Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 August 17

= August 17 =

What does this mean?
"Newton entertained "a passion" for Storer while he lodged at the Clarke house."

What is the meaning of the bold text? What did Newton do to Storer? --174.120.81.194 (talk) 00:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It would depend on the context. Who or what was Storer?  The phrase "entertain a passion for" simply means "to have great enthusiasm for" something or someone.  It could conceivably be a romantic or erotic enthusiasm, but it could also be an intellectual enthusiasm.  Marco polo (talk) 01:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Presumably Katherine Storer, William Clarke´s stepdaughter. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 08:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That looks right. The sentence does not have a clear meaning except to imply that Newton had a (probably erotic) fascination with Storer.  He may have done nothing but gaze into her eyes, write love poems to her, or hold her hand.  On the other hand, the two of them might have had sex.  This sentence alone does not tell us the nature of his passion or what actions the passion did or did not lead to.  Marco polo (talk) 12:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The implication, though, is that it was one-sided, and thus likely unconsummated. --jpgordon:==( o ) 06:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Old Isaac was probably too shy to ask. Ironically, inertia was his downfall. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "blind"
Why is "blind" pronounced with the vowel of "bite", rather than the vowel of "bit"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.35.97.76 (talk) 00:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It used to be, but the Great Vowel Shift took care of that... Adam Bishop (talk) 02:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, that article doesn't deal with this because the difference precedes the GVS. Phonological history of the English language puts this change at around 1000 AD.  While it's true that the difference was then between  and  and the Great Vowel Shift changed the former vowel to, the actual split (and thereby the source of the difference) was several hundred years before the GVS. — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  03:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course phonetically the vowels aren't the same. Compare the first vowels in the phrases "high school" and "high stool". Mo-Al (talk) 06:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In many American dialects, particularly Northern ones, "bite" has a different vowel than "blind". "Blind" has the same vowel (/aɪ/) as "fine", while "bite" has the same vowel (/ʌɪ/ if I'm not mistaken) as "fight". And I guess this is more evidence that English words have diverged in the way "i" is pronounced. rspεεr (talk) 07:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm curious to know which northern dialects don't pronounce the "i" the same way in all of these words: "blind", "find", "fine", "nine", "night", "fight", "bite". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This phenomenon is known as Canadian raising, and it is common not only across Canada, but also in the northern parts of the United States, including New England and the upper Midwest (areas bordering the Great Lakes). This raising occurs before unvoiced consonants, so in your list above, it would affect "night", "fight", and "bite".  Marco polo (talk) 12:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It also occurs for /aw/, resulting in /ʌw/ in "out", "about", "house", etc. That seems to be the more stereotypical diphthong...Americans seem to hear it as "oot and aboot". Adam Bishop (talk) 13:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That's much more familiar. But that long "i" is something I'll have to listen for now, as it must be rather subtle. Learn something' new ever-day. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's usually hard to notice, but if you get someone with a really thick Canadian accent, the "raised" words are distinctly shorter. (If you ever get to watch Hockey Night in Canada on CBC, I find that Ron MacLean speaks that way.) Adam Bishop (talk) 13:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The rule is very simple: every "ind" ending a word, is pronounced as if it were "ined" (e.g. in "defined"). examples: bind, blind, find, grind, kind, mind, and even: wind (mainly in a poetic style, which reflects the original pronunciation). HOOTmag (talk) 13:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Where I come from, all those are pronounced the same way. I wonder if there is a youtube clip or anything else on the internet that would have someone talking that way, i.e. with two different ways of saying the long "i"? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not true for rescind and wind (where it is a noun) -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 14:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It is unrelated to being a noun. Wind "an air movement, to expose to air movement" can be a noun or verb, and it is pronounced . Wind "to wrap around, a turn" can also be a noun or verb, and it is pronounced . — Emil J. 14:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In poetic usage, air movement can be pronounced to rhyme with "blind" or "mind" or whatever. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed my explanation was a little sloppy; I was referring to wind as in 'an air movement (noun)' being pronounced differently to wind as in 'to wrap around (verb)'. Thank you for the IPA definitions. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 16:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In the third line of this song from 1905, "winds" as "air movements", is pronounced the poetic way, rhyming with "blinds". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Roofs and rooves, and whom
When I was at school long ago we were taught that rooves was the plural of roof. Recently I saw someone's house named "The Roofs", and I recall other instances of roofs being used. Is roofs now considered correct? Would rooves be thought incorrect, or a forgotten usage? And is it fully acceptable to use who instead of whom? 78.144.246.133 (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Depending on your dialect, roofs and rooves could each be correct. See also Toronto Maple Leafs (not Leaves).  They are likely fully interchangable forms, as I am not aware of either form having distinctly greater usage among native English speakers.  Whom is an object pronoun, and so in proper usage should be used when the object of a sentance; who is the subject form and should be used for the subject of the sentance.  "Who went with him?" but "He went with whom?".  Use "who" in places you would use "he" or "she" and "whom" in places you would use "him" or "her".  However, whom is sort of fading out of common usage, and many native english speakers use "who" for the object form as well. -- Jayron  32  15:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Who" is always acceptable in lieu of "whom", except in quotes, where the original usage should be kept. Most instances of "whom" on Wikipedia are misused anyway (I counted over a half-dozen incorrect uses on a single article once); English language speakers, as a rule, aren't familiar enough with the bounds of the oblique case to consistently apply "whom" in contradistinction from "who".
