Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2013 April 19

= April 19 =

Proper use of comma
It is my understanding that when a sentence contains the name of a city and state, the state is separated off by commas. I was told that it was a form of an appositive. Is my understanding correct or incorrect? Consider the following sentence as an example. Version "A": John visits Denver, Colorado, at least once a year. Is there a comma after "Colorado" or no? Compare with: Version "B": John visits Denver, Colorado at least once a year. Which is correct, Version A or B?  Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comma before and after the state is the usual rule. -- Elphion (talk) 00:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I thought so!  So, given that, what is the correct title for the following Wikipedia article?  2013 West, Texas explosion ... or ... 2013 West, Texas, explosion ... (with or without the second comma)?  Thanks!   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow. That's a no-win situation.  I would still probably go for the second comma.  But it would parse better as "2013 explosion in West, Texas" (despite what the guidelines say). -- Elphion (talk) 01:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The potential for confusion with West Texas is so high that I'd write it as "2013 explosion in the city of West, Texas". StuRat (talk) 02:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Is there a formal distinction between cities and towns in Texas? I'd have though a place of under 3,000 people would not qualify as a city, but the the article calls it that.  It talks about when it was organised into a town in 1892, but there's no mention of when it became a city.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  02:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Texas seems to have no towns, just class A, B or C cities. Rmhermen (talk) 04:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's amazingly comprehensive. Thanks, Rmhermen.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  10:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to all. I changed the article name of 2013 West, Texas explosion to include the second comma, leaving an edit summary that said "correct punctuation". I was reverted with an edit summary that said something like "that is definitely not the correct punctuation at all". Can someone provide me with a Wikipedia rule or guideline or such that indicates that the second comma is correct? Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems to me there's a difference in treatment depending on whether "West, Texas" is used nominatively or adjectivally. Consider:
 * (a) I was born in West, Texas, and lived there till I was 18.
 * (b) I am a West, Texas native but I now live in Atlantic City, New Jersey.
 * In (a), "Texas" has a parenthetic function, and must therefore be delimited by commas. (b) is equivalent to "I am a native of West, Texas", but when turned around as in (b), the whole expression "West, Texas" is treated as an adjective.  The comma is internal, and no more commas are required.
 * Thus, I would support 2013 West, Texas explosion over 2013 West, Texas, explosion. --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  05:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Why not "2013 West (Texas) explosion"?   D b f i r s   07:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, West (Texas) would be the best. If there weren't other places named "West", I would go for "2013 West explosion". ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 10:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem here is that West is a bad name for a town. μηδείς (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It poses a minor issue for an encyclopedia article title. Our challenge is to solve our issue, not criticise the name.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  21:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In which case I painfully recant, and beg not to burn for my sin? μηδείς (talk) 00:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's too late, you're already damned. Bring forth the griddle.  Hmm, I'm starving; a pile of griddle cakes will be very welcome as I watch the fiery spectacle.  And turn up the music, I'm a sensitive soul and I don't want to be assailed by the tawdry sounds of burning people screaming.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  02:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all of the input. The article has actually undergone a few name changes since I posted my question. At present, the title is West Fertilizer Company explosion. Thanks again! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The fertilizer plant is/was called the "West Fertilizer Company", or something close to that, so that designation might be better. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Early 19th century vs mid-19th century vs late 19th century
