Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 October 9

= October 9 =

Lambda
My physics prof keeps pronouncing the Greek letter lambda as "lam-buh". From what I can tell of the IPA in the article, this is incorrect. And I've always pronounced it "lam-duh". Who's right? Dismas |(talk) 09:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merriam-Webster's says \ˈlam-də\, so I would say you are correct. Gabbe (talk) 09:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If that's the only thing strange about your physics professor, consider yourself lucky! --Zerozal (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Forget professors! My physics teacher in high school had a lot of strange quirks, one being his inability to pronounce the word 'organism' without stuttering and correcting himself time and time again. Only this word though! We all 'knew' why. :) --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 02:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No no. This isn't the only off thing about this guy.  He also pronounces "entropy" as "enthropy", the reason for which I haven't figured out just yet. He also constantly gets off on tangents.  Most to do with growing up here in rural Vermont.  In a 1 hour and 15 minute class period, we'll get to maybe twenty minutes of real actual physics work.  Dismas |(talk) 04:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've had lecturers with the same tendency to go off on tangents (often telling the same (vaguely) humorous anecdotes repeatedly) - they usually know how much they can get away with and still finish the syllabus. It can be a good way of giving people a chance to catch up if they write notes slowly. --Tango (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Are both sentences the same?
"The" or no "the": "The Responsibility to Protect: Ending Mass Atrocity Crimes Once and for All." or "Responsibility to Protect: Ending Mass Atrocity Crimes Once and for All."

"Close on" or "close to": "Between February and December 1942, close to half a million Jews were killed in its gas chambers by the German SS." "Between February and December 1942, close on half a million Jews were killed in its gas chambers by the German SS." Mr.K. (talk) 17:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "Close to" or "close on" are colloquialisms. "Nearly" or "approaching" might be better. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, "nearly" and "approaching" seem better alternatives, at least regarding style. But do all 4 options mean the same? For example, if they were 500,488 Jews, is it still "approaching half a million?" Or "approaching" always means "almost"?--Mr.K. (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Nearly" and "close to" and "close on" mean "almost". 500,488 is "over" half a milion. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "Approaching" in this case is almost always seen as approaching upwards, e.g. "Unemployment Approaches 10%". If one has surpassed a number like 500,000, then it's already been approached, and can't be approached in the opposite direction (I'm talking about the rhetorical sense here, not pure logic.) The same applies to "nearly" and "close to". "Close on", which is idiomatic and not universally clear, might be more slightly more ambiguous. However, one could easily call 500,488 "about", "around" or "approximately" 500,000 without the reader assuming it was either above or below that number. How about "more than 500,000", or "over half a million"?
 * As for the first question, one can't say without context, since they're not complete sentences. I would put in "The" because otherwise "Responsibility to Protect" sits out there rather vaguely and ambiguously. "A Responsibility to Protect" might be better than both, dependent on the context and the meaning intended. —— Shakescene (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The first question was about a published book about the responsibility to protect. "The.." seems more natural, but I was not sure. The author also chose "The...". --Mr.K. (talk) 18:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This may be an artefact of Wikipedia's house style, which prefers to reduce the number of articles beginning with "The" to ease searching and indexing. For example, The United States redirects to United States, The Declaration of Independence redirects to United States Declaration of Independence, and The Law of Nations is empty while Law of Nations (redirecting to Public international law) is not. There are a few exceptions, like The Hague, The Times and The Bronx, but the title of an article in Wikipedia or similar works is not always a reliable guide to current common English-language usage. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way, close on sounds nonstandard and dialectal to me. I am a native English speaker and never use that phrase, nor does anyone in my environment (urban northeastern United States).  Marco polo (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I had never heard that "close to" is a colloquialism, but it seems plausible. "Close on" is definitely nonstandard in US English though. -Elmer Clark (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "Close on" is commonly heard in Australia. It usually seems to imply "very close", even closer than "close to".  --  JackofOz (talk) 23:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In my childhood home, we used "nigh on" to mean the "next best thing to", especially in the phrases "nigh on impossible" and, worse, "nigh on bedtime". It was, from Jack's comment, our equivlent of "close on", though "to follow close on the heels of" is a relatively common phrase even today. Bielle (talk) 17:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah but close and on the heels are separate modifiers to follow; close on is not a unit in that phrase. —Tamfang (talk) 07:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)