design? I know that Motorrad in particular usually strictly refers to a bike powered by petrol, and a fictional futuristic bike is most likely powered by something unfeasable or not real, hell it might even fly; could "Motorrad" still apply to such a bike? An over-the-top design that looks like it was pulled right out of fiction yet nonetheless exists in this world such as the Dodge Tomahawk or the Kawasaki Concept J would still be referred to as any other normal bike frankly because it looks like one, regardless if it has more than two wheels (I think at the most I would get "Zweirad" or simply "futuristische Rad"). But I do vaguely remember having a bootleg VHS copy of Tron when I was a kid, and I think the dubber used a literal translation of "Lichtrad", in the place of "lightcycle".

My other question concerns the phrase "Get out of my sight!". Is "Geh mir aus den Sicht!" a good equivalent, or would it be better to go with something more abstract or poetic (something more like "vanish from the peering eyes")? I know that German idioms and phrases often do not directly translate into their English equivalents, so I was a little curious when I found this one. --72.234.12.37 (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Second question: Geh mir aus den Augen! would be the idiomatically closest expression. Yours should be Geh mir aus der Sicht!, but that's not really idiomatic I think (strange when you become uncertain about your own language — do we say that, is it an Anglicism?). -Wrongfilter (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
de:Akira (Anime) and de:Extreme-G both use Motorrad, while de:Tron (Film) avoids mentioning motorbikes altogether, as far as I can tell. Alansplodge (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
In a user review on Amazon.de of the movie, the light cycles are referred to as "futuristische Motorräder (Lichtrenner)", in translation: "futuristic motorcycles (light runners)".  --Lambiam 08:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
In Plautus' play Casina (play), Stalino/Lysidamus asks, Abin hinc ab oculis? Loeb's edition translates this as "Won't you go out of my sight?", but German translations have, more literally, Geh' mir gleich aus den Augen. (The form abin, short for abisne, can also be used as an imperative.) Elsewhere, in his Amphitryon, the playwright has Jupiter ask, Abin e conspectu meo? This is, literally, "Won't you go out of my sight?", which is how Loeb's translates it as well, and which I find translated in German (in the translation by Jürgen Blänsdorf) as Verschwindest du aus meinem Angesicht? As a command, one might say, Hinweg aus meinem Angesicht! – more suitable for the theatre, though, than for causal use; cf. Die Walküre: Act 3 Scene II, where Wotan sings, aus meinem Angesicht bist du verbannt. It has a Biblical ring; 2 Chronicles 7:20 has, in the Einheitsübersetzung 2016, Dieses Haus, das ich meinem Namen geweiht habe, werde ich aus meinem Angesicht wegschaffen und zum Gespött und zum Hohn unter allen Völkern machen. In the KJV: "and this house, which I have sanctified for my name, will I cast out of my sight, and will make it to be a proverb and a byword among all nations."  --Lambiam 08:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
"Get out of my sight!". The translation depends on the style level. Jesus commands the devil "Hebe dich hinweg!" (Get thee hence, Satan). The normal style in writing would be "Geh' mir aus den Augen!", but in everyday language or even vulgar language other idiomatic expressions like "Hau' ab!" would be used. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 15:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Regarding Motorrad for fiction motorcycles, I expected as much. I guess in the bigger picture its nothing different to how we would still call a futuristic flying spinner a car if it still retains the basic shape or function as one. I don't know why I was hoping for some cool term or endonym about this, in much the same way like how Japanese Transformers fans use the name "Convoy" to refer to G1 Optimus. Please excuse my lapse of judgement. --72.234.12.37 (talk) 05:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
@72.234.12.37: Do not change my contributions in any way! ([1]) --Wrongfilter (talk) 07:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, Wrongfilter. I initially did that for myself under Show Preview to better see the difference in your sentence as I could not initially make out the difference, I've since saw that it was der versus den, and I guess I forgot to remove it afterwards. My mental health is not exactly the best and I've been struggling with my body refusing to go to sleep when I want to, which is why my general sense of awareness is dropped. I am not a vandal, at least not an intentional one, and I am a regular visitor here, even though I probably should not be. Again, please forgive my lapse in judgement --72.234.12.37 (talk) 10:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Snowplough/SnowplowEdit

Just notice that we have an article called Snowplow, and one called Snowplough turn. Clearly US vs UK spelling. The latter also being the Australian spelling I've grown up with. We also have Plough. (Plow is a redirect to that one.)

