Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2012 October 28

= October 28 =

No hedgehog takes in the Times
In his book "Symbolic logic", Lewis Carroll presents this syllogism: => No hedge-hog takes in the Times.
 * No one takes in the Times, unless he is well-educated;
 * No hedge-hogs can read;
 * Those who cannot read are not well-educated.

I hadn't heard the phrase "take in" the Times, and did a Google search, which only returned references to the Carroll text, false positives, and one true positive from Punch, 1891, here The Google ngram viewer indicates a peakaround 1880-1890, but the links to the actual texts in the ngram viewer were not helpful. So my questions are: --NorwegianBluetalk 09:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) What does it mean to "take in" the Times? To subscribe to the Times?
 * 2) Is Carroll making an implicit reference to the fact that you can teach your dog to fetch the newspaper in the morning?


 * I always understood it to mean "has the Times delivered". Of course, subscribing to the Times would have the same effect. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll try to "translate" it to current idiomatic English
 * Only the well-educated subsribe to The Times.
 * Hedgehogs cannot read.
 * Those who cannot read are not well-educated.
 * =>No hedgehog subscribes to The Times.


 * There is nothing about teaching a dog to fetch a newspaper. Roger (talk) 10:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks both! --NorwegianBluetalk 11:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I've heard the expression "to take a newspaper", meaning the paper one usually buys and reads. But "to take in a newspaper" is new to me.  --  Jack of Oz   [Talk]  11:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * My knowledge of the "I take the " terminology stems from a classic sketch on the Profumo Affair-era LP "Fool Britannia", made by Peter Sellers, Anthony Newley and Joan Collins. A few excerpts are on youtube, but not the one I'm referring to.  The sketch is about someone asking what newspapersChristine Keeler or some other call girl takes, and the answer is "She takes a Mail, a Mirror, several Spectators and as many Times as she can get".  It was previously mentioned here.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  20:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * To "take in" an event is a way of saying to observe that event, as with taking in a theatrical performance or a spectator sport. To "take in" a newspaper might mean to read it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc?carrots→ 12:36, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * To take in is to comprehend. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/comprehend μηδείς (talk) 14:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * @Medeis: Do you think that that was the intended meaning in the Lewis Carroll quote, and in the Punch page I linked to?--NorwegianBluetalk 15:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC) Something strange happened when I saved this entry, I wrote "@Medeis" - because there was a reply after Medeis' reply, which mysteriously disappeared when I saved the page.--NorwegianBluetalk 15:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see any sign of it in the edit history. But I have seen edits disappear instead of showing up as edit conflicts.  And I have had it happen a few dozen times that when I save an edit the entire section disappears--if you see that happen with a good reason you can assume it was some sort of glitch.  I usually catch and correct it but haven't always.μηδείς (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think Bug's argument is correct, and would strengthen it to mean read thoroughly and with understanding. Compare a statement like "I found the experience overwhelming, there was just too much in the movie to take it all in in one viewing." μηδείς (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * AS a Brit, I'd understand 'takes in a newspaper' in this context to mean 'has it delivered'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Alansplodge (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So, for example, would "takes in milk" mean one gets deliveries from a milkman? Can you provide a link to an example?  And do you deny he could also meanreads by the phrase? μηδείς (talk) 19:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well the ambiguity is one of the beauties of language, but even an illiterate servant can take the paper in when it's delivered, but he can't take the paper in if he can't read it. μηδείς (talk) 16:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Carroll could have written the statement in a deliberately ambiguous way.  &#x2013; b_jonas 17:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... The Brits who have responded seem to agree that "taking in the Times" would have meant having it delivered at your home, although there seems to be no disagreement that it would mean comprehending its contents in contemporary English. So I'll go with the former interpretation of the 1897 text. My second question was whether there is an implied pun. Could "Taking in" also be interpreted as "moving something from the outside of your house to the inside of the house"? Roger, who is of Afrikaner and British ancestry, says that "There is nothing [implied] about teaching a dog to fetch a newspaper". Such a pun could have worked in Norwegian, "no dog takes in the Times" could (depending on context, and even then only barely) be interpreted as "no dog moves the newspaper that was delivered at your front door to your breakfast table". Does everyone agree with Roger that there was no pun intended (and therefore that the Hedgehog only is a Carrollean whim, part of his surrealistic style)?--NorwegianBluetalk 19:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we're overthinking this. The OED defines take in in this sense as "To subscribe for and receive regularly (a newspaper or periodical)." The first quotation is from 1712: "Their Father having refused to take in the Spectator." The verb without in is used with the same meaning: "To get or procure regularly by payment (something offered to the public, as a periodical, a commodity)"; oldest quotation from 1593: "May the 28 we begun to take milke of Ann Smith for a halfe penneworth of the day." So I don't think there's any implication of the hedgehog fetching a newspaper like a dog; I'm not even sure dogs fetched newspapers back then. Lesgles (talk) 22:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Arachis hypogaea