 * "Rooves" is an archaic form, rarely used. "Roofs" (or "rooftops") is preferable, to avoid ambiguity. (Yes, "rooves" is the original plural, but etymology, on its own, doesn't justify usage. Otherwise we'd still pluralize cow as kine.) -Silence (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I'd agree that "who" is always an acceptable replacement for "whom". I think a letter, for example, addressed "To Who It May Concern" would sound very odd.  Maybe it's just my ears, but a receptionist asking "For who were you waiting?" sounds much worse than "For whom were you waiting?"  I know that a restructuring of such sentences generally eliminates the problem ("Who were you waiting for?" sounds just fine, even if it ends the sentence on a preposition.), but I don't think we can reasonably tell someone that it makes no real difference.  Here in the dying days of "whom" as a useful word, it still makes a small difference, in my opinion. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 17:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I meant it's always acceptable on Wikipedia. Off of Wikipedia, it may be useful for the same reason "ain't" is sometimes useful: to agree with local dialects (e.g., certain forms of academic writing) or to fit pre-set phrases (like "to whom it may concern" or "say it ain't so!"). But these aren't generally an issue on Wikipedia. "Whom" and avoiding ending sentences with prepositions do make a difference, but the difference is usually a negative one: Most such sentences sound less natural, seem less clear, and are less correct than their less 'formal' counterparts. My point wasn't that "who" and "whom" are interchangeable; it was that "who" is preferable when writing a new article. -Silence (talk) 17:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * House names are sometimes simply telling the world the name of the family inside - like "the Smiths". I've never heard of anyone with the surname Roof, but if that were the case, their family would be "the Roofs", even if they themselves would refer to the plural of "roof" (the top of a house) as "rooves".  Same with the surname Man (it does exist) - they would be "the Mans", not "the Men".   --  JackofOz (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There are two separate issues here: 1) "roof" can be pluralized as "roofs" or "rooves", and 2) some words (such as a family name of "Roof") don't follow normal pluralization rules. See Steven Pinker's take on why over at English_plural.  --Sean 13:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we need to be careful to distinguish spelling and pronunciation here. English words ending in -f are often, when pluralised, still pronounced as "-ves." Centuries ago they were usually also spelled -ves, but this has tended to change to the spelling fs and sometimes the pronunciation "-fs" except in the case of the most commonly used of them: c.f. "wife - wives", "life - lives", "loaf - loaves" etc, but now e.g. "roof - roofs" (pron. "rooves"), "cuff - cuffs" (pron. "cuffs"). J.R.R. Tolkien, being a Philologist, consciously contradicted this trend by reviving the old spelling and pronunciation of "dwarves" as against the more modern sp./pron. "dwarfs", on the grounds that if Dwarves (as a race/species) had remained common, their name too would have retained the older pronunciation and spelling: he seems to have been at least partially successful in his reversion. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 10:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * When I was a schoolchild in England and New England in the 1950's, my impression (either explicitly from my teachers, or implicitly from my reading, or both) was that hooves was the correct plural of hoof, but that roofs was the more-correct plural of roof. I've never understood why Walt Disney gave his colour cartoon of 1937 the title Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, when I always think of more than one dwarf as dwarves. Note also shelf > shelves. —— Shakescene (talk) 12:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Dwarves was Tolkien's spelling, and has become fairly standard (for the mythological creatures, not for the small humans) since. Pre-Tolkien, dwarfs was usual, though dwarves was not unknown. Algebraist 12:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Indonesian assistance