I have noticed it is generally written early 19th century and late 19th century, but mid-19th century. Why a hyphen is added when witting "mid-19th century", and why the hyphen is omitted for early and late? --Yoglti (talk) 05:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Because "mid-" is usually treated as a prefix, rather than a word in its own right (though that's not an absolute rule).   D b f i r s   07:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Etymonline says of mid: "Now surviving in English only as a prefix (mid-air, midstream, etc.)". Yoglti, you seem to be asking a number of questions which you could either very easily check yourself, or are so general that they cannot be answered in the form you give them. If you don't want to be taken for a troll please do a bit of research and think about your questions before you pose them. --ColinFine (talk) 11:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Interrogative Question
What sounds/is more correct? "What? Is he bringing in donuts everyday?" or "What is he doing, bringing in donuts everyday?" Additionally If you consider the second sentence the comma is extremely important as without it there are multiple implied meanings: "What is he doing bringing in donuts everyday?" or "What is he doing bringing in donuts everyday?" or "What is he doing bringing in donuts everyday?" or "What is he doing bringing in donuts everyday?" 165.212.189.187 (talk) 20:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Both sound correct. The first just expresses more surprise than the second. However, "everyday" means commonplace. It should be "every day". See here. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Both are correct, the difference is that the first question starts with an interjection (which could indicate surprise). While the comma certainly helps in the second question, I don't think its omission makes the sentence more ambiguous; those differences in emphasis could still occur, even with that comma. E. g. 'What? Is he bringing in donuts every day?' or 'What? Is he bringing in donuts every day?' V85 (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I would say the comma increases the likelihood (though without achieving any certainty) that the intended meaning is "What is he doing? (Could it be, for example, that he's bringing in donuts every day?)" Without the comma, it seems clear that the questioner knows that he's bringing in donuts, and is seeking some kind of explanation for that fact. (Of course, in either case the question might be rhetorical.) Victor Yus (talk) 10:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * In British English at least, the two questions have different meanings. The first is asking for confirmation of the act; it invites, at the simplest level, a "yes" or "no" answer. The second, with its comma, is questioning the reasoning behind the bringing. "Yes" or "no" would make no sense as an answer; acceptable answers might be "He's trying to make everyone fatter.", "He thinks once a week is not enough." or "I have no idea.". Without the comma, the question is open to interpretation, as indicated by original poster, and indication of the stress is required. For both questions, stress on he suggests that only other people usually bring in doughnuts; stress on doughnuts questions the choice of food; stress on every questions the frequency; and, for the second question, stress on doing asks the same question as with a comma. Finally, as has already been pointed out, it should be "every day". Bazza (talk) 10:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't quite agree with that - as I wrote above, I still think the comma makes it less, rather than more, clear that the questioner is asking for the "reasoning behind the bringing". Victor Yus (talk) 11:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm with you, Victor. There are actually three questions under consideration here (and I've changed "everyday" to "every day"; the former is an adjective but we need an adverbial expression here):
 * (A) "What? Is he bringing in donuts every day?" - this would be asked by someone who's just discovered he's bringing in donuts every day and doesn't quite believe it and wants confirmation
 * (B) "What is he doing bringing in donuts every day?" - this is close to rhetorical; it suggests there's something inappropriate about his bringing in donuts every day, like "What business does he have bringing in donuts every day?"
 * (C) "What is he doing, bringing in donuts every day?" - this is interrogative, but could have different focuses depending on where the main stress is - "he", "bringing", "donuts", "every" or "day".  It's like a short-hand way of asking "What is he doing?  Is he bringing in donuts every day?".  It could also be another version of (B).