The binomial name of peanut is Arachis hypogaea. I understand "hypogaea", but does anyone know the origin of the genus name, "Arachis"?--NorwegianBluetalk 11:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I googled [meaning of arachis] and a number of entries came up. It appears the original meaning of the word is uncertain, but that it was used by ancient Greeks in reference to some type of legume. One theory is that it means "without spine", indicating no central support "axis". ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "Arachidna" is Greek for some sort of legume (which gives us, through Latin, the French "arachide"). I can imagine "arachidna" having an ultimate root "arachis" but nothing appears in the dictionaries. Maybe it was just invented by someone who imagined the same root. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --NorwegianBluetalk 13:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Second-to-last or second-last?
Which one is better to use and why? 117.227.147.195 (talk) 14:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Either's fine colloquially, but they can both be understood differently by different people. Seehere for a discussion. In formal language is much better and is unambiguous. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 15:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have never seen second-last, and wouldn't understand it, but I have often seen second-to-last or next-to-last. I agree that penultimate is better in principle, but many people don't know what it means. Looie496 (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have heard second-last a few times, but expect second-to-last to outnumber it in instances a good 1000 to 1. "Penultimate" is a small town inWales. μηδείς (talk) 16:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no difference between second-to-last, second-from-last and others? 117.227.147.195 (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, I think there's no difference at all in meaning among second-to-last, second-from-last, and second-last. Duoduoduo(talk) 17:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I say "second last" and I've heard it plenty of times. I think I hear it more often than "second-to-last". Maybe it's a regional thing (although I've lived in a variety of places in the US). But even if "second-to-last" is more common, I'm quite sure the ratio 1000 to 1 is wildly wrong. A google search for "second last" turns up lots of hits for both of them. Incidentally, the phrase "the theory of the second best" (not the "second-to-best") is analogous.Duoduoduo (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I meant instances of my hearing it, which is certainly less than a dozen times in my lifetime--not an internet search, which will oversample "second last" with because of such sequences as "he came in second last week" and so forth. I do agree it will be regional.  So where are you? (I am in the NYC/Philly area, about to get whacked by Sandy.) μηδείς (talk) 16:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've lived in Buffalo, NY (till age 8 3/4), upstate South Carolina (till age 18), Georgia, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Texas, West Virginia, Missouri, North Carolina, and the US Virgin Islands. Good luck with Sandy. Duoduoduo (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Also I searched Wikipedia for "second-last". I stopped counting when I found 50 legitimate hits. Then I skipped down to around number 500 on the list and they hadn't run out of legitimate hits yet. (Not all are legit hits of course because "second-last" also brings up hits for "second-to-last".) Interestingly, it seemed that virtually all of the hits were for hyphenated "second-last" rather than unhyphenated "second last". Duoduoduo (talk) 17:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * In English English, I think we would generally use "second-to" or "second-from-last". "Second-last" sounds a bit odd to my ears, and I wouldn't use it myself. The hyphens are maybe a bit old fashioned, but I use them. On a the Google search mentioned above (on Google.co.uk), the first two UK results for "second last" are from British people on blogs saying that they never use it. The next non-US result is from India. I found a book calledThe Second-Last Woman in England by Maggie Joel, who seems to be Australian (she lives in Sydney anyway). Alansplodge (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, second last (probably written without a hyphen or dash) is completely normal and standard in Australia. If anyone in my earshot said second to last, that would immediately mark them as from somewhere else, probably North America or Europe.  --   Jack of Oz  [Talk]  18:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. This must be one of those rare times when Australian English differs from both British AND American English. As Jack says, "second last" is the only form in local use here. HiLo48 (talk) 22:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that and your barbaric vowels. General American and RP agree on the quality of our vowels except for the trap-bath split (the cot-caught merger and the Northern cities vowel shift being regional barbarisms not considered standard). μηδείς (talk) 01:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The world thanks God that America has left barbarism far behind. As Georges Clemenceau pithily remarked: America is the only nation in history which miraculously has gone directly from barbarism to degeneration without the usual interval of civilization.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  03:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That pusillanimous WWII-causing frog criticizing us Yanks is rich. Lucky he died in 1929. μηδείς (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to be in a particularly caustic mood lately. Even for you.  I'm hatting this diversion, which has zero relevance to second last vs. second-to-last.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  19:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to be in a particularly caustic mood lately. Even for you.  I'm hatting this diversion, which has zero relevance to second last vs. second-to-last.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  19:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is a case of both usages appearing in the same context. Seems the reviewer's norms overrode the actual title of the book under review.  (You need to click "More" to see what I'm on about.) --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  02:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In my country, India, I have almost never heard "second-to-last" or "second-from-last", though it still appears in newspapers and magazines.117.226.128.119 (talk) 10:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So, do you say "second-last" in India? μηδείς (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Why the Guardian use '...'?
The Guardian is a british newspaper. As I know, British use '...' instead of "...". Why the Guardianuse '...'?--維基小霸王 (talk) 15:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As a Britisher myself, I consider it somewhat of a myth about us using single quotes for quotations. Maybe it was true in the past, but now we increasingly use double quotes. The Style guides of The Guardian,The Telegraph andThe Times confirm this. -Cucumber Mike (talk) 16:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I know there is no difference between ".." and '..'. Am I wrong, or is there some specific use of any?117.227.147.195 (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Single quotes are used for quotes within quotes: John said, "I swear judge, he said, 'Go ahead and punch me!' so I did."  Single quotes are also used forscare quotes when you are bringing attention to a term without actually quoting a specific utterance.  Otherwise double quotes are standard.μηδείς (talk) 16:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've read lots of things from Britain using single quotes, even in recent times (although we may well be in a transition period in that regard). The idea that Single quotes are used for quotes within quotes is standard has been true in the US at least since I was a schoolboy in the 1960s, but things like this differ outside the US.
 * I've often noticed that on Wikipedia people frequently use italics instead of quote marks, especially in linguistics articles.Duoduoduo(talk) 17:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Italics are standardly used in linguistics (and good writing in general) when referring to a word, rather than using it, or, of course, for foreign words and emphasis as usual. Double quotes are then used to indicate meaning.  E.g., The word tame is cognate with the Latin domus, "house".  These are all styles of course.  We are not the French with a language academie and fines for disapproved usage. μηδείς (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The British original of the Harry Potter books use single quote signs for quotations, and it's abundant of quotations as it uses them for dialogue. For nested quotations, single quotes are used outside and double quotes inside, as in ‘Bla “bla” bla’.  Those books are very popular outside Britain, so it's no wonder people believe in that myth.  (On the plus side, Harry Potter uses en dashes and proper spacing around them, instead of the crazy old-style em dahes that have no spaces around them, and this too occurs frequently in the books.)  &#x2013; b_jonas 18:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a tendency in poorer countries to use only single quotes to save on ink and paper. Unfortunately most British books are translated into American when sold here so we can't see the quaint original style. μηδείς (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In the past (i.e. within my memory) there was no difference between British and American quotation styles (double quotes first, then single quotes inside if necessary). I've no idea why some British publishers changed their style.  The saving on ink must be marginal.  I find it annoying to read this "modern British style" especially when the printers use the same character for an apostrophe!    D b f i r s   20:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I was kidding. It's actually to do with metrics. μηδείς (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The single quotation marks go back at least to Fowler (1926): "There is no universally accepted distinction between the single form (' . . . ') & the double (" . . . "). The more sensible practice is to regard the single as the normal, & to resort to the double only when, as fairly often happens, an interior quotation is necessary in the middle of a passage that is itself quoted. To reverse this is clearly less reasonable; but, as quotation within quotation is much less common than the simple kind & conspicuousness is desired, the heavy double mark is the favorite. It may be hoped that The man who says 'I shall write to "The Times" tonight' will ultimately prevail over The man who says "I shall write to 'The Times' tonight"." Lesgles (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quote. I'd missed that in my (occasional) reading of Fowler.  