Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2013 September 9

= September 9 =

Australian station-ery
What does an Aussie think of as the primary meaning of "station"? Does it involve sheep or trains? Conversely, does the typical antipodean call a railroad station a station or something else? Clarityfiend (talk) 02:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Most Australians would be comfortably aware of both meanings. But most Australians would have more to do with railway stations than sheep stations. The former seem to have become more often known as train stations during my lifetime. Dunno where that comes from. HiLo48 (talk) 02:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The entry for "station" at http://australiannationaldictionary.com.au/index.php says "2. a. A tract of grazing land, usu. having a discernible centre of occupation" and "3. An extensive sheep or cattle raising establishment" and apparently nothing about a place for trains.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 02:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That just covers senses of station that are peculiar to Australia—doesn't mean that the railway sense (along with the other senses recorded in the OED) is not prevalent in Australia. Deor (talk) 18:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * For alternative words, Category:Railway stations in Australia might be helpful.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 04:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks all. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The term "Photobook" in AE
For a descriptive text on a library's holdings, I need a section heading that describes published works of nonfiction consisting mainly of photo images. Photo-book, as far as I can tell, is strictly a British English term. It isn't found in either of two AE dictionaries I just checked online, Merriam-Webster's and the American Heritage Dictionary, nor, surprisingly, in MS Encarta Online (which I'd thought purports to include "global English"). I'm writing for the Web (including readers of ELF), and hoped to find an unambiguous synonym for photo-book. Any suggestions? -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Picture book and Coffee table book come to mind. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * OP adds: I'd neglected to mention in my original description that this is the library of a historical museum specializing in the Holocaust and WWII. I checked both the pages you suggested (both being familiar AE terms) and neither are appropriate for this content. The material is documentary but not all the product of photo journalism, as the content largely came from diverse sources and acquired historico-documentary significance only after the fact, as postwar publications. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This may not be very helpful, but I have seen headings such as "Photo gallery", "Image gallery", "Photo album" or just "Gallery" for sections that have photographs/images.  Such a gentleman  16:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I would suggest "photography collections." John M Baker (talk) 17:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * And what's wrong with the term photo-book? Its meaning is pretty obvious, particularly if there's not an established synonym. It is not so common format of a publication that an average reader would not recognize the term, even if it seemed coined ad-hoc. No such user (talk) 21:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Writing for a museum and archives, I strive to reduce ambiguities while avoiding unfamiliar usage that might be confusing or conspicuous. A Web search via Google on _photo-book history WWII_ showed US usage of the descriptor "picture book" (open form) though immediately followed by terms such as "photo images". I don't have that luxury, as my text requires a stand-alone heading or item on a bulleted list. Personally I maintain a strict distinction between "photo" and "picture" where other writers and editors evidently sometimes use "picture" for both. I simply can't use "photo album" which is a distinct type of archival item. So I'm likely to go with "photo book" (sans hyphen), for as No such user remarks, it isn't likely to be misunderstood. -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Would pictorial or pictorials work? Respectfully,   Tiyang (talk) 09:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