 * It would very much depend on the intonation used by the speaker, and that in turn would inform the punctuation used by the writer. The context in which the sentence appears is also vital to a proper understanding of the meaning.  That would pretty much pin it down; in isolation, many things are possible.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  21:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * (A) could also be asked by someone who's trying to feign ignorance. ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 07:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

tɘ'mərlɪn and ʒuhar
A talk show host on 770 WABC is calling the Tsarnaev brothers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar /tɘ'mərlɪn/ and /'ʒuhar/. Is there any justification for these pronunciations? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, but it's the way their name is pronounced by those who can't really pronounce Ichkerian names. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Reminds me of Novak Djokovic, who frequently gets "Yockovick". --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  21:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * John Mac calls him "Novak DJO KO VICH". ouch.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This is typical of names from one language being pronounced in a different language, so I would say that the 'justification' is simply 'Anglicising' the pronunciation of their names (possibly based on only having seen the names written down, but not having heard them pronounced by a native speaker). It's not how I would have pronounced them based on the spelling, but I don't think the pronunciation I would've come up with would've been any more 'correct'. V85 (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course. And British English broadcasters will do their best to pronounce it as accurately as possible.  The question is probably unnecessary as, even within the US, words are pronounced differently, do we need a discussion to "justify" each difference?  No. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I am really not interested in unreferenced racist comments, I want to know if anything about the Russian or Chechen pronunciations of these terms would justify the pronunciations I heard. Perhaps someone who's fluent in one or the other language could actually cite a source as to how they are pronounced. μηδείς (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you please clarify where you saw a "racist comment"? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Scott Pelley of CBS just called them TAMM-er-lin and JOE-carr. That squares pretty well with other newsfolks mentioning their names today. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Another Dzhokhar has his name given in Russian as "Джохар" /dʒoxar/ and in Chechen as "Жовхар", which according to Chechen language would be one of /ʒɔʊxər/ or /dʒɔʊxər/. Our articles on various people called "Tamerlan" given their Russian names as Тамерлан /təmʲirlan/, but none of them gives it in Chechen. --ColinFine (talk) 23:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Bugs' pronunciations are about what I would have said without any detailed knowledge (i.e., Tammer-lan and Joe-car). It's interesting to see plain /ʒ/ (i.e., zh) is possible according to Colin. I am wondering if the talk show host may have heard something closer to zhuhar than the expected joe-car as a source for his (what seems to me) odd pronunciation. Otherwise I would suspect hyperforeignism.  For example, I alwys thought Sikh was pronounced with a long vowel.  But after the Sikh Temple shooting I was surprised to learn a short i is cromulent. μηδείς (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've never heard "Sikh" with a short "i", even when pronounced by Sikhs (closer to "seek" than "sick"), but perhaps there are regional variations?   D b f i r s   07:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Our article Sikh says seek or sick in English and the short vowel in Punjabi. I had never heard the short vowel until seeing coverage of the Temple Shooting in which much of the press adopted the pronunciation of the witnesses. μηδείς (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I suppose we have to accept the Punjabi pronunciation as correct, but the word always seems to be Anglicised with a long "i" in the UK, even by Sikhs. Apparently the word is not directly from Hindi sīkh (learning) or sīkhna (to learn).    D b f i r s   07:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

/dʒoʊhɑr/ is apparently what those who went to high school with him called him at that time... AnonMoos (talk) 02:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, "Tamerlan" seems to be in honor of Timurlane, a medieval monarch who was noted for his skills in winning battles and committing horrific brutal atrocities, and his almost complete lack of any other qualities that would make a good ruler, so that his empire started crumbling away almost immediately after his death... AnonMoos (talk) 02:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Not surprising, given that the family was from Kyrgyzstan (though ethnically Chechen, I'm pretty sure his family had been refugees and had settled in Kyrgyzstan where he was born). Kyrgyzstan is in the same general area of Central Asia where Timur was from (the Fergana Valley IIRC).  -- Jayron  32  04:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Also continuing the aside on Timur, his empire didn't completely disintegrate and vanish after his death. His successors had a hard time holding on to his southern possessions in the face of the Safavids, but the Timurids controlled a tidy state from Samarkand for almost 150 years.  Timur's own great-great-great grandson Babur founded the Mughal Empire, which was a fairly powerful state that controlled the bulk of India for quite a while.  -- Jayron  32  04:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Having the empire as it existed under Timur (which included not only the blue area in File:Timurid_Dynasty_821_-_873_(AH).png, but effective domination of areas further west) be ruled by one person depended on the personal characteristics of Timur, and such centralization/unification ended almost immediately after he died. AnonMoos (talk) 07:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm hearing the news people saying "joe-har" more and more now. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest finding better news sources. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's the aunt saying the name, a little ways into this video. It sounds like it's a guttural "ch" sound, as in "loch" or "Chanukah". That might be where the discrepancy is, because that's not a sound that appears in normal English except in Scotland. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "Joe-har" is at least part-way towards that authentic sound. "Joe-kar" is not even trying.  It's in the same league as the famous non-rhotic composer Johann Sebastian Bark, or that famous Scottish pond Lock Ness. --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  21:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)