He was certainly ignored by the publishers of the books I read in my schooldays (and by my teachers), but perhaps more recent publishers (and more recent educators) have followed his advice.  I still think he was wrong, but who am I to question the revered Fowler?  (btw, I think he would spell favorite as favourite)    D b f i r s   22:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops, yes, that's a typo (it's under the "stops" entry, by the way). Glancing at some Google books, it seems you're right about the greater frequency of the double quotation marks, but some books did use single marks instead. Lesgles (talk) 22:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's the American reprint by Harper & Brothers. (They retain British spelling except for half "gray"s.)  The original of Tess of the D'urbervilles seems to have used double quotes first, but I agree that both styles were used.   D b f i r s   02:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that I've used wrong experssion above. The Guardian uses double quotes first, while some imported British books I read use single quotes first. BothChinese Wikipedia and many Chinese websites says single quotes first is the British style, while double quotes first is the American style.--維基小霸王 (talk) 23:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The British versus American split is not as clear-cut as that. There are house styles in both countries.  Some British book publishers and some British newspapers retain the double quotes first rule that I was taught in the UK, but the Chinese websites are correct that many modern British book publishers have adopted the single quotes first convention.    D b f i r s   02:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Age when accent is locked in
The page Accent (linguistics) says Accents seem to remain relatively malleable until a person's early twenties, after which a person's accent seems to become more entrenched, followed by a dead link. That's all I can find about it -- in particular, the article Language acquisition apparently says nothing about it. What is the range of ages at which an accent might have become entrenched, so that if the child moves to a different accent region the original accent would bemostly retained? References, please. Thanks. Duoduoduo (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no exact age, but puberty is the generally accepted period. A google search on "accent puberty" will give you plenty of references to choose among, including our second language.  My next door neighbors when I was a child had both immigrated to the US when they were 18, she from Germany, he from Poland.  She maintained a strong accent, he spoke entirely unaccented English.  Madonna is famous for having developed a British accent in her 40's.  I acquired a Mexican accent to my Spanish in my 20's which I lost when I moved to a Dominican dominated area of NYC.  It depends on aptitude, environment and effort.μηδείς (talk) 18:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Permit me to clarify -- I'm not talking about second languages, I'm talking about a child moving to a new region where the same language is spoken but with a different accent. And I'm not talking about effort -- I'm talking about what naturally happens with kids. Any references on accent lock-in in that context? Duoduoduo (talk) 18:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Understood. There's not really any distinction between the two phenomena, though.  In both cases it's largely a matter of using the allophones of thephonemes (or a close approximation present in your native dialect) rather than the exact phonemes or allophones of the target dialect.  It's not a topic on which I have studied, other than the standard comments in basic phonology textbooks.  A search of ("regional accent" puberty) at google scholar getsthese results, but many are still geared towards second language acquisition.  But be assured the phenomenon is the same in both cases. μηδείς (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Anecdotally I knew a boy who moved from Boston to the Delaware Valley at the beginning of 8th grade when he was 14 and his younger brother was 12. The younger brother had assimilated his strong Boston accent by the end of the year, but the elder brother, who did finally lose his, still had traces two years later when he began 10th grade. They were both picked on for their accents mercilessly, which would be an obvious reason to change.  A friend I met as an adult told me that he had a heavy southern accent when he moved to NY from the deep south to begin college.  He too assimilated his accent within about a year due to the mockery he got in college. μηδείς (talk) 22:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Madonna's Midatlantic accent developed later in life, but who knows how much she fakes it. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 00:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, "faking" an accent until it comes naturally is how one learns an accent. People who aren't willing to "put on" an accent while learning a foreign language simply do not proceed to fluency. μηδείς (talk) 01:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Accents do drift over time. I lived in New England and had a perfectly thick New England accent until 18, and gradually over time it has migrated (after living away from New England) to General American.  