French
When I use the adjective 'prévaux', why is the pre considered a past participle? Just like the sentence Prévaux est un mot de plusieurs significations, the plusieurs has a slight emphasis in the plu sound, as found in central regions of France. So when we use la plu, why is the plu sound considered a diphthong? Worth noting that the vaux in Prévaux is NOT a gliding vowel in many western parts of France. --Publuka Svartmense (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not. μηδείς (talk) 18:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I think, an English-English translation is needed here...--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This post contains a series of questions, all of them puzzling. Prévaux is not an adjective in French. See Wiktionnaire for how it is the first person or second person singular indicative of prévaloir, also the imperative of the same. Pré is not considered a past participle. The only thing I can think of is that most past participles end in é. Then you say that "plusieurs" may have the first syllable emphasised in some dialects. I can't say I have noticed it myself, but you may be right. When we use "la plu". Do we? Why is the "plu" sound considered a diphthong? It isn't. And the "vaux" in 'Prévaux'' is not a gliding vowel in most varieties of French. Does that cover everything? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well done! I'll also add that pré is the prefix in prévaux ( < prévaloir), and it can't stand alone. But there is also a noun as such - pré "meadow". The both are not participles at any means. I can parse la plu only as the second part of j'ai (tu as/il a/etc.) la plu though I do not know for sure how properly translate it into English (something like She liked me or She was pleased with me). Vaux is not a diphthong but a combination of a consonant plus a vowel monopthong, but sometimes such combinations can be theoretically called diphthongs (that is "two-sounds"). So everything said by the OP is very puzzling. Medeis's answer to all these should be nominated as "the best answer of the month".--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 22:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The phrase j'ai la plu is not idiomatic. We say: Je lui ai plu, tu lui as plu, elle lui a plu (= j'ai plu à elle/à lui, etc., don't use these last phrases, it is just to explain) — AldoSyrt (talk) 12:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought about it later that if this verb is used with "à" then "à elle" should be rendered as "lui". Thanks for clearing up the matter and correcting my mistakes: I've also forgot that pronouns come before avoir/être.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 15:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Publuka Svartmense -- What stress there is in French is generally on the last non-schwa vowel in a word, or the last non-schwa vowel in several words pronounced together as a closely-connected unit. French doesn't really have "free" contrastive/emphatic stress in the way that English does... AnonMoos (talk) 04:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you are confusing "plus" from plusieurs and "la pluie". Not the same word at all. "Plu" (without an s) is only a past participle of plaire. --Lgriot (talk) 07:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. il a plu (inf. pleuvoir): it rained; il/elle/on a plu (inf. plaire): he/she appealed to sb (not easy to translate without context); la plus (feminine form of superlative): the most. AldoSyrt (talk) 07:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * In la pluie, the "u" is pronounced [ɥ] (like in lui, huile...). It is not a diphthong, it is called semiconsonant or semivowel in French (see Approximant consonant). — AldoSyrt (talk) 09:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Nonstandard words
If you look for the word "irregardless" on Merriam-Webster, the definition starts with the note: nonstandard: (See) regardless. Another example is "anyways," which is listed as nonstandard by The American Heritage® Dictionary. I was wondering if there is a way to access an online list of such words that are classified as nonstandard by reputed dictionaries? Thanks,  Such a gentleman  16:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * wikt:Category:English_disputed_terms and wikt:Category:English_nonstandard_terms should get you started. -Elmer Clark (talk) 18:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Elmer. This is a good start.  Such a gentleman  20:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Such a resource had better include the use of the word literally to mean "literally the exact opposite of 'literally.'" At this point in history there is literally no word in the English language that can be used by itself to communicate a serious and sincere lack of hyperbole. One wishes the Gayroller would expand its targets to include users of this sense. I would figuratively pay money to see that s---.  ☯.Zen  Swashbuckler  .☠  18:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The improper use of the standard word literally is a whole nother subject. μηδείς (talk) 18:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Now that this has been brought up, here is what one of the editors at Merriam-Webster has to say on this! Literally blows your mind!  Such a gentleman  19:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Is there a guideline for expressing dates in formal scholarly papers?
I recently encountered a phrase in a scholarly paper, which used, "On 3 November 1906, at the 37th meeting of the Society of Southwest German Psychiatrists in Tübingen, Germany, Alois Alzheimer presented the clinical and neuropathological characteristics of the disease (1, 2) that Emil Kraepelin subsequently named after him (3)." That made me think about the expression of dates in scholarly papers. Is there a standard rule of expressing dates, or can people do whatever they want as long as the dates are comprehensible to other readers? Below is a list of many ways to express the date:


 * On 3 November 1906...
 * On November 3, 1906...
 * On 11/3/1906...
 * On Nov/3/1906...
 * On the third of November of the year 1906 AD/CE...
 * On the third day of the eleventh month of the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and six...
 * On the third day of the eleventh month of the year of the Common Era one thousand nine hundred and six... 164.107.103.197 (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Many journals have style policies that specify things like this. If there is no specific policy, the author is probably free to choose.  There is certainly no standard that applies across the entire scholarly universe. Looie496 (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with the answer above. I suggest OP to look at Style guide for further information. Also worth noting, Wikipedia has its own style guide too. :)  Such a gentleman  20:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Such A Gentleman (talk • contribs)
 * The OP didn't list the option 3/11/1906, which is far more common outside North America than 11/3/1906 (and far more logical too, surely). HiLo48 (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I would avoid both 11/3/1906 and 3/11/1906 as causing possible confusion. They also missed 1906/11/03. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, they can deceive. Someone I know from Australia arrived in the US three weeks before her 21st birthday, which was on 11th December that year. Using ID that gave her date of birth as 11/12/19xx, she was able to convince American bar staff she was old enough to drink. HiLo48 (talk) 07:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 12th November is the birthday of some truly excellent people. :)  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  11:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * HiLo48, if her birthday "was on 11th December that year." Then what day was it on other years? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It was "her 21st birthday which was on 11th December that year", he cleverly quotes from his own post. HiLo48 (talk) 00:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, but did you notice how I managed not to read the entire sentence the first time? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 05:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)