A Plough is "a farm tool for loosening or turning the soil". How did it also become a device for moving snow off roads? Snowplow doesn't tell me. The latter obviously doesn't dig up the road.

And, how do Canadians spell it? This seem to tell me that even they can't agree. HiLo48 (talk) 23:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Not an answer to your question, but this just brought back a Warren Miller film that showed a clip of Gerald Ford skiing. Voiceover: Here President Ford is doing something no US president has ever done. [Waits a beat] He's...stemming.
In fairness I should note that Ford's reputation for physical clumsiness was totally unfair, based on one incident and turned into a "thing" by Chevy Chase. --Trovatore (talk) 23:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
A snowplow makes furrows in the snow. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
That's not what your link says at all. It says Canadians use "plow". As one of many years standing (Canadian, not a plow), I agree. I can't recall ever seeing it spelled "plough". Clarityfiend (talk) 05:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
The "official" part of the link says Canadians use "plow", but the comments section contains much dissent on the point, and some of it comes from persons who claim to be Canadian. I imagine that's what HiLo48 meant by saying they can't agree. --Trovatore (talk) 06:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
A snowplough ploughs through the snow – hence the name. Why isn't it spelled snoughplough though?  --Lambiam 08:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
The guttural ending of "plough" began to fade several hundred years ago, but the spelling remained.[2] Though the roots of "snow" look to have had a guttural ending, both the pronunciation and the spelling changed long ago.[3]Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Some comments in the Canadian source seem to indicate a difference between the verb and the noun. Is it possible to "plough with a plow" (or even to "plow with a plough")? --T*U (talk) 09:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Here's one example (from a construction zone in Toronto) of a temporary sign for drivers of "snow plows". Perhaps more interesting, here in the Ontario Highway Traffic Act you will find "plow" spelled that way to refer to the snow-removal kind, but "plough" for the farming kind. (Just search in your browser for the two forms.) Personally, I always use "plow", but that's because I prefer American spelling, so it's not evidence for anything.
As to the original question, they both use a diagonal blade dragged through a powdery material to push it sideways, don't they? --142.112.149.107 (talk) 09:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Another usage, by Gilbert and Sullivan: "Come friends, who plough the sea..." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Metaphorically, of course, the hull of a ship has the same effect on water as the blade of a plow does. --Jayron32 12:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
"Plough Monday" appears to be the day after the Sunday following the Epiphany (6 January). There are Sunday services in e.g. Chichester Cathedral and the surrounding countryside [4]. Noah Webster (dictionary maker and spelling reformer) explains why he changed the spelling [5] (see also page 53). The "plow" spelling in English is very ancient [6]. 146.199.206.11 (talk) 13:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Note that the first earlier snow ploughs were for steam locomotives and bore a closer resemblance to agricultural ploughs in form and function. Alansplodge (talk) 14:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Canadian Press (which we use up here instead of AP) says plow, not plough. (Source: The Canadian Press Caps and Spelling 20th edition) And as for how plow came to be part of the word, I have not found a reference, but would also vote for the above speculations that it came from the triangular shape of the first snowplows, and/or the motion of turning the snow over. Look at the quote OED uses for its earliest use of the word in print: 1792 J. Belknap Hist. New-Hampsh. III. 79 When a deep snow has obstructed the roads, they are in some places opened by an instrument called a snow plough. It is made of planks, in a triangular form, with two side boards to turn the snow out on either hand. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Great research. Can it be added to the article? Alansplodge (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Sure Alansplodge, go ahead! I cannot provide my OED online link as it includes the name of my institution in the URL, but perhaps you can just cite to OED generally? The entry is for snow-plough, n. It is flagged "This entry has not yet been fully updated (first published 1913; latest version published online December 2020)" and the full entry is: Forms: Also snow plough, U.S. -plow. Frequency (in current use). Etymology: < snow n.1 Compare German schneepflug, Danish sneplov, Swedish snöplog. 1. An implement or machine for clearing away snow from a road, railway track, etc. A number of the various makes are described in E. H. Knight Pract. Dict. Mech. 2230–1 and Suppl. 826.
1792 J. Belknap Hist. New-Hampsh. III. 79 When a deep snow has obstructed the roads, they are in some places opened by an instrument called a snow plough. It is made of planks, in a triangular form, with two side boards to turn the snow out on either hand.
1829 ‘D. Conway’ Journey Norway 148 Immediately after the snow has ceased the snow-plough is used.
1858 P. L. Simmonds Dict. Trade Products Snow-plough, a machine for clearing away snow from railway tracks.
1888 J. A. Lees & W. J. Clutterbuck B.C. 1887: Ramble in Brit. Columbia (1892) xxxiv. 379 The huge snow ploughs (driven sometimes by six or eight locomotives) had been at work.70.67.193.176 (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
The Belknap quote can be linked directly to the source.  --Lambiam 12:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks both, now done. Alansplodge (talk) 14:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