For the sake of fixing the article Labour Party of Indonesia, I would need some help to dechiffer the entry of Barisan Buruh Indonesia, page 133 in this book. Would "Atas keputusan kongres, BBI dijadikan partai politik dengan nama Partai Buruh Indonesia" mean that BBI transformed itself into Partai Buruh Indonesia, or did BBI decide to set up a political party called PBI? And was the relation to LBI, Gasbi and GBSV? Any input would be appreciated. --Soman (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My translation would be: "on the decision of congress, BBI was made into a political party called PBI (Workers Party of Indonesia)". The phrase dijadikan implies that BBI had something done to it that changed it, rather than it doing itself (i know there are technical words for this grammar). --Merbabu (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * PS - Labour/Workers party are two feasible translations of "partai buruh" - I don't know if there was an official or accepted English translation - the article seems to take "labour" --Merbabu (talk) 15:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. But when did BBI cease to exist then? It seems later in the text that BBI was still an entity. And what about LBI, Gasbi and GBSV? --Soman (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Labour Party is the most widely used translation. You can check with books/articles written by George McTurnan Kahin or M. C. Ricklefs as they're some of the most prominent Indonesian scholars. I'll see if I can find some sources in Cornell University's SE Asia collection and get back to you on the rest of your question. Arsonal (talk) 15:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Dijadikan" is the passive voice form of the transitive verb "menjadikan", meaning to make something into something. Perhaps the BBI continued to exist as a component of the Labor Party, in the same way as the constituent parts of the Golkar government party of the New Order era continued in theory to exist. If you could quote the sentences relating to the BBI or direct us to the pages of the book - if they exist online - we might be able to help. Davidelit (talk)
 * The page is 133, in http://books.google.com/books?id=BJrFsQ0SwzgC . --Soman (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your source indicates that BBI was established on 15 Sep 1945, became a political party (PBI) on 7 Nov 1945, and was re-established on 31 Dec 1945 as a separate organization from PBI. On 11 May 1946, it became Gasbi. GSBV separated from Gasbi in July 1946. Gasbi and GSBV then were reformed into one organization (SOBSI) on 29 Nov 1946. Sorry, histories of Indonesian organizations are complicated like this. Arsonal (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, I'll update the article accordingly. Sorry for bothering with many questions, but does the source give any indication as to was was the difference (political?) between Gasbi and GSBV? --Soman (talk) 07:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to correct myself a bit for clarity since I seem to have read the entry too fast last time. BBI had become the union organization for both horizontal and vertical labor forces. After two conferences (19 March 1946 at Kediri and 11 May 1946 at Madiun), BBI was dissolved and reformed into Gasbi. Gasbi was then accused of participating in the 3 July 1946 coup d'etat attempt when Prime Minister Sutan Sjahrir was kidnapped. As a result, the vertical labor unions (oil, pawnshops, post, telegraph, telephone) separated and formed GSBV. However, the Yogyakarta Conference on 12 October 1946 determined that there was no conflict in opinion or on a fundamental level between the two unions. The only difference between them was the division of labor membership. Despite the tense relations between the both unions' leadership, they agreed to join together once again for the sake of creating a united force in the midst of the Indonesian National Revolution. (Indonesia was still fighting the Dutch to gain sovereignty recognition, which was eventually granted in December 1949.) SOBSI was then founded on 29 November 1946 from these two organizations. Arsonal (talk) 15:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, --Soman (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've updated the Labour Party of Indonesia article now accordingly. --Soman (talk) 19:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Under or underneath, or beneath, or below?
I really should know this. What is the most suitable, accurate, and correct preposition for the following sentence?

"The Tasmanian Inchman ant can often be found under fallen trees."

