Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2014 February 7

= February 7 =

wall or walls of the room when I mean the four sides?
Should I say wall or walls of the room when I mean the four sides? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.210.58 (talk) 03:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Walls. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Unless you have a circular room, in which case it would be 'wall'.  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  00:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * True, but the OP specifically referred to four sides. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have a room with four walls, and a troll in the room, how many trolls do you have?  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  02:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The bed is propped up by bricks.
In "The bed is propped up by bricks.", is the verbal phrase "prop up" appropriate here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.178.134 (talk) 04:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The sentence is fine. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

lift one foot onto the other knee
Does "lift one foot onto the other knee" make sense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.178.134 (talk) 04:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Sounds a bit odd, but the meaning is clear. (Who do you know who can put their foot on their "non-other" knee?) Clarityfiend (talk) 05:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You could simply say he crossed his leg (singular). That's considered the masculine way of doing it.  Strange I can't find any good links for this. μηδείς (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "crossed his leg" sounds weird and unidiomatic to me. Google Ngram supports that "crossed his legs" is far more common in English . SemanticMantis (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is that while "crossed his legs" is the more usual phrase, it's also very often taken to mean sitting with ankles crossed as is considered the feminine way to do this. I suppose I should have said in full, "he crossed his right leg over his left."  Or you could say he lifted his ankle to his knee.  I also don't find anything wrong at all with the original "lift one foot onto the other knee".  I think the problem is that while we have unambiguous terms, like arms folded, ankles crossed, half-lotus, arms akimbo, etc., "legs crossed" is ambiguous. μηδείς (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer "opposite knee" rather than "other knee". "Other knee" sounds as if you were just talking about one knee.  --50.100.193.107 (talk) 00:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ...where by just you mean 'recently', yes? —Tamfang (talk) 03:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I would use a different verb: "Place the [R/L] foot on the [L/R] knee, with the sole of the foot perpendicular to the floor ." The "lift" is a tacit part of the action.-- Deborahjay (talk) 12:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There seems to be some indication (I can't find any very reliable-looking websites, but see this) that this is called a "figure-four leg lock", at least among people who study body language. — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

difference between rather than and instead of
What is the difference between rather than and instead of? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.178.134 (talk) 04:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Rather than implies a definite preference. Instead of does not (there might be a preference, but it is not saying so). So I used A rather than B means that I might have used either, but made a choice to use A. I used A instead of B means that I might have used B, but actually used A, without specifying why: perhaps by choice, or perhaps because B was inconvenient, or not available, or didn't fit.  --ColinFine (talk) 09:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

He is sleeping with the wings of his nose quivering.
Is the sentence "He is sleeping with the wings of his nose quivering" acceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.178.134 (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Only in (bad) poetry. "Nostrils" is the more expected word. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * No, not even in bad poetry, lol. It would only work in absurdist literature. μηδείς (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

recurrent crow(or crows) of roosters
In the phrase "recurrent crow of roosters",should "crow" be plural? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.178.134 (talk) 05:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd say "crowing". Clarityfiend (talk) 05:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

There is one more apple in his basket than in mine.
Can I say "There is one more apple in his basket than in mine." or "There is one apple more in his basket than in mine"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.178.134 (talk) 05:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The first sentence sounds better, though the second is acceptable. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

a cluster of houses
Can I say "a cluster of houses"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.178.134 (talk) 05:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes.  D b f i r s   09:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes but it is a rather uncommon usage, in my experience. "A group of houses" would be more common, or if the group has an identity of its own, "hamlet" or "village" might be used, depending on context. DES (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * A cluster of houses would make sense if you were emphasizing that in a large area without houses there were a small group of homes clustered together. It is a matter of contrast. μηδείς (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

fish for a sweet potato in the crack of the ridge
Is there anything wrong with the phrase "fish for a sweet potato in a crack of the ridge"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.178.134 (talk) 06:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I've no idea what it might mean. What is the context?    D b f i r s   09:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It sounds like "grammatically correct nonsense" to me. It might be instructions to someone in fantasy land on how to get food. The only comment I would make is that "in a crack of the ridge" implies the crack belonging to the ridge - perhaps "a crack in the ridge" would be more appropriate, or "a crack off the ridge" if the crack is located near or comes from the ridge. -- Q Chris (talk) 09:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Does no one else get the impression that 222 is just trolling us? It's very amusing, but still... Adam Bishop (talk) 11:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I did wonder about that, but the IP address geolocates to Beijing in China (as does 114.249.211.28), so I assumed that the questioner was someone who was learning English (to a high level of competence) and was checking idioms.   D b f i r s   12:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Dbfirs. These two IP's might do better to post there questions together in one thread, once a day.  But they seem like a reasonable attempt to understand idiom, and were not getting any other behavior that would raise flags. μηδείς (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Add F and I'm groping for a yam in a corner of the icebox. Jim.henderson (talk) 18:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It seems this person might be removing dingleberries. μηδείς (talk) 03:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Does this make sense? and should I add some stuff more?
"German is used in some official documents, which are accompanied by the Dutch versions." Should I also put this as "Dutch versions of official documents" or is it fine already as it is? Alevero987 (talk) 09:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's OK as it stands but it sounds a bit awkward to me. I would go with something like "German is used in some official documents, accompanied by their Dutch versions." --Viennese Waltz 13:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * What is meant here? If the two languages appear in parallel in the same document, I'd delete "which are" and "versions".  If for every official document in German there has to be a Dutch version, is the German version really 'official'? —Tamfang (talk) 04:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * What about this? "German is used in official documents, accompanying their Dutch version" Is this one okay? Alevero987 (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * How about "accompanying the Dutch text"? I'd prefer "Some official documents are bilingual in Dutch and German," if that happens to be accurate. —Tamfang (talk) 08:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * But they must know that the German language is "used" in official documents, I wonder if this would be good enough already? "German is used in official documents, accompanying their Dutch version" Alevero987 (talk) 08:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * In my humble opinion it does not even slightly address the ambiguity I mentioned in my first reply.
 * If a document is bilingual, in what way could it possibly be that one of the languages is not "used"? —Tamfang (talk) 03:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Leila Fadel
When Leila Fadel does her outro after her stories on NPR, she pronounces her last name as something like "Faldzen", even though all the other hosts clearly use the last name "Fadel". Is this a quirk in Arabic names, or is something else going on here? 12.217.87.18 (talk) 13:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Fadel is "فاضل" in Arabic, so the D is not a D but a Ḍād. See that article for various ways to pronounce it - but it can sound more like a Z in English. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * As for hearing /n/ for the final consonant, /l/ is unstable for many speakers in certain varieties of Arabic when it appears in an environment with emphatic consonants (in this case, Ḍād as Adam points out), sometimes sounding like or assimilating to something approximating . Arabic sounds are hard to hear for people not familiar with the language.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 01:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)