March 2Edit

Cyrillic italicsEdit

This image is apparently the logo of the Soviet Salyut space station program. I'm aware that т turns into т in italic script, but the word is not written in italics here. So what governs the decision to substitute normal т with its italic variant in upright text like this? Beorhtwulf (talk) 14:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

No, the T turns into m in lower-case script, not italics. All sorts of Cyrillic fonts based on lower-case script have the T looking like an M (a specific Bulgarian font was discussed here a few weeks ago). Note that the A is also rendered in lower-case script style in the logo. Xuxl (talk) 15:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
No, that is not correct. The Т is written as т in normal lower-case, but as something like m in italics. There is, however, something called "unslanted italics", mostly used for effect, where the characteristics of italics are kept, but the slanting is reversed. In this case, the font does not have many interesting characteristics, so I do not really see the point, but who am I to teach the Russians. --T*U (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the information, but then someone should consider whether edits are needed to our article on Te (Cyrillic), which currently says "as with most Cyrillic letters, the lowercase form is simply a smaller version of the uppercase." Beorhtwulf (talk) 15:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
See, for example, wikt:т. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 15:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
The article on Te already mentioned the italic form but hopefully I have made it clearer by adding the image from Pp.paul's link. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Cursive was the word I was looking for in my answer above. Many examples of a T written as what looks like an "m" in the article Cyrillic script. Xuxl (talk) 18:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, so the m-looking variant is related to cursive, and the text doesn't need to be slanted for it to be used. But still, is this commonly encountered? The logo in question isn't made to look like the text is handwritten, so is there any significance to the designer's choice of the cursive variant? Are a lot of logos like this? Beorhtwulf (talk) 10:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Quite similarly, several "upright" typefaces for the Latin script have a one-storey form ⟨g⟩ derived from (slanted) chancery cursive, instead of the traditional two-storey form ⟨g⟩ of humanist minuscule. Futura and Monaco, furthermore, have a one-storey form ⟨ɑ⟩ instead of the two-storey form ⟨a⟩. Ultimately, the choice by the typeface designer of one form over the other is a matter of taste.  --Lambiam 11:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
There may be some confusion here about terms. The Russian name for italics is "Курсив" (kursiv), as in quite a few other languages (like German "Kursive", Norwegian "kursiv", Albanian "kurziv", Finnish "kursiivi"), which is not the same as english "cursive". The term "cursive" would in these languages be called "handwritten", "written style" or similar. Italics are almost always slanted, except for effect. Cursives are usually slanted, but need not be. Printed cursive script is, however, characterised by linked characters, and will therefore necessarily look more like something handwritten. Italics are a typographical approximation of handwriting on the single letter level, where, in addition to the slanting, some letters are looking closer to handwritten forms, especially in lower case, like this table from Cyrillic script shows:
а б в г д е ё ж з и й к л м н о п р с т у ф х ц ч ш щ ъ ы ь э ю я
а б в г д е ё ж з и й к л м н о п р с т у ф х ц ч ш щ ъ ы ь э ю я
In this case of Salyut, the letters do not have the characteristics of cursive writing, so I would call it unslanted italics (and a rather boring version as well), the reason for which seems rather obscure. And @Beorhtwulf: No, it is not very common, I am glad to say. --T*U (talk) 11:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Also, look at the first image in the article Bulgarian alphabet, where the phenomenon is much more pervasive. The upright forms derived from the cursive ones have become increasingly more common. Similarly, in some modern Hebrew-script upright typefaces, the originally cursive ס is used for the traditional ס‎.  --Lambiam 11:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
A closer look at the Salyut image reveals it's a user-produced SVG image derived from [7]. The former's lettering, which is drawn using a large number of SVG paths, looks like it's been hand-coded; the latter is a JPEG image with smoother lettering (although it too shows "t" as an m-shape). Bazza (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

March 6Edit