There are a few oddities from New England English I retained (for example I have retained the /aː/ and /ɒː/ distinction that is peculiar to New England, so that mama and momma have different vowel sounds for me) but other aspects of the language (such as Æ tensing and the Broad A and non-rhoticity) I have lost, and it wasn't through intentional "faking" or "training", its just something that has gradually changed over the years.  -- Jayron  32  02:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Charlize Theron changed her dialect and accent in her 20s. She switched from speaking South African English with an Afrikaans accent to speaking General American English with a California accent. Roger (talk) 09:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

For a documented example, Paul from the Up series moved from a sort of Estuary English in early childhood and adolescence to aBroad Australian accent after his emigration at the age of 20. For a more personal example, a member of my family originally spoke with a heavy New Zealand accent, but transitioned to a General Australian accent after his emigration around the age of 30. I personally find I start to integrate elements of other dialects into my own speech after several weeks in a different country—for example, when in the US, I find myself pronouncing the second vowel in "advantage" as /æ/ rather than my native /ɑː/. I also adopt certain speech conventions (e.g., "Do you want to come with?" whilst in the American Mid West).58.7.94.82 (talk) 09:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Again as an anecdote, in my 30s I moved from the Black Country to Barnsley, and a friend of mine coincidentally moved in exactly the opposite direction at the same time. A few years later we met in a pub, and our mutual friends were amazed by the change in our accents: I had adopted broad Yorkshire, while he had taken on a broad Black Country accent. Now I've moved back to the Midlands I've nearly lost the Yorkshire accent but it still comes out sometimes. So I agree with Jayron that accents are not set in stone. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, we all change our accents towards those of the people we talk to regularly, but this happens at different speeds for different people. Some, especially older generations, hardly change their accents at all when they move to a new area, whereas younger children usually adopt the accents of their new friends surprisingly quickly.    D b f i r s   13:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all the replies. The reason I initiated this thread was curiosity about my own case. I moved from Buffalo, NY to upstate South Carolina at the age of 8 3/4. No one made fun of my accent at all, and I picked up essentially nothing from my new surroundings other than "y'all" and "UMbrella". Is entrenchment of accent at that age considered by the literature to be extremely unusual? Duoduoduo (talk) 16:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps someone else will search the literature, but I would consider you to be slightly unusual. Perhaps you made a deliberate choice to keep your NY accent or had regular conversations with others who retained the NY accent?    D b f i r s   17:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Parents can exert an influence, as can neighbors who are recent immigrants to the area themselves. My sister and her husband have educated Delaware Vally accents, but live north of Boston.  They don't have the caught-cot merger, nor do Bostoners, but they do differ in distribution, with the caught vowel much more prevalent in Mass.  Her children all began speaking with her accent.  But as they have encountered other kids, the have adopted their vowels, calling my sistermawm (/mɔm/, for instance, instead of her variant, mahm (/mam/).  Indeed, she has forbidden them to say mawm, so they do call her mahm.  But they say chawcolate and hawtdawg instead of her chahcolate and hahtdawg, which has two different vowels in our dialect.  She finds this cute, so it is tolerated, and it is not consistent.  There seems to be a lot of free variation, since many of the people in her upscale neighborhood have moved there from across the country for the jobs.  It will be interesting to see if they adopt consistent code-switching as they grow older depending on if they are playing with the locals or the upscale immigrants. μηδείς (talk) 17:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

How to pluralize the last name Edwards?
How should the last name Edwards be pluralized? Is it Edwards', Edwards's or Edwardses? --Jpcase (talk) 19:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Edwardses. Lesgles (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response! --Jpcase (talk) 21:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * And the plural possessive would be Edwardses' (example: "The Edwardses' home is beautiful; they're a lucky couple"). This and the singular possessive ("I don't share Edwards' opinion, but he doesn't seem to mind") are the only occasions where an apostrophe would have any place at all.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  23:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Won't it be Edward's? 117.226.128.119 (talk) 10:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * No. That's the possessive of the given name Edward.  We're talking about the surname Edwards (the header called it "last name").  The apostrophe must go after the s (Edwards').  A further s after the apostrophe is optional (Edwards's).  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  10:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 125 (section 28; August 2011).
