Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2013 August 29

= August 29 =

x than any other y or ys
Do we say, for example, Bonkers is crazier than any other clowns, or Bonkers is crazier than any other clown? I believe it should be the latter choice, but I've seen the former being increasingly used. ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 11:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's definitely the latter. The only option where the plural would make sense is 'craziest of all the clowns'. Remember, many people making the same mistake doesn't make it right. Think about the infuriating 'I could care less'. And the less said about the OED recently including the wrong definition of 'literately', the better... 131.251.133.26 (talk) 13:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Muphry's law strikes: I think you mean 'literally'; see also Etymological fallacy. To answer the original question, I agree that 'any other clown' is standard, as are 'every other clown' and 'all other clowns'. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * D'oh...... 131.251.133.26 (talk) 14:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Finnish dairy products
I'm a bit confused about the following: Our article on "Buttermilk" links to the article "Piimä" on the Finnish Wikipedia. If, on the other hand, one looks up the Swedish word for buttermilk (namely kärnmjölk) in Lexin, it suggests kirnupiimä as a translation. Lexin further lists piimä (along with viilipiimä) as translations for filmjölk, which is not particularly similar to buttermilk. The book Fermented Milks follows this usage on page 160 (that is: kirnupiimä is "buttermilk", while piimä is filmjölk). The Finnish Wikipedia does not have articles for kirnupiimä or viilipiimä, but Wiktionary has kirnupiimä (listed as meaning "buttermilk").

Which is it? Is the Finnish Wikipedia wrong here? Gabbe (talk) 12:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's just that there is no one-to-one correspondence between the various terms in Finnish and English. The Finnish Wikipedia treats buttermilk in the piimä article, thus the link. Piimä means different things in different parts of Finland, as one might expect with a traditional food (cf. British vs. American cider). This of course is likely to cause confusion. Now it seems to be used as an umbrella term and the various types of piimä are specified as kirnupiimä (buttermilk), pitkäpiimä (Swedish långmjölk, the Western Finnish type), kokkelipiimä (the Eastern Finnish type), etc. --Rallette (talk) 06:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Angle brackets for graphemes
Is there any stylistic preference regarding graphemes (particularly in wikipedia articles)?

I've seen the following characters used in articles:

 - less than/greater than

‹x› - single angled quotation mark

⟨x⟩ - angled brackets

People seem to prefer the angled brackets, but they seem to cause some problems on the webpage, the characters seem to occupy a large space that blocks links and text on lines immediately above and below (try highlighting the line above them and see what happens). I am assuming that this is a problem on more computers than just my own and I haven't yet had a chance to look at it anywhere else.

Jaxcp3 (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know what's preferred in academic circles, but, curiously enough, WP:MOS indicates that italics should be used when making a use mention distinction, and gives the example "The most common letter in English is e." A (little) more info here: Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Grapheme (version of 00:17, 20 June 2013) says "Graphemes are often notated within angle brackets, as ⟨a⟩, ⟨B⟩, etc. This is analogous to the slash notation (/a/, /b/) used for phonemes, and the square bracket notation used for phonetic transcriptions ([a], [b])." A use–mention distinction is different from a spelling–pronunciation distinction.
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wavelength (talk • contribs) 20:23, 29 August 2013
 * I don't know who added this (please sign with four tildes), but thanks! Now I'm wondering if WP:MOS should reflect the usage at grapheme. In the example above, would it be better to say "The most common letter in English is ⟨e⟩"? In this case, a single letter is certainly a grapheme, right? SemanticMantis (talk) 14:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Any comments regarding the weird formatting issues? Jaxcp3 (talk) 16:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Subjective vs. Objective Article?
Hi! I was just wondering if someone could write an article about subjective vs. objective writing. I know a little bit about it, (I'm in 7th) but I'd like to know a little more. The type of S vs. O I'm talking about is where you say 'I, he, she, us, we', etc., and I cannot find a Wiki about it. If someone could please write an article about it, that would be awesome!! Thanks, A Hopeful Student — Preceding  unsigned comment added by Krburke12 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * See grammatical case for the general notion. There should be pointers there to more specific ones. --Trovatore (talk) 22:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that helped! I should probably should have already known all this stuff, (I am a major bookworm and I love English class) but I didn't. :( Krburke12 (talk) 22:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You might also be interested in narrative point of view. ---Sluzzelin talk  10:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Ahh yes. I just read that, and I realized that, in the book I am writing, I a pretty much writing in an Alternating Person View. Cool. :P Krburke12 (talk) 13:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Proto Evangelium (Latin)
Hello, I had another question, but this time on a Latin phrase (at least I think it's a phrase). I heard my Bible teacher saying something about the phrase proto evangelium, but I did not catch the meaning. I looked it up on Wiki, but there was no article on it, and it said to search instead for Proto Evangelion, but there was not an article written on that, either. What does proto evangelium mean? Krburke12 (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The Latin term Proto-Evangelium refers to Genesis 3:15