where "under" is the preposition I'm having difficulty with. Thanks, I know you guys will know, :-)  Mae din \talk 15:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * All of those work. I like "under", or "beneath". They're slightly more specific than "below", and shorter than "underneath". Depending on what you mean by "under," you might also consider a more specific wording, e.g., "on the underside of fallen trees". -Silence (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't imagine why a word being shorter would have anything to do with it being more correct! The underside of fallen trees wouldn't be very accurate, as they are not the type of insect to be on the logs themselves, but on the ground underneath the log.  I'm leaning towards underneath, it seems more specific, to me.   Mae din \talk 15:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * When two words are near-exact synonyms, and one is twice as long as the other, there's usually no need to use the longer one. RHD lists the first definition of "under" as "beneath and covered by", which sounds like exactly what you're looking for if you mean something like "when you look under a fallen tree, you're likely to find ants there". (For comparison, RHD's first definition of "underneath" is "below the surface or level of; directly or vertically beneath; at or on the bottom of".) -Silence (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I would choose "under." I do think that shorter makes it better. I think a longer word gives the implication of it having been chosen more carefully. Expletives tend to be short. We don't say feces! when we drop a hammer on our toe. It takes too many syllables. Of course if the user of the language clearly feels that something needs to be conveyed and it is a longer word that will convey just that, then the longer word is the right choice. Bus stop (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I apologise; I am against the way that English seems to be moving towards a facile, dumbed-down version of itself, and confused the "shorter is better" idea with that. Of course under is just as good as underneath.  Your phraseology must have triggered my attack mode, ;-)  Sorry!   Mae din \talk 16:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The impression that "[your favorite language] seems to be moving towards a facile, dumbed-down version of itself" is almost as old as language itself. See The Unfolding of Language by Guy Deutscher for why that is so despite the tremendous overall evolution since then. &mdash; Sebastian 23:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Though part of the reason this impression might be especially prevalent nowadays is because the actual IQ, literacy, and level of education of the average person is rising dramatically&mdash;with the side-effect that the "middle class" of literates is hugely expanding, people who are neither aristocratic/academic elites nor illiterate peasants, and who therefore have the literacy to become popular authors (and a large body of literate, but not 'upper-literate', readers), without the training (or inclination, considering their reader base) to employ academic and literary terms of art, e.g., Latinisms. And Wikipedia, incidentally, is a part of this shift, since it's writing primarily for the 'middle class' (and hence does use 'dumbed-down' language at times, or more accurately, doesn't circumlocute to effect a facade of erudite articulacy ;)), but tries to rely on the 'upper class' of literacy for sourcing in most cases. -Silence (talk) 23:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, that told me! I recently read a book brought out only this year, full of grammatical errors, the most obvious of which was the continued use of "different to" instead of "different from".  I am not an elitist, but I still would have expected either the writer or the publishing house (a very big and well-known one) to have fixed these kinds of things.  My (probably wrong) thought was that either they just didn't know any better, or decided it wasn't important, or that the reader wouldn't notice.  Anyway, I take your point.  I do love this: "circumlocute to effect a facade of erudite articulacy".  If you'd whispered that in my ear I'd have jumped you, ;-)   Mae din \talk 08:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI, "different to" is the normal and correct usage in British English, while "different than" sticks out as an Americanism; is it possible that the other "grammatical errors" were also normal British English usages and that the book was published by a UK company or the UK arm of an international one and imported to the USA, or written by a British author who would not sanction "translation"? In the UK we don't expect US-written or -published books to be "Britishized" (which would only add to the cost), we take the dialectical differences in our stride - why is it that US readers seem unable or unwilling to do the same? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 12:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I am British and purchased the book in the UK, so I'm not an American being surprised by British usage. I am aware that "different to" is common in British English usage, but it is not correct.  See, for example, this on why.   Mae din \talk 13:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL. "(A ≠ B) > (X ≠ Y)", and for extra surrealistic effect they call it an equation. Now, did you say the guys are experts or something? — Emil J. 13:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't suggest anything of the sort, of course, and I wasn't commenting on whether or not "different than" is incorrect; only that "different to" is.  Mae din \talk 13:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a serious problem with the QES link. They set out the basic principle first - usage trumps everything else, including logic - and then immediately abandon it in favour of a logical (!) argument as to why "different from" is the only "correct" form.  I personally prefer "different from", for the very reasons they give, but the QES cannot have it both ways.  They come across as very high-handed ("We are correct because we say so, and the 90% of the world who say something different are out of step with us").  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought it was all a little high-handed myself, and it blithely ignores the fact that English is quite illogical at times, and these two emerging alternatives to "different from" are trumping it through usage. But it was the best link I could find that wasn't to a forum or something similar.  To be fair, I didn't spend much time googling it.  If I had Fowler's, I would have just quoted from it!   Mae din \talk 07:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Being a British ex-professional editor, I of course do have Fowlers' — H.W. & F.G. Fowler, The King's English, OUP 1931. From Prepositions, p171:
 * ". . . The adjectives different and averse . . . call for a few words of comment. There is no essential reason whatever why either . . . should not be as well followed by to as by from. But different to is regarded by many newspaper editors and others in authority as a solecism, and is therefore better avoided by those to whom the approval of such authorities is important. It is undoubtably gaining ground, and will probably displace different from in no long time; perhaps, however, the conservatism that still prefers from is not yet to be named pedantry, different to (though 'found in writers of all ages'—Oxford Dictionary) being on the whole the aggressor. With averse, on the other hand . . . ."