 * —Wavelength (talk) 20:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Number of people in the UK who can speak French
Hi, apropos of this, the French language article used to say that "French is spoken and understood by 23% of the UK population", which in my opinion is a ludicrous claim. It has now been changed to "According to a 2006 European Commission report, 23 percent of UK residents are able to carry on a conversation in French." I suppose the "according to" disclaimer helps, but I still feel this is true in only such an extremely limited sense of "carry on a conversation" that, despite the supposed "reliable" source, it would be better to delete it. What do people here think? 86.160.221.121 (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * This Eurobarometer paper does, indeed, state that 23% of UK citizens speak French (as do 20% of Irish people). It also states that 12% of UK residents speak Spanish occasionally.  The paper from Nov / Dec 2005 seems to be based on questionnaires / interviews with about 1 000 persons per EU country, regardless of the size of the population.  For the UK the population = 47 mio, sample size = 1 321.  This should give a confidence interval of 2.2 at 95%.  Data were collected by Taylor Nelson Sofres and EOS Gallup Europe.   I agree that these numbers seem fishy, but, barring a typo or a skewed sample, they seem vaild.  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * [edit conflict] That number isn't too unreasonable - unless things have changed since I was young, at least 1 foreign language is studied at school, with probably 75% of UK pupils studying French. (You can probably find the statistics on GCSE passes somewhere...)   I would guess that (if I still lived in the UK) I would count as part of the 23%. Personally, I can read French quite easily.  When I left school, I could have a conversation, but now I could not (I can understand the gist of spoken French, but not as well as the written).  I would suggest changing the sentence to "French is understood by 23% of the UK population".  If the EU report gives its methodology, and if it was based on the opinion of the UK resident, rather than an objective test, then "23% of the UK population claim to be able to carry on a conversation in French".  Bluap (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if you say that you could not hold a conversation in French, then by definition you would not count as part of the 23%. More generally, though, it all hinges on what is meant by "carry on a conversation". I studied French at school, and if someone asked me my name in French, I could reply correctly. I could probably ask the way to the station, or order and pay for a coffee in "textbook" French. If a native speaker started talking to me in idiomatic French about some arbitrary subject, I would most likely be totally lost. Does this mean I can "carry on a conversation"? In a highly limited sense maybe, but in a realistic sense no. Since I am absolutely certain that 23% of the UK population do not qualify under the realistic sense of "carry on a conversation", that 23% figure, if it has any basis at all, must be referring to an extremely limited sense, under which probably even I would qualify. On that basis I do not think it is a useful number, and is more misleading than helpful when trying to explain the extent of French-speaking ability in the UK.86.160.221.121 (talk) 01:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem you are going to run into if you have a mind to change this is that we don't base content on what we suspect to be true or false or even what we feel we know to be certain. We go with what the sources say and report it as faithfully as possible.  In this case, that fact is sourced (by a European Commission report, no less) and presenting a contrary view requires a source of its own.  In any event, the ref desk is not really an appropriate place for this sort of discussion, aside from to provide new sources if anyone is aware of any.  Discussion as to what content is appropriate for inclusion should be kept on the relevant article's talk page.  If you feel very passionately about it and can't drum up discussion there, you can eventually pursue a RfC (reuest for comment) but, there or anywhere else on Wikipedia, I can pretty much guarantee that editors will be reiterating my above comments with regard tosourcing. Snow (talk) 08:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said elsewhere I think, at some point common sense must prevail. It is obvious that 23% of the UK population cannot speak French in any meaningful sense of "speak French". If a source says they can then that source is wrong (or misleading) and should be ignored. While all material in Wikipedia should (in principle) be sourceable, the converse is not necessarily true. Just because something is sourceable does not mean we have to include it, and, moreover, we shouldn't include it if is is clearly incorrect or misleading. 81.159.107.205 (talk) 12:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The survey seems to be quoted elsewhere, so, in the absence of other surveys, we ought to report the findings. I agree that less than 23% of us (here in the UK) can speak fluent French, but probably more than 23% of us have, at some time, held a conversation in simple French as part of an examination.    D b f i r s   13:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the problem with this type of survey, people's expectations are different. I met a Belgian who thought his English was not very good, but his level of comprehension and ability to communicate were very good (he was at a technical course conducted in English!). Similarly I have met English people who think being able to say "Bonjour, parlez vous Anglais" is a "reasonable" level of French! -- Q Chris (talk) 16:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC),