"'And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel.” (NKJV)"
 * It is viewed in Christian Theology as the "first gospel" or a foreshadowing of Man's triumph over Satan.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 22:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I should have known that. *sigh* Thanks! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krburke12 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You are very welcome. And since this is a "Reference desk", here is a reference to a Catholic document I found through a google search The Protoevangelium of Salvation General Audience, December 17, 1986.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 22:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Interesting! Thanks again! I'm a 'newbie', so I don't know my way around yet, but I'll figure it out in time. ;) Krburke12 (talk) 22:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Another thing is that there are many wikis, but only one Wikipedia. Referring to the latter as "Wiki" would be like referring to The White House as "The".  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's perfectly clear what Wiki refers to, so it's a lot more like referring to "John" as "Jack" - it's just a nickname, and whilst there are plenty of other Jacks around, if you don't know which one we are talking about, then you don't know jack. IBE (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'll keep that in mind. Again, I'm a newbie! :D Krburke12 (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The apocryphal Gospel of James is also known as the Protoevangelium of James, since it deals with events preceding those recounted in the canonical Gospels. Deor (talk) 23:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Does it report on questions such as how much the company Joseph & Son, Carpenters would charge for bookshelves? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Cool. :) Krburke12 (talk) 12:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Why is "larger" less large than "large"?
We often hear women of a certain size referred to in the retail sector as "the larger lady", "women with a fuller figure" and similar expressions. These utilise the comparative degree of the adjectives, rather than their positive degree ("large" and "full").

Technically, "larger" is even bigger than "large", and "fuller" is even wider than "full", so these appear to be emphasising their size. But they have the actual effect of de-emphasising their size, while still acknowledging it. I appreciate that "large" and "full" are too blunt, and any variation will tend to soften this impact. But how does going down the lexical pathway of increase achieve the opposite effect?

I don't dispute that it works, but I don't understand how. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, you might look to an old riddle:
 * Who's bigger, Mr Bigger, or Mr Bigger's baby?
 * The baby is a little Bigger.
 * --Trovatore (talk) 23:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I think there's a tacit comparative here. "Modom is perhaps a trifle larger than the ordinary customer, but certainly one would not call her a large woman." -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  23:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * (ec)I've always thought of it like this. There is a pre-conceived idea of the size of a "large" lady (which, let's face it, is just a euphemism for "fat" in this context). By saying "larger lady" it is implied that the lady in question is larger than a skinny (or average) woman, but isn't quite yet in the category being "a large woman". At least that's how I rationalize it.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 23:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * (ec*2, similar angle) Your examples use an absolute comparative. No comparison is given really. Instead of seeing "larger" as the progression of "large", you could also consider the following progression: slim, larger, large, or whichever opposite adjective of "large" you choose in its basic or positive form (I chose "slim" here). No references, sorry. Just the way I've understood this polite usage of the comparative. ---Sluzzelin talk  23:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * "Larger" is larger than "smaller". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, I get it now. Thanks for the absolute comparative link, Sluzzelin. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  08:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)