 * I give you also Sir Ernest Gowers, The Complete Plain Words, HMSO, 1954. Under A checklist, words and phrases to be used with care, p 220:
 * Different There is good authority for different to, but different from is today the established usage."
 * And also Eric Partridge, Usage and Abusage, Hamish Hamilton 1965. Under than, different, p 339:
 * ". . . the impeccably correct construction is different . . . from, although different to (cf . French différent à) is permissible (see, for evidence, the O.E.D.) . . . ."
 * And finally Michael Swann, Practical English Usage, OUP 1980. Under Prepositions, p485:
 * "different from (sometimes to, American from or than)."
 * In summary, I conclude that although Maedin is correct to assert that different from has always been correct and historically was more common, different to has never been incorrect and was gaining ground as far back as 1931 (the 74-y-o Gowers, being a senior and aged civil servant, was anomalously conservative); and I submit that in 2009 different to is now the predominent British English form, and that different from is perceived as old fashioned and perhaps as an Americanism (though not to the extent of different than which is what was originally in the back of my mind) – many Americanisms being in fact preservations of older idioms from which British English has latterly deviated. Honours even? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 10:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, that is absolutely fascinating. Thank you so much for spending the time to give us the authority on the subject!  As a side note, a friend of mine who is 63 years old and was brought up very "proper" is firmly pedantic and purist; you have sent him into an apoplectic rage, ;-)  His former regard for Fowler has been decimated!   Mae din \talk 10:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * By which, I sincerely hope, he means "lessened by 10%" :-). 87.81.230.195 (talk) 10:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My wording and not his, and I am far less educated! Though he has suggested that it would be lessened by 90%; reduced to a tenth.  I'll stay out of it! Nevermind, he's withdrawn!   Mae din \talk 10:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * When you see people abusing complementary adpositions, just start using 'similar from' and see how they like it.
 * Also, I must advert to the only lacuna I can descry in those tomes' aforementioned syntactic excerpts, that being the failure to mention that 'different to/than' sounds quite poopy. -Silence (talk) 11:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Correct form

 * ''The first step is to solve a problem is to identify that problem. This is what is reality and this is how I solved my recent problem."
 * The first step of solving a problem is to identify that problem. This is what is reality and this is how I solved my recent problem.

Which one is correct?--119.30.36.53 (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The second one. Don't overuse "is to". "This is what is reality" is very oddly phrased in both, though. -Silence (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * How about: "The first step to solving a problem is identifying it. That is how I solved a recent personal quandary." Bus stop (talk) 16:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally I would write something like "The first step in solving a problem is to identify the problem. That is reality, and that is how I solved my recent problem." 78.144.249.108 (talk) 19:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about "That is reality" or its variants "This is what is reality" - aren't there better ways to get the point across? "That is how real problems are solved, including my recent problem" or something to that effect.  Nimur (talk) 21:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Without knowing 119.30.36.53's intended use for this phrase, we can't really say what the best phrasing would be. Context is needed. If this is a zen manuscript or metaphysical treatise, "This is what reality is" (with just the second "is" swapped) might be entirely appropriate. But in most situations, an idiom or something like "That's how problems are solved in the real world, and it's how I solved my recent problem." would be expected. -Silence (talk) 23:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

sdf "politics organs"
Is "politics organs" a word? What does it mean if so174.3.103.39 (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * See Identity politics and organ definition 3 69.245.227.37 (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Political organ, perhaps. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 23:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The phrase is "identity politics organs". It isn't the clearest phrase, but it refers to publications catering to identity politics.  This phrase is in fact a compound noun composed of the head noun "organs" modified by another compound noun, "identity politics", which functions as a noun adjunct.  In the compound noun "identity politics", "politics" is the head noun and "identity" the adjunct.  Really, this phrase should have a hyphen: "identity-politics organs".  Marco polo (talk) 00:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Please stop titling your queries by typing randomly on the home row of your keyboard with the fingers of your left hand... AnonMoos (talk) 09:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahh! thank you so much AnonMoos. I was wondering and somehow afraid to ask for an explanation! --pma (talk) 17:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added a more intuitive title to the original. Non-random titles help people searching archives for the question they're considering asking.  — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  19:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Now some users may wonder what French homeless people have to do with "politics organs". — Kpalion(talk) 11:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)