 * Agreed, this figure is ludicrous. Those with French parents aside, GCSE French is not enough. What sort of proportion of the population have an A-level in French? That'd be an interesting indicator. Careful, Q Chris: what you wrote is more "Hello, do you speak, Englishman?" than "Hello, do you speak English?"!  mg  SH 08:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that Wikipedians, as with all people, will vary widely in what they consider factually correct. This is why we take ourselves out of the equation entirely and do not approach content from our own stance on the subject but rather summarize what reliable sources say on the matter, including providing as accurate a representation of the wording as we can get in the synthesis.   This does sometimes lead to incomplete or even inaccurate information --which is one of several reasons why attribution of sources is important for disputable facts, and in this case an editor has already taken notice of your concern and made the source explicit in the text in the article in question.   But on the balance this approach makes the information provided in our articles much more neutral and dependable.   I don't mean to be dismissive about your viewpoint -- I see what you're getting at -- but honestly you don't stand a chance of getting this content changed unless you can provide significant sources examining the claim in more detail.  This way of doing things was not arrived at lightly and we don't stick with it out of obstinate bureaucratic instinct in defiance of good "common sense" appraisals of claims in our content.  On the contrary, it's the result of more than a decade of discussion and consensus building, including thousands of community discussions, some of them huge in scope, through which we have arrived at our arguably two core-most policies, WP:Verifiability and WP:Neutrality.  Dismissing a claim made by a reliable source (or even evaluating it's semantics) based on your own impressions and no source of your own is "original research" and to be avoided no matter how obvious you feel the flaw is.  If your alternative view is well and truly obvious in a sense that is relevant to Wikipedia, it will have at least one source.  Anyway, again, the Ref Desk is not the place for this discussion; there are many pages which will concern both the specific content you are looking to change or the policy matters which guide content standards, but the Ref Desk is specifically set aside for other tasks entirely and not the place to forum shop for new opinions on such discussions as this one. Snow (talk) 06:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "Don't follow written instructions mindlessly". "If you do what seems sensible, it will usually be right". "Following the rules is less important than using good judgment". 86.160.85.80 (talk) 14:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is sometime sensible to avoid fixed rules, but we have to remember that Wikipedia aims to be an encyclopaedia, not a collection of opinions (there are enough of those on the web already). The article Languages of the United Kingdom clarifies the possible interpretations of the 23% figure.  Should we add a link to that article?     D b f i r s   17:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to steer your course of action here so much as I'm just trying to be honest about your chances of success in changing that content and explain why they are so low if you don't have a source to back up your perspective. You have to build consensus for your change regardless and reverting content on the basis of an impressionistic assumption without a valid source just isn't going to fly with the vast, vast majority of your fellow editors.   Not thatWP:Neutrality and WP:Verifiability are pillar/core content guidelines while the page you referenced (WP:What "Ignore all rules" means) is an essay and does not necessarily reflect community consensus.   There is a corresponding pillar policy "Wikipedia does not have firm rules," but the key word there isfirm; the community can always change its standards collectively, but as I stated above, this rule is the result of a long, massive, and intense process of discussion and, at present time at least, it's about as certain as anything gets here.  And honestly, those standards are there for a reason - to protect the quality of the project.  You're thinking about this issue through just the narrow window of this one fact that you are certain is incorrect.  But there are many, many other editors who have that feeling every day and some that come here specifically to push those views.  Can you imagine what would happen to our articles, especially those on truly contentious matters if we didn't have content guidelines that were generally consistently applied to all edits and editors?  Many would be impossible to maintain any kind of consistent quality on if that were the case.  We all vary on what we see the facts to be and what we view as important matters, so creating a system based on triviality or "common sense" exceptions is not viable, and we call this perspective original research and try to avoid it no matter how "obvious" the claim may seem to us at the time.  In this case, your definition of what qualifies as a real conversation in French is certain to differ from that of others.  That is why an editor clearly attributed who was making the original claim in the article.  Users are now free to follow that source and explore its veracity if they are so inclined, or to dismiss it or accept it as basically accurate; or understand immediately that it's a complex issue and that the number is going to fluctuate wildly based on how the issue is explored, which I assume is the assessment most users will arrive at.  But as an editor (and one with a background in comparative linguistics, mind you) I have a hard time accepting that we should use your impressionistic viewpoint as the standard.  Unless you can source it, that is. :)